Page 5372 – Christianity Today (2024)

Since 1969, when singer Larry Norman combined Christian lyrics with a rock beat, modern music has become a major vehicle for Christian outreach. Two years after Norman’s pioneering work, Word Records hired Billy Ray Hearn to start a label for contemporary gospel music. After establishing the Myrrh label for Word, Hearn founded his own company, Sparrow Records.

“I saw in contemporary music the best vessel to reach young people with the gospel,” says the former church youth and music director. “They listen to the music that is current. That’s their language.”

At first, so-called rock gospel was frowned on by many Christians. But the combination of pop music and Christian lyrics gradually gained a following. Fifteen years later contemporary gospel, as well as more traditional styles, is gaining prominence in the American music world.

As recently as 1977, gospel music occupied a barely visible segment of the American music industry. In a market study that year, Warner Communications lumped Christian music into a category called “other,” along with humor, spoken word, and miscellaneous records. The entire category accounted for only 3 percent—slightly more than $100 million—of all record sales.

A more recent Warner Communications study indicates that annual sales of gospel records increased from $180 million to $210 million between 1980 and 1983. In contrast, overall record sales in the United States remained steady. The gospel market accounted for nearly 6 percent of last year’s total sales of records and tapes. Gospel music now outsells both jazz and classical.

Christian music is receiving increased attention on the airwaves and in the press. Pop and rock artists like Donna Summer, U2, Kansas, and Bruce co*ckburn are singing about their faith on popular secular albums. And at least one gospel label is entering the world of music videos.

Sparrow Records is leading the Christian record industry in the use of video presentations of gospel artists. The company sells several full-length performance and teaching videos, as well as a number of shorter promotional clips, similar to those shown on the cable television channel MTV (Music Television). A Sparrow video featuring singer Sheila Walsh has been broadcast on secular stations.

Sparrow maintains a roster of popular contemporary gospel singers. But children’s records account for more than half of the company’s sales. Its Music Machine series has sold more than one million copies.

The first album in the series, The Music Machine, is one of only three gospel albums that have been certified “gold” by the recording industry. Alleluia: A Praise Gathering for Believers (Benson) and Age to Age (Word) also have been certified gold. In order to achieve gold status, an album has to sell more than 500,000 copies. A gospel album normally is considered a “best seller” if it sells 150,000 copies.

“We’ve seen not only increased sales, but an improvement in the quality of recordings,” says Don Butler, executive director of the Nashville-based Gospel Music Association. “We’ve also seen a more credible approach to lyrics, with more meaningful messages and less rhetoric, trite messages, or pie-in-the-sky lyrics.”

Recognizing the growing interest in gospel music, some secular record companies attempted to cash in on the market, CBS and MCA started Christian-oriented labels. But both companies later discontinued their gospel music divisions, saying sales were slower than expected. ABC, owner of Word Records, remains the only major secular owner of a gospel music company.

With increased sales has come a growth in the styles of gospel music. Dan Johnson, a vice-president at Word Records, says pop and rock gospel comprise 40 percent of his company’s sales. Middle-of-the-road artists, such as the Bill Gaither Trio, account for 20 percent of sales. Black gospel music makes up 15 percent; southern and country gospel represent 10 percent; and traditional gospel music, children’s music, and miscellaneous products account for 5 percent each.

At the Benson Company, a subsidiary of the Zondervan Corporation, traditional and inspirational artists such as Sandi Patti and Doug Oldham account for 45 percent of record sales. Pop and rock gospel artists account for 30 percent, southern gospel for 20 percent, and black gospel for 5 percent.

The three major gospel music companies—Benson, Word, and Sparrow—reported either increased sales or sales in excess of projections for 1983. But Christian record producers say recent sales increases are only part of the story. Songs that highlight the gospel message, they say, are still the most important aspect of the business.

A Federal Judge Upholds The U.S. Army Chaplaincy

A federal district judge has ruled that the U.S. Army is within the bounds of the Constitution in paying the salaries of military chaplains.

Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin issued the ruling last month in response to a lawsuit filed by two Harvard University law students in 1979. Joel Katcoff and Allen Weider had charged that the military chaplaincy violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The plaintiffs argued that civilian chaplains could adequately serve military personnel. They filed an affidavit from Carl Mischke, president of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, to support their argument. By funding its own chaplains, Mischke said, his denomination is able to “adequately provide religious support to our members in peace and war, at home and overseas.”

In response, the army argued that a civilian chaplaincy could not reach large numbers of soldiers and military personnel stationed in remote areas. McLaughlin did not rule on the effectiveness of a civilian chaplaincy. But he upheld the constitutionality of chaplains paid by the army.

“It is not without significance that the first Congress drafted the First Amendment and, at the same time, authorized a paid chaplain for the army,” he wrote. “The army chaplaincy program is a constitutionally permissible means to a constitutionally mandated end.”

A new portrait of Christ is based on the Shroud of Turin and several years of research.

Curtis Hooper, a 39-year-old artist from London, England, could draw before he could talk. Reared in the Church of England, he grew up intrigued with drawings and paintings of the face of Jesus.

To Hooper, the icons revealed a pathetic Christ characterized by dourness and resignation. It was a likeness that did not square with his understanding of the Jesus who is portrayed in the Bible. “I always wanted to know what he really looked like,” the artist says.

After a strict religious education, Hooper practiced portrait art and became a cinematographer. One day he came across a picture of the Shroud of Turin, thought by some to be the cloth in which Christ was buried.

He learned that the shroud served as a point of reference for artists in past centuries who had rendered their own ideas of Christ’s likeness. That discovery led to seven years of painstaking research. As a result, Hooper believes he has created the most accurate rendering ever of what Jesus looked like.

The artist began by enhancing photographs of the shroud in a darkroom. He scrutinized minute details, trying to understand what had formed the image. He consulted with members of a team that researched the shroud. He then assembled his own team of experts to obtain scientific insight into the swollen, torn image on the cloth.

When he felt he had obtained enough information, he sculpted a life-sized clay model of the skull and face. He then showed the sculpture to each expert. “I encountered difficulty because plastic surgeons and pathologists don’t have much experience with tissue from bodies that have undergone [several days of] decay,” Hooper says. “They’re only good with freshly damaged tissue.”

As a result, the artist took his sculpture to morticians who helped him visualize how certain facial tissues had sunken down and how much they would be filled out in a living person. Other mysteries were solved when he consulted drawings of the human face by Leonardo da Vinci.

But the questions of hair and eye color and subtle shades of the skin remained unanswered. For one year Hooper researched the racial anthropology of Christ. One study suggested that modern Bedouins resemble the Jews of Jesus’ time. So the artist traveled to Israel where he observed and photographed the nomadic people. The artist’s final step was to visualize how the hair—gnarled, matted, and soaked in sweat on the image of the shroud—would appear in its normal state. The years of intense research began to take their toll on the artist.

“When I was more than six years into the project,” he says, “I just about gave up. I thought, ‘What am I really trying to accomplish?’ Then a very close friend, just before he died, told me, ‘No. You must finish it.’”

So Hooper pressed on. At times he was deeply moved during the painting process. “One day I looked at the eyes I had painted,” he says. “And the face suddenly became real to me. It overwhelmed me.… Even after the painting was finished, it took me nearly a year before I could really look at it.”

The possibility that the painting might help draw people closer to God is something the artist doesn’t talk about.

“I feel very strongly about Jesus,” he says. “But I am a painter, not an evangelist. And I want to be the best painter I can be.… As an artisan, I hope to be nothing more than an instrument that lets information flow through and have it end up as art.”

What is the responsibility of government and the church to promote the sanctity of life?

Last month, CHRISTIANITY TODAY reported that U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop designed new regulations to protect the rights of handicapped infants. Koop’s revised guidelines won the support of formerly skeptical doctors and hospital administrators.

The government is requiring federally funded hospitals to set up review committees to monitor life-and-death decisions about babies who need immediate medical care. Also, notices are to be posted warning that it is unlawful to discriminate against newborns by withholding ordinary treatment because they are handicapped. A telephone hot line is available for hospital personnel to report suspected abuses.

In an interview, Koop discussed other aspects of his efforts to guarantee medical care for handicapped infants.

How will the new review committees differ from some already in existence that rely on “quality of life” considerations?

The ones we are proposing are called patient-care review committees rather than ethical review committees. The difference is that existing ethical review committees are totally internal. A single, strong personality on such a committee will dominate it.

To avoid that, we put in three safeguards and a fail-safe mechanism at the end. First, each committee will include a member of the community at large. Second, there will be someone to represent one of the disability advocacy groups. And third, at any meeting to consider a patient’s problem, a person will be appointed as a special advocate of that child. A final safeguard is a sign telling hospital personnel, if they suspect noncompliance, to call the committee, the state, or the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in any order they like.

Why have physician and hospital groups agreed to abide by these new rules?

For intangible reasons. The interim rule (opposed by the medical profession and successfully squelched in court) got the profession angry, produced a debate, and caused people to take sides. People who had to deal with the problem began to question whether their ethics were as good as they thought they were. The big gray area has narrowed. Now the groups that weren’t talking to each other six months ago are determined to see these regulations work.

Is the practice of letting handicapped infants die becoming commonplace?

It’s important to recognize that 1973 came along (the year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion is legal). As we began to kill 1.5 million babies a year, the value of life went down. People began to talk about newborn babies in the following way: “If we knew this three months ago, we could have killed it. Why can’t we kill it now?”

The Supreme Court has already said a fetus is not a person. It has no rights and privileges. So a fetus ex-utero loses its personhood and its protection.

After 1973, the level of infanticide went up dramatically. The fascinating thing is that it peaked out there someplace. I think it peaked out because, like the Vietnam war, it began to weigh heavily on the consciences of the people involved. I suspect it happened around 1979 or 1980.

What else can DHHS do besides enforce a new regulation?

A dream of mine for many, many years has been to take the insecurity out of the pediatrician’s concern about a newborn. It was my intent when I retired (from pediatric surgery) to start to work on some kind of data-retrieval system that would take the guesswork out of this.

I came here instead, so I thought I would do it in the government. It met resistance here as well as outside, but finally it’s going. University-associated facilities have been collecting data about developmental disabilities for the past several years. They are funneling it into the Kennedy Institute for handicapped children in Baltimore. They have taken all this information and created a data base. And they have contracted out to the American Medical Association to become one of the five data bases on what they call MINET (Medical Information Network).

Very shortly now, the data will be available to any physician who subscribes to the service and has a desktop computer and a telephone. You write in the condition, and the computer asks what state the patient is in. Then it tells the name of the university-affiliated facility, the specialist there, and the fees for various services.

What about information for parents?

At the University of South Carolina they have a consumer-oriented system with a toll-free number. It tells parents where to go for further diagnoses, help, and support groups. We have given a [federal] grant to the Kennedy Institute to bring the doctor-oriented and the family-oriented concepts together. By July, we will have that going in Region Four of the Public Health Service—North Carolina through Florida. It cost $100,000 to get started. We’ll need another $2 million to have it nationwide.

What do churches need to do to restore a sense of the sanctity of life to society?

My message to the churches is this: You can’t be against abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia without having some alternatives. If you say to a girl, “You shouldn’t have an abortion,” then I think your responsibility to her begins right then. If she’s a housewife and just wants to get rid of the kid because she can’t go to the theater as often, I don’t know what you can do. But if it’s a young, unmarried girl, I think you have to give her a haven of refuge while she’s pregnant. Guide her to have her baby adopted, and show her what the pitfalls are of being an unmarried girl raising a child.

She must be provided with good obstetric care and good legal care. A lot of people are doing that through crisis pregnancy centers and homes for unwed mothers.

In addition, Christians need to think, “What are the problems a family with a handicapped child faces?” They face financial problems and serious logistical problems. Some of them need respite. What do you do if you’ve been cooped up with a retarded child for a long period of time? You need some good, loving family to come in and say, “We’re going to come here on Friday night and babysit for the weekend.”

North American Scene

Marijuana use among teenagers has dropped to its lowest level since the government began keeping records in 1975. A study by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research also shows an overall decline in the use of other illegal drugs.

A House subcommittee chose not to override a District of Columbia law that prohibits the investment of city pension funds in companies doing business with South Africa. A committee spokesman said the proposal was rejected because of the immorality of the South African practice of forced racial segregation. The District of Columbia was granted home rule 10 years ago. But Congress retains the right to veto any decision made by the 13-member city council.

A survey indicates that 18- to 24-year-old Americans are becoming more conservative where traditional values are concerned. Only 49 percent think a married woman should be able to obtain an abortion, compared to 68 percent 10 years ago. However, their attitudes haven’t changed significantly on matters of equal rights and individual choice.

The United States Catholic Conference (USCC) has endorsed an addition to the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The suggested revision would make the ERA neutral on issues related to abortion. The USCC had not taken a position in the past because of uncertainty over the ERA’s effects on family life and the abortion issue.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked an Illinois law that requires parents to be notified before their teenage daughters can obtain abortions. The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the law, claiming its judicial bypass provision does not insure anonymity or a rapid appeal. The law allows minors to go to court to waive the notification requirement if they don’t want their parents to know about an abortion. The case is scheduled for a hearing late this month.

Raising the legal drinking age and imposing tougher laws against drunk drivers have helped reduce the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths. However, experts agree that this trend may diminish unless attitudes toward drinking and driving are changed. “To too many people, drinking and driving is still socially acceptable,” says John A. Volpe, chairman of the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving.

An Alabama judge has overruled a jury and sentenced a member of the Ku Klux Klan to death in the electric chair. A jury of 11 whites and one black convicted Henry Francis Hays of killing a young black man and hanging his body from a tree. Judge Braxton Kittrell, Jr., imposed the death penalty despite the jury’s recommendation of life imprisonment.

Caesars Palace, a Las Vegas hotel and casino, has erected a Buddhist deity at its entrance. The casino installed the statue as a marketing gimmick. Gambling is prohibited for devout Buddhists.

Personalia

Reuben H. Gums has been named executive director of the Laymen’s National Bible Committee. He has served as acting director for the past year. Gums, a United Methodist minister, succeeds John F. Fisler who retired in 1982. The organization distributed more than 300,000 pieces of free literature about the Bible in 1983.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has named Robert L. Maddox as its executive director. The pastor of Mayfield Road Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, Maddox formerly served as a liaison to the religious community under President Carter. Americans United was formed to defend the principles of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.

Carl F. H. Henry is the latest scholar to be featured in the “Makers of the Modern Theological Mind” series published by Word Books in Waco, Texas. Bob Patterson, professor of religion at Baylor University, wrote the summary and evaluation of Henry’s thought. Henry is a former editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Stan Cottrell plans to run more than half the length of the Great Wall of China. A 40-year-old member of Atlanta’s First Baptist Church, Cottrell will be the first person to attempt the run. He intends to cover 2,800 of the wall’s 4,000 miles. The runner’s Friendship Sports Association plans to hold evangelistic rallies along the wall where the Chinese government will allow them.

Evangelicals are entering the debate on the morality of the sanctuary movement.

The parishioners of the Wheadon United Methodist Church in Evanston, Illinois, call him Juan Gonzalez. But that’s a name he adopted to remain anonymous.

Juan is an 18-year-old undocumented alien from El Salvador, one of hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans living in the United States illegally. He believes that if word of his whereabouts gets back to his home country, the family he left behind will be killed.

Gonzalez is living under the protection of the Wheadon church, one of about 100 U.S. congregations that since 1982 have declared themselves “sanctuaries.” More than 1,000 other churches endorse and support the growing sanctuary movement. To support their actions, they cite the church’s biblical and historical role as a haven for those fleeing persecution.

Like many others who have fled Central America, Gonzalez has a dramatic story to tell. He says his village was raided by Salvadoran government soldiers. He and his brother escaped, but lost track of each other. Gonzalez returned a few days later to find his brother hanging in a tree, his heart cut out and his hands cut off. Says Wheadon copastor Greg Dell, “I have no doubt that if Juan would return to El Salvador, he would be killed, too.”

The U.S. government does not regard most of those who have come from Central America as refugees. According to the Refugee Act of 1980, an alien must demonstrate “well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular group, or political opinion” to achieve refugee status. Less than 3 percent of the Central American applicants for political asylum receive it. Hundreds of Central Americans are deported each month.

The government says most of the aliens are not fleeing bullets, but chasing jobs. Congressmen who support legislation to limit alien immigration argue that the influx has a negative effect on the American economy.

What happens to Central American aliens when they are returned is disputed. Some question the accuracy of the horror stories they hear. Others point out studies indicating that a high percentage of those who go back to El Salvador are killed.

A recent U.S. State Department report acknowledges the “ongoing civil strife” in El Salvador. The problem is complicated by a corrupt judiciary and political violence. But civil strife in an alien’s homeland is not sufficient reason for the granting of refugee status. “If civil strife or a government that may be somewhat oppressive were the standard, a high percentage of the world’s population would be eligible for asylum,” says Verne Jervis of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

Supporters of the sanctuary movement maintain that Central America, and particularly El Salvador, is different from the rest of the world. They say the United States is largely to blame for oppression in El Salvador. And they contend that America does not regard Salvadorans as refugees because it backs the Salvadoran government.

U.S. Representative John Moakley (D-Mass.) has proposed legislation that would grant Salvadorans the right to stay in the United States temporarily. They would be allowed to remain at least until the completion of a study to determine what has happened to those who have been sent back. The legislation was prompted by Massachusetts churches active in the sanctuary movement.

The Chicago Religious Task Force is coordinating the movement nationally. Aliens are met at the border and transported to sanctuary sites. Routinely, churches notify the government of their sanctuary status. So far the INS has made no effort to apprehend those who have sought refuge in churches.

As a corollary to the sanctuary movement, some are involved in an effort to transport aliens to Canada, where it is easier for them to achieve refugee status. Some 75 American and Canadian churches participate in the “overground railroad” headed by Julius Belser of the Reba Place Fellowship in Evanston. While preparing for migration to Canada, aliens buy time in the United States by applying for asylum. Virtually all applicants are turned down. But until their requests are acted on, U.S. law recognizes them as legal residents.

The overground railroad is an alternative for churches who support the spirit of the sanctuary movement but wish to remain loyal to United States law.

Of the hundreds of thousands who have come from Central America, only about 200 have taken advantage of sanctuary. Explaining the meager numbers, Chicago task force spokesman Dan Dale says the movement “was never envisioned as a mass resettlement program. Our goal is to protest U.S. intervention and to bring peace to Central America.”

Most church groups active in the sanctuary and overground railroad movements belong to mainline denominations and the historic peace churches. But some evangelicals also are involved, including the Sojourners community in Washington, D.C., and Evanston’s Reba Place. Evangelicals for Social Action is beginning to assess its role. And some of the constituents of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) endorse the movement.

Don Bjork, of World Relief, NAE’s humanitarian arm, believes Salvadorans should be allowed to stay in the United States until conditions in El Salvador stabilize. “A strong biblical and historical case for sanctuary can be made,” he says. But neither Bjork nor the NAE endorse the movement as a whole because it was born out of political protest and has been a deliberate adversary of U.S. foreign policy.

Bjork says more can be accomplished by working with the government to make immigration and refugee laws more “flexible, humane, and nondiscriminatory.” A growing number of evangelicals are addressing some of the issues that helped spawn the sanctuary movement, including U.S. immigration laws.

“Evangelicals have been very slow to recognize the challenge brought on by the millions of newcomers to North America,” Bjork says. He notes that the U.S. refugee ceiling for fiscal 1984 is set at 72,000, down from 140,000 in 1982 despite an increase in world refugee totals.

“It’s simply not true that the alien is harmful to our economy,” he adds. “Reliable studies suggest the opposite is true. Americans don’t want the jobs aliens are taking.”

Bjork maintains that the Bible calls Christians to receive aliens and that the United States has plenty of room. He says America should be a nation that welcomes the Juan Gonzalezes of this world, regardless of their reasons for coming.

Churches Will Share Property In A New ‘Condo’ Worship Center

A 65-foot tower will rise from the middle of a new worship center being built in Orange County, California. A baptismal pool at the base of the tower will be shared by as many as five churches.

Its designers call the multichurch complex a “condominium” approach. Architects William Davis and Al Dunhaime say the Irvine, California, worship center might be the first such approach to church facilities in the United States.

Plans call for building five church sanctuaries on a 10-acre plot. Several years passed before five congregations agreed to share facilities on the site. And one of those churches bowed out before construction began recently.

The four remaining churches will move in before the end of the year, if construction goes as planned. University Community Church, affiliated with the American Baptist Churches, and the Irvine Assembly of God Church were interested in the project from the start. Bethel Korean Church and First Chinese Baptist Church also plan to move into the $3.5-million complex.

The five church sanctuaries will be identical on the outside. But each congregation will design its own interior. Classrooms and a fellowship hall are planned for a later stage of construction.

RELIGIOUS NEWS SERVICE

Don’t tell Veronica Maz who’s hungry in America. She runs McKenna’s Wagon, a Good Humor ice cream truck turned Good Samaritan. She sets up shop in it in Lafayette Park, across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, and serves free sandwiches to Washington’s street people, who loll on park benches 150 yards from the Oval Office.

No longer does Maz serve only the skid-row alcoholics she saw when she started feeding the hungry 15 years ago. Today, she judges that about half of her customers are mentally ill, people who have been allowed to “re-enter” society by the institutions that used to care for them. There is another stripe that shows up today, not at the mobile wagon, but at Maz’s soup kitchen, called Martha’s Table. This is a better class of poor, if you will—people who seem more motivated and employable; people who seem only temporarily without work; people whose food stamps have ended before the month has.

There are many people like Veronica Maz, and the lines at their kitchens have grown over the winter. That is why it seemed to be particularly insensitive for presidential assistant (now attorney general) Edwin Meese to say, as he did recently, that maybe these people aren’t all that hungry, and that despite all the stories about bread lines, no one really knows how many truly hungry people there are in America.

The fact is, nobody really knows how many truly hungry people there are in the U.S. The General Accounting Office, the nonpartisan investigative agency of Congress, has concluded that “an official national hunger count does not exist. No one knows precisely how many Americans are going hungry or how many are malnourished.” The last nutrition survey aimed at the poor is now six years old, and the next one will not begin until 1985.

How To Know Who Is Hungry

Nutrition monitoring is the main method of determining whether people have enough to eat, and this is done by a variety of federal offices within the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), and Health and Human Services (HHS). Efforts to coordinate these surveys into a comprehensive National Nutrition Monitoring System have been on the drawing boards since 1978 and were approved by Congress in 1981, but they have made little discernable progress since then.

The delay has been caused by personnel turnovers, confusion over who is in charge, and, in the words of Republican Sen. Robert Dole of Kansas, “sheer neglect.” Even if the monitoring system worked, it would not answer key questions about the condition of poor Americans. Bob Reese, chief of USDA’s Food Consumption Research Branch, said that “national surveys are not efficient tools for conducting studies of situations that are infrequent or narrowly bounded in terms of segments of the population.”

That is why a new survey is supposed get under way next year. But even before that horse is out of the gate it is already hobbling on three legs. The funds for the project have been cut in half, to just $1 million. That means USDA will be able to survey only one population group—women between 20 and 50 and their young children—using a very small sample of 1,200 respondents. The USDA’s Robert Rizek says that if the survey were properly financed, other high-risk groups could have been included, such as the elderly, food stamp recipients, and people with below-poverty incomes.

President Reagan has long been saying that his cuts in the federal food assistance budget have not disturbed the “safety net” of federal help for those who are truly in need. But other cuts, such as the deep slash in the money for the nutrition survey, are rendering it impossible to tell whether any people are slipping through that safety net. “If budget cuts aren’t hurting [the needy], reliable statistics would show it,” says William Hoagland, a former Reagan appointee now with the Senate Budget Committee.

So although Meese may be correct when he says no one really knows if hunger is a significant problem in the United States, Reagan must bear responsibility for stemming the flow of information and implying that some in bread lines may not be hungry.

Hunger Versus Poverty

It is a whole lot easier to tell who is poor than who is really hungry. There is an official definition of poverty. It is based on whether a family is able to purchase enough food with about one-third of its income. In 1982 the poverty level for a family of four was $9,862. Since 1969 that level has been tied to the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index. Controversy over just how to define income (Should food stamps be included? Medicaid? Housing assistance?) and the basic issues of whether something like “poverty” should be defined monetarily have kept people of differing philosophies from working together.

A “relative” view of poverty—that is, a person is poor if he has a whole lot less than most people—characterized the Carter administration. Reducing poverty using this definition usually entails redistribution of income as a solution. This approach not only characterized the Carter White House, but it is still part of the Democratic party’s program. It envisions a day when the war on poverty actually could be won.

Reagan, however, leans to the simpler, “absolute” definition of poverty. Reagan expects the number of poor to decrease as the economy rebounds, but he does not anticipate an end to poverty altogether.

Poverty was first measured by the government in 1959, when 22 percent of the population fell below the official poverty level. The Great Society programs of the Johnson White House caused the number of poor to decrease steadily until 1970. For a decade it remained stable at between 11 and 12.5 percent. In 1979 the rate began increasing again, reaching 15 percent in 1982.

A report by the House Ways and Means Committee found that a rather large portion of the population—nearly one-fourth of all citizens—is poverty stricken at some point in life, but that it is usually temporary. Long-term poverty is much less common. The poor are disproportionately black, female heads of households, and elderly people.

Reagan formed his understanding of poverty when he was governor of California. He believed there should be rigid standards of eligibility for welfare, that programs should be run by state or local government agencies instead of the federal government, and that recipients should have to work if they can.

All of Reagan’s goals became law in California. And when that happened, the number of people on welfare dropped, many former welfare recipients re-entered the work force, and benefits to the needy actually increased.

In 1972, Reagan testified before a congressional committee in Washington to draw attention to the success of the California program. A number of California state officials moved to Washington as a result, and, according to Edward D. Berkowitz of George Washington University, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now HHS) became a battleground between those trying to institute the California ideas and those defending the status quo.

When Reagan was elected president in 1980, his commitment to the California approach was firmly fixed. However, ideas about “workfare” and local control of welfare programs—“new federalism” as it was called—encountered severe opposition on Capitol Hill. In January 1982, Reagan called for the federal government to withdraw from the largest welfare program, called Aid to Families with Dependent Children, as well as from food stamps, leaving those initiatives up to the individual states. In response, there was criticism over how the new approach would work, the vast institutional changes it would require, and worry about possible unfairness to the poor as laws changed from state to state. There was so much resistance that the proposal never materialized in Congress. It faded completely from public view until this January, when Reagan’s Task Force on Food Assistance completed its work.

The Task Force Controversy

Last year, Reagan appointed a blue-ribbon committee to investigate the extent of hunger in America and to answer in particular the perplexing question of why people still seem to be hungry in the face of massive government efforts to feed them. Its work came under biting attack from Democrats and food advocacy groups who felt the task force was stacked with people too prone to see only Reagan’s views on hunger and poverty. Robert Greenstein, an effective spokesman for the outsiders, pointed out that the only members of the task force with any academic, research, or administrative background in federal food programs were those who had worked in the White House with the specific assignment of cutting the programs. Greenstein is the director of a nonprofit research center on federal budget policy. During the Carter administration he was administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service in the USDA.

The political climate surrounding the work of the task force grew so sour that, as it debated and approved its final report during a public meeting in a Labor Department auditorium, the atmosphere was that of a three-ring circus. Members of several advocacy groups roamed the aisles, distributing press releases and analyses of the draft report. During coffee breaks they held court for the television cameras, refuting task force findings and proffering studies of their own about the problem. Greenstein infuriated the task force chairman, J. Clayburn LaForce, by passing notes to a task force member who was raising questions about the report’s conclusions during the final session.

Later, at joint congressional hearings on the report, most of the critics turned down the volume on their objections and agreed to support many of the task force recommendations. Curiously, the White House has been silent about what the task force had to say, leading some policy experts to conjecture that the recommendations go well beyond what Reagan expected from these like-minded appointees.

The final report of the task force maintains an uneasy tension between endorsing federal hunger programs and recognizing their shortcomings. “Although social programs relieve the symptoms of poverty,” the report said, “we have come to see how these same programs also help to perpetuate the very poverty they were created to relieve.”

Its conclusions are tentative: “Since general claims of widespread hunger can neither be positively refuted nor definitely proved, it is likely that hunger will remain as an issue on our national policy agenda for an indefinite future.” The task force made recommendations on four issues. They break little new ground, but they have at least reinvigorated the desire in Congress for government to be more responsive to whatever hunger does exist. Legislation has been introduced in Congress to convert all four of these proposals into law. The recommendations are these:

• Giving states the option of running their own food-assistance programs, financed by federal “block grants.” This has been rejected before by Congress on grounds that states would not be as uniform in benefits as is the federal government. Bureaucrats in the federal “hunger establishment” of the poverty agencies also object to losing control.

• Increasing food stamp benefits allotments by 1 percent. The report also urges government to raise the amount of assets a family may own and still qualify, and says food stamp recipients should not be required to have fixed addresses. The report also asks that the disabled and the elderly receive cash instead of stamps to help relieve the social stigma attached to food stamps.

• Encouraging the private sector to help out by having the IRS clarify rules under which corporations can gain greater tax deductions for donations of food, as well as allowing military commissaries to give away food.

• Better monitoring of who is going hungry and why, and a more generous definition of the official poverty level.

Other Voices

The federal task force and the federal government generally are not the only centers of information on the state of hunger in the United States. A variety of other organizations also exists to cope with the problem. These organizations often disagree with the White House about the scope of hunger, particularly when they perceive that the President and his staff are skeptical about its extent. Here is a summary of what some of these groups have been saying:

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit research organization in Washington run by Greenstein, surveyed 181 privately run food assistance programs nationwide. More than half reported 50 percent more people requesting help in February 1983 than a year earlier.

Clinical tests conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health found 9.8 percent of children in low-income families suffering from chronic malnutrition—more than twice the number that was expected, based on national norms.

Agnes Lattimer, a pediatrician at Cook County Hospital in Chicago, testified before a congressional subcommittee about a study of inner-city children entering the hospital’s emergency room. From 1981 to 1983, she said, admissions of children with symptoms of malnutrition, such as “failure to thrive,” diarrhea, and dehydration, increased 24 percent. Nearly half the children in a designated “high-risk” group were found to have poor diets, beginning with infants younger than six months who were receiving inadequate amounts of formula.

Thomas Brush, mayor of Cincinnati and a member of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Task Force on Joblessness and Hunger, described the squeeze his city is facing: The food stamp case load increased by 10 percent to 36,964 households last year; clients served by private food pantries and soup kitchens have doubled in number, and 78.3 percent of them are unemployed; the city has donated $125,000 in general funds to keep the private efforts afloat.

Local chapters of Bread for the World conducted “Hunger Watch U.S.A.” to document how low-income people are faring. They conclude that hunger is on the increase.

Many of these nongovernmental hunger groups tend to see hunger in economic terms—if someone is poor or hungry, the government ought to give him money for food. One of the task force members is John Perkins, a black evangelical who founded the Voice of Calvary Ministries, an outreach to poor blacks in Mississippi. He takes a different tack on the question. He says that merely looking at one’s purchasing power is not enough. “I come from a justice perspective,” he says. “Does welfare provide justice? We have to ask the victims. I see our people being destroyed, because welfare is not adequate. Folks have been dehumanized by it.” Breaking poverty cycles that trap whole families and neighborhoods requires “creatively involving the poor in the distribution process,” he says, by giving them control over their surroundings.

In his book, With Justice for All, Perkins describes an inner-city Philadelphia family he observed: “The welfare system encouraged them to have more kids, to live together without getting married [broken homes qualify for more aid], and to lie to qualify for more food stamps. It gave them no incentive at all to get out of their situation.… Designed to assist when there was no father, the welfare system stepped in and replaced the father.”

The government’s occupation with questions of quantity—how many people are hungry, how much spending is enough, what is the extent of fraud and waste—belie, to critics, an absence of concern about a more basic question: What quality of care do poor people need, and how will they get it? Reagan’s full-steam-ahead approach to cutting the federal food assistance budget without making sure there is a usable safety net under the truly needy and his appointment of what has been generally regarded as a politically partisan task force make many of his critics more strident.

But they may find the task force report more helpful than they first imagined. It has finally fixed attention on hunger as a national issue, and it has generated congressional legislation in all four of its areas of recommendation. That alone is an encouraging sign of determination on all sides to address finally the question of hunger in America.

BETH SPRING

Most of us are familiar with Grimm’s fairy tale of the princess and the frog. A prince, having fallen under the hex of a witch, was changed into a frog, and a frog he would have to remain until a certain princess should take him home and share her table and bed with him. Only then would he be a prince again.

Each day the frog sat by a spring in the forest lamenting his fate. One hot day the princess retired into the coolness of the forest, tossing a golden ball into the air as she went. As she came to the spring she inadvertently dropped the ball, and it fell into the depths of the pool. All attempts to retrieve it proved in vain. Seizing the opportunity, the frog volunteered to fetch the precious ball, provided the princess would promise to grant a request of his. In hopes of getting back the golden ball, the princess hastily agreed. Thereupon the frog dove to the bottom of the pool and soon produced the golden ball. In her excitement over recovering the treasure, the princess dashed home happily, forgetting her promise to the hapless frog. As the story turns out, not until later—and after the persistent efforts of both the frog and her own father—was the princess persuaded to keep faith with the frog.

Most of us, I think, are inclined to criticize the princess for lapsing in her promise to the frog. But we know something the princess does not know: namely, that the frog is actually a prince in the shape of a frog. That, the princess does not know. To her the frog is merely a frog. The thought of the little beast eating off the same plate with her causes each bite of food to stick in her throat; the thought of having to share the clean linen on her bed with the cold creature throws her into spasms of repulsion.

Who of us, had we known only what the princess knew, would have reacted differently? It is hard to embrace the unlovely: not simply a frog, but perhaps a spouse in an ugly mood, or a defiant child, or a work associate who opposes us—let alone the dirty, the sick, and the dying of our world.

One cannot help being impressed in reading the Gospels that Jesus responded differently to the unlovely than we normally do. Rather than avoidance or condemnation, Jesus accepted—indeed, embraced—the unlovely. Such embraces not only broke dramatically with the people of his day, but they contributed in no small measure to his sentence of death.

Jesus And Children

The Gospels reveal three such embraces of Jesus. The first was his embrace of children, and it represents Jesus’ concern for those who had not yet “arrived” in Jewish society. A second was his embrace of a leper. This embrace represents Jesus’ solidarity not simply with those who had not yet arrived, but those who could never arrive. This embrace included all who were either disinherited or outcast, ranging from women and Geniles to the sick and lame, sinners and tax collectors, and even the leprous. Finally, Jesus embraced a cross, and in so doing he embraced the sins of the world, the very ugliness that separates us from God himself. Consider, first of all, Jesus’ embrace of children.

“And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them” (Mark 10:13–16).

What, we might ask, was so unusual about Jesus putting his arms around children? And why did his disciples attempt to prevent the little ones from coming to him? Is not the maternal instinct a universal instinct of sorts, compelling us to show tenderness to children? Do not human relief organizations appeal to this instinct by showing the pitiful faces of starving children? Do not political candidates secure our votes by kissing the heads of babies?

We would be quite mistaken if we assumed that the society of Jesus’ day viewed children with the same affection ours does. In her book A Distant Mirror, Barbara Tuchman says that in the Middle Ages no element of society received less attention than children. And for good reason: with an infant mortality rate of 50 percent, adults could scarcely afford an excessive emotional involvement with the young. When a child of seven was considered a miniature adult and expected to perform a full day’s work, sentimentality over children had little chance to blossom.

So it was in Jesus’ day. The rabbis considered children, like women, to be members of the people of God by virtue of their association with adult male members of the family. True, a newborn boy of eight days was circumcised as a sign of this covenant relationship, but it was not until he was 13 that he was considered to have reached an age of religious maturity and granted full status in the synagogue. One would have to search long and hard in ancient Jewish society to find any benevolence toward the young comparable to Jesus’ embracing and blessing of children. W. C. Fields is said to have once remarked sarcastically, “Anyone who hates children and dogs can’t be all bad.” Presumably, people in Jesus’ day would have found little, if anything, humorous or objectionable about that quip. In Jewish society a child reached maturity when he could understand and assent to the Torah. Jesus, on the other hand, embraced the children. More than that, he declared them models of the kingdom of God—precisely because they had nothing to show for themselves and were most likely to receive God’s kingdom as a gift of grace.

Jesus And Outcasts

“And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, ‘If you will, you can make me clean.’ Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, ‘I will; be clean.’ And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean” (Mark 1:40–42).

We live in a society that institutionalizes the insane, deformed, and seriously crippled, and as a consequence, we may find it difficult to conceive of the vast social contrasts of Jesus’ day. Much as in many Third World countries today, the rich and poor, the fit and deformed, the clean and dirty in Jewish society lived in close proximity.

But proximity did not necessarily lead to contact or community; instead, it often led to increased separation among the various social classes. In the case of leprosy, the Old Testament prescribed the following regulations: “The leper who has the disease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head hang loose, and he shall cover his upper lip and cry, ‘Unclean, unclean.’ He shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone in the habitation outside the camp” (Lev. 13:45–46).

As if this condition were not humiliating enough, Josephus and some of the rabbis intensified the plight of the leper, referring to him as a “living corpse,” whose cure was difficult as resurrection from the dead (see Num. 12:12).

In Mark’s story, the leper compounded his offensiveness: not only did he embody a dread contagion (so it was thought), but, so great was his longing to be healed, he broke through the prescribed zone of separation between himself and others and came right up to Jesus. In a sense, Jesus’ response was offensive also. Rather than countering this social blunder with spit, stones, or curses, Jesus reached out and touched him, saying, “Be clean.” That touch did more than heal a physical ailment. It made it possible for one who had had to abandon his clothes, home, hygiene, family and friends, and even his relationship with the people of God—in short, one who had been banished to nonexistence—to return to himself, to human society, and to God.

Jesus And The Cross

Finally, Jesus’ strangest embrace was that of a cross.

“So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha. There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them.” (John 19:17–18).

There is no record in antiquity of a nobleman suffering the penalty of death by crucifixion. On the contrary, crucifixion was reserved for the most despised elements of society—rebellious foreigners, violent criminals, and especially slaves. It was a barbaric form of execution of the utmost cruelty, and was practiced by the Romans especially as a deterrent against slave uprisings. Appian, a Roman writer, informs us that when Crassus quashed the slave revolt of Spartacus in 71 B.C. he crucified 6,000 slaves along the Via Appia from Rome to Capua, a distance of well over 100 miles. With this in mind, one can scarcely escape Paul’s striking contrast when he spoke of Christ’s preexistent glory compared with his earthly humility: “He was in the form of God … but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant … and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:6–8).

The Gospels tell us that Jesus predicted he would go to Jerusalem to die on a cross, and that, in fact, he spent his dying breath crucified between two criminals on the Hill of the Skull. Why did Jesus embrace a cross? He embraced a cross for the same reason he embraced children, women, the poor, sick, and outcast: out of love for the unlovely. In truth, it was not his cross but ours that he bore. Peter says, “He bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by his wounds you were healed” (1 Peter 2:24).

Embraces Of A Real God

The strange embraces of Jesus! Each shares something in common with the others. Each is an embrace of those who, in the words of the Beatitudes, are “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3). Each is an attempt to “seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10). And each is what may be called an “ultimate embrace”—that is, either God or nothing. With each embrace Jesus conveyed the same thing, that everything can be expected from God where all hopes have been exhausted from man.

It is not surprising that the people of Jesus’ day found such embraces hard to accept, for they had rejected the strange embraces of God before. Hosea writes, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called them, the more they went from me; … Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took them up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them” (Hos. 11:1–3).

There is, indeed, an attitude that disdains the tangible overtures of God in human life. The elder brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son had such an attitude: his father should not have embraced such a worthless son. Once the Jews had shunned God’s embrace of themselves, they found it harder to tolerate his embracing of others. In the history of religion, especially “enlightened religion,” one sometimes meets the view that God is above our troubled world and too holy to condescend to real life. Helmut Thielicke has this to say in his book, I Believe:

“Tell me how lofty God is for you, and I’ll tell you how little he means to you.… It is certainly remarkable, but it is true. God has become of concern to me only because he has made himself smaller than the Milky Way, only because he is present in my little sickroom when I gasp for breath, or understands the little cares I cast on him, or takes seriously the request of a child for a scooter with balloon tires.… If God has no significance for the tiny mosaic-pieces of my little life, for the things that concern me, then he doesn’t concern me at all.”

The strange embraces of Jesus reach out for the needy, the forgotten, and the forsaken of each generation. They extend to those whose problems surpass human abilities to solve. The embraces of Jesus encompass both our personal and global inpoverishment, if only we come, like the children or the leper, knowing our need of them. His embraces demonstrate that God is a real God, committed to the needs of a real world.

Tim Stafford is a free-lance writer living in Santa Rosa, California. He is a distinguished contributor to several magazines. His latest book is Do You Sometimes Feel Like a Nobody? (Zondervan, 1980).

“Im sure you must be wondering why God let this happen to you.”

Friends who visited me in the hospital after I had been seriously injured in an automobile acident said that, or some variant of it, to me many times.

“No,” I would respond, “I don’t ask that question. I think it is an exercise in futility.”

“But it is natural to ask that!” some objected, implying that if I were not asking why God let it happen, I ought to be.

My friends were being kind, of course. They were saying, subliminally, “We think you are a good person and God shouldn’t let bad things happen to good people who are trying to serve him—unless, of course, he is bringing about some specially fine result.” They shared the common belief that God only lets good things happen to good (Christian) people, and so eventually we will see that these apparently bad things really turn out to be good.

That is a comforting thought we would all like to embrace. But a realistic reading of the Bible indicates something is lacking in that view of God, the world we live in, and our place as human beings in it.

God has placed us in a world in which moral evil, suffering, and death are universal. All of us will die—Christians and non-Christians—regardless of our devotion to God. All of us have bones that can be broken when they conflict with the laws of gravity, or are damaged by disease. Christians and non-Christians seem equally subject to most of the lethal diseases of this world: cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure. Most of us have wept with Christian parents who have lost a child because of leukemia or an auto accident. Bombs dropped in war on “enemy” cities kill men, women, and children—Christians and non-Christians alike—regardless of whether the bombs are dropped by Christians or non-Christians. Christians share fully the pain and sorrow of this world.

God apparently does not make us more immune than our non-Christian friends. Pain, sorrow, and death are a part of this world of sin. We hurt, we mourn, we struggle with long-term problems that seem to have no answers and no relief.

Yet we intuitively cling to the idea that God is providing us with some special protection from the terrible things that would otherwise happen. Many times I have breathed a fervent “Thank you, Lord,” when we narrowly missed a calamity of some kind. Most of us, if we missed a plane on which we were scheduled and that plane later crashed, would feel that God had miraculously preserved us. But on that fatal flight also may have been a Christian pilot, Christian flight attendants, and many Christian passengers whom God did not choose to deliver. Who of us can ever explain the terrible 1981 private plane wreck in Alaska that took to death the head and founder of a mission board plus three devoted missionaries and a consultant?

“Good” Is Sometimes Strange

Our determination to find “good” reasons for the tragedies of life sometimes leads to strange conclusions. A young man once told me he believed God had let his father die so that he, the son, would be eligible for the social security benefits that permitted him to attend college. I wondered what great benefit God had in mind for his mother and three younger brothers and sisters!

Romans 8:28 teaches, I believe, that God does bring blessings even out of bad situations. But that is quite different from saying that God causes, plans, or even permits tragic happenings because of the good that can come out of them. We know that God is soverign, but we also know that, in his sovereignty, God has placed us in a world of sin and suffering from which we have no immunity.

Jesus was not immune to pain and suffering, nor were his disciples. In the biblical account of the death of John the Baptist, there is no clue as to why God permitted John to be beheaded in a silly display of power by Herod. So far as we know, Jesus did not tell his disciples either that great good would result from it, or that they should “praise the Lord” for the tragedy. He just went away alone to mourn John’s death.

God’s love and concern for John the Baptist, or for us, does not place us in a protected position. After all, God loves my non-Christian neighbor just as much as he loves me. He is just as concerned about the well-being of the pagan as he is about that of the Christian. “The rain falls on the just and on the unjust,” and so do the sunshine, the floods, the good crop years, and the bad crop years. We have no special claim on God’s love or care because we are Christians.

But God does have a special claim on our love because we belong to him through the redemption of Christ. When we commit ourselves to Christ, our attitude toward God changes—not his attitude toward us. His attitude toward us—before we became Christians as well as since—has always been one of loving concern.

Sprouting Wings

Lying in my hospital bed after many visits from people who posed the question, “Why did God let this happen to you?” I tried to imagine a world in which God always delivers “good” people from “bad” things. I thought of my own accident, in which our car was struck by one that went through a red light. In my protected imaginary world, I suppose God would have made the other driver’s car suddenly sprout wings so that it would fly over our car without impacting. Or perhaps God should make it impossible for any driver to go through a red light and hit another car. Maybe God should make cars stop automatically at red lights regardless of the attention of drivers.

In such a God-protected world, brakes would never fail on a car or truck. Airplanes would automatically be free of all defects—mechanical or those of the pilot or weather—especially if there were Christians on board. Christians would suddenly become very popular people if God gave special protection to them. You would want to be sure there was one in every plane, in every car, and, to protect from fire, in every hotel.

When we put it that way, it seems ludicrous, of course. Yet our underlying assumption is that God is supposed to give us some special protection from the unusual dangers and tragedies of life—unless he has some very special blessing in wait that will far outweigh the suffering and pain involved.

After all, does not the Bible say, “A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand; but it will not come near you.… he will give his angels charge of you to guard you in all your ways” (Psalm 91:7, 11)?

Yes, but in our troubles his angels still have charge, to keep us in all our ways. To keep us from what? From illness, accidents, disappointments, poverty, sorrow, death? Sometimes God does deliver us from these things; sometimes not. But God and his angels always keep us from separation from him. That is the most crucial way we need to be kept.

Shortchanging Sin

To assume that God lets bad things happen so that we can experience greater good is to deny the basic reality of sin and its evil nature. Christ gave his life to deliver us from the ultimate penalty of sin and moral evil. When we say that good will always be the ultimate outcome of any “bad” happening, we are saying that moral evil does not really exist—it only seems that way to our mortal minds.

When an innocent child is murdered (or John the Baptist), that is evil. Yes, God can, and often does, bring good results (conversions, family reconciliations, and so on) from such horrible events. But no parent would choose to let his child be cruelly murdered so that these “good things” would result. Friends who have faced tragic losses are not usually comforted by well-meaning friends who tell them that “someday you will understand God’s reasons.”

“Victory” As A Handicap

When we face tragedy of any type, we can, and often do, grow through the experience—often after weeks or months of painful mourning and “working through.” Those Christians who feel they must be “victorious” in the face of tragedy usually later go through a normal, painful (sometimes secretive) mourning time. Their desire to be a “testimony” often only delays the mourning and the slow, genuine healing that God can and does bring.

The false belief that God is supposed to protect us from the tragedies and pain common to humanity, or that he “sends” us such tragedies only to “teach something” we need to know or to “bring some great blessing,” may impair our ability to open ourselves to God’s healing.

That false belief was, in part, the problem of Job’s comforters. They said in essence, “God doesn’t let bad things happen to good people. Therefore, Job, you obviously are not really good; there must be some hidden sin in your life, and you must admit it. Otherwise you are impugning God.”

Some very profound statements appear in the advice of Job’s friends. The difficulty was that what they said did not apply to Job. Actually, Job had much the same concept of God as his friends had: God was not supposed to let such tragedies as his happen to people who had tried hard to serve and to please him. Job, in his anger and frustration, complained bitterly to God about God’s treatment of him.

In Job 38, God finally intervenes with the words, “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” (v. 2), and in chapter 40, “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?” (v. 2).

Job’s answer was, “Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer thee?” His final response to God was “I have heard thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes,” (42:5–6).

According to the biblical account, Job never did learn why God permitted him to suffer so deeply and so long. (The reader knows that the suffering was due to Satan, to the presence of evil.) No particular “good” came out of it except Job’s deep encounter with God, and the marvelous account of it that is part of our Old Testament. At the end of the story, God gives Job double what he had before; but that was simply the grace of God and not directly related to his previous losses or his long suffering. I am sure Job never stopped mourning for his first seven sons and three daughters who died in the violent storm that struck their home.

Perhaps the real point of the Book of Job is not to answer the question, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” but rather to answer, “How does a person of faith respond to the tragedies and joys that come in life?” (Job had already been tested by the joys of success.) Does our trust and confidence in God grow, or is it destroyed? Do we reach more deeply into fellowship with God? Do we gain more appreciation for those who help us or those whom we can help? Do we use the changed circ*mstances or changed relationships to serve God and to grow?

Resting In The Arms Of Jesus

In the worst days following my accident, I had no energy to ponder deep questions or to think about the “good” that could come out of it. I had hardly strength to smile and converse a little with family members who came in for short visits. But I found it required no energy at all simply to rest in the arms of Jesus and experience his healing presence. Moving in and out of half-consciousness, I knew I was not alone. Cards with the simple message “we are praying for you” took on great significance, for I had no energy to pray more than, “Let your healing power flow through these broken bones.” Supported by the prayers of friends, I felt no need to do more.

Our periods of helplessness may make us more sensitive to the needs of others, or they may make us bitter or depressed. We may become more conscious of our need of God and more conscious of his presence, or we may become angry with God.

Done In By Success

Our response to the good and bad happenings of our lives will largely determine whether we grow or deteriorate in them. Actually, people are as apt to be destroyed or damaged by good happenings as by bad—by fame, success, beauty, outstanding talents. These have sometimes led to inner poverty, insufferable ego, misery for family and friends, even suicide. Yet we rarely ask, “Why did God let those ‘good’ things or these ‘blessings’ come to this person?”

God gives us the capacity to respond to the ills and joys of life in ways that are constructive or destructive. Whether we respond negatively or positively, God’s love remains constant. He does not withdraw it because we respond badly. His presence is always there, whether or not we recognize it.

Why did God let that accident happen to me? I do not know, nor do I feel a need to ask. What I did need, and still need, God gave me: a deep and abiding sense of his presence. And I am content with the words of Deuteronomy 29:29: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.”

God has revealed in his Word a great deal about what I should do—far more than enough to consume my energy and mental capacity. The secret things I will leave to him.

Tim Stafford is a free-lance writer living in Santa Rosa, California. He is a distinguished contributor to several magazines. His latest book is Do You Sometimes Feel Like a Nobody? (Zondervan, 1980).

CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s editors recently met with Ronald M. Enroth of the sociology department of Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, and J. Gordon Melton, director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion, Evanston, Illinois. The following is a summary of the interview.

What do you mean by the term “cult”?

Melton: I no longer break groups into cults, sects, and denominations. I find myself saying, “This is a New Thought religion,” “This is an occult religion,” and “These are Hindu-type religions.” In lumping them together, we assume that all cults have similar characteristics, and they don’t. There are some religious groups that deviate from the orthodox Christian norm so much that they are playing a different ballgame. But if you go to India, Methodists and Presbyterians are cult members and treated as false teachers who deserve to be outlawed and have their activities curtailed.

Enroth: The term “cult” is very ambiguous. Yet it has become part of our jargon. Jim Sire of InterVarsity Press asked whether we should stop using it. He answered by saying, “We should if we could, but we can’t; I think we’re stuck with it.” The person in the street identifies with it. For example, I teach a course at Westmont called “New Religious Movements.” But my students still refer to it as “the cult course.”

I distinguish between Eastern mystical and aberrational Christian groups. The latter are the ones I’ve specialized in recently. I also distinguish between the self-improvement or transformational cults, the occult, astrocults, and syncretistic cults.

There are many differences among cults. At the same time, however, there are characteristics that apply to most, if not all, such groups. As a sociologist I am interested in recurring patterns of behavior in, for example, leadership and cult life.

What are some of the patterns you see in such groups?

Enroth: Most such groups respect their leaders highly. The Moonies border on deification. They depart from revealed truth, false teaching. As a sociologist I see an adversarial stance vis-à-vis the social institutions of our society. There is also a degree of control at work, not only in the Eastern religions or more exotic cult groups, but also in some groups that claim to be evangelical. Most such groups believe, too, that they are in some way exclusively correct and superior to all other faiths.

Melton: I would agree with most of what Ron has said. The adversarial stance of the cult is almost a definition of what we are talking about, almost as much as false teachings.

Strong authority, however, I would see as characteristic not so much of cults as of all first-generation religions. John Wesley, Francis Asbury, Cotton Mather and the ministers of colonial New England, Brigham Young of the Mormons—all were hard-handed, authoritarian figures. After that leader is dead, the group he formed moves either into a strong bureaucracy (Christian Science) or into a much looser structure. The Methodists have followed the latter alternative, although they have retained a fairly strong conference system.

In terms of authority, Wesley was seen as just as much of a cultist in his time as Moon is today. The established church called Wesley an “enthusiast.” The Anglican church was very upset with Wesley for assuming the title of bishop.

In terms of adversarial role, too, Wesley and Moon come off very close to each other. Wesley was considered by his cohorts as very much of a theological radical and outcast who was preaching all kinds of heresy—some evangelicals still think of him that way.

The Hare Krishna movement now has the characteristics of a second-generation movement. Bhaktivedanta is dead, and it has formed a 20-member international ruling authority.

Not all groups see themselves in an elitist way. Christian cult groups tend to do so, and so do the Soka Gakkai of Japan. But other groups tend to be inclusivistic. Cults influenced by Hinduism are most often like this. Everybody who is not actively involved in the group is “only partially Hindu.”

You can put groups on a scale from the most exclusive to the most inclusive, from Carl McIntire to the United Methodist Church. One group says, “We are it,” the other, “Let’s pull everybody in,” with no standards at all. Some cults are so exclusive that you learn about them only because the ten people who are the rulers of the world in secret do something that gets into the newspapers.

As evangelical Christians, of course, we think we are the “center of the universe.” I know God has chosen the church and I am playing a role in it. But a lot of people who don’t agree with me theologically think that way too. Many small groups think that, small as they are and unsuccessful as they have been, they are the religion of the future.

The Wiccans, or modern-day witches, for example, are a tiny group that worships deities that seem to have died 2,000 years ago. They really believe pagan religion is coming back. They expect to see it become a major religion.

So many Christians have lost this sense of destiny; perhaps our African Christian brethren will have to come over here as missionaries and give us that sense again!

Let’s talk about the “lure” of the cults, what attracts people to cults in the first place. Is there, for example, a vacuum of authority in our homes and churches, especially those that have relinquished the authority of Scripture, that attracts people to authoritative religious leaders?

Enroth: Very definitely. Lots of people need someone to tell them what to believe. Some young adults relate to masculine cult leaders as father figures. The group becomes a surrogate family for them. Frequently they have had problems with their parents. A woman on the West Coast did her doctoral dissertation on families with members who have become involved in a cult. She found that the father is frequently weak or absent. I have noticed that many ex-cult members have fathers whose occupations are technical and scientific—physicians and engineers, for example. A theory I would like to test scientifically sometime is that those who become cult members typically have a distant relationship to their fathers.

Authority has declined in part because our society has shifted away from its Judeo-Christian foundation. The intrusion of the “new religions,” especially the Eastern or alternative religions, is something new for American society. The common base that was accepted for years in our society is gone.

Young people no longer have that base by which to evaluate things. As a result, a religiously naïve public is open to any guru who comes down the pike. It can’t even ask the right questions. Into the vacuum come the new religious movements.

Melton: One of the things we found in a survey is that some 80–85 percent of the people who join cults come from nonreligious or nominally religious homes. Very few report ever having been active in a church, though 90 percent report that their parents were members of a church.

This was borne out dramatically in our survey of the witchcraft community in Georgia. After Rod Stark of the University of Washington got the computer printout, he called me and said, “Gordon, there’s only one surprise in the whole report: there are no Baptists!” Since Georgia is 50 percent Baptist, and witches were drawn equally from all of the other religious groups, that was surprising. Part of the answer, of course, is that the black community makes up about 50 percent of Georgia’s population, and the Wiccan community is white.

But there had been no religious authority in the homes in which members had been raised, as there is in the typical Baptist home. One of the things the new religions do is supply religion for people who never had it before—except as something other people talk about.

Enroth: I mention in The Lure of the Cults that a god in the flesh is easier for some people to believe in. I remember being at the Unification Theological Seminary in Barrytown, New York, for a day a couple of years ago, along with four other authors. Word had apparently gotten around that Moon was coming to campus. Everyone had disappeared to get ready for his arrival. My guide invited me to join the welcoming party outside the main entrance’s circular drive not far from the Hudson River. I wish I had a photograph to preserve the look of expectation on their faces.

Soon Moon’s car drove up, and his driver got out. But Moon wasn’t in the car. The driver explained, “Father decided to go fishing in the Hudson River, so he won’t be coming to the campus. He needs to be alone to meditate.”

You should have seen the look of disappointment that replaced the earlier look of expectancy as they scattered.

Do you feel, then, that the cults are meeting a need the churches don’t provide?

Enroth: Yes. Some people learn to be better persons as a result of experiences in these groups. An ex-member of Faith Tabernacle in Oxnard, California, told me she had been a quiet, withdrawn person when she joined the movement. Because the group expected members to give a public witness to their faith, she learned a measure of self-confidence.

Many cults also provide a sense of family. Late last year I heard a panel of ex-members of cults speak at the Citizens Freedom Foundation, an anticult organization. Most of them said they valued being part of a group that was doing something important. Moonies have told me they couldn’t care less about Moon’s doctrine and that they would probably have left if they hadn’t made such good friends.

Do you feel cult leaders actually believe what they teach?

Enroth: Yes. Reporters frequently ask me, “Are cult leaders sincere, or are they Elmer Gantry types, charlatans, con artists?” I believe most of them are sincere. I think Moon honestly believes he’s the Messiah of the Second Coming.

Most of these groups are very committed. At the same time, however, I think leaders consciously or unconsciously use techniques that are less than laudatory. They manipulate people and tap into questionable financial resources. But they do so in a sincere attempt to “save” young people.

We have to support the quest of young people for ideals. They want to change the world. I’d like to have the typical Moonie in my classes and in my church. They are very fine people. In Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare, Bromley and Shupe—and some would add Gordon Melton—have described us, the “anticultists,” as believing all cult members are brainwashed so they can’t communicate intelligently. That’s not true. There may be Moonies like that, but there may be evangelical Christians who are like that too.

For the most part, however, I sense a genuine feeling for spiritual issues. Some Moonie missionaries were given the job of trying to convert ministers and people like myself in Southern California. They spent hours with me. I shared my view of Scripture and the importance of a personal relationship with Christ. Halfway through they were both in tears. “You are a very spiritual person,” they said.

And yet, after four hours of discussion we came right back to point one. They agreed with me about some of my critique of Moon’s theology. They could see where I was coming from. But there was no way they could buy what I said. They had been indoctrinated, just as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have been. It is very frustrating not to be able to penetrate those fences.

I talked for two hours with one young woman. “You’ve destroyed everything I value and cherish in this world,” she said. Then, turning to her mother, she said, “I don’t want to spend any more time talking to this guy. He’s not helping me or anybody else.” She angrily stormed out of my office. About two-and-a-half weeks later I learned she had left The Way International.

She later told me that as a result of our discussion she started to think about things she had never thought about before. She left The Way on her own.

Melton: I try to form good relationships with members. I let them know I’m available if they need someone outside the group to talk to. I have attended many occult conferences, for example, as an observer, and I find myself doing a lot of counseling.

Alternative groups offer a place for a teenage expression of commitment. In my church (the United Methodist Church), one of the hardest things to deal with is a teenager who is really committed to Jesus. He wouldn’t fit into the typical youth group; he would want to do different things than the youth group is likely to be doing. If he walked into the pastor’s study and said, “I committed myself to Jesus last night; I’d like to tell the congregation about it on Sunday,” the pastor wouldn’t know what to do with him.

These groups do. They do best with people moving from adolescence to adulthood. That’s what the mainline churches do worst—that and providing a sense of community. Large and impersonal churches on the corner don’t give most teenagers a sense of belonging. I consider myself an evangelical. I move in liberal Protestant circles, and they provide an even stronger contrast to the cults than most evangelical churches do. It is much harder for the teenager to find commitment and community in the average mainline church. But that’s where church members are.

Enroth: These groups appear where people are hurting—on the campus, in the community, on the streets. Usually it’s the more fundamentalistic or charismatic-oriented groups in evangelicalism that are doing equivalent kinds of ministry.

I don’t think it is realistic to expect an adolescent to walk off the streets into the office of First Presbyterian Church or First Baptist Church to seek help. On campus he may run into a cult member and be invited to a seminar or dinner.

That can be a lesson to the church. We need to strengthen our campus ministry and penetrate the hurting society, not expect people to come to us.

You said the majority of those who join cults come from nominally religious homes. Do you have any further examples?

Enroth: Very few Jews who join cults have come from Orthodox Jewish homes. They tend to come from ethnic, cultural, or nominally Jewish families. I could cite similar examples from Catholic and Protestant groups.

The Children of God are told not to try to convert pious Catholics, Mormons, or evangelical Christians because it is a waste of time. Instead, they are told to spot those with a very nominal church background.

Melton: The aberrant Christian groups you’ve been studying do go after evangelicals, though—young Christians in particular. But most groups know they can’t convert dedicated Christians.

Enroth: Yes, the aberrational groups—The Way, and those heavily involved in “shepherding” ministries, for example—seek out evangelicals.

The Community Chapel and Bible Training Center in Seattle is one example. It is into “Oneness” or “Jesus only” Pentecostalism and a heavy form of shepherding. That kind of group is picking off Christians in the Northwest. Evangelicals aren’t very often attracted to Hare Krishna or the Moonies.

Melton: That’s because the deviancy level of the aberrant groups is lower. If you join The Way, you can continue to think of yourself as an evangelical. You don’t have to shave your head, change your name, wear weird clothing, read unusual books. Evangelicals know the ostracism that comes from being a bit different from the world, and aberrational Christian groups are like evangelicals.

Enroth: Members are often more intense, more subjective, and more emotional. Some Christians feel mainstream evangelicalism is too lax. They discover a degree of commitment sadly lacking in some of our churches.

But as Donald McKay, the former president of Princeton, said, “Commitment without reflection is fanaticism in action.” Some people go off the deep end. The local Baptist or Presbyterian church may not seem to have the kind of commitment they find in The Body of Christ or other exclusive groups. They get caught up in the supposedly higher degree of spirituality in these groups.

I try to tell parents of those who have joined a cult that their son or daughter had a spiritual lack of some kind and is searching for answers. In some of the Eastern groups, people go from group to group, from teacher to teacher, looking for that perfect guru.

Melton: I have also found that the person who had a bad experience in a traditional church as a teenager joins cults. Frequently a Roman Catholic priest has been insensitive. Couple an insensitive minister with the doctrine that yours is the only true church, and you get a young person likely to join a non-Christian cult. I’ve seen this especially with Roman Catholics, who make up 20 percent of the population, and young people from the Worldwide Church of God.

But half the people in the country have been raised in secular homes. When they go to college, they are faced with a smorgasbord of ideas. At Stanford University, for example, you can pick and choose from many alternative religions. To a seeker, the teaching of a group is not nearly as important as the fellowship. Anybody who has been in one of the Eastern groups knows how warm their friendship is. When you have been connected nominally to a church of 400 or more members where you don’t know half the people, the contrast is so strong that it can’t help but influence a person’s decision.

Enroth: Westmont students who are attracted to the Christian aberrational groups sense a lack of the experiential in their own faith and church life. Such a subjective experience is very important to them. They also miss a sense of drama and vitality about their Christian faith. We lost about two dozen students about ten years ago to the Church of the Living Word, headed by the late Apostle John Robert Stevens. He made things happen. He was exciting and dynamic. Students who came mostly from Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches saw their churches as well-intentioned, but not excited about their faith. In Stevens’s church, every service was different. When the Apostle laid his hands on people, the excitement was real.

I suppose the same thing can be seen in some of the more emotional charismatic churches, where services are a little different, perhaps more exciting. Young Christians and dissatisfied, disenchanted young adults don’t see the dynamic aspects of the Christian faith in mainline churches. They do see it in these groups. They don’t stop to ask the important questions about beliefs and are sucked in by the emotion of it all and what they perceive to be vital Christian faith.

Is the campus where these groups carry out most of their ministry?

Melton: There is a second place. Cults grow in urban areas; you’ll find them in a circle around campuses, and in the young adult, singles, high-school dropout communities. For example, in Chicago they are found in the singles community on the north side, around the University of Chicago on the south side, and in Evanston around Northwestern University.

How do you feel about deprogramming, “exit counseling,” and similar anticult practices?

Melton: The efforts of the anticult movement to move into active legislation against the cults and their attempts to use force against cult members disturb me. I am also bothered by efforts to meddle in the internal affairs of a cult group. This is a real borderland.

I feel about deprogrammers the same way I feel about rapists. I think they both ought to be tossed into jail. Anticultism can be as heretical as any cult. Deprogramming is a violation of individual freedom and human rights in this country. The whole business about mind controlling and brainwashing is intellectual hogwash. Just because someone belongs to an authoritarian cult, or an authoritarian Christian church or any kind of authoritarian group, doesn’t mean he has lost his ability to think or hasn’t chosen to be a part of the group.

I very much favor counseling that would assist people who are trying to decide whether to leave a cult, or that would help resolve conflicts between family members. I do it myself.

My main problem with Christian anticultists is the aura of hostility they often have toward these groups. They make unjustified value judgments, unfairly question a group’s integrity, and criticize group leaders without valid verification. That is not sharing the gospel with non-Christian groups, nor is it a valid expression of the love of Jesus Christ that should characterize a Christian’s life.

I prefer not to speak of Christian and secular anticultists; I would rather speak of militant and nonmilitant anticultists. By “militant” I mean those, Christian or secular, who support legislation against cults, and also deprogramming. I’ve been critical of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project because in one of their publications they favorably reviewed Snapping, an anti-Christian book that supports deprogramming. Yet, in several publications they say they don’t support deprogramming, so they’re on the border. I wrote their director, Brooks Alexander, about that review. Even the Religious Analysis Service in the April–June issue of The Discerner came out in favor of deprogramming.

I’ve also heard many Christian leaders who have identified themselves with the militant anticult movement say that the militant anticult movement is identical with the secular anticult movement. I see militant anticultism as dangerous. If it goes against cult groups today, it can go against evangelical Christian groups tomorrow.

Enroth: I have a lot of problems with deprogramming, too, though I have been criticized for supporting it and have almost been identified with it, especially as a result of my book Youth, Brainwashing, and the Extremist Cults. Gordon’s review of that book in CHRISTIANITY TODAY said I advocated kidnaping! That is not true, though a number of people interpreted it that way.

Melton: The secular deprogramming groups grew out of the Citizens Freedom Foundation and Ted Patrick’s work. They have gone after the cults more narrowly than the Christian anticult groups that grew out of the Plymouth Brethren, Reformed, and Baptist traditions and became established in a number of institutes and research centers after World War II. They have zeroed in on a small group of about 15 or 20 cults that have recruited white, middle- and upper-class young adults. Parents whose children have been recruited by these cults and dropped out of school and broken off relationships with their families have turned to secular deprogrammers.

Unfortunately, much of the material secular anticult publications print is a mixture of false rumors and unverified statements. I have spent considerable time tracking these rumors down; the facts often turn out to be much different. But once the statement is in print, especially in the New York Times, it’s almost impossible to refute.

For example, it was widely reported that a Hare Krishna leader had been caught with guns. I know the Hare Krishna people are pacifists, so I wondered what was going on. We found out that there was one Hare Krishna leader who had been a gun collector before he joined the movement. Told to get rid of his collection, he refused and was disciplined. When he was caught with his guns again later, he was disciplined and also stripped of his powers and eventually expelled from the group. The activities of that rebel were used to discredit the whole movement.

A second example concerns the so-called paramilitary teachings of The Way. When I tried to track this story down, I found that the state of Kansas paid The Way College to teach hunting safety in Emporia—the same as other religious colleges in Kansas were doing. But The Way was singled out and condemned for “paramilitary teaching.”

A third example has to do with allegedly deceptive recruiting practices, especially by the Unification Church. I found those stories all went back to one place—the Open Family branch of the Moonies in Oakland, California. This group was different from the other branches, and if Mose Durst had not become president of the Unification Church it would probably have splintered off.

Enroth: I see now what Gordon means when he distinguishes Christian from secular anticultists. But he doesn’t make that clear in his writings. Christian anticultists and secular anticultists are all tarred with the same brush. In Strange Gods, Bromley and Shupe attack anticultists. Lumped in with all the secular groups is the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, on whose board I serve. They call it “fundamentalistic.” There are big differences between SCP and secular deprogrammers.

I also understand what Gordon is saying about false rumors. At the same time, I would argue that he and his camp do not sufficiently stress facts that have been verified. Take the Sunburst Communities. Rumors about their gun running, arsenals, and so forth can be verified by anyone; the police discovered their arsenal. They weakly rationalized that they had to protect themselves from those who were persecuting them. The police removed their arsenal. Their leader, Norman Paulsen, was later arrested in Santa Barbara with a gun in his possession.

There is also evidence of child abuse in such cults as Dr. Hobart Freeman’s Faith Assembly in Indiana and the Northeast Kingdom Community Church in Vermont. There is clear evidence of cases of child abuse, neglect, and beatings in Faith Tabernacle, which is headed by Eleanor Daries. The Church of Bible Understanding made the papers when the elders beat a teenager so badly he had to be admitted to a hospital in Philadelphia.

There have been numerous examples of violence. The evidence can be verified by police and medical authorities. I insist that opponents of the anticult movement have not been completely honest. They emphasize the false rumors so much they fail to make clear that some cases are true.

Some verification, I admit, comes from ex-members. Melton and others criticize me and my colleagues for basing a great deal of our information on “horror stories” and argue that those who come out of cult groups exaggerate their experiences. The cult apologists say ex-members are embarrassed that they were taken in by the cult, convinced they were brainwashed, and tell stories of violence and manipulation to explain their mistake.

Ex-members have told me stories of what I have to consider very destructive behavior: being forced to eat pet food off the floor, being beaten, teenagers forced to give details in public about masturbatory practices. One group uses spitting in the face, slapping, and other forms of physical abuse to keep members in line.

Members of the Children of God regularly engage in prostitution—“flirty fishing.” They teach that incest is acceptable and even encourage sex between adults and children. I can document that—from ex-members, certainly, but there is no other way to get information. The Children of God are not going to demonstrate for a reporter.

Many ex-members are born-again Christians; I believe they are telling the truth. For example, some of my verification of the activities of the Children of God comes from Deborah Davis, the daughter of founder Moses (“Mo”) Berg. At my suggestion she met with the public and the press at a cult conference in Santa Barbara in 1982. She had been with the group since its inception in Huntington Beach, California, in 1968, and left voluntarily about four years ago. Contrary to what critics say, many who provide information were not deprogrammed but left of their own free will. Deborah Davis tells about experiences in the Children of God that can’t be questioned. Her brother committed suicide because of pressures his father put on him. Her father approached her and her sisters sexually. I have lots of material in my files to verify the claims. Her new book expands on these facts.

Luis Villerreal, a friend and former student, has personal experience with the “heavenly deception” of the Moonies. He was walking along a street in Denver. A very attractive young woman was soliciting funds for a group she identified as Youth Guidance, a Christian group she said was working with predelinquent teenagers. (Youth Guidance is a branch of Youth for Christ International.) When she came to my friend, he took out his card identifying him as the director of Youth Guidance. He said, “I’ve never seen you before. Can I see your I.D.?”

She turned all shades of red, and under further pressure finally admitted she was a member of the Unification Church.

When I mentioned this incident to the president of the Unification Church, he said, “That’s an isolated incident. We don’t condone that sort of thing. It was probably an overzealous Asian.…” I interrupted and said, “This was no ‘overzealous Asian’; this was a white, middle-class American, girl-next-door type, and she was a member of your church.”

I agree that some people have exaggerated because they have an ax to grind. But what do those who are opposed to the anticult movement do with the cases that are verifiable? They have been largely ignored by them, and I think that’s unfair.

Melton: I distinguish between ex-members who have been deprogrammed and those who have not. In fact, ex-members who have not been deprogrammed are one of my main sources of verification. And if an ex-member who has been deprogrammed tells me the same story as one who has not been deprogrammed, I tend to accept that as evidence. We need to highlight the technique of verification. Deprogramming is a distortion; it affects an ex-member’s story, especially during the first year or two following the process. It encourages the ex-member to justify his actions.

As far as physical abuse is concerned, it is characteristic of aberrational Christian groups rather than Eastern or occult groups. We also need to differentiate between a member who abuses his children and the condoning of abuse by the group. The House of Judah, for example, clearly condones such abuse, and that’s wrong.

Enroth: I’d like to know which mainstream evangelical Christian leaders condone deprogramming. I know of none. There are, of course, certain individual evangelical Christian parents who have had their children deprogrammed. And some of them get upset with me when I tell them I don’t think deprogramming is the way to go. I warn them it can backfire and there can be negative results.

But sometimes I feel I almost have to come to the defense of the deprogrammers because of the inflammatory rhetoric of anti-anticultists like Bromley and Shupe. Much of what has been written about deprogramming has been grossly exaggerated. For personal reasons, I’ve never witnessed a deprogramming and I never will. I admit there are violent episodes, sometimes even sexual abuse, that nobody can condone.

But many who have gone through deprogramming insist that they have not been subjected to violence; the lights have not been on 24 hours a day. Some have told me they slept more during deprogramming than during their whole cult experience. They have been fed and treated rather well. The process was admittedly very intense, but I think anti-anticultists have blown the negative side out of proportion.

Gordon has written that many who have gone through deprogramming “do not or cannot return to a normal existence.” I would insist that many return to normal existence. My own research and experience indicate they have jobs as teachers and computer programmers. Anti-anticultists imply they all end up in mental hospitals. That’s ridiculous.

The rhetoric on both sides, unfortunately, but perhaps understandably, gets very strong. I believe that if people who have been deprogrammed end up in mental hospitals it is more likely because of their bad cult experiences. In some cases they took their problems with them into the cult. I’m not a psychiatrist, though, so I can’t prove it.

People who have been part of groups such as the Church of the Living Word or Faith Tabernacle have told me their experience has been so negative that it has taken them months and even years to go near a church or talk to a pastor. When I was on a talk show in Los Angeles, a woman who had been in one of these groups called and broke into tears as she said, “I can’t go near a church anymore. I distrust authority so much. I don’t want to be burned again.”

If you reject deprogramming as the way to get people out of cult groups, what do you see as the best way for Christians to relate to cult members?

Enroth: First, we need to have basic, accurate information about these groups. I say in my seminars that every large evangelical church should have a member who is a cult specialist to keep up on all the information that is available on the cults. Our educational ministry should start at the junior high level to help young people ask the right questions and develop the gift of “discernment.”

Second, I think we need to be models of spiritual life and vitality. Cult members need to see in us a positive, vital, alternative faith, grounded in God’s truth as it is revealed in his Word, and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That will do far more than all our arguing with them over biblical interpretation. So I differ from some of the traditional cult watchers who are very critical of cult leaders. I don’t think an aggressive, confrontational approach is the way to go. We need to be patient and loving; we need to be warm and caring.

Melton: Amen! I’m in complete agreement with everything Ron has said. But I would add that we need to change our focus. We have spent a lot of time on a very few groups, and they are not even the most successful in gaining members. The Zen Buddhists have received a lot of publicity, but when you put all the Zen Buddhists in the country together, there aren’t many of them. If you try to get a Christian evaluation of Swami Muktananda, however, it is very hard to do. Yet here’s a group that has 140 centers in the United States and three or four times as many followers as Moon has. The Hare Krishnas have only about 2,500 members, whereas Tibetan Buddhism has been growing by leaps and bounds. Some of the most significant groups are the Sufi Order of Pir Vilayat Khan, Swami Muktananada’s group, Da Free John of the Free Communion Church, Swami Vishnu Devananda of the Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres, the Himalayan Institute of Swami Rama, ECKANKAR, the Church Universal and Triumphant, and the Neopagan groups.

Second, we need to be more sophisticated about money. It takes money to run any kind of establishment. We need to adopt the same standards for our churches and synagogues that we do for the new religions. It takes money for a group to grow. And it doesn’t take many people putting their money together to create a big budget. For example, a lot of money flows through Moon’s group, but they’re only 30 days away from bankruptcy at any moment. The court case against the Hare Krishnas in California lost them ten years of assets. From my study, it is power rather than money that motivates most religious leaders. Bhaktivedanta, for example, lived the austere life of a Hindu sunyasan, but he was worshiped and revered as a god and had a tremendous amount of power over people. Moon was a multimillionaire before he ever came to this country. Yet he traveled around the country anonymously with only two suits.

Enroth: I would like to add that we need to be careful not to be so tolerant that we compromise our convictions that God has revealed religious truth to us in the Bible. We need to share our Christian imperatives in love.

Also, there is a tremendous need for additional resources in the Christian community. When people come out of cults, for example, there is no place for them to go; there are no halfway houses other than the questionable “rehabs” of the deprogrammers. The evangelical church has done a great deal for unwed mothers and drug addicts, but it has done nothing for the person coming out of one of the extremist cults.

It appears that the Love Israel Family or Church of Armageddon in Seattle is falling apart. Their guru has at long last been discovered to have feet of clay. Several hundred people belong to the group. Some of them have belonged for years; that is the only life they know. Who is going to be around to pick up the pieces?

The Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation is likewise undergoing transition; its members have been involved in a group that teaches total dependency on the leader. I know of no place in the United States today to which I could refer people, even if they had the money to pay for counseling. We need a center where ex-members of cults could meet with sincere, concerned, sensitive counselors. That is the biggest need we have today; it is the best way I can think of to meet the needs of cult members at the most sensitive time of their lives.

The problems with an ambassador to the Vatican.

It has been a long time since the National Council of Churches, Eastern Orthodox church, National Association of Evangelicals, Seventh-day Adventists, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and American Jewish Congress have ever agreed on anything. Yet that agreement is exactly what has happened, for each objected when President Ronald Reagan nominated William A. Wilson as the first U.S. ambassador to the Vatican and sent his name to the Senate for confirmation.

Roots Of The Issue

The issue of a Vatican appointment is not new on the American political scene. In 1848 the United States sent its first diplomatic mission to the papal states, located in what is now central Italy. The mission was never popular, however, and in 1867 Congress withdrew the appointment. A Protestant chapel in Rome had been closed, and threats had been made to close an American Episcopal chapel. Other factors as well, both financial and political, affected the decision.

Then, in 1871, the newly united nation of Italy absorbed the papal states. The pope’s control was limited to a small area, approximately one-sixth of a square mile, with almost no political and civic responsibilities. In 1929 the pope and Mussolini struck a deal called the Lateran Accords, in which Vatican City again became a nation-state with a civil government.

In 1939, at the beginning of World War II in Europe, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent Myron Taylor as his personal representative to the Vatican. He hoped to use the theoretically neutral Vatican as a listening post on European affairs. In spite of protests, Taylor remained there through World War II and on, until 1950.

President Harry Truman then appointed Gen. Mark Clark as ambassador-designate to the Vatican, to begin serving in the fall of 1951. Although the personal representative of Roosevelt had needed no senatorial approval, Clark, as ambassador, required this approval before his appointment could become official.

A cry of outrage went up from Protestants as diverse in their religious views as the National Association of Evangelicals and Methodist Bishop Bromley Oxnam (famous for his misquoted speech, “God is a dirty bully”). Even Harvard Law School professor Mark DeWolfe Howe entered the fray with the charge that the appointment was “clearly unconstitutional.” Americans United for the Separation of Church and State sponsored speaking tours for Paul Blanshard. Congress and the presidency were inundated by letters, telegrams, and phone calls opposing the nomination. Sen. Hubert Humphrey declared, “There has been no single issue that has come to my attention since I have been in public life which has brought forth such a volume of correspondence.” As a result, Clark never became ambassador to the Vatican.

Throughout the presidencies of John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, and Lyndon Johnson the matter lay dormant. Then, in 1970, President Richard Nixon again appointed a personal representative to the pope. Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter carried on the tradition.

Last year, in a move hardly anyone noticed, Congress lifted the ban against official recognition of the Vatican. President Reagan then named California businessman William Wilson as ambassador-designate, and once again the matter became a public issue. The Senate began to consider whether to confirm him.

At the present time, 108 nations have recognized the Vatican. In 1982 Great Britain joined them, reversing a 400-year tradition extending back to Reformation days. The only major nations not recognizing the Vatican are Russia, Poland, China, and Israel.

A Church-State Violation?

The argument against recognition of the Vatican and the sending of an official diplomatic mission has been in two parts, one concerning the Constitution, and the other some practical matters. Based on the American doctrine of separation of church and state, many deem it unconstitutional. The argument is that the Vatican is really a church headquarters. The political state is only a subterfuge to gain added prestige and influence for the religious organization.

The legality of such an appointment as this is indeed delicate, and it may well be placed before the U.S. Supreme Court. It is the high court, according to the Constitution, that has final jurisdiction.

It is true that the Vatican has declared itself a political state. It has most of the paraphernalia of government—taxes, a jail, governmental officials, a sovereign head (the pope), police, and a standing army. It is accepted as a civil state by more than 100 other nations. Yet clearly its primary role is to serve as head of a particular religious denomination. Other functions, though important, are nonetheless subsidiary to its religious functions and serve the Roman Catholic church well.

Still, the American Constitution does not forbid direct support either for religion or for a particular denomination. We provide lunches and health support systems for church-owned schools, and aid churches and clergymen by tax exemptions and housing allowances. The Constitution forbids only the establishment of any religion, and this has been broadly interpreted as ruling out aid to a church because it is a religion. If our government assists a church, it supports it only for its nonreligious services to the American people. And churches do provide moral instruction and significant charitable contributions to our nation.

Some irreligious people or religious groups with no taxable property or special clergy could well feel discriminated against. Yet we defend the fairness of this procedure and its constitutionality on two counts: (1) Such government aid is not given to support religion; (2) It is offered indiscriminately to all groups that provide such services to our people, regardless of their religion or lack of it.

Recognition of the city-state and appointment of a Vatican ambassador, therefore, can be defended on these same grounds. The American government is not discriminating against Protestants, since presumably it would do the same for any denomination that was also structured as a civil government. Its support for the Vatican is not intended to further the Roman Catholic church, though it will undoubtedly do so.

President Reagan, as well as several previous presidents and other advocates for the move, argue that it is in the best interests of the United States. Any advantage that accrues to the Roman Catholic church is incidental.

We conclude that on constitutional grounds the case against recognizing the Vatican and appointing a U.S. ambassador is not very strong.

Why Is This Move A Problem?

Why then have diverse groups joined hands against the appointment of Wilson as ambassador to the Vatican? One strong argument is that the U.S. gains little on the international scene. Another is that the American people may lose by it, and Mr. Reagan may even hurt his political career.

On the international scene, the President’s personal representative, with the assistance of the State Department’s Italian staff, has fully effective diplomatic leverage in everything except purely social protocol. Some legitimately ask what our government gains that it does not already have.

Political relations between Catholics and Protestants have improved immensely over the last decades. Religious hatred and inherited emotional tensions have ebbed significantly. Roman Catholics and Protestant evangelicals have cooperated in social action, in federal and state lobbying for many social issues, and in defending religious and political liberty. Will this appointment polarize feelings and opinions again, and erase some of the recent progress?

If so, it will be unfortunate. Government is not, according to the Constitution, to favor one religious group over another. Yet the appointment is a move of great advantage to one particular denomination. It is a sense of fairness that seems violated. As Jerry Falwell noted, only half in jest, “I told the White House if they give one to the pope, I may ask for one.”

Others are equally convinced that the appointment will create little stir among Protestants and other non-Catholics because perceptions of Catholicism have changed through the years.

The issue has clearly not been as emotionally charged as in the past. Whatever the reason, no ground swell from grassroots America has materialized against the appointment, or is likely to. Reaction has been more on the formal level, from representative organizations.

When the dust has settled, William Wilson will probably be confirmed. Most conservative Christians who would otherwise have voted for Mr. Reagan will still do so, since they believe he is their best hope for the national change they desire. But conservative Christians can stay home on election day, and some may do that.

We wish the matter had not been raised, and that, because of the risks, the appointment had not been made. If the appointment is withdrawn (an unlikely event), we will be relieved. But as matters stand, the Senate is likely to confirm William Wilson.

If this happens, how shall we respond? We must monitor the new ambassador’s service to be sure that he, like any other official, is serving his nation well, without partiality toward the host nation—in this case, the Vatican. In spite of the tension this will cause, he must remember that his loyalty is to the government of the United States, and not to the Vatican or to the Catholic church.

And we as Christians must remember to pray for all officials, even those whose appointment we did not support.

KENNETH S. KANTZER AND V. GILBERT BEERS

The Word Processed

In my mind’s eye I can nearly see Saint John trying to use a computer (the New Logos Processor) to write his Gospel. The machine is up now; John marks his margins and begins.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word …

[Delete “word”—used once in previous phrase. Use “sentence unit” and trip change key. The next eight verses contain repetitions. Go to verse 14.]

In the beginning was the Word, and the sentence unit was made flesh …

[Delete “flesh” change to “protoplasm,” trip change key.]

In the beginning was the Word, and the sentence unit was made protoplasm and dwelt among us, (and we beheld …

[Delete “beheld,” change to “scoped out,” trip change key.]

In the beginning was the Word, and the sentence unit was made protoplasm, and dwelt among us, (and we scoped out his glory …

[BEEP! Does not compute. What is glory? See the cross-merge file. Substitute “indescribable wow.” Depress total construct key.]

In the beginning was the Word, and the sentence unit was made protoplasm and dwelt among us, (and we scoped out his indescribable wow, full of grace and truth …

[BEEP! “Grace” and “truth” are abstract and noncorrelative—activate synonym sync file. Then insert verse 10.]

In the beginning was the Word, and the sentence unit was made protoplasm and dwelt among us, (and we scoped out his indescribable wow, full of undeserved appreciation and integrated trust). He was in the world …

[BEEP! BEEP! Be explicit. Say which world; type “Sagan” on left keyboard and read display monitor.]

In the beginning was the Word, and the sentence unit was made protoplasm, and dwelt among us, (and we scoped out his indescribable wow, full of undeserved appreciation and integrated trust). He was on the third planet out from the sun, which was made by him …

[Incorrect! Depress “Sagan” key again, and watch right unit. Information incorrect. World was not made; say evolved. Interchange discs; material will copy correctly.]

In the beginning was the Word, and the sentence unit was made protoplasm, and dwelt among us, (and we scoped out his indescribable wow, full of undeserved appreciation and integrated trust). He was on the third planet out from the sun, which evolved, but the world knew him not … OH, FORGET IT!

[Attitude incorrect. Type “Wayne Dyer” on unit two, using disc one.…

EUTYCHUS

Church Music—Worship or Entertainment?

What is the role of music [Ministries, Jan. 13]? You have used all the right words, but may I add something? The “tension between the concept of music as ‘worship’ and as ‘entertainment’” is unfortunate, but probably unavoidable. We are going to lead some into the Holy of Holies with the music we offer up; some will be merely entertained. Bob Mumford speaks of the “truth in tension” in the Word of God. A truth will always be balanced by another truth, seemingly contradictory. Those who read the life of Jesus will observe a certain seeming contradictoriness, which is only apparent. He was responding to his Father, and the inconsistency was only there for those viewing his actions through Pharisaical eyes, blinded by “the Law.” If some in the congregation are being “merely entertained,” don’t worry about it. The music offered in a true spirit of evangelism and worship is for them also. Jesus instructed people all along his path without expecting all to follow him. Some followed more closely than others, even among his twelve disciples. Some in the congregation will not get as close to the Holy of Holies as others. We must expect this.

The key is that the music minister offer good music in the right spirit and not attempt merely to entertain. The Holy Spirit will take care of the rest.

REV. GENE M. LACY

River of Life Church

Houston, Tex.

Come On!

Regarding Bob Dylan [News, Jan. 13]: If he decides not to be a part of the mass evangelism effort at the Olympics, must that cast doubt on his faith? Come on! I seem to remember something about Saint Paul laying low in Arabia before moving on to ministry and evangelism. It seems to me we show a lack of sensitivity when we put people like Dylan under the microscope.

REV. THOMAS A. SONLEY

Mt. Lebanon United Presbyterian Church

Pittsburgh, Pa.

The end of the article has sound and important advice given by Paul Emond. He advises the church, more or less, to stop gossiping. I fear this advice will be missed due to the article’s controversial subject matter, or simply not heeded. It has been said that Christians are the only people who kill their wounded. While this is not entirely true, a quick glance will reveal that the statement has some truth. Why would anyone make such a comment if there was not some reason? Too often we expect Christians in the limelight to fit our own ideal of how a “good” Christian should act. When he or she does not live up to our standards, immediately we begin to gossip—we take aim and stab in the back. Let us first take the logs out of our own eyes; let us not promote speculations. Rather, let us be the “shelter from the storm” we should be.

MARK S. BEATTY

Philadelphia, Pa.

Wrong Title?

Your article, “Why We Can’t Always Trust the News Media,” [Jan. 13] should be headed, “Why We Should Seldom (If Ever) Trust the News Media!” As a former working newsman, I see a 180-degree shift in reporting attitudes and ethics. Traditionally, news writers were indoctrinated with the importance of impartiality and objectivity. Now the standard seems to be “as I see it”—and often written by the deliberately blind and prejudiced!

On their own admission, media men are now arrogating to themselves the right and authority to mold public opinion. And their standard is one of personal prejudice, limited observation, inadequate research, and slanted reporting.

REV. DONALD E. HOKE

Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church

Knoxville, Tenn.

Your article about the media, Amnesty International, and Guatemala hits the nail squarely on the head. It is time for churchmen and -women to demand accountability as well as “coverage” of far-off corners of the world by the news media.

REV. G. D. WIEBE

Hayward, Calif.

“Fads, Fads, Fads”

“Fads, fads, fads” is about all the Episcopal church has been pursuing for the last two decades-plus [News, Jan. 13]. In my mind, jumping on this latest bandwagon is one of the most dangerous. Protestantism basically directs everyone to read the Holy Scriptures and then form his or her personal opinion as to what the Scriptures say; the logical end of this process can be nothing more than chaos amplified. The “Spirit-filled” movement is one of the same illogical ilk and reminds me of the New Yorker cartoon some years ago depicting two monks walking in the cloister, with the caption: “But I am holier than thou!”

The Episcopal church has suffered much during the past 20 years because it has not held to its true heritage of a solid, reformed Catholic faith; the contemporary emphasis in the Episcopal church on being “Spirit-filled” will not lead to lasting growth in numbers, the exaltation and preservation of the historic Christian faith, or to the greater glory of the Triune Godhead.

REV. GERALD L. CLAUDIUS

St. John’s Episcopal Church

Kansas City, Mo.

Sports Versus the Lord’s Day

Here’s hoping the “demigods” of America’s now-popular religion, sports, come up with their own Lord’s Day. Surely they must miss ours [News, Jan. 13].

MRS. ROBERT W. TEAGUE

York, Penn.

Your article ignores the fundamental inconsistency between profession of Christ as King and participation in a sport that weekly distracts millions from devoting the Lord’s Day to worshiping God. As long as these athletes continue to play on the Lord’s Day, they proclaim football—not Christ—as king.

D. LEE BARCLAY

Seattle, Wash.

Orwell’s 1984

The coverage of Orwell’s 1984 [Jan. 13] might do more for us Christians than most of the sermons that encourage us to be satisfied with today’s churches.

Religious freedom is the opiate of the cults—including those of Satan—for in the eyes of the world it gives them equal time and equal status with Jesus Christ. There can be no Holy Spirit—led believer—in Christ—who can accept such a glaring contradiction of the teaching of Holy Scripture. Religion must be replaced with the true church or face apostasy by the world.

How many of us today are crying peace and revival in a nation that caters to any religion—good or bad—that is free to practice slavery and imprisonment of those kept in spiritual darkness and who will remain ill-equipped to overcome, much less discern, the true enemy?

Are humankind’s institutions of “religious freedom” a substitute for Jesus Christ? Even so, Lord Jesus, come.

JOHN MCINTIRE

Bradenton, Fla.

Stafford’s concise and accessible presentation of the pivotal concerns that molded Orwell’s thought and world view brought about some serious reflection as Orwell’s insight was juxtaposed with present reality. Though being appreciative, several flaws should receive some attention.

To put Orwell in the same hall of fame with the Old Testament prophets is to reduce prophecy to mere sociology and applaud the merits of Orwell’s insight with extravagant hyperbole. It seems that Christians can acknowledge one’s contribution to this world without having to make that individual out to be a “cryptic-Christian.”

Among the younger contributors to CT’S articles there seems to be a marked bias against “conservative” remedies or answers when the topic of social evil is introduced. An example of this hidden bias is Stafford’s connection of the Reagan administration’s peace through strength policy (specifically calling missiles “Peacemakers”), and the Orwellian concept of Doublethink. My concern is not that Stafford accept this policy but that serious subjects receive the attention they deserve. Therefore, if Alexander Solzhenitsyn is willing to entertain such a position as peace through strength (cf. National Review, Dec. 9, 1983), then it would seem befitting of solid journalism not to trivialize issues with back-handed innuendo.

REV. DAVID K. WEBER

Trinity Inter-Parish School

Billings, Mont.