Page 5246 – Christianity Today (2024)

Church members opposed to a 1988 merger of the American Lutheran Church (ALC) with two other Lutheran bodies are proposing the formation of an alternative denomination called the Association of American Lutheran Churches. Meanwhile, if two-thirds of the ALC congregations approve, it will merge with the Lutheran Church in America and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches to form the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

ALC members who oppose the merger are concerned about provisions in the documents of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America regarding the authority of the Bible, congregational authority, and commitment to evangelisn and missions. A letter sent to some 5,000 ALC clergy said the Association of American Lutheran Churches would be “an option” for congregations and pastors who do not want to be part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

The letter said 16 ALC pastors and 10 lay persons from seven states who met in August “expressed the desire for this kind of alternative for themselves and their congregations.” The letter invited interested pastors and lay leaders to attend an assembly planned for later this month in St. Paul, Minnesota, to give their input.

“In light of the unwillingness of the Commission for a New Lutheran Church and the national conventions to take seriously the request of biblical and evangelical Lutherans, the need for this option is very critical,” the letter stated. “It was the unanimous desire of the group [that met in August] that we should go forward to form this Association of American Lutheran Churches and utilize the ALC constitution as a basis for structuring.” The letter was signed by James Minor, a St. Paul clergyman, and Duane Lindberg, a pastor from Waterloo, Iowa.

The letter stated that the assembly scheduled for later this month “is for all who … want a church which will maintain our ALC position regarding the authority of the Bible, for all who want a church which will maintain our ALC position regarding congregational authority, for all who are tired of debating secular, political issues at church conventions and want a church which places its resource commitment on evangelism and home and world missions.” Participants at the meeting will hear reports from groups working on a constitution and other matters for the proposed Association of American Lutheran Churches.

“For many of us who have spent a considerable amount of effort in prayer and work to help bring a conservative influence into the formation of the new Lutheran church,” Minor and Lindberg wrote, “our hearts are heavy with disappointment that there has been and remains no willingness to take seriously the concerns of biblical and evangelical Lutheranism.”

In interviews, Minor and Lindberg said the fundamental issue for pastors and churches considering the alternative denomination is whether the Bible is inerrant and infallible. Those words are used to describe the Bible in the ALC constitution, but they are not contained in the founding documents approved for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

“We believe that the Bible is true from Genesis to Revelation, that the words are the inspired word of God,” Minor told the St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch. “We would say the Bible is without error, solidly true. We can rely on it.”

ALC Presiding Bishop David Preus told the St. Paul newspaper that plans for the Association of American Lutheran Churches came as a disappointment. “But I have known that these things have plagued every merger along the way,” he said. “… I expect it to affect only a handful of congregations.”

By Willmar Thorkelson.

A growing sense that students at Christian colleges need to “internationalize” their thinking, in preparation for work in missions or foreign affairs, led the Christian College Coalition to establish a Latin American Studies Program in Costa Rica. It is patterned after the coalition’s Washington, D.C.—based internship program called the American Studies Program.

This fall, ten students from coalition-member colleges are living with church families in San José, Costa Rica. They are learning Spanish, studying various facets of Latin American life, and working for Costa Rican employers. Their four-month stay includes a month of travel to surrounding countries, such as Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala. Roland Hoksbergen, an economic development specialist and former instructor at Calvin College, directs the Latin American program.

“This program is one way to overcome provincialism,” said John Bernbaum, who directs the American Studies Program in Washington. “There is an incredible contradiction in our Christian institutions,” he said, between today’s general lack of awareness about other nations and “a long and rich history of mission involvement.”

As Christian College Coalition officials surveyed international opportunities for Christian college students, they found there are several dozen exchange programs with Europe and a number in the Middle East. But they found almost none in crucial Third World areas such as Latin America and Africa. “This program is designed to fill a gap,” Bernbaum said. “It is a wonderful opportunity for our students to go down and worship with brothers and sisters in a completely different culture and see the Word of God read and understood in a different cultural context.”

Colleges represented in the Latin American Studies Program this fall include Houghton (N.Y.), Gordon (Mass.), Dordt (Iowa), Bethel (Minn.), Westmont (Calif.), and Mount Vernon Nazarene (Ohio). Bernbaum said the Christian College Coalition expects as many as 25 students to be involved in the spring semester program. Once the program is fully established, it will be funded completely by tuition, currently $4,200 per student. The program’s first-year budget is $175,000, with $35,000 coming from a Glenmede Trust Company grant. Christian College Coalition officials say they would like to see similar programs in other parts of the Third World, including Africa, Asia, and South America.

Is a resurgence of Christian faith in parts of Europe leading to increased political activity? That question was posed at a Washington, D.C., discussion with Filippo Lombardi, general secretary of the European Young Christian Democrats. With a membership of more than one million, the organization represents 23 Christian youth party movements in 19 countries, including several in Eastern Europe.

Personal Christian faith appears to be stimulating involvement in the Christian Democrat party in parts of Europe. Lombardi exemplifies this trend, saying, “Political parties should represent more than mere policy. They should include advocacy of values and morals.” He believes political systems are never neutral. “If Christians are living and experiencing truth, then this truth must be proposed to society, for universal values are true for all of us.”

Christian Democrat parties in Europe have their roots in Roman Catholicism, although Protestants have influenced the direction of the parties in parts of Europe, especially in Scandinavia. The parties’ basic platform includes support for traditionally liberal democratic principles; a defense of Christian liberty in educational institutions and volunteer organizations; and the advancement of a Christian social doctrine that can provide an alternative to both unrestrained capitalism and Marxist philosophy.

“If Christians do not contribute values to society,” Lombardi warned, “they will be manipulated and used by other political forces.” European Christians need to realize that biblical morals and principles can and should be advocated in the public square, he said. “Christians should first have a defined theology, then from that translate principles into philosophy, to political theory, and then into political action.”

Lombardi’s Washington, D.C., discussion was sponsored by the Association for Public Justice (APJ), a nonprofit group that promotes the development of a biblical understanding of public policy. By understanding the Christian Democrat movement in Europe, APJ Executive Director James Skillen said, Christians in the United States might be better equipped to analyze religious elements within American political parties.

WORLD SCENE

ISSUES

Anglican-Catholic Agreement

Theologians attending the second Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission said they have agreed on a statement regarding salvation and justification.

The theologians reached the agreement after two years of discussions. The document that contains the full text of their agreement will not be published until it has been submitted to Pope John Paul II and Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie.

In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther and other Reformers emphasized justification by faith alone. Luther accused the Roman Catholic church of teaching that salvation was obtained by performing good works. The Catholic church’s Council of Trent denied the charge, but Protestants and Catholics remained divided over the meaning of justification.

A summary statement of the recent Anglican-Catholic agreement on salvation and justification has been released. It indicates that the international commission’s theologians concentrated on a “proper understanding” of four areas:

•“The faith through which we are justified.”

•A correct understanding of the term “justification.”

•The relationship between good works and salvation.

•The church’s role in the “process of salvation.”

“It is [the commission’s] view that this agreed statement is coherent with the official formularies to which each communion is committed,” according to the summary statement. “Moreover, the commission submits that any outstanding differences of interpretation or ecclesiological emphasis are not such as can justify continuing separation between Anglicans and Roman Catholics.”

SUDAN

Threat of Starvation

A combination of armed conflict and drought has displaced hundreds of thousands of people in southern Sudan and raised the threat of massive starvation in that northeast African country.

The delivery of food and other relief supplies to southern Sudan was halted after rebels shot down a Sudan Air civilian airliner more than two months ago. The rebels have warned they will shoot down any plane that enters the airspace they control, because they fear the government will use relief flights to bring in reinforcements or supplies.

Sudan is divided between the Arab and Muslim north, and the black African south, which is Christian and animist. The rebel army, known as the Sudan People’s Liberation Army, wants a new, secular constitution for the Sudan. The government of Prime Minister Sadeq el-Mahdi has failed to revoke the harsh Islamic law imposed by ousted dictator Gaafar al-Nimeiry.

Hundreds of thousands of Sudanese have fled into cities and towns seeking food and shelter. But relief officials say food supplies are so short that the people have begun returning to the countryside to search for edible roots and berries. Thousands are already starving, officials say, and the death toll could reach 2 million if an accord is not reached to allow food and other relief supplies into the region.

KOREA

North Meets South

Last month, for the first time since Korea was divided in 1945, Christians from North Korea held face-to-face meetings with believers from South Korea.

The meetings, sponsored by the international affairs arm of the World Council of Churches, were held in Switzerland. Twenty-two people participated, including three North Koreans, six South Koreans, and representatives from the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, Japan, Australia, Canada, France, Cuba, and India.

The Korean delegations exchanged papers expressing biblical and theological perspectives on the issues of peace and the reunification of Korea. They also exchanged gifts, including Bibles, hymnbooks, and theological works.

Dwain Epps, a National Council of Churches official who attended the meetings, said only about 25 ordained pastors remain in North Korea. He said some 10,000 North Korean Christians are affiliated with an umbrella organization called the Korean Christians Federation. He added that “a substantial number” of Christians, Protestants as well as Catholics, have not identified themselves with the federation, which is the only formal organization of Christians in the country.

In contrast, South Korea’s 10 million Christians constitute one-quarter of the country’s population. The nation’s capital, Seoul, is home to the largest church in the world, with more than 500,000 members.

INTERNATIONAL

World Evangelization

The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization is planning a second International Congress on World Evangelization, to be held in 1989 in Lausanne, Switzerland. Planners are expecting some 4,000 participants from 167 countries, as well as 2,000 observers and guests.

Evangelist Billy Graham will serve as honorary chairman of the event. He said the congress will provide an international forum for discussing issues and theology affecting world evangelization. The congress will involve church leaders and decision makers from around the world.

Graham has asked the meeting’s international advisory council to consider several challenges, including reaching the unreached people of the world; utilizing high technology to spread the gospel; preserving a commitment to the authority of “an infallible Scripture;” building a strong prayer base; and utilizing missionaries from Third World countries to re-evangelize nominal Christians in the West.

The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization was formed following the first International Congress on World Evangelization in 1974.

In 1951, Jarrell McCracken, then a 22-year-old entrepreneur, cut a record called “The Game of Life,” a play-by-play account of an imaginary football game between the forces of good and evil. With that, Word Records was launched. Word, Inc., has since become one of the largest and most highly regarded producers of Christian records and books.

Last month McCracken resigned from the company he founded. He was replaced by Gary Ingersoll, who will leave his posts as president of the American Broadcasting Company’s (ABC) agricultural publishing division and president of ABC-owned Hitchco*ck Publishing in suburban Chicago.

This development has raised questions similar to those raised in 1974 when Word was sold to ABC. There were fears Word would lose its Christian distinctives under ABC ownership, but that has not happened.

In an interview following his resignation, McCracken said ABC “lived up to all they promised and more.” But last year ABC was bought out by Capital Cities Communications, Inc. McCracken said this “created a definite unknown and a change in atmosphere.” And he speculated that had this development not occurred, he might still be at Word.

However, Robert Burton, president of ABC Publishing, said Capital Cities “does not bother my business.” Burton said any decisions that may have led to McCracken’s resignation “were made by myself.”

Burton said he was deeply appreciative of McCracken’s contributions to Word, and he stressed there would be “no change whatsoever” in Word’s mission or philosophy. “I was born and raised in the Baptist church,” he said, stating that he is “a personal friend of Billy Graham’s” and “a strong believer in what Word stands for.”

In reference to Word, however, Burton added, “We have to do a better job running our business from a profit standpoint.” He said that since coming to ABC, it has been his objective to make Word “a more profitable contributor to the ABC publishing family.” He said he believes Ingersoll, McCracken’s replacement, will accomplish that goal.

Ingersoll has proved his skills as a manager to ABC. “I was selected to give Word a little more of a business approach to what they do,” he said. “We have to pay a little more attention to costs.”

Word, Inc., has been financially profitable, but Word officials said corporate policy prohibits them from providing specific figures. Under McCracken’s leadership, Word has been regarded as one of the most successful Christian publishers.

The church in India has been hampered by its acceptance of society’s bias against women, according to Juliet Thomas, secretary of women’s ministries for the Evangelical Fellowship of India. Only 2.7 percent of India’s nearly 750 million people are Christians. Thomas says the challenge of reaching India with the gospel requires the church to develop the potential of all its members, including women.

In an interview with Sharon Mumper, associate director of the Evangelical Missions Information Service, Thomas talked about India’s cultural attitudes toward women and how they affect the church.

How has the Indian church viewed the potential of women?

In the nineteenth century, the church pioneered the education of women and their training as doctors and nurses for the treatment of women. Although the church pioneered these reforms, it never fully opened its own doors to women. India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, said, “To awaken the people, the woman must be awakened. Once she is on the move, the family moves, the village moves, the nation moves.” Unless the vast reservoir of women is adequately tapped, we cannot expect to rapidly build the church and extend God’s kingdom. Unfortunately, this reservoir has not been tapped.

Why has the Indian church failed in this area?

Research suggests that women missionaries who were competent and financially independent were not replaced by Indian women because women’s ministries were not held in high regard. Parents discouraged their daughters from entering a career in women’s ministries, which they thought would make them a less desirable match in marriage. Hampered by limited finances, the churches preferred to train men, whom congregations would readily accept. Cultural rather than biblical attitudes toward women have dominated the church.

How does the Indian culture view women?

There is no concept of the personhood and dignity of women. It is believed that women are incapable of caring for themselves. Therefore, a young girl belongs to her father, and a married woman belongs to her husband. She is his property. In Hindu families, girls are forced to serve their brothers, who are brought up to expect the unquestioning servitude of their sisters and later their wives. In fact, a Hindu husband is considered to be a “god” to his wife. She is to worship and serve him.

How has this attitude affected the church?

This is the context of our culture, and even third-and fourth-generation Christians are affected. It is natural for women to consider themselves to exist for the convenience of men.

What other problems do women face?

A major problem is violence against brides, which results from the dowry system. Although the system is illegal, it is still prevalent. The dowry is the price the bride’s father pays the groom. The payment is based on the position and status of the young man, and it may be an exhorbitant amount. Sometimes the bride’s father pays part of the dowry in advance, pledging to pay the balance over a period of time. But if the father is unable to fulfill the agreement, or if the husband’s family decides it should have gotten more, the bride may be harassed or tortured. The groom’s family may even decide to kill her so the young man can marry again and receive a better dowry. In some cases, kerosene is poured over a young wife, and she is burned to death.

Does the church speak out against the dowry system?

Until very recently, nearly all Christians were involved in the system. In Kerala State, many churches demand a percentage of the dowry as a tithe, and this is one reason the church hasn’t opposed it. Also, some pastors have taken a dowry from their wives’ families. They feel they need it to supplement their low incomes.

Are women making the church aware of their needs?

Indian women have been taught it is their fate to suffer in silence. As a result, the churches are unaware of the deep underlying problems facing women. Among non-Christians in low-and middle-income groups, I don’t think there is any woman who has not been beaten by her husband. Unfortunately, wifebeating is also common among Christians.

Do you see any indications of change?

Change is coming slowly. Many Christians and educated Hindu men are giving equal status to their wives’ development, careers, and fulfillment as women.

Is the church contributing to this change?

Some evangelical leaders want to see women emerge from their cocoons and develop fully for God’s glory. The non-evangelical church has talked more about women’s concerns. But they are joining hands with Hindus and others to work toward change, and the Christian emphasis has been lost. For a long time, the secular-humanist feminist voice has been the only one heard in India. The voice of evangelical Indian women is almost nonexistent.

What does the future hold for women in India?

I believe a tremendous spiritual awakening is coming among women. They have been restless and frustrated. Their needs have not been met, and they have been unable to find fulfillment. When we present Jesus Christ as the One who fulfills and satisfies their longings, they respond. I have a great burden to mobilize women, so that more of us may unite to teach the Word of God.

As Pat Robertson begins his journey into politics, another well-known conservative Christian appears to be backing away from the fray. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, told newspaper columnist Cal Thomas he will not stick his neck out for another political candidate as he did for Ronald Reagan, “because it is too polarizing to unbelievers.”

In his syndicated column, Thomas quoted Falwell as saying, “I will no longer allow in my pulpit anything but a minuscule amount of politics. We are going back to where we were before Moral Majority when we had a clear purpose, but did not have a major emphasis on politics.” Liberty Federation, the organization that superseded Moral Majority, will remain active, Falwell said, to make pronouncements on issues such as drug abuse.

Falwell’s repositioning comes as a surprise, at a time when other Christian activists are busy distributing congressional scorecards and cheering on Pat Robertson. It is a move Thomas recommends to other clergy drawn toward political life. Thomas, who was the spokesman for Moral Majority for five years, laments division in the church today over temporal issues. People outside the fold who observe the internecine battles among Christians, Thomas wrote, must be tempted to say, “See how they fight and hate one another. Who wants to be part of that?”

Thomas concludes his column by calling for “a balance between spirituality and politics, otherwise the church loses its moral authority.”

CHRISTIANITY TODAY/October 17, 1986

Pat Robertson gains the support of several Christian leaders, and seeks 3 million campaign volunteers.

Christian talk show host Pat Robertson has determined that God wants him to run for President, and he is waiting to see if at least 3 million Americans agree. At a celebration last month in Washington, D.C., the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network told several thousand enthusiastic listeners they must signal their support for him by signing petitions pledging “our prayers, our work, our gifts” to his campaign. The minimum suggested contribution is $100.

Similar petitions have been mailed to potential supporters around the country. Marc Nuttle, a political consultant who is expected to play a significant role in Robertson’s campaign, told a private luncheon gathering there are 300,000 names on the Americans for Robertson mailing list in Texas alone. Americans for Robertson is a committee formed to “test the waters” for a presidential bid.

Robertson said he will become a declared candidate after 3 million registered voters return their petitions with a contribution or a pledge. The tentative date set for his official announcement is September 17, 1987. Meanwhile, Americans for Robertson will coordinate his campaign activities. Robertson called for several “draft Robertson” committees to cease their activities and consolidate with Americans for Robertson.

Robertson’S Vision

At Washington’s Constitution Hall, Robertson spoke to a crowd of approximately 3,000 after a program of musical productions marking the 199th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution. The program was beamed by satellite to 216 locations across the country. Robertson officials estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 people attended the event at the closed-circuit video sites.

Robertson said the vision of America’s founders, of “one nation under God,” needs to be restored. “We have permitted during the past 25 years an assault on our faith and values that would have been unthinkable to past generations of Americans,” he said. The evidence of this is all around, he said, in public school textbooks, court rulings, entertainment media, and disintegrating families.

“Now in 1986 the same liberal elites that gave us the problem deny the cause and tell us that this is a problem for government,” Robertson said. “What we are facing is not a governmental problem, it is a moral problem.” To repeated rounds of cheers and applause, he said, “The answer lies in a new rise of faith and freedom that will give to every American a vision of hope—a vision of opportunity.”

Robertson’s goals include tougher discipline to achieve drug-and alcohol-free schools; basic math and language instruction; and classroom prayer. “There can be no education without morality, and there can be no lasting morality without religion,” he said. “For the sake of our children, we must bring God back to the classrooms of America.”

Robertson pledged to maintain religious liberty for all, saying, “The atheists among us should have every right of citizenship—the right to print, to broadcast, to speak, to persuade, to own businesses, to organize politically, to run for office.” He added that the remaining 94 percent of Americans who believe in God, according to a Gallup poll, do not have to “dismantle our entire public affirmation of faith in God just to please a tiny minority who don’t believe in anything.”

Fiscal responsibility is another part of Robertson’s vision. He called for a balanced federal budget and the dismantling of “unnecessary [government] departments and agencies.” To address record trade deficits, Robertson supports “a partnership between the government, American business, and the American working men and women.”

He advocated a strong national defense, in order to be able to “resist any further spread of communist tyranny.” He asked whether Americans dare “turn a deaf ear to the cries for material help from those brave freedom fighters in Angola, in Afghanistan, in Mozambique, in Nicaragua.”

Endorsem*nts

Religious leaders and other Robertson supporters offered endorsem*nts and testimonials before his appearance at Constitution Hall. Jimmy Draper, pastor of First Baptist Church in Euless, Texas, and former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, said, “Pat Robertson understands the past, and thus he is able to lead us into the future.… He is uniquely qualified to protect us from the threats we face today”

Draper praised Robertson’s commitment to Christ, saying, “America is to be a biblical republic that offers religious freedom to all but does not deny its theistic base.” Draper read a letter from former Southern Baptist president Charles Stanley, who wrote, “I encourage you to pursue the course which God has laid before you.… Be assured of my prayers and support.”

Evangelist Oral Roberts said he had never before offered public support to a political figure, but he called Robertson “the man I trust the most to help hurting people.” Roberts had just returned from a trip to Japan and Korea, where he said government leaders knew about Robertson’s possible candidacy and viewed him as a real contender.

Bishop J.O. Patterson, presiding bishop of the Church of God in Christ, cited Robertson’s campaign against illiteracy as evidence that he “sees a problem and starts working for a solution.” Patterson called Robertson’s anticipated bid for office the fulfillment of “a dream of a vast segment of the American populace.”

Beverly LaHaye, founder and president of Concerned Women of America, said, “If Pat Robertson decides to run and is elected, his administration policies and strong religious and moral background will help return America to strong families once again.”

Other endorsem*nts came from former football star Roosevelt Grier; A. L. Williams, Jr., chairman of A. L. Williams Life Insurance Company; and Ben Waldman, who headed a Jewish coalition for the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1984. Waldman has resigned as associate director of personnel at the White House to work for Americans for Robertson.

Television evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, who was not present at the Washington event, also has pledged his support after expressing early hesitations about a Robertson candidacy.

Opposition

Robertson’s day in the sun was clouded only slightly by the release of a videotape produced by People for the American Way (PAW). Entitled “Pat Robertson: In His Own Words,” the program presents a series of excerpts from Robertson’s “700 Club” talk show. It concentrates exclusively on comments he has made about current issues, and does not show him praying for healings.

PAW also released a report calling Robertson an “extremist with a baby face.” PAW officials said their organization’s project is designed to discredit Robertson by providing evidence that his views place him in the right-wing radical fringe of society, rather than in the mainstream. Most of the video clips were taken from “700 Club” programs that aired in the past two years; the oldest are from 1983.

PAW’s video presentation covers Robertson’s views on the U.S. Constitution, public education, social security, the banking system, and women’s rights. He is shown criticizing the view of the Supreme Court justices that constitutional rights should be uniform in all 50 states. (The view that constitutionally guaranteed rights apply to individual states, as well as at the national level, has been the basis of case law for many years.) Robertson also has called the Supreme Court justices “coercive Utopians.” On the social security system, he said he agreed with U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) that the government should no longer run the program.

On women’s rights, the PAW video shows Robertson talking about headship within marriage. Jesus is the head of the family, he says, and the husband “is to be the high priest of the family.” The video makes no differentiation between when Robertson is speaking as a Christian teacher or minister, and when he is addressing political issues. Southern Baptist clergyman and former congressman John Buchanan spoke on behalf of PAW, saying Robertson has every right to his religious views as well as his political views. “Religion enhances public life,” Buchanan said, “but all who are in public life need to play by certain rules of fairness and by the same rules. No one can claim to be chairman of the Lord’s political action committee.”

The PAW video concludes with an interview of Robertson conducted by a Christian Broadcasting Network reporter, who asked about Robertson’s prayer concerning Hurricane Gloria in 1984. Robertson prayed that the hurricane would not reach shore near Virginia Beach, Virginia, headquarters city of his television network. The hurricane did not touch the Virginia coast, and the effect of his prayer apparently was a test for Robertson of whether he should continue praying about seeking the presidency. “It was extremely important,” he said, “because I felt … that if I couldn’t move a hurricane, I could hardly move a nation.” If the hurricane had come ashore in Virginia Beach, Robertson said, he would have immediately ceased considering plans to run for office.

A Robertson associate told supporters the PAW video was not as damaging as they had anticipated. At the same time, the Robertson team expects many more attacks on their would-be candidate. Robertson, seeking prayer support from his wife before last month’s announcement, heard her ask God to give him skin like “an elephant hide.”

By Beth Spring.

How Does the Republican Party View Christian Voters?

The Republican party is intent on attracting a majority of American voters into its ranks. Masterminding this effort, known as the “1991 Plan,” is Frank Fahrenkopf, chairman of the Republican National Committee. Conservative Christians are an important part of the Republican party’s new coalition, Fahrenkopf says, but that does not make them a monolithic voting bloc. In an interview with CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Fahrenkopf explained how Republican party organizers and politically active Christians are getting along.

What role do you see evangelical Christians playing in the reorganization of the Republican party?

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, self-identification of American voters has been static. About 50 percent of the voters have called themselves Democrats, 25 percent Republicans, and 25 percent independents or nonpartisan. Many in all three categories were evangelical Christians, and particularly in the South most of them were Democrats.

Thanks largely to the leadership of President Reagan, the breakdown of the American electorate has changed. Today it is 40 percent Democrat, 40 Republican, and cent independent. A large portion of the people who moved from a Democratic or independent affiliation are evangelicals. They felt the Republican party best represented what they wanted for their families, communities, and country. As we approach 1988, we are seeing more involvement and interest in party politics by these people.

Do you perceive evangelical Christians as a voting bloc?

No, I don’t. Reporters say to me, “You Republicans are going to have a terrible time because of these evangelicals.” They usually equate Pat Robertson and his supporters with the role Jesse Jackson has played in the Democratic party. I tell them those are two totally different movements. If Jackson’s presidential candidacy was divisive for the Democrats, it was because any time he ran in a primary he got 85 to 95 percent of the black vote. Those votes would normally be distributed over a whole range of candidates in the Democratic party.

In contrast, the Christian Right is anything but monolithic. Robertson has a core of supporters who are evangelical Christians. But Jerry Falwell and many of his followers, for example, are backing George Bush. Jack Kemp has strong evangelical support. And Bob Dole, Bill Armstrong, and Paul Laxalt would attract the votes of evangelical Christians.

Is there a chance for disruption within state Republican party organizations?

We’ve seen very little of that. There were some complaints in Iowa about evangelical involvement. But if the party officers at the county level are not organizing politically and involving new people, they risk being replaced. Politics is a business of inclusion. If someone can come along and throw the leaders out, it means they weren’t doing their job. And that may have nothing to do with whether it’s an evangelical group that throws them out.

Does any aspect of Christian political involvement pose a threat to your plans to build the party?

Most party leaders welcome the involvement and commitment of evangelicals and other new members of the Republican party. They see it as an opportunity rather than a threat. There is no question, however, that if a singleissue group came in and made a move to take over the party, that would be destructive.

What about activists who are insistent about issues such as abortion and hom*osexuality?

The strength of the two-party system is that both parties provide a broad umbrella for different views. Ronald Reagan can hold strong personal views about abortion. But that doesn’t mean that anyone who disagrees with him should be thrown out of the Republican party. However, some people in the party are intolerant. They don’t want evangelicals involved because they feel evangelicals may, in turn, be intolerant toward them.

A lot of Republican support comes from younger voters who are economic conservatives but social libertarians. Will they be able to coexist with people who hold conservative views on lifestyle issues?

Some people are predicting a tremendous conflict between these young voters and the evangelicals who are more conservative on all issues. The secret of putting together an effective political coalition in this country is an umbrella broad enough to include all within the framework of the party. And that is something that can be accomplished. I see no evidence that these dire predictions of conflict are accurate.

AN INTERVIEW BY BARBARA THOMPSON¹Barbara Thompson is a free-lance writer living in Brevard, North Carolina. Her latest book is Dyig for a Drink (Word, 1985), with Anderson Spickard, Jr.

Of the many problems facing American education, perhaps none is more dramatic than the high school dropout rate. Census Bureau statistics indicate an astonishing 27 percent of our youth do not graduate. The dropout rates in major urban areas are particularly disturbing: 56 percent in Detroit, 52 percent in Boston, and 42 percent in New York City.

The dropout rate is a present crisis, but it also creates a crisis for tomorrow. Dropouts lack skills for employment and appear more often on welfare rolls. Says the State Education Leader, a quarterly of the Education Commission of the States: “At-risk young people also constitute a threat to our political stability. A society in which two-thirds to three-fourths of the population become steadily more affluent while the remainder—including a disproportionate share of minorities—spirals downward, simply will not work.”

Among those who have dedicated themselves to turning these realities around is Bill Milliken. Milliken was 20 years old in 1960 when he dropped out of college and middle-class society to work with troubled kids on the mean streets of Manhattan’s Lower East Side. Under the auspices of Young Life International, a Christian outreach to unchurched teenagers, Milliken and a small group of coworkers navigated their way through the escalating racial tensions and cultural turbulence of the sixties, working to provide high-school dropouts with an alternative education.

During this time, Milliken became increasingly alienated from the mainstream of American culture. “While still in my twenties, I buried 18 friends who died from a drug overdose or a bullet,” he remembers. “I didn’t know how to process these experiences by myself, and I couldn’t find people in the Christian community who could relate to them. I felt like I was getting ripped apart, and I became so angry I was dangerous.”

In two moving and provocative books, Tough Love and So Long, Sweet Jesus (Revell, 1968; Prometheus Books, 1973), Milliken describes the spiritual journey by which he traveled through the violent solutions offered by black power advocates and other radical groups into a deeper understanding of the love of Christ and the corporate nature of Christian service. In the process, he and his fellow street workers developed a plan for bringing Christian principles to bear on the problems of urban school systems.

Today, with 25 years of street experience behind him, Milliken is the president of Cities in Schools, a nationwide education program that coordinates government, corporation, church, and volunteer services to help meet the needs of troubled teenagers.

Over 8,000 young people participate in the Cities in Schools program, which includes street academies for dropouts, in-school support systems for potential dropouts, adolescent pregnancy programs (designed to reduce infant mortality and discourage repeat pregnancies), and drug education. The list of Cities in Schools’ corporate sponsors reads like a major sampling of the Fortune 500. One sponsor, Rich’s Department Store, has redesigned the seventh floor of its downtown Atlanta branch to house a street academy for dropouts.

The success of the Cities in Schools program on a national scale is substantiated by statistical studies and the testimonies of students, teachers, parents, and community leaders. Says Billy R. Reagan, general superintendent of the Houston, Texas, school district, “In my 30 years as an administrator, I’ve never seen anything serve as a catalytic agent as effectively as Cities in Schools.”

In the following interview, Milliken, who now moves as easily in corporate and government circles as he does on the streets, addresses some of the issues surrounding the current high school dropout crises and the struggle for institutional reform.

What is the scope of the high-school dropout crisis in the United States?

Nationwide more than one out of every four teenagers is dropping out of high school before graduation. Among blacks and Hispanics, the rate is one out of two. (The highest dropout rate is among Hispanics, who are the fastest-growing community in the country.) This means that every year between 800,000 and one million kids are being poured out on the street—at a time when the rest of society is going through the high-tech revolution and jobs are requiring more and more skill.

As the dropout rate escalates, the division between the haves and the have-nots in our country is widening dramatically. We’re talking about a society that already has 23 million functionally illiterate people. We also have the highest per capita prison rate of any Western country, and in some states more than 80 percent of these inmates dropped out of high school.

As I travel around the country, I find that people are just beginning to wake up to the enormity of the problem. Hopefully, those of us who are committed to Christ are prompted to action by his love; but just from the standpoint of self-interest, we have to do something. Even if we choose not to care about other people’s kids, what about our own? What kind of future do they have if 30 percent of all kids and 50 percent of the minorities aren’t making it in our society? Add to this number all the kids dropping out from suburbia, the bored and alienated, the ones turning to drugs. What are we burdening the next generation with?

The teenagers of the eighties are generally described as conservative and success oriented. Does this description apply to inner-city teenagers?

Generalizations are difficult, but by and large the streets are divided among kids tuning out with drugs and alcohol (and music and television), kids who are trying to make it, and a large group in the middle just hanging out and waiting to pick up on the latest trend.

More than anything, it is drugs and alcohol that divide inner-city communities. Large segments of the population have been taken over by chemical addiction, and there is a growing number of people surviving only enough to support their habit.

There are positive things happening—break dancing and street art, for example—but at the same time there is a stronger sense of hopelessness than I’ve ever seen. In the sixties people said, “Give me a piece of the future,” and with half a chance they turned their anger into something productive. Now, even among kids who aren’t completely tuned out, there is a sense that there is no future. You can’t tell them, “Sure you can make it,” because they know you are probably lying. The odds are against them. And by “making it” I mean simply having an income and being able to take care of themselves.

That’s one reason why the escalating number of high-school dropouts is so alarming. Every year we’re pouring a million kids into an environment where already the majority of people are paralyzed by fear and hopelessness.

The government and private corporations have put enormous amounts of money into inner-city communities to address problems like the escalating dropout rate. Their efforts have been largely unsuccessful. What do you think accounts for this failure?

From our perspective on the streets, there are several problems. The first is size. There are some environments in which people can be nurtured, in which they can grow and find light. There are others which, simply because they are so big, make people angry and frustrated. No matter what kind of program it is, when people lose their names, they begin dropping out in larger and larger numbers—either physically or in terms of productivity.

A second problem is lack of accountability. In the sixties and seventies, for instance, there were billions of dollars poured into the inner city for which no one was held responsible. It was a situation businessmen never would have allowed in their own corporate world. Everyone was responsible and no one was responsible, and if we tried to find out who could deliver a certain service to a kid in trouble, we were bounced from one agency to another. The buck never stopped anywhere.

A third problem is the delivery system itself. Oftentimes it resembles those old Puffed Wheat ads: people in power shoot programs into communities and just let them land wherever they fall. Some people get all kinds of help; others get none at all. Getting funded is the critical issue, and cooperation among workers is structured out of the system because they all have to compete with one another for their slice of the pie.

When our “troops” are scattered all over town, and everyone is trying to win the battle by themselves, we aren’t going to win a war on poverty or any other kind of war. If you are a needy person in this environment, you have to be a genius in systems management just to figure out where to get help.

How have you addressed these problems in the Cities in Schools program?

We knew from experience that there were two ways to bring about change in our communities. We could love a few people on an individual level, or we could try to take on institutions and produce a model that others could duplicate. We chose an institutional approach and picked schools as our flagship because that’s what we knew the most about.

When kids are in trouble, it usually shows up first in school—through truancy, discipline problems, bad grades. As their problems grow more serious, they begin dropping out. Usually this happens about two years before they actually physically leave the school building. They hang around there because that’s where their friends are, or it’s warm, or they want to make drug pickups.

Cities in Schools targets these kids headed for trouble and surrounds them with a coordinated network of caring adults. For every 10 to 15 kids there is a counselor who visits in their homes, gets to know their friends, investigates family trouble, and helps them find the resources they need to cope with problems. Behind the counselors is a community support system, orchestrated by Cities in Schools and composed of local, state, and federal programs, corporations, and small businesses, churches, and private organizations and individuals.

These resource groups are brought into the school, and their staff members become part of the same team. Instead of competing with one another, people are working together to help kids learn. The unit is small enough that there is a genuine sense of community and accountability, and in this atmosphere it becomes possible for kids to get the help and education they need.

In working with troubled teenagers, what difference, if any, have you found between those young people who “make it” and those who don’t?

I’m frequently asked this question by people who have no idea what my spiritual background is, and they are surprised when I say the key is two verses of Scripture. The first is “You get your life by giving it away.” We’ve all been taught the opposite by the media. We, and our kids, are bombarded by the idea that we get life by grabbing for it, by doing all we can to look out for ourselves.

The second verse is “It’s more blessed to give than to receive.” When I first read these words, they seemed paternalistic. What came to mind was the do-gooders who trap people in slavery by giving handouts without any kind of relationship. But the more I thought about it, the more I saw these words of Jesus as the basis for bringing about change in kids’ lives. If it really is more blessed to give than to receive, then everyone ought to have the chance. If we come to kids with the attitude that they have nothing to give us, that they are losers, then they are already dead.

The breakthrough comes when some adult enters the valley of the shadow of adolescence with them, and walks through the brokenness, the anger and hostility, to find out what they have to give. Maybe it’s something as simple as working at a department store and getting paid for it. Or tutoring a younger brother or sister who is behind in school.

Having said this, there are some kids who aren’t going to make it. When I first came to the streets, I was very naïve, and I thought anyone with the right opportunity could break out of a dead-end life. But there are kids for whom there are simply too many bricks in the wall. They’ve been hurt too long, and while some day in eternity they may find wholeness and healing, it probably isn’t going to happen in this life.

In the Cities in Schools program, what has been the result when teachers, counselors, social workers, and others are held accountable for the job they perform?

More people than you might guess are excited and find new growth. A smaller number can’t wait to get out. Some of these are people who took their jobs because there wasn’t another one available, and at a certain point there has to be a weeding-out process. We encourage such people that there is dignity in other jobs, but we let them know that they can’t continue to be involved in a professional way with the lives of our kids.

Any time people begin working together there will be other people who feel threatened because they don’t have as much power as they once did. But some people are simply slower to catch on to new ideas. They are not bad people, and you can’t win their hearts by pounding away at them. You just need to step back and give them time to think through the issues.

In recent years social workers and other individuals who deliver services to the poor have come to be seen as highly ineffective. Has this been confirmed by your experience with Cities in Schools?

No. At one time I looked at all social workers and bureaucrats in the welfare system as enemies; now I see that most of them start out with the same commitment as anyone else, but they get terribly abused along the way. It’s easy to single them out as the source of the problem, to say, “Look, we put all those people out there and nothing happened so it must be their fault.” The problem is that they are structured wrong. Their effectiveness depends on teamwork and cooperation, but they burn out when they are constantly having to fight each other and the enormous system in which they work.

The way the government approaches the problems of poverty amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic. One group comes in and shifts things here and there; then the next group does something else. But the boat is still sinking. There are still poor people and they still have problems. How are we going to deliver any services to them if we get rid of all the workers?

There is a growing consensus that the welfare system has not only not helped the poor, but has aggravated their problems. As a result, there is currently a strong reaction in our country against the whole system. What is your view of this situation?

A lot of people get hurt by arbitrary cuts in the welfare system and are returned to the poverty cycle. But nobody asks: Is this an effective way to solve or alleviate the problems of the poor? What do people in the local community think? There isn’t enough time to evaluate anything, because every four years sweeping changes are made. And every six months someone wants to take the tree out of the ground to see if the roots are growing.

We never would have made it to the moon if we had approached space travel in the same way we decide matters concerning the poor, NASA spent millions on failure, but our national leaders never decided, “It can’t be done; let’s give up.” Their attitude was “So we did some stupid things—let’s learn from our mistakes and do better next time.”

When it comes to the poor, the baby goes out with the bathwater. But the truth is, everything we are talking about—small units, accountability, cooperation—can be structured into large organizations. If it wasn’t possible, 90 percent of the corporations never would have made it. We need to figure out how to clean up our systems and make them work. And if people are ripping them off, let’s find out how to stop them.

When you first began working on the streets of the Lower East Side you were profoundly alienated from “the system” and those who worked within it. What brought about the change in your perspective?

In my greatest moments of anger on the street, I was very uncompromising. I was sure I was right about everything. But if you get broken enough, proved wrong enough, then you realize you don’t know as much as you think.

Several years ago I was on an airplane, and the man sitting next to me was from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I told him I was arrested outside his place [the Pentagon], and he invited me to come see it from the inside. I went, and it was part of the process by which I learned I couldn’t simply dismiss people I disagreed with as terrible human beings. I still feel that as Christians we are called by Christ to lay down arms, but I understand the other side’s position better.

Some of my radical friends take offense because I hang out with folks from the White House or corporations or the music world. Then again, some of these well-to-do friends would take offense at life on the street. I grew up desperately needing other people’s approval, but what I’ve discovered is that I have to hold on to my basic relationship with Christ, and then do what I can and go where I can in both worlds. I want to walk into the White House as long as they will let me, and I want to love those folks there as deeply as I do my friends on the street.

The truth is you can’t love kids and hate the people whom you’re asking for money. In the long run, this produces a poison for the whole system. I tell people if they can’t love the folks who provide the resources, then they need to get out of this line of work. Otherwise, they will be in danger of becoming hypocrites.

What particular personal lessons have you learned in the past few years?

As I get older, I am amazed how much ideologues on both the Right and Left resemble one another. There is the deep-seated anger, and the conviction that they alone are right. I am less sure about most things than I have ever been in my life. All I know is that when I wake up in the morning, I thank God that the world is still here, that I can serve a little, love a little, hurt a little. I have no grandiose ideas about saving the world anymore—even though I always still charge ahead, and need to be reminded every 20 minutes or so that it is faithfulness and not success that matters.

I also have a deeper appreciation for what Jesus meant when he said that the wheat and the tares are growing together. Everything is intertwined; it’s not in neat packages. Sometimes I get up in the morning, and all I see is weeds. It’s overwhelming how truly terrible and hopeless everything looks. Then I have to realize once again that the weeds are not the whole story. I have to trust that in God’s economy his kingdom is being built. Sure, there are monsters, demons, and ghettos. But what about those plants growing over there? What about these flowers in our midst?

I’m personally seeing more beautiful things happen now than at any other time in my life. I was in Appalachia recently, and I went wondering what I could possibly have to say to people whose background was so radically different from my own. Then I discovered we shared many of the same problems and experiences. When I left, I was hugging people good-bye who once would have dismissed me as a liberal white boy from the North, just as I would have dismissed them as racist rednecks.

In the midst of all the insanity around us, people are reaching out and talking with one another. New structures and relationships are being formed. And our task is to choose to put our trust in God rather than chariots, to believe that somehow our little stitch in the garment is part of his kingdom.

“The Only Failure Is Not to Try”

Latania Smith²Not her real name. was 15 months old when she was abandoned by her mother. She was raised by her grandmother in a middle-class Philadelphia neighborhood, where she attended parochial schools and was a straight-A student.

At the age of 13, Latania began smoking marijuana. “I don’t know why I started using drugs,” Latania says. “But everyone was doing it. I mean everyone. My grandmother kept going in and out of the hospital, and I could feel she was going to die. She had been my mother for as long as I could remember, and I wasn’t ready for her to go yet. Maybe I used drugs to escape.”

When Latania was 14, her grandmother died. Latania moved in with relatives and drifted through a string of public housing projects. At the end of ninth grade, she dropped out of school. “Every day was the same,” Latania remembers. “I woke up in the morning and got high. Then I sold drugs. And I, worried all the time about getting jumped, where I was going to get money, where I would sleep at night.”

Latania smoked marijuana and angel dust while using cocaine and occasionally LSD. As her health deteriorated, she was repeatedly hospitalized. After one life-threatening episode, and with encouragement from her boyfriend, she began to re-evaluate the direction of her life.

“I realized I wasn’t ever going to be anything if I stayed with my relatives,” Latania recalls. “They sat at home all day, with their babies, doing drugs and waiting for the welfare check. I didn’t want that. I felt deep inside that God had kept me alive for some reason, that there was something left for me to do.”

At the age of 16, on her own initiative, Latania moved to Atlanta. For a brief time, she lived with her mother (“It didn’t work out,” Latania says matter-of-factly), and it was here she learned about the Cities in Schools academies for high-school dropouts. After an interview at Saint Luke’s Academy, located in an Episcopal church, Latania was given a basic skills test and placed in the school’s highest achievement group.

“I was afraid at first,” Latania says. “The students seemed like losers to me, because I knew they were all dropouts. But after a few days, I was part of the family. And I began to respect people here. They’ve made some mistakes, but they’ve had the courage to pick up the pieces and try again.”

Today Latania is studying chemistry, math, social science, and English at Saint Luke’s, under the supervision of a small corps of teachers paid by the Atlanta public school system. She attends a weekly SAT preparation class, a group drug-counseling session, and she is actively involved in Young Life.

Latania is also a member of the Leadership Group, a select group of 40 students drawn from the four Cities in Schools learning centers for dropouts in Atlanta. The group meets weekly, sponsors special speakers, and attends weekend retreats.

“We are learning to set goals and reach them,” Latania explains. “We help each other turn our bad self-images and negative attitudes into something positive. We’re the future leaders of tomorrow and need to learn how to handle ourselves.”

Latania speaks of her own future with the mixture of confidence and diffidence that characterizes teenagers preparing to launch themselves in life. But she also speaks with the realism and toughness that is the peculiar heritage of inner-city teenagers.

“Our counselors tell us we can be anything we want to be as long as we are prepared to sacrifice and work hard. I want to be a lawyer, and I plan to go to a college with a good English and political science program.

“I also want to be a Supreme Court judge. People look at me and say, ‘You can’t do that!’ Why can’t I? If lean be a lawyer, I can be a judge. But if I do my best and fail, I won’t feel bad. The only failure is not to try.”

For Latania Smith, it is a long way from teenage dreams to the Supreme Court. But perhaps it is no further than the distance she has already traveled—from the life-crippling housing projects of inner-city Philadelphia to the hope-filled classrooms of Saint Luke’s Academy.

By Barbara Thompson.

PERRY G. DOWNS¹Perry Downs is chairman of the Department of Christian Education, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.

Why are most children captivated by Bible stories? Why do teenagers suddenly start asking hard spiritual questions? (And why do they think their thoughts are original?) Why do young adults often discover that Christianity is more than doctrines and don’ts—that they can know personal intimacy with God?

Emory University theologian James Fowler may have partial explanations for these facts of religious life. He has carefully studied the predictable stages through which faith develops. The result is a sophisticated description of six stages of faith—beginning with an intuitive fantasy-filled childish faith and ending with a universalized faith characterized by an absolute living out of the imperatives of love and justice (see “Six Stages of Faith”).

Since the publication of his book Stages of Faith (1982), Fowler’s theories have received a lot of attention. It is not unusual to hear a pastor speak of preaching a “stage-four sermon” or to read that Sunday-school materials were designed for a “stage-three faith.” But what are we to make of this kind of analysis? Is this widespread acceptance merited?

Faith Without Religion

Fowler contends that all people have faith, and that the basic question of faith, “On what or whom do you set your heart?” does not have to be a religious question. We have confused faith with creed, he says, and have called a list of theological beliefs a “statement of faith.” But that is not faith.

Fowler’s formal definition of faith makes faith something that is evolving, existential, and relative. It has to do with how we see ourselves, others, and the ultimate values that are held in common.

For Fowler, faith is active and always has a relational component (trust in or loyalty to someone or something else). He ultimately expands this concept of faith to include the ability to see everyday life imaginatively—in images of what the world could be and what life could be like.

The idea of faith developing in stages is not new. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153) wrote of three stages of spiritual life, plateaus of the devotional life. But Fowler claims that the development of human faith is a universal phenomenon, quite apart from religion.

The roots of Fowler’s theory are firmly planted in the developmental understandings of Jean Piaget, Erik Erikson, and Lawrence Kohlberg (see “The Mystery of Building Faith,” CT Institute, CT, June 13, 1986, p. 7–1). These developmentalists believe that within the genetic codes of the species are predetermined patterns of growth toward maturity. Thus they seek to define and describe patterns that predictably emerge in the human personality. Fowler’s contribution has been to identify faith as a universal aspect of the human personality that also develops naturally.

Like all stage theories, Fowler’s predicts that everyone’s faith will emerge through the same stages in the same order. The content of the faith will differ and change, but the structure will always be according to the same six stages. What varies is the extent to which one’s faith will develop. Some people may only reach stage-three conventionality, while a few may develop all the way to stage-six radicalism. But the route to the higher stages will be the same for all.

The strongest influence in Fowler’s work is the moral development theory of his former colleague at Harvard, Lawrence Kohlberg, who describes a stage theory of moral reasoning. Kohlberg makes a sharp distinction between moral content (what one believes to be right or wrong) and moral structure (why one believes something to be right or wrong). In the same way, Fowler attempts to describe the contours of faith without describing its content.

Conversion is defined as a change in the content of one’s faith and may occur at any stage. Depending on the content of faith that is adopted, conversion may either facilitate or inhibit one’s faith development.

Implications And Insights

The implications of this line of research are profound. If predictable stages of faith do exist, pastors and religious educators could understand levels at which their people are functioning and help them develop to higher levels.

Developmentalism respects the human being and strives to enhance the natural process of development. People are viewed holistically; and faith is understood as an aspect of the whole person, not as an isolated experience apart from the rest of life.

But there are also problems. The term faith is used in divergent ways. For Fowler and others, the term refers to the human quest for ultimate meaning—a universal human experience. But for Christians, the term also refers to a particular content (as in “the Christian faith”) and a particular experience (as in “being saved by faith”). While faith is not an exclusively Christian term, it is presented in Scripture as something other than a universal human experience. It is a particular gift of God that results in salvation for those to whom it is given.

Those who study the human quest for meaning must not force Christian faith into a purely developmental mold. Attempts to pigeonhole the Christian life into developmental stages (without adequate theological consideration) have led some into an exuberant, but uncritical, adoption of Fowler’s theory. True, much of human experience is best understood developmentally. Stages in cognitive ability, psycho-social development, and moral reasoning can be empirically observed. It is reasonable to assume that these would influence faith. But to understand spiritual growth from a developmental perspective alone is to ignore the supernatural.

Likewise, conversion can be understood from a psychological perspective as a change in the content of one’s faith. But from a theological point of view, conversion is the creation of a new person in Christ. Because there is more to conversion than content, and because people experience conversion at different ages, Christian faith will only partly fit Fowler’s developmental mold.

Fowler wants to use theological data, but he then disclaims any theological restrictions. For example, he believes that the Jewish-Christian image of the “kingdom of God” is the best description of stage-six faith. But then he also argues that we should not limit stage six to Jewish-Christian usage. It seems he cannot have it both ways.

Needed: More Study

One helpful outcome of Fowler’s writings has been a renewed interest in spiritual formation. Long a Roman Catholic concern, spiritual development is now capturing the interest of Protestants. With a few notable exceptions, it is the mystics of Roman Catholicism who have studied the spiritual life. Their writings lack a sound empirical base. We need a Protestant theology of spiritual growth, along with empirical studies describing the process.

Fowler has offered the beginnings of this kind of study. His theoretical work lays a basis for understanding people’s quest for meaning. Moreover, research is beginning to show the validity of the stages. However, to use this research to understand the spiritual development of Christians is inappropriate, for spiritual growth is more than a maturing orientation to self, others, and ultimate values. It is the reorientation of one’s life toward God and the abandonment of self to Christ in ever-deepening ways. While aspects of this process are clearly developmental, it is primarily the result of the work of a sovereign God who may choose to work outside of the patterns of human growth and development as well as within them.

Six Stages of Faith

1.Intuitive-Projective Faith (early childhood); A fantasy-filled, imitative phase in which the child can be powerfully and permanently influenced by examples, moods, actions, and stories of the visible faith of primally related adults. The person thinks in terms of magical explanations of events.

2.Mythical-Literal Faith (ages 6–12); The developing ability of logical thinking helps the person sort out reality from make-believe. The narratives of the faith communities (understood literally) are added so that stories become increasingly important.

3.Synthetic-Conventional Faith (ages 12 and beyond): With the ability for abstract thinking comes the need to integrate faith into a systematic whole. Developing self-identity causes the person to identify with others in a unity of belief, with God perceived as an extension of interpersonal relationships and as a close personal friend.

4.Individuative-Reflective Faith (early adulthood and beyond): Self is separated from the group and a person’s beliefs are critically reflected upon. A demythologizing of religious rituals occurs as the person seeks meaning in religious practices and assumes greater personal responsibility for his or her faith.

5.Conjunctive Faith (midlife and beyond): As deeper self-awareness develops, the person becomes alive to paradox and open to other religions and people. It becomes axiomatic that truth is multi-dimensional, and the person seeks significant encounters with others.

6.Universalizing Faith (midlife and beyond): Issues of love and justice become all important as a person is grounded in oneness with the power of being. As people are drawn to this stage by God, they learn to radically live the kingdom of God as a means of overcoming division, oppression, and brutality.

The beating heart of evangelicalism is evangelism. And in recent decades American evangelical ism has been characterized by, to use James Kennedy’s phrase, an “evangelism explosion.”

Few periods of church history, if any, have seen so intensive a concern for, and so effective a practice of, personal witnessing and soul winning. This is not to forget or underestimate the impact of Jonathan Edwards, the Wesley brothers, George Whitefield, Charles Finney, D. L. Moody, and Billy Sunday. Neither is it to ignore the question, addressed at the International Congress on World Evangelization (Lausanne ’74) regarding the relationship of social action to proclaiming the Good News. Rather, it is to remind us of the phenomenal surge of God’s Spirit in our lifetime.

Since the use of human instruments is the divine modus operandi, Billy Graham must be singled out as a catalyst for the powerful re-emergence of evangelism. His crusades, telecasts, international conferences, publications, and films have fanned the fires of revivalism both nationally and globally. Through his remarkable ministry, countless thousands have made decisions for Christ. It also meant the sharing of one’s spiritual experience lost the stigma of religious fanaticism.

Other dynamic evangelists—including Leighton Ford, Jack Van Impe, John Haggai, and, more recently, Luis Palau—have seen great success, riding the wave of evangelistic fervor that has been both spearheaded and sustained by Billy Graham.

The 1960s Jesus Movement also focused public attention on the New Birth message. Emphasizing a life-transforming encounter with Christ, and propagandizing the gospel by unconventional and confrontational methods, the so-called Jesus freaks were radically evangelistic.

Meanwhile, less sensational ministries, antedating the sixties, were continuing to introduce great numbers of younger people to the Savior. Young Life, Youth for Christ, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, and Campus Crusade for Christ were leavening the under-30 culture with the evangel. Bill Bright’s Campus Crusade, with its Explo ’72 and Here’s Life campaigns in scores of cities, was especially aggressive in its outreach.

The electronic church—TV supplemented by radio—carried the Good News into millions of homes. Local churches, too, launched their own efforts to win subjects for God’s kingdom that had influence beyond their own communities. Many pastors, borrowing techniques from James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida, trained their own members for aggressive lay witnessing. Well-organized and ongoing evangelism became the primary—or at least a primary—activity of fellowships and congregations of every kind and size. One-on-one evangelism proved a fruitful means of gaining converts.

Regardless of how one appraises these varieties of evangelism, they fulfilled Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians, “By all means save some.” And indeed, as the aforementioned techniques and technologies continue to reach men and women with the gospel, the church of 1986 can further join the apostle in declaring, “Christ is preached, and in that I rejoice.”

By Vernon C. Grounds, president emeritus and Cauwels Professor of Pastoral Care at Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary, Colorado.

Billy Graham

There is no denying the profound impact Billy Graham has had on the evangelical movement. His insatiable desire to spread the gospel, and his commitment to build up the church and make it a vital change agent have left their mark on nearly every aspect of the faith community (as clearly seen throughout this section).

His early crusades in Los Angeles, Boston, and Columbia, South Carolina, during 1949 and 1950 drew huge crowds, and signaled the beginning of a ministry that would earn Graham the title of evangelist to the world.”

Taking his crusades only where invited by local ministers, and keeping scrupulous financial records, Graham early on avoided traps that might have ended his usefulness. As time passed, counselor training developed, as did an extensive program to prepare the host city or country for a crusade through prayer, basic spiritual training, and pre-evangelism. He founded CHRISTIANITY TODAY and Decision magazines, a radio program (“The Hour of Decision”), and wrote several books.

Graham gained a sense of respect for the distinctives of other cultures and became more and more a spokesman for the gospel outside the U.S. His integrated crusades and his appointment in 1960 of Howard Jones, a black, to his evangelistic team helped establish his sincerity in Third World countries.

His ministry expanded from evangelist to statesman as he was instrumental in drawing together international congresses on world evangelism at Berlin in 1966 and Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1974. To these conferences for world Christian leaders were added two of a different sort—Amsterdam ’83 and ’86. These were designed to train local evangelists especially from the Third World. Over 10,000 attended the latter conference.

Who will replace Billy Graham and other evangelists like him? Possibly Amsterdam ‘86 gives a clue—God may be mobilizing an army of lesser-known national Christians, especially from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, who, under God, are even now setting their countries afire with the gospel.