[I am working on a project that may become a book on the most influential evangelical leaders of our generation, since 1976, and the impact they’ve had on the church and their times. I will introduce them briefly on this blog from time to time. Who should be on this list?]

Frank Wolf. Gentle Congressman b.1939

When the topic of Christian politicians comes up in conversation, almost no one mentions Representative Frank Wolf of northern Virginia. That is not because his actions or words run contrary to Christian principles. It may be for just the opposite reason: Wolf is a humble 15-term Congressman who has worked unflaggingly but quietly on some of the most difficult issues for people of faith around the world. Wolf is a restrained and effective Christian statesman.

An unassuming champion of international human rights and religious liberty, Wolf won the first William Wilberforce Award in 1992, presented to Christians in public service by Chuck Colson and Prison Fellowship. Wilberforce is the driving force behind a group of congressmen from both sides of the aisle, including Wolf, who meet periodically to make their faith part of their politics. The most recent recipient of the award is former Democratic congressman Tony Hall of Ohio.

Wolf said: “There are only 435 members of the House of Representatives and only 100 members of the Senate. If we can get the word out about Wilberforce’s life and legacy, we can change this country.”

Wolf is not much at glad-handing, he shies away from the limelight, and he’s a bland public speaker. For his serene optimism, critics have labeled him naive. His travels are not the typical junkets to posh resorts or embassy parties but risky excursions to outposts ravaged by war and famine—especially to places where fellow Christians are persecuted for their faith.

On one journey took him to Tibet, where he posed as a tourist, eluded the tour guide by pretending to be ill, and then sneaked out to talk to Tibetans on the street for the real story of Chinese repression. Another expedition took him to Sudan, a nation that was waging a self-described religious war against its own citizens who are Christians or other non-Muslims through a campaign of torture, starvation, and murder. Sudanese soldiers were literally snatching children from their mothers’ arms and selling them into slavery for the price of a few head of cattle. Girls were sold as concubines.

He has dodged bombs in Nagorno Karabakh. He has investigated conditions in El Salvador, Bosnia, and Ethiopia. Instead of enjoying the plush accommodations he could command as a government official, Wolf toughs it out with ordinary people for a first-hand sense of their plight.

Before the fall of the Iron Curtain, Wolf tramped throughout Eastern Europe championing for freedom. He was the first American official to bulldog his way into the notorious Perm Camp 35 in the Siberian gulag, where leading dissidents were imprisoned. Upon returning, he publicized the religious and political abuses they reported and arranged for me to join a second group visiting the camp. Due to Wolf’s tenacity, the Soviets released many prisoners even before the USSR collapsed.

After the trial of the leadership of the Bahá’í community of Iran was announced in February 2009, Wolf was deeply disturbed over the “systematic persecution” of the Bahá’ís. He offered a resolution on the subject of the trial of the Iranian Bahá’í leadership co-sponsored by seven others–“Condemning the Government of Iran for its state-sponsored persecution of its Baha’i minority and its continued violation of the International Covenants on Human Rights.”

For his indefatigable efforts, Wolf has won respect even from people on the opposite side of his conservative politics. Former Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory called him “a watchman on the rampart of world freedom.” Former Democratic congressman Lionel Van Deerlin described Wolf as one of “a special breed,” who “seem attracted to public office to fulfill more than personal or political ends.” Men like Wolf, he added, “sustain a flicker of hope in the elective process.”

When Chuck Colson presented the first Wilberforce Award to Wolf, we prepared large red, white and blue vertical banners with Wilberforce’s picture to decorate the outdoor proceedings. Wolf asked if he could have one of the banners and we complied. The next time I visited Wolf’s congressional office, he had it hanging on the inside of the door to his personal office. The banner took up the entire door; a Wilberforce-like legacy seems to have consumed his entire life.

In many cultures in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world there is a strikingly different approach to sexuality and the interactions between men and women. These cultures feature an emphasis on honor and shame as well as well as being on the other side of the individual/collective axis from those us in the modern West. If one takes a spectrum of human cultures and measured them by a metric which weighs their emphasis on individual vs group responsibility and sensibility one would find US and Western cultures today leaning toward the side of individuality and the individual whereas these Middle Eastern cultures were would be found at the other end, in which a person does not weigh his own advantage before that of his particular group (in this instance the primary group was the family). There are two reasons why this is important. First is, that many of us find the Bible, a book authored within the context of an honor/shame/collective culture is important. And furthermore the honor/shame/collective culture like the Middle East of the 1st century, comprises 70% of the worlds population today. Most of those of us reading this essay live in the western minority. If you think the liberal/conservative or left/right divide in the US is difficult to cross … it pales before this larger cultural  division.

Features of the culture in which the separation of men and women is predominant are discussed in great detail elsewhere and by others. For the following, I’m going to concentrate on just one aspect of differences between the West and the h/s/c cultures. Most h/s/c cultures typically arranged themselves specifically in ways that tried to make it impossible for men and women to come into contact in a situation where their interpersonal relationship/contact might lead to a social unacceptable sexual relationship. In part a working assumption there is that people in these situations do not have the will power to actually resist such temptation. Now from the point of view the Western outsider there are a plethora of very disadvantageous features to this particular arrangement. For the point being made below … these perceived negative aspects are, at least at first glance, not relevant. What is relevant is the comparison made between our porn drenched Western culture and theirs in that the sight of the hint of anything at all about woman’s figure or form his highly eroticized in their culture where in ours the saturation has desensitised us. And it is this relative sensitivity to the erotic is that which I wish to use as a analogy to compare the high (hierarchical) churches to the low churches in their differing treatment of liturgy and sacrament to the restrained/free sexuality in the other two cultures.

In h/s/c cultures one finds manner, clothing, and interactions between the sexes in society highly constrained. In high liturgical/hierarchical churches one finds the manner, clothing, and interactions in liturgy similarly constrained. The west can be described as jaded and deadened to stimuli in comparison to the h/s/c cultures with respect to sexual imagery and erotically charged situations. Similarly, in prior conversations for example on Evangel, modern American protestants are comparatively blind to the sacred, as what was Holy was defined as something of an internal state of mind not a ontological property which can attached to a place (such as the Bush in Exodus). My point is that a sense of the sacred and a sensitivity to Holiness is heightened by similar practices. One might compare the segregation of the sexes in Middle Eastern cultures to the wall or screen separating between the servers, deacons, and priests and the congregation in the Eastern rites.

Wonder what Glenn Beck would say about this:

“As we see the world through God’s eyes, we actually do put others’ needs ahead of ours.  This is why, when the great novelist Flannery O’Connor was asked by one of her correspondents how he could experience God’s love, her reply was, “Give alms.” She meant do something for the poor, for those in need, which in fact is one of the most telling marks of Christian holiness, as the apostle James reminds us (1:27; 2:17).

When we care for God’s favorites, the poor, who include the destitute, the widowed, the fatherless, the sick, prisoners, and anyone suffering injustice, we plunge immediately into the cosmic battle that’s always raging between good and evil.  We choose sides. Once on God’s side, we come to understand God’s point of view and position ourselves to experience God’s love and friendship in a whole new way.”

–Charles W. Colson, in The Faith (Zondervan: 2008), pags. 164-165

While I’m just as "avid" a fan of Glenn Beck as Rusty (i.e. only really catch him on the occasional web snippet), I have read the transcript of his "social justice" rant, and I really don’t think Beck said what his detractors say he said.

Beck was talking about churches/denominations for whom one of their driving forces is implementing aid to the poor and oppressed via government force, and seem to think that almost every time Jesus opened His mouth He was speaking economics.  (I’ve seen the parable of the sower turned into one where the birds taking away the seed were priests taking temple tithes and tribute, and the thorns choking out the seed were the Roman tax collectors stealing from these humble farmers.  Jesus said plainly what He meant, but some can still wrangle an economic message out of it they find more palatable.)  The term "social justice" seems to figure prominently in these forms of theology, and Beck was just saying that you should avoid them completely if you see that they do. 

What his critics are doing are quoting Bible verses that show we should help the poor.  Thing is, I don’t think Beck would disagree, and it doesn’t appear at all that he was saying he disagreed.  What he was saying is that churches where the phrases "social justice" and "economic justice" figure prominently are the ones trying to "spread the wealth around" via legislation and are going to bankrupt us in doing so; a political message.  Of the reports so far, only Hannah Siegel, reporting for ABC news, even mentioned this:

Stu Burguiere, executive producer at "The Glenn Beck Radio Program," sought to clarify Beck’s comments today.

"Like most Americans, Glenn strongly supports and believes in ‘social justice’ when it is defined as ‘good Christian charity,’" he said. "Glenn strongly opposes when Rev. Wright and other leaders use ‘social justice’ as a euphemism for their real intention — redistribution of wealth."

So Beck is in favor of the concept of social justice (without the quotes) but against those who use that term to couch ends that he finds immoral.

But the reactions from critics seem to miss this completely.  When Wallis insinuates that Beck is lined up against Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu and Mother Teresa, or National Council of Churches President Rev. Canon Peg Chemberlin says, "Justice is a concept throughout the scriptures", they’re both completely misrepresenting what Beck actually said. 

Beck does need to clarify, on-air, that he is in favor of the concept of social justice, though, if you fairly read his words, he never once insinuated that he wasn’t in favor of giving to the poor; this clarification would be for those who didn’t realize that the first time.  I understand that he did just that recently, though I haven’t heard or read what he said yet. 

Albert Mohler has the most balanced analysis of this issue.  Read the whole thing.  However, I want to quote one bit from it, showing how many Beck critics really missed the point.  Mohler notes that Beck’s aims are political.  However…

My concern is very different. As an evangelical Christian, my concern is the primacy of the Gospel of Christ — the Gospel that reveals the power of God in the salvation of sinners through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The church’s main message must be that Gospel. The New Testament is stunningly silent on any plan for governmental or social action. The apostles launched no social reform movement. Instead, they preached the Gospel of Christ and planted Gospel churches. Our task is to follow Christ’s command and the example of the apostles.

There is more to that story, however. The church is not to adopt a social reform platform as its message, but the faithful church, wherever it is found, is itself a social reform movement precisely because it is populated by redeemed sinners who are called to faithfulness in following Christ. The Gospel is not a message of social salvation, but it does have social implications.

I grew up in the Salvation Army; a social services arm of the Christian church if ever there was one.  But one that stays true to this concept of creating social change by implementing the Gospel, not a government program.

Yes, that 9th Circuit.  The same one that ruled it unconstitutional before.

A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.

The same appeals court caused a national uproar and prompted accusations of judicial activism when it decided in Newdow’s favor in 2002, ruling that the pledge violated the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.

But here’s the thing.  The last time he tried this, it went to the Supreme Court which simply said he had no standing.  So they never really dealt with the salient issue.

Now, the 9th Circuit takes up the exact same issue, and, lacking some SCOTS precedent to fall back on, rules in the opposite direction. 

Apparently, it’s all due to the luck of the (judicial) draw; it depends on which 3 judges you get.  Although…

In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency, citing an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ruled the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and "has nothing whatsover to do with the establishment of religion."

I’d say, neither does "under God" in the pledge; it’s a statement of historical fact.  Still, "In God We Trust" gets a 3-0 unanimous decision while "under God" goes 2-1.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals richly deserves it’s position as the most overruled appeals court in the country.

Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU

[I am working on a project that may become a book on the most influential evangelicals leaders of our generation, since 1976, and the impact they’ve had on the church and their times. I will introduce them briefly on this blog from time to time. Who should be on this list?]

#1 Carl F. H. Henry. Senior theologian 1913-2003

Formidable evangelical theologian and founding editor of Christianity Today magazine Carl F. H. Henry stole his first Bible from a church. Later, when God opened his heart and convicted him of his sins (not just the Bible stealing), Henry knelt down by his car on Long Island and prayed the Lord’s Prayer, the only way he knew how to speak to God. His actions and his communication improved dramatically. In 1947 he contended in The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism for evangelical positions against the prevailing liberalism of the mainline church, and pushed his conservative brethren for more cultural engagement than prescribed by the fundamentalists of the day, led by Carl McIntyre, a writer, radio preacher, and rabble-rousing symbol of Presbyterian fundamentalism.

It was Henry and his contemporaries Harold J. Ockenga and Billy Graham who propelled the modern evangelical movement as a vital societal force and set the stage for it to soar past theological liberalism as the prominent Protestant force of the time. From the beginning of his academic career Henry aspired to lead Protestant fundamentalism to greater intellectual and social engagement with the larger American culture.

Henry was born to German immigrant parents just before the outbreak of World War I. Raised on Long Island, Henry became interested in journalism, and by age 19 he edited a weekly newspaper in New York’s Nassau county. After his conversion to Christianity, Henry attended Wheaton College, obtaining his bachelor’s and master’s degrees.

Bent on pursuing an academic career in theology, he completed doctoral studies at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary (1942) and later at Boston University (1949). He was ordained in the Northern Baptist Convention,and taught theology and philosophy of religion at Northern Baptist Seminary. In 1947, he accepted Ockenga’s call to become the first professor of theology at the new Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California.

In 1955, Henry became the first editor of Christianity Today, a publication conceived by Billy Graham and L. Nelson Bell and financed by Sun Oil magnate, J. Howard Pew, as an evangelical alternative to the Christian Century. Under Henry’s guidance, Christianity Today became the leading journalistic mouthpiece for evangelicalism and provided the movement intellectual respectability. He resigned his position at Christianity Today in 1968, after conflicts with Pew and Bell over editorial issues and criticism from evangelicalism’s fundamentalist wing.

After a year of studies at Cambridge University, Henry became professor of theology at Eastern Baptist Seminary (1969-74) and visiting professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1971). After 1974, he served stints as lecturer-at-large for World Vision International (1974-87) and Prison Fellowship Ministries (1990-2003).

Henry’s six-volume theological tome God, Revelation and Authority is one of the most important evangelical theological works of the twentieth century. Published between 1976 and 1983, it shaped the evangelical movement in countless ways and is still widely read, studied as a clear statement of evangelical beliefs contra liberalism and neo-orthodoxy. The New York Times called it “The most important work of evangelical theology in modern times.”

First century Middle Eastern society was very different than today’s Western European & US societies and subcultures. Ideas of self, ethics, and economics differed radically from our notions of these concepts and features in today’s world. These difference in turn affect our hemenuetic as we approach text that is passed down to us from that era as distinct from how it would have been received by the contemporary and those audiences nearer to that period. Nearer here is not restricted to temporal shifts but more a cultural distance. This yields several different hermeneutical choices for the modern scholar approaching matters written back then. One can view the text absent any historical/cultural context, one can take from the text the meaning that would have been received from the contemporary (or near) listeners, or one might take a parallel or analogous meaning to the one the contemporary listener might have derived into a modern context. But consider the last two options one must undertake to understand at salient features of society in the first century Middle East. Read the rest of this entry

That’s the conclusion of a study (if you wish to call it that) highlighted by CNN.

Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning — on the order of 6 to 11 points — and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people’s behaviors come to be.

The thing is, here’s how they define their terms.

The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.

"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.

But even using their (extremely flawed) definition, conservatives are more likely to give to charity, and do charity themselves, than liberals.  We’ve covered that topic before, a long time ago, in regards to giving for those victims of the Indonesian earthquake and tsunami in 2006; clearly people who are "genetically nonrelated".  And Rev. Don Sensing, for whom the hat tip goes (including the title of this post), makes one (of many) points against this study’s presuppositions and conclusions.

Consider these data from September 2008:

Last Friday, Sen. Joseph Biden, the Democratic candidate for vice president, released his tax returns for the years 1998 to 2007. The returns revealed that in one year, 1999, Biden and his wife Jill gave $120 to charity out of an adjusted gross income of $210,979. In 2005, out of an adjusted gross income of $321,379, the Bidens gave $380. In nine out of the ten years for which tax returns were released, the Bidens gave less than $400 to charity; in the tenth year, 2007, when Biden was running for president, they gave $995 out of an adjusted gross income of $319,853.

That’s liberal Joe Biden, btw. What about conservative (well, comparatively) John McCain?

In 2007, the Arizona senator reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.
In 2006, Mr. McCain said he had $358,414 in total income and donated $64,695, or 18 percent of his total income, to charity.

You really should read his whole disassembly of this sham.

I had heard a story a number of times since attending a Christian & Missionary Alliance church; the missionary who couldn’t raise any money to buy a property, but when one child sent in a buck, the seller sold it for that one dollar.  The details changed a bit each time I heard it (one time it was China, another Hong Kong; one time it was a building, another it was a property; the circumstances around the final sale changed a bit, etc.), which is a hallmark of an urban legend, and so I was a little skeptical.

But sometimes the story is true; it’s just that gets the old "Telephone Game" treatment.  But at our Missions Conference this week, they played a video of the missionary to whom this happened.  So straight from the horse’s mouth, here’s the story of a child’s ice cream money that opened up an avenue of ministry to reach over 1 million young people with the gospel message.

Frank Turk at Evangel is doing a short series on theodicy. I asked him how/when he would connect his discussion with Job and got the following response.

Job is where everyone goes. I think the Scripture pretty much screams out from about every third page an answer which we don’t need Job to tell us.

For the record, I think Jesus and the Gospel do a better job of making sense of suffering from a top-down standpoint than we get from Job.

Job makes good use of Job’s place in creation, but in Job, God says to Job, “dude: if you think you can do a better job, I’ll ask your advice when you can answer my questions.” I think the rest of the Bible says something a little more revelatory and Christ-centered.

I think this is partially mistaken, and because Mr Turk offered that he enjoys a little disagreement and discussion, what follows will be a few points on which I disagree with his remark. Read the rest of this entry

Tonight (and it will continue into tomorrow) the third installment of the Great Canon of St. Andrew introduces a new person into the mix. Besides the Old and New Testament figures which appear, supplicatory prayers are offered to St. Mary of Egypt. For myself, until I was introduced to the Eastern traditions as a convert had never heard of St. Mary of Egypt, but she is an important person in the Eastern Lenten tradition. This week, as many of the western Protestants react in revulsion to ascetic practices of the former Pope, her story may make for interesting counterpoint.

Her story can be found in many places, here for example, but the highlights are that she was woman who in her youth resided in Alexandria and led a life devoted to the pursuit of passion, specifically sex. At some point, however she fell into the company of a party going on pilgrimage to Jerusalem and decided to accompany them (without it might be noted dropping her particular pursuits). Then, when she arrived in Jerusalem she found that she could not enter the church. With great effort she was only able to get near the doors. She realized her sins were keeping her away, she prayed to the Theotokos and was allowed entry. Shortly thereafter she was Baptised in the Jordan and fled into the desert and dwelt there alone for 47 years before meeting Abba Zosimas through whom we learn her story.

Anyhow, if the papal ascetic practices strike allergic reaction in Protestants then the story of St. Mary of Egypt would likely do the same. However her extreme examples of sin, repentance, and asceticism which signal her importance in the East.

Tonight’s canon, like last night made an interesting connection. In the last post, I noted that Moses striking the rock produced water, which is seen as a type of Jesus on the cross when speared gushing water (and blood). This was brought up again. This event, when Jesus was pierced and water and blood and specifically the water and blood is connected with the liturgical sacramental acts of Baptism (water) and Eucharist (blood) with his death (and resurrection).

From Ode 4:

May the blood and water that wells from Thy side be a font for me and a draught of forgiveness, that I may be cleansed, anointed and refreshed by both as with drink and unction by Thy living words, O Word. (John 19:34; Acts 7:38)

The Church has acquired Thy life-giving side as a chalice, from which gushes forth for us a twofold torrent of forgiveness. and knowledge as a type of the two covenants, Old and New, O our Saviour.

From Ode 6:

Rise and make war against the passions of the flesh, as Joshua did against Amalek, and ever conquer the Gibeonites – illusive thoughts. (Exodus 17:8; Josh. 8:21)

From Ode 7:

Rise and make war against the passions of the flesh, as Joshua did against Amalek, and ever conquer the Gibeonites – illusive thoughts. (Exodus 17:8; Josh. 8:21)

Ode 8 (Theotokion):

As from scarlet silk, O spotless Virgin, within thy womb the spiritual purple was woven, the flesh of Emmanuel.  Therefore we honour thee as in truth Mother of God.

A remark on that last, tradition I am told has it that Mary was spinning thread when the Angel came her at the Annunciation, as is seen in some of the annunciation icons. Scarlet as well as purple were royal colors, if you notice Byzantine mosaics the royalty are shown with red shoes … which was an indication of high honor. Which came first, red as royal -> Mary spinning red thread or vice versa I don’t know.

Well, I’ve got a few half written posts and a few notions I’ve been mulling over, but time has been a bit short lately. Lent is a big part of why, as like Holy week, Clean week is a busy time for the active Orthodox Christian … and I’m not even going as far as some do. At any rate, we have services every night this week, Sunday night was the Forgiveness Vespers, and the next four nights we are taking part in the Canon of St. Andrew. Friday we celebrate a pre-sanctified liturgy and Saturday night (as is normal) is Great Vespers (our church unlike many in the Slavic tradition does not do Great Vigil, but splits the Matins/Canon part of the Vigil service to Sunday morning, which is I gather a Greek custom and a little easier).

Anyhow, in lieu of finishing up those partial posts, here are a few quotes from tonight’s service,  which was the second night of the Canon. A little background first on the Canon. St. Andrew of Crete, the author, was Bishop of Crete in the 8th century. This canon was so well received that it was established as a practice of reading it in four parts during the first week of Lent throughout Eastern Orthodoxy. Each part contains 9 sections (like the rest of the canons, but unlike them this includes a second canon). Each canon begins with a short sung hymn called an Irmos. Then the priest chants a short fragment consisting of a few sentences of meditation. The response is “Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me” accompanied by a prostration (or if you are not physically up to the demands of prostrations a sweeping bow called a metania which starts with crossing oneself and from the final hand position (hand at the right shoulder) one sweeps one’s hand in a bow brushing your hand to the floor. The last two stanzas have a different response, being “Glory to the Father … ” and “now and ever unto ages of ages. Amen,” and the penultimate stanzas is a reflection on the Trinity and the final is a reflection on the Theotokos, sometimes called the Theotokion. After the 6th Ode there is a break and the Kontakion (another hymn) is inserted, sung three times slowly.

Some stanzas that stood out for me tonight:

From Ode 1:

Deliberately have I imitated blood-thirsty Cain, O Lord, enlivening my flesh while murdering my soul by striking it with my evil deeds.

From Ode 2:

Joseph’s was a splendid coat of many colors, but mine is one of shameful thoughts which condemns me even as it covers my flesh.

I persist in caring only for my outer garment, while neglecting the temple within — one made in the image of God.

From Ode 4:

Jacob and his sons, the Patriarchs, established for you, O my soul, an example in the ladder of active ascent. By his way of life Jacob took the first step, fathering twelve sons and offering them as further rungs which step-by-step ascend to God.

But you, my hopeless soul, have rather imitated Esau, surrendering to the crafty Devil the beauty you inherited from God, two ways — works and wisdom — have you been deceived, and now is the time for you to change your ways.

From Ode 6:

Water pouring from the rock when struck by Your servant Moses, prefigured your life-giving side, O Savior, from which we draw the Water of Life.

From Ode 7:

Solomon was mighty and full of wisdom yet did wrong before the Lord when he turned to idols. And you, my soul, resemble him in your evil life.

[I am working on a project that may become a book on the most influential evangelicals leaders of our generation, since 1976, and the impact they’ve had on the church and their times. I will introduce them briefly on this blog from time to time.  Who do you think should be on a list of leading evangelicals?].

#8 W. Stanley Mooneyham: Humanitarian. 1926-1991

With today’s ubiquitous calls for Christians to respond to human needs around the world, it is difficult to remember the days when evangelicals didn’t see the connection between physical and spiritual needs in a holistic outreach. W. Stanley Mooneyham was a giant in moving the church to “come walk the world” and respond to the great needs of body and soul.

Mooneyham was a passionate maverick who, as the second president of World Vision International after its founder Bob Pierce, became an advocate for international aid and the first real star of television fundraising for the hungry and suffering children and families of the world. During his tenure, Mooneyham took the organization from an annual budget of $7 million in 1969 to $158 million with a worldwide staff of 11,000 when he left.

He really gave his life serving the poor. The ravages of the diseases he encountered in constants trips to the cesspools of the most impoverished areas of the world led to the failure of his kidneys in 1991, when he died at 65. The trauma and lure of almost constant international travel, as well as the emotional roller coaster of a life spent immersed in Southern California hedonism and Third World squalor, took a toll on not only his health but also his family. His marriage ended about the same time his days with World Vision did.

During Mooneyham’s tenure as president, he directed the relocation efforts that helped Vietnamese boat people. It was an involvement typical of his time at World Vision. He was advised not to pursue the venture, which he called Operation Seasweep, and there was no place to take the boat people rescued on the high seas. But Stan threw caution to the wind, bought a World War II landing craft, outfitted it, and sent it to the South China Sea.

That’s when I met Mooneyham. In 1978 I was beginning my first job, as a writer for World Vision, and in after just seven months on the job I was sent to Asia to document the maiden voyage of Operation Seasweep. I hadn’t met Mooneyham during my early months at WV, but he wasn’t about to have me writing about the mission without a good talking-to.

When I arrived in Singapore, I was summoned to Stan’s hotel, where he lectured me on treating the poor and suffering with respect. And he didn’t want my copy filled with wonder at how “different” these people were.

That year, we rescued 228 Vietnamese boat people from the Thai pirates and the deathly surges of the high seas. Within two years, the world was shamed by the boldness of World Vision’s leader and the U.S. Navy was picking up these refugees.
Mooneyham was a special assistant to Billy Graham before joining World Vision. He was one of the first practitioner of telethons and direct-mail campaigns to raise funds and was not afraid to use emotional appeals. Responding to criticism of his methods in 1978, Mooneyham said: “We are accused of emotionalism, but hunger is emotional, death is emotional and poverty is emotional. Those who wish to make it all seem neat, clinical and bureaucratic are the ones falsifying the picture, not us.”

Mooneyham was the seventh child of a cotton sharecropper in Mississippi. He joined the Navy and served in the South Pacific during World War II. He told The Times in a 1981 interview that he became a Christian because of the war. He graduated from Oklahoma Baptist University on the GI Bill. Mooneyham joined the Graham evangelical crusades as a media liaison worker in 1964 and became advance planner for Graham evangelism congresses around the world. It was in some of those foreign lands that he saw what he described as “the awesome human needs” and joined World Vision.

[I am working on a project that may become a book on the most influential evangelicals leaders of our generation, since 1976, and the impact they’ve had on the church and their times. I will introduce them briefly on this blog from time to time.]

# 4 Ted W. Engstrom. Executive Leadership 1916-2006

The strength and breadth of today’s evangelical movement—the evangelical part of the Christian church—is due in large part to the foundations started in the 1950s and built over the last generation. Among these foundations are the organizations, associations, and businesses that many call the para-church. These groups, focused on a specific part of the church’s overall work, complemented the ministry of the churches, but they also clearly transcended the churches in public perception and effectiveness on many tasks. This may be because of their focus, the attractiveness of these endeavors to entrepreneurs and their ability to attract expertise, absence of geographic boundaries, and the ability to raise funds in new ways.

This growing wing of the church was led by a new crop of individuals who at first came from the churches—pastors who had a calling to pursue a specific area of ministry, such as international relief, child evangelism, or radio programming—and over time included more and more management professionals who moved from their secular jobs to lead these Christian organizations.

[As the new para-church flank developed over the last generation, many church insiders—pastors, church staff, denominational executives—naturally began to resent the higher profile of these groups, and especially their ability to raise large budgets, even as individual churches struggled to build a new children’s wing or put in a new furnace.]

One of the early giants was Ted W. Engstrom, a large kindly man with round edges and a hitch in his step who led through spiritual infusion, seasoned wisdom, and a steady hand.

For more than half a century, Engstrom’s colleagues became accustomed to his frequent correspondence (signed with his initials, TWE), which graced the management logs of three of the early giants of the para-church. Engstrom, who graduated from Taylor University, was editorial director and general manager of Zondervan Publishing House, and became president of Youth for Christ International (where some of the crusades featured a young evangelist named Graham) before joining World Vision International in 1963. It was his leadership at these organizations, and then his role as a mentor for scores of up-and-coming executives in the Christian world, that provided a steady hand to the rudder of the growing evangelical movement.

Engstrom’s management advice could apply to many situations we face today: He said:

“We terribly overestimate what we can do in one year and underestimate what we can do in five. Start by realizing that you can’t get out of this mess in one year. But you can lay a foundation that can get you out of this mess in three or five years. By planning now, you can get some control over your time.”

I worked at World Vision during Engstrom’s years as Executive Vice President, and I was his ghost writer for many internal and some external communications. During this years, Engstrom emphasized three things above all:

Evangelism: While many of the projects of groups such as World Vision concentrated on practical problems, Engstrom continued to drive for an evangelistic element in every program.

Time Management: he led Managing Your Time seminars for many years with World Vision colleague Ed Dayton.

Generosity: His motto—“We are in business to give ourselves away.” He recognized that groups such as World Vision were becoming centers of not only funds but also expertise, and he demonstrated his commitment to sharing this with others in the church.

The Christian Leadership Alliance established the Engstrom Institute as a home for their executive leadership training and resources. CLA says that Engstrom “is recognized for making one key contribution to 20th century American evangelical culture: introducing standard business practices and management principles to churches and other faith-based institutions. These often went awry because they paid too little attention to the bottom line.”

The evangelical firmament has relied not only by the brightest stars, but also the gravity that held the constellations together. Ted Engstrom had that gravity—the para-church was his platform and an emerging force in the focused activity of the American church.

[I am working on a project that may become a book on the most influential evangelicals leaders of our generation, since 1976, and the impact they’ve had on the church and their times. I will introduce them briefly on this blog from time to time.  Who do you think should be on this list?].

Phil Vischer. Cartoonist. b.1966

Primary among the recognized responsibilities of the parents, teachers and, and story tellers of every generation is to educate and socialize their children, and to explain their understanding of the meaning of life, the virtues and truths of their faith, and the principles necessary to thrive in this world and to grasp the hand of the God who transcends time.

Since 1993, one of the principal communicators of religious culture to the children of the nation has not been huge organizations such as Awana Clubs or Child Evangelism Fellowship, the home school movement, or even the Sunday schools, but Bob the Tomato, Larry the Cucumber, and their vegetable cohorts at Veggie Tales—the creations of a bright but quirky Bible college dropout from southeast Iowa, Phil Vischer.

This may seem like an overstatement, but rarely has a line of programs or products dominated a field as thoroughly as Veggie Tales shorts and films (now more than 31) did the children’s religious education/entertainment since 1993.

Christianity Today reported:

“Before the singing vegetables of VeggieTales hit the scene, there had never been a Christian video series that sold 25 million copies. There had never ever been a fully computer-animated feature (Pixar’s Toy Story was still two years away). And there had never ever, ever been Christian-produced entertainment so funny and smart that viewers did not realize they were receiving moral instruction.”

Veggie Tales was introduced to the world as productions of Big Idea, founded in 1989 by Vischer and his college firend, Mike Nawrocki. The company officially launched in 1993 with its first Video, Where’s God When I’m S-Scared?.

Vischer was born and raised in the southeast Iowa rivertown, Muscatine, the second of three children of a prestigious but tormented Christian family. His paternal grandfather was a founder of the Bandag tire company based in Muscatine, and his maternal grandfather the longtime director of the Okoboji Lakes Bible and Missionary Conference (Christian and Missionary Alliance). His mother is a professor at Wheaton College. Phil tells his personal story in Me, Myself & Bob.

I spent my middle and high school years living across the street from the Vischer family, and Phil’s parents were my youth group leaders at Mulford Evangelical Free Church. I remember young Phil, 12 years my junior, as Flip–a longtime nickname he was happy to abandon as he grew older. When Phil began making films, those of us who knew him well were not at all surprised by the off-beat humor or cartoonish voices. They were simply an outgrowth of Phil’s persona. Our only surprise was how rapidly Veggie Tales exploded in the Christian marketplace (not surprised because the products were poor but because, as Jesus found, a prophet is without honor in his hometown).

The discussion of creating culture and penetrating existing cultural forms is often a heady exercise of sociologists and missiologists. But for at least a brief and shining moment, they were led by vegetables named Bob and Larry.

With a danger of oversimplifying, it may be safe to say that Vischer found maintaining a large production company took different skills than creative great stories and characters. In 2005 Big Idea was sold as it faced bankruptcy and a distribution lawsuit. Veggie Tales lives on and Vischer still works with the company on a contract basis, writing scripts and performing many of the voices for new Veggie Tales productions. He has also started a new creative shop called Jellyfish Labs.