Prospects For World Peace
Peace with Russia, by Averell Harriman (Simon and Schuster, 1960, 174 pp., $3, is reviewed by William K. Harrison, Lieutenant General, U. S. Army, Ret.
Probably few men are as well qualified as Mr. Harriman, former governor of New York, to write on the problem of peace with Russia. Following earlier visits to deal with the Soviet government, he was the American Ambassador in Moscow, from 1943 to 1946. After his return to the United States, he made particular efforts to keep abreast of the situation in Russia. On a recent visit to the country, he sought factual information relating to questions and ideas which had been advanced by other visitors to Russia. He had access to localities and persons where this information might be found. Among these persons were Khrushchev, other government officials, and many ordinary persons. To the reviewer, it appears that Mr. Harriman is a careful and dispassionate observer, and that he has written in a clear, easy to read, objective fashion. Mr. Khrushchev’s recent destruction of the Summit Conference in Paris, with his subsequent attacks against the United States and its leaders, emphasize to Americans the importance of Mr. Harriman’s book.
Based on his recorded observations, too numerous to mention here, Mr. Harriman reaches certain conclusions.
With regard to the Russian people, he says that although some scattered resentment and discontent does exist among the people, there is no evidence that they have any desire to overthrow their government. The present condition has resulted from a number of government actions since the time Stalin died. There has been a considerable relaxation of the policy of rule by terror, with a corresponding increase in personal freedom. There is improvement in food supply, housing, education, consumer supply, and in medical and collective recreational facilities. The people (outside of the Communist Party) seem to have little interest in the aim of Communist world revolution. They are more desirous of improving their personal situation. The desire for peace seems to be uppermost in their minds because the government’s propaganda has convinced them that the United States is an aggressor and poses a strong threat of war. Believing as they do, they would be loyal to their government were it to launch a war, and they would accuse the United States of being the aggressor.
It is probable that in the long run the public in Russia will gradually exercise increasing restraint on the totalitarian nature of their government.
With regard to the Soviet government, he claims that there has been no relaxation of its determination to spread Communist doctrine throughout the world by means of revolution within each country—supported by the Soviets. Social and economic weapons are employed, but the war machine is kept strong through emphasis on heavy rather than consumer industries, and through stress on scientific education rather than the humanities. Education is pointed toward the needs of the state rather than the individual. Because of the devastations of nuclear war and the need for other uses of national resources, the Soviet government will not launch war except by miscalculation or mistake. Therefore, there might be a chance of achieving some agreement on limitation of armaments.
Mr. Harriman believes that the United States must maintain the vigor and vitality of its social and economic system: it must improve its system of scientific education without sacrificing the developing of well-rounded individuals; maintain strong defenses until an arms limitation agreement with fool-proof controls is achieved: strengthen NATO militarily and make it a united and productive community which, with the United States, can contribute to the well-being of its members and of the free world; meet the challenge of Russia in underdeveloped countries: and be prepared to recognize basic changes in Soviet conditions and policies, and to adjust our own policies accordingly.
To the foregoing, the reviewer would like to add two thoughts. The first is that their past actions have demonstrated that Khrushchev and other Communist leaders are utterly ruthless in seeking their international objectives. They resort to the means and actions of the vilest gangsters when such are expedient. The second is that, being what they are, their unwillingness to start a war is not based on moral considerations but solely on fear of consequences and the costs. Were the United States to disarm unilaterally, or by an agreement without fool-proof controls, or even with strong armaments, to fall into a Pearl Harbor attitude, there is no legitimate reason to hope that the Soviet rulers would hesitate to use nuclear weapons to destroy the United States, the only power now able to hinder their ambitions.
WILLIAM K. HARRISON
Catholic Education
American Culture and Catholic Schools, by Emmett McLoughlin (Lyle Stuart, 1960, 288 pp., $4.95), is reviewed by G. Aiken Taylor, Editor, The Presbyterian Journal.
What is the nature and purpose of Roman Catholic education? What are its methods and results? What effects will such education have on democratic institutions, and what impact will such a system exert upon the traditional American way of life?
A former priest, author of the best seller, People’s Padre, has written a richly-documented, first-person description of the vast and incredible system which the Roman state within the American state has created and maintains for the training of its “shock troops,” as McLoughlin calls them—that relatively small number of dedicated Roman Catholics who do not hesitate to intimidate the local, state, and even federal government when it suits their purposes.
Step by step the author vividly describes his 21 years of Catholic schooling in a system which was “in the American world but certainly not of it.” He tells how he was indoctrinated in loyality, then obedience, then blind obedience; how he was taught to accept, but not to think.
With more charity than one suspects would be granted to him by those of whom he writes, he shows how priests and nuns are recruited at the dawn of adolescence. He shows how parochial schools are exempt from state control and how this exemption affects what Catholic children learn.
He details the propaganda in Roman textbooks. He cites the censorship that warps the sources and suppresses or distorts the facts of world history. He points out that parents have no voice in the operation of Catholic schools.
The priest turned citizen describes the fundamental conflicts between the papal teachings and the ideals of American democracy. He cites growing infringements on the principle of separation of Church and State.
If there were any questions about the “religious issue” in the reader’s mind before picking up this book, they will be answered before he puts it down.
G. AIKEN TAYLOR
Communicating The Gospel
The Word of the Cross, by Peter H. Eldersveld (Eerdmans, 1959, 97 pp., $2), is reviewed by Paul S. Rees, Vice-President at Large of World Vision, Inc.
When you preach, year in and year out, over a coast-to-coast radio network, supplemented by 300 television stations, with the official backing of such a respected conservative communion as the Christian Reformed Church, two quite natural and unastonishing things may be expected: (1) a book of representative addresses by the preacher and (2) a title for the book that exalts, in some central way, the gospel of the crucified Savior. Both results have been achieved.
Peter Eldersveld is the beloved “voice” of “The Back-To-God Hour.” “The Word of the Cross”—to clear away a possible misapprehension—is a title applying only to the first chapter. The author has not in any sense attempted a treatise on the Atonement.
Actually, the thread that runs through the collection of 10 addresses is that of the task and art of communicating the Gospel. The best chapters, in the reviewer’s judgment, are the four (in effect on evangelism) that form the middle section based on the narrative of Philip and the Ethiopian in Acts chapter 8.
The most controversial chapter is one called “Why Christianity Does Not Count.” (“Count” is used in the sense of compute.) It may be helpful to some to be told that in the last analysis the poor showing of evangelism and of the Christian Church is to be explained by a rigid doctrine of divine election and its decrees. Others will demur, and remain unhelped.
Throughout the messages, however, there are numerous illuminating insights and helpful biblical interpretations. In “Communication—For What?” Dr. Eldersveld rightly holds that radio and television are deficient if they serve to create social community in the nation but fail to facilitate spiritual communion (vertically as well as horizontally). “Radio can be used, by the grace of God, to serve that high purpose: to bring men not merely together, but to bring them to God, through Jesus Christ, the only place where they can really be together in any lasting sense …” (p. 25).
Here is firm, faithful, forthright preaching, thoroughly textured with theology, but skillfully adapted to “untheological” minds which, beyond all cavil, make up all but one-half of one per cent of the typical radio audience.
PAUL S. REES
Dispensationalism
Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, by Clarence Bass (Eerdmans, 1960, 177 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Bernard Ramm, Professor of Systematic Theology, California Baptist Theological Seminary.
The past decade has witnessed an unrest with dispensational theology. That dispensationalism is the best guardian of orthodoxy, that it alone really understands the Scriptures, and that the hermeneutical “liberties” of the nondispensationalists is already the crack in the dike allowing the inrush of modernism, are theses undergoing serious challenge and Dr. Bass’ book is one of the best products of this challenge.
Dr. Bass opens his book with an outline of the distinctive beliefs of dispensationalism which is followed by several chapters of careful historical survey centering in Darby, the intellectual and spiritual giant behind the movement. The book concludes with an evaluation of Darbyism for the present church situation.
Bass’ theses are plainly stated on page 155: (1) dispensationalism is not part of the historic faith of the church; (2) nondispensational premillennialism has pride of place in the church; and (3) dispensationalism represents an unjustifiable literalism in hermeneutics. However, a fourth thesis keeps recurring in the book which is stated particularly on page 99, namely, that separatism in church polity stems directly from Darby.
The spirit in which the book is written is excellent. Bass was a confirmed dispensationalist himself before he undertook his doctoral studies (p. 9). There is no rancor here nor excessive statement.
Bass essentially attempts to put the shoe on the other foot. Dispensationalists claim that they alone can be trusted with true doctrine, the Lord’s money, and the training of the prophets. Bass argues that to the contrary dispensationalists are newcomers and the burden of proof is upon them to show upon what grounds they attempt to displace the historic faith of the church. Is it not an odd situation when an interdenominational school indoctrinates its students in dispensationalism which is the faith of no great historic denomination?
With reference to the pretribulation rapture, Bass makes a telling point by noting that such a view can be defended only upon Darby’s view of the church. How then in good faith can Presbyterian or Baptist theologians who stand committed to the historic view of the church in virtue of their confession or creed concede to Darbyism at this point? Dr. Bass also challenges the consistency of those denominational men who accept dispensational theology, but have a failure of nerve and fail to accept Darby ecclesiology.
Although Bass finds the beginning of dispensationalism almost exclusively in Darby, some scholars find a direct line from Bengel’s doctrine of the ages to Darby.
BERNARD RAMM
Matthew’S Christology
Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, by Edward P. Blair (Abingdon, 1960, 176 pp., $3), is reviewed by George Eldon Ladd, Professor of Biblical Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary.
The Gospels are not only sources of Christian faith and doctrine, they are also historical documents written to given audiences to meet particular historical siuations. By a comparative study of Matthew’s Christology, Professor Blair attempts to recover the historical setting and purpose of the first Gospel. After surveying comprehensively recent criticism of the first Gospel, Blair studies the portrait of Jesus via the Messianic titles, and concludes that Matthew’s Christology is primarily a Son of man—Son of God concept of a supernatural Saviour. Against the background of this exalted concept, he analyzes the authority of Jesus in the realm of knowledge and conduct. He concludes that in Matthew, knowledge of and belief in Jesus and his eschatological mission were essential to salvation.
The author concludes that Matthew was the product of the Hellenist-Jewish group represented by Stephen in Acts 6–7 which later took the Gospel to Syria (Acts 11:19–21). He tries to find common elements in Matthew, Stephen’s speech, and the Qumran literature which suggest a common background. The three-fold purpose of Matthew was to vindicate the Church as the true Israel against attacks from the Synagogue, to appeal to the Gentiles on behalf of the Christian faith, and to challenge Christians to spiritual growth and to be ready for the expected Parousia of Christ. All who are interested in serious historical study of the Gospels will want to read this book.
GEORGE ELDON LADD
British Apologetic
Miracles and Revelation, by John S. Lawton (Association Press, 1960, 273 pp., $6.50), is reviewed by Bernard Ramm, Professor of Systematic Theology, California Baptist Theological Seminary.
The author who put us all in debt with his historical study of recent British Christology (Conflict in Christology) has again put us in debt with a comprehensive study of miracles in British apologetic and theological literature from English deism to the present. The basic structure of the book is that of a series of digests of the different theologians or apologists’ views of miracles correlating them with the philosophical, scientific, and theological beliefs of their times. It thus forms a valuable source book of the history of Christian apologetics of this period of British theological thought.
The book reveals the inability of most theologians to surrender biblical miracles despite enormous pressures to do so stemming from theology (in interest of a theology of divine imminence), biblical criticism, scientific historiography, positivistic philosophy, and science (with its axiom of uniformitarianism). Lawton records for us the numerous and diverse maneuvers of the apologists in their attempt to justify miracles and to maintain the relevance of the miraculous in a cultural atmosphere which was increasing its hostility towards the supernatural with every passing decade.
Guessing from silence is always dangerous, but at least this reader got the impression that intensive first-hand reading of Luther and Calvin was virtually undone. Much modern theological thought has been a return to the insights of the reformers and it represents quite a strategical loss for apologists not to have profited by such study.
Another distinct impression reading the book gave to me was the degree to which the theologians and apologists were children of their times, and how much that prevented them from recovering certain key biblical perspectives. To put it another way, they learned really little of a thorough, consistent, theological approach to their problems. One of the gains of the theology of the twentieth century is an intense awareness of the problem of methodology in theology.
Lawton makes it clear by the very nature of his exposition that there can be no mature interaction with the problem of miracles unless one has considerable background in theology, biblical criticism, history and the science of writing history, philosophy, science, and the philosophy of science. The study of miracles cuts across all of these areas.
Lawton’s own position is close to that of the new biblical theology (e. g., A. Richardson’s The Miracle Stories of the Gospel) and what he calls “English Conservative theology” which he contrasts with liberalism and Catholic modernism.
In critical evaluation we would suggest: (1) Lawton, to our way of thinking, puts some men in the conservative camp which do not belong; (2) there is a failure of a sharp critical evaluation when he does come to his favorites in British theology—I doubt if the merit he sees in Temple is worth it; (3) and perhaps the gains of the new biblical theology in Great Britain could have been more thoroughly exploited.
In conclusion, despite all the work in history, criticism, philosophy, and science, miracles are with us as much today as in the time of English deism. They are stuck to the biblical record with an amazing adhesiveness.
BERNARD RAMM
Understanding The Bible
The Enduring Message of the Bible, by L. Harold DeWolf (Harper, 1960, 128 pp., $2.75), is reviewed by Harold B. Kuhn, Professor of Philosophy of Religion, Asbury Theological Seminary.
To separate the temporary from the permanent, the peripheral from the fundamental, is important in the treatment of any system or movement. Professor DeWolf undertakes in his short volume to effect such a separation for the Christian understanding of the Bible. It seems inevitable that one will read the given work of a scholar in the light of what he has previously written. The reviewer found himself, from time to time, setting the work alongside the author’s earlier volume, A Theology for the Living Church. The present book seeks to avoid the negativism of the earlier work with respect to the doctrines essential to historic Christian faith, and it tries to present to the reader something which he can believe, rather than a series of denials in the name of alleged scientific scholarship.
The present volume divides the subject conveniently into three parts, upon the basis of which Professor DeWolf seeks to establish the unity of Scripture. They are: “From God,” “To God,” and “With God.” The first seeks to do justice to God’s downward movement toward man; the second treats of human recovery; the third has to do with the common life of man within the Church. The treatment of the materials within each of these divisions is practical and avoids areas of major controversy.
What might be the logical impact of such a book upon the average layman who picks it up and reads it through? Certainly he would have some vague impression that the Bible is not an ordinary book but one embodying lofty insights concerning God, man, and human destiny. Fie would be impressed with the fact that God somehow cares very much for man. He might well conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was an unusual figure. However, he would scarcely be led to believe that the Scriptures are final as God’s revelation to man. He certainly would not regard them as being basically trustworthy in matters of fact. More probably he would be bewildered by the manner in which things so highly important were dealt with in ‘myth’ and in legend.
This volume represents an attempt to breathe some kind of life into the dead form of conventional theological liberalism.
HAROLD B. KUHN
Lutheran Education
What’s Lutheran in Education?, by Allan Hart Jahsmann (Concordia, 1960, 185 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Arthur C. Repp, Professor of Christian Education and Academic Dean, Concordia Theological Seminary.
Dr. Jahsmann has shed new light on an old subject. What’s Lutheran in Education? is certainly an interesting book. The author, who is general secretary of Sunday Schools for the Lutheran church (Missouri Synod), has for years been steeped in his subject, particularly as a member of his synod’s committee on Lutheran Philosophy of Education. The book serves well as a preliminary study for those interested in formulating an integrated statement of educational theory.
Dr. Jahsmann begins with a discussion of the function of Lutheran education and endeavors to delineate what the Christian seeks to achieve through education. He shows that God’s final purpose is more than man’s redemption in Christ and that the goal of Christian education is “full grown completeness of perfection of the total human being.” But such Christian perfection and maturity involves all aspects of spiritual life. The Christian is “spiritual, he is moral, he is religious in the various other aspects of his life. Hence complete sanctification, the total Christianizing of the individual, is the goal of Christian education” (p. 9). In setting forth his goal, the author makes clear the distinctive nature of Lutheran education as reflected in the doctrine of man and the doctrine of the means of grace wherewith the Holy Spirit creates, sustains, and nurtures the Christian in faith and life.
With the purpose of Lutheran education described, the writer discusses who the responsible agents of Christian education are. This aspect of the book marks his major contribution. Dr. Jahsmann goes at the heart of the matter in providing a rationale why the church, besides the home, has the God-given obligation to teach. This is an important point, particularly in view of those who, by their dedication to various forms of statism, believe that the state has the prime duty to foster education. The vexing problems revolving about church and state education are given some forthright biblical answers.
The next chapters deal with the form of the program of education and also the function of the relationships. Dr. Jahsmann calls for intelligent fusion of the traditional approach of the church and the democratic approach of the present day.
The final chapter on church-state relations is another of the more outstanding sections of the book. With our society’s rising economy and growing concentration of social welfare, the church may easily be tempted to barter her principles for unwarranted aid. Yet the church has at times been unnecessarily modest in not asserting her right in education. She needs to reappraise her relationship to the state. Unfortunately in this chapter, as well as the section on higher education, the author has failed to make use of valuable studies outside of his synodical affiliation.
While the book presents a view that is clearly distinguishable from Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, it will nevertheless be valuable for all Christian educators who are attempting to draw up a clear and integrated philosophy of Christian education.
ARTHUR C. REPP
