Page 3061 – Christianity Today (2024)

I appreciate the balanced presentation that “Toronto’s Mixed Blessing” and “The Surprising Works of God” [Sept. 11] bring to the Toronto Blessing controversy. I find great comfort and stability in my traditional, evangelical Christian beliefs, and intellectual satisfaction in my practice of Reformed theology. As a result, I am not prone to emotionalism or “feel-good” religion. However, I also believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to fill us with God’s unspeakable joy and guide us by God’s wisdom displayed throughout Scripture, and in the church. I could be characterized as an evangelical charismatic.

On October 1994, I attended an international, nondenominational conference in Toronto on spiritual renewal and revival sponsored by the Airport Vineyard, called Catch the Fire. There I received a miraculous emotional healing through prayer, which has positively impacted my marriage as well as increased my desire to see others touched by God through the power of prayer. This healing could have happened in a different venue, but for reasons known only to God, he chose to touch me dramatically, powerfully, and emotionally through the prayer ministry of this renewal meeting. If I could have planned my own healing, I would certainly have planned it in a much less conspicuous manner. But his ways are not our ways.

I have seen and heard things at the Toronto Airport Vineyard meetings that appeared odd to me. But life (like Scripture) is full of odd things. In the big picture of God’s kingdom and within the acceptable context of any given meeting, does it really matter? I think not.

—Craig MungonsDavisburg, Mich.

As a Reformed Presbyterian who has never personally experienced the “spectacular” gifts, I find myself startled at how quick a few in both Reformed and charismatic circles are to universalize their own experience with God to all believers. Didn’t the same apostle who so clearly said “not everyone speaks in tongues” also command “forbid not to speak in tongues?” Do these parameters not define the limits of the debate? Clearly the apostle was mindful of restraining fleshly excess that brought disrepute upon the gospel, but would he have approved a censorious spirit as commending the gospel?

I recently observed a woman in a worship service dancing in circles in the aisle. My surprise gave way to a charitable reconsideration when I realized that this woman, unknown to me, may have so experienced God’s merciful deliverance that, like Miriam, she couldn’t help taking tambourine in hand to sing and dance to her Lord.

We in the Reformed church would do well to remember that William Carey, who had a vision for India, was once dismissed as a “miserable enthusiast.” Are we so zealous to certify every miracle as counterfeit that we cannot muster the charity to consider that even some part of this “awakening” could be truly of God?

—Warren Austin GageDallas, Tex.

* Thank you for a fair and balanced reflection on the Vineyard and the Toronto Blessing. As a long-time Vineyard member (since 1980), I have seen our movement have its ups and downs on the road to maturity. Also, throughout the Toronto event, I saw much that pleased me and discouraged me. From those who communicated the essence of renewal with charity to those who spoke with cold and fiery judgment over those offering words of caution, it was clear to me that many among the leadership have matured while others still have some growing up to do.

—David CaldwellColorado Springs, Colo.

I was riveted by the providential juxtaposition of World Vision’s ad following the Toronto revival articles. After the pictures of people participating in the revival meetings, we see World Vision founder Bob Pierce holding a tiny infant, and three suffering children, eyes wide. Above them were the words “Let your heart be broken today.” As a pastor who has been profoundly touched by the renewal movement in the PCUSA, it is my heartfelt desire that passionate, transcendent experiences of God lead into changed lives and hearts. “Let my heart be broken with the things that break the heart of God” is an apt expression of a true disciple’s heart and a compass for a mature disciple’s choices and perspectives.

Thank you for including Richard Lovelace’s historical perspective and astute analysis. I concur that bells and whistles do not revival make. The goal of revival is to produce disciples whose hearts are indeed broken with the things that break the heart of God, and whose lives and choices reflect the Savior’s shaping and molding. Past revivals have always resulted in abounding love for neighbor, including outpourings of missions and social concern.

My prayer is that this “blessing” will result in lives and resources reallocated on a grand scale for kingdom purposes; that disciples will be made who will participate in the Great Commission and whose lives will show forth the Great Commandment-those twin passions that World Vision exemplifies.

—Pastor Susan Finck-LockhartLouisa Presbyterian ChurchLouisa, Va.

* I am not a strict inerrantist, but I did believe that evangelical Christians took the Bible as their guide in all matters of faith and practice. I find no biblical rationale for “pumping and scooping” the Holy Spirit (as if he could be controlled by men). Nor do I find the quote “laughter is the best medicine” anywhere in the Bible.

What needs to be said is that these types of emotional experiences are common in many religions. Despite their value as the “top tourist attraction of 1994,” they seem to serve no other purpose. The miracles of Jesus and the apostles not only met human need (and it was never the need for entertainment), they also pointed people to their only true need: a saving relationship through God’s Son.

Anyone who experiences this relationship with God and expresses no emotion is a pretty cold fish. However, few of us would express love for our earthly fathers with an animal noise. Does our heavenly Father deserve less?

—Anna Kathryn HardinAlabaster, Ala.

Several things about the phenomenon disturb me. One of the more bothersome aspects of the Toronto Blessing is its conflict with the Bible. Nothing in the article convinced me that scriptural teachings about renewal are central to the practices at Airport Vineyard. The attitude of some supporters seems to be that the ends justify the means, however questionable they might be.

Almost as disturbing is the subtle suggestion that God can be found at Airport Vineyard as at no other place. Was Clark Pinnock any more likely to meet with God at the Airport Vineyard than in his own living room? If John Wimber has such control over events that he could “shut things down in a second,” is God in charge in Toronto?

After reading “Toronto’s Mixed Blessing,” I read “The Surprising Works of God,” by Lovelace. Perhaps, if more pastors would spend half as many hours daily studying God’s Word as did Jonathan Edwards, more biblical revival would be taking place. Were we as scripturally discriminating as was Edwards, there might be fewer abnormalities within the body of Christ.

—Pastor Edmond LongWestview Baptist ChurchChattanooga, Tenn.

I have not been to the Toronto Vineyard, but I have seen the fruits borne by those who have been ministered to there.

It seems you have missed the point of what God is doing there. I have seen and talked to someone who went there very wounded and was freed as the Toronto Vineyard teams ministered. Jesus said in Matthew 7:16, “You will be able to tell them by their fruits.” By that test we should discern the Toronto Blessing.

—Beverly Brown ReishusMontgomery Village, Md.

We take strong exception to the sidebar by George Koch [“Pumped and Scooped?”]. In it he refers to “eerie echoes here of the common practices of Hindu gurus” and goes on to refer to Rajneesh and Da Free John. Neither of these men are Hindus. They do not come from Hindu families (Rajneesh was a Jain) and have never claimed to be Hindus. The practices described as part of the Toronto Blessing-“scooping, pumping, howling like animals”-are not part of any recognized Hindu practice.

Any common definition of “cult” would make every cult appear to be Eastern in origin. The fact is the “cults” that you so loudly complain about are mostly Christian. Like it or not, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and even the Toronto Blessing are entirely Christian in theological origin and physical manifestation. Please don’t try to leave them at our doorstep. We have enough problems of our own.

—Arumugaswami, Managing EditorHinduism TodayKapaa, Hawaii

* Bravo for making church history relevant to today’s spiritual and cultural issues! Lovelace’s article on Jonathan Edwards and revival was excellent and timely. The saying that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it is usually proven true. I would also say that those who fail to learn church history are constantly in danger of heresy!

—Bob GrayRichmond, Ind.

SURPRISED AND PERPLEXED

I was surprised and perplexed to find my name in the recent article by James Beverley. He writes, “Both Vineyard pastor James Ryle and psychiatrist John White (who has announced his calling as a prophet) have issued judgments on those who dare to question the current activity in Toronto.”

There is no truth to Beverley’s claim that I have issued these judgments. Why did he say this? Why didn’t he check out the facts to see if they were true?

Concerning the Toronto Blessing, my position has been one of an interested observer—taking note that some of what is going on is undoubtedly generated by the sovereign hand of God, while other aspects are obviously enkindled by eager souls making more of the moment than is appropriate. And there is no doubt that in some instances the Devil’s schemes are being played out on a grand and distracting scale.

But I have not spoken, nor would I speak, with prophetic arrogance against the events in Toronto, or against the people associated with those events. Nor would I dare speak against those who stand back with understandable concern.

—Pastor James RyleBoulder Valley Vineyard ChurchLongmont, Colo.

Both James Ryle and John White have expressed disagreement with my statement [above] in “Toronto’s Mixed Blessing.” Concerning White, upon further review I now realize that I misinterpreted remarks he made last year at the Airport Vineyard. I regret this mistake and have apologized to him. In Ryle’s case, the source for my statement in CT came from a document he wrote entitled, “It’s Enough to Make You Cry” in which he criticizes those who assume that “every Vineyard is connected with the Holy Laughter movement,” calling such critics “the kind of people who crucified Jesus Christ.” I mistakenly read the essay to mean that Ryle is judgmental of any who question the Toronto Blessing, for which I also apologize.

—Prof. James A. BeverleyOntario Theological SeminaryToronto, Ont., Canada

WHO DETERMINES “GOOD” CHARACTER?

In the article by Tim Stafford [“Helping Johnny Be Good: Can ‘character education’ save the public schools?” Sept. 11], he quotes from Thomas Lickona’s Educating for Character: “Good character consists of knowing the good, desiring the good, and doing the good-habits of the mind, habits of the heart, and habits of action.” Who determines what that good is? Is it God or man? The so-called character education I read about in the article is “man” playing god to determine what is good and bad. “Respect, responsibility, cooperation” sounds good but misses the point.

For the Christian, good character is always determined by God—not some school board. Christians have plenty of material for character education, including: (1) The Ten Commandments, (2) The Beatitudes, (3) The Sermon on the Mount.

—Richard WittemannConcord, N.C.

* It’s encouraging to hear that the educational establishment is beginning to realize the value of character. However, it is also important to understand how they managed to lose track of this basic concept in the first place. I believe the source of the problem to be the lack of accountability of the public school system to its customers: parents. Until this is dealt with, our children’s schools will continue to slide around on the slippery surface of our modern culture. The only effective solution I can think of is a system of educational vouchers.

—Rick CochranIthaca, N.Y.

SANDI PATTY’S MINISTRY

* I am writing in response to your article “Sandi Patty Weds Former Backup Vocalist” [Sept. 11]. I have been an avid fan of Sandi Patty’s for several years and have followed her career closely. I was upset when I heard about her affairs; however, that does not change the effectiveness of her ministry. She has repented for her sins, and I believe she is sorry for what she did. Just because I do not agree with her personal life does not mean she is no longer my favorite vocalist. I will always be supportive of Sandi Patty, and hopefully her number one fan!

—Albert SimonRosemont, W. Va.

* It grieves me to no end what has happened to Sandi Patty. I have been personally hurt from what has happened to some of these Christian artists. It is doing great damage to the kingdom of God. I could only hope that all of this soon will come to an end.

—Johnny BeaverCollins, Miss.

It was noted that “some radio stations permanently pulled Patty’s recordings from their play lists because she did not give biblical grounds for her divorce.”

That is true, but others removed her music on the basis that there are no biblical grounds for divorce and/or remarriage after divorce. The evangelical community cannot with full integrity continue to call for a return to “traditional family values” without a view of marriage that consistently communicates the permanence of this God event.

—Larry WeidmanGeneral Manager, WGRC-FM RadioLewisburg, Pa.

With the “revelations” of Sandi Patty, is it not time to downplay so-called religious celebrities? Is it not Jesus’ humble call which should finally be lifted up as our model for living for him?

Surely Ms. Patty is responsible for her own sins. But has not the evangelical mindset of celebrity status fostered the environs for a person’s fall from grace? We have made much too much of the human in the name of the divine. Are not the warnings coming through to us from all sides?

Enough of showmanship in the name of Jesus. Let Jesus be Jesus and the simple witness be simple.

—Pastor J. Grant Swank, Jr.Church of the NazareneWindham, Maine

I read with sorrow about Sandi Patty’s affairs and destroyed marriage. My heart breaks even more when it appears the church accepts her rationalizing of the flagrant breaking of a covenantal vow she made to her husband. What about righteousness, the “high standards” Patty told CT she wants all us Christians to hold? Should we not hold Christian musicians to the same “high standards” as other ministers of the gospel?

—Ronald D. SvejkovskyBaldwinsville, N.Y.

CHRISTIANS AND THE DEATH PENALTY

Regarding society’s use of capital punishment, Steve Varnam wrote (correctly, I think), “this issue cannot be decided on the basis of Scripture or theology alone” [“A Barely Tolerable Punishment,” Editorial, Sept. 11]. However, it seems to me, the issue which can and must be decided on the basis of Scripture is whether Christians can legitimately support the death penalty.

After all, without the overwhelming support of church people in this country, the death penalty would have long since gone the way of slavery, as it has in all of Europe, and lately under the leadership of a Christian (Nelson Mandela) in South Africa.

The Golden Rule, it seems to me, clearly prohibits Christians from supporting eye for an eye, life for a life theology. Moses, David, and Cain were all murderers for whom God did not demand the death penalty. So much for some “eternal, unchanging principle” supposedly taught in Scripture. As with slavery (also legal in the Old Testament), the word of Jesus is the last word.

—John GoodwinAlbany, Oreg.

It is a puzzle to me how anyone who wants to follow Jesus completely, would be influenced by “legal and socio-economic contexts” or the Supreme Court. Steve Varnam quotes Jesus so well in relation to the adulterous woman. Why need we look further? Isn’t this enough to convince us we should be absolutely against this barbaric custom—especially those organizations that seek the salvation of prisoners.

—Martin JohnsonUlster Park, N.Y.

PLC: MUZZLED OR NOT?

Your headline writer seemed to be carried away with enthusiasm [News, Sept. 11] when composing “Reform-Minded Activists Retain Unmuzzled Voice,” referring to the Presbyterian Lay Committee. The general assembly committee’s report indicates the PLC has now agreed to observe the Evangelical Press Association’s Code of Ethics. That should make a great difference in their reporting and editorializing. I think your readers should know that, at least to this extent, the Lay Committee will be held more accountable, though still “unmuzzled.”

—Rev. Robert I. MillerDuarte, Calif.

Brief letters are welcome. They may be edited for space and clarity and must include the writer’s name and address. Send to Eutychus, Christianity Today, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, IL 60188; fax: 708/260-0114. E-mail: ctedit@aol.com. Letters preceded by * were received online

Copyright © 1995 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

The verdict in the O. J. Simpson case has fascinated Americans like very few things in recent memory. The “Fortune 500” industry that was the analysis of the trial has given way to another industry scrutinizing the verdict. For Christians, something transcends the question of one man’s guilt or innocence, as important as that is.

The reaction to the trial and the verdict make it clear that trust is missing in 1990s America. Without such trust, the rule of law, which is the heart of the American experiment in self-government, is not possible.

Trust, as defined by Francis f*ckuyama, is the expectation that members of a group will put the good of the group ahead of selfish, narrow parochial interests, especially interests based on race or ethnicity. Without trust, there is no rational or moral basis to allow anything but force to resolve disputes.

LIVING PARALLEL LIVES

When Marcia Clark stated on a CNN broadcast that “a majority-black jury won’t convict in a case like this; they won’t bring justice,” her comments echoed the feeling of millions of Americans.

Why don’t we trust each other? Why is there a deep split in black and white opinion about the verdict? There is more going on here than “racial solidarity.” We are a nation of people who, in Robert Putnam’s words, “bowl alone.” We’ve mastered the art of living lives that rarely intersect with those of our neighbors’. We don’t have communities anymore. We have a series of tribes living parallel lives. This is especially true in matters of race.

While Mark Fuhrman’s racism stunned many white Americans, few African-Americans were surprised. For most Americans, interaction with people outside their own group is so foreign, they might as well apply for visas. Some defend this racial divide. Whites, some argue, have valid reasons (a reference to crime statistics) to avoid contact with the black community. Others make a kind of “natural law” argument. They argue that it is natural for people of the same racial and ethnic group to want to live, and even worship, together.

There are two problems with this kind of thinking. First, parallel tribes will occasionally intersect; it is bad geometry, but true nonetheless. The proper functioning of essential American institutions-the court system, the police force, public education, and the local church-is dependent on trust, which has been weakened by injustice and alienation. Thus, when a verdict such as the one in the Simpson case is rendered, confusion and misunderstanding between the racial groups erupts.

Second, the issue is not what is natural. Rather, the focus should be on what is necessary. Self-government and the rule of law are not a natural state of affairs. They are profoundly unnatural. And securing both requires unnatural acts. It requires us to transcend our self-centeredness. It requires us to ask the question “What is best for all of us?” instead of “What is best for me and my own?” Such things are necessary if the American experiment stands a chance of surviving.

INCARNATIONAL TRUST

Restoration of trust between peoples must be a task for our churches. Government policymakers are busy promoting reforms. Most of these professional efforts will not do a thing to revive trust. The church must lead the way, because it was Christianity that created the environment of interpersonal trust that undergirded the American experiment.

As a universal church, Christianity called people to transcend the myopia imposed by race, class, and tribe and regard others as their brethren. It was the church that pointed beyond the accidents of geography and spoke of a polity based on a shared commitment to the truth. If we are to preserve the American experiment, the church must admonish Americans that trust grows out of shared moral commitments. Without these, self-government is impossible.

Finally, the church must incarnate trust. If the culture does not see trust between people who profess a common allegiance to the truth, where will they see it? The Simpson case has exposed the “trust deficit” that threatens the American way of life. The alternative to the rule of law is not freedom, or even anarchy. It is coercion. If we don’t want to speak about the American experiment in the past tense, we will have to learn to trust each other. Who better to lead the way than those entrusted with the ministry of reconciliation?

Roberto Rivera is a fellow with the Wilberforce Forum, which is a ministry of Prison Fellowship.

Copyright © 1995 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

At one of the early Promise Keepers’ rallies, founder Bill McCartney played a hunch. Without knowing what the reaction would be, the renowned football coach invited all pastors in the arena to join him in front of the podium. Slowly at first, then in steady streams, a sampling of America’s ministers “went forward” in a scene reminiscent of a Billy Graham crusade.

What happened next took everyone by surprise. Beginning first with enthusiastic applause, soon everyone was on his feet, stomping and cheering in support of the pastors who stood somewhat embarrassed, yet clearly moved by the spontaneous outpouring.

Just as Promise Keepers has uncovered a huge movement of men desiring to draw closer to God, it has also tapped into a strong felt need of both laity and clergy: a revival of commitment to America’s forgotten shepherds. We say forgotten because the focus of evangelicalism in recent years has shifted away from the local church pastor to high-profile leaders whose large churches, books, and media ministries have set the agendas for local church ministries. One of the downsides of this shift from local to national leadership is that it has inadvertently devalued the role of most local church pastors.

“Fully half of the pastors in my district have expressed a desire to leave the ministry,” noted one denominational leader in the Midwest recently. The fact that he asked to remain anonymous underscores the problem. “We have this idea that the pastor never gets discouraged.” Why do today’s pastors feel so downtrodden, especially when we probably have the most highly educated and professional corps of ministers in evangelicalism’s history?

First, there are the new demands on the pastor brought on by the increasingly complex problems experienced by individual church members. Few churches have multiple staffs to share the burdens, plus many church members expect their pastor to walk personally with them through troubled waters of every variety.

Then, there has been an erosion of esteem. Just a few years ago, people paid deep respect to “men of the cloth.” A recent Barna Research report revealed that fewer than 10 percent of the 700 adults surveyed said that clergy performance was excellent. Today, the news media do not shy away from scandal in the pulpit, be it financial, sexual, or otherwise. Also, public perceptions have been colored by the reality that several highly visible church leaders have veered onto political battlefields.

For their part, pastors themselves have commented that the trend toward “megachurches” places enormous expectations on them to “preach like Chuck Swindoll” or manage a mini-denomination as does the Willow Creek Community Church. “I attend those pastors’ conferences at the large churches and get lots of new, creative ideas for ministry,” noted the pastor of a church in suburban Atlanta. “But when I get back home, I realize there’s no way I’m going to convince my congregation to pay for a part-time assistant to help me implement those good ideas.”

Promise Keepers has discovered that a simple act of appreciation does wonders for both pastor and lay people, and they now pay tribute to pastors at each of their gatherings. More such initiatives are needed, and much of the responsibility lies with the sheep, not the shepherd.

Lay leaders need to make sure their pastors receive adequate compensation, opportunities for professional development, sufficient time away from the pulpit, and additional staffing as the workload grows more complicated. Local ministerial associations could facilitate pastor-to-pastor support groups that cross denominational boundaries.

Individuals can help by honoring a pastor’s office hours, being more generous with praise than criticism, and giving the pastor the same respect they give to other professionals. Shepherding a body of believers is too important and too big a job to leave to the pastor alone. Everyone who is part of a local church has a vital role to play in nurturing the shepherd who was called to lead and feed them.

Lyn Cryderman is the associate publisher of Zondervan Publishing House.

Copyright © 1995 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

In the foreword to their daughter’s book “Passing It On,” Billy and Ruth Graham recount an episode when Ruth administered some “biblical discipline” on the children. As she ascended the steps, switch in hand, she heard the eldest daughter, Gigi, call out, “Mother, you can’t blame us, it was the Devil!” When Gigi saw the expression on her mother’s face and the switch, fully deployed, she added, “But as soon as he saw you coming, he left!”

While Billy won the masses in Los Angeles, Boston, London, and Budapest, Ruth chased away devils at home and reared the five Graham offspring to grow up loving their daddy, despite his prolonged absences. “The children could have grown up resentful or bitter,” she says, but instead they “love and respect their father enormously.”

Ruth Bell Graham was born in Tsingkiangpu (now called HwaiYin) in the Jiangsu Province of China, the second daughter of Dr. L. Nelson and Virginia Bell. Ruth’s twofold prayer as an earnest 12-year-old was, first, to become an “old maid” missionary to the tribes of Tibet and, second, to die a martyr’s death. (“My older sister would hear me praying and go to her room and say, ‘Lord, don’t listen to her.’ “) Ruth concedes that she “would have made a terrible missionary,” and that her martyrdom imitates that of the beloved disciple “who was entrusted with the martyrdom of long life.”

Reaching her seventy-fifth year and reflecting upon the legacy that she and her husband of 52 years have forged, Ruth says, “I really felt I had the best part of everything. Through the years I have vicariously enjoyed Bill’s trips around the world, but I loved to stay home with the children.” She points to the stabilizing influence of her parents being integral to the success of those years. After being forced out of China in 1941, the Bells settled in the mountains of Montreat, North Carolina, and, when Ruth rightly perceived the demands of her husband’s call, she made the decision to live next to them. “It was a decision that was led of the Lord, if I ever made one,” she says. “They had a profound influence on the children’s lives. They were wonderful grandparents.”

Graham biographer William Martin notes in “A Prophet with Honor” that early in their courtship, Ruth still clung to her dream of the missionary call—the last thing on the mind of the young dairy farmer from Charlotte (she felt “no thunderbolts”). But after hearing Billy pray, she sensed he “knew God in a very unusual way” and said to the Lord thereafter, “If you let me serve you with that man, I’d consider it the greatest privilege in my life.”

Despite his ascent to the pinnacle of evangelical acclaim and influence, Ruth still told him when he was preaching “too loud, too fast.” Martin notes that once, when the young evangelist “pranced around like an uppity pig” in the pulpit, Ruth responded, “Bill, Jesus … just preached the Gospel, and that’s all he has called you to do!”

When the storms of criticism swirled around her husband, she likewise encouraged him, according to Martin, to “stand up to some of these people and say what you feel”—something she herself has been known to do from time to time. At the Lausanne Congress on World Evangelism in 1974 (launched largely by the efforts of her husband), Ruth refused to sign the Lausanne Covenant. She challenged John Stott’s insistence on the inclusion of the “simple lifestyle” clause: “Those of us who live in affluent circ*mstances accept our duty to develop a simple lifestyle in order to contribute more generously to both relief and evangelism.”

“If you had said ‘simpler,’ ” Ruth rejoined, “I would sign it. But what is ‘simple’? I have five kids.”

Her daughter Gigi writes in her book: “Mother always taught me … , ‘There are times to quit submitting and start outwitting.’ ” Ruth admits, “That can raise some eyebrows, understandably.” But this is the same woman who, while praying for her “prodigal” son Franklin many years ago, felt more convicted about her own failings. When she came across the passage in John’s gospel where Jesus prayed for his disciples (chap. 17), she recalls, “Our Lord is praying, ‘For their sake, I recommit myself that they also may be committed to Thee.’ And suddenly it dawned on me that if Jesus felt the need to recommit himself to the Father for our sake, how much more do I need to recommit myself to the Father for the sake of the children. And so I put Franklin ‘on hold’ and just settled things with the Lord.”

Ruth admits that as the couple enters their later years, she would like her husband to slow down and spend time supporting his children in their ministries and getting to know his grandchildren. “The children had to take second place to the association; that was inevitable,” she says. “But it’s not too late to balance it out so that the children, who have been so loyal to him through the years, can feel his support and loyalty as they get on with their own ministries.” And, she adds, “there are 19 grandchildren. That’s an ongoing ministry right there.”

Copyright © 1995 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
-Colossians 4:6 (NIV)

For as long as I can remember, Billy Graham has been part of our family. Not in a literal sense, of course, since my father grew up in Minnesota while Billy Graham was raised in the South. Yet, God chose to weave their lives together—calling both to the work of evangelism, giving both the privilege of introducing tens of thousands of men and women to Jesus Christ, and planting in both an enduring friendship. Drawn together during the 1940s through the ministry of Youth for Christ, Billy Graham, Merv Rosell, and a small cadre of gifted young evangelists—sharing not only sermons and songleaders but also long seasons of prayer and a growing sense of awe at what God was doing through them—became the surprising leaders of what the editor of United Evangelical Action would by 1952 be calling “one of the greatest outpourings of the Spirit in the nation’s history.”

Those powerful midcentury revivals, marked by the large evangelistic crusades that swept through scores of American cities during the late 1940s and early 1950s, not only swelled the ranks of a resurgent evangelical movement, but they also helped to make Billy Graham the best known and most respected leader of our century. With Billy Graham’s new prominence, however, came increasing criticism. Old friends as well as new enemies began to voice concerns about everything from his theology to his style of preaching.

Well-known figures, of course, are always vulnerable to criticism—and special scrutiny, it would seem, has frequently been reserved for religious leaders. From Whitefield and Finney to Moody and Sunday, American evangelists have all felt the sting of unfavorable judgments made against them by their contemporaries. Yet few seem either to have understood the importance of criticism or to have developed as constructive a strategy for dealing with it as has Billy Graham.

One of his greatest legacies to those of us who come after him, I am convinced, is the pattern of dealing with criticism that he has practiced with such remarkable consistency across the years. Centered on five key principles, it is a model of Christian charity that evangelical Christians in our day would do well to emulate. I have enumerated below some of the key elements undergirding his approach to ministry and his response to critics.

1. Commit yourself to moral purity

Richard Baxter, whom J. I. Packer has called “the most outstanding pastor, evangelist and writer on practical and devotional themes that Puritanism produced,” opened his seventeenth-century classic, “The Reformed Pastor,” with a striking admonition to Christian leaders: “Take heed to yourselves, lest your example contradict your doctrine, and lest you lay such stumbling-blocks before the blind, as may be the occasion of their ruin; lest you unsay with your lives, what you say with your tongues; and be the greatest hinderers of success of our own labors.” It is “a fearful thing” to be “an unsanctified preacher.”

Few preachers, I suspect, have been as determined to heed Baxter’s warning as Billy Graham. Early in his ministry, during the 1948 evangelistic meetings in Modesto, California, he called the members of his team together to discuss ways in which they could fortify themselves more fully against “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16). As William Martin describes it in his recent biography, “A Prophet with Honor,” the Elmer Gantry image attached to American evangelism, which Sinclair Lewis had “assembled from skeletons and scraps found in the closets of real-life evangelists,” was well known by Graham. So he asked his colleagues to identify “all the things that have been a stumbling block and a hindrance to evangelists in years past” so that together they might establish effective means of avoiding them.

Out of that discussion emerged the “Modesto Manifesto,” as it came to be known, a set of practical guidelines for maintaining moral purity and avoiding even “the appearance of evil” amid the lures of money, sex, and power. Realizing that such rigorous standards would be impossible to keep without God’s help, they joined together in fervent prayer asking the Holy Spirit to guard them from those dangers. The fact that Graham’s ministry has been so miraculously preserved from even the whisper of immorality is clear evidence, I am convinced, that their precautions have been honored and their prayers have been answered. Christians around the world have been blessed as a result.

The importance of this principle for Graham was underscored once again in the “Amsterdam Affirmation,” the 15-point document to which over four thousand evangelists from every continent of the world gave enthusiastic assent at the close of the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists, sponsored by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and held during 1983 in Holland. As Dad and I sat together at that session, I could not help being impressed at the clarity of Affirmations VIII and X in pointing to the continued need for moral purity: “We acknowledge our obligation, as servants of God, to lead lives of holiness and moral purity, knowing that we exemplify Christ to the church and to the world”; and “[we pledge, moreover, to be] faithful stewards of all that God gives us [and] to be accountable to others in the finances of our ministry” and to be “honest in reporting our statistics.”

We “must study as hard how to live well,” Baxter once wrote, “as how to preach well.” Many a “tailor goes in rags, that maketh costly clothes for others; and many a cook scarcely licks his fingers, when he hath dressed for others the most costly dishes.” God never saved anyone for being “an able preacher,” but because the preacher was “justified,” “sanctified,” and “faithful” in the Master’s work. Therefore, “we must take heed,” Baxter concluded in a warning that Billy Graham has echoed many times, lest we “mar the work of God by our weakness.”

2. Weigh everything against Scripture

While eager to learn all he can from his critics, Billy Graham’s ultimate authority is always the Bible. Early in his ministry, among the pines of the Forest Home conference grounds in California, he came to the rock solid belief that the Bible is the very Word of God. Questions about the authority of Scripture had been troubling the young preacher for weeks. Knowing that the matter must be settled in his mind if he ever hoped to preach with authority and power, he wrestled with his doubts until he was able to pray: “Oh God, I cannot prove certain things. I cannot answer some of the questions my friends are asking. [Yet, here and now I am ready to accept the Bible] by faith as the Word of God.”

That simple prayer transformed Graham’s ministry—and convinced him, once for all, of the Bible’s absolute authority. Since that special moment at Forest Home, no conviction has marked his ministry more deeply. Across the years, the Bible has remained the foundation for his preaching and the ultimate standard by which he judges both his relationships and the conduct of his evangelistic work.

Some, of course, have interpreted Graham’s generous spirit—evidenced by his willingness to join hands with people of many traditions and backgrounds—as a sign of weakness or a lack of resolve. Yet, even here, we see that his policy is the result of deep reflection on the Bible’s teaching.

Two interesting examples of this principle come to us from the 1957 New York City crusade. “If criticism is a blessing,” wrote George Burnham and Lee Fisher in their book Billy Graham and the New York Crusade, “then [Billy Graham] is certainly one of the most blest of men.” Charged by those on his theological Left with preaching a gospel “devoid of social emphasis” and by those on his theological Right with “fraternizing with liberals,” Graham found himself “caught in the cross fire.” His responses in both directions are instructive.

When sharply criticized from the Left by Reinhold Niebuhr, then a well-known faculty member at Union Theological Seminary, for preaching too simplistic a gospel, Billy Graham responded in characteristic fashion, as quoted by Martin: “When Dr. Niebuhr makes his criticisms about me, I study them, for I have respect for them.” While acknowledging that he “had read nearly everything Mr. Niebuhr has written,” and that he had come to a deeper understanding of America’s social problems as a result, he went on to make it clear that fundamental disagreements still remained. “I don’t think you can change the world with all its lusts and hatred and greed,” he concluded from his study of the Bible, “until you change men’s hearts. Men must love God before they can truly love their neighbors. The theologians don’t seem to understand that fact.”

Meanwhile, criticism of a very different sort was coming from some of his fundamentalist friends on the Right. Citing the scriptural command to “Come out from among them, and be ye separate,” they began to express their growing concern about Graham’s willingness to join hands in his crusades with what they considered to be “liberal” or possibly even “apostate” pastors and churches. This issue of cooperative evangelism, marking in one sense the final and wrenching break between fundamentalism and evangelicalism, was a major turning point in Graham’s ministry. But it was one that he took only after he had carefully weighed the criticisms against the teachings of the Bible.

In a lengthy letter “on separation” that was published in November of 1958 in Eternity magazine, Graham wrote: “During the past few weeks, I have come to some very deep convictions. It seems to me that the entire weight of Scripture lies in the direction of fellowship rather than separation. John 13:34 and 35, ‘A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another. … By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.’ What is the great overwhelming evidence that we have passed from death unto life? Orthodoxy? Morality? Evangelistic passion? No! It is love!”

Using other biblical texts—such as John 17, Romans 14, Ephesians 2, and 1 Corinthians 12—he distinguished between appropriate and inappropriate separation. “There come times,” he suggested, “when we are to separate on theological grounds! [I recognize] that there are some modernists we are to separate ourselves from; and yet, on the other hand, I am convinced there are some ‘so-called’ fundamentalists we are to separate ourselves from. In my opinion, the same spiritual defect which is apparent in extreme liberalism that causes deadness, hardness, callousness and unbelief is the same defect that causes bitterness, jealously, rancor, division, strife, hardness, a seeking after revenge and vindictiveness that characterizes a few fundamentalists. It seems to me the Scripture teaches that we are to avoid both extremes.”

Here we find underscored an important key to Billy Graham’s approach to criticism. Having wrestled with the issues raised by his critics, and having revealed his willingness to be instructed by their concerns, in the final analysis it is the Bible alone that must supply the ultimate conclusions.

3. View criticisms as opportunities for correction and growth

Most of us will never have to face the kind of relentless and sometimes brutal scrutiny to which leaders such as Billy Graham are regularly subjected. Yet we can learn valuable lessons for how to deal with the stones thrown our way by observing how others have treated their critics over the years. From cynical reporters and theological opponents to angry students and jealous colleagues, Billy Graham has seen them all. Yet, with what the London Daily Telegraph described in 1955 as his “charm, sincerity, and simplicity bound together by a deep Christian charity,” he has again and again turned many of his critics into his most ardent admirers.

Graham’s approach to criticism can be seen in an article he wrote for the Christian Century (Feb. 17, 1960), entitled “What Ten Years Have Taught Me.” In it we see just how seriously he listened to his critics.

[It was] just ten years ago, that my evangelistic work came to the attention of the church as the result of a Los Angeles crusade. To me it was like a bolt of lightning out of a clear sky. … I found my sermons and statements being analyzed and criticized by hundreds of clergy, laymen, and theologians throughout the world. Religious periodicals joined in applause or criticism on my message, methods, and motives. To say the least, I was baffled … and even frightened.

Over and over again I went to my knees for guidance and direction. … There have been triumphs and defeats, elations and deflations, but never once have I doubted the validity of the gift or the call to evangelism. [I do wish that] I could take back some of the statements made in those early days because of immaturity or a lack of knowledge and experience. Many of those early statements were lifted out of context by some critics and used to ridicule the message as a whole. Then there were some misquotations that I still have to face and live down. For example, one evening in Pasadena I quoted the then secretary of the air force to the effect that America had two years in which to prepare. The next day a wire service sent across the country a report saying that I had predicted the end of the world in two years. It took me a long time to learn that a public [speaker] must be careful about the text as well as the context, else he is sure to be misunderstood.

“The lessons of this decade,” Graham continued in the article, “have been staggering. [I] have come to recognize more clearly [the] narrow limits assigned to the evangelist … that mass evangelism,” while an appropriate tool, may not be “the most ideal method of reaching out to sinners.” Furthermore, he continued, “[my theological convictions] have deepened,” particularly “with regard to the truth and power of the Word of God.” Moreover, he continued, his view of the church had broadened, his “belief in the social implications of the gospel” had “deepened,” and his “confidence in the ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God” had “increased.” God has “intervened more than once in history, and there is every reason to believe that he will intervene again.”

Here, in capsule form, we can discover the spirit that has come to characterize Billy Graham’s response to criticism. It involves, first, an awareness of his own weakness and need for correction. Second, it points to his continued reliance upon God’s sovereign power, appropriated through prayer, for the fulfillment of his ministry. Third, it is ready to admit that mistakes have been made within his ministry. Fourth, it reflects a determination to correct those mistakes and make whatever changes are needed. And finally, it reveals a passionate desire to serve God as fully as strength and human abilities will allow.

What is not expressed directly, but which seems to underlie all the others, is a loving regard for those whom he is called to serve—even if they happen to be opponents. David Poling in his book “Why Billy Graham?” seems to capture the sentiment when he writes: “When the last conclusions about Graham are sifted and recorded, [it may be] that his greatest gift for the last half of the twentieth century” was not that he “packed them in” at Madison Square Garden or Earls Court or the Hollywood Bowl, or that he was successful in “radio and television” and “publishing.” Rather, it may be that he “loved people greatly [and] by loving them, led them to the gates of the kingdom of God.”

4. Remember that your most exacting critic is God

In “A Biblical Standard for Evangelists,” published in 1984, Billy Graham reminded himself and his colleagues in evangelism of the need for “transparent honesty” in everything they said and did. Even if others are “not watching us and evaluating our ministries by what they see of our honesty and integrity,” he argued, “we still should be above reproach, because we are accountable to God.”

There is a sense in which Graham’s critics have not been nearly as hard on him as he is on himself. In his 1979 biography “Billy Graham: Evangelist to the World,” John Pollock reports a conversation in which Graham commented about his growing concern that in a “day of publicity and media exposure,” people would have a tendency to “put him on a pedestal” where, he is convinced, he does not belong. “[I am] not the holy, righteous prophet of God that many people think I am. I share with Wesley the feeling of my own inadequacy and sinfulness constantly. I am often amazed that God can use me at all.”

What prompts such a comment is the awareness that God’s standards for truth and righteousness are far beyond any expectations that even the harshest critic might harbor. Standards of lifestyle and conduct for those in the Christian ministry are rooted in the Scriptures. Therefore, it is essential that each Christian prayerfully study God’s Word, come to understand its commands, and seek by the power of the Holy Spirit to obey them.

The question before all of us, as it has been for every generation, is a matter of basic loyalties. Will we continue to serve our own interests or give our allegiance to a holy God? Will we seek to please those around us or will we follow God’s commands? Will we be guided primarily by a world that seeks to press us into its own mold, or will our lives be conformed to the image of our dear Savior, Jesus Christ?

“I remember many years ago,” Billy Graham once wrote, when “plans were made for me to address a meeting in an East European country. There was great excitement and keen anticipation. But then twenty-four hours before going, there was a clear direction both to me and the organizers that I should not go. There was no time to stop people traveling from all over the country to attend the meeting. There may have been some human disappointment at my not being there, but it did not hinder the working of God’s Holy Spirit. The place was packed. The preaching of a local evangelist was powerful. God’s Spirit moved and many came to Christ.”

From a human perspective one may think that Graham should have gone. But, as he phrased it, “God had another plan for me at that time”—and ultimate accountability must be to him.

5. Stay focused

As one of the most admired individuals in the world, one who enjoys access to its leaders and whose opinions are regularly sought, it is quite remarkable that Billy Graham has been able to maintain such a singular focus on his work as an evangelist. Graham once commented that he has had a number of opportunities to become involved in television, motion pictures, or even to help in the building of a great Christian university. “But always the still, small voice has said, ‘God called you to be an evangelist.’ When God calls us, we are to remain faithful.”

This is also the reason that Graham has been so reluctant to enter into public debate with many of his critics. “Why should I engage in controversies?” he once wrote in a letter. “I would soon become so embroiled that the effectiveness of this ministry would cease. … I am reminded of Nehemiah’s answer to his critics, ‘I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down; why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you?’. … [We] cannot afford to get bogged down in disagreements.”

Since its founding in 1942, the National Association of Evangelicals has called for the avoidance of unnecessary contention. “[We will not] be diverted to participate in some back-alley scrap,” wrote Harold John Ockenga, the founding president of the association, in the first issue of United Evangelical Action (Aug. 1, 1942). “Far too much energy, money, and time have been lost in this kind of mistaken strategy already. Let our motto among the brethren be, ‘His banner over us was love.’ … [Let us] refuse to waste our time and energy [in] fruitless controversy.”

What is needed, President Ockenga was convinced, is nothing short of a genuine spiritual awakening-a “heaven-sent, Holy Ghost” revival such as God has used to refresh his people so often in the past. What Harold John Ockenga could not have known, as he voiced the hope for a fresh spiritual awakening in the early 1940s, is that the revival for which he prayed was already under way. At first it was but a gentle breeze. By the early 1950s, however, the great winds of God’s Spirit had begun to blow with such strength throughout America and beyond that the editors of United Evangelical Action were ready to proclaim 1951 “the Evangelical Year.” The “revival of religion that is underway in America,” they reported, has broken all of “Billy Sunday’s mighty records in attendance.” While many others were being used by God in providing leadership for this midcentury awakening, “the most spectacular demonstration of revival power” was headed by Billy Graham. He had clearly been “chosen and anointed by God,” as Dad likes to phrase it, to preach the gospel around the world-the task to which he has continued to give himself with singleness of purpose for 50 years.

“What a moment to be an ambassador for Christ,” Graham once wrote. “What an hour for the proclamation of his gospel! This is the time to make Christ known, whether we be pastor, teacher, evangelist or layman. I intend to keep on going, preaching the gospel, writing the gospel, as long as I have any breath. I hope my last word as I am dying-whether by bullet wound, by cancer, a heart attack, or a stroke-I hope my dying word will be Jesus.”

Garth M. Rosell is professor of church history and director of the Ockenga Institute at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts.

Copyright © 1995 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

With a growing majority of conservatives eager to see the elimination of racial and gender preferences as guides to federal affirmative-action programs, political leaders are scrambling to refine their stances on an issue that promises to play a key role in next year’s presidential election. But amid liberal and conservative ideologies, will the essential goal of affirmative action (as a means to justice for all people) end up lost in the political hustle?

Affirmative action emerged in the 1960s as a result of efforts by the civil-rights movement to persuade America to honor its original contract of constitutional ideals: that “all [people] are created equal.” President Lyndon Johnson’s Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to prohibit racial discrimination in the present and in the future; however, it could not correct the effects of past societal inequities-particularly in the areas of housing, education, and employment. In a nation scarred by a legacy of racial injustices, affirmative action was to be the compensatory medicine that would offer equal opportunities for all individuals regardless of color, race, religion, or gender. While first addressed to the needs of African Americans, later the needs of Native Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and women were added to the roll.

Today, many look upon the process of affirmative action as being unfair. Unfair to whites and, particularly, to white men. But an urgent question for Christians is this: Should we be more concerned about fairness or justice?

Genuine justice is not based simply on fairness. In fact, a preoccupation with justice as fairness lies at the root of most problems in our society and in the world—whether among individuals, groups, or nations—and is at the center of the affirmative action debate.

LAND OF UNEVEN OPPORTUNITY

The notion of justice as fairness wrongly assumes that everyone is equal. But what is sometimes forgotten is that sociohistorical circ*mstances often preclude equality. Our history has made the playing field of opportunity uneven from the start.

In some track and field racing events, the starting blocks are staggered so that those beginning from different points on the track will all have an equal opportunity. Similarly, affirmative action is a staggering of society’s “starting blocks” with the aim of creating a level playing field for women and people of color. Why? Because, as Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, “There is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals.”

In order to treat all persons equally and provide genuine equality of opportunity, affirmative action says society must give more attention to those born into or placed in less favorable social positions. This “fair share” approach is a particularistic effort and not a universal action, since it is an attempt to place select groups in the equal position that they would have held had there been no barriers in their paths to progress.

But the principles that drive affirmative action also place it in a precarious Catch-22. Created on the idealism that the rights of individuals should be respected without regard to race or gender, affirmative action ends up contradicting this very premise by giving a perceived “advantage” to individuals from underrepresented groups.

How then does one address this supposed dilemma at the heart of the current debate? A good starting place is to go back to God’s concept of justice. God’s justice does not spring simply from what people deserve but more often from what they need. It is not fair play but righteous play, based on individual circ*mstances (Ezek. 33:20).

This theme of righteous play is the central message of what might be viewed as an affirmative-action parable. In Matthew 20:1-16, Jesus tells the story of a landowner, who goes out to the marketplace to hire workers for his vineyard. He begins at dawn and continues hiring until just one hour before closing time. At the end of the day he pays them all the same agreed-upon wage. The fact that the eleventh-hour laborers had not been hired until late in the day was no fault of theirs. They had been standing in the marketplace all day, looking for work, but as they declared to the landowner, “No one has hired us.”

Were their needs any less because they had not been hired until late in the day? No. Thus, out of a genuine concern for them and their families, the landowner employed them for what little remained of the day and then paid them a wage not commensurate with the work they had done, but commensurate with their needs.

Those who had worked all day, however, did not share the employer’s compassion for the others and therefore raised up voices in complaint: “unfair,” “reverse discrimination,” “preferential treatment.”

Was the landowner’s behavior fair? No; but neither was the father’s treatment of the prodigal son who had misspent his share of the inheritance (Luke 15:11-32) —a fact that did not escape the notice of the elder brother. Here, too, we can glimpse the motivation behind the justice of God—righteousness and compassion, not fairness.

As these two parables reveal, our society’s obsession with strict fairness tends to manifest itself only when there is a danger of someone else getting more than what we think he or she deserves, especially when what they get is precisely what we want.

What is clear today is that affirmative action is still needed. The question is this: Can we approach the issue with the same selflessness and righteous grace reflected in the character of Almighty God?

COLORLESS NEED

One answer to the affirmative-action debate is to base the program not on group conditions, but on individual need. Just because one is black, Latino, or female does not automatically mean that one is at a disadvantage. Many of us within these categories are doing quite well in this country and should not be judged as disadvantaged and automatically deserving of affirmative-action programs simply because of our race or gender. (The need for institutions to increase their cultural diversity is a different matter, which is better handled under policies other than affirmative action.)

On the other hand, there are many whites in this country who live in grinding poverty. But because they are “white,” are they to be deemed undeserving of special treatment? If the measure of equity is need rather than race or gender, then the answer is obvious. Indeed, need has no color or gender.

As we look at affirmative action through the lens of God’s justice, it becomes less a system of quotas, set asides, and preferential treatment and more a compassion-driven program to help the socially disadvantaged of any color-based on individual need. This is what Martin Luther King, Jr., had in mind, as Coretta Scott King reminds us, when “he spoke out sharply for all the poor in all their hues, for he knew if color made them different, misery and oppression made them the same.”

The time has come to change affirmative action: not to get rid of it, but to strip it of all the political barnacles weighing it down, and to streamline it back to its original objective of justice in harmony with the gospel of God’s grace.

Caleb Rosado is professor of sociology at Humboldt State University in California.

Copyright © 1995 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Evangelicals have spawned a prosperous new publishing enterprise—one heralded even by The New York Times.

The problem is, these aren’t our books, but books about us, books that stridently attack conservative Christians as “theocrats” and “fascists”—evangelical mullahs intent on replacing the government with our own “religion-soaked political regimes,” as one overheated author put it.

Conservative guru Kevin Phillips offered one of the first books, American Theocracy, which accuses President Bush of sending secret coded messages to the faithful in his speeches. Nixon aide turned whistleblower John Dean followed, attributing all the evils in American life to conservatives and the Religious Right.

Just a week before the 2006 election (coincidence?), former Bush aide David Kuo published a book accusing the White House of cynically exploiting evangelicals for political gain. He recommended that evangelicals “fast” from politics for a time. Randall Balmer, an evangelical himself, authored Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America, in which he claims that right-wing “zealots” have hijacked the evangelical faith and distorted the gospel.

Erstwhile friends produced these books; they’re gentle compared to what our opponents wrote.

Daniel Dennett, in Breaking the Spell, suggests that religion is a toxin that may be poisoning believers in ways they don’t suspect. Then came the bombshell rant, The God Delusion, by Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, who said he considers religious instruction a form of child abuse and urged governments to put a stop to it. The coup de grace was Chris Hedges’s American Fascists, which claimed violence-prone Christians intend to impose totalitarian rule.

What do several of these books have in common? Apart from the fact that they could be placed in the “hate speech” section of the local bookstore, they received major reviews in The New York Times, and most ended up on the Times‘s bestseller list, recognized for some time as culturally skewed.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Times editors have made little secret of their hostility toward conservative Christians. Bill Keller, the executive editor and a self-identified “collapsed Catholic,” compares the Roman Catholic Church to “the old Communist Party.” Keller has plenty of editorial company. As First Things editor Richard Neuhaus notes, the Times has committed “its considerable resources and influence to an all-out assault on the free exercise of religion.” Last fall, the Times ran a shoddy and inaccurate front-page series on supposed preferences to religious groups.

One installment wrongly said that our InnerChange Freedom Initiative is paid for by federal funds, its aim is to proselytize, and that it is anti-Catholic: Absolutely untrue. (The Times refused to publish our answer.)

We may think that mere rhetoric can’t hurt us; we may be mistaken. A few years back, Katie Couric, in a question to Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer, repeated the claim by gay-rights activists that hom*osexual Matthew Shepherd was killed because of the “anti-hom*osexual atmosphere” created by the ad campaigns of conservative groups like Focus on the Family. The fact that Couric asked this over-the-top question lent credence to an outrageous accusation.

But if Couric really believes that violent—or even merely critical—speech leads to violent actions, why isn’t she holding anti-Christian writers accountable for their rhetoric? If people really believe we are attempting a totalitarian takeover of America, would it be surprising for some unbalanced fanatic to take a shot at a Christian leader?

The question for us is how to answer their hysterical assaults. The writers know that evangelicals and conservative Catholics have had decisive influence on public policy and recent elections. Their books have one purpose: to silence us in the public square.

But we must not be intimidated; rather, we must continue to speak out boldly against abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, slavery in Sudan, and same-sex marriage.

Tempting though it is to fight back with angry words, a better way was modeled by British parliamentarian William Wilberforce, whom millions recently learned about through the great film Amazing Grace. Well-funded slavery interests viciously maligned Wilberforce, determined to shut him up. But Wilberforce ignored his enemies, pressing on to abolish slavery and promote spiritual awakening in England.

That is the example for us. We answer not by firing back, but by feeding the hungry, redeeming prisoners, and freeing today’s slaves.

If we do this, not even the bitterest critics can make the “Christian fascist” label stick—no matter how many bestselling books they write.

Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Christianity Today articles about atheism and books critical of religion include:

“Is Christianity Good for the World?” | Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson debate. (May 8, 2007)

Atheist Apostle | Sam Harris has little patience for theists of any sort. (March 5, 2007)

The New Intolerance | Fear mongering among elite atheists is not a pretty sight. A Christianity Today editorial (January 25, 2007)

Can You Reason with Christians? | A response to Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation. (Books & Culture, May 7, 2007)

Christopher Hitchens Explains It All for You | Move over, Sam Harris; another atheist wants the pulpit. (Books & Culture, April 30, 2007)

The Dawkins Confusion | Naturalism ad absurdum. (Books & Culture, March/April 2007)

Mr. Wilson’s Bookshelf | “Wayfaring Stranger” (Books & Culture, November 17, 2006)

Charles Colson’s most recent columns include:

War on the Weak | Eugenics has made a lethal comeback. (December 4, 2006)

The Earmark Epidemic | The disease must be cured for the common good. (September 25, 2006)

Bad Judgment | Ruling imperils faith-based programs around the country. (August 1, 2006)

Emerging Confusion | Jesus is the truth whether we experience him or not. (June 1, 2006)

Soothing Ourselves to Death | Should we give people what they want or what they need? (March 1, 2006)

A More Excellent Way | Changing the law isn’t enough. (February 1, 2006)

Usually, when a Hollywood studio “reaches out” to the church audience, it does so with an eye toward selling tickets, period. And usually, when churches take notice of a film, it is with an eye toward finding quotes and clips that can serve as sermon illustrations, evangelism “tools,” and the like.

But something different is happening with Evan Almighty.

One of the recurring themes in the film is that people can help to “change the world” through Acts of Random Kindness—or ARK, for short. And so, a few weeks before the film’s June 22 release, a website went up called Ark Almighty, with the aim of connecting people with needs to other people in their church who can fulfill those needs.

Jennifer Harris, who coordinates the Ark Almighty program at First Baptist Church in Jefferson City, Missouri, says people in her church have given out free food and done other people’s laundry. So far, most of the requests have come from within the church, “but we’re planning to open it to the community, for making requests,” she says. “We’re hoping that it’s members of our church who are fulfilling those.”

Personal information stays private, and it’s up to coordinators like Harris to put the people with needs in touch with the people who volunteer their skills, after the requests are posted. Harris has also made a point of keeping the requests within reasonable limits. “The one we’ve had to watch so far was someone who wanted their lawn mowed every week of the summer, and we decided we aren’t exactly a yard care service,” she says. “That might be crossing the line just a bit.”

Harris says her church, which is attended by about 500 people on any given Sunday, was already involved in outreach, but Ark Almighty has enhanced their efforts.

“We’ve had kind of a team in place, called Caring Hands, that has done a lot of these things,” she says. “In fact, we’re still utilizing them a lot, when needs come across that they would typically meet. I’ll give them a call and let them handle it. But this has been a further step of that, and we’ve given people multiple opportunities to be able to get ahold of us and express the needs that they have.”

The idea for the good-deeds program came from Grace Hill Media, a publicity firm that specializes in promoting secular films to Christian audiences. They got together with Youth Specialties, the International Bible Society and the Willow Creek Association to brainstorm ways of bringing the movie’s “acts of random kindness” to life. (Grace Hill representatives declined to be interviewed for this story.)

David Welch, senior director of marketing for Youth Specialties, says the idea for the program actually goes back to Pay It Forward, the film starring Kevin Spacey and Haley Joel Osment. “I remember churches and many pastors would use that Pay It Forward film as sermon illustrations,” says Welch.

“So when this film came along and the concept of doing Acts of Random Kindness came along, the guy at Grace Hill thought, ‘Oh, great, finally, an opportunity to take that excitement that we saw with Pay It Forward, and to do it as a Christian outreach and not just as an illustration.’ It’s bringing the film to life at that point.”

Some people have expressed concern that a major movie studio—Universal—is using the church to promote its movie, but Welch says it’s actually the other way around. “We’re using the film instead of the film using us,” he says. “People are going to see Evan Almighty, so churches might as well use this—and on Universal’s dime.

“That’s the great thing, that when Grace Hill pitched this, it wasn’t done in secret. They told [Universal] outright, ‘It’s a Christian outreach, it fits the mission of the church, it fits the theme of the film, and will you fund it?’ And they said, ‘Yes.'”

In addition to helping church members serve each other’s needs, the website offers several resources, including a four-week curriculum on “changing the world” for youth groups, sermon outlines, movie clips, and ideas for good deeds.

Welch says it has also been encouraging to see pastors getting new ideas for outreach from the other pastors that have made use of the program. “So just the collaboration aspect of it and being able to go on and look at another church’s outreaches and ideas—there is no other site that exists that has that,” he says.

And what about down the road? Will the Ark Almighty program continue once the movie has come and gone? “That’s the hope,” says Welch. Youth Specialties already has plans for the film’s DVD release in November; among other things, they are talking to major secular retailers about bundling the DVD with their books.

“One of the things we’re doing is reworking some curriculum to help some students deal with social justice issues,” says Welch, “and we’re working on another book that will release with the DVD that deals with social justice and changing the world. And we’re also working on a journal for students that helps them walk through their acts of random kindness, if they want to meet in groups and chronicle that.”

The words “social justice” might sound rather large and ambitious for a program that focuses on small, random acts of kindness, but Welch says it ties into the film’s theme that “changing the world” starts on the personal level—even if it goes on to other levels as well. “It might start with teaching students to have the heart of a servant by doing laundry and so on, but that’s the starting place, and if they have a vision to change the world, it’s going to go beyond changing laundry.”

Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Previously, John Dunham from the International Bible Society wrote about the unintended impact of having scripture divided by chapters and verses. It’s led to what he calls “verse jacking,” taking scripture out of context and using it for a purpose it was never intended. In this follow up post Dunham responds to some of your comments, and introduces an alternative way to read the Bible.

Commenting on my previous post, Glenn Krobel wrote:

There are too many Christians in ministry today who thrive off attacking our heritage without offering a solutions to problems they address.

Thanks for bringing that up, Glenn. I agree. And despite many people thinking the current system is too ingrained to move away from, I think it’s worth a try. On August 1, International Bible Society will release The Books of The Bible. Chapter and verse numbers? Gone. Topical section headers? Gone. Extra columns? Gone. On the page helps? Gone. Footnotes? Moved to the back of each book. What you are left with is a no-additives edition of the Bible.

Not only have we taken out the dubiously beneficial additives, but we have also humbly attempted to bring a more faithful structure to today’s Bible. There is no doubt the Holy Spirit has worked powerfully throughout the centuries through God’s word in the Messiah’s church, no matter what form his word has taken. But form does matter as we display the beauty of God’s word.

Topical section headers are shortcuts for finding a verse or letting us know what’s going on. Therein is the problem. Too often we rely on them to tell us how to interpret a passage without regard to the larger story, and sometimes these breaks come at the worst spots. While trained leaders may easily look past them, most readers are better off without them. The Books of The Bible allows the literary structure of a book to spring out by inserting appropriate amounts of white space in places where the author shows a transition (e.g., the toledot formulae in the Torah or Matthew’s five sections of Jesus’ activity and teaching).

A single-column typesetting is what we expect when we open any non-fiction book or novel. But most Bibles have two columns. Rick Shott correctly commented that this is for conserving space and reducing white space. This ends up saving publishers about fifteen to twenty percent on paper. But at what cost? Books like the Psalms are absolutely decimated with no reasonable way of making sense of the poetic structure. A single-column text displays poetry more clearly and narrative more naturally.

At times throughout the Bible’s development limits in technology forced scribes to separate books that were meant to be one. For example, the books we know today as 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings were originally a unified book telling a single narrative. In The Books of The Bible, Samuel?Kings is presented as the one book that it is. Luke and Acts are two volumes of a single history, so they have been placed together.

Historians have documented over 70 different orders of the books of the Bible. In the current Protestant Bible, poetry and wisdom literature are mixed up with each other and prophets are generally grouped together by the size of the books, the four gospels are grouped together, and Paul’s letters are placed in the order of their length. As the reformers did, we asked, “Is this tradition helpful?” In The Books of The Bible, we have put poetry books in a group and wisdom books in another. We have put the prophets in historical order, and the same goes for Paul’s letters. And we’ve honored the fourfold gospel tradition by grouping each gospel with other New Testament books by theme or audience. To see the complete table of contents, visit www.thebooksofthebible.info.

To revisit chapters and verses, in many ways they have become a crutch for us to quickly locate a passage. But recall what Jesus did in Luke’s account: “He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: ?The Spirit of the Lord is on me . . .’ ” Our Lord did not use a handy reference system. He had devoted his life to the study of Scripture and was able to find passages based solely on context.

I crave that sort of familiarity with the Bible, and I think it will help all people. In sermons and Bible studies, one can locate a section like any book club would: “Turn to page 362, second paragraph, where it says . . .” We already do just fine without chapters and verses in every other area of life. (We recognize, however, that chapters and verses are of limited benefit, so we have retained a chapter and verse range at the bottom of each page.)

We hope that God’s image bearers will use this new (and in many ways, old) format of the Scripture to engage in more and better Bible reading. There is no question that God has worked in amazing ways throughout the history of the Bible. But it is time to revisit how we print and read sacred Scripture. By liberating God’s word from some of the formatting constraints that have been placed on it, his people will be better equipped to tell his awesome story of redemption.

In its September 2005 cover story, Christianity Today introduced Shane Claiborne and the Philadelphia intentional community, the Simple Way as models of what is being called the “new monasticism.”

The daughter of friends of mine has worked with the Simple Way in its Yes! And afterschool program. They’ve kept me informed today via e-mail of the effects of a horrendous 7-alarm fire on the Simple Way community.

“This fire will forever change the fabric of our community,” says the Simple Way website. Check there for further updates, for fire photos, and for information on giving to help the Simple Way and the displaced families.

[uncredited photo from thesimpleway.org]