Christianity is not and never was a Western religion.

It is a commonplace with historians that empires wax and wane; they have their day and pass away. Historians notice that in their earlier days, great people tend to be vigorous and enterprising, not particularly scrupulous where their own interests are concerned, ready to tread down any who stand in their way. Such people usually have a comparatively simple lifestyle and high moral standards in such areas as sex.

But changes take place. Days come for a civilization or empire when there is not much vigor or enterprise. While there may still be a readiness to tread down opposition there is the lack of the ability to do this. The simple lifestyle has long since gone and so have the simple values and the moral standards. Religions wane. There is a general declension from the high standards of earlier days.

Much of this is all too plainly evident in Western countries these days. The vigor of, say, the colonial era, has gone; and while there is certainly a good deal of enterprise in some areas of life there is also a loss of confidence and an absence of a sense of purpose. There is also a marked lack of capacity. Countries which in earlier days would have dispatched a gunboat without a second thought must now submit to injury as well as insult. Vietnam and Iran have taught us that even the greatest of modern powers may find it difficult to achieve their aims. Of course, a sufficiently unscrupulous approach may still accomplish things, as the Russian intrusion into Afghanistan indicates. But it is not easy to envisage the Western democracies as proceeding by similar means.

There is advance here as well as decline. It is good that at least in a considerable part of the world there is some recognition that there are considerations other than the size of armies. It is well that we should all be shaken out of our old complacencies and be made to reflect that there are new situations and new nations.

But there is not much that we can set over against the decline of morals. Few would dispute that moral standards are not what they were. There has certainly been improvement in the removal of some of our ancient hypocrisies, but it would not be easy to make out a case for the view that our moral standards are higher than those of our fathers. There is far too much attention to “the spirit of the age” for that and far too much of plain, old-fashioned selfishness.

Religious people share in the general change and most of us don’t like it. In many parts of the world there is a decline in church attendance and in the number of professed adherents of the Christian way. Actually, this is far from universal, for there are places where the church is growing at a great pace. I, for one, do not see how we can possibly tell whether in the overall picture the church is making progress or slipping back. But in communities like the United States and Canada, in Europe and Australia, there can be no question. The churches are sharing in a general decline. This is more marked in the case of some than of others, but none is unscathed.

Are we then facing a situation in which the culture in which Christianity flourished is on the way out—and the Christian way with it? Some think so and, scarcely daring to put the thought into words, some fear so.

But the matter is not so simple. First, Christianity is not particularly linked with Western culture and Western civilization, though it has been particularly influential in the West and it has largely shaped the ideals of the West. Western culture has not only been influenced by Christianity but has influenced it. The Christianity we know has taken the shape it has in part because it has taken its shape in Western culture. Many of us find it difficult to imagine Christianity without its Western trappings.

It is salutary to reflect that Christianity is not and never has been a Western religion. In origin it is an Asian religion. For some of its history it has had many Asian adherents and for some of its history it has had many African members, particularly during the period when it spread right along the northern part of that continent. In modern times it has adherents in almost every country of the world and had every claim to being the universal religion. Only where repressive governments forbid preaching and the making of converts is the Christian way absent, and there are few places where even this is successful.

Second, we should notice that Christianity has survived more than one major catastrophe. It was born in the time of the Roman Empire. For a time that empire in its official organs was strongly opposed to the Christian way and engaged in violent opposition in the great persecutions. In the end, Christianity became the religion of the emperor and was officially tolerated. Its early troubles were over. Its future seemed assured.

But Rome fell. The barbarians who took over were very different and had different values, even though some of them professed a form of Christianity. The civilized values of Rome perished. The dark ages began.

This certainly meant a good deal of trouble for the Christians. But it did not mean the end of the Christian way. It meant that Christians had to do some hard thinking and some upright living. But in the end the barbarians who overthrew Rome came to accept the religion of the conquered. Christianity was not bound to Rome.

This is instructive for modern Western Christians. Just as Christianity was not bound up with Rome so it is not bound up with modern Western culture. It is possible that that culture is coming to its close. Those of us who belong to it fervently hope that it is not. We see so much that is of value in it that we do not see in the alternatives. And it is our whole way of life.

But we may be on the losing end. Other cultures have passed away or have passed their peak and simply linger on as anachronistic survivals. We would be foolish to ignore the possibility that this may be the case with us. There are so many factors at work in our communities that are commonly associated with the decline of a culture.

But at least that does not give us cause to be pessimistic as Christians. The great truth of the Christian faith is that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). This is quite independent of any culture or civilization. The action of God was indeed in time, in a given place, and among a given people. But because God is in it, it is not subject to the whims of any people or group of people.

It may well be that the forms in which the Christian faith expresses itself will change radically. That does not matter. The church is very different now from what it was in the catacombs. What matters is that the purpose of God cannot be overthrown. Faith, hope, and love remain. Faith in God, hope for a better future, and love for all men.

Leon Morris is principal of Ridley College, Victoria, Australia.

After the British-sponsored Lancaster House agreement, most whites and some black Christian leaders regarded the ensuing political battle between Bishop Abel Muzorewa’s United African National Council, Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe Africa National Council (ZANU) and Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African People’s Union as one between the forces of Christianity and atheistic Communism. They strongly felt a vote for Mugabe would be a vote for the abolition of Christianity and only a vote for the bishop would ensure the continuation of Christianity in Zimbabwe.

The fears of these whites and black church leaders were not unfounded. In its campaign ZANU had expressed that its ideology was Marxist. Its guerrillas were armed by Communist countries and called each other “comrade.” The fact that some ZANU guerrillas had stopped church services and burned Bibles, saying that the teachings of the Bible were subversive to their socialist doctrines, added weight to the belief that ZANU espoused a Russian-style atheistic Marxism.

Before and during the elections, right-wing Christian groups and anti-Communist organizations had a heydey. They published all kinds of literature on the evils of Communism and the suffering awaiting Zimbabwe Christians in the event of a ZANU win at the polls. The press reproduced a ZANU calendar that omitted Christian holidays, and claimed that if Robert Mugabe came to power Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide would be abolished to be replaced by Marxist nationalist holidays.

The then Rhodesia-Zimbabwe prime minister, Bishop Muzorewa, told a public rally that a ZANU government would turn all churches into army barracks and that all people associated with the church would be brought before a military tribunal. He claimed his information had come from ZANU literature.

ZANU officials strongly denied that their party was anti-Christian. They pointed to their manifesto, which said: “The right of a person to believe in religion is a fundamental freedom. Accordingly, a ZANU government will respect and promote the role of the church and avoid completely interfering with the spiritual work of the church. The church and the state must thus feature as partners in the promotion of the welfare of human beings.”

Both Patriotic Front leaders Mugabe and Nkomo strongly denied that they were anti-Christian. The ZANU treasurer-general, Enos Nkala, claimed in a statement to the press that his party “was as Christian as Bishop Muzorewa, except for the collar.” He emphasized that the party was not antichurch, but many still remained skeptical.

Since Mugabe is a member of the Roman Catholic church and Nkomo is a Methodist lay preacher, the leaders of Zimbabwean denominations invited them to explain their stand on religion.

At a meeting, Nkomo and Simon Muzenda, vice-president of ZANU, repeatedly gave assurances that a government led by them would not interfere in ecclesiastical matters. Muzenda pointed out that there were few people in the country who did not owe their education to Christian missionaries. During the meeting, when asked by the church leaders to pray, Muzenda prayed for the blessings of law and order, justice and peace.

Some church leaders believed the appeals of these political leaders; others did not. They claimed that the assurances were just a political gimmick to gain Christian votes. Indeed, those who believed the politicians were accused of being naîve and ignorant of the facts.

When ZANU was swept into power with an overwhelming majority, some Christians prepared themselves for, and resigned themselves to, harassment and persecution. Others immediately pledged their support to the new government.

After waiting anxiously to see who would be elected president of the new nation, Christians were pleasantly surprised to hear of the election by Parliament of a Methodist minister, Canaan Banana, as president of Zimbabwe.

Archbishop Patrick Chakaipa of the Roman Catholic church accepted an invitation to pray and ask God’s blessing on the new nation as the British flag was lowered and the Zimbabwe flag hoisted during the conferring of independence by Prince Charles.

The next day Prime Minister Mugabe, the self-confessed Marxist, astonished and delighted many Christians by attending an interdenominational church service at which evangelical Bishop Hatendi of the Anglican church preached.

In an interview with Time magazine, which was also published in Zimbabwe, Mugabe explained his party’s policies and principles. “There are certain socialist principles we have that derive from Marxism,” he said; “but certain others derive from our own traditions—communal land ownership, for example. The concept of oneness, collective belonging, and ownership is as Marxist as it is a humanitarian concept. So what are condemned as Marxist principles are also humanitarian principles.

“In the case of Christian principles, Marxism, I suppose, vitiates Christianity in its being doggedly materialistic without allowing the role of a Supreme Being. The Christian would rather see order, where everything is by the hand of God, than a dialectical process. That is a fundamental difference in terms of socialist and spiritual thinking and belief, and this is where you must allow the freedom of conscience.”

After being sworn in as prime minister, Mugabe evidenced an exemplary attitude. He urged all Zimbabweans to forgive and forget the past and to love each other as brothers and sisters belonging to one nation. Missions are being urged to continue and to expand their work in the country.

In an interview, Bishop Joshua Dube of the United Baptist Church—an evangelical, one of the country’s finest biblical expositors, and a member of Parliament in Mugabe’s government—said, “We Africans have to be ourselves. We have to follow the dictates of our own culture and political realities. One does not have to be a capitalist to be a Christian. In fact, socialism is nearer the Christian ideal than the capitalism which enslaved and exploited our people for so long until they had to resort to violence to liberate themselves.”

Asked by this reporter how he as a Christian could justify the use of violence by the Patriotic Front, the bishop said, “This war was justified. Fighting was the only way to smash the evil and unchristian system we were living under. History, even biblical history, is full of God’s people going to war, with a clear conscience, to fight against satanic forces and to establish their national freedom and integrity. White Zimbabwean Christians are the ones who should be ashamed and repentant. They are the ones who supported the evil racist system and forced us to take up guns. If they had practiced true Christianity, the loss of life would have been unnecessary. You know yourself that we tried all peaceful means, but failed.”

Asked how he would justify the killing of missionaries, the burning of Bibles, and the stopping of church services by ZANU members, Bishop Dube responded, “I do not justify that, though unfortunate incidents are to be expected in a war situation. After the elections I had a number of former guerrillas come to stay with me. I asked them why they did these things. Their answers showed that they had no specific orders from our high command. However, they equated Christianity with colonialism. Some of them explained that while they were in the bush some missionaries told the Christians to have no part in the revolution. They forbade them to feed and clothe us, who were fighting for their freedom. We therefore had to eliminate them because they collaborated with the enemy. Some of the missionaries were inducted into the army as reserves and actively fought against us. These had to be eliminated, for they were the enemy.”

Asked what these guerillas thought of the churches now, in view of the party manifesto that encourages the active role of the church, Dube answered, “Many are indeed regretful and remorseful. I talked to a group from the evening until 2 A.M. the next morning. I explained to them that Christianity has nothing to do with capitalism, imperialism, or even democracy. I told them that Christianity is the message of God reaching down to sinful man and offering him free salvation through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, full stop. Nothing more, nothing less. And you know what? Some of them decided to become Christians, and I went to church with them the next day. The sickness of Christianity here was that whites used it to support the cruel minority status quo.”

Dube believes that Zimbabwe is on the threshold of a spiritual revival that will sweep across this scenic country, which a few months ago was a bloody battlefield.

It appears that Christianity is alive and well in Zimbabwe. Some still skeptical Christians, however, have chosen to take a wait-and-see attitude.

World Scene

There is intense speculation in Latin America on how the papal prohibition on political activities by Roman Catholic priests, as announced in North America, may be applied there. More than 100 priests are estimated to have played roles in guerrilla movements over the past two decades. Two priests now hold cabinet posts in Nicaragua. A Vatican spokesman has stated that the “role of the priest is to be an evangelizer and not a politician. But political roles can be justified in a temporary manner in special circumstances.”

The South African Council of Churches announced last month the appointment of an independent auditor after internal auditors failed to account for the use of more than $900,000 during 1978. The funds unaccounted for were part of a relief fund established in 1976 after the first disturbances in Soweto and were to be used to relieve hardship of those involved in the unrest. The money came primarily from overseas churches. A former council employee, Bishop Isaac Moekoena, was recently charged with fraud, and dismissed.

Most of the 25 United Methodist missionaries and their families left Liberia last month after Bishop Bennie D. Warner threatened from the neighboring Ivory Coast to overthrow the new regime. Warner, vice-president of the ousted Tolbert government, escaped assassination because he was attending the UM General Assembly (May 23, p. 42). Warner left the assembly April 22, and announced a government in exile from the Ivory Coast on April 28. He surfaced on April 30, in Houston, Texas, where he insisted he had not been in Africa since his arrival in Indiana for the UM General Assembly. Confronted on May 2 with a tape recording of his Ivory Coast news conference remarks, Warner admitted he had lied. Deciding his countercoup plan was not feasible, he applied for U.S. asylum.

“Perhaps the world’s worst refugee problem” is what the United Nations High Commission for Refugees calls the plight of nearly 1.5 million refugees from Ethiopia that have inundated Somalia. An average of 2,000 ethnic Somalis a day—overwhelmingly women and children—are entering Somalia, driven by Ethiopian air attacks on Somali camps in their territory and by drought. Well-run camps, administered by the UNHCR and the Somali government, house 680,000 of the refugees. Somalia, a poor country itself, is eager for more assistance such as that being provided by World Vision, Food for the Hungry, and the Mennonite Central Committee, including food, water, shelter, and medical care.

The son of Iran’s Anglican bishop was assassinated last month. Hassan Dehqani-Tafti’s 24-year-old son, Bahrain, was ambushed, shot, and killed by unidentified assailants while driving home from his college in Tehran. Last October the bishop himself, a long-time convert from Islam, was detained for several hours by armed members of the Islamic revolutionary committee in Esfahan.

Evangelical relief agencies and CARE have probably gotten more seed rice into the hands of Cambodian (Kampuchean) farmers than the ponderous UNICEF and the International Committee of the Red Cross. According to the May 2 issue of the Far East Economic Review, the private agencies have delivered some 10,000 tons directly to farmers who have come to the western border—a haphazard but inexpensive and effective method. By contrast UNICEF and ICRC have shipped by sea and air 30,000 tons to Phnom Penh and the port of Kimpong Som at much greater expense. But the Review called its distribution “highly suspect” because of limited transport capability and other problems. In the race to deliver seed rice before the monsoon rains ended the planting season this month, World Relief Corporation with World Concern, Compassion, the Mennonite Central Committee, and TEAR Fund of England have used the western “land-bridge.” World Vision has participated in air delivery to Phnom Penh.

Christian contacts with China are inching forward. This month Seattle, Washington-based World Concern sent a medical team to Kwangtung (Guangdong) Province at the invitation of its public health officials. The team delivered donated medical equipment and performed demonstration surgeries, and lectured in hospitals and medical schools. Goshen (Indiana) College has negotiated the first student exchange program with the University of China at Ch’eng-tu (Chengdu) in Szechwan (Sichuan) Province. After studying the Mandarin dialect this summer, 20 students will spend their study-service trimester (August through December) in the People’s Republic. In return, eight Chinese teachers of English will study at Goshen for a full academic year.

Vladimair Poresh, cofounder of Christian Seminar, has been sentenced by Soviet authorities to five years in labor camp and three years in internal exile. Poresh, 31, was editor of the Russian Orthodox group’s journal, Obshcina (“Community”). Arrested last August, he was charged with anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda, and sentenced in Leningrad in April. Poresh was raised in an intellectual, atheistic family and both his parents are members of the Communist Party. But his views changed after he went to Leningrad University. He was baptized in 1974 by Dimitri Dudko (now also imprisoned and awaiting trial).

North American Scene

The entire faculty of Fuller Theological Seminary School of World Mission has sent a letter to Reader’s Digest, protesting publication of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ads, which they called “Mormon deceptions.” They appealed for a ban on such ads, citing “truth in advertising” laws. Said the professors: “We wince when we see that reputable Reader’s Digest has been manipulated as an instrument for the proselytizing strategy of the LDS.… Reader’s Digest should separate itself from the spread of this heresy.”

Two surprise moves have radically altered the configuration of the Southern Baptist Convention’s conservative-liberal skirmishing just before annual meetings this month in Saint Louis. Adrian Rogers, elected last year to his first one-year term as SBC president (presidents traditionally serve for two terms), faced no organized opposition. But last month the Memphis pastor announced he would not stand for reelection. He denied that his decision was linked to the controversy surrounding a biblical inerrancy coalition that championed his election. The coalition, pledged to cleanse the SBC of “creeping liberalism,” has been headed by Judge Paul Pressler of Houston and Paige Patterson, associate pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas. Last month First Baptist Pastor W. A. Criswell announced that Patterson was withdrawing from leadership of the coalition.

Two Roman Catholic priests have dropped out of U.S. congressional races in obedience to directives relayed from Pope John Paul II. They are incumbent Robert Drinan (D. Mass.), a Jesuit, and Robert J. Cornell of Wisconsin, a former congressman and a Norbertine. The Pope is not opposed to social activism, but believes that ordained clergy should focus on moral issues and avoid partisan entanglements. A spokesman for Apostolic Delegate Jean Jadot, the Pope’s representative in Washington, acknowledged that “in the strictest sense” the directive does not apply to nuns and will be enforced only for elective office. “But,” he said, “the spirit of the [church canon] law is another matter.”

CHRISTIANITY TODAY was named Periodical of the Year for 1980 by the Evangelical Press Association at its annual convention last month in Chicago. Will Norton, Jr., chairman of the University of Mississippi Department of Journalism, whose faculty did the judging, said that “no other publication has shown the depth and balance of CHRISTIANITY TODAY in providing personality features, trend articles, and fresh news articles.” Awards of excellence by magazine categories were also made: denominational, The Banner; organizational, Decision; youth, HIS; missionary, World Vision; Christian education, Youth and Christian Education Leadership; Sunday school take-home, Freeway.

The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. last month sued Philadelphia’s Tenth Presbyterian Church for withdrawing, seeking control of its property, records, and name. Three other churches also left the Philadelphia Presbytery during the last three months. One is the 250-member Korean United Church of Philadelphia, which voted overwhelmingly to secede. The presbytery’s fastest growing congregation, it was about to purchase its own center-city church building. Pastor I. Henry Koh reported that members refused to contribute to the building fund after the ownership issue arose. Although that was the issue that “forced” the church to leave at this time, Koh and his elders perceived the denomination as “drifting towards liberalism.”

Personalia

A son of atheist activist Madalyn Murray O’Hair apologized publicly for his part in the “destruction of the moral fiber” of American youth last month. In a letter published in the Austin (Texas) American-Statesman, 33-year-old William J. Murray deplored “the part I played as teen-ager [named as plaintiff in the 1963 suit] in removing prayer from public schools,” calling it “criminal.” He said he deeply regretted his part in streamlining the operation of Mrs. O’Hair’s Society of Separationists in Austin and in editing “her anti-God magazine.”

Carl F. H. Henry was elected president of the American Theological Society last month. Former editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Henry is currently lecturer at large with World Vision International.

Acquitted of murder conspiracy charges last November, Fort Worth millionaire T. Cullen Davis last month stepped to the front of the First Baptist Church of Euless, Texas, declaring publicly his decision to place his faith in Christ. Davis, who has been at the center of three sensational trials in the past four years, was introduced in March to evangelist James Robison by Jim Bradshaw, a Fort Worth candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. His third wife, Karen, said that three intensive weeks of ministry by Robison and others preceded Davis’s decision.

A Christian student group at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, used to hold its Saturday night meetings in a campus-owned building. Members of Cornerstone often attracted more than 100 students to the Haig Hall Annex for an informal time of Bible study, prayer, singing, and testimony.

But last December Cornerstone was refused the use of campus facilities, even though it is an officially recognized student group at the university. U.S. District Court Judge William R. Collinson ruled the Cornerstone meetings violated a school policy that prohibits the use of campus facilities for purposes of “religious worship or religious teaching” (Chess v. Widmark). The group now meets in a private house, which, complains one student, is less accessible—being off campus—and in which less than half the attenders can see the speaker.

More is at stake here than the inconvenience of meeting off campus, say Christian legal experts monitoring the case. They see the Chess decision, and a subsequent one involving Christian student groups at Western Washington University in Bellingham as posing serious threats to college campus and high school ministries throughout the United States. “These decisions,” noted the Christian Legal Society (CLS) publication, The Advocate, “have the effect of making Christian student groups second-class citizens with restricted rights to speak and assemble.”

Both decisions are under appeal. Christian student organizations fear the decisions—if allowed to stand—would set unfavorable precedents. Some observers, for instance, blame the Chess ruling for setting a precedent that led to the decision restricting Christian student groups at Western Washington University.

In March, a U.S. District Court in Seattle rejected a suit, filed by students representing several Christian student groups, which challenged Western Washington rules restricting their use of campus meeting rooms. Judge Donald Voorhees ruled that public colleges and universities may not permit “regular use” of campus buildings and facilities for religious purposes; such use would be an “advancement of religion” in violation of constitutional provisions requiring separation of church and state (Dittman v. Western Washington University).

Representatives of the interdenominational Campus Christian Fellowship, and chapters of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship and Campus Crusade for Christ, have appealed the ruling. But presently they are abiding by university rules that limit student groups to no more than two religious meetings in campus facilities per academic quarter. The groups also must pay a fee for such use of campus facilities. (Student groups submit proposals for their programs in advance, so school officials can determine whether these are “religious.”)

(Kansas City lawyer and CLS member James M. Smart, Jr., is handling the appeal of the Chess decision; he expected oral arguments to be docketed late last month in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He noted the appeal will be important in setting a precedent since “there is no case on record involving a federal appeals court that deals precisely with this issue.” Seattle lawyers Robert L. Gunter and William “Skeeter” Ellis, also CLS members, are chief counsel for the appeal of the Western Washington decision.)

Christian groups are protesting a growing number of instances of alleged violations of constitutional rights:

• The Inter-Varsity chapter at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater cannot hold meetings in the student center unless it pays rent, whereas groups such as the Muslim Student Association and a transcendental meditation group escape those restrictions.

• An Albany, New York, case involves the alleged denial of the right of certain Christian students to meet in a high school classroom during their free time for Bible club.

• An Illinois case involves Christian students at Eastern Illinois University in Charleston, who say they are being denied the right to live in a Christian house similar to fraternity and sorority houses.

In some cases, students themselves have placed restrictions on Christian groups. The Western Washington student government would have removed the on-campus presence of Christian groups entirely, said Brady Bobbink of the Campus Christian Fellowship, had it not been for lobbying and legal action by Christian students at the school over the last two years. Now, at least, the groups are allowed lounge meetings and small group Bible studies in the dormitories, he said.

The Advocate reported that a student court at the University of Nebraska recently placed on a year’s probation the Baptist Student Union, and IVCF, Campus Crusade, and Navigators chapters, for violating a Board of Regents’ policy prohibiting “testimony in any of its forms.” The groups had cosponsored a campus lecture by apologetics author Josh McDowell, who spoke on factual evidence for Christ’s resurrection. The court defined testimony as “an open public declaration of a personal, religious, or spiritual revelation.”

Trinity Western College: A Matter Of Degrees

Do evangelical colleges deserve academic respectability? British Columbian educators weren’t so sure.

Trinity Western College officials spent much of last summer seeking degree-granting status from the provincial legislature. This recognition was opposed by the province’s Universities Council, by left-leaning spokesmen in the legislature, and by British Columbia’s two largest newspapers.

Universities Council members were concerned over whether a spirit of inquiry could survive in a school whose faculty are required to sign a statement of faith identical to that adopted by the Evangelical Free Church, the denomination that established the college 18 years ago. Other opponents questioned the need for a private liberal arts college and suggested there is insufficient control in British Columbia over the quality of degrees granted by its colleges and universities.

Then education minister Pat McGeer, a de facto member of the province’s academic establishment by virtue of his tenure as a professor and brain researcher at the University of British Columbia Medical School, gave cautious support to Trinity’s quest. The best test of any school’s degree quality is the academic marketplace, he said. McGeer, who obtained one of his two doctorates from privately endowed Princeton University, pointed to the contribution made by private colleges and universities to the American education system.

Eventually the 600-student school, located in Langley, about 20 miles east of Vancouver, won its degree-granting status. The granting of the first baccalaureate degrees—16 bachelors of arts—came in an April 27 ceremony featuring Wheaton (Illinois) Graduate School dean H. Wilbert Norton as commencement speaker.

Trinity officials have obtained a quiet agreement from the province’s two largest universities to recognize Trinity B.A. degrees as their own in teacher-training programs. It is too early to tell how quickly secular graduate schools will accept the new crop of Trinity graduates.

Evangelical liberal arts colleges are rare in the Canadian educational system, which, in recent years, has given obvious preference to publicly supported universities. Toronto’s Richmond College has struggled for years to establish itself, and still has a student body of less than 200. The former Waterloo (Ontario) Lutheran University, renamed Wilfred Laurier and headed until recently by Mennonite Brethren luminary Frank C. Peters, was taken over several years ago by the Ontario provincial government.

Trinity is located in the Fraser Valley, recognized as a Canadian “Bible belt.” That, along with considerable help during the early years from the Free Church’s American constituency, helped to establish Trinity’s independence on the Canadian scene.

President Neil Snider hopes the number of Trinity students will increase to 1,400 within 10 years, with strong business administration, arts and sciences, and, possibly, communications programs. Applications for fall enrollment are double what they were last year at this time.

LLOYD MACKEY

Some Christian spokesmen blame their on-campus difficulties on opposition from liberals and “secular humanists.” In many instances, however, the schools have acted only to protect themselves from lawsuits from civil liberties groups accusing them of endorsing a certain religious persuasion or of allowing the proselytism of a captive student audience, by allowing the on-campus presence of Christian groups.

Legal questions have focused upon the “free exercise” and “establishment” clauses of the First Amendment, which reads in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”

School officials at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, say their ban on religious activities in campus-owned facilities is required by the establishment clause. Judge Collinson upheld that opinion, ruling such use would, in fact, be an unconstitutional establishment of religion. He also rejected the Christian students’ claims that the school policy violated their free exercise of religion. To invoke the free exercise clause, he ruled, the infringed practice must be “one of deep religious conviction, shared by an organized group, and intimately related to daily living.… The facts before this court simply do not establish that the practice of holding religious services in a university-owned building is a matter of deep religious conviction.”

The judge did hold open the possibility that group prayer or Bible study could be conducted by Christians on university sidewalks, streets, or grounds. He partly explained the restrictions on religious groups, saying, “Speech with religious content cannot be treated the same as any other form of speech.…”

A nagging question has been, What exactly constitutes a “religious” program or speech?

When Inter-Varsity students, in cooperation with the Campus Christian Fellowship and Campus Crusade, showed Francis Schaeffer’s five-part film series Whatever Happened to the Human Race? in the university building, school officials determined the first three segments were nonreligious, and the final two religious. The effect was that IVCF used up its allowed two-per-quarter religious programs in campus facilities. It paid a building rental fee just for the last two showings.

The National Council of Churches

Searching for Balance on the Arab-Israeli Question

Major Jewish organizations criticize the National Council of Churches for an alleged “anti-Israel” bias. American Palestinians argue the contrary: that the council has been so sensitive to Jewish lobbyists that it has not explicitly urged diplomatic recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization and has not condemned more strenuously alleged Israeli violations of Palestinians’ human rights. Even NCC member denominations can’t agree on how the NCC should approach the Middle East crisis.

In something of a nonwin situation, the NCC has pushed ahead anyway with a new policy statement on the Middle East. Its carefully selected Middle East Policy Task Force—which includes representatives of both the NCC committees on Christian-Muslim and Christian-Jewish relations—spent two years gathering information. The resulting 26-page policy statement, which is intended to guide the 32 NCC member Protestant and Orthodox bodies “in their relationships with the Middle East,” reflects a consciously balanced approach and is perhaps an indication that NCC officials would prefer not having their valued ecumenical and interfaith relationships parted like the Red Sea by a divisive Middle East debate.

At their spring meeting last month in Indianapolis, not far from the west bank—of the White River—NCC governing board members completed a first reading of the policy statement. The statement speaks broadly to Middle East issues, including U.S. churches’ responsibilities toward Middle East Christians, and toward better relationships between Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Its section on the Palestine-Israel conflict lists-among prerequisites for resolving the conflict:

• A cessation of violence on both sides.

• The Arab states’ and Palestinian Arabs’ recognition of Israel as a Jewish state with secure, defined, and recognized borders.

• Israel’s recognition of the Palestinian Arabs’ rights to self-determination, election of their own representatives, and establishment of a sovereign state.

The task force will receive suggested changes in the policy statement until September, when it will polish the statement for final board action in the fall. Some board members indicated a desire for more specific references to West Bank and Palestinian issues, such as those embodied in a top-level, fact-finding panel’s report, which the board voted to refer to NCC member bodies for use as a study document.

The panel, which included NCC president William Howard, general secretary Claire Randall, and 18 other NCC staff and denominational leaders, studied only the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Several NCC officials said privately that the fact-finding panel was created so that top-level NCC officials could have a balanced, first-hand understanding of Middle East issues so as to prevent special interest groups and factions from controlling the NCC’s Middle East debate.) The panel met with more than 50 religious and political leaders during a two-week, five-country, Middle East tour, and then met with American Jewish and Palestinian groups prior to drafting its final report.

The report called for the U.S. to engage in “open dialogue” with the PLO—“the only organized voice for the Palestinian people.” (The panel studiously avoided explicit support of U.S. diplomatic recognition of the PLO. The panel also opposed further Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza as an “obstacle to peace,” and supported a continued physically unified Jerusalem, but not necessarily under the “unilateral actions of the occupying power [Israel]”

These portions of the report pleased pro-Palestinian groups; the most outspoken within the NCC was the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese delegation. Because the statement showed “progress,” the delegation tabled for the time being its resolution protesting Israel’s alleged violations of Palestinians’ human rights. The 152,000-member Antiochian church is under the umbrella of Greek Orthodoxy, and a majority of its members are of Arabic descent.

Antiochian delegate Frank Maria of Warner, New Hampshire, opposed policy statement references to Israel as a “Jewish state”—saying this implies a rejection of the rights and existence of Christian and Muslim minorities there. In an interview he said, “The tragedy of Israel is that European refugees [in their objective of founding a Jewish state] found refuge in Palestine by violently displacing Christians and Muslims.”

Rabbi James Rudin, an American Jewish Committee observer since 1971, at governing board meetings commended the panel’s call for the PLO to cease its acts of violence and to reverse its stated opposition to Israeli’s rights to exist and to self-determination as a Jewish state. However, he termed “regrettable” the call for U.S. dialogue with the PLO.

Rudin’s AJC has been more cooperative with the NCC than other Jewish bodies, some of which boycotted the fact-finding panel’s hearings. He said charges of an NCC “anti-Israel bias” derive mainly from a 1978 NCC resolution, which condemned Israel’s armed forays into Lebanon, while not mentioning the PLO terrorist attack that prompted them; and a 1973 resolution calling for a halt to U.S. arms shipments to Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

While the board tackled Middle East issues, it backed off on the Iranian crisis. Mostly because it could not decide how much blame to assess the U.S. for its support of the deposed shah, the board scrubbed all but the last paragraph of a U.S.-Iranian resolution. It decided to create a committee that will explore “possible new initiatives for the churches in this U.S.-Iranian crisis.”

Functioning like a council of diplomats, the board also condemned human rights violations in Guatemala and El Salvador. (General secretary Randall said the meeting’s international focus was a coincidence of the agenda, and not a new NCC foreign affairs thrust.) The board also allowed time for some domestic politicking: it sent a message to the Illinois legislature asking that it adopt the Equal Rights Amendment and urged, among other things, an extension of federal funding for the food stamp program.

If the local news media short-changed the NCC in its coverage, it may have been due to religious news exhaustion. The city had just played host for two weeks to the United Methodist quadrennial conference. Two days prior to the NCC board meeting, TV preacher Jerry Falwell had gathered from two to five thousand followers on the mall of the State Office Building for one of his Moral Majority’s “I Love America” rallies. Evangelist Billy Graham’s 10-day Central Indiana Crusade was in full swing at Market Square Arena.

Falwell scored no points with the NCC by describing it as “more Marxist than Christian” to a local reporter. But Graham, in brief fraternal greetings to the board, won friends and loud applause by praising the NCC’s support for nuclear disarmament. “1 hope we can get to SALT 10, when we can sit down and say let’s destroy all nuclear weapons.” (He told a reporter afterwards that he opposed unilateral disarmament by the U.S.) The evangelist, who had breakfast in Indianapolis with visiting Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, also said he would like to visit NCC headquarters in New York City to talk more about disarmament.

The evangelist reminded the NCC that its founders were evangelists, and that while evangelism is a “small part” of overall church mission, it is an important part. He hoped the NCC would speak to the issue in some way during its three-day session.

JOHN MAUST

Television

PTL and the FCC: They’re Still Sparring

Christian talk show host Jim Bakker may feel like renaming his PTL Club “Pay the Lawyer,” considering an ongoing legal dispute involving his Charlotte, North Carolina—based organization.

For more than a year, the Federal Communications Commission has been investigating reports that Bakker’s PTL Christian Television Network solicited contributions over the air for specific overseas missionary projects, but then used the money to pay bills and to finance other domestic projects. The Charlotte Observer originally published the reports, and PTL since has publicly responded that its missions obligations have been met.

Answering a subpoena, Bakker testified last November for nine days in Washington, D. C., before the FCC administrative law judge. (Earlier PTL complied with a previous subpoena to supply books, records, videotapes, and other papers.) While he was on the witness stand, the judge served him with yet another subpoena to testify and to supply more financial records. But this time, Bakker and his attorneys refused to comply. The Justice Department then brought suit to force Bakker to comply with the subpoena, and Bakker’s attorneys filed a counter suit asking that the Washington litigation be transferred to Charlotte, if not dropped.

In April, the FCC-PTL deadlock broke when PTL agreed to turn over the requested documents in exchange for an agreement whereby Bakker would not be compromising his constitutional rights in doing so. PTL attorney John Midlen, Jr., said the agreement means that PTL “can go back into court and assert that this information is protected by the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion if we think the commission goes too far.” (Bakker was scheduled to testify in Washington May 20.)

New York City lawyer Lawrence Bernstein, representing the FCC, said in a telephone interview, however, that the FCC “never suggested” PTL would waive any of its constitutional rights by supplying the documents, and that the FCC should have been given the documents—without all the legal jostling—as long ago as January.

The First Amendment issue is one of several separating the FCC and PTL. Though PTL has supplied the documents, spokesperson Emily Walker said, “We still believe it to be an unconstitutional investigation—that it violates our First Amendment rights.”

PTL officials regard their television program as part of church ministry, and, as Walker stated in an interview, “We don’t think the federal government has any right interfering in the affairs of the church.”

In fact, PTL is incorporated as the Heritage Village Church and Missionary Fellowship, with Bakker as president and board chairman of the Charlotte-based corporation. Walker said the PTL Club is the “evangelism outreach” of Heritage Village Church, which is located on the organization’s 25-acre Heritage Village in Charlotte.

Walker said the organization functions in almost every respect as a church, even though it lacks a traditional congregation—having, among other things, a doctrinal statement, a board of elders, and two daily Bible teaching seminars and a Sunday afternoon worship service.

PTL would be setting a bad precedent that would open up other churches to FCC harassment, if it did not take steps to protect its First Amendment rights, said Walker. She said the FCC has never filed formal charges against PTL, and that its continuing investigation constitutes “harassment.”

FCC attorney Bernstein’s position is that “nothing in this inquiry gets in the way of religious belief. But actions of a religious organization, if they are fraudulent or otherwise illegal, are perfectly appropriate for government scrutiny.”

Some have questioned whether the FCC has the legal right to investigate. PTL attorney Midlen believes the FCC has no expressed policy against a broadcaster raising funds for one purpose and using them for another. Bernstein called that interpretation “arguable.” He said the FCC does have a public interest policy in which “there would be a very strong question as to whether a station licensee was operating in the public interest by raising money for one purpose and spending it for another.”

Bernstein noted that PTL might be completely exonerated in the investigation. But other FCC options include issuing a written reprimand, recommending a license renewal hearing for the only PTL-owned television station, WJAN-TV in Canton, Ohio. (Any FCC fines, damages, or license suspensions issued can be levied only against stations—thus WJAN-TV has been specifically named in the FCC investigation.) If the FCC finds evidence of fraud, it could press criminal charges, resulting in fines or imprisonment.

Several former PTL officials told the Wall Street Journal that PTL only appeared to use missions funds to pay internal debts. They said the organization kept only a single checking account in order to keep enough money in one place to cover its checks for payments.

Many of PTL’s financial difficulties came with construction of an unfinished $100 million headquarters and educational complex, the Total Living Center, across the state line from Charlotte in York County, South Carolina. Construction on the 1,400 acres progresses whenever funds are available.

The investigation reportedly has spawned thousands of protest letters to the FCC. Walker had issued a public statement that the network spent more than $4 million on foreign missions projects since 1977.

But regardless of the outcome, PTL officials worry the inquiry will damage the network’s already shaky public image. Some PTL officials have expressed concern about possible cancellations of the PTL Club by the 200 television stations now carrying the program.

Florida

Churches Help Absorb New Wave of Refugees

Cuban refugees are flooding south Florida at the rate of 2,000 a day and Haitians are sailing for the same haven at half that rate, fleeing economic and political oppression.

In some ways it has been easy for the churches of the area to gear up to make short-term provision for food, clothing, and shelter for the newcomers. After all, the 135 Catholic parishes and 2,500 Protestant congregations in eight counties have been taking care of waves of refugees from the Caribbean ever since the mass Cuban exodus began in 1960.

Donald Hohl, representative of the U.S. Catholic Conference’s Immigration and Refugee Service, said that in the last 20 years his agency, the International Rescue Committee (IRC), Church World Service (CWS), and the Hebrew International Aid Society (HIAS) alone have resettled 600,000 Cubans.

He said the USCC is prepared to resettle 500 Cuban refugees a day at each of the centers in which they now are being held: Miami; Eglin Air Force Base in Fort Waldon Beach, Florida; and Fort Chaffee, Arkansas.

About 65 percent of all the most recent Cuban refugees—expected to number 60,000 by the end of May and eventually as many as 250,000—are being handled by the Catholic agency. More than 80 percent of all Cubans are at least nominally Catholic. Refugees choose the agency with which they want to work.

Another 20 percent of the refugees are resettled by the IRC and most of the others are cared for by CWS. When HIAS dropped out of the process, the Lutheran Immigration and Relief Service stepped in to fill the vacancy.

Protestant churches, though, have been the most involved in helping the Cubans get out of their Communist-controlled homeland. The Episcopal Church, through its Presiding Bishop’s Fund for World Relief, spent $44,500 to finance seven flights, used to airlift some 800 former political prisoners.

The Florida conference of the United Methodist Church spent $13,000 for two flights, which brought in 229 Cuban refugees, and the United Methodist Church contributed $30,000 toward six more flights sponsored through Church World Service.

The 38 Latin Baptist churches in Dade and Broward counties collected a special offering of $15,000 to pay for two flights, which brought 230 former political prisoners out of Cuba. The Miami Baptist Association also offered the use of its Cool Pines Camp to house and feed refugees.

The Protestant churches have organized a refugee task force through the Christian Community Service Agency to work on long-term resettlement aid for the refugees.

It is the CCSA, Church Women United, and Church World Service that have cared for the Haitians—not accorded the same refugee status as the Cubans by the U.S. government. The Haitians cannot be settled anywhere outside the Miami area until their status is clarified. The National Council of Churches has filed a suit, seeking to force the government—which maintains the Haitians are not political refugees—to give the black Haitians equality with the Cubans, most of whom are white.

ADON TAFT

New Life, U.S.A.

One Church’s Contribution to Refugee Resettlement

About 30 Laotian Hmong refugees arrived in March at a “boot camp” in the wheatfields of central Oregon. They came knowing nothing about survival in American society; they expect to leave after three to six months with a working knowledge of English, and with a sponsoring family, job, and some furniture, clothing, and savings to help them get started.

The unique resettlement project, billed appropriately “New Life, U.S.A.,” resulted from the efforts of a single, local church congregation: Easthill Church in the suburban Portland city of Gresham. This Foursquare church hopes by next fall to bring 200 to 300 more Hmong into the project—which may make it the largest of its kind in the country.

The refugees’ temporary home is an abandoned Air Force radar station, located some five miles north of Condon, Oregon (about 150 miles southeast of Portland). Owner Paul Vaden of Arlington reportedly had considered selling the 68-acre property to Hare Krishna or Unification Church groups. But after Christians in Condon protested such a sale, Vaden reconsidered and, according to Bud Buse, an assistant administrator for the project, decided instead to sell the $1 million property to Easthill Church.

The church then had to come up with a $10,000 down payment. “We didn’t have the $10,000 when we first started.” said Buse. “Jerry Cook [Easthill’s pastor] announced one Sunday we were buying the camp, and $10,000 was collected right there.”

As the project became better known, financial and material assistance poured in from churches across Oregon and other parts of the country. Some congregations “sponsored” a house: there were 27 at the base to paint, refurbish, and outfit with household goods. A Roseburg rancher donated 15 to 20 head of cattle. A wholesaler of frozen chickens donated over a ton of frozen chicken and turkey rolls.

“The Lord always provides,” said Buse. “It sometimes brings tears to men’s eyes to see how he does it.”

Vaden chopped $ 150,000 off his $1 million asking price as his contribution to the project. The church still is paying off the $850,000 balance, and its operating expenses are $15,000 monthly ($300 per person). New Life’s 14 American staff members are mostly Easthill members who gave up better-paying jobs and careers to move to Condon and to earn $600 per month salaries.

Don Jones, a former junior high school principal in Portland, supervises a base school, where “survival level” English classes are offered to everyone. The refugees also learn math and elementary but essential things like learning to tell time, use money, and give basic greetings. “Some have no education,” Jones explained. “You have to start from scratch. One 33-year-old man never held a pencil before.”

Military and recreational facilities at the base are being converted to other uses. A former fallout shelter is being transformed into a profit-making mushroom factory; the proceeds will go into a general savings account for the refugees. A chicken house also is planned.

Existing buildings have been converted to carpentry and automotive shops where refugees are being taught marketable skills. Tektronix, a large Portland-area electronics firm, and a number of local wheat farmers have promised to employ some of the New Life “graduates.”

The refugees seem to feel at ease with their American hosts. The Laotians often troop into the Buse home to borrow the telephone, and Buse and his wife Margaret play with the Hmong youngsters as they would their own grandchildren. The refugees seem to have adapted to the central Oregon climate—which can become quite cold in winter.

The resettlement venture is not untypical of Easthill. The church grew from 23 members in 1965 into one of the largest in the state, averaging 5,500 Sunday worshipers. Jerry Cook, 41, a Fuller Seminary graduate whose first and only pastorate has been Easthill, heads a pastoral staff of 14.

While the church spent close to $900,000 last year to build a new sanctuary, it also has invested time and money in Portland-area ministries, including counseling in prisons and juvenile detention centers, evangelistic street teams, and daily radio programs.

Despite the church’s size and seeming wealth, officials say the refugee project has depended on faith and financial help from outside their church. “Our needs are met on a daily basis here,” said Buse. “The money doesn’t come from an Easthill bank account—just from the hearts of God’s people.”

JULIA DUIN

Athletes And Faith

The Tommy John Story, by Tommy and Sally John (Revell, 1979, 175 pp., $6.95); Safe at Home, by Richard Arndt (Concordia, 1979, 120 pp., $3.95); Second Wind, by Bill Russell and Branch Taylor (Random House, 1979, 264 pp., $9.95); No Easy Game, by Terry Bradshaw (Revell, 1979, 165 pp. $3.95); Terry Bradshaw: Man of Steel, by Terry Bradshaw (Zondervan, 1979, 195pp., $7.95); Jesse, by Jesse Owens (Logos, 1979, 205 pp., $6.95); are reviewed by Larry Winterholter, head of Department of Physical Education, Health and Athletics, Taylor University, Upland, Indiana.

Interest in sports in the United States has never been higher as evidenced by the detailed coverage of sporting events and personalities in the news media. This is especially true in this 1980 Olympic year.

Safe At Home, by Richard Arndt, is a book in which 10 Christian major league baseball players share what Christ means to them and how being a Christian fits into a baseball career. Men such as Pat Kelly of the Baltimore Orioles, Don Kessinger, former Chicago Cub and White Sox player and manager, and Don Sutton, Los Angeles Dodger pitcher, share the high points in their careers and frequently how they have grown as Christians. The book is an excellent inspirational book for the young baseball fan. However, the level of sharing and numerous quotes will make it difficult reading for the Little Leaguer.

Recent success for Terry Bradshaw, quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers, has heightened public interest in his background and personality. It is quite interesting that his career has not always prospered and this facet of his life is described well in No Easy Game and Terry Bradshaw: Man of Steel. Both books are light and entertaining for the football fan, but do reveal some of the frustrations and struggles that are related to the life of glitter. Terry’s ego appears occasionally in relating incidents, but a disarming personality is evident throughout along with a sincere desire to live the Christian life. Young and old both can enjoy the books; they will find No Easy Game a more detailed account of Bradshaw’s early life, and thus a logical first choice if both books are read.

The Tommy John Story is an account of the New York Yankee pitcher, formerly a pitcher for the Los Angeles Dodgers, who severely injured his pitching elbow in 1974. in the midst of what promised to be his best season. The book is an account of his rise in baseball to that point, and then a description of the long road to recovery he traveled, which lasted nearly two years and entailed numerous operations and frustrations. The reader again must deal with a degree of spiritual shallowness and self-centeredness, but the story nevertheless is inspirational and does illustrate the need and desire of an individual to grow spiritually when faced with trials. The reading is pleasant and readers of all ages should find the book enjoyable.

An extremely fascinating story for an Olympic year is Jesse, the Man Who Outran Hitler. 1936 found Adolph Hitler planning to demonstrate the superiority of the Aryan race, only to have the son of a black Alabama sharecropper come to Germany and shatter that plan. Jesse Owens shares the story of his life from those very humble beginnings in Alabama to the incredibly dramatic victories in Berlin, and the subsequent years of personal successes and failures. The book is captivating and easy to read. It seemed, however, to be sadly lacking in evidence of a real relationship with Christ. While Mr. Owens, who died in April, was obviously a tremendous person who overcame many obstacles in his lifetime, the book, though well done, leaves one the impression of self-accomplishment and self-will rather than submission and obedience to Christ—somewhat like reading a tragedy.

Bill Russell is without doubt one of the greatest basketball players of all time. He had many magnificent years with professional basketball’s Boston Celtics, and at the University of San Francisco in his collegiate days. The Christian impact of Second Wind, Russell’s biography, can best be summarized by a quote from the first few sentences of the second chapter, where he describes a sudden feeling of being “all right” as he walked down the hall in high school. Mr. Russell states, “Those moments in the hall are the closest I’ve come to a religious experience. For all I know, it may have actually been one. A warm feeling fell on me out of nowhere.…” This man has always been outspoken and a possessor of definite opinions, many of which have a frightening ring of truth. The book will prove interesting for basketball fans as well as from a sociological perspective, but Christian readers will find it very noninspirational and definitely not Christian.

Five-Point Calvinism

The Sovereignty of Grace, by Arthur C. Custance (Baker, 1979, 398 pp., $12.95), is reviewed by Fred H. Klooster, professor of systematic theology, Calvin Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

“In truth there is no ‘Gospel’ that is not entirely rooted in the sovereignty of God’s grace in salvation, which is the sum and substance of Calvinism … not merely a three-point or a four-point … but a five-point Calvinism” (364). That is the conclusion Custance reaches from his personal study of Scripture. What makes this especially interesting is that the author is not a trained theologian, but a scientist—member of the Canadian Physiological Society, the Royal Anthropological Institute, and the New York Academy of the Sciences. The book was written after the author’s retirement in 1970 and is the result of 40 years of personal reflection and growth.

A year after his conversion, during the depression of 1933, Custance lived in a lonely, cold cabin in Saskatchewan. During that winter he read the entire Bible eight times and “worked out, almost entirely on [his] own, a personal systematic theology.” “Reading nothing but the Word of God,” he moved from synergism to the “wonderful truth of [God’s] sovereignty in our salvation.” Not until 15 years ago did Custance begin to read “Augustine, Calvin, Owen, Spurgeon, Hodge, Strong, and Warfield”; to his surprise, he was in nearly complete agreement with these writers. What these theologians contributed was “refinement and certain modes of expression which are beautifully apt.” Their powers of expression proved to be “a great liberating force” in describing what he had personally absorbed from study of the Bible.

That such an author writes so straightforward and compelling a book is its uniqueness. After a short survey of the history of the doctrine of sovereign grace, almost half of the book—its major part—is an exposition and biblical grounding of the five points of Calvinism: total depravity, election, definite atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. After this “crystallization of the theology of grace,” the author turns, with profit but less success, to a number of practical questions related to election.

Without agreeing with the author on every score, I welcome this interesting book. Although it covers familiar territory, he makes a special contribution because he was moved from synergism to divine monergism simply by personal study of Scripture. That issue stands out in the whole discussion. The book provides a rich program for individual or group study. Arminians and other synergists are urged to examine the author’s argument carefully. Calvinists will also find Custance’s approach refreshing and stimulating, even if they disagree on certain details. The book is well indexed and accurately produced.

The Fascination Of Jesus

A Life of Jesus by Shusaku Endo, translated by Richard A. Schuchert, S. J. (Paulist Press, 1978. 179pp., $9.95), is reviewed by Richard Fox Young, a doctoral candidate in oriental studies residing in Tokyo.

Jesus never ceases to fascinate authors. One hears with predictable regularity that yet another writer or director has tried to supplement—or supplant—the Gospels with a so-called life of Christ, too often with the pretense of being definitive. Appalled by the recent spate of frivolous and sometimes lewd interpretations to which Jesus has been subjected, discriminating readers may wonder whether Shusaku Endo’s contribution to this biographical genre will be worthwhile. But Endo’s fascination with Jesus has resulted in a portrait as lucid and elusive as a Chinese ideograph. Both author and translator must be congratulated for the vividness with which Jesus is portrayed. The quality of the writing may for some perhaps compensate for Endo’s less-than-fully-orthodox Christology and soteriology. A Life of Jesus is particularly recommended to students of applied hermeneutics in the Asian context, since Endo wrote for a Japanese, not a Western, audience. Readers are advised to set aside temporarily their religious compasses in order to follow this excursion through the Gospels by a Japanese guide.

Endo is a controversial Roman Catholic novelist widely read in Japan and increasingly abroad, his books permeated with Christian motifs (four are available in English from Tuttle: Sea and Poison, Silence, Wonderful Fool, and Volcano). Silence sympathetically analyzed Jesuit apostates during the Tokugawa dynasty’s crackdown on Christianity during the seventeenth century, earning Endo notoriety among Japanese Christians. Many thought he denigrated the church’s martyrs of that era.

Endo is also a professional humorist, the author of popular collections of jokes. Theology may be, as Barth said, the most happy of sciences, but the conflict between Endo as theologian and Endo as humorist resulted in at least one serious defect in the work under review. One must not be grim, but perhaps Endo is too much a humorist to be a good theologian. The Old Testament’s “ill-humored image of God” is not cheerful enough, so it must be discarded. Endo is adamant, even averring that “Jesus made no allusion to the wrath of God and his vengeance.” Obviously the author has not wrestled with the implications of the biblical canon. Less conspicuous is the fact that Japanese religious psychology, which Endo wanted to woo, was the decisive factor in juxtaposing Jesus and Yahweh. To the Japanese, the bodhisattvas—beings who embody limitless compassion—are irresistible. As Endo’s argument goes, so too must Jesus be. But sound theology must distinguish between daya (“compassion” in Sanskrit) and dikaiosune. On this point, Endo has courted his countrymen promiscuously.

Another serious defect is that although Endo’s treatment of the Gospels is largely free from the obfuscations of form criticism, his dichotomy between facts and truths will diminish the otherwise beneficial impact this book will have on Japanese readers. Although to Endo the biblical documents may not always be factual, they are, nevertheless, truthful. Following Bultmann, he attributes them to the “faith of people who believed in Jesus.” Moreover, “From my own position as a novelist I wish to say that creative composing is not to be equated with telling a lie.” Such may be sound literary theory, but it is disturbingly naive in this context. Sadly, such remarks will fortify the ambivalence of Japanese readers to Endo’s subject.

The chapter entitled “Jesus the Ineffectual” presents to Western readers problems more apparent than real. One must prepare to cope with the fact that to Japanese and other Asians, our effusiveness about Jesus seems like a big “to-do” over nothing. Because inculturated respect for him is largely missing. Japanese influenced by Shintoism and Buddhism are disconcerting by seemingly inauspicious events in Jesus’ life. Whereas heaven rained flowers when Buddha was born, children were slaughtered after Jesus’ nativity. What did Jesus do, however miraculous, that would compare with the heroic exploits of innumerable demigods? Endo thus wisely eschewed competition with Shinto and Buddhist deities by not glorifying Jesus at their expense. Rather, he undercut Asian preconceptions by way of contrast: Jesus’ weakness is actually overpowering love, whereas the manliness of the demigods is unmitigated conceit.

But there is danger in disarming critics with this tactic, for Jesus may become a crypto-bodhisattva. The author is moved to adoration by Jesus’ uncanny ability, in an “undying presence,” to identify with us. The appellation “eternal companion” is constantly used. This Christ, however, bears our pain but not our sin, a conception compatible with Buddhism. But knowing we are not alone in the universe is not the Christian prerogative. The difference between Endo’s Jesus and manly Shinto deities and benevolent bodhisattvas is not qualitative but quantitative: Jesus is immersed in our pain; the former do not care and the latter just want to suffer in our stead.

Yet for all these flaws, A Life of Jesus remains strangely attractive. According to reports, several hundred thousand Japanese have already read it, not without being moved. One cannot but agree that this book will confirm Endo’s contention that “If Jesus … so much as once crosses the life of any person, that person becomes forever unable to forget.” Whether or not Jesus will merely be enshrined in an already capacious pantheon remains to be seen.

The Birth Of Jesus Christ

The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke, by Raymond E. Brown (Doubleday, 594 pp., $12.50 and $6.95 pb), is reviewed by David E. Aune, professor of religion, Saint Xavier College, Chicago, Illinois.

Commentaries on books of the Bible, in case you haven’t noticed, are increasing in size faster than the national debt. These 594 pages, treating just the first two chapters of Matthew and of Luke, deserve special notice for comprehensiveness. On this scale the New Testament could be handled in 65 like-size volumes.

The author is one of America’s most widely known and well respected Roman Catholic biblical scholars. His two-volume Anchor Bible commentary on John is probably the finest commentary on the fourth Gospel available. Using his very considerable talents as a biblical interpreter and theologian, he has now tackled the birth narratives using the very successful and practical format that he used in his commentary on John. The result is a scholarly book of the first magnitude. Aside from the very lengthy introductory sections, the text is broken down into relatively self-contained sections, each of which is treated in the following way: (1) a new translation of the text is presented, followed by (2) notes on exegetical and problematic details, often of a linguistic nature, which are printed in a fine print and designed to be skipped over by those interested in broader issues, followed by (3) comments on the text, and (4) an extensive bibliography on the section. Brown’s knowledge of secondary literature is astonishing and his control of the biblical text is exemplary. The commentary is lucidly written and the many exegetical and historical problems are faced clearly and honestly.

The birth narratives are very difficult for the commentator. Since J. G. Machen’s The Virgin Birth of Christ (1930) evangelical scholars have more or less neglected to reat them extensively. Evangelical laymen and pastors tend to think of the issues involved in the Gospel birth stories in terms of an either/or: Did the events narrated in Matthew 1 and 2 and Luke 1 and 2 happen or didn’t they? Those who deny their historicity are liberals, while thoe who affirm their historicity are conservatives.

The virgin birth, or more accurately, the virginal conception, of Jesus is the focal point of the Gospel birth narratives; however, many subordinate elements are also contained, such as the genealogies of Jesus, various accounts of divine and angelic revelations to the principals in the story, the coming of the Magi, Herod’s attempt to eliminate Jesus, the birth and naming of John the Baptist, the visitation of Mary to Elisabeth, the role of the shepherds, and Jesus’ appearance in the temple at the age of 12.

What does Brown think about the historicity of the virginal conception? In his view, “the scientifically controllable biblical evidence leaves the question of the historicity of the virginal conception unresolved” (p. 527). Brown is aware that this carefully worded judgment will probably shock the average believer asmuch as the critical biblical scholar.

In considering the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, there is a natural tendency to compare (and contrast) them with one another. Brown suggests three possible views that the reader can take regarding the two accounts: (1) both may be historical, (2) one may be historical and the other much freer, or (3) both may represent nonhistorical dramatizations (p. 34). He clearly rejects the first two alternatives (p. 36), and he really does not espouse the third. His basic approach is that the birth narratives in both Gospels are primarily literary vehicles which the evangelists used to express their own theological views. At the same time the basic historicity of the events narrated is not given up.

Brown does not begin with a theory of inspiration to determine historicity, since he holds that a “divinely inspired story is not necessarily history” (p. 34). Brown’s treatment of the genealogies of Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38 exemplify his approach. Since the second century, Christians have puzzled over the problems presented by these genealogies; the basic problem, of course, is that they do not agree. How does Brown handle this complex issue? He shows that genealogies in the ancient near East rarely functioned to preserve strictly biological lineage. They do appear to have functioned in three primary ways: (1) to establish an individual’s identity in relationship to his tribe or clan, (2) to undergird the status of those holding or seeking important positions, and (3) to reflect one’s basic character, since in the ancient view descendants are like their forebears. The Matthaean genealogy functions, according to Brown, in the second of these three ways. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke, he claims, are not intended to give us certain information about Jesus’ grandparents and great grandparents, but to tell us theologically that he is the “son of David, son of Abraham” (Matthew), and the “Son of God” (Luke).

None will find themselves agreeing with each of the positions that Brown advocates on the many different issues involved in interpreting the birth narratives. His own stated objective, and one that he has met, is to provide the data and the framework for those sufficiently interested in the issues to make their own decisions, even though these decisions will be at variance with Brown’s own.

An Evangelical Heavyweight

God, Revelation and Authority, Volume IV, by Carl F. H. Henry (Word. 1979. 674 pp. $24.95), is reviewed by Ronald Nash, head, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green.

The continuation of Dr. Henry’s epochal “exposition of evangelical theism” concludes his study of 15 theses about divine revelation. Henry’s treatment of the doctrine of God is reserved for the fifth and final volume of the series, which should appear in about three years. With biblical authority and inerrancy as two of its major topics, volume four should attract a great deal of attention.

Because divine revelation is inscripturated in the Bible, Scripture is the authoritative norm of Christian truth today. The contemporary secular assault on biblical authority, Henry points out, is only another manifestation of modern man’s skepticism with regard to all authority. Since man is in revolt against God, it is only natural that he should repudiate all divine authority, including the Word of God. But when modern man rejects God as the ultimate source of all authority, a moral and intellectual vacuum is created that invites the entrance of powerful political ideologies. The contemporary secularist is not content to repudiate God’s authority. Worshiping at the shrine of human autonomy, he thinks that man “must originate and fashion whatever values there are.” Henry analyzes and criticizes the major contemporary reductions of biblical authority found in the writings of theologians like Paul Tillich, James Barr, and Schubert Ogden. Henry warns of the tendency of a growing number of professed evangelicals to reduce and restrict biblical authority. One manifestation of this evangelical reductionism is the writings of devotees of several currently popular causes who chafe because Scripture fails to support their positions. Instead of reexamining their own causes, they in effect lay down a series of conditions that God’s Word must satisfy if they are to accept its authority. Thus, when Scripture fails to advance what they take to be the “right view” on such issues as feminism or liberation theology or homosexuality, they simply reject or reduce the authority of Scripture, frequently on the ground that the literal sense of the Bible does not apply to the altered cultural setting of today.

Henry argues that all attempts to relieve the alleged burden of being a religion of the Book from Christianity are misdirected. “From the very first, the Christian religion involved a distinctive deposit of authoritative prophetic literature, confirmed as such even by the incarnate, crucified and risen Jesus, who pledged to designated apostles the operative presence of the Spirit of God in their exposition of his life and work.” The authority of Scripture is acknowledged even by those who repudiate it. Even those critical of the Bible appeal to it in support of some beliefs. Where. Henry wonders, is the justification for such a selective appeal? Henry chides those theologians skeptical of biblical authority who attempt to give their prejudices an air of biblical legitimacy by citing only those passages that appear to support their views.

Readers familiar with Henry’s convictions will not be surprised to find him expounding and defending the inerrancy of the original manuscripts. Knowledgeable students of the inerrancy debate will probably not find much in his discussion that is new. The points he raises and the occasional qualification he introduces have always been part of the informed evangelical position. Unfortunately, many discussions of inerrancy by both friend and foe have been misinformed. Henry draws attention to several important qualifications that must be part of the inerrantist view. As one example, “Conformity to twentieth-century scientific measurement is not a criterion of accuracy to be projected back upon earlier generations.” Henry insists that inerrancy attaches to more than the Bible’s theological and moral teaching; it also extends to historical and scientific matters, at least as far as they are part of the Bible’s express message. Henry may surprise some readers with his identification of several problem passages for which he presently has no satisfactory answer. The inerrancy cause, Henry warns, is not strengthened by simply ignoring such problems. Henry believes that the history of the attack on inerrancy provides grounds for optimism that future discoveries will resolve the remaining difficulties. While the list of alleged errors in the Bible has grown shorter over the years, the list of the errors made by critics of Scripture grows longer.

Henry includes one entire chapter on biblical criticism, which he refuses to reject in principle. Christianity, he states, has nothing “to fear from truly scientific historical criticism. What accounts for the adolescent fantasies of biblical criticism are not its legitimate pursuits but its paramour relationships with questionable philosophic consorts.” Many evangelical scholars utilize the historical-critical method in ways compatible with biblical infallibility. “What is objectionable is not historical-critical method, but rather the alien presuppositions to which neo-Protestant scholars subject it.”

When Henry turns his attention to the person and work of the Holy Spirit, he notes that the same Spirit who inspired the Bible and illuminates the interpreter also serves as the instrument by which the truth of revelation is personally appropriated. The Holy Spirit is the agent of regeneration. The power of the Holy Spirit is present in the life of the twice born as their lives witness to the power of God’s revelation. Henry deplores several tendencies in the modern charismatic movement. The movement is weak at the critical point of its grounding in theology and in its acceptance of “psychic and mystical phenomena without adequately evaluating them.” Because it lacks an adequate systematic theology, the charismatic movement is “prone to a view of charismatic revelation and authority that competes at times with what the Bible teaches.” He cites, for example, the case of David Wilkerson of Melodyland School of Theology who has reportedly claimed normative authority for a private vision.

Henry proceeds to examine the power of the gospel on the individual and societal level. The Christian is to apply the gospel to social issues. Henry evaluates the Marxist alternative to Scripture as well as the efforts of liberal theologians to provide a Marxist interpretation of the Bible. Henry’s study concludes with a look at God’s future revelation of his glory in power and judgment when righteousness and justice will be vindicated and evil destroyed for all time.

Henry’s discussions are bound to become widely consulted treatments of the evangelical consensus. Critics of evangelicalism who have frequently found it convenient to challenge theological lightweights now have a heavyweight with which to contend. This is not to ignore problems in Henry’s work. One could hardly expect any theologian to pen the final word on issues so important and complex. The debates will continue, of course, but Henry’s work will have to be reckoned with. Dr. Henry has given the Christian church a remarkable new resource for its future reflection on God, revelation, and authority.

Briefly Noted

Church History: Reformation And After

Four Reformers: Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Zwingli (Augsburg), by Kurt Aland, is a handy introduction to these Reformers. God’s Man: A Novel on the Life of John Calvin (Baker), by D. Norton-Taylor, is a sympathetic treatment of an often misunderstood man. Baker has also reprinted R. C. Reed’s The Gospel As Taught by Calvin, a good introduction to Calvin’s thought.

The Banner of Truth Trust (Box 621, Carlisle. Pa.) makes the Parker Society set of The Writings of John Bradford (two volumes) available again. It is heavy but excellent reading. Thomas Boston’s classic The Crook in the Lot has been reprinted by Baker Book House. A short but effective study is Three Anglican Divines on Prayer: Jewel. Andrewes, and Hooker (Society of St. John the Evangelist. 980 Memorial Dr., Cambridge, Mass.) by John Booty.

The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition (Yale University Press), by N. M. Sutherland, is an excellent study of the French Reformation. Also from Yale University Press is the second printing of The Reformation in the Cities: The Appeal of Protestantism to Sixteenth-Century Germany and Switzerland by S. E. Ozment. This is a major, indispensable work.

Every student of church history will be glad to see that Daniel Neal’s standard. The History of the Puritans, or, Protestant Nonconformists. From the Reformation in 1517 to the Revolution in 1688 (three volumes), has been reprinted by Klock and Klock (2527 Girard Ave. N., Minneapolis. Minn.)

A challenging new study of the English revolution is Richard Baxter and the Millennium (Rowman and Littlefield. 81 Adams Dr., Totowa, N.J.) by N. M. Lamont. The English Civil War (Thames and Hudson), by Maurice Ashley, is a beautifully illustrated and well-written, concise history of that period. J. W. Williamson, in The Myth of the Conqueror: Prince Henry Stuart, a Study in the 17th Century Personation (AMS. 56 E. 13th St., N.Y.). writes the first modern biography of James I’s son, with significant new insights to offer. Two very different but nonetheless valuable biographies of royalty in this period are the generous treatment of Royal Charles: Charles II and the Restoration (Knopf) by Antonia Fraser and the more sharply put The Image of the King: Charles I and Charles 11 (Atheneum), by Richard Ollard.

The Days of the Fathers in Rosshire (Christian Focus Publications, Henderson Road, Inverness IV1 1SP, Scotland), by John Kennedy, is a reprint of a marvelous 1861 book recalling the godly days of old. The Happy Man: The Abiding Witness of Lachlan Mackenzie (Banner of Truth), is a collection of sermons, with a brief biographical sketch of this remarkable Scotsman. English Provincial Society from the Reformation to the Revolution: Religion. Politics, and Society in Kent 1500–1640 (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Cranbury, N.J.), by Peter Clark, is a massive and definitive study of great value. An abridged version of Lawrence Stone’s eminently readable and exhaustive The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500–1800 has been made available by Harper and Row, Colophon Books. An excellent study of “Christian Cabala” is Francis Yates’s The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age (Routledge and Kegan Paul). Faith, Reason, and the Plague: A Tuscan Story of the Seventeenth Century (available from Cornell University Press), by Carlo M. Cipolla, is the fascinating, moving story of a small village and its problems. Renaissance Drama and the English Church Year (University of Nebraska Press), by R. C. Hassel, is a major new study of value to students of theology and literature alike. R. G. Clouse has written an excellent survey in The Church in the Age of Orthodoxy and the Enlightenment: Consolidation and Challenge 1600–1700 (Concordia). Lost Country Life (Pantheon), by Dorothy Hartley, is an absolutely fascinating collection of just about anything anybody ever wanted to know about early English rural life.

It’s viewed so differently by those not caught in the trauma.

“The worst time to go through a divorce is when you belong to a church!”

In the past five years. I have listened to such words describing the feelings of divorcing and divorced men and women who were part of a church family at the time of their divorce.

Divorce, perhaps more than any other sin, is one of the most deadly “I gotcha’s” in the church today. Few pastors and even fewer laymen know how to respond to a fellow parishioner’s divorce. The usual response from both groups seems to be one of suspicion, judgment, penalty, and a lack of communication and lack of love.

What the church community fails to realize is that the divorced person suffers under a tremendous emotional and spiritual overload of guilt, fear, rejection, and lack of self-esteem. The last thing such a person needs is a further injection of pity, penalty, and judgment from fellow members. The two ingredients divorced people need so desperately are compassion and healing.

Much of the church’s negative attitude to divorcing and divorced people comes from a strong desire to protect the marriage and family structure as we know it. There is the fear that if love and compassion are shown to a divorced person, this may be interpreted to mean divorce is acceptable as a way and means of life. A pastor told me he would like to have my divorce recovery seminar in his church but he was afraid his people would get the idea that he affirmed divorce—and even worse, that other churches would condemn his church and people for sponsoring such a workshop.

There are more than one million new divorces in America each year. They happen to elders, deacons, Sunday school teachers, ushers, pastors, pastor’s children—literally to everyone. The increasing divorce rate is a tragedy of our time. It is not right. But getting angry and isolating the people to whom it happens will not help erase the problem. The Scriptures teach us that Jesus was against sin, but that he expressed a consuming love for the sinner. One of Christ’s most loving encounters was with the woman at the well. She had marital problems that would outrival most, yet Christ did not treat her with the attitudes many divorced people in our churches face. In addition to defining the scriptural answers to questions about divorce, we must ask, How do we minister to and care for the divorced person?

The first thing we must do is take an honest look at the problem and ask the old question, “What would Jesus do?” I think he would talk about it, and he would do so from church pulpits. I think he would teach that divorce is a sin but that it is not the unforgivable sin. I believe he would show us how to reach out in love and compassion to help heal the hurts experienced by divorced people.

Divorce is viewed so differently by those not caught in the trauma. Nondivorcing people seem to think that divorcing people are having fun and should be punished. Quite the contrary. From the thousands of people who have gone through divorce recovery workshops to the solitary individuals sitting in my office, their feelings about divorce are best summed up by such descriptive terms as lost, alone, hurt, wounded, empty, bitter. Divorce is never fun. It is a battle to survive and begin again. The pastor and the people of God need to provide the love and healing elements to help divorced people rebuild their lives.

The pastor has the primary responsibility to set the pace in building a congregation’s right attitude toward divorced people in both congregation and community. A basic teaching in this area deals with forgiveness and centers in 1 John 1:9.

Let me share several guidelines for both pastor and people in helping divorcing people:

1. Don’t get into the judgment business. Remember, you will never have enough of the facts to give you the right of judgment.

2. Listen with love and understanding. A good friend is a good listener. Divorced people need to share feelings and hurts. This is most critical in the first months of a divorce experience.

3. Be supportive in any way you can. Helping in getting practical things done is vital. When people are caught in emotional turbulence, they often need help in getting the daily chores done.

4. Don’t give cheap advice. The “if I were you” routine is of little help when you have never been there.

5. Don’t load your spiritual holster with Bible bullets and come out firing at the newly divorced person.

6. Try to refer divorcing people to human resource people in your community who are specialists at helping people through divorce. Pass along good, helpful reading materials. (In fact, provide a good supply in your church library. I frequently check church libraries and find few books on divorce recovery, but many books that speak against divorce.)

These are a few of the things anyone and everyone can do. But what are some significant things the church can offer?

Singles ministries, as the newest specialty ministry in many churches across America, are growing rapidly. Fifty million singles make this a “new frontier” ministry. Singles include those never married, formerly married, and widowed. Singles ministries are effective where all three groups share in the many unique aspects of life and growth in their own supportive community, which should provide mental, spiritual, and social opportunities for growth. Everyone needs to belong to a family. Divorce often means the loss of family as society knows and understands it. Building an extension family or supportive community is thus vital in helping people recover from a divorce experience.

A divorced person often moves overnight from a world of married friends and activities to a world where there are no friends or activities. Where there is no new supportive community for this person, the healing process becomes more of an agonizing survival process and an endurance in loneliness and grief. When the pastor and church are sensitive to this and provide a group structure into which a newly divorced person can move, acceptance, affirmation, and healing begin immediately to take place.

While serving as minister to single adults at Garden Grove Community Church, I observed many nonchurch-related formerly marrieds attending our divorce recovery workshop, and then moving on into the singles department and mainstream of church life. I soon began to realize what a field for outreach in ministry this area was. Over three years we watched a singles ministry grow from 250 to 1,200 singles. A church, a pastor, and its people are in the business of healing hurts in people’s lives. People who are already in the church respond to this as well as people who are now outside the church.

Divorce is one of life’s most painful hurts. It leaves scars on people’s lives forever. The job of pastor and people is to find ways to apply the healing love of Christ to these lives.

Jim Smoke is an author and consultant on ministry to singles, based in Tustin, California.

A work of art can lift us to a level above and beyond ourselves.

Dorothy sayers said the church has never really made up its mind about the arts. Views range all the way from puritanical denouncement to exploitation. Presently we seem to be in a position where some arts are condemned while others are enthusiastically exploited. The criterion for such categorization seems to be whether a particular art form is seen as “usable” for specific tasks within the church, such as preaching, teaching, or evangelism—or even, perhaps, whether it provides wholesome, family entertainment.

Most lovers of art will agree with Miss Sayers when she dismisses such attitudes as “false and degrading.” I stand firmly on the side of those who say art has its own value and does not need to be “justified” by whether or not it can be used by the church. In fact, I also believe that art and propaganda rarely mix: art was not created to be a teaching tool—nor is it most effective when it is used in any of its forms merely to accompany Sunday sermons,

I do believe, however, that left to itself, art can be used by the Holy Spirit in his task of calling God’s people to himself.

In a recent national survey it was found that Americans are becoming increasingly narcissistic, hedonistic, and several other “istics” that indicate we are living in a society that is, for the most part, sick. In what may be a cynical reaction to the “greening” of our culture in the late sixties—or perhaps the failure of that “greening”—we seem increasingly to be interested in boats, planes, racquets, and Sunday afternoon football. In another word: “things.” But in our day there seems to be little else to work for, and so we work for weekends. And “things.”

I think it is entirely possible and even quite likely that this preoccupation with things, with pleasures, and the temporary, is the main hindrance in our culture to personal and meaningful contact with God. F. David Martin said as much in his book, Art and the Religious Experience: The Language of the Sacred (Bucknell, 1972). He called it the “ontical treadmill” and considered it a major barrier between contemporary man and God. Martin goes on to say there are two kinds of experiences that force us off this ontical treadmill where we perceive only things as real, to a position where we may more easily contact God or be contacted by him. He believes these experiences are either crisis times or aesthetic events. These two may not be the only categories of experience that have such an effect, but the point is that these two kinds of experiences do have the power to impel us to God, and that power is useful, if not necessary, in the Holy Spirit’s work today.

It is relatively easy, of course, to understand how crisis experiences can force us off this treadmill. Anyone who has lost a loved one through sudden, tragic death, or who has lost a job, or suffered through financial disaster, can relate to the significance of the questioning process that seems to accompany such experiences. Questions of identity, of mortality and, above all, of purpose and meaning, invariably surface at such a time. Evangelists and preachers respond to these times in people’s lives almost instinctively. Communication theorists tell us that at such times the central perception structures are in such a state of flux that it is relatively easy for them to be reordered in such a way as to account for a radical change in perspective. In other words, there’s good scientific reason for a person to be converted at this point.

Although no one would say there was anything of “saving grace” about the events that led to such a conversion—for those events usually are excruciatingly painful—we do hear it said often that “God obviously had a purpose in it.” And, of course, those who say that are right. We can therefore understand how crisis experiences can force us to stop thinking about our weekends and our motorhomes and our pensions and our taxes and about many other things.

But what about the aesthetic experience? Can it really have a similar effect?

A work of art results from the artist working out his personal and usually passionate vision in a structured form. Most artists, when asked what their works “mean,” will declare: “If I could have said it any other way, why would I have gone to all the bother of writing a play” (or composing music, or painting a picture, or writing a poem)? The result is a message that is at the same time both personal and universal, with content or meaning that could be communicated in no other way.

Since a serious and significant work of art is usually the result of an earnest and often spiritual questioning process on the part of the artist, the work itself may involve insights and meanings that themselves are related to the question of ultimate meaning in the universe.

The effect of a work of art on its audience, according to poet W.H. Auden, is disenchantment. He says that art is not primarily “a means by which the artist communicates or arouses feelings in others, but a mirror in which they may be conscious of what their own feelings really are.… By significant details it shows that our present state is neither as virtuous nor as secure as we thought.” The term disenchantment is thus appropriate if we consider that modern man indeed may be “enchanted” by a reality that consists primarily of things. Christians ought to denounce the scientistic credo that proclaims nothing of value or relevance exists outside the world of matter.

My experience of standing on a ridge in the Cascade mountains is closely related to the experience of viewing a professional production of Shakespeare’s King Lear. Both lift me to a position far above where I normally dwell to a place where the air is clearer and the light is brighter, and I am able to see more clearly what is true and what is false. In that “rarefied” atmosphere, even eyes long misted over have a chance to see and encounter not only truth, but the Author of all truth.

It is thus that a work of art produces an effect not unlike that of a crisis experience. By sharing the vision of the artist—even if it is only a glimpse—we can recognize that what we think are neat patterns of understanding do not fit, and that there is more to reality than meets the eye, and that, ultimately, life itself is mystery. When we are in that condition we are in the state of flux that is like the one experienced by the person going through one of life’s crises.

Can art save souls? Not at all. Art has no more saving power than the death of a loved one, or a divorce, or the onset of a terminal disease. But by the intensity of its vision or beauty it can shock us into a new realization of our true position in the overall scheme of things. At the very least, it can force us to stop and ponder the question, even if for only a passing moment.

Author Chad Walsh perhaps puts it best: “I do not quite see how the aesthetic experience as such produces the radical reorientation that we call justification—but I do see how it prepares the way in some cases, by liberating the imagination from the flat common sense, and by making a person open to new experiences and a transformed sensibility.”

Gerald Baron is instructor of drama and coordinator of performing groups at Seattle Pacific University. Washington.

The high degree of orthodoxy is not altogether encouraging.

Jesus once asked his disciples for a report on opinion polls about himself. “Who do men say that I, the Son of man am?” George Gallup was not among the Twelve, and the disciples had no background in scientific sampling. But they came up with a quick survey. Jesus was said to be: (1) John the Baptist; (2) Elijah; (3) Jeremiah; (4) some other prophet.

Then Jesus put the same question directly to his twelve disciples. “Who do you say that I am?” Peter’s answer was more than an opinion: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus affirmed his answer, told him that the heavenly Father had revealed it to him, and promised to build his church upon the confessing apostle, together with the others who shared with him the power of the keys of the kingdom (Matt. 16:18–19; 18:18). The apostolic confession expressed bedrock Christian faith. Jesus could not accept a lesser confession.

A more recent poll, conducted by the Gallup organization for CHRISTIANITY TODAY, continues to compare the opinions of the population at large with the convictions of those who are the special servants of Jesus Christ.

The apostolic witness seems to have had some effect over the centuries. Better than one-quarter of the sampled American population (26 percent) claim to believe that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man. They would stand with Peter, who was not satisfied with an estimate of Jesus that regarded him as a prophet—even the greatest of prophets—alive from the dead. The pollsters did offer an option for folks today who would agree with the common opinion in Jesus’ day. They phrased it: “Jesus was a man, but was divine in the sense that God worked through him.” That is a rough modern equivalent to allowing that he might be Jeremiah raised from the dead. But the option was sweetened up (and confused?) in the questionnaire by the added words: “He was the Son of God.” More than half the American public tested bought that composite option (57 percent).

The apostles, in their survey, did not report the least favorable estimates of Jesus. We know there were some: Jesus had enemies who claimed to believe that he was Beelzebub, a devil. But then, as now, few thought of Jesus as merely a great religious teacher (11 percent on the Gallup Poll).

But what about the clergy? If Jesus were to turn to our Christian clergy today with the question “Who do you say that I am?” what answer would he receive? The Gallup organization says that 87 percent of the clergy believe “Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man.” Only 1 percent view him as no more than a great religious teacher, but there are 12 percent who deny his full deity. Among Catholic clergy and in three of the largest Protestant denominations surveyed, the apostle Peter has more followers: the Southern Baptist clergy chose the orthodox God-man answer almost unanimously (99 percent), followed by Catholics (98 percent), other Baptists (96 percent), and Lutherans (95 percent).

The one other large Protestant denomination identified in the survey pulled the average down. No less than 30 percent of the Methodist clergy refused to affirm the full deity of Christ. One is left to speculate on how many smaller “mainline” denominations have a comparable number of clergy who shrink back from the apostolic confession.

Other questions in the poll provide further comparisons of the opinions of Americans generally with the convictions of the clergy. These questions raised the issues of the authority of the Bible, life after death, the existence of the devil, and the origin of man. Most surprisingly, and regrettably, no questions were asked about the meaning of Christ’s crucifixion or about the reality of his bodily resurrection on the third day. With such central questions for evangelical orthodoxy set aside it is difficult to assess the doctrinal positions reflected in the responses.

Concerning such additional questions as the poll did ask, biblically the clergy were clearest on the issue of life after death. These were the options given in the poll: (1) There is no life after death. (2) There is life after death but what a person does in this life has no bearing on it. (3) Heaven is a divine reward for those who earn it by their good life. (4) The only hope for heaven is through personal faith in Jesus Christ.

About four out of five clergymen chose the last statement. Since it is the only statement connecting Christ with the life to come, one might expect that even those who want to add merit to grace would have chosen it over the third statement, which is in no sense Christian. Yet incredibly, of the Catholic clergy polled, 61 percent chose the third statement, while merely half that many (31 percent) chose faith in Christ as the only hope of heaven. It seems clear that Martin Luther’s discovery of the message of Galatians has yet to be made by the great majority of Roman Catholic clergy. Here the Catholic clergy are far outdistanced by the general public, for 45 percent of the public chose the fourth statement, that only through personal faith in Christ is there hope for heaven. Of the general public, 26 percent chose the works religion of number three, and an evenly divided 20 percent chose one of the first two answers.

Mariano Di Gangi, Canadian director of the Bible and Medical Missionary Fellowship, observes, “The fact that 61 percent of Roman Catholic clergymen suppose heaven to be the reward of man’s good works should provide fresh incentive for the evangelization of such a significant segment of Christendom still plagued with a misunderstanding of the gospel.”

Evangelist Leighton Ford found reason for hope on the other side of these statistics: “The high percentage of Catholics who hold orthodox positions on the person of Christ especially, and the authority of the Bible to a lesser extent, is very interesting. Even more interesting is that nearly one-third of the Catholic clergy see personal faith in Christ as the only hope for heaven. It strikes me that evangelicals need to find out who these Catholic clergy are and start building some bridges of friendship and encouragement to them.”

Perhaps the response of the Catholic clergy might have been anticipated, but can it be true that nearly half of all Americans believe that their only hope for heaven is through personal faith in Jesus Christ? When faced with Dr. James Kennedy’s question, “Why should God let you into his heaven?” better than 4 people out of 10 can give the gospel answer. The burning question remains for those who in their heads know the right answer: have they also put their personal faith in Christ? Are they living as believers?

While, as we have seen, only 26 percent of the general public affirmed the full deity as well as the humanity of Christ, in all the other doctrinal areas more than a third (and up to half) of those questioned gave the most orthodox answer. Orthodox Christian beliefs are widespread in America. Beyond the company of the orthodox and converted who attend church with some regularity there is a large population that claims to have, in opinion at least, Christian answers.

Beliefs about the devil and Adam and Eve were included in the questionnaire, presumably on the assumption that these doctrines would be particular targets of a scientific and humanistic world view. Again one might wish that this issue had been addressed in relation to Christ’s miracles and his resurrection.

Answers on the origin of man were surprising. Here the biblical orthodoxy of the general public almost reached that of the clergy. Half the public affirmed that “God created Adam and Eve, which was the start of human life.” They chose this over the options of theistic evolution, with or without God’s intervention to create man. The clergy picked Adam and Eve by 57 percent, while 31 percent favored an evolutionary concept with God beginning the process and intervening at a later point to transform man into a human being in His image.

Again the Catholic clergy differed strikingly from most Protestants, although not this time from the Methodists. Only 27 percent of Catholic clergy chose Adam and Eve, theistic evolution being the choice of 66 percent. Methodist clergy chose a historical Adam and Eve by 29 percent, theistic evolution with intervention by 48 percent, and theistic evolution with no divine intervention by 18 percent.

Methodist liberalism shows up again in questions about the devil. Eighteen percent of the Methodist clergy deny the existence of the devil altogether, while another 36 percent regard him as an impersonal force. Less than half (42 percent) think of him as a personal being. Baptist and Catholic clergy are most convinced of the existence of Satan (Southern Baptists 96 percent; Catholics 82 percent).

People in general seem much more convinced about Adam and Eve than about the Tempter. While half of our friends and neighbors accept Adam and Eve, only 34 percent believe in a personal devil. Now that demons have enjoyed so much prime time in movies about the occult, it would be interesting to see if minor devils have gained more credibility than the prince of darkness.

What about the Bible? The survey offered an orthodox answer: “The Bible is the word of God and is not mistaken in its statements and teachings.” No less than 42 percent of the general public chose that high view of the Bible, preferring it to a parallel declaration that said: “The Bible is the word of God but is sometimes mistaken in its statements and teachings.” This lower view was chosen by 30 percent, and 23 percent viewed the Bible as no more than a collection of ancient religious philosophies.

Clergy disagree with the last opinion. Only 3 percent were ready to write off the Bible as less than the Word of God. As to whether God’s Word is free of mistakes, the preachers are divided. About one quarter of them, both Catholic and Protestant, think the Bible is sometimes mistaken in its teachings. Sixty-nine percent affirm an inerrant Bible. Sharp divergence again appears between Southern Baptists and Methodists. Ninety-four percent of the Baptists think that God’s Word is without mistakes, while only 41 percent of Methodist clergy will affirm that.

The authority of the Bible divides Catholic from Protestant clergy. Only 5 percent of the Catholic clergy would turn to the Bible first to test their religious beliefs, while 77 percent would turn first to the church. These figures are almost exactly reversed among Protestant ministers: 76 percent would turn to the Bible first, and only 4 percent to what the church says.

Just how biblical authority operates among Protestants may not be so clear when applied to a test case—the ordination of women. This is opposed by 63 percent of the Catholic clergy, presumably on the ground of the church teaching so recently reemphasized by Pope John Paul II. But only 40 percent of Protestant clergy are opposed to the ordination of women, while 52 percent favor it. We may assume that most, if not all, of the Protestant opposition would claim that they go to the Bible first, and appeal to such biblical texts as 1 Timothy 2:12, “I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.” That leaves at least 36 percent of Protestant ministers in the class of those who go to the Bible first and favor the ordination of women. No doubt many or most of these may believe that the Bible should be interpreted to support the ordination of women. Yet the real tests of the operational authority of the Bible can only appear when biblical teaching runs counter to the pressures of contemporary culture. Biblical authority seems to stand the test on the crucial doctrine of eternal life through faith in Christ; indeed, more Protestant clergy believe that doctrine (86 percent) than would claim to go to the Bible first (76 percent).

When Protestants do not go to the Bible first, they turn someplace other than to church authority. The other source of authority, put ahead of the Bible by 11 percent of the Protestant clergy is “what the Holy Spirit says to me personally.” This is the primary source of authority for 23 percent of the Methodist ministry.

Most clergymen claim to have had a life-changing religious experience (78 percent). This claim is made by more Protestants (82 percent) than Catholics (56 percent), and ranges in Protestant communions from 100 percent among the Southern Baptists to 52 percent among the Lutherans. Of those who profess such an experience almost all said that it involved Jesus Christ (94 percent) but fewer identified it as “asking Jesus Christ to be your personal Savior” (73 percent). Lutherans (26 percent) even less than Catholics (34 percent) identified their experience in this way. The survey distinguished between orthodoxy and conversionism as patterns for classifying responses to the questionnaire.

Leighton Ford felt that “the wide gap between the number of Southern Baptists and Lutherans who have had a religious conversion experience indicates the effect that expectation has on our experience. When conversion is preached and expected in our church fellowship, it seems to happen more regularly!”

Even so limited a survey provides the beginning of a weather map of the currents of religious opinion moving across our continent. One fact of religious barometric pressure is the “high” of Christian orthodoxy and conversion experience in the general population. Better than a third of the population are in this pattern.

Among the clergy, major differences of religious conviction do exist, and the general perceptions of these differences are well founded. Catholic clergy really do believe in salvation by works and put church authority rather than biblical authority first; Southern Baptists are strongly conservative; and the Methodists have many more liberal ministers than Baptists or Lutherans have.

But what may not be expected (at least by those who have not attended the Urbana missionary conventions or visited evangelical seminaries in recent years) is the orthodox and conversionist “high” among the younger clergy. Ministers between the ages of 18 and 29 are much more conservative in their views of the Bible (78 percent are for inerrancy), salvation by faith in Christ (87 percent), the creation of Adam and Eve (70 percent), and in testing their beliefs by the Bible first (76 percent). They also lead in professing a conversion experience (83 percent). Only one in a hundred of the younger clergy would put church authority ahead of Scripture, but 17 percent put the speaking of the Spirit rather than the Bible as their first authority in testing belief. Presumably this reflects a charismatic strand in the renewal movement, a movement that has so profoundly influenced the younger generation of Christians, and therefore of Christian pastors.

Orthodox Christians cannot write off sub-Christian views among the clergy on percentages. Jesus was betrayed by only 8 percent of his disciples!

Yet the burning questions raised by the survey come from the orthodox answers given by so many. Dr. William Iverson, scholar-evangelist in the streets of Newark, New Jersey, notes that more than a quarter of the whole American population professes evangelical faith. “A pound of meat,” he says, “would surely be affected by a quarter-pound of salt. If this is real Christianity, the ‘salt of the earth,’ where is the effect of which Jesus spoke?” Iverson looks for the care of the poor that should mark the gospel. Reflecting on the survey of the clergy as a whole, Leighton Ford concluded that “our theological education must give much more attention not only to helping clergy to come to clear beliefs themselves, but even more so to helping them communicate these beliefs effectively to their congregations and to those outside the faith.”

John E. Kyle, missions director of Inter-Varsity, notes the missionary potential of so many orthodox and converted ministers and such a large community of Christians in America. “There is need,” he says, “for at least 120,000 missionaries to reach the 2.7 billion people unreached by the gospel.… Such orthodoxy could well fuel the great reservoir of young people in the United States to embrace Christ as Savior and enable them to be called out to serve as missionaries of the gospel of Jesus Christ overseas.”

Biblical Christianity in America has withstood the fires of secularism and the floods of materialism. About one-third of the population and two-thirds of the clergy have kept the faith, and their conviction seems to be deepening with the younger generation. To whom much has been given, much shall be required. “If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them” (John 13:17).

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.

Like Joanna Kramer I was charged in court as unfit to mother.

“Kramer vs. kramer” is one of those romanticized celluloid sagas that transforms the strained relational settings of contemporary culture into a storybook opera and the victims of our self-actualization society into amoral folk heroes. A “sound” father-son relationship grows from the debris of a never-to-mature marriage between Joanna and Ted Kramer.

Maybe it can happen that way. But in real life, such stories are necessarily more cluttered—cluttered with the emotional scars and acted-out trauma that afflicts our complex psyches; cluttered with the dehumanizing warfare between injured egos.

In real life I am a kind of Joanna Kramer. Like Joanna, caught in divorce and a court battle for custody, I was charged with being unfit to mother.

In this Academy Award-winning Columbia Pictures release, Joanna Kramer walks out on her son and husband in an attempt to escape her debilitating subjugation to her husband’s career. After “finding” herself and reviving a sense of self-worth by way of professional career achievements, she returns to reclaim her son. But the husband-father, Ted Kramer, seeks the court’s indulgence to retain custody.

Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep portrayed the roles of husband and wife with Academy Award brilliance. Nevertheless, I was somewhat put off by the smoothness of dialogue that carried them through what I was supposed to believe was an emotion-rending experience. Ted Kramer was appealingly—even heroically—brash, fighting his way through corporate barriers, demanding “now or never” decisions from chief executives so he would have a fitting job as ammunition in the coming custody trial, PTA meetings and other inconveniences of parenthood had cost him the high pressure position Joanna had helped him keep. She, by contrast, is seen as an intense, withdrawn personality who, in a state of depression, fled her family yet sought to maintain emotional contact with her son by sneaking glimpses of him from behind windows in neighborhood shops.

The son, Billy, played by Justin Henry, is too self-assured to be the focus of a brutal custody fight. Scenes like Daddy Kramer’s messy struggle to make French toast for Billy the morning after Mommy leaves, or Billy coaching Dad in the supermarket are cute, romanticized substitutes for the real thing. Lacking was the tedious, tiring drudgery that is part and parcel of housekeeping and child rearing. A scene where Billy challenges his dad’s authority over eating a dish of ice cream is more charming than most real-life confrontations. And Ted Kramer’s professional and personal life at home perhaps are not and could not be interrupted often enough to convey the feelings of frustration and rage generated in analogous real-life situations.

Nevertheless, the father tells the court he “was there” for his son during the mother’s derelict absence, and therefore deserved custody. The mother testified to the court that she had lost her self-esteem as a housewife. She had come to feel that the need for some creative outlet outside her role as wife and mother was evidence of her flawed character. She had since come to realize that her need for creativity and affirmation of worth were legitimate human needs and did not mean she was incapable to mother. Her former husband, on the other hand, had refused even to discuss her desire to return to her profession and a sense of worth, she told the court

I discussed the film with my own son. Terry, now age 24, in the light of the relational misfortunes of our own family life. He argued that Joanna Kramer should have conducted her personal struggle for self-worth within the structure of family life. He contrasted her flight from responsibility with Ted Kramer’s sacrifice of income and professional prestige to meet the challenge of single parenthood.

But. I countered, these choices were forced upon him by Joanna’s abandonment. He was forced to choose between his son and a career after he found himself a single parent—after his wife walked out. Still, Terry argued, Joanna Kramer should have stayed and fought what had made life dysfunctional within the home.

I have compassion for Joanna: like her, I became unable to function in my home. I kept struggling to pull out of that depressing and exhausting hole into which societal convenience had thrown me. I looked for members of our family to function in roles that evolved out of our relationships. Yet prevailing custom burdened my husband and me, and we began to die emotionally. There was awesome pressure to confine me to a role that a deep South culture had fabricated. That role bore too little resemblance to the person I felt God had created me to be. There was no room in that role to acknowledge my God-given, creative potential (primarily that of writing). My husband and I made some effort to allow me to function in both home and a career (an effort that Ted Kramer would never consider), but it didn’t work. I became depressed, loathed myself for seeming to be the lesser member of the marriage. The crunch of worrying what others thought when I tried to move outside an externally imposed role crushed my spirit.

The movie Kramers fell into the suffocating pattern of the male’s paid employment dictating a family’s values and personal development. Joanna Kramer walked out.

I, too, used inappropriate methods to achieve the family communication that would allow room for each of us to grow. My husband filed for divorce. After my behavior became even more inappropriate my husband charged that 1, too, was unfit to mother. I did not fight the accusations in court, but took them to God in what has been a long journey. At first I was bitterly angry, feeling betrayed by my Creator. My attitude was similar to Joanna Kramer’s when she said: “I worked very hard to become a whole human being and I don’t think I should be punished for that.”

Certainly the main issue in the Kramer film was what was best for the child Billy. Both Joanna and Ted matured during the story. The father confessed to his son that he realized too late he had tried to make his wife “be a certain kind of person” and he had thought when he (the husband) was happy that meant she (the wife) was happy.

Yes, Terry. I should have faced my problems with marriage long ago. God is good to give me opportunity now to build Christ-like relationships with my children. But I wish I had learned effectively and legitimately to refuse psyche-killing patterns in the structure of family life—before divorce. And I wish Joanna Kramer had discovered the same kinds of positive techniques.

The film has faults, but I recommend it as an incentive for those who would postpone the pain of facing and resolving the adjustments of roles in a marriage relationship.

Ruby Alice Christian works at Chapel of the Air in Wheaton, Illinois.

Compassion can tempt ministers to pick and choose which of God’s laws they will honor.

Dr. george long, senior minister of Lookout Mountain Presbyterian Church, used to feel anxiety when almost routinely he married a divorced person to a new mate. Then he changed his policy. Now Long refuses to marry someone unless that person has scriptural grounds for his or her divorce or has genuinely tried to become reconciled with the first mate.

When a divorced man recently wanted to be remarried, Long asked, “Where is your first wife?” Getting an unsatisfactory answer, he would not perform the ceremony. The man found another minister to marry him, but Long had his peace. As he puts it, “How can I say, ‘I’m sorry for what I’m about to do’?” He feels that in this case he would have been encouraging adultery.

Yet many ministers today automatically remarry the divorced—with or without scriptural grounds for the termination of their first marriage. They feel they are “ministering grace” by their lenient and permissive attitude toward divorce and remarriage. One seminary professor of pastoral care even remarried a person who, looking at his past marriage said, “I don’t want to commit my life to Christ. I might have to back off the divorce and I don’t want to do that.” Yet all the while the rejected spouse was praying for a reconciliation. This particular pastor/professor is usually king; but may the grace he is ministering be a variety of the “cheap grace” Dietrich Bonhoeffer spoke against so strongly?

In an effort to shed some light on the dilemma divorce and remarriage pose to pastors, I queried a number from different denominations—Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal, Southern Baptist, and Congregational, as well as one from a well-known Bible church. I asked them the following questions:

• What are your struggles as you try to formulate a position on divorce and remarriage?

• What do you consider your responsibilities to people in your church—not only to those wanting to marry again, but to the rest of your congregation?

• How do you feel about ex-spouses of the people who come to you wanting absolution and a new marriage?

• Does it make a difference if the ex-spouse was divorced against his or her will without scriptural grounds and is still praying for a reconciliation? What is your responsibility to them? Do you have any obligation to work for a reconciliation?

The answers I received were surprisingly consistent and indicated a greater concern in this area than might be supposed from the relative ease with which divorced people today remarry.

Typical of the group was Dr. Long: “Matthew 19 says that unfaithfulness in marriage, by which I believe Jesus meant physical unfaithfulness (not the intangible ‘spiritual’ unfaithfulness that is now sometimes mentioned), sets the partner sinned against free to remarry. 1 Corinthians 7 says that willful, persistent desertion allows the party who was deserted the freedom to remarry. These two grounds for divorce were recognized by Reformed churches as the only two legitimate ones until the 1950s when the constitution of the PCUS [Presbyterian Church in the United States] was revised to indicate that unfaithfulness could be spiritual as well as physical, making the whole matter subjective, and that remarriage of divorced persons should be based upon the responsibilities of future success rather than upon the condition of past relationship.

“In trying to apply biblical principles, I have concluded that I should not remarry one partner if the first partner is still unattached unless the person talking to me is willing to go back (or has already gone back) to the first partner, confess his or her part in the wrong, and earnestly seek reconciliation. If the first partner has already remarried, or refuses a reconciliation, I interpret that as the desertion spoken of in 1 Corinthians 7.

“This approach I consider to be fairly lenient, but it still requires me to dig in my heels rather frequently. Everyone seems to agree that our society has too much divorce, but when anyone tries to dig in his heels and not cooperate with the swing toward more and more divorce and remarriage, he faces considerable pressure.

“The crux of the problem in Matthew 19 is that divorce is only a part of the transgression. The way Jesus words it, remarriage is a part, too. Obviously, if we know that what we are about to do is wrong, we should simply not do it, instead of doing it and then asking forgiveness.

There is a tension in the pastor’s heart between a desire to accommodate those wanting his blessing upon their marriage and a responsibility to his entire congregation that requires him to uphold biblical principles that govern marriage, divorce, and remarriage. I want our congregation to understand that our options are to make our marriage succeed, or to remain single the rest of our days (1 Cor. 7:11), except in the limited instances when remarriage after divorce is scripturally permitted. While this hurts those denied the blessings of their minister upon the desired marriage, it helps to strengthen the moral fiber of the congregation at large.

“I take the above positions humbly, and even reluctantly, and have suffered and gained some grey hairs as a result. But I feel that I live only once, and want to be as faithful to my understanding of our Lord’s teachings as I can.”

Ray Stedman, of Peninsula Bible Church in Palo Alto, California, had this to say: “My struggles basically arise from my tendency to empathize with couples who are going through difficult times in their marriages, or who are divorced and have met someone else with whom they feel they can have a happy marriage but are not biblically free from the old one. Yet I know that to wish them well and to remarry them would only involve them, sooner or later, in much deeper problems, because the biblical guidelines have not been satisfied. My struggle, therefore, is in refusing to let my feelings guide my actions and rather following the biblical guidelines as sympathetically as I can.

“Our entire pastoral staff takes very seriously our responsibility to the church to examine thoroughly the Scriptures and to teach what they say to the entire congregation. I don’t think our feelings have much to do with our actions in remarrying people. We may feel a great deal of sympathy, and probably do, but whether we remarry ex-spouses or not is a matter of biblical guidelines and not our feelings. We refuse to remarry anyone who is not biblically free to remarry, but we always try to feel sympathetic and helpful toward those who are injured in the breakup of a marriage.

“It makes considerable difference if the ex-spouse was divorced against his or her will and is still praying for a reconciliation. We simply will not marry anyone who does not have a biblical ground for divorce, and we insist that such people make every effort to become reconciled with their previous mates under such circumstances. If they will not do so, then we simply tell them they will have to look elsewhere for someone to marry them, for we follow the biblical rule, ‘Do not be a partaker in other men’s sins.’ We will not be a party to adultery, and make every effort we can, with grace and sympathy, to help people face the issues and act in a proper and biblical way.”

Richard Halverson of Washington, D.C.’s Fourth Presbyterian Church put it this way: “I have an obligation to work for reconciliation, and we have an annual service where marriage vows are renewed. I refuse to marry anyone unless I feel the divorce was on biblical grounds—unfaithfulness or desertion, by which I mean reconciliation is impossible.”

Ron Davis of Hope Presbyterian Church in Minneapolis says: “One of the most difficult things in my life is to confront people one to one when they have done wrong or when they have hurt someone. Whenever this happens, it is as if God is saying to me, ‘All right, Ron, if you want to be Lord, don’t confront them. But if you want me to be Lord, as hard as this is for you, they must be confronted. This is part of your responsibility in discipleship.’ One of the evidences that we are going to be presented mature in Jesus Christ is when we are committed to doing Christ’s will, even before we know how hard it is.”

Steven Brown of Key Biscayne Presbyterian adds: “I believe that God has never affirmed divorce. This includes Christians and non-Christians. Marriage is a part of the Adamic covenant and is therefore binding on everyone. I will do anything to keep a marriage together. I never even suggest divorce as an alternative because it isn’t one. I show couples what the Bible says (e.g., Mal. 2:16; Matt. 19) and let them know that no matter how bad their situation, God is perfectly capable of restoring their marriage. Divorce is sin.

“In some cases there will be two believers who are having problems with their marriage, and one of the believers refuses to return to his/her spouse. If there is no reconciliation, then it is right for the church to declare the wrong partner an unbeliever (according to Matt. 18:15–20) and then to act under the principles of 1 Corinthians 7 about a believer living with an unbeliever. Then the person seeking the unrealized reconciliation is free and the other has sinned by refusing to become reconciled.”

In fairness to ministers taking such a strong, biblical stand on divorce and remarriage, I must say that all have struggled. And none are legalistic. They all have compassionate hearts and that is just the reason the struggle is so difficult.

Steve Brown brings up the matters of physical abuse and homosexual spouses, which he calls “grey areas.” I believe the matter of homosexuality is pretty clear. Adultery is adultery whether it is performed with a man or a woman. A husband having homosexual relations, in my opinion, has committed adultery and/or fornication just as clearly as if the act had been performed with a woman who was not his marriage partner.

But the problem posed by physical abuse disturbs me deeply, too. I have two daughters, and as strong a stand as I take against divorce, I could never stand idly by and see them harmed. And I could never question their decision to seek divorce if they had tried to deal with the situation prayerfully, but failed. I fall back on the argument concerning “hardness of heart.” A wife beater certainly does not have a “soft” heart; neither is he loving his wife as Christ loves the church (Eph. 5:25). And I don’t think it is stretching the point to call such a man “unfaithful” to his wife and their marriage covenant. There is nothing subjective about black and blue marks and broken bones.

I have a close friend who finally divorced her husband after years of threats on her life and repeated beatings—some so bad as to require plastic surgery. She does not have a hard heart, but I believe her ex-husband does.

Brown is typical of the compassionate pastors when he says: “I have struggled with the issue of marriage and divorce more often than I can count. I can’t tell you the times I have stayed awake at night praying for wisdom in dealing with very difficult situations.”

Just the other day I met a minister who was miserable over the divorces in his church and over some 20 marriages about to break up. I asked if he were doing anything to support these marriages, or offering any kind of challenge. He sheepishly lowered his head and said, “If they’d come to me for help, then I’d try to do something.”

I contrast that with the advice given in Why Christian Marriages Are Breaking Up, by Gerald Dahl, a marriage and family counselor in Minneapolis: “The problem is that the church has become silent. Its passiveness toward troubled Christian marriages reflects a definite neglect of the authority given to it by God to shepherd its marriages and families.… The church must sense the responsibility to personally look after each marriage within its group of believers.… This includes discipline and authoritative correction as well as love and nurture.… Direct confrontation coupled with love and honest concern will almost always bring a positive response from the couple.

“If you sense that a couple is having problems and they do not come to you, go to them! It is your responsibility.… In most cases God will be able to work through you to save a marriage and family.… Let the church take the time and make the effort to reach out to the one lost marriage, rescuing it from destruction and divorce. Let us remain silent no longer.… People caring for people is necessary to heal relationships.”

We would not consider helping someone break laws against theft or murder, for example. Then why would a minister help someone break one of God’s laws like the prohibition against remarriage (except in certain cases) and adultery?

R. C. Sproul, head of Ligonier Valley Center and a renowned theologian, says in Discovering the Intimate Marriage: “Civil courts are disrupting the commandments of God in granting illicit divorces. In many cases the institutional church has sanctioned divorce (and remarriage) on grounds that are in clear opposition to the teaching of Christ. Clergymen and counselors through the land are recommending divorce (and permitting remarriage) where Christ has prohibited it. It means that not only is the sanctity of marriage corrupted by both state and church, but that the authority of Christ is flagrantly disobeyed in both spheres over which He is King. The word for such disobedience is treason.”

Let’s look at it from another angle. Most ministers refuse to marry two homosexuals because that would be against God’s laws. How then can they marry a man and a woman if at least one of them has divorced his or her mate without scriptural grounds, and is unwilling to work toward a reconciliation? How can ministers pick and choose which of God’s laws they will honor and which they will violate—even if their violation is motivated by a feeling of charity?

God’s laws are God’s laws. Man (even an ordained minister—especially an ordained minister) has no authority to break them, or even help break them.

Most ministers want to be compassionate toward those who are divorced, especially the truly repentant. This is as it should be. Our God is clearly a God of forgiveness toward those who repent. But does not genuine repentance involve a willingness to forgive and to become reconciled? Without that objective standard we try to judge hearts on a subjective basis. No man can do this.

If we have submitted our minds to the Scripture, we must be prepared to administer its guidelines with both straightforwardness and humility.

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.

Seminaries and churches are not promoting the preparation for or enrichment of family life.

Are we neglecting the Christian family?

Norman Wright notes that of 2,500 professional family life educators and marriage counselors surveyed, almost all felt young people are “not receiving adequate preparation for marriage from their parents.” Two-thirds also said that “churches are not doing an adequate job of promoting and maintaining family life as a contemporary concept.” There seems to be a gap in education both in the seminaries and in the local churches.

To secure necessary changes we must identify the kind of help that is needed. Three definitions will make our discussion more precise.

Marriage preparation: By this we mean whatever paid and lay ministers can provide Christian young people on the meaning of Christian marriage and how to practice it. This assumes that the most critical and therefore the most logical time is prior to engagement and in the immediate period after the honeymoon.

For instance, Philip Yancey, executive editor of Campus Life magazine, suggests we need “a good book on how to know what you’re getting into.” He quotes one couple as saying, “I think we spent more time picking out our wedding bands than thinking about our compatability.” And preparation ideally includes a thorough mutual understanding and plan of action in many more areas of marriage than compatibility: How do husband and wife complement one another? How do they resolve conflicts? What is unique to an evangelical marriage?

Enrichment: This term places the emphasis on growth so that a normal marriage may become better. In his book Marriage and Family Enrichment, Herbert Otto recognizes that a large proportion of marriages and families are “sub-clinical in the sense that they have problems with which they need help and that they are functioning much below optimum despite the couple’s love and dedication to each other.… The vast majority of these families will not seek help, because the problems are of the low level debilitating kind, never severe enough to precipitate a major crisis for which help must be sought.” We must, however, distinguish enrichment from a third concept:

Remedial or crisis counseling: Terms like this describe the major professional response to problems in marriage. As a result, many think of them as synonyms for “marriage counseling.” David and Vera Mace, who are among the acknowledged founders of the marriage enrichment movement, do not question the value of crisis counseling. But often, they say, “marriage counseling has concentrated on removing pathology rather than promoting growth, and has been content with restoring the [former state of affairs]. The new emphasis on preventive counseling is therefore very welcome.”

I will not quarrel with the use of the word “counseling” in connection with preparation for and enrichment of marriages so long as it is qualified as “preventive counseling” or “growth counseling.” Consider Norman Wright’s use of the word. He asserts that the purpose of his book, Premarital Counseling, is to build in-depth relationships and to provide information, correction, opportunity for Christian growth, and a framework in which to consider a final decision to marry. Moreover, he states that “probably more teaching occurs in this type of counseling than in any other.”

His title, however, may suggest crisis counseling. Further, the engagement period, charged as it is with emotional involvement, may be less appropriate for significant learning, except perhaps concerning a decision not to marry. (Such a decision in itself is significant and, according to Wright, occurs at the rate of between 35 and 45 percent of all engagements.)

In addition to counseling a couple, Wright advocates meeting with 4 to 15 couples in six weekly sessions of over two hours each in length. The scope of topics dealt with includes attitudes toward marriage, sexuality, role concepts, analysis of temperament, communication, finances, in-laws, child rearing and discipline, spiritual growth as a couple, and goals for one’s marriage.

In teaching a doctoral seminar, “Family Life Education,” I have noted that while pastors appear to see the need for such content in preparing couples for marriage, they still perceive such comprehensive coverage as an ideal not acceptable to many couples. (Perhaps the time when these sessions are conducted—the engagement period—causes part of the resistance.)

In a survey of 5,000 pastors, Larry Richards and his colleagues asked about churches’ greatest needs for strengthening. On a scale of 5 from a 25-item list, nearly 100 percent of the respondents gave a first or second priority to the following need: “Getting my lay people involved as ministering men and women.” Over 83 percent gave the same ranking to “developing the home as the center of Christian nurture.” Taken together these responses seem to say, “Develop parents to be ministers at home!”

Seminary Offerings

What is theological education in North America doing in the area of marriage preparation and enrichment? In the summer of 1979,I investigated this by analyzing 53 accredited Protestant American seminaries with enrollments from 129 to over 4,000.

The findings as to courses were not surprising. Eighty-three percent offered electives in marriage or family counseling; however, to my knowledge only one seminary required marriage counseling of their M.Div. students!

Second in priority was an elective course offered by 51 percent and titled either “Family Life Education” or “Ministry with Families.” Twenty-eight percent offered a class in “Human Sexuality,” and 21 percent offered one in “Sociology” or “Trends and Issues in Family Life Today.”

Of the 53 seminaries explored, only 5 percent—McCormick, Talbot, and Fuller—provided Master of Divinity or pastoral students with a class in theological or biblical foundations of the family. (Other courses described above are no doubt also designed to integrate biblical data and principles.)

These findings seem to bear out Kenneth Gangel’s assertion that “looking for a required Christian family life course in the evangelical seminary would be just slightly more difficult than finding the proverbial needle in a haystack. But don’t worry, friends, we are still very strong on Church History and the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.”

What should be required in the curriculum for Master of Divinity or pastoral seminary students? Does today’s fractured family call for courses on marriage preparation and enrichment? If so, think what help seminarians trained in such courses could offer to local churches after their graduation.

Laying Plans

To improve marriage education we need to answer two questions: What outcomes or changes will be the hoped-for results of learning? What formal design of courses or informal experience should be provided for all ministerial students?

I hope the concept of prevention will be embraced. Training in ways to handle crises is crucial, but we must increase the number of courses that teach how to prevent problems, how to help avoid the crises. We see the idea of prevention widely accepted in the form of insurance policies, medical and dental checkups, and car inspections. Are our marriages less valuable to us than our automobiles or teeth? To join in marriage appears easier than to join a secret society such as the Masons, or the Order of the Arrow in Boy Scouts.

Before pastors and paid ministers agree to conduct a wedding, they should require couples to take a minimum number of assessment and teaching sessions. Some pastors use the traditional wedding vows (“To have and to hold …”) as a reference for five or six sessions on such topics as communication, planning for personal growth, money and other problems, love and sexuality, and spiritual heirship.

What is the appropriate content for seminary courses in marriage preparation and enrichment? Possibilities might include the biblical purposes of marriage in addition to cohabitation and procreation, as well as how to prevent problems. The one-flesh unity of Genesis 2; Matthew 19, and Ephesians 5 is significant. Partnership, equality, mutual submission, and joint heirship of the grace of God (1 Peter 3) are crucial biblical themes to understand and apply. The reconciling skills of listening, affirming, empathizing compassionately, forgiving, and loving (agape love) must be inwardly experienced in a Christian lifestyle.

Not least is what James Olthius describes as “troth” education. The heart of his book, I Pledge You My Troth, is a well-reasoned plea for a recovery of this factor in marriages. “Our churches … need troth education.… Troth is not an act which occurs now and then; rather marriage is a state in which troth ought to characterize all its many aspects.… Troth is an Old English word for truth, faithfulness, loyalty, and honesty. The single word troth captures the nuances of trust, reliability, stability, scrupulousness, ingenuousness, authenticity, integrity, and fidelity.”

Also supporting the scriptural approach is what Dale Doty of the Christian Family Institute of Tulsa calls “primary coping systems.” He considers these to be processes or skills more important than specific content or solutions related to such “secondary adjustment issues” as parenting, sex, money, and in-laws. The primary coping systems emphasize marital learning in the following areas: the couple’s intentional commitment to growth, an effective communication system, and a creative view of resolving conflict—plus acquiring the necessary tools to achieve it.

A recent Moody Monthly survey of parents reflects a concern for both primary and secondary issues. These parents wanted help most in three areas: family communication, teaching Christian values to children, and discipline of children. To meet these needs a church might make an excellent beginning by showing films such as the seven-part series by Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family. Also, members of a church can indicate interest for “in-house” opportunities, such as elective seminars, retreats, or workshops. Or they may request specific sermon topics like “Why Godly Parents Have Rebellious Children.”

Marriage preparation prior to engagement would consider the obvious subjects of dating, sex, engagement, love versus infatuation, selection of a wife or husband, marital expectations, and the uniqueness of Christian marriage. An excellent guide for leading discussions on these subjects is Norman Wright’s Preparing Youth for Dating, Courtship and Marriage.

It is clear that couples within the church and students in seminary need education on intimacy that goes beyond understanding physical relationships to learning the ability for each to disclose his deepest feelings and thoughts to the other. They need to be educated in a lifestyle of troth and reconciling relationships as well as taught practical answers in such problem areas as children, in-laws, and possessions.

Achieving this is no small task. Most seminary students have taken few courses forcefully related to this subject. Yet, according to a number of evangelical authorities, learning and understanding in this area will be an extreme necessity in the local churches of the 1980s. In a recent issue of its periodical, Theology News and Notes, Fuller Theological Seminary formulated several assumptions from a survey of reputable opinions:

1. The church of the 1980s must develop a priority ministry to the family.

2. The church of the 1980s must address the issues of marriage, divorce, and singleness.

3. The home must be trained to be the center of Christian education.

Commenting on this, Dr. Lester Hamish, of Third Baptist Church, Saint Louis, says, “The local church ought to place top priority upon ministry to youth in the area of the Bible and complete sex education; the lordship of Christ in love and courtship; premarital counseling; marriage enrichment and remedial family relations.”

Dr. Roger Frederickson of Third Baptist Church in Wichita also notes, “I believe if we are going to survive, the home and the family must become more and more a spiritual unit. Here is where we must consciously expect most of the teaching and Christian formation to take place. We are not now equipped at all as we should be to do that. So here we will have to learn from one another and help one another discover the way an institutional church helps the family really be the major source of spiritual guidance.”

How can a church help families if pastors have not learned these things in seminary? Let me venture a proposal. Pastors will need to augment the seminary learning they received a decade or two ago by setting a deliberate goal to improve their understanding of family ministry. They might take courses from seminaries or other institutions, passing from learner-participant to disciple or coleader, and then going solo. In turn, the pastor later can select elders, deacons, or other lay Christians as trainees in this ministry.

Classes and seminars on marriage preparation and enrichment use a variety of teaching techniques today. Even the “givens” are streamlined with overhead projectors, visuals, and videotapes. Formal teaching is supplemented with discussion of cases and structured experiences for individuals and couples. Some use the approach of sharing by the entire group, while others avoid requiring disclosure to anyone other than one’s own spouse. I have been personally excited by seminary students who have transported the case-teaching method “back home” and used it with groups of elders or deacons, Sunday school classes, or even with an entire Sunday evening’s congregation.

Norman Wright, a leading scholar in marriage enrichment, advocated an ideal at the Continental Congress on the Family in 1975. He proposed that every seminary offer a major or concentration in family education within the master of divinity degree program; minimally, he said, all who are headed for pastoral work should be required to take two courses, one in marriage and family counseling, and the other in church ministry with families. For pastors able to return for such additional seminary training, these two courses would seem to be minimal.

Wright’s ideal apparently had not been realized as of July 1979. At that time a study showed that his own seminary, Talbot, provided five two-hour electives in Marriage and Family, but did not yet have a major. Of the 53 seminaries investigated in this study, only two had majors in family ministry. According to its brochure, Lincoln Seminary of Illinois offered “both the Master of Religious Education degree and the Master of Divinity degree in Family Life Ministry.” It is a major containing nine two-credit courses, one four-credit course, and one unit of Clinical Pastoral Education. Eight of these courses are specifically family life classes.

But even more appealing to this author is a newly structured two-year major in marriage and family ministries at Fuller Theological Seminary. Sources there say the program “affirms the importance of the institution of the family in the Kingdom of God and commits itself to a ministry of building the church through strengthening its families. Consonant with this concern, the primary focus of the program is upon the preventive dimension of ministry to families which is shaped by the authority of God’s Word and the richness of the social and behavioral sciences.”

The appeal of Fuller personally is its relatively more balanced approach to preventive and corrective ministry to marriage partners and families. Five courses on preventing problems and five on corrective measures are required, plus a research course, practice, and much Bible and theology.

The Pastor Is the Key

We have all heard that the pastor’s stance is usually the standard of a local church, and that his leadership reflects his seminary training. Few pastors, however, are conducting “in-house” family ministries. One may find only Mother’s and Father’s Day sermons or an infrequent Sunday school elective study of a book other than the Bible. The pastor or church board may also endorse imported programs or retreats, such as Family Affair or Christian Marriage Encounter.

However, better results will occur when a seminary student acquires the strategy and resources necessary if he is to become a catalyst, a trainer, an enabler of indigenous lay resource people. As a pastor, he can perhaps even be an authority, biblically strengthening Christian families through formal preaching and with methods that involve both dialogue and lay involvement.

The pastor can take advantage of significant opportunities for “retooling” in marriage preparation and enrichment skills. Several evangelical seminaries offer busy pastors courses toward a professional doctor of ministry degree with a focus in this area. My own seminary has recently provided a master’s level concentration of 18 semester hours in Family and Adult Ministries, with a balance of electives for ministry to preengaged, engaged, childless, and parenting couples, as well as to singles, grandparents, and the aging. A required course in theology of the family will be foundational.

It appears that it is possible for a pastor to disciple elders, deacons, and Sunday school superintendents so that they can lead in marriage and family growth. This will happen when we get a clergy renewed in their own priorities, in attitudes of pastoral care, and in the requisite knowledge, skills, and resources.

Seminary leaders, students, and pastors must rethink the importance of the place of training for strengthening Christian families in their basic degree programs and in their continuing theological education. They must give greater priority to preengagement preparation and post-honeymoon enrichment, while maintaining a commitment to repair and reconstruction through crisis counseling. Seminary catalogs reveal that most schools now neglect preparation and enrichment, and give only modest attention to repair.

Three questions deserve serious consideration. First: What emphasis will seminary educators in the future give the two sides of the following statement: “It is better to prepare than to repair”? Second: what marriage and family courses should be required of every pastoral student? Third: How can local churches make use of lay resources and pastoral leadership to strengthen Christian families, without resorting to imported experts?

To paraphrase the words of our Lord, “What shall it profit an elder if he gain the whole world and lose his own spouse?”

“What shall it profit a pastor if he excel in exegesis, and lose his church families?”

“What shall it profit a seminary student if he gain straight A’s and lose his own wife?”

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.