Negroes and the Christian Campus

George Williams and J.D. Douglas

What are the attitudes toward Negro students at evangelical colleges and Bible schools in North America?

In a survey conducted by CHRISTIANITY TODAY, twenty-six such institutions in the United States and two in Canada were asked to describe their admission policy on North American Negroes.

Of the twenty-three that replied, seventeen chose to say, “We admit qualified Negroes if they apply to us.”

Three checked the answer: “We admit qualified Negroes and pursue an active program aimed at attracting both white and Negro students to our campus.”

Two schools wrote in their own answers, both indicating open policies, and one school checked the answer: “We admit qualified Negro students but heretofore have not done very much to attract them or encourage them. We are concerned about the general low Negro enrollment in Christian institutions and seek ways to meet the problem.”

The schools were also asked: “To what extent do Negro students mix with white students? Does an integrated student body create problems on campus?” Here are some of the answers:

“General socialization excellent. Mixed racial dating prohibited.” “Negro students say they feel accepted on our campus.” “There is free mingling. All participate in all activities.” “Dating is the biggest issue. Culturally, most whites are not ready to accept ‘mixed’ marriages.”

Other schools indicated that race problems were either minimal or non-existent. And, in general, the questionnaires give the impression of an evangelical academic world that is uniformly agreed on the main issue of accepting or not accepting the Negro on campus, though not unanimous on inter-racial dating, courtship, and marriage.

The survey also indicated that the Negro is welcomed on campus after admission, gets elected to important campus offices, and generally participates freely in campus life.

In this serene picture there is at least one major flaw: Only a handful of Negroes are enrolled in evangelical schools. CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S questionnaire revealed that at the twenty-three responding schools, some eighty-seven Negroes were enrolled last year. By way of contrast, the twenty-eight schools queried have an estimated enrollment of 22,000 students. Many schools also had dark-skinned students from other countries, but over half of the schools had no American Negroes at all.

These eighty-seven come from a total U. S. Negro population of twenty million, about ten million of whom are in racially separate denominations and conventions.

What is the explanation for this paradox of a score of comparatively open-minded Christian schools on the one hand and a practically non-existent Negro constituency on the other?

CHRISTIANITY TODAY asked several American Negro Christians—a writer, a graduate student, and three ministers—for their views. Excerpts follow:

Many Negroes, it was said, cannot afford to go to private evangelical institutions. In the past many schools have had a “lily white” policy, and the Negro is not aware of the changes that have been made.

(One director of admissions says the problem is how to get the word out that qualified Negro students are wanted.)

The problem seems not to start or end with the schools; it goes back to America’s segregated churches, to the lack of communication between white and Negro Christions. “You start with the churches,” said one minister. “It’s going to take an actual New Testament revival among both white and Negro evangelicals.”

The Negro church has not been so much a place of redemptive ministry as a “social gathering,” said a Negro writer. “We’re not producing the kind of men we could channel into a Bible college.”

“The initial responsibility … belongs to the Negro applicant,” said a Negro minister. Another of those queried referred to a “vicious circle”: The Negro churches are not getting from the evangelical schools the leaders they need to educate and train the younger generation; the younger generation is thus left unprepared for post-high-school Bible training; the colleges are not getting qualified Negro applicants to train and send back to the churches; and so on.

Some concerned schools have taken steps to break this pattern. At one of the better-known colleges, a group of faculty members wrote an unofficial letter to last year’s graduating seniors, asking them to keep on the lookout for qualified Negro high school students.

Another school, which indicated it pursues an active white and Negro recruiting program, advertises in Christian periodicals, sponsors displays in churches and conventions, and sends out literature and representatives. This school had about twenty-five Negro students last year—the highest figure noted. Still another institution listed high school visitations as part of its active recruiting program for whites and Negroes.

Other suggestions by the Negroes queried were: advertising in such Negro magazines as Ebony, including pictures of Negroes in promotional literature, recruiting by regional alumni groups, building up contacts between college representatives and Negro churches and ministers, and offering scholarships for Negro students.

One well-known school closed to Negroes is Bob Jones University, whose president, Bob Jones, Jr., publicly supports racial segregation. At another institution, a Negro girl reportedly was not allowed to sing in the choir because a Southern tour was planned. Another school simply suggested to a Negro applicant that he would feel more at home somewhere else.

However, the poll indicates that much of the issue today is not in the admissions office. The problem is perhaps most clearly expressed by the most popular answer to the multiple-choice question on the poll: “We admit qualified Negroes if they apply to us.” Thus the passive resistance movement on the part of the Negro in the sixties is matched with the passive acceptance attitude of the “white evangelical school,” a phrase used by the Negroes questioned without noticeable rancor—to them it is simply a descriptive term.

In situations where open-minded white people sit down with other open-minded white people to talk about “the race problem,” the Negro himself, as a person, seems almost unnecessary. The discussions need him only as an issue.

“We ought to initiate some real communication,” said one of the Negroes. “It’s not enough to have an open-door policy,” said another.

He mentioned a Negro married couple at one school he visited. The husband went to school, and the wife stayed in the apartment, knowing practically no one. They were “lonely, so lonely,” he said.

Reflections On Reformation

More than 200 ministers heard Premier Ernest Manning of Alberta and Editor Carl F. H. Henry of CHRISTIANITY TODAY in a Reformation Day program held in Toronto by Canadian Evangelical Fellowship.

Premier Manning said that while Canada cannot hope to lead the world in military power, political influence, or population totals, she could nonetheless make history’s supreme contribution as “one nation on earth transformed by spiritual and moral dedication” and giving a living witness to the world of “what Christ can do through a people redeemed by his blood and filled by God’s Spirit.”

Speaking on the crisis in contemporary theology, Dr. Henry asked whether it is “perhaps a sign of God’s judgment that many Protestant theologians no longer know precisely what the word of God is; that the leadership of the churches is given over to so many spokesmen who prize truth less than merger; and that multitudes within the churches remain strangers to new life in Christ Jesus while purple politicians are seeking new ecclesiastical structures. Is it a judgment on contemporary Protestantism that the gains of the Reformation are now being erased—so that Protestant theologians reject or ignore the doctrines of the Reformers and Rome speaks well of them as persons, while Christendom is more and more insulated from their teaching and influence?”

Surveying The Offerings

Contributions to American churches continued a modest climb last year, according to compilations made public this month by the National Council of Churches’ Department of Stewardship and Benevolence. Per-member giving among the forty-one major denominations included in the report reached a record of $69.87.

The Free Methodist Church, with 53,601 members, topped the list among those denominations that submit their statistics to the NCC. Free Methodist per-capita giving reached $358.17. The Wesleyan Methodist Church was second with $264.20.

Seventh-day Adventists, who are not included in the NCC compilation, released their own figures last month showing a per-capita average of $250.28.

Flying Needle Ii

Five years ago the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of Olympia, Washington, relinquished his diocesan work to become the first executive officer of the Anglican Communion with its worldwide association of autonomous churches, now eighteen in number. “He has stitched them together with his person,” says a Westminster official source with unofficial imaginativeness, “a flying needle travelling over 120,000 miles a year.”

Last month, a few hours after clocking another few thousand miles from the United States, Bishop Stephen F. Bayne welcomed his successor at a press conference in London. He made it clear that the job was still in the pioneering category but hinted it was not without excitement by a striking if obscure reference to “a slight amount of blood running in the gutter ecclesiastically.” Bishop Bayne now becomes director of the overseas department of the American Protestant Episcopal Church.

He introduced as the new executive officer Dr. Ralph Stanley Dean, Bishop of Cariboo, whose rugged diocese in British Columbia is larger than England and Scotland combined. Born in London’s east end, Dr. Dean went to Canada in 1951 as principal of Emmanuel College, Saskatoon, a post he held until his consecration six years later.

Chairman of the program committee that planned the Anglican Congress in Toronto last year, he was startled by an unscheduled item on the agenda when the fathers and brethren burst into song in acknowledgment of his fiftieth birthday. With the help of nine regional directors, the new executive officer will coordinate Anglican missionary activities and help men and money to find their way to the places where they are most needed. Bishop Dean has been given five years’ leave of absence from his diocese.

Another change announced from Westminster is the resignation, effective next spring, of Colonel Robert Hornby, chief information officer to the National Assembly of the Church of England since 1960.

Congo: The Rebel Arc

A second American Protestant missionary was reported to be among the known victims of rebel forces in the Congo.

William Scholten, 33, a missionary teacher working under the Unevangelized Fields Mission, is said to have died after repeated beatings by rebel troops. His wife and five children were still in rebel-controlled territory this month, along with an estimated forty-five other UFM missionaries and children. Mr. and Mrs. Scholten both graduated from Columbia Bible College in South Carolina.

The total of unevacuated Protestant missionaries is estimated at sixty to seventy persons, the others having fled to unaffected southern parts of the Congo or to neighboring countries such as Kenya and Uganda.

The rebel movement is reportedly assisted by Chinese Communist embassies in nearby countries. It began to affect mission activities last July and, after moving up from Katanga, had captured an estimated one-sixth of the entire country by November 1. The rebel-held territory roughly describes an arc beginning just above Bukavu on the east and extending through the northeast and northwest sections of the Congo, down to Coquilhatville on the west.

Congolese government forces have since recaptured some cities and have liberated several missionaries who had been under “house arrest.” These include five American Methodist missionaries in the Central Congo town of Wembo Nyama (where the Rev. Burleigh Law, also a Methodist missionary, was killed in August when rebel troops overran the mission station there).

Previously, fourteen British Protestant missionaries, reportedly under a Pentecostal missionary society, were liberated by Congolese troops in North Katanga. The whole of Katanga has reportedly been cleared of rebel control; and in general, “the tide has turned in favor of the central government forces,” said a U. S. State Department official.

Missionaries have praised the State Department, which, said one, “did everything possible to be of help to us.”

“We sincerely hope that we shall be allowed back into the Congo,” said a mission report, “but should we not be, then the fledgling Church has found its wings and will fly until the Rapture … Pray for the Congolese Church and their noble band of patriots.”

Religious News Service, meanwhile, reported that Father Martin A. Bormann, 34-year-old son of Hitler’s right-hand man, was said to be one of forty Roman Catholic missionaries missing in the Congo.

The Sacred Heart of Jesus monastery in Eichstatt, Germany, disclosed that no word of the missionaries—twenty men and twenty women, all assigned to the Stanleyville area—had been received since August.

Father Bormann arrived in the Congo a little over three years ago after having completed post-graduate studies in Innsbruck, following his ordination there in 1958. He said then he was dedicating his life to bringing “the grace of God to all mankind.”

The elder Bormann, often called the No. 2 Nazi, disappeared at the end of World War II and has since been reported as either dead or in hiding.

Religious Impact of Johnson’s Sweep

President Johnson’s thumping victory at the polls this month promises to have important repercussions for the American religious scene.

Perhaps the most immediate if not the most important effect is the likely burial of the proposed Becker amendment to the U. S. Constitution, which would have overridden the Supreme Court’s ruling against public school devotional exercises. The legislation lost its chief sponsor when Republican Congressman Frank Becker, a Roman Catholic from Lynbrook, New York, declined to run for re-election. But the Republican platform included an implicit endorsement of the measure, and it could have been revived had the GOP candidates made a better showing.

The Harris poll indicated just four days before the election that an overwhelming 88 per cent of American voters agreed with Senator Barry Goldwater’s contention that prayers in public schools should be restored. But a tide of votes swamped Goldwater, and inasmuch as Democrats have been largely silent on the school prayer question, a constitutional amendment now appears unlikely.

The results of the election also seem to underscore the fact that a political candidate’s religious affiliation no longer makes much difference to American voters. Johnson is said to have won substantially larger majorities in predominantly Roman Catholic areas than John F. Kennedy did in 1960. Goldwater’s selection of a Roman Catholic running mate, William E. Miller of New York, obviously failed to attract any appreciable Catholic support. Miller lost his own county by a margin of more than two to one.

The 1964 election campaign drew many churchmen into the political fray. When Goldwater questioned the propriety of the condemnations he got from liberals, Johnson was obliged to rally to their support. The President said that “men in the pulpit have a place in political leadership of our people and they have a place in our public affairs.”

Presumably such encouragement will tend to stir a greater degree of political activity among American religious leaders in future election campaigns as well as in the continuing legislative process.

The National Council of Churches, no stranger to political maneuvers, came through last month with a well-timed indictment of “the radical right.” Information Service, a bi-weekly publication of the NCC’s Bureau of Research and Survey, devoted a special twelve-page issue to the extremists, charging that their “primary challenge is to the basic philosophy of democracy and to government itself as we have known it.” The publication’s appearance was followed by news release mailings from the NCC’s Office of Information announcing the material as “the first comprehensive review of material on the nature, methods and objectives of right-wing extremists and their organizations.” Neither Goldwater nor the Republican party was mentioned, but an unsigned introduction to the review declared that “these forces and their ideas have moved from the fringes of American life into a prominent role in the current political campaign.”

One thing the campaign seems to have made clear is that American religious figures, both rightist and leftist, are losing respect for the principle of church-state separation. They find it cramps their style. And the public’s growing interest in politics, especially since the advent of television, creates envy in the heart of many a churchman who longs for a wider hearing. Those who champion the church-state separation principle on old norms are finding themselves increasingly removed from centers of public discussion. A new complex of church-state questions is emerging, but vested interests discourage debate.

Increasing political activity by church leaders could conceivably result in the eventual creation of a Christian or even an interfaith religious party. Most observers still regard that hazardous development as unlikely, but the presuppositions of today’s politically excitable churchmen coincide to a remarkable degree with the old arguments advanced in favor of religious political parties.

The outcome of the 1964 election apparently demonstrated that a generalized appeal for moral recovery elicits little response from the American people. Goldwater’s plea for “law and order” seemed only to produce its own kind of backlash: the antagonisms of liberal churchmen.

A Question Of Values

Dr. Wayne Dehoney, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, says the election results show that “the American people refuse to accept the premise that responsibility for the moral dereliction of the nation can be laid at the doorstep of any one party, administration, or individual.”

Dehoney declared that the strongest planks in the party platforms were appeals to personal values. “For one, it was ‘individualism and personal responsibility,’ for the other it was ‘compassion and concern for human welfare.’ Both are basic in our Baptist tradition.”

Protestant Prizes

Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower was honored with the second annual Family of Man Award by the Protestant Council of the City of New York last month at a $100-a-plate dinner in the Hotel Astor. Eisenhower, unable to attend because of a bronchial infection, was represented by his son. Some 3,000 guests were on hand.

Special citations and $5,000 grants also were made for outstanding “examples of excellence” to Adlai E. Stevenson, U. S. ambassador to the United Nations, for world peace efforts; Zulu Chief Albert John Luthuli of South Africa (a Nobel Prize winner who was not permitted to leave the country to receive the honor); Edward R. Murrow, noted newsman and former chief of the U. S. Information Agency, for communications; and New York’s television channel 13, a non-commercial educational station.

John Hay Whitney, editor-in-chief of the New York Herald Tribune, who served as chairman for the dinner, said it netted $259,685.

Second Chance For Clergymen

Clergymen who have not signed up for social security may do so until April 15, 1965, under recent amendments to the law.

Since 1962, when a previous deadline expired, only newly ordained clergymen have been eligible to initiate social security participation. Now the amendments make it possible for all clergymen to be covered on a voluntary basis, since by law they are excluded from automatic social security coverage.

To become eligible, a clergyman must file a waiver certificate (Form 2031) with the district director of internal revenue, report his earnings from the ministry, and pay social security taxes on the earnings for the taxable years 1962, 1963, and 1964.

A clergyman reports his earnings as a self-employed person, even though he may be an employee for other purposes, so that the church or religious organization that he serves will not become involved.

After a clergyman has elected coverage, he may not withdraw from the social security program. Filing of a waiver certificate obligates him to pay social security taxes for each year he receives $400 or more in net income, any part of which comes from the exercise of his ministry.

Exemptions For Designated Gifts

The U. S. Tax Court overruled the Internal Revenue Service last month in a case involving designated missionary contributions.

The IRS had disallowed the gifts as income tax deductions, contending that since they were designated for the support of certain missionaries named on the receipts, they were not contributions to the mission. An attorney for the donors countered that the mission’s policy as stated in printed materials gives the mission control over all funds, even though they are designated.

The Tax Court ruled that “it was the petitioners’ intention that their funds go into a common pool to be administered and distributed by the mission as it desired.”

Missionary News Service, reporting the action, noted that “the favorable decision was based largely on the written policy statement of the mission which made very clear the fact that the mission had full control of the disposition of the funds contributed.

War On The Air Waves

A group of prominent women declared war on the publicly owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation last month by demanding a “cleansing” of programs that they say promote violence and perversion.

The women endorsed a statement charging that many CBC programs present a stream of “constant prostitution of sex and violence for entertainment.”

They are asking other women across the nation to sign a “Declaration by Canadian Women,” to be presented to Parliament with a demand that CBC programming be reformed.

Their action coincided with Jewish and other protests against the recent screening of a filmed interview with George Lincoln Rockwell, U. S. Nazi leader. The Canadian Jewish Congress assailed the CBC interview of Rockwell as an “irresponsible action.”

A CBC spokesman in Ottawa said the women’s declaration had been rejected by most major women’s groups in Canada.

The Pen And The Bomb

A “Feed the Minds of Millions” campaign to raise some $2,800,000 for Bible and Christian literature distribution in Africa, Asia, and Latin America was launched in London last month at a St. James Palace reception attended by Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

Giving her patronage to the drive, she expressed belief it would be a landmark effort in the history of Christianity in Britain.

Also in attendance and endorsing the drive were Britain’s new prime minister, Mr. Harold Wilson; civic heads from throughout the country; Dr. Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury; and Dr. Frederick D. Coggan. Archbishop of York.

The campaign was organized by the British and Foreign Bible Society, the National Bible Society of Scotland, and the Archbishop of York’s Fund for Christian Literature.

Dr. Coggan, noting that it is expected that the United Nations’ literacy program will create more than 300 million new readers in the coming decade, commented: “The hunger of the mind as millions become literate is sweeping like a forest fire through nations which we have hitherto regarded as backward. That fire will never be put out. I do not want to see it damped down.… I want this nation to have a say in the kind of literature with which this desire will be satisfied.”

He added that the Communists “think they have a philosophy worth propagating and they rightly believe that this is the most effective way of doing it. The pen is more powerful than the bomb.”

About This Issue: November 20, 1964

Above all else, modern man should be thankful for God’s gracious gift of justification by faith. A prominent Lutheran leader supplies an exegetical study, and a distinguished Presbyterian scholar supplies the companion exposition, of Romans 3:21–26, sometimes called “the Gospel in epitome.”

The series on cross-currents of European theology continues with an essay on the crucial issue of revelation and history. The theological survey includes material that Editor Carl F. H. Henry is presenting in lectures at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Bannockburn, Illinois.

Addison H. Leitch and Ilion T. Jones assess the lingering “Honest to God” debate in terms of the inadequacies of liberal Protestant theology.

Theology

Paul’s Credibility

L. Nelson Bell

A favorite device of lawyers—a normal procedure, in fact—is to call in question the competence of witnesses. Any one of a number of avenues of attack may be used: the witness’s integrity; his previous record in regard to convictions; his understanding of the subject, if he is called as an expert; reliability of the sources of information advanced—anything that might raise in the minds of the jury a question about his truthfulness and his knowledge of that about which he is testifying.

Because of the large part that the Apostle Paul plays in the New Testament, from the ninth chapter of Acts on through his thirteen epistles, he has been subjected to objective and subjective scrutiny by Bible students in every generation to determine the source of his religion, his authority to speak thereon, the validity of the doctrines he proclaims, and the binding nature of the rules for Christians and the Church that he lays down with such certainty and clarity. Fortunately, we are not left in doubt about any of these things.

Three things in large measure explain Paul and his place in the message and history of the Christian faith: a unique conversion experience with the risen Lord, direct revelation of divine truth, and an intimate knowledge of and faith in the Old Testament scriptures.

Paul’s conversion. The history of the Christian Church is replete with stories of unusual conversions, and such conversions continue to happen today. But none of these stories of life-changing confrontations with Jesus Christ compare to what happened to Paul on the Damascus road.

Paul met Jesus Christ in person, and the dazzling splendor of the risen and living Lord blinded him. He heard our Lord’s voice with his ears and received from him specific instructions. His was not a general call to witness to which all who know and love the Lord are subjected; it was rather a unique and specific call to a certain task at that time in history. He was, the Lord told Ananias, “a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15, RSV).

Years later, in speaking of this experience before Agrippa, Paul quotes the Lord’s command to him: “But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you” (Acts 26:16).

There are numerous evidences of Paul’s spectacular and complete conversion, none more conclusive than the fact that he immediately started on his God-given task as a Spirit-filled witness. He appeared in the synagogues of Damascus but did not carry out his original intention of arresting believers. Rather, “immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, ‘He is the Son of God’ ” (Acts 9:20).

Direct, special revelation. Not only did Paul have a unique experience with Christ, a conversion different from other conversions; he also received direct revelations from the Lord, which had been promised to him. For that reason we read Paul’s letter knowing that the inspiration by which he spoke and wrote was also unique.

In his letter to the Galatian Christians, Paul told them he was not expressing his own view or the opinions of others: “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11, 12).

Writing to the Ephesians, Paul again refers to this special revelation: “… assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, how the mystery was made known to me by revelation.… When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ … as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit …” (Eph. 3:2–5).

Paul probably received many direct revelations. In his second letter to the Corinthian church he refers to one of them, when he was “caught up to the third heaven”; at this time he “heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter” (2 Cor. 12:1–4).

Not only did the other apostles recognize Paul as one of their number, but Peter writes with candor of Paul’s letters: “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:15b, 16).

Place of the Old Testament Scriptures. Paul was a highly educated and intelligent Pharisee and as such was deeply versed in the Old Testament. His years at the feet of Gamaliel evidently gave him training second to none. But until his conversion and infilling with the Holy Spirit, he was like the Jews about whom he wrote: “… for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.… When a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:14–17).

From the beginning of his ministry Paul used the Old Testament Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God. A study of his sermons, recorded in the Book of the Acts, shows his dependence on that record for proving Christ to be the Messiah. In his epistles he affirms Christian doctrine and ties that doctrine to the Old Testament revelation.

In his defense before Felix he says, “But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the law and written in the prophets” (Acts 24:14).

Finally, the nature and predicament of man and God’s provision for him came to Paul as a direct revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ, who said to him: “ ‘… the Gentiles—to whom I send you to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me’ ” (Acts 26:17, 18).

It was testified of the Lord that he spoke with authority. What we need to know is that Paul spoke by that same authority, and his message is valid today—God speaking to us. The “relevance” of Paul’s message is questioned by some; but as is true in other parts of God’s Word, the eternal principles and specific doctrines that are laid down we ignore to our own loss.

According to the record, the credibility of Paul is unassailable. Lacking similar experiences we can but thank God for the man through whom He has done so much for the Church, and who at the end of his life was able to say with assurance born of deep conviction, “I have fought the good fight.”

Are the Churches Coddling Atheists?

The Church, it would seem, would be the last place to look for an atheist. Fools who say, “There is no God,” would be wise enough, one would think, to stay out. But not so. Although there may be no atheists in foxholes, a recent study conducted by the Survey Research Center of the University of California in Berkeley attests that there are atheists in the churches. The same investigation also revealed that many church members deny the deity of Christ and disbelieve in the New Testament miracles and in life after death.

Rodney Stark and Charles Y. Glock, two sociologists who conducted the investigation for the university, report that 1 per cent of the Protestants and 1 per cent of the Roman Catholics they investigated are agnostic. These said baldly, “I do not know whether there is a God, and I don’t believe there’s any way to find out.”

As for atheism, the investigation discovered that 1 per cent of the Congregationalists (United Church of Christ) and something less than one-half of 1 per cent of Methodists and of Episcopalians interviewed asserted, “I don’t believe in God.”

These percentages are admittedly small. But the actual number of atheists within American churches, computed on this basis, is not. The 1 per cent of the membership of the United Church of Christ amounts to about 20,000 atheists; and even if only one-third of 1 per cent of Methodists and Episcopalians are atheists, this means there are about 45,000. A total of 65,000 atheists in three American denominations is a lot of atheists. The most recently published FBI figure for membership of the U. S. Communist party is 17,360.

If these atheists were inquirers and seekers in the pews, that would be one thing. But they are in the churches as members and have received baptism because in the judgment of the ministers, they are Christians.

How does an atheist manage to feel at home within the membership of the Christian Church? In foxholes, where men face the realities of life and death, the atheist is so uncomfortable that he soon ceases to be one. How does he manage to survive within the membership of the Church? Does the pulpit confront the pew with nothing to convert it into a place where the issues of life and death are also faced?

If as many confessed subversives, Communists, and men of moral corruption infested the United States government as there presumably are confessed atheists in the churches, there would be a loud cry to ferret them out. Men would see corruption in high places and a threat to the security of the nation. Will there be a similar concern and a similar cry that will summon the American churches to put their house in order?

Some clergymen have urged that non-Christians ought not to be removed from the membership of the Christian Church. The argument is that we show a greater concern and love for lost souls if we allow the admitted non-Christians to stay on the rolls in the hope that they will become Christians. We would offend such “members”—so it is asserted—if we informed them plainly that they are not Christians.

Will the statistics of this investigation put an end to such bland nonsense and sentimentality? And will a serious attempt be made to find out who is who in the Christian Church?

According to the New Testament record, the preaching of our Lord drew believers to him, yet sent unbelievers away so that “they walked no more with him.” In the preaching of the Apostle Paul there was always the possibility of being offended, and the very least his offended hearers did was to leave. Authentic preaching of the Gospel in the pulpits of the American churches today will do the same. Official acts of excommunication are rarely needed where the Gospel of Christ is so preached that men both recognize it and react to it. But if thousands of atheists can remain comfortably within the membership of the Christian Church, the homiletical pablum they receive from the pulpit must be such that it neither pleases nor offends their taste.

Religious discussions and arguments outside the pulpit easily create tense situations in which friends are lost and enemies made. But how rarely is anything said from the pulpit that offends the man in the pew enough to make him get up and walk out, to return only when he is ready to do business with God.

And what more shall we say about the pulpit when this same investigation reveals that 32 per cent of the Congregationalists, 24 per cent of the Methodists, and 16 per cent of the Episcopalians do not believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God; that 43 per cent of the Protestants do not believe in the Virgin Birth; that 72 per cent of the Congregationalists, 63 per cent of the Methodists, 59 per cent of the Episcopalians, 42 per cent of the Presbyterians, 38 per cent of the Disciples of Christ and of the American Baptists, and 31 per cent of the American Lutherans do not believe that the biblical miracles actually happened; and that 35 per cent of the Protestants either believe that Christ’s promise of eternal life is only “probably true” or have “no hope” for a future life at all.

The Stark-Glock survey reveals that there is a much more prevalent skepticism about these Christian doctrines in such churches as the United Church of Christ, the Methodist Church, and the Episcopal Church—those that are enthusiastic about the ecumenical movement—than in more orthodox bodies such as the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, which are less interested in the current ecumenism. The ecumenical movement would doubtless prosper if the churches most dedicated to it would set their theological house in order, since, according to this report, these are the churches with the greatest weaknesses in Christian doctrine. If ecumenical leaders have their eyes open, they will recognize a lesson this survey teaches—and it would be better to learn the lesson now than later. For the same survey reveals a higher degree of orthodoxy on these matters in the Roman Catholic Church. If the ecumenical movement cannot compete with the doctrinal earnestness of some of the large and many of the small Protestant denominations, what will it do when it really meets Rome?

The Business Of The Ministry

The Sunday newspaper magazine Parade recently noted the verdict of Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic leaders that “many clergymen are not qualified for their role in the changed and changing world of today.” One Protestant theological educator (whose institution has been famed for training scholars and not parish ministers) said that “the church in America cannot cope with the problems the country faces. And the primary reason is that the clergy is not educated to handle these problems.”

The criticisms are valid indeed. Changes must come, and quickly. But the problem is not simply a need for more or different education for the parish minister. It goes deeper.

In the medical field there are few general practitioners. In their place are obstetricians, pediatricians, internists, proctologists, orthopedists, dermatologists, radiologists, anesthetists, otologists, ophthalmologists, and geriatricians, along with neurosurgeons, chest surgeons, plastic surgeons, and general surgeons.

The parish minister ought not to try to be a specialist in everything. Indeed, he cannot be. Maybe the Church should memorize the scriptural teaching that there are apostles, prophets, teachers, healers, helpers, administrators, and workers of miracles (1 Cor. 12:28). Certainly, not all ministers possess all the gifts. In an age of increasing leisure time, it is wrong to call on an overworked and underpaid ministry to assume a variety of functions that no one person can fulfill. Let’s train healers, helpers, and administrators, and let the prophets and teachers get about their business, which is to win the lost and build up the saints in the holy faith.

From The Tumult To The Task

Despite the bitterness of their political campaigns, Americans close ranks quickly behind elected leaders. The man who was elevated to the Presidency by an assassin’s bullet has now been continued there by the largest popular vote in United States history. The final tally, of about 42 million to 27 million, gave President Johnson 61 per cent of the American ballot in his victory over Senator Goldwater.

The crucial issue of a sound political philosophy, so sadly blurred during the election campaign, must not long remain out of sight. America’s freedom and power are providential gifts for the preservation and promotion of human liberty. If these entrustments are dedicated to peace and plenty above all else, and not to truth and right, we are simply writing our own epitaph. Not President Johnson’s highly impressive margin of victory but an enduring commitment to holiness and justice on the part of the people will ensure America’s strength in the years that lie ahead.

The slashing offensive of the political campaign cut deep wounds. It may also have deteriorated the character of the democratic process and widened cynicism over political techniques. Every campaign necessarily leaves its disappointed voters. But multitudes of citizens are convinced that a candidate who served the United States Senate for eleven years and the United States Air Force as major-general was not simply defeated but maligned and slandered, along with the conservative cause generally, as essentially un-American. Yet President Johnson effectively carried two impressions to the public—that he would keep America out of the war that Barry Goldwater would assertedly have triggered, and that he is more truly conservative than Goldwater “radicalism.” Senator Goldwater’s pledged support of President Johnson sets the citizenry a worthy example. Many Americans are unpersuaded that the present foreign aid program and military policy assure a recovery of freedom. The plea for unity must not repress sincere political criticism, while the pursuit of criticism must not disrupt national unity.

If the great priorities of human destiny and survival are kept in the forefront, America will be spared the disillusionment of worshiping graven images. To the Presidential Prayer Breakfast on February 5, President Johnson said: “In this capital city today, we have monuments to Lincoln, and to Jefferson, and to Washington, and to many statesmen and soldiers. But at this seat of government, there must be a fitting memorial to the God who made us all.” Mr. Johnson seemed then to be speaking of a monument of stone or metal. The American people have lodged President Johnson in the White House with a vote of landslide proportions. Now he has an opportunity to help make of the nation itself precisely such a memorial.

The Great Delusion

There exists within the Church a philosophy, evidenced by many, that Christianity can be legislated. The National Council of Churches, for example, often lobbies for specific legislation. Proponents of this approach apparently believe that Christianity is a matter, not of personal regeneration, but of social compulsion.

A member of the platform committee at one of the recent national political conventions remarked that within that committee there was genuine indignation when a representative of the NCC appeared and asked for a platform predicated on social engineering.

There is no such thing as enforced Christianity, nor is there the possibility of making a non-Christian society act as if it were Christian. The Christian faith is a matter of heart, of a changed allegiance, of a spiritual renewal beyond the act of man.

That Christians should give evidence of their faith through obedience to God’s holy laws goes without saying. The outward manifestation of an inward transformation is a great New Testament theme. But men cannot be coerced into Christian action; nor is the state to be considered an agent of the Church to enforce ecclesiastical morality.

Theology

Reflections on Honesty in Theology

The well-known title of a recent book has raised again in an acute and challenging form the question of honesty in theology, and indeed in the Christian ministry at large. From one point of view the title stands for something good, and this is the aspect that by and large has gained attention. It is good that a man should be forthright. It is good that genuine doubts and questionings should be expressed without fear or favor. There is nothing to be gained by paying lip service to things no longer believed in the heart. If it is genuinely felt that the old statement will not do, then it is better to say so and to indicate the lines along which a better statement might be attempted. The pulpit and the professorial chair should be the very last places to afford refuge to cant and humbug.

We might go even further along these lines and say that a spirit of honest questioning can be for the better health of the Church. The Church is not itself infallible in its order and formularies. Legitimate questions can thus be raised whether this practice or that doctrine is truly biblical. Whatever answer is given, the Church is thus kept from a false complacency and the possible perpetuation of error. Indeed, even illegitimate questions that are not concerned about biblical authority will at least force the Church to test its statements and to be sure that they are grounded, not in tradition, nor in the Church’s own authority, but in the written self-revelation of God. This does not mean that such questionings are valid in themselves. But it does mean that from this standpoint they can serve a useful end. No Christian should ever become orthodox in the sense of a complete surrender of his own faculties or judgment to the imposed formulations of his peers. No church should ever become established in the sense of a rigid imposition of church authority that compels the man who is supremely loyal to the written Word of God to be either revolutionary or dishonest.

Nevertheless, when all this is said, and when it is recognized that all this is true, there are other aspects of this question of honesty that may be far less striking and popular but that still have a valid claim to our attention. To say what we truly think is undoubtedly a good part of honesty. But the theologian or the Christian minister has to put this question of honesty to himself in other forms. To the question in these other forms he owes a no less honest answer.

First, he must ask himself whether he can honestly make his honest statement from the position of responsibility he holds. There was a time when this problem would not have existed, since church discipline would have seen to his deposition or even excommunication if necessary. The temper of our time is against such action. But this sharpens the aspect of individual responsibility. There is undoubtedly a dimension of honesty which demands that the sham of an accepted but unfulfilled responsibility be put off with the sham of a professed but unaccepted conviction.

Secondly, it must be allowed that this is a corporate as well as an individual matter. No one suggests that the man who, wishing to replace what he regards as outmoded or ill-founded forms, clings to a responsible position, is deliberately or consciously dishonest. Nor does anyone deny him the precious right of individual judgment. The only point is that responsibility in the church is corporate as well as individual. On certain matters a church has to accept common standards, and it has a right to expect that its ministers will honor these standards and work at their amendment or reform only within the constitutional procedures of the church, not by unilateral action. If a responsible individual feels compelled by his own conscience to take a stand that does not conform to the corporate standards, does he not have a duty of honesty either to act nonetheless within the established order or to relinquish his office and to make his more violent protest from a position of freedom as an ordinary member of the congregation?

Thirdly, cases may even arise where the radical convictions expressed are so extreme that they conflict with the very essence of the Christian faith according to its plain scriptural formulation. When this is so, the problem arises whether the honest man who wishes to speak honestly has any honest right to make a profession of Christianity at all. Is it not the part of honesty to say quite plainly that Christianity is wrong or only partially right, that from within some individual source of authority a better opinion may be offered and a better way proposed? And if we are to talk of honesty, is it not essential that when we make forthright utterances we should have the ultimate readiness to face up to their ultimate implications?

Fourthly, there is the point that when the issues are stated in this sharper form, much of what passes for honest statement may be shown to be no more than honest questioning. But if this is so, is it not better to be quite honest and to say so? After all, Martin Luther, who was not in any case dealing with defined doctrines, began by putting up theses for academic disputation and even at Worms still admitted that he was open to persuasion from Scripture or by clear reasons. If a man is convinced that the biblical or historic statement is wrong, that is one thing. If he is not sure in face of new problems of thought or learning, that is another. But if he is not sure, then the wider problems of honesty come back with full force. Can a man be a responsible teacher of others if he has really no measure of clarity himself? May it be that he has made a completely wrong beginning and ought to have the honesty to admit this and go back to the primary classes in Christian instruction? Could there even be an element of pride in this particular honesty as distinct from the honest humility of the believer?

Finally, the question may be asked whether there is any greater honesty in doubt or unbelief than there is in faith. Only too often it is glibly assumed in some circles that if a man is honest he will have to come out with doubts or heterodoxies. Only too often it is implied that the man who conscientiously fulfills his responsible ministry is in some sense engaged in intellectual and practical humbug. But there is basically no reason why, in this or any other century or culture, there should not be honest believers who in all humility and yet also in all integrity genuinely mean what they say. There is basically no reason why those who accept and fulfill a position of trust on the making of a solemn confession should not do so with serious conviction of heart and sincerity of dedication. We do not deny that there is honest doubt and honest unbelief. But surely, there is also a less glamorous but no less solid and abiding honesty—the honesty of honest faith.

Ideas

A Future Big with Hope

The finger of history in this twentieth century is relentlessly writing into man’s awareness the fact that his problems are bigger than he is. It is especially difficult for Americans to admit that there are problems that will not bend to their energy and ingenuity. Theirs has been the cheerful boast that it takes them only a little longer to do the impossible than the difficult. For almost two centuries Americans have faced whatever the future might offer with buoyant optimism. They were not, after all, children of a “beat generation.” Recognition of insoluble problems was no part of the credo of their ancestors, who conquered poverty and won their freedom by leaving all the past behind to respond to a future bright with hope. With undaunted confidence the early Americans crossed a forbidding ocean and mounted rocky shores to fashion out of an untamed continent the greatest nation the earth has seen.

For decades America was a reassuring image to the world that a man can do anything. Had not Americans defeated a great foreign power to create the first successful democratic government in history? Was not the world’s wealthiest nation hewn from a wilderness? Had it ever lost a war? Were not its contagious idealism and its technological achievements the wonder and admiration of the world? A long history of overcoming difficulties had created a boundless, bouncy optimism, and a hope as long as the future itself.

But if America was once a leader of the world and a power that could shape the future, it is this no more. Optimism has evaporated and bright hope has now faded with the sudden, confidence-shattering realization that man is no longer king. He who thought he was king over the world and its future now knows he is but a man with king-size problems.

Gone today is the liberal faith that earth has no problems man cannot solve. The liberal has always believed in the unlimited possibilities of man, rather than in the Christian idea that all things are possible only with God. Gone is the dream that America can lead the world. Today her very existence depends on her ability now to sail ahead, and now to tack into the political storms of a revolutionary century. Gone is the dream that the United States can make the world safe for democracy; gone too the illusion that an increase of affluence can create a great moral humanitarian society. Not that there ever was any scientific evidence or intellectual basis for the notion that an increase in morality will be the automatic by-product of material prosperity. Nor was there ever any real evidence for the optimistic liberal faith that ignorance is the matrix of evil and that evil can therefore be resolved by universal education. Such faith was a great liberal dream suspended on human aspirations rather than on actual human achievements. While it summoned and fired the best and loftiest aspirations of many men, it remained a dream floated on the hopes of the future rather than a belief grounded in the evidence of the past.

Gone is the optimism that we can eliminate crime from our streets, and greed and hatred from human hearts. Gone the cheery hope that the future is ours to shape. Indeed, most of us prefer not to think much about the next ten or twenty years, when not only Red China but even smaller nations of more warm-blooded peoples will have nuclear weapons to brandish at their enemies. No matter how much men of good will may try, they can find no evidence to support the assumption that every nation under provocation will be free of the suicidal impulse that is willing in vengeance to include itself in the destruction of mankind. The existing realities of the present combine with the dark possibilities of the future to drain hope from the spirits of men and to leave them with a despairing realization that the world’s problems are bigger than the world can solve. History is now showing what Christianity has long asserted—that man’s most critical problems are greater than he can handle.

Yet there is hope, a hope that nothing can overcome. In the incarnation of Jesus Christ, God himself has come to help. This faith keeps the Christian from the debilitating despair that comes when men’s brightest hopes prove false. The Christian never expected mankind to save itself. Had this ever been possible, God would not have come to help. God would not have come to provide a way out of the present into a future salvation, if mankind had had a way of its own.

Although there are both Christians and non-Christians who believe that man’s greatest problems lie neither in man as an individual nor in man as a corporate unity but in the social structures man has created, the truth is rather that man’s biggest problem, whether seen individually or collectively, is man himself. It is man’s own sin, whether viewed as original or individual, that produces crime, fosters hostility, promotes war, and accounts for the death that comes to every man and to all his political and cultural achievements, even to his idealism. A more liberal and optimistic faith may deny all this; yet the evidence, if not the dreams, is on the side of the Christian claim. None of these results of man’s own evil, not even the shattered dreams of non-Christian hopes projected by an unfounded idealism, is the final word.

There is hope. There is a hope that cannot be shaken. In the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God has conquered every evil that man has devised and fulfilled every legitimate human hope. The world’s king-size problems have met their Lord and King in Jesus Christ risen from the dead. He alone is the hope of the world, a hope that has already taken the form of evidence and the substance of reality in the hearts and lives of everyone who has believed in his coming and looks for his reappearing. The world’s only Hope shall return, and a newborn world shall see the triumphs of his justice!

Christ is the hope that may be enjoyed by every man who is willing to admit that his problems are bigger than he is, and who is willing to accept help from the God who came to help.

The future of the world is big with hope, because it contains him who fills its future and determines its destiny. Jesus Christ is he who is, who was, and who is to come; as such he is the world’s true past, its authentic present, and its only future. He came, not that the world might be condemned, but that the world through him might be saved. Therefore the Christian—and he alone—can sing, “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.” In what others face only with despair, he sees the Lord “trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.” In those events of history that others can view only with hopelessness, he has hope, for he sees in those same events that Christ’s “truth is marching on.”

The Christian has an indomitable hope even in the twentieth century. What others see, if reluctantly, as the finger of history, he sees as the finger of God casting out the demons of this world; and he knows that the rule of God controls the world.

Eutychus and His Kin: November 20, 1964

Edler G. Hawkins

PULL UP A CHAIR

One of my critics—and I have some—has asked why I write so much on my experiences in restaurants. Says he, “What do you do all the time? Eat?” This is a harsh question. I don’t eat all the time. Sometimes I sleep.

But in a restaurant recently I was led to other thoughts. I said to the waitress, “What’s good?” “Oh, most anything,” she replied. Then, pointing to a nearby table, I asked, “What’s that?” She answered, “That’s hash.” And so I asked, “What about it?” Her reply was, “No, no. Yesterday it was the Chef’s Special and the day before it was the Blue Plate Special.” There came to mind that wonderful old definition, “Home is where you can trust the hash.”

I always liked another definition of home: “It is a good home when the piano keys are sticky.” I know I am touching a responsive cord in many places when I mention that.

Robert Frost, who has said so many nice things in such a nice way, has said this, “Home is where when you go there they have to let you in.” Isn’t it wonderful to come in from almost any place on the map with the confident feeling that here, at last, the door will be open and you can be as tired as you want. You can quit putting your best foot forward for a while, and you will finally find time to unwind.

There is a lovely story in the fifteenth chapter of Luke about a boy who was pretty badly mauled. I suppose he was dirty—pig pens will do that—and I am sure he was mightily ashamed. Home is where a boy like that can say to his father, “Make me one of your hired servants,” and the father says to him, “Welcome home, son.” Sometimes the Gospel gets a little complex, but there it is in its simplicity.

EUTYCHUS II

THE UNETHICAL PRESS?

1This letter reproduces mimeographed material, the original copy of which had not yet been received by Christianity Today at this writing, a week after it had been circulated across the United States to a number of clergymen. It is reprinted here, with an editorial comment, consistent with Christianity Today’s policy of full and open discussion.—Ed.In its issue dated October 23, CHRISTIANITY TODAY published excerpts from two documents of a special committee of The United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. as well as quotations from an unauthorized tape recording. Each document had been clearly identified as a “Confidential Document to be Used only in Consultations Sponsored by the Committee on a Brief Contemporary Statement of Faith.” Christian and journalistic ethics have been violated in the publication of this material, and the work of the committee has been seriously jeopardized.

Alteration of the confessional position of the church—the work in which the committee is involved—is the most serious matter that can be undertaken within the polity of The United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. The procedure for amendment is constitutionally prescribed and is surrounded by carefully chosen checks and balances. Such action must pass through six required steps: Briefly, passage by two separate special committees, three General Assemblies, and two-thirds of the church’s presbyteries.

The first step only—the work of a drafting committee—has been under way for six laborious years, and this committee has reported regularly to the General Assembly on its progress. The committee’s reports, in the minutes of the General Assembly, are the only public documents yet issued in the whole study and are the basis on which the General Assembly each year has requested that the work be continued.

The chairman of the committee promised the General Assembly in 1962 that the first public appearance of a draft of the committee’s work would be in the Blue Book of the General Assembly. It now appears your publication of portions of tentative and preliminary documents has betrayed this pledge.

In keeping with its responsibilities, the committee has conducted a number of consultations with pastors, laymen, and professors. In each case it has been explained that the subject of the consultations was—for the present—to be held in confidence to guard against misunderstanding and misrepresentation of work still in progress.

This procedure is entirely in accord with good polity and with good sense. It in no way interferes with public debate and discussion at a later date, but prevents senseless debates and alarms on matters that may never get beyond committee conversation.

The confidential nature of the documents was violated after a group of United Presbyterian ministers, having been reminded of the confidential nature of the documents, heard a talk by the chairman of the committee on the proposed new statement of faith.

When it was discovered in the consultation that a recording had been made, the person who made the recording was requested to give up the tape. He surrendered a roll of tape which was blank, and later returned the filled tape, stating that he had made a mistake in identifying it. Several verbatim quotations and other unmistakable evidence show, however, that the tape recording was part of the basis of the CHRISTIANITY TODAY article.

On the basis of the foregoing facts, we are forced to the conclusion that CHRISTIANITY TODAY has knowingly or unknowingly violated an orderly process within Presbyterian polity with which it has no business; that it has violated journalistic ethics; and that, most grievous of all, it has risked the creation of misunderstanding and strife among Christians in so doing.

The General Council of The United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. requests that you publish this letter with the same prominence given your report in the issue of October 23. In due time, full public discussion of the work of the special committee will be in order, and at that time the church will welcome comment and theological reflection from the editors of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Chairman of the General Council

Secretary of the General Council

The General Council of the General Assembly

The United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A.

New York, N.Y.

• CHRISTIANITY TODAY carried editorial comment on the projected Presbyterian confession after a Princeton Seminary Alumni Day meeting at which Professor Edward A. Dowey, Jr., chairman of the committee, evaluated and criticized the proposed draft. The meeting was not a confidential committee discussion, nor a deliberative consultation of theologians, but a quasi-public session attended by non-Presbyterians as well as Presbyterians.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S accuracy is unquestioned. But the magazine is criticized for premature publication of “portions of tentative and preliminary documents”—which documents, it should be noted, were discussed at length at the Princeton meeting. The draft was quoted in the news section because CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S policy—unlike that of some denominational journals—is not to indulge in editorial criticism without fairly excerpting related documents.

The magazine may, indeed, have made a tactical mistake in publishing excerpts from the “tentative and preliminary” draft ahead of the target date preferred by denominational leaders. Although the committee has been at work for six years, we do not recall during that time ever receiving a press release from the denomination’s Office of Information on the committee’s activities and plans. There is an increasing journalistic concern for the public’s “right to know,” and ecclesiastical agencies are not exempt from responsibility in this regard. We were, in fact, unaware that enactment of the final document will be a three-year process. In this misunderstanding we were perhaps misled by more hasty adoption of theological bases in some ecclesiastical and ecumenical assemblies.

From comments and reports on the extended Princeton discussion, it was our impression that the material, while not yet fully ready for the General Assembly’s Blue Book, was nonetheless an appropriate subject of discussion in an audience inclusive of non-Presbyterians. If the “unauthorized tape recording” which the General Council has contradicts our report in any way, the council need only make the tape available. We have the highest respect for the historic ministry of this great church and view its continuing contribution with lively interest. CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S objective was not to prejudge the final action of the General Assembly but to provide the fullest disclosure of information bearing on an important ecclesiastical development. In line with this objective, we assure the General Council that CHRISTIANITY TODAY will publish the full text of the final draft of the proposed Presbyterian confession, if it is made available simultaneously with its approval for the Blue Book, in an issue that reaches our 250,000 readers a full month before the 1965 General Assembly.—ED.

One has only to read [the] Oct. 23 issue and note the contrast between Calvin’s stand on the Bible (p. 16) and the new confession on the Bible (p. 39) to understand how far these church leaders have departed from the truth and that confusion and error radiate from the top down, not from the humble man in the pew.…

Tucson, Ariz.

Hooray for the Presbyterians! By drafting a new confession that speaks relevantly and honestly to contemporary life the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., like the United Church of Christ, will become a “reforming and uniting” church, what God and Jesus intended for every Church.…

Immanuel United Church of Christ

Hinsdale, Ill.

When you fundies get to seeking God’s Kingdom with 1 per cent of the zeal you have in promoting the Virgin Birth, inerrancy of the Scriptures, premillenarianism, etc., then there will be a “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” and an advance in the Kingdom that neither the Apostle Paul, nor Jesus himself, ever dreamed.… The Presbyterian Church

Dimmitt, Tex.

In your criticism of the Presbyterians’ new statement of faith, you seem disturbed that there is “no mention of hell.” I do not find any such mention in either the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, which have for centuries been accepted as standards of belief in the Christian Church. Are they therefore also to be condemned?…

Cattaraugus, N.Y.

• The Apostles’ Creed: “… He descended into hell.…”—ED.

Its adoption will end forever the practice of subscribing to the Westminster Confession of Faith with fingers crossed and tongue in cheek. Its adoption will end forever the “relationship” of that church to historic Calvinism. Its adoption will drop the mask of Presbyterianism, and indicate that the field of Reformed doctrine has been left entirely to other churches to occupy and defend. For this development we should thank God and take courage. For now perhaps people will believe us when we make the claim to be the spiritual succession to the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. The clearing of the air is good to see.

The Garden Grove Orthodox Presbyterian Garden Grove, Calif.

New Wineskins Welcome

Thanks for the article (“Dare We Hope for Renewal of the Church?,” Oct 9 issue) by T. Leo Brannon.

All Methodist General Board people are not horrified of the idea of doing away with the church school, and considerable discussion has revolved around this possibility. Some staff members have made proposals in this direction. The deepest concern among the staff of the Division of the Local Church is for a more effective teaching ministry in the church. New wineskins are welcome to bring this about.

Division of the Local Church

Board of Education

The Methodist Church

Nashville, Tenn.

To suggest that we might “junk” the church school as a step toward the renewal of the Church is preposterous! One might accuse almost anything today as being stereotyped and sterile, but the statistics prove that the Sunday school has, in evangelical circles at least, been on the upgrade since the formation of the National Sunday School Association in 1945.

While T. Leo Brannon and others consider “junking” the church school or “ignoring” it, millions of Americans will be attending the ever-enlarging Sunday schools of today and tomorrow. The thousands of churches who have caught the challenge of an effective program of Christian education have enlarged their facilities; improved standards have been established; teachers are being trained; and today’s materials published in unprecedented quantities convey the message of God’s Word to every age-level of the whole family. While others suggest ignoring the Sunday school, NSSA is on the move to encourage America’s Sunday schools to double in this decade.

National Sunday School

Executive Director

Association

Chicago, Ill.

I advocate the need and value of study groups which lack fervor at present, but the church school is far from being obsolete. One hour on Sunday is not a lot of time to teach anyone, but it is better than nothing at all.…

McKeesport, Pa.

EXPERIENCE CONFIRMS

I felt I should express how very much I am impressed with “Letter to a Seminarian” (Sept. 25 issue). After fifteen years in the pastoral ministry I understand an article like this one.…

First Methodist

Bangor, Me.

CHALLENGE OF LEISURE

The editorial “The Triple Revolution” (Sept. 11 issue) points out the dangers of a suggested solution to the economic problems which cybernation presents. Let us hope, however, that Christians will come forth with positive suggestions.…

If we can avoid a nuclear holocaust (which would destroy both the problem and the civilization which created it), the trend toward a shorter work week and more leisure time will certainly continue. A higher percentage of our young people will have the opportunity to continue their education beyond high school, and longer post-graduate training programs will be required in many professions. Such programs have the advantage of keeping young people from the labor market until they are in their mid-twenties (or later). The number of working years will be further shortened by earlier retirement.

Those of us who insist that man does not live by bread alone should rejoice in the opportunity for a fuller life which automation will make possible. Education in the techniques for earning a living must be supplemented by education in the art of living a life. Leisure may provide the opportunity for mischief, but it may also afford an opportunity for the cultivation of the spiritual and cultural aspects of life. Church and school will both be challenged to help our youth (in particular) to find a more useful, meaningful life.

On the negative side, automation eliminates thousands of jobs, resulting in economic chaos among those unable to find other work. The Christian conscience must seeks ways and means of assisting those who face job dislocation to meet their immediate economic problems and to find the employment which will restore meaning and self-respect to their lives.…

Assoc. Prof. of Ancient Literature

Central Michigan University

Mount Pleasant, Mich.

Instead of clouding the scene by warning of the “evils of socialism,” your writer should seek to square with the situation described by these perceptive and concerned analysts. While we may feel compelled to insist on the continued relevancy of St. Paul’s admonition connecting working and eating, there is no theological reason to demand that General Motors, rather than Uncle Sam, does the employing!…

Goshen, Ind.

WITHIN THE DRAB OF COMMON DAY

I was very much interested in reading Mack B. Stokes’s article titled, “The Call to the Ministry” (Sept. 25 issue).… As one of two lay members for a period of ten years on the Commission on Christian Higher Education of the Augustana Lutheran Synod, I feel that I can submit herewith a few observations on the subject, since it was discussed many times at the meetings of the commission during my tenure.

The call to the ministry is not magical or mystical, though the supernatural is interwoven with it. It can be explored if, to quote an ancient master of the Church, a man “goes up into the tribunal of his conscience and sets himself before himself.” Spiritual experience, favoring providences that have cleared the road educationally, reasonable intellectual gifts, a friendly disposition, a burning sense of loyalty to Christ, and, last, an urge that holds him from rival engrossments and drives him toward his kingdom of opportunity—these are the requisites that warrant the confidence that he is commandeered for stewardship within the house of God. No more is needed or wanted to rid him of any misty frame of mind, any fog of indefiniteness, any haunting uncertainty, regarding his consecration. He has buttressing evidences that neither accident nor chance has led him on, that within the drab of common day there has reached him an edict born in the eternities and immensities. The voice of duty and the voice of privilege bid him believe that Christ has stamped him with the seal of His appointment.…

McGregor, Minn.

Theology

The Ecumenical Movement Threatens Protestantism

Henry A. Buchanan And Bob W. Brown

The American religious system is under fire today. A legacy of the Protestant Reformation, the system that provides us such a variety of churches is being challenged and questioned by the suddenly popular ecumenical movement. Launching a zealous crusade to unite Christendom, the ecumenists have declared that a divided Body of Christ is a sin and a scandal. In fact, however, it is the ecumenical movement that presents the real danger. It could lead to creation of an ecclesiastical power structure that bears no resemblance to anything envisioned by Jesus of Nazareth. What is worse, in striving after a superchurch, we may destroy the heritage of diversity that has enriched our spiritual life. And still worse, Protestants may be pressured or lured into creeds and positions that will compromise their religious beliefs.

The ecumenical movement has been given a tremendous thrust by the Second Vatican Council and by Rome’s overtures to the Orthodox and Protestant communions. Following the lead of John XXIII, the Vatican Council has held out to the “separated brethren” a tentative offer of “reunion.” An equally powerful thrust has come from non-Catholic leaders, who entertain the hope that the church may achieve the unity which would lend authority to their pronouncements on social issues. Inside American Protestantism, meanwhile, machinery has been set in motion to unite four major Protestant bodies in this country—the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and the United Church of Christ. (The last already represents a union of two churches.) At the same time a “climate” is being created, through Protestant-Catholic “dialogue,” in which it is hoped that an agreement can be reached.

With so much pressure behind the ecumenical movement, one may wonder why the walls of denominationalism do not crumble into dust immediately. The truth is that the doctrinal differences represent the honest convictions of sincere men who do not see alike on basic issues. To expect these men to dissolve their differences in the heady elixir of church union is to assume that the issues for which men have suffered and died are not really important, that Luther and Calvin and Knox and Wesley, and all their spiritual descendants down to this day, have been haggling over nonessentials. Are we not witnessing in the ecumenical movement the birth of a new and frightening form of religious bigotry—the assumption that anyone who holds out for his views is guilty of a perversely obstinate and un-Christian attitude?

What about these doctrinal differences that divide Christendom? Can honest men cast them on the refuse heap for the sake of unity? Does church union really tower like a Mount Everest over all other doctrines? Will “dialogue” dissolve disagreement on such basic doctrines as baptism, Lord’s Supper, religious liberty, church government, and the role of the Virgin Mary?

To illustrate the dilemma, take the Marian controversy. The bishops at the Vatican Council can divide over such a technicality as whether the mother of Jesus should be included in the schema on the church or whether she should have a separate schema of her own. But this does not touch the essential fact that the Roman Catholic Church has already issued two dogmas concerning Mary which are rejected by Protestants. In 1854 Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Mary’s freedom from original sin—the Immaculate Conception—and in 1950 Pius XII decreed that Mary had ascended bodily into heaven—the dogma of the Assumption.

Will the Catholic Church decide now that Mary was born, died, and was buried like other women, in order to make Marian dogma acceptable to Protestants? Very unlikely. Then will Protestants accept Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption in order to get back into the church? Apparently they must, if reunion is to be accomplished. Catholic leaders have implied a willingness on Rome’s part to soften Catholic views on some of the more controversial differences—but the more conservative Vatican spokesmen are quick to point out that while new and more acceptable explanations will be given for the church’s positions, there will be no surrender of what the church has proclaimed as dogma.

Will “dialogue” dissolve the difference on the meaning, purpose, and method of baptism? Presbyterians and Methodists baptize by sprinkling; Nazarenes and the Church of Christ baptize by immersion; Roman Catholics baptize babies for salvation, the Christian churches baptize adults for salvation, and Baptists do not believe that baptism saves anyone. Can the various views of the Lord’s Supper somehow be reconciled by discussion? To Lutherans the Communion represents the real presence of Christ, the Baptists see it as a memorial service, and the Roman Catholics believe that it is a means of acquiring saving grace.

Liberty And Conscience

And what about some of the differences in the way men live? Take birth control, for instance. The population explosion is a moral issue. Without some sort of birth control, the increase in population will continue to exceed the increase in production of food for the already starving millions on the earth. Birth control is an issue which must be seen in theological perspective. The Roman Catholic Church has taken the position that the use of artificial means of contraception is contrary to natural law and is immoral. Many Protestant theologians hold that the concern for partners in marriage and for the children must take precedence over concern for the methods used in limiting the size of the family. The complexity of the population problem indicates the need for more than one view of the issue. We must not let one church’s views dominate. We need many creative approaches to solve a problem as massive as overpopulation.

Take another practical matter: religious liberty. This is a principle for which men have suffered imprisonment and even death. When the Roman Catholic Church talks about religious liberty, it is talking about the right to preach and practice Catholicism in Communist countries such as Poland. But when Baptists talk about religious freedom, they are talking about equal rights with Catholics in Spain and Portugal.

What is the aim of the ecumenists? Protestant ecumenists talk about Catholics and Protestants reaching out toward each other, and meeting on ground which neither Catholic nor Protestant can now envision. But let us look at the facts. The Vatican Council is actually aimed at updating the Roman Catholic Church to meet the challenges of the present and the future. Roman Catholic theologians are not talking about a compromise with Protestants. They are talking about “the return to the one church under the one pontiff”—the words of the theological adviser to the Dutch hierarchy at the Second Vatican Council. Some Catholic theologians do recognize the necessity for changes in the structure and outward appearance of the church, as is evidenced by the changes the Vatican Council has approved for the Catholic liturgy. But they solemnly warn Protestants against hoping for any kind of compromise. Liberal and conservative Catholic spokesmen disagree as to whether doctrine and teaching authority can change significantly in the interest of ecumenism, but they agree completely that reunion could come about only one way: The separated brethren would have to return to the “one true church” under the successor of Peter. In the schema on ecumenism offered to the Vatican Council, the Protestant churches are not recognized as churches at all, but as “communities.” Obviously, to dissolve and absorb these “Protestant communities” is the aim of Catholic ecumenists.

Many churchmen who favor a Protestant-Catholic dialogue are deceiving themselves. Through a dialogue, they seem to believe, differences can be discussed dispassionately, a common heritage can be shared, and the voice of Christendom can be heard on current social and moral issues. Advocates of dialogue seem to feel that the very fact that Protestants and Catholics—and Jews—have communicated is just as significant as any conclusions they might reach. This may be due to the fact that when they are honest they do not come to much agreement. We must ask whether this is a harmless flirtation which is at best a waste of time, and at worst an indulgence in self-deception by which the “broadminded” are being led to accept the basic tenets of ecumenism.

Suppose that the ecumenical movement should succeed. Suppose that all the churches unite into one, and that this one church becomes the sole repository of religious doctrine, the sole arbiter of man’s spiritual destiny. Where will the dissenter, the nonconformist, the individualist go? Where will a man go if he finds himself at variance with a doctrine or, worse still, the governing authority of that one church? The ultimate theological implications of the one-church concept are obvious. There would be only one place for the dissenter. The one church would say he must go to hell.

A Monopoly On Heaven

If this sounds extreme, then look again at the church in Europe in the years before the Protestant Reformation, when Christendom was cloaked in a seamless robe. The pride of the papacy reached its zenith when Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) forced the Emperor Henry IV to stand bare-footed in the snow at Canossa on seventeen consecutive days before he would permit him to resume his reign. Rome was sometimes dissolute, as in the reign of the Borgias, while priests who held a monopoly on heaven dispensed indulgences for a price. And hanging like a pall over the whole scene was the stench of human flesh burning, grim reminder of the heretic’s fate.

We are afraid of a superchurch, just as we are afraid of a superstate, and not because of a lack of faith in God. What we recognize is the fact that man cannot be trusted without checks and balances upon his power and authority—not even in the church. The various branches of Christendom now act as checks and balances, one upon the other, and they have a purifying effect on each other. Remove this tension, and we could be back to the pre-Reformation struggle between church and state with the individual man caught in the middle. Moreover, each of the branches—Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Nazarene, Adventist, whatever it may be—throws a different ray of light on the Christ figure in our midst. Each one has a special emphasis and consequently shows our world another facet of the glory of God who, in his creativity, apparently set a high value on diversity.

There are indeed some things that all Christians hold in common. There are also some essential differences that divide us, and the differences are as important as those things we hold in common, for they enrich the common heritage. We can see no valid reason why agreement on the significance of Mary, for example, should be a test of whether a man is a Christian.

We must ask ourselves the searching question: What is the real purpose of the church in the world? Is church union the goal? Is bigness the end in itself? Is power the purpose? No, the church is here so that lonely, frightened men may find a refuge and a friend, that sinful men may find forgiveness and acceptance, that bruised and crippled men may find healing and strength, that men who hunger for righteousness may band together to form a more righteous society, and that men who thirst after godliness may dedicate themselves to a life of service. If church union would contribute to the achievement of these ends, then we would be for it. But history teaches us that “the one church” soon becomes the repository of pride and power and gives very little attention to the real needs of man.

True, the Roman Catholic Church is seeking, through the Vatican Council, to reform, renew, and bring itself up to date. But it is questionable whether the reform movement would happen now if it were not for the “separated brethren” who have helped make Rome aware of her own needs. If the “separated brethren” reunite with Rome, this influence for reform will be eliminated.

Was the Protestant Reformation a great mistake? Is the big task before us now the undoing of the Reformation? What we need to do is not to annul the Reformation but to complete it.

The American religious community, in an atmosphere of freedom not experienced anywhere else in the world, has created a multitude of sects, denominations, and churches. In the struggle for acceptance on the part of the newer sects, and for continued support on the part of the older, more “respectable” churches, bitterness and acrimony have often erupted. But the churches have grown strong in this atmosphere. They have won the loyalty and support of their adherents, as they have given to individuals something distinctive with which they could identify themselves. The churches have spurred one another by criticizing one another. And they have helped to deliver society itself from the leveling, deadening effect of a trend toward conformity. In offering man a choice, a choice between Catholic and Protestant, between Baptist and Methodist, between Presbyterian and Pentecostal, between an organized church and free thought, our pluralistic religious community has given the individual man the opportunity and the challenge to follow the Christ who cannot be confined to any one church nor yet to all the churches.

What we need is not more uniformity but more diversity in which the unlimited grace of God can find additional channels to reach the needs of men. Instead of one church under one human and mortal head, we need many churches. We do, indeed, worship one God, but it is highly unlikely that any one church will exhaust the wisdom and the wonder of his revelation of himself to the world.

If we had no choice? It must never come to that. We must retain the right of choice. We will not accept the judgment of the ecumenists upon the churches.

SHADES OF RED

I suggest two major changes in attitudes, assumptions, and expectations:

The first is that we should emphasize more than we do the intangible or qualitative consequences of nuclear war. It is not enough to estimate the number of casualties for the sake of freedom. But in all probability freedom would be a casualty of nuclear war for a longer time than it would be a casualty of Communist power. The changes under Communism make the old “red or dead” contrast quite meaningless today. Polish “red” is different from Chinese “red”.…

Military defeat need not mean surrender to tyranny; rather it might be the beginning of resourceful resistance at many levels.…

My second suggestion is that we abandon the assumption that at some stage in a conflict it would be permissible for the United States to be the first to use nuclear weapons.… When the chips are down, anything would be better than for our nation to be the one that initiates the nuclear stage of a war, making itself a nation of destroyers as well as a nation of the destroyed, and ending most of the continuities of corporate human life perhaps in the northern hemisphere.—DR. JOHN C. BENNETT, president, Union Theological Seminary, in Moral Tensions in International Affairs (a pamphlet), 1964, pp. 23 f.

Theology

Revelation in History

The Editor

Fourth in a Series (Part I)

The long failure of German theology to reject the existential-dialectical notion that the historical aspects of the Christian revelation are dispensable gave to Continental dogmatics something of the atmosphere of an exclusive private club. Membership was restricted mainly to scholars who shared the speculative dogma that spiritual truth cannot be unified with historical and scientific truth. They therefore emphasized the kerygmatic Christ at the expense of the Jesus of history, isolated Christianity from answerability to scientific and historical inquiry, and detached theology from philosophic truth.

Meanwhile British and American theologians and exegetes—whether conservative or liberal and despite sharp differences over the role and outcome of historical criticism—retained a lively interest in historical concerns. Most Anglo-Saxon biblical scholars still repose bold confidence in the historical method. They view the Gospels somewhat as historical source documents, carry forward the research effort to reconstruct the life of Jesus, stress the kerygma’s connection with specifically historical factors, and assume generally the concrete historical character of divine revelation.

The current renewal of European interest in biblical history and its bearing on divine revelation encourages many scholars to hope that for the first time theologians and exegetes in America, Britain, and Europe as well may at long last join in theological conversation. Since British and American scholars currently hold a considerable head start in their commitment to historical concerns, some observers feel that non-Europeans could in fact wrest away the theological initiative long held by the German professors.

Most of today’s unrest in Bultmannian circles results from the present sprawling interest in historical questions. Some pro-Bultmannian scholars, of course, still invoke radical historical criticism in support of existentialist exegesis; Conzelmann, for example, insists that the bare fact of Jesus’ historical existence is the only datum that can be historically fixed. Even the post-Bultmannian “new quest” for the historical Jesus reflects a continuing loyalty to Ritschl’s and Herrmann’s subordination of the knowledge of God to faith or trust, so that its historical interest does not lead to evangelical results. But many post-Bultmannians at least share Fuchs’s emphasis that “the historical Jesus of the nineteenth century was not really the historical Jesus, but [that] the Jesus of the New Testament, the Jesus of revelation, is.” Bultmann’s kerygmatic Christology closed the door in principle to any movement behind the kerygma to the historical Jesus. At the same time, he nowhere explains why, on his premises, any continuity whatever is necessary between the historical cross and the preached cross of the kerygma; nor why, since he insists on this limited continuity, other historical aspects embraced by the kerygma must be excluded.

Yet what sets off post-Bultmannian interest in the historical Jesus from that of the Heilsgeschichte scholars is its refusal to regard the historical Jesus as decisive for faith, and also its emphasis that faith requires no historical supports. The salvation-history scholars, by contrast, investigate the revelation-significance of God’s acts in history.

Some post-Bultmannians, it is true, take a position at the very edge of Heilsgeschichte concerns. Günther Bornkamm, for example, argues that the Heilsgeschichte concept cannot be renounced but must be redefined. “Faith must be interested in history,” says Bornkamm, “because the name of Jesus in our confession is not a mere word but an historical person.” Yet he centers historical interest in the content of Jesus’ preaching. He rejects antithesizing history and experience, and stresses that while revelation does not (as he sees it) take place in “history itself,” it does occur in the encounter “which belongs to history.” Unlike Heilsgeschichtescholars, who locate the meaning of history in sacred history, Bornkamm insists that the essence of history is still to be decided. “We are ourselves part of the drama of history and salvation-history. The meaning of history is not given as a Heilsgeschichte drama or series of past events of which we are spectators, and to which we need only relate ourselves to accept the divine gift.”

Bornkamm complains, moreover, that Ernst Kasemann’s view of the relevance of Jewish apocalyptic for Christian faith is contestable. Käsemann, who presses the question of the meaning of certain acts of God for Christian proclamation, stresses over against Bultmann that the real center of primitive Christian proclamation was not the believing subject but rather the interpretation of the eschatological teaching with its anticipation of final fulfillment. The New Testament message, he says, is the proclamation of an apocalyptic event.

Historical Revelation

Heilsgeschichte positions differ from post-Bultmannian perspectives in emphasizing that the saving deeds of God supply a ground of faith: Christian faith is faith not only in the kerygmatic Christ but also in the historical Jesus. All Heilsgeschichte scholars insist on an integral connection between the saving deeds of God and Christian faith.

Not all members of the salvation-history movement today speak unreservedly of historical revelation, and none would go the distance of the old Erlangen Heilsgeschichte school. Their approach sometimes does not transcend an application to New Testament studies of Gerhard von Rad’s positions in Old Testament study. Von Rad rejects the old Erlangen view of history as a process whose inner meaning can be demonstrated, and his emphasis on the Old Testament as a collection of confessional traditions of salvation-history leaves the historical and confessional factors unsurely related. He does not regard Jesus’ life and work as a direct fulfillment of particular Old Testament prophecies and promises; rather, with the contemporary Heilsgeschichte school, he views Jesus as fulfilling the general Old Testament picture only in the broad sense of archetype and type. All Heilsgeschichte scholars reject the bare Religionsgeschichte view that Jesus incarnates the universal spirit or idea; they look instead in the direction of Von Rad’s emphasis that the Old Testament must be interpreted (independently of all developments of non-biblical religions) as the history of God which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ; and that the New Testament must be interpreted (independently of all religious developments in the old world) as the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

While a mildly conservative New Testament scholar like Goppelt of Hamburg is congenial to these positions, some conservative scholars view the Heilsgeschichte wing as little else than a more positive movement of the critical school. The problem is dramatized by the fact that many Heilsgeschichte scholars, for all their larger emphasis on biblical history, still hesitate to regard the meaning of salvation as objectively given and accessible. Instead, they continue to speak of religious experience or decision as a fulcrum of revelation. Although he insists that the Old Testament is strictly a Heilsgeschichte process, Goppelt refuses to hold that divine revelation is given in history, and retains a dialectical perspective despite differences with Bultmann and Barth. Invoking the Lutheran formula of “in, with, and under,” he asserts that it is too much to say that the Word is revealed in history.

For the sake of clarity we shall compare the viewpoints of the Heilsgeschichte scholars and of the traditional conservative scholars. Both schools agree that divine revelation and redemption are objective historical realities. They both admit that the sacred biblical events, like all past happenings, are not accessible to empirical observation, although from written sources these events are knowable to historians by the same methods of research used in the study of secular history.

What, then, of the meaning of the biblical events? Surely even the immediate observers, whether Pharisees or apostles, could not have learned this by mere observation. The spiritual meaning of these sacred events is divinely given, not humanly postulated. Here again Heilsgeschichte and conservative scholars agree.

But how is this divine meaning of sacred history given to faith? Conservative scholars insist that the historian need not shift to some mystical ground or suprarational existential experience to discern it. For the New Testament documents as they testify to divine deed-revelation give or are themselves divine truth-revelation; that is to say, the divinely given interpretation of the saving events is contained within the authoritative record of the events themselves. Or to put it another way, the divine saving events include, as a climax, the divine communication of the meaning of those events, objectively given in the inspired Scriptures. While nobody can infer the meaning of the biblical events from empirical observation or historical inquiry, the doctrines of Christianity are accessible to the historian in the form of the New Testament verbal revelation of God’s acts and purposes. Historical investigation deals with the scriptural documents that record the historical disclosure of God’s suprahistorical redemptive plan. When conservative scholars assert that God’s revelation in history is not found by scientific research but is given to faith, they mean that the Holy Spirit illumines the minds of men to accept the scriptural revelation of the meaning of the events of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. That the truth of apostolic interpretation is grasped only by faith and our acceptance of Scripture is a work of the Holy Spirit is a constant evangelical emphasis.

The Heilsgeschichte scholars compromise the conservative view because of their prior critical rejection of the historic Christian understanding of revelation in terms of the infallible divine communication of propositional truths. Their emphasis falls instead upon individual spiritual encounter not only as the focal point of illumination but as the focal point of the revelation of divine meaning. While they insist that revelation is objectively given in historical events, they suspend the knowability of the meaning of that revelation upon subjective decision and isolate it from divine truths and doctrines objectively and authoritatively given in the inspired Scriptures.

A Case In Point

Werner Georg Kümmel of Marburg, a spokesman for the salvation-history school, insists that divine revelation “exists only in response,” although his exposition of this perspective includes many conservative facets.

“Revelation is given not only in history but even in historical events and the interpretations connected with these events. Historical critical research is therefore indispensable for faith that wants to know about the events and the interpretation connected with them. But research can find out only the events or the reflex of the events (e.g., of the resurrection of Christ) and the claim of the participants to interpret these events in the way God wants. Whether this claim is correct, research cannot find out, but only faith. So we never find revelation in history by scientific research. But we can clarify and make clear that their claim and our faith attached to this claim are founded in an event that really gives the sufficient ground for this faith. So faith does not depend on historic research but needs it as soon as faith begins to reflect on itself, for faith does not only need the certainty of the event-basis but also the good conscience of not being built in the air.”

As Kümmel sees it, by historical research one finds in scripture both the sacred events and the meaning adduced as the kerygma connected with those events. But, he insists, the unbeliever cannot disallow “the factuality of the events and the factuality of the interpretation given them by the apostolic witnesses, (whereas) the validity of these interpretations is grasped only by personal response in faith”—in response, moreover, that must be “a reasoned response.” Apart from his disjunction of fact from meaning (and not simply of objective event from subjective appropriation), it should be clear that Kümmel struggles to elevate the meaning of saving history above a theology of decision. Yet he balks at an objectively-given scriptural interpretation which is to be appropriated, as in the conservative tradition, as authoritative propositional information. For Kümmel distinguishes proclamation from information and, moreover, subjects the scriptural meaning of salvation-history to possibilities of critical revision. In view of his appeal to “the character of faith as response to a proclamation and not to an information,” and of his consequent insistence that the believer “cannot simply repeat what has been said by others, but must try to understand and, perhaps, to reformulate or to criticize the aptness of the apostolic interpretations,” one must ask Kümmel what post-apostolic criteria and what non-historical ways of knowing are available for this task. Surely we cannot object to the need for understanding (what Paul said), rather than mere unintelligible repetition; but what is it to criticize Paul’s interpretation? Does this mean that we can amend or replace the scriptural interpretation with one of our own? That may not reduce to a “theology of decision,” but it does imply the acceptance of a norm inconsistent with and independent of Scripture. By distinguishing proclamation from information, moreover, Kümmel seems to imply that proclamation contains no information, hence is not true as an account of what happened.

The predicament of the Heilsgeschichte scholars, therefore, lies in regarding history as an avenue of divine disclosure but suspending the meaning of that revelation upon subjective factors. If Bultmann was content to connect Old and New Testaments in decision (and even then viewed the former only in terms of negative antithesis), while Heilsgeschichte scholars insist on connecting them historically, the contemporary salvation-history school nonetheless compromises objective historical revelation in a manner that suspends its meaning upon personal response. The intelligibility of revelation remains a matter of private decision. The dilemma confronting this salvation-history compromise is reflected by Nils Ahstrup Dahl of Oslo: “I don’t want to say that all religious affirmations are only subjective emotive affirmations, but I find it hard to state the alternative without surrendering what I want to preserve—the right of historical research to establish truth.”

This bifurcation of divine revelation into a deed-revelation in history and a meaning-revelation in experience has propelled the problem of history to new prominence. In fact, the debate over the definition and meaning of history has become so technical that few scholars any longer feel wholly at home in it. In barest terms, history involves these questions: What relation if any exists between event and meaning? Does one method grasp both event and meaning? Are there bare events as such or only interpretations of historical process? What relation exists between Christological faith and historical fact?

Heinrich Ott, Barth’s successor in Basel, contends that no historical facts whatever exist. Significance is an integral and constitutive element of all historical reality. Reality impresses itself upon us in the form of pictures which we interpret, and from which we abstract “facts.” Hence history, he says, is always of the nature of encounter: all reality merges factual, interpretative, and mythical elements. “God’s seeing”—his purpose and goal in historical events—is said to exclude a purely subjective notion of history, and thereby limits the danger of relativism. But because we stand within history, argues Ott, we can never transfer ourselves to God’s standpoint. It is through the Spirit’s inner testimony that “the knowledge of faith” assures us of having rightly understood the Christ-event.

Instead of detaching historical investigation from the philosophical presuppositions of twentieth-century dialectical-existentialist theory as well as from nineteenth-century naturalism, some recent scholarship stresses an existential relation to history in which historical continuity yields to “personal-ontological continuity.” Hardly surprising, therefore, is Ott’s acknowledgment that “the mystery of historical reality, its ambiguity and depth” are more likely to multiply the historian’s esteem and awe than to reward with striking results the axioms on which historical research is presently conducted.

Many graduate students find the current climate of conflicting exegetical claims so confusing that they are tempted to identify the “assured results” of historical research simply with “what most scholars (now) think.” The definition of history remains so much in debate that more radical students think of history only in terms of historical documents plus the imagination of historians.

Oscar Cullmann views salvation-history as a revelatory activity in which God’s plan is unfolded. His Basel colleague Karl Barth absorbed history into the decrees of God and emptied it of revelation-content by locating justification in creation and by viewing all men as elect in the man-Jesus. For Cullmann, the options are not so predetermined as to nullify revelation and decision in history, although Cullmann objectionably puts time in the nature of God as the means of preserving a genuine distinction between what has happened and what will happen. The concrete historical character of divine disclosure is a controlling emphasis of Cullmann’s thought. God acts in the contingent temporal sphere, and divine revelation takes place in “sacred history”; at the center of this line of time, which reaches from creation to consummation, stands Jesus of Nazareth as the absolute revelation of God. There can be no Heilsgeschichte without Christology, and no Christology without a Heilsgeschichte that unfolds in time, Cullmann contends. While he emphasizes Jesus’ work more than his person, Cullmann insists that one can assuredly possess authentic Christian faith only if one believes the historical fact that Jesus regarded himself as Messiah—a complete inversion of Bultmann at this point. Thus Cullmann views the history of salvation as the locus of divine revelation, anchors revelation in the dimension of historically verifiable facts, and assigns to historical knowledge a relevance for faith that is more in keeping with historical evangelical theology.

Many Heilsgeschichte scholars push Cullmann outside their circle, however, because—like more traditionally conservative men such as Jeremias and Michel—he speaks of Jesus’ messianic self-consciousness (a predication equally distasteful to the post-Bultmannians, Eduard Schweizer excepted). Cullmann’s critics complain that his historical critical investigation is dominated by theological presuppositions—from which they presumably are scot-free in achieving contrary exegetical results!

To be continued…

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube