Page 5666 – Christianity Today (2024)

This is the last issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY that bears my mark as editor. Kenneth Kantzer now takes over. The future of the magazine is bright and the need for it more pressing than ever. Dr. Kantzer brings skill, dedication, and theological knowledge. I plan to spend my time writing, lecturing, and preaching. I’m recycling myself, rather than retiring. I thank every reader of the magazine for what each of you has meant to me. God bless you all.

In this issue we are happy to introduce Kenneth S. Kantzer as our new editor. To provide insights into his personality and perspectives, we are publishing an interview with him, which begins on page 21.

This announcement gives me a personal sense of joy and renewed confidence in God’s provision and timing. More than two years ago, upon Harold Lindsell’s decision to retire when he reached age sixty-five, we began our search for a new editor. The board of directors discussed the matter extensively and Kenneth Kantzer’s name kept rising to the top of our list. With his Harvard Ph. D. in theology, his college and seminary teaching experience, and his solid, forceful leadership as dean of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, it seemed clear that he could bring both in-depth theological understanding as well as administrative experience to the editorship. In exploring further, we found strong positive reactions to Kenneth Kantzer from almost everyone with whom we talked. Students—both contemporaries and those who have sat in his classes overthe past thirty-six years—viewed him as incisive, concerned, and an able communicator who lived his own creed; they expressed strong personal affection. Professors from Trinity and elsewhere made similar observations.

Kenneth Kantzer and I first met at a Chicago Holiday Inn shortly after the board decision to talk with him about the editorship. We experienced instant rapport. For several hours we discussed theology, publishing, education, our families, ethics, administration—and CHRISTIANITY TODAY. We parted knowing that we could work well together.

Other board members had similar experiences with Ken. His remarkable performance in taking Trinity seminary from about 30 students to 850 and establishing it as one of the most recognized seminaries in the nation was most impressive. Yet he showed a genuine humility about his achievements and obviously was cause oriented—that is, he wants to get the job done. Although dozens of other well-qualified candidates were considered over a period of many months, the board kept coming back to Kenneth Kantzer as the logical choice. This past October we announced that he was our editor-elect. For the past several months, I’ve found that working with Ken has turned out to be what I expected: enjoyable and stimulating, a mixture of the pragmatic and the idealistic. He shows flexibility of ideas yet a firm commitment to doctrine. He’s an intense worker, with humor and expansiveness always near the surface.

One question frequently asked about Kenneth Kantzer is, “Can he write? Can he edit? After all, he’s been an educator, not a journalist, all his life.” The answer to the first may be partially answered in the interview in this issue and also from a reading of his article that will appear in the next edition. Perhaps the second one may be answered by a close reading of the book he has edited for the Thomas Nelson Company entitled Evangelical Roots. The content is solid, the prose, though scholarly, is consistently lucid. Kenneth Kantzer comes to CHRISTIANITY TODAY with the same editorial freedom and authority all of our editors have enjoyed, that is the freedom to develop his staff of historians, theologians, and journalists, and to achieve excellence in both content and style. He has accepted the charge of blending the work of all staff members and contributors to publish a cohesive journal.

As we welcome Kenneth Kantzer to CHRISTIANITY TODAY, we also say farewell to Harold Lindsell. This month the board of directors will hold a retirement dinner for him in the Chicago area with Harold Ockenga as the emcee and Billy Graham as the speaker. Although the board on several occasions tried vigorously to dissuade Dr. Lindsell from retiring, he was adamant, believing that age sixty-five was the logical time to leave. The board has consistently expressed its appreciation for Dr. Lindsell’s work and the April dinner promises to be a warm and joyous occasion.

Since the publication of his book The Battle for the Bible, some have viewed Harold Lindsell as hard-knuckled and feisty. Those of us who daily work with him, however, have found that in the midst of office tensions, he often plays the peacemaker. No sad sack, he breaks into conversations with a delightful story he’s just heard or by pointing out the humor in an otherwise tedious, gray circ*mstance. He works to be fair and generous to all staff members and seeks to hear every valid viewpoint. Harold Lindsell is an authentic original who cannot be stereotyped, someone who knows clearly what he believes. Trim and tremendously energetic, he outpaces many younger men. One-and-a-half million of his fifteen books are in print. He and his wife Marion have gone out of their way to show unfeigned kindness to my wife Jeanette and me. In the transitions of the past few years, which have been difficult for all staff members, he has frequently sacrificed himself for the good of the magazine. He showed tremendous objectivity in discussions about the move from Washington, D.C., to Chicago, and did not flinch from uprooting his home so close to retirement and moving with the company.

We are grateful to Dr. Lindsell for the gracious way that he has helped us make the transition here at CHRISTIANITY TODAY a natural and orderly one. And we are grateful to God for the progress that we have been making.

So what is the overall prognosis as our new editor joins us? We are enthusiastic about the future. In the past few years we’ve increased circulation from about 100,000 to 155,000. We have made the transition to Chicago into our new offices. We’ve made solid financial progress in all areas and are ready for new challenges.

But our future depends most of all on your involvement with us. A magazine is in partnership with its readers. We want to constantly improve our quality; as we enter a new phase, we look to you for help. Tell us what works and what doesn’t. Do we hit the target with our topics? Which covers attract and which repel you? What ideas do you have that we should explore? What needs should be met? We want CHRISTIANITY TODAY to give the kind of leadership that evangelicals need and expect—and you can help by sending us your ideas and opinions.

With your participation, I believe CHRISTIANITY TODAY will make a forceful impact in the coming years under Kenneth Kantzer’s capable leadership.

President and Publisher

Christianity Today, Inc.

American theology—the saying goes—is the elephants’ graveyard of German heresies. The radical views of the German theological faculties eventually cross the Atlantic and here find their last resting place. Why? In part, at least, because of the veneration of American scholars in general and American theologians in particular for the world of German university scholarship. The logic is as doubtful as it is pervasive: we modeled our graduate faculties on the German plan in the nineteenth century, so we continue to look to German scholarship for our sustenance.

For the American evangelical, this approach poses a cruel problem. Since the rise of modern biblical criticism in the eighteenth century, the German theological faculties have served up the most radical attacks on Christian orthodoxy: Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen documentary criticism of the Hexateuch, the Tübingen school’s caesura between Jesus and Paul, Schleiermacher and Ritschl’s subjectivizings of Christian theology, Dibelius and Bultmann’s form-critical dismemberment of the New Testament, and so on. Where could the American evangelical turn for German mentors? Since the days of Theodor Zahn, few candidates have been available. Today, Helmut Thielicke is by all odds the favorite.

Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Hamburg, internationally known through his writings and speaking tours, and a popular preacher, Thielicke has much that appeals to American evangelicalism. Unlike Pannenberg or Cullmann, he avoids rigorous epistemological questions; in line with most modern contemporary theological writing, he never defines his terms so precisely that one is forced to make clean distinctions between truth and error, between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Yet he identifies himself with evangelicalism—and with Anglo-American evangelicalism at that! What other modern German theologian has even recognized that Spurgeon exists? Yet Thielicke actually produced an anthology lauding the English preacher (Encounter with Spurgeon [reprinted by Baker]). Eerdmans has been especially zealous in placing Thielicke before the American evangelical public (A Little Exercise for Young Theologians; Out of the Depths; The Hidden Question of God; The Evangelical Faith).

To be sure, Thielicke’s appeal for evangelicals goes deeper than this. He opposes the more radical Bultmannianism and post-Bultmannianism that still dominates much of German theology; his Theological Ethics supports the didactic (“third”) use of the law over against situationism. But too often overlooked are yawning chasms between Thielicke’s theology and the historic evangelical faith that insists with Luther and the Reformers that “the Scriptures have never erred.”

Thielicke’s mediating bibliology is painfully evident from his little volume, How Modern Should Theology Be? (Fortress); as Hugo Meynell perceptively observed in reviewing the book for Religious Studies (September, 1971), Thielicke’s claim that the Gospels should be viewed as documents related to preaching and “as such are not merely historical is really to evade rather than to resolve the main point at issue between the conservatives and the radicals.… The conservative case is that, if the Gospels are as inaccurate historically and as eschatologically misleading as is alleged by most of the radicals, and if their real significance is exhausted in the subjective impact they have on people here and now, it is all up with ‘Christianity’ in any sense of the term worth having; and hence that the more extreme radical theologians are rather purveying a substitute for Christianity than a purified version of it. The whole effect of this book, clear, honest, and well-informed as it is, is rather to conceal the irreconcilable nature of this dilemma than to resolve it.” Thielicke’s Evangelical Faith classes all attempts to begin theologizing with an unqualifiedly reliable biblical revelation as “Cartesian,” and—in what the Reformers would immediately have labeled as Schwärmerei (theological Enthusiasm)—attempts to substitute an encounter with the Spirit as the point de départ for the theological task. (Query: How, then, does one “test the spirits, whether they are of God”—First John 4:1?)

Recently, Thielicke’s position vis-à-vis evangelicalism has become much clearer. At the height of the Scripture controversy in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Thielicke visited the States and identified himself with the breakaway Seminex faction that has since left the LCMS, chiefly over Seminex’s insistence on using historical-critical techniques that impugn the inerrancy of the biblical text. On October 27, 1975, Missouri in Perspective (a pro-Seminex periodical) reported: “During the Oct. 12 interview at Seminex, Dr. Thielicke compared the stand of faith by Seminex students and faculty members to the stand of faith made by some Lutheran pastors and people in Germany during World War II when they resisted efforts by the Nazis to silence them.”

This academic year marked the inauguration of the first independent, evangelical university in Germany—where, traditionally, all universities have been creatures of the state and where university theological instruction has suffered from a doleful absence of church influence. In Thielicke’s own backyard, the Free University of Hamburg came into existence, with full accreditation, through the heroic efforts of Professor Helmut Saake, a recognized scholar. On December 23, 1976, Thielicke wrote an article for the Hamburger Abendblatt in which he declared, inter alia: “The designation ‘Free University’ has been granted to a questionable theological nursery-school enterprise that has no academic teachers of even the slightest rank at its disposal.” He compared the Free University to a hair dressers’ academy and stated that “the Reverend Ike has had two honorary doctorates from such a kind of institution conferred upon himself.”

The Free University immediately filed suit against Thielicke for libel, and on May 20, 1977, the District Court of Hamburg (case no. 74–0–25/77) rendered judgment against him for 5,000 DM money damages, plus 10,000 DM legal fees and court costs (with criminal penalties if not collected), enjoined him from making such accusations at any time in the future, and required him to publish a retraction at his own expense. The latter appeared in June 23, 1977, Hamburger Abendblatt.

The moral of the story for American evangelicals: hero worship is dangerous. Luther put it this way: “God’s Word alone is and should remain the only standard and rule, to which the writings of no man should be regarded equal, but to it everything should be subordinated.”

It has been nearly four years since the 1974 “Friday morning massacre” that sent James MacCracken and five other veteran National Council of Churches executives packing. MacCracken’s departure was the most dramatic because the agency he headed—Church World Service (CWS)—brought more money than any other to the NCC and also because he was fired in a clear policy disagreement. The Presbyterian layman believed in sending relief goods to the needy without regard to politics, and those who discharged him believed that CWS grants could be used as a lever to help change political situations they did not like. MacCracken said then, “I don’t think a church relief organization, mandated and supported by the people in the pews to feed the hungry, has changing hostile social systems as an integral part of its marching orders.”

CWS has announced no change of policy under its new executive director, Paul F. McCleary, but a highly publicized grain shipment to Viet Nam this month suggested a slackening of zeal for changing political situations—at least in some cases. A ship of Greek registry named the Antiochia sailed from Houston with 10,000 metric tons of wheat that will be distributed by the Marxist government of Viet Nam. The cargo will be accepted officially at the port by the government-sanctioned Committee for Friendship and Solidarity with American People (VIETMY), but the grain will be doled out at the direction of the regime in Hanoi. “Our recent experiences with shipments to Viet Nam show the government is conscientious in handling our foodstuffs,” said a CWS brochure about the project.

Eugene L. Stockwell, the NCC’s associate general secretary for overseas ministries, defended the relief program. He said CWS provides assistance in more than seventy countries, but “this does not mean that we approve of the governments of every country where we work.” He added, “In the case of the Viet Nam shipment I believe the positive effect for relationships between Viet Nam and the United States and for a needed reexamination of U.S. policies vis-a-vis Viet Nam are desirable and paramount.”

When asked if the wheat delivery would give them any leverage to improve conditions in Viet Nam, NCC officials had little response. Acceptance of the grain does carry with it the condition that the distribution system be open to the scrutiny of the donors’ representatives, said Midge A. Meinertz, southern Asia director for the NCC’s Division of Overseas Ministries. The CWS appeal brochure said that Hanoi has a five-year plan (1976–80) to increase rice production 8 to 10 per cent annually. It adds, “In the south, nine ‘new economic zones’ have been targeted for development, where people who came to the city during the war are being resettled in rural areas, to work the land once again.” Some less friendly observers of the situation in Indochina have described the rural development zones as concentration camps for dissidents or, at best, re-education centers for those formerly aligned with the defeated Saigon regime.

The goal of making Viet Nam a riceexporting country again has not yet been reached. Crops have suffered from bad weather—described in the CWS brochure as the worst in thirty years—and the country reportedly needs emergency supplies until the next crop is harvested. War damage is cited as another reason why full production has not been possible. The four-color folder from CWS appealing for funds for grain shipment explains, “Viet Nam’s food policy calls for rationing the scarce supply among everyone. But adequate diets will not be possible until the grain shortage is overcome. This shipment’s use in schools and hospitals will supplement the diets of school children and hospital patients, providing the difference between a healthy diet and malnutrition for thousands.”

Schools and hospitals once operated by churches and Christian agencies in Viet Nam are now run by the government.

CWS said the wheat will be milled after it arrives in Asia and made into bread or noodles. Some of the wheat was shipped directly to Houston by farmers in the Midwest who donated it in response to the CWS appeal. The whole effort has been described as a “people to people” project even though it will be handled on the Asian end by the government.

The U.S. government, which usually pays freight charges for CWS food shipments, has refused to pick up the tab on this load because of a ban on aid to Viet Nam. (The government gave CWS a special license to send the wheat.) The NCC and sixty-four other organizations have asked President Carter to relax the ban. The matter was not mentioned by the NCC delegation that visited President Carter last month, spokesmen said.

A “public celebration” held in Houston March 4 to mark the departure of the wheat-laden vessel turned out to be premature; the chartered ship had to take its place in line before it could get into the harbor to pick up the cargo.

Total cost of the grain and its shipping was estimated at $1.9 million. By the target date for sailing, the CWS office in New York had received nearly $327,000 of that amount. The March 4 income report was essentially the same as that issued a month earlier by McCleary. An NCC official emphasized that the report on contributions was not complete.

Some promoters of the appeal said the whole cost of the project would come from designated gifts. Delegates to the annual assembly of the Texas Conference of Churches who voted support of the shipment were told, for instance, that none of the regular funds of CWS or CROP would be used. By the date of the Houston celebration, there were still no firm figures available to show that all funds for the shipment would come from designated offerings.

The total received in New York included about $9,000 from individual contributors. Most of the rest came in large checks from denominational groups. The Lutheran World Relief organization gave $100,000, the largest single gift. The United Presbyterian Church gave $50,000 and the Christian Church (Disciples) $40,000. The NCC-related Church Women United sent $3,000, and the Baptist Federation of Canada donated $17,890. A check for $5,000 came from the Southern Baptist Convention, a nonmember of the NCC. Other reported denominational gifts came from the Church of the Brethren, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (Southern), the Reformed Church in America, and the United Church of Christ. Among the non-church organizations that contributed were the antiwar Fellowship of Reconciliation and a private foundation.

German and Swiss organizations also gave to the project, but the NCC said details of the contributions from overseas were not immediately available.

Giving might have been retarded by publicity arising from an American visit by a Buddhist monk early this year. Thich Man Giac stayed in Viet Nam after the fall of the Saigon government and was the Unified Buddhist Church’s liaison to the new regime until discharged from a university teaching post. A year after he was fired, he left the country as one of the “boat people” last July and then spent three months in a Malaysian refugee camp. He told Religious News Service and other reporters that even though religious leaders made “great efforts” to work with the government, Hanoi has pursued a policy of shattering the religious communities of the nation. He said that pagodas had been destroyed or turned into government buildings and that statues of Buddha had been smashed. The government is making a concerted effort to reach children under fourteen and turn them from their religious beliefs, he asserted. The monk also said he had information that persecution has continued since his departure.

His charges were promptly denied by spokespersons for two organizations working in America for reconciliation and relief in Viet Nam. The monk had said that aid from abroad is used to “strangle the people,” but representatives of Friendshipment and of Clergy and Laity Concerned claimed that privately donated U.S. aid is benefiting the needy at the grass roots. The founder of Friendshipment is Cora Weiss, who is a CWS consultant on the wheat shipment. She will also be in a delegation that CWS is sending to Viet Nam to observe distribution of the grain.

On Their Toes In Bangladesh

The following report updates a brief report on Bangladesh in the February 10 issue (page 62):

Missionaries in Bangladesh must always be either on their toes or on their knees. The more than 300 Protestants and 200 Catholics from abroad were doing a lot of praying last November and December because of a threatened expulsion of the whole lot of them. The Home Ministry issued an order that all missionaries who had been in the country over three years would have fourteen days to leave after their current one-year visas expired. Furthermore, no new applicants from Western nations were to get visas.

The position of missionaries was already precarious, since no long-term permits to live and work in Bangladesh were being issued. The requirement that new visas had to be obtained every year kept them wondering from day to day how long they would be able to stay. The news that no new missionaries would be admitted meant that they would be deprived of much needed help—including doctors and other highly skilled persons who had already applied for visas.

National Christians joined with the overseas workers in prayer meetings to ask that the order be reversed. Leaders of the tiny (200,000 member) Christian community went beyond praying and sent a petition to the government. Also interceding were seven ambassadors of Western nations. They met twice in the capital, Dacca, to discuss the situation and then notified various government ministries of their concern. Even some Muslims in top government positions came to the defense of the missionaries.

The flurry of activity by the diplomats and others came amid continuing charges that some missionaries took part in subversive activities and that some were using inducements to cause Muslims to convert to Christianity. The charges were never aired publicly, however.

A recent resurgence of Muslim influence was seen as the source of the new pressure. There was speculation that strings might be attached to Arab Muslim financial assistance that has been pouring into the country. The constitution adopted when Bangladesh became independent contained the word “secular,” but that has now been dropped, and the document affirms that “our dependence is on Allah.”

After personal intervention by President Zia Rahman last December 24, the explusion notice was canceled. “Replacement” visas are again being granted. So far none of the applicants for new visas has been turned down, and the applicants have hope that they will soon be able to join the veterans on the field. Said one missionary: “The door has swung open, but there is lingering apprehension as to how wide and for how long.”

Light on Rights

Representatives of thirty-five nations met for six months in Belgrade to review compliance with the 1975 Helsinki Accords, but they have little to show for their effort. The meetings broke up this month with little more than an agreement to review the situation again in 1980 in Madrid.

One of the main sticking points in the discussions has been whether the nations signing the agreements have made progress in granting freedom to individuals, including the right to practice and propagate their religion freely. The United States, Canada, and the Soviet Union signed the Helsinki document along with 32 European nations. A Soviet spokesman at Belgrade complained of U.S. polemics on human rights as the conference ended. In the U.S. delegation, there were complaints about Soviet intransigence. At the time of the signing of the accords in Helsinki, there had been optimism that they would not only strengthen European security and cooperation but also reduce the tension between the big powers.

In Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe, the language of Helsinki has encouraged intellectual and religious dissidents to speak up more vigorously. Numerous clashes with authorities have resulted, and human-rights leaders have been accused of working for America and against the best interests of their own nations.

Czechoslovakia furnishes an example of the use of Helsinki promises to try to get more freedom of expression. The issuance of “Charter 77” by leading intellectuals, artists, former politicians, and religious figures brought international attention to the failure of the Soviet-dominated country to fulfill the terms of the Helsinki agreements. Even though the government increased its pressure on the signers, their ranks continued to grow. A total of 832 put their names on the charter in the first twelve months after its issuance.

Keston College News Service in England reported last month that twenty-four of the signers are clergymen. Keston said that on the first anniversary of the charter, one of the three official spokesmen, Ladislav Hejdanek, a member of the Evangelical Church of the Czech Brethren, was detained for nearly nine hours and interrogated. When asked about his connection with Charter 77, Hejdanek explained that it had been issued in order to draw attention to such violations of the law as his arrest that day. He had been dragged out of his home, forced into a car, dragged into a police station, kicked, and then left lying on the floor. When he refused to answer questions he was left for two hours in a room in which police had opened the window despite the freezing temperature outside.

The pressure built up in Eastern Europe by discussion of the accords has caused hardships for believers in several countries, but it has helped in many cases, some observers believe. Increased scrutiny by the authorities in some areas has served to encourage Christians to be more faithful to the Gospel and to learn more about the legal protections to which they are entitled. International attention has also caused the Soviet officials to allow more emigration of those who want to leave to seek more religious freedom elsewhere.

In most Eastern bloc countries, however, there are still severe restrictions on the practice of religion. It is generally seen as a right to worship under limited conditions but not to teach or propagate. John David Hopper, a Southern Baptist missionary and fraternal representative to the Baptists of Eastern Europe, said in a report last month that religious freedom “as Americans know it” does not exist in Eastern Europe. He emphasized, however, that the situation is different from country to country. He added, “Many Baptist leaders in Eastern Europe consider that the church enjoys freedom within the bounds of a legal framework Americans would call religious tolerance. They maintain that as long as the church members live within the framework of their national law the church is not persecuted.”

Hopper noted that “pastors and laymen in some countries of Eastern Europe who are very active in personal evangelistic outreach sometimes suffer for their convictions.” The pastors often lose their churches, and laymen are disadvantaged at their jobs.

Among the bright spots, according to Hopper, is that church growth—at least among Baptists—in Eastern Europe exceeds that in Western Europe.

Religion in Transit

It was an unusual declaration by General Bernard Rogers, U.S. Army chief of staff: “Notwithstanding the fact that there are other expressions of piety available to the rabbi which would not conflict with Army appearance policy, we are granting the exemption.” The rabbi was Jacob Golstein of Brooklyn, a National Guard chaplain who had been dropped from the Army payroll for refusing to shave. The general’s ruling allows the Hasidic rabbi to return to the service with his full beard. He claimed that he wore it in accordance with his religious beliefs.

General assemblies of the nation’s two largest Presbyterian bodies (the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.—Southern—and the United Presbyterian Church) will get a draft plan of union from a joint committee on merger this year, but the committee is not recommending a vote. It wants the governing bodies of the two denominations to send the plan to regional presbyteries only for study.

Expansion of Theological Education by Extension (TEE) continues, with nearly 35,000 enrolled in courses last year. Only 100 were enrolled in 1965.

Argentina has decreed that all religious except Roman Catholicism must register with the state or be barred from legally conducting their activities in the country. Prior to the announcement the government kept a list of churches, but the decree said all must reregister. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hare Krishna, and Divine Light Mission were banned last year.

Leaders of the All Africa Conference of Churches (AACC) have been having a lot of meetings during the last year and a half. Matters finally came to a head last month when the thirty-six-member AACC general committee met in the tiny West African nation of Togo. After a week-long meeting, the committee declined to go along with General Secretary Burgess Carr’s wish that the headquarters be moved from Kenya, ordered construction of a Nairobi headquarters building to go full speed ahead, refused to accept Carr’s resignation, and gave him a fifteen-month sabbatical leave.

Although Carr, a 43-year-old Anglican priest, was not fired, the actions at Lome (Togo’s capital city) might have marked the effective end of his influence over much of the African church. It was a much different scene from that of December, 1975, when the World Council of Churches’ assembly met in Nairobi. Carr was then very much in command as Kenyan president Jomo Kenyatta and WCC dignitaries turned out for a ceremony launching construction of the new AACC headquarters.

Even though the general committee passed a formal resolution affirming “total support and sympathy for the general secretary,” the fiery Liberian ecumenist’s future was left in doubt. Contrasting public statements suggested that the government of Kenya might not allow Carr to re-enter the country. The influential Nairobi publication Weekly Review said the committee’s actions in Lome were “an unveiled encouragement” to the AACC official “to look for another job.” Meanwhile, Carr’s associate general secretary, Sarwat G. Shehata of Egypt, was named acting general secretary.

Standing with Carr at the 1975 ceremonies and still standing with him last month was his old friend Philip Potter, general secretary of the World Council of Churches. Carr was on the WCC staff before going to the AACC. In a press statement issued in Geneva, Potter said, “Canon Burgess Carr, by his deep Christian commitment, his boundless energy, and his remarkable political sensitivity, has brought to the AACC new dimensions in its witness.”

Time magazine reported that Carr would be given a teaching post at Harvard Divinity School next academic year and that he was to be a research fellow at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs until then. Harvard officials would not confirm the appointment since the Harvard Corporation had not approved it, but a source close to the development said the African ecumenist would become a visiting lecturer in ecumenical relations, either for the full year or for the fall semester. Carr was working on a doctorate at Harvard when he went to the WCC.

Carr’s difficulties within the AACC and with officials in the host nation of Kenya became public knowledge in June,

1976, though insiders had been expressing unhappiness long before that. A member of Kenya’s parliament, Wachira Waweru, told the parliament that an “African head of a church organization” was acting like a tyrant “and made office girls pregnant and went about iwht other people’s wives.” The MP said he was prepared to name the man and give evidence, but parliamentary techniques were used to shut off discussion. However, the government-operated Voice of Kenya, in a radio commentary this year, identified Carr as the man. The commentary said his “scandalous and adultery ous” conduct “provoked such an outcry that it warranted debate in the National Assembly.”

After the charge made on the floor of the parliament hit the press, the Anglican archbishop of Kenya, Festo Olang, wrote a “letter to the editor” about the matter. He suggested that the “church leader” might have been a “self-styled type, as the number of such church leaders is on the increase.” Olang went on to say that “no established church would allow such a character to continue in its leadership with such low moral conduct. Furthermore, disciplinary measures would be taken at the very first offence.”

Though Anglican, Carr is not under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Olang. He is a clergyman of the Diocese of Liberia, which is a missionary diocese of the Episcopal Church (U.S.A.). He was formerly a canon in Monrovia. Under Anglican practice, any charges against him would have to be referred to the bishop of the diocese in which he is “canonically resident,” that is, Liberia.

Much of the discussion in Togo was behind closed doors, but Carr did not respond directly to charges about his conduct in his address to the general committee. According to the published text of the speech, the general secretary declared that “tribulation has struck at our organization itself.” He recalled that a publication of the rival Association of Evangelicals of Africa and Madagascar (AEAM) alleged that there had been “all manner of debauchery, drunkenness, sex, etc.” at the last AACC assembly (in Lusaka, Zambia, in 1974). He then went on to say that the “enemies” of Africa are trying to destroy the AACC because of its “prophetic” political stances.

“The enemy,” said Carr, “appears to have succeeded in disguising his purpose behind the façade of moralism and piety. But this is nothing new. Repression always justified itself in moral terms, even in religiously moral terms. I hope you will be able to move beyond the level of personal morality—whatever the case—and deal with the larger issue that haunts the continuing existence of the AACC.”

The AACC general secretary then accused the government of Kenya and members of his staff of undermining his efforts and “collaborating with our enemies to destroy everything I have tried to build up over the last six years.” He added, “The situation is very bad; so bad that it has necessitated the calling of an emergency meeting of this general committee.” He asked the panel to decide whether the AACC “can continue on its present course … or whether and how it may have to make compromises in order to appease those hostile to us.”

In the next paragraph of the published text Carr spoke of forces that “have found a way of penetrating even the churches and using them.” He then suggested that part of the “tribulation” of the AACC might be related to the fact that Nairobi was the site of the 1976 Pan African Christian Leadership Assembly (PACLA) and is the African headquarters of World Vision. PACLA’s planners were generally considered to be evangelicals, but the assembly was probably the most representative meeting of African church leaders ever convened (see January 21, 1977, issue, page 45). It included people aligned with the AACC as well as people aligned with the AEAM, and it received criticism from both sides.

One of the speakers at PACLA was John Gatu, general secretary of the Presbyterian Church of East Africa. Gatu is a highly respected African churchman who is active in ecumenical circles. Since the Lusaka assembly he has been the chairman of the AACC general committee. He is a product of the East African Revival and is often identified as an evangelical.

As a citizen of Kenya and a leader of the AACC, Gatu was put on the spot by the crisis. He issued a statement that carefully sidestepped the misconduct charges against Carr. Gatu spoke of the meetings of the officers and of the executive committee that have been held since “very adverse and negative press reports” began to appear. “In the course of these meetings,” he noted, “both the officers, the executive [committee], and Kenyan church leaders have upheld the general secretary, and press statements have been published expressing confidence in him.” He also said, “Whatever critics—and they are many—will say about AACC success or its failures, it is an undoubtful fact that Canon Burgess Carr has put AACC on the world map more particularly since Lusaka.”

Gatu continued, “Those of us who have lived closer to Canon Carr know what a tremendous wealth of varied gifts he has brought to AACC—his eloquence in explaining and defining problems of the churches in Africa, his sensitivity to political and social issues, and his ability to give theological interpretations and concerns both locally and internationally, are just a few to mention. We certainly wish to thank God and thank him for this.”

The general committee defended Carr in stronger terms. Its resolution began by noting that the meeting in Lome was “under the chairmanship” of the AACC president, Richard Andriamanjato of Madagascar.

“With regard to the allegations related to the supposedly undignified conduct of the general secretary,” the resolution stated, “the AACC general committee after due investigation denounces the deliberate will of certain personalities to use systematic defamatory and disparaging weapons to destroy the reputation of a person who has fundamentally identified himself with the struggle of Africa today and has in clear terms made the voice of the church militant heard. The general committee recalls that in the long history of the church and that of churchmen who are called to play a prophetic role, the moral scandal and particularly the sexual scandal has been used at different times to discredit such persons and to destroy their reputation and their work. The general committee affirms that in this particular regard the right remains with the church to pronounce a possible judgment.”

The Lome resolution also defended Carr’s political activities, noting that they were in accord with positions taken by responsible AACC bodies. The document maintained that “the crisis through which the organization is passing today is only the result of attacks by reactionary tendencies meant to thwart those activities of the AACC aimed at liberation and justice.” The committee also resolved it would “never give up in the face of conspiracies against the AACC,” and it urged “all organizations and churches with whom the AACC has relations of solidarity and fellowship not to make hasty judgment based on rumors.”

The general committee ended its resolution on the Kenyan crisis with a gentle reminder to the headquarters nation that it still needs “the privileges and immunities which are normally granted to an international organization.”

Government officials in Nairobi were less than happy to hear of Carr’s fiery Lome speech and the committee’s defense. One of the most influential persons in the Kenyatta cabinet, Attorney General Charles Njonjo, told reporters he was “very furious,” because he had taken great pains to explain to Andriamanjato and others the situation facing the AACC. He denied that Kenya wanted to expel the headquarters, but he said “the AACC is not one man called Canon Burgess Carr and neither is he the AACC.” He added, “This man should now watch his step. He must not attempt to set foot here; otherwise we will turn him away.”

Carr, in Liberia, replied quickly. He said the announcement that Njonjo would refuse him entry “has come as no surprise to me. For the past two years Mr. Njonjo has relentlessly pursued the objective of removing me from office as general secretary of the AACC. Now … he has elected to abuse the powers of his office by declaring me a ‘prohibited immigrant’ to Kenya where my headquarters are located.” After a few days, when feelings had apparently cooled somewhat, Gatu reported, “It has been confirmed to us by the attorney general that Rev. Canon Burgess Carr has not been banned from entering Kenya.”

Throughout the crisis, Gatu has been the man in the middle. The Weekly Review noted that the Lome actions only made things more difficult for Kenyan church leaders who have been supporters of the AACC. The publication said in its analysis, “Rumors about Carr’s conduct have all along placed a stumbling block in the relations of the Liberian church leader and the Kenyan leaders. Carr’s own personal assistant, the Rev. Clement Janda of Sudan, recently summarized what appears to be Carr’s own attitude toward the rumors. Janda said that in a conversation with Gatu in early December last year he had discovered that Gatu was concerned about personal lives and conduct of the AACC staff. ‘He said that it had been reported to him that the staff in parties drink alcohol and behave badly with the opposite sex,’ Janda reported. ‘I told him that he must realize that churchmanship varies in Africa considerably. It would be a mistake to judge other Africans according to East African Revival standards.’” The Weekly Review quoted another Carr assistant, Miss Ibronke Lardner, as having told Gatu that “the downfall of the AACC will be placed fairly and squarely on his shoulders.”

How Andriamanjato, the AACC president, stands on the issue is unclear. The Madagascar preacher-politician and Carr are known to have similar views on the general political situation in Africa, however, and both are outspoken advocates of “liberation.” Andriamanjato has long been associated with the Prague-based Christian Peace Conference and last December was named president of the affiliated African Christian Peace Conference. Carr attended the CPC meeting in Sierra Leone at which Andriamanjato became president of the African CPC.

Both Andriamanjato and Gatu are concerned about support for the AACC, from both inside and outside Africa. More than 80 per cent of the organization’s finances come from outside the continent. Much of the external support has been generated by the WCC, but it was reported at the Lome meeting that the foreign contributions have dropped significantly. Some overseas organizations either reduced or suspended their giving in the midst of the crisis. Whether Potter’s statement backing the AACC will help with funding remains to be seen.

In many ways the AACC is the WCC’s prime showcase of regional ecumenism. It has included as official representatives many leaders of churches that are evangelical, but its staff work has been financially undergirded mostly by “liberal” groups in Europe and North America.

In sharp contrast is the situation in South America. The WCC has poured money into that continent for years in an attempt to organize a similar regional body, but the evangelical denominations have generally refused to send official representatives. Little financial support has come from within South America for the several “interim” ecumenical bodies spawned by WCC effort.

Thus the outcome of the AACC crisis will have far-reaching effects in either attracting or repelling interested observers of the WCC’s brand of continental solidarity.

Muted Concern For Israel’s Law

Jewish leaders in America and Israel are usually in the forefront of crusades for civil and religious liberties, but they are now in a delicate situation that has caused many of them to seek a low profile. An amendment to the penal code of Israel that goes into effect April 1 is viewed by many Christians as an “anti-missionary law.” It forbids “material inducement” to get someone to change religions. The United Christian Council in Israel and other bodies interested in Christian activity there have insisted they are as opposed to “material inducement” as the Orthodox Jews are, but they claim the law is so vague as to allow for interpretations that could stop much Christian work. (See February 10 issue, page 54.)

“Free Bible distribution might well be banned,” said Terje Hartberg, business manager of the Bible Society in Israel. In a report circulated by the United Bible Societies he said that the new legislation also “might be interpreted in such a way that curbs all diaconal activity in the Christian communities.”

In Geneva, General Secretary Carl Mau of the Lutheran World Federation said the law was a matter of grave concern and he fears it may harm Jewish-Christian relations. He made the comments after receiving a delegation sent abroad by the United Christian Council.

What the council representatives called “scurrilous verbal attacks on the Christian Church” at the time of the law’s passage last December have been tempered somewhat by Rabbi Yehuda Abramowitz, chief sponsor of the legislation, according to Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of the American Jewish Committee. Tanenbaum said that Bernard Resnikoff, director of the AJC’s office in Israel, spoke with Abramowitz about the effects of the new law. Abramowitz reportedly replied, “Don’t take my statement seriously.”

Resnikoff also scheduled meetings with representatives of Prime Minister Begin and the ministry of justice. The spokesmen for the government have given no indication that anything will be done to prevent the law from taking effect on schedule.

Tanenbaum, whose portfolio includes fostering good relations between the Jewish and Christian communities, has been the main exception to American Jews’ rule of silence on the new law. He said in a syndicated radio commentary originated by New York station WINS (West-inghouse) that “many influential Jewish leaders both in Israel and in the United States” are concerned about the law.

“We have communicated our opposition to the highest authorities in Israel,” he said. “Jews have suffered more than enough from denial of religious liberty and will not allow denial to be inflicted on others, especially in a Jewish state.”

Other Jewish leaders have sent strong messages to Israel, they say privately, but the contents have not been released. Asked about the possibility of repeal, an Israeli representative in New York would say only that the parliamentary process is very involved and would take time. To that, Tanenbaum responded that “they are masters” at finding ways to change things that need changing.

Peace of Mind For a Price

How much does peace of mind cost? The security director for the Washington office of B’nai B’rith was quoted in the Washington Star as saying that $250,000 was spent to install an electronic defense system “to put employees’minds at ease” following the March, 1977, Hanafi Muslim takeover of the building (see April 1, 1977, issue, page 48). The security officer, Jim King, formerly a detective sergeant, told a reporter that no staff members have complained about the measures. In fact, some want even more. “They would like bars everywhere,” he added, “like a jail.”

The Jewish organization’s building near Scott Circle was one of three seized by Hanafi sect members to protest the release of a movie, Mohammad, Messenger of God. The others were the Islamic Center and the District Building (Washington’s city hall), where a reporter was killed in the siege. There were also numerous injuries, and some illnesses of hostages have been attributed to the takeover.

At B’nai B’rith headquarters now, all who enter are seen on closed-circuit television before they can pass through electronically controlled doors. They must show identity cards to a guard. All packages and luggage must be inspected. If a guard senses trouble, he can press a button to release crash gates that seal off key areas. There is an emergency public-address system. The organization has had to increase its budget for security personnel as well as for the new equipment.

It’S Official: Poland

Last year it was Hungary. This looks like the year for Poland on Billy Graham’s schedule. The evangelist has received his second official invitation to preach in an Eastern-bloc nation. Polish Baptist leaders announced last month that the government’s vice-minister for non-Catholic groups, T. Dusik, had given them the official word that Graham could accept a long-standing invitation to come to Poland.

The European Baptist Press Service reported that Walter Smyth of the Graham team had already told the Poles that when the official invitation was cleared the evangelist would clear his calendar of other engagements to accept. The calendar has an available slot in September, however, before a series of engagements in Scandinavia. The meetings in Hungary last September (see September 23, 1977, issue, page 44, and October 7, 1977, issue, page 52) were Graham’s first in Eastern Europe since he preached in Yugoslavia in 1967.

In contrast, no guards are visible at the Islamic Center. Its director, Muhammad A. Rauf, was one of the fifteen hostages held by the Hanafis there last year. He pointed out that there was no bloodshed then because there were no guards then. Visitors still move freely at the center, and Rauf said nothing had been done to beef up security. “We depend on God,” he said. “It’s not possible to get full protection. We feel we are more protected this way.”

A synagogue across the street from the Hanafi headquarters added electronic security devices after the siege.

Still in the courts are the appeals of the twelve Hanafis involved in the takeover of the buildings. If the appeals court allows the current sentences to stand, ten of the twelve will be very old men when they get out of prison. Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, the leader, is now fifty-seven and will not be eligible for parole until he is ninety-seven. Abdul Muzikir, convicted of the second-degree murder of the reporter, is now twenty-three and will be eligible for parole in seventy-six more years. The sentences are being served in prisons scattered across the nation. Wives of the men recently wrote their lawyers saying their husbands had already served enough time. A prosecutor in the case said the stiff sentences were “a message to the world that terrorism is not going to be tolerated in this community.”

NAE: Calling For Justice

The flavor was academic as the National Association of Evangelicals held its thirty-sixth annual convention last month in Minneapolis. The theme, officially, was “God’s Mandate—Our Mission,” but the emphasis was on justice.

David L. McKenna, president of Seattle Pacific University and the convention’s program coordinator, gave the keynote address. He challenged the delegates to consider the relevance of the prophet Micah’s admonition to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God.

Among the convention’s answers was a position paper aimed at meeting both spiritual and social needs. “Justice and mercy met at Calvary,” said the document, “requiring us to affirm our responsibility to demonstrate the gracious kindness of God by word and deed in our lives. This justice and mercy requires that God’s people make God’s eternal standards for societal life known to the highest realms of power and authority.” While not specifically speaking of the role of the organized church in seeking justice, the paper said, “We must never lose sight of the need for individual commitment and collective response to the issues of human justice, global compassion, and personal holiness.”

Another speaker was a second college president from the state of Washington, Edward Lindaman of United Presbyterian-related Whitworth College in Spokane. Also coming from the academic community was historian Timothy L. Smith of Johns Hopkins University. Well-known preachers on the program were exiled Ugandan Anglican bishop Festo Kivengere and “Lutheran Hour” speaker Oswald Hoffmann.

Among the resolutions passed by the convention was one asking the federal government to take a look at its own stewardship. The document noted increasing government interest in the fiscal policies of religious organizations and asserted that the NAE supports “the basic standards of responsible fund management and accountability.” Then the resolution turned to the federal establishment and said that it, too, must keep its financial house in order. The NAE, said the document, is concerned that the U.S. government “continues to incur such a debt … that the interest payments alone are now $200 million per working day. We view with concern the proposed budget which will increase our debt by $60 billion and according to the predictions of some, by more than $90 billion. Such an economic profligacy means that our imagined present prosperity is actually being enjoyed by us at the expense of the unearned incomes of our greatgrandchildren.”

The resolution warned direly that “the economic collapse which is threatened by run-away inflation could produce starvation, pillage, revolution, military invasion—the end of all those things which we hold dear.” The NAE then called on the government “to take to itself a new sense of economic responsibility including a balanced budget, more careful spending, the limitation of its bureaucratic growth,” a program described as one that alone “can reduce taxation, inspire personal responsibility, and build for a more stable future.”

A resolution calling for support of the Panama Canal treaties got a brief hearing but was sent back to the executive committee. That body is unlikely to vote on it before the Senate votes, in the opinion of an NAE veteran.

Floyd Robertson, a member of the NAE Washington staff since 1960 and secretary of the office of public affairs since 1974, was named layman of the year at the convention. The retired Navy officer has been executive secretary of the NAE’s Commission on Chaplains since 1960.

Carl H. Lundquist, president of Bethel College and Seminary in St. Paul for twenty-four years, is the new president of the NAE. He succeeds Nathan Bailey, president of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.

Active In Politics

Lynden is a rural community just south of the Canadian border in Whatcom County in northwestern Washington. It is in an area long known for prosperous farms and winning basketball teams. It has been gaining attention more recently as a center for Christian political action, thanks to Roger L. Van Dyken, 32, and his fellow members of Concerned Christian Citizens for Political Action (CCCPA).

The organization, which Van Dyken founded several years ago, focuses primarily on county politics but keeps an eye on state issues that affect Whatcom County residents. In last November’s election, as in preceding ones, CCCPA members researched the issues, surveyed the electorate, and encouraged area residents to vote. CCCPA rarely endorses a candidate or issue, but the November ballot included an anti-p*rnography initiative designed to close hardcore-p*rno movie houses and bookstores, and CCCPA voiced its support. (About 55 per cent of the voters in Whatcom County backed the initiative, which received about the same support around the state. Using voter surveys, CCCPA had projected a 59 per cent favorable vote. Van Dyken attributed the difference to a last-minute wide-scale advertising campaign mounted by initiative opponents.)

Five of six candidates endorsed by CCCPA won seats in the county election. They are part of a panel that will write a county charter under the state’s home-rule statute.

In addition, CCCPA published its annual Election Guide, a local best seller, and it sponsored a pre-election conference that featured a discussion of the issues by proponents and opponents.

The basis for membership in CCCPA “is simply a desire to work together for communal Christian political action,” says Van Dyken, who served as a legislative assistant for former Maryland congressman Larry Hogan and as an organizer in the 1972 Nixon presidential campaign in southern California. He dropped out of the national political scene in favor of a less harried life on a farm in his wife’s hometown of Lynden and as a teacher at Lynden Christian High School. Eventually, he became involved in community affairs and today directs several groups, including private educational organizations. He also serves as executive director of CCCPA.

CCCPA members pay no dues. The organization, however, does solicit donations, enough to meet its current budget of more than $10,000. In return, members receive a newsletter, the Election Guide, and a way to become active participants in the local political scene.

A coordinating committee helps to steer CCCPA. The committee, explains Van Dyken, only “energizes the political conscience, and then coordinates any resultant political efforts on the part of the community.” CCCPA’s role is more as a “stimulus than as a power broker,” he adds. “Power is a by-product.” Says he: “We want to encourage people to think ‘Christianly’ for themselves, making up their own minds with the perspective and facts they can obtain from us and other sources.”

CCCPA is not representative of any larger group, according to its leaders. In fact, says Van Dyken, it has deliberately limited itself to Whatcom County, whose 80,000 residents are about evenly divided between rural areas and the county seat of Bellingham, a university town. However, although CCCPA is a non-partisan and non-denominational organization, its outlook has been shaped by the conservative Christian Reformed Church, which has a prominent presence in the area. (Van Dyken is a member).

Van Dyken says CCCPA got its start from an earlier unsuccessful campaign to gain federal income-tax credit for private school tuition and later from the frustration of the Watergate scandal. The area once was a Republican stronghold, but voting patterns have become more balanced since Watergate.

People here may have felt “a sense of guilt after Watergate,” Van Dyken says. “Initially there was a sense of helplessness, for it seemed there was no vehicle by which to voice concern or accomplish something positive.”

Van Dyken and other CCCPA leaders believe they’ve changed that attitude. In an action that seems to have symbolic overtones, they’ve invited Born Again author Charles Colson, an ex-Watergate figure and former top Nixon aide, to speak at CCCPA’s rally next fall.

STEVE ELLIS

Back on the Beat

Without his familiar clerical collar, Lester Kinsolving went back to the U.S. Capitol’s press galleries last month. He returned exactly a year after losing his pass in a dispute with the standing committee of correspondents over his outside speaking activities (see March 18, 1977, issue, page 57, and April 15, 1977, issue, page 58).

The priest-journalist had appealed his dismissal to the Senate Rules Committee, which directed the correspondents’ panel to settle the dispute. The rules provide that no representative of a foreign nation can be admitted, and Kinsolving’s paid appearances at some stockholder meetings debating South African investments had been considered a violation by the majority of the pass-granting panel.

Kinsolving was asked to write the correspondents a letter, admitting past violations and pledging to comply with the rules in the future. He refused to admit any guilt but noted that he had not accepted any fees to appear at stockholder meetings since May, 1976. He also pledged to abide by the rules and regulations in the future. In a prepared statement the syndicated columnist said the intervention by the Senate Rules Committee was the first of its sort since 1948. He added, “The Rules Committee has enabled me to state my future intentions without self-incrimination regarding the past.”

Kinsolving did not stay long at the Capitol on his first day back. He had to hurry down to the White House to cover a briefing by some of the very people he blamed for having him pushed out of the congressional galleries: leaders of the National Council of Churches. He contends that NCC agents took the initiative to revoke his credentials because he showed up at stockholder meetings to oppose NCC representatives on questions of corporation policies in South Africa.

Ncc: Inside With Carter

There have been times when William P. Thompson stood outside the gates of the White House with his message for the people inside. Last month he took his message in. Thompson is the president of the National Council of Churches and the stated clerk of the United Presbyterian Church. Leading a delegation representing the NCC, the lawyer-churchman spent about a half hour with President Carter and another half hour with some top White House aides.

This first meeting by the President with an NCC group had been in the making for months and was a part of the chief executive’s policy of hearing from a variety of groups. The session was arranged by Midge Costanza, the President’s assistant for public liaison, who talked with the NCC representatives after Carter left the Roosevelt Room.

Carter began the meeting by commending the NCC for what he called its superb record of success in applying Christian teaching “directly to human beings.” He thanked the denominational leaders for representing 40 million church members and for its “helpful and constructive” communications to the government. “We have found our interests compatible” on a number of issues, he said.

While Thompson and the NCC representatives sought to leave outside the gates some of the combativeness they used with previous administrations, they did not shrink from stating some disagreements with the Carter administration. Thompson commended Carter for “your leadership in using the symbolic and real power of your office to advance the cause of arms control and disarmament,” but he expressed distress that “you may approve the production and deployment of the neutron bomb.”

The NCC president’s opening statement also implied a disappointment in the failure of the White House to take a more public role in freeing the “Wilmington Ten” prisoners in North Carolina. The governor of that state recently declined to release the convicted fire bombers but reduced their sentences. Thompson promised to “address the continuing injustice permitted by the governor’s decision until the festering boil it represents is lanced from the body politic.” He told the President that the impact of this case weakens the voice of the United States when it tries to speak and act on human-rights violations abroad.

Thompson told Carter that the government should make full employment “the nation’s number-one priority.” He expressed pleasure with the White House plans to propose a new national urban policy and said the President’s comprehensive approach to welfare reform was very encouraging. He assured Carter of NCC support for the Panama Canal treaties and commended him for trying to get Senate ratification of the United Nations Covenants on Civil and Political and Economic and Social and Cultural Rights. Thompson also plugged for Senate ratification of the Genocide Treaty, drafted thirty years ago.

Carter in turn chided the churches for not working in some areas of social concern where they might be effective. He said the government has done more to eliminate racial segregation, for instance, than the churches have. “I recognize we have a long way to go in the government,” said the Southern Baptist layman, “but on balance the government has done a better job than the churches. I say this as a member of both.”

The President concluded his remarks by assuring the NCC representatives of his prayers for “the great work this organization is doing around the world” and then asking them to pray for him. The delegation gave the President a copy of the new Revised Standard Version common Bible, including apocryphal books recognized by both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Then Bishop E. P. Murchison of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church gave a closing prayer before Carter left the meeting.

In a talk with David Rubenstein of the White House domestic-policy staff, the NCC delegates questioned the increased military budget. Rubenstein responded that the proposed budget provides “very limited real growth” and would be very difficult to cut further “because so much of what we’re spending is for manpower.”

In responding to reporters’ questions after the meeting, Thompson and NCC general secretary Claire Randall said they had not asked about the White House positions on abortion, Viet Nam, Uganda, or Israel. They indicated that some of these concerns had been raised by NCC representatives at other levels of government or by member denominations. Before they went to the White House, the NCC delegates sent the President an eleven-page memorandum of their positions on several issues.

A Gaggle Of Groups

All God’s Children, by Carroll Stoner and Jo Anne Parke (Chilton [201 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, Penn. 19089], 1977, 324 pp., $8.95), Youth, Brainwashing, and the Extremist Cults, by Ronald Enroth (Zondervan, 1977, 221 pp., $6.95 and $3.95 pb), The Mind Benders, by Jack Sparks (Nelson, 1977, 283 pp., $3.95 pb), The Mystical Maze, by Pat Means (Campus Crusade for Christ, 1976, 275 pp., $2.95 pb), Strange New Religions, by Leon McBeth (Broadman, 1977, 154 pp., $2.75 pb), Cults, World Religions, and You, by Kenneth Boa (Victor, 1977, 204 pp., $2.50 pb), and The Youth Nappers, by James C. Hefley (Victor, 1977, 208 pp., $2.25 pb), are reviewed by J. Gordon Melton, director, Institute for the Study of American Religion, Evanston, Illinois.

The new religious movements that grew up in America during the sixties are getting a lot of media attention in the seventies. Many of these movements come from Asia; they represent a major attempt by Hindus and Buddhists to return the compliment paid to their countries by nineteenth-century missionaries. Other groups are led by home-grown messiahs—modern-day versions of Joseph Smith, Madame Blavatsky, and Mary Baker Eddy.

The seven books examined here have three goals: to provide basic information on the new religions; to criticize them on their own terms; and, in most cases, to offer an analysis from a Christian perspective and a tool for witnessing to members of these groups.

The most useful for reaching the first two goals is Carroll Stoner and Jo Anne Parke’s All God’s Children. The authors, both investigative reporters, show an expertise built on long hours of first-hand study of several of the major new religious groups. They are able to give brief but accurate synopses of the recruiting procedures, theology, leadership, and membership of the Unification Church, Scientology, Divine Light Mission, Hare Krishna, and the Children of God. While obviously hostile to several of these bodies, the two reporters describe them fairly, without noticeably misrepresenting their positions.

Most important, these authors raise the important questions of internal contradictions and the two levels of doctrine that most of the groups possess. Followers of Moon, for example, regularly practice “heavenly deception,” a nice label for the lies and misrepresentations they utter when pressed on touchy matters concerning the Unification Church, especially its fund-raising and recruiting. The authors describe new ethical and sexual patterns—arranged marriages, the use of sex to recruit, and even ritual adultery.

Stoner and Parke have doubts that there is brainwashing (“We have yet to meet a cult member, or former cultist, who convinced us that he was hypnotized in a new religion”), but they do believe that the new religions use manipulative techniques to gain converts. More poignantly, they relate several case studies illustrative of the dead-end experiences of some cult members. They conclude that there are no easy answers to the questions raised in confrontation with the new religions.

In Youth, Brainwashing, and the Extremist Cults, Ronald Enroth, a sociologist and a Christian, attempts to combine the insights of social analysis with theology in a critique of seven new “cults”—Hare Krishna, Children of God, the Alamo Foundation, Love “Israel” Family, Unification Church, The Way, and the Divine Light Mission. He conducted interviews and gathered case histories from a variety of people involved in cults—members, ex-members, deprogrammers, and parents. He is perceptive in his analysis of the seductive process used at every level of the new religions.

Enroth advocates the “deprogramming” option for “rescuing” cult members, a conclusion with which I must dis agree. Deprogramming is a procedure to which no one should be subjected. Not only does it raise the issue of constitutional rights, but on quite practical grounds it should be abandoned because it does not work. The few successfully deprogrammed persons are generally people who were already becoming marginal members. Those subjected to deprogramming usually do not then lead a normal life. Instead they return to the group, or they leave in search of a new one, or they enter long-term psychiatric treatment, or they become deprogrammers themselves. It should also be noted that deprogramming as a technique recognizes no difference between the “cults” and more traditional Christian groups, from which people have also been snatched. Finally, victims of deprogramming who returned to the cults have placed their deprogrammers and their parents (who have paid high fees already) in great financial jeopardy by filing lawsuits. It should not be forgotten that deprogrammers are kidnapping adults, not minors.

More valuable to the average Christian or pastor is Jack Sparks in Mind Benders, a guide for witnessing to members of the new religious groups. His effort grows out of almost daily confrontation with “cult” members for several years at the Berkeley campus of the University of California. For each group he gives an accurate description of its history, belief system, and activities. He pinpoints the groups’ weaknesses and refutes their teachings from a Christian perspective.

Pat Means, in the Mystical Maze, tries much the same task as Sparks but deals only with the Eastern groups. Means delineates the broad agreements of the Eastern theologies and perceptively discusses the continually recurring questions—reincarnation, meditation, the miracles of the gurus, the unique divinity of Jesus, and the reliability of the Bible.

While I disagree with some of their minor conclusions (they show little understanding of Eastern meditation and almost no knowledge of the long tradition of Western meditation techniques), on the whole both Sparks and Means have succeeded in producing practical tools for confronting the new religions.

Strange New Religions by Leon McBeth, Cults, World Religions, and You by Kenneth Boa, and The Youth Nappers by James C. Hefley are inferior compared to the four books already discussed. There are too many errors and too much dependence on questionable sources. Hefley’s volume in particular seems to have been hastily put together from a collection of newspaper clippings.

None of the three shows any firsthand research on the cults. Hefley complains that his information is sketchy because little is currently known about these groups. In fact, a flood of information is available, especially on the larger groups, and most of the groups can be found easily in any major metropolitan area. In view of such ready access, there is no excuse for spreading unfounded rumors and unverified reports.

The wide spectrum of material on the new religions gives Christians reason to wonder what might be the best attitude to adopt toward them. I would suggest three elements. First, in dealing with the new religions and their adherents, begin by getting your facts straight. Do not lump them together. Do not accuse one group of the practices or beliefs of another. If you begin to witness to a member of one of these groups by misrepresenting the group, you have seriously hindered the effectiveness of your gospel proclamation.

Second, be positive. You will win more converts by sharing the saving love of Christ than by besting people in arguments or accusing them of doing the work of Satan.

Third, remember that Christianity has flourished as never before in the climate of religious freedom. We dare not long for the “good old days,” complete with inquisitions, when one was “free” only to agree with the currently established religion. Like cults in the past, the modern cults will survive only as they are able to meet felt needs. In a few years, many will be gone and the rest will have ceased growing. Meanwhile, the church will continue through all eternity.

On The Spending Of Money

Living on Less and Liking It More, by Maxine Hanco*ck (Moody, 1976, 185 pp., $4.95), Supertrade, by Richard L. Johnson (Nelson, 1976, 141 pp., $2.95 pb), There Is a Solution to Your Money Problems, by Dade E. Galloway (Regal, 1977, 143 pp., $2.95 pb). What Husbands Wish Their Wives Knew About Money, by Larry Burkett (Victor, 1977, 160 pp., $1.95 pb), and Your Money Matters, by Malcolm MacGregor (Bethany Fellowship, 1977, 176 pp., $2.95 pb), are reviewed by William T. Bray, campaign and communications consultant, Wheaton, Illinois.

No subject is more likely to enter the pastoral counseling session than money. In marriage counseling especially, it seems to interweave and bitterly complicate every area of adjustment. Therefore pastors as well as believers generally will appreciate these books on how one should manage family finances.

This brace of books suggests that the popular Christian press is responding to a new concern for living moderately. After years of strained tracts either portraying material riches as the “natural inheritance of every child of God” or else insisting that the normal Christian life demands a “forsaking all” austerity, it is refreshing to see these five thoughtful and moderate treatments. While all the authors speak directly to the things-based value system of our current culture, they avoid the overly theoretical discussions that could easily develop.

The most realistic and balanced book of the group is probably Your Money Matters, whose author, Malcolm MacGregor, is a certified public accountant who has developed a financial counseling ministry. Several copies of this book belong on every pastor’s counseling shelf. MacGregor sensibly—and with dry humor—discusses the many financial matters that might cause problems in the Christian family, from establishing a realistic budget to training children to handle their allowances. He projects an honest simplicity that may help to save readers from the gnawing anxiety that comes to so many who get caught up in our undisciplined credit-card, I-owe-it-to-myself society.

Slightly less thorough but easier to read and filled with many memorable illustrations is Dale Galloway’s There Is a Solution to Your Money Problems. Galloway is a pastor, and one senses the bitter tears of regret and broken homes that lie behind his various suggestions on financial communication, escaping debt, and coping with financial depression. He has gone out of his way—sometimes too far—to make every page encouraging. For the discouraged and distraught, this book will probably be the one with the most positive effect.

While all these books cover much of the same material, Your Money Matters and There Is a Solution seem to have a similar outline. One suspects that the authors must have attended each other’s seminars! There is enough differing material in the two books, however, to make both worthwhile reading.

Much less succinct, Living on Less and Liking It More is well worth the extra effort it requires. It is Maxine Hanco*ck’s most deeply inspirational book to date. Writing in an elegant, personal style, without ever scolding or judging, she gently leads the reader to confront the question, just what kind of lifestyle would Jesus have us choose? All of these family finance books lead into the question of how a Christian should live in a hungry world, but Hanco*ck probably does more than any of the other writers to help the reader focus on the real priorities of what Jesus taught about money.

Less effective in this area is Richard Johnson’s Supertrade. With all the macho arrogance of a riverboat gambler, he dares the reader to come deeper into his world of finance, where God is his partner on the stock exchange. With a punchy prose that will undoubtedly appeal to many Christian businessmen—and make Johnson a big hit on the luncheon circuit—he tells how Christ changed his whole approach to business and life. While the book does venture financial advice, it is of such a nature that the average reader will probably feel more than ever convinced that the mysteries of the stock market are best left to professionals.

What Husbands Wish Their Wives Knew About Money is actually not written for wives at all. It’s just another good, very sensible family-finance book, designed for use as a thirteen-week adult Sunday school course. One hopes that the chauvinistic title doesn’t disqualify the book in many circles and limit the effectiveness of its approach. Tightly written and very well edited, Larry Burkett’s second book on finances is well balanced and avoids the gloom-and-doom predictions on the American dollar that characterized his earlier work Your Finances in Changing Times, published by Campus Crusade, for whom he conducted well-received seminars. His new book could become the most widely used of this genre.

God’S Dominion

The Community of the King, by Howard A. Snyder (InterVarsity, 1977, 216 pp., $4.25 pb), is reviewed by Cecil B. Murphey, pastor, Riverdale Presbyterian Church, Riverdale, Georgia.

When books come my way already hailed with tags such as “insightful,” “penetrating,” “scholarly,” or “catalytic,” I usually agree but find myself adding another adjective: dull. The deeper the duller, it has seemed. But I’m happy to report that Snyder shatters the pattern.

Each of the three major segments of this book deserves a review of its own. The section on evangelism is excellent. The one on church growth is even better. A reviewer can easily run out of superlatives with a book like this.

The church is the agent of the kingdom of God, says Snyder. He defines kingdom as the dominion or reign of God, not primarily a place or a realm. He sees the church as “the people of God which God has been forming and through which he has been acting down through history.” The church becomes God’s agent first through what it is and secondarily through what it does.

For all his theology, Snyder doesn’t dwell in the realm of the abstract. He ably balances between theory and practice. I found this book extremely helpful for my thinking about growth strategy in our local congregation. Other writers on evangelism and church growth describe particular systems and then extrapolate principles. Snyder starts with the principles and then shows how they can be applied in denominational and local situations.

One of the strongest points is that Snyder sees it as basic that the church encourage the spiritual gifts of its members. He doesn’t tiptoe around controversial passages such as Ephesians 4 and First Corinthians 12–14 but rather shows how they apply to the vibrant, balanced church of today. “The neglect and misunderstanding of gifts has produced a sometimes exaggerated emphasis on them among some groups,” he says, and in some circles there is the problem of “elevating one or two gifts to the level of spiritual ID cards.” He prefers to look at the charismata in their biblical context as part of God’s plan for the normal functioning of the Christian community. He says that the basic question isn’t whether particular spiritual gifts such as tongues-speaking are valid today. “Precisely which gifts he gives in any particular age is God’s prerogative, and we should not prejudge God.”

In the section called “The Form of the Church” Snyder builds on the biblical foundation. Examining the Book of Acts, he discusses evangelism, nurture, the culture, and growth patterns in the early church.

Snyder calls to task those well-meaning believers who are trying to do away with the institutional church and provide worship and nurture without encumberment. “The structure isn’t the church,” he says, “but every Christian fellowship must have a culturally appropriate way of doing things at certain times and in certain places.” He goes on to describe workable church structures.

This book deserves to become a basic reference tool for our thinking about evangelism, structure, nurture, and growth in the church.

Home As Sanctuary

Splendor in the Ordinary, by Thomas Howard (Tyndale,1977, 128 pp., $2.95 pb), is reviewed by Cheryl Forbes, assistant editor,CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

I always wondered why my mother disliked my bringing guests in through the back door of our house when I was younger, or why I insisted that my own home (an apartment, in this case) have a front hall or entryway. Now I know that it reflects what Jung called the collective unconscious, or what Thomas Howard calls an innate sense of the rite of welcome or entry. “The Hebrews,” he says, “were on to something when they sang, ‘The Lord shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in.’”

Howard is a sacramentalist. And he wants us to share his views. Rather than issuing an apologetic for candles and incense in the worship of God, he asks evangelicals to come to that position by viewing their daily lives in a candle-and-incense fashion. He uses the rooms in which we live as his symbols. The kitchen, the bedroom, even the bathroom have some sacramental and theological purpose. They differ in functions, though one room may not be better than another. (I suspect that he would use the same argument with the issue of women in the church. He may be subtly pointing this out here.)

In these rooms we watch the exchange of charity, the mark of the Christian community. Bearing one another’s burdens, giving and receiving support, acting out what Christ did for us on the cross—the celebration of these fundamental mysteries may begin and end in our homes. In a very practical way, more effective than any Sunday-morning trip to a sanctuary, that teaches our children what Christianity is all about. As Howard points out, it’s easier to learn charity with those linked to us biologically than with colleagues in the office or friends at the Y.

The very glory of our lives for Howard is their ordinariness. He wants us to understand that even a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich properly eaten can reflect the sacrifice of Christ. After all, someone in a sense laid down his life to make you that sandwich. And because all our actions are weighted with glory, we need to treat them as such. No mere slap-dash for Howard. He wants plate and cutlery and napkin and tablecloth. No Big Mac. No eat-and-run.

These are strange ideas for our culture, which for the most part seems to have lost the art of gracious living (and one need not be rich to be gracious). Certainly we see no reason why it makes theological sense to live graciously. And these are also strange ideas for evangelicals. Their tradition is not that of a sacramentalist like Charles Williams (whose theology strongly influences Howard). Celebration strikes us as ostentation, but Howard convincingly tells us that this need not be so.

Not only are his ideas unfamiliar; so is his language. If the book has a weakness, it is in that. He is at times a little too self-consciously polished, a little too bracing, a little too breezy.

But nonetheless he gets inside theology and reminds us, to paraphrase Ernst Cassirer, that God yields man nothing without ceremony. Although our lives may seem filled with trivial deeds given or received—“the window open another inch or two here, a pillow under his shoulder there, or a hanky to wipe his face with”—these are the events that show the world to whom we belong.

God’S Chosen People?

The Light and the Glory, by Peter Marshall and David Manuel (Revell, 1977, 384 pp., $9.95), is reviewed by Richard V. Pierard, professor of history, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana.

Having had the distinct non-pleasure of plowing through the piles of books, pamphlets, and recordings that appeared during the nation’s two-hundredth birthday celebration whooping it up for America and urging it to “get back to God,” I was tempted to dismiss this volume as simply a tardy attempt to reach the Bicentennial market. However, the book goes beyond the many maudlin tracts and musical ditties that glorify the country’s spiritual heritage. Essentially it is a historical account of the period from Columbus’s voyage to the framing of the Constitution in which the thesis is that America was founded as a covenant nation under God and that the divine hand was evident throughout the nation’s beginnings.

Because at least on the surface it is a work of history, it deserves to be evaluated in accordance with the accepted canons of historical scholarship. But the task is complicated by the claim of the two authors—one is a preacher and the son of the noted Peter and Catherine Marshall, the other an experienced editor and writer—that the book was written through “the continuing grace and inspiration of our heavenly Father.” To find shortcomings in what is said to be a divinely inspired book is indeed to tread dangerously, but this historian must.

In the opening chapter the authors outline their argument. The United States used to be a good place in which to live, but about fifteen years ago the American dream collapsed. Among the causes of the collapse were the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Viet Nam war, youthful rebellion, sexual promiscuity, the breakup of the family, corruption in business and government, and Watergate. These came about because the American people abandoned their Christian heritage. God deals with nations corporately as he did with Israel, and he chose the Americans as his covenant people to show the world how he intended his children to live under the Lordship of Christ.

God had a plan for America that was extremely demanding. Those who were to inhabit the new land received a specific “call” from God that they worked out in a covenant with the Deity and with one another. God kept his end of the bargain by bringing blessing and prosperity to his people, who in turn continually looked to him for forgiveness, mercy, and support. Long droughts were ended and pioneer settlements were spared from Indian attacks when the ones who had strayed from God humbled themselves and turned back to him. When people “died out” to their selfish desires, from that death came “life” that affected America positively far into the future. And God’s call remains in effect even though the nation has wandered away from him and now experiences his chastening hand of judgment.

Then the authors show how God acted and revealed himself in American history. He led the godly Christopher Columbus across uncharted waters to the promised land, dealt harshly with greedy people who lusted after riches, and watered the fertile spiritual soil with the blood of missionary martyrs who brought Christ’s light. The settlers in Virginia neglected God and were punished, while those in Massachusetts honored him and prospered. The Puritans founded a Christian nation based upon the covenantal relationship, but as they grew complacent, God sent Roger Williams and Thomas Hooker to prune his spiritual vineyard. Satan was unsuccessful in thwarting God’s plan to build a New Israel, even though he tried Indian uprisings and occultism (witchcraft). As a lull settled over the land, God sent a “sunburst of light,” the Great Awakening, that renewed America’s consciousness of divine nationhood. Under heavenly direction the Americans broke the chains of British tyranny and secured independence in a war in which they repeatedly experienced miraculous intervention. They then institutionalized the covenantal legacy in the Constitution and selected “God’s candidate,” the devout George Washington, as the first president. The authors conclude by urging Christians to repent and renew the covenant so that America can be healed and restored to favor.

Because Marshall and Manuel quote copiously from a wide range of documentary sources, the book seems to be a scholarly work. On closer examination one finds that they used their imaginations freely to reconstruct dialogues and the inner musings of the various participants. In effect the book is a novel, a fable of piety depicting an illusory unseen hand that guides the characters in the divine drama of America. This omniscient, omnipresent special Providence carefully controls every movement in American history and can readily be perceived by all who have and exercise the eyes of faith.

But how does a researcher demonstrate the “hand of God” at work in history? What evidence can be marshaled to convince another observer that a particular event or development can conclusively be attributed to God’s action? Must such an interpretation be accepted on faith rather than evidence? I doubt whether the authors have grappled with these fundamental questions that trouble every thoughtful Christian historian.

Their amateurishness and naïvete shine through in the sections where in a homey, anecdotal fashion they recount spiritual experiences they had while researching the book. Their lack of proficiency is exemplified in factual errors (the Moors of Granada were “Turkish Moslems”), logical contradictions (the high death rate in Virginia was due to the settlers’ refusal to trust God while a similar death rate in Plymouth resulted because the people trusted God instead of yielding to Satan), and the uncritical use of sources (“Parson” Weems’s fanciful biography of Washington). In fact, even though Paul F. Boller demonstrated forcefully in a competent study George Washington and Religion (1963), mentioned in their bibliography and a footnote, that Washington was at most only a nominal churchman, the writers rely instead on a 1919 work by William J. Johnstone (cited in the book as Johnson) that in turn was based on an extravagant collection of gossip and apocryphal anecdotes published in 1836. They thereby perpetuate the myth that Washington was a man of prayer and profound faith. And what responsible scholar would concur with their contention that “almost no negative bias” toward the Puritans can be found among nineteenth-century historians but that prejudice has arisen against them nowadays because “a spirit of rebellion” has gained a “tight hold” on the American people and “Satan” hates the example of the Puritans more than that of any other group in American history?

From a theological standpoint, too, the book is weak. The authors fail to grasp the full meaning of the New Testament teaching that the church, drawn from all nations and peoples, is now and always will be God’s covenant nation. No particular group today can claim the place in God’s program that ancient Israel occupied. Even in the Old Testament, when God dealt with nations as such, the primary issue was social justice, a theme generally neglected in this volume. What exists here is a naïve, providential postmillennialism that identifies America as the Kingdom of God. When those who are God’s children by faith repent and get their lives straightened out, America too will be redeemed and the kingdom in its fullness will flower.

Furthermore, the repeated assertion that God directly “revealed” various things to the writers cannot be squared with the traditional evangelical position that the only valid sources of divine revelation are Scripture and Jesus Christ. The authors should realize that to build an intellectual structure on the sandy foundation of an experiential natural theology will almost certainly result in disaster. It will fall under its own weight once it is buffeted by the storms of responsible criticism.

Both historically and theologically, this work extolling an evangelical form of American civil religion is so defective as not to warrant serious attention by either scholars or laypeople

Every church, no matter how small, needs a multiple staff. No church can expect sustained growth if only one pastor does all the work. Jesus practiced a multiple-staff approach with the apostles. Paul used it with his team of missionaries. Yet later a one pastor, one church syndrome set in. Fortunately, that unbiblical pattern is beginning to change.

Any discussion of adding staff members brings up the question of finances. With an all-too-tight budget, how can a church even consider adding another staff member? Since some churches are doing it, others can too. Churches with a healthy growth pattern take an enlightened step of faith. Their experience shows that a capable staff member will result in more families that tithe. In two years the additional income will underwrite his salary and an expanded program. So, church leaders trust the Lord and challenge their people to provide the finances for the initial salary.

But just hiring another person may not make a static church into a growing one. There may be other problems than just a lack of adequate professionals. A church may lack lay leaders who are involved in evangelism and discipleship. Or it may suffer from too few Sunday school teachers. Or it could be disunity within the fellowship. Then frustrations multiply and financial difficulties follow.

Almost any church, whether growing or not, can add growth-producing staff people without placing itself in financial jeopardy. The secret is to use volunteers who are responsible for certain aspects of the church program. Many church leaders will be pleasantly surprised when they try this. The number of productive hours donated by volunteers with a recognized commission, personal office, expense account, and significant responsibility will shock many skeptics. Consider two examples.

A church in California enlists lay volunteers as staff members; they have great responsibility but aren’t paid. Soon these volunteers are working half time. When the number of hours becomes quite large, the church gives them a modest part-time salary. If the task becomes large enough, and cannot be divided into other volunteer positions, the person in charge of it might be hired on a full-time basis. Only the founding pastor and one staff member of this church were recruited from the outside. A half dozen others on the paid staff (most of them part time) came from within the membership.

A church in Indiana was growing well when the associate pastor resigned. The senior pastor could not find a replacement immediately. So he prayed for the names of thirty men in his church who would serve as unpaid lay pastors. As God brought the names to his mind, he appealed to the men to respond. As each one answered the call to commitment, he received a specific responsibility and full recognition by the entire church. The pastor then poured most of his energy into equipping these thirty men for their various pastoral duties. In the next few years the church nearly doubled in size (600 to 1,100). Lay participation was the key.

Almost every church already has two or three people who show special gifts in some growth-producing activity. Look for evidence of special gifts. Grant appropriate titles and commissions with commensurate responsibilities. Provide offices with desks and names on the doors, even if these double as Sunday school classrooms. Furnish a generous expense account. Most important of all, the pastor must put in the time and effort to help lay staff members develop well. They will succeed as he gives them priority in prayer and personal attention, and as he shares his vision with them.

Many churches wonder when to hire an additional full-time staff person. A helpful ratio for calculating the need is one plus one for 200: one minister plus one secretary (or other support person working at least thirty hours per week) for each two hundred people in average attendance. To make the formula work, don’t count custodians or paid musicians. The single exception is a music minister who multiplies choirs and small musical groups. If a church is near the full ratio in either morning worship or Sunday school, it needs to hire a new staff person.

The question often arises as to what kind of staff person to hire first. The answer depends on a church’s growth pattern. In most churches a capable secretary is the first person to add to the staff. A good secretary will take over much of the essential paper work so that the minister can concentrate on his strong areas. If growth is static, check out the secretarial services first.

If too few people are entering the front door of the church, hire a pastor of church growth or evangelism. Look for a person with gifts to enable others to function as recruiters, evangelists, and disciplers. The minister of evangelism must focus on winning new people to Christ and incorporating them into the church. If too many people are slipping out the back door of the church, get a director of Christian education or a minister of parish and family life.

Growing churches often add a staff member in an area of present strength to increase effectiveness. That course of action reinforces already vital ministries. Your church needs a multiple staff, too. You can have it—with or without adequate financing.—CHARLES MYLANDER, associate pastor, Rose Drive Friends Church, Yorba Linda, California.

Put together Sadat, Begin, and Jimmy Carter. Mix them with the leaders of the oil producing nations of the Middle East. Add the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Soviet Union. Stir briskly and you have quite a stew. Meanwhile, various Christians, using a series of full-page advertisem*nts, are cooking up an interesting side dish. These ads were published in the New York Times or Washington Post and then in certain other newspapers.

So far as we can tell, the battle of the advertisem*nts started with the one placed in the Times on November first; it was headlined “Evangelicals’ Concern for Israel” (see our November 18, 1977, issue, page 50). Editor Harold Lindsell and editor-elect Kenneth Kantzer were among the fifteen signers. They were speaking for themselves rather than for CHRISTIANITY TODAY. This ad was followed on November 15 by a statement in the Times by fifteen others, led by Carl McIntire, and headed “Fundamentalists Vote With Israel.”

More than thirty Americans of various theological views offered a different approach on December 29. Their ad was headed. “We Christians believe simplistic interpretations of the Holy Scriptures and simplistic answers to the complex questions involved will not bring peace to the Middle East.” It then expressed alarm and distress over “attempts on the part of some Western Christians to impose solutions on the problems of the Middle East by employing a few selected verses from the Bible, … to prove that a particular political or property right is willed by God.…”

The next salvo came in a February 3 ad headed “Catholics concerned for the future of Israel and its Arab neighbors.” Like the first two in the sequence, it came out unequivocally for the Israeli side in the Middle East conflict.

As we understand Scripture, God has an interest in all peoples, yet he has a distinguishable interest in the people of Israel. Moreover, the tragic history of the suffering of the children of Israel, most of it in recent centuries and inflicted by those who claim to be the followers of the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ, warrants our support of a homeland for the Israelis. There is no better place for such a state than on Palestinian soil. Obviously, if the Jews are to have a homeland it must be located somewhere. There are hardly any peoples today who are descended from the first groups ever to occupy their current territory. The American Indian tribes, for example, shoved each other around long before Europeans perfidiously dispossessed them.

Even if the Arab nations cannot acknowledge biblical grounds for doing so, we think that they should recognize Israel as a sovereign state. This is not to defend every action, law, or custom of the Israeli government or people. In particular, we strongly oppose the recently passed law, to take effect April first, that imposes up to five years in prison on any person who offers someone else any “material inducement” to change his or her religion, however vaguely designated (see News, February 10 issue, page 54). The law was pushed through by orthodox Jews and it was aimed at Christians. Since the number of Christian conversions to Judaism in Israel each year is many times that of Jewish professions of Jesus as Messiah, the action is basically symbolic. If such a law were passed somewhere with Judaism as the intended target, the cries of anti-Semitism would be deafening.

Nevertheless, we contend that a recognition of the sovereignty of Israel and its borders ought not to depend on Israel’s acceptance of a PLO-run neighboring state. Such a condition is not placed on other nations. “Spheres of influence” on their borders for China, the Soviet Union, and the United States are almost universally, even if unofficially, recognized. Based on their long experience, the Israelis are understandably convinced that their security is dependent on their ability to defend themselves militarily. In the words of an emphasized portion of the Catholic advertisem*nt, “Why should Israel consent that part of the territory it holds be turned into a hostile state?” It is unrealistic to expect Israel to expose itself to continued military or terrorist attack, or to live with the threat of such attack, by returning every piece of land taken in the 1967 war. It has already relinquished some of it. The further delineation of temporary and permanent boundaries is a problem that requires patient and skillful negotiation and concessions from all sides.

Egypt is to be highly commended for its peace initiatives. But, in general, the Middle East nations have done virtually nothing to resolve the Palestinian refugee problem. After World War II, millions of Germans were removed from their ancestral homes and resettled further west. If the Arabs are one people, why can’t Palestinian refugees be relocated, with generous assistance from the oil-rich Arab countries, in other parts of the Arab world? Indeed, about one-seventh of some three-and-a-half million Palestinians already live outside of Israel and the countries adjoining it. It is senseless to argue for relocating all the refugees on much of their former land in Palestine, given their current attitude and indications that a substantial portion of them would do whatever they could to disrupt if not destroy the state of Israel.

We certainly agree with the signers of the “We Christians believe” ad that there should be serious dialogue among Christians from both the Eastern and Western traditions. We further agree that “such dialogue must be free from the pressures … for immediate political advantage or to impose predetermined solutions.” We confess that Christians who have long been living in the Middle East have too readily been overlooked by those in the West. But we see no basis for dialogue with those who cavalierly dismiss what the Bible says about God’s special concern for Israel as having no relevance to today’s world.

We hasten to add that, unlike the impression that some Christian defenders of Israel convey, we do not believe that God needs our initiatives in order to bring to pass what he has foretold will eventually happen. God’s word to us is to be obedient to his explicit commandments and to seek to apply the principles he has set forth in all of our relationships, whether or not such obedience seems to our limited understanding to hinder or help the fulfillment of divine predictions.

Among the principles we see in God’s Word are the promotion of justice for all peoples, together with special concern for the descendants of God’s ancient chosen people.

On the Panama Canal

The Bible sets a standard of justice for men and nations, but we have often been lax about applying that standard to national and international relations. The prophets make it clear—Amos is perhaps the strongest voice—that nations are judged by how they deal with their citizens, as well as by how they deal with each other.

Christian citizens in a democracy have a duty under God to keep our representatives informed about biblical principles. The Golden Rule may not be completely applicable to nations. Yet shouldn’t we ask if at some point “national self-interest” should yield to someone else’s cry for justice?

From a historical perspective, there is no doubt that the 1903 Panama Canal treaty has many deficiencies. The Republic of Panama “grants in perpetuity” rights, authorities, and use of facilities to the United States. The United States signer of the treaty, Secretary of State John Hay, said in a letter at the time to Senator Spooner, that the treaty was “very satisfactory, vastly advantageous to the United States, and we must confess, with what face we can muster, not so advantageous to Panama. You and I know too well how many points there are in this treaty to which a Panamanian patriot could object.” And object the Panamanians have.

Latin American evangelical leaders have been reluctant to speak publicly on the canal, thinking that it is a bilateral issue between the U.S. and Panama, but privately many of them favor the new treaty. Emilio Antonio Nuñez says that “my personal opinion as a Central American is that the new treaty is for the good of the Panamanians and also of the U.S.” Rejection, he adds, “will increase prejudice and give a banner to the anti-Americans. It will create an antagonistic climate in the area for mission work.” Evangelist Luis Palau says that the U.S. has “a lot to win, and very little to lose” with the new treaty. Peruvian writer Samuel Escobar observes that the great majority of thinking Latin Americans are in favor of the treaty.

With the new Panama Canal treaty, it seems possible to do some good by a relatively simple action. Whatever the justifications for the old treaty, from which Panama did benefit at the time, 1978 is not the same as 1903. Ironically, the leftists in Latin America are the severest critics of the new treaty. Its ratification will remove much of the steam from their blustering about North American imperialism. That American conservative evangelicals and Panamanian Marxists would unite to oppose the treaty proves that politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.

As two North American Christians who were born and raised in Latin America, and who live and minister there, we are concerned that the long-festering problem of the canal be settled in a manner that will be just and equitable to both parties, and will improve, or at least do nothing to worsen, the climate for the proclamation of the Gospel.—Guest editorial, STEPHEN R. SYWULKA and WILLIAM O. TAYLOR, Guatemala City, Guatemala.

Dr. Daniel R. Hinthorn, assistant professor of medicine, School of Medicine, University of Kansas, Kansas City

If there is a point in embryonic development at which the growing human embryo becomes a human being, it has been unrecognized by theologians and philosophers through the ages. However, if a point in embryonic development at which God recognizes a fetus as human could be fixed by authority from the Bible, many problems of abortion and birth control could be dealt with more easily and rationally by Christians.

Many evangelicals, without giving a Scriptual basis, consider the moment of fertilization of the ovum by the sperm to be the instant that God recognizes the first cell of a new human being. Let us look at some problems in accepting this view and then consider a biblical basis for an alternative view.

If the infusion of the soul were at the moment of fertilization of the ovum by the sperm, the case of identical twins poses a special problem. Identical twins originate as a single ovum fertilized by a single sperm. After the development of two or more cells from the initial fertilized ovum, there is a cleavage so that one or more cells from the original single ovum develop into one human being each. In this situation, if we believed the soul was given to the fertilized ovum, would we suggest a splitting of a soul, or did one twin not receive a soul, or did the second twin get his soul after the first twin?

The next two problems involve methods of contraception. If we could prove that infusion of the soul occurred at the fertilized ovum stage of development, both of the following might be questionable practices: the intrauterine device and the “morning after” pill.

The hormonal balance of each ovulating female changes with menstruation to prepare the endometrium, the cells lining the uterus, for implantation of the fertilized egg cell mass. One of the present methods of birth control, the intrauterine device (IUD), is believed to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg cell mass in the endometrium. That cell mass then passes from the body and dies. If we accept the fertilized egg as the point in time at which a new human being occurs, we would then logically conclude that using an IUD could result in “killings” of human beings at monthly intervals.

More recently has come the use of the “morning after” pill. In this situation, the woman, suspecting possible fertilization of the egg, uses a large dose of estrogenic substance, diethylstilbestral, soon after sexual intercourse. This hormone makes the endometrium unattractive to the fertilized egg cell mass, so that it passes from her body to die. Thus, using either the IUD or the “morning after” pill would be inappropriate if the Bible taught that a new human being was created at fertilization.

Life is certainly present after fertilization of the egg by the sperm when only one cell is present, but is this human life? Certainly the cell is living, growing, and multiplying, and since this cell has every potential of producing an adult human being, we recognize it as life. The cell is not plant life, nor is it animal life. Therefore, we conclude it is human life. However, the question of when God gives the fetus a soul, or when God looks upon an individual as a person, or when God inscribes a name in his book, is more difficult. For the answer we cannot look to science, but to the Bible in Psalms 139:15, 16: “My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”

Embryonic development of each of us was strikingly similar to the sequence of events that are referred to in those verses. Let us trace the course of embryonic development, and then we will return to a further discussion of this passage.

Human life begins with the union of sperm with ovum. At that time a unique living cell is formed that begins progressive division and results in a solid ball of cells. The ball begins to become hollow in the center with cells at the outer edge. Finally, the ball flattens on one side. This side folds in on the other, resembling a deflated basketball with a fist pushed into it. This occurs approximately seven to eight days after conception, at the same time that the mass of cells becomes attached to the wall of the uterus. Rapid growth of cells follows with more folding. The placenta, the source of vital nourishment of the embryo, is then formed from cells of the embryonic cell mass. By three weeks, distinct blood cells and a primitive heart of the embryo have been formed. By four weeks, the sense organs, eyes, ears, and nose are apparent. The heart is pumping blood through the fetus. Even at this time in the embryonic development, the mother may not yet realize that she is pregnant.

The key to these two verses, Psalms 139:15–16, is in the words “my substance, yet being unperfect,” which is the translation of the single Hebrew word golem. This is the only place in Scripture where the noun golem is used. However, the verb form of the same word, galam, is found in Second Kings 2:8. Here Elijah took his mantle and galam—that is, he rolled or wrapped it up. So we see that the noun golem means rolled or folded together. Hence, this passage indicates that we are dealing with the embryo at the stage of its being folded together, which occurs at approximately seven to eight days after conception, which is about the time of implantation.

A composite translation will be used to illustrate the point: My bony skeleton was not hid from thee when I was made in the womb and my tendons, nerves, arteries, and veins were being woven together beyond the power of human observation. Thine eyes did see me as an embryo, rolled up and folded together; and in thy book all were written what days they should be fashioned, and not one among them was yet made.

We note some interesting points. God writes in his book at the folded embryo stage at the time of implantation in the wall of the uterus. This is of medical importance for several reasons. The cell mass may spontaneously fail to become implanted in the uterus. This is believed to occur frequently. Even if the cells do become implanted, the majority of the cells of the ball develop into the placenta and other non-human tissues that are normally destroyed after birth. Additionally, about the time of this folded stage, a pathologic process can occur and result in a cancer called a hydatidaform mole instead of a child.

We have shown that God really does consider a developing embryo in the uterus to be a human being. Yet the question of how soon after fertilization he first began to write in his Book, or when he first considers the cells a living soul is not established from this passage.

There is a point in embryonic development before which the soul of a man is definitely absent. According to the words of Christ, in response to the question of how a man can reenter the uterus and be born, he stated, “… unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit” (John 3:5,6; NIV).

Thus, unless a man is born of water, used to signify natural birth, he cannot enter. Can the fertilized ovum be “born of water”? I think not. It is quite interesting to note that the folding of the embryo produces the membranes that are responsible for the “bag of waters.” Thus, being born of water would be anatomically possible first at about the time of implantation. That is virtually the same time that the folding begins. Both passages then point to one time in embryologic development. The time when God begins writing and the point before which Christ says one cannot enter the Kingdom of God is implantation, about seven days after the fertilization of the ovum.

Now we are ready to consider when, if ever, it is right to abort pregnancy. We have no evidence that prior to implantation, the time when the folding begins, that God recognized the living mass of cells as a person. Certainly, it seems that it is at that time that he begins writing in his book. This means that prevention of attachment of the cells to the uterus by the IUD would be a permissible form of preventing or aborting pregnancy. Subsequent to implantation would not be a permissible time to abort pregnancy.

As we seek from the Bible the answers to these age-old questions of the origin of life, let us recall that true wisdom is knowing as God knows: “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law” (Ps. 119:18).

Nazis March On Skokie

Who has heard of Skokie, Illinois? If you aren’t aware that this Chicago suburb has a large Jewish population, you soon will be—for a very unpleasant reason. If it comes off, national media will take notice of a march in Skokie by a small band of American Nazis, perhaps on April 20, which is the anniversary of Adolph Hitler’s birth.

Needless to say, the Nazis represent the antithesis of what the American Constitution calls for. But they have used the Constitution to win court cases that defend their rights to have a parade permit issued by the village of Skokie. Along with almost all other Americans, we denounce this pathetic group of Hitler admirers, though we cannot agree with those who say they shouldn’t be taken seriously. Too many Germans didn’t bother to take Adolph Hitler seriously for a long while. And even when he did come to power, few if any countries bothered to take him and his published intentions seriously.

We wish the parade would not take place, but we agree with U.S. District Judge Bernard Decker that “the ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines … is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country.”

It is important to remember that, unlike shouting “fire” in a crowded auditorium, a Nazi parade is constitutionally protected because no one is compelled to watch or listen. The parade route will be clearly specified in advance. Stores, offices, and houses along the route should consider hanging black crepe in mourning for the victims of Nazism. And, if no one attends the parade, television can show the absence of spectators.

While the parade is going on, in a quite different part of Skokie, or in a suitable site in Chicago itself, there should be a massive, non-violent demonstration. We need to remind ourselves and the watching world of the American principles of constitutional democracy and American opposition to invidious discrimination against anyone because of religion, race, sex, age, wealth, national origin, and the like.

Walking through Logan International Airport in Boston recently, I heard two people discussing religion and its importance for life. I felt somewhat surprised and wished that I could stop and ask why they were talking about that.

I asked myself why I was surprised. After all, Christians know that making a decision about Christ is the focal point of life. Then I decided that almost everything we read and see, whether on television, in the movies, or in books and magazines, overlooks the importance of Christianity. The media leads us to expect people to ignore Christianity—or at least never seriously think about it. Would I be surprised, I wondered, if I heard two people discussing the merits of lemon fresh Joy or Ban deodorant? If we knew life only from the perspective of film, tape, or print we would never suspect that people long for some kind of religious experience (I am, of course, excluding the recent trend of interest in extra-worldly encounters, which could be short-lived), if not for a surcease of the restless spirit caused in a life without Christ.

Yet there are realistic novels, as contrasted with fantasy, written in this century that take Christianity seriously, though few Christians know of them: in particular, the ambitious eleven-volume series Strangers and Brothers by C. P. Snow. The first novel came out in 1940 and the rest of the volumes were issued periodically for the next twenty or so years. Lewis Eliot, the main character, narrates each of the tales, and though most of the books do not concern him personally, the series is his story.

Snow was educated as a physicist and taught at Cambridge. During World War II he served the British government as advisor on scientific personnel. Eventually he retired from government to devote all his time to writing. The outline of Eliot’s life is similar, though that character was trained as a lawyer.

Lewis Eliot is not a Christian, nor, I suspect, is C. P. Snow. But the question of Christianity enters each of the novels in one way or another. There are believers in the series, and Snow presents them not as odd men out, but as three-dimensional characters. He treats them with respect; he never laughs at their faith. And he carefully distinguishes between nominal Christians, those who attended the Church of England more out of form and tradition and conservatism than out of firm faith in Christ, and those who are, as a friend of mine once called them, activists.

And that is what makes Strangers and Brothers unique in twentieth century literature, at least for me. Other writers use Christianity as a theme; Snow uses Christianity as a world view. His themes are power, politics, the struggles of men to live with their sinfulness. As with Lewis Eliot, who credits his sensitivity and perception to a strong sense of original sin, the way the characters deal with these issues depends on how they view life. Eliot struggles to live a moral life without faith. His friends and acquaintances who are Christians struggle with the same desire but with their faith. Snow presents a clear picture that there are two ways to handle life, either with Christ or without him.

Although Eliot muddles along nicely without faith, Snow never seems to be displaying him as exhibit A for the defense. If anything, Eliot has some rather nasty qualities that he fights, at times unsuccessfully, to overcome. Here is no sentimental approval of agnosticism. Nor are we shown how happy people are without God. On the contrary. Snow has great insight into how empty life is when God is absent.

The Light and the Dark, the fourth novel in the series, deals with just this question. It is perhaps the most powerful—certainly the most memorable—book of the eleven. Roy Calvert, a brilliant young scholar, desperately wants to believe in God. He is shredded with agony at the thought that he will never have the grace to receive faith. He has bouts of insomnia when he struggles with himself. And he envies those people around him who have never lost their faith. Eliot, who is his closest friend, tells us that “he had tasted what it was like to long to believe in God. And that night, while we walked in the winter gale, the Augustinian phrase kept ringing through his mind—‘Thou hast created us for Thyself and our hearts can never rest until they rest in Thee’” (Scribner’s, 1947, p. 104).

Eventually Calvert decided that he has been destined by God to remain outside his fellowship. Since he finds life without God intolerable, he volunteers for hazard duty during the war, expecting to be killed. And he is. Although Calvert is a somewhat larger-than-life character, any Christian who has ever felt shut off from God or who has thought that his prayers reach no higher than the ceiling, if that high, understands the pain Calvert experiences. Snow does not glamorize life without God.

In taking Christianity seriously, Snow does something else. He writes about what he knows: the scientific community, government, the politics of power. He anticipated what Roger C. Sider talked about in “The New Biology in Search of a Soul” (see February 10 issue, page 20) and what Saturday Review devoted an issue to in its December 10 number: “God and Science.” Snow deals specifically with physicists and development and deployment of the bomb during the war in The New Men, sixth in the series. But the issues are the same—how scientists could enter areas that were presumed to belong only to God. He also anticipated the cross-over between theology and science, just by presenting Christianity as a world view. Some of his scientists are believers, some aren’t. In fact, one of the most gifted and respected scientists is also one of Snow’s firmest believers.

Snow shows great perception about the human condition, without the psychological trappings too many modern writers bring to their work. Although Strangers and Brothers is no evangelistic tract, few people could read it without deciding that of the two ways of living, the Christian way is best. Snow might not have intended it that way, but it happens.

A Birthday Party for Washington Cathedral

The skies were overcast, the temperature was cool. Rain fell for half an hour, but the inclement weather failed to dampen the spirits of the several thousand people milling about the grounds of the Washington National Cathedral last September 30.

They were there to celebrate the seventieth anniversary of the laying of the cathedral’s cornerstone and they seemed determined to have a good time. Food concessions, flower stalls, and crafts stands abounded; mimes and jugglers performed; helium-filled balloons bobbed in profusion; and an antique merry-go-round was kept busy for the delight of children and adults alike.

Inside the massive Gothic cathedral, guides conducted stonework and stained-glass tours as choirs sang. The hardier visitors took advantage of the rare opportunity to climb to the top of the 350-foot central tower. From there they savored a panoramic view of the city.

Presiding over the festival was the Right Reverend John Walker, newly consecrated bishop of Washington. Bishop Walker is one of a very few black Episcopal bishops and the first to occupy the prestigious office of bishop of Washington. Also present was the Very Reverend Francis B. Sayre, the recently retired dean of the Cathedral. Dean Sayre, a grandson of Woodrow Wilson, is probably the person most closely associated with the cathedral. When he became dean shortly after World War II, the cathedral was only one-sixth completed. In the subsequent three decades he pushed the pace of construction strenuously with the result that the building is nearly finished. Understandably, the cathedral looms large in the life of Dean Sayre. But it also occupies a special place in the lives of the poeple of the District of Columbia—and, indeed, of the whole country.

Washington Cathedral is the nearest thing we have to a national church. It is like a republican Westminster Abbey—an image its chapter seeks energetically to foster. Flags of the fifty states hang in the transepts, bronze state seals are inlaid in the floor of the main entrance, and each Sunday prayers are offered for the people of a particular state. The church is also the setting for such national ceremonies as funerals and memorial services for prominent public figures. Each year the military services observe their anniversaries there with special commemorative services. Numerous famous personages (Woodrow Wilson, Helen Keller, and Admiral Dewey, among others) are interred in the building. Flanking the main entrance are statues of Washington and Lincoln. Many other great Americans are memorialized in one form or another throughout the church. Every year thousands of Americans pass through its doors for a look at what they are told is “your cathedral in the nation’s capital.”

In many ways, the role of Washington Cathedral is similar to that of the great medieval cathedrals. Just as the faithful of Canterbury, Chartres, and Cologne—from the mightiest to the most humble—took a personal interest in the construction of their cathedrals, so do Americans from pensioners in Oshkosh to United States senators labor in behalf of this national church. Also in the manner of its medieval counterparts, Washington Cathedral is the scene of more than religious services. The crossing is the locale for a great variety of concerts, lectures, ballets, and operas, and the grounds are the scene of festivals of every sort.

I have been entranced by this building ever since I saw it as a boy fifteen years ago. On subsequent visits to Washington, I was able to monitor the progress of its construction and, since moving to Washington two years ago, I have been a frequent visitor, watching it take shape at close hand. Crossing the Potomac River bridge you can see it floating above the city skyline in the distance. Driving through the city at night, its lighted central tower is visible from many points. Traveling up Wisconsin Avenue in the early morning, you can see the building looming above the mists.

I have spent many pleasant hours exploring it, always surprised by new details. I also think of the architect William Frohman, who lived with the building for fifty years (he died in 1972). Guides at the cathedral say that in the last years of his life, he was a common sight: a hunched old man in a tattered trench coat scrambling over the scaffolding high above the ground, poking about and cajoling the builders. An unpretentious man in life, Frohman is also something of a historical figure—the last man, in all probability, to design and supervise the construction of a Gothic cathedral. Like Sir Christopher Wren, the architect of St. Paul’s, he lies buried in his cathedral, his monument soaring above him.

According to the guide book, Congress granted the charter for the Cathedral in 1889 and construction began in 1901. The church stands on one of the choicest spots in Washington—sixty acres located atop Mt. St. Alban, the highest point in the city. In addition to the cathedral church itself, the grounds contain St. Albans preparatory school for boys and National Cathedral School for Girls, a college of preachers, St. Albans Episcopal Church, and numerous playing fields, gardens, and auxiliary buildings. Rising above all is the great church itself, its Gloria in Excelsis tower 301 feet tall—the highest point in the capital.

Unlike many medieval cathedrals where the chancel was completely screened off from the nave, Washington Cathedral employs a lace-like oak-carved screen. As a result, a visitor standing at the west entrance has a breathtaking view to the high altar almost 500 feet in the distance. Seemingly hanging in space high above the crossing is a magnificent rood beam of carved oak supporting a large crucifix flanked by carvings of St. Mary and St. John. Unlike many large churches, there is no oppressive darkness here, but rather a light and airy feeling. The arches of the nave rise 101 feet above the floor and much of the space of the walls is taken up in glass. Heightening the airiness is the fact that the windows increase in size as the eye moves upward, beginning with six-foot high lancets in the ground level main arcade, to ten-foot high windows in the triforium and ending with giant thirty-foot high windows in the clerestory. The result is that the highest level of the arches are full of light.

Altogether there are some 120 windows in the building and they are of a remarkably high standard. Although some of the glass is mediocre, there are also some examples of great art, notably several striking modernistic windows, among them the space window (complete with a piece of moon rock) by Andrew Wyeth and the newly installed west rose window designed by Rowan Le Compte. The latter, a huge window twenty-six feet in diameter, is described by Le Compte as an abstract “meditation on the creation.” When hit by the rays of the evening sun, it presents a dazzling kaleidoscope of blues, yellows, and reds.

As might be expected in so large a structure, the quality of the art varies widely. Of particularly high quality are the elaborately carved stone reredos (screen) behind the high altar, the wood carving of the choir, and the wrought iron grill work. Some of the best art is to be found in the cathedral’s eight chapels. Of these, the loveliest is St. Mary’s Chapel with its beautifully carved poly chromed reredos and sixteenth-century Flemish Tapestries.

Fully as outstanding as the cathedral’s visual arts is the music. The cathedral maintains one of the few men and boys’ choirs in the country and it is surely one of the finest choral groups to be found either here or abroad. The boys are selected from all parts of the country and are given scholarships at St. Alban’s school, in return for which they sing at services four days a week. The men are professional musicians from the Washington area. The choir is under the direction of Paul Callaway, a kinetic, gnome-like little man whose vast talents as organist and choirmaster belie his small size. Callaway’s taste in music is truly catholic and the choir’s repertory is correspondingly eclectic, ranging from plainsong to the most contemporary music. The group’s forte, to my mind, is the music of the modern Anglican school, represented by such composers as Vaughn Williams, Benjamin Britten, and Leo Sowerby.

Gazing at the cathedral from his nearby office window, Canon Jeffrey Cave reflected that, “It’s amazing that such a building could be built in the twentieth century.” The cathedral has been built, however, and for that we should be grateful. Only seventy years old and still evolving, it has nevertheless firmly established itself in our national life. The cathedral is ever changing, always intriguing, making every visit unique. Every spot offers a different vista of arches, every hour a different mutation of color in the windows.

As varied as the moods are the memories: the spontaneity of a guitar mass; the echoes of the chanting choir processing from the shadows at a hushed, wintry evensong; the pageantry of a great festival eucharist. A lovingly wrought jewel in a prefab sea of kitsch, an oasis of calm in the surrounding frenzy, the cathedral is, most importantly, a soaring affirmation of faith in a secularist age. Underscoring this fact are the words carved in the frieze around the apse wall. Taken from the angels’ chorus in Revelation, they proclaim the message of the church triumphant: “Alleluia! The Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Alleluia!”

JAMES C. ROBERTS

James C. Roberts is executive director of the American Conservative Union, Washington, D.C.

Society remembers not only its heroes but its villains, people who have distinguished themselves through monstrous cruelty or evil. It is not in a history text or work of fiction but in the Bible that we find the arch type of all such reprobates—Judas Iscariot.

We think of Judas as an unholy trinity of betrayer, traitor, and thief, as unforgettable as he is unforgiveable. That is the traditional view of him. Yet Soren Kierkegaard shrewdly reminds us that “one will get a deep insight into the state of Christianity in each age by seeing how it interprets Judas.” Perhaps we have made Judas into an Iago figure, a tragic caricature of a solitary monster. Did he act freely, or was he predestined? Such quibbling has blurred his significance.

It is true that Judas Iscariot was a man apart. A native of Kerioth, he was the only one of the twelve apostles who was not a Galilean. The Gospels mark him as a thief and as the betrayer of Christ. Yet surely he was no more endowed with the frailties of the human condition than others who followed Jesus. Thomas was the skeptic; Matthew the fraudulent tax collector; Peter the impulsive; James and John the vengeful “sons of thunder”; and then there is that great host described anonymously as “publicans and sinners.” Perhaps Judas was not like them; for no man commits suicide casually. What kind of titanic struggle led this man to end his life in despair?

It would not be far wrong to suggest that by the time the Gospel narrative brings us to the last week in Jerusalem there are only two people who have any clear grasp of what is going on. Each one knows that the Kingdom is to be established; yet they perceive it differently. Each man faces a great anxiety. Both men are concerned for this world’s grief. For one man, Jesus, the Kingdom means the bearing of sin and suffering in order to transform it; for the other man, Judas, the Kingdom means the elimination of sin and suffering. Judas sees life as a problem requiring an immediate, permanent solution. Jesus views life as a condition that contains the potential for change and transformation. So Judas betrays Jesus to make him act rather than to suffer, to eliminate what is intolerable rather than to redeem and change it. Judas seeks to build the Kingdom of God without suffering and pain. He wants to eliminate those people who make life uncomfortable for himself and others. Then, when he is alone and realizes that he also is not perfect, he eliminates himself.

There are other characters in this great drama, but they play a dumb role. The disciples, bewildered and confused, are asleep in the garden. Sadly, that seems to be the most characteristic repose of the Church throughout history. Critical events take place without the participation of God’s people. Yet perhaps that is providential. On one side we are rightly pressured by people who want immediate solutions, the manifesto of Judas, and on the other we are confronted with the seemingly impossible call of Jesus Christ to minister to the sufferings of the world. The heartaches of the world are real, but there is a distinction between the elimination-of sin and suffering and its transformation in the Kingdom of Christ. The Christian hope is not to return to Eden, but to transform the city of man into the City of God. Mother Theresa captures this distinction superbly when she says that “Welfare is for a purpose—an admirable and necessary one—whereas Christian love is for a person.” Such a stance will do little to enhance the Church as a social and political power; it will bring the accusation that we are “fooling the beggar.” But it may bring the Kingdom just one step nearer and make the vital difference between betraying the Lord and seeking to do his will.

The tragedy of Judas was that rather than giving himself for others he worked for a kind of immediate upopia. Such a pursuit destroys those who struggle for it since it is basically selfish. Judas pursued a cause rather than suffer the grief of his neighbor. Above all, he was a man without faith; he failed to allow for that transforming action of God without which all the aspirations of man must end in death. He acts in the interests of humanity without comprehending his own humanity and innate weakness.

D. Bruce Lockerbie is chairman of the Fine Arts department at The Stony Brook School, Stony Brook, New York. This article is taken from his 1976 lectures on Christian Life and Thought, delivered at Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado.