Sacrificial Living, Sacrificial Giving

Evangelization of the two-thirds of the world’s population that has yet to hear of Christ might seem to be an impossibility. At the time of the International Congress on World Evangelization held at Lausanne two years ago it was estimated that 2.7 billion persons had not been evangelized. And the birth rate continues to outstrip the growth rate of the Church.

“We are ashamed that so many have been neglected,” declared the Lausanne Covenant. “It is a standing rebuke to us and to the whole church.… The goal should be, by all available means and at the earliest possible time, that every person will have the opportunity to hear, understand, and receive the good news.”

But how? Is it realistic to think the Gospel can be presented to every person on earth in this generation? The Christian leaders from around the globe who signed the covenant believe it is. The conclusion of the document included these words, “We enter into a solemn covenant with God and with each other, to pray, to plan, and to work together for the evangelization of the whole world.”

The goal is not new. Three-quarters of a century ago it was a rallying cry for missionary recruitment in North America. The Student Volunteer Movement was determined to send abroad enough young people to accomplish the task. Those who responded to the challenge wrote a glorious chapter in missionary history, but they fell short of the goal.

Why does a new generation of Christian leaders think it is possible, even though there are more millions to reach? For one thing, improved means of travel and communications make the unreached far more accessible. Another promising factor highlighted at Lausanne was the emergence of missionary-sending societies in African, Asian, and Latin American countries that formerly only received missionaries. A third reason for optimism is the resurgence of evangelistic zeal among young people in the traditional “sending” nations.

Even with these encouraging factors, the goal seems remote. Yet signers of the covenant believe it is achievable. They acknowledged that one element is missing in the lives of many Christians otherwise committed to evangelization. Said the document: “We cannot hope to attain this goal without sacrifice.” Few believers have wanted to win the lost enough to sacrifice to get the job done, though every generation has had a few missionaries and others who were willing to give up everything so that others could learn about the Lord.

Signers of the covenant were very specific about the need for sacrifice. They said, “All of us are shocked by the poverty of millions and disturbed by the injustices which cause it. Those of us who live in affluent circumstances accept our duty to develop a simple life-style in order to contribute more generously to both relief and evangelism.”

The “simple life-style” section of the Lausanne document has probably attracted more attention than any other. One prominent North American who was active in both planning and following up the congress said this section is mentioned every time Lausanne is discussed in his hearing. Regrettably, some of those who are talking about simpler living are looking at it in isolation. It is not an end in itself in the covenant; it is a means by which the more affluent Christians can share the abundant life with the desperately needy.

Are North American and European (and other affluent) believers taking this “simple life-style” suggestion to heart in order to give more to relief and evangelism? Encouragingly, the answer for a few is yes. One survey of some American participants in the Lausanne congress showed that, to varying degrees, they are living more simply than they did before. For many of them, however, “more simply” is still far from “simple.”

One family, for instance, started observing “austerity night” once a week, and the parents and three children were all fed for under $1 at that meal. The difference between that dollar and the normal cost of a meal was sent to a Christian relief agency. The practice lasted for about a year.

Another family, about to buy a second car, decided it could manage with one. A pastor and his wife examined their insurance program and stopped paying premiums on one policy so that they could give more for missions. Other people are fasting on occasion. To a degree, consciences have been quickened. Christian leaders are asking their constituencies to consider their priorities, and some organizations are cutting out some frills in their meetings.

Actions like these are commendable. But many are short-lived, and most involve very little self-denial. At best, they are experiments and not basic changes in life-styles, though they nonetheless could produce a considerable increase in the flow of money to missions and relief organizations.

Most of us are still far from sacrificial living. Until we get serious about reining in our affluent ways, there is little reason to be optimistic that the physically hungry and the spiritually hungry will be fed.

College Aid: Restrain Rejoicing

Friends of financially hard-pressed evangelical colleges may have rejoiced when they learned that the Supreme Court had approved annual payments from the Maryland state treasury to three Roman Catholic colleges in the state, along with a dozen non-sectarian private colleges (see News, page 51). But before deciding to press for similar grants in other states, they should consider carefully the court’s description of these Catholic colleges:

“Though controlled and largely populated by Roman Catholics, the colleges were not restricted to adherents of that faith. No religious services were required to be attended. Theology courses were mandatory, but they were taught in an academic fashion.… There were no attempts to proselytise among students.… With colleges of this character, there was little risk that religion would seep into the teaching of secular subjects, and the state surveillance necessary to separate the two, therefore, was diminished” (italics added).

We see no justification for keeping religion from “seeping into” secular subjects in a professedly Christian college. If religion is to be confined to Bible and theology courses, why not just set up a study center adjacent to a secular campus? (Actually, evangelicals should be making such courses available near all major campuses anyway, but that is another topic.)

The court’s majority was careful to observe that “faculty hiring decisions are not made on a religious basis. At two of the colleges … no inquiry at all is made into a [faculty] applicant’s religion.”

Could evangelical colleges solicit gifts and recruit students in good faith and still meet, or come close to meeting, the Supreme Court’s criteria? They could not if they sincerely believe that Christian revelation affects at least to some degree all that is taught. They could not if they believe that all teachers should be professing Christians who are interested in the spiritual as well as mental development of their students. Potential donors interested in supporting Christian higher education would be well advised to look at schools other than those receiving state aid if in qualifying for aid those schools are meeting the court’s criteria.

There is a positive note in the decision for evangelicals. It assumes that the colleges receiving tax money do not discriminate religiously. That should mean that evangelistic groups, such as Campus Crusade and Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, that have generally been unwelcome on Roman Catholic campuses will be able to work on the state-aided ones now. Schools receiving government funds ought not to be able to keep out responsible advocates of religious views other than those of their founders.

The dissent from the majority opinion by the newest justice, John Paul Stevens, is worth noting. This father who has two children in parochial schools decries “the pernicious tendency of a state subsidy to tempt religious schools to compromise their religious mission.…” He has properly labeled the danger to Christian institutions, and he has reminded their supporters of the need for keeping religious schools truly independent.

Swear Not—It’S An Insult

Public profanity is increasing. In books, magazines, and newspapers, in films, on radio and TV, and on other public platforms, the names of God and Jesus Christ are dishonored with distressing frequency. A prominent example is the film All the President’s Men. The one who blasphemes reveals, not imagination, not masculinity, not sophistication, but poverty of language and spiritual decay.

Judaism has generally provided a good example of respect for the name of God. Even in oath-taking the Jews preferred to swear by the Temple or the altar rather than by God. Jesus made it clear that for those who love God, all that is needed is a simple affirmation; one need not call upon any outside person or thing to validate it.

In James Russell Lowell’s The Biglow Papers there appears the line, “It’s ’most enough to make a deacon swear.” For the Christian, nothing, absolutely nothing, is enough to make him take God’s name in vain. But many Christians use so-called minced oaths such as “Goldarn it”; surely language like this cannot be pleasing to God.

It’s time to speak up against the public use of blasphemous words. Common courtesy alone should cause those who speak in public to refrain from uttering insults to the God whom many of their listeners hold dear.

Meeting Expectations

In a most unusual statement at the time of his election to a new term, James E. Andrews, stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, spoke of strain on the family life of denominational leaders: too much is expected of them, and their schedule keeps them away from home too much. The same could be said for many local churches.

If the families of the leaders break up, the rank and file has poor examples to follow.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.