Paul told the Christians at Rome, beset with divisive quarrels, “Let us therefore cease judging one another, but rather make this simple judgment: that no obstacle or stumbling-block be placed in a brother’s way ... Let us then pursue the things that make for peace and build up the common life” (Romans 14:13, 19).
During the past weeks we have wrestled with the meaning of these words. The easy option is to pretend that they mean we are simply not to share our differences or misgivings about the convictions or conduct fellow Christians. Yet the record of the New Testament and its history of the early church seem to prohibit such an interpretation.
Paul’s epistles are full of strong exhortations given to other believers. His way was not to withhold his reservations about the understanding and application of the gospel evidenced by others in the fellowship. Yet, even his harshest words of criticism always came out of a true and deep pastoral concern to “build up the common life.” Thus, admonishing one another in the fellowship was done in the context of love, out of the deepest concern for the spiritual maturity of the whole body of Christ.
Christ cautioned his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount against passing judgment on another, telling us to look first to “take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s.” We are to extend unconditional love toward even our enemies, for that is God’s nature and we are his children. But here again, such agape-love is rooted in Christ’s unlimited forgiveness, not in naive blindness. Christ’s words to the scribes and Pharisees, his encounters with the woman at the well, the rich young ruler, Zacchaeus, and others, make clear that his love functions not by suppressing truth, but by facing it squarely so that forgiveness and healing can occur.
Beginning on the next page of this issue is a major investigative article revealing plans and activities which converge to form an alarming political initiative by the evangelical far right, involving noted businessmen, politicians, and Christian leaders including Congressman John B. Conlan and Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ. This effort, in our minds, dangerously distorts the fundamental meaning of the gospel and threatens to manipulate God’s people into purposes which are in stark contradiction to the values and life of the kingdom. We believe the body of Christ is in serious danger of being divided and used to promote an extreme ideological point of view and political program that is equated with turning the nation back to God. Also of concern to us is the messianic and secretive spirit of this whole operation which sharply conflicts with the biblical style of humility and openness. Throughout this effort there is a confusing and idolatrous mingling of church and state, with the potential of creating a political power base that could easily elevate a few individuals of ambition to positions of significant power and influence.
We fear that many sincere Christians could be naively involved in these political purposes which they do not fully comprehend.
In the face of these convictions and circumstances we have sought to learn what it means to discern the times through the life and faith of biblical people.
To be honest we have felt at times that God’s Spirit has tested us at our most vulnerable points. It would be hard to find two other Christians, for instance, with whom we shared more dramatic differences, or had a weaker emotional or historical basis for meaningful Christian fellowship, than John Conlan and Bill Bright. Shortly after beginning the investigation for the article, whose scope and dimensions were totally unforeseen at the outset, we realized that our attitudes, motives, and feelings had to be brought under the continual scrutiny of God’s word, a prayerful self-searching, and the discernment of our community.
When we decided to proceed, it was with the clear sense that our motive must be the building up of Christ’s body. We were convinced that our relationships with John Conlan and Bill Bright were of central importance and that we must seek to reach out to them in an authentic spirit of concern and love as individuals who claim with us a common allegiance to Christ as Lord. At the same time, we felt a resolute and unqualified commitment to knowing the truthfulness of the events which were causing us deep concern.
Our initial repeated attempts to have conversations with Bright and Conlan proved unsuccessful. We learned that Conlan believed this entire article was being inspired by Senator Mark Hatfield, and that Wes Michaelson, formerly Hatfield’s legislative assistant, was acting as his agent in this endeavor. Wes left his position with Hatfield in February to work full-time with Sojourners and continues only to do periodic consulting for Hatfield. We communicated to Conlan that his belief about Hatfield’s role was totally unfounded. An hour-long meeting with Conlan was eventually arranged and helped to clarify facts, as well as beginning a dialogue about our concerns.
Meeting with Bill Bright was far more difficult. He had no time to see us on his March visit to Washington. After several unsuccessful attempts, we finally reached Bill Bright in his hotel room in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Through the conversation we had to get beyond the barriers of mutual distrust to reach some basis of understanding. Bright told us not to publish anything until we could meet together personally, but then said the first time that would be possible for him was a full month away. Since we were able to clarify several crucial points during our hour phone conversation, we eventually decided to proceed with the article. However, because of the urgency Bright felt for a meeting with us before it was written, we chose to delay our publication schedule, though already late, another week to leave open that option. Bright decided not to do so; we gave him a copy of the article before it appeared in print. We continue to desire to meet together with Bill Bright to share our understanding of the gospel and our mutual concerns and have set up a time to do so in a few weeks.
There is a scriptural precedent for approaching disputes between individuals which we have earnestly sought to honor. However, our concern was not one of a personal misunderstanding or wrong-doing between us and Bright or Conlan. Rather it is a concern over how thousands of evangelicals may be sincerely attracted to activities, which in their full dimensions, seriously misconstrue the gospel. We believe that the health of the church is best nurtured by bringing those plans into the open, making previously hidden agendas more visible.
Finally, our relationship to individuals, our pastoral responsibility, our prophetic calling, and our commitment to discern the times must all be carried out together. We have endeavored to make the spirit of this article consistent with these convictions so that it might truly build up the common life.
Wes Michaelson was on the editorial staff at Sojourners when this article appeared. Jim Wallis is editor-in-chief of Sojourners.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!