Page 5706 – Christianity Today (2024)

It was Kenya’s independence day when the Pan African Christian Leadership Assembly (PACLA) “went public” by means of an open-air evangelistic meeting. Estimates vary (up to 55,000) on how many people crowded onto the hillside overlooking downtown Nairobi; additional thousands saw the gospel rally on nationwide television. Among the viewers, according to a message sent to evangelist Billy Graham, was the hero of Kenyan independence, President Jomo Kenyatta.

Mission-school-educated Kenyatta was not the only African leader with an eye on PACLA, a ten-day conference that attracted about 800 delegates from nearly all of the continent’s nations. Graham, a speaker at the rally as well as at the assembly itself, said participants believed all African governments were watching the event. Church and mission organizations were observing, too (see December 3, 1976, issue, page 53). Black and white South African delegates were so convinced their government was listening that they expelled reporters who attempted to cover one delegation meeting.

The “Cairo to Capetown” gathering, observers agreed, was worth watching by anyone concerned with the future of the continent. It was the most representative assembly of African church leaders ever convened. It was organized by Africans, and most of the speakers were African. The assembly was also significant in that it sought no consensus and issued no call for a new organization.

What PACLA did establish was an informal network of relationships. In the words of white South African Michael Cassidy, the program chairman, these relationships should survive no matter what happens politically. He insisted, however, that the “network” would not take the shape of an organization but would be only a communications and fellowship linkage. “There is a great temptation to organize,” Cassidy explained, “but we have given our word that we will not.”

Gottfried Osei-Mensah, chairman of the planning committee, said of PACLA’s future, “Only the spirit of PACLA will be alive; the organizers themselves will disband after the follow-up materials are completed.” PACLA’s Nairobi office, scheduled to close in April, plans to produce one book each in English and French and some audio-visual presentations.

The spirit that Osei-Mensah mentioned at the conclusion of the assembly was not evident at the beginning. The Kenyan government had been slow to grant visas to whites from South Africa and Rhodesia, approving the applications just a few days before the conference began. There was a communications gap between French and English speakers. And advocates of the somewhat separatist Association of Evangelicals of Africa and Madagascar (AEAM) were suspicious of personnel active in the ecumenical All Africa Conference of Churches (A ACC).

Halfway through the assembly a breakthrough on the racial issue occurred when David Bosch, a Dutch Reformed Church clergyman and professor from South Africa, spoke. Emotionally relating his own experience of accepting blacks as brothers, he got a standing ovation. Throughout the conference hall, delegates of various backgrounds wept and embraced one another.

As the assembly got past the opening days, the language barrier also seemed less formidable. English- and French-speaking delegates were purposely mixed in many of the small group sessions.

Leaders of both the more “ecumenical” and the more “evangelical” wing of African Christianity kept their commitments to speak. John Gatu, who as chairman of the last AACC assembly raised the missionary moratorium issue, was a speaker. Moratorium was not one of the main issues at PACLA, however. John Mbiti, the Ugandan who directs the World Council of Churches’ Ecumenical Institute in Switzerland, also spoke. He struck a responsive chord when he said, “We have no choice other than to be first Christian, and then African, come what will.” Sam Odunaike, the Nigerian who is president of AEAM, spoke. There were also such diverse voices from the platform as those of Zairian evangelist Mavumilusa Makanzu, Egyptian Bible Society director Abd-el-Masih Istafanous, regional secretary Isaac Zokoue of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students, Anglican archbishop Bill Burnett of South Africa, and Ghanian diplomat Philemon F. Quaye.

The genius of the meeting, many of the participants agreed, was that no one speaker dominated. Various platform personalities ranged into strong political or theological viewpoints, but they returned to clarify their own born-again positions and to stress the importance of evangelism. The central theme remained evangelization of the estimated 200 million on the continent who have not responded to the Gospel.

Observers noticed development of a family spirit as delegates prayed, sang, and discussed the Scriptures together. There was little difficulty in establishing an evangelical togetherness that accepted a concept of the Great Commission centered on biblical revelation and stressing the necessity of the new birth. Africans who had been working largely within their own denominations and countries found a brotherhood.

In his address to the delegates early in the assembly, Graham set the tone for the discussion by emphasizing the place of the Bible in his own ministry. “I am not advocating bibliolatry,” the evangelist declared. “I am, however, fervently urging a Bible-centered proclamation, a gospel presentation that says without apology and without ambiguity, ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ ”

At this critical hour in Africa’s history, Graham said, “let us be clearly conscious of the fact that only the Word of God can bring true peace and true liberty to men’s hearts and nations. Only the Word of God, preached by the power of God, can bring the love of God and unselfish brotherhood to men and communities.”

There was no attempt to get any kind of legislation approved by the assembly. Even though most of the delegates are prominent in their own denominations or para-church groups, none came as official representatives. Osei-Mensah stressed that all came as individuals, submissive only to the authority of Scripture. Because of this kind of planning, he explained at the beginning of the conference, “the program is not going to be limited by anything.”

At the end of the assembly the planning committee that Osei-Mensah headed did issue a document named “The PACLA Pledge.” It was distributed to all delegates, but they were not asked to affirm it before leaving for home. They were urged to study it and to recommend it, if possible, to the various groups in which they work.

The pledge affirms “that we are brothers and sisters in God’s alternative society, knit together in the indissoluble bonds of Jesus Christ, transcending denomination, colour, race, and tribe. We thus pledge ourselves in the Name of Jesus Christ to be active reconcilers across every divide, believing that it is Jesus Himself who has committed to us this ministry of reconciliation.”

Also included in the document is a pledge “to be true to the Scriptures as God’s authoritative and inspired Word … [and] to resist all error, all distortions of the truth, and all practices and behaviour incompatible with Christian holiness and biblical ethics.”

In a section on evangelization, there is a pledge to “resist all forms of syncretism and universalism which would deny the necessity for every person whether in Africa or elsewhere to be given the opportunity of hearing and receiving the message of Jesus Christ.” Resistance is also pledged to “any concept which separates the personal and social dimensions of the Gospel and which either refuses to relate the message to society or else relates it exclusively to society at the expense of the personal and eternal needs of the human soul.”

In the closing days of the assembly delegates began formulating plans for evangelistic thrusts. They were talking, not only about work within their own sections of Africa, but also of the possibilities of missionary activity on other continents, including those that have long sent missionaries to Africa.

The idea for PACLA was born in 1974 at the International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland, but the assembly was not sponsored by the follow-up Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (LCWE). The initial ad hoc committee was composed of Cassidy, Anglican Bishop Festo Kivengere of Uganda, and Bible translator John Mpaayei of Kenya. They invited more than thirty other leaders to form the planning committee, which named Osei-Mensah as its chairman. He is a Ghanian living in Nairobi, where he works as executive secretary of LCWE.

Looking Up

Church and synagogue attendance in the United States rose in 1976—the first time that has happened since 1958, according to a Gallup Poll. The poll interviewed 13,398 persons over age 17 in more than 300 localities during nine selected weeks. Forty-two per cent said they had attended church or synagogue during the preceding seven days, an increase of 2 per cent over the past five years. A high of 49 per cent was recorded in 1955 and 1958, said Gallup.

The study shows that 55 per cent of Roman Catholics are in church in a typical week, 40 per cent of Protestants. Women still make up a majority of those in the pews; 46 per cent of the nation’s women attend, 37 per cent of the men.

Least likely attenders are people living in the West and people under age 30; those in the South and Middle West have the best attendance record.

On another topic, 45 per cent of the interviewees said they think religion’s influence on American life is decreasing, 44 per cent said it is increasing, and the rest offered no opinion.

Sadder But Wiser

Several activists who were prominent in the anti-war movement of the past decade held a press conference in New York to announce that the Communist government of Viet Nam had rebuffed their efforts to secure the release of political prisoners. The war protesters also said the Vietnamese government had refused to accept an impartial inquiry into charges of violations of human rights.

Among those speaking out at the conference, sponsored by the International League for Human Rights, were Lutheran clergyman-editor Richard John Neuhaus, a founder of Clergy and Laity Concerned, and James H. Forest, co-chairman of the Catholic Peace Fellowship and editor of its magazine. They were among 110 anti-war activists who had signed an appeal to the Vietnamese government, according to a Religious News Service report.

Neuhaus and Forest said that during the Indochina war they wanted “desperately” to believe promises by the Communists to be tolerant and to uphold human rights. “I feel sadder but wiser now,” said Forest.

Some prominent anti-war protesters declined to sign the appeal, among them theologian Robert McAfee Brown and leaders of the American Friends Service Committee, an independent Quaker group. The AFSC people, who have been engaged in relief efforts in Viet Nam, say they still have confidence in the assurances of the Vietnamese government that human rights are being protected there.

Unlucky

Les Howell, 86, of Sydney, Australia, was fired after sixty-eight years as a Salvation Army solicitor of contributions. It all began, he says, when a relative gave him a lottery ticket that won $30,000. After news of his bonanza got out, two other members of the Army took out a newspaper ad that said “the Salvation soldier must have no connection” with gambling. Then Howell’s supervisor visited him and banned him from wearing the Army uniform and collecting donations.

“It was like somebody had knocked me to the ground,” the old man told reporters. A qualified pastry cook, he reportedly was already well off.

A hotel owner who donated to the Salvation Army regularly through Howell has called on fellow hotel operators not to permit Army solicitors on their properties until Howell is reinstated.

Religion in Transit

In a Norman Lear television comedy series, “One Day at a Time,” a major character named Julie became born again during a two-part segment this month and tried to express to family and friends how good the experience is. Descriptions and terminology familiar to evangelicals were blended with situation comedy, a sensitive first-of-its-kind on TV. Lear aide Virginia Carter conceded earlier at a meeting of the World Association for Christian Communication that religious people are often stereotyped on television because of limited knowledge on the part of writers and producers. Whether Julie represents a new generation of stereotypes remains to be seen.

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod leaders say they are disappointed after a day-long meeting with representatives of the American Lutheran Church failed to resolve some basic concerns. LCMS president J. A. O. Preus requested the meeting to discuss a controversial letter by ALC president David Preus. The letter, circulated last spring, criticized the LCMS for adopting a conservative statement on doctrine that is “disruptive for all Lutherans.” Preus of the LCMS asked for substantiation of the letter’s assertions. The ALC representatives have promised a “more substantive response” next month.

The brief prayer that preceded the daily sitting of Quebec’s legislature has been scrapped by the newly elected Parti Quebecois, which favors separation from Canada.

More than 1,300 tons of rice valued at nearly $350,000 was sent from Bangkok to northern Viet Nam as a gift from Americans to help relieve a food shortage in that land. The rice was bought by a United Nations unit on behalf of three American relief agencies: Friendshipment, Church World Service (National Council of Churches), and Lutheran World Relief.

Money-raising efforts by a California-based pro-life publication, The Voice of Theophilus, are being investigated by the U.S. Postal Service for mail fraud, according to a report in the National Catholic Reporter. The anti-abortion newsletter, associated with the National Pro-Life Foundation of Encino, California, is run by a shadowy figure with several aliases, including Thomas Donovan, M.D., James Anton, Steve Savage, and Mike Nameth. Catholic officials have warned against contributing to the paper.

The 400,000-member, 1,063-congregation Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod celebrated its 125th anniversary last year with a thankoffering. The goal was $2.8 million, to help with college and church-extension projects. By last month commitments totaled $3.55 million.

“What’s It All About?” was named the best syndicated religious series in radio for the fourth year in a row by Billboard magazine. The popular-music-oriented show, produced by the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (Southern), is heard on 750 stations in fourteen countries.

Deaths

SAMUEL MCCREA CAVERT, 88, United Presbyterian clergyman and pioneer ecumenist who was general secretary of the Federal Council of Churches and its successor, the National Council of Churches, from 1930 to 1954, and a founder and leader of the World Council of Churches (he is credited with giving the WCC its name); in Bronxville, New York, after a long illness.

W. HERSCHEL FORD, 76, well-known Southern Baptist pastor, denominational leader, and author of numerous books of expository sermons; in Dallas, of a heart ailment.

By a vote of 8 to 1, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a Missouri Supreme Court ruling that upheld the state’s tuition-aid program covering both private and public colleges. Americans United for Separation of Church and State had argued that the state’s seventeen colleges with religious affiliations have an essentially religious purpose, and that their students therefore should be disqualified for the grants of up to $900 per year.

A “substantial majority” of the seventy-five voting members of the Unitarian Church of Richardson, Texas, approved a resolution calling for the legalization of prostitution. The change would help to control crime and venereal disease, said a spokesman. The church got national publicity in 1975 when an exotic dancer performed a strip-tease during the “sharing” portion of a service.

Sister Gabrielle Lacelle was appointed an associate secretary of the Canadian Council of Churches. She is the first Roman Catholic to serve on the executive staff of the national ecumenical agency. The Catholic Church is not a member of the body.

Funding problems have led the board of Inter-Met (Metropolitan Theological Education, Incorporated), a five-year-old interfaith seminary in Washington, D.C., to announce the school’s closing this June, when five students will graduate. Six students will finish the year in a joint program with other schools; twenty others must transfer elsewhere by next month. Inter-Met, with no formal campus, specialized in training ministers through an apprenticeship in individual congregations.

Commissioner Paul Kaiser is the new national commander of the Salvation Army in the United States. A youth specialist, he has headed the army’s central U.S. region and held executive posts in Europe. He succeeds the retiring William Chamberlain.

Personalia

England’s perennial pop star Cliff Richard, an evangelical, recently learned that the millionth copy of his record “Devil Woman” had been sold in the United States. Its lyrics are directed against the occult. He got the word while on a concert tour to Bangladesh sponsored by evangelicals.

Singing evangelist Barry McGuire, 40, who hit it big in 1965 with the million-seller record “Eve of Destruction” and also with the New Christy Minstrels and as a star in the Broadway production of Hair, tells of his spiritual journey from LSD to Christ in a new autobiography: From Hair to Eternity.

Another ex-Manson follower tells of switching to Christ and being changed: Onjya Sipe, in Devil’s Dropout (Mott Media). The former prostitute and topless dancer says it happened when the Manson family took her baby daughter from her and she turned to her brother Paul for help. Paul first told her about Christ. The baby was later recovered. Following Christ has meant overcoming a lot of hardships and problems, says Ms. Sipe, but the “glorious freedom” from Satan has been worth it.

World Scene

Puerto Rico’s Catholic bishops have approved the controversial Latin American Bible for use on the island, saying it is clear and sound theologically. Criticism of certain photos and accompanying notes (see December 17, 1976, issue, page 34) is not sufficient to ban its use, explained Cardinal Luis Aponte Martinez. He had earlier forbade its use until the bishops had a chance to study it.

Viet Nam’s governing Workers party has renamed itself the Communist party and ratified a new five-year development plan under which a large-scale redistribution of population from urban to rural areas will take place, according to reports from Hanoi and Saigon. Little news of church life in Viet Nam is getting through. Some missionaries who formerly served there say they have learned that workers are permitted one day off per week—but it can’t be Sunday.

After the Communists took over Cambodia in 1975 they renamed it Democratic Kampucha. But there has been little democracy, and many former citizens, including Christian leaders, have disappeared. There have been reports of mass murders of educated persons and former soldiers. An epidemic of malaria now plagues the remaining population (it reportedly affects 90 per cent of the people), and there is a shortage of medicine and insecticides. With U.S. government approval, a Texas firm has sold Kampucha $450,000 worth of insecticides, and the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker agency, has sent $12,000 worth of anti-malarial drugs. The AFSC aid, the first by a private U.S. agency, was shipped by way of Communist China.

Delaying tactics continue to block new missionaries from entering Colombia. The government, though, did promise recently to issue visas upon satisfactory completion of detailed investigative questionnaires by each mission. So far, about two dozen of the fifty-three evangelical missions have submitted the information. The government has responded to five, in each case requesting replies to an additional page or more of questions.

Small lots of Portuguese Bibles have arrived in Mozambique in recent months, but the nation’s Marxist government is restricting the importation of larger shipments, according to Swiss mission sources. Requests by the Mozambique Bible Society to import or to print have been held up, they say. Church sources say church attendance is picking up again, especially on the part of young people. Meanwhile, a proposed three-year program of aid to Mozambique valued at $600,000 or more has been under discussion by officials of the World Council of Churches.

Nearly 500 clergymen, about 10 per cent of the pastors of the Church of Sweden (Lutheran), demanded that the mission board of the church discontinue relations with the World Council of Churches and other ecumenical organizations. The board, at its annual meeting, referred the question to the governing body of the church, which is studying the relation between the church and the WCC.

Pastor Douglas “Sir Doug” Nicholls, an aboriginal evangelical pastor and ex-soccer star who could not read or write until he was 21, was made governor of South Australia, the highest honor ever accorded a black Australian. For thirty years he has been campaigning for social justice and land rights for his people. He is a minister in the Church of Christ, an evangelical Protestant denomination with links to British Presbyterianism.

Catholics in Poland are complaining about how the state treats them. Church officials say that during 1976 twenty-seven dioceses applied to the state for permission to build 234 churches and chapels, but authorities okayed only 23 buildings. And only 23 of 129 applications to expand or restructure were approved. Meanwhile, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski, the spiritual leader of about 95 per cent of Poland’s 34 million people, called on authorities in a sermon to stop mistreating workers arrested for demonstrating against the government over high food prices.

A number of Catholic theological faculty members in Holland over the years have left the priesthood to marry but have retained their teaching posts. In 1971 and 1972 the Vatican ruled that such persons must be dismissed. The Dutch bishops say they have observed this policy since it was spelled out, but they refused to apply it retroactively—and the Vatican reluctantly agreed.

Bible expositor John Stott was near the end of his third lecture at the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship’s missionary convention when he begged the congregation: “Please don’t clap any more; you’re wasting my time; I’ve only got two minutes more.”

Spontaneous applause for the Anglican evangelical’s teaching about an evangelistic church was just one indicator of the spiritual temperature of the 17,112 attending “Urbana ’76,” the eleventh edition of IVCF’s triennial North American student gathering. The record turnout for the event stretched the capacity of the Urbana campus of the University of Illinois.

The convention theme, “Declare His Glory Among the Nations,” and the way it was developed stretched the imaginations and consciences of those attending. They responded, not only with vigorous applause for speakers, but also with hearty singing and praying, with decisions to serve Christ abroad, and with generous financial contributions.

The spiritual warmth of participants contrasted with the bitter cold they had to encounter as they walked from one campus building to another during the week between Christmas and New Year’s Day. Temperatures often dipped below zero during what the Chicago Tribune described as “this frozen week” in Illinois. A light snow blanketed the university grounds midway through the week.

Despite the cold the youths took in a full range of activities designed to acquaint them with current Great Commission imperatives. Students faithfully attended two-hour morning and evening plenary sessions in the mushroom-shaped Assembly Hall, but they also packed out the hundreds of afternoon electives that gave them the opportunity to meet missionaries, to learn about various types of overseas work, to question platform speakers, and to discuss matters of evangelization. In addition, they started and ended each day with small groups in their residence halls, studying the Bible and praying.

In the convention’s first major address, John W. Alexander, IVCF’s U.S. president, laid the foundations for the program which followed. He emphasized his belief that the Bible “is the infallible revelation of the infallible God—which means that it is entirely trustworthy and reliable.” He told the students, “Our attitude toward Scripture is desperately important.” Alexander declared in his address that he believed in biblical inerrancy while admitting its problems, “but I refuse to set myself up as judge of Scripture and commence deciding which problems are biblical error.” He reaffirmed the position in a news conference the following day.

Stott, who now pursues a worldwide speaking and writing ministry with the title of rector emeritus of London’s All Souls Church, spoke four times on the biblical basis for missions. He urged concentration “on the objective, historical Jesus, as he is presented to us in the Bible.” He suggested that students “use our contemporary experience of him to corroborate and illustrate the primary witness of the apostles.”

The convention’s most prominent speaker, evangelist Billy Graham, faced the issue of Scripture on the second full day of the week. He made himself available to answer questions for an hour in the 17,000-seat Assembly Hall, and nearly half of the delegates showed up there despite dozens of competing meetings. Graham said he fully backed the Alexander statement. He was applauded when he held a Bible aloft and said, “This is the infallible Word of the Living God.” He also reviewed for his student audience the 1949 experience in which he decided to accept the Scriptures as God’s Word.

In a news conference later the same day the evangelist expressed a hope that evangelicals will be able to handle their new visibility. He warned of the danger of being more of a target when they are more visible. Without amplifying his comment, he told reporters it was important that evangelicals “accept diversity in unity” and that they not try to “put everyone in the same mold.”

Journalists asked the fifty-eight-year-old preacher about his health, and he responded that he had no real health problems. He quipped that he had quit golf and was taking up tennis. Two days later, on New Year’s Eve, a blood clot developed in his leg, and doctors ordered him onto his back. He left the campus in an ambulance and was flown to Rochester, Minnesota, where Mayo Clinic physicians diagnosed phlebitis. Students were informed of his departure after he left, and they stood to pray for him and his ministry. He was scheduled to begin a crusade in Sweden on January 12.

In his principal address, delivered the night before he was stricken, Graham called for an all-out response to the convention theme. He told the students, “Because God has declared his glory, and because we have beheld his glory, we must act.” The evangelist warned of the high cost of commitment to Christ, but when he issued an invitation for the students to stand to indicate their surrender to God’s will, most stood.

Students were also invited to sign decision cards, stating either that they were ready to serve abroad or that they “will actively seek His guidance concerning placement.” Thousands were turned in before the students left Urbana, and additional thousands were expected to be mailed to IVCF later. No precise count was available early this month.

The significance of the decision cards was explained by David Howard, director of Urbana ’76 and a veteran of many previous conventions. He pulled from his pocket his own decision card from the first IVCF missionary convention (1946, Toronto). As a student he had tacked the card above his desk as a prayer reminder until sunlight faded all of it except the part covered by the thumbtack. The decision, he said, eventually led him to go as a missionary to Colombia and Costa Rica for fifteen years.

The missionary commitment of the Howard family was also evident at the convention in the person of the director’s sister, Elisabeth Elliot Leitch. The twice-widowed writer and former missionary to South American Indians was one of the most popular speakers at Urbana (this time as well as three years ago). Like Graham, she attracted thousands to the Assembly Hall for a question-and-answer session. In an answer to one of the questions about her attitude toward the Bible, she replied that she had “staked her life” on its trustworthiness. In her message, she stressed obedience to God’s will. Students gave her a standing ovation when she concluded her message, and when her A Slow and Certain Light was “book of the day” the following day they bought up all 7,000 available copies.

Standing applause also greeted the other woman speaker, Helen Roseveare, a British medical missionary in Zaire. Speaking out of her own experience of suffering during the 1964 Simba rebellion, she stressed the cost of service abroad. The problem of suffering and hunger among the world’s peoples was the topic of Indian pastor Samuel Kamaleson.

Most of the convention-goers gave up one meal and others contributed money to help feed the hungry. A total of $23,000 was collected for hunger relief and divided among World Vision, Food for the Hungry, and the Voice of Calvary in Mississippi.

The largest offering of the week was designated for the work of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. The cash collection was $245,000, and IVCF officials expected that when pledges are fulfilled IFES will get about $300,000 from the convention. There was an offering of about $12,000 to help defray convention costs (especially those connected with scholarships for international students). Participants gave an average of over $16 in the three offerings.

About 3,000 of those registered are not currently students. Among the non-students were some 700 missionaries who staffed the booths of their agencies and spoke at afternoon elective sessions. Also present were many pastors, college professors, and other friends of IVCF. Of the registrants, 14,879 came from the United States and 1,951 from Canada. Hundreds of applicants were turned away in the weeks just prior to the meeting because the capacity had been reached. More came from California (2,022) than from the host state of Illinois (1,529). Registrants identified themselves as members of a wide range of churches, with the largest number (1,046) United Presbyterians. A total of 283 said they were Roman Catholics.

Where does the Urbana convention go from here, having reached its capacity and a level of programming that was more highly praised than ever? According to Alexander and Howard, planning will start soon for the twelfth edition. It, too, will be on the hospitable Urbana campus of the University of Illinois, they said, since they have been unable to find better facilities elsewhere. In answer to journalists’ questions, they said they had given considerable study to other possibilities of going beyond the Assembly Hall’s capacity. Among the recommendations turned down because they thought they would reduce the convention’s effectiveness were regional gatherings and use of closed-circuit television for plenary sessions at Urbana.

One of the elements that would be lost if all delegates could not sit under the same roof would be the vigorous singing that characterizes the Urbana gatherings. Led again this time by Canadian youth leader Bernie Smith, but using a new Inter-Varsity book, Hymns II, the congregational singing was a highlight for many delegates. By week’s end most had learned Margaret Clarkson’s theme hymn, “Declare His Glory,” based on Psalm 96:3, and they were humming the tune, composed by Hughes Huffman, as they returned to their campuses.

What They Read

An unofficial poll of the campus post offices at Christian colleges found Time and Newsweek were received by more students than any other magazines. Sports Illustrated placed third, and Psychology Today and Christianity Today were tied for fourth. These were followed by Glamour, Campus Life, Mademoiselle, and His.

On secular campuses nationally, a Chicago research firm found Playboy, Time, and Newsweek the most read magazines. The campus newspaper, television, and the city daily serving the area all have bigger audiences, however.

The Year That Was

In the news lull at year’s end, many reporters traditionally sift through the events of the preceding fifty-two weeks to determine which stories were the big ones. For those covering religion, the top two stories of 1976 were the religious issues surrounding the presidential election campaign and the approval of ordination of women to the priesthood in the Episcopal Church. The Religion Newswriters Association (RNA), an organization of reporters who cover religion for the secular press, rated the women’s ordination story first, the election second. Religious News Service (RNS), a press service in New York that publishes dozens of stories five days a week, listed the two stories in reverse order.

The RNA listed the Roman Catholic “Call to Action” social-issues meeting in Detroit and the split in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod as its third and fourth choices. So did the RNS, but again in reverse order.

Other top-ten choices of the RNA, in order of importance: the controversy over Korean evangelist Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church; the Catholic Eucharistic Congress in Philadelphia; abortion as an election issue; the right-to-die decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in the Karen Quinlan case; the Gallup Poll report that more than one-third of all Americans claim to have had a born-again experience; and the growing movement for divorce and remarriage reform in the Catholic Church. The last two stories tied for ninth place.

The RNS listed only one of these six stories in its top ten—the Eucharistic Congress, also in sixth place. Others: defiance of the Vatican by dissident French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a traditionalist who denounces Vatican II reforms; the women’s peace movement in Northern Ireland; church-state tensions in Third World, Latin American, and east European countries; and the ending of the Lebanese civil war (Christian-Muslim relations).

Even media with a more restricted field of interest selected the presidential election as their top story. These included Americans United for Separation of Church and State, concerned about the implications of religion as an issue in the campaign, and Southern Baptist editors and press-service staffers, who were delighted beyond words by the success of Jimmy Carter, a fellow Southern Baptist.

An important but mostly overlooked story was the continued groundswell of conservatism in major denominations. It was probably most visible in the United Methodist Church, but evidence cropped up in other groups as well. Media staffers of the United Presbyterian Church, for example, cited the denomination’s decision not to approve the ordination of practicing hom*osexuals as the top UPC story of the year (a close second: the UPC’s $3.5 million budget cut).

Theology And ‘Gutsy’ Exegesis

Biblical infallibility was the chief topic at the recent annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Slightly more than 100 of the ETS’s 1,170 members plus several dozen observers attended the sessions, held at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. In a paper, Dean Kenneth Kantzer of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in suburban Chicago stressed that inerrancy of Scripture will remain a key doctrine for evangelicals “for as long as Christ is Lord.” He cautioned, however, that “inerrancy should not be made a test for Christian fellowship instead of Christ.”

Since its founding in 1948, the ETS has made belief in inerrancy a basis of membership. Members are required annually to sign a statement confessing belief in the Bible “as the Word of God written, and therefore inerrant in the original manuscripts.” Some members, though, apparently differ on how inerrancy is to be understood. Lay theologian Richard Bube, a science-department chairman at Stanford University, returned his latest renewal application unsigned. He accompanied it with a request that the ETS reword the inerrancy statement. He suggested that it be made similar to Fuller Seminary’s revised statement, in which scriptural infallibility is limited to matters of faith and practice and not applied, for example, to facts of science. After a two-hour closed meeting, the ETS officers decided against recommending any change. Therefore Bube is no longer a member. (He told Religious News Service later that he believes the Bible “is inerrant when properly interpreted according to biblical criteria.”)

Church-history professor Clair Davis of Westminster pointed to one of the current problems within evangelical circles: “You’ve got people who say, ‘I believe the Bible is the absolute, infallible Word of God, but it’s full of errors.’ ” It is an issue likely to be debated vigorously in coming months.

Other matters were also aired at the ETS meeting. One set of papers dealt with whether the meaning of the biblical text was limited to what the authors understood or whether deeper ramifications were intended (beyond the authors’ own understanding but within the scope of the dynamics of divine inspiration). There were advocates for both positions.

In a paper dealing with the best textual basis for translations of the New Testament, Gordon Fee of Gordon-Conwell Seminary argued against those who insist that the King James Version is based on the best texts (as some ETS members do). He suggested the New International Version (NIV) as the best English translation of the New Testament because it is based on “the best Greek texts” and it employs the most “gutsy” exegesis of the texts by selecting the most apt English words that go to the heart of the Greek ones. (Fee was one of the NIV translators.)

Two papers brought into question the traditional fundamentalist view that the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. This viewpoint usually applies to creation of the entire universe as well. Too many apparent-history miracles of creation must accompany this view, the papers argued (for example, it would have been necessary for the light from stars millions of light-years away to be created en route, according to traditional conservative views).

Professor Walter Kaiser of Trinity was elevated to the ETS presidency, and President Edmund Clowney of Westminster was chosen president-elect.

The First Women

At an afternoon service at All Saints Episcopal Church in Indianapolis on January 1, Episcopal bishop Donald J. Davis placed his hands upon the head of Jacqueline Means and prayed, asking God to “give your Holy Spirit to Jacqueline, fill her with grace and power, and make her a priest in your Church.”

Thus Mrs. Means, 40, a nurse, prison chaplain, and mother of four married to a truck driver, became the first woman to be ordained to the Episcopal priesthood since the denomination changed its rules last September to open the way for women to become priests.

Earlier in the service, Robert Strippy, a representative of the American Church Union, read a statement of protest to the congregation. About a dozen other protesters were with him. “We condemn this proceeding as opposed to the mind of the church and the will of God,” he declared. It is “an act of heresy,” he insisted. Davis expressed grief over “the separation between us” but said the service would go on. Strippy and the others walked out.

Davis, the bishop of Erie, Pennsylvania, substituted for Indianapolis bishop John P. Craine, who was hospitalized with a heart ailment,

On the next day, Sunday, Mrs. Means celebrated communion at All Saints, and about one-fourth of the usual 100 or so parishioners were absent. She acknowledged to reporters that there was division in the church over her. “The church is being tested through people like me,” she said.

Also on that day. a second woman was ordained—Patricia Park, 29, of Alexandria, Virginia. Bishop Robert Hall of Virginia officiated. The service was held at Immanuel Church-on-the-Hill in Alexandria, where former President Ford and his family attended for years and where she is assistant to the rector. After her ordination, Mrs. Park and her husband Stephen, also an Episcopal priest, celebrated communion jointly as a husband-wife clergy team, a first in the worldwide Anglican Communion. Mrs. Park co-chaired the National Coalition for Women’s Ordination.

About thirty women were expected to be ordained during January, and as many as fifty this year. Questions remained, though, about women in dioceses whose bishops are less than enthusiastic about women’s ordination.

In Kansas City, Missouri, Bishop Arthur Vogel ruled that Katrina Swanson must fulfill a diocesan requirement of three years of seminary training before he will approve her as a priest. She is one of fifteen who were irregularly ordained by retired bishops in 1974 and 1975. Others of the fifteen said they would delay their own ordination completion ceremonies in protest, and they asked other bishops to bring pressure against the West Missouri bishop. Vogel said his ruling would have been the same if the case had involved a man.

South Korea: Still Guilty

Eighteen prominent South Korean religious and political leaders, all Christians, who were arrested last March and sentenced to up to eight years for speaking out on politics had their cases heard in Seoul’s court of appeals last month. The charges against them concerned a declaration calling for restoration of democracy and the resignation of President Park Chung Hee. The declaration was read in an ecumenical service in Seoul’s Myongdong Catholic cathedral. The court of appeals upheld their convictions but reduced the sentences of sixteen of them and suspended those of two others: Presbyterian theologian Ahn Byung Mu of the Institute of Research in Theology and Presbyterian minister Lee Hae Dong. The case now goes to the nation’s supreme court.

Four defendants had their eight-year prison sentences reduced to five years: Yun Po Sun, a former president of the country and an active Presbyterian layman; Catholic Kim Dae Jung, who ran against President Park in the 1972 elections; Quaker writer Ham Suk Han; and theologian Moon Ik Whan, a Bible translator, who told the court the dissidents had felt “duty bound” to urge the government not to take the “wrong direction.”

Presbyterian Lee Oo Chung, president of the Korean Church Women United, had her five-year sentence reduced to three. So did Methodists Lee Tae Yong, South Korea’s first woman lawyer, and her husband Chung Il Hyung, a former foreign minister.

Nine of the defendants, who include Catholic priests, Presbyterian ministers, and former theology professors, had their two-to-five-year terms reduced to one-to-three years.

Eleven of the eighteen have been in jail since March; the others have remained free pending appeal.

Elsewhere, four Protestant ministers at Kwangju, south of Seoul, were charged with supporting the eighteen and handed sentences of from two to ten years in jail.

Park imposed martial law in 1972 and scrapped the former constitution limiting his term in office, issued a revised constitution that enables him to stay in power for life, and laid down emergency decrees banning dissent against him or the new constitution—all in the name of national security. Those who violate the decrees face stiff prison terms, even death.

Prominent poet Kim Chi Ha, 35, a Catholic, was sentenced to death in 1974 for publishing a poem, “Cry of the People.” The sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, thanks to an international outcry, and he was released under an amnesty program in 1975. A month later he was back in jail for again being critical with his pen. The prosecutors claimed he was a Communist infiltrating the Catholic Church, and they asked for a ten-year sentence. Last month he was found to be in violation of the country’s anti-Communist law and was given a seven-year sentence.

Meanwhile, the supreme court upheld a death sentence on theological student Kim Chol Hyon, a Korean resident of Japan who admitted spying for North Korea. Three other students who met and allegedly helped him at the Presbyterian Hankuk Seminary in Seoul received sentences of from two to ten years.

An international consultation of church leaders recently met in Seoul at the invitation of the National Council of Churches in Korea and appealed for amnesty for the Seoul Eighteen. In Japan, the United Church of Christ (Kyodan) also appealed for their release.

The Second Coming

Two years after the death of their pastor at age 49, members of the Colonial Village Church in Flint, Michigan, still await his return from the grave. They now believe that a second person will also be resurrected—Mrs. Mescal McIntosh, the woman they have seen as their human link to God. She is still alive but has been unwell for some time, leaders of the independent congregation say.

In the meantime, the congregation does little—as a group or individually—without first checking with Mrs. McIntosh, who inquires of God, she says, and passes along the answers. Mrs. McIntosh, a resident of Flint for about twenty years, has five children and three grandchildren. She is separated.

The church members maintain a twenty-four-hour-a-day vigil at the church; someone is always there to pray and wait for the return of clergyman Bernard Gill. Gill, who founded the church, died in a Flint hospital on July 17, 1974, of a perforated ulcer and is buried in a Flint cemetery.

The resurrections will be a sign that the end of the world is not far off, the congregation believes. Members predict that whenever the resurrections occur (they will make no public predictions about the date) they will be the first of a number of signs that the congregation sees as “the vindication of the ministry of the prophet of the latter rain.” Gill described himself as an Elijah-like prophet of the latter rain. By that, he meant that he was a messenger announcing the second coming of Jesus Christ, as John the Baptist was the messenger announcing the first coming. (In Israel there were two rainy seasons; the reference to the second one is taken by some Bible students to mean the events surrounding Christ’s return.)

Other signs after the resurrections will include healings, more resurrections, and “cloven tongues of fire,” said Roderick Greene, one of two General Motors employees who are acting pastors (Gill is still considered pastor).

The story of the church began in 1968 when Gill, believing that God did not intend to have denominations, quit the pastorate of one of Flint’s larger, more prosperous Nazarene churches and founded Colonial Village Church.

A year before his death, he told of a vision he had had in the middle of the night, when he came to an understanding from God that he was one of two messengers to the last days of the church mentioned in the eleventh chapter of Revelation. Mrs. McIntosh was the other, he said.

Mrs. McIntosh, then in her forties and a sales clerk in a department store, had begun attending the church about two years after it began. She expressed her belief in Christ soon after her arrival and later began to have her own visions. She said she heard God’s voice, something Gill had never claimed. He came to ask her to ask questions of God.

Gill delayed entering the hospital for nearly twenty-four hours—until Mrs. McIntosh said the voice of God told him to enter. He died shortly afterward. Earlier, Gill had predicted that a man would be resurrected in vindication of his work. When he died, the congregation concluded that it was he who would be resurrected.

Some thought the pastor would come back to life at his burial. When he did not, they turned to carrying out his wishes in preparation for his return. They have nearly finished remodeling the building to look as much as possible like a colonial village, in accord with his wishes.

Some aspects of the vigil have changed, as Mrs. McIntosh has exerted more and more control over the congregation. For months after Gill’s death, his office was kept locked and his chair behind the pulpit remained empty. But now both are used because “the Lord told us some time ago that it was his will that we do so,” Greene said.

For a time, the congregation supported the Gill family, but as Mrs. Gill and some of the children quit believing in his return, the support was withdrawn. Mrs. Gill was asked to leave the parsonage (two teen-age Gill children still live there). Instead, Mrs. McIntosh began receiving financial support. The church leaders will not say how much, only that “her needs … are supplied.” Others say this means a solid weekly salary and the purchase of a house. Since Gill’s death, Mrs. McIntosh, now unemployed, has moved from a modest house in an older neighborhood to a large modern home in one of the city’s best areas. Members reportedly go to her for advice on such everyday matters as whether to buy a car and whether to go out for dinner.

Membership in the church, never large, has dropped about a third, to approximately fifty, in the last year. That does not disturb Greene and Dwayne Cross, the other acting pastor. “God will vindicate this ministry, even if there are only two of us,” Greene said. “It’s a time for separating the sheep from the goats.”

When Mrs. McIntosh dies, Cross and Greene admit, the congregation will face a new problem. She has been their link to God; who will take her place?

They say they believe God will find a way. For as Mrs. McIntosh said once: “If you look around at what Christianity is like, you know someone must come. God is giving us a chance to live a life of complete perfection and holiness.”

Meanwhile, Mrs. McIntosh says she sees Gill, as well as hearing his voice and those of others such as Elijah.

Nobody else, however, sees Gill—“not yet,” said Greene.

BETTY BRENNER

Christian Commitment In Scholarship

Reason Within the Bounds of Religion, by Nicholas Wollerstorff (Eerdmans, 1976, 115 pp., $2.45 pb), is reviewed by George I. Mavrodes, professor of philosophy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

In my opinion this short book was one of the most significant works of Christian scholarship published in 1976. Wolterstorff’s theses are provocative, and many Christian readers will find some of them unsettling. But I believe they will repay careful consideration and reaction. Perhaps they will even provoke some emendation and improvement, and that too would be a valuable contribution.

The author is a Calvin College philosopher, but his book is addressed to Christian scholars in all the academic disciplines (which Wolterstorff loosely calls the “sciences”). His principal thesis is that Christian scholars in all fields—the hard sciences, theology, the social sciences, the humanities, and others—should make full and unabashed use of the belief content (propositional) of their Christian commitment in their scholarly work. According to Wolterstorff, Christian scholars have characteristically related their science to their commitment in three ways: (1) they have revised their commitment to harmonize with what they took to be scientific results; (2) they have tried to place scientific results and theories in a larger context supplied by Christian theology; and (3) they have tried to find Christian applications for scientific and scholarly results.

Without completely rejecting these avenues, Wolterstorff argues for seeking a more “internal” relation. Christian commitment, he argues, will include some beliefs that will function as data relative to some scientific theories, and these data will be inconsistent with some of these theories. In that case, a Christian scholar (if he is doing his scholarly work coherently with the basic commitments of his life) will reject those theories on the basis of the data. More importantly, however, Christian commitment will include beliefs that, while not themselves functioning as data, will determine what we take to be genuine data. And such commitment will also include what Wolterstorff calls “control” beliefs, beliefs that determine what sort of theories, explanations, and so on are to be counted as live candidates for acceptance, and which are to be ruled out from the very beginning as nonstarters. All academic work, according to Wolterstorff, is done under the influence of such beliefs; and the Christian, if he is to proceed coherently, should allow his own commitment to function in this way.

Wolterstorff, however, does not believe that a Christian can normally derive his scholarly position from his Christian commitment. Sometimes he will be in a position to rule out a theory at the start because it falls afoul of his control beliefs (Wolterstorff suggests, for example, that Christians can rule out some behavioristic and deterministic psychological theories because they have a control belief that human beings are free to accept or reject their responsibilities). Sometimes he may reject a theory on the basis of data supplied by his Christian commitment. Usually, however, there will still be room for different theories, and the Christian will have to choose among them on some other basis. He must, like the non-Christian, do his research—he, too, must observe the world, then reflect on his observations and reason about them.

While Christian commitment does not supply one with a “black book” of scientific theories, Wolterstorff believes that it may serve to suggest some plausible theories, theories worth following up. Wolterstorff strongly urges Christian scholars to address themselves to the formulation of theories that yield programs for research and investigation. In that way the Christian will be making a special contribution to the advancement of the sciences on the basis of his Christian commitment.

Much traditional philosophy of science and epistemology has held that the edifice of human knowledge should be erected by careful logical procedures beginning with a foundation of certainties. Many recent thinkers have attempted to find this stock of certainties in a set of propositions that describe or report sense experiences, or some such thing. Some of them, no doubt, would reject Wolterstorff’s argument, as I have outlined it so far, on the grounds that the Christian’s belief commitment is not based on certainties of that sort. Wolterstorff refers to this project of basing the sciences upon a foundation of certainties as “foundationalism.”

Wolterstorff agrees that the program he suggests for the Christian scholar does not conform to the ideal of foundationalism. But he rejects foundationalism itself, arguing basically that no scholar, either Christian or non-Christian, can proceed in the foundationalist way. He argues, for example, that inductive logic itself does not conform to the foundationalist ideal—it is not known indubitably to be correct. And even if it is accepted, he argues, one cannot proceed inductively from propositions about our own states of consciousness to propositions about independent entities. These arguments seem to me powerful, and many Christians may find them attractive.

They may find more unsettling, however, his claim that what might be called “biblical foundationalism” also fails, and for much the same sort of reason. In a chapter entitled “Will the Bible Save Foundationalism?” he argues that even if the Bible is infallible in the strongest sense it cannot provide us with a stock of indubitable certainties. For it to do this, we should also have to know somehow that the content of the presently available manuscripts had not been corrupted by transmissional errors, that the translations were accurate, that we were interpreting it correctly, and so on. And while we might know these things, we will not know them in the way required by biblical foundationalism; i.e., we will not find those propositions among the infallible propositions of the Bible. So here too foundationalism must fail.

Many Christians will find Wolterstorff’s position at this point unsettling. It is important that his claim be subjected to careful criticism and argument. If someone is inclined to engage in such a critical endeavor, I think it would be useful if he would do something like the following: First, select some proposition that it is thought we can know on a biblical basis, and state it clearly. Then formulate and state the full set of the things that must be true if the proposition is to be derivable from the Bible in the desired way. And finally, show how we are justified in believing, or taking for granted, that all those things are true. The second step of this program is likely to be surprisingly long, and some may despair of ever completing it. But if it cannot be completed, it is hard to see how biblical foundationalism can get off the ground. And if it is completed, there yet remains the third step. At any rate, it seems to me that any serious attempt to undertake this demonstration could hardly fail to advance our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the foundationalist position.

I have described Wolterstorff’s thesis so far as if there were a one-way relation between one’s Christian commitment and his academic work. But Wolterstorff recognizes a two-way traffic. In a chapter on “The Impact of Theorizing on Commitment” he recognizes that sometimes our academic work results in a change in our commitment, and that sometimes this change is for the better. While the position that Wolterstorff holds here seems to me to be correct, his treatment of this topic seems to me to be the weakest part of the book. If my acceptance of a critical theory necessitates a change in my Christian commitment, then presumably the theory is inconsistent with, or at least does not comport well with, the previous version of my commitment. If I am proceeding as a Christian scholar, however, how do I ever come to accept such a theory in the first place, and so to revise my commitment? I agree with Wolterstorff that we sometimes do so, and that we are sometimes right in doing so. The previous discussion, however, seems to leave us no alternative to saying that this must be due to some inconsistency or incoherence on the part of the Christian scholar. It would be useful, I think, to have some better account of the matter. But that, perhaps, must be left for some other time.

Making Christian Disciples

The Dynamics of Personal Follow-up, by Gary W. Kuhne (Zondervan, 1976, 211 pp., $2.95 pb), is reviewed by Robert A. Case II, executive director, Christian Action Council, Washington, D.C.

In 1871 A. B. Bruce published his masterly volume on discipleship entitled The Training of the Twelve. Since then some counterparts to this monumental work have appeared, but the century-old Bruce volume is still the bench mark for works on discipleship in the Body of Christ.

However, having the bench mark does not mean we need to stop sighting for new levels of discipling proficiency. Gary Kuhne’s The Dynamics of Personal Follow-up is an orderly and systematic approach that any Christian can adopt (or adapt) to further his or her own discipling ministry. Kuhne writes out of his Campus Crusade for Christ background, and his book is pure, vintage Crusade material in both content and arrangement. While one can find fault with the theology (or lack of theology), one cannot find fault with the author’s clarity and harmony as he proposes a step-by-step method of follow-up.

The Christian Church is not exactly bereft of follow-up programs. One can turn to Kennedy (Evangelism Explosion), Bright (“Here’s Life America”); the Southern Baptists (WIN), or Chuck Miller’s conferences to get some training for a discipling ministry. However, each of these programs takes a certain degree of a priori commitment to the program and some ready cash. Kuhne lets you in on his program for a few dollars and a couple of hours of easy reading.

The first half of his program runs about 150 pages and covers the principles and general guidelines for effective follow-up. He has chapters such as “Developing a Meaningful Relationship with a New Believer” and “Dealing with Common Problems Encountered in Personal Follow-up.” No theologian or exegete, Kuhne nevertheless brings practical experience to bear on his methodology. Anyone who has ever tried to follow up a recent convert and had his or her ears pinned back by “the wily one” will appreciate another warrior’s testimony and help in this difficult area.

The second half of his program is an extremely helpful step-by-step schedule of follow-up appointments. This section, running about 50 pages, is so clear that a relatively new believer will easily be able to become a “multiplier” (the goal of discipleship, in the author’s opinion). Each follow-up appointment (there are ten in all) is broken down into five sections: objectives, review of previous appointments, the lesson, and a way of presenting the lesson, and the assignment. All in all, this is a commendable effort to put a follow-up ministry down where the non-professional can deal with it.

Inevitably some will discount Kuhne’s approach as superficial, too programmatic, or too technological. While there may be an element of truth in these criticisms, the response must be: “This man has given us his way of doing it. If you don’t approve of his method, let’s hear yours.”

Briefly Noted

PARENTING is a demanding occupation that can be very rewarding or very frustrating, and is often both. Norma Steven, a former missionary, reflects on What Kids Katch From Parents (Harvest House, 127 pp., $1.60 pb). Jacky Hertz must have learned something about parenting: she has thirteen children! A lot of them are grown, or else she probably couldn’t have found time to write The Christian Mother: A Mary-Martha Balance (Hawthorn, 162 pp., $6.95). We’re constantly told that families should have fun together, but how? For specific ideas see Good Times For Your Family by Wayne Rickerson (Regal, 160 pp., $2.95 pb). Since many parenting books focus on young children, it is good to have books such as Parent and Teenager: Living and Loving by Evelyn Millis Duvall (Broadman, 191 pp., $5.95). And when parents grow up, they still need help. That wise counselor Charlie Shedd is at it again with Grandparents (Doubleday, 141 pp., $6.95). A lot of photographs; not many words, but they’re gems. Gives harried parents something to look forward to: grandparenting!

CREATION is making a comeback. The perception of the universe as having been created by God pretty much as it is rather than having evolved over eons is back in prominence, at least in publishing. The following eight books take differing stances, but the authors all attempt to be true to the facts of both science and Scripture: Evolution or Creation? by Arthur Custance (Zondervan, 329 pp., $8.95); The First Genesis: A New Case for Creation by William Dankenbring (Triumph Publishing Co. [Box 292, Altadena, Cal. 91001], 359 pp., $8.95); The Creation Explanation by Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves, both of San Diego’s Creation-Science Research Center (Harold Shaw [Box 567, Wheaton, Ill. 60187], 255 pp., $7.95); Creation: A Scientist’s Choice by Zola Levitt, based on an interview with Michigan State professor of natural science John Moore (Victor, 131 pp., $2.25 pb); Creation Versus Evolution? Not Really! by William Schmeling, who holds to theistic evolution (Clayton Publishing House [Box 9258, St. Louis, Mo. 63117], 119 pp., $3.75 pb); A Double Minded Man by Kelly Segraves (Beta, 176 pp., $5.95, $2.95 pb); The Two-Taled [sic] Dinosaur: Why Science and Religion Conflict Over the Origin of Life by Gerald Wheeler, a Seventh-Day Adventist with an especially helpful approach and tone (Southern Publishing Association [Box 59, Nashville, Tenn. 37202], 224 pp., $5.95 pb); and The Creation-Evolution Controversy by veterinarian R. L. Wysong (Inquiry Press [Box 1766, E. Lansing, Mich. 48823], 455 pp., $15, $7.95 pb). A different kind of book is The Comparative Reception of Darwinism edited by Thomas Glick (University of Texas, 505 pp., $15). Early pro- and anti-evolution forces in several major countries are competently studied.

LEADERSHIP Increasing demands on their time and energies are making Christian leaders a ready market for books that give practical help. The Art of Management For Christian Leaders by Ted Engstrom and Edward Dayton (Word, 290 pp., $6.95) is a revised collection from their monthly Christian Leadership Letter, and The Making of a Christian Leader is by Ted Engstrom only (Zondervan, 214 pp., $6.95). Both men had a variety of leadership experiences before becoming associated with World Vision. The former book focuses on specific tasks, while the latter is on general principles and procedures. Management in the Church by Peter Rudge (McGraw-Hill [Maidenhead, Berkshire, England], 172 pp., £ 5.25 gives an Australian-British perspective. Nehemiah and the Dynamics of Effective Leadership by Cyril Barber (Loizeaux, 191 pp., $2.75 pb) is primarily a study of the Old Testament book with applications for leaders generally.

Necessarily anonymous. Letters From South Korea by T. K. (IDOC [145 E. 49 St., New York, N.Y. 10017], 428 pp., $8.95 pb) gives English readers documented evidence on the nature of the persecution—much of it aimed at Christians—engaged in by one of the “free” nations whose governments are staunchly supported by the United States.

Twenty-eight previously published writings from Asia, Africa, and Latin America are conveniently offered as Mission Trends No. 3: Third World Theologies edited by Gerald Anderson and Thomas Stransky (Eerdmans or Paulist, 254 pp., $3.45 pb).

TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION (TM) is a Hindu-based technique propagated in secular guise by disciples of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. If Christians expect freedom to evangelize in non-Christian lands, they certainly cannot object to religious propaganda, but unethical practices (such as concealing the Hindu underpinnings of TM) are fair game. Evangelical refutations of TM may be found in TM Wants You! by David Haddon and Vail Hamilton (Baker, 204 pp., $1.95 pb), The Transcendental Explosion by John Weldon and Zola Levitt (Harvest House, 218 pp., $2.95 pb), The Case Against TM in the Schools by John Patton (Baker, 100 pp., $1.45 pb), and Meditation That Transcends by Robert Lightner (Accent, 64 pp., $.95 pb). Well-known writers Charlie Shedd and Morton Kelsey give, respectively, lightweight and heavyweight Christian alternatives to TM in Getting Through to the Wonderful You (Revell, 128 pp., $4.95) and The Other Side of Silence (Paulist, 314 pp., $8.50, $5.95 pb). Group meditation for churches is a special emphasis in Christian Growth Through Meditation by Fay Conlee Oliver (Judson, 124 pp., $3.50 pb). A straightforward presentation of Meditation without explicit reference to TM is provided by Navigator leader Jim Downing (Navpress, 96 pp., $1.50 pb). If you want to consult a book by an unabashed proponent of TM, see Celebrating the Dawn by Robert Oates, Jr. (Putnam, 228 pp., $12.95) or TM and the Nature of Enlightenment by Anthony Campbell (Harper & Row, 223 pp., $1.95 pb).

University libraries and major seminaries should acquire Bibliographical Essays in Medieval Jewish Studies by Lawrence Berman et al. (KTAV [75 Varick St., New York, N.Y. 10013], 392 pp., $17.50). These are truly evaluative essays, not merely overwhelming lists.

A South African, Patrick Johnstone, has compiled a World Handbook For the World Christian (William Carey [533 Hermosa, South Pasadena, Cal. 91030], 233 pp., $4.95 pb). Country by country he briefly gives the kind of information found in almanacs but adds the distinctive of specific “points for prayer.” If used in connection with other aids it can be helpful to missions prayer-group leaders.

The Ministry Of Management

The Making of a Christian Leader, by Ted W. Engstrom (Zondervan, 1976, 208 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by Kenneth O. Gangel, president, Miami Christian College, Miami, Florida.

The books that successfully blend secular scholarship in managerial science with biblical sensitivity can be counted on one hand. With The Making of a Christian Leader Ted Engstrom forces us to open the other fist and release another finger. Eighteen easily readable but contentladen chapters followed by a helpful Scripture index reflect not only the wide experience of the author but the careful research of his editorial assistant, David Juroe.

One always finds it easy to review a book with which he agrees (and especially one that quotes segments of one’s own material). I stand clearly with the author in his commitment to a service mentality reflected in the leadership style of the New Testament, though we surely represent a minority in the face of the current evangelical enchantment with autocracy.

His treatment of the gift of administration is enhanced by a brief acknowledgment of huperetes, though I would have liked to have also some treatment of prohistemi as it relates to the difference or lack of difference between leadership and administration in Pauline theology. The chapter on leadership style is good, followed as it is by a chapter on “The Personality of the Leader.” The inseparability of these two components is obvious as one begins a serious study of Christian leadership.

There are some overlapping areas. For example, chapter eleven treats “Personal Traits and Leadership” while chapter eighteen deals with the “Marks of a Christian Leader.” These could have been blended into one chapter to avoid the effort at saying somewhat the same thing in a slightly different way.

Engstrom follows a classic Druckerian principle of emphasizing his own strength: the chapter on planning extends to almost thirty pages, more than three times the average chapter length. Its content is excellent and radiates the practicality of the administrator who has “been there.” My favorite chapter is the one dealing with the control of the operation. It contains in capsule form some common-sense management philosophy but is wrapped in the passion of New Testament patterns. Engstrom reminds us that “to be burdened for others means that a leader must have more than a superficial involvement with them. Probably the most important aspect of your leadership role is the manner in which you talk to, help, and relate to people. On principle, the leaders who should be most loving, caring, understanding, and redemptive are those who understand the Cross the best, for it was at Calvary that the supreme caring spirit and love was manifested by God to this hurting world.”

Condemnation Or Compassion?

The Other Side of Divorce, by Helen K. Hosier (Hawthorn, 1975, 198 pp., $1.95), The Hurt and Healing of Divorce, by Darlene Petri (Cook, 1976, 188 pp., $1.95), and By Death or Divorce, by Amy Ross Young (Accent, 1976, 151 pp., $2.95), are reviewed by Janice C. Walter, Livonia, Michigan.

One out of three marriages ends in divorce, and more and more Christians are a part of the divorce statistics. As Amy Young says, “divorce is a fact of life—of many lives—and our not liking it and the disapproval of all the theologians in the world, is not going to make it vanish.”

All three of these authors are divorced, and one has remarried. They talk at length about the stigma of divorce and the harsh treatment they have received from many evangelicals. It is time, they claim, for the evangelical community to meet divorce head on and change its legalistic and unloving attitude toward divorced persons.

Interestingly, all use the same incident, Jesus calming the storm as described in Mark 4:37–40, to describe their lives before and after divorce. None makes any excuses for herself, and all wholeheartedly agree that there is no such thing as an innocent party in divorce.

Hosier is especially vehement in her defense of divorce. Her writing reflects a deep-seated anger. She works hard to defend divorce on scriptural grounds, and many of her arguments are convincing. Many readers will agree with her that for two people to continue living together in a state of “undivorce” or “spiritual adultery” is foolish. However, she becomes so enthusiastic in her claims for what divorce can do for a person (“divorce, while it is painful and tragic, can lead to the ultimate rebirth of an individual, a new relationship with Christ, a closer walk, leaning on Him for direction …”) that some readers might be persuaded that divorce is just what they need! Her defense of remarriage, however, is very weak.

She does attempt to give suggestions on avoiding divorce. She interviewed many divorced Christians and found that in many cases they had married without consulting the Lord or heeding the warnings of parents or other elders.

There is a tremendous amount of “how to cope” guidance in these books, especially Young’s (which also deals with widowhood) and Petri’s. The authors stress how helpful it is to be busy and, if possible, to have rewarding and challenging employment so that there is indeed a reason for getting up in the morning.

I wish that at least one of these books were required reading for all single people, sixteen and up. Perhaps a look into the experience of divorce would counter any inclination they might have to marry without due thought, prayer, and counsel.

It was courageous of these women to share their heartaches and open old wounds in order to give the rest of us a better insight into divorce. Hosier’s haunting questions confronts us: “What do divorced people see when they look in your eyes—condemnation or God’s love?”

C. S. Lewis And Everyday Issues

C. S. Lewis: The Shape of His Faith and Thought, by Paul L. Holmer (Harper & Row, 116 pp., $6.95, $3.95 pb), is reviewed by Cheryl Forbes, assistant editor,CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Simple, felicitous language is the window for ideas, whether in apologetics, criticism, history, or fiction. Such stylish writing often fools readers into thinking its ideas are easy, since the language is so clear and seems so effortless. But the more complex the thoughts, the more imperative that the writing be uncomplicated. C. S. Lewis called it writing in the vernacular—the real test of a writer. He passed it with honors.

Paul Holmer, a professor at Yale Divinity School, has a felicity of style also. He captures with it that nearly indefinable quality that made C. S. Lewis so unusual and innovative in several fields. Although Holmer’s style might make some readers think he has reduced Lewis to a few formulas, he has instead brought together some important and hitherto little-discussed ideas of Lewis in a compact, introductory package.

Holmer shows Lewis as an individual who eludes boxes and categories. He was neither fundamentalist nor liberal, new critic nor old. While Lewis recognized new trends and fads, he was not influenced or seduced by them. Holmer finds this wholesome individuality reflected most clearly in his understanding of human nature, which protected him from the temptations of trends. Unlike writers who ride causes, whip in hand, he maintained a universality: “A rare wisdom about people gives Lewis firsthand access both to morals and to Christian literature and thought. In turn, his writings have a way of fitting every reader too. I believe it is this comprehensive understanding that works so well for Lewis.” Unlike those who reduce ethics to sex or social action or war, he saw moral issues in every aspect of our lives.

Lewis presented situations that made his readers think about moral issues. Holmer calls this style “indirect communication,” and it kept Lewis from a moralizing or sermonizing tone. In his fiction, says Holmer, he “causes thoughts to exist in us.” In his apologetic work, “the argument does not begin to gather its force until the reader has realized something about himself.”

Holmer also touches on some of the important ideas Lewis emphasized—for example, metaphors are “logical necessities” not just “stylistic pirouettes” (writers ought to memorize that one); reason and emotion are not mutually exclusive; and morality involves both of those.

Lewis works on the daily issues of life, the basics, where we all are alike and yet paradoxically each is unique. He pleads—indirectly, remember—for an integrated personality. Theories did not interest him; how people lived, and why, did—a difference like that between savoir and connaître (see Lewis’s discussions in An Experiment in Criticism, Of Other Worlds, and The Personal Heresy; also important here, though not specifically about savoir and connaître, is A Study in Words). Holmer argues convincingly. He adds a great deal to the understanding of Lewis.

The shadow of restrictive and oppressive government clouds more and more of our world. A century that opened with high hopes for global freedom and democracy is succumbing in its closing decades to ever increasing totalitarian controls. This trend has stark implications for both civilization and Christianity. In a time when benevolent powers are becoming notably scarce, fatigued societies turn eagerly to amorphous governments and willingly exchange freedom and self-reliance for comfort and security. For the Christian movement such a trend portends awesome political uncertainties, perhaps even the Endtime, when the powers of anti-Christ will answer to the Risen King.

Sino-Soviet Communism already dominates well over three-fifths of the world’s land mass and almost a third of the world’s population. In mainland China, Christianity survives underground. In Russia, after futile attempts to eradicate Christianity by persecution and discrimination, it is tolerated only if adherents qualifiedly accept an officially atheistic regime. America, the leading Free World power, is dedicated to political détente, while totalitarian atheism remains the most formidable barrier to freedom.

In Western democratic countries, government is less responsive to Christian influence than in earlier generations, and governmental encroachment on human freedoms deserves a watchful eye. In the United States, separation of church and state has become the framework for militating against reflection of the Christian world-life view in the public schoolrooms, for sanctioning abortion on demand, and for increasingly tolerating religion only as an inner private concern that is without public importance.

On the threshold of the Chinese Congress on World Evangelization in August, Hong Kong authorities, presumably encouraged by Britain’s socialist government, issued an ultimatum that threatened to cancel the affair if any public pronouncement were to be issued on the future evangelization of the Chinese mainland. Earlier, evangelist Billy Graham, at the opening of his Hong Kong crusade, was given only an abbreviated interview by the governor of Hong Kong; British politicians had reportedly cautioned the governor that Hong Kong, increasingly dependent on Red China’s favor, would have to choose between showing good will to Graham and not offending Chinese Communists.

Staggering American economic assistance and military reinforcement have gone both to Israel and to its overwhelmingly Muslim Arab neighbors on the premise that a stalemate in the Middle East would avoid what might otherwise erupt into a nuclear global confrontation. The Muslim nations have, in addition, accumulated vast petroleum dollar advantages. The one Christian nation caught amid Arab-Israeli tensions has been largely left to crumble between Palestinian liberationists, Lebanese Christians, and Syrian troops who for the moment are cast as peace preservers.

For all their significant evangelistic gains, Christians in Asia are increasingly dominated by restrictive totalitarian regimes—in India, Indonesia, South Korea, and the Philippines. A call for national security against the inroads of Communist totalitarian aggression is ironically made to justify a rival type of totalitarianism. The good will that Americans accumulated in Asia over much of the twentieth century is being eroded. Korea now represents the last American military presence on the Asian mainland, and American policy is becoming committed more and more publicly to a unified Korea and a unified China. The fate of Cambodia, Laos, and South Viet Nam has compromised the confidence of Asian countries in America as an ally except as national interest predominates.

In South Korea, where 15 per cent of the population is Christian (the largest Christian percentage on the Asian mainland), American interest can hardly be identified with democratic rule, for surely the Park regime has no such commitment. According to political realities, America’s interest lies rather in providing a buffer between the Asian mainland and Japan as an ally. The Korean people by and large do not know about Park Tong-Sun’s political bribery of American officials to curry support for the Park regime. If anything is reported publicly, political bribery will seem to involve American officials more culpably in an ethics of expedience than it does Korean benefactors who seemingly promote the security of a beleaguered country. If by way of righteous indignation American foreign policy curtails or puts an end to South Korean defense commitments, the end could only be worse than the beginning: North Korea’s aggression would be encouraged, and South Korea would turn to the oil-rich Arab nations for needed energy supplies. The fate of Christianity in Korea could be a hard one.

This observation in no way minimizes the repression and apparent corruption of the South Korean regime, although Americans, of course, are in no enviable position to speak piously about political morality. Extensive religious freedom functions in South Korea, although the Park regime has banned all criticism of itself under penalty of imprisonment and the Korean CIA has tightened military and ideological controls on faculties and student bodies of educational institutions. Both professors and pastors—including some born-again evangelicals—were imprisoned for protest activity. President Park’s rigid control of academic and religious leaders publicizes to the world that he lacks the full enthusiasm of those who ideologically ought to be most supportive.

One disconcerting government development has been a bloodthirsty hatred for Communists. (No plea for ideological softness toward Communism should be read into this comment.) Previous South Korean regimes have espoused both pahngong or everyday anti-Communism and seungong or victory over Communism. But emphasis today falls increasingly on mylgong, which means destroying or literally “beating the hell out of Communists.” As military influence permeates the academic arena, this vengeful spirit becomes even a school credo. Subway posters placard the killing of Communists. Korean Christians are understandably disturbed by this trend.

Not unlike many American politicians, President Park knows the Christian message and terminology; although he never made a personal commitment to Christ, he grew up in a Presbyterian church in Taegu. Park Tong-Sun has a devout Christian mother, but he too goes his own way. President Park’s children attended Catholic schools, although Mrs. Park—killed in an assassination attempt on her husband—was a Buddhist (the government has restored national Buddhist shrines in her memory). Park’s daughter is active in both religion and politics and ambivalently blends Christian commitment with political zeal.

The United Nations, whose charter says it is “determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” has broken precedent with a General Assembly resolution endorsing “armed struggle” for the independence of South-West Africa (Namibia). The World Council of Churches and the All Africa Conference of Churches, which in the past have taken credit for the settlement of hostilities, have now said in a consultation at Kitwe, Zambia, that the southern Africa “liberation struggle is a Christian struggle.” Just before Christmas, guerrillas slaughtered twenty-seven defenseless Rhodesian tea-plantation workers in a massacre that shocked even some of the “liberation” leaders.

As the Geneva talks on the future of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) resume this month, is there any hope? Has everything in the southern part of that great continent gone amok?

News from southern Africa, appearing more and more frequently in the mass media, indicates that there is, indeed, little hope for a peaceful solution of the region’s problems. Tension is rising.

Item. Angola, granted “independence” by the fleeing Portuguese in November, 1975, is still locked in a civil war. According to columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, the government of Agostinho Neto has been propped up only by the presence of 20,000 Cuban troops. The armed forces of Neto’s rival, Jonas Savimbi, are said to control an area the size of Pennsylvania. Church work has been disrupted, with many overseas workers unable to return to their ministries. Relief workers have estimated that one million “victims of war” there need help to re-establish normal lives.

Item. Mozambique, which also gained its “freedom” from Portugal in 1975, is an armed camp. Its Marxist leader, Samora Machel, is no friend of the churches. He has nationalized church properties and discouraged citizens from participating in various Christian activities. Yet he has accepted aid from the World Council of Churches. The ecclesiastical bureaucrats functioning in Mozambique seem to be as captive to that government as those in some state churches. They thanked the WCC “for the material help to our government. Helping our government is to help the people of this country.…” Other Christian leaders remain in prison. Efforts by the missionary department of the Swiss Reformed Church to send Bibles to Mozambique have been blocked.

Item. The Transkei, first of the “homelands” (black reservations with indigenous government) to get its “independence” from the Republic of South Africa, is being ignored by most of the world. There is serious question whether South Africa expects to grant real freedom—economic and political—to all the people involved. Meanwhile, border tensions are building with neighboring Lesotho.

Item. South-West Africa, a former German colony held by South Africa as a trusteeship, continues to seethe. Despite high-powered diplomatic efforts, the government of South Africa and the main “liberation” group refuse to meet each other.

Item. Rhodesia continues to be a battleground, with citizens fighting one another as talks grind on in Geneva. Non-combatants, including clergymen, have been killed in the crossfire; a Catholic bishop was arrested.

Item. The Republic of South Africa plays for time, but many of its people have reached the end of their patience. Security police spent a day going through a building housing eight church-related agencies. Prominent antigovernment people have been detained without charge. Black uprisings result in many deaths.

It is not a pretty picture. There is a struggle going on, and it is a struggle for a region of great potential. The situation is a very complex one and not simply black versus white, nor rich versus poor, nor one ideology versus another.

Where is the hope? Scattered throughout southern Africa are dedicated Christian people. Often working quietly (perhaps too quietly), the Church has played a major role. A recent Washington Post report on the Geneva talks on Rhodesia said there probably would have been no negotiations had it not been for the Church. Most black leaders were trained in mission schools.

These Christians in southern Africa are being heard from increasingly, inside and outside their own nations. They preach the whole counsel of God to both the powerful and the powerless. Fellow Christians outside the region should support them in this critical hour. Many of the leaders got new encouragement at last month’s Pan African Christian Leadership Assembly in Nairobi. Others have yet to experience much fellowship outside their own immediate neighborhoods. All of them need what one PACLA speaker called the ultimate protest against injustice: prayer. More rough times are ahead in southern Africa, but praying people informed by the Word of God can help save—literally save—this great region.

Feasts, Then Famine?

The ball is back in the home court for the evangelical church. Thousands of young people gave up part of their Christmas vacation to attend national or regional meetings sponsored by such evangelical groups as Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship (see page 38), Campus Crusade For Christ, Youth For Christ, and denominational agencies. Who would have thought ten years ago that so many would assemble under evangelical banners?

In its heyday the old Student Volunteer Movement could get about 10,000 to missionary conventions, but its liberal successor, the University Christian Movement, died after its 1967 holiday convention attracted only about 3,000. Inter-Varsity’s Urbana meeting alone drew 17,000 at the end of 1976.

“Reality can’t be faked,” the late Paul Little said at an earlier Urbana. The young people returning home from these holiday spiritual feasts now need the encouragement of real (not fake) home churches as they try to keep the commitments they have made.

The January Blahs

“Waiting in Jerusalem” can be a wearing experience. In the Northern Hemisphere, this is the time of year when construction is often held up because of inclement weather, and builders must exercise patience. Retailers, after the holiday buying binges, are likewise left to their thoughts. There are similar times in the lives of Christians when they do not know where God is leading them and are obliged to wait.

One does well at such times to remember that the apostles were told to wait in Jerusalem after the ascension. Noah and his family also had to stand fast for a while, waiting for the waters to subside.

How does one cope with spiritual Januaries? It just does not seem enough to be assured that if there were no valleys to descend, there would be no hills to ascend either. It takes good discipline to keep from venturing out minus God’s blessing—especially for those who are activists by nature.

Sometimes even God’s Word seems more a challenge than a comfort. It is, after all, full of stories of spiritual failures (if we did not think it inspired of God we could easily dismiss it as being too negative).

This is a time when believers need to look in many directions to count their blessings. Supplement the Word by worshiping God in his various creative expressions: in nature, in art, in music. Realize anew what a great God he is!

Others Say …

The Oval Office: Three Models For a Christian

Stephen V. Monsma, formerly professor of political science at Calvin College, is now a member of the Michigan House of Representatives.

The incoming resident of the White House unashamedly confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Without attempting to judge the sincerity and faith of other recent presidents, we can agree that Jimmy Carter at least differs in the clarity of his identification with evangelical Christianity.

Who can recall a recent president who would have declared, as Carter recently did, a basic of the Christian faith with such forthrightness as this: “We are not saved because we are Americans, or Baptists, or because we come from a community that is stable, or because our parents are Christians. We are saved because God loves us. We are saved by grace through one required attitude—that is, faith in Christ.”

Yet as evangelicals observe Carter’s inauguration they are far from certain what difference it will make—and what difference it should make—to have one of their fellow evangelicals in the White House. There are three distinguishable models of how a president’s evangelical faith can interact with his presidency:

• The civil-religion model. American civil religion recognizes the existence of God and believes in his special concern for and care of the United States. He is a God of virtue, morality, and sacrifice. This is the basic religious message found in inaugural addresses, in State of the Union messages, and in television talks on solemn occasions. An evangelical president who would attempt to live out his faith according to the civil-religion model would outdo other presidents by making even more frequent and prominent references to God in his formal statements. Such a president would serve as the prominent and forthright high priest of American civil religion.

It is to be hoped that Carter’s commitment to Christ will not work itself out in the civil-religion model! From his past actions it seems unlikely to do so. A born-again president may very well make fewer public, civil-religion-type references to God than other presidents. He has good reason to avoid such non-biblical, Unitarian, superficial utterances.

Civil religion does not stress personal salvation but is instead oriented toward the nation. It tends to be supportive rather than critical of the nation, and to stress order and obedience over justice. A committed Christian, who has put his faith for personal salvation in Jesus Christ, who relies on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and who believes biblical truths should be used to judge nations as well as individuals, would find it unacceptable to exchange his vibrant, cutting faith for the soft blandishments of American civil religion.

• The personal-morality model. According to this model, a president’s Christianity has its biggest impact in controlling his standard of personal morality and elevating it over that of other presidents. He uses clean, God-honoring language. He practices marital fidelity. This kind of president lives the clean, honest, faithful life that God expects of all his born-again children. Under this personal-morality model a president’s appointees would also reflect high standards of personal morality.

Surely Jimmy Carter as the nation’s chief executive should live the same life of Christian morality that all Christians should live. To argue that a lower set of moral principles may govern the personal behavior of holders of public office than that which should govern other persons is to introduce a bifurcation unknown to biblical Christianity. It is as wrong for a president to lie to advance a policy of his as it is for a businessman to lie to promote a product of his company.

Although Carter—along with all other persons—fails to live up to God’s perfect moral standards, all indications are that he recognizes Christianity as being relevant to his personal moral life and attempts to live a life of Christian morality. The evidence has been less reassuring with regard to some of his campaign associates. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe the next four years will see a presidency more fully permeated with high moral standards than has sometimes been the case. After the lies of Watergate, congressional sex scandals, and the gifts of foreign influence-peddlers, Washington could stand more Christian morality.

But this is not to say that the most basic, most important way that Christian beliefs should affect a president is by affecting his personal moral standards. A president could lead an impeccable life in terms of standards of personal morality, and yet lead the nation into all types of policies which in their injustices and violence run directly counter to God’s will revealed in his Word.

Although an evangelical president should certainly strive for high moral standards in his personal life, there is an even more fundamental way in which his Christianity should condition and control his presidency. This way is found in the third model.

• The policy-transformation model. Under this model the policy alternatives pursued by the president are molded by basic Christian principles and insights such as justice, healing, man’s purpose as an image-bearer of God, and the sinfulness of human nature. Whether or not to pursue just public policies is not an option for the Christian. “Enough, princes of Israel! Put an end to lawlessness and robbery; maintain law and justice” (Ezekiel 45:9). God calls all his children to “seek justice, correct oppression, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isa. 1:17). Surely such admonitions apply to his servant Jimmy Carter as he struggles with questions of nuclear disarmament, criminal justice, welfare reform, environmental protection, and the entire phalanx of policy problems that marches across a president’s desk.

This is not to say that a biblical Christian will as president have a clear, neat answer for every policy issue. God’s Word gives him basic principles and sharpened insights; it does not give him pat answers. An evangelical president will go through the same struggles and agonies of decision-making as does any president. But he should do so with added insights and a sharpened moral imperative.

One other word of caution. By policy transformation I am not thinking of the simple imposition of Christian standards of personal morality upon all of society. Policies should be transformed in order to make them more just and more in keeping with the true nature and purposes of human beings, not in the sense of causing them simply to impose Christian standards of personal morality on all society.

Whether or not Carter as president will consistently and fully attempt to be guided in his policy decisions by his biblical Christianity is an open question. What evidence there is on it is mixed.

On the one hand there is the statement in Carter’s acceptance speech before the Democratic convention: “I have spoken many times about love, but love must be aggressively translated into simple justice.” Such a statement is fully biblical and, if consistently followed, one which would truly transform Carter’s policy decisions. Christian love is what provides the moral imperative, but in the political realm that love compels one to pursue basic justice.

Carter has also stated, “If there is a conflict between God’s law and civil law, we should honor God’s law. But we should be willing to accept civil punishment.” This statement reflects a belief in the relevance of Christian truths for civil affairs and is fully in keeping with much of Christian political thought.

On the other hand, in his book Why Not the Best? Carter misses many opportunities to relate his biblical faith to social and political issues. Carter’s frequent campaign references to the need for a government as good and as decent as the American people appear to be out of step with the biblical teachings on man’s fallen, sinful nature.

Even more disturbing is a statement by Carter’s close aide, Hamilton Jordan: “He [Carter] differentiates his personal and religious views from his actions as a political official.” If this statement is accurate and if Jordan is actually saying what he seems to be saying, then Carter limits the influence of his Christianity to his personal morality and has sealed it off from his policy decisions. Then his policy decisions would not be sharpened and guided by biblical truths, but would emerge out of a diffuse, ill-defined assortment of values and beliefs more reflective of American culture than Christianity.

Hence the extent to which Carter as president will seek, as he ought, to use his Christian faith and its insights to guide his thoughts and to sharpen his perspectives remains to be seen.

There are two dangers that the evangelical church should seek to avoid. One is that evangelicals—many of whom are of the opposite political party and are considerably more conservative in political outlook than Carter—will disown Carter and fail to provide him with the love, support, encouragement, and prayers he needs.

The opposite danger is that evangelicals will be tempted to identify overmuch with Carter, perhaps out of a largely worldly desire to have some of the glamour of the presidency rub off on them. The evangelical church should maintain enough independence from Carter that it does not lose its ability to criticize and correct.

It is important that the Church be able to uphold biblical ideals of justice and healing and the biblically based need for tough political stands in a tough, sinful world. To do so, it must strike a balance that avoids both a cold aloofness and a too close identification with the new president.

Flipping through a lovely Swiss calendar to enjoy the new collection of views—snow-covered roofs, spring blossoms along tree-bordered lakes, cows grazing in high Alpine fields, yellow and orange autumn leaves among the dark evergreens—one is apt to skip the evidence of clearly marked weeks and days, to forget the harsh fact that there are only twelve months in a year. The first page of 1977 is already half over, and if you make notes on the days that are already promised or scheduled, the weeks ahead may already be well marked up. The calendar hanging in your kitchen, or by your desk, or beside your bed, or by the telephone, wherever you keep your reminder of filled up time, is a vivid demonstration to you of finiteness.

What are we talking about when we sing, or say, or pray, “I’ll go where you want me to go, dear Lord; I’ll do what you want me to do”? Knowing we can do only one thing at a time, and be in one place at a time, do we feel trapped by our finiteness? Do we look at the calendar with a feeling of despair? Or is there something different for those who have come into me family of the living God, with real access to the unlimited, infinite God who also is personal?

With a new year’s calendar still fresh in our possession, it is a good time to be practical rather than theoretical in checking up on ourselves. God, who is infinite, made us to be finite, limited. We who are made in God’s image to think and act and feel, to have ideas and choice, to produce creative works, to be able to communicate in words as well as in music and other expressive forms, to love our fellow human beings as well as to love God, were not made to be able to do everything. The fall of man has added hindrances that result in physical, psychological, intellectual, spiritual, and emotional weaknesses, but the fall did not make us finite. Sin brought about the changes that are outlined to us in Genesis, but sin did not bring about finiteness. One day when Jesus comes back, and we are changed to have bodies like his resurrected body, we will be released from the struggles that are our added hindrances today, but we will still be finite.

However, finite creatures, back in fellowship with the infinite God, are given access to ways of expanding their usefulness. It is as if a fence were removed, opening up fields and woods for exploration to one who had been stopped at the edge.

Recall what a seed of corn looks like, all dried up, and realize that this is what we look like to our loving Heavenly Father. Think of what will happen if that seed is placed in prepared soil, lovingly patted down, and watered. Follow along in your imagination the bursting of the shell, the coming forth of a green shoot, the fruitful appearance of the ears of corn. But if that seed is left on your desk, or in a bottle in the kitchen, then it is worth nothing. “A famine? Starving people? But there are seeds, there is dried corn ready to be planted.” “Yes but spring is over, and winter is here.”

“Verily I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit” (John 12:24). One certain way of expanding the usefulness of a life is to bury that life, to lose it in order to find it. This cannot be merely theoretical, something that is sung about and prayed about for a lifetime without a practical outworking. There must be some points when we deliberately “die” to the thing that would be the logical pattern of success, or ease and quietness, or humbleness, or power. God has not given us an easy formula of this “death” to self, of what it means to “fall into the ground and die”; but he means us to have practical moments of bowing before him and letting the soil be patted over our heads. It must take place for each of us during the months of 1977.

What would happen in our own countries, or the countries where we have been sent by the Lord, if all Christians honestly “died” in this fashion, over and over again? What a bringing forth of fruit there would be! Someone would break a hairdresser’s appointment to say, “Why, yes, do come this morning and we’ll talk over your problem.” Another person would put aside the treasured private family day to include another family for that time. Some couple would recognize that their marriage was about to crack and would put aside everything else to go off alone and spend time in prayer, asking for the Lord’s will even if it meant a new start in new surroundings. Some family would move from a city situation, where the children were under terrible temptations, to the country, and another family would move from a quiet country spot into the heart of the city because the Lord had clearly led them there. For some it would mean putting aside the evening newspaper to spend time answering a three-year-old’s questions. For others it would mean being willing to endanger a job by inviting business associates to an evening of discussion of serious realities. For one it might mean a willingness to be a dentist instead of a missionary, for another the determination to live by prayer in a very difficult family situation.

Moment by moment there are opportunities to “fall into the ground and die” rather than to push ahead in our own strength. But hour after hour, these opportunities to be “doers of the Word” rather than simply “hearers of the Word” are pushed aside. So often it is more comfortable to go to a weekly Bible class and enjoy good teaching and fellowship rather than to “die” to that particular comfort and spend the time talking to a person in a nursing home or a prison, or a neighbor who is depressed and needs loving help.

There is a second way of multiplying the usefulness of these finite bodies of ours. God has given us access to his infiniteness—through prayer. We can communicate with the infinite God and call upon him to do that which we cannot do. What a crashing through of the fences of limitedness as we make our requests known to the unlimited God. “He that cometh unto God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of those who diligently seek him.” Do we act as if we believe?

The Lord has given us a clear command: “[Pray] always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and [watch] thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints” (Eph. 6:18). We are to pray while we are buried. We are to pray when he is bringing forth the ears of corn. We are to pray when Satan is casting fiery darts. We are to pray “without ceasing,” on all of the days on the calendar. We Christians with a year’s calendar in our hands are looking at history that we can affect by acting upon the Word of God on the specific dates ahead of us.

When the American novelist Saul Bellow (b. 1915) was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature, it was only the latest in a series of awards he has received over the past two decades. The Adventures of Augie March (1953), Herzog (1964), and Mr. Sammler’s Planet (1970) each garnered the National Book Award, and Humboldt’s Gift (1975) won Bellow the Pulitzer Prize. He has received the commendation of governments, and various universities have awarded him honorary degrees. The Nobel Prize, however, is special. It means that Bellow is recognized to be a writer whose significance is truly international.

In awarding the prize the Swedish Academy cited Bellow “for the human understanding and subtle analysis of contemporary culture that are combined in his work.” Certainly these two qualities have marked Bellow’s writing from the beginning. But it is the former that interests me most—the “human understanding” that pervades his work from his first novel, Dangling Man (1944), to his most recent work, To Jerusalem and Back (1976), his only book-length piece of nonfiction.

“What is the true stature of a human being?” asks Mr. Sammler, the seventy-year-old hero of my favorite Bellow novel. Indeed, what is it? Bellow asked the same question in Dangling Man. There Joseph, the hero (or anti-hero, really), fears the answer might lie with Hobbes: “The world was crude and it was dangerous and, if no measures were taken, existence could indeed become—in Thomas Hobbes’ phrase, which had long lodged in Joseph’s mind—’nasty, brutish, short.’” Skip thirty-two years to 1976 and we find Bellow in To Jerusalem and Back still contemplating Hobbes: “We forget … that as a species we are generally close to ‘the state of nature,’ as Thomas Hobbes described it—a nasty, brutish, pitiless condition in which men are too fearful of death to give much thought to freedom.”

These brief passages only hint at the multitude of themes woven into Bellow’s work. He deals with the nature of man—his dignity and freedom; his alienation from God, from others, and from himself; his desire for a view from the top, for a way out of finitude, for a way to live meaningfully this side of death and then move through and beyond it.

Does Bellow understand the plight of people caught in finitude—a brief episode of consciousness between two oblivions? Consider Joseph, the draft-age man who in the middle of World War II dangles for months between a civilian job and the military. No one identifies with him, society has cut him off, he can’t even cash a check. And so, “alone ten hours a day in a single room,” he has time to think. And think he does. As Alfred Kazin says, “Bellow’s protagonists are intellectuals and have to think, think, think all the time.” Think and dream—dream of death, of facing his murderer, the one who comes in any and every guise to make the nasty and brutish also short.

Joseph writes in his diary, “I can safely think of such things [his recurring visions of death] on a bright afternoon.… When they come at night, the heart, like a toad, exudes its fear with a repulsive puff. But toward morning I have away also of holding court on myself, and that is even more intolerable. Half-conscious, I call in a variety of testimony on my case and am confronted by the wrongs, errors, lies, disgraces, and fears of a lifetime. I am forced to pass judgment on myself and to ask questions I would rather not ask: ‘What is this for?’ and ‘What am I for?’ and ‘Am I made for this?’”

But Joseph is a humanist. He cannot believe in a God who could provide what Joseph cannot provide for himself—“grace without meanness.” “There are no values outside life. There is nothing outside life,” Joseph says. “No, not God, not any divinity.” To attain an answer that would satisfy him Joseph realizes that he would have “to sacrifice the mind that sought to be satisfied.” So, he concludes, “My beliefs are inadequate, they do not guard me. I think invariably of the awning of the store on the corner. It gives us much protection against rain and wind as my beliefs give against the chaos I am forced to face.” His philosophy of life cannot stand when its implicit philosophy of death is laid bare.

Many—I think most—of Bellow’s major characters are humanists. And all of them who think (which is all of them) face Joseph’s dilemma: to satisfy the mind one must sacrifice the mind. Joseph refuses to do this. Charlie Citrine in Humboldt’s Gift, toying with such theosophical trivializers as Rudolph Steiner, sacrifices both his mind and his common sense.

But Mr. Sammler is different—unique among heroes of modern novels, really. Sammler intuits a reality beyond his present threescore and ten: “[A man] has something in him which he feels it important to continue. Something that deserves to go on.… The spirit feels cheated, outraged, defiled, corrupted, fragmented, injured. Still it knows what it knows, and the knowledge cannot be gotten rid of.” Sammler, alone among Bellow’s characters, sees through the chaos of contemporary existence and has at least a vision of what it would be like to see things sub specie aeternitatis, from a place beyond time which would provide a norm for existence in time.

This, of course, is what Christians have claimed the Bible and God’s acts in history have given—a place to stand, a plumbline to measure moral rectitude. Bellow never seriously considers a fully orthodox Christian viewpoint. But Mr. Sammler shows that the ideas have not been far from his purview.

This is why, after Mr. Sammler’s Planet, Humboldt’s Gift is so disappointing. In the 1970s Charlie Citrine, who calls “the death question” the “question of questions,” is attracted by the occult with its offer of psychic salvation. In the 1940s Joseph knew better than to hasten after false prophets, as his put-down of Christian Science shows. Joseph’s brother, for example, says, “Some fine afternoon I’ll stick a knife into him [a Christian Scientist] and say, ‘Pray yourself out of that, you bastard.’ That’s a vulgar refutation, like Johnson’s kicking the stone to triumph over Berkeley. But I can’t think of any other way to deal with him.” One could wish for more of this kind of realism in Humboldt’s Gift. But such is the logic of the human search for meaning: if the truth is missed, any error is as likely as another—naturalistic humanism, gnostic mysticism, you name it.

Bellow, I suspect, is continuing his literary quest for the human understanding the Swedish Academy so aptly cited. But I also suspect that his contribution to that understanding will come mainly through his novels. To Jerusalem and Back is a record, a “personal Israel syllabus,” he calls it, of several months’ stay in the country of his ethnic origin. But though its themes are universal, its details are transient, too tied to one time, one place, too free from imagination and mythic power. Non-fiction is not Bellow’s strongest medium.

But give him the artist’s prerogative of speaking sub specie aeternitatis as far as the worlds of his own novels are concerned, and Bellow becomes a creator of literary universes (Tolkien calls them Secondary Worlds) where chaos is brought under control.

“I am not a journalist. I am a dreamier sort of creature,” he says in To Jerusalem. “Being a writer is a rather dreamy thing,” he remarked in an interview after the Nobel Prize was announced. “One has to protect one’s dream space.”

If Bellow succeeds in keeping celebrity status from spoiling him, and I think he will, we will see from him more wondrous works of the imagination but perhaps be left with no more wondrous prizes to award.

James W. Sire is the editor of Inter-Varsity Press and the author of “The Universe Next Door.”

What Tall Tales Teach

When I was in the fourth grade my class delighted in hearing American folk tales—Paul Bunyan and his blue ox, Pecos Bill, or Johnny Appleseed, for example. Those tall tales taught us something about our country and about the American imagination.

When we studied other lands we learned history and geography. They’re important, and we had to learn straight facts about our nation, too. But the flavor of a people comes through in its folk tales.

Ethnic anecdotes are gaining in popularity, and last fall several such books were published. The people represented include Bantu and Hottentot, gypsy, Mexican, Arab, and Tadzhikistan. The wit, customs, myths, religion, and culture of each are well conveyed through words and illustrations. The publishers are to be commended.

Ranking these books is not simple; each has its appealing characteristics. I think my favorite is Forbes Stuart’s third collection of African folktales, The Magic Horns (Addison-Wesley). Two of the eight stories are familiar, though the versions might be strange to some children: “How the Leopard Got Its Spots” and “The Hare and the Tortoise.” Aesop added a moral that the Hottentot storyteller left out. Appreciation for the shrewd tortoise remains. In these tales the animals talk, as in the introduction to the well-known story:

“Four hundred and sixty years went by before the hares solved the mystery of how their speedy ancestor had been defeated in a race against the cumbersome tortoise. One hundred and twenty-five years after the event itself, an aging tortoise told the story—in confidence of course—to an elephant who kept it to himself for two hundred and seven years. Then he told a jackal who passed it on to a baboon who informed a parrot. Growing increasingly garrulous with age, the parrot—in his sixty-seventh year—told his tale to a Hottentot storyteller.…” The numbers and adjectives add believability to this tall tale. Charles Keeping’s fine illustrations convey an African atmosphere, and the animals seem about to reveal more long-held secrets.

One of the best writers for younger children, Dorothy O. Van Woerkom, has retold three Middle Eastern tales. The vocabulary in Abu Ali (Macmillan) is simple and the stories clever and amusing; the book is a good one to give young readers.

Mexican Folk Tales (distributed by Scribner’s) is the most religious of these new books. Juliet Piggott’s retelling shows both Catholic and Aztec influences on the religious thought of this people. John Spencer’s illustrations reflect the Aztec half. Mexico is not just a Spanish nation. Many Indian tribes still speak their own languages (the first major missionary effort of Wycliffe Bible Translators began there), and these tales show some of the myths still held by many of Mexico’s people. Quetzalcoatl, the god who first discovered corn, and Tlaloc, the rain god to whom the corn really belonged, are deities that reflect the major agricultural interest of the people. Piggott’s book would make a good resource for Sunday-school mission programs.

Abingdon’s little book entitled Sister of the Birds and Other Gypsy Tales should delight anyone interested in gypsies (and who isn’t fascinated by these peculiar people?). Polish author Jerzy Ficowski has traveled with the gypsy camps in Poland; translator Lucia Borski, who was born in Warsaw and lived there until she was sixteen, puts these stories in interesting English.

The Sandalwood Box (Scribner’s) is the longest and most unusual of the folktale books. Tadzhikistan is a Muslim country northwest of the Pamir highlands, bordering Afghanistan on the south and China on the east. The language is similar to Persian, though these tales are translated from German, but the people use the Cyrillic (Russian) alphabet. The glossary at the front of the book is essential to understanding the stories. Many of these clever tales turn on the relationship between ruler and the ruled, husband and wife, God or the spirits and human beings—in short, between the strong and the weak. Long-time missionaries to that part of the world have said that Westerners have a difficult time understanding the Eastern mentality. Here’s a book to help.

CHERYL FORBES

Luckily the Creator

did not make man first creature

nor take us into His confidence

as to plans of creation. We

would have balked at producing

spiders, snakes glittery-scaled, beady-eyed

hyenas, some insects, all tigers.

“Such waste!” we would have lamented over

tropical birds, fields of wild flowers, stars

and dreams. We would have constructed

a tidy universe scaled down to our own

Lilliputian desires,

with no volcanos, no desert stretches,

no whirling of chance-spun atoms,

no mystic visions to confuse

and embarrass the soul.

Luckily, the Creator gave us all

without so much as a “by your leave”!

The N.I.C.E. was the first-fruits of that constructive fusion between the state and the laboratory on which so many thoughtful people base their hopes of a better world. It was to be free from almost all the tiresome restraints … which have hitherto hampered research in this country.” These words from That Hideous Strength (Macmillan, 1946), C. S. Lewis’s “Fairy-Tale for Grown-Ups,” describe the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments.

Mark Studdock, a young, upwardly mobile sociologist who is (for certain diabolical reasons unknown to him) being courted by the N.I.C.E., comes in the course of Lewis’s story to learn something about the program its leaders have in mind. They believe that man is ready to step out into the dizzying abyss of freedom and take control of his own destiny. And some of the leaders, at least, are clear about what this means. As one of them says to Mark, “Man has got to take charge of Man. That means, remember, that some men have got to take charge of the rest.”

As Mark learns from Filostrato, the mad clergyman, the N.I.C.E. program involves the destruction of all organic life. This will, Filostrato thinks, make life far more rational. He awaits the day when artificial metal trees will replace the real ones. Consider the advantages: “You get tired of him in one place: two workmen carry him somewhere else: wherever you please. It never dies. No leaves to fall, no twigs, no birds building nests, no muck and mess.” And artificial birds as well, “all singing when you press a switch inside the house.” Again, consider the advantages: “No feathers dropped about, no nests, no eggs, no dirt.”

Applied to man the theory is stark. “What are those things that most offend the dignity of man? Birth and breeding and death.” These will, therefore, be eliminated. Death will be conquered, and reproduction will no longer involve copulation. Everything specifically human will be sacrificed on the altar of mankind’s future. And behind this effort lies a profoundly religious impulse. “The physical sciences, good and innocent in themselves, had already … begun to be warped.… Despair of objective truth had been increasingly insinuated into the scientists; indifference to it, and a concentration upon mere power, had been the result.… Dreams of the far future destiny of man were dragging up from its shallow and unquiet grave the old dream of Man as God. The very experiences of the dissecting room and the pathological laboratory were breeding a conviction that the stifling of all deep-set repugnances was the first essential for progress.”

Lewis’s vision may be fantastic, but fantasy has a way of illuminating reality. And if man is no more than his freedom, if there are no structures in human existence to be revered, then more of Lewis’s vision than we imagine may come true. There are among us at least two different—and, quite possibly, irreconcilable—understandings of rationality. The one is goal-oriented, trying to do something to the structures of life in order to achieve a better, more efficient, more pleasurable existence. The other tries to be compatible with these structures, respecting them as part of the mystery of what it means to be human. As Lewis says in a different work, The Abolition of Man: “For the wise men of old the cardinal problem has been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique …” (Macmillan, 1947).

We may tend to think that only the first view—trying to do something to the structures of life—is genuinely rational. Hence attempts to alter the basic character of birth and breeding are seen as the product of rational investigation; a claim that there may be knowledge of this sort that we do not want—though such a claim often strikes some deep chord within us—will seem to many an attack on reason. But we seldom see that if man is nothing more than his freedom to remake himself, if his nature is merely to be an isolated principle of will, then there can be no reason to remake himself after one pattern rather than another. The view we think rational turns out to be precisely the opposite.

An older view of reason recognizes that not all knowledge of our nature is to be gained by making man an object of research and experimentation. From this viewpoint one ought not to try to step out into that abyss of freedom—since that is seen as a step away from our humanity—but one can say, as the sage of Israel did, that some knowledge is “too wonderful,” “too high” for a man to attain. We know ourselves as human beings, and not just as isolated principles of will, only when we recognize in structures of life such as birth and breeding the very essence of our humanity. To try to do something to these structures is seen as fundamentally inhuman—and, therefore, irrational.

We should not forget what Mark Studdock learned: that when man takes charge of his destiny “some men have got to take charge of the rest.” And very often it will be the weak and the powerless, those in whose behalf no voice is raised, who will be used and misused in the name of progress for mankind. There are many dramatic—and frightening—examples of the way man is today seeking to take charge of his destiny. However, I want to point to one that we may view more calmly since it does not so obviously raise the specter of genetic engineering: research on fetal human subjects. Here is a classic case of attempting to co-opt the weak and powerless in the cause of someone else’s future (or, perhaps, no one else’s future, since “mankind” is not anyone).

After the Supreme Court decision on abortion in 1973, fetal research came into its own, since the class of potential research subjects was now greatly enlarged. Nevertheless, as Paul Ramsey has persuasively argued in The Ethics of Fetal Research, we should not make the mistake of running together the issues of abortion and fetal research. They are distinct questions—as one can see simply by reflecting on the fact that in abortion there is a (supposed) conflict between maternal and fetal interests, a conflict that does not exist when we consider the fetus alone as a possible research subject.

In November of 1973 a National Institute of Health study group proposed guidelines for fetal research. In August, 1974, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare published a revised (and somewhat more permissive) set of guidelines. In December, 1974, Caspar Weinberger, then secretary of HEW, appointed an eleven-member National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The commission’s first task was to consider fetal research, and it was given four months in which to complete that aspect of its work (during which time all HEW-funded non-therapeutic research on fetal human subjects was halted). The commission has since made its report, which, together with Secretary Weinberger’s revisions, can be found in the Federal Register of August 8, 1975.

The report is too extensive and the issues too wide-ranging to be discussed in full. Here I concentrate on only a few of the most important details. It is, obviously, non-therapeutic research (i.e., research that can benefit only others and not the actual research subject) that is of special concern. The commission considers both (1) research carried out on the fetus-to-be-aborted while it is still in utero; and (2) research directed toward the fetus during the abortion procedure and toward the non-viable fetus ex utero. An example of the first would be giving experimental drugs to the mother while the fetus is still in the uterus in order to determine (after abortion) the effects of the drugs on the fetus. Thalidomide might (for example) have been tested only on fetuses-to-be-aborted and its harmful effects determined before it was administered at large. Examples of the second sort of research would be the injection of certain substances into the maternal bloodstream to see (by testing at intervals during the abortion procedure) whether they pass across the placenta into the fetal circulatory system; or, more spectacularly, prolonging the life of the living but pre-viable fetus in order to try to develop an artificial placenta (which, if developed, could save many future fetal human subjects).

Concerning the first category of research (which is, we should remember, non-therapeutic), the crucial recommendation of the commission is that such research should be permitted only if it entails “minimal or no risk [of harm] to the wellbeing of the fetus.” In its “Recommendations” the commission specifies that this criterion should apply to all fetuses, including those that are to be aborted. Thus, according to the commission’s “Recommendations,” the fact that a fetus is unwanted or undesirable (and hence destined for abortion) is no reason to deprive it of the protection from unwarranted experimentation that is extended to other fetal human subjects.

However, in the “Deliberations and Conclusions” that accompany its “Recommendations,” the commission—in a very sophisticated way—takes back much of that protection. Some members of the commission argued that “while a woman’s decision for abortion does not change the status of the fetus per se, it does make a significant difference in one respect—namely, in the risk of harm to the fetus.” That is, the commission (or some of its members) reasons as follows: Research on the fetus in utero is permitted only when it entails “minimal or no risk of harm”—and this applies to the fetus-to-be-aborted. However, for a fetus that is soon going to be aborted (and upon which the ultimate harm will be inflicted), the meaning of “risk of harm” changes. Many procedures that would be unacceptable if the fetus were being carried to term might, it is implied, be acceptable when abortion is in view.

The commission, whose members were unable to reach full agreement, suggests a national review board to decide hard cases. We should not underestimate the sophistication of the members of the commission. They have taken a well-known ethical principle—that cases dissimilar in important respects need not be treated similarly—and used it to suggest the almost unlimited availability of fetuses-to-be-aborted as research subjects. No doubt much beneficial knowledge can be gained from such research. The question, however, is whether “such knowledge is too high,” whether we want the sort of knowledge that requires that we co-opt the weak and helpless in a cause they have not chosen to make theirs. If progress of a certain sort requires that some human beings take charge of the destiny of the rest, we should not forget to ask: Do we want that sort of progress? Indeed, do we want to call it “progress”?

There are, after all, other questions than whether great or minimal risk of harm is involved. We need to consider that the fetal human subject may possibly be wronged without being (in the commission’s sense) harmed. By enlisting him in a cause he has not made his own and subjecting him to experiments of no relevance to his future we inflict upon him a very great wrong indeed—and, in the process, reveal something about ourselves and our vision of what is truly human and humane.

With regard to experimentation upon the fetus during the abortion procedure and upon the (living but non-viable) fetus ex utero, the commission believes the provision about “minimal risk of harm” to be irrelevant—and therefore drops it. This is because the fetus cannot at this point be harmed in either of the two ways the commission deems relevant: it cannot have its potential for future life diminished (since, the abortion procedure having begun, there is no such potential), and, as one of the commissioners explained in an accompanying statement, it cannot suffer pain (the commission adopted the view of some experts that the fetus cannot feel pain).

However, in its “Recommendations” the commission does place one significant limit on research at this point. It specifies that such research should involve “no intrusion into the fetus … which alters the duration of life.” There should therefore be no attempt to prolong the life of the fetus solely for the sake of research purposes. At issue here is, especially, research conducted in the hope of developing an artificial placenta. Such experiments can be—and are—conducted on fetuses ex utero that are known to be non-viable. In such circ*mstances, of course, the experiment cannot possibly benefit the actual research subject, the fetus. The thrust of the commission’s restriction is, therefore, the altogether healthful one that such experimentation could proceed only under more restricted circ*mstances—i.e., when the fetus was possibly viable and the research could genuinely be said to be therapeutic with respect to the fetus (an attempt to save its life and, incidentally, to gain useful knowledge). Regrettably, this excellent recommendation of the commission was overturned by Secretary Weinberger—essentially on utilitarian grounds. He specified that such research has “contributed substantially to the ability of physicians to bring to viability increasingly small fetuses” and should therefore continue unabated.

It is the old argument: there is so much to be gained; is it not irrational to refuse ourselves this knowledge (or, at least, refuse to acquire it quickly)? “Indeed,” many good people will say, “how can one refuse to do research that may help so many future infants? The fetus, after all, will die even if we do not experiment. Why not, then, save some of generations still to come?” And the only thing that can or should be said in response is that it matters not only whether man survives but how he survives. If in some hypothetical world of future possibilities we were confronted by one of those whom we might have saved had we done the research we refused to do, what could we say? Only that, in a way, we had refused even for his sake: in order that any world he might inhabit would be a humane one that did not survive by using those who were too weak to speak in their own behalf.

What we must recapture somehow is a sense of what it means to be a creature, one who, as the psalmist also writes, is “beset behind and before.” It is certain that the two brands of moral philosophy that still shape much of contemporary discussion, Kantian and utilitarian, will not help us recapture that sense. For who would ever imagine that a creature ought to legislate for mankind? Or be responsible for all the consequences of his action? To the degree we think either of these we have been seduced into imagining ourselves to be something other than creatures.

We have forgotten, perhaps, that this will not necessarily make us gods. There is, after all, another possibility. C. S. Lewis took his title, That Hideous Strength, from a line describing the tower of Babel in Sir David Lyndsay’s Ane Dialog: “The Shadow of that hyddeous strength / sax myle and more it is of length.” In refusing to be creatures we may lose our humanity and become barbaric or worse. That possibility always exists for those who cannot say of some knowledge that it is “too wonderful,” “too high” for a creature to strive after. Forgetting such restraint, we are not likely to remember that we too were once weak and vulnerable—and will be so again. But on finding ways to nourish that remembrance hangs much of our humanity. Speaking on behalf of fetuses that are made subjects of non-therapeutic research would not be a bad place to begin.

The wary, darting eyes of my friend Leslie had always betrayed the tension beneath her airy isn’t-it-grand approach to life. Serious, realistic conversations threatened her; Leslie refused to become involved. One evening, over coffee and a discussion of politics, it seemed that tension had disappeared. She made several pointed comments and, unusual for her, remained calm. Responding to a remark about her new serenity she excitedly told us she had learned how silly it was to become excited. She had discovered this at something called Erhard Seminars Training, a two-weekend therapy program that teaches people—for $250—how to become and stay serene. As of late last summer more than 80,000 people, some of them ministers, priests, and nuns, had already taken the training. And the organization expected to add 12,000 to its graduate list by the new year. Among its adherents is the singer John Denver, who calls Werner Erhard “a god.”

I became curious about Leslie’s change as more friends began talking of their great experience in the training sessions of what they called “est.” I saw one major change: my friends were not interested in anything that didn’t directly affect their comfort. Their bland smiles and uniform responses to controversial topics disturbed me. I called the est office to find out how Erhard training accomplishes these changes. After an impressively incoherent conversation I was invited to attend a guest seminar at a New York Hotel.

When I arrived at the hotel I immediately saw my first examples of the estian inner corps. They stood lined up from the entrance steps to the elevator, their stone faces occasionally lit by quick, mechanical smiles. They imposed an atmosphere of precision on the usually comfortable disorganization of a hotel lobby. Like sentinels on a precarious jungle trail, the people of est showed an uncanny ability to pick out their charges and impel them to the proper place.

When I arrived at the training room, I immediately received a highly legible name tag. Everyone was hailing everyone else with the air of people trying to overcome the differences that keep long-standing feuds alive. A voice called my name. But when I turned a stranger hurtled herself at me, arms spread wide. My reluctance to embrace her was only partly due to the fact she was a stranger; the deadness of her eyes belied her surface affection. No warmth, no life. The hallmark of est.

After the guest seminar I stayed for a meeting primarily for those who had already completed the training. The leader bounded onto the stage to welcome the guests to est. He mechanically announced that our friends in est loved us and welcomed the chance to assist us in creating our own experience of est.

His assistant then led the non-initiates to another room where she gave an enthusiastic sales pitch based on what est had done for her. But beneath her ready smile and wholesome appearance lurked an anger she betrayed when she faced a difficult, critical question. She could not conceal contempt for those who challenged Erhard.

She attributed superhuman qualities to Erhard. She stressed personal power over all events and laced her comments with derision for such things as guilt, unease, and ambivalence. These silly blocks to true experience would, of course, disappear once we had the training. The idea of salvation would become passé after we accepted the fact that we were already perfect.

Est has reluctantly made public the details of Erhard’s background. His mother was an Episcopalian, his father a Jewish convert to the Episcopal Church. Werner was baptized John Paul Rosenberg. New Times (March 19, 1976) points out that Erhard has always considered Nietzsche his intellectual mentor; the creation of a super-race is his highest ambition.

And thus—est. Werner received—not, he claims, conceived—the idea in a whooosh while driving his wife’s Mustang, somewhere in the vicinity of San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge. (The exact locale varies from telling to telling.) The force of the cosmos enlightened him by blinding his senses. This modern-day equivalent of Saint Paul’s Damascus-road experience is merely the beginning of contemptuous distortion of Scripture.

Erhard learned in his freeway conversion that “What is, is. What ain’t, ain’t.” He denies the past; its reminders encumber “the now.” And he thinks we should ignore the future consequences of our actions. Having removed moral and ethical considerations, Erhard decided he was “God in my universe.” According to est, each of us is God in his own universe.

In a radio interview printed in the New Age Journal (Sept. and Oct., 1975) Werner said, “I confronted myself as ultimately evil. What I saw in that car was that I was never going to make it; I had spent my whole life struggling to become spiritual, to become whatever that means. And I discovered in that car that I wasn’t going to make it; I was never going to be all right. You know, I was going to be no good forever.” He confronted original sin, but instead of seeking God’s redemptive grace, Werner determined to make himself his own redeemer. He justified his own sin. All men are liars, he admits, himself included: “I don’t mind being called a con man as long as when you’re calling me a con man you recognize you’re also a con man.”

Yet followers adore him, almost as a spirit. “When Werner wants to move from here to there, his body just moves him, like floating almost” says the devotee who gave the sales pitch at the seminar I attended. They emphasize the importance of love and claim Werner has what this follower called “this incredible sense of truth.” She buttressed her sales talk with references to est’s need to “give” the training to others in love. When I asked how she showed love to those who had had severe mental breakdowns after the training, she laughed contemptuously. Her reason—“Some people really want to freak out and make the training an excuse.” She and other esties deny that they have any responsibility for those in the training; est precludes compassion for others. But when Jesus saw the grief of Lazarus’s family he wept. When this woman was reminded that her master’s voice had contributed to other people’s anguish, she laughed with scorn. That kind of love has nothing to do with the love taught by Christ.

What is the training like? A trainee, confined to a hotel room with 249 other people for up to eighteen hours a day, undergoes four days of passivity exercises. He’s insulted—“You’re all a bunch of turkeys. Your lives don’t work and that’s why you’re here!” His beliefs are undermined—“Belief in God is the greatest single barrier to God in the universe.” Group pressure is a major psychological tool. Personal autonomy does not exist. The trainer attacks those who try to defend any beliefs. Verbal abuse and denial of physical comfort are punctuated by instruction in meditation technique. Of course, the trainer tells the students what to meditate about and for how long. Then he tells them how to use what they’ve been taught.

In his prophetic work, The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis underscores the vapidity of the argument that all one can ever express in language is personal feeling. He points out that when one is prompted by an event or circ*mstance to say, “This is sublime,” one cannot mean, “I have sublime feelings”; “the feelings which make a man call an object sublime are not sublime feelings but feelings of veneration.” “This is sublime” is properly translated “I have humble feelings.” The argument that all value judgments are merely subjective undermines any theological and philosophical discussion of ethics. It assumes that emotions are contrary to reason and in themselves contemptible. Calling something sublime, far from simply describing one’s feelings, also contains the implicit statement that what prompted the comment merited the emotion of humility. Those who deny this, which is in effect a denial of all objective reality, are forced to regard all sentiments as non-rational, as mist between us and reality. They must then decide to remove all emotions or to tolerate them regardless of whether they are “just” or not. Lewis points out that those who do this must create in others “by suggestion or incantation a mirage their own reason has successfully dissipated.”

Werner and est do just that. A former est assistant says she was encouraged to regard all emotions as “hindrances to real experience.” As Lewis makes clear, the truth is the exact opposite. Emotions are the result of one’s mind responding to one’s surroundings.

Est uses meditation to bypass emotion. For example, if you get angry about a situation, imagine yourself twenty feet away, twenty feet above the horizon, and looking angry. If you are displeased with that image, concentrate until the imaginary vision of yourself conforms to your desires. Est promises you will quickly match the image. Serenity is yours for the imagining.

The technique works because it removes you from direct sense stimulation. No emotional response will intrude on your fantasy, no logical argument will convince you that you are removed from reality. My friend Leslie used that to keep herself calm. She mentally moved into a fantasy world.

Est hammers away at previously held perceptions of reality, particularly a Christian world view. Eventually most trainees are convinced that they do indeed distort reality. Once they agree to that the trainer screams, “See, it was all illusion! There is no objective reality!” The group, tired and nervous, long to have their confused perceptions soothed, and est quickly supplies the longed for salvation. If everything is illusion, you are free to choose your illusion—you, therefore control your world. Freedom lies in choosing your illusion. Play it Erhard’s way and you, imitating him, are God in your universe.

In his classic explanation of the Christian faith, Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton reminds us that logic alone is not enough. “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humor or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.” Werner’s trainees do not lose the complements to reason; they willingly allow est to wrest them away. Knowing this, and knowing that the trainee will need a source of relief, est teaches them how to create the center of their lives.

Realizing that the world will infringe upon any carefully constructed fantasy, Erhard suggests that a person should drift into a meditative reverie called “your space.” Once there you construct a little mental room where you are safe to practice your perfection.

While mentally following the instructions of the trainer you physically act out the steps. You pretend you are hammering, sawing, moving things about, and putting up various pieces of paraphernalia. In your center, where Erhard assures you that you are free to experience your reality, you mentally place a chair, a desk, a telephone, a bookcase, a cassette file with tapes of all the things you know (according to one insider there should also be a few empty tapes), a television set, a large movie screen, a closet that contains the regalia for your favorite role (such as skier, spaceman, ballerina) and a few empty hangers (one should also have a shirt with epaulets—a pervading hint of est’s martial tendencies; the trainers wear such shirts), and a platform twenty feet away, twenty degrees above the horizon, where you can happily watch yourself practice your perfection.

All this is fantasy. Its purpose is to teach you to experience life. But the reality est proclaims is a retreat into illusion. As Lewis and Chesterton remind us, a Christian who tries to imitate Christ must face emotion and strive to make it one with reason—a move toward reality, not away from it.

Est’s theological pretensions have never been clearly stated, though Adelaide Bry’s authorized book, est, Sixty Hours That Transform Your Life, mentions them. She quotes Erhard: “The heart of est is spiritual people, really.… That’s all there is, there isn’t anything but spirituality, which is just another name for God, because God is everywhere.” The same book quotes a young man on his estian understanding of Jesus: “[Jesus] kept telling everyone over and over that everybody was like he was: perfect.” Werner’s “Bible” classes must leave out Judas Iscariot, the Pharisees, the people Jesus drove from the Temple, and Peter. Despite our imperfections, Christ forgives us when we repent, just as he forgave Peter for denying him. Jesus understands our weaknesses, our imperfections. He never claimed that we were, or could be, in this life, perfect.

On October 15, 1975, a letter mailed to est graduates quoted Erhard on religion: “One of the purposes of religion is to serve people by providing the space in which an experience can take place. And it is the responsibility of the clergy to communicate the experience—the aliveness—that is inherent in the world’s religions in a way that allows people to create that experience within themselves. It is est’s intention to support those people who have dedicated themselves to communicating the experience of religion.” But as we have seen, Erhard is adamantly opposed to Christianity—to the need for repentance, and forgiveness. Christians cannot serve Erhard and Christ.

Several weeks ago, on one of those turbulent days when Canadian air roars down the Hudson Valley driving out the pollution-laden smog of New York, Leslie met me for coffee again. Her air of calm was enthrallingly real, unlike that produced by est. She had been released from the inner qualms that had engulfed her; she was free from her former turmoil. Her eyes were now alive, and she laughed spontaneously. To help explain what had happened to her, she read from a book, The Four Loves by C. S. Lewis.

She told me she had always wanted to be loved but never felt worthy. Est, she explained, had for a while convinced her that the desire for other’s love was merely an illusion. She tried to imagine that other people did love her. That ended in disappointment. An alternative illusion, that she did not require love, proved equally painful. Her involvement with est caused a deep gap between her and her old friends. The people in est were no help. Whenever she tried to express her desires, they attacked her about why she couldn’t go along with the group.

A friend helped Leslie find what she was searching for. And C. S. Lewis helped her see the falseness of est: “We easily imagine conditions far higher than any we have really reached. If we describe what we have imagined we may make others, and make ourselves, believe that we have really been there. And if I have only imagined it, is it a further delusion that even the imagining has at some moments made all other objects of desire—yes, even peace, even to have no more fears—look like broken toys and faded flowers? Perhaps. Perhaps, for many of us, all experience merely defines, so to speak, the shape of that gap where our love of God ought to be. It is not enough. It is something.”