Page 4642 – Christianity Today (2024)

Something is awry in the mission commitments of many congregations. Enthusiasm is easily generated for short-term missions, yet career missionaries discover that few people want to hear about their work. Auctions and car washes raise funds for short-termers, while money for established projects can suffer.

Unfortunately, much of our short-term work fosters dependency instead of empowering people. And because of inadequate preparation, some short-termers damage existing Christian witness or exhaust missionaries and national leaders.

Harsh words? “Surely that’s extreme,” many readers may respond. “My grandchild went on a short-term mission and came home a new person.” Granted, I too have sent my sons on short-term youth missions and will continue to do so. Christian parents should wish for their children a vision for mission.

But any strategy that deflects resources from long-term to short-term workers, even indirectly, is surely misguided. One flagship megachurch with a budget of $15 million aims to send 8,000 of its members on short-term missions trips annually, while supporting no career missionaries. This may be an extreme example. Yet why do so many congregations assume they must see missions firsthand before they will give? Why do they need to see videos of themselves on location before they care about missions?

Prayer, money, and enthusiasm must focus on long-term workers-both nationals and expatriates-viewing short-term workers as a complement to them. Writing on the downturn in career missionaries, Robert T. Coote says:

In a world where hundreds of millions have yet to hear the name of Christ and additional millions have not heard the gospel presented effectively in their cultural context, there is no substitute for the career missionary. … One can take only limited satisfaction in reports of uncounted thousands of short-termers engaged in mission, of local churches and schools undertaking cross-cultural ‘exposure’ forays. … [Short- termers] cannot balance a real decline in long-term commitments by men and women who are prepared to take a profoundly incarnational approach to communicating the gospel of Jesus Christ to people of other cultures. (International Bulletin of Mission Research, Jan. 1995)

Counting short-term blessingsShort terms (which some define as any period up to two years) can be a great blessing—with safeguards. When a church sponsors short-termers, giving and prayer support may increase; and some short-termers feel called to long-term service because of their experience.

My own large church (University Presbyterian, Seattle) is an example of short-term missions stimulating increased missions giving. We have pioneered mission work in Albania for the past five years or so. During this time, 22 of our members have given a total of 57 years of service in that country, the majority two years or less. Our church budgeted $60,000 for this work. However, the total giving to support these 22 people and their associated projects has been $500,000! But most of this giving was stimulated by the “middle-term” people who learned the language.

Some short-termers come back changed, with a bigger view of God and the world and an increased willingness to risk for his kingdom. Short-termers can bring Christ to “restricted access” regions where missionaries are not allowed to settle or extend a national church’s or long-term missionary’s ministry. They can provide a vast pool of resources for huge events, like evangelism at the Olympics. Meeting short-termers may encourage nationals in their own witness. And, humbling though it may be, sometimes their contribution is comic entertainment for the locals—no small gift.

Cautionary talesIn this post-Cold War, inward-looking era, we can thank God for any Christians who want to bless the nations. To maximize the benefits of short-term missions, however, we must face three issues: time, intent, and training.

Time. It takes time to learn a language. It takes time to fall into the ground as a seed and lose our life, only to find it again in a hundredfold growth among another people. If love and listening require time anywhere, how much more this is the case when cultural contexts are radically different.

Do short-termers adjust calmly to scorpions on the kitchen table? Foreign life is neither exotic nor simply a cauldron of problems. Foreign life is merely another set of arrangements viewed best through local lenses. It takes time to adapt to this.

And it takes time to absorb how to make local patterns work. From the people’s perspective, what is the right way to plan a schedule? To expend money and account for it? To exercise authority? To take initiative? To settle quarrels? These patterns are not mastered in the first week off the plane. God in Christ took 33 years in one place. It takes time to be a friend.

Intent. Let’s be honest: In much of our short-term service, we are the ones who benefit most. Volunteer work is therapy—”feel good” service. Is this an appropriate objective of our mission efforts?

What is top priority—our benefit or others’? Although Christ went to the cross motivated by the joy beyond, he did not take on human form primarily to enhance his own experience. Do we have the right to use others to sensitize us to poverty and lostness if it means dampening their initiative and reinforcing their dependency on outside materials and skills?

What nurses and doctors are taught is appropriate for missionaries, too: “First, do no harm.” To say that something is better than nothing is no justification for poor mission work. Some mission work—even though it stimulates us—can be worse than nothing.

Years of gracious witness by local believers and missionaries can be damaged by careless “tourists for Jesus,” for example. And a noncontextualized witness can inoculate people against the gospel when a more attuned witness arrives.

For indigenous Christian leaders, regular short-term help can nurture dependency and retard grassroots leadership development. When people wait for the planes to fly in with supplies and experts, they are not empowered; they have become dependent on outside aid.

Too often we swoop down to clean up a disaster at the bottom of a cliff when we ought to be helping the people build a fence across the top. We should stop and ask: Why are so many people sick? Poor? Uneducated?

Frequently, local Christians have some answers. They see causes. They can suggest preventive measures. They can prescribe potential infrastructures to enable their people to build their own churches, publish their own books, and train their own preachers.

But such solutions are complex, risky even. For the sake of feeling good about our efforts, we pragmatic Americans like quick, measurable solutions: Ten wells dug. Ten dramas performed. Ten sermons preached. One hundred people won to Christ. We do not like long discussions fraught with ambiguity and long-term strategies with potential for failure—especially when we don’t even speak the language.

Training for effectiveness. Many short-termers have a heart for the Lord but only a sketchy knowledge of Scripture, little experience in evangelism or apologetics, and a lackadaisical practice of spiritual disciplines.

How well can they answer the question, Who is Jesus? for example, and do they know how he is interpreted in another culture? As a great prophet? The cosmic power that infuses all reality? One of many incarnations of God? Are short-termers trained to discuss such distinctions winsomely and persuasively? What if indigenous concepts of God, human nature, sin, and revelation are part of a system alien to American ways of thinking?

Do the short-termers we commission know the great themes of Scripture? Do they know how to discuss “difficult questions” with non-Christians? Are they experienced in sharing their faith with others? In helping a new Christian grow? In mediating interpersonal conflicts? Are they faithful in their own practice of daily spiritual disciplines?

Even the carpenter, the surgeon, and the “closed country” visitor whose witness is largely “Christian presence” need to be able to give an answer for the hope that is in them. Well-prepared teams often find a chance to witness in the most formidable places. Poorly prepared teams see the chances of a lifetime slip away.

Cultural knowledge and interpersonal skills deserve thorough attention, too. For example, the frequent “immodesty” of short-termers’ dress and body language appalls long-term missionaries, who cry for better cultural orientation.

Watch out for short-term missions! Better yet, improve them. Give short-termers the most thorough preparation possible. Send them to projects that empower local people, at the invitation of the locals. Do not drain people already on the field. Do not drain donors of attention, prayer, and money that should be dedicated to long-term workers. With these safeguards, short-term missions can offer ordinary Christians a chance to make a difference, and to bless the nations.

By Miriam Adeney, a contributing editor of ct; she is research professor of mission at Regent College (Vancouver, B.C.) and associate professor of cross-cultural ministries at Seattle Pacific University.

Nine Questions Missions Committees Should Ask

—Do we focus prayer, money, and enthusiasm on long-term missionaries and nationals?

—Do we seek and follow the counsel of thoughtful and appropriately trained indigenous leaders before planning our short-term projects?

—Do we seek to be part of long-term systemic solutions, rather than piecemeal projects?

—Does our work empower locals, leaving them with greater confidence to apply their own resources to solve their problems?

—Do we buy the resources for our projects locally to support the local economy and to model the use of indigenous materials?

—Do we minimize our consumption of the long-termers’ time and resources?

—Do we train our short-termers thoroughly in Scripture knowledge, spiritual disciplines, culture knowledge, and interpersonal skills?

—Do we cultivate humility, recognizing that there are no “instant experts”?

—Do we refuse to evaluate our project primarily by its effect on us?

For practical suggestions on training youth for short-term missions, including follow-up strategies, see Paul Borthwick, “Short-term Youth Teams: Are They Worth It?” (Evangelical Missions Quarterly, Oct. 1996).

Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Ten Years ago, Presbyterian minister, evangelist, and church leader Leighton Ford founded Leighton Ford Ministries to identify and develop emerging young leaders. In 1992 he began the Arrow Leadership Program, using a nonresidential, tow-year schedule to train groups of 25 people ages 25-40—many of whom are already in ministry positions—in evangelism and leadership skills. “I sensed a desire among the younger generation of emerging leaders for a highly personalized leadership development program,” says Ford. “They hungered for mentoring relationships with older leaders and affirmation between peers—and above all, a program that stressed character development alongside skills for growing ministries.”

Ford’s advice to the 50 young leaders featured in this issue of CT is embodied in this letter to two students completing the Arrow program.

Dear Danny and Chris,

As you graduate, my thoughts are drawn back to 50 years ago this fall. I was 15 then, and had just been named president of my hometown Youth for Christ. That position gave me the chance to try my own wings in leadership, and it put me in touch with come important evangelical leaders. Oswald Smith, the well-known missionary pastor, taught me to pray. Bob Pierce, founder of World Vision, opened my eyes to the world. Harold Ockenga, the consummate pastor-scholar and itinerant president of Fuller Seminary, inspired me with his biblical and intellectual preaching and in many ways treated me like a son. Billy Graham came to my small city and encouraged me when I saw meager response. Later he became my mentor and brother-in-law.

That generation of post-World War II leaders, which emerged on the national and international scene with tremendous vision and energy, has now largely moved off the stage. Interestingly, I do not see many visionary leaders in their late forties and fifties taking their places; those in that age range tend to be managers of their elders’ visions and the organizations they had built. But I do see God raising up a new band of leaders among men and women who are under 40, like yourselves.

British novelist Graham Greene once wrote, “The door always opens and lets the future in.” Because of this, you and your peers bring me great hope. The world in which you are assuming leadership, however, is very different from the one in which my peers and I started out 50 years ago. Here is my prayer for the two of you as you assume leadership roles in today’s world.

1. I pray that you will be “hopers.”A theologian friend of mine speaks of the “ontological priority of the future.” Those are big words that catch a vital truth: God is always ahead of us and moving us on.

In 1946 we were just entering into the Cold War between the East and West. For nearly 40 years the image of the Cold War dominated our thinking as a nation and, to be honest, as christians. We saw ourselves as on a holy crusade against communism and for christ. That in itself was never sufficient biblical grounds for action, but it nevertheless fueled a lot of the energy and money that went into Christian missions.

Today we have moved from the Cold War to cultural wars and religious conflicts within and without nations. As a nation, we fumble around, searching for a purpose. Likewise, our mission as Christians seems more complex and less clear. The “enemy” is not so clearly identified, and the battle goes on within as well as without the church. But our ally is very clear. As a friend once wrote to me, “Remember, Leighton, God really is God. He’s not applying for the job.”

And so as you minister in a world often steeped in confusion and despair, I hope you will breathe expectancy. God always has another move!

2. I pray that you will be world Christians.In your commitment to christ, stay keenly aware of what is happening in the world. No longer does North America call all the shots; if this is true economically and in geopolitics, it is even more true in our calling to serve Christ.

In 1974 I served as program chairman of the International congress on World Evangelization, held in Lausanne, Switzerland. Under the leadership of billy Graham, nearly 3,000 Christian leaders came together from around the world at a time when many of the old-line churches had lost their nerve for missions. It was also at a time when there had been 25 years of amazing growth of the church around the world. What struck many of us at Lausanne were the outstanding leaders from what we then called the Third World—from Latin America and Asia and Africa—leaders of tremendous spirit and ability. They didn’t always make us feel comfortable. Some of them had some very critical things to say about the shortcomings they saw in the North American church, and it made some Americans angry. But it brought home powerfully that the whole church must be the mission force, and that we must forge a global partnership.

It also emphasized that the whole world, including the “Christian West,” is the mission field. The world has come to our cities—most of our taxi drivers in Charlotte, North Carolina, are either Ethiopians or Nigerians. The mission field is not only “over there” but is also “right here.”

Chris, you recommended to me the book Amazing Grace, Irving Kozol’s stories of the people he met in the Bronx. Last night I was reading about a guy who was born in jail when his mother was incarcerated and now, in his late twenties, was dying in another jail from AIDS. We, in what we once called “Christian” America, don’t have a lot to brag about.

To be a world christian calls for a kind of humble boldness—humility in the awareness of our own failures but boldness in the knowledge of our position in Christ. Hans Kung, the German theologian, says that we need to be “Christo-centric but not narrowly so.” I like that. for me it means that we can live and speak with the great confidence that Jesus is the unique Son of God and Savior and Lord. But we have this treasure in very earthen vessels, so we should listen with great respect to others—and learn from them.

I recommend that you study the great American missionary E. Stanley Jones. I had the privilege of meeting him, and his writings had a great influence on me. Jones went to India with a high sense of what he could bring to the Indians, but he soon discovered that they were a very religious and devout people, with prayer and much wisdom. The one unique thing he knew he brought was Jesus. Jones would bring together Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims and nonbelievers in roundtable sessions. They would listen to each other, seeking to understand with respect. For his part, Jones would speak boldly and without apology of Jesus. To him, salvation was not something we achieved but something we received. I covet that humble boldness for you.

3. I pray that you will be visionaries like Jesus.Clear vision matters more today than ever because the world is changing so quickly. At the end of our century, in which we have gone from Model T’s to modems, strategic planning in most companies is not over a five- or ten-year time frame, but two or three years. Asian businessman Bob wong has noted that “In the ’90s you don’t have to be big. You just have to have vision and move fast.”

Jesus knew what it was to move fast. When he sent his disciples out, he told them, “Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road” (Luke 10:4)

But he could move fast because he had spent time with his Father and was very clear as to his call. He also had taken time with his disciples to sharpen their vision.

That’s why I hope you will be visionaries like Jesus. Vision is not just that of an entrepreneur who can visualize a great scheme or project. Vision is to see as god does. Vision grows when you take time to observe what is happening in our world—what the needs are and what God is doing; to reflect prayerfully and biblically on what you see; and to act, beginning in small ways, on what god helps you to see.

4. I pray that you will be kingdom seekers and not empire builders.In my opinion, we have had too many “Christian” enterprises that have been more about building the ego of the leader and the impressiveness of the church or organization than about seeking the will of Jesus. Some of them have come crashing down.

Certainly there is a place for godly ambition. The young John Mott—one of the greatest evangelists and Christian social leaders at the turn of the century—was a student at Cornell University when he heard a British athlete say in a speech, “Young man, do you seek great things for yourself? Seek them not. Seek first the kingdom of god and his righteousness.” Eventually Mott received the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership of the YMCA and for his contributions to reconstruction after World War I. But his was a kingdom-seeking ambition.

It is interesting how the understanding of leadership has changed in my lifetime. In management and business the trend has been away from autocratic, authoritarian, top-down leadership to empowering, participating, bottom-up leadership. Someone has said that to build pyramids you needed one person who could think and 10,000 who could grunt. But you and I are not leading grunts today. For the most part, we are leading people who, through experience and education and communication, have learned to think for themselves.

Jesus aimed to build up people. The heart of his leadership was not so much in giving his disciples a plan they had to follow as it was in putting his own Spirit in them and setting them free to be all that God had called them to be. That is being a kingdom seeker.

5. I pray that you will model the inclusiveness of Jesus.I have been impressed in watching the two of you—an African American and an Anglo American with very different personalities and styles—working in tandem on a mission to the heart of Knoxville. I know it hasn’t been easy. You have been very open about the conflicts of personality and culture that you have faced. You have wondered if you could work through all this and stick together. But you have. You have been humble and open enough to recognize your own faults and weaknesses and to learn from each other.

The church and society in America need to see that kind of diversity lived out, first, because the gospel is about reconciliation, and our actions have to show that; and second, because most of the unchurched people we are trying to reach are turned off by anything that smacks of arrogance and exclusiveness.

Let me say something else that is very much on my heart. Both of you have shown great respect for your wives, each of whom is a gifted person in her own right. I hope that you will show that same regard for the women with whom you work in leadership. I am deeply convinced that God calls all of his people to leadership.

When my wife and I first went to the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., in the midfifties, women were not permitted to sit on the main floor. They could sit in the balcony and listen—without breakfast! That was then, and it’s embarrassing to remember. Today Mother teresa and Elizabeth Dole are keynote speakers at the National Prayer Breakfast. You are going to be working with schools and corporations and institutions where women are not just permitted to be leaders but are wanted and respected. I wish that were as true of the church. I hope you guys will be strong, secure men who, not with paternalism but with mutuality, will lead with and be led by God’s women.

6. I pray that you will have a pioneering spirit for the gospel.Those post-World War II Christian leaders I spoke of at the beginning of this letter saw a new world they hadn’t been aware of before—with huge opportunities. Billy Graham saw the world as spiritually hungry and mastered the use of crusades, motion pictures, and radio and television to spread the gospel. Bob Pierce saw the orphans of China and Korea and started a compassionate ministry of social outreach. Oswald Smith saw the opportunity for the local church to be a force for world missions and started annual mission conferences,which were copied by many other churches and resulted in many recruits and dollars for world missions. Harold Ockenga saw the need for a gospel that would be biblically true, intelligent, and socially aware.

In the same vein, I pray you will have pioneering spirits. You don’t need to plan on building a huge organization. You may want to do it more on a local community level where you can be deeply and personally involved. You will want a gospel that is very whole, concerned with body, mind, spirit, and community.

It doesn’t matter whether is it “big” or “small.” Dream dreams for God. See as Jesus did—he saw sheep harassed and helpless without laborers. Bleed and long as Paul did that the gospel be preached where it was not preached.

Chris, you told me how you take drug users off the street, help them identify their entrepreneurial skills, and the help them to see how God can use those skills in legitimate and beneficial ways. You have also told me how you listen carefully to the language of the gangs, because the way they speak shows you how you might speak to them. Danny, you told me how you couldn’t preach a sermon on the street corner to the guys in Knoxville because they wouldn’t listen. But you could talk to them about their buddies who had been gunned down in the last year. You could ask how long they expected to live, then offer, “I am a preacher. Would you like me to preach your funeral? What would you like me to say?” From there you could tell them what you would like to have said at your funeral. What a creative way to communicate the gospel!

You have heard me say over and over that one way that we will communicate to your postmodern generation, with its skepticism toward anything absolute, is by being storytellers. Mark tells us that Jesus told many things with stories, and without a story he didn’t tell anything. Stories feed a deep hunger in the human soul. They have a way of reaching your generation, which is so visual and so entertainment-oriented that it finds it difficult to listen to old-style linear exposition. Exposition is important, but we need to bridge into it.

7. I pray that you will stay attuned to the Holy Spirit.We are accustomed to hearing that we live in an era that is extremely secular and hostile toward Christianity. I know there is some very deep opposition. But I also believe that God’s Spirit is at work in deep ways we haven’t yet seen.

Diogenes Allen, a philosophy professor at Princeton Seminary, once told me that when he was a graduate student in philosophy at Princeton, God wouldn’t get a mention in the faculty lounge—except for a skeptical laugh. In that same lounge today, however, God is seriously discussed. In his book Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, Allen says he believes “a massive intellectual revolution is taking place that is perhaps as great as that which marked out the modern world from the Middle Ages—the barriers to Christian belief erected by the modern mentality are collapsing, and philosophy and science, once used to undermine belief in God, are now seen in some respect as actually pointing toward God.”

Science taught us to doubt as the way to knowledge. But you can’t doubt everything. And now I believe we’re at a point where we are moving from pervasive doubt to pervasive longing.

The Canadian writer Doug Coupland, who wrote the book and coined the term “Generation X,” has written another book called Life After God. Toward the end he says this:

Now—here is my secret: I tell it to you with an openness of heart that I doubt I shall ever achieve again, so I pray that you are in a quiet room as you hear these words. My secret is that I need God—that I am sick and can no longer make it alone. I need God to help me give, because I no longer seem to be capable of giving; to help me be kind, as I no longer seem capable of kindness; to help me love, as I seem beyond being able to love.

I was impressed with the young pastor who told me a few weeks ago that he went to Borders, the megabookstore in his city, and they agreed to organize a reading group on the Spiritual Journey. He is not going to be preaching or leading a Bible study. But they will be reading a number of different books about spirituality, including some by C.S. Lewis. That is an example of seeing the world and then meeting its deep spiritual hunger.

8. I pray that you will seek a heart for God.That is a description of David, who was “a man after God’s own heart.” Like King David, may your doing always grow out of your being. Christlike character isn’t just a matter of living by the rules and being moral. It is a matter of heart.

In the years since the fall of Jim Bakker and PTL, Ihave had cause to look at my own heart in new and deeper ways. I have seen my own shadow side, parts of me that I didn’t like to see or I didn’t want to acknowledge. I realized more than ever that leadership is a journey. There are skills to leadership. There is an art to leadership. But leadership is a matter of becoming, of a journey to the center.

A young leader called me a few weeks ago—a man who has led in building a large, multiracial church. He was going through a time of deep discouragement and depression over the conflicts he had faced; he probably was very close to leaving the ministry. After I listened to him for a while, I said, “I am so thankful you are going through this.” He responded in amazement, “What? Why?” And I said, “Because it is better for you to face this now at 40 and realize these tendencies and deal with them than to wait until you are 60. You will be a better, stronger, deeper, more caring, more sensitive leader because you have gone through the pain.”

The old Eastern theologians used to say that the time “between dreams” is the most critical time in our spiritual lives. Then is when we need to stay awake until we see what God’s next dream is. God is doing more, perhaps, in those times than at any other to grow our hearts for him.

9. Finally, Chris and Danny, hug and older leader!Be nice to us who are getting along. We need it! Having just turned 65 this last month, I think more of what it is like to grow older and to begin to lose the edge. What happens to our ministry and organization after my time? These thoughts are not always kind to one’s self-esteem. It is no easier to let go of a ministry you have helped to birth and grow than it is to give away a daughter or a son in marriage.

So please love and respect and encourage your senior leaders. Express appreciation. Share yourselves with us. Give us that hug around the shoulder or the heart that we need. We don’t always know how to respond to it, but we need it.

God is opening the door. He is letting in the future. You are part of that future. My prayer is that you will always be led by Jesus, and lead like him, and to him.

Sincerely,

Your friend and older brother,

Leighton

Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Rodney B. Swanson had served as a deacon and choir member at Emmanuel Evangelical Free Church in Burbank, California. He had even portrayed Jesus in church plays. So when the real-estate salesman offered long-time friends and fellow church members attractive land investments, he seemed more than trustworthy.

Yet, on September 30, Swanson was sentenced to 10 years in prison and ordered to pay back $840,000 of the $10 million he stole, following convictions on 62 felony counts, including securities fraud, grand theft, and money laundering.

Nearly 80 people, many of them elderly, invested between $10,000 and $775,000 with Swanson, who, among other illegal acts, sold them promissory notes and partial interests in property he did not own.

Investors took Swanson, 47, to civil court in 1991, but the cases were dismissed.

“Unfortunately, this is common operating procedure for these kinds of crimes,” says prosecutor Anthony Colannino. “It’s a lot easier to defraud people who love and trust you. These people believed they shared the same belief system and the same morals. They didn’t.”

Swanson’s lawyer claimed the money was lost not because of fraud, but a collapsed real-estate market.

Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

The executive producer of Entertaining Angels: The Dorothy Day Story hopes the film will find its audience after opening in nearly 20 cities last month.

Entertaining Angels, released by Paulist Pictures, tells the story of the one-time suffragette, socialist, and newspaper reporter who became a Roman Catholic in 1927 and devoted the rest of her life to serving the poor through the Catholic Worker movement, which she cofounded with Peter Maurin in 1931. Day died in 1980.

Reviews of the hagiopic have been mixed. The film “imagines her life as a series of crises that the screenplay (by John Wells) reduces into neatly circ*mscribed, carefully rigged little confrontations,” critic Stephen Holden wrote in the New York Times.

“This is a film one would love to love, but the result is disappointing,” wrote Jim Forest, editor of In Communion, official publication of Orthodox Peace Fellowship. Forest worked with Day for several years.

Ted Baehr of MovieGuide, which critiques films from a conservative Christian perspective, gave Entertaining Angels an enthusiastic review: “I loved the movie, and I wept. I thought it was a great character study.” The film is rated PG-13.

Ellwood Kieser, a priest who served as executive producer, says some of the early audiences also identified with the film. At a convention of Pax Christi, the Catholic peace movement, 450 people joined Moira Kelly, the actress who portrays Day, as she sang “Amazing Grace” over the final credits.

No matter how the film performs at box offices, Kieser is satisfied. “I got the picture that I wanted. I knew Dorothy Day, and I hope to spend eternity with her.”

Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

For the past eight years, Kurt and Cindy Van Gorden have set up an information booth at the Utah State Fair to distribute literature critical of Mormonism, the religion of most of the state’s 1.8 million residents. But after this year’s visit, they filed lawsuits against state officials and city police officers who they believe went overboard and harassed them.

Their complaints—which include charges of false arrest, sexual assault, and civil-rights violations—stem from a confrontation with State Fair security on September 14. They allege that the harassment was motivated by Mormon hostility to their literature.

State Fair authorities, however, claim the two evangelists violated a contractual prohibition of photography, due to previous problems. Yet the Christian couple maintains their contract allowed the video monitoring of their exhibit table as a theft deterrent.

When the State Fair president directed the videocamera to be turned off, Cindy Van Gorden started taking snapshots as a dispute unfolded.

The Van Gordens allege that moments later, police and security guards knocked Cindy Van Gorden to the ground and searched inside her blouse for her camera after she refused to relinquish it. Much of the episode was recorded by the wide-angle videocamera on a tripod.

Cindy Van Gorden says she was handcuffed, held incommunicado for nearly an hour, and questioned without having been read her rights. Sgt. Sam Hemmingway of the Salt Lake City Police Department told CT that a criminal investigation targeting State Fair officials and an internal-affairs investigation of the police officers involved are being conducted.

Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Paul sobbed as he prayed, “God, I need to know that you forgive me.” Though he and his girlfriend had ended their addictive sexual relationship several months earlier, he could not quite believe God had forgiven him. Reciting the words from a Graham Kendrick song we often sang—”And now the love of God shall flow like rivers. Come wash your guilt away: Live again!”—he looked into our eyes and confessed, “I need that kind of cleansing.”

Lisa had experienced God’s grace in her life. Even so, she could not escape the sense that she needed to earn God’s approval and that her efforts were never quite good enough. I understood her problem better when she told me her wealthy grandfather, who had paid her older brother’s way through Harvard, had let her know he had no interest in paying for her Harvard education. “If I had been a boy … ” she began, her voice trailing off.

Karen had hated her dad since age three when her father left her mother. Now a college junior, she began to see for the first time the connection between, on the one hand, her cynicism and depression and, on the other, the anger she had carried inside her for years. Looking at me with a mixture of disbelief and hope as I described what it might be like to relate to others with genuine openness and joy, she asked, “But how can I ever forgive him?”

These three conversations took place during one typical week in my work as an InterVarsity staff member at Harvard. In these students I see myself—and a whole generation. Each is bright, likable, and deeply broken. Each shares in a toxic intersection of brokenness and sin—and, I believe, incredible hope. This is ministry Generation-X style.

Conceived in debtThere are many ways to describe the current cohort of college students. My age group (born between 1965 and 1985) has been called “Generation X” by the baby boomer-dominated media, being portrayed variously as slackers and activists, grunge kids and techno whizzes, passive MTV consumers and creative artists. I have come to see my generation, though, as a generation of debtors—both in that we are owed debts that will never be paid and in that we owe debts we can never pay.

The most obvious debt is the national one—$5 trillion and increasing every day by $700 million—an economic cloud that looms over our future. This debt represents vast promises—world security, social security, medical care—made without the resources to keep them, and it fuels much of the economic cynicism of my generation.

In one sense, the national debt is ours: it will fall to us to pay it, if we can. But because we were so young when it was amassed, we also sense that the national debt is owed to us—as promises made to us that will never be fulfilled. Our parents have sowed the wind, and we have reaped the whirlwind.

The national debt symbolizes, though, a deeper emptiness that forms what I would call the “core experiences” of this generation. These experiences of pain are lodged at the heart of who they are, in the innermost chambers of their identities and memories; and like the core of an apple, they contain the seeds of their actions, attitudes, hopes, and fears.

As with Karen, most of the core experiences of pain of this generation have to do with the lack of true family. Many grew up without both parents physically present; even more grew up with at least one parent emotionally absent. A vast number never experienced love and acceptance from their fathers, at least in a way that they could receive it.

Even those of us from healthy families did not escape this pain. My life has been marked by the attempted suicide of a close friend whose parents had recently divorced.

Addicted to “love”Paul’s sexual involvement with his girlfriend had been part of a pattern of intimate active relationships that he had established and then ended abruptly. He confessed his problem but was at a loss to describe why he engaged in this compulsive habit. Over the course of several conversations, I was not surprised to learn that his parents were busy and successful entrepreneurs who had made little time for him when he was in high school.

With our parents’ absence came the opportunity to make our own boundaries—or not to. This generation largely avoided the promiscuity of the baby boomers’ “sexual revolution” (which Time declared over just as we were getting started). Rather, these young people tied sexual intimacy with “really caring about someone.”

Those seeking one-night stands have no illusions about their purpose: they are searching for sexual enjoyment and exploration, not for long-term commitment. But as teenagers, this generation learned to link sexuality with emotional commitment, creating quasi-marriages called “going out” with someone. In the context of these quasi-marriages, sexual intimacy was considered normal and good.

But these relationships are radically unstable. Thus these young couples have imitated—on an accelerated and adolescent scale—the serial monogamy of their parents’ culture of divorce. Given the nature of such relationships, the emotional consequences of a breakup are often similar to a divorce, fostering the core experiences of addiction and confusion and the seeds of future pain and sin.

Our sin and addiction find other expressions as well. Every day beautiful, compassionate, bright young women eat in the dining halls on my campus, then go home to make themselves throw up. They crave food to fill the emptiness, then crave emptiness to purge themselves of their slavery to food.

When my parents were in college, eating disorders were practically unknown. Today I am not surprised when I get a call like Teri’s, whose roommate is suddenly hospitalized for an eating disorder, and to hear Teri tell me that she herself is trying to resist the temptation to binge in reaction to that terrifying news.

Eating disorders, sexual addiction, drug abuse, alcoholism, and compulsive shopping—all these demonstrate that the core experiences of pain and sin are interrelated and, indeed, feed off one another in an escalating cycle of consumption. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover has written that the only way for people to find release from these addictive patterns that entrap us is to find healing for some core experience of pain that the sin has tried to address.

I have held countless conversations with students about sin and forgiveness, and many of these have ended in prayer for the healing of some deeply rooted experience of pain. For Paul, a key to experiencing God’s forgiveness was to acknowledge the neglect he had experienced from his parents. As he did, he was increasingly able to know the cleansing love of God, forgive his parents, and forgive himself.

The connection goes the other way as well. The reason our pain retains its power to cripple us is nearly always lack of forgiveness. If someone has hurt us deeply, that person’s sin continues to have power over us until we release that person of that debt to us. For this reason, those students’ prayers for healing of core experiences of pain have also been prayers asking for God’s power to forgive those who had done them wrong.

We are a generation in debt, and others are in debt to us. The emptiness under our feet is promises that were not kept and never will be-promises to balance the budget, to attend our violin recital, to have and to hold from this day forward, to teach us the difference between good and evil. We have helped hollow out this canyon, but we have no resources to fill it. Our continued activity will not fill it; our addictions will certainly not fill it; not even resolving to be a “promise keeper” will fill it. The only way for these debts to be settled is if they are forgiven.

No place for churchLike most young adults in the twentieth century, my generation is mostly uninterested in church. What I see from daily contact with secular college students, though, is that X-ers may not return to church when they marry or have children, as did the first post-Christian baby-boom generation. They cannot be satisfied with an abstract, intellectual faith in Christ and the forgiveness of sins. Only if there is forgiveness available for them to feel and experience, not just talk about, will the church have anything to offer my generation.

What does the church have to offer my generation? The Holy Spirit. Forgiveness of sin, healing of pain, adoption into a family—according to the New Testament, these are among the core functions of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the gracious presence who fills the absences of our lives. And it is not much of an exaggeration to say that wherever effective ministry is happening among my generation, the Holy Spirit is coming in power.

We are not all becoming charismatics—though many charismatic and “Third Wave” churches are effectively reaching my generation. It is simply that we need God too much, day to day, to live without his real presence, a presence that addresses and transforms our hearts, minds, and wills.

I have found in my ministry that the real presence of the Holy Spirit is available when we open the doorways of repentance and forgiveness. One afternoon Karen and a friend met with me to pray. She wept as she remembered the day her father left her house for the last time, promising to return. Later she told us that she had not cried in years. But having wept for the pain her father caused her, Karen was able to move from saying, “Daddy, I forgive you” to confessing her own guilt in giving anger a dominant place in her heart. Then what she later called “a river of love” flooded the room. It was so tangible that no one spoke for several minutes. When we did it was to move the prayer in an entirely different direction, this time thanking God that he was Karen’s Father, that she was his daughter, and that he had been present through all her suffering and wandering.

A generation of the CrossJesus said, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” The only way to settle unpayable debts is to forgive them. And forgiveness, as the Cross demonstrates, is not free; it causes suffering.

Thanks be to God, we do not have to bear the suffering of forgiveness alone; but as we identify with Christ, we also identify with his suffering that purchased our forgiveness. Hiding from suffering hides us from the gospel, turning forgiveness, healing, and the Holy Spirit into empty abstractions. The gift I believe my generation can bring to the church is a repentance from our culture’s flight from suffering, a turn toward the Cross, and with it, a return to the reality of the good news.

Where will this lead? It is hard to say, but I have noticed that among the students I work with there is an increasing willingness to give up Harvard’s promises of prosperity and influence in order to live among the poor. This past summer, many of our students moved into inner cities and traveled to the poorest parts of the world, not primarily to “help,” but to be where Christ is. They have discovered that he is present in their sufferings, and this has made them willing to suffer with others so that they might know more of his resurrection.

As we enter into suffering before the Lord, we find the gospel. There our emptiness is mysteriously transfigured into forgiveness, healing, and resurrection. I believe my generation is ready for this gospel. We know, beneath all our activism and busyness, that we do not have the answer. We know that no human institution, program, or ideology can fill the yawning chasm gaping beneath our feet.

Could it be that the mysterious, dismissive symbol given to my generation—an “X”—will become, as it was for the early Christians, a symbol for Christ and a symbol for the Cross?

Andy Crouch is a campus staff member with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at Harvard University.

Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

What would John Wesley have said about this debate in the church?

Last Spring the United Methodist Church, the second-largest Protestant denomination in the United States, met for its quadrennial ten-day general conference. Among its actions, the United Methodists reaffirmed their doctrinal statement that the practice of hom*osexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching (CT, June 17, 1996, p. 58). This affirmation, however, did not occur without heated debate.

One issue that arose during the debate was how to weigh a traditional understanding of Scripture with what science and the lives of gays and lesbians are telling us about hom*osexuality. This issue is of special importance to United Methodists because of the theological legacy of John Wesley, who allowed tradition, reason, and experience to inform his theological positions.

Wesley, the founder of Methodism, affirmed the primacy of scriptural authority. But he also acknowledged the genuine, albeit secondary, religious authority of tradition, reason, and experience. By doing so, Wesley simply made explicit what is implicit in all theological reflection, even when it ostensibly is based on Scripture alone.

Given this so-called quadrilateral of religious authority, how should Methodists—or any Christian interested in considering a breadth of relevant data—view hom*osexuality? Although Wesley did not specifically deal with the issue of hom*osexuality, his theological legacy provides a comprehensive and integrative way of evaluating it.

ScriptureMany Christians fear that acceptance of religious authority other than Scripture leads inexorably to the breakdown of historic Christian beliefs. This is not the case. Wesley remained thoroughly orthodox in his theology, and he expected his followers to do the same. He described himself as a man of one book, emphasizing his submission to the primary authority of the written Word of God. So we may ask, how would Wesley have dealt with the biblical evidence regarding hom*osexuality?

Historically, Scripture has been interpreted as prohibiting the practice of hom*osexuality. But some biblical scholars have now challenged interpretations of key texts. Some Old Testament scholars maintain that the infamous story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19) is not relevant to hom*osexuality; it deals more with inhospitality and violence.

Likewise, some New Testament scholars have questioned whether Paul is really such a hard-liner against hom*osexual activity. They speculate that Paul was specifically addressing Greco-Roman culture, in which hom*osexual behavior took the form of male prostitution and pederasty (the practice of adolescent boys selling themselves for sex with older men); thus Paul's condemnations (Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9), they argue, had more to do with lust and exploitation than hom*osexual activity in general.

If nothing else, the work of these contemporary scholars reminds us that we cannot understand Scripture without thoroughly considering its literary, cultural, and theological context. And when we thoroughly consider the various contexts of Scripture, we discover that its teaching remains consistent: Scripture prohibits hom*osexual activity.

The New Testament, particularly Paul's writings, assumed and affirmed the Old Testament prohibitions against hom*osexual behavior (see Lev. 18:22; 20:13). Paul did not make a distinction among various forms of hom*osexuality, and he seemed not to define hom*osexual activity so narrowly as male prostitution and pederasty (see 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10).

Moreover, what the Bible says primarily about sexual conduct is that God intends for a man and a woman to live in a monogamous, lifelong relationship with each other. This was stated as the intention of Creation (Gen. 2:24), and it was reaffirmed by Jesus himself (Matt. 19: 4-6). Departures from this biblical norm, whether hom*osexual or heterosexual (pre- and extra-marital sex), are sin.

Although Scripture prohibits hom*osexual activity, it does not consider it the worst of sins or an unforgivable sin. Scripture further reminds us that none of us is without sin, and we should not be quick to judge others (Rom. 2:1).

TraditionWesley understood tradition as representing the ways in which Christians have understood and applied scriptural teachings throughout church history. It both informs and safeguards our understanding of Scripture. Just as we need to listen to the understandings of Christians in other denominations and countries today, heeding tradition means paying attention to the wisdom of the saints who have gone before us.

The preponderance of church tradition condemned hom*osexual activity. The weight of history contributes significantly to our confidence in the stance that most Christians take today: hom*osexual activity is outside God's intention for human sexuality.

Tradition is dynamic and—as the Protestant Reformers maintained—open to reformation. In the case of hom*osexuality, what may need reforming is our attitude toward persons with a same-sex orientation. Unfortunately, throughout much of our history, the church has not only opposed hom*osexuality but has been violent in its condemnation. In contrast to these sometimes hateful reactions, the New Testament is humane in what it says about those struggling with sin. Jesus and the apostles emphasized compassion and understanding, not condemnation, and so we have to become more effective in ministering to hom*osexual persons without compromising the biblical standards for human sexuality.

ReasonWesley saw reason as representing our power of thinking, comprehending, and inferring. Too often we seek easy solutions to questions and concerns that arise with regard to hom*osexuality. But maturity in Christian thinking requires that our investigation should precede claims rather than our claims preceding investigation.

We need to test our beliefs and not consider them self-authenticating or beyond question. Reason would have us consider new evidence with open minds, such as the causes of hom*osexuality. Thus a reasoned approach to hom*osexuality would keep in check all knee-jerk reactions: both a hom*ophobic response that condemns certain persons as "perverts" and discriminates against them; and conversely, a "hom*omaniacal" attitude that accuses all persons with a traditional perspective on hom*osexuality of being "hom*ophobic."

A reasonable spirit also respects the beliefs of others who disagree with us. We will be able to act more redemptively, especially toward hom*osexuals, when we first try to understand their perspective.

ExperienceToday many resist the integration of experience into their theology. After all, experience—including religious experience—is so subjective and easily distorted. But Wesley considered experience to be inextricably bound up with all theological reflection. Experience represents a vital dimension of Christian life, and it needs to be taken into account in our theological reflection.

However, Wesley did not consider experience as self-authenticating. Just because a person claimed to have a revelatory experience, it still needed to come under the scrutiny of Scripture, as well as that of tradition and reason. Our personal experience is ambiguous and can be interpreted in different ways, some of which are deceptive. One's personal experience does not represent the highest religious authority. Experience properly construed is interpreted in the light of biblical revelation.

The problem with the hom*osexuality debates today is that the "testimonies" of some gay and lesbian Christians are considered self-authenticating. The rationalization or acceptance of their behavior is deemed to be valid just because that is what they are experiencing. What is becomes confused with what ought to be —the normative.

So we should not allow personal experience to usurp the primacy of scriptural authority; but what about new scientific evidence on the experience of hom*osexuality? Are we sticking our heads in the sand if we oppose science?

Wesley would encourage us to consider carefully what science tells us. Indeed, science has provided a number of helpful insights for reflecting upon hom*osexuality. The distinction between hom*osexual activity and hom*osexual orientation helps us to realize that—like alcoholism—hom*osexuals may be dealing with a psychological and/or biological orientation that should be viewed as given rather than chosen. Additional evidence may be uncovered on the origins of a same-sex preference, whether it is genetic or hormonal or some combination of multiple factors.

Although hom*osexual orientation is not a distinction made or understood by biblical writers, it adds a significant dimension to our overall consideration of hom*osexuality. The distinction may not change our biblical understanding of the appropriateness of hom*osexual activity, but it will affect how we view and minister to those who may be experiencing psychological and/or biological factors beyond their control.

The sum of the wholeIn searching for resolution to issues on hom*osexuality, we do not seek a balance of views drawn from Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Balance mistakenly communicates the idea of equilateral authority. This was not the historic understanding of Wesley, who affirmed the primacy of scriptural authority. Instead we should integrate the relevant data in an appropriate manner, allowing Scripture to lead us.

Scripture provides sufficiently clear instruction, at least with regard to the morality of hom*osexual activity. If Scripture were not clear on the subject, then tradition, reason, and experience might offer more helpful insight. In fact, on hom*osexual activity, Scripture seems clearer than tradition, reason, or experience.

Scripture further tells us that we are to love our neighbors and have compassion upon those who are tempted to act contrary to God's will. But can we as Christians claim that we are known for our compassion toward hom*osexuals? To be sure, Scripture tells us that we should discipline those who intentionally and habitually disregard the teachings of Scripture. But most of us go the extra mile when working with people who struggle with other kinds of temptations.

I applaud the decision of the United Methodist Church to reaffirm its stance that the practice of hom*osexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. This affirmation not only conforms to Scripture, which remains the primary source of religious authority, it also conforms to church tradition, logical reasoning, and experience as understood from a Wesleyan perspective.

I also applaud the ongoing concern of United Methodists for the holistic well-being of hom*osexuals and for their civil rights. A Wesleyan approach not only lends itself to a comprehensive and integrative approach to hom*osexuality; it understands and treats people realistically and compassionately, because, as Mildred Wynkoop says, Wesley's theology is "a theology of love."

Above all, Scripture tells us we are to love our neighbors and have compassion on those who struggle with temptations. Jesus called people to repentance, but he also astounded others by the compassion he demonstrated toward those caught in temptation and sin. Can it be said of us that we surprise others by the sympathy and compassion we extend toward hom*osexuals?

Donald A. D. Thorsen is professor of theology in the Graduate School of Theology at Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, California.

See page 35 for "What Wolfhart Pannenberg says about this debate in the church.

Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

What Wolfhart Pannenberg says about this debate in the church.

When mainline denominations debate whether to ordain practicing hom*osexuals or to sanction same-sex marriages, one wonders: Where are the persons of Christian stature and theological wisdom who will stand up for the biblical truth about human sexuality? In Germany there is such a person: Wolfhart Pannenberg, eminent professor of theology at the University of Munich. While evangelicals would question aspects of Pannenberg's theology, his critique of liberation theology and his defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ have been widely influential. In this essay he takes his stand on the issue of hom*osexual behavior. Perhaps his voice will give courage to others to speak the truth about love—in love.

Can love ever be sinful? The entire tradition of Christian doctrine teaches that there is such a thing as inverted, perverted love. Human beings are created for love, as creatures of the God who is Love. And yet that divine appointment is corrupted whenever people turn away from God or love other things more than God.

Jesus said, "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:37, NRSV). Love for God must take precedence over love for our parents, even though love for parents is commanded by the fourth commandment.

The will of God—Jesus' proclamation of God's lordship over our lives—must be the guiding star of our identity and self-determination. What this means for sexual behavior can be seen in Jesus' teaching about divorce. In order to answer the Pharisees' question about the admissibility of divorce, Jesus refers to the creation of human beings. Here he sees God expressing his purpose for his creatures: Creation confirms that God has created human beings as male and female. Thus, a man leaves his father and mother to be united with his wife, and the two become one flesh.

Jesus concludes from this that the unbreakable permanence of fellowship between husband and wife is the Creator's will for human beings. The indissoluble fellowship of marriage, therefore, is the goal of our creation as sexual beings (Mark 10:2-9).

Since on this principle the Bible is not time-bound, Jesus' word is the foundation and the criterion for all Christian pronouncements on sexuality, not just marriage in particular, but our entire creaturely identities as sexual beings. According to Jesus' teaching, human sexuality as male and as female is intended for the indissoluble fellowship of marriage. This standard informs Christian teaching about the entire domain of sexual behavior.

Jesus' perspective, by and large, corresponds to Jewish tradition, even though his stress on the indissolubility of marriage goes beyond the provision for divorce within Jewish law (Deut. 24:1). It was a shared Jewish conviction that men and women in their sexual identity are intended for the community of marriage. This also accounts for the Old Testament assessment of sexual behaviors that depart from this norm, including fornication, adultery, and hom*osexual relations.

The biblical assessments of hom*osexual practice are unambiguous in their rejection, and all its statements on this subject agree without exception. The Holiness Code of Leviticus incontrovertibly affirms, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22). Leviticus 20 includes hom*osexual behavior among the crimes meriting capital punishment (Lev. 20:13; it is significant that the same applies to adultery in v. 10). On these matters, Judaism always knew itself to be distinct from other nations.

This same distinctiveness continued to determine the New Testament statements about hom*osexuality, in contrast to Hellenistic culture that took no offense at hom*osexual relations. In Romans, Paul included hom*osexual behavior among the consequences of turning away from God (1:27). In 1 Corinthians, hom*osexual practice belongs with fornication, adultery, idolatry, greed, drunkenness, theft, and robbery as behaviors that preclude participation in the kingdom of God (6:9f.); Paul affirms that through baptism Christians have become free from their entanglement in all these practices (6:11).

The New Testament contains not a single passage that might indicate a more positive assessment of hom*osexual activity to counterbalance these Pauline statements. Thus, the entire biblical witness includes practicing hom*osexuality without exception among the kinds of behavior that give particularly striking expression to humanity's turning away from God. This exegetical result places very narrow boundaries around the view of hom*osexuality in any church that is under the authority of Scripture.

What is more, the biblical statements on this subject merely represent the negative corollary to the Bible's positive views on the creational purpose of men and women in their sexuality. These texts that are negative toward hom*osexual behavior are not merely dealing with marginal opinions that could be neglected without detriment to the Christian message as a whole.

Moreover, the biblical statements about hom*osexuality cannot be relativized as the expressions of a cultural situation that today is simply outdated. The biblical witnesses from the outset deliberately opposed the assumptions of their cultural environment in the name of faith in the God of Israel, who in Creation appointed men and women for a particular identity.

Contemporary advocates for a change in the church's view of hom*osexuality commonly point out that the biblical statements were unaware of important modern anthropological evidence. This new evidence, it is said, suggests that hom*osexuality must be regarded as a given constituent of the psychosomatic identity of hom*osexual persons, entirely prior to any corresponding sexual expression. (For the sake of clarity, it is better to speak here of a hom*ophile inclination as distinct from hom*osexual practice. ) Such phenomena occur not only in people who are hom*osexually active.

But inclination need not dictate practice. It is characteristic of human beings that our sexual impulses are not confined to a separate realm of behavior; they permeate our behavior in every area of life. This, of course, includes relationships with persons of the same sex. However, precisely because erotic motives are involved in all aspects of human behavior, we are faced with the task of integrating them into the whole of our life and conduct.

The mere existence of hom*ophile inclinations does not automatically lead to hom*osexual practice. Rather, these inclinations can be integrated into a life in which they are subordinated to the relationship with the opposite sex where, in fact, the subject of sexual activity should not be the all-determining center of human life and vocation. As the sociologist Helmut Schelsky has rightly pointed out, one of the primary achievements of marriage as an institution is its enrollment of human sexuality in the service of ulterior tasks and goals.

The reality of hom*ophile inclinations, therefore, need not be denied and must not be condemned. The question, however, is how to handle such inclinations within the human task of responsibly directing our behavior. This is the real problem: and it is here that we must deal with the conclusion that hom*osexual activity is a departure from the norm for sexual behavior that has been given to men and women as creatures of God. For the church this is the case not only for hom*osexual but for any sexual activity that does not intend the goal of marriage between man and wife—in particular, adultery.

The church has to live with the fact that, in this area of life as in others, departures from the norm are not exceptional but rather common and widespread. The church must encounter all those concerned with tolerance and understanding but also call them to repentance. It cannot surrender the distinction between the norm and behavior that departs from that norm.

Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that knows itself to be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat hom*osexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized hom*osexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

Translated by Markus Bockmuehl for publication in the Church Times; copyright Wolfhart Pannenberg.

To find out "What John Wesley would have said about this debate in the church", see page 34.

Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

In Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the hom*osexuality Debate (InterVarsity Press, 1995), Thomas E. Schmidt has made it abundantly clear—against some revisionist interpreters—that the Bible does not warrant hom*osexual behavior. He has also marshaled disturbing and seldom admitted medical evidence that aids is but one of a number of serious health risks to practicing hom*osexuals. But Schmidt also provides wise advice to the church on how to relate pastorally to hom*osexuals. The following points are taken from his “final words.”

1. We must express our disapproval of hom*osexual practice in the context of our own sexual fallenness.Unless we acknowledge that we are all in need of God’s grace and healing in our sexuality, we will continue to prevent hom*osexuals and others from listening to us. They will hear only our fear and revulsion, not our love and similar need of grace. We should always draw a connection between hom*osexuality and the inappropriate desires and actions of the heterosexual majority. This approach kicks the legs out from under the reaction that we are simply hom*ophobic; but more important, it is the right thing to do. Only when we show that we have a greater concern about our own sin will we have a right to confront sin in others. This is not tolerance. It is justice.

Our heterosexual sin includes hatred toward hom*osexuals. Whenever we initiate or tolerate slang terms, demeaning jokes, or derogatory offhand comments, we send a strong message that these people for whom Jesus died are, in civil-rights terms, nigg*rs; or in biblical terms, Samaritans. In so doing we make a lie of the slogan “hate the sin and love the sinner.” That slogan, known and despised by hom*osexuals, is tired and needs to be replaced. A more appropriate motto would be “look in the mirror before looking out the window.”

Christians who cannot deal with the issues of hom*osexuality calmly and compassionately should keep their mouths shut; they should certainly stay away from the front lines of ministry and public-policy debate-not to mention radio and television talk shows. The people we are trying to reach must be convinced that the way of Jesus is the way of the Wounded Healer, not the Holy Terror.

2.We must find avenues of ministry consistent with our moral stance.Churches face an awkward dilemma. The exclusion of practicing hom*osexuals from worship and ministry may push them away from Christianity; but inclusion in every aspect of church life may send a message of approval toward hom*osexual behavior. The morally ambiguous “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which satisfies neither side in the military, is downright cowardly in a church. The better course is for church leaders periodically to make it clear from the pulpit (and privately in specific cases of concern) that the church represents forgiveness and power to change—as well as redemptive discipline in cases of sexual disobedience, including hom*osexual acts.

Education within the church is imperative. Our members need to know what they are up against. And even more critically, they need to know what we stand for. Churches should make available to their members annotated reading lists and names of local counseling agencies and reputable Christian ministries, and information about the resources of the local church itself, including support groups and counseling opportunities. Such information should be as widely distributed in the church and as readily available as condoms are outside the church.

The body of Christ is not just a mouth. Christians should be known for the kind of hands-on help that characterized the ministry of our Lord. People with AIDS, in particular, are the lepers of our day. These people lose work, insurance, and finally the ability to care for themselves, all before they are sick enough to require hospitalization. They often need errands run, basic housekeeping, and home-cooked meals. In areas where no hospice care is available, they may need money or a place to stay. More than anything, they need simple human companionship. As relationships of trust develop, they may open up to spiritual help. But there is no guarantee of this, and we should not make it a condition of service.

We may view many of them as enemies, and the feeling is often mutual. But in a war, would we leave our enemies to die alone on the battlefield, reasoning that they deserve their fate and should not absorb the precious resources of “our side”? I submit that those who applaud these deaths proclaim thereby that their side is not the side of Jesus but the side of Satan, and the words of Jesus himself provide a fitting malediction: “It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for those people”(see Luke 10:12).

3. We must understand the relation between morality and truth.Our culture is rapidly moving away from the notion of absolute truth. People see truth and morality as subject to the changing whims of those in power, and accusations of relativism fail to sting because people perceive them as accurate descriptions of the way truth and morality work. The clearest indication of this is that, for many if not most Americans, tolerance is valued more highly than truth.

If Christians disagree with the prevailing winds of culture, if we find that God has revealed himself and his way in a book, we must place limits on our tolerance in the interest of truth. We should not expect the truth of biblical revelation to prevail or even that our culture will tolerate it much longer. But instead of shaking our heads and lamenting the sorry state of the world, we should recognize that truth is not meant to be applauded but to be nailed to crosses. And we had better know the truth well. That means, first of all, knowing Jesus. It also means knowing the Bible, backwards and forwards, and far more deeply than most churches currently require. Finally, it means knowing well the larger ideas competing for the minds and hearts of people.

4. We must bring the gospel to individual people.When it comes to moral issues, many believers find it difficult to distinguish their responsibility as believers from their responsibility as American citizens. Too many confuse the cause of Christ with the way of Christ. In practical terms, Christians should be wary of public-policy debates that tend to foster issue-oriented rather than people-oriented approaches. It does not have to be one or the other; but in my observation, those who get caught up in the political aspect of a moral issue often adopt a simplistic we-they attitude and a set of tactics based on the acquisition of power. They may succeed, but the price may be the loss of humility, tenderness, and integrity. I do not oppose work through the political process to legislate morality: that is the democratic process. I simply warn that it is a limited and limiting goal. The gospel is ultimately not about changing laws but about changing lives.

Recently I heard a powerful testimony of Christian service from an elderly woman who had joined her psychiatrist husband in a lifetime of service to his clients by opening their home to them. “The kitchen must be the center of love,” she said (and her life proved), “for Jesus is known in the breaking of the bread.” True and convicting words for those of us who perceive open homes, unhurried conversation, and table fellowship as nostalgic elements of another generation of Christians. True and convicting words for those of us who would march off to fight in the culture war—past Lazarus at our gate.

The call is clear. If we are to walk in the way of Jesus, it is not the nuclear family that we need to promote but the hospitable family. We do not need people who love family values nearly as much as we need families who value love for people.

Thomas E. Schmidt is a New Testament scholar in Santa Barbara, California.

Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

B’nai B’rith, one of the world’s oldest Jewish organizations, has initiated a nationwide protest campaign against the Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) June resolution calling for evangelization of Jews (CT, July 15, 1996, p. 66).

Since the SBC’s recommitment to Jewish evangelism five months ago, B’nai B’rith, which operates in 53 countries, has initiated a postcard protest campaign, stating that the sbc decision is “deeply offensive.” To date, about 6,000 postcards have been mailed to sbc headquarters in Nashville. The cards also request that Jews financially support B’nai B’rith in its fight “to expose and overturn” the resolution.

Morris Chapman, sbc chief executive, has responded to B’nai B’rith, noting that the resolution states how Christians are “indebted” to Jews for Scripture and for “our Savior, the Messiah of Israel.”

However, Tommy Baer, president of B’nai B’rith, says Chapman’s comments suggest “that without accepting Jesus as ‘savior’ Jews remain flawed, incomplete, and inadequate.” Baer has a message for Baptists: “Do not target us for conversion.”

Phil Roberts, director of the SBC Home Mission Board’s interfaith witness office, says the resolution has been largely misunderstood.

Roberts says, “All we’re talking about here is evangelism, which is sharing of our faith in a loving way with those around us.” People can be fully Jewish and have faith in Jesus Christ, Roberts says. “They don’t deny their ethnicity. They don’t deny the true Old Testament faith. Instead, we believe it’s clearly a fulfillment.”

Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.