Page 5504 – Christianity Today (2025)

Music has been one of the glories of Christmas celebration ever since God inspired the four songs of the Nativity recorded by Luke in his Gospel. Probably more excellent, exciting music is available for Christmas than for any other season.

The following reviews emphasize compositions for the adult church or school choir, or chorale. The most important consideration in selection was theological integrity, for there is never adequate justification in the ministry of the church to sing something that is not true, no matter how beautiful the music. The ministry of music is a ministry of the Word, and “Thy Word is truth.” These works have original texts that are generally creative and meaningful, not mediocre or silly; a broad appeal to a variety of audiences; contrasts of mood. Cantatas are 35–45 minutes long, and each manifests the following constraints:

• Controlled and discrete use of rhythm sections in the instrumental accompaniment. Vital rhythm is inherent in quality writing and performance. An outstanding example of rhythmic propulsion within the vocal lines is the third movement of Bach’s Christmas cantata 191, Gloria in excelsis Deo.

• Respectful treatment of anything borrowed from the classical literature. Such recently popular excursions into bad taste as the double-time and rhythmically reinforced treatments of Handel’s “Hallelujah Chorus” or excerpts from Vivaldi’s Gloria are lapses in creative inspiration that only reaffirm the genius of the original.

• Narrations that are not too long and do not cover every bar of instrumental music.

The Many Moods of Christmas, by Robert Shaw and Robert Russell Bennett (Lawson-Gould), are still the ultimate Christmas suites. Master craftsmanship shows throughout these four 11–13 minute settings of familiar and traditional Christmas hymns and carols. Each suite’s mood covers the broad spectrum, as in number 2, which ranges from the tender lullaby “Away in a Manger,” to the fiery farandole “March of the Kings.” Perhaps the most fully satisfying suite is the first one, with the most exciting version of “O Come, All Ye Faithful” one is ever likely to hear. One problem in suite two is the medieval Marian text of the “O Sanctissima” section, which can be overcome by rewriting the Latin text slightly.

Bennett’s 1977 Carol Cantatas (Law-son-Gould) are really suites 5–8 of The Many Moods. Not quite up to the standard of the original series, they are still quite excellent. The setting of “Jesus Loves Me” in cantata one is alone worth the entire suite. One notable aspect of these eight suites is that they have no narration.

A successful recent cantata by Don Wyrtzen, written in collaboration with Phil and Lynne Brower, is An Old-Fashioned Christmas (Zondervan). In a kind of musical Currier and Ives atmosphere, a 12-year-old girl recounts how she celebrated Christmas. Wyrtzen’s music is melodic and singable. The lyrics present a clear message, and the Browers’s original texts are imaginative. Especially effective is “Christmas Praise,” a five-minute medley of familiar Christmas hymns, arranged for congregation with orchestra; it is now available separately. The cantata lends itself well to costuming and dramatic setting.

Ralph Carmichael’s ’Specially For Shepherds (Lexicon) is intriguing and original. The section on Mary and Joseph refreshingly explores the emotional responses of both to their extraordinary situation, and brings a very personal touch to the story. Ten soloists are required (7 men and 3 women), but several of the shorter solos could be taken by voices in the choir.

John W. Peterson’s new Christmas Is Love (Zondervan) shows consistent sensitivity to word rhythms and his ability to write good melodies. It also shows his concern to be contemporary without going to extremes. “Someday There’ll Be Peace on Earth” is a welcome example of treating contemporary problems without writing music that alienates the listener. The fine orchestration is by Don Wyrtzen. Multi-media slides are also available. In the Peterson style is Rodger Strader’s King of Love (Good Life), superbly arranged and orchestrated by Bob Krogstad. One selection, “King of Love,” is adaptable for year-round congregational use.

Festival of Bells by John Wilson (Hope) is a delightful 12-minute suite for choir and handbells extracted from Wilson’s recent Christmas Festival cantata “Of the Father’s Love Begotten” is given an especially graceful setting by Paul Wohlgemuth. Don Hustad’s Candlelight Carols (Hope) may still be new to some. Using a variety of traditional music from around the world, it adapts an idea first developed at Union Theological Seminary’s School of Sacred Music, and lends itself to pageantry.

Alice Parker was arranger for Robert Shaw, who commissioned her to write Seven Carols for Christmas (Carl Fischer). These traditional selections, arranged for chorus and orchestra, can be performed either as a suite or individually. Two cantatas by Joe Parks are easier, but still well written: First Christmas and Come to the Manger (Zondervan). This former music supervisor for the Chattanooga public schools knows how to write for the smaller choir without writing down to it.

In Heaven Rejoices (Good Life) Ken Parker recounts the Nativity from heaven’s viewpoint. Arranged and orchestrated by Bob Krogstad, this new cantata draws a parallel with our personal spiritual nativity, for “every time a soul is born, heaven rejoices.” “Hymn of the Heavenly Gift” is especially lovely. A longer, dramatic version is also available.

Cantatas with time-proven quality should also be considered seriously, particularly Roy Ringwald’s 17-minute The Song of Christmas (Shawnee). It was the forerunner of cantatas with narration.

A number of fine late nineteenth-and twentieth-century composers are well received even by audiences not usually classically oriented. Especially appealing are The Star of Bethlehem by Josef Rhein-berger, Hodie by Ralph Vaughan Williams, and A Christmas Cantata by Arthur Honegger. More recent compositions include the brief, three-movement Christmas Cantata by Daniel Pinkham (King) for double chorus, brass, and organ. An uncompleted cantata by Lara Hoggard will be stunning, if its festive processional on the thirteenth-century Christmas hymn Personent Hodie (“Let Youthful Voices Ring Out Today”) is any indication. Scored for processing adult choir, multiple antiphonal brass, organ, and finger cymbals, this processional would make a dramatic opening to any Christmas concert.

The wealth of excellent material should enable conductors to find something ideally suited to their people’s needs, and help to make this season’s Christmas music truly glorifying to God in the highest.

RICHARD D. DINWIDDIE¹Mr. Dinwiddie is visiting professor of church music at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.

Pasadena campus could be lost for his Carey University.

For four years the U.S. Center for World Mission has held tenuous title to the Pasadena, California, campus it agreed to purchase for $8.5 million. Now it appears that foreclosure proceedings are imminent.

From the initial option-to-buy payment in October 1977 on, each quarterly installment due date has produced another crisis. During all of 1980 the center fell back to meeting overdue payments one day before the next was due. This year it has not kept to even this tardy schedule, failing to meet payment obligations on both March 1 and June 1. A grace period date extending payment of the $300,000 in arrears to July 15 was also missed. As of August 18, only $140,000 of that amount had been assembled, and another $175,000 payment fell due on September 1.

In July of 1980, the U.S. Center borrowed an interest-free amount of $300,000 to exercise its option to purchase and make the down payment on homes adjacent to the campus for an added $3.3 million. This move was defended because income from the rented properties would cover the added payments, and because control of the neighborhood would prevent deterioration and eventually restore balance to the campus (since two former dormitories have been converted to other uses). Because of a “wrap-around” clause in that transaction, loss of the campus would also spell loss of the added housing.

The sellers of the campus—a Nazarene college that moved to more spacious facilities in San Diego, now named Point Loma College—felt obliged to protect its interests. It therefore filed for foreclosure with the State of California last month. From the date notice was served, the U.S. Center has 90 days to cure its payment delinquency. If it fails to do so, a final 15 days will be permitted for coming up with the total outstanding balance. Thereafter the property would be forfeited and offered publicly in a foreclosure sale.

The U.S. Center for World Mission is the brainchild of Ralph D. Winter. He wanted to provide a facility that could be utilized by mission agencies in exploring ways to communicate the gospel message to the more than half of the world’s population now culturally isolated from contact with Christians.

The creative ferment he wanted to stimulate is going on. Forty-two agencies are involved in activities at the center, and have devoted 200 full-time staff to them. These operations are financially self-sustaining.

The fertile mind of the soft-spoken and talkative Winter has spawned an astonishing number of bold new concepts and movements. He has collected degrees from California Institute of Technology, Columbia and Cornell universities, and Princeton Theological Seminary in engineering, teaching English as a second language, structural linguistics, and theology. He served as a missionary to the Mayan Indians of Guatemala for 10 years and as a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary’s School of World Mission for 9.

He helped found the theological education by extension (TEE) movement, and has inspired the formation of the Association of Church Missions Committees, the William Carey Library, the American Society of Missiology, and the Institute of International Studies. He has created such conferences as Edinburgh ’80, which drew mixed reviews (CT, Dec. 12, 1980, p. 62), and the 1979 First Athens Congress on World Missions, which is best forgotten.

Winter’s recent energies have been focused on his William Carey International University for postgraduate extension studies in international development (CT, Nov. 7, 1980, p. 70), but Virgil A. Olson, formerly executive secretary of the Baptist General Conference Board of World Missions, became president this month. Winter is currently concentrating on his Frontier Fellowship, designed to mobilize broad-based action on behalf of the unreached peoples.

Most of Winter’s concepts that were visionary at the time have eventually been vindicated. But conceptualizers do not always make the best administrators. And Winter’s restless mind is prone to move on to new challenges before the last ones have been nailed down.

The disenchanted note that the member agencies of the U.S. Center for World Mission have now been consigned to one building of the campus and that the rest is now earmarked for the William Carey International University. Some loyal to the center concept object to the secularizing of both the WCIU charter and catalog descriptions that has accompanied the school’s drive for accreditation.

The agencies based at the U.S. Center seem mostly unfazed by the latest turn of events. “We’ve been under this for the four-and-a-half years that I’ve been on this campus,” said C. Ray Carlson of International Films, expressing doubt that this crunch is any more serious than those that have preceded it. He noted that member agencies have one-year leases that any new owner must honor—and most likely would be willing to extend for at least the short term.

The director of another agency, however, was concerned that he had heard of no contingency plans from Winter, and has made his own—obtaining promises of space in a Southern California mission agency headquarters and in commercially leased space.

Observers say they feel that valuable interaction fostered at the U.S. Center among, for instance, groups concentrating on the approach to Muslims, Chinese, and animists will continue whether or not they remain physically contiguous, with some shakeout in the groups now clustered there. But loss of the campus would seal off student access to the missions think tank—a tangible loss.

Determinedly optimistic, Winter says the threat of foreclosure is what is needed to reawaken the Christian world. “It’s like we’ve been crying ‘Wolf! Wolf!’ and there’s never been a wolf appear. We really need a wolf about now.” Switching metaphors, he says God has given this “genuine” crisis to “push us out of the eagle’s nest, forcing us to fly” as people realize what God has “been doing on that campus.” That, he contends, will enable them to soar to meet the $6 million payment due in two years. “I think,” he adds, “it would be just hopeless to barely make these payments right up to the doorstep of that ‘balloon’ payment.”

Before the end of the year it should be clear whether Winter’s venture has begun to soar—or crash-landed.

Outcome of ORU Encounter

The Bar Association Does Accreditation About-Face

The outcome seemed uncertain, but in the final David-versus-Goliath encounter between Oral Roberts School of Law and the American Bar Association, the small man won. After hours of heated debate last month in New Orleans, the ABA House of Delegates voted 147 to 127 in favor of amending its standard 211, thereby permitting accreditation of a law school that requires its students and faculty to pledge adherence to the school’s religious precepts. With that, ABA accreditation of ORU followed.

At issue was the question of religious discrimination. Earlier the ABA denied accreditation to ORU’s Coburn School of Law, charging religious discrimination in its exclusive hiring of faculty and admission of students who would sign its code of honor (CT, Sept. 4, p. 73).

But in a June 8 lawsuit, ORU turned the tables on that charge, insisting that the ABA itself discriminated against a religious institution’s First Amendment right to practice its beliefs. And a federal district court judge in Chicago issued a preliminary ruling in favor of the law school, suspending court action against the ABA only until its house of delegates could meet in August to settle the matter.

Delegates to the ABA convention thus faced probable court action plus an unstated but clearly perceived threat to the ABA’s future role in approving and accrediting law schools.

“It was a strong underlying issue that was not stated,” said Detroit lawyer Dennis Archer about that threat. Archer had hotly debated against ORU accreditation, convinced the action would be tantamount to ABA approval of “pronounced discriminatory practice.” He said ORU lawyers by their own admission stated ORU “intended to be discriminatory,” admitting only students or faculty who would sign their pledge.

Archer added, “ORU has a right to do what they want to do even though I object to it. But they have no right to obtain the ABA accreditation. That’s a privilege, not a right. So why should we succumb or else be blackjacked into giving them something just because they want it?”

Robert Skolrood, ORU general counsel, also believes ORU’s pending lawsuit influenced the August decision. “Although the ABA had recognized for a long time that it would have to amend its standard 211,” he said, “they had really dragged their feet on it. The lawsuit obviously had a strong effect on that change.”

Even though Skolrood feels lawsuit action is a “last resort measure,” he said this one was necessary. “Any time you have groups telling religious institutions what they should believe contrary to that religious body’s own beliefs,” he explained, “then on the basis of First Amendment free exercise of religion and a group’s refusal to follow the Constitution you have to resort to the courts.”

He added, “Once you allow any group to tamper with another group’s First Amendment rights, we’re all in trouble.” He said we live in the aftermath of the sixties when freedom from religion was stressed rather than freedom of religion.

ABA accreditation of ORU Coburn did not come without warnings, however. Opponents said the ABA was setting a precedent for future exclusionary practices by other law schools. “Contrary to the whole history of this country,” said Erwin Griswold, former U.S. Solicitor General, “any institution now that wants to will be able to put up a sign that says no Jews admitted or no Catholics admitted.”

But in the final heat of combat, former bar association president Whitney North Seymour, Sr., said it all. “It may be necessary to take a deep gulp,” he advised, “and accept things we might not wish to accept in order to preserve the role of the ABA in approving law schools.”

With that gulp the little ORU law school won the battle against the 200,000-member ABA. For newly accredited ORU law students, that legal battle may be the most significant fight of their careers.

The Pentecostal Holiness Church

Members Send A Message By Electing A New Bishop

The International Pentecostal Holiness Church last month elected as general superintendent a man who had resigned from an administrative position in the denomination only five months earlier.

Leon Stewart succeeds Bishop J. Floyd Williams, who headed the church since 1969. (Bishop is an honorary title conferred for life upon general superintendents of the denomination.) Williams is also the current president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Stewart, the man chosen to succeed Williams, served during the previous four years as vice-chairman, the number two post in the church administration. However, after 16 years of service at the national level of his denomination, most recently as director of evangelism, Stewart resigned in March of this year, partly, at least, in protest “against the leadership of the church.” After a four-month pastorate in Roanoke, Virginia, Stewart made a triumphal return when he won with 55 percent of the votes on the third ballot. But so unexpected was this turn of events that his wife, Donna, was preparing to fly back to Roanoke from Oklahoma City when she learned after being paged on the Dallas-Fort Worth airport public address system that her husband had just been elected bishop.

Almost unnoted by the delegates was the fact that the new bishop is legally blind. Over many years he has done his work so well that his handicap was not an issue. An unsuspecting visitor would not have guessed the presiding officer was unsighted, so efficiently and precisely did he direct the conference business.

During the 12 years of Bishop Williams’s administration, the Pentecostal Holiness Church was transformed from a rural southern denomination to one of international character. A visible sign is relocation of its headquarters from rural Georgia to metropolitan Oklahoma City. Williams personally supervised rewriting of the church’s charter, changing the name to include the word international, and providing means for affiliation with similar churches in other nations.

Known for his ability to deal with tough problems facing his denomination, Williams most recently led in closing the denomination’s Oklahoma Southwestern College, which relieved the church of a long-standing financial burden.

The election of Stewart marked the culmination of several controversies that had simmered beneath the surface in the denomination for several months. One of these concerned the Catholic charismatic renewal, which Williams attacked in several church forums during the summer. “There is no way,” he said, “a person can be saved, sanctified, and baptized with the Holy Ghost and be a devout member of the Catholic church.” He warned against the specter of “Romanism” as a threat to his denomination.

Following what was assumed to be Williams’s lead, newsletters were sent to all the Pentecostal Holiness ministers in the U.S. attacking Vinson Synan, assistant general superintendent of the church. Synan, a well-known historian and activist in the charismatic renewal, is the son of former Bishop J. A. Synan, who was general superintendent for 24 years until replaced by Williams 12 years ago.

Despite these attacks, Synan was returned to office in the number three position in the denomination’s administration, after running third to Stewart and Williams for the office of bishop. Some observers interpreted this action as a middle-of-the-road directive, neither condemning present relationships with the charismatic renewal nor making any greater official recognition of the group. In a later action, the conference condemned the use of church mailing lists to attack church leaders.

Another problem facing Williams related to his activities as one-third owner of Bethany Village Incorporated, a private nursing home at Bethany, Oklahoma, near the denomination’s headquarters building. The nursing home was supposedly begun as a denominationally sponsored project, and irregularities were alleged in its transfer to private ownership.

In July, Williams was tried and acquitted by the General Board of Administration on charges brought by two laymen alleging conflict of interest in the nursing home. Nevertheless, documents circulated in the lobbies of the conference kept the issue alive before the delegates. Williams was also under criticism for allegedly heavy-handed treatment of subordinates who disagreed with his policy.

The nineteenth quadrennial general conference of the Pentecostal Holiness Church was convened in Oklahoma City amid the travel confusion of the air controllers’ strike. Although the strike reduced attendance, the denomination’s 1,400 U.S. churches were still represented by 1,200 voting delegates.

Three smaller Pentecostal denominations loosely affiliated with the IPHC also participated. The major sermons at evening sessions were brought by the leaders of these groups: Herbert Carter of the Pentecostal Freewill Baptist Church (13,500 members); James Martin of the Congregational Holiness Church (6,000 members); and James A. Forbes, Sr., of the predominantly black Original United Holy Church (25,000 members). These three groups are in various stages of a process leading to full merger with the Pentecostal Holiness Church. The conference also adopted a resolution affirming full communion with the Pentecostal Methodist Church of Chile (320,000 members), thereby confirming at the highest official level an affiliation that has existed since 1967.

The Home and Family Life Department brought the most explosive report to the floor in a document pointing out the problems brought by divorce, homosexuality, unmarried couples, single parent families, and abortion. The resolution on abortion was a strongly worded right-to-life document that called abortion on demand “intentional murder of an innocent, unborn child,” usually due to selfishness.

V. ALEX BILLS

Greece

Believers Get A Taste Of Public Evangelism

Laws in Greece against proselytizing have continued to hinder open Christian witness, despite guarantees of such freedom under the country’s new constitution. In previous years, Protestant Christians have been jailed for handing out tracts. A Jehovah’s Witness currently awaits trial for trying to win converts.

Against this background comes news of a successful 12-day gospel campaign organized by the Hellenic Missionary Union in southeastern Greece this summer. Costas Macris, president of the HMU, led “Project Maranatha,” the first of its kind in Greece in recent times.

A 17-year veteran with the Regions Beyond Missionary Union in Irian Jaya, Macris was afflicted with several tropical diseases that forced him to end his ministry there. After a year’s convalescence in the U.S., he returned to his native Greece to take up a new career challenging Greek believers to evangelize both at home and abroad.

Maranatha’s 55-member team, most of whom had no previous such experience, presented the gospel at two beaches, a prison farm, a disco center, and in the main squares of eight villages and cities. Each day’s program included 45 minutes of contemporary Christian music by “Anagennesis” (Regeneration), a group of young Greek Christians. This reporter, a missionary with Greater Europe Mission, gave 15-minute magic shows, presenting the gospel through visual illusions. Apostolos Bliates, director of Campus Crusades AGAPE movement in Greece, preached at the meetings.

Negative responses to the outreach ranged from accusations that it was politically inspired to distrust from people who would have nothing to do with a spiritual movement outside the state (Greek Orthodox) church. A group of political leftists came to harass the team on one evening. On another, a number of Jehovah’s Witnesses came to take advantage of the public interest in the gospel.

But a combined total of more than 7,000 were attracted to the presentations, and at about half of the gatherings local Greek Orthodox priests were not only in attendance but supportive. An inmate at the prison farms in Nafplion remarked, “in the five-and-a-half years that I have been here, no one has ever presented the gospel to me.” Dozens of personal contacts following each meeting resulted in about 250 individuals leaving their names to receive more information or a New Testament.

Maranatha’s success was due primarily to good organization. Before the project started, an exploratory team enlisted the support of local clerics, politicians, and the police. In Corinth, where the evangelistic team had perhaps its most receptive audience, the mayor printed one thousand handbills, and at his own expense placed front-page advertisements announcing the programs in the city’s newspapers.

In each locality the team made a positive impact on its listeners and evoked many inquiries about similar future presentations. The team distributed over one thousand copies of the Gospel of John and the Four Spiritual Laws booklet. Fearlessly sharing the gospel publicly was challenging, especially for team members with no previous experience. As an exhilarated director Macris remarked, “The day of aggressive evangelism in Greece has arrived.”

ROBERT H. HILL

World Scene

The Salvation Army has withdrawn its membership in the World Council of Churches. The denomination, which operates in 86 countries, put its membership in suspension in 1978 after a couple of its workers were killed by guerrilla activity in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia). The WCC helped provide funds for the Zimbabwe Patriotic Front. The Salvation Army said it withdrew last month because it felt the WCC is guided “by politics rather than the gospel,” but stressed that it intended to maintain a “fraternal status” with the ecumenical body.

Sudan Interior Mission (SIM) and the Andes Evangelical Mission (AEM) have decided to merge.SIM general director Ian Hay and AEM head Ronald Wiebe jointly announced the merger in Bolivia last month. The decision ends more than 18 months of study and discussion between the two organizations. Hay stated that both missions are “remarkably compatible” in their church-planting goals, administrative structures, and financial policies, as well as in doctrinal beliefs. AEM ultimately will become part of SIM. Formal integration of the two bodies is scheduled for January 1, 1982.

The Greek Bible Institute and a Christian old people’s home miraculously withstood fires that swept through a dozen suburbs in Athens early last month. The fires only scorched grass and shrubbery in front of the school and blistered paint on front windows and doors. A corner of the roof caught fire briefly before it was put out. The nearby old people’s home did not suffer any damage. The flames came up to the Bible school property line, then stopped. The fire burned down trees on property located on both sides of the school, operated by the Greater Europe Mission. The fires followed a continuing wave of bombings that started last December.

A colored (mixed race) woman withdrew her membership in one of South Africa’s all-white Dutch Reformed churches two weeks after the church accepted her as a full member. Miss Saartjie Pieterse, a 29-year-old live-in servant of a white family, withdrew under pressure from both her congregation and other white Christian supporters of the government’s policy of racial discrimination. Awie Heiberg, minister of the Linden church, said he had advised Miss Pieterse to withdraw to protect “her own interests and her future.”

Availability of Bibles in China is on the increase. A report from North China confirms that an active church ordered and received a shipment of 600 Bibles from Shanghai, where they were printed. The entire shipment sold out in two days.

North American Scene

The Spiritual Counterfeits Project in Berkeley, California, has started a telephone information service for people with questions about new religious groups and cult involvement. The Information and Referral Service was set up to handle more than 500 calls and letters coming into SCP monthly. The IRS number is (415) 527–9212, and is in service from 10 A.M. to 4 P.M. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, Pacific Time. The organization also will refer callers to people in their own areas if they need more help than they can get by phone.

A millionaire Fort Worth businessman, T. Cullen Davis, is offering a $100,000 reward to anyone who can prove that evolution is true. “I feel my money is absolutely safe,” said Davis, who recently became a Christian. He originally offered $2,500, then raised it to $50,000, and then doubled it to make the award attractive.

The Journal of Communication studied 12 television soap operas for sexual content and found “General Hospital” to contain the most. The magazine reported that the social as well as sexual relationships between males and females in the soaps, and the intimacy of conversations, were not typical of real-life patterns. The researchers also found that intimate sexual relationships in the programs were most likely to occur between unmarried partners. They reported that “General Hospital” has gained a “cult-like” following among teen-agers.

Personalia

Dr. Verent J. Mills is stepping down as executive director of the Christian Children’s Fund of Richmond, Virginia. The 68-year-old native of Birmingham, England, who began his missionary career more than 50 years ago, joined the fund in 1947 as regional director for the Far East, and became director of operations in 1958. His successor will be James MacCracken, former executive director of Church World Service.

A raised consciousness to the need for evangelical churches to reach out in social renewal—that’s just part of what motivates Bill Kallio, age 31, as the new executive director of Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA). Kallio was formerly assistant director of Baxter Community Center ministries with the Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Deaths

Morrow Coffey Graham, 89, mother of evangelist Billy Graham; of a heart ailment August 14 in Charlotte, North Carolina.

They want a bigger role, but the attorney general says no.

On March 19, 1981, Arkansas became the first state ever to require the teaching of scientific creationism in public schools where evolution theory is taught. Four months later, its neighbor to the south, Louisiana, passed a similar law.

After about 15 defeats in state legislatures, creationists are celebrating these back-to-back victories. But a trial is scheduled to begin late this month in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which wants the law declared unconstitutional.

The ACLU also has vowed to get the Louisiana law thrown out. The effort there, however, will likely take a back seat until after the Arkansas ruling. “Let Arkansas do it,” was the way a member of a Texas school board put it. That seems to be the motto, for the time being, of those considering sponsoring a creationism law—or preparing to challenge one.

Federal Judge William R. Overton will try the case, which is due to start in Little Rock on October 26. The trial is expected to take about a week.

The Arkansas chapter of the ACLU filed suit in Little Rock on behalf of 23 individuals—including about a dozen clergymen—and organizations. It contends the law violates the Constitutional separation of church and state, and that it abridges academic freedom.

The suit, filed by ACLU attorneys Philip Kaplan and Bob Cearley, alleged that creation, as used in the law, “necessarily encompasses the concept of a supernatural Creator …, an inherently religious belief. Creation-science cannot be taught without reference to that religious belief in a Creator.”

In short, the plaintiffs charged that Act 590 of 1981 is but the first two chapters of Genesis rewritten to sound scientific.

Starting in the fall of 1982, the Balanced Treatment Act, as it is formally known, requires that in public schools from grades 1 through 12, science texts and lectures that espouse evolution theory are to be “balanced” with creation-science theory. (Ironically, several science textbooks used in public schools in the state include creation theory along with evolution, but those books are not mandatory.)

“Monkey Trial II!” skeptics are shouting, a reference to the 1925 trial of John T. Scopes, a Dayton, Tennessee, high school biology teacher who was found guilty of violating a state law banning the teaching of evolution. And a circus atmosphere reminiscent of the Scopes trial is building.

Just as the infamous trial of 56 years ago had the inimitable scoffer H. L. Mencken leading the corps of reporters that telegraphed 175,000 words a day—the equivalent of two novels—out of the small Tennessee town, Little Rock has its own mass media star, albeit of a different nature.

Carl Sagan, host of the “Cosmos” television series and author of the best seller of the same title, is but one of the expert witnesses lined up by the ACLU. Others, including paleontologist Niles Eldredge, are eminently qualified in their own right, but they lack Sagan’s exposure and charisma.

Sagan, a Pulitzer Prize-winning astrophysicist, has been speaking out against the Arkansas law and creationism in general. On a recent “Tonight Show,” he told host Johnny Carson that the law is a thinly disguised reworking of the “Genesis myth.” The only way he would allow the teaching of this notion would be if it were included in a course with other fanciful tales, he told Carson.

Bruce Ennis, national legal director of the ACLU, and Kelly Segraves, director of the Creation Science Institute at San Diego, whetted the national appetite by debating the Arkansas law on the “Phil Donahue Show.” Locally, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) revived Inherit the Wind, the play based on the famed confrontation between William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow in the Scopes trial.

The law’s detractors in Arkansas have taken the banana as their symbol of protest. Created by George Fisher, political cartoonist for the Arkansas Gazette, “banana buttons” are being sold for $1, with proceeds going to the Zoo of Arkansas. Even Governor Frank White, who inspired Fisher’s campaign by signing the legislation, and who is often satirized by the cartoonist, has good-naturedly sported a button from time to time.

Whatever the similarities in the publicity surrounding the two trials, there appear to be substantial differences in the law and in the legal issues. The Tennessee law forbade teaching of evolution in contradiction of the biblical account of creation. Act 590 strictly prohibits religious instruction or even references to religious writing in requiring the “balancing” of evolutionary theory with creation science.

Scopes was tried simply on whether he had violated the law. The ACLU will attempt to prove that Act 590 violates the Constitutional rights of school children as provided in the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Scopes was found guilty and fined, but the conviction was overturned in 1927 by the Tennessee Supreme Court, which at the same time upheld the constitutionality of the law. Decades later, the law was thrown out.

In 1929, the Arkansas legislature passed an antievolution law, which stood until 1968 when the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down. The ACLU says it is that case that parallels its current lawsuit.

Defenders of the Tennessee law were avowedly fundamentalist, and there is a strong fundamentalist/evangelical sympathy for the Arkansas statute.

However, 15 persons and four organizations, representing a diverse religious and scientific base, are seeking to intervene as codefendants with the state in favor of the law. About half are members of the scientific and medical communities. These include a group of Orthodox Jews, the Rabbinical Alliance of America, and a Muslim. They also include some of the country’s best-known creationists.

These people feel the state has not shown that it is preparing the best defense it can. They base that opinion mainly on the statements and actions of state Attorney General Steve Clark, whose job it is to defend the law in court. The day the ACLU filed suit, Clark sounded more like counsel for the plaintiffs. He expressed misgivings about the law. “My personal qualms just deal with whether it’s good for the state,” Clark told reporters, “and whether it’s a legitimate state interest. Personally, I think it ought to be changed. Setting the curriculum ought to be left to the Department of Education and local school boards.” He said, however, he would do his best “because that’s my job.”

Whether Clark is doing his best is in question. Since filing day, he has refused an offer of free legal assistance from Wendel R. Bird, Jr., of El Cajon, California, recognized as the foremost legal authority on creation science and general counsel for the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, and John W. Whitehead of Manassas, Virginia, a lawyer with considerable courtroom experience in creationism cases. The two visited Clark’s offices together.

Clark says he feels he and his staff are qualified to handle the constitutional issue. He has been helped by private law firms in other cases, notably an antitrust suit in which the state incurred a $750,000 legal-services debt.

Clark opposes the intervention, saying it would “muddy the waters” by opening the floodgates to just anyone who had an opinion in the matter, but not a “compelling interest.” Bird and Whitehead, it is worth noting, would represent the interveners.

The attorney general has softened his earlier statements about the law, now calling it “defensible.” Judge Overton ruled against the motion to intervene, although Clark recently said he would let creationists help him line up expert witnesses. The creationists have not decided whether to appeal the ruling.

It would be “simply good education” to include both the evolution model and the creation-science model in the classroom, according to Ed Gran, president of Arkansas Citizens for Balanced Education in Origins, which has spearheaded the creationist movement in the state. A physics professor at UALR, Gran is well aware that creationists are in the extreme minority in the scientific community, and at best are looked on as well-meaning but woefully wrong. Yet he maintains a Pandora’s box of intellectual quackery is being opened by placing creation science in the curricula. All theories of origins fall into either the materialist or the creationist categories: “There are two and only two models,” he says.

Gran willingly admits neither model is testable or falsifiable—the criteria for scientific theory. But, he insists, creation science is “at least as scientific” as the evolution model. Berkeley-trained biochemist Duane Gish, an official of the Institute of Creation Research, put it in a similar fashion. “This is not the stuff of science,” Gish was quoted in BioScience magazine, “but the stuff of assumptions and inferences.”

Evolution Society Digs In Against The Creationists

Two years ago at the annual meetings of the Society for the Study of Evolution it was business as usual. Discussions centered on genetic variation, speciation, and natural selection in accord with SSE’s stated purpose of studying evolution.

This year, the summer conference was held at the University of Iowa. There was the usual amount of standard business, but there was also something new—something that two years ago wasn’t even whispered: creation. Two years ago it was not an issue, as if creation were not worthy of thoughtful consideration. Though its presence was by no means ubiquitous this year, it was one of the major topics of private discussions, the subject of a 20-minute contributed paper, and it even filtered into a few of the major hour-long symposium sessions.

It is likely that numbers of evolutionists are still intent on sitting tight, believing creation will go away. A small minority are curious and genuinely interested in discussing the issue. But more and more are taking active steps to stamp out creation. The anticreation movement is gathering steam and sophistication.

The attitude toward creation among those attending the meeting in Iowa City was predominantly derisive. Even attempts at sincere statements were sprinkled with sarcasm. Leading evolutionary spokesmen advised their colleagues to avoid public debates. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, in an aside in his symposium lecture on macroevolution (which deals with large-scale evolutionary changes), advised that such debates are not good strategy, but if anyone were to participate, he should not come loaded with examples of microevolution (smaller, observable changes within species) because creationists now accept it (as if they never did).

Gould has emerged as a leader in the anticreation movement because he believes his theory of punctuated equilibrium has been craftily misused by creationists. Punctuated equilibrium seeks to explain the gaps in the fossil record by sudden, rapid evolutionary jumps. During the past year, Gould has been promoting his gospel of evolutionary certainty in such popular magazines as People and Discover, as well as his monthly column in Natural History. He has also appeared on the “Phil Donahue Show” along with Carl Sagan.

One thing that is upsetting to evolutionists is the use of their own statements by creationists to the creationists’ advantage. This appears to be the reason Gould has taken the offensive. When this happens, the usual retort by the evolutionist is that the quote was taken out of context. Another response has been that the evolutionist author quoted by the creationist was misunderstood. But at the SSE meetings a new response to the question was voiced: that the quoted author was simply wrong, and therefore his statement is of no use to creationists.

What this all comes down to, it seems, is that many evolutionists are getting angry and are determined to put an end to the creation business. Though their efforts may occasionally lapse into bad manners and poor logic, they have essentially raised the creation-evolution debate to a new level of sophistication. This is especially apparent by the introduction of a new journal, Creation/Evolution, published by evolutionists. Now in its second year of publication, its goal is to answer creationist arguments and develop strategies to combat the advances of creation theory. The intense level of the controversy is also revealed in the preparedness and persuasiveness of those few evolutionists who do debate.

Though most anticreationists claim their motivation comes from concern as citizens and not as scientists (for study of creation is not science, they say), they nevertheless are paying attention to the challenge and responding. It now remains to be seen if the creation movement will stand up under the scrutiny.

RAYMOND G. BOHLIN

The American Scientific Affiliation

Topics Cover The Universe At Evangelical Symposium

Millions watched the “Cosmos” series on public television. They heard humanistic astronomer Carl Sagan repeatedly assert that earthlings are not the only intelligent beings in the universe. In August, several hundred members of the American Scientific Affiliation heard a more skeptical view. It came from Harvard University astronomer and science history professor Owen Gingerich, a committed Christian and practicing Mennonite.

The ASA is a national organization of evangelicals in scientific and technological work who see science as a legitimate Christian calling. Gingerich, keynote speaker at the thirty-sixth annual ASA meeting held at Eastern College near Philadelphia, said that no other planet is known to be inhabited by any form of life, let alone by intelligent humanoids. Life depends on water, and Mars is the only other planet showing signs of liquid water on its surface. Yet the Viking lander sent back no evidence of life on Mars or even of organic chemicals essential to life. Although the galaxy in which our solar system floats contains at least 50 stars for every person on earth, astronomers have found only a few stars with planets orbiting around them.

In the millions of other galaxies in outer space, of course, another habitable planet might exist; but Gingerich considered that possibility no more likely than “the possibility that the whole universe was created with us in mind. For human life to exist, our earth had to be exactly the right size and right distance from the sun, and probably had to collide with an asteroid at just the right time.” Behind all those factors “going for us,” faith sees an even more significant factor: the Creator’s intention.

Does evangelical theology insist that earthbound human beings must be alone in God’s universe? According to a paper by Paul Fayter, doctoral candidate in the history of science at the University of Toronto, Christians have taken both sides of that question in the past. Strangely enough, the orthodox view among eminent British scientists and theologians in the nineteenth century favored “a plurality of inhabited worlds.” Arguments on both sides were drawn from biblical proof texts, natural theology, and metaphysical speculation.

Fayter’s paper was part of a plenary symposium on theological and scientific explorations of space. Two symposium speakers reviewed the astronomical data that convince scientists the universe must be at least several billion years old.

Neither Kyle Cudworth, associate professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Chicago’s Yerkes Observatory, nor Perry Phillips, another symposium speaker, offered any hope to “young earth” creationists that recent developments in astronomy or physics might drastically reduce estimates of the universe’s age. Phillips, who has both a Ph.D. in astrophysics from Cornell and an M.Div. from Biblical Theological Seminary, showed why arguments for a “young” universe based on the 1908 theory of Walter Ritz are not valid. Ritz, who offered an alternative to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, has been proved incorrect, Phillips said. Both special relativity and the cosmic scale of distances remain intact. So does an immense time since the “big bang” creation event.

To the annoyance of some and the satisfaction of others, the ASA takes no official position on the age of the universe, on evolution, or on other issues on which Christian or scientific opinion is divided. Its some 3,000 members are united by a three-part statement of faith. They accept the Bible as God’s inspired Word, Jesus Christ as God’s Son and mediator between God and humanity, and science as a source of reliable information about the natural world created and upheld by God. Accustomed to the give-and-take of scientific interaction, ASA members sometimes argue vigorously with each other at their meetings, but begin each day by joining in prayer and worship.

At Eastern College, the ASA celebrated its fortieth anniversary. In 1979 a fire destroyed its national office in Elgin, Illinois. This year the group has taken a new lease on life by employing a full-time executive director from its own ranks. Robert L. Herrmann, who left the Boston University faculty in 1976 to found the Department of Biochemistry at Oral Roberts University schools of medicine and dentistry, will head the ASA from a new national office in Massachusetts (P.O. Box J, Ipswich, Mass. 01938).

ASA is governed by a five-member executive council. Current president is Chi-Hang Lee, a biochemist and manager of a food-research laboratory at the Del Monte Corporation Research Center in Walnut Creek, California. Lee said he is excited about ASA’s future and about “Bob Herrmann’s vision of witness to the scientific community and service to the Christian community.” Other hopeful signs were a collection of over $2,000 at the meeting to reduce a current deficit, and “lots of young scientists, especially graduate students, attending their first ASA meeting.” The August 1982 meeting is set for Calvin College in Michigan, with a biological theme. The 1981 meeting theme was “The Heavens Declare the Glory of God.”

The Psalm 19:1 theme was evident in an exhibit of paintings by New York artist Sandra Bowden and in two dramatic slide shows put together by research physicist Paul Arveson of the Naval Ship Research and Development Center in Bethesda, Maryland. One featured close-ups of Jupiter taken by the Voyager space probe. The other presented concepts put forth by James Houston of Regent College in I Believe in the Creator (Eerdmans, 1980).

In a “first” for ASA, one paper was delivered by videotape. Harold Hartzler, a retired professor, had made the tape from his Minnesota hospital bed after suffering a heart attack in July. Veteran member Hartzler, who had attended all 35 earlier ASA meetings in person, had a special interest in this one. Years ago, at Goshen College in Indiana, Professor Hartzler taught physics and astronomy to a young student named Owen Gingerich.

WALTER R. HEARN

The ASA Checks It Out

Was Newton A Believer?

At this year’s meeting (see accompanying report) several papers by ASA members dealt with historical figures. One, entitled “Is Newton in Heaven?” was presented by Helen E. Martin, a young mathematics and science teacher at Unionville High School in Unionville, Pennsylvania.

Isaac Newton (1642–1727), one of the world’s greatest mathematicians and the founder of classical physics, was a devout believer in Christ and a practicing Anglican. His religious writings, which he considered more important than his scientific writings, were not made public until 1936, over 200 years after his death. Then they were scattered to several countries because in those depression years no single library or museum could raise enough money to purchase them all.

Martin developed an interest in Newton’s religious faith and began to track down his religious writings. Many books on Newton state that he became a Unitarian in his later years. Newton did have an aversion to the word “Trinity” and to church creeds—because they were not part of Scripture. He loved the Bible and studied it deeply.

Martin described her “discovery” of Newton’s own Bible, bound between a prayer book and a psalter, as one of the most exciting moments of her life. She found it in the Wren Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, England, and was able to photograph it. The well-worn pages contain marginal notes in Newton’s handwriting. Although some of Newton’s views were unorthodox, there is plenty of evidence that his faith in the Savior remained strong to the end. For his own epitaph he wrote: “Here lies that which is mortal of Isaac Newton.”

Helen Martin is convinced that the great mathematician and scientist is now with his beloved Lord.

American policy toward embassy guests warms, and European support builds.

For an update on the situation of the seven Pentecostal believers confined in the American Embassy in Moscow, CHRISTIANITY TODAY turned to Kent R. Hill, the assistant professor of history at Seattle Pacific University who was in Moscow when they first made their dash for freedom. He translated the voluminous written narrative of the seven into English for biographer John Pollock and became their friend.

When the “Siberian Seven” arrived at the American embassy in Moscow on June 27, 1978, they were seeking assistance in emigrating from the Soviet Union on grounds of religious persecution. They expected their visit to be short. It was not. The brutality of Soviet militia stationed in front of the embassy transformed a brief visit into a desperate plea for asylum. The de facto asylum that resulted recently entered its fourth year, and there is still no diplomatic solution in sight.

The diplomatic stalemate could immediately be resolved if the Soviets would simply grant the Vaschenko and Chmykhalov families (including members at home in Siberia as well as those in the embassy) the necessary emigration visas. Soviet refusal to cooperate in this matter could perhaps have been expected. What was not expected was U.S. reluctance actively to support the case. Nevertheless, for over two-and-a-half years, the U.S. Department of State and its embassy in Moscow seemed far more concerned with convincing the refugees to leave the safe confines of the American compound than in pressuring the Soviets to grant them their freedom. Since about February 1981, however, there has been a very encouraging change of attitude on the part of the American embassy.

Not only have the Siberian Seven suffered from the initial refusal of American government authorities to pursue their case actively, they have also suffered from the neglect and apathy of the American church community. Many thousands of individual American Christians have given support at the grassroots level, and a few organizations and journals have lent support. But most Christian leaders and organizations in this country have chosen to remain silent. In large part that explains why the Siberian Seven are still almost completely unknown to the majority of American Christians. In contrast, European Christians have been much more responsive to the desperate plight of these victims of Soviet religious persecution.

A successful resolution to this diplomatic stalemate may depend on the willingness of the government and the Christian community at large in this country to join with their European counterparts in putting pressure on the Soviets to release the Siberian Seven and their families. Their fate may well hang in the balance.

First, we must review how the Americans handled the situation during the first two-and-a-half years, the period when the Siberian Seven could best be described as unwanted guests in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. From the first, American officials repeatedly asserted that the State Department and Moscow embassy were doing everything they could to encourage the Soviets to grant the Vashchenkos and Chymkhalovs permission to emigrate. Furthermore, U.S. and embassy officials always maintained that the Siberian Seven would not be forced to leave the embassy.

There were persistent reports, however, both in this country and abroad, that the actual U.S. policy was to discourage the families from staying. The embassy deliberately minimized publicity and deprived the families of free contact with those who were willing to provide them with moral support. For many months, consular officers repeatedly denied permission to many members of the diplomatic community in Moscow, as well as numerous visitors from the West, to meet with the families. A variety of firsthand observers have confirmed that the embassy refused to allow correspondents to interview the families in the room where they live, refused to allow the news media to photograph or film them in their room, and maintained a limited access list of those permitted to see the families.

In a concerted effort to isolate as much as possible the Siberian Seven from the support of Christians in the West, embassy officials even refused to show the families copies of letters sent via international mail—rather than by diplomatic pouch, at the American embassy’s insistence—the originals of which had been confiscated by the Soviets. The U.S. government’s policy during this period, though it physically maintained the familes at the Moscow embassy, clearly was unsupportive and at times bordered on outright harassment.

The coolness of American policy toward the Russian refugees did provoke some reaction in the West, though not much. Kevin Lynch wrote several articles for National Review (Aug. 31, 1979; Mar. 21, 1980; April 3, 1981), documenting the negative side of American policy toward the Siberian Seven. Vladimir Bukovsky, the well-known Soviet dissident, attacked U.S. harassment of the Siberian Seven in a letter to the editors of Time, printed in its issue of June 4, 1979. Bukovsky, best known in the West for his role in exposing the Soviet practice of using psychiatric hospitals as political prisons, continued his assault on U.S. policy in mid-1979 in an address to the Coalition for a Democratic Majority.

Few Americans, however, ever became aware of U.S. policy regarding the Siberian Seven. Many still did not know who they were, let alone how they were being treated.

The Siberian Seven have requested political asylum in the embassy because they fear for their lives. Since arriving at the embassy, 1,500 pages of their autobiographies and documents have been translated into English and formed the basis for The Siberian Seven, written by John Pollock. Published by Word, this 276-page volume is one of the best-documented accounts of the persecution of Christians by the Soviet government.

The struggle of the Siberian Seven to emigrate to the West spans almost two decades and encompasses almost all of the types of sufferings that Christians behind the Iron Curtain have had to bear: violent disruption of church services, abduction of children from Christian parents for placement in state orphanages, confinement in labor camps and psychiatric hospitals, and mysterious deaths. Pollock’s book provides numerous examples of the petty harassments that are a daily occurrence for several million Russian Christians. The official papers provided by the Siberian Seven impressively corroborate and highlight a wide variety of sources already available in the West on the conditions of Christians behind the Iron Curtain.

Now that the families have allowed their account of Soviet persecution to be published in the West, they have no alternative but to remain in the embassy until their case is favorably resolved. On July 27, former British Foreign Secretary David Owen summed up the plight of the refugees as follows:

“The Siberian Seven are a very good example of the gravity of the human rights situation inside the Soviet Union, and I have long supported both publicly and privately that they should be allowed out of the Soviet Union. I do not think there is any way that they could return to their families without fear of persecution and harassment.”

In view of the real danger that awaits the refugees outside the American embassy, how can we account for the tireless efforts of U.S. officials to convince the families to leave it?

A major factor that certainly contributed to the government’s initial reluctance to publicize this highly unusual story, especially during the early months of the group’s stay in the embassy, was the fear that the Senate ratification of the SALT II agreement would be jeopardized. It was assumed that Soviet violation of agreements guaranteeing freedom of religion and emigration would call into question the whole issue of Soviet trustworthiness on new international agreements. With the failure of SALT II to be ratified by the Senate and the election of a more conservative president and Congress, this particular impediment to support and publicity was removed.

A second factor is the view that it is not in the best interests of the U.S. to intervene. If the U.S. government actively intercedes with the Soviet government on behalf of these seven Christians, will not American embassies throughout the Communist world be deluged with squatters? This question has been raised from time to time during the past three years.

The evidence is conclusive, however, that this particular case need not set a dangerous precedent. The seven did not break into the embassy demanding to emigrate or be given political asylum. They came with an official letter from U.S. Embassy officials authorizing their entry into the embassy to discuss emigration. It was only when the Soviet militia in front of the embassy refused to honor the letter that the situation fundamentally changed. The apprehension and subsequent abuse of John Vashchenko was the incident that turned a routine visit to the embassy into a desperate plea for asylum.

The Saga of the Seven

Here, in barest outline, is the story of the Siberian Seven.

Peter Vaschenko grew up in a lay preacher’s family driven from its home and forced to wander for two years before finding a Siberian village that tolerated them. He found it easier to be a secret believer as he went to school and then off to war. Only after he married and moved to Chernogorsk did he and his wife, Augustina, become active Christians.

Khrushchev’s great persecution caught up with them in 1961. They were constantly harassed inside and outside the church. Three of their children were abducted and placed in a state school to be indoctrinated in atheism.

This was the last straw for Vaschenko. He took his family and some others to Moscow and applied for exit visas. The authorities called them crazy and sent them home. Peter was imprisoned.

Shortly after, in 1963, his wife and three of his children were among 32 Siberian Christians who rushed into the American embassy in Moscow and begged for help in securing permission to leave Russia. They were eventually persuaded by Soviet officials to return home and await legal papers. But once back in Siberia, the believers were arrested and punished.

During the years of persecution that ensued, the Vaschenko family still hoped authorities would grant them permission to emigrate. They managed two more cross-continent trips to the embassy in 1968 and 1975. When they received a mail invitation, or offer of sponsorship, in April 1978, they laid plans for their final attempt, and were joined by two members of the Chmykhalov family.

The lives of these people are in grave danger if they leave the embassy. This is the internationally recognized justification for seeking and obtaining political asylum. If the U.S. government simply points out the highly unusual circumstances that compelled the families to remain in the embassy, and particularly the fact that they came with a written invitation, then it can vigorously pursue securing emigration for these refugees without fear of establishing a precedent for allowing unwarranted embassy sit-ins.

Government policy relative to the Siberian Seven never became a major campaign issue in the recent presidential elections. However, during a radio commentary in 1979, Ronald Reagan did criticize the Carter administration’s handling of the situation. “Détente,” observed the Republican nominee, “is a two-way street. Our wheat and technology can get into Russia—why can’t the Vaschenko and Chmykhalov families get out?”

Fortunately, there has been a clear change in embassy policy since about February of this year. Correspondents are now allowed to interview the families in their quarters, rather than in the courtyard. The access list has been eliminated. U.S. citizens are allowed to visit the families in their room, and so may foreigners, provided they first check with the consular section. The seven are now allowed to socialize with other Americans in their apartments, which lie within the safety of the American compound. In addition, the families are now permitted to do unpaid work within the embassy. American authorities have been in contact with important Soviet officials, although it is not yet clear if the negotiations are bearing fruit. The present embassy handling of the situation seems to reflect a genuine change of attitude.

Efforts to influence the U.S. Congress have met with partial success. On May 9, 1980, 50 senators sent a letter to Brezhnev requesting that the Vashchenko and Chmykhalov families be allowed to emigrate. Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan has been most outspoken on behalf of the families in the embassy. On June 27, 1980, he introduced S. 2890, a bill that would have granted both families “permanent residence status” in the United States. The bill would probably have passed, but it never cleared Sen. Edward Kennedy’s Judiciary Committee. The bill was reintroduced as S. 312 in the new session and thus far has more than 60 cosponsors. Once more it is hung up in committee, this time a subcommittee on immigration. Prospects for passage are good—if Christians throughout the United States make it clear to their senators that they wish it to be supported.

Unfortunately, it is widespread support by Christians that has been so noticeably lacking during these past three years. The original core of people who came in contact in Moscow with the Siberian Seven have remained steadfast in their efforts to effect a positive resolution of their quest for emigration. Others have joined the campaign and devoted many hours and days to working on their behalf. The Siberian Seven chronicled the intriguing and gripping story of fellow believers in desperate need of help, but American Christians have preferred to read other less-demanding materials that would not evoke pain.

Then, of course, the Siberian Seven are Pentecostals, and many are reluctant to become involved with Pentecostals. Christians in the West have the luxury of not having to be united to protect their interests, and so we have made disunity a virtue. It does not seem to matter that the theological issues that separate a Baptist from a Pentecostal, for example, are infinitesimally small in comparison to what they have in common. Nor does it matter that behind the Iron Curtain, Soviet officials persecute Russian Orthodox, Baptist, and Pentecostal believers alike because of their devotion to God, not because they do or do not speak in tongues. One of the most impassioned defenders of the Siberian Seven, Vladimir Bukovsky, is not even a Christian. In stark contrast, Christian leaders and organizations in this country have often been silent, or at best, timid.

The response of Christian organizations in the U.S. has been perplexing. Both “liberal” and “conservative” groups have been unwilling to offer much assistance. The National Council of Churches, the Pentecostals, and the Baptists have all shown a certain reluctance to protest actively the treatment of Christians behind the Iron Curtain. The reasons for this reluctance are complex, but basically revolve around the successful way in which the Soviet Union has utilized a policy of allowing “registered” church leaders to travel in the West.

These officially sponsored leaders tell American church officials that there is really very little problem in the Soviet Union with respect to persecution. Besides, if Americans do protest, it will simply mean that even the “registered” leaders will be cut off from their Christian brothers in the West. The Soviet ploy has proven amazingly successful with rather gullible church leaders in the West, especially in the U.S.

Nevertheless, there have been some important efforts to aid the Siberian Seven and publicize their situation. Most Christian organizations in the West that work with Christians behind the Iron Curtain or publish materials about them have sought to make their constituencies aware of their plight. Evangelism to Communist Lands included some footage of the Siberian Seven in a recent film, Let My People Go. In Texas, Christ for the Nations has furnished considerable help. The two most important organizations in the U.S. working on behalf of the seven are the Research Center for Religion and Human Rights in Closed Societies and the Society of Americans for Vashchenko/Chmykhalov Emigration (S.A.V.E.). The latter is headed by Cecil Williamson, minister of Crescent Hill Presbyterian Church in Selma, Alabama. It was Williamson and his congregation that sent the official invitation for the Vashchenkos to emigrate to America. Jane Drake, S.A.V.E. secretary, has worked tirelessly for many months to keep Christians concerned about the Siberian Seven informed about recent developments.

The New York—based Research Center for Religion and Human Rights in Closed Societies, publisher of the respected journal Religion in Communist Dominated Areas, has been a crucial nerve center for the dissemination of accurate and current information on the Siberian Seven. Blaho and Olga Hruby are the driving forces behind this effort. It was in their journal that the first detailed account of the story of the seven appeared in 1978. They have provided important information and advice to officials on Capitol Hill and to S.A.V.E. Olga Hruby has been instrumental in arranging for English language instruction for the seven and is at present seeking to set up tutoring in the embassy that will lead to high school equivalency diplomas for several of the young people who are members of the group.

Yet, despite publication of The Siberian Seven, despite the selfless efforts of several hundred Americans, millions of Christians in this country have not been reached or motivated to action. Considerably more success has been achieved in Europe.

The most important organization to support the campaign on behalf of the seven on the Continent has been the Zurich-based Christian Solidarity International. President Hans Stückelberger’s organization has been involved for three years in publicizing throughout Europe the plight of the families. An active effort has been made to recruit fellow Christians through materials in French, German, and Swedish. The Swedes have been particularly responsive.

Marianne Ridge has been in charge of the Christian Solidarity International program. She has devoted herself to the task with unusual perseverance and is largely responsible for the fact that the Vashchenkos and Chmykhalovs receive letters today via international mail. American officials have insisted throughout that they cannot deliver mail addressed to the Russian families that arrives at the embassy via diplomatic pouch. They contend this is a violation of mail agreements with the Soviets, and only correspondence that comes through the international route (that is, through the hands of the Soviets) can be given to the refugees. This meant, of course, that virtually all of the mail from Western Christians was confiscated during the early months of their stay in the embassy. Ridge established a system whereby Christians in the West sent copies to Christian Solidarity International of the letters they mailed to the embassy. She kept track of how many of the originals arrived at the embassy and publicized the figures in the West, showing how few letters were getting through. The Soviets are now allowing much of the mail to reach the embassy—a change that is due in large part to the efforts of Christian Solidarity International.

Initial support for the Siberian Seven in England centered on the efforts of John Pollock, author of The Siberian Seven, and of Keston College. Hodder and Stoughton published the book in 1979, several months before the American edition was available. The English edition is now completely sold out. Keston College in Kent is operated by the Society for the Study of Religion Under Communism. It is under the direction of Michael Bourdeaux and publishes the journal Religion in Communist Lands. Bourdeaux and Keston College are recognized throughout the world for their scholarly and careful study of religion behind the Iron Curtain. From the first, they have done what they could to publicize the plight of the Siberian Seven.

It was not until last spring, however, that a major British campaign was launched on behalf of the Russian Christians stranded in the U.S. Moscow embassy. The impetus for it emerged from an interview Dan Wooding conducted I with me in Seattle. Upon Wooding’s return to Britain, and with the support of the Seattle-based “Friends in the West” (headed by Ray Barnett), the “Campaign to Free the Siberian Seven” was launched in Great Britain.

In contrast to the United States, the response of the Christian community in Britain was enthusiastic. A key factor in generating this response was the active involvement of Christian leaders and organizations. Peter Meadows, publishing editor of Buzz Magazine (Britain’s largest-selling interdenominational Christian monthly), took the lead in forming a British committee that included Bourdeaux, Pollock, and David Atkinson (member of Parliament). Danny Smith, former communications executive in Europe for World Vision, was recruited to head the campaign to aid the Moscow refugees. On April 7, the Manchester Guardian carried a story announcing to the British public the creation of the committee.

The British committee focused its initial efforts on achieving two objectives: mobilizing the Christian community in Britain to speak out on behalf of the Siberian Seven, and organizing a demonstration in London’s Trafalgar Square, which was set for June 27—the three-year anniversary of the Russian Christians’ arrival at the American embassy. They succeeded in both areas. Special “action packs” were prepared for distribution to churches and concerned individuals throughout Britain. Included in the materials were a tape/slide presentation, leaflets on what the situation was and what Christians could do to help, buttons, and so on. Over 700 such action packs have been dispersed thus far.

The Trafalgar Square demonstration not only occurred, but it attracted the attention of the British press. It was preceded on June 25 by a press conference organized by the “Campaign to Free the Siberian Seven” committee. All the major news media were present. A call was placed at the conference to the American embassy in order to speak with the Siberian Seven. Britain’s foremost authority on religion behind the Iron Curtain acted as interpreter for the conversation. The BBC devoted a full eight minutes to coverage of the press conference.

Two days later the demonstration took place. More than 3,000 Christians participated, and national press coverage was excellent. Between 3:30 and 5 P.M., the demonstrators were addressed by several members of Parliament and listened to tapes sent to Britain from the Siberian Seven. They also heard a firsthand report on the condition of the refugees from Danny Smith, who had just returned froma visit to Moscow. The demonstrators then marched to the Soviet embassy in London, arriving there by 7 P.M. About 500 of the demonstrators squeezed into a church near the embassy to begin an all-night, 12-hour prayer vigil for the Siberian Seven.

Throughout the night, 12 demonstrators stood across from the Soviet embassy holding pictures of the Russian refugees. Every 45 minutes they were replaced by 12 new protesters from the church where the all-night prayer vigil was being held. Ray Barnett and Danny Smith attempted to present to Soviet officials a 22-foot-long petition requesting emigration permission for the seven. The Soviets refused to accept the petition, which contained the signatures of several thousand British Christians. The whole episode was covered by national television, making its way into millions of households throughout the British Isles, and thereby greatly increasing public awareness of the plight of the Siberian Seven.

Another important aspect of the British committee’s work has been to involve Parliament in the case. A week before the June demonstration, David Alton (Liberal M.P.) raised the issue in the House of Commons in the form of an “early day motion.” If such a motion receives the endorsement of at least 100 members of Parliament, it is submitted to a government secretary and receives an official response. The British committee contacted by mail each member of Parliament as well as the House of Lords, and well over 100 have already pledged their support.

The issue has proven to be nonpartisan, attracting the support of Conservative, Liberal, and Labour members of Parliament. The list of those supporting the “Campaign to Free the Siberian Seven” is quite impressive: Winston Churchill (M.P. and grandson of the late prime minister), Clement Freud (M.P. and grandson of Sigmund Freud), Sir Hugh Frazier (House of Lords), Lord Chalfont (House of Lords), David Steel (leader of the Liberal party), and David Owen (former foreign secretary and leader of the new Social Democratic party). The Christian rock star Cliff Richard also has publicly endorsed the cause.

The British committee is now occupied in its biggest project to date: the attempt to arrange a joint invitation from 300 British churches to the Siberian Seven and their families to emigrate to England. The archbishop of Canterbury recently committed himself to appeal publicly on behalf of the “Siberian Seven.”

What are the prospects for a successful resolution of this protracted struggle by the Siberian Seven to emigrate to the West? In a word, uncertain. Supporters of the Vashchenkos and Chmykhalovs in the West are well aware that it is not within the powers of the U.S. government to grant the families the right to emigrate. Ultimately that decision must remain with the Soviets. It is, however, within our powers to provide the families with our full support while they are in the embassy and to make their difficult stay as pleasant as possible. This becomes particularly crucial in light of the very severe psychological pressures to which the families in the embassy are subject while their case drags on with no end in sight.

In the past, the Soviets have shown themselves vulnerable to public pressure from the West. Consider, for example, the successes in Jewish emigration brought about by a committed Jewish and human rights lobby. There are far more Christians in this country than Jews, but they are silent and disunited. If they raised their voices in protest, they would not only guarantee U.S. government support of the case, but might well have an influence on the Soviets who seek to avoid negative publicity whenever possible.

It would be well to remember the words of Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The ultimate fate of the Siberian Seven may well test our awareness of that truth.

Five Steps You Can Take

What American Christians Can Do To Help The Seven

Join the “Free the Siberian Seven” campaign. Modeled after the very successful and ongoing British campaign (sponsored by Buzz Magazine) on behalf of the Russian refugees, this is the most ambitious American project thus far undertaken. Friends in the West is coordinating this nationwide endeavor to publicize the plight of the Siberian Seven to American Christians and to give practical suggestions on what they can do to help. The campaign is not intended to supplant projects of other organizations now under way, but to provide a means to inform and mobilize the Christian community as a whole—something that so far has not been achieved.

Special “Action Packs” have been prepared that include a tape/slide presentation. The 50 slides and taped commentary will enable congregations and Christian organizations to become familiar with the Siberian Seven. Also included in the packet is a magazine providing detailed information on the refugees and what Christians can do to aid them. Bracelets carrying the names of individual members of the Siberian Seven are available as prayer reminders.

The “Action Packs” are available by writing Friends in the West, P.O. Box 66515, 14925 22nd Avenue S.W., Seattle, Washington 98166, or by calling toll free in continental U.S. the “Action Line” number: (800) 331–1750, operator 602 (in Oklahoma, [800] 722–3600, operator 602).

Further information about the “Free the Siberian Seven” campaign can be obtained by calling the “Action Line” number, and orders can be placed for specific materials (written information, bracelets, etc.), if the entire “Action Pack” is not needed. Because the “Action Packs” are expensive to produce, a $25 donation is requested, though not required.

Support the Society of Americans for Vashchenko/Chmykhalov Emigration (S.A.V.E.). This group has worked hard to keep Christians informed on recent developments in the case and on what they can do to help. Though hampered by a relatively small mailing list and limited resources, S.A.V.E. deserves support. Contributions are solicited, and they will be glad to put you on their mailing list for updating of information and action suggestions: S.A.V.E., Jane Drake, Secretary, Route 1, Box 49-A, Pike Road, Alabama 36064.

Write the Siberian Seven. In all of the enthusiasm to write governmental officials and publicize the case, supporters frequently forget that the Siberian Seven are in desperate need of encouragement. Augustina Vashchenko, for example, must sit in the embassy day after day and wonder how her small children at home are faring. Parents and relatives get sick and die, the children suffer without their parents, and the family members in the embassy feel helpless.

Letters of love and support from Christians in the West are a great boost to morale. Answering the letters is a healthy use of their time and confirms for them that they are not forgotten in Moscow. Reading The Siberian Seven by John Pollock is helpful for concerned Christians in the West who, in writing to them, want to know something about their lives. But in any case, the seven are pleased simply to hear from American friends concerned about their welfare.

It is suggested that letters be addressed to individual members of the Siberian Seven, rather than to the whole group. The names and birthdays of the seven are as follows:

Peter Vaschenko: October 30, 1927; Augustina Vashchenko: March 28, 1929; Lida Vaschenko: March 6, 1951; Lyuba Vaschenko: December 17, 1952; Lila Vaschenko: July 16, 1957; Maria Chmykhalov: June 19, 1922; Timothy Chmykhalov: April 30, 1962.

The American embassy in Moscow requires that letters to the Siberian Seven be sent via international mail using the following address:

Peter Vaschenko (for example)

Embassy of the U.S.A.

Ulitsa Chaikovskogo 19/21

Moscow, USSR 117234.

To prevent unnecessary delays, it is best to send letters airmail. Although the mail must pass through the hands of the Soviets, delivery has been quite good in recent months if it carried clear indication at the top of letters that a copy was being sent to an agency that monitors delivery of the original letters to the embassy. The best place for Americans to send copies of their letters is to: Religion in Communist Dominated Areas (RCDA), 475 Riverside Drive, New York, New York 10027. The Hrubys of RCDA also operate with very limited financial resources and are worthy of financial support.

Write letters to government officials. It is absolutely essential that American authorities are convinced that the Christian community in this country fully support efforts by the U.S. government to do whatever it can to convince the Soviets to grant the Vashchenkos and Chmykhalovs the right to emigrate to the West. Christians should commend the American embassy for its fine support of the Siberian Seven since early in 1981 and urge that this positive treatment of the case be continued as long as necessary.

It is particularly important that Christians write their senators and ask them whether they are supporting S. 312, the bill that would grant the Vashchenkos and Chmykhalovs “permanent resident status” in the United States. Christians should express their own support of the bill as one important way in which the American government can indicate to the Soviets its commitment to a successful resolution of this thorny dilemma.

In addition to letters from individuals, churches, missionary groups, youth clubs, civic organizations, Bible studies, nursing homes, and so on can also send petitions to government officials expressing their concern and support. Important addresses are:

President Reagan

The White House

Washington, D.C. 20500

Your Senator

U.S. Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Your Representative

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20510

Hon. Alexander M. Haig, Jr.

Department of State

Washington, D.C. 20520

Hon. Arthur Hartman

Embassy of the U.S.A. in Moscow

A.P.O., New York, N.Y. 09862

Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin

Embassy of the USSR

1125 16th Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Pray. Christians should pray for the successful resolution of this tragic stalemate, for the morale and spiritual health of the Siberian Seven, and for the inspiration and discipline to do everything within their power to effect a positive resolution of the issue.

A handsomely designed, smartly printed business card introduces the salesman and his firm. Ancient Israel’s liberator, Moses, didn’t have a business card when he introduced himself in Egypt after a 40-year absence. But he did have a striking introduction: “I AM has sent me to you.”

The story behind that introduction began with an impressive attention-getter, a flaming desert shrub that wasn’t reduced to ashes. Thus began an encounter that led to Moses’ enlistment in God’s cause to free his people. It was one of those unique calls that stands out in the biblical record. Succeeding generations of believers have also found their God to be one who intervenes to establish his authority in their lives. The mission of the church has advanced when Christians have received a divine calling card of some kind. They have been sufficiently impressed, as Moses was, to find out what the caller, God himself, has in mind.

When Moses inspected the burning bush, God twice called him by name. The speaker was no less than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God worshiped and served by Moses and his family. In Egypt, Moses had shared ill treatment with God’s people. His premature rescue operation thwarted, the erstwhile deliverer fled to the wilderness and tended sheep and goats for four decades.

In this ignominious role, Israel’s future leader nevertheless was ready when the Lord’s call came. God was no stranger to Moses. He responded immediately to the voice out of the bush: “Here I am.” Christians sometimes think God has cast them into obscure, insignificant, useless places. But while Moses shepherded in the desert, he learned patience and long-suffering, two prime qualities of leadership needed for the long grind from Egypt to Canaan over another 40 years.

When God identified himself, Moses hid his face in fear and humility. He knew well God’s holiness and majesty. How we respond to God’s call depends to a large degree on our fundamental appreciation of his greatness. Looking intently at the bush, recoiling with upraised arms and hands, Moses did not mumble some flip remark about the man upstairs or the great L.A. Dodger in the sky. One significant reason some Christians fail to hear and obey God is that they have never permitted the awesomeness of the Almighty to overwhelm them.

With Moses in a proper frame, God revealed his plans. Basically, he told Moses his word was still good. He had not forgotten his people during four centuries of excruciating oppression. This was the answer to his seeming abandonment of his people and their prospective liberator. Four hundred years is a long time to wait; 40 years is a long time to wait. But patient endurance in faith and hope apparently is a divine priority for those who would recognize God’s intervention when it comes. We are not likely to answer a call from God if we have concluded in adversity that he has forgotten us.

No doubt Moses was exhilarated when he heard God say, “I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians.” But before he had a chance to yell Hallelujah!, God told him, “I will send you to bring forth my people out of Egypt.” No more monumental task could be envisioned; this was a call of gigantic proportions. For a desert sheepherder to go to Pharaoh would be unthinkable; to accomplish the freedom of his people would be impossible.

But the initiative and the responsibility rested with God, not with Moses. That made the difference. God’s call is tied to his empowerment to fulfill the duty. This fact has sustained Christians who find their assignments every bit as hard as Moses found his.

Of course, Moses questioned God’s choice. “Who am I?” he asked. God’s answer to his rightful insecurity was a firm promise of his presence. God’s power linked to Moses’ faith and obedience meant that one day Israel would worship God on that very mountain. The guarantee of God’s presence is sufficient for anyone to say yes to him, for any responsibility.

Before saying yes himself, Moses asked for a calling card of his own. “What name shall I give them?” he asked God. “Say this to the people of Israel,” God declared, “‘I AM has sent me to you.’” Thus the mission to deliver Israel was launched. I AM—the self-existent, self-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable God—speaks, and it is the obligation of humanity to hear and obey.

I AM is pleased to identify himself personally with us. He deigns to love us, to call us, to permit us to live significantly and purposefully.

Christians hear, believe, and obey God’s call, not because he gives them a carefully blueprinted career mission in advance, but because they know in general terms who God is, what he is like, and what he is doing. God seeks people to repent and believe the gospel; he seeks worshipers; he wants believers to be shaped in Christ’s image; he wants them to be his ambassadors of good news.

That may mean a call to meet a neighbor, to befriend a coworker or business associate. That may mean a call to a lifetime ambassadorship in an urban setting, a university, or a primitive area overseas. That may mean a call to use one’s scientific, engineering, teaching, counseling, or preaching skills for the sake of Christ’s kingdom, not your own.

God does not lead us through some unfathomable maze. He speaks clearly, but sometimes his call is obscured because we are not very much interested in finding out what it is. We’d like to have a sneak preview and then decide if we want to witness the main event.

What is God’s call like? A voice from a flaming bush? A voice out of a dazzling, blinding light at noon? A voice from his own holy throne? A voice at night rousing one from sleep? That’s what it was like for Moses, Paul, Isaiah, and Samuel. But the key issue is not the dramatic setting; it is the unmistakable call of God himself.

Of course, God may get our attention in some spectacular way. But there is no scriptural warrant to wait complacently for a “burning bush.” This is not the time to count oneself out of a God-directed vocation or a specific Christian duty because one hasn’t been given a dramatic invitation.

Every believer in the church today has compelling reasons to seek God’s face and to volunteer, “What shall I do, Lord?” The answering call may very well come in quiet meditation and worship as God speaks in his Word through his Spirit. Christ’s followers are not only called but sent. He said, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit.”

Aware of that basic obligation, which grows out of Christ’s saving work, we can confidently anticipate more directive calls to keep us on course: calls that shape one’s basic life orientation and more momentary calls that tell us to whom, how, where, and when to serve in Christ’s name.

There are some indications that an increasing number of evangelicals are not only consuming alcoholic beverages, but becoming alcoholics. These people require specialized treatment because besides their drinking problem, they also have a very real spiritual problem that cannot be dealt with at local or federal government treatment centers. Such people consequently are often more reluctant to give up alcohol. Frequently they go back to it in an effort to find a solution to their miseries.

Research shows that people from religious backgrounds where drinking was forbidden are more likely to become problem drinkers once they experiment with alcohol than those who come from a background where alcohol was acceptable in moderation and only its abuse condemned.

At a conference at the University of Georgia for people involved in the treatment of abusers of alcohol and other drugs, it was reported that while an estimated 95 percent of the Jewish population occasionally drink alcoholic beverages, only 5 percent ever have problems controlling its use. Other religious groups, including Episcopalians and Presbyterians, were also mentioned. While these groups represented a relatively high percent of alcohol users, the percentage of those who became habitual abusers was low. The situation was different for the Baptist community. There the use of alcohol has traditionally been forbidden. Though only 48 percent used alcohol at all, an alarming 18 percent of those got into trouble. The reason was probably guilt: Baptists and others from similar backgrounds were more likely to get into difficulty simply because they suffered more guilt when they used alcohol.

Vernon E. Johnson, well-known author of I’ll Quit Tomorrow and other articles on alcoholism, states that “the most startling observation has been that alcoholism cannot exist unless there is a conflict between the values and the behavior of the drinker.”

The Christian who is attempting to ignore the restraints of his background teachings and his own moral code fits this description. Alcohol serves rather well for a time as a lubricant to ease problems and conflicts at work and at home. His or her drinking progresses, bringing about an adjustment to a lifestyle in total conflict with the individual’s deep-seated convictions.

When seeking treatment, the Christian frequently encounters another problem. If he goes to a secular treatment center, all the focus is on the addiction and no effort is made to deal with his spiritual needs. The exception might be a suggestion that he needs help from “some higher power.”

If, on the other hand, he turns to his pastor or other spiritual leader, he might be told that his problem is “sin,” and that all he needs to do is “get right with God.” While it is true that he needs spiritual counsel, his problem is not only spiritual, but physical and mental as well. He may require careful medical assistance even to withdraw and begin treatment. Also, the power of the addiction itself is usually more than he can handle on his own; he needs help if he is to carry out what he has already purposed in his heart.

Treatment for the Christian alcoholic must include the “whole man.” He should be thoroughly educated about alcohol the drug, and in particular its effect on users who drink against their own better judgment and inner convictions. He must be made to realize that God waits to forgive and restore him to the place of fellowship he probably thought was gone forever. He will need guidance on how to deal with the affairs in his life that were damaged during the drinking period. In a majority of cases, family ties have been broken and unhealthy relationships have often developed as a substitute. These can leave lasting guilt and anxieties unless they are dealt with openly and a right decision is made concerning them.

As it is for many who have similar problems, an alcoholic’s best friends are often his worst enemies. The Christian family is not unlike others who attempt to cover up a drinking problem—just as they do other problems with which they need help but are ashamed to face. Even the pastor may not know how serious the problem is. Sometimes he is also convinced that the less said about it the better. Far too many Christian alcoholics are determined to keep their problem from everyone else—and, if they are church members, especially from those with whom they worship—simply because they fear rejection.

Sources of help must be sought out. Normally a patient will need the help of a family member or church leader who is acquainted with both his problem and the available sources of help. It should be kept in mind that alcoholics usually lack motivation and are not likely to initiate action on their own.

The most readily available help lies with the head of a rescue mission. While mission staff members are rarely trained to handle this problem, the director will have been involved with alcoholics. In some instances, he himself is a recovering alcoholic. Though he and his program may not be in a position to handle the case, he will be aware of some that are. If there is no program in the community, concerned individuals may contact William Wooley at the International Union of Gospel Missions, P.O. Box 10780, Kansas City, Missouri 64118.

I have worked with Alcoholics Anonymous and consider AA this nation’s best weapon against alcoholism. But because Christians who become addicted to alcohol have problems not only with addiction but also with their spiritual condition, I feel heads of rescue missions generally are qualified to deal with the spiritual aspect of the problem. At the same time, they know of treatment centers that offer long-range help spiritually, as well as with the addiction.

Drug abuse centers operating under the auspices of state and county mental health organizations may also be able to supply names of local ministers working with such people. But care should be taken to avoid clergymen who will underrate the intensity of the spiritual problem—or ignore it altogether.

A few Christian rehabilitation treatment centers for alcoholics are located in different parts of the country, which give particular attention to Christians. The I.U.G.M. office in Kansas City can help in locating these if no other source of information is available.

Drug and alcohol abuse, in the view of the public, are among the most destructive effects upon family life. The following look at the dimension of this problem shows its relationship to the family.

A solid majority of Americans view alcohol abuse as at least a potential problem affecting family life. From a list of 11 items, Americans say the most harmful to family life are alcohol abuse (named by 60 percent) and drug abuse (named by 59 percent). Alcohol and drug abuse are viewed as “most harmful” by all groups and in all regions of the nation.

As many as one-fifth to one-fourth of the population report that liquor has been a cause of trouble in their homes. The percentage was far lower in the mid-seventies.

And as many as one person in seven (14 percent) believe that alcohol and drug abuse are (from a list of 14 items) one of the three most important problems facing their families.

A large majority of Americans, therefore, see alcohol abuse as having a potentially serious effect on the family; one-fifth to one-fourth say liquor has actually been a cause of trouble in their homes; and one in seven say that alcohol abuse currently ranks as one of the top three problems facing their families.

Certainly one of the trends that is undermining the stability of the family in our nation today is the high divorce rate. In one study we asked: “Which three of these reasons (12 were listed) do you feel are most responsible for the high divorce rate in this country?”

The responses given most often are: “money troubles,” “people are too young when they marry,” “rejection of responsibilities,” “divorces are too easy to get,” “decline of religious and moral values,” and next—“alcohol and/or drug abuse.”

Alcohol and/or drug abuse is cited by one person in four (23 percent) as one of the three reasons most responsible for the high divorce rate in this country. Among persons with only a grade school background the figure soars to 39 percent, making the category of alcohol and/or drug abuse the problem cited second most often after “people are too young when they marry.”

CT-Gallup Poll Findings

Significant highlights of the CHRISTIANITY TODAY-Gallup Poll on the use of alcoholic beverages:

• One-third of the public are abstainers, but two-thirds of evangelicals are.

• Just over half of the clergy abstain, but better than three-fourths of the evangelical clergy do.

• Among laymen, Baptists are divided roughly 50 on using alcohol; Methodists and Lutherans are two-thirds to three-fourths in favor.

• Among clergy, more than 90 percent of the Baptists abstain, and two-thirds of the Methodists do. But only one-third of Methodist laymen are abstainers.

• Three-fourths of frequent Bible readers and two-thirds of tithers abstain. Among frequent church-goers, slightly more drink than abstain.

Perhaps the most shocking statistics to emerge from our survey, conducted for the White House Conference on Families, were those related to child and spouse abuse.

About one person in five in the survey knew personally of at least one instance of a husband or wife being so badly abused that police or social workers were called in, or the situation led to divorce action. Such instances are reported by similar proportions among all segments of society.

Furthermore, about one in five (18 percent) also cite personal awareness of at least one serious instance of physical abuse of children by their parents happening to someone they know or someone who lives in their neighborhood.

Although we do not have survey data to indicate to what degree alcohol abuse is related to spouse and child abuse, other studies have shown a close relationship.

If America cherishes the family, steps must be taken to deal with alcohol abuse; it is one of the factors most responsible for the destruction of the family. But are we launching the all-out campaign we need to get on top of this problem? The answer, I’m afraid, is that we are not. We still face an uphill battle that will take the concerted efforts of teachers, doctors, the mass media, the clergy, and, most of all, parents to deal with a problem that is having a serious drain on society.

Parents should therefore: (1) pay heed to their own drinking habits; (2) set the proper example of pursuing higher and more lasting values than those embodied in drug dependency; (3) be aware of their children’s drinking habits; and (4) above all, talk to their children about drinking and the potential dangers (as many as 4 in 10 do not presently do so!). In addition, parents would do well to encourage their offspring to look at the use of alcohol from a religious perspective.

The nation’s clergy are surely in a unique position to make an enormous contribution to dealing with alcohol abuse and alcoholism. I would like to suggest a five-part plan for ministers:

• Encourage parents to discuss drinking problems with their children;

• Attend a good workshop on alcohol abuse;

• Speak openly about the subject from the pulpit and in counseling;

• Establish a team program with parents so the church and family can reinforce one another;

• Stress religious reasons for abstinence or moderation.

The course of religion in America in the 1980s will have much to do, in my opinion, with the impact of alcohol and drug abuse on our society. For while alcohol and drug abuse are seen as having a strongly negative effect on families, for the vast majority of Americans, religion is viewed as strengthening family relationships and the family as a whole.

Last month, another well-known couple terminated a long and apparently agreeable marriage. The reason given: incompatibility—an all-too-familiar legal umbrella under which an assortment of excuses can find shelter.

I looked up the dictionary definition of incompatibility and brushed it aside as beside the point: “Incapable of coexisting harmoniously, discordant; mismated …”

Incapable of coexisting harmoniously? “With God all things are possible.”

My husband was given a Swiss watch by our daughter’s Swiss in-laws. When it stopped, no local watchmaker could fix it. The next time we were in Switzerland we sent it directly to the people who had made it. They had no problem; the ones who made it knew how to make it work again.

Who invented marriage? He is the one to whom we must go. His Book of instructions has the answers.

“Disagreeing in nature …” Great! One can disagree without being disagreeable. Before we were married, someone gave me a gem of wisdom: “Where two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.”

“Irreconcilable …” I doubt it. When two draw near to God, they find themselves closer to one another.

“Conflicting …” Terrific! I once knew a man who refused to let his wife disagree with him on anything. Now, every man needs to be disagreed with occasionally. This poor man’s personality, his ego, and even his judgment suffered.

When someone gets into a position of political or social power or one of fame or fortune and no one dares to disagree with him, look out! He is in danger. At times, we all need to be disagreed with.

Three of us were lunching one day while our husbands relaxed over what, for me would have been hard work: a game of golf.

“Would you two like to know the secret of our happy marriage?” our older companion asked.

Forks in midair, we waited.

“Because,” and the mischievous eyes brimmed with laughter, “we never do anything together.”

“Except,” she added with an irrepressible laugh, “sleep together.”

We were still laughing when our husbands joined us. Her words ringing in my ears, I noticed the affectionate kiss with which her husband greeted her, his loving hand on her shoulder.

All I can say is, “Three cheers for incompatibility!”

The disease concept may help avoid condemning the patient, but it may also delay dealing with real causes.

Mention alcoholism and alcohol abuse and thoughts may turn to skid row and the unshaven, poorly dressed men who shuffle in and out of rescue missions, the homeless wanderers who probably left their families years ago.

But a different kind of alcoholic has emerged in American society in recent years. He or she is the person apparently uncontrollably addicted to liquor, yet still managing to hold a job, stay with a family, and avoid the skid row route.

The CHRISTIANITY TODAY-Gallup Poll documented the sharp increase in this form of alcohol abuse. One in four persons reported that an alcohol-related problem affected family life. Only one in eight, or 17 percent, gave a similar response in 1974.

The personal testimonies of prominent public figures have brought more attention to the problem of middle-and upper-class alcohol abuse. Joan Kennedy and Betty Ford have talked publicly about their problem and how they recovered through hospitalization. Other public figures, such as former U.S. Senator Harold Hughes of Iowa, have described how conversion to Christ, coupled in some cases with the support of Alcoholics Anonymous, has helped them recover from addiction to liquor.

Christian conversion, however, is not the only remedy offered these days for alcoholism and alcohol abuse. It may be the most effective remedy, but the government, the mental health profession, hospitals, and alcoholism counselors offer a variety of other routes to recovery.

Sheer willpower and rigorous self-discipline do not seem to be effective remedies—at least when alcoholism is defined as uncontrollable addiction to liquor. Alcoholism is not necessarily the same as drunkenness, though at times the two overlap. Some people get drunk without getting addicted to liquor. Some Christians can recall drunken weekends from preconversion days, but they were never alcoholics in the sense of their repeatedly drinking uncontrollably.

What seems to be needed for any recovery is outside support of some kind. Evangelicals are quick to point to conversion and the indwelling Holy Spirit and church fellowship as a kind of support. But the twentieth-century secular mind has been looking for other routes to recovery, and Christians ought to be familiar with these.

The Disease Theory In Treatment

The dominant theory in the field of alcoholism is the disease concept. It emerged in various forms before World War II, when in 1933 the repeal of Prohibition made social drinking legal and socially respectable. The disease concept borrows from various disciplines.

To some, the theory that alcoholism is a disease points to the fact that there are people who seem able to drink liquor moderately over a lifetime, whereas there are others who drink and become uncontrollably addicted. To others, the theory provides a ray of hope that medical science will discover some cure for alcoholism, perhaps a medicine or pill, that will allow the alcoholic to drink moderately without continually craving more. To still others, this concept merely points out the damaging results physically of heavy drinking. In short, the disease theory is not well defined, but it must be reckoned with because it dominates the field of alcoholism treatment and research in the U.S.

The American Association for the Cure of Inebriates declared drunkenness a disease in the nineteenth century. The American Medical Association voted approval of the disease concept of alcoholism in the 1950s. One of the primary goals of many alcoholism groups, including the federal government’s National Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, is to advance the concept that alcoholism is a disease.

In this case, applying the term disease is somewhat arbitrary, because the definition of disease has widened in recent years. According to the American Medical Association, it is “a deviation from a state of health.” E. M. Jellinek, in his influential book, The Disease Concept of Alcoholism, says of the disease label: “A disease is what the medical profession recognizes as such.”

The major weakness of the disease theory is obvious: someone may say, “Don’t blame me if I catch it. Furthermore, don’t blame me if I pull out a gun and shoot you; I’m just drunk and it’s not my fault.”

Some experts respond to this by saying that alcoholism is a bit like heart disease: you are not necessarily responsible for getting the problem, but you are responsible for recovering and taking steps to avoid it in the future.

In that sense, the disease concept reflects the widened meaning of disease: it is no longer just something caught, like the flu or a cold, but it is any deviation from a state of health. In the latter sense, alcoholism is a disease. However, widening the definition of disease tends to make it less meaningful for ordinary discussion of alcoholism.

But the disease concept may have a few pragmatic advantages. It points to the possibility that physiologically some people may be more prone than others to alcoholism, even after one drink. If science ever develops a means of detecting who has that predisposition—whether it is based in genetics, for example—then it would be helpful to issue no-drink warnings to certain people. The disease concept may also serve some purpose in relieving the guilt that some alcoholics feel. But such guilt seems only to drive them to more and more drunkenness.

However, even though the disease concept may have some practical value, it is not necessarily verified by medical and scientific studies. Harold Mulford, director since 1956 of alcohol studies at the University of Iowa, notes: “I think it’s important to recognize that the alcohol disease concept is a propaganda and political achievement and not a scientific achievement. Science has not demonstrated that alcoholism is a disease by defining it, nor has science or technology demonstrated it’s a disease by coming up with an effective treatment or preventive.”

The pragmatic approach also suffers from lack of biblical insights. Psychiatrist John White explains:

“For too many years we have paid too much attention to what works and too little to what is right. What is right may or may not work. If we were laboratory animals or computers, the right would be determined by what works and morality would bow to function. But we live in a moral universe, a universe made by a righteous God and inhabited by creatures who have often failed to respond to the way he has handled them, who have instead chosen the opposite of what he wished (Parents in Pain, InterVarsity, 1979, p. 163).

The weaknesses of the disease theory far outweigh its benefits. It tends to relieve the alcoholic of personal responsibility for recovery. Harold Mulford believes it actually encourages nondrinkers to assume: “I don’t have the disease, so I don’t need to watch my drinking. I only hope I don’t catch it. But even if I do, I can always get treatment at the center. So why should I worry about it?”

The disease theory also seemingly encourages an almost totally materialistic approach to the problem. It assumes that our problems in life are essentially physical and material, not moral and metaphysical, and that they can best be resolved by science and its research. The impressive advances of science and medicine in the twentieth century lend extra weight to this world view.

“The disease concept of alcoholism [is] out of tune with the facts and a serious obstacle to rational solutions,” says Dr. R. E. Kendell, a Scottish psychiatrist, in a British Medical Journal article.

Timothy Johnson and Stephen Goldfinger, editors of the Harvard Medical School Health Letter Book, claim “there is still no good evidence that persons with a drinking problem consistently demonstrate biological differences that separate them from others.”

Kendell asserts that despite stories of people getting hooked on alcohol after just one or two drinks, most alcoholics who enter treatment centers admit to a previous daily intake of at least a half bottle of liquor. “In other words, what determines whether a person becomes dependent on alcohol is how much he drinks and for how long, rather than his personality, psychodynamics, or biochemistry.”

One study from London, based on 100 married male alcoholics, showed that sophisticated medical treatment, assuming alcoholism is a disease, was no better than telling the alcoholic to stop drinking, go back to work, and improve his marriage. Both methods produced the same results at the end of a year: about one-third of each group had improved.

The disease concept encourages some counselors to describe alcoholism as a physiological, emotional, and spiritual problem. Usually they are more well versed in the physiological, and sometimes the emotional, aspects of the problem

I asked one counselor at an alcoholism hospital about the personal responsibility of the recovering alcoholic. Was he morally responsible for becoming an alcoholic in the first place? To what extent was it his responsibility to quit drinking after being told he had this disease and should never touch liquor again? What if he fell back into the problem even after he had been hospitalized several times? Was he responsible at that point?

The counselor’s answer has helped me understand the tragic deficiency in the disease concept of alcoholism and in secular treatment of the problem. He said he would leave those questions in the hands of a loving God and get on with the business of counseling and treatment as best he knew how. The failure to have at least a foundation for exploring questions of personal responsibility is the key weakness in such alcoholism treatment.

The answers to these questions lie in Christian theology. There is a critical need to apply the doctrine of man to questions about personal responsibility for destructive behavior.

Christian And Other Remedies

There are Christians who work with the disease concept of alcoholism, developing answers to the theological questions. To what extent is a person responsible for behavior that seems to have a physiological basis, at least in part? To what extent is alcohol addiction similar to greed, lust, smoking, temper, and overeating? Some people have more of a struggle with these things than others do. Failure to control them is sin.

How can a Christian condemn the sin of drunkenness, but not the alcoholic? The disease concept, in part, is an effort to avoid condemnation of the alcoholic. It is a means of trying to restore the person’s self-image. The alcoholic, the same as everyone else, is created in God’s image. He deserves dignity and respect, no matter what his addiction leads to. But we have a hard time holding on to these two truths at the same time. Some Christians fall short in terms of seeing God’s image in the alcoholic.

There are other Christians who have not adopted the disease concept of alcoholism, but who have made enormous contributions in the treatment and prevention of alcohol abuse. These contributions are not a cause for pride, but they show what God has done and can yet do.

The temperance and abstinence movements have saved thousands of persons from alcohol abuse and alcoholism. As Mark Noll pointed out in an earlier article (CT, Jan. 19, 1979, “America’s Battle Against the Bottle”), evangelical support for temperance is nothing to be ashamed of. Even Prohibition is getting a second look from those who are concerned about the increasingly tragic impact of alcohol abuse.”

Robert Sherrill, writing for the widely distributed Field Newspaper Syndicate, has written:

“Prohibition is usually marked down as a great failure. In fact, it was a smashing success at first—and even though the law was widely disregarded in later years, the era of Prohibition significantly changed America’s drinking habits. Total alcohol consumption during Prohibition was lower than it had ever been before during a comparable span of years … lower than it would ever be again. Despite the proliferation of bootleg, rot-gut whiskey during Prohibition, total hospital admissions from alcoholism dropped sharply during those years.”

After describing in detail the tragic costs of alcohol abuse in terms of drunk-driving deaths, productivity losses, and with other statistics, Sherrill suggests a new kind of liquor prohibition: raising the price. He favors massive tax increases on alcoholic beverages to cut consumption.

Revivals have also made a significant dent in the problem of alcohol abuse. The first Great Awakening came during the “Gin Age” of English history. Statistics tell why. Gin consumption ran 527,000 gallons in 1684, 2 million gallons in 1714, 5.3 million gallons in 1735, and 11 million gallons in 1750. The cure, according to some historians, was revival. Historian John Wesley Bready sums up the impact of the revivals:

“Not till the challenge of the evangelical revival had touched the hearts and directed the lives of great numbers of people in all parts of the country, did any semblance of redemption appear.

“Liquor control legislation, challenging perforce deeply rooted personal appetites, before it could effect any real reform, had to be backed and vitalized by strong moral and spiritual convictions; and of such convictions, prior to the great revival, England was almost bankrupt.”

Christian social and gospel ministries have also made significant contributions in response to alcohol abuse. Many rescue mission workers have accomplished what proponents of the disease theory only aimed at—loving the alcoholic but still hating his drunkenness. At the same time, they have saved the taxpayers millions of dollars.

An Indianapolis attorney, Jack Brown, board member of Lighthouse Mission and a former U.S. attorney, once made an informal calculation of the savings that mission, one of several in Indianapolis, provided for the city. “I figured up that the Lighthouse Mission saved the city of Indianapolis over $1 million in a year,” he said. An accountant figured various public costs, assuming that 30 percent of the transients who came to the mission would be arrested and jailed. He included court costs, but not social welfare payments to families and some other items. “This was over 10 years ago when I did this,” he adds. “Naturally all these prices are higher today.”

Another major factor in defeating alcoholism has been the work of Alcoholics Anonymous. Widely acknowledged as the most effective popular means of recovery, AA includes biblical principles. A quick reading of AA’s 12 steps reveals the biblical roots, though they were written so as to avoid doctrinal controversy. (AA’s debt to biblical Christianity is clearly spelled out in Not God, by Ernest Kurtz.)

Throughout American history, evangelicals have made significant contributions in response to the tragedy of alcohol abuse. Now we must enter the debate about the exact nature of alcoholism, its cause, to what extent it is a sin that requires repentance, to what extent it is also harmful behavior with which some because of physiological differences must grapple more than others. The treatment of alcoholics must not be left to those who disregard biblical truths.

In medical and counseling circles, evangelicals can counteract the weaknesses of the theory that alcoholism is a disease. The popular idea that society need not accept any limitations on drinking, simply because comparatively few people are “sick,” must be attacked with vigor. The whole of society suffers a dreadful toll because of alcoholism. Besides offering hope of deliverance and therapy for alcoholics, Christians can demand rigorous enforcement of drunk driving laws, stiff penalties for offenders, and higher taxes on beer and liquor.

While Christians respond with loving care for those whose lives have been broken by alcohol abuse, they can also be sensitive to the millions of closet alcoholics (many of them lonely women at home). Responsible action and teaching are demanded in churches and schools as well, to head off the growing spiral of teen-age alcohol abuse. But beyond studying the explanations for the alcoholic’s condition and behavior, Christians can get involved at many stages on the local level. Doing so will help curb what many believe to be this country’s most destructive social problem.

Leaders in Third World countries today function in a climate of suspicion, distrust, and jealousy produced by the revolutions of the twentieth century. Some, who were educated in mission schools and reared in Christian teaching, have turned against missions and even ordered missionaries to leave their countries. We hear that in certain places traditional mission works are no longer permitted, and that white missionaries are not needed and should go home.

These are pressures missionaries face in a changing world, but with an unchanging commission to fulfill.

Many Christians and sending churches believe these threats are endangering their missions involvement around the world. While to a certain degree these threats are genuine, churches must not be blinded or discouraged by such events. We are living in a new era of change both at home and abroad, but the Lord of Hosts is in control.

The more I hear of such threats and oppositions, the more strongly I feel about the concept of partnership in the missionary task. Both sides need each other, not only in trade and politics, but much more so in mission work. There can be partnership in areas of education, health work, socioeconomic projects, missions, and in human and financial resources.

A good example can be seen in the United Church of Australia, where the Fiji Methodist Church provides personnel while their counterpart in Australia supports the work financially. There are Fijian ministers ministering to white Australians; at the same time, the church in Fiji requires the service of Australian missionaries. This has functioned very successfully for many years. There is a spirit of oneness, trust, belonging, and equality experienced in this partnership.

It is not enough just to invite Third World church leaders to do deputation work or to show up in a general conference of some kind, without actual involvement. The opposition to Western missionaries and Western missions is very much about their attitudes of superiority toward nationals. The cry against imperialism and the call, “missionary, go home,” reflects a lack of partnership. We need to see in every land the national church reinforced and encouraged by a cooperating group of international Christians coming from every continent and striving together side by side for the gospel.

The Methodist Church in Fiji, a Third World church, has been sending missionaries to other countries since 1875. George Brown, a famous pioneer missionary from Australia, went to the Methodist Pastor’s College in Fiji in 1875 to recruit six Fijian pastors to go with him to Papua New Guinea. To his surprise, all 86 students in training at that time responded. However, only six were needed, and some of those first Fijian missionaries were massacred by New Guinea natives.

This was but the beginning of Fijian missionaries working alongside their European colleagues. Today there are Fijian missionaries in Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, New Hebrides, the Northern Territory of Australia, and among white Australian churches. There are also missionaries from Tonga, Samoa, Papua New Guinea, and Cook Islands serving in other countries. It is entirely reasonable that a church in a given country should be both a receiving church and a sending church.

The question that needs to be raised is this: Is it possible for Third World missionaries to serve in some Western countries, and are they capable of ministry to white people who are more sophisticated? Dr. Burt W. Tofaeono, a Samoan pastor of the First Samoan Congregational Church in Los Angeles, commented to me that in Boston he pastored a church of predominantly white Americans. There he experienced a new atmosphere of belonging and trust with his white Christian friends. He sensed a new spirit of partnership in faith and work, and in daily living.

It is time for the Western world to accept people from other countries, not only to migrate, but to come as Third World missionaries to aid in evangelizing non-Christians. Many Western countries once labeled “Christian” now live in modern paganism.

There are those who feel that Third World missionaries going abroad may only be seeking new status and better living. Such a narrow-minded view only serves to show the preconceived ideas already planted in many Western minds. This is the thinking that normally creates hostility and distrust of others.

The Reverend Leilie Boseto, moderator of the United Church in Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, said during his church’s annual conference, “God’s mission has no boundaries and his love to people throughout the world can never be politically or denominationally fenced around. God’s missionary concern is to be for all people in every nation; and the whole world is his mission field.”

This church in Papua New Guinea is now negotiating with sending churches in Fiji, Samoa, and Cook Islands to exchange missionaries as part of a mutual partnership in mission. New organizations with new structures and new attitudes are needed. And there is a need for internationalization of missionary work among sending churches, mission boards, and receiving churches throughout the world.

There are two full-time Fijian ministers who serve with the Uniting Church in Australia in an assignment worked out by the Methodist officials of both countries. They serve under the Australian church and are fully supported by them. They have been there for the past five years. Another Fijian minister serves full-time with the synod of the Uniting Church in New South Wales. Called by that church to serve in their head office at Chatwood, N.S.W., he has been ministering in Australia for three years.

People give different meanings to this word “missionary,” but as far as we are concerned, because they were requested, our men have been sent to Australia, even though we do not support them financially.

There is another way in which we are involved in ministry. This is through an “exchange ministry,” involving an exchange of pastors for six to twelve months. A pastor from a parish in Australia will go to Fiji and one from Fiji takes his place in Australia. Though this has not occurred often, when it has, it has been very successful. Australian churches sincerely accept pastors from other countries for ministry, and there is no prejudice toward them.

To minister to an ethnic group other than your own is not easy; but if the Lord calls us to serve another culture, who can prevent us?

I speak with conviction, for I come from a multiracial country. I have worked with multiracial groups and was in charge of the work in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea. There 20 families from Western countries were under my leadership.

We must take positive steps toward achieving better relationships between Western churches and those in the Third World. Unfortunately, we Christians are also caught with prejudice, preconceived ideas against others, and feelings of superiority.

From the Third World perspective, I believe modern Western countries are fallow mission fields that need new cultivation, revival, and renewal for quality growth. Do you ever think that the Lord may be saying to us today that we should use partnership strategies in his mission?