Page 5366 – Christianity Today (2024)

How can we come to terms with our failures—and our successes?

What Happened To Peter when he tried to walk on the water is something that can happen to every one of us—and indeed does, at some point of ministry. It is part of what breaks down the unmitigated pride of the youthful minister and changes, as if by transubstantiation, enthusiasm into patience for the kingdom of God. And, as part of the developmental cycle of the minister’s life, it is most likely to happen during the difficult transition period from early to later middle age.

“I am convinced,” says Peter Chew in his book, The Inner World of the Middle-Aged Man, “that man’s search at midlife is ultimately a spiritual one.” And Richard Olson, to whom I am indebted for that quotation, adds this word from Carl Jung, the great psychoanalyst: “Among all my patients in the second half of life—that is to say, over thirty-five—there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life.”

It is general, not particular; it happens to all, not only to ministers. And it is natural, with ministers as with others, for the breakdown or fall or reassessment to occur in terms of the spiritual pilgrimage.

What we are doing, you see, after the period of intense activity and achievement that characterizes early middle life, is stopping to reexamine the course we are on, and deciding whether the trip has been worth it. For some, this means coming to terms with the failure to achieve.

I have a friend who is about due for that. He is a Southern Baptist with all the unbridled ambition that sometimes characterizes young ministers in that convention. From age 15 to 40, he has been possessed by a dream of ministerial greatness. He manages to continue from year to year in the hope that some of it will one day come true. But now he is nearing the time when he must admit that it will not, that his goals for himself and his ministry were not consonant with his personality and abilities.

The alternative is to cope with success. That too can be a sad story.

I think of another minister, one who has surely fulfilled all his life’s ambitions and then some. For several years he has been pastor of a large, prestigious church—you know the kind, one with stained glass even in the bathrooms, and cloth towels to wipe your hands on. He is known as the “bishop” of his community. I asked him a few months ago to speak of the thoughts that run through his mind as he enters the last phase of his ministry. “Sex and love,” he said. Sex and love.

“I’ve had a devil of a time with sex these last few years,” he said; “wanta put my arm around every attractive woman I see. Put my arm around her—I want to get into bed with her. I haven’t. But I’ve sure had the urge.

“By love,” he said, “I mean this.” He waved his hand in a semisweep, indicating the extremely large church building completed within the last five years. “I used to think that the ultimate was to build this building. You know, the old edifice complex. Now that it’s built, I think a lot about love. What good is a building if the people aren’t changed? I’d like to spend the rest of my ministry teaching people how to love.”

Maybe the sex angle wasn’t as unrelated to this as seems apparent. For years, the building had been the important thing, an erection in stone and mortar. Then, when the success of that was called into question, real sex came back with a vengeance—the elan vital, the life force, surging back where it had been denied. It often happens with people in late midlife. They want to make up for lost time, to touch flesh, to be real as “ordinary people” are real.

What is failure and what is success in ministry? That is the thorny part, isn’t it? Sometimes we fail for having aimed at the wrong kind of success, and maybe, if it has helped us to avoid that pitfall, we can even conceive of failure as a kind of success.

Who knows, maybe the end will be better than the beginning! Maybe faith will take hold even more strongly than before. That would be something, wouldn’t it?

Frederick W. Robertson found it that way. One of the greatest of the great, he stood head and shoulders above most of his contemporaries yet never seemed to notice; he was stuff of our stuff: overworked, underpaid, the target of many accusations from both church members and strangers because he dared to side with working people. This great man was always troubled by hidden thoughts of failure. Yet in one of the loneliest times of his life, he wrote, “My experience is closing into this, that I turn with disgust from everything to Christ.”

Ponder that, will you? “I turn with disgust from everything to Christ.” In the end, what else is there? We walk with him along the shore, and hear him ask, probing gently, “Do you love me?”

“Yes, Lord, you know I do.”

“Feed my sheep.”

Can you resist a scene like that? I can’t.

“I turn with disgust from everything to Christ.”

Maybe not quite with disgust. But I

know what he means.

There isn’t any comparison.

Dr. Killinger is pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Lynchburg, Virginia; he formerly taught at Vanderbilt Divinity School. The above is from his book Christ in the Seasons of Ministry, copyright ©1983; used by permission of Word Books, Publisher, Waco, Texas 76796.

Her story argues against the prevailing notion that handicapped children cannot have meaningful lives.

Review of TV movie Helen Keller: The Miracle Continues. Castle Comb Productions and Twentieth Century—Fox Television; airing over independent television during April and May.

There Are Two Things,” contended Orson Welles, “that the movies will never be able to show. A man making love to his wife, and a man praying to his God.”

It is not that they haven’t tried. Though Welles’s statement is surely accurate, it is incomplete. Even goodness, in general, does not translate well to the screen. Too often, in dramatic jargon, it simply “doesn’t play.” Hence, the ceaseless parade of cavorting heavies and assorted maniacs, accompanied by the din of guns and the falling of bodies, with the patter of banality always in the background, like Muzak.

Helen Keller: The Miracle Continues succeeds in portraying two aspects of goodness—romantic love and personal sacrifice—over which many filmmakers have fallen on their faces. It is a clean, visually interesting production, with strong characters and performances, especially from Blythe Danner and Mare Winningham, the former as Anne Sullivan, the latter as Keller. It is certainly well worth viewing above normal television fare. (Readers should check local listings for date and channel.)

Born in 1880, Keller was blind, deaf, and mute from an early age. Her case seemed hopeless until the advent of Anne Sullivan, known to Helen simply as “teacher.” The daughter of Irish immigrants who abandoned her, Sullivan grew up in wretched poverty and had her own bouts with blindness. Her dedication to Keller was truly remarkable, her patience endless. Anne became the major force in Keller’s life—a savior—often to the consternation of relatives and teachers.

Under Sullivan’s tutelage, Helen learned four alphabets for the blind before the age of seven. An intelligent, gifted girl, she went on to astonish the world, graduating cum laude from Radcliffe. Before leaving that institution, she developed into an accomplished writer and best-selling author. Keller eventually became an icon, friend of the famous (Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain), and celebrated in films and plays, notably The Miracle Worker. Adored the world over, she died in 1968.

Based on Joseph Lash’s massive (800 pages) Helen and Teacher, the story begins with Helen as a young adult in her days at Radcliffe. This affords a peek at a genteel, polite world that existed not so long ago, but is now gone forever. Young men approached girls at dances, bowed, and asked, “Excuse me, would you like to polka?” Helen learns, as it might be termed today, “social skills.” In her early life she was apparently quite a brat.

Ladies Home Journal serializes Helen’s life story, which she writes as an assignment for English class. It is a thumping success. Enter John Macy, a dapper writer sent to help her with the work. He drinks too much and is an armchair socialist, but proves a tremendous help to Helen. Both women become emotionally involved with him. It is a most unusual love triangle.

John sweeps Anne off her feet. She is torn between love for him and dedication to Helen. John insists the three of them can live together. Anne is stubborn, but eventually agrees. They marry. Once made aware of the romance, Helen begins to ask, “When will it happen for me?”

But John finds that he is married to an institution. He, Anne, and Helen are bound together in a kind of strange three-legged race. He begins to drink heavily. The marriage dissolves.

Helen’s new secretary is Peter fa*gan, one of Macy’s colleagues. Their relationship blossoms and they plan marriage. But the paper publicizes the acquisition of a marriage license. Mrs. Keller is outraged. Anne corners the star-struck fa*gan. Her speech to him is the highlight of the drama and ought to be mandatory reading for anyone contemplating marriage.

Peter, of course, sees nothing ahead but roses and kisses. Anne brings him to earth. “After a while,” she tells him, steely-eyed, “self-sacrifice starts to stink.” She ought to know. The relationship, she says, will be work, and tears and allegiance very unlike “falling in love.” They plan to elope anyway. Helen waits for Peter on the porch, suitcase in hand. He does not show up. In need of money, Anne and Helen enter vaudeville where Helen gives her first public speech. Here the story ends.

A few things have been left out. Keller was not, as she often appears, an ingénue. She was a woman of deep political involvements—a kind of early Jane Fonda. She followed Emanuel Swedenborg, a prevailing guru and promoter of Unitarian-like views. This, combined with total acceptance of the primitive, foot-washing socialism of the day, made her true creed one of naïve utopianism in which the blood of the Lamb is replaced with, as it were, municipal water. (For Keller’s religious views, see her own book My Religion.)

But Keller’s story is inspiring, a powerful refutation of the idea that the severely handicapped cannot have “meaningful lives.” The depictions of romantic love and personal sacrifice are among the best ever done specifically for television.

Though the selfless Anne Sullivan had no use for Christianity, she is an outstanding example of sacrifice. As a non-Christian, she serves to challenge us who are committed to the selfless Christ.

Mr. Billingsley contributes to numerous publications and also writes for film and stage. He lives in Southern California and is currently at work on a novel.

A little-known moral concerns group was largely responsible for marshaling public opinion against a California bill that would have protected hom*osexuals from employment discrimination. Gov. George Deukmejian was swamped by nearly 100,000 phone calls and letters—thought to be the most ever received by a California governor on a single subject. An overwhelming number of those contacting the governor opposed the bill.

The Republican governor agonized for 13 days before vetoing the bill last month. Support for the veto was organized by the Sacramento-based Committee on Moral Concerns, headed by W. B. Timberlake, a retired Southern Baptist preacher and a former lawyer.

“Several Christian radio and television stations and a lot of people were alerted,” said Art Croney, the committee’s associate lobbyist.

Appeals to Christian groups and the 8,000 subscribers to the committee’s newsletter helped generate a flood of letters, telegrams, and calls to Deukmejian’s office.

Five days before the veto, Timberlake and several state legislators presented their case against the measure to the governor and his staff. They argued that in effect it would make hom*osexuals a legal minority group with employment privileges. Advocates of the bill, including state assemblyman Art Agnos, had met with the governor earlier that day.

With the measure still on Deukmejian’s desk, a coalition of pastors and the American Life Lobby held a prayer rally involving some 700 persons on the north steps of the state capitol. A much smaller group of gay-rights activists staged a rally at the same time on the south steps.

The governor’s veto message said that “a person’s sexual orientation should not be a basis for the establishment of a special protected class of individuals, especially in the absence of a compelling show of need.”

The measure had won narrow approval in the state’s senate and assembly. Emotional floor debates were punctuated by Bible quotations from speakers on both sides of the issue. The bill has been fought for during the last eight years by assemblyman Agnos, a Democrat from San Francisco.

Agnos said he thought Deukmejian was leaning toward signing the bill at first. But he added: “We were overwhelmed by opposition of what I call ‘the bigoted Bible thumpers.’”

Timberlake said his organization includes thousands of pastors and church members from more than 40 denominations. The committee lobbies on a number of issues such as p*rnography, family violence, gambling, and separation of church and state.

After the veto, state Sen. H. L. Richardson called on ministers throughout the state to make the following Sunday a day of thanksgiving. Gays and their sympathizers staged protest rallies in several cities. In San Francisco, 300 gay-rights advocates marched for four miles shouting “Puke on Duke” and vowed political vengeance on him and others opposing them.

Agnos said he would reintroduce his bill on the first day of the next legislative session in December. Timberlake and his staff of eight will be ready.

“We’ll go for it again,” vowed lobbyist Croney. “But six other similar versions [of the bill] are also alive and could be passed if we don’t stay alert.”

RUSSELL CHANDLERin Los Angeles

Getting Drunk Isn’T As Popular As It Used To Be

Those who drink beer didn’t drink as much of it last year. And the trend has struck a note of fear among brewers.

But it is not just beer that is suffering from a decline in popularity. Consumption of distilled alcohol also dropped last year as it has every year since 1980.

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that a movement some describe as “neo-Prohibitionist” has had a sobering effect on the alcohol industry. Researchers of social change say it is no longer considered unfashionable to turn down a drink at a party. The trend toward more moderate drinking habits could spell trouble for the alcoholic beverage industry. Only 15 percent of drinkers consume 50 percent of the alcohol, according to Allan Luks, the author of a book on alcohol consumption.

Social scientists have offered several explanations for the dry spell, according to the Wall Street Journal. One is increased interest in fitness and self-improvement. Another is a powerful and growing political campaign against drunken drivers. Responding to the lobbying efforts of such organizations as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 40 states passed tougher drunk-driving laws last year. In addition, 25 national organizations have petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to ban alcohol advertising aimed at youths and heavy drinkers.

World Scene

The Spanish Parliament has passed a law that will reduce Catholic influence in the country’s schools. Private schools that receive state funds will have to meet government curriculum requirements. Religion classes will become optional. Some 3 million of Spain’s 8 million school children attend private schools, most of them church-run.

The Italian newspaper Il Tempo reports that the Vatican is preparing to cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan. The change would be part of an effort to open diplomatic relations between Rome and mainland China. In a speech to Taiwanese bishops, Pope John Paul II indicated that Taiwan and the Chinese mainland should be considered as one nation.

Currency export restrictions in 26 countries are causing problems for Bible societies. The organizations ordinarily sell Bibles—often at reduced prices—and then transfer income overseas to have more Bibles printed. However, transfers of funds are being blocked in 26 countries in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Europe.

The Nigerian army has been called in to stop riots by fundamentalist Muslims in the northeastern city of Yola. Police arrested 713 people in the violence that has claimed at least 137 lives. Officials blame the unrest on the followers of Mohammad Marwa Mitatsine, a sect leader who was killed in rioting three years ago.

More than 500,000 people rallied in France to protest the government’s plans to tighten control on church-run schools. A proposed law would give regional bodies control over school budgets, limit the number of private school teachers, and require all teachers to have civil servant status. The government pays the salaries of all teachers in private schools, most of them operated by the Catholic church.

The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano says the Inquisition court overstepped its authority when it convicted astronomer Galileo Galilei of heresy. An article by Mario D’Addio, a member of a special commission set up to review the 1633 conviction, stated that Galileo’s theories did not violate any article of faith. The seventeenth-century astronomer was condemned as a heretic after he said the earth revolves around the sun.

The European Parliament this month is scheduled to debate guidelines that would affect members of religious cults. The proposal includes guaranteed access to cult members by family and friends, and the right of members to seek independent advice and medical attention.

Correction

In an interview published in the March 16 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop used the term “fetus ex-utero” to refer to a newborn baby. The term should have been printed in quotation marks to show that it was not Koop’s own choice of words. Rather, it is a term used by those who deny the personhood of a fetus or a newborn. Koop himself does not accept the terminology.

Billy Graham Loses His Voice

Something happened to evangelist Billy Graham during his recent Alaska crusade that had never occurred before. He lost his voice while preaching the gospel.

Just 10 minutes into a sermon about Samson and Delilah, Graham’s voice faltered. Song leader Cliff Barrows brought him a glass of hot honey water (center photo). Graham attempted to finish the sermon, but his voice failed again. He left the pulpit, and associate evangelist John Wesley White completed the message (bottom photo). The Alaska crusade was telecast to more than 90 percent of the state and broadcast by radio into Siberia.

Medical Groups Challenge Rules To Protect Disabled Infants

The American Medical Association (AMA) and five other medical groups are going to court to challenge a new federal regulation designed to protect handicapped infants. The medical groups say the federal government has no legitimate role in determining whether an impaired newborn should receive treatment.

The Reagan administration maintains that civil-rights laws assure equal treatment of every infant, regardless of its condition or presumed quality of life. Because of reports of infanticide, the government issued a rule to prevent federally funded hospitals from discriminating against handicapped infants.

That regulation was blocked in court last year, so a new version was crafted by U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop (CT, Feb. 17, 1984, p. 44). It established patient-care review committees, a provision dear to the hearts of those in the medical establishment. The committees would be sponsored by hospitals to monitor decisions in difficult cases and to serve as sounding boards for doctors who are uncertain about available resources for handicapped children.

Koop gained the support of the American Academy of Pediatrics, a group that opposed the original rule. But the AMA would not accept any compromise measure. “Parents and physicians, not the government, should be responsible for making decisions about care,” an AMA position paper states. A spokesman says the AMA will oppose any federal decision-making role in medical treatment.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) plans to stand its ground as well. Before the matter goes to federal court, the department has several weeks to amend or drop the regulation. But spokesperson Claire del Real says HHS has no plans to change the regulation.

Joining the AMA in the suit against the regulation are the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Hospital Association, and the Hospital Association of New York State.

They argue that civil rights law cited by HHS was never intended to “mandate treatment decisions or to require physicians or hospitals to override parental decisions” about medical care. In addition, they say Medicare and Medicaid reimbursem*nts to hospitals—targeted to be witheld if a hospital violates the new regulation—do not count as “federal financial assistance.” Finally, the regulation would “violate a family’s right to privacy and set up an adversary relationship between the family and the physician and hospital,” according to the AMA.

“The AMA is the only organization that believes an impaired child’s future is only up to the parents and physician,” says Surgeon General Koop. “If that’s the case, why do 50 states have child-abuse laws on the books?”

Koop is distressed about the increasing emphasis placed on “quality-of-life” considerations in determining what treatment is appropriate. An AMA spokesperson affirms that the quality-of-life criterion is important. “At any age, decisions about the terminally ill have to be made on the basis of outcome,” the spokesperson says. “The goal by which we work is to alleviate pain and extend and improve the quality of life.”

The spokesperson, who asked to remain anonymous, says the AMA is unconvinced that handicapped newborns are being left untreated. “That generalization is killing us,” he says. “No doctor is going to turn down an opportunity to save a life if its quality is guaranteed.”

Says Koop, in response: “For anybody who is a spokesman for the AMA to deny that infanticide is being practiced in this country when it is reported in medical journals by doctors who do it is beyond my comprehension.”

BETH SPRING

Donors Are Told How To Identify Improper Fund-Raising Tactics

It may seem incongruous to tell Christian organizations that their fund-raising practices must be honest. But that task consumes considerable energy at the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA).

The issue of raising money has troubled growing numbers of donors and Christian leaders, not to mention the Internal Revenue Service and the Better Business Bureau. One year ago, ECFA’S board appointed a task force on fund raising. The task force has developed 16 guidelines that address a range of concerns: Is donated money being spent the way the donor intends? Have donor expectations been raised to unrealistic heights? Are gifts being offered that have nothing to do with an organization’s ministry? Are royalties being collected on books that are used for fund raising?

The guidelines were approved by ECFA’S board in February. Its 257 members will be invited to comment on them before they are incorporated into the council’s standards for membership. As ECFA spreads the word to its members, it plans an outreach to donors as well. Executive director Arthur C. Borden believes teaching people how to guard their pocketbooks may be the most convincing way to get organizations to comply with the fundraising guidelines.

“This is changing the thrust of ECFA,” he says. “We will put major emphasis on telling the public what the standards are and asking the public to start asking some of the same questions we are asking.”

The organization plans to spend $150,000 on advertisem*nts, television spots, and other means of raising public consciousness. It hopes the effort will result in ministries announcing that their fund-raising standards meet ECFA’S criteria. The guidelines spell out what donors should watch for:

• Overblown promises about what will be accomplished with a contribution. Emotional writing that leads a contributor to believe the forward movement of the gospel will halt without the donor’s help is common.

• Events described and illustrated in direct mail appeals should be accurate and complete. Frequently, “composite” stories blur the truth or exaggerate the urgency of an appeal.

• Funds raised for a specific project or purpose cannot be used to meet other needs. And organizations must report to donors upon request about the projects they promote.

• Donors may not be told their gifts are tax deductible when the fund-raising appeal includes a “free gift” that is unrelated to the purpose of the ministry. If fund raising depends heavily on the use of such incentives, the market value of the giveaway item must be subtracted from the tax-deductible portion of the donor’s gift.

The need for self-regulation became clear in 1977, when the U.S. House of Representatives debated a bill to allow sweeping government scrutiny of nonprofit fund-raising activities. The measure failed, and several evangelicals in Congress encouraged parachurch leaders to establish ethical ground rules for themselves. As a result, ECFA emerged in 1979.

“We certify standards, not programs,” Borden explains. “We’re in no position to say whether relief agency A is doing a better job than relief agency B. But we can say whether it has a legitimate, ethical program.”

Despite a history replete with political divisions, Poland enjoys an unfragmented identity. The credit belongs not to the state, but to the Roman Catholic church, a major force in Poland for nearly 1,000 years.

Poland’s Catholic church is an integral part of the identity it has preserved. Ninety percent of the country’s citizens are Catholic. And they raised their voices in protest when their Communist government moved recently to remove crucifixes from a public school.

Communists took control of Poland in 1945 and immediately deprived the church of its legal status. Negotiations in the 1950s led to government approval of publicly displayed crosses. But that approval was withdrawn a few years later.

Polish-born researcher Grazyna Sikorska says crosses began to reappear in 1980 as part of the same grassroots movement that spawned the Solidarity labor union. Sikorska works for Keston College, an organization that studies religion in Communist lands.

During Poland’s recent period of martial law, there were isolated incidents of cross removals. But last December the government made its stand official by ordering that all crosses in public buildings had to come down. The order went unheeded except at the Stanislaw Staszic Agricultural College near Garwolin. There, the school’s director removed crucifixes from seven lecture halls.

Three months of fruitless student protests followed. Then last month, 400 of the college’s 600 students staged a sit-in demonstration. Riot police came on the scene and the school was closed. In the ensuing days thousands of additional students joined the protest.

Authorities demanded that parents of seniors at the college sign forms declaring that public schools are secular in nature. Unless the forms were signed, there would be no more school, and no graduation certificates. With the church’s blessing, the parents refused to sign.

Authorities have since withdrawn the demand. But they maintain their stand against the display of crosses in public buildings. “The state does not try to secularize church buildings, and the church should not try to clericalize state buildings,” says government spokesman Jerzy Urban.

But Polish priests reason that the schools belong to Poland, and Poland belongs to Catholicism. “They were not Poles who came at us innocents with riot sticks, shields, helmets, guns, and gas,” said one priest to a crowd of demonstrators. “There is no Poland without a cross.”

The Catholic church holds more power in Poland than in any other Eastern bloc nation. “The government knows that the church is the only authority for most Poles,” Sikorska says. “The church is the government’s best ally. The two share many aims, such as preventing bloodshed. But at the same time the church, because of its teaching [against atheism], is communism’s worst enemy.”

Today the government is using the church’s influence to harness some 70 vocal, antigovernment Catholic priests who support the outlawed Solidarity labor union. Addressing the controversy, Poland’s leader, Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski, charged that some priests “have confused the pulpit with the Radio Free Europe microphone.”

Jozef Cardinal Glemp, the leader of Poland’s Catholics, regularly walks the line between church and state. Glemp spoke out against the removal of the crucifixes. But he drew sharp criticism from his own ranks for his recent transfer of a pro-Solidarity priest from Warsaw to an obscure town in Poland’s countryside.

The current “war of the crosses” hit at a time when relations between church and state in Poland were thought to be rallying. Many observers viewed the Pope’s visit to his homeland last year as both a sign and a catalyst of eased tensions.

The government has suspended martial law. It has decentralized education, giving that responsibility to local communities. Thus the study of the Bible as a part of Polish culture is standard fare in public schools.

Richard Shoemaker, of the evangelical Slavic Gospel Association, says Poland’s small evangelical church has benefited from the government’s apparent magnanimity. “Censorship of literature and open evangelistic meetings has been relaxed,” he says. “It’s easier to buy property for the building of churches. And smuggling Bibles into Poland is no longer necessary because legal permits can be obtained in most cases.”

However, Sikorska says these are ostensible concessions, best understood as window dressing for the outside world and a lure to Polish citizens.

North American Scene

A Federal District Court in Houston ruled that the Baylor University College of Medicine discriminated against Jewish doctors. Judge James DeAnda ruled that Baylor physicians did not allow Jewish doctors to participate in a program that provided doctors for a hospital and research center in Saudi Arabia. The court ordered Baylor to pay the two plaintiffs, Dr. Lawrence M. Abrams and Dr. Stuart A. Linde, more than $400,000.

After five years of discussion, Methodist and Lutheran theologians are asking their churches to recognize each other’s baptism and Holy Communion as true sacraments. The international dialogue commission also wants each church to accept the validity of the other’s teaching and preaching. As a first step, the commission is urging that both groups arrange pulpit exchanges and combined Communion services.

The wife of former United Methodist Bishop James Armstrong has filed for divorce after 42 years of marriage. Phyllis Armstrong filed papers last month in Marion County (Ind.) Circuit Court that stated there was an “irretrievable breakdown in the marriage.” James Armstrong, 59, resigned in November as United Methodist bishop of Indiana and as president of the National Council of Churches. In January, he surrendered his ministerial credentials under a provision in church rules that permit a transfer to another denomination.

The Texas attorney general has ruled that state restrictions on the teaching of evolution are unconstitutional. Jim Mattox maintains that the rules represent a “concern for religious sensibilities rather than a dedication to scientific truth.” His ruling is not binding on the state board of education. But state attorneys will not defend the state if lawsuits are filed to overturn the restrictions on the teaching of evolution.

A Pennsylvania court has ruled that laws restricting Medicaid funding for abortion discriminates against poor women. This is the first time a court has used a state equal rights law to strike down restrictions on access to abortion. The ruling intensified fears among antiabortion groups that the proposed Equal Rights Amendment would threaten abortion funding restrictions unless the amendment is reworded.

A jury has awarded $390,000 to a divorced woman who sued an Oklahoma church and three of its elders. Marian Guinn claimed that her right of privacy was violated when the Collinsville Church of Christ elders publicly denounced her “sin of fornication.” A letter from the elders regarding her relationship with the town’s divorced former mayor was read to the congregation and then circulated among four other churches. The elders said they will appeal the ruling.

A nonprofit corporation set up by the National Baptist Convention U.S.A., Inc., plans to build a $150 million complex in Atlanta’s west end. Covering 50 acres, the development would include condominiums, office buildings, a medical center, and a hospital. The project is part of the predominantly black denomination’s effort to help develop inner-city neighborhoods. The Louisiana-based denomination claims 7 million members in 30,000 churches.

They are concerned that many Jews and evangelicals know each other only by reputation. And they are alarmed by the subtle threat of anti-Semitism that is heightened by Middle East tensions. So they gathered to discuss past misunderstandings, to build friendships, and to confront issues of mutual concern.

Cochaired by Rabbi A. James Rudin of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and Marvin R. Wilson of Gordon College, the 60 participants included scholars, theologians, and lay leaders. They represented various segments of evangelicalism and the major divisions of Judaism—Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist.

Meeting at Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts, the conferees examined the roots of the two communities, their part in shaping American society, their teaching about one another, and the problems confronting their religions. The conference was the third of its kind. A consultation in 1975 focused on beliefs concerning the Messiah, conversion, and the Holocaust. A second meeting in 1980 concentrated on views of sin, atonement, and redemption.

At the recent meeting, sparks flew during a discussion of the state of Israel. Both sides agreed that the Jewish state had a right to exist and rejected the idea that Zionism is racism. But disagreement erupted over criticism of Israel and the plight of the Palestinians. Some evangelicals maintained that no political entity is above criticism, while some Jews who believe Israel has a special status bristled.

The AJC’s Judith Banki referred to the “sharp difference between critical friends and critical enemies of Israel.” She said most critics condemn Israel for “failing to live up to pure democracy or pure justice.” But she added that little is said about the sins of Israel’s neighbors.

The conferees did not debate the issue of whether a Jew who converts to Christianity can remain a Jew. The Jewish participants agreed that such a convert cannot still be considered a Jew. They said the conversion of Jews furthers their extinction as a people. The Christian participants did not press the issue.

It remains to be seen whether the conversion question will be the rock on which evangelical-Jewish dialogue will inexorably founder. But the Wenham consultation made it clear that evangelicals and Jews can work together in the areas of biblical studies, justice, and human rights.

The radical Black Panther-turned—Christian never found a home in the evangelical world.

In June of 1965, inside Folsom Prison, Eldridge Cleaver wrote an essay that became the first chapter of his best-selling book, Soul on Ice (McGraw). In it, Cleaver described himself as “extremist by nature.” He was intense, aggressive, outspoken, combative, uncompromising.

Two decades later, the adjectives still apply. But the focus of his fury has changed radically.

In the 1960s, the American system had no greater enemy than Cleaver. As a leader of the militant Black Panther party, he worked for a Marxist overthrow of the democratic form of government. In 1968, he fled the country to avoid a prison term for a shoot-out with Oakland, California, police. For the next few years he toured Communist and Third World countries only to become disillusioned by the hypocrisy he found in communism.

Cleaver surrendered to U.S. authorities in 1975, and today the American system could not find a more loyal friend.

Cleaver is running for the U.S. House of Representatives as an ultraconservative independent in the radical Berkeley, California, area. He portrays his opponent, veteran black Democrat Ron Dellums, as a Soviet puppet.

“There is a war going on,” Cleaver warns. “The goal of communism is to take control of the world. President Reagan’s assessment [of this war] is not exaggerated. If anything, it is understated. We will never have peace and rest until the job is completed of bringing democracy to the whole world.”

Not a trace remains of the black activism Cleaver once so passionately embraced. He is an outspoken critic of presidential candidate Jesse Jackson.

“I don’t think the black community has received any kind of balanced view of what Ronald Reagan has done,” Cleaver says. “There is an economic crunch, and blacks have suffered because of the overall impact of budget cuts. But if you ask blacks if they’re better off now than they were in 1980, you’ll find them saying ‘yes’ because President Reagan has challenged black people to start thinking again for themselves and not just lay around depending on handouts from [House Speaker] Tip O’Neill and the Democrats in Congress.”

If Cleaver’s search for political truth ended unambiguously, his spiritual quest is marked by endless twists and turns. He was baptized a Roman Catholic. As a young man he embraced atheism. As a prison inmate he became a Black Muslim.

When he returned to the United States in 1975, he told a sensational story about an encounter with God. He wrote a book, Soul on Fire (Word), in which he tells how in 1976, while in jail, he accepted Christ. Cleaver became an instant Christian celebrity. He started his own evangelism ministry. He spoke at Campus Crusade for Christ functions and at a National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) convention. He even shared a pulpit with Jerry Falwell.

But the honeymoon didn’t last. Even in Soul on Fire there were hints that not all was well with Eldridge.

The late Arthur DeMoss financed Cleaver’s release from jail, a gesture described in Soul on Fire as a gamble. In the book’s epilogue, DeMoss wrote that “ever since [Cleaver’s] release from prison, he has been inundated with every conceivable kind of request, business proposition, financial lure, and temptation.… Eldridge needs our prayers because, like the rest of us, he is not perfect—just forgiven.”

Cleaver regularly proved to evangelicals that he was not perfect. He was scratched from the NRB’s 1978 convention because of his plans to market jeans highlighting the male genital organ. He fell into further disfavor by spending time at a Unification Church ranch and speaking at Moonie gatherings. Reports spread that Cleaver advocated wife beating. For a time, he attempted to combine Christianity and Islam.

Through all the controversial ventures, Christians close to Cleaver tried to dissuade him. But he regularly offered what he believed was a sound explanation for everything. Eventually his friends grew weary and gave up. “It just became apparent that Eldridge would always be doing something weird,” said one friend.

Cleaver maintains that he has been severely misunderstood. He says the mass media—including Christian media—have circulated misleading information without seeking his perspective. He is not a Moonie and never was, he says, though he still works with Moonies on college campuses to combat communism.

He says his venture into jeans manufacturing was unfairly portrayed as frivolous and risqué. Actually, Cleaver says, “it was a statement against the unisexual ideology that has been structured into our clothing and is being pushed by organized hom*osexuals. I felt it was necessary to establish a line of demarcation between male and female.”

He traces the wife-beating allegations to a magazine article he describes as an “absolute hatchet job done by a former left-wing associate who set me up and betrayed me.”

Cleaver says in his early days as a Christian he was “buffeted about. Some people said, ‘Don’t go talkin’ with the charismatics.’ Some said, ‘Don’t go talkin’ with the Presbyterians; don’t hang out with the Baptists; don’t go with the Methodists; don’t go with the Unitarians; don’t go with the Moonies; don’t go with the Mormons.’ It seems that whenever you meet a new group of people, you lose some of your old friends.”

Those close to Cleaver say he probably was exploited, but that he has done some exploiting of his own. They maintain high respect for his intelligence and believe his Christian conversion was genuine. But they say he never matured spiritually because he rejected opportunities to become grounded in the faith.

Four months ago, in the latest step in his spiritual journey, Cleaver joined the Mormon church. Will the former radical ever be the kind of person evangelicals hoped he would be?

“Evangelicals are gonna be dead,” he says in response to that question. “Evangelicals are gonna be nuked like everyone else. This is not a time to be issuing each other report cards. Communists are pouring millions of dollars into an effort to destroy this country.…

“When we have meetings to combat the influence of communism, the Moonies and the Mormons come. Evangelicals only come out for Thursday-night Bible study.”

There is growing support for legislation guaranteeing the right of students to hold religious meetings at school.

Last month’s lengthy school-prayer debate in Congress failed to produce the votes needed for a constitutional amendment. But it provided a tremendous boost for “equal-access” legislation being considered in both houses.

The speeches and media attention “plowed the ground for us perfectly,” says Dan Evans, legislative assistant to U.S. Rep. Don Bonker (D-Wash.). The debate showed that some courts are too strict in prohibiting voluntary religious meetings on school property, he says.

Equal access is considered more substantial—and less symbolic—than President Reagan’s proposed prayer amendment. The legislation addresses a problem plaguing increasing numbers of high school students. Principals and school boards, reacting to court decisions prohibiting the establishment of religion, have forbidden student Bible club meetings and voluntary prayer groups. Critics say this is an overreaction.

In Williamsport, Pennsylvania, the “Petros” club was banned after a school board attorney decided that any religious speech on school grounds is unconstitutional, even if it is voluntary, nonsectarian, and takes place before or after school hours. Lisa Bender, a student who organized the group, filed suit and won in federal court (CT, June 17, 1983, p. 30). Because that decision contradicts other lower court rulings, the issue is likely to come before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the equal-access principle for college students in Widmar v. Vincent. But the principle has not been expanded to include secondary or elementary school students. This broader application is the intent of two equal-access proposals now before Congress.

The proposed legislation would leave intact the Supreme Court decisions from the early 1960s that prevent state officials from writing or choosing prayers and prohibit teachers from assuming the role of priest or minister in the classroom.

Companion bills sponsored by Bonker in the House and by Oregon Republican Mark Hatfield in the Senate would guarantee secondary school students the right to meet on campus for religious purposes. Hatfield calls situations like the ban on the Petros club “an intolerable perversion of the Constitution.

“There exists today a profound denial of First Amendment rights which is not being addressed in the school-prayer debate,” he says. “Under terms imposed by an increasing number of lower court decisions, students have been permitted to form groups to discuss virtually any subject imaginable except religion. Why is it acceptable to discuss music, to discuss politics, to discuss virtually everything under the sun, except religion?”

A second equal-access proposal has been offered by Sen. Jeremiah Denton (R-Ala.) and Rep. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). That bill would encompass elementary school students as well as those in junior high and high school.

Denton’s Alabama constituents have been battling over school prayer at the elementary school level in a case recently appealed to the Supreme Court. In that case, agnostic Ishmael Jaffree sued to prevent his grade-school children from being exposed to vocal grace at lunchtime (CT, June 17, 1983, p. 24).

March Bell, an aide to Denton, says that type of court challenge shaped the reasoning behind the senator’s proposal. “Our concern about elementary schools is not equal access so much as it is individual students being picked on,” Bell says. “We want the legislation to clarify that in certain situations it’s hands off the students—on the playground or in the lunchroom, for instance.”

The equal-access concept has attracted wide support in Congress, from liberals who view it as a free-speech issue to conservatives who supported Reagan’s prayer amendment. Bills in Congress need only a simple majority vote to pass, unlike the two-thirds vote required for a constitutional amendment. Both equal-access bills are thought to be popular enough to win.

During his speech opposing the school-prayer amendment, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) indicated why equal-access legislation holds such broad appeal. “If a school has a forum open to all clubs, the phrase ‘all clubs’ should include religious clubs. And if those clubs choose to pray during a meeting, that is their private business. I would support legislation to provide for equal access in school with open forums, providing it had sufficient safeguards to prevent misunderstanding or misuse by those whose intent was to bring official prayer back to the classroom.”

Even Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-Conn.), who led the successful floor battle against the school-prayer amendment, is considering support for an equal-access bill. Some see the measure as a chance to save face among constituents who may be influenced by right-wing groups using the prayer amendment vote as election-year cannon fodder.

Moral Majority head Jerry Falwell enthusiastically supports the equal-access approach. “This is the ultimate in freedom of choice, and could be better than the prayer amendment,” he says.

The equal-access approach has been endorsed by Reagan as well as by religious groups, including some that opposed the prayer amendment. “My administration will continue our efforts to allow government to accommodate prayer and religious speech by citizens in ways that do not risk an establishment of religion,” said the President, following the Senate’s defeat of the school-prayer amendment. “I urge the Congress to consider the equal-access legislation before both houses.…”

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) has supported both equal-access legislation and the defeated school-prayer amendment. At least one equal-access proponent sees a providential hand at work in the matter. Lisa Bender Parker, the student who filed the Williamsport lawsuit, is in training with her husband at New Tribes Mission in Kentucky. They live in the district represented by Democrat Carl Perkins, who chairs the House committee responsible for sending Bonker’s equal-access bill to the floor.

Parker has written to Perkins and distributed a letter to his constituents explaining and endorsing the measure. The constituents, in turn, have applied pressure that could speed the bill along.

America’S Top Military Officer Calls Christians To “God’S Army”

It is not surprising that America’s top military officer would make a pitch for national defense funding. But most Americans would not expect the plea to be overshadowed by the general’s call for readiness to serve in “God’s army.” That is what happened when Gen. John W. Vessey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke recently in Dallas.

“Christianity is like the service,” he told an audience of 2,000. “You’re in it no matter what comes up, so you must be ready for action today.” He admonished the crowd to strive for Christ’s standard of service. “Self-control, endurance, and trust constitute the code by which you are judged.”

The 61-year-old U.S. Army general was speaking at the Dallas Leadership Christian Prayer Breakfast, an event that attracts Christians from business, education, government, labor, and sports. It was not the first time Vessey had addressed a large gathering of Christians. Last summer he spoke at the fifty-fifth general convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the denomination in which he holds membership.

“I can go just about anywhere, and I never have to worry,” says a robed and hooded man. “If I get in trouble, I can make one phone call, and immediately I’ll get help.… People, guns, anything I want. I could even get a tank if I wanted. But I haven’t needed that yet.”

“When do they burn the cross?” he is asked.

“We don’t burn crosses, we light them,” he clarifies. “We light the cross because Christ is the Light of the world.”

From a makeshift stage in the middle of an Alabama hillside, a local band blares country and rock tunes as white-robed and hooded figures stroll about, laughing and talking informally. Many of the men have brought their families. Proud mothers pull out their pocket Instamatics® to grab a snapshot of Daddy, all decked out in white, holding Junior. Some of the mothers themselves wear robes and hoods. Other families man the refreshment stand, selling hot dogs, hamburgers, and RC Cola. (No beer or liquor is permitted.)

In a nearby booth, a bearded man in a KKK baseball cap displays Klan belts, buckles, bumper stickers, hats, wallets, knives, and helium-filled KKK balloons for the kids. Quite a few teenagers and college students roam through the crowd, some clad in white, others in jeans and plaid flannel shirts.

Strings of bare bulbs, not yet lit, surround the gathering. And beyond the lights, off to the far side of the field, stands a cross, wrapped in burlap and soaked in diesel fuel. It seemingly goes unnoticed by all but a few third-graders, who play touch football in its lengthening shadow.

The air is quickly cooling from afternoon temperatures in the 70s. Dusk has settled in, and darkness is about an hour away. The crowd numbers three or four hundred at most (a disappointing turnout, someone said), about half robed and hooded, and the other half families, friendly supporters, and a few curious observers—all white, of course. Everyone whoops and cheers as the band finishes its final song. Then a Ku Klux-clad announcer officially welcomes the crowd, and turns the mike over to a graying woman who opens the program with prayer. She too is dressed in white, her pointed hat tipped backward in feminine fashion. She prays with startling sincerity, calling out to Jesus prayer-meeting style.

“And Jesus,” she says, her voice barely audible above the buzzing sound system, “you know our needs … you know our feelings about the Klan.… And Jesus, you know how much it hurts us when we hear people say you can’t live right and join the Klan. Jesus, I try to live right, and I want to do your will.…”

Background

The Ku Klux Klan (from the Greek kuklos, meaning circle or wheel) arose in the aftermath of the Civil War, but not until after the release of D. W. Griffith’s 1915 film, The Birth of a Nation, did the movement gain widespread support. The film romanticized the Klan and fueled racial fears so that by the mid-1920s, KKK membership had peaked at nearly 5 million members. For the next 50 years the Klan would influence (and sometimes dominate) the American political scene. Their activities were often violent in nature—lynchings, murders, bombings. By the 1960s and ’70s, many members had gone underground, many had quit, and a few had remained. Splits and rivalries occurred among various Klan factions.

According to the Klanwatch Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama, about 25 different Klan groups have operated within the past five years or still do so. The three largest of these, respectively, are the United Klans of America, based in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and headed by Robert Shelton; The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, based in Tuscumbia, Alabama, and officially headed by Don Black, who is currently in jail; and the Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, based in Denham Springs, Louisiana, and headed by Bill Wilkinson.

Klanwatch estimates that the present combined national membership of all 25 public Klan groups amounts to less than 10,000. According to Klanwatch, virtually all of the groups state that theirs is a Christian calling to separate and/or eradicate all minority races to preserve and protect the purity of the white (Aryan) race.

An Evening Of Hatred

Today is Saturday, October 15. This afternoon about 100 KKK (Invisible Empire) members from several communities in Alabama and Georgia assembled at Handley High School, donned their white apparel, and marched for a mile through the center of Roanoke, Alabama, ending at the front porch of city hall. Imperial Wizard Bill Wilkinson led the march and spoke from the city hall steps. He stressed political and legislative changes that would protect whites and remove special treatment for minorities. He never used the word “nigg*r” or any other derogatory names or terms. He spoke with force and authority, and passionately set forth the official goals and purposes of the Klan: voluntary separation of the races, and the protection and preservation of the white race.

Unfortunately, the toned-down, politically oriented speeches given in front of city hall this afternoon turn to high-powered, endless tirades against “nigg*rs” for this evening’s rally. As various speakers take their turns, nothing approaches the sincerity of the woman’s opening prayer. For example:

“Sure is nice to see all you white folks here. And it’s great that we don’t have to rub elbows with any nigg*rs!” “Ronald Reagan may not be a racist, but I’ll bet he doesn’t have any black jelly beans in his jar!”

“I’m an electrician, and I know that when you mix a black wire and a white wire, you get sparks. It’s the same with black people and white people. They’re not meant to be mixed together!”

Again, Wilkinson gives the main address; and though he still emphasizes political and legislative issues, he speaks in a much louder, more antagonistic manner than this afternoon. His approach is generally intellectual, argumentative, rational rather than purely emotional. He speaks smoothly, with authority, and like a politician he pauses every few phrases for applause.

Complete darkness has now settled over the countryside, bringing with it a slight chill and a thin layer of fog. The hanging bare bulbs now burn brightly through the mist, casting an eerie glow over the gathering.

More speeches drag on, and they begin to sound the same. But the announcer rekindles the audience’s attention by introducing a 15-year-old girl. The crowd whoops and cheers and claps as a short, sandy-haired girl climbs up on the platform.

“Hey y’all,” she says. “I’m kinda little bit nervous; it’s the first time I’ve gotten up in front of this many people in my life! Plus it’s the first rally I’ve ever been to. Like he said, my name is Cheryl Hoffman [not her real name]. I’m 15 years old, I’m a member of the Klan Youth Corps and I’m proud of it.”

More cheers. “I attend a high school which is about 90 percent black. I tell you, we’ve got so many nigg*rs you could make a Tarzan movie—except it would be hard to find a white person to be Tarzan.

“Well, I’m here today to tell you all about the kind of harassment I’m put through at school. Like in the mornings, sometimes I have to go down this super-long hall to get to my locker. Lined up against the wall are about 30 nigg*r boys. When I go down there I have to put up with rude, nasty, disgusting nigg*r boys and their vulgar comments. I even have to put up with them reaching and trying to grab me.”

Cheryl goes on to complain about Black History Month at school: “I’m forced to study about a bunch of nigg*rs that don’t pertain nothin’ to me!”

Then she launches into a tirade against atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair: “That’s the lady who banned public prayers from schools. I think she’s nothing but a female dog, a flea-bitten female dog! And now she’s trying to cut [prayer] out from our airways and our televisions, and keep us from learning about our Lord. I tell you, I’m a devout Christian, I go to church and I love the Lord and I’m proud of it. You know I’d love to lead prayer in school, but I can’t because of her. The only way we can stop her and all these communist nigg*rs out there is to join the Ku Klux Klan.

More hollering. “We need to join together because the KKK stands for three main things,” Cheryl concludes. “We all know that Number One is God. We stand for God, and want to teach all people about the Lord. Two is for Race, which is the white race—and we all know, the right race!” Again the audience erupts into cheering and applause.

“And Number Three is Country, to help make America what it once was. The only way we can do that is to join the KKK. We need your support, y’all.”

The crowd claps and whoops like crazy as Cheryl hops down from the stage. She is greeted by her white-robed father, who envelops her with a giant embrace. Then her mother and younger brothers and sisters, beaming with pride, also surround her with hugs. Smiling broadly, Cheryl stands with her family and applauds the next speaker.

The final speaker concludes by explaining the dilemma their leader Bill Wilkinson is in. Bill and the KKK have been sued by several groups for alleged illegal activities (most notably the operation of military-style training camps for young people). And the cost of defending these charges in court has considerably drained the central office’s finances.

The speaker asks people to come to the front and drop their donations into white plastic buckets alongside the platform. His plea sounds just like the invitation to come forward at the end of a Sunday sermon. Slowly and quietly, people begin filing to the front, mostly white-robed people.

Now it is time for the cross lighting, and the crowd makes its way to the far side of the field. One by one, the robed Klanspeople light their torches (which look like broomsticks with rags) and encircle the cross. They widen the circle, pushing back the crowd, while Bill Wilkinson stands near the center with a bullhorn. He takes a moment to say that the cross lighting is a Christian and a sacred ceremony, not a display of hatred or violence. Then he issues orders to the participants in simplified military fashion.

At his command, they march around the cross, then stop, face the center, and wave their torches up and down three times. Then they circle in the other direction, stop, and wave again. Finally Wilkinson says: “Klansmen—to the cross.” The ring of white figures closes in, and the torches are tossed at the foot of the cross.

The flames quickly travel to the top and then to each side of the cross. For the first minute or so it is engulfed in fire, but then the initial flare-up settles down and the cross’s shape stands out clearly. The circle of white robes has reformed, and everyone is silent.

“Klansmen—salute!” commands Wilkinson. They all stretch their arms to the side while Wilkinson recites a litany of some kind: “This cross is an inspiration, a sign of the Christian religion, a symbol of faith, hope, and love. We do not burn, but rather light the cross to signify that Christ is the light of the world, and that his light destroys darkness. Fire purifies gold, silver and precious stones. It destroys wood, stubble, and hay.…

As Wilkinson speaks, a man stands nearby holding his wide-eyed two- or three-year-old daughter. “Daddy, look!” she says.

Dad makes no effort to prevent her from watching. “That’s a cross,” he says to her softly. “See that cross?”

“It’s burning!” she exclaims gleefully, as if playing a guessing game.

“Yeah,” Dad confirms. “See it on fire?… That’s white power!” He gives her a fatherly squeeze as they gaze upon the scene.

Kkk “Theology”

Just what does the Ku Klux Klan believe? That’s hard to say, since no unified theology characterizes all Klan factions, and many members are uneducated, secular citizens. But Klan leaders and more educated members have attempted to Christianize their prejudices by appealing to various biblical passages.

One of these views, based on the account of Noah and his three sons in Genesis 9:20–27, erroneously assumes that Ham was a Negro and Noah’s curse of him therefore extended to the entire Negro race.

Another prevalent view is that Eve had sexual intercourse with Satan in the Garden of Eden and bore Cain. (Abel was her child by Adam.) Cain is identified as the seed of the serpent in Genesis 3:15, and the Jewish race descended from him. According to Klan teaching, the Jews then fled to the woods, where they had sex with the animals and created all the other minority groups. Jews and minorities are viewed as clearly inferior to the true chosen people, the white race, descended from Adam.

But wasn’t Jesus a Jew? Klan doctrine neatly skirts this problem by saying Jesus descended from Adam and is therefore part of the white, Aryan race.

A closer look at Scripture will quickly expose the fallacies of Klan theology. According to Genesis 3, Eve’s sinful act was not sex with Satan, but the eating of the forbidden fruit. Genesis 4:1–2clearly states that both Cain and Abel were children of Adam and Eve, making it impossible for them to have begun different races. Abraham, not Cain, is identified as the father of the Jewish race (Gen. 12:1–3; Rom. 4).

While the Klan distinguishes between the Jews (who they say descended from Cain) and the Israelites (who they say descended from Adam), the Bible plainly equates the two. In Romans 9, the apostle Paul distinguishes between the physical and spiritual descendants of Abraham, but the distinction is based completely on God’s election and man’s faith, not on racial differences.

Though God commanded the Jews in the Old Testament to remain racially pure, his primary concern was for their spiritual purity. God in no way limits his promises or blessings to the Jews but rather tells Abraham that “all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by him” (Gen. 18:18).

Regarding the Jewishness of Jesus: Once the Klan’s distinction between the Jews and Israelites is disproved, no argument can be set forth to depict Jesus as anything but a bona fide Jew. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke show his lineage through both Abraham and Adam. Jesus’ minority status becomes the Klan’s biggest embarrassment.

Somehow the KKK seems to ignore two themes that recur throughout Scripture: that God makes salvation available to all peoples, and that in God’s eyes all people are equal. The universality of the gospel, predicted in the Old Testament (Joel 2:28–32; Isa. 42:6, 52:10, et al), becomes one of the central messages of the New. The Book of Acts describes the growing awareness of the young, Jewish church that God also wants the gospel preached to the Gentiles—people of different races and cultures. This awareness grew through the speaking in other languages at Pentecost, the subsequent conversion and ministry of non-Jews, and Peter’s sheet vision at Joppa after which he concluded, “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34–35).

The apostle Paul echoes Peter’s conclusion throughout his own writings; in fact, he even calls himself an “apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13). “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek,” he writes. “The same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him” (Rom. 10:12; see also Gal. 3:26–29). The biblical principles of universality and equality cut to the very heart of Klan doctrine, making it completely incompatible with true Christianity.

“Different branches of the Klan have different philosophies,” says recent Christian convert Tommy Rollins, former Grand Wizard of a Klan group known as the White Knights of America. “But the bottom line is always the same: the white race is God’s chosen people, and the minorities were placed here by Satan to overthrow. That’s how the organization can justify killing, terrorizing, and so on, because these other people are not looked upon as being human.”

“Just Kinda Neutral”

Following the cross lighting, the crowd lets forth one last round of cheers and applause, then disperses. The eerie atmosphere of the ceremony quickly changes to that of a homecoming bonfire. The band steps onto the stage and begins another set. Many decide to remain and listen to the music or chat with friends. Others stand near the cross, which still burns but much less brightly. They rub their hands together near the flames for warmth, as if the cross were a campfire.

One friendly 16-year-old boy strikes up a conversation. He says he and his parents attend a local Baptist church (his parents are both active in the Klan). And others in the church know of the family’s Klan involvement.

What do people from church say to his parents? “No one really talks about it. Besides, some of the others at church are involved [in the KKK] too. The people around here who join the Klan just join—it doesn’t have nothing to do with their religion.”

And how does the preacher feel about this? “He doesn’t preach about it, but he has talked to my parents. He doesn’t really support them, but he doesn’t have nothing against ’em to say. He’s just kinda neutral about it.”

Local Pastors’ Views

How any preacher could be neutral on a subject such as the Klan is a mystery. But several Roanoke-area pastors, two blacks and two whites, talked about the KKK and the October rally. All four condemn the Klan’s organization and activities, though rarely from the pulpit. (They prefer to preach against racist and terrorist groups in general, rather than by name.) And none of them has ever been a victim of Klan harrassment. But they differ somewhat on how the church should respond to the Klan.

“I think the attitude toward the resurgence of the Klan in Roanoke is one of complacency, especially on the part of the church,” says Lithonia J. Wright, a Roanoke resident and pastor of New Home Missionary Baptist Church in Hissop, Alabama. “Even some black churchmen, along with my white brothers, have been too silent.”

Wright recommended that the Randolph County Ministerial Association publish a letter in the local newspapers opposing the Klan. Last fall the association talked about the issue just before the KKK rally, but no official action or public statement was adopted, Wright says. “I think this complacency on the part of the ministers causes the lay people in the area to be quiet.”

“When the church fails to be the militant church that Jesus has established, [when it fails] to address all evils—personal sins and sins of society—and when we become so complacent that we don’t want to get involved, it’s advantageous to the enemy,” he says.

While completely agreeing with Wright’s opposition to the Klan, Steve Pearson, pastor of the First Church of God (Anderson, Ind.), a white congregation in Roanoke, explains his approach: “Our strategy was simply to boycott the march, to not even show interest in it. We [in the ministerial group] all promised to go back to our churches and say we felt strongly that this thing should not only be avoided, but totally ignored. We thought it would be nice if the downtown area [where the march took place] would be just like a graveyard—no one there, no interest whatsoever. And I think we did manage to keep a lot of people away from the meetings. Just standing there watching is almost like supporting them—or at least they think so. They want to be seen. So we just tried to avoid any kind of confrontation or visible support.”

Center Chapel Baptist Church (independent) stands two miles up the same road where the evening rally was held. That same night the church sponsored a big youth gathering. Pastor Mark Poston says the kids didn’t talk a whole lot about what was happening, but offered a few comments such as, “Down the road they’re burning the cross, and up here we’re lifting up the cross.”

While stressing the importance of the prejudice issue and opposing the KKK at every point, particularly its anti-Semitism, Poston doesn’t see the Klan as something that affects the everyday lives of his members. “I don’t preach a series of messages on the Klan as long as my people don’t feel it’s a real issue.”

Instead, he opts for strengthening the local church, and providing teaching that will help people discern counterfeit Christian groups. “Basically, the people need to be taught against any secret organizations, or against organizations that substitute for the work of the church,” he says.

Robert L. Heflin, pastor of Mount Pisgah Missionary Baptist Church in Roanoke, agrees with Wright’s remarks about the church’s complacency. But he also challenges the black people to oppose the Klan publicly in simple ways: “One thing would be to register and vote. That would be one of the most powerful weapons I know of—good citizenship. We need to take responsibility for our opportunities. I think that’s a sharp comment on us [blacks]; for all the opportunity we get, we don’t show a lot of responsibility as citizens. We don’t participate in civil activities enough.”

Counterfeit

In conclusion, three points about Christianity and the Ku Klux Klan merit restating:

1. The “Christianity” taught and adhered to by the KKK is indeed a counterfeit. It is based on clearly erroneous interpretations of Scripture. It manipulates the Bible into condoning principles that are entirely consistent with those of Nazi Germany: the superiority and purity of the white race, the need to separate from other inferior races, and ultimately the elimination of minorities. And it ignores two of the central themes of the New Testament—that the gospel is intended for all people, the Jew and the Greek, and that in God’s eyes all people are equal before him.

2. For many of its members, the Klan has served as a substitute for the church. Over and over again, Klan members mentioned togetherness, “fellowship,” and support as reasons for joining. The church can offer all this and more, and needs to consider how it can present the gospel of love in a way that will overcome the ignorance and fear held by so many Klanspeople. Is it possible that some have turned to the Klan because churches did not meet these needs?

3. Many churches have remained silent in the face of racial injustice and violence. Particularly in areas where the Klan is active or where other forms of discrimination abound, churches or Christian organizations must publicly, corporately, and peacefully oppose racism and terrorism, while aggressively setting forth the true biblical alternative.

VERNE BECKER

How should i think of myself? What attitude should I adopt toward myself? These are contemporary questions of great importance, questions to which a satisfactory answer cannot be given without reference to the Cross.

A low self-image is common, since many modern influences dehumanize human beings and make them feel worthless. Wherever people are politically or economically oppressed, they feel demeaned. Racial and sexual prejudice have the same effect. As Arnold Toynbee put it, technology demotes persons into serial numbers, “punched on a card and designed to travel through the entrails of a computer.” Ethologists like Desmond Morris tell us that human beings are nothing but animals, and behaviorists like B. F. Skinner say that they are nothing but machines programmed to make automatic responses to external stimuli.

Further, the pressures of a competitive society make many feel like failures. And, of course, there is the personal tragedy of being unloved and unwanted. All these are causes of a low self-image.

In overreaction to this set of influences is the popular movement in the opposite direction. With the laudable desire to build self-respect, it speaks of human potential as virtually limitless. Others emphasize the need to love ourselves. In his perceptive book Psychology As Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship (1977), Paul Vitz cites the following as an illustration of “selfist jargon”:

“I love me. I am not conceited. I’m just a good friend to myself. And I like to do whatever makes me feel good.…”

Another example is this limerick:

There once was a nymph named Narcissus,

Who thought himself very delicious;

So he stared like a fool

At his face in a pool,

And his folly today is still with us.

A Common Error

In spite of widespread teaching to the contrary, the Mosaic injunction, endorsed by Jesus, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” is not a command to love ourselves. Three arguments may be adduced.

Grammatically, Jesus did not say that the second and third commandments are to love our neighbor and ourselves, but that the second commandment is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Self-love here is a fact we should recognize (and use to guide our conduct, as with the Golden Rule), but it is not a virtue to be commended.

Linguistically, agape love means self-sacrifice in the service of others. It cannot therefore be self-directed. The concept of sacrificing ourselves to save ourselves is nonsense.

Theologically, self-love is the biblical notion of sin. One of the marks of the last days in which we live, Paul writes, is that people will be “lovers of self” instead of “lovers of God” (2 Tim. 3:1–4).

One Key: Self-Denial And The Cross

The question is, How can we renounce both self-hatred and self-love? How can we avoid a self-evaluation that is either too low or too high? In biblical terms, how can we “think soberly” about ourselves (Rom. 12:3)? The cross of Christ supplies the answer, for it calls us both to self-denial and to self-affirmation.

Jesus’ call to self-denial is plain: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34). Now, the Romans had made crucifixion a common sight in all their colonized provinces, and Palestine was no exception. Every rebel and criminal who was condemned to death by crucifixion was compelled to carry his cross to the scene of his execution. John wrote of Jesus that “carrying his own cross, he went out to The Place of the Skull” (19:17). To take up our cross, therefore, and follow Jesus is vivid imagery for self-denial. It is to “put ourselves into the position of a condemned criminal on his way to execution” (H. B. Swete). For if we are following Jesus with a cross on our shoulder, there is only one place to which we can follow him: the place of execution. As Bonhoeffer put it, “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.”

To deny ourselves is to behave toward ourselves as Peter did toward Jesus when he denied him three times. The verb is the same. He disowned him, repudiated him, turned his back on him. So must we do to ourselves. Self-denial is not denying ourselves luxuries like candies, cakes, cigarettes, and co*cktails (though it may include this); it is actually denying or disowning ourselves, renouncing our supposed right to go our own way. Paul was elaborating the metaphor of cross bearing when he wrote that “those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:24). We have taken our slippery self and nailed it to Christ’s cross.

Another Key: Self-Affirmation And The Cross

I wonder how you have reacted to the last couple of paragraphs? I hope you have felt uneasy about them. For they have expressed such a negative attitude to self that they appear to align Christians with the bureaucrats and technocrats, the ethologists and behaviorists, in demeaning human beings. It is not that what I have written is untrue (for Jesus said it), but that it is only one side of the truth. It implies that our “self” is wholly bad and must therefore be totally rejected, indeed “crucified”!

But we must not overlook another strand in Scripture. Alongside Jesus’ explicit call to self-denial is his implicit call to self-affirmation (which is not the same as self-love). Nobody who reads the Gospels as a whole could possibly gain the impression that Jesus had a negative attitude to human beings himself, or encouraged one in others. The opposite is the case.

Consider, first, his teaching about people. He spoke of their “value” in God’s sight. They are “much more valuable” than birds or beasts, he said (Matt. 6:26; 12:12). What was the ground of this value judgment? It must have been the doctrine of Creation, which Jesus took over from the Old Testament. It is the divine image in us that gives us our distinctive value. In his excellent little book The Christian Looks at Himself (1975), Prof. Anthony Hoekema quotes a young black who, rebelling against the inferiority feelings inculcated in him by whites, put up this banner in his room: “I’m me and I’m good, ’cos God don’t make junk.”

Then, second, there was Jesus’ attitude toward people. He despised nobody. On the contrary, he went out of his way to honor those the world dishonored, and to accept those the world rejected. He spoke courteously to women in public. He invited children to come to him. He spoke words of hope to Samaritans and Gentiles. He allowed leprosy sufferers to approach him and a prostitute to anoint and kiss his feet. He ministered to the poor and hungry and made friends with the outcasts of society. In all this, his love for human beings shone out. He acknowledged their value and loved them, and by loving them he increased their value.

Third, and in particular, we must remember Jesus’ mission and death for people. He had come to serve, not to be served, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Nothing indicates more clearly the value Jesus placed on people than his determination to suffer and die for them. He was the Good Shepherd who came into the desert to seek and save only one lost sheep, and who laid down his life for his sheep. It is only when we look at the cross that we see the true worth of human beings. As William Temple expressed it, “My worth is what I am worth to God, and that is a marvelous great deal because Christ died for me.”

Resolving The Paradox

We have seen so far that the cross of Christ is both a proof of the value of the human self and a picture of how to deny and crucify it. How can this biblical paradox be resolved? How is it possible to value ourselves and to deny ourselves simultaneously?

The problem arises because we discuss and develop alternative attitudes to ourselves before we have defined this “self” we are talking about. Our “self” is not a simple entity that is either wholly good or wholly evil, one that should therefore be either totally valued or totally denied. Our “self” is a complex entity of good and evil, glory and shame, which therefore requires that we develop more subtle attitudes.

What we are (our self or personal identity) is partly the result of the Creation (the image of God), and partly the result of the Fall (the image defaced). The self we are to deny, disown, and crucify is our fallen self, everything within us that is incompatible with Jesus Christ (hence Christ’s command, “let him deny himself and follow me”). The self we are to affirm and value is our created self, everything within us that is compatible with Jesus Christ (hence his statement that if we lose ourselves by self-denial we shall find ourselves). True self-denial (the denial of our false, fallen self) is not the road to self-destruction, but the road to self-discovery.

So, then, whatever we are by creation, we must affirm: our rationality, our sense of moral obligation, our masculinity and feminity, our aesthetic appreciation and artistic creativity, our stewardship of the fruitful earth, our hunger for love and community, our sense of the transcendent mystery of God, and our inbuilt urge to fall down and worship him. All this is part of our created humanness. True, it has all been tainted and twisted by sin. Yet Christ came to redeem and not destroy it. So we must affirm it.

But whatever we are by the Fall, we must deny or repudiate: our irrationality; our moral perversity; our loss of sexual distinctives; our fascination with the ugly; our lazy refusal to develop God’s gifts; our pollution and spoliation of the environment; our selfishness, malice, individualism, and revenge, which are destructive of human community; our proud autonomy; and our idolatrous refusal to worship God. All this is part of our fallen humanness. Christ came not to redeem this but to destroy it. So we must deny it.

Dignity And Depravity

There is, therefore, a great need for discernment in our self-understanding. Who am I? What is my “self”? Answer: I’m a Jekyll and Hyde, a mixed-up kid, having both dignity, because I was created in God’s image, and depravity, because I am fallen and rebellious. I am both noble and ignoble, beautiful and ugly, good and bad, upright and twisted, image of God and slave of the Devil. My true self is what I am by creation, which Christ came to redeem. My fallen self is what I am by the Fall, which Christ came to destroy.

Only when we have discerned which is which within us shall we know what attitude to adopt toward evil. We must be true to our true self and false to our false self. We must be fearless in affirming all that we are by creation, and ruthless in disowning all that we are by the Fall.

Moreover, Christ’s cross teaches us both attitudes. On one hand, it is the measure of the value of our true self, since Christ died for us. On the other hand, it is the model for the denial of our false self, since we are to nail it to the cross and so put it to death.

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).

The night before thanksgiving, I lay back in my tub, truly thankful for the steamy water with which I basted my weary body. Properly settled in my little pool of prosperity, I opened my November 25 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY and began to peruse the current events of the Lord’s church, content with my luxury, until I came to the article by Mark Galli concerning the Christian’s many excuses for not giving to the poor (“Five Reasons for Not Giving to the Poor”).

As I read, I perceived an uneasy feeling of guilt over the comfort of my bath in a world where “comfort” is too often an unshared experience. How often have I, myself, used the excuses Pastor Galli had so aptly pointed out.

And yet, a red light began to blink its warning. Then I saw the hang-up: a desperately needed point of consideration had been totally excluded from the piece—the need for caution and direction in giving.

It must be said, at the outset, that the intent of Galli’s article was well taken. We more prosperous Christians have an ugly tendency to bury our responsibility to the poor in a pile of excuses. Indeed, this reply to Galli’s article is not so much a rebuttal as it is an addendum. The suggestions I offer are not to be used as simply more excuses not to give, but rather, as cautions to give properly.

Years ago, as a young associate pastor at a large church in Indiana, I found myself a prime target for the multitude of fund seekers in the community. (I suppose anyone who wears a three-piece suit every day is considered rich.)

In those tender years, I gave “till it hurt.” It took over 10 years of experience to learn the reasons for showing caution in giving.

You May Hurt The Person You’Re Trying To Help

Before we can learn how to give, we must have a solid grasp of why to give. Am I giving to give, or giving to help? If my intention in giving is to tell myself that I have followed Christ’s command to give, then almost any form of giving will do. However, if my goal in giving is actually to help the person in need, then I must be more diligent in defining my gift.

In the latter case, giving becomes much more than an act of transferring my property to someone else. Such transfer can, indeed, result in harm to the person I intended to help.

In my first pastorate, a man started attending church who was a professed alcoholic. One night he came to the altar and gave his heart to Christ. During the next few weeks, he became active in the fellowship, never came to church drunk and was, evidently, quite grateful for the change God had made in his life.

After the service one evening, he told me of a problem he was having. His newly acquired job would not issue his first paycheck in time to pay his rent. He asked if I could help him out, and I did—to the tune of $50. He ended up in the hospital that night with a blood alcohol of 400. In my effort to be an obedient “giver,” I had nearly killed my newborn brother with $50 worth of hard liquor.

You May Hurt The Person Functionally As Well As Physically

On the level of the individual, I do not hesitate in stating that great harm can be done to people by those who give indiscriminately. A simple case in point should amply illustrate.

Last year, I was visiting with another minister in town when the phone rang. On the other end was a man calling from a restaurant with a heart-rending story of great need. I have a policy to pray before I act, so I asked the man if he could call me back in a few minutes. As the phone rang the second time, God answered my prayer, and instructed me to help the man, but not to give him any money.

We met the man at the restaurant, where we fed him a hearty meal and talked with him about his need. From his tattered clothes, we could see he was destitute, and we longed to help. His needs were simple: clothes, food, and a place to stay until his boarding room opened up in two weeks.

We took him to a clothing storehouse operated by several churches in town, and stocked him with a small wardrobe of very nice clothes. We sat down for coffee, and I offered him a place to stay and three meals a day if he would help me around the church with a few odd jobs for the next two weeks. His answer almost bowled me over.

“I think I’d like to stay and eat, but I don’t know about that work stuff. I ain’t worked in a long time. Why don’t you guys just give me some money?” he said. “All the other churches just give me money.”

We sat till four o’clock that morning trying to convince him to stay. I even gave in and told him he didn’t have to work, just attend the church services. He ended up turning us down cold on our heartless, demanding offer. For a parting shot he rummaged through the stack of clothes we’d given him, picked out a pair of shoes and a jacket and said, “I can’t wear that other stuff. It’s too good. If I wore that stuff, nobody’d ever give me anything.” With that, he was off into the night.

In their desire to be “givers,” the other churches, in this man’s experience, had done nothing more than reinforce his reprehensible lack of dignity. Even now, he is probably calling still another pastor for help.

You Can Easily Hurt Your Relationship With The Other Person

Not long ago, my wife and I were tallying our financial outreach to individuals and trying to evaluate the actual benefits rendered. We were happy to see that, recently, our selectivity in giving had produced far more permanent results than had previous years of token benevolence. One man’s business was saved and is still flourishing. Another maintained his home ownership until he was finally called back to work.

But there was one thing we still noticed that was quite disturbing. In every single case of large-scale giving (which often included the total loss of our savings), the recipients had—within weeks—become offended at us and relinquished our relationship. It seemed, somehow, that our generosity had precipitated hard feelings.

It would be presumptuous of me to imply that I would be able to analyze professionally the emotional causes of their actions. But I have come to a simple conclusion of caution that my wife and I have decided to practice from now on in our giving: “But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth” (Matt. 6:3).

One Man’S Gain Can Be A Needier Man’S Loss

In Matthew 25, we are taught to be good stewards of all our assets issued by the Lord. Stewardship, to be sure, involves a strain of generosity considered foolish by the world’s standards. But it also demands a godly wisdom. We are instructed to be wise as serpents as well as harmless as doves. The story of Joseph teaches us the planned use and distribution of God’s wealth.

It would be impossible for me to list the scores of times I have thrown my money into every hand extended, only to find that, when a true need arose, I had nothing left to give. Can we honestly claim that God is pleased when we give all that we have to those in need of a newer pair of jeans—and then have nothing left for the mother who has no winter coat? Is it right to support someone’s Pepsi habit, and void ourselves of the funds to help the child in need of milk?

Mark Galli, in his article, claims that we have no right to criticize the misuse of the money we give. I cannot more harshly disagree! Every time I give of my wealth, I deplete my funds to help more people by the amount that I have given. Jesus told us that the poor would be with us always, and there are certainly more poor in the world than there are funds in my pocket. It is, therefore, logical to conclude that every time I give to one person I am taking from another whom I could have given to if he or she come to me first. Plainly speaking, I am taking out of one man’s mouth to feed another. If the first rule of giving is cheerfulness (2 Cor. 9:7), the second must surely be forethought (1 Cor. 16:2).

You Can Hurt Your Own Family

There has always been abundant preaching in the Christian world about putting others’ needs before our own. One particular Scripture that seems to confirm this idea is 1 Corinthians 10:24: “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.”

Understanding for this verse comes with the study of the word “seek.” Literally, the Greek zeteo means “to endeavor,” “to plot,” “to worship.” As Christians, the purpose in our lives is clearly not just to seek and glory in our own well-being. But there is a vast difference between “worshiping one’s prosperity” and “providing for one’s household.”

In my early years as a pastor, my enthusiasm for giving almost cost me my home. How often did I give my last $20 away to someone who needed to pay a parking ticket when at home there was nothing for my family to eat but some popcorn—without butter! How many times have I (ignoring the plea of my frustrated spouse) invited some strange man into my home to spend a few days, only to find out later his history of rape and child molesting?

It is so easy for us to lay the responsibility on God by saying “God will provide and protect.” Certainly all provision comes from our Father, and the miracle supply of God has never run out; but the warning of 1 Timothy 5:8 is directed at us, not God: “If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

It is with this caution in mind that I mention a type of giving quite removed from giving to the poor. It is the practice of giving to the ministry.

I am a full-time pastor and draw all my wages through the offerings in my church. My wife works with me, and the only outside income we have is that of special offerings when we sing and preach in other churches. Thus, it is safe to say that I am heartily in favor of generous giving to the professional ministry.

However, I have recently noticed a spirit of foolishness in giving that is frightening. The doctrine goes something like this, “God promises to return to me tenfold everything I give to the kingdom. Therefore, if I will give $10 in the offering, God is obligated, by his Word, to return to me $100 in blessing. If I give $100, God must return $1,000. If I really have ‘faith’ and give $1,000, God will give me $10,000.”

Several months back a Christian friend invited me to lunch. We dined at a nice restaurant where he fed me an expensive meal. During our conversation, he told me he was treating me because he needed extra money, and he knew that if he blessed God’s minister, God would return to him a hundredfold. After lunch, he invited me into his small apartment. My stomach sickened as I realized that, while we fared sumptuously on his meager funds, his wife was sitting hungry with their child in a two-room apartment with no rugs, one lamp, and towels for a curtain.

In the wake of this mistaken philosophy of giving are families with no food, unpaid bills, and even some believers with $2,000 and $3,000 personal loans they secured from the bank to give the preacher. Giving is meant to be a beautiful expression of concern and love. But it can be used by the enemy as a tool of waste and despair.

So What’S The Answer: To Give Or Not To Give?

It is the unfortunate characteristic of magazine articles that they often overstate one side of a point. I am more aware than anyone that my words may be taken to say, “Don’t give! You’ll get taken!” That is not what I intend.

Nor is it my intention that readers be so logical and selective about their giving that they approach every prospect with a fine-toothed comb, in perilous dread of making a mistake. To do this would destroy the spirit of giving altogether.

The answer is not one of fear, but of “true concern.” Token compassion will cause me to give indiscriminately just to relieve the pressure of the moment. True concern will drive me to become readily familiar with the variety of ways I can really help someone. If my heart yearns to give, there are several things to consider.

First, I must familiarize myself with the numerous service groups in my region that specialize in particular forms of aid. The Lions help people pay for glasses and eye examinations. Goodwill has an abundance of clothing. I pastored for three years in one community before I realized there was a local mission that housed and fed the destitute while it ministered to their spiritual needs as well.

We must be careful not to allow “groups” to do all our giving for us. But if we really love, we will search out beforehand where help is available.

Second, we can determine other ways to help besides giving money. In our society, cash is looked on as a cure-all. Often it is easy to give money or old clothing but very hard to give time, an open ear, a shoulder to cry on, counsel, friendship, or church fellowship. One time a man in our church said he needed money to pay his bills. Upon investigation I discovered he earned more than I and had fewer expenses. The man didn’t need money; he needed a financial adviser and a good budget.

There will come the time when the problem must stop at my doorstep. No service group can help; no counselor can change the situation. It is up to me to dig deep into my pocket and give of my earthly goods. Yet, even at this point, wisdom must be employed.

Instead of giving cash and sending the bum on his way, I can take the time needed to use that extra touch of the spirit of God that dwells within me. I can take him to the store and buy him clothes. I can (if I’m not too proud) take him to dinner; or, better yet, invite him home for dinner (with my wife’s permission).

It is my choice how I will approach the art of giving. Will I handle it like a “duty” that must be carried out to maintain my good Christian standing? Or will it be an act of love—well thought out, prepared for, longed for, and executed? Let me settle it now, before the need arises.

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).