Page 4889 – Christianity Today (2024)

Anglican Church

Traditionalists Press Women’S Issue

An international group of conservative bishops is pressing for concessions to keep opponents of female priests within the fold of Anglicanism. Currently, about a fourth of the 28 independent Anglican churches, including the Episcopal Church in the United States, ordain women. Defections are increasing as more churches open their pulpits to women.

The traditionalists want Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, who heads the Anglican Communion, to appoint a commission responsible for finding ways to appease opponents of female priests. One possibility is appointing conservative bishops to oversee groups of conservative congregations rather than assigning bishops to congregations in a specific geographical area.

“We see it as part of our role that we should do everything that we possibly can to make it possible for such churches to be received back into the Anglican Communion,” said Bishop George Sessford, the retiring chairman of the independent bishops conference.

Also, the Anglican Evangelical Assembly (AEA) met in May to discuss interfaith issues. The Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), which forms the standing committee of the AEA, issued a resolution in June supporting closer working relations between Christians and people of other faiths on community and moral issues.

However, the resolution defended the obligation of churches to proclaim the gospel “openly and sensitively” to all people, regardless of their faith and culture.

Missions

Jim Elliot’S Legacy Continues

The Waorani Indians of Ecuador’s rain forest, once known as the Aucas and responsible for the deaths of Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, and three other missionaries, now have the New Testament in their own language.

After years of work, on June 11 Wycliffe Bible Translators presented the first Waorani-language New Testament to the tribe in the remote jungle village of Tiweno. Along with several missionaries and visitors, 75 Waorani Christians attended the ceremony, including three of the men who speared the five missionaries and are now church leaders.

Don Johnson, Wycliffe’s international-relations director, says it was “very, very special” to present the New Testament to the tribe. Johnson was part of the team sent to find the missing missionaries in 1956.

“I was looking for the bodies of my friends,” recalls Johnson. “And I never dreamed that I’d have the opportunity to share the Bread of Life [with the Aucas] someday.”

On January 8, 1956, the Aucas, which means savages, speared the five American missionaries who had spent months dropping gifts by airplane to the Indians.

Widow Elisabeth Elliot and sister Rachel Saint re-entered the tribe a few years later and began translating the Gospel of Mark into the tribe’s language. The Gospel was published in 1965. Five years later, linguists Rosi Jung and Catherine Peeke took over the translation project.

Gorbachev

‘Jesus, The First Socialist’

Mikhail Gorbachev’s attitudes toward Jesus have puzzled observers ever since he became president of the now-defunct Soviet Union. Reports of a speech he made in Israel after touring holy sites in Galilee now provide additional material for speculation.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Gorbachev toured traditional sites of Jesus’ miracles in Galilee, as well as a nearly completed $11.5 million cultural and social center in the region. His speech, said the Post, focused not on the cultural complex, “but on his emotional response to the Christian holy sites.… He declared himself a lifelong socialist, following in the footsteps of Jesus, the first socialist.” Peace and social harmony between Palestinians and Israelis in the troubled area, said Gorbachev, “would have to be founded on the spirit of Jesus.” The speech was delivered without a prepared text, and according to the Post’s report, its “most striking aspect” was that “he clearly meant every word of it.”

People And Events

Briefly Noted

Murdered: Melecio Gómez Vazquez, 32, a Presbyterian lay preacher in Chiapas, Mexico. Vazquez was brutally shot and axed June 3 in the community of Saltillo in an ambush believed to have been staged by local community leaders trying to eradicate Protestants from villages. Saltillo leaders had threatened “to kill one evangelical man per week until they wiped them all out.” But no further killings have occurred.

Expelled: An American missionary couple from the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, after 40 years of service among tribal groups and lower-caste Hindus, orphans, and beggars. Bernel and Sally Getter, associated with the Disciples of Christ denomination, were ordered to leave in early June by the state’s Hindu-dominated government, which alleged the Getters were proselytizing Hindus.

The Getters reportedly had received numerous threats from Servants of the Nation, a violent fundamentalist group sworn to safeguard Hinduism in India. According to a director of Inland Missions, up to 40 expatriate missionaries have been forced out of Madhya Pradesh over the past year.

Killed: Chiquita Hood, 29, a Southern Baptist relief worker in Diyarbakir, Turkey. Co-worker Todd Bennett, 24, was also injured when the taxi they were riding in collided with a minibus. Bennett was treated for multiple lacerations and released the next day.

Growing: Pentecostal congregations in Bulgaria. The Church of God denomination in Bulgaria claims 20,000 adherents, up from a reported 4,000 members five years ago.

Renamed: Peter Deyneka USSR Ministries, Inc., to Peter Deyneka Russian Ministries, Inc., based in Wheaton, Illinois.

First a disclaimer: I’ve often expressed my conviction that pastors or heads of Christian organizations should not make partisan endorsem*nts. (And besides, I’m out of politics, having done my time, both figuratively and literally.) So my reflections here should not be interpreted as passing judgment on a candidate—even if he is only a former candidate. But I must comment on one issue that Ross Perot’s short-lived but remarkable campaign has brought to the fore. The application of electronic technology to politics raises profound questions about the very character of American government.

To understand, we must go back a few years. The computer age triggered an unprecedented information explosion—and in turn, a paradigm shift in how business is done. We now have the ability to provide instant information and analysis from, say, the production line to the manager’s office. Computers are replacing the intermediaries who laboriously used to process, evaluate, and report data to their superiors. Because of such computerized efficiency, GM, IBM, and businesses across the country are laying off thousands of midlevel executives. Today’s unemployment lines are filled with white-collar workers.

This streamlining is good for business—good for everyone, in fact, except those who are losing their jobs.

It is this techno-efficiency that Perot and others are proposing to carry over into the political system.

Couch-Potato Democracy

We should not be surprised that Perot would promote such an idea; after all, the company he founded, EDS, was one of the pioneers in the communications revolution. Perot argues that we can streamline our national management just like business has done: by bypassing the middle layers and going straight to the people. He says, “With interactive television, every other week we could take one major issue to the American people [at a time] … have them respond, and show by congressional district what the people want.”

Clearly this idea has hit a nerve. The American people have had it with politics as usual. They are fed up with Washington’s gridlock—all those self-serving congressmen and bloated bureaucracies. When someone says, let’s clear out the middle man, the public loves it.

It sounds straightforward enough. Say the issue of the day is health care. The President presents the alternatives on national television: Option one is curtailing Medicare and Medicaid; option two is a tax increase and universal coverage; option three includes private plans, and so forth. Management experts explain the intricacies of the issue within 30 minutes. (That’s the sitcom generation’s attention span.)

Then comes the vote. All across America, there is a huge, simultaneous click as millions of couch potatoes press their remote-control devices.

Computers tot up the numbers. Presto! National policy is made. Never mind all those meddlesome and frustrating intermediaries. We’ll get action fast, straight from the people.

It sounds like the old New England town halls, nineties style. So efficient. So democratic.

But that is precisely the problem.

Shocking though it might sound to some, pure democracy is what some of our Founders feared most. To them, the tyranny of the masses was no less a danger than the tyranny of the monarch. They knew that people are swayed by fads and fashion, or by demagogues playing on the passions of the moment.

That is why John Adams wrote that unbridled democracy would lead to “everlasting fluctuations, revolts and horrors,” finally requiring police action to impose order.

Adams and his fellow Founders explicitly created a republic. Only one part of government was intended to be directly representative: the House of Representatives, kept responsive to the people by its two-year terms.

The Senate, with its six-year terms, was meant to be more protected from the fluctuating moods of the masses so that senators could vote on the basis of principle, not popularity. (Senators, remember, were at first appointed by the states and thus all the more insulated.) And the Supreme Court, with its life terms, was intended to be immune to public opinion.

Taming Public Passions

Not incidentally, the republican form of government best reflects the Judeo-Christian world view. It recognizes human sinfulness and the need for checks and balances to power. It is based on the belief that law is objectively rooted and thus binding on the present, that tradition is to be respected, that citizenship demands civic responsibility and, often, delayed gratification. And most important, a republic is consistent with the belief that government is God’s ordained instrument, not simply a mouthpiece for the masses.

A republic is not the most efficient system. All of those cumbersome checks and balances and covenants with the past slow things down. But that’s precisely what they are supposed to do.

An electronic democracy would bypass this careful system. Laws would be made the same way television ratings are determined. The nation would be run like one vast talk show, with the President as host.

What is ironic about all this is that while it sounds like it would fix the system, in reality, it would only make it worse. Our problem today is not too little democracy. It is that our leaders cannot stand against the public passions that demand more spending and more programs. And so the black hole of the deficit grows bigger and bigger. Tele-democracy would simply increase these pressures.

There is no way to know what the political landscape will look like when you read this, but then, that’s not really the point. My concern is about the public’s enthusiastic response to techno-politics. No matter who is elected, emerging technology will intensify the pressure for instant democracy.

But we need to remember we are a republic, not a democracy. And a republic is a fragile thing. We used to worry about it being destroyed by a Soviet finger on the nuclear trigger. But now the greater threat could well come from within—from millions of fingers poised on remote-control buttons in living rooms across our nation.

Churches That Abuse,by Ronald M. Enroth (Zondervan, 231 pp.; $15.95, hardcover). Reviewed by Robert W. Patterson, a minister of the Presbyterian Church in America and free-lance writer from Wheaton, Illinois.

A subtle myth operates within evangelicalism: We tend to think the problems within the church are mostly outside of us—that is, in mainline, liberal, Catholic, or heretical churches. “They” have the problems; “we” have the solutions. That myth, however, is challenged by Westmont College sociologist and cult expert Ronald M. Enroth in Churches That Abuse.

The book explores the dark side of some American churches that would otherwise be described as “evangelical.” These are authoritarian churches and organizations that inflict spiritual, emotional, and, in some cases, physical abuse upon members. While these churches do not represent the “mainstream evangelical subculture,” their leaders and members nonetheless identify themselves as born again, evangelical, or fundamentalist. They also claim the Bible as their source of authority.

Not an examination of theology. Churches That Abuse looks at the behavioral pathology associated with authoritarian churches, based on interviews with several hundred individuals who have been abused by their churches and pastors. Readers may wonder if the victims of abuse are the most reliable sources for getting an objective account of church dynamics, but Enroth allows them to speak for themselves as they relate their painful experiences in authoritarian churches.

With representative case studies in each chapter, the book identifies the basic patterns of ecclesiastical exploitation, enabling those who are involved or who know people trapped in abusive churches to discern the red flags before it is too late. “The perversion of power that we see in abusive churches,” warns Enroth, “disrupts and divides families, fosters an unhealthy dependence of members on leadership, and creates, ultimately, spiritual confusion in the lives of victims.”

On The Fringe

The case studies touch on more than 25 churches and organizations in every region of the country. The most bizarre include Set Free Christian Fellowship in Anaheim, California, and Community Chapel, a large Pentecostal congregation in Seattle. At the Anaheim congregation, Enroth reports, a married couple who moved into the church’s housing project were told to live in separate units, then advised to divorce so that the assistant pastor could marry the wife. Once married, the assistant, with the blessing of the senior pastor, took her money, possessions, and left town, leaving her pregnant and with four children. The Seattle church encourages “intimate dancing” during public worship with anyone but one’s spouse. Also at the church, a member drowned her five-year-old in a bathtub because she feared the child would incur the same demon possession from which she was told she suffered.

Other organizations featured in the book include the Community of Jesus on Cape Cod, Massachusetts; University Bible Fellowship, a Korean-based campus ministry; the Church of Bible Understanding, located in the northeast U.S.; and the Boston “Crossroads” Church of Christ movement (not to be confused with the Restorationist “churches of Christ”). The book also blows the whistle on the shepherding or discipleship movement in independent charismatic circles, expressed by groups such as the Fellowship of Covenant Ministries and Churches, based in Mobile, Alabama, and until their recent reforms, the Maranatha Christian Ministries and Christian Growth Ministries, both based in Florida. In addition, Enroth identifies as potentially abusive John Wimber’s Vineyard Christian Fellowship, a group seeking closer ties to the evangelical mainstream.

What identifies a church as abusive, says Enroth, is “first and foremost” a strong, control-oriented leadership that uses “guilt, fear, and intimidation to manipulate members and keep them in line.” These churches are also highly critical of other churches, emphasize subjective experience, and discourage dissent of any kind. Members are forced into a highly regimented lifestyle. In many cases, leaving an abusive church is difficult and painful, emotionally and socially. Often members cannot leave on their own accord, but only through the severity of excommunication.

Breaking The Spell

Enroth breaks new ground in exposing the dangers of authoritarian churches; however, the professor could have progressed one step further and examined how these traits are expressed in more conventional evangelical circles. While the problem is more acute and more easily discerned on the fringes, the problem also haunts the mainstream.

More than a few observers have noted that even the most respectable forms of evangelical Christianity in modern America are characterized by strong personalities, many of whom exercise extensive control over large organizations, whether a megachurch or parachurch ministry. Many of those personalities, like their counterparts on the fringe, are either functionally or essentially independent of ecclesiastical review and control. Enroth could easily interview hundreds of families and individuals who could also share painful experiences they encountered in such churches and organizations.

Enroth also avoids the hard, theological question: Are these abusive churches really Christian? The answer may lie beyond his sociological expertise, but the question needs to be raised. Enroth seems to give these churches the benefit of the doubt, assuming they are Christian because they claim to be. But is a claim of Christian orthodoxy enough to demonstrate that these churches are indeed valid expressions of the church of Jesus Christ? How do they measure up to the Reformation standard of pure preaching of the Word, right administration of the sacraments, and proper exercise of discipline? If these churches do not measure up, then the abuse they lay upon their members is even more troubling in that they are leading people away from Christ and toward something else.

Whether true Christian churches or not, these peculiar groups off the beaten track, Enroth suggests, exist in part because something is lacking in more conventional congregations. At the same time, given the American context of religious liberty and the human craving for power, Enroth believes manipulative churches will always exist. Fortunately, by equipping readers with the very discernment skills for which Enroth pleads, Churches That Abuse may help break the spell of abusive ministers and churches.

Waiting for the Weekend,by Witold Rybczynski (Penguin, 288 pp.; $10.00, paper). Reviewed by Reed Jolley, pastor of Santa Barbara Community Church in California.

“On the sixth day God said, ‘Let’s take a break and relax.’ By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.” That is what the Bible says, right? Well, not exactly. But one might think this is what happened given the Western world’s consecration of the weekend. Witold Rybczynski ponders the history and purpose of “the end of the week” in his charming book-length essay Waiting for the Weekend.

The two-day weekend is a relatively recent phenomenon. The Hebrews inaugurated the idea of observing a seven-day week punctuated by a day of rest. It was not until the fourth century that a seven-day week was adopted by the Roman Empire. The two-day weekend gradually emerged in the twentieth century. “The week is an artificial manmade interval,” according to Rybczynski, that pays no attention to the phases of the moon or the position of the planets.

The book reveals how the weekend was a reaction to the industrialization of work. The line between work and play was blurred for preindustrial workers. “Work was engaged in with a certain amount of playfulness, and play was always given serious attention.” Factory work created a sharp distinction between the two. The absence of play in an industrial setting led British workers to observe “Saint Monday,” a day to recover from the alcoholic excesses of Sunday. The modern weekend was born.

In 1926, Henry Ford, without union pressure, closed his factories on Saturday, hoping others would follow his lead. His motive was far from altruistic. He hoped an increase in leisure time would lead to the sale of more cars. Ford’s factory closure both defined and commercialized the weekend. The five-day workweek followed by the weekend was soon to be the nearly worldwide norm.

Working Hard At Play

Rybczynski explains the weekend while pondering the place of leisure in modern life. The Canadian author does not scold readers for being too busy. Instead, he asks, pointedly, what the meaning of leisure is in the 1990s. Why is it that we used to “play tennis” but now we “work on our backhand”? Sunday, once a day of rest, has become “one of two days of what is often strenuous activity.” The author recalls G. K. Chesterton’s insight that “leisure” can refer to three things. “The first is being allowed to do something. The second is being allowed to do anything. And the third (and perhaps most rare and precious) is being allowed to do nothing.” We rarely, if ever, allow ourselves to do nothing. We tend to be task-oriented people who are driven (literally and figuratively) to the next activity.

Waiting for the Weekend concludes with a commendable chapter that makes the book worth reading. “The Problem of Leisure” suggests that the increase of time off from work “has imposed a rigid schedule on our free time, which can result in a sense of urgency that is at odds with relaxation.… The weekly rush to the cottage is hardly leisurely, nor is the compression of various recreational activities into the two-day break.” The modern weekend is characterized by a sense of obligation. We feel compelled to use our time to the fullest because Monday is coming soon.

Christians who attempt to “keep” some sort of Sabbath will utter a hearty “I told you so!” while reading Ryczynski’s work. His findings confirm that rest is a part of God’s design for his children. If reading Waiting for the Weekend represents another chore, skip it. On the other hand, why not make yourself a hot cup of tea and settle down into your most comfortable chair and enjoy “doing nothing” while reading this provocative essay?

Japanese Factoids

Christianity in Japan, 1970–90,compiled and edited by Kumazawa Yoshinobu and David L. Swain (Kyo Bun Kwan/ The Christian Literature Society of Japan; distributed in the U.S. by Friendship Press; 369 + xx pp., $35.00, paper). Reviewed by Stephen T. Franklin, professor of philosophy and theology at Tokyo Christian University.

Christianity in Japan is a book of facts. There is no better source of information on the Christian movement in Japan. The introduction provides some startling statistics. During 1970–90, Bible sales averaged more than 1 million per year in Japan, with more than 10 million Bible portions distributed annually. The introduction also states that, nonetheless, the number of Protestants during that same period decreased from 722,942 to 638,850. The 1970 figure, however, includes groups such as the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Unification Church, while the 1990 figure excludes them. Since these excluded groups have rather large numbers of followers, did the number of traditional Protestants actually grow during those 20 years? A careful reading of the appendix indicates that the Protestant community did substantially increase. Who, then, were these new Japanese Christians?

The increase in Protestant strength in Japan in the last 20 years primarily came from the evangelical groups, most of which, we are told, grew by 200 to 400 percent. Professor Furuya of International Christian University adds that the largest mainline Protestant denomination in Japan counts about 200,000 members, with 60,000 attending church on a typical Sunday. The evangelical churches currently register 170,000 members, with 140,000 in attendance on a typical Sunday.

Christianity in Japan details the ministries that Christians have undertaken in Japan. The variety is breathtaking and reveals that Japanese Christians have keenly critiqued their own culture. Wherever Japanese society has degraded the helpless and wherever the Japanese economic miracle has bypassed some minority, Japanese Christians have created a ministry to serve their need. As a result, the book, perhaps unintentionally, provides a remarkable tour of the shadow side of contemporary Japan. We learn in detail about the plight of day laborers; prostitution and the traffic in Asian women; the harm to the environment; the dangers of nuclear energy; discrimination against the Koreans, Burakumin (minority outcastes in Japan), the handicapped, and other minorities; the decline of rural Japan; the peace movement; and many other issues.

Many Westerners living in Japan naïvely understand the emperor system by analogy with European monarchies. The chapter on “Yasukuni Shrine and the Emperor System” provides a remarkably lucid explanation of why Japanese Christians (and Communists, some Buddhists, and many of the new religions) see the emperor system as a threat to freedom of religion and conscience. This chapter may become increasingly important as Japanese court decisions continue to whittle away at the constitutional guarantees of the separation of church and state.

Some of the asides are as fascinating as the main topics. For instance, in the chapter covering ministries to the sick and dying, we learn that in many hospitals in Japan, clergy of any sort, whether Christian, Buddhist, or anything else, are not welcome. Apparently their presence reminds the patients that the doctors are not always successful, and that is more than the delicate egos of the physicians can accept. Elsewhere, we learn how the two large book-distribution agencies, in cooperation with the major publishing houses, are structured so that they exclude small-scale, specialized publishers. Christians had to establish their own distribution system, which makes the number of Bible sales even more astonishing. We also learn that there are about 300 Japanese evangelicals serving as missionaries outside Japan, and that Roman Catholic monks in Europe have an exchange program with Buddhist monks in Japan.

Christianity in Japan is now the standard reference on contemporary Christianity in Japan and should be essential reading for those interested both in modern Japan and in modern Christianity.

The World Evangelical Fellowship (WEF) has a non-Western international director for the first time in the 146-year existence of the group and its predecessor. Agustin G. (Jun) Vencer, Jr., was installed at the world association’s ninth general assembly in Manila June 25. Vencer, who is general secretary of the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches, Inc. (PCEC), succeeds American David M. Howard, who served as international director for 10 years.

WEF is an international alliance of autonomous national and regional evangelical bodies around the world represents some 600,000 churches and 100 million evangelicals in nearly 70 countries.

About 300 delegates, observers, and staff from 68 countries met under the theme “Arise and Build.” They hailed what many viewed as a fresh beginning for the organization.

Delegates approved a newly honed statement of mission that ties the association’s objectives to enabling local churches worldwide to fulfill their “scriptural mandates.” “The vision is to see local churches equipped, mobilized, and working together to disciple their nations and [participating in] a global effort to disciple the nations of the world,” said Vencer.

National evangelical associations, he said, provide local churches identity, visibility, a forum for discussion, and a structure for cooperation. Vencer said he plans to establish or strengthen at least three national fellowships each year, beginning in 1993.

Delegates also voted to increase the membership of the executive council (renamed international council) from 10 to 15, adding regional representation for eastern Europe, Francophone Africa, and Portuguese Latin America, and adding two at-large posts designated to “correct imbalances” in the make-up of the council. Two women, the first ever elected to the council, were named to the at-large seats.

Religious Liberty

Other business conducted at WEF’s general assembly:

• A new religious-liberty commission was inaugurated to promote freedom of religion worldwide and to protect the liberty of evangelical Christians. The commission will monitor religious liberty, respond to infringements of religious liberty, and promote the need for constant vigilance in maintaining religious liberty. Members announced plans to establish a governmental-relations task force and an advocacy network, which will provide legal services and funds to those charged or imprisoned for their faith.

• Quechua Indian Christian leader Rómulo Sauñe of Ayacucho, Peru, received the first-ever biennial Religious Liberty Award. Religious-liberty commission chairman John Langlois of the Channel Islands recognized Sauñe and “the suffering Christians in Peru, who for so long have been witnessing bravely to the risen Christ and risking their lives daily in doing so.” Quechua Christians have been caught in the crossfire between guerrillas of the Maoist Shining Path movement and government troops, he said.

• Stating that over half of the world will soon be under the age of 20 and that youth are untouched by the church in many countries, WEF launched a youth commission charged to help evangelical fellowships respond to the “crisis.” Executive secretary Paul Borthwick said the commission will attempt to identify and make available resources, raise awareness of the need for youth evangelization worldwide, and speak out on global issues and trends affecting youth work.

• A newly reconstituted women’s commission met the week before the general assembly to discuss the biblical role of women in the home, church, and society, and issued a declaration calling on the church “to mobilize the under-utilized resources of its women to build up and strengthen the church.” The commission said the needs and potential resources of women are often ignored, and that “women often face opposition, gender discrimination, and outright oppression from society and sometimes even the church.”

• Some 100 theologians from every continent affirmed the uniqueness of Christ in a declaration drafted during a consultation of the theological commission that met before the general assembly. The declaration will be refined and released in the fall.

• Then President-elect Fidel Ramos of the Philippines attended a special session of the assembly, where he said one of the most important tasks he would face as president would be to provide for moral renewal of the nation and “values transformation.”

• WEF announced the next general assembly will be held in 1996 in Great Britain.

by Sharon Mumper in Manila.

Wef And Lausanne Could Join

Describing it as “both necessary and inevitable,” Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (LCWE) International Director Tom Houston appealed June 22 to the World Evangelical Fellowship (WEF) Ninth General Assembly delegates and International Council to join LCWE in a process that would lead to developing formal links between the two organizations.

Houston said that although the two world organizations had discussed developing links on three other occasions in the last 18 years, he believed more progress could now be made. He said the proposal “has been gathering strength in the Lausanne Committee for some time,” and that a poll of the entire committee had produced a “wholly positive” response.

WEF welcomes the discussion, WEF International Director Agustin Vencer, Jr., said. Vencer called the division between WEF and LCWE “a fact of human sinfulness,” but added that important practical issues must be worked out.

After a meeting between the two international directors June 27, Vencer said a working document presented by Houston was “realistic.” Houston proposed that LCWE become an “affiliate” of WEF, but Vencer stated it would be necessary to define the relationship carefully.

“We may find alternatives along the way, and we may change our course of action,” said Vencer, “But I believe we are nearer a working relationship that will [mutually affirm and add value] to the organizations.”

After further discussion with WEF, Houston will present a specific proposal to the LCWE executive committee in September. If the committee agrees to the proposal, he will submit a formal application to WEF.

Just moments after learning that his friend and teammate Jerome Brown had died in an automobile accident, Philadelphia Eagles defensive lineman Reggie White made an emotional plea to the audience gathered for Billy Graham’s Greater Philadelphia Crusade: “No matter what color you are, what denomination you are, Jesus Christ is the head of the church and he is calling us to love and care for one another.” The crusade itself answered White’s call for racial unity, garnering the largest participation by ethnic and urban congregations in the history of Graham’s ministry. They accounted for over one-half of the 1,200 participating churches. More than 75 denominations were represented. The nightly crowd at the June 24–28 crusade averaged about 40,000. Graham praised the urban and suburban churches of Philadelphia for uniting by transcending racial, economic, and social divisions. “One of my greatest prayers is that there will be a new unity and love among the various ethnic groups,” said Graham. “If not, Philadelphia, too, could explode as Los Angeles did.”

Hispanic leader Nelson A. Diaz, administrative judge of Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas, and African-American leader William Moore, of the Black Clergy of Philadelphia, said such cross-cultural representation would not have been possible ten years ago. “That is our challenge today,” said Moore, “to join white power and black power; divide the green power; and come out with people power, united with the greatest power—the power of the Holy Spirit.”

Graham said his current ministry is different than it was during the 1961 Philadelphia crusade in that it not only emphasizes evangelism but now addresses “the social and physical needs of people as well.”

The crusade gathered $35,000 and more than 100,000 pounds of food for local ministries to the needy. In addition, soap and other toiletries were collected for the area’s estimated 35,000 homeless.

Philadelphia was one of only three crusades planned this year for the 73-year-old evangelist, who was told by doctors last year to reduce his schedule. Ministry officials recently announced Graham has a mild case of Parkinson’s disease, a disorder of the central nervous system. Graham was diagnosed with the disease about three years ago.

By Linda Midgett.

Alengthy article in Cornerstone magazine has charged Christian comedian and occult expert Mike Warnke with fabricating his life story of past involvement with Satanism. The article by editors Jon Trott and Mike Hertenstein in the July/August issue also claims that throughout his life Warnke has engaged in several adulterous relationships.

Several attempts by CHRISTIANITY TODAY to interview Warnke were unsuccessful. Associates said he was touring. However, they supplied a 12-page typewritten response by Warnke to Cornerstone’s accusations.

The 12-page Cornerstone article was based on interviews with an estimated 100 people connected with Warnke and includes 170 footnotes. It paints the 47-year-old Warnke as a master storyteller from childhood who eventually turned the biggest story of his life—that of immorality and satanist involvement—into a best-selling 1973 book, The Satan Seller.

Acquaintances and former friends of Warnke also claim in the article that he has had numerous extramarital affairs, which contributed to his three divorces. Warnke married his fourth wife shortly after his third divorce, and just months ago published a book Recovering from Divorce (Victory House), coauthored with his third wife, Rose, according to Cornerstone.

Selling Satan

For two decades, The Satan Seller has been cited by people inside and outside of the Christian community who attempt to prove the existence of large-scale, organized satanist activity. The book eventually led to Warnke’s renown as a comedian and expert on the occult. According to the Cornerstone article, by the mid-1980s, Warnke was at the height of his fame, appearing on shows such as ABC’s “20/20.” Warnke’s organization, called HOCCK, the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church in Kentucky, grossed $2.2 million in 1987 and slightly more than $2 million annually for the years 1988 through 1990, according to tax returns cited by the article.

Cornerstone editors Trott and Hertenstein say the Warnke story was done amidst other efforts to find “any real evidence” to support other public claims of “a supposed international Satanic network.” As a result of their reasearch, they assert that the man at the bottom of what they call the “current Satanic panic” may be a fraud.

Among other things, Cornerstone cites apparent inconsistencies in Warnke’s dates for when he led the 1,500-member satanist group. College friends of Warnke’s say his story of being a satanist high priest doesn’t line up with the life of their former buddy.

Cornerstone uncovered photos of Warnke with a woman, Lois, who claims to have dated him at the time he says he was a satanist high priest. One photo, dated April 30, 1966 (the same time Warnke says he was a long-haired satanist priest with six-inch fingernails), shows a clean-cut Warnke and Lois attending a friend’s wedding.

Warnke also claims that between the time he started college (which records show was September of 1965), and when he joined the navy (which records show was June of 1966), the following things occurred: he drank heavily; tried marijuana; experimented with LSD, mescaline, peyote, and speed; dropped out of school to push drugs; and attended orgies. Friends say in the article they rarely touched alcohol and never did hard drugs.

Warnke further claims that he went from being heavyset to about 125 pounds; had four bouts with hepatitis, scabs all over his face, yellow skin, and thinning hair; had his jaw broken, his nose almost ripped off, one bullet in his right leg and two in his left leg, and was pistol-whipped five times. His friends say they never saw him in such conditions.

Life After Satan

In his written response, Warnke counters that while his condition was “apparent to close friends and associates, casual acquaintances well might not have noticed.”

Says Warnke: “I stand by my testimony of being delivered and set free by the power of Jesus Christ after being a Satanic high priest exactly as published in my book, The Satan Seller.” However, his statement does not give evidence to counter any of the specific charges mentioned above. Warnke charges that Cornerstone did not “do an in-depth interview with the one person—my exwife Sue Warnke—who could have confirmed my life story. Sue lived and experienced about 60 percent of the account included in my book.”

In a written statement, Sue Warnke said that about a year and a half ago, Cornerstone contacted her for a statement. She “told [Cornerstone] that The Satan Seller was true but other than that I had no comment. I told them they should contact Mike personally.”

Warnke criticizes the magazine for relying on information from his second wife, whom he says was a “temptress.” He says many people continue to support his ministry, citing letters of commendation from several Christian leaders, including Word Publishing President Roland Lundy; Johanna Michaelsen, the author of two novels about Satanic abuse; and Lloyd Hildebrand, former executive director of Logos International Fellowship, which first published The Satan Seller. Hildebrand is now managing editor of Victory House, which recently published Recovering from Divorce.

In the wake of the Cornerstone article, Christian promoter Timothy Landis has called on Warnke to answer all the article’s charges or be considered a “fraud.” In a letter to Lundy of Word, which has produced 13 comedy products by Warnke, Landis says Warnke must “provide [corroborating] witnesses and physical evidence to refute these charges. Smoke and mirrors are not going to do it.”

At press time, Lundy could not be reached for comment. Lundy said in a July 9 statement that Word had spoken with Warnke about the charges and continued to have “confidence in his ministry.”

By Joe Maxwell.

A dispute between two Plymouth Brethren organizations over control of a $30 million ministry fund has resulted in a lawsuit and a growing split in the 79,000-member movement.

The disagreement has set Stewards Foundation (SF), the body’s nonprofit corporation that provides loans to its member assemblies (congregations), against Stewards Ministries (SM), an Arlington Heights, Illinois-based nonprofit group that grants money to found assemblies and support other Plymouth Brethren-affiliated organizations.

The election last September of nine new conservative trustees to SF’s board touched off the dispute. Since then, SF’s board has sent mass mailings to member assemblies throughout the United States and Canada alleging that SM has misused a $30 million fund and accusing SM leaders of promoting contemporary church practices counter to the movement’s tradition.

The $30 million in question came from the sale of five Plymouth Brethren-owned hospitals in Chicago and Washington State in the 1980s. The money was then placed at the disposal of SF and SM. The same trustees served on both boards.

Ten SF trustees, according to their attorney, Jim Betke, dispute a 1989 decision that separated the two groups and gave SM control of the $30 million. “[The 1989 board] voted illegally and improperly to sever Stewards Ministries from assembly control,” says George Kirk, past chairman of SF, in a letter sent last May to the approximately 1,100 member assemblies.

However, SM attorneys insist the 1989 action was perfectly legal and above board.

On June 30, Interest Ministries, which is supported by SM, was evicted from its Wheaton, Illinois, headquarters. And on July 1, SF filed suit in an attempt to gain control of the fund. The suit is the first of its scale in the movement’s history and has angered many of the faithful in the pews, who feel the matter should not be argued in a secular court.

Stewards Ministries officials believe the dispute is not over legalities. “The real issue … has been and continues to be support of the so-called ‘progressive’ element of the assemblies, and the funding of Interest Ministries in particular,” they wrote in a June 24 letter. Some SM-supported churches have employed church consultants, use contemporary music, and may celebrate the Lord’s supper on a week night, rather than on Sunday.

John McCallum, SF executive director, was fired because he allegedly did not support suing SM. McCallum declined comment to CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Trustees of both SF and SM also refused to comment on specifics.

A SF proposal for binding arbitration has failed already, and on July 1 SF sued in DuPage County Circuit Court in Illinois. SM has proposed mediation, though a status date of October 29 has been set for the suit.

Other organizations stand to lose in the dispute, including International Teams, a missionary-sending agency in Prospect Heights, Illinois, and Emmaus Bible College, which are supported financially by SM.

By Denise Kempf.

Concern over inadequate control by the boards of Samaritan’s Purse and World Medical Mission has led to the suspension and subsequent resignations of the organizations from the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA). Both are headed by Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham. At press time, the dispute between Graham and the ECFA had not been resolved, although both parties expressed hope that the situation was moving in a positive direction.

According to an ECFA statement, the council’s board of directors voted in March to suspend the membership of the relief ministry Samaritan’s Purse (SP) and its medical arm, World Medical Mission (WMM), after a January field review raised concerns about their conformity to ECFA’s standards. On April 15, the ECFA executive committee reaffirmed the suspensions.

A week later, the two groups resigned from membership. But on June 22, after a flurry of discussions, they reapplied for membership. That application is currently being reviewed by ECFA board members.

ECFA officials declined to release the specific standards with which SP and WMM were not in compliance. However, ECFA board chairman Tom McCabe told CHRISTIANITY TODAY they fell “under the general umbrella of board oversight.” McCabe confirmed that ECFA gave Graham 17 recommended changes that would help bring his organizations into compliance.

Founded in 1970, Samaritan’s Purse provides resources to Christians around the world “to care for hurting people.” World Medical Mission places Christian physicians for voluntary short-term mission projects. According to tax documents, SP took in nearly $7 million in public support last year, while WMM received nearly $900,000.

Last month, Graham remained adamant that the issue was differing interpretations of the situation, not non-compliance. “I have never broken, ever, any of the ECFA’s standards.”

Graham declined to discuss any changes he has made to meet ECFA’s concerns, but said he has included two new board members this year and has plans to bring on two others next year. “The board does give me a lot of freedom,” he told CT. “But do we have checks and balances on the important issues, the moral issues, the financial issues? Absolutely.”

Graham said he decided to quit ECFA because he saw no internal avenue to resolve the differences. ECFA bylaws do allow member organizations to “present any additional arguments” to the board upon notice of the suspension or termination recommendation or to request a review. However, Graham said from his point of view, “The only way to resolve it was to resign and step aside, and let the thing cool down.”

Ironically, Billy Graham was among the group of evangelical leaders who launched the financial monitoring agency in 1979. Franklin said his father was not directly involved in the dispute, although a representative from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association was brought in “one time to be a witness to what was being said.” An association spokesman said Billy Graham had no comment on the situation. Franklin Graham said both his parents agreed his decision to resign “was the only right thing to do,” adding that they also advised him later to reapply.

Tabloid Trouble

In the midst of his controversy with ECFA, first reported in National and International Religion Report, Franklin Graham also was confronted with a series of allegations of mismanagement leveled in the secular press, including the Charlotte Observer and three tabloid newspapers. Interviews with former and current employees have raised concerns as well. Among the more serious allegations and Graham’s responses:

• Personal use of a ministry airplane. Graham denied reports that he used SP’s airplane for personal travel and family vacations. Graham is the only SP pilot of the plane, which he said enables him to travel from Boone, North Carolina, where SP and WMM are headquartered. Graham said extensive flight records show no personal use. He said his family does at times accompany him on ministry flights, but emphasized those trips are not vacations.

• Excessive salary. Graham also denied reports that he pays himself a salary of $200,000 with hefty benefits. Tax forms show that he was compensated a total of $103,561 from the two organizations in 1991, with an additional $48,185 in “expense account and other allowances,” and $7,480 in contributions to employee benefit plans.

Graham confirmed to CT that because of his travel to war-torn areas of the world, the ministry grants him a $1.3 million life-insurance policy with his wife as the beneficiary. He said his salary is set by a compensation review committee on his board of directors.

• Deposit of a $40,000 bequest to his personal bank account. Graham said the check, from the estate of a Texas woman he had never met, came with his name on it and was intended for him personally. Graham admitted that many checks regularly come to SP made out to him, but said this “had absolutely nothing to do with Samaritan’s Purse.” Both his law firm and the estate’s attorneys, he said, agreed it was appropriate for him to keep the money.

Graham told CT he believes the allegations were being spread by “jealous” staff members. He also alleged that much of the controversy has come because he is the son of the famous evangelist. “If my name wasn’t Graham, nobody would be sneezing at this stuff.” He added that his personal style also may have fueled the flames. “I don’t do things the sanitized way everybody else does them,” he said.

Still, Graham said, “I’m going to review the things that we do in life more carefully, because I don’t want to give even the perception [of wrongdoing] to my enemies.”

By Kim A. Lawton.

North American Scene

Vineyard

Wimber Parts With Two Associates

Former Dallas Theological Seminary professor Jack Deere has left John Wimber’s pastoral staff at Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Anaheim to pursue speaking and writing. Wimber told CHRISTIANITY TODAY, “[Deere’s] interests in writing and having a traveling ministry have grown. We felt we couldn’t support that” with Vineyard finances. Wimber said the departure “was very amiable.” Deere said he is currently working informally with James Robison’s Dallas-based ministry.

Another key figure, “prophet” Paul Cain, also has moved on from the Vineyard, where he previously was affiliated. Cain joined Westminster Chapel in London, where Martin Lloyd-Jones once was pastor. Wimber said he and Cain realized their ministries were taking on different emphases. “We are disengaging,” said Wimber. “I felt like we’ve done our job together.… He feels strongly called to preaching an end-times, last-days ministry.… That’s not what my call is. My call is equipping the saints.”

Wimber added that his eschatology has undergone marked revisions from his dispensational roots. He says he now views the last-days church as “victorious” as opposed to simply hanging on until the Rapture.

Trial

Linscott Cleared Of Murder

Murder charges against former Bible student Steven Linscott have been dropped after 12 years of trials, prison time, and appeals. Updated DNA testing techniques allowed the state’s attorney’s office to test sem*n samples used as evidence more than a decade before. Lab analysis found that the sem*n from the crime could not have been Linscott’s, and the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence.

Linscott’s ordeal began in 1980, when Oak Park, Illinois, police were investigating the rape and murder of 24-year-old nursing student Karen Anne Phillips, Linscott’s neighbor. The Emmaus Bible College student told police about a dream he had had the night of the crime about a woman being beaten to death. Soon after, police arrested Linscott; prosecutors said the dream was his way of confessing the crime.

Linscott was convicted and served three years in a state prison, while a succession of appeals went to the Illinois Appellate and Supreme courts. He was released on bond in 1985 and moved to downstate Illinois with his wife and four children. In 1990, the Illinois Supreme Court said Linscott was entitled to a second trial, due to the prosecutor’s misrepresentation of key evidence used to convict him.

“I have learned to take the spiritual battle very seriously,” Linscott told CHRISTIANITY TODAY after the charges were dropped. “I have learned that, although victory has the final say, all Christians experience losses and gains.…

“There has been this cloud hanging over us for 12 years,” Linscott said. “It will take us a while to get used to the idea that it’s over with.”

Denominations

Sexuality Battles Continue

Several denominations continued to struggle with the issue of hom*osexuality during summer conventions.

The American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.’s (ABC) top policy-making board voted 91 to 88—with two abstentions—against a resolution condemning hom*osexuality. The resolution said hom*osexual practice was outside the “Christian lifestyle” and a violation of God’s plan for sexual union in monogamous, lifelong marriage. It also called for proper teaching about marriage and loving ministry “to those caught up in sexual activities which grieve the heart of God.”

The resolution was proposed last year by the West Virginia Baptist Convention and noted “pressure by some” within the denomination to “gain acceptance … of both the practice of hom*osexuality as a Christian lifestyle and the ordination to the Christian ministry of avowed practicing hom*osexuals.”

While ABC general secretary Daniel Weiss said that the failure of the resolution did not imply an endorsem*nt of hom*osexuality, a number of ABC executives at the June 22 meeting in Green Lake, Wisconsin, expressed concern about fallout among ABC conservatives.

In contrast, a regional body of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) voted 90 to 8 to approve a resolution acknowledging the “plurality of interpretations” about hom*osexuality but concluding that hom*osexual practice “is in conflict with our biblical and theological understanding.” The resolution refuses ordination to any person who “openly communicates” a hom*osexual lifestyle.

The vote was taken at the denomination’s Northeastern Assembly held June 12–14 in Oswego, New York. The assembly was led by a coalition of Hispanic, black, and Haitian congregations.

William Nichols, president and general minister of the one million-member denomination, said he was “disappointed that this action was taken.” However, Linda Ray, a leader of the conservative group Disciple Renewal, said she hopes the vote will encourage similar resolutions in other areas.

The question of divorce and remarriage topped the agenda at the 1992 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Marriage is for life and divorce is a biblical option only in the extreme cases of sexual immorality or desertion, said a PCA report that delegates approved.

The report says “desertion” can include some circ*mstances of ongoing physical abuse or neglect.

Two female firsts Beth Marcus is the first woman president in the Reformed Church in America’s (RCA) 364-year history. Marcus, a retired RCA executive, was elected at the church’s week-long synod in Albany, New York. Though RCA’s 203,000 membership is 66 percent female, Marcus is the only woman elected to an office of the RCA’s governing body.

The first female Lutheran bishop in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) was elected June 12 at the general assembly in La Crescent, Minnesota. April Ulring Larson was elected as bishop of the LaCrosse, Wisconsin, synod.

Broadcasting

Robertson Launches Secular News Service

Broadcaster Pat Robertson has created Standard News, a “mainstream” radio news service, which Robertson officials say will compete for markets with the likes of CBS and UPI radio.

The service will absorb Christian Broadcasting Network’s (CBN) radio news and the estimated 300 religious stations it works with, while also branching out into the secular market to offer reporting on financial markets, sports, entertainment, and religion, said Chuck Wagner, manager of network development.

Wagner said that the effort is the result of thorough studies of listeners’ likes and dislikes that were gleaned while Robertson was considering a $6 million buyout of UPI. He declined to speculate on how many new stations Standard News will service, but he said several “mainstream” stations have expressed interest. “They want an alternative.” The new organization has hired Christian radio broadcaster Forrest Boyd to do a daily four-minute radio segment.

Megachurches

Willow Creek Creates New, Bigger Stream

With more and more churches modeling themselves after Willow Creek Community Church, the suburban Chicago megachurch has formed Willow Creek Association (WCA), an official, international network of 96 like-minded churches.

The WCA will operate independently of the Barrington, Illinois, church and will provide special conferences, resources, and consultation to its constituents. Willow Creek pastor Bill Hybels says his staff cannot keep up with the increasing number of requests for help from other churches.

Hybels’s church continues to provide an estimated 15,000 people attending Saturday evening and Sunday morning “seeker services” with contemporary music, multimedia displays, dramatic sketches, and messages geared to those investigating Christianity.

Willow Creek Resources, a joint-publishing venture between the new association and Zondervan Publishing House, is also being created to publish books, audios, and videos produced by staffers from within Willow Creek Community Church and the rest of the WCA.

Tax Expert

Correction

The July 20, 1992, North American Scene article “IRS Eyes Church-tax Expert” incorrectly stated that H. Michael Chitwood is currently under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). According to Chitwood’s attorney, Philip Haney, Chitwood is not under investigation. IRS officials in Atlanta would not comment on the matter.

The story also incorrectly stated that Chitwood lectured at Abundant Living Church in Kingsport, Tennessee. He did not speak there, but members of that congregation did attend a Chitwood lecture elsewhere. Attorney David Epstein told CT he is planning to file suit against Chitwood on behalf of the church. CT regrets the errors.

Controversy

Baptist Author Fired For Book

Author and missionary Randy Dodd was asked to resign last April from the Baptist International Missions, Inc. (BIMI), an independent Baptist mission board, after revealing he wrote the controversial novel Wisdom Hunter.

Published under the pseudonym Randall Arthur, the novel attacks “legalistic Christianity” via the story of a high-profile, fundamentalist pastor who eventually questions his faith and convictions. Wisdom Hunter was released in April 1991 by the Oregon-based Questar Publishers, which recently purchased Multnomah Press. The book has sold over 40,000 copies.

A letter sent by BIMI to Dodd’s supporters said, “BIMI feels [Wisdom Hunter] to be very much out of character for the Christian standards and values of the mission.… A further consideration was … that the book was written, published, and circulated without the mission’s knowledge or consent while [Dodd] was still a missionary.”

In a promotional letter to church pastors across the country, Dodd defended the importance of his book’s message to struggling pastors and lay leaders, saying “Legalism … is doing much to destroy churches, homes, and individuals all across America, but especially in the Bible belt.” Dodd and his wife, Sherri, worked for BIMI 17 years.

People And Events

Briefly Noted

Appointed: Robert Vetter as president of WorldTeam USA, replacing Edwin Walker, who is resigning after seven years. Vetter has been pastor of Maranatha Bible Church in Salisbury, North Carolina.

Donated: $117 million in cash and marketable securities to Regent University, by the Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc. The endowment is one of the largest ever given a private university in the history of American higher education.

Removed: Michael Corcoris, pastor of the Church of the Open Door in Glendora, California, and featured speaker on the “Biola Hour” radio program, after confessing to “sexual impropriety, short of intercourse.”

Named: David Summey, as the executive director of Helps International Ministries, based in Harlem, Georgia, replacing David De Jong, who will become president emeritus.

Curtis Martin, as the new president of Seattle Pacific University, as of May 15, 1992. Martin has been the school’s CEO/provost.

Selected: Charlotte, North Carolina, as the site of a new graduate school of theology, Southern Evangelical Seminary, whose dean and CEO will be Norman Geisler. The school will be housed at Calvary Church and will offer master of divinity and master of theological studies degrees.

Supreme Court observers are offering varying perspectives on the lasting significance of two recent, major rulings on school prayer and abortion. At the same time, some religious conservatives who labored to elect Ronald Reagan and George Bush are feeling a bit confused and disappointed, if not betrayed.

On its surface, the Lee v. Weisman decision was a defeat for advocates of school prayer. But there are conservative observers of the high court who favor strict lines between church and state who found comfort in the ruling.

In contrast, the abortion regulations at issue in Planned Parenthood v. Casey were, with one exception, decided to the satisfaction of prolife forces. But the Court disappointed them by affirming a woman’s right to an abortion, as established in the landmark 1973 ruling, Roe v. Wade.

Saying No To Prayer

The specific issue in Lee was prayer at a junior high-school graduation ceremony. School officials in Providence, Rhode Island, had invited a local rabbi to deliver an invocation and benediction and had instructed him to keep the prayers nonsectarian.

The Court ruled 5 to 4 that the school’s involvement violated the constitutional ban against government establishment of religion. Those who sided with the majority offered various rationales. Justice Anthony Kennedy, author of the majority opinion, said that since students are obliged to attend graduation ceremonies, any religious aspects of the ceremony constituted coercion via peer pressure.

Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia countered that the decision laid to waste “a tradition that is as old as public-school graduation ceremonies themselves and that is part of an even more longstanding American tradition of non-sectarian prayer to God at public celebrations generally.”

Some conservatives portrayed the decision as a threat to religious liberty; Family Research Council President Gary Bauer labeled it a “travesty.”

Said Michael Whitehead, legal counsel for the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, “The Kennedy majority worries that the objector or dissenter will get the message the state is approving of religion. The majority does not seem to worry that the average student may get the message that our legal system finds religion to be not just irrelevant to public life but illegal to practice in public school.”

However, a few conservatives, including the Christian Legal Society (CLS), portrayed the case as virtually insignificant. Said CLS executive director Brad Jacob, “This decision was limited in scope. It was not a broad rewriting of the Establishment Clause, as we had feared.”

Prolifers Look To Abortion Regulation

So much for the litmus test on abortion applied to Court nominees by Reagan and Bush. Those notions were dispelled by the Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

But according to Tom Glessner, executive director of the Christian Action Council, the abortion test is not dead. He notes that Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton has vowed to make support for legal abortion a litmus test for his high court appointments.

“I know people are discouraged,” says Glessner. “We have worked 12 years to elect prolife presidents, and we still are one vote shy; and still 4,400 babies are dying every day. But we don’t have any choice here. I hope after prolife people take a deep breath, they will get back to work and re-elect George Bush.”

Beyond presidential politics, the Casey decision has created opportunities to limit abortions through legislation. On the strength of Casey, says Americans United for Life staff attorney Kevin Todd, “Laws that have the effect of barring abortion should be implemented and enforced in as many states as possible.”

In fact, Glessner suggested that, while the right to abortion might go on existing in theory, it may be possible now to “virtually regulate abortion out of business at the local level.”

He predicts that the high court will now field a steady stream of cases intended to test what regulations the Court will overrule as “unduly burdensome,” according to the Casey language.

Keeping Lemon

Much of the debate surrounding the Establishment Clause centers on the legitimacy of the Lemon test, which says government action must have a secular purpose, must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and must not promote excessive entanglement of government and religion. Prior to the recent Lee decision, various groups, including the Justice Department, had filed briefs urging the Court to throw out the Lemon-test standards in favor of greater accommodation of religion in the public arena.

But Jacob says his organization would be “real nervous about … the Supreme Court throwing out established law and creating something new.

“We disagree with the Court’s judgment on what constitutes coercion,” says Jacob. “But the bottom line in the Court’s reasoning is that if government coerces students to take part in a religious ceremony against their wishes, that violates the Establishment Clause. I don’t think there’s anybody in the world who would disagree with that as a legal premise.”

Says J. Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee, “We applaud the decision, not because it condemned the prayer, but because the majority refused to repudiate Lemon.”

Terry Eastland, research fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, observes that the issue of religion in public schools is far from being thoroughly explored by the current Court: “This Court still has not pronounced itself on the other important school issues, such as public aid to private, including religious, schools.”

Casey: One Vote Short

In its Casey decision, the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 to uphold four of five regulations on abortion, requiring: that doctors counsel women about alternatives; that there be a 24-hour waiting period after such counseling; that minors notify a parent prior to an abortion; and that physicians keep detailed records on abortions performed.

The Court turned back legislation that would have required notification of a spouse prior to abortion.

Kevin Todd, staff attorney for Americans United for Life (AUL), says his organization anticipated the favorable outcome on the Pennsylvania regulations. But it did not anticipate that the Court would seize the opportunity to reveal its stand on Roe v. Wade, and it certainly did not anticipate the Court’s reaffirming of the central holding in Roe, that a woman has a constitutional right to abortion.

Until this decision, prolife leaders could only speculate regarding the support they had at the high-court level. Says Todd, “We know now that we have four up there who would overturn Roe in a traffic case if they could. They think it’s poor constitutional law, and they want to ditch it. Had Kennedy not jumped ship, they would have done it.”

Until Casey, Kennedy was regarded as solidly in the anti-Roe camp. Christian Action Council executive director Tom Glessner says he was “stunned” by Kennedy’s reversal. He calls the Casey decision “a purely political compromise,” alleging that the majority expressed more concern about the perception of bowing to political pressure than about the rightness or wrongness of Roe.

Indeed, the three justices constituting the “moderate bloc” indicated they would have opposed Roe in 1973. Yet they cited “precedential force” in upholding it 19 years later.

Both Eastland and Glessner pointed out that in approving the Pennsylvania regulations, the Court ignored precedent. In 1983 the Court struck down a similar waiting-period law.

For this and other reasons, AUL’s Todd calls the Casey decision “analytically weak” and predicts that other cases will rise up to challenge its logic.

How should the Supreme Court be viewed in light of these two recent decisions? Said Eastland, “This is a cautious, case-by-case Court with the center formed by O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. These [recent rulings] are disappointments, but you have to look at the larger picture. This is still a conservative Court. No one who shares the Reagan-Bush judicial philosophy could expect to do better with Clinton.”

By Randy Frame.

Conservative delegates oust one president and restore another to office.

Voters at the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s (LCMS) triennial conference in Pittsburgh July 10–17 elected a new conservative president and called for the restoration of the former president of a denominational seminary. Delegates also created a new justice system and generally displayed voting patterns indicative of a denomination split down the middle on most issues. Much of the conflict swirled around Robert Preus, a conservative Lutheran theologian.

The denomination’s latest round of problems started in July 1989 when the board of regents at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, the smaller of the denomination’s two official seminaries, “honorably retired” Preus, who for 15 years had been president. They blamed him, in part, for alleged turmoil on campus.

Three years and several lawsuits later, with the church’s conservative faction rallied around Preus, the turmoil traveled to Pittsburgh.

What About Bob?

“The Preus case” made conservative and liberal icons, respectively, out of Preus and synod presidential incumbent Ralph Bohlmann, whom conservatives consider moderate for seeking ecumenical ties outside the denomination and for allegedly declining to discipline a few liberal-leaning LCMS pastors. Ultimately, Preus’s case may have been the factor that cost Bohlmann his headship of the 2.6 million-member denomination. He lost his convention bid for re-election by only 12 votes out of nearly 1,200 cast.

The controversy also is likely to have spurred passage of a new synodal method of handling conflicts, termed by its designers as “thoroughly Biblical, encouraging a win-win rather than a win-lose resolution.” The new system replaces a secular court-based method with trained reconcilers, four from each of the synod’s 35 districts. This setup is supposed to streamline paperwork, eliminate attorney involvement, and encourage face-to-face meetings between opponents.

But the vote on the new justice system was a narrow 66 to 44, as were many other votes on hot issues at the convention. For instance, it took four ballots to elect conservative Alvin Barry president; he won over the much-maligned Bohlmann by a 580-to-568 decision—a margin of only 1 percent. Barry is president of the synod’s Iowa District East and has many years of experience as a pastor and missions executive. Because of Barry’s ties to the church’s aggressive conservative wing, Bohlmann expressed doubts that Barry can preside without prejudice. In similar fashion, conservatives in the past have accused Bohlmann of prejudice in his direction of the denomination.

Ardent Preus backers have said Bohlmann was behind Preus’s being stripped of his clergy status for “conduct unbecoming a Christian” and for a “continuous pattern of untruthfulness” after Preus sued in civil court to be reinstated at Concordia, claiming he could not get a fair hearing in the church court system.

But the synod’s highest court, the commission on appeals, last February ruled Preus was unfairly dismissed and should be reinstated as president. The same court ruled on May 31 to give Preus back his clergy status. Still, the seminary board balked at accepting Preus back, claiming that two commission-on-appeals members had been involved in a group that supported Preus financially during his appeals process.

But after rounds of debate, and with this summer’s convention drawing to an end, synod delegates voted overwhelmingly to ratify an eleventh-hour agreement between the board of regents and Preus. That agreement says that Preus will return as president at Fort Wayne’s Concordia until May 1993, or until a new president is installed, whichever comes first. He will devote his time to recruitment and organizing a special anniversary offering.

Said Preus of the vote, “When I came to this convention, I hoped for something which has just happened, namely, that I could be president of the seminary, and to get back to teaching and to inaugurate something we need drastically at our school—a fund drive, a thank offering, because our students need help so badly.”

What About Ralph?

The storm of controversy crystalized conservative fears that Bohlmann was planning to purge conservatives like Preus from high offices. Unofficial Lutheran publications such as Christian News alleged Bohlmann and his administrative boards were seizing power and leading the tight-knit denomination down the path taken by more mainstream Lutheran churches in recent years.

Some said Bohlmann’s friendship with leaders from other denominations constituted “unionism,” a Lutheran term for ecumenism. Atlanta businessman Edwin Hinnefeld told a committee on finance that the church’s fiscal records are closed to all but a few. Spending on missions and education has dropped drastically during Bohlmann’s term, he said, while the church’s funding of bureaucracy grew unchecked.

At the convention, Bohlmann countered softly, saying the conservative attacks on him are motivated by politics, not concern for doctrinal purity. The church’s fiscal-disclosure policies predate his presidency, he said. Bohlmann maintained he had nothing to do with Preus’s forced retirement. Some conservatives have claimed Bohlmann worked behind the scenes to convince Concordia board members to release Preus.

“I was aware of the action, but I didn’t mastermind it,” Bohlmann declared. “This controversy isn’t a moderate/conservative conflict. Calling someone ‘too moderate’ is what you say in LCMS when you want to change the church. [The Preus party] can’t show one area where I am [too moderate]. They’re saying I’m not against the ordination of women, or that I’m not against initiating friendship ties with other Christian bodies. That’s just another one of their inaccurate, unfortunate complaints.”

Bohlmann was installed along with Jack Preus to a new honorary position of president emeritus. He asked delegates to forgive him “for anything I may have done amiss, for any failure,” and received a standing ovation.

Bohlmann’s portrayal as a moderate is ironic. For years he was the darling of those in the church favoring the ouster of another perceived moderate.

During the mid-1970s, LCMS split over questions of women’s ordination and forging close ties with other denominations. Orthodox denominational leaders like Bohlmann and Jacob “Jack” Preus, Robert’s brother, purged perceived liberals such as seminary president John Tietjen from LCMS.

In 1974, Tietjen followers walked out at the LCMS St. Louis convention. They took with them about 100,000 members and most of a seminary. The “exiles” eventually merged with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the country’s largest Lutheran group.

Robert Preus told CHRISTIANITY TODAY in February that even during the earlier purges, Bohlmann “really had the Tietjen agenda,” but was less overt about it.

Now that politicking is past, Barry will take the denomination’s reins in September. He acknowledged that the razor-close election revealed divisions in the church, but he said he intends to serve the whole church, working as a healer in the process.

“When we have concerns about districts or congregations that are not fully responsive to the theological or confessional nature of our church,” Barry said, “we will sit down and talk with them about it. Concerns will be addressed, not ignored. A hatchet approach will not be used.” Barry promised to open the church’s financial records for all to see.

By Rebekah Schreffler in Pittsburgh.

Are evangelicals abandoning the Democratic party, or is it abandoning them?

Representative Tony Hall of Ohio has a ready reply when fellow evangelicals ask how he can be a Christian and remain a Democrat. “The last time I read it, Jesus came riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, not an elephant,” he says with a wry smile. The answer may be lighthearted, but Hall admits that the question, which he hears often, really annoys him. A seven-term Democratic representative, Hall says his party offers many views that should resonate with evangelicals. “The Democrats have always had the reputation of being for the downtrodden and the oppressed, the widow and the orphan, the powerless and the hungry.”

In past years, most evangelicals agreed with Hall. In fact, the majority of evangelical Christians in the United States were registered Democrats, though in recent elections many had been voting Republican, earning the nickname “Reagan Democrats.”

However, a new survey suggests that evangelicals are now officially moving away from Democratic roots and into the Republican party. According to a recently released study by the University of Akron’s Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics, 47 percent of all white evangelicals now identify themselves as Republicans, while 34 percent identify with the Democrats, and 18 percent consider themselves either independents or third party. (The survey, which questioned 4,000 Americans, was conducted this past spring, before the Supreme Court’s controversial abortion ruling and before Ross Perot suspended his unofficial run for president.)

“White evangelical Protestants have gone from being a group being wooed by the GOP to being one that looks like it has been won by the GOP,” says James Guth, a codirector of the study (CT, July 20, 1992, p. 43). The new statistics contrast sharply with a similar survey in 1960, when only 32 percent of evangelicals regarded themselves as Republicans, while 60 percent were Democrats, and 8 percent were independent or third party. “There has been a very dramatic change,” says Bliss Institute director John Green.

Deep Frustration

Last month, as the Clinton-Gore ticket was officially launched, evangelical Democrats expressed hope that their party may reach out to those Christians who have felt alienated. At the same time, many admitted they were not optimistic about that prospect. “There is a deep level of frustration for evangelicals and many Catholics [within the party],” says former Democratic state legislator Stephen Monsma, now a political science professor at Pepperdine University. According to Monsma, Democratic leadership has been insensitive to those holding traditional views on issues such as abortion, hom*osexual rights, p*rnography, and the family. That attitude, he says, is pushing people out of the party.

Such was the case for Dave Medema, executive director of JustLife, a Christian political action committee that promotes a “consistent prolife ethic” on abortion, the military, and economic justice questions. Medema believes the Democrats’ “general drift away from socially conservative values” has estranged many evangelicals like himself.

Abortion, he says, has become a lightning rod for that drift. As a representative of JustLife, Medema has attended many Democratic functions over the years. Increasingly, he found that his prolife stand made him a pariah. “It was a question of tolerance,” he says. “If basic moral questions couldn’t even be asked, and if societal moral issues couldn’t be connected to individual ones, then it was a pretty hard place to be.”

Finally in 1990, Medema switched his personal affiliation to the Republicans. He admits it is not a perfect match but says that the Republicans at least are willing to discuss issues that concern him. “I haven’t changed over the years. I haven’t become more conservative,” he says. “[The Democratic party] left me.”

Abortion Intolerance

In his opening invocation at the Democratic convention in New York City last month, Rep. Floyd Flake (D-N.Y.) prayed for a new model of democracy, “one that is tolerant of differences of ideas and opinions.” But prolife delegates to the convention say their views were met with more hostility than ever before. The abortion issue, which the Democrats avoided in 1988, was wholeheartedly embraced in 1992. This year’s platform contains a lengthy paragraph affirming Roe v. Wade: “Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose consistent with Roe v. Wade, regardless of ability to pay, and support a national law to protect that right.”

On the night the platform was adopted, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) sponsored a “choice rally” on the convention floor, complete with 15,000 placards that read “Prochoice, Pro-Clinton,” patriotic band music, and a rousing “Choice, Choice” crowd chant. The National Organization for Women contributed thousands of “Keep Abortion Legal” signs, and the president of the National Abortion Rights Action League, Kate Michelman, was called on stage to take a bow.

At the same time, prolifers say they were gagged, DNC and Clinton campaign officials denied repeated requests by Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Robert Casey, to speak in opposition to the party’s abortion plank, even though they allowed five Republican women to speak in favor of Clinton. The National Right to Life Committee was forced to scramble for a meeting place when the DNC instructed a New York hotel to cancel the group’s reservation for a press conference room. And ten uncommitted prolife delegates from Minnesota who cast their presidential votes for Casey reported being pushed and shoved, jeered, and spat upon by some of their fellow delegates.

“My grandparents told me the Democratic Party was where everyone had a voice,” says Ann Maloney, one of the ten. “This is not the party of my grandparents.”

Another Minnesota delegate, Grant Colstrom, who describes himself as a born-again Christian active in union politics, says he was saddened by the prominence that both abortion rights and hom*osexual rights were given at the convention. But he adds he is equally saddened by the void created by Christians leaving the party. “I love Jesus Christ, and I love this party,” he says, asserting that he is in the battle for the long haul.

Congressman Hall, a convention delegate himself, acknowledges that the party’s stands on several issues, particularly abortion, frustrate and disappoint him. But he, like Colstrom, remains committed to the party. Hall believes the Democrats still offer the best programs to help the poor and the hungry. He is pleased they have been pushing a key project of his, welfare reform, and says Gov. Clinton’s theme of “putting people first” should continue that tradition.

Family Values

Also encouraging, according to Hall, is the new focus within the party on “family values.” An entire section of the new platform is devoted to “strengthening the family,” and much of the language is a departure from past Democratic ideas. “Governments don’t raise children, people do,” the platform says. “People who bring children into this world have a responsibility to care for them and give them values, motivation, and discipline.”

The nation’s most prominent evangelical Democrat, former president Jimmy Carter, told CT that it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who hold the high moral ground on family values. “It’s easy to talk about television programs and things of that kind, but as far as any substantive programs that would give families the motivation to stay together and live a peaceful and productive life, to live in decent homes, and to have good health care, very little has been done.”

Concern for the environment is another issue that can draw evangelicals back to the Democratic party, says Dordt College professor Richard Hodgson, a Democratic delegate in 1988. “Frankly, I believe that as evangelicals begin to wake up, they will see that they are being duped by the Republican Party, which on a national level is … closing its eyes to social justice and evironmental issues,” he says.

Many Democrats believe the Clinton-Gore ticket represents their party’s strongest chance in a decade to win back disenfranchised evangelicals. Both men are Southern Baptists with strong church-attendance records. They both referred to Scripture during their acceptance speeches, possibly signaling a new effort to reach out to Christians. However, Clinton and Gore have also come out firmly in favor of abortion rights, a position that turns away many evangelicals.

Hall urges evangelical Democrats not to become “too one-issue” and leave, but rather to stay and work for change within the system. Minnesota delegate Colstrom optimistically agrees. “I’d really like to see the Judeo-Christian Democrats come back,” he says. “We can take this party back.”

By Kim A. Lawton in New York City.

Half-Hearted Happiness

To love God wholeheartedly, we must be convinced that our only happiness is in him alone. We cannot believe this until we renounce all other efforts at happiness. If we look to God to supply half our happiness, we can only love him with half our hearts.

—William Law in Christian

Perfection (a contemporary

version by Marvin D. Hinten)

Impossible Coexistence

I [have] learned that worship and worry cannot live in the same heart: they are mutually exclusive.

—Ruth Bell Graham in Prodigals and Those Who Love Them

Worship Versus Control

I’m convinced that pastors don’t give two cents about worship. They really don’t. And there’s a reason for it. True worship doesn’t make anything happen. It is a losing of control, a weaning from manipulative language and entertainment.… Pastors sense that if they really practice worship they are going to empty out the sanctuary pretty fast.

—Eugene Peterson in The Door,

(Nov/Dec. 1991)

New Theology Unnecessary

What we-need is not, as is so often argued …, a new theology of nature but rather a return to the original message contained in the Bible and preached and practised in the early Church.… Greening Christianity does not involve grafting on to it some alien philosophy but simply restoring its original character. Indeed, it means stripping off a whole series of alien layers that have accumulated to reveal the original greenness of the Garden of Eden and the cross on Calvary.

—Ian Bradley in God Is Green:

Ecology for Christians

Beyond The Darkness

To look up into a dark sky and see it suddenly open, as lightning plays across it, to see in one revealing flash deep into the kingdoms of light, is to know what prayer most truly is. There is mystery, but beyond that darkness is not a deeper darkness, but light—kingdoms of light.

—Amy Carmichael in Learning

of God, by Stuart and

Brenda Blanch

Too Busy

Busy-ness in a profession can be a way to avoid God, the meaning of life, and life itself.

—Sidney S. Macaulay, quoted in

CMDS Journal (Spring 1992)

Worshiping The Wrong Monarch

The majority of us do not enthrone God, we enthrone common sense. We make our decisions and then ask the real God to bless our god’s decision.

—Oswald Chambers in The

Oswald Chambers

Devotional Reader

Feeble Faith

He believed in Communism the way most people believed in God; he would not be greatly surprised or disappointed if he turned out to be wrong, and meanwhile it made little difference in the way he lived.

—Ken Follett of a character in his novel Triple

World Changers

Sometimes I wonder if Lewis and Clark shouldn’t have been made to file an environmental impact study before they started west, and Columbus before he ever sailed. They might never have got their permits.

—Wallace Stegner in “The

Aesthetics of Aridity,”

(Harper’s, April 1992)

Wounding Our Friend And Lover

“Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God” commands Paul. Now, only a dear friend can be grieved. Not a stranger: he might be annoyed. Not a chance acquaintance: he might be perplexed. Not a business partner: he might be offended. Only a loved one can be grieved.

—Milton S. Agnew in The Holy

Spirit—Friend and Counsellor