Page 6241 – Christianity Today (2024)

The plea of those who set the style for contemporary preaching is that our age needs biblical preaching. The American culture, however, presents difficulties so tremendous as to make true biblical preaching almost impossible. This article will develop the predicament of preaching and then present practical techniques on how to surmount some of the difficulties.

Preachers of different sorts call their preaching biblical, and so the term must be pinned down.

The preaching with the weakest claim to be called biblical is that based on biblical ethics. Only the behavior patterns of a Christian ethic as presented in the Bible are considered relevant to the present age. Biblical theology is neglected as fit only for a less sophisticated era.

The second level of biblical preaching is that which uses the scriptural material as a springboard for a discussion of current problems of life, using modern cultural patterns and language. The words of the text are applied directly to the problem, and the difference between preachers is the choice of text.

The third level is actually a subdivision of the above. The text is developed using mostly biblical illustrations, and the sermon is liberally laced with quotations of familiar Bible verses.

The fourth level is that of the doctrinal preacher who develops logical statements of faith on the basis of clearly applicable Bible verses. The weakness of this preaching is that generally the preacher examines only the Scriptures which clearly uphold his position. The difficult passages are ignored or glossed over by some rhetorical sleight of hand. Doctrinal preaching can very easily become philosophical or creedal preaching rather than biblical preaching.

These levels are progressively more biblical. Some men who carefully do their exegetical homework for each sermon have come close to biblical preaching.

The problem is the American culture. Our cultural patterns are so different from those of biblical times as to make biblical preaching almost impossible. A description of the American culture is beyond the scope of this article, but Max Lerner gives a concise and accurate picture of its fullness and complexity in America as a Civilization. As Lerner finally concludes, this American culture is a materialistic one—though perhaps not in its on-paper ideals. And a great modern culture can be very pervasive.

Facing Modern Materialism

The world view held during biblical times was quite different from that held by modern America. The universe of pre-modern times was a two-level world, with both the spiritual and the material enjoying reality; even the eggheads on Mars Hill were reached by an argument based on the reality of the spiritual universe. America’s world is a one-level materialistic one.

The American culture is the cause of another specific problem for biblical preaching because of its commitment to modern science. Without modern science, American materialism would not exist. One of last fall’s issues of this magazine was concerned with evolution. CHRISTIANITY TODAY was at odds with the culture here. The culture has for the most part settled this question for itself—man evolved.

For the scientifically oriented intellectual the problem involves much more than just the question of evolution. Some form of theistic evolution still can posit God as in control of the universe. But present-day physical and social science uses as an intellectual and conceptual tool probability theory. Probability theory says that a class of events or things can be accurately described, but individual events or things are random in the class. Probability theory has become extremely sophisticated and is used to discover and describe almost all modern knowledge. Such a doctrine is contrary to the traditional theistic world view of a sovereign God who rules in the lives of men.

American culture is so far away from the ancient cultures that doubt arises as to the possibility of biblical preaching. If a preacher preached completely in biblical thought patterns, would men be converted? Or would the people dully sit through the sermon understanding very little?

Some find a common ground of Scripture and modern culture in the sinful nature of man. William Golding, in his currently popular novel Lord of the Flies, presents man as being as savage and brutal as do any of the prophets. But Golding presents man as man, while the prophets tell about man before God. The id of Freud is not the sin of Scripture.

The fifth level of biblical preaching can be described as preaching in the thought patterns of the Bible. Modern archaeology, sociology, anthropology, and psychology have presented resources enabling man to learn biblical thought patterns and thus to preach in them. A touch of irony is notable here: scientific methodology and the specific disciplines of modern science which have driven our culture away from biblical thought patterns are also the tool by which we can learn about these ways of thinking.

Absolute biblical preaching is most likely an impossibility, because the sermon could never be free from the cultural conditioning of both preacher and listeners. But the possibility of deliberately seeking to adopt the biblical patterns of culture—although the adoption can not be complete, millennia having passed—does exist.

The premise upon which preaching gains its power is the direct witness of the Holy Spirit to the Word both in the preacher and in the listener. To have the Spirit in power the preaching must be thoroughly biblical, even to the point of changing some of the styles of popular modern preaching.

If Americans are so hopelessly out of touch with biblical culture, is there any possibility of biblical preaching? Biblical preaching has to be possible or the cause of Christ is lost. The old-fashioned (but not extinct) prophecy preachers offer proof that biblical preaching is possible. Unbiblical notions from wretched exegesis, prejudice based on ignorance, and crudeness of preaching can never take the power out of this preaching, because it grounds itself in the radical eschatology of the Bible. Conservative preachers preach Christ’s person and work. But this Christ is in and of history. The eschatology preachers preach a Jesus who is now about to break up history. The continuing existence and success of this kind of preaching is encouraging to hopes for truly biblical preaching.

A Matter Of Courage

For the preacher biblical preaching is a matter of courage. Since messages of this sort do not tickle the ego of the listeners, they may not bring professional advancement. Can the preacher cut loose from the cultural moorings of our materialism and trust the Spirit of God to move? The preacher must back up this kind of preaching with prayer that the Spirit of God will bring faith and willingness to submit to the Scriptures. He must set up priorities in his own life so he can have time to immerse himself in God’s Word. The busy work and the crowded schedule have to go.

To preach biblically, the preacher must submit himself to the discipline of the Bible. This involves a commitment deeper than a creedal position. Creeds are very fine as practical instruments for the organization of a religious body and as an elementary teaching device, but biblical preaching must go beyond the creeds. A creed is brief and simple by human design. The Bible is discursive and complex from God’s revelation.

The above might be construed to mean that this writer is in full sympathy with those who have no creeds, but this is not so. The non-creedalists come in two varieties, those who have such a paucity of doctrine as to make a creed impossible and those who say that they believe only in the Bible. The non-believers could not do biblical preaching, while the great majority of the second group have a clearly formulated set of categories by which they interpret and preach the Christian faith. Therefore, the lack of a creed in the usual sense of the term is no particular guarantee of biblical preaching. Since the Bible is the judge of creeds rather than creeds of Scripture, biblical preaching is superior to creedal preaching. Creeds, written or unwritten, have a practical use in the life of the Church, but not as a substitute for the inspired revelation.

For biblical preaching, the preacher must study the best biblical scholarship. He does not have to accept everything he reads, but he had better read a goodly amount, much of it from outside his own little theological corner. The myth which Bultmann rejects may be exactly the stuff a truly biblical preacher is after. In many ways the New Testament theology in the writing of Bultmann, Cullmann, Dodd, Stauffer, and Wilder is tremendously valuable for preachers. Brilliant scholarship must be considered whether or not one agrees with it. The past two decades have seen a flood of conservative scholarship of value, and these men must be read.

Some might want to explore the possibility of seeking to restate the biblical concepts in contemporary thought patterns, but the language of liberalism should show the danger of this. Accommodation is very difficult. The only possibility for the biblical preacher is the Bible and the Spirit.

The possibility of biblical preaching is explained and justified by the first three chapters of First Corinthians, where the wisdom of the world is compared to the foolishness of the Cross. The power of the Cross is the Spirit of God. The Gospel has never in its history faced challenges equal to the materialism of modern culture. The members of this materialistic culture may not be able to understand the Cross by using scientific categories, but the Spirit of God can open the understanding of the heart of man.

END

A virus infection kept me home last Sunday, and I had to “attend church” via radio. From the several church broadcasts offered by Chicago radio stations I made a good choice, for when the minister began his sermon I became absorbed. He held my attention to the end, and when the organist began playing the closing hymn I had the infrequent feeling that I could have stood more.

As I snapped off the radio the thought occurred to me that I had just listened to the first interesting sermon I had heard in a long time. This is more an observation than an indictment.

Sermons have greatly improved over the years, but in comparison with other prime competitors for people’s attention—radio, television, magazines, and books—they are not keeping pace. They lack preparation, prolonged thought, and inspiration. Mute testimony to this is our declining church attendance and the diminishing influence of the Church. The laity is being droned into slumber by sonorous sermons.

Many people still going to church do so out of long-suffering loyalty, or because they are attracted by what are sometimes referred to as “the cosmetics of religion”—those extras inserted into worship services to woo wayward worshipers into church. An accomplished organist, special anthems and tableaux by children and youth choirs, recognition of special groups attending in a body, jazz ensembles, guest soloists—these are the extra fillings. Even infant baptism is sometimes turned into a kind of baby show, scheduled merely for bringing in relatives by the pew-full.

Some of the revival of ritual is promoted by the desire to have an attendance-builder. Hope of success rests on the concept that people may be vain enough to believe something will prove interesting if they participate.

These “cosmetics” are legitimate and worthwhile to an extent, but they are supplanting the sermon, which is the voice of the Church and the greatest potential attendance-builder it has. There is nothing more enthralling than interesting sermons clearly expressed and well delivered. Penetrating, fresh, illuminating sermons can bring back the Church, and make her stronger than ever! Why aren’t sermons always interesting?

Why I Left The Pulpit

Curiously, the bulk of the blame is not the minister’s, but the laymen’s. The people in the pew have deprived themselves of interesting sermons by consuming an inordinate amount of their minister’s time. Present-day preachers are so busy doing everything in the church from conducting ladies aid elections to cranking the mimeograph that they have insufficient time and energy left for the reading, contemplative thought, research, and organization interesting sermons require.

I know, for I was a minister. After seven years of “successful” but frustrating work I went back to school and prepared for a career in religious journalism. I would go back into the ministry in a minute if I could have a schedule permitting me time to prepare quality sermons.

A few weeks ago while I was chatting with my pastor in his study, he mentioned how little time he had for sermon preparation. He made a sweeping gesture with his hand at the books and magazines neatly undisturbed against one wall and said, “I wish I had time to read these. As pastor of this church I’m nothing more than the manager of a $50,000 corporation.”

Time, and plenty of it, is the prime ingredient for creating anything worth disseminating. If a disinterested person outside the church has a choice—and he does—of investing twenty minutes of his time in listening to a sermon prepared in an hour or two or of reading a magazine article prepared in a day or two, you know which he will choose—and has been choosing.

Lee C. Moorehead, professor of preaching and worship at Methodism’s Saint Paul School of Theology, and an author, stated in a recent magazine article: ‘Certainly the thoughtful layman who wants his preacher to have something of substance to say on Sunday morning realizes that thoughtfulness is the result of intellectual activity that takes time. Therefore he will join the minister in helping to set up the conditions under which the minister has adequate time to study.… Thinking ought to take up a sizable block of the minister’s time” (Adult Student, Nov., 1962; © The Methodist Publishing House; used by permission).

Churches are spending much to train men for preaching, but the money and effort are largely negated by the poor stewardship laymen exercise in consuming their minister’s time.

How many hours of preparation a listenable sermon requires is difficult to ascertain, for men differ in their work habits. From my own experience, I found I needed one hour of preparation for every minute I was to speak. A twenty-five minute sermon, therefore, took me twenty-five hours to prepare. Of course, I couldn’t hold to that kind of schedule, and when I tried, I was sometimes accused of neglecting my job.

There are some consistently interesting preachers today. However one may differ from the beliefs and ideas of such well-known preachers as Harry Emerson Fosdick or Billy Graham—to name but two—there is one thing these gentlemen of the cloth cannot be accused of, and that is dullness. Perhaps this is why they are well known. Their ability to make men listen to their sermons lies not so much in oratorical talent as in what they say. Listening to them, one is readily aware that they spend hours on content and its organization.

The average parish minister, though, is kept so busy during the week that on Sunday morning he has the frustrating task of having to speak out before he has thought out. He must preach “off the top of his head,” and the result, usually, is a fuzzy, puerile sermon—and a half-filled church.

Journalism And Preaching

Part of the blame for uninteresting sermons must be laid at the doorstep of the seminary. My graduate education included training at both a seminary and a journalism school, and I must confess I learned more about sermon preparation in the latter than in the former. In the seminary I learned little more than sermon delivery, while in the journalism school the emphasis was on content.

I actually learned how to put a sermon together in a class on editorial writing taught by a visiting professor, Pulitzer Prize-winning Lauren Soth of the Des Moines Register and Tribune. When he learned I was a minister he told me that a sermon is nothing more than an editorial, and that if I wanted to hand in some excerpts from my sermons for editorial assignments, he would grade them. I was elated and had visions of breezing through a snap course, but the first five or six submitted averaged out to only a C—grade.

I was puzzled and a bit resentful. Didn’t he know I had spent three years in seminary learning how to write sermons? And I had pulled down an A in homiletics, too!

It was Mr. Soth’s comments in the margins that taught me the things I should have learned before. His comments ran like this: “inadequate subject”; “you don’t believe in your subject”; “thoughts incomplete”; “subject done too many times already”; “full of clichés”; “not told from best angle”; “straying from subject”; and “not put together well.” How these complaints exposed my sermons—and most of the sermons I’ve heard.

As the truth of these charges clawed through my pride, I wondered how many times I had lost the attention of my congregation because of such mistakes.

Eventually I received an A in the course, but it was only after devoting hours of thought to my sermon-editorials. One of the main lessons I learned was that something isn’t interesting just because I say it—even if I say it forcefully.

The Church will regain some of its lost influence when it restores its voice in the pulpit. Intelligent, positive, articulate, well-organized, and nourishing sermons will be listened to inside and outside the Church.

As one farmer advised his preacher on the way out of a service in which the preacher bemoaned the fact that more people hadn’t attended: “I’ve learned the best way to get my cattle to the feedlot is to offer them plenty of the right kind of feed.”

It is to the laymen’s advantage to work out a schedule with their preacher that will allow him time to tilt back in his swivel chair, put his feet on the desk, and stare squinty-eyed at the ceiling. They’ll soon find people flocking back to worship services and a host of green-eyed preachers wanting to serve their church.

END

Preacher in the Red

ALERT THE MISSING PERSONS BUREAU!

In my service to a rural congregation of 160 members, one of my obligations (and privileges) as pastor is to teach a class of Junior Highs on Saturday morning during the winter months. During a recent session of this class one lad asked this untimely question, “Who is Reverend Heart?” Before I could register my bewilderment, three other class members chimed in that they too wondered about Reverend Heart. I confessed my confusion and said I did not know him.

In quizzing the class I found out that Reverend Heart had something to do with the writing or the translation of the Bible. A bright member of the class added: “Pastor, you always mention him before you read the Scripture on Sunday morning.” Only then did I realize that the misunderstanding resulted from my frequent practice of introducing the Scripture reading with the words, “Let us listen now with ‘reverent hearts’ to the Word of God as we find it recorded in.…”—The Rev. E. D. BRUEGGEMANN, pastor, St. Paul United Church of Christ, Lebanon, Illinois.

Modern preaching is being most severely attacked these days, not by the people who hear it, but by preachers and theologians themselves. “Clergymen are numerous, but prophets are few,” states Dr. Kyle Haselden, editor of The Pulpit, adding that this “is a just and accurate indictment of current preaching. With one incisive stroke it uncovers the radical defect, the weakness underlying the decadence of the American pulpit.” He refers to the need for preachers “who with conviction and passion and in truth speak hopefully for God, whose pulpits remind men, not of the lecturer’s dais or the forum or a cozy experiment in group dynamics, but of Sinai, Calvary and the Areopagus.”

Dr. John R. Bodo, professor of practical theology at San Francisco Theological Seminary (Presbyterian), concurs: “We may hold, with complete biblical and historic legitimacy, that preaching is our main duty as well as the original normative medium for the proclamation of the Gospel. But our people … may no longer be greatly affected by our preaching or by any kind of preaching.… So we go on, from Sunday to Sunday, deluded into thinking that just because we have said something, something has actually happened, while people know (and we ourselves know it in sober moments) that the day of the ‘preacher’ is done.”

Dr. George C. Stuart, professor of preaching at Christian Theological Seminary (Christian Church), attacks the way preaching is taught in our seminaries. “Sometime ago I listened to a graduate of a well-recognized theological school announce to his fellow ministers that he had spent the first four or five years of his initial parish experience forgetting all that he had learned at seminary in order, as he put it, ‘to preach to the people in my church.’ Where was that student’s professor of homiletics during those crucial years? At a time when both biblical studies and theology are working systematically to build the act of preaching into the tissue of the Body of Christ, when most theologians today believe that preaching alone creates the real future of the church, homiletics is weak both as a science and an art.”

Charles Clayton Morrison, former editor of The Christian Century, recently remarked: “For a number of years I have been a modern Diogenes going about with my homiletical lantern in search of a preacher.… The pulpit, which is the throne of Protestantism, seemed to have become the footstool of a new ruler—the Cult of Consultation. The sermon has lost its character as an Event, either for the preacher or the congregation. It has become hardly more than a space-filling homily in a highly liturgical or folksy impromptu exercise preparatory to the coffee break.”

Now these are very dim views of the modern pulpit, and they are quite representative of the opinions of Protestant leaders generally. However, here is one more severe indictment of the modern pulpit which has something very constructive to offer.

Dr. Conrad H. Massa, assistant professor of homiletics at Princeton Theological Seminary, says: “In the history of the church preaching has been neglected, ignored, debased, even almost totally forgotten, but never has its place been as seriously questioned, by those who are genuinely concerned with the vitality of the church’s witness, as has been done repeatedly in this century.… All of this points to one inevitable conclusion: the Protestant minister today does not have an adequate theological understanding of the nature and purpose of preaching.… Doctrinal theology has given us exhaustive inquiries into the ‘doctrine of the Word of God.’ It has never given us a ‘doctrine of proclamation’.… It is time that theologians faced the unpleasant and rather startling realization that in the whole history of homiletical literature from Augustine to Blackwood, with only certain exceptions, the specific working aims of this activity of preaching were not taken from theologians but from pagan rhetoric! The aims of Christian preaching enunciated by Augustine, in Book IV of his On Christian Doctrine, were the aims of Ciceronian rhetoric, ‘to teach, to please, and to persuade.’ These aims have been picked up, repeated, and sanctioned by homileticians ever since.… The basic aims of public speaking cannot be applied to the gospel … because in the only sense in which ‘persuasion’ and ‘edification’ are theologically meaningful, they are the work of the Holy Spirit.…”

Exposition Of God’S Word

The sermon must be an exposition of the Word of God, not the word of man; it must come from the soul of the preacher to the soul of the hearer, as divine revelation by the power of the Spirit of God; it must confront sinners in the total context of their lives with the sovereign redemptive claims of God’s Word in the person of his Son. Therefore it cannot be judged in terms of results according to human standards. It does not “sell” something: it does not merely seek to please people, nor persuade them, nor even teach them or get decisions and conversions. Rather it tries simply to let the Word of God speak, knowing that in the last analysis only God can produce the results.

If our preaching is to have the note of divine authority, if it is to be authentic, it must strike men as being something much more than the word of the preacher. In other words, it must be theologically oriented homiletics; it must have a doctrine of divine proclamation behind it. The preacher may not be the greatest and the most popular, but he should have been taught a theory of preaching which comes, not out of mere pagan rhetoric, but out of the Word of God itself. This should be the heart of homiletics in the seminary.

Everybody can see that while the modern Church is growing, the modern pulpit is not—which raises a few very serious questions about the kind of growth which the Church is experiencing in these days of widespread religiosity. The distinctive feature which must fill the vacuum left by the modern pulpit is, as it has always been, that which the liberals themselves find wanting in their pulpits, and which the fundamentalists have not yet admitted is wanting in theirs—namely a theological doctrine of preaching the Word of God. A great opportunity lies before us, but it may be lost.

First, we can lose our opportunity by imitating others around us and sacrificing our distinctiveness in preaching, either because we would like to get the kind of dubious results others are getting, or because we yield to those voices in the church that don’t like anything too expressly biblical. Where the Word of God is preached in the power of the Holy Spirit, informed, faithful Christians can produce flourishing churches, filled with worshipers every Sunday, including the youth who profess their faith and take their fathers’ places. True, informed, Spirit-led Christians will support worldwide missions, home evangelism programs, international broadcasts, fine Christian schools, distinctive youth organizations, splendid institutions of mercy, journals and publications—but these do not result from the kind of preaching which is heard in so many modern pulpits. They can be found in churches that sound the authentic note of the inspired and infallible Bible.

Second, we can also lose our contemporary opportunity even though we maintain the high standard of distinctively biblical preaching if we fail to make our pulpits relevant to the context of modern life, if they speak only out of the past and not to the present and the future. We cannot live on an island in our culture, especially not with a truly theologically oriented homiletical theory. We have something theological to say, and we have theological pulpits with which to say it. Our sermons must not only be truly biblical, but they must also be biblically pertinent to the problems of the day in which we are living.

A Problem Of Communication

One of those problems, perhaps the very first one, is communication itself—how to get through to modern man. We are not preaching to yesterday, when words were relatively scarce and public speakers were few, when there was not so much fierce competition for the attention of men. The change in fifty years is almost incredible. Someone has said that today people are being talked into a coma. “Our entire way of life is being so governed,” says Dr. Bodo, “by selling and the mentality of selling that people automatically distrust anyone who tries to persuade them. Thus, when even hidden persuaders find it increasingly difficult to overcome the apathy and skepticism of the public, open persuaders like preachers dare not indulge in any illusions.”

This means that our pulpits must speak distinctively (without compromise of our basic theological and homiletical principles) to man as he is today, not as he was yesterday—whether we see him in our pews or somewhere else. In either case he is the same man. His life span is longer, but his listening span is shorter. He is always on the move, even mentally when he is in church, for he lives in a highly mobile world. So we shall have to talk to him in shorter sentences and shorter sermons. (Most of ours are at least ten minutes too long.) Anything we say after thirty minutes had better be outstandingly good, so good that it will stop the clock.

Through movies and magazines, through radio and television, modern man has been conditioned to communicate by pictures, not by words. He reads that way, he hears that way. He lives in a picture-dominated culture, and he doesn’t change when he goes to church. So, if we reach him it will be in the word and thought forms with which he is familiar; we must cast our homiletical theory into word-pictures. If that seems beneath our dignity, let us recall how Jesus talked in pictures to people who had not been conditioned by our modern means of communication. And isn’t the entire Bible in a sense God’s word-picture of his sovereign grace for a lost world?

Finally, we can also lose our opportunity by refusing to pay attention to the so-called details of great preaching which demand so much hard work in preparation and practice. Preachers who follow careful preparation of exegesis and neat outlines by merely standing up and talking are not doing justice to the demands of the modern pulpit. Those who write out their sermons, and then rewrite them again and again and perhaps again, are going to be the most worthy exponents of biblical preaching. To use the style of the spoken word rather than the written word; to think of how it will sound instead of how it will read; to preach in carefully chosen terms that are concrete, not abstract—these are marks of the worthy preacher. Can one who ignores these points really do justice to his calling as communicator of the Word of God, or succeed in coming to grips with the man of today in the world of today—within the church or without?

In that connection it is interesting and disturbing to observe that until very recently pre-seminary courses in most colleges required many hours of foreign-language study but only a few hours of speech. Indeed, young preachers must know these languages, but is it not equally important for them to know the language of their contemporaries to whom they must preach? Can they communicate to modern man if they cannot speak effectively to him—if they do not know how he speaks and hears?

I think it is fair to say that we have not paid proper attention to matters of style and diction, idiom and delivery. Too many of us are preaching in the language of the King James Bible, and also in the oratorical tones of that day—except that we are not as polished and grammatical. If we think that the common people will still hear us gladly, we have underestimated them. They will judge the Word of God by the words we use to preach it, even though they may not be too literate themselves. Protestant preaching ought to be the best in terms of content, biblically and theologically and homiletically. It ought to be the best in terms of communication: language and delivery, projection and pertinence, directness and rapport. Proclamation of the Gospel is dishonored when syntax and style and spelling insult the Holy Spirit. He is concerned not only in the larger issues of divine truth, but also in these so-called details.

Let us not forget that every sermon we preach leaves its mark upon those who hear it, for better or for worse. After hearing it they are never the same again. If they turn away, by showing this very definite reaction they prove the point. No, it is not presumptuous for a preacher to state this conclusion, for true preaching is the most powerful form of communication in all the world. This is not because of the preacher, nor because of the sermon, but because the voice of the Spirit is in every real sermon, no matter what the cynics of our day think of it. Even cynics can be and have been affected and converted by such a sermon.

Jesus told his disciples to preach the Gospel. When the Holy Spirit came to the Church on Pentecost, he did not begin his mighty work in this world by setting up an organization, by launching a new social enterprise, by establishing a counseling service, by joining a community crusade, or by drafting a set of resolutions, but rather by preaching the Gospel. He set up a pulpit and preached a sermon. On the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was first of all a preacher.

And so throughout its history, the Christian pulpit has always occupied the primary place in the true Church. There have been times when it was neglected. Then the Church lost its spiritual power. But each time the restoration of the pulpit was essential in bringing the reformation of the Church.

Such a time is upon us today, judging by the criticism of the modern pulpit directed by those who, in so doing, are also judging themselves. Christian homiletics, I believe, can produce the kind of pulpits needed today. It can bring a real doctrine of preaching the Word of God. But we had better be careful, for we could easily miss our opportunity to make that contribution. We could miss it by losing both our identity and our principles of preaching. We could miss it with pulpits that have no relevance to our day, that have no rapport with our culture, that are too isolated and too antiquated to be understood by modern man or to have any significance for the modern scene. We could miss it by refusing to learn the hard lessons and the fine arts of pulpit speech, by preaching the Word of God in words which the Holy Spirit cannot use, and which our hearers cannot tolerate.

END

Everyone understands that all theology is influenced by the particular thought forms of its day. Conceptual molds of historical periods are the casts in which human words, including theological words, are set. This is true not only of the Roman Catholic theology and its Aristotelian categories, but of Protestant theology as well. Think, for instance, of the Protestant scholasticism of the post-Reformation period: philosophical concepts helped mold many of its thoughts.

The influence on theology of its contemporary idiom is not limited to conscious use of certain thought forms. The climate of thought also penetrates theology. The world wars of the twentieth century set their marks on theological thinking. The confidence of the nineteenth century in man, both neutral and Christian man, was mortally wounded by the First World War and was followed by a profound skepticism concerning man. With this attitude prevailing in general, theology turned toward a concept of the kingdom of God which held it to be a gift of God rather than a fruit of human activity, a future perspective rather than an evolutionary growth. The radically transcendental eschatology of this period mirrored the times in which it was developed. Theology, that is, reflects the atmosphere in which it lives. This fact carries with it certain dangers. It also provides theology with a vital and relevant character.

All this, I say, is pretty well understood. Now, however, the question is raised whether the Church’s confessions are equally conditioned by their day. Is the Church influenced by the conditions of its day as it speaks and writes confessions? For some people, the answer must be negative. The Gospel, they remind us, is unchangeable, lifted above the swirling currents of time. But, on second thought, it must seem clear to all that we cannot separate Church and theology so clearly. The Church’s condemnation of Galileo was possible because the Church, not simply its theology, was acting according to the limitations of its time and its faulty understanding. The Gospel does not change. But our understanding and translation of the Gospel does, we may be grateful to say, change.

When we recall how limited our understanding of the Gospel is, how frequently the Church has needed correcting, we are not surprised that the Church is still in need of reminders that its confessions are not divine, but human words. To admit this is not to capitulate to relativism. It is only to say that we have no right to identify our translation of the Gospel with the Gospel itself. Paul had something to say about our incomplete understanding and about our seeing through a glass darkly. Children of the Reformation will, above anyone, be ready to confess that the Church’s confessions, even the best of them, are limited and subject to correction. The Church, as Bavinck said, takes its stance deep underneath the Word. In this sense we can say that a truly Reformed theology is written rather for today than for posterity.

We must remain open for any correction of our thought that the Word may at any time insist upon. Indeed, our preoccupation with the Bible means nothing if it does not mean that we keep ourselves open, open to more and clearer understanding. If one studies Kittel’s theological dictionary of the New Testament—the monumental work now at the threshold of completion—he is more deeply impressed than ever with the limited character of human speech about the Bible. This does not mean that our speech is worthless because it is mere human speech. The Church was and still is called to confess. But it must confess in humility. It must never leave the impression that its speech is final, that the last word about Scripture on any point has now been said. The Church must make it very clear that it stands under the scepter of the Gospel and that it can never be content merely to repeat yesterday’s words, the words which the Church used yesterday for confessing the truth.

The Gospel itself leads theology and the Church to ask what this means for their respective tasks. What does it mean for the confession and reflection regarding man as the image of God, for eschatology, for divine election (as over against determinism and fatalism, with which it is often confused, but with which it may never be identified)? It is a good time for both the Church and its theology whenever they are forced to see the relative character of their speech. For then they recognize that it is the Gospel alone which never changes and that the Church and its theology may not stand in the way of the Gospel. We are concerned with our limitations, and our stupidity, and our temptation to think we know it all. These are the things that can get in the way of and hide the light of the Gospel.

The problem of the relativity of human thought as over against the absoluteness of the Gospel is being considered within the Roman Catholic Church at this time. There it has its special troubles in view of the notion of papal infallibility. As we take note of the discussion in Roman theology, we are not only aroused to curiosity about their solutions. We are called as Reformed people to a new awareness of our own calling. We need have no fear for the dangers that hide in the bushes along the path. Fear of dangers must never determine our direction. The direction we take is the one laid out for us in the Gospel. Dangers, along this way, are meant only to be overcome, not to be escaped. The Church looks for victory, not for hiding places.

An eighty-year-old woman who has suffered many years from degeneracy of the mind and an assortment of chronic ills suddenly has a heart attack. She is rushed to a hospital, placed in an oxygen tent, fed intravenously, given heart stimulants, and subjected to numerous tests. Within forty-eight hours she dies, however, and her family receives a staggering medical bill.

This kind of situation (Reader’s Digest, Dec., 1960) occurs many times over. In fact, some doctors and laymen are now asking, “How long are we morally bound to sustain the life of a dying man?” The issue isn’t one of euthanasia, or “mercy killing,” but rather of dysthanasia, or “difficult, painful and undignified death.” Are doctors morally bound to perpetuate life without regard to the kind of existence they are perpetuating? Have they the right to prolong life unreasonably?

The Apostle Paul could never have imagined what extraordinary methods would someday be available for preserving life. Yet in his letter to the Philippians he enlightens us concerning this problem of life versus death. At the age of sixty, and from a background of thirty years of Christian service, he writes the brethren from a Roman cell, where the threat of a death sentence hangs over him. Under these circ*mstances he says, “For me to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21).

In this brief statement, the aged apostle formulates a distinctively Christian philosophy of life and death. He is saying, as it were: “So far as I am concerned, the only purpose for living is to act as Christ’s ambassador to men. Because the Philippian church still needs my help, it is better for me to remain ‘in the flesh’ even though I am old and would be happy to go to my eternal reward.”

In facing the problem of dysthanasia we need to consider, first of all, the “purpose of life,” a matter that confronts not only ministers but everyone who names the name of Christ. Why do men want to live?

Take the case of a certain sixty-nine-year-old physician (The Saturday Evening Post, May 26, 1962). One day he suffered a stroke in his office and was rushed to the hospital. His heart was still beating, but breathing had stopped. Although artificial respiration was begun, it was soon apparent that recovery was impossible. It was three days, however, before the struggling man found his rest. To what end was this life prolonged? Even if this sixty-nine-year-old doctor had lived, what hope was there for sustaining a truly useful life?

Many doctors argue that the Hippocratic oath binds them to the prolongation of life. This oath says, “I will follow that method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients and abstain from whatever is deleterious and wrong.” Is to perpetuate, even to compound human misery, to “abstain from whatever is deleterious and wrong”? Is such “restoration”—often short-lived, often to uselessness—really “for the benefit of” the patient? Have usefulness and purpose for living no implications for the Hippocratic oath?

What about younger persons and children? Is the same principle of “purpose” to govern the maintenance of life for them, too? I myself, under normal circ*mstances, can expect to live thirty to forty more years. As far as I’m concerned, my one purpose for living is to serve as Christ’s ambassador. If accident or disease were to destroy my usefulness in this regard, I would not want well-meaning physicians to keep me in a limbo between earthly survival and heavenly reward.

As I see it, the younger the person is, the more tragic it is to deliberately perpetuate hopelessly useless life.

Having said all this, I should emphasize that I am not advocating “mercy killing” by default. I’m not saying that the hopelessly ill should be abandoned. Where it is possible, such loved ones should be brought home. Instead of being subjected to “extraordinary measures,” they should be supplied with sedatives and analgesics and surrounded with abundant tenderness and love. The Saturday Evening Post (May 26, 1962) tells of a doctor who advocated and followed this very course of action in his own family in regard to an aged mother. Each family, obviously, and each doctor, must decide what constitutes “extraordinary measures” and must act accordingly.

I am simply trying to set down a basic principle for the Christian whose one purpose for living is to serve Christ. When medical prognosis shows that further hospital care cannot assure this kind of life, then the person should be brought home and given normal bed care. This procedure faces life and death realistically without abandoning the hopelessly ill.

The Apostle Paul’s view of death was as unique as his view of life. While he said, “Living is Christ, so far as I am concerned,” he also said, “but dying is gain.” Both biblical and classical Greek use the word gain to mean either material or immaterial advantage. At least once, the papyri contrast the gain or advantage of death with a “raw deal.” Death to Paul is the means whereby he will be able to enjoy the fruit of his labor. For him the “gain” of death is to go to his reward in heaven, where the Master will say, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” The context of Philippians 1:22 bears out this commentary. By “but if I live in the flesh this is the fruit of my labor” Paul seems to say, “My only reward, so long as I remain in my body, is human existence.” In other words, for Paul human existence is but a poor second to death with its gain of heaven.

When a Christian is dying, a doctor needs to be aware of his patient’s sense of values. For such a one a vegetable existence offers no opportunity of living for Christ; moreover, it also postpones his heavenly reward. A physician’s “extraordinary measures” are not “for the benefit of” a patient if they prolong a believer’s uselessness as an ambassador for Christ and delay the realization of his heavenly inheritance.

For those who are not Christians the situation is different, of course. Their motivations and benefits are linked to this present life alone. And those uneasy about their spiritual lostness covet any extension of time to get right with God.

But as a Christian I for one demand the right to die. When this flesh is no longer of use for my Master, don’t force me to keep it! Let me be liberated to receive my reward! “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”—THE REV. ANDRE BUSTANOBY, Pastor, Arlington Memorial Church (Christian and Missionary Alliance), Arlington, Virginia.

If The Foundations Are Weak?

The Challenge to Reunion: The Blake Proposal Under Scrutiny, edited by Robert McAfee Brown and David H. Scott (McGraw-Hill, 1963, 292 pp., $6.50), is reviewed by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California.

This book is a symposium devoted to analysis of the Blake-Pike reunion proposal from several different angles. In some cases the essays are historical, in others denominational, in others again sociological, and in a final group theological. Dr. Blake himself contributes a closing reconsideration in which he expresses confidence that the suggested plan has stood up under examination. Useful appendices contain the original sermon, Dr. Pike’s reply, and some basic Anglican documents relevant to the situation. Brief but helpful bibliographies are given after each essay.

Inevitably in a work of this kind there is a certain amount of overlapping. Although the standard of thought and writing is generally high, there is also an unavoidable inequality of treatment. Attention may be drawn to a few of the more outstanding essays. The discussion of the New Testament church by Bruce Metzger is an excellent survey. No less impressive is the review of the question of reunion during and after the Reformation by John T. McNeill. Robert Nelson has contributed an able and interesting essay on recent Asiatic schemes, such as that of South India. Markus Barth plays effectively the role of “the adversary” by putting some awkward and searching questions on the priesthood of the laity and the theology of the sacraments, though he himself does not supply any alternative answers.

What is the general impression from a perusal of these various essays? On the whole, they seem to be generally in favor of the proposal. Difficulties are necessarily seen at various levels, and there is question as to the ultimate goal or value of such a merger. But Dr. Blake is right enough in his conclusion that the proposal stands up reasonably well to the many-sided analysis to which it is subjected. This seems to be the view of the editors also in their introductory review of the enterprise.

Nevertheless, it is significant that endorsem*nt is weakest at the theological level. Indeed, it is a striking fact that there is so little theological discussion in the present volume. One suspects that the reason is that the proposal itself contains so little theology anyway. It is essentially the construct of the ecclesiastical man of affairs. It is almost an ecclesiastical equivalent of the business merger. It does not even invite real theological discussion. Like so much of our modern practice, it bypasses biblical and doctrinal issues as though they were merely theoretical and obstructive. Even the invocation of the theme of death and resurrection is here given a practical application—the churches are to die to their present structures and to reemerge in a new form. No guarantee is given that the new form will in fact be a “resurrected” form in the true sense, i.e., that it will not be conformed to the world but will be transformed by the renewing of the mind. In other words, neither the proposal nor the bulk of this able and interesting symposium really comes to grips with the basic question of the nature and goal and structure of true Christian unity.

It is at this point that the proposal really demands profound and detailed analysis. It is also at this point, as Dr. Barth’s essay suggests, that the ultimate inadequacy of the proposal, and the peril of its attempted application, could well be revealed.

GEOFFREY W. BROMILEY

And Your Cloak Also

Spurgeon: The Early Years (1834–1859), a revised edition of his autobiography (Banner of Truth Trust, 1962, 500 pp., 21s.), is reviewed by Godfrey Robinson, Minister, Main Road Baptist Church, Romford, Essex, England.

Some of us still have on our shelves the cumbrous four-volume edition of C. H. Spurgeon’s autobiography, compiled by his wife and private secretary and long since out of print. Large books, like long sermons, are no longer fashionable, and the Banner of Truth Trust has reprinted the original Parts I and II as a single and most attractive volume (Parts III and IV to come later). A certain amount of non-biographical material has been omitted, but Spurgeon’s own contributions have been retained practically in full.

Who was this phenomenon? At the age of seventeen he was the pastor of a country congregation meeting in what had been a dovecote at Waterbeach in Cambridgeshire. Within five years he had London at his feet. In his final illness the attention of the civilized world was centered on him “in column after column of almost every newspaper.” Opinions about him varied. “The sauciest dog that ever barked in the pulpit” was one.

In these pages Spurgeon lives again, and we are permitted to look deep into his heart. It is all here—the hatreds and jealousies of lesser men, the loneliness of eminence, the robust humor, the astonishing command of language, the passion for his Lord. “In Spurgeon’s heart,” wrote Archibald Brown, one of the “Governor’s” own men, “Jesus stood unapproached, unrivalled.… He was our Lord’s delighted captive.” This handsome volume, so beautifully produced and inexpensively priced, is a delight to handle. The reader will wear out his pencil marking passages worth noting—and quoting. If you feel you cannot afford it, then, as C. H. S. himself might have said, “Sell your waistcoat, and buy it!”

GODFREY ROBINSON

The Demonic

Christ and the Powers, by H. Berkhof (Herald Press [Scottdale, Pa.], 1962, 62 pp., paper, $1.25), is reviewed by John Joseph Owens, Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.

When man’s mind is being pulled in every direction by varying philosophies of life, it is important to see faith as the crowning element of victory and success. Dr. Berkhof, professor of dogmatic and biblical theology in the University of Leiden, wrote Christus en de Machten in 1953. Now Dr. John Howard Yoder provides for us a very readable and clear English translation.

The central theme is an interpretation and explanation of the meaning of “powers” as found in Pauline thought. In Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, and Colossians, Paul speaks of “principalities” and “powers.” The author does not make specific modern definitions or identifications of these powers. But in general terms he describes the biblical denunciation of the powers as the Old Testament prophet would denounce Baalism. The general approach is that any influence or power which sets itself over against Christianity would be classed as one of the powers. It is from this thesis that Dr. Berkhof draws the title Christ and the Powers, inasmuch as the entire booklet is devoted to Paul’s use of the terms.

In this age of historical and demonstrable powers, we are prone to put theology into one area and everyday life into another. This small paperback book speaks out for the validity of the Christian faith as over against the “powers” of Communism, secularism, nihilism, and so on. Dr. Berkhof speaks of the powers as belonging to the area of Paul’s view of the world instead of to his theology.

JOHN JOSEPH OWENS

Fair Presentation

New Testament Theology, by Frank Stagg (Broadman, 1962, 361 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Merrill C. Tenney, Dean of the Graduate School, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.

“Biblical theology” has come into its own once more, and writers of all schools of theological thought are offering their contributions. New Testament Theology is written by a Baptist who represents the more conservative wing of recent writers. Basing his work on the text of the New Testament, he has written a classified summary of its doctrinal content for classroom teaching. Although he does not attempt a philosophical articulation of theology, he follows a logical progression beginning with “The Bible: Its Nature and Purpose” (which is the medium of revelation), and then proceeding to “The Plight of Man as Sinner,” “The Christology of the New Testament” (God’s answer to sin in Christ), “The Doctrine of Salvation,” “The Death and Resurrection of Jesus,” and “The Kingdom of God” (which embraces the purpose and outcome of salvation). Following these are several chapters dealing with the Church—its ordinances, ministry, and ethics, with a concluding chapter on “Eschatology: The Goal of History.”

The book is a fair representation of the total scope of New Testament theology. The discussion of the nature of sin and the treatment of the person of Christ are quite thorough and satisfactory. The author endeavors to let Scripture speak for itself without minimizing or exaggerating exegetical problems, and he frankly confesses inconclusiveness on some points, such as “baptism for the dead” (1 Cor. 15:29). In regard to this latter problem he suggests that Paul meant by “the dead” the “old man” who is put to death that the new man might take his place. One wonders whether this were the precedent that Paul had in mind when he made his argumentative appeal to the Corinthians, however.

Reading for Perspective

CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S REVIEW EDITORS CALL ATTENTION TO THESE NEW TITLES:

★ A Man Spoke, A World Listened, by Paul L. Maier (McCraw-Hill, $4.95). A son tells the life story of the late Walter A. Maier, whose voice on the Lutheran Hour for many years sent the Gospel around the world.

★ The Last Judgment, by ]ames P. Martin (Eerdmans, $4). A historical study to discover whether respect for biblical authority—or something else—determined the understanding of the Last Judgment in Christian thought.

★ The Church’s Use of the Bible, edited by D. E. Nineham (S.P.C.K., 21s.). Eight English scholars investigate the way the Bible has been viewed and handled at various periods in the history of the Church.

The teaching of the New Testament is presented in the light of contemporary thought. Authorities quoted belong almost wholly to the last two decades, and their contributions are evaluated by the text of the New Testament itself. The author expresses freely his theological convictions by differing with others: “The New Testament knows no ‘irresistible grace’” (p. 84); “‘Justification’ is the creative work of God in which he is making man upright,” for it is more than “a state of acceptance with God” (p. 95); “Reconciliation is God’s own work in restoring man to proper relationship with himself and other persons” (p. 104), in contrast to the idea of appeasem*nt. Some new material on baptism is supplied from pre-Christian Jewish practices (pp. 205–12).

In two or three particulars the reader may not be perfectly satisfied with this book. Dr. Stagg’s statement of the inspiration of the Bible seems somewhat equivocal. “The writer was not concerned to discuss the nature or manner of inspiration. His concern, beyond affirming the fact of inspiration, is to stress the purpose of the God-inspired Scriptures” (p. 3). Unquestionably he affirms the unique authority of the New Testament, but whether it is the truth or a witness could be defined more sharply.

Eschatological teaching could also be more detailed. The author combines the approach of “realized eschatology” and of traditional futurism by interpreting parousia as meaning both Christ’s presence now with his people and a “real coming of Christ to His people” (p. 312) which is still future. The reconciliation of these two concepts needs a fuller exegesis of the New Testament than can be given in the limited pages of this book.

Stagg says that “the New Testament … has much to say about the Holy Spirit” (p. 39), but he does not develop this important topic adequately. Although there are several references to the Holy Spirit under various headings, no one of these does justice to the doctrine.

This work is eminently readable. It contains some fine epigrammatic expressions, such as: “The New Testament offers no salvation which leaves as optional the Lordship of Christ.” Preachers will be able to profit considerably from its word studies, and the general outline will be useful as an index to the sources of Christian theology.

MERRILL C. TENNEY

Who’S Listening?

Breakthrough: A Public Relations Guide for Your Church, by Howard B. Weeks (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1962, 320 pp., $5), is reviewed by David E. Kucharsky, News Editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Very few pastors will take the time to read this book. That’s unfortunate, because for many it would spell the difference between mediocrity and success in their churches’ impact. Public relations, strangely enough, still has a bad image in many clergy minds. They think the concept itself is something deceptive, or else they feel public relations is a slippery ideal that you can never really get your hands on.

Once the church had a voice as loud as any other in the community. Today it has been largely drowned out by television, radio, periodicals, mail ads, billboards, flyers, packaging, and a wide assortment of more subtle influences. Everyone wants to say something, but nobody wants to listen. Churches are saying more than they ever did, but there’s also more chaff in the air than ever. The result is a record amount of static and probably an all-time low in effective reception.

This author recognizes implicitly that churches have not faced up to the problems of contemporary communications competition. Although directed primarily to Seventh-day Adventists, his principles have wide applicability. The book is highly readable, down to earth, and packed full of illustrations and practical suggestions.

The fact that the book is a product of Seventh-day Adventists is itself a commendable feature, because this group with its special image problems has one of the most effective public relations systems of any denomination. Weeks himself was formerly international chief of Adventist public relations and is now engaged in doctoral communications study. An unusually gifted young man, he could easily pull down a top salary along Madison Avenue. He has chosen instead to devote his talents to his church, and in this book he has given us the most thorough and practical guide to church public relations available.

DAVID E. KUCHARSKY

Reverent Neoorthodoxy

Harper’s Bible Commentary, by William Neil (Harper & Row, 1963, 544 pp., $5.95; also by Hodder and Stoughton, 1962, 15s., under title One Volume Bible Commentary), is reviewed by John H. Gerstner, Professor of Church History, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

This is a unique and interesting one-volume Bible commentary. First, it proceeds not verse by verse or even chapter by chapter, but, as it were, thought by thought, epoch by epoch. Ideally it calls for the simultaneous reading of the Bible, which is the goal at which the writer has aimed.

Second, Neil combines popular writing with deft critical touches. In a few sure and facile strokes he is able to paint the whole JEDP canvas and three “Isaiah”s, for example. Without any learned digressions our author brings his readers immediately up to date on the results of prevailing modern criticism and then, with remarkable ease, relates the Bible story in that framework. What Wellhausen, Barth, Bultmann, Noth, and others have tried to do for the scholar, Neil offers to the general reader.

Our third observation is a warning often uttered by another commentator, John Calvin. Beware of separating the Word of God from the Bible. If the Bible is not to be depended upon as the Word of God, are men not inevitably obliged to make their own conjectures into the Word of God?

We do not approve of the position of this book, but we do recommend its reading for what it is: an excellent, up-to-date statement of the Bible as seen through the eyes of a competent, reverent neoorthodox scholar writing skillfully for Everyman.

JOHN H. GERSTNER

Less Pithy

A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Volume II: Psalms–Malachi, by Matthew Poole (Banner of Truth Trust, 1962, 1030 pp., 30s.), is reviewed by A. Skevington Wood, Evangelist-at-large, York, England.

Poole was one of the ministers ejected from the Anglican church in 1662 as being unready to declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the contents of the Prayer Book. His abridgment of the Crtici Sacri (a monumental encyclopedia of exegesis) equipped him to launch out as a commentator in his own right. His posthumous Annotations, as they were originally called, deserve to rank alongside the better-known work of Matthew Henry. Poole is less pithy in homiletical appositeness, but more exact and informed in his close treatment of the text.

A. SKEVINGTON WOOD

Can It Conserve?

In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo, by Frank S. Meyer (Regnery, 1962, 179 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Irving E. Howard, Assistant Editor, Christian Freedom Foundation, New York, New York.

In this age of conformity, a reader looking for intellectual stimulation will not find it in the tired, worn-out phrases of the liberal collectivist literature, but will be rewarded by reading the books emanating from the ferment of conservative thought. Frank S. Meyer’s In Defense of Freedom is such a book. It is critical, not only of the liberal collectivist attempt to destroy liberty but also of the New Conservative inadequate defense of freedom. Thus the book is an example of the conservative movement’s ability to be self-critical. Since Meyer is a senior editor of National Review, such a quality is not surprising.

The author refutes one of the most popular fallacies of our time; namely, that a democratic government is “all of us.” This fallacy, he points out, confuses the power to pass upon who shall govern with the power to govern. Says Meyer: “Even if annual elections changed the governors constantly and men were forbidden to succeed themselves in power, the essential separation of the state from the rest of social existence would still remain.… To grasp this elemental distinction is the first condition of a theory of the state.”

While agreeing with Meyer’s criticism of liberal collectivism, the orthodox Protestant may not give unqualified agreement to his conception of man as a “rational, volitional, autonomous individual.”

Nevertheless, the issue he raises is one which orthodox Protestants should face and—if possible—resolve: “Can the new and rising conservative leadership release and guide the pent-up energies, the intuitive understanding of their heritage, the love of freedom and virtue in the hearts of the American people, before the converging forces of cloying collectivism at home and armed collectivism abroad destroy the very meaning of freedom?”

IRVING E. HOWARD

A Jab For The Reader

Studies in New Testament Ethics, by William Lillie (Westminster, 1963, 189 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by James Daane, Editorial Associate, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Presbyterian Lillie, since 1953 a lecturer in the University of Aberdeen, presents fifteen essays on ethics according to the New Testament. Included are essays on the New Testment’s attitude toward law and justice, the state, wealth, work, children, and marriage and divorce.

He is a strong believer in the reality and function of natural law. Although he recognizes the limitations of natural law, he regards the Old Testament Holiness Codes as later developments of legal traditions which can be traced back beyond the earliest limits of biblical revelation. He urges natural law as the common element of all codes of morality, and as the common ground making possible Christian and non-Christian cooperation in social action. The same motif emerges in his claim that agape sublimates and transforms eros in the Christian man, and in the claim that agape is reflected even among animals, as when a mother sacrifices herself for her young. At the same time he contends that there is a unique, mysterious, noumenal element in God’s summons to obedience and service, an element that makes Christian ethics transcend good and evil as mere moral constructs.

While at many points his doctrinal and ethical positions are deeply evangelical, his view of the Bible as revelation is something else. He can smile at certain biblical stories, facilely declare Paul to be in error, and yet appeal to little-known texts for proof of the rightness of his positions with a confidence that expects no rebuttal.

Nonetheless, within the ambiguities of his conception of biblical revelation, he can endorse the most unpopular Christian positions; he can also shock the reader by what he challenges and rejects, and by his fresh insights.

I doubt whether Lillie’s ethics is consistent within the terms of his own logic. Yet his razor-edged analysis, his detection of the weak spots in other current ethical positions, and the happy unexpected turns of his thought serve the needed function of exposing those all too simple and easy codifications of ethics in which man is more in control of New Testament ethical imperatives than controlled and challenged by them.

The essays are lucid, the thought and style clear and often sharp enough to stab the reader out of an easy ethical complacency, into the necessity of doing some ethical reflection of his own.

JAMES DAANE

New Approach

The Home Front of Jewish Missions, by Albert Huisjen (Baker, 1962, 222 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by H. Leo Eddleman, President, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, New Orleans, Louisiana.

This book is well documented and presents a thorough historical background of the delicate subject of Jewish-Christian relations. Perhaps as no other book, this volume gives the attitude of Jewish people towards the polemic between the Church and Judaism as it is revealed in the extrabiblical Jewish literature, including the Talmud, Mishnah, and others.

One of the book’s strong points is its tactful analysis of the failures of all approaches on the part of Christians toward Jews up until now. The author is fair but accurate in dealing with such items as the false “traditions” about Jesus, the Inquisition, and the affect of secularism on the total picture of Jewish-Christian relations.

By virtue of decades of experience in the field, this author is able to point to the basic principles of a new approach to Jewish people, particularly to the parish or local church level for reaching the Jewish heart.

H. LEO EDDLEMAN

Book Briefs

Institutionalism and Church Unity, edited by Nils Ehrenstrom and Walter G. Muelder (Association, 1963, 378 pp., $6.50). A study by 16 scholars from all over the world of theological-sociological relationships as they exist in ecclesiastical institutionalism, in biblical thought, and in other aspects of institutionalism. Prepared by the Study Commission on Institutionalism, Commission on Faith and Order, World Council of Churches.

Preaching on Old Testament Themes, edited by C. E. Lemmon (Bethany Press, 1963, 128 pp., $2.50). Although the book claims to be a series of sermons on Old Testament themes and to present “a sampling of the best in contemporary Disciple preaching,” its sermons, while highly readable, are generally superficial and frequently unbiblical. In most Christ is scarcely visible, and in many there is a social concern with but short biblical rootage.

Isaiah, by Elmer A. Leslie (Abingdon, 1963, 288 pp., $5). Isaiah (First, Deutero, and Trito) chronologically rearranged (second verse treated almost 100 pages after the first), translated, and interpreted.

Heart of a Stranger, by Lon Woodrum (Zondervan, 1962, 136 pp., $2.50). A religious novel about a bank robbery and a conversion to Christianity which some will thoroughly enjoy and about which others will say with one of its characters: “Yucca juice.”

The Epistles to the Thessalonians, by Harold J. Ockenga (Baker, 1962, 142 pp., $2.75). Helpful comments and insights on the key texts and motifs of this epistle.

Knight’s Treasury of Illustrations, by Walter B. Knight (Eerdmans, 1963, 451 pp., $5.95). A better-than-average collected mass of illustrations and poems, facts, statistics (some out of date), observations, and jokes, of use to Christian speakers.

World Without Want, by Paul G. Hoffman (Harper, 1962, 144 pp., $3.50). Arguing that it is now for the first time possible to eliminate poverty the world over, Hoffman (of Marshall Plan fame) pleads that the economically advanced countries should invest in foreign aid to the world’s 100 underdeveloped countries. Such aid, he says, is morally right and economically profitable, and politically is the only expedient way to avoid explosive revolution in a world where two-thirds of the people daily earn only the equivalent of a half loaf of bread.

Christian Education as Engagement, by David R. Hunter (Seabury, 1963, 128 pp., $3). This book sets forth the theological and educational foundations of the Episcopal Church’s “new curriculum” which has aroused a storm of both praise and protest. For the educator.

Daily Life Prayers for Youth, by Walter L. Cook (Association, 1963, 95 pp., $1.75). Prayers (very like sermonettes) which encourage thought of God in the nooks and crannies of teen-age life.

The Handbook of Public Prayer, edited by Roger Geffen (Macmillan, 1963, 204 pp., $5.50). Nearly 1,000 prayers gathered from Scripture and diverse Christian traditions of all ages for use on public occasions.

The Apocrypha (University Books, 1963, 238 pp., $12.50). A facsimile of the famous Nonesuch edition of 1924. A thing of beauty and fine craftsmanship.

The Day Camp Program Book, by Virginia W. Musselman (Association, 1963, 384 pp., $7.95). In a grand manner what it claims to be.

Das Wesen Des Reformatorischen Christentums, by Emanuel Hirsch (Walter de Gruyter & Co. [Genthiner Str. 13, Berlin W 30], 1963, 270 pp., 18 German Marks). A teeth-in-it kind of discussion of the central affirmations of the Reformation.

The Believer’s Unbelief, by Roy Pearson (Thomas Nelson, 1963, 175 pp., $3.95). The book’s best example of its title is the author’s exceedingly low view of the Old Testament, whose God is “terrible,” “immoral,” and of “steady bitterness.” As men “struggled slowly upward,” says the author, “God revealed himself in surer form to them.” This book is part of the disease, not the cure.

That the World May Believe, by Hans Küng (Sheed & Ward, 1963, 149 pp., $3). Küng writes ten letters to a Roman Catholic university student and in both style and substance speaks to the personal and theological problems of such a student in the modern world.

This Before Architecture, by Edward S. Frey (Foundation Books [122 Old York Road, Jenkintown, Pa.], 1963, 127 pp., $3.50). Six addresses on church architecture by the executive director of the Lutheran Church in America’s Commission on Church Architecture. Theology, not pictorial form and appearance, he contends, should determine the shape of the House of God.

Sermons for Special Days and Occasions, by G. Hall Todd (Baker, 1962, 157 pp., $2.50). Sermons by a well-known Philadelphia Presbyterian for such occasions as Mother’s Day, New Year’s Day, Labor Day, and Bible Sunday, in language biblical and modern.

Out of the Depths, by Helmut Thielicke (Eerdmans, 1962, 89 pp., $2.50). Messages coming out of the context of the war and post-war years, directed to basic human needs.

Natural Law and Modern Society, a symposium (World, 1963, 285 pp., $4). Concerned about the assault of modern positivistic science upon objective natural law, various authors argue that natural law is of the very foundation of our view of jurisprudence, culture, sociology, religion, teleology, and public opinion. Writers include Robert M. Hutchins, John Courtney Murray, S.J., and Harvey (Fail-Safe) Wheeler.

Paperbacks

The New Life, by Allan R. Knight and Gordon H. Schroeder (Chaplaincy Services of American Baptist Convention [164 Fifth Avenue, New York 10] and Chaplains Commission of Southern Baptist Convention [161 Spring St., N.W., Atlanta 3, Ga.], 51 pp.). A Baptist-orientated service personnel manual for a chaplain’s instruction class. Six lessons.

The New Life (The General Commission on Chaplains and Armed Forces Personnel [122 Maryland Ave., N.E., Washington 2, D.C.], 40 pp., $.15). Questions, scriptural texts, and pictures which lay out the way of salvation. Written for servicemen.

Opportunity of a Lifetime (Commission on Chaplains of the National Association of Evangelicals [1405 G St., N.W., Washington 5, D.C.], 23 pp., $.15) and Why Didn’t Somebody Tell Me? (The General Commission on Chaplains and Armed Forces Personnel [address above], 32 pp., $.25). Useful and needed information on how to prepare those about to enter the new, strange life of military service.

Reprints

Sermons on Our Mothers, by Joseph B. Baker (Baker, 1963, 125 pp. $1.95). Christian sentiments about motherhood which can only by sentiment be called sermons. First printed in 1926.

DRAMATIZING THE ISSUE—A drive to transfer students of Roman Catholic parochial schools to public schools gained momentum in Missouri following the state legislature’s rejection of a bill to provide bus transportation for pupils of church-related institutions. Proponents of the campaign said they were acting to “dramatize” the school bus issue. The drive began at Centertown, just outside the state capital at Jefferson City, where Catholic parents registered seventy-five children in the public schools. After a few days, the committee of laymen heading the movement called off their campaign, stating that the “point” of Catholic contribution to Missouri education had been made.

PROTESTANT PANORAMA—Representatives of four Lutheran bodies reached agreement last month on a plan to launch a consultative relationship for the study of worship. Some who participated in the talks envisioned a common hymnal and liturgy for all U.S. Lutherans. Represented were the Lutheran Church in America, American Lutheran Church, Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, and the Synod of Evangelical Lutheran Churches.

United Presbyterian Board of National Missions is buying ten United Mine Workers’ hospitals. Trustees of the UMW Welfare and Retirement Fund want to close the hospitals, located in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia, because of a shortage of funds. United Presbyterian officials plan to transfer ownership and operation to a regional hospital board to enable them to remain open.

National Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church encouraged Presiding Bishop Arthur Lichtenberger to continue such official duties “as his strength will permit.” Lichtenherger has had to curtail activities because he is suffering from Parkinson’s Syndrome.

An Anglican—Methodist—Presbyterian committee in Nigeria set December, 1965, as target date for the inauguration of a united church in that country. The Anglican diocese of Northern Rhodesia, which had taken part in earlier discussions, announced it had withdrawn “for the present.”

Church of the Brethren dedicated a new $75,000 three-story brick building at New Windsor, Maryland, as a processing center for Protestant relief materials going abroad.

MISSIONARY ENTERPRISE—Three evangelical Japanese missionaries to Laos were released last month after several weeks of captivity by Pathet Lao forces. Meanwhile, in neighboring Viet Nam, three American missionaries seized nearly a year ago by Communist Viet Cong guerrillas were still being held.

The two North American churches which lead all others in raising foreign missions funds—Park Street Church of Boston and Peoples Church of Toronto—again attracted well over half a million dollars for the coming year. Both churches climax their missions fund drives at annual spring missionary conventions. The Boston congregation netted $277,468, while the Toronto church counted $245,000 with several days of its convention still remaining.

Decision magazine, monthly publication of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, began issuing French and German editions this month.

MISCELLANY—U.S. Catholics numbered 43,851,538 at the close of 1962, an increase of 969,372 over the previous year’s tabulation, according to The Official Catholic Directory for 1963. The directory listed 125,670 new converts, the lowest figure given in ten years.

A crown of thorns plaited with barbed wire will dominate the design of a 20-pfennig stamp which the West German postal department will issue to commemorate the eleventh Evangelical Kirchentag this summer.

Church losses from “major fires” in North America totaled more than $6, 900,000 during 1962, double the amount lost in the previous year, according to the National Fire Protection Headquarters Association. Nine church fire: last year were in the “large loss” category (those in which damage amounted to $250,000 or more), seven in the United States and two in Canada.

Roman Catholic Bible Society of Canada announced plans for a campaign “to make the Bible known, loved, and understood.” One of the aims will be to establish the habit among church members of “reading and meditating on the Holy Scriptures at least once a week.”

Noted Roman Catholic theologian Hans Küng climaxed a visit to Washington by meeting President Kennedy at the White House.

President Kennedy endorsed a proposal for broad government-financed study into the problems of human fertility and the biology of reproduction. In his press conference statement, however, he backed away from commenting on the proposal of Harvard gynecologist John Rock that there be a worldwide attack on the problem of population control. Rock, a Roman Catholic, is in the midst of a controversy over a book in which he advocates oral contraceptives. He was one of the developers.

U.S. Supreme Court will review the decision of a California court declaring Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer “obscene and utterly without redeeming social importance.” Some observers saw in the court’s decision to consider the case the prospect of a full-dress review of the constitutional meaning of “obscenity” as applied to both books and motion pictures.

United Presbyterians are asked to exercise restraint when the U.S. Supreme Court issues its decision on prayer and Bible reading in the public schools. A statement from Stated Clerk Eugene Carson Blake and education secretary William A. Morrison warned against “violent and irresponsible” action.

PERSONALIA—Dr. Henry P. Van Dusen, retiring as president of Union Theological Seminary, named by the school to a specially created traveling professorship.

Dr. Clement William Welsh appointed director of studies for the College of Preachers and as canon theologian of Washington Cathedral.

Dr. Daniel A. Poling chosen 1963 “Clergyman of the Year” by the Religious Heritage of America, Inc.

Tobe Acker named director of public information for the National Conference of Christians and Jews.

The Rev. A. Gordon Baker, editor of the Anglican Canadian Churchman, elected president of Canadian Church Press.

Dr. Paul S. Rees named editor-in-chief of World Vision Magazine. Dr. Ted Engstrom appointed executive vice-president of World Vision.

Dr. Clarence H. Didden elected president of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America, succeeding Dr. Lowell C. Wendt, who was named first vice-president.

Peter J. Marshall, whose late father was the famed U.S. Senate chaplain and minister of New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, named president of the Student Council at Princeton Theological Seminary.

WORTH QUOTING—“Christians of the United States will in my view have to overcome the inner divergence of attitudes and practice where certain groups and individuals invade the sphere of church relations with their passions.”—Archimandrite Pitrium of the Russian Orthodox Church, one of sixteen Soviet churchmen who visited the United States this spring, in a radio report from Moscow.

“If we had less pessimism in the pulpits and more faith in the pews, the church would advance faster.”—Bishop W. Angie Smith, president of the Methodist General Board of Evangelism.

Deaths

DR. THOMAS S. KEPLER, 65, professor of New Testament language and literature at Oberlin College; in Oberlin, Ohio.

DR. W. B. RICKS, 97, former leader in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South; in Nashville, Tennessee.

WILLIAM FLEMING, 70, noted Southern Baptist philanthropist and millionaire oilman; in Fort Worth, Texas.

MARY AUDENTIA SMITH ANDERSON, 91, great-granddaughter of Mormon pioneer Joseph Smith; in Independence, Missouri.

Liberals constitute, as everybody knows, only a small segment of the Southern Baptist Convention. Though in recent years they have been gaining ground, they do not yet have the strength to engage conservatives in frontal doctrinal combat and often work outside convention structures. The major confrontation at this year’s Southern Baptist Convention, held in Kansas City, Missouri, this month, pitched conservative against conservative on the issue of how best to contain liberal advances while maintaining the SBC’s evangelistic momentum.

Chief cohesive force of the SBC is its large missionary program. Present SBC leadership is wary of action which could disrupt this and other virile Southern Baptist cooperative enterprises such as home missions and Sunday School work.

The first half of this year’s convention reflected this mood, and an uneasy calm prevailed. The executive board of the Missouri Baptist Convention had petitioned the SBC to instruct trustees of Kansas City’s Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary to proceed with whatever steps are necessary to complete the removal of the “liberalism which is still apparent among some of the faculty at Midwestern.” But to the bitter dismay of some, the petition was withdrawn in the interests of SBC harmony.

In the presidential address which came early in the convention, retiring President Herschel H. Hobbs of Oklahoma City stressed the basic theological unity of Southern Baptists, even while confessing the existence of certain tensions in theology. “Theology is the muscles of our denomination. We should not be using these muscles to bash in one another’s heads.”

But the third day of the four-day meeting produced an eruption of underlying tensions which transformed the early peace into a distant, nostalgic memory. Dr. Hobbs presented a new statement of faith which adhered closely to a 1925 statement (for content, see CHRISTIANITY TODAY News, March 29, 1963 issue). Conclusion of its presentation signaled the start of noisy controversy, the chair being assailed by motions, counter-motions, shouted objections, and pleas for prayer. Chief doctrinal debate centered on historic Baptist emphasis on the local church. Some messengers guarded this concept so zealously that they opposed the statement’s inclusion of a reference to the church beyond this as “the body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all the ages.” But motion for deletion was heavily defeated. The entire statement of faith was subsequently adopted overwhelmingly with perhaps only 30 of some 13,000 messengers voting no.

NEWS / A fortnightly report of developments in religion

CLOSE RACE DECIDES PRESIDENCY

K. Owen White, London-born pastor of Houston’s First Baptist Church, came within three hairbreadths of missing being elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

A youthful pastor, standing in line to nominate White, changed his mind when another Texan was nominated and tried to make a seconding speech. Ruled out of order, he proceeded with his nomination of White.

On the first ballot Carl Bates, Charlotte, North Carolina, pastor, received a near majority of votes in an unusually large field of nine. A runoff with White loomed when Bates made a surprise withdrawal. The convention voted all over again.

Again White was one of the top two candidates. In the ensuing runoff, he was elected by a margin of less than two per cent of the votes cast—4,210 to 4,053 for W. C. Vaught, Little Rock, Arkansas, pastor.

The new SBC president studied at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville (Ph.D., 1934) and was pastor of churches in Washington, D. C., and Little Rock before coming to Houston in 1953. He is Texas Baptist Convention president.

For the first time in its history the SBC elected a woman as one of its two vice presidents: Mrs. R. L. Mathis, immediate past president of the Women’s Missionary Union

Then Midwestern Seminary was thrust once again into the spotlight. Last year’s convention had asked trustees and administrative officers of institutions and agencies to take necessary steps “to remedy at once” situations which threaten faith in the historic accuracy and doctrinal integrity of the Bible. This action arose from controversy centering on a book, The Message of Genesis, by Ralph Elliott, Old Testament professor at Midwestern. He was subsequently dismissed when he refused to withdraw his book from publication though some charge that more liberal professors than Elliott are allowed to remain.

At this year’s convention there were expressions of dissatisfaction with the extent of action by the Midwestern trustees and desire to bid the trustees get on with the job. Hobbs ruled this out of order inasmuch as the SBC’s similar resolution of last year provided for continuing action along these lines and because SBC procedure has always been to let agencies implement principles laid down by conventions. Due process, he indicated, is to replace trustees when dissatisfied with their performance through the regularly-scheduled convention elections. The Midwestern trustee president defended his board but did not wish to answer whether Elliott’s book was within the framework of the board’s principle of recognizing “the historical-critical” approach to the Old Testament. It was voted that all other questions about the seminary be referred to the Midwestern trustees, which as a result of a further vote would be required to bring a progress report to next year’s convention.

Conservatives differed on whether the trustees could or would solve Midwestern’s theological problems. Those who had favored pressing the matter further were heartened by Dr. K. Owen White’s election to the presidency. He had introduced last year’s resolution on sweeping liberalism from the seminaries. Following his election he said his administration’s main thrust would be to

strengthen SBC evangelism and missions. But he indicated he would use his influence to remove liberalism from Baptist seminaries and schools. Said he: “The problem probably should be pressed further at Midwestern.”

Birth Rites

Former President Harry S. Truman exchanged birthday greetings with the Southern Baptist Convention and gave messengers an impromptu lesson in local church autonomy. It was his own 79th birthday and the 118th for the SBC on the day Truman strode into the Municipal Auditorium at Kansas City where the SBC’s annual sessions were being held. The messengers sang “Happy Birthday” to him and he responded with a greeting of his own.

Truman told the convention that there had been “Baptists in my family for four or five generations—free will Baptists—the congregations had control over themselves.” As if to underscore a plea for continued local church autonomy he added, “Baptists are governed from the church up and not the top down, and I think that’s the way the Lord intended.”

Negro Evangelicalism

Negro evangelicals from across the nation met in Los Angeles this month to form a new organization to promote the witness of their race. The Rev. Marvin L. Printis of Pasadena, California, was elected first president.

“We gathered to study the spiritual problems that face us today,” said Dr. Howard O. Jones, an associate of evangelist Billy Graham.

Jones, one of the new organization’s eight directors, stressed that “we do not see this as in competition with the National Association of Evangelicals or any other group.”

Bourgeois Decadence?

U.S. morals sagged in high places this month. Police dogs lunged at Negro demonstrators in Alabama, political experimenters in New Hampshire gave modern America its first state lottery, and the leading contender for the 1964 Republican presidential nomination tried to make divorce and remarriage look respectable.

The bid for equal rights by Negroes in Birmingham began as non-violent mass demonstrations. Police tried to disperse mobs with dogs and water hoses, however, and within a few days the Negroes were counterattacking with rocks, bottles, and brickbats.

The Negroes made their bid with a nominally Christian rationale. They used various Birmingham churches as assembly points. Their effort was spearheaded by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Baptist pastor, an “editor at large” for The Christian Century, and head of the integrationist Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

For a time it appeared that the Negroes had gained a white martyr in the person of William L. Moore, a Baltimore postman who was murdered while walking along an Alabama highway carrying sandwich boards which called for racial equality. It turned out that Moore, a former mental patient, was hardly a model champion for Christian liberties. He had left his wife and child in New York reportedly “to be closer to civil rights groups in Baltimore.” Besides carrying the racial equality placards, he pushed a two-wheel cart with a sign, “Wanted—The Capture of Jesus Christ. He was an Imposter.”

In New Hampshire, the executive and legislative branches of the state government bucked almost solid Protestant clergy opposition to enact the first state-operated lottery in the United States in some seventy years. The sweepstakes program had national impact in more ways than one. Indications were that the lottery would be liable to a 10 per cent federal excise tax. On that basis, the federal government would receive $400,000 of the $4,000,000 proponents claim will be grossed to assist public schools. Governor John W. King said he would seek to have the sweepstakes program ruled tax-exempt.

‘Quiet Revolution’

Social concerns of U.S. religious institutions will be surveyed in an hour-long NBC telecast May 24.

The telecast, dubbed “The Quiet Revolution,” will include opinion samplings on the theology of social concerns as well as on-the-spot coverage of churchmen working in crowded slum districts, aiding narcotics addicts, fighting for the rights of migrant workers, and participating in a freedom ride.

Participants will include President J. Irwin Miller of the National Council of Churches; Albert Cardinal Meyer, Roman Catholic archbishop of Chicago; and Rabbi Julius Mark, president of the Synagogue Council of America.

Among those who will be interviewed during the program are Editor Carl F. H. Henry of CHRISTIANITY TODAY; Associate Editor Martin E. Marty of The Christian Century; Msgr. George G. Higgins, director of the Social Action Department of the National Catholic Welfare Conference; Father Theodore Hesburgh, president of the University of Notre Dame; and Dr. A. Dudley Ward, executive secretary of the Methodist Board of Christian Social Concerns.

Methodist Bishop John Wesley Lord wrote a letter to King saying he considered the day of the enactment of the sweepstakes as “black Tuesday for our nation.”

“This action,” said Lord, “strengthens the Communist charge that we are a morally undisciplined and spiritually depraved people.”

A number of church officials also deplored the racial struggle in Birmingham, among them Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, stated clerk of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.:

“I saw leashed dogs used to drive these people from the public streets. I saw the representatives of government using force to uphold unjust customs. I felt the indignity of the treatment of American citizens, and I was sick and disgusted.”

The marriage of New York Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller to the freshly divorced Mrs. Margaretta Fitler Murphy prompted disciplinary action against the officiating clergyman, the Rev. Marshall Lee Smith.

The Rev. Joseph Bishop, moderator of the Hudson River Presbytery, said a judicial commission would be elected May 24 to investigate Smith’s action. Bishop cited United Presbyterian constitutional procedure requiring special permission for remarriage of any person divorced less than a year. Smith failed to secure such permission, it was reported.

Smith is a United Presbyterian minister who is pastor of an undenominational church in Pocantico Hills, New York. Rockefeller is a Baptist.

The new Mrs. Rockefeller, as a remarried divorcee, has lost communicant status in the Episcopal Church although she is still a member.

As the Rockefellers honeymooned in Venezuela, the most conspicuous irony was that they were enjoying divorce terms unrecognized by the state over which he is governor.

Nrpc To Rprc

The National Religious Publicity Council voted at its thirty-fourth annual meeting in Chicago last month to change its name to the Religious Public Relations Council. The group, formed in 1929 to promote higher standards in the church communications field, today has more than 600 members in 13 chapters in North America. Although interdenominational in scope with no set creed, in practice it has been exclusively Protestant. Recently there has been talk of admitting Roman Catholics.

The Moral Problem

When the morals of an entire nation begin to crumble, and we find men in politics, in business and even in churches resorting to immoral practices, we may rest assured that some members of the Lord’s church are going to compromise and practice some of these unholy things.

—J. D. Thomas

A regrettable by-product of the Billie Sol Estes scandal was the undeserved embarrassment cast upon the Churches of Christ, the 2,000,000-member movement in which he has been a lay preacher. Hypocrisy hunters had a field day contrasting fraud-infested fertilizer tanks with Estes’ strictures against mixed bathing. Thus the topic¹Selected before the crackdown on Estes, who subsequently made a “public acknowledgment” before his local congregation. for Abilene Christian College’s 1963 “Bible Lectureship,” an annual event which is as close as the Churches of Christ come to holding a denominational convention, was ironically appropriate: “The Christian and Morality.”

Although some fallout from the Estes episode quite naturally landed on the forty-acre Abilene, Texas, campus, lectureship director J. D. Thomas made it clear he was not singling out any one person when he said:

“Every Christian should learn for himself ‘why he should he good’ and he should also be able to speak forthrightly about how one can tell the difference between good and evil.”

The forty-fifth lectureship attracted to Abilene last month some 7,500 Churches of Christ visitors from forty-one states and six foreign countries. Attendance at the five-day series was down slightly from last year, and Thomas said the college would go back to a traditional February date next year in an effort to draw larger crowds.

Abilene President Don H. Morris insists that the lectureships are not “conventions” but rather “teaching and fellowship meetings.” “There is never any kind of resolution or proposal made for churches—Churches of Christ are absolutely autonomous.”

Lectureships are a common event in Churches of Christ and on their college campuses. The Abilene series is perhaps the best known and features dozens of speakers, panel discussions, teaching classes, fellowship dinners, alumni meetings, missionary reports, forums, and musical programs. A tent this year housed church and commercial exhibits.

Churches of Christ have members in all fifty states, but they are predominant in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. They have been experiencing steady growth. Reuel Lemmons, editor of the Firm Foundation, predicted that growth will level off eventually but that strides are still ahead.

Expansion discussions are not just idle talk. One evangelist attending this year’s lectureship also used the time to promote an “exodus” in early June to the Long Island, New York, area. He said about seventy-five families from Texas and surrounding states have plans to establish a ready-made congregation in the Bay Shore area of Long Island. Many are professional workers and college and university graduates who are already resigning their jobs. Several families have already made the move. The Richland Hills Church of Christ in Fort Worth is reported to have underwritten a $52,000 guarantee for the purchase of land on which the Long Island church will be erected.

Churches of Christ missionaries are supported by individual congregations, also, and are not appointed by any boards.

Would Churches of Christ consider possible reunion with conservative elements of the Disciples of Christ (Christian Churches)?

“I think there’s a good possibility they may come closer together,” said Lemmons. “The ecumenical spirit in the air is having effect.”

He said there has always been a feeling that both were “brethren,” though each considered the other to be in error regarding Scripture.

Morris predicted that many conservative Disciples will come back to the Churches of Christ position, but indicated it would have to be on an individual basis.

The year 1963 marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Campbell, father of Alexander Campbell, who withdrew from Presbyterianism to lead the movement later known as Disciples of Christ. Those who founded the Churches of Christ were originally members of the Disciples. The date of the split cannot be fixed because neither group has ever considered itself a denomination, but by the early part of the twentieth century it was clear that the two groups had drifted apart.

Churches of Christ make up the only major religious community left in the United States which has maintained its identity without resorting to coordinating agencies and officers. There is no organization beyond the local church.

Elders oversee the spiritual welfare of each congregation. Ministers are referred to not as “the reverend,” but as “mister” or “brother.” In worship, no instrumental music is permitted. The Lord’s Supper is observed every Sunday, and no special significance is attached to Christmas Day or Easter. Baptism by immersion is regarded as essential for salvation.

Despite the lack of inter-congregation coordination, Churches of Christ run more national advertising than any other non-Catholic group. Another wide ministry is the radio and television programs under the sponsorship of the Highland Church of Christ in Abilene. Currently there are more than 300 station outlets in North America and several other countries. One of the originators of the program is James W. Nichols, who is also editor of the Christian Chronicle.

Missing The Bus?

“Historically, the clergyman and the medicine man were the same person.”

The reminder comes from Dr. Winfred Overholser, newly elected president of the Academy of Religion and Mental Health, an organization of some 4,000 members divided about equally between clergymen of the three major faiths and professionals in medicine and the behavioral sciences. The group held its fourth annual two-day convention in Philadelphia last month.

Overholser, recently retired superintendent of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Washington, D.C., summed up the purpose and aim of the organization succinctly:

“We need to remember that historically, the clergyman and the medicine man were the same person.… Yet since these two activities developed into separate professions, there has been mutual suspiciousness for a considerable part of the time. However, the fact remains that probably more than one-half of all the people who eventually come to psychiatrists have gone first to clergymen. This illustrates the necessity for cooperation and mutual understanding. There is a need, therefore, for understanding not only the forces of nature, but the nature of man, spiritual, physical, and psychological. As members of the helping professions … medical, religious, and psychiatric … the more we know of each other’s aims, the more we can help those who come to us for assistance.”

One was struck by the absence of evangelical Protestant representation at the academy meeting. Notwithstanding this gap, the scientific disciplines and the ministry are learning to understand each other, and in many places to work together. Dr. Norman L. Loux, medical director of the Penn Foundation for Mental Health, described seminars in which ministers, psychiatrists, and physicians have interchanges of ideas. Others described teams in which individual members have distinct specialties. Evangelicals are “missing the bus” if they neglect these developments and forego active participation.

R.E.G.

Assailing The Pope

Delegates to the twenty-first annual spring convention of the American Council of Christian Churches assailed Pope John XXIII’s encyclical Pacem in Terris. They adopted a resolution which charged the pontiff with laying “the foundation not merely for the practice of peaceful coexistence, but for cooperation with the Communist world which will permit the Roman Catholic Church to exist under communism.”

Other resolutions adopted at the Long Beach, California, meeting (1) echoed perennial ACCC criticism of the National and World Councils of Churches, (2) approved a renewed emphasis on missions by the ACCC, (3) commended President Kennedy for the Cuba quarantine, and (4) voiced opposition to federal aid for education.

Independency—1963

During the roiling religious controversies of the seventeenth century, Independency knew some matchless moments. In England its adherents formed the backbone of Cromwell’s army and reigned supreme during his ascendancy. In the New England colonies they exerted tremendous influence in shaping both the religion and the politics of the new country. By contrast, the twentieth century appears a lean one indeed from this perspective, with Congregationalists either splintering or moving under prevailing ecumenical winds into merger with Presbyterians.

The term Independency is itself no longer a popular watchword, but there is one U.S. ecclesiastical grouping that yet waves the name with separatist vigor against the interdenominational “Establishment,” charged with modernist apostasy. The Independent Fundamental Churches of America, itself wedded to a dispensational theology which goes back only to the last century but which is thought to have recaptured the eschatological genius of the Bible bypassed by the Reformation, met in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, last month for its thirty-fourth annual convention and affirmed its stand against apostasy.

Beyond this, the IFCA also reaffirmed its opposition to “any teaching that in any way would serve to break down lines of Biblical separation from apostasy and false teaching.” Professing strict adherence to “the great fundamentals of the Christian faith, such as the plenary verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, the Deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement, His bodily resurrection, and His personal pre-millennial coming,” the delegates took note of “some theological leaders, who, while professing adherence to these truths, have sought to soften the lines of demarcation between those who believe these truths and those who do not.… Such theological positions are identified by such names as Neo-Liberalism, Neo-Orthodoxy, and Neo-Evangelicalism.” Included in the unanimously passed resolution was a call for the National Executive Committee and the editor of the fellowship’s (“we are not a denomination”) magazine, Voice, to “strengthen the content” of the journal “by regularly setting before our constituency the clear Scriptural exposition of our Biblical distinctive of separation, the evidence of the increasing compromise in Christian schools, missions, and evangelistic efforts, and the challenge to stand with our Saviour without the ecumenical and New Evangelical camps.” Extended debate which tended to dominate the business sessions of the six-day conference centered on the desired frequency of Voice’s delineations of the compromise of separatist principles.

Another resolution recorded opposition to what was regarded as the seeming capitulation of some faith missions to ecumenical pressures in “following the course of the New Evangelicalism in the compromise spirit resulting in such incidents as the Tokyo Crusade sponsored by World Vision.…”

Chief object of conference attack was obviously “Neo-Evangelicalism,” though even the conference leadership was hard-pressed to come up with a definition of it “because it’s a theological attitude, not a position.” National Executive Secretary Glen A. Lehman last year set forth the following definition in Voice, of which he is editor: “A movement among fundamental Christians ‘to stir the interest of evangelical Christianity in meeting the societal problems through the content of Biblical Christianity.’ These are the words of the founder of the movement [Harold J. Ockenga]. Several theologians have spoken in behalf of this viewpoint but other areas of interest are seen also in their writings such as: a critical attitude toward a rigid fundamentalism; a friendly dialogue with religious liberals; a reëxamination of the doctrines of inspiration of the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit; a critical attitude toward dispensationalism; an emphasis upon higher education; a de-emphasis upon eschatology; a low view of the doctrine of separation and cooperation with religious liberals in evangelism.”

IFCA men profess fear that what they regard as slight deviations by some “neo-evangelicals” on such matters as biblical inspiration and evolution will lead to major departures later. A vocal right-wing segment of the conference, which professed minority status to suggest a conference shift from former years (denied by leaders), charged the presence within the IFCA of some neo-evangelicalism, terming it “a more deceitful and thoroughly Satanic attack” than the old modernism (“we knew what it was”) and predicted its eventual marriage to neoorthodoxy. Even Dallas Theological Seminary came under attack, in literature circulated at the conference, for inviting speakers identified in some way with neo-evangelicalism.

Consensus had it that most delegates felt they were being pushed too far by this group. A decade ago, the IFCA withdrew from the American Council of Christian Churches “not over the doctrine of separation,” but over extreme attitudes and methods. There are today signs of uneasiness over too negative an image. It is possible for one to be a member of both the IFCA and the National Association of Evangelicals, but this is considered “unwise” on the basis of separatist doctrine.

Organized in 1930 at Cicero, Illinois, by leaders of various independent churches concerned to safeguard fundamentalist doctrine, the IFCA has grown to a membership of 440 churches, with another 300 churches pastored by IFCA men. Many of these are Bible institute-trained, though seminary graduates are increasing. Approximately 90,000 lay members are represented in the organization. Sheer independency makes it difficult for the body to meet its budgetary needs, which this year were set at a modest $27,800.

A visitor could not help being impressed by the prominent and integral place given on the program for extended periods of prayer, and provision of a prayer room for delegates—exemplary for other church conventions.

F.F.

Concern Over Glossolalia

The tongues movement is beginning to nettle church leaders, and two Episcopal bishops publicly expressed their concern this month. Bishops Hamilton H. Kellogg of Minnesota and James A. Pike of California warned their clergy of the dangers in the tongues movement. Both said that such movements can be divisive.

Kellogg issued his warning in an address before the Minnesota diocese’s annual convention. Pike ordered a five-page pastoral letter on the subject read in all churches of his diocese.

“While there is no inhibition whatsoever as to devotional use of speaking with tongues,” said Pike, “I urge that there be no services or meetings in our Churches or in homes or elsewhere for which the expression or promotion of this activity is the purpose or of which it is a part.”

More Than A Preacher

From the pen of his historian son this month came the first biography of the most widely heard of radio preachers, the late Dr. Walter A. Maier.

A Man Spoke, A World Listened, by Paul L. Maier, reintroduces a figure whose name was a household word among Christian families during the thirties and forties but whose influence was all but forgotten following his death in 1950 at the age of 56. It is an affectionate 411-page account of the man who made “The Lutheran Hour” the largest regular broadcast—religious or secular—in the history of radio.

Maier, Missouri Synod clergyman armed with a Harvard doctorate, began broadcasting in the fall of 1930, but fell victim to the depression some eight months later. He resumed the program after a lapse of more than three and a half years. It ran continuously thereafter under sponsorship of the Lutheran Laymen’s League, and it soon became known around the world. Maier gave a total of 509 addresses—some 2,500,000 words.

But Maier was more than a radio preacher. The diverse elements of his career are ably recounted by the author, who now teaches history at Western Michigan University and serves as chaplain to Lutheran students there. Given as one of Maier’s greatest disappointments was the refusal of Clarence Darrow to engage in a debate with him. Maier’s most famous book was a marriage manual (he opposed birth control). His voice coach for a time was radio’s Lone Ranger.

Maier preached for national righteousness as well as personal regeneration. He died of a heart ailment just as radio had reached its peak and was beginning its decline in the face of television. The death was announced at a Boston rally addressed by one who was just then picking up the torch for national righteousness and personal regeneration: Billy Graham.

A Bigger Job

Evangelist Billy Graham began his European evangelistic tour this month with a marriage service at Montreux, Switzerland. The bride was his oldest daughter, 17-year-old Virginia. The groom was Stephan Tchividjian, 23, a medical student.

Graham officiated at the ceremony, held in the 500-year-old Montreux Anglican Church overlooking Lake Geneva. The evangelist, who also gave his daughter away, led Virginia down the aisle of the church while Cliff Barrows, musical director of the Graham team, opened the ceremony.

Following the wedding, Graham was to spend a holiday with his family in Switzerland before leaving for Paris for the scheduled May 12 opening there of an eight-day crusade.

Pilgrims And Strangers

An Anglican-Methodist merger proposal was recommended for study by bishops assembled at the Canterbury Convocation of the Church of England this month. No dissentient voice was raised.

That the proposed merger will be the occasion of renewing the current Anglican controversy about establishment was seen when the Bishop of Leicester, Dr. Ronald Williams, cited the Anglo-Catholic view of a former generation which asked:

“Whoever heard of an established stranger? Whoever heard of an endowed pilgrim?”

The Bishop of Bristol, Dr. Oliver Tomkins, remarked that he recently assured a Methodist woman that church bazaars and raffles are not compulsory in the Church of England.

African Ecumenics

The ecumenical movement in Africa was formally institutionalized last month with the launching of the All Africa Conference of Churches. The AACC was formed at an eleven-day constituting assembly on the campus of Makerere University at Kampala, Uganda. It is the first continent-wide organization of churches and national Christian councils in Africa. Three hundred and fifty delegates from forty-two African nations were on hand.

Spokesmen said AACC functions would be six-fold: to promote consultation and action among the churches on such subjects as evangelism and service projects; to carry on study and research; to arrange visits and conferences between church bodies in the membership and to circulate information; to help churches to find, place, and share personnel and to utilize other resources “for the most effective prosecution of their common task”; to help churches train lay and clerical leadership; “without prejudice to its own autonomy,” to collaborate with the World Council of Churches and other appropriate agencies.

According to the AACC constitution, membership is open to all African churches which accept its basis: “Confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and only Savior according to the Scriptures and, therefore, seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

The only difference between the AACC’s membership basis and that of the WCC is the word “only,” inserted with the adoption of an amendment introduced by Pastor Jean Kotte, secretary general of the Evangelical Church of the Cameroun.

A message adopted by assembly delegates noted that while “commercial enterprises use electronic computers to study the results of their work, and television and radio to spread their propaganda for good or for evil, the church relies on donkey cart methods of the past to reach a world that is passing by the door of the church with ever-increasing speed.”

The only snag apparent in the proceedings was cancellation of a news conference scheduled with a leading delegate, Dr. Kofi A. Busia, Methodist layman and sociologist from Ghana who is now living in England. In a speech to the assembly, Busia criticized the “disrupting” effect of Christianity in African culture and family life and the Christian missions’ past alliances with imperialistic powers. Most of his talk, however, was in praise of the work of Christian missionaries in Africa.

Spokesmen said that the proposed interview was called off at the request of Uganda authorities, who explained that foreigners were not permitted to criticize other nations while in Uganda. Busia is known for his outspoken opposition to the Ghana government.

The AACC elected a 20-member general committee and four co-presidents.

Women were thrust a significant step closer toward ordination as deacons, elders, and ministers in the Presbyterian Church in the United States last month. The church’s five-day General Assembly in Huntington, West Virginia, moved to amend the Book of Church Order so that “both men and women shall be eligible to hold Church offices.” The issue generated spirited debate.

McQueen Quattlebaum, elder commissioner from South Carolina, reminded the 456 commissioners of the biblical statement that an elder “must be the husband of one wife” and challenged them to show how women could meet this biblical requirement for office.

The Rev. Archie Davis of Miami ended a fervent speech against the proposal by solemnly admonishing the assembly that there is “a big distinction between the laying on of hands on a man and on a woman.” The remark brought down the house.

In spite of such efforts the motion to send the amendment down to the church’s eighty presbyteries for “advice and consent” passed by a 249–173 vote. Forty-one of the eighty presbyteries must ratify the proposed amendment before it can become effective.

Dr. William H. McCorkle, minister of the First Presbyterian Church of Bristol, Tennessee, was chosen moderator. His nomination was made by Dr. Sherrard Rice of Columbia, South Carolina, and seconded by Dr. L. Nelson Bell of Montreat, North Carolina. McCorkle, a former Marine Corps chaplain, was awarded the Silver Star, the Purple Heart, and an Asiatic-Pacific campaign ribbon with four combat stars and is the most decorated chaplain in the history of the United States Navy. Former secretary of the denomination’s evangelism program, McCorkle admits he had strong resistance to entering the Christian ministry during his early years in the insurance business, and vividly recalls the night when he “gave in.” His only opponent for what is regarded as the highest office of his church was the Rev. Frank H. Caldwell, president of the church’s Louisville Theological Seminary, who is known as one of the denomination’s chief ecumenical spirits. McCorkle’s victory by a narrow 229–218 vote was interpreted by many as a triumph of the more conservative forces in the church. Others saw it as a sign that issues in the church are not always determined by extensive and careful planning. Prior to the assembly, pictures of Caldwell—big ones and little ones—had been distributed to the press.

In the opening address of the assembly, retiring Moderator Dr. Edward D. Grant told his audience to keep “eyes front.” Warning them not to play ostrich and bury their heads in the sands of the past, he pointed to profound social changes in the South and to that moving of the Spirit of God throughout the Church which is usually associated with Pentecostalism.

An overture from the Presbytery of Central Mississippi requesting the denomination’s withdrawal from the National Council of Churches was considered by the assembly. Delegates leveled criticism against the council’s general theological climate and its alleged politically leftist posture. The council’s pamphlet “Called to Responsible Freedom: The Meaning of Sex in the Christian Life” was characterized by the Rev. R. C. Duhs of Vicksburg, Mississippi, as “blasphemous.” Proponents of affiliation with the National Council also admitted concern over some of the council’s actions, but urged that the only choice was affiliation or isolation. They also put forth the argument, which the assembly later adopted, that “our representation on the National Council of Churches may serve as a corrective for any excesses that may ever arise.” The perennial battle over withdrawal was settled by a 303–88 vote to remain in the council. Last year the same question was similarly decided by a 294–91 vote.

A decision to continue conversations with the Reformed Church of America looking to negotiations for organic unity passed easily.

A small storm center turned round the question of continuing conversations with the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Fear was rampant that continuance of such conversations might chill the ardor of the Reformed Church of America for union with the Presbyterian Church in the United States. The Permanent Committee on Inter-Church Relations proposed that such conversations be continued with the UPUSA and with “other Presbyterian and Reformed communions toward reaching an understanding of the similarities and differences … in order that the Presbyterian Church U.S. may better equip itself for negotiations toward union with any or all of these churches.” When the proposal was amended so as to read: “… any or all of these churches committed to the Reformed Faith,” it passed with one audible dissenting vote.

Fear of unfavorable response in the Reformed Church in America was largely exploded when the assembly rejected various requests that the Committee of Twelve, now carrying on conversations with the RCA with an eye toward merger, be empowered with the consent of the RCA to include the UPUSA in its conversations.

An overture from the Presbytery of Potosi requesting the assembly to seek full participation in the so-called Blake-Pike plan was also rejected.

A record budget of $9,813,180, an increase of 1.7 per cent over the 1963 budget, was adopted for 1964. The assembly voted an increase of $100,000 over the proposed budget for World Missions, the largest increase over any proposed budget item in recent years.

In a Sunday morning worship service held in Huntington’s Keith-Albee Theater, the Rev. William A. Benfield, Jr., delivered a sermon on the topic “We Have Something To Say.” With brilliant style, he preached as though it were true. In obvious reference to the race problem in the South he summoned his church to ignore the warnings, “Be careful. Tensions are tight. Go slow.” He likened the church to an “ambulance in a sin-torn world, dragging along behind the issues, picking up the wounded, making bandages, when the Church of Jesus Christ should be out on the front lines, facing the issues, getting hit in the face.”

Criticism from a white commissioner that Negro commissioners were not allowed equal dining facilities in a local hotel were soon snuffed out. A Negro commissioner declared, “We have been treated royally here … by the local people, and by this great Church.” Another Negro commissioner said, “No discrimination has been shown us,” and added that the Standing Committee on Assembly Operation’s “present way of handling this is sufficient.” The committee’s policy, which the 1963 assembly reaffirmed, is to meet only in cities where it is assured in advance that all its commissioners regardless of color will enjoy equal use of lodging and dining facilities. Word was received the following day that the hotel in question was now making its facilities available to all on an equal basis.

In a decision on capital punishment, the church modified its 1961 report, which it had sent to the churches for study. A statement which asserted that such punishment “should not be retained” was replaced by the declaration that capital punishment “is a form of punishment … which raises serious questions concerning the responsibilities of Christians.”

The 103rd General Assembly was guest of the First Presbyterian Church of Huntington—celebrating its 125th anniversary this year—and its pastor, the Rev. Andrew Reid Bird, Jr. The delegates were cared for superbly.

The assembly’s meeting and discussions were marked by what seems to be a traditional congeniality and Christian goodwill. On occasions when differences were sharply expressed, generous and spontaneous apologies followed. Through all the meetings humor ran rich and deep.

This fine humor, however, may curdle a bit when most needed. In response to a questionnaire sent out by the General Assembly’s Permanent Committee on Christian Relations, 42 out of 1178 responding churches asserted they had received Negro members, 1014 said they had not, and 122 gave no answer. In response to another question: Does the Session make any effort to reach Negroes and other non-whites for membership in your Church?, 61 churches answered Yes, 955 answered No, and 156 did not answer at all. The assembly reaffirmed its ten-year-old stand against segregation and urged that “every Presbyterian institution, whether church, school, orphanage … boards and agencies … abolish all racial barriers and references and that this non-discriminatory policy be made known to the public.”

Mankind stands at a crossroad in history. Those words are no longer just the urgent cry of the evangelist. They are also the unforgettable text of the scientist, the politician, the militarist, and the philosopher.

In fact, they are quoted above from a spokesman for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

“In one direction lie the all-consuming flames of thermonuclear warfare; in the other, the full and peaceful utilization of science for the benefit of all the peoples of the world.” These are the alternatives, according to the nuclear scientists.

“In one direction, a totalitarian world ruled by atheistic Communism; in the other, a democratic society premised on human rights.” So the militarists and politicians chart modern man’s central concerns.

“In one direction, a secular or sensate society sunk in the mires of relativism and subjectivism; in the other, rediscovery of changeless truth and ethical values, a rebirth of moral earnestness and the ardent pursuit of justice.” So the philosophers and sociologists define the major issues.

These alternatives are awesome indeed. That the multitudes in the free world would prefer a future in which human rights are assured, and in which science concentrates on peaceful pursuits, goes almost without saying. But these same multitudes are much less eager to repudiate subjective preference and desire in the name of objective truth and morality.

We are blind. Nothing demonstrates our blindness so clearly as our willingness to reduce the world predicament to the foregoing alternatives, and our efforts to resolve the dilemma within the bare dimensions noted above.

Stated in this stark manner, each of these alternatives becomes a way of rejecting a connection between the crisis of our times and the deeper problem of sin and death. The contemporary crisis is so affirmed by modern man mired in spiritual unbelief and moral rebellion that he simultaneously denies that the ultimate crisis of the human race is linked to this generation’s relationship to Jesus of Nazareth. “Now is the crisis of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:31, 32). If the Christian religion is sure of anything, it is that the dethronement of Satan is inseparably related to the exaltation of the Crucified Redeemer.

This means that the Cuban crisis, the Laotian crisis, the Berlin crisis, are all sub-crises. It means, moreover, that the alternatives of “a just and peaceful world” or thermonuclear war or Communist expansion are all sub-alternatives. Since they really depend upon something more fundamental for their validity, they lose their validity when removed from this larger context.

The reality of the eternal and the transcendent character of truth and right are central concerns that no society genuinely interested in justice and peace dare neglect. Not even political democracy nor scientific progress can be sheltered from exploitation by anti-Christian philosophies in a society that champions these cultural forces while it evades the question of the abiding or transitory nature of truth and right. Upon what does Communist theory rest if not upon the notion that truth and morality are changing and developing conceptions, and that the one and only fixed axis of life is economic?

In our time almost everyone hungers and thirsts for economic betterment, and the supreme desirability of more material possessions is reinforced by the creative genius of Madison Avenue. Ours is a propaganda world in which everyman must cope with the overwhelming power of mass media. The Soviet bloc skillfully gains the reputation of being less militaristic than Red China and of advocating peaceful coexistence, while she remains devoted to world revolution, practices deception while planting missiles in Cuba, and establishes the first Communist base in North America—which she still maintains and supplies. The United States thinks the necessity for dealing with Khrushchev rather than Castro over Cuba is a gain for peace and coexistence; Presidential Assistant Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., voices “long-run hope” because the world, instead of developing into a Communist monolith, is developing into “a pluralistic society based on a wide variety of systems and faiths”; and some American economists propose to assimilate the Soviet bloc to Western Europe and the Common Market, hoping thereby to moderate and transform the Communist outlook!

If Communism is congenitally blind—a blindness inherent in the deadly naturalism of Marxist philosophy—then the free world’s blindness lies in the self-deception that it adequately knows the truth and is dedicated to the right, that it is truly free, and that hence it is intrinsically “better” than the rest of the world and on that account merits survival. The circ*mstantial darkness of the once predominantly Christian West now lies in its ambivalence. “We try to walk with God and the devil, and we fall in the middle,” a government career man remarked privately to a group of intellectuals. “We have lost our way. We are not faced with one problem—serious as the Communist menace is. We have 180 million problems—for in respect to ultimate things the United States is blind.”

The sting of this indictment is as sharp as that which Jesus leveled at the Pharisees when, upon healing the man blind from birth, he told them that the miracle dramatized their own blindness. The point of his indictment was their lack of any conscious sense of destitution. While Jesus could tolerate the blindness of ignorance, he could only pronounce final doom upon a blind self-satisfaction that prevents men from seeking and seeing the truth. The Americans who as tourists mirror the material benefits of free enterprise, or who in serving the military or the diplomatic corps publish the mighty potency of the armed forces against aggressors, or who as Peace Corpsmen travel to the edges of the Communist world as bearers of good will, are far from ugly. They have much to offer that multitudes around the world welcome and covet. But everywhere we go we talk weapons (which are indispensable enough) and forget that persons—redeemed persons—are the ultimate weapon in a fallen society. We lack one thing: in our living, we lack a hunger for abundant life; in our hostility to the Communist lie, we lack a passion for the truth that sets men free.

THE SUPREME RESOURCE

Our world today needs men who can think straight about life’s values, about human relationships, and about divine design.

Moral stability, integrity of character, and meaningful living—which military people need, no less than others—have a basis in spiritual resources.

The supreme resource available to men is Jesus Christ.

By his life and teaching he taught men how to live with one another and with God.

By his death on the cross he reconciled men unto God.

By his resurrection from the grave he made us pilgrims of the heavenly hope.

Life’s deepest questions—who am I? where am I going? what am I doing here? what is the meaning of it all?—find their response in the Christ who invited all men to “Follow Me.”

Those who try to save the nation and the world by methods aimed to compensate for the vanishing awareness of Christian truth and for the vanishing sense of Christian responsibility are engaged in a hopeless task. Trying to save a people on the assumption that the Gospel of redemption is dispensable is the one sure way to insure their doom.

END

The End Of The Road For 25,000 Americans

Every 2½ minutes someone in the United States tries to commit suicide. Most of them fail. Yet each year 25,000 Americans are successful—a strange but necessary usage of the word!

Although suicide is called the “West Coast weakness,” every West Coast clergyman knows the troubled people who come West because they found life in the East intolerable. The “West Coast weakness” is simply the end of the road for many who have traveled a long way. And when the golden symbols of a new life in the West grow pale, restricted by the forbidding vast Pacific, they then and there abandon all hope—and finally life itself.

The suicide of Marilyn Monroe—young, beautiful, affluent, and a symbol of pleasure—has done much to throw the spotlight on this grim national problem and to arouse the medical profession to give it special attention.

Although the medical profession tends to call it a “health” problem, its incidence is highest among the successful and well-to-do who can afford medical help. The facts here are startling. According to reports, practically all of the 25,000 suicides in the United States are white, and the overwhelming majority, Protestant. It would be easy to draw conclusions from this, but safer to ask questions. Is the Negro’s psychology special protection against suicide? If so, whites might profit from the study. Or, is the Roman Catholic confessional pastorally more effective than the counseling of the Protestant clergyman? And if so, why? Since suicide is a matter of life and death, we ought not to be squeamish about any sources that will throw light on the problem.

It would seem safe to infer from the relatively high incidence of suicides among white Protestants that suicide occurs more frequently among the “haves” than the “have-nots.” The suicide is frequently a person who has gotten out of life what he wants, only then to find that he no longer wants life. He has learned from experience what others have heard but do not believe—that success, fame, wealth are not themselves able to make life desirable.

Life without God and without the transcendent and supra-personal affirmations of the Christian faith—even in Beverly Hills, Nob Hill, or Chevy Chase—becomes the stuff out of which suicide is made. Those who have drunk from the golden goblets and find themselves still tortured by indefinable thirst, seeing no solution, come to regard existence as a disease, and suicide as a cure.

An intellectual assault has long been waged by academic institution and stage, author and playwright, positivist scientist and moral relativist, against the central affirmations of the Christian faith. But alongside this sophisticated attempt to discredit Christianity is the grim, chilling, existential demonstration by thousands of Americans whose suicide argues, in a language hard to be refuted, that unless the God of Christianity is in heaven, life is hell and suicide a successful redemption.

END

The Vatican And The Kremlin And The Italian Elections

The countenance which Pope John shows to the Kremlin is softer than that of his predecessor, and it is evoking considerable speculation among political and ecclesiastical pundits. This has not been diminished, to say the least, by the recent Italian elections. Premier Amintore Fanfani’s “opening to the left,” which involved an alliance between his Christian Democrats and the Marxist but non-Communist Socialist Party, received a setback. The Christian Democrats polled their smallest share of the vote since World War II, while considerable—and surprising—gains were registered by the Communists and the free enterprise Liberal Party.

Commenting on the observation made by some that the Roman Catholic Church was at least partly responsible, The Wall Street Journal had this to say:

In previous years, Church leaders had equated voting for the Communists with sin, and have also generally disapproved of most parties other than the Christian Democrats. This year, Pope John stressed tolerance and even met with Soviet Premier Khrushchev’s son-in-law. The Communists attempted to use this incident as proof that the Church no longer condemned political support of the far left. The large Italian Communist vote is generally considered a protest vote against current politicians and economic conditions—whoever or whatever they may be—rather than evidence of widespread ideological support of Marxism. Many Italian Communists also consider themselves good Catholics.

“The Communist total made it the largest Red vote in the free world. Worried one diplomat here, ‘It is something for the whole Western world to be concerned about when Communists can gain substantially in a free election.’”

That the free world’s largest Red vote should take place in the shadow of the Vatican is an embarrassment to Christendom in general and the Roman church in particular. But some Protestant observers have pointed to a growing ecumenical interest between Rome and Protestantism, and then between the two of them and Soviet Russia. They have pointed to a shocking possibility that Mater et Magistra could be preparation for a Roman move to the Soviet side if it should appear Communism would win the struggle for the world. Fitting this pattern, they say, there is in Pacem in Terris the call for (or at least the acceptance of) the idea of a centralized world power to bring about peace. Ecumenists once urged their movement as a means of combating Rome, then for combating Communism. Now, the interpretation goes, it is for neither of these purposes but simply for the nebulous aim of getting together so that hopefully there will be peace.

A Vatican-Kremlin rapprochement would constitute a revolution which would shake up the planet not a little, but such surmises indicate the seriousness with which recent Vatican moves with regard to Communism have been taken in some quarters.

The evangelical confronts the ethical tension of loving the Communist and hating the system he espouses. The distinction should be made plain enough to preclude love’s resulting in the promotion of a system of hatred.

Color Is Skin Deep, Evil As Deep As The Heart

“Send me a letter, send it by mail; send it in care of Birmingham jail.” This old wail indicated the safest method to Americans embarrassed not by ugly Americans abroad, but by those at home. The President described Birmingham as “an ugly situation.” And it is. As ugly as the arrest and jailing of a seven-year-old girl; as ugly as the use of water pressure strong enough to strip bark from trees, and the use of dogs against human beings. For what? For wanting such simple rights as eating in a cafeteria, attending a school.

“Ugly” is the appropriate word. For it was a truly ugly folly which employed animal fury against men in a situation in which the very rights and dignity of man were at issue. It was an ugly stupidity in an explosive social situation to employ a means that could only inflame an already threatening violence. The widely published picture of a Negro, one arm in the grip of a policeman, the other in the teeth of a dog, will doubtless be answered by future bloody retaliatory violence. For a month stars fell in Alabama, throwing a foreboding light on James Baldwin’s theme: God gave Noah the rainbow sign; no more water, the fire next time.

The issue is bigger than Birmingham, as big as all America; it is deeper than color, as deep as evil in the human heart. In Birmingham’s riots, men saw themselves. They saw how thin is the veneer of their everyday decency, how dark the hatred and how raw the violence in the deeper chasms of the human soul. Christians saw that personal regeneration is not enough to solve our social evils, for not all the guilty were non-Christians. And any man not blinded by twisted prejudice could see that Nazi Germans were not special sinners, for morally nothing distinguishes anti-Semitism from Birmingham’s racism. In the ugly clash of American against American, one could see the common human nature we all share, and the common judgment under which we all stand. He who looked hard at the social ugliness in Birmingham saw not special sinners who fight for state’s rights but trample on human rights; he saw the human nature we all share. He saw a time to weep, to repent, to remember—“inasmuch as ye have done it unto me.”

END

Our University Faculties: Need For Christian Penetration

We hear often these days that the university campus is a great mission field. This is true. The problem is felt everywhere, even in countries where theological faculties are still maintained within the framework of the university. These faculties do not play a great role for those students under other faculties. What influence remains is waning due to growing student population and the mushrooming of the fields of science. Hence the great missionary task for Christian student organizations. And experience has shown that this task can be performed effectively only where Bible study is regarded as the center of the student work. In some countries the old Student Christian Movement is being superseded by evangelical groups. But as good as the work of the latter is, it will always reach only a fraction of the students.

The great question is: Shall we have in our necessarily secular universities Christian professors? It is an open question whether there is and can be a single Christian philosophy, but there is no question as to whether there can be Christian philosophers, physicists, chemists, and so on. A great need of our universities is for a real philosophy which will not shrink back from metaphysics. Some note a stronger sense for metaphysics in America than in Britain. They attribute the progress being made here by Thomism among non-Catholic philosophers to the new interest in metaphysics; Thomism offers the Greek variety. Signs of this awakening interest are seen among the younger scientists of America and Europe—and even in Russia, where every physicist knows that the concept of matter which he, as a Marxist, has to confess with his lips is a myth, untenable in view of established scientific facts of the structure of the universe. There seems to be a real longing for a new metaphysics, for a Weltanschauung which science itself cannot give in view of the rapidly changing views of the universe and the inability of the human mind to embrace the many branches of modern science. But where are the philosophers we need? And what can be done to train them?

One of the reasons for the decay of philosophy, of metaphysics, is the inability of the present generation to read the classical philosophers. Our secondary schools are too poor in languages. If this goes on, we shall leave classical studies and the knowledge of the great thinkers of the past to the Roman church. One should note the papal document “Veterum Sapientia,” a touching call to save the knowledge of Latin and the biblical languages. Protestant clergy are weak in Latin, and this militates against their understanding of the classical formulas of the Reformation.

It is obvious that though set in civilized milieu, the mission field of the university campus contains staggering challenges worthy of darkest Africa. One of the greatest lightbearing ministries the Church could perform today is to thrust forth able Christian scholars into the various faculties of the universities, rather than being content simply with trying to counteract the impact of the secularistic professor through student groups, laudable though these may be.

END