Page 5558 – Christianity Today (2024)

If you don’t learn something new this week, you’ll sound canned, frozen, dried out.

A growing minister sets the pattern for a growing church. A minister’s wife can help him grow by setting up conditions conducive to their mutual growth: growing becomes a shared adventure. The whole church soon takes on a pastor’s quality of life and growth—or lack of it.

If you are going to bring life to others, you have to stay alive yourself. One of the dictionary definitions for life is capacity for growth. Church members think that because you went to school all those years, all you have to do is stand up and a sermon comes out. Or open your mouth, and a new program for the Sunday school springs forth full-blown. But you and I know nothing really good comes out that hasn’t been freshly planted in your mind and experience, then watered, fertilized, weeded, and brought painstakingly to maturity. Whether you’re a preacher, or a minister whose primary job is teaching, visiting, directing youth or Christian education, you need to have learned something new this week. All those good things from the dear dead past will sound canned, frozen, dried out, or rotten. You have to develop a lifestyle that stimulates growth. How can a minister help himself to grow?

1. A minister can grow through preparation for teaching or preaching. Some feel they must get their own devotional food from Bible reading apart from sermon preparation. Others preach out of their own devotional lives. Or they gather spiritual food for themselves as they study, allowing plenty of time to stop, meditate, and pray. Either way works. Block off ample hours for wide study and deep pondering. You grow through expounding the Bible. A minister grows as he hears and studies great pulpit masters.

2. A minister can grow in his vacations. We have made a lifelong hobby of travel, even on a minister’s salary. Since both of us are crazy about the same things, we have made ridiculous sacrifices to gain a new experience. To us a vacation doesn’t count as a vacation unless we have learned something new to take back to the job. Summer conferences and courses can also contribute to growth.

3. A minister can learn from his church members. Bart once had a ponderous verbal style. A friend in the church gave him Rudolph Flesch’s book, The Art of Plain Talk, which started us on the route to talking plain English.

Other members have made suggestions, both large and small; both pleasant and unpleasant. Bart’s father, also a pastor, had mastered the art of receiving criticism. He used to say, “When you get criticism, learn what you can from it. Thank God for the person who gives you a kick. He may prove your best friend.”

4. A minister can grow through discussing the range of life with a soulmate. He can help her to grow through interacting with her. She can inspire him. Together they can search out illustrations for sermons from daily life, from travel, or from books. They can think and talk in terms of applying spiritual truths to everyday problems; to problems in the church; to problems in people’s lives; to problems in organizations. A minister will grow as he encourages his wife to grow. As he encourages her to do her own things, his world will expand.

But perhaps a pastor’s wife lives in a different world from his. Perhaps he needs a wife quite different from himself as an emotional complement. He may find spiritual or intellectual interaction with a fellow pastor, or with a member of his church. The point is, he must keep himself open to a point of view other than his own.

5. A minister can grow through suffering. One pastor spent six months at home recovering from a heart attack. He could have spent the time reading, meditating, praying, thinking. He might have grown a foot taller spiritually. He didn’t. He simply waited out the entire time, watching television.

6. A pastor can learn by his mistakes. It’s not the end of the world if something doesn’t turn out right. Admit your mistake, and criticism will collapse. Try something else next time.

7. We can learn from listening carefully to people who are quite different from us. However strong our convictions, listening can give perspective and insight. We grow by understanding other people’s thought processes. We grow by getting close to people from backgrounds that are entirely different from ours.

8. A minister can grow by knowing his own children. Innumerable parallels exist between God’s relationship with us and our relationship with our children.

9. A minister can grow through his hobbies. Any hobby—gardening, sports, woodworking—can give him illustrations. Hobbies can give insights, new points of contact with other people.

10. A minister can grow through wide reading of magazines and books. There is much that we can skim. Some books prove capable of reshaping our thinking; these may require careful study and rereading.

Growing takes time. But the Bible says, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: … a time to plant … to build up … to embrace … a time to keep silence, and a time to speak” (Eccl. 3:1–8).

By budgeting, even a minister can allot specific amounts of time for his own development. He can allot other pieces of time for his family, his meetings, his sick people, his friends, his community service. A time budget tells him when to say no; then he can give himself to the one thing he is doing at any given time. And he can do it to the best of his ability in the time allotted to it. A minister’s personal growth proves the key to a growing church.

If we are growing, we can be unabashed about where we stand spiritually—as long as we stand firmly in Christ. Margaret’s father repeated throughout her childhood that to be was more important than to seem. The idea helps one never to put on a mask in the first place. We can dare to let our real selves show.

The first time Margaret was asked to speak at a retreat she felt appalled. To her, people who led retreats seemed like special people, very holy. She tried too hard. Later she learned she could be honest; she could be herself. When she shared her own stages of growth, some people even grew beyond her. At any stage of growth in the Christian life, we can hold before people the excitement of the process of growth.

The man or woman of God holds onto God with one hand, onto people with the other. He will never encompass all the riches of God in Christ Jesus; neither will he ever plumb all the depths of people. But he can keep trying. If he does, he’ll “flourish like the palm tree; he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon.” (Ps. 92:12).

MARGARET J. AND BARTLETT L. HESS

Coauthors Margaret and Bartlett Hess, husband and wife, have ministered for 25 years at Ward Presbyterian Church in Livonia, Michigan, where Dr. Hess is senior pastor.

It is his testimony that possibility thinking works.

The weight of the massive stonework is gracefully and deftly carried aloft in slender rods that race and meld into cross ribbing of balanced geometric patterns. My eye is carried always upward. The thickness of walls remains cleverly concealed behind roods, screens, and arches. Soft, ambient colors of light filter through translucent walls of stained glass that murmur of parables and saints.

I could be standing beneath the nave of the Cathedral of Chartres, of Rheims, or any score of others erected during Europe’s Middle Ages. I vaguely suspect the richness and depth of theology enshrined for centuries in the quiet majesty of these monuments. They speak of an earlier time, a Christian time. It was a time when people sacrificed their lives and fortunes to erect these formal manifestations of a Christian world view, an ordered harmony of form and function repeated over and over again, in proportional geometric patterns of stone, echoing the order of God’s creation. Light, forced through the walls in rosetta patterns, reconciled the transcendent with the imminent—the medieval essence of beauty. Light was seen with a unifying quality that could carry the tentativeness of temporal existence into the eternal dimension. The cathedrals were at once a model of the medieval universe and an image of the celestial city.

The cathedral was physically, socially, and spiritually prominent in the cities and towns of the Middle Ages. It was a source of civic pride, a seat of civil government; it provided lodging for the transient, and gave substance to the religious faith of its parishioners. But just when cathedrals had risen to the supreme expression of a Christian civilization it seemed they became irrelevant as man chose to place himself first in the order of things.

During the intervening centuries, religious buildings have not regained a sense of theological unity. The attempts to recapture the lost spirit of cultural dominance for our own time, by fabricating artifacts (e.g., The National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., or the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine in New York City), demonstrate a nostalgia for a lost consensus and the lack of courage—or at least an ineptitude—to translate the gospel into icons that will speak of faith to our post-Christian culture.

Then, in the mid-fifties, Dr. Robert Schuller began to sweep up the dusty cobwebs of our spiritually diffident age and infuse it with “possibility thinking.” His supersaturated mixture of self-esteem and success crystalized into a current-age cathedral. Its 10,500 two-foot by six-foot glass cells, held together with sinews of filigreed steel, soar to a height of 128 feet. Its horizontal dimensions are 415 by 207 feet.

Schuller began by trying to sell unchurched Californians on the promises of an afterlife and other-worldly “fantasies.” Californians seemed preoccupied with their inner hurts and the loss of esteem sustained in the here and now. Taking cues from his potential “customers” and rethinking the “sales” approach Jesus used, Schuller decided some product modification, or at least the use of more competitive packaging and a new psychologized sales strategy, were in order. He followed the lead of his mentor and fellow Reformed Church of America clergyman, Norman Vincent Peale, and coined “possibility thinking” as the way to make things happen: a marketing modernization of the Christian “faith concept,” but one that allows the user a greater sense of participation.

Schuller employs the marketing metaphor to undergird all aspects of his current ministry at Garden Grove Community Church. He calls the building complex a “22-acre shopping center for Jesus Christ.” The sparkling, 10,500-window “showroom” merits the label “cathedral” if only because it serves as an icon of Schuller’s theology. The saga of its financing also reflects the values and temper of our time.

The space enclosed by its shimmering façade exceeds that of Notre Dame; yet, explains Schuller, “the doors are deliberately kept small at the entrance. We want the average person to identify with this place. If the door were 30 feet high, it would have been out of correspondence. The ceiling of the foyer is only seven feet, ten inches. I can put my hands flat on it without standing on tiptoes. It signifies that God is concerned about a little guy like me.” So, initially, at the entrance, the inward looking “me” generation is accommodated, even invited. But once inside the huge rhomboid prism, the sky is the limit. Says Schuller, looking up through the walls and ceilings of one-way glass, “Finally we have a church where the heavens can do their thing and declare God’s glory.” And, although the geometry of the structure may not symbolize the theological patterns with which God imbued the universe, renowned architect Philip Johnson, who has won prizes for this dazzling four-pointed star, calls it the crowning achievement of his career. He says, “It is what a church ought to look like in California.” In a more telling comment, Johnson said of doors opening to the drive-in portion of the sanctuary outside, “They’re 80 feet high and 12 feet wide. And the opening of those doors will look great on TV. Dr. Schuller knows exactly what he’s doing.”

Garden Grove’s associate pastor, Dr. Raymond Beckering, succinctly describes exactly what Schuller is doing. “He has been eminently successful in whetting the appetite and bringing people to Christ, and then from that point on, entrusting the nurturing process … to the staff here.”

Herein lies grist for the controversy that swirls about Schuller’s feet. He believes people today are biblically illiterate. Weighty theological teaching—any preaching that assumes biblical knowledge—Schuller avoids. He says, “I am something like a show barker who cries out to the unchurched, ‘Come in here, there’s something good inside for you.’” Billing the Crystal Cathedral as “the most talked about religious building of the twentieth century” sets it up as Schuller’s symbol of success in the American tradition. He wants it to be talked about. It is testimony that his “possibility thinking” works.

Certainly the expense and financing of the Crystal Cathedral contribute to Schuller’s image of success for service. Begun, finished, and paid for in less than four years, the $16.5 million cathedral confirms Schuller’s claims that “possibility thinking” can relieve the impatience, anxiety, and financial frustrations from which our culture and its people suffer.

But, as with much of Schuller’s image making, the financial success of his cathedral casts a long shadow. “Wasteful,” “indulgent,” are some of the labels applied. Yet by comparison, the cost of the cathedral is a mere pittance against that spent to build the great cathedrals of Europe. The sacrifices of time and money made to erect those expressions of faith—often commitments made with the realization that their fruits must wait to be enjoyed by grandchildren and great-grandchildren—were also called “wasteful” and “frivolous” by some of the saintly. Yet, because of their magnitude, those undertakings were perhaps larger statements of faith focused, and, in that sense, were less wasteful.

On the other hand, the Crystal Cathedral, while a minority statement culturally speaking, does herald hope for those who have passed beyond innocence, who are broken and in pain. For a practical apologetic, Schuller points to the “4,100 income-producing seats” with which he plans to finance other service ministries. “Only a materialist, not a Christian, would be reluctant to invest money in people service,” says Schuller.

Perhaps, in the end, neither architecture, nor fundraising, nor packaging the gospel are the bedrock issues. Debates between devotees of Gothic cathedrals and the Crystal Cathedral rarely result in conversions. However, what some evangelicals might wish for is foundational theological certainty—especially regarding man’s sinfulness—articulated by Schuller himself. If he has downplayed some of the more unpalatable (to the man in the street) aspects of biblical doctrine in order to attract worshipers, his critics might be somewhat mollified if, along with statements about how his new church fits his evangelistic strategy, he would at the same time come forth with some bold—shall we call them Gothic?—affirmations of classic Christian theology.

Beneath the doctrine of “possibility thinking” and beneath the rationale for the Crystal Cathedral lies the possibility that some of the multitudes might be either misled or spiritually tranquilized, rather than being confronted to repent. Of course, the medieval Gothic cathedrals in themselves did not bespeak a pure gospel. It is fitting, therefore, for evangelicals to examine their own theological roots, to see if their buildings, their liturgy, their packaging of the message—whether it be Schuller’s or the country preacher’s with his tiny flock of 50—truly conform to the whole counsel of God.

The “successful” Christian life must have built into it a certain expectation of failure.

Now and again, we must reread those passages of Scripture we didn’t underline—the truths we did not like, the passages that threaten certain of our theological schemes. Particularly, we need to take a second look at what Scripture says about “Christian victory.”

It is not enough to hear or read only verses about the abundant life. We need also biblical teaching when we are not only Spirit-filled, but physically tired. While the joy of the Lord is mine by his grace, I find serving him very trying, very difficult. The wind is seldom I to my back. Often I feel burned out. The “other side of Jordan,” with all its rewards and undeserved blessings, is simply not what I was promised it would be.

Too often our message of “victory in Jesus” is like the half-time highlights on ABC’s Monday night football. The network replays only the touchdowns and the long gainers. Rarely do we see the plays that lost yardage, the broken patterns, dropped passes, or injuries. In like manner, are not we evangelicals sometimes guilty of reporting primarily our spiritual highs, implying that they are the norm, and that spiritual lows just don’t occur?

The “victorious Christian life” gospel is at best only half true. Don’t misunderstand: I don’t believe for a moment that being in union with Christ in his church is misery. But it’s patently not all victory. To gain victory, you must have battles, some of which will end in defeat. And whoever heard of winning battles without casualties? Even “winning-isn’t-everything-it’s-the-only-thing” football coaches don’t believe that!

Charles Swindoll writes, “Somebody needs to address the other side of the Christian life. If for no other reason than upholding reality, Christians need to be told that difficulty and pressure are par for the course. And no amount of biblical input or deeper-life conferences or super-victory seminars will remove the struggles.”

If we expect a trouble-free walk with Jesus Christ, we will not be prepared to handle the inevitable trials and failures that will confront us. Was it not our Lord himself who promised, “In the world you shall have tribulation” (John 16:33)? Fortunately, he went on to say, “but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world.” The Christian life is victory only in the midst of warfare.

Think about the “Promised Land” messages you have heard. Remember how bad they said the wilderness was? (All Israel had there were meals provided, cloud cover by day, fire light by night, and a God who, even in the midst of their rebellion, was “a father to them.”) And how marvelous everything would be once we crossed the river? “Everything will be all right, Brother. Right now you can experience the glory of the other side.” Somehow I never saw the price of the glory!

Consider just a small sampling of the problems Israel encountered after crossing the Jordan: the battle of Jericho; defeat at Ai; Achan in the camp; the capture of Gibeon; the burning of Hazor; the burdensome task of apportioning the land; the death of Joshua; Israel’s turn to Baal; Gideon’s tiny band; more national apostasy; oppression of Israel by Amnon and later by the Philistines. All of this before the Book of Judges ends! Then comes the tumultuous kingdom era and 70 years of Babylonian captivity. And this is all sweet victory?

There is no victory without conflict!

I once worked for a Christian leader who boldly proclaimed, “I have no problems.” He was part of the Jesus-will-do-all-through-you crowd. But in spite of his optimism, he has lost three layers of his top leadership in 10 years. Such an unreal view of life brought about enormous internal conflict in the lives of his associates.

God help us all to resist being regular-sized Christians who make giant-sized claims. Spiritual life on this earth simply is not Eden extended. As British evangelical Michael Harper writes, “We should not make the mistake of thinking that giving oneself to Jesus means moving the gear lever into neutral and coasting downhill, folding our hands and letting the Lord live His life through us. That is an irresponsible cop-out.”

Countless evangelicals are buying a “victorious life” theology that tends to promise that once a person is filled with the Spirit, problems are eliminated or at least greatly reduced. Some charismatics are currently facing a sort of “name it and claim it” approach, often accompanied by promises of prosperity for all. But when we allow the Book of Acts to speak to this matter of life in the Spirit, we get a far different picture. In addition to the ecstacy of the post-Pentecost miracles, we also find that Peter and John are arrested; Ananias and Sapphira fall over dead; Peter and the apostles are jailed; Stephen is murdered, followed by massive persecution of the church; Simon the sorcerer causes great trouble; the Jews plot to kill Paul; Herod kills James; Paul is stoned; Paul and Silas are arrested at Philippi; riots start in Ephesus; Paul is mobbed and imprisoned in Jerusalem; and a great storm at sea shipwrecks him at Malta. It is in the midst of these troubles and defeats that the church is called to victory.

The “successful” Christian life must have built into it a certain expectation of failure.

One of my heroes in church history is Saint Athanasius. Under the authority of Bishop Alexander, he won a battle for the orthodox faith against the heretic Arius and his followers at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. But the war did not cease simply because 318 bishops signed the document we know today as the Creed of Nicea. Subsequently, Athanasius was made bishop of Alexandria and was five times in exile, banished for a total of at least 17 years. His life was in constant danger. It took decades to clean Arianism out of the churches. Was he not victorious? Yes—but at severe cost.

Luther’s life, too, was a constant battlefield. They called him almost every name in the book. His adversary, John Eck, publicly dubbed him “heretical, erroneous, blasphemous, presumptuous, seditious, and offensive to pious ears.”

We see John Wesley as a model of piety and godliness, but the pain and agony the man endured were almost without parallel. On one occasion, a cohort of Wesley’s, William Morgan, died after a long illness. A false rumor spread that Wesley had caused his death by imposing on him excessive fasting. Hostility to Wesley increased, and people maligned him all the more. Disappointment was a constant companion to the victorious John Wesley.

Some modern evangelicals have taught a bogus notion of victory that has made people unrealistic and passive. Christian victory somehow has been made synonymous not with struggle and pain, but with living the “good life.” The smell of smoke and fire that permeated the robes of the ancients has all but disappeared from our vestments. We have been tamed. We have redefined tolerance to justify a cessation of hostilities with the powers of evil. Some of our most visible leaders are succumbing to immorality, divorce, and even a quiet tolerance of “responsible” hom*osexuality. But though often unrepentant, they still frequently appear on the speakers’ circuit, because we’re into being “nice.”

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, writing in U.S. Catholic, charges Western Christendom with having undergone a “change in attitude which sees the church militant softening into the church hospitable.” Yet what are our marching orders in Scripture? “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18). “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” (Matt. 24:13). “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake” (Matt. 5:11).

Christian victory is not being “Overcomers, Retired.” The battles go on. Here are three areas for needed victory:

1. Let us encourage our churches to substitute salt and light for some of the sugar and spice. We need to begin again to know the sort of victory and blessing and humdrum hard work that comes from serving the poor, the widowed, the infirm, the lonely. Jesus Christ often ministered to the people nobody else wanted.

2. Though people won’t like us for it, we can draw our lines where the Scriptures do. We can confront and care for those Christians toying with divorce, greed, gossip, sloppy or unethical practice in business, and immorality. We must be aggressive in righteousness.

3. Let us make our spiritual accounts accurate, testifying to God’s faithfulness in failure, not just in success. In testifying to our conversion to Jesus Christ, we must not make the B.C. days worse than they really were, or our A.D. days better. If we have occasion to write of our ministry or of that of our church or organization, we need to tell both of those saved and of those who leave the faith—and why. We must report as well about those for whom prayer was offered and who were not healed.

May the Lord grant us victory over the belief that we always have to be victorious!

Carl F. H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, is lecturer at large for World Vision International. An author of many books, he lives in Arlington, Virginia.

Washingtonville, New York, not too famous for anything except that George had lunch there, is a little village in cold, downstate Orange County, with a small First Presbyterian Church of 173 members. But thanks to a homemade solar heating device, the church has caused ripples all across the country and around the world. The reason? It has cut its fuel oil consumption by 40 percent: from 4,500 gallons to 2,700 gallons per year.

It all began in 1977 when Pastor Lee Poole, worried by the mounting expense of heating the church and inspired by a newspaper article describing a homemade solar device, sketched out plans for something similar that could be attached to the church. The initial response reminded him of what Noah must have faced when he set out to build the ark: a lot of talk and laughter about the pastor’s “beer can boiler.” The nickname was accurate, for the unit starts with aluminum beverage cans cut in half.

Pastor Poole persisted and convinced the men’s council that his plan was worth a try. The men agreed to pay for the materials ($540) and to donate their time to build the unit; somewhat skeptical, the trustees said they could hook it to the building.

Their pilot ran on a sunny August day produced a temperature of 173 degrees, registered on a hastily requisitioned meat thermometer. That was enough to convince the doubters and the men put on a public display of the unit. Happily, on the day chosen the unit turned out a reading of 203 degrees.

By now word was leaking out about the oddball preacher trying to fight the oil companies, but Pastor Poole by this time had more than enough support to put together two more units. All three units were ready for the entire congregation on Sunday, October 25, 1978. The people gathered in a Sunday school room and felt a steady stream of hot air. This was proof enough to put the device into service for its first winter test. It passed handsomely and netted the church a savings of $660 on its fuel oil bill. After that first winter, other churches, denominational leaders, and the press teamed about Pastor Poole’s “beer can” coup.

To those looking for sudden relief from fuel bills. Pastor Poole cautions that his units are strictly supplementary and do not replace the church’s standard heating units. Only one portion of the Sunday school building, 46,800 cubic feet, is warmed by heat from the three solar units. The system is designed to reduce the use of oil and not to store heat.

Directly behind the church stand three 4′ × 8′ solar collection panels. Tilted at 51 degrees, which is correct for Orange County in February, the sunniest winter month in the north, each panel has 476 halved soda pop and beer cans. Double insulation surrounds the cans, which are painted black to transform light into heat energy. The three panels produce enough heat to raise the temperature four to six degrees in the building on a sunny zero-degree day in February without the use of one drop of fuel oil. Ducts below deliver cool air from the building’s basem*nt; ducts above return the heated air to the building.

The highest temperature recorded in the device is 263 degrees. In February, with zero degrees outside, the temperature will hold at 135 degrees with the 14-inch fan operating at full force, delivering 90-degree air into the building.

The insulation in the building guarantees that this subsidy of 4 to 6 degrees neutralizes about 50 percent of the common 10 to 15 degrees of heat loss overnight. This means that over three days the heat diminishes so slowly that no oil must be burned. It’s during this time that Pastor Poole juggles the church schedule so the building can be used during those days when there is accumulated heat from the solar panels.

Word of First Presbyterian’s successful fuel conservation project literally encompassed the globe. More than 11,000 inquiries have come from every state and 27 countries. The church is glad to send a mimeographed set of plans and instructions for $1.00.

The beauty of the project is that it can be done by anyone. Any church can put on an aluminum can drive and sign up volunteers to do the work. However, Pastor Poole cautions that churches must not anticipate heating rooms comfortably simply with his solar panels.

“That’s not the case.” he says. “It subsidized our heating program, which has included lots of insulation, lower thermostats, careful administration of heated areas, and a lot of prayer and hope. What we have proved is that we can do something to overcome rising costs of fuel.”

The next stage is a nine-unit permanent solar heater to provide 60 to 70 percent of the church’s needs.

Meanwhile, that first collection of cans symbolically made it to the White House. Pastor Poole and his board chairman, Jack Learch, were invited to the White House during a consultation on religion and energy last January. “We found out that very little is being done nationwide,” he reported. “We tried to give the hope that there is much everyone can do, because we did it.”

Build energy efficiency into your church—new or old.

Energy-efficient church architecture is coming our way—and just in time. With both the money crunch and the energy squeeze hard upon us, churches built in the 1980s will include several energy-efficient features hardly considered a few years ago.

You might expect this new energy-efficient church to be easily recognizable—that a close look at the lower pitch of the roof, the slant of the entryway, and the way the main sanctuary hugs the ground, would tell the tale. But, no; the energy-efficient church differs from others not so much in its design as in its technology.

The reason is because—or indeed—the only blatantly energy-efficient structure of any kind in the history of architecture may be the cave. One of the foremost church architects in the country, Henry Jung (American Institute of Architects), and successor to Harold E. Wagoner of Philadelphia, advises wryly, “The cave is the answer.” Then he hastily adds, “But only if you don’t care anything about design and function.” The energy-efficient church, like its cousin the energy-inefficient church, will in all probability look either as traditional or as innovative as a church board and its architect choose. But it will, nevertheless, somehow look like a church. That is what church architecture is all about—wedding the theology of a worshiping body to its practical needs in an aesthetic statement of masonry, wood, steel, and the new materials.

Since design is still the major consideration, architects, as always, make that decision first. “We design the kind of structure most appropriate for the needs and theology of a group of people and then we compensate to get the energy efficiency we need today,” says Jung. The term “compensate” indicates that architects are aware they must indeed provide energy measures. Using compensation available in today’s technology, the church architect can sensibly design arches, high ceilings, domes, or something altogether different.

It costs money, of course, to get both the best design and energy efficiency—but it is an expenditure well worth it to those concerned with Christian stewardship. A building erected in 1980 can be three times as efficient as one constructed 10 years ago. That is a timely savings; some churches are thinking twice about building at all. Building starts of all kinds are so much fewer that for the time being, activity in the area of church architecture has almost dried up in some areas of the country. But the situation is temporary. The F. W. Dodge statistical division of McGraw-Hill Information Systems Company predicts that church building will spurt up again, increasing to top speed in the sun belt states. Even now, there are more church building starts in Texas and other sun states as the population continues to shift southward. In these areas, religious building climbed steadily from 37 to 43 percent of the national total, the largest share of any building type for any region, according to F. W. Dodge economist George Christie. Nationwide, church building has climbed from 27 million square feet in 1970 to 35 million square feet in 1979 and it is projected to climb to 41 million square feet in 1984, when the slowdown eases off.

That church building is still increasing is surely a reflection of the national interest in religious matters reported by the recent CHRISTIANITY TODAY-Gallup Poll. But it is a painful fact that from now on people who build churches must face a new set of realities, forced by oil and other energy shortages. The monetary squeeze on the Western world has set in motion a chain reaction that has catapulted through the church doorway. Energy and budgetary issues are both so real that every decision about the church design of the 1980s will be made in light of their consideration.

“We’ve been aware of these things for a long time,” says Henry Jung. “Architects have been working on energy efficiency for many years.” This awareness is now heightened by the present costs of fuel, up 300 percent, and followed closely by both operating and maintenance costs on any new building. The Architectural Record reported in early 1980 that the prices for all fuel-related products—asphalt, roofing, insulation—had risen between 15 to 18 percent above a year ago; concrete prices increased 12 percent in the past year; mineral wood insulation is up 27 percent; lightweight concrete blocks are up 11.5 percent; steel is up 11 percent; and hourly wages of building trade craftsmen are up 8–9 percent, for a total construction cost increase of 1.3 percent per month. With costs so high, no church can afford not to build energy efficiency into its final building product in order to recover those costs in future savings. There is even greater urgency if the church wants to leave money in its budget to help a needy world.

For churches that were built before prices skyrocketed and are less energy efficient, certain things can still be changed in order to correct inefficiency, and will quickly make up for the original expenditure, as Douglas R. Hoffman of the Office of Architecture, United Methodist Church, points out in his resource book for church boards. Such measures are increasingly within reach for all church buildings, new or old.

The first point to grasp is what constitutes an energy-efficient church building. At rock bottom, all energy efficiency is a matter of heating and cooling. “Heat loss is the big issue,” says consultant Jon Mosby of Associated Church Builders in Palatine, Illinois. At a meeting last April, church architects evidenced their concern by inviting Douglas R. Hoffman, who edited The Energy-Efficient Church (Pilgrim, 1979; reviewed elsewhere in this issue), to speak at the Interfaith Forum on Religion, Art, and Architecture. Hoffman says that among the greatest causes of wasted energy are inefficient heating and cooling plants, and the needless heating or cooling of unused portions of a church building. These drains on energy can be corrected in many ways, and today’s technology is all on our side.

Insulation is a top priority. “I call it passive solar,” says William E. Burroughs of Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, a consulting engineer on church construction. “We insulate the walls and ceilings very heavily. Roofs get around as much as R-30 insulating batting, especially in attic spaces. Walls get R-19 insulating batting.” Designations such as R-30 describe the degree of thickness: the colder the area, the thicker the batting, Burroughs explains. Consultant Jon Mosby adds that a region as cold as North Dakota can take as much as R-38 in the roof. Although a church building constructed before 1960 will invariably have uninsulated walls, necessary insulation can often be piped in “after the fact.” But a word of warning: studies are revealing evidence that certain forms of pumped-in foam insulation may produce long-term carcinogenic effects—a possibility that is still being verified. Meanwhile, Hoffman’s book suggests other measures to regain efficiency. The principle behind the use of any insulation, says Hoffman—whether for new or old buildings—is to reduce the temperature difference between inside and outside.

Doors and windows are a close second priority after insulation. “Some people want to eliminate windows altogether for energy efficiency,” says Mosby. But if you like windows, Mosby and Burroughs both recommend double or triple panes with tight hardware and double latches. “Double-hung windows aren’t tight enough to keep out the cold. I avoid them,” says Mosby. Hoffman suggests that members of church boards could team up to caulk older windows and interior shutters of various kinds, so as to hold in the heat and discourage the cold to a greater extent, or to shield from the heat in warm climates. Another innovative example in the use of windows is seen in architect Gunnar Birkets’s IBM office building in Detroit. Birkets introduced natural light into the building by using reflectors of stainless steel along narrower-than-usual glass ribbons, so that more daylight bounced into the interior, minimizing reliance on electric light.

Since any means of admitting natural daylight eliminates expensive artificial lighting, some church architects introduce skylights for economic as well as aesthetic reasons. Birkets also designed Calvary Baptist Church in Detroit, where he used interior mirrors to enhance the incoming natural light.

Wherever interior lighting is needed, costs can be reduced by switching to fluorescent lights. And light can be adjusted to different levels—called “task lighting”—depending upon the requirements of the work being done. An encouraging note is that current illumination standards have been cut back considerably. Walter F. Wagner, Jr., in an article in the March 1980 Architectural Record, advises that we can reduce consumption 50 to 60 percent by using common sense; 2 watts per square foot—or even 1½—can suffice.

Close in importance to insulation and the increased efficiency of doors and windows is a well-regulated heating/cooling system. Correct choices here make a difference in energy consumption. It is important that every new church have a unit with automatic thermostat setbacks that, for instance, will readjust for internal temperature that is set at 68 when it is already 65 outside.

“We recommend economizers,” says Mosby. An economizer triggers a mechanism to heat the building on cold days, to bring in fresh air from the outside on moderate days, and to avoid the expensive condensing unit for cooling on hot days except when the automatic sensor says it is really needed. Architect Burroughs recommends electric heat pumps as well, to recycle heat already in a building for use on those merely cool days that are common in many areas. On other moderately warm days—not hot ones—circulating fans can operate at reduced speeds, acting much like the old ice cream parlor fans that are once again popular. These fans can keep air moving at less expense, and reduce the temptation to turn on costly air conditioning units. By contrast, Douglas Hoffman recommends that automatic stack dampers be used on cold days to close the stack in the chimney when the burner stops, thus preventing warm air from going up the chimney. This device should be carefully approved and inspected though, he warns.

All planning of floor space should be heat sensible, and compatible with the heating/cooling system. During planning stages you can elect to place hallways, corridors, and closets along outer walls, especially on the north, and cluster together internally the rooms that require the most heat. During construction, many builders choose to install (at additional expense) larger ducts that will permit more direct air flow and greater efficiency.

Most of these energy-saving features will be almost invisible to the untrained eye. And yet, without them, buildings will be either too cold or too hot, and definitely too expensive.

Some energy features, however, will be observable to the trained eye. For example, from the outside you can determine whether a building is placed wisely on its site. Southern exposure usually gives the best sun and light. Doors that open into the north winds should be avoided; some buildings have neither windows nor entrances on the north side. If entrances on the north side are unavoidable, they should have double chamber entries to keep out the wind.

Another visible energy feature is landscaping. Architect Jung’s cave suggestion partly explains the tendency to berm up, or pack dirt, two to three feet around the base of a building to add insulation. Vegetation carefully placed around a building can also reduce wind force, especially when evergreens are planted next to windows. Small trees and shrubs near basem*nt windows further blunt the force of winds.

If sun is the problem, sun belt dwellers can arrange to be shaded from the overhead sun, while still allowing the low winter sun to shine in. Louvered shutters that may be opened and closed as needed can provide shade when the sun is low in eastern and western skies, and yet admit daylight. A short roof overhang can do the same thing.

Tinted or reflective glass, while expensive, also saves energy in hot climates by reducing the load on cooling equipment. In older buildings, though, the cost to replace with this type of glass is high, and should be balanced against estimated savings.

Exterior wall coverings should be selected with care for best energy efficiency. Traditional brick works well; or, as in the Birkets IBM building in Detroit, metallic silver covering the south and west reflects light and heat, while charcoal black covering the north and east walls, absorbs them.

Gazing at the exterior of the church building, you may or may not perceive any of these features of energy efficiency. Churches built since 1976 are likely to utilize many of these energy-saving devices, and churches built from now on are likely to have an increasing number of them. But can anyone tell by looking which walls are insulated? Which roofs? The answer is, not entirely. Architect Burroughs says both A-line and mansard roofs insulate well. While the mansard gives a more contemporary look, some churches want their buildings to look more traditional or colonial. But whether colonial or contemporary, Burroughs increasingly is recommending a floor plan where, for the same square footage, greater heating efficiency can be achieved. Almost any shape or design can accommodate energy efficiency.

Indeed, church designs that incorporate energy efficiency are just as innovative as ever. “Any design is still possible,” architect Jung assures. “The secret is to compensate. If you like high ceilings, put circulating fans up there to recycle the heat so it doesn’t escape. New indoor malls are doing this. Churches can too. It costs dollars to recover that heat, but you can save and reuse the energy you already have.… Don’t rule out a feature you really want.”

But Jung doesn’t really think we’ll be seeing many Gothic arches these days. A shift in certain design concepts can be traced not so much to energy use as to the way the church views itself. The most visible and obvious changes are related to theology. Changes in worship concepts and in the view of community have radically affected design patterns. Four years ago CHRISTIANITY TODAY reported this shift in a conversation with a Chicago architect, Richard A. Smits. Smits testified to the trend away from linear alignment of the church interior where everything happens up front before a spectator audience. Trends include moving the choir closer to the congregation, and seating the congregation in a semicircle facing in, toward the focus of worship. This arrangement is called “centrality,” differing from “linear” worship. The linear church worshiper makes the long pilgrimage—on foot or with the eye—to the mysterious Presence at the front. By contrast, the circular concept of worship portrays it as a community affair with the worshipers’ shared experiences of God of central significance.

Two implications are suggested by this shift. For some worshiping bodies, it is that the emphasis has indeed moved from God toward man. But church groups with a more evangelical theology will offer an interpretation that declares God in Christ is as central as ever, but that the experience of the believer is also important, and consistent with Protestant theology.

These considerations about the role of theology as it relates to church design still take priority in a discussion of church architecture—even though the issue of energy efficiency has come to occupy a necessary prominence. Architect Jung advises that he always reviews design concepts with a church board in terms of their liturgy, and explores many factors: the emphasis on the spoken word, the placement of the sacraments, the participation of the clergy, the emphasis or deemphasis of the clergy. When they are at the planning stages for their building, says Jung, a church group must go back to basics. Church boards need a clear understanding of their own theology first of all, and then of their program, and their budget. Such dialogues between architect and board force a church to define itself more clearly, and thus to be more effective in the work of Godwhen the new building is finished. “I want to see flow charts, circulation charts, and be sure the congregation has done its homework,” Jung explains. “Homework” implies counting the cost and even deciding to forego certain extravagances in order to provide energy necessities that are more practical.

When the homework is completed, the church architect is able to participate intelligently in planning for the purposes of that body of believers as he imagines and designs a structure that will both represent their faith and insure responsible stewardship of the world’s resources in the 1980s.

As the congregation and the architect talk, pray, and imagine together as a team, they will produce yet another innovative structure that can speak the name of God into a new decade. Exercising their mandate to be good stewards of the earth and of their talents, Christians will find themselves cooperating together ever more faithfully and wisely in seeking to build an energy-efficient church.

Carl F. H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, is lecturer at large for World Vision International. An author of many books, he lives in Arlington, Virginia.

Failure to minister to the poor reveals our distorted view of the church.

What are the key issues facing society? Environmental pollution? Sex discrimination? World hunger? Poverty? How do American clergymen respond to these problems, personally and in the church programs?

Because the issue of poverty and the poor is so predominant in social, political, and theological thought today, the CHRISTIANITY TODAY-Gallup Poll raised a number of questions on this specific point, as well as questions about social renewal in general. First, let us look at the data, to compare answers from the public as a whole, all clergymen, and evangelical clergymen.

Between 30 and 40 percent of the clergy believe they should help the poor, and in this regard they surpass the public. However, when it comes to giving money to religious and community organizations for this purpose, the clergy fall slightly below the public. But in terms of persuading public and private support for the poor, the clergy are more activist than the public. Further, the clergy feel much more strongly than the public that their obligation to the poor goes beyond paying taxes for welfare.

So much for what they say they should do. What do the clergy actually do? High numbers of them live up to their expectations in giving personal and institutional help, and in a greater percentage than the public. However, less than half of the clergy have actually gotten involved in “persuasion” of church, religious, and government aid-to-the-poor programs.

The poll pushed the clergy one step further regarding the poor. If they come off as having not only good intentions but also high performance as individuals, what about their churches? Pastors know very well there often is a gap between what they would like to see done and what actually happens. Their private convictions and deeds are not always activated by the body of Christians they shepherd, especially in terms of what to do about controversial social issues that spark philosophical, economic, and political differences. Therefore, when asked to list “especially successful” church programs, less than 1 percent of all clergy and less than 1 percent of evangelical clergy cited “concern for the poor.”

Commenting on clergy responses to the poll, Al Krass, United Church of Christ minister and associate editor of The Other Side magazine, said: “I’m gratified to see that no group of clergy listed in the first question had even 1 percent listed as choosing alternative answer 4. Evangelical clergy seem to take slightly more responsibility than the other clergy to do something themselves about poverty.”

But what about the very low “success rating” the clergy give to their church programs for the poor? This is worth looking into.

Several years ago Methodist theologian Howard Snyder wrote: “In short, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, demonstrated the same attitude toward the poor that God revealed in the Old Testament. Though the Savior of all men, he looked with special compassion upon the poor. He purposely took the gospel to the poor, and specifically called attention to what he was doing.

“This is, in summary, the biblical evidence. That there is biblical evidence for God’s particular concern for the poor is obvious if one takes the trouble to look for it” (The Problem of Wineskins, InterVarsity, pp. 40–41).

He later underscores the critical nature of this understanding for the church: “So the urgency to preach the gospel to the poor brings us right to the question of the church and the problem of wineskins. The gospel to the poor and the concept of the church are inseparably linked. Failure to minister to the poor testifies to more than unfulfilled responsibility; it witnesses to a distorted view of the church” (p. 51).

Apparently this urgency has not been translated from the pulpit to the pew. Well-organized, fruitful local church programs for the poor are few and far between. Apart from this lack of successful programs, there is also a gap between what the clergy and their people do individually for the poor:

Sixty-five percent of the clergy give directly to the poor and 70 percent give to religious and community organizations that help the poor. By way of comparison, 13 percent of the Catholics and 21 percent of the Protestants give directly to the poor, and 44 percent of the Catholics and 39 percent of the Protestants give to religious and community organizations. About 30 percent of evangelicals give to the poor personally and about 50 percent give to organizations that do.

Apart from the specific question about poverty and poor people raised in this poll, it may also be encouraging to note that in more general areas of social concern the poll shows 52 percent of all clergy are convinced that it is “very important” for religious organizations to “make public statements about what they feel to be the will of God in political-economic matters.” When separated out, 52 percent of evangelical clergy also have this conviction, which would seem to show some progress in similar areas of concern, because only a few years ago they generally did not want to meddle in politics or oppose the war in Vietnam. Likewise, 82 percent of all clergy (and 82 percent of all evangelical clergy) think that religious organizations should try to persuade senators and representatives to enact legislation they would like to see become law (as opposed to 41 percent of the general public).

This 82 percent figure appears to be a discrepancy when compared to the 40 percent who say they try to persuade church, religious, and community organizations to aid the poor (but it is a happy discrepancy—a sign of progress!). David Burr, pastor of Winston-Salem’s First Presbyterian Church, expresses his encouragement at this large percentage: “I am extremely surprised that so few fail to recognize the importance of religious organizations making public statements on ethical and moral issues. The church has always underestimated its power and the power of its pronouncements. Because of this the church will remain impotent where it could exert strength.”

The CHRISTIANITY TODAY-Gallup Poll underscores one of the enigmatic convictions of evangelical clergy, one that has to do with the relation between personal renewal and social renewal. The enigma is that evangelical clergy are nearly universal in their conviction that personal renewal generally leads to social renewal (88 percent) and that the church should concentrate its efforts more toward personal renewal than toward social renewal (82 percent). Yet there is really little hard data to indicate that personal renewal has this effect generally. Al Krass states: “In the total absence of hard evidence that personal renewal does lead to social renewal, I find it distressing that all categories of clergy should seem to believe that social renewal follows personal renewal.” Father Joseph Fichter, professor of sociology at Loyola University of New Orleans says: “What these clergy are saying is that this should be the case.”

Only 18 percent of evangelical clergymen believe that the church should concentrate its efforts toward equal amounts of both personal renewal and social renewal. Professor Donald Buteyn of San Francisco Theological Seminary comments: “We are mandated for both life changing and world changing ministry. This [lop-sided emphasis on personal renewal] reflects an unhealthy condition for the church and its leadership. History has swung to extremes in these matters, so I am not surprised at the present swing toward privatism in the area of personal renewal in the church. It is in step with the secular mood.”

So here we are with our ostensible evangelical awakening, with our billion-dollar programs of evangelism, with our lavish cathedrals, and with our slickly promoted evangelical agencies without number. We have Christian communications media resources that stagger the mind, and countless famous personalities giving evangelical testimony of their personal experience with Jesus.

And now we have this poll on evangelical clergy attitudes toward social issues. I’m not sure I thank you, Mr. Gallup. This whole thing begins to get sticky. I’m one of those evangelical clergy, a real fat cat, tall steeple, First Presbyterian pastor. And you’ve left me all but naked. I call Jesus “Lord,” and it is he who announced: “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18). Something is incongruous here.

This poll raises the question of what evidence there is—I mean real evidence in our lives—of the new creation, of the fruits of repentance, of kingdom priorities and lifestyle. I’m not sleeping as well since I read this, thanks to you, Mr. Gallup. Somewhere out of the past, down through the centuries, come echoing some discomforting words: “Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh? Then shall your light break forth like the dawn …” (Isa. 58:6–8).

And another voice: “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9).

Of course, probably hidden from view and not even touched by this poll, are the faithful pastors and evangelists, working 10 and more hours a day to support themselves, then laboring untold hours more among their poor friends in the back streets of Newark, or in a Hispanic neighborhood in Houston. They are immersed in ministry to the poor. It is their flock who are hungry and sick and in prison. These are the ones who have heard the calling of Christ, who obey his word, who know what the Incarnation is all about, and who are preaching good news to the poor. All they have to give is themselves and the gospel. They haven’t even the possibility of being paternalistic to the poor. And the Savior rejoices in them.

As for the rest of us? Successful ministries to the poor? Less than 1 percent!

Where U.S. Clergymen Stand On The Church And Social Concern

• Most think their churches should concentrate more on personal renewal than social renewal (65 percent).

Significantly higher than the national norm: evangelical, Southern Baptist and Baptist. (Note: the national norm in each case is the figure in parentheses.) Significantly lower: Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, United Church of Christ.

• About one-third think personal and social renewal should have equal concentration (32 percent).

Significantly higher than the national norm: Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, United Church of Christ.

• Most think personal renewal generally leads to social renewal (79 percent).

Significantly lower than the national norm: United Church of Christ.

• Most think religious organizations should try to influence legislation (82 percent).

Significantly lower than the national norm: Episcopal.

• Most think it is important for religious organizations to make public statements on political and economic matters (81 percent).

• Virtually all of them have no “especially successful” programs in the churches to help the poor (less than 1 percent).

• Very few say their church programs relating to social concerns in general are “especially successful” (15 percent).

• Very few think organized religion is failing in social outreach (15 percent).

• A mere handful would like to see religious periodicals address themselves more effectively to “social dimensions of faith and ministry” (6 percent).

• Most have personally and directly helped the poor (65 percent).

• Most have given to religious and community organizations to aid the poor (70 percent).

Significantly higher than the national norm: Episcopal.

• About half have tried to persuade church, religious, and government organizations to aid the poor (45 percent).

Significantly higher than the national norm: Methodist, United Church of Christ, Episcopal.

• Very few feel paying taxes is the end of their obligation to the poor (8 percent).

Carl F. H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, is lecturer at large for World Vision International. An author of many books, he lives in Arlington, Virginia.

The U.S. is the fifth largest Spanish-speaking country in the world.

Al bergfalk has been a long-time promoter of Hispanic ministries in Chicago. But in many respects over the years, local Anglo (non-Hispanic) evangelicals haven’t been buying.

As a chief fund raiser for CASE (Chicago Area Spanish Evangelism), a group of evangelical pastors ministering to Hispanics, Bergfalk has encouraged local churches to write Hispanic ministries into their annual budgets. Despite the apparent need—less than 2 percent (about 20,000) of the area’s 1 million Hispanics are believed to be evangelical Christians—the churches have been slow to respond. Bergfalk says: “Churches love to send money to Argentina or Ecuador—that’s foreign missions. But for the hundreds of thousands of Hispanics right here—that’s different.”

The retired Baptist General Conference missions executive noted that the thousands of Latin American missionary dollars that annually leave the nearby evangelical hub, Wheaton, might be put to more immediate use among the Chicago-area Hispanics practically next door.

America’s estimated 20 million Hispanics constitute a built-in mission field. More than 100,000 Cuban refugees have entered the U.S. since spring. Latin Americans are fleeing bloody unrest in such nations as El Salvador and Nicaragua, and nobody knows how many Mexicans have crossed the virtually fenceless 2,000-mile border between Brownsville, Texas, and Tijuana, Mexico. Immigration officials routinely qualify their estimates of 2 million annually by saying, “It’s like trying to count the number of fish you didn’t catch.” (Estimates range between 5 and 12 million illegal or undocumented Mexican residents. See page 39).

Churches and pastors sensitive to the situation call Hispanics the greatest opportunity for ministry in this century. Hispanics are predominantly Catholic, but nominally so. One pastor commented that Puerto Ricans are more familiar with the gospel than Mexican immigrants. A majority of Hispanics are unchurched. Businessman and pastor Mike Protasovicki, president of evangelist Luis Palau’s recent Hispanic crusade in Los Angeles, estimated there are less than 20,000 “born-again evangelical” Christians among the 4 million Hispanics in the Los Angeles area (see page 38).

In many instances, Anglo Christians have been ignorant of the need—their Hispanic contacts limited to after-church snacks at the corner Taco Bell. Others aren’t convinced of the need.

However, an increasing number of denominations are developing new Hispanic programs or beefing up existing ones. These groups have applied the gospel to the Hispanics’ many felt needs: government statistics indicate that Hispanics are below average economically and educationally. As such, churches have had a variety of opportunities for social assistance programs among Hispanics.

The most effective Hispanic ministries are designed to meet both physical and spiritual needs. José R. Velazquez, Jr., is best known as chairman of the activist United Methodist Hispanic caucus, MARCHA, which now is lobbying for the election of a first United Methodist Hispanic bishop. Velazquez is unique, however, in that he is accepted both by the activists and by conservative evangelicals. As pastor of John Huss United Methodist Church on Chicago’s South Side, Velazquez instituted a “broom power movement,” when, instead of passing tracts, his church members knocked on doors and invited people to help clean the streets, which had been littered with debris following the melt-off of a major blizzard. Many did.

Other area residents attended a forum in his church to discuss ways to ease Latino-black tensions following violence at a local high school. As a result, many came into contact with the church for the first time and would not feel uncomfortable inside the church. Two families became regular attenders, Velazquez said, and several Latin Kings gang members started coming to the church youth group.

Activists at first had questioned whether Velazquez’s Asbury Seminary training qualified him for an effective, broadly based ministry on Chicago’s South Side. Of his conservative evangelical training, Velazquez would say, “I don’t think I could be effective without it.” He believes in “earning the right to talk about Jesus Christ.”

Persons in Hispanic ministry also can offer Christ’s peace to Hispanics who live in constant fear. Some fear deportation: one Chicago pastor says that many Hispanics think all policemen are immigration officials, and these illegals are afraid to go outside their homes or report crimes perpetrated against them by gangs and organized crime members in many of the big city Hispanic neighborhoods.

There are signs that many Hispanics are disenchanted with Roman Catholicism: more than 25 percent of the nation’s 50 million Catholics are Hispanic, and the church for years regarded them as a self-perpetuating constituency. Not any more. Some Roman Catholic officials are concerned about the apparent seepage of Hispanics. Some have expressed concern that Protestant groups and sects are fishing for Hispanics outside their own waters. U.S. Catholic bishops spent half a day studying and promoting Hispanic ministry at their recent spring national meeting. Hispanic affairs officer Frank Ponce told the bishops that while 85 percent of Hispanics call themselves Catholics, they “frequently feel the church is more interested in Americanizing them than in evangelizing its people.” Hispanic ministry, he said, is no longer “a nice pastoral option … it is today a pastoral necessity which must lead us to concerted action.”

Catholic officials cite several reasons for Hispanic dropouts: too few Spanish-speaking priests, inadequate Bible training for laymen, lack of warmth, and an insufficient appeal to the Hispanic emphasis on the family.

If evangelical groups don’t reach out to these Hispanics, other religions have indicated they will. The Jehovah’s Witnesses reportedly have a growing Hispanic membership of 45,000. At a recent area meeting attended by 75,000 Southern California Mormons, President Spencer W. Kimball noted proselytizing efforts toward Hispanics and other minorities were “a little behind” and said his church should more actively seek such converts. Even so, he noted that the Mormon Hispanic membership in Southern California had tripled in the previous five years, and that there were 50,000 Spanish-speaking Mormons in the Southwest. Some Catholic clergy have warned about the spread among Hispanics of the so-called Santeria cult, a mixture of Catholicism and African spiritism. Those Protestant groups with the strongest Hispanic ministries are Baptists and Pentecostals.

There are 1,400 Hispanic congregations affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, with 115,000 members and 150,000 Sunday school attenders. Language missions director Oscar I. Romo, a Mexican-American, responding to a CHRISTIANITY TODAY Hispanic ministries survey sent to more than 25 denominations, listed 21 Southern Baptist Hispanic programs, ranging from development of Hispanic Sunday school materials to leadership training for Hispanic pastors. American Baptists report 300 Hispanic congregations in the U.S. and Puerto Rico.

The Assemblies of God list 707 Hispanic congregations with 66,000 members. The Church of God (Cleveland, Tenn.) has divided its Hispanic churches into five districts, and reports that its small Hispanic membership has doubled to 10,000 members just within the last two years.

Other church bodies and religious groups have only recently gotten involved in outreach to Hispanics. An increasing number of seminaries—such as Fuller and Concordia (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod)—have developed Hispanic ministries programs. WMBI/AM radio of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago now devotes all day Saturday to Hispanic programming—an increase over the first, single, 15-minute radio program for Hispanics in 1970. Spanish programming director Jaime (Jim) Shedd said, “One of the exciting things has been that we’re the only noncommercial station doing things in Spanish in Chicago,” and that as a result Hispanic community leaders have expressed an interest in the station. He said Moody has been getting involved in public affairs, pushing Hispanic support for the census and learning English, although, “of course, our primary purpose is to touch them with Christ.”

Other examples of innovative Hispanic ministries include one begun by the Miami Baptist Association in Florida, which is promoting the value of indigenous leaders. The association, which has 39 affiliate Hispanic congregations—most of them Cuban—is supporting the Ethnic Branch of the New Orleans Baptist (Southern) Theological Seminary, where 110 laity and clergy now are receiving advanced Bible training. Wheaton College students were involved in registering nearby West Chicago Hispanics to vote.

Four years ago the Church of God (Anderson, Ind.) created its first full-time director for Hispanic ministries. Since then, the number of its Hispanic congregations has increased from 9 to 18. “The majority of new ministries have been started by strong, well-established Anglo congregations who are reaching out in commitment to their communities and beginning Hispanic services in the neighborhood,” said Church of God president Marvin Hartman.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has 39 Hispanic congregations totaling 3,800 members. It hopes to double that number soon. Last year’s synodical convention established a goal to open 50 new Hispanic churches and to recruit 100 new workers for Hispanic ministries within the next 10 years.

The Latin America Mission has done evangelism among Hispanics outside the U.S. for more than 65 years. But just two years ago the mission appointed its first Hispanic ministries director for the U.S., Richard Boss, a New York City native and missionary for 12 years to Colombia. He said his division grew out of an awareness of the Hispanic influx, and because of the many requests from local congregations for information on how to minister among Hispanics.

A problem has been ignorance of successful models for Hispanic ministries. “We feel there’s a gap in finding out what actually is being done, and what needs to be done in different areas of the country,” said Boss. He said LAM expects to bring on a full-time, evangelism-research specialist who can evaluate what needs to be done in different cities throughout the country.

Responding to the CHRISTIANITY TODAY Hispanic survey, denominational officials listed several problems common to Hispanic ministries. Most often mentioned was the lack of trained Hispanic clergy, as well as divisions among the Hispanics themselves.

Because of the mixed racial groupings and unique cultures, it is difficult to speak definitively of what constitutes Hispanic ministry, except that it is one conducted in the Spanish language.

(The nation’s Hispanics are grouped primarily in the cities. New York City’s 2 million Hispanics are predominantly Puerto Rican. The second largest urban Hispanic aggregation—Los Angeles, with about 1.9 million—are mostly Mexican. Miami’s 512,000 Hispanics are overwhelmingly Cuban. Since the Castro takeover produced the first wave of immigration, Miami’s Hispanic population has grown some 10 to 40 percent. Chicago is unique in that its officially estimated 420,000 Hispanics are divided in almost equal proportions among the three racial groupings.)

Cecilio Arrastia, associate for Latino mission development in the United Presbyterian Church, noted a problem of division and “lack of trust” among Hispanics. Talk about a “Latin American culture” is misleading, he said. “There are many subcultures within the total spectrum of Latin Americans. The differences which add color and romance in many senses, account also for lack of trust, lack of coherence, and lack of a sound strategy.”

Often Hispanics have been divided into hostile Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal camps. Indeed, lack of cooperation between Pentecostals and non-Pentecostal pastors in Chicago was cited as one of the reasons evangelist Luis Palau canceled an anticipated Chicago Hispanic crusade in 1976. Last month, Palau did hold his first Spanish-language crusade in the U.S.—his Festival of the Family in Los Angeles. (See opposite page.)

Richard W. Colenso, director of specialized ministries for the Christian and Missionary Alliance, cited a problem of competition among denominations “which brings about the offering of salaries, benefits, and status to pastors, or buildings, grants, and other assistance to the congregations, tempting them to leave their current denomination and switch to another, thus destroying the peace and the discipline of self-support we try to impose upon our people.” The CMA. with 73 Hispanic congregations, holds to the hom*ogeneous philosophy and has placed its Hispanic churches into Hispanic conferences.

Pastors ministering to Hispanics face several tough questions themselves. For instance: How does one minister to an illegal alien? Should Hispanic congregations be started with the goal of later incorporating them into the larger Anglo body? Regarding the latter, Pastor Doug Moore of Salem Evangelical Free Church in Chicago prefers to retain his Spanish congregation intact. Though many in his congregation have a basic working knowledge of English, “you need to use Spanish to get at the ‘heart language,’” he said.

How can an English-speaking church get involved in Hispanic ministry? Obviously, churches in Hispanic neighborhoods can start sister Hispanic congregations.

Doug Moore has had success with his sister churches concept—inviting young people from other churches to spend a weekend at his Salem Church, where they can be exposed to the Spanish culture. Churches can also sponsor Hispanics who are seeking to immigrate to the U.S. They can bring into their homes a Latino youngster who may want to escape for a time the pressures of a teen gang environment in the city. Boss, of LAM, said, “We found that some churches had block parties or social events, in which they invited and asked Latin Americans to provide some type of typical food or dance or native folklore, just to get the Anglos exposed. Often we find that Anglos have a negative view of Latin Americans.”

Hispanics won’t be ignored. By the end of the century Spanish speakers almost certainly will pass blacks as the largest minority group in the U.S. Recent U.S. Census Bureau figures indicate the birth rate of U.S. Hispanics is more than twice that of whites and 60 percent greater than blacks. Put differently, the U.S. is the fifth largest Spanish-speaking country in the world, after Mexico, Spain, Argentina, and Colombia.

The Hispanics, whose treks show they know something about personal sacrifice, can provide strength to a flabby, affluent society, say Hispanic ministry officials. The Hispanics’ unique culture can add flavor to a bland American melting pot.

“People should look at the growing Hispanic population as an opportunity rather than an infringement,” said radio programmer Shedd of WMBI in Chicago. In the Spanish congregation he’s been part of as a local pastor, Shedd has seen “a real spontaneity of the spirit. The Hispanics exhibit a real joy of the Lord.… We Anglos might learn, for instance, how to be able to exhibit that same joy.”

Carl F. H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, is lecturer at large for World Vision International. An author of many books, he lives in Arlington, Virginia.

Can the North American churches rise to meet this new demand?

The consultation on World Evangelization in Thailand had come and gone. Weary participants put finishing touches on 17 or more study documents. In the wee hours of the morning, hardworking staff ground out the last pages of the last revision. The 900 exhausted evangelicals—600 participants, 300 consultants, observers, and guests—wended their way home from beautiful Thailand and their gracious Thai hosts to resume once again their normal tasks in 87 countries of the world. (See News, p. 43.)

Congratulations are due to Leighton Ford, chairman of the consultation, to David Howard, general director, to Saphir Athyl, program director, to John Stott, chairman of the working group in theology and education, and to Peter Wagner, chairman of the strategy work group. Heartfelt thanks are also due to the host of young people and the staff who worked day and night under intense pressure to make the conference a success.

COWE and WCC on World Mission and Evangelism

Any assessment of COWE inevitably invites comparison with the World Council of Churches Commission on World Mission and Evangelism that met immediately before COWE in Melbourne, Australia (see June 27 issue, p. 48). Participants at both conferences noted some surprising differences. At Melbourne, earnest Bible study lasting an hour and a half, led by outstanding Bible teachers, was the first order of the day. Evangelicals deeply appreciated these studies and felt that they made a strong impact upon the conference as a whole. No doubt more concern was shown for the “meaning for me” of a passage (i.e., what thoughts crept into the head of the individual reader while he read the Scripture) than for what the biblical author really said. And, no doubt, too, crucial biblical teaching on the nature of the gospel was ignored in the overall direction of the meetings. Still, biblical study was taken seriously and its impact upon the rank and file was obvious. At COWE, each morning began with an exegetical study or sermon, but serious, planned Bible study by individuals was not on the agenda. Melbourne was better because of its Bible study and COWE suffered for its lack.

Prepared papers at Melbourne were the product of scholars thoroughly equipped for their role. Regional COWE study groups spent long months in preparation for their topics. As a result their papers were much more representative of the whole church, but sometimes their reports were not received or studied before the conference. The extensive homework of first-rate scholars, conspicuous at Melbourne, was not so evident at COWE, although four “Lausanne Occasional Papers” were circulated to all participants and provided excellent background information for miniconsultation discussions.

Perhaps the most noticeable difference between the two conferences was the almost exclusive reference to social concerns at Melbourne in contrast to the clear emphasis upon evangelism by the leadership of the Thailand consultation. Participants at Melbourne wept for the plight of man and the awful suffering of mankind in this world. At Thailand, the participants wept for the spiritually lost and alienated from God. Evangelicals expressed their deep concern for the plight of man in this world, but the focus was on evangelism and not on social concerns, although all freely admitted that it is impossible to divorce the two completely.

Some tried to transform COWE into a conference on social concern, but the leadership managed for the most part to keep the group on track. At weekends and after the consultation, many participants, instead of sightseeing in Bangkok, spent their time visiting refugee camps in northern and eastern Thailand. They, too, came to weep over the plight of the devastated and downtrodden of the earth, as they observed the anguished suffering of those who had fled in terror from the oppressive Communist regimes in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.

Theologians or Technicians?

At times, it seemed as though COWE was taken over by the anthropologists and the strategists, and lacked in-depth biblical and theological direction. In explanation, its leadership stated: “We gladly acknowledge the need for theology, but we have done our theological homework at Berlin (1966) and Lausanne (1974). Now we don’t need a third conference on the theology of missions and evangelism. Rather, we need to get started on some practical applications of our theology to the ongoing task. It is time now to apply our theology and to build a strategy for action.”

True—who can argue with that? But the consultation badly needed continuing input from first-rate theologians in order to offset the constant and overpowering pressures from secular idealists to alter the Christian message more to their own liking, and from some evangelicals who in excessive zeal for the success of the gospel attempted to bend it to what the world would accept.

The need for continuing and undergirding theology seemed especially evident in two crucial issues that surfaced during the conference. The first was, “What is the gospel and evangelism?” The main body of participants stood loyally by the Lausanne statement of faith. Social action is a part of the mission given to the church by our Lord, and it is absolutely necessary to the ongoing work of Christian witness and to the gospel. It is, however, to be reckoned as an adjunct to the gospel and not an essential and inherent part of the good news itself. The good news is not the command to do, but the promise of what God has done and will do through Jesus Christ for those who trust him. The goal of evangelism is to carry the gospel in understandable form to all the world, leading to the establishment of believers in the worship, fellowship, and instruction of local churches.

A second issue was related to “people evangelism” or, more accurately, evangelism through affinity groups. Backed vigorously and vociferously by church growth partisans, “people movement” evangelism was presented as the new key to unlock the hearts of countless millions. Opposition came from many, but especially from blacks and Indians (East), who reckoned it to be a disguised means of defending racism or a class system in the name of evangelism. Those who defended people evangelism argued: “It works. Souls are saved. Would you rather see a racially integrated church or Indian Brahmans remain unsaved? We prefer to work through the Brahmans to a Brahman church so that they may be saved. Then later we can instruct them as to the wrongness of racism and a caste system.”

What is needed is a theology of the church. The Machiavellian principle of doing evil that good may come does not work in politics, and it certainly does not work in the church. It won’t work for the Christian church because it teaches a wrong view of the church right from the start. By founding churches along class lines (the polite term is “affinity groups” or “people evangelism”), class prejudices and man’s alienation from man only become more deeply ingrained into the human heart. Natural vices are merely strengthened. The solution is to reach out to affinity groups as an effective means of evangelism, but not as the right way to plant a church. Churches must begin with a model that teaches and provides for the unity of the body of Christ.

Its Lasting Value

What was the lasting value of COWE? Its lasting value does not lie in speeches, though many of these were excellent and we plan to publish some of them in future issues. Neither was its lasting value in the prepared papers, though many of these are the product of informed scholars and practitioners and should serve as helpful guides to the entire church.

The real and permanent value of the consultation undoubtedly lay first in the miniconsultations, or small groups, that got together to study specific aspects of a strategy to win people to Christ. Basing their discussions on the position papers, these consultations ranged far beyond the Lausanne conference. Debate waxed hot and points were sharply made. No one spoke more frequently than the Africans, or more warmly than the South Americans, or more pointedly than the Asians. And no one stood in awe of anyone. Even if issues occasionally became fogged, few participants left the consultation unchanged and all had the horizons of their minds expanded and their consciousness of the world’s need and of evangelical strategy raised to new heights.

Finally, as participants analyzed the problems and the strategy by which these problems could be met, the immensity of the task challenged their imagination. Affinity groups were identified and the means of reaching them explored. A sense of urgency spread over the conference along with a deep sense of the awesome proportions of the task. Sixteen thousand distinct affinity groups were located and described, none of which has been effectively evangelized. If only 10 missionaries or witnesses were to concentrate upon each of these groups, 160,000 new recruits for the world’s missionary force would be needed immediately.

Even so, this is only a portion of the task. Undoubtedly the vast majority of those we send to preach the gospel go to established fields, and we dare not desert them. The Third World now may have a total of more than 5,000 missionaries. Though the evangelical missionary force in North America numbers approximately 37,000, we are not yet playing in the ballpark of our real needs. The church, both East and West, must retool for a new push for missionary candidates to carry the gospel message cross-culturally.

Numbers alone, of course, are not enough. But to meet the North American share of this task we call for 200,000 high quality, well-trained recruits by the year 2000. Only by this level of radical response can we hope to maintain our present missionary force in established fields and, at the same time, reach these new and heretofore unreached affinity groups. Can the North American churches rise to meet this new demand in obedience to the commission of the Lord, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel”?

You Gotta Be Tuned In and Turned On

While it is not polite to read other people’s mail, this letter was delivered to me by mistake, so you might as well read it, too.

Dear Bob:

Believe me, I’m really proud and humble that you’ve chosen me as your agent. You have a great voice and will do great things in the great world of Christian music. Please don’t think of me as Mr. Fifteen Percent. Think of me as a brother and a friend (that’s 10 percent brother and 5 percent friend).

I have some practical suggestions that will help you succeed in this great business—that is, the ministry of gospel music. To begin with, you’ll need a new name. “Bob Johnson” is a wholesome, American name, but it says nothing to the eager and excited music masses. My research team tells me “Karol” is a popular name in Chicago, but I think they stayed in one neighborhood too long. Well, think about it.

I listened to the tapes of your last perform—uh, concert, and you sounded great, just great. But you didn’t do enough talking. People expect gospel singers to talk a lot. Anyway, talking saves your voice so you don’t have to sing too much. It also cuts down rehearsal time. I’m sending you our book of musical comments and religious ad libs. Study it and develop some patter.

The really big thing, Bob, is your need for sound equipment. I know, some people still like organ and piano accompaniment, but they are a minority. Everyone does it now with tracks, and I’m sending you our equipment catalog; we’ll give you a 10 percent discount. My engineers suggest the xv–143 microphones and the .007 KJX speakers.

Are you dating anybody, or thinking of getting married? I hope not. Nothing ruins record sales like having a wife.

Finally, I think you’ll have to quit this business of accepting whatever honorarium people give you. Believe me, we’ll never retire on retiring offerings! I’m suggesting a fee of $2,500 a performance to start with. You can pay for the new sound equipment in no time. Of course, I’ll be watching for my $375 checks.

I predict great things for us—that is, you.

EUTYCHUS X

Dear Church: I Quit

My thanks for “Dear Church, I Quit,” by Gordon MacDonald (June 27). The article described so accurately many of the battles that I, a pastor of three years, am currently struggling with.

I must admit that after enjoying MacDonald’s grasp of the mountain-sized internal problems of irrelevance and integrity, I was disappointed with a concluding paragraph that left me with the internal problem of answers that were only molehills in seeking solutions.

What I need some Monday mornings is not a phone interview with George Gallup, but rather a reaffirming “call” from God.

REV. DON BARSNESS

Lignite Church of God

Lignite, N.D.

Since I did quit the pastoral ministry once and am now back in, I think I can speak from both sides. One question MacDonald failed to touch on: What about the pastor who ought to quit but won’t consider the question seriously enough to actually do it?

MARVIN MOORE

Keene, Tex.

The body of Christ is not divided; the work of the ministry is done by all members of the body. Paid professionals are the exception, not the rule, in Scripture. A true local church should have several pastors and teachers, these being among the gifts given to the church. No one man has all the gifts.

I sympathize with men who go through crises such as those described in MacDonald’s article. However, their trauma could be lessened by realizing that what they are leaving is, in many cases, a sub-biblical system.

LLOYD BILLINGSLEY

Poway, Calif.

Out of Tune

C. Nolan Huizenga in “A Biblical ‘Tune-up’ for Hymn Singing” (June 27) assumes that the “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 are three classes of praise: the biblical psalms, plus two sorts of human compositions designated “hymns” and “spiritual songs.”

I am disappointed that in presenting this popular exegesis, Huizenga does not discuss the view of many of the ablest commentators, that the three terms all refer to the psalms of the Bible.

Paul was familiar with the Septuagint, in which the terms “psalms,” “hymns,” and “songs” are used as titles over the various biblical psalms. Sixty-seven have the title “psalm,” 34 have the title “song,” and 6 the title “hymn.” For some psalms these titles are combined. Most commentators, even in hymn-singing denominations, have accepted these passages as speaking of psalms only, though declining to accept them as regulative.

A truly biblical “tune-up” for hymn singing would begin with the recognition of the Book of Psalms as the divinely appointed manual of praise, and follow the Reformation principle of exclusive psalmody.

REV. STEPHEN C. CONTE

Reformed Presbyterian Minister

Oskaloosa, Iowa

The articles by Margaret Clarkson and Richard Dinwiddie (“What Makes a Hymn Good?” and “Did I Really Sing That?” June 27) advising us as to what are proper hymns to sing left me somewhat bewildered and amused. For many years I have enjoyed and felt uplifted and worshipful when singing most of the songs they considered unsuitable.

All except the most naive and biblically ignorant recognize the poetic license taken by some of the songwriters. Neither can they be expected to run the gamut of qualities explained by Clarkson in every song.

Perhaps to satisfy Clarkson and Dinwiddie the publishers of songs should put seals of approval on them or else give them star ratings. I’m looking forward to seeing these critics compile a quick reference list of approved songs for evangelicals to sing without feeling guilty. Imagine the kettle of fish David would have been in if he had written the Psalms in the twentieth century.

URBAN MEYER

Wheaton, Ill.

Mr. Dinwiddie’s article on theologically “unsound” songs is more of a reflection on his rather narrow views than on the supposedly unsound theology of most of the songs he mentions. When scholars trained in the analysis of minutiae come face to face with a work of the creative imagination, they are often incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.

J. R. ANDREWS

Woodford, Va.

Paul Wohlgemuth is right, of course; people should not be deprived of their rightful compensation in the matter of copyrighted material. There is, however, a deeper issue. Can or should the language of devotion be copyrighted? Can or should the songs of the faithful be subject to any law?

The songs of devotion ought to be the public property of the universal Christian church and not subject to the vagaries of the profit margin. Use the copyright to protect the authenticity of a historic text. Give credit where credit is due. But let the people sing!

REV. F. RICHARD GARLAND

St. Paul’s United Methodist Church

New Bedford, Mass.

p*rn Again

In your editorial, “Policing p*rnography: For Christians Who Care” (June 27), you twice cited drugstores as sources of neighborhood p*rnography. As a pharmacist, I agree that drugstores openly displaying Playboy and other “girlie” magazines should be approached and petitioned, but these types of “soft-core” p*rnography are not the gravest threat to family stability.

The real family threat lies in our growing permissiveness toward sex outside of marriage. As Christians we should: (1) support groups pressuring television networks to produce more family-oriented programs that do not suggest extramarital sex as acceptable behavior; (2) strive to limit “hard-core” p*rnography to adult bookstores that have no proximity to residential areas; and (3) approach store managers of reputable businesses that display certain p*rnographic magazines. Many of these managers are probably church members and share our concerns about this moral issue.

JOHN H. WOOLWINE

Durham, N.C.

Compliment

Congratulations! In your news article, “Black-Ruled Zimbabwe’s Church: The Premonitions of Doom Fade” (June 6), you at last attempted to be fair to [Prime Minister] Mugabe. During the height of the war in Zimbabwe, CT called Mugabe and Nkomo “the externally-based and Communist-backed leaders” (June 8, 1979). It was his followers (guerrillas) who did all the killings and not the Smith government. According to CT (July 21, 1978), “Many other blacks have been hideously maimed by terrorists.” Now the people you used to call terrorists are in government.

Bishop Joshua Dube is right when he says that Zimbabwean Christians have to find their own identity in terms of their culture and country. In doing so, Christianity will be rooted in African soil. Unless that is done, Christianity will remain a foreign religion in Zimbabwe, and indeed in the rest of Africa. As a Zimbabwean Christian, I rejoice with my fellow countrymen that at last we are a free people.

NGONI SENGWE

Salisbury, Zimbabwe

Correction

We regret that in the July 18 issue, page 28, the denominational percentages in the chart were wrong. We ask readers to insert the correct figures, as follows:

General Public Priorities for Christians

Regardless of whether or not you consider yourself a Christian, which one of these actions would you say should be the top priority of Christians?

1. Help to win the world for Jesus Christ.

2. Concentrate on the spiritual growth of one’s family and self.

3. Join groups and support causes that will improve the entire community.

4. Help strengthen the local church.

5. Take part in efforts to influence local, state, and national legislation on important issues.

6. Don’t know.

Spanish-speaking Americans represent the fastest-growing minority in the U.S. An estimated 20 million strong—hiked by a high birthrate (twice that of whites and 60 percent higher than blacks) and the continuing flow of legal and illegal immigrants (some estimate 2 million illegals cross the U.S. border from Mexico every year)—Hispanics may soon pass blacks as the largest minority in the American melting pot. The problem is they are not melting: language and cultural barriers, and the illegal status of so many, make them a neglected minority. Certainly, they are the least evangelized of any major ethnic group. Most are unchurched or on the outer fringes of the Roman Catholic church. Evangelicals are just now beginning to wake up to Hispanic ministry. Luis Palau’s first major Spanish-language crusade in the U.S., held last month in Los Angeles, provides the occasion for news articles and staff member John Maust’s general overview of budding evangelical ministries among Hispanics.

Elsewhere in this issue, Presbyterian pastor Robert Henderson pricks our conscience on another area of neglected ministry: the nation’s poor. Nancy Barcus describes how proper planning for church building can save money and energy, and managing editor James Reapsome tells how one energy-minded church cut its heating bill by 40 percent. Finally, Peter Gillquist meets head-on a superficial triumphalism characteristic of some evangelical piety. We trust such articles will rouse us all from the lethargy of summer doldrums.