What about the Apocrypha? Special terms? Notes?
One of the most encouraging signs of renewal in Roman Catholicism has been the new devotion to biblical study. Indeed, at the academic and theological level this has been the basis of renewal. Fortunately, this new interest is not limited to scholars. The laity too is exhorted to read the Bible to a degree seldom if ever seen in Roman Catholic history. Evangelicals who believe in the power of Scripture have reason to hope that great good will result.
Since the vast majority of English-speaking Roman Catholics can read the Bible only in translation, the new attention to biblical study has raised again the question of biblical translation. Older Roman Catholic versions have been found to be very inadequate, and even more modern renderings such as that of Knox are generally inferior to Protestant versions. In view of the more relaxed atmosphere in Protestant-Roman Catholic relations, it is hardly surprising, not only that the Revised Standard Version (with some changes) has been recommended to Roman Catholics in some circles, but also that the project of a new translation for both Protestants and Catholics has found favor.
Much is to be said for a venture of this kind. To make the written Word available is a primary task of Christian ministry. To see that it is available in the purest form is vital. And it is equally necessary that translations be in the living, natural speech of the day. Protestants have long recognized that to meet these standards some pooling of resources is needed. Now that Roman Catholics have expressed readiness to participate and have made strides in linguistic, textual, and exegetical work that qualify them to make a worthwhile contribution, there is reason to suppose that a combined translation will achieve more for all readers than independent and competing versions.
Nevertheless, at the risk of appearing churlish, we suggest that answers are needed to some important questions if a united project of this kind is not to do harm as well as good. Perhaps the largest, if not the most difficult, problem is that of the canon. Roman Catholicism has unequivocally espoused the full authority of the Old Testament Apocrypha, as clearly shown by the list of canonical books at the Council of Trent, Session IV. The Reformation churches just as definitely deny these works the status of Scripture, while acknowledging their value as ecclesiastical writings: “We are taught to discern them [the canonical books previously listed] from other ecclesiastical books; which, howsoever they may be profitable, yet are they not such that any one article of faith may be builded upon them” (Gallican Confession, Art. 4). Is a common translation to include the Apocrypha or not?
Happily, this problem is not so intractable as it might appear. An arrangement is possible if the following points are plainly conceded. First, there is no reason why a new rendering of the Apocrypha should not be made if it is understood that this does not imply canonical status. Secondly, it should be settled in advance that if Roman Catholics wish to include the Apocrypha in the same volume, either these books must be in a section apart from the Old and New Testaments, as in some older King James editions, or there must be separate and clearly marked Protestant and Roman Catholic editions. Thirdly, Roman Catholics should be strongly urged to reconsider the distinction perceived even by the great Jerome himself between authoritatively canonical writings and venerable works that may be read for edification. Certainly there must be no question of the Protestant churches’ according—even tacitly or by implication—canonical status to works that have no intrinsic claim to it.
A second and perhaps even more difficult question concerns the rendering of terms that have historically acquired a special sense or significance. This matter caused great trouble at the time of the Reformation and even led to the burning of Protestant translations of the Bible as false and heretical. As late as 1824 we find the severest possible condemnation of the “mistranslation” of the “sacred books into the vulgar tongue of every nation” by the Bible societies, and this condemnation was repeated in 1844 and 1864. Words that gave particular offense were “repent” for “do penance,” “favor” for “grace,” “congregation” for “church,” and even “love” for “charity,” as we learn from Thomas More’s criticism of Tyndale on these points.
Now, it is true that in our own time the situation has changed for the better. Roman Catholics have at last come to acknowledge that “repent” is not such a dreadful error after all, and that “love” is probably better than “charity,” while Protestants, with centuries of Reformation theology behind them, are not so afraid of “grace” or “church” as the earlier Reformers were.
Nevertheless, three important points must surely be accepted before profitable work is possible. First, Roman Catholics have to be ready to move even further out of the shadow of the Vulgate, which lies more heavily on their work than on that of Protestants. Secondly, there is need of the assured freedom from ecclesiastical controls. Thirdly, an intrusion of Mariology must not be allowed to create artificial difficulties at such important points as the angelic salutation (Ave Maria!) or the reference to our Lord’s “brethren.”
Mention of ecclesiastical controls is an incidental reminder that, according to the Encyclical of 1844, vernacular versions are not supposed to be read by Roman Catholics unless approved by the papacy. As things are today, it is almost inconceivable that the papacy should attempt to assert a right of veto on a common translation such as that envisaged. To prevent misunderstanding, however, Protestants should make it plain at once that they do not concede such a right, and that they see no reason why the final result of the new effort should have to go out with papal approbation, especially in the form of an official imprimatur. A double edition might be necessary for this reason, too, if different conceptions of authorization are still maintained.
The final question relates to the use of notes or glosses in the rendering of Scripture. Almost all translators have found it advisable to have some notes, even if only to indicate important textual variants or to make geographical or monetary equations. Protestants as well as Roman Catholics have often introduced theological or ecclesiastical glosses as well, in defense of a given position or refutation of a feared error. Protestants, however, have increasingly come to see that, apart from a few technical aids, the Bible is better presented as it stands, since it has its own clarity and force and under the Spirit can be trusted to do its own work. This does not rule out the work of exposition. It simply means that the proper place of the comment should be in the commentary.
Roman Catholics, however, have insisted that translation should be read only if “edited with annotations drawn from the Holy Fathers of the Church or from learned Catholic men” (1844). Obviously, it is quite impossible for a translation to be produced in concert if notes are introduced that have more than technical significance. The question is, therefore, whether the new spirit in Roman Catholicism today is powerful enough to allow Roman Catholics as well as Protestants to produce a simple text wholly free from glosses. If so, this principle should be established at once, to forestall later misunderstanding. If not, the prospects for the common project can hardly be described as bright, unless recourse is again had to the compromise of a double edition.
These problems are not mentioned in order to sabotage the scheme; the suggestion of solutions ought to make this plain. What is desired, rather, is that the project be adopted with open eyes, that inherent difficulties be faced at the outset, and that clear principles of action be worked out and announced, lest an enterprise good in itself do harm rather than good. The present mood of Protestant-Roman Catholic relations is one of such openness and hopefulness that a Bible-oriented task might well work to the common advantage. Yet this mood might also minimize the sober realities of past divergence and present dangers. Concessions will be necessary, especially by what has been the more intransigent side. Is there a genuine readiness to pay this price?
Let us by all means have a text prepared by the main groups of English-speaking Christendom. But let it be the text of acknowledged Scripture, rendered with linguistic exactitude from the best available texts, not subject to any ecclesiastical control or veto, and free from explanatory gloss, so that he who runs may read, and the Word itself may have free course and be glorified.
The earth is peopled by more than a billion and a half human beings under twenty. Members of the “now” generation—analyzed and psychoanalyzed, used and abused, anxious and uncertain, often manipulated by those who control vast power structures—are the hope of the future or the legion of the damned, depending upon the direction they take, the ideologies they embrace, the values they cherish.
Modern young people tend to suspect their elders. They take little for granted and do not hesitate to challenge ideas accepted unquestioningly for decades. Quick to say what they think, they also quickly detect the phony and hypocritical.
In less time than we realize, this “now” generation will become the adult community. The younger generation has a new idealism. But for the person who is unreached by the Gospel before age twenty, the statistical chance of becoming a Christian is fractional. In a deadly sense it is now or never for the Church in its outreach to youth.
The Church then, had better “get with it,” for this harvest will not wait. How can we reach young people? In the last hundred years, scores of Christian organizations have come into being to minister to youth. Many specialize, ministering almost exclusively to children, high schoolers, or collegians. These groups along with regular church efforts have helped many thousands of our young people find Christ and a high purpose for life. But agencies like Youth for Christ, Young Life, Campus Crusade, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, Child Evangelism, and scores of others will need to expand their activities. Significant as these efforts are, the problem must be faced in an even bolder way.
First, we must rehabilitate the Sunday school and make it an effective educational and evangelistic agency. Many denominations need to rewrite their curricula so that they will lead pupils to a decision for Christ and teach teachers to be soul-winners. This will help conserve young people now in the churches.
Second, every church should seek to add paid staff workers whose attention would be given outside the church confines to high school and college youth. Churches should encourage their high school and college teachers, moreover, to act as a bridge between the church community and youth leaders, supporting them in a campus outreach. Young people should be trained for personal evangelism among their friends. High-school and college students can use the “cell” principle advantageously. Small groups of active Christians, gathered in their institutions for fellowship and Bible study, can readily invite others. Christian homes should be opened to these cells, refreshments provided, and opportunities created for dialogue with youth workers and adults. As a further step, church buildings should be made available to provide social, recreational, and spiritual opportunities.
Third, every church should promote evangelistic efforts among children within the church. Grade-school children have the fewest outside agencies seeking to reach them with the Gospel. A ministry to children in the community could serve the children both of church members and of non-church members.
Fourth, in some cities radio and television programs directed to specific age groups may be fruitful. These should be prepared by those who speak the language of youth, understand their problems, and can offer counsel.
These projects will succeed only as adults put their shoulders to this task by freely offering their gifts, labors, and prayers. Today’s youth are tomorrow’s leaders, and they must be evangelized now.
New Circulation Policy
The Board of CHRISTIANITY TODAY recently voted to end free circulation. The long-standing practice of introducing clergymen to CHRISTIANITY TODAY through free sample subscriptions will be withdrawn.
One factor motivating this change is our intention to apply for the less costly second-class mailing privileges later this year. As of the February 17, 1967, issue, net paid subscribers totaled 147,021, which included more than 50,000 ministers.
This year, 87,000 ministers now receiving complimentary subscriptions will be notified of the new policy. These subscriptions will be terminated in two groups: the first group with the April 28, 1967, issue, and the second with the November 24, 1967, issue.
Last summer we converted our mailing list to ZIP code and at the same time switched list-fulfillment to a computer from the former metal-plate system. These changes and the plan to apply for a second-class mailing permit are intended to improve service to our growing list of paid subscribers.
Theological Education In Trouble
“Impressions of Trouble” is the title of the second chapter of Charles R. Feilding’s new book, Education for Ministry, which appeared in 1966 as the autumn issue of Theological Education, the journal of the American Association of Theological Schools. As a result of extended meetings with a number of American theological faculties, Dr. Feilding concludes that theological education as it is practiced today “does not prepare for ministry.” His judgment points to the wide gap between what the student learns at the seminary and what he actually finds useful in the parish.
Higher biblical criticism is mentioned by Feilding as one of the causes for this ever-widening gap between seminary and congregation. He writes:
Disproportionate attention to biblical origins remains bibliolatry even when it has been sophisticated by massive infusions of critical method and made as difficult as astrophysics by the introduction of more and more technical data. The student seems always to be moving backwards with his Bible to Palestine, Babylonia, Assyria, or ancient Corinth; but he will found no parish there. Knowing about the superiority of the religion of Israel old or new among the nations of yesterday is not a substitute for testing the faith of Israel in the cultures of today.
A student trained in the higher critical methods does not necessarily have even the foggiest notion of what the Bible really says and of how to use it, according to Feilding. Moreover, “despite the wealth of biblical courses, studies in seminary seldom lead ministers to establish the use of the Bible by the mature Christian in the parish.”
What the young minister learned in the scholarly world about the relation of the Bible to the universal Christian faith often offends deeply entrenched feelings in his congregation.… He may have been inspired in seminary by the model of Hebrew prophecy; but he did not learn the perils of its practice.
Determining the so-called origins of the Bible often has little value for the vital task of understanding and proclaiming it, and to many laymen at least many of these ideas stand in direct contradiction to traditional Christian views about the Scriptures.
Only when the Bible is recognized to be of divine origin, given through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, will it serve the needs of men and women in the churches. The biblical books themselves testify that they are of divine origin, and not of Babylonian, Persian, or Hellenistic derivation. They have their source in God. The gap between seminary and congregation will be erased only when clergy and laity again hear God speaking clearly from the Scriptures. If the voice of God continues to be muffled by the newer methods of biblical criticism, the present “impressions of trouble” may swell into a crisis.
Equality By Boycott
From its beginning the Church’s mission has been so to preach the Gospel that Jesus Christ will be exalted and the Holy Spirit will conform hearts and minds to Christ and to his teaching.
Now that social engineering is superseding persuasion as the primary interest of the churches, every day brings startling developments. A recent example is Project Equality, which originated with the Catholic Conference for Inter-racial Justice and is endorsed by social activists in major Protestant denominations and a number of Jewish groups. The project is enlisting local churches to question business leaders of a community about the racial balance among employees. Where imbalance exists, “moral suasion and economic power” will be used to force the desired racial balance. To put it boldly, the Church will through this project promote an economic boycott against businesses that do not bow to its sociological and ethical goals.
When the Church undertakes to force people into a desired (even a desirable) mold by picketing, demonstration, and boycott, it forsakes the spirit of Christ. Much as it may affirm that its position is “Christian,” this intimidation is clearly not Christian.
Moreover, until the Church rectifies its own imbalances, it cannot in good conscience boycott the business world. In cities where the population may now be 60 per cent Negro and 40 per cent white, some pastors who crusade for civil rights minister in churches where not 1 per cent of the members are Negro. Local business houses confronted with Project Equality may well remind the churches that “the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God” (1 Pet. 4:17a).
Project Equality is no passing fad. Social-action committees of major denominations are now pressing for approval by various church boards, general assemblies, annual conferences, and other governing bodies. If the churches approve this drift to compulsion, they have taken a long step backward toward the outlook of the Inquisition.
Embarrassing ‘First’ For The Ncc
A National Council of Churches General Board meeting ground to an ignominious conclusion last month when, with several important items still pending, a quorum was lacking. This first for the NCC was precipitated by a 1966 rule change that requires the presence of one-third of the 268 board members to transact business.
Maybe the NCC needs such a jolt to dramatize the fact that its present course is repugnant to much of its constituency. The widespread indifference toward the NCC, except for expressions of protest, is a symptom of some basic problems. Among these are the council’s preoccupation with temporal concerns and the tendency of some of its bureaucrats to run roughshod over the convictions of millions of American Christians aligned with the NCC.
Indifference toward the NCC is not limited to theological and political conservatives. The Chicago board meeting was thoroughly covered by the religion editors of half a dozen top daily newspapers. But missing were editors of the vocal denominational journals, of Christianity and Crisis (the “bible” of the social-action radicals), and even of the ecumenical Christian Century, in whose backyard the meeting was held.
Our chief disappointment in the Chicago board meeting was its failure to implement the so-called evangelistic emphasis proclaimed at the NCC General Assembly in December. President Arthur S. Flemming, questioned about what he himself had said would be an emphasis, was unable to cite a single new evangelistic initiative.
The NCC’s intrusion into government affairs on an even broader scale is deeply lamentable. We are convinced that social-action radicals are able to call the NCC’s positions rather freely now, and that those who oppose them have little power.
In contrast to the way-out moves, NCC General Secretary R. H. Edwin Espy, no theological fundamentalist, displayed courage and won board applause for confronting Flemming’s argument for a liberal interpretation of the General Assembly’s mandate on Viet Nam. We commend and support Dr. Espy’s plea for keeping ecumenical engagement within the authorized bounds. Tribute is due also to Dr. Edwin H. Tuller, NCC first vice-president, who voted against a crucial amendment (see page 41) that nevertheless passed and that, we fear, opens wider floodgates for the Church’s use of tax dollars.
The Lucid Mr. Luce
It is ironic perhaps that in the week Henry R. Luce died, Time magazine devoted its cover story to Playboy Hugh Hefner while its competitor Newsweek featured the new communicator Marshall McLuhan.
Mr. Luce scrapped the widely observed code of “objectivity” in news reporting. He showed Americans that such a code protects superficiality and leaves too much of significance unsaid. Today’s most successful journalistic enterprises are those that exercise the most judgment, though they are often criticized for doing so.
Born in China in 1898, to Presbyterian missionaries, Mr. Luce often addressed religious groups, but was not known for piety. After divorce from his first wife, he married Clare Booth in 1935. His compartmentalization of religion and his occasional puffery of anti-Christian elements distressed many evangelicals. Yet he brought to new visibility many facets of Christian thought and action within the broader milieu, in this way surpassing many others who exert control over news dissemination. If one believes that Christianity can hold its own and even prosper best through the free exchange of ideas, perhaps Mr. Luce’s approach is, in a pluralistic society, adequate—especially if what is truly significant is not left unsaid.
What Henry Luce symbolizes for religious journalism is its neglected opportunity of creating engaging journals that, like Time, Fortune, and Life, would have wide appeal and influence in a mass-media age. The major innovator in twentieth-century journalism was used by his own church, not in this creative role, but as chairman of its $50 Million Fund
