The Day God Made

Day of Resurrection! “This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” Easter is God’s day, the day of his making. By raising Christ from the dead, God himself made this day of new freedom, new hope, and endless life.

Good Friday was the world’s dark night of sin, the “hour of the power of darkness.” It was the day that we made: Judas betrayed him, Pilate judged him, Peter denied him, his disciples forsook him, the Jews asked for his destruction and the Gentiles complied while men mocked or kept guilty silence. On Friday we had our day; in our freedom and time of opportunity we crucified him. It was the day of our folly, of our sin, the day to which we all contributed.

But God’s day followed ours, and hard upon it, as light follows the darkness. Without our help, God created this day of Easter. To it we made no contribution; such help as those who loved him would tender to him was for a proper embalming. Without our help, Christ arose. For us the day of Resurrection is something to accept as a gift; nothing else is required, except that we rejoice and be glad in it.

The day itself, without a sound of any human voice, is God’s public, cosmic announcement to all the universe that death has been defeated, that he who had the power of death has been destroyed. The Resurrection sounds through all the long reaches of space and history that life and death are not of equal power, and least of all that death is stronger and the last word about human existence. In making this day, God bears witness to Jesus Christ, declaring that he is the resurrection and the life, and that the final disposition of all things, including death, is determined by him. What chance has death, if it cannot hold its prey?

Where else can this be known? What other day announces that life is stronger than death? Surely none of our days, as the experiences of each day testify.

The world has many cynics, men who have seen and experienced so much of life’s diseases that they have concluded that life itself is a disease. They have no hope for what a day may bring forth; they have seen too much of sin and evil, greed and corruption, hatred and violence on every level of human life. These need to know of the day that the Lord has made, in which alone men can accept life and rejoice and be glad; for this day of Resurrection announces to all that where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. Easter announces that righteousness, decency, and kindness are stronger than sin, human corruption, and violence. Only God’s day proclaims this. Having done its worst, what chance has evil in the light of this day? The murdered returns to confront the murderer.

Easter, day of all the years the best. In it God justifies the sinner. To be justified means to have the right to be, the right to live. By this act of Resurrection God gives to those who made the day of Friday, the day of the murder of the Son of God, the right to forgiveness, the right to life and an authentic future, through belief on his name.

On Easter, God justified Jesus Christ, whom he had judged and declared to be worthy of death. He whom God made to be sin and thus made to be subject to death, is justified by God, for God raised him from the dead and gave him life forevermore.

On Easter, God also justified himself, showing to all the world his own righteousness, revealing that he was just and right in all his dealings with Israel, with Jesus Christ, and with us who yet stumble and stagger through the sufferings of this present time and cry, O Lord, how long? On Easter we are assured that sinners can be saved and that their salvation is just, for on this day of Resurrection God demonstrates that he can be righteous and yet justify the ungodly, that he can be “just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” This is the “mystery of godliness,” the religious dimension that transcends mere morality and baffles every earthly jurist, the miracle of grace. And this is the day of grace that the Lord made when he raised Christ “for our justification.”

This day is our only sure defense against all the past and all the future. Since it is God who justifies, who can condemn us and take away our right to live? And since our justification involves God’s justification of himself and of all his ways with men, our justification is sure. Easter is God’s day—the day that the Lord made—as it is the day of his own justification. We are summoned only to share his justification and to accept his day, and to rejoice and be glad in both.

Theology

Easter: The Hidden Victory

But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:57).

A life situation approach leads up to a striking motif: “Put that light back!” Here the light has to do with the Christian conviction that the crucified Lord was not held in the grave, that Christ has conquered sin and death and is alive forevermore. You come to worship either because you know that this is true, or because you wish it were. Let me tell you why I believe that this is “the masterlight of all our seeing,” and that this is a real victory we all can share.

I. An Integral Part of the Gospel. Easter does not mean merely that once upon a time a man rose from the dead. It means that this Man, Jesus Christ the Son of God, could not be held within the boundaries of the grave. To him the Resurrection comes as the climax of a life that is the miracle of all miracles—God manifest on earth.

The victory is not only of one piece with the whole Gospel; the Resurrection is the foundation of the entire New Testament. The infant Church is founded that Christ is really risen from the dead, and is now a living power in the world. (The text!)

II. The Outcome of a Real Struggle. The Easter message comes to us in the midst of our human agony, and speaks of a victory won, won here on this blood-stained earth, where we wrestle with our sins, know the fact of evil, endure suffering, and die. That is where the Light shines, not from an ivory tower, but from a Cross. (Text.)

A religion that leaps from Christmas to Easter is a mere skeleton of faith, a shadowy ghost that cannot bring conviction to our souls. Only when we know the Christ of flesh and blood, only when we have been touched by that hard Cross shaped from the wood of our own forests—only then can we know how true it is that Christ is risen from the dead. Only if somehow, somewhere, we have been with him in the prison-house of pain and sin, can we share the victory that liberates our souls.

III. The Hidden Victory of God. Where is the victory? That is what men ask. Show me the evidence that the power of sin is broken, and the menace of death removed. This is a hidden victory. To a group of very ordinary people it was made known in the quietest possible way. A tremendous demonstration of heavenly power, so universal and compelling that men would have had to believe, would have shattered human nature, and we should have ceased to be real, responsive, responsible men and women. To this day the evidence of the Resurrection is found in lives where Christ is King, lives that know the inner working of his Spirit, men and women who know what it is to say: “O death, where is thy sting?” (Here quote First Corinthians 15:55–57; also, after a moving paragraph of prose, a portion of John Masefield’s poem, The Everlasting Mercy.)

Here is the victory that the Christian Church offers you this morning: the knowledge that Christ is the Conqueror of sin and death, with the promise of his transforming power. In the midst of our ordinary tasks, where our anxious world crowds in on us from day to day, we listen with the inner ear to the trumpets of His victory. Let them sound again. Put that light back! For there at Calvary and in the Easter Garden the victory is won. And here in the sanctuary it is given to you. We have troubles enough to contend with and are often threatened with defeat in our souls. “But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”—From I Am Persuaded, Scribner’s, 1962, pp. 149–57.

Theology

Current Religious Thought: March 13, 1964

The “antithesis” has been a subject of debate among Christians since the beginnings of the Church. While all sought to bow before the imperial demands of Jesus Christ, not all have agreed on the meaning and implications of the “antithesis.” Christians have accused Christians on this point. Some have rebuked others for not taking the antithesis with full earnestness, for watering down the clear distinction made by the Bible: “What fellowship has light with darkness, or what does the believer have in common with the unbeliever?” Others have been fearful lest some of their brethren be too simplistic, absolutistic, and thus irresponsible in their relations with the non-confessing world. While all sought to reckon with the antithesis, some thought the others were relativistic and others thought some were absolutistic.

The question has usually not been whether there is an antithesis. The problem is rather to discover where the line is drawn and what the practical implications for it are. There is always the possibility of our constructing an antithesis along lines drawn where we want them to be, according to our judgments and prejudices. This is the possibility of Pharisaism. Pharisees are always very antithesis-conscious; but they draw the line of separation across an area not recognized by God.

In Jeremiah’s day there was an antithesis accepted by many Israelites. It was expressed in the slogan: “The Temple of the Lord,” suggesting that the antithesis divided those guaranteed God’s blessing by the possession of the temple from those who had no temple and hence no divine favor. Their concept of antithesis was the product of self-delusion and pretension. Assuming themselves to be on God’s side of the antithesis, they brought God’s judgment upon themselves because of their pride.

In Jesus’ day, the Pharisees made a division between the law-keepers and the publicans, or the law-keepers and those who did not know the law. The concept of antithesis was a pretense used by the Pharisees for their own self-justification. It becomes clear that the recognition of an antithesis is not a guarantee of being on the Lord’s side. The Pharisees knew nothing of grace, and by their obsession with the law they removed the key to knowledge (Luke 11:52). And when Jesus accused them, they assumed that Jesus fell on the wrong side of the antithesis; therefore they judged Him. This happens when one allows the bare notion of an antithesis between God and the world to obscure the truth of the Gospel of grace.

The antithesis implicit in the Gospel (“he who is not with me is against me”) does not carry with it a demand for isolation from others. Paul remarks that had this been the case, we would have had to be removed from the world (1 Cor. 5:10). The biblical antithesis has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with human pride. It has much to do with Christians’ shining as lights in the world (Phil. 2:15), with their fulfilling the new commandment of love, with their being lights so that people will glorify God (Matt. 5:16). The antithesis is always an implicit command and responsibility; it is never the description of a status quo that provides an excuse for the pride of fools.

To talk about the antithesis implies an enormous responsibility. For the antithesis has to do with the preaching of the Gospel. This is why Paul was so profoundly moved by the thought. He knew that Christ evoked an “anti” sentiment, that the Cross had its enemies. But he says this with tears. And this is not a cheap sentimentality; it is profound Christian passion. He knew that enmity against the Lord of Glory is pure folly and groundless hatred. He knew that Christ was hated without reason. Paul had an eye for this hostility, and it made him weep as a child weeps. And then, then his life was filled with the dynamic of the passionate apostolate, zeal for this Lord who is hated without cause. Only he who has a share in the experience of Paul is able honestly and responsibly to talk about the antithesis.

Without this passion, the person who talks much about the antithesis is likely only to be building a spiritual pedestal for himself. The person of the antithesis is, first of all, a person for something, namely the Lord. In the depths of his salvation the antithesis becomes meaningful. In the spirit of him who came, not to judge the world but that the world through him might be saved, the antithesis becomes a motive for love and action. In this atmosphere, Pharisaism is out of place, and false antitheses are exposed.

A warning against a cheap antithesis may not be unneeded. False antitheses obscure the Gospel that must be preached to all creatures. If we have a good eye for the real contradictions that run through the world, we go into action. If we pose our own antitheses, we are inclined to sit back and enjoy our favored status. Informed by the biblical antithesis, we are forced to recall that the sun of God’s grace had to dispel the darkness that shrouded our own lives. We remember that only one slogan is really meaningful: “Go then, lights in the world, witnesses of the Lord, in word and deed, and bring the Good News to those who are without a Shepherd.” And go remembering that the Lord who sends you was moved to compassion when he saw the shepherdless souls.

Victory for Italian Protestants

Italian evangelicals are testing the benign attitude now being expressed toward Protestants in Vatican circles. For more than a year students of Rome’s Italian Bible Institute have been preaching weekly without difficulty in the main squares of that city. Except for the Salvation Army and a rare Pentecostal foray, street meetings were almost an unheard-of occurrence in Italy until cases won before the Constitutional Court in the last two years convinced Protestants that they had been granted unlimited freedom.

February 10, however, authorities in the Adriatic city of Foggia (pop. 150,000) looked askance on Protestant efforts to take their message into the public squares. Members of Foggia’s Plymouth Brethren Assembly had advised the police that the students of the Italian Bible Institute would be preaching in several squares on three afternoons during an evangelistic campaign to be conducted in their hall by the visitors from Rome. Although no permission was needed, the police blandly denied them their constitutional rights and warned that any such attempts would end in arrest. Two meetings were called off.

Not to be put off, faculty members of the Rome institute challenged the police to consult their local bishop quickly for, like it or not, the Vatican’s seeming good will toward Protestants was going to be tested in the main square of the city. Even vehement threats from the provincial head of the government secret service did not turn back the determined group.

At five P.M., under the scowling surveillance of twenty uniformed police, the small band of evangelicals gathered in the heart of the city, unpacked an accordion, and began to sing a hymn. As the director of the institute, the Rev. Royal L. Peck, began to speak to the gathering crowd, an officer stepped up and demanded that he cease preaching. Not to be denied, Mr. Peck politely asked the officer to desist from interfering with a constitutionally legal religious meeting and stated he would be happy to answer for his actions later before the Chief Commissar. The officer stepped back into the crowd, and the meeting continued for thirty-five minutes.

As soon as the crowd disbanded, Director Peck and another faculty member, Bernard Oxenham, were whisked away to police headquarters. But the bluff had been called, and after a brief inspection of their passports and residence permits the two men were released without charge.

Local Protestants interpreted the affair as a striking victory for liberty, indicating that the Gospel may be preached openly in spite of police denials and threats of arrest. As a result of this initial clear-cut victory, plans are under way for two months of open-air evangelism by both the Pentecostals and the Brethren of that southern province.

Protestant Panorama

Nine Lutheran pastors in the established Church of Sweden have resigned from the ministry in protest against their church’s decision to ordain women, according to a report of Ecumenical Press Service.

Deaths

THE RT. REV. RICHARD R. EMERY, 53, head of the Protestant Episcopal Missionary District of North Dakota; in a car-train collision at Grand Forks, North Dakota. Killed in the same accident were the REV. EDWIN L. BIGELOW, 39, chaplain at the University of North Dakota, his wife, and their seven-year-old daughter, and an eighteen-year old student.

DR. JOHN ABERLY, 96, retired president of the Lutheran Theological Seminary; in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

United Presbyterian Commission on Religion and Race is appropriating funds for “legal outposts” designed to help persons arrested in civil rights cases. The outposts are being established by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

American Baptist General Council is taking steps to promote organization of a “North American Baptist Fellowship” to be related to the Baptist World Alliance. Stated purpose is “to continue the gains and values growing out of the Baptist Jubilee Advance.”

Miscellany

A dynamite charge destroyed the home of an American missionary family in central Viet Nam and injured its three occupants. The blast was believed to have been set off by Communist guerrillas. The injured were Mr. and Mrs. Roy Spraggett and a small daughter. They serve under the Worldwide Evangelization Crusade.

Cadets at the U. S. Air Force Academy protested the school’s chapel-attendance requirement in letters to the Denver Post.

The entire Jesuit missionary force in Haiti was expelled last month. Action against the eighteen priests and brothers—all from Canada—was taken on grounds of alleged anti-government activity. They denied the charge.

The Evangelical Church in West Berlin declined an invitation to participate in the Communist-endorsed Christian Peace Conference to be held in Prague in June. Leaders of at least two other West German churches have indicated a willingness to cooperate.

A $1,000,000 Student Center is under construction at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas. Target date for completion is November of this year. Southwestern is the world’s largest Protestant seminary.

The Gospel of John of The New Japanese Bible went on sale throughout Japan. It is being produced under the sponsorship of numerous evangelical groups in the country in cooperation with the Lockman Foundation. The complete New Testament is scheduled for release at the end of the year.

The 1964 summer program at Pinebrook, one of the largest and best-known Bible conference grounds in America, will be under the direction of Church Centered Evangelism, Inc. Director Ross S. Rhoads announced a ten-week program for “inspirational vacationing” in the Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania, resort. The camp is owned by the widow of the late Percy Crawford, founder, and is being operated by Rhoads’s organization under a lease agreement.

Fire swept the campus of Methodist-related Columbia (South Carolina) College, causing some $2,000,000 damage. Mary Hardin-Baylor College in Belton, Texas, also was hit by a costly fire that destroyed its administration building.

Personalia

Dr. Billy Graham chosen to receive the Upper Room Citation for 1964.

Dr. James F. Hopewell, 34, named director of the Theological Education Fund of the World Council of Churches. He will assume office next September and will succeed Dr. Charles W. Ranson, who is retiring.

Myron Augsburger, noted evangelist, named president of Eastern Mennonite College. He will succeed Dr. John R. Mumaw when Mumaw’s term of office expires July 1, 1966.

Dr. Ray Summers named chairman of the Department of Religion at Baylor University (Baptist).

Dr. C. H. Becker resigned as president of Warburg College (Lutheran).

Dr. Eugene Carson Blake named chairman of the National Council of Churches’ Commission on Religion and Race.

They Say

“Do not despise soccer when thinking of the world’s moral progress. It is a religious exercise, a ritual of high expertise and just to watch it is an exhausting occupation.”—The Rev. Edward Carpenter, Archdeacon of Westminster.

Legal Showdown in Delaware

Tiny Delaware’s big battle against the Supreme Court Bible-reading decision is near its climax. On March 30 the star defense witness is scheduled to appear: Episcopal Bishop James A. Pike.

Previously renowned for crawling out on theological limbs, Pike now is gaining recognition for his support of a constitutional amendment allowing religious ceremonies in public schools. He’s a lawyer as well as a clergyman and has testified before congressional committees.

Delaware Attorney General David P. Buckson vows to enforce the state law requiring five verses of the Bible to be read to pupils each morning. The issue has just that moral tang which should reap political benefits, especially since public sentiment seems to agree with him.

Cynics go further, whispering that Buckson wants to be governor and is using the Bible issue as a halo whose glow may obscure a political problem of Rockefelleresque dimensions: He has been divorced and remarried since he was interim governor for nineteen days in 1961.

Actually, Methodist Buckson has so far avoided moral issues helming the legal defense. When the State Board of Education asked him for a ruling last summer after the federal decision, Buckson said simply that Bible reading “is still the law of Delaware and will remain so” until changed by the General Assembly or the courts.

Since the assembly has enough trouble appropriating money for roads and schools, those who disagreed with Buckson chose the court route. The American Civil Liberties Union began scouting for plaintiffs. In other states, prominent citizens and even ministers have joined the cause. But the Delaware ACLU could come up with only a rather unlikely pair of families with characteristics Buckson hopes may let him win without ever getting into constitutional questions.

One of the two plaintiff couples is Mr. and Mrs. Garry De Young. They have seven children, five of school age, and claim to be agnostics, although De Young put “Protestant” on a teacher application a few years ago. Holder of many jobs, De Young now sells encyclopedias and writes poetry. He says his latest volume—Sex, Church and the Jungle—epitomizes his religious views. He’s quite outspoken, particularly against fundamentalists who he says “subjugate” rather than “communicate” and “base their preaching on the fear of going to hell. If there is a hell it’s right here on earth.”

De Young, in 1956, was the first white student to graduate from still predominantly Negro Delaware State College in Dover. His wife graduated there in 1958. She is a teacher in Middletown, Delaware, where they have an apartment; but they also have a residence in Henderson, Maryland, and De Young’s car has Maryland license plates.

Mrs. De Young faces fines and suspension as state penalties if she refuses to conduct Bible readings in her classes. The couple sends the children to a Presbyterian Sunday school as part of their “cultural development.” Mrs. De Young testified the children aren’t brought up to believe in a personal God, but “I try to teach them to do the good things necessary to live in our society and the bad things not to do.”

The other plaintiffs are Mr. and Mrs. Harry Johns, with three children, all of school age. They are as mum as De Young is voluble, refusing to grant interviews to reporters. They have testified they are Protestants and “adhere to Protestant religious principles” while attending a variety of services, including Catholic and Jewish ones.

Johns, an engineer for International Latex Corporation, said compulsion makes prayer “degrading,” a matter of hollow habit like the national anthem before football games. Besides this, he says, it violates Christ’s teaching on prayer in Matthew 6:5–7. Mrs. Johns said they read the Bible at home.

Attorney for the two families is Irving Morris, Delaware ACLU president and a board member of Temple Beth Shalom in Wilmington. His line of attack is readymade from the previous Supreme Court decision.

So the ingenuity is up to Buckson, who so far has built his case on two legal technicalities:

1. The right to sue—Legal residence is sometimes determined by where taxes are paid. The state tax department has no returns from the Johnses for 1960, 1961, or 1962. The only De Young return on file is for 1963. It was signed only by Mrs. De Young and mailed from their Maryland residence.

2. Lack of injury—Since both families are exposed to the Bible anyway, Buckson maintains exposure to it in school doesn’t disturb the status quo. It’s a matter of individual rights, he says, and in the case of these persons, no rights have been violated.

The case is being heard by a three-member panel named by the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The head of the panel also headed the circuit court trial that declared Pennsylvania’s Bible law unconstitutional as that case wended its way to the Supreme Court. Buckson has March 30 and one other day to complete the defense.

Back To Washington

A Florida Supreme Court ruling that for the second time upheld a state law requiring Bible reading in public schools apparently will be appealed again to the U. S. Supreme Court. The Florida court on January 29 unanimously confirmed a June 1962 decision that supported the state’s Bible-reading law and other religious practices.

The 1962 ruling was appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, but the justices ordered a rehearing “in the light of the decision” that struck down Bible-reading and Lord’s Prayer—recitation statutes in Pennsylvania and Maryland.

In its second ruling, the Florida court said that it considered the Florida law requiring Bible reading unlike those of other states and believed it to be legal.

An Idaho law requiring Bible reading in public schools also is the subject of litigation. Six Protestant clergymen and twenty-one laymen filed a suit in the U. S. District Court asking the court to “halt the practice of religious indoctrination in the public schools.”

Still another federal court suit is pending in Pennsylvania, where the American Civil Liberties Union seeks to bar Bible reading in the public schools of the Cornwall-Lebanon Joint District. Last month, members of the Cornwall-Lebanon school board voted to drop a permissive Bible-reading program and adopted instead a resolution requiring each homeroom teacher to devote fifteen minutes each day “to read, or have read, selections from the Holy Bible, and from such other sources as, in the discretion of the administration, best illustrate its literary and historical qualities.”

Under the permissive Bible-reading plan only about 5 to 7 per cent of the teachers in the seven-school system were said to have read the Bible to their classes each day.

An ACLU official said the organization would continue to press its court case against the school board despite the switch.

In Maine, meanwhile, a study group named by the state board of education recommended that public schools cease using the Scriptures for required readings in history and literature. The eight-member group contended that non-sectarian discussion of the Bible is impossible.

A Partisan Proposal?

Will the ban against prayer and Bible reading in public schools become a national political issue?

The question took on a measure of possibility last month when a proposed amendment to the U. S. Constitution that would permit public school devotions was endorsed by the House Republican Policy Committee.

Efforts have been under way for a number of months to force the proposal out of the House Judiciary Committee, which is headed by Democratic Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, a known opponent of the amendment. Some felt the endorsement of the House Republican Policy Committee would enhance chances for rounding up the 218 signatures needed for a discharge petition. In mid-February the petition was still some seventy-five names short of the required total.

Agreement In Neutrality

A House subcommittee studying “shared time” witnessed a rare phenomenon last month: Representatives of the National Catholic Welfare Conference and of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State expressed similar positions. Both were non-committal.

The subcommittee held three days of hearings on a bill to amend the National Defense Education Act to provide $15,000,000 in federal funds over a three-year period for experimentation in shared time.

An NCWC spokesman said the U. S. Roman Catholic hierarchy has not yet taken an official position. The POAU representative said his organization’s attitude was one of “watchful waiting.”

Republican Representative Peter Frelinghuysen of New Jersey said federal endorsement of shared time might overload available educational facilities. He also declared, however, that he thought NDEA funds could be used for shared time without special legislation.

Shared time, now termed by some of its proponents as “dual school enrollment,” is a program whereby children take some courses in a public school and others in a parochial school.

Race, Religion, And Reflection

Federal aid to parochial schools is not only more theologically sound than the present separation of secular and religious instruction, it’s cheaper.…

Automation, if handled wisely, will result in a two-hour work day and a higher standard of living for everyone, if we don’t fight it.…

Salvation is not an individual matter; it has more to do with a new society than with a redeemed soul.…

These were among numerous views expressed by speakers at the annual meeting of the National Council of Churches’ Division of Christian Education in Cincinnati last month. An estimated 2,000 persons from “nearly 50 Protestant, Anglican and Eastern Orthodox communions” attended.

Race, religion, and reflection were the big three R’s of the convention. Hair shirts were definitely In with most of the speakers, who were constantly urging agonizing reappraisals of all phases of Christian activity. Ironically, the conference was staged against the backdrop of a CORE-NAACP boycott of Cincinnati schools and an address at the University of Cincinnati by Alabama Governor George C. Wallace.

William Stringfellow, New York lawyer and Episcopal layman, charged that Protestants have too long been “irrational with respect to federal aid to church-related schools. He said he believes it legally possible to “design an aid scheme” that would be upheld constitutionally. He declared that the closing of Roman Catholic elementary schools unable to operate without federal aid would “require an enormous expansion of public schools at staggering public expense.”

The Rev. J. Blaine Fister, executive director of the NCC Church and Public School Relations Department, asked that “Dual School Enrollment” replace “Shared Time” in the Christian educator’s lexicon.

Dr. Gerald E. Knoff, executive secretary of the NCC Division of Christian Education, predicted in a news conference that:

—cells will replace conventional church congregations:

—emphasis will shift from Sunday schools to home and family and programmed learning.

Albert Whitehouse, regional director of the United Steelworkers of America, gave delegates something to look forward to in this world with his prediction of a two-hour work day. The union leader, an active Disciples of Christ layman, also implied in his speech that Christ’s tossing the moneychangers out of the temple was his way of expressing contempt of the business community.

A new “inter-faith Citizen’s Bible” was suggested as an innovation for getting Scriptures read—legally—in the public schools. To be published this year by Harper & Row, this modern version of the Bible—it is said to contain the “core” of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament—could be used in studies about religion, according to Dr. Eli F. Wismer, general director of the Commission on General Christian Education.

From the evangelical viewpoint, perhaps the most disturbing address was that of the Rev. Jitsuo Morikawa, secretary of evangelism of the American Baptist Convention. He described the mission of the Church as follows:

—to be a visible sign—sign and evidence of what God has done for the whole world and an earnest and foretaste of what he will consummate for the whole world at the end of time; and to go to the ends of the earth, across all geographic and social frontiers heralding the good news to all nations, and to all the powerful structures of society.

“There cannot be individual salvation,” he said. “Salvation always implies relations with others and God. It would be more correct to say that salvation has to do with a new society rather than a redeemed individual soul.”

The division’s executive committee had two meetings relating to a change of administrative structure and to a discussion of the Revised Standard Version. The press was not invited to either of these meetings.

Evangelical representation at the conference was negligible. One official of a large evangelical publishing house said he attended in previous years but chose not to go in 1964 because in his opinion the value of the conventions for theological conservatives has steadily diminished.

JAMES L. ADAMS

Something to Wave a Flag About

In the window of Follett’s Bookstore in Ann Arbor, Sex and the College Girl and racy Ian Fleming mysteries flanked Peace With God and My Answer in uneasy togetherness. In other stores near the University of Michigan campus, modest placards announced that Dr. Billy Graham would hold a three-day lecture series for students and staff. A much larger sign in front of the Michigan Union proclaimed National Negro History Week (and, ironically enough, Graham was destined to speak and answer students’ questions—some of them on race—from the same ornately carved hardwood lectern that Governor Ross Barnett of Mississippi used during a controversial appearance at Michigan last fall).

Billy Graham’s visit to Michigan, sponsored by a university agency and by the Michigan Christian Fellowship, was the first of several campus appearances in February. Later he traveled east to address students at Harvard, Radcliffe, and Wellesley. Typically thought of in the context of the overflow crowd in the largest stadium in town, Graham was deliberately planning for smaller audiences in order to get the university student alone with his peers and approach him on his own ground. There was no singing, no praying, and, at the main meetings, no invitation.

“I want to be all things to all men,” Graham said, and he laced his messages with heavy doses of Hemingway, Steinbeck, O’Neill, Einstein, and Toynbee—names students respect. Nicodemus was a “theological professor”; Paul’s Mars Hill address was a speech before a “university audience.” Words like “philosophical,” “psychological,” and “intellectual” were probably used many more times in Graham’s talks than in a typical university lecture hour, but the heart of the message was the same Graham has preached to 40 million people the world over. “Man has a moral disease,” he said. “There are more sophisticated names for it, but I’m going back to the original name. It’s called sin.”

“Joseph Goebbels got his Ph.D. at Heidelberg. What causes a Goebbels, an Eichmann, a Lee Oswald, to do the things they did?” he asked repeatedly. “What is it inside of people?”

To students seeking “commitment” of some sort, Graham presented Christianity as “something to march for … something to wave a flag about.”

“It involves the intellect, it involves the emotions, but primarily it involves the will,” he said.

The students in turn had questions for Graham, many more than could be anwered at the lectures and panel discussions.1Panelists at Michigan included Graham; Dr. Kenneth Pike and Dr. Gordon van Wylen, both professors at the university; Dr. Akbar Haqq of India, a specialist in comparative religion; and Dr. Merrill C. Tenney, dean of the Graduate School of Wheaton College. At Harvard, where there were fewer panels, questions were answered by Graham, Haqq, and Dr. John White, a Ph.D. from Oxford. Graham talked at length on the “moral problem,” and, predictably, sex was the subject of many questions. One card handed forward mentioned “extramarital relations,” which was pronounced “extramartial” by a flustered moderator.

Christian students and workers, who had been preparing for the meetings for about a year under the leadership of MCF President Bryan Mawhinney, estimated that 6,000–8,000 students and university affiliates (the student body numbers 27,000) had heard Graham. They reported a number of conversions and said that at least 325 inquiry cards (the basis of indigenous student follow-up work) had been turned in.

The spirit at Michigan, which had been friendly from the start, was carried over at Boston, where Graham flew in to speak at Sunday evening services at Tremont Temple and Park Street Church. More than 100 persons, mainly young people, responded to the invitation at Park Street. And at Wellesley the next day, Graham’s message to more than 1,300 students was followed by discussions in student houses.

But the reception at Harvard, the East’s monument to non-regimentation, was distinctly cooler. “Students here are different,” said Hans Schemer, a senior, who was chairman of the ad hoc committee that brought Graham to the campus. “Or at least they think they are, and that’s what counts.”

“I think the fun part is when he asks everybody to come up to the front of the room,” said one Harvard man on the way to the first meeting, and it was evident that some of the 800 students who had sloshed their way through ten inches of snow had come for laughs. A reference to the Holy Spirit drew a few titters. Students derided Graham’s use of Time, reportedly read at Harvard only for entertainment, not as a source of information. “The Bible in one hand—and Time magazine,” sniffed one student after one of the meetings.

But there were visible results, even on the first evening: eighteen students stood up at an “after-meeting,” held in another building, indicating commitment.

With a student population about half that of Michigan, Harvard did not turn out in great numbers. Some 800 to 900 students half-filled the auditorium at the three main meetings. The Boston area was hit with the two biggest blizzards of the winter during the week, and there were the inevitable minor mishaps. A Boston paper got the time of the first meeting wrong, and hundreds of Harvard and Radcliffe students followed the false lead. Even so, it was a “very good Harvard crowd,” said an Inter-Varsity staffer; it was also said to be the best-attended Harvard “mission” of the century.

During the question-and-answer period on the afternoon of the second day, there was some hissing of a student who tried unsuccessfully to get Graham rattled with a series of captious questions. And as the meetings progressed, it became evident that the ice was melting. The audience listened with hardly a move when Graham spoke the second evening. Attendance at the after-meetings increased from 150 on the first night to about 350 on the third, and Inter-Varsity leaders reported that at the end, over 100 inquiry cards, the majority of which indicated commitment, had been turned in.

Graham was also given an attentive hearing at a meeting of psychiatrists (Harvard has ten on its staff), deans, and masters.

In an eloquent introduction to the third evening talk, the chairman of the United Campus Ministry thanked Graham for “being yourself among us,” adding parenthetically that he wished that Graham would say “less about what the Bible says, and more about what Christ says.” When Graham rose to speak, he said, “I want to turn to the Bible, if I might [laughter], for a quotation of Jesus, because I do not know any quotations of Jesus outside the Bible [laughter and applause].”

In his message Graham quoted John Harvard, whose name the university bears, and whose conviction it was that Christ was “the only foundation for knowledge and learning.”

The climax came when Graham, introduced by Dean Samuel Miller, addressed some 200 students at the Harvard Divinity School, giving a plea for “that other voice,” the voice of God, in preaching today, and defending himself against various criticisms that have been leveled at his theology and methods. (To one questioner, who alluded to this magazine, Graham said drily, “I didn’t know anybody here read CHRISTIANITY TODAY.”) The applause at the end of the almost two-hour meeting was sustained.

“If he can be accepted here, he can be accepted anywhere,” said Dr. Harold Ockenga afterward. Ockenga, minister of Park Street Church, called the series of meetings “superb.”

The evangelist, also in Boston to prepare for the area-wide crusade this fall, outlined his plans at a meeting to which over 500 New England ministers came, despite icy roads. “There was great enthusiasm among these ministers,” said one observer.

Graham’s two-week tour was a milestone in his growing campus ministry. It reflects what the evangelist sees as the heightened religious inquiry on the part of students today. After Graham’s plans for an expanded campus ministry were picked up by the press last summer, over 300 invitations came in within a month from colleges and universities, one as far away as Hong Kong. Graham says that students’ questions today are no longer on science and the Bible, as they were five and six years ago, but are more existential—more “theological, philosophical, and psychological,” as he puts it.

Harassment In The Sanctuary

President K. Owen White of the Southern Baptist Convention complained publicly last month that his 3,588-member First Baptist Church of Houston was subjected to a campaign of harassment by the Congress on Racial Equality after he as pastor had refused to debate racial integration.

White, in a press conference at Columbia, South Carolina, told newsmen that his congregation began seating Negroes fifteen months before he was elected SBC head.

Shortly after the election, he said, a CORE official threatened to instigate “an all-out campaign of intimidation” unless White agreed to participate in a public debate.

“I replied that debating was not my approach to the work,” White declared, “and the intimidation began.”

“Every Sunday for several weeks from two to ten Negroes came to our services. Almost every Sunday at least one sought membership.”

White said he and other church leaders counseled with the seekers and concluded that unworthy motivations were involved. The church turns down white seekers on similar grounds, he added.

White’s church still has not admitted any Negroes as members.

White, a native of England, said the South needs sympathetic understanding: “It is hard to effect a revolution overnight,” he added.

A Calm Beginning

The Deputy, a young German’s play about six million murdered Jews and one silent pope, opened in relative quiet on Broadway last month.

In a year of performances of the play in Europe, people have hooted, thrown eggs, and climbed onstage to fight with the actors. Others have hailed it as one of the few real contributions Germany has made toward coming to terms with the past.

About 150 persons picketed the Broadway premiere, including members of the American Nazi Party, who came dressed as storm troopers and wore swastikas. When they arrived, someone shouted, “Come on, Jews, let’s get em. I hate swastikas.” But the crowd that then pushed forward turned out to be mostly reporters who wanted to see what would happen. Nothing did.

Another group of demonstrators, “mostly Catholic” according to a New York newspaper, called themselves the Ad Hoc Committee to Protest the Deputy.

The anti-Deputy faction waved placards reading “Ban Deputy Bigots,” “Anti-Christ Hate Killed JFK,” and “Anti-Christian Hate Show.” Others said “Hurray for Freedom of Speech,” and “Only Totalitarianism Would Ban the Deputy.

The play (also called The Representative and The Vicar), was written by 33-year-old Rolf Hochhuth, who arrived in New York last month in time to see the premiere.

Reaction in America so far has been mixed. One statement pleading for a fair hearing was signed by leading Catholics, Protestants, and Jews. Commonweal, national Catholic lay weekly, says that the questions raised are valid, but it denounces as “base calumny” Hochhuth’s portrait of Pope Pius XII as a man who kept silent out of unworthy motives.

Besides attacking the pope for not taking a strong stand on the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews, Hochhuth tells in detail how the Jews lived during the Nazi era and how they died.

Revising The Oath

Davidson College, the “Oxford of Southern Presbyterians,” is drastically altering its controversial faculty oath. Trustees, at their winter meeting, approved on first reading a new pledge that leaves out the professors’ affirmation of belief in evangelical principles and belief in the infallibility of the Bible.

Final reading is planned at a board meeting in May. No opposition is expected.

The proposal now before the trustees simply calls on tenured teachers to affirm acceptance of Jesus Christ and to consider teaching as a Christian calling. Proponents said the change means that a majority of the faculty will be obligated instead of a minority, as in the past. Until now, the oath has been taken only on assumption of the rank of full professor.

A Plea For Legislation

The United Church of Canada’s Board of Evangelism and Social Service asked the Canadian government last month to legalize birth control.

The board, authorized to speak for the whole church in its particular fields, called for abolition of that section of the Criminal Code banning the sale and advertising of contraceptives. The law has been enforced in recent years.

At an annual meeting in Toronto, the board said the present law offends the religious beliefs of a majority of Canadians and makes a criminal offense of contraception, regarded by some churchmen as a moral necessity nowadays.

A Landmark Case

The Supreme Court of Spain made legal history last month when it ruled against the government and authorized establishment of a Protestant church in Valencia.

The court held that the government, in 1961, had erred in barring Protestants from opening a house of worship. It said that the government ministry involved had issued an order “not consistent with law” and ruled the edict null and void.

Involved was a Protestant group whose spokesman was identified as Tomas Perez. Representing the appellants in court was Ernesto Vellve, who successfully opposed the government’s restriction after a three-year legal battle. He told newsmen that the church would be opened in Valencia.

Observers in Madrid said the court’s decision was of “the greatest importance” to Protestants in predominantly Roman Catholic Spain. Some noted that the ruling could be another phase of a trend indicating more liberal treatment of Protestants by the government.

The court’s action followed a report that the nation’s Roman Catholic hierarchy had approved a draft law that would give considerably more freedom to Protestants in Spain. According to the report, the first draft of the proposed law was endorsed in principle by the late Pope John XXIII in 1961. Observers said a revised draft, approved by the bishops, would be sent on to the Vatican for study. Approval is expected.

In providing Protestants greater freedom of worship, the law would define their legal position for the first time.

A Boon To Church Budgets

Churches in the United States should see immediate benefits as a result of the income tax reduction voted by Congress and signed into law by President Johnson last month. Giving to religious enterprises of all kinds is expected to increase appreciably.

Tax specialists say the new cut, largest in U. S. history, paves the way for an estimated $265,000,000 in additional itemized charitable contributions by taxpayers during 1964, barring unexpected setbacks in the economy. They say the extra for 1965 attributable to the tax cuts could be as much as $400,000,000. This indicates a boost of approximately 4½ per cent in giving, based on total itemized deductions of contributions of $8.5 billion (the current figure).

For the average church these totals in themselves indicate only a modest budgetary increase. But observers point out that in all likelihood the boost will be further enhanced by any additional expansion of the economy.

Americans are already getting more in their pay checks because of a decrease in the amount of income tax the government requires employers to withhold. Some increase in church giving, therefore, should be evident immediately. The full effect will come about gradually over a number of months, because it is based on the anticipated expanded economy.

Some observers see a possible adverse effect in the tax cut. They say that with the rate of taxation moving downward, the relative advantage of the deduction is lessened and, in turn, incentive for charitable contributions is reduced. But this factor is unlikely to be very important. Statistics show that during previous tax-rate cuts a stable relation between personal income and charitable giving was maintained.

The most important change in the tax law, as far as charitable contributions are concerned, is the ability of the individual donor to “carry over” his deduction in excess of 30 per cent of adjusted gross income for a period of up to five years. This will encourage donors in every income bracket who are in a position to make large contributions within a single year. What they are unable to deduct one year they can claim in following years.

Also in the new law is a provision that extends from 20 to 30 per cent the ceiling on contributions to certain charitable organizations. The 30 per cent limit had applied previously only to contributions to churches, hospitals, schools, and certain medical research organizations. Now it applies to contributions to all charitable, religious, and philanthropic institutions, with the exception of private foundations, in which case the 20 per cent limit still applies.

Private foundations also got a blow from another direction. Contributions to such foundations will not be allowed as a basis for the “unlimited deduction,” which applies to persons whose contributions plus their income tax liability amount to more than 90 per cent of their taxable income for the current year and eight of the ten previous taxable years.

Still another important change applies to corporate giving. The period of “carryover” for corporate contributions in excess of the allowable 5 per cent of annual earnings has been extended from two years to five.

DONALD H. GILL

About This Issue: March 13, 1964

Christ died. The threshold article examines the how (see the opposite page), and author Walfred Erickson probes the why (page 4). Our lead editorial in this pre-Good Friday issue underscores the Cross-event as the focal point in the divine plan. And because of the relation of the Cross to the empty tomb, this issue also looks forward to the Resurrection (see “That Immortal Sea,” by Lon Woodrum, page 6).

Is it reasonable to ask who was “most responsible” for the crucifixion of Christ? Our editorial associate James Daane, commenting on a study being conducted by the Anti-Defamation League, lays down some important guidelines for combating anti-Semitism.

Theology

Calvary’s Armistice

Having made peace through the blood of his cross (Col. 1:20a).

Peace! What a beautiful word! When it comes after war, peace is a beautiful fact. The signing of the Armistice by the Allied and the German leaders brought to a close the most dreadful war the world had ever seen up to that time. But the treaty between God and man was signed on the Cross; signed not in ink, but in Immanuel’s blood.

Because of sin the whole human race is involved in this war. At war with God, man is at war with his fellow men, and at war with himself. In the midst of this war come tidings of peace for all men. An armistice has been signed on Calvary. In that peace Christ represented both God and man. “Couldn’t anyone else have died for me?” asked a seeking friend. No! “Why not?”

I. Christ Died for Us Sinners. For a friend, for a good man, to save him from danger and death, one might lay down his life. But the marvel of Christ’s death on the Cross was that he died for sinners. “God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.”

He died that we might be forgiven;

He died to make us good;

That we might go at last to heaven,

Saved by His precious blood.

II. No One Else Could Be What Christ Was. He was, and is, God in Christ. Therefore what he did on the Cross has infinite value. As the Representative of men he took on himself all the responsibility of the war against God, and all the guilt of the sinner. As the Representative of God Christ had the authority to make peace. To do this work of reconciling man to God Christ came and died.

III. Nothing But the Cross Could Bring About this Reconciliation. Only the Cross can take away the guilt and the stain of sin. God is the Author of the Armistice signed by Christ on the Cross. When by faith and repentance you also sign it, then you have peace. This is the heart of the Gospel, the heart of Christianity, that Christ made peace by the blood of his Cross. Acquaint now thyself with God, and be at peace with him.

Are you at peace with God? Have you accepted his terms? Have you signed the Armistice? There is your Saviour’s name written for you in crimson colors of the Cross. Therefore I beseech you, be reconciled to God. When you accept the pardon that Christ holds out with his pierced hand, there is peace with God, with the world, and with self, the peace about which Christ speaks (“My peace I give unto you”), the peace that the world cannot give, or take away.—Used by permission of Channel Press, Manhasset, N. Y.

The Minister’s Workshop: Power in Preaching

God must give it, of course. “But you shall receive power,” said Jesus, “when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.”

Candidly, to make the bare assertion that God must give the preacher his power is at one time to say much and to say little: much because the statement is fundamentally true, little because it is facilely unexplored.

What is more, all the exploration in the world will not yield complete agreement on the elements of which this power is composed or the tests by which it is measured. Neither the “erg” nor the “megaton” has any exact homiletical equivalent. A preacher in authentic action is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the indefinable.

This allowed, much remains to be said, measured, assessed, learned. Nothing can alter the fact that power in preaching is channeled and conditioned. If the ineffable is there, so is the discernible and the verifiable.

At least we know where to look for the locus of this thing we call pulpit potency: in the minds that preaching informs and illumines, in the moods that it creates, in the motives it addresses and kindles, in the movement of total personality that under God it evokes to obedience.

Beyond this, there are specifics worth noting, though they must be set down here with far less than adequate treatment:

1. Sermon power is linked with content. We do but deceive ourselves if we think otherwise. It is the “truth”—the vital substance of the many-faceted Gospel—that sets men free. We who profess to be men of the Word need to be saved alike from the sham of a noisy quackery and from the shimmer of a rhetorically concealed superficiality. Many a sermon that sounded powerful in delivery, when reproduced in cold print proved to be so devoid of content that no charity could absolve the failure.

For the power of what is said there is no adequate substitute in the power of the way it is said.

2. Sermon power is linked with pertinence. In Quaker circles no higher compliment can be paid to a messenger of the Lord than for a member of the “meeting” to say to him, “Thee spoke to our condition.” Needs, burdens, perplexities, defeats, rancors, hopes, fears, sorrows, joys—these are there in the hearts, if not on the faces, of the listening people. And it is to just such people in just such living situations that the sermon must address itself. If it fails to “connect,” it is more impotent than potent.

3. Sermon power is linked with rapport. This is not a repetition of point two. The preacher may speak relevantly and still fall short of that high fusion between himself and his listeners in which it is as evident to them as to him that both have been caught up into a community of light and of love, of judgment and of mercy. A single sermon may have only two or three intervals when this singular mutuality reaches maximum level.

4. Sermon power is linked with conviction. It is this that gives preaching its “message” quality. God, who has spoken to the preacher in his preparation of the message, is now speaking through him in the enunciation of it. Cynics may smile at this; but unless we are prepared to believe it, and act on it, we better turn in our resignation. It is a man “possessed” who has power in preaching. What the pious call unction is the message using the man. When the man uses the message, the unction is bogus.

5. Sermon power is linked with overtones. The word is from the world of music. If we think of tones as being like a stream, the overtones, the “upper partial,” as technicians may call them, are like ripples and wavelets. Here is beauty, here is grace, here is wonder.

Preaching furnishes a parallel. There are moments when the sermon-created mood of the congregation is so overmastering that no technique can account for it: a joy so uncontainable that a thousand hallelujahs would not do it justice, a shame so shattering that only the Cross of God’s Son can bring hope and healing, a hush of sheer worship and adoring awe so profound that one’s own heartbeat seems audible.

Power!

The preacher is foredoomed who fancies he is its creator. He is not less foredoomed if he fails to toil with terrible, praying industry at being its instrument.

Books

Book Briefs: March 13, 1964

What’S Behind The Fourth Gospel?

Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, by C. H. Dodd (Cambridge, 1963, 464 pp., $9.50), is reviewed by Andrew J. Bandstra, assistant professor-elect of New Testament, Calvin Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

This book is not of the “meaning of St. John for today” type; it deals with the rather technical area of historical criticism in the Fourth Gospel. The Cambridge professor emeritus presents this volume as a sequel to his earlier one, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel.

In view of the increasing sterility of “the quest of the historical Jesus” by the “liberal critics,” Dodd feels that the negative reaction against such “historicism” by what has been called the “biblical theology” movement was largely justified. The author, nonetheless, reckons that the time is right to renew the search for the historical tradition in the Gospels. Why? Among other things, Dodd reminds us that history was extremely important to the Gospel writers and that it was not for nothing that the early Church decisively repudiated gnosticism with its high degree of disregard for the historical.

The central aim of the book is to demonstrate that “behind the Fourth Gospel lies an ancient tradition independent of the other gospels, and meriting serious consideration as a contribution to our knowledge of the historical facts concerning Jesus Christ.” Marked by the author’s usual careful analysis, sane judgment, and moderate critical views, this book has the material for the historical quest divided into two main parts, “The Narrative” and “The Sayings”; the former is subdivided into sections dealing with “The Passion Narrative,” “The Ministry,” and “John the Baptist and the First Disciples.” Dodd thinks that the early Church was not so “bookish” as many have represented it; oral tradition played a dominant role. While it might at first appear that in many instances John used one or more of the synoptic accounts, this, on further examination, Dodd thinks to be most unlikely. It is more probable, he feels, that John used an independent tradition, the basic part formed in a Jewish-Christian environment in Palestine, prior to A.D. 66.

Specifics aside, the main problem of such a study revolves around methods, types of evidence, and validity of conclusions. Dodd recognizes that “absolute proof” cannot be achieved in such a study but offers what he calls a cumulative argument that establishes a high degree of probability. Dodd contends that the hypothesis that best accounts for all the facts is that all three Gospel writers used three independent strains of tradition. This reviewer feels that Dodd has the better of the argument on this point; nonetheless, the two disparate conclusions indicate that the criteria for making such judgments are not uniformly acknowledged.

Another item may illustrate a related point. Dodd does not regard the author of the Fourth Gospel to be John, the son of Zebedee, and admits that if this could be established, his conclusions, though still retaining some value, would have to be modified. Yet not a few scholars have contended that this John is the author. In support of this contention they regard the Qumran literature to be significant, while Dodd regards it of little consequence and rather summarily rejects it. Thus another matter of dispute is the question about which evidence is pertinent and significant.

In this light one might wonder if a study such as this is profitable enough to be worth the while. Yet one can hardly dispute Dodd’s contention that the historicity of the redemptive event in Jesus Christ is of basic importance to the Christian Gospel. While Dodd’s proposed answers to certain questions are debatable, he raises many problems with which every New Testament scholar must grapple.

ANDREW J. BANDSTRA

Into The Teenagers’ World

Young Life, by Emile Cailliet (Harper & Row, 1963, 120 pp., $2.95), is reviewed by Pierson Curtis, senior master, The Stony Brook School, Stony Brook, New York.

“Teen-agers live and move largely in a world of their own. If communication is to be established with them, it has to be in terms of that world, its tradition, and its vernacular.”

This, according to the author of this book, is the firm conviction not only of the leaders of Young Life, a movement to reach teen-agers untouched by churches, but also of the rising generation of social scientists.

Dr. Cailliet, Stuart Professor Emeritus of Christian Philosophy at Princeton Theological Seminary, has long been in contact with young people. Several years ago he lectured at the Young Life Institute. To gather the material for this study, he spent months visiting Young Life clubs and camps, talking with leaders and club members, and studying many case histories.

“My own interest in Young Life,” he says, “was awakened by the fact that here was a company of persons who, instead of lamenting the plight of our teen-agers, were doing something about it. It may also be that a man in his late sixties experiences increasingly that mysterious affinity between the old and the young which has found such wonderful expression in Victor Hugo’s The Art of Being a Grandfather. Possibly, too, having as a college professor freely indulged in the writing of philosophical treatises, I have felt a certain debt to my fellow man, an obligation to do something practical when the chance offered.”

Professor Cailliet begins this interesting book by telling first how Jim Rayburn, a young home missionary in the Southwest, was led to Dallas Theological Seminary. When sent to help in the youth program of a Gainesville church, Jim was told by the pastor that since most of the local teenagers never came to any church, “your parish is the high school.”

Most churches, Dr. Cailliet points out, are contented with, “Come ye.” But “Go ye” is Christ’s command. Our God is the seeking God. And in America nine million high school students, 70 per cent of the total in high schools, never come to church and must be sought.

But how does one reach teen-agers in their world? How does one really communicate the Gospel to them? There were no books to guide Jim Rayburn. He had to feel his way. For over a year he tried weekly meetings in a schoolroom after school, and got nowhere. Then he tried evening meetings in a private house. He learned the teen-agers’ native language and traditions. He put no pressure on them but respected their right of choice. In four months his first club grew from 12 members to 175. He had his troubles; but though some snickered and scorned when he spoke of Christ, there were conversions and a growing interest.

That experimental beginning in 1940—incorporated in 1941 as Young Life, with a staff of five recent seminary graduates—initiated a chain reaction. After twenty-five years the work has a central staff in Colorado Springs and six regional staffs in the States and Canada; some 225 trained men and women (with 500 volunteer helpers) in charge of half a thousand clubs; several beautiful regional camps for weekend groups and summer sessions; an institute for training club leaders; and a yearly budget to meet of over $800,000.

Anyone who wants to know how thousands of non-church-going young people have been reached with the Message should read this book. It is hopeful, inspiriting, and informing. And it is an honest book, recording distressing failures as well as heart-warming successes.

Dr. Cailliet answers the critics who claim that Young Life clubs compete with and hurt local churches. He answers those who condemn Young Life leaders for taking no rigid doctrinal stands but only preaching Christ crucified.

The whole secret of the work, he tells us, is constant dependence on the Spirit, who can still enable some to be all things to all, that by all means they can save some.

PIERSON CURTIS

From The Pressroom

The Way and Its Ways, by George W. Cornell (Association, 1963, 251 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by Russell T. Hitt, editor, Eternity magazine, Philadelphia.

The accepted stereotype of an American newspaperman is a carefree person with a battered hat sitting at a poker table, finding time only occasionally to check with the city desk or to take another drink.

George Cornell, religious news editor of the Associated Press, demonstrates that he is a journalist of another breed. In this book he proves that journalism and theology can mix. Indeed, his explanation of Christianity might even break up the game in the pressroom.

Actually Cornell is trying to do something more than present Christianity in a way that the average man can understand. He also sets out to show that in spite of the differences of stress in the three major traditions—Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox—these expressions of Christianity have much more in common than the theologians would have us believe. Cornell jostles those who, to him, are quibblers, and again and again seeks to show that they are saying about the same thing.

Theologians will accuse him of oversimplifying the issues, but Cornell dares to insist that even on the controversial subject of baptism “all the definitions are virtually the same in emphasis, and quite similar in terminology.”

For Cornell, traditional explanations of doctrine have contributed to the divisions of Christianity. “The tedious habit of drawing party lines, where they are a matter of emphasis or semantics, has contributed to the distorted trademarked portrayals of faith,” he declares.

Yet he does not dodge the basic issue of man’s sin and estrangement from God. He forthrightly stresses the provision of God for our redemption in the Person of Jesus Christ, who died on the Cross and was raised from the dead.

The wide range of quotations from leaders of the Church in all generations, but especially from contemporary theologians, indicates that the author has read widely. His eclectic approach undoubtedly springs from a deep desire for Christian unity, and his presentation will please those with longings for ecumenical dialogue.

Thus it does not come as a surprise that Episcopalian Cornell does a commendable job with the doctrine of the Church.

My battered hat goes off to a fellow journalist who truly loves Jesus Christ and his Church and seeks to be a faithful witness.

RUSSELL HITT

To Vex The World

Reuben, Reuben, by Peter De Vries (Little, Brown, 1964, 435 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Roderick Jellema, instructor in English, University of Maryland, College Park.

Examining the relations between the sexes in Reuben, Reuben, humorist Peter De Vries gives stronger notice than usual that his purpose is to vex the world as well as to divert it. The farce and satire are as devastating as usual, and the laughs about the foibles of the “worldly, effortless, delinquent, and suave” suburbanites come easily. But De Vries skillfully blends his zany comedy of smart psychologizing with enough of the horror of grim reality so that the reader feels ashamed for laughing at something that really is very funny. As compassion conspires with laughter (uneasily) to drown out disgust and contempt, and as the characters bumble along toward divorces and a suicide, De Vries commits himself to nothing. But he again makes a shambles of an ultra-clever “faith” by which modern men attempt to live.

RODERICK JELLEMA

Booklover’S Delight

The 500th Anniversary Pictorial Census of the Gutenberg Bible, by Don Cleveland Norman, with an introduction on the life and work of Johannes Gutenberg by Aloys Ruppel (Coverdale Press, 1961, 263 pp., $100), is reviewed by Herman C. Waetjen, assistant professor of New Testament, San Francisco Theological Seminary, San Anselmo, California.

Only a few bibliophiles can afford every book they would like to own, and even they are not always able to buy this or that particular one. This is especially true of the book that every collector regards to be equivalent to the pearl of great price, and to obtain which he would sell all he possessed: the Gutenberg Bible, the king of all incunabula.

Only 47 of 185 copies originally printed by Gutenberg between 1450 and 1455 are extant today; twelve are on parchment or vellum and thirty-five on paper. They are described in great detail through word and picture in this magnificent census commemorating the 500th anniversary of the Gutenberg Bible.

This volume is a collector’s item. In recent years only one man in the world owned a complete copy of the Gutenberg Bible (Carl H. Pforzheimer, to whom this book has been dedicated, and who died in 1957). Here, however, in this pictorial census, published in a limited edition of 985 copies, a bibliophile can compensate very nicely for his yearning to possess a Gutenberg. In a sense he can have all of them. He can own a richly bound and boxed volume—in red morocco leather with the Gutenberg coat of arms on the cover—that presents an encyclopedia of knowledge on the location and condition of every one of the forty-seven Gutenberg Bibles in existence. He can read the life of Gutenberg and the extraordinary story of the first printing of the Bible. Finally, he can share the experiences and journeys of another bibliophile, the author Don Cleveland Norman, who traveled extensively to gather all this material together into a very splendid book, one that is without question a booklover’s delight.

HERMAN C. WAETJEN

Good Potpourri

Truth for Today, by John F. Walvoord (Moody, 1963, 255 pp., $2.95), is reviewed by Steven Barabas, professor of theology, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.

This is a commemorative volume, a compilation of twenty-three articles that have appeared in Bibliotheca Sacra during the thirty years that it has been published by the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary. Of the twenty-three contributors, sixteen either are or have been teachers at Dallas; the others are Wilbur M. Smith, Kenneth S. Kantzer, Merrill C. Tenney, Earle E. Cairns, and Donald P. Hustad. The articles are divided into the following groups: systematic theology, apologetics and contemporary theology, Old Testament, New Testament, church history, and practical theology. Articles with a dispensational emphasis naturally predominate, like Charles C. Ryrie’s “The Necessity of Dispensationalism” and J. Dwight Pentecost’s “The Relation Between Living and Resurrected Saints in the Millennium.” There are, however, also interesting articles on Barthian theology, the importance of the Septuagint for biblical studies, Calvin and Servetus, the Book of Job and Ugaritic literature, and church music. If they have a defect it is their brevity: their average length (eleven pages) hardly allows for thorough treatment.

STEVEN BARABAS

Theologians Of History

Prophets in Perspective, by B. D. Napier (Abingdon, 1963, 128 pp., $2.75), is reviewed by Charles F. Pfeiffer, professor of Old Testament, Gordon Divinity School, Wenham, Massachusetts.

Professor Napier’s brief study of the Old Testament prophets is an expansion of the article on the same subject that he wrote for the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. He does not attempt to analyze the ministries of individual prophets but rather seeks to gain an understanding of the prophetic movement itself, particularly as it found expression during the period of classical prophetism (800–600 B.C.). In broader terms, however, Napier recognizes biblical prophetism as extending back to Moses and forward to New Testament times. He notes that the Bible presents a prophetic concept of history, revealed in terms of God’s concern, the divine purpose, and even Yahweh’s participation in the events of history.

A sharp distinction is drawn between the cult prophet—the type of prophet Amos renounced in saying, “I am no prophet nor a prophet’s son,” and the great prophets who saw the events of Old Testament history as parts of a process willed by God. Napier does not, however, like much of the older biblical scholarship, see the prophets as enemies of the cult per se. Rather he sees them as enemies of the cult in the guise in which they saw it—an externalism devoid of spiritual power.

After surveying the prophetic movement throughout Israel’s history, Napier concludes with a chapter on the faith of classical prophetism. His key words here are election, rebellion, judgment, compassion, redemption, and consummation. It begins with the election of Israel, but ends with a consummation that transcends national distinctions, bringing God’s salvation to the ends of the earth.

CHARLES F. PFEIFFER

Mind Over Matter

Mysterious Revelation, by T. A. Burkill (Cornell, 1963, 337 pp., $6.50), is reviewed by Robert Preus, professor of systematic theology, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.

This book is not a commentary in the ordinary sense, but an attempt to understand the point of view of Mark in writing his Gospel. The author maintains that Mark starts from the conviction that Jesus is the promised Messiah. But Christ’s is not ostensibly a life of divine victory. Rather, his claims were rejected for the most part, and this was as it had to be. His status was a predetermined secret, and Jesus therefore often deliberately concealed the truth from people. This presumes that the nature of Christianity is paradoxical, to be explained, according to Mark, only soteriologically. The author bolsters his thesis with a number of enlightening and convincing studies of Jesus’ parables, his transfiguration, and the like.

It is not so much with the author’s conclusions that the reader may have misgivings as with the way in which he arrived at them, with his attempt to get behind the words of Mark (and of the entire New Testament) to the mind of Mark. This reviewer, for one, has great difficulty with such an approach. We would certainly agree that Mark’s Gospel is not an essay in scientific biography but a religious document written for the edification of the Church and depicting the life of Jesus the Messiah. We might even go along with the author when he says that Mark’s Gospel is “essentially a soteriological document in which history is subservient to theology”—depending on what is meant by the last clause. But we do not agree (if we understand the author correctly) that Mark is merely employing a number of traditions according to a definite or indefinite tendenz, however correct that tendenz may be. St. Mark is first of all a witness, that, one who witnesses to events that have happened and words of Jesus that have been spoken. It is not therefore Mark’s attitude that forms his Gospel, but the works and words of Jesus that form his attitude. It is when one fails to see the role of the evangelist as witness that one often becomes preoccupied with the “theology,” the point of view, the presuppositions and the tradition behind the evangelist, and becomes skeptical, more or less, of the facts that the evangelist is professedly seeking to recite.

A case in point is the author’s chapter on the Lord’s Supper. To him the Eucharist testified to a mystical continuation of the Messiah’s incarnate life. This is well and good; but the Eucharist is more than this. When the author goes on to say that “the essential spirit” of the Messiah resided in the blessed bread just as it had previously resided in the physical body of Jesus of Nazareth, he is not interpreting any text in Mark or anywhere else, and his words are unclear. What is meant by “essential spirit”? Jesus speaks of his body and his blood. The sacramental character of the Lord’s Supper is played down by dissociating it from the Passover celebration. And Jeremias’s conclusions to the contrary are rejected on the basis of the latter’s believing too easily in the authenticity of Christ’s words of institution. The Church’s belief in the Eucharist is represented as the result of a development that took place after Christ’s institution. This is hardly in keeping with Paul’s claim in First Corinthians 11:23. These words do not give the impression of a Church seeking to interpret the Lord’s Supper. Too much source criticism and not enough exegesis has gone into this book.

Our criticisms are not offered to question the basic thesis of the author, much less to impugn the value of many of his studies, but to question his approach. An exegetical approach, not isolating Mark, but taking into account the whole analogy of Scripture, is the only right one.

ROBERT PREUS

Book Briefs

The Circle and the Cross, by G. W. C. Thomas (Abingdon, 1964, 144 pp., $2.75). A discussion of the Cross as the restorative power that undoes the consequences of sin; carried on within a conception of the Atonement in which the consequences of sin have nothing to do with legality.

Meditations on Early Christian Symbols, by Michael Daves (Abingdon, 1964, 160 pp., $2.75). Interesting, readable, and informative.

Drastic Discipleship: And Other Expository Sermons, a symposium (Baker, 1963, 116 pp., $2.95).

Reform Movements in Judaism, by Abraham Cronbach (Bookman Associates, 1963, 138 pp., $3). A kaleidoscope of Jewish reforms beginning with the Deuteronomic Reformation and extending to the present; from the liberal viewpoint of Reform Judaism.

The Holy Spirit in Your Teaching, by Roy B. Zuck (Scripture Press, 1963, 189 pp., $3.95). An examination of the role of the Holy Spirit in religious teaching. The treatment is usually true but superficial and meager, and the rejection of competing theological positions often cavalier.

The Relationship of Baptism to Church Membership, by Joseph Belcastro (Bethany Press, 1963, 244 pp., $4.50). A study of a point of controversy within the Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ).

Toward an American Orthodox Church, by Alexander A. Bogolepov (Morehouse-Barlow, 1963, 124 pp., $3). From the viewpoint of Orthodox Canon Law, the book raises the question of the establishment of independent churches, with special reference to the one in America. For professional students.

Sing the Wondrous Story, by Ernest K. Emurian (W. A. Wilde, 1963, 148 pp., $2.50). The true stories of how eighteen people came to compose fifty-five of our hymns and gospel songs. Written with zest.

The Form of a Christian Congregation, by C. F. Walther, translated by J. T. Mueller (Concordia, 1963, 200 pp., $5). A translation of an original (1862), one-third of whose title was: “The Right Form of an Evangelical Lutheran Local Congregation Independent of the State.”

Paperbacks

Christianity and the Problem of Origins, by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964, 39 pp., $.75). An Anglican looks at evolution in the light of the Christian faith.

The Social Teaching of Pope John XXIII, by John F. Cronin, S.S. (Bruce, 1963, 83 pp., $1.35). A commentary on the late Pope’s thinking on social issues by the assistant director of the Roman Catholic Department of Social Action.

The Lamb and the Blessed: Sermons for Lent and Easter Based on the Beatitudes, by William H. Eifert and Daniel A. Brockhoff (Concordia, 1964, 86 pp., $1.50). Worthy sermonettes.

Art and Scholasticism and the Frontiers of Poetry, by Jacques Maritain, translated by Joseph W. Evans (Scribner’s, 1964, 234 pp., $1.45). A pioneer work that develops a theory of art based on the concepts of St. Thomas Aquinas.

The Nature and Destiny of Man (Vols. I and II), by Reinhold Niebuhr (Scribner’s, 1964, 305, 328 pp., $1.65 each). While these volumes raise some serious theological questions, they are a brilliant critique of man and his culture; perhaps Niebuhr’s greatest work.

Visible Unity—What Does the Bible Say?, by J. M. Ross (Friends of Reunion [Little-hampton, England], 1963, 20 pp., 1s. 8½d.). This booklet is recommended by the Faith and Order Department of the British Council of Churches as part of the preparation for the Conference in Britain in 1964. It effectively urges that the unity of the Church is something more and other than merely spiritual.

The Loneliness of Man, by Raymond Chapman (Fortress, 1964, 169 pp., $1.90). Getting behind mere aloneness, the author takes a long hard look at loneliness, how people attempt to overcome it, and how Christianity meets the need. For those who dare to take a look at themselves.

The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version, by C. S. Lewis (37 pp., $.75); The Sermon on the Mount, by Joachim Jeremias (38 pp., $.75); The Old Testament in the New, by C. H. Dodd (33 pp., $.75); The Significance of the Bible for the Church, by Anders Nygren (46 pp., $.75); The Meaning of Hope, by C. F. D. Moule (72 pp., $.85), all by Fortress, 1963. Brief expositions, but each is all substance and no fluff.

In Debt to Christ: A Study in the Meaning of the Cross, by Douglas Webster (Fortress, 1964, 158 pp., $1.75). An extraordinarily provocative and perceptive theological interpretation of the Cross. Easy to read, it will germinate many a sermon.

The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented (from “Biblical and Theological Studies”), by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963, 95 pp., $1.50). A bird’s-eye treatment of position, biblical proof, and a bibliography useful for reference.

The Upper Room Disciplines 1964: A Devotional Manual for Ministers, Theological Students and Other Church Workers (Upper Room, 1963, 372 pp., $1).

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