By contrast with the unification plans of the ecumenical movement, evangelicals often claim to enjoy the true unity of the Spirit. In a basic sense this is true. Yet the world is not impressed by mere assertion. In fact, evangelicals often seem to be one of the most divided and divisive forces in the ecclesiastical world even in their internal dealings. Splits, suspicions, wordy campaigns are common features. Squabbling about less essential matters seems to absorb the energy that should go to working together on essentials. And the tragedy is that the world both needs and would unquestionably be impressed and affected by a genuine manifestation of unity in spirit, purpose, and action on the part of evangelicalism. Indeed, it might be argued that such a manifestation is the only finally valid and effective criticism of modern ecumenism.
What should be the motivation of such unity? We must beware of secondary motives which may be right in their place but which in themselves are not enough. It is insufficient merely to seek to oppose to ecumenism a true counterpart. It is insufficient merely to think in terms of the strengthening of a cause. It is insufficient merely to desire the construction of a solid front against blatantly hostile forces like communism, materialism, liberalism, or resurgent Hinduism or Islam. It is insufficient merely to aim at a more efficient or economical evangelistic, missionary, educational, or social thrust. It is insufficient only to desire the creation of a stronger ecclesiastical or theological bloc.
The only motive that will really avail is a biblical one. To put it simply, Christ wills and prays for the unity of his people. This does not have to mean unification. On the other hand, it certainly cannot mean the dialectic of spiritual unity in actual conflict. It means unity manifested in united purpose and action. It means acceptance of a common mind and task. As this is the will of Christ for us, it must surely be our own will for ourselves. “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” is Paul’s injunction (Eph. 4:3). “Be at peace among yourselves” is his command (1 Thess. 5:13). “Be of the same mind one toward another” is the direction of the inerrant and infallible Word (Rom. 12:16). If this is God’s will, it must be also the will of the obedient disciple. No matter how loudly we proclaim our attachment to Scripture, we do it poor service, and gain ourselves little credence, if in our actions we flagrantly disregard the will of God therein revealed. Once the declared will of Jesus Christ is known, no other motive is needed. It is the delight and privilege of the sheep to hear and obey the Shepherd’s voice.
On what basis? Is this just an ideal to be sought? Does spiritual unity lie in a world of mysticism and abstraction? Is the Lord’s prayer for unity to be answered only in eternity? Does there run through the Bible a strain of Platoism, a rift between the ideal and the actual, which negates from the outset all attempts at manifestation of unity? If so, the manifest division of so many evangelicals might well be justifiable. God would be requiring the impossible—castles in the air without foundation.
In fact, however, there is no excuse. God has given us a solid basis. There is one God, one Christ, one Spirit. Faith into God means spiritual unity. There is thus one Bride, one Body. The members differ, whether in terms of individuals or churches. A uniform organization is not needed as the basis. But all are members of a Body which cannot but be one. There is one Word, one Baptism, one Cup. Externals may vary. The one Word may go forth in different tongues, the one Baptism or Cup may be administered under different rules of order. Even the one faith or doctrine may be expressed with some difference of formulation. Yet the Word of God is one and invariable. The Baptism and Cup of the Lord are the same. The One in whom faith is set never alters. Here in God, in the Word and work of God, is an unassailable basis of given unity. Here the people of God have to be one, whether they are prepared for it or not. Here the prayer of Jesus finds fulfillment in spite of our disobedience. Here we begin with what we are in the new life in Christ. Here we are enabled to be what we are, to put on the new man, to bring forth the fruit of the new life. Here we are given a solid and eternal basis on which to build.
But what are the prerequisites? The proper basis of unity is obviously the first. Apart from this, there can be only the fragile unity of common association and opinion. Are there any others? Secondarily, the unity of those who in the Spirit are building on this foundation implies at least three others. The unity must be that of those who do in fact look only to Jesus Christ and to none other. It must be a unity of those who follow the authoritative testimony to him in Holy Scripture. It must be a unity of those who are committed to the great task of world-wide evangelization which he has laid on his disciples.
Without a common looking to the Lord, a common confession of him as Saviour, Lord, and God, a common knowledge of God in him, there is no building on the common basis and therefore no hope of unity. Faith in him, however, is not a leap in the dark. It is no blind or chance encounter. It is faith responding to a Word. And this Word is the authentic and authoritative record given concerning him. True faith in him is faith in the Jesus of Scripture who embraces both the so-called Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. It is faith enlightened and instructed and impelled by the written Word and its preaching and exposition. To the one basis belongs also the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20). To build apart from Scripture is to build apart from Jesus Christ himself and therefore to destroy unity. Yet this faith is neither abstract nor ideal. It is busy and active. It is impelled as well as instructed. It is obedient. It accepts a task. It is given orders. It is endowed with the high privilege of ministry. It is given a Great Commission. Outside this Commission, we again pursue isolated and therefore divergent ends. We thus condemn ourselves to deviation and discord. The true faith which is loyal to the written Word, however, implies readiness for the Great Commission. The main prerequisites of unity in the Spirit are thus met.
What are the demands of unity? What does its manifestation require in us? How can we promote this expression of unity which is no mere matter of organization but our believing, living, and working together on a common basis? Some of the most urgent of these demands might be simply stated as follows:
It is demanded that we be oriented positively to the world-wide task of evangelism. There are subsidiary tasks of theology, pastoral care, discipline, and even administration. To make these autonomous, however, is to bring about that curving in on oneself which inevitably causes distortion and division. An unengaged force quickly becomes disaffected. Our vision is to be outward to the sin, ignorance, and error of the world. When energy is bent to this supreme task, there will be little to spare for inward wrangling. The converse is also true.
It is demanded that we be humble in relation to one another both in life and utterance. All that we have is received from God and through one another. All our truth is the truth of God’s Word. We cannot boast of any attainment of our own. We have nothing about which to be self-righteous, whether in respect of purity of life or superiority of understanding. The infallibility of Scripture does not guarantee our own private infallibilities. We are all learners and teachers in the school of Christ and the Spirit. To remember this is to be safeguarded against the pride of the fancied master or doctor, who not only has nothing to learn but also imagines that his task is to judge rather than to edify. True humility before the Lord and his Word is one of the most potent bulwarks against the division which only too often bears marks of human arbitrariness and obduracy.
It is demanded that rebuke and correction be given and received in a spirit of meekness and with a view to edification. Errors occur as well as sins. They are not to be ignored or glossed over. We are to grow in knowledge as well as in righteousness. But the occurrence of sin or error is not to be the occasion for a display of self-righteousness or rancor. The rebuke and correction undertaken should be in the spirit of mutual helpfulness and with a lively sense of personal frailty. Meekness is not weakness. On the other hand there is no strength in discourtesy, belligerence, or angry pride. If firmness is needed, it should be that of speaking the truth in love which will evoke a response of love.
Finally, it is demanded that we have the mind of Christ, which is the mind of mercy and of love. Paul has much to say concerning this in Ephesians 4. All evangelical Christians and leaders might do well to make this chapter a regular feature in their biblical reading with a view to making it a more prominent feature in their biblical practice. It is of special applicability in times of tension. It gives us a final thesis and poses a final question. The problem of unity is simply the problem of how biblical we really are. It is by our attainment of the mind of Christ and therefore the practical unity of the Spirit that we show to the world our obedience to the Word which we proclaim. But if so, how biblical are we when it comes to doing and not merely to talking? Is Ephesians 4 reflected unmistakably in our utterances and actions, in our personal and church relationships, in our contacts with the world without, in our pursuance of the Great Task with which we have been entrusted? If so, and to the measure that this is so, we shall indeed enjoy and manifest the unity which is of the Holy Ghost.
‘PUSH BUTTON’ RIOTS NOW PROMOTE COMMUNIST GOALS
The riots at the United Nations and in many cities around the world carry ominous implications. The death of Lumumba was a sharp blow to Soviet aspirations in the Congo. This man, who had brought so much sorrow and chaos to that part of the world, immediately became a symbol of Communist world revolution. Within hours the button was pushed in Moscow and riots broke out in far separated parts of the world. These “push-button” acts of mob violence were apparently ordered by Moscow and spearheaded by disciplined followers around the globe.
I Believe …
Integrity is a front-rank virtue. It is a good modern equivalent for the moral soundness that Jesus designated by “the single eye” (Matt. 6:22) and Paul by “single-mindedness” or “single-heartedness” (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22). Freedom from duplicity is its hallmark.
On a drive through the Swiss countryside I recall asking Billy Graham: “What do you consider the most important thing in life?”
“Integrity,” he flashed.
“Suppose,” I said, “you could choose between a billion dollar gift to spend for Christian causes; Khrushchev’s conversion to Jesus Christ; or an open door to evangelize the Communist world—which would you take?”
“Still integrity!,” he insisted.
I believe the Gospel allows no other answer. It salutes integrity with the efficiency of a Cape Canaveral countdown. That is why men who really know the power of the Gospel are devotees of moral soundness.
Evidence of the world-wide power of the Communist apparatus may be found in the renewed cries of “Red witch hunting” in this country. Some ministers have openly joined in demanding the abolition of the House Un-American Activities Committee. There are howls of protest over the showing of the documentary film of a Communist-supervised mob which tried to break up that Committee’s meeting in San Francisco. Mayor George Christopher, who was present during the incident, says of the pictures: “They are true—they are authentic—they tell the real story.”
The campaign to discredit the House Un-American Activities Committee is strange. Admittedly such committees make grievous mistakes. Nevertheless this Committee has unearthed a number of subversive groups. Loyal Americans duped by left-wingers should demand that their names be dropped as sponsors. Instead we find many of them demanding abolition of this watchdog Committee. The NCC General Board cautions against showing “Operation Abolition,” but offers no proposal whatever for uncovering left-wing subversives.
The concerted effort in America to discount any denunciation of communism is comparable to a movement which might be started to accuse members of a fire brigade of arson and demand the removal of a fire-station as a public nuisance.
What is behind this strange phenomena?
A button is pushed in Moscow, a dedicated Communist in this country gets the signal, the word is passed on to fellow-travelers, a liberal theologian senses “noble humanitarian purposes” and takes up the issue, confused but well-meaning Christians get the impulse (now filtered through a series of witting or unwitting dupes)—and the cry is on.
America’s danger does not lie in the occasional fanatic who sees subversion behind every lamp post. Rather it lies with that small, dedicated and disciplined group which takes its orders from Moscow, and with the dupes who foolishly try to protect them in the name of “liberty.”
EICHMANN TRIAL: RACE HATRED AND JUDGMENT ON THE NATIONS
The trial of Adolph Eichmann, charged by the State of Israel with the Nazi-regime murder of 6 million Jews, gets underway next month in Jerusalem. The Israeli government has authorized sale of films of the proceedings at cost to television and motion picture organizations, thus enabling the whole world to follow this incredible chapter in the twentieth century’s “evolutionary progress.” Eichmann’s aged father, a pious Austrian Protestant of deep religious feelings, has voiced this tear-drenched comment: “If he did what you say, he deserves to die.…”
Probably no courtroom spectacle in our times plows up as many far-reaching questions about truth, justice, and love as these charges that the former Nazi “racial expert” deliberately attempted to annihilate the Jews. The World War II death-ledger of the Hebrews runs like this: Austria, 40,000; Belgium, 40,000; Czechoslovakia, 260,000; Denmark (where the Lutherans displayed heroic defiance of Nazi race hatred), 500; Estonia, 4,000; France, 120,000; Germany, 170,000; Greece, 60,000; Holland, 200,000; Italy, 15,000; Latvia, 85,000; Lithuania, 135,000; Macedonia, 7,000; Norway, 900; Poland, 2,800,000; Rumania, 425,000; Russia, 1,500,000; Yugoslavia, 55,000. The God who is alert to each falling sparrow, and who values men far above “the grass in the fields, which is there today, and tomorrow is thrown on the stove …” (Matt. 6:30, NEB), must surely have endured the near limits of patience during those monstrous events.
Religious circles are discussing this terrible tragedy of modern history in relation both to the depraved cross of Nazism (the swastika) and to the historic cross of Christ (“His blood be on us, and our children,” Matt. 27:25). Moral discussions seek to relate it to the law of Moses, Israeli law, and international law. The Jerusalem trial, in fact, reraises in a pointed way the whole subject of the judgment of the nations. Already some critics stress the illegality of Eichmann’s abduction from Argentina, despite the “moral imperative” asserted for his removal to Israel even if at the cost of transgressing Argentine law.
The Nuremberg trials of leading Nazis from 1945 to 1949 sought to develop the precedent of an international court and an international criminal law to strengthen world peace and world order. The pattern of its “judgment of the nations” has been widely welcomed by propagandists for “one world.” The trial of Eichmann by the state of Israel is deplored in some circles as a retrogression from this international standpoint.
Critics stress that Germany was the scene of perpetration and commission of the crimes, whereas Israel did not achieve statehood until after the crimes were committed. Is it self-evident, they ask, that Eichmann will get “historic justice” (which Mr. Ben-Gurion has said can be assured only in Israel, the alleged crimes having been committed against the Jews) since the trial’s locale is the Jewish state, the land of the very people whom Eichmann assertedly sought to destroy? The Tel Aviv magistrate who formally ordered Eichmann remanded in custody to await trial is said to have lost his entire family in Eichmann’s death camps. What Israeli lawyer would defend Eichmann?
Alongside these questions over the legality, wisdom, and prudence of conducting Eichmann’s trial in Israel, however, other observers stress that neither Germany nor Argentina (which Eichmann entered illegally) ferreted him out for justice. Although the Argentine foreign minister demanded Eichmann’s return from Israel for reference of the case to the United Nations, the Israeli foreign minister told the U.N. assembly: “Any violation of Argentina’s sovereignty is insignificant compared with the violation of the spirit of man and of humanity’s conception of justice which existed while Eichmann remained free all these years.” Moreover, spokesmen who are apprehensive over the elaboration of international law, through which some barbarian world power might ultimately reflect its own totalitarian preferences, support the ideal of national justice. The merely humanistic foundations of the U.N. and of modern schemes of international morality, they argue, are doomed to swift decline.
The vindication of the dignity of the Hebrew in a Palestinian law court, however, serves at the same time to dramatize other facets of the problem of social justice. The persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany fast followed Hitler’s declaration that Germany had an inviolate right, in the interest of Lebensraum, to destroy whatever seemed to interfere with this goal. The borders of modern Israel are lined today by almost one million Arab refugees, displaced since the Star of David has fluttered over the new Jewish state. Will Eichmann’s trial in divided Jerusalem—where “no man’s land” separates Arab and Jew—serve indirectly to raise the question of the dignity of man along even wider lines than the tragic dimension of the despicable Nazi attempt to annihilate the Jewish race? While reparation remains due the displaced Arabs, the need for equity and conciliation shadows the Holy Land.
In Palestine a strand of sacred history links together the destiny of all races and nations. The Old Testament sheds its radiant light on the conflict of Jew and Arab, and the New Testament addresses its invitation first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. The world interest in Eichmann’s trial, set in the land of the prophets and of the Galilean, will be an open window on the soul of twentieth century man—on the pagan man of post-Lutheran Germany, and on the moral idealist of modern Israel. Those who read sacred history aright will look beyond the shadow of Hitler’s swastika, that terribly twisted cross, and the tensions only between national and international law. They will strain for some intimation, however unwitting, recalling the law of Moses and the titles over the Golgotha cross. Not in the broken verdicts of our own century—national or international, Nazi or Jew—but in the redemptive revelation of Hebrew-Christian religion, which addresses us all from above, will we find the imperishable cue to the dignity of the human race and to the judgment of the nations.
