Page 6332 – Christianity Today (2024)

Wherever one moves in American religious circles, one hears the refrain that the lively cults are making tremendous progress at the expense of listless Protestant churches. Hence, the impression has arisen that the cults have greater vitality, are outstripping the regular denominations, and are winning more converts from among the unchurched. There is real need, therefore, to examine the growth of the cults to see whether these generally accepted conclusions are valid.

If one were to rate the cults on the basis of numerical growth over the past decade, one would be entirely incorrect to call them “lively” and the regular churches “listless.” A summary of statistics for the past 10 years will prove enlightening.

STATISTICS OF GROWTH

Numerically the largest of all the cults is Mormonism which embraces several groups of people under its general label. In 1950 the aggregate church membership figure for all of these segments was 1,184,000. In 1960 the aggregate was 1,550,000 (all figures have been taken from World Almanac). This meant a net increase of 366,000. Percentage-wise the growth during the decade was a little over 30 per cent.

Another cult is Seventh-day Adventism (some will dispute whether this group is truly a cult). In 1950 its membership was given as 225,000. In 1960 it was 305,000. The rate of growth was 36 per cent.

The Church of Christ, Scientist, is probably the second or third largest cult in the United States. It probably has a larger membership than Seventh-day Adventism, although this is not certain. Christian Science membership statistics are not generally made public. However, during World War II the church was required to reveal its membership figures to the Government in order to obtain the proper number of appointments to the chaplaincy of the armed forces. At that time the membership figure was given as 268,900. Assuming a growth rate of 50 per cent for the decade and a half since the figure was released, we may approximate 403,000 for the membership of the cult today.

The next largest cult is Jehovah’s Witnesses for which no 1950 membership figures are available in the United States. However, in 1951 the world-wide figure stood at about 440,000. In 1960 the Jehovah’s Witnesses main office supplied accurate figures for its membership in the United States: the total was 239,000. While it is impossible to estimate the percentage increase, one may reasonably suppose that the movement did not gain more than 50 per cent during the decade.

The Spiritualists claimed 126,000 members in 1950 and 175,000 in 1960. The rate of growth was 40 per cent. Unitarians claimed 75,000 for 1950 and 108,000 for 1960. The rate of growth was about 44 per cent. The Universalists numbered 44,600 in 1950 and 69,000 in 1960. The rate of growth was 54 per cent. The Swedenborgians lost ground with 7,000 members in 1950 but only 6,000 in 1960. Buddhists reported 70,000 in 1950 and only 10,000 in 1960. (These statistics must be regarded with suspicion, for the marked reversal suggests possible inaccuracy.) The Baha’is had fewer than 4,500 members in 1950. They provided no statistics for 1960. The Rosicrucians provided no figures for 1950 but listed 45,000 for 1960. The Christadelphians listed 2,755 for 1950 and 15,000 for 1960. The round figures for the latter year are open to question. No statistics are available for either the Unity School of Christianity or Theosophy for 1950 and 1960.

SOME OBSERVATIONS

On the basis of the membership figures for the cults, one may make two generalizations. First, in 1950 the cults included in their membership no more than 2,500,000. Secondly, in 1960 a generous estimate of the total membership of all the cults put together would be 3,200,000, which is about three per cent of the number acknowledging church or cult connections.

Up to this point the statistics, by themselves, neither prove nor disprove the concept of “lively” cults and “listless” churches. If, for example, Protestant church membership declined 50 per cent during the same decade in which the cults increased 30 or 35 per cent, such a description would be very apt. If Protestant church membership remained static, the implication would still be approximately correct. But if the membership of Protestant churches advanced during the same period the cults did, then the assumption would be incorrect. Thus our attention must be focused on the growth of the cults in relation to the growth or decline of the Protestant churches.

Let us consider the two largest Protestant church groups in America: the Methodists and the Southern Baptists. The Methodist Church had a membership of approximately 8,900,000 in the 1950 World Almanac report. The membership increased to 9,800,000 in 1960. The rate of growth was slightly better than 10 per cent. The Southern Baptist Convention reported a membership of approximately 6,500,000 in 1950. By 1960 it had increased to 9,200,000. The rate of growth was 39 per cent. In the membership of the American Baptist Convention, there was a slight decline which may be accounted for by the fact that the Convention was in the process of schism in view of the departure from the American Baptist Convention of the Conservative Baptist Association which reported a membership of 275,000 in 1960.

The various Presbyterian bodies claimed 3,500,000 members in 1950 and an increase to 4,140,000 in 1960. The rate of growth was slightly less than 20 per cent. The membership of the Reformed bodies increased from 319,000 to 459,000; their growth rate was more than 40 per cent. The Pentecostal Assemblies reported a membership of 169,000 in 1950, and added some 223,000 in the 10 year span to reach an aggregate of 392,000 members in the 1960 report. The rate of growth was 76 per cent.

THE ADVANCE OF ROMANISM

During the same 1950–1960 decade, the Roman Catholic church grew appreciably. It claimed a baptized membership of 26,700,000 in 1950, and in 1960 the church placed it at around 39,500,000. The growth factor was close to 50 per cent.

The combined statistics for all religious bodies indicate that membership increased from about 82,500,000 in 1950 to 109,000,000 in 1960. This means that the growth rate was 33 1/3 per cent. With such a background it is possible to draw certain tentative conclusions. First, the Roman Catholic church enjoyed a better than average rate of growth in the past decade. Secondly, if its rate of growth continues without equal Protestant growth, the Roman church will eventually become the dominant religious force in American life. Our third conclusion is that the cults have not, in fact, been “lively” so far as actual numerical growth is concerned. They have averaged about the same percentage as the national figure for the Protestant churches. Our fourth conclusion is that the “listless” churches have not been as “listless” as supposed but have enjoyed a substantial growth in the last 10 years. The Southern Baptist membership alone increased by some 2,700,000. The membership of the Methodist bodies increased by about 1,900,000. Furthermore, the smaller Protestant denominations enjoyed good growth. The Baptist General Conference, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, the Evangelical Mission Covenant Church, the Evangelical Free Churches, The General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, and the Mennonite bodies increased from approximately 400,000 to approximately 500,000.

The growth of the cults has not been disproportionate to the growth of Protestant groups in general. One must acknowledge, of course, that the larger the group the less apt it is to have a large percentage growth, even though its numerical increase may be much larger than smaller groups with higher percentage increases. For example, additions to the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention alone were about four times the aggregate number of new adherents to the cults. Since it cannot be demonstrated that the cults are “lively” and the churches “listless” according to numerical gains, in what sense are we able to say that the adjectives are true?

VITALITY OF THE CULTS

One cannot help being impressed by the publishing activities of many of the cults. Jehovah’s Witnesses publish the magazines Watchtower and Awake and industriously disseminate them. Millions of copies of books written by men like Charles Taze Russell have come from their presses. There is probably no other religious group of its size in America that uses the printing press more extensively than the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Unity School of Christianity and Seventh-day Adventism also take advantage of the printed page to press their claims before the American public. One of the easiest ways to get an idea of the vast amount of literature being made available by the cultists is to check the card index of an average public library. One will see how much has been done via the medium of expression.

A second way in which the “lively” cults surpass the “listless” churches is in personal missionary work. Numerous instances may be mentioned. Every Mormon gives two years of his life for direct missionary work during which time he forsakes his normal occupation in order to spread the tenets of his cult. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that every member of the cult is a “minister.” In my own experience, I have observed that the representatives of the Jehovah’s Witnesses showed more zeal in my area than any or all of the Protestant denominations in the past 13 years. No Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopalian, or other Protestant ever rang my doorbell; but advocates from Jehovah’s Witnesses came at least a dozen times to sell printed material, press their claims, or in other ways represent the cult. Christian Scientists in almost every community maintain book rooms where one may sit down in quiet to read the interpretation of the Word of God according to Mary Baker Eddy. How many Protestant churches maintain book rooms in their sanctuaries or in the stores along the main streets to reach men with the gospel of Christ?

Thirdly, the “lively” cults are outdoing the Protestants in the field of communications, such as radio and television. Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others maintain expensive broadcasts which reach into the homes of millions of people. Free literature is advertised for the asking. Adventists offer a free Bible correspondence course which enrolls thousands of people unperceptive of the differences between Adventism and evangelical Protestantism. The Christadelphians maintain a radio broadcast as does the Rutherford, New Jersey, splinter group from the Jehovah’s Witnesses “Frank and Ernest” program.

When such activities are compared with the communication activities of the Protestant denominations, it soon becomes apparent that the cults, for their size, are manifesting an aggressive zeal and enjoying an outreach far beyond anything being done by the denominations.

It is at these points that the cults are “lively” and the churches “listless.” For sheer enthusiasm, dynamic outreach, and zealous abandonment, the cultist puts the average Protestant to shame. Yet the cults do not seem to have gathered a return in proportion to their multiplied activities. Evidence would suggest that if the denominations would embark on programs as extensive for their sizes as those of the cults in relation to their sizes, they would produce a far larger harvest than has been the case in the last decade. Therefore, if the denominations do not step up their efforts in reaching people for the gospel of Christ, we may find in another generation a staggering new growth of the cults which are now sowing seeds for harvest.

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

We approach the new year with growing anticipation of an event which promises to be of unusual significance in the Christian world—the appearance, namely, of a new English translation of the New Testament, which will mark the completion of the first stage in the preparation of a new translation of the whole Bible. Before considering some of the implications of this event, let us cast a glance back over the story of the English Bible as it has developed through the centuries. It is now more than 1200 years since the shepherd-poet Caedmon was transposing the biblical narratives into the vernacular as he sang his spiritual songs. From him a line, somewhat tenuous in places, may be traced of those who were responsible for giving the British people at least some portions of the Scriptures in their own language. There was Caedmon’s contemporary Aldhelm, who is reputed to have rendered the Psalms into Anglo-Saxon; and, in the next century, there was the Venerable Bede, whose last work was the translation of St. John’s Gospel, completed as he lay dying; and, in the ninth century, King Alfred, who translated the Ten Commandments and prefaced them to the laws of his kingdom; and Aelfric at the end of the tenth century; and Aldred, Archbishop of York, the translator of the Lindisfarne Gospels, who crowned William the Conqueror king on Christmas Day, 1066; and Orm and Richard Rolle de Hampole in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries respectively.

It is to John Wycliffe, “the morning star of the Reformation,” who was born about 1324, that (in collaboration with his friend Nicholas de Hereford) we owe the first English translation of the whole Bible—a translation, however, not made from the original Hebrew and Greek but from the Latin text of the Vulgate version. It was, accordingly, a translation of a translation. The task of translating from the original languages was undertaken nearly two centuries later by the great scholar and reformer William Tyndale, who suffered martyrdom in 1536, but not before he had given the English people the whole of the New Testament and much of the Old in their own language. Miles Coverdale’s Bible, which was first published in 1535, the year prior to Tyndale’s martyrdom, was in a sense the completion of Tyndale’s work, though Coverdale himself was not a Hebrew and Greek scholar and prepared his translations from German and Latin versions. John Rogers, in turn, revised Coverdale’s version in the Bible that appeared under the name of Thomas Matthew in 1537 and consequently has come to be known as Matthew’s Bible. 1539 saw the edition of Cranmer’s or the Great Bible (so called because of its bulk), which was, in the main, a revision by Coverdale of the Matthew’s Bible.

Twenty years later, in 1560, the Geneva Bible was published. It received this name because it was produced by a small group of English exiles in Geneva, chief of whom was William Whittingham, during the time when John Knox was pastor of the British congregation there. It was in this version that for the first time the division of the text into chapters and verses was made and that English words which were necessary for rounding off the sense, but did not correspond to words in the original text, were printed in italics. The Geneva version was remarkable also for its marginal notes—another innovation which contributed greatly to its influence. It has also come to be known as the “Breeches” Bible because in Genesis 3:7 for “aprons” it reads “breeches”—a rendering which had first appeared in Wycliffe’s version two hundred years earlier. Readers are referred to an interesting account of the history and characteristics of the Geneva Bible, to mark its 400th anniversary, in this year’s October issue of Theology Today written by Professor Bruce M. Metzger. “It was,” he says, chiefly owing to the dissemination of copies of the Geneva version of 1560 that a sturdy and articulate Protestantism was created in Britain, a Protestantism which made a permanent impact upon Anglo-American culture.”

Next year will see the celebration of the 350th anniversary of the famous Authorized or King James Version. This was the work of a commission of some 50 scholars whose expressed aim was not to make a new translation but to improve what was already to hand. On the success of their labors there is no need for me to dilate here. In it the master-work of William Tyndale is still very largely preserved. Over the intervening centuries it has maintained an unchallenged place in the affections of the English-speaking peoples—and that despite the appearance of the Revised Version in 1881–5, which was the fruit of the protracted labors of 99 scholars, both British and American. The American Standard Version (or American Revised Version), which was published in 1901, was intended to be a strengthening of the RV at points where there seemed to be room for improvement. Since then various individual scholars have given themselves to the task of preparing new translations. Of these, the best known are Weymouth’s New Testament (1903), Moffatt’s Bible (NT 1913, OT 1924), and, most recently, J. B. Phillips’ New Testament.

The latest revision has been that of the Revised Standard Version (NT 1946, OT 1952)—the work of 91 American and Canadian scholars—which is also proving widely acceptable and represents a distinct advance on the R.V.

But, as Professor F. F. Bruce says (in a new work on The English Bible which is to be published in March of next year by the Oxford University Press, New York), “it may be questioned whether successive revisions of earlier revisions are adequate for the needs of the present day. It is widely felt that what we require today is a completely new translation, based on the most accurate and up-to-date findings in all the relevant fields of knowledge—linguistic, textual, and historical—and carried out by men who themselves hear the voice of God speaking to them in Holy Scripture.” It is precisely this, a completely new translation, which is now in course of preparation under the direction of Dr. C. H. Dodd in Great Britain, and of which the New Testament is to appear next March. It is to be called The New English Bible. Dr. Bruce writes: “If through its words the readers hear the unmistakable Word of God speaking to their hearts, bearing witness to Christ, and making them ‘wise unto salvation’ through faith in Him, if use and experience prove to them that the New English Bible is a lamp to their feet and a light to their path, they will in due course give it a reception which will surpass the translators’ most sanguine hopes. The reign of the second Elizabeth will then be as illustrious an epoch in the history of the English Bible as the reign of her great namesake was.”

Frontiers Of Psychiatry And Religion

Soul and Psyche, by Victor White (Harper, 1960, 312 pp., $5), is reviewed by Orville S. Walters, Director, Health Services, University of Illinois.

The splitting of man into soul and psyche is an artificial and untenable division. If man’s soul is assigned to the clergyman and his psyche to the psychiatrist, then each would have to surrender any claim to deal with the whole man and with the process of personality integration. The psychiatrist is, in fact, unable to exclude areas of the soul from his concern, and the religionist likewise cannot exclude what belongs to the psyche. The living organism is the common ground of both psychology and religion.

With these premises, Victor White launches his “Enquiry into the Relationship of Psychiatry and Religion.” A member of the Dominican order, White is professor of theology at Blackfriars, Oxford University, and is author of God and the Unconscious.

Since man is essentially a unity, the object of God’s dealing is the whole man. In the New Testament, the Greek word psyche is the equivalent of life in its entirety. The theologian cannot allow that any sector of life, conscious or unconscious, lies outside this psyche with which he is concerned (p. 23). In so clarifying the scope of the psyche, White corrects even some well-known psychiatrists of his own faith.

Once this segmentation of personality is disallowed, the psychotherapist finds himself in a predicament. The moral and metaphysical questions so important to his troubled patient are insoluble by the methods of empirical science. If he claims, as did Freud, that what is not empirically verifiable by science is not knowable, he makes an assertion that itself is not capable of such proof, but merely states a certain philosophical position. The “neutral” posture of the therapist is a grotesque self-deception. He selects some of the patient’s offerings as genuine manifestations of the unconscious but rejects others as “resistance.” What is to be the therapist’s criterion? His psychotherapy is inseparable from his anthropology (p. 41).

White delineates his limited acceptance of the Jungian approach to religion. (He is a member of the Jung Institute and has lectured there.) While psychology cannot legitimately make any statement about the existence of the nonexistence of God, Jungians concern themselves with the empirical observation of religious phenomena. From these observations are deduced the elements of the Jungian psychology. In the archetypes, Jung contends, may be found the beginnings of religion in its symbolic form. In several chapters, White examines the applicability of the Jungian concepts to Thomistic theology. Some of Jung’s writings are found not only incompatible with Roman Catholic theology, but also lacking in the objectivity that his empiricism professes to maintain (p. 61).

In his final chapter, the author deals with the vexatious question of why holiness does not always insure psychological health. It is true that the Christian has at his disposal unique resources for attaining greater maturity and integration. Sometimes he simply does not avail himself of these; in other instances the fault may be some form of psychopathology. The Word and the Sacraments are not intended to make the unconscious conscious and will not always avail to do so (p. 189). The Christian is not immune to psychic disintegration and Christianity may offer increased occasion for guilt. Sanctification is not a fait accompli but a process. Wholeness, in the sense of complete reintegration, is finally the work of grace, but it is still eschatological, something to be hoped for from God rather than fully achieved in this life. Therefore, the presence of neurosis or even psychosis in the souls of the faithful should not occasion too much surprise (p. 187).

Although his primary concern is with Thomistic theology and Jungian psychology, White has grappled here with some of the most perplexing problems on the frontier between psychiatry and religion. Even those answers with a strong Thomistic slant will advance the thinking of those in both camps who are searching to find ground for synergistic collaboration.

ORVILLE S. WALTER

The Search For God

The Ancient Gods, by E. O. James (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1960, 355 pp., $7.50), is reviewed by Oswald T. Allis, formerly Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary.

This book is important for two reasons. It is the latest of the numerous publications of the now emeritus professor of the history of religion at the University of London. For a half century or more the author has been working, writing, and lecturing in the field of anthropology and comparative religion. He is one of the recognized leaders of the British School of Myth and Ritual. The subtitle defines the scope of the book more precisely as “The History and Diffusion of Religion in the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean.”

The work is scholarly and comprehensive, but it has two very serious defects. It is a history of religion, not of religions. This means that the emphasis is on resemblances and alleged relationships, rather than differences. All the religions dealt with are treated as phenomena of the expression of the search of the human spirit after the Unknown. Dr. James is greatly interested in the religion of the Bible. But he makes no clear distinction between it as a unique revelation from God and the ethnic faiths. And the religion of Israel with which he deals in this treatise is not the religion set forth in the Bible, but the modern reconstruction which is the product of higher criticism; and since this reconstruction is itself the end-product of the rewriting of the Bible in terms of evolution and comparative religion, it is not surprising that the origin and development of that religion as traced in this volume is found to have marked points of contact with these ethnic faiths. The result would be very different had the author allowed the Holy Scriptures to speak for themselves and had he taken them in their obvious sense.

As a single example, I cite the use made of David as an illustration of the “sacral kingship.” “Thus, David wore an ephod and danced ecstatically before the ark when it was taken to Mount Zion, after the Jebusite fortress had been made the capital. There he took over the priesthood of the god Zedek and placed himself at the head of the hierarchy with Zadok and Nathan as his kohen and nabi respectively” (p. 125). This is a striking example of what Albright has called the “symbiosis” of Canaanite and Israelite religion, which is so severely denounced in the Bible!

The second reason the book is important lies in the fact that it is the first of some 16 volumes in a series edited by Professor James, which is to be called “The Putnam History of Religion.” The titles of some of the others will be: Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Judaism, the Eastern Churches, the Anglican Communion, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, The History of Heresy, and Primitive Religions in Contemporary Society. About half of the authors are professors in British universities. But Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other institutions are also represented. The series will be helpful and valuable to the Christian student and scholar largely in the measure that it does justice to the uniqueness of the religion of the Bible. As to this Professor James’ introductory volume is far from reassuring.

OSWALD T. ALLIS

Evaluating Paul

Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, by Johannes Munck (John Knox Press, 1959, 351 pp., $6.50), is reviewed by Merrill C. Tenney, Dean of the Graduate School, Wheaton College (Illinois).

In a series of technical and detailed scholarly studies, the author has attempted a fresh evaluation of Paul’s ministry based on a close and painstaking study of the Epistles. The 11 chapters of the book cover the career of the Apostle to the Gentiles from his conversion and call to his final defense before the emperor. Munck is more concerned with the interpretation of the Pauline movement than with the details of Paul’s biography. He holds that Paul sought to present Christianity as the final stage of Judaism. “Paul makes no distinction between Judaism and Christianity, as we do. He himself is a Jew, and through Christ he is a Jew or Israelite in the full sense of the word. The Church’s most important task is the conversion of Israel; it is the culminating point in the short history of the Church between Christ’s ascension and return, and from that point life and salvation radiate to the whole world” (p. 318).

Several of his suggestions are novel. He interprets the “hinderer” of 2 Thessalonians 2 to be Paul himself, whose ministry to the Gentiles must be completed before the Lord can return. The Judaizers of Galatians are not Jews from Jerusalem but local Gentiles who have become enamored of the law. The Corinthian correspondence is not, as numerous critics have advocated, a mosaic of fragments, but an orderly succession of letters of which I and II Corinthians are unitary members. Romans is the manifesto of Pauline teaching on the relation of Jewish and Gentile Christianity, which are essentially alike. Acts belongs to the sub-apostolic age “because the writer cannot have been one of Paul’s pupils, writing during the apostle’s lifetime.”

Although Munck is not intentionally constructing an apologetic for a conservative view of Paul’s theology, he has effectively destroyed the older dichotomy of Petrine (Jewish) and Pauline (Gentile) theology originating in the Tübingen school, and he has made a number of shrewd observations that evangelical scholars can well afford to consider. His meticulous examination of the biblical text is exact and discerning, though occasionally tedious. The chief flaw in his work is his low estimate of Acts as an historical source; its strength lies in its academic thoroughness; but it is better suited to discussion in a learned seminar than for immediate use in sermonizing.

MERRILL C. TENNEY

Church And State

Constantine and Religious Liberty, by Hermann Doerries, translated by Roland N. Bainton (Yale University Press, 1960, 141 pp., $5), is reviewed by William Nigel Kerr, Professor of Church History and Missions, Gordon Divinity School.

This work is a contribution to the contemporary understanding of toleration based upon Constantine’s treatment of the heathen (tolerance with conversion in mind) and dissident Christian groups (intolerance because they purposely tread the truth under foot). The author brings to bear on the problem his rich knowledge of Constantine and his understanding of the European State-Church relationship since the Reformation. Doerries finds the seeker of toleration caught in the same enigmatic plight as Constantine and his successor. Tolerance and intolerance are inextricably bound together. One cannot be defined without touching the other. The very word toleration “carries the overtones of bitter contention” (p. 77) and to such a degree that despite our historical perspective we are unable still to distinguish fully “between the sublimity of the gospel, and its monstrous perversion” (p. 77), Doerries concludes that toleration cannot exist at all if its support is found in law, for “Tolerance has to do in every period with the new and the living, the work of the spirit” (p. 131).

Despite the fact that Doerries does not give full play to the possibilities of democracy, his work can have a catalytic value in the present joint exploration of religious liberty and Church-State relationship.

WILLIAM NIGEL KERR

Gnostic Library

The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, by Jean Doresse (Viking Press, 1960, 445 pp., $6.50), is reviewed by Richard E. Taylor, candidate for the Ph.D. at the University of St. Andrews.

Frenchman Jean Doresse was the first Coptic specialist to see the 44 books (including the Gospel of Thomas) uncovered in Egypt in 1946 as part of a Gnostic library. He has now given an account of the discovery and an admittedly sketchy and uneven description of its contents. The sketchiness is the result of a lack of time on the part of M. Doresse for examining thoroughly all the manuscripts. Since his initial perusal of them, progress has been very slow. But he does give a complete list of the titles of the Gnostic books and devotes over 100 pages to a description of their contents. He also gives, in the opening chapters of the book, a good discussion of the present understanding of Gnosticism and a summary of the sources for its study. In the closing chapters he draws some conclusions about the Gnostic sect that owned the library and discusses later developments in Gnosticism.

Doresse puts the books of the Gnostic library into four groups: (1) Revelations of Gnostic prophets, for example, Seth and Zoroaster; (2) Gnostic books with a thin Christian disguise (the Apocryphon of John and the Wisdom of Jesus Christ); (3) Christian Gnostic writings; and (4) Hermetic literature. The books in the second category were published in 1955 (but there are unpublished copies with significant differences). In the third group, the Gospel of Thomas (of which Doresse gives an introduction, translation, and short commentary) and the Gospel of Truth are generally available. Of the other Christian Gnostic books, for example, the Dialogue of the Saviour, Book of Thomas the Athlete, Acts of Peter, Revelation of James, Apocalypse of Paul, Doresse says disappointingly little; but he does give a few summary descriptions and quotations, and notes that these are unlike previously-known apocrypha with the same titles. The book is a useful and well-documented introduction to Gnosticism and to the newly-discovered Gnostic library. A comprehensive index makes it extremely useful for reference purposes.

RICHARD E. TAYLOR

Study Of Baptism

The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation, by R. E. O. White (Eerdmans, 1960, 392 pp., $6), is reviewed by M. Eugene Osterhaven, Professor of Systematic Theology, Western Theological Seminary.

If one were to ask why there has been such wide discussion about Christian baptism in recent years, a variety of answers would be at hand. Some would tell him it is due to the recovery of biblical theology and the new interest in the “mysteries” of the faith; or that it is illustrative of the rediscovery of the means of grace in the ministry of the Church, and of the new interest in symbolism in the Christian faith. And he would be told that it is a result of gross misunderstanding of the New Testament’s significance of the holy rite and of a lack of discipline within the Church which has profaned, if not prostituted, her sacraments. An illustration of the last-mentioned is offered in the volume before us. “Out of every one hundred children born, sixty-seven are baptised at fonts of the Church of England, twenty-six are subsequently confirmed, only nine remain faithful even to the extent of making their communion … at Easter” (p. 296, n 1). In order to make clear that he has no illusions about the situation in Baptist churches either, the author thereafter remarks, “comparable figures for adult-baptising churches are unobtainable but might show similar disappointments, though in this case the fault lies wholly in the baptised, and not in the rite.” This study of baptism must be included among the best on the subject; it takes its place among publications of recent years by Flemington, Cullmann, Marcel, and Murray. The book is probably the best anti-paedobaptist work since Carson’s magnum opus of more than a century ago. The author has a thorough understanding of his subject and he knows how to write. The exposition is clear, there is a good command of language, the arguments of other authors are neatly and fairly handled, and there are frequent summaries of the argument so that one does not lose his way. Moreover, the author knows the weaknesses in the positions of his opponents (vid., e.g., pp. 279 ff. where he most effectively attacks the paedobaptist position).

Unlike some Baptist literature, White’s study shows appreciation for the covenant which God established with Israel and the prevenience of grace throughout the history of redemption.

The reviewer felt that the author’s position needs strengthening in those very points where Marcel (The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism) is strong, in the matter of the unity of the covenant and the relation of circumcision to baptism, and in the doctrine of the Church. White, like a good Baptist, continues to define the Church as a fellowship of believers only (pp. 287, 315, passim) which to some of us fails to do justice to the biblical teaching and to believers’ children, the lambs of the flock.

The reviewer believes also that there is biblical warrant for baptism by a mode other than immersion, although White’s discussion here also was not irritating as other Baptists’ writings have been. The book will give many people a new appreciation for the Baptist position for, even when portions of the argument are not accepted, it is as worthy of respectful study as any of the literature on the subject.

M. EUGENE OSTERHAVEN

Biblical Data

A Dictionary of Life in Bible Times, by W. Corswant, edited and illustrated by Edouard Urech and translated by Arthur Heathcote (Oxford, 1960, 308 pp., $6.50), is reviewed by Burton L. Goddard, Dean of Gordon Divinity School.

How long has it been since a professor of the history of religions and biblical archaeology dealt with technical subjects in so simple a fashion that his book could be recommended to those of junior grade! Yet this is the claim of the translator of the dictionary-manual prepared by the Neuchatel scholar and which, after Corswant’s death, one of his former students completed and made ready for publication. I do not vouch for the entire worthiness of the claim, but I do affirm that the author has given us in clear and nontechnical language a wealth of well-organized biblical and related data.

Translator Heathcote succinctly summarizes the contents: “Every outward and visible aspect of the personal, social, and religious life of the Israelites and early Christians is treated, together with such associated topics as the fauna, flora, and minerals of Palestine” (p. vii). The dictionary form is a ready reference convenience; the “Systematic Classification of Principal Articles” at the beginning of the volume makes possible a rather extensive acquaintance with major subject areas.

Although the style is popular, the author speaks with the authority of an informed scholar. Not all the data is biblical in character; the author includes such subjects as Hittite amulets, Canaanite temples, and Egyptian dress, and the volume is abundantly illustrated with drawings of items unearthed by archaeologists. There is even an article on “Inri” and one on the “Tomb of Absalom!”

For the most part, Corswant refrains from introducing controversy regarding the trustworthiness of the text of Scripture, but his commitment to the views of higher criticism is reflected plainly in such articles as those on the Brazen Serpent, the Law, the Sun, the Tabernacle, and so forth. It may be asked whether conservative ministers will want to put the volume into the hands of teachers and pupils in their Sunday Schools. The answer probably depends upon the person using it, whether or not he knows how to evaluate the claims for documentary analysis of the Pentateuch. One should approach such a work critically. On the other hand, we question whether the problem is present to much greater extent than in the revised edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

Our judgment would be that the book will have wider circulation among the evangelical clergy than among lay people. The average pastor will find it most convenient for quick reference. Then if he desires to pursue a particular subject further, he can go to biblical, religious, and general encyclopedias and specialized works for detailed, technical information.

There are further criticisms I could make of this volume which has so many commendable qualities. For example, Corswant’s treatment and selection of animal names unfortunately does not follow any one English language version of the Bible, but in spite of its defects, Corswant’s book is very well printed and adequately illustrated. Scripture references for the most part are relegated to footnotes. The articles are easy and interesting to read. This is a good test of any book!

BURTON L. GODDARD

Clue To Justice

The Theological Foundation of Law, by Jacques Ellul (Doubleday, 1960, 140 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by C. Gregg Singer, Professor of History at Catawba College.

There can be no doubt that contemporary philosophies of law must be recalled from the abyss of positivism and relativism into which they have been led by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and his followers, on and off the bench. At first glance, Jacques Ellul would seem to have been successful in his attempt to rescue us from these twin perils. This book is essentially a radical criticism of natural law theories, and the author argues convincingly against both the classical and the more modern versions in the light of Scriptures. It is heartening to see a contemporary professor of law in a European university take such a stand. However, the reviewer regrets that in the general criticism, the author has assumed that Calvin’s conception of both the nature and function of the law of nature is the same as that found in the system of Thomas Aquinas.

In a positive treatment of his subject, Ellul calls for a theological understanding of law. But it is precisely at this point that the difficulty arises. Although the author holds to many evangelical doctrines, such as the fall of Adam, original sin, the deity of Jesus Christ, his second coming and a final judgment, he also seems to accept Barthian presuppositions at certain points in his argument, notably where he rejects the doctrine of common grace which leads him to the conclusion that apart from Jesus Christ there is only “non law.” He further insists that there can be no study of law apart from Jesus Christ, and he finds the center of law in the righteousness of God in Christ. The crux of the argument is found in his denial that in fallen man there is any remnant of the image of God, and he dismisses the usual evangelical interpretation of Romans 2:14 that God has written his law in the heart of man. Accordingly, Ellul rejects the historic view that human rights are the result of the possession of this image and finds the seat of human rights in God’s covenant of mercy with the race.

Because of the theological inconsistencies in the book, there is a resulting legal confusion which prevents the author from accomplishing his purpose. Nevertheless, the author is to be commended for insisting that the real clue to understanding of both law and justice is in theology.

C. GREGG SINGER

Here And Hereafter

This World and the Beyond, by Rudolf Bultmann (Scribner’s, 1960, 248 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Professor of Church History, Fuller Theological Seminary.

This short volume, excellently translated by Dr. Harold Knight, consists of sermons preached at Marburg during the period 1936–1950. It thus gives us an opportunity of seeing how the theology of Bultmann works out in practice, that is, in the presentation of the Gospel message. The general theme of the series—an important one for Bultmann—is itself biblical in substance, namely, that of the relationship of this world to that which is to come. The theme is presented with a force and relevance, a seriousness and profundity of thought, yet also an elegance of expression and a happy use of hymnal and literary quotation, which might cause many preachers to envy and certainly ought to stir them to emulation. Nevertheless, while the basic unorthodoxy of Bultmann does not obtrude, there is a lurking thinness, inadequacy, and perhaps even ultimate irrelevance which must be attributed to the failure to present a full and fully authentic biblical message. If the miracle stories are pious fictions, as Bultmann candidly tells us in relation to the miraculous catch of fishes, then the drawing out of powerful spiritual or theological lessons is a mere spinning in the void, and no amount of pious existentialism can supply power or solidity.

GEOFFREY W. BROMILEY

Book Briefs

A Believer’s Life of Christ, by John C. Rankin (Wilde, 1960, 210 pp., $3.50). Inspiring meditations with a distinctly scriptural and theological orientation.

Out of the Depths, by Anton T. Boisen (Harper, 1960, 216 pp., $4). The personal “case history” of an erratic psychiatrist whose works have had wide influence in the field of religion and psychiatry.

Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, by G. R. S. Mead (University Books, 1960, 633 pp., $10). An objective interpretation and analysis of the Gnostic movement and its literature.

Speaker’s Book of Illustrations, by Herbert V. Prochnow (Wilde, 1960, 165 pp., $2.95). Hundreds of well-selected anecdotes, epigrams, and humorous stories by public speakers.

God’s Provision for Normal Christian Living, by Robert T. Ketcham (Moody, 1960, 154 pp., $2.75). A faithful delineation of the Christian life and the resources which make it possible.

A Lutheran missionary who chose to remain in Red China for three and a half years after his release from a Communist prison in 1957, arrived in New York last month after a 35-day voyage from Hong Kong.

He is the Rev. Paul J. Mackensen, 35, believed to be the last American Protestant missionary to leave mainland China. His decision to stay in China after his release from prison—because, he said, he liked the Chinese people—contributed to reports he had been brainwashed.

The lanky, deeply-tanned bachelor clergyman was friendly toward reporters, but refused to discuss his 12 years in Communist China, five of which were spent in prison for alleged “acts threatening security.”

“I have no plans whatsoever, other than seeing my folks,” he said. “But I will probably stick around for awhile.”

Mackensen declined to say whether he would try to return to Communist China. Neither would he comment about conditions there.

He went to China in 1948 on a call from the Board of Foreign Missions of the United Lutheran Church in America, and began his ministry at Tsingtao after a year of study at the School of Oriental Languages and Culture in Peiping.

The year he started his work in Tsingtao, the Communists took over that area, but Mr. Mackensen decided to remain at his post. He did not ask for permission to leave China until 1950.

His request was refused, and there were indications he was under Communist surveillance. He was arrested shortly before midnight on March 7, 1952, charged with “acts threatening security” and sentenced to five years in prison for alleged espionage.

Late in 1955, Mackensen was transferred from Tsingtao to Shanghai. A year later, he and other prisoners were taken on a 24-day, 3,000-mile trip “to see the new China.”

On their return to the prison, gradual improvement in their living conditions was reported. After having served his prison term, the former missionary announced his intentions to remain in China.

In September, 1957, six months after his release from prison, Mackensen became a teacher of English at the Shanghai Institute of Foreign Languages.

Although his parents did not hear from him during the first few years after his arrest, they have corresponded regularly with him since then.

The parents received a cable October 14 telling of their son’s anticipated return. A letter with additional details arrived four days later.

Mackensen was met in New York by his brother-in-law and sister, the Rev. and Mrs. Leonard E. Good, who drove him to their home in Spinnerstown, Pennsylvania. He subsequently visited his parents at their home in Baltimore.

Others who met Mackensen at the dock in New York included two members of the ULCA’s Board of Foreign Missions, Dr. Earl S. Erb, executive secretary, and the Rev. Warren C. Johnson, who was secretary for Hong Kong, Malaya, and Japan when Mackensen accepted the ULCA call and went overseas.

Erb said he and Johnson were not present in any official capacity—Mackensen resigned his position with the ULCA missions board when he left prison and became a teacher.

“We came to greet him and offer any possible assistance,” Erb said.

On his first Sunday in the United States, Mackensen attended services at St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church in Baltimore, where his father is pastor-emeritus. He spoke to a Sunday School class and later made short remarks at a worship service, thanking the congregation for their prayers.

He appeared to be in excellent health and full of vigor.

Mackensen said his “chief reason” for returning now was to see his parents.

“My folks have been waiting a long time and begging me to return,” he said. “I was anxious to see them, too. A person has to come home some time.”

Mackensen’s father had been quoted as saying that his son “decided to stay in China because he felt, once out, he could not get back in. He had learned to love the Chinese people and wanted to serve them.”

Mackensen still holds ordination credentials from the American Lutheran Church. Ordinarily such credentials expire in two years if the holder has no specific pastoral appointment. Special action was taken in Mackensen’s case, however, for an extension. Upon his return, Mackensen said he had not yet decided what action he would take regarding his ministerial license.

Mackensen’s silence about conditions behind the Bamboo Curtain represents a disappointment for many U. S. church leaders, especially displaced missionaries, who have been hoping for news about the fate or fortune of Christianity on the China mainland. Relatively little is known of the extent to which the Communist Chinese regime permits religious assemblies and open Christian witness. In East Germany, where restrictions upon Christians have been regularly reported, the church is known to be isolated within its walls.

Profile Of Paul J. Mackensen

The Rev. Paul J. Mackensen, believed to be the last American Protestant missionary to leave mainland China, was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on January 23, 1925.

He was graduated from St. Olaf College, Northfield, Minnesota, in 1945, and from Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, in 1947.

Mackensen holds ordination credentials from the American Lutheran Church, but his missionary appointment was made under the Board of Foreign Missions of the United Lutheran Church in America.

After a year studying Chinese at Yale University, Mackensen went to China in August, 1948. He spent another year of study at the School of Oriental Languages and Culture in Peiping before beginning a ministry in the city of Tsingtao in 1949.

He is the son of the Rev. and Mrs. Paul J. Mackensen, Sr., who live in Baltimore. The father is pastor-emeritus of St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church in Baltimore.

In his application for service as a missionary, written in December of 1945, young Mackensen wrote: “A Christian message is much more than a systematized statement of convictions. It is a whole life of prayer and thought and action consecrated in Christ Jesus. That is my belief, and God willing, it will be my life.”

Protestant Panorama

• Conviction for contempt of court of Dr. Willard Uphaus, Methodist layman and religious pacifist, was upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court for the second time last month. In a brief 6 to 3 curiam (by the court) Uphaus was denied a new hearing. He has spent the past year in a New Hampshire prison for refusing to tell a state legislative committee about guests at his World Fellowship Center. The court’s order drew angry dissents from Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo L. Black which were endorsed by Chief Justice Earl Warren.

• The United Lutheran Church in America is launching a study of medical ethics through its Department of Social Action. The project will consider moral aspects of birth control, artificial insemination, sterilization, therapeutic abortion, and euthanasia.

• U. S. Methodists are embarking upon a four-year program aimed at relieving racial tensions. An initial orientation conference will be held in Louisville March 20–24, 1961. Sponsoring agencies will cooperate with the Commission on Inter-Jurisdictional Relations, established by the Methodist General Conference earlier this year and entrusted with “the continuing program of The Methodist Church to abolish the (all-Negro) Central Jurisdiction, promote interracial brotherhood through Christian love, and achieve a more inclusive Church.”

• Baptists will mark 100 years of organized missionary activity in Burma with a four-day celebration to be climaxed on New Year’s Dav.

• Five evangelical denominations are planning joint publication of a youth quarterly which will make its debut early in 1961. Cooperating in the venture are Wesleyan Methodist, Free Methodist, Pilgrim Holiness and Evangelical Friends churches and the Church of the Nazarene, at whose publishing house the 64-page digestsized magazine will be printed. The quarterly will be known as Aldersgate Teen Topics after Aldersgate Street in London, where John Wesley was converted.

• Ground was broken last month for the new $400,000 Pennsylvania United Church Center, located in the state capital of Harrisburg. The center is sponsored by the Pennsylvania Council of Churches.

• Dr. Albert Schweitzer, famed Protestant medical missionary in Africa, will be honored by American businessmen on his 86th birthday, January 14, with donations of supplies totalling 86 tons—a ton for each year in his life. Coordinating gifts is Religious Heritage of America.

• A Lutheran drama troupe is touring the East Coast this month with productions of an e. e. cummings short play, “Santa Claus,” and a longer adaptation of “Christmas in the Market Place,” by French playwright Eric Crozier.

• The Presbyterian Synod of Washington state plans to erect a $5,000,000 home for the aged on the shores of Lake Washington in Seattle.

• Five U. S. Methodist seminaries are undertaking a 10-year project to publish the “first complete definitive edition” of John Wesley’s works. Cooperating in the effort, expected to result in some 35 volumes, are scholars from the theological schools of Southern Methodist University, Emory University, Boston University, Drew University and Duke University.

• More than 250 visiting United Presbyterians from 23 states attended ground-breaking ceremonies last month for the denomination’s first church in Hawaii. The $350,000 structure will serve a congregation organized last April which has been worshipping in the Honolulu YMCA. The Rev. William E. Phifer, Jr., is pastor.

• Historic Ebenezer Church in New Amsterdam, British Guiana, will be torn down to make way for a larger church of contemporary design. The present edifice is more than 200 years old.

• Newly-approved expansion program at American University, rapidly-growing Methodist school in Washington, D. C., will cost $36,000,000.

State Control

The government of Ceylon assumes control of all religious schools under a bill ratified by the Senate in Colombo last month.

Affected are Protestant schools with approximately 140,000 students and Roman Catholic schools with an enrollment of some 250,000 according to Religious News Service.

The bill nationalizing the schools was passed despite strong protests from some religious leaders. Catholic authorities say they will test the validity of the takeover legislation in court.

Ceylon is predominantly Buddhist.

Heresy or Hostility?

Strong measures are being taken by the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church to counteract what it calls the “heretical propaganda” of the Rev. Spiros Zodhiates of New York, general secretary of the American Mission to Greeks.

For the past two years, Mr. Zodhiates has been publishing an evangelistic message each week as a paid advertisem*nt in some 100 Greek newspapers and magazines.

The Holy Synod is issuing an encyclical to the Greek people which says of Zodhiates: “he is a Protestant trying to make Protestants of the Greek.”

A second encyclical—to the bishops—will propose that the Orthodox Church offer the newspapers and magazines the same amount of money Mr. Zodhiates pays for his messages to induce the publications either to drop his ads or print sermons written by Orthodox bishops.

In New York, Mr. Zodhiates expressed regret at the “hostility” shown by the Orthodox Church over his wish to be of spiritual and material help to the Greeks.

He said the synod’s actions “stem from a spirit of insecurity and a misapprehension” that his purpose is to “make Protestants of the Greek Orthodox, when it is simply to preach Christ and the Gospel of personal salvation on a non-sectarian basis.”

Mr. Zodhiates noted that he writes his weekly messages on the very same Scripture passages read in all the Greek Orthodox churches each Sunday and that many of the Orthodox priests use his message as material for sermons. This, he said, shows that the Orthodox Church’s objection is not to the messages’ content, but simply to the fact that he is a Protestant.

He added it is “not proper” to deprive a person belonging to a religious minority of the freedom to serve spiritually the country’s entire population.

Sitting on the Wall

While not distinctly defined at certain touchpoints, the wall of U. S. Church-State separation nonetheless finds the vast majority of its citizens clearly on one side or the other. To be on the wall, or to straddle it, is to be conspicuous. And such is the case with the office of religious affairs adviser in the United States Information Agency.

When USIA was initially organized back in 1951, its architects felt the need of counsel on how American religion was to be represented abroad. The post of religious affairs adviser was created on a part-time basis, and still remains so, the office-holder’s presence being required in Washington “only a few days each month” (current rate of remuneration: $57 per day, plus travel expenses). Much attention has been focused upon the post, partly because of rapid turnover (four appointments in less than 10 years).

First to hold the post was Dr. Albert Joseph Macartney, then minister of National Presbyterian Church. He was succeeded in turn by Quaker scholar D. Elton Trueblood and Dr. Ronald Bridges.

Following Bridges’ death a year ago, there was speculation that USIA would try to do without a successor. Last month, however, the new adviser was named. He is Dr. Edgar H. S. Chandler, vice president of the Church Federation of Greater Chicago and former director of refugee and relief activities for the World Council of Churches.

Chandler assumed his new responsibilities immediately. He is a Congregational minister and former World War II Navy chaplain.

Senate Religious Census

The 87th Congress will have 87 Protestants, 11 Roman Catholics, and 2 Jewish members.

Three Roman Catholic Senators did not seek re-election, and were succeeded by Protestants. With only one new Roman Catholic elected, Roman Catholic Senate membership dropped from 13 to 11. The number would fall to 10 if a Protestant were named to the seat to be vacated by President-elect John F. Kennedy.

Methodists outnumber all others with a total of 19 members.

Religious affiliation of members of the new Senate is as follows:

Methodists (19): Bible (D.-Nev.); Butler (R.-Md.); Francis Case (R.-S.D.); Dworshak (R.-Ida.); Eastland (D.-Miss.); Engle (D.-Cal.); Hickenlooper (R.-Ia.); Hill (D.-Ala.); Holland (D.-Fla.); Jordan (D.-N.C.); Mundt (R.-S.D.); Russell (D.-Ga.); Schoeppel (R.-Kan.); Smathers (D.-Fla.); Mrs. Smith (R.-Me.); Sparkman (D.-Ala.); John Williams (R.-Del.); Boggs (R.-Del.); Metcalf (D.-Mont.).

Baptists (14): Robert Byrd (D.-W.Va.); Carlson (R.-Kan.); Cooper (R.-Ky.); Gore (D.-Tenn.); Johnston (D.-S.C.); Kefauver (D.-Tenn.); Kerr (D.-Okla.); McClellan (D.-Ark.); Robertson (D.-Va.); Talmadge (D.-Ga.); Russell Long (D.-La.); Thurmond (D.-S.C.); Yarborough (D.-Tex.); Edward Long (D.-Mo.).

Seventh Day Baptist (1): Randolph (D.-W.Va.).

Episcopal (14): Allott (R.-Colo.); Beall (R.-Md.); Bush (R.-Conn.); Harry Byrd (D.-Va.); Clark (D.-Pa.); Goldwater (R.-Ariz.); Hayden (D.-Ariz.); Kuchel (R.-Cal.); Monroney (D.-Okla.); Proxmire (D.-Wis.); Scott (R.-Pa.); Symington (D.-Mo.); Morton (R.-Ky.); Pell (D.R.I.).

Roman Catholic (11): Chavez (D.-N.M.); Dodd (D.-Conn.); Hart (D.-Mich); Kennedy (D.-Mass.); McNamara (D.-Mich.); Miller (R.-Ia.); Lausche (D.-O.); McCarthy (D.-Minn.); Mansfield (D.-Mont.); Muskie (D.-Me.); Pastore (D.R.I.).

Presbyterian (11): Anderson (D.-N.M.); Clifford Case (R.-N.J.); Church (D.-Ida.); Curtis (R.-Nebr.); Ellender (D.-La.); Ervin (D.-N.C.); Jackson (D.-Wash.); Keating (R.-N.Y.); McGee (D.-Wyo.); Stennis (D.-Miss.); Thomson (R.-Wyo.).

Congregational Christian (7): Bridges (R.-N.H.); Cotton (R.-N.H.); Humphrey (D.-Minn.); Morse (D.-Ore.); Prouty (R.-Vt.); Fong (R.-Hawaii); Burdick (D.-N.D.).

Lutheran (4): Capehart (R.-Ind.); Hartke (D.-Ind.); Magnuson (D.-Wash.); Wiley (R.-Wis.).

Unitarian (4): Hruska (R.-Nebr.); Mrs. Neuberger (D.-Ore.); Saltonstall (R.-Mass.); Harrison Williams (D.-N.J.).

Disciples of Christ (3): Johnson (D.-Tex); Fulbright (D.-Ark.); Oren Long (D.-Hawaii).

Latter-day Saints (Mormons) (3): Bennett (R.-Utah); Moss (D.-Utah); Cannon (D.-Nev.).

Latter Day Saints (Reorganized Church) (1): Milton Young (R.-N.D.).

Jewish (2): Javits (R.-N.Y.); Gruening (D.-Alaska).

Friends (1): Douglas (D.-Ill.).

Reformed Church in America (1): Dirksen (D.-Ill.).

“Protestant” (no denomination given) (4): Bartlett (D.-Alaska); Aiken (R.-Vt.); Carroll (D.-Colo.); Stephen Young (D.-O.).

Enter ABC

The American Broadcasting Company launched a new weekly religious television program last month. ABC had been the only one of the three major television networks without a religious series in its public affairs schedule.

The new program, to be aired each Sunday afternoon, will be known as “Directions ’61” and will be produced alternately by the National Council of Catholic Men, the National Council of Churches, and Jewish Theological Seminary of New York. The number of programs will be divided equally between the three groups, an innovation in religious telecasting. CBS and NBC hold to a 3–2–1 ratio for Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish segments, respectively.

The ‘Real Approach’

Some pointed comments about Protestant-Roman Catholic unity appeared in Rome on the eve of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s scheduled call on Pope John XXIII. While aides to Archbishop Geoffrey Francis Fisher persistently denied that his meeting with the Pope would amount to a religious summit, many observers felt nonetheless sure that ecumenicity would be a key topic of discussion. Fisher, titular head of the world’s 40,000,000 Anglicans, was slated to visit the Pope early in December after visits to Orthodox patriarchs in Jerusalem, Lebanon, and Istanbul.

Only a matter of days before, in an article published in Rome, Jesuit Father Charles Boyer, president of Unitas, a movement seeking to promote Christian unity, said that non-Catholic churches “wishing for a real approach (to union) must adopt the Catholic doctrine they so far have refused.”

“One must admit,” said Boyer, “that the Catholic church does not need any change regarding its doctrine.”

Meanwhile, in a lecture at Unitas headquarters, a German Lutheran clergyman said that the time may be at hand for groups of Lutherans to join the Roman Catholic church.

The lecturer, the Rev. Max Lackmann, was suspended from his pastorate in Soest, Germany, last year after he declared in a book that “the church of Rome is a symbol set up by God himself for the truly catholic worldwide church.”

Lackmann’s acceptance of the papacy as the center of Christian unity has been censured by leaders of his own church. He is a leader of a small group of German Lutherans who seek reunion of Protestants and Catholics.

Christmas Tower

A memorial “Tower of Christmas Peace” will be erected at the grave of Franz Gruber, composer of the internationally beloved “Silent Night, Holy Night.” The grave is located at Hallein, Austria.

Dr. Friedrich Jacoby, director of the Franz Xavier Gruber Foundation, has been quoted as saying that “every Christmas Eve, ‘Silent Night, Holy Night’ will resound from the tower, sending forth a message uniting all mankind in a Christian mission for redemption and peace.”

Honorary patrons of the tower project include Roman Catholic Archbishop Andreas Rohracher of Salzburg, and Dr. Joseph Kalus, governor of Salzburg. The memorial is expected to be completed by Christmas, 1963.

Gruber, a Catholic schoolmaster and organist, was born at Hochburg, Upper Austria, in 1787 and died in 1863.

The Adam Question

A report of its Theological Commission bearing on the historicity of Genesis, adopted last summer by the General Synod of the Reformed Church in America, is drawing fire from some Reformed churchmen.

Misgivings are elaborated in a pamphlet prepared by Dr. John H. Ludlum and Mr. John Richard De Witt and printed by the Consistory of the Sixth Reformed Church of Paterson, New Jersey. The signatories question whether a General Synod has the legal right “to adopt a statement as to the belief of the churches and give it official sanction, without any referral of it to the classes and churches, without any previous discussion of it in the classes and churches, and without a vote of approval of it by the classes for the churches.”

They assert that acceptance of the report opens a door for “any one who accepts the most destructive critical views of Scripture, who holds that all of its documents are unauthentic and spurious, who holds that all its contents are anonymous works of unknown and unknowable parties” to occupy the office of minister and teacher in the Reformed Church in America.

The report itself declares that the members of the Theological Commission were “unanimous in affirming the historical character of the Book of Genesis.” “However,” it adds, “we must be clear as to the nature of this history,” and “the Church must allow a certain latitude in the understanding of details,” Theological analysis and critique leads Dr. Ludlum to suspect that the report reflects a departure from old standards of his denomination. He takes issue with its conception of divine revelation as revelation through events, and complains that “no mention whatever is made of any kind of direct word or utterance straight out of the mouth of God, in a fixed form of words, to men.” A scholarly reader would interpret as “a total rejection of propositional revelation” the Commission’s protest “against all attempts to divorce faith from history, and to reduce the word which God would speak to us to abstract information about His nature,” says Ludlum.

He concludes “that the new statement allows anyone to remove one foundation (Moses and the prophets, Christ and the apostles) out from under Christianity, and to put a new foundation (unknown and unknowable literary men) beneath it in place of the old.” He cannot think “how anything could be more fatal, potentially, to the Reformed Church in America and what it is supposed to stand for than this statement.” At the same time he is “very careful not to say that the Commission’s statement, as a scholar would understand it, represents what the recent General Synod believes, or even what the Commission’s members believe.” “I have merely shown,” he says, “what a particular statement may be understood to mean, and, I think it does mean, whether the General Synod or the Commissioners knew it or not.”

A letter of inquiry sent to all members of the Theological Commission by Mr. De Witt has failed to clarify the issue. The responses were far from unanimous: some express a belief that the report affirms the historicity, plainly understood, of Genesis 1–3; others think that it does not, and regret it; others again think that it does not, and rejoice; and one is non-committal.

P.E.H.

Baptist Headquarters

Construction progress is well ahead of schedule on the gigantic national headquarters building now being erected for the American Baptist Convention at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.

The circular edifice, located along the Pennsylvania Turnpike in the eastern part of the state, will house denominational agencies which now have offices in New York and Philadelphia. A graphic arts plant for producing books and periodicals also will be located in the headquarters building.

Occupancy is scheduled for late in 1961 or early in 1962. The building when completed will represent a cost outlay of some $8,500,000.

Warning Mennonites

Some 6,000 delegates were on hand last month for the triennial General Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Church of North America in Reedley, California.

The Rev. J. A. Toews of Winnipeg called upon conferees to use their increasing contact with the world by spreading their beliefs and engaging in an active, personal evangelism.

He warned church members against accepting ways of the world that are “self-destructive.”

He urged them to check themselves to see whether the great changes wrought by society in the last 100 years have affected their basic faith in addition to changing their external habits and living patterns.

Toews asked for a re-examination of the denomination’s three basic concepts—personal salvation, separation of the church from the state and the world, and Scriptural authority.

While modern transportation and communication have opened “wonderful new areas of witnessing,” he continued, at the same time these have brought temptations to corrupt the faith through undue attention to materialism.

“Piety gives rise to prosperity, but prosperity often turns around and devours piety,” he added.

‘Speed up the Church’

A study of the Protestant Episcopal missionary program finds it weak and outmoded and in need of sweeping changes.

The 54-page dissertation which took two years to prepare was made public at a meeting of the Protestant Episcopal House of Bishops in Dallas last month. It will be formally presented to the church’s triennial general convention in Detroit next year.

“As things stand now,” the study declares, “the world is moving faster than the Episcopal Church. We cannot slow down the world, even if we would; but we can and must speed up the church.”

A committee of 16 prepared the report, headed by the Right Rev. Walter H. Gray, bishop of Connecticut.

A number of administrative changes are recommended. In addition, the study stresses that foreign missions can no longer be serious and effective until the church as a whole understands that all of its members “are in fact missionaries, whether at home or abroad, whether clergy or laity.”

Suggestions include proposals that laymen going overseas be formally commissioned, that briefing centers be established for travellers, and that special aids be provided local clergymen to prepare their parishioners for overseas visits.

Still another recommendation calls for establishment of a permanent advisory council of evaluation and strategy on the mission of the church.

The meeting of the House of Bishops resulted in the issuance of a 4,000-word pastoral letter which reaffirms the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds “as the symbols of the rock of our faith.”

Reminding Episcopalians of their roots in the historic Christian faith, the letter at the same time declared that the two ancient creeds must always be interpreted in the language of the times.

The bishops called the creeds a “proclamation of a faith, a gift whose kind and nature does not in itself change from generation to generation.”

“Christianity is primarily an affirmation of what God has done, is doing and will do,” the letter said, “and of our participation in these mighty acts of God by our penitent and thankful response.

“The doctrine of creation is not a description of how the universe was made, but a statement of the complete dependence of the universe in its total being upon God. The first article of the creeds is the context for the other articles.

“It affirms the totality of God’s actual power as creator and is the indispensable basis for all the other creedal affirmations.”

The 14-page pastoral letter was the first by the Episcopalians since 1958. Such letters are usually issued at the church’s conventions and must be read in all the denomination’s more than 7,000 churches within 30 days.

A statement of faith used only in the Western Church, the Apostles’ Creed dates from the First Century and appears to be based structurally on Matthew 28:19.

The Nicene Creed was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 and affirmed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. It is longer and more explicit than the Apostles’ Creed and is accepted by both the Western and Eastern Churches.

These creeds, the Episcopal bishops stated, “are the skeletons of the Bible and the Bible is the flesh and the blood of the creeds.”

“Contemporary interpreters are in danger of becoming heretics even as champions of orthodoxy are in danger of becoming unintelligible,” the bishops continued. They pointed out that the creeds are intended to be statements of faith and not scientific documents.

The New Sectarianism

A new meaning is being given to the word “sectarianism” by opponents of religious education in the public schools, according to the Rev. E. R. McLean, who sounded a warning last month in an address before a biennial meeting of the Canadian Council of Churches in St. Catharines, Ontario.

Prohibition against sectarian teaching was originally intended to mean denominational teaching of Christianity, said McLean, while today it is being used to mean that Christianity itself is a sect.

Presidency of the Canadian Council, which rotates among its 11 member denominations, went this year to the Rev. David Hay, a Presbyterian and professor at Knox College, University of Toronto. He succeeds the Very Rev. George Dorey, a former United Church of Canada moderator.

Hay is a member of the World Council of Churches Committee on Faith and Order and its theological study commission.

Delegates heard Dr. Wilfred Scopes declare that Christianity can be spread effectively overseas only if denominationalism is overcome and the missions are internationalized.

Scopes, who heads the International Missionary Council’s Standing Committee on the Ministry, said that denominational mission boards are outdated and not geared for the job in the face of the present world situation.

He conjured up a vision of one Protestant mission “in the countries of the growing churches.” In India alone, where he served 35 years, he said there were some 200 different Christian groups carrying on mission work.

Canadian Ecumenicity

Ecumenically-oriented conversations between representatives of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Presbyterian Church in Canada, broken off in 1945, were resumed last month in Toronto.

A cautiously-worded statement issued after the sessions said the conversations were of “an exploratory nature to establish communication and mutual understanding.”

Subjects discussed by the 10 Anglicans and 9 Presbyterians at the meeting included doctrine, order, polity and practical cooperation. Delegates agreed to meet again February 2 to study “the nature of the unity we have.”

Serving as chairman was Dr. Robert Lennox, principal of Presbyterian College, Montreal, and moderator of the Presbyterian General Assembly. Archbishop Howard H. Clark of Edmonton, Primate of All Canada, served as head of the Anglican delegation.

Conversations between the two denominations were discontinued in 1945 as the result of a vagueness in terms of reference. Such talks were first initiated in 1944 by the Anglican Church.

Mission at Oxford

Oxford University undergraduates by the hundreds filed into a nearby church for eight nights last month. The attraction was a mission conducted by the Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union. Theme: “Encounter with Christ.”

Main services were reinforced by gatherings in the colleges and personal conversations with missioners. Speakers at breakfast and luncheon meetings included industrialist A. G. B. Owen.

The Rev. R. C. Lucas, chief missioner, is a Cambridge graduate who is candidates secretary of the (Anglican) Church Pastoral Aid Society.

The Oxford mission is a triennial event. A number of English Christian leaders trace their conversion to previous missions.

Defying the Enemy

Protestant missionary activity in Laos was being carried out last month in the face of armed Communist agitators.

Personnel of the Christian and Missionary Alliance reoccupied a mission station at Xieng Khouang, in the heart of the Red agitation, after having been caught in transit in the city of Vientiane when a coup occurred there.

The station later survived a counterrevolt in Xieng Khouang itself.

“In spite of the serious and unpredictable internal situation marked by armed Communist activity,” said the Rev. Louis L. King, foreign secretary of the Alliance, “the missionaries on all four of our mission stations are sticking by their posts witnessing and encouraging the believers.”

Reading and Running

Although young people of Taiwan apparently are among the most eager in the world to learn (America now has nearly 4,000 Chinese students, more than those from any other country except Canada), Christian educational advances in Nationalist China are hard to come by. Chief reasons: (1) To secure accreditation, schools must adopt government-formulated entrance requirements, which, in predominantly-Buddhist Formosa, result in a non-Christian student body; (2) lack of funds; and (3) the exodus of Chinese intellectuals needed for professorships.

Championing evangelical education against the Formosan odds is a heavily-built 61-year-old American missionary originally commissioned as an evangelist and Bible teacher by the Southern Presbyterian Board of World Missions, Dr. James R. Graham (no kin to the famous evangelist Graham, although James is Far Eastern representative of Billy’s evangelistic association). As late as seven years ago, missionary Graham did not feel that educational work was part of his calling. He was finally impressed, however, “that unless there was a college for the young people of the churches, there would be no educated ministry and many of the children of Christian homes would be lost to the churches.” Says Graham:

“The Lord had ‘written a vision and made it plain’ as he commanded the prophet Habakkuk ‘that he may run that readeth it.’ Though others seem to read the writing of the vision, [I] seemed to be the only one that would run to accomplish it.”

In 1954 Graham got a few dollars together and acquired a tract of land which included the skeleton of a building housing Nationalist troops. Windows, doors, and a roof were eventually installed and the troops vacated. Here was established the campus of the Taiwan Christian College of Science and Engineering, located near the township of Chung Li, 25 miles from the Formosan capital of Taipei. Fifteen hundred applications were received for admission to the first freshman class in the fall of 1955; 220 of these passed entrance examinations and were admitted.

Within a few months the Nationalist Chinese government had decreed that its Ministry of Education would thereafter conduct all college entrance examinations. Because of its curricular stress on science and engineering, to which the young Chinese readily gravitate, Taiwan Christian College immediately attracted hundreds of non-Christians. Curriculum Bible classes were retained as electives, however, and proved highly popular even among unbelievers. The result, says Graham, was that in the 1960 graduating class more than half had professed conversion experiences during their stay at the college.

Spearheading both spiritual and academic priorities at the college are President Hsieh Ming-San, a Chinese scholar who holds a Ph.D. from the University of London, and Dean Levi Lovegren, a Conservative Baptist of Swedish descent who spent four years and eight months in a Communist prison on the mainland.

Enrollment this fall topped 1,200, which outstrips Tunghai University, started the same year with far better physical resources. The only other Christian college registered with the Formosa government is Soochow University, transplanted from the mainland.

A year ago, still another Graham venture was realized with the opening of Christ’s College on a site overlooking the Formosa Straits at Kwan Doo, 11 miles northwest of Taipei. Graham chose not to seek accreditation for this second school, preferring “to persist to the accomplishment of our original vision of a college that is Christ-centered throughout.” The curriculum is programmed around “liberal arts and pure science with a central emphasis on Bible.”

U. S. Christians are often the most outspoken in favor of defending Formosa militarily. But not nearly so many are concerned with buttressing the Nationalist Chinese ideologically. Graham is challenging American apathy to the extent that he can round up enough funds for “the biggest evangelical Christian university in all of Asia.”

After the tragic death of the recent president of the National Conference of Christians and Agnostics, Hollis Ferloren, certain papers were found in his breast pocket. We pass their contents on to you. Mr. Ferloren is survived by his widow, the former Hope Flickering of Toledo, Ohio.

As Christianity has been accused of excessive fondness for antiquated ideas, it is my responsibility to present it to you in terms pleasing to the modern mind. Surely such a worn-out phrase as “Sell all you have and give to the poor” would explode with new force were we to say, “Translate your bonds and debentures into ready capital to provide an upgraded standard of living for the lower-lower class”; “Love thy neighbor” could become “Display empathy in a psychic ethnocentricity”; and “Fear not: I have overcome the world” could ring clear as a bell as, “Unblock your libido: the existential predicament has been transcended.” Just a little thought and Christianity can be lifted out of the coarse fabric of everyday life and given, along with human engineering, archery, and training in running a slide-projector, academic respectability.

If I am to do my part in making Christianity acceptable to everybody, I must give you the true modern meanings of five traditional terms. For it is the old-fashioned vocabulary that is responsible for the impression that Christianity is a difficult religion, demanding a specific behavior from its adherents without an iron-clad guarantee of fame, riches, and the presidency of Rotary International. If I can explain what these five terms mean in modern language, and do it to your satisfaction, I am confident that within a month the present handful of hypocrites within the church will be joined by millions of their brothers at the moment outside.

First, then, we meet the expression “The Kingdom of God.” Surely the modern American equivalent of this is “the Democracy of God.” Who, in these United States, can tolerate that word “kingdom?” Is it not much more pleasant to send pious thoughts soaring to the democracy of heaven, so that we may meditate upon the angels as a Senate, the saints as a House of Representatives, and the apostles as a slightly enlarged, and therefore even more democratic, Supreme Court? Old-fashioned Christianity, in those days when most nations were also kingdoms, perhaps could rest content with a God whose will was absolute, but is it not heartwarming to think that in Heaven, as in our country, if the executive says, “In every part of our territory you are to love your enemies, so I cannot sign your weak civil rights bill,” it will be possible to override his veto? Surely if we stress the democratic spirit of Christianity, many will enlist in its ranks who were before frightened out by the prospect of submitting their wills to the dictates of an absolute monarch. Therefore I advocate that the old Kingdom of God be henceforth always referred to as the democracy of God, and the expression, “Thy will be done,” be removed from all seals, church bulletins, stone doorways, and monuments, to be replaced by the phrase “Remember the veto.” As to the objection that if this expedient be followed we should have to speak not of the democracy of God but the democracy of Us, I regard this as a mere quibble since, as the apostle says, “If God be for Us, who can be against Us?”

Second, I should like to take up that antique word, Disciple. Although it be true that this word is near-allied to another word, namely, discipline, one must proceed to point out that the best discipline is self-discipline, and that self-discipline exists merely to make effective self-expression possible, and that therefore a true disciple is one who is dedicated to self-expression. An understanding in depth of this factor is sufficient impetus to throw at once into the trash-heap all morbid superstitions like self-denial, prayer, Bible-reading, church attendance, politeness, respect, and modesty. How greatly the art of finger-painting would advance were not art students forcibly exposed to the tedious discipline of learning to use a brush! How much time would be saved getting from place to place did not young man feel a gnawing compunction to hold the car door open for his mother, date, or fiancée! How rapidly Christianity would spread were all college students convinced that the heart of the Gospel lay not in a book but in their most ardent desires! Think of the unnecessary arguments that could be cut off before they started could we avoid such phrases as, “I think this is what the Bible means,” and say instead, “This is what Christianity means, and my proof, sir, is this: that is what I say it means!” When self-expression beckons, what Ulysses would keep the plugs of old-fashioned discipleship in his ears?

We move naturally then to our third term, the authority of Scripture. At first this may appear to be in opposition to our second point, self-expression; but when one reflects that the Scriptures contain man’s best wisdom, it becomes clear that “authority of Scripture” is merely a veiled expression for “sovereignty of individual conscience.” For nothing could be plainer than that “man’s best wisdom” means the best wisdom a man can produce, and that in proceeding immediately to our consciences, and thus omitting the laborious searching of Scripture, we can procure immense gain by the kicking out of a pesky intermediate step. It is the same thing as dealing directly with the wholesaler, and thus avoiding the middleman. Of course in cases of this sort one does not get the lifetime guarantee, but what does this matter if one does get a workable product? You must then be informed that the authority of Scripture is merely a fancy phrase for the authority of the individual conscience. I should like to write a panegyric in praise of this understanding, but time limits me to pointing out that while the Bible commands us not to do certain things, conscience only gives us a kick in the shins or a dig in the stomach after we have done them. Thus we are no longer forced to obey the moral law so long as we still acknowledge it, and like young children we can deal with a stomachache when it comes in exchange for a pound of candy right now. Who will kick against conscience as an unreasonable tyrant when he reflects that conscience allowed the English to burn St. Joan and Hitler to destroy 4 million Jews?

But as conscience does at times produce that latter twinge, after the act, we are led to our fourth old term, forgiveness. If you will allow me to refer to the Bible, which, if unnecessary, is still interesting, our Old Testament reveals to us that one Hebrew word for forgive literally means “to cover.” What greater proof is needed that the main meaning of “to forgive” is “to excuse?” Therefore you should know that when the Church talks of God forgiving you for what you have done, its plain intention is to show you that you may always make excuses for what you have done. What burdens this knowledge can remove from troubled shoulders! For when excuses are available for our misdemeanors, like glass milk-containers they can be used again and again. Has not one of the omnipresent barriers to the acceptance of divine forgiveness been the gnawing suspicion that God might say, “Go, and sin no more?” But that comes from a first century story, and we are living in the twentieth: with our modern comprehension that forgiveness means the right to make excuses, can we not afford an almost imperceptible change in emphasis and say, “Go, and mourn no sin?” Surely it is useless to extinguish our transgressions with repentance when we are able to distinguish them with excuses.

Our fifth old term is sanctification, the ancient synonym for which was “growing in grace.” This term stood for the idea that God’s grace enabled a man to grow in his capacity to follow the biblical precepts through the activity of the Spirit of God within. Now I hardly need remind an intelligent public that to a realist growth in character is only possible for a few rich executives and their wives who can wage the battle through the aid, at $125 per week, of their analyst, onto whom they can unload their aggressions, suppressions, anxieties, hostilities, repressions, and libido blockings. For the ordinary man naturally such growth in character is impossible. But this does not mean that we should be victimized by despair. When it is realized that the true and contemporary meaning of sanctification is not growth in the ability to do the will of God but rather growth in the ability to theorize about the will of God, it will be seen that from high school age up all men are professionals at the trade. For who is without a viewpoint on predestination? Who, from Plato to Bertrand Russell, is not competent to create a better world in his mind than the one God gave us on earth? Who does not know, better than the pastor, what he should have said in his sermon? Is it not clear that if sanctification means “the ability to theorize about the faith,” we are all steadily growing in grace, day by day?

There are the five points of up-to-date Christianity, or a religion for everyone. There is a sixth point, but it is hardly worth mentioning. However, perhaps I should put it in. Antiquated Christianity used to talk of its teachings as leading to eternal life. In our modern version that expression has been changed to eternal death. A small point, but perhaps worth mentioning.

Associate Professor of English

Muskingum College

New Concord, Ohio

This Christmas—day of joy and gladness—men in Unalakleet, Alaska, and Thule, Greenland, will spend the long hours of an Arctic shadowland peering at radarscopes for any sign of hostile activity across the frigid wastes. Thus does our age create a new and terrifying setting for a fateful question which has echoed through the centuries since Isaiah’s day: “Watchman, what of the night?” The watchman said, “The morning cometh, and also the night.”

The dual response was characteristic of replies of CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s 50 contributing editors as they were asked once again to scan the horizon of year’s end for signs and portents relating to evangelical interest and concern.

The election of a Roman Catholic to the Presidency was to some the most serious development in America, reflective of a national draining of evangelical knowledge and influence. Butler University’s Gordon H. Clark declares such a development an “impossibility” in a Puritan, Presbyterian, Huguenot, or Lutheran land. General William K. Harrison, United Nations truce delegate in the Korean war, sees evidence of a “great decline in the spiritual and moral strength of American Protestantism” in the “ignorant or deliberate failure of a great number of its leaders and people to … oppose the election of a President who would be subject to the discipline of the authoritarian, intolerant Roman Catholic Pope and hierarchy who condemn doctrinally and by action (when this is feasible) all freedom of religion, of conscience and of speech.”

Professor Bernard Ramm sees 1960 as “the year of Protestant heartache.” “In a manner both uncanny and baffling the Roman Church has managed to impress the American people that any criticism of the Roman Church is bigotry.” He notes the failure of American evangelicalism “to get a complete, honest and detailed hearing of its case before any national agency of news dissemination—radio, television, newspaper or magazine. The enormous, extensive and powerful political activity of the world-wide Roman Catholic hierarchy remains yet unmasked.” Dr. Duke K. McCall sees a “resultant image of evangelicals as the opponents of freedom and Roman Catholics as martyrs to freedom” which has “shifted conservative Protestantism to the underdog role in American life.”

But there were also expressions of hope that the public discussion of Church-State relations may have served to bring into the open issues which needed airing. And Dr. Frank E. Gaebelein was impressed with “a deep and growing concern on the part of American evangelicals for the conservation of our great Protestant heritage and the liberty that derives from it.”

Others view Senator Kennedy’s election somewhat more hopefully. Does it not imply, they ask, the emergence of an American Catholic image openly opposed to papal authority in political affairs, to use of government funds for parochial schools, and to the repression of religious freedom? That is now the image of the leading Roman Catholic in politics in the United States. These next years will give the Roman Catholic laity their great opportunity to indicate whether their support of these American non-Vatican traditions is a turn of expediency or of conviction.

In England Dr. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes sees a further threat to Reformation principles in a “movement within the Church of England for the revision of the 39 Articles of Religion, the seriousness of which is emphasized, for example, by the assertion of the Dean of St. Paul’s, Dr. W. R. Matthews (in a sermon preached at Cambridge in the University Church on February 21) that some of the articles contain ‘absurdities and even blasphemies.’”

But at the same time, Dr. Hughes is conscious of an English revival of interest in the Reformation. And looking to the north, he sees the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the Scottish Reformation as the most outstanding event of the British year “from the point of view of evangelical Christianity.” The Queen had high words of praise for the Reformation, and the Moderator of the General Assembly, Principal J. H. S. Burleigh of New College, University of Edinburgh, declared: “We proclaim ourselves heirs to the spiritual inheritance bequeathed to us by our Reformers, and pledge ourselves to maintain and enrich it.” The fourth centenary year has seen the publication of a number of valuable books on the history and significance of the Scottish Reformation.

International political events of greatest challenge to evangelical prospects were noted by the contributing editors to be: Communist threats to the United Nations and penetration in Cuba, and the Congolese struggle for nationhood along with the emergence of other African nations. From Canada’s McGill University, Professor W. Stanford Reid writes: “Russia is keeping on its usual line and the Western powers seem to have very little strength of character and knowledge of what they should do in the face of Khrushchev’s antics, a condition which I think arises from just plain lack of conviction of any sort.” But Lutheran professor J. Theodore Mueller found hope in Khrushchev’s “utter defeat in the UN meeting … where he had come with the conviction that his allies and his utter disregard of human decencies could cause consternation among the powers opposing him. He was defeated along the whole line and that in part by the very African representatives in whom he had put his trust for victory.”

Dr. Mueller sees Africa as “the modern battlefield of the Christian and Communistic forces.” Some voice misgivings over the impact upon missions of the Congo upheaval. As to the new independence of African nations, Professor Roger Nicole states the possibilities for good and ill: “It may be the vanguard in a rise of nationalism which may tend to make missions more difficult. On the other hand, it may take from the missionaries some of the suspicion of being tied up with colonialist powers so that the Gospel may be readily received by those who have been emancipated.” Professor Fred E. Young believes “a devastating blow to our Christian witness abroad” and a weakening of “the fiber of our faith at home” has resulted from “the continued resistance of great segments of American society to the Negro’s persisting attempt to … enter into the community of man.”

What is the Church’s response to the crisis it faces at home and abroad? Seminary president C. Adrian Heaton sees it as dangerously inadequate and paints an alarming future: “Although there are some general signs of renewal within the church, it is not yet deep enough to assure stability during the crises which seem immediately ahead. With the deterioration of our leadership in the world our nation seems near panic.… In the next year or two some Communist country may explode an atomic missile in the Western Hemisphere. Immediately, our nation would panic and a new nationalism would rise. With the new nationalism in America the masses now attending church for inadequate reasons would see the church as a divisive element; they would forsake the church for the political rally. The military and political leader would become the priest and prophet, the American flag might be substituted for the cross.” Dr. Heaton urges prayer “for a deeper awareness of the judgment of God upon the church and its materialistic measures of success. A renewed ministry among both the clergy and laity can come only from a new repentance.” Famed preacher Andrew W. Blackwood, noting the many challenges to world missions (secularism, nationalism, United Nations insecurity, Communism, and Romanism), pays tribute to President Eisenhower’s work for world peace and brotherhood and calls upon Americans to “fall down on our knees, confess our sins, and pray for a revival, preferably under the pastor in each local church, with stress on prayer, preaching and personal work, in the power of the Spirit.”

But how fare the evangelicals in what Dr. Reid calls a “somber” year? There are dark spots as well as light. Professor Clyde Kilby charges them with a “besetting weakness”—“failure of the imagination.” Professor G. W. Bromiley warns of internal negative quarreling at a time of external “resurgence of liberalism in Bultmann guise.” Southern Baptist McCall reports leveling or downward turn of the rapid growth rate of his denomination—the number of converts was down about 25 per cent the first nine months of 1960.

Professor Wilbur M. Smith sees no “great movement of the Spirit of God on a national scale.” “Certainly, in this country, nothing of an unusual nature has taken place within the boundaries of the Christian Church in 1960. In fact, we seem to be rather lethargic in spite of huge church membership rolls. I do not see anything taking place in our country comparable to the great meetings carried on by Billy Graham in Germany, or the wonderful pastor’s conferences called together by Bob Pierce in Japan and Korea.”

Dr. Billy Graham’s ministry for the year was indeed carried on largely beyond these shores (with the notable exception of his Washington, D. C., crusade), primarily in Africa, Switzerland, and West Germany; but, as several contributing editors noted, God’s manifest blessing on it was a continuing source of encouragement to evangelicals the world over. Professor Harold B. Kuhn writes from Germany where he is on sabbatical leave: “The Graham campaign in Berlin did bring to visibility both the rage of Communism against the Gospel, and the evident and persistent hunger of human hearts for the hearing of the Word, even in the face of deterrents.” A fuller searching of the spiritual horizon by students is evident from their attendance, 25,000 strong, in what proved the biggest specially-called evangelistic assembly of German youth either before or since the Reformation.

And Dr. Graham himself sees darkness, by God’s grace, triggering light: “I believe that world trends in 1960, such as the collapse of the summit meeting, revolutions in various parts of the world, Khrushchev’s display at the United Nations, have all tended to arouse Christians out of complacency and apathy. I sense a new deepening among Christians everywhere. The spirit of iniquity is everywhere, but so is the Spirit of God.”

Dr. Graham considers the World Council of Churches consultation on evangelism in Bossey, Switzerland (at which he spoke), “one of the most important meetings in 1960. This gave a new emphasis to evangelism in the world church.… It was learned at this consultation that mass evangelism is now being used successfully in every part of the world as a means of reaching millions of the uncommitted. In my opinion, it was a great step forward for this consultation to recognize the legitimacy of mass evangelism.” Dr. Bromiley points to “the impact of Faith and Order on the Ecumenical Movement” as “another possible gain of great importance.”

Professor Faris D. Whitesell cites the Rio de Janeiro gathering of the Baptist World Alliance as decisive for the Christian year, “especially the last meeting when Billy Graham preached to 200,000 people.” Pittsburgh minister Cary N. Weisiger, III observes: “More Christians from the United States seem to be going abroad and this should accentuate the fulfilling of the great commission.”

Professor Young speaks of CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s “breadth of vision, warmth in evangelical appeal and concern for the widening of our Christian fellowship” as a “bright star on the modern horizon.”

An interesting turn in religious journalism is the larger openness of The Christian Century to articles by evangelical names, although the extent to which this may be considered a gain for theological conservatism is limited by the fact that such articles are often in the main more critical of fundamentalism than of liberalism or neo-orthodoxy.

The consensus appears to be that the challenge of the day rather heavily outweighs evangelical response. Dr. Smith indicates that a sturdier response may be an enforced one: “I do believe we are on the threshold of some convulsive events in relation to the Gospel, and that it will not be many years before we see a new wave of persecution of Christians which will result in a sifting of these vast numbers recorded on our church rolls.” Also sounding an apocalyptic note, Professor Ned B. Stonehouse poses a question he does not attempt to answer: “Evangelical gains or losses seem … inconsequential.… What matters most is whether, in the light of the world-shaking and possibly catastrophic character of what is happening under our eyes, evangelicals are ready to confront this revolutionary age with deeper commitment to our Christian calling and a sense of urgency that is geared to the crises of the hour.”

The warfare is upon us. It is not a question as to whether we fight, but of how well or how poorly we fight. For indeed, “We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.”

MODERN ART LOSES ITS WAY; THE LIGHT OF CHRISTMAS REMAINS

The exhibition of contemporary Spanish art at the Corcoran Gallery in Washington, D. C., certainly makes one wonder (as does a visit to almost any display of modern art anywhere in the world). What merit is there, one asks, in daubs which are conspicuously lacking in form, purpose, and organization, and devoid of indications of design or rationality? What significance have they, except as symptoms of a generation that has lost its way, views life as meaningless, and yet is determined desperately to assert itself in the face of and by means of this sovereign irrationality and fortuity? When there is no purpose in the present and no hope for the future, and all things are a product of blind chance, why not fling the oils haphazardly on the canvas, ride a camel over it, and then exhibit the end-product as modern art? Does it not remain true to life?

The God-fearing man, however, can never view things in this light. For him the world, disfigured though it is by the irrational sinfulness of rebellious man, is still God’s world—a world of form, design, beauty, and orderliness. It comes from the hand of God and still reflects the mind of God. Certainly, the Christian should not decry the search of the artist for new art forms. But for him life is full of purpose and dignity and hope. His cult is not one of despair. His God is not a God of chaos. The God of Christmas takes earth’s stable and illuminates it with the radiance of the Christ-child.

DEBT OF MODERN SCIENCE TO CHRISTIAN BACKGROUNDS

The American Biology Teacher (Oct., 1960) carries an article by Richard P. Aulie of Bloom Township High School, Chicago Heights, Illinois, titled “Darwin, Immutability, and Creation.” With Mr. Aulie’s rather broad acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis we shall not concern ourselves here. But we draw attention to two paragraphs of special importance to both scientists and Christians (we do not for a moment, of course, suggest that the two terms are mutually exclusive). Mr. Aulie says:

It was the genius of 19th century biology to perfect the scientific approach to the world of life and show that concepts of design and providence do not give us causal explanations. It is the failing of contemporary biology to neglect the basic philosophic assumptions which make science possible.

Many contemporary biologists are usually silent about these philosophical issues, such as, why do we assume that nature is predictable and regular; why do we claim the scientific method is valid; why do we assume that our sensory impressions give us a correct representation of the external, objective world about us? This silence is due in part to a natural reluctance to avoid erroneous conclusions of the past. But I fancy there is another, more basic reason. It is the very correct suspicion that these questions lead us right back to the concept of divine creation that so exercised the 19th century mind. I think it is no accident that the theory of evolution could appear in a civilization already suffused with the Judeo-Christian ideas that time is linear and progressive, and not cyclical, and that nature is rational and will yield its secrets to human curiosity.

To the twofold fact that the universe is formed in accordance with the blueprint of the divine mind and that man is an intelligent creature stamped with the divine image (an image which, though defaced by sin, is not totally effaced) modern man owes his capacity to engage in rational and scientific activity.

SOME TIMELY COMMENTS ON THE TEACHING OF THEOLOGY

Not many years ago some preachers were happily assuring their congregations that they would not torment them with theology. Theological preaching was aschewed as passé and was deplored as dogmatism. The desire to be practical and relevant seemed to preclude too possibility of being theological.

The reaction to this mood inevitably came. Professor Thorwald Bender of Eastern Baptist Seminary describes it well in a recent address:

Today’s preacher finds himself in the squeeze of the vise of the unmistakable resurgence of biblical and theological studies on the one hand, and the demands of the worshiping community on the other. To be accepted by his colleagues, the minister must be informed about the current theological discussions carried on in all major denominations, and in seminaries and universities around the world, and in inter-church organizations. Perhaps there has never been a period in the history of the Church when so many people, in so many places, have engaged in serious theological discourse as today. On the other hand, the pastor feels the subtle pressure of the laity seeking doctrinal certainties from the pulpit in the midst of the frustrating uncertainties and relativisms of a human idealism signed by the heat of atomic explosions.

Dr. Bender points out that the seminary curriculum today indicates that tomorrow’s preachers are being exposed to heavy doses of theology—biblical, systematic, historical, and philosophical. The hopeful senior may be tempted to post a sign above his collection of books by Brunner, Ferré, Tillich, Aulén, Niebuhr, et alia, announcing “Have Theology—Will Preach!” But the situation, Professor Bender says, raises questions:

Could it be that we are in danger of producing a breed of theological snob? What is to be done for men who can discourse with facility on “encounter,” “myth,” “confrontation,” “kerygma,” “koinonia,” and “agape,” but who fail to bring the joy and strength of the Gospel of redemption into the lives of their parishioners? Or, for that matter, how adequate is the theological training of the man who can pronounce irrefutable absolutes on verbal inspiration, the pretribulation rapture of the elect, or God’s revelation in twentieth century Zionism, but who is totally devoid of the compassion of the Saviour, and totally blind to the personal and social sufferings and struggles of multitudes of creatures bearing the image of God?

“Our churches have a right,” he adds—and we heartily agree—“to look for seminary graduates whose delight, like the Psalmist’s, is to meditate on God’s precepts day and night. They are entitled to hear a clear affirmation of the eternal, living Word of God by one who himself hears and heeds it with joy.”

DOWN TO EARTH

Has the Christianity we profess become a practical reality in our lives? This is a question every Christian should ask himself, for entirely too many of us are fooling ourselves.

Attendance at church, activity in church programs, or identification with the church as an organization are to many people synonymous with Christianity. It is that so few Christians exhibit qualities emanating from supernaturally transformed lives that the cause of Christ lags and unbelieving people see little in us to attract them to the altogether lovely One.

Shortly before his crucifixion, our Lord spoke to his disciples on the imperative of living close to him. He likened this truth to something they could see and understand, namely, a vine and its branches.

“I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”

This profound truth, so simply expressed, should arrest and humble every person who names the name of Christ.

Strange to say there are Christians who feel capable of living their own lives when it comes to “minor” matters, and only turn to God when the going gets rough or when a problem of seeming magnitude confronts them.

However, none of us can clearly distinguish between what is truly of minor importance at the moment and what may prove to be a pressing issue of life, for often it is a little thing that blossoms out into a matter of tremendous import.

Unwilling to take our Lord’s words at face value, some persons will insist they are getting along very well. They may look at nominal or non-Christians and point out that they are obviously successful. We see all around us business and professional people who are unquestionably successful and we are foolishly led to think that Christ did not mean what he said.

But what is success? If we are to judge success by worldly standards we must think of it in terms of material and social gain. But how foolish can we be? Christ punctured such a criterion in one sentence: “For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”

It is the confusion of worldly standards with things eternal that leads to folly, for God looks at us with eyes that penetrate the facade of religiosity to the deep recesses of our souls. “For the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart,” is a truth that should humble each one of us to the dust.

We fool ourselves with the superficiality of Christian pretense, but we rarely fool anyone else. God knows our hearts and those with whom we come in contact soon sense whether or not our profession is real.

In God’s sight (the only perspective that counts), success is measured in the light of eternity. The apostle Paul’s words express the same truth: “… we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.”

Therefore, when Christ affirmed that without him we can do nothing, he was telling us that anything done outside his holy purpose will eventually perish, and that it is only by a vital relationship with him that we can accomplish anything which will last for eternity.

The apostle Paul tells of the time of testing, and of the one foundation, and of the superstructures that Christians build thereon:

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.”

Will the life each of us is living stand under the fire of God’s testing? This is a solemn question, and the day of inevitable reckoning is involved in it.

For entirely too many of us, Christianity is a nebulous experience having little or no practical value. Actually the very opposite should be the case. Christianity should mean a new way, a transformation from death to life. Our Lord’s affirmation that we must be born again clearly indicates that for the individual a conversion to Jesus Christ should be the greatest and most important event in human experience.

What does Christianity mean for us? Do we sense his holy presence and power in our lives? Have we with Christ a relationship that is as real and life-giving as that of the branch to the vine? Are we not often playing at being Christians?

Christianity is tremendously real and practical. It means having Christ take up his abode in us. It involves our seeing the fruits of his Spirit a natural manifestation in us of his supernatural presence.

Our Christian faith should be evident in every walk of life and in every relationship. We need to recognize that we live in an alien and hostile environment. No Christian wants to appear “peculiar,” but unless there are evidences of Christ’s transforming presence and power in our lives, how real is the faith we profess?

These are days of testing. Matters which endure and point our vision to the ultimate are being crowded into the background while the glitter of immediate things take over our attention. How can we stand firm when tested? How can we honor God in our daily tasks? In short, how can Christianity become a vitally practical matter at the level of everyday living?

First and foremost there must take place in us an experience with Christ that results in conversion. Conversion is not a matter of outward emotion but of inner transformation which is increasingly evidenced to ourselves and to others.

Stemming from the vital and new relationship there must be a constant inflowing of divine grace, and apart from prayer and Bible study no Christian can hope to receive into his own heart and life the blessings essential for daily Christian living.

Just as life flows from the vine to the branch, so divine life flows into the Christian through his living close to the source of life itself.

Prayer is a gift from God whereby he speaks to us and we speak to him. It is as essential to spiritual life as breathing is to the body.

Bible study is another means of divine grace, for in the written Word we meet the living Word. The intense practicality of daily Bible study can never be overstated, for as we read God speaks to our hearts and His Word becomes a means of guidance, wisdom, warning, and hope.

We live in a time when iniquity abounds and when the love of many is growing cold. If we are to bear a consistent witness as Christians, it must be through the Christ who dwells in us.

“For without me ye can do nothing.”

L. NELSON BELL

THE BELLS

There’s the ringing of the bell,

The doorbell;

I must go to find out

what this fellow has to sell;

Or it is the tot next door,

With her sister and four more,

Ringing, pounding on the door;

No, a van is at the gate—

“Yes, this house is 308,

But my name is not McGuire

And I did not buy a dryer.”

Now again I take my pen,

and blot the puddle where it fell—

There’s the ringing of the bell,

The doorbell,

The pestilential, residential

ringing of the bell.

There’s the ringing of the bell

The phone bell

Dutifully I answer it,

although I know quite well,

Telephone communication

Has its ground for installation

In the endless conversation

Of the younger generation.

All the latest parent polls

Show beyond doubt

Just for whom the Bell tolls

Must be paid out.

“Hello, this is Eutychus

A moment please. O Sue!

Kathy on the telephone;

She would like to speak with you.”

As I close the study door

So that Sue can be alone

I know that for an hour or more

She has quieted the phone,

Stopped the ringing of the bell,

The phone bell,

The electronic, un-Poe-etic

ringing of the bell.

There’s the ringing of the bell,

Alarm clock bell.

What a warm and dreamy haze

it riots to dispel!

And the trauma it inflicts

When I find it’s half past six!

Someone set it, what a crime,

A quarter hour ahead of time.

Now the phone is ringing, too.

“O, yes, pastor, so it’s you.

Yes, I am an early riser,

Though I think it might be wiser

To remain in bed. O, yes.

I can make those calls, I guess;

Phone my friends about the meeting,

Push some doorbells with our greeting.

Yes, the church that rings the bell,

Rings the bells,

Rings doorbells, phone bells,

church bells, bells.”

EUTYCHUS

THE ELECTION

In my opinion the decision just made by the American electorate will be revealed by the long perspective of history, to be as fateful as the Dred Scott Decision. The American people have faced themselves with an unhappy dilemma. Either they will win back lost liberties, which is good, by a strife of brothers, which is bad, or, peace will be preserved, which is good, at the price of liberty, which is sorrowful to contemplate. In either case the question raised by Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address is now before us, whether the lovely thing so sacrificially begun by our founding fathers “can long endure.”

The question is not whether a Catholic should be President or not. It would be a great day for America if a Catholic were to be President, or a Jew, or a Negro. Similarly for a Southerner, or a woman! The question is about the Catholic church in its relation to the state, not about an American citizen who happens as an individual to be a Catholic. That never was in question, though those who feared the right question tried to make it seem as if that was indeed in question.

The Catholic church is a perfect institution for the evasion of responsibility in a matter like this. The few hierarchs would be unimportant without the millions who follow them. Yet the decisions are made not by the millions but by the few hierarchs. The millions are irresponsible. The hierarchs cannot be called to account.

The Catholic church has a position (“thesis”) where it can establish it, and a next best position (“hypothesis”) where the normative position is not immediately attainable. There are theologians and even a few hierarchs who sincerely oppose this. But the classical position has never been set aside. It contemplates a special status for the Catholic church in relation to other churches. It considers it a matter of right to instruct Catholic rulers and citizens when it chooses to do so. The recent instance of the bishops in Puerto Rico is a textbook example. The Vatican—final repository of all decision—explicitly stated that the Puerto Rico hierarchs were within their rights when they forbade the faithful to vote for Muñoz Marín on pain of sin.

Now we come to the question of sanctions, the real weight of the foregoing considerations. The Roman church is not a church as Protestants are likely to understand the term. The being (esse) of the church is the clergy, especially the bishops, more especially the pope. The people do not comprise the church but are in it, as in a building, or around it, as children are around a mother. Nor does religion mean in the Roman church anything resembling what the term connotes to Protestants. To them the religious subject is decisively involved in the central religious matter: “do you acknowledge Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Saviour?” In the Roman system the Sacraments constitute the religious matter (res), and the Sacraments are altogether objective, beyond the subject.

Now then. The hierarchy has unshared control of the Sacraments, the “power of the keys.” The layman has no rights in the matter. None. If the Sacraments are withheld from him his eternal destiny is gone. He may gain the whole world and lose his own soul. He will think long before he defies the hierarchy when they mean business.

They may hold their hand. As long as they do the Catholic politico and we are in luck. Similarly for the Catholic part of the electorate. But meanwhile the decision remains not with the political figure, not with the Catholic electorate, not with America, but with men who in this matter are not Americans but hierarchs of the Catholic church.

As long as the historic position is in effect, supported by such sanctions, no Catholic should be President. Now that one has been elected, a decision as fateful as the Dred Scott Decision has been made.

CLIFFORD L. STANLEY

Department of Theology

The Virginia Seminary (Episcopal)

Alexandria, Va.

When the tumult and the shouting die, we shall slowly realize that God has willed it so.… Perhaps, among other reasons, to make us Protestants re-examine our loyalty to Him, to the mighty acts of His intervention in Christ, to the quickening power of His Word in the hands of the Spirit, to His saving grace as our sole hope of glory.

WILLIAM CHILDS ROBINSON

Columbia Theological Seminary

Decatur, Ga.

ON APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

The article “Is There an Apostolic Succession?” in your Oct. 24 issue by Dr. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, an Anglican scholar, is a very stimulating presentation. I admired its forthrightness. However, there is the other side, equally interesting and substantial.

THOMAS THEODORE BUTLER

Diocese of Long Island Lynbrook, N. Y.

The “Lambeth Quadrilateral” sets forth as one of its “principles of unity,” “a ministry acknowledged by every part of the Church as possessing not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also the commission of Christ and the authority of the whole body.” The Bishops meeting in Lambeth in 1930 made it clear that “a ministry acknowledged by every part of the Church” means “the historic episcopate.” This was reiterated again by the Bishops in 1948, and in the Anglican Congress of 1954.

C. OSBORNE MOYER

Christ Church

Holly Springs, Miss.

He speaks for himself, not for the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion.

JAMES BRICE CLARK

St. Barnabas Church

Omaha, Neb.

If the doctrine as believed in by the historic Church is false and without reasonable foundation why concern yourself with it? Could it be that this doctrine which is officially held by the three branches of the Holy Catholic Church (Anglican, Roman, Orthodox) … is unsettling the faith of too many thinking Protestants?

RUFUS L. SIMONS

Saint Stephen’s in the Field, Episcopal

Elwood, Ind.

I write this on the eve of the Protestant Reformation celebration. And I grieve to think of all the individualism which will most certainly be preached tomorrow.… I do admit that the events of the 16th century were the result of a tyrannical Church. But that tyranny has been replaced by the much more devastating tyranny of individualism. And look at the littered wreckage which has resulted! I look upon Protestantism as a great, empty, helpless mass of froth and chaff. Stumbling, straining at gnats, incapable to marshall any unity to combat the powerful challenges of the day, or meet the needs of even its own members. If ever the Church needed Apostolic direction and unity, it is today.…

But our differences go much, much deeper than this. All our ecumenical discussions are superficial, if they do not begin at the beginning. We don’t believe in the same God! We disagree on His very Nature, His purpose in Creation, His destiny for Man, to say nothing about the means by which these purposes are to be accomplished.

E. O. WALDRON

St. John’s Episcopal Church

Mt. Vernon, Ind.

I am very happy that Dr. Hughes wrote what he did on the question of an apostolic succession. His thesis that there is an apostolic succession of doctrine rather than one of any ecclesiastical order is the very doctrine which Luther stressed, as did also Calvin of course. And that apostolic doctrine is set forth in the New Testament, though supported also by the Old Testament, for both testify of Christ.

To me it seems almost miraculous that in this time of confusion and dogmatical double talk there should appear so many learned men with divinely guided insight to stress greatly needed basic scriptural truths.

J. THEODORE MUELLER

Concordia Seminary St. Louis, Mo.

EVANGELICAL RESURGENCE

Thank you so much for Dr. Ockenga’s article on “Resurgent Evangelical Leadership” (Oct. 10 issue). I have read nothing that points out more clearly the origins, problems, differences, similarities, and objections of the various theological concepts. This will help a lot of us to redefine and re-evaluate our positions. As for me, I am more proud than ever before to call myself an evangelical!

RANDALL GREEN

Maple Grove Baptist Church

Louisville, Ky.

Dr. Ockenga apparently has not yet realized that many of us have been through the fundamentalist grist mill and have found a more liberal theology far more meaningful. What would Dr. Ockenga suggest? That we become hypocrites and proclaim our belief in the plenary inspiration of scripture, the virgin birth, etc., as “essential beliefs,” when in all honesty we do not?

RALPH SILVIS

Hamersville Larger Parish

Congregational Christian Churches

Hamersville, Ohio

Dr. Ockenga seeks to define evangelicalism as fundamental in creed, liberal in churchmanship.… Can you renounce separatism without thereby becoming an inclusivist?…

There is one flaw in Dr. Ockenga’s proposal that we infiltrate the citadels of liberalism with the fire of a new evangelicalism. The modernists did not hesitate to practice deceit and even bold misrepresentation of their views to infiltrate the major Protestant denominations. We cannot match their dishonesty without losing our integrity.

OLIVER W. PRICE

Bible Lovers League

Oklahoma City, Okla.

On his principles there would have been no Reformation. For when did Rome officially repudiate her historic confessional basis? Does she not confess the Bible to be the word of God and the ancient ecumenical creeds to be her confession of faith? While we’re infiltrating, let us infiltrate Rome as well.

THEODORE J. GEORGIAN

Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Rochester, N. Y.

SAY, ABOUT THAT BOOK LIST

I studied with considerable interest the “Evangelical Book List” (Sept. 26 issue) …, and was considerably astonished by the absolute omission of any volumes authored by one of Scotland’s most celebrated theological writers, Alexander Balmain Bruce.… Three of his works especially deserve inclusion, The Training of the Twelve, The Humiliation of Christ, and The Parabolic Teaching of Christ.

RAYMOND L. COX

Hillsboro Foursquare Church

Hillsboro, Ore.

On page 18, it is erroneously stated that two books by Muhlenberg Press are “out of print.” They are J. L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought (1943, 1946), and T. G. Tappert, The Book of Concord.

W. D. ALLBECK

Both titles are currently available.

Springfield, Ohio

I would most heartily recommend your Evangelical Book List to serve as a foundation for all church libraries. Our church library, containing 300 volumes, includes 34 books from your list and contemplates adding 25 more in the future.

DAVID A. DENISCH

Towson, Md.

QUERY ON HOG-WASH

Pray tell me why you waste good paper and print on such hog-wash as “The Power Of A Godly Pen” (September 26 issue). The shortage of preachers and teachers in our churches and schools has been worn thin during the past two or three decades in all publications from the daily newspaper to the “once in a lifetime publication.” And now you add the “alarming” shortage of Christian writing. Of course this all makes good reading copy for the uninitiated—but aren’t there more urgent and weightier matters to bring to the attention of readers today than such misleading articles? It doesn’t require a microscope to see that newness, freshness, and creativeness are not welcomed in any of these three fields. The nauseating sounds of “traditionalism” and “conformity” resound throughout! Match up to surface qualifications; show that you have been in step with the past—experience (bah!); and at least have half of the alphabet trailing your name, and then perhaps you’ll make it in. You say, quote: “It is time for publishers to become spiritually literate.” I could make that far stronger, and not only for publishers. New discoveries have never been made in history through rocking chair conformity. And new talent will never show up today as long as those in command fear to launch out and dare to be different from the proud status quo.

I had better quit spouting off before I damage this typewriter.…

VINCE FISHER

San Diego, Calif.

I very much appreciated the article on the Christian novel. What we need is a Protestant counterpart to The Devil’s Advocate. Dorothy Clarke Wilson has turned out some very beautiful material on the lives of Protestants, but as you say, we have nothing that seethes with the stuff of which most people’s lives are made. As a consequence, most people are terribly misinformed, almost completely uninformed, about the work that the Church is doing today.

THEODORE E. KIMMEL

Cherry Grove Church of the Brethren

Lanark, Ill.

TO ERUPT GOOD WILL

In the wake of the exposition of a new concept in education, the Engagement Quotient (E.Q.) in Religious Education (July–August, 1960), I would love to address a request, through church leadership, to parent-teachers associations, how to erupt the good will of the nation for the battle of reversing the now increasing trend of juvenile delinquency into a decreasing one. The main idea is that home and school clubs, etc., should have a committee of education whose chairman could be contacted, on a free and voluntary basis, by school guidance whenever the E.Q. oscillation of a pupil would fall below the threshold level 120. The chairman would alert the religious organization of the child’s affiliation and offer proper inspiration and persuasion.

E. F. MOLNAR

St. Luke’s Presbyterian

Bathurst, New Brunswick

FIDEL UNVISITED

In the September 12 issue in … “Castro Allegiance Divides Cuban Christians” … there are certain references made to me which I would like to clarify.… I have never seen Dr. Fidel Castro personally, not even from a distance, and only on television programs. I have never heard any mention of the possibility of the creation of a National Protestant Church.

Matanzas, Cuba

RAFAEL CEPEDA

Second in a Series

We must now indicate why neo-orthodox theology, as we see it, unwittingly prepared the way for the rise of neo-liberalism. Sooner or later declension and reaction threaten every theology not fully governed by biblical presuppositions or not fully conforming to biblical details. Why has the theology shaped by Barth and Brunner not held the field against the speculations of Bultmann?

THE SWING TO EXTREMES

From the standpoint of Bible-controlled theology, the neo-orthodox revolt against liberalism’s theology of immanence (which minimized or virtually eliminated the transcendence of God) must be criticized as a reaction, equally objectionable and unjustifiable, leading to a one-sided stress on divine transcendence. In other words, dialectical theology is a theology of exaggerated transcendence which distorts the immanence of God, even as classic liberalism was a theology of exaggerated immanence which distorted the transcendence of God.

The basic premise of the theology of transcendence—that God is “wholly other”—is made to support a dialectical view of divine revelation that limits God’s communication to personal confrontation. Theological terms are today often lost in a semantic wilderness, so that the bare verbal statement of this position may conceal its real intention. But the speculative character of this doctrine of revelation, and the extent of its departure from the historic faith of the Christian Church, become apparent once its implications are clear. While this dialectical theory asserts God’s personal confrontation of individuals and the necessity of individual illumination by the Spirit, it does so in open hostility to a biblical view of the reality and nature of divine revelation. The dialectical theory holds that God’s revelation is not given in the form of human concepts or words, nor in historical events; revelation assertedly is given only subjectively. The Spirit alone is the locus of revelation, which is communicated only along the moving frontier of man’s obedient response.

What happens, then, to the sacred Scriptures as authoritative revelation? To Jesus of Nazareth as the historical incarnation of Deity? To the Cross and the Resurrection as revealing events? Although the “crisis” theologians contend that dialectical theology rises above the traditional antithesis of subjectivity and objectivity, they have repeatedly had to face the question whether the dialectical view in fact threatens the objective realities essential to the Christian religion.

Here we are dealing obviously with a concern more fundamental than side issues (important as these may be) such as whether post-Reformation theology has adequately depicted the Holy Spirit’s role in illuminating and personalizing Hebrew-Christian revelation to each new generation successively addressed by the Gospel, or whether God is personally active in the disclosure of revelation, or whether truth remains unappropriated apart from personal decision: these issues are not in debate at all.

The decisive issue is between so-called dialectical disclosure and historical and propositional revelation. Is divine revelation (as champions of the Hebrew-Christian religion insisted before the rise of these modern speculative theologies) given once-for-all in historical events, intelligible concepts, and words? The dialectical theology contends that events, ideas, words are never to be identified with revelation itself; at most, they are but “sign-post,” “witness,” “testimony” to divine revelation. Divine revelation, it is contended, is communicated only in the immediacy of a divine-human encounter; it is never given objectively, but only subjectively.

SOME INNER DIFFICULTIES

The revisions and reversals this viewpoint has required of its champions are evidence that it forces the discussion of special revelation into categories alien to biblical theology. Let us note some significant examples.

When he wrote The Mediator (1926), Emil Brunner depicted the atonement not as an historical event accomplished about the year 30 A.D., but as a present reality. By the time Brunner wrote Revelation and Reason (1942), however, he stressed the death of Christ on the cross as a revelation of God’s very nature as agape. But, we then ask, is history at this point—or is it not—a bearer of absolute meaning? Is divine revelation after all (despite the dialectical denial) acknowledged as communicable in historical events (at least in the deed of the Cross)? Can Brunner’s later emphasis on the revelation-value of the historical death of Christ really be reconciled with the dialectical schematization of revelation in terms of subjectivity?

The claim of biblical writers to convey the very thoughts and words of God faced Brunner with a related problem. It was easy enough for Brunner, given his critical view of the Bible, to brush aside the apostolic doctrine of inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16) as a post-apostolic misunderstanding, even if this cavalier dismissal cannot really account for the sense of divine authority that pervades the Epistles. But the Old Testament posed a special dilemma through its explicit and oft-repeated identification of the words of the prophets with the words of the Lord. In Revelation and Reason, Brunner acknowledges the special problem this fact creates for the dialectical theory’s contention that divine revelation is not expressed in concepts and words. Brunner’s “solution” is remarkably evasive. He tells us that in the prophetic literature we are presented with a lower order—in Brunner’s words, “an Old Testament level”—of revelation. But the real issue, we must note, is not whether these concepts are lower or higher, but whether or not this is revelation. Are the thoughts and words of the inspired prophets to be identified with revelation or not? Does the dialectical theory of revelation really allow Brunner (as he would like) to assimilate the words of the prophets to revelation in this way, after the possibility of an identification of concepts and words with divine revelation has been disallowed?

Karl Barth’s dogmatics falls into frustration along similar lines. The provocative nature of his early references to Jesus of Nazareth is all too familiar, specially the statement in Die Kirchliche Dogmatik that alongside other founders of religion Jesus was a quite unimpressive historical figure: “Jesus Christ in fact is also the Rabbi of Nazareth, historically so difficult to get information about, and when it is got, one whose activity is so easily a little commonplace alongside more than one other founder of a religion and even alongside many later representatives of his own ‘religion’” (The Doctrine of the Word of God, Vol. I, Part 1, p. 188). This affirmation is the more remarkable because the insistence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ is the elemental New Testament affirmation. Barth’s earlier expositions locate the reconciling work of Christ, and particularly his resurrection, in a sphere of time and experience quite distinct from ordinary historical time. The many revisions of his Römerbrief (1919) reflect his movement away from Kierkegaardian existentialist categories. In recent years, in part because of Bultmann’s widening influence, Barth has more and more emphasized the objective historical aspects of Christian redemption, including the bodily resurrection of Christ as belonging to the revelation of God in history.

Despite the existential motifs in his early writings, since renounced, Barth’s theological temperament seems all along to have embraced a certain accommodation of history to the divine (as his standing insistence on the virgin birth) which is lacking in Brunner’s expositions. Yet the emphasis on the historicity of the Resurrection, on the objective factor in God’s revealing activity, is a later development. In respect to the Bible, Barth has all along had, and still has, difficulty speaking of the objectivity of revelation. He stresses the “inspiringness” of the Bible (that is, its ability to inspire us, to become a vehicle of revelation in subjective encounter), not the objective “inspiredness” of Scripture. The Bible, in whole or part, he regards simply as a normative witness or pointer to revelation, despite the Apostle Paul’s readiness to identify the apostolic preaching (1 Thess. 2:13) no less than the sacred writings (2 Tim. 3:16) with revelation itself. This neo-orthodox denial of the objectivity of revelation, moreover, constantly imperiled the universal validity of the Gospel.

Yet in respect to the knowledge of God, Barth stresses more and more that we must know God truly (even if for such knowledge he relies on internal miracle rather than on Scripture as an authoritative source). Faith becomes a call to cognitive understanding in Barth’s Fides quaerens intellectum. Anselms Beweis der Existenz gottes (1931). Barth’s demand for authentic knowledge is to be welcomed, of course, in the aftermath of a century of speculative liberal theology which (influenced by Kantian skepticism toward agnosticism in metaphysics) defined religious experience in terms of trust (fiducia) and downgraded cognition (assensus). Even more is this emphasis on knowing God “truly” to be commended because Brunner, in one passage, suggests that God may even reveal himself through falsehoods: “God can, if He chooses, speak his word to a man even through false doctrine” (Wahrheit als Begegnung, p. 88). But what room remains in Barth’s theology, within the basic dialectical premise that divine revelation is not expressed in concepts and events, for the notion that we must know God truly is wholly unclear. Barth himself takes the heart out of his own plea when, in another mood, he continues to assert that “we have concepts only of objects that are not identical with God” (op. cit., p. 22). It is in fact their insistence on the nonconceptual, nonverbal, nonhistorical character of revelation which has driven contemporary dialectical theologians in the Barth-Brunner-Bultmann traditions to constantly distinguish doctrines (or “truths”) from revelation, the Bible from revelation, and, for that matter, Jesus of Nazareth from “the Christ.”

The fact that Barth and Brunner compromise the basic dialectical premise at strategic points is to be explained only in this way: that the Judeo-Christian view itself makes demands which break through the narrow and artificial limits of the theological dialectical theory. The primary issue—really evaded by Barth and Brunner—is not whether in this point or that (historical event or concept or Bible declaration) we must somehow (even if inconsistently!) acknowledge the reality of divine revelation. The primary consideration rather is that this event, this knowledge, can be confidently identified with revelation only if we first reject the dialectical dogma that revelation is not communicated in concepts, words, or historical acts.

THE ROAD TO BULTMANN

Bultmann enters this controversy over the relation of revelation to history, science, and truth—over the connection of revelation with subjectivity or objectivity—by applying the basic dialectical premise itself in a more consistent and more devastating way.

Barth and Brunner had ambiguously related faith to science and to history no less than to reason. Brunner found it possible to say, on one side, that modern science cannot really touch the essence of Christian revelation, and, on the other, that “Orthodoxy has become impossible for anyone who knows anything of science. This I would call fortunate” (The Word and the World, p. 38). While the crisis-theologians have built a positive theological structure on the foundation of higher criticism, they have asserted that neither science nor history bisects the content of revelation. The implication is that whatever assaults scientific criticism and historical criticism may make on the Bible, they cannot in any manner really impair the content of the Gospel—because revelation assertedly is not communicated in the historico-scientific realm.

As already indicated, Barth and Brunner compromise the consistent application of this principle. In deference to certain strategic elements of the biblical witness, they “protect” the historical nature of the atonement (Brunner) and the resurrection of Christ (Barth); insist on authentic knowledge of the supernatural God (Barth); and even affirm a low-level revelation status for parts of the Bible (Brunner).

Bultmann wants none of this. He will not accommodate the dialectical philosophy to such core elements of Hebrew-Christian theology derived actually from a biblical (and non-dialectical) revelation situation. And Bultmann’s plea for a thorough and uncompromised application of the dialectical view of revelation has caught the fancy and imagination of young intellectuals in many German divinity schools.

Lost Christmas

Somewhere, buried under tissue,

Bent beneath the load

Of our hurried, harried giving,

Christmas lost the road.

Christmas, that was sweet and simple,

With a song, a star,

Christmas that was hushed and holy,

Seems so very far!

Let us stop and look for Christmas:

Maybe, if we tried,

We could find it somewhere under

All the gifts we tied.

Christmas waiting, wistful, weary,

May be very near—

Christmas lost, a little lonely,

Wishing to be here.

HELEN FRAZEE BOWER

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

Every year Christmas finds us bewildered, wondering what to give to that certain someone, and puzzled by the vast array of choices. Often we are unsure of the appropriateness of our selection right up to the moment of presentation. We quiver while the package is being opened, or until we hear that happy exclamation: “Oh, it’s just what I wanted!”

Ralph Waldo Emerson recognized such perplexities and, in 1856, wrote a brief essay titled “Gifts” on the theme. It is a straightforward statement of the problem of choice and its reading should be a requirement of all Christmas shoppers.

Emerson begins his essay by classifying various types of gifts. We might illustrate the classification by a staircase symbol. At the first level, the plane at which we admit that we just do not know what to give, Emerson lists flowers and fruit—“flowers because they are a proud assertion that a ray of beauty outvalues all the utilities of the world.… Fruits … because they are the flower of commodities.” Proof of the former is evident to any husband: his wife is far more delighted by a cluster of carnations than by a new dusting mop, no matter how little or great may be the respective utilitarian value of each. And of the tangible objects or commodities, the decorative basket of highly-polished fruit remains an attractive gift as evidenced by the popularity of this choice among modern business people.

On the first step above flowers and fruit Emerson places the gift of necessity and states that “one is glad when an imperative leaves him no option.” To illustrate his point he draws the picture of a man in need of shoes. Shall we offer him a paintbox? The obvious answer to his purposely ludicrous suggestion is a negative one and reminds us of Christ’s query: “Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?” (Matt. 7:9, 10).

The level above the fulfillment of a man’s need is the gift which one associates with the recipient. Here the giver must recognize the hobby, the interest, or the avocation of the one to whom he gives. To the musician he gives a biography of an outstanding composer or performer; upon the connoisseur of fine art he may bestow a token that suits the whim of the collector. Such a presentation assures the receiver that personal consideration has been granted him by the donor.

The highest point in Emerson’s scale of gifts is that which is associated with the giver as a piece of his own craftsmanship or creativity. Emerson states, “The only gift is a portion of thyself. Thou must bleed for me.” He shows the poet bringing his poem; the shepherd, his sheep; the farmer, and painter bringing their goods. These are the worthy gifts, representative to the recipient of the nature of the giver. Emerson decries the purchasing of baubles and trinkets from the mass producer and calls it “a cold, lifeless business when you go to the shops to buy me something which does not represent your life and talent but a goldsmith’s.”

Of the receiver of gifts Emerson has much to say. He warns the idealistic giver that “the hand that feeds us is in some danger of being bitten.” His point appears to be directed mostly toward the relationship between the patronizing benefactor and his unfortunate subject. The fact is true that often men would rather starve than sacrifice their independence by eating from the hand of an unworthy giver.

Emerson next considers the beneficiary of a wealthy, lavish giver. His characteristic predilection for the broad generalization accuses “all beneficiaries” because they “hate all Timons.” His reference, of course, is to Shakespeare’s overly-generous hero in the play Timon of Athens. The reason for his accusation is not the obvious one, namely, the inability of the less-affluent receiver to match the cost or size of that which he has been given. Rather, Emerson looks with a cynical eye at the supposedly greedy receiver whose jaundiced view of life causes him to evaluate the gift he has received only in comparison with the greater wealth that remains in the possession of his particular Timon.

Emerson’s concluding paragraphs are his peroration, given in theological fashion in keeping with his training and experience. His analysis of the problem that confronts the giver and receiver is that “there is no commensurability between a man and any gift.” Therefore our affection for those we love can never be judged by the pricetag on our gift to them, or by the scope of their gift to us. To attempt such an evaluation is to cheapen the relationship we cherish because “no services are of any value, but only likeness.” If then we are to show our appreciation for what we have obtained from others, we can only repay in kind.

Emerson’s point is underscored in our minds when we remember the significance of the event commemorated at the Christmas season. If we are to acknowledge God’s gift to mankind, his Son Jesus Christ, we may only do so by the complete consecration of our lives to Him.

“What shall I give Him, poor as I am?

If I were a shepherd, I would give a lamb,

If I were a wise man, I would do my part—

What shall I give Him? I’ll give my heart.”

Carol in Minor Key

Come ring a round of Merry Mount

And sing for new-born joy;

Wave rainbow banners, faded thin,

Above an infant boy

While angels rant a rondelay—

A rabble, bathrobe choir

With pipe and horn

Proclaiming morn

While stars still snap with fire.

Dance floodlite in a space-born host

With sequined copper haloes,

And pantomime in startled rags

Newly informed hoboes.

Come one and all in day-glo red

To hover by a candle glow

And squint as flights

Of star-shaped lights

Reflect our shallow echo.

Give all your gifts in pseudonym

St. Nick will love the credit;

Those who receive forget the source

Or often will regret it.

Oh “christmas” gold, My Sin, and clove

Are neat to offer others,

And rocket toys

For peaceful boys

And CARE for all our “brothers.”

Today we cannot chant of lambs,

Wool would scratch our memory;

We dare not offer thanks for life,

It also knows our enemy.

Dance while the grace of God is on

In proud and pious dress

Lest others see,

Reality

Denies what we profess.

CHARLES WAUGAMAN

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.