Book Briefs: September 26, 1969

A Crucial Question

How Modern Should Theology Be? by Helmut Thielicke (Fortress, 1969, 90 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by James P. Martin, professor of biblical interpretation, Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia.

The title of this book asks the most crucial of all questions confronting the Church today. It is more crucial than questions concerning forms of ministry and institutional weaknesses. Just because this question is so vital, it will be easy for readers of different persuasions to prejudge this book before reading it. Or, at least, many will read it to find out if it will confirm their own opinions. For possible answers to this important question are already fixed in many minds as settled and unshakable conviction, and the answers involve our emotions. Indeed, they must, for as this book shows clearly, the answer centers upon what is to be proclaimed and preached as Christian faith for today, and no one can truly fulfill the task of proclamation unless he is totally involved in the event of proclamation. Those who try to avoid this involvement usually end up being professional ministers, the plague of Ecclesiastical-dom.

In his first chapter Thielicke discusses the two boundaries to the problem. One boundary is the stance which holds fast to tradition and says in effect that a detailed and final answer was worked out centuries ago. All we have to do today is return to and repeat the old answers. Theology therefore can be modern only insofar as it is truly ancient. Since Thielicke rejects this approach, his argument may disappoint readers who hope for a solution of repristination. The other boundary is the stance of faddish modernity, so well represented by much of the journalistic theology in vogue in America today. On this boundary the subjectivism of the interpreter rules, with the result that he often succeeds in calling attention more to his proud radicality than to Christ. Theology, in this view, can be modern insofar as it rejects and forgets the past. Both of these boundary mentalities are destructive of the authority of Scripture and bind the Word of God in chains, whether of confessionalism or of modernism.

Thielicke seeks to avoid these extremes, and I think he succeeds within the limits he has set for himself in this book. He does not, however, wish to be judged as a mediating theologian whose solution to the problem is to select bits and pieces from old answers and from modern ones and fit them together for publication. He correctly sees that what is needed is a serious attempt to find a third position. Such a position can be obtained only when the interpreter asks the questions differently. Some readers may be impatient with this attempt, but in my opinion, the chief merit of the book is the way it searches for the right questions for the problem. Of course, the Gospel comes with its own questions, too. The supreme question is, What shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ? And Thielicke knows that the answer to this one is not, Take him down from his cross and make him pastor emeritus.

We cannot solve our problem by appealing to the magic word “relevance.” Far too many theologians and preachers today who worship this word and try to serve it by means of the Pauline injunction to become all things to all men, surprisingly end up by being nothing to anybody. In the Pauline sense, as our author remarks, we must indeed become a Marxist to the Marxist, an existentialist to the existentialists, and even a hippie to the hippies. But this does not mean, as it is too often assumed to mean, that one becomes what the Marxist or the existentialist or the hippie wants us to become. Rather, we must become for them what Christ wants both of us to become together. Thielicke centers the discussion where it must be centered today, upon Christ. We have diagnosticians in abundance, but where are the physicians who know how to prescribe Christ for modern man? A critical reader will wish that the author had given us much more than he does on the language of this prescription, especially with respect to the Resurrection. For so many quack doctors prescribe every medicine under the sun for the sick Church today, but have no Gospel and do not speak of the crucified and risen Lord of the Church as though he had power to accomplish renewal.

Since he tries to take seriously and practically the authority of the Bible for preaching, Thielicke argues, correctly I think, that the historical-critical problems in Scripture are of a theological nature and belong in proclamation. They are not mere prolegomena to proclamation restricted to the study and forbidden in the pulpit. How these problems belong in proclamation is illustrated in the discussion of miracle and of the meaning of the final coming of Christ. Matthew’s redaction of the story of the storm on the lake is used as an example of how to face and use the interpretation of miracle made by the gospel writers themselves.

Perhaps the most remarkable fact about this book is that it comprises a series of sermons preached in St. Michael’s Church, Hamburg, on Saturday afternoons. This format imposes its own limits on the materials. The sermonic form precludes the extensive and detailed argumentation that some readers may desire. At the same time, it is a practical proof of Thielicke’s conviction that preaching has primacy over theological discussion. His arguments for this conviction, and for the style of his book, are provided in a helpful post-script “for theological readers,” in which he allows us to enter his lab and observe his method. No words are needed to convince anyone that Thielicke is well qualified to teach us how the Church under the authority of Scripture must be semper reformanda.

A Publishing First

Luther: Right or Wrong? An Ecumenical-Theological Study of Luther’s Major Work, The Bondage of the Will, by Harry J. McSorley, C.S.P. (Newman and Augsburg, 1969, 398 pp., $9.95), is reviewed by M. Eugene Osterhaven, Albertus C. Van Raalte Professor of Systematic Theology, Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Michigan.

It is no longer news when a Roman Catholic theologian finds causes for the Reformation within the pre-reformation church. It is news, however, when a Lutheran and a Roman Catholic press co-publish a study of Martin Luther. This one, called a “first” in book publishing, is an excellent study of Luther’s major work, The Bondage of the Will. Written by a Paulist professor of ecumenical theology and ecclesiology at St. Paul’s College, Washington, D.C., the volume is a contribution to ecumenical theology. This theology is said to be not “a special discipline but a dimension and a structure of theology in general,” a theology “which seeks to re-open supposedly closed questions of the Reformation and to question some long-unchallenged assumptions of both Catholics and Protestants.”

The subject of the present study is an important one. The bondage of the will, Luther declared to his opponent Erasmus against whose ideas he wrote the book, is the “real issue, the central concern.” Professor McSorley’s purpose is to pose an ecumenical question: “Is Luther’s doctrine of the unfree will—his ‘summa causae’—a doctrine that truly, that is, in the dimension of its deepest intention, separates Catholics and Christians of the Reformation tradition?” He does not think so. In spite of Luther’s exaggerated language, which at times denies any freedom of will whatsoever to the sinner, and an unfortunate necessitarian logic, the Reformer’s intention is good. Moreover, he properly attacked the theology in which he had been trained, says McSorley, for it was a Semipelagianism which attributed the beginning of salvation to man’s fallen free will instead of to God’s prevenient grace which converts the will and enables it to assent to grace. The author shows clearly the subtle weakness of the Semipelagianism condemned at the Second Council of Orange in 529 A.D. and of the Neo-semipelagianism of Ockham and Biel in the late Middle Ages. Gabriel Biel is shown to have been especially influential in Luther’s theological development and it was against this teaching that Luther began to react in 1515 and later reacted with all his might.

Luther’s concern, says the author, was “clearly Catholic. Like Augustine, he [was] struggling against those who so exalt the free will that the necessity of the grace of God is ignored.” His error was in rejecting the old distinction between man’s natural freedom, possessed by all, and acquired freedom, given by grace. Man always retains the first and, in spite of his strong language and denials, Luther knew it. Hence he says, “The free will of the slave to sin is not nothing.” It is free, indeed, only to sin! Freedom of the will after the fall is not true freedom. That is Luther’s point against Erasmus’ confused Semipelagianism, but he was condemned for it. As early as 1520 in the bull Exsurge Domine Leo X had condemned him. McSorley challenges that condemnation and criticizes the popes of Luther’s day who “certainly did not censure the late Scholastic theologians such as Biel who had—probably unwittingly—departed from the teaching of the Catholic doctrine of the Second Council of Orange. In this sense again it could be said that the popes of Luther’s time did not teach that we are saved solely by the grace of Christ.” The impression is given that the Council of Trent straightened the church out in this matter. But, we ask—though reluctantly because of the charity shown throughout this volume, what about the popes after Luther’s time who condemned Jansenism on the very points discussed in this volume? What about the bull Cum Occasione of Innocent X in 1653, reaffirmed by Alexander VII in 1665, or the bull Unigenitus Dei Filius of Clement XI in 1713 in which 101 propositions of Quesnel are condemned? Many of these, on sin and grace, are purely Augustinian and anti-Semipelagian. Professor McSorley is not unaware of that history, for he refers to the “en globo” censure of Quesnel by the pope as the last incident of such sweeping condemnation. Although he does not elaborate on the history—nor need he do so, it is there as another indictment of a church which has declared its own infallibility, an infallibility which, incidentally, McSorley seems to question: “History can provide us with innumerable examples of the fallibility of the infallible Church of Christ.” (For a contemporary example of the very heresies against which McSorley contends we refer to the popular two-volume symposium edited by George D. Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Macmillan, 1949, Vol. I, pp. 331 ff. where the Pelagianism leaps from the pages.)

This is dogmatic-historical research of high order. The study is exhaustive and fair. McSorley courageously questions the doctrine of de congruo merit, and his desire to make preaching conform to sound theology is wholesome. The statement that “many seminarians declare they ‘follow Thomism, but Molinism is easier to preach,’ ” and his judgment that “what they preach is often some form of Semipelagianism” are reminiscent of the Calvinist-Arminian hang-up of students we have known.

With Mixed Emotions

Furnace of the Lord: Reflections on the Redemption of the Holy City, by Elisabeth Elliot (Doubleday, 1969, 129 pp., $4.95), is reviewed by G. Coleman Luck, chairman, Department of Bible, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois.

On July 30, 1967, less than two months after the Israelis occupied the ancient city of Jerusalem, it was my privilege to stand beside the Wailing Wall and witness a little of their intense joy at that traditional site of sorrow. Elisabeth Elliot (widow of the martyred missionary of Aucaland, and recently the bride of Dr. Addison Leitch) arrived there a couple of months later and spent some weeks in the Holy City.

Mrs. Elliot had three reasons for visiting Jerusalem: (1) She had heard: “Prophecy is being fulfilled. Jerusalem is redeemed.” If so, she wanted to see it. (2) But “primarily” she wished to see the place “where Jesus lived and taught and died and rose from the grave,” though she more than once expresses scorn for the ordinary “Holy Land Tour” and the unimaginative souls who take such tours. (3) She also went “expecting to be bowled over by the new ‘excitement’ of the capital of the Jewish state.”

From fulfilled prophecy I fear she expected too much. She candidly acknowledges on page 1 that “the Bible prophecies about the New Heaven and the New Earth had been obscure to me, but intriguing.” She evidently expected to see fulfilled before her eyes the glorious prophecies of Isaiah’s latter chapters and of Ezekiel’s vision of restored Israel which picture Jerusalem as redeemed by Jehovah and at long last a city of true righteousness and holiness. Instead she found a city of ordinary human beings, the majority of whom seemed to have little thought of God, a city full of bitterness, with charges and countercharges between Arab and Jew.

As for the historic sites, Mrs. Elliot saw them with mixed emotions. That some evidently brought blessing to her is reflected in the chapter on the Garden of Gethsemane.

The major thrust of the book comes out of the third purpose for her trip. I judge that Mrs. Elliot was considerably less than “bowled over” by the “excitement of the capital of the Jewish state.” She expresses her reaction: “You go to Jerusalem pro-Israel. You quickly learn that there is another side, and you decide to be pro-Arab. (If, in your first few days, no Jew gives you his seat in the bus, and six Arabs do, it is hard to remain unprejudiced.)” Even before she left New York, however, an Israeli girl warned her “You’re in for the worst food and the worst manners in the world.” Mrs. Elliot tried hard to be objective and dig out the truth. She visited Jewish friends and recorded their side of the story. She visited Arab friends and recorded their side. My final impression is that she ended up “pro-Arab.” Indeed, I would call chapter 16, “Make Straight in the Desert a Highway,” almost a polemic for the Arab cause. In the chapter headed “Zionism” she insists there still remains a question as to “whether or not there is any ethical basis for the State of Israel.”

Personally I have never doubted that both sides have committed improprieties. However, I believe that Israel alone, of all nations, has a “title-deed” from God himself on a portion of this earth. All the disagreements over what actually constitutes a “Jew” (which Mrs. Elliot pursues at some length) cannot invalidate this claim. Although they were cast out of their land as a judgment for their sins, at the same time promise was made of future restoration. I also recall that the Lord promised blessing to those who bless Israel, and the opposite to those who curse this nation (Num. 24:9). I feel compelled then to side with Israel, without at all condoning any injustices they may have committed. I feel that Mrs. Elliot has gone to considerable length to present the Arab arguments, but I believe that a much stronger case could have been made for Israel than she has adduced.

Prelude To The Great Awakening

The Log College, by Archibald Alexander (Banner of Truth Trust, 1969, 251 pp., $4), is reviewed by Robert W. Newsom, pastor, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Newberg, Oregon.

This book, first published in 1851, is a study by Archibald Alexander for the Presbytery of New Brunswick, of the men connected with William Tennent’s “Log College”—men who spread many of the fires of the Great Awakening, fires of spiritual fervor and ecclesiastical heat. Alexander’s highly selective, intensely personal, and amazingly interesting story may prove to be more than a little alarming to those who have never before read accounts of this period.

The “Log College” was a derisive term applied to the school founded and tutored by Tennent. As his answer to the need for a clergy to labor in a time of obvious lack of spiritual vitality, the school emphasized not only the instructed mind but also the illumined spirit. William Tennent, his sons William, Jr., Colbert, John, and Charles, and their fellow students Samuel and John Blair, William Robinson, Samuel Finley, John Rowland, and Charles Beatty, are brought before the reader. Their sacrifices and successes, their trials and honors, are stirringly presented. Alexander makes wide use of contemporary correspondence and comment and relates a number of anecdotes, many of them very moving. The deep consciousness of sin these men reveal is likely to disturb the contemporary reader. Yet it is a stirring he might find fruitful. There is certainly much food for the soul in these biographical sketches.

Nearly all these men found themselves in ecclesiastical turmoil. Alexander’s account is candid and balanced. He points out both their unwise zeal and the uncharitable criticism by their opponents. Alexander the churchman regrets that they were often rash, occasionally obstinate, usually unwilling to submit to ecclesiastical procedure. But Alexander the man of God will not follow their critics and discount the mighty work that God did through them. His own evaluation is:

While I consider the ministers of New Brunswick Presbytery and their coadjutors as the real friends and successful promoters of true religion in this land, I do not mean to exonerate them from all blame. [They] were men approved of God and greatly honored as the instruments of winning many souls to Christ, while their opponents were for the most part unfriendly to vital piety [p. 176],

Is this story relevant? Can we justify the time and expense of printing and reading books about the past when the present overwhelms the Church of God? Truth, sin, grace, the ways of God with man—these are items of enduring significance. And they are what these biographical sketches are all about.

Confronting State Authority

Civil Disobedience and the Christian, by Daniel B. Stevick, (Seabury, 1969, 209 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by John C. Howell, professor of Christian ethics, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, Missouri.

The diversity of opinion among Christians concerning civil disobedience is illustrated in statements by two U. S. congressmen. Representative Don Edwards (D.-Calif.), addressing a group of American Baptist students in March, 1968, declared that “the most important part of the Bill of Rights is the right of dissent,” since this is “the single right that distinguishes us from a totalitarian government” (Report from the Capitol, April, 1968, p. 5).

But Senator Sam Ervin, Jr. (D.N.C.), maintained an opposite view in his 1966 Law Day address at Wake Forest College: “The right of clergymen and civil rights agitators to disobey laws they deem unjust is exactly the same as the right of the arsonist, the burglar, the murderer, the rapist and the thief to disobey the laws forbidding arson, burglary, murder, rape and theft” (Christianity and Crisis, June 10, 1966, p. 126).

In view of this difference of opinion among Christian laymen, we need a careful analysis of the relation between Christian attitudes toward the authority of the state and the involvement of Christians in disobedience to the laws of the state. Professor Daniel Stevick of the Philadelphia Divinity School has provided just such an analysis.

Stevick limits his study to the “relation between Christian obedience and responsible civil disobedience” with emphasis upon the importance of responsibility. He does not attempt to make situational judgments on specific incidents of disobedience but is concerned that principles of moral responsibility be examined apart from the emotional rhetoric that so often surrounds any act of resistance to governmental authority. The book is concerned primarily with civil disobedience that is public, planned, and responsible, rather than with revolt.

Stevick briefly analyzes the arguments against civil disobedience but asserts that such disobedience may at times be the only way to relieve injustice in society. For those who suggest that Christian disobedience can be justified only when the state interferes with religion, Stevick points out that “an attack on man and the structures of justice needs to be recognized as an attack on the whole just as truly as if public worship were banned.” Therefore, “any piety which can survive intact and untroubled in the midst of social injustice betrays its own delusional quality.” This is a needed judgment on any theological stance that is more concerned for self-preservation than for identification with the servanthood of Christ in the redemption of all men.

The author’s excellent historical survey begins with the New Testament and follows the thread of dissent from authority through the early church period to modern America. Stevick rightly observes that American freedom of worship and civic participation “were secured in part by persons who followed conscience in defiance of laws and authorities.”

Responsibility in social action is clearly described in Stevick’s discussion of responsible disobedience and Christian non-violence as well as in the section on revolution. In both these forms of political protest the Christian must recognize that his final loyalty is to the Lordship of Jesus Christ; but his citizenship in the Kingdom of God must be demonstrated in the struggle for human freedom for citizens of the temporal order.

Church statements on civil disobedience in the appendix offer a helpful resource. This is a well-written and valuable book.

Book Briefs

On Becoming a Group, edited by John Hendrix (Broadman, 1969, 118 pp., paperback, $1.95). This symposium offers practical help in group dynamics.

We Need You Here, Lord, by Andrew W. Blackwood, Jr. (Baker, 1969, 124 pp., $3.95). A collection of straightforward, down-to-earth prayers that reflect a sensitivity to the political and social problems of the day as well as the irritations and blessings of everyday living.

Escape from Emptiness, by John D. Jess (Tyndale, 1969, 87 pp., paperback, $.95). Collection of radio sermons first delivered on the “Chapel of the Air” broadcast.

The Strangest Thing Happened …, by Ethel Barrett (Regal, 1969, 137 pp., paperback, $.69). Old Testament characters come alive in these vivid accounts of God’s working in their lives.

Christianity in Communist China, by George N. Patterson (Word, 1969, 174 pp., $4.95). A behind-the-scenes account of the struggles and continuing vitality of the Church in China under the Communists.

The Building of the Church, by C. E. Jefferson (Baker, 1969, 306 pp., paperback, $2.95). Reprint of a classic work in ecclesiology.

Building the Family Altar, by Tenis C. Van Kooten (Baker, 1969, 144 pp., paperback, $1.95). Helpful study of a vital but neglected area of Christian living.

The Prophecies of Daniel, by Lehman Strauss (Loizeaux, 1969, 384 pp., $4.95). This popular evangelical commentary emphasizes the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men and nations.

Babylon and the Bible, by Gerald A. Larue (Baker, 1969, 86 pp., paperback, $1.95). A brief survey of the history of Babylon to the time of Nebuchadnezzar.

The Quality of Mercy, by Juliana Steensma (John Knox, 1969, 143 pp., $3.95). A moving story of Christian compassion in action in a ministry of rehabilitation to many of Korea’s disabled.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible, by Charles F. Pfeiffer (Baker, 1969, 153 pp., paperback, $2.95). A popular introduction to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran community.

Fifty Key Words in Philosophy, by Keith Ward (John Knox, 1969, 85 pp., paperback, $1.65). A brief, handy reference guide to contemporary philosophical terms.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.