Page 6301 – Christianity Today (2024)

An unnamed “serious man” once reminded John Wesley that “the Bible knows nothing of solitary religion.” He was right. God’s antidote for loneliness is Christ-created fellowship, life in the Church.

The doctrine of the Church, however, stirs an uneasy conscience among many evangelicals who hesitate to support the ecumenical movement but who appreciate the serious study of the nature of the Church within that movement. They are aware that this fresh interest in the Church set churchmen searching their Bibles with new vigor. And those acquainted with denominational history recognize that a specific doctrine of the Church fathered various Protestant communions. Remaining convinced of the merits of their own distinctive witness, they feel constrained to safeguard its uniqueness while attempting to relate it to the contemporary scene.

At the same time many evangelicals zestfully support the work of certain Christian movements which are not related to church supervision. Because of their witness to the need of repentance, the merits of Christ’s sacrifice, and the offer of forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, independent movements have gained support from hundreds of denominational churches. But some evangelicals confess to mounting frustration over the attempt to reconcile independency with their doctrine of the Church. The major features of the doctrine of the Church, they feel, are taught in Scripture as clearly as the plan of salvation. They also observe widespread misunderstanding of the Church which produces an individualism foreign to the Bible, and movements lacking responsible ties to the churches.

Religious Individualism

The importance of the doctrine of the Church is disclosed when we remember that our conceptions, including those of the Church, govern our actions. They control such practical matters as our gifts, our associations, and our witness to the world. Is it not tragic, for example, to send out scores of zealous young people to the earth’s mission fields with little understanding of God’s purposes for the Church? Then dare we neglect the doctrine of the Church or fail to let the New Testament have its say?

Why, we could ask, is so much evangelism and Christian work today content with what the “serious man” called “solitary religion?” In some cases, “solitary religion” may be traced to deficiencies in local churches. Where the Gospel and personal salvation were no longer announced with clarity or where apostasy was not only imagined but real, Christian movements stepped forth and restored the means of new life. The history of churches reveals the threat of the slow death of institutionalism. Exhibit “A” of this trend is the church of Rome. Not a Protestant polemicist but a widely-read Roman writer, Karl Adam, acknowledges that “in the functioning of the Church, the human self, the human personality, the individual as such, falls wholly into the background” (The Spirit of Catholicism, p. 21, Image edition). How does Rome arrive at a position which seems so foreign to the New Testament? Does not the New Testament declare that the individual, as well as the Church, is the temple of God (1 Cor. 6:19)? Does Rome really do justice to the New Testament declaration of the priesthood of every believer (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6) when she declares that the fundamental and absolutely indispensable structure of the Church is in the pope and bishop (Adam, op. cit., p. 104)? Rome arrives at her position by carrying to an extreme what others do also to a degree, that is, permitting extraneous voices, whether denominational, historical, or personal, to muffle the biblical witness.

Too often both in Catholicism and Protestantism, we have seen the fire die down because of such institutionalism and failure to hear God’s life-giving Word. But, as J. S. Whale writes, “We complain that the fire is low and looks like going out, forgetting that we have probably done little or nothing for some time to rake out the dead ashes and put on more coal” (The Right to Believe, p. 53). We overlook the fact that we are the Church, implicitly by our personal trust in the Head of the Church or explicitly by public identification with the local community of God’s people. Therefore, we must share responsibility for whatever shortcomings exist in the churches. After all, consciousness of sin in the churches gives us no green light for an irresponsible individualism.

No Disembodied Unity

Salvation is personal but it is not individualistic, since, from the biblical perspective, union with Christ and union with the brethren are inseparable. Becoming a Christian is like taking a husband; in both cases we gain “in-laws.” It is simply impossible to have God as Father and remain unrelated to His other children.

Seeing this essential spiritual oneness some people conclude that all Jesus intended was to bring individual men into a meaningful relation to God. The Church as an institution, they assert, was far from his thoughts. Actually New Testament evidence warrants no such conclusion.

“The roots of the conception of the ecclesia,” Newton Flew reminds us, “lie deep in the religion of Israel” (Jesus and His Church, p. 35). From Israel’s rich past Jesus drew a number of parallels to his own mission of calling a new people of God. Did he not speak of a “new covenant” (Matt. 26:28)? And a “new commandment” (John 13:34)? Did he not call twelve apostles and compare them to the tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28) and frequently refer to the “little flock” (Luke 12:32; Matt. 26:31; John 21:16), in a way reminiscent of the ancient prophets (Isa. 40:11; Jer. 13:17)? Add to all this the message of forgiveness and the ordinances which he committed to his followers, and little doubt remains that he laid the foundation of the Church. If the building was not complete, certainly plans were drawn and the cornerstone laid.

After his ascension, his indwelling Spirit sustained the profound unity between Christ and his ecclesia (1 Cor. 3:16; Rev. 1:13). The apostles compared it to the harmony between the body and the head (Col. 1:18) or to union in God-ordered wedlock (Eph. 5:23). But our familiarity with these figures may blind us to other New Testament evidence. Think of Paul’s conversion experience. Seeking to suppress this cult of “the Way” (Acts 9:2) his zeal drove him to a city six days distant. When he approached the city a light dazzled him and a voice broke the silence, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” Do not miss that! “Me,” said the voice. Had not he been harassing the Church? Later, as a servant of the Church, Paul’s memory kept this humiliating experience fresh by watering it with tears (Phil. 3:6; 1 Cor. 15:9). But once revealed the unity of Christ and the Church remained a compelling motive for Paul’s suffering (Col. 1:24). From his letters we can discern scarcely any differences between Christ and his Body. He suddenly shifts from an expected reference to the Church to a reference to Christ: “As the body is one and hath many members … so also is Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12). Or he will use identical attributes of Christ and the Church (Col. 2:9; Eph. 1:23.

In the New Testament, however, this spiritual unity is not abstracted. The Church, first persecuted then served by Paul, was as earthly as tears and fatigue. The ideal was not lost in a distant heavenly expectation; it was found in closely-knit groups of believers surrounded by a pagan world. The New Testament assumes that every Christian will give outward evidence of his relationship to Christ and His Church by joining with others who know the same Lord.

Of course, once the Church is brought down to earth the imperfections begin to appear. Admittedly these earthly organizational characteristics—a written authority, visible ordinances and a human ministry—have occasioned strife and schism but we need to remember that churches, just as individual believers, are simultaneously saint and sinner. Church history is replete with evidence of fallibility, pride, and sin in the Church, but the Bible reveals that Christ is working in the church of Demas, Ananias, and Diotrephas no less than that of Paul, John, and Stephen. Here as in salvation faith is not sight. “The Church,” Winthrop Hudson writes, “does not live according to the flesh but it does live in the flesh. Organization is not the essence of the church, but organization there must be” (The Story of the Christian Church, p. 4).

The Chartered Way

In the light, then, of this church-centered fellowship in the New Testament, what can we say about those evangelical movements which are less than church related? History cautions against haste in anathematizing movements which do not fit our accustomed pattern of Christian work. Jesus and his followers were considered innovators and several of today’s accepted denominations were once considered “deficient” or “heretical” in their doctrine of the Church. If Christ is truly at work in these movements, we should acknowledge the Church in essence and remain open to the possibility of a divinely-sent rebuke for our evangelistic failure. At the same time we may remain convinced that converts of such groups need church-centered nurture. And for their part these movements could recognize that firm theological and biblical reasons support practices in the churches and that the New Testament fails to encourage a “spiritual” Christianity which reduces to irresponsible individualism.

Avoiding both a blind fruitless conformity to traditional church life and an unwholesome individualism is no easy matter. How long shall we fan dead ashes and when shall we light new fires for God? The need for spiritual pioneers persists. But let the pioneer know that as to fellowship the way has been charted.

Our age cherishes bigness and monolithicity. This fact is true in business and is becoming increasingly true in religion. The denominational trend toward consolidation has taken two specific forms. First, there have been mergers of “next of kin” churches similar in faith and practice (such as the recent union of the United Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., and the earlier union of Methodist bodies); and second, mergers between remotely-related groups unlike in faith and practice (such as the recently-organized United Church of Christ which now embraces many of the Congregational Christian Churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church).

Merger Gains Momentum

The urge to consolidate was dramatically underscored recently by the proposal of Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, Stated Clerk of the U.P.-U.S.A. He suggested that the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., the Protestant Episcopal Church, The Methodist Church, and the United Church of Christ form one church of more than 18 million members. The idea was carefully nurtured, then presented in strategic circ*mstances calculated to gain for it the widest publicity. No sooner had Dr. Blake advanced his case than it was seconded by Bishop James A. Pike of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Whether this support hindered or helped the Blake proposal is difficult to determine, since the bishop had earlier enunciated what many considered heretical views concerning such doctrines as the Trinity and the Virgin Birth. Dr. Blake promptly took his proposal to the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church, and along with it several overtures from local presbyteries supporting the project. The General Assembly “by an overwhelming voice-vote majority” agreed to approach the three other denominations to commence negotiations looking toward merger.

Dr. Blake’s proposal is quite consistent with the objectives of the modern ecumenical movement and commands the enthusiastic support of some eminent ecclesiastics. But it also faces the unqualified opposition of some who have neither patience with nor use for organic union of churches in any shape or form. Since Dr. Blake’s suggestion is in the nature of an exploratory conversation and cannot lead to immediate merger, we can discuss its ramifications without opposing or approving it. Evaluation of the relevant factors may nurture mature conclusion as to whether such merger is wise and good.

One way to form an opinion is to find out what other people think. To this end CHRISTIANITY TODAY mailed a questionnaire to more than 100 leading ministers and denominational officials vitally involved in the ecumenical movement. Fifty other leaders were queried, from groups either hostile to the ecumenical movement as presently expressed in the NCC and WCC, or neutral but not involved. These latter persons were to serve as a “control group” against which to measure the results garnered from those in the ecumenical mainstream. Such a survey, of course, need not be definitive for rather apparent reasons: First, a questionnaire may be drawn up ineptly, or it may be so slanted as to assure certain desired results. Second, the persons polled may not be truly representative of their denominations. These risks, however, were taken into account in CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S questionnaire. Whatever its shortcomings, the survey was intended sincerely to discover the broad thinking of key men on this subject of church merger.

Results Of A Survey

The results show general unanimity on some points and substantial disagreement on others. Moreover, minority opinions shed considerable light on the pitfalls of church union. What do leading churchmen think of the Blake plan for merging the four major bodies into one church? A review of questions and replies is in order.

Do you think that the “overwhelming voice-vote approval” of the Blake proposal by the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church is representative of the opinion of the whole Church? Most replies to this question were in the negative. A number of men indicated they did not know, or had doubts, or were unconcerned because they are not Presbyterians. It was rightly pointed out by several that approval by the General Assembly was not a vote to endorse merger but simply to “study” and to “confer” on the question. Some felt that the vote was a fair reflection of what the church wants; others considered the whole affair as ecclesiastically contrived by a small number of clergymen and denominational leaders. One Presbyterian thought that the General Assembly’s affirmative vote was secured only because the proposal was a motion “to pursue” the possibility of merger, and not a motion approving merger with specific terms and conditions.

Unity And Creed

One matter evinced complete unanimity. The question Do you feel that the essential message of the Church, based on biblical revelation, should be played down for the sake of ecclesiastical unity? brought not a single affirmative reply. This response clearly suggests that no church union of lasting value can be based upon a defective message. It is the writer’s opinion that, should there be a merger ultimately, any accompanying creedal formulation would not expressly violate the historic message of the Church. Debate is more like to center in what should be omitted than in what should be included. Like the World Council of Churches, whose minimum statement leaves room for vast differences of opinion on questions like the Virgin Birth, the physical Resurrection, and the Atonement, the creedal basis of the projected new church could be equally broad. On the other hand, the problem of message could conceivably be solved by using the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Methodist Articles of Religion, or a combination of all of them. To adopt one of these, however, still would not solve the acute problem that right now plagues some denominations which already have satisfactory creedal affirmations, namely, how to eliminate those who do not believe the present creeds.

Half of those polled thought it possible to conserve in a great united church those essential Christian doctrines and convictions that have always characterized a strong Christian witness. Many others added qualifying statements. Some thought it “possible but not probable.” Others thought such a united church would be similar to what churches already are, that is, mixed in theological perspective, some more conservative, some less, and some liberal and neo-orthodox. Some felt that bigness makes conservation of essential doctrine and conviction impossible while others thought that size is of no consequence here. “It seems that ‘unity’ always demands the widest latitude in doctrinal statement, with a resulting thinness that says very little,” was one comment. Another said, “The presuppositions are not valid. Size and strength of conviction are not mutually exclusive as the question indicates.”

Faith And Order

Protestant Episcopal and Lutheran sources particularly objected to any bifurcation of message and organization. They argued that faith and order are inseparable; one does not exclude the other. Most respondents, however, understood the question the way it was intended. They replied that the message is of greater import than the organization since it is possible to have an organization without a message. A true message will get through to men even though the organization is defective.

In connection with these questions on faith and order a most significant fact emerged. Several bishops in the Protestant Episcopal Church asserted that no union should occur which is not based on an acceptance of the historic episcopate. Thus one wrote, “… if there is any question of union, it seems to me that it has to be based on the presupposition that what we want is re-union not just union.… It seems to me that this is the only way in which we can proceed, otherwise we end up with a Pan-Protestantism on the one side and various forms of Catholicism on the other, and this is not re-union. I think we ought to deal with this fact in the very beginning because certainly if we don’t, later on there is going to be trouble.” A recent editorial in The American Church Quarterly plainly spelled out this idea by stating, “The episcopate is organic to the Church.” This same editorial argued for re-union not union; for catholic re-union not ecumenical re-union. Therefore if Episcopalians insist upon the historic episcopate as an essential element of union this insistence spells either death of the union under consideration or acceptance of Episcopalian terms by the United Presbyterian Church and the United Church of Christ, with the Methodists already in the fold of episcopacy.

On The Road To Rome?

Two questions looked beyond the union inherent in the Blake-Pike proposal: Do you think the unity Christ prayed for can be secured, or necessarily must be secured, through mergers leading to one visible Church? and Is unity to be equated with structural and organizational forms such as that expressed in the unity of the one Roman Catholic church? The replies were almost all negative. The implications here are plain enough. While these answers do not speak against church mergers, their opposition to the idea of one church is evident. Moreover, the respondents believe genuine unity is possible apart from one church.

The few who considered visible oneness essential said: “I doubt if the unity Christ prayed for will ever be achieved by the denominational divisions we now have.” “General and complete fulfillment of Christ’s prayer would be more clearly visible to the world through one visible church.” “Yes, Christ prayed for visible unity that the world may believe.” “I believe that the type of unity Christ prayed for would result in such mergers. It will not necessarily be secured by them.” “We must take the prayer seriously and work toward oneness. Ecclesiastical barriers do not make for sharing of love or life in Christ our common Lord.” Opponents pungently said: “I think that the use of that verse in John 17 as a proof text for this coerced unity is a grotesque perversion of Scripture. The exegesis which comes to such an interpretation is shallow and shoddy.” “I find nothing in John 17 which would indicate that Christ had in mind ecclesiasticism, but rather a spiritual unity which is not directly related to, or dependent on, visible organization.”

Again looking toward the future, CHRISTIANITY TODAY asked if the proposed merger could be interpreted as a movement aimed ultimately at rapprochement with the Roman Catholic church. Answers were about evenly divided.

The great majority felt that such a merger would indeed dilute or destroy the historic distinctives of the combining denominations. They also thought the loss of their own distinctives would be unfortunate; very few would regard that loss with indifference.

The proposed union raises questions about ecclesiasticism. It was asked, therefore, if such union would lead to greater central authority and power at the expense of grass roots participation in the work of the Church. A great majority said “Yes.” This, of course, is not to say that union would necessarily be either good or bad. The response does reflect, however, the expectation that union would lead to a centralization of power and authority; controlled by fewer individuals, the Church would become more monolithic. Some feared that the people in such a united church would tend to occupy a position somewhat similar to the Roman Catholic laity who have neither voice nor vote in the operations of their local parishes or in what Rome does and says; others took an opposite view. One churchman said, “It might conceivably mean more ‘local’ autonomy—that depends on many factors.” Another replied, “More local initiative and diversity may be possible in the larger church where different traditions would forward their own seminaries and emphases.” Still another felt that “there would be more centralization. The ‘grass roots’ would also gain new areas of witness.” Another replied, “No. If the denominations involved in such a merger remain true to the best in their heritage there should be no danger of this. However, it is a present-day danger in the ‘organization church’ even within denominations.” Some elaborated their fears. One said, “There is no question about this coming to pass. Our own church is a classic example of this very thing, with a heavy-handed hierarchy of a few chairborne soldiers bossing the whole army.” One Presbyterian replied, “Yes. It has already done so in the United Presbyterian Church.” Another respondent felt that “it would substitute for the voice of Christ speaking by his Spirit through the Word (Bible) the voice of the ecclesiastical organization.”

The Hesitant Laity

CHRISTIANITY TODAY also tried to discover the minister’s impression of the layman’s idea about mergers by asking Do you think that the lay people of your church are anxious for a merger of this (the Blake) type? About 90 per cent who answered the question said “no.” Others qualified their answers. One stated that his denomination is divided on this issue. Another said, “The University students, those who are thinking and reading and circulating among people, are anxious for a change. The Committed Core are hesitant.” Another added, “I think laymen in the majority have become disenchanted with the rigid denominational lines. The proof of this is the frequent crossing of denominational boundaries.” In this vein one said, “Probably the majority do not care, because we are in a day when most people join a church, not for convictions, but for convenience.” One respondent believed that Episcopalians, except those trained in the Anglo-Catholic parishes, are in favor of merger. One answer whose larger overtones cannot be expanded here was, “Few are in favor of merger, but isn’t this beside the point? Does not the church exist to aid people to see and to be what they ought to see and be?” His reply suggested that most of those who disapprove of merger simply need to be educated in favor of merger. The auxiliary question What per cent of your people are in favor of merger? elicited 10 per cent or less as the most usual answer. Two estimated 60 per cent, another 50 per cent, five 25 per cent, several 20 per cent, and a number replied “negligible,” “scant,” “low,” “very few,” “indifferent,” “small,” “don’t know any.”

Controlled Literature

Denominational literature is a strategic area of witness. Of the denominations included in the Blake proposal none has been attacked more severely for its church school literature than The Methodist Church. Critics have deplored its literature as in the main theologically liberal, and politically and economically leftist. Therefore those polled in the questionnaire were asked if the literature of the proposed church would represent the highest and the best in each tradition or the lowest common denominator on which all could agree. Several respondents said the question appeared “loaded.” A substantial majority thought the literature would most likely be pitched at the lowest common denominator rather than being representative of the best and highest in each denomination. Some suggested the policy would depend entirely upon the editors and their efforts, on the terms of the merger, and on what the leadership thought best for the people. Others thought a merged church might have different curricula available to various elements within the church. One felt the Presbyterians stood to lose rather than to gain. One churchman commented that the lowest common denominator idea “has long ago been abandoned by all leaders of the ecumenical movement.” Another, in a similar vein, said, “I think, for example, of the study booklet of the World Council of Churches on ‘Christ the Light of the World.’ I don’t think this bears out the oft-expressed prediction of watered-down witness. But the danger is there—certainly.” Contrariwise, another wrote that “This has been one of the most sensitive spots in our own experience. Evangelical Christianity has been sabotaged many times in the literature of our denomination. Suave, sophisticated agnostics have been secured as authors, and rebuttal has been eliminated by ‘lack of space’ or ‘limitations of an editorial schedule.’” The survey indicates that literature apparently will be a controversial topic in any merger, and that many fingers will probe this issue if merger talks proceed seriously.

Are Denominations Wicked?

The division of the Church of Jesus Christ into denominations has often been called a scandal and a sin. The poll included a question that checked reactions to such an idea. About 85 per cent of those polled do not regard denominations as a scandal and a sin. Important qualifications were added by some respondents. Several stated that while denominations per se are not sinful some divisions are sinful because they came about for basically unsound reasons and were occasioned by questionable motives. However, divisions truly aimed at preserving the true Christian faith are justifiable, they said. Those which perpetuate “outworn human creedalisms, traditions, national and sectional prejudices, and encourage ecclesiastical rivalries, prides and ambitions” are wrong, however. Where “human traditions and viewpoints are absolutized” division is sin, said one. In favor of union, one argued that, “the biblical unity is oneness in Christ but this is to be manifest in life. Just try and explain divisions to a non-Christian. I think the most cogent reason for union is evangelistic to demonstrate we are one.” Another explained that “divisiveness, not division, is sin. Unfortunately, denominational separateness and exclusiveness are good breeders of the divisive spirit.” Still another called divisions a stumbling block; “… to be happy with this seems to me to be a sin. We should seek to arrive at greater unity, eliminating barriers and division when this can be done without sacrificing convictions or doctrinal truth.” Others argued that denominationalism has some excellent benefits and is in the plan of God. “There was only one door into the Ark,” said one, “but there were several rooms.” Another wrote that “the body has hands and feet. It’s the relationship to the one and only head of the Church (Jesus Christ) that is important.” And another stated that denominations are “a historic development resulting from the earnest endeavors of conscientious men to know and express Christian truth. It is unfortunate, but not a scandal or a sin.” The replies indicate it will be unfruitful to argue for merger on the ground that present divisions are sinful until a much greater number of people are convinced that they really are.

The foregoing summaries represent replies from prominent denominational churchmen whose churches are deeply implicated in the ecumenical movement. As previously noted, 50 other church leaders outside the ecumenical movement were surveyed as a “control group” to test the replies from ecumenical sources. On the whole, the answers of the control group paralleled the other. The differences between groups were at the level of percentages rather than at the level of basic conviction. Thus if 80 per cent of the first group responded affirmatively to a question, the control group normally responded with a higher percentage. But findings indicate no startling differences even in the most strategic areas of investigation.

Conclusions From The Survey

This poll suggests the following conclusions: 1. The message of the Church is considered essential in any merger; 2. the merger impetus comes largely from high level ecclesiastical sources and not from the grass roots of either clergy or laity; 3. while Christians are gravely interested in Christian unity, there is no general consensus of what true unity is or how it can be implemented; 4. the pathway to merger has many pitfalls and very substantial roadblocks; 5. many who have grave reservations concerning merger remain to be convinced that the Blake proposal is the real answer to disunity.

Since Dr. Blake has proposed a plan he believes will solve disunity among the churches, we should certainly examine the situation further. First, we should study the reasons that favor organic union and by investigating those mergers already consummated discover whether they have accomplished their objectives. Second, we should offer some guidelines of those methods whereby unity has already been sought and delineate what we consider a sound solution to the problem of unity. To these questions we shall address a forthcoming essay.

Following is the editorial reproduction of a face-to-face interview with Dr. Charles Malik, former President of the United Nations General Assembly, conducted by Editor Carl F. H. Henry ofCHRISTIANITY TODAY.Dr. Malik, a native of Lebanon, is a Greek Orthodox layman who understands the spiritual and moral elements in the contemporary ideological struggle as few other men of our day. He holds the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard University, and has received more than a dozen honorary degrees. Currently he is guest professor of the School of International Service of The American University in Washington.

Q. World history in our generation seems to be running on a Communist timetable. Do you see any outward signs, like those that once marked the decline of the Roman Empire, to suggest that the Communist thrust has passed its zenith?

A. I don’t think so. I think we can expect it to register further developments, further gains. I don’t believe as yet we can say that it has reached its optimum point. The question obviously takes one into the realm of sheer conjecture and prophecy, and I disclaim any prophetic powers. But I can only say realistically that the Communists are still very vigorous, and the rest of the world is relatively rather weak.

Q. What are the symptoms of the Free World’s deterioration? Do you think it is now too late to avert the final decline of the West?

A. Certainly it’s not too late. It’s never too late; given the freedom of man and given the grace of God, it’s never too late! But symptoms of deterioration in the Western world are very evident. First and foremost, as I see it, is the lack of unity among the various components of the Western world. The statesmen congratulate themselves over that lack of unity, on the ground of their freedom and equal partnership and that sort of thing. All this is fine—but what is the use if one keeps on losing? History is rather ruthless. We keep saying we are good, we believe in civilization, we believe in freedom, we believe in equal partnership, and so on, yet we keep getting beaten. In the end it is not enough to be good; it is also necessary to believe that the good will win. And therefore one who really believes in the good must also believe that the cause of his losing is not the good in him but the bad in him. One aspect of Western lack of unity is the nationalism which is eating and corroding the life of the Western world: America all by herself; England more or less all by herself; France all by herself; Italy the same thing; Germany too. They have NATO, true, but they squabble; on many important issues they don’t see eye to eye. I have seen it in the United Nations. I know from my own experience and direct knowledge. To this squabbling I would add, as a weakness, materialism—sheer, crass materialism. I am not sure your Western materialism is better than the Soviet’s. If I were asked to choose between the dialectical materialism of the Soviet and the materialistic outlook on life and the practiced commercialism of the West, I am not sure I would choose the Western brand of materialism at all. Every time I listen to an important radio broadcast which is repeatedly interrupted by an advertisem*nt for some shoe polish or laxative or brand of marmalade, I have to say two or three prayers in order to remain human. Another sign of weakness: Christians aren’t speaking with conviction. Many Christians have become so worldly that one doubts whether their Christianity can resist the non-Christian and anti-Christian pressures. I could recite 20 or more signs of moral weakness in the Western world which are highly disturbing—weaknesses of people who ought to know better, people with a Great Tradition behind them, whose tradition alone can save them and the world ten times over if they understand it, and live it, and rise above their failures.

Q. How then do you define the decisive issues underlying the crisis of the twentieth century?

A. The issue, as I see it, is this. A rebellion within the Western world in the form of Marxism and Leninism has for its ultimate objective the destruction of the accumulated values that we have inherited from the Graeco-Roman-Christian civilization. Against this terrific rebellion our civilization is now engaged in a life or death battle. This rebellion gathers to itself all kinds of supporting forces in the world which have grievances against that civilization, forces which oppose it, and forces which hate it. Hence there is an alliance, a mobilization of all forces in the world which hate freedom, man, God, objective truth, and the name of Jesus Christ. This to me is the greatest crisis that we face today. Marxism-Leninism is the vanguard of these forces running together against the inherited tradition, which stresses—or ought to stress, regardless of the unworthiness of some of its representatives—man, truth, God, and Jesus Christ.

Q. What has Christianity to say to both of the modern power blocs?

A. I don’t completely understand what many Protestants mean by Christianity. There are 250 Protestant sects. Are you talking about the Holy Rollers? Do you mean the Presbyterian church? the Lutheran church? One weakness of the West is its wide use of the word Christianity for a vague, “liberal,” sentimental form of idealism. If you ask me what Christ’s message is, I shall try to tell you. What he says to the two power blocs today is: Resolve your differences peacefully. If you must fight, be humane; and remember that history is completely in the palm of my hands and I am its Lord. That’s what Christ would tell the two power blocs.

Q. Granted that Christian values are compromised on all the secular frontiers today, how would you assess the Free World and the Soviet sphere in terms of biblical ideals? How would you measure the extent of the revolt in the West and the East?

A. I don’t agree with Karl Barth at all that it is, as it were, “six of one and a half dozen of the other.” The governments of the Western nations have not become totalitarian. They have not turned against the Bible, against the Gospel. On the other hand, the totalitarian governments have taken a stand against the Gospel and Jesus Christ. The governments of the West are at least neutral with respect to the propagation of the Gospel. While we see very virulent movements of secularism and atheism in the West, yet organized society in the form of governments has taken no formal, official stand against religion, and against Christ, and many members of these governments are believers at least outwardly. When it comes to real faith in Christ, of course, the West has become very worldly, very soft. Still the Church is there, and the Bible is there, and Christians are living a free life, and it is their fault if they don’t make good their claims.

Q. What bearing has the biblical view of God and man on the modern controversy over human rights and duties?

A. Every bearing in the world. Man is made in the image of God, as we believe. He thinks and he creates. Man has a dignity with which he is therefore endowed by his mere humanity; he has certain natural rights and duties which stem from his being the creature of God. It is interesting to note that this whole conception of rights and of the oneness of humanity and of the universal dignity of man has arisen only within the Christian tradition.

Q. Does Christianity bear also on property rights?

A. I believe that private property, including the ownership of the means of production, provided it be carefully and rationally regulated—and science and reason and moral responsibility are fully able to supply the necessary regulating norms—is of the essence of human nature, and is a Christian pattern. I believe therefore that the abolition of all private property, including the abolition of the private ownership of every means of production, is not just.

Q. If the Communists argue that economic determinism is the hinge of history, what refutation has Christianity to offer?

A. At least half a dozen points. Most important is that Christ himself didn’t teach this; in fact he taught the exact opposite, namely, to seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and these other things come in the second place. But second in importance is that, on the hypothesis of economic determinism, we cannot explain the spread of Christianity—which took place not under the impulse of materialistic determination but through witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and in obedience to his commandment to preach the Gospel of love and forgiveness to the whole world. Another fact is that the Communist theory does not explain Karl Marx himself—a man who had ideas that were not necessitated in his mind by economic forces. There are other ways of refuting the Communist thesis: the freedom of man, the potency of reason, the intimacy of human fellowship, the power of love and forgiveness—all these refute dialectical materialism.

Q. What is the real hinge of history, Dr. Malik?

A. The real hinge of history to me is Jesus Christ.

Q. If that be so, how can the Christian remnant recover an apostolic initiative in witnessing to the world?

A. Not by magic; not by a clever trick; not by mechanical techniques which call for a special conference at six in the morning and another at eleven; not by many of the ways suggested in American theological literature, with their emphasis on methods and techniques of worship and of invoking the Holy Spirit; not by mass organization simply. But especially by ardent prayer for the Holy Spirit to come mightily into the hearts of men. That is the most important thing. Jesus did not concern himself mainly with “how to organize,” although this is most important for the continuity of the Church. Do you think that mass organization without the inclusion of the Holy Spirit, with all its grace and freedom and power, can withstand the smash of the Communist offensive? Not at all!

Q. Where dare we as Christians hope for a breakthrough?

A. In the field of Christian unity there are great signs of hope, I believe. I am encouraged by the awakening of people as a result of suffering and the sense of danger, and by the way people are giving themselves once again to the discussion of fundamental questions. The greatest possibility for a breakthrough exists in prayer for the coming of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is, as it were, now knocking at the door, fluttering around about us on every occasion. We must open the door. To the extent that people ardently pray for his coming—well, that is the greatest victory we can hope for, the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Q. In medieval times the papacy was one of the greatest political forces. How far can the present political situation be attributed to a divided Christendom?

A. Insofar as the church interfered directly in political matters it was in error. You will find, however, that interference, in the sense of the Church itself taking responsibility for political decisions, including the decisions of the Inquisition, happened, if at all, far less frequently than people who are moved by prejudices about history think. We have inherited a certain bequest of propaganda and prejudice which we should do our best to rise above for various reasons, including above all the reason of truth. But there is also the cause of Christian unity. There are now wonderful authentic works that can give us the truth about what actually happened in various periods of history. Insofar as any church—including my own, the Greek Orthodox church—was itself responsible for political decisions it was in great error.

Q. How effectively and properly, in your opinion, has organized Protestantism addressed the politico-economic crisis?

A. I get the feeling now and then that the preoccupation of the Protestant churches with the affairs of the world, strangely enough and paradoxically enough, is either too much or too little. Too much, on the one hand, in thinking that by correcting politics and economics everything will be set right. There is a tendency, on the other hand, for people to withdraw from the world in the sense of pietism and quietism and other-worldliness. It seems to me that the right position is to keep everything in its place. Economics and politics are certainly realities, but not the primary realities with which the Church has to deal. The Church can examine these things in the light of the Holy Ghost and with the mind of Christ. But primarily the Church ought to be above politics and economics, ought to feel that it can thrive even in hell. If it is going to wait until the economic and social order is perfect before it can tell you and me individually that right here and now we can be saved, no matter what this politico-economic order is, it will never accomplish its proper work. Think of Jesus Christ saying to us: “You’ve got first to perfect your government, to perfect your social system, to perfect your economic system, before you take your cross and follow me.” He would never say that!

Q. Do you feel then that there is too great a tendency for the Church to shape and approve particular programs of political and economic action, parties, and platforms, while principles are neglected?

A. This happens at times and is very unfortunate. This does not at all mean that the Church does not have something to say about everything. But what it says about any situation should never so tie the Gospel down to that situation that the Cross and Christ and salvation and hope and faith and love become secondary and dependent upon such programs and pronouncements.

Q. Do you think a clergyman should ever serve as president of the United Nations?

A. If he is elected, why not? If he can get people to elect him, sure.

Q. What is the main dynamism on which the Gospel of Christ relies for social transformation?

A. The love of Christ. The indebtedness to Christ. The first commandment. I think that if Christians are infused with the mind of Christ and are socially conscious—believing in the reality of the social orders, and in their groundedness in man’s nature as a social being—such Christians will be social and economic revolutionaries. They won’t stand for injustice in the social order, and will do everything they can to transform it. Therefore, I think that a mind completely charged with the Spirit of Christ inevitably brings dynamic transformation.

Q. Today we often hear it said that the United Nations is “the world’s best hope for peace.” How do you feel about this?

A. That formula is like all other clichés. While there is something to be said for it, it is more of a propagandistic cliché than a real statement of truth. The United Nations is a very interesting thing and has its own possibilities—possibilities that should never be minimized. But the United Nations isn’t a cure for every problem. And the United Nations is limited by its own charter. It can’t do more than its charter permits it to do. It cannot rise above its own foundation which is its charter. Certainly the charter cannot automatically prevent the great powers from fighting each other. The United Nations is a great institution, it should be supported, it has done very well during the last 16 years. But it could have done much better. It isn’t such that we can go home and rely on it alone.

Q. Do you consider the Church more than the United Nations as the real bearer of peace on earth?

A. Yes, sir! Certainly.

Q. By Church do you mean the Greek Orthodox church, the World Council of Churches, or what do you mean?

A. Well, the World Council of Churches itself says it isn’t a church, so it can’t be something it denies being. The question of ecclesiology is, of course, a great question—in a sense the greatest question that can be faced and discussed today: What is the Church? Which is the Church? In the presence of innumerable claims to be the Church, I think people must have a position at least as to what the basic criteria are. If there is a disagreement on whether these criteria are fulfilled in such and such an instance, that is quite allowable. But the specific criteria whereby the mind can tell this is the Church and this is not the Church seem to me to be a clearly-indicated condition for any sound ecclesiology. Among these criteria I would certainly include the unity of the Church, and the right episcopal order—these two things go together. One’s outlook on the Church conditions one’s theory of history. Is history made up of our separate independent intercourses with God, or is there a unity in the continuity of history? Isn’t there an historical solidarity in the dealings of God with man? This is to me the greatest question that can be asked about the Church and about its truth.

Q. What do you personally think is the future of organized Christianity in our century?

A. If you mean the Church, it has a good future. The Church will never die. The Church is absolutely assured by Christ that he will be with it until the end of time. Everything is going to vanish except the Church. It will go through trials, I assure you, and many so-called churches are going to find out that they are not as much the Church as they thought. If you mean by “organized Christianity” the Church, and if you are asking whether the Church as such will ever be dissolved—then the answer is that this is impossible. The Church as God willed it, as God organized it, as it has existed throughout the centuries, as Christ has continued to build it up—that will not vanish from this earth until he comes. When he comes then everything will be transformed.

Q. How shall we regard the attitude one often hears in our current situation, namely, that Christians are pledged not to combat this or that particular ideology but to preach Christ?

A. I believe we must distinguish three things here. The first distinction is between the Church and those whom you call Christians: the two are not the same thing. The second distinction is with respect to the attitude of Christians or the Church vis-a-vis the final religious realities, the final revelation of God. And the third distinction concerns their attitude towards the various modes of organizing human life practically and politically, towards the present economic and social order. Under this third distinction it is most important to ascertain whether Christians or the Church believe that through the life of reason we may discover ultimate truth and falsehood in respect to social and economic orders. Now, I am sorry to say that many people in our time have developed a despair of reason. You will find that they base their position, in the end, not at all on what is ultimately given, and which must therefore have a universal binding effect upon all men’s reason. They depend, rather, on force, accident, chance. If you make these three orders of distinctions, I would briefly say concerning the first one that undoubtedly the Church as a body cannot rest its fate on the ups and downs of social orders. Its fate depends upon its fidelity, its faithfulness to that fund of truth and salvation and mediation between God and man that it has received from the Lord. On the other hand, Christians as individuals are duty bound to take a position concerning all kinds of social and economic situations, and have every right to make their own destiny rest on the position they take. But they cannot compromise the Church. The Church should not be compromised by taking stands on social and economic matters. Christians have every liberty to compromise their own future, their own name, their own reputation, by the position they take on these things, while they remain Christians. About the second order of distinctions, it is part of my ecclesiology that the Church alone can speak authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. As to the third distinction, I would say that Christians can distinguish between right and wrong, justice and injustice; they can do this on the basis of rational observation, science, inquiry, the application of first principles, going deeply into things, and finally, expounding and showing to the world that one position more than another is in accordance with the truth. Through reason we can obtain the truth concerning social and economic matters. In the end, this is a matter not simply of how you conceive theology, but of how you conceive history, and how you conceive human reason—whether you believe human reason has the power to grasp the truth and to affirm it, or whether you believe it is a dark thing with no power at all, so that the best that is left for man is some accidental ordering of things. I don’t believe this alternative at all. I believe that reason is a genuine power in man—put there by God. It is the greatest natural power man has.

Q. Where do you think that Christianity has failed in its day-to-day opposition to communism?

A. Christians have failed because they underestimated the nature of the Marxist-Leninist-Communist onslaught on the world. They minimized it at the beginning. They did not pay enough attention to it. And its development during the last 40 years, I assure you, was anything but inevitable. It could have been arrested at a dozen different junctures; it was only the folly, stupidity, and complacence of the Christians that allowed it to reach its present dimensions.

Q. Would you spell that out just a bit more?

A. Yes. Our unfortunate minimizing and underestimating of the nature of Marxism-Leninism enabled that movement to attain the proportions it has. That is one cause of our failure to oppose communism. Another cause is the presence in Western society of economic and social and political injustices. If Christians had attended to these problems they could have spoken with far greater meaning, with clearer and less burdened consciences than they did, with all these problems existing in their own domain. And Christians did not work together. They were undermined by communism itself that entered their ranks and weakened them. There is so much sentimentalism, too, so much softheadedness, so much un-authentic interpretation of the Gospel, so much disconnection in the minds of many Christians with the real streams of history. With such softness and softheadedness and sentimentalism, no wonder Communist doctrine and Communist infiltration met with such phenomenal success.

Q. Do you not think then that communism is to be regarded simply as a Christian heresy?

A. Well, this is another one of those clichés. It has very little truth in it. All the truth it has is that Karl Marx arose from within the German Hegelian outlook. This would have been impossible without the Christian milieu, without the positive Lutheran Christian milieu. In that very vague, distant sense, communism can perhaps be regarded as a Christian heresy, and in the sense that it expresses a certain passion for social and economic justice. Unfortunately, this is all very misleading, however; in my opinion Marx’s concern for social and economic justice is for the purpose of destroying the other positive values in Western civilization. Marx was not interested in promoting social justice while at the same time wanting to retain belief in God, belief in man, belief in religion, and in all the things I regard as the supreme values in Western life and thought. On the contrary, he wants us to inflame the masses, in order to bring about the dictatorship of the Proletariat, for the specific purpose of destroying God and man and religion and freedom and such values. So I do not see how you can call communism a heresy, let alone a Christian heresy, when you are dealing with a force whose aim is the ultimate absolute destruction of that from which it has heretically come forth. I would say that this statement should not be played up so much.

Q. What can Christians learn from the meteoric rise of world communism in little more than 40 years?

A. The most important thing to learn is that we are still living, as the Germans say, zwischen den Zeiten, “between the times,” when demonic forces can quickly soar very high and can take possession of the world in very short order. If it isn’t communism, it will be something else. This battle between Christ and the devil is an eternal thing until Christ comes again. Christians therefore should be alert. Christians cannot watch too closely. Christ told us to watch day and night; we don’t know when he is coming again. The greatest lesson we can learn is that there is no security “between the times,” no security whatever.

Q. What can we deduce from the fact that except for Lenin all of the once great Communist political leaders have been discredited?

A. I can deduce from this that the time may come when Lenin too will be discredited.

Q. Wherein lies our hope for defeat of the Communist ideology?

A. In our faith in Christ. In the unity of watching together. In never being soft. In being the first under any circ*mstances to step out and acquit ourselves honorably like men, not letting silly, soft propaganda weaken our determination. In being clear in our own minds about the ultimate issues in the world today. In praying day and night, day and night. If there is one thing I want to stress, even to the clergy, it is the absolute importance of prayer. This is the most important thing for all men who truly believe in God. I would say our hope resides in these realities.

Q. How important to this outcome is a popular resurgence of such Reformation doctrines as justification by faith alone?

A. From my own point of view, these basic Reformation doctrines have their validity, but it would be unfortunate to overemphasize them at the expense of other truths which the tradition has always held. I would therefore say that the resurgence of these doctrines, as far as they go, is important, but it must take place within the total truth. This resurgence would be dangerous if it meant a return of that spirit of the Reformation which might bring about greater disunity of the Church and further division of Christendom. I hope all of us have learned some lessons during the last thousand years, so that we may now stress not the things that separate us but the things that unite us.

Q. Do you expect the Gospel of Christ again to become culturally and socially significant in our lifetime?

A. Yes, even in our lifetime. Undoubtedly. I hold Christ to be relevant to every situation. I hold him to be present even though we don’t see him.

Q. But my question is not merely one about Christian relevance, but whether we shall again see something approximating Christian culture on a significant scale in the modern world.

A. Again I must say I am no prophet. I don’t know how these things will develop. I take courage from the fact that the Bible is now being read as much as or more than in recent decades. Bible agencies report that Bible sales are on the rise. From the lives of many people whom I know intimately I know that biblical grounding is an increasing passion in the lives of men. I also take courage from the fact that seminaries are becoming more and more biblically oriented. There are many signs of grass-roots revival in Christian quarters. I believe that even behind the Iron Curtain, and despite the oppression, many persons have awakened. I have information that this is happening in Russia itself. I know that in France, in Italy, in England, and in America there is an increasing passion and concern for Gospel truth. I think these are wonderful signs and I hope they will increase in the future. To what degree and in what fashion we shall see a truly Christian culture I don’t know.

Q. How do you explain the fact that despite the official Roman Catholic posture against communism, a Roman Catholic land like Cuba is in the Soviet camp, that Italy has the largest Red bloc outside the Soviet zone, that revolution and dictators thrive in so many Romanist lands?

A. That question perplexes me as it does many people. I’ve wondered about it myself, but haven’t figured out the whole explanation yet. But by way of suggesting lines of inquiry that might explain this situation, I would make two or three remarks. The first is, God help these countries if they did not have the Catholic church in them! You should therefore be thankful for whatever influence the Catholic church was able to exert. You are probably looking at the problem from the negative side only. Have you stopped to think how these countries would have fared if the Catholic church with its well-formed anti-Communist attitudes did not exist there? Maybe communism would have swept over all these countries. I repeat, this thing perplexes me. But I would like to note how much these countries owe to the qualitative influence of Catholicism for having withstood as much as they did the onslaught of communism. That’s one line of thought and a very important one. We sometimes forget the positive and concentrate only on what appear to be the negative aspects. And what actuates us in this is not the truth but our prejudices. The second point is that we may not be dealing with a causal relationship between Catholicism on the one hand and the spread of communism in some of the Catholic countries on the other. It may be that it is not a religious-causal relationship at all but rather a cultural-causal relationship affecting people of certain cultural outlooks, namely, people of Latin or Mediterranean or Eastern-European culture as distinguished, shall we say, from the Anglo-Saxon. Perhaps this problem is simply one of cultural temperament.

Q. Just as Marxism reflects the Russian temperament?

A. The imposition of Marxism upon Russia is an accidental thing; so we cannot say that it reflects the Russian temperament. But there is a further point on the Catholic issue that we should not forget. West Germany today is very strongly Catholic, and yet no country—not even the United States—is freer from communism than West Germany. No people on earth are more anti-Communist than the Germans, and certainly West Germany is strongly Catholic. This very striking example may tend to show that we are not dealing with a causal relationship between Catholicism and communism but rather with a cultural relationship. I should also like to call your attention to the fact that the United States, which is also partially a Catholic country, is not less anti-communist on account of its Catholics. On the contrary, they appear to be more anti-communist than the Protestants. Certain cultures, certain outlooks on life, seem to be more compatible with Marxism than others, regardless of the religion of that country. This is a question for further investigation; I’m only suggesting lines of approach. Another consideration is this: if one clings merely to an economic interpretation of life, be it socialistically or capitalistically organized, then the problem seems completely different. It is a fact that the Anglo-Saxon world, the Protestant world, is today a strongly capitalistic world. If Catholicism is not identified with capitalism, why should that fact damn it? If one looks only at economic phenomena and neglects all other distinctions, just how significantly does Anglo-Saxon capitalism differ from certain forms of socialism? So in putting the question about Catholicism and communism it is not right that this question be put with any feeling of self-righteousness; such a feeling should be severely qualified.

Q. In our quest for world peace what posture ought the Christian Church to assume in the struggle against communism?

A. The Communists say they want peace; the Christian Church wants peace. But there is “peace” and peace! Some kinds of peace seem to me to be unchristian, and the Church cannot condone them unqualifiedly. A peace that is based upon tyranny is not real peace. A peace that is based upon fighting God and Christ is not the right kind of peace. And a peace that is based upon international peace but is simultaneously waging class war is not Christian. The Christian Church ought to say, “We’re all for peace; but we want a peace that respects God and Christ and men; we want a peace that is not based on tyranny; we want a peace that is ‘all out’ peace—peace between classes as much as peace between nations.”

Q. Is nuclear war inevitable? A. No.

Q. If not, how can we avoid it?

A. Through greater unity in the Western ranks, through the development of new techniques for challenging the Communist threat, through separating the people who are ruled by the Communist party from their rulers. This is something that Western leaders have not dared to do very much. They seem to think that the identification of ruler and ruled behind the Iron Curtain is an ironclad and fixed identification. So there are many ways to avert nuclear war. One thing we must never overlook, namely, the devastating cost of military weakness. We ought to maintain and increase whatever strength we can have. I sincerely believe that the mobilized resources of the Free World—economic, political, moral, and spiritual—far outweigh any mobilized resources of the Communist world.

Q. How firm should the Free World be in the face of Communist aggression?

A. Very firm, immovably firm.

Q. Who is winning the Cold War?

A. The Communists, if you compare their status in the world now with their status 10 years ago, let alone 20.

Q. Which way will the so-called “Arab bloc” go?

A. In a crisis, I think some members will be neutral, but some, I think, would co-operate with the Western cause.

Q. How will the Israeli-Arab conflict be resolved?

A. You ask me a question before which I feel profoundly humble. I have no idea how it will be solved. I hope war will not break out between the two sides; that’s certainly the minimum we should hope and work for, and I think this hope can be achieved. We must leave the matter to the future.

Q. Is world government inevitable? A. No.

Q. If it comes, is it likely to be a form of political democracy or of totalitarianism?

A. Political democracy—a development of the United Nations.

Q. Do you expect that in our lifetime communism may become passé as a world force?

A. If you say “may,” yes. If you say “shall,” I would reply, I don’t know. It is possible for the West, for the non-Communist forces of the world, so to organize, mobilize, and deploy themselves as to bring about a disintegration of communism from within.

Q. What new ideology ought the Christian to look for as he peers beyond communism into the future?

A. A Christian ideology can only be one that is integrally grounded in the mind of Christ. Such an ideology would place spiritual things above material things; would affirm God the Creator, Christ the Redeemer, the Holy Ghost the Giver of life; would stress the Church; would stress man and his absolute dignity as the creature of God, created in his divine image and later redeemed by the blood of Christ. It would certainly have a social message, an international message of peace, equality, and mutual respect. The strong will come to the support of the weak, and the weak will be humble and not rebellious. The infinite potential of science and industry can be turned to the enrichment of human life in a completely unprecedented manner that would bring blessing and happiness to all mankind, insofar as these depend upon material things. Because of human sin and human corruption, government and order will be of the essence; the Christian ideology cannot be an anarchic ideology. Education will be stressed. But unless the intellectual, the political, and the economic are put in their proper place as instruments willed by God for the sake of man—who is created in God’s image and has fallen away from that grace, and yet, thank God, has been redeemed by Christ—they always have a tendency to overwhelm the human spirit and to rebel against God. So this is my vision of what you termed “Christian ideology.” While he hopes for these things, believes in these things, and works for these things, the Christian ought to be very humble; he should not expect miracles except as they are authentically wrought by the Holy Ghost.

Tarkio, Missouri, where I am presently engaged as a professor, is noted for the following four things although not necessarily in the following order: Tarkio College—a fast growing Presbyterian liberal arts school, two banks, popcorn, and pellets. Colleges and banks you somewhat understand, and maybe popcorn, but then did you know that the popcorn is largely controlled by a theater chain—when you integrate business you have to control your sources of supply—and could you know that Tarkio may well be the popcorn center of the world?

Pellets are something else again, so in due course I went down to look upon the Tarkio Pelleting Plant. Pellets are little units of food mixed and molded about the size of the last joint on your little finger. At the top of the plant are great bins filled with various grains and grasses and somewhere in the arrangements of bins and conveyors there are binders such as molasses. By a judicious playing upon certain buttons at the floor level of the plant, grains, grasses, and binders move through the giant mechanism to come out at the end of the line as molded pellets of food exactly balanced to suit the needs of fresh cows or baby steers or fat pigs. There is no guessing here; first-rate farmers, county agents, and state university agriculturists are constantly looking in on these matters, and it is pretty well assumed that all hands know exactly what they are doing in the feeding of pigs and beef at every stage from the cradle to the grave, and by the looks of the animals around here they are running a very successful enterprise in this part of the country.

Now to some current religious thoughts. From the wide doors of the pelleting plant one looks across to a huge metal building and I went to see this building. The inside floor area looked about the size of half a football field, the height of the building was better than three stories, and this huge building was about half filled with shelled corn, not needed by the pelleting plant, not needed by anybody apparently; it was just stored grain. Inquiry brought the information that the farmers would still be bringing more shelled corn and that the building could not possibly hold it all. “Yes,” I said, “I can see that this year’s yield will be very heavy.” “Not this year’s,” they told me. “They will be bringing in last year’s crop to store here to have room to store this year’s crop in their own bins.” And from the door of this huge building we could look up a little rise to rows and rows of the round grain storage bins there—all of them full. Along with corn and popcorn, pigs, steers, and horses, the storage bins for grain now characterize the landscape in any direction you may look in the rich central grain states of our blessed rich country. The end is not yet; this year’s crop “they say” will be the biggest ever.

The man who runs the storehouse came out to meet us. “Do you know what?” he said before introductions, “I just figured out that a megaton has the same power as a heap of TNT a mile square and three miles high.” Thus he had been whiling away some of his spare time on a bright brisk afternoon in Missouri. The storage bins and the megatons began to chew away at me and they began to interlock in my puzzled and sometimes addled brain.

H. L. Mencken suggested one time that the really large problems facing humanity are insoluble, and I always thought of this as another of his cynicisms. But the problems of farm surplus and atomic bombs, together or separately, have me on dead center in my thinking time. I try my best to keep informed and to pass rational judgments and I try to think what the Christian church and the Christian minister can speak to these amazingly awful problems which are amongst us. There is no use carping and criticizing; no one knows any good answers yet and I sometimes suspect that we shall only discover the answers in a context of absolute repentence and waiting on God, but then it appears that most of the people who are deciding our grain and megaton problems are not yet ready for godly fear or godly sorrow, which leaves one with the historically-sound guess that only terrible tragedy can once again bring us to our knees and no one likes to think about that or even preach about that.

Meanwhile, quite bright and decent men are making money not raising grain, or raising too much grain, or selling storage bins, or hauling surpluses now here and now there, and other bright fellows are thinking up ways of putting this or that foreign megapolis “on target” and figuring out meanwhile whether to press the fatal red button first or take a chance on pressing the red button a very close second. And all the while you have the eerie feeling that some not-so-nice people are just a bit trigger happy to send us on our way.

Frequently I try to solve problems by imaging what I would do if I had all power and authority. That way I wouldn’t have to worry about getting people to do things and would have to think only about ends and not means. Then when the ends and goals are clear I can think about the ways and means, the possibilities. But on surpluses and megatons I can’t think of any answers at all. The senselessness of our surpluses in the midst of world need leaves my religion in utter frustration; the impossibility of imagining either winning or losing an atomic war makes me ashamed of either answer in terms of the Christian hope; the requirements laid upon me as a father of a family who ought to provide for the safety of his children leaves me with the choice of staying out in the open to be hit or to be eaten away with fallout and the equally frightful choice of bringing my family into the open, crawling out of our bomb shelter into the world that has been bombed. What is responsible loving care in such a case? Could it be in God’s merciful and sufficient wisdom that the surplus bins are to take care of the people who last the blast and that these bins should now be coated with some covering to protect them from fallout? Is that why the bins stand ready? And what provision is anyone making for the water supply?

Tertullian said that he believed Christianity because its is “absurd.” What he meant in his day was that if his world made sense then he was looking for an answer that didn’t make sense in this world’s sensibleness. In the absurdities of our day are we ready for the radical answer of Christ, the “absurd” answer, the “foolishness of God.” Along such lines we shall have to begin to look for our answers and our message. God has given us the desires of our hearts—riches, brains, power—and we have “confusion of face” because our desire has not been for him. So read a “non book” and eat some “non food” and peradventure we shall soon be nonexistent.

Words—Their Use And Abuse In Theology

The Semantics of Biblical Language, by James Barr (Oxford, 1961, 313 pp., 37s 6d), is reviewed by Berkeley Mickelsen, Associate Professor of Bible and Theology, Wheaton College (Illinois).

Here is a book which examines the use of linguistic evidence in theological argument. The investigation is very thorough. More than that, the self-imposed task of the author amounts to an extremely difficult assignment. Professor Barr “takes on singlehanded” biblical theologians, dogmatic theologians, and those linguists whose approach, so far as Professor Barr is concerned, resembles that of biblical theologians. Some very sound judgments are made. At the same time the critic opens himself to criticism by those who would differ from certain of his conclusions. He, like those whom he criticizes, is controlled by certain basic assumptions in theology. All of us are. Were he to write a fresh volume on any of the themes he discusses, he certainly would avoid etymological, atomistic, and artificial generalizations in linguistics. But his own selection and presentation of carefully-tested linguistical data would certainly show the basic assumptions of his own Weltanschauung. However, as a critic, Professor Barr is to be commended for a fine spirit.

The book is divided into 10 chapters. In chapter one the importance of the problem is discussed. The writer proposes “to survey and to criticize certain lines on which modern theological thinking has been assessing and using the linguistic material of the Bible” (p. 4). He makes plain that he is not criticizing biblical or any other kind of theology as such. He has one interest; namely, how does this theologian use linguistical data?

Next the author takes up the current habit of contrasting Greek and Hebrew thought. He feels that most of the contrasts are obtained by assuming a difference and then picking out examples to show that this is so. Evidence which does not fit the contrast is ignored. He discusses the supposed contrasts of static and dynamic, abstract and concrete, and the duality and unity of man.

Chapter three is devoted to the problems of method. Have theologians in their use of linguistical data examined the Greek and Hebrew languages as a whole? Have they related what is said about either language to a general semantic method which is the product of general linguistics? The author says, No. He also discusses whether there is a relation between thought pattern and structure of language.

From method the author turns to performance. Extensive discussion is given to verbs, action, and time. Theological arguments involving these syntactical elements are discussed. He feels that there is an undue dependence on older grammars which lack clarity on certain points of syntax. At these points the older grammars need the stricter method of modern linguistics. The author himself holds the older and newer emphases in linguistics in a fine balance. He is not against the older grammars; he is just for good grammar, be the work old or new.

He also discusses theological arguments involving the construct state in Hebrew, dynamism in numerals and number, and the excessive emphasis on the “root” of Hebrew words. This latter point broadens out into a whole chapter titled “Etymologies and Related Arguments” (chap. 6). Over 50 pages are devoted to this theme. Specific examples of theological argument based upon etymology are given. Such themes as Qahal-ekklesia (Assembly-congregation), dabar (word, matter), baptism, and man make for most interesting and exciting reading.

The examination of linguistic arguments centering in the Greek and Hebrew words for “faith” and “truth” (chap. 7) reaches a high mark of excellence. Professor Barr notes that usage cannot be ignored because of some supposed over-all etymological control. Where there is more than one valid linguistical possibility, these are noted. The author’s own preference is made clear. The lexical meaning of “trust” and “believe” for the hiphil he’emiyn is stressed and its neglect is regarded as “the basic error” (p. 175) in the type of theological argument being examined.

Chapter eight looks at some principles of Kittel’s Theological Dictionary. This was a difficult chapter to write. Professor Barr is on solid ground in examining what the individual writers do. He also seeks to give a critical analysis of the basic principles behind this monumental work. But though this reviewer appreciates his fine endeavors, he does not necessarily agree with his conclusions. The issues are far more complex than Barr’s analysis may lead some readers to believe. For example, much is said about “external” and “inner” lexicography. External lexicography is the type found in Bauer’s lexicon (in English, Arndt and Gingrich edition). It deals with word substitution. “Inner” lexicography, a term found in Kögel, Kittel, and utilized in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, involves, according to Barr, the field of thought with which the words are related (pp. 216–217). Word histories are merged into idea histories. Barr rejects inner lexicography. “Words have no more than their semantic function” (p. 245). To this reviewer such a rejection seems arbitrary and is based on a formal descriptive-historical approach to lexicography. Barr is correct in saying that in theology the sentence ought to be the basic unit rather than the word (pp. 249–250), and that propositions are essential for thought (pp. 245–246). The fact that bad propositions exist does not imply that propositions as such are bad. Nevertheless, words which may be isolated as independent lexical elements by the grammarian do play an indispensable role as an organic part of ideas, themes, and teachings found in Scripture. To set forth in a theological lexicon these ideas, themes, and teachings is certainly proper. But it is foolish to claim that a single word carries a greater freight of meaning than it really does. Criticism of this common practice has been needed for a long time. On the other hand, to throw out “inner lexicography” because of serious abuses in handling the material is also unwarranted. Barr’s view of words and the realities signified by them certainly needs to be called into question on some points (pp. 211, 231). He insists that revelation itself has no effect upon language (just how Barr means this is not clear, see pp. 248–249). He also has an obvious antipathy to Bauer’s frequent use of the word “supernatural” (p. 255). Barr himself has a lot to say about the fact that in theology there are “good” words and “bad” words (p. 281). One wonders if “supernatural” is only a “good” word if not used too often!

In chapter nine the author proposes a better way to approach biblical language in its relation to theology. This chapter is a must for every theologian and has many helpful suggestions. Especially pertinent are the criticisms of a theological hermeneutics which neglects linguistics as a science.

The book concludes on the theme of languages and the study of theology (chap. 10). Here the writer makes a fervent plea (reiterated often throughout the book) for the study of biblical languages to be integrated with the study of general linguistics. He believes both in historical and descriptive linguistics. He is all for comparative philology of a contemporary variety. From a study involving these elements he is convinced that a sound philosophy of language will develop.

Since theology without language study is empty, and since language study without theology is blind to the full significance of lexicography and syntax, both theologians and linguists should work together. How tragic for the theologian to be a bad linguist and for the linguist to be a bad theologian or, even worse, to disclaim any interest in theology! It is the fervent wish of this reviewer that Professor Barr’s book will help both theologians and linguists catch a vision of “new worlds to conquer.”

BERKELEY MICKELSEN

Between Two Theologies

Emil Brunner: An Introduction to the Man and His Thought, by Paul K. Jewett (Inter-Varsity Press, 1961, 43 pp., $1.25), is reviewed by Anthony A. Hoekema, Professor of Systematic Theology, Calvin Seminary.

Written by a theological professor whose doctoral studies concerned Brunner’s view of revelation, this little book sets forth in competent fashion some of Brunner’s outstanding contributions. Brunner is characterized as a theologian who is equally opposed to both liberalism and orthodoxy. Revelation, for Brunner, is an event in which God encounters me. Biblical truth is not it-truth but thou-truth; it can never be contained in any system, but can only be expressed in paradoxes. The Bible is for Brunner neither verbally inspired nor inerrant; it is only a human word about the Divine Word.

While appreciative of much that is good, the author maintains that Brunner has not succeeded in providing us with an acceptable antidote to liberalism. At certain crucial points Brunner’s theology is shown to be pitifully weak; the historicity of Adam, the trustworthiness of our faith, and the normativity of the Bible.

Professor Jewett’s style is concise and clear. Though popularly written, this book is the work of a scholar and is highly recommended as a brief survey of Brunner’s thought.

ANTHONY A. HOEKEMA

Trial By Ordeal

Show Me a Miracle, by J. Jerry Cacopardo and Don Weldon (E. P. Dutton and Co., 1961, 220 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Henry W. Coray, author of Son of Tears.

This is a personal story of a Presbyterian minister who passed the best 15 years of his life in prison, “framed” by an uncle who headed a New York arsonic ring. Indicted and sentenced for a murder he never committed, Mr. Cacopardo does admit with commendable honesty that early in life he involved himself in evil companionships which contributed to the corruption of his morals. The events leading to his imprisonment, the dreary frustrating years spent in “stir,” the contacts made there, the law’s sickening delays before he was sprung, his subsequent trial by ordeal while preparing for the ministry, and finally his varied activities as a pastor, these are related with fine coloring, sly humor, and a realism that carries you right to the end and leaves you strangely moved. The tragic note in the book is the subject’s statement (p. 14): “I have found the most gratifying kind of atonement and self-realization in the pulpit, in hospital calls, in group therapy with jail inmates, in personal counseling, and in many other facets of a minister’s mission to exalt the dignity of the human spirit.” What, one wonders, becomes of the one atonement provided by Christ, or what about His exaltation?

HENRY W. CORAY

The Methodists Surprise

Methodism and Society in Theological Perspective, by S. Paul Schilling (Abingdon, 1960, 318 pp., $5) is reviewed by Harold B. Kuhn, Professor of Philosophy of Religion, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky.

This volume is one of a set of four, projected by the Board of Social and Economic Relations of the Methodist Church, and dealing with the general subject “Methodism and Society.” Professor Schilling seeks to combine in one volume two things: (1) a survey of what theological and social attitudes exist in modern Methodism and (2) a projection of what ought to be in the denomination’s approach to our social scene, today and tomorrow. To determine the rank-and-file attitude of Methodists toward Christian beliefs and toward social thought, the author has submitted a questionnaire. The results of this questionnaire have been set alongside the teachings of the major writers in the field of social ethics since the promulgation of the “Social Creed” in 1908.

Some of the results are surprising. Alongside major emphases upon the theme, “I believe in Man,” which have been projected by denominational leaders (and this manifesto is a slippery one, for in some sense each believes in his fellow man) there has persisted among rank-and-file Methodists the view that man’s worth is rooted in his relation to God, and that the improvement of society will be achieved, if at all, through essentially individualistic means and as a result of individual conversions. The tabulation of the results of the questionnaire, which is one of a series of useful appendices, is rather remarkable in that it shows that the essentially social orientation, which the official pronouncements of the denomination has embodied, has by no means eliminated from the thinking of the 5,000 Methodists polled the belief in the theological principles embodied in the Twenty-Five Articles.

The work is perhaps most ambiguous in its attempt to account for the manner in which the denomination’s Social Creed developed. The author does not explain how early Methodists, with no overt social program, brought to bear upon eighteenth-and nineteenth-century society powerfully reforming forces. He acknowledges tacitly that, alongside the half-century of the promulgation of a well-formulated Social Creed (projected without well-defined theological bases), there still exist vast areas of social inconsistency in the thought of Methodists, particularly at the point of race relationships. The volume does not undertake to present a complete account of Methodist activity in the social field. Nothing is said, for example, of the work of the Federation for Social Action.

The author himself seeks a middle way: he would suggest that Christian social ethics be undergirded by what he calls a “theology of salvation” by means of which the traditional theological categories of Methodist theology (and especially that of sanctification) be applied to today’s society. He envisions a form of “social sanctification” by which society in general may be delivered from unlovely attitudes and activities. To what extent he would espouse a personal and individual conversion and sanctification, along the general biblical lines proposed by historic Methodism, is a question. The reviewer was left in perplexity, particularly at the point of whether the transformed individual was to be the major point of reference in the achievement of “social holiness,” or whether the writer proposed some sort of social application of theological principles which he hoped would make a major reforming thrust into the social group.

The volume is interesting; it may seem to many ambiguous in that it does not distinguish sharply enough between what is and what ought to be. Should the Christian Church be a mirror which reflects the social moods of the day and adapts her theological categories to them? Or should the Church of the living God, in the name of her Head, challenge that which exists, in terms of that which ought to be?

HAROLD B. KUHN

No Axe To Grind

A Systematic Study of the New Analytical Bible, by Don Cleveland Norman (John A. Dickson, 1961, four books divided into 52 studies, each about 55 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by Elmer Ost, Associate Professor of Christian Education, North Park College, Chicago, Illinois.

Here are four easy workbooks, to be used with The New Analytical Bible published by the same company, and containing true-false, multiple choice, fillins for a word or a passage. Factual answers are called for, which are to be checked by means of the page number where the answer is to be found. The lessons deal largely with the helps provided in the New Analytical Bible, but some deal with biblical material itself, also in a factual way. The danger of “doing” one’s study book by means of finding the word or sentence needed to answer a question is recognized in the introduction. There the student is urged to read the whole paragraph or page even though he has already found the answer.

The New Analytical Bible study aids strike this reviewer as most sane and as leading a student to a conservative middle-of-the-road Christian understanding of the Bible itself. It has no axe to grind; often it presents more than one view.

The devout reader of the Bible will find this an aid. He will gain the satisfaction of dealing with significant material in an easy way and the pleasure of checking his answers immediately for correctness. This is of course the limitation of a self-checking workbook; it cannot call for responses not already formulated. For this type of thoughtful response to the Bible one’s study should include the communal study experienced within the Church lest the facts lie dormant in informed but isolated Christians.

ELMER OST

Challenge Of Homemaking

Beautiful Homemaking, by Charlene Johnson (Augustana Press, 1961, 136 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by Thea B. Van Halsema, Author of This Was John Calvin.

In an intimately-written book geared especially to young mothers like herself, Charlene Johnson develops her conviction that “our Saviour wants each one of us to be at her best in every way.” One may question how much place things like party planning, decorating ideas, diet, and makeup rules should have in a book intended to emphasize the distinctively Christ-centered aspects of homemaking. But certainly many young women who confront this challenging role will be both warmed and inspired by what Mrs. Johnson has to share with them.

THEA B. VAN HALSEMA

Jerusalem In God’S Plan

Jerusalem in the New Testament. The Significance of the City in the History of Redemption and Eschatology, by James Calvin De Young (Kampen, Holland: J. H. Kok, 1960, 168 pp., f. 5, 90), is reviewed by Merrill C. Tenney, Dean of the Graduate School, Wheaton College (Illinois).

Written primarily for scholars, and presented as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Theology at the Free University of Amsterdam, this erudite work covers every phase of the teaching on Jerusalem in the New Testament. The subject is treated under four heads: The Name Jerusalem in the New Testament, dealing exhaustively with the two spellings in the Greek text and their significance; God’s Chosen City, including the relation of Jerusalem to the plan of God and the career of Jesus; The Rejection of Jerusalem, relating to the fate of the historical Jerusalem; and The Eschatological Jerusalem. The text is heavily annotated, and an index of authors mentioned completes the work.

The writer does not attempt any discussion of the archaeology or topography of Jerusalem, but confines his attention to the significance of the city in the teaching of the New Testament. Both the literal and figurative uses of Jerusalem are treated in detail, and corollary subjects such as Jesus and the Temple are treated at some length. The bibliographical references to English, German, and Dutch literature will be quite valuable to anyone who wishes to make a thorough study of the subject, and there are overtones in the book that should interest students of eschatology. The writer’s distinction between the heavenly Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem deserves attention. The author’s knowledge of the viewpoints on the subject and of pertinent literature is almost encyclopedic.

MERRILL C. TENNEY

Hope For The Disinherited

A Long Honeymoon Among Lepers, Outcasts and Aborigines, by M. P. Davis (privately published, 1960, 212 pp., $3), is reviewed by Harold Lindsell, Vice President, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California.

The volume represents half a century’s labor as a missionary to the lepers of India. The account is autobiographical, and springs not so much from memory which is elusive, as from diaries, letters, mission records and memorabilia. The style leaves much to be desired but the account itself is fresh and compelling and springs from the heart of a man whose life was committed to the work of God among the outcast lepers. From the vantage point of cultural anthropology and its relationship to missionary work the book serves a good purpose. For light, interesting, and touching reading this will fill the bill.

HAROLD LINDSELL

Church Union By Liturgy

The Reform of Liturgical Worship, by Massey H. Shepherd, Jr. (Oxford, 1961, 118 pp., $3), is reviewed by F. R. Webber, Author of A History of Preaching in Britain and America.

To those of us who are not Episcopalians, a Book of Common Prayer of 1961 does not differ greatly from one of 1861 except in typography. However, Professor Shepherd, who teaches liturgies in Church Divinity School of the Pacific, calls attention to revisions, many of which have been made for the purpose of keeping the Book in step with the times. He gives special attention to the revisions of 1880 to 1928.

Many Episcopal writers leave the impression that today’s forms of worship began with Cranmer and the Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552. They seem to infer that non-Episcopalians, in recent years, are beginning to imitate Episcopal customs and forms of worship. Professor Shepherd does not follow this usual party line, for he mentions the fact that Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists have their traditional liturgical forms. Luther’s Formula Missae of 1526, based upon ancient pre-Reformation orders of worship, has been used unbrokenly by most branches of Lutheranism for 435 years.

In his closing chapter Professor Shepherd offers a plan of agreement and possible future union involving Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists. His suggested basis is liturgical agreement rather than the usual efforts at doctrinal unity. His book is most interesting, yet many of us believe more is needed than an interdenominational agreement that “we have left undone those things which we ought to have done; and we have done those things which we ought not to have done.” A definite doctrinal understanding regarding the truths clearly revealed in Holy Scripture is more important.

F. R. WEBBER

Letter From Silas?

The Epistle to the Hebrews, by Thomas Hewitt (Eerdmans, 1960, 217 pp., $3), is reviewed by David H. Wallace, Associate Professor of Biblical Theology, California Baptist Theological Seminary, Covina, California.

The author of this Tyndale Commentary is secretary of the Church Society of the Church of England. Of the 217 pages in the book, 32 are given to a short and useful introduction to the epistle. He discusses the general critical problems of authorship, whether the readers were Jewish or Gentile Christians, the destination, date, occasion, and purpose of the letter. He rejects the thesis of Pauline authorship and makes an interesting case for the possibility that Silas (i.e., Silvanus) was the author. The Hebrew Christians of Rome were the probable original readers of the letter.

In the foreword Mr. Hewitt implies that his treatment of Hebrews 5:7 merits special attention. The heart of the discussion is the interpretation of the Greek preposition ek as it bears on the death of Christ. The AV and the RSV both render it “from” death, whereas Hewitt understands it to read “out of” death. If the translation “from” is adopted, it implies that Christ’s prayer was not attended by the Father, and that the prayers offered up by the Son were not in accord with the will of the Father. The author’s conclusion is that “out of” is to be preferred because of the willingness of the Son to face death for all men.

Acknowledgment is made of the debt of the author to three well-known scholars who have labored fruitfully over this Epistle to the Hebrews; they are Westcott, Moffatt, and W. Manson. It is curious that no reference is made to the great Catholic commentary by C. Spicq. Although the author usually footnotes his sources of citation, he is not consistent. For example, he quotes from Manson (p. 30), but fails to identify the source or page; the same is the case in a quotation from Wickham (p. 40); and on pages 43–44 James Denney is cited without specific reference. The Scottish scholar F. F. Bruce is incorrectly identified with wrong initials (p. 41). On page 44 the author affirms that Hebrews is “the only book of the New Testament which refers to the priesthood of Christ.” In a limited sense this is correct, but John 17 and several passages in the Apocalypse surely allow the function of Christ as priest. These are trifling details, however, and it must be added that the commentary is lucid in its style and dependable in its exegesis.

David H. Wallace

Inside Roman Catholicism

The Voices of France, by James M. Connolly (Macmillan, 1961, 231 pp., $5.50), is reviewed by Robert Preus, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, Concordia Theological Seminary.

The title of this volume may be a bit misleading. The author, a Roman Catholic priest and presently teacher at Bishop Dubois High School in New York, reviews only the contributions of contemporary Roman Catholic theologians in France. This fact may also seem to indicate a lack of balance, for it would appear arbitrary and difficult to confine one’s studies merely to what French Catholics have done. But these limitations which the author sets do not in any way detract from the value of the book. His purpose is to inform Roman Catholics and Protestants alike regarding the productions of theologians who have been relatively unknown and neglected in this country. But more than this, he wishes to allay the fears of Americans that French theologians are radicals and hidden innovators. In both purposes he is eminently successful.

After preliminary discussion of the biblical revival, the liturgical movement, and the Patristic revival which led to our present era, Connolly offers excellent reviews of the five major theologians of France today: Albert Dondeyne, Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Piere Teilhard de Chardin, and Jean Danielou. The author is clearly sympathetic with those theologians who wend a middle way between strict Roman orthodoxy and that more liberal theology which has been touched by humanistic, existential, and scientific influences.

Many significant facts are brought out in the book. We learn how clearly Romanism has been affected by existentialism and the so-called “Biblical Movement.” We discern that the Roman church is plagued with the same internal skepticism and running after new winds of doctrine as Protestantism, and also by the same paralysis in coping with these problems. Ultimately Rome is forced to meet these threatening encroachments only by force and dogmatism. It is to the credit of men like Lagrange that the dangers in modernism and higher criticism were quickly seen. But it was papal encyclicals that finally settled these problems.

Any reader wishing to acquaint himself with contemporary Roman Catholic theology will find this volume an invaluable introduction.

ROBERT PREUS

Black Supremacy

The Black Muslims in America, by C. Eric Lincoln (Beacon, 1961, 276 pp., $4.95), is reviewed by L. Nelson Bell, Executive Editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

This book brings to light a movement of which relatively few Americans are aware, namely, of an angry group of militant Negro racists who make Negro supremacy a religion, and exploit current racial tensions in a way calculated to hinder rather than hasten the Christian solution of a difficult situation.

Dr. Lincoln has performed a real service in his exhaustive study. It is not pleasant reading. The name “Black Muslims” seems more a phrase of mystical appeal than of adherance to the Muslim faith. The movement is violently anti-Christian.

Probably the outstanding significance of the movement lies in the fact that it calls for complete separation of the races while it looks for ultimate Negro supremacy. This form of racial pride is something new, and again it is based on hate, not love, a hate so violent that the better-known Negro leaders turn from it and regard the movement as an evil comparable to anything found in “white supremacy.”

The value of this book lies in its careful study of a situation as far afield from the Christian approach as is the violence of KKK extremists.

L. NELSON BELL

Luke And The Moderns

Luke the Historian in Recent Study, by C. K. Barrett (Epworth, 1961, 76 pp, 8s 6d), is reviewed by I. Howard Marshall, Tutor, Didsbury Methodist College, Bristol, England.

Those who thought the question of the historicity of Luke-Acts was decisively settled by conservative scholars like Ramsay 50 years ago have a rude awakening before them. During the last 20 years there has been an intensified study of Luke and Acts and a proliferation of books and articles, mainly in German, which suggest that the question is very much open. Dr. Barrett’s compressed but very rich survey of recent research provides an indispensable guide for the student.

After discussing the current state of opinion on six questions (text, influence of ancient historiography, Hellenistic romances and Jewish thought, use of sources and Luke’s ecclesiastical background), Dr. Barrett summarizes the standpoints and contributions of six recent writers. These are M. Dibelius whose style-critical studies have inspired the new look in Lucan research; B. Gärtner, A. Ehrhardt, and R. Morgenthaler, all of whom represent a much more conservative and positive outlook; and two writers who follow the tradition of Dibelius, H. Conzelmann, who gives us “the outstanding modern assessment of Lucan theology,” and E. Haenchen, author of a voluminous commentary on Acts.

Finally, Dr. Barrett examines a number of questions raised by the work of these authors, but without directly discussing the validity of their conclusions. He thinks that Luke was primarily a preacher of the Good News who conveyed his message in the form of history. His purpose, which was dictated by the state of the church in which he lived, was to show the relation of the rise of the Church to the earthly life of Jesus. Luke completely rejected gnosticism, and introduced an element of history into apocalyptic; but his work cannot be called a specimen of Frühkatholizmus (E. Kasemann), in which the church has become an institutional agency for dispensing salvation.

The problems raised at present about Luke are different from those of a former period. The question now is whether Luke the theologian has given us a reliable history of the early Church. Dr. Barrett has given us a useful discussion of Luke as a theologian, but, although he throws out many sane remarks on the matter, he has not come to grips with Luke the historian, and with the question whether his narrative is essentially factual and accurate. In his commentary E. Haenchen has shown a degree of skepticism towards the narrative of Acts only rivaled by that of Bultmann towards the Gospels. It is a pity that Dr. Barrett has not done more to provide a corrective; perhaps critical scholarship does not feel capable of assessing Luke’s history until it has assessed his theology.

I. HOWARD MARSHALL

Colossus Of Bedford

John Bunyan, by Ola Elizabeth Winslow (Macmillan, 1961, 242 pp., $5), is reviewed by Clyde S. Kilby, Chairman of the Department of English, Wheaton College (Illinois).

The author of this book, a Pulitzer Prize biographer, says she has no new facts to reveal about the life of John Bunyan. Nevertheless she has written a substantial and significant biography. The feat it accomplishes is to set the meagerly-known details of Bunyan’s life against the vivid religious and political events of his time. Miss Winslow uses the rich treasury of documents in the British Museum to saturate her reader in the atmosphere of Bedfordshire in the turbulent seventeenth century. Picturing Bunyan’s neighbors and friends, and also enemies, she is able, for instance, to suggest the prototypes for many of the characters in Pilgrim’s Progress.

Most of Miss Winslow’s readers will be surprised to learn that Bunyan was the author of sixty volumes, Pilgrim’s Progress being the twenty-third in order. Several of these books are examined in some detail. Miss Winslow points out that Bunyan was neither ignorant nor uncultivated, as many have supposed, though the limits of his culture were deliberately narrow. Even though she constantly makes us aware of the weighty religious atmosphere surrounding the Puritans, she never treats them with disdain. We get a good conception of jails often crowded with dissenters who had violated the Conventicle Act and of the final victory of people who were determined at whatever cost to obtain religious freedom.

CLYDE S. KILBY

The Problem Of Evil

Love Almighty and Ills Unlimited, by Austin Farrer (Doubleday, 1961, 168 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Fred H. Klooster, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, Calvin Theological Seminary.

The author writes for Christians who are intrigued or tormented by the riddle of providence and evil. However, the entire approach of Farrer roots in a dichotomy between the natural and the supernatural. The first five chapters approach the problem “in the main by the light of natural reason,” while the remaining three contain allusions to Scripture. His view of man (somewhat resembling that of Reinhold Niebuhr, consulting editor of the Christian Faith Series in which this volume appears) is that of a beast who has culturally learned the art of speech and thereby acquired likeness to God. Man’s real need for salvation roots in this animal nature, a need which has simply been intensified by sin.

Farrer gives no consideration to Ephesians 1:11 or Romans 8:28 ff. The whole of history is not under the sovereign control of God: providence is essentially but the overruling of God who brines good out of the blackest evil. “I think that God’s creation begins from below with a chaos of non-rational forces, each acting of itself with inexhaustible energy; and I view the degree of order and the complication of structure which Providence has drawn from these beginnings as a miracle of patient overruling. The marvel is, the chaos is not more” (p. 130 f.). The scriptural account of Adam’s sin is regarded as a “fable,” and the Christian today is said no longer to need Satan except perhaps as an “allegorical convention.”

The solution which the author presents is a speculative one, but then so is the question, he suggests. A practical solution often found by peasants and housewives, however, is simply to trust in God’s mercy and thus to be led out of evil into a promised good. In faith such a person will feel the movement of the purpose of God, and rather than argue, he will love, “and what is loved is always known as good” (p. 64).

The evangelical Christian will not be satisfied with Farrer’s description of the problem, nor with his suggested solution. “How hard it is to please all parties!” he declares at one point (p. 119). His middle-of-the-road position is something of a neo-orthodox approach in which the old motif of nature-supernature reappears. At any rate, Farrer is always interesting reading.

FRED H. KLOOSTER

Wesleyan Witness

From Age to Age: A Living Witness, by Leslie Ray Marston (Light and Life Press, 1960; 608 pp., $6), is reviewed by S. Richey Kamm, Professor of Social Science and Division Chairman, Wheaton College (Illinois).

The year 1960 marks the centennial of the Free Methodist Church which began as a reform movement within American Methodism in the mid-nineteenth century. Central to its early protest against the growing secularism of the parent body was its insistence upon the primacy of the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification or perfect love and the necessity of a Christian experience which included a life disciplined to biblical precepts. As social and prudential issues such as slavery, anti-secrecy, free pews, and paid choirs became identified with the doctrinal controversy, the “Nazarites” were eventually dismissed from membership in their respective Methodist societies and conferences. In this crisis Free Methodism was raised up, as its founders believed, to perpetuate the distinctive doctrines and practices of early Methodism.

Bishop Marston is greatly concerned that the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification be clearly understood. He devotes fully half of his study to a consideration of this theme as developed by both John Wesley and Benjamin Titus Roberts, the early leader of Free Methodism. Paramount in Marston’s thought is the stress that both men laid upon the radical change wrought at the core of a person who thus experienced God’s grace in sanctification and the consequent evidences of self-discipline and social concern in the life of the believer.

The bishop is at his best when he discusses the issue of “Disciplined Living” in the history of Free Methodism and its significance for twentieth-century Christians. He treads lightly when dealing with such controversial issues as fanaticism in Christian prudentials which sometimes characterized the church in its early years. The early insistence upon congregational singing in Free Methodist public worship to the exclusion of instrumental or choral music is justified as part of an effort to restore to the congregation an active part in the service.

What of the future for Free Methodism? Bishop Marston is quite sure that his church is no longer a sect but a denomination with an identifying message and a sense of community with those denominations and movements which are biblically-centered in their distinctive emphases. He is further assured that the role of Free Methodists must be to proclaim their historic Wesleyan position and to continue the protest against secularism in American society. The standards of faith and practice which he lays down for Free Methodists in the second century are well in accord with the peculiar emphases of evangelical Methodists and Bible-believing Christians in general. What may be of more than passing interest is the absence of the traditional term holiness in both statements of guiding principles (pp. 559, 572).

Bishop Marston has written a history of Free Methodism which will serve as a helpful guide to the members of his denominations and to spiritually-minded Christians in all evangelical communions.

S. R. KAMM

Evangelist Extraordinary

The Billy Sunday Story, by Lee Thomas (Zondervan, 1961, 256 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Faris D. Whitesell, Professor of Preaching, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary.

In evangelism more than 40 years, Billy Sunday was America’s leading evangelist for a full generation. At the height of his career, 1914–1920, he held notable campaigns in such great American cities as New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Washington, Chicago, and Kansas City, and used wooden tabernacles seating up to 20,000 people.

The reviewer heard Billy Sunday preach many times and attended some of his greatest campaigns. He can testify that this book is a faithful, factual, and thrilling report of the work of Sunday and his party. Dr. Lee Thomas, pastor of South Hills Baptist Church, Covina, California, was authorized by Mrs. (Ma) Sunday to write this book. In addition to her own memories of those exciting years, she gave him full access to her private Billy Sunday materials. Written from a sympathetic point of view, and accompanied by over 20 pages of good photographs, this story dignifies evangelism and glorifies Jesus Christ.

FARIS D. WHITESELL

Land Of The Pharaohs

Ancient Egypt, by Hermann Kees, translated from the German by Ian F. D. Morrow (University of Chicago Press, 1961, 392 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Earle E. Cairns, Chairman of the Department of History and Political Science, Wheaton College (Illinois).

How the geography of Egypt affects the history of that land is the burden of this scholarly book by a famous German Egyptologist. The geography of Egypt is related to its predynastic history in Part I. The emphasis in Part II is on the overall impact of the geography of the Nile on ancient Egyptian politics, economics, religion, and social and artistic life. In the final part, the life and work of important ancient Egyptian rulers in relation to geography are explored chronologically by a study of cities and areas from Memphis in the north. All of this is done without recourse to the theory of geographic determinism.

The book is intended for the scholar or informed lay reader of geography and history. No attempt is made to relate any of the data discussed to biblical history.

EARLE E. CAIRNS

Dedicated Imagination

Unlikely Saints of the Bible, by William C. Fletcher (Zondervan, 1961, 144 pp., $2.95), is reviewed by Robert Boyd Munger, Minister, First Presbyterian Church, Berkeley, California.

The subtitle on the jacket of this rather unusual book accurately describes the content: “Surprising and dramatic character sketches of familiar and unfamiliar personalities in Scripture.” Presenting us with his first volume, the author portrays 11 characters from the pages of the Bible with arresting freshness and imagination. The late Clarence Macartney quoted Napoleon as saying “Men of imagination rule the world,” and then Dr. Macartney added significantly, “The preacher of imagination is the prince of the pulpit.” If the same holds true for a writer, here is imagination rising out of disciplined biblical scholarship and soaring far to quicken our own thoughts and to make people, long dead, live again.

The personality sketches are styled in popular story form, well written, and full of human interest. Each chapter is accompanied by a full-page illustration by the artist, Dirk Gringhuis. These are excellently done.

If you enjoy a good story, then this book will please you. If you are a scholarly type, you may find that this book leads you along another direction, but not without its values. I enjoyed meeting the “unlikely saints,” even if I seemed to find them at times in unlikely situations.

ROBERT BOYD MUNGER

Bohemia Holds Its Own

Answer to Conformity, by Perry Epler Gresham (Bethany Press, 1961, 350 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Vernon Grounds, President, Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary.

Eagerly I opened this book by the president of Bethany College. He is, so the jacket informs us, “a great contemporary philosopher” who in these Perkins Lectures gives us a “forceful, hard-hitting” work, “relentlessly piercing” in quality. So here at last, I thought to myself, we may have a helpful solution to the problem of our outer-directive, idolatrous crowd culture. But my expectations were disappointed. Gresham occupies a Christian position, to be sure, but what he offers us is merely a collection of 12 rather bromidic essays, urbanely written, psychologically sound, and sometimes commendably helpful, yet far from original or challenging. His major thesis is that the individual has the competence to manage his own life successfully and serenely if only he would utilize wisdom and faith—not, one must confess, a wholly novel proposition. Dr. Gresham too confidently assures us that fear, guilt, loneliness, money, time, grief, marriage, health, and sundry other aspects of human existence can be readily handled. How? Well, at one juncture he outlines a seven-point program, next he lays down six principles, again he suggests five simple rules, and so forth. In short, the complexities and ambiguities of life, which even a Christian faces, are dealt with too summarily and superficially. I seriously doubt, therefore, that Gresham’s pleasant though somewhat platitudinous version of nonconformity will win many converts from The Real Bohemia as Rigney and Smith designate the world of the true-blue “beats.” Something more radical than this answer is needed for the problem of The Lonely Crowd with its faceless anonymity.

VERNON GROUNDS

Blended For Laymen

The Word of the Lord Grows, by Martin H. Franzmann (Concordia, 1961, 324 pp., $4), is reviewed by Everett F. Harrison, Professor of New Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary.

This volume by the Concordia Seminary professor is designed to introduce the New Testament writings to the general reader. To this end it strives for a blend between the scholarly and devotional approaches, touching critical questions lightly for the most part and proceeding without footnotes. The New Testament literature is treated in chronological sequence and is handled in a conservative spirit. A concluding chapter deals with the subject of the canon.

Due to the real literary merit of the book, the reader is carried along without appreciable effort. He has in his hands a streamlined production. To achieve this the author has been obliged to limit himself to essentials and to deny himself the luxury of more extensive treatment. This reviewer found the section on the Corinthians Epistles especially fascinating. Sunday school teachers have here an ideal book for providing background material, and pastors, as well as ministerial students, will also receive help from it.

EVERETT F. HARRISON

Call For Love

Herein Is Love, by Reuel L. Howe (Judson Press, 1961, 116 pp., $3), is reviewed by James O. Handley, Jr., Wanamassa Christian Reformed Church, Wanamassa, New Jersey.

“As the love of God required incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth in order that it might be received by us, so the Word of God’s love in our day calls for persons in whom it may be embodied.” That is Reuel Howe’s theme in this nontechnical study of the biblical doctrine of love. He points up and deals with the issues of love which arise in our lives from day to day. He is convinced the Scriptures reveal a Saviour who is present, involved, and addressing us through one another in those issues. Here is an example: “We all need encouragement to love, and hospitality toward human attempts to express love is one of the surest ways in which we can participate in the contemporary living of Christ in the world.”

This book talks to us where we are and shows the Spirit’s way toward renewal in this age for the individual, family, and church. Here’s a sampler: “People need help also in discovering what their affirmations and denials mean for their way of life. Only then will they be able to make strong and and enabling commitments.” Few books could be more revitalizing resources for adult discussion groups than this one.

JAMES O. HANDLEY

Stages Along Life’S Way

My Spiritual Pilgrimage From Philosophy to Faith, by Keri Evans (James Clarke, 1961, 127 pp., 10s 6d), is reviewed by Prebendary Colin Kerr, Vicar, St. Paul’s, Portman Square, London, England.

“I believe this little book … is worthy to rank with the classics of spiritual biography … alongside the Confessions of St. Augustine,” says T. Glyn Thomas in translating from the Welsh this autobiography written 20 years ago. J. D. Vernon Lewis in an introduction refers to “this rare and unique classic.”

These statements indicate a work of unusual quality, an evaluation certainly shared by the reviewer. “My Spiritual Pilgrimage from Philosophy to Faith,” coming from one who, as a philosopher and theologian, was a prince among his peers at Glasgow and Bangor, will gladden the hearts of ordinary believers. But it will do more. It will intrigue the more intellectual minds grappling with uncertainties ranging from pantheism to the most ecstatic spiritual experiences of mysticism or revival.

The book, easily read, must be carefully considered. Almost every page is about Evans’ conversion. This new experience led him into contact with the Welsh Revival of 1904.

As a philosopher studying facts before annunciating theories, though distrustful of all such revivalism, he went to see things for himself. He became convinced of its spiritual reality. For him it was nothing less than the descent of spiritual experience from realms of abstract realities into that of the most concrete order. God was laying hold of man in his entirety, body as well as soul.

This third stage of the “Pilgrimage” led from the personal acceptance of Christ into a fuller acceptance of his Lordship and then into a deeper mystical, at times overwhelming, experience of the Holy Spirit. The books which he quotes show the extremes of these sometimes ecstatic visitations: Thomas à Kempis Jeremy Taylor, Madame Guyon and S. D. Gordon, John McNeil (!) and Hudson Taylor.

The “Pilgrimage” passes through three stages. First came his search for beauty. Beauty in abstract conception, translated into poetry and music, gave him great satisfaction. He then turned to philosophy. Hence, secondly, his search for truth. Sensing himself as but an intricate part of the great Ultimate Whole (he would not say ‘God’) gave him something that approximated a sense of worship. Sensing the Eternal Consciousness in his own consciousness, he worshipped to that degree in the “Temple of Immensity.”

The third stage was largely brought about by his attendance at lectures given by Henry Drummond. Now began his search for holiness. He saw the necessity for a relationship which was more than creedal in his acceptance of the historic Christ. In establishing such, he passed through stages which he affirms should never be confused, namely awakening, conviction, and hesitancy.

Three cautions must be pointed out:

1. Care must be taken lest the author’s revaluation of the temporal things of life should give the impression that great gifts and opportunities such as he renounced are not a matter of supreme importance.

2. In cases of physical healing there should be a fair correlation with those recorded in the New Testament.

3. Lastly, concerning spiritual healing, the ministry of the Holy Spirit in ill health must not be forgotten.

Having thrown out this caveat, the reviewer would commend this book as undoubtedly outstanding and hope for wide publicity so that many may be led into the mystery of the Holy Spirit’s influence and activity.

COLIN KERR

Unity On British Scene

The British Churches Today, by Kenneth Slack (S.C.M., 1961, 176 pp., 5s) and The Hard Facts of Unity, by John Lawrence (S.C.M., 1961, 127 pp., 8s 6d), are reviewed by Ian Henderson, Professor of Divinity, Glasgow University, Scotland.

These two books deal mainly with the British setup. In some ways this is a pity. Thus when Mr. Slack finds mass entertainment to be one of the causes of the decline of the Methodist, Congregational, and Baptist churches in Eng land, one naturally wants to know why it has not had a similar effect in the United States.

But in a small book Mr. Slack gives us much valuable information, and he is specially good at conveying the “feel” of any particular church, and showing, for instance, the rather subtle changes which come over Anglicanism and Presbyterianism on the other side of the Irish Sea. He stresses the influence of the Tractarian Movement on the contemporary Church of England but notes and welcomes the increased part taken by the Evangelical wing in the councils of the church.

In Mr. Slack’s excellent account of my own church, I would only question the sentence on page 124: “The present temper of the Church is intensely national and even somewhat self-consciously Scottish.” It is not so long since the General Assembly rejected with something not far removed from contempt the proposal that the Stone of Destiny be returned to Scotland, and the only nationalism I have ever seen its members get worked up about is that of Nyassa-land.

Mr. Slack is secretary of the British Council of Churches and it would be unfair to expect him to talk freely about the power factor in British ecclesiastical life. He notes rightly that Anglican bishops work hard, and considers that a Methodist district chairman has more power than a bishop. Apart from that he is discreetly and tantalizingly silent about the Establishments of the various churches and their relations with one another.

Mr. Lawrence’s book presents the ecumenical position. In the first chapter he tells us that there is to be one visible church and that this is the will of God. On page 84 he laments that progress toward this goal is impeded by people who have dug themselves into positions from which they refuse to retreat. But Mr. Lawrence has done his own little bit of digging. On the next page he says that those who have episcopacy have no right to give it up. That is, there is only to be one church but it must be an episcopal one and if we don’t join it, we are against God.

Mr. Lawrence rewrites Scottish church history in terms of ecumenical categories. “Down to 1690 Presbyterians and Episcopalians co-existed in the Church of Scotland.… Neither party left the Church when the other was in power … Presbyterian unity did not long survive the separation of 1690. The Church of Scotland was weakened by various secession throughout the next hundred and fifty years” (pp. 82, 83). The pre-1690 period, described here in idyllic, almost Lausanne-like ecumenical terms, was in actual fact mainly a time of savage religious war. Those who lost power in the church did not leave it for the simple reason that those who held it were so enthusiastic about Mr. Lawrence’s ideal of the one church that they pumped lead into anyone who tried to found a second one. Has Mr. Lawrence never read of how the firing parties of Claver-house and Lag dealt with Presbyterian farmers? Or, on the other side, of the massacre the Covenanting army perpetrated at Dunaverty? And it would have been a lot less misleading to have pointed out that later Presbyterian secessions had nothing to do with the date of 1690 but a great deal to do with that of 1712, when a predominantly English Parliament broke the Act of Union between the two countries by introducing patronage into the Church of Scotland.

Just because I believe that our Lord’s prayer for unity means that we should love one another and not just that we should have common church offices, I dislike writing so sharply about any book. But the kind of Anglican imperialism presented in this one has already dragged my own church through the acrimonies of the bishops’ controversy. Do Anglicans really think they are helping the cause of Christianity by getting their ecumencial fellow travellers to start civil wars in every other church? A sentence of Mr. Lawrence’s on page 64 makes clear that the Conservative Evangelical wing of the Church of England is not working actively for visible unity. I think this is the most comforting statement in his book.

IAN HENDERSON

Christian Stewardship

Tall in His Presence, by George McNeill Ray (Seabury Press, 1961, 127 pp., $3), is reviewed by Walter W. Wessel, Associate Professor of Biblical Literature, Bethel College.

The title of this book, written by the Canon of Trinity Cathedral, Phoenix, Arizona, does not immediately suggest its subject. It is a book on Christian stewardship and proposes to answer three questions: “What does Holy Scripture say about stewardship? How can the Christian put these truths into operation? What can the local parish do about it?”

As is true of so many writers on this subject, Canon Ray is least successful in answering the first question. The treatment of Christ’s stewardship parables is particularly weak and some are included which could better have been left out. It is seriously to he doubted that the parable of the Prodigal Son “represents God as one who, without stint, gives an abundance of things to his own.”

The strength of the book lies in the practical good sense of the author in his approach to stewardship in the life of the Church. His impatience with bazaars and rummage sales as means of raising the church budget is most refreshing. “Any person or group that substitutes box tops and green stamps for sacrificial giving has lost the deep meaning of faithful stewardship of resources.”

What Canon Ray says about financing the church’s program ought to be given an attentive hearing. After all, he is pastor of the Episcopal church to which Senator Barry Goldwater (as reported in Time) contributes his $1100 monthly newspaper royalties!

WALTER W. WESSEL

Latin American Exemplar

Evangelism-in-Depth (Moody Press, 1961, 126 pp., $2.25), is reviewed by Leighton Ford, Associate Evangelist, Billy Graham Team.

“Nicaragua shall belong to Christ!” With this theme song on their lips, evangelical Christians of Nicaragua marched together during 1960 in an un-precedented effort to win their nation for the Saviour. In this volume, members of the Latin America Mission tell the remarkable story of “Evangelism-in-Depth.”

The plan was conceived by leaders of the LAM and of the churches of Nicaragua, who were troubled by the inability of drowsy and disunited Christian forces to meet the challenge of population explosion and the growth of non-Christian movements. After examining Latin America’s fastest-growing groups—Communists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and, on the Christian side, Pentecostals—they concluded that “the successful expansion of any movement is in direct proportion to its success in mobilizing and occupying its total membership in constant propagation of its beliefs.”

Operating on this thesis, LAM leaders brought into being “Evangelism-in-Depth”—a bold attempt to unite the churches in one over-all plan of saturating an entire nation with the Gospel.

The program had several distinct stages. First came a national Christian Workers Conference for instruction and spiritual preparation. Then there were long months spent in organization of prayer groups, training classes in personal evangelism, and house-to-house visitation. Next, a series of united evangelistic crusades were held in key cities and climaxed in the capital city, Managua. Finally local churches held their own preaching and visitation missions to conserve the results and initiate a continuous evangelistic thrust.

The story of this effort and a similar though briefer campaign in Costa Rica is told simply and well. Impressive statistics are included, but an honest appraisal of deficiencies is also to be found.

This book shows what can be done by Christians of one country under God. It is essential reading for those interested in missionary evangelism. But it also contains a message for us at home. Where is the city, state, or province in the United States or Canada where the churches will have the vision to unite in such an effort?

LEIGHTON FORD

The Problem Of Choice

The Context of Decision, by Gordon D. Kaufman (Abingdon, 1961, 126 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by W. Boyd Hunt, Professor of Theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

This is an exciting book. It focuses on the problem of decision making as the central problem in ethics. More particularly it probes the context of Christian decision, hence the subtitle, the theological basis of Christian ethics.

Kaufman, the associate professor of theology at Vanderbilt Divinity School, is a Mennonite, and these are the Menno-Simons Lectures at Bethel College for 1959. Chapter 1 takes up the nature of Christian ethics in contrast to naturalistic and humanistic ethics. The remaining four chapters, visualized as concentric circles of decreasing radii, move from the widest context for Christian decision to a focus in the center point which is the present moment of decision. These chapters are titled “God and Man,” “The Church and the World,” “The Individual Disciple,” and “The Problem of Decision.”

An example of the vitality of Kaufman’s discussion is his treatment of the relation between the standards of love and justice (pp. 99–100). Taking exception to the position of R. Niebuhr, Brunner, and Ramsey, that while love is appropriate in personal, face-to-face relations, justice, because it is more abstract, is impartial and thus appropriate to large-scale social relations, the author argues that in reality justice is of no more help in the concrete problems of decision making than is the command to love. We still have to ask: How can I be just to everyone everywhere? How is it possible for me to deal impartially with every man when I do not and cannot have relations with more than a few?

For the sensitive Christian who, by reason of his immaturity, despairs of the imperative to decision, or for the uncommitted Christian who evades or postpones decision, or for the Christian with a deepening ethical concern this book will prove invaluable.

W. BOYD HUNT

Portrait Of Knox

Plain Mr. Knox, by Elizabeth Whitley (John Knox Press, 1960, 223 pp., $3), is reviewed by W. Stanford Reid, Professor of History, McGill University.

This work, which deals with the life of the Scottish Reformer, was written by the wife of one of his successors, the present minister of St. Giles’ Church, Edinburgh. Mrs. Whitley has endeavored to portray Knox as a personality, not as merely a rather difficult polemicist nor even as a counter foil to the seductive beauty of Mary, Queen of Scots. The result is a sympathetic consideration of the man and at the same time indirectly a searching criticism of the church of Rome.

Yet one must also acknowledge that at times Mrs. Whitley has not done full justice to her subject. For one thing, one feels that the period 1567–1572 has received much more superficial treatment than it deserved. At other times certain inaccuracies seem to have crept in. In some cases, difficulties which still provide matter for historical debate are ignored, one side only being given. One also finds that “baptism” is always referred to as “christening,” a point with which Knox would have taken issue (p. 93); and the wrong impression is given (p. 159) that the Book of Discipline received the same parliamentary approval as did the Confession. But even more misleading we are told that Knox’s efforts were directed to giving back the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to Scotland. While this formed part of his objective, it can hardly be termed the whole, since he also sought the restoration of the true preaching of the Word and the upright administration of discipline.

The book as a whole, however, should prove very useful to many. Interestingly written, it gives a good picture of the Reformer.

W. STANFORD REID

A Memo On Menno

A Tribute to Menno Simons by Franklin H. Littell (Herald Press, 1961, 72 pp., $1.25), is reviewed by Leonard Verduin, Minister, Christian Reformed University Chapel, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

This little book gives the substance of four lectures delivered by its author in March of 1961 as the Annual Seminary Lectures of the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries, held at Elkhart, Indiana.

Like every other book this one is determined somewhat by the experiences of its writer. Franklin Hamlin Littell has been influenced deeply by three outstanding experiences in his life as a theologian: he has lived very close to the renunciation of old line liberalism that has taken place in our life-time, he has kept closely abreast of the flood of Anabaptist source materials that have come into print during the past decades, and he has been an eye-witness (and far more than that, having spent a decade on the scene as advisor to Lucius Clay) of the re-birth of Protestantism in modern Germany, a re-birth which he has described in his recent book The German Phoenix. These experiences contributed to A Tribute to Menno Simons.

The book has four chapters: “Menno and the Word of God,” “Menno and the True Church,” “Menno and the Doctrine of the Laity,” “Menno and the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.” These were four areas of concern in Menno’s thought, and they occur as so many pulse beats in the German revival. In each instance Littell demonstrates, with copious quotations from Menno himself, how that in each of these four areas Menno has shown the way to those who in modem times “want to take the Bible, church, laity, and Holy Spirit seriously.” Littell indicates how failure to listen to Menno led the church to its deep disgrace as it fell readily into the Nazi pattern; and, how they who then rose to resist the paganized Volkskirche were walking in the footsteps of the Menno of four centuries earlier.

People who can still live with the ancient caricatures of the Anabaptist movement, “based solely on the oft-repeated charges of those who harrassed the little bands who were attempting a restitution of the New Testament church life” are in for a most uncomfortable session if they sit down with this little volume.

For all those minds still growing, this is a very good and useful little book.

LEONARD VERDUIN

Psychiatry And Clergyman

Minister and Doctor Meet, by Granger E. Westberg (Harper, 1961, 179 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Orville S. Walters, Director of Health Services and Lecturer in Psychiatry, University of Illinois.

In contrast to many of the eager books on pastoral care that have deluged the market recently, this one has come to maturity over a period of 20 years, during which the author has been an acknowledged leader in the movement for collaboration between clergyman and physician. As professor of religion and health at the University of Chicago, he has a joint appointment on the medical and theological faculties that is almost unique. The chapters of this book are distilled from the author’s years of active work as a leader in hospitality chaplaincy training and from his ongoing research in collaborative effort.

While recognizing the beneficial impact of dynamic psychiatry upon the ministry, Westberg has refrained from embracing the currently popular psycho-analytic psychology. He thus avoids the brinkmanship that is required to reconcile Christian faith and experience with the Freudian system, which was atheistic in its earlier conception and is naturalistic in its basic assumptions.

This absence of identification with a sectarian psychology is combined with a concept of salvation that leads from a basic sinfulness through prayer and repentance to forgiveness and reconciliation with God. Where some in the field have achieved a reconciliation between religion and the sciences of man by trimming theology to fit a naturalistic psychology, Westberg has qualified his acceptance of the new psychology by reaffirming a clear theological position. In this context he offers well-proven guidance to the clergyman who desires to minister effectively to the sick and to collaborate increasingly with the physician.

ORVILLE S. WALTERS

A Thing Of Beauty

Adam to Daniel, edited by Gaalyahu Cornfeld (Macmillan, 1961, 559 pp., $13.95), is reviewed by David A. Hubbard, Chairman, Division of Biblical Studies and Philosophy, Westmont College.

This “illustrated guide to the Old Testament and its background” is as attractive a book in this field as has appeared in a long time. With not unjustified pride it recounts the exploits of Israeli scholars in the areas of history, archaeology, and Old Testament studies and serves as a repository for many of the finest fruits of their research.

Among its commendable features are the ample samplings from extra-biblical writings which illuminate the biblical documents. Though conservatives will find many of the connections between Scripture and other ancient texts tenuous, particularly in the discussions of the pre-Abrahamic period, the principle involved is a helpful one. A further aid is the practice of quoting biblical texts rather than merely citing references.

The format of the hook is excellent. The photography is commendable and some of it, notably the many color plates, is exquisite. Though the literary quality of the book does not match the beauty of its make-up, the text is lucid and readable. If one should venture a criticism of the format of so splendid a work, it would be directed at the quality of the cartography. The majority of the maps are line drawings, sometimes with rather amateurish lettering—an unhappy procedure when so many accurate and attractive maps are available.

This emphasis on the beauty of the book must not mislead us to think of it as another picture book. It is in many ways a survey of the life and literature of the Old Testament, including the Maccabean period (in which, to the chagrin of conservatives, Daniel is placed). Problems of introduction are dealt with, for example, the date of Deuteronomy. The lives and messages of the prophets are sketched against the background of their times, while the poetic portions, for example, Song of Solomon, and wisdom writings are compared with their near Eastern counterparts.

It would be difficult to find a more appealing summary of contemporary attitudes toward the Old Testament. To the conservative who keeps in mind the critical approaches of the editors this book will be a veritable treasure-house of information and, more important, insight.

DAVID A. HUBBARD

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John

The Four Gospels As One, by David H. Yarn (Harper, 1961, 201 pp., $3.95) and A Layman’s Harmony of the Gospels, by John F. Carter (Broadman, 1961, 364 pp., $4.50), are reviewed by Robert H. Mounce, Associate Professor of Biblical Literature and Greek, Bethel College.

The first of these books is an arrangement of the four Gospels into a single continuous account of the life and ministry of Jesus. With the single exception of the anointing at Bethany, the chronology is that of Mark. In choosing the presentation of one Evangelist over another, Mr. Yarn has attempted to select the one which is most complete or best expressed. It is interesting that it is Matthew over Luke quite consistently at this point. The book is attractively produced, the paragraph headings are bold, the reference guide (pp. 189–201) is well organized and helpful. For the reader desiring a reliable and sensitively-arranged “Diatessaron” using the Authorized Version, this work will be more than welcome.

While the second book reproduces the four Gospels in parallel columns, its primary purpose is not that of a comparable study of the accounts. It is rather the framework, or occasion, for the some 278 added notes by the author. These notes, which according to the jacket are the “outstanding feature” of the book, serve a variety of functions. They give interesting bits of information, deal with problem passages, harmonize accounts, offer little word studies or topical presentations, and sometimes simply preach. The notes are well organized, simply stated and consistently conservative. The text is the American Standard Version.

The Layman’s Harmony will undoubtedly find its greatest usefulness in filling the need of the man in the pew or the Sunday school teacher who is searching for summary presentations and illustrative material. For this reason the omission of a subject index is greatly to be regretted.

ROBERT H. MOUNCE

Book Briefs

A Present Help, by Marie Monsen (CIM, 1960, 103 pp., 5/6). A translation from Norwegian by a retired missionary, now over 80, who recalls God’s faithful protection as she labored for the Gospel amidst Chinese brigands and corrupt warlords.

Makers of Religious Freedom, by Marcus L. Loane (IVF, 1960, 231 pp., 4/6). A British edition of Makers of Puritan History with further historical notes by Dr. J. D. Douglas, the work introduces us to seven teenth-century divines: Alexander Henderson and Samuel Rutherford from Scotland, and John Bunyan and Richard Baxter from England.

Jungle Doctor Panorama (Paternoster, 1960, 144 pp., 35/-). 172 photographs, some in color, plus a brief commentary make up this volume which commemorates the millionth Jungle Doctor book, and the fifteenth language in which these books have appeared. Superb photography ranging from wild life to the interior of a hospital—a pictorial window into Tanganyika.

Mr. Gandhi, by Ranjee Shahani (Macmillan, 1961, 211 pp., $4.95). Not a formal biography but a portrait of the man behind the public image.

The ecumenical movement reaches another significant milestone this month with the convening of the third assembly of the World Council of Churches in New Delhi, India.

Some 625 official delegates will be on hand for the November 18-December 6 sessions, plus as many or more observers, advisers, fraternal delegates, and special guests.

“Jesus Christ, the Light of the World” is the theme of the assembly. Sub-themes are “Witness,” “Service” and “Unity.”

Key issues to be faced by delegates include the proposed integration of the WCC with the International Missionary Council and the application for WCC membership submitted by leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Soviet Union.

Much attention also is likely to be given a proposed change in the WCC’s basis of membership. Since its inception in 1948 the WCC has had as its basis of membership the following statement:

The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches who accept Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.

Last year the WCC’s policy-making Central Committee proposed the adoption at New Delhi of an amended basis of membership as follows:

The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of Churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour, according to the Scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfill their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Evangelicals have hailed the proposal as a trend toward a more explicit commitment to the cardinal doctrines of the historic Christian faith. [For an appraisal of the theological orientation of the American delegates to New Delhi, see page 10—ED.] But others have voiced anxieties that such revision could indicate a move toward creed making and even the eventual emergence of a long-feared super church.

In a report prepared for the New Delhi assembly, the Central Committee declares:

“The Joint Committee of the World Council of Churches and the International Missionary Council has given special attention to the possibility of getting into closer touch with bodies representing the ‘Evangelical’ position.”

There is also evidence of spadework in relations with the Roman Catholic hierarchy. For the first time, the Vatican has authorized observers (five) to attend a WCC meeting.

East-West tensions seem bound to manifest themselves in the proceedings despite the fact that the assembly is being held in “neutral” India.

Keynote speaker is a Lutheran bishop from East Germany, Dr. Gottfried Noth.

Political overtones will be heard most prominently in the discussion of the Russian Orthodox membership application. One problem is that the WCC already includes as a member the Russian Orthodox Church of America, which maintains that its brethren in the Soviet Union are manipulated by Red leaders.

Already enough votes are in prospect to assure the Soviet church’s admission. But the four-member U.S. Russian Orthodox delegation, still undecided on the issue, does not know what direction a dissent, if any, should take.

Its delegates include Archbishop John of San Francisco, the Rev. Professor John Meyendorff of St. Vladimir’s Seminary in New York, and two laymen—Ivan M. Czap and R. P. Kunett.

The clergy tend to have fewer reservations about the admission of the Soviet church hierarchy. They are motivated in part by the theological notion that while other church bodies than their own have much truth, the entire truth is to be found only in the ancient undivided church. Inasmuch as one of the main routes to the ancient tradition lies with the present Orthodox church in Russia, there is a feeling that this church should be included in ecumenical dialogue.

Although a feeling for tradition doubtless characterizes all of Russian Orthodoxy, the laity are more flexible about theological-ecclesiastical emphases, and are more apprehensive about Russian Orthodox admission. They given such reasons as these:

—The American church has in it many who have escaped from Communist Russia. Those who have escaped are very suspicious of delegates from Russia. They feel that Red agents are promoted rapidly in the Russian Orthodox church and that the hierarchy is pretty well hedged in by Communist objectives.

—The Constitution of the U. S. S. R. limits the church to its cultic expressions (the ritual). What assurance does the Russian Orthodox church have that Khrushchev would permit its leaders to go outside these constitutional limitations by permitting them to travel to ecumenical conferences outside the Soviet sphere? If there is secret assurance, could not this be a propaganda move designed to enhance the Khrushchev image, a move which he could easily rescind later on grounds that it contradicts the constitution?

The U. S. Russian Orthodox delegates plan to talk with the Soviets in New Delhi before making their decision known.

The Moscow Patriarchate, meanwhile, announced that 16 “observers” from the Russian Orthodox Church will be sent to the New Delhi assembly.

If the church’s membership application is approved, the delegation wall be seated as full voting delegates.

Leading the delegation will be the assertive young Archbishop Nicodim, who is identified as head of the church’s “foreign relations department.”

Status Quo In Burma

A newly-adopted constitutional amendment establishes the rights of religious minority groups in Burma. The amendment was passed by Burma’s Parliament this fall, not long after another constitutional change had established Buddhism as the state religion.

The legal status of religious groups in Burma has a special concern for Baptists, who have always been the dominant Christian group there.

Mrs. Louise Paw, acting general secretary of the Burma Baptist Convention, has been quoted as saying that the double amendment arrangement “has left us non-Buddhists very much on the status quo.”

She explained, however, that “the psychological effect of Buddhism being the state religion is hard to guage now. According to the letter of the law we have the protection and the right to freely practice our faiths.”

Instigating Hostility?

Four U. S. Methodist missionaries arrested by secret police in Angola were brought to Portugal last month to stand trial on charges of aiding terrorists.

The Portuguese Foreign Office said it had “definite proof” of the missionaries’ connections with Angolan terrorists, “their presence at political meetings, and their instigation of actions hostile to the state.”

Those held are the Rev. Wendell Lee Golden of Rockford, Illinois; the Rev. Edwin LeMaster of Lexington, Kentucky; Marion Way, Jr., of Charleston, South Carolina; and Fred Brancel of Endeavor, Wisconsin.

The U. S. State Department has reportedly impressed upon Portugal “the importance of the earliest disposition of these cases.”

Golden was district superintendent and Way was a social worker in Luanda; LeMaster was principal of Methodist schools and Brancel taught agriculture and village improvement at Quessua.

The Board of Missions of The Methodist Church in the United States charged that the arrest of the four was a continuation of government action against Protestant work in Angola. The board said the Portuguese have been bearing down on Protestants because they are one of the few groups left inside the country that have criticized Portugal’s policies in the colony.

Portuguese secret police in Angola arrested another U. S. Methodist missionary in July. He was the Rev. Raymond E. Scott of Palco, Kansas, who was held incommunicado for 28 days and then deported to Switzerland.

Congo To Jerusalem

Joseph Diangienda, head of an influential Congolese sect with a reported membership of some 2,700,000, went to Jerusalem last month as guest of the Israeli government.

Accompanying Diangienda on the pilgrimage were a number of his clerical and secular aides who also belong to “The Church of Christ on Earth Through the Prophet Simon Kimbangu.”

Diangienda is a son of Simon Kimbangu, who “saw the light” in 1921 and began preaching what was described as “an African version of Protestantism.”

Simon Kimbangu was sentenced to death by Belgian authorities for alleged rebellion, but the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the late King Albert of Belgium. He died in prison 10 years ago.

Despite persecutions, the sect has flourished and some of its greatest gains followed the proclamation of Congolese independence.

Another son of Simon Kimbangu is minister of labor in the cabinet of Premier Cyrille Adoula.

First Western Church?

A Danish archaeologist says that ruins believed to be those of the first Christian church built in the Western hemisphere have been found in south Greenland.

Dr. Jorgen Meldgaard of the Copenhagen National Museum declared that ruins at the town of Julianehaag cover the probable burial ground of explorer Leif Ericson.

Workmen excavating for a school found the ruins. Meldgaard, an expert in arctic archaeology, added that the ruins constituted relics of a church built by Ericson’s mother, Tjodhilde, in 1001 or 1002 A.D.

Tjodhilde was a Christian. Her husband, Norwegian-born Eric the Red, who discovered Greenland in 981, was a heathen.

Seminary Setbacks

Enrollment of Protestant theology students in East German universities continued its decline last year, according to a 1960 yearbook of statistics released by the Soviet zone republic.

Of a total of 69,129 students enrolled at East German universities in 1960, only 585 were studying at Evangelical faculties, the yearbook disclosed. Evangelical seminarians numbered 675 in 1959 and 751 in 1958.

East German church officials on various occasions have noted the acute lack of clergy in the Soviet zone where about one-third of all pastorates have no incumbent.

Apart from general lack of interest in the ministerial calling among young people, churchmen attribute the decrease in seminary students to Communist pressure aimed at discouraging youths from studying for religious vocations.

To cope with the situation, East German churches have begun to admit laymen without theological training to the pastoral office. After a short period of instruction at preachers’ seminaries and a probationary period the young men are assigned to the same duties as “academic” pastors. At the same time, the churches are increasingly recruiting laymen to take over a large share of deaconical and welfare work in the parishes.

A New Approach

Anglican Bishop Edward M. G. Jones reported in London last month that he had received several responses to an appeal he made that families help the rehabilitation of prostitutes by inviting them into their homes to share decent, normal family life.

Jones said he was convinced that many girls are driven to prostitution because of loneliness and lack of a good home life. The prelate is chairman of the Anglican Council for Social Work which has been studying prostitution in London’s East End.

Jones said if respectable families would open their homes to the wayward girls they would have a chance to better themselves. He said some invitations will be issued to the prostitutes through social workers.

Bible For Wales

A number of churches in Wales are co-operating in the preparation of a new Bible in the language of the Welsh people, the first since 1620.

Among denominations represented are the Anglican, Baptist, Congregational, Methodist, and Presbyterian. Roman Catholics have also been invited to cooperate.

It is expected that the new Welsh translation will be on lines similar to that of The New English Bible.

Re Intercommunion

One of the thorny problems besetting Anglican-Presbyterian relations in Britain is that of intercommunion. Addressing the Cranmer Society of Cambridge University last month, an Australian educator suggested that much of the difficulty could be traced back to the Oxford Movement.

The Rev. Donald Robinson, vice principal of Moore Theological College, Sydney, recalled that the Tractarians had taught that there was something theologically significant about the Church of England as a church, had exalted the role of the bishop and made what Robinson regarded as an absurd claim for the so-called historic episcopate.

Robinson outlined three considerations:

—The necessity for restoring a godly communion discipline, making clear the spiritual qualifications for participation, even as Scripture itself does.

—The desirability of “sponsors for strangers,” just as the Jerusalem church accepted Paul on the recommendation of Barnabas.

—The importance, in questioning people, of ignoring denominations but seeking the reality of the individual’s profession and spiritual status.

Canadian Sequel

Evangelist Tom Rees was back in Canada this fall for what amounted to a sequel to his coast-to-coast campaign of last spring.

This time Rees concentrated on two cities in New Brunswick: St. John (Oct. 8–22) and Moncton (Oct. 29-Nov. 12).

The enthusiasm of the Canadians was still abundant, although the intrepid Rees was not obliged to a repeat of the hardships and trials which had marked his earlier outreach to remote areas.

The start of his “Mission to Canada” had been made in Newfoundland, where more than 1,000 persons turned out for a rally in Corner Brook, a town on the island’s western shore. But from there the going became difficult. Aircraft were grounded because of bad weather, so Rees hired a car to travel 300 miles from Grand Falls to Bay Roberts over ice-covered roads in temperature approaching zero. The car was not equipped with snow treads, which made progress that much more hazardous. Once, to avoid a collision, the driver landed the car in a ditch. On several hills, the occupants had to get out and push. There was not a telephone in miles, so the congregation in Bay Roberts simply waited. It was nearly 10 p.m. when Rees and his party arrived, but there were 600 people waiting. They refused to disperse without the service, and afterward, despite the lateness of the hour, complained that it was too short.

People: Words And Events

Deaths: Dr. Edmund Davison Soper, 85, president of Ohio Wesleyan University from 1928 to 1938 and former dean of the Duke University school of religion; in Evanston, Illinois … Dr. Emil E. Fischer, 79, retired president of the Lutheran Ministerium of Pennsylvania; in Mt. Airy, Pennsylvania … Dr. Wynn C. Fairfield, 75, former missionary to China under the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions and later director of Church World Service; in Claremont, California.

Appointments: As moderator-designate of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Dr. Andrew Neville Davidson, minister of Glasgow Cathedral … as president of Ouachita Baptist College in Arkadelphia, Arkansas. Dr. Ralph A. Phelps … as executive secretary pro tempore of Associated Church Press, fames M. Flanagan.

Retirement: As pastor of the First Baptist Church of Hollywood, California, Dr. Harold L. Proprpe, effective January 1, 1962.

Elections: As bishop of the Free Methodist Church of North America, the Rev. Edward C. John … as president of the Bible Protestant Church, the Rev. Lewis H. Simpkins.

Public concern for fallout protection is touching off an intensive debate among American churchmen. Contention is most acute over the question of whether the use of force can be justified to avoid overcrowding of shelters during nuclear attack. But the scope of the debate is raising many other ethical problems and these become ever more realistic possibilities in view of Soviet terrorist tactics as exemplified by the explosion of the big bomb October 23.

“Does prudence … dictate that you have some ‘protective devices’ in your survival kit, e. g. a revolver for breaking up traffic jams at your shelter door?”

The question appears in a widely-quoted America article written by the Rev. L. C. McHugh, S.J., who once taught ethics at Georgetown University.

McHugh maintains that the Christian view upholds one’s right (but not duty) to employ violence in defense of life and that the principle is applicable to the situation wherein “unprepared or merely luckless neighbors and strangers start milling around the sanctuary where you and your family have built a refuge against atomic fire, blast and fallout.”

He lists several conditions, however:

“The situation is such that violence is the last available recourse of the aggrieved party … The violence used is employed at the time of assault … The violence is employed against an attack that is unjust … no more violence than is needed to protect.”

Disagreeing sharply with McHugh was the Right Rev. Angus Dun, Protestant Episcopal Bishop of Washington, who said:

“This business of preparing to push your neighbor’s child out of the shelter, or even to shoot down a neighbor who clamors for admission, is the most utterly immoral thing we could do.”

Among evangelicals, who tend to leave such questions to the area of personal conviction, some key churchmen sought to provide leadership and a basis for grass-roots thinking. Others uttered a frank and honest “I don’t know.” Still others avoided the issue.

First indications were that evangelical opinion would largely take a dim view of any civil defense program relying primarily upon private shelters accommodating an individual family only.

“This is no clear-cut statement in evangelical beliefs that would cover such a situation,” said Dr. Herschel H. Hobbs, president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

“However, I think that a person ought to take into his shelter as many people as he could accommodate without jeopardizing the lives of his own family. His own life would be another matter. He might make a decision to endanger his own life to help others.”

Smile, Tear, Hand, And Heart

Christian believers ought to greet today’s almost morbid interest in fallout shelters with a smile, a tear, a helping hand and an open heart. A smile, because it challenges the popular fallacy that death is always a tragedy, that the essence of human life lies in mere physical survival. A tear, because man seeks refuge from atomic radiation more than from the fall of Adam and the fallout of evil.

And, of course, a helping hand and open heart. But how? By urging a government-financed shelter program? The very welfare statists who clamor to impose more “cradle to crematory” security seem silent about the state’s responsibility for the masses at the very moment when (if the alarmists are right) the peril of death is quite imminent. If government provision is no answer, how about Christian help?

First, believers can build regional shelters on their local church premises—multi-purpose structures that on a first-come first-served basis accommodate anyone in time of emergency. Surely such provision meets in principle the responsibility of neighbor-love. Should he choose also to build a private shelter, the Christian believer then has no obligation to harbor a neighbor who has failed to build his own, nor has such neighbor any right to demand or to share another’s private accommodations. Whatever additional or extraordinary course a Christian’s love may take is obviously a matter of individual conscience once he has provided for his own family. At any rate, the negligent neighbor admitted to a believer’s shelter is sure to find more than merely physical rescue, since the very first staple in a Christian’s shelter is likely to be a Bible.

C. F. H. H.

The Rev. Thomas F. Zimmerman, president of the National Association of Evangelicals and general superintendent of the Assemblies of God, refused to comment.

So did Dr. Carl McIntire, president of the International Council of Christian Churches.

Said Dr. Edward L. R. Elson, minister of National Presbyterian Church:

“Some very sturdy Christians will decide to live dangerously, to ignore preparation of shelters and to die with dignity as part of the brightly-colored cloud that will disintegrate thousands of feet above the surface of the earth. No Christian or any other citizen should be asked to provide an individual shelter for himself or his family. Even the widest possible development of this program would leave many people without adequate protection.”

Elson asserted that “only a program under public rather than individual auspices can be considered adequate. If a nation can conscript its men and its re sources to wage war, it ought also out of public resources to provide for the common defense by creating the best possible defense for the greatest number of people.”

The Rev. Peter Eldersveld, radio minister of the Christian Reformed Church’s “Back to God Hour,” said that it is impossible to predict accurately and comprehensively all the factors that would bear upon sound ethical judgments during a nuclear attack.

He suggested that it would be premature to specify a detailed course of action for a situation which has never before been encountered.

Evangelist Billy Graham saw it this way: “In the event of nuclear attack, restricted individual use of shelters would pose somewhat of an ethical dilemma. The dilemma might be avoided if the civil defense program would work on community shelters rather than urge personal shelters.” Graham added that “I feel a primary responsibility for my family. But I don’t believe I myself could stay in a shelter while my neighbor had no protection.”

Community shelters, he said, would also provide for people who cannot afford their own (“People should not have to die because of their poverty.”).

Lutheran-Reformed Talks

“Theological conversations” between representatives of Lutheran and Presbyterian churches in North America are scheduled to begin in January.

Plans for the discussions were announced jointly by Dr. Paul C. Empie, executive director of the National Lutheran Council, and Dr. James I. McCord, secretary of the North American Area of the World Presbyterian Alliance and president of Princeton Theological Seminary.

The announcement said that all major North American church bodies in both the Lutheran and Reformed traditions will be represented, including some which are not members of the National Lutheran Council or the World Presbyterian Alliance, for example, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

“Our discussions have no immediate purpose in view other than an examination of the subjects chosen,” the announcement said. “There is no proposal that these conversations are to be directed toward a goal of pulpit and altar fellowship or union or similar objectives.”

Many observers understood, however, that merger moves could well evolve from such “discussions.”

Officially, the conversations were arranged to explore the theological relationship between the Lutheran and Reformed churches “to discover to what extent differences which have divided these communions in the past still constitute obstacles to mutual understanding.” The proposal for the conversations apparently began with McCord.

“My colleagues and I have been following with great interest the Lutheran-Reformed theological conversations in Germany and France,” McCord said in a letter to Empie last February, “and we feel that the time has come for us to begin them here in the United States.”

The proposal was addressed to the NLC’s Executive Committee in its capacity as a U. S. committee for the Lutheran World Federation. It was tentatively accepted last March.

The executive committees of the parent international organizations endorsed the idea in their respective meetings last summer.

It is expected that the discussions will be conducted by sixteen theologians. Their names have not yet been disclosed, but they will include six representatives of the American members of the World Alliance, six from the American members of the LWF, two from the Missouri Synod, and two from any Reformed or Presbyterian bodies that choose to participate but are not members of the alliance.

According to the planning committee’s proposed agenda, the first session will be devoted to the following topics:

—An historical review of relations between Lutheran and Reformed churches in the past with special reference to the controversial issues which have divided them.

—A theological evaluation of these issues in the light of contemporary thinking in both churches.

Topics proposed for consideration at subsequent meetings (tentatively scheduled for the spring of 1963 and the spring of 1964) included “evangelical faith,” “the authority of Scripture,” “Christology,” “the church and the ministry,” and “the Lord’s Supper and its observance in the church.”

Member churches of the North American Area of the World Presbyterian Alliance have a combined membership of more than 6,500,000. American member churches of the Lutheran World Federation have a combined membership of nearly 5,600,000. The Missouri Synod has nearly 2,900,000 communicants and is the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States.

Presbyterian Propriety

The United Presbyterian General Council issued a public criticism this month of six Presbyterian churches on the West Coast which had dissociated themselves from National Council of Churches pronouncements.

The 52-member council, in a unanimous action, expressed support of NCC policy but affirmed the right of individual churches to disagree. The council implied, however, that it was improper to adopt local resolutions of dissociation.

Involved are the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood, California, the First Presbyterian Church of Fillmore, California, the Wilshire Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles, the South Hollywood Presbyterian Church, the First Presbyterian Church of San Diego, and the First Presbyterian Church of Tacoma, Washington.

All have endorsed or adapted a resolution which states that “this Session does not recognize the authority or right of the National Council of Churches to make pronouncements or statements of policy in any form for (this church) or in the name of its membership.”

The council reply asserted that avoidance of political and economic particulars contradicts the belief that “Jesus Christ is the Lord of all life. He may not properly be walled into any smaller area of influence.”

The reply said that “the proper manner in which to register criticisms of, or suggestions for, actions or policy of our church in relationship to the National Council of Churches is not by dis-association, but in the manner prescribed by the form of government.” This was a reference to the practice of sending overtures to the General Assembly.

25-Year Honors

Boston’s historic Park Street Church, one of the foremost evangelical churches in America, will honor its distinguished pastor with a testimonial banquet November 15.

The event will mark 25 years of service at the Park Street Church by Dr. and Mrs. Harold John Ockenga.

Ockenga’s ministry in Boston has been characterized by the priority assigned to the missionary enterprise. Its annual missionary budget, now amounting to some $270,000, is the largest of any U. S. church.

Union Without Uniformity

Establishment of a “United Church of Christ in America” as a “union without uniformity” was proposed last month by Dr. Perry E. Gresham, president of Bethany (West Virginia) College and immediate past president of the International Convention of Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ).

“I would propose,” said Gresham in a talk at Park Avenue Christian Church, New York, “that we call together all denominational leaders and declare that the United Church of Christ in America is now in existence.”

He urged that “Christian leaders operating through the existing structure of a National Council of Churches of Christ in America work out a program whereby our common tasks of mission work be merged into a united body that could speak and witness to the whole wide world.”

Benevolent homes, publishing houses, and pension funds, should be merged accordingly, Gresham added.

He specified that under this plan, local congregations would be “left free to worship Christ in appropriate ways according to custom and preference.”

“Instead of a merger of one or two bodies with a pious hope of more to follow,” Gresham said, “we could accomplish the purpose at one bold stroke by recognizing the Lordship of Christ, the primacy of Scripture, the fellowship of all devout followers of Christ, and the genius of E. Pluribus Unum!”

“The duplication of competing systems,” he asserted, “would be reduced to a more efficient coordination of organized effort.”

Gresham added:

“I can already hear the excited protests from both theologians and ecclesiastics. Such a proposal is an affront to the person who demands a uniform statement of faith and uniform ways of worship.

“Yet we must remember that there has never been theological agreement in the history of Christendom except under the military threat of Constantine.

“Had Peter and Paul withheld their witness to Christ until they were in full agreement the church would have been stillborn. Ecclesiastical dignitaries who have become institutionally involved in certain offices and structure might feel threatened by such a reckless proposal.

“Yet the time has come for us to take seriously the prayer of Christ. A union of Christians is the only logical outcome of our ecumenical meetings.

“Union without uniformity is an approach which commends itself to the American ways of thought where the heritage of Jefferson and Lincoln can show the secular counterpart of what could happen to the church if the Holy Spirit could lead us toward a common witness and a glorious fellowship which is man wide and God high.”

Plea For Preparation

A Lutheran leader makes a strong plea for proper spiritual orientation of prospective draftees in the November issue of National Lutheran.

The Rev. Engebret O. Midboe, executive secretary of the National Lutheran Council’s Bureau of Service to Military Personnel, warned that the buildup of U. S. military forces may continue and accelerate, and urged that home congregations give their young men “some down-to-earth counseling on what this struggle is all about.”

The National Lutheran is a monthly publication of the NLC.

Midboe’s article stressed that “while the church cannot identify itself with any form of human government, the church must teach her people what the Christian faith has to say about the current atheistic communistic aggression.”

He urged immediate action, warning that “it is too late to begin to prepare for this after the ‘greetings’ from the President have arrived.”

The Rial Campaign

The 13th annual national public service campaign on behalf of “Religion in American Life” gets under way this month.

The campaign is aimed at boosting church and synagogue attendance across the nation. It is supported by 28 national, religious bodies and a like number of service clubs and civic groups. It is conducted by The Advertising Council, a non-profit, non-partisan business organization which aims to serve the public interest “by marshaling the forces of advertising to promote voluntary, individual actions in solving national problems.”

The problem in this case is that, according to latest available statistics, 60 million Americans have no religious affiliation.

Volunteer coordinator of the campaign is Robert W. Boggs, director of advertising for the Union Carbide Plastics Company.

A leading international advertising agency, the J. Walter Thompson Company, is contributing its creative services for the 13th consecutive year.

Origin Of ‘Protestant’

The 400th anniversary of the first major conference between Protestants and Roman Catholic clergy after the Reformation—the Colloquy of Poissy—was commemorated in Washington, D. C., last month with a special service at St. John’s Church (Episcopal).

The commemorative service was held under auspices of the French Protestant Congregation and the Huguenot Society of Washington.

Worshippers heard Dr. C. Leslie Glenn, former rector of St. John’s, declare that “it is fashionable in some circles to be ashamed of the word Protestant.”

“It is called a negative word,” Glenn asserted, “but we need never be ashamed of the negative. Men don’t fight for freedom, they fight against tyranny.

“It was at this small conference in the sixteenth century that the decision was made that the Roman Catholic church could be allowed in Protestant territories but that the Protestant Church could not be allowed in Roman Catholic territories. Against this, the Protestants protested and there they first got their name.”

World’S Largest Dome

A church convention hall in Anderson, Indiana, will lay claim to having the world’s largest circular dome.

Scheduled for completion in May, 1962, the 7,200-seat Warner Auditorium will accommodate conventions of the Church of God, which has its international headquarters in Anderson.

Construction of the 3,000,000-pound dome, twice the size of St. Peter’s in Rome, was hailed as an engineering feat utilizing a number of recent scientific and technological developments. The dome was made by pouring a four-inch layer of concrete over a huge mound of earth. It was lifted into place atop 36 steel posts by hydraulic hoists.

Builders say the unique method of construction saved the church nearly half a million dollars. The total cost of the auditorium, $400,000, amounts to about $6.50 per square foot, or less than what it would cost to build a warehouse of comparable size by conventional building methods.

The dome has a diameter of 268 feet. There are no interior supports. The auditorium eventually will have a capacity of 12,000 persons.

A Seven-Year Plan

Development of a seven-year uniform lesson cycle was announced to some 8,000 registered delegates at the sixteenth annual National Sunday School Association convention in Detroit last month.

The new lesson cycle is a product of years of research by an NSSA Christian education committee headed by the Rev. Ralph Harris of Springfield, Missouri.

An NSSA statement called it “the first major challenge by evangelicals to the International Council of Religious Education uniform Sunday School outlines.”

“It is the result,” the statement said, “of growing dissatisfaction by evangelicals with ICRE’s stress on social aspects of the gospel to the neglect of personal spiritual application and the neglect of certain portions of the Bible.”

The new cycle will begin in 1965. It will cover every part of the Bible. Sixteen quarters will be spent in the New Testament and 12 quarters in Old Testament studies.

One feature is the cycle’s treatment of non-narrative sections of the Bible. These are woven into historical portions in a way designed to make the history more meaningful.

The NSSA is affiliated with the National Association of Evangelicals.

Educational Roundup

Baylor University of Waco, Texas, was given a virtual city block of property in downtown Dallas last month. It will eventually amount to the largest gift in the Baptist school’s 116-year history.

A trust established in honor of Dallas insurance executive Carr P. Collins will handle the transaction and give Baylor ownership of the multi-million dollar development. A department store has announced plans for a sprawling building and parking garage on the property. The entire operation will be subject to the usual commercial taxation.

Other developments in church-related education:

—The new Houston (Texas) Baptist College is scheduled to open in the fall of 1963. More than three million dollars have been raised in a drive for capital and endowment funds.

—Calvary Bible College of Kansas City was named beneficiary of a bequest valued at $285,000 from the late Arthur W. Rehfeldt of St. Louis.

—President Urho Keleva Kekkonen of Finland was given an honorary doctor of laws degree by Waterloo Lutheran University at an autumn convocation.

Controversial Bus Rides

Four Protestant ministers are appealing to the central school district of Hoosick Falls, New York, to stop bus transportation of elementary public school children to week-day released-time religious education classes at a Roman Catholic academy.

The ministers say such transportation “violates the use of public tax monies in that these monies are used for the support of private interests” and is contrary to the church-state separation principle.

The school district was urged to reconsider its decision to provide the bus transportation.

Lifting The Mandate

Air Force chaplains are no longer required to use unified Sunday School curriculum materials, according to a report in the Chaplains News Bulletin of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Executive Secretary Floyd Robertson of the NAE Commission on Chaplains said the requirement was revoked during a September meeting of Air Force command chaplains in Washington.

Chaplain (Major General) Terence P. Finnegan was said to have acted when denominational representatives at the meeting indicated unanimous displeasure over the requirement.

“These men represent the denominations which we serve,” Finnegan was quoted as saying. “They tell me it should not be mandatory and it will not be.”

Finnegan amended the regulation regarding the unified curriculum by deleting the mandatory clause and inserting that it “is recommended for use in the Air Force.”

The new policy will enable chaplains to select their own Sunday School curriculum materials from any religious publishing house.

Exempt The Amish?

Democratic Representative Wilbur E. Mills of Arkansas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, says he believes it would be unconstitutional to exempt any group from payment of a tax because of religious objections.

The committee headed by Mills is the unit through which any tax legislation in Congress is channeled.

Mills told Republican Representative Paul B. Dague of Pennsylvania last month that he would call a hearing on Dague’s exemption bill only if it is recommended by the President.

Dague has sponsored legislation which would exempt members of the Old Order Amish from participation in social security and payment of the tax.

He told Mills in reply that it should be no more unconstitutional to exempt the Amish because of their religious beliefs than it is to permit voluntary participation for members of the clergy because of their beliefs in church-state separation. Clergymen qualify for social security and pay the tax only if they file a waiver of exemption.

The Amish, in appealing to Congress, contend that they pay all taxes asked of them but that social security is a form of compulsory group insurance which they reject because of their belief that the Bible imposes an individual responsibility upon Christians to care for their own aged and infirm.

Broadening The Code

The Motion Picture Association of America amended its production code last month to enable filmmakers to deal with the subject of hom*osexuality on the screen.

The change was made after several prominent moviemakers had gone into production with stories involving controversial sex themes.

The MPAA statement specifies that the production code administration may “consider approving references … to … sex aberrations, provided any references are treated with care, discretion and restraint.”

Affected by the ruling are the following films, none of which has as yet been premiered: “Advise and Consent,” “The Children’s Hour,” and “Lolita.”

Can Jew and Christian now transcend their ugly recent past? Can new respect for religious freedom launch them toward mutual understanding without surrendering a vigorous Judaeo-Christian dialogue?

The rise of Christianity kindled bitter hostility in non-Christian Jews first against Christian Hebrews, then against Christian Gentiles. Jewish religious leaders stoned Stephen to silence his testimony to Jesus Christ (Acts 6:8–7:60). The high priest empowered Saul of Tarsus to bind and bring to Jerusalem any Christians found in the synagogues of Damascus (9:1–2). Discovering that the Jews approved of his murder of James the brother of John, King Herod took Peter prisoner (12:1–3). In his study of The Church in the First Three Centuries, Alvan Lamson asserts that “The worst enemies of the Christians were the Jews, more implacable than the Heathen” (Boston: Horace B. Fuller, 1869, 2nd ed., p. 90). He calls attention to the testimony of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and others, and concludes that the calumnies propagated by the Jews throughout the civilized world, and their slander of Christians during the first three centuries, “could have originated only in the bitterest hatred … hatred as thorough as ever rankled in the human breast.”

On the other hand, the Christian era must acknowledge no less ugly hostility and persecution of the Jew. “To the Jews,” one rabbi recently summarized, “Jesus as the Christ has meant these 2000 years of history.” Then he spoke of the Crusaders who slaughtered the Jews to “redeem the Holy Land”; of the Romanist Inquisition with its forced conversions; of the third and fourth Lateran Councils which anticipated many of Hitler’s persecution tactics; he spoke of the Nazi episode. A very fresh festering sore is the failure of the Christian community during the Eichmann era. While pagans inaugurated and implemented the Nazi crimes against Jewry, Christians stood by and accepted them uncritically. Could the Nazi persecutions have been perpetrated without a long-standing atmosphere of anti-Jewish attitudes to which the Christian community had subscribed? Because the Jews had cut themselves off from Jesus of Nazareth, had the Christians in turn severed them from the bond of humanity?

Today both Judaism and Christianity face the same threat of naturalistic relativism that already clutches half the world in the vise of communism. Those who speak of a revival of the great theistic faiths sense another equally portentous movement. The resurgence of Moslem nationalism may loose another “invasion of the Moors” upon the soft underbelly of Europe.

Can Jews and Christians—whose common glory is the revealed religion of redemptive love—possibly find a new relationship of mutual respect and understanding, and of constructive dialogue?

The Ford Foundation has granted the National Conference of Christians and Jews $325,000 to promote inter-religious relationships and to lessen the destructive social conflict shaped by religious differences. Its “Religious Issues and Public Affairs” program will concentrate on public and parochial schools, Sunday closing laws, and similar matters. Conference president Dr. Lewis Webster Jones warns: “Unless some clearer consensus can be reached, the strength and unity which America has drawn from the common acceptance of the Judaeo-Christian tradition will be weakened and dissipated.”

It should be acknowledged that some Protestant-Jewish consultations in recent years have been disillusioning. Some exchanges may even have retarded the hope of mutual understanding because participants simply “talked at” but hardly “heard” opposing sides. Some dialogues never went beyond thinly-veiled provisional outreaches. Other dialogues merely uncovered plans for neo-Protestant political strategy. Preferring the safety of “sweet reasonableness” still other discussions never courageously probed the theological concepts that underlie many of today’s sociological pressures and tendencies. As for pulpit exchanges between rabbis and ministers these attempts at interaction often revealed nothing but misplaced congregations.

Evangelical Protestants have taken little part in these dialogues. For one thing, Protestant ecumenism is largely staffed with those of inclusivist vision and temperament. For another, evangelical preoccupation with the priority of evangelism and missions may easily neglect socio-political problems and the increasingly important legal question of minority rights. Evangelical leaders are seeing more and more, however, that devotion to the message of the love of God does not justify nor compensate for a neglect of neighbor love. Southern Baptists, for example, instituted an annual Jewish Fellowship Week when they knock on a Jewish neighbor’s door and invite him to church. “But the other 51 weeks,” said a Jewish leader recently, “the doorbell is likely to be unrung—except by Jehovah’s Witnesses who are doing the calling.” The evangelical who wants a Jew only as a convert and church member but not as a neighbor has much to learn from the New Testament.

At the same time Jewish leaders sense genuine sympathy for and interest among evangelical Protestants in the destiny of the Jew. While “Christianity in general” has been blamed for persecutions associated with the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Lateran Councils, it is apparent that Protestantism has often expressed a quite different spirit. “But for the Protestant Reformation,” one Jewish historian told me in Jerusalem, “there would have been no Balfour Declaration, and no state of Israel.” Holland, one of the four Calvinistic countries of Europe, historically has been a haven for persecuted Jews. And in America where Protestantism for many generations has defined the American temper, the Jew has enjoyed influence and prominence in financial, scientific, political, educational, and other spheres. In addition many Protestant evangelicals all over the world find spiritual and biblical significance in the return of the Jew to Palestine.

As an aftermath of Nazi persecutions and the Eichmann trial, antagonism toward Christians and especially toward Christian missionaries in Israel has touched a new high. While no individual Jews who have embraced Christianity have suffered stoning, a Christian church in an orthodox Jewish sector of Jerusalem has been stoned and its services disrupted. Israeli opposition toward Christian missionaries has made The Acts of the Apostles newly relevant reading. What the state of Israel does with its charter guarantee minority rights, especially that of religious freedom, will be a key test of Jewish intentions. After centuries of personal experience of minority status in dispersion the Jews have unique opportunity in their new state to implement their political ideals.

At the same time how the Christian press is handling the Eichmann trial perturbs many Jewish leaders in America. They sense in editorial reports of the trial the same lack of charity shown by German Christians toward Jews during the Nazi era. No sense of Christian shame and guilt over this gruesome chapter of persecution and suffering is apparent. Jewish leaders complain not over the theological interpretations (although they disagree with them); they are shocked rather by the lack of soul-searching by Christians over their involvement—as if standing on the sidelines as indifferent spectators of the mass slaughter of the Jews. Certain leaders of the territorial Lutheran churches in Germany indeed have confessed that Christians did not do all in their power to assist the Jews. While there were isolated cases of help, some involving even death, no universal sense of mutual involvement prevailed. For this admission the Jewish religious community honors these Lutherans. In discussing and defining theological differences with American Protestants, the Jews are anxious to include also the issue of social attitudes and trends and consequences. In addition to his religious tenets, what does the evangelical Protestant believe about Jewish minority rights before the law?

First-century delineations are no longer adequate for the modern Jewish-Christian dialogue. In that early era, of course, Christianity was at first a Jewish sect (as it were) in quest of Christian Jews. Multiple divisions already existed in Judaism—not only between Jews who rejected and Jews who received Jesus as the Christ, but also between the Sadducees and Pharisees and Essenes. Apostolic Christianity had its incipient divisions, too, but they healed rather swiftly. Today, however, Christianity as well as Judaism are split into major rival camps; replacing “one Christianity” are segments of Greek Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism (liberal, neo-orthodox, evangelical). Replacing “one Judaism” are segments of Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Judaism. Viewed from this perspective “the Judaeo-Christian tradition” is a veritable theological Babel.

If a renewed bond between Judaism and Christianity is a live prospect at all, the soundest common denominator would seem to be the Bible, even if the Christian shares the Old Testament with the Jew in a way that the Jew does not share the New with the Christian. This fact pinpoints both the common background of Judaism and Christianity and their later divergence. Yet even in this divergence the devout Jew and the Christian find much in common. The New Testament presents Jesus the Jew of Bethlehem and Nazareth, who for 19 centuries has captured the love and devotion of countless Gentiles. It presents devout Jews like John the Baptist and the disciples impelled by the prophets toward Jesus of Nazareth. It records the evangelists’ tidings of redemption in terms of “promise” and “fulfillment.” Paul, the learned, fanatically-dedicated member of the Sanhedrin, in his New Testament Epistles pleads at one and the same time for monotheism and the lordship of Jesus Christ. To many a Hebrew rabbi today, much of this “fulfillment” rests on a misreading and misunderstanding of the Old Testament. The Christian apologist who simply denounces the Jews for blindness may thereby cancel opportunity jointly to “search the scriptures” from which both Jew and Christian have much to learn.

Discernment “after the flesh” or “after the spirit” means vastly changed vistas for Christian and Jew. As Professor R. J. Zwi Werblowsky of Hebrew University has said: “The basic assumption that the Church is the legitimate fulfillment of the Old Testament Israel, implying as it does a complete break right in the middle of Jewish history, is of no reality for the historic consciousness of Israel according to the flesh.” Similarly many evangelical Christians deny that the “organized” visible Church—whether in its traditional or in its modem ecumenical structures—represents apostolic Christianity “after the spirit.” The Christian “explains” the Jew in the plan of God in relation to Christ and the Church; the Jew interprets his function in the world and in the divine economy as a Jew and within the framework of Judaism. Imperative, therefore, is a fresh understanding of both Judaism and Christianity “after the spirit” rather than “after the flesh.”

Many factors differentiate Israel and the United States as democratic powers. Their similar dedication to human rights however, should supply some reciprocally useful guidelines in handling minorities and in meeting inter-religious attitudes. Many Jews champion separation of church and state, a struggle whose implications encompass both Israel and America. Is the Israeli tendency to deal with religious differences through religious communities a sufficiently constructive solution for minority groups? Does such a policy shortchange the guarantee of individual liberty? On the other hand does the American emphasis on individual rights overload dissident minorities with initiative for social change at the expense of the majority?

In Jerusalem the Israel-American Institute of Biblical Studies (an evangelical Protestant institution) is respected for including on its faculty a Jewish scholar who teaches Christian church history from a Hebrew point of view. Would not Jewish-Protestant understanding be similarly enhanced if a Jewish seminary in America invited some competent evangelical scholar to teach the “promise-fulfillment” motif from the Christian point of view?

In addition to “what are the minority’s rights” Israeli leaders tend to ask “what can the minority do for the young state?” To what extent are missionary privileges to be weighed on just such a scale of nationalism? Missionary establishment of an agricultural school, for example, gains much greater favor than missionary establishment of a religious training school, since the state, after all, depends for survival on a land-based economy. Do Jews in America interpret religious rights in the same way? Are outsiders free to challenge and remold a country’s traditions? Should people’s religious liberty in a country be contingent upon specific identification with the interests of that country? Are religious expression and philanthropy to be tested by the yardstick of indirect political service? If missionaries practice “charity” as an integral part of Christianity should their help to the physical needs of unfortunate people be demeaned as bribery? Many such questions challenge Israel today.

Evangelical Protestants must carefully determine what projects to sponsor in Israel and what qualifications to require of Christian workers. Most unfortunate indeed is assignment of missionaries to Israel who know little of Jewish history and life. If his students, one Hebrew University professor observed, knew as little about Christianity as many missionaries know about Judaism he would promptly “flunk them.” Yet in view of conflicting interpretations for both Jew and Christian, to “know Judaism” and to “know Christianity” are far from simple objectives. Orthodox Jewry and evangelical Protestantism could profitably study the Gospels and Epistles together, could with respect and forbearance together traverse the New Testament area of divergence in search of mutual understanding. Christian missionaries in Israel, moreover, must have a working knowledge of the Hebrew language, if besides seeking conversions they seek to promote inter-religious understanding through significant dialogue. In this regard Southern Baptists have developed a commendable program of Christian writing in Hebrew which both enlarges Hebrew literature and the influence of Christianity.

Statement By Evangelical Editors

Issued in Jerusalem, Israel, on May 26, 1961.

As Editors of American Protestant evangelical magazines, we believe that the present moment of world history offers a fresh and providential opportunity for Hebrew-Christian understanding. A “breakthrough” of the barriers that have deadlocked orthodox Jews and evangelical Christians is now a live possibility for the first time in nearly 2000 years.

This new opportunity will require creative exploration and spiritual earnestness on the part of both Jewish and Christian participants.

Vital aspects of such an approach are:

Christian recognition that the people of Israel are in God’s plan.

Christian commitment to unconditional love for the Jewish people everywhere.

Conversation between orthodox Jewish scholars and evangelical Christian scholars whose common devotion to the authority of the Old Testament is their bond and point of beginning.

Christian-Hebrew dialogue should move from the profundity of evangelical conviction to the profundity of Jewish traditional belief. The Christian message is directed toward the Messianic consciousness of the Jew. The New Testament does not condone a “least common denominator” approach.

In recognizing anew the Hebrew ancestry and preparation for the Christian faith, Christians find in the nation of Israel a unique locale for such dialogue. Their settlement in Palestine now shelters once dispersed Jews from the intolerance of state religions and also from the barbarian cruelties of a wicked Gentile era forgetful of Judaeo-Christian ethics. Israelis also have an opportunity to transcend the intolerance of the first century of the Christian era in the land of Palestine. The heritage of religious liberty guarded by separation of church and state, which has shaped a hospitable national climate for American Jewry, can also guide Israel in the provision of a larger freedom for Protestant and other religious workers.

CARL F. H. HENRY, Editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY

KENNETH L. WILSON, EXECUTIVE Editor, Christian Herald;SHERWOOD E. WIRT, Editor, Decision.

Several practical, perhaps bold proposals for improving Judaeo-Protestant understanding are not amiss:

1. Professorial exchange between an evangelical Christian scholar as guest lecturer at Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an orthodox Jewish scholar as guest lecturer at an evangelical college and seminary in America.

2. Welcome acceptance of Christian missionaries in Israel and similarly of Jewish neighbors in America.

3. Objective review both in America and Israel of opportunities on radio and in other mass media for minority groups; review of practices in respect to observances of special days in respect to religious emphases in public schools, and so on.

4. Open exploration between Jewish and Christian biblical scholars of each others’ views, and co-operative study on such projects as the identity of Messiah, the suffering Servant, and the place of the Jew in God’s plan.

5. Soul-searching repentance for lovelessness and broken neighbor-love.

After all, do not Jew and Christian share in the same spiritual heritage and in the same entrusted responsibility in the pagan world? The promise, the Person, the power, and the fulfillment of redemptive love remain exclusively unique to biblical religion.

It was the world’s blackest hour. It was the world’s brightest hour. This is the paradox of the Cross.

It was the blackest hour because human hate came to its fiercest focus. It was the brightest hour because divine love came to its fullest flower. There hate was seen in all its heinous horror. But there also love revealed the heart of God.

Calvary stands at the crossroads of human history. All the divine paths of the past led to it. All the divine paths of the present and future lead from it.

At the Cross all the sin of the ages was placed on the heart of the sinless Son of God, as he became the racial representative of all humanity. From the Cross salvation flows to every believing soul. This is the Gospel, the greatest good news the world has ever heard.

The Departure. On the Mount of Transfiguration Moses and Elijah appeared to the praying Christ and “spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem” (Luke 9:31). To us “decease” means death. But the Greek word is exodos—exodus, departure. Precisely it means here the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, by which three events he made his departure from this world back to the heavenly glory.

The Death. The death of Jesus differed from that of every other man. He “dismissed his spirit” (Matt. 27:50). His was a completely voluntary decease—“No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself” (John 10:18). Death was not forced upon him. He accepted it as the will of God for the salvation of man.

What did Jesus’ death mean for Him? The answer is best suggested by his prayer in Gethsemane. There he cried out in agony of soul, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” Then he bowed his head in humble submission and said: “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39).

What was this cup from which he prayed to be delivered? Carping critics have said that Jesus cringed with cowardly fear at the thought of death. But such cavilers are utterly ignorant of the true significance of that hour. Jesus was not afraid to die!

What was it, then, from which he shrank in anguish of spirit? It was his Father’s face turned away from him in the awful hour when “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21, ASV). Our Substitute took the torturous trail of a lost soul, walking out into the labyrinthine depths of outer darkness. He tasted death for every man (Heb. 2:9). That means more than physical death. When Christ cried out on the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” (Mark 15:34), he was experiencing something far deeper. He was paying the penalty for sin—not his, but ours. The penalty for sin is separation from God. This was the price that Jesus must pay for our salvation. There was no alternative. The final words of Christ in the Garden were these: “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11). To secure man’s salvation the Son of God let the blow of divine justice fall on himself. He who could say, “I do always those things that please him” (John 8:29) had to endure the displeasure of the one he delighted to serve.

In those few but fateful hours on the cross Jesus tasted the unspeakable horror of eternal death. Spiritual darkness shrouded his soul. His cry of dereliction is the measure of his sacrifice. Olin A. Curtis has well expressed it thus: “And so, there alone, our Lord opens his mind, his heart, his personal consciousness, to the whole inflow of the horror of sin—the endless history of it, from the first choice of selfishness on, on to the eternity of hell; the boundless ocean and desolation he allows, wave upon wave, to overwhelm his soul” (The Christian Faith, 1905, p. 325). This terrific cost reveals God’s moral concern for sin. His holiness forbade him to treat it lightly. That he would forsake his Son shows the ethical intensity of the redemptive deed.

We have noted what Jesus’ death meant for him. What does it mean to us?

First, it means that a guilty sinner has access to a holy God. The writer of Hebrews speaks thus: “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh …” (Heb. 10:19, 20). This Was symbolized by the fact that at Jesus’ death the inner veil, which closed off the Holy of Holies, was torn in two.

Secondly, it means the forgiveness of sins. At the Last Supper Jesus spoke these symbolic words: “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). In the same vein Paul writes: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Eph. 1:7). Both “remission” and “forgiveness” are translations of the same Greek word, aphesis. It comes from aphiemi, which is used for the canceling of debts, the remitting of a penalty, the pardon of the guilty. All these ideas are wrapped up in the thought of divine forgiveness. The essential thing in forgiveness is the separation of the sinner from his sin. This required Calvary. Only the Cross could meet the moral crisis.

Thirdly, it involves the crucifixion of self. Paul declared: “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20, ASV). His crucifixion must become our crucifixion. What was potential and provisional at Calvary must become actual and experimental in our own lives.

The death of Christ seemed to be stark tragedy. But in it he triumphed over sin. The Cross, symbol of shame, has become the sign of victory. Ethelbert Stauffer states it thus: “The ignominious raising on the cross is really a majestic elevation to glory” (New Testament Theology, 1955, p. 130).

The Resurrection. “Biblical theology finds its clearest starting point and interpreting clue in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Thus Floyd Filson asserts the importance of this event (Jesus Christ the Risen Lord, 1956, p. 25). Alan Richardson makes a similarly emphatic statement: “Christianity is a religion of miracle, and the miracle of Christ’s resurrection is the living centre and object of Christian faith” (An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, 1958, p. 197). The doctrine of the Resurrection is not peripheral, but central. It is not secondary, but primary. Brunner asserts: “On the resurrection everything else depends” (Letter to the Romans, 1959, p. 131).

Without the Resurrection the Crucifixion would have been in vain. It was the Resurrection which validated the atoning death of Jesus and gave it value. Paul describes it strikingly this way: “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). The resurrection of Jesus proved that his sacrifice for sins had been accepted. The whole redemptive scheme would have fallen apart without it. For by his resurrection Jesus Christ became the first fruits of a new race, a new humanity.

It is no wonder, then, that the fact of the Resurrection has been vigorously attacked. A generation ago most liberal theologians scoffed at the idea of a literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus But the theological climate has changed a great deal in recent years. One need only note that the witness to the Resurrection is strong and incontrovertible.

Paul gives a brief summary, with some additions, in 1 Corinthians 15:4–8. In this same chapter he points out the importance of the resurrection of Jesus. He declares, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (v. 14); “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (v. 17). Thus he affirms clearly that the Resurrection is essential to our salvation.

The Resurrection bulked larger in the earliest apostolic preaching than it does today. It was at times, at least, the central emphasis of the church’s kerygma. This is demonstrated abundantly in Acts. In the very first chapter we discover its primary importance. To take the place of Judas Iscariot, Peter proposed the selection of one who would “… be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:22). It would appear that an essential, if not the essential, function of an apostle was to witness to the resurrection of Jesus.

In the first recorded sermon in Acts, that of Peter on the day of Pentecost, considerable space is given to the Resurrection (2:24–32). Peter also asserted it in his second sermon (3:15). The first persecution of the believers was due to their preaching of the Resurrection (4:2). When again arraigned, the apostles once more declared their faith in this doctrine (5:30). So on it goes.

In fact, one can say that the Resurrection holds a more prominent place in the New Testament as a whole than in modern preaching—even that of evangelicals. This obvious fact provoked Dr. Merrill Tenney to write his excellent little volume, Resurrection Realities. Alan Richardson asserts: “Every book in the New Testament declares or assumes that Christ rose from the dead” (A Theological Word Book of the Bible, 1950, p. 193). And Floyd Filson writes: “The entire New Testament was written in the light of the resurrection fact” (op. cit., p. 31).

One striking feature of early apostolic preaching is the emphasis not only on Christ rising from the dead but on the fact that God raised him. The Resurrection was a divine act. This is stated over and over again in Acts—“whom God hath raised up” (2:24); “That Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses” (2:32; cf. 3:15; 4:10); “The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus” (5:30). Paul asserts the same thing. He says we should “believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Rom. 4:24; cf. 8:11). Because of this emphasis Arthur Ramsey writes: “Christian theism is Resurrection-theism” (The Resurrection of Christ, 1946, p. 8).

The Resurrection is the keystone of the Christian faith. Without it we have no salvation from sin and no hope of our own resurrection (1 Cor. 15:17, 18). It is one of the main proofs of the deity of Jesus. Paul says He was “declared to be the Son of God … by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). William J. S. Simpson rightly asserts: “All distinctively Christian belief in Jesus has been founded on a knowledge of His Resurrection” (A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, edited by James Hastings, Vol. II, p. 514).

The Ascension. Actual descriptions of the Ascension are very limited in number and scope. Only two specific passages can be cited, both written by Luke (Luke 24:50, 51; Acts 1:9–11). But, as Filson notes, “… eleven New Testament books, by at least seven different writers, refer clearly to this Exaltation. It obviously was a constant feature of early Christian preaching and teaching” (op. cit., p. 50).

It should be noted in this connection that the Resurrection and Ascension are very closely united in the apostolic kerygma (e. g., Acts 2:32–35; Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:21, 22). Together they constitute the exaltation of the crucified Christ.

Because of the paucity of description of the Ascension, some have questioned its historicity. Even such a moderate scholar as Alan Richardson can say: “The ascension need not be thought of as an historical event” (op. cit., p. 199).

Of course Bultmann calls for a de-mythologizing of much of the Gospel narrative, including the Resurrection. For him it is simply a doctrine rising out of subjective experience. It is not a historical event. But Barth warns: “We must not transmute the Resurrection into a spiritual event” (Dogmatics in Outline, 1949, p. 123).

To us it seems inconsistent to insist, as some others do, on the historical reality of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and yet deny the historicity of the Ascension, simply because one does not accept the three-story concept of the universe held long ago. The cosmic import of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ is not affected by differing cosmologies.

The significance of the Ascension is clear. It means that Jesus Christ was exalted to the right hand of the Father, there to receive his proper place as Sovereign Lord (Acts 2:33–36; 5:31; Eph. 1:19–23).

But it also suggests that he carried his humanity with him back to heaven. This idea is emphasized in Hebrews, where it is stated that since he shared our human experiences he is able to be a merciful and faithful High Priest (Heb 2:14–18; 4:14–16). To know that we have an Elder Brother in heaven is a great comfort.

Our Identification with Christ. The Death, Resurrection, Ascension—these were epochal events in human history. But have they become epoch-making experiences in our individual lives? Do we know Christ in the forgiveness of our sins, in identification with him on the Cross, in the crucifixion of self? Do we know him in the power of his resurrection? Have we accepted him as Sovereign Lord of our lives?

Bibliography: J. Denney, The Death of Christ (the classic in the field); F. W. Dillistone, The Significance of the Cross; W. Milligan, The Resurrection of Our Lord; Richard R. Niebuhr, Resurrection and Historical Reason; J. S. Simpson, The Resurrection and Modern Thought; B. F. Westcott, The Gospel of the Resurrection.

Professor of New Testament

Nazarene Theological Seminary

Kansas City, Mo.

Never have Christians needed more than now to keep a sane perspective. That the unregenerate are incapable of such perspective makes it all the more imperative that we who know Christ exhibit for the world a serenity which has its wellsprings in eternal truth, unrelated to conditions in the world.

To speak of world chaos and uncertainty is to speak of something so obvious that it has long since become trite.

That whic his disturbing is the overwhelming pessimism to be found among so many Christians. That this stems from a misplaced confidence in men and nations makes it all the more serious for, of all people, a Christian’s confidence should be centered in God who is sovereign and for whose purposes all history is inexorably being worked out.

We all are familiar with the story of Martin Luther, and of the period of dark brooding through which he went, and of the penetrating question asked him by his wife: “Is God dead?” By our attitude today the same question could well be asked some of us.

To counteract the wave of depression which has settled on the hearts and minds of so many Christians there needs to come a new understanding of the sovereignty of God and the eternal verities of his Word.

That present world conditions are a part of the prophetic picture is very evident to many who are thereby strengthened in faith and moved to look up to the One who said: “Look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”

Our hope is firmly fixed in God who is sovereign, in God who has never abdicated from his own central place in the affairs of men and nations.

We have every reason to be pessimistic so far as the acts of unregenerate men and nations are concerned. The Bible is explicit in its teaching that all stand under the judgment of God, for he holds them responsible whether they acknowledge him or not. The supreme folly of the ages is to be found in those who take counsel against the Lord and against his anointed.

There are no more solemn words in all of Holy Scripture than those which speak of the laugh of holy derision which comes from God as he views the scene. “He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord has them in derision,” and this is followed by the awesome statement, “Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury.”

Is this incompatible with a loving God? No. It is not only compatible but a necessary attribute of the One who is holy and just.

Why then do we go about our daily tasks with a load in our hearts and a cloud hovering over our minds? Have we not succumbed to the philosophy of the world which looks at the immediate rather than at the eternal? Are we not evaluating men and events in terms of this world rather than in the light of the One who is the God of history?

As we look at communism, atheistic in concept and in practice, we are prone to stand in awesome fear, and rightly so, for communism is a deadly ideology that enslaves the bodies and minds of men. At the same time we need to look beyond all the communism implies to the God with whom communism will eventually have to do.

Furthermore, if we appropriate to ourselves the statement of the Apostle Paul: “If God be for us, who can be against us,” then our problem is that we be found in the place of his approval and leave all else in his hands.

History shows us that nations rise and fall primarily because of what they do about God. Civilizations have come and gone, not because of outward attrition but because of internal disintegration, and spiritual and moral values have been neglected because men knew not God nor the saving power of his Son.

Today we see the dangers of a militant, aggressive, and ever-active godless ideology which we know as communism, but what we as individuals and as a nation have to fear far more is neglecting so great a salvation offered in Jesus Christ.

In other words, let pessimism be based in our failure as individuals and as a nation to live up to the privileges and opportunities which are ours.

On the other hand we Christians should exhibit for all the world an optimism which centers in Christ himself and in the knowledge that God never fails his own.

Only the Christian has the right to be optimistic. Only a Christian has just cause for light-hearted laughter. We know to whom we belong, and we have his presence now, and the certainty of living with him in the future.

Such confidence can bear its own mute witness to those who do not themselves possess it. This witness should not be an attitude of smug complacency. “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men,” are words that should be an impelling motive for Christian work and witness.

In fact, how can we keep silent when we know the One who not only knows the future but who also keeps the future in his hands? It is something too good to keep to ourselves. It is the “Good News” which is the Gospel itself.

Christianity demands of its followers that they maintain a clear perspective as to the sovereignty of God. That we often accord him absentee status, or make him small to fit our own puny minds makes of us timid, fearful, and despondent Christians.

One of the great lessons of the Old Testament is the picture of a holy God, deeply concerned about individuals and about nations. Through Isaiah he affirmed: “And I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant, and lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless.”

That judgment has not yet fallen does not mean that God’s word has failed. Rather it is the evidence of his mercy. John tells us of God’s forbearing: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

World conditions should make us tremble because of the impending and inevitable judgment of God. We who are Christians should heed the words of the Apostle Paul: “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.” Or, of the writer to the Hebrew Christians: “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God,” and, “For our God is a consuming fire.”

Nevertheless, for the Christian there is no such fear. We can come into His presence with holy boldness because we come in the name of his Son. And we serve him with love for those around us. If the Christian fails to bear testimony to the sovereignty of God, along with his yearning love for the redemption of mankind, who is there to witness?