[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?]

#6.  Charles Colson. Statesman  b. 1931 

 

It is no exaggeration to say that that the Christian conversion of Charles Colson in 1973 stands in stature and impact among the modern era’s most visible and consequential. The startling front-page news that Colson had found Christ raised eyebrows throughout the country and struck fear in a White House besieged by Watergate and not anxious to see one of its defendants find the confession booth. But the enduring impact of Colson is not only the public conversion of a political scoundrel, but his lifelong ministry to the imprisoned, the evidence of intellectual support for the leap of faith, his pioneering analysis of daily news in light of ancient Scripture, his surprising emphasis on church unity, and as a senior leader his behind-the-scenes influence in the halls of power.

One could easily make the case that Colson is the central evangelical figure in the last generation. He was not the most visible, popular, best-selling, controversial, quoted, or cited—but he is among the leaders in all of those categories. At the same time, much of his influence is behind the scenes and through his profound influence on influencers.

I saw much of this unfold as an associate, aide, and consultant to Colson over nearly two decades, from the early 80s into the new millenium, serving for part of that time as his chief of staff, and—as he would occasionally say with a chuckle—his hatchet man. 

Chuck Colson’s life and work has had an enormous impact in at least these five areas:

Conversion

Colson was known as the White House “hatchet man,” a man feared by even the most powerful politicos during his four years of service to President Nixon. When news of Colson’s conversion to Christianity leaked to the press in 1973, the Boston Globe reported, “If Mr. Colson can repent of his sins, there just has to be hope for everybody.” Colson would agree. He admits he was guilty of political “dirty tricks” and willing to do almost anything for the cause of his president and his party.

“My conversion kept the political cartoonists of America clothed and fed for months. The cartoons were all somewhat the same: a picture of me in a monk’s habit, standing outside the White House fence, with a sign that read: Repent!

“But before my conversion I wasn’t nearly as bad as I was made out to be,” Colson told me, “And I’m not nearly as good as a Christian as I’m made out to be. But it makes for a great testimony!”

 That testimony is usually confused in the re-telling, with the story including a Watergate conviction that resulted in a prison sentence for Colson, and while in prison sentence he turned to God. The facts are that Colson, in the midst of the Watergate hearings, dramatically came to faith in Christ in 1973, and as a result of his new faith and life, he decided, in 1974, to plead guilty to a charge that was related to Nixonian dirty tricks (but not directed related to the Watergate break-in or cover-up). Colson was sentenced to prison on the basis of the guilty plea and he entered prison as a Christian and began his conversion memoir, Born Again, during his seven months in prison. Born Again was one of the nation’s best-selling books of all genres in 1976 and was made into a feature-length film.

His heavily publicized commitment to Jesus Christ as a highly visible public figure has been instrumental in many conversions among, for the lack of a better word, the elite in this nation and around the world. 

 Prison Ministry

Because Chuck Colson began his Christian life in prison, the needs of prisoners and the failures of the criminal justice system were among the first problems that God brought to his attention, the commitment he made to help those prisoners is a promise he has never broken. The attention he brought to prison ministry has changed the church.

 Upon his release Colson founded Prison Fellowship (in 1976), which has become the world’s largest outreach to prisoners, ex-prisoners, crime victims, and their families. Christians had been ministering to people in prison throughout the history of the church, but it had never had scale and visibility; neither was it well-funded. As a result of Chuck Colson’s intelligence, notoriety, communications skills, organizing ability, and fundraising prowess, Prison Fellowship has grown to unimaginable proportions (for a prison ministry), and prison outreach has become a prominent part of church programming. [Many of Prison Fellowship’s largest donors had only marginal interest in prison work. As one major contributor told me: “If Chuck asked me to support a basket-weaving ministry, I’d do it.” We called this part of the donor base “Colson groupies.”

 Applying a Christian Worldview to Secular Culture

It wasn’t long after he began Prison Fellowship, that Colson sensed God’s calling to comment on the culture and the church’s interaction with the culture through the written and spoken word. It was clear immediately his knowledge and life experiences were unique among Christian leaders. Colson called on Christians to begin each day “with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other.” After his two autobiographic books that described his conversion (Born Again) and the beginning of the prison ministry (Life Sentence), he moved markedly toward a critique of church and culture, beginning with Loving God in 1983, often using illustrations from the rough world of prison ministry to make his larger points.

 In later years, perhaps sensing his own mortality, Colson began a center to train a new generation of leaders to renew the church and revitalize the culture. Colson describes this as a new effort “to be salt and light, rubbed into the culture in such a way that the people and institutions around us slowly begin to understand that they have embraced the Lie, and to replace it with the Truth of a biblical understanding of all of reality.”

 Colson has written 20 books, which have collectively sold more than five million copies, and his 4-minute daily radio commentary, BreakPoint, has been a popular daily word for Christians.

 Influence in the Political Arena

His 1987 his book Kingdoms in Conflict (updated in 2007 as God and Government) was a best-selling directive to the Christian community on the proper relationships of church and state, and it positioned Colson as a centrist evangelical voice for balanced Christian political activism. (Pat Robertson’s presidential run made the original release of Kingdoms) a big hit. That influence continued over the next 20 years, often behind the scenes. 

 In Faith in the Halls of Power, Michael Lindsay writes that Colson is the evangelical “movement leader who seemed to have the greatest influence” in Washington. More than a quarter of the senior political leaders he interviewed mentioned Colson by name when asked about the “most influential” evangelical leaders, more than the SBC’s Richard Land or Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins (no one mentioned James Dobson).[1]

 Seeking Christian Unity

Colson’s commitment to the unity of the Church led to his co-authorship (with Father Richard John Neuhaus) of a cutting-edge document “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” that significantly helped to build an important bridge between Protestants and Catholics.  Seeking  commonality with the orthodox Christian faith and working to bring the church together is perhaps Colson’s most courageous and controversial act, with a number of conservative evangelicals at least privately critical of his actions, and many publicly dismissive of the ECT initiative. Colson’s book The Faith was a remarkable effort to identify the common tenets of the Christian faith. 

 In recognition of his work, Colson received the prestigious Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in 1993, donating the $1 million prize to Prison Fellowship. Colson’s other awards have included the Humanitarian Award, Dominos Pizza Corporation (1991); The Others Award, The Salvation Army (1990); several honorary doctorates from various colleges and universities (1982-2000); and the Outstanding Young Man of Boston, Chamber of Commerce (1960).

---

[1] Lindsay, D. Michael. Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite. Oxford University Press. 2007.

Ann had an interesting meme post which I noticed today, the “Ann Rice” meme. This meme asks us to:

1. Name 3 things that really annoy you about church in general.
2. Name 3 reasons why you stay.

So, without further ado: here’s my list.

Annoyances

1. When Christians make references to “those sinners” with a tacit assumption that “they” are not us. That is having the hubris to make the claim that there are groups and categories more sinful in the sight of the Lord than any group that includes me.
2. That the “the road is narrow and the path is steep” doesn’t mean that there isn’t more than one road. It means that the getting there is difficult.
3. How often we fail to treat other Christians as our brother and to love those who hate us.

Things Keeping me there:

1. The Creator created, the tomb was empty, and the Spirit descended.
2. Those times in which we succeed to treat Christians as our brother and to love those who hate us.
3. The stories and writings of those who it seems before us did manage well to trod that narrow path.

From the source of all knowledge, Wikipedia:

In 711 AD, a Muslim army from North Africa had conquered Visigoth Christian Iberia. Under their leader Tariq ibn-Ziyad, they landed at Gibraltar and brought most of the Iberian Peninsula under Islamic rule in an eight-year campaign. The Iberian Peninsula was called Al-Andalus by its Muslim rulers. When the Umayyad Caliphs were deposed in Damascus in 750, the dynasty relocated to Córdoba, ruling an emirate there; consequently the city gained in luxury and importance, as a center of Iberian Muslim culture.

Once the Muslims conquered Iberia, they governed it in accordance with Islamic shariah law. Christians and Jews were treated as dhimmis or "protected" persons subject to a poll tax allowing them to live in peace and security under the Islamic state. Under shariah, blasphemy against Islam, whether by Muslims or dhimmis, and apostasy from Islam are all grounds for the death penalty.

Though four Christian basilicas and numerous Christian monasteries mentioned in Eulogius’ martyrology remained open, the Christian population was gradually becoming converted to Islam in the process driven by taxation, legal discrimination and other indignities imposed on the Christians, and the marriage laws assuring Muslim offspring from mixed marriages. Notably Reccafred, Bishop of Córdoba, taught the virtues of toleration and compromise with the Muslim authorities, which did nothing to slow the process. To the scandal of Eulogius, whose texts are the only source for these martyrdoms, and who was venerated as a saint from the 9th century, the bishop sided with Muslim authorities against the martyrs, whom he regarded as fanatics. The closures of monasteries begins to be recorded towards the middle of the 9th century. The monk Eulogius encouraged the martyrs as a way to reinforce the faith of the Christian community. He composed tractates and a martyrology to justify the self-immolation of the martyrs, of which a single manuscript, containing his Documentum martyriale, the three books of his Memoriale sanctorum and his Liber apologeticus martyrum, was preserved in Oviedo, in the Christian kingdom of Asturias in the far northwestern coast of Hispania. There the relics of Saint Eulogius were translated in 884.

Cordoba refers to a time of ascension of the Caliphate and conquest, especially conquest of Christians.  Today, writing in The Ottawa Citizen, two Muslims, Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, condemn the idea of building an Islamic mosque very near to Ground Zero, to be built by "The Cordoba Initiative".

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

Legally, I’m sure they have a right to build it.  But their actions belie their stated intentions. 

Meanwhile, a church actually destroyed in the 9/11 attacks, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, still has roadblocks before it can be rebuilt.

[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?]

45.  Os Guinness. Modern de Tocqueville  b.1941

 As a European visitor to the United States and a great admirer but somewhat detached observer of American culture today, Os Guinness stands in the long tradition of outside voices who have contributed so much to America’s ongoing discussion about the state of the union.

Great-great grandson of Arthur Guinness, the Dublin brewer, Os was born in China in World War II where his parents were medical missionaries (and where his siblings died of illness). He was named Oswald after Oswald Chambers, a friend of his parents. A witness to the climax of the Chinese revolution in 1949, he was expelled with his family and many other foreigners in 1951 and returned to Europe–where he was educated in England. He completed his undergraduate degree at the University of London and his D.Phil in the social sciences from Oriel College, Oxford.

Guinness is a Christian cultural critic with deep theological awareness and penetrating insights into character, social interaction, historic lessons, and unyielding devotion to God. He has written or edited more than twenty-five books, including The American Hour, Time for Truth, The Call, Invitation to the Classics, Long Journey Home, and Unspeakable: Facing up to the Challenge of Evil. His latest book, The Case for Civility was published by HarperOne in January 2008.

“Civility,” Guinness says, “ is how we must live with our deep differences. It’s the American way as described by James Madison, with no state church and no religious monopoly. The framers [of the U.S. Constitution] got religious liberty right with the First Amendment in 1791, long before they got race or women right. However, the way the founders set the country up has been breaking down since the 1960s, or really since the Everson case in 1947. We have incessant cultural warring with, as Richard Neuhaus put it, the sacred public square on one side and the naked public square on the other. Both of the sides are well funded, both employ batteries of lawyers, both are nationally led and it’s a disaster for America. What Neuhaus and others call the “civil public square” is a key to the American future; Christians should be champions of that civil public square.”[1]

Guinness is perhaps best known for his writings, as a co-laborer with Francis Schaeffer at L’Abri, for his work on the Williamsburg Charter—which attempted to establish decorum in political discourse; and for his founding and leadership of the unique outreach of The Trinity Forum to leaders often untouched by traditional means.

 The Trinity Forum is:

 “a leadership academy that works to cultivate networks of leaders whose integrity and vision will help renew culture and promote human freedom and flourishing. Our programs and publications offer contexts for leaders to consider together the big ideas that have shaped Western civilization and the faith that has animated its highest achievements.”

I had the good fortune of working with Os during the start-up years of The Trinity Forum. He is probably the most gracious and gentle intellectual I have worked with (and I have worked with many, in case I needed additional reasons for humility), while at the same time Guinness also maintained intellectual rigor and British propriety. It is a blend that allows you to establish a warm friendship with him, appreciate his everyday brilliance, and yet never become overly chummy. To have it any other way would negate his unique character.

 Years after I worked with Os, when I was going through a difficult personal time, he was one of the few friends and certainly the only Christian leader who called me to offer encouragement to my spirit and solace to my soul. He was self depreciating and assured me that I was not alone in any wrongdoing. It is the kind of kindness one never forgets.

 Guinness lives with his wife Jenny in McLean, Virginia.

---

[1] http://www.faithandleadership.com/multimedia/os-guinness-civility-the-public-square

Some ink (some virtual) has been spilled on novelist Ms Rice announcing that she has “left the Church” but not left Christ. Recently I have been reading and studying the five theological orations by St. Gregory the Theologian (also known as St. Gregory of Nazianzus where he was Bishop for a time). These orations (or homilies) in an important sense define what it means to be an orthodox Christian today. In the time just prior to the convening of the 2nd Ecumenical council in Constantinople, the majority of those in the area and expected in attendance were (roughly speaking) Arian in sympathy. St. Gregory just before this council gave in short succession, just outside the city, a series of 5 orations and the matter was settled in the cause of orthodoxy. And for the following 800 or so years, these lectures were the primary pedagogical examples of the art of rhetoric for those studying the art of the rhetor in the Eastern Roman world. An American analogy might be Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, after which the case for the Civil war was arguably settled and subsequently this has been a speech studied by debators and rhetors as a jewel of the art.

What does this have to do with Ms Rice and her disillusionment with the earthly Church? Her situation came to mind when I read this (from the 1st homily of this set, which is Oration #27 in oeuvre of St. Gregory). He wrote (spoke):

Such is the situation: this infection [to much bitter disputation and argument over theological detail] is unchecked and intolerable; “the great mystery” of our faith is in danger becoming a mere social accomplishment. [emphasis mine]

Later in that homily he writes (speaking again against bitter theological quarrels):

But first we must consider: what is this disorder of the tongue that leads us to compete in garrulity? what is this alarming disease, this appetite that can never be sated? Why do we keep our hands bound and out tongues armed?

Do we commend hospitality? Do we admire brotherly love, wifely affection, virginity, feeding the poor, singing psalms, night-long vigils, penitence? Do we mortify the body with fasting? Do we through prayer, take up our abode with God? Do we subordinate the inferior element in us to the better — I mean, the dust to the spirit, as we should if we have returned the right verdict on the alloy of the two which is our nature? Do we make life a meditation of death? Do we establish our mastery over our passions, mindful of the nobility of our second birth? … 

So, what might this have to do with Ms Rice? Well, it might be said that her disappointment with the Church was that it wasn’t good enough as a social accomplishment. It might be offered, in the Church’s defense, that to complain of the failings of others and their tarnished social accomplishments is something like fretting about the log in my brother’s eye. Recall 1st Timothy 1:15. 

The orations can be found in this small paperback: On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius

 

 

The Anchoress, posting at First Things, has a wonderful post on the issues raised by Anne Rice in her "quitting" of Christianity.  There is plenty of blame to go around, and in this portion of the post I’m quoting, The Anchoress covers them in part, but the whole post is well worth the read.

Anne Rice wants to do the Life-in-Christ on her own, while saying “Yes” to the worldly world and its values. She seems not to realize that far from being an Institution of No, the church is a giant and eternal urging toward “Yes,”, that being a “yes” toward God–whose ways are not our ways, and who draws all to Himself, in the fullness of time–rather than a “yes” to ourselves.

Unfortunately, we Christians teach this poorly and generally make too many excuses for our failings. Too many of us go out into the world seeking to confront and “fix” others, when the key to the Christian life begins with confronting and “fixing” the self. This can only be done through grace, which enters upon the Yes, and moves and grows on the intentional breeze of Willingness, because that is the only thing that counts, our intentions and our willingness; “worthiness” does not enter in.

But willingness only comes with humility. It comes when we can say “Thy will be done,” and then actually surrender, instead of preparing a treaty.

The world, because it is worldly, cannot understand Christianity or the churches; the world will never love either, and it is foolishness to think otherwise. But the church is not here to be loved by the world; it is here to serve the Bread. The Living Bread did not come for the love of the world, but for its life.

Notice (for those who care):

Today I’m still a Christian. I’m still in with this bunch of quarrelsome and hostile humans. I refuse to be arrogant enough to believe that my Western-bred, self-concerned, and individualistic mindset can circumvent the very humanity which leaves Christianity imperfect in practice.

Also, in the name of Christ, I refuse to condone sexual behavior, whether it be hetero or homo, that is outside the boundaries God has set; I refuse to agree with liberal feminists who degrade women; I refuse to believe being Democrat or Republican is related to “Jesus is God, he died, and was resurrected”; I refuse to think secular humanism is valid (or new); I refuse to succumb to the self defeating views of methodological naturalism, yet continue to support research of the natural realm God created; and I refuse to be anti-life, specifically, the life of unborn images of God.

Many of the more liberal Protestants churches these days practice an “open communion”, in which they welcome anyone professing to be Christian to share Eucharist with them. Apparently the ECUSA doesn’t even require Baptism for participation in Eucharist. I don’t know what the common practice is at other Evangelical churches, Baptist or the conservative reformed churches might be … but my particular church (Eastern Orthodox) does not practice this. To share Eucharist in the Orthodox church one must be a member in good standing, have confessed recently, and fasted from food and water (on Sunday) since midnight. 

In the Didache, Chapter 14 we find (wiki on the Didache is here): 

And coming together on the Lord’s day of the Lord, break bread and give thanks, confessing beforehand your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. And everyone having a quarrel with his fellow member, do not let [them] gather with you until they have reconciled so that your sacrifice may not be defiled. For this is what was said by the Lord: “In every place and time, offer me a pure sacrifice because I am a great king,” says the Lord, “and my name [is] great among the nations.”

It seems to me this teaching is both based in Scripture and applicable to the notion of open communion. There are in fact non-trivial doctrinal differences between our churches. That we might approach these irenically does not belie the underlying seriousness and importance in working to resolve these differences. However, the word “quarrel” is important. We do not gather together and share communion until we are reconciled so that our sacrifice might not be defiled, not the least of which by our quarrel. 

So I’m curious, if your Church practices open communion … why? By what reasoning do you justify that practice? What tradition? 

I’ve been on vacation for about 10 days, so I have some catch-up to do here.  Here are some stories I noticed over the break.  Others will get their own post.

"Young Men’s Christian Association" to be renamed "Young".  This is ostensibly to remain more inclusive, but it’s not like folks have been staying away in droves or anything.  Just some more political correctness, removing even the hint of anything Christian in our culture, even if only ever referred to by its initial.

Handing out the Gospel of John is now "disturbing the peace" in Dearborn, Michigan.  Four kids from a group called Acts 17 Apologetics face jail time for handing out the text and talking to people at a Muslim festival.  The link on their name goes to their YouTube channel.  I’ve watched some of the videos, and I just don’t see "harassment" or "disturbing" going on.

Christian beliefs are now "unethical" when it comes to counseling, according to Augusta (GA) State University.  They want Jennifer Keeton to agree to a plan that includes "diversity sensitivity training" and changing her beliefs before they will allow her to graduate.  Read the article and, even if you disagree with her, tell me that this doesn’t sound like Soviet Russia.

The "JournoList" situation really blew up while I was out.  Oh, that liberal media.  Kenneth Anderson said it best, "To all you non-JournoLister reporters out there, please be aware that your credibility has just taken a big hit, because we, your faithful readers, don’t actually know who is or who isn’t.  You can thank JournoList for that, you can thank Ezra Klein, and you can thank the Washington Post, which has done its outstanding professionals absolutely no favors in any of this."

When even Democrats are poised to revolt over taxes (however temporary that might be), you know there’s a problem

And an appropriate cartoon from Chuck Asay:

I’ve recently acquired this little book by the Met. John Zizioulas, Lectures in Christian Dogmatics. One of the important points made by Met. Zizioulas is that (Orthodox) theological thinking often is just a paraphrasing and restating of what has been already set out and stated by the Fathers. In his words, 

It is unfortunate that much of today’s Orthodox theology is in fact nothing but history — a theologically uncommitted scholar could have done this kind of ‘theology’ just as well or even better. Although this kind of ‘theology’ claims to be faithful to the Fathers and tradition is in fact contrary to the method followed by the Fathers themselves. For the Fathers worked in constant dialogue with the intellectual trends of their time to interpret the Christian faith to the world around them. This is precisely the task of Orthodox theology in our time too. 

So, with that in mind, I’m going to begin reading through this book and discussing some small points I encounter on the way (as time permits). Met. Zizioulas begins by defining and discussing what is meant by these terms. What is Theology? How might we define it. He begins:

Theology starts in the worship of God and in the Church’s experience of communion with God. Our experience of this communion involves a whole range of relationships, so theology is not simply about a religious, moral or psychological experience, but about our whole experience of life in this communion. Theology touches on life, death and our very being, and shows how our personal identity is constituted through relationships, ans so through love and freedom. What makes man different from any other creature? Can humans be truly free? Do they want to be free? Can humans be free to love?

Theology is concerned with life and survival, and therefore with salvation. The Church articulates its theology, not simply to add to our knowledge of God or the world, but so that we may gain the life which can never be brought to an end. Christian doctrine tells us there is redemption for us and for the world, and each particular doctrine articulates some aspect of this redemption. We have to inquire how each doctrine contributes to knowledge of our salvation. Rather than isolating each doctrine, we have to set each doctrine out in the context of all other doctrines. Theology seeks a living comprehension of the Christian faith, of our place in the world and relationship with one another. It does not just want to preserve the statements of the Church as they were originally made, but also to provide the best contemporary expression of the teaching of the Church.

Well, that is quite a bit to chew on. What might be offered to start. One thing might be said right off. He goes on in the following to define what he means by doctrine and dogmas. On reflection this begins not so much by defining what theology is, but of what the process examines and consists. What questions does it address, what concerns does theology approach is what is posed here. 

 [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?]

#25. Samuel Rodriguez. Hispanic advocate 

(b. 1971)

 

 

The enormous promotional skills of Samuel Rodriguez, the self-anointed “leader of the Hispanic evangelical movement” and “America’s voice for Hispanic Christianity,” will be put to the test over the next few years as he attempts to bridge conservative evangelicals and the emerging group of evangelical Hispanics over the contentious issue of immigration reform.

President of the Hispanic Christian Leadership Council (HCLC)—earlier known as the Hispanic National Association of Evangelicals—Rodriguez wields tremendous influence as one of the leaders of a religious-ethnic religious group being courted by Republicans and Democrats. It is a role the young Assemblies of God pastor clearly relishes, and he has recently demonstrated the skills that will be necessary as a coalition builder on immigration.

Rodriguez gains influence on the right with stellar conservative Christian bona fides. He serves on the board of directors of some of America’s leading evangelical organizations, such as Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, National Association of Evangelicals, and Christianity Today, Inc. He also serves on the advisory board of the National Campaign to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and various pro-life initiatives. In addition, he serves on the steering committee of The Freedom Federation, The Oak Initiative and the General Superintendents’ Cabinet in the Assemblies of God.

Raised in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, by Puerto Rican parents, Rodriguez grew up in an Assemblies of God church (and now pastors one in Sacramento, California). He delivered his first sermon when he was 16 and quickly grew to be a rousing and acclaimed preacher.  ”I want to be a voice for our people,” he says.[1] His wife Eva serves as senior pastor of Christian Worship Center.[2]

Rodriguez earned his Master’s degree in educational leadership from Lehigh University and he is currently pursuing a doctoral degree in organizational management and behavior. He is serving on President Obama’s White House Task Force on Fatherhood.

His conservative voice often has a slightly different tone than his anglo-evangelical counterparts, but the substance is usually the same. On the war on terror, he said:

“Our moral imperative must drive us to advocate a foreign policy of justice. If we must take the lead on the war on terror, let us simultaneously take the lead on the war on poverty. We can be both Pro Israel and Pro the Palestinian People. Let us help Israel and the Palestinians by both eradicating the terrorist groups while simultaneously building schools, infrastructure, and providing opportunity. Let us replace fear with hope, rockets with opportunity. At the end of the day, let us understand that Islamic religious totalitarianism is the 21st Century version of Hitler’s National Socialism. What do we do with evil? Negotiate compromise, surrender or confront? The answer will determine not only the fate of Israel, but the fate of world peace for years to come.” [3]

But Rodriguez’ marquee issue is immigration, which he calls “a family issue for Hispanics.” In May 2010, Rodriquez orchestrated an unlikely coalition of conservatives that adopted a consensus statement on immigration reform. The group included Matthew Staver of Liberty Counsel, a ministry of Liberty University; Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission; and Rick Tyler, the head of Newt Gingrich’s new values-based organization.

CNN reported: 

 ”After securing our borders, we must allow the millions of undocumented and otherwise law-abiding persons living in our midst to come out of the shadows,” reads a recent draft of the document, which is still being finalized. “The pathway for earned legal citizenship or temporary residency should involve a program of legalization for undocumented persons in the United States. …”

 Many conservatives say illegal immigrants should be forced to return to their home countries and start the process of legally coming to the U.S. from scratch.

 Rodriguez, who heads the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference — which represents about 16 million Latino evangelicals in the U.S. — says he’ll soon start presenting the document to Republican leaders like Gingrich, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio in hopes that they sign on.

 ”If the conservative evangelical community looks to the Republican Party and says, ‘We demand integration reform, we demand a just assimilation strategy,’ that may be the tipping point in getting substantial Republican support for comprehensive immigration reform,” Rodriguez said. [4]

Rodriquez points out that what commentators call an ”illegal immigrant” is, for Hispanic-evangelicals, beloved Uncle Carlos, a hard-working family man and deacon at the church. It’s hard to build alliances with people who want to put Uncle Carlos in jail. Rodriguez emphasizes that he’s not defending violations of the law. He is all for border control and immigration enforcement. He feels, however, that the argument has become anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic. “I’m very disappointed. We need dialogue on why white evangelicals are so threatened by people who are so fundamentally in accord with their values.”[5]

---

[1] http://www.newsweek.com/id/81377

 

[2] http://www.nhclc.org/leader/rev-samuel-rodriguez

[3] http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/samuel_rodriguez/2009/01/hamas_hezbollah_and_al_qaeda_2.html

[4] http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/10/immigration.evangelicals/index.html

[5] http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/31.82.html

[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?]

#41.  Nancy S. DeMoss. Philanthropist  b.1938 

While evangelical leaders recognize that God’s will and blessing are the most important ingredients of successful Christian work, it should be no surprise that funding is a vital lubricant for successful ministries. The primary sources of this funding are the individual donors who provide relatively small but regular gifts—“tithes and offerings”—to local churches and to national and international ministries.

However, large ministries must also receive major gifts from individual donors and foundations focusing on Christian ministry.  The largest U.S. group providing money to evangelical causes is the Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation, a family foundation led during the last 30 years by its matriarch, Mrs. Nancy DeMoss. The foundation was begun by her late husband, Arthur S. DeMoss, an insurance innovator and highly respected Christian businessman. Art DeMoss founded National Liberty Corporation, the pioneer of direct response insurance marketing (whose advertising featured Art Linkletter) and then began the foundation before his untimely death in 1979.

His oldest daughter Nancy Leigh DeMoss said her father was “a living illustration of the principles he taught us,” showing his seven children to put God first in everything by giving the first hour of his own day to the Word and prayer—every day for 28 years. He taught his children to be generous givers through his own goal of giving away an extravagant sum of money during his lifetime.”[1]

 His wife Nancy has guaranteed that Art DeMoss’ goal became reality, as she has guided the foundation—with a strong hand–in its extravagant giving to Christian and conservative causes over the last three decades. 

The DeMoss family, like many families of means who give away large amounts of their treasure, is mostly private to reduce badgering by grant-seekers and for family safety. But since all foundation giving records are public, the generosity of the family cannot be hidden. Also, the foundation has sponsored some very public programs, and several  family members—although not Mrs. DeMoss–have been quite visible.  ”The Foundation has a history of not seeking publicity. Foundation grantees sign a confidentiality agreement so strict that they will not even discuss the group to praise it.”[2]

Although media coverage of evangelicals, such as Time’s 2005 cover story on 25 influencers, usually focused on political action and hot-button issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, in reality most evangelical attention goes to the spiritual priorities of the church, such as evangelism, Christian growth, and care for the poor and suffering.

This emphasis is reflected in giving within evangelicalism and is typified by the DeMoss Foundation. Records show that DeMoss provides gifts of some $21 million a year, largely support of evangelistic efforts in this country and around the world, with the top recipients including Campus Crusade for Christ, Prison Fellowship Ministries, and Liberty University. 

The foundation has also conducted some high-profile projects of its own, such as Power For Living, which has as its objective to acquaint as many people as possible throughout the world with information on how to get right with God. This is done through a multi-media campaign promoting the free book, Power For Living. The project has shifted overseas, but in the early 1990s it was quite visible in some major U.S. markets, with the foundation reportedly spending “more than $27.8 million–a sum outpacing [at the time] the media buy of a presidential campaign. [3]

Among its visible projects over the years was the 1992 ad campaign with the slogan “Life, What A Beautiful Choice,” one of the most effective and tasteful pro-life campaigns ever created. On his radio program, BreakPoint, Chuck Colson said at the time:

“The DeMoss commercials are an excellent model of how to win hearts. In a gentle, engaging style, they nudge people to reconsider how to respond to a problem pregnancy. It holds people up as admirable if they carry their babies to term. It reminds the audience that there are millions of couples ready to offer a loving home for those babies. The De Moss Foundation’s decision to air these commercials during prime time is brilliant. Right during thirtysomething, no less, when the audience consists of just those middle-class, single women most likely to abort.”[4]

Another high-profile ministry heavily supported by DeMoss is a Campus Crusade program called Executive Ministries, an evangelistic outreach targeting business and professional executives. The points of contact are luncheons and dinner parties featuring prominent Christian speakers, with these events often conducted at Mrs. DeMoss’ Palm Beach mansion, or at a facility in New York City called the DeMoss House. 

Three of the DeMoss children have been in the public eye.

•  Nancy Leigh DeMoss, a best-selling author and popular speaker, has served on the staff of Life Action Ministries, a revival ministry based in Niles, Michigan, since 1980.
•  Mark DeMoss heads the nation’s largest public relations firm serving Christian organizations and causes and is the author of The Little Red Book Of Wisdom , a book of principles for personal and professional fulfillment. (Note: I was a vice president at The DeMoss Group in the late 1990s).
• Deborah DeMoss was a  forceful and sometimes controversial aide to Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), championing Nicaragua’s contra rebels and advising conservative politicians in El Salvador and throughout the region (where she married and still lives).

Although liberal stalwarts like to criticize Mrs. DeMoss and the foundation for their support of conservative politicians and causes, most who know of her work sense the heartbeat of evangelism. Eastern College sociology professor and author Tony Campolo said:

 ”Their purpose is to propagate the evangelical commitments, and that includes the social values associated with those commitments. But what they are really about is old-time religion, endeavoring to see that every person in the world comes to know Jesus.”

 

---

[1] http://library.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=8&page=579

[2] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,28859,00.html#ixzz0sWuxxSmB

[3]  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,28859,00.html#ixzz0sWuxxSmB

[4] https://www.colsoncenter.org/bpcommentaries/breakpoint-commentaries-search/entry/13/10200

Throughout Church history, theological controversy has been one of the enduring features. Name any communion or denomination and you will find one which has struggled with this matter. St. Maximus the Confessor was imprisoned, exiled and lost his tongue and compared to many he got off easy. For that matter, I’d be willing to guess that among those reading this very essay, if they are Christian, have themselves had discussions, often perhaps heated, of this sort. As the title indicates, I’m leading towards a question but to start I’m going to preface that with a few remarks.

Two fragments from Scripture are perhaps relevant. (1 Corinthians 13:12) “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”  For the second passage, Romans 2 offers that Jesus not men will be the final judge. 

We may argue about our view of the theology, Christology, soteriology, or whatever topic, but we all must admit we only see dimly the truths to which we attest. Who is right in these argument? From the second it might be said that these arguments will only be settled at the eschaton.

My question then is why then might we argue? What is the core reason for which we dispute. What is at stake? I’d be very curious to hear a variety of responses to this.

For myself, my answer might be as follows. Trinitarian theology and Christology, the parables and teachings of Jesus, Paul, James and so on are beautiful. They possess symmetry and a poetry have no little impact. Teachings that obscure this beauty … that is what is problematic. Why? Because it hinders others from seeing it. The core problem is not that you will be judged adversely if you’re a Calvinist and if at the eschaton Calvin’s teaching was fraught with error (and no, please don’t take this as a generic attack on Calvinism, the “if” is important there). The problem might be with Calvinism is whether his teachings obscures or conceals some important part of the Gospel.