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.”
