cannot understand the things of the Spirit. All this is true, and we should not water our message or make any apologies for the offense of the Cross. But too often Christians fall back on a persecution complex to excuse their own carelessness or ineptitude in telling the world what they believe and what they really stand for. We must still "walk in wisdom toward them that are without" (Col. 4:5). And we must do what we can to remove those obstacles that would unnec essarily distort the gospel, or pre vent a hearing. Rightly or wrongly, there is ample evidence that here tofore the image of the evangeli cal-fundamentalist camp, in the minds of many unbelievers, has been anything but an asset in our getting across our message. Perhaps the new social con science of many evangelicals is helping to alter the picture sharp ly. And perhaps the next genera tion will not fall prey to a false view of separation that prompted an earlier generation to shun an active part in politics, mass media, etc. Meanwhile, it is up to evangeli cal Christians themselves to dem onstrate the kind of dedication, conviction and lifestyle that the scrutinizing eye of both the press and the public-at-large will re spect. Only then will our message get the kind of hearing which the good news of Jesus Christ truly deserves.
on a “ demonstration" staged by three former black students. Un fortunately such stories are often put together in cloistered offices by editors who take their informa tion from reporters secondhand and are prone to slant it in the di rection of their own bias. Reporters can also distort the real picture by quoting out of con text. A classic example came out of the 1969 U.S. Congress on Evan gelism when the press reported associate evangelists' Leighton Ford's keynote address. Ford had said that on one point he could agree with Karl Marx: the world needed a revolution. He promptly went on, however, to spell out the kind of revolution he had in mind —a spiritual one which, of course, contrasted sharply with a Marxist- style revolution. The next day a Minneapolis daily ran a front page story whch declared, in the headline, that Gra ham's heir apparently "agrees with Marx." The article did little to ex plain the context of the statement. Graham critics, of course, were quick to pass along the report at face value. This kind of sloppy reporting ought not to exist in professional journalism, and I speak as a fellow journalist. But it does, especially when the reporter is bent on sen sationalism and is a stranger to spiritual things. At this point one might raise a legimate question: Why should Christians get uptight about what "the world out there" thinks? Why worry about image? Do not the Scriptures assure that the straight forward Christian will be misunder stood and that he will suffer per secution? After all, the unbeliever
Page 13
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs