The Church-State Wall

Glenn L. Archer

Interview with foremost separationist.

The subject of the following interview is a remarkable man who for more than a generation has led the fight to keep church and state separate. Dr. Glenn L. Archer has been executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State since its founding shortly after World War II. Before that he was dean of the law school at Washburn University, Topeka, Kansas, and special counsel to the National Education Association. He graduated from Greenville College (and subsequently served on its board until that Free Methodist school began accepting public money) and got an M.S. from the University of Colorado and a law degree from Washburn. When he isn’t writing briefs against parochiaid Dr. Archer might be found playing the clarinet or riding horseback on his West Virginia farm.

Question. Dr. Archer, do you think current trends are working for or against the principle of church-state separation?

ANSWER. The church-state separation balance sheet has a credit side and a debit side. On the credit side there are the great Court decisions, particularly the United States Supreme Court decision of June, 1973, and the (victorious) referenda in six states. We who believe in the separation of church and state have worked patiently and painstakingly for twenty-six years to bring a good set of facts before the Supreme Court. Years ago, in 1947, I predicted that a proper set of facts would compel the Court to take a firm stand favoring our tradition and laws of separation. My prediction has come true. Even the electorate responds favorably when the facts are given cogently.

On the debit side are the unrelenting efforts of many people to bypass the decisions of the Court and to repudiate the will of the people. These efforts are sponsored by people who demand tax money for their religious institutions. It is a self-seeking endeavor. One wonders why church people—in the main, good people—pursue the policy of expedience rather than principle; why they would sell their birthright for a mess of pottage! God, not taxes, is the crying need of churches and church people.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. Well, for one thing, church schools change for the worse when taxes and government enroll. God walks out as Mammon comes in. Federal subsidies demand a dilution of the religious teaching to satisfy the common demand. Tax money secularizes church institutions because along with the public money come secular guidelines to manage and control the church institutions.

Q. What has been the biggest change in the church-state situation since you began your campaign?

A. Probably that the issue is no longer a Roman Catholic issue. Opposition to our position has grown among Protestants. Some Protestant college presidents are being tempted by the easy tax dollar. In the early days it was possible to line up nearly all the Jewish, Protestant, and secular communities behind church-state separation. Now Protestant groups are less unanimous in their support. I sometimes wonder if the decline of institutional religion’s influence on American culture is not one reason for the increased willingness to take tax money. Taxes come easier than tithes. At any rate, the change makes the task of Americans United more important and more difficult.

Q. You have said repeatedly that separation of church and state is good for both. Have any recent developments led you to reconsider your thesis, or at least to recast the issue or shift strategy?

A. No. Separation preserves the prophetic ministry of the churches and the independence of government from clericalism. It’s highly important for the church to be independent of the state so that it may preach the Gospel without fear or intimidation. It’s difficult for the church operating from the position of a debtor to speak forthrightly against bad practices and policies of the state. History clearly teaches that when the church and the state are united, you have a vicious tyranny over the minds of all people.

Q. But Dr. Archer, things are changing so much. When the First Amendment was adopted, taxes were a minute part of the gross national product, whereas today this represents as much as a third. Tax money is now used for everything imaginable.

A. True, but this does not obviate the principle that using tax funds for religious purposes is unconstitutional, unwise, and undesirable. Religion is too precious to be classed with raising wheat (farm subsidies) or repairing teeth (welfare programs). Despite taxes, church people are more affluent today than ever in American history—certainly more affluent than when we built church schools.

Q. When Americans United lost its tax-exempt status in 1969, why could you not simply have formed a small, separate corporate entity to do the lobbying, devoting the original organization to the broader task of public education?

A. We believe the IRS acted under pressure, without justification, and against the Constitution when it deprived Americans United of its tax-exempt status. Our principal opponent, the Roman Catholic lobby, has tax exemption. It’s difficult to understand why people doing the same thing should be treated differently by the IRS.

Some of our leaders have formed a new legal entity that does no lobbying. This organization is known as Americans United Research Foundation, and it does have tax exemption. It has a different board of directors and is completely separate from Americans United.

Q. Dr. Archer, for a long time, while the cases were being decided in the courts, your organization was silent on the issue of prayer and Bible reading in the public schools. What prompted you to come out in opposition? What harm would there be in a constitutional amendment that would simply correct the overkill that local courts and school districts, principals, and teachers have instituted in response to the ban on religious exercises in schools?

A. We believe there’s a proper place for both prayer and Bible reading. We favor and engage in both. But we would not discriminate against those who have different religious views. Public schools belong to all of us. These schools should not be used for a particular creedal emphasis. The Bible can be studied as literature. Any child may now pray voluntarily in any public school. If there is an overkill as you assert, it’s a matter that can be handled by local parents and administrative officers.

People have to make some sacrifices to have full religious liberty. If religion means anything in our lives, it means that we respect the rights and the religious sensibilities of our fellow citizens. The practice of the golden rule should not be rejected by a religious person.

Q. In view of the long history of prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, do you believe that the framers of the Constitution intended to prohibit such exercises?

A. Sin has been around a long time, too, but it’s still sin. It’s not uncommon for abuses to be tolerated for decades before there is redress. With the complexity of our society and with the crowding of people into metropolitan areas, religious-liberty problems brought to the fore some religious abuses occurring in the public institutions. It is quite proper for the courts to correct these abuses in the interests of all of the citizens. Jefferson insisted that religion be carried on off the campus of the University of Virginia. Actually, religion is more vital when it is carried on in the home and in the church and synagogue than in a public school where a watered-down version of religion is taught by a teacher who may know very little about religious values or experience.

Q. How do you feel about the removal of the Christian religious symbols from the White House Christmas pageant when the pagan religious symbols were left intact?

A. I believe that religious festivals should take place in or on property owned by the church. Let the government promote civil festivals. But this isn’t a major problem. Americans United hasn’t had the manpower to shoot rabbits when there are so many bears around in the church-state woods. In Spain, religious festivals abound, but many who participate in them seem to know little about the Jesus they celebrate. Religion is an experience, not a promotion.

Q. Why does Americans United oppose dual enrollment? Is it not a decent compromise in which the government aid involved is no more direct than tax exemption?

A. We have found that dual enrollment creates administrative problems which lead to religious rivalry and jealousies and harmful entanglements. I have never known a dual enrollment to work smoothly. When I was on the state board of education in Kansas, we had problems in this area. We were constantly besieged by Roman Catholic leaders who thought that the public school people were discriminating against them and by public school administrators who thought the Roman Catholics were trying to get all the choice periods of the day. Furthermore, the practice is expensive, and it wastes time. Disciplinary problems arise between students and teachers with no one certain of administrative authority.

Q. So your objections are really not principial, right?

A. You’re wrong. Principle is also involved. Dual enrollments amount to a tax gift to the religious school. Equipment owned by the public is used by the church. Salaried people are employed for the use of the church. There is a tax entanglement involved here which the courts have rejected.

Q. In the case of the Amish in Wisconsin, the Supreme Court recognized that the public schools undermined their religious convictions. Why should the Amish be exempt from compulsory school attendance when all other religious people are not?

A. The Supreme Court in the Amish decision in Wisconsin did not state that the public school undermined the religious convictions of the Amish children. It merely recognized that there was a conflict between religious freedom and the right of the children for a moderate education. The Court had to choose between religious freedom and the state requirement of education. In the balance of the equities, religious freedom won—and rightly so. I think we will hear a great deal more from this decision; already there are some rumblings from Amish leaders that focus upon what is called “rights of children.”

Q. As you know, Dr. Archer, a considerable reaction against public education has set in. Inner-city schools are inadequately staffed, funded, and maintained. Suburban schools are going the route of social experimentation and/or coming under the control of secular (even atheistic) philosophy. Isn’t it coming to the point where true religious liberty may be more manifest in parochial schools?

A. There is need for educational reform in the public schools, but this reform can be brought about by an enlightened citizenry, because the public school merely reflects the cultural interests and levels of its community. The nature of religious freedom in a public school depends upon the citizenry. They can have as much or as little as they wish, save where the court intervenes.

Americans United has never been opposed to parochial schools. We will fight for the right of any church to establish its own schools as long as the church and the parents who use these schools pay for them without tax funds. I myself spent eight years in a parochial high school and a church-related college. I support these institutions and serve on their boards.

If it is true that the public schools are becoming secular and atheistic, I would recommend a greater parental interest in these institutions, because they come under the control of the people who live in the school district. I doubt that full religious freedom can exist in a parochial school that is designed to emphasize the religion of a single denomination. There is freedom for that denomination, but is there freedom for those of other denominations? Is there freedom in the selection of the faculty? The parochial school is a special-purpose school. That special purpose is thwarted when it is subsidized by taxes and when it is wide open to all denominations and persons of no denomination, when its faculty must be chosen from all denominations and from those of no denomination. Not many churchmen would want a church school if it were truly public.

Like all institutions regulated by men, public schools have their faults and failures. But careless and false criticisms of public schools are being made today. Public schools need not be atheistic. Teachers are Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic—surely they are not teaching atheistic doctrine. The public schools have the same problems that our society has because they are a reflection of the public. As churchmen we have a job to do in shaping a spiritual, religious society. Then our schools will be worthy.

Q. You are retiring this year. As you look back, have you changed your mind about any important church-state matters? Is it true that Americans United has subdued its polemic in favor of a more irenic approach? Are there issues that would now oblige you to change your mind in any way?

A. Americans United has not changed its goal. It may, like a good boxer, adjust to circumstances and conditions. Strategies change with conditions. New skills are developed as experience sharpens procedures. Experience and age may add to wisdom and maturity.

Q. Do you actually think it would be wrong to give relief from public school taxes to parents who choose to send their children to parochial schools?

A. The public school is in dire need of public funds. Diverting some of these funds to parochial schools impairs the public school program of the nation. To give “tax relief” to parents who send their children to the parochial schools would be diverting public taxes to a religious undertaking—however indirect the scheme may be. It would raise religious antagonism and create a world of administrative problems harmful to the ecumenical spirit that seeks harmony among creeds. Churches ought to obey the law, and they ought not to seek ways of circumventing it. Public taxes must by law always be subject to public controls. Public controls do not grace a sacred church.

Q. We’ve heard a lot of talk about “civil religion” the last several years. Do you think there is such a thing in this country, and if so, what is it?

A. I have no fear of what is erroneously called “civil religion.” I think that true religion can hold its own in any public forum. It has the strength to withstand all its enemies. “Civil religion” is a form of church-state union or quasi-union. Truly applied separationist principles can prevent such an amalgam. I don’t accept the thesis that God loves Americans any more than he loves his other children, or that he loves white Americans more than black, or vice versa. I think God loves all his children and that if his children respond to that love, they will pay for all the institutions necessary for promoting their religion. I believe that a churchman who seeks public taxes for his institution has about the same ethics that a salesman has in buying his wife a coat from the company expense account. His wife may enjoy the coat, but the purchase raises a question about the husband’s honesty and also about his devotion.

Q. But do you think there is a “civil religion” in America?

A. Yes, some frustrated Americans seem to be embracing new forms of idolatry. There have always been a few idolaters in the world who place state above God, or who seek some other form of false worship. The answer to idolatry in every age has been the acceptance of the true God. He is not dead. Those who seek may find him, and when they do “civil religion” will fade and perish.

Q. How far should we go toward absolute separation of church and state? Our calendar, for example, dates back to Christ. Is that undue Christian influence? Should we adopt some other way of reckoning years?

A. Separation of church and state does not mean separating religion from society. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The religious commitment of the citizens of our country is apparent. We accept practices that do not impose religion on citizens. Church-state separation neither requires nor prohibits use of the Christian calendar.

Q. Many argue that the First Amendment merely sought to protect this country against establishment of religion. After all, “separation of church and state” is not found anywhere in the Constitution as such. You feel that the framers had more in mind, right?

A. Definitely. Jefferson’s famous letter of 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, where this phrase is first used, indicates for us the intent of the Founding Fathers. The records of the debates in Congress and the Virginia legislature lead us to believe that our wise and farsighted leaders wished to spare America from the ravages of religious warfare and intolerance which had drenched Europe in blood for centuries. Separating the institutions of religion and government is the only way to achieve freedom of conscience.

Q. What do you see as the big church-state issues of the future?

A. Some of them may be summarized as: the problems inherent in fiscal and administrative entanglements between religious and political institutions; the role of religion in public education; an attempt to revise the First Amendment to accommodate parochiaiders and school prayer extremists.

I don’t see why sinners would want to join a church whose members are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices to advance God’s kingdom.

Q. Isn’t it true that one kind of religion or another is invariably taught in the public educational system? What do you say to parents who object that their children are being influenced to accept unbiblical values?

A. I don’t believe it’s true that some kind of religion is taught in all public education. The public school is what the local community wants it to be. Sometimes there are abuses, but these abuses can be corrected by an alert community. We shouldn’t expect perfection from our public schools. A public school has no more faults than other institutions such as the church and the home. I grew up in a home where religion was so vital that nothing could weaken my convictions. Among eight children, all were ordained ministers.

UNACCEPTABLES

Aged, infirm and incontinent,

They come to Sunday and to prayers

From ward behind recessed ward;

Buttoned to beds and chairs,

Buttoned to stiff upright clothes,

They come, not to see,

Not to hear, not to respond;

Yet who knows what offering

Their ills make upon altars?

Eroded out of the world’s way,

They have been folded, closeted,

Like old linens, old faces like embroidered linen

Folded in upon themselves, unacceptable

Longer to kin and to community;

Yet who knows in this communion

How they may be adequate

In the sight of One likewise unacceptable

To those he lived among, the outcast

Buttoned to crossed hoists and spat upon?

NANCY G. WESTERFIELD

Q. Is it possible to teach ethics and morality without grounding them in some religious tradition or at least in some life-and-world view that is ultimately and of necessity a religious matter?

A. I contend that there are many commonly held values in different cultures that are central to many religious traditions—such as honesty, the sanctity of life, charity. Religion should be the vehicle for sound ethics. In the study of comparative religion, these religious values come to the surface, and due credit may be given to the traditions.

Q. Thousands of clergymen in our pulpits today are there because the government paid their way through seminary under the GI Bill. Do you think that was a violation of the principle of church-state separation?

A. War throws many values to the wind and discards many principles. In a way the veterans’ bill is a payment for time lost and a means of reintroducing the returning veteran quickly into the life of the nation. I see no more danger in paying a veteran for time lost than in paying a government worker a salary for services rendered. The soldier rendered services to the nation and gave up his occupation to so do.

Q. Do you feel that your views on church and state have a religious sanction? What are your personal religious convictions?

A. I believe in a free church and a free state. This has been the watchword of Americans United. I think the Bible clearly teaches that man is created free to follow God’s will or to reject God’s will. If God made us free in religious matters, will he allow government to impose an approved religion upon us or compel us to pay for a religion to which we do not subscribe? Here man interferes with God’s will. I took this job believing I could serve my state, my church, and my God. I hope I have not been mistaken!

Q. Let’s talk about the Roman Catholics. After all, they have been your main target all along. They are now so divided among themselves on all kinds of issues—has not their power dissipated to the point that they are not really a great force to reckon with?

A. A good deal of the church-state union tradition exists in the higher circles of the Roman Catholic Church. This is one reason why church-state separation has had a difficult time in the United States. I welcome any support from Roman Catholics on this issue because it’s helpful to the freedom of all churches. Those of us who believe in church-state separation believe in resisting all pressures for tax funds, regardless of the source. I must confess sadly that there has been no lessening of the drive for tax funds for churches by the Roman church.

Q. What is your answer, then, to the question of whether their power is now dissipated?

A. There has been some diffusion of power within the church, but this realignment of interior structure has not been noticeable in the power plays for tax funds for church schools. Rather, it has been increased since the Pope himself has urged the nations of the world to support Roman Catholic schools with tax funds. American principles, tested by time, are not subject to the ideological climate of any church, or the strengths or weaknesses of an institution.

Q. In the American military, parents are reimbursed for tuition payments to private schools if a child is recognized to have special needs. Is this not in effect a voucher plan?

A. A number of practices in the American military are the outcomes of undue political influence and pressure, and some of these practices are contrary to a strict interpretation of the church-state separation principle. The military situation, I think, is an abnormal situation to deal with man’s inability to live at peace. These temporary, possible constitutional breaches of the wall of church-state separation should not become precedents for violation on a vast scale, universally applied and permanently established. What we do in war times is not necessarily sound procedure for peace times.

Q. Is not the voucher plan still a legal option and an issue on which the courts have not yet ruled?

A. I contend that any effort that seeks to do indirectly what the Supreme Court has outlawed is a violation of law. Churches ought to set a better example. The real facts are that a type of voucher plan was rejected by the Vermont supreme court in 1960. The Court clearly indicates that it is not permissible to aid parochial schools in any way, directly or indirectly. If vouchers are set up for this purpose, they will ultimately be found unconstitutional. From educational, administrative, economic, social, and other points of view, the voucher plan is a can of worms that had best be left unopened.

All churches and all religions are being weighed in the balances today, and there is nothing that will enhance the image of a church like having churchmen pay for the religion of their choice. I don’t see why sinners would want to join a church whose members are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices to advance God’s kingdom.

Q. Don’t you feel the need to sensitize young people, especially regarding the defense of religious liberty, and to educate pastors that teaching the tithe is preferable to lobbying for tax dollars?

A. Absolutely. I hope young people who are searching for meaningful values to guide their lives will recognize that the principle of freedom of conscience is inalienable, indeed sacred. If history teaches us anything, it is that liberty comes only with struggle and must be carefully secured and defended. In all of recorded history, the periods when man has been truly free are few and far between. Only in the last two centuries, and primarily in only a small corner of the world, has man been truly free.

Despite the anxieties over secularism, materialism, and Communism, I hold these grave problems can better be solved in a free society where the Church is free and independent from the state. The state, now exhibiting itself in Washington, D. C., is no haven for God’s people or God’s church. We who claim to be God’s messengers have work to do, and begging funds from government is not on the agenda!

Editor’s Note from May 10, 1974

Inflation continues to take its grim toll. Among its expected victims are the marginal private institutions of higher education along with magazines, secular and religious. Only a few days ago a secular magazine with 400,000 subscribers but insufficient advertising went to the wall. There will undoubtedly be more of the same in the days ahead.

Inflation is an old enemy. In Fawn Brodie’s new biography of Thomas Jefferson she says that in 1780 Mrs. Jefferson paid £84.6 of Virginia money for a pair of shoes. In 1779 one could buy a duck or a chicken for a few shillings; in 1781 a like purchase cost between £45 and £50. What happened to the currency in Virginia happened in the American colonies at large. The phrase “It’s not worth a continental” referred to the valueless paper money of the Revolution: printing-press money.

What is so frustrating is the helplessness we feel. We’re caught up in circumstances over which we have little control. It once again throws us back on God, who “is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.… Therefore we will not fear …” (Ps. 46:1, 2).

Theology

Perils and Prospects of Primacy

J. D. Douglas

The one-hundredth archbishop of Canterbury is retiring in November this year, on the day after his seventieth birthday, after thirteen years in office as Primate of All England. A deceptively mild-mannered man who has looked old and venerable from a comparatively early age, Arthur Michael Ramsey is by temperament both scholar and priest. Much to the delight of the mass media, however, he is possessed also of an unexpected sense of occasion, and became involved in, or even initiated, many a newsworthy situation.

He spoke out against capital punishment and was soft on Honest to God, but fired his own press officer for expressing radical views on the permissive society. On the other hand, in 1966 he declined comment on a British Council of Churches report which said that on abstinence outside marriage and faithfulness within there can be no set rules. The apparent inconsistency of attitude continued when two unmarried idols of the pop world produced a child after they had lived together for some time. Dr. Ramsey referred to it as “just a terribly sad instance of the way in which our society has disintegrated.” Quite astonishingly, the young father Came back with a real piledriver: “I believe,” he said, “that we are on the verge of a spiritual regeneration of which he has no knowledge.”

The archbishop opposed the World Council of Churches’ grants to combat racism because he felt the WCC lacked a properly reasoned policy toward what constitutes a just rebellion. Yet he advocated that Britain use force if necessary against rebel Rhodesia—and again laid himself open to the riposte on a grand scale. “The last time we used force in answer to a unilateral declaration of independence,” retorted one critic, “we were defeated, and the result was the United States of America.” He caused a sensation also by saying once that he expected to meet atheists in heaven, but in Vancouver he criticized the Billy Graham crusade in Britain, adding that what the country needed was “an intellectual thoughtful approach.” This prompted the editor of one religious weekly to suggest that the primate hire the Crusade stadium for a week and try that approach on a needy land.

On another overseas trip Ramsey was well entertained by the evangelical diocese of Sydney, but astonished his hosts after his departure by castigating the diocese for “wretched, narrow-minded, out-of-date partisanship.” Like the former Bishop of Woolwich, when overtaken by a furor he tended on occasion to protest that his words had been misunderstood or taken out of context. At other times Dr. Ramsey showed great kindness to evangelicals and proved himself to be a notable Bible expositor in their company. It was undoubtedly because of his good will, at least, that 1971 saw the appointment to the ancient see of Norwich of Maurice Wood, the first known evangelical to become a diocesan in many years.

Ramsey became the first archbishop of Canterbury in more than four centuries to pay an official visit to the Vatican, and continued his pioneering policy in 1968 by preaching in the Roman Catholic Westminster Cathedral in London. He repaid the compliment later that year when Dr. Heenan became the first Roman Catholic cardinal to preach (not without scenes of uproar) in St. Paul’s since the Reformation. In 1970 the primate visited South Africa and was outspoken in his condemnation of apartheid and “the horrible system of paid informer” that penetrated all levels in the republic, and was found even in church councils.

One of his greatest disappointments came when the Church of England general synod finally rejected the scheme of merger with the Methodists. That he felt keenly about it could be seen from his choice of comment—from Godspell—“Long live God!”

Ramsey will have a life barony conferred upon him by the queen, as has become the custom with retiring primates, and as Lord Ramsey will exchange his spacious residences in Lambeth and Canterbury for a more modest dwelling near Oxford.

His successor in the $20,000-a-year position (substantially augmented by sundry perks) will be appointed after all kinds of complex soundings and secret consultations that will culminate in a recommendation by the prime minister to the queen. The state has thus the last word until the sporadic lobbying for disestablishment of the church wins the day. Paradoxically, it matters not whether the prime minister be Anglican or atheist, Jew or Catholic.

England is, of course, buzzing with speculation about who will be Number 101. On past occasions there has customarily been an heir apparent, but the highly regarded Bishop Ian Ramsey of Durham died suddenly in late 1972. The field is theoretically wide open, but the range of choice looks unusually limited if one uses the process of elimination.

Because of the close church-state link, appointment of a non-Briton can virtually be ruled out. Not so unlikely, but a break with tradition, would be the selection of a Briton currently serving overseas. In England itself, excluding Canterbury and York, there are forty-one diocesan bishoprics. Of these, thirteen incumbents were appointed in 1972 or later, fifteen others will by late 1974 be at least in their sixty-fifth year, and a further seven will have been bishops for less than about five years (i.e., were not previously suffragan bishops) and might therefore be thought to lack the necessary experience.

That reduces the diocesan field to six. One of these did not graduate from either Oxford or Cambridge (a feature of all thirty-two primates since the Reformation). Of the five remaining, only the youngest, Bishop Stuart Blanch of Liverpool, has been mooted as a slight possibility, though one Sunday newspaper has tried to make a case for Mervyn Stockwood of Southwark, the bachelor bishop who has presided over “South Bank” radical theological trends.

Going outside the present house of bishops would be tricky. Among the suffragans, some circles have opted for Dr. Trevor Huddleston of Stepney. Former bishop in Tanzania, High Churchman with a marked social concern, author of that striking work Naught For Your Comfort, and consistent critic of apartheid, Huddleston would in many ways be an imaginative choice, but he is probably too hot a potato for the establishment to consider seriously.

That establishment, encouraged by what is regarded as a strong hint from the present primate, would favor John Howe, formerly Bishop of St. Andrews, Scotland, who has made his mark as secretary-general of the Anglican Consultative Council. But since Howe, only fifty-three, is yet relatively unknown, the eliminative process leads to the conclusion that Dr. Donald Coggan, Archbishop of York, sixty-five this year, will take the remaining step to the top of the ladder for a five-year tenure. This would give the house of bishops a breathing space—unless the “caretaker” does a John XXIII on them.

Brazil: De Mello the Missionary

Howard A. Snyder

With seating capacity for 25,000, the long-abuilding “great temple” of Pentecostal evangelist Manoel de Mello is now nearing completion in São Paulo, Brazil.

De Mello, 44, advertises his building as “the largest evangelical temple in the world.” Designed for function rather than elegance, the huge temple has arched girders with a 230-foot span. The main floor will seat 18,000 and a projected balcony another 7,000. Construction has been going on since purchase of the property in the early sixties. Roofing the temple’s giant spans with aluminum and translucent plastic sheeting began in 1972 and is now almost completed. Another few years will probably be required to finish the total project.

In the meantime, completed parts are in use. These include an educational unit and a large foyer running across the front of the temple that is now used as a worship area seating several thousand. Another part of the building beneath the floor of the central auditorium houses a social-service center, including a “Migrant Integration Movement” that helps new arrivals from the Brazilian interior.

The temple serves as the national headquarters of de Mello’s Brazil for Christ Movement as well as the meeting place for the mother church, which de Mello pastors. Construction is financed principally by the local congregation, according to de Mello, although many others contribute.

Manoel de Mello started out as a lay preacher and evangelist with the Assemblies of God in the northern Brazilian state of Pernambuc. Later he worked with the Foursquare Gospel Church. In the 1950s he went independent, founding the Brazil for Christ Movement, which has since become a major Pentecostal denomination. He is perhaps the most controversial of Brazil’s many Pentecostal leaders. He “has a natural feeling for power,” as one acquaintance puts it, and has involved his movement both in politics and in the ecumenical movement. In 1969 he led his denomination into the World Council of Churches (see October 10, 1969, issue, page 40), and he is a board member of the Ecumenical Coordination Service in Brazil, a committee in which the national conference of Catholic bishops also participates.

Interviewed recently at the site of his new temple, de Mello explained his position. “We are departing somewhat from the traditional Pentecostal pattern,” he said. “We emphasize not only the spiritual but the social as well.” An example is his Brazilian Educational Center, which offers general courses at the high school level as well as courses in English and typing. About 260 students are enrolled. De Mello admits these students are “mostly Catholics” but thinks the educational ministry justifies itself. The Educational Center has already applied for authorization to begin college-level courses in law, philosophy, and business administration Pointing to a newly constructed hospital across the street, de Mello mention! the possibility of a medical school as well.

Although de Mello’s movement has branched into such areas as education and social service, his primary concern continues to be evangelism and the growth of his denomination. Radio pro grams carry his message throughout Brazil (three times daily in the São Paulo area). He has held no mass evangelistic campaigns for three years but continues to travel widely, visiting churches scattered throughout the country. His movement counts more than 150 local churches in the São Paulo urban area (population: 8.5 million) alone. Precise membership figures for the movement are hard to come by, but adherents probably number between 500,000 and one million with actual church membership between 100,000 and 200,000 (Read, Monterroso, and Johnson estimated membership at slightly over 100,000 in 1969 in their groundbreaking work, Latin American Church Growth).

De Mello’s system of church planting relies heavily on local lay leaders. Before a new congregation can become an organized local church, it must have 120 members and be able to support a pastor. While local churches are autonomous, it is evident they are nonetheless subject to the powerful guiding influence of the charismatic de Mello, known to his followers simply—and respectfully—as “the Missionary.”

Kenya: Cassettes For Christ

The ubiquitous tape cassette has found its way into Africa, and it promises to enhance gospel ministries across the continent.

“For years we have broadcast the Gospel in eight different languages on the government-owned Voice of Kenya,” says an Africa Inland Mission (AIM) radio staffer at Kijabe, Kenya. “But the tapes were always erased and used for succeeding radio programs. Now we record all these programs on cassettes and send them throughout the country for use in medical dispensaries, hospitals, prisons, schools, and in towns and villages. It gives a much more lasting ministry to the fleeting medium of radio.”

The launching of AIM’s cassette ministry can be attributed largely to one man, well-known U. S. evangelist Merv Rosell. During a conference speaking stint Rosell visited AIM’s radio recording studios at Kijabe, which reportedly produce more Christian programs for government facilities than any other studios in the world, and pushed the cassette idea. Persuaded—and financed—by Rosell (and his California-based Global Concern organization), AIM built an annex studio complete with high-speed duplicating equipment, packaging room, offices, workshops, and warehouse.

Some of Rosell’s own Bible-teaching and sermon materials—interspersed with pauses for a translator to stop his cassette player and give an off-the-cuff translation—were among the first cassettes produced. Cassettes of the many radio programs produced in various African languages by the Kijabe studios came next as the new ministry gained momentum.

“I don’t have time to make a personal Christian witness to all the many patients who come to my medical dispensary,” says Ann Ellis, nurse at AIM’s Syapei Station among Kenya’s Maasai tribe. “But now with the cassettes the people hear the Word of God and Christian singing in their own language—while I treat their bodies.”

Cassettes at Ngurunit, an AIM desert station where Rosell is financing the construction of a missionary residence (he has also constructed a children’s home and a church in Kenya’s northern desert area), have caused a sensation. “How amazing to hear words—the words of God—come out of such a little box in our own language!” say the people there who come for medical treatment or to ask for food as famine moves into the area. “And we play the message over and over again.”

The radio missionaries and staff at the Kijabe studios have drawn up a long list of the possibilities for using these “cassettes for Christ.” The Bible in various versions is now available on cassettes. These could be used to advantage at the blind schools throughout Africa. Cassettes to reach the millions of illiterates and semi-literates in Africa have limitless possibilities for getting out the Gospel to those who cannot be reached with the printed page or who are too far from radio stations. And missionaries, Bible-school, and seminary teachers can in effect avail themselves of extension education by using the materials being assembled and duplicated by the Kijabe studios.

Africa south of the Sahara is said by many to be one of the world’s most receptive areas for the Gospel. The tape cassette promises to become a mighty tool in outreach there.

HAL OLSEN

Black Evangelicals: Surviving The Scene

Under the theme “Survival?… Certainly!” more than 300 delegates, most of them ministers and leaders of black ministries, gathered this month in Dallas for the eleventh annual convention of the National Black Evangelical Association (NBEA). They spent much of their time discussing and pondering their identity as black evangelicals.

There seemed to be discomfort on the part of some with the very word “evangelical,” apparently because of the image it conjures up of a person conservative not only in theology (which many blacks are) but also in socio-political matters (which many blacks are not). The NBEA, says board chairman Tom Skinner, a prominent black evangelist, is more evangelical than ever, but “that word must be defined by us and not by white evangelicals.”

At the same time it was clear that social action and the quest for justice were not the prime topics they had been several years ago. A workshop session on inner-city ministries was dwarfed in attendance by a seminar the same hour on theological trends. Heavy emphasis was given to the “survival” of the black family. The young delegates expressed strong concern that biblical solutions be applied to needs.

Yet, cautioned speaker John Perkins of Mendenhall, Mississippi, newly elected NBEA vice-president, “biblical” does not mean “white theology.” Blacks must speak of God and the Bible as they themselves have learned, not as white theologians have taught them, he exhorted. Further, he stated, black evangelicals ought to respond to the recent trends in so-called black theology not with “evangelical answers” but with the answers of “black evangelicalism” and “black evangelical theology.”

Part of the identity problem may relate to the diversity within the NBEA family. William Bentley, the pastor of a small Chicago church, who was reelected to his sixth term as president, views the NBEA as an umbrella of black evangelicalism under which many views and goals can coexist. Members range from the strongly conservative to the social-activist type, explains Bentley’s wife Ruth, a Ph.D. who teaches at Trinity seminary near Chicago. But, she asserts, they’re all evangelical.

For now Bentley’s vision for the NBEA can be summed up in the theme word: survival. “When you’re fighting to survive today,” he declared, “you don’t have time to look five years down the road to what lies ahead.” (Bentley scolded the delegates after only a dozen or so showed up to hear his presidential address. At the Urbana missionary convention in December he mounted a protest against Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship’s leaders and policies. The protest, which did not clearly specify complaints and correctives, smacked of racial separatism and split the ranks of blacks who were there. Similar differences exist among the NBEA rank and file.)

Melvin Banks, president of Urban Ministries, which publishes black Sunday-school literature in the Chicago area, declared in the keynote address that many black Americans have become disillusioned with Christianity because they have not been given the total Gospel for the total man. Black evangelicals, he affirmed, cannot look to any other group of evangelicals but only to themselves to reach the black population for Christ.

His assessment was echoed throughout the convention, and although it was mixed with an appeal for love and unity among all Christians, the note of black unity and independence was loudly sounded. Many of the delegates left Dallas feeling that whatever they do in the future they will do alone, not by choice or out of separation but because of the failure of evangelicals in general to reach the black community adequately.

Next year’s convention will be held in New York, and the welcome mat will be extended to blacks in the Caribbean. Within five years, said Bentley at the final business session, perhaps the NBEA can hold an international convention in Africa.

JOHN SAILHAMER

Dismembering The Body?

Students in Christian schools and missionaries in active service increasingly are found to identify weakly with the local church, and this trend is detrimental to the cause of world evangelization, according to a consultation of forty evangelical pastors, educators, and missions executives held in Columbia, South Carolina, late last month. The gathering, sponsored by the Columbia Graduate School of Bible and Missions (a branch of Columbia Bible College), was called to study growing problems in the three-way relationship between churches that send missionaries, schools that train those missionaries, and mission boards.

Describing the local church as “God’s primary agency in world evangelization,” participants in the consultation said many of those now involved or potentially involved in world evangelization are rather individualistic and independent and do not seem to operate from the perspective of a local church.

“Schools and missions have experienced a “de-churching,” said keynote speaker J. Robertson McQuilkin, Columbia’s president. “A less elegant term for the problem would be dismemberment,” he added, pointing out that Christian schools and missions should function as arms of the church body.

A number of pastors in the group agreed with McQuilkin’s remarks. They said that Christians schools and missions have tended to take over many New Testament functions of a church, leaving the local church with the responsibility largely of supplying candidates and money.

The problem starts in the schools, educator McQuilkin said. “If one’s training is not in the church, one’s ministry will tend to be non-church or at least not the New Testament kind of interdependent relationship in the church. One will not know how to live and work productively under the discipline of the church.”

Under the modern North American individualistic approach to education and missions, the consultation was told, “an immature Christian gets his call directly from the Lord,” not in conjunction with the church’s corporate wisdom and guidance. “He chooses his school. About the third or fourth year a mission representative recruits him. He then adopts himself out to as many churches as necessary to provide for him financially. He writes an occasional promotional report to individuals who have indicated an interest. He visits each of the churches for a week every fifth year. In this way he is thoroughly de-churched.”

The forty consultation participants expressed in their concluding statements a concern for reaffirmation of the doctrine of the Church “and its centrality in the outworking of God’s purposes through the local congregation, school, and mission.” There was also a strong call for reassessment of the way in which missionary personnel are chosen, trained, and assigned, strategic processes in which the local church presently often has only a very minor role.

Along lines similar to a statement issued by the recent Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association convention in Wheaton calling for churches to offer less fragmented support to individual missionary candidates, the Columbia consultation asked for reexamination of current methods of raising financial support that reinforce the missionary’s weak identification with the local church. Instead of giving small amounts of support to many missionaries, churches ought to concentrate significant amounts of money, prayer, and time on a few men and women, thus tieing those missionaries closely to the local church.

The eleven pastors who participated in the consultation represented eleven local congregations that give a combined total of more than $1.25 million to church overseas missions each year. The twelve mission executives participating represented organizations that sponsor more than 5,000 missionaries now active in overseas work.

TOM BOWERS

Graham Decision: Religion In Public Places

The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled 5–0 that the use of the 50,000-seat Sun Devil Stadium on the Arizona State University campus at Tempe by evangelist Billy Graham does not violate the Arizona constitution. “We do not believe leasing Sun Devil Stadium for an occasional religious service at a fair rental value is an appropriation or application of public property for religious purposes,” said Vice Chief Justice James Duke Cameron, who wrote the decision.

In a flap earlier this year over use of the stadium by Graham, the Arizona Board of Regents agreed to rent it for $39,995 for nightly services May 5–12. Martin S. Pratt, a Phoenix resident who disagrees with Graham’s Christian doctrine, then petitioned the high court to intervene. The court heard arguments and agreed that the issue was important enough to render a decision.

Pratt contended that the use of the stadium for a religious event would violate the Arizona constitution’s provision for separation of church and state. The justices, however, decided that leasing the stadium to Dr. Graham was “a straight commercial transaction” that did not place the state or university in the position of giving approval, prestige, or power to Graham’s religious beliefs. The ruling went on to point out that the state must be impartial when “it comes to the question of religious preference, and public money or property may not be used to promote or favor any particular religious sect, denomination, or religion generally.”

The ruling was significant because numerous churches in Arizona rent public school facilities until they can erect buildings of their own. Public auditoriums are also leased for religious musical groups.

GENE LUPTAK

The Graham Memo

Among the reams of confidential White House memos released to the press this month by Senator Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, a member of the Senate Watergate committee, was a memorandum about evangelist Billy Graham. The national news media for the most part gave the impression it was sensational fresh material. In reality it was the same memo that surfaced in the press months ago, and Graham is giving reporters the same answers he gave then (see July 20, 1973, issue, page 41).

The memo, dated September 30, 1971, was written by former White House undercover agent Jack Caulfield and addressed to John W. Dean III, former presidential counsel. In it, Caulfield noted that Graham was under IRS audit for four of the six preceding years in an effort to determine “whether gifts made to Graham are in fact taxable income.”

Caulfield said a case report out of Atlanta indicated an anonymous phone call had initiated the audit; however, he added, a report in the Washington IRS office suggested that normal audit procedures caused the inquiry. Because “a number of Graham donors” had been contacted by IRS investigators, said Caulfield, he thought the case might “surface in the media.” In that event, he advised Dean, “judgments should be made accordingly.” He listed several items of relatively minor significance the IRS intended to question: clothing gifts, work performed free of charge, tuition gifts for the Graham children.

The memo was routed the next day from Dean to presidential aide Robert Haldeman, who scribbled a note asking “whether we can do anything to help.” Replied Dean: “No, it’s already covered.”

Graham says he is mystified by the matter, stating that he neither had asked for nor was aware of intervention with the IRS at any time, that he had no knowledge of the Caulfield memo until it surfaced last year, and that he wants the IRS to audit his return every year. He says a bank handles his assets and prepares his income-tax returns. Further, he says, he shares Weicker’s opinion that the White House should never intervene in IRS matters.

But how did the Caulfield memo arise? A source close to the Watergate investigation said Caulfield testified that former Nixon aide John Ehrlichman knew of the IRS inquiry and asked him to look into it. Caulfield then contacted an IRS inspector who flew to Atlanta, picked up the Graham case report, and returned to Washington to review it with Caulfield. (The inspector has since switched to a customs job.)

Graham says he does not know how Ehrlichman (only a handshaking acquaintance) found out about the audit; but a number of the evangelist’s friends knew about it, and it’s possible that word drifted into Washington innocently enough through a series of persons.

What is more curious is the meaning of Dean’s “it’s covered” remark. The Watergate source says local IRS agents were intimidated by the White House. But Graham says the Asheville, North Carolina, IRS agent who handled the case denies getting any pressure from above. Also, there was no abrupt halt to the audit; it dragged out until several months ago. And, like thousands of other Americans, Graham accepted the decisions of the IRS without contesting the few items charged or disallowed on his tax returns.

EDWARD E. PLOWMAN

Czech Crackdown

For the last year or so there has been mounting evidence that a state campaign of church harassment is under way in Czechoslovakia. An eye-witness report published recently by the London-based Center for the Study of Religion and Communism indicates that the government is trying to isolate churches from one another and to confine Christian activity to individual congregations and families. Permission is required before ministers can address other congregations than their own, special events (concerts, lectures, and the like) must be authorized by the state, and three months’ notice must be given of any foreign visitor who wishes to speak to a congregation, the report says.

Some sixteen Catholic priests, twelve pastors of the Czechoslovak Church, and twelve pastors of the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren have had their licenses taken away, the report notes. (The state pays clergy salaries, and no clergyman can hold an appointment without a state license.)

The report tells of a movement among Czech pastors and theologians known as the New Orientation, a renewal group within the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren “pledged among other things to work for socialism with a human face.” Two leaders of the group were among the latest pastors to be dismissed.

Religion In Transit

An annual pastors’ conference sponsored by First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, last month attracted 2,357 registrants from 45 states and several foreign countries, said Pastor Jack Hyles. The conferees studied his principles and methods of church work. Sunday-school attendance at First Baptist averaged over 13,000 last year, said Hyles, and a special day-long effort brought out a total of 23,024 on December 16—“a world record.”

The University of Delaware at Newark won a court order barring the celebration of Catholic mass in the common rooms of a campus residence facility. Two priests say they will appeal. The university earlier banned all worship services on its property.

Mrs. Janice Patterson, a Raleigh, North Carolina, elementary teacher resigned after being instructed by school officials to stop observing a daily minute of silent prayer with her first graders. The children were free to pray or not pray, she said; those who did pray were asked to pray for God’s help “to be more loving to one another.”

At least one rabbi is listening to California evangelist Moishe Rosen and his Jews for Jesus. Rabbi Pinchas Stolper, a prominent Jewish leader, shared with readers of his Jewish Press column a letter Rosen had sent him. Rosen warned that many Jewish youth are indifferent about God and need spiritual training but that rabbis are doling out sociology lessons instead. Agreeing somewhat, Stolper suggested that God be included in the curriculum of every Jewish school. “Without him life is hardly life,” he commented.

“Freedom is Everybody’s Business,” proclaimed the banner below the platform near the Washington Monument, but radio preacher Carl McIntire could muster only 600 or so supporters (the park police estimated 1,500) to Washington for a “First Amendment” march and rally to get their point across. The point: there should be far fewer federal restrictions on broadcasting.

The Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate, based in Turkey, last month directed all prelates under its jurisdiction (including Archbishop Iakovos of America) to avoid pronouncements on, or involvement in, general or specific political issues. Also, they were in effect muzzled from commenting on ecclesiastical issues. Such pronouncements, the directive said, are often harmful to the interests of the “Mother Church.”

A press release purporting to be from New York Seminary and announcing cooperative programs with Union Seminary turned out to be a hoax. Both Christian Century and CHRISTIANITY TODAY published stories based on the release.

Nearly 100 delegates from eleven Central American and Caribbean countries met last month in Mexico City for in-depth study of theology and strategy for evangelization of Latin America and the world. They also formulated a regional perspective for this summer’s International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Two young New York women, members of the militant Jewish Defense League, pleaded guilty to setting fire to a Baptist community center in Jerusalem and were sentenced to thirteen months in prison. Additionally, two Israeli youths were found guilty of burning two other Christian centers in the city.

Czechoslovakia’s only Catholic cardinal, Stepan Trochta, 69, imprisoned for years by both the Nazis and Communists, suffered a fatal stroke in Litomerice. After his release in 1963 he had to work as a plumber until he took a loyalty oath in 1968.

Missionaries have been ordered out of Yemen, according to a French report.

The Balm after the Storm

Barrie Doyle

The tornados that swooped down from the skies across a five-state area this month, leaving behind a path of death, injury, and destruction, did not spare churches and church families. At least one pastor was killed (see box, this page).

Stricken areas included northern Alabama, central and eastern Tennessee, most of Kentucky and Indiana, and western Ohio. Xenia, Ohio, Brandenburg and Louisville, Kentucky, and Jasper, Alabama, were among the communities hit hardest. The death toll stood at more than 300, with damage amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.

At Xenia (population: 27,000), a tornado struck at 4:45 P.M. on Wednesday, April 3. Four churches were completely destroyed: St. Bridget’s Roman Catholic Church, First Lutheran, Xenia Baptist Temple, and Orange Street Church of God. A black church under construction was destroyed also. Two Presbyterian churches and First Nazarene suffered extensive damage, with several other churches faring only slightly better. At least three parsonages (Orange Street, First Methodist, and First Nazarene) were destroyed, and others were badly damaged. Miraculously, say churchmen in the area, there were no deaths among the parsonage families. (In all, at least twenty-eight died and nearly 600 were injured in the Xenia devastation. Relief officials said that even a week after the storm damage and casualty details were hard to come by.)

Red Cross and Seventh-day Adventists from the Xenia area joined forces to set up a relief distribution center in an elementary school—one of the few left standing. Seventh-day Adventist World Service (the church’s relief arm) reported that more than 36,000 pounds of blankets and clothing were being processed at the center. Adventists at a mid-week prayer service in nearby Kettering halted the service to convoy supplies to Xenia. The Salvation Army and other church groups also set up relief efforts.

Storm damage at neighboring Wilber-force University, an African Methodist Episcopal school, forced a temporary shutdown of classes.

At Louisville, Kentucky, a mission-emphasis week at the 1,500-student Southern Baptist Seminary was interrupted as students pitched in to help relief efforts. Seminary officials said a tornado brushed the seminary grounds, causing some roof damage and destroying most of the trees on campus. The tornado ripped through nearby neighborhoods, and students—many of whom had lost autos and personal be longings themselves—were on the scene minutes after the disaster, clearing rubble, searching for survivors, and assisting the injured. Within a two-mile radius of the campus, more than 500 houses were destroyed, leaving more than 1,000 homeless.

TRAGEDY AT ALTA

Thirty-four persons gathered for the regular mid-week prayer service April 3 at the Missionary Baptist Church in Alta, a village in northwestern Alabama. Among them was pastor Johnny Bozeman of the nearby Sulphur Springs Baptist Church, who had been invited as a guest speaker by Alta pastor Houston Brand, 71, a retired Southern Baptist missionary.

Recalled Bozeman in an interview: “I just got up to speak and we heard the thing coming. The lights went out. I yelled that the Lord would take care of us and dropped to the floor. People later told me the roof behind me lifted off and the bricks began falling in. The walls blew out like they’d been dynamited. I had four cuts at the back of my head and one in front, broken ribs, bruises. I don’t really remember much after that. Someone pulled me from the bricks and told me I was bleeding terribly. My two children were hurt, but not badly.”

Most of the others there were also hurt. Found dead in the ruins were Brand and his 65-year-old wife. Of the two-year-old church, only a few foundation bricks remain.

The students worked for more than two hours before Red Cross and government-aid officials reached the scene. Civil Defense authorities told the Louisville Courier-Journal that the students provided “the backbone of the relief efforts in the area.” Although heat, water, power, and telephones were cut off, the seminary was soon turned into a relief operations headquarters. Injured victims were treated at the infirmary, the homeless were fed and sheltered in seminary buildings, and a spot on the littered campus was cleared so National Guard helicopters could land. The helicopters ferried more than a dozen seriously injured to area hospitals.

Most of the campus relief efforts were coordinated by two seminarians: James Lee Doss, a first-year student from North Carolina, and Robert Rain-water, a second-year student from Louisiana. Said seminary vice-president Wesley M. Patillo, “These two were just super-organized and cool as cucumbers.” The pair organized nearly 600 resident students into teams of five to clear debris and help in other relief efforts. In one instance, said Patillo, a team was able to talk an elderly lady into leaving her flattened home after similar efforts by police and firemen failed. “They were able to minister to her emotional needs as well as the physical,” said Patillo.

The 100 beds originally intended for guests at the missions conference were occupied nightly by different victims for up to a week after the storm. A ham radio operation was set up for contacting relatives. The Ryder truck-rental firm lent twenty-five trucks to the school for the duration of the emergency, even paying bus fares for students to pick up the trucks at Cincinnati and Indianapolis. The trucks were being used to clear fallen trees and help move salvageable furnishings and personal belongings to other locations.

In Brandenburg, Kentucky, an Ohio River town of 1,600 that was almost completely destroyed, Phillips Memorial Baptist Church was damaged and the homes of the pastor and the minister of music were leveled. At Frankfort, Kentucky, Evergreen Baptist Church and its parsonage were destroyed and two members of the church were killed. In the historic village of Stamping Ground, Kentucky, a small Baptist church built in 1795 was leveled. Interim pastor Dan Crawley ducked under the desk in the church study moments before the 200 m.p.h. winds struck. Seconds later, only the study was left standing. The church of the Nazarene in Stringtown, Indiana, was left in ruin. United Methodist officials said they knew of more than a dozen Methodist churches and parsonages throughout the storm region destroyed or severely damaged, apparently without death or injury to any of the pastors.

Church-related relief organizations, meanwhile, began tunneling funds, food, medicine, and clothing into the stricken areas. Church World Service, relief wing of the National Council of Churches, sent blankets, clothing, and cots to Birmingham, Alabama, and designated denominational personnel to act as relief coordinators in other areas.

Salvation Army teams were working in many of the devastated communities, providing shelter, clothing, and food. In Kentucky, they fielded forty-five mobile canteens and set up emergency telephone units for out-of-state relatives trying to contact those in the disaster areas. Long Run Baptist Association, a group of 100 churches in the Louisville area, announced it would concentrate on raising cash for relief because food and other supplies would arrive through other relief channels. At the same time, Alabama Baptists promised $26,000 to aid victims in northern Alabama and called on churches to take special Easter Sunday offerings for relief. The state Baptist convention’s disaster-relief committee, which raised $82,000 for tornado victims last year, was reactivated.

By mid-month, the stricken congregations had buried their dead, and members were cleaning up their homes and churches while taking time to comfort the grieved, the injured, and the dispossessed. Services were being held in makeshift quarters. Ahead lie months of rebuilding. For many, Easter’s message of resurrection meant something extra special this year.

Missouri Synod: Hardened Lines

The battle lines in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) are getting firmer. In recent weeks:

• The Commission on Constitutional Matters—the LCMS supreme court—ruled that fourth-year students at “Seminex” (the school set up by the dissident majority formerly at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis) cannot be declared eligible for placement as LCMS ministers unless course credits are obtained from recognized LCMS seminaries. The commission noted that churches are free to call uncertified pastors but warned it could lead to their own forfeiture of LCMS membership. (Seminex plans to grant degrees through a consortium of St. Louis divinity schools.)

• The LCMS Board for Higher Education adopted a “statement on the limitations of academic freedom” which says that faculty members at LCMS schools must “honor, uphold, and teach in accordance with synodically-adopted statements,” including the controversial “Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles” drafted by LCMS president Jacob A. O. Preus and adopted at last year’s LCMS convention in New Orleans. The statement sets forth biblical inerrancy and authority. Teachers must refrain from dissenting with synodically approved statements except through channels, the board ordered. LCMS college boards were also instructed to take steps to prevent students from becoming involved with Seminex, a directive apparently aimed at banning Seminex recruiters from LCMS college campuses.

Death Of A Journalist

Claudia Ross, 27, an attractive Florida journalist working for the English-language Bangkok Post, last month published a major story in the Thailand paper on a newly established colony of the Children of God sect. The report, thorough and well informed, was highly critical of the Children and their secluded leader “Moses” David Berg. Four nights later she was stabbed to death in her room by a man who threw her typewriter on the ground outside. Authorities did not immediately link the story to her death, according to news accounts. COG leaders said they were shocked by the murder and feared a setback to their work.

Mission To Orthodoxy: The ‘Full’ Gospel

Counting all the language and ethnic groups Eastern Orthodoxy has about 200 million communicants worldwide, some six million of them in the United States. Of the three major branches of Christendom it is the most untouched by the charismatic movement. In an effort to help change this circumstance an Orthodox priest, Eusebius A. Stephanou, 49, of Fort Wayne, Indiana traveled this month to Athens, Greece to plant seeds of the so-called charismatic renewal among churchmen willing to listen. His book, The New Breath of the Spirit, is scheduled for publication this summer in Greece.

Stephanou, a celibate whose father and grandfather were Orthodox priests, grew up in Wisconsin, got his B.A. from the University of Michigan, took his Orthodox ministerial training at Holy Cross School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts, and was the first Greek Orthodox to earn S.T.M. and Th.D degrees at General Seminary, the Episcopal School in New York. He was also the first Orthodox to teach theology at Notre Dame, and he represented Orthodoxy at World Council of Churches meetings.

But while serving as pastor of the 100-family Holy Trinity Church in Fort Wayne he became increasingly concerned “about bringing the Orthodox Church into line with the Gospel of Christ, of letting Jesus Christ lead the Church.” To implement that concern he launched in 1968 The Logos, a bimonthly journal airing the issues of spiritual renewal within Orthodoxy (not to be confused with a similarly named Protestant charismatic magazine published in New Jersey). It was aimed at “re-evangelizing our people,” says Stephanou.

His re-evangelizing and his complaints about creeping legalism, “colonialism,” and dormancy in Orthodoxy promptly landed Stephanou in hot water at headquarters. Charged with undermining church authority, he was summoned later in 1968 to a church tribunal in New York. He was suspended for six months after refusing to recant.

After his suspension was over Stephanou chose to carry on an itinerant ministry along with editing The Logos rather than return to the pastorate. In 1972, says Stephanou, a visiting pastoral friend from West Virginia “explained to me the charismatic renewal and led me into the baptism of the Spirit.” A descriptive soon appeared on the cover of The Logos indicating a shift in emphasis: “Serving the Charismatic Renewal in the Orthodox Church.” There were few losses among subscribers because of it, says Stephanou. Circulation stands at about 5,000. A foundation associated with the magazine fields young lay evangelists to speak before the church groups. (Stephanou, president of the Logos Foundation for Orthodox Awakening, declines to discuss finances and staff size. Most workers are volunteers. Several clergymen and Ph.D.s are among those on the masthead.)

The number of known charismatics in American Orthodoxy is small, probably between 500 and 1,000, with two dozen or so groups meeting across the country. Stephanou, however, predicts rapid growth. The first national Orthodox charismatic conference was held last summer at Ann Arbor, Michigan. Registration was under 100, but, reminds Stephanou, “the Catholics started with only five.” (There may be as many as 300,000 Catholic charismatics in North America, with burgeoning growth overseas. The movement began in 1967.)

One of those at the Ann Arbor meeting was correspondent Emmanuel A. D. Deligiannis, a leader of Protestant Romanian and Greek Pentecostals in North America who has worked among Orthodox charismatics in southern California. Ascribing historical import to the meeting, he says “it was the first time in the history of the Orthodox Church that both priests and laymen worshiped freely together ‘as the spirit moved them’ [see photo], praising the Lord with uplifted hands, speaking and singing in tongues, prophesying, and laying hands on others to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit and healing.” At least two priests and thirty laymen spoke in tongues there for the first time, he says.

Stephanou sides with Catholic charismatics in opposition to the classic Pentecostal doctrine that tongues is the universal sign or evidence of Spirit baptism. Tongues is but one of the spiritual gifts, he says, explaining that it may be a norm—but not a mandate—for those who have the baptism. As with Catholics, the main effect of the charismatic experience among Orthodox believers, says Stephanou, has been to establish a personal relationship with Christ.

Most Orthodox clergy seem skeptical or apathetic toward charismatic renewal so far, concedes Stephanou, but he believes it can spread quickly. “Our theology is intact; we don’t have the crisis of creed that exists in the Catholic Church,” he asserts. Also, he adds, “the Greek fathers were really more charismatic than we are,” suggesting that rediscovery of a lost spiritual heritage may be just around the corner. He subscribes to Eastern Orthodoxy’s traditional belief that the Orthodox Church is the unique continuation of the apostolic church, but with some modification: “I now think God may be doing through the charismatic movement something we’ve failed to do: preach the full Gospel.”

EDWARD E. PLOWMAN

Pilgrimage Or Proselytism?

The recent World Conference on the Holy Spirit held in Jerusalem (see March 29 issue, page 39) touched off an argument in Israeli government circles last month. National Religious party member Yehuda Ben-Meir in a speech before the Knesset accused the conference of promoting activity hostile to both Judaism and the state of Israel. Ben-Meir said he based his claim on tape-recorded evidence of missionary activity.

Tourism minister Moshe Kol dismissed the charge and said Ben-Meir was “disseminating poison and hatred.” He described the conference, sponsored by the New Jersey-based Logos International Fellowship, as mainly a Holy Land pilgrimage for the 4,000 who attended. (Conference leaders had cautioned participants against engaging in aggressive witness activities.)

In urging tolerance on the part of Israelis, Kol said, “The time has come for us to treat foreign clerics with respect, and not incite against them.”

Books

Book Briefs: April 26, 1974

Biblically Based Behavior

The World, the Flesh, and the Devil, by Harold Lindsell (Canon, 1973, 227 pp., $4.95), The Letter and the Spirit, by Robert I. Kahn (Word, 1972, 93 pp., $2.95), The Morality Gap, by Erwin W. Lutzer (Moody, 1972, 125 pp., $1.35 pb), Free to Do Right, by David Field (InterVarsity, 1973, 111 pp., $1.25 pb), Come! Live! Die!, by George Verwer (Tyndale, 1972, 96 pp., $.95 pb), and Dynamic Discipleship, by Kenneth C. Kinghorn (Revell, 1973, 157 pp., $4.95), are reviewed by John E. Wagner, attorney, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Here are six recent books dealing with morality, ethics, discipleship, and commitment. They represent a broad spectrum of approach to the serious matters of applied Christianity. If evangelicals have been noted for their emphasis on personal decision-making for Christ, they perhaps have suffered in the eyes of the non-Christian public for a kind of taboo mentality that has strained at gnats of personal behavior and ignored the elephants of evil. These books, therefore, represent a growing awareness of the need for moral theology and ethical analysis in applying the precepts and teachings of Scripture in all of life.

Five of the books are written by evangelical Christians, the sixth by a Jewish rabbi who adheres to a high view of the Old Testament Scriptures and their relevance for current ethical guidance. These are not ground-breakers in Christian ethics. There have been good books of a related nature in circulation for years—especially on the Spirit-filled life, victorious discipleship, and the like. More recently we have seen the publication of some books in which evangelicals address themselves to social ethics, the most current of which is The Dictionary of Christian Ethics, edited by Carl F. H. Henry (see review, February 15 issue, pp. 38–41).

Nevertheless, the six books under consideration are a part of the continuing trend toward intelligent analysis of moral and ethical questions in the light of scriptural authority, and five of them are signs of the continuing increase of scholarly reflection among evangelical authors.

First, Harold Lindsell’s The World, the Flesh, and the Devil deserves special attention—not because he is the editor-publisher of this magazine, but because of its scholarly depth, theological acuity, and breadth of biblical perspective. Lindsell deals with specifics in the realm of personal behavior, as well as current moral controversies such as abortion and pornography. He also discusses broader questions relating to society: war and peace, poverty and racism. But he sets all of these in the theological frame of Reformed orthodoxy, and this means that he takes the Bible seriously on all these questions. His theological perspective spans the whole biblical account from the creation to the parousia, and includes introductory chapters on creation and redemption, on evil and the devil, and the role of the Christian believer in the present world. This, he says, is to witness to the grace of God in Jesus, and to be as the salt of the earth, making the presence and power of God known among men.

Not only does Lindsell spell out the specific scriptural answers on various courses of action and behavior, but he is broad enough to leave some matters optional for the Christian. This is, of course, because the Scripture leaves some matters open; these matters are therefore to be dealt with within the context of the broader principles of love and obedience to God, and concern for one’s neighbor. While he speaks resounding condemnation of behavior specifically proscribed by Scripture (for example, lying, stealing, and adultery), he accentuates the positive and tells us in a powerful chapter that life in the Spirit is the antidote to worldliness.

He deals rather lightly with some of the social issues, and gives business ethics and political morality hardly a word, but this is, I think, because some of the social issues are by their very nature ambiguous, and do not lend themselves to dogmatic and specific scriptural answers. Moreover, he has not failed to deal with some of these issues in editorials in this magazine. My one criticism is that Lindsell seems preoccupied with problems created by human sexuality—and though these are very real and pervasive on the American scene, they are not to be overstated in comparison with other serious ethical and moral questions facing the Christian, and the public at large. On the whole, this is an outstanding volume, and gives a balanced, biblical view of how a Christian should conduct himself this side of heaven.

Somewhat similar to Lindsell’s book is Rabbi Kahn’s The Letter and the Spirit, which is subtitled, “contemporary biblical ethics.” Dr. Kahn takes the Jewish Bible as authoritative and as relevant to modern man. The book draws on the Old Testament for its illustrations, and deals with such matters as crime, sex, unfair trade practices, public welfare, and ecology.

Kahn’s book is short and the chapters are brief. He states in capsule form the Old Testament word on the various relationships of man. His chapters are interestingly titled: “Man to Woman” for the ethics of sex, “Man to Earth” for the ethics of ecology, and so on. In his closing chapter he calls the Bible a time bomb that cannot be defused. Sooner or later, he says, it will explode in the minds and hearts of men.

Erwin W. Lutzer’s The Morality Gap is an evangelical refutation of situation ethics. It does not purport to be a guide to specific issues in the ethical realm, except insofar as the author cites hypothetical situations in developing his theme. It is well reasoned, tightly woven, and packed with scholarly insight and incisive argumentation.

Lutzer opts, of course, for the ethics of biblical absolutes and refutes the situation ethicist’s view of love as the sole law, seeing it as an inadequate guide in specific matters. He also rejects a related ethical option called “hierarchicalism,” which holds that there are higher and lower ethical norms. These norms exist as universals in a quasi-absolutist sense, but when a conflict develops between a lower and higher norm, the advocate of the hierarchical system of ethics would choose the higher norm. When this choice of lesser evils is made, then the hierarchical ethicist would hold that no sin has been committed. But even this methodology falls before the logical onslaught of Lutzer’s argument.

This book deserves a thorough reading by biblical Christians who take seriously all of the commands of Scripture. Ultimately, Lutzer’s position drives us to the realization of the pervasiveness of sin even in Christian choices. Thus it points up the saving work of the cross as well as the cleansing power of the blood of Christ. There are no easy outs for Lutzer, or for Christians who hold to the absolutes of Scripture. Repentance, confession, and reliance on the work of the cross are brought into bold relief—if not explicity, at least by way of implication—for the Christian caught between conflicting scriptural precepts.

Since The Morality Gap is not a reference to specifics of behavior but a philosophical-theological treatise on ethical systems, it may not appeal to the average layman, but it is important reading for teachers, pastors, theologians, and lay persons who want to know why they should reject any ethical system that tends to dilute or oversimplify the plain commandments of the Word of God.

Next we turn to a book that is a kind of overview of Christian ethics and morals. David Field of Oak Hill Theological College in England has given us a good essay on making moral decisions in his Free to Do Right, part of the continuing outflow of good books on Christian life and growth from Inter Varsity Press. I recommend this book wholeheartedly as a companion to Lind-sell’s volume—not that they are necessary complements, but because they present essentially the same kind of moral theology through the fertile minds of two fine, analytical thinkers who write in quite different styles.

Fields enters the realm of apologetics in answering questions that have been raised against Christian ethics, and gives cogent answers to troublesome queries about the authority of the Bible for the twentieth-century believer. He tells us why we should obey God’s word in Scripture, and he applies this to both the personal and the public dimensions of life. Moreover, he insists that the Bible is realistic in its approach to morality. He reiterates the radicalness of Jesus’ ethic of the converted or changed man as the basis for right relationships in all of life. He also endorses the hierarchy of relationships spelled out in the Bible as normative for Christ-centered living and for a stable society.

Field admits that some problems are left unanswered or are given apparently conflicting answers in Scripture. But he urges a middle course between casuistry on the one side and situationism on the other. He gives a modest consent to the “choice of lesser evil” theory of ethics in dealing with moral conflicts within the ambit of biblical authority. But he cautions that in seeking the proper course, the Christian must do it with his Bible open, fortified by the promise that the Holy Spirit will direct the minds of those who are open to his instructions.

In the abstract, Lutzer is logically right in rejecting hierarchicalism. But in the particular, Field, I think, gives the practical biblical answer. There are indeed conflicts, and when they cannot be resolved by an appeal to the total revelation of Scripture and prayerful consideration of the deeper meaning of the troublesome passages, then the Christian must be open to the leading of the Word and the Holy Spirit in his decision-making. While we must sometimes seek guidance beyond the pages of the revealed Word, we never seek guidance in basic contradiction to it, nor in scorn of it.

Finally, Field deals with the power to make the choice—and that power is Christ in us. In obedience to him we find our freedom.

NEWLY PUBLISHED

The Young Evangelicals, by Richard Quebedeaux (Harper & Row, 157 pp., $2.50 pp). A major article on this book appears on pages 4–8 of this issue.

The New Jews, by James C. Hefley (Tyndale, 158 pp., $1.45 pp). Accounts of fourteen contemporary Jews who have accepted Jesus as the Messiah; among them is Moishe Rosen, founder of the Jews for Jesus group.

Help Wanted: Faith Required, by William Proctor (Revell, 158 pp., $2.95 pp). A Christian perspective for facing secular jobs. Deals constructively with boredom, frustrations, and temptations involved in the working world. For anyone who works.

Ways to Spark Your Church Program, by Frank A. Kostyu (Abingdon, 141 pp., $2.95 pp). Collection of 174 ideas for church programs. Suggestions cover topics from novel ways of visiting the aged to new means of presenting stewardship. Helpful for spurring the imagination.

Believing, by Eugene C. Kennedy (Doubleday, 216 pp., $5.95). General survey of the elements of faith and the role that religious and non-religious belief plays in life. Includes interviews with Ann Landers, Eugene McCarthy, B. F. Skinner, and others. The author is a Catholic psychology professor.

Electric Love, by Dennis C. Benson (John Knox, 118 pp., $3.95 pp). Chatty, autobiographically based suggestions on using various electrical (that is, audio-visual) aids to enhance corporate Christian life.

Alive, by Piers Paul Read (Lippincott, 252 pp., $10). Account of the sixteen survivors of the 1972 Andes plane crash who had to resort to eating the flesh of their dead colleagues in order to survive. Emphasizes the moral and religious struggle in their decision. A sensitive and relatively objective recounting.

The Pope’s Jews, by Sam Waagenaar (Open Court, 401 pp., $9.95). Account of the relation between Jews in Rome and the Catholic Church, especially the papacy, from the first century to Hitler. Recounts repeated shameful injustices. Created a considerable stir when published in Europe.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Volume 9, edited by Gerhard Friedrich (Eerdmans, 684 pp., $22.50). After forty-five years of labor, the famous dictionary of New Testament theology begun by Gerhard Kittel is now complete, the English and German editions of the final volume appearing almost simultaneously. Volume nine covers words beginning with the last four letters of the Greek alphabet. This will be a standard work for several generations to come and should be not only in the libraries of every college, seminary, and Bible institute, but also in the personal libraries of all Bible teachers and serious students who have a working knowledge of Greek.

A Catholic Looks at Billy Graham, by Charles W. Dullea (Paulist, 149 pp., $1.65 pp). Thorough examination of the man, his theology, and his organization by the head of Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute. Defends Graham on the most controversial issues. Worth reading.

How the Holy Spirit Filled My Life, by Bertha Smith (Broadman, 144 pp., $3.95). A Baptist missionary recounts her struggle to accept Christ and to accept being filled with the Spirit. Explains Spirit-filling apart from charismatic gifts.

Search For the Beloved Community, by Kenneth L. Smith and Ira G. Zipp (Judson, 159 pp., $6.95). Study of the thinking of Martin Luther King, Jr., as it is revealed through the men and theological systems that King studied.

Taylor University: The First 125 Years, by William C. Ringenberg (Eerdmans, 184 pp., $5.95). Fairly objective history of one of the better-known evangelical colleges.

Encounters Between Judaism and Modern Philosophy, by Emil L. Lackenheim (Basic Books, 286 pp., $10). A foremost Jewish thinker examines the works of modern philosophers to evaluate their contribution to contemporary life and to the fate of Judaism.

The Ten Commandments For Today, William Barclay (Harper & Row, 205 pp., $5.95). Exposition by a widely respected writer on each of the Commandments and its contemporary applications.

Cross and Crucible, by John Warwick Montgomery (two volumes, Martinus Nijhoff [P.O.B. 269, The Hague, Netherlands], 557 pp., 144 guilders). A definitive study by a leading evangelical scholar of the life, writings, and influence of Johann Valentin Andreae (1586–1654). Includes a highly annotated English translation of The Hermetic Romance, which Andreae issued under the pseudonym Christian Rosencreutz. Undermines, by examining the sources, the repeated assertions regarding a “frozen” Lutheran orthodoxy that allegedly was indifferent to piety, social concerns, and wider intellectual horizons. Especially relevant in the light of resurging interest in occultism because of Andreae’s opposition to some of its expressions in his time.

The Presence of the Future, by George E. Ladd (Eerdmans, 370 pp., $4.50 pp). Revision of Jesus and the Kingdom, a balanced exegetical study of the biblical data by a leading evangelical scholar.

Models of the Church, by Avery Dulles (Doubleday, 216 pp., $5.95). Yet another prominent Catholic’s evaluation of his church in the post-Vatican II era.

Divorce and Remarriage, by John R. Martin (Herald Press, 136 pp., $4.95). A helpful study for the counseling pastor. The first section is a theological examination of the Scriptural teaching on divorce and remarriage; the second offers practical suggestions for effective counseling as seen from the author’s Mennonite position.

Belief, Language, and Experience, by Rodney Needham (University of Chicago, 269 pp., $10). A rather different approach to the traditional problem of “God-talk,” making use of philological studies in an African language and coming to the conclusion that one cannot be at all sure.

While It Is Day, by Elton Trueblood (Harper & Row, 170 pp., $5.95). Autobiography of one of the best-known religious writers of our time.

What Does Judaism Say About …?, by Louis Jacobs (Quadrangle, 346 pp., $7.95). Discussion of 110 contemporary subjects such as abortion, divorce, hijacking, nuclear warfare, and ecumenism from the Jewish perspective.

This leads to the last two books. George Verwer’s Come! Live! Die! calls us to a radical, no-holds-barred commitment to Christ. He hammers home his theme on every page: we must lay our lives on the line for Jesus. And this involves a revolution in our prayer life, in Bible study, in our discipline, and ultimately, a revolution of Christian love in our lives. Verwer touches on random specifics of ethics, but the book as a whole is pitched toward commitment. Ethical decisions are, after all, not made by the Christian in the scholastic forum of an ethics class. They are made in the heat of the battle against the world, the flesh, and the devil, and Verwer tells us to put on the whole armor of God. If Fields and Lindsell tell us how to live the Christian life—ethically and morally—Verwer’s book is the pep talk for getting on with the task.

Finally, to Kenneth Kinghorn’s Dynamic Discipleship. Well organized, interesting, dealing with growth in grace and the specifics of following Christ, this book is written from the spiritual perspective rather than from the strictly ethical or moral. It is typical of other books long extant in the literature of evangelicalism, but it nevertheless comes across with an honesty, contemporaneity, and scriptural authority that make it delightful and edifying reading. It is also potent reading—not primarily for ethical instruction, but for understanding the dynamics of Christian living. Kinghorn combines the insights of the new relational theology with the more traditional evangelical theology of the Word, but he does so unostentatiously—perhaps even unintentionally. He writes well, and he writes with a fine grasp of the Bible and of the realities of living. I like his book. It suffers not in the least from overly introspective side trips, but focuses clearly on surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the growth that comes from wearing his light yoke and from walking in the illuminating guidance and enabling power of his Spirit.

I am not entirely uncritical of these six books. But there is so much to be learned in each of them that I would not waste your time by nit-picking at any deficiencies that I noticed. We must give the authors credit, I think, for knowing more than they sometimes say, and petty arguing would be sophomoric or pedantic. Here, in fine, are some instructions that will help all of us to follow the basic readings on the biblical compass.

How Trustworthy?

Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility, by Dewey M. Beegle (Eerdmans, 1973, 332 pp., $4.95 pb), is reviewed by Clark H. Pinnock, professor of theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.

Although the title is new, this is not a new book. It is the second edition of a controversial volume first published a decade ago, The Inspiration of Scripture. Almost all of the old book appears in the new one unchanged, together with a generous amount of additional material. The additions do not substantially alter the original thesis. Beegle believes that the Bible errs in numerous places and recommends that evangelicals abandon their complete confidence in the text.

In place of the biblical and historic high view of inspiration, Beegle puts forward an essentially neo-orthodox theory that attributes inerrancy only to God and considers Scripture to be flawed by various mistakes. Its deficiencies notwithstanding, the Bible is sufficiently trustworthy to accomplish God’s purpose because the Spirit drives home its message with authority. Beegle arrives at this low view of Scripture by persisting in the old mistake of method set out in the first edition. Instead of determining the Christian doctrine of inspiration by a careful induction of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles on the subject, and moving on to consider the critical phenomena of the Bible in the light of this firmly established principle, Beegle continues to treat Christ’s view and the phenomena as if they were somehow on the same plane, with the result that he adjusts the biblical doctrine of inspiration to the difficulties that have not yet been solved, and concludes that the Bible is errant. There are better guides to this terrain than Beegle; for example, John W. Wenham, Christ and the Bible (InterVarsity), and B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Presbyterian and Reformed).

Beegle is fond of one particular ad hominem argument. He claims that proponents of the historic view of biblical infallibility suffer from a psychological problem, namely, fear and insecurity. His evangelical readers will not appreciate this unrespectable line of non-argument, when their motive for holding fast to an inerrant Bible has been nothing other than the desire to be faithful to their Lord. No doubt the psychology of evangelicals is easier to criticize than their theology, and that explains the author’s shift to that key.

Beegle’s challenge, while nothing new, is still important. There is, he believes, demonstrable errors in the text of Scripture that invalidate belief in its complete trustworthiness. They consist of a sprinkling of inaccuracies in the Old Testament historical books, in Acts, in Jude—about ten in all. Rather than differentiating between difficulties and errors, which would seem both theologically and critically wise, Beegle digs in his heels and insists that the “errors” overturn the historic high view of inspiration. Presumably he thinks that the problems will never be solved, however hard Bible believing scholars work on them.

What evangelicals are likely to say to Beegle about the yet unsolved difficulties in the Bible is that we prefer to stand with Jesus and the historic Church in their view rather than with him and many other critics today of whose infallibility we are not convinced. In these matters, which, though they touch only the margins of Scripture, remain troublesome, we prefer to walk by faith and not by sight, a faith not at all blind or unjustified but deeply settled in the person and doctrine of our divine and risen Lord.

A Message to Fathers

Edith Schaeffer

The following is a guest column by Edith Schaeffer, L’Abri Fellowship, Huémoz, Switzerland.

Unhappily the word “father” has a garbled meaning for many people today. It needs redefinition, not just in words but in understanding and in daily life. Some people stiffen up inside when you say that God is a Father to us. “Father” to them means a person with whom there is no communication, who cannot understand one’s thoughts, feelings, or actions, who must be avoided or from whom one must run away. Even Christian fathers often portray the very opposite qualifications of what a father is supposed to be.

In time that boy who has reacted against the concept of “father” he has known is himself a father. Where is his pattern? How can either he or his children know when the right pattern is being followed, or deviated from?

It is all backwards when a spoiled pattern is followed and handed down year after year, and people forget what the original pattern was like. It is all backwards when men turn from God because they can’t stand the word “father,” and attribute wrong things to God. “The everlasting Father” is also “the Prince of Peace.” Jesus when he came said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” But the Father as Jesus demonstrated him to men is the same One who promised in Jeremiah 31:9,

They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel.

A father is meant to be one to whom his children come when they are in trouble or sorrow; one to whom they run when they are being pursued by an enemy, to whom they come for shelter from any kind of storm. A father is supposed to be a person who can be trusted to understand and care, who will listen to any kind of communication even when others turn away. Listen to David as he speaks in Psalm 61:

Hear my cry, O God; attend unto my prayer. From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed lead me to the rock that is higher than I. For thou hast been a shelter for me and a strong tower from the enemy. I will abide in thy tabernacle forever: I will take refuge in the covert of thy wings.

A father should be the first one the child would think of communicating with when overwhelmed by physical woes, emotional problems, confusing philosophies, conflicting ideas about what he is to do. A father is meant to be a shelter. A shelter shuts out wind, rain, ice, cold, heat, sand, mosquitos, or armies of men. A father is meant to be a strong tower of protection. The very word “father” should conjure up a feeling of security.

The shelter of God the Father shuts out dangers but also shuts one in to the realities of fulfillment. A family around a fireside sharing ideas and experiences in an atmosphere of warmth and caring pictures in a minimal way the perfection of God’s Fatherliness. He is always ready to listen and advise, and “in his presence is fullness of joy.”

We are told that an eagle flies under the baby eaglets in order to catch them if they fall while learning to fly. In this way God pictures the ready refuge we may expect from him. Not only is he ready to gather us under his wings to shelter us from dangers, but he cares enough to stay close, as the eagle flies directly under, in order to be ready when the moment comes. This is a far cry from the father who waits to pounce upon his child’s every mistake so that the child fears to be anywhere near the father when he falls. God’s perfect fatherliness is one of loving care, realizing that falls will come.

Too often “discipline” is all the word “father” means to a child. The right discipline is to be fair, and Jesus urges fathers to stop and think before acting when he says, “Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath.”

God the Father shows us clearly that a father is meant to be the one person who can always be counted on to care. “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.” “He that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.” “I will guide thee to the end.” The caring—materially, physically, spiritually, emotionally—that the Heavenly Father gives is in keeping with his being the “Everlasting Father.” Earthly fathers are finite and limited, but the “caring” is to last as long as the father lives. A parent-child relationship is to keep increasing in depth, understanding, and true communication.

God as our Heavenly Father not only has promised to supply all our needs according to his riches in glory, but also has told us that he wants us to ask specifically for special things, to make our requests known to him. The pattern of the perfect father includes an open ear to requests and a delight in responding to specific desires made known to him. Of course, the answer is sometimes “no” or “wait,” but there must be many times of showing love and understanding by providing what was asked for.

The word “father” should bring a tremor of excitement in the assurance that this one is making hidden preparations for the future. Jesus said he was going to prepare a place for his own. In Hebrews 11:6 we are told that God is not ashamed to be called our God, because he has prepared for us a city. Our Heavenly Father is in the midst of preparing fantastic surprises for his children while they are suffering difficulties now. An earthly father, in requiring difficult things of his children in certain moments, should be at the same time planning and preparing the wonderful summer vacation together, the special trip alone with one child in special need, the camping trip to the mountains or seaside. The word “father” should bring thoughts of one who is full of marvelous plans for the joy of his children—little joys day by day, as well as longer periods ahead of special fulfillment.

The pattern of what a father should be includes availability. God is infinite as well as personal, and so we have a completely available father at all times. Fatherliness in a human being must include availability to the best of the man’s limited possibility.

Our heavenly Father is strong, and he says he will share his strength: “My strength is made perfect in weakness.” An earthly father cannot share strength in this unique way, but he is meant to remember to try to share his strength for the child’s good in the child’s weakness, and not to use his strength to bully the weaker one.

All this cannot be carried out perfectly by an imperfect man, but this, and more, is the pattern to be followed. There must be a recognizable likeness to this pattern in a father if a child is to develop an understanding of what “God is our Father” means. Whether or not you ever had such a father, determine by God’s strength to be one. Throw away the spoiled pattern, and look to the Perfect Pattern.

Ideas

Living Better with Less

Was the Arab oil boycott a blessing in disguise?

That was a hard conclusion to draw when you were waiting in line for gas. At that point one was tempted to grant that from a strictly political standpoint the Arabs had made a smart move. They knew the West had been spoiled by the availability of cheap oil, and that North America especially had come to rely on it for a vast assortment of creature comforts. What better way to gain political advantage than by disrupting a convenient way of life? The Arabs felt that the affluent would be willing to exert extensive pressure on Israel rather than forsake their conveniences.

Whatever the effect of the oil boycott in those terms, it had some measurable benefit for the whole world in a psychological sense. At least a few people have had their horizon broadened enough to realize for perhaps the first time that abundance is not a critical human need. Some may even have begun to sense as a result of the energy crisis that life might even be more meaningful if we did not consume so much. Up until these last few months many young people in the West had never had the privilege of experiencing a shortage of anything! And untold numbers of both young and old have assumed that life is merely a prolonged collection process, the more collected the merrier, and that anything that got in the way was by definition a liability. Maybe the oil boycott showed us some difference between want and need. Maybe we tasted an austerity that is not as repellent as we thought.

U. S. News and World Report noted recently, “Experts see a silver lining of pluses now and in the future—such as families and neighbors drawing closer together, fewer traffic accidents, new housing designed for more efficient heating and lighting, home appliances that last longer and cost less to operate.”

There are also some reports that crime is down somewhat because of the energy shortage (except in the category of gasoline theft!) The number of car pools is up remarkably. “A new tendency to save gasoline by staying home is reflected in booming sales of television sets and materials for crafts and hobbies,” adds U. S. News. Sales of religious books, we might add, have been increasing, too. It will be interesting to see how travel curtailment will affect recreation if there is any substantial gasoline shortage this summer.

We don’t mean to suggest that the energy crisis did not bring genuine adversity. For one thing, many thousands of people lost their jobs because of it—and are still unemployed. Many people around the world who were already in dire economic straits have more recently been worse off than ever. The overall picture is mixed.

The point here is simply that people whose life motto has been “More, more!” have been obliged to reassess their outlook, to their own benefit. They might otherwise not have done so. They are like the child who refuses to try anything new to eat, protesting that he will not like it, but who, when he is forced to try the new dish, finds himself asking for more.

God often allows trouble and sorrow to come into our lives to bring us to our senses. This is true all through Scripture. Perhaps at the present time he has used the oil boycott to speak forcefully to a fallen world for its own good. The Psalmist urged, “Taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man that trusteth in him.” May not God have brought this thing to pass to prod us to take the first taste and to see that something less than great affluence is closer to man’s ideal state?

The concept of doing more with less, which has been called progressive ephemeralization, has been the basic principle behind the ballistic arts of man and, indeed, behind all warfare. R. Buckminster Fuller notes that it was the principle that enabled little David to slay the giant Goliath. It is also the principle employed in guerrilla warfare—in, for instance, tiny North Viet Nam’s holding off the armed might of the United States. It is the principle behind the current kidnappings and acts of terrorism: highly strategic and risky deeds that involve minute resources but through which enormous demands can be made.

Our environmental deficit, which is growing all the time, behooves us to extend this idea of consciously trying to do a lot with a little into many areas of human endeavor. A fascinating new book by David Hancocks, Master Builders of the Animal World, shows what remarkable things can be done even by sub-human species that cannot reason! Why not man? This is where the Church comes in. Christians must develop and proclaim a greater respect for God’s great creation. Science and technology have gotten carried away from ethical dimensions. Christians have the task of reunifying fact and value and of inspiring motivations that are sensitive to the careful use of divinely bestowed resources. Empty lives seek to consume more of this world’s goods as a substitute for the inner peace that only God can provide. Christians must take the lead in scaling down appetites.

For the sake of an ecological turnaround and ultimately out of obedience to God the creator, so be it.

Petrarch: Prisoner Of The World

“If you do not raise your eyes, you will think that you are the highest point.”

—ANTONIO PORCHIA

A colorful procession of robed scholars and statesmen wound its way from the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D. C., to the “Capitoline Hill” on April 8 to reenact the coronation of Francesco Petrarca as poet laureate of Rome six centuries ago. For many it represented a hope that the Renaissance spirit of creativity and individual inquiry might be revived. The march highlighted the “World Petrarch Congress,” a multi faceted commemoration of the death in 1374 of the scholar, Renaissance humanist, canon, archdeacon—indeed, “Citizen of the World,” as the congress planners put it.

Few men have worked as diligently or achieved as much as this scholar of the antiquities who has been lauded as “the father of Renaissance humanism.” Petrarch is to be applauded for his role as inspiration and spark for the new spirit of individualism, curiosity, and sense of history that characterized the Renaissance. Although he long considered and always admired the traditional religious life of the medieval monk, he sought to amend medieval man’s concept of spirituality by integrating in his works the secular and the spiritual. This he accomplished superficially by the use of many mixed classical and biblical allusions, and with more depth by the outpouring of his own spiritual conflict over his love for God and his desire for renown, fortune, and Laura (the woman who inspired his famous sonnets).

The integration was limited, however. Although Petrarch was intimately acquainted with Augustine’s Confessions, he could not wholeheartedly accept the assertion that knowledge of God would bring him fulfillment. By his own admission in the Secretum he “saw the better course, but chose the worse,” thus becoming “chained to this world” by his love for wealth, fame, and Laura. Although he recognized God and the spiritual dimension of life, he set his sights on the temporal prizes rather than the laurels of “the Kingdom of God and his righteousness,” finding himself unable to trust God to give him “all these things.” Thus having essentially rejected the spiritual, he could never fully integrate it with the material, although the struggle to do so continued to receive his attention. In this lies the key to many of the contradictions apparent in Petrarch’s life and works.

Aspirations to the rebirth of the Petrarchan/Renaissance spirit of creativity and individual inquiry lay at the core of the anniversary celebrations. In the words of Folger director O. B. Hardison, Jr., “Petrarch believed in the power of art to redeem and ennoble a society”; and now that, “in this era, man is becoming more aware of the spiritual element in life, he should be encouraged to find himself through the arts and humanities.” Certainly this spirit of re-creation and self-development should be applauded as a happy alternative to the spirit of destructive revolution that pervaded society in the last decade. But if it is to enjoy lasting success, it must be undergirded by a hope firmly fixed upon the knowledge of God, and a desire, through all its creativity, to reveal the integrative force of God’s redemptive act.

The Expanding Sahara

The world’s largest desert, the Sahara, is expanding southward. The rate of growth has increased in the last five years or so because of a prolonged drought across all of Central Africa. Although the media have carried extensive reports about the resulting suffering, comparatively few people outside Africa really have any idea how bad things are. Those concerned have the chance now to-see a graphic portrayal of the problem in a new film, Africa: Dry Edge of Disaster. It has just been made available by the World Relief Commission, overseas relief arm of the National Association of Evangelicals.

The twenty-eight-minute, 16-mm, color, sound film, shot in Central Africa only a few weeks ago, is unusually well done for a film of this type. It manages to put across the inherent beauty of the people despite the agony they are going through.

Surely this situation is a summons to people everywhere to respond generously, whether through the World Relief Commission or through some other agency working in the area. Granaries are empty. Wells are dry. Thousands of refugees are begging simply for a daily ration of millet, which in the United States is used simply for bird seed. Says the film narrator, “Some think the only solution is that millions die.” The producers obviously think otherwise, and we join them in hoping that this film will go a long way toward negating that option.

Early To Rise

Were you to ask the average American today the meaning of “Aaron’s rod,” he would be likely to identify it as the bat used by the Atlanta Braves slugger to break Babe Ruth’s all-time career home-run record. One similarity between the biblical object and the baseball bat is that some had hoped that the latter, too, might work miracles—not to establish Henry Aaron as the greatest home-run hitter in history but to bring baseball out of the doldrums.

Alas, that miracle didn’t occur. Out of the more than 50,000 “fans” who came out for the game in which Aaron swatted number 715, only a handful stayed through the ninth inning. Can all those Johnny-go-earlies really consider themselves fans—i.e., fanatics, persons “possessed by excessive and irrational zeal”? Football, basketball, and hockey fans, many of whom would leave early only if the stadium were in the path of an avalanche, have reason to scoff.

Pay Day Some Day

In these post-April 15 days a lot of American citizens feel relieved, and a lot feel poorer. Prominent among the latter this year is President Nixon, who has had to pay not only his 1973 income tax but a whopping addition to his payments for several previous years. He says he intends to keep his word to pay whatever he was assessed by the congressional committee that examined his earlier returns.

No person of integrity should let the questionable example of the President’s tax maneuvers influence him to relax his own standards. Everyone is entitled to all the deductions the law allows; if there are questionable areas, a ruling can be secured in advance of the deadline. It is far better to settle the matter before, not after, the fact. Taxes now seem intolerably high, but they will keep going higher as long as the citizenry demands more and more benefits from the government.

Most Christians who tithe have their returns audited periodically. This is not a matter for concern if they have deducted only what the law allows. Let them instead be concerned with preparing for the ultimate audit—the life audit that will take place at the judgment seat of Christ, when the books will be balanced and the final and perfect judgment will be rendered.

Kudos For ‘Something Quite Different’

Christians with talents in the arts will be encouraged by the acclaim given Tedd Smith for his appearance last month in the Auckland Arts Festival. That Smith was invited to participate in this major cultural event was itself a boost for talented evangelicals with a creative spirit. Unfortunately, the evangelical community as a whole does not readily lend its support to serious, highly disciplined artistic endeavors, which is part of the reason why the Christian believer today feels culturally alienated. Smith’s success in New Zealand is a tribute to him and also to the programmers of the festival and to the respected critic whose review in the New Zealand Herald is reprinted here, who did not let Smith’s “revivalist fervour” diminish their appreciation of his ability. May it also lend boldness to the truly creative and truly Christian in the days ahead.

Georges Pompidou

The late Georges Pompidou, second president of the French Fifth Republic, maintained a full official schedule almost to the last day of his life, so much so that on the morning of the day he died, April 2, the major Paris newspapers carried nothing to suggest the seriousness of his condition. Although mortally ill, apparently from cancer, Pompidou had courageously continued to carry out his duties. One of his acts near the end of his life was to commute the death sentence of two condemned murderers.

A Roman Catholic, Pompidou was criticized by churchmen for some of his official positions, such as France’s continuing development of nuclear weapons. Under his guidance France made a successful transition from the charismatic and intensely personalistic leadership of General de Gaulle to a more bourgeois style of government—bourgeois in the French sense of the word, implying hard work, cultivation, a certain urbanity, and devotion to traditional moral values though not necessarily to a distinctive religious system. During Pompidou’s short presidency, France achieved remarkable economic growth and a high degree of affluence. Both are now threatened by the worldwide economic malaise that must have increasingly burdened Georges Pompidou’s last days.

Not a heroic figure, Pompidou embodied many of the best traits of the European bourgeoisie. It will be hard for France to find a successor to match his many talents.

The memorial mass for the late president will itself be remembered. More than 7,000 persons, including fifty heads of governments, attended the mass, held in Notre Dame Cathedral. It was conducted in the 800-year-old tradition of the famed church.

Smuggling Reexamined

The Christian’s duty is to obey God rather than man. But it does not follow from this indisputable principle that God wants us to break his moral law in order to work out his purposes. Those who contend, for example, that bearing false witness—orally or by signing false statements—is justifiable as an aid in getting Bibles into Communist lands are really questioning the sovereignty of God. They are arguing in effect that God cannot work out his will in the context of his own plan, that he must stoop to the enemy’s tactics to get the job done (see also letters, page 20). That is a conclusion we vehemently oppose!

When we break one commandment we are guilty of all. Would it be right to kill a border guard, or to bribe a customs agent with sexual favors, to smuggle Bibles?

The lie told by Rahab, often appealed to as a precedent for immoral action in a good cause, is nowhere commended in Scripture. Rahab is lauded in the New Testament for receiving the spies and giving them directions, not for deceiving the king. And let it not be lost on us that she is identified as a harlot in both Hebrews and James.

We oppose the smuggling of Bibles or anything else because smuggling by definition entails deception. “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid” (Rom. 6:1). We heartily endorse the importation of Bibles into Communist countries by any means that does not oblige us to disobey God’s commandments.

On Mountain-Moving

We all recognize the importance of faith in Christian experience, yet few of us try to know much about it. We believe the words of Paul to the Galatians that “the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love,” and we analyze love a great deal these days. But how many of us have gotten beyond bland definitions of faith? We talk a lot about faith, but to what extent do we really try to understand its nature and meaning?

To begin with, we might take an excursion into the Gospels for a better look at those passages in which Christ talks about the kind of faith that can move mountains. In Matthew 17, for example, the disciples are told that even a minimum measure of faith (“faith as a grain of mustard seed”) will enable them to effect a major geographical change. Did he mean this literally, or was he, as some commentators hold, using hyperbole? The context of a similar statement Jesus made in connection with the incident involving the barren fig tree suggests a literal interpretation.

We tend to think about such statements today in terms of their sheer technical possibilities. By doing this we may lose something of the significance of what Jesus was trying to put across. True, what is impossible for men is possible for God. But mountain-moving, though an extremely large task, is not impossible. All that is needed is enough time and manpower. The people of the first century could have done it—some of them may have known about what was entailed in the erection of the mammoth pyramids, and the shifting of a mountain is not really out of that league.

Maybe what Jesus was really getting at was how enough people could be motivated to move a mountain!

Consider another herculean task, the one facing the early church after the ascension of Jesus. Here is a tiny band of ignorant people commissioned to proclaim the Gospel so that it would leave its mark upon the world as nothing else ever had. What a job!

The miraculous thing is that it was accomplished. Christianity transformed human culture. Jesus came to be recognized as the focal point of history. Adherents of the Church exercised vast power over the world.

Judging by its performance, the early Church must have understood the concept of faith a lot better than we do. They certainly did a lot more with it. We desperately need to devote more time in prayer and study so as to discover more clearly the potential as well as the nature of faith and its relation to the course of human events.

Minister’s Workshop: April 26, 1974

Take a moment to consider your church and the community it serves. How many children are retarded to some degree? Of what worth do you consider them? Are they not persons created in the image of God, equally as important as the normal child? Wouldn’t you like to help them learn as much about their Creator as they are capable of learning? Wouldn’t you like to accept and love what is sometimes an unlovely child and show his parents what Christian love really is?

If you decide that an MR program is needed, you then must convince the staff and congregation of this. There are at least these reasons for establishing a program for the mentally retarded:

1. To help the parents. Such a program shows to the parents the love and concern that all Christians should show to one another. These parents may feel overworked, anxious, guilt-ridden; the MR program gives them a chance to relax, freed for a while from the responsibility of caring for the child (this may be especially true for parents of children in the lower functional range). It also enables them to attend the regular church service.

2. To provide a Christian education for the retarded child. Christ came for all, not merely for the intellectually adequate. The MR child should have an opportunity to develop a relation with Christ to his fullest capacity.

3. To aid the MR child in social adjustment. What better place is there for him to learn self-control and other needed lessons in social behavior than in an accepted, loving Christian environment?

Many people, both children and adults, are afraid of the mentally retarded persons. Fear may lead to ridicule. The congregation, young and old alike, should have the problem of mental retardation explained to them, as well as the impact mental retardation has on families.

Following this, a committee of interested people should survey the community to determine the number of mentally retarded children, their levels of retardation, locations of their homes, and so on. Perhaps they will also be asked to find out whether other local churches are interested in cooperating in the program.

Once a definite decision has been made to set up classes for the MR and the money has been appropriated, the community should be made aware of the program. As soon as the parents have been identified, they should be visited by the members of the committee.

I feel that whenever possible the MR child should be taken into the normal Sunday-school class. He is likely to look younger than his age and be able to fit in quite easily with a younger group of children. This procedure will test the success of your efforts to help the congregation understand mental retardation. If you have succeeded, the students and teacher will receive the MR child lovingly into the class. Some qualified person should be available as a resource person for teachers of the normal classes in which MR children have been placed.

If there are MR children who by size, functional level, or frustration level cannot fit into normal classes, one or more special classes should be established. Such a class should be kept small—fewer than ten, in my opinion, with a teacher or assistant for every two or three pupils.

Concordia Publishing House has a leadership training series for teachers of the MR. Also, accompanying this article is a list of fourteen books, any of which will be found helpful.

During the teacher training, have one or more people who work with the retarded come in to tell about the joys and frustrations of their work. Present a realistic picture to the potential teachers, for the work will be difficult and very demanding, though extremely rewarding. Discuss the fruits of the Spirit that are essential for this work—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Have the staff examine available materials and explore methods of adapting regular Sunday-school materials. Brainstorming will lead to numerous ideas for making needed materials that can’t be purchased.

After classes have begun, continue to check on the teachers. Encourage them—they will need it. It’s highly possible that you will have misassigned one or more students or teachers; be sure to keep the program flexible so that changes can easily be made.—VARINA S. FLORENCE, student, M.A. program in Christian education, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.

Bibliography

BAUER, E. CHARLES, Retarded Children Are People, Bruce, 1964.

BOGARDUS, LADONNA, Christian Education For Retarded Children and Youth, Abingdon, 1963.

BREITENBECK, G., For Parents of Retarded Children, Redemptorist Fathers, 1960.

BREITENBECK, G., For Teachers of Retarded Children, Redemptorist Fathers, n.d.

BUTLER, SCHUYLER V., An Analysis of Educable Mentally Handicapped and Their Role in Church Education, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1972.

HAHN, HANS R., and RAASCH, WERNER H., Helping the Retarded to Know God, Concordia, 1969.

JOHNSON, JERRY DON, and JONES, MARTHA, Learning to Know God, Bethany Press, 1966.

KIRK, SAMUEL A., Educating Exceptional Children, Houghton-Mifflin, 1962.

MARTIN, C. LEWIS, and TRAVIS, JOHN T., Exceptional Children: A Special Ministry, Judson, 1968.

PALMER, CHARLES E., The Church and the Exceptional Person, Abingdon, 1961.

PETERSEN, SIGURD D., Retarded Children: God’s Children, Westminster, 1960.

Religious Education For the Mentally Retarded, Kentucky Association for Retarded Children, n.d.

ROBINSON, HALBERT B., and ROBINSON, NANCY M., The Mentally Retarded Child, McGraw-Hill, 1965.

STUBBLEFIELD, HAROLD W., The Church’s Ministry in Mental Retardation, Broadman, 1965.

Eutychus and His Kin: April 26, 1974

Hymns Of The Future

Astute observers of the publishing scene have noted that among non-fiction books, runaway best-sellers often fall into one of three categories: (1) guides to self-acceptance or psychological health (e.g., I’m OK, You’re OK); (2) frightening and yet somehow reassuring visions of the future (e.g., Future Shock); (3) occult and fringe religious phenomena (The Exorcist). Orthodox Christian publishers, of course, have scruples about producing for the occult/fringe market (3), and so naturally their efforts tend to center on categories (1) and (2)—for example, The Kink and I and The Late Great Planet Earth.

For decades there has been very little creative innovation in the field that long was the second bread-and-butter item for Christian publishers (after Bibles), namely, hymnbooks. Some would claim that nothing really new has been done in the hymnbook field since the extremely successful Kirchliches Gesangbuch (Cologne) of 1787. Music-publishing is always expensive, and new projects are always risky. The obvious solution is for a hymnbook to combine the two categories already so successful in religious publishing, (1) and (2) above.

The first creatively new venture of this type is soon to be released by Van der Zon (Grand Rapids): Future Hymns of Planet Earth. An example of the way in which imaginative new lyrics creatively combine personal psychological comfort with eschatological curiosity and reassurance about the unknown future is evident in a hymn chosen at random from the book’s hundreds of new selections, “Clock of Ages”:

1

Clock of ages, wound for me,

Let me time myself by thee.

May the frenzy and the fright

That disturb my sleep by night

Be dispelled by Scofield’s art,

We from Lindsey’s lore take heart.

2

Not the doctrines of the creed,

Can appease our psychic need;

Though our faith be firm as rock,

There would still be future shock.

We to prophecies must flee,

Analyzed ingeniously.

3

Harris’ plaintive, “I’m OK,”

Might have helped just yesterday;

But again our spirit fails,

Which promotes Zondervan’s sales.

Clock of ages, wound for me,

Let me time mself by thee.

In addition to the soon-to-be-beloved Future Hymns of Planet Earth, Van der Zon has announced its intention to offer new comfort to secularists too in the continuing political crisis with an all-purpose anthology of civil religious songs, Songs of the State. Details will be released as soon as available.

EUTYCHUS VI

Catching The Spirit

I would like to express appreciation for the excellent news article by David Kucharsky, “Americans United: Parting Shots” (Mar. 1). It spoke eloquently to both the challenge of taking advantage of the affirmation of church-state separation which is now coming from the court system and the contribution Americans United for Separation of Church and State has made to creating that climate. The leadership of Glenn L. Archer has been unusual. The gathering in Orlando was both the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. The task of finding the right executive leadership for this cause is a challenging one.

Those of us who serve on the board of the organization are committed to continuing a vigilant posture concerning our liberties and a rejection of bigotry as a base for our defense for liberty. Your article caught that spirit very well.

JIMMY R. ALLEN

President

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

San Antonio, Tex.

Holding Back

In your editorial of the March 1 issue you call “Bible smugglers” deceivers. By your admonition to Christians to obey first and foremost all of Caesar’s laws you touched on an interesting subject. In the Nuremberg trials people were condemned to death for obeying Caesar’s law; they had not listened to their conscience nor to God’s commandments. No doubt, you agree that there is a limit to our obedience to Caesar, namely, when it is contrary to God’s commandments. Where this limit lies is up to the individual’s conscience and not to rules set by Caesar or some denominational bureaucrat. “Go ye into all the world …!” is one of God’s most urgent commandments. In Paul’s time the only way to preach was by word of mouth. I wonder if he would have held back with Bibles and tracts.

WALTER E. BUEHLER

Issaquah, Wash.

Smugglers may be deceivers, but seemingly the end justified the means for Rahab the harlot. She hid the spies (Josh. 2:4) and gave inaccurate information to their pursuers to the glory of God. Her name is on the honor roll of the faithful (Heb. 11:31).

HORACE H. MOHLER

Dayton, Ohio

When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations …” he did not add the qualification, “If the government officials permit.” The church had not been in existence many days when the rulers of the temple, the priests, the captain of the temple, the elders, and the scribes sought to prevent them from preaching in the name of Jesus, and ordered them to discontinue. Of course they refused. And from that beginning to our present time, the Word and true worship of God have both been unpopular in various parts of the world to the extent of extreme brutality to the believers as well as death itself.… You speak of taking the Bible into Communist lands legally, and I do not believe this is either possible or actually going on.

JAMES V. MORRIS

Van Nuys, Calif.

Your recent editorial shows ignorance and misinformation concerning Soviet policy with regard to religious freedom. The Communist countries constitutionally guarantee religious freedom to their subjects including the right to own religious material, especially Bibles. When customs agents confiscate Bibles at borders or declare them contraband, it is they who are breaking the letter and spirit of their law. It is unfortunate that clandestine transfer of Bibles into Communist countries has been termed “smuggling,” a term implying breaking of a law when such is not the case at all. If we were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, members of the underground church in Communist countries should be called deceivers and rebels for disobeying a clearly stated (but, incidentally, not written) injunction prohibiting Christians from gathering together for study or worship outside a state-designated building, and at state-designated hours!

From first-hand experience (having carried Bibles into Soviet Armenia myself) I also happen to know that so-called legally sent Bibles into the Soviet Union seldom, if ever, get into the right hands. You may be interested to know that Soviet countries are finding the printing of Bibles within the Soviet borders a lucrative business, not because they sell them to their Bible-starved citizens, but they export them for valuable foreign currency exchange.

KENELL J. TOURYAN

Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Multiples Boom

Douglas Stave struck at the core of one of the greatest crises in the local church today in his article “Coming Boom: Paraministry” (Minister’s Workshop, March 15). In fact, the boom is already here. I have been a minister of Christian education in the local church for eighteen years, and a week rarely passes in which I do not have a contact from one or more churches as to where they might obtain a director of Christian education, youth director, children’s director, and so on. I trust that the seminaries, Christian liberal arts colleges, and Bible colleges will heed his admonition. If not, I fear that the local church is going to suffer severely in coming years from a lack of trained ministers to carry on a multiple ministry through the local church.

RAY SYRSTAD

Minister of Education

First Baptist Church of Lakewood

Long Beach, Calif.

As an involved layman, I found “Coming Boom: Paraministry” very interesting in its concept. However, Mr. Stave appears to suffer from a serious case of short-sightedness with regard to abilities or the interests of the layperson within the church. He states, “The associate … agrees that teaching and preaching from the pulpit are of tremendous importance, but he knows that administering and organizing other activities in the church are very important too.” His implication is that the pastor and his professional associates have as their innate gifts the gift of preaching, teaching, or administrating, when in fact, God may have endowed one or more of the laypersons in the congregation with some of those gifts. Never before in the history of the church have laypersons been presented with the tools with which to minister to other persons. Two examples are: first, Regent College in Vancouver, B. C., whose curriculum is geared especially towards training the layperson; and, second, the use of students (who are not college or seminary graduates) within the Inter-Varsity movement on college campuses. Such people would be rather discouraged ministering in the tasks that are left over after the professionals take those that Mr. Stave suggests.

TIMOTHY K. BOWMAN

Seattle, Wash.

A Day S Difference

I read “The Day He Died” with interest (March 29). The new publication mentioned by Roger Rusk entitled New and Full Moons by Herman H. Goldstine is a welcome tool. However, I disagree with Mr. Rusk’s conclusion that the crucifixion occurred on Thursday, April 6, A.D. 30. [Instead] I believe the crucifixion was on a Friday for the following two basic reasons. First, all the Gospels state that the day following crucifixion was the Sabbath (Matt. 28:1; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:56; John 19:31). Second, the Gospels indicate that the visit of the women to the tomb was on the day after the Sabbath—the first day of the week, namely, Sunday (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). I feel that Rusk’s theory is unacceptable on three grounds. First, he builds his theory on the basis of one verse that is troublesome to the Friday view, namely, Matthew 12:40: “The Son of Man shall be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.” Let alone the Jewish custom to count parts of days as whole days, Rusk leaves out the other important Scriptures, namely (1) 1 Corinthians 15:4, where He rose on the third and not the fourth day; (2) John 2:19–22, where Jesus spoke of the temple being destroyed and raised up in three days, not on the fourth day; (3) although the Pharisees stated that Jesus said that he would rise in three days (Matt. 27:63), Pilate granted the Pharisees’ request by securing the sepulcher until the third day, not the fourth day. Thus a Friday crucifixion fits better with the evidence. Second, Rusk needs to give an unnatural meaning to the phrase “day of preparation” as being the preparation for the Passover, but if one looks in Mark 15:42 it states: “And when the evening had come, because it was the day of preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.” Other Scriptures would point to the day of preparation as being Friday (Matt. 27:62; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31, 42) as well as Josephus (Ant. xvi. 6. 2 [163]). Third, to conclude, as Rusk does, that since Nisan 15 was considered a day of convocation and hence a Sabbath is to beg the question. There is no evidence that Nisan 15 was called a Sabbath. Furthermore, to assume that since Nisan 15 was a Sabbath which occurred on Friday in A.D. 30, and hence there were two Sabbaths back to back (Friday Passover Sabbath and Saturday, the regular Sabbath) is substantiated by the plural use of Sabbath in the Greek in Matthew 28:1 is fallacious reasoning. The term Sabbath is frequently (one-third of all of its New Testament occurrences) in the plural form in the New Testament when only one day is in view (cf. Matt. 12:1–12 where both the singular and the plural forms are used—especially v. 8).

HAROLD W. HOEHNER

Associate Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis

Dallas Theological Seminary

Dallas, Tex.

ERRATUM

In a March 15 news story, “William Barclay: Making It Interesting,” we incorrectly reported that the American Summer Institute in St. Andrews (Scotland) was sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. It is independent.

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