Page 5658 – Christianity Today (2024)

Are the Doors Closing in India?

There are several nations and societies in the world where public Christian witness is prohibited under law, and conversion from one religion to another is considered a legal offense leading to imprisonment and heavy punishment. For a Muslim to publicly accept another religion is almost an impossibility in several Islamic countries.

An encouraging aspect of the work of world evangelization today is that India, with a population greater than the combined population of all of Latin America and of Africa, is still wide open for Christian witness. Yet, there are strong forces at work in certain parts of India to drastically curb the work of Christian missions by making official laws that will restrict the activities of “proselytization.”

Two Indian states, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh, in 1967 and 1968 passed laws relating to conversion: “No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religious faith to another by the use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet such conversion.” In both states the wording of the law is identical, except that in one law the word “inducement” is substituted for “allurement.” Very recently a third state, Arunachal Pradesh, in sensitive northeast India, passed a bill that is essentially the same as the others. It is now awaiting the signature of the president of India. The only significant modification in this third case is the substitution of “from one religious faith to another” by “from indigenous faiths” and an enumeration of the specific indigenous faiths of the state.

Two serious questions are being raised by these laws, which have been debated widely and contested in judicial courts. They are: whether these acts violate the fundamental right of religious freedom guaranteed in the Indian Constitution to all citizens; and whether state legislatures have the right to enact them, as the subject matter they deal with falls within the scope of the powers of the Centre and not the states. The Madhya Pradesh High Court maintained the constitutionality of the law and the competence of the state to make the law. But the Orissa High Court in a careful study of the case declared the law to be ultra vires the Indian Constitution and directed the government not to give effect to the law.

Appeal from both cases came to the Supreme Court of India, and in January, 1977, it reversed the decision of the Orissa High Court and declared that these acts do not contravene the fundamental freedom of religion guaranteed in the Constitution, because they deal with only “forceful conversions.” Article 25(1) of the Constitution reads, “Subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.”

The question is whether the freedom to “propagate” one’s religion does not imply the freedom to convert a person to that religion. But the Supreme Court defined the word “propagate” as “to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets” or exhibit one’s beliefs “for the edification of others” as the Bombay High Court once put it. It was said further that “freedom of conscience” is guaranteed to every citizen and not just to the followers of any one religion. Hence no person has a fundamental right to convert someone to his own religion, though he is free to spread the tenets of his religion. Freedom of religion applies to all religions alike, and it is properly enjoyed only if a person exercises his freedom “in a manner commensurate with the like freedom of persons following the other religions.”

The concern about the work of Christian missions gave rise to these state laws; yet any reference to conversion of people to Christianity is carefully avoided. No doubt Christians as well as others outrightly condemn any attempt to convert by “force, allurement or fraud,” since such conversions are contrary to biblical teachings. But the wording of the law might lead to certain serious misuse of it. Here are some of the real problems involved.

1. As the Orissa High Court pointed out, the definition of the term “allurement” or “inducement” is vague. These terms are defined in the acts themselves as “the offer of any gift or gratification, either in cash or in kind and shall also include the grant of any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise.” The Christian community is engaged in a wide range of social services in the country, second only to that of the government. The education, medical, and socio-economic activities of the church are inseparable from the practice and proclamation of the Gospel. Can these services, which are in many cases free, be interpreted as “inducements”?

2. The definition of the word “force” includes “threat of divine displeasure.” The gospel message warns of divine judgment and punishment of hell for those who choose to continue to live in sin. Could preaching of this be interpreted as using “force” to encourage conversion?

3. The acts require that when conversion takes place, the convert must give legal intimation of his conversion to the District Magistrate, solemnly declaring that he accepted his new religion solely on the basis of his conviction and free will. But it can be argued that the convert’s declaration itself is a result of the use of “force” or “allurement.” Thus the veracity of his declaration will have to be proved before a court leading to litigation.

4. It is difficult to understand the argument of the Supreme Court that, though a person has the fundamental right to propagate his religion by the exposition of its tenets, he has no right to encourage conversion or a change of mind in a person, as this would impinge upon the freedom of religion of that person. What is the purpose of a person faithfully propagating his religion unless he conscientiously recommends it to others? Can a person make genuine efforts to “transmit or spread one’s religion” without being understood by others to “attempt to convert” or “abet” conversion?

5. The acts seem to assume that “Adiwasis and persons belonging to backward classes,” “tribal communities,” and people of “illiteracy and poverty,” are more readily subject to being converted to other religions by force and allurement, and they need to be protected from exploitation of their simplicity and unsophistication. To consider such people incapable of making a conscious choice as to their religious beliefs is unfortunate. The acts seem to deny these Indian citizens their fundamental “freedom of conscience,” if genuine conversions are explained away as the result of exploitation of their simplicity and ignorance.

These acts pose no problem for the work of Christian missions in India. Unfortunately, though, their wording is broad and vague, and mischievous local officials can misuse the law to harass the converts and those engaged in evangelistic work.

The acts mention “the ceremony necessary for such conversions,” which is the clearest outward evidence of conversion. Water baptism of a convert in India invariably means not only a radical change in his socio-cultural life and personal identity, but also the transference of his ties and loyalty from one community to another. This often results in a considerable degree of disruption in his family and community life. These new acts, which take for granted the constitutional freedom of all people to propagate their religion, but seek to restrict the conversions, as evidenced in public ceremony, once again may bring to focus one controversial issue long debated in Asia, that is, water baptism in relation to a person’s conversion and qualification for church membership.

Saphir P. Athyal is principal of Union Biblical Seminary, Yeotmal, India.

A Syrian soldier stopped a motorist at a roadblock in western Beirut during the bloody fighting last month and demanded to see his identity card.

The man, whose name was Khoury, produced it. Khoury, a common name, is Arabic for “priest,” so the soldier asked whether the driver was a member of the Maronite branch of Roman Catholicism. Maronites are Lebanon’s largest Christian community, with about 600,000 adherents of roughly 1 million Christians in the country.

When the man nodded yes, the soldier said, “Then you are a Phalangist.” Like most Arabs, the soldier identified all Maronites with the Phalange and National Liberal parties, whose private militias had been trading artillery barrages with the Syrian forces for a week.

This incident, described by eyewitness Los Angeles Times reporter Joe Alex Morris, Jr., highlights the role that religious confessions play in Lebanon’s deadly strife. This particular Khoury, it turned out, was no member of the Phalange. But nine times out of ten the soldier would have been right. The push to partition Lebanon comes basically from the Maronite Christians. Other major Christian communities, such as the Greek and Syrian Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches, have not been inclined to provoke a face-off with their Muslim neighbors.

Geography and history help explain the Maronite stance. What is today Lebanon was once part of the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire. Its people were of the Orthodox (Greek) Church.

Muslim armies swept through the area in the seventh century and brought it under Arab administration. The coastal and interior lowlands were gradually Islamized, but the Lebanon mountain range became a kind of Christian sanctuary. This was especially true for the Maronites.

Two centuries earlier, St. Maron, an ascetic, led a breakaway movement from the Orthodox Church. His distinctive teaching was that while Christ has both divine and human natures, he has only a divine will. This teaching of a single will (monothelitism) was branded as heresy at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 680, and the Orthodox rulers brutally persecuted the Maronites as heretics. The Maronites found refuge, first from the Byzantine, and then from the Muslim authorities, by settling in the mountains of Lebanon. They have successfully guarded their identity and independence there ever since.

Although Maronite Christians have adopted the Arabic language, they consider themselves Phoenician rather than Arab. And since they lack significant ties with Arab nations other than Lebanon, the Maronites have historically looked outside the Arab world for protection. They sided with the Crusaders in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and were receptive to French (Catholic) rule and culture during the League of Nations mandate period between the two world wars. (The Maronites abandoned their monothelite doctrine in the twelfth century. They joined the Roman Catholic Church in 1736, retaining a degree of autonomy and their own distinctive liturgy.) Now they have forged a tacit entente with Israel.

Ironically, it was the creation of Israel and its after-effects that knocked out of alignment the religious population balance on which Lebanon’s government was based.

France carved Lebanon from Syrian land and into a configuration—confirmed in the 1930s by the only census for the area in this century—that established a six-to-five Christian-Muslim ratio. Since Lebanese independence, granted in 1943, the Christian numerical edge has been gradually eroded because Muslim families have more children and because more Christians are emigrating to the West.

But it was the influx of Arab refugees after the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars that tipped the balance. Thousands of Palestine Liberation Organization troops, ejected from both Jordan and Syria in the early 1970s, also arrived. Their law-unto-themselves deportment, and the Israeli retribution their raids incurred, led to the 1975–76 civil war.

The Maronite faction was heading toward defeat in that war until the Syrian (Muslim) forces intervened on their side against Palestinians and Lebanese leftists, most of whom are Muslim.

The Lebanese fighting that has raged in recent months first erupted in February. The Syrians tried to collect weapons from the Phalange and National Liberal party militias. They resisted, maintaining that the Palestinians were not being similarly disarmed. The surge of fighting last month focused on expiration on October 26 of the mandate of the 30,000-man Arab League force (almost all Syrian).

The other Christian communities of the region are unlikely to follow the Maronites into an alliance with Israel.

For example, the four major patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church are situated in Damascus, in Arab Jerusalem under Israeli control, in Alexandria, and in Istanbul. These operate with a caution bred by centuries of coexistence with Islam. They minister to important congregations and interests, and there is little doubt that they see the Maronite initiative as harmful to Christian interests over the long term.

On the Muslim side is a strong and understandable resentment against the perpetuation of Maronite dominance in a country where neither that community alone nor all Christians combined are any longer a majority of the population.

Viet Nam Update

A five-person Mennonite Central Committee delegation visited Viet Nam last summer, holding extensive private conversations with evangelicals and Catholics in the country’s southern region. Delegation member James Stauffer filed this report.

Religious activity in Viet Nam has been greatly reduced. Before 1975, Tin Lanh (Evangelical) Church life in Viet Nam was geared to public evangelism. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, relied on its institutional programs for growth and outreach. The end of the war brought a quick finish to those religious programs for both churches.

Public and mass evangelism is no longer permitted Tin Lanh church members. Former Catholic social, medical, and educational institutions are now fully controlled and operated by the state. The practice of organized religion is generally limited to worship services.

Church leaders report that they now have to get governmental permission to conduct regular services. Permission to hold such special programs as an annual conference requires a tremendous amount of time and red tape. Pastors must be careful what they say in their sermons: One minister was arrested because he mentioned that in the Second Coming “Russia will be destroyed.”

The Tin Lanh Church always professed to be “neutral” as far as political party, allegiance, or ideologies were concerned. However, it was generally known that members were anti-Viet Cong, anti-Communist, pro-American, and, to a lesser extent, pro-Diem or pro-Thieu.

Church members felt obliged to allow their young men to be drafted into the South Vietnamese army. For the church to invite a high military official to open an annual conference was common practice. Providing chaplains for the armed forces was looked upon with favor because of its potential for evangelical outreach. But in the new Viet Nam, church leaders are being reminded that they “were involved in politics” because they condoned the status quo and neglected to protest injustices of the old regimes.

Why did Vietnamese evangelicals collaborate with a foreign military power? Why didn’t they protest the Americanization of their economy and culture? How can church members prove they were not CIA agents?

The church is looking for ways to prove its innocence in relation to these charges. Some pastors are now members of local government committees.

Some events usually associated with religious or spiritual revival have taken place since 1975. Very conservative moral standards have accompanied the socialist revolution. Some new government officials are puritanical in nature: Pornographic materials, trashy Western novels, and so-called decadent capitalist books were collected and burned in the streets after the April, 1975, takeover.

Most of the prostitutes and drug addicts in the country have been reeducated and cured, according to the Communists. They say that stealing has been greatly reduced. These government claims tend to weaken faith in supernatural cures for the sins of humanity. Catholics particularly sensed this.

India Moves Toward Evangelical Unity

Spiritual unity was remarkably displayed at the first triennial assembly of the Federation of Evangelical Churches of India (FECI), held early this fall. Sixty-five delegates of member denominations, ranging from those of an episcopal Orthodox tradition to those of indigenous local congregations, met at Nasik, Maharashtra.

Ten new church bodies, including a denomination with 9,000 members spread over five states and a 70-member congregation in Bangalore, were accepted into FECI membership. Since the founding of the federation in November, 1974, the membership has grown from sixteen to thirty denominations and now includes nine associate organizations. Its earliest history dates from 1970, when the Evangelical Fellowship of India leaders proposed a federation of evangelical denominations not associated with the ecumenical movement.

The FECI is more than a fellowship of evangelicals. It is a federal union of evangelical churches who profess a common statement of evangelical faith. The FECI differs from the Church of South India and the Church of North India, produced, respectively, by the mergers of three major denominations in 1947 and of six denominations in 1970. It follows a more congregational approach to unity, respecting the autonomy of each member body’s ecclesiastical beliefs and practices, its self-government, and its control of property.

The local church is the basic unit of the federation. Churches elect their own representatives to state and national assemblies in proportion to their memberships.

The FECI churches plan to work together on ministries that could not be done effectively by a single church. Accordingly, the federation has created small working commissions for evangelism and church growth, mission outreach, theology and theological education, Christian education and literature, relief and social concern, public relations, and reconciliation. During the assembly, state and regional groups planned ways to expand these ministries. Delegates also established a council of ordination to assist member churches that have requested help in ordaining their pastors and lay leaders.

The strength of the FECI lies more in its purpose than in its structure. The member churches have pledged themselves to specific goals within the next three years. Their priorities are evangelism and church planting, Bible teaching ministry in the churches, and a caring ministry to the poor and oppressed. They also covenanted together to double their overall communicant membership within this three-year period.

The FECI’s fifteen-member executive council is chaired by P. Pannalall of the Bhilali Community Church. P. T. Chandapilla of the St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India is the general secretary, assisted by G. Massey of Bundelkh Msihi Metra Samaj (Evangelical Friends Church). Murray Carter, pastor of the Delhi Bible Fellowship, is the only missionary (TEAM) serving on the council, though two other missionaries act as special consultants. Delegates approved plans to open a central office in Nagpur, Madhya Pradesh.

The churches in India face overwhelming opportunities for evangelism and they are growing steadily. However, because of strong opposition in certain states, the delegates discussed how to prepare their churches to face persecution.

As a pioneer movement for evangelical ecumenicity, India’s FECI may provide a model for third world and other churches that want to go beyond spiritual fellowship alone and mold new forms of unity.

BRUCE J. NICHOLLS

World Scene

Missionary activity in Indonesia is threatened because of two decrees issued by the minister of religion late last summer. The first bans “religious proclamation” to those who already adhere to another religion (Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu); door-to-door visitation and literature distribution are specifically prohibited. The second decree orders religious organizations with foreign personnel to begin a training program within six months for Indonesians, so that all positions held by foreigners will be turned over to Indonesians within two years. Some observers believe the decrees reflect a government reaction to intensified Mormon activity on the island chain.

Sales of the Good News Bible in Britain are nearing the two million mark. Introduced two years ago, the first major British paperback edition of the Bible is selling briskly and, according to a recent study, mostly to those “claiming no allegiance to institutionalized religion.”

The World Council of Churches (WCC) followed up its controversial $85,000 grant to the Rhodesian Patriotic Front with an even larger grant to the South-West African People’s Organization (SWAPO). The radical liberation movement received $125,000 from the same WCC Special Fund to Combat Racism.

The Indian parliament recently passed a bill that all but prohibits conversion from indigenous faith for tribespeople of Arunachal Pradesh, part of the sensitive border region near China that India wants to leave politically undisturbed. The bill, approved by parliament on a 205-to-201 vote, is entitled the Freedom of Faith Bill. Yet to be signed, the bill runs counter to the constitutional guarantees of Indian religious freedom. Converts would be stripped of educational subsidies and protection. Those accused of attempting to convert people would be subject to imprisonment.

The president of Greece has been threatened with excommunication if he signs a parliament-passed bill that would liberalize state regulations on abortions. President Constantine Tratsos rejected Greek Orthodox Bishop Augustinos of Florina’s demand last month that he pledge to return the bill to parliament unsigned. Then “I shall excommunicate you myself,” declared the prelate and stormed out of the president’s office.

A Southern Baptist missionary serving as pastor of an English-speaking congregation in Ankara has been expelled from Turkey with no explanation. James F. Leeper was arrested and imprisoned briefly before his ouster on September 29. Leeper’s wife and four children remained.

They declared war on war last month at a tranquil, wooded retreat center in Green Lake, Wisconsin. About 300 representatives of the so-called historic peace churches—the Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, and the Society of Friends (Quakers)—studied peace and advocated nonviolent activism as the way to bring it about. They billed their three-day conference “A New Call to Peacemaking.”

Pacifism is a tradition for these small, but influential, church groups. The Quakers, Church of the Brethren, and Mennonites have always been conscientious objectors during wartime. But delegates at Green Lake looked for new and practical, even radical, ways to function as peacemakers. Their mood reflected the flair of an anti-Viet Nam war rally and the reverence of a traditional worship service.

“Are we going to pray for peace and pay for war?” asked delegates last spring in Old Chatham, New York—one of twenty-six regional conferences held over the past two years as preparation for the national meeting. For Green Lake conferees, the answer to that rhetorical question was an emphatic “no.”

The delegates called for total military disarmament and an end to economic support for military programs. The delegates passed a resolution that, while not binding on individual church members, called for carrying out peace education programs on the local level, returning to a simpler life style, and developing church support groups for persons who use nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience to “express a faithful peace witness.”

The most controversial issue in the Green Lake statement was war tax resistance—the practice of refusing to pay that portion of your federal income tax that goes for military programs. The measure asked persons to “seriously consider refusal” to pay the military portion of their federal taxes.

In addition, church and conference agencies were asked to honor requests from any employees who ask that their war taxes not be withheld. The delegates recommended that war tax monies be funneled into a separate peace fund, which would be formed and administered by the “New Call” churches.

Many of the delegates feared that the tax resistance proposal would be too radical for church people back home to accept. A Brethren delegate from Michigan wondered whether it was fair to ask church agency employers to cooperate in a “criminal act” by honoring an employee’s war tax resistance. (A findings committee was to reevaluate and finalize the entire conference resolution this month.)

But delegates had been looking for concrete ways to fight war and to create a society of peace. They were probably swayed by a vocal faction favoring war tax resistance.

Conference planners had invited representatives from the National Council for a World Peace Tax Fund. This Washington-based group is lobbying for Congressional passage of a bill that would let taxpayers register as conscientious objectors. They could then place the portion of their federal tax monies that go toward military programs (now estimated by the World Tax Fund at 36 per cent) into a separate fund for peace programs. The conferees endorsed passage of the Tax Fund bill, which has the support of evangelical senator Mark Hatfield.

Allyn Eccleston, a Friend from New London. New Hampshire, held a war tax resistance workshop that attracted a large gathering, mostly of curious people. A war tax resister for the last three years, Eccleston says he has never been prosecuted for his action.

Eccleston files a statement with his tax form that explains why and how he arrives at his “military-less” tax figure. Then he mails copies of his statement to his congressmen. This way, Eccleston explained, he is not filing a fraudulent return. And since “there is no debtor’s prison in America,” Eccleston says tax resisters like himself are rarely jailed.

In most cases, the government still gets its full amount by placing a lien on a war tax resister’s bank or property assets. Eccleston says he still regards his action “as a witness of Christian love.” (The Internal Revenue Service acknowledges the existence of a small but growing number of tax resisters, but it won’t say how many.)

Other features of the “New Call” issued by the conferees were:

• Opposition to the military draft. Representatives in the Washington offices of the churches had warned about the imminent return of the Selective Service System.

• The call for complete abolition of nuclear weapons on an international level.

• Continuation of the peacemaking effort among the churches and its spread to all denominations.

• The recommendation that a New Call delegation meet with President Carter.

Some delegates were upset when their individual suggestions for peace were left out of the final resolution. But that was expected, considering the diversity within the delegation.

Peter Ediger, who led the morning worship services, was to stand trial this month in a Colorado courtroom. He was arrested, along with sixty-four others last summer, on trespassing charges. The group blockaded the railroad tracks leading into the Rocky Flats nuclear plant northwest of Denver. Copastor of the Arvada, Colorado, Mennonite Church, Ediger said his involvement there signified “a Christian witness”—one that was obedient to Christ’s example as a peacemaker.

Other activists included Robert Euler, a white-bearded Friend, who since 1959 has led a yearly Christmas-time march for peace from Nazareth to Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Many people at the conference had taken part in demonstrations last spring outside the United Nations during its Special Session on Disarmament. A delegate quipped, “I even demonstrated at an IBM building while my husband was working inside; I hoped like everything he wouldn’t see me.”

Delegates who had never participated in a peace effort wanted to know how to get involved on a practical level back home. Jeff Deiss, a Brethren delegate from San Diego, said he was tired of peacemaking efforts by top church officials that resulted in statements and resolutions that were rarely acted upon. A Mennonite woman from Philadelphia said that she first became interested in peacemaking as she struggled to control her temper in family relationships.

The extremes of liberal and conservative theology also were represented. A Quaker official said that among the members of his church they had supporters of “everyone from the Dalai Lama to Anita Bryant.” Conference planners appealed to support from evangelicals.

The Society of Friends, which, like the Mennonite church, embraces several church bodies within its framework, numbers about 350,000 members. Its origins are in left-wing Puritanism of the seventeenth century. The Church of the Brethren emerged from German pietism of the eighteenth century, and the Mennonite churches sprang from the Anabaptist wing of the Protestant reformation in the sixteenth century. The latter two churches have memberships estimated at 180,000 and 110,000, respectively (in the United States).

Conference originator Norval Hadley frequently appealed to the churches’ biblical foundations for peacemaking. President of the 25,000-member Evangelical Friends Alliance (the most evangelical of four major Quaker church bodies), Hadley began thinking about a peacemaking conference five years ago. He first presented the idea to planners of the Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization. However, the peace witness did not make the Lausanne agenda, since “it was regarded as too controversial and too far off the subject of the conference,” Hadley said.

But Hadley’s dream materialized at Green Lake. In an opening session, the former World Vision staff member gave his goal for the conference: “To achieve a peace witness that will be spiritually sound, biblically based, positive and contemporary, and … practical enough to attract the widest possible support.” Hadley and guest speaker Dale Brown, a Brethren theologian, both warned that peacemaking demanded commitment.

Eastern Baptist seminary professor and author Ronald J. Sider was invited by Hadley to explain the biblical basis for peacemaking. Hadley wanted evangelicals to know that peacemaking was not social gospel, but biblical and essential to an evangelistic witness.

Sider presented three papers, one a day, that focused on Christ as the “suffering servant,” who would nevertheless support direct “non-lethal” action taken against unjust systems if that action was based in Christian love. The delegates asked Sider to compile his remarks in book form for use in peace education programs and Sunday school classes.

In a conference-ending benediction, Sider commissioned the assembly: “Go forth into this broken world and fight the Lamb’s war.”

DO THE CLOTHES MAKE THE MESSAGE?

Jesus was a clothing connoisseur who might have shopped at a Jerusalem Saks’s Fifth Avenue? So says Luciano Franzoni.

The prominent men’s clothing designer said influential men have always dressed for effect—knowing that clothes enhance verbal impact.

“Jesus Christ knew all about fashion and used it to tell others that he was unique,” says Franzoni. “He knew, in fact, that a simple white gown was chic, understated and made him stand out in a crowd of colors.”

Can there be a theology to vested suits or wing-tipped shoes that contemporary clergy are missing?

The Papacy: Time For Catholicity

Cardinal Karol Wojtyla of Poland has a tough act to follow. Elected as the 264th pope of the Roman Catholic Church, he enters the papacy almost like an unknown preacher called at the last minute to substitute for evangelist Billy Graham. Wojtyla’s popular predecessor, John Paul, had captured the imagination of the Catholic world with a boldly informal approach to a stiff and formal papacy.

But Cardinal Wojtyla, who took the name John Paul, is not without his own distinctives. His election broke the 455-year-old tradition of Italian pontiffs. Polish Catholics were both happy and surprised. Reflecting on the choice of the conclave of cardinals, historian Martin Marty said in a newspaper interview: “As a demonstration of the catholicity of Catholicism, this was delightful.”

Like Albino Luciani, John Paul II hails from humble origins. The people in his native archdiocese Krakow fondly called him “The Working Cardinal,” in reference to the years he spent working in a chemical factory during high school and college. But the newly designated pope later earned degrees in philosophy and theology. His talent for languages was revealed in his first public appearance: “May Jesus Christ be praised.” he said in flawless Italian to the 100,000 people gathered below the basilica balcony in St. Peter’s Square. John Paul II has an intellectual prowess that was demonstrated when he helped draft the documents of Vatican II.

But most unique about John Paul II is the way he has guided Polish Catholics, people who live in a Communist state where atheism is the national policy. Unlike other eastern European countries, Poland has a vital Catholic Church, which claims the allegiance of 90 per cent of its 35 million population. Many observers say the Roman Catholic Church is the strongest social and political force in contemporary Poland (see October 6 issue, p. 44).

Perhaps Cardinal Wojtyla’s experience with the German occupation in World War II taught him how to coexist with the Communists. He has been critical of the Communist regime, but at the same time has maintained an ongoing dialogue with the government. He has criticized the Communists’ interference with the church and has spoken out for workers’ rights. However, he believed a strong condemnation of atheism would be unwise, saying, “It is not the church’s place to teach unbelievers. She must seek in common with the world.”

Admirers of Albino Luciani probably will feel comfortable with the new pope. John Paul II has the same warmth and outward goodness. He also intends to spread his power among the bishops of the world. Catholic observers say the fifty-eight-year-old pontiff is not afraid to break the time-honored traditions of the papacy, though his theology is conservative enough to satisfy the old guard.

Indeed, few discouraging words were heard among the world’s 700 million Catholics after the election of John Paul II. The health-conscious conclave of cardinals elected the athletic, sturdily-built Wojtyla to what they hope will be a lengthy papacy.

Social Action Gets Its Second Wind

Board members of the Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA) rallied around the theme “Love in Action” last month at their annual meeting in Pottstown, Pennsylvania. Harmony was evident among the conferees—a marked contrast to the mood at previous gatherings of the five-year-old coalition.

Some observers thought the group would disintegrate because diverse interests among group members had caused dissension. But president Ronald J. Sider reconstituted the organization earlier this year. A forty-member board was created to include people from a cross-section of vocational and geographical areas and to incorporate a substantial representation from minority groups.

Anticipating future growth, the board approved plans for a National Congress on Social Justice for 1981. Sider, Eastern Baptist seminary theology professor and an advocate of the simple life style, said the conference would be an “Urbana-type rally.”

ESA grew from a 1973 meeting in Chicago that produced the “Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern.” This statement declared that working for social justice was a biblical mandate, and it has served as a constitution of sorts for the group.

At their recent meeting, board members pledged themselves to organizational expansion. They agreed to charter local chapters, but only when those groups had demonstrated that they were engaged in research, education, and action projects in line with the principles of the Chicago Declaration. This cautious approach to expansion was reflected in the words of keynote speaker John Perkins: “We can call society to justice when we live out the love of God ourselves. We don’t need programs; we need love.”

After some debate, the body adopted a strong statement criticizing proposals before Congress that would abrogate the treaty rights of American Indians.

While the ESA encouraged its members to use this statement as one tool for social righteousness, it disclaimed being merely a political group.

The board also pledged itself to several goals:

—To begin a series of conferences on “Seeking Justice in the Local Parish,” the first of which is scheduled for some time next year at Fuller seminary.

—To develop vocational justice task forces. Members of local ESA chapters would serve on the national task forces, applying the question, What is just and what is unjust given the biblical norms for what justice is?, in relation to their respective professions.

—To promote minority economic development.

President and moving spirit of the ESA, Sider intends to encourage the creation of small support groups of evangelicals who are interested in working for social action. He believes that such evangelicals sometimes “feel lonely and isolated and don’t know about others who share the same concern for social justice.”

Todd Putney, an American Baptist pastor, was appointed to direct the recently-opened ESA office in inner city Philadelphia (in the same building as The Other Side magazine). Putney is the first full-time staff member of the organization. Elected as vice-presidents of ESA were Clarence Hilliard, a black pastor from Chicago, and Linda Doll, editor of HIS magazine.

RICHARD V. PIERARD

Out At The Inn

It was a matter of conviction. L.M. Clymer, president and chief executive officer of the Holiday Inns empire, chose early retirement to avoid participating in plans for adding casino gambling to Holiday Inns in cities other than Las Vegas.

The board of Holiday Inns recently decided to open a $55 million hotel-casino in Atlantic City, and shortly thereafter Clymer announced his retirement. In a prepared statement, Clymer stressed that his decision was not based on the financial aspects of the gambling venture. Clymer explained, “This is one of those benchmark occasions in a man’s life when he arrives at moral and ethical conclusions concerning his own life’s meaning and direction.”

Specifically, Clymer linked his decision to his “overriding regard and respect for my Lord Jesus Christ.” Clymer, 55, is active in the 4,000-member Second Presbyterian Church in Memphis, Tennessee.

Clymer joined the board of directors of Holiday Inns in 1957, and he attained its top management position in 1976—ruling a corporate empire that now includes 1,700 inns in 53 countries. Company officials say that although he will no longer have a direct management function, he may be used occasionally in an advisory capacity.

Holiday Inns achieved some notoriety for its spiritual emphasis when it established a “chaplain on call” program in 1970. (Clymer did not figure in its planning, however.) Many inn managers, besides placing Gideon Bibles in the rooms, enlist a local clergyman to be on “twenty-four-hour call” for guests in need of emotional or spiritual counseling.

Prayer: Shunned In An Election Year

Republican senator Jesse Helms tried a back door approach for reintroducing prayer in the public schools. But he couldn’t get through. Helms had attached a prayer amendment to an irrelevant bill that was designed to clear the logjam in the federal courts. But fearing a religious showdown on the prayer issue in an election year, Congress ignored the entire bill before its adjournment last month.

Helms’s prayer measure would have circumvented the controversial 1962 Supreme Court ruling that banned officially directed (government-prescribed) prayer. Instead, state legislatures would have been given the final say in matters of public school prayer.

A Southern Baptist from North Carolina, Helms denied that his prayer amendment was prompted by the folks back home. And since he was involved in his own reelection campaign, Helms also denied that the bill was politically motivated: “It’s just something I feel strongly about.” (Helms has been stymied in past attempts to amend the Constitution to allow public school prayer.)

At least fifteen major church groups were happy to say last rites over the rider. The church groups complained that religious education should take place at home, not in the public schools. A statement to that effect was included in a letter drafted by representatives of the Lutheran Church in the USA, the United Church of Christ, the Church of the Brethren, the United Methodist Church, and the Unitarian-Universalist Association. The letter was hand-delivered to all 100 senators before they began consideration of the bill.

Helms also received negative response from fellow Baptists. The Baptist Committee on Public Affairs wanted it known that Helms didn’t speak for all Baptists. Committee director James Wood wrote a statement in behalf of Baptists that read in part, “We contend that the Court clearly did not rule out religion from the curriculum of the public school but in effect affirmed that the public school is not a place of worship but for learning.”

Another bill with church and state ramifications died in the waning hours of the 95th Congress. Senate and House versions of a tuition tax credit bill were never reconciled.

A House version of the bill would have given tax credits to parents of children in elementary and secondary private schools, while a Senate tax credit proposal would have allowed tax credits only to parents of college youth—up to $250 per student per year. A House-Senate committee presented alternatives for a compromise bill, but none were approved before the adjournment deadline.

President Jimmy Carter had planned to veto the tax credit measure. He views the plan as wasteful, since credit would be given the rich and poor alike, regardless of need. He views tax credits for elementary and secondary private school education—most of which would go to church day schools—as a violation of the separation of church and state. Many church groups, particularly the Roman Catholics, fumed that Christian schools would be hurt by the credit loss.

Marked Man

The mysterious deaths in London last month of Bulgarian defectors Vladimir Simeonov and Georgi Markov didn’t surprise fellow defector Stefan Bankov. Bankov, a Christian who left Bulgaria with his family in 1969 to escape persecution, now preaches the gospel by radio to his countrymen. Working with Underground Evangelism in Glendale, California, he says that he and his family have been subjected to Communist harassment, threats, and assassination attempts.

While flying from London to Seattle in 1974, a man and woman spilled a liquid on Bankov’s shoulder that paralyzed his side and made him violently ill for several days. Two months ago, shots were fired at him outside his home. Bankov says that during his stay in the United States, there has been an attempt to kidnap his daughters. He reports that strangers have made attractive offers to his wife and daughters to get them to return to Bulgaria, and that his family has received hundreds of abusive telephone calls. A note taped recently to a window at the Bankov home warned: “You are marked. We follow you all the time.”

Bankov made these threats public only recently and after the deaths of Simeonov and Markov, who were among a group of five Bulgarian broadcasters who defected. Markov died after being stabbed by a poison-tipped umbrella. Simeonov died after falling down the stairs inside his London apartment (London authorities aren’t discounting the possibility that he was pushed), and Vladimir Kostov survived a poisoning attempt similar to that which killed Markov. A fifth broadcaster now working for Radio Free Europe hasn’t been attacked.

Currently under police protection, Bankov is cooperating with the FBI and Scotland Yard in an investigation of the deaths of the Bulgarian defectors—victims, he is sure, of foul play on the part of Bulgarian Communists. “I think their (the Communists’) main purpose is to scare every member of my family,” Bankov said of his own situation. “They want to keep us under constant psychological pressure.”

The Bulgarians apparently are upset by Bankov’s radio witness that is beamed to his homeland of nine million people. He recently received a letter from Bulgaria that warned him to leave Underground Evangelism, an organization with an evangelistic outreach to Communist countries, or “the troubles will never stop.”

Bankov attended a Bible college in Los Angeles for four years before starting his radio ministry. He works seven days a week preparing sermons and lectures in systematic theology for his Bible College of the Air. Broadcasts are aired once a day over Radio Trans Europe in Portugal and over Radio Malta.

The Bulgarian government frequently uses “ground wave jamming” to block Bankov’s broadcasts into major Bulgarian cities, according to Underground Evangelism president Joe Bass. Copies of a two-volume set of Bankov’s sermons and lectures, as well as cassette tapes of his broadcasts, are being smuggled into that Communist nation.

Bankov became a Christian in 1953, and he later pastored an independent church in Bulgaria until the government closed it in 1964. Bankov still owns the tattered New Testament, held together by a rubber band, that was his only resource during his ministry in Bulgaria.

The forty-five-year-old Bankov is accustomed to persecution. Before he escaped Bulgaria, Bankov says he was “constantly under pressure.” “It was a difficult time with the Bulgarian government.… They accused me of being mentally sick because I could not see the progress of the Communist party or of the Socialist society.”

Bankov, who creates most of his own teaching materials during twelve- and fourteen-hour working days, fears most for the safety of his family. As he intends to continue his radio ministry, he says, “My prayer every day is just, ‘Lord, help the kids and my wife to understand.’”

PHYLLIS ALSDURF

Carrot And Stick For The Media

Two antipornography organizations were in the news this month, but their approach to the problem differed. The National Federation for Decency (NFD) was using negative reinforcement, while another group, Morality in Media, advocated a positive slant.

NFD director Donald E. Wildmon was pushing a nationwide boycott this month of ABC-TV programming, which, he says, features too much sex and violence. A United Methodist pastor from Mississippi, Wildmon hoped the boycott would result in a $30,000 loss in ABC advertising revenues—advertising rates are based on a network’s share of the viewing audience. Earlier this year the NFD organized a protest against Sears that caused the company to withdraw its sponsorship of two television shows that the NFD found offensive: “Charlie’s Angels” and “Three’s Company” (see June 2 issue, p. 38).

Another antipornography group. Morality in Media, affirmed the “positive contributions to enriching family entertainment” by honoring performers Donny and Marie Osmond, of the Mormon church, and comedian Sam Levensen at its thirteenth annual awards dinner in New York this month. Morton A. Hill, priest and president of the nonsectarian organization, said the Osmonds and Levenson “provide the American people with performances grounded in a sense of values and a sense of family.”

Religion In Transit

His decision will be appealed by state officials, but Franklin Circuit Court judge Henry Meigs has ruled in favor of Kentucky Christian schools who were involved in a year-long suit with the state (see Sept. 22 issue, p. 37). Meigs ruled that private Christian schools can operate without state regulation, providing they meet minimum fire, health, safety, and attendance requirements. The state had denied accreditation to the schools and had intended to prosecute parents of children attending the schools, saying their children were truants.

A group of Vancouver Christians, representing some forty congregations, called last month for a day of prayer for the healing of their nation. The group invited leaders of the four national political parties in Canada to a prayer breakfast, saying in a written statement, “We are aware that our Canada not only needs healing in the political arena, but also in the personal lives of us all.…”

Last month the City Council of Berkeley, California, passed one of the strongest gay rights ordinances in the nation. It forbade discrimination on the basis of sexual preference in employment, credit, schools, and city services and facilities. The bill provides for mandatory awarding of damages and enforced penalties when the ordinance is violated.

It was the old story of inadequate finances and personnel problems that caused Inspiration magazine to fold. Dead after nine months, the magazine was unique in religious publishing. It had a “slick” format and newsstand distribution. And it was owned by a secular firm, Peterson Publications (which also distributes such specialty magazines as Hot Rod and Motor Trend). Inspiration claimed a 250,000 circulation last June.

The National Council of Churches wants to make the word ecumenical understandable. It hired comedian Stan Freberg to write and produce three radio spots that began airing last month. The definition: “that different churches work together on programs that show God’s love in the community.” The commercials poke fun at supposed misconceptions of the meaning of the word, using radio characters like “Norman Vincent Mouse.” Freberg and the NCC say that the similarity in names between the mouse and Norman Vincent Peale is coincidental, and have denied any intent to portray the positive thinking preacher as antiecumenical.

Private, profit-making nursing homes charge less than homes run by churches, the government, and other nonprofit groups, a government health survey has revealed. Tentative survey results indicate that the average monthly charge in the private nursing homes was $641, compared with $722 in the nonprofit homes.

Bishops of the Episcopal church voted to censure “in the strongest terms” retired bishop Albert Chambers of Springfield, Illinois. Chambers was condemned for consecrating bishops last January of the breakaway Anglican Church of North America—formed by Episcopalians who were disgruntled by the 1976 General Assembly’s authorization of women priests. At their meeting last month in Kansas City, the Episcopal House of Bishops also declared that four bishops who had ordained women priests before the 1976 authorization was passed had “broken fellowship.”

Personalia

John Kyle has been named missions director for Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship. He recently served as coordinator of international relations for Wycliffe Bible Translators.

A former executive officer of Mission Aviation Fellowship, Charles Mellis, will become director of Missionary Internship—an educational and internship agency for missionaries.

The first and still the only female dean of a U.S. theological seminary has announced her resignation. Sallie McFague, 44, will step down in May at Vanderbilt Divinity School (United Methodist) to resume full-time teaching and research at the school.

John E. Moyer was elected bishop of the 29,000-member Evangelical Congregational Church at the fourteenth general conference of the denomination; its 161 member churches are located in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.

Bishop Alfred Stanway, pioneer African missionary and educator, has retired as dean/president at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. Stanway was founding dean of the three-year-old Episcopal seminary, located near Pittsburgh in Ambridge, Pennsylvania.

DEATHS

GUENTHER HARDER, 76, a leader of German Protestant resistance against Hitler, and with Dietrich Bonhoeffer a founder in 1936 of the illegal Bible school that later became the official seminary of the Evangelical Church in Berlin and Brandenburg; on September 12 in West Berlin.

BENJAMIN L. MASSE, 73, a Roman Catholic, often called the “labor priest” for his active role in the Catholic church’s defense of the labor movement, an associate editor of America magazine for thirty years; on September 28, in New Rochelle, New York, after a heart attack.

It was evangelism, ecumenism, and a ministry of peace. That’s how president Withold Benedyktowiez of the Polish Ecumenical Council summed up the ten-day preaching visit of evangelist Billy Graham to Poland last month.

Graham preached to some 25,000 people at nine churches in six cities. Thousands raised their hands upon his invitation to receive Christ. The meetings brought Roman Catholics and Protestants under the same church roof, many for the first time. At Poznan, a bustling industrial city of 500,000 in western Poland, the evangelist preached in a Catholic church for the first time in his nearly forty years of ministry. And in meetings with church and government leaders, Graham called for world peace—a theme that pleased his listeners since their land has been a battlefield over the centuries.

Visitors came from East Germany, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, and Bulgaria. An entire brass band from Czechoslovakia played at pre-rally services in two cities. Many people brought cassette recorders in order to let people back home hear the meetings. A new Christian named Angelika came from East Germany: she had leukemia and wasn’t sure whether she would live long enough to hear Graham preach in her own country.

Crowds ranged from nearly 1,000 at Baptist churches in Warsaw and in the northeastern city Bialystok, to about 6,500 in a Roman Catholic church in Katowice, Graham also preached in Krakow, a city of 670,000 whose bishop was Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, who would become the first non-Italian pope in 455 years. (See the news story on page 60.)

Graham’s visit began just several days after the death of Pope John Paul. But the election of Cardinal Wojtyla as Pope John Paul II wasn’t announced until after Graham’s departure. Before Graham preached in St. Ann’s Catholic Church in Krakow, a priest prayed that God would lead the conclave of cardinals in their selection of a new pope. And in his remarks at Catholic churches, Graham praised the greatness of Pope Paul VI and the friendly style of John Paul. He expressed sympathy with the Catholics over the sudden loss of their leader.

The spiritual high point in the evangelistic tour may have been reached at Katowice, the heavily-polluted hub of coal mining and steel production in Poland, as well as the home of Communist leader Edward Gierek. A near-capacity crowd filled the modern Catholic cathedral in Katowice, a Communist party stronghold with 350,000 residents.

Diocesan bishop Herbert Betnorz welcomed Graham and called the rally “the greatest ecumenical gathering ever held in this region.” Using the cross of Christ as his theme, Graham preached the simple Gospel message that is his trademark. When the evangelist gave the invitation to receive Christ, more than 1,000—including some priests and nuns—raised their hands. Many wept openly.

Afterward, hundreds went to a basement hall for follow-up counseling by seventy persons equipped with training and literature similar to that offered by the Navigators. (The Navigators is one of several groups that has had ministries within the teeming academic community in Poland.)

At Katowice, as was the pattern elsewhere, young people formed a large percentage of the audience. Many were among the inquirers. Helmut Moczygeba, a priest who is active in parish student work, said Catholic youths are increasingly going to church: “They have a great need for truth, and now they are looking for this truth in the Gospel.”

For Kazimierz Woloszek, 33, the Katowice rally provided the capstone to his long quest for God and spiritual reality. He was baptized while an infant into the Catholic Church, and, like three-fourths of the Catholics in Poland, he attended mass regularly. Yet he felt an emptiness in the Catholic traditions, and in an interview he said that it was the personal dimension of faith that had eluded him.

First he began reading religious literature. Then he traveled to a Catholic center in France, became a part of the Marriage Encounter movement, and attended a Christian camp in an eastern European country. Finally, he concluded that Christ can change one’s life. At the Graham rally, he and his wife realized for the first time the importance of a personal relationship with Christ. “What Billy Graham said about Christ and the cross tonight I took very personally.” he said.

“What happened at the cathedral tonight was of the Holy Spirit,” declared priest Jozef Danch, 34, who heads student work in the diocese. But Danch, who keeps in close touch with Protestant evangelical student workers, conceded that there “have been unity problems among Catholics and Protestants.” Noting a historic attitude of distrust between the groups, Danch said Protestants might regard Catholic involvement in the Graham visit as an intrusion and an attempt to dominate.

Some Protestants did reveal those fears in off-the record interviews. But many Protestant leaders seemed to change their minds after their encounters with Catholics during the Graham meetings. The Catholic attitude in the past has been “unfriendly,” according to Seventh-day Adventist president Stanislaw Dambrowski, but he said the situation looks better in light of the Graham visit. (When queried, no Protestant mentioned contemporary instances of discrimination other than ridicule among children in some small towns and villages.)

The Graham campaign was sponsored by the Polish Baptist Union and the Polish Ecumenical Council, a body of eight denominations. Its members: the autocephalous Polish Orthodox Church, the largest non-Catholic group with 300,000 members; the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran), the second largest with 100,000 members: the Polish diocese of the Polish National Catholic Church (headquartered in Scranton, Pennsylvania) with 40,000 members; the Old Catholic Mariavite Church; the Reformed Evangelical Church; the Polish Baptist Union (2,500 members in 54 churches); the 6,000-member Polish Methodist Church; and the 10,000-member United Evangelical Church, a five-member alliance containing Pentecostal, Brethren, and other churches.

The Seventh-day Adventists, with 7,000 members in 100 congregations, have observer status in the council and supported the Graham campaign. (There are also another two dozen smaller denominations and sects in Poland, according to a government report.)

Still tired from the Scandinavian crusade (see October 20 issue, page 52), Graham arrived in Warsaw on a wet and chilly Friday afternoon and immediately plunged into a grueling schedule. When it was all over, he declared that it was the busiest ten days in all his years of ministry.

A welcoming party at the Warsaw airport was led by clergyman Michal Stankiewicz, president of the Polish Baptist Union. The general secretary of the Polish Ecumenical Council, Zdzislaw Pawlik, was Graham’s interpreter throughout the ten days. Catholic bishop Wladyslaw Miziolik, a top aide to Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski, who had gone to Rome to attend the funeral of Pope John Paul and to help elect a new pope, welcomed Graham on behalf of the Catholic Church.

Because most Protestant church buildings are small, Catholic churches were used for four of the nine rallies. Some Catholic leaders cooperated in the campaign, but priests had only a minor role on the platform. In several instances, masses were said immediately before or after the rallies, catching part of the Graham audience.

There were murmurings within the Catholic community over the Graham organization’s involvement with the government in making arrangements for meeting places. (Church and state clashes have occurred in the past few years over issues of religious freedom. Only three weeks before the Graham visit, Cardinal Wyszynski and the episcopate had issued a call for an end to censorship of church publications.) A Graham spokesman explained that without the cooperation of authorities, the evangelist would have been unable to hold his campaign.

At the Warsaw Baptist Church on Saturday morning, Graham led an evangelism workshop for an overflow crowd of more than 450 pastors and other Christian leaders—including some enthusiastic Catholic seminary professors and a number of teaching nuns. At a rally that night, dozens in the overflow crowd of nearly 1,000—the largest in the history of the church—raised their hands to indicate their desire to receive Christ as Saviour. Church leaders, including general secretary Adam Piasecki of the Polish Baptist Union, wept. The occasion and the spiritual response, he said, were “beyond imagination.”

Outside, clusters of people listened to Graham over loudspeakers, and young people sold Polish translations of Bibles, several of Graham’s books, and other Christian publications.

Early on Sunday, the evangelist and his team began a motor trip that took them to five other cities and covered hundreds of miles of farmland. (Eighty per cent of Poland’s land is owned privately, mostly by small farmers.) The Polish version of Indian Summer arrived and lasted nearly a week, bringing “the best weather we’ve had all year,” according to a Baptist leader.

Although the official state press carried a cursory notice of Graham’s visit, many religious publications featured pre-crusade stories and major coverage of the campaign. Wire service and other reporters followed the evangelist, along with television crews from Britain, West Germany, France, and Sweden. A documentary of the campaign, the second Graham has held in a Communist country (see report on his Hungary visit, September 23, 1977, issue, page 44), will be shown on American television sometime next year.

What stirred Graham most, he said, was his visit to Auschwitz, the Nazi concentration camp where more than four million Jews died. Standing by a wall where at least 20,000 were shot by firing squads, he condemned the mentality that had produced Auschwitz and other extermination centers. Warning that the same mentality may surface again, he urged the assembled crowd to work for unity, peace, and the spread of God’s love.

Graham also squeezed in visits to Jewish synagogues, a child health care center in Warsaw (to which the Graham organization had given $10,000), and an electronics factory. There were private chats with church and government leaders, a reception at the American embassy, and a side trip to Czestochowa and the famous shrine of the Black Madonna, a painting of the mother of Jesus that is visited yearly by thousands of pilgrims. (Mary is seen as the protector and deliverer of Poland.)

In his talks with Polish leaders, Graham said that he had come to Poland with an open mind to learn about its society and churches. He expressed “revulsion” at what the Nazis had done to Poland, and he praised the Polish spirit that had rebuilt the nation’s cities. He said that he wanted only to speak about God’s love for mankind, not a new message in Poland, but one that needed to be reaffirmed in every generation. He said that Christians must get involved in helping to make the world a better place to live.

It is too early to evaluate Graham’s visit, he and Polish church leaders affirm. But as a result of the crusade Bible study groups have sprung up in some cities and pastors report renewed interest and activity. Evangelical influences within the Catholic church have been reinforced, and bridges have been built between Protestants and Catholics.

As Graham prepared to leave Poland, Bishop Betnorz sent an aide to Graham with some Bibles and ten copies of the Polish translation of the evangelist’s book, How to Be Born Again. “Please autograph them,” requested the bishop. “I want to give them to my friends.”

When Will It All End?

Bible Prophecy, by Paul Erb (Herald Press, 1978, 208 pp., $4.95 pb), Count-Down to Rapture, by Salem Kirban (Harvest, 1977, 189 pp., $2.95 pb), Biblical Prophecy for Today, by J. Barton Payne (Baker, 1978, 93 pp., $2.95 pb), The Last Things, by George Eldon Ladd (Eerdmans, 1978, 119 pp., $2.95 pb), Things to Come for Planet Earth, by Aaron Luther Plueger (Concordia, 1977, 104 pp., $2.95 pb), and After the Rapture, by Raymond Schafer (Vision, 1977, 159 pp., $2.95 pb), are reviewed by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., pastor, Midway Presbyterian Church, Jonesboro, Tennessee.

Apparently the last word on the last things has not been published. These six books represent just a small number of books of prophetic literature now being published.

Ladd’s Last Things is by far the most significant work of the six for the serious Bible student who is interested in eschatology. Ladd is an evangelical scholar of international repute whose work is always characterized by cautious theological precision rather than the more marketable sensationalism so rampant today. He deals with the problem of Israel, personal (as well as cosmic) eschatology, terminology surrounding the Second Advent, and the kingdom of God.

The theme of his book is the organic-progressive relationship between the Old and New Testaments. By emphasizing the progressive unity of God’s redemptive program Ladd, though a premillennialist, can talk with post- and amillennialists. He takes issue with dispensational theologians in several areas of major concern including: the church in the Old Testament, a New Testament hermeneutic that emphasizes a “re-interpretive” approach to the Old Testament rather than a presupposed literalism, and his assertion that “the return of Christ will be a single, indivisible, glorious event.”

A problem that consistently nags at premillennial eschatology is that of Christ’s second humiliation. All premillennialists teach that the exalted Lord will leave the majesty of eternity and return to a sin-laden world to personally administer a 1,000 year kingdom. At the end of the millennium “fire from heaven” must intervene to rescue the glorified Lord from an overthrow by a seething, rebellious kingdom. The millennium, the clearest and most directly administered expression of the kingdom of God on earth, ends in failure.

Mennonite minister Paul Erb uses a readable question-and-answer format in his Bible Prophecy. Characteristic of this work is a modest prophetic restraint coupled with simplicity of expression. It is well-suited to the beginning student of prophecy because of its nontechnical nature. Such key terms as eschatology, millennium, apocalyptic, denouement, protoevangelium, and parousia are simply defined. Erb avoids what he calls “rapture fever” and emphasizes that the end of the age may be as close as tomorrow or as distant as a century. Warfield spoke of “the great principle that all prophecy is ethical in purpose.” To this Erb would give hearty consent: he is more concerned with “how can the church make a faithful witness [until] the end” than with the identity of anti-Christ or the time of the Lord’s return. The thrust of the book concerns itself with a christocentric view of history, which looks beyond impending disaster to ultimate victory. Erb speaks from what he terms a “transmillennial” position. Myron Augsburger, president of Eastern Mennonite College, coined this term to describe a cautious posttribulation premillennialism. His brief descriptions of the various millennial positions were helpful but could have been a good deal more perspicuous.

An amillennial polemic against dispensationalism can be found in Plueger’s Things to Come for Planet Earth. He wants “to give a rather comprehensive treatment of last things and the problem areas of interpretation.” Plueger does not develop any new arguments against dispensationalism but opponents would agree that the old arguments are still valid. He charges that there are several serious errors in dispensationalism such as its attempt to distinguish between the kingdom of God and of heaven, the kingdom postponement theory, the discontinuity in God’s redemptive program, literalism, second chance (after the rapture) salvation, a diplopic conception of the complex of end-time events, and Zionism.

Plueger’s work suffers greatly from extreme brevity. His arguments will be less than convincing to dispensationalists. The Abrahamic Covenant, which is considered basic to the entire system, is treated in only three sentences. Anti-Christ, Armageddon, the Tribulation, and the first resurrection receive only six or seven sentences each of explication. Not infrequently his use of quotations was either irrelevant or was employed for non sequitur argumentation.

My major disappointment was with Old Testament theologian J. Barton Payne’s Biblical Prophecy for Today. He intended to cover “every relevant verse … whose fulfillments are either happening now or at least possible within the next few days or weeks.” Supposedly only prophecies “clearly for our immediate future are dealt with.” The thrust of the book was more in the speculative, doom-oriented vein of the current bestsellers; it offers a scenario for the curious. Two problems plague this work: undue proof-texting and questionable speculation. An example will suffice: Psalm 110:3 is said to be a prophecy that “young believers will willingly volunteer for Christ’s campaign” immediately after anti-Christ’s assault on Egypt (Dan. 11) and before a group of “principle men” (Mic. 5:5) become particular leaders. I wonder how he could accurately place Psalm 110:3 in his list.

I hoped that Schafer’s After the Rapture was a rare dispensational book that would look beyond the tribulation horrors to the future life. However, it turned out to be a hodge-podge of crass speculation to the point of incredulity. He deals with such “clear” prophetic themes as what translation of Scripture we will use in our eternal Bible studies to why there have been so many malevolent leaders whose names have been numerically equivalent to 666: “Satan had to have one or more Antichrist candidates waiting in the wings, lest the Rapture … find him unprepared.” Also our “dual-purpose” resurrection bodies are very practical: They allow us to commute between heaven and earth during the millennium.

Kirbans’s Countdown to Rapture represents his latest attempt at what has been called “newspaper exegesis.” His work insists that “we have reached the point of no return. We are on an irreversible course for world disaster.” The overriding message of the book is anything but the readiness of God’s covenantal blessing in response to repentance as promised in Second Chronicles 7:14. In 189 pages hundreds of news sources are quoted but only twenty-four Bible verses.

Five of these six were premillennial and this reflects the usual ratio of writings on prophecy. Unfortunately neither pre- nor amillennialism can break from the chains of pessimism concerning the future course of this world. Some people think that this mindset of doom has a debilitating effect on long-range Christian cultural and political endeavor: “where there is no vision, the people perish” (Prov. 29:18). Long thought moribund, there are signs of a revival of postmillennialism as evidenced in the writings of such Reformed scholars as Norman Shephard, Greg Bahnsen, J. R. deWitt, Iain Murray, R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, and Francis Nigel Lee. It will be interesting to observe how pre- and amillennialists respond to this resurgence of postmillennialism. To paraphrase Matthew 24:6: “The end of the eschatological debate is not yet.” Think of it: If postmillennialism is right the debate could rage for several more centuries.

Women Worldwide

Woman: New Dimensions, edited by Walter Burkhardt (Paulist, 1977, 189 pp., $5.95 pb) is reviewed by Patricia Gundry, Wheaton, Illinois.

This book reproduces a special theme issue (December, 1975) of the scholarly journal Theological Studies. It presents a varied representation of woman’s situation worldwide, and particularly within the Roman Catholic Church. The writers largely reflect the liberal theological perspective, but that does not undercut the value of their messages for evangelicals. Roman Catholics are wrestling with the issue of equality for women with many of the same conflicts as evangelicals, though sometimes for different reasons.

The first chapter gives a necessary appraisal of women’s status around the world. It points out that though “feminine” occupations vary from country to country, wherever they are thus labeled, pay and status are always lower than they are in “masculine” occupations. Sex-role stereotyping results in an overall bottom-of-the-ladder position for women economically, politically, nutritionally, and educationally.

Rosemary Radford Ruether’s chapter, “Home and Work: Women’s Roles and the Transformation of Values,” is particularly helpful in its analysis of our polarization of society into public and private segments, with female relegated to the private and male to the public. It is illuminating for those wondering just how the “feminine mystique” and “total woman” ideal came about.

The gradual elimination of women from ministry in the early centuries of the church and the eventual forcing of ministering women into cloisters is traced in chapter five. A call to personhood is issued to both men and women. Of note is the section calling the church to structural reform in ministry. In this section Elizabeth Carroll identifies the tension between traditional structures and unmet personal needs. Traditional structures stultify and restrict the ministry of individuals and of the church as a body, she says, and many women now hesitate to move into this kind of a structure even if the opportunity becomes available. Instead, they seek a fluid fellowship of believers where service is open to all according to the gifts and leading of the Holy Spirit.

The Roman Catholic woman with a ministry has a problem Protestant women probably do not face. This problem is poignantly felt by those with ministries to the sick and needy: They can go only so far in giving counsel and comfort and then must call in a male priest to give the “real spiritual meat” in the form of communion, absolution, or last rites. The continuity of care and concern is broken by an often automatic and lifeless “going through the motions” by the one called in. This disrupts and dilutes the woman’s ministry and discourages both her and those she wants to help.

The two final chapters survey relevant literature both secular (chapter eight) and religious (chapter nine). These listings and evaluations will be valuable resources for the student and professional researching the whole complex issue.

And this book makes it clearer than ever to the evangelical reader that this is a complex issue. It confirms the belief that it is irresponsible for those in religious fields of study or authority to dismiss the women’s movement as a scurrying on the edges that does not profoundly affect the church.

This volume will be a useful tool in college and seminary libraries. I can also recommend it to those seriously concerned with the issue as it relates to the church generally.

Marketing The Gospel

How Can I Get Them to Listen?, by James Engel (Zondervan, 1977, 185 pp., $4.95 pb), is reviewed by Mel White, assistant professor of communications, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California.

Today’s air will be good to unhealthful.” City dwellers hear this not-too-helpful forecast from our smognosticators almost daily during the hot, humid summer months. I will join the cowardly weatherman in my critique of Engel’s handbook on communication strategy and research. This sequel to What’s Gone Wrong With the Harvest? (co-written with Will Norton) is in my not-too-helpful forecast, both good and unhealthy. The book is good (or does well) in what it intends: “to help the Christian leader (especially in the developing countries) to develop and implement relatively non-complicated research projects and to interpret and use the research done by others.”

Engel’s first assumption is that “communication begins with the audience.” He goes on to explain how a communication strategist would go about winning the world to Christ through a careful analysis of audience awareness and attitudes, styles of life, and decision making. The author has held office in the American Marketing Association, is on the editorial board of the “Journal of Marketing,” and was founder and first chairman of the Association for Consumer Research. Currently he is chairman of the communications department at Wheaton Graduate School. His academic knowledge and practical experience are obvious as he leads lay readers skillfully through the basics of audience analysis (define the problem, identify data needs, decide on collection procedures, select your sample and design sampling tool, collect, tabulate, and analyze the data) and on to phasing the research results into effective strategies of communication. There are many practical hints, helpful warnings, creative suggestions for anyone concerned about better communicating the faith. Even if you hate the idea of integrating marketing procedures into Christian communication, Engel’s little primer will acquaint you with the science most widely used by those who know and exploit us all so well with their junk food, junk media, and junk theology.

Even so there is an unhealthful aspect of How Can I Get Them to Listen? It relates to something the author did not intend to discuss—the serious theological and ethical issues raised by the church’s current rush to adapt marketing skills to the Christian communication task. Rather than fault this book for its incompleteness, I simply want to call attention to a potentially harmful way that it might be used. There have been few if any evangelical attempts to integrate biblical teaching with the marketing assumptions that are sneaking into Christian communication circles. Christian media executives and mass evangelism experts were the first church people to apply research principles to the Christian context. After years of practicing on the Christian public, they have become skilled practitioners of the marketing arts. The Christian communication enterprise has become a multibillion dollar industry. Unfortunately, these all-too-successful communicators have lived and worked too long in environments virtually untouched by serious theological examination. As a result the primary criterion applied to evaluate the marketability of Christian people and product is the golden rule of secular marketing, “Will it sell?” Consequently, Christian “stars,” books, magazines, films, various products, people, and programs are sold like toothpaste and deodorant. The prophetic or near-prophetic, the unpopular but true, the controversial and open ended, even the mildly amusing or satiric voices are muted. As the Christian merchants reach for ever-widening clientel the truth becomes thinner and less persuasive. We need better communication strategy, yet at the heart of building that strategy we may be losing Christian truth altogether.

Engel meant only to write a simple communication strategy handbook for Christian leaders in the developing countries. His book will stand side-by-side with theological tomes and biblical commentaries on their shelves as it stands on ours. But that side-by-side is the unhealthy problem. We are passing on to our third world brothers and sisters questions that North Americans have not resolved, assumptions we have not tested. It is past time for Christian communicators who practice the marketing arts to enter into serious discussion with theologians and ethicists. It is past time to reconsider the possibility that understanding what we have to communicate is more important than communicating it.

James Engel confesses in the preface that “he and his colleagues are deeply immersed in developing a research based, Spirit-led communication strategy.” Such a theology of communication is needed now.

Homosexuality Is Sin

Homosexuality: A Symbolic Confusion, by Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse (Seabury, 1977, 190 pp., $8.95), and The Gay Theology, by Ken Philpott (Logos, 1977, 194 pp., $1.95 pb), are reviewed by Will Norton, Jr., assistant professor of journalism, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi.

Since Anita Bryant’s heroic but controversial stand against the militant homosexuals of Dade County, the literature on homosexuals and the church has increased.

For most Christians the central issue has not been whether God loves homosexuals nor whether Christ died to save them. The basic debate has been whether God endorses homosexual practice as an option or whether Christian homosexuals must be repentant and practice continence. Moreover, should homosexuals be allowed as leaders in the church? Many denominations are actively debating this question.

Barnhouse destroys the classic arguments of those who assert that the Bible is not against homosexuality and Philpott encourages the ministry of those who have converted homosexuals in their churches.

Barnhouse says that a decision on homosexuality has two sides: the moral and the scientific. It requires the questions, What ought to be? and, What is?

In other words, Barnhouse says that the decision on homosexuality cannot merely be statistical. An individual’s behavior cannot be evaluated only in terms of other people’s behavior. Such judgments are only examples of massmindedness, and only religion can protect us against that.

Once she has exposed the tension between science and theology and the place for their cooperation, she reviews the scientific information about homosexuality. For example, “in the animal kingdom there is no such thing as homosexual behavior which includes climax or even, between males, intromission. The rare exceptions occur under the extreme circumstances of artificial stress, such as overcrowding of rats in laboratories.” She then raises contemporary ethical questions about homosexuality before considering some basic theological questions. Here she deals with what “ought to be.”

“All conduct, even when the motivations are unconscious, is the result of choice, and that therefore people are ultimately responsible in their depths,” Barnhouse says. Moreover, the biblical position is that homosexuality is sin. Yet, she believes it “cannot possibly be as distasteful to the sight of God as the self-righteous hostility of those who persecute homosexuals.”

For Barnhouse, homosexuality is a rejection of union with the other sex. It is a denial of the wholeness of the sacred order because it denies “half of the image of God.” It is a failure to achieve the “Christian goal of completeness.”

Philpott does not even debate the issue. His focus is on the homosexual who has faith in Jesus Christ and is trying to cope with his old nature.

After question-answer interviews with four homosexuals, he considers the problems of former homosexuals. He explains that after the initial spiritual high of conversion, homosexuals often face severe temptations. They suddenly realize that they haven’t automatically become heterosexual.

As they try to relate with Christians they face three problems. First, some Christians will be closed to relating to anyone associated with homosexuality. Second, a homosexual may feel guilty being with other Christians because his or her expression of affection would be misinterpreted. Third, the former homosexual can feel alone because he is a stranger to family life—a big part of any church.

Nonetheless, Philpott says, the church can minister to homosexuals by offering forgiveness, acceptance, love, and evidence of the power of God. The book offers some practical suggestions for how to provide such ministry.

Books make good gifts. Here is a random selection of titles issued in the last twelve months or so that merit serious consideration for your shopping list. The brief comments are only a guide as to what to look at in your bookstore; judging the suitability of a book for its intended receiver is one of the joys—and perils—of book giving. In some cases lower prices are in effect until Christmas, and those are the ones we list.

FAMILY BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIAS are coming in threes. David C. Cook, the well-known Sunday school publisher, has released a two-volume Family Bible Encyclopedia by Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen (204 + 222 pp., $16.95 the set). This is the book of the year for elementary and junior-high age children. It consists of definitions and descriptions in alphabetical order of most of the terms that a Bible reader would come across. There are illustrations, usually in full color, on most pages. I just wish the publishers would have issued it in one volume instead of two.

The entry from Harper & Row is Harper’s Encyclopedia of Bible Life by Madeline S. and J. Lane Miller (416 pp., $ 12.95). This is a major revision and updating of a work first released in 1944 and is aimed for an older readership than the Mickelsen book. Rather than short entries there are longer descriptions. Nearly five pages are devoted to frankincense and myrrh. Chapters are devoted to such everyday subjects as housing, medicine, and agricultural methods.

From Eerdmans we have Eerdmans’ Family Encyclopedia of the Bible edited by Pat Alexander (328 pp., $13.95). This one is the best buy of the three. It is a companion to two previously well-received works (which are also good for giving this year), Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible and Eerdmans’ Handbook to the History of Christianity. The photography, mostly in full color, is splendid and will attract the nonreaders in the family. The textual material is long, but broken up into convenient subdivisions and short entries. There are ten sections, three of which are dictionaries of Bible teachings, people, and places. Other major sections are extremely intriguing: You look up a particular aspect of home or job or archaeological discovery and find yourself reading more and more. The chief drawback is that the index needs to be much longer.

CHILDREN who like comics should appreciate their own version of the Scriptures, a three-volume Comic-Strip Bible (255 + 253 + 237 pp., $3.95/vol. pb) from the new Chariot Books imprint of David C. Cook. These full-color comics have been running in Sunday school take-home papers and it is good to have them in conveniently bound volumes.

MUSIC-LOVERS will welcome a book (best opened before Christmas) called Carols, a collection of seventy-one advent hymns (words and music) edited by Hughes Huffman and Mark Hunt (InterVarsity, $3.95 pb). Also see A Gift of Music: Great Composers and Their Influence by Jane Stuart Smith and Betty Carlson (Good News Publishers, 255 pp., $8.95) based on a series of lectures at Francis Schaeffer’s L’Abri. Among the twenty composers: Bach, Brahms, and Stravinsky. More specific are Handel’s Messiah: A Devotional Commentary by Joseph McCabe (Westminster, 120 pp., $4.95 pb) and Messiah: A Photographic Meditation on Handel’s Messiah by Miriam Frost and Keith McCormick (Winston, 60 pp., $5.95 pb).

DEVOTIONAL WRITINGS are a favorite of gift-givers. Why not consider some classics rather than the more publicized contemporary writers? The Fire and the Cloud is “an anthology of Catholic spirituality” edited by David Fleming (Paulist, 370 pp., $9.95 pb), but more than half of the selections are pre-Reformation and the later ones are often of broadly Christian value. Since Calvin is not thought of as a mystic, all the more reason to welcome The Piety of John Calvin: An Anthology Illustrative of the Spirituality of the Reformer edited by Ford Lewis Battles (Baker, 180 pp., $9.95). Also see The Doubleday Devotional Classics, a series of three volumes edited by E. Glenn Hinson (Doubleday, 462 pp. + 642 pp. + 257 pp., $4.95 + $5.95 + $3.95 pb). Nine longer writings by Protestants have been abridged somewhat to fit modern reading spans. Among the classics: Bunyan’s Grace Abounding, Brainerd’s Diary, and Kelly’s Testament of Devotion.

FAMOUS AUTHORS for whom anthologies have recently appeared are Dorothy Sayers with a collection of eighteen essays, The Whimsical Christian (Macmillan, 275 pp., $8.95), J.B. Phillips with 114 readings from his several books thematically arranged and entitled The Newborn Christian (Macmillan, 226 pp., $7.95), and hundreds of short selections, topically arranged, from the fiction of George MacDonald, The World of George MacDonald, edited by Rolland Hein (Harold Shaw, 199 pp., $4.95 pb). C.S. Lewis’s earlier anthology of the writer he admired so much, simply called George MacDonald, was released again this year in a new format (Macmillan, 157 pp., $4.95). Also remember the selections from last year from Lewis himself, The Joyful Christian (Macmillan, 239 pp., $7.95).

CHRISTIAN POETRY, two-thirds of it by contemporary poets, has been compiled by Merle Meeter in The Country of the Risen King (Baker, 446 pp., $12.95). Inspirational excerpts from both prose and poetry have been grouped topically by Joan Winmill Brown in Wings of Joy (Revell, 192 pp.,$7.95).

PROMISED LAND is the title of a massive book filled with watercolors and pencil sketches by Gordon Wetmore, who spent 500 hours observing modern Israeli life. Israeli government leader Abba Eban provides the accompanying text of this art book, which should have wide appeal (Nelson, 166 pp., $49.50).

LITURGICAL CHURCHES are served by Introducing the Lessons of the Church Year by Frederick Houk Borsch (Seabury, 233 pp., $8.95). Although based on the lectionary schedule of the new Book of Common Prayer for the Episcopal Church it can be adapted for churches that vary from that schedule by the use of an index. A different kind of help has been provided by selections by John McTavish and Harold Wells from the massive Church Dogmatics of Karl Barth, that are arranged to assist sermon preparation, Preaching Through the Christian Year (Eerdmans, 279 pp., $6.95 pb). Ecclesiastical Crafts by Becky King and Jude Martin (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 132 pp., $16.95) is aimed at craftsmen who wish to know what is needed by churches who use textile and other forms of art. Christians who enjoy this kind of aid to worship can also find the book of interest.

NATURE lovers should enjoy Science in the Bible by Jean Sloat Morton (Moody, 272 pp., $9.95). Some 120 natural phenomena (such as frost, crocodiles, dwarfism) are illustrated and discussed with reference to modern scientific understanding and the ancient biblical references. Some of the connections are debatable, but one can appreciate the parallels nevertheless. Restricted to flora and fauna alone, but much more comprehensive within that domain is The Natural History of the Land of the Bible by Azaria Alon (Doubleday, 276 pp., $12.95). Originally published in Israel, it would have been greatly enhanced with an index, but the photographs and accompanying text will be a delight to anyone with a special fondness for plants, animals, and the Bible.

OLD TESTAMENT STUDENTS who already have the basic reference tools might appreciate a work that relates the Old Testament to its cultural milieu. Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by Walter Beyerlin (Westminster, 288 pp., $20) does this for written parallels. The Symbolism of the Biblical World by Othmar Keel (Seabury, 422 pp., $24.50) shows the relationships between motifs found in the reliefs and paintings of the ancient world and various forms of expression in the Old Testament, especially Psalms. Most biblical picture books focus on geography and artifacts, but the stress in Keel is on concepts.

NEW TESTAMENT STUDENTS would be delighted with a two-volume set, The Word Study Concordance and The Word Study New Testament, a project directed by Ralph Winter (Tyndale or William Carey, 1,115 + 841 pp., $26.95/set). One does not have to know Greek to be able to use this simple guide to all the occurrences of a particular word and its relatives in the New Testament. On the other hand, those who are advanced scholars can appreciate the handy indexes to some of their standard tools. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Eerdmans, 491 pp., $13.95) is by F.F. Bruce, the dean of evangelicals who are New Testament scholars. This work is the fruition of a lifetime of study of the apostle and in it Bruce displays his usual ability to communicate to both advanced and beginning students.

PASTORAL COUNSELORS who are seriously interested in all that relates to that crucial ministry would appreciate The Harvard Guide to Modern Psychiatry edited by Armand Nicholi, Jr. (Harvard, 691 pp., $29.50). It is written to help not only doctors but anyone in the mental health field understand the latest developments. The focus is on the patient not as an object of research but as a person. All but three of the thirty-two contributors are from the Harvard Medical School faculty. Nicholi is a staunch evangelical.

Dating The Life Of Christ

Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, by Harold W. Hoehner (Zondervan, 1977, 176 pp., $3.95 pb) is reviewed by Peter H. Davids, assistant professor of biblical studies, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.

The author, whose knowledge as a historian of the Herodian period was established by his Cambridge dissertation, first published this work as a series of articles in Bibliotheca Sacra (1973 to 1975). Here in the scope of just 176 pages he tries to untie the Gordian knot of the chronological framework of the Gospels and to update Sir Robert Anderson’s schema of Daniel’s seventy weeks (The Coming Prince, 1915). Certainly, if one accepts his assumptions, he has done an admirable job on the level of the pastor and educated layperson. Yet because of what he assumes, scholars may find this program too ambitious and the answer too facile.

Assuredly, the general outline of Hoehner’s solution is correct: He dates the birth of Jesus between 6 and 4 B.C., his ministry between A.D. 29 and 30 or 33, his crucifixion in A.D. 30 or 33 (favoring the latter date in each case). But on the details questions remain. Although Hoehner points toward a possible solution of the problem of Quirinius’s census, his argument is too brief and easy to persuade any but the already convinced. The absence of references in Jewish and Roman documents remains a problem. His argument for a late crucifixion depends both upon questionable exegetical assumptions about the forty-six years in John 2:12–22 and upon a doubtful harmonization of John with the synoptics. His argument for a three-year ministry likewise depends upon Johannine chronology. Furthermore, I find his arguments that John presents the last supper as a Passover and that Jews celebrated two days as Passover in Jerusalem (one for Galileans, one for Judeans) unconvincing. Naturally, his working out of the seventy-week scheme will convince only those who assume his starting point and his time gap between weeks sixty-nine and seventy.

The major problem, then, is not the facts Hoehner cites, but the assumptions he makes, especially about the chronological and historical material of John. Does John intend his chronology to be taken historically or theologically? Does it miss John’s point to posit two temple cleansings or to force his passion chronology to harmonize with the synoptics? All life-of-Jesus presentations must deal with this problem, and not simply assume a solution.

Yet Hoehner does provide a learned array of facts and citations with which any reconstruction of the chronology of Jesus must reckon. He gives new insights into the problems and shows that at least one solution is possible, ruling out total skepticism. As a solution this book is useful, not least because you don’t need to be a specialist to understand it. Many evangelicals, especially those in the dispensational camp, will find this a valuable clarification of Christ’s chronology and a demonstration of the accuracy of Daniel’s prophecy.

Two Ways Of Bible Study

On Genesis, by Bruce Vawter (Doubleday, 1977, 501 pp., $10.00), and Promise and Deliverance: From Creation to the Conquest of Canaan, by S. G. De Graaf (Paideia [Box 1450, St. Catherines, Ontario L2R 7J8], 1977, 423 pp., $9.95), are reviewed by David W. Baker, Ph.D. candidate, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Cambridge, England.

These two books come from different theological persuasions and address different problems; each has something to contribute. Vawter is a leading Catholic biblical scholar. He presents the results of his years of study of the first book of the Bible. The main body of the book consists of a verse-by-verse analysis of the English text of Genesis as found in The New American Bible. Many of Vawter’s astute comments, in conjunction with a translation with which most evangelicals are unfamiliar, can lead to a number of passages being seen in a new light.

Prior to the verse-by-verse commentary, Vawter briefly discussed the sources, materials, and general interpretation of Genesis. He acknowledges the growing swell of scholarly opinion against the documentary hypothesis, but nevertheless adopts it.

A very different approach was taken by a late Dutch Reformed pastor, S. De Graaf, in From Creation to the Conquest of Canaan, which is the first of several volumes under the general title Promise and Deliverance. The question he addressed is how to tell biblical history, especially to children, so that the stories are both interesting to the hearer and convey their intended message in order to “move him to faith.” The examples, which are to serve as models for story telling rather than the exact words to be told, are each preceded by a brief introduction to the theology of the passage as well as the important points that should be learned by the child as he hears the story. This volume covers Genesis through Joshua and also includes a very brief section on Job, who is thought by the author to be a contemporary of Abraham.

Since there have been so many recent advances in our knowledge of such areas as archaeology, philology, and comparative religion, it is important that books such as Vawter’s be consulted to present the latest data to help in our interpretations of Scripture. It is equally important, and too often forgotten by scholars, that the Bible’s message is basically simple, vibrant, and relevant. There is room not only for academic study but also for listening to the stories for their life transforming effect. De Graaf ably reminds us of this.

The Jesus Of History

I Believe in the Historical Jesus, by I. Howard Marshall (Eerdmans, 1977, 253 pp., $2.95 pb), and Quests for the Historical Jesus, by Fred H. Klooster (Baker, 1977, 88 pp., $3.95 pb), are reviewed by David E. Aune, professor of religion, Saint Xavier College, Chicago, Illinois.

I Howard Marshall has become one of the more prominent and prolific evangelical New Testament scholars in Great Britain today. New Testament scholars (particularly evangelicals) can be poor theologians, yet Marshall earns high marks in this area through his creative grappling with the problem of faith and history. The scope and perspective of the book are evident in the final paragraph: “I believe in the historical Jesus. I believe that historical study confirms that he lived and ministered and taught in a way that is substantially reproduced in the Gospels. I believe that this Jesus gave his life as a ransom for sinful mankind, and that he rose from the dead and is the living Lord. And in view of these facts I trust in him and commit my life to him” (p. 246).

In the first part of the book, Marshall deals with what is meant by the historical Jesus, and in the second part he deals with how the historical Jesus can be successfully studied. After rejecting two extreme views, the mythical Jesus and the Gospels as a transcript of the life of Jesus exactly as it happened, Marshall devotes a good deal of space to the definition of “historical” and to the delineation of the nature of historiography. History and faith are rejected as two mutually exclusive modes of knowing the past, since historians, too, operate from a “faith” perspective. The belief of the Christian is not intrinsically unlike other kinds of subjectivities, which historians bring to the task of understanding history. For Marshall the experience of the risen Lord is historical knowledge mediated through faith, and it is from the vantage point of this faith integrated into a historical method that the Christian seeks further knowledge of the historical Jesus. The nature of Scripture plays no role in Marshall’s historical investigation of the Gospels.

The second part of the book begins with a fine survey of the major developments in the quest for the historical Jesus. Turning to the nature of the Gospels themselves, Marshall acknowledges that they are all anonymous documents, yet he agrees with the traditional authorship of Mark and Luke, denies the probability that Matthew is the author of the first Gospel, and suggests that John lurks behind the fourth Gospel in some undefined way. Like many British scholars, Marshall sees a positive role for form criticism, though he doubts whether it can be used to determine authenticity. He rightly objects to the distinction that form critics are wont to make between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism, since our knowledge of both is incomplete. With C. H. Dodd he thinks that there was a tradition of a connected life of Jesus that provided the evangelists with a framework for Jesus traditions. Marshall also rejects the skeptical attitude toward Gospel traditions characteristic of Bultmann and his school in Germany and (among others) Norman Perrin in America; he regards traditions as authentic unless there are sound reasons to the contrary (in dubio pro traditio). Marshall’s book will admirably serve as a supplementary text for courses on the life and teaching of Jesus in settings in which crucial contemporary issues, problems, and methods in the study of the historical Jesus are faced squarely.

Fred Klooster’s book on Quests for the Historical Jesus has very little in common with Marshall’s. Klooster is a theologian, and views the quests for the historical Jesus primarily from that perspective. The author divides his subject somewhat awkwardly into four categories, Old Quest, No Quest, New Quest, and Now Quest. The Old Quest based itself squarely on the rationalistic perspectives of the Enlightenment and while pretending historical objectivity proceeded to reject the tenets of historical Christianity. The No Quest of neoorthodoxy, particularly as exemplified by Karl Barth, completely divorced faith from history. The New Quest began through the dissatisfaction of students of Bultmann (a No Quester) with the complete rift between history and faith, yet became saddled with the problem of a resurrection that did not occur. The Now Quest of Wolfhart Pannenberg then came to the “rescue” by focusing on the resurrection as an objective event, yet finally was unable to successfully join history with faith.

Klooster’s book, however, contains a number of really serious flaws. If one were to judge from Klooster’s presentation, progress in theology and New Testament scholarship was nonexistent in England, France, and America. Further, Klooster claims (presumably with a straight face) that Barth is more radical than Bultmann. Although Klooster writes in a folksy, anecdotal style, he regularly punctuates the discussion with untranslated German and Latin phrases. In general (the chapter on Pannenberg is an exception), the author presents a very confusing survey of his subject.

Gottfried Osei-Mensah and I were privileged to be guest speakers at the Norwegian Lausanne Conference near Oslo over the first weekend of September. This visit to Norway was for me an occasion of special pleasure because my ancestors were Vikings. Since Stut is Norwegian for a bull, it is presumed that they were cattle-breeders who on one of their raids in the North of England decided to stay. I am thankful not only to have piratical blood in my veins, but also that my pagan Norse forebears were introduced to Christ in England.

There is another link between Norway and England of which I enjoyed reminding my Norwegian friends, namely that while Norsemen were plundering England, the English were evangelizing Norway. True, the first Scandinavian converts had been won by Anskar, “the apostle of the north” (A.D. 801–865). But it was King Olaf Tryggvasson and King Olaf Haraldsson, both originally Viking chiefs, who after their conversion at the beginning of the eleventh century, invited English clergy to evangelize and teach their people. Canute (1016–1035), king of England and Denmark (which then included Norway), completed the process of Christianizing Norway. Consequently, Kenneth Scott Latourette could write, “The Church in Norway was the offspring of the English Church.”

In the sixteenth century, King Christian II of Denmark and Norway championed the Reformation and the clergy quickly became Lutherans. Yet the religious revivals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries constituted a kind of second reformation. Its key figure was Hans Hauge (1771–1824). He was a farmer who had a profound evangelical conversion experience in 1796 and then, as Norway’s equivalent to John Wesley, traveled widely, preached and wrote about personal repentance and holiness, and also pioneered Christian social projects. Others followed him. It was a grass roots, lay movement from the beginning and led in due course to the formation of the Norwegian Missionary Society (1842), the Lutheran Inner or “Home” Mission Society (1868), and the Norwegian Lutheran Mission (1891). These organizations have all remained within the State Church, while at the same time jealously guarding their independence and preserving a decentralized structure. Between them they have several thousand local groups.

The Free Churches became legal in 1845 but have remained comparatively small. Five of them (Lutheran Free, Methodist, Baptist, Mission Covenant, and Free Evangelical Assemblies) have about 8,000 adult members each, totaling 40,000, which is also the number of Pentecostals. Still, 95 per cent of Norway’s citizens remain members of the State (Lutheran) Church. The charismatic movement, which has brought renewal to a number of churches, is viewed as being in continuity with the earlier pietistic revivals and has been enriched and kept from excesses by good Lutheran theology.

Why is evangelicalism stronger in Norway than in the other Scandinavian countries? And why is it that at the fourth and fifth assemblies of the World Council of Churches at Uppsala and Nairobi, respectively, the most forceful theological analysis of ecumenical positions came from the Norwegian delegation, who also on both occasions threatened to withdraw? The answer surely lies in the Free Faculty of Theology, which this year celebrates its seventieth anniversary. In 1908 faithful evangelicals were shocked by the governmental appointment to the University Theological Faculty of a New Testament professor who denied the deity of Jesus. This symbol of liberal infiltration into the church convinced many of the need to start again. So Professor Sigurd Odland resigned his post in the University and founded with others the Free Faculty of Theology. It opened with eight students, but today has about 1,000, some 600 of whom are studying for the pastorate and other church ministries. This means that four-fifths of the State Church clergy train at the Free Faculty. Not that its evangelicalism has escaped question. A few years ago the greatly respected Carl Wisløff retired three years earlier than he need have done in protest against what he judged to be liberalizing tendencies in the Free Faculty.

What about the state connection? It has a long history. It is also defended by senior evangelical leaders on the ground that it preserves the unity of the church and the freedom of conservatives. Certainly it has not muzzled the church. For example, during the terrible five-year Nazi occupation of Norway, courageous leadership of the resistance movement was given by Bishop E. Berggrav of Oslo. In the last decade church-state tension has steadily increased. The government has introduced legislation on Christianity in state preschools that challenges the teaching of Christian values, and on sex discrimination that has led to the ordination of about twenty women priests; this is felt by many to have been an unwarranted imposition by the state. A yet more direct clash took place in 1975 when a bill to make abortion available more or less on demand was strenuously opposed by all ten bishops. When the bill was passed, Bishop Per Lønning resigned. As government pressure on the church grows, so also does the demand—especially among younger clergy—for church freedom. “We need more space for breathing in the Christian way,” Bishop Haakon Andersen said to me. “It is only a matter of time,” added a theologian of the Free Faculty, whose lecture was reported in the press.

The Lutheran Church of Norway has been one of the pioneers in evangelical student work. Informal Scandinavian student groups were meeting already at the end of the nineteenth century, and in 1895 the Scandinavian Student Christian Movement (SCM) was formed. Theoological problems soon arose, and in 1924 the Norges Kristelige Student og Gymnasiastlag (Laget for short) came into being, with an evangelical constitution. Its members’ evangelistic zeal was evident from the start. They were concerned about their contemporaries who deserted the Oslo churches each weekend in order to go hiking (in the summer) and skiing (in the winter) in the mountain area nearby. So in 1933 they got busy hauling logs and themselves built “The Chapel of the North Forest,” which now has residential as well as canteen facilities. Every Sunday evening the students organize their own evangelistic services there, and many have been won for Christ.

In 1934 the first international student conference was held in Oslo. The main speaker was Ole Hallesby who was the acknowledged evangelical leader in Norway from 1920 to 1960, and whose books Prayer, Conscience, and Why I Am a Christian have been read with great profit by generations of students. “It is God’s hour,” he said at the conference; “it is an unspeakable privilege to move forward at God’s time.” He was referring to the possibility of an international evangelical student movement. Further international conferences were held almost annually, and then after the war the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (IFES) was formed in 1946, with Hallesby as its first honorary president.

In my travels in different parts of the Third World, I have constantly been impressed by the fine quality of the missionaries sent out from Norway. Their numbers are extremely impressive too. From a country of 4 million people, of whom only 2 per cent are regular churchgoers (though 12 to 15 per cent are thought to be converted Christians), no fewer than 1,536 missionaries are at present serving, the largest number (703) being in sixteen countries of Africa. The thirty-eight Norwegians who came to the Lausanne Congress returned with much enthusiasm, and within just over six months had formed the Norwegian Lausanne Committee under the chairmanship of Bishop Erling Utnem. Because of his ill health he has been succeeded by Sigurd Aske who, introducing the Conference for Christian Leaders in early September, said that the Lausanne Covenant had given them “a path to follow amid a world of theological uncertainty and ecumenical pluralism.”

As a lost son of Norway, who had temporarily returned to his fatherland, I felt proud to have connections with such a vigorous Christian community.

John R. W. Stott is rector emeritus of All Souls Church, London.

A Story in the Style of John Bunyan

I set my head to rest not many nights ago

And as I slept I dreamed the wind did blow

From a strange land. I looked about to see

What this odd phenomenon could possibly be

There to my surprise I beheld so many things

That I had only read of heretofore; the thought brings

Peace to me, for I was in the land good Christian

Trod when to the Celestial City he set his mission

Finding myself on a hillside overlooking a city, which appeared to be in a very deplorable condition, and seeing also nearby a slough and a gate, I surmised that this must indeed be that same country in which Christian had lived before going on pilgrimage. I stood for some time wondering what would happen and presently an old man came walking along the road that was nearby.

Hoping that he could be of assistance, I approached him and said, “Pardon me, good sir, but would you mind answering a few questions from a stranger to these parts?”

“Of course not!” he answered. “But first, let us at least acquaint each other with who we are. My name is Mr. Sagacity.”

“Then I think my questions are already answered,” I said. I proceeded to introduce myself and then went on, “Is that not the City of Destruction yonder? And over there the Slough of Despond? And beyond it the same Wicket Gate at which Christian and later his wife and children began their pilgrimage?”

“You are not as much of a stranger as you perhaps thought, my friend. I can see that you have benefited from the tales told of Christian and Christiana and their children by John Bunyan in The Pilgrim’s Progress. You will know also that I am that same Mr. Sagacity who told John Bunyan of the start of Christiana on her pilgrimage.

“But come here and sit with me for a time, if you will, for I am in need of rest and perhaps you would have some questions you would like to have answered concerning this land and the happenings of late.”

“I would indeed like to sit with you for a time, for there is a matter pressing my mind that you could perhaps help to relieve.”

And so we sat down on the grass overlooking the city and I told him of the matter of my concern.

“Good sir,” I began, “there has been a great stir of late concerning the music men use to sing the praises of God and controversy abounds as to what is right and proper. Perhaps you could give some words of advice in this matter that would benefit me and many others a great deal.”

“Ah!” exclaimed Mr. Sagacity. “I know of a man whose pilgrimage is right in line with that matter. Very lately has he begun and is not near being finished yet. But I think the beginnings of his story would be very beneficial to you.” And here is the tale he told.

There was in the City of Destruction one Rocker, a young man very popular with those in the city and the surrounding towns because of his marvelous ability to play the guitar. He was appreciated mostly by the younger people, many of the older ones having been brought up with music different from that which Rocker played, but all recognized him as being great in his field. He enjoyed great popularity and fame and made a tremendous amount of money, as well as numerous enemies.

A day came however, when Rocker began to notice that in his heart there was a great emptiness, which none of the things he had as possessions nor any of the experiences he had ever had could fill. He began to speak of this with his closest friends and found that they too had felt this emptiness, but had merely assumed that more possessions or better experiences would allow them to overcome it. As Rocker pondered these things in his mind, he doubted that more of anything he had tried before would fill the emptiness inside and he searched far and wide for someone who could help him.

He came one day upon a young man named Evangelist, with whom he spoke at length, and, although he understood little of what Evangelist said, he sensed in him the peace and joy that he so greatly desired. Evangelist, realizing that Rocker’s understanding was dull, pointed the way to the Wicket Gate by which Rocker could begin the pilgrimage that would lead to his heart’s desires at the Celestial City.

So, Rocker picked up his guitar and began his journey to the Wicket Gate. When he came to the Slough of Despond and saw that there was no way around it, he plunged in, so great was his desire to ease the longing in his heart.

But as he was in the midst of the slough there approached a very old man, Mr. Set-in-his-ways. (His proper name was Mr. Traditionalist, but he had picked up the nickname many years before.) He hailed Rocker and said, “Ho there, friend, what is that strange object you carry through the mire with you?”

“Can you not see by the shape that it is a guitar?” answered Rocker. “And I take it with me as I begin a pilgrimage to the Celestial City where I hope to find the desires of my heart, for I am told by an honorable man that there is one in that City who, by his mere glance, can fill all of my emptiness with peace and joy.”

Mr. Set-in-his-ways began to laugh jeeringly and roared, “Do you really think that you are going to take that instrument with you on pilgrimage? Haven’t you heard that the King of the Celestial City doesn’t allow such instruments? How could anything used to make the evil music of today be allowed to be taken on pilgrimage? Why, the gate keeper will probably look out and, seeing what you carry, not even answer when you knock.” And with that he began to walk on his way, scoffing at Rocker and mumbling about the folly of guitars.

Rocker was perplexed as to what should be done and felt that he could not leave his guitar behind. Evangelist had said nothing of conditions being placed on his entry at the gate, and he felt sure that the King would understand that he had not realized that he was doing anything evil by playing his music.

So Rocker pressed on, hoping the Gate Keeper would answer and intending to ask whether he would have to leave his guitar behind. He did not desire to leave it, but knew that he must if that was the only way to fill the void in his heart.

When he came to the Wicket Gate, Rocker hesitated, not wanting to be disappointed if the Gate Keeper refused to answer. But thinking again of Evangelist and the peace he had felt when talking to him, Rocker took courage and knocked boldly on the door.

Almost immediately the gate was pulled open and Rocker was beckoned to enter. Although he had knocked boldly, he now became timid, for the fear returned that he would perhaps have to leave his guitar behind.

“Welcome, friend,” said the Gate Keeper. “Who are you and what brings you to the Wicket Gate?”

“My name is Rocker and for many days I have felt a great emptiness that I wish to be filled. A man named Evangelist showed the qualities in his life that I desire most and he said that this gate opens the door to the path of the fulfillment of those desires. So, I am come to begin pilgrimage, if I may.”

“Excellent, young man!” exclaimed the Gate Keeper. “But, tell me, why was it that you hesitated at the gate for a time, then knocked boldly, and then became timid when the gate was opened?”

“I was elated when I talked with Evangelist and when we had finished, I made straight for the gate. While I was in the slough just outside, there came a man who asked what I carried. I told him that it was a guitar and he began to mock me and say that the King would be displeased that I came with it and that the music I play is evil in the King’s eyes. He said also that probably no one would even open the gate for me if I brought my guitar. So, I hesitated for fear that you would not answer my knock.”

“I see. Did he not tell you his name?”

“No. Nor did he ask mine. It seems that his only concern was with disagreeing with what I was doing.”

“Well,” said the Gate Keeper, “it looks as if old Mr. Set-in-his-ways is up to his usual tricks. It would perhaps have been good if you had merely asked yourself, ‘If this man knows so much about the ways of the King, why is he not on pilgrimage himself?’ That would have given you courage right away.”

“The thought did not occur to me. But what did encourage me was the remembrance of the words of Evangelist and the peace I know is in his heart. And so, I knocked boldly upon the door.”

“You did indeed! I have not heard such a bold knock for many a day. But why the hesitation once the door was opened?”

“When you answered, I felt as if my heart would tear in two, for as much as I rejoiced that I would be allowed to enter, there was still the fear that perhaps you would tell me that I must leave my guitar behind in order to begin pilgrimage.”

As Rocker spoke these words the Gate Keeper took on a grim appearance and finally said, “Woe to Mr. Set-in-his-ways for causing you to stumble. He does not realize that the King delights not in sacrifices, but that he desires only a broken and contrite heart. Set-in-his-ways still thinks that a man must prove himself worthy in the eyes of the King before he will be accepted, not seeing that there is no deed that anyone can do to please the King.

“The King will show you in good time what to do with your guitar. He is pleased that you desire to know him and will show you as much of his will as you allow him to.

“But now is the time for you to start your journey. It will soon be night and you had best be at the Interpreter’s House before dark. There you will learn much.”

Rocker thanked the Gate Keeper heartily and began his pilgrimage. He passed by the Devil’s Garden, but was not enticed by the fruit of the trees that hung over the wall, for he had seen that sort of fruit before and knew well that, though pleasing to the eye, it brought one no nearer to being full. And so at length he came to the House of the Interpreter and knocked on the door.

The door was opened soon by a servant, and Rocker was ushered into a room where there sat an old man who looked very wise.

“Welcome, young man,” said the Interpreter. “It is good to see that you have decided to go on pilgrimage. There are few who have attained the fame and fortune that you have and have had the courage to risk it on what seems often to appear a blind hope.”

“Interpreter, I have seen that there is more to life than fame and fortune and would gladly give them up for that which Evangelist has deep in his heart. But please answer me a question, if you will: Is the music I play evil, and will the King demand that I give up my guitar to continue on pilgrimage?”

“Such questions must indeed be answered, but the hour is late and more than anything you need a meal and some good rest. Tomorrow we will deal with your questions.”

The servant returned and showed Rocker to his room where a meal had been set out. He ate well and then went to bed. He rested far better than he had since he was a child with not a care in the world. When he awoke he found that for some reason he was not worried about the answers he would receive, though he knew that he might not like some of the words that would fall on his ears.

After he and the Interpreter had breakfasted, the Interpreter took Rocker into a room that had two white walls and two black walls and the ceiling and floors divided into squares that alternated the black and white colors. The Interpreter asked Rocker, “Is this room good or evil?”

Rocker pondered the question for a few moments and answered, “Half of it is the color that most would say is good and half the color of evil. I would have to say then that the room itself is neither and could only be considered one or the other by the use to which it is put.”

“You have answered well. And so it is with the music you play. It is an empty, neutral room that can be put to good use or to evil and the music is one or the other when the words that go along with it are the praises of the King or the praises of man.”

“But Interpreter, will not some say that since my music has been used with evil words for so long that the two cannot be separated?”

“Some will indeed,” replied the Interpreter. “But they forget that Jesus met people where they were and did not hesitate to use the things familiar to them to communicate his truth. To farmers, he spoke of seed and soil; to fishermen, of fishing for men; to a thirsty woman, of living water. He aroused their curiosity by using the things meaningful to them and proceeded to draw them to himself. But come, there are other things that will perhaps show you better.”

The Interpreter then led Rocker into a room with a number of pictures on the walls. He led Rocker to one that pictured a man sitting in front of a pub, writing something down.

“Do you know who this is?” asked the Interpreter.

“No, sir. I’m afraid I don’t.”

“This is the one known as Martin Luther. In order to bring singing to his congregations, he borrowed the melodies of the songs people sang when drinking and wrote words for them that praised the King. Some of these songs are among the most revered by those who are lovers of the ‘old’ hymns.”

Moving across the room, the Interpreter showed Rocker a painting of a man near exhaustion, writing furiously with a Bible open nearby.

“Ah!” proclaimed Rocker. “This man I believe I recognize. Is this not Handel?”

“It is. He is shown here finishing his great masterpiece, Messiah. It was an oratorio, and few today realize that the same form was used to entertain the wealthy with themes such as lust, murder, and hatred.”

“Do you mean then that these Christian men held in such high honor used the music that was most popular and often used for evil purposes to proclaim the praises of the King?” asked Rocker.

“You have spoken very truly. And these are not the only ones. There are others such as Isaac Watts and William Booth. Perhaps a lesson the Apostle Peter learned will apply here. He was shown a vision of animals and told to kill and eat that which was considered unclean according to the Jewish law. He refused, but was told that what the King had declared clean, he was not to call unclean.

“This referred to the gentiles Peter was about to meet and he realized that the Lord was not partial to any group of men, but loved all men. The Jews were the ‘chosen people’ only by the King’s good pleasure, not by any merit of their own. Not seeing this they fell under the impression that they were better than other men for something they had done.

“Likewise, today many people are under the impression that there is a ‘chosen music.’ But Scripture merely tells us to teach and admonish each other with songs and hymns and spiritual songs. It speaks not of the musical style, but of the content.

“Now come, there is one last thing to show you before you go on your way.”

The Interpreter led Rocker into another room filled with pictures. Here there was a common figure in each. In one he spoke to a crowd; in another he helped in the making of a tent; in yet another he reached out a hand to a sick man.

“This,” said the Interpreter, “is the Apostle Paul and all of the pictures here contain him, for he said, ‘I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.’

“So, Rocker, to those who love rock music, a rocker can speak best. Your music is not evil unless you let it be so. Do not let your heart be troubled any further concerning that. As for your question of whether the King will ask you to give up your music, you will soon be shown.

“You have come on pilgrimage because you want to fill the emptiness inside and be made whole. That in itself is a selfish motive and the success of your quest will only occur when you see that self matters not at all and your will is given back to the one who knows what is best for you.

“Now go. See what the King has in store for you.”

Rocker left the House of the Interpreter contemplating all that had been spoken and shown to him. He thought hard about what the Interpreter’s last statement had meant and hoped that he would soon find out.

Very soon he came to the place where he could see the figure of one hanging on a cross; and at last he understood. Here was someone who wanted him to have peace and joy in his heart more than Rocker did himself. Here was Love.

Rocker did the only thing he could. He took his guitar and placed it at the feet of the one hanging on the tree, not caring if he ever picked it up again or not, for he owed all to Christ and he gave all he had to him.

After a short time there came a voice from the sky, saying, “Well done, good and faithful servant. Now take back your instrument and sing my praises with the music that flows best from your heart, for I gave it to you and you have done rightly by returning it to me.”

And Rocker took up his guitar and began to sing:

Beneath the cross of Jesus I now see the depth of Love

For here one truly worthy and as harmless as a dove

Did take on him the guilt and shame that I alone should bear

His body torn and bloody is of things on earth most fair

All the things my heart desires now seem to fade away

Except the burning urge to give to Him my will’s whole sway

And now my hands again will play, my voice again will sing

But only of the cross of Christ, the Love of my sweet King

And here Mr. Sagacity ended his tale, for that was all he knew of Rocker’s pilgrimage. But that was indeed all I needed to hear. Let him who has ears to hear do so.

Pat A. Hargis is a student at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Lombard, Illinois.

Many students at Christian college are closet adherents of anti-Christian attitudes.

We Should Spell the College V. I. P. S-t-u-d-e-n-t

As an avid crossword puzzle fan, hopelessly hooked on the habit and needing at least one a day to satisfy my addiction, I confess to a feeling of satisfaction when I encounter the clue “College V.I.P.” accompanied by four blank squares. That allows me, in a moment of professional pride, to print out the word D-E-A-N. Yet, having been involved in Christian higher education for a quarter of a century, I realize that my answer, despite its ego-reinforcement, is incorrect and that the puzzle maker should have provided seven spaces for the more appropriate response: S-T-U-D-E-N-T. For I am persuaded that, of all of us who belong to the community of post-secondary academe, the most important members by far are those who make up the student body.

The overarching purpose of the Christian liberal arts college is not to perpetuate its own existence as an institution, or to preserve intact the religious tradition of the elders, or to protect a culturally dictated life style, or to provide a safe haven from worldly temptations, or to prove that evangelicals are as good at scholarship as anyone else, or even to always please its constituents. Its raison d’etre is the students and their development. Everything else—including facilities and curriculum—and everyone else—including faculty and administrators—are secondary and subordinate to this. That college fulfills its mission best that most effectively provides opportunities for students to grow.

We must focus on the young men and women who matriculate at these schools. Who are they? What are their needs? What can the Christian college do for them that is not being done elsewhere? Answers to such questions will provide helpful insights into what Christian higher education is really all about.

It is, of course, impossible to generalize accurately about the young people who make up the student population of Christian colleges. Therefore some of the characteristics I name will not necessarily apply to all students. There are, however, certain common traits.

The typical Christian college student is the product of his or her environment. He or she has been influenced by family, elementary and secondary schools, peer group, church, and wider culture. Each of these makes its own indelible impression upon the college-student-to-be.

Since the American family, including the Christian family, has undergone great changes during the last decade, it is not surprising that the kind of eighteen-year-old it produces differs from the counterpart of ten years ago. Parental surveillance continues to be exercised more diligently here than in the non-Christian home, but there seems to be a greater distance between parent and child than used to be the case in the 50s and 60s. Close familial relations, traditionally thought to be essential to wholesome childhood development, appear to have fractured. In too many instances teenagers from evangelical families have not been encouraged to develop an adequate sense of self-worth. Despite the strong desire to break family ties and be on their own on a college campus, many students are not prepared to cope with the problems that this sudden transition creates.

The church has also played a part in molding the mind of the Christian college student. Whatever sophistication, or lack of it, characterizes the Christian faith of such a youth is attributable principally to the church. Cheap grace, easy believism, self-depreciation, and simplistic explanations of complex biblical statements are bound to leave their mark on impressionable young people. All of this becomes part of the spiritual baggage that they bring with them to college.

Community schools exert powerful influences too. Because Christian parents do not ordinarily possess either the skill or the inclination to analyze what goes on in the public school, elementary and high school teachers have almost unlimited authority in forming the attitudes of our youth. And, because the principle of separation of church and state has imposed an impossible so-called neutrality, relativism has become the unchallenged educational philosophy, saturating the curriculum as well as the minds of those who are exposed to it. Parents tend to be upset by Johnny’s failure to read, write, and do simple arithmetic; yet, the much more damaging effect of this kind of precollege education is its subtle indoctrination of our sons and daughters with a commitment to a philosophy of secularism. That undercuts the essential elements of the Christian faith we allege to be supernatural.

Peer groups also help to form the college-student-to-be. Although adults, too, including Christians, capitulate to the insistence of their peers (e.g., trying to keep up with the Joneses of the neighborhood), adolescents, given their tendency to find most satisfaction through their friends, are potential victims of peer influences. The social cliques with which many Christian teenagers affiliate have few, if any, Christian convictions. The pressures they exert on the Christian college student-to-be tend to create, at best, a moral-religious schizophrenia.

The whole surrounding culture has its effects as well. Movies, television, magazines, best-selling novels, and advertising all relentlessly bombard young people with secular views. Even a cursory look at these things will convince even the most permissive-minded Christian that Christian young people could end up prisoners of a highly secularized culture.

Yet young people enroll in Christian colleges. More than a few of them are, if the truth were known, closet adherents to presuppositions inimical to bone fide Christianity. Too many students have ideas about salvation and sanctification that are alarmingly naïve. Increasing numbers of them are pessimistic about the possibility of positive change, either within themselves or within the institutions of society. Therefore, most students do not vote and, unlike their counterparts of the 60s, do not identify with noble social causes. They tend to have a consumer’s attitude, doubting the value of education unless it guarantees an opportunity to develop marketable skills in the world of barter and trade, which will insure the accumulation of this world’s goods.

Long before orientation week begins, faculty and administrators on the Christian college campus must raise these questions: What should be done to enhance the growth of these young people in the right direction? What are the developmental tasks characteristic of these particular young people? What do they think they need? What do they really need?

Perhaps the most conspicuous and basic need is to recognize the lordship of Christ over the believer’s life. That will affect every aspect of your thinking and acting. Also, the student needs to develop a Christian world and life view. So much else depends on this. In addition, the student must know who he is and appreciate himself. This is necessary for forming correct relationships. And the student must attain maturity and autonomy. Arrested development is a condition to be pitied, intellectually, physically, or spiritually. This list is far from exhaustive. Yet it highlights some of the needs of the typical Christian college student. The college that has its priorities in proper order and has a loving attitude toward its students will place the meeting of these needs high on its educational agenda.

In the first place, the Christian college will, both by precept and practice, accentuate the biblical concept of the lordship of Jesus Christ. All assumptions, all affections, all affiliations, and all decisions should be subjected to his sovereign authority. This must be taught in every academic discipline. It must be exemplified in every institutional practice. No student should graduate from a Christian college unaware of this.

In the second place, every attempt will be made to emphasize and to illustrate a genuine integration of faith, learning, and life. Dichotomies between the secular and the sacred have no place on the Christian college campus. Christ’s total lordship implies a single kingdom. Your world and life view must provide a framework that at least makes possible the fitting together of every piece of life into an interlocking whole. Good theology and good psychology go hand in hand. A proper understanding of the Bible and a proper understanding of biology are never at odds. True integration is not easy to do. Yet, it is a primary responsibility of the Christian college.

Third, and closely parallel, the curricular and extra-curricular programs will stress the concept that “all truth is God’s truth.” This is not a pious slogan, merely to be publicized in institutional literature to placate constituents who have doubts about our loyalty to Scripture. It is, rather, axiomatic of truly Christian education. For example, if all truth is, indeed, from God and, in some way, descriptive of him, then we have a rationale for our confidence in the proposition that truth found in a laboratory experiment and everywhere else will be at harmony with truth found in the Bible. God cannot contradict himself. Furthermore, if all truth, without exception, originates from God, then the Christian should be willing to follow truth wherever it may lead. The unity of truth is an essential Christian idea. Every student in a Christian college should be required to reckon with it.

Fourth, there will be serious attention given to the matter of the construction of value systems. The possibility of making decisions apart from evaluative criteria is not an option open to any person, including the Christian. Even the rejection of values requires some sort of axiology. The choice, therefore, is not between values and no values but between values that are compatible with Scripture and those that are not. No specific, tightly constructed system will be formulated by faculty and delivered intact to students for rote memorization. Rather, students will be encouraged to critically examine prevailing systems and to carefully construct their own. Every student in a Christian college, not just philosophy majors, should be assigned the hammering out of a satisfactory value system.

Fifth, the humanizing effects of a liberal education will be highlighted. Our world has seen the sorry results of a highly technical training of people apart from truly humanizing aims. Nazism, which plagued Europe and threatened the world forty years ago, should serve as a constant reminder of the threat that this kind of narrow, skill-oriented education poses for mankind. The Christian who understands Christ’s teaching about the importance of persons over all else but God himself ought to be first to propose a humanizing education. Christian colleges, for the same reason, should provide a curriculum designed to provide opportunities for making its students sensitive to the priority of human beings over institutions, traditions, rules, and everything else this side of the Triune God.

Sixth, the beauties and advantages of variety and pluralism will be pointed out. As creator, God demonstrated his delight in heterogeneity by his diverse creation. He has made us as we are, with all of our differences. The black person can say, “Black is beautiful,” not merely to give him a sense of importance, but because it is, indeed, beautiful. So is yellow and brown. And white. Ideas do not need to resemble each other exactly to be approved by our heavenly father. They can range as far afield from others as the boundaries of biblical revelation will allow. Tolerance and respect for variety must be taught.

Seventh, the influence of the “liberating arts” will be prominent. We need to be freed from prejudice, parochialisms, provincialisms, illogical thinking, and all else that inhibits the free exercise of the mind. “Liberal arts” refers not so much to a collection of certain courses as it does to a way of dealing with all subjects to develop in the student abilities to think critically and analyze reflectively. It has to do with the why more than with the what. It tries to reactivate the God-given tendency to ask questions with which all people are born. And it is learned best by example. The end result of all of this is to help the student think and act “Christianly.” There are ways of thinking that are genuinely Christian. There are ways of acting that are distinctly Christian. If graduates of Christian schools are not demonstrating their abilities along these lines, then God will eventually write “Ichabod” over the movement.

Yet, despite their shortcomings, Christian colleges, and especially evangelical liberal arts colleges, seem to be getting the job accomplished. Recently I made a list of the recognized evangelical leaders. After composing this illustrious roster, I determined where each of these people had received his or her college education. With practically no exception, all of them had attended a Christian liberal arts college.

We still have unfinished business in Christian higher education. First, there is the matter of egalitarianism in admissions to Christian colleges. A visit to almost any campus will bring to view a certain homogeneity among students that symbolizes either the reluctance or the inability to reach out and to draw in those to whom our type of education has not been available. There is still too small a percentage of blacks, for example. Older adults also are conspicuous by their absence.

Second, we have not yet learned how to make black and latino students completely welcome. We must not try to make them white.

Third, we have been unsuccessful in helping students recognize the vast difference between getting a degree and receiving an education. Many degree-holders are far from being educated. Learning for the sheer sake of stretching every faculty of your being is hard work, but it is also immensely satisfying. Mere meeting of graduation requirements entitles someone to hang a diploma on the wall. Receiving a genuine college education, by contrast, allows a person to live richly in the present as well as in a future that will be vastly different from today.

Fourth, we have not, as yet, differentiated as clearly as we must between manipulation on the one hand and free choice on the other. The former is appropriate for training; it is the way animals are conditioned to perform tricks. The latter is fitting for human beings made in the image of God. It is easy to manipulate. It is risky to give the student freedom to be himself. The outcome of the former approach is comfortably predictable. The result of the latter approach usually turns out much better—or much worse—than we had anticipated. Yet we must have sufficient confidence in God to allow this necessary freedom.

Fifth, we have not been as careful as we should be about the kind of examples we are. The most potent kind of learning takes place indirectly, on the subliminal level as a student observes a teacher, in and out of the classroom. What students see makes a deeper impression on them than what they hear them say. Attitudes toward learning, worship, social relationships, and living a Christ-like life are formed mostly from watching admired adults in the campus community as the latter make their way through a normal day. Those of us who have this awesome responsibility need to make sure that we illustrate the truth as well as proclaim it.

Sixth, we have done too little in a determined effort to create a high level of performance expectancy on our campuses. There are certain schools in our country where, as soon as you walk onto their grounds, you become immediately aware, without anyone telling you directly, that your best efforts are taken for granted there. The very atmosphere communicates it. Creating and maintaining this kind of climate will go a long way toward calling forth the best, most Christ-honoring use of the students’ talents. It takes a long time to build it, but the efforts are worth the work involved.

Seventh, we have usually failed to be in the vanguard of what I like to call “frontier thinking.” We have tended to be followers rather than leaders in the world of scholarship and educational practice. Innovation has belonged to nonevangelical colleges. It is difficult to break the mold. Tradition is so firmly entrenched. What few innovative steps we have taken in my own institution have met with considerable inertia from the establishment outside. Yet ours is a dynamic, not a static, society. Change is inevitable. To be continually current a school must always be changing. I hope that we can expect to see a greater degree of creative leadership in higher education coming from our Christian colleges.

Eighth, we have not kept the bridges between campus, home, and church as strong as they ought to be. When students change, sometimes drastically as a result of their learning, they are not the same persons as they were at the time of leaving home for college. Consequently, there is a greater distance between students and parents and between students and the church when students return. I think that the educative process has failed when college-educated young people cannot continue to relate cordially and empathetically with fathers, mothers, and pastors.

Tensions will always be present on the Christian college campus. Grappling seriously with hard questions and facing up honestly to paradoxes inevitably produces stress and strain. Those who highly prize comfort and ease will always look askance at a place where dissonance seems to be pandemic. Yet there must be tension for, as any student of pedagogy knows, imbalance in the human organism is the essential prerequisite to learning. Creating a milieu in which Christian young people who, while passing through one of the most turbulent transition periods of their lives, can find opportunities for dynamic development as whole persons is a high-risk business. Thank God there are those willing to take on the assignment.

G. Douglas Young is founder and president of the Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem. He has lived there since 1963.

Spiritual euphoria, not doctrine, interests students.

I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat.

John Milton, Areopagitica

The unrest that rocked the nation in 1968 also rustled the ivy on Christian campuses. Sometimes in slow-motion and with lower volume, evangelical collegians often function like delayed, videotape replays of their peers at secular campuses. This is true despite the long-standing caricature of Christian students as members of a monastic subculture. But that stereotype wasn’t completely true forty to fifty years ago when radios were banned in Christian college dormitories and classroom and dining halls had sexually segregated seating arrangements. In talking to Christian college administrators, students, and alumni last summer, I noted the following similarities between students on the evangelical campus and their peers on secular campuses.

One

During the last fifteen years, students at Christian colleges have been part of a nationwide slide in academic skills. J. Edward Hakes, vice-president and dean of the faculty at Trinity College in Deerfield, Illinois, says, “Students tend to be less prepared in the basics as a result of their secondary school. They have difficulty in writing a correct sentence and paragraph.” A decrease in the Christian collegian’s ability to think logically has been observed by Dr. C. Fred Dickason, chairman of the theology department at Moody Bible Institute. But at many evangelical colleges, the drop in the Scholastic Aptitude Test and other national standardized test scores was not as steep as the national norms.

A few Christian college administrators think that their students are harder to motivate today than ten years ago. David McKenna, president of Seattle Pacific University, observes that “students don’t seem to be uncomfortable in the presence of big ideas. There’s a tendency to be uncritical.” At Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota, George Brushaber is concerned about the students’ historical parochialism. “They don’t have much recognition of the traditions of history from which they come—no sense of the historical church,” he says. On the positive side, Hakes sees evangelical students coming to college with a broader academic spectrum than a decade ago: “They’re taking courses in psychology, sociology, and philosophy that were largely absent from high school curriculum ten years ago.”

Students at evangelical schools think they are serious about their studies, reflecting a similar returning-to-the-tomes trend on most secular campuses. Steve Wells, sophomore at Greenville College in Greenville, Illinois, says, “Most of the kids come here to study. Even those who want to mess around respect those who are serious.”

A 1978 Wheaton College graduate, Patricia Bullmore, sees the seriousness stemming from two motivations: stiff requirements for graduate school admission and the desire to get an excellent educational experience. Although previous training and attitudes may be as poor as their former high school classmates, Christian students are taking seriously the stewardship responsibility inherent in a costly undergraduate education.

Two

Even preceding the schismatic 60s, Christian collegians have questioned, rejected, or ignored conduct codes. By the end of the 60s, most state schools had stopped any attempt to be in loco parentis. Brigham Young University is probably the only major university in the United States that continues to enforce a conduct standard. (The BYU code gives specific regulations regarding skirt lengths, general grooming standards, and prohibitions that include the consumption of coffee and tea, as well as alcoholic beverages and drug usage.) A 1969 report for the Center for the Study of Evaluation at UCLA summed up the role of parent for secular school: “The notion of in loco parentis—the institution as a substitute parent—is giving way to demands that students be treated as responsible adults who need not answer to the institution for their actions outside the classroom.”

Alumni of Christian colleges who were in school in the late 60s estimate that 30 per cent to 60 per cent of their classmates violated the conduct codes, particularly the ban against movies. Most of the code violators apparently did not flaunt their actions in front of their peers. A Christian college paper contained an editorial typifying student reaction to unexplained rules.

The student, faced with a seemingly unending list of rules, cannot hope to keep them all. People take more than one dessert. People play cards with traditional decks. People cut across the grass. People break the dress code. Every student breaks one rule or another.

“And in breaking one rule, he learns to live with himself having broken that rule; so he learns the difference between an unbreakable set of laws and laws as they are enforced. Misdemeanors that used to bother him, bother him no more.”

The 60s evangelical collegian frequently complained that he wasn’t trusted. Strict codes made evangelical students feel that they weren’t respected enough to make basic life style decisions on their own. As a direct result of the questioning and turmoil of the 1968–1970 period, several Christian colleges now have involved students in the rewriting of conduct codes and have invited them to join faculty committees and meetings.

A small percentage of students showed their disdain of Christian values by using profanity, attending X-rated films (the rating code was introduced in 1968), and bringing skin magazines into the dorms. The late Paul Little, assistant to the president of Inter-Varsity, commented that as he visited Christian college campuses in the late 60s, he found more Playboy and similar magazines in dormitory lounges than he did Christian periodicals.

A factor that contributed to the students’ frustration and questioning about the code in Christian colleges was the conflicting opinions they received from deans and faculty. A dean would approve a movie and another would forbid it. One would state that the pledge applied from matriculation to commencement while another dean would interpret the code as applying only when the student was on campus. Many faculty members thought that it was not their responsibility to counsel students on such matters or police the students’ adherence to the pledge.

In some schools in the late 60s, the code was strictly enforced for the first two or three weeks and then largely ignored for the rest of the academic year, except for flagrant violations. This inconsistency confused conscientious students who didn’t know how seriously the school felt about its code.

A 1974 survey of the alumni of Moody Bible Institute (1945–1971) showed that these graduates retained elements of the MBI code that had the strongest biblical foundation. These were items dealing with Christian witnessing, daily prayer, Bible reading, and church membership and attendance.

Three

Since 1968, probably the strongest similarity between secular and Christian campuses has been student activism. Evangelical student leaders, at least, were well aware of the Viet Nam War and the social issues of 1968. They expressed their views, mostly antiwar and prominority rights, in student newspapers and yearbooks and in the formation of antiwar protest organizations and public forums. On some Christian campuses ROTC programs and participants were picketed and occasionally pelted with over-ripe vegetation.

Some Christian colleges prohibited any form of protest or questioning of national or campus policy. Quite predictably, this bottling up of student opinion led to the planning and the occasional production of underground papers and radio stations. These became forums for students to say what they really thought about such topics as irrelevant chapels, insensitive deans, unrealistic schedules, social policies, unappetizing food, bedbugs, or Viet Nam.

The Christian college student sometimes viewed the school administrators as inaccessible or unapproachable. Certain school presidents and deans tried to smash this stereotype by hosting question-and-answer chapels, writing guest columns in student publications, appearing on student talk shows, holding special open forums, and eating regularly with the students in the dining hall.

At Gordon, the dean of faculty, R. Judson Carlberg, says, “I think we’re within the activist legacy of the 1960s. I believe Christian students have become a little more reasonable—not so much fired by emotion. Here at Gordon we find students still concerned about politics, about social issues, but they’re not going out and demonstrating, tearing buildings down, or sitting in offices. They’re taking a more constructive approach to meeting social needs. We have a number of students who are working in the inner city of Boston—working with some of the tutoring projects. Others have become involved in the 1978 political campaigns on the local, state, and federal levels.”

Taylor University president Robert G. Baptista says, “My impression is that there is almost an apathy that has set in on the campus in the late 70s. I’m not trying to put a value judgment on either apathy or unrest. As a college administrator it may be easier to deal with apathy, but I’m not sure that’s the really desirable situation. Someplace in between would be desirable.”

Four

Students at Christian colleges have attitudes and emotions that parallel their peers across the United States.

At Trinity College, Hakes notes, “They have a rather strict code which governs themselves behaviorally, but they will tend to wink at those who follow behavioral patterns that most Christians would not accept.” Homosexuality is discussed much more openly and emphatically today. In the mid-60s this subject was only whispered about with little knowledge. Today articles exploring the issue in the nation and on Christian campuses appear in college papers.

Like his secular counterpart, the young person studying at a Christian school seems more fatigued and depressed than in previous years. Henry Nelson, dean of student affairs at Wheaton College, attributes this in part to the rat-race society at large, the academic pressures to get top grades in preparation for graduate school, the high expectations of Christian parents, and the escalating costs of attending college. He says that there appears to be an increase in suicides and attempted suicides among college students across the country. This subject seems to be avoided, and extremely poor records are kept at both secular and Christian colleges.

Since 1968, respect for authority has generally diminished on evangelical campuses, though the substitute is not necessarily disrespect. In some cases, the new attitude is a desire for a personal relationship with administration, deans, and faculty. Open hostility to chapel speakers has receded to a courteous withholding of judgment until after the service.

Job security seems to concern more Christian students today than in 1968. Doris Roethlisburger, chairman of the English department at Trinity College, has noticed a rejection of independence among the women students. She has noticed women students continuing to choose the traditional majors of nursing and social work, but now for different reasons. “Servanthood is really muddied up with psychological fulfillment,” she says.

The negative attitude toward the church that typified the late 60s has decreased during this decade. Today students generally support local church programs much more enthusiastically and some of them are involved in starting house churches and mission congregations.

In 1968 when the Christian college student arrived on campus and had time to look around and think, he often noted that 90 to 95 per cent of the student body was white. The reason soon became obvious. Most of his fellow students came from suburban, small town, or rural America. Through the media’s coverage of black America’s involvement in the Viet Nam War, in the Poor People’s March, and in campus demonstrations, the Christian student’s attitude toward blacks was changed. In chapel he heard Tom Skinner and Bill Pannell speak of Jesus as a revolutionary, and he read of the evangelical’s heritage in Christian social action in Sherwood Wirt’s Social Conscience of a Conservative.

Student pressure during this period resulted in the rescinding of invitations to some guest speakers because of their unbiblical racial positions.

Five

The inward look of American culture has affected the Christian student’s spiritual life. Several Christian educators think that their students are not as concerned about doctrinal matters as they used to be. Many students think it doesn’t make an awful lot of difference what you believe. Other deans say that today’s Christian students are more interested in spiritual euphoria. Reaction to a service in chapel depends more on the spiritual high than getting information from the Bible. They don’t see the total implications of Jesus Christ and his lordship over all of life. But students are still interested in evangelism.

At Fort Wayne Bible College, Gene Hovee, dean of students, says that there is a definite spiritual hunger today, but that it’s quite different in many respects from before. “There used to be a desire to get hold of biblical teaching; you don’t see as much now.”

Carlberg sees the students at Gordon personalizing their faith. They want to know why they believe what they do. He has been encouraged to see students become more involved in Christian outreach. “There is less of a tendency among students to compartmentalize life,” says Carlberg. “They want to bring their Christianity into all spheres of life. The student today generally does not borrow his Christian beliefs from his parents or his college.”

At Moody, Dickason sees another dimension in the Christian collegian’s background: “We have students coming to us who have experimented in the occult and therefore are more open to demon deception because of their previous invitation and investigation in this area.” Dickason has counseled many students and others with occult-related problems.

McKenna does not believe that evangelical students have sufficient undergirdings of an examined, critical, discriminating faith to hold them through the rest of their lives. He fears that evangelicalism has sentimentalized religion, and students have symbolized it as a kind of PTL movement. “There is a need for the greater understanding of the sense of the tragic, and a sense of the cost of forgiveness,” he says. McKenna thinks that these students reflect to a lesser degree the same situation throughout the entire evangelical world. At the same time McKenna sees students as being open to examining their faith.

Six

Over the last decade Christian college students and their parents have participated in the battle of the buck along with everyone else in the American economy. For the evangelical college student, the school bill increases generally have not been as large as those of secular universities. But they have been just as real.

In 1967–68 the bill for tuition, room and board, and fees for a year had reached the following levels: $1027 at The King’s College; $2173 at Barrington College; $1160 at Wheaton; and $1875 at Biola. By the 1977–78 school year those charges had risen to $3850 at King’s: $4300 at Barrington; $4338 at Wheaton: and $3979 at Biola. These costs have risen much more sharply than the incomes of many evangelical families.

The economic situation has led to the establishment of financial aid departments in most evangelical colleges. These departments, added to many schools since 1968, attempt to put together a financial package for each student who has a funding need. This can contain a number of parts: outright grants, loans, scholarships, and work-study programs. These arrangements enable students to attend the college of their choice when family resources would not otherwise permit.

Most of the money for this student aid comes from federal and state sources. Stuart Michael, director of financial aid at Wheaton, says, “From the federal viewpoint their rationale is that enough money should be provided to enable a student a choice between which college he would like to attend, based only on the school’s program and the student’s interests, and not the cost of the school.”

Some of the federal programs available to full-time college students include Basic Educational Opportunity Grant (up to $1600 available to students with financial need); the National Direct Student Loan (up to $5000 for a four-year course, which is to be paid back after graduation at 3 per cent interest): the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (outright financial awards for the student who is in exceptional need); the College Work-Study Program (funds provided for on-campus jobs); and the Guaranteed Student Loan program.

The student applies for this monetary help through the College Scholarship Service or a similar program, which does an analysis of the student’s parents’ ability to pay. The student or parent must fill out an eight-page form, which is then analyzed to determine how much the family should be able to pay.

Schools in the Christian College Consortium have from 45 to 70 per cent of their students receiving financial aid of some type. Some Christian colleges are distributing two to three million dollars worth of federal and state aid each year. Participation in federal financial aid programs puts the schools under Health, Education and Welfare regulations.

I am encouraged to see that evangelical young people no longer cut themselves off from the continent of contemporary culture while cloistered in our Christian schools. That’s the way to be salt for society. Evangelical students should not have to experience shock upon reentering society. Students who attended secular graduate schools discovered it was taking them an entire school year to understand their new classmates. Yet, evangelical students could unconsciously adopt non-Christian ideologies and life styles. The landscape of American higher education already contains too many examples of colleges and universities that permitted the values of secular society to absorb Christian distinctives when Christianity met current culture.

As our Christian young people enroll in evangelical colleges and Bible institutes, they should be excited and inspired by the creative ways these institutions are challenging the nonbiblical status quo. They should see their Christian faith as a positive alternative to the materialistic and unjust segments of contemporary society.

G. Douglas Young is founder and president of the Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem. He has lived there since 1963.

It has been two years since Jimmy Carter won the presidency of the United States on a platform that pledged, in part, that he would bring newness of spirit to the American people. He was a confessed “born again” Christian; ergo, he was a moral person.

The fact that CHRISTIANITY TODAY is running articles on Carter’s morality indicates that there is still doubt in the minds of many people, including evangelicals, as to how moral the president really is and how well he has integrated his belief in Christ with the demands of his office.

I have a sense of confidence in his morality. But my confidence is tempered by what I perceive as serious or potentially serious problems. First, private morality. During the 1976 campaign, the people I associate with—reporters, by nature a cynical lot—treated Carter’s faith as somewhat suspect, perhaps a device for winning the votes of the millions of Americans who viewed themselves as born-again Christians. Some people wondered whether they wanted a person who actively said he prayed for guidance from God to occupy the office holding the key to unleashing a nuclear attack.

That has changed. Nearly every reporter I know accepts the genuineness of Carter’s Christian experience, just as I do. Even those reporters who are not especially endeared to him as a person or endeared with his political positions concede that he is a devout Christian. One of my colleagues has said on occasion, “All Jimmy Carter cares about is God and Sunday school. The best way to get to know him is to hear him teach Sunday school.”

In his right-front pew at church each Sunday, Carter begins the worship hour in prayer by leaning far forward, bowing his head and resting it on his hand. Nowhere does he so obviously feel “at home” as he does in Sunday school or in worship at the Baptist church.

I recently completed a book, to be published soon by Macmillan, that compiles and arranges by theme most of Carter’s public statements on his faith as well as the word-for-word transcripts of seven or eight of the Sunday school lessons he has taught on a fairly regular monthly basis. My editor, who is not an evangelical, commented that Carter seems to have become increasingly more spiritual during his presidency. That was my conclusion as well.

He has a mastery of the Bible and his understanding of the basic doctrines of sin, salvation, the cross, the Holy Spirit, and the second coming is evangelical and biblically orthodox. Here are excerpts from what Carter has said.

On Confessing Sin

“Suppose we kneel down at our bed at night and say, ‘Lord, forgive me of all my sins.…’ I don’t believe it works unless we’re willing to say, ‘God, today I was not kind to my husband or wife, my children. God, today in a business transaction I cheated a little bit. God, today most of the time I was separated from you. God, today I told two or three lies or misled people a bit. God, today I had a chance to do some kind things or I had a chance to forgive someone I had hatred for and who hurt me. I didn’t.’ Enumerate them! Call them by name. Under those circumstances, all your sins are wiped away.”

On Salvation

“We’re not saved because we’re Americans; we’re not saved because we come from a community that’s stable; we’re not saved because our parents were Christians; we’re saved because God loves us; we’re saved by grace through one required attitude—that’s faith in Christ.”

A Prayer For Discipline

“Let us come … to worship you, opening our hearts to reexamine our sins and shortcomings. May we reestablish a closer relationship with Christ, and be made more aware of the needs of our neighbors and our human needs. We have a personal responsibility to represent you. May we have a personal relationship through prayer and the study of the Word.”

On Death

“Physical life is not the most important thing in God’s eyes. We attach great importance to death, funerals, bereavement, and so forth. If we are Christians, that’s the beginning of our promised life with Christ. What Christ was saying was, the destruction of a human being’s relations with one another, relations with God, are much more important than even the loss of one’s life.”

His spiritual disciplines are well known. He and his wife read Scripture together each night. He prays frequently during the day—“Almost like breathing,” he once commented to me. His personal disciplines also are well known (and by citing these I do not claim these are marks of spirituality). He says he has never smoked a cigarette in his life. He drinks so little as to be almost a teetotaler. But he is not adverse to working on Sunday.

And Carter witnesses. Jokes bounced around the White House press room when it was revealed he prayed at congressional leadership breakfasts before the likes of house speaker Tip O’Neill and other politicians from smoke-filled rooms. He says his witnessing missions in the late 1960s revitalized his faith and brought him to a closer union with the Holy Spirit. He has dropped hints that after he leaves office he might become a foreign missionary. He urged the Southern Baptists to increase their number of foreign missionaries, and last spring he remarked to the Southern Baptist Convention’s Missionary Service Corps, “I wish, in a way, that I was free to do more. After my service in my present office, I intend to do more.…”

I believe that one of Carter’s biggest contributions as president has been the morality and model of his private life. It is important that individuals have persons to whom they look as models. It is just as important that a nation have a leader to whom it can look as a model of private morality. Recent presidents have failed utterly here and we have been embarrassed as a result. Carter has been exemplary, not only in his spiritual depth but in, for instance, his love for the arts and nature, which exceeds that of almost any recent president.

Jordan’s King Hussein, a Moslem, once told Carter in my hearing: “Few world statesmen in recent memory have so clearly and unmistakably defined the personal responsibility of people in high government positions. You have recognized that those who make decisions on behalf of the nation must reflect a code of behavior equal to that of the nation as a whole.”

Yet, I see concerns. There are very few, if any, evangelicals in Carter’s White House inner circle or even his second level of advisers. Why? Why do so few of Carter’s family or his closest aides share the vigor of his faith? Most members of his inner circle have been with him since he was Georgia governor. They believe in Carter and are almost fanatically loyal to him, but they often speak and behave in a way that seems a flagrant mockery of what obviously is of central importance to him. Has he ever witnessed to them? And what of his loyalty to them? Is it so blind that he overlooks their indiscretions? I know that each person is singly responsible for his or her relationship to God, and one must not hold another responsible. I also know that even if Carter’s closest aides were to follow his example, that would not necessarily result in their trust in Christ. But why do they not respect him at least to the extent that even though they may not share the depth of his belief they do try to respect his life style in their actions?

Of greater concern is the fact that, to my knowledge, Carter does not participate in a small group for spiritual fellowship and growth. He apparently depends almost entirely for his nurture on his daily personal devotions and Sunday worship at the Baptist church. I think the greatest thing that Christians can pray for in regard to Jimmy Carter is that a small group of politically unambitious but spiritually vital persons will spring up around him.

Second, public morality. It is not adequate that a president simply be a Christian. He must also bring to bear the demands of the Gospel on every aspect of his administration, especially in dealing with the poor and the powerless of this nation and the world. It is my belief that Carter has tried as hard and effectively as any contemporary American politician to integrate his private beliefs with his public policies. There are several notable examples.

If Carter were to leave office tomorrow, history probably would remember him for his emphasis on human rights. You can question just how successful he has been in restoring human rights to the millions of oppressed persons in this country and the rest of the world: He acknowledges this. But Carter says that at the least he has raised the consciousness of every world leader to the matter of human rights. He has pointed out that violations of human rights occur in America as well as in other nations.

Carter traces the origins of human rights to the Old Testament Law and Prophets. He once said: “I have been steeped in the Bible since childhood, and I believe that anyone who reads the ancient words of the Old Testament with both sensitivity and care will find there the idea of government as something based on a voluntary covenant rather than force—the idea of equality before the law and the supremacy of law over the whims of any ruler; the idea of dignity of the individual human being and also of the individual conscience; the idea of service to the poor and to the oppressed.…” Often he has expanded his definition of human rights to include the right to a job, a place to live, an education, and good health.

He also has defined power in terms of servanthood, a concept developed by the prophet Isaiah and later by Jesus Christ. He told employees at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare that he came “not as first boss’ but as ‘first servant.’ ” “There is a close correlation between worship services and correcting wrongs,” he said on one occasion. “That’s what the Bible teaches, because Jesus Christ never hid himself seven days a week in the synagogue. He walked the streets. He touched blind eyes. He healed those who were crippled. He pointed out injustice. He brought about compassion and brotherhood and love. And he changed lives.…”

But the keen observer will realize that Carter’s administration has fallen far short of his lofty words. There are some bright spots. During his presidency, unemployment has dropped about 2 per cent. Of all presidential appointments, about 20 per cent have gone to women—five times as many as during the previous administration. Yet, no one can claim to have adequately responded to Malachi’s admonition not to oppress the wage earner when 6 per cent of the nation’s workforce do not have jobs and the percentage is twice as high for blacks and six times as high for black teen-agers. No one can claim to have adequately achieved justice when the role of most women in the government, even some with college degrees, is still that of the clerk-typist.

Time and time again the biblical writers speak of concern for the widow, the orphan, and the alien. Yet millions of people remain locked in poverty and on welfare rolls. The task before the nation is to change the institutional causes of these gripping human problems. Jimmy Carter’s task has just begun. Many evangelicals, such as Jim Wallis and Wes Michaelson at Sojourners magazine, have aspired to prophetic roles in calling America and the president to national righteousness. They have pointed to the unevenness of the Carter Administration in its human rights policies throughout the world and its inconsistency of talking about nuclear disarmament while actively considering plans to build the neutron bomb. All of us, including Jimmy Carter, need to pay attention to what they are saying.

“The virtues which we admire in private life and profess in our religion become secondary qualities in our rulers. The test of greatness in tsars or presidents is not in their private lives or even in their good intentions, but in their deeds” (Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie, Atheneum, 1967).

Yet, the modern prophets enjoy a luxury that Jimmy Carter does not. They can write with the knowledge that their words will not much affect the nation or the world. This gives them an abandon that the president does not have. Every time Carter yawns or utters the simplest statement the mass media, of which I am a part, records it and distributes it around the world. It is analyzed and tested in the furnace of the public, the Republican party, the Soviet Union, China, and who knows who else. He has to speak with great care. His words determine the course of events.

But our responsibility as Christians and as citizens require that we continually probe the president’s actions and motives. Has Carter been inconsistent in applying the standards of human rights throughout the world because he is devious and lacks courage? Is his failure to press for welfare reform the result of not paying attention to what the Bible says about the widow, the orphan, and the alien? Was he being dishonest in making campaign promises that he now has had to set aside temporarily, such as tax reform?

Not necessarily. Politics is the art of the possible and of constructing fragile coalitions. The complexity of our age and the seriousness of our problems and the colliding interests of people probably are too demanding for one person, even the president, to handle in the way he or she feels best. The compromise energy bill fell far short of what Jimmy Carter proposed in April 1977 when he described his approach as being “the moral equivalent of war.” But the sad truth was that the compromise, even with the gradual deregulation of natural gas, was about the only version that Congress would enact.

Nowhere has this been illustrated more dramatically than in Carter’s handling of the Mideast crisis, During the 1976 campaign. Carter said on several occasions that he believed modern Israel was the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. A short while ago I was speaking to a group of evangelical college students and during the question-and-answer period a student raised the matter of the Middle East. He contended that Carter was not seeking to restore to Israel the boundaries that God promised Abraham in Genesis 15—the river of Egypt (probably Wadi Arish, in the middle of the Sinai) and the river Euphrates. Thus the president was being unfaithful to Scripture. God is a God of history and eventually his will shall be accomplished in the Middle East. But had Carter pressed for those boundaries in 1978, there probably would have been a conflagration that would have destroyed Israel and probably brought war to the world. I suggested to the student that the best thing that Carter could do to help Israel was to take steps that would help insure its survival as a nation.

Most diplomats and journalists see the problems of the Middle East through a political lens. From the very start of his conversations with Israel’s Menachem Begin, a Jew, and Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, a Moslem, Carter emphasized the religious nature of the ancient dispute. He sought unity on the fact that all three of them were religious persons and looked to Abraham as their father. And when the three leaders came down from the Camp David summit, Carter said their first agreement in the marathon negotiations had been to ask the people of the world to pray.

When Carter was reporting to Congress on Camp David, he added a sentence extemporaneously to his speech: “And I would like to say, as a Christian, to these two friends of mine, the words of Jesus, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be the children of God.’ ” It was a moral statement from a moral man.

Wesley G. Pippert is a reporter who covers the White House for United Press International.