Page 5286 – Christianity Today (2024)

Dropping Our Kierkegaard

It’s no longer a secret—evangelical fans of philosopher Søren Kierkegaard are coming out of the closet. (And just in time. It was getting pretty crowded in there.)

A mere five years ago most conservatives wouldn’t admit to reading the radical from Copenhagen. But all that has changed. Video contracts for philosophy professors are being drawn up, curriculum is being developed—even sales of Danish pastry are on the increase.

Why now? The answer involves a variety of historical factors, the greatest being that Kierkegaard is dead. Of course, popular criticisms persist, as in the recent work Dropping Your Kierkegaard.

I suppose most who are now reading the Dane are attracted to his contention that the Christian faith is more than just an affirmation of correct doctrine. It’s a whole manner of being, a way of existing.

Some contemporary Christians identify with Kierkegaard’s critique of life’s absurdity apart from Christianity. They follow him by taking that step of courage and commitment to faith. Still others are drawn to Kierkegaard by the rakish tilt of his hat.

Indicators suggest this interest in the spirit of Kierkegaard is no passing fad, but that his writings will continue to gain popularity and influence. Admittedly, though, it will be an upward battle. Among folk steeped in possibility thinking, it is not easy whipping up enthusiasm for titles such as Concept of Dread, Fear and Trembling, and Sickness unto Death.

EUTYCHUS

A Read-Aloud Story

Thanks for the collision of pain and peace in Wangerin’s “Empty Manger” [Dec. 13]. He pens a modern, classic Christmas tale deserved to be read aloud beside the holiday hearth.

JONATHAN PEPPER

Roxbury, Mass.

Acceptable “Plagiarizing”

I appreciated your thoughtful and useful editorial, “The Two Faces of Christmas” [Dec 13]. I hate Christmas services generally: they are too sentimental and not realistic. So I am usually very uncomfortable in preparing. This year was easy, and from the response, most welcomed because of much of the thought which I plagiarized from you. Thank you.

REV. A. A. FOUTS

Nottingham, England

Peace And Holy Spirit Power

Your editorial “Disturbing the Peace” [Dec. 13], encouraging us to follow the example of our Lord in bringing realism to our peacemaking efforts, is very much needed. Nevertheless, I was very disturbed by the first two paragraphs.

First, you paraphrase the question the apostles asked the resurrected Jesus, quoted by Luke in Acts 1:6. Most [scholars] believe our Lord’s disciples had great difficulty understanding the true nature of Christ’s kingdom. Even at this post-resurrection meeting their question would [seem to] indicate that they were still thinking about the expected restoration of the national theocracy, and probably their freedom from Roman rule.

Jesus does not answer their question regarding the kingdom by referring to his second coming, as you suggest. Rather, he corrects their improper attitude by reminding them, “it is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed,” and then he gives them grounds for hope by assuring them that they would receive power from the Holy Spirit.

REV. WILLIAM I. CAMPBELL

Thornhill, Ont., Canada

Truth Briefly Noted

My wife and I read CT from “kivar to kivar.” Thank you for “Reflections” [Dec. 13].

MARK ECKEL

Shiloh Christian School

Mandan, N.D.

Call Them “Sad,” Not “Gay”

The Rev. Arthur Gay [Eutychus, Dec. 13] should have his surname reinstated as an honourable word among us. The word “gay” is derived from the old French wahi, which becomes in modern French gai. The word wahi means “bubbling,” and fortunately for our despairing world, one still sees some delightful people with bubbling personalities. Nothing seems more singularly inappropriate than to describe homosexuals as “gay.” The haggard features of an emaciated Rock Hudson show how far the good old English definition of the word gay has been devalued. Let us begin calling homosexuals “sads” instead.

DENNIS PAPE

King Street Baptist Church

Cambridge, Ont., Canada

Why Me?

In his article [“Riddles of Pain,” Dec. 13], Philip Yancey states,” … man asks the question, Why me?” Some Christians, when reflecting on a tragedy they themselves barely escaped, say, “Thank God, it was not me,” or “God had mercy on me.” Many claim divine intervention or deliverance, such as when a tornado hits a few yards from church or home and they are unscathed.

Just as the sun shines and the rain falls on the just as well as the unjust, so also do tragedies, violent storms, and accidents. When a person claims divine intervention he automatically implies that he enjoys preferred status with the Almighty and that God is a respecter of persons. How can anyone think that God allowed an infant or child to be killed and spared a pious adult the same fate? How can an evangelical celebrity claim that a hurricane detoured at his request or benefit?

ROGER WILLIAMS

Denison, Tex.

Change The Score On Campolo

I noticed that the letters to the editor regarding Bill Bright versus Tony Campolo [Dec. 13] scored Campolo 2, Bright 0. If that is representative of all letters received, the Christian world is in real trouble!

In this day of doctrinal fuzziness and cult proliferation, Bill Bright needs to be commended for his courage. At best, Campolo uses highly questionable terminology, which easily could have been further perverted by the teenagers he was scheduled to address. Chalk up Campolo 2, Bright 1!

STEVEN J. COLE

Cedarpines Community Church

Crestline, Calif.

A Reasonable Faith has been placed under more scrutiny than any writing on theology in recent history—as though Tony’s theology is the real problem. The scariest thing has been to watch our leaders put distance between themselves and Tony, all for the sake of evangelical purity and doctrinal orthodoxy (not to mention financial survival).

Tony deserves an apology by each of the leaders embroiled in this controversy. The church also needs an apology from these leaders whose decisions, whether intended or not, have cast doubt upon the reputation of a brother. In the long run, this damage can have a far more detrimental effect upon the body than any alleged doctrinal difference.

PETER SJOBLOM

Metro Chicago Youth for Christ

Wheaton, Ill.

A Warped Perspective?

If the statements attributed to Tim LaHaye [News, Dec. 13] are accurate, they display a seriously warped sense of perspective on the part of a man who should know better. How could he possibly credit legislation with either fostering or hindering the work of the Holy Spirit? Revival never has been, nor will it ever be, legislated into existence. A man of LaHaye’s stature and experience should have recognized long ago that bad laws and the proliferation of pornography are only symptoms of the larger problem of a nation and a people who have turned from their God.

LARRY PAVLICEK

Richfield, Minn.

Robertson On Nicaragua’S Contras

Thanks for [the News] article exposing the controversial evangelist Pat Robertson’s general position (and possible support) on the contra guerrilla organizations fighting for the violent overthrow of the elected government of Nicaragua [“Is Pat Robertson Raising Money for Anti-Sandinista Guerrillas?” News, Nov. 8]. Christians should be wary of a potential presidential candidate who professes belief in Jesus Christ while offering wholehearted support for the despicable terrorism of these groups. Several international human rights and aid agencies as well as the U.S. press have thoroughly documented the widespread use of torture, rape, indiscriminate killing of noncombatants and deliberate destruction of medical facilities by the gang of outlaws.

DONALD WILLIAMS

Cincinnati, Ohio

Let The Women Counsel

In regard to “The Sexual Hazards of Pastoral Care” [Ministries, Nov. 8], I wonder why so many otherwise-scriptural pastors pay so little attention to the Scripture suggesting that (wise, experienced) older women in the congregation should counsel the younger wives. Many ministers’ wives are also knowledgeable and experienced in the area of marriage problems. Why do their husbands not refer the attractive young women to their wives for counsel?

Only my devotion to God and the church and our family could have enabled me to live through all the years of knowing the kinds of attachments that were being formed because of my husband’s visitation and counseling. Isn’t it possible that more marriages would remain intact if the women did not receive such “understanding” from their pastors? Let women minister to women’s problems!

NAME WITHHELD

Seattle, Wash.

Rogers And Need Fulfillment

Robert C. Roberts’s critique of Carl Rogers [“Therapy for the Saints,” Nov. 8] implies that self-fulfillment and self-discipline, freedom, and acceptance of responsibility are mutually exclusive and that, to the humanistic psychologist, “needs” are little more than a euphemism for “immediately obvious” (read “hedonistic”?) impulses. They are not.

Roberts does not appreciate that a “need” is just that: something which, if not satisfied, renders one unable to function effectively, but which, when met, recedes in importance and allows one to get on with the business of living—part of which involves accepting those responsibilities that Roberts is so interested in seeing fulfilled.

To counsel someone only to meet responsibilities, while ignoring needs or labeling them illegitimate, is uncharitable, unrealistic, and perhaps even unchristian.

DAVID BRATT

Winona, Minn.

Anglicanism A Rest Stop?

I am writing in regard to your review of Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail [Nov. 22]. As an Episcopalian, I object to your question of whether “Anglicanism’s Canterbury” is merely a rest stop down the historic trail of orthodoxy’s Constantinople or Papal Rome.

Though many evangelicals have always viewed Anglicanism as “almost Catholic,” it just isn’t true. There are major doctrinal differences, such as: (1) Anglicans reject the infallibility of the Pope; (2) most Anglicans reject the doctrine of transubstantiation; (3) Anglicans do not view the Eucharist as a repeated sacrifice, but rather as “His one oblation of Himself once offered, a full and sufficient sacrifice …”; (4) Anglicans do not venerate Mary and the Saints; (5) Anglicans reject the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary; (6) Anglicans reject the doctrine of purgatory.

The liturgy is beautiful and can bring us to know Jesus as long as we remember to worship him “not only with our lips but in our lives.”

JUDY CULLEN

APO, N.Y.

Letters are welcome. Brevity is preferred, since only a selection can be published. All are subject to condensation. Write to Eutychus, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, Illinois 60188.

Over the past year, We have announced various developments in our evolving editorial team approach (an approach we’ve found unusually effective). The senior editors have given consistently significant help. And the CT Institute has been given clear leadership in the teamwork of executive director Terry Muck and institute dean Kenneth Kantzer. (The institute’s January section on trends was one of six planned for this year).

Now you will notice on this issue’s masthead that we have continued this team approach by appointing Terry and George Brushaber as executive editors. George, from his role as president of Bethel College and Seminary, will interact with Terry, who will carry the hands-on responsibility. Both will work in close concert with the senior editors. Terry will coordinate the work of the magazine and institute as well as continue to give broad directional guidance to LEADERSHIP journal.

To achieve all this, Terry can count on two strong editors to ably carry day-to-day responsibility for CHRISTIANITY TODAY and LEADERSHIP. Harold Smith will continue his role as CT managing editor, directing a very capable staff; and Marshall Shelley has just been appointed managing editor of LEADERSHIP and has already built a fine team of editors.

I am personally very pleased with this somewhat unorthodox but effective means of blending the varied strengths of many into the production of effectual publications for church leaders. From these three related but unique entities—CHRISTIANITY TODAY, the CT Institute, and LEADERSHIP journal—come magazines, books, and other publications that require a careful mixture of individual distinctiveness and blending. Each can strengthen the other, but each must fulfill its own unique purpose.

Another announcement: At a recent board meeting, we elected Jill Briscoe and Rebecca Pippert as directors of Christianity Today, Inc. Both Jill and Becky have broad and varied ministries. Their books have found deservedly large audiences. Our CTi board members view them as persons of strong character and wisdom who will ably contribute.

This move is especially appropriate in light of our two newest publications, which are directed to women readers. PARTNERSHIP, the magazine for ministry wives, is edited by Ruth Senter. TODAY’S CHRISTIAN WOMAN, acquired by CTi this past summer, is edited by Dale Hanson Bourke.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY traditionally has, for the most part, been edited and read by men. This has been slowly—very slowly—changing over the years. In the future, we hope to include more women scholars in the institute and more women writers and editors. We recognize the strong gifts for ministry that women have, and we are thoroughly enthused about the significant ministries of PARTNERSHIP and TODAY’S CHRISTIAN WOMAN, as well as the increasing role women will have throughout CTi.

In fact, each of the following women carry large responsibilities for CT magazine. Art director Joan Nickerson designs CHRISTIANITY TODAY (she also designs PARTNERSHIP, and was, until a few months ago, art director of LEADERSHIP); administrative editor Carol Thiessen edits various columns and articles and copy edits all of CT; Washington editor Beth Spring writes many of our key national stories; and vice-president of production Carolyn Barry gets CT printed (as well as all the other publications) and directs the CTi production budget and staff.

We find working with all of these thoroughly capable women a genuine delight and a challenge to our professional and spiritual standards. May many more women find opportunities to fully develop their abilities and enormous potential!

At this point, to end the page, I was going to say something very important and spiritual. But—maybe I just did!

God bless.

Donald McGavran is not a household name. Yet over the past 50 years, few have worked so hard to apply strategy to world evangelization. Statistics, careful documentation, and sociological theorizing have all played a part in his principles of church growth. But, as Tim Stafford writes in his cover story (p. 19ff.), at the heart of all the charts and graphs is McGavran’s tireless “love for the lost.”

This is Tim’s second missions-related profile for CT in the last year-and-a-half. His first (“Ralph Winter: An Unlikely Revolutionary,” Sept. 6, 1984) gave us an intensely personal—and, at times, downright humorous—look at a bookish, mild-mannered iconoclast whose passion for the world’s hidden peoples “has shaken the missions community to the core.”

Once again, Tim uses telling anecdotes and the reactions of contemporaries to give us an insider’s look at a complex man. The story of McGavran’s presentation at a Fourth of July rally sponsored by Fuller Seminary (“It was not the kind of talk familiar to listeners to the ‘Old Fashioned Revival Hour’”) is a case in point.

Tim is a natural for this kind of assignment. Not only is he an accomplished writer, but he has a passion for missions—a passion that sent him to Kenya for four years to develop the youth magazine Step. He’ll be returning to Kenya in June to check on Step’s progress and, I assume, to show off pictures of his third child—who is expected to arrive in April.

Complementing Tim’s piece is the artwork of Paul Turnbaugh. His cover illustration of McGavran is the first caricature to grace a CT cover since—you guessed it—his caricature of Ralph Winter.

HAROLD SMITH, Managing Editor

A year ago, best-selling author Joseph Heller (Catch 22, Good as Gold) tried his hand at retelling the life of King David. The resulting book, God Knows, met with little success, and a Time magazine reviewer suggested the reason: no novelization could make King David’s life any spicier than the Bible itself.

The original sources, 1 and 2 Samuel, need no embellishment. They include all the seamy parts: the lies and deceits, the endless battles, the acts of bravado, the feigned insanity, the family failures, the adultery, the murder.

Heller’s mildly irreverent book does raise a question, an unavoidable question, that dangles over the biblical record as well. How could David, so obviously flawed, be called “a man after God’s own heart”? What was David’s secret?

I have recently started a reading exercise that just may offer a clue. I am comparing, to use the current jargon, David’s inward journey with his outward journey.

The Book of Psalms, with its 73 poems attributed to David, offers a window into his soul. Some of those 73 have introductory comments that allow us to check the actual circumstances in which they were written. For my exercise, I read from David’s spiritual diary first, in the Psalms. From the evidence in that “inner” record, I try to imagine what “outer” events prompted such words. And then I turn to the historical account in the Books of Samuel.

Psalm 56 records the famous words, “In God I trust,” and in it David credits God for delivering his soul from death and his feet from stumbling. Reading the psalm, I try to envision the circumstances. It sounds as if God miraculously intervened and rescued David. But what actually happened? When I turn to 1 Samuel 21, I see a scared and desperate prisoner drooling spittle and flinging himself like a madman in order to save his neck.

I read these words in Psalm 59: “O my strength, I sing praise to you; you, O God, are my fortress, my loving God.” Again, it seems from the psalm that God miraculously saved David’s life. But in 1 Samuel 19, the corresponding passage, I find David sneaking out through a window, and his wife tricking his pursuers with a statue wrapped in goats’ hair.

I read of weakness and trembling in Psalm 57, of a fugitive crying out for mercy. David must have been wavering in faith when that psalm was written, I think. But I turn to 1 Samuel 24 and its record of the historical context, and see one of the most extraordinary displays of defiant courage in all of history.

And finally, I read a summation of David’s entire military career in Psalm 18, written when, undisputed king at last, David sat back and reflected on all his adventures. The psalm describes in incandescent detail miracles from God that, time after time, saved David’s life.

If you read just that psalm, and not the history, you would think David lived a particularly charmed and sheltered life. The psalm tells nothing of the years on the run, the all-night battles, the chase scenes, and the wily escape plots that fill the pages of 1 and 2 Samuel.

In short, if you read the psalms attributed to David you might envision a pious, other-worldly hermit, or a timid, neurotic soul favored by God, but not a giant of strength and valor. What can explain the disparity between two biblical records, of David’s inward and outward journeys?

Actually, all of us experience an inner life and an outer life simultaneously. We perceive life as a kind of movie, consisting of characters and sets and twists of plot—with ourselves playing the starring roles.

If I attend the same event as you (say, a party) I will take home similar “outer” facts about what happened and who was there, but a wholly different “inner” point of view. My memory will dwell on what impression I made. Was I witty or charming? Did I offend someone, or embarrass myself? Did I look good to others? Most likely you will ask the same questions, but about yourself.

David, however, seemed to view life a little differently. His exploits—killing wild animals bare-handed, felling Goliath, surviving Saul’s onslaughts, routing the Philistines—surely earned him a starring role. But as he reflected on those events, and wrote poems about them, he always found a way to make Jehovah, God of Israel, the One on center stage. Whatever the phrase “practicing the presence of God” means, David experienced. He intentionally involved God in every detail of his life.

Throughout his life David believed, truly believed, that the invisible world of God, heaven, and the angels was every bit as real as his own world of swords and spears and caves and thrones. The psalms form a record of his conscious effort to subject his own daily life to the reality of that invisible world beyond him.

Psalm 57 illustrates this process as well as any. David composed it, the title says, when he had fled from Saul into a cave. First Samuel 24 sets the scene: Saul with his well-armed hordes had completely encircled David’s small band. Blocked off from all escape, David holed up in a cave next to a sheep pen.

The psalm expresses anxiety and fear, of course. But it ends with an oddly triumphant imperative, “Be exalted, O God, above the heavens; let your glory be over all the earth.” Somehow, in the process of writing, David was able to lift his eyes from the dank, smelly cave to the heavens above. In the most unlikely of settings, he came to affirm, simply, “God reigns.”

Perhaps it was the next morning that David strode out, unarmed, and confronted King Saul’s entire army with no weapon but an appeal to conscience. Perhaps the very process of writing the psalm had emboldened him for such a bravura display of moral courage.

Few of us, fortunately, live on the edge of danger like David did. But we do, like David, have times when nerves fail, when fear creeps in, when it seems that God has withdrawn, when hostile forces have us surrounded. At such a moment I turn to the Psalms.

I have a sneaking suspicion that David wrote the psalms as a form of spiritual therapy, a way of “talking himself into” faith when his spirit and emotions were wavering. And now, centuries later, we can use those very same prayers as steps of faith, a path to lead us from an obsession with ourselves to the actual presence of our God.

Once when the young G. K. Chesterton was courting Frances Blogg, her mother “politely asked his opinion of her new wallpaper.” “Chesterton got up to take a closer look,” reports biographer Alzina Stone Dale, “then absent-mindedly took a piece of chalk from his pocket and drew a picture of Frances on the wall.”

The quotable author of Orthodoxy and the Father Brown mysteries is generally known as “a jolly journalist,” the man who loved to debate the likes of Clarence Darrow and George Bernard Shaw, and a believer who valiantly took up the pen to fight growing modernism in the English church. But he was also an artist to the core—incessantly drawing, cartooning and doodling on any available surface. He always carried chalk, he covered the margins of his manuscripts with sketches, and (unfortunately) could not stand the sight of a blank wall.

Now, on the fiftieth anniversary of Chesterton’s death, Loyola University Press has published The Art of G. K. Chesterton, a handsomely designed volume with text by Alzina Stone Dale. The book includes recently acquired chalk drawings purchased at a Sotheby’s auction by Loyola and donated to Wheaton College’s Wade Collection where Chesterton archives were already in existence. The book’s only disappointing feature is the omission of captions and a list of plates to help the reader identify the drawings.

Dale traces the development of Chesterton’s drawing from his earliest memories of his father’s cardboard puppets and toy theater through his training at the Slade School of Art to his satirical cover drawings for GK’s Weekly. And she sketches the way in which he relied on art for analogy. Take this passage from Orthodoxy: “Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame. If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If, in your bold creative way you … draw him with a short neck, you … will find you are not free to draw a giraffe.”

While in his formal art training, Chesterton resisted the then popular notion of art for art’s sake, maintaining that the greatest artists had always been didactic. “Art, like morality,” he said, “consists in drawing the line somewhere.”

“In both word and pictures,” writes Dale, “he made his point with a strong, firm line that outlined a central figure (or idea) against an impressionistic, often fantastic, background. His verbal penchant for pushing an argument to absurdity was the literary counterpart of the visual effect he created by cartooning his message. In both mediums, by using artificial limits like the frame of the toy theatre, he gave focus and clarity to his ideas. In this way Chesterton was able to draw the moral so starkly or whimsically that its point cannot be missed by anyone.”

DAVID NEFF

When a catastrophic famine in the Soviet Ukraine claimed seven million lives in the thirties, almost half of them children, no one wanted to hear about it.

“When stories about the famine first came out, they were so incredible, people didn’t believe them,” said Slavko Nowytski, director of a recent documentary on the disaster, following its screening at the New York Film Festival. “There was a depression here. People wanted to hear something positive.” So the truth was suppressed.

Even the Moscow correspondent for the New York Times, Walter Duranty, covered up the tragedy, writing glowing reports of conditions in the Ukraine after a junket through the region sanctioned by Stalin.

Now Nowytski’s film, Harvest of Despair, exposes the terrible truth behind the Ukrainian famine of 1932–33. Produced for the Ukrainian Famine Research Committee in Canada, the 55-minute documentary claims that Stalin deliberately starved the Ukraine by seizing and exporting all its grain to pay for his industrialization program. An underlying objective, the film contends, was to whip into submission the nationalistic Ukrainians, who resisted the swallowing up of their homeland into the USSR.

The film is decidedly one-sided, and that detracts from its credibility. Failure to include representatives of the official Soviet view—which maintains the famine never occurred—leaves the documentary open to charges of bias.

Yet interviews with such credible sources as Malcolm Muggeridge—a journalist in the Soviet Union at the time—and the emotional testimonies of famine survivors now in the West present a compelling case. Says Muggeridge: “It was done with deliberateness and a total absence of any kind of sympathy.” He defied a travel ban on foreign correspondents to report on the famine and then sent his dispatches out of the country in a diplomatic bag.

Though the stark images shot in the Ukraine during the thirties help remove the tragedy from a distant time and place, the inevitable question arises: Why tell about it now, 50 years later?

The answer, according to Nowytski, is because much of the evidence is just now coming to light. “The stories weren’t told at first by the people who lived them because they were too traumatic.” (The director’s own family left the Ukraine when he was four.) When eyewitnesses started speaking up and documents corroborating their recollections were recently declassified, the time was ripe to tell the truth, he said.

To tell the truth, to expose dark deeds to the light—indeed a biblical injunction—is an important function of the documentary. Harvest of Despair exposes the evil of Stalinism. It graphically depicts the tragedy so that no one will forget, so that no one can deny it happened. It did happen. And it still matters.

BUD BULTMAN¹Bud Bultman is a graduate student at Columbia University specializing in Eastern Europe and a upi intern at the United Nations.

“Praise the Lord with loud shouts …” “… timbrel and dance.”

When was the last time you shouted—or danced—in church?

I recently surveyed a number of Chicago-area churches that respond to the psalmist’s invitation and incorporate dance into Christian worship. Their reasons are as varied as the churches, but there is a common desire: to enrich the quality of their worship.

• Whether celebrating the seasons of the church year, performing smaller, frequent dances, or worshiping together with other neighborhood churches, dancers at LaSalle Street Church are part of the action. The near-downtown Chicago church has always used some form of congregational participation to enhance worship. Member and dancer Janet Skidmore appreciates LaSalle Street’s “acceptance and affirmation of the arts”—especially dance. “Dance is my offering,” she states with gratitude.

• “You don’t have to be a dancer for this to happen in your church.” That’s the philosophy about dance at Reba Place Fellowship in suburban Evanston, says member Sara Ewing. For ten years, Reba Place has used dance in worship in an attempt to combine professionalism with a family atmosphere. “The sense of community and trust that we have helps reduce hesitancy,” Ewing believes. And, she says, it enables the Spirit of God to move in others. It seems to work: Reba Place does not wait for special occasions to enjoy religious dance.

• To appeal to the unchurched, Sunday services at Willow Creek Community Church are evangelistically designed—and as unchurchlike as possible. (Pastor Bill Hybels “feeds the flock” on Wednesday evenings.) Member Nancy Beach remembers an exciting combination of live music with 20 women dancers last Easter, a spark that led her to plan a “dance ministry.” It became part of the Sunday morning services last fall. The suburban Barrington church has also scheduled “Praise Nights”—multimedia presentations (small orchestra, ballet, and/or taped music) designed to inspire worship.

• John Hudson is pastor of Granville Avenue United Methodist Church in Chicago, and one of its dancers. He says, “The Bible is a text to be sung, with drama and dance enacting and evoking a religious presence.” The emphasis at Granville is on engaging people in worship—to draw them out, to get people to go from watching a church service to worshiping God in his holy sanctuary. As a result, Granville places a premium on processional dances during religious holidays. And its dancers teach the appreciative congregation gestures, folk dance, and general creative movement.

• “My dance is a gift,” says James Jana, resident choreographer for the Cathedral of Saint James (Episcopal) in Chicago. The church sees dance as a major part of worship, especially during the major “feast days” of the church year. Like most dance artists, Jana is self-employed. Most serious Christian dancers are not regular members of a church staff, and must support themselves by teaching, choreographing, giving workshops, and participating in arts festivals and concerts.

The survey revealed other problems. First, there is a preponderence of women dancers in these churches. That is an inaccurate representation of church congregations—and it reflects only half of humanity.

A second, more philosophical problem, was described by Maggie Kast, a teacher, dancer, and choreographer: “Modern Western people have a problem in how they feel about their bodies. There is a struggle between a rational/conceptual orientation versus an imagistic/poetic one.” She is convinced that learning to pray with our bodies is a prerequisite for liturgical dance.

These five Chicago-area churches are full of life, and they see liturgical dance as something to take seriously—something to help bring people together for purposes of evangelism, for celebrating creativity as lay and professional artists, for introducing elements of surprise and wonder into our worship. For many Christians, loud shouts and dancing form part of their worship of God.

JOHN SYMINGTON EPHLAND²John Symington Ephland is a guidance counselor at Providence—Saint Mel High School in Chicago. His wife, Donna, teaches dance.

Healing the Wounded: The Costly Love of Church Discipline, by John White and Ken Blue (InterVarsity Press, 1985, 238 pp.; $11.95, cloth). Reviewed by W. Ward Gasque, vice-principal and professor of New Testament at Regent College, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Corrective church discipline seems to have gone the way of the horse and buggy. The idea calls up images of strict Anabaptists attempting to keep their families from being corrupted by things like fancy cars, TV, and colorful clothing. Or worse—some poor pregnant teenager being made a spectacle in the name of church purity.

Corrective church discipline has, on occasion, been taken to ridiculous extremes of complexity. For example, in the mid-third century, Christians who committed certain sins were ordered to stand outside the church during its services and weep. Others had to kneel among the standing congregation. And still others could join in the service, but could not partake of Communion. Some, though truly repentant, had to wait years before they could enjoy full fellowship.

The other extreme, of course, is laxity—the more common fault in the North American church.

Sometimes we neglect the responsibility of corrective church discipline because of past abuse. At other times we neglect it because we have given in to modern individualism that says such interference in the life of another is totally unwarranted. Some churches expect sound preaching to do the job. Others treat discipline as a purely personal matter, claiming that the Holy Spirit is the only one who can correct.

Many Christians simply fear confrontation. It is awkward, to say the least, and it could lead to a breach in the congregation and a loss of members and financial support.

And many fail to grasp the seriousness of sin. We recognize the need to confront sins such as murder, theft, and homosexual practice, but we tolerate materialism, pride, gossip, and sowing discord among brethren.

Taking Aim

Yet John White and Ken Blue argue convincingly that to be biblical and healthy, a church must take Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings on church discipline seriously.

According to White and Blue, the church has often erred in the past by limiting discipline’s purpose to purifying the church and restoring the fallen believer. They argue for two more aims: reconciliation and freedom.

“Christ died and rose that we might be reconciled to God and to one another. Church discipline must aim at reconciliation among brethren,” they say.

Christ also died to set us free from bondage, guilt, and feelings of guilt. Therefore, “Corrective discipline when properly carried out should set us free from every fear save the fear of God and the fear of sin.”

In focusing on reconciliation and freedom, we recognize that membership in the Christian community entails a covenant relationship, joint responsibility in one another’s lives. Only when we keep all four goals—purity, restoration, reconciliation, and freedom—in view and in proper priority, will the church function as God intended.

Practical And Honest

White and Blue’s expositions of the passages dealing with church discipline are a helpful blend of careful exegesis and contemporary application. The book is replete with practical illustrations. Many of these may shock readers who are not ready to be honest with themselves about what goes on—and is swept under the carpet—in their own churches.

The authors believe the key to applying corrective discipline lies in recognizing that the whole church—not just the pastor or elders—shares responsibility for it. Leaders cannot do the work themselves; in fact, when they try to impose discipline “from the top,” it often fails.

It is only when the entire body gets involved, confronting sin, hearing confessions, and affirming forgiveness, that the church will remain healthy. The best setting for this congregational care, the authors suggest, is the small house group.

By taking a fresh look at this urgent subject, White and Blue lay a foundation for countering the frequent allegation that most churches differ little in quality of relationships from that of ordinary social or service clubs. Healing the Wounded challenges the status quo with courage and pastoral wisdom. It is essential reading for all pastors and church leaders.

Sanctuary: A Resource Guide for Understanding and Participating in the Central American Refugees’ Struggle, edited by Gary MacEoin (Harper, 1985, 217 pp.; $7.95, paper). Reviewed by Andres Tapia, a Latin American journalist who works for Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship.

Santana Chirino Amaya, a Salvadorian, entered the United States illegally at Laredo, Texas. He was picked up by immigration officials and deported in June 1981. Two months later, on August 29, his corpse was found not far from his home. Chirino’s body was covered with cigarette burns, his legs were tied with wire, and he had been decapitated.

To prevent this from happening to others, the authors of Sanctuary advocate smuggling such refugees to safety and harboring them in church buildings. According to this book, the civil war in El Salvador that has left 55,000 dead and the iron fist of the Guatemalan army are forcing people like Santana Chirino to flee their homes and seek refuge in El Norte. In order to abide by both international and domestic law, the authors say, the United States should grant these people political asylum.

However, opponents of the sanctuary movement argue that these are not political refugees, but illegal immigrants in search of better economic opportunities than those in their homelands. And therefore, they are not eligible for asylum. Says Elliott Abrams, assistant secretary of state-designate for inter-American affairs, “The evidence is simply not there that most Salvadorans in this country are refugees.”

Grassroots

Since 1982 an increasing number of people, including the authors of Sanctuary, has become convinced that the U.S. government is biased against Central American refugees because they are fleeing governments supported by the current administration. (Sanctuary’s authors may have a point: 97.5 percent of the Salvadorians and 99.6 percent of the Guatemalans seeking asylum in 1984 were sent back, whereas 35 percent of Afghans and 70 percent of Poles seeking asylum were refused.) Slowly, there emerged an underground network dedicated to smuggling Central Americans to safe places in the United States and Canada.

At first, Uncle Sam did little to thwart this grassroots movement. But as activity increased, he threw down the gauntlet. On January 14, 1985, 16 sanctuary workers were indicted on several counts of smuggling and harboring illegal aliens. (The trial for 11 of them began October 22.)

Coincidentally, the first Inter-American Symposium on Sanctuary convened a few days after the indictments were handed down. And in Sanctuary, a compilation of papers derived from the symposium, the movement makes its case. This is a landmark book, a sanctuary-movement manifesto. To review it is to review the movement.

Sanctuary’s contributors include such luminaries as Holocaust historian Elie Wiesel, Berkeley ethicist Robert McAfee Brown, Sojourners editor Jim Wallis, activist minister William Sloane Coffin, as well as Jim Corbett, one of the 11 standing trial, and some Latin American activists.

Examining The Evidence

One of the sanctuary movement’s weaknesses is the lack of hard evidence that many who have been sent back have been killed. A 1983 ACLU study concluded that up to 113 deportees may have been either killed or persecuted by the Salvadorian government. They admit, however, that in only 25 cases do they have a better than average possibility of a match. Furthermore, they were not able to establish a single positive identification of a deportee as a human rights victim. In addition, U.S. State Department studies in El Salvador have found no evidence of mistreatment.

But for those in the movement, the lack of statistical evidence is a moot issue. Says a Christian nursing student who has transported refugees: “All you have to do to be convinced that their lives are in danger is hear their stories and see the scars on their bodies.”

Some refugees tell their frightening stories in the book. Furthermore, some Sanctuary authors say, there is enough circumstantial evidence that lives are in danger that they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Writes James Nickel of the University of Colorado: “It’s better that many fleeing poverty be admitted than that one refugee fleeing persecution be sent back.”

Charles Troutman, former general director of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, retired in Tucson where he has been active in the sanctuary movement. Troutman, who also served with the Latin America Mission in Costa Rica, says, “It is sheer nonsense to say that in El Salvador and Guatemala they are fleeing for economic reasons.”

Sanctuary opponents accuse its workers of using the refugee issue to protest U.S. policy in Central America. Most of Sanctuary’s writers don’t deny this. Coffin writes, “We simply have to change U.S. policy there.” Most feel that as U.S. citizens they have a moral responsibility to assist those fleeing Central America because U.S. actions and policies have contributed to the strife that drives people from their homes. Says Troutman, “If we weren’t supporting those governments, we would be accepting these people.”

Religious Phenomenon

The most striking aspect of the sanctuary movement is that it is primarily a religious phenomenon, not a political one. In a recent issue of Esquire, David Quammen writes, “Religious people are doing these things—smuggling, harboring—for religious reasons. The proportion of secular humanists, agnostic liberals, political radicals of the Old and New Left variety is startlingly low. What you have are nuns, priests, ministers, devout Quakers, rabbis, … most of whom sound quite convincing when they explain that abandoning refugees would be equivalent to abandoning their faith.” Over 200 churches have declared themselves sanctuaries and another 1,000 are aiding the movement.

The Christians involved have to face the issue of civil disobedience. Most would agree with Troutman when he says, “It has to be done. These people are fleeing political persecution, so we have decided to obey God rather than man. It’s that simple.”

The nursing student agrees: “If my desire were just to change U.S. policy in Central America I could simply write to my Representative or join a protest march. Why risk going to jail or losing my citizenship? I want to see God’s justice more than I want to see political change.”

Biblical Base?

Sanctuary’s writers draw on two biblical concepts to make their case. The first, the establishment of sanctuary cities in Old Testament Israel, is a theologically weak argument. These “cities of refuge” were established to protect those who had accidentally killed someone from their victim’s friends and relatives. This is quite different from the purpose of today’s sanctuary network.

(More accurate historical parallels are the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, the smuggling of Jewish refugees during World War II—or even the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt.)

However, the second biblical concept—to love the stranger, to care for the weak and poor—is harder to ignore. The bottom line, beyond the political, economic, and immigration policy issues, is the individual who is seeking help. Can we turn our backs? Those in the sanctuary movement have decided they cannot.

Using Psychology in the Church, by Donald Ratcliff (Alpha Editions, Burgess Publishing Co., 1984, 130 pp.; $11.15, paper). Reviewed by Harold W. Darling, professor of psychology, Spring Arbor College.

Psychology can be used to the glory of God. And Toccoa Falls College professor Donald Ratcliff shows us how, by applying psychology sensitively and effectively to a wide variety of church ministries. He involves readers directly by blending factual information with questions (which readers are expected to grapple with and respond to, comparing their responses to the author’s) and application sections (where the learner deals with intensely practical issues).

Sandwiched between a helpful chapter entitled “Introducing Psychology” and a short, but effective conclusion are chapters on motivation, biological psychology, learning, memory, intelligence, perception, development, personality, abnormal psychology, counseling, and social psychology.

In the appendix, Ratcliff shows his ability to apply his ideas. He includes his own research projects on behavior modification in the Sunday school, personal evangelism, test anxiety, and self-change.

Christians are expected to maintain a difficult stance in ministry—one arm extended vertically to receive from God wisdom, power, love, and insight; and the other arm extended horizontally to channel that which we have received to the lives of others. Future and present Christian workers alike will find this volume helpful as they equip themselves to reach up and reach out.

Chicago’s historic Moody Church has taken action against a former member because of his abortion-related activities.

The issue surfaced when a few of the church’s members confronted Dr. Arnold Bickham in August about allegations that he was performing abortions. Bickham, a physician who joined the church in 1981, responded with a letter to the church’s executive committee, asking to be dropped from church membership.

When Bickham’s letter was received, pastor Erwin Lutzer was the only member of the executive committee who knew of the allegations against Bickham. The committee approved Bickham’s request while Lutzer was out of town. But church officials now say they would not have agreed to his request if they had known he was performing abortions.

Some church members, including Lutzer, say the process of church discipline was short-circuited. Others maintain there was nothing the church could do, since Bickham was technically no longer a member of Moody Church.

A few months after Bickham left the church, Lutzer confronted him, and the physician did not deny the allegations. Lutzer said the matter was then placed before the entire congregation. Members were encouraged to contact Bickham and to urge him to repent. Bickham did not return phone calls or answer letters. He also declined to discuss the matter with CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

The issue generated a flurry of activity. An ad hoc committee was formed to organize demonstrations at the clinics where Bickham works, and to urge the church to take action against him. Recently, the church did take action. A statement drafted by the Moody Church elders and delivered to the congregation reads in part that Bickham “is walking in disobedience to the Scriptures, and we urge the members of this church to have no fellowship with him until he is brought to repentance.”

Bickham was performing abortions long before he joined Moody Church. In 1979 he was sentenced to two years in a federal prison for defrauding the government of job training funds. In addition, his state medical license was suspended because of “professional incompetence” and “gross malpractice.” Among other allegations, Bickham was accused of performing fake abortions on women who were not pregnant.

While he was in prison, Bickham said he became a Christian. His medical license was later reinstated. His four-and-one-half years at Moody Church included a one-year term as head usher. He also served as a volunteer with Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship.

Gordon Loux, president of Prison Fellowship Ministries, said Bickham served for a time as director for northern Illinois, but has not been active with the organization recently. “Arnold did a lot of good things for inmates and their families,” Loux said. “We had a good relationship with him. We’re very saddened and disappointed.” Loux added that Prison Fellowship has challenged Bickham to stop performing abortions, but that Bickham has not responded.

Lutzer expressed Moody Church’s view that it is not consistent for a person who claims a relationship with Christ to perform abortions. “Even though technically [Bickham] was no longer a member,” he said, “we felt that for someone who had been so much a part of the body of Christ here … we couldn’t just let it go.”

The ad hoc committee of Moody Church members plans to stage additional protests at the clinics where Bickham works. It also plans to distribute leaflets protesting his activities in the neighborhood where he resides.

Out of a strong pacifist tradition, Mennonite and Brethren in Christ churches are considering a proposal to form “Christian peacemaker teams” in tension spots throughout the world.

The proposal originated with Ronald J. Sider, associate professor of theology at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary. The idea has been gaining support since Sider presented it during the 1984 Mennonite World Conference in Strasbourg, France.

The proposal, now in its fourth revision by the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section, calls for between 100 and 200 two-year volunteers. Those persons would form teams of “well-trained Christians in the midst of warring parties or groups that support warring parties in order to foster shalom.” Some teams would focus on reducing violence. Others would concentrate on mediation and reconciliation work, or educational activities.

Suggested settings for such activities include Nicaragua, Chile, Laos, Guatemala, Northern Ireland, and Belle Glade, Florida. The proposal describes Belle Glade, a town in southern Florida, as a place where “serious conflicts often occur between the many racial [and] ethnic groups.” Peacemaker teams would develop strategies for intervening in such conflicts to prevent violence. They would also assist in meeting basic needs such as shelter, food, health care, and jobs.

The purpose of involvement in Nicaragua, according to the proposal, “would be to try to reduce the attacks on Nicaraguan citizens by U.S.-funded guerrillas.… [The teams] would refuse to take sides in the political struggles of Nicaragua except to stress [their] clear commitment to economic justice, religious and political freedom and democratic election.”

The proposal is scheduled for consideration later this year at a meeting of the Council of Moderators and Secretaries, made up of representatives from the Mennonite Brethren, the General Conference Mennonite Church, the Mennonite Church, and the Brethren in Christ Church. During its 1984 meeting, the council received Sider’s proposal “with appreciation.” But the group had several concerns, according to Myron Augsburger, former moderator of the Mennonite Church General Assembly.

“We wanted the proposal to be an expression of the international nature of the church and not tied to any political ideology,” Augsburger said. “We were committed to finding ways to witness to peace and nonviolence … that would not be mistaken as either anti-American policy or as an extension of nationalistic interests.”

Jerry Falwell, founder and president of the Moral Majority, last month announced the formation of a new organization called Liberty Federation.

At a news conference, Falwell said he intends to broaden his base of support and build a framework for becoming involved in domestic and international issues well beyond his initial four-point agenda opposing abortion, and supporting traditional family values, a strong national defense, and Israel. He said the name “Moral Majority” carried baggage that prevented some people from affiliating with the organization, and the name did not convey a sufficiently wide focus to encompass all the issues he is pursuing.

“A lot of good people don’t see how our support of the Jerusalem bill—to move the American embassy [in Israel] to Jerusalem—fits as one of our issues,” Falwell explained. His recent travels to South Africa and the Philippines to educate his constituents about the perceived threat of Communist takeover fall into the same category.

Moral Majority will operate as a subsidiary of the Liberty Federation, Falwell said, “functioning in the strictly moral areas where we labored in earlier years.” The two organizations will share office space and staff, and both will have the same executive director, Charles E. Judd. Falwell said he expects the membership lists to overlap. A lobbying and educational arm, the Liberty Alliance, also has been chartered. In addition, the name of the organization’s monthly newspaper has been changed from Moral Majority Report to Liberty Report.

Liberty Federation held a national summit in Washington late last month to train Moral Majority’s 50 state chairmen and other conservative leaders. Participants discussed voter registration, membership recruitment, and ways to educate the public on Falwell’s top issues. Falwell said he intends to challenge conservative Christians to run for local, state, and national office.

Just how much support can be generated among the estimated 40 to 50 million evangelicals in the United States is a matter of considerable debate. At the news conference, Falwell said 6.5 million Americans “have united” with Moral Majority. But other statistics indicate a far smaller number of active supporters.

An April 1985 issue of Moral Majority Report indicated that only 1,012,913 copies were printed. Last month’s issue of Falwell’s Liberty Report carried an article saying the newspaper reaches “more than a quarter of a million homes.”

Falwell told CHRISTIANITY TODAY that Liberty Report is mailed to the organization’s major donors. At least 250,000 copies are mailed monthly, he said, with as many as 1.25 million copies being mailed in some months.

Falwell said the 6.5 million figure he used at the news conference represents people who have “aligned themselves nationally with the Moral Majority in one way or another.… Anyone who has contributed to Moral Majority or has worked with us in various and sundry campaigns is a part of our membership file, though we have not charged them for membership.”

The reorganization of Falwell’s political groups comes after a year in which four key aides and advisers moved on to other positions. Cal Thomas, former vice-president for Moral Majority communications, is a syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C. Ron Godwin, former executive vice-president of Moral Majority, and Bill Paul, former vice-president for administrative and business affairs at Falwell’s Liberty University, both work for Insight, a weekly news magazine published by the Washington Times newspaper, which is owned by the Unification Church. And Nelson Keener, former publisher of Falwell’s Fundamentalist Journal magazine, works for Charles Colson directing Prison Fellowship communications.

Jeffrey K. Hadden, a sociologist on leave from the University of Virginia and coauthor of Prime Time Preachers (Addison-Wesley, 1981), says Falwell is reassessing Moral Majority’s structure. “Moral Majority has not had the sustained, organizational grassroots thrust he now wishes it had had,” Hadden said. “It functions primarily as a mail organization. Falwell has hired [Judd], someone with knowledge of grassroots organizing, because he believes it is time to build that sort of organization.”

Hadden says the name changes emphasizing “Liberty”—also the name of Falwell’s university—indicate his priorities. “He recognizes that what is most important in the long run is to build up the university,” Hadden said. “He is not backing away from the limelight, but he needs to do some image changing if he is going to fulfill that dream.”

A new approach that involves training Asians on their own continent is expected to change the face of evangelical theological education in Asia.

In the past, Asian Christians had to travel to North America, Britain, or Germany to earn advanced degrees at evangelical seminaries. After they graduated, many of those students didn’t return to their home countries.

To help stem this theological brain drain, the Asian Theological Association is sponsoring a new seminary that will train Asians in Asia. The Asia Graduate School of Theology will have no full-time faculty, no main campus, and no central library. Yet it plans to offer master’s and doctoral-level programs with academic standards equivalent to those of Western seminaries.

Bong Rin Ro, executive secretary of the Asian Theological Association, is dean of the new school. Ro holds a master of sacred theology degree and a doctor of theology degree from Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. CHRISTIANITY TODAY asked Sharon Mumper, managing editor of Evangelical Missions Information Service, to interview Ro about the new approach in theological education.

What is unique about the Asia Graduate School of Theology?

It is a cooperative program of 14 theological schools in Japan, the Philippines, Korea, and Indonesia. Students are placed on the campuses they prefer. These schools pool library resources, professors, and facilities within the Asia Graduate School of Theology program. Courses are taught by professors from various theological schools in Asia.

Why is such an approach necessary?

There are more than 900 Bible institutes, colleges, and seminaries in Asia. But there is a tremendous shortage of theological educators at these schools. Asia desperately needs evangelical theologians, and we cannot depend on Western schools to provide them. Nor do we want to send evangelical students to liberal theological schools in Asia.

The Southeast Asian Graduate School of Theology, a liberal seminary, has produced more than 300 theologians. Many of them are now teaching in evangelical schools. Unless there is an evangelical alternative, we may face a situation in Asia similar to that of American and other Western seminaries.

Why is it important to train Asians in Asia?

There are more Chinese theologians in the United States than in all of Asia. But in Taiwan, 500 churches don’t have pastors. Pastors are also desperately needed in Indonesia, India, and other countries. Too many Asians are going to the United States for training and then not returning. There is an 86 percent brain drain from Taiwan, and 90 percent from India.

Another reason is financial. Educating nationals in their own continent or country is much more economical than sending them to the West. The cost of training a Filipino in the Philippines is about one-fifth the cost of training him in the United States. In Japan or Korea, the expense is one-third or one-fourth the cost of training a student in the West. By educating Asians in Asia, we can exercise better stewardship and provide a more relevant theological education.

How can the Asia Graduate School of Theology provide more relevant theological education?

American schools are dealing with issues coming out of their contexts, which are quite different from our contexts in Asia. For example, evangelical theological schools in the West spend a lot of time trying to defend the inerrancy of Scripture against liberal teachings. In Asia that is not the problem. We believe in the Scriptures. Our problems are in other areas—poverty, communism, suffering, justice, and Asian religions. If we train Asians within Asia, our curriculum can include the courses needed to deal with the issues facing students in these countries.

NORTH AMERICAN SCENE

NEW YORK HOSPICE

Helping AIDS Victims

Mother Teresa, founder of the Missionaries of Charity, has opened a hospice in New York City to care for victims of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). The 14-bed hospice was set up in the rectory of Saint Veronica’s Church in lower Manhattan.

Late last year, Mother Teresa obtained the release of three New York prison inmates who are suffering from AIDS. The inmates, who were serving sentences for robbery, joined a fourth AIDS victim at the newly opened hospice.

“We are hoping that they will be able to live and die in peace by getting tender love and care, because each one of them is Jesus in a distressing disguise,” Mother Teresa said. The recipient of the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize, Mother Teresa is known for her work in the slums of India.

The Catholic Archdiocese of New York announced plans to open a shelter for AIDS patients last summer on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. But it had to cancel its plans when parishioners objected, AIDS, a terminal disease that attacks the body’s immune system, is found most frequently in homosexual men. So far more than 8,000 people have died from the disease.

RELIGION AND DEMOCRACY

Study Condemns Secularism

A recent Brookings Institution study condemns secularism as providing an inadequate foundation for democracy in America. It was the first time the think tank had sponsored a study on religion.

Through religion, the study says, “human rights are rooted in the moral worth with which a loving Creator has endowed each human soul, and social authority is legitimized by making it answerable to transcendent moral law.”

The study rejects the argument that strict separation of church and state is needed. “A society that excludes religion totally from its public life, that seems to regard religion as something from which public life must be protected, is bound to foster the impression that religion is either irrelevant or harmful,” the study says.

Authored by James Reichley, the three-year study came as a surprise to those accustomed to the Brookings Institution’s liberal bent on social issues. Reichley, a former editor of Fortune magazine, is a member of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

CREATION SCIENCE

Another Loss in Court

In an 8-to-7 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has declined to rehear a case involving a Louisiana law that mandates the teaching of creationism alongside evolution. The ruling sustains the decision of a three-judge federal appeals court panel that last summer ruled the law unconstitutional.

In the more recent decision, the seven dissenting judges wrote a five-page opinion arguing that the law requiring balanced treatment of evolution and creationism is constitutional. The dissenting opinion called the earlier ruling by the three-judge panel erroneous.

That panel in July ruled that “irrespective of whether it is fully supported by scientific evidence, the theory of creation is a religious belief.” The panel said the law is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment’s ban against laws “favoring any particular religious belief or doctrine.”

Louisiana Attorney General William J. Guste, Jr., said he intends to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

OPINION POLL

Catholics at Odds with Rome

A CBS News/New York Times poll says most American Catholics hold positions that are at odds with official church doctrine. However, by a majority of six to one, they feel they can disagree with the church hierarchy and still remain good Catholics.

The poll found that 73 percent of American Catholics favor allowing divorced Catholics to remarry; 68 percent favor artificial birth control; 63 percent favor married priests; and 52 percent favor allowing women to become priests. All of those positions are at variance with church doctrine.

Only 15 percent of American Catholics agree with the church’s opposition to abortion under any circumstance. Among those responding to the survey, 55 percent favor abortion to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape or incest. Twenty-six percent favor legalized abortion as it is now practiced in the United States.

Despite disagreements with Rome on specific issues, most American Catholics have a high opinion of Pope John Paul II. Only 2 percent indicated an unfavorable opinion of the pontiff.

PEOPLE

Briefly Noted

Died: Pastor, author, and editor Ralph G. Turnbull, 84, on December 3, in Spring Valley, California. A Presbyterian clergyman, Turnbull wrote or edited 47 books for Baker Book House, including Baker’s Handbook of Practical Theology. He had served as an adjunct professor of preaching at Bethel Theological Seminary’s west campus since 1982.

Kenneth R. Adams, 71, founder of Christian Literature Crusade, on December 18, near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Adams’s organization operates more than 150 Christian bookstores in 40 countries.

Awarded: To John Stott, founder of England’s Institute for Contemporary Christianity, the Templeton United Kingdom Project Award. Given by the American-based Templeton Foundation, the award goes to an individual “inspired by religious and spiritual motives to make a distinct contribution to the well being of the United Kingdom.” A popular author and speaker, Stott is rector emeritus of London’s All Souls Church.

Retiring: Edmund F. Wagner, after more than 18 years as president of the American Bible Society (ABS). He will continue to serve the ABS as president emeritus. Wagner will be succeeded by James Wood, a vice-president in the investment firm of Prescott, Ball, and Turber.