True Love vs. the culture

It was two or three years ago that some of the teen-sex statistics began to dip, followed by telltale ripples in mass media.

Suddenly, people didn't laugh so hard when youth minister Richard Ross and other True Love Waits leaders told kids they could find romance and intimacy through lifelong fidelity. A few people began using words like "chastity" without smirking. And the telephone calls picked up, from the likes of CNN and "Nightline," USA Today and The New York Times, Vogue and Playboy. A few virgins showed up in prime time.

The good news was that there were signs of change. The bad news was that things didn't change very much. The result was usually a more nuanced version of the gospel of sexual freedom. Maybe true love waits for a year or two or true love waits until a guy whispers the magic word "commitment."

"What the culture is saying these days is that abstinence is an option teen-agers should pay attention to," said Ross, one of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention's True Love Waits program. "Young people are no longer being told, outright, that they're strange and weird if they choose abstinence. ... You may even see some signs that the media and politicians are willing to affirm kids who make that choice."

Saving sex until marriage is now an option. But there are, of course, many other options. The message written between the lines of most sex education texts is this: wait until after high school. Meanwhile, Hollywood has offered a few cautionary sermons on promiscuity. But sex and romance -- divorced from marriage -- remain at the heart of most scripts.

"Young people today are hearing many messages from our culture," said Ross. "But here is what they WILL NOT hear. They will not hear anyone clearly say that it is morally wrong for them to have sex before they are married. And they won't hear anyone explain the painful emotional and spiritual consequences of that decision to become sexually active. ... No one is telling kids about the cost of forming that kind of bond and then ripping it apart."

Nevertheless, pro-chastity leaders believe they are making progress. This past weekend, 300 gathered in Washington, D.C., for a summit meeting sponsored by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health in Austin, Texas. One topic of discussion was a new set of government statistics showing that, in 1995, 50 percent of girls ages 15 to 19 said they'd had sex. That was down from 55 percent in 1990 - the first drop since 1970. At the same time, birth rates fell 8 percent and abortions declined among teens.

There is no way to prove this had anything to do with programs such as True Love Waits, which is known for its media-friendly events such as the 1994 posting of 211,000 pledge cards in Washington, D.C., or a 1995 rally with 350,000 cards stacked in Atlanta's Georgia Dome. Last year, 400,000 students took part in Valentine's Day activities and the 1998 goal is student-led programs in 56,000 secondary schools. The project's most symbolic work takes place in churches, where teens often sign pledge cards in rites that include gold rings -- signs of a commitment to remain chaste until marriage.

It's crucial, said Ross, that congregations become more involved in complex issues linked to sexuality -- such as crisis pregnancies and the fact that signing a pledge card often isn't the end of the story. But some clergy continue to duck sexual issues because they're afraid to offend grown-up sinners who happen to be married, divorced or single. Truth is, churches that can't talk about sin and repentance can't talk about healing and forgiveness.

"Jesus was as clear-cut as he could be about this," said Ross. "Whenever he dealt with people who had failed sexually, his goal was always forgiveness and restoration. ...We have to be able to tell young people that God still has a plan for their lives of teenagers, even though they have messed up. If we can offer forgiveness, we can help them get back on track."

For my father, a pastor

Anyone who grew up in a parsonage knows that "PK" stands for "preacher's kid."

Very early on, I rebelled against that label. But I wasn't rejecting my father, my family or the faith. When people called me a "preacher's kid," I bluntly told them my father wasn't a preacher - he was a pastor. There's a difference.

My father turned 81 this week and I thought this would be a good time to say that I'm still proud of his line of work. Of course, it's been some time since the Rev. Bert Mattingly retired from the pastorate and from his post- retirement work as a hospital chaplain. That doesn't matter. In Texas Baptist lingo, he's still "Brother Bert."

My father preached, but that wasn't what defined him. The joy, and burden, of the job is that there's more to it than that.

It's tough work and seems to be getting tougher. Ask Jim Dahlman, who recently edited the first-anniversary issue of the Focus on the Family magazine called Pastor's Family. He had only been on the job a few weeks when he read some response letters that left him weeping. Some pastors weren't burning out -- they were crashing in flames.

"I read one letter after another from pastors or their wives talking about this overwhelming sense of loneliness and isolation," he said. "Over and over, they'd write things like, 'We're totally alone. We can't talk to anyone about what's going on in our lives or the pressure we're under. We're out here twisting in the wind.' "

The big pressure is for pastors to always be available to handle each and every crisis, no matter how minor. With family and friends far away, who do people call? Oprah? The all-night therapist? Yet Dahlman said people also expect pastors to be "lifestyle role models" with perfect homes and perfect spiritual lives. But it's a problem if the pastor spends too much time at family events or on prayer retreats. And church members expect well researched, practical and, preferably, entertaining sermons. But it's a problem if the pastor spends too much time studying and writing. The clock is ticking.

I'm convinced the main reason stress levels are so high is that too many people -- in pews and pulpits -- have forgotten that pastors are defined by who they are and what they stand for, not what skills they possess and what tasks they perform. Pastors can't be shepherds if people expect them to be superheroes.

So why was I proud to be a pastor's kid? This may sound simplistic, but I believe many churches need to hear it.

* He was a pastor -- not a preacher, CEO, entertainer, clinical counselor, self-help guru or crisis-management consultant.

* He preached the Bible, not his feelings and experiences. Today, many urge pastors to make their lives open books - often forcing a faked extroversion that has little to do with reality. This has more to do with an era of mass-media confessions than solid teaching or evangelism.

* My parents have been married 57 years and I'm proud of their love and mutual commitment to ministry. Today, many churches are placing so much pressure on clergy schedules and spirits that they are weakening the very foundations of their personal lives. This has led to divorce rates that are as shameful as in society as a whole.

* He wasn't a workaholic. It wasn't until college that I talked with other clergy children and discovered how unusual it was that I spent many, many hours with my father. I'm convinced this was linked to a more balanced, realistic approach to ministry.

* My father kept on loving God, his work and his people. I have never known a pastor who didn't wrestle with fits of melancholy. Pastors are, by nature, realists who know the reality of pain and sin. And many heap criticism on them, micromanage their lives and expect miracles.

I rarely saw my father move mountains. But I did see him preach, teach, pray and embrace sinners. I was proud that he was a pastor. I still am.

Making spiritual 'Contact'

After the "Contact" sneak preview, viewers in the sold-out theater outside Kansas City were asked to complete the usual survey probing their reactions.

It was Saturday night at the mall and the Hollywood dream machine needed to know how this $90 million "event movie for intellectuals" was going to play in Middle America. Was it "entertaining," "exciting," "too slow," "thought provoking," "fun to watch," "meaningful," "emotional" and "believable"? Were the special effects good enough? Did it have enough action? Did it leave "you feeling good"?

In this case, researchers needed to add some questions, such as: "Has this movie affected your view of science and faith?" Or, "Are you more or less likely to go to church tomorrow?" Or, "Do you believe in a Higher Power? What kind?"

"Contact" is based on astronomer Carl Sagan's novel and, in one wide-screen package, tries to blend discussions of God, science, life, death, eternal life, extraterrestrial life, organized religion, unorganized religion and the origins of the Cosmos -- with a Big C. That's all. Sagan died on Dec. 20, as the movie neared completion.

The movie shows that Sagan, as the scientific establishment's designated media apologist, was committed to blending skepticism with a market-friendly brand of spirituality. "Contact" is not a feel-good movie for hard-shell agnostics. Rather, it's the summer science-fiction epic for millions of Americans who find pure science spiritually unfulfilling, but who don't feel they can embrace the 10 Commandments.

"This movie is surprisingly sympathetic to religion and does raise some critical questions about science," said Robert C. Newman of Biblical Theological Seminary in Hatfield, Pa., who holds a Cornell doctorate in astrophysics. "Still, anyone who worships the God of the Bible isn't going to be very happy as they walk out of the theater. ... Of course, I don't know how many people who think of themselves as traditional Christians pay much attention to what they watch or do much thinking about what movies have to say."

Sagan's heroine is radio astronomer Eleanor Arroway, played by actress Jodie Foster. In both the book and the movie she is a tough-minded, yet emotionally complex, skeptic. The key is that movie director Robert Zemeckis, in addition to simplifying the plot and adding the usual action-packed plot twists, has radically edited and altered the religious characters. The novel contains sympathetic believers and even avoids stereotypes of fundamentalists, noted Newman, one of several Christians in science who corresponded with Sagan as he wrote the book.

One pivotal figure, the Rev. Palmer Joss, is an inquisitive, but quite conservative, evangelical. In the movie, Matthew McConaughey's character has evolved into a mass-media mystic who never mentions Christianity and uses what one person calls "flowery, New Age rhetoric." Instead of a cross, Joss' necklace offers a circle within a circle - a miniature holy hubcap. He carries a slim leather volume with a ribbon marker and empty, gilt-edged pages that he fills with his own thoughts and observations - a do-it-yourself bible. He tells Arroway that he fled the priesthood because he "couldn't handle the celibacy thing" and their first theological debate occurs in bed.

But the film does contain two conservative Christians. The one person who spouts scripture is, literally, a mad bomber who raises his hands in Pentecostal praise before committing a suicidal act of mass terrorism. The other is a Religious Right politico, played by a sleazy Rob Lowe.

The movie also omits the novel's controversial ending -- Arroway's discovery of "the artist's signature" within the building blocks of math and science. This concept would have been highly relevant amid today's escalating debates about whether the structures of astrophysics and biochemistry contain evidence of a Creator.

"We could give the producers the benefit of a doubt and say they're saving that for the sequel," said Newman. "You could also say that, since Sagan was so involved in the making of the movie, he must have been moving away from that concept latter in his life. ... He seemed to be growing more open to spirituality, but less open to talking about a transcendent God."

Cracks in the Anglican Communion

It's a long way from Archbishop Moses Tay's Singapore cathedral to the Philadelphia Convention Center and the Episcopal Church's latest debates about sin, sacraments and sex.

The soft-spoken Asian primate isn't planning to make the trip. Nevertheless, his voice is being heard at the 72nd General Convention of Anglicanism's bitterly divided American flock, which ends July 25. Many Episcopalians want to know: What did Tay say and when did he say it?

The archbishop has declined, via fax, to confirm or deny published reports that, during a March meeting of archbishops in Jerusalem, he proposed that the Episcopal Church be expelled from the Anglican Communion. Meanwhile, the U.S. hierarchy denies the primates discussed excommunication - at least during on-the-record sessions.

What is clear is that most bishops in Asia, Africa and other Southern Hemisphere churches believe trends among America's 2 million Episcopalians could shatter the Anglican Communion. At least 75 percent of the world's 70 million Anglicans live in the Third World.

"We are deeply concerned that the setting aside of biblical teaching in such actions as the ordination of practicing homosexuals and the blessing of same-sex unions calls into question the authority of the Holy Scriptures. This is totally unacceptable," wrote 80 bishops from 20 of Anglicanism's 35 provinces, meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. "We need to learn how to seek each other's counsel ... and to reach a common mind, before embarking on radical changes to Church discipline and moral teaching. We live in a global village and ... the way we act in one part of the world can radically affect the mission and witness of the Church in another."

Tay's province immediately raised the stakes, endorsing the Kuala Lumpur statement and saying it will "be in communion with that part of the Anglican Communion which accepts and endorses the principles aforesaid and not otherwise."

"One reason Archbishop Tay isn't talking to the press ... is that he believes the southeast Asia resolution says everything that he needs to say," said Father Bill Atwood of Dallas, a traditionalist who has spent a year crisscrossing the globe visiting traditionalist bishops.

Those final words - "and not otherwise" - signal that Singapore may back efforts to break communion with those who support the Episcopal Church's de-facto policy of blessing same-sex unions and ordaining those sexually outside of marriage. An Episcopal court already has ruled that Episcopalians have no "core doctrine" on marriage. Bishops and delegates gathered in Philadelphia will consider several other progressive actions linked to sexuality.

However, Third World events have caused a strategic reversal. Right now, the Episcopal establishment is emphasizing unity and quiet change, while the right wants painful clarity, such as a yea-or-nay vote on the Kuala Lumpur statement. Why? A doctrinal earthquake in 1997 would rock 1998's Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, a once-a-decade conclave in which Third World bishops share the spotlight with richer and more powerful First World bishops. If the Episcopal left is patient, its leaders won't have to face overseas prelates until 2008. This also will be after the retirement of morally conservative Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey.

In his diocesan newspaper, Philadelphia Bishop Charles Bennison said clear action on same-sex unions might have to wait until 2000. "When this one goes over the top, I want it to go over in such a big way that everyone is swept along with it and it becomes a slam dunk," he said.

But it will be hard to keep peace in a communion that is stretching to include bishops with clashing views on everything from biblical authority to the acceptability of worshipping other gods at Christian altars. Also, some Episcopal progressives believe they have waited long enough.

"The matter of same-sex relationships and their blessing by the Church is extremely complicated and conflicted," wrote New Hampshire Bishop Douglas Theuner. "After nearly 2,000 years, there is not consensus in the Church Catholic about the nature and purpose of marriage or about the role of sexuality. ... If we were able to act only when the Church Catholic is of a common mind, we would not be able to act at all."

Hong Kong II: There's More to Life than $

In the beginning, Communist leaders tried to crush all belief in a power higher than the state.

That didn't work, so these regimes changed strategies. While brute force remains an option, the goal today is to let religious groups live and even grow - in tiny plots groomed by atheistic gardeners. The bottom line: Martyrs are more dangerous than apostates.

If there is anything that people understand in Hong Kong, it is the bottom line. Thus, it's highly unlikely that China will strangle the goose that has proven it can lay golden eggs, said Hong Kong Democratic Party chairman Martin Lee. He was speaking to a circle of journalists and Christian scholars days before the July 1 rites that tossed his party out of power.

Instead, China will build a cage of rules and regulations. China wants Hong Kong to remain an economic success. America wants Hong Kong to remain an economic success. "But there is more to life than rising economic statistics," said Lee, an active Roman Catholic. The question that journalists, human-rights activists and religious leaders must keep asking is, "Why can't I do today what I was able to do yesterday?", he said.

At first glance, Hong Kong's new laws on religion appear to maintain the status quo. But the laws are terribly vague.

Article 32 in the Special Administrative Region's Basic Law states: "Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of religious belief and freedom to preach and to conduct and participate in religious activities in public." Article 141 uses similar language, but adds that the government pledges not to interfere in religious groups' internal affairs, except when such activities "contravene the laws of the Region." At the moment, these laws are controlled by politicians and tycoons appointed by Beijing. Also, China has ruled that the standing committee of the National People's Congress - not Hong Kong's court of final appeals -- will ultimately decide disputes about the Basic Law.

However, it is Article 23 that causes the most concern. It states that Hong Kong's new leadership "shall enact laws ... to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition (or) subversion against the Central People's Government, ... to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."

The standing committee on the mainland already has annulled or altered dozens of Hong Kong laws that affect political parties and dissidents -- but may also apply to religious groups. Three of these changes could be crucial.

It will, for example, be harder to form "voluntary" or "non- governmental" associations and such groups now face tighter controls. Religious leaders of all kinds are watching for any signs that China may open a Hong Kong branch of its Religious Affairs Bureau.

Hong Kong's rulers will keep a closer eye on those with ties to overseas "political" groups. Obviously, if it's hard to separate politics and religion in the United States, it will be hard to do so in China. What happens to Hong Kong Baptists if the Southern Baptist Convention in America continues to fight China's compulsory abortion policies? Is that "political"? What if the Vatican continues to resist efforts to throttle papal loyalists in China? What if Hong Kong Buddhists retain ties with those who plead for Tibet? Finally, anyone who opposes these changes will find it much harder to protest in public.

Meanwhile, debates rage on in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere. Some argue that economic freedom will protect political rights, which will lead to religious liberty. Others insist that religious liberty must come first -- the bare minimum of what it means to be free.

Truth is, said Lee, these civil liberties are woven together. "Nothing terrible is going to happen on the first of July," he said. "China's leaders are not fools. ... The key word is 'control.' China does not want to kill the goose -- only keep it from flying free."

Silence and Tension in Hong Kong

HONG KONG - This weekend, thousands of Lutherans will arrive for their World Federation's ninth General Assembly, flowing into this city's new convention center in the wake of what seemed like most of the world's diplomats and news crews.

Commentators will hail the gathering as another sign that life is continuing as usual with red Chinese flags flying overhead.

The reality is more complicated than that. The decision to hold this Lutheran assembly in Hong Kong was made five years ago and it drew a behind- the-scenes reaction that raised eyebrows. Officials at the New China News Agency - the Chinese hierarchy's Hong Kong voice before the handover - began asking if the assembly would address any "political" issues.

Eventually, the Lutherans got the nod. But religious leaders got the point.

"This is Hong Kong. This is one of the most international cities in the world," stressed the Rev. Kwok Nai-wang, director of the Hong Kong Christian Institute. "Day in and day out, we have international meetings of all kinds here. We have never had to ask for the government's permission. This was a signal that things would be different after July 1."

Religious groups in the new Hong Kong Special Administrative Region have been promised that little will change. Article 32 of its Basic Law seems clear: "Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of conscience. Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of religious belief and freedom to preach and to conduct and participate in religious activities in public."

Once again, the reality will almost certainly be more complex than that. China's leaders have repeatedly said that Hong Kong must retain its unique role as one of the world's most freewheeling financial markets and as the economic gateway to the mainland. Yet the region's new leaders also have taken the first steps to control -- not crush -- those who want to defend human rights in Hong Kong or to advocate changes in the mainland.

In the weeks ahead, media attention will focus on critical issues of economics, dissent and freedom of the press. Yet these issues will also affect people in churches, temples and mosques. After all, Hong Kong has for decades served as the hub for hundreds of religious groups with regional and global ties. Multinational corporations are not the only groups that worry about losing control of their Hong Kong assets. Politicians and reporters are not the only people who fear losing their right to speak in the public square.

"Freedom of religion -- if you limit that to freedom of worship -- is certainly going to be safe," said Kwok, who led the Hong Kong Christian Council from 1977-88. "If we want to meet our social responsibilities to the poor, or if we challenge social structures and policies, we will be in trouble. ... But faith cannot be merely a private matter, if it is truly free. It is a matter of public action. That will place us on a collision course."

Most Hong Kong religious leaders issued cautiously optimistic statements in the days leading up to this week's handover. Others had varying reasons to remain silent.

Because of Hong Kong's history as a British colony, its Anglican churches and schools have close ties to the government and to the tycoons that govern the city. Also, as much as 80 percent of Roman Catholic education and social work in Hong Kong is government subsidized. The leaders of these 400 establishment parishes have clout, but can ill afford to rock the boat. Hong Kong insiders call this "The Unholy Alliance." Meanwhile, those who lead the region's 800-plus evangelical churches and mission groups insist that they will stay focused on ministry, while avoiding controversial public issues.

"We are not saying that nothing bad is going to happen," said a Baptist leader, who asked to remain anonymous. "We are saying that there is a piece of paper that says nothing bad is going to happen."

China On the Front Burner

HONG KONG - Almost every month, Bassanio Hung returns to the land that his parents fled, searching for small pieces of the massive puzzle that is China.

The group that he represents - East Gates Ministries, International - tries not to make headlines. Hung smiles and bows and plays by the rules. He knows that life isn't easy for Chinese Christians, but he tries to be positive. That's the plan and he is going to stick to it.

"We are only one small group. We have one calling -- one mission," said Hung, who has made at least 50 trips from Hong Kong into China in the past five years. "We are not saying that there is only one approach to take in China and we know that others use different approaches. But we are doing what we believe we are called to take."

If Hung sounds cautious, that's because he is. China is on the front burner, right now, and even groups that want to be non-controversial are feeling the heat. The handover of Hong Kong at midnight on Monday will focus even more attention on China and the current regime's policies on human rights.

"Negative reporting focusing on both Hong Kong and China has been used for years as a tool by Christian organizations that operate illegally in China," wrote East Gates President Ned Graham, in a recent newsletter. "Recently, a very prominent evangelical leader made a scathing, although ill- informed, attack on China. ... He is being fed faulty information from some congressional offices and radical human rights-special interests groups that are more interested in overthrowing communism than in sharing the gospel."

Threats to deny most-favored-nation (MFN) status, he added, would only "bring more persecution to bear upon our brothers and sisters in China, thus causing the very thing that these well-meaning Christian leaders seek to end." Graham, who is the son of evangelist Billy Graham, then wrote a similar letter that was distributed to congressional leaders, backed by a statement signed by a number of mission leaders with years of experience in China.

This drew an immediate response from Family Research Council President Gary Bauer, James Dobson of Focus on the Family and others who oppose MFN status for China. It is, they said, a form of "hostage taking" to allow China to manipulate American policies in this way. "Should we all keep silent about China's massive campaign of forced abortions and compulsory sterilizations?", asked their letter to congressional offices. "Should we avoid criticizing China's use of slave labor?"

Another divisive question is whether Western churches should do as much work as possible through China's government-run Catholic Patriotic Association and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement for Protestants. Some missionary groups - such as East Gates - stress that working through legal channels is yielding increased permits to distribute Bibles and invitations to prepare new educational and evangelistic materials. But others insist that the emphasis should be on protesting China's efforts to punish or control underground Protestant churches and Catholic congregations that have stubbornly remained loyal to Rome.

Hung stressed that he sees signs of progress during his trips to the mainland. Yet, he also noted that China is "very, very big and I cannot say that what I have experienced is true everywhere." Thus, activities that can lead to Christians being jailed or tortured in one part of China may be overlooked in another. Evangelism and education efforts that are growing in one region may be banned in another. Truth is, almost any statement one wants to make about religion in China can be proven true or false - somewhere in China.

Meanwhile, Chinese authorities know that when people are free to preach, teach and pray, it's hard to tell them what they can or cannot preach, teach and pray about. From the viewpoint of the Chinese police, an evangelist looks a lot like a political dissident.

"We don't know how to take away the government's fears," said Hung. "We can only do our work and pray that China's leaders will grow to realize that Chinese Christians love their country. They are not criminals. They are good citizens. We want them to see that Christians can be a positive force in China. ... At the same time, we must be patient and remember that Christ holds the future in his hands."

Fox, Families and 'safe TV'

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - They're out there, perched on family-room couches, trigger fingers poised to punch the "mute" buttons on their TV remotes.

They have TV listings nearby, marked with highlighter-pen slashes indicating the few shows that have been deemed worthy. They can program their VCRs while blindfolded and quote chapter and verse from media reviews in various sacred and secular publications.

They are the few, the proud, the parents who try to monitor what their children watch on television. And last week many of them winced when they heard that Rupert Murdoch's Fox Kids Worldwide Inc., plans to spend $1.9 billion to buy half of the Family Channel, a cable TV network linked to the media empire of religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.

Newspapers pounced on the differences between these media giants and their two brands of conservatism - contrasting video bimbos with biblical values, "The Simpsons" with "The Waltons," "The X Files" with the 10 Commandments, the capitalistic fervor of cable television's dark prince with the Pentecostal convictions of the Religious Right's high priest. The big question: Will Murdoch's crew create what millions will see as a dysfunctional Family Channel?

"When we talk with our viewers, they say that the Family Channel is 'safe' - that we are 'safe TV,' " said Douglas Symons, vice president for marketing at International Family Entertainment, Inc. "They tell us things like, 'We like the fact that we don't have to keep hitting the remote.' ... It's right there in our name. We are what we are. We have to be one of the most clearly positioned channels in the modern TV market and that's worth something. That has market value, today. I assume that Rupert Murdoch wouldn't spend $1.9 billion to buy that identity and then wreck it."

Another safe assumption is that Fox, after locking down a reputation for producing programs that define the edge of TV youth culture, wanted a partner on the other side of the cultural spectrum. After all, waves of worries about kids, sex and violence keep rolling over Capitol Hill. Also, there is some ratings evidence that an audience exists for family-oriented shows such as "Touched By An Angel," "7th Heaven," "Soul Man" and "Promised Land." TV Guide recently reported that studios have "at least four new shows about angels, spirits and ministers in the pipeline for next season."

Earlier this year, the Family Channel hired the Yankelovich Partners to conduct a "Barometer of the American Family" media study. It found that almost all parents (94 percent) support the availability of some kind of TV-control devices. Most (86 percent) claim to be monitoring their kids' TV viewing and 40 percent said they increased such efforts last year. On the hot issue of TV ratings, 69 percent said they preferred a content-based system. And almost everyone - 97 percent of parents, 91 percent of singles - said they wanted more "family-oriented" programs."

The problem, of course, is that "family-oriented" means different things to different people and it does not necessarily mean programs that address the role that religion plays in American life. After all, the Family Channel itself - with the exception of Robertson's "700 Club" - is better known for its comedy and detective show reruns than for new programs about faith and spirituality.

But the Yankelovich team found that Americans do have some characteristics in mind when they say "family-oriented." The top three criteria were that programs should "be compelling and interesting," "teach and encourage positive values" and "stimulate the imagination." As always, the problem will be finding shows that are "compelling," yet "safe;" that teach common "values" in a schizophrenic age; that "stimulate" plugged-in kids, without shocking cautious parents.

"I am convinced the Family Channel can keep its identity, but that Fox will have some room to maneuver," said Symons. "Sometimes, to show what positive values are, you need contrast that with the negative. You need real, believable bad guys, so that the good guys become more compelling. You can't serve up milquetoast. You may not always have a happy ending."

World war II: How biased is too biased?

Marvin Olasky is a biased journalist.

World magazine's editor freely admits that he often asks his reporters to ditch traditional journalistic standards of fairness and objectivity. Instead, he says journalists should write the stories that God wants them to write, the way God wants them written. The goal is "true objectivity" or "the God's-eye view."

"Biblically, there is no neutrality. ... Christian reporters should give equal space to a variety of perspectives only when the Bible is unclear," argues Olasky, in his book "Telling the Truth." "A solidly Christian news publication should not be balanced. Its goal should be provocative and evocative, colorful and gripping, Bible-based news analysis."

Olasky calls this "directed reporting" or, with a laugh, "biblical sensationalism." Many others - including Christians - call it heresy. This doesn't surprise him, since he says most of what he sees "that is called 'Christian journalism' is merely baptized secularism."

The University of Texas journalism professor is best known as a historian whose work on poverty, abortion and other cultural issues have influenced Newt Gingrich and others during the GOP surge in the 1990s. But in the claustrophobic world of Christian publishing, Olasky is known as a rebel who keeps splashing ink in the faces of dignified church leaders. Some say he runs the evangelical version of The American Spectator.

Recent articles claimed that a trio of powerful groups was quietly preparing a "gender-neutral" revision of the New International Version Bible translation. World's slant was captured in headlines such as "The Stealth Bible" and "The Feminist Seduction of the Evangelical Church." After weeks of warfare, the International Bible Society said it would abandon plans to revise the text, return traditional gender references to its New International Readers Version and ask a British publisher to pull an inclusive-language NIV. World's critics did not, however, withdraw a formal complaint to the Evangelical Press Association ethics committee.

Echoing specific language in the EPA code, the 10-page complaint claims: "Rather than avoiding distortion and sensationalism, World employed them. Utmost care was not exercised. Opposing views were not treated honestly and fairly. And World seems to be unconscious of its duty to protect the good names and reputations of Zondervan Publishing House, International Bible Society and Committee on Bible Translation."

World's editors say their facts are solid. However, noting the public- relations language in the complaint, Olasky admits that World is guilty of being pushy and of covering stories that others are not willing to risk printing. The controversy has underlined the "distinction between ... journalists and public relations officials," says a World response to the complaint. Ethics committee members face a "historic decision: they have the power to promote independent Christian journalism or to stifle it."

The problem is that the media marketplace includes at least three clashing versions of what is "good journalism," let alone good "Christian journalism." They are:

* A modern American model that preaches "objectivity" or, at the very least, insists that journalists should provide a fair balance of viewpoints. Many conservatives - including Olasky - believe that most American media have abandoned this model.

* A classically European model in which media admit their subjectivity and advocate specific viewpoints. Ironically, while this approach is usually identified with overtly progressive publications, or covertly progressive mainstream media, Olasky's "directed reporting" concept offers a conservative Christian version of this approach.

* A public relations, or church press, model that promotes "good news" that strengthens institutions and causes. It may even justify efforts to hide news or coerce publications to bypass embarrassing stories. The result is what one pro calls "happy little Christian stories."

If those who use other approaches disagree with his style or slant, then Olasky thinks they should start breaking some of these stories on their own. Meanwhile, World will keep giving its readers what they pay for - an openly conservative, "biblical" take on the news.

"We're hearing about quite a few other developments in Bible publishing that are very interesting and, after all that's happened, we'll certainly be looking into them," he said. "There are a lot of stories out there to be written and we're going to keep writing them."