John H Armstrong

Miracle at St. Anna

Spike Lee's new film, Miracle at St. Anna, involves four African-American soldiers behind enemy lines in Italy in World War II. It is a story that needed to be told given the way war stories have been written and filmed since the 1940s. Finally someone has paid tribute the sacrifice of black Americans for their part in this great war.

The two hour and forty minute film opens with an old black man watching a John Wayne movie about the war and muttering to himself, "We fought that war too." The next day he goes to work at the post office and does something that startles you instantly. This opening scene adds time to the story but does not actually help the story that much. From this scene the movie then goes back to the 1940s and the war. The movie ends with another scene that does not play that well but includes a feeling of deep emotion. The closing music moved me to tears: "He's Got the Whole World In His Hands" sung very soulfully. What occurs between the beginning and the end is one of finest World War II movies I have ever seen.

First, be warned. The violence in the battle scenes is as gripping as it gets. Saving Private Ryan has nothing on Miracle at St. Anna for graphic and chilling war scenes. But even more disturbing is a scene of slaughter and carnage where Germans kill a village of Italian people in cold blood. The account of how and why this happened is debated but the fact that it happened is not. The event is called the Sant'Anna di Stassema atrocity. 560 civilians were killed as the Germans emptied their ammunition on the village people and then ran out of bullets. This scene is as chilling and memorable any I have witnessed in a war movie. (Again this is not for children at all. The R rating for violence is well deserved.) Some Italians have protested elements of this particular story, especially the connection of one Italian Partisan that the movie says helped the Germans bring about this slaughter of innocent Italian people.

Second, this is a Spike Lee movie, for good and for bad. Lee is a brilliant man, thus his films always create a buzz of some sort. But in this movie he could have reduced it to two hours and accomplished just as much. Most of the professional critics are correct in their opinions about this problem of length.

Third, the most moving scene in the movie, by far, is the one that takes places in Louisiana where the black soldiers are training to fight and die for America and they meet with racial bigotry in a small town diner. Every time I see such scenes I get angry. I go back to my childhood in the 1950s and still feel a sense of indignation rise up within me. This scene really did it for me big-time. It was a powerful reminder of our past. (Lee is a deeply devoted supporter of Barack Obama and thus some will reject this movie for this reason, which in itself is ridiculous if not outright racist!)

Miracle of St. Anna open September 26 and only did so-so at the box office. It has received some very mixed reviews. Some, like Roger Ebert, see it as a great war movie. I share this view.

The film was scripted by James McBride, the same novelist who wrote the book, Miracle at St. Anna. I tend to think this is the reason for the length of the film version of the story. A novelist should almost never write the script for a movie. When this happens the writer is too committed to keeping the movie exactly like the book, which is almost always deadly to the movie. In this case it was not deadly but it does blunt the impact of the story with far too much meaningless detail.

As some readers know Spike Lee created quite a spat about this movie because he reacted so negatively to Clint Eastwood's twin World War II epic films: Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. (The Eastwood films are real classics and the Letters from Iwo Jima is the finest war film told from the opponent's perspective I have seen on World War II.) Lee has a valid point about previous war films. The absence of African-Americans from such films is a huge oversight. This prompted him to direct Miracle of St. Anna, which is a revealing look at racism in the time period. Sadly, Lee did not need to react in the way he did to Eastwood since this didn't really help him promote what has become a powerful and gripping movie. The problem here is that Lee's scope and ambition are just a bit too large.

Whereas Saving Private Ryan, and other war classics, focuses only on soldiers this movie also looks closely at the Italian people. It humanizes war by showing the viewer how awful and dreadful war really is to people who are non-combatants. People who get thrilled by war need these reminders regularly. 

This movie has a very deep spirituality about it. This is what made it even more compelling to me. The film is really about the four leading characters, four black American soldiers. Ranking staff officer Aubrey Stamps (Derek Luke) is a steady, commanding office of reason. The role is superbly played. Then there is a devout Catholic who is Puerto Rican Cpl. Hector Negron. He embodies conscience and Catholic spirituality very well. A Sgt. named Bishop Cummings represents untamed carnality and a deep skepticism about faith. He questions Aubrey's idealism and pursues a local woman for her beauty. Then there is the PFC Sam Train. One Catholic reviewer calls him the "holy fool" in this cast of lead actors. He retains very superstitious notions about God and faith mixed with a deep belief in Christ and an admirable, though simple, belief.

Lee also includes a scene where the Germans, Italians and Americans are all praying just before they begin their killing. This collage will confuse some with its simplistic views about how people invoke God's help before battle but I actually found it a powerful testimony to the sad fact that many people fight as if God is truly on their side. We would always do much better to answer this question the way Abraham Lincoln did when he said it is much more important that we be on God's side than we claim him to be on our side in a battle.

The great overriding theme in all of this is race. Like a powerful thread this theme runs from the start to the very last scene. Long over-due attention is finally given to the role African-Americans played in the Second World War through this film. The film also treats Christian and Roman Catholic themes with respect and accuracy. Perhaps Lee's greatest film work occurs when he shows black soldiers bloodied bodies in a river and a helmet floats by a man's face. As one reviewer put it this scene says, "Remember me too."

Spike Lee should be commended for this fine film. His angry public persona should not keep you away if you are drawn to powerfully themed war films. The critics might have given it two or two-and-a-half stars but I give would it three-and-a-half or four. The only hesitation about giving it the highest rating is the way the story rambles and meanders at times. A better editor would have perfected it and made it totally superb. 

One Long Epiclesis

The late Roman Catholic theologian Yves Congar was one of the most important theological writers on the person and work of the Holy Spirit in the 20th century. I was introduced to Congar's work about twenty years ago. I prize his three volumes as some of my finest material on the Spirit. Father Richard McBrien says Congar's theology has six principal elements in it. I would like to underscore only one of them: epiclesis.

Epiclesis refers to a special section in the offering of the prayer at the Mass. Since the Reformers rejected the idea of sacrifice in the Eucharist they also rejected this term. The idea behind epiclesis is to offer thanksgiving to God for his past mercies and to offer petition for his continued benevolence in the present. In ancient liturgy it was rooted in the Didache which said, "Remember, Lord, thy
church . . . " The prayer focused upon asking God to deliver the church from evil, to perfect it in love and to gather it into the kingdom. The image behind this word is that the eucharistic bread is made of many grains and the wine of many grapes but the food is one as Christ is one and the people must receive it with thanksgiving as the Spirit comes down upon the meal. 

The prayer of epiclesis developed into the request for the Holy Spirit to make the elements of the body and blood of Christ become a blessing to all the people of Christ. It was a petition that the Holy Spirit come upon the bread and wine as well as the celebrants of the meal. Protestants rightly rejected the idea of "sacrifice" (at least in one sense) but they quite likely over-reacted by removing the prayer of epiclesis altogether, or that is my view at least.

Congar argued that the entire life of the Christian church is "one long epiclesis." What he meant by this was that the church is to continually call down the Holy Spirit upon itself and the world that it seeks to serve. The epicletic character of the church should be present in many of the church's activities but especially at the table of the Lord. I believe this idea is not only ancient but consistent with John Calvin's view of the eucharist too. Calvin, as some readers will know, believed that the Holy Spirit came upon the actual elements, and the participants, with the result being the actual presence of Christ in mystery presented to living faith.

If the church is "one long epiclesis" then the character of our life together should be marked by constantly calling down the Holy Spirit in power among us. This is truly one of the most Christian and basic prayers we could offer. But I almost never hear it in Protestant churches, with the exception of charismatic ones.

I have long been persuaded that this is precisely what Jesus is talking about in Luke 11:13. If we would know the Spirit's great power there must be a continual epiclesis among us. We must ask the Father for the greatest gift he can give to us as the living church of God: the Holy Spirit.

"Dear Lord, grant that we may stop quarreling about how this happens and teach us to ask you for the Spirit with all our hearts. Make us a 'one long epiclesis.' Amen."

Planned Parenthood and Politics

President John Adams once wrote: "Facts can be stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Never was a statement more true than with regard to the present issue of abortion and politics.

Planned Parenthood is a huge organization. A 2007 Wall Street Journal report said their budget now exceeds $1 billion. Read that again and let it soak in for a moment. Of this budget $336 million comes from the government, thus from our taxpayer monies. Planned Parenthood is responsible for helping one in four mothers have an abortion in the United States. Planned Parenthood also remains deeply involved in the politics of abortion. (If you think this issue is not political then you are fast asleep.)

Planned Parenthood has what they call an "Action Fund" and this fund will give $10 million to political campaigns this year. The goal is to elect pro-abortion leaders. The major effort is to elect Barack Obama president since they know the Supreme Court may have two openings in the next four years. This is why massive support goes to his campaign. These people know that the Illinois Senator has delivered for them 100% of the time.

What disturbs me is how Christians have become persuaded that this issue is no longer quite as important as they once thought it was. And younger Christians are particularly prone to not be passionate about the pro-life issue in recent studies. When I talk to them I see less and less interest in this subject.

As I listen to Christians I sense that the concern to change the culture of death to a culture of life has waned over the past ten years. One strong reason, at least among the young, is the influence of people like Jim Wallis and Sojourners. Wallis has successfully caused many to see abortion as just one issue among many similar moral issues. This has been done by linking abortion to the war in Iraq. If they are both the same (morally), and then poverty is also placed on the same moral level as it has been, then abortion becomes a far less important issue. While I have serious doubts about the Iraq war, and while I believe in a society that is committed to lifting people out of poverty, I do not place abortion on the same level at all. For one thing infants in the womb can not speak for themselves or do anything to save themselves. They need us to care for them or they will die. Second, war is terrible but there are some wars that must be fought. Even a pacifist generally sees distinctions, at least a pacifist who holds to classical Christian ethics. Third, poverty is an important issue but poor people are not being systematically destroyed by their fellow human putting them to death. 

Part of the problem here is that evangelicals have no ethical and moral authority in their lives so they can make up their own minds about this as they go along. Lacking in substantive ethical thinking most of them will then go with the flow and thus do not have a deeply thought out ethical system that is rooted in classical Christianity. Thank God for the Roman Catholic Church, which sees this very differently. We could all stand to study their way of arguing for pro-life conclusions.

Barack Obama insists that he does not like all these abortions but he has never done a single thing, from what I can see, to stop one, not as a legislator or as a community activist. He even says that he wants to allow his own children to retain this choice if they are pregnant and have an unwanted child. And his voting record is consistent on this point. He is the most pro-choice candidate who has ever run for president, bar none. Hillary Clinton was far more nuanced and reasonable about abortion than Barack Obama has ever been. This is the man who said the question of when a human life begins was "above my pay grade" so I am not surprised at his anti-life political position.

CareNet, a wonderful pro-life organization that is doing a great deal of good in saving lives and helping mothers, is a striking alternative to Planned Parenthood. Do you know how much CareNet gets from the taxpayers for their work? Not one dime. The sad truth is that we Americans allow this to happen and as Christian people we do very little to protest it.

I am not convinced that the street protests and culture warriors for anti-abortion politics have made a great difference in the larger struggle but at least they have tried. That is more than I can say for the overwhelming majority of Christians who have done nothing at all. I am not apocalyptic about this struggle but I do think that for every life that is taken we are one step closer to destroying the moral fabric of our entire society.

My Day at a Crimson Tide Game

Some months ago my brother phoned me and said, "Would you like to see Alabama play Kentucky on Saturday, October 4?" I didn't have to think about it at all. And I didn't know then that I would see two undefeated teams play in a nationally televised game (2:30 p.m. CDT, CBS) if I said "Yes." Sure glad I could say yes and I am even more glad now that I am going to see a great college game in a great place, Bryant-Denny Stadium. (I lived across from the press box in 1968 and still recall where I was standing, looking at the stadium, when my roommate said, "Martin Luther King was shot in Memphis!")

At the time my brother called a few months ago I wasn't convinced that Alabama would be this good this season but I knew they had recruited well and had some juniors and seniors who were now ready to really play for Coach Saban. This would finally be "Saban's team" and thus his skills as a truly great coach would begin to surface after a tough first season. But even the most optimistic Alabama fan would never have dreamed of being 5-0 right now, along with a number two ranking in the AP poll. This could be a dream season but it is not time to think about it too much right now, not with the game today and then with Ole Miss and Auburn coming to town and then road games at Tennessee and LSU. Hey, Alabama has a two-game losing streak to Mississippi State so we had better hold off the celebration for a few weeks.

I have written before about college players losing the concentration and believing their press. After beating Georgia at Athens last Saturday evening I am excited but not over-confident. I am quite sure Kentucky can beat Alabama today. I am also quite sure that I will enjoy seeing the Tide play as much as anyone in the stands, especially if they beat the Wildcats. (If all goes well I shall see Alabama play again on November 15 against Mississippi State.) Alabama is a heavy favorite this afternoon but that means little in the highly competitive SEC.

Saban said this well in his press conference on Monday following the Georgia victory: "It us up to the players and the staff and human nature and overcoming being satisfied with what you have done up to this point. When you get satisfied and fall in love with yourself, you get complacent, you lose your desire, you don't prepare, and you don't have the mental intensity that you need to perform well." This comment is universally applicable, thus one of those areas where football mirrors all of life.

Win or lose I will enjoy being back home for a few days and seeing my brother and my team. Roll Tide! I needed a weekend off and nothing could be better than a football trip to Tuscaloosa. Game day is filled with excitement and fun. You would have to be there to believe it but real college fans know what I am talking about, especially fans in the SEC.

Can Blogging Be a "Mean-Free" Zone?

I have touched upon this question on several previous occasions. Can blogging be done without the meanness that often attends writers and responders? I think so and remain committed to this as my goal. I weigh my words and ideas carefully and thus always ask: "Is this honest, fair and helpful to someone?" Most of my blogs are about ideas and responses that I have to politics, culture, movies, life and Christian faith. A few of them are about my private personal interests; e.g., baseball and college football. Once in awhile I throw in personal thoughts and travels because so many of my friends desire me to do this because they have a relationship with me. For some reason they care about me as a person. My blogs are thus both columns/articles and personal reflections/narratives.

A local columnist, whose politics are much more liberal than my own, recently asked if his own newspaper column was a "hate-free" zone? This question led me to ask the question above about being "mean-free" in blogging. By mean I refer to "being bad-tempered, disagreeable or malicious." As I read the New Testament no Christian is ever warranted by the Spirit to be mean in this sense.

I think a major problem is that we have been led to think that standing for the truth allows us to be mean so long as we are doing it for Jesus and the truth. I do not think we are ever warranted to be mean, ever. 

I am quite aware that there are readers of this blog who strongly disagree with me and my ideas. I do not ask them to read my words. They read these posts because, for whatever reason, they chose to read them. If they respond in a way that is "mean" spirited I still post the comment 97% of the time. There are one or two writers that I may block from posting simply because they seem to think it is their responsibility to use this site to attack both my motives and my ideals. Wise friends have convinced me that I owe no one a platform to allow them to display a mean spirit on so I am slowly learning to delete these posts unless they make a helpful contribution.

To disagree is valid and is very often extremely useful. My local newspaper columnist noted in his "hate-free" zone article that before the Internet people had to write or type a letter and the whole process slowed them down and cost them more time and money so this tempered the response process. They had to think more than twice about writing a real letter of disagreement. Now you can write one instantly and be done with it. You do not have to think, pray or ponder seriously at all. This is the downside of blog responses. The upside is that this forum actually allows for people to see how others think and then how they can intelligently and critically disagree with the author.

The late Jack Mabley, a columnist for a Chicago paper for many years, said that if he ever wrote a column that was critical of someone, and he did sometimes write them, he would imagine himself sitting across the table from that person as they were reading his column. If he couldn't read it to his or her face then he wouldn't write the column at all. This from a man who was not, from as much as I know, driven by overtly Christian convictions. Yet Mabley was saying, in effect, precisely what the Bible teaches.

A Lesson from Samuel M. Zwemer

The apostle Paul had some amazing encounters with the Lord, encounters that are beyond our imagination. He met Jesus directly on the road to Damascus and heard his voice. He also says that he was "caught up to the third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:2). I can't even imagine the glories this man knew this side of his departure from life on this side of eternity. This is why Paul writes of his having learned to live with weakness (2 Corinthians) after he pled with God three times to remove his (physical) trial.

But Paul also knew what it was to suffer and to be opposed by others, especially through the attacks of Christians. I reflected on this with a long-time friend over lunch last week as we shared about Brother Yun's time with me and my blogs about him.

My friend shared a story with me that I did not previously know. It was about the great missionary to the Middle East, Samuel M. Zwemer (1867-1952). Zwemer, like me, was a Reformed Church minister. He was born in western Michigan of Dutch immigrant parents and his life was shaped by the very same theology that has shaped mine. But Zwemer was a visionary and a man of action. He organized a mission to Muslims and profoundly impacted other missionaries and organizations. Some believe he was the greatest missionary to the Muslim world ever. He left an immensely valuable legacy. He was that rare combination of both scholar and visionary.

Zwemer lost two children while serving on the mission field. He buried them side-by-side. My friend told me that on their tombstone is this saying: "Do Not Trust a Leader Who Walks Without a Limp."

Again and again I have discovered this very lesson. God calls us to suffer and thus to learn to trust him. None of us does this without having profound brokenness worked into our experience day-in and day-out. I have learned to look for the "broken" leaders, not for the successful ones.

I believe Samuel Zwemer understood this well and by putting it on the grave markers of his two children demonstrated it profoundly.  He understood what we all need to know about those we listen to and follow? How much like Jesus are these men or women we respect? Do they know his power in real weakness? Do they have a limp?

Cubs and Sox in the Same Year: What's Going On?

This has been a magical year in baseball but no magic is greater than the Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox both being in the post-season in the same year. The last time this happened was 1906 when they met in the World Series. And this is the first time the modern Cubs have made the post-season two years in a row. It is a season of many firsts in Chicago. If the two teams met in the World Series I am not sure how the city would deal with it. A crosstown series would be the epitome of Chicago sports.

The White Sox dramatic collapse, and then their even more dramatic recovery, was pretty exciting. They had to win three games in a row against three different teams just to get in. Winning 1-0 last night against Minnesota, in a game where their starting pitcher went eight innings in a masterpiece, was unbelievable. The celebration was a blast. I could have gone to the game but chose to avoid the crush.

The Cubs clinched their spot many days ago. They are the odds-on favorite to win the National League. Many Cubs fans, who normally worry at this time of the year since their team has not won the National League since 1945 or a World Series since 1908, are acting like they have already won it all. I will say very little about this Cubbie bravado, which I have made known turns me off, but I find it tacky. My advice: win something first and then let that winning speak for itself. The Dodgers present a challenge to the confident Cubs with manager Joe Torre and a solid pitching staff.

The Sox seem overmatched against Tampa Bay but then they got hot at the right time and have three pitchers who are throwing very well right now. Expectations are not as high on the South Side since they were not even sure they would get in until last night. Plus they won it all in 2005.

One thing is certain. The next few days, and maybe weeks, will be exciting around here with two teams in the big dance. For a baseball fan this is what the long season is all about. It should be fun. Our newspapers today feature the baseball news over the economic news. That in itself made for much better breakfast reading for me.

Is the Pendulum Swinging Away from the Markets?

One of our most respected American political writers, at least in my opinion, is U. S. News & World Report's columnist Michael Barone. He is a keen observer of the both history and political developments of our nation. Last week Barone asked if there was a pendulum swing going on in America? He put it his way: "You can sum up much of the 20th century by saying that in the 1930s Americans decided that markets didn't work and government did, and that in the 1970s Americans decided that government didn't work and markets did." I think that is a tad simplistic but sometimes a simple picture is worth a thousand words. And the picture gets it about right in my estimation.

Both the decades of the 1930s and the 1970s produced protracted changes in public attitudes. The bread lines of the 1930s produced a public that was willing to give government huge powers to intervene in the economy to fix problems while the 1970s brought us gas lines and unbelievable inflation (called "stagflation" at the time) that drove people the other way, toward less government involvement in the economy.

Now it appears the pendulum is once again swinging. Regardless of who wins this current presidential election there is the likelihood that government will become even more involved in how we make and spend our money in the decade to come. (This, of course, is barring a complete collapse. Then it is anyone's guess as to which way we would go but my money would be on larger and bigger government response since most of those under 40 think government is there to help them make it.)

Obama has successfully used the present financial crisis to "spin a narrative" that says deregulation and greed are the real problem and government is the primary answer. McCain agrees, just not quite so deeply. I believe that it is quite likely that Obama will be our next president and that the Democrats will be given the power to make huge changes if they control both houses of Congress with even greater numbers. Will they raise taxes on the wealthy in order to level the playing field? (This is a form of income redistribution no matter what you call it. The rich have a responsibility to help the rest of us and the government is there to take it and give it to us. Just be honest about this if you agree. I totally disagree with it and beleive it has long-term negative consquences for everyone and the rich will still be very rich when it is over.) The normal pattern for Democrats is to tax and tinker with the society by government involvement, not simply by regulation and punishment of criminal behavior, which we all agree should be done. If the Democrat approach is followed the consequences could be immense. On the other hand McCain will not sit by and let the markets rule without intervention of some sort. We simply do not know from our present vantage point what this will mean. (Anyone feel confused by the last two weeks and what you are being told?) The one positive herev is that Obama is a very bright man and may govern to the right of his past oting record once he is in the White House.

Barone suggests that the reason FDR was re-elected to a third term in 1940 was much more because of Adolph Hitler, and the looming war, than because he fixed the economy. I think he is fundamentally right. The likelihood that the pendulum would have swung back again was strong at that time. But nearly 13 years of FDR made this approach permanent and we have never been the same since. 

Postwar America then experienced a huge boom in a number of ways. The tax-cuts of JFK (does anyone remember that he ran on tax-cuts and not just for the 95% that Obama continually talks about) and the passage of civil rights legislation all spurred us forward.

Barone has a very interesting conclusion:

Are we looking at another inflection period today? Maybe so. Reversing the long course of history, I think it's obvious that market capitalism, together with the rule of law, hard currency and regulations that ensure transparency and accountability, has produced bounteous growth and the resources to address problems that require government action, like defending the nation and protecting the environment.

Barone suggests that voters will generally tend to consider the history they know. This history is what most people get via the media. The vast majority of young adults have no desire to think about lessons learned from the past. Like all young people they tend to live for the present. So for them the issue is "What's happening now?" With such a short memory they are likely to go for the fix that seems apparent at the moment. The answer to this is twofold: (1) A basic knowledge of economic and markets and how they work to benefit most people, (2) The realization that personal responsibility and strong incentive are critical to human and societal success.

We who have enjoyed so much affluence have failed to educate and equip the next generation for the future. It is likely that hard and difficult experience will have to do the job for us. The problems we face are systemic and life-changing. The next president cannot fix them. He might slow all this down, or he might speed it up, but he cannot fix it through political action. Most people my age have a sense that this is the case but few of us will to do the hard work to teach it.

In the long run I am not pessimistic. America has recovered before and will, very likely, recover again. What this shift may do is set the stage for a massive spiritual revival, which has also had a major impact on both past recoveries and past collapses. I would welcome that with all my heart, boom or bust. I am far more interested in God blessing of the church than in the markets of America. This is why I do not think the solutions we debate every four years are nearly as important as we think.

Brother Yun: A Final Word

It should be evident by now that I was profoundly moved by the visit of Brother Yun to Chicago. I was even more profoundly moved by his ministry to me and by the friendship that we established by spending time together. When he assured me on September 21st that he was praying for me, and would pray for me, I believe him.

I have addressed various attacks upon Brother Yun's ministry and character. I have also provided a link to Paul Hattaway's excellent article. There is one last attack I want to address since I personally observed this for myself.

It has been rumored widely that Brother Yun is a millionaire and lives an opulent lifestyle in the West. Along with this it is rumored that he raises large sums of money and uses it for himself. What do I make of this charge?

Absolutely nothing. While it is true that I have not been to Germany to see Brother Yun's home, not have I seen his personal income or day-to-day lifestyle, I am certain this charge is blatantly false. Hattaway provides a number of credible sources to refute this charge.

What I did see was the way money was received and handled. I made the appeal, twice, for an offering and personally took charge of this matter. No one ever told me how to do this, what to do or how to increase the offering. In fact no pressure or expectations were placed upon me at all other than a simple request that an offering be taken for "The Back to Jerusalem" movement. This movement, which ministers with and to the underground Chinese church, has an American base in Florida and the man who handles the money for the American ministry was in my presence, and with the money, at all times.I even observed the counting procedures on Sunday evening behind closed doors. Our ministry also wrote a check, for some of the money collected, and mailed it. Never was a demand placed upon me or ACT 3 that was out of line or wrong in any way.

Handling money as an itinerant preacher is a great temptation. I know this first hand since I often receive offerings for ACT 3. I take no money for myself. All funds given are directed to the mission. This protects me and thus I cannot personally benefit by large offerings. I make no special appeals and do not "seek" money. Brother Yun was doing exactly the same thus I find this charge bogus and completely malicious.

Paul Hattaway suggests that those who attack Brother Yun will not let up since they have accomplished something with their efforts but they have not been able to stop Brother Yun from his worldwide ministry. I agree with him. God is upon this man and we should pray for him and the church in China. I am asking the board of ACT 3 to consider how we can become a partner with the church in China and I am determined to pray for my new friend, Brother Yun. I urge you to do the same.

There was enough money given, over the weekend that Brother Yun was here, to pay off all our ACT 3 bills and have some money left over. For one slight moment it dawned on me, "This is a lot of money and we could use it." The Lord instantly corrected that spirit and said to me, "Give to those in China and trust me with your ACT 3 needs. I will supply." Hallelujah! The freedom of this is profound.

More Reflections On Brother Yun: Checking Out the Facts on the Personal Attacks

I am grateful for all of the comments posted regarding my recent posts about Brother Yun. I hope that these posts have encouraged you to be more like Christ, not simply to support Brother Yun. His expressed intention is not that you support him but the underground church in China and the "Back to Jerusalem" movement.

Not only have Americans attacked Brother Yun but attacks have come from other lands and church leaders as well. A number of Korean leaders have denounced him as a heretic and a con man. And this sort of attack comes without Brother Yun having ever visited Korea. Paul Hattaway writes that this kind of response comes, as always, from people who have never met Brother Yun or spoken to him. The good news is that many other churches and leaders from various nations outside the West have also invited Brother Yun to speak. For every closed door he meets God is opening a new one and his ministry keeps growing. To God be the glory!

One of the aspects of Brother Yun's ministry that has been noted by others, but which I saw for myself on September 20-21, is how he stays after a meeting is formally over and then speaks with people and prays for them one-by-one. When I left Northern Seminary last Saturday, about 45 minutes after we ended, Brother Yun was still talking and praying. Only a few people remained when I drove away. He clearly was going to be the "last man out." The same was true on Sunday morning, according to Pastor Tim Badal at Village Bible Church in Sugar Grove, Illinois. And on Sunday night, when we had such a huge crowd the same thing happened again. When I left, nearing midnight, Brother Yun still had about 20 people waiting to meet him and pray with him. Patiently and kindly he served and ministered. This is so unlike anything I have seen in the West. He is not in a hurry and he cares about people deeply. Yun notes that Jesus cared for each person who came to him and this is the only way he knows how to ministry in public settings.

Several years ago Brother Yun ministered in Malaysia. Rev. Wong Kim Kong, the Secretary-General of the NECF traveled around the country with Yun during that visit. People attacked the man and his work in various places. Some Malaysian pastors suffered opposition for simply hosting Brother Yun in their homes. The Secretary-General later wrote:

"Liu Zhenying--or Brother Yun as he is known worldwide--has indeed been an impactful witness for the Lord here. Yet his visit was not without controversy. Even as he was preaching, emails questioning and attacking his authenticity were circulating fast. Most of them pointed to a Website that was specifically set up to refute his testimony, alleging that he is a fraud who is out to gain wealth and status."

Knowing about these accusations I watched Brother Yun, not critically but carefully. Like Rev Wong I judged Brother Yun on the content of his character, not the accusations of his enemies. Rev. Wong wrote an interesting letter called: "Sifting the Speaker." This letter tells how he deals with controversial speakers and issues. These are the steps he follows:

1. Ask if the the rumors have any basis in facts, bearing in mind that our contemporary context allows for wide scale attacks and gossip via the Internet.

2. Character assassination can be due to many reasons, including (but not limited to) differences in personality, doctrines and ministries; ministry rivalry; envy; or just plain mischief.

3. Since Christians are as prone to carnal temptations as anyone else it's important to to consider what has actually gone on between the accusers and the accused.

4. You must seek to verify any accusations with sources that are as independent as possible.

These points are magnificent. I wrote last week about my association with the Korean ministry of UBF. This was exactly the process I followed in getting to know these brothers and sisters who are widely attacked around the world. What I found was that there were areas where UBF could improve their ministry and accountability. I also found that they had been deeply hurt by attacks. Some of these attacks may have had a measure of substance but the overall approach against them was not rooted in godly process but in sweeping accusations that lacked integrity in the end. The personalities and ministries of some in UBF were not like what I would do. But I am not the measure of ministry for anyone else.

What I learned from getting to know and love my friends with UBF, as well as in getting to know and love Brother Yun, was the same. Carnal temptations are real in Christians and they will lead us to say and do things that harm leaders and churches. It helps to search for the facts regarding what has transpired between the accused and the accusers. More times than not I have found their is a "history" that most people never bother to understand. None of this is really surprising to me since my fiercest critics are people who have known me in the past. I have come to know that most people will not bother to ask the question: "What relationship did the accuser have with the accused in the past and what happened to that relationship?" My response, like Brother Yun's, is to not respond and to pray for those who attack me, especially if I have previously had a relationship with them in a different context.

What you usually find in such a context is there are motives involved that no one can judge properly. I believe in my case I have truly disappointed some, let down others, and in general appeared to change for the worse over the years. I sincerely disagree with this of course but people generally do not factor into their listening to rumors and attacks these human elements. This much I have become convinced of from personal experience thus I was prepared to embrace Brother Yun openly as my friend. The facts proved my trust to be warranted.

Christianity East & West

Tonight ACT 3 hosts another in its series of ecumenical dialogues that are aimed at giving Christians the opportunity to meet believers from other traditions and churches than their own. We have done several of these events with Roman Catholic and evangelical Protestant discussions over the past twelve months. A major ecumenical dialogue was held in September of 2007 at North Central College, Naperville, Illinois. Then on March 30th of this year I shared the platform with my good friend Fr. Thomas Baima, the provost of Mundelein Seminary at St. Mary of the Lake. This event was focused on our agreements and differences regarding the Eucharist, as seen in my book: Understanding Four Views of the Lord's Supper (Zondervan, 2007).

Tonight I will moderate a discussion between two Protestant evangelical scholars, Dr. George Kalantzis and Dr. Grant Osborne, and two Orthodox scholars, Dr. Bradley Nassif and Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon. The site for this Sunday Forum is First Presbyterian Church in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, located at 550 N. Main Street in downtown Glen Ellyn, which is the town just east of Wheaton. An audio and video presentation will be produced from this event. This will be made available in about six weeks or so.

One of the unusual parts of our evening will be the opening comments given by the former chairman of the ACT 3 Board, Fr. Wilbur Ellsworth. (He did not step down because he entered the Orthodox Church, but held this position before and after becoming a priest.) Fr. Ellsworth was a Baptist minister until after his 60th birthday. One would expect him to be a fierce polemicist for Orthodoxy, and thus against evangelicalism, but such is not the case. While he is "deeply convinced" of Orthodoxy, as you would expect, he remains personally self-reflective and fair-minded toward evangelical Protestants. Some of you know that Wilbur and I are the best of friends. For these reasons I asked him to speak to this issue of friendship across significant ecclesiastical division.

This event is free and open to all. We begin at 6:00 p.m. and end at 8:00 p.m. Questions from the audience will be taken in the second half of the evening. I hope everyone within driving distance of Glen Ellyn will come. I hope that others, who cannot attend, will want to learn more when the audio and video resources are made available. My prayer is that we will all demonstrate the love of Christ in a powerful way while we discuss what unites and divides us.

Smoke and Fire Theology: Lessons I Learned from Brother Yun

Paul Hattaway, co-author and editor of Brother Yun’s two books (The Heavenly Man and Living Water) is also committed to defending the character of Brother Yun. You can read his entire “Open Letter” at Asia Harvest. I have read this response to the critics twice, once about 18 months ago and then again just after Brother Yun was here this last weekend. I waited to read Hattaway's letter for the second time in order to form my own views based upon what I actually saw and experienced myself.

Paul Hattaway says that when he worked on the first Yun book he knew two things would surely follow. First, many people would be blessed simply because Yun’s testimony is so remarkable. We all hunger to know people who demonstrate the power of kingdom life like Brother Yun. When we are touched by their lives we are better for it. Second, he knew that a sleeping Western church would attack the messengers of change that God sent to it. To not attack would be to accept the verdict of the prophet and thus the message that we are the ones who are spiritually and morally asleep. It is far safer to criticize the messenger in this instance. This pattern can be seen throughout the Bible and church history.

“Smoke and Fire”

Hattway writes about the unique way that people will tend to process gossip and slander. They practice what he calls a theology of “smoke and fire.” Where there is smoke there must be fire. If people spread criticism widely enough then it must be true, or at least partially true. He says, “This kind of theology is completely unbiblical and dangerous.” Jesus was strongly accused of sin and unbiblical practice but this does make it true. Come to think of it Jesus was a highly controversial figure!

The Biblical Way

The Scriptures are clear about how to discover the truth about any one who is accused of false teaching or sin. Matthew 18:15–17 and Galatians 6:1 both come to mind. These are clear principles of confrontation. But almost no one who makes it their calling to write criticism of other Christians on the Internet follows these principles. This has been the case with Brother Yun.

I understand this all too well. I am told that numerous Internet sites, especially those promoted by very conservative Reformed and non-Reformed (anti-Catholic) fundamentalist Christians, routinely attack me and what I write. When my forthcoming book, Your Church Is Too Small, comes out in the fall of 2009 I expect this to increase exponentially. I look forward to serious reviews and honest critiques, which are warranted. I do not look forward to hearing from people who will savage my character and motives for what I have written. Some of both will likely happen.

Brother Yun’s Christ-Centered Response

Paul Hattaway says that in all of these struggles “I have watched Brother Yun closely, and have been amazed at his godly response to all of the criticism leveled against him. Not only has he refused to get into any public debate with anyone, he has completely forgiven all of his persecutors and holds no grudges at all.”

This is precisely where Brother Yun so ministered to me this past week. We spoke about my life over dinner last Saturday night. He urged me to not read the attacks that are leveled against my character. He also said to me, “Your problem is that you have a far better mind than I do and thus you want to argue and prove yourself right.”  (How did he know?)  He said, “Do not go to other Web sites that speak about you, ever.” And he added, “Make sure you forgive all who have hurt you.” The first admonition I have followed for almost a year now. The second issue I am working on and feel that I am there most of the time. I am often afforded public opportunities to speak ill of someone who has criticized me. I seek to “bless” such people by speaking of their many excellent positive qualities; e.g., the fact that their ministry has always helped many, the fact that they too love Christ as much or more than I do, the obvious fact that they have deep faithfulness to important doctrinal truth, etc. I will not make up stuff when this comes along but I can almost always find good things to say if I first pray and then do not speak too quickly. This is a real learning curve for me. Brother Yun helped me see this more clearly in a fresh and powerful way.

Brother Yun Helps Me

Brother Yun very specifically warned me about the harm that comes from gossip and slander and then showed me how to deal with it in the most Christ-centered way that anyone has ever done in private. If he were a bitter man, who nursed a grudge or who wanted to defend himself, I saw none of it. And the way he spoke faithfully to me helped truly helped me in profoundly personal ways. Rarely do I meet someone like this and connect in this open way so easily and quickly.

By the way, Brother Yun never once made me feel inferior in any kind of condescending way. I know he is far more like Christ than I am. And I know for sure that he has known far more of the awesome power of God and the real sufferings for Christ than I have ever known. But not once did he ever make me feel that I was inferior to him in any way. He built me up and even suggested, in one of his prophetic encouragements, that I was a Barnabas. I feel like I met the most Barnabas-like Christian I have ever met so that was quite a gift to my own soul.