I have stunned the sheep:

slit his jugular

hung him from a rafter

and caught his blood

in a bucket

to paint my doorposts.

But now in the future:

there will be no stunning

no pain-killing hammers

only my arms hung at my sides.

The painting goes on

but there will be

no dying allowed.

One morning, near Bethlehem, after the Six Day I War, I watched tiny Arab children going to school. Like so many little black mice they scurried along the roadside. Israeli soldiers, without speaking a word, stopped them and pointed to their schoolbags. A week earlier a bomb had exploded in the Supersol (shopping center) in Jerusalem, and schoolchildren were suspected. So the soldiers were taking no chances. Silently the children opened their satchels. Inside each was a reading book in Arabic and a huge piece or two of bread for the midday meal. The soldiers looked, then waved the children on.

Little did I imagine that soon afterwards soldiers would be searching children’s schoolbags for bombs and bullets in my own city of Belfast. A death toll of more than 1,600 people in Northern Ireland may seem insignificant compared to those killed in Indonesia or Viet Nam. But the equivalent number in the population of the United States would be 220,000 people in six years of civil strife.

The world’s press speaks of “the children of hate.” This is no exaggeration. I have seen teen-age boys in militant Protestant areas of our city with tattoo marks on their arms and on their schoolbags the initials “K.A.I.”—“Kill All Irishmen” (meaning the republicans who wish for a united Ireland). I have seen children of different religions spit at each other on the street. They are let out of their schools at different times of day to prevent encounters, and they are taken home by buses. They are born apart, they live apart, they pray apart, they work apart.

Many children in our city are conditioned during their formative years to hate the other side. For the children of Ulster are gone into captivity—a terrible captivity that involves their hearts and minds.

This past summer a pregnant woman was wounded by a gunman’s bullet and rushed to a hospital. When the doctors delivered her child they found the baby girl had a bullet in her back. Even an unborn child cannot escape the violence of our society.

The Ulster community is a place in which two traditions meet—the Irish Catholic and the British Protestant. Labeling the two sides “Catholic” and “Protestant” is a convenience because the religious division parallels the political and ethnic division in the country. The religious traditions have also been synonymous with political views. In fact, there have been two nations, with two different cultures and two sets of values. Protestants and Catholics have been brought up to believe in different versions of a joint history, to admire different heroes, to sing different national songs, even to play different games.

So the one million Protestants have looked to Britain for their social and cultural links, while the half million Catholics have looked to Dublin and have had historic and cultural links with the Republic. Catholicism has remained identified with Irish nationalism, and Protestantism has remained the prisoner of unionism (union with Britain).

The history of Ireland has conspired to support a near identity of our political and religious communities. Indeed, many church leaders and members find it difficult to make a clean distinction between loyalty to their faith and loyalty to a particular political viewpoint. For all practical purposes the Roman Catholic Church is politically committed to a united Ireland, while the Protestant Church believes, in general, in the Protestant supremacy in Northern Ireland. In each case, divine approval is claimed for territorial and political aspirations.

A recent report shows that 1,500 Roman Catholics have been forced to leave one area alone, to the north of our city, because of intimidation. Homes in this district have been systematically raided; the windows of the local Roman Catholic school have been smashed and the school’s population reduced by a quarter.

This intimidation works both ways. Protestant families in predominantly Catholic areas have also had to pack their belongings and leave. A letter reached me from a family telling of the birth of their new baby. On the very day mother and baby arrived home, warning shots were fired as the father entered the house. The shots meant “get out.” That Wednesday the family with their week-old baby moved across the city to a safe area.

Today mixed neighborhoods, where both groups used to live together in reasonable harmony, have been split through intimidation—stones through windows, warnings through letterboxes. One by one, families have moved out. Both sides have retreated into defensive positions. This segregation in housing is building a barricade for the years ahead. It may prove to be a more formidable barricade than any barbed wire set up by British soldiers, and higher than any pile of hijacked trucks.

Another lamentable barrier is segregation in education. Many Protestant children have never come nearer than a stone’s throw to Roman Catholics. Protestant children are educated at the state schools. The Catholic Church chooses to keep its educational autonomy, and 98 per cent of Roman Catholic children attend their own schools. Protestant and Catholic young people get an opportunity to mix only at age eighteen, when some go to university. But this includes only a small proportion of them.

I am convinced that the integration of children from their early years would be the most important single factor in breaking down community barriers and in restoring peace. I feel that as long as school segregation continues, community strife will keep recurring. Ancient suspicions and prejudices persist unchecked among the children. A new generation is emerging to whom the abnormality of violence has become a normal way of life.

I believe that the first thing we have to do in Belfast is to treat each other on the basis of our common humanity, and never by reference to our inherited labels, whether religious or political.

Recently I was telling a Protestant group of a boy in our city, Paul McGeown, age two, who on summer days loved to go with his mother to the park to watch the birds. “Birdies! Birdies!” he would call out with glee. On his way to the park one day the blast of a terrorist bomb hurled Paul right across the road, inflicting severe head injuries. For sixteen days he lay unconscious in the Belfast Children’s Hospital. A brain surgeon operated, and when Paul recovered consciousness he could not see. Then a month later the miracle happened. The nurse was holding Paul at the window. Suddenly he pointed—“Birdies! Birdies!” Paul could see again.

What was the reaction from the people to whom I was telling this story? Nearly all felt happiness for the child whose sight had been restored, I’m sure. But one woman angrily asked: “But wasn’t he a Roman Catholic?”

Edwin Markham wrote,

He drew a circle that shut me out—

Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.

But Love and I had the wit to win:

We drew a circle that took him in.

Bricks can build a barricade or a bridge. The bridge between the segregated children of Belfast will have in its structure the bricks of compassion, understanding, and reconciliation. The bridge is love.

I believe that in moments of despair we must dare to hope. Violence in our city may have a long rope, but I know God holds the end of that rope. Christmas came to the world in the bleak midwinter. When the night was blackest, the light shone. So in our city of Belfast, with its many self-inflicted wounds, we will still dare to sing this Christmastide: “Love shall be our token/Love be yours and love be mine.” For if reconciliation is the very heart of the Christmas message, then this is a day of opportunity.

Paul D. Steeves is assistant professor of history and director of Russian studies at Stetson University in Deland, Florida. He has the Ph.D. from the University of Kansas and specializes in modern Russian history.

Until recently, there seemed to be incontrovertible proof that Christ was born before March, 4 B.C. Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived in the first century A.D., recorded that Herod died shortly after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover. Calculations have shown that a lunar eclipse occurred the night of March 12/13, 4 B.C. This was just before a Passover. Since the Bible makes it clear that Christ was born while Herod was still alive, this has appeared to many scholars as undeniable evidence that Christ was born before that eclipse in March, 4 B.C. And so the “Star of Bethlehem” has always been looked for prior to that date.

Some historical studies, however, have thrown doubt on the association of Herod’s death with that eclipse. In an essay in the October, 1966, Journal of Theological Studies, W. E. Filmer reviewed the historical data available from the period and suggested that Herod continued to live for some time after 4 B.C. Filmer also showed reasons for thinking that the eclipse to which Josephus referred was not the one in 4 B.C. but a later one on January 9, 1 B.C. AS early as the sixteenth century an eminent scholar, Scaliger, was decisive in stating that Herod’s death was connected with the 1 B.C. eclipse.

Virtually all early Christian historians and chronologers who lived from the second to the sixth centuries (and even later) put the birth of Christ after the eclipse of 4 B.C. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Orosius, and Cassiodorus Senator said Christ’s birth was in a year we now recognize as 3 B.C. The early Christian chronologist Julius Africanus said it was in the year from 3 to 2 B.C. This same year was accepted by Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, the Chronicon Cyprianicum, Eusebius of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Hippolytus of Thebes, Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, the Greek historian Zonaras, and Bar Hebreaus, who quoted Syrian, Armenian, and Greek sources. Epiphanius and the early Syrian chronological work called the Chronicon Edessenum indicate it was 2 B.C. Almost all the early Christian Fathers of whom we have record said Christ’s birth was in either 3 or 2 B.C. These scholars were certainly acquainted with the writings of Josephus, and they must have been aware of his eclipse information. Yet they chose a date for Christ’s birth later than the one commonly used today.

No one should be dogmatically for or against the idea that the later eclipse is the one to which Josephus referred; there is still considerable doubt about the chronological information of the period. But the 3/2 B.C. date of the early Fathers is of real interest when astronomical data for that year are consulted. From August, 3 B.C. to December, 2 B.C., the apparent motions of the heavenly bodies caused a number of planetary and stellar relationships that could not fail to excite observers who saw significance in such things.

On August 1, 3 B.C. the planet Jupiter became visible above the eastern horizon as a morning star. It had just come out of the light of the Sun. Twelve days later, at about 5 A.M., a very close conjunction occurred between Jupiter and Venus (already a morning star for six months); the space between them at the morning observation was a mere .23 degree. Although the planets did not appear to touch each other (a rare phenomenon indeed), they showed an exceptional closeness.

Then some five days later the planet Mercury emerged from the Sun to become a morning star. While this was happening, Venus left its conjunction with Jupiter and headed toward Mercury. On the morning of September 1, Venus and Mercury came into conjunction, .36 degree apart. Their appearance would have been similar to that of Jupiter and Venus a few days before.

Such conjunctions of Jupiter/Venus and Venus/Mercury are not in themselves rare, but when connected with further astronomical occurrences in the year 3/2 B.C., they could be thought to have a great deal of significance.

After the September 1 meeting with Mercury, Venus journeyed back into the light of the Sun, emerging in the west as an evening star about December 20, 3 B.C. When Venus became an evening star, an observer just after sunset would find the planet moving progressively higher in the sky (going more easterly) each day. This movement placed Venus on a collision course with Jupiter, which was moving progressively westward each day. At the period when Venus reached the easternmost point from the Sun that it ever reaches, on June 17, 2 B.C. the two planets “collided.” This was a most uncommon occurrence. They were a mere .02 degree apart. To an observer on earth, the luminosity that each planet showed would have made the two planets together look almost like one gigantic star. What a dazzling sight—and it was in the light of the full summer moon! Immediately after this rendezvous, Jupiter advanced ahead of Venus as they both moved into the light of the Sun. (It must be understood that all these planetary motions and relationships are the apparent ones, as viewed by observers on Earth.)

This, however, is only half of the story. While Jupiter was on its westward journey to link up with Venus for this rare reunion on June 17, 2 B.C., Jupiter was engaging in some exhibitions of its own. Thirty-three days after the first Jupiter/Venus conjunction back in August of 3 B.C., an observer would have seen Jupiter come into conjunction with Regulus, a star of the first magnitude that is the chief star in the constellation Leo. The conjunction occurred on September 14. The stellar bodies, as viewed from earth, were only .63 degree apart. After that encounter, Jupiter then proceeded on its normal course through the heavens. Then on December 1, 3 B.C., the planet stopped its motion through the fixed stars and began its annual retrogression. But in doing so, it headed straight back toward the star Regulus. On February 17, 2 B.C., it was once again in conjunction with Regulus. This time they were 1.19 degree apart. Jupiter then continued its retrogression another forty days, finally returning to its normal motion through the fixed stars.

Then note what happened. On May 8, 2 B.C., Jupiter again was in conjunction with Regulus, 1.06 degree apart. (For Jupiter to unite with Regulus three times in one year is not common.) After this third conjunction with Regulus, Jupiter continued moving westward (in an apparent sense) for forty days more. (Jupiter actually moves eastward through the fixed stars, except in retrogression, but because the dome of the sky appears to move westward at a faster rate than Jupiter’s eastward motion, an observer on earth would see Jupiter more westerly on each succeeding day.) Jupiter, after its three conjunctions with Regulus, went on to reunite with Venus on June 17, 2 B.C., as mentioned earlier. This conjunction was the rarest for many decades, and it happened when Venus was at its easternmost point from the Sun.

But even this rare Jupiter/Venus conjunction was not all. On August 27, 2 B.C., Jupiter emerged once again as a morning star. Mars, which had played no active part in the past year’s conjunctions, overtook Jupiter and formed a very close conjunction with it; the two planets were only .14 degree apart. Such nearness is not an ordinary occurrence, and it must have been a wonderful sight. Since the planets were only eight degrees ahead of the Sun, the light for the predawn probably diminished the display for the observer on earth. Yet astronomers in that period could have calculated the time of the conjunction and may have been looking for it.

These astronomical indications show that seven major conjunctions took place in 3/2 B.C. That year must have been an unusual and interesting one to astronomers—and even more so to astrologers. And this is where the Wise Men of the New Testament come into the picture.

Since most people in the first century believed in astrology as a scientific indicator of important events, these displays of 3/2 B.C. must have produced a good deal of excitement. Even the writers of the New Testament may have shared in it. The New Testament says that wise men (Magi) came to Jerusalem looking for a newborn king. History shows that the Magi were astrologers, and the New Testament says that some of them journeyed to Jerusalem asking for the king of the Jews, whom they wished to worship (Matt. 2:2). Suetonius (Vespasian iv) and Tacitus (Histories v 13), two Roman historians who lived in the first century, said there had long been a belief throughout the East (Palestine, Syria, Babylon) that near the first century a king would be born of the Jews who was destined to rule the world. Virgil also told of the dawning of the golden age in that period (Eclogue iv). Since such a belief was widespread, there is little doubt that the astrologers looked for astronomical signs concerning the arrival of the prophesied king.

The Gospel of Matthew says the Magi saw a particular star that was the signal of the king’s coming. The Greek words used in relating the event were the ordinary ones used throughout Greek literature to describe the regular rising of the stars or planets (Kittel, Theological Dictionary, I, 352). In their normal predawn observations the Magi could very well have seen an ordinary star (or planet) ascending above the eastern horizon, which they interpreted as the sign that the prophesied Jewish king was to be born. They were certain enough of their interpretations to make a long, arduous journey with costly gifts to present to the new king. The Bible says that Herod and all Jerusalem also took the sign of the star seriously.

What star could this have been?

The ingenious German astronomer Kepler back in 1606 A.D. suggested that the star of the Magi was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn appearing near some other star. In the last century, Ideler found that such a conjunction did occur in 7 B.C. But this year is very early for the birth of Christ, and later it was found that the planets Jupiter and Saturn were then at least two diameters of the moon away from each other. This was too far away for anyone to view them as a “star.” Some have suggested that the Bible is talking about a comet, but this is unlikely because comets were almost always interpreted as harbingers of evil. Perhaps it was an exploding star, a nova. Yet this suggestion is unprovable, and most scholars reject the idea. Some even feel it was an angel. Others say it was an outright miracle.

But let us recall a simple fact that the Gospel says happened: the Magi saw “his star” rising in the east. The text reads as if it were an ordinary morning star. Perhaps the star was a normal heavenly body that was in some kind of unusual configuration. Because 3/2 B.C. was an extraordinary year for visible astronomical occurrences, and since most early Christian writers say Christ was born in this year, perhaps we should focus our attention there.

Let us notice some astrological and biblical factors connected with the astronomical signs of 3/2 B.C. Since the New Testament shows that the “star” rose in the East, it would naturally be called a morning star. Christ said of himself, “I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star” (Rev. 22:16). We should recall that in 3 B.C. on the morning of August 12, eighty minutes before sunrise, Jupiter rose as a morning star in conjunction with Venus. How would astrologers (or Magi) interpret such a phenomenon? Astrological interpretation can vary widely, but let us notice some generally accepted beliefs.

Jupiter, known astrologically as the Father of the Gods, left the vicinity of the Sun and conjoined with Venus. This could be associated with a coming birth. In fact, “Jupiter was often associated with the birth of kings and therefore called the King-planet” (Hendriksen, Matthew, p. 153). Jupiter and Venus were also known as the Greater and Lesser Good Fortunes of the astrologers, and here they were in union. And note this: while this conjunction was occurring, the Sun (the Supreme Father), the Moon (considered a Mother), and Mercury (the Messenger of the Gods) were located in the single constellation of Leo—the Lion. The fact that these primary bodies were clustering in Leo may have had some biblical significance. The lion was the symbol of the tribe of Judah. Christ was called “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (Rev. 5:5).

Then twenty days later another interesting thing occurred. Mercury (the Messenger of the Gods) left its position with the Sun (the Supreme Father) and moved into close conjunction with Venus. To the Chaldeans, Venus was Ishtar, the Virgin Mother—the goddess of fertility. However, the planet normally was thought to take on masculine qualities as a morning star. It was feminine in the evening. But notice what happened to the Sun when the Mercury/Venus conjunction took place. The Sun (the Father) had entered the constellation Virgo (the Virgin). This occurred when Mercury (the Messenger) and Venus were now conjoined in the constellation of Leo (the Lion) and Jupiter itself was just then entering Leo. All these astral signs have biblical themes associated with them. The Supreme Father in the Bible is God the Father. His Son was to be born of a virgin, according to prophecy. He was to be a descendant of Judah (Leo, the Lion), and he was to be introduced by a messenger (“Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee”—Mark 1:2).

Following these planetary conjunctions, Jupiter then moved on (as we have shown earlier) to unite with the star Regulus on September 14, 3 B.C. This could have been a very significant event—especially in relation to the other conjunctions of the year. Regulus is the chief star in the constellation of Leo, and Leo was connected with Judah in the Hebrew zodiac.

The brightest star in the constellation of Leo is Regulus, known as “the Heart of the Lion.” The Babylonians referred to Regulus as “the King,” and the Romans called it Rex, “King.” In Arabia, Regulus was known as “the Kingly One.” The Greeks called it “Basiliscos Aster,” which means “King Star.” Of all the stars in the heavens, Regulus was the one universally connected by ancient astrologers with greatness and power. And it was clearly connected with the conception or birth of kings.

Here was the King planet Jupiter, which had recently united with Venus, now associating itself with the King star in the constellation of Leo (the tribe of Judah). At the time of this conjunction, the Sun (the Supreme Father) was positioned in the constellation of Virgo (the Virgin). All these features are very reminiscent of biblical themes associated with Christ.

But these are not all the signs of 3/2 B.C. After Jupiter’s three conjunctions with Regulus (the King star), Jupiter continued its westward journey, and on June 17, 2 B.C., it had its rare reunion with Venus. The planet Venus (now called the Mother, an evening star) was extending as far east as possible to meet her consort, Jupiter, the King planet. What occurrred was a splendid planetary conjunction visible to all on earth that, let us note again, occurred in the constellation Leo—the sign of Judah. The conjunction also happened at the exact time of the full moon. The two planets would have appeared almost as one gigantic star. Could it be that these same planets that had introduced the prophesied king when they were both morning stars some nine and two-thirds months ago were now finalizing that introduction of the newborn king with an impressive evening-star union?

This, however, was not the end. On August 27, 2 B.C. (seventy-two days later), observers would have seen the extremely close conjunction of Jupiter with Mars (the planet of War). This occurred just before sunrise, close to the Sun. If the planets had not been close together, they would ordinarily not have been seen from earth. But they were then in very close conjunction, and because of that their light could have shone through the predawn.

As a matter of fact, there were actually four planets near the same longitude in the heavens when Jupiter and Mars had their conjunction: Jupiter at 142.6 degrees; Mars, 142.56; Venus, 141.51; and Mercury, 144.28. For these four planets to be so close was an unusual occurrence. And remarkably, those planets clustering around one another were all located in the constellation of Leo the Lion while the Sun at that very time was entering the sign of Virgo the Virgin! These factors too could emphasize biblical events.

What could be the interpretation here? Since Jupiter and Mars had just become new morning stars, it could well signify that war would break out on the earth just before that prophesied messianic day could commence. At least the Bible predicts that this will happen—and astrologers may have interpreted the sign similarly.

One thing is certain: the year 3/2 B.C. was remarkable for its visible astronomical occurrences. And since Genesis 1:14 says that the heavenly bodies were given for signs, perhaps these unusual conjunctions were intended to signal the advent of the Christ Child into the world. The stellar body that played the most prominent role in this extraordinary year was Jupiter. It could well be that Jupiter was “his star” that the Magi followed to Jerusalem, and finally to Bethlehem.

Let us now look at some interesting biblical features that could be said to support this interpretation. It should be recognized that the Magi arrived in Jerusalem sometime after Christ was born (Matt. 2:2). He had been circumcised (Luke 2:21) and presented at the Temple (Luke 2:22–24). The parents of Christ were living in a house, not a manger (Matt. 2:11), and Christ was then called a paidon (child), not a brephos (infant). After the Magi presented their gifts, they returned home by a different route. In response to this subterfuge, Herod slew the infants around Bethlehem who were two years of age and younger (Matt. 2:16). Since it was often difficult to interpret whether heavenly signs were indicating conception or birth, Herod probably took both possibilities into account: he killed the children up to two years so as to include both the time of conception and the time of birth. All these indications show that the Magi must have arrived in Bethlehem several months after Christ’s birth.

This leads us to the final indication that the planet Jupiter may be the “Star of Bethlehem.” Recall that the Magi saw the star rise above the eastern horizon. And in August, 3 B.C., Jupiter did in fact rise as a morning star that soon came into conjunction with Venus. That started a series of six conjunctions with other planets and the star Regulus. The last planetary conjunction was the one with Mars in August, 2 B.C., but then something else happened with Jupiter: Jupiter left its conjunction with Mars and proceeded in its apparent motion westward. The Bible says the star “went ahead of them” (Matt. 2:9). Could it be that the Magi (who came from the East) simply followed the normal movements of Jupiter as it progressed westward each day? The text could be interpreted this way.

Then note what occurred. When they reached Jerusalem, the Magi were told to look toward Bethlehem for the newborn king. This happened at a time when the New Testament says the star came to a definite halt in the heavens—it “stood over where the young child was” (Matt. 2:9). And indeed, the planet Jupiter does become stationary in its motion through the fixed stars. This happens at its times of retrogression and progression. It could well be that Matthew was referring to such a thing.

Jupiter had come to the point of retrogression; it became stationary among the stars. It was now about to display its seventh and final sign of that extraordinary year. The precise time for the retrogression of Jupiter was December 25, 2 B.C.! On that day Jupiter became stationary in the heavens.

But how was it possible for Jupiter to be stationary over the village of Bethlehem at that time? Very simple. The Bible says the Magi saw the star while they were still in Jerusalem (Matt. 2:8, 9). Bethlehem is located five miles south of Jerusalem. And on December 25, 2 B.C., at the ordinary time of the Magi’s predawn observations, Jupiter would have been seen in meridian position (directly over Bethlehem) sixty-five degrees above the southern horizon. This position would have shown the planet shining right down on Bethlehem! Furthermore, it was the period of the winter solstice, and so not only Jupiter but also the Sun was “standing still” in the heavens. (The word solstice comes from Latin words meaning “Sun stands still.”) This occurrence could well have appeared significant to astrologers. “General observance required that on the 25th of December the birth of the ‘new Sun’ should be celebrated, when after the winter solstice the days began to lengthen and the ‘invincible star triumphed again over darkness’ ” (Cumont, Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans, p. 89). And now, both Jupiter and the Sun were “standing still,” and Jupiter was then situated in the constellation of Virgo the Virgin.

Would not astrologers have been impressed with these interesting heavenly relationships? The Magi could have interpreted them as the destined time for giving their gifts to the “newborn Sun”—this time the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2), born of the Virgin Mary.

The astrological interpretations I have suggested in this article may or may not be correct, but the occurrence of these astronomical phenomena in 3/2 B.C. is certain. Those exhibitions no doubt caused a great deal of excitement and wonder. They may well indicate that the early Christian historians were correct when they said Christ was born sometime in the period 3/2 B.C.

Is the United States the most religious nation in the world?

Pollster George Gallup, who may know as much about religious trends in the United States as anyone, said earlier this year that perhaps it was. Contrary to the gloomy pronouncements of some, Gallup sees little erosion of religious beliefs in our society. “Americans have in fact held firmly to basic religious beliefs over the last quarter century,” he says, “while a dramatic change has come about in certain European nations during this time.”

On a deeper level, however, it is difficult to claim the title “most religious” for the United States, or for any other nation, for that matter. In the biblical sense of “the nations” (ta ethne), some entire nations are highly religious in their way. The Sawi of Peace Child fame, for example, believed in a multiplicity of evil spirits dwelling in stones, trees, wind, and lightning. There were no exceptions, so it could be said that the Sawi are a totally religious “nation.” And even if we restrict “religious” to Christian, we find peoples in the world more religious than the United States. No area of the world is more thoroughly Christian than northeast India, where large tribes of headhunters have become followers of Jesus Christ during the last seventy-five years. Approximately three-fourths of the people in those tribes are Christian now. The Mizo “nation” leads with some 98 per cent of its population Christian.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the people of the United States are very religious. One recent Gallup survey found that 71 per cent of adults (eighteen or older) were members of a church or synagogue. This is quite remarkable, given the fact that the government officially neither requires nor encourages any particular religious belief. Religion is a matter of free choice in America, and most Americans choose to be religious at least to the point of associating themselves with a religious group.

At first glance the United States might also seem to be a highly sports-minded nation. Many people, and I am one of them, are keenly interested in sports. I live in the Los Angeles area and I cheer when the Dodgers, the Lakers, or the Rams win. In the Los Angeles Times I find multi-page sports sections seven days a week. And religion? Well, one has to wait until Saturday to find two pages buried in the interior of the paper, with half the space taken up by mediocre religious advertising.

But one day I became curious about what the situation really was. I went to the Statistical Abstract of the U. S. for sports data and to the Gallup poll for religious data, and found to my surprise that more American people attend church in an average week than attend all professional baseball, basketball, and football games combined in the average year! All athletic events of all kinds, professional and amateur, draw about 5.5 million spectators per week, while churches draw 85 million worshipers in the same week.

This ought to be encouraging to Christians. Shocking data can be compiled about drug addiction, prostitution, gambling, alcoholism, crime, pornography, and other prominent activities of the devil. But behind it all, Christians ought to remember that Jesus said, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). By nature, Christians should come down on the side of the optimists. Read the list of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 to confirm this. The vocabulary there is anything but pessimistic.

America as a Mission Field

Was America always as religious as it is now? Of course not. Because we send a great many missionaries out from America and receive few from other countries today, we forget that America was once a mission field. As W. Richey Hogg of Perkins School of Theology observes, “During the past two centuries, the greatest missionary effort in history among a single people was concentrated within the United States” (“The Role of American Protestantism in World Mission: A Bicentennial Perspective,” page 3; I derived a good bit of the information in this section from Hogg’s excellent study, presented to the American Society of Missiology at its annual meeting in June, 1976). And this effort met with good success. The result is that America has the largest group of professing Christians to be found in any one country in the world.

American mythology makes us think that all our forefathers were deeply Christian people. Such things as the language of the Mayflower Compact, the tradition of Thanksgiving Day, the Scarlet Letter, and Washington’s prayer at Valley Forge nourish the impression that in the colonial period the person who didn’t attend the Sunday-morning worship service, who hoed corn on Sunday afternoon, or who coveted his neighbor’s ox or ass was the exception to the rule.

Not so. British colonists in America were no different from British colonists in any other part of the world. America was a land of new opportunity for a free-wheeling life-style and substantial material gain. Religious freedom was an added attraction, but in more cases than not it was used as freedom to reject Jesus Christ rather than to serve the living and true God.

Colonial America was definitely a mission field. Some British Christians tried to meet the challenge through the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. But for the first hundred years their missionaries made little impression. Most colonists could hardly have cared less about Jesus Christ and the Church. And the colonial churches themselves were at a fairly low ebb until the Great Awakening swept the colonies about a half century before independence.

The bitter struggle for independence, which was a twenty-year process, tore many of the churches apart. The Anglicans found themselves in disarray, since most of their leaders were loyal to the British. Strong religious leaders like John Wesley were developing biblical arguments why the American revolution was wrong. And as a result, in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed, only about 7 per cent of the citizens of the new United States of America were church members.

At this point American Christians became those most directly responsible for the evangelization of their own people. The British could no longer do it. The task was enormous, and the story is thrilling. By 1850 American church membership was up to 20 per cent; by 1900 it had reached 36 per cent; and so far during our century it has risen to at least 60 per cent. Adding the synagogues and other religious organizations, we approach the 71 per cent registered by the Gallup poll.

One of the most exciting chapters in this story of the spread of the Gospel in America is the evangelization of the Africans who were forced to migrate to America as slaves. Although many of the facts about the evangelization of American blacks are just now emerging, it seems clear that blacks were largely evangelized by blacks. This is not to deny that some white churches made sincere efforts to evangelize the blacks. But black religion in America was mostly self-propagated. In fact, Kenneth Scott Latourette says that “all the extensive Protestant missionary effort of Europeans and Americans in Asia and Africa in the century between 1815 and 1914 had resulted in no greater numerical gains than had been achieved among the Negroes of the United States in the same period” (A History of the Expansion of Christianity, IV, 327).

Missionaries feel their work has been successful not just when a national church has been planted but when the church gets busy sending out its own missionaries. The first United States mission, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, was organized in Bradford, Massachusetts, in 1810. Its first five missionaries set sail for India in 1812. By the end of the century, 4,891 American missionaries were serving overseas, constituting roughly a fourth of the total world Protestant missionary force. Today the number has risen to over 35,000, about 64 per cent of the world’s missionaries. Voluntary giving to the world missionary enterprise has kept pace. American Christians currently contribute over $400 million annually to world missions.

How Well Is America Evangelized?

With a 71 per cent membership in religious organizations, it might seem that America is now virtually evangelized.

No one I know of, however, believes that this is so. There remains a tremendous evangelistic concern not only for the 29 per cent who do not belong to a church but also for many of the 71 per cent who belong to a church in some vague sense but who are not personally committed to Jesus as Lord. They are Christians only nominally. There is a wide gap between what they profess to believe when a polltaker questions them at their front doors and what they practice when the doors are closed.

Finding out how many Americans still need to be evangelized is not easy. Regrettably, through what I consider undue nervousness over maintaining the separation of church and state, our Census Bureau has not collected religious data for quite some time. We know exactly how many Americans attend horse races, how many fly on airplanes, how much Americans spend on shoes, and how many toilets there are in the houses in a given census tract. But the Census Bureau does not find out how many belong to churches, attend worship, go to Sunday school, or practice the Christian code in their daily lives. I think that data on church attendance is at least as valuable for an understanding of our society as data on theater attendance or purchase of toasters, but until some courageous legislators agree and are willing to work to bring about changes, we will be without our potentially most accurate data.

What the Census Bureau does give us, however, is the important figure of how many people there are in the country as a whole. I think that in evaluating past evangelistic efforts or in planning future strategy, it is helpful to deal not with the total population but with the number of adults. It is not that children are unimportant as people. God loves them and wants them to be saved. But for a measurement of the effects of evangelism on a broad scale, children are not nearly so significant as their parents. The figure I like to work with, then, is 143.8 million, the number of adults the Census Bureau says we have in the United States. It is most helpful to define adults as those eighteen or over because the Gallup poll, a most important source of religious data, also works with Americans eighteen and over.

How many of these 143.8 million adults have been evangelized? How many attend church?

The Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches is only partially helpful in answering these questions. The Yearbook publishes official denominational membership reports for about 330,000 U.S. churches. But no attendance reports are given. Furthermore, even the method used to report membership is not as helpful as it could be; a disclaimer that “church statistics are not always comparable” is placed in a prominent place in each edition of the survey. It is true that the established categories for reporting statistics differ from group to group. On that basis the official figures of one denomination cannot always be compared with those of another. But it seems reasonable to suppose that a Yearbook editor could develop formulas for refining the statistics in such a way that apples could be compared to apples across the board.

A relatively simple questionnaire or some type of marketing survey could reduce the official statistics to adults eighteen and over. Then we would know how many Jewish adults are affiliated with synagogues and how many Catholic adults belong to churches, whereas now Jews simply estimate the number of Jewish people in the community as a whole and Catholics count all baptized persons. Some Protestants do the same thing. To mention another problem: of the some 12 million Southern Baptists, 4 million do not reside in the localities of the churches where their names are on the rolls. That membership figure needs to be refined to compare with that of, for example, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, which underplays formal membership but has many loyal non-members who tithe and are active in church life.

Some church-growth experts recently got together in Pasadena, California, to attempt to draw up guidelines for compiling religious data helpful for planning evangelistic strategy for the United States. One of the results of that meeting was what is called the “church involvement axis.” Nine categories of people were described, beginning with those closest to the church and ending with those furthest away. It loooks like this:

1. Active church members who are strong.

2. Active church members who are weak.

3. Active members who are not born again or personally committed to Jesus Christ.

4. Resident members who are inactive.

5. Non-resident members (their names are on the roll in another town or city from where they live).

6. Adherents who attend church but whose names are not on the roll. Some of these people might be faithful believers but for reasons of their own have not taken membership in the church they attend.

7. Non-members who have a church background but who have become indifferent.

8. Non-members who have a church background but who have turned against the church and become hostile.

9. Non-members who have no church background; they constitute the “pagan pool.”

Obviously, the 71 per cent discovered by the Gallup poll to be members would span categories 1 through 5. But many of those people need to be evangelized even though their names might be on the membership roll of some church. They are what I would call “functionally unchurched.” The best approximation I can make is that 106.4 million American adults fall into the “functionally unchurched” category. This is 74 per cent. In other words, three out of every four American adults are lost and need to be evangelized. Most of the 69.2 million children need to be evangelized also.

This, then, is a tremendous challenge. Bible-believing evangelicals have no time to be complacent about the religiosity of the American people when more than 100 million adults still need to be touched personally with the Gospel of Christ. God certainly is not willing that they should perish. And the Scripture reminds us that they will not be able to hear of God’s provision unless there is a preacher to tell them (Rom. 10:14).

Evangelism Is In

Fortunately, things never looked so hopeful for finding lost people in America and bringing them into the Christian fold. The icy cynicism about the church common in the 1960s has now melted. Priorities are being straightened out. Instead of advocating the death of the institutional church, people are praying and working for its renewal and growth. It seems to me that functionally unchurched Americans have never been more ready to hear and accept the Good News. I see eight signs that suggest to me that we have entered a time of ingathering into the Christian Church in America:

1. The steadily increasing strength of the evangelical movement is furnishing a solid base for biblical evangelism. Evangelicals have consistently preached a biblically rooted message of personal repentance, faith, and regeneration. Some fix the number of U.S. evangelicals at 40 million, although the figure is a soft one. People from all socioeconomic strata, and every area of the country, and virtually every denomination count themselves as evangelicals. Participants in the exciting Messianic Jewish movement might well be called evangelicals. The National Association of Evangelicals has never been stronger. Evangelicals do not need to be persuaded that evangelism is God’s will. They know what their task is, and more of them are devoting time, energy, and money to getting it done.

2. Mainline denominations are beginning to recapture the evangelistic priority on high levels. One indication of this was the grass-roots demand for evangelism at the Fifth Assembly of the World Council of Churches (Nairobi, 1975). Both Bishop Mortimer Arias of Bolivia and John Stott of England spoke strongly for evangelism in the plenary sessions. The “Spirit of Lausanne,” a reference to the Congress on World Evangelization held in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1974, clearly made its influence felt in the World Council. An example of how it is also penetrating American churches was seen in the United Methodist Quadrennial Conference held earlier this year in Portland, Oregon. Overwhelmingly, the delegates there voted to place evangelism among the three highest-priority items for the next four years. Less official overtures are being heard from leaders in several other mainline denominations that have begun the process of reinstating evangelism as a matter of importance in their church life.

3. Strong statements on biblical evangelism are coming from Roman Catholic leaders. Reeling from the effects of a startling decline in attendance at mass from 71 per cent in 1963 to 50 per cent in 1974, many Roman Catholic leaders are searching for something that will reverse the trend. In October of 1974 the Synod of Bishops met in Rome under the theme “Evangelization of the Modern World.” One of the outcomes was an exhortation by Pope Paul VI, “On Evangelization in the Modern World,” in which he declared, “We wish to confirm once more that the task of evangelizing all people constitutes the essential mission of the church.” Paragraph after paragraph in the document sounds as if it could have been written at Moody Bible Institute. This, combined with the rapidly growing Catholic charismatic movement, may well signal a new day for Catholics.

4. The rapid growth of independent churches is almost hidden from the public in general. However, in many cities and towns one can find new churches called “Calvary Chapel” or “Bible Church” or “Evangelistic Center” or “Baptist Church.” These churches do not affiliate with any national denomination. They often are highly visible in their communities, but they lack combined national strength. I suspect that the fastest-growing religious movement in America is the Baptist Bible Fellowship movement. The superchurch First Baptist of Hammond, Indiana, is one of them. Although they do not figure in the statistics of the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, they are extremely important. One indication of strength is that Pastor Jack Hyles’s seminar at Hammond draws more than 5,000 per session, most of them Baptist Bible or other independent pastors. These independent churches are typically superaggressive in evangelism. As a result, a great many of them are growing well.

5. The church-growth movement, which traces its origins to Donald McGavran of the Fuller Seminary School of World Mission, is gaining wide acceptance. Just two or three years ago, those of us who are advocates of church growth had to devote much of our energy to defending the insights, methodologies, and research findings of the movement. No longer. Now the demand for church-growth teaching from those who are already strongly motivated far exceeds the supply of teaching time. Several Doctor of Ministry programs now have church-growth components for ministers who had no opportunity to study this area when they were in seminary. All this is building a strong theoretical base for highly effective evangelism in the near future.

6. During the last couple of years I have seen what I consider a significant breakthrough in the evangelization of two of our nation’s traditionally resistant peoples, the Jews and the Navajos. The Messianic Jewish movement, which encourages Jews to be born again, to follow Jesus (called “Yeshua”), and yet to remain Jews, is proving to be a powerful evangelistic force. A recent survey by the Jews for Jesus organization indicates that since 1976 somewhere between 14,000 and 35,000 Jews have become followers of Yeshua.

A week on the Navajo reservation recently has led me to believe that Navajo evangelism has turned an important corner. Navajos constitute about one-fourth of American Indians, and the tribe is increasing rapidly. The vigorous growth of some independent Pentecostal-type churches on the reservation is very encouraging. A change in missionary attitude and approach to culture also promises more effective evangelism. Missionaries are now recognizing that the old-school approach has not always been an effective evangelistic tool. They are beginning to use indigenous church-planting principles. A number of missionaries are now studying the Navajo language for the first time. To date, only a couple of missionaries are fluent enough to preach in Navajo, but this will change. Some of us may see the day when half of the Navajos are Christian.

7. Some parachurch organizations are beginning to relate to local churches much more creatively than they have in the past. The Evangelism Explosion program, one of the strongest new forces for evangelism training, originated in Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This evangelism is designed to produce church growth. The Fuller Evangelistic Association, founded by the late Charles E. Fuller, began a Department of Church Growth last year. It offers consultation services to churches and denominations that want professional help in developing evangelistic processes that will help their churches grow. Campus Crusade’s new “Here’s Life, America” program is working directly with local churches and is using a system specifically designed to incorporate converts into local churches. If other parachurch organizations take steps to gear their evangelistic efforts to church growth, tremendous spiritual power will be harnessed for God’s glory.

8. A new national mood of receptivity to spiritual truth is prevalent. The religion issue in the 1976 presidential campaign probably stirred as much interest in the claims of Christ as any hundred evangelistic crusades could have done; Jimmy Carter was not afraid to let the voting public know that he is “born again.” The dramatic conversion of former Nixon aide Charles Colson, told in his own words in the book Born Again, has made a strong impression on many readers. All this serves to create receptivity, especially among what I am calling America’s “functionally unchurched.”

There is much to be thankful for, and there is much to be done. New and growing forces for evangelism plus unprecedented openness to the message bid fair to make this last quarter of the century a very exciting time to be an evangelical and evangelistic Christian.

Ze Question Ist …

Some years ago the late Paul Tillich was fond of saying, in his impressive Teutonic English, “Ze question dot efery chilt has asked itself zince reaching der age of zix years ist, How did I come to be part of ze zum totality of being?” This is the root, no doubt, of Tillich’s own life-long concern with ontology. I always thought it a bit farfetched until the other morning when my four-year-old daughter asked before breakfast, “Daddy, how did we get to be real?”

My first reaction was, “Already?” And I was preparing to launch into some kind of explanation of biological reproduction. But fortunately my wife was equal to the occasion. Her philosophy is: Never answer a difficult question—ask another. So she asked, “What would we be if we weren’t real?”

The answer was prompt: “Puppets.”

You see, the second question sorted out the first. My daughter’s concern was ontological, not biological. (It’s always good to know the question before you give the answer.) She wanted to know about the very nature of being, not about how she came to be biologically.

And her question has a good answer, ontological and theological at the same time: We are real and not puppets because God made us to be able to respond to his love, to love him and serve him.

We take curiosity about biology, especially sex, to be basic and primary, natural questions, so to speak. Ontological questions, those relating to being and the nature of reality, we think of as unnatural, sophisticated, and abstract—questions demanding a high order of intellectuality to pose or answer.

But, in fact, they too are fundamental—and even before the age of six.

The Bible presents us early on with the statement that God made man in his own image. Man is first of all a creature and God’s image bearer; biology, psychology, sexuality, and all other aspects of human reality make sense only in the light of that primary fact.

We have accused past generations of suppressing or diverting children’s questions about sex and reproduction. We recognize that such questions should be answered, not evaded. But we are likely to evade the ontological question. To “Why am I here?” we answer, “Well, God made mommies and daddies.…” That may be the modern ontological equivalent of the biological evasion, “The stork brought you.”

And when all is said and done, it is far more important to know from an early age why we are not puppets than to be perfectly enlightened about storks and their limited role in the production of babies.

EUTYCHUS VI

From the March 15, 1974, issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

• The contributor of this year’s Eutychus column, Denny Rydberg, resigned after we were unable to use several columns he had submitted. We will reprint old Eutychus columns until the first issue of the new year, when Eutychus VIII takes over.—ED.

Don’t Stop Now

Thank you for your series on “Evangelicals in Search of Identity” (Footnotes, Jan.–Oct.). Carl Henry raised the right questions. Why can’t the series continue in an effort to address the penetrating questions raised? Why can’t CHRISTIANITY TODAY serve as a forum for the dialogue Carl Henry urged? Only frustration can follow if these questions fail to be addressed. Henry has suggested the direction. Let’s go.

LERON HEATH

Valley Community Church

Pleasanton, Calif.

Encouraging Inclusion

It is most encouraging to read articles like Ronald J. Sider’s “Evangelism or Social Justice: Eliminating the Options” (Oct. 8) … in CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Thank you.

EDWARD MCCLURG

Ravenna United Methodist Church

Seattle, Wash.

And Everything In Its Place

Those of us concerned with new books and the information they bring us appreciate the “Books” section of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Let the editorials, however, remain on the editorial page. Richard Allen Bodey devoted 17 per cent of his lead review (Oct. 22) to editorial comments about the place of management in the life of the church. Interesting as these comments were, they would have been more appropriate on the editorial page. I’m not at all sure we have lost a “biblical perspective” as he implies. If St. Paul wasn’t a silver-tongued orator, what was he? He was a good manager, a powerful fundraiser, and a skillful developer (of individuals and organizations). Church administration was no sideline or small piece of the pie to Paul. Express, nevertheless, our appreciation to Mr. Bodey for sharing his insight into some new and interesting books.

R. HOWARD MCCUEN, JR.

Stone United Presbyterian Church

Wheeling, W.Va.

Well Covered

I just want to give you a word of appreciation for the excellent artwork on the September 24 cover. It’s the best I’ve seen on any periodical.

WOODY WILSON

Berkeley Christian Coalition

Berkeley, Calif.

Stubbed Lobes

In the October 22 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Current Religious Thought) John Warwick Montgomery, ordinarily a brilliant logician, has stubbed his cerebral lobes. He faults both Ford and Carter for their refusal to favor a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. He goes on to condemn Ford’s proposal to have an amendment permitting each state to enact its own abortion legislation. According to Dr. Montgomery, this “leaves their [fetuses’] lives to the whims of state politics.”

But this is the constitutional way. Surely Dr. Montgomery is aware that there is no federal law against murder. Only state laws apply to any case of murder. In that sense the life of each of us is up to the whims of state politics. It seems to me that Ford’s answer was in keeping with the Constitution and with its recognition of the jurisdiction of the states over ordinary criminal activity.

JOHN V. LAWING, JR.

National Editor

National Courier

Plainfield, N.J.

John Montgomery’s abortion-related comments reflect a polar position that suggests a mush-headedness he attributes to others. As an economist seeking ethical reinforcement on controversial issues, I feel that the overriding biblical text for policy guidance seems to be First Timothy 5:8, the key question being, Can a family be maintained in a healthful enfironment? In many cases, “unwanted” children live in circumstances of great human misery. Because of insufficient family resources, they are often destined to become wards of the state—on welfare or in jail.

It would be fine if women who do not want children did not get pregnant, but they do by the thousands—and society pays! Although effective contraception (or abstinence?) is preferable, the abortion option should be legally available. If not, blatant discrimination is evident, as “the rich” do have this choice. Advocates of a constitutional amendment to override the 1973 Supreme Court decision simply have not thought through the long-term implications of their position. Did we not learn anything from the Volstead Act experience?

The matter turns on one’s definition of human life, which cannot be elaborated here. Is Dr. Montgomery really aware of the institutional chaos we would face when zygotes get legal rights? Actually, the fertilized egg is to a human being what an acorn is to an oak tree. The zygote reflects potential only and requires several months of growth to manifest true human characteristics.

Not only should the abortion option be available to all, it should be subsidized when necessary. If a prospective mother is unable to pay for a low-cost legal abortion, is it likely she would be able to provide adequate child care? A small upfront payment is preferable to a string of public outlays that often follow the birth of an “unwanted” baby—fiscal conservatives please note. As all geneticists know, nature is the great abortionist. To deny this option to biologically mature human beings is not in the public interest!

J. D. DEFOREST

Alexandria, Va.

Building Bridges

In her lead book review, Elizabeth Skoglund writes of “bridges joining psychotherapy … and the Church” (Nov. 5). Should evangelicals not become increasingly conscious of possibilities in bridge-building? I am referring especially to David Jeffrey’s basically excellent article in the same issue, “Discerning Truth: Is Man the Final Measure?” …

While “Christian humanism” as we know it may well be a fraud, the important question to ask is: “Is it possible, in the last analysis, to conceive of the freedom and dignity of man, as is supposed to be the thrust of humanism, except in a Christian context?”

It is historically true that Renaissance skepticism gave humanism and the humanities their start. But may not the underlying mundane situation have changed so much that today it would not be demeaning for religion (not just theology) to be regarded as one of the humanities? If it were, might this not help to make possible the type of further bridge-building that could result ultimately in the restoration of education?

STEPHEN B. MILES

Bellevue, Neb.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY has lived in rented quarters for twenty years. We now face the possibility of securing a building on land near the Chicago O’Hare Airport. Pray for the Executive Committee and Board as they consider this option versus a building in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.