Page 5359 – Christianity Today (2024)

Candidates for national office know their past mistakes are likely to wind up on public display, flaunted like trophies by opponents who insist personal conduct is fair game in an election season. This happened last month to U.S. Senator Roger W. Jepsen (R-Iowa) when stories about his 1977 visit to an unsavory “health club” began to circulate.

Jepsen, a conservative who has pushed for anti-abortion and family protection legislation, used the occasion to explain how his personal commitment to Christ—made later in 1977—has changed his life. He appears to have made a successful political rebound, with many Iowa newspapers defending him editorially and a strong show of support from his fellow senators in Washington.

“We have made no secret that our lives and our marriage have gone through some rocky times,” said Jepsen of himself and his wife, Dee. “We have made no secret that we have made some real mistakes in our personal lives. We’ve made that a matter of public record, hoping it would help others; and frankly, as a testimony to the healing, forgiving, and transforming effect of a living and merciful God.”

The race for Jepsen’s Senate seat, which he wrested from liberal Dick Clark in 1978, is heating up with unusual intensity over social issues. Independent anti-abortion activists in Iowa launched a highly emotional appeal for support for Jepsen using a mascot called Teddy Tomorrow. A person dressed in a teddy bear costume shows up at rallies for Jepsen’s Democratic opponent, Tom Harkin, carrying signs protesting Harkin’s opposition to a ban on abortion. A fundraising slogan used by the group says “15 million babies never hugged a teddy bear,” referring to the number of abortions performed in the United States since 1973. In retaliation, Harkins campaign staff established a public affairs committee to raise funds by impugning the motives of right-to-life groups and tying them to Jepsen’s campaign effort.

Because Jepsen appeals to Iowa conservatives on a pro-moral platform, it seemed especially damaging when information about the health club visit spread. Jepsen has acknowledged that he joined a club offering “nude modeling, nude encounters, and nude rap sessions.” He said he applied for membership in a moment of “weakness” and “stupidity,” and never participated in the club’s activities.

In a prepared statement, Jepsen termed the disclosure “an organized, deliberate attempt at character assassination.” He insists he and his wife, a former Reagan appointee to the White House public liaison staff, have made no secret of their past.

“It is fairly common knowledge that Dee and I are what is frequently described as born-again Christians. Dee came to that personal commitment to Christ early in 1970. I did in late 1977,” he said. “The Lord met us at points of need in our lives. Politics, which used to be a dividing force in our lives, has become a uniting one.

“Perhaps all of this negative activity is a blessing in disguise, for it has brought us to the position we are in today—sharing our good news with those who aren’t aware of it yet.”

At a private luncheon for Republican senators, Jepsen received enthusiastic applause when he apologized for the incident. Staff aides say numerous senators have called to offer personal support. In Iowa, the Des Moines Register expressed the sentiment that appears to be holding sway with voters: “His lapse in judgment should be forgiven, and the campaign for his Senate seat should be focused on the real issues.”

Mainline Protestant denominations, which have lost millions of members since the mid-1960s, suffered only small losses in 1982, and some churches gained members.

Total U.S. church membership continued to grow in 1982 with the Roman Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention, and Assemblies of God among large churches showing the greatest gains, according to the 1984 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. (1982 figures are the most recent available from the participating churches.) Church membership gains for 1982 failed to keep pace with U.S. population growth.

The overall slowing of membership losses in mainline churches offers “some signs that we may be approaching a turning point, but it hasn’t come yet,” said yearbook editor Constant H. Jacquet of the National Council of Churches. “There are a few ‘blips’ up, but we don’t know whether it will represent a permanent change for the Episcopal and Lutheran churches.”

The Episcopal Church counted 26,699 new members in 1982, bringing its total for that year to 2,794,139; and the Lutheran Church in America counted 3,826 new American members, bringing the U.S. membership total to 2,925,655. The American Lutheran Church gained 503 members, bringing its total to 2,346,710.

The collective membership of U.S. churches rose by 0.83 percent in 1982—a net gain of 1,150,445 new members for a total collective membership of 139,603,059. National population growth was estimated at 1 percent in 1982. Church membership as a percentage of the U.S. population declined from 59.7 percent in 1981 to 59.6 percent in 1982.

Collective church membership in Canada increased by about 1 percent to 15,917,829 in 1982.

In 1982, the Roman Catholic Church gained 881,195 members, or 1.72 percent, for a total of 52,088,774. The Southern Baptist Convention gained 209,065 new members, a gain of 1.52 percent, for a total of 13,991,709. The Assemblies of God gained 90,788 members, up 5.07 percent, for a total membership of 1,879,182 in 1982.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) gained 31,000 new members in the United States, bringing its U.S. total to 3,521,000.

Among the smaller conservative churches showing gains in 1982 were the Seventh-day Adventists, up 3.02 percent to 606,310; the Church of God (Cleveland, Tenn.), up 1.58 percent to 463,992; the Church of the Nazarene, up 1.26 percent to 498,491; and the Christian and Missionary Alliance, up 4.96 percent to 204,713.

The Presbyterian Church in America gained 12,966 new members, a rise of 8.67 percent, for a total of 149,548. Jacquet said the PCA received a number of members from the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. and United Presbyterian Church, which joined last year to form the 3.2-million-member Presbyterian Church (USA).

Higher birthrates and evangelization account for most of the larger membership gains, said Jacquet, a staff associate in NCC’S Office of Research, Evaluation and Planning. He added that immigration also played a part in the Catholic church growth. He further noted that, while theologically conservative churches are among the fastest growing, there are some signs that their growth rate is slowing.

Among the large Protestant bodies that lost members were the United Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the United Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and the two Presbyterian denominations that have now united.

RELIGIOUS NEWS SERVICE

More Christian Colleges Are Being Dragged Into Court

It started as an innocent prank aimed at a dorm mate who had recently asked a young woman to marry him. Some Taylor University students put a pillow case over their friend’s head, tied his arms, hands, and feet, and carried him from a residence hall.

Witnesses heard the students say, “We’re going to put you in a canoe and push you out into the campus lake.” Security personnel intervened before they carried out the plan.

After some deliberation, officials at the Upland, Indiana, Christian university thought it best to suspend the perpetrators of the prank for the following fall semester. Each student was required to submit to a re-entry interview before returning. Viewing this action as “overly harsh punishment,” the students’ parents threatened to sue Taylor University. At the same time, the prank victim’s parents threatened to sue the school, claiming that it didn’t move quickly enough in disciplining the perpetrators.

Charges were dropped before the matter reached court. However, Taylor University was left facing a substantial bill for legal counsel.

Such situations are not new among Christian colleges. Some college presidents say legal actions against Christian schools are on the increase. “It was very disturbing to learn from the [other college] presidents just how litigious Christian constituencies have become toward their Christian colleges,” said W. Richard Stephens, president of Greenville (Ill.) College. “I believe that this is a harmful—even un-Christian—trend that does not honor biblical approaches to handling grievances and wrongs.” Stephens is a member of the Government and Legal Issues Committee of the Christian College Coalition (CCC).

At the direction of the committee, Stephens sent a questionnaire to the 70 presidents of ccc-member colleges. Thirty-seven of the 51 presidents who responded reported either direct or threatened lawsuits and legal challenges during the past five years. Most of the issues were settled out of court, often at great expense to the colleges. Settlements ranged from $10,000 to $300,000, with most falling between $15,000 and $30,000. Only occasionally have settlements been reached as a result of court rulings.

Suits and threats of legal action have come from students, faculty, administrators, staff members, parents of students, local zoning officials, state and federal government officials, interest groups, campus neighbors, and recipients of college health services.

“These colleges operate daily as Christian communities and thereby give their constituencies generous care, [with] much freedom to use the colleges personally and as agencies of redemption,” one college president said. “They are not operated in the mode of bureaucratic legal entities. They, therefore, have not developed legally tight policies, procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Hence, the colleges are easy marks for successful legal action.”

CHRISTIANITY TODAY spoke to nine presidents of Christian colleges. Most were hesitant to discuss their colleges’ lawsuits and settlements, fearing that their comments might give rise to further legal action. Without naming the schools involved, specific legal actions include the following:

• A candidate for a non-faculty position appealed to a state human rights commission, charging that he was denied employment for failing to meet the college’s religious requirements. The commission intended to use the case to resolve the question of the right of religious organizations to give preferential treatment to job applicants who are in agreement with the organizations’ religious beliefs.

• A former faculty member threatened legal action, charging that she was denied a promotion because of her sex. The college’s attorney advised a pay-off to avoid costly litigation.

• A spectator at a college baseball game threatened to sue after being hit by a ball. The college settled out of court.

Other lawsuits and threatened suits have centered on required attendance at chapel services, academic advisem*nt, and transcript release policies. However, faculty contract disputes head the list.

Nearly 20 percent of the respondents to Stephens’s questionnaire said terminated, tenured faculty had taken legal action or threatened it as a means of redressing their grievances.

Deaths

James L. Lovell, 87, editor of the missionary newsletter ACTION, founder at the age of 80 of World Bible School, through which some seven million people worldwide have taken Bible correspondence courses; April 29, at Little Company of Mary Hospital in Torrance, California, of a massive heart attack.

L.E. Maxwell, 88, one of Canada’s leading evangelicals, president emeritus of Prairie Bible Institute, which he founded in 1922, author of several books including Born Crucified and Crowded to Christ; February 4, at his home in Three Hills, Alberta, Canada, of Parkinson’s disease.

Nearly 160 leaders of the United Church of Christ have approved a declaration meant to help end “the theological disarray and lackluster witness” of their denomination.

The unofficial meeting was led by local clergy and seminary teachers who said they are alarmed about what they described as the “theological vacuum” in the church. Avery Post, president of the United Church, and representatives from 10 of the church’s 39 state or regional conferences, attended the meeting. They urged “sound teaching in our church” in a letter addressed to members of the denomination.

In a “testimony of faith for today,” they affirmed the traditional Christian doctrines of the Trinitarian nature of God, the covenant with the people of Israel, the “incarnation of the Word in Jesus,” and salvation by “his life, death and resurrection.”

They declared their belief in Jesus Christ as Savior, as the “one word of God we have to hear, trust and obey.” They proclaimed the Bible as the trustworthy rule of faith and practice” and said the creeds, confessions, and covenants made in the past by their member churches “aid us in understanding the word addressed to us.”

However, participants took pains to link that statement of traditional Christian beliefs to efforts for social justice, which have been the principal goal of United Church programming for its 27-year history. “The divine deeds cannot be separated from God’s call [for us] to perform liberating and reconciling deeds in this world,” they said.

“I thank God for such a work,” Post said of the “Craigville declaration,” which has no official status in the church. The meeting was held in Craigville, Massachusetts, at a historic conference center connected to what has now become the 1.7-million-member denomination.

Earlier, he had told the Craigville group he decided to attend the colloquy because it was planned to discuss some of the most important issues he is facing as leader of the denomination, including a proposal for a new statement of faith for the United Church and the enomination’s need to reply to major ecumenical agreements that require the church to reach consensus on key issues of belief and organization.

Alfred Williams, minister and president of the Massachusetts Conference of the United Church, said the Craigville declaration should have importance, even outside his denomination.

“We are not the only denomination where these issues are powerfully present. There are others in search of a theological plumbline for their faith,” he said, citing the United Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches.

One of the organizers of the colloquy, the Rev. Gabriel Fackre, said he was most pleased that participants, who included members of several factions in the United Church, were able to find “agreement on fundamental truths,” while accepting “the value of our diversity.”

In January, Fackre, of Andover Newton Theological School, was one of 39 theologians from seven seminaries connected with the denomination who issued “an urgent appeal” for “sustained rethinking of our theological tradition.” The theologians said the United Church is working in a theological vacuum.

“Much of our thinking … is pragmatic and ideological,” the theologians said. They urged development of a “teaching consensus” on “the central faith affirmations of our church,” because “the unity … (and) faithfulness of the church is endangered.”

One example of the ferment in the church is the United Church Biblical Witness Fellowship, which protested the decision by some denominational leaders to avoid using the New Testament phrase “Jesus is Lord” so as not to offend feminists and other opinion groups in the church.

Several members of the Biblical Witness Fellowship attended the Craigville colloquy. A director of that group, the Rev. Frederick E. Poorbaugh of South Westerlo, N.Y., called the Craigville declaration “a positive contribution,” because “in a number of places it affirms orthodox Christian faith” and because “it brought United Church leaders together across many lines of disagreement.”

In issuing the letter, participants disregarded arguments that congregational-style churches like theirs should not have any creeds. The “open forum of United Church believers” offered the letter “as a testimony of faith, not a test” of membership, in the words of Fackre.

The United Church of Christ is the successor to the Congregational Christian Churches, still the predominant Protestant denomination in New England. Since 1957, it has been united with the former Evangelical and Reformed Church, a church of predominantly German origin that combined a congregational organization with more liturgy.

RELIGIOUS NEWS SERVICE

A Volunteer Agency Fights To Control Its Publication

A group described by the FBI as a “political cult” has filed a $20 million lawsuit against 12 current and former board members of the Commission on Voluntary Service and Action (CVSA). The CVSA is an ecumenical volunteer agency based in the Interchurch Center in New York City. Its primary activity in recent years has been to publish Invest Yourself, an annual directory of opportunities for volunteer service. The directory’s reputation has suffered from a controversy over who has the right to publish it.

The defendants say their organization was infiltrated in the late ’70s and early ’80s by political extremists identifying with the Communist Party (CT, April 22, 1983, p. 38). They allege that a woman named Diane Ramirez, elected CVSA’S chairperson in 1981, and a few associates elected to the board were actually working for a clandestine network of organizations referred to variously as the “National Labor Federation” (Natlfed) and the “Communist Party U.S.A./Provisional.”

Evidence suggests that Ramirez and her cohorts were using Invest Yourself to recruit members. Former volunteers have connected 41 listings in the 1982 edition of Invest Yourself to Natlfed.

Ramirez left in a controversy over operations and finances, and took her rival faction with her. Last year they published their own version of the directory. The Ramirez group claims it is the authentic CVSA, and their suit is aimed at establishing that contention. CVSA secretary Wilbur Patterson, one of the defendants, has labeled the Natlfed operation “a clear case of organizational piracy.”

FBI spokesmen say Ramirez is part of a network of extremists led by a shadowy figure who has assumed the name Eugenio Perente-Ramos. Former volunteers say Natlfed attracts idealistic youth by claiming to organize and benefit poor people.

The Boston Globe reported that members “live communally, spend long hours soliciting contributions or recruiting members” and “are expected to donate all savings and possessions to the cause.” FBI special agent Mike Falcone described the group as a “political cult” with military and legal units.

In February, the Joint Terrorist Task Force of the FBI and the New York Police Department searched the group’s headquarters in Brooklyn and its legal offices in Manhattan. Authorities acted after getting word that the group had planned a series of violent acts.

Believing there has been enough confusion generated from last year’s unauthorized version of Invest Yourself, the CVSA has given up the use of that title for now. It is working with the Council on International Educational Exchange to produce a new biennial directory. The new guide, called Volunteer! A Comprehensive Guide to Voluntary Service Opportunities in the U.S. and Abroad, will be issued in August. It carries 162 listings of volunteer opportunities, plus tips on checking out organizations to ensure they are reputable.

It has been a rough year for hom*osexuals in mainline Protestant denominations. Last month, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) reaffirmed its stand against ordaining practicing hom*osexuals. In May, the United Methodists did likewise; and last November, the National Council of Churches didn’t allow a hom*osexual denomination to join.

The Presbyterian vote was taken at a meeting of its General Assembly in Phoenix. It was the first full meeting of the new 3.1-million-member denomination, created last year by the merger of the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. and the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. The two bodies had split 122 years earlier over Civil War issues.

The reaffirmation of the ban against hom*osexual ordination came in response to several resolutions from commissioners (delegates). Some of the resolutions asked the denomination to take a further step by dropping a gay rights provision from its personnel policy. It prohibits discrimination against a job applicant on the basis of sexual orientation. The policy is binding at the denominational level, and is recommended for lower levels of the church such as presbyteries and synods. Commissioners voted to retain the personnel policy, while reaffirming the church’s opposition to ordaining practicing gays.

The hom*osexuality issue gave rise to more debate when the annual report of Presbyterians for Lesbian/Gay Concerns (PLGC) was recommended for approval. One of 19 unofficial caucuses within the denomination, PLGC advocates the church’s full inclusion—including ordination—of practicing gays. Several commissioners asked that the group’s report not be accepted.

“The General Assembly’s approach to the subject of hom*osexuality should be more inclusive than this organization,” said a commissioner from New York. “I believe that … this organization represents an advocacy group for a way of life diametrically opposed to the clear teaching of the Scriptures.”

After lengthy debate, commissioners voted to accept the report. According to the church’s “Form of Government,” receiving the annual report of an unofficial caucus—called a “Chapter 9” group—does not represent endorsem*nt of that group.

While approving the PLGC report, commissioners defeated an effort to authorize the denomination’s Committee on Pluralism and Conflict to call a meeting between PLGC and another Chapter 9 organization, Presbyterians United for Biblical Concerns (PUBC). The latter organization consists of evangelicals who are working for renewal in the denomination. Instead of calling a meeting between the two groups, the commissioners voted to “encourage” PUBC to enter into dialogue with the gay rights group, PUBC has the right to refuse the request.

Matthew Welde, PUBC secretary-treasurer, said the abortive move to force dialogue was an effort to neutralize his group’s strong stand against the gay rights group. “They want us to get along together, coexist in a pluralistic church,” he said. “The bottom line for me—and I can only speak for myself—is the excising or expurgation of this group [PLGC] totally. I want to see them gone from the church.”

Evangelicals savored another victory when the General Assembly passed a strong statement against p*rnography. The resolution encourages Presbyterians to boycott companies that sponsor offensive television or radio programs, and companies that advertise in ways that offend personal moral convictions. The commissioners also urged President Reagan to ensure that federal obscenity laws are enforced.

Another issue close to the hearts of evangelicals—abortion—didn’t fare so well. Commissioners voted to take no action on 16 overtures and 1 resolution dealing with abortion. Many of the overtures asked the denomination to take a clear antiabortion stand. The commissioners voted to ask the denomination’s sessions (local governing bodies) to respond to two study documents that were approved by last year’s General Assembly. The documents generally are understood to support the church’s past pro-choice stance on abortion.

In other action, commissioners to the General Assembly:

• Elected James Andrews, 55, as the first stated clerk of the reunited Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). For the past year, Andrews served as a co-stated clerk of the reunited denomination. For 10 years he served as stated clerk of the former Presbyterian Church in the U.S. He defeated three challengers, including William Thompson, 65, former stated clerk of the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. The stated clerk is the church’s chief ecclesiastical official and serves as parlimentarian during general assemblies.

• Elected Harriet Nelson, 50, an elder from Napa, California, and a former missionary, as moderator. The moderator is the denomination’s presiding officer.

• Heard a report from the denomination’s Committee on Evangelism and Church Growth. At work the past two years, the committee asked for an additional year before it brings its recommendations to the General Assembly.

• Voted to encourage congressional and state action to pass an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

• Endorsed a multilateral freeze on nuclear weapons.

• Urged President Reagan to withdraw his nomination of William Wilson as U.S. ambassador to the Vatican.

• Heard a report that the denomination lost 35,000 members during the past year. The figure amounted to 10,000 fewer than the number lost by the two predecessor denominations during the year prior to reunion.

RON LEEin Phoenix

The five-year-old fight over biblical inerrancy has been spiced up with new ingredients.

The battle over biblical inerrancy is alive and well in the 14.1-million-member Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). In the latest skirmish, conservatives claimed most of the victories at the denomination’s annual meeting last month in Kansas City, Missouri. But the voices of denominational “moderates” were heard in floor debates and in two meetings held just prior to the three-day convention.

Pastors and others unhappy with the approach of the organized inerrantists held a separate meeting during part of the official SBC Pastors’ Conference. Called the SBC Forum, the meeting attracted about 2,000 participants and observers, compared with as many as 12,000 attending the Pastors’ Conference (which is customarily a rallying place for conservatives).

SBC Forum presiding officer Gene Garrison, pastor of First Baptist Church, Oklahoma City, described the reason for the forum: “Recent years, I believe, have seen the conference become merely a revivalistic and religio-political platform,” he said. Organizers of the alternative meeting said theirs was not a political gathering.

A second unofficial preconvention meeting was called by Women in Ministry, a group that supports the ordination of women in the SBC. The meeting’s Sunday morning session attracted some 250 people, nearly double the number that attended the first such meeting in 1983.

The politicization of the SBC was criticized in a sermon on the last day of the full convention. “When proud brokers of power manipulate the democratic processes of this convention in order to promote themselves, they’ve slipped from the high ground to the misty swamps of selfish ambitions and conceit,” charged Russell Dilday, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. “… This convention is too valuable to let it become a volleyball bounced back and forth across the political net by shrewd game players.” Dilday’s sermon was interrupted six times by applause and ended to a standing ovation.

Despite the sermon, the convention was highly political. In 1979, inerrantists began an effort to steer the denomination in a more conservative direction. Messengers (convention delegates) that year elected Memphis pastor Adrian Rogers, an inerrantist, as president. This year, Charles Stanley—the candidate favored by leaders in the dehomination’s conservative wing—was elected president on the first ballot over two challengers by 52 percent of the vote. Stanley, 51, is a television preacher and pastor of Atlanta’s 9,000-member First Baptist Church.

Another dispute in Southern Baptist ranks concerns the SBC’S relation to the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs (BJC). Southern Baptists and eight other Baptist denominations jointly support the Washington, D.C., governmental affairs office. The SBC provides more than 80 percent of the agency’s funding, but is allowed to appoint only one-third of its trustees. James Dunn, BJC executive director, agrees with conservatives that the disproportionate representation needs to be addressed. However, Dunn himself is a source of aggravation for many Southern Baptist conservatives.

Some messengers at the convention wanted to pull the funds out of the agency and establish a separate Southern Baptist office on governmental affairs. After lengthy debate, they lost. A motion to establish a separate Southern Baptist Washington office was held over until next year’s convention in Dallas.

Conservatives have criticized Dunn for not representing the views of Southern Baptists. Two years ago, the convention voted to support oral prayer in public schools. In Washington, Dunn spoke out against a constitutional prayer amendment. He says the 1982 SBC vote on school prayer was “an aberration.” Conservatives also have been upset with Dunn because he sat on the board of Norman Lear’s liberal lobby, People for the American Way. With Stanley as the new Southern Baptist president, friction with Dunn is expected to continue. At a press conference, Stanley declined to say whether he thought the agency should be defunded. But he did say he thinks oral prayer should be restored to public schools.

Stanley also said he opposes the ordination of women. But he added that he respects the right of autonomous Southern Baptist congregations to make decisions regarding ordination. The question is potentially more divisive than the squabble over the Baptist Joint Committee. It is estimated that as many as 250 Southern Baptist women have been ordained into the ministry. At least 13 of them are serving as pastors. At last month’s convention, messengers passed a resolution that encourages the participation of women “in all aspects of church life and work other than pastoral functions and leadership roles entailing ordination.” The resolution is not binding on the 36,000 Southern Baptist congregations, but it was a symbolic victory for conservatives.

In other action, the 17,000 messengers to the convention:

• Voted not to expand the denomination’s boundaries to include Canada. Instead, messengers voted to “develop an aggressive evangelistic strategy [for Canada] utilizing increased Southern Baptist leadership and resources.” More than 60 churches in Canada are affiliated with Southern Baptist churches in the United States.

• Urged Southern Baptists to refrain from the use of tobacco, and encouraged all Southern Baptists involved in growing tobacco to switch to another cash crop. They also asked Congress to curtail federal subsidies of the tobacco industry.

• Registered their continuing opposition to the appointment of a U.S. ambassador to the Vatican and pledged their support for actions that challenge that appointment.

• Voted to support a bill in Congress that would give public high school students the right to meet at school for prayer and Bible study.

• Opposed the spread of legalized gambling.

• Reaffirmed their support for abstinence from the use of alcohol and supported a minimum national drinking age of 21.

• Urged Southern Baptists to work for the passage of legislation that would prohibit abortion except in cases where the procedure would save the life of a pregnant woman.

• Elected Zig Ziglar, a motivational speaker and member of Dallas’ First Baptist Church, as the denomination’s first vice president.

RON LEEin Kansas City

Events and strategies behind a remarkable summer of evangelism

The manager of London’s best-known exhibition center and a liberal, charismatic sociologist make an unlikely pair to set in motion a chain of events leading to a huge evangelism mission in a country first converted to Christianity 1,400 years ago. But so it has proved to be.

Just over nine years ago the London office of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association got a phone call from the managing director of Earls Court, home of such venerable institutions as the Royal Tournament military tattoo and the Motor Show. It was also the site of Billy Graham’s major crusades in London in 1966 and 1967.

The gist of the call was that structural changes being made to the huge auditorium within the next four years would make it impossible for such large-scale meetings thereafter. Had they any plans for another major crusade beforehand?

The liberal sociologist was Clifford Hill, a distinguished Congregational minister, writer, and well-known broadcaster, especially on racial issues. After many years in the ministry he became disillusioned with the liberal theology he had espoused since theological college. After experiencing charismatic renewal, he worked in London’s East End, seeking to make Christ relevant to the dwindling number of residents in crumbling inner-city areas. He joined the 138-year-old Evangelical Alliance in 1978 as Secretary for Evangelism and Church Growth and was largely instrumental in the group launching the 1980s as a “decade of evangelism.” After he left the alliance in 1980, Hill called together a number of church leaders to launch “New Way London,” an evangelistic thrust in the nation’s capital.

It was several years before these initiatives bore fruit this summer with the arrival in Britain—almost simultaneously—of Billy Graham and Luis Palau to begin separate but complementary evangelistic crusades.

Moral Erosion

That Britain needs “a word from the Lord” can scarcely be denied. In the second half of the twentieth century there has been a huge decline in church going that has affected all denominations and every part of the country. Attendance has dropped from 45 percent of the population in 1851 to 15 percent in 1979. (Some put the current figure at 11 percent or less.)

The decline can be attributed to a number of factors: the secularist view of the elite, whose opinions are heard on television and read in the press; the cumulative effect of two major wars within a lifetime, which destroyed whole communities and caused major social upheaval; the lack of a clear, confident, and consistent proclamation of the gospel by Christians.

In the last 80 years, Britain has had its moments—as the recent fortieth anniversary celebrations of D day have reminded us. For sheer spectacle and pageantry, no one can match the great state occasions in London. But in truth, the brave British bulldog personified by Winston Churchill is no more—notwithstanding the bravado in the Falklands two years ago.

Having lost an empire, having joined the European Community almost too late, and having allowed class and regional conflicts to flourish at home, Britain is in the grip of a cynicism that has sapped much of the nation’s moral fervor, natural dignity, and sense of purpose.

The Sleeping Church

The Church of England, wrested from the pope by King Henry VIII more than 400 years ago, enjoys a unique position within the national life. The queen is the temporal head of the church; the archbishops of Canterbury and York rank fifth and seventh in national precedence, ahead of the prime minister, and with only the royal family above them. Both archbishops and 24 senior bishops are automatically members of the House of Lords, the second chamber of Parliament. Every square inch of English soil and every citizen, of whatever faith, comes within the network of Anglican parishes.

The Church of England contributes an impressive 27 million (58 percent of the population) to the worldwide Anglican communion of 64 million, but it is largely a sleeping membership because that figure represents the numbers baptized. Only nine million of those have been confirmed as members of the church. Fewer than 1.7 million (6 percent of those baptized) take Communion at Christmas or Easter when attendance is at its peak. (The comparable figures among Episcopalians in the U.S. are: baptisms, 3 million; confirmations, 2.1 million [70 percent of those baptized]; communicants, 1.5 million [50 percent of those baptized]).

The Church of England prides itself on being a “broad” church. It ranges from Catholic, through “middle of the road,” to evangelical. Theology can be radical, liberal, or conservative, according to taste. And charismatics can be found in most camps.

During the nineteenth century, evangelicals and Catholics both enjoyed a revival of interest and support. Indeed, evangelicals were largely credited with the seriousness and industry that characterized the Victorian era and established Britain as a world power.

During the first half of the twentieth century, however, evangelicals were in decline, driven into a corner by the dominance of Tractarianism (Anglo-Catholicism) and liberalism in the Anglican church. In recent years there has been something of a renaissance among evangelicals, however. A greater emphasis on evangelical scholarship; a sudden influx of candidates for the Anglican ministry following Billy Graham’s first British crusade at Harringay Arena, north of London, in 1954; and the outstanding leadership of John Stott at All Souls Church, Langham Place, London; all served to increase evangelical strength and numbers.

It is claimed that 25 percent of all Anglican parishes have an evangelical ministry, and that 20 percent of the membership of the General Synod, the church’s “parliament,” are evangelicals. About half those training for the Anglican ministry are in evangelical colleges. Evangelicals are well represented on official church boards and committees; and more avowed evangelicals have been appointed as bishops than ever before in living memory.

In the free churches, evangelicalism has traditionally been strongest among the Baptists. But the evangelical renaissance in the Church of England has spilled over into all the main free churches—that is, Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians. Each now has a thriving evangelical group seeking to witness to biblical truth within denominational life. Still, the free churches overall have been losing ground numerically for many years.

Disunity In The Ranks

During the 20 years after the Second World War, the focus of evangelical unity was the Evangelical Alliance and the Keswick Convention, which brought together evangelicals from predominantly Anglican and Baptist churches, together with the Christian Brethren, independent, and historic Pentecostal churches. But in 1967 a split occurred in the evangelical ranks, the repercussions of which are felt to this day.

At a meeting organized by the alliance, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the outstanding British preacher of his generation and at that time minister of Westminster Chapel, London, called on evangelicals in the Church of England and other doctrinally “mixed” and ecumenically involved denominations to cut their denominational ties and come together in an evangelical federation. The meeting’s chairman, John Stott, publicly disassociated himself from this call, and thus the lines of division were drawn. The British Evangelical Council, virtually moribund, sprang to life as the rallying point for those who sided with Lloyd-Jones. Journals, tracts, books, and conventions proliferated extolling his “separatist” view, as opponents dubbed it, bringing dissension and disharmony to evangelicalism, which is still very much in evidence.

Another development that has undermined evangelical unity in recent years is the charismatic movement. Starting mainly in Anglican churches, where the established structures have been elastic yet firm enough to contain it, the movement has spread to other churches incapable of controlling their less-responsible elements, leading to denominational secession and the burgeoning house church movement.

An Invitation To Graham

With all this, the chances in the late 1970s of a Billy Graham crusade in London were fairly remote. Mass evangelism, as such crusades were perceived, was broadly out of favor. In addition, the younger school of Anglican evangelicals was more concerned with internal affairs; free church evangelicals preferred smaller scale evangelistic methods; the separatists had doctrinal doubts about ecumenical involvement; and the charismatics were busy with their own exuberant worship.

Not surprisingly, therefore, when the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association tried to follow up on the inquiry from the managing director of Earls Court, there was some resistance. Out of the discussions came a suggestion for a comprehensive evangelistic program into which such a crusade would fit. Called “Let My People Grow,” it was largely the brainchild of two Baptist ministers, Tom Houston, now president of World Vision International, and David Pawson, at that time charismatic pastor of a thriving church near London.

“Let My People Grow” failed to get off the ground, but it helped to bring pressure upon the then archbishop of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, an evangelical sympathizer. He called together a group of evangelical and ecumenical leaders to discuss evangelism. This led to the Nationwide Initiative on Evangelism (NIE), launched by Coggan and his Roman Catholic equivalent, Cardinal Hume, in January 1979, and officially supported with varying degrees of enthusiasm by the main churches.

Meanwhile, one of Clifford Hill’s first steps on taking office as Evangelical Alliance Secretary for Evangelism and Church Growth in 1978 was to conduct a survey of evangelical opinion on evangelism. While less than a quarter endorsed the idea of a central London crusade relayed across Britain, as was done in Billy Graham’s 1967 British Crusade, two-thirds wanted Graham personally involved in any evangelistic effort.

The listeners to a religious program on BBC radio were even more emphatic. Asked whether they were in favor of Billy Graham returning to Britain to conduct a crusade, they voted 13,825 in favor and only 1,166 against. Graham himself indicated his willingness to come, provided the invitation emanated from “a responsible group of clergy and laymen.”

Discussions continued throughout 1979, leading to an invitation signed by 100 church leaders and handed to Graham when he visited Britain in 1980 for the enthronement of the present archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie. By this time the Evangelical Alliance had designated the 1980s as a “Decade of Evangelism.”

After seven months of taking soundings from church leaders of many persuasions, Graham eventually declined the invitation. Though no official reasons were given, it is thought he was advised to give the NIE more time to blossom and flourish, especially without an evangelical consensus supporting a return visit.

Fresh Enthusiasm For Graham

It was time for the younger generation to show its hand. Gavin Reid, an Anglican writer and evangelist, had publicly urged a Billy Graham crusade as long ago as 1975. Eddie Gibbs, formerly an Anglican missionary in South America, was revitalizing the Bible Society by aligning it with the church growth movement. Clive Calver, a Baptist, was coming to the end of a very successful stint as director of British Youth for Christ during which time it had expanded beyond recognition. This enterprising trio drew up a three-year plan for evangelism combining local church initiatives, British evangelists, and the regional meetings addressed by Graham.

It bore a remarkable resemblance to what Gavin Reid had called for in 1975, and owed something to the “Let My People Grow” plan devised two years later. The three men flew to the south of France in 1981 to put the idea to Graham. By this time the Nationwide Initiative in Evangelism was clearly in trouble. Lacking a clear purpose, strong leadership, and adequate financial backing, it did not long survive the end of Coggan’s primacy. It was eventually absorbed into the British Council of Churches, and thereby effectively laid to rest.

A question still remained: Would there be a ground swell of support for a big crusade? The three envoys represented the new, more confident brand of evangelicalism. Clive Calver, in particular, had been instrumental in several large-scale enterprises, from music and teaching tours to week-long conventions in holiday camps. The three assured Graham there would be an enthusiastic response from church leaders to their proposal. He agreed to reserve two months in 1984.

The envoys were right. The response was immediate and positive. Regional consultations revealed widespread support for the idea. Graham himself had no doubt he could still attract British crowds when he conducted evangelistic meetings in the northern seaside resort of Blackpool during a private visit in March 1982. Nearly 20,000 people packed the theater and overflow halls for the three meetings, with 500 responses. Later that month he met regional representatives and formally accepted invitations to five areas of England in the summer of 1984.

Palau Responds Also

Almost a year earlier, Clifford Hill, having left the Evangelical Alliance, announced that Luis Palau had accepted “in principle” an invitation from New Way London to conduct an evangelistic crusade in the capital in the fall of 1983. A series of satellite minicrusades was planned for key London suburbs in September, to be followed the next month by a series of meetings in a large auditorium in central London.

Early in 1983 there was a dramatic change of plan. The minicrusades would now spill over into October and conclude with a single large-scale rally in the Wembley Arena. The Central London Crusade planned for October was switched to the spring of 1984, probably to be held in a large soccer stadium. The reasons given sounded logical: lighter evenings in the spring, more time for preparation and follow-up. But doubts were expressed by some as to the wisdom of having Luis Palau and Billy Graham both conducting large-scale crusades in England at the same time.

“Mission England” began in 1983 with a six-week nationwide tour called “Prepare the Way,” a road show presenting the challenge of local church-based evangelism, and seen by 46,000 people. An estimated 25,000 took part in training courses entitled “Is My Church Worth Joining?” and “Caring for New Christians.” At least 20,000 “prayer triplets” were formed—three Christians covenanting to pray for three unbelieving friends each. The response was uneven.

Last fall the spotlight fell on the first phase of Luis Palau’s Mission to London—nine minicrusades in the London suburbs lasting between 3 and 17 days. While not exactly setting the capital alight, the 94 meetings recorded total attendances of just over 156,000, with nearly 6,200 responses. The grand finale at Wembley Arena and various fringe meetings pushed the figures to 190,450 and 7,372 respectively. A quarter of the inquirers were under 14, and a third were 14 to 18; one in four had no previous religious connection, and 55 percent were “first-time acceptances.”

An Enormous Task

As the year ended, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association moved some of its most experienced men into strategic positions within the Mission England administrative structure. Though there were inevitably some differences of opinion between the English and American executives, in the main cooperation was good, and the arrangement worked well. The organizers received a few shocks during the making of a promotional film for Mission England. Street interviews revealed that hardly anyone under 35 had heard of Billy Graham; 80 percent said they would not go to hear him preach.

Mission to London, too, received a salutary reminder of the size of the task ahead when a Bible Society survey revealed that church attendance in inner London was lower than anywhere else in Britain: it was falling by 3 percent a year, and in 1979 dropped below 200,000 for the first time. Only the newer black churches were holding their own—and in some cases advancing.

Early in 1984 the finishing touches were put on the advertising campaigns—$300,000 for Mission England, $500,000 for Mission to London. Both campaigns were handled by professional agencies. Mission England projected a friendly, informal Billy Graham with the slogan “worth listening to,” banking on other media coverage to help the public identify their man. Mission to London, which chose a subsidiary of the famous Saatchi and Saatchi agency, opted for a teasing “Who Is Luis Palau?” approach, acknowledging the fact that Londoners were largely ignorant of his name. Photographs showed him in a formal, though friendly pose, far removed from the more aggressive declamatory figure used the previous year.

Mission to London’s build-up continued with an ambitious house-to-house visitation campaign; the target was four million homes. Mission England, meanwhile, reported that 45,000 attended month-long Christian Life and Witness classes in 300 centers. Massive visitation schemes were also under way in the regions.

A marvelous bonus came Mission England’s way with the invitation from Queen Elizabeth II to Billy Graham to spend a weekend in January at Sandringham, her country home in Norfolk, and to preach to the royal family. At a reception for the evangelist at Lambeth Palace hosted by the archbishop of Canterbury a few days later, 50 church leaders spent several hours in discussions with him. A number of TV appearances followed, and his brief visit climaxed with a packed meeting for clergy and lay leaders from all over Britain in the National Exhibition Centre at Birmingham. Four thousand were expected, but more than 12,500 turned up, braving harsh winter weather. Extensive national media coverage of these events brought Mission England to the notice of the general public for the first time.

The Campaigns Begin

And so to the missions themselves. As might be expected, there was some opposition—though less than anticipated. Mission to London faced the most serious threat. A few weeks before the start of the mission at Queen’s Park Rangers Football Stadium, an attempt was made to persuade the Greater London Council to revoke its permission for the meetings to be held, on environmental grounds of noise and nuisance to local residents. The move narrowly failed, but council officials were present to monitor the opening meetings, emphasizing the provisional nature of their agreement.

A group calling itself the Campaign for Real Life distributed leaflets outside the stadium, drawing attention to Luis Palau’s alleged association with right-wing rulers in Central America, and the political complexion of Palau’s press aide in London, Harvey Thomas, who works for Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. They staged a short-lived demonstration at the opening meeting.

Criticism of Billy Graham came from two well-thumbed sources. The veteran Methodist peer Donald Soper accused him (and Palau) of old-fashioned fundamentalism. Novelist George Target, a long-time critic and author of the unfavorable book Evangelism Inc., repeated the somewhat dated accusations about psychological manipulation he first made in the 1960s. When the BBC invited him to go to the first series of meetings and see for himself whether his criticisms were justified, he had the good grace to acknowledge over the air that he was moved by what he saw, though he subsequently repeated his original allegations in a modified form.

Initial Success

The inaugural Mission England rally took place in the West Country on a sunny, windy Saturday afternoon at the Bristol City Football Ground. The stadium was packed with an estimated 31,000 people, the atmosphere was light, and when the timeless invitation came, “I’m going to ask you to get up out of your seats,” more than 2,350 responded. Bristol, the city where John Wesley preached his first open-air revival, never looked back after that, even though rain fell heavily on two of the eight nights. By the end of the mission, nearly a quarter of a million people had visited the stadium, with more than 20,000 going forward—two-thirds under 25 and half registering a first-time commitment.

The next location was Sünderland, a tough, ship-building and engineering town on the northeast coast with high unemployment, and generally recognized as a “graveyard” for evangelists. Though the area is rich in historic Christian sites, evangelical witness is very patchy. To make matters worse, it was so cold that Billy Graham confessed to wearing two sets of thermal underwear, and for the first time in his life wore a hat as he preached. On several nights a cold rain poured. But there were never fewer than 10,000 present, and on one occasion 20,263 crammed onto the grounds. Of the nearly 125,000 who attended, 11,785 responded to the appeal. (The response rate at Bristol and Sünderland was twice that of most Graham missions.) One meeting was transmitted live by BBC radio on its national network and also its world service, with an estimated audience in excess of 40 million. Millions more saw another of the meetings in the form of an hour-long telecast on Independent Television.

The Preachers And The Media

Coverage of the first two missions elsewhere in the national media was generally sympathetic if light. Within the regions it was both strong and positive. The religious press coverage exceeded all expectations. Establishment papers such as the Anglican Church Times and the Methodist Recorder gave the meetings huge and favorable coverage, a tribute to the hard work done by mission director Gavin Reid and director of training Eddie Gibbs, both Anglicans, in winning the support of numerous bishops and leading church figures.

The Mission to London started its month-long run with the 15,000 seat Queen’s Park Rangers stadium less than half full, except for the night well-known Christian rock singer Cliff Richard was on the platform. At the end of the first week attendance totalled 42,500 with more than 2,400 coming forward, no small achievement in a city as unresponsive as London. Press coverage was rather cynical in tone, but Luis Palau had good openings on several radio stations.

At the start of 1984 the British media made great play of the fact that it was the year foreseen by novelist George Orwell when the world would be entirely in the grip of totalitarian dictators, with every freedom curtailed by the state, and the entire population enslaved to the rule of “Big Brother.” Halfway through this summer of mission, many Christians in Britain are beginning to see that in the purposes of God—and almost with a divine sense of humor—1984 could be the year in which large sections of the nation are set free.

JOHN CAPONin London

On October 5, 1980, a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper columnist set aside momentous matters of state elections, legislative debates, and military coups and announced, in print, the birth of his third child. “The struggle to reelect the 39th President, or to elect the 40th, though not insignificant, has been eclipsed by a far larger event, the birth of the 48th President: Victoria Louise Will.”

The birth, noted proud father George F. Will, drew questions from the older Will children. “[Victoria’s] two brothers, aged 8 and 6, have said ‘We are not amused’ that she chose to be born female.… I, in turn, have advised them of Stephen Leaco*ck’s axiom: ‘The parent who could see his boy as he really is would shake his head and say, ‘Willie is no good; I’ll sell him.’”

It cannot be. Eight- and six-year-olds do not mutter with airy precociousness, “We are not amused,” upon the birth of little sisters. And fathers do not answer such unlikely remarks with droll axioms liable to make the boys think they are about to be abandoned. Then again, at the Will home, it might be.

George Will is one of Washington’s preeminent sages. His always literate, often wry commentary has gained him the reputation as America’s first true hope for intellectual, but popular, journalism since Walter Lippmann. Last summer senators, congressmen, and their staffs voted Will the most admired journalist in a poll for the Washington Journalism Review. That same prominence indirectly resulted in a mild journalistic scandal when it became known that Will not only dines with the President, but coached candidate Reagan before a debate. Afterward, acting as a journalist on television, Will praised Reagan’s debating but neglected to mention he had coached the candidate. Other journalists, especially Jimmy Breslin, excoriated Will. Time magazine described the fuss as a “glancing blow” to Will’s career. The scandal died as the slow dog days of summer gave way to the busier news days of fall.

Besides his newspaper column, Will writes a biweekly column for Newsweek. Several of his columns have been collected into two books. His first book-length essay, Statecraft As Soulcraft (Simon and Schuster), was published last year. Will is a regular member of the “Agronsky and Company” television panel and a political commentator for ABC News. He was educated at Oxford and Princeton, and before entering journalism taught political philosophy at Michigan State University and the University of Toronto.

Statecraft As Soulcraft is notable both because of its typical conservative’s respect for institutions of the past and its atypical conservative’s reserve about the benefits of capitalism. Though certainly a capitalist, Will believes capitalism fans the flames of self-interest. Part of the “soulcraft” of the state is to offset that self-interest and improve the character of its citizens. To Will, government is not necessarily big and bad, but noble and enriching. Will also (to the disappointment of many fellow conservatives) has good words for the welfare system.

In all his writing, Will has fewer good words for p*rnography, abortion, surrogate parenting, palimony, and revisions in the Episcopal church’s Book of Common Prayer. Will’s columns often evidence a spirit of respect for Christianity, but his references to the faith have been allusive. He speculates about the Shroud of Turin, for example, but offers no conclusions about the man the shroud may or may not have covered. He comments on the Bible only to note that such modern translations as “Don’t murder” over “Thou shalt not kill” are atrocious. “The perpetrators of that improvement did not heed that commandment when they assaulted the cadences of what they doubtless call the King Jim version.”

Will is an Episcopalian and says he goes to church because a “good friend prodded me and I got to thinking about Christianity.” An intensely thoughtful man, he admits religion is one area he has not thought much about. Like so many other people, however, Will has read and appreciated C. S. Lewis. Statecraft As Soulcraft, Will says, is a “tiny footnote” to Lewis’s The Abolition of Man.

What sparks a religious feeling in Will? “The universe—all those great, whirling planets. A green grape does. It’s stunning that on this cooling cinder there are green grapes, the most marvelous things, perfectly delicious. This implies to me that some kind of caring occurs out there.

“So do soft-shell crabs, and children. Pictures of starving African children, or accounts of a child who runs into the street and gets hit by a bus, have an impact on you that you can’t explain without some help.”

Though he does not identify himself with the evangelical movement, Will is sympathetic. In the following interview he touches on several political and social issues important to evangelicals, such as abortion, the activity of the Moral Majority, and the church’s role in what Will calls soulcraft. Other matters that he trenchantly addresses, such as the AIDS epidemic and the welfare system, concern all compassionate citizens, religious and secular.

You speak of “statecraft as soulcraft.” What do you mean by soulcraft?

In a word, soulcraft is the government’s or state’s concern for the character of its citizens. In coining the word, I took off from Felix Frankfurter’s statement that “the law is not concerned with the inner life of man.” It seemed obvious to me that the law is concerned with the inner life of man.

Granted, law is sometimes concerned with behavior of little or no moral content. That you must drive on the right-hand side of the road or drive 55 miles an hour—those are matters of low moral content. But when the law says you must go to school and schools must be accredited, and you must not murder, or must not discriminate against people on the basis of race or sex, then we begin to get into soulcraft. Government, particularly a great modern state with its myriad laws, regulations, values, and civic ceremonies, has this kind of shaping impact whether it likes it or not and whether it knows what it’s doing or not. It had better, therefore, pay attention.

What is the church’s role in soulcraft?

For those who choose to be churched, it’s primary. Indeed, it was the development and spread of the Christian church in the Western world that gave the state the excuse that it could abdicate soulcraft. Before that the Greeks could say, “Athens worries about the souls of the citizens of Athens,” because there was simply no separation between civic and theistic concerns. In the later Western world, there was more or less a clear division of labor, however. That division of labor continues to this day. Because we have the First Amendment and the clear disestablishment of religion, we’re very apt to say that churches and families and voluntary civic organizations worry about the inner life, and the state maintains order and puts up traffic lights.

I’m saying you can’t expel the state from affecting soulcraft, especially when people say, with more or less disputable evidence, that this is an age of declining religious interest and rising secularism. But beyond that, we expect of the state a structure of laws and services that make it omnipresent and omniprovident. When the American government was small and rested so lightly on everyone, then you could say it was really irrelevant to this. It wasn’t, even then. When the First Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance, it set aside lands for public schools. I think the defining, distinguishing characteristic of the United States is the care taken for public education from the word “go.” Even when the American state was a light and gossamer thing, it was intruding itself into this sphere, saying, “If you’re going to be citizens of the free society, that has certain prerequisites, and it is the civic authority’s responsibility to see to the civic prerequisites.”

Does the church inform the soulcraft that is done by the government? What is the proper relationship?

It depends on your concept of the church—whether, for example, your Christianity is primarily a vertical undertaking, a relationship between the individual and God, or whether it’s a social, horizontal enterprise. I suppose it’s a bit of both: If people establish a correct vertical relationship, it has consequences for their horizontal relations as well. I tend to Dean Inge’s view that Christianity is good news, not good advice. There is no such thing as Christian economics or, frankly, Christian nuclear policy. Obviously your thinking should be informed by your whole view of the world and the cosmos, but there’s something a little odd about manufacturing Christian electrical engineering along the way.

Naturally some Christians want government to do soulcraft their way. The New Right is one example. What do you think of its emergence?

I once wrote a column called, “Who Put Morality into Politics?” What I said was that the Moral Majority did not put abortion on the social agenda. Nine Supreme Court justices did that. The Moral Majority did not put hom*osexual rights on the political agenda—hom*osexual activists and militants did. The Moral Majority’s political agenda is not quite mine, but it’s legitimate. I am against people expelling other views and giving us a narrow and impoverished political agenda.

The right wing tends to do it by saying the allocation of wealth and opportunity is not politics, it’s economics: the market allocates wealth, so we won’t worry about it. Clearly we don’t believe that. We all respect the market, a marvelous allocator of wealth and opportunity, but that’s rough justice, and politics is to take the roughness out of it. Social security is a corrective of the market. All kinds of programs are.

On the other hand, the Left limits the political agenda, too. Once they won the abortion argument, proabortionists said, “Argument’s over.” From the start of this republic to 1973, abortion was a legitimate thing for the states to regulate. Then, through the assertion of judicial power, they got a certain abortion law in, and now they say you can’t talk about it anymore. Of course you can talk about it. You can talk about it ceaselessly as modern medicine demonstrates the f*cklessness of the 1973 opinion.

Another example: hom*osexual rights. If the proper attitude toward this kind of social and sexual behavior is not a legitimate topic for social argument, what in the world is—soybean subsidies? It’s cuckoo to say that the state can be concerned with nurturing soybeans and not virtue.

You’ve written that the New Right’s involvement in politics need not be less, but better. How can it be better?

Left, Right, or center, politically involved people need to hear political arguments in a new way. They need to hear a deeper resonance when they hear those arguments and ask, “This social policy fits into a general concern with nurturing what? What are we after? What kind of people are we apt to be if we take this approach?”

I’m against prayer in school, for instance. We need a clearer idea of prayer than some of these people have. I don’t think prayer in school is unconstitutional. It’s perfectly constitutional, but that’s a separate argument. As a policy, voluntary school prayer can’t be voluntary and it can’t be prayer.

Or take abortion and the New Right. We now have 1.6 million abortions a year. It is the most common surgical procedure in the country, more common than tonsilectomies and appendectomies. Things change when you get that many abortions. You cannot just turn around and say, “We’re going to outlaw it today.” You must conduct a very sophisticated, long-term argument built around something like the Hatch Amendment, which simply says states can regulate abortion. All the Hatch Amendment would do is start 50 arguments: one in each state. We already have 50 arguments anyway. This would localize them and begin the change. It would be very good for the country. But it’s a process of long-term education and requires what has been called the patience of politics. Politics is not for the impetuous.

And yet there are a lot of impetuous people in politics.

True. Politics is a passionate activity. It attracts the passionate. It ought to. You don’t want lukewarm, political mechanics, you want people with convictions, passion. That’s the drama of politics, and it tends to bring too much passion to the surface. The stakes are high. Politics is a very adult business, and it doesn’t always bring out the adult in people. But I’m not one who attacks politicians. There are never more than 537 sent to Washington by the people. There are some rogues and some saints, and a lot in between. But by and large, the 537 are more public spirited and more serious than the people who sent them here.

How should religious faith affect a politician’s official conduct?

The fundamental religious view, spanning Judeo-Christian tradition, is that human beings thirst for something larger than their appetites, something more lasting and certain. That’s why some people go to church; that’s why some people go into civic activity. They want to be a part of something larger than themselves. Politics is one way of expressing this. If it were really just a cafeteria serving various appetites, brokering this group against another to satisfy as many demands as possible, I don’t think serious people would want to devote a life to it.

What about the individual politician who has religious convictions? How should those convictions come into play in expediting his duties?

In the same way that the convictions of an Aristotelian of no particular religious interest could come into play. Someone could say, “Aristotle’s ethics provide a powerful, convincing view of the good person and the good society, a clear picture of how creatures of our nature should live, and I’d like to try to approximate that.” It doesn’t have to be a transcendental religious view.

So a person’s religious faith might give him a general idea of what he would like society to be, and then help him to work in that direction?

Yes. A religious view gives you a sense of what the better angels of our nature are—Lincoln’s phrase. It convinces you there are better angels. If you have an absolutely bleak view of human nature, which seems incompatible with a religious view properly understood, then politics would really be a grim undertaking. If people are just awful and they stay awful and it’s nothing but keeping order, who wants to do it?

You mentioned abortion and your preference for the Hatch Amendment. You would work to ban abortion gradually but surely?

I would not absolutely ban abortion. Suppose you know a fetus has Tay Sachs disease, which I gather means certain, slow, painful death. There is suffering to the child, suffering to the parents. I’m not tough enough to require that. I wrote that, by the way, in a column long ago and no one ever noticed.

Then you would leave abortion up to the individual states—whatever each decided?

Yes. States ought to be able to regulate abortion. What some people in the right-to-life movement say—and they’re quite right—is that California and New York will have abortion on demand and that will be good for the airlines. That’s the price you pay for federalism. It would be a bit like divorce was historically. Nevada said, “We don’t have anything. The Comstock Lode is exhausted, we’re out of water and can’t grow anything. What will we have? How about divorce?” Easy divorce went from Indiana to one of the Dakotas to Nevada. It became the divorce state, and got gambling to entertain the people while they were waiting for divorces. Federalism, for better or for worse, produces that kind of competition.

Let’s consider p*rnography, an inelegant topic you’ve written about eloquently. Here the domino theory or slippery slope argument that conservatives are so fond of is turned against them. Advocates of p*rnography say that if certain books are banned, all others will be endangered. Can there be a responsible control of p*rnography? Or does one domino, one book, fall after the other? Is the first step down the slippery slope also the last?

Life is lived on a slippery slope. It’s nothing but drawing lines that are hard to draw. It’s not like tennis, with boundaries that indicate this ball is in and that one was out. Having a police force is dangerous: it could become a gestapo. Taxation is dangerous: it could become confiscation.

The most damaging thing to our society isn’t p*rnography. It is the argument that has been used to justify tolerating it—the argument that all critical standards are inherently capricious and arbitrary. “One man’s Shakespeare is another man’s trash.” If you say that, you’re saying people are fools, they’re not fit for self-government. If people are really incapable of making determinations between a masterpiece and garbage, then what hope is there that they can make their own laws? It’s a demoralizing view of the capacities of the populace.

You speak of “conservatism with a kindly face.” How would conservatism with a kindly face deal with the AIDS epidemic, especially as it affects hom*osexuals?

That’s a public health problem, and public health is public business. I have written that practicing hom*osexuality is an injury to normal functioning, that it’s not just another preference. That doesn’t mean that hom*osexuals are pariahs of any sort. They are citizens, human beings. Their hom*osexuality shouldn’t complicate your normal duty to love them as neighbors.

We used your phrase “conservatism with a kindly face” to refer to the AIDS epidemic. But in your writing you mention it in arguing for the welfare state. Judging from reactions in the National Review, you are not persuading some conservative friends. Are you making any inroads?

Yes, because I have on my side the fact that people have no choice but to agree with me in the end. The welfare state is as much here as the Washington Monument. It is a fact of our political terrain, and of the political terrain in every developed industrial society. People want to buy certain things collectively. What you argue about is what and how much.

Does anyone really want to argue that the world is worse off because we have social security? Thirty years ago a lot of nice, sincere, reflective conservatives thought that. They were convinced that the fundamental turn under Roosevelt changed for the worse the relationship of the citizen to the state. I disagree, and I think most Americans would now.

I have three children growing up in Chevy Chase. There are children growing up 10 miles away in Anacostia [a poverty-striken neighborhood in Washington, D.C.]. They’re all Americans, the children of Chevy Chase and Anacostia, but they have almost no common experience. That’s worrisome, and it ought to be especially worrisome to a conservative because conservatives are nationalists. They say we all ought to be Americans, to share certain values, and to feel positive about the community. But what does my child have to say to the child in the slum? It’s very hard.

What is the solution?

I don’t know. But whatever it is, it isn’t to deny the problem. That is why I make such a thing about equality of opportunity. Conservatives are right, but they are caught by their own commitment to take seriously just how complicated equality of opportunity is. In fact, equality of opportunity is a government product. It is not natural. You cannot say that just by being born we’ll all have equality of opportunity. In that case, it would be foolish to be born in Anacostia. How silly of them! They should have been born in Chevy Chase.

A final question: You write often from the perspective of a parent. Obviously parents perform soulcraft on their children. Yet some parents now say they don’t want to indoctrinate religious beliefs in their children, that children should choose for themselves. Is that proper parental soulcraft?

No. If you believe you have found a religious tradition that is true and good and useful, you are not doing your child a favor by not exposing the child to it. Not any more of a favor than if you say you have found certain healthy habits, like brushing your teeth, but “he’ll find that out on his own.” If you’re going to worry about the enamel of his teeth, the strength of his or her muscles, you might worry about the inner life as well.

Tim Stafford is a free-lance writer living in Santa Rosa, California. He is a distinguished contributor to several magazines. His latest book is Do You Sometimes Feel Like a Nobody? (Zondervan, 1980).

Two thousand years ago, a small group of Jewish people carried a special message to the world. They proclaimed that God had kept his word and sent a deliverer to Israel.

The coming of this Messiah meant redemption and salvation, to the Jew first—but also to the rest of the world.

When they took this message outside the land of Israel, Christ’s disciples discovered something profound: they learned that belief in Jesus did not have to be expressed in Jewish ways. His message transcended culture.

The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) decided that the coming of the Jewish Messiah had some universal implications. According to the council’s decision, Gentiles who came to belief in Jesus were not expected to follow Jewish customs or live as Jews. Instead, they were free to translate “Christian” belief into their own culture.

Somehow, the situation reversed: Jews were made to believe that they had to convert and renounce their Judaism in order to become followers of the Messiah.

But this is no longer the case.

Romans 11 tells us that there are two kinds of branches in the olive tree of God: the natural (Jewish) and the wild (Gentile). Each branch partakes of the same blessings, yet each is distinct in its religious context and worship expressions.

Historically and culturally, the “wild” olive branches began to grow; the natural branches did not keep up the pace. As the number of non-Jewish believers in Jesus greatly came to outnumber his Hebrew followers, the Jewishness of Jesus got lost.

Today, however, the situation is different. More Jewish people have accepted Jesus as their Messiah in the past 19 years than in the last 19 centuries.

Across America, congregations with names like Beth Messiah, Melech Yisrael, Beth Yeshua, B’rit Shalom, Kehilat Maschiach, and Beth Sar Shalom bear witness to the house of Messiah Jesus, the King of Israel, and the Covenant of Peace. These houses of worship are flourishing, ministering to the spiritual needs of an emerging enigma: Jews who believe in Jesus.

Some call themselves Christians; others say they are completed, converted, or fulfilled Jews. Still others prefer the designation Hebrew Christian, Christian Jew, Jewish Christian, or Messianic Jew.

No matter what their religious label, most share a common link: they are New Testament Jews, faithful to Christ Jesus and loyal to their Jewish biblical heritage.

A New Branch Of Judaism?

To the average Jew, Judaism simply translates as Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative. Each is a branch of a religious life in accordance with tradition and rabbinic interpretation of Scripture.

“Orthodox” Judaism maintains as many of the ancient religious observances and practices as possible. “Reform” places little value on ritual and tradition. Instead, it emphasizes ethics and self-realization. “Conservative” Judaism seeks to strike a balance between Orthodoxy and Reform. Hence, Conservative Jews retain those elements they feel are meaningful and eliminate other religious practices they believe are out of place in today’s world.

Belief in a Messiah has always been a basic tenet of the Jewish faith. Theories concerning the Messiah, however, are very different:

• Some Jews believe there is no Messiah, that this is merely a wishful notion.

• Others believe in a Messiah—not as a person, but as an age of peace and prosperity.

• Another group considers Israel to be the Messiah, suffering for the sins of the world.

• Orthodox and Messianic Jews believe in a personal Messiah.

Messianic Jews accept the Scriptures as their final authority on matters of faith and list hundreds of Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, which they hold are exclusively fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.

While traditional Jews are loath to admit it, Messianic Judaism has become so widespread that it is already considered a fourth—although separate—branch of Judaism. Estimates of the number of Jews who believe in Jesus range from 30,000 to 100,000. There is no membership, and, therefore, data is hard to obtain.

Messianic Jews say that they are “completed” Jews because they have accepted their Messiah and choose to maintain the Jewish identity to which their birth entitles them. Jewish organizations disagree and argue that Messianic Jews have converted to Christianity, abandoning their Jewish heritage.

Messianic Jews insist that Judaism was never meant to be a narrow religion aimed at the Hebrew nation alone, but rather, that even the revered writings of rabbis explain that the teachings of Judaism “were freely meant for all mankind.”

Louis Goldberg, director of Jewish studies at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, says there is a special function for these Messianic Jews. “Their presence shows that there are Jewish people who declare solidly that the Lord Jesus is Messiah and Savior. The presence of a Jewish believer will often be a decisive factor for the Jewish person who is considering the claims of Jesus.”

Jewish Evangelism

New, more effective techniques for sharing Jesus with Jewish people have produced a large network of literature, music, drama, and communications media with a distinctively Jewish flavor.

“In the mid-1950s, there were just a few Hebrew-Christians,” says the Messianic Jewish Movement International, a ministry chartered in May 1963 and underwritten for its first two years with a $3,000 grant from the Hebrew-Christian Alliance. “Today, there are thousands of born-again Jews … hundreds of Messianic materials … scores of Messianic congregations … annual international messianic conferences … and a world-wide Messianic Jewish Movement borne aloft by the Holy Spirit of God.”

The largest, most visible, vocal, and controversial Jewish missionary organization is Jews for Jesus. “Our group formed not as a result of any particular church body, but rather as an outgrowth of a movement of the Holy Spirit among the Jewish people,” explains Moishe Rosen, the ministry’s founder and director. “By 1973, we had raised a testimony that reverberated throughout the international Jewish community. The reactions and opposition from Jewish leadership were so verbal that they made Jewish people wonder why the rabbis were so upset. People began asking, pondering, and debating the issue of the messiahship of Jesus. The gospel spread rapidly through the Jewish community, where hungry souls were awaiting news of the Savior.”

Jews for Jesus use “broadsides” in sharing with people in shopping centers, malls, college campuses, and on street corners. These colorful tracts use contemporary language, humorous illustrations, and such eye-catching titles as “Christmas Is a Jewish Holiday,” “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Jesus but Were Afraid to Ask Your Rabbi,” and “Jesus Made Me Kosher.”

Beneath the humor there is always a serious discussion of Jesus as the promised Messiah.

Jews for Jesus has placed full-page advertisments in some of the largest-circulation newspapers in America. One ad especially addresses questions of particular concern to Jewish-Christian dialogue:

• Is it possible to be a Jew and believe in Jesus? “Yes!” contends Jews for Jesus. “Because of ignorance and prejudice, some people promote the idea you must be one or the other, that these are mutually exclusive categories.”

• Then how would you define a Jew? A Christian? “A Jew,” the ministry explains, “is a person who belongs to the people with whom God made covenants through Abraham, Moses and David. Under the provisions of these covenants, there was a promise of land, a special relationship and a mission—to proclaim the one true God to all the world.”

A Christian is “a person who has received salvation through the Messiah. There are more Gentiles in the world than Jews. Consequently, the church is largely Gentile in make-up. However, Christianity is not a religion. It is drawn from biblical Jewish concepts, fulfilling the prophecies of Scripture.”

In an attempt to recapture their “Jewishness,” one national ministry, The Messianic Vision, has published the first “kosher” New Testament, a unique Bible that bases its translation of certain key words on Hebrew rather than the Greek. Specifically entitled “May Your Name Be Inscribed in the Book of Life,” The Messianic Jewish New Covenant is jointly published by The Messianic Vision and Thomas Nelson, and it is based upon the New King James Bible. While the ministry says its intent is not to circumvent the inerrancy of the original Greek autographs, it does seek to restore the Hebraic “mindset” to the words. To accomplish this, editors researched the question, “What was the cultural meaning of certain words as used by Greek-speaking Jews at the time?”

Like most Jewish-oriented ministries, The Messianic Vision has made a concerted attempt to raise the “Jewish conciousness” of Christians. Much emphasis is placed on terminology: supporters are urged not to say Christ, to say Messiah; not to say Christian, to say believer; not to say Holy Ghost, to say Spirit of God; not to say converted, to say completed or fulfilled; not to say missionary, to say outreach; not to say Jesus, to say Yeshua.

“As a new believer, I quickly memorized rules for sharing Yeshua with Jewish people, and I formed opinions about good and bad ways to share,” recalls Messianic Vision president Sid Roth. “Gradually, lovingly, God would then show me how he’d confound the wisdom of the wise.

“For instance, I used to unequivocally caution against wearing crosses when sharing with Jewish people. Then I met a beautiful Christian who wore a star of David with a cross inside. She told me that many Jewish people approached her and began conversations about her jewelry.

“Who am I to admonish this?”

Conflicting Theologies

Messianic Jews are often misunderstood by both the church and the synagogue because of their intense loyalty to their Jewishness.

The “Jewishness” problem arises because of structured lines within the Jewish and Christian communities. Through the years, Judaism has taught that when a person “converts” to Christianity, he is no longer a Jew but has changed into a Christian. “Generally speaking, the church, too, would tell the Jewish ‘convert’ that since he is now a Christian, his Jewish identity is no longer valid,” notes Moody’s Louis Goldberg, “and his new faith severs his ties with his former coreligionists.”

Not all Christians have a love for the Jewish people, says Sid Roth. “We call those who do have this love ‘Mishpochah,’ the family with a Jewish heart. Made up of Jews and non-Jews, we are united in Jesus, our Messiah.”

Roth may call this family “Mishpochah,” but other Jews, alarmed at the spread of the Messianic movement, call Jews who believe in Jesus “meshumad”—apostates. Traitors. Destroyers of themselves and their fellow Jews.

In 1972, the Massachusetts Rabbinical Court, ruling on three cases of Christian conversion, decreed that a Jew who joins the “so-called Hebrew-Christian movement” has betrayed his people and has no right to a Jewish marriage or burial. The court, however, also ruled that a person may not “at any time be exempt from responsibilities which membership in the Jewish faith impose on him.…” In essence, the court took the position that Messianic Jews have all of the responsibilities but none of the rights of other Jewish people.

“We must make a clear distinction between the religion of Jesus and the religion about Jesus,” writes Roland B. Gittelsohn, rabbi emeritus of Temple Israel in Boston and president of the Association of Reform Zionists of America. “The religion of Jesus was Judaism; there can be no doubt of that. Christianity is the religion about Jesus.”

Writing in the May 1979 issue of Midstream, Gittelsohn said, “As a Jew and a rabbi, I can accept Jesus, in certain ways the precursor of non-Orthodox Jews today. He held the basic beliefs and practices of the Jewish heritage to be precious, but strove to refurbish and refine them, to adapt them to the needs of his time. This, however, is not the Jesus of Christianity, nor of Jews for Jesus.”

Messianic Jewish Apologetics

Most Messianic Jews would agree. They argue that the religion of the church is not the religion of Jesus, and suggest that Jesus himself would not recognize many Gentile liturgical expressions. The New Testament church was founded by Jews, and early “Christian” worship certainly had a Jewish flavor.

“The problem [between Messianic Judaism and the rest of the church] is not our unity in the Messiah,” declares Dan Juster, spiritual leader of Beth Messiah Congregation in Rockville, Maryland, “but to see a form of worship and practice develop for the benefit of all which would reflect the Old Testament and the Hebraic background of the New Testament.

“To which form of the church is the Jew expected to conform?” he asks. “Episcopalian ritual? Baptist revivalist? Presbyterian? The church is already diverse in form. What is sorely lacking is a valid Hebraic form!”

Juster, 35, is considered by many to be one of the chief architects of modern Messianic Judaism. He is the author of numerous magazine articles and books on the movement: “Messianic Judaism” (Evangelical Beacon), Jewishness and Jesus (InterVarsity Press), and “A Messianic Jew Pleads His Case” (CT, April 24, 1981), among others. His definitive work, however, is Foundations of Messianic Judaism, a 300-plus page treatise now in search of a publisher.

Although his father is Jewish, by traditional reckoning Dan is not. He had only a superficial introduction to Judaism during his early years. Later, he received a B.A. in philosophy from Wheaton College and an M.Div. from McCormick Seminary. He pursued graduate work in the philosophy of religion at Trinity College and spent three years taking Jewish studies at Spertus College of Judaica.

Juster was ordained a pastor by the United Presbyterian Church in 1974 and has been the spiritual leader of Beth Messiah Congregation since 1978. More recently, he was elected president of the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC), an umbrella group representing the interests of 42 synagogues in the United States and one in Canada.

“We desire to be a New Testament community in the midst of the Jewish community, which will positively reflect the Jewish background of our people,” he says. Creating “such a large and significantly self-supporting faith in Jesus will enable us someday to gain a level of credibility—if not acceptance—from other Jews.”

Beth Messiah, founded in 1973, is the oldest Messianic Jewish homestead in Washington, D.C. With about 100 committed members (60 percent of them Jewish), the congregation’s weekly attendance is significantly higher. Visitors are attracted by local radio promotion sponsored by The Messianic Vision and Beth Messiah’s well-entrenched reputation.

Over the years, Beth Messiah has evolved from a ragtag group of Jewish believers meeting first on Sundays, then on Friday nights and Saturdays, for worship, fellowship, and outreach. To encourage families to spend more time together (and with each other) on Friday nights, the temple’s elders decided last year to substitute a longer Saturday service for the dual Friday night and Saturday morning meetings. This, they hope, will reflect the spiritual dimension of rest that they are intent on bringing to the Sabbath.

Across the Potomac from Beth Messiah, 110 are currently affiliated with Ohev Yisrael, Hebrew for “lovers of Israel.” Of the 60 people who have accepted the Lord at this northern Virginia congregation during its three-year history, 39 are Jewish. Ohev Yisrael is distinguished from other Messianic Jewish congregations in that its worship context tends to be more traditionally Jewish. Torah selections are read at Friday night services, a cantor chants the traditional blessings, and Hebrew is used liberally throughout the service.

“What we’re doing is giving life to the rituals,” maintains David Chansky, Ohev’s pastor, rabbi, and spiritual leader. “We believe Jesus has brought us together in one body.”

Although he was raised in an Orthodox Jewish home, Chansky was not always so committed to his heritage or its mandate to retain a Jewish identity. He became a believer in August 1955 while living in Anchorage, Alaska, and entered the ministry in 1962. Ordained by the Church of Christ in 1968, he remained involved in Christendom until he felt called to a more active messianic ministry to Jews in 1978.

Like other Messianic Jews, members of Ohev Yisrael live in two worlds. “We live in the Jewish community and enjoy our lifestyle as Jews. Ninety percent of our congregation choose to keep kosher,” says Chansky. “Yet, through Messiah, we have been lifted up spiritually, as have all Christians, to sit in heavenly places with Jesus.”

Stumbling Blocks

There are some Jewish people who are willing to call themselves Messianic Jews but eschew affiliation with the developing denomination. Stan Telchin, for instance, is pastor of the Living Word Fellowship in Rockville, Maryland. “I am a Messianic Jew,” he confesses, “but I am not deeply involved in Messianic Judaism.”

Pastor Telchin came to believe in Jesus as Israel’s Messiah following a painful confrontation with his daughter who he believed had been “converted,” betraying her religion’s faith in the uniqueness of the Jewish people and their history of persecution.

In his book, Betrayed!, published by Chosen Books, Telchin tells of the agonizing months he spent studying the Scriptures and wrestling with God to discover the truth. Following his decision to follow Jesus, Telchin faced a dilemma that involved almost all of the Messianic Jews he had come to know. Most of them had been raised in nominally Jewish homes where the reality of God and the Bible were missing from their lives. Once they became believers, they developed a tremendous hunger for roots. They wanted to know more about their identity as Jews and about things Jewish. When pressure or rejection came at them, they felt threatened and turned instinctively to one another for fellowship and support.

The pattern was almost universal and it led to the question: How are we to live now that we believe?

“In some ways, the clock had been turned back eighteen hundred years,” writes Telchin, “as the old question rose again: How are we Jews to function in what is primarily a Gentile world? Do we remain separate from Gentile believers, or do we worship with them? If we are to worship with them, will we have to go into their churches? Won’t this lead to assimilation? Mustn’t this be avoided at all costs? Should we strive to create a synagogue for our worship? If so, which kind—Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform? If we establish synagogues, what will happen to our Gentile brothers and sisters who want to worship with us? Won’t this make them feel like second-class citizens? If that happens, won’t we be violating the Bible, which tells us that we are to be ‘one in the Body’? Is our concentration on preserving our identity as Jews?”

Jewish identity, Telchin maintains, consists of much more than synagogue attendence. “I would estimate that less than 5 percent of American Jews attend synagogue every week,” he says. “But their identity as Jews is strong because of the other Jewish areas of their life: heritage, tradition, Jewish causes, support for Israel, commitment to ethical pursuits, championing of the underdog, and determination to survive.”

While he emphasizes his complete agreement with his people in each of these respects, the major difference between Telchin and other “mainstream” Jews is his commitment to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to the entire Old Covenant, in which the promise of the New Covenant and Messiah is found.

“The New Covenant specifically tells us that the middle wall which separated Jews from non-Jews has been broken down and is never to be restored,” Telchin preaches. “I must allow nothing to become a stumbling block for me. Should a desire well up within me to please others—especially if it means compromising the Word of God—I am in serious danger. The Word tells me that many will stumble at the stumbling stone. Jesus is the stumbling stone.”

Other Jewish Christians are even more vociferous in their belief that Messianic Judaism and its ritualistic trappings are a stumbling block to faith in Jesus, a wall to hide behind. “Too many people are living Jewish traditionalism rather than Jewish religionism,” charges Art Stamler, president and executive producer at ADS Audio Visual Productions Inc., a major production house of public service radio and television announcements.

Stamler has difficulty with evangelicals who use orthodoxy or Jewish traditions to introduce other Jews to their Messiah.

“It hasn’t changed since the days of the Sanhedrin,” he says. “That question—‘What will people say?’—and the Jewish response … maintaining their traditions or losing face with parents, friends and associates … has been the greatest cause of Jewish reticence to Jesus in 2,000 years.”

Raised in an “extremely orthodox” Jewish background, Stamler is now a member of Way of Faith Assembly of God in Fairfax, Virginia. His ten-year commitment to Christ came from direct revelation rather than any evangelical ministry:

“I asked the question. I was open. I received the answer,” he says. And that openness, he believes, is the real key to Israel’s salvation.

Stamler considers himself a Christian, not a Messianic Jew or Hebrew Christian, because, according to Scripture, “in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek.” Yet he insists he will never lose his Jewishness: “Being Jewish is all the more reason to be a good Christian.”

And Unto The Jews …?

Messianic Jews are “bageled” between unenlightened members of the body of Christ and unbelieving Jews, asserts Eliot Klayman, spiritual leader of a Messianic Jewish congregation in Columbus, Ohio. “Every time a Jewish holiday is celebrated, some unenlightened [Christian] will rail an accusation condemning Jews for keeping the law. On the other hand, unbelieving Jews accuse the Messianic Jew of departing from Judaism, having rejected the commandments of Moses and of worshiping the man, Jesus.

“Traditional Jews separate from us because we are ‘Christian’ and many Christians remove us from their fellowship rolls because we are Jewish. No wonder God has seen fit to raise up Messianic congregations where we can worship as led by the Holy Spirit, fellowship with those who are like-minded, and live a cultural existence that identifies us as we perceive ourselves to be—Jews!”

Klayman, an attorney, cites several reasons why Jewish believers in Jesus should strive to maintain their Jewish identity. “It is important because we desire with great tenacity to remain what we are—Jews. We want our children to be Jewish, to see them bar mitzvahed, and to give them away in marriage in a cultural setting in which we are comfortable. We want to gather around the table for Passover and other feasts and to witness the excitement of our children and grandchildren opening presents on Chanukah. We want to use Jewish terminology and to worship in Messianic congregations.”

Most Messianic Jews fervently point out that the apostle Paul always identified himself as Jewish when dealing with Jews. “For though I am free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law … that I might gain them that are under the law” (1 Cor 9:20).

The irony, claim Klayman and many latter-day Jews for Jesus, is not that Jews can be members of the body of Christ, but that Gentiles—contrary to nature—could be ingrafted (Rom. 11:24). “Throughout history, the church has forgotten its spiritual roots and the Jewish context of the Scriptures,” he says. “Throughout history, the church has fallen into paganism and anti-Semitism. As Jewish believers identifying as Jews, we are a reminder of the Jewish context of both the Old and New Covenants. In a sense, we are called to maintain our Jewish identity to keep the universal body honest of its true roots.”

The preservation of these roots—the Jewish people—is a mystery we may never fully understand, although there are attempts at explanation.

“God proclaimed he would always preserve the Jewish people as a distinct witness people,” suggests Sid Roth. “This promise offers the only ‘logical’ explanation for our survival. Even the least observant Jew says in his heart, ‘I was born a Jew and I will die a Jew.’ He may not attend synagogue services, or even believe in God, but he wants to remain Jewish. God has placed this survival instinct in our hearts.”

Regarding this instinct to survive, Pastor Telchin responds: “The history of the last 2,000 years has focused our attention upon man’s inhumanity to man. In the process, the issue became self-preservation. It was critical that we Jews protect ourselves from those who would destroy us. It still is. But the God who formed us, and chose us, and held out his hand to us, and covenanted with us, has not set out to destroy us.

“How do I explain the last 2,000 years? I cannot. But I know this: The real issue is not the secular history of the period. Nor is it the ‘Jewishness’ of those who believe.

“The issue is Jesus. Is he or is he not God’s anointed? Is he who he says he is? Is he or is he not the Messiah of Israel, the Savior of all mankind?”

Tim Stafford is a free-lance writer living in Santa Rosa, California. He is a distinguished contributor to several magazines. His latest book is Do You Sometimes Feel Like a Nobody? (Zondervan, 1980).

Some regard it as idolatry, but it is the cement holding our nation together.

It is the style to decry American civil religion as blatant idolatry—American Shinto. For my part, I thank God for it.

But since that phrase now has so many definitions, we should clarify our meaning: When I speak of “civil religion,” I mean “political and social convictions,” or “political value systems,” or “political philosophy,” or Walter Lippmann’s “public philosophy.”

More technically, I follow many sociologists who accept Emile Durkheim’s definition of civil religion as those convictions and practices that determine the consciences and conduct of a people in terms of politics and general social structures. Some do not call that “civil religion.” Ordinarily I do not, either. But why argue over a term so long as we understand each other?

Value Of Civil Religion

In this sense, civil religion is the cement that holds a nation together. It is indispensable for the nation’s existence, and its nature determines the nation’s character. The Declaration of Independence spells it out explicitly for the new nation of America. In his Farewell Address, George Washington wrote: “Of all the suppositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

And our second president, John Adams, noted: “It is religion and morality alone upon which freedom can securely stand. A patriot must be a religious man.” Later he added, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and a religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Tenets

American civil religion is, of course, amorphous. Its tenets and practices are constantly changing. However, certain basic convictions have characterized it since its founding days: government exists for the good of the citizens. Its duty is to seek their welfare, protect them, reward the innocent, and punish the guilty. Its ethical code is roughly comparable to the second table of the Decalogue, prohibiting stealing, adultery, murder, and false witness.

Yet its powers are limited. Government has the right to manage the civil lives of its citizenry, but not their religious lives. All government is under God and his moral law. Every human being has political and social rights—in fact, equal rights before the law. All religions should be tolerated, and all religious practices—so long as they do not contradict public morality (variously defined). Democracy is the best form of government; and therefore, concern for others requires that we should extend it as far as possible by peaceful persuasion. Our part as citizens is to obey our government and respect it. We are to love our country and serve it.

Of course, not every American adheres to all these tenets of civil religion. Those who depart too far from its prescribed practices (murderers, for example) frequently end up in jail. Those who do not adhere in conscience to this accepted civil religion are generally tolerated. Early in American history, New Englander William Livingston stated a principle that has found wide acceptance: “The civil power hath no jurisdiction over the sentiments or opinions of the subjects, till such opinions break out into actions prejudicial to the community, and then it is not the opinion but the action that is the object of our punishment.”

Heresies Of American Civil Religion

Of course, like any religion, civil religion, too, has its heresies. Patriotism descends to chauvinism: “My country right or wrong.” Here, an ultimate commitment is made to the state, which determines its own right and wrong; whatever it does is defended. Or civil religion may become an absolute requirement, so that rejection of it becomes punishable as a crime. For the most part, however, the American people have, at least in theory, repudiated such Fascist-like heresies that deify the state.

How Is It Formed?

So much for the content of appropriate civil religion. But how about its formative principle? What shapes it? For example, Roman Catholic teaching is determined by the church through its infallible pope and universal council. Traditional Protestantism appeals to an infallible Bible. What shapes American civil religion? Originally, no doubt, it took shape under strong Puritan influence, faced by the facts of colonial life. Not every New Englander was a Puritan separatist, and not every Virginian was a loyal Anglican. Yet they shared basic Judaeo-Christian convictions that they had inherited as part of Western culture. Puritans found them in the Bible; deists, in natural theology: All men and women are created in the image of God. Therefore, we must set high value on the personal integrity of every human. He or she must be respected, loved, protected, and served. Justice is due to all. We may persuade, but not coerce others so long as their actions are not destructive of the body politic and the rights of others.

The political corollaries of these theological ideas became widely accepted by Puritans of the eighteenth century. They were shared as part of their common faith by many other American Protestants. But they were also shared for the most part by Jews and deists (even Thomas Paine and, of course, Thomas Jefferson). A century later, Roman Catholics were reluctantly admitted into the consensus. All shared a basic commitment to the Judeo-Christian value system, which served as the basis for political and social action, and thus for what has been called American civil religion.

Can Evangelicals Support Civil Religion?

The ultimate commitment of evangelicals is to Jesus Christ. They set their theology by the Bible; can they support a civil religion? Can they, like the ancient Romans, support two deities? Our Lord warned us against dual loyalties: our eye must be single. Can we serve God and mammon? Will not even the slightest hint of civil religion constitute an idol and preclude any genuine biblical faith?

That depends, of course, on the nature of our civil religion. America, like any nation, must be under God. Its laws and practices fall under the judgment of God and should seek to conform to God’s righteous will for the nation. The term may be inappropriate, but civil religion, carefully defined in this sense, is not antithetical to biblical faith, but it is supported and fostered by it. That is why biblical Christians are patriotic and usually obey their government (even bad government). So Tertullian in the ancient world reminded Roman governors that Christians were their best supporters and their most loyal and obedient citizens, upholding the good of the nation. The Bible commands Christians to pray for and honor their rulers. They must for conscience’ sake obey the law (except where it violates God’s laws). They are to participate fully as citizens, rendering to Caesar the full measure of all that is his.

And the Christian’s Jewish neighbor next door can say the same with an equally clear conscience and without lessening his commitment to his Jewish faith. Likewise, an enlightened Roman Catholic neighbor across the street can join in supporting these political-religious values because he, too, shares them and sees no conflict with his Catholic faith.

Of course, if American civil religion at any point requires disobedience to God, the biblical Christian, with Peter, must choose to obey God rather than man. Or if American civil religion becomes the central substance of religious life and thought, an evangelical must reject it as false. Civil religion, even as we have defined it, represents only aspects of biblical faith and is greatly dependent on it for its sustenance. And, of course, the state that dares to challenge the ultimacy of Christ becomes a blasphemous idol.

Dangers And Challenges

Two warnings, from opposite directions, are appropriate for American Christians. They must beware the tendency of any biblically justified patriotism or civil religion to assume ultimate authority, and so free itself from judgment by God’s righteous standard. Patriotism then becomes idolatry—antithetical to Christian faith. But just because we do love our country and honor it, we can easily slip beyond the thin edge of what is appropriate. Then we can commit the blasphemy of what in practice becomes a denial of biblical Christianity.

But in our day, a second danger besets our nation. Americans take their political heritage for granted. This is both wrong and dangerous. In America we have a precious political heritage of great freedom coupled with responsible government. But an alarming trend in America is transforming the so-called American civil religion of the past into an enormously different sort of religious commitment: a politics of selfish individualism.

At the heart of biblical ethics is the teaching that love to God always demands and necessarily results in love to our fellow men. The essence of the Christian life, therefore, is service—loving service to God and others.

But today, in the name of freedom, a great many demand the right to serve themselves. Such a civil religion would destroy us as a nation.

Rather, we must renew our commitment to the basic public values that have guided us in the past. America stands under the judgment of God and must be held responsible to him. And our public and political life, like every other aspect of the truly Christian life, must be a life of service for the good of others.

KENNETH S. KANTZER

Eutychus: Goodbye And Hello

The wit of Eutychus has been with CHRISTIANITY TODAY since its inception. He (or she) has actually been a succession of writers, with custom dictating that each Eutychus be announced upon retirement from the column. We can now reveal the latest Eutychus: Calvin Miller, pastor of Westside Baptist Church in Omaha, Nebraska. A gifted storyteller and natural poet, Miller is the author of many books, including the acclaimed Singer trilogy (IVP, 1979) and his recent If This Be Love (Harper & Row, 1984).

With this issue, a new Eutychus goes to work. For now, we have nothing else to say about him. Or her.

Saint Petro’s

A friend recently wrote about an all-too-common problem:

“My family is having trouble finding a gas station to attend,” he wrote. “After moving here last year, we did a lot of station hopping, but none of the local stations are like our old station back home. Our expectations aren’t unreasonable—we just want a place where the whole family can fill up each week. But finding a station we all agree on isn’t easy.

“I think any station we join should have early service. No sense wasting the whole day. My wife feels the attendants have to be friendly, people you can talk to about normal things, not just carburetors. My son, who’s done just enough reading about station administration to be opinionated, says the order of service is important. ‘No one should wash windows before checking the oil,’ he claims.

“What should we do?”

My friend’s plight prompted me to do some background reading. At one time, I read, people did not have such worries because there weren’t any choices. Standard stations were virtually the only ones you could go to. My parents, I remembered, went to Parrish’s Standard, the only station in town.

But an obscure grease monkey named Marty began pointing out the dangers of indulging a monopoly. Before long, the monopoly was broken up, and different stations began appearing, sometimes four to an intersection, each claiming it offered better service, nicer facilities, higher octane, or some special additive.

From time to time, fads swept the industry. One was down on the institutional station. Younger drivers began saying, “Gas yes, stations no.” They suggested people have pumps at home. These house stations were nice in theory, but no one ever developed one that could last more than a few years.

Lately self-service is the rage, a concept actually based on one of Marty’s original gripes against Standard—every driver should be able to pump his own gas. So far it seems to be working, though some say we don’t yet know the effect this less-glorified role will have on attendants. Some drivers already complain that self-serve leads to apathetic operators. Others point out that when your engine needs work, you can’t go to the local station anymore. Mechanics are specialists now, each with his own shop.

Before I could reply to my friend, he sent a note:

“One of our neighbors is disgusted with all gas stations because ‘they just feud with each other’ and ‘they’re just after my money.’ So he stopped going anywhere. Of course, his tank is always empty too.

“I don’t think that’s the answer. I’m coming to the conclusion that as long as the gas hasn’t been watered down, I’ll keep buying, even if the station isn’t quite like the one back home.”

EUTYCHUS

Weeping Over the Children

After reading Rodney Clapp’s article, “Vanishing Childhood” part I, [May 18], I was easily able to imagine God in heaven, crying over the children of the world throughout history.

REV. BOB GILLCHREST

Olivet Baptist Church

Lancaster, Calif.

The remark Clapp quotes about Charles Lamb was made at a time when Lamb was feverishly ill. Furthermore, nowhere in that letter of April 1833 is it implied that the child in the next room had died; it had merely been removed. Lamb loved children. I should hope that the writings of one whose noble kind spirit has so warmed and encouraged the imaginations of other writers would not be avoided as monstrous on the basis of an uncharacteristic sentiment uttered in private during a moment of weakness.

P. MARTIN SARVIS

Denton, Tex.

I am intrigued by Clapp ascribing fatherhood to Charles Lamb. I’ve always thought that Lamb was a bachelor. In fact, John Buchan in his History of English Literature wrote unequivocally, “Lamb was never married.” Does Mr. Clapp know something I don’t?

GRACE MCCULLOUGH

Sharon, Penn.

Mr. Clapp only said that Lamb had a “common parental experience,” not that he was the child’s father.—Eds

Religion Is Not a Social Club

Unfortunately, the bill Kenneth Kantzer suggested in his Editorial “The ‘Separation’ of Church and State” [May 18] as “an excellent example of ‘accommodation without preference and without coercion’” is not the ideal solution. Religion cannot be compared to social clubs or stamp collecting! Under this bill, children would be actively proselytizing within the school. This could sharply divide students in schools where a diversity of religious groups exist. Problems like this do not occur between social clubs.

THOMAS A. co*ckLEREECE

Rockville, Md.

When Marriage “Dies”

I appreciated very much Walter Wangerin’s attempt to deal with “the sort of grief that follows divorce” [“On Mourning the Death of a Marriage,” May 18]. Too often the church has been so preoccupied with the issue that it has neglected the people who have been deeply wounded by the experience. But I find the logic that claims a marriage is “dead” before the divorce actually takes place dangerous and unbiblical. I see no such distinction in Scripture and am concerned that such thinking will add to the other nonbiblical rationalizations Christians are using to free themselves from the necessity of working through the serious difficulties we sometimes face in marriage.

REV. PAUL B. NULL

Bethel Baptist Church

Aumsville, Ore.

Wangerin speaks of “me” and “you” and “we”; the last being “a living thing—the life in a marriage.” Scripture speaks of “two becoming one flesh. Vows do not make a marriage; vows are a promise to become “one flesh.”

F. VANDERWERFF

Monroe, Wash.

Eschatology and Missions

Your news coverage of the TSFM meeting at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School [May 18] reflected accurately its theme, which had to do with the effect one’s eschatology has on the way he will do missionary work. It is regrettable that early in the report it was stated that “At issue was which view of the millennium provides the best motivation for spreading the Christian witness.” Neither Richard Lovelace nor I tried to present our respective views of the millennium as the best motivation for missions. We were really seeking to show how eschatology affects the nature of missions.

The CT reporter stated that I separated myself not only from amillennialism but also from dispensational premillennialism. Such was not the case. I regret dispensationalists’ tendency to divide the people of God into blocks and to deemphasize the reality of God’s kingdom here and now.

DR. MICHAEL POco*ck

TEAM

Wheaton, Ill.

Philip Yancey Aye and Nay!

Who is Philip Yancey, this Editor at Large? Did he write “The ‘Atrocious’ Mathematics of the Gospel” [Open Windows, May 18] to infuriate readers, or just to get our attention? What on earth could he have in mind, questioning Jesus or the Word? Perhaps I am naı̈ve, but to agree with Judas that to break a pint! (his emphasis) of perfume on the very feet that would be pierced on the cross was bad economics, makes me question Yancey’s point of view.

CAROLE ANN O’CONNOR

Gulfport, Miss.

The first thing I do when CHRISTIANITY TODAY arrives is check the table of contents for an article by Philip Yancey. If there is one, I know I am in for an intellectual and spiritual treat.

ELLEN KLIPP

Eagle, Idaho

I would not mind the article so much if he had merely stated the different values and worths found in the Bible. But he digs into the Gospels and tears apart the dignity in the parables of Christ. If the article were intended to amuse, then Yancey shouldn’t have tried so hard to side with everyone in the parables except for Christ.

PATRICIA JOHNSON

Grand Haven, Mich.

Mr. Yancey suggests readers might try reading his article as satire—which is what he intended.—Eds.

The WCC and Evangelicals

The April 20 Editorial, “Winds of Change in the World Council?,” provides a succinct and helpful agenda for future discussions between the World Council of Churches and evangelicals, however much some of us in the WCC might wish to debate your analysis. Some of us will want to agree with parts of it, while questioning other portions. It may be of some interest that the WCC has a Task Force on Relations to Evangelicals, and I have been appointed moderator.

I agree that our future discussions may well focus on “essential truth,” what the Christian faith really means. I thank God that pure doctrine is not our entry pass to heaven, but that search for the essential truth of Christian faith and action is crucial for us all.

EUGENE L. STOCKWELL

World Council of Churches

Geneva, Switzerland

Contrary to the implication of your Editorial, I took no part in the drafting of the evangelical Open Letter, although I concurred with its positive conclusions.

PROF. RICHARD LOVELACE

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

South Hamilton, Mass.

More Church Growth

I read with interest “The Greatest Church Growth Is Beyond Our Shores” [May 18]. I was surprised that you did not acknowledge the work of the Church of God in the areas listed. During the past ten years we saw a 79% increase in the number of churches in Central America. All around this world we are seeing the harvest gathered.

DOUGLAS LEROY

Church of God

Cleveland, Tenn.