by Steve | Jan 5, 1990 | Archive - 1990
Archive: The Healing Graces Of Hospitality
How can ministers’ wounds become sources of healing?
On the one hand no minister can keep his own experience of life hidden from those he wants to help. Nor should he want to keep it hidden. But a minister who talks in the pulpit about his own problems is of no help to his congregation, for no suffering human being is helped by someone who tells him that he has the same problems.
So how does healing take place? Many words, such as care and compassion, understanding and forgiveness, fellowship and community, have been used for the healing task of the Christian minister. I like to use the word hospitality.
Hospitality is the virtue which allows us to break through the narrowness of our own fears and to open our homes to strangers. Hospitality makes anxious disciples into powerful witnesses, makes suspicious owners into generous givers and makes close-minded sectarians into interested recipients of new ideas and insights.
But it has become difficult for us today to understand hospitality. Like the Semitic nomads, we live in a desert with many lonely travelers who are looking for a moment of peace, for a fresh drink and for a sign of encouragement so that they can continue their mysterious search for freedom.
What does hospitality as a healing power require? It requires that the host feel at home in his own house and that he creates a free and fearless place for the unexpected visitor. Therefore, hospitality embraces two concepts: concentration and community. Hospitality is the ability to pay attention to the guest. This is difficult, since we are preoccupied with our own worries. We find it hard to pay attention because of our intentions. As soon as our intentions take over, the question is no longer “Who is he?” but “What can I get from him?”—and then we no longer listen to what he is saying but to what we can do with what he is saying.
Anyone who wants to pay attention without intention has to be at home in his own house—that is, he has to discover the center of his life in his own heart. When our souls are restless, when we are driven by thousands of different and often conflicting stimuli, when we are always “over there” between people, ideas and the worries of this world, how can we possibly create the room and space where someone else can enter freely without feeling himself an unlawful intruder?
Paradoxically, by withdrawing into ourselves we create the space for another to be himself and to come to us on his own terms. But human withdrawal is a painful and lonely process because it forces us to face directly our own condition.
When we are not afraid to enter into our own centers, we come to know that being alive means being loved. This experience tells us that we can only love because we are born out of love, that we can only give because our lives are gifts and that we can only make others free because we are set free by Him whose heart is greater than ours. When we have found the anchor-places for our lives in our own centers, we can be free to let others sing their own songs and speak their own languages without fear.
The minister who has come to terms with his own loneliness and is at home in his own house is a host who offers hospitality to his guests. He gives them a friendly space where they may feel free to come and go, to be close and distant, to rest and to play, to talk and to be silent, to eat and to fast. The paradox indeed is that hospitality asks for the creation of an empty space where the guest can find his own soul.
Why is this a healing ministry? It is healing because it takes away the false illusion that wholeness can be given by one to another. It is healing because it does not take away the loneliness and the pain of another but invites him to recognize his loneliness can be shared. Many people in this life suffer because they are anxiously searching for the man or woman, the event or encounter, which will take their loneliness away.
A minister is not a doctor whose primary task is to take away pain. Rather, when someone comes with his loneliness to the minister, he can only expect that his loneliness will be understood so that that person no longer has to run away from loneliness but can accept it as an expression of his basic human condition. When a woman suffers the loss of her child, the minister is not called upon to comfort her by telling her that she still has two beautiful, healthy children at home; he is challenged to help her realize that the death of her child reveals her own mortal condition, which he and others share with her.
Perhaps the main task of the minister is to prevent people from suffering for the wrong reasons. Many people suffer because they have the idea that there should be no fear or loneliness, no confusion or doubt. But these sufferings are wounds integral to our human condition. Ministry does not allow people to live with illusions of immortality and wholeness. It keeps reminding others that they are mortal and broken.
No minister can save anyone. He can only offer himself as a guide to fearful people. Paradoxically, in this guidance the first signs of hope become visible. This is so because a shared pain is no longer paralyzing but mobilizing.
Hospitality becomes community as it creates a unity based on the shared confession of our brokenness and on a shared hope. This hope in turn leads us far beyond the boundaries of human togetherness to Him who calls His people away from the land of slavery to the land of freedom. It belongs to the central insight of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, that it is the call of God which forms the people of God.
A Christian community is therefore a healing community, not because wounds are cured and pains are alleviated, but because wounds and pains become openings or occasions for a new vision. Mutual confession then becomes a mutual deepening of hope, and sharing weakness becomes a reminder to one and all of the coming strength.
This article is excerpted from The Wounded Healer by Henri J.M. Nouwen. Reprinted by permission of Image Books, New York, New York.
by Steve | Jan 4, 1990 | Archive - 1990
Archive: Fatal Attraction Part II
The Seductive Promises of Socialism Have Betrayed the Poor
By Clark H. Pinnock
(In Part I Pinnock expressed concern for how our Christian concern for the poor has been unwisely routed along the tracks of collectivist economics. If we are truly concerned for the poor, Pinnock argued, it is neither wise nor prudent to side with an ideology which has such a bad record in regard to reducing the misery of poor people. He cited socialism as one of the most powerful myths of the modern era and warned that political theology can easily be a substitute for faith rather than an expression of it. In Part II Pinnock focuses more specifically on how the poor are being betrayed by the empty promises of socialism.
A Betrayal of The Poor
Turning now from the broad picture to the more specific problem of poverty and its relief, let’s move from theory to practice. Let’s be concerned for the poor themselves, for the missed opportunities in relation to helping them, and for the harm which is done to them by means of bad public policy which feeds upon socialist myths. In this area good intentions are simply not enough. They can bring disaster upon the people we want to help if hopes are not informed by wisdom and prudence. Ignorance is not harmless; in the real world our illusions can have awful consequences.
In short, we must learn to look closely at practicalities, at real outcomes. It is a wicked thing, for example, to weaken a society which promises to raise the poor from deprivation, and it is a wicked thing to give support to a self-styled utopia which does not. Such activity is not just an intellectual error which can be brushed aside; it inflicts real pain upon those least able to bear it. A “good” ideology, like a good bridge, carries vehicles across the valley; a “bad” ideology harms people, including the poor. The system which offers freedom and opportunity for material advancement to the poor is a good system in practice. No theology deserves to be called a liberation theology unless it can be shown to produce liberation from poverty.[1]
The sham has strong support among self-styled liberation theologians who link the gospel and socialism in an exclusive way. The definite preference for socialism and keen distaste for democratic capitalism among them is obvious.[2] It might be unrealistic to expect some theologians to be proponents of market economics, but we should not tolerate total blindness to the failure of Marxist economics. Whatever may be the perceptions of market economics from the South American standpoint, the fact remains that Marxism has been tried and found seriously wanting. The verdict is in; socialism is a utopian vision which in practice betrays the poor, and for this reason it ought to be repudiated. Precisely for the sake of the poor, we must stop dreaming and begin to accept economic reality.[3]
Why Centrally-Planned Economies Fail To Produce
It seems almost necessary to shake some churchmen and say, “Don’t just look, see!” —See how centrally planned economies fail to be productive. All the countries in the Soviet empire prove the point, as do all those unfortunate African states which have tried Marxism. China has had all the problems also but is now adopting some market strategies that are beginning to work. The basic reason for socialism’s failure is clear. It shackles the dynamic creativity of people (which is the source of wealth creation) and replaces it with a vast bureaucracy which is notoriously inefficient. Instead of serving the people at large, it serves the “nomenklatura,” or the ruling class, in the system.
It is important not to lose sight of this point. Socialism does serve a group of people very well, namely the functionaries of the state apparatus. Socialism is hard to dislodge because this large, ruling class has a strong, vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Significantly, the semi-socialist welfare states of the West run on the same principle: Welfare state policies intended for the poor primarily increase the material well-being of the administering bureaucracies. The rhetoric may be social justice, but the reality is economic payoffs to the politically favored.
Marxist systems hurt most people because they make economic calculation impossible. Nothing can rival the efficiency with which the market sets prices and indicates priorities. Central economic planning simply cannot compete with the way the system of private property rights (this is what capitalism really is) encourages efficiency and growth. Democracy is also not possible under Marxism because neither political nor economic liberties can be tolerated if the system is to work. It is all very well to protest and say that the Soviet Union is not the model of socialism one wishes to follow—but wishes are not facts, and the fact of the matter is that the theory of central planning itself implies the Soviet practice or something very like it.[4]
Market Economies Have Raised Living Standards
Market economies, on the other hand, have been remarkably and even spectacularly successful in raising the standard of living of whole populations. No system has ever been so effective in wealth creation and productive power.[5] That is true not only of the Western powers in general, but true also in modern Asia where Japan has, in 40 years, become a giant economic power, where South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore are all booming economically, and where Mainland China itself is throwing Marx away in favor of market incentives. Pointing to these Asian countries is very important here because their experience proves that recently poor countries can even now raise themselves from poverty, not by opting out of but by entering into the world capitalist system.[6]
Again, it is obvious why this is happening. Liberal economies have the ability to make full use of knowledge and human creativity. In an open system, anyone can try out a new product or approach to see if it will work. If the idea is a dud, the market will blow it away just as quickly as it appeared, with very little waste of resources. But if the idea is a winner, people will vote for it when they decide to buy the product or service. There is simply no way that a centrally planned, top-down economy can perform this function in a comparable way. Socialism may sound good in theory and look good on paper, but it simply does not work. The simple truth is that wealth is more effectively generated within a market economy than a state-owned economy. [7]
Market Economies Realistic About Human Nature
To put it in different terms, the market approach works well because it is realistic about human nature. Socialism works poorly because it presupposes saints. The market puts people in a position where it is to their own advantage as well as to ours that they serve us well. The baker will try to produce a fine loaf—not because he is morally good (he often is), but because we will shop elsewhere if he does not. Thus, his prosperity depends on serving us well. The system requires him to perform politely and capably, whatever his mood or his morals. In this way the system makes the best of a fallen world and operates shrewdly and well within it.
At the same time, it’s important to add that the exchange economy presupposes a degree of truthfulness and honesty in the making and keeping of agreements. It presumes upon a measure of moral character which lies in the province of religion to foster. To function well a market economy requires certain human qualities such as self-discipline, honesty and a belief in the future. If those qualities are absent or in decline, the market system is in danger. But those traits are not utopian. They can be acquired in various ways—most completely through Christian conversion.
A comparison of socialism and capitalism with respect to their abilities to supply political liberties and material abundance shows capitalism to be the clear winner. It is far from perfect, of course, but it is the most truly revolutionary force yet discovered in relation to the realization of material well-being. Consequently, capitalism is and ought to be the natural ally for any liberation theology which is serious about liberty, both political and economic.
The dynamics at work here transcend merely theoretical ideology. Again, a good mechanic is the one who can fix my brakes, and a good economic theory is the one which in application makes the best use of scarce resources and generates the most wealth for the greatest number without doing injustice to others. For this practical reason I think it is obvious that Christians ought to give their qualified support to the practice of capitalism and the market economy. For years left-wing churchmen have sung the praises of such disastrous experiments as Ghana and Cuba. It is now time for us to give at least two cheers for capitalism. Why is it wrong to give due credit to a system which delivers freedom and prosperity, when a failed theory has been praised for decades?
Capitalism And the Peril of Prosperity
Christians should speak on behalf of the market approach, because poor societies are looking for good advice and even depend upon it. Our support for capitalism has to be qualified. Our societies in North America and Europe are badly flawed, partly because of the harm which material abundance does when it is selfishly consumed. The success of the market in supplying people’s needs can also be their downfall morally and spiritually. Ironically, the prosperity of the West (which is due to its Christian, capitalist heritage) is the very thing which Satan, the beguiling serpent, now uses to jeopardize the vitality of the churches. But at least in a free economy individuals have the opportunity to make responsible use of their resources, since they have an opportunity to invest in the kingdom of God and on behalf of those in need. In Marxist economies the opportunity is taken away.
It is important for church leaders to speak out on behalf of peace and justice. Their witness can be the inspiration and source of hope for millions of Christians. But it is also important, when ministers wish to address specific issues, that they make use of the expertise required to do so convincingly. Good intentions are not enough if the actions selected do more harm than good. It might even be wise as a matter of principle if professional theologians would stick to declaration of biblical principles, while laypersons with the requisite economic training and experience work out the implications and implementations. A preacher may be right to say we ought to assist the poor in a certain place without pretending himself to know how best to achieve that, apart from sacrificial assistance to relieve the immediate necessities. We have had more than enough uninformed rhetoric from church bureaucrats in recent years in support of policies which have proved ruinous.[8] The pursuit of utopia is a betrayal of the poor.
Conclusion: Political Salvations A Deadly Myth
Statism is one of the great idols of the modem world. Political redemption or salvation through the gargantuan state, presented under the guise of “social justice,” is a deadly myth which Christians ought to oppose.[9] We need to see reality: Facts are facts, and facts dictate that any society with a social conscience should adopt a market approach, with whatever refinements its citizens wish to introduce along the way.
“Liberation” theology has been helpful in reintroducing hope for history into the Christian perspective again after a century of gloom and doom pessimism. Like the old Reformed post-millennial eschatology, some theologians of the left actually dare to believe that Christ is Lord and can bring the nations under His righteous rule. They spoil that achievement by relying on Marx’s theory rather than on Jesus’ word and power, but they do deserve credit for reminding us that “in Abraham’s seed shall all the nations of earth be blessed” with peace, justice, and prosperity. And indeed, all the nations will be, thanks be to God!
Dr. Clark H. Pinnock is professor of theology at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, and the author of Reason Enough, Set Forth Your Case and other books. This article was excerpted from Freedom, Justice, and Hope, edited by Marvin Olasky, 1988. Used by permission of Good News Publishers/Crossway Books, Westchester, Illinois 60154.
[1] Michael Novak places his criticism of liberation theology precisely on this issue of praxis: Freedom with Justice, Catholic Social Thought and Liberal Institutions (San Francisco, Calif.: Harper & Row, 1984 ), chap. 10. See also Novak, editor, Liberation South, Liberation North (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1981).
[2] Deane William Ferm, op. cit., pp. 107-115.
[3] A recent example of the continuing romance with socialism even among evangelicals is Andrew Kirk, The Good News of the Kingdom Coming (London: Marshall, 1983).
[4] See Sven Rydenfelt, A Pattern for Failure, Socialist Economies in Crisis (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1984), pp. 117-124.
[5] See Paul Johnson’s contribution to Will Capitalism Survive?, Ernest W. Lefever, ed. (Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1979), p.5.
[6] This is one of several unique features of Berger, The Capitalist System, chap. 7: “East Asian Capitalism.”
[7] Brian Griffiths, The Creation of Wealth (Downers Grove, lll.: lnterVarsity Press, 1984), chap. 2.
[8] A call for prudence is one of the valuable features of J. Brian Benestad, The Pursuit of a Just Social Order, Policy Statements of the US Catholic Bishops, 1966-80 (Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1982).
[9] This is a central concern of Herbert Schlossberg’s book, Idols for Destruction (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983).
by Steve | Jan 3, 1990 | Archive - 1990
Archive: All But Martyred
By Dierdra DeVries Moran
He didn’t even flinch. The tension—the fear—had so gripped him that when he looked back into the eyes of the 18 guerillas aiming their submachine guns at him he didn’t even move a muscle.
His friend Camilo was among them. “I’ll be with you till the end,” Camilo had whispered to him when disease had nearly killed him weeks earlier. Bruce Olsson was now directly in the line of fire, and one of Camilo’s bullets could be the one to end his life.
It was only six months ago in the jungles of Colombia, South America, that communist revolutionaries shackled Olsson to a tree and raised their weapons to execute him. When you consider all that Olsson has accomplished in the South American jungle, it is no wonder that the National Army for Liberation (the ELN) wanted him dead. Even some of its own guerillas had capitulated to Olsson’s cause.
Twenty-nine years earlier, at 18 years of age, Bruce Olsson had responded to God’s call to leave his home in Minnesota and go to South America. Though no organization had sponsored him and even his parents were against his decision, he arrived in Venezuela with 70 dollars and a heart full of faith.
A friendly college student ran into Olsson at the airport and took him to his home. After a series of remarkable events Bruce Olsson got his first look at the deep green jungles on the border of Colombia and Venezuela.
He was looking for the Motilones—the only Indian tribe the Colombian guide for tourists refers to as cannibals. No one had known a white person who had come in contact with the Motilones and lived to tell about it.
While picking his way through the jungle with some of the less hostile Yuko Indians about a year after he arrived in South America, Olsson at last made contact with the Motilones—but not in quite the way he had hoped.
His companions had stopped suddenly in their tracks, turned and fled. Olsson wheeled around to follow them, but he felt a sharp pain bite into his thigh, and he fell to the ground. He looked down to find an arrow in his leg and a pool of blood gathering around the wound. Looking up again he found himself encircled by nine dark-skinned, naked men with eyes as black as night. Each of them held a loaded bow aimed directly at Olsson.
“Friend!” he cried out in Spanish. Getting no response he tried again in Latin: “Friend!” Not taking their eyes from his, the men slowly lowered their bows. One of the natives moved toward Olsson, bent and yanked the arrow from his leg. The pain took his breath away.
The man poked Olsson repeatedly in the back with the arrow, at last prodding Olsson to his feet. The Motilones marched Olsson through the jungle to a large, egg-shaped, palm-thatched structure, one of the tribal homes in which 60 to 150 men, women and children live together. They kept him there for days.
Delirious and weak with hunger (they hadn’t fed him at all), Olsson stole away from the camp one night when the others had fallen asleep. Limping, he hiked for days through the vines and trees back to civilization where he received much-needed medical attention. But as soon as he could he returned to the jungle.
He camped out in the forest near another Motilone home and left gifts on a trail for the Indians to find. Many days went by, and the gifts were undisturbed. At last, though, Olsson found they were missing, so he placed more presents on the trail. When he returned to see if they had been accepted, however, a cold chill ran down his spine. Four arrows were stuck in the ground where the gifts had been; it was the Motilone warning that he should run for his life. Bruce Olsson knelt in prayer and arose with conviction. He knew what he should do.
He pulled up the arrows, laid them flat and placed more gifts on top of them. The peace offering was understood. He had won his way back into a Motilone camp.
Olsson lived with the Motilones from that day on. He gradually won their trust, and the Lord opened many opportunities for him to help the Indians.
He scribed the fascinating tonal Motilone language (Motilones can communicate with one another simply by tones created through whistling) and taught the Indians to read and write. He taught them to plant corn and store it for use during the “hunger seasons.” He introduced medicines to their witch doctors, enabling them to cure some of the “evil spirits” that had often plagued the tribe. And Olsson brought the compassions of Jesus Christ to the Motilone people. Today Olsson says 99.9 percent of the 200,000 Motilones are Christians.
The Motilones began to spread the things Olsson had taught them to other jungle tribes along the River of Gold (the river which runs along the Colombian/Venezuelan border). With them they brought the Good News of Jesus Christ. But their movement attracted the attention of the ELN.
The army had moved in and planned to take control of the Indian people of the jungle, but Bruce Olsson and his Motilones were standing in its way.
At 11 a.m. on October 24, 1988, Bruce Olsson and 15 Motilones were canoeing on the River of Gold. They had been repairing a solar energy plant in a settlement at the head of the river. The current was rapid, and the sun was hot. As the men pushed ashore on the tree-lined beach one of the Motilones leaned over and whispered to Olsson, “Guerillas!”
The soldiers were perched on the bluff at the edge of the beach bearing submachine guns. Olsson kept his back to the guerillas, but a mist of bullets ripped open the side of the canoe. “Bruce Olsson,” one of the 40 guerillas shouted, “you are captured by the National Army of Liberation. All of you put your faces to the ground.”
The Motilones refused to obey and marched toward the guerillas. Olsson tried to move away but was stopped by another spray of bullets. The guerillas ignored the Motilones and closed in on Olsson. One of the guerillas shoved him to the ground and pushed the cold barrel of a machine gun against the back of Olsson’s neck. Bruce held his breath as he waited for the shot, but it did not come.
His captors forced him to his feet and shackled him; for three days they led him on foot along abandoned jungle paths toward their base camp. They traveled only by night.
They kept him shackled for several weeks. Two armed guerillas followed his every move, and anywhere from 28 to 80 guerillas guarded the camp where he was held. The ELN had convinced the guerillas that Olsson was dangerous.
Olsson prayed constantly that God would enable him to reach out to his hostile captors, and gradually opportunities became available.
Olsson learned that the guerillas, though they were quite intelligent, did not know how to read or write. He persuaded his captors to allow him to teach classes on literacy. He was a talented cook as well, and he would wake up at 4:00 each morning to help the cooks prepare the day’s meals for the camp. He taught them to ferment sugar to make yeast, and he taught them to make bread. He showed them how to use roots, insects and larvae to make delicious sauces. Soon Olsson’s captors had become his friends.
The superior officers (called responsibles) grew concerned about Olsson’s growing popularity. They felt he was usurping their power and causing division among the guerillas, so they kept moving him to different camps. Olsson’s reputation preceded him, however, and the guerillas at each camp to which he was transferred (he stayed at 12 different camps while in captivity) were eager to know and learn from Bruce Olsson.
In his sixth month as a prisoner Olsson contracted a deadly disease that plagued him with excruciating abdominal pain, high fevers, chills and nausea. One day he began to hemorrhage and lost nearly three quarts of blood.
His guerilla friends begged the responsibles to fly Olsson out of the jungle for medical help, but the responsibles refused. Instead, they brought in a doctor, who ordered a blood transfusion. Eighty guerillas argued over who would be allowed to give his blood for Olsson. Three were chosen.
After the transfusion, while Olsson was resting on a hammock, one of the guerillas who had given his blood came to him. “Do you know who I am?” he asked Olsson.
“Yes, you are Camilo,” Olsson replied.
“Yes, but do you know who I am?” the man insisted. As a seven-year-old boy little Camilo had attended a school Olsson had opened for Spanish speaking land settlers along the River of Gold. When Camilo’s mother needed an operation, Olsson had paid for it. When his brother was badly wounded in a jungle accident, Olsson had treated him. “We guerillas are not going to allow anything unjust to happen to you,” Camilo vowed. “And I will be with you until the end.”
Camilo’s words put him in great danger; he could have been executed for having demonstrated such disloyalty to the cause of the ELN.
As Olsson was recovering, the national level of responsibles was collaborating on what to do with him. Because of his good work among the guerillas, they decided they wanted him to become one of them; he would be responsible for community development and social services. When their national director spoke to Olsson about this he refused, saying, “I cannot work with people who are killing innocent Hispanics or that dominate Indians and bring them into a white man’s war.”
The director was enraged. The leaders trumped up charges against Olsson, and a few days later the national director presented the verdict: “We have found you guilty, Bruce Olsson.”
“Of what?” Olsson asked.
“You are guilty of crimes against humanity,” the director explained. The revolutionaries had found him guilty of killing 6,100 Indians and of bringing in Colombian troops by helicopter to fight against the revolution. Because he was so dangerous, they told him, he would be executed in three days.
Olsson was surprised at the charges, but he prepared himself to die. If God had been with him along the way—and Olsson was convinced that God had indeed led him to this point—then this may be the time for him to die. That he would leave in God’s hands.
The morning he was to be executed his guerilla friends refused to eat with him. They were too emotionally involved, they said. They were too broken with grief to be with him in such a way on his day of execution.
In the late morning the guerillas came and shackled him. They led him to a tree and tied him to it. Backing away, the soldiers retrieved their weapons. Eighteen guerillas, many of them his friends, raised their guns and pointed them at Olsson. He caught Camilo’s eyes, but they were empty. If any one of the soldiers did not follow orders he would be executed as well.
The command was given to shoot, and the contents of 18 submachine guns were fired at Bruce Olsson. When the smoke cleared the men could see Olsson still shackled to the tree. And he was still looking at them. The responsibles had loaded the guns with blanks.
Olsson watched as understanding crossed the guerillas’ faces—understanding and great relief. Their friend was still alive. They were all too exhausted to shout for joy.
Olsson later learned that, while he was being held captive, Indians from more than 50 language groups across the jungles had joined together on his behalf. Four hundred representatives of the 500,000 Indians of the land had met with the guerillas to demand Olsson’s release. The guerillas were backed into a corner. They had hoped that because of Olsson’s capture the Indians would submit to the ELN’s power, but they had instead risen up against the army. For the first time in the history of Colombia its jungle peoples had joined together for a common cause. The force of their unity was more than the ELN could stand against.
Deciding to release Olsson, the responsibles had staged his mock execution as a last-ditch effort to frustrate the Indians. They had hoped to psychologically derange Olsson so that the Indians could no longer trust him. Miserably, they had failed. On July 19, 1989, Bruce Olsson was released from captivity.
Along with the powerful new unity among the tribal Indians, the guerillas were faced with an even more pressing betrayal. About 60 percent of the base guerillas Olsson had befriended had become Christians and had begun to question their affiliation with the ELN. Six hundred guerillas separated themselves from the national movement.
The ELN leaders’ plans had backfired, so they moved out of the area and ended their attempts to control the Indian people.
Bruce Olsson says, “That I have been released is not the victory. The victory is that Christ lives and that He is conforming us daily into His image. The victory is that the Gospel is preached in the jungles of South America.”
The victory, Olsson says, is found in the words of Colombia’s president Cirvilio Barco: ‘We see a beacon of light. We see Motilones who know truth, who are resurrected in Christ. We must align ourselves up with God’s holiness. We must walk in the Motilone example.”
Bruce Olsson came to the United States in July and visited some of the nine United Methodist churches that support his work. He returned to Colombia in November, and he and the Motilones will take the Gospel of Christ to the people along the River of Gold that are now ready to hear of the compassions of Christ.
Dierdra Moran is editorial assistant for Good News.
by Steve | Jan 2, 1990 | Archive - 1990
Archive: Our Embarrassing Leftward Tilt
By Steve Beard
In our focus on political systems, we have been more pathetic than prophetic.
For Western Christians who have worked long and diligently on behalf of persecuted believers in the Eastern bloc, recent developments in the region must engender a deep sense of satisfaction. Sadly, our own United Methodist Church may find it difficult to share that kind of fulfillment. While we United Methodists pride ourselves on being at the forefront of numerous social movements, we have not been seriously engaged in the move to displace communism with freedom. In the quest for liberty in Eastern Europe, we have been more pathetic than prophetic.
This was not always the case. In 1952 the UM bishops asserted, “The communist threat must be met; to surrender to it or to be overcome by it is to forfeit the supreme values underlying our highest culture and our Christian gospel.” In the same year, the General Conference described communism as “the major foe of Christianity and freedom in the world today” (Biases and Blind Spots, Bristol Books, 1988, p. 29).
Such language is no longer to be found in our denominational literature, mission studies or resolutions. Rarely will you hear a peep of criticism directed toward communism—unless, of course, it accompanies a parallel or harsher critique of Western democratic capitalism. Herein lies the maxim of moral equivalence: Never criticize the failings of Marx and Lenin without an equally ominous pronouncement about the shortcomings of the West.
At times our denomination’s view of economics has moved from a skepticism of capitalism to an all-out advocacy of socialism. The Women’s Division of the Board of Global Ministries published An Economic Primer in 1980 to help UM Women understand “economic development in the world. One section of the primer states that Americans “must endeavor to bring their bias against socialism under control” (p.75).
At the same time Soviet citizens were standing in line for rations, Primer readers were told that socialist countries “find it relatively easy to provide ample employment opportunities at adequate wage levels because they rely on an economic plan in deciding how much to produce and what to pay rather than the profit motive” (p.26).
At the same time East German party bosses were living it up at hidden hunting lodges, the primer goes on to say that extremes of wealth and poverty are more or less automatically avoided in the system” (p.26).
While the primer does admit to a lack of political rights in socialist countries, it says that “the sting does not seem to be as acutely felt by the mass of the population because their basic material needs are being equitably attended to” (p.28). How oddly that statement reads after watching TV reports of thousands of Czechs shouting for freedom and hundreds of thousands of East Germans pouring through the defunct Berlin Wall for a day of shopping in the West.
UM Women were also told that while “opportunities for political participation … may seem more limited, … they are at least likely to be more or less equally shared” (p.30). Lest the reader should feel some concern for inequality in the state-controlled framework, we are assured that even the “most authoritarian of the socialist regimes are often more democratic than the capitalist ones which they replaced” (p.30), and their workplaces are “likely to be far more democratic than what we are accustomed to … in the United States (p.30). If this is the case, what was the need for a Lech Walesa in Poland?
The problem isn’t that the UM Church has ignored Eastern Europe entirely. In the early 1980s the church utilized the National Council of Church’s (NCC) study guide on Europe, Must Walls Divide, in which the Rev. James Will identifies the wounds of Europe’s “ideological divisions” as being “irritated by continuing concerns for human rights and ‘captive nations’” (p.6). This would come as small comfort to Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians who have long suffered under communist rule and who now seek independence.
In one chapter Will published the thoughts of a Romanian church leader who claims that his country guarantees “civil and religious rights,” “freedom of worship” and “liberty of conscience” to accept or reject a religious faith. All of this was published as numerous congregations found their sanctuaries demolished after state bulldozers plowed through town.
But what are we Methodists saying now? At the most recent semiannual meeting of the UM Council of Bishops (November 6-10), the bishops called United Methodists to prayer for Eastern Europe and issued a refreshing statement to remind us that places such as Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and [at that time] Czechoslovakia saw “practically no change … ” (United Methodist News Service, 11-13-89). After encouraging Western economic support for Eastern Europe, the bishops oddly warn against the “imposition of traditional Eastern or Western value systems” (United Methodist Reporter, 11-17-89), again implying a moral equivalence between the two.
In a formal presentation to the bishops at the same meeting, Janice Love, a UM member of the World Council of Churches (WCC), told them that the recent developments in the USSR and Eastern Europe have spurred “a new-found triumphalism about capitalism” that she found to be “uncritical, unwarranted and chauvinistic” (United Methodist News Service, 11-13-89). During a lengthy critique of capitalism, she called on Christian leaders in the United States to “break the mental chains that strident anticommunist ideology has imposed on us in this century” (ibid.).
One would have to struggle to find a critical comment—even a whisper—against the Soviet Union in our church documents. Blame for the Cold War has been effectively shoved onto the guilty shoulders of the United States, while the Soviets continue to send massive shipments of arms to Marxist groups in Africa and Central America.
Resolutions and comments directed toward the Soviets are designed to be non-threatening so as not to offend, a pattern which consistently undermines the integrity of our so-called “prophetic” church. South Africa would never receive the kid-glove treatment granted the USSR.
Consider the fate of an amendment to the US/USSR exchange resolution at the General Conference in 1988. It asked for unlimited importation of Bibles, release of remaining prisoners of conscience, an end to state limitations on seminary enrollment, and guarantees of special relief for Christians in Latvia, Lithuania and the Ukraine. Opponents of the resolution said that it would “mess up a simple petition” and that its tone was “imperialistic” and even “preachy” (Religion and Democracy, July 1988).
Eastern Europe is not the only place we have missed the boat. In the 89 pages of the 1984 NCC mission study, Fire Beneath the Frost: The Struggles of the Korean People and Church, editor Peggy Billings, at the time the head of the UM World Division, only once briefly discussed the “communist persecution and purge of Christians in the North … (p.21). Worse, this cursory reference was found in the midst of a passage damning refugees from the North for their subsequent “blind” anti-communism (p.71).
Billings felt no constraint in condemning the majority of South Korean Christians as “fundamentalists,” “self-righteous,” and “intolerant” as she set out to herald the glories of “minjung” theology, a form of South Korean liberation theology.
Unfortunately, our church resolutions have been as willfully blind. The 1980 “Human Rights in Korea” resolution cites only problems in South Korea while never mentioning Stalinist North Korea. The 1988 General Conference resolution was headed on the same track until the Korean-American caucus, disturbed at being excluded from the drafting process, organized to amend the resolution. Their valiant effort produced one of the more judicious US church statements by emphasizing democracy as a prerequisite for Korean reunification (Religion and Democracy, Sept./Oct. 1988).
Numerous annual conferences commendably condemned the brutality of the Chinese government toward those seeking reform and democracy in Tiananmen Square last spring. The resolutions ranged from overwhelming support of the students to complete condemnation of the government’s violence. But a careful reading of news reports fails to find one conference which denounced the communist system itself, despite China’s long record of repression.
We should not be surprised. The 1984 General Conference resolution on China went so far as to say, “While the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Church differ on their views of religious belief, the Constitution now provides for both the policy and practice of religious freedom” (Book of Resolutions 1984, p.440). This terminology makes it sound as though the two simply disagree on whether to baptize by sprinkling or immersion.
Elsewhere around the world:
- The most recent UM resolution on the Philippines carefully avoids any criticism of the brutal, communist New People’s Army, in contrast to its criticism of right-wing vigilante groups which bring “terror and murder to the countryside” (IRD Special Report, April 1988).
- While resolutions on South Africa tend to be some of the most lengthy and detailed, the political ideology of the African National Congress (ANG) is never seriously questioned, even though the 1988 NCC study guide, South Africa’s Moment of Truth, admits that “there can be little doubt that the ANG is an organization of the political left in which the communists play a strong role.”
- Through the World Council of Churches, the Marxist-oriented South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO) received a 1989 grant of $165,000 despite WCC General Secretary Emilio Castro’s acknowledgement of “serious allegations about torture and other forms of brutal treatment in the hands of SWAPO officials” (Religious News Service, 9-22-89).
- While Ethiopians starved by the millions in the early 1980s—the result, in no small part, of the Marxist government’s brutal policies of forced resettlement, collectivization and repression—UM officials found no fault with the government. In fact, after returning from Ethiopia in 1984 Norma Kehrberg, chief staff executive of the UM Committee on Relief, commented that she was impressed with the country’s “openness and accessibility” (UM Communications News, 12-14-84), while one UM bishop commented that the USSR had done more to help Ethiopia than had the United States (ibid.).
- Mysteriously the 1984 “Recognition of Cuba” resolution leaves out any condemnation of Castro’s heinous human rights record (Book of Resolutions 1984, p. 402).
There was, however, one General Conference resolution in 1980 that commended democracy and religious freedom. It read, “We believe that people have the right to choose their own government through democratic, competitive elections, free from internal or external coercion” (Book of Resolutions 1984, p.142).
It goes on to proclaim that we unalterably oppose all governmental systems that deny human rights to the people within their borders, including fascism, communism, apartheid, and all forms of military and authoritarian dictatorship” (ibid.). Unlike most resolutions, these affirmations were offered by concerned laypeople, not by one of our church agencies.
General agency personnel sought to have the resolution superseded by a resolution for the 1988 General Conference deleting the specific affirmation of democracy. An attempt to amend the resolution by observing that “democratic systems of government best protect religious freedom” failed because opponents objected to “code words” and statements which “would play into the hands of those who have too narrow a definition of democracy” (Religion and Democracy, July 1988).
Sadly enough, the opposite is true. Our church leaders and publications in the last 30 years have shown little sympathy for the spread of democracy. By refusing to firmly and specifically critique communism—the system that has been energetically rejected in Eastern Europe today—United Methodists have been on the wrong side in the human struggle for freedom. The collapse of the Berlin Wall will occasion serious rethinking of international relationships and priorities. Some of that rethinking needs to take place among the leaders of the United Methodist Church.
Steve Beard is a United Methodist layman and a research assistant at the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C.
by Steve | Jan 1, 1990 | Archive - 1990
Archive: Another Notch in Freedom’s Belt
By Mark Elliott
Never before has history moved so quickly. Who could have imagined that we would see the virtual collapse of the Iron Curtain? Here Mark Elliott, director of Wheaton’s Institute on Marxism and Christianity, discusses the changes.
Good News: Are we really seeing, after some 70 years of dominance in Europe, the virtual collapse of the communist system?
Elliott: I wouldn’t be ready to say the virtual collapse of the communist system because obviously events in China have not turned out this way, at least in the short run. And I don’t think the conservative forces in the Soviet Union have given up, although they obviously are out of the public limelight So I probably wouldn’t make quite so dramatic a statement, but at the same time I would say, along with Secretary of State James Baker, that these are some of the most extraordinary political events since World War II.
Good News: I recently read of a young man in Moscow who said, “Every honest man wants socialism wiped out” Has that become a universal aspiration in the Eastern bloc?
Elliott: I think that’s a fairly widespread opinion of the laypeople as opposed to the members of the elite who have benefited from being on top of the socialist system. For some time ordinary workers have felt profound disillusionment in contrast to the promises of Marxism, and it’s coming out in all sorts of ways. One example was the counter-demonstration through the streets of Moscow parallel to the traditional October Revolution demonstration through Red Square. One plaque read “72 years leading nowhere.” I think that’s a common sentiment among ordinary folks in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Good News: Mark, we’ve been following the events of the recent sweeping change in Eastern Europe, but we haven’t heard much about Estonia. What is happening there?
Elliott: The events in the Caucasus and in the Baltic are just mind-boggling. I think the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians are all beginning to feel they can stretch the limits of what the [Soviet] leash will allow them in ways that would have been unthought of even a couple of years ago. They’re dreaming now, it appears to me, of if not full sovereignty then certainly economic autonomy and local self-rule, with perhaps a patchwork cover provided by Moscow in terms of foreign policy and international relations. It appears that the Baltic states are dreaming of modeling themselves after Finland. Finlandization is a code word for a government that’s basically independent, but which leans over backward in deference to Soviet foreign policy.
Good News: Someone pointed out that it’s significant that no Germans are fleeing East.
Elliott: More than perhaps any other symbol of Marxism in the 20th century, the focus has been on the Berlin Wall. It’s not down yet, but it’s certainly porous now. All these openings make it abundantly clear that there is something lacking. We’ve got a bankrupt system here, and the chinks and the holes in the Berlin Wall are a dramatic, symbolic illustration of that fact.
Good News: What do you sense the mood is among Christians in Eastern bloc countries about staying or leaving?
Elliott: Each East European country has its own set of unique features, and it might be foolhardy to make a generalization. In the midst of all of these exciting developments, we need to remember that our own state department has effectively cut off the valve in terms of evangelicals leaving the Soviet Union by removing the processing from Rome back to Moscow. This has actually hurt the case, at least in the short term, for evangelicals to leave—in particular Pentecostals who historically have had a lot to complain about in terms of treatment at the hands of Soviet authorities. I believe that most Christians in East Germany feel some obligation to stay. For one thing, the church in West Germany has not given pastorates immediately to any clergy leaving because it [the West German church] has felt that it is not healthy to see the church eroded. We had some East German guests on campus a couple of weeks ago and they were adamant in supporting the notion that people stay and be Christian witnesses in whatever the context.
Good News: What do you think have been the major ingredients in bringing about such sweeping change so suddenly?
Elliott: I really believe that serious disillusionment, at least in the Soviet Union, began with Khrushchev’s secret speech back in 1956 when he let it be known to the Central Committee [of the Communist Party]—and then the word filtered out into the population—that serious mistakes were made under Stalin. Then the intelligencia began to disassociate themselves from the ruling party, seeing many of its promises not fulfilled and seeing the state as one big lie. The quest for spiritual integrity among the intelligencia caused them to divorce themselves from the regime. Then Christians from both Baptist and Orthodox camps began to make bolder statements. So I think there was a slow increase in the opinion that “this is not working,” and at first nobody would say it openly, but people would say it among their closest friends and relatives.
More recently, information control is an important contributing factor. For example, in the Soviet cities frequented by tourists there has been a growing disenchantment with the regime. But as we look at what has precipitated all this I think we have to start with Gorbachev. Now why did he do it? I personally don’t think it was any particular humanitarian concern as much as it was a fight for survival—a fight for economic viability and technology. In the past the Soviet Union could perhaps not be as dynamic in its economic evolution. But it could beg, borrow or steal Western technology and adapt it for at least certain sectors of society—missile improvements, military hardware. But with the coming of the computer age, it became impossible for the Soviet Union to keep that gap from widening because the technological revolutions in the West now are happening so rapidly the Soviet Union can’t keep as close to the West technologically by begging, borrowing or stealing. It could be argued that this computer revolution and the associated economic malaise of the Soviet Union forced the leadership’s hand. Gorbachev decided that the economic situation was in such a shamble radical changes would have to be made if the Soviet Union were to compete with the West in any appreciable way.
Good News: Do you anticipate that this revolution will remain bloodless, or do you think there could be some violence in the weeks ahead?
Elliott: Ceausescu [the head of the communist party in Romania] doesn’t want this infection coming into Romania, but it will sooner or later. If there is an uprising against him—not necessarily in a political-revolutionary sense, but in terms of passive demonstrations as in East Germany—I feel that he would not hesitate a second about resorting to force. But in the other countries that have already moved quite a bit—Hungary, Poland, East Germany—I think if we were going to see large-scale violence it would have been before now.
Good News: Mark, your institute is involved in helping Christian ministries understand what’s going on in these Eastern bloc areas. Is there a need right now to help Eastern European churches and ministries in those areas?
Elliott: I think the needs are more profound now than they have been since World War II, simply because there are opportunities that could not have been anticipated and that are unprecedented. People need Bibles and teachers from the West. At the same time, of course, the West receives great lessons of faith from the church in the East. So I think now is the best time ever [for Christians] to be generous with reputable ministries to Eastern Europe because the opportunities are unlimited now as compared to any time in the past.
Good News: One of the things your institute does is to train and provide orientation for those kinds of ministries.
Elliott: More and more I’m getting involved in training and orientation for East European ministries that are sending people to that part of the world. This is in addition to the courses that we offer here at Wheaton, especially in the summer, toward that end. This past year I have had the opportunity to help with orientation of seven East European ministry groups, and I’m hoping that will continue to increase as time goes by.
Good News: What is happening with the Methodist Church in some of these countries, including Estonia, that you have visited a number of times?
Elliott: Well, the Methodist Church in Eastern Europe, in every case, is extremely small. The largest is in East Germany, and it only numbers 25 or 30 thousand people. All the other Methodist churches are in the range of one to three thousand people, and those would be in Poland, Hungary and Estonia. There are also small Methodist communities in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.
I would love to see the Methodist Church in the West become more involved in helping those tiny outposts of Methodism in the East. In some cases, they offer dramatic and memorable examples of faith that has gone through the refiner’s fire. I think of the small Methodist church in Estonia, for example, which I know best firsthand. Those Methodists are so deeply committed to their faith, and they have put that commitment on the line with their own lives—careers lost and chances for higher education lost—that we’ve really got some wonderful lessons to draw from their example. They’ve got a lot to offer us, and we might be able to offer them help. For example, theological education is one of their great concerns because they have no seminary. Until recently they’ve had no chance for anyone to study in the West, and there’s a tremendous need there.
Good News: Some groups have been calling you, asking you for advice. I understand you’ve been busy these days.
Elliott: This is by far the busiest time I’ve had in my three and a half years with the institute. It is obviously an exciting time for the people in Eastern Europe. It’s also very exciting for people who have invested a good bit of their lives in trying to help, in trying to understand, in trying to study the church in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. It has been somewhat hectic, but at the same time I couldn’t be more delighted because things seem to be improving for these people that I have such affection for.
I’ve been getting quite a number of requests for radio interviews—”Prime-Time America,” the Moody network, and some journalists. I think perhaps the most exciting opportunity has been a visit from a foundation officer. He flew in to talk with me about how best to invest in the new opportunities to strengthen the churches in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and to see the churches expand through evangelism. In a sense all of my spare time since 1982 that I’ve devoted to studying the church and ministering to the church in Eastern Europe seemed to focus on that Actually, I spent more than half a day with this foundation officer sharing something of what I had learned about what’s working, what’s not working, where countries need the most help and which countries can use the help to best effect.
Good News: How might United Methodists help?
Elliott: I’ve been involved with some people from Asbury Seminary in putting together pastors’ workshops for the Methodist ministers of Soviet Estonia. I have a dream of seeing this kind of help extended to other small Methodist communities in Eastern Europe. I’m dreaming right now about taking some key leaders who might dream dreams and see how Methodists in the West might become prayer partners or aides to these small churches. I already know of the possibility of someone going to Estonia for a pastors’ workshop to be able to do something similar in Yugoslavia, perhaps as soon as next summer. This is certainly not guaranteed; there are too many variables and imponderables. But I’m dreaming this way. At one time dreaming of helping the Methodist church of Estonia was no more than that, so I have some confidence that with commitment and an extended vision some more and exciting things can be done in Eastern Europe. It’s interesting to me that each professor from Asbury Seminary who has gone to help with these pastors’ workshops comes back so aglow. That’s really my secret if I have any—to get people involved firsthand in one experience. Then the Holy Spirit does the rest
Good News: One of the things that has to impress a traveler is seeing what it costs believers behind the Iron Curtain to be Christians.
Elliott: Andrus Nocar’s story shows the cost of discipleship. He was a youngster in the capital city of Tallinn, and through some exceptional youth ministry in the Baptist and the Methodist churches there he came to the Lord. This caused political reverberations in Tallinn because his father was the mayor of the capitol city. His father lost his post over this scandalous situation with the son, and the [new] mayor actually became an outspoken believer. Andrus is now pastoring the Methodist church in Tartu, an ancient university city farther south than Tallinn.
Good News: In several succinct suggestions, Mark, what should Christians do to be involved and to help the Church in these countries?
Elliott: A couple of Methodist churches have looked into the possibility of being sister churches with Methodists in the Soviet Union. I would love to see a program like that take off. It’s hard; it takes commitment. Also, I don’t think we can underestimate the power of prayer. Methods are not what we need so much as people willing to pray with conviction.
We need to study the situation there, to read more. As far as the small Methodist communities in Eastern Europe, there’s a lot of room for exposure of our Western Methodist communities to those tiny, struggling churches.
We could visit. It’s encouraging to believers in the East to know that they’re not forgotten. I’ll never forget the Rev. Partimus of the Methodist church in Estonia, after being asked, “What’s the most important thing we can do for you?” saying to a group of American visitors, after some pause, “We need you to pray for us so that we won’t feel like we are forgotten.”
How Wheaton’s Four-Year-Old Institute Has Been
Unmuddling Marxism
The events of recent weeks in Eastern Europe have focused our attention on that part of the world with an intensity perhaps not seen since the construction of the dreaded wall.
But Mark Elliott’s attention has been riveted on Eastern Europe for many years. In fact it’s been a major part of his job since 1986. That’s when the Institute for the Study of Christianity and Marxism was founded at Wheaton College with Elliott, a professor of history, at its helm.
From its inception, the institute has functioned around three specific goals:
- to articulate in a variety of forums a clear understanding of the Marxist challenge to faith;
- to assist ministries and Christians in academia in acting on behalf of Christians in Marxist countries; and
- to facilitate greater communication and collaboration between Christian workers who serve, and academics who study, the church in Communist lands.
To those ends the institute serves as a kind of think tank as well as an educational organization. Elliott acts as a consultant to several groups with an interest in Eastern Europe and as a resource to reporters from both the religious and secular press.
ISCM also
- sponsors summer conferences and seminars on Soviet-bloc history, theology and missions;
- sponsors tours to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe;
- sponsors lectures and symposia on Christian/Marxist themes (Some of the guest lecturers have included such notables as poet and human rights advocate Irina Ratushinskaya, Time magazine foreign policy correspondent David Aikman and Josef Tson of the Romanian Missionary Society.);
- provides instruction for part of a Master’s degree in missions from Wheaton Graduate School;
- produces reference material on Christianity and Marxism. (Elliott has written numerous articles, edited books and contributed to encyclopedias.)
Elliott has to date made five trips to the Soviet Union and has a special interest in Methodist churches, particularly in the Baltic States. He has also organized conferences conducted by American seminary professors that have been helpful to local pastors and vision-stretching for the teachers.
Perhaps the least attention-getting goal of the institute is to build a bridge between Eastern European ministry and scholarship, yet it is highly significant. As an example, Elliott points to the fact that one missionary organization had received 15,000 letters from the Soviet Union in the past year in response to the institute’s radio broadcasts and literature distribution—in contrast with 450 letters in 1987.
“I see those letters as a wonderful, primary source for historians and sociologists of religion,” Elliott says. “It’s a wonderful window on ordinary people’s opinions about questions for faith.” On the other side, Elliott adds, “Studies done by specialists could be a benefit to East European ministries if they only knew about them.”
An understanding of demographics would help such ministries with planning how to be most effective. Given the multitude of ethnic backgrounds represented in the Soviet Union, “Isn’t it a shame that 98 percent of the Bibles being sent into the Soviet Union are in Russian when [Russian-speaking people] amount to 51 percent of the population?”
Elliott sees his role as strategic: “Since I have academic training but am involved in a missionary support enterprise here at the institute I’ve got a foot in both worlds.”
