Tomato Plants And Computers

Today I feel apprehensive—more than a little depressed as I sit writing this at seven in the morning.

The day itself is apprehensive. Fog has come “on little cat feet,” in Carl Sandburg’s words. It is unseasonably cold.

My mood is deepened by a letter I have just read. A man I do not know writes, “God says think positive. He made our minds like a computer: negative garbage in, negative garbage out. Positive thinking comes from God, negative thinking comes from Satan. The Christian should always be happy and upbeat.”

I’m not so sure.

In the providence of God (or by coincidence, if you want it that way), my morning reading fell in Psalm 6, where David wrote, “Pity me, Lord, I have no strength left. Heal me; my bones are in torment, my soul is in utter torment. Lord, how long will it be?… I am worn out with groaning; every night I drench my pillow and soak my bed with tears. My eye is wasted with grief.”

Thank you, Lord.

Last night, on a lovely, peaceful evening, I planted some tomato plants. They stood strong in the dimming light.

This morning they are drooping. But they’ll recover, aided by overcast sky and dampness of the day. They will grow until fruit appears.

Thank you for making me like a tomato plant, Lord, not like a computer.

EUTYCHUS VIII

Education Blueprint

I read with interest but real sadness the article “Should Churches Buy Into the Education Business?” (May 5). Perhaps a more appropriate question would be, “Should Christian parents and the church have disobeyed God by allowing their children to be educated by those who do not acknowledge his position in his universe and in particular the life of the individual?” As Mr. Willimon tackled the many issues with which he dealt, I was sorry to note that he did not look to the scriptures as his final authority on the matter. It would appear that he wrote out of a heart of love that was highly conditioned by situations created by man that were in conflict with Scripture rather than in response to a blueprint for educating the children of believers as laid down in the Word by God himself.

HERMAN VAN SCHUYVER

Director

National Association of Christian Schools

Wheaton. III.

Willimon’s article seems to have been written by one whose glasses only admit the light of racial issues. Whatever else is in it seems to be poorly founded opinion, confusion of fact, and less than responsible journalism. It may be that some schools are racially motivated. Personally, I have never encountered one. But to count Christian schools as illegitimate on that basis is absurd.

DAVID H. JINNO

Gray, Maine

I think Willimon needs to be reminded that for ten years those taking the S.A.T. tests have seen their scores dropping steadily in the public schools while eighth graders in the Christian schools can read at a tenth grade level. In public schools it now costs us $21,000 to take a student from K through 12. That is four times what we paid for public education in 1960. Our Christian education, which I believe gives quality education, only costs $9,800. Willimon needs to be reminded that last year in our public school system across America there were 100 murders, 12,000 armed robberies, 9,000 rapes, 204,000 assaults. Violence and vandalism cost the taxpayers 600 million dollars in 1977.… I would urge Christian parents to send their children to Christian schools where they can be rooted and grounded in the Word of the Lord and move out from there as missionaries to their community.

JACK WYRTZEN

Director

Word of Life International

Schroon Lake, N.Y.

Although the Willimon article pointed to blatant weaknesses in some kinds of Christian day schools, it was a singularly uninformed and superficial treatment of the idea of Christian education. The idea of Christian education is rooted in a biblical answer to what H.R. Niebuhr called the “enduring problem” of Christ and culture. That biblical answer, in the creation-redemptive perspective, is inhospitable to all forms of liberal culture-religion on the one hand and of fundamentalist dualisms on the other. Evangelicals must articulate that biblical answer in a way that acknowledges worldly obedience as religious obligation until the Lord returns. That articulation is required in our discussions of economics, of the arts, of social problems, and, most dramatically of all, in our discussions about educating young Christians.

This tie-in between the idea of Chirstian education and the Christ and culture problem has long concerned thoughtful evangelicals in discussions about higher Christian education. We should tie the two together in our discussions about Christian day schools too. CHRISTIANITY TODAY owes its readers a more thoughtful discussion of such schools than the Willimon article presents.

N. H. BEVERSLUIS

Professor of Education

Calvin College

Grand Rapids, Mich.

Thanks for Willimon’s article. He is so right in that the greatest mission field in the world today is America’s public schools. He clearly pinpointed the obligations of parents and church to the children from Christian homes. And that is to strengthen them to become witnesses to their peers—not remove the salt from the public schools. Nor is it to smugly insulate those children in a contrived atmosphere—Christian children, Christian friends, Christian schools, Christian teachers—and then expect them to cope with a secular world or university upon graduation.

God still has his remnant in our public schools. There are thousands of Christians teaching there, and as Willimon says, they desperately need the support of Christian parents and the association with Christian students. Many public school Christian teachers have banded together and united their witness through National Educators Fellowship, headquartered at 1410 West Colorado, Pasadena, California 91105. This growing organization has but one mission—to lead Christian teachers in upholding Christ in their classrooms. And we, too, need the prayers of Christian parents that God will prosper this urgently needed work.

E. A. PATCHEN

Executive Secretary

National Educators Fellowship

South Pasadena, Calif.

Eutychus Forgiven

Eutychus VIII made a lot of “cents” in his dialogue about “Junk and Jesus” (May 5). Much shoddiness is called evangelism. However, the last time I had a dollar bill (a real one), it was Washington’s picture and not Lincoln’s I saw. But then Eutychus can be forgiven of that mistake since he is not an American and lived a long time ago.

BOYD L. BAKER

Pleasant Valley Baptist Church

Camarillo, Calif.

This issue celebrates the father. The Saviour Lord specially instructs us to call God “our Father.” And the Bible sets a human father boldly in the role in locus dei (in place of God). What should a true father be like? He should be like God. Frightening, dreadful—an ennobling thought. Tom Howard brings fresh insights to an old theme.

This summer we welcome thousands of new readers to CHRISTIANITY TODAY. A magazine is like a living creature, with new cells being added to its life constantly—in C.T.’s case, recent seminary graduates, pastors, church leaders, and active Christians of all sorts. By the end of this year we will have 175,000 subscribers, continuing the steady growth from 100,000 circulation three years ago. A warm welcome to each of you now joining us.

I would like to particularly thank circulation director Keith Stonehocker for his thorough and creative work in making this growth possible. Since joining us three years ago, he has analyzed, developed, adjusted, planned, and blue penciled our way toward an ever-more-refined program, maximizing growth while minimizing waste and inefficiencies. We greatly appreciate the exceptional work of Keith and his staff.

The conversion to our new subscription services is progressing well. Thanks for your patience in bearing with us. We are slowly but surely ironing out the wrinkles from our previous computer house and are looking forward to a minimum of problems in the future. Subscribers can now call direct to our computer services (201-366-1175), or write to CHRISTIANITY TODAY, P.O. Box 354, Dover, New Jersey 07801.

C.T. is also making good economic progress. This week marks one year in our new offices in Carol Stream, Illinois. Our building contributes to a firm financial base. We occupy only 37 per cent of the space and rent out the rest. Through the generosity of subscribers, friends, and foundations, we own the building debt-free, and the rent pays all our expenses. We’ve found many economic and publishing advantages in the area, and most employees live just a few minutes from work. Overall, we believe we have an efficient and effective operation.

We’re pleased at the progress. But we face greatly escalating costs. We must carefully evaluate every expenditure.

A longstanding area of discussion has been frequency of publication. Should we be weekly? Monthly? Biweekly? When C.T. was founded twenty-two years ago, the first proposal was to publish weekly. Board member Maxey Jarman pointed out many disadvantages (correctly, I believe), and it was agreed to publish fortnightly. (Technically, that’s twenty-six issues per year, but C.T. was first twenty-five, later twenty-four issues per year.)

For years our publishing consultants have pointed out that publishing so frequently during the summer vacation period is a financial drain. “They’re dead issues,” they argue. “Subscribers let them pile up because they’re not home. Advertisers are disinterested. You should combine issues.” Of course, there were counter arguments, and legitimate ones. But combining two summer issues does make good publishing sense, and all things considered, our board has decided to have one July and one August issue (July 21 and August 18 this year). We will continue to publish twice each month all year except July and August, for a total of twenty-two issues per year.

Current subscribers will not lose any issues as a result of this change. If you now have a year’s subscription left (twenty-four issues), you will be extended for the equivalent of two issues. Subscribers with less than one year will be extended the equivalent of one or two issues, depending on their number of months left. And those of you who have several years will receive one “bonus” month for each year. You’ll notice the adjustment on your mailing label on the July 21 issue.

The long-term savings of this approach to C.T. (about $50,000 per year now, and more as we grow) will help us cope with sharply rising costs and reduce the need for subsidies. At the same time, we can still maintain the news immediacy and freshness of a twice-monthly publication throughout all but the slow summer months.

Yet this adjustment certainly doesn’t solve all our inflation problems. We have not raised our subscription price for the past three years, since August 1975. During the same period, the consumer price index has gone up 25 per cent. You are all painfully aware of the squeeze this has placed on your personal budgets.

However, you are probably not aware of the dramatic price increases for postage and paper, two of our major publishing costs. During the same three-year period, our paper costs have increased 140 per cent. Postage has gone up 120 per cent. But the worst is yet to come. We recently received confirmation of a phased postal rate increase. Nonprofit organizations, like CHRISTIANITY TODAY, will be hit the hardest. The end of the phasing period is 1987, but the greatest rate of increase is within the next three years. Our second-class postage for mailing the magazine will increase another 160 per cent. Third-class rates for promotional mailings will go up 190 per cent. Despite all this, we remain optimistic, though obviously we must keep our pencils sharpened, and—eventually—raise prices.

On the more cheerful side, a further word about Maxey Jarman. Usually we do not mention birthdays, anniversaries, and other milestones of our board members. However, we’re making an exception this issue—we are delighted to announce that Maxey and his gracious wife Sarah are celebrating their fiftieth wedding anniversary. Congratulations to both of them!

Maxey has been a key member of the board since the inception of the magazine. Even though he was extremely busy building Genesco into a billion dollar corporation, he invested a great deal of time into building CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Throughout the magazine’s history, he has been a responsible board member, always available for advice on any problem, from buying a building to evaluating personnel. As chairman of the executive committee, he’s been most helpful to me—always ready to accept a challenge. He is thoroughly dedicated to perpetuating the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and though retired from his corporation, still loves to work and leads in a fully active, open manner. I’ve learned much from his wise counsel and objective approach. We’re delighted that they are celebrating their fiftieth wedding anniversary in such vigorous health.

President, Christianity Today, Inc.

That a culture gap exists between the men of the New Testament and any modern man is obvious. But Christians do not seem to have worried much about it until recently. They have accepted the Bible as the Word of God and have simply assumed that what is written is valid for all time. Now and then adjustments have had to be made as we reckon with different customs and habits of thought. But it has not been held to be an insuperably difficult process.

In recent times, however, quite a number of New Testament scholars have been concerned about the culture gap. They have pointed out that in the world of the New Testament everybody thought differently from modern people. In that prescientific age the universe was seen as a “three decker.” Curious explanations of natural phenomena were often offered. People thought of spirits as inhabiting rocks and trees and sometimes people. Josephus tells a story of an exorcism performed by a certain Eleazar in the presence of the Emperor Vespasian. The exorcist had a ring containing under its seal one of the roots Solomon held to be efficacious. He put this ring to the nose of the demoniac and drew the devil out through the man’s nostrils. He made the demon overturn a cup of water a little way off so that people would know that it had really come out of the man. It is doubtful whether any considerable number of people in our culture would regard this as a credible account. But evidently Josephus thought it perfectly feasible and the kind of thing in which his readers would be interested.

What some scholars are saying is that the transition from that world to ours is more difficult than Christians have usually assumed. They point out that every culture is a totality of interlocking ideas. It is not possible to take one idea out of its context and leave it unchanged. It is different in its new setting and does not convey the same meaning. We must not think that when we have taken over a New Testament idea it will mean the same thing in our culture as it did in that from which we have taken it.

This kind of reasoning is applied not only to some minor aspects of Christianity but to the very heart of the faith. Men in the first century were very ready to accept the idea that a god might come to earth for a limited time and appear among men. There were many stories of such divine appearances. We regard them with great suspicion. Accordingly, the reasoning runs, we should not accept the view of the early Christians that in Jesus of Nazareth we see a divine visitation. This will not fit into our culture. We must look for something that will.

The men of the first century experienced a new sense of liberation after their contact with Jesus. They explained it, we say, by affirming that God came to earth in Jesus and brought about salvation through Christ’s atoning death followed by his resurrection and ascension. These categories came natural to them.

But they do not come natural to us. We do not think of divine interpositions in the affairs of everyday life. Men of our day do not expect to see striking divine interventions and when unusual happenings occur they explain them other than by saying that God has come down among men. When we read the New Testament accordingly we should make the necessary cultural adjustment and see simply a change that took place in the first disciples. The result is a “Christianity” that differs radically from any previous understanding of the faith. The Incarnation is seen as a “myth” and the whole concept of a divine intervention to save men is rejected. Indeed, “salvation” becomes a term of dubious meaning.

But this reconstruction depends on assumptions, some of which are pretty big ones. The major one is that things have always gone along in much the same way as they do now. But how can we possibly know this? Our experience is limited to our own time and place. We have no right whatever to reason from the fact that we do not see divine interventions day by day to the conclusion that there can never have been any.

This assumption abolishes at one stroke a central tenet of Christianity. It stumbles at the scandal of particularity. The contention of the men of the New Testament is that in Jesus God acted decisively, once and for all, for the salvation of mankind. They are not arguing that the Incarnation is no more than a run-of-the-mill affair, one more happening of a type that occurs from time to time. Its uniqueness is basic. It is not a cultural quirk to affirm that God once did something different. We may accept it or we may reject it but it is as intelligible in our culture as in theirs.

It is relevant that the first Christians were all faithful Jews for whom monotheism was a dogma. In a world of polytheists they tenaciously held to the view that there is and there can be only one God. Yet they all came to accept Jesus as the very incarnation of God. They made statements about him such that in time the theologians of the Church were compelled to enunciate the doctrine of the Trinity to account for what they said.

It is not counter to this to say that we describe the events of our day in other ways. Of course we do. The men of the New Testament would insist that we do. They were describing something unique. Have we any better way of referring to this unique thing than to say that God came into human life? This is, of course, not the kind of thing we usually say. But then this is not the kind of thing that usually happens.

We should not minimize the cultural gap. Some of us have certainly not given it the attention we should have and it is well that we be reminded of the gulf that separates us from the world of the New Testament. But we should not exaggerate it either. Cultural gaps can be spanned. If they could not we could know little or nothing of any culture other than our own. But it is accepted that we can penetrate to some extent what goes on in other cultures. For example, most scholars find no great problem in dealing with the classics. There should be no greater difficulty in handling the New Testament, coming as it does from roughly the same period and place.

Culture is not a windowless room. It is possible to see beyond one’s own culture and enter imaginatively into that of someone else. We do it all the time. We must if students of the sciences, for example, are to understand those of the humanities. As we do this we learn that what is not natural in our own culture is not necessarily impossible. People in other cultures often have important things to teach us and important truths to communicate. We have learned to be flexible enough to communicate with them. And there is no reason why we should not be flexible enough to listen to the great thing the men of the New Testament are saying to us. There is no merit in making an idol out of our own culture.

The big news around Atlantic City last month was the impending opening of the first of several huge gambling casinos that are expected to revitalize the area’s ailing economy. Virtually unnoticed was an important religious consultation held in adjacent Ventnor. Amid surroundings and names made popular by the game Monopoly, 170 participants from forty denominations and twenty-three countries took on the world’s ills. At times they seemed intent on dismantling and replacing political and economic systems that create and perpetuate suffering, injustice, and social evils. For nearly four days they attempted to come to grips with the question stated in the conference theme: “Liberation, Development, Evangelization: Must We Choose in Mission?”

The consultation was the fifth and last in a series on “The Future of the Missionary Enterprise.” It was held at the independent Overseas Ministries Study Center, which sponsored the event jointly with several Protestant, Roman Catholic, and ecumenical groups.

The keynote address by Uruguayan Methodist Emilio Castro, director of the World Council of Churches’ Commission on World Mission and Evangelism, offered an answer. Speaking on the topic, “Towards a Liberating Evangelism: Beyond Polarizations,” he stated that “there is a growing consensus among Christians on the reciprocity between evangelism and Christian service, between proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and participation in human liberation.” To support his contention he quoted from the evangelical-drafted Lausanne Covenant of 1974 and the conclusions reached at a meeting of Orthodox theologians meeting in Bucharest that same year. He also referred to documents from the Bangkok and Nairobi WCC assemblies and a Vatican encyclical.

Acknowledging that questions do arise as to how “the various aspects of Christian obedience relate to each other,” Castro insisted that liberation, development, humanization, and evangelism are all essential parts of the same mission. No single aspect can be permanently pursued apart from the others without damaging the whole, he suggested.

In another speech, development ethicist Denis Goulet, author of A New Moral Order, asserted that Christian ethical teaching in some instances has provided legitimacy for economic systems and practices. This, he alleged, is partly the reason for the underdevelopment of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. He called “existing global arrangements structurally unjust,” and he urged Christians to devise ethical strategies to create a better world.

A panel on “World Capitalism and World Mission” pitted Methodist pacifist Douglas Hostetter and others against Melvin Loewen of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development. Hostetter contended that multi-national corporations are basically evil, that capitalism is antithetical to Christian teach ing and values, and that socialism offers a more Christian alternative. If Christians fail to dissociate themselves from capitalism, said Hostetter, it will “seriously hurt [their] witness and the image of the Gospel.” Loewen, a last-minute replacement for evangelical development specialist Paris Reidhead, who was detained in Sudan, replied that all those present who had checking or savings accounts were “capitalists”; that what is needed in underdeveloped countries is low interest capital; and that his agency is doing its best in working through existing governments in the Third World to provide assistance at national and local levels.

In the open forum that followed the presentations, various criticisms of existing development programs were directed at Loewen. Referring to himself as the “dartboard” of the panel, Loewen repeatedly asked for suggestions as to how better to accomplish the task of development. The response of Joel Gajardo of Chile, a National Council of Churches executive, seemed to catch the mood of a sizable number of participants. Disregarding the plea for suggestions for change within the existing system, he echoed the judgment of Loewen’s colleagues on the panel that the capitalistic system is corrupt and must be replaced.

Other issues came into sharper focus midway through the consultation when American Waldron Scott, general secretary of the World Evangelical Fellowship, and three Third World representatives spoke directly to the question posed in the conference theme. Scott briefly alluded to the historical developments that have helped shape the “social action” and “gospel proclamation” dichotomy that is such a prominent part of the thinking of conservative evangelicals in North America. He insisted that an increasing number of evangelicals are becoming aware of—and ministering to—the needs of the whole man. Seizing the offensive, he cited Emilio Castro’s words: “conversion to Christ demands militant discipleship.” Evangelicals, he said, do not see enough emphasis on this conversion to Christ in the writings and work of ecumenists.

The other three speakers called for the liberation of the oppressed people in their lands. They were: Mortimer Arias, former Methodist bishop of Bolivia; Sister Virginia Fabell, a Catholic missionary from the Philippines; and Sipo Mzimela, a South African student who gave a scathing indictment of missions in Africa.

In a question-answer period, the first four questioners addressed their remarks to Waldron Scott, who seemingly had to bear responsibility not only for his own presentation but also for the weaknesses of “evangelical evangelization.” Sensing the direction the remarks were taking, conference host Gerald H. Anderson of the study center took the floor. He underscored the validity of a concern for evangelization that seeks to win men to Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. Although statements of his own United Methodist denomination include evangelism as a primary purpose, said Anderson, one who reads the annual reports finds it all but impossible to believe that evangelism gets priority.

Part of the time at the consultation was devoted to small-group Bible study, analysis, and strategy, and these sessions attracted high interest. They gave the conference a spiritual undertone that provided a needed measure of balance to the liberation and development themes, according to some observers.

No attempt was made to finalize any set of consultation conclusions. Rather, in a final plenary wrap-up session, three speakers—none of them an evangelical—were given about twenty minutes each for closing comments on “Where do we go from here?”

Emilio Castro reiterated his belief that liberation, development, and evangelization belong together and that there is growing agreement on this point. He urged missionaries to “enter the struggle of mankind” lest the credibility of the Gospel be lost. Echoing others at one point, he stated flatly: “Capitalism is inconsistent with Christianity.”

United Presbyterian Robert McAfee Brown, professor at Union Seminary in New York, spoke of “a new perspective on liberation” that he had gained from the conference. He pleaded for acts of solidarity with the oppressed in their struggles for justice—not only the struggles of such groups as the blacks in South Africa and the masses in Latin America, but also those of the movements for women’s rights and homosexuals’ rights in America.

The former president of the Catholic Paulist Fathers, Thomas Stransky, thought that the consultation had been strong on moralisms but weak on analysis. His words evidenced a pastoral concern and were more cautious: “Once you succeed in getting on a tiger’s back, you must think carefully about your next move.” He said he did not feel that the degree of consensus was as great as some speakers had supposed, an opinion also voiced by Scott. The Paulist leader expressed concern lest additional divisions be exported to the Third World. He emphasized the importance of the Word of God in formulating beliefs and actions. There ought to be openness, he said, toward conservative evangelicals “who are struggling with their tradition.” Many evangelicals are rethinking the question of wholeness in mission, he commented. Leadership in the church’s mission in the 1980s will come from the conservative evangelical camp, he predicted, prompting many expressions of surprise.

The consultation itself provided some reinforcement for the validity of Stransky’s analysis and peek into the crystal ball. The Bible teacher for the consultation was the president of Denver’s Conservative Baptist Seminary, Vernon Grounds. Knowing beforehand that he would be criticized by other evangelicals for participating, he nevertheless accepted the invitation to deliver daily Bible expositions on the general topic, “Towards a Socialized Spirituality.” (Indeed, criticism was published and circulated in conservative circles before the consultation began.) Some evangelical participants thought that Grounds’s meditations tended to highlight more weaknesses of evangelicals than of ecumenists. But all seemed agreed that his fidelity to Scripture and his rigorous hermeneutic were an evangelical model for addressing issues of mission that increasingly must be faced.

There was general agreement among participants that much had been learned from the Ventnor experience, and that any future consultations held out the same promise. Grounds defended evangelical participation on that basis: “The consultation affords an opportunity for evangelicals to learn firsthand the dynamics and directions of the ecumenical movement, as well as the issues, problems, and challenges which we face as we carry on the task of world evangelism.”

Beyond that general agreement, however, assessments varied. Gerald Anderson undoubtedly spoke for many—but not everybody—when he concluded that there “was a consensus that the tasks of liberation, development, and evangelism are all integral parts of mission.” The meanings attached to the conference’s theme words and the source of those meanings were important underlying issues for evangelicals, and that is one reason why in their minds consensus did not exist.

As for future consultations, says a seminary missions teacher, if in their desire for unity ecumenists somehow prescribe consensus, significant evangelical participation will become unfruitful and perhaps misleading. If evangelicals are given a full voice, and dialogue allows for difference and division in a spirit of respect, the possibilities of participation are enhanced, he says.

The Church Press And Pressing Issues

Florida is among the fifteen holdouts that have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), and that state of affairs led to some emotion-laden moments at the recent annual meeting of the Associated Church Press in St. Louis.

The membership of the sixty-two-year-old ACP is made up mostly of main-line Protestant publications, many of them run directly or indirectly by people who espouse liberal viewpoints. Some Protestant churches and agencies have vowed as a matter of protest or pressure not to hold meetings in non-ERA states. Even where official action has not been taken many individuals have adopted the policy for conscience reasons.

Next year’s ACP convention was scheduled to be held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in conjunction with the much larger Catholic Press Association convention, resuming a fraternal practice that was interrupted this year for the first time since 1969. A number of participants at the ACP meeting, however, informed their fellow delegates that they will be unable to attend next year’s convention unless it is shifted elsewhere.

In the considerable debate that consumed one afternoon of the three-day convention, some editors said they were for the ERA but against boycotts, some felt that commitments to the Florida hotel and the Catholic journalists ought to be kept no matter what, and others hinted that as journalists they ought to avoid the appearance of anything that smacked of taking a stand on either side of a controversy. Still others said that they don’t care so much about the ERA issue as about respecting those who do and making it possible for them to attend the ACP in good conscience.

It was this last position that ultimately seemed to sway the ACP board into canceling the Florida arrangements, despite an advisory straw vote that showed members favoring Fort Lauderdale 25 to 23. In a resolution explaining its action, the board said that a separate convention would help the ACP “to develop further its identity,” and it affirmed that the ACP “in its broad consensus supports fundamental human rights as articulated by the Equal Rights Amendment.” That provision came close to outright endorsement of the ERA, something that many editors insisted should be avoided in the interest of maintaining an image of objectivity. Toronto and San Antonio were specified as candidate cities for next year’s meeting.

In the annual competition, four publications received awards of general excellence: Canadian Churchman (national monthly newspaper of the Anglican Church of Canada), Youth Magazine (ecumenical monthly published by United Church Press), These Times (monthly outreach publication of the Seventh-day Adventist Church), and Liberty (a Seventh-day Adventist bimonthly dealing with religious-freedom issues and church-and-state matters).

Among the numerous publications that received “best” awards in designated categories were Colorado Episcopalian (best editorial); Christianity and Crisis, Christian Century, Journal of Current Social Issues, New World Outlook, and Worldview (best feature articles); United Methodist Reporter and Worldview (best news stories); and CHRISTIANITY TODAY (best department—news).

Speakers included Wesley G. Pippert, an evangelical who covers the White House for United Press International, and famed sex researcher-therapist William H. Masters. Pippert emphasized the pursuit of truth, and Masters explored issues of sexuality along amoral lines. Masters did indicate that homosexuals are made, not born. Homosexuality, he affirmed, is a learned, culturally determined orientation, not a natural one. He said that his conclusions on the topic, detailing ten years of research, will be published next year.

ACP membership and finances have lagged in recent years, but Donald F. Hetzler, ACP’s part-time executive secretary, reported that a measure of stability has been achieved. Membership recruitment and grant-funding for special projects are priorities for the coming year, he announced.

Jesus ’78

By bus, van, and auto they came, nearly 55,000 of them, to Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. Under leaden and sometimes drizzly skies they gathered, singing, laughing, praying, shouting, listening, and sometimes crying, through nearly eight hours. They were charismatics mostly, with the Roman Catholics outnumbering the Protestants, and they were one in the Spirit, they kept reminding themselves. They felt it, too, especially when Andrae Crouch sang, “Amazing Grace,” and they all joined in, raising their hands toward heaven. It all happened with the national media looking on.

The Saturday rally last month was cosponsored by Dan Malachuk’s Logos publishing organization and by the People of Hope, a Catholic charismatic community in Convent Station, New Jersey. Speakers included evangelist Ruth Carter Stapleton, Jim Bakker of the PTL television network, and several Catholic charismatic leaders, along with Catholic bishop Peter L. Gerety of Newark and Cardinal Terence Cooke of New York. In their talks, they emphasized unity among Christians and the need to reach out to others.

“Nobody could have gotten us together on this eve of Pentecost except the Spirit of God,” remarked Gerety.

Treasure Texts

Bible scholars have disclosed that Greek Orthodox monks on Mt. Sinai two years ago found thousands of parchment and papyrus fragments of early Christian texts, some dating from before the year 300. The stash was behind a wall in the monastery. Included are eight missing pages from the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, a priceless Greek Bible manuscript now in the British museum. The monks have kept the lid on their find, allowing relatively few remnants to be microfilmed. Rivalries among scholars, church factions, and governments are part of the reason for the foot-dragging. Western Bible researchers fear for the treasure’s safekeeping, especially if another Arab-Israeli conflict erupts.

Religion in Transit

Dismissed: a suit filed in federal court by professional atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair seeking to prevent the use of the words “In God We Trust” on currency.

Accredited: the 700-student Northwestern College in suburban St. Paul, Minnesota, an independent evangelical school founded in 1902 as a Bible institute by the late fundamentalist leader W. B. Riley, longtime pastor of First Baptist Church in Minneapolis. Evangelist Billy Graham served as president from 1947 to 1952. It virtually closed in 1965 and did not reopen as a college until 1972. William Bernsten is its current president.

Closed: the sixty-year-old, 172-student Vancouver Bible College in Surrey, British Columbia, by the denomination that took it over in 1957, the U.S.-based 750,000-member Baptist General Conference. A BGC spokesman cited spiraling deficits, administrative deficiencies, and few BGC students. College president Bob Anderson expressed anger at the action, which he bitterly labeled “un-Christian.”

Founded: the Society of Christian Philosophers, at an organizational meeting in Cincinnati of about eighty professional philosophers with Protestant and Catholic affiliations. Episcopalian William Alston of the University of Illinois was elected president.

Resigned: Kenneth Opperman as president of Toccoa Falls College. Health and faculty unrest were contributing factors. The Christian and Missionary Alliance school gained national attention last November when a dam above the campus burst, killing thirty-nine. Reporter Gaylord Shaw of the Los Angeles Times used the Toccoa Falls tragedy as a peg for a series of articles on dam safety that recently won him the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting.

Americans contributed $16.54 billion to religious causes in 1977, up from $14.85 billion in 1976, reports the American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel. Religious giving, it said, accounted for 47 per cent—the largest chunk—of the total $35.20 billion given to charity last year.

Brigham Young University warned that it may withdraw its membership from nine eduational organizations involved in a boycott of states that have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. President Dallin H. Oaks of the 25,000-student Mormon school says the boycott is questionable legally and contemptible morally. His remarks were directed at national associations of psychology, political science, theater, personnel administration, and the like.

World Scene

Evangelist Bill Thomas, a black American serving with the European Baptist Federation and a CHRISTIANITY TODAY correspondent, conducted a five-night preaching mission last month at a Baptist church in the Weissensee section of East Berlin. More than 600 persons, mostly young people, packed each service. Many made public decisions and were counseled by church leaders. Pastor Gunther Sachse says Thomas is the first outsider granted a visa to hold a local-church campaign in East Germany.

The Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren has been authorized by the government to print 80,000 copies of a hymn-book. Dutch church members are helping to raise the funds for the $250,000 project. The Czech church has some 270,000 members in 220 churches and 300 other meeting places, according to unofficial estimates. Western observers consider the announcement significant in light of recent religious repression in Czechoslovakia.

Despite severe pressure from the outside (including attacks in the press) and some internal disagreements, delegates at the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan voted 255 to 49 to have C. M. Kao serve another term as general secretary. The assembly also voted overwhelmingly to accept a controversial declaration on human rights issued by the church’s executive committee last year. Church leaders have been at odds with the nationalist Chinese government.

Protestant and Roman Catholic churches in Brazil are distributing at least one million copies of an ecumenical edition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, complete with Bible references and official church pronouncements. Conservatives feel the action amounts to a veiled attack against the government.

Sharp theological debate about baptism is underway in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Denmark. Theologian Peter Hojen believes faith should be a prerequisite for baptism, and others have joined him in questioning traditional Lutheran teaching about infant baptism.

Death

BASIL MILLER, 81, prolific author, Nazarene minister, and director of the California-based World-Wide Missions organization; in Pasadena, California, after a long illness.

The conflict between the Jews and Arabs in the Middle East was transported last month to the floor of the 252-member governing board of the National Council of Churches in Minneapolis. Amid the politely restrained verbal pushing and shoving between Arab sympathizers and Israeli backers, a large woman suddenly appeared at a microphone, clutching the small steel shell of a cluster bomb. Joan Bordman, a church social-action worker from California, said that she had just come from a visit in southern Lebanon, where she had seen the civilian devastation and suffering caused by American-made cluster bombs dropped from Israeli warplanes. She described what happens when a child picks up an unexploded shell and when a farmer accidently steps on one.

From then on, it was no contest. The fewer than 100 delegates who had remained for the final session of the three-day meeting at Westminster Presbyterian Church overwhelmingly adopted a resolution that was highly critical of Israel’s use of the bomb in its recent invasion of Lebanon. It was the first time the ecumenical body singled out Israel by name in a statement of censure, according to several NCC spokesmen.

The controversy began when United Presbyterian Eugene Crawford, identified as an American Indian leader from Chicago, introduced a resolution “on the illegal and inhuman use of U.S. arms by Israel in its recent massive invasion of Lebanon.” The proposal said that several thousand civilians “were wantonly killed, mutilated, and maimed” by the “indiscriminate” use of U.S.-made anti-personnel weapons, and it declared that America “shares in the moral responsibility for their illegal use.…” The measure called on Congress to stop furnishing the weapons to Israel and to insist that Israel abide by a U.S.-Israel arms agreement specifying that the cluster bomb must not be used except in “full-scale war and against well-entrenched emplacements.”

The paper was submitted to the governing board’s reference committee, which emerged with a substitute proposal that softened the references to Israel, called on the U.S. to stop furnishing anti-personnel weapons “to any country,” and asked for a halt in production of cluster bombs and similar weapons.

Orthodox delegates, especially those with Middle East roots, held out tenaciously for the original resolution. The final version that the board adopted incorporated the entire original motion and the operative section of the substitute. Some NCC leaders privately expressed fears that the resolution might disrupt the NCC’s relationship with the Jewish community. However, both NCC president William P. Thompson, the top executive of the United Presbyterian Church, and NCC general secretary Claire Randall said they did not believe Jewish-Christian relations would be impaired by the board’s action.

But even as the two NCC leaders shared their optimism with reporters at a closing press conference, Rabbi A. James Rudin of the American Jewish Committee in New York was polishing a hastily drafted statement lambasting the board’s “unfair, unbalanced, anti-Israel resolution” that would deny Israel “a vital means to protect her security.” Rudin, an official observer at the board meeting, conferred by telephone with his boss, Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, and secured his endorsement of the angry rejoinder. Rudin complained that the resolution omits any reference to Arab terrorist attacks against Israel citizens.

The delegates faced a full agenda. Proposed policy statements on Indian affairs, energy, and broadcasting were discussed during “first readings.” The papers will be refined and undergo a second reading and action at the November session of the board, which meets twice yearly. A long-awaited background paper on the ethical implications of genetic research was entered into the record and referred to member churches for study. In a major address, Congressman Donald Fraser, a Minnesota Democrat, called on the NCC for solid backing of the disarmament cause. There was group Bible study, a first for the board, and the manager of the Holiday Inn across the street from the church permitted unprepared delegates to borrow Gideon Bibles from their rooms.

Cuban ecumenical leader Raul Fernandez-Ceballos also addressed the assembly. Declaring that there is “no contradiction” between the goals of religion and socialism, he said that Christians must work to free the church from its historic antipathy toward social revolution.

Muhammad Abdul-Rauf, an Egyptian and director of the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., was introduced at the assembly as an official observer representing the Muslim community in the U.S., another first for the NCC. (Jewish observers have attended board meetings since 1971.)

Two former employees of the Hispanic Commission of the Episcopal Church took the platform to thank the NCC for helping to get them out of jail. The pair, Raisa Nemikin and Maria Cueto, were released in March after spending nearly eleven months in a Manhattan correctional center. They had been confined there for refusing to answer questions before a grand jury investigating bombings by a terrorist group. In an interview, the women told CHRISTIANITY TODAY that they had no direct knowledge of any crime. The reason for their silence, they said, was because investigators were probing beyond that point into areas of church counselor-and-client confidentiality and personal privacy.

Their presence highlighted a report of an NCC commission that had filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking for their release. The commission, chaired by Arie Brouwer, president of the Reformed Church in America, recommended that the NCC encourage the U.S. Justice Department to develop guidelines that would restrict the right of grand juries to force information from employees of religious organizations. The board acted favorably on the recommendation. Brouwer’s commission also urged that back pay be given to the two women by Episcopal headquarters, where there are mixed feelings about the pair.

The delegates approved a number of other resolutions. The measures:

• denounced Nazi activities in America and repudiated all anti-semitic teachings and activities.

• warned about the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan.

• supported the upcoming special United Nations session on disarmament and called for U.S. initiatives there, including a moratorium on the production of fissionable material for nuclear weapons, the announcement of a “no first-strike policy,” and a halt in development of new weapons systems.

• opposed any lobby-disclosure legislation that would infringe on First Amendment rights of churches.

In other actions, the board agreed:

• to keep official meetings of NCC agencies open to the public with only rare exceptions.

• to accept federal funds for a program to aid imprisoned Viet Nam veterans if and when such funds (rumored to be $500,000) become available.

• to create a task force to encourage churches and families to “regain control” of funerals from high-pressured commercial operators.

The proposed policy statement on broadcasting backs the right of religious organizations to purchase broadcast time from stations and networks, a change from the NCC’s traditional sole position that free time ought to be provided to religious broadcasters as a community service. The statement endorses that view as well.

The proposal regarding Indians urges the U.S. government to recognize “any lands, jurisdiction, and government properly claimed” by Indian nations, and to turn over additional land and resources to assure full economic development of those nations.

The proposed policy statement on the ethical aspects of energy sparked controversy over its virtual condemnation of nuclear power development in favor of all-out commitment to solar energy.

Sears, Roebuck: Accounts Closed

It is becoming increasingly clear that one of the best ways to deal with the problems of excessive violence and explicit sex on television is to confront the sponsors. And the people in the network board rooms and front offices are beginning to take note.

From Chicago last month came a clear message. Faced with pickets outside stores in several cities and a growing stack of protest mail, the huge Sears, Roebuck company announced its withdrawal of sponsorship of “Charlie’s Angels” and “Three’s Company.” A Sears spokesman said that the decision was made because the top-rated shows “don’t conform to our guidelines.” Additionally, more than 100 ads have been pulled from other shows, he said.

The pressure project against Sears—which reportedly spent $80 million on network advertising last year—was organized by the National Federation for Decency (NFD), a TV-monitoring organization based in Tupelo, Mississippi. NFD leaders expressed appreciation for the action taken by Sears, but they said it did not go far enough. Donald E. Wildmon, a United Methodist minister who gave up his parish to lead the NFD campaign, declared that his group will keep the heat on Sears until the merchandise giant issues a policy statement committing itself to family-oriented television. The company has not conformed to policy announced by Sears board chairman Arthur Wood in January, 1977, he alleged. NFD hopes to get one million Sears customers to cancel their charge cards in order to make the firm practice what it preaches.

Wildmon told reporters that an NFD survey in January found Sears to be the advertiser with the third-largest number of ads on shows containing explicit sex. The two largest sponsors—American Home Products and the Ford Motor Company—“are next—just as soon as we get through with Sears,” he said. Meanwhile, he added, those two firms “are sitting there looking at this thing.” (The “violence” section of the NFD’s findings came from research by the National Citizen’s Committee on Broadcasting, said Wildmon.)

Sears spokesman Wiley Brooks disclosed that his company has accepted an invitation to sit on a Business Advisory Council of the national Parents and Teachers Association, another group that has expressed concern about television programming. The PTA and the council will work together on TV matters, he indicated.

The philosophies of Sears “are basically the same” as those of the NFD and the PTA, commented Brooks. He added: “We recognize both groups as being very typical Sears’ customers in many ways, and we’re hoping our efforts with them will result in some good alternatives to networks and show concern among leading advertisers that we won’t put up with some of the shows now being aired.”

Concern For the City

How real is the professed new concern of evangelicals for a more “incarnational” approach to inner-city church ministry? A partial answer may have emerged last month in downtown Chicago’s Methodist Temple, where nearly 500 church executives, pastors, lay leaders, and students gathered for what was billed as the first “Congress on the Urban Church.”

The participants came from various denominations and churches in twenty-nine states and provinces. Among them were about 100 blacks and a smaller number of Hispanics. There were also 108 women, some of whom expressed displeasure at the unintentional but conspicuous absence of women from the roster of speakers and worship leaders. Four of the six plenary addresses were by black men.

The two-day event was sponsored by the two-year-old Seminary Consortium on Urban Pastoral Education (SCUPE), a joint venture of several Midwest seminaries. Subject matter ranged from evangelism to the political implications of class oppression. On most issues, vocal participants displayed an unexpected degree of agreement despite cultural and ecclesiastical diversity (Mennonites to Calvinists). In some instances their oneness of attitude surprised each other.

During a question period following a spirited address by white sociologist Anthony Campolo, a black near the rear of the sanctuary publicly thanked him for his unexpected courage to speak out about political and commercial oppression. “It took no courage to say these things here,” replied Campolo, a teacher at Eastern College and associate pastor of an inner-city Philadelphia church. “What takes courage is to say them at City Hall and to state legislators and to corporation executives.” Campolo in 1976 nearly won election to the U.S. Congress by speaking up.

Conviction about Christian responsibilities to the city and to each other ran so deeply that SCUPE director David Frenchak scrapped his address on “A Strategy for the Future of the Urban Church.” He opted instead for a period in which blacks and whites throughout the sanctuary prayed spontaneous prayers of repentance, dedication, and intercession. (Frenchak’s address was to be published and mailed to the registrants.)

In the conference’s opening session, SCUPE board chairman Ray Bakke, pastor of Chicago’s Fairfield Avenue Baptist Church and leader of numerous city ministries, urged participants “in the name of the incarnate Christ, who became flesh and dwelt among us,” to “stop thinking that cities will be reached with impersonal or event-centered happenings or media crusades.” The Gospel, he said, “should deliver us from all forms of urban paternalism, imperialism, and racism.” Calling for greater identity with the urban masses, he observed wryly: “For many of us WASPs it has not taken the rapture to remove our churches from urban ministry.”

How can white Christians win blacks? Mississippi self-help architect John Perkins replied: “When blacks move into your neighborhood, don’t move out. Then you might get to know them and love them, and you’ll win them.” He chided evangelicals who move to the suburbs and then later travel into the city on literature-laden witness expeditions. Blacks, he indicated, would question the validity of the witness.

James White, a black pastor in New York City who will join the SCUPE faculty this fall, dealt with the need for developing black leadership in predominantly white denominations and churches. He wondered whether whites when talking up black leadership really mean instead black participation.

In a lighter vein during a worship service open to the public, evangelist-educator Bill Pannell exhorted his hearers to celebrate their common sense of mission and to enjoy being a community of “strange speckled birds” joined together from a wide variety of contexts. Like most of the speakers, he criticized the widespread current preoccupation with homogeneity of church units.

Workshops dealt with a wide variety of urban church concerns, including the challenge of changing neighborhoods, special ethnic and multi-ethnic approaches, unemployment, right and wrong ways to relate to social agencies, legal-aid matters, Christian education hurdles, and arts in the church. Among workshop leaders were urban church workers, teachers, legal consultants, urban-affairs specialists, and the like.

Many participants expressed hope that a year-round urban resource and information center can be established. SCUPE’s leaders will probably give that proposal careful consideration.

DAVID OLSON

Graham In Memphis

Heavy rain and severe-weather warnings bedeviled portions of evangelist Billy Graham’s eight-day Mid-South Crusade in Memphis last month. On opening night, the service was shifted from the Liberty Bowl stadium to the enclosed 10,000-seat sports arena next door. An estimated 15,000 persons could not get in and chose to wait in the rain in the stadium. Graham and singer George Beverly Shea slipped into the stadium during a break in the weather and conducted a service there, then returned to the arena for the main preaching rally. The rest of the meetings were held in the stadium, but Graham had to cut short the Friday night service when the weather bureau announced a storm and tornado alert. He preached for only ten minutes, but hundreds responded nevertheless to his invitation to follow Christ.

Attendance ranged from nearly 30,000 on opening night to more than 50,000 for the final Sunday service, held on a bright spring afternoon. Altogether, some 4,500 persons signed decision cards.

The evangelist spent part of one day at the Model Federal Correctional Institution preaching to nearly 1,000 prisoners on makeshift bleachers in the prison yard. Some of the prisoners were from the federal facility; hundreds of others marched to the meeting under tight security from a nearby county penal farm and a state prison. Under the shade of an ancient oak, Graham preached on John 3:16 and God’s love. An estimated 120 persons stood during the invitation period.

Also taking part in the prison service, which had been postponed twice because of rain, were Tennessee governor Ray Blanton and ex-convict Charles Colson, the former White House aide now involved in prison ministry.

Memphis, the home of the late rock king Elvis Presley and the place where civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated, is a racially troubled city, according to some observers. Many in town, they say, were hoping the crusade would bring a measure of social healing. Some believe it helped.

Commented James L. Netters, a black pastor and crusade vice-chairman: “Billy has done everything he could. He has taken a strong position on racial issues.… I’m not altogether pleased with the amount of participation by the black churches, but we have more [black Christians] than we have ever had working shoulder to shoulder with whites.”

William B. Walton, vice-chairman of the Holiday Inns board and chairman of the crusade executive committee, said: “I see a softening of the wall of separation that has been up for so many years. It is coming down a little bit on the part of both whites and blacks. I see the beginnings of a revival.”

Power Struggle In Pasadena

“Off again, on again, begin again.” This line from a popular limerick aptly describes the bewildering changes and reversals in the Worldwide Church of God in recent weeks.

The church’s ailing eighty-five-year-old founder and “pastor-general,” Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA, as he is often referred to in church publications), stunned his constituents last month when he announced that Ambassador College in Pasadena, California, will close its doors at the end of the upcoming summer term, bringing to an end its thirty-one-year history. The declaration coincided with the announced resignation of Herbert’s son Garner Ted (GTA) from his various executive positions for the officially stated purpose of devoting his full time to radio broadcasting and writing. An aide later explained that the college would not close altogether but would become a slimmed-down ministerial training facility.

In another bombshell development, the elder Armstrong stated that GTA’s popular television program, “The World Tomorrow,” has been canceled. Coincident with the apparent demotion of Garner Ted was the elevation of Stanley R. Rader, HWA’s personal aide and the church’s long-time legal chief, to the church and college boards—and to their executive committees. Curiously, Rader had resigned from the boards and from his post as financial vice-president just three weeks after HWA relinquished the reigns of authority to GTA last January.

Rader in an interview emphatically denied rumors of a rift between himself and GTA or between the younger Armstrong and his father. However, John Trechak, a publisher of Ambassador Report, a journal dedicated to exposing moral and financial irregularities in the Armstrong organization, views the recent upheaval as evidence of a “massive power struggle” between Rader and GTA.

Following GTA’s decision to transfer the college to Big Sandy, Texas, in April (see May 5 issue, page 45), a quartet of church officials led by Rader met secretly with HWA at his home in Tucson to protest the move, according to informed sources. Citing $5 million in estimated moving costs and flak from already contracted Pasadena faculty, they convinced the elder Armstrong that his son’s decision had been ill-advised. HWA then overruled GTA and declared that the college would remain in Pasadena—but would be phased down to 250 students “in two or three years.” This number he considered optimum for attainment of the college’s goals to “recapture true values.” A few days later, though, he decreed that the college would be shut down completely.

Rader stressed that the alterations in no way reflect a financial crisis in the church. GTA aide Robert Kuhn stated that income is up 8.2 per cent over last year. In March, though, GTA advised employees that “severe cash flow difficulties” might require “the sale of additional assets” and the imposition of “an emergency special offering.” Annual budget cutbacks of $5 million, he said, were required in light of projected income.

With 1,127 students, a faculty of 177 (many of them part-time), and posh physical facilities, the beleaguered college was denied accreditation a year ago and has been the target of severe criticism at the hands of present as well as former students. In a March 10 letter to administrative personnel, GTA—who at the time was the church’s executive vice-president and Ambassador’s president—complained about conditions at the college. “Deep-seated emotions boil up within various dissident elements, to receive constant aid and comfort from vicious enemies of the church and college,” he wrote. He added: “An anonymous ‘student coalition’ makes obnoxious demands; theft is prevalent; violence against students; an attempted rape; burglaries and the like sully each academic year.” He spoke critically of the “sloppy” dress and unkemptness of the male students, along with “the attitude that usually accompanies such slipshod appearance.” He announced the formation of a faculty committee to deal with the problems, and he said the school would continue to press for accreditation.

Contacted by telephone after wire services had carried the news of the college’s closure, Rader stated: “It hasn’t closed. We have changed our format. We are shifting to a two-year residency program plus a sabbatical program for ministers.” The liberal arts college has been replaced by a ministerial training institute, he said, but the Ambassador College core will be retained. The new religious studies program, he explained, is designed for “the students who desire to be prepared for a functional role of service to the church.” It will have a maximum of 250 full-time and 100 part-time students and a full-time faculty of twenty-five plus part-timers. A liberal arts program “no longer fits the needs of the church at the present time,” he asserted. The college, he said, was originally intended to provide the church with an educated clergy, but limited church growth in recent years has led to the need of only a fraction of Ambassador graduates for this purpose.

When HWA outlined the revisions before a packed house at Ambassador Auditorium on May 13, he was, according to Rader’s description, in “good form,” apparently fully recovered from the near-fatal heart attack that forced him to the sidelines last August.

Rader branded as “false rumors” newspaper reports about the possible sale of the Pasadena campus to the University of Southern California and the purchase of the Big Sandy facility by the Mormon Church. The information in the stories was attributed to Rader. He did confirm that an unofficial inquiry about Big Sandy had been made by Mormon businessmen.

Sources close to GTA relate that despite Rader’s disclaimers the younger Armstrong is “depressed” over recent developments. Rebuffed in his efforts to discuss the issues with his father, he reportedly withdrew into seclusion at Big Sandy—and was not present at the final commencement exercises in Pasadena on May 15.

JOSEPH M. HOPKINS

Blasting Bible Believers

Fundamentalism, by James Barr (Westminster, 1978, 379 pp., $7.95 pb), is reviewed by William W. Wells, assistant professor of religious studies, University of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii.

Fundamentalism can be recognized by three traits: a strong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, an intense hostility to modern theology and the modern critical approach to the Bible, and a deep conviction that those who do not share this point of view are not in fact true Christians. So writes James Barr, the Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford. However, since Barr lives in England where party labels differ slightly from those used in the United States, American readers will have to adjust their vocabulary somewhat. As he uses the term, fundamentalist designates a position somewhat to the left of American fundamentalism; he does not at all intend to limit his discussion to the theological and social perspectives associated with Bob Jones and Carl McIntire, for example, although both men are mentioned briefly. So American readers can and probably should substitute conservative evangelical wherever Barr uses fundamentalist. And since Barr does use the former designation occasionally as a rough synonym for fundamentalist, I will do the same and alternate between the two terms here.

Barr claims that his work is a study of fundamentalism, not an exposé; the bibliographical notes would seem to bear out that claim. The list of authors quoted or referred to in one connection or another reads like a “Who’s Who of Anglo-American Evangelicalism.” But in spite of the author’s avowed intention, Fundamentalism is an angry book. Barr is deeply offended by the conservative position in general and by conservative opposition to the higher critical approach to the Bible in particular. He keeps his anger in check most of the time, but charged language and a biased perspective occasionally break past his attempt at scholarly objectivity. Consequently, some readers will be offended by the book. Nonetheless, the work deserves a careful reading. Given the extent of his research, the quality of his sources, and the cogency of at least some of his arguments, his critical appraisal of the conservative perspective should not be ignored.

Because of the importance of Professor Barr’s book, we are devoting much more space to it than customary. Not only do we have a long review in our regular Books section, but Carl F. H. Henry begins in this issue (see page 22) the first of three articles discussing the book in depth.

Barr’s basic thesis can be stated briefly. Fundamentalists tend to view the Christian community in terms of two important contrasts: real Christians versus nominal Christians, and conservative Christians versus those who accept the higher critical approach to the study of the Bible. According to Barr, most fundamentalist leaders believe that the use of the higher critical method has undercut biblical authority and created a generation of nominal Christians. Furthermore, they believe that churches that defend inerrancy and oppose higher criticism will tend to be filled with true Christians as opposed to nominal Christians. The doctrine of inerrancy is essential, therefore, as a bulwark against the inroads of higher criticism. From a longer perspective, inerrancy guards against the growth of nominalism in the church.

In his second chapter Barr offers a mini-fundamentalist theology; the topics covered include sin, salvation, the atonement, the nature of Christ, faith, justification, forgiveness, the church, the priesthood of all believers, prayer, evangelism, missions, eschatology, and the Scriptures. His analysis is accurate; with the exception of the smirk that, unfortunately, does show between the lines on occasion, the perspective that he describes reflects the preaching heard in most conservative churches. But most of the topics just mentioned are quickly dropped, as Barr devotes most of his book to analyzing and criticizing the conservative doctrine of the Scriptures and conservative opposition to higher criticism and modern theology. Barr’s book is not then a broadly conceived study of fundamentalism. He provides little historical background and almost no sociological analysis. He limits himself to the central elements of the fundamentalist belief structure—as he perceives it.

While Barr makes it crystal clear that the fundamentalist rejection of the higher critical approach to the Bible deeply offends his intellectual sensibilities, yet at the same time he recognizes that the problem goes deeper than that.

“All of these are in fact side-issues, and in the following sense: even if as a matter of historical opinion, critical scholars were to come around to the most conservative opinion on all these points, the situation would not be altered one whit.… Thus the whole elaborate apparatus of conservative apologetic for early date, traditional authorship, avoidance of source divisions, and the like, though we have here done it the courtesy of discussing it, is a waste of time. The issue lies elsewhere” (p. 159).

The deeper issue, as he sees it, is the doctrine of inerrancy. Inerrancy functions as an axiom; the persistent opposition to the critical approach to the Bible is only its corollary. So while it is the rejection of biblical criticism that sticks in his throat, he will grant that the real issue is the doctrine of the Bible. I would suggest, however, that his analysis stopped short of the real issue.

The real issue in fundamentalism is not the doctrine of inerrancy. It is an attitude toward the Bible. The way the fundamentalist reads the Bible shows that he expects to hear God’s counsel and command in it. The fundamentalist reads the Bible as God’s Word. Consequently he tries to listen humbly and obediently. In contrast, much of the critical work of the last century or so seems to the fundamentalist or conservative evangelical to be a form of hubris. The critic does not read the Bible with care in order to be more in tune with what God has said to his people through his prophets and apostles. Rather, he analyzes and studies as a mere academic, as one who is detached and supposedly objective. The Bible is for him an interesting, but ancient, and therefore a merely religious document of questionable contemporary relevance. Now this conservative perception of the critical scholar may be an unfortunate generalization; but it is not without some justification. During the last 100 years or so, critical works have often appeared that analyzed the source of an idea in terms of its ancient cultural background only to discount that concept or command as irrelevant to the modern period. And that perspective is the real issue at stake. The conservative scholar acknowledges that some of the Bible is obscure and that careful scholarship may be demanded of him before the Bible can speak as God’s Word. But he believes that the Bible is God’s Word even before it speaks to him as an individual. And that is why the interpretive effort is deemed to have value. The conservative is reverent before the text. He does not, of course, worship the text. The charge of bibliolatry is false. But he does reverence the text because it is where God speaks to him. The doctrine of inerrancy is derivative; it is one way of articulating that basic attitude toward the Bible. And it is the attitude of reverence that often seems to be missing in critical scholarship.

Barr chides evangelical groups such as Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship for their concern to find “sound” speakers and preachers. His attitude toward the evangelical concern to utilize literature produced by sound writers and publishers is similar. In his mind, it is an attempt to hide from non-conservative approaches to the Bible. He misses the fact that the evangelical community is a faith community committed to listening to God’s Word. It must of necessity be skeptical of speakers and writers who set themselves up as judges of God’s Word. The opinion of those who lack the humility to place themselves in subjection to God’s Word is inherently suspect.

Professor Barr admits that “the insistence on Biblical accuracy in historical matters could then be taken (to borrow Jewish terminology) as a ‘fence around the Torah’ of theological correctness. Though it is possible to interpret the situation in [that] way …, it is more probably, in my opinion, that it should be read in the other way. Fundamentalists put historical or literary information and theological assertions all on the same level, indeed in a sense the historical and literary information is the more important” (p. 70). In my opinion, he is wrong. It is precisely the conservative theological stance that Barr himself described early in the book that is at stake. Barr confesses to being confused by the fact that evangelicals oppose the Roman Catholic Church in spite of the fact that the two groups maintain similar positions regarding the inspiration of the Bible. Yet that stance is entirely consistent. The doctrine of inspiration is not the core value. The core value to the evangelical is rather God’s revelation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is found by listening reverently and carefully to the Bible. Evangelical opposition to Catholic theology over the way that one receives the gift of salvation is evidence that neither inspiration nor inerrancy is the bottom line.

Barr admits that a case can be made for the position that holds that fundamentalists are “only conserving and preserving the faith that has been there always.” But he considers that case a weak one.

“… [I]t is not Fundamentalism, but the main stream of modern theology, including its involvement in critical biblical scholarship, that really stands in continuity with classical theology, whether of the Bible, the Fathers, the Reformers or the period after the Reformers and coming up to the beginning of modern times” (p. 184).

Barr points out that one could believe that the sun circled the earth prior to the Copernican revolution, but that it has been impossible to hold that position without a sacrifice of the intellect since that time. He argues that a revolution has occurred during the last 150 years that makes it impossible to continue to hold the theology of the Reformers. “… [M]odern theology and the critical study of the Bible have initiated, and are initiating massive changes in the way in which Christians understand God and Jesus Christ” (pp. 185–86). He claims that continuity is with those who acknowledge the revolution in biblical criticism and modern theology. However, the evidence he advances is not from the field of theology but almost entirely from the field of biblical criticism. Again, his case is unconvincing.

It is true that there is a greater appreciation of the humanity of the Christ today than there has been in the past. And it may in fact be true that the critical study of the Old and New Testament can justifiably claim part of the credit for that shift in perspective. But the foundation for that realization was laid in the early church council of Chalcedon, not in the modern German universities. Furthermore, some of the changes in perspective associated with modern theology and biblical criticism involve a repudiation of the theology of Chalcedon, and in those cases conservatives will rightfully deny that modern theology is in continuity with the Reformation; they will continue to proclaim the orthodox faith enunciated first at that early council.

Barr chides evangelicals for being more concerned about the reality of the events described in the Bible than about the significance of those events. He seems to have missed the point. Some who would defend the critical point of view deny the reality of the central salvific events. Conservatives, in contrast, would argue that it is foolish to talk of the significance of the resurrection of Christ, for example, if that event did not in fact occur. Again we see that the bottom line is neither an implacable opposition to higher criticism nor the defense of inerrancy. The Gospel itself is at stake.

In sum, I find myself thoroughly at odds with the central thesis of Barr’s book. At the same time, he makes several points along the way that demand some serious thought and consideration.

Barr delights in pointing out that the effort to defend inerrancy has at times been ludicrous—at least to an outsider. He smiles at the contortions conservatives go through in their attempt to harmonize parallel accounts of the same event. The accounts of Hagar and Ishmael (Gen. 17 and 21) are a favorite of his. In his opinion, it is the critical scholar who takes the actual words of the text seriously, not the conservative. He observes—correctly, I think—that conservatives often resort to special pleading in order to make things come out right. Is it not possible, he asks, that the evidence of the biblical text itself lends support to the critical point of view. He quotes an evangelical writer who admits that the writer of the Chronicles may have used faulty source material. If that is the case, he observes with a chuckle, then inerrancy merely guarantees a faultless copy of an errant source. I would venture to say that a position that can be the butt of such jesting needs more theological work. In particular, more convincing solutions need to be found for many of the problem passages if the doctrine of inerrancy is to stand up under the challenges currently being raised.

But Barr is most persistent in demanding that conservatives look again at their opposition to the critical approach to the Bible. In his opinion, that approach could be assimilated by conservatives without major changes in their doctrinal presuppositions. He correctly points out that the previous generation rejected the four-source theory of the Gospels that is now widely accepted in conservative circles. Why, he asks, cannot conservatives likewise acknowledge the documentary hypothesis for the origins of the Pentateuch as a possible solution to some of the internal problems of the text? Conservatives need not accept that hypothesis; he merely asks conservatives to acknowledge that the documentary hypothesis is no more at odds with inerrancy than the source theory of the Gospels is. True, there are differences between the two theories. But are those differences significant enough to justify wide acceptance of source criticism in the Gospels and implacable opposition to source criticism in the Pentateuch? The only significant difference between the two cases is the fact that Jesus seems to attribute the Pentateuch to Moses. And that leads me to examine one of the most cogent sections of Barr’s book: his discussion of what he terms “maximal conservatism.”

Barr acknowledges that some scholars take a conservative position with regard to certain critical problems, e.g., the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the unity of Isaiah, and an early date for some of the Psalms, on the grounds that Christ seems to attribute those writings to their respective traditional authors. That argument he terms the “dogmatic argument.” But there is an alternative approach to those problems, which he illustrates in his discussion of Psalm 110.

“Since a variety of scholarly approaches exist, preference among them is to be given to that which sets the Psalm in the time nearest to David. A critic who set the Psalm in the Maccabaean age would be shocking in his extremism; one who set it in the period of the Babylonian Exile would still be very bad, but would be better; a critic who set it in the time of Isaiah or soon after the disruption of the united kingdom would be still better, and the more he used terms like ‘very old’ or ‘quite primitive’ the better he would be” (p. 85).

The latter approach is what he calls the “maximal conservatism” approach, and according to Barr, it thoroughly contradicts the dogmatic argument.

“If the Word of God expressly and inerrantly teaches us that Psalm 110 was written or composed by David, then it is of no use to argue that, far from being a work of Maccabaean origin, it was very old, going back perhaps to the year 900 B.C., written therefore quite soon after David, perhaps even by one of his personal friends. This does not satisfy the dogmatic argument at all; on the contrary, by the arguments that have been described only a few pages ago, this would show the Bible to be utterly unreliable and prove Jesus himself to have been untrustworthy. The dogmatic argument has to work exactly, or it does not work at all” (p. 87; italics mine).

And conversely, if the dogmatic argument is not valid, then the conservative interpreter has no vested interest in any particular date—early or late. Some evangelicals see the dogmatic argument as decisive, but there are many who do not. Logically, the evangelical who does not accept the dogmatic argument should be willing to examine and possibly accept the arguments for a late date in this and parallel cases. The fact that evangelicals who reject the dogmatic argument rarely if ever argue for a radically nonconservative point of view would seem to indicate that “maximal conservatism” is in fact very much at work. Barr’s question deserves an answer. If the dogmatic argument is not valid, why is there such a strong reaction against a late date?

The New Testament offers a related set of problems. Barr asks if conservatives really have that much at stake in their defense of the Petrine authorship of Second Peter. Many evangelicals qualify the term “inerrant” by speaking about the intent of the original author. But was it not possible for an author to write under a pseudonym without having intended to deceive? There were, after all, first-century precedents for that practice. As Barr points out, Calvin was willing to consider the possibility that Peter did not in fact write the letter ascribed to him. The issue forces us to ask whether the idea of pseudonymous authorship is merely psychologically disconcerting, or logically incompatible with the doctrine of inerrancy.

In short, Fundamentalism by Barr is a provocative book. Some will chortle in delight at the conundrums that he makes so painfully obvious. Others will be furious. And all of that means that the book is likely to be widely read. His central thesis is weak. Nonetheless, his challenges in two areas deserve continued thought. If inerrancy is worth defending, then it is worth articulating more carefully. Barr’s questions and barbs make it apparent that we do not yet have a satisfactory formulation of the doctrine. Second, the evangelical community has in fact been accommodating itself to critical scholarship. The question is: How far should that process go? Until now, conservative theologians and Bible scholars have worked on this problem, but they have rarely worked together closely. It is time they did. Barr deserves an answer.

How To Live Simply

No More Plastic Jesus, by Adam D. Finnerty (Orbis, 1977, 223 pp., $8.95), Enough Is Enough, by John V. Taylor (Augsburg, 1977,124 pp., $3.50 pb), Taking Charge, by the Simple Living Collective, American Friends Service Committee (Bantam, 1977, 341 pp., $1.95 pb), 99 Ways to a Simple Lifestyle, by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (Indiana University, 1977, 381 pp., $12.50), and Nature’s Big Beautiful Bountiful Feel-Good Book (Keats, 1977, 336 pp., $6.95 pb), are reviewed by Sandra K. Majorowicz, Wheaton, Illinois.

Less than one-third of the world’s people consume three-quarters of the nonrenewable resources. Americans, 6 per cent of the world’s population, consume 33 per cent of the world’s energy, eat an average of 3,120 calories a day, and spend $1,900 a year on food.

In contrast, of the underprivileged 73 per cent, 400 million are undernourished. One-half billion are underemployed.

Is our government doing what it should to help these underdeveloped nations? Is it being effective? Do Christians have any individual responsibility beyond supporting relief agencies like World Vision?

A growing number of people are taking a closer look at the world’s economic system and finding that it doesn’t work. There are basic, fatal flaws, they claim, that cannot be resolved without radical changes in theory and practice—both in government and in individual lifestyle. Adam Finnerty and John Taylor are two of these people.

Finnerty is the more militant author. Throughout the book, he batters the reader with a constant barrage of documentation to build his case: The modern economic system only helps the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. The world is a closed system with nonrenewable resources. No underdeveloped nations can attain the level of affluence of the United States—there are not enough resources. He becomes a prophet of doom as he analyzes the effect of the current rate of consumption and global waste. He blasts the United States for such wasteful practices as the planned obsolescence of U.S. goods. (For example, General Electric has reduced the life-span of one of its bulbs from 1,000 to 750 hours.) The world cannot afford such wasteful practices.

Although no one can predict the future, Finnerty seems to grasp the implications of the world’s economic system, and his case is logical and well-documented. His solution? Radically redesign global economics so that industry would be based on need (not created need), and each country would consume a percentage of resources based on its population. Since the U.S. has 6 per cent of the world’s population, we would reduce our consumption to 6 per cent.

Obviously this is a utopian dream, and here is the glaring weakness of the book. After wading through Finnerty’s grim predictions and sobering statistics, the reader looks around, frantic for something to do. What hits him is a solution of such cosmic proportions that he, as an individual, cannot accomplish it. No intermediate steps are given, no indication of what one person can initiate. The reader is left feeling helpless and guilty. Finnerty realizes this weakness and states that the purpose of the book is to spark discussion. That it will do.

Finnerty’s book analyzes how we got to be in such bad shape; John Taylor in Enough Is Enough looks at why. He seeks to “disclose the manner of civilization we have become” that causes us to maintain “the ever-rising standards of the few on the poverty of the many.” He accomplishes his purpose.

In this American edition of an English underground classic, Taylor first gives a brief overview of the world’s condition and a summary of the grim predictions. Then he attacks our attitude. We’re spoiled children, he claims, “petulantly greedy and ready to hack to bits anything that frustrates … our will.” We drive our cars when public transportation would do. We make but never mend. Dreams control a culture, and our dream is to make more money.

Two chapters in Enough Is Enough are especially helpful. In “The Theology of Enough” Taylor examines Scripture and discovers not an economic blueprint but principles for a consistent attitude to guide us in the market place. He finds that the Bible calls all men to make their decisions with a sense of accountability to God for the natural world and for mankind. Moderation is the key—use only what you need.

This style of living is commonly termed “simple living.” Taylor calls it living by the “divine contrariness of Jesus.” The next chapter, “The Cheerful Revolution,” contains pointed suggestions to achieve that contrariness. Christians shouldn’t be swayed by public opinion and advertising. We should learn to ask awkward, embarrassing questions to force industry to become more honest. Taylor’s suggestions to achieve this style of living are easy to remember and apply.

In one sense, though, Taylor oversimplifies the simple life. It requires more than living in moderation. Simple living means replacing wasteful consumption with creative alternatives. It means redistributing resources and restructuring institutions so that all basic needs are met—before luxury items are produced. In this sense Taylor’s directions aren’t specific enough.

Taking Charge supplies the practical suggestions along with a different rationale for the need to change. For example, a chapter on “Creative Simplicity” argues that we should “reclaim ourselves and our creativity from commercialism” and offers excellent suggestions for accomplishing that goal. A chapter on clothing provides hints for coping with the garment industry.

A few extras make the book especially helpful. Case studies abound; the suggestions are from practical experience, not theory. At the beginning of each chapter, the reader is challenged by a list of penetrating questions to help him evaluate his lifestyle in regard to the topic discussed. Most chapters conclude with a section on “What You Can Do” that contains good practical hints for action, and every chapter is followed by a bibliography. The volume is a good resource for those people embarking on the road to simple living.

However, Christians will have to look beyond the strong humanist emphasis that undergirds this book. The authors stress the need to reclaim control over one’s life. That’s the first step in redeeming the world.

Obviously that is not consistent with the Christian view. Utopia will not occur when every man is master of his fate. But the book is still valuable for the Christian wanting to fulfill his responsibility because the authors admit that “meeting the basic material and political needs of the hungry and powerless is as much a task of the simple living movement as reclaiming control over our own lives.” Both are accomplished by similar means.

For those solidly committed to this new lifestyle, 99 Ways to Simple Living is a good how-to book. The suggestions are more extreme than in Taking Action. For example, flushless toilets, compost units, and wild foods are discussed. There is little discussion of why.

A more equal combination of theory and practicality is Nature’s Big Beautiful Bountiful Feel-Good Book. This potpourri contains everything from an essay on acupuncture to recipes for soybeans to how to exercise properly. Its aim is not to rectify the world situation, but “to make you feel good if you feel bad.” Still, Christians committed to Finnerty’s or Taylor’s view can find useful suggestions for simple living.

Periodicals

The long-established Index to Religious Periodical Literature has a new name Religion Index One: Periodicals. It also now has a counterpart, Religion Index Two: Multi-Author Works. The latter covers, for example, collections of essays and proceedings of conferences. Both are issued from 5600 S. Woodlawn Ave., Chicago, IL 60637 and should be available in any institutional theological library.

Three and a half years after the Lausanne Congress the full forty-nine member committee met for the third time at Willowbank, Bermuda, last January. Under Leighton Ford’s efficient, relaxed and kindly chairmanship we were able to deepen our international fellowship and to transact a great deal of business.

Much of the work of the Lausanne Committee is now being undertaken in the regions and by four working groups. The Strategy Working Group (chairman: Peter Wagner) cooperates closely with MARC (director: Edward Dayton). These two men made an impressive presentation to the committee entitled To Reach the Unreached. Stating that the world now consists of 4.1 billion people (divided into 221 nations) of whom 1 billion name Jesus as Lord, another billion may have heard of him, but 2 billion have never heard his name, they urged that the way to reach such a world is neither one country at a time, nor even primarily one person at a time, but “one people at a time.” Their working definition of an unreached people is a sociological grouping who perceive that they have some affinity with one another—ethnic, linguistic, religious—but are less than 20 per cent practicing Christian. They emphasized the need to identify and describe these peoples accurately, to discover their needs and the degree of their receptivity or resistance to the Gospel, and to seek to meet their needs and communicate the good news to them.

The Intercession Working Group (chairman: Armin Hoppler) is producing an excellent prayer calendar and promoting an annual Day of Prayer for World Evangelization each Pentecost Sunday. The Communications Working Group (chairman: Thomas Zimmerman) is responsible through Stan Izon, our communications director, for the production of both the Information Bulletin and the World Evangelization Information Service, which is received by 1,000 agencies worldwide. Lausanne Occasional Papers are now being published, and will be distributed by a network of Lausanne Literature Coordinators. (In America, inquiries on these publications should be addressed to P.O. Box 1100, Wheaton, Illinois 60187.) I am the chairman of the fourth Working Group, Theology and Education. Its main activities so far have been to arrange the Pasadena Consultation on the “homogeneous unit principle” in June 1977 and the Gospel and Culture Consultation at Willowbank last January. The Pasadena Statement and the Willowbank Report are Lausanne Occasional Papers one and two, respectively.

The Lausanne Committee is now actively preparing a Consultation on World Evangelization (COWE), under the able direction of David Howard, which is to take place somewhere in the Third World from January 12 to 26, 1980. It will stand in the sequence of the Berlin and Lausanne Congresses, but will be a different kind of assembly, particularly because it will be much smaller (300 to 500 people) and during its first week will divide up into perhaps twenty specialist miniconsultations. Its purposes have been defined by the Lausanne Committee in the following terms: “Accepting the nature, basis and framework of Christian mission as revealed in the Scriptures and interpreted in the Lausanne Covenant, and humbly desiring to discern and obey the direction of the Holy Spirit, the Consultation will convene (1) to seek fresh vision and power for the task which Christ has given to his church until he comes, (2) to assess the state of world evangelization, its progress and hindrances, (3) to complete an extended study programme on theological and strategic issues related to world evangelization, already begun in many regions, and to share its results, (4) to develop specific evangelistic strategies related to different unreached peoples, and (5) to review the mandate of the LCWE and the role it might play in furthering these objectives.”

Peter Wagner and I are initiating the pre-COWE study program. Despite the problems, we are both anxious to see some cross-fertilization between theology and strategy. Perhaps it will be possible for at least one strategist to be in each theological group, and one theologian in each strategy group, although to be sure we should not perpetuate this dichotomy but rather engender a new breed of theologian-strategists or strategist-theologians.

The Theology and Education Group was already committed before January to arrange, in cooperation with the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Fellowship, a Consultation on Simple Life-Style (convenors: Ronald Sider and Horace Fenton) and another on the Teaching of Missions and Evangelism (convenor: Robert Coleman). These will now be incorporated in some way into preparations for COWE. At Bermuda we decided to accept an invitation from WEF’s Theological Commission to share in their projected “Church and Islam” groups (convenor: Bruce Nicholls), and to initiate groups on “Gospel and Spirituality” (how to reach those searching for spirituality or transcendence both in the midst of Western materialism and through Eastern mysticism). Other groups will concern themselves with urban mission, and with our Christian witness to Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, the adherents of traditional Chinese and African Religions, and Marxists. We are now in the process of seeking a coordinator for each cluster of groups.

Whatever their topic of study, the groups will share a common agenda, which will include: an analysis of failure (why has the Gospel made such small headway among the people concerned?); an analysis of success (what approaches have been blessed, and why?); an analysis of the unreached people concerned (identifying them and describing their beliefs, values, receptivity, and resistance to the Gospel); relevant biblical study; and development of an appropriate strategy.

The Lausanne movement stands for “unity in evangelism.” If a worldwide network of groups can engage in serious study during the rest of this year and next, we may have the necessary background understanding by God’s grace to develop specific, realistic strategies for evangelism when COWE convenes in January 1980. Please pray with us toward this end.

Francis Schaeffer claims that Michelangelo’s David, with its heroic size and disproportionately large hands, is a quintessential statement of humanism. Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke suggests an ideal man with a hypertrophied mind—a modern statement of the same philosophy.

Clarke has been called the best publicized writer of science fiction. His career began almost thirty years ago. In addition to science fiction, he has written nonfiction books and articles, and is the first person to have suggested the synchronously orbiting communications satellite. He is a writer of “hard” science fiction; scientific knowledge is an important part of his settings and plots. But Clarke’s stories have not been mere explorations of the applications of technology. He has tried to deal with what that means.

This is seen in two short stories and five novels. “The Star,” which won Clarke the 1956 Hugo award for best science fiction short story, is told in first person by a Jesuit astrophysicist who narrates a tale of exploring the remains of a supernova. The exploration team found that the explosion destroyed an advanced civilization, which had anticipated the disaster and left records. The point is that this supernova was the Star of Bethlehem. The protagonist closes the story with the agonizing question “Why?” posed to a God he clearly believes in.

In “The Nine Billion Names of God” (1953), which is included in two collections of religious science fiction, some Tibetan monks hire a computer to print permutations of words of up to nine letters to automate their task of listing all the names of God. They tell the computer operators that when their task is complete, the universe’s meaning will be fulfilled, and God will end it. The westerners don’t believe them, but as they leave the monastery the stars are quietly disappearing one by one.

2001: A Space Odyssey is familiar to more people than any of Clarke’s other works, because it is based closely on the movie of the same name written by Clarke in collaboration with Stanley Kubrick. In the book (and movie) man has been intelectually guided since his ape-man days. A superhuman intelligence has used rectangular slabs as combination mental probes and guides for certain persons at various strategic points in our history. This concept of superhuman guidance, though not original with Clarke, is worth noting.

An encounter with superhuman intelligence takes place again both more remotely and more closely in Rendezvous With Rama, which won the 1973 Nebula Award for best novel. (The Hugo Award is voted on primarily by science fiction fans, the Nebula by writers only.) The contact is remote; there is no evidence that the inhabitants of a spaceship passing through the solar system are ever aware of man at all. Yet, the contact is close, because a team actually enters it. Rama, the spaceship, is ametaphor for an atheist’s view of existence. It is big, imperturbable, and inexplicable, coming from who-knows-where and going who-knows-where for who-knows-what purpose.

The religious element in Imperial Earth is brief, but it portrays a religious experience:

“He had experienced that indescribable shock a man may know only once in a lifetime, when he is in the presence of the transcendental and feels the sure foundations of his world and his philosophy trembling beneath his feet.… It was as if he had caught a momentary glimpse in the Mirror of Time, reflecting something that had not yet occurred—and something that must be awesomely important for it to have succeeded in reversing the flow of causality” (Doubleday, 1976, p. 267).

If I understand Clarke correctly, this experience is supposed to have been sent to Duncan Makenzie from the future. The future race needs to have established communications with beings from outer space by a certain time, so Makenzie is to build the communications system in the present. He is the cloned “son” of a cloned “son,” and he has been sent to earth to bring back a replica of himself. Instead, he elects to have his dead archrival cloned and to make the baby his own legal son, for the good of his world.

The theme that humanity has a capacity to evolve into a supermind recurs in several of Clarke’s stories. It is perhaps the ultimate expression of what Christopher Derrick has called “Manichaeanism [which is] to suppose that our corporal or animal nature is evil in itself.” Further, Derrick says that the “Manichaean heresy” contains a belief in evolution as an entity, which works to purge us of our corporal and animal nature.

Surveys of science fiction published before 1973 rank Childhood’s End (1953) as Clarke’s best novel. The basic plot: Man is now ready for his next evolutionary step, which is to become part of the great Overmind that controls the universe. In order to prepare human children for this evolutionary jump (adults cannot change to become part of this purely mental being), a race of “sheperds” are sent to earth. These shepherds have wings, horns, tails, and cloven hooves. They look like demons, but they are depicted as entirely beneficent. Clarke explains our horror of demon form by a racial memory that operates backwards in time. For the adults, the loss of their children and the realization that they cannot become units of a disembodied supermind, is so traumatic that this imprints previous generations with a loathing for the demon forms associated with the experience.

In Against the Fall of Night (1948), his first novel, and The City and the Stars (1956), Clarke has written what amounts to two versions of the same story. In both, the history of man over billions of years is recounted at the climax. Man was the major participant in a galactic effort to create pure mentalities: beings with no bodies. The effort succeeded, twice. The first attempt, however, produced an immortal Mad Mind that despised all material things, left gaping rents in the galaxy, and was finally destroyed. The second attempt produced a benevolent being with enormous mental powers and an immortal lifespan. Clarke has written that the second book is a new novel, and that only one-fourth of the first one remains in it, that is, the story of the creation of the pure mentalities, bodiless beings of incalculable potential. But in 2001, rather than all the children of the earth joining a pure intellect, or the intelligent races of the galaxy creating a pure intellect, an astronaut becomes one, transmuted by some hidden superintelligence.

Clarke presents a seductive idea. Man’s physical being is temporary: He will become, or create, a purely mental being, immortal and practically omniscient and omnipotent. (The idea is not original with Clarke, of course. For example, C. S. Lewis’s villain, Weston, proposed it in Perelandra.) However, we must reject Clarke’s vision. Man is not now, and never can be, the measure of himself.

Martin LaBar is chairman of the division of science, Central Wesleyan College, Central, South Carolina.