Page 5221 – Christianity Today (2024)

Religious conviction is “one of the most important potential forces for reconciliation across racial lines in a postapartheid South Africa,” according to a report issued by the U.S. Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on South Africa. Three Christian leaders served on the committee: Christian College Coalition president John R. Dellenback, Georgetown University president Timothy S. Healy, and Philadelphia pastor Leon H. Sullivan.

In the report, the Reagan administration’s policy of “constructive engagement” toward South Africa meets sharp criticism. And the report issues an urgent call for direct negotiations between ruling whites and the nation’s majority, which has no national political representation. The removal of apartheid and an end to exclusive white rule “is of paramount importance and must be the first priority,” the report states.

The advisory committee was appointed in 1985 to examine U.S. policy toward South Africa and recommend alternatives to promote peaceful change and equal rights there. The conclusions of its members reflect considerable ambivalence about U.S. imposed sanctions against South Africa.

Sullivan, a Baptist pastor who developed a series of fair-employment guidelines for use in South Africa, criticized the report for failing “to deal sufficiently with the continuing intransigence of the South African government to dismantle the apartheid system.” Sullivan suggested a withdrawal of all U.S. companies and a total U.S. embargo against South Africa if apartheid is not abolished by statute when the current U.S. sanctions come up for review. But he wrote in his dissent, “I commend and support the general thrust of the Advisory Committee’s report.”

Three other committee members, including Dellenback of the Christian College Coalition, endorsed the report’s assessment of U.S. policy objectives but disagreed with its recommendations, which rely on the continued use of sanctions. In a separate dissent, the three committee members suggested alternatives, including a recommendation that the United States organize “an ambitious and comprehensive relief and development program.”

Constructive Engagement

According to the advisory committee report, President Reagan’s policy of constructive engagement “has failed to achieve its objectives.” That policy, developed in 1981, consisted of two concepts: to build bargaining power through educational and training assistance programs; and to tone down public criticism of apartheid while communicating U.S. interest in change in South Africa through private, official channels.

Despite U.S. overtures, according to the report, South Africa has grown more repressive.

“Inside South Africa, government repression has intensified and a nationwide state of emergency has been put in place,” the report states. “Far-reaching media restrictions have been imposed. Thousands have been detained.”

Backers of constructive engagement object to taking a stronger stand against the South African government, citing that country’s important mineral exports and the threat of Communist influence. They compare the apartheid system with the United States’ past record of denying civil rights to blacks.

In response, the advisory committee acknowledged that the U.S. supply of chromium, manganese, and platinum—used for defense purposes—comes largely from South Africa. It also noted that a cutoff of these minerals could require the United States to increase its imports from the Soviet Union. But the report concludes that “the potential impact of such a denial [of mineral exports] is not sufficient cause to determine U.S. policy toward South Africa.”

Concerns about Soviet influence in South African opposition groups are misplaced as well, the report suggests. On the other hand, it points out that “the Soviets do stand to gain considerably … if a protracted conflict in South Africa embitters that country’s majority against the West.”

Finally, comparisons between South Africa’s apartheid system and the United States’ own civil rights struggle neglect a crucial difference, the report states. “The conflict over civil rights in the United States took place within a constitutional framework entirely absent in South Africa.”

The Church’s Role

A new U.S. policy toward South Africa, outlined in the report, would emphasize negotiations, U.S. assistance for development and education, and—if South Africa “remains intransigent”—additional sanctions such as a multilateral trade embargo. Once apartheid is dismantled, South Africa will need sustained support and assistance to build a democratic society. Toward this end, the report states, “Christian churches within South Africa and the rest of the world have a large role to play in overcoming the widening chasms of hatred, fear, and violence.”

The advisory committee recommends that U.S. churches “reach out to their sister churches and church members in South Africa with tangible offers of assistance.” The committee notes that more than 90 percent of whites and 75 percent ofs in South Africa are “church-going Christians.”

No one knows how much influence the report will have on U.S. policy. But according to a State Department source, “There is no doubt the Administration is taking it seriously.”

A 28-member commission representing the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches says it has resolved a disagreement over the meaning of salvation—one of the major disputes that brought about the Protestant Reformation.

The Second Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission says Anglicans and Catholics no longer have any substantial disagreement on the question of how personal salvation is achieved. “We believe that our two communions are agreed on the essential aspects of the doctrine of salvation and on the church’s role within it,” the commission stated in a document titled “Salvation and the Church.”

The commission produced the 28-page document after three years of study and dialogue. It is not an authoritative declaration of either the Roman Catholic church or the Anglican communion, but it will be presented to the two churches for study and evaluation.

The document “represents a very important watershed of ecumenical agreement between two major branches of Western Christianity,” said Kortright Davis, associate professor of theology at Howard University Divinity School and a member of the Anglican delegation. Davis said the historic doctrinal disagreement found Catholics holding that salvation was brought about through cooperation between God and humanity. Protestant Reformers took the opposite view—that salvation was by God’s grace alone through faith.

The recent Anglican-Catholic agreement makes clear that “salvation is from beginning to end God’s activity,” Davis explained. “… The notion of [human] merit has been transformed so that it is no longer merit that is at issue, but the response of faith. The response of faith is the greatest point [of agreement reached in the document].”

Jeffrey Gros, a leading Catholic ecumenist, said the document “will help Catholics to recognize the deep faith of the Anglican communion relative to the grace of God, and [will] help Anglicans understand the evangelical character of the Catholic faith at its best.”

The Anglican-Catholic dialogue is aimed at eventually bringing each church to the point of fully accepting the other’s sacraments and ministries. As a result of the dialogue, Davis said, people in local churches can realize “the faith they are confessing in their liturgies and the creeds which guide them in their own spirituality are seen to be in no way different from the creeds and other confessions of faith which are used in their counterpart churches.” Added Gros: “[The document on salvation] confirms what we’ve begun to learn about each other’s faith in the gospel and how similar it is.”

The Anglican-Catholic commission was set up in 1982 by Pope John Paul II and Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie. The next phase of the international dialogue, to begin in September, will take up a more divisive question for the two church traditions: the role of women in the ordained ministry.

By Religious News Service.

If Floyd H. Flake had faced a choice between running for Congress and keeping his pastorate, he says the decision would have been easy: he would not have run for office. As it turned out, the Methodist clergyman was elected last November to the U.S. House of Representatives. Yet he continues to pastor the 4,000-member Allen A.M.E. Church in Jamaica, New York. A Democrat, Flake represents a community in Queens. He spoke with CHRISTIANITY TODAY about his legislative goals and the challenge of combining ministry with elective office.

When you decided to run for office, did you plan to keep your pastorate?

Absolutely. The church members supported my congressional campaign in large measure because they knew my commitment was to remain there. Clearly, if it had been a choice between Congress or the pulpit, I would not have run.

Why did you run for Congress?

Former U.S. Rep. Joseph Addabbo (D-N.Y.) had served the district for 26 years. During the last couple of terms, the district turned predominantly. When Addabbo died, the community wanted to elect a different kind of leader. So a number of clergy and community leaders met with me. My wife and I had to do a lot of serious praying to determine if this was the leading of the Lord. We resolved that if it was his will it would happen; and if not, it wouldn’t.

Obviously the Lord was with us, because after a special election in June 1986 to fill Addabbo’s seat, we had to go through a court test. [Flake lost the special election and challenged the outcome in court because his name was omitted from absentee ballots. He lost in court, but the case rallied supporters.] People galvanized around my candidacy, and ministers got their people involved. By the time of the primary in September, we had a large organization that was built primarily around the church. We would not have had that if it had not been for the court procedure. The Lord was testing our faith and hope—all the things I preach about.

Do your priorities as a congressman relate to the programs your church is pursuing?

My church runs six programs: an apartment complex; a 487-student school; rehabilitated stores; a women’s resource center for victims of abuse; a feeding program for 200 senior citizens; and a home-care program for senior citizens. In Congress, I serve on committees concerned with small business and urban affairs. I feel it is important to make the kinds of things my church is doing happen on a much larger scale. Urban America, which has become predominantly, is experiencing deterioration and blight that is similar to what I inherited in my district.

How did your church initiate its community-development programs?

We use two concepts that are tied together: the biblical concept of tithing and the American corporate concept of buying stock in major corporations. They both say the same thing: If the people will put their small contributions together, it will create a reservoir capable of meeting most of the needs of the people.

We began to educate people about tithing, so that in a ten-year period we went from $250,000 a year to $1.5 million a year in offerings. Approximately one-third of that money goes back into the community. We buy land, abandoned buildings, and homes that are boarded up. We started our own construction and rehabilitation company to repair the homes. Then we go to the state mortgage agency, which makes low-interest loans available to couples who could not otherwise afford homes.

We rehabilitate businesses as well. We are fixing up a building that used to house a gambling operation. The result is that people are able to work and worship in a safe environment, because the churches own all the land and the drug dealing has been removed.

How do you view the political agenda being pursued by many white evangelical Christians?

The church views it with some degree of concern. The posturing of white evangelicals, for the most part, is so one-dimensional. It does not leave enough freedom to address the basic human needs and concerns that the church has traditionally addressed, including the poor, people who are victims of social injustice, and people who have suffered as a result of inadequate education. The fundamentalist approach to politics limits itself, and it almost takes a line that is status quo. I see it as more of a support system for the conservative element that currently runs the government than a system that tries to advocate for the common good of all the people of God.

One of the problems facing urban America is teen pregnancy. How should that problem be addressed, and what is your position on abortion?

I believe the point of conception is the beginning of life. I base my position on the biblical concept of the Lord as Creator. We must believe that which he creates—at whatever stage, whether we can see it or not—is his creation. We don’t have the right to determine that that life should not live.

Regarding teen pregnancy, there is no question that the social and environmental issues have to be addressed. There is boredom and apathy on the part of teenagers, because in many parts of our community education is not taking place. Teenagers look for options, and they are attracted to the feeling of manhood and womanhood that derives from having made a baby. The young man brags about having made a baby; the young lady has a number of babies, and she feels she is a woman now. It is a sad spiritual state. And that spiritual state is in large measure affected by environmental and social conditions in which they live.

Did you feel any conflict between your call to ordained ministry and your decision to run for Congress?

No. The first congressman was Hiram R. Revels (elected in 1870), a preacher from my own denomination. For us the distance between the sacred and the profane is shorter than that distance is in white America, because most of the leadership in the community has come from the church. We grow up with the feeling that if there is going to be positive involvement in the political process, for the most part the leadership has to come from the church. When Martin Luther King, Jr., organized preachers, that was the initial impetus in the whole movement.

Will you continue to preach on Sunday mornings?

I intend on doing that every Sunday. All this other stuff is good, but preaching is what I really love doing.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed for a second time to evaluate whether a state law that calls for a moment of silence in public schools meets constitutional prohibitions against state-established religion. The new case, Karcher v. May, involves a 1982 New Jersey statute. It will be argued before the Court during its next term, which begins in October.

Clarifying Its Stance

In 1985, the Court struck down a similar statute in Alabama (CT, July 12, 1985, p. 52). Some observers say the new case will give the high court an opportunity to clarify its stance on silent, voluntary prayer in public schools.

There is a crucial difference between the two moment-of-silence laws. The Alabama statute authorized a daily moment of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer.” In contrast, the New Jersey law says the designated one-minute period is “to be used solely at the discretion of the individual student.” It makes no mention of prayer or any other activity appropriate to a moment of silence.

However, after the New Jersey law was passed and several school districts introduced a minute of silence, it was challenged in court. Jeffrey May, a high school teacher who describes himself as an agnostic, charged that the moment of silence was a form of prayer in which he could not participate.

A New Jersey District Court found that the law did not expressly mandate prayer, but it nonetheless issued a restraining order that prevented schools from observing a minute of silence. In its ruling, the state court cited “improper legislative intent,” saying the elected officials who passed the law intended to reintroduce prayer into public schools. This meant the law did not pass a three-part test that courts use in determining whether a law is constitutional.

According to the “Lemon test,” named for a 1971 Supreme Court ruling, a state statute must have a secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not excessively entangle church and state. The New Jersey court ruled that the 1982 moment-of-silence law failed the “purpose” qualification of the test, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed. Alan J. Karcher, speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly, appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

The New Jersey legislature opted out of the case, so Karcher is pursuing it on his own. For that reason, attorneys for the plaintiff are expected to argue that Karcher has no legal standing to appeal the ruling. But because the Court agreed to hear the case, the justices are expected to examine the issues involved.

Refining the Three-Part Test

When the high court struck down Alabama’s moment-of-silence law in a ruling known as Wallace v. Jaffree, the justices found that the law’s wording constituted a state “endorsem*nt” of prayer.

Three justices dissented, including current Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. He argued that the three-part Lemon test should be scrapped, and attention should be paid instead to the intent of the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution. He said the notion that a state legislature should not endorse prayer would come as “a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights.”

The problem with the Lemon test, Rehnquist said in Wallace v. Jaffree, is that “its secular purpose prong has proven mercurial in application because it has never been fully defined.” In the New Jersey district court’s ruling, the Lemon precedent was stretched to cover legislative intent, even though the law in question is worded in completely neutral terms.

According to briefs filed in behalf of the New Jersey law, the district court expanded the meaning of the purpose test to say the state needed to have an “overwhelmingly obvious and important secular purpose.” The brief says the district court “engaged in a wholly unprecedented inquiry into the alleged subjective motivation of some legislators” when they enacted the moment-of-silence law.

Whether the Lemon test works or not, it remains “the only coherent test a majority of this court has ever adopted,” observed Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell. Lemon has been applied in all but two cases involving the First Amendment’s establishment clause since the three-prong test was developed. It is likely the Supreme Court will explore and further refine the test’s application as it considers New Jersey’s moment-of-silence law.

Christian Legal Society staff attorney Mike Paulsen plans to submit a friend-of-the-court brief favoring the New Jersey law. He said the Supreme Court’s 1985 ruling against the Alabama law strongly suggested that other, more neutral moment-of-silence provisions fall within the boundaries of what is considered constitutional.

As Hong Kong prepares to sever its British colonial ties ten years from now, ethnic Chinese churches in Canada, a British Commonwealth country, are preparing to receive thousands of newcomers. Many Hong Kong residents have already left the colony, choosing not to live under eventual Chinese political control.

Canada is home to more than 250 Chinese churches, many of which are already experiencing rapid growth in membership and participation. The growth is due both to the influx of Cantonese-speaking immigrants and the churches’ energetic evangelistic efforts. Most of the growth is taking place in Vancouver and Toronto, where Chinese communities form close to 10 percent of the local populations.

Immigrants in the Mainstream

Vancouver is the arrival point for immigrants from Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Singapore. However, many of the newcomers move to Toronto, especially if they want to develop ties with New York and Europe, says Enoch Wan, an anthropologist and clergyman working with the Centre for Chinese Studies at Canadian Theological College.

Chinese immigrants have tended to settle in Canada’s major cities, where Chinese communities have existed for 100 years. The immigrants have entered the mainstream of Canadian business and professional life. And for many, it was the church that helped them make the transition into a Western society without losing many of their former cultural values.

Chinese churches form energetic centers of activity in their communities. As Chinese populations predominate in some older middle-class neighborhoods in Toronto and Vancouver, Chinese congregations often purchase the buildings formerly occupied by white churches whose members have moved to suburbia.

The Toronto Chinese Baptist Church, the fastest-growing Chinese congregation in Canada, took over a former Pentecostal church building. It has a membership of 1,100 and has started nine churches in the past 20 years. Vancouver’s Evangelical Chinese Bible Church, a Mandarin-speaking congregation, bought a 600-seat Baptist church eight years ago and is already looking for larger quarters.

Evangelism and the Need to Network

An emphasis on evangelism has contributed significantly to the growth of Canada’s Chinese congregations. With many Hong Kong residents coming to Canada as students, Chinese Christian Fellowship chapters have drawn hundreds of college students to Christ and laid the groundwork for Christian homes and churches.

Leaders in churches like Toronto Chinese Baptist and Vancouver’s Chinese Presbyterian say evangelism and other community outreach programs attract new families to the churches. The Presbyterian group reaches many young families through a Chinese preschool program and Saturday language classes in Cantonese.

At Toronto Chinese Baptist Church, outreach is enhanced by dividing the congregation into small groups based on age and general interest, says senior minister Andrew Wong. With the traditional Chinese respect for the extended family, increased participation in Sunday worship grows out of the initiative generated in the small groups.

Paul King, of the Centre for Chinese Studies, points to the Chinese interest in “networking” as a strength of their churches. “Relationships, more than function,” he says, “have meaning for Chinese people.”

John Sun, of Vancouver’s Evangelical Chinese Bible Church, approaches networking from another perspective. Since most Vancouver Chinese churches speak Cantonese, he has built a Mandarin congregation. Few of his church members come from Hong Kong and, in fact, the church’s make-up provides links to mainland China through family connections. Sun says some people who have become Christians while studying or living in Vancouver have been able to take their Christian witness back into China.

Are we witnessing a “quiet revolution” in Christian broadcasting? According to the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), the answer is yes.

NRB Executive Director Ben Armstrong says some 200 new Christian radio stations were started last year. (Some of that growth, he says, is attributable to better record keeping.) And television stations with religious programming have increased by 71 percent in the last five years.

With this numerical growth, Christian broadcasters expect the electronic media to play an even greater role in fulfilling the Great Commission. Writing in Religious Broadcasting magazine, popular television evangelist Jimmy Swaggart said: “The tools [for world evangelization] are varied and many, including, of course, the missionaries.… However, the greatest propagation tool of all, that which will catapult ‘the witness,’ will be television.”

But ministry is not the only motivation for the growth of religious broadcasting. While non-Christian ownership of stations with religious formats is not new, some say it, too, is a growing phenomenon.

Martin Hamstra, owner of four religiously oriented radio stations in Washington State, estimates that of the 1,370 stations cited in the NRB directory, as many as 60 are owned by non-Christians, most of them among the newer stations. Said Hamstra, “Christians are an identifiable demographic constituency. Ad agencies find this appealing. In short, there’s money to be made in broadcasting to Christians.”

Financial Accountability

Those who buy program time on Christian radio and television stations are also attracted by the lure of money—in the form of donations. And critics frequently question some of the tactics used by religious broadcasters to bring in contributions.

The public image of Christian broadcasters has taken a beating recently. Last year, television faith healer Peter Popoff was exposed for using a hidden radio receiver to obtain information he claimed to be receiving from the Holy Spirit. And earlier this year, Oral Roberts made headlines by telling donors God would call him home if Roberts failed to meet his financial goal for a missions project (CT, Feb. 20, 1987, p. 43).

NRB’S Armstrong said the controversy over Roberts, who is not an NRB member, had nothing to do with his organization’s formation of an ethics commission to monitor the financial activities of its members, NRB’S Ethics and Financial Integrity Commission (EFICOM) is scheduled to begin functioning this summer.

Generally, the proposed NRB guidelines are not as strict as those of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), which require public disclosure of financial statements. Current EFICOM proposals call for members to submit financial statements to the commission, which will keep them confidential.

Armstrong noted, however, that the NRB proposals are not in final form. “People should wait and see how the guidelines come out, instead of attacking them prematurely,” he said. “They might end up being stricter [than ECFA’S].”

Armstrong added that comparisons with ECFA are unjustified, “ECFA exists for a generalized field of people. Our members wanted something for religious broadcasters. Bankers, lawyers, hospitals, and schools have self-regulatory agencies. This is our attempt to do the same thing. We’re sensing we’ve been a little remiss in our responsibilities.”

ECFA Executive Director Arthur Borden expressed concern about possible confusion over the existence of two sets of standards for similar constituencies. However, Borden said he was pleased the NRB is “recognizing the need for better financial responsibility,” adding that he hopes “every NRB member will go beyond the [proposed] NRB standards to meet our tougher standards.”

Broadcasting’s Mission

Concerns about financial accountability have been raised in the context of a continuing debate about the place of religious broadcasting in the church’s mission. Armstrong and other supporters of religious broadcasting, basing their views on the 1984 Annenberg-Gallup study on religion and television, say religious broadcasting does not compete with the local church.

The Annenberg study established that people who contribute financially to television ministries also contribute to a local church. However, the study did not specify whether those same people would contribute more money to a church if they were not contributing to a television ministry. Thus analysts still debate the study’s conclusions.

Quentin Schultze, professor of communications at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and an analyst of Christian broadcasting, says religious broadcasting may affect the local church in ways more important than financial. He is concerned about how the message and style of television religion, for example, “may be molding public perception of the nature of faith and organized religion.”

“A lot of people assume that media technologies will evangelize the world,” Schultze added. “I’m concerned that some [Christians] have come to depend on television preachers, instead of talking to a neighbor about Christ.”

According to Charles Arn of the Institute for American Church Growth, surveys consistently indicate that approximately 80 percent of those active in the church came because of the influence of a friend or relative, as contrasted to fewer than 1 percent who come as a result of mass evangelism (crusades and media).

Arn said he considers the term “television evangelist” a misnomer. “If these people are leading others to Christ, they’re not showing up in churches. The bottom line is not making decisions, but making disciples.” He said the local church is best suited to this task.

Theological Content

Still another concern is the theological content of the electronic church’s collective message. This is important in part because televised religious programs provide the only basis by which many believers in other parts of the world judge American Christianity.

James Engel, a pioneer in audience research designed to assist world evangelization, said he is concerned about that message’s “biblical fidelity, especially where a ‘health-and-wealth’ gospel is preached.” He called the health-and-wealth gospel “one of the great heresies of our time. It’s spreading like wildfire around the world, [and] it’s of great concern to missiologists.”

It would be a mistake to allow criticisms of religious broadcasting to overshadow its strategic role as an important source of education, inspiration, and comfort. Still, questions remain over whether the industry’s growth has exceeded its level of maturity.

Toward Ethical Fund Raising

A few years ago, Calvin College communications professor Quentin Schultze sent letters to 100 major radio and television ministries in the United States and Canada, requesting financial and doctrinal statements.

As a result, his name was placed on a number of mailing lists. Schultze reports receiving “a foam-rubber hospital slipper, numerous pennies, facial soap, and twigs from the Holy Land,” among other items. But he got only nine financial statements, and fewer statements of doctrine.

Organizations that do not respond to requests for financial statements violate one of the “Seven Standards of Responsible Stewardship,” as set forth by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA). This does not mean the ministry is not reputable. But requiring a response to those who ask for financial statements is one way to objectify the process of evaluating fund-raising practices.

Mark Lau Branson, a former fund-raising adviser who now works with an urban ministry, urges Christian organizations to ask themselves: “Am I fearful of donors receiving more complete information than I have provided in fund-raising materials?” Those with nothing to hide, he said, have no such fears.

“Unfortunately, some donors think it’s none of their business to ask questions,” laments ECFA Executive Director Arthur Borden. “We’re trying to make donors aware of their responsibility to know how their money is being used.”

As a general rule, says Schultze, ministries built on man-centered theologies, emphasizing “what man can receive from God, take the greatest ethical liberty.” In contrast, he adds, ministries stressing God-centered theologies make appeals to potential contributors based on information rather than empty emotion.

By Randy Frame.

The most important word in the Bible

Some years ago Elton Trueblood asked me, “Do you know what the most important word in the Bible is?” Being a spiritual type, I naturally thought of words like “justification,” “atonement,” and “salvation.”

“You’re on the wrong track,” he said. “The greatest word is and. For example, you read, ‘Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old,’ ” (Matt. 13:52).

“Renewal,” Dr. Trueblood told me, “always involves both the new and the old.”

—Bruce Larson in The Power to Make Things New

The minister never knows

A minister often thinks he is most effective for God in the pulpit on that Sunday morning when he is preaching an eloquent sermon after hours of preparation. But between the nine and eleven o’clock services when he is in the process of going from one service to another—trying to relax a moment—someone urgently grabs his arm and says, “The superintendent of the children’s department didn’t come this morning!” … He goes in and shares informally something … never knowing as he rushes out to the next service that the mind of a little visitor on the back row was struck by his impromptu words, and offered itself to God. Perhaps a great Christian life has been conceived—and the minister never knows.

—Keith Miller in The Taste of New Wine

Discipleship equals joy

If we answer the call to discipleship, where will it lead us? What decisions and partings will it demand? To answer this question we shall have to go to Him, for only He knows the answer. Only Jesus Christ who bids us follow Him, knows the journey’s end. But we do know that it will be a road of boundless mercy. Discipleship means joy.

—Dietrich Bonhoeffer in The Cost of Discipleship

Unequal status

The moment men begin to care more for education than for religion they begin to care more for ambition than for education. It is no longer a world in which the souls of all are equal before heaven, but a world in which the mind of each is bent on achieving unequal advantage over the other.

—G. K. Chesterton in The Quotable Chesterton

Testing God

Prayer, coupled with loving obedience, is the way to put God to the test and to make prayer answer all ends and all things.

—E. M. Bounds in The Best of E. M. Bounds on Prayer

Putting gadgets before God

I have observed that when any of us embarks on the pursuit of happiness for ourselves, it eludes us. Often I’ve asked myself why. It must be because happiness comes to us only as a dividend. When we become absorbed in something demanding and worthwhile above and beyond ourselves, happiness seems to be there as a by-product of the self-giving.

That should not be a startling truth, yet I’m surprised at how few people understand and accept it. Have we made a god of happiness? Have we been brainwashed by ads assuring us “Happiness is …”—usually a big, shiny, new gadget?

—Catherine Marshall in A Closer Walk

The “Novel” Church

All church services have this wonderful element: People with other things to do get up on a Sunday morning, put on good clothes and assemble out of nothing but faith—some vague yen toward something larger. Simply as a human gathering I find it moving, reassuring and even inspiring. A church is a little like a novel in that both are saying there’s something very important about being human.

—John Updike, in U.S. News & World Report (Oct. 20, 1986)

The wrath of God, divine judgment, and hell—these words sound a harsh and anachronistic ring in the ears of today’s world. The trend in our global community is to include rather than isolate, thus the dreadful doctrine of eternal punishment set forth and defended by Roger Nicole, David Wells, and Neal Punt is unbearable. And Clark Pinnock’s description of annihilationism is hardly more inviting. Surely God must have designed some plan to save every human being from this awful fate. That, of course, is the hope offered by universalism.

Nicole and Wells speak from a traditional Calvinistic framework, while Neal Punt adheres to a universal atonement and universal application of divine forgiveness—except for those who refuse to believe in Jesus Christ. All three, however (along with Pinnock), clearly reject the view that all will be saved.

Hope-So Universalism

I wish they were wrong. I wish I could say that God is too loving, too kind, and too generous to condemn any soul to eternal punishment. I would like to believe that hell can only be the anteroom to heaven, a temporary and frightful discipline to bring the unregenerate to final moral perfection.

Quite frankly, I struggle with these questions. How can I be happy in heaven if I know some dark corner of the universe contains living human beings who are consciously suffering eternal torment? For that matter, how can I be happy in heaven if I know God had erased from existence—annihilated—my own dearly beloved son or daughter. My emotions shout, “No, it can’t be!”

Yet two thousand years ago, the apostle Paul had exactly the same feeling when he said, “I would gladly be damned if by my damnation Jews could be brought into fellowship eternally with God.” It is not surprising that mankind is repulsed by the thought of eternal punishment. According to the Bible, God himself, in the depths of his being, wishes that no one should ever perish, but that all might come to repentance, faith, and the good life of heaven. It is natural to wish salvation for everyone.

But all of this wishful speculation, if not quite beside the point, is surely not decisive. The structure of reality cannot be clawed out of the web of human wishes.

What, then, happens to those who reject Christ? I have read the speculations of Schleiermacher, Bultmann, Tillich, Brunner, Barth, and Moltmann, to say nothing of Plato, Kant, Hume, Feuerbach, Lenin, and Bertrand Russell. All offer logical explanations used to discredit the notion of eternal punishment. But the human mind, through rational argument, cannot penetrate the fragmentary data and arrive at conclusions about the nature of life after death. On this all-important topic we have only two alternatives—dismal, helpless ignorance, or divine revelation.

Bad and Good News

Unfortunately, the biblical answer does not satisfy our wishful sentiments. It is a hard and crushing word, devastating to human hope and pride: “And he [God] shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.… Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.… And these shall go away into everlasting punishment” (Matt. 25:33ff.).

This is our Lord speaking.

Other parts of Scripture convey the same solemn message. Christ is the eternal Judge who will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Gehenna, hell, is described as everlasting punishment, everlasting fire, the fire that shall never be quenched, everlasting flames, eternal fire, and so on. That awful word appears 12 times in the New Testament; 11 of those references come from the lips of our Savior.

So while I am deeply impressed by the arguments of brilliant thinkers like Schleiermacher, Tillich, and others, I prefer our Lord’s words to theirs. Those who acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord cannot escape the clear, unambiguous language with which he warns of the awful truth of eternal punishment. No universalism, no annihilationism, no probation in the hereafter satisfies his word. The awful stark destiny of man is this: The soul that rebels against God and chooses to remain unrepentant throughout this life will separate himself from the kingdom of God.

Fortunately, the gospel is not the terrible news that some will be lost forever. Instead, it is good news, and it is for all people. Jesus Christ is able and eager to save all men everywhere, whoever they may be, wherever they have wandered, and however drastically they are bowed down by sin.

Our understanding of salvation depends on which of the following two assumptions we work with: (a) all persons are outside of Christ (i.e., “lost,” “condemned”) except those whom the Bible expressly declares will be saved (Thus, Rom. 1:18–3:20 and parallel passages become the starting point—prolegomenon—for structuring the doctrine of salvation); or (b) all persons are elect in Christ (i.e., “saved,” “justified”) except those whom the Bible expressly declares will be finally lost.

Throughout the centuries, the first premise has dominated Christian thinking. The biblical doctrine of original sin—the belief that all persons, except Jesus Christ, are children of wrath by nature, inclined to do evil, and deserving of eternal death—led many to the conclusion that all persons are outside of Christ except those whom the Bible expressly declares will be saved.

This perspective continued because its only challenge came from absolute universalists (those who teach that all persons will be saved). The church instinctively knew that such was not the overall message of Scripture, and summarily rejected that teaching (and rightly so).

Absolute universalism cannot be an option for those who acknowledge the authority of Scripture. However, in our dismissal of universalism, we have closed our eyes to the fact that many verses in the Bible speak of salvation in terms of all persons. These universalistic texts cannot be so easily ignored. Failure to acknowledge them hinders our ability to understand the good news. And yet, how do we reconcile God’s judgment with texts that imply universal salvation?

A New Starting Point

Three facts help resolve that problem: (1) the “universalistic” texts speak of actual salvation and they do so in relationship to all men; (2) some persons will be lost; and, (3) those who will be lost are those and only those who, in addition to their sin in Adam, finally persist in refusing to have God in their knowledge.

These biblical givens can be held in a tension-filled unity by recognizing that the so-called universalistic texts are not universals, but are generalizations. That is, they are universal statements that have known exceptions. In this case, we can best account for these assumptions by acknowledging the overall message of salvation as indicating all persons will be saved except those whom the Bible expressly declares will be finally lost.

This interpretation is consistent with the way God has dealt with mankind throughout history. He created man good and in a right relationship to himself. “And God blessed them” (Gen. 1:28). This blessing, together with the joy of living in God’s presence, was not something conferred upon mankind in response to, or conditioned by, obedience. However, these blessings and fellowship with God were no longer enjoyed when man refused to live in obedience to God’s revealed will. “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you shall die” (Gen. 2:16b–17). Mankind’s relationship to God followed this pattern: “You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you” (Ezek. 28:14). The blessing was unconditional, the judgment had to be earned.

Again, when establishing his covenant with Abram, God did not propose or prescribe certain conditions so that by keeping them Abram could attain a favorable status with God. “And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great so that you will be a blessing” (Gen. 12:2).

God affirmed this covenant with the entire nation of Israel at Mount Sinai. He made his will known to them and gave them the Ten Commandments. The commandments were not given so that by keeping them the Israelites could become the recipients of God’s favor. The commandments came to Israel with the assurance “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exod. 20:2).

Thus, the Israelites were the recipients of God’s blessing. But it was also true that if they willfully, persistently, and finally refused to walk in accordance with God’s revealed will, they would not experience his blessing or live in fellowship with him.

Unconditional Good News

In the light of this history, we have reason to expect that salvation would also come as an announcement of unconditional good news accompanied by a threat of judgment upon disobedience. Salvation is by grace; condemnation is by works.

The good news is that the obedience of the Second Adam has overcome all the dreadful effects of the disobedience of the first Adam except for those who finally refuse to have God in their knowledge. That is to say: All persons are elect in Christ except those whom the Scripture expressly declares will be finally lost. It may be helpful to think of this premise as a “qualified universalism.” The necessary limiting qualifications to universalism are so clearly spelled out in Scripture that I do not hesitate to call this premise “biblical universalism.”

To so view the overall message of Scripture is foreign to our way of thinking. It raises many questions. But consider the following:

1. Biblical universalism does not say we should assume that all persons are converted. We are to assume they are elect in Christ unless we have decisive and final evidence to the contrary. Their subjective salvation, their regeneration, their new birth and conversion may take place at any point in time during their earthly life.

2. Saying “All the descendants of Adam … are saved,” and allowing only for biblically declared exceptions, does not imply that all persons are initially elect in Christ but subsequently some of them are removed from this union with Christ.

Such a view would contradict the scriptural teaching of the security of those who are “in Christ,” as well as John 3:36, which says of those who disobey the Son that “the wrath of God rests upon” (Greek: ‘remains upon’) them. God’s wrath was never removed from them.

3. Biblical universalism does not deny or in the least degree compromise the scriptural teaching concerning the sin of Adam and its devastating effect upon all his descendants. Due to the sin of Adam, all persons, except Jesus Christ, are not only worthy of eternal judgment, but they will actually suffer eternal death on the basis of their sin in Adam unless the sovereign electing grace of God intervenes to rescue them from such a fate.

What has been overlooked, however, is that the electing grace of God does intervene in behalf of every person except those who willfully, personally, and finally “refuse to have God in their knowledge.”

4. Biblical universalism does not negate the need for a definite decision to accept Christ as Savior. Everyone to whom the gospel is presented must repent, believe, and begin to walk in accordance with God’s will or they will not be saved.

If we use this premise rather than the idea that all are lost, some progress could be made between Arminians and Calvinists toward a common understanding of the good news.

A New View of the Lost

To put the premise of biblical universalism into practice is to view every person, and treat him or her, as one “for whom Christ died” (1 Cor. 8:11) unless, and until, they give decisive and final evidence to the contrary. The approach of biblical universalism breaks down barriers between people. It promotes a feeling of genuine concern and mutual trust. It helps overcome prejudices that arise out of fear because we view others apathetically—or worse still, with suspicion. On this basis we are to view all persons as heirs of the kingdom of heaven; bring to them the good news of what God in Christ has done for us; exhort them to repent, believe, and obey; help them, counsel them, and, if need be, warn them to flee the wrath which is sure to come on all who disregard the witness of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Because we will not have final and decisive evidence to the contrary, we must approach all people with the perspective that “[Christ] is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). This gives us biblical warrant for regarding all persons as equal children of God. And it exhorts us to warn them that persistent refusal to accept God’s offer of salvation will be just cause for their condemnation.Neal Punt is a pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Evergreen Park, Illinois, and author of Unconditional Good News (Eerdmans, 1980).

The CT Institute Talks To Neal Punt

What reaction did your book, Unconditional Good News, create?

It was received quite favorably, though some in my own denomination thought I was contradicting Reformed theology. In fact, the book was brought before the local church and our classis where I was grilled pretty thoroughly. Then, the full synod was asked to rule on it. In each case, it was concluded I hadn’t violated either our creeds or the Scriptures.

Were you surprised at the reaction?

Not at all. A new perspective takes a good deal of time and thought before it can be discussed intelligently. I first ran across the idea of biblical universalism in Charles Hodge’s writings, 18 years before I started writing the book. If it took me that long to feel comfortable with it, I can’t expect others to accept my ideas without question.

Some might come to the conclusion that your concept of salvation is really a form of Arminianism. How would you respond?

I’ve had Arminians criticize the book for being too Calvinistic, and Calvinists have said it’s too Arminian. That suits me just fine because it shows that maybe these two points of view have more in common than we think.

What effect did the actual writing of the book have on your pastoral ministry?

It stimulated the process of finding sermon material. If all pastors would read and study for personal edification rather than for next Sunday’s sermon, they would discover more sermon material than they could use. As I worked on the book, I felt as if I was walking in an orchard. Like trees overburdened with fruit, sermon ideas fell before me.

In light of the criticism of Unconditional Good News, are you concerned about how your next book will be received?

Not really. Basically, it is the same book rewritten for a general audience. It will undoubtedly attract more attention, but theology must be a communal work. If I’m wrong, I want to be corrected. But so far, no one has been able to refute my understanding that all are saved except those whom the Bible says are lost.

Clark Pinnock has set forth his case bluntly. For this I am grateful. His honesty may have its risks, but it would be a sad day for all of us if interpretations of Scripture such as his could not be debated publicly.

Pinnock’s case for annihilation rests on two assumptions. First, he believes that words such as death, perish, and destruction should be taken literally to mean the permanent loss of spiritual existence. His references to judgment need to be interpreted in this light (e.g., Matt. 3:10, 12; 5:22; 10:18; 25:46).

Second, Pinnock argues that annihilationism has morality on its side. It refuses to accept that God is “vindictive,” forever punishing unbelievers in his “torture chamber.” For an evangelical, however, this second argument has validity only to the extent that the first is a correct reading of Scripture. Paul, after all, can speak of unbelievers as objects of divine wrath, “prepared for destruction” (Rom. 9:22) and, without blinking, he dismisses the moral outrage that follows by asking, “who are you, O man, to talk back to God?” (Rom. 9:19). Pinnock’s expressions of moral horror, therefore, need to be heard, but then set on one side so that we can concentrate more clearly on the biblical data.

The weakness of Pinnock’s case is perhaps nowhere more apparent than in his handling of Matthew 25:46. In this text, the existence of believers and that of unbelievers are set in parallel. Both forms of existence are said to be “eternal,” the same word (aiōnion) being used in both instances. Pinnock arbitrarily claims that in the case of believers, the text is talking of eternal effects, but in the case of unbelievers, only of eternal actions. In their case, the judgment is eternal only in God’s mind and not in their experience since they do not exist; in the case of believers, “eternal” means the experience of endless life. This produces two, competing meanings, of “eternal”—all in the same verse!

This text is a microcosm of what we have throughout the New Testament. Unbelievers, no less than believers, are resurrected (John 5:28–29; cf: Dan. 12:2) so they might realize that immortality which is theirs by creation. By direct assertion and by implication, unbelievers are described as being “eternal,” and the same language is used of them as is used of believers (See 2 Thess. 1:9 and 2:16; Heb. 5:9 and 6:2; Mark 3:29; Matt. 18:8; Rev. 14:11; cf. Rev. 20:10). But if their existence is preserved by God, what do we actually know about it?

What we are told is that God will assign unbelievers to “blackest darkness,” a realm that has been “reserved for them” (2 Pet. 2:17; Jude 13). This correlates with Jesus’ own words of warning of the realm where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30), which would hardly be true of those who do not exist! This awesome reality was, indeed, pictured in Jesus’ mind when he viewed the garbage dump outside Jerusalem.

But even here Pinnock misses the point. What makes this reality so bad is not that people disappear forever once they are tossed in the dump, but that while they are there, “the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44, 46, 48). And this is surely the point brought home in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man who was in the “fire” (Luke 16:19–31). To propose that the rich man’s postlife existence was but a temporary interlude before his final disappearance is to impose a meaning on the text for which there simply is no warrant. Annihilation would be instant destruction, not the “everlasting destruction” of which Paul spoke (2 Thess. 1:9; cf. Rev. 22:14) and to which Jesus here appears to refer.

But can we not read annihilation into some of the words used to describe the fate of unbelievers? The words commonly cited actually have a range of meanings and cannot be reduced to a single overly literal translation. Sinners are “cut off” (Ps. 37:9, 22, 28, 34, 38), but so was the Messiah (Dan. 9:26); sinners are “destroyed” (Ps. 143:12), but so was Israel (Hos. 13:9; cf. Isa. 9:14) and so were the sheep and coins (Luke 15:4, 8) that were then found; unbelievers are said to “die,” but then all of us have always been “dead” (Rom. 6:13; 7:4; Eph. 2:1, 5; cf. Rom. 7:10, 13; 8:2, 6; 1 Tim. 5:6; Col. 2:13; Rev. 3:1), and that surely does not mean we have been without existence and consciousness.

The theological issues that annihilationism seems to answer may, however, weigh more heavily in their appeal than the linguistic considerations. Specifically, is an everlasting punishment not disproportionate to the offense unbelievers have committed—as disproportionate, say, as a judge handing out a life imprisonment for a traffic violation? If the punishment is disproportionate, then it is unethical, and obliteration, though terrible, would at least seem moral. Might it, then, not be sufficient for God to satisfy his justice by annihilating sinners and, in so doing, also show his mercy toward them?

This solution is viable if its views of sin and of God’s character are biblical. But I am doubtful that is the case. If God is as good as the Bible says he is, if his character is as pure, if his life is as infinite, then sin is infinitely unpardonable and not merely momentarily mischievous. To be commensurate with the offense, God’s response must be correspondingly infinite. Annihilationism looks instead for a finished, finite, temporal response.

An infinite response, however, is what we see occurring at the Cross. Christ stood in the place of those whom he represented, and bore their punishment. In so doing, was he annihilated? Of course not. What we see is Christ bearing their actual punishment, and he could exhaust it because he himself was the eternal and infinite God. He did not bear a punishment merely like that which sinners deserved, one that was merely analogous to theirs.

A gospel, then, that trades on a diminished view of sin, a modified notion of divine righteousness, and a restructured Atonement is not one that is more appealing, as Pinnock thinks, but one that is less. It is a gospel that has lost its nerve because it has lost its majesty.

Pinnock has tried to revive the old argument that the judgment of God raises moral problems. I assert the opposite: God’s judgment settles all moral problems. Specifically, it addresses the question as to how God can still be powerful and just if there is evil in the world. It sees this present life as an interim period at the end of which God will publicly vindicate his character. This vindication (which cannot be “vindictive,” as Pinnock claims) will set truth forever on the throne and error forever on the scaffold. This will be the moment of final liberation and the cause of endless praise (Rev. 6:10; 11:17–19; 19:1–8).

It is both a sad and glorious fact that human beings are immortal. No one will ever be snuffed out like a spent candle. The sadness in this is inescapable. The glory of it is that people are who God has said they are: beings of surpassing worth and ineradicable dignity because they bear the divine image. And that is something our generation needs to hear.

David F. Wells is an Andrew Mutch Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.