Page 5470 – Christianity Today (2024)

A Primer for Parents

The barriers against premarital sex have been crumbling in America for decades. Today they have been leveled almost to the ground. That this has brought dismay and apprehension to Christian parents hardly needs to be stated. Even non-Christian parents are often alarmed by the phenomenon and what it portends.

Violators of the sexual code were hardly uncommon in the past, but the principle was largely unchallenged. That is no longer the case. The code itself has been subjected to heavy attack and even ridicule from many quarters. For many, it is part and parcel of the “moral rubbish” that disfigured the Victorian era. Yet we must not forget that a basic Christian precept is at stake, one that is as valid today as when it was first proclaimed.

The forces producing this condition are well known. As Ronald Koteskey has pointed out, puberty arrives at a much earlier age than it did centuries ago. At the same time, marriages are delayed by the need for advanced education as well as by the financial burdens of sustaining a home during this educational phase. This makes heavier moral demands on young people than those experienced by previous generations (CT, March 13, 1981, p. 26).

Moreover, we live in a society that seems hell-bent on stimulating sexual activity by a variety of potent means—TV programs, p*rnography, advertising, books and magazines preoccupied with illicit sex and scornful of anything smacking of “Puritanism.” (In his Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis noted that the disdain in which the word “Puritan” has come to be held is one of Satan’s “really solid triumphs”.) The arrival of “the Pill” and the ready availability of other birth-control devices have furthered the trend.

Besides all this, moral standards in general have withered in recent years. Among the young, especially, self-discipline has been valued far less than “self-expression” and “self-fulfillment.” As for premarital sex, since “everyone does it,” adolescents who are exposed to powerful societal and peer group pressures, as well as to their insistent glandular urges, fall right and left before the nihilistic onslaughts of our times.

Everyone doesn’t do it, of course. But it must be conceded that unusually unattractive youths and those from conservative Christian homes are about the only ones who don’t. And even among the latter, the number who succumb to the moral erosion of the times is apparently growing. Not a few Christian leaders, moreover, have yielded to the Zeitgeist, and have found traditional Christian teachings too onerous and inflexible for the radically changed circ*mstances of our day.

The latter is rather remarkable, considering the ugly social harvest the “sexual revolution” has brought us. If we had only the current statistical consequences of that revolution to rely on, that should be enough to give pause not only to the Phil Donahues, Gore Vidals, and Shere Hites, but to liberal theologians as well.

America now records about 300,000 teen-aged abortions per year, 240,000 illegitimate children, a rapid rise in the number of early teen-aged mothers, growing numbers of high school dropouts because of pregnancies, the proliferation of single-headed families because of premarital and extramarital sex, and an estimated 12 million young Americans with sexual diseases. There is also reliable evidence that early sex increases the incidence of cervical cancer.

But there is even more persuasive empirical evidence that societies that adopt permissive sexual standards are inviting the most serious kind of trouble. Whereas experts disagree endlessly with one another in most areas of social controversy, the most thoughtful and wide-ranging students of this phenomenon are remarkably united in their pessimistic conclusions on the relationship between declining sexual standards and the well-being of society.

Although hostile to Christian beliefs in general, Sigmund Freud advanced the thesis that civilization makes greater progress when sexual energy is restrained and channeled into social energy by social customs and requirements. A respected Cambridge University sociologist, J. D. Unwin, set out to disprove Freud’s contention that there was a relationship between a somewhat restrictive sexual environment and social progress. To his surprise and dismay, however, his study of over 80 ancient, primitive, and more modern societies revealed an unvarying correlation between the degree of sexual restraints and the rate of social progress. Cultures that were more sexually permissive displayed less cultural energy, creativity, intellectual development, individualism, and a slower general cultural ascent. Whenever more sexual freedom appeared, it was invariably followed by a decline in that culture. (He conceded, however, that the adverse effects of greater sexual freedom might not be fully demonstrated for several generations.)

Correlations do not constitute scientific proof of causality. However, the undeviating nature of these correlations in such widely diverse cultures over such long historical periods could hardly be accidental. Yet Professor Unwin’s conclusions received far less attention than they deserved—and far less, we may safely surmise, than if he had come to opposite conclusions.

Unwin’s findings were supported by Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, whose own studies had reached a roughly similar conclusion. Their judgments were indirectly bolstered when Arnold Toynbee, the most celebrated student of world history, affirmed his belief that a culture that postpones rather than stimulates sexual experience in young adults is a culture most prone to progress. They were further reinforced by the late Will and Ariel Durant. In The Lessons of History, which summarized their principal findings from lifelong research on The Story of Civilization, they declared that sex in the young “is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both the individual and the group.”

In 1971, after studying 90 contemporary primitive or less-advanced cultures, anthropologist William Stephens wrote that the tribes lowest on the scale of cultural evolution have the most sexual freedom. Significantly, he also noted that those with “maximal freedom” showed “little connection between sex and love.”

These facts and findings are not cited because Christian doctrine requires the validation of empirical evidence. Rather, they may bolster the faith of some who wonder if this particular Christian principle needs reinterpretation and modernizing. The evidence strikingly demonstrates its continuing validity in a heedless age.

What can Christian parents do to keep their children from falling victim to today’s standards (or lack of standards)? Here are a few suggestions.

1. Instilling of Christian attitudes toward sex should begin early. Once adolescents have reached puberty it is usually too late. By that time, young people have reached their rebellious years. They tend to resist parental advice and listen sympathetically to their peers. Parents need to teach their children at an earlier age that Christian standards unequivocally forbid premarital sex. They need to understand that this is a matter of major importance, and that they will want to abide by this principle because it is God’s will.

Young people may seem restless and uninterested when this is taught in prepuberty years. But they will be listening, even if they seem uncomfortable and do not know quite how to respond. It is imperative that this principle be implanted when resistance is very low or nonexistent. When adolescence arrives, young people will then be able to draw upon a moral value already solidly established, and one that seems to be their own instead of one suddenly foisted upon them when they least want to hear it.

This calls for a modest amount of sex education before most parents provide it—though not before children get garbled versions from their friends. Such education includes sexual behavior. This kind of training has been practiced by responsible parents in other areas—the indoctrination of valid, moral principles at an impressionable, early age. It is understandable if parents shrink from doing this, given our customary hesitance to introduce the subject to our children. But the risks of delay are simply too great.

2. When puberty arrives, children should again be reminded that Jesus’ teachings do not approve premarital sex (Matt. 15:19). Loyalty to him leaves no choice in the matter. And if Jesus’ teachings cannot be trusted here, why trust them on anything else?

3. The staggering cost of transgressing the Christian code may be pointed out to young people. The statistics on teen-aged abortion, illegitimacy, and so on should be brought to their attention to reinforce the contemporary relevance of counsel. It will be no exaggeration to tell young people that sexual misconduct brings them more tragedy than any single practice in which they engage. And it will be prudent to remind them that almost all of the young who became statistics were certain it would not happen to them.

4. More thoughtful and inquiring youth can be told what leading historical and sociological studies have concluded about permissive sexual standards and societal well-being. Conscientious young people with probing minds will welcome the intellectual support this provides for the path they plan to follow.

5. Young people should be made to understand why the availability of the Pill and other birth-control devices is irrelevant to the principle of premarital abstinence. As all intelligent Christians know, sexual intercourse is much more than a purely physical act. Under normal circ*mstances, it involves an intimate wholeness that joins spirit and flesh in sacred union.

There is persuasive evidence that coitus was seen as tantamount to marriage in the earliest period of biblical history. In the eyes of God, sexual union may commit an unwed couple to one another in more binding fashion than the marriage ceremony itself. The formal wedding ceremony was a later social invention signifying the joining of man and woman in permanent union.

While the nuptial proceedings publicly symbolize the intent to form a lasting marital relationship, they may not represent as profound a commitment as the sexual act itself. Even secular law partially supports this, since a marriage never consummated by sexual relations can be annulled, for it is not regarded as a true marriage. Christian youth who realize the full gravity of the sexual experience are more likely to take it seriously.

If safeguards against conception were sufficient to legitimize sexual adventures by the young, parents could equip their early teen-aged children with the necessary contraceptive advice and equipment and in good conscience bid them embark on the sexual seas. But even teen-agers can see the folly of such a reckless course. For Christians, birth control measures have little to do with the moral and spiritual character of the sexual act. These are only means whereby married couples can control the number and spacing of their offspring.

Young people may argue that while genuine promiscuity is wrong, it is different when one loves someone and intends to marry that person. Again, a few warnings should be passed along.

It is not uncommon for teen-agers to fall madly in love. They may be sure theirs is a deathless romance that can only culminate in marriage, and believe that sex with their beloved falls into an “acceptable” category of premarital relations. Before they finally marry, however, they may become infatuated with a succession of partners, drifting into promiscuity without ever intending to do so.

If the door is opened to sex once a couple has a “meaningful relationship,” it will not take long for teen-agers to interpret any current relationship as one that gives them the green light.

6. Parents ought to be wise in warning their adolescent children that remaining chaste may be exceedingly difficult. It takes courage, self-discipline, and personal conviction to be true to the mark. The Christian way is not the easy way; it is just the best way. Christian youth who are forewarned about the formidable temptations they face and advised to draw back from dating activities that make sexual restraint difficult will have received advice they sorely need. But they should also know that God never asks what is unreasonable, unattainable, or contrary to their long-range best interests.

They need reassurance, moreover, that the pangs of restraint are vastly relieved once they make a firm, unshakable resolution to go God’s way. Irresolution is not only a certain prescription for defeat. It is psychologically distressing as well. But once made, it is surprising how liberating a deliberate and clear-cut decision to abstain can be.

7. Youth must learn that restraint has its rewards, in both the short and the long run. Dating partners can have a greater measure of personal respect for those who refrain from sex before marriage. Abstainers can have more self-respect as well. They can maintain more open, healthy, and unstrained relations with their parents than those who engage in clandestine sex. They can also have confidence that if their partner forgoes sex before marriage, he or she will almost certainly refrain from extramarital affairs later on. Without the intrusion of sexual relations, the young can better evaluate those qualities that are most important to a lasting marriage.

Moreover, those who have practiced restraint prior to marriage know that this attitude can actually enhance love for one’s partner and heighten the pleasure of the engagement period. Incredible? Not at all.

In the first place, for various reasons initial sexual experiences are often less than satisfying. They may bring more misgivings than elation. Furthermore, the anticipatory pleasures for abstainers of consummating the marriage relationship after the wedding will be belittled only by those who have not known that experience. Indeed, their sneers may overlay a wistful wish that they had done the same.

Those who engage in premarital sex rob the wedding day of much of its mystery, allure, and dignity. In their impatience to taste forbidden fruit, they forfeit that special kind of exhilaration that makes the chaste engagement period one of the most beautiful experiences human beings can ever know.

The divorce rate is so high that prospective marital partners need to know as much as possible about each other before launching out into marriage. They need not only to know the surface attractions of each other, but the ordinary, day-to-day behavioral characteristics as well. How emotionally mature is the prospective mate? How does he or she bear up under adversity? Are faults and idiosyncracies the kind the other can tolerate? Are the couple’s value systems and religious outlooks compatible?

It is supremely important, as most recognize, for parents to teach their adolescent children that sex is not a necessary evil, but one of God’s greatest and most pleasurable gifts to mankind. It is to be viewed with thanksgiving, since it can contribute so much to human happiness and well-being. Adolescents need to know their parents believe this. But they must also know that the One who provided the gift also furnished the rules governing its use.

The best assurance we can have that our youth will respect God’s will in this area is to help them commit themselves fully to him. If they yield their lives to God, and understand his will on this matter, we can trust the outcome. But full commitment to Christ may come late rather than early. And the subversive influences of our times are so intense and the hazards so formidable that the precautionary measures recommended should be seriously considered by parents and all who work with young people.

Reo M. Christenson is professor of political science at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.

“Self,” my friend said to me with more accuracy than delicacy. “Self is spiritual BO.” The more I have thought about that, and the longer I have lived, the more I am convinced she was right.

The people who have affected my life most deeply and influenced it for good have seldom, if ever, been aware of the fact. On the other hand, people who think themselves a blessing seldom are. (There is a difference between being a help and being a blessing.) Self-conscious goodness is a contradiction in terms. Someone has pointed out that it is “I” that changes goodness into goodiness.

“When the Son of man shall come in his glory,” Jesus tells us, “and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.”

Then the King said to the sheep, “I was ahungered and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.”

But then, terrifyingly, he said to the goats, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” He continued, saying the very opposite of what he had said to the sheep. These goats had ignored his every need—which, he explained, were the needs of the least of his brethren.

The point is, those who had ministered to his needs were as unaware of their goodness and kindness as those who were indifferent were unaware of their indifference.

Today, when there is so much emphasis on things like social action and simple lifestyle, we must watch the “I.” The only way to avoid spiritual BO is by constant cleansing “with the washing of water by the Word.”

P.S. About sheep and goats: the Encyclopedia Britannica begins its section on sheep with these revealing words: “Practically, sheep form a group impossible of definition, as they pass imperceptibly into the goats.”

Separating the sheep from the goats will have to wait for the coming of the Great Shepherd. He alone knows where that imperceptible line lies.

Tensions Between Job and Family

It is becoming more and more difficult today for men and women to decide whose demands they must listen to.

Our employers pressure us to make our career our primary responsibility. They are ready to reject us (or at least never promote us) if we are not willing to sacrifice our family and personal needs for the company store.

Our children make great demands of us. Music lessons, athletic team practices, Scouts, endless car pools, discipline, diapers, fights, tears, hunger, problems, cuts, dirt, crying, selfish behavior, demands for hugs and attention—all of that is involved in having children. It is a tremendous burden and responsibility if we do not want them to turn into human monsters.

Christianity places demands on us. We are absorbed by personal devotions, neighbors with needs, people starving in the world, church attendance, financial sacrifices, church-related parties and activities, and in making contributions of time to local church work. Living a committed Christian life, like rearing children, has its roses and its thorns. Even Christ experienced both.

More demands are placed on our time by mates, friends, neighbors, schools, organizations, household responsibilities, chores.

But perhaps the demands that drain us most emotionally are intrapsychic ones. These arise out of our personal insecurities, inferiority feelings, loneliness, pains, anger, lust, desires for power, materialistic drives, parental injunctions to be perfect, true and false guilt.

More than in any previous era of human history, men and women find themselves caught in a tug-of-war, with job, family, church, and intrapsychic demands all pulling ropes. It is no wonder so many Americans are “copping out” with affairs, divorce, suicide, alchohol, and drugs. As a psychiatrist, I empathize with the hundreds, Christians and non-Christians, who come to the Christian psychiatrists and psychologists in our clinic seeking better ways to cope with job/family tensions—which always ultimately involve subtle intrapsychic tensions as well.

Nearly 60 percent of American mothers are in the labor force, either part- or full-time. The problem of “mother substitutes” is increasingly crucial.

Jean Piaget’s studies indicate that although adequate mother substitutes are satisfactory the first six months or so of life, on the social level the mother is very specifically needed by the infant, starting at about seven months of age. Infants then need their own mothers for security and socialization; without them, a variable extent of permanent emotional and intellectual damage will occur.

Another critical problem in American society is the increasing number of single-parent families. They have their own special problems: separation anxiety, grief, anger, depression, and loneliness. And the children may have sexual identity problems. More than six million children in the United States are living in fatherless homes.

An extensive study of 120 children from fatherless homes was presented by the psychiatry department of the University of Florida. They found that parent-child relationships are most seriously impaired among “hard-core” fatherless children—those who have been without a father for two years or more. Most of these children are either psychotic or retarded, with severe pathology and a fatalistic view of life. Children who have been without a father for less than two years show fewer severe impairments than the “hard-core” fatherless, but they have more problems than children with fathers (Kogelschatz, Adams, and Tucker in the Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 11 [1972]).

What a challenge to responsible fatherhood! Christian fathers who fail in their responsibilities before God are cause for concern. It cannot be overemphasized that a father’s first responsibility before God is his own family. All else comes in a distant second. Paul said that if anyone does not provide for the needs of his own household, he is “worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8).

When a woman who goes to work full-time leaves her preschool children at a day-care center, she is likely to have genuine feelings of guilt. Like most humans, she is liable to repress those guilt feelings, rationalizing that they are based on old-fashioned morals. She may also socialize with women who encourage her to keep working, and this could cause her to repress her guilt even further. When she meets a friend who is a dedicated, full-time mother, however, her repressed guilt may threaten to surface. To keep it repressed, she may feel compelled to try to persuade this dedicated mother to get a job. After all, she reasons, if she can talk a dedicated mother into going to work and leaving her children at a day-care center, then it must be morally justifiable.

In contrast, another mother with children under the age of six may feel a false sense of guilt for leaving her children at a nursery school or “mother’s day out” program a few half-days per week. In reality, such breaks are apt to make her a better mother. But since her false guilt prohibits her from doing what is best, and since “misery loves company,” she is likely to feel self-righteously angry (though she will call it “frustrated” or “disappointed” rather than angry) toward women who do not have children, or housewives who leave their children several hours at a time to pursue other creative activities.

The issue should not be “What will my parents think?” or “What will my church friends think?” or “What will the girls at the office think?” Rather, it should be, “What alternative lifestyle will be most beneficial for my children? What does God want me to do for my children and myself?”

I believe that staying home 24 hours a day, day after day, doing household chores, and taking care of several young children is too demanding for most people. The frustrations of being a housewife or feeling angry at one’s children at times are both normal. But neither emotion justifies leaving children in a day-care center to get a full-time job. Considering the permanent emotional damage that full-time day-care can cause to children, that is illogical, and more harmful than for mothers and children to stay cooped up in the house day after day. I believe both options are detrimental to both mothers’ and children’s mental health.

During a recent evening, I was enjoying a game with my children while my wife relaxed on the couch nearby, doing needlepoint as she watched an interesting TV show. The telephone rang, the caller a fellow physician who fought back his tears as he asked for my help. He had read the chapter on workaholism (“Do ‘Nice Guys’ Finish Last?”) in a book I coauthored with Frank Minirth, Happiness Is a Choice. He was overwhelmed with guilt. He had spent his adult life working day and night to cure and rescue medical patients, while totally ignoring the emotional needs of his family.

He told me his 25-year-old son had just had a break with reality. The young man was hearing hallucinatory voices and haring paranoid delusions. Filled with hostility, he refused help. That brokenhearted physician told me his son had been getting good counseling since he had rebelled in his teens, but that the counseling had come too late. Because of his workaholism, the physician had hardly known his son during the boy’s formative years. Now he realized he had failed as a father, and that it was too late to undo most of the damage.

Having grown up with an overdose of the Protestant work ethic, I was a somewhat overzealous honor student. During one college year I carried 39 hours in two semesters, played two sports, worked nights as a private nurse, was the president of two campus organizations, spent over an hour a day in personal devotions, read a book a week in addition to my studies, did charitable work on weekends, got engaged to be married, and won an award at the end of that school year for having achieved a straight-A record. Needless to say, I was a first-class workaholic, and proud of being one. I thought that was what God wanted of me.

But being a workaholic was all right when I was a premed major in college, single, and 20 years old. And it got me through graduate school, medical school, and a residency in psychiatry in the following decade. But at the age of 30, I found myself teaching full-time seminary counseling courses, while at the same time I was also carrying on a part-time psychiatric practice, taking theological courses myself, counseling people evenings in my home, and participating in seminars nearly every weekend. By that time I had three children under the age of four. I remember feeling overwhelmed at times with the false notion that God wanted me to rescue the world for Christ.

Then, through the practical help of Christian friends at the seminary, the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and the teachings of the Bible, I made a major decision: I decided to rearrange my priorities. I had been feeling overwhelmed with the burden of serving God. But God’s Word says, “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:30). I reasoned that if my burden was hard and heavy instead of easy and light, it must be the result of a parental injunction ingrained into my computer-brain in early childhood. And it was.

Here is how I rearranged my priorities:

Old Priorities

1.Meet the needs of every Christian, Christian group, or church that makes any demand on my time.

2.Minister to seminary students and to local churches.

3.Know God personally.

4.Write books.

5.Carry on a full-time psychiatric practice.

6.Meet my wife’s emotional and spiritual needs.

7.Meet my children’s emotional and spiritual needs.

New Priorities

1.Know God personally.

2.Provide for my own mental health needs (recreation, fun, fellowship with friends, etc.)—“How can I serve God if my own mental health isn’t what it should be?”

3.Meet my wife’s emotional and spiritual needs.

4.Meet my children’s emotional and spiritual needs.

5.Minister to seminary students and local churches.

6.Carry on a part-time psychiatric practice.

7.Write books in spare time.

I discussed my new priorities with Christian friends, and was convinced they were biblical and health producing. Then I met the following resistances:

1. False guilt. These feelings eventually subsided after two or three years, though small twinges of false guilt still occur occasionally. I felt guilty turning down speaking engagements, or refusing to counsel people with legitimate needs who phoned me asking for help. I felt guilty for not helping on special church projects. I felt falsely guilty (and occasionally still do) for not meeting the demands and expectations of everybody around me.

2. Hostility from fellow Christians. Resistance from Christians was harder to deal with than the false guilt. After so many years of viewing me as God’s dedicated servant, other Christians had come to expect a certain behavior. When I set new priorities, and reserved time to meet them (including at least two hours a day with my children), I could no longer meet the demands of all the Christians around me. As a result, even my intimate friends sometimes became angry at me.

3. Painful insights. When I cut my workload from 75 to 40 hours a week, I had the painful experience of getting to know myself better. I learned that I am much more sinful and selfish than I thought I was when I was too busy saving humanity to be aware of my subtle depravity. Though I am actually more mature and less selfish now than a decade ago, I am also more painfully aware of the unconscious sins and insecurities that have been present all my life. I am thoroughly convinced that one major reason most workaholics are workaholics is that they are avoiding insight into their innermost motives, emotions, insecurities, and fears. When dealt with biblically, they bring emotional and spiritual growth. But they can really hurt when they first hit.

It took me a couple of years after my initial decision to give up workaholism to put new priorities into practice satisfactorily. I would encourage readers prayerfully to rethink job versus family tensions and priorities. No one else can do this for you. Don’t fall passively into the world’s mold.

Paul Meier is a psychiatrist practicing at the Minirth, Meier, Goodin Psychiatric Clinic in Richardson, Texas. He also teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Pushing p*rnography Out Of Print

This social blight is not protected by the First Amendment.

Many believers have been cowed into silence by a half-truth that crops up again and again in North American mass communications media. It is repeated so often that it has begun to sound like whole truth. Censorship, we are told, is undemocratic.

This is partly true. Freedom is curtailed when serious ideas that happen to run contrary to those of the prevailing authority are suppressed to avoid their consideration. The recent roundup and detention in Poland of opinion leaders who declined to hew to the party line is a tragic current illustration. A democracy prospers when the best thinking of all its citizens may be expressed and ideas are accepted or rejected on their merits.

But it is also partly false. A democracy is an intricately functioning kind of civilization, as opposed to anarchy or despotism. Its citizens are entitled to protect themselves from that which threatens their corporate functioning and welfare as a free people. If they do not defend themselves they will eventually lose their freedoms and their treasured social order. Sooner or later the fragile institutions of democracy will become overrun by the hostile forces they failed to check. Censorship directed to eradicating diversity of thought is a threat to democracy. But so is failure to censor that which preys on and poisons a society.

That is why limiting the proliferation of obscene and p*rnographic materials constitutes no threat to a society’s legitimate freedoms.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution decrees that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”

But in the 1973 case, Miller v. California, the Court declared: “This much has been categorically settled by the Court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment.

“The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.… But the public portrayal of hard-core sexual conduct for its own sake, and for the ensuing commercial gain is a different matter.”

In an earlier case, Roth v. U.S., 1957, the Court’s reasoning was more explicit: “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech,” it said, “the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene.… It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.…”

So Far, so good. But the courts have not done so well at buttressing this principle because they have proved unable to define obscenity. They have thrown the task of deciding what is obscene back to communities, asking them to determine whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards,” would find that the material, “taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.”

Recently, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has moved to more helpful means of assisting communities in the task it delegated to them. At one point, the Court indicated that prosecutors needed to prove that obscene works were “utterly without redeeming social value.” But now its opinions advise that it is constitutional to prosecute p*rnographers in a community if the defense is unable to prove that the challenged work has “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

What does all this mean for believers concerned about morality in their communities? It means moving off the defensive. You can point out that free speech rights under the First Amendment have never been absolute. No one has the right to slander, libel, or shout “fire” in a crowded theater.

You can insist that antip*rnography legislation is not censorship but regulation of community order and morality. You can mobilize latent community support for decency by making it aware of the extent to which its residents are poisoned by smut and commercialized debauchery, and by providing leadership in articulating majority community values.

You can press for enforcement of existing antiobscenity ordinances by providing public scrutiny of smut stores and massage parlors. Take pictures of people entering, license numbers of customers parking there. Publish this information in the papers.

You can monitor magazines in stores with which you do business—especially convenience stores. Make sure managers see the worst from their own racks; many don’t realize the nature of the material they carry. Tell them you will take your trade elsewhere if they don’t remove the p*rnography.

You may complain to the Federal Communications Commission (1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554) about indecent material on radio, television, or cable TV. In 1978 a man and his son filed a complaint with the FCC after hearing indecent language on a New York radio station. The FCC filed suit against the broadcaster, Pacifica Foundation, and won. Because these media are accessible to children and pervasive they require special protection.

You can appeal to the Reagan administration to have the FCC regulate cable television. The FCC has claimed cable is outside its sphere since it is not broadcast, although it is transmitted to local broadcasters by satellite.

You can call on Attorney General William French Smith to give priority to enforcing antip*rnography laws.

Perhaps the best way to begin is by informing yourself about the extent of p*rnography and learning how to combat it. An excellent series is appearing next month on television: a five-part Christian Broadcasting Network series entitled “X-pose.” Make sure that you and several from your church watch it. Then let us all take the offensive!

Others Say

Let’s Get Religion in the Picture

Years ago we decided that certain forms of discrimination are unacceptable in this country, and we are gradually working our way toward a society where racial discrimination is a thing of the past. We are doing the same thing in the area of discrimination because of national origin.

But there is one very important institution in our society that still practices religious discrimination. That institution is network television. It takes no genius to notice the treatment religion, religious people, and religious values receive on network TV.

To my knowledge, not a single current network television series portrays anyone as having a continuing, meaningful relationship to a religious body in a modern-day setting. More than 50 million Americans go to church regularly—but rarely on television. People make decisions based on Christian principles, but rarely on television. People pray, but rarely on television. Every community in America has local churches and synagogues that contribute to the good of their local communities and this country; but they don’t exist on television. The Christian faith has healed the alcoholic, rehabilitated the criminal, rejoined the broken home, helped the teen-aged drug addict find purpose, and undergirded the ethics of business people. But you would never know this by watching commercial network television. Christians, because of their religious values, adopt children no one else wants. But rarely does network television show that side of Christianity.

Christians have built hospitals, schools, and other institutions of help and compassion. Christians have fought and died for this country and for the freedom of all—including non-Christians. Christians have served at all levels of our government. Our laws are rooted in the Christian concept of justice. But one would never know all this by watching television.

A small number of people have used television to educate the viewing public to the perception they want the public to have of religious people and religious values. But nothing we see on television is there by accident. Everything is there for a purpose. Network television programs have taken the religious values of marital fidelity, hard and honest work, the rejection of violence, a commitment to clean speech, love of God, and stewardship, and ridiculed, belittled, or ignored them. No one denies that all Christians have their faults, but continually to present Christians, their values, and their culture in a negative light is a gross injustice.

Such discrimination against Christians is no longer acceptable. It is repugnant to all fair-minded people. It is an insult to people of all religions.

Fred Friendly, professor of broadcast journalism at Columbia University and former president of CBS News, once said: “Broadcasting is going to determine what kind of people we are.” That being true, the kinds of role models currently being offered to us by television are not acceptable. Let me say to the networks that they can either stop this discrimination on their own because it is wrong and unacceptable to all fair-minded Americans, or they will eventually have to stop it because it is economically unattractive.

The networks are free, of course, to continue this ugly discrimination against religious people and values. At the same time, we are free to call this discrimination to the attention of Christians and other religious groups. We are equally free to ask Christians and all fair-minded people to withhold their financial support from advertisers, networks, and production companies that continue to practice religious discrimination.

What we may have in this situation is a very small minority of people, strategically placed, who are basically antireligious—certainly nonreligious—using their positions to undermine the traditional Judeo-Christian value system and change it to one that is more reflective of their own secular supremacist viewpoint.

It is time for a change, and quickly.

DONALD E. WILDMON

Mr. Wildmon, a United Methodist minister in Mississippi, is chairman of the Coalition for Better Television.

The Trumpet Shall Sound When?

We are pleased to announce the first annual “Eutychus Pan-prophetic Conferences,” which will meet for the first time. (Please note the hyphen.) There will be four conferences, each one devoted to a different view of prophecy. At no time will the delegates meet together since there is enough trouble in the world already without adding more. Also, we sell more books this way.

The Amillennial Conference will meet in Rotterdam. Highlight of the conference will be a tour of the tulip fields, directed by a noted Calvinistic scholar, yet to be chosen. Dr. Herrmann von Ritterhavenhorst will give a series of lectures on the real reasons why Calvin never wrote commentaries on Daniel and Revelation.

The Pretribulation Conference will assemble in Dallas and last only one day, although it may seem like a thousand years. We are not revealing the day or the hour, so be prepared. There will be a special display of old prophetic charts, as well as a series of lectures on why pretribs write commentaries only on Daniel and Revelation and ignore the other 64 books of the Bible. All delegates who register early will receive a free pocket calculator for figuring out prophetic dates.

The Midtribulation Conference will last exactly three-and-a-half days, Greenwich time. Several locations are under consideration, including Mount Saint Helen’s, Rome, and Chicago. Music will be provided by “The Uncertain Sound,” a trumpet trio composed of students from three confused seminaries. There will also be a lecture on olive trees and candlesticks, plus a panel discussion on why midtribs write commentaries on only half of Daniel and Revelation.

Finally, the Posttribulation Conference will be held on the Mount of Olives and will last for seven days. White robes are included in the convention fee. We are anticipating a numberless multitude, so get your reservation in early. No lectures are planned, but there will be a great deal of singing—and maybe some tears and much sighing.

The management reserves the right to cancel all conferences should the Rapture take place. If it does, we’ll all get together and enjoy a panel discussion on “What difference did it make who was right anyway?”

EUTYCHUS X

In the next issue, we will reveal the identity of the irrepressible Eutychus X. It is rumored that he has recently moved to a bomb-shelter house, purchased a bullet-proof vest, and gone into deep retirement.—Ed.

Courageous and Objective

I felt compelled to respond to your editorial, “Why We Print the Bad News, Even About Fellow Christians” [Jan. 22], and commend you for your courage and objectivity in religious reporting. Prophets never have been universally acclaimed! A prophet’s voice is often an unpopular voice as he refuses to deny the reality of sin and shortcomings in the surrounding secular and religious institutions. Perhaps if we evangelicals would be a little more self-critical the secular press wouldn’t have such a field day with us.

JOHN WEBER

Garland, Tex.

Overzealous Writer

I have been closely associated with the p*rno fight in Council Bluffs, and I believe the Concerned Citizens for Christian Standards has made a valiant effort. But in your article [News, Jan. 1], the writer was overzealous. We haven’t even gotten our state legislators to enact a bill to allow “home rule,” which means our city council has no authority at present over the p*rno challenge here in Council Bluffs. But if you are a praying man, we could use your prayers.

REV. RON FICHTER

Twin Cities Christian Church

Council Bluffs, Iowa

Word of Clarification

John Perkins was very gracious in his comments about Wheaton College and about me [“John Perkins, the Prophet” Jan. 1]. The resolution entitled “The Threat of War” adopted by the National Association of Evangelicals provided a common ground for both pacifists and nonpacifists. It was suggested that our country “exercise reasonable restraint” as far as nuclear weapons were concerned. Both sides needed to give a little and graciously did so.

As a nonpacifist, I was pleased that the National Association of Evangelicals could maintain its strong bond of fellowship even when considering the difficult and complex issue of nuclear armament.

HUDSON T. ARMERDING

Wheaton College

Wheaton, Ill.

Perkins is quoted as saying: “They [Moral Majority] have reduced loving Jesus down to doing nothing.” Moral Majority, of which I am proud to be a supporter, is not a religious organization; it is a political action group. Moral Majority takes no position whatsoever on loving Jesus. As a matter of fact, one need not necessarily even believe in Jesus to be a member of the Moral Majority.

DENNIS T. LOWERY

Rustburg, Va.

Premature Boasting

As a nonfundamentalist fundamentalist, I learned much from Elmer L. Towns’s “The Perils and Impact of Independent Churches” [Jan. 1]. However, if I were he, I would not be so quick to boast 55,000 members at Chattanooga’s Highland Park Baptist Church if only 7,000 (including visitors, I presume) appear for a service. Ditto for Hammond’s First Baptist if only 13,000 out of 52,000-plus come on a Sunday morning.

Do fundamentalists have their own translation of Scripture? “[Jesus] went to the synagogue, as his monthly custom was, on the sabbath day” (Luke 4:16). “Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together semiannually, as is the habit of some …” (Heb. 10:24–25).

REV. MERWIN VAN DOORNIK

Trinity Reformed Church

Holland, Mich.

Sermon Dozing

Jerome Lucido had a good point in his story, “A ‘SAD’ Sermon Analysis” [Jan. 1]. Better preparation by pastors would be of great help.

The other side of the coin is that if Mr. Lucido and his kin would not stay up until one or two o’clock on Sunday morning, their chances of staying awake during the sermon would improve immensely.

REV. GARY SKAGERBERG

Church of the Nazarene

Enumclaw, Wash.

What About Philip?

Despite David Benner’s valid concerns [“Psychotherapies: Stalking Their Spiritual Side,” Dec. 11], I fear we will be stalking Philip’s healing for a very long time if we allow ourselves to believe that Freud, Rogers, and Ellis each contain an “aspect of the biblical view” of man. In all honesty, isn’t Freud’s deterministic pessimism as far from the biblical view of fallen man as is Carl Rogers’s view that man’s problems are more superficial? After all, is not Christ’s healing power far deeper than the depth of our sinful nature? I find the whole process of selectively identifying formal parallels with Christianity to be very arbitrary.

I fear we as evangelicals are apt to stand confused and paralyzed as we arbitrarily pick therapies from the vast secular warehouse of conflicting systems. Why not develop an integral Christian therapy—one that will grow authentically from within the depth and breadth of the biblical set of answers, answers to Philip’s problem and answers to our own?

JAMES C. PETTY

Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation

Laverock, Pa.

A Striking Difference

The idea of the coming of Christ being the fulfillment of all myth is intriguing [Current Religious Thought, Dec. 11]. I have recently been reading The Illustrated Golden Bough, a condensation of Sir James George Frazer’s 13-volume work.

He discusses many mythological motifs that relate to Christianity. One of the many striking differences in Christianity is that in Christ’s death and resurrection the sacrifice is “once for all,” not necessary annually like the Old Testament sacrifices.

STEPHEN L. RANNEY

Portland, Oreg.

Correction

Contrary to the impression left in “Where Have All the Young Folks Gone?” [Nov. 6], Trinity Evangelical Divinity School is owned and operated by the Evangelical Free Church of America. It has been a privilege for us to train and minister to hundreds of young people from other denominations as well as our own. Our faculty and staff represent a broad background in denominational traditions, but a thorough commitment to biblical theology and evangelical concerns.

THOMAS A. MCDILL

Evangelical Free Church of America

Minneapolis, Minn.

Letters are welcome. Only a selection can be published. Since all are subject to condensation, those of 100 to 150 words are preferred. Address letters to Eutychus and His Kin, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, Illinois 60187.

“Why is there so much bad news?” we ask. An easy answer is: “Because we humans are so bad.” We are a fallen race, fallen from the creative grace of God; fallen from life with God; fallen into our own wayward path of estrangement from God and each other.

A recent Canadian study brings bad news to evangelicals (see page 28). In the last 25 years, Canadian Christianity has suffered a dramatic setback. Hardest hit was the United Church of Canada, but evangelicals can take no comfort since all major groups reported serious losses.

Bad news can lead to despair, apathy, stagnation, and finally, death. But it can also lead to diagnosis, prescription, and renewed health. History records other days of spiritual retreat. In the eighteenth century, John Wesley and his band of “Methodists” responded to God’s call to meet an ebb tide of faith. We believe that the young people crowding our evangelical seminaries today are responding to a similar call. We must pray God for a similar revival—like those recurring movements of the Spirit of God that broke in successive waves across the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Chet Bitterman answered such a call—and laid down his life in Bogotá, Colombia (see page 20). But the blood of the martyr has always been the seed of the church. One Chet Bitterman dies, and thousands rise up to take his place. Today the church under 30 is answering God’s call. But where is the church over 50? Where, in today’s pew, is the disciplined belt tightening that prepares the church for the long, hard march?

We lament the reversal of the church in Canada; we rejoice in Chet Bitterman’s triumph in Colombia. But let each of us see to it that he tightens his belt one more notch for the kingdom battles of our day.

Soviet Evangelicals: An Authoritative Guide

Soviet Evangelicals Since World War II, by Walter Sawatsky (Herald, 1981, 527 pp., $19.95 hb; $14.95 pb), is reviewed by Paul D. Steeves, director of Russian studies, Stetson University, DeLand, Florida.

“Because a serious struggle for the faith of people is going on, it is the responsibility of fellow believers elsewhere to take Soviet evangelicals seriously.” At last, the authoritative history prerequisite to responsible understanding of evangelicals in the Soviet Union has appeared. In this masterful work, Walter Sawatsky provides information and provocative suggestions that will help the reader find answers to questions that have perplexed aware Western Christians: How have evangelicals fared under Communist rule? What is the nature of the differences dividing them? How can believers in the West relate to them most effectively?

Sawatsky is uniquely qualified to write this exposition of the complex experience of Soviet evangelicals. He possesses the rare research, linguistic, and personal skills that give him access to the essential information. At the same time, he combines admirably the qualities of disinterested scholar and concerned Christian that a trustworthy study of this difficult and controversial subject demands.

For over a century, the story of the Soviet evangelicals has been one of revival and triumph amidst repression. Sawatsky briefly surveys the decades before World War II in order to establish that theme, which he develops in copious detail for the postwar period. He describes the formation in 1944 of the union that draws together evangelicals of various denominations—Baptist, Evangelical Christian, Pentecostal, Mennonite—across the county. Then he narrates the subsequent burst of revival that eventually evoked stern governmental restrictions against evangelicals in the early sixties. This vivid account portrays a surprisingly vigorous gospel witness in Communist society. When the Khrushchev administration tried to throttle this witness, schism rent the movement as believers disagreed on their responses to official pressures. Sawatsky analyzes this division thoroughly.

The study is enriched by Sawatsky’s lucid discussion of numerous facets of the spiritual life of evangelicals—in church, home, school, work, and society at large. Thus, this book is much more than an account of church-state relations or persecutions, or even institutional history.

Sawatsky’s analysis is so responsible and thorough that there is not much room for criticism. He has a mild bias in favor of the schismatic evangelicals for whom he uses the questionable label “Reform Baptists”; I would consider the adjectives “dissident” or “independent” more appropriate.

A much stronger bias emerges when Sawatsky discusses pacifism. The Russian evangelical tradition has a surprisingly strong pacifist strain that continues to stir vigorously, despite formal rejection by the evangelical unions. Undoubtedly influenced by his Mennonite heritage, Sawatsky lapses from his scholarly objectivity into admonition and exhortation when he recounts the growth and subsequent curtailment of pacifism by Soviet evangelicals.

This book is for the serious thinker. Its length and scholarly tone may discourage the casual reader seeking entertainment or sensation; but it commands the attention of Western evangelicals. The chapter evaluating mission agencies that purport to serve the evangelical cause in the Soviet Union especially deserves thoughtful consideration. Time spent in exploring Soviet evangelicalism, with Sawatsky as guide, will be well rewarded.

The Pastor As Counselor

Pastoral Counseling and Preaching, by Donald Capps (Westminster, 1980, 156 pp., $8.95), is reviewed by Wallace Carr, professor of counseling, Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi.

Can a pastor preach and counsel from the same theoretical stance? Yes, says Donald Capps. There can be a similarity in structure when “theological diagnosis” is its primary element. Also, preaching and pastoral counseling both have a central purpose—the proclamation of the Christian gospel.

Capps suggests that the four elements of counseling are also the four elements of preaching. They are: (1) the identification of the problem; (2) the reconstruction of the problem; (3) the diagnostic interpretation of the problem: and (4) the pastoral intervention.

“Theological diagnosis” (distinguished from the “diagnostic attitude”) can be an “empathic, participatory enterprise” when “the pastor succeeds in assuming the internal frame of reference of counselee,” or congregation. Capps then identifies six different ways theological diagnosis can be used in preaching.

Preaching and pastoral counseling can also be linked in a common purpose—to proclaim the Christian gospel. Counselors who have relied exclusively on “relationship to make whatever affirmation of the Christian faith they deem appropriate and have used ‘secular’ psychotherapies as their primary medium of verbal communication … have not had a very clear sense that pastoral counseling has a Christian purpose.”

How, then, “can Biblical thought inform pastoral counseling”? Capps discusses three models:

1. The “Psalmic” model, emphasizing feelings (Seward Hiltner, Carroll Wise, and others).

2. The “Proverbic” model, emphasizing doing (Jay Adams and others).

3. The “Parabolic” model, emphasizing insight. (Capps adapts the concepts of James E. Dittes to counseling.) The “Parabolic” model is proclamation in an indirect way. Its focus is perceptual restructuring.

All are legitimate, but each is most effective at one particular stage of human development.

As an epilogue, Schleiermacher’s touching sermon at the funeral of his nine-year-old son, Nathaniel, is presented in full and analyzed according to Capp’s four stages of counseling.

The author has seriously addressed a source of tension that has plagued pastors since the rise of the modern counseling emphasis. He has moved beyond fencing with prooftexts. While there is still much work to be done, Capps has added a solid rung to the ladder leading to a more congruent and therefore more authentic ministry. His assertion that counseling is proclamation warrants more attention. Paying attention to the perceptual factor in therapy through the “Parabolic model” offers real possibilities. What is probably of equal importance to Christian counseling is his recognition of the legitimacy of both “client-centered” and “nouthetic” counseling in a developmental framework.

It Really Happened

Reading the Bible As History, by Theodore Plantinga (Welch, Canada, 1980, 110 pp., $4.95 Can.), is reviewed by Robert Rogers, Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

The author, a professor of philosophy at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, disagrees with those who wish to use the Bible only as a source book of moral lessons, while rejecting it as history. He argues convincingly that not only are there no good reasons for not reading the Bible as history, there are good reasons for it. In his opinion, without that understanding, even the nonhistorical passages will not reveal their full meaning.

Discussing the nature of history, Plantinga maintains the belief that all the world is subject to God’s work of salvation and judgment. Nevertheless, salvation history must be seen properly as part of covenant history. God’s working in history, whether for salvation or judgment, should be seen as the historical fulfilling of his covenant promises. But, in addition, he holds that even this work of salvation and judgment must be seen as happening for the sake of God’s glory and honor.

The author discusses why men have eliminated heaven’s influence in earthly affairs and asserts that “the events and struggles in heaven are decisive for the fate of those who are on the earth.” He sees “progress” in history in terms of the promised battle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. But he also does justice to man’s role in responding to God’s calling. He sees man’s freedom in light of the “distance” that God employs with respect to his creation, either temporarily leaving man to his own ways or drawing near in redemption or judgment.

The Bible, for Plantinga, must be read as seeing God making himself known to man through the course of time in a “progressive revelation,” and he gives helpful guidelines for reading the Scriptures in that light. He also shows how a historical reading of the Bible can apply to us who are living in new covenant times. He concludes with a rather brief hermeneutical study regarding the translation of normative concepts in the Bible into the thought patterns of today, and he comes down somewhat negatively.

This book is a curious mixture. It is the work of someone both knowledgeable in philosophy and history, yet skillful in his handling of Scripture. At the same time it is written in straightforward language that is suited to, and helpful for, the average Bible reader.

A Look At Jesus’ Life

The Work and Words of Jesus Christ, by J. Dwight Pentecost (Zondervan, 1981, 576 pp., $16.95), is reviewed by Robert H. Stein, professor of New Testament, Bethel Theological Seminary, Saint Paul, Minnesota

This work is the result of the author’s 30 years of teaching the life of Christ. In it he seeks to approach “the inerrant Scriptures from a literal method of interpretation that Jesus Christ was introduced to the nation Israel as her Messiah,” that this offer was rejected, and that as a result Jesus turned from a public ministry to preparing chosen men who would continue his ministry after his death and resurrection. Pentecost patterns his approach on that of Tatian’s Diatesseron and seeks to combine the four Gospels into a chronological history of the life of Jesus.

I have a number of serious problems with this work. For one, Pentecost denies any interrelatedness of the synoptic Gospels and chooses to ignore any insights provided by the disciplines of form and redaction criticism.

Second, he chooses to ignore many of the major problems that exist in seeking to write a life of Christ. Some specific examples of this: (1) The question of the cleansing(s) of the temple is avoided. Pentecost simply assumes that there were two, and this may be correct; but should this not be discussed? (2) The canonical status of Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11 are assumed and never discussed, even though the NIV text he uses implies that both were not part of the original text. (3) The differences in the reply of Jesus to Pilate are ignored. Matthew 26:64 is assumed to be historical—but what about Mark 14:62? (4) The different times of the cleansing in relation to the triumphal entry (in Matthew it is the same day but in Mark it is the next day) are not discussed.

A third problem involves Pentecost’s use of sources. Except for one reference to the Mishnah, he uses only secondary sources.

A final problem that must be mentioned involves the numerous quotations in this work. There are approximately 460, and of these, 30 percent (i.e., 138) come from A. Edersheim’s The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (1883); 31 percent (i.e., 145) come from J. W. Shepard’s (always misspelled as Shepherd) The Christ of the Gospels (1939); and 9 percent (i.e., 40) come from F. W. Farrar’s Life of Christ (1874). The amount of space taken up by these quotations is also disturbing, for out of 558 pages of text, approximately 226 consist of quotations. This means approximately 40 percent of the work consists of quotations from other works.

It is difficult to recommend this volume. Certainly one cannot envision it in a seminary setting, for what is needed there is a work that deals forthrightly with the various problems found in the text. Regardless of what attitude one may take toward form and redaction criticism, these problems cannot simply be ignored. In a college setting, if one uses a synopsis of the Gospels, then this work will likewise be inadequate. I also have reservations in recommending this work to lay people, for whereas it is not fitting or wise to introduce them to detailed scholarly problems of the text, it is neither truthful nor wise to give the impression that no such problems exist.

The Holy Spirit

Several books on the Holy Spirit are reviewed by Robert L. Saucy, professor of systematic theology, Talbot Theological Seminary, La Mirada, California.

Although the spate of books on the Holy Spirit has abated somewhat in recent years, it has by no means ceased—as evidenced by these five recent works. Nor has there emerged a consensus of interpretation on the key issues that have been so ardently discussed in recent years relative to the charismatic renewal.

Bob Slosser, a popular writer formerly with the New York Times, gives us an easy-reading overview of the current charismatic renewal movement. Laced with personal experiences with the Spirit, including his own, the work gives a good glimpse into the religious practices of those involved in the movement. Along with the positive elements, certain early weaknesses such as a tyranny in the name of discipleship and and other-wordly mindedness are noted. Slosser, in See How the Wind Blows (Logos), sees the prime direction of the renewal movement as focusing on the goals of power for ministry and unification of the church.

In The Gift of the Holy Spirit Today (Logos), J. Rodman Williams, professor of theology at Melodyland School of Theology, seeks to provide a biblical theological base for the contemporary experience of the gift of the Spirit. His method is first to explore the biblical data of the experience almost exclusively from the Book of Acts, and then to show the same experience from the contemporary scene. This methodology underscores perhaps the most serious weakness in the work. An integration of all of the relevant material on the Spirit from the epistles is not attempted, leaving the reader only with the impression that all of the experience of the early church is normative rather than proving it to be so.

A further questionable area involves Williams’s discussion of the effects of receiving the Spirit as a second blessing of salvation. Listed among these effects are the assurance of salvation (Rom. 8:15–16) and the Spirit as the earnest of final salvation (2 Cor. 1:22). In context, it would appear that these blessings of the Spirit belong to all believers and not just those who have had a second experience.

The work, supported by copious footnotes, includes discussions of the nature of the gift, its purpose, and the means of receiving it as well as the effects. It thus provides a valuable interpretation of the contemporary renewal movement from a biblical and theological perspective.

Believing that Finney’s teachings on the Holy Spirit can contribute to the present-day discussion, Timothy Smith has made available in The Promise of the Spirit (Bethany) his lectures on sanctification, delivered at Oberlin College in 1839–40. While not emphasizing the sign of tongues so characteristic of the modern day, Finney expresses a similar two-stage experience of the Spirit.

Focusing on the New Covenant as belonging to New Testament believers, Finney presses the demand that Christians go on to claim the promise of the Holy Spirit involved in that covenant for the purpose of attaining entire sanctification. Finney’s discussions of the love and the heart as involving more than emotion are especially worthwhile. An excellent introductory chapter tracing Finney’s theology of the Christian experience and its place in the contemporary scene is provided by Smith, who is professor of history at Johns Hopkins University.

The Holy Spirit, Lord and Life-Giver (Loizeaux), by John Williams, presents the other side of the controversy over a second experience of the Holy Spirit. In this work, the English-born and -educated pastor/evangelist/Bible teacher gives us a systematic treatment covering the entire scope of the person and ministry of the Spirit suitable as an introductory text on the subject. With the contemporary scene in mind, special attention is given to the baptism and gifts of the Spirit, including excellent discussions on tongues and healing. In a comprehensive work of this nature, one could have hoped for more on the relation of the ministry of the Spirit to the exalted Lord. Also, the development of the experience of the Spirit under the Old Covenant to that of the New was somewhat obscured by a blurring uniformity at certain points—for example, regeneration. Altogether, however, this work provides a readable, practical exposition of the doctrine of the Spirit that should prove useful in both churches and schools.

A different but effective approach to the study of the Spirit is R. E. O. White’s The Answer Is the Spirit (Westminster). Structured around the fact that the New Testament teaching of the Spirit comes in response to particular situational problems in the lives of the early believers, White expounds the teaching of nine New Testament books on the Spirit in the light of the background problems of each.

For example, the problem of evangelizing the world in Acts is solved by the Spirit; that of personal freedom faced by the Galatians is likewise met in the freedom of walking by the Spirit. The pertinent passages in each book are handled with exegetical skill and woven together in a convincing manner supportive of the main thesis. The chapters on Ephesians, “the diverse community,” and II Corinthians, “the question of ministry,” are particularly pertinent and valuable for the contemporary church. In sum, the book presents a refreshing, practical look at the biblical picture of the Spirit, reminding us that he is still God’s provision for the problems we face today.

Briefly Noted

The Holy Spirit. Several studies relating to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit have appeared recently. Philip J. Rosato has examined the pneumatology of Karl Barth in The Spirit As Lord (T & T Clark). It is a full-blown study and probably the best available today. The Holy Spirit of God (Nelson), by Herbert Lockyer, is a traditional noncharismatic study of the Person and work of the Spirit. For some reason, spiritual gifts are not discussed.

The Holy Spirit (Fortress), by Eduard Schweizer, is a nontraditional, somewhat liberal analysis that looks primarily at the biblical material. Bill Bright, in The Holy Spirit (Here’s Life), sees the Spirit as the key to supernatural living. G. Campbell Morgan’s The Spirit of God (Baker) is a reprint of a 1953 devotional study that still speaks today. The Holy Spirit in Action (Servant), by F. J. Sheed, is a simple (not simplistic) look at the Spirit as Lord and Giver of life.

Five books deal rather specifically with the charismatic phenomenon. Arthur J. Clement’s Pentecost or Pretense? (Northwestern Pub. House) concludes, “We can only conclude that it is not Pentecost! Rather it is pretense and has no basis in the Bible.” John F. MacArthur, in The Charismatics (Zondervan), argues that “tongues ceased in the apostolic age and when they stopped, they stopped for good.” More irenic and open is Tongues and Spirit-Baptism (Baker), by Anthony Hoekema, being two earlier books reprinted as one that still bears reading today.

Including a psychological look, yet affirming the essentially Christian nature of the phenomenon, is Tongue Speaking (Crossword), by Morton Kelsey. This, too, is a helpful reprint. The WCC’s evaluation is in The Church Is Charismatic (W.C.C., Geneva), edited by Arnold Bittlinger. It is quite affirmative, on the whole, and well worth reading.

Christian Education. Two excellent introductions to the subject are: Making Disciples (Christian Studies Center), by Norman E. Harper, which presents the challenge that confronts us today, and Philosophy and Education (Andrews Univ.), by George R. Knight, which is designed to be a textbook from a Christian perspective.

Written with church school education in mind are: Christian Education Handbook (Broadman), edited by Bruce P. Powers, and Education That Is Christian, revised (Revell), by Lois E. LeBar. These two books ought to be read carefully by all concerned.

The importance of the college is looked at in Christianity Challenges the University (IVP), edited by Peter Wilkes. It is a series of lectures by five senior professors at the University of Wisconsin-Madison challenging the secular values of today’s universities. Students, Churches and Higher Education (Judson), by R. T. Gribbon, is a study of how the church can relate to college students. The Recovery of Spirit in Higher Education (Seabury), edited by Robert Rankin, looks at campus ministries, Jewish and Christian. It is a very helpful book. Teaching Religion (Univ. Press of America), by W. Clinton Terry, is a case-study look at the secularization of religious instruction in a West German school system. There are some chilling lessons to be learned here.

Jacques Barzun’s classic Teacher in America (Liberty Press) is available again in a beautiful new edition.

But the garden-variety type has crept into evangelical experience and practice.

Protestantism, with its great attention to personal faith, started as a popular movement because the Reformers were convinced that Christianity was not functioning effectively for salvation in the lives of the people. Forgiveness of sins could be obtained without the personal involvement of faith. The people could merely observe the Mass. The Protestant emphasis on faith made Christianity functional since such faith required the people to participate.

Characteristically, Luther may have overstated himself in asserting that gospel preaching was more important than the salvific events in Christ’s life. Without the gospel, he reasoned, no one could benefit from what Christ has done; questions of importance are relative and frequently depend on the current situation.

The function of faith in connection with the sacraments created a chasm that has divided Christendom since the Reformation. For Catholics, the sacraments effectively work forgiveness without faith. Lutherans stress the validity of the sacraments apart from faith, but insist that without faith there is no personal efficacy. The Reformed generally connect sacramental validity and forgiveness more closely to faith. Faith’s sacramental function among various Christian groups is so complex that any simplistic generalization, including the one just offered, deserves any severe criticism it receives.

Without settling all the traditional quarrels over faith’s function in the sacrament, there are some points on which nearly all ought to agree—for example, the radical evil and threat to biblical faith posed by modern “functional” views of Christian doctrine.

Albrecht Ritschl (1822–89) introduced so-called functionalism into the world of theology. He taught that the validity and importance of a doctrine was dependent on its religious value for the believer. His prime interest was not in determining whether doctrines were useful for faith. To be sure, Ritschl recognized Jesus as God, but not in the sense of the hom*ouisios doctrine of Nicea (that Christ shared the Father’s deity). Jesus was God only in the sense that he revealed God’s love to us. He is God in the same sense that the picture of Martin Luther hanging on my office wall (composed of oil paint and canvas) is Martin Luther. Ritschl supported his position by stressing the pronoun “me” in Luther’s explanations of the Apostles’ Creed: “God has created me and all creatures; … Jesus Christ has redeemed me …; the Holy Ghost … has called me by the Gospel.…”

Apart from faith’s personal awareness of God, there are no philosophical or theological absolutes. More simply put, God has no objective existence outside of the function of faith. This was the raw, now somewhat matured, philosophical subjectivism of Kant set forth in theological dress. Ritschl’s making the deity dependent on personal faith is functionalism with cruel vengeance, but he may have only developed a continually latent, but forceful current in Protestant thought.

Conservative Christians repudiate such blatantly destructive functionalism. The unified defense against such forms of functionalism has given conservative Protestantism a unity not experienced since the Reformation. But what about that garden-variety type of functionalism to which even more tradition-minded Christians can succumb?

First of all, Christian believers do not make salvation happen by their faith. Salvation is something that happens outside of and before faith. It is God’s act alone, accomplished and completed in Christ. Faith simply receives Christ and thus receives salvation. It neither constitutes salvation nor contributes to it. The biblical imperatives to believe can never be understood as making the believer’s decision a part of salvation’s process.

Second, there are hardly any corners left in Christendom where the pastoral office has not been dissolved into a general function that all Christians can and are duty bound to exercise. Consider church bulletins and bulletin boards that proclaim loudly and clearly: “Every church member is a minister.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons do it best of all. The basic Reformation doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers was never intended as a replacement for the pastoral office, though one suspects that this is now the common understanding. Roman Catholics are also moving in this direction.

A functional view of the ministry means that behind the pastoral functions there is no divinely mandated office. Ministerial responsibility is reduced to free-floating functions detached from a divinely mandated office. But the clergy should refer to themselves as pastors of congregations instead of pastoring them. The office should be stressed as well as the functions.

Third, the divisive issue of the sacraments cannot be totally avoided, even if the final solution is not attempted here. All should come to that minimal agreement that the New Testament simply does not know of any sacramental action that is not targeted to faith for its benefit. Of course, sacraments are more than just church functions. They should be recognized, however, as God’s work and not merely as community functions demonstrating that faith is at work there. Just as the function of gospel preaching is ultimately meaningless without the foundational realities of the Cross and the Resurrection (vs. Ritschl, Barth, Bultmann), so the sacraments have their foundation in the same realities.

The necessity of an active, lively faith for personal salvation should be beyond dispute within the Protestant context and the common Reformation heritage. However, without the acknowledgement of the permanent, concrete reality behind the church’s message and actions, the Christian is left only with an autonomous functionalism, hanging unsupported in midair. Such functionalism is philosophically indefensible for the intellect, emotionally unsatisfying for faith, theologically meaningless, and ultimately doomed to sheer uselessness.

All functions or values of the gospel must ultimately be derived from objective reality. Only where Christianity is presented as an objective reality in all of its parts can it actually function usefully for faith.

Dr. Scaer is professor of systematic theology at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

These pastors felt the chief lack in their education was practical application.

A survey of Protestant ministers from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North and South Dakota posed this question: Did seminary prepare you adequately for your first parish? Could it have been more helpful or relevant? In what ways?

One pastor responded: “I doubt that any amount of learning could have prepared me for my first parish. I received a very good education in seminary, but there is a difference between reading a case study and dealing with a real-life situation. Even the limited experience of internship doesn’t place a new pastor in the position of being totally confident in what he does.”

Most who answered this question agreed that no seminary taught them all they needed to know in order to become a successful pastor. Its walls are too limiting. “Seminaries can build the principles and help in the growth of the faith; but only after encountering the challenges, problems, and loneliness of being responsible for a parish could I really know what being a minister means.”

Pastors critical of their preparation for the ministry agreed that much of the gap between training and practical application could only be bridged by experience. A seminary is set up well for teaching theology, but insight into the ministry can be learned best only by experience. Growing up as a “preacher’s kid” can’t be beat as a school for absorbing what it really means to be a minister.

Others were sharply critical of their seminary training:

“Theologically, I was more than prepared; administratively, I was short-changed.”

“When I left seminary, I didn’t know the church structure; I didn’t know how to christen, marry, or bury. And I needed a course in church finances.”

“I needed the nuts and bolts.”

“Seminary prepared me for graduate work, not for life in a small church.”

“Seminary prepares one best to teach theology, to duplicate the seminary experience. It makes you a scholar, not a pastor.”

Some pastors blamed their seminary because it hadn’t taught them how to fill out a letter of transfer or a certificate of baptism, or provided them with information about clergy discounts, pension plans, social security, and the Internal Revenue Service.

A pastor whose first parish involved four missions on an Indian reservation wished he had had more training and practice in crisis-centered counseling. He also needed help in coping with loneliness—and could have used courses in plumbing, wiring, and furnace repair!

One pastor said, “I needed a greater understanding of the psychology of personality and a stronger foundation of practical theology—that is, the theology of our form of worship, our form of government, and personal and professional ethics.”

Another needed help in dealing with people who didn’t like or agree with him. “We go into a parish expecting everyone to like us and to support our every idea and project. When trouble erupts, we are unprepared.”

Ministering to the terminally ill and the grieving is another field that needs more emphasis in seminary. Someone else said she should have been told what to do about apathy: “Many Christians have no idea of the Great Commission.” And another minister wasn’t ready to teach Bible studies. “I wasn’t aware that lay people are so biblically illiterate,” he commented.

One man thought the seminary’s biggest failure was not giving enough practical instructions in soul winning and parish administration. While one said seminary was not demanding enough academically, another thought it was too strict, considering only grades instead of the other qualifications of the “pre-minister.” More preaching practice was suggested; also, there was a request for help on how to handle the church hierarchy.

One pastor needed more guidance in teaching and relating to youth. Another was sorry his own devotional and prayer life had not been nourished more during seminary. Still another blamed seminary for stressing the ideal too strongly: “There are no ideal situations in any parish. The congregation will probably be upset by what is happening to the budget and to the building, not to their spiritual lives.”

In spite of shortcomings, most pastors who participated in the survey, even those most critical, were grateful for their seminary training. Several acknowledged that it gave good academic and biblical training and supplied a good climate for growth. “Seminary provided a useful faith and a wonderful experience of living in a Christian-concerned community. It was an important part of my spiritual growth.”

A minister who entered seminary at age 35 felt that he was adequately prepared. “The main function of the seminary is to challenge the student to think intelligently and broadly about his faith. This was accomplished.”

A woman who enrolled at age 32 said, “I had excellent preparation in seminary. Common sense and life experience did the rest.”

Another wrote, “The seminary didn’t try to be a business or a finishing school. I had good biblical and theological preparation.” One minister considered it good education “doctrinally, scripturally, and academically.”

The older pastors who attended seminary before internships were part of the program felt that lack severely. Those who attended seminaries that required student internships and field experience in churches, hospitals, and prisons considered those experiences invaluable and were duly grateful.

Many pastors strongly advocated some sort of continuing education throughout their ministry. Combining this with the experience of serving a congregation is bound to enrich the quality of the work of the pastor.

“I had a good education in seminary,” said one pastor, who summed it all up, “but I learned to be a pastor in the field and I am still learning. It probably takes a lifetime to become adequately prepared.”

Clearly, a good seminary education is an indispensable part of the preparation for pastoral ministry. Equally clear is the fact that seminary alone is not enough.

GLORIA SWANSON AND JEANNE WARD

Mrs. Swanson is a free-lance writer living in Hallock, Minnesota; Mrs. Ward is a former teacher of English and Latin, who lives in International Falls, Minnesota.

Two threaten to starve, and U.S. diplomats finally pay attention.

Depressed by their three and a half years as refugees in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, two members of the two families often referred to as the Siberian Seven launched a hunger strike in December. Augustina Vashchenko, 53, began on Christmas Day, and her daughter, Lida, 30, joined her three days later.

The action was evidently inspired by the success of the hunger strike by Andrei and Yelena Sakharov that won release of their daughter-in-law to join her husband in the United States. But Sakharov is a world-renowned physicist, while the Vashchenkos are obscure laborers from a remote Siberian village—Pentecostal believers distinguished only by a passionate desire to emigrate to the West to obtain religious freedom. What worked with the Soviet authorities for Sakharov in the less-charged atmosphere before the imposition of martial law in Poland was almost certain to fail afterward with the Siberian Seven.

But the hunger strike may have at last gotten the attention of American officials, who until then had steadfastly resisted granting them any public notice—unlike the Sakharovs, who were the subject of regular State Department briefings to the press.

On January 8, Ambassador Thomas J. Watson, Jr., held a press conference at the American Embassy and discussed the Siberian Seven. The hunger strike was the result of growing frustration, he said, was beyond the embassy’s power to control, and urgently required immediate solutions. After the first week of the strike, Lida’s weight had dropped from 104 pounds to 98, and the stouter but ill Augustina had lost 9½ pounds. Other family members were threatening to join.

The embassy’s medical capability was one factor behind the ambassador’s statement that he was not in total control of events. Dr. Shadler, the embassy doctor, has a small clinic just down the hall from the seven’s cramped quarters. But if those fasting should lapse into comas, the choices were stark: allow them to die in the embassy, or admit them to a Soviet hospital for force feeding and thus remove them from embassy sanctuary.

“The stress and strain of the 20-year struggle to emigrate have obviously taken their toll.”

The need for rapid solutions, belatedly acknowledged by the embassy, has been the preoccupation of some Western Christians for months and even years. The first were an embassy official, the embassy chaplain, and Kent R. Hill, a Fulbright scholar working in Moscow on his Ph.D. thesis for the University of Washington. Blahoslav and Olga Hrubý, who produce the journal Religion in Communist Dominated Areas from New York, documented the plight of the seven. A housewife, Jane Drake, went to work and organized SAVE (Society of Americans for Vashchenko Emigration).

Other groups were formed: Research Center for Religious and Human Rights in World Societies, Friends in the West, and Christian Solidarity International. Recently, groups with more clout have joined in: the Christian Legal Society and CREED (Christian Relief Effort for the Emancipation of Dissidents), backed by Sen. Roger Jepsen (R-Iowa).

These were organized last November into a Coalition to Free the Soviet Seven. It first pressed for a bill (S. 312) to grant the seven permanent resident alien status. Though passage of such a measure would not force the Soviet Union to do anything, it would give the refugees a guaranteed status with the Americans and signal the Soviets that they are of concern to the United States.

Lynn Buzzard, executive director of the Christian Legal Society, flew to Moscow during Thanksigiving week, spending time with the embassy officials and the seven.

Embassy officials had earlier approached the seven, seeking to ascertain what settlement they could negotiate with Soviet officials that the refugees would not repudiate. But the seven were suspicious.

Buzzard was able to draw up the rough draft of a document acceptable to the embassy that stated the seven would be willing to leave the embassy on two conditions: (1) that their family members at home in Chernogorsk, who had long since applied through proper channels for emigration, be safely received in the West; and (2) that they receive assurance from Soviet authorities that following normal application procedures for emigration would eventuate in permission to leave. He discussed this with the seven, brought it back to the U.S., and revised it with Hill, whom they trust.

When the two Vashchenkos began their strike. Hill and Buzzard again flew to Moscow for a full week and attempted to convince the Vashchenkos of the futility of a hunger strike then in the light of new diplomatic movement and the Polish situation. Augustina and Lida refused to budge. The family, however, did respond to the document, and, after further modification, signed it.

The mediators then tried to persuade the two to retreat from total abstinence to a partial fast if they could arrange an appointment for them with some Soviet leaders, and if an outside doctor could be permitted to visit Augustina. This was not achieved. But on January 8, word was received that the embassy had made an overture to the USSR foreign ministry and that Lida had relented and was drinking juices.

On January 14 former President Jimmy Carter phoned the seven, appealing to them to call off their strike. They refused. But the call, surely orchestrated by the administration at the highest levels, revealed that the State Department had begun to act.

Momentum continued to build over the last several weeks with these developments:

• Buzzard and Hill conversed for 45 minutes with a Soviet legal official. They were given indications that the Kremlin might provide the family with legal advice as to its rights and emigration.

• Lady Coggan, wife of the former archbishop of Canterbury, appeared on British television on January 19, urging President Leonid Brezhnev to release the seven.

• A delegation of Swedish members of Parliament called on the Soviet embassy in Stockholm, offering to accept the seven on relatively neutral ground.

• Buzzard and Hill again flew to Moscow armed with letters of encouragement from U.S. Christian leaders. They pursued leads with the legal official and others.

• Seattle Pacific University, where Hill teaches, and Wheaton College held chapels launching a drive for signatures from students in these and other schools and their communities on a petition to President Reagan. It called for Reagan’s support with a White House press conference, a phone call to the seven, and instruction to the State Department to issue daily medical bulletins on the condition of the hunger strikers.

The feverish round of activity was prodded relentlessly by the “time bomb” of the hunger strike, as Christians of several nations exerted themselves to avert a tragedy.

North American Scene

J. Richard Chase, 51, now president of Biola University (La Mirada, Calif.), will be the sixth president of Wheaton College. Chase was chosen early in January from a slate of more than 70 names. He is a graduate of Biola, Pepperdine University, and Cornell, where he earned his Ph.D. in rhetoric and public address. Chase will assume the Wheaton post August 1. He succeeds Hudson Armerding, who has been Wheaton’s president for 17 years.

The International Christian Graduate University, established by Campus Crusade in 1977, is seeking a president. The International School of Theology was the first school of the university in operation, with schools in communications and management also planned. University buildings will be built on a 1,000-acre tract near San Diego. The presidental post is expected to be filled by July.

William Franklin Graham III, son of evangelist Billy Graham, was ordained to the ministry at the nondenominational Grace Community Church in Tempe, Arizona. The younger Graham, 29, is president of Samaritan’s Purse and World Medical Missions. Samaritan’s Purse provides assistance to missionaries with illness or other needs; Medical Missions recruits doctors to serve short-term periods at mission hospitals. Franklin Graham said he did not know if God would call him to follow in his father’s footsteps. He thinks his father has “at least another good 10 years” of evangelism remaining.

If there is no other way to get a p*rnographic theater out of the neighborhood, buy the theater. That’s what the First Presbyterian Church in Concord, California, did. An X-rated movie house was adjacent to the church, but city fathers had been unable to close it during years of legal battles. Finally, church members voted to buy the theater for $425,000. After the current lease expires, the church plans to renovate the theater, connect it to the church, and use the space for religious purposes.

Songs of Zion was originally published for black churches, but the hymnbook has proven so popular with white churches that a second printing is planned. The first printing of the United Methodist hymnal sold 64,000 copies. Songs of Zion includes 36 gospel hymns and 98 spirituals, with historical accounts of the songs in black worship experience.

Sun Myung Moon can’t get his seminarychartered, but he plans to begin a newspaper in Washington this year. Officials of Moon’s Unification Church have failed to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the denial of a charter to the cult’s Barrytown, New York, seminary. Regents in New York denied a charter to the seminary, saying it was academically deficient and fiscally questionable. In Washington, Moon has purchased a building where he plans to publish the Washington Times.

Thomas Nelson Publishers, the nation’s largest publisher of Bibles, is expected to acquire Dodd, Mead and Company, Inc., in April. Dodd, Mead, founded in 1839, is one of the oldest publishing companies in America. Its backlist of titles includes such distinguished authors as G. K. Chesterton, Sigmund Freud, Leo Tolstoy, Joseph Conrad, and Winston Churchill.

Four homes at the Mount Hermon Christian Conference Center in Santa Cruz County, California, were destroyed in the mud slides that devasted the area early last month. The center has about 400 homes and cottages on its 450 acres of mountainside property. In addition, two bridges were destroyed and walkways were damaged. Damage was also reported at other Christian camps in nearby towns.

World Scene

Attendance at Urbana ’81 topped 14,000 this year. The Christmas-break missionary convention sponsored by Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship (IV) has usually been held at three-year intervals. This time it was held two years after Urbana ’79, which, with 17,500 attenders, stretched the University of Illinois facilities. IV leaders are returning to the three-year cycle, but plan to hold an urban missions event, patterned after the pilot Washington ’80, in the middle of each cycle. Fresh emphases this year dealt with the local church’s role in sending missionaries, and on relief ministries.

Mission agencies are worried by President Reagan’s executive order that loosened restrictions on the U.S. intelligence community. The measure, signed in December, makes no reference to Central Intelligence Agency use of clergy or missionaries. The missions are pressing for legislation prohibiting the use of clergy, journalists, and academicians as informants. The Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board has asked Congress to forbid the CIA using agents posing as missionaries or setting up “missionary front” organizations. The board’s executive officer, R. Keith Parks, said that using a missionary cover is “morally wrong and potentially endangers the lives of missionaries in some countries.”

Two million Mexicans took flowers and prayers to the shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe in December. They were at the Mexico City basilica to commemorate the four hundred fiftieth anniversary of the reputed miraculous appearance of the image of the Virgin on an Indian’s tunic a decade after the Spanish conquest. Mexico’s conservative Roman Catholic hierarchy used the occasion to demonstrate the power of the traditional church and to put the liberal bishops and priests, who press for social change based on a theology of liberation, on the defensive. These priests believe that worship of the Virgin and local saints serves to deepen the fatalism and passivity of Mexican Catholics—views they kept private as the crowds paraded beneath the image of the Virgin.

Unprecedented opportunities are opening up on European radio and television. In France, more than 300 independent radio stations have been established since François Mitterand’s socialist government came to power last May. Last month a law took effect that allows any nonprofit, nonpolitical group to apply for a license for available FM frequencies. For the first time, the government-controlled television network is airing programs from Christian groups. Spain is granting licenses for 200 FM stations by March; evangelicals have applied for frequencies in Barcelona and Madrid. Also for the first time, in 1982 evangelicals will have their initial brief access to state radio and television.

A renewal movement has been launched in Switzerland’s Reformed Church. Known as the Confessing Fellowship Devoted to Christ and His Word, the group was organized in Zurich as “a Bible-based reformational renewal.” It came out swinging: not just any opinion or ideology, it said in one of its first statements, “can be sold as being Christian.” It must first be “measured against the Bible.” It also struck out at “political agitation” and “feel-good” church life that fails to bind members together in saving power.

Evangelical factions in the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden are hiving off into separate diaconates, or subunits, within their dioceses. Two groups—one in Halmstad and another in Smaland—broke away last year. Dag Sandahl, deacon of the second group, says that as soon as four or five diaconates are formed they will unite in a separate synod. Both groups are calling for a return to active evangelism in the state church, and both of them oppose the ordination of women, which is the official stated policy of the church.

Turkish Muslims recently shot and killed a Syrian Orthodox neighbor who refused to move out of their village, Baksyan, as other Christians had done under pressure. No criminal proceedings were instituted, and the family’s request for an autopsy was refused by the authorities on grounds that publicity would damage the country’s image. Meanwhile, Turkey’s military rulers angered Islamic fundamentalists by banning the wearing of head scarves by female students and teachers in schools.

Some 20,000 booklets of the Old Testament story of Joseph written in Burmese were printed and are being distributed by the Bible Society of Burma. The cartoon-style format is especially popular among young people. Burma’s 32-million population is 80 percent Buddhist and less than 3 percent Christian.

The Philippine government has again leveled subversion charges against a fugitive Filipino Jesuit priest. It said documents seized from two captured urban guerrillas showed that Romeo “Archie” Intengan is a leader of a leftist plot to overthrow President Ferdinand Marcos. Jesuits denied the charges.

Police Pressure On Romanian Christians Grows

In an endless series of arrests, interrogations, and house searches, Romanian authorities appear to be seeking to regain control of that country’s religious communities. (Already a large number of its more outspoken evangelicals have been permitted or forced to emigrate to the West. Now, over the past 12 months, there has been an expanding campaign to deal with the remaining independent elements within the country.)

In December, three Christians from Sighişoara, Klaus Wagner, and Maria and Bibia Delapeta, were given heavy sentences of six, five, and five years, respectively. It is alleged that Wagner was personally involved in the unofficial introduction of 600,000 Bibles into Romania. Since their arrest on October 1, dozens of homes have been searched, and numerous believers, mostly of German Brethren origins, have been interrogated. Interrogations have taken place throughout the country, following the uncovering of the largest Bible network in Romania in a decade. It occurs one year after the arrests in Suceava of five believers, also for Bible distribution. In both cases Russian Bibles were found among the confiscated literature. Coordination of the roundup is thought to have had Soviet assistance.

Some suspect that informants penetrated Western missions for the police. Wagner’s arrest came days after the discovery of a ship carrying 13,000 Bibles from Hamburg, resulting in the arrest of the Romanian ship captain and two members of his crew.

The harsh sentences for Wagner and the Delapeta sisters indicate that winds of change are blowing in Romania; other evidence confirms this increased severity. Many reports from the interrogations cite police beatings, sometimes severely administered. On December 17, the spokesman for the Romanian Committee for the Defense of Religious Freedom (ALRC), Ioan Teodosiu, was taken into custody and held over Christmas for a trial scheduled for late January. He faces 15 to 25 years imprisonment on threatened charges of espionage. According to emigré reports, Teodosiu was badly beaten and facially disfigured, his fate one of a string of tragedies to afflict the Teodosiu family in the past six months. In June 1981, his brother Sabin died accidentally on an electric pylon. His family accuses the authorities of foul play and has received only hostile responses to their inquiries into his death. Ioan Teodosiu’s wife suffered a miscarriage during one of her husband’s periods of interrogation before his arrest.

Other pockets of spiritual resistance are marked out for possible police action. In Bucharest, four leading Baptist pastors, Vasile Talos, Josif Sarac, Vasile Brinzei, and Geabou Pascu, still face accusations of embezzling church funds. The fraudulent charges have been dismissed by their colleagues and church members. The real issue seems to be that the four have a good track record in affirming the Baptist tradition of church and state separation and have not accepted state interference in their church affairs. They were also close associates at one time of Josif Ton, now exiled in the United States. (Talos opened his pulpit to two Baptist preachers now in exile in the U.S., Pavel Nicolescu and Aurel Pooescu, after the Baptist union was asked to expel them from the denomination. Josif Sarac, the Bucharest Association president until relieved of his duties in November 1981, presided over the opening of 12 affiliates of the Baptist church in his region without seeking state approval.)

Finally, with the Orthodox church, there have been some signs that young priests are questioning the status quo of the church’s relations with the state. They have also dared to protest the continued imprisonment of Orthodox priest and professor Gheorghe Calciu, who is serving 10 years for his activity among Orthodox youth. On November 21, clergymen Liu Negoita, Viorel Dumitrescu, and Ambrus Cernat disappeared for three days while authorities both interrogated them and prevented them from meeting Western visitors. They are free but remain under investigation.

The time may have passed for hoping that Romanian officials will be receptive to Western intervention for Christian prisoners on humane grounds. Ironically, it is the fate of the strongest East European religious community, the Polish Catholics, that determines this. President Reagan gave Romania an extension of its most favored nation trade status with the U.S.A. recently. This is a persuasive gesture to keep the Romanians looking Westward. It may be that at present the shoe fits on the other foot, and that the West needs Romania—if not more, at least just as much. This could give the Romanian authorities the opportunity to move against those Christians they have been watching with annoyance for some time, while being assured that any economic consequences of these human rights violations will be slight.

ALAN SCARFE