Anyone who has seen an avalanche thunder down a mountainside sweeping strong rocks and trees, chalets and barns along with it as though they were pebbles and matchsticks in a stream, or anyone who has looked at the devastation caused by a cyclone such as the one that destroyed Darwin, Australia, last Christmas eve, knows what insecurity feels like. The sight of normally solid, dependable old landmarks suddenly shifting, sliding, and crumbling brings a reaction accompanied usually by an action! The action would in most cases be one of hurrying to more solid ground, the most dependable, safe area available.

Our news media report to us these days the crumbling of far more than mountainsides, houses, and towns. The “crumbling economy” and shifting value of money fill with dismay any who have looked with satisfaction at bonds and stocks or bank books as something to be counted on for the years ahead.

Security is often defined as a comforting amount of material goods in a house, bank account, land, and so on. The word “security” conjures up a picture of warmth, comfort, settledness, with no “risk” blowing a chill air in to bring a shiver.

Who wouldn’t prefer to be “secure” rather than “insecure,” whether in material things, health, emotions, talents, self-assurance, or human relationships?

Yet there is a danger signal that needs to be given very definite attention. You probably read in the accounts of the Australian hurricane that warnings had been given but had not been heeded because they seemed so impossible. We are warned that if we are secure in this world’s things, we are in danger of being insecure in that which matters most. We can be lulled to sleep by a false sense of security. If we are rich enough, have satisfactory health, have energy and talents, have enough food and shelter to feel protected from the spectre of “want” in its usual forms, then we can be harmed by the sweet drowsiness of warm security. If we have in our hands human security, we are not likely to feel the sensation of insecurity that it is important for us to feel.

“How ridiculous!” you may exclaim. “Who would find insecurity a desirable thing?”

Paul said, “I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor. 12:10). Paul previously spoke of his experiences with shipwrecks, prison, beatings, hunger—things that would make anyone feel insecure. Is he now taking pleasure in further difficulties? What double talk is that—“When I am weak, then am I strong?”

It seems to me that Paul is saying, “When I am insecure in this world’s things, then I have a reality of my security in the Lord.” Paul makes it clear in Second Corinthians 12:7 that it was when he cried out to God in prayer in the midst of the insecurity created by the thorn in the flesh that God’s strength was promised to him in his weakness.

The writer of Psalm 91 speaks of the secure place that is the only completely dependable place to be: “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of theLORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.”

But wait a minute—a fortress means protection, and there must be an awareness of a need for protection. One runs to find refuge only in a moment of need.

“Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.”

Would we run to hide under His wings if the noise of difficulty did not hit our ears with some kind of fearsome insecurity? As we read our newspapers, as we groan over the loss of money or lands, over the unsettled state of affairs in city or nation, are we not alerted to the fact that we may have been expecting a security for our lifetime in earthly things? We need to acknowledge quietly before the Lord the fact that insecurity in earthly things can open the way to our running to him, and finding the actual emotion filling us of the security under “his feathers” in his care.

“Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.”

It is not to be theoretical that in troublous times God’s children will one by one find the reality of his care. His care is to be a part of history. The truth of what God has spoken is to take place literally in life after life.

“He shall call upon me, and l will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him” (Ps. 91:15).

When will we “call”? When will we “run” to seek His security? Only when we are insecure in some portion of this world’s “necessities” of daily life and safety.

How secure a spot was Daniel’s in front of those lions? How secure do you think the three young men felt with their hands and feet bound, on their way to the door of the fiery furnace? How secure do you suppose Elijah felt as he sat by a wilderness brook during a time of famine? What security did these men have from the world’s viewpoint?

It is when earthly security is shaken to its core, when we are without a comfortable bit of “something to fall back on,” that we are ready to cry to God. The reality of trusting God comes when we really feel that our entire security is in him.

These days are troubled ones. Newsweek’s and Time’s reports as they looked back over 1974 may have caused you dismay. Predictions of a variety of brilliant men may strike fear into your heart. But together let us be thankful that we are being made aware of the insecurity, so that we can have the very specific result of security. Thank God for the security of insecurity!

“When I said, My foot slippeth; thy mercy, OLORD, held me up” (Ps. 94:18).

Our action must be to run to more solid ground, the most dependable, safe place available in the universe. All other ground is sinking sand.

Malpreaching: Who Pays?

A recent court case in Florida shows that the minister should begin to watch the law-courts. Having believed a sermon on the blessings that would follow upon consistent tithing, a man sold his assets and contributed a tenth of the proceeds to his church. When the hoped-for material blessings were slow in coming, he brought suit against the preacher to recover what he said was his fraudulently obtained tithe.

What we are facing is the prospect of malpreaching suits on a wide scale. After all, if a doctor has to pay damages for having carelessly or ineffectually cared for his patient’s body, should not the preacher be forced to account for carelessness or ineffectiveness in treating the patient’s soul? As long as the preacher confines himself to promises whose fulfillment judges and juries can verify only once they themselves have passed into the Hereafter, from whence they can no longer award damages, he runs little danger. But when he starts to promise blessings in the Here and Now he is asking for trouble.

Regrettably, the insurance companies show no enthusiasm for writing malpreaching policies. In addition, probably few preachers could afford to pay the premiums. (A typical physician in New York, according to a recent report, will pay $14,000 for malpractice insurance in 1975.) Perhaps the ministry will be forced to conclude that prevention is better than insurance. They could refuse to accept new parishioners. Or they could limit their practice to certain spiritual specialties where the danger of a potential misstep is reduced. (What, for example, is the spiritual equivalent of dermatology?) They could insist on spiritual consultations, with at least three ministerial specialists sharing the pulpit on an average Sunday and five or more on days with strong soteriological significance, such as Good Friday and Easter. It would also be wise to develop a battery of tests to apply to parishioners before preaching to them.

Some critics have suggested that neither clergy nor churchgoers will be able to pay for this testing, and that in time there will be a demand for socialized preaching. Well, why should a government that cares for its people from the cradle to the grave drop its concern at that rather arbitrary limit?

The long-term solution will doubtless involve something like a National Salvation Service. Until that time comes, however, our advice to the clergy must be: Beware of malpreaching!

The Logic Of Logic

The editorial “How Far Can We Trust the Bible?” (January 17) seems to be intended as a logical defense of the inerrancy of the Scriptures. If it is proper to use logic for this purpose, shouldn’t we go about it in a logical way?

“It is abundantly evident,” says your writer, “that our Lord regarded the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, as the infallible Word of God.” In Matthew 5, there are six instances in which Christ quoted from the Hebrew Bible and then said, “But I say …” In the first three instances he was deepening the meaning of the quotation, but in the others he was differing from the original meaning.

Take the example, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Here our Lord has apparently combined the injunction to “love your neighbor” (Lev. 19:19) with some such passage as Psalm 137:9, where the Psalmist, speaking to Babylon, captor of Israel, wrote, “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!”

Jesus said that part of Scripture was wrong; instead of hating our enemies, we should love them.…

You may reply that since Jesus was the Word incarnate he had a right which we do not have—to distinguish between the authoritative and the less authoritative parts of the sacred writings. But the argument of the editorial was that Jesus never questioned any part of the Bible. I submit that he did.

The Rev. MARION S. HOSTETLER

Montpelier, Ohio

You have stated the precise issue that faces the Church today as we attempt to interpret and apply Scripture. It is still very much the authority and reliability of Scripture that is at stake as we debate over the use of the so-called historical critical method. Those who assume that Scripture can err simply do not read it in the same way as those of us who accept its complete authority and reliability. And in the end they will come to doctrinal positions far different from that of historical Christianity.

President

Concordia Theological Seminary

Springfield, Ill.

How Does The Bible Mean?

“Good Reading in the Good Book” by Leland Ryken (January 17) is an article necessary not only for teachers of the Bible as literature, but for all preachers of the text. Those who charge that fundamentalists and evangelicals miss the enjoyment of Scripture in their search for the truth of Scripture may be more correct than we are willing to allow. In my own classes in exegetico-homiletics I attempt to stress the literary genre as well as the theological data. I would demur Ryken’s shortchanging the theological input in the book of Ruth … but if we are preaching literature we should ask literary questions as well as those based on theology. I have used John Ciardi’s imaginative title, How Does a Poem Mean, as a springboard for the larger question: How does the Bible mean what it means? True exegetical preaching relates not only the theology but reflects the literary mood.

Assistant Professor of Old Testament

Language and Exegesis

Western Conservative Baptist Seminary

Portland, Ore.

One Man’S Tragedy

Although the biblical stories listed in Wilfred J. Martens’s article “Christian Tragedy” (The Refiner’s Fire, Jan. 31) turn out to be Christian comedy rather than tragedy (Job, John the Baptist, Stephen, and Christ), it seems to me that there are plenty of examples of biblical tragedy. Most of the tragedies which come immediately to mind can be contrasted with closely related Christian comedy; Esau vs. Jacob; Saul vs. David; Judas vs. Peter. Other examples of tragedy might include Ahithophel (2 Sam. 17); Uzziah (2 Chron. 26); and Herod Agrippa (Acts 12). It would seem to me that these tragedies are “Christian” tragedies in the sense that they are played out within a Christian theology—as opposed to the pagan philosophy of the Greek tragedies.

Dallas, Tex.

Don’T Blame Us

Your article “Sexuality and Ministry” (Jan. 31) represents one of the gay ministers, Lee Carlton, as being a graduate of Northwest Bible College. Carlton is not a graduate, even though he did regrettably spend some time on the campus. He does not represent the institution nor the sponsoring denomination from which he was expelled.

President

Northwest Bible College

Minot, N. D.

I would like to correct one misconception that may have been received from the article. Troy Perry, who you state “got his theological training at Moody Bible Institute,” was a student for less than one semester in our Evening School division. Technically he did not complete even one course so it can hardly be said that he got his theological training with us.

Director of Public Relations

Moody Bible Institute

Chicago, Ill.

Plowman states: “Arsonists destroyed five churches in 1973 (thirty-two persons, including the pastor, died in a New Orleans blaze).…” I don’t know where he received his information. The establishment in question was known to the news media and people of New Orleans as a gay bar and not a “church.” If it was a church, since when is a bartender known as a pastor?

New Orleans, La.

Numbers Mean Nothing

Numbers in a cathedral prove nothing (“A Cathedral in Chile,” Jan. 17). The apostles were scarcely in the majority in their day, yet they were of the truth. In fact, such flight to a highly personal, vertical, emotional, and individualistic faith often represents flight from the world, and from a Jonah-call to preach to the social, economic, and political power-structures of the day.

“Chile: Church and Caesar” (Jan. 17) was shallow reporting, showing an all too Nixon-flavored prejudice for the industrial giants, supported by military power, who enjoy the free enterprise of keeping the poor in their place, and the rich in theirs. Why did you give such short shrift to the thousands summarily arrested this past summer, the mutilated bodies of political detainees who periodically surface, the banning of trade unions, the prohibition of elections, the fascist-style take-over of the universities by the military, the censorship of communications, and the “screws” which were put on the Allende administration by such countries as Canada and the U. S. Why do you not report Allende’s attempts at justice, alleviating starvation, and tolerance of varying opinions?

When Pentecostalism supports dictatorship, it is praised by state leaders as Christian citizenship. When the church criticizes a government, it is called meddling.

Executive Secretary

Lutheran Church in America–Canada Section

Toronto, Ont.

Inspiring To Action

W. Stanley Mooneyham’s “Ministering to the Hunger Belt” (Jan. 3) is, so far as I can remember, the best piece I’ve ever seen in CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Much of evangelical proclamation is talking about the end of the age or of Jesus as a spiritual person somewhere in heaven. Jesus walked the earth and so much of his work was either actual healing or teaching about how his disciples should live in an unregenerate world.

Thank you for this article. It is very informative and inspires to action.

Fort Wingate, N. M.

Much of the blame for present hunger in the world can be laid at the door of foolish anti-capitalist practices of national governments. Tanzania, to cite one example, has deliberately brought to her people the specter of famine by her insistence upon the old discredited communist collectivization policy. Even Russia would have experienced food shortages by now if she had not received aid from the capitalist United States.…

Why do we shy away from really helping the hungry by showing them how to maximize long-term food production through private enterprise? Such effort would no more be “getting away from the Gospel” than the earlier efforts at communicating agricultural and medical wisdom.

Lubbock Bible Church

Lubbock, Tex.

By Any Other Name

Richard Nixon’s former chief of staff is Harry Robbins Haldeman. His name is not Robert (“The Jury Decides,” Jan. 17).

Springfield, Mo.

Disappointing Argument

Nancy Barcus suggested that only “careful biblical exegesis” could form an adequate foundation for the anti-abortionist’s argument (“Thinking Straight About Abortion,” Jan. 17). Well said. The Scriptures alone are the necessary and sufficient standard in matters of faith and practice.

How disappointing it was, therefore, to see her turn immediately to an argument based on “objective medical research” unclouded and unsupported by moral judgments. She went on to call for statistical analysis of psychological data, and suggests that we “have an informed sociologist do our homework for us.” What happened to the biblical exegesis that was to form the cornerstone of the Christian’s argument? Medical men, psychologists, and sociologists may supply needed information about the situation, but only as that data is examined through the eyes of Scripture can the question be righteously decided.

Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Sonora, Calif.

Gateway To Diversity

Gateway Films is a distributing firm for evangelical audiences (Hazel’s People and The Girl Who Ran Out of Night) for Roman Catholic audiences (Rain For a Dusty Summer and Upon This Rock) and for general audiences (About Addiction and Living With Fear). The three categories often overlap.

Rain For a Dusty Summer, starring Ernest Borgnine and Padre Humberto, tells of the faith of a priest who worked and died to keep the church alive during the 1917 Mexican revolution. The rebellious priest loves God and serves him to the best of his ability. This well-made film should interest all audiences with its humor, gentleness, and historicity. It is reminiscent of Graham Greene’s The Power and the Glory, though the priest in Rain is more moral.

Originally called by the much better title “Happy as the Grass Was Green,” Hazel’s People stars Geraldine Page and tells the story of a young activist’s encounter with himself and ultimately with Christ while visiting a Mennonite community in Pennsylvania. Hazel’s People explores the rebel’s conversion in an understated, sensitive way without the pressures or cliches commonly associated with film-style repentances, and explains differences between Mennonites and Amish. The film, not yet released for theater viewing, deserves a wide audience.

The Girl Who Ran Out of Night combines good cinematography with effective background music and a compelling script to create a forceful look at the dangers and problems with thousands of runaway girls. Although the girl becomes a Christian near the end of the film, her struggle over the decision avoids the pat-answer syndrome. We never see her boyfriend accept Christ, though he promises the prison chaplain to read the Bible.

Most people in our society are too well acquainted with fear and drug addiction. Although neither Living With Fear nor About Addiction is specifically Christian, each depicts its problem area thoroughly and could be used by churches or schools as a discussion-starter. About Addiction is only ten minutes long, but in that brief span it gives a competent, realistic look at the situation. Tranquilizers and barbiturates are not overlooked. The film’s brevity is a plus, since it leaves more time for discussion in an hour-long class. Living With Fear takes nearly an hour to view.

To combat the violence that Gateway executives Edward Rapp and Kenneth Curtis think is inherent in football, the company is distributing a film on major-league soccer. After some judicious editing—planned by Gateway—Miracle of ’73 (the title needs to be changed) should be a fast-paced, entertaining, and informative look at a sport growing in popularity in this country.

These examples of the films distributed by the three-year-old company (most of them are by little-known directors and producers) show a balanced approach to the Gospel. Rapp and Curtis in the films they choose to distribute express sensitivity to social issues as well as evangelism. CHERYL FORBES

Tuning Up

The development of an artist is interesting to watch—or, in this case, hear. Paul Clark, a Christian folk-rock singer and composer, has grown since his first album a couple of years ago. Songs From the Savior, volume one, contained a collection of predictable songs, though some of the lyrics and titles showed imagination. For example, “Looking Glass Incident” and “Sacred Cowboy” approached Christianity in an offbeat and intriguing manner. Depicting Christ as cowboy was a fresh way of handling the message. But throughout the album the songs varied too little to hold attention.

Volume two opens with a tuneless song about Nicodemus, but the backup music shows more maturity and gives the cut a strength it would not have with the straight guitar accompaniment of volume one. “Sacred Cowboy” has a country flavor, and “Take All of Me,” one of the better songs on volume two, takes that style a little farther, with greater effect. Many Christian singers and groups use the country style well (Love Song, Tom and Sherry Green, and Petra, for example), and Paul Clark is among them.

The classical guitar and violin introduction on volume three, Come Into His Presence, sets the mood for the album’s theme. The title song is easy to remember and to sing; back-up instrumentation and vocals aid the lyrics rather than fight them, as sometimes happens on album one. “He’ll Do the Same,” which leads off side two, is an upbeat number with a fine guitar interlude separating verses.

The new album provides the same evangelistic emphasis as the other two with a more sophisticated musical sound. I look forward to Paul Clark’s next release.

CHERYL FORBES

Newly Pressed

Scott Wesley Brown (Georgetown Record Corporation, P.O. Box 3744, Georgetown Station, Washington, D. C. 20007; GT-001 AB). The Sons of Thunder, a group from Washington’s Fourth Presbyterian Church, provide back-up on Brown’s first album, produced two years ago. Brown, who writes most of his music, effectively melds notes and lyrics and has a good balance between ballad and upbeat songs. He gives us a catchy adaptation of “You Are My Sunshine.” Tempo shifts midsong create interesting moods, and Brown, unlike many rock singers, varies his voice color in interpreting his music. But I wish he hadn’t copied Paul Stookey so exactly on “Noah’s Ark.” His next album, produced by Larry Norman, will be out soon.

Hill Climbing For Beginners, Water Into Wine Band (Myrrh Gold, Word, London; MYR 1004). Use of bongos and a tenor recorder give this album a unique sound; vocals are quite British, almost nasal. Duets between electric guitar and violin in “I Used to Be Blind” create a haunting, lyrical effect that is almost melancholy—not quite the emotion I usually associate with “I once was blind, but now I see.” “Song of the Cross” takes up most of side two and approaches the classical art song in form. This album is well worth owning.

The Renaissance II (Tempo Records, Inc., 1900 W. 47th Place, Mission, Kan. 66205; 7097). The ten singers use close harmony and a soft gospel sound to reinterpret such old favorites as “His Eye Is on the Sparrow” and “For God So Loved the World.” Unfortunately, some of the solo voices are flat as well as soft.

Go Tell Your World!, Free Spirit (Impact, 1625 Broadway, Nashville, Tenn. 37202 or Box 2307, Vancouver 3, B. C., Canada; R3316). Music similar in style to that of “Renaissance II,” but with a cleaner, crisper sound. The orchestration is reminiscent of the 101 Strings, the voices of the Johnny Mann Singers. The Last Battle, Mike Johnson (Creative Sound, 15720 Stagg Street, Van Nuys, Calif. 91406; CSS 1567). A heavy, hard-driving sound. The lyrics aren’t specifically Christian, though “Pride” hits each one of us. “Happy” says the composer has a reason to live; too bad he doesn’t tell us what that is. Fool’s Gold, by Kentucky Faith (Mark Records, no address given; MRS-2178). Kentucky Faith—Ken Munds, Don Kistler, Dave Rose, Jeff Tait, and Richie Yenovkian—brings to life again the best harmonies and instrumentations of the Chad Mitchell Trio and the Dillards in, for example, “On a Hill” and “I Bowed My Head,” respectively. A blend of funky love songs, folk songs, and new-style gospel music makes the album one of the best I’ve heard.

A Taste of New Wine, Newbury Park (Creative Sound, 6922 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood, Calif. 90028; CSS 1566). Mark Lawson, Glen Scott, Kris Larsen, and Sylvia Torres blend well on both love songs and gospel songs. The phrase “little black book” shifts in that song to mean the Bible. Some lyrics are ambiguous in meaning; for instance, is “Never Could Live Without You” a stock love song or a love song to Jesus?

CHERYL FORBES

The Easter message, despite its familiarity, remains one of the most incompletely understood of the foundations of the Christian faith. To celebrate the resurrection with flowers, music, and a special sermon is all very fitting. But as Floyd V. Filson said in Jesus Christ the Risen Lord, “There is a fatal weakness in our modern emphasis on Easter. The emphasis is, of course, true to the Gospel message; the Resurrection is central. But too many Christians begin to look to a long summer vacation once they have had a ‘big Easter.’ For the first Christians, the Resurrection was not the end of the story; it was the climax which leads on to further momentous developments.”

Of no other great religious leader except Jesus Christ can it be said, “He showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3). Such a thing cannot possibly be claimed for Moses, who died before entering the Promised Land. Nor can it be said of Confucius, who ended his days a disillusioned old man. Neither can it be asserted of Buddha or Lao-Tze, Zoroaster or Muhammad. They too went the way of other men, and their followers have never dared claim that they left the grave.

Christ is different. His work has a unique consummation and continuance. Just as no other religion aside from Christianity has a founder who arose from the dead, so no other religion has a founder who died for the sin of the world and who continues to save all who put their trust in him.

“But,” someone says—and there are many who are saying it today—“all this is mere assertion. It’s all very well to declare that Jesus Christ is unique because he alone rose from the dead. But we want more than assertion. We want proof.”

There is proof, if we will but look at the evidence. The resurrection of Jesus Christ does not rest on unsupported assumption. It is not a wistful grasping after some vision. On the contrary, it is based upon a whole chain of evidence—“many infallible proofs,” as Luke calls them.

What are they? Well, there is the fact of the empty tomb, a fact that stands in the way of all attempts to explain away the resurrection. There is the circumstance of the precisely disposed grave clothes. There are the numerous appearances over nearly six weeks, as he was “seen of them forty days,” during which he appeared to Mary Magdalene, to two disciples on the Emmaus road, to the disciples in the locked room when Thomas was absent, to the disciples in the locked room when Thomas was present, to the seven at the Sea of Galilee, to the five hundred, to James, and to Paul on the Damascus Road. These are some of the infallible proofs.

And there are also others, such as the existence of the Christian Church itself. For it is undeniable that, if the disciples had not been convinced that their Lord arose and was living, there would never have been any Christian Church. Dr. Josiah Penniman, a former president of the University of Pennsylvania, used to teach a course in English Bible to college students. When he was asked one day about proof of the Resurrection, he quietly walked to the window of his classroom and pointed to the many church spires in that part of Philadelphia. The Church is indeed a visible outcome of the fact that the Lord who is its Founder and Foundation actually rose from the dead.

Again, every Sunday bears its own witness to the living Christ. For the only adequate way to account for the shift in the day of worship from the Sabbath to the First Day is the Resurrection. Sunday is for Christians the Lord’s Day, because on this day he arose.

Luke’s emphasis on proof reminds us that the Resurrection is as much a historic event as the birth in Bethlehem and the death on the cross. As the risen Christ said: “I am he that liveth and was dead: and behold, I am alive for evermore” (Rev. 1:18).

But the Resurrection, while indeed historical, is also an event of continuing, contemporary significance. Important as the evidence is, the risen Christ is for us Christians more than an event of the past, more than a great theological doctrine. He is a living person, and it is our inexpressible privilege to know him personally. As Paul put it in brief but intimate words, “Christ who is our life” (Col. 3:4). By this he meant among other things that, though our Lord Jesus Christ rose once and for all in the mighty display of God’s power when the stone was rolled away and his body left the grave, he keeps on living in every Christian life.

It is significant that the Bible records nine instances where human beings were raised from the dead—several of them in the Old Testament and others in the New Testament, including the raising of Jairus’s daughter, the raising of the son of the widow at Nain, and, most notable of all, the raising of Lazarus. But in every case these persons were raised in their mortal bodies to continued human life after which they died. Christ was raised “after the power of an endless life” (Heb. 7:16) in a unique, glorified, and deathless body. Moreover, his resurrected body is the “first fruits of them that slept” (1 Cor. 15:20), the very pattern and assurance of our own resurrection when he comes again. Therefore we are able to say in the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in the resurrection of the body.”

The Easter message is the message of the living Christ. But how is he living? The answer to that question faces us with a reality that is at the same time a mystery. He lives in his glorified body. He lives in a body that transcends human limitations. When he appeared during the forty days, he had a body bearing the print of the nails and the wound of the spear. In this same body he ascended. In it he is in the place of exaltation at the right hand of God. Yet because of who he is, because he is God incarnate and so an infinite person, he is spiritually and actually beyond the limitations of time and space. So we know—we don’t conjecture or guess—we Christians know that Christ is present with us. Just as David Livingstone in his journeys into the heart of Africa was not alone because of the promise of his Lord, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20), so we who are not exploring a continent but living everyday lives have Christ with us. It is our heritage to know and have fellowship with the risen, living Lord. God said to Hudson Taylor, “I will evangelize China, if you will walk with me.” And Hudson Taylor did. He walked with God with the result that the great China Inland Mission came into being. It is the risen Christ with whom we walk.

Toward the middle of his life, R. W. Dale, the author of a classic book on the Atonement, made, he said, “the discovery that Jesus is alive,” and it transformed everything for him. Have you made this discovery?

“Christ,” said Paul, “is our life.” Or, as he put it so very personally, “Christ liveth in me” (Gal. 2:20). Think of it! Jesus Christ, by his spirit, actually lives in the believer’s heart! He is identified with us and we with him. This being the case, we cannot even begin to know the fullness of the Easter truth till we learn something of what it means to have Christ living in us. These lines, attributed to St. Patrick, express it:

Christ be with me, Christ within me,

Christ behind me, Christ before me,

Christ beside me, Christ to win me,

Christ to comfort and restore me,

Christ beneath me, Christ above me,

Christ in quiet, Christ in danger,

Christ in hearts of all that love me,

Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.

But to realize these things is no sudden achievement. It was Spurgeon who said with humility, “In forty years I have not spent fifteen waking moments without thinking of Jesus.” How is it with us? Do we cultivate the presence of the living Christ by thinking often of him?

When our Lord appeared to Thomas, who had doubted the reality of His resurrection, Thomas declared, “My Lord and my God.” Then Jesus said to him: “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen and yet believed” (John 20:28, 29). That is the Easter beatitude, the beatitude of the living Christ. And it belongs to all who, looking in faith to the risen Lord, can echo the words of First Peter 1:18 in their hearts, “whom having not seen, we love.”

I am the pastor of a church that does not stress speaking in tongues. However, I have tried my best to make a climate of Christian fellowship and worship that will accommodate both those who speak in tongues and those who do not. My intention was to open the doors of Christian sharing to everyone who loves the Lord Jesus as Saviour.

Having had about a dozen persons in the congregation who speak in tongues, I have come to some hard conclusions after a year of effort. These conclusions have been heart-breaking to me; I expected much more from those who speak in tongues than their lives have shown. Here are the reasons for my disappointment:

1. These persons arrived on the scene with smiles and hand shakes and praises to the Lord. They carried their Bibles and became a part of the congregation’s program and fellowship. However, after some months it was obvious that they had a spiritual superiority complex, and it became obnoxious. Professing to be filled with the Spirit of humility and holiness, these persons expressed the opposite. The subtle but real spiritual conceit became more and more apparent until the words “Spirit-filled” came to have a regrettable taint.

Other pastors with whom I have talked have had similar experiences. There is often a “know-it-all” attitude among those who speak in tongues that exactly contradicts what they profess in testimony. They definitely give the impression that those who do not speak in tongues have not “arrived” spiritually, do not have the sensitivity to interpret the Scriptures, do not have prayer power that can bring results.

2. These persons are insensitive to the concept of Christian discipline. In many of them, habits of worldliness remain while the tongues-speaking flourishes. Furthermore, these people do not allow themselves to be directed toward discipline; they feel that they have achieved spiritual maturity when they come into tongues, and they tend to look down upon those who do not speak in tongues, even those who are living a more holy, dedicated life in Christ. The blind spot concerning discipline is appalling. Speaking in tongues should certainly be accompanied by holiness in everyday living, but often it is not.

3. They are unteachable. Again the spiritual superiority complex rears its ugly head. The tongues-speakers apparently believe that they know it all, that they are to be the teachers of all God’s children, that on every topic of the Christian faith the truth resides in them. No matter what theme of Christian living was being discussed in Bible study it had to go under the scrutiny of their microscope for their final conclusion.

Again, in comparing experiences with other pastors, I have found this attitude to be common. It damages the genuine speaking-in-tongues movement and hinders those pastors who would like to maintain a climate of charity among all Christians.

4. These persons tend to split churches rather than to bring unity to the overall body of Christ. First Corinthians 12 emphasizes the unity of the body, and that which brings division is not to be tolerated, as Paul makes clear throughout the entire letter. If those who speak in tongues would only understand this biblical emphasis! They claim to have such a high regard for the body of Christ, and yet they often pull the limbs of the body and cause it much hurt. The unity and oneness they espouse must be based solely on their perspectives and practices, their own interpretation of the Scriptures. No latitude is allowed for differing opinions from other believers.

5. These people become church hoppers. They stay in one congregation for a while and then move on to another one. They do not develop a sense of faithfulness to any one congregation. Furthermore, they do not hesitate to take other persons from the congregation with them when they go on to another church. And after they have left, they criticize with barbed speech persons in the previous church. Does this further the unity of the body of Christ? Does this exemplify the love and holiness of the Spirit?

I tried. I honestly tried my best to open the doors of Christian fellowship to those who speak in tongues as well as to those who do not. I tried to provide a pastoral base of cordiality and understanding in open remarks from the pulpit.

But I have been disappointed. I have been turned against by the very ones I defended. Why? I am convinced that they did not have the Holy Spirit. They were possessed with a counterfeit, a fake. They were living on an ego trip, a manufactured religious “high.” The daily lives of these people just did not match their witness, and so they hurt me, the congregation, and their own testimony as well as the cause of Jesus Christ.

I had hoped that those who had received the gift of speaking in tongues would be a real blessing to our congregation. I had prayed that we would be one together for the furtherance of the Kingdom, that more souls would be saved and the church built up in the power of the Lord to do great things to his honor. I had hoped and prayed and had exhorted all the people to find their unity in Him and so find miracles in the church’s witness.

But it all came to naught. The tongues-speakers have left and are attending another church. For another year? Perhaps. Then they will move on to another congregation and try to play their same religious games with another group of people. Perhaps they will be turned away at the very outset; suspicion is running high in many places because of experiences like those I have described.

Many within the tongues movement have much to learn about humility in the Lord, Christian discipline, the holy life in everyday experience, and simple ethics in relations with others. They have a great need to get a better perspective on speaking in tongues, to give it its proper place among the other gifts of the Spirit, the other graces of the Spirit. It is my prayer that what I have said here will move some to examine themselves, for the sake of the unity of the body of Christ.

The charismatic movement began within the historic churches in the 1950s. On the American scene it started to attract broad attention in 1960, with the national publicity given to the ministry of the Reverend Dennis Bennett, an Episcopalian in Van Nuys, California. Since then there has been a continuing growth of the movement within many of the mainline churches: first, such Protestant churches as Episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterian; second, the Roman Catholic (beginning in 1967); and third, the Greek Orthodox (beginning about 1971). By now the charismatic movement has become worldwide and has participants in many countries.

As one involved in the movement for the past decade, I should like to set forth a brief profile of it. A profile of the charismatic movement within the historic churches would include at least the following elements: (1) the recovery of a vital and dynamic sense of the reality of the Christian faith; (2) a striking renewal of the community of believers as a fellowship (koinonia) of the Holy Spirit; (3) the manifestation of a wide range of “spiritual gifts,” with parallels drawn from First Corinthians 12–14; (4) the experience of “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” often accompanied by “tongues,” as a radical spiritual renewal; (5) the re-emergence of a spiritual unity that essentially transcends denominational barriers; (6) the rediscovery of a dynamic for bearing comprehensive witness to the Good News of Jesus Christ; and (7) the revitalization of the eschatological perspective.

Persons in the charismatic movement ordinarily stress first the recovery of a liveliness and freshness in their Christian faith. This may be expressed in a number of ways. For example, the reality of God has broken in with fresh meaning and power. God, who may have seemed little more than a token figure before, has now become vividly real and personal to them. Jesus Christ, largely a figure of the past before, has now become the living Lord. The Holy Spirit, who previously had meant almost nothing to them, has become an immanent, pervasive presence.

The Bible, which may have been thought of before as mostly an external norm of Christian faith, or largely as a historical witness to God’s mighty deeds, has become also a testimony to God’s contemporary activity. It is as if a door had been opened, and walking through the door they found spread out before them the extraordinary biblical world, with dimensions of angelic heights and demonic depths, of Holy Spirit and unclean spirits, of miracles and wonders—a world in which now they sense their own participation. The supposed merely historical (perhaps legendary for some) has suddenly taken on striking reality. Prayer, formerly little more than a matter of ritual, and often practiced hardly at all, becomes a joyful activity often carried on for many hours. The head of a theological seminary now involved in the charismatic movement speaks of how his administrative routine has been revolutionized: the first two hours in the office, formerly devoted to business matters, have been replaced by prayer; only thereafter comes the business of the day.

The Eucharist has taken on fresh meaning under the deepened sense of the Lord’s presence—the doctrine of Real Presence has become experiential fact. The Table has become an occasion of joy and thanksgiving far richer than they had known before. All of Christian faith has been enhanced by the sense of inward conviction. Formerly there was a kind of hoping against hope; this has been transformed into a buoyant “full assurance of hope” (Heb. 6:11).

There has occurred, secondly, in the charismatic movement, a striking emergence of the gathered community as a koinonia of the Holy Spirit. People in the charismatic movement are seldom loners; they come together frequently for fellowship in the Spirit. Formerly for many the gathered church had become a matter of dull routine, but now they are eager to be together in fellowship as often and as long as possible.

The fellowship of faith has become greatly deepened and heightened as a fellowship in the Spirit. Here there is first of all a new note of praise to God. The mood of praise—through many a song and prayer and testimony—is paramount in the charismatic fellowship. Indeed, the expression “Praise the Lord” has become the hallmark of the movement. An Episcopal bishop in commenting on what had happened to him recently said, “After centuries of whispering liturgically, ‘Praise ye the Lord,’ it suddenly comes out more naturally—and it’s beautiful.” The “joy of the Lord” is another common expression, and in charismatic fellowships everywhere there are frequent expressions of enthusiasm, delight, rejoicing in the presence of the Lord. As one chorus that is sung puts it, “It is joy unspeakable and full of glory; and the half was never yet been told!” Often there are evidences of exuberance such as hand clapping and laughter. Many expressions of love in the Lord are common, such as the unaffected embracing of one another in the name of Christ, the quick readiness to minister to others within the fellowship (often through the laying on of hands with prayer), and the sharing of earthly goods and possessions through varying expressions of communal life. Much else could be added, but suffice it to say that the gathered fellowship has become for many an exciting, eventful koinonia of the Holy Spirit.

Third, of striking significance is the manifestation of a wide range of spiritual gifts, or charismata. The gifts of First Corinthians 12 have become very meaningful for people in the renewed fellowship of the Spirit. There is the fresh occurrence of all the Corinthian spiritual manifestations: the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, working of miracles, prophecy, discernment of spirits, tongues, and the interpretation of tongues (1 Cor. 12:8–10).

A number of things may be said about these gifts: (1) They are all understood as extraordinary, just as much the word of wisdom as gifts of healing, the word of knowledge as working of miracles, faith as discernment of spirits, prophecy as tongues. They are not essentially expressions of natural prowess but are spiritual manifestations; that is, they occur through the activity of the Holy Spirit. (2) These gifts are not viewed as private possessions but operate within the context of the koinonia for the edification of the gathered group. (3) These gifts are earnestly sought after, prayed for, not for the sake of display or novelty, but because it is believed that the Lord wants to express himself through these various means; hence, all the gifts are essential for the harmonious functioning of the body. (4) Among the gifts prophecy is especially valued, for in the charismatic fellowship this is heard as a direct dominical utterance (a “thus says the Lord”) that has great power to edify the believers and to bring under judgment (“God is in this place!”—see First Corinthians 14:25) any unbelievers who might be present. (5) These gifts of First Corinthians 10–12 are not viewed in isolation from other charismata such as are found in Romans 12:6–8 and 1 Peter 4:10, 11, all of which are gladly recognized and desired; however, the Corinthian charismata are understood to represent a kind of profound opening up of the full range of spiritual manifestations.

It is important to add that in the charismatic fellowship the focus is not on the gifts but on the Giver, Jesus Christ. The meeting of the fellowship is for the purpose of proclaiming “Jesus is Lord” by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3), and whether the pneumatic manifestations do or do not occur is altogether incidental to the praise that is continually offered to His name.

Fourth, the charismatic movement lays strong emphasis on the experience described as “baptism in the Holy Spirit” and its frequent concomitant of “speaking in tongues.” Indeed, it may be said that the experience of this “baptism” represents the spiritual breakthrough out of which people move into the varied charismatic expressions and into their fresh and lively faith.

Persons in the charismatic movement come into this experience of “spiritual baptism” out of various backgrounds: non-Christian, nominally Christian, even longtime Christian. The word “baptism” signifies for them an immersion in spiritual reality, so that, whatever may have been the situation before, this is a spiritual experience of far greater intensity. Or to put it a bit differently, this is an experience of “fullness”—“filling with the Spirit”—that cannot be measured in quantitative terms alone, for there is the sense of entrance upon a fresh dimension of fullness of the Spirit. Wherever they were before spiritually, such persons now experience the exhilaration of a breakthrough of the Holy Spirit into their total existence.

This “baptism with the Spirit” is wholly related in the charismatic movement to faith in Jesus Christ. It is ordinarily thought of not as a “second work of grace” but as a deepening of the faith that is grounded in Christ and the new life in his name. The immediate background may have been that of an increased hunger and thirst after God, a desire to be “filled with the Spirit” for more effective witness, or simply a kind of total yielding to Christ wherein he now becomes in a new way the Lord of all of life. Prayer, often persistent and expectant, is frequently the spiritual context, and the laying on of hands for the “fullness” of the Spirit is often the occasion when this “baptism” occurs. In every case, the experience of spiritual baptism flows out of the life in Christ, and is understood to be the effusion of his Spirit with power for praise, witness, and service.

The occurrence of “speaking with tongues” which so often accompanies this spiritual baptism is ordinarily experienced as one of transcendent praise. Many persons coming into this dimension of fullness find their ordinary speech transcended by a kind of spiritual utterance in which the Holy Spirit provides a new language of jubilation and praise. Here there is a moving past the highest forms of conceptual expression into the spiritual, wherein there is indeed meaning and content but on the level of transcendent communication. This communication is directed not to man but to God, whose glory and deeds are extraordinarily magnified.

This language of praise not only occurs frequently at the initial moment of “baptism with the Spirit” but also continues as a prayer language in the life of faith. To “pray in the Spirit” (Eph. 6:18, Jude 20) now becomes filled with new significance as a deep spiritual utterance possible at all times. Most persons in the charismatic movement will speak of their time of prayer as praying with both the mind and the spirit (1 Cor. 14:15), is of alternation between conceptual and spiritual utterance. This may be not only for praise but also as prayer for others—as the Spirit makes deep intercession according to the will of God (Rom. 8:26, 27).

Fifth, one of the most striking features of the charismatic movement is the resurgence of a deep unity of spirit across traditional and denominational barriers. For though the movement is occurring within many historic churches—and often bringing about unity among formerly discordant groups—the genius of the movement is its transdenominational or ecumenical quality.

This may be noted, for one thing, from the composition of the charismatic group that meets for prayer and ministry. It is not at all unusual to find people fellowshiping and worshiping together from traditions as diverse as classical Pentecostal, mainline Protestant, and Roman Catholic. What unite them are matters already mentioned: a renewed sense of the liveliness of Christian faith, a common expectancy of the manifestation of spiritual gifts for the edification of the community, and, most of all, a spiritual breakthrough that has brought all into a deepened sense of the presence and power of God. The overarching and undergirding unity brought about by the Holy Spirit has now become much more important than the particular denomination.

Herein is ecumenicity of a profound kind in which there is a rediscovery of the original wellsprings of the life of the Church. Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox charismatics alike are going back far behind the theological, liturgical, and cultural barriers that have long separated them into a recovery of the primitive dynamism of the early ecclesia. It is this common rediscovery of the New Testament vitality of the Spirit that unites people of diverse traditions and remolds them into a richer and fuller koinonia of the Holy Spirit.

The charismatic movement has, I believe, been well described by Dr. John Mackay as “the chief hope of the ecumenical tomorrow.” For this is “spiritual ecumenism,” not organizational or ecclesiastical. With all due appreciation for the ecumenical movement, which has helped to bring churches together in common concern and has now and again brought about visible unity, this cannot be as lasting or far-reaching as the ecumenism emerging from a profound inward and outward renewal of the Holy Spirit. For this ecumenism is not an achievement derived from a common theological statement, an agreed upon polity, or an acceptance of differing liturgical expressions. It is rather that which is given through Jesus Christ in the renewed unity of the Holy Spirit.

Sixth, the charismatic movement represents the rediscovery of a fresh thrust for witness to the Gospel. This may be illustrated by a reflection upon the previous points in the context of the continuing command of Christ to the Church: “You shall be my witnesses.” What primarily has been recovered through “baptism in the Spirit” is the plenitude of power for witness. Many before had found their witness to the Good News weak and ineffectual; now it has become much more dynamic and joyful. It is not so much a matter of strategies and techniques of witness as of transparent and vibrant testimony to the new life in Jesus Christ. What it means to be Christ’s witness—and not simply to “talk” it—is a new experience for many in the charismatic renewal. That “the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power” (1 Cor. 4:20) is a fresh and exciting discovery!

Among the common tensions within the Church are the competing claims of personal and social witness: the Gospel as a call to personal conversion and a call to minister to a wide range of human needs. Frequently it is said that the question is one not of either/or but of both/and, for the Good News concerns the whole of man in his personal and corporate existence. Therefore the question is often put as one of relating the two dimensions, and giving proper attention to each. But, however true the importance of a comprehensive witness, the need actually runs much deeper, namely, that of a fresh dynamic or power for pursuing and accomplishing both personal and social aims. Indeed, today one finds a “tired” personal evangelism as much as a “tired” social concern—each, perhaps unknowingly, desperate for a new anointing of power and vision.

In the charismatic movement there are clear evidences that the contemporary endowment of the Spirit is making for more effective witness, both personal and social. It is apparent on many charismatic fronts that there are both a fresh kind of “reality evangelism”—a joyous, often indirect but highly potent, form of witness about the new life in Christ—and many vigorous and creative expressions of concern for the manifold disorders in personal and corporate life.

Seventh, the charismatic movement signalizes a revitalization of the eschatological orientation of the Christian faith. For many persons now active in the movement the whole area of eschatology had meant very little. Whatever the Christian faith had to say, there was a consciousness that it dealt with the present: some kind of amelioration or renovation of the prevailing human situation. Scarcely more than passing thought was given to “last things.” Others in the movement had viewed Christian faith as focusing almost exclusively on the future: the resurrection, parousia, kingdom, and so on.

Salvation itself was largely a matter to be experienced at the “end.” The present world was scarcely a place of God’s joyful presence—but one could hope for something better in the future.

What is patiently happening among people in the charismatic movement is the recovery of a lively sense of present and future under the impact of the Holy Spirit. For those preoccupied with the future, the present has now taken on rich significance through the activity of the Holy Spirit. All of life is now pulsating with the vitality and dynamism of the divine presence and action. For those who previously could see little beyond the contemporary world, the future has taken on an exciting meaning because of the new sense of Christ. He is so personally real now that there is a fresh yearning for his future coming in glory, the establishment of the kingdom, and the fulfillment of all things. Because of what has so abundantly happened in the now, the future prospect is viewed with keen anticipation. The result is a vital eschatology in which present and future are united through the dynamism of the Holy Spirit.

“Mass evangelism has been permitted by the Devil to keep the Church from practicing the biblical ideal of community evangelism,” a British bishop asserted. That is pretty strong language. One wonders about the biblical undergirding and the historical support for this sweeping statement.

In some evangelical circles, the idea of mass evangelism is encountering resistance that, though not as disparaging as the bishop’s, runs all the way from cool indifference to hot opposition. “Count on the mass evangelism campaign only for its psychological impact,” advises Pablo Pretiz:

In some places a united campaign has proved to be a milestone in evangelical advance (e.g. the Hicks’ campaign in Buenos Aires). But in cities where united efforts have repeatedly been made … [such] campaigns may be a waste of energy. People who respond may get “inoculated” against further contact with the Gospel and opportunities for really integrating them into evangelical churches may be lost [In Depth, July 17, 1973, p. 29].

Although Pretiz admits that crusade evangelism has scored some real breakthroughs, he says that it “may be a waste of energy” in some situations, it may inoculate people “against further contact with the Gospel” in others, and it may fail in its goal, church growth—“integrating [the converts] into evangelical churches.”

So what do we do?

All too often when we reject mass evangelism we make new plans, set new goals, establish new priorities—but we don’t win souls! As a substitute for mass evangelism some recommend charismatic renewal. Others go for church-growth workshops. Some turn to graphs and charts. To others the only answer is home Bible classes. But we don’t plant churches!

All these things are valid. I myself am involved in almost all of them. But they are not legitimate substitutes for mass evangelism. In themselves they, too, can become hindrances to fulfilling the Great Commission.

No wonder one of Latin America’s leading evangelists, Luis Palau, complained:

I am tired of the impractical ideological rationalizations pushed by absentee ideologists and strategists … prepared in 72° air-conditioned offices. We don’t need any more armchair strategists, we need battlefield officers. We’re supposed to reach the world … and bring men to Christ. We need all the tools God has given us to get the job done and that includes mass evangelism [“Overseas Crusades’ Role in Mass Evangelism,” unpublished].

We cannot reject mass evangelism without violating the Scriptures. We cannot deny its effectiveness without ignoring church history.

Jesus, The First “Christian” Evangelist

And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching … proclaiming … curing.… When He saw the throngs, He was moved with pity … because they were bewildered—harassed and distressed and dejected and helpless—like sheep without a shepherd [Matt. 9:35–37; this and subsequent quotations are from the Amplified Version].

We see the Evangelist in the midst of his three years of mass evangelism. His target? The multitudes. His burden? Their salvation. His method? At least two-part.

Jesus spent time with individuals: he was a personal evangelist. Samuel H. Moffett has written:

Jesus evangelized the woman at the well, not standing on it and preaching to her, but by asking her for a drink, then talking with her.

When He evangelized Nicodemus, the great evangelistic phrase, “You must be born again,” was not thundered from a pulpit, it was said in secret to a young Pharisee who came to Him by night for a very private conversation [“The Biblical Background of Evangelism,” First Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh, Pa., n.d., p. 11].

“That’s it, that’s it,” the one-by-one advocate. “Jesus was a personal evangelist, not a mass evangelist. He reached men one by one, not in bunches.”

But that’s only half of the story. Jesus spent time with the multitudes. Moffett continues:

Jesus also had a dramatic ministry to multitudes. So did Peter at Pentecost and Finney and Moody and so does Billy Graham. Jesus was mobbed and surrounded and crowded and pushed and adulated by the multitudes. So beset was He by the crowds that at times He had to escape from them by boat. But He evangelized them. He spoke to 4,000 at a time. Again to 5,000. Mass evangelism is as biblical as personal witness and vice versa [ibid.].

Jesus maintained the ideal balance between personal evangelism and mass evangelism. We would do well to follow his example.

The Father And The Holy Spirit Joined The Crusade

The Father took upon himself the responsibility of gathering the crowd. In modern terms, he took over the leadership of the publicity committee.

Horrid! Blasphemous! How uncouth to compare God’s activity with the carnal methods of a crusade publicity committee!

Read the text. What God did on the day of Pentecost makes our publicity stunts look pallid: “Suddenly there came a sound from heaven like the rushing of a violent tempest blast … and when this sound was heard, the multitude came together” [Acts 2:2, 6a]. What a way to draw a crowd!

Next, the Holy Spirit did his part, and it was even more spectacular than what the Father had done:

There appeared to them tongues resembling fire, which were separated and distributed and that settled on each one of them. And they … began to speak in other languages as the Spirit kept giving them clear and loud expression.… And the multitude were beside themselves with amazement [Acts 2:3–7].

Evidently God enjoys the noise, the display, and the emotion of Spirit-filled people striving to break through to get the attention of lost men. Paul must have learned the lesson from God’s example when he declared his willingness to become “all things to all men that I may by all means save some.”

Soon God launched another evangelistic crusade in the same city. This time it was a healing crusade. Acts 3 tells the story, that of the crippled man whom Peter healed. After he was healed, the man could not restrain his joy. He went into the temple “walking and leaping and praising God.” He “firmly clung” to Peter and John. And “all the people in utmost amazement ran together and crowded around them.”

God seems to like spiritual excitement. He enjoys seeing men break with restraint when there is good reason for doing so. He evidently is pleased when they throw aside enslaving traditions and preach the Word, anywhere, any time.

In Acts 5 God sent the apostles right back into crusade evangelism again. They were probably carrying on an effective personal ministry in jail. It wasn’t the moment for personal work, however. They hadn’t finished their crusade evangelism yet, and so God sent a jail-breaking angel to pay them a visit. “Go, take your stand in the temple courts and declare to the people the whole doctrine concerning this Life” (Acts 5:20). They went. They launched the third evangelistic crusade in the same city, and evidently, in the same place, the temple courts.

And so the account goes on and on and on. In the temple courts, in homes, on the streets, by life and soon by death, the risen Lord’s witnesses were driven out into the open. Soon the Gospel had saturated the cities of Jerusalem and Judea. Then a transition event occurred. The Gospel crossed into Samaria. What evangelistic tool was used by God to break through into the new subculture? An evangelistic crusade. Soon Philip was engaged in what was probably the greatest citywide evangelistic crusade in the history of the early Church:

Great crowds of people with one accord listened to and heeded what was said by Philip, as they heard him and watched the miracles and wonders.… Foul spirits came out of many who were possessed by them, … screaming and shouting with a loud voice. Many who were suffering from palsy or were crippled were restored to health. And there was great rejoicing in that city [Acts 8:6–8, italics added].

More noise! Demons shouting as their enslaving powers were broken! More healings! More emotion! What a crusade that was! What a way to bring a whole city under the power of God in a matter of hours!

Mass evangelism is biblical. It has its origin in the activity of God himself.

The excitement of mass evangelism flows like a mighty river through almost 2,000 years of church history. Think of the great leaders God has given to the Church from the time of the First Evangelical Awakening to today! Palau mentions some of them—John Wesley, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Charles G. Finney, Dwight L. Moody, Elias Schrenk, R. A. Torrey, Billy Sunday, John Sung, Billy Graham—and comments: “What a sense of vibrating excitement grips the imagination at the very reading of the names of such great men.” He goes on to say:

They were more than individuals, they symbolized potent movements of God. God used them to write history … nation-changing history. Their lives touched millions and brought hundreds of thousands into the Kingdom of God by faith in Jesus Christ.… All had one thing in common: Each practiced citywide crusade evangelization and the power of those crusades … by the continuing action of the Holy Spirit through their anointed writings, life stories and stillstanding institutions … continues to inspire young men to serve Christ in every land. [“Mass Evangelism Is Alive and Well,” lecture given at 1974 retreat of EFMA mission executives].

What’S The Problem?

After we move through the fog of the objections raised about mass evangelism, we discover the real issue. It centers in the follow-through question.

After the feverish activity of the crusade, the poor showing in new, countable disciples as a direct result of the evangelistic effort haunts us. But let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The real problem relates to us, not to the strategy of evangelism we are discussing. We have done little to discover where and when mass evangelism is the best strategy and where and when it is not. But, thank God, help is coming. Two of the sources of greatest help are the Engel Spiritual Decision Process Model and the Palau-Silvoso Model.

Jim Engel is director of the Graduate School in Communications at Wheaton College. His Spiritual Decision Process Model is an attempt to deal visually with the twofold question faced by every evangelist: One, where are the target people in their understanding of the Gospel? Two, which evangelistic approach best communicates the Gospel to them?

The diagram tells the story. God and the Christian are seeking to bring the Gospel to the target people. Those people are classified according to their understanding of and/or acceptance of the Gospel.

The model helps us realize that people vary in their understanding of the Gospel and their attitude toward it. Engel’s scale of gospel awareness runs from —8 to —1. Some people are aware of the existence of a Supreme Being, but that is all. They fall at —8. Others have a slight advantage over these in that they have some initial awareness of Christianity. However, they show little or no interest in knowing more about the Gospel. Engel rates them —7. Then there are others who combine some interest with their sparse awareness of Christ. They are classified as —6.

We continue moving on down the scale till we break into a new area of relationship with Christianity, from —3 to —1. Here we move from personal recognition of need for what Christianity offers to the decision to repent and place faith in the Lord Jesus.

As Engel says, we habitually assume that all unsaved people are in stages —3 to —1. What we fail to recognize is they can vary all the way from —8 to —1. This variance in understanding and interest demands different evangelistic content and method.

How does this apply to mass evangelism (Include in this term not only crusade evangelism but also evangelism through literature, films, radio, and TV)? In at least three ways. First, the effectiveness of mass evangelism depends more on the status of the target people than on the spirituality of the evangelist, the biblical purity of his message, or the validity of the media. Second, mass evangelism is probably more effective among persons in stages —4 to —1. On those in —8 to —5 mass evangelism may have little lasting effect. Third, we must adopt the discipline of research before we decide on our evangelistic method and the exact content of our evangelistic message. As evangelists and researchers we must discover the answers to the following questions:

1. Where do the target people line up on the scale of gospel awareness? This will help determine the content of the evangelistic message needed.

2. What are the life-styles of the target people—their values, felt needs, and so on?

3. What are their attitudes toward the type of media to be used in the evangelistic effort?

I know several cases in which the chosen evangelistic means was to leave some gospel literature in every home in a given area. The “evangelists” declared that the success of this venture justified their promotional boast that the city was now evangelized. It did not seem to trouble them that more than half of the people in the target area were functional illiterates. If they had done any research they would have realized that some other evangelistic strategy was called for.

Indonesia presents a different example. One of that nation’s leading churchmen, the Reverend Pendeta Maiti-more, told me:

We Indonesians are very attracted by big things like revival movements. We call such great events “happenings.” You can get 200,000 people in a single meeting if you have a big “happening.” Look at the riots against the Japanese in 1974. Twenty thousand students gathered in Jakarta in the matter of an hour. Mass evangelism therefore can be very strategic in evangelizing my country.

To date, however, little has been done in large-scale mass evangelism in Indonesia. One wonders how many Indonesians have moved from —8 to —4 since the 1965 aborted coup and could be brought to Christ through mass crusades!

When research shows that mass evangelism is strategically desirable, the evangelists should move ahead to establish their goals, choose their priorities, and do their planning. As the program progresses they should continually measure its effectiveness according to their previously established goals. When it is all over they should engage in a thorough “post-mortem,” so that they have a good idea of how well they did at achieving their objectives.

I know one evangelist who is willing to go through this extensive preparation. He is a colleague of mine in Overseas Crusades, Argentine evangelist Luis Palau. Palau has just released one of his key team members to try a two-year experiment in this type of evangelism. This young man, the Reverend Ed Silvoso, has moved to an important city in Argentina. There he will follow a general plan he and Palau worked out with the advice of several people from Fuller Seminary’s School of World Mission. Silvosa will then evaluate the results in light of the plan and write the whole thing up for the benefit of the Palau team and the whole missionary effort of the Church.

The Palau-Silvoso Model begins with the first major goal, expansion growth: a given number of existing churches must measurably increase their rate of growth, at least half of this increase through conversion. The second major goal will be extension growth: a given number of new churches will be planted over the two-year period. The figure now under consideration is fifty churches. These goals will be stated ahead of time in fellowship with the participating churches. Progress will be measured only in terms of these goals. The evangelistic tools employed will be mass-media evangelism and crusade evangelism.

If successful, this controlled experiment in combining mass evangelism with church growth may score the breakthrough in crusade evangelism we have been looking for.

Haphazard mass evangelism can produce a mess, it is true. But mass evangelism like that which we have been describing can do nothing but good for the Church.

Since assuming my new position on the faculty of the International School of Law in Washington, D. C., I have been asked by a number of well-meaning Christian friends: “What are you doing there?”

When considering the offer, what did I obtain for my personal library from a European antiquarian book dealer but a seventeenth-century Latin divinity thesis on the subject “whether one who gives up theology for law or medicine can be saved” (conclusion: yes, but be careful). My present role, however, has in no sense been a desertion of theology, since my professorship of jurisprudence (jurisprudence=philosophy/theology of law) was created at ISL specifically to reintegrate positive law and Christian truth in the manner characteristic of Blackstone and legal instruction in the early years of our nation’s history. The interrelations of law and theology are multifarious.

Readers of older apologetic literature are aware that lawyers and legal scholars have often been concerned with the credibility of Christianity. The “founder of modern apologetics” by way of his classic work The Truth of the Christian Religion (1627) was Hugo Grotius—and he is even more well known as the “father of international law” for his treatise on The Law of War and Peace (1625). The greatest authority on American common-law evidence in the nineteenth century was Harvard Law professor Simon Greenleaf, the author of the still published Testimony of the Evangelists, a demonstration of the reliability of the gospel accounts of our Lord’s life. Irwin Linton’s popular volume A Lawyer Examines the Bible, the tracts and booklets of J. N. D. Anderson (director of the University of London’s Institute of Advanced Legal Studies), and the writings of Jacques Ellul (professor of law at Bordeaux and member of the Advisory Board of ISL’s International Law Institute) are a valuable barometer of the extent to which the legal mind is drawn like a moth to the flame of apologetics.

Why does this occur? Why are lawyers more inclined to do apologetics than engineers or dentists? One reason might be that the law plays a very large role in Scripture itself—not only through the Old Testament covenant of law but also in the centrality of the trial of Jesus and Pauline legal imagery in the New Testament: thus such works as A. N. Sherwin-White’s Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (1963). But an even more important reason lies in the very nature of the legal operation.

In spite of the popular notion that lawyers are sophists who (to use the language of Plato’s Apology of Socrates) “make the worse argument appear the better,” the fundamental function of the legal profession is to seek justice by seeking truth. The lawyer endeavors to reduce societal conflicts by arbitrating conflicting truth-claims. Inherent to the practice of the law is an effort to resolve conflicts over legal responsibility, and such conflicts invariably turn on questions of fact. To establish a “cause of action” the plaintiff’s complaint must allege a legal right which the defendant was duty-bound to recognize, and which he violated; at the trial, evidentiary facts must be marshaled in support of the plaintiff’s allegations, and the defendant will need to provide factual evidence in his behalf to counter the plaintiff’s prima facie case against him. To this end, legal science, as an outgrowth of millennia of court decisions, developed meticulous criteria for distinguishing factual truth from error. The preoccupation of the law with canons of evidence creates a natural interest on the part of lawyers to investigate religious truth-claims.

Concretely, here are some fundamental principles of the law of evidence that, if applied to the question of the factual truth of Christianity, will yield most significant results:

1. The “ancient documents” rule: ancient documents will be received as competent evidence if they are “fair on their face” (i.e., offer no internal evidence of tampering) and have been maintained in “reasonable custody” (i.e., their preservation has been consistent with their content). Applied to the gospel records, and reinforced by responsible lower (textual) criticism, this rule would establish their competency in any court of law.

2. The “parol evidence” rule: external, oral testimony or tradition will not be received in evidence to add to, subtract from, vary, or contradict an executed written instrument such as a will. Applied to the biblical documents, which expressly claim to be “executed” and complete (Rev. 22:18, 19), this rule insists that Scripture be allowed to “interpret itself” and not be twisted by external, extra-biblical data (comparative New Eastern religious texts and practices, Sitz im Leben interpretations, “historical-critical method,” “New Hermeneutic,” etc.).

3. The “hearsay rule”: a witness must testify “of his own knowledge,” not on the basis of what has come to him indirectly from others. Applied to the New Testament documents, this demand for primary-source evidence is fully vindicated by the constant asseverations of their authors to be setting forth “that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled” (1 John 1:1).

4. The related “cross-examination” principle: “All trials proceed upon the idea that some confidence is due to human testimony, and that this confidence grows and becomes more steadfast in proportion as the witness has been subjected to a close and searching cross-examination” (Justice Ruffin, in State v. Morriss, 84 N. C. 764). Applied to the apostolic proclamation, this rule underscores the reliability of testimony to Christ’s resurrection that was presented contemporaneously in the synagogues—in the very teeth of opposition, among hostile cross-examiners who would certainly have destroyed the case for Christianity had the facts been otherwise.

These apologetic applications of legal reasoning are a mere sampling. What makes them particularly important is the place of the legal system in society: the indisputable consideration that upon just such rules of evidence issues of life and death are necessarily decided and man’s societal fate is determined. Analytical philosopher Stephen Toulmin, in his ground-breaking work The Uses of Argument (1958), goes so far as to recommend that philosophy itself cease to rely primarily on the deductive, mathematical, Cartesian model to solve its metaphysical problems, and instead “treat logic as generalised jurisprudence”—learn from the inductive, fact-oriented structure of legal argument.

Apologetically, the modern man faced with legally grounded evidence for Christ’s claims is in the awkward position of having to go to the Cross or throw away the only accepted method of arbitrating ultimate questions in society. Luther put it nicely in the Tischreden: “If the world will not hear the divines, they must hear the lawyers, who will teach them manners.”

Mexico City gave us a cold and rainy welcome last month as we gathered for a meeting of the Continuation Committee of the International Congress on World Evangelization. A few of the committee members encountered an even chillier situation: they had visa troubles and never got to Mexico at all. Mexico does not grant visas to people with South African passports.

Three articles and the lead editorial in this issue are devoted to theological seminary education. We need to remind ourselves that seminaries are the fountainhead of the Church. As go the seminaries, so go the denominations. Today many of the German seminaries, for example, are thoroughly committed to an apostate theology and a Marxist view of history. They have no biblical Gospel to preach and are actively hostile to evangelism that seeks to reconcile man to God.

If the churches are going to be renewed or even maintained, they need a good supply of faithful ministers; and the best chance for getting those lies in the seminaries still faithful to Scripture and thoroughly committed to historic orthodoxy. May their tribe increase.