Ideas

The Assassination of the President

“America lost a man of great intellectual gifts, a President of strong courage and of great political imagination.”

A shot came out of nowhere and changed a thousand things around the world. An unknown assassin brought sudden and tragic end to the life of a world-renowned figure; John F. Kennedy was dead by the hand of an evil man whom nobody knew, and who will be known only as long as his infamy is remembered. Three months before a father laid his infant son to rest; he now lies down to rest beside him.

In one tragic moment, an unexpected event changed the plans and hopes of many people and of a nation. Strategies devised with an eye to next year’s presidential elections were suddenly obsolete. The whole civil rights issue at once took on new but unknown dimensions.

Lyndon B. Johnson, who had hoped for the office of President and had seen his hopes vanish like a bubble in the rough Conflicts of politics, was by unforeseen tragedy and no plans of his own the President of the United States. So little, one shot, by one unknown man, changed so much. The President’s death was not only a national tragedy but an event of great international significance. The fragile fabric of personal diplomacy patiently built up by Kennedy and Khrushchev was broken by the same evil that broke his life.

While the news that President Kennedy had been shot was flashed around the world, the White House paradoxically appeared as quiet as the eye of a storm. The usual traffic moved slowly on Pennsylvania Avenue and the usual number of people walked the broad sidewalks in front of the White House.

During the 35 minutes that the fallen President lay dying in a Dallas hospital, three men gathered dead leaves and leisurely loaded them into a truck that stood on the circular drive that fronts the White House. The whirring blades of a helicopter could be seen above the grass in the back of what was the Kennedy home. Here of all places everything looked normal on this warm, gray, November day.

But suddenly a flag was quietly lowered to half mast above the white mansion. Others on surrounding public buildings were similarly lowered, and the eye received the message that the mind found impossible to believe. The President was dead.

America lost a man of great intellectual gifts, a President of strong courage and of great political imagination. Kennedy had kept his promise to the nation and had held the line on the church-state issue. And whatever one may feel about his civil rights stand, he held it with integrity and undeviating moral conviction, even when it threatened to be politically disadvantageous. Men of good will long will pay him tribute and the nation long will sorrow for such a man, cut down in the strength of his years and the height of his service.

As night fell on the Capital, the shriek of a traffic officer’s whistle arose from the now snarled traffic, and the White House loomed in the deepening night, all dark within, the only lights those illuminating the portico outside. A similar darkness fell over the hearts of a nation. For the moment there is no light within, only sadness at such tragedy, and a dumb perplexity at so absurd and ugly an evil.

One of the eye-witnesses to the assassination was a 25-year-old senior at Dallas Theological Seminary, Malcom Couch, a television cameraman who was riding in one of the cars following the President’s. Couch saw the President slump as a rifle was pulled in from a window overlooking the street. The President’s car then sped to a hospital.

Concerned Christians sympathize not only with Mrs. Kennedy and the two youngsters, but with the late President’s father and mother, his brothers and sisters. The Joseph P. Kennedy family, known to be so closely knit, has through the years experienced many deep sorrows, including the World War II deaths of Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., and a son-in-law, the Marquess of Hartington, and only last summer the death of the infant Patrick Bouvier Kennedy.

Seven blocks away from the White House is old Ford’s Theater, now a Lincoln museum, which yet stands as mute testimony to the hazards of public service—particularly in times of national division and strife. Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley … and now John Kennedy. Believers in man’s upward progress could be tempted to point to the lessening frequency of U.S. presidential assassinations as symbolic of their dreams, for the last instance was the 1901 shooting of William McKinley. But before one could relegate such phenomena to the shadows of the nineteenth century—giving way to the “glorious light” of the twentieth—he would have to ponder the attempts on the lives of Franklin Roosevelt in Miami and Harry Truman at Blair House.

The assassin represents the temporary breakdown of the democratic process. With a single move of his index finger he annuls the decision of millions of voters. A dark spot in his brain vetoes carefully thought out decisions of national leaders.

But the democratic process makes allowances for the exigency. We now have a new President. We are grateful for belated progress in our system which has resulted in more careful thought being given to the qualities of vice-presidential candidates. A recent example is the warning that President Eisenhower’s illnesses carried for the 1960 conventions of both major political parties, who nominated eminent and politically-experienced candidates for the vice-presidency.

Thus an illness has left us a legacy. Such a turn of events could also well leave us a reminder of the providence of which our forefathers so often spoke. We sing of a God who is both sovereign and loving, a God who brings good from evil, a God who moves in a mysterious way, a God who rides upon the storm:

Behind a frowning providence

He hides a smiling face.

Let Christians pray for the bereaved; let them pray for the recovery of Governor Connally; let them hold up the arms of President Lyndon B. Johnson in prayer, that the nation may experience a new unity in time of crisis. There are cruel foes without; there are agonizing problems within. God grant that the Psalmist’s affirmation become our own: “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: But we will remember the name of the Lord our God.”

Why the Name?

Our lord’s name was not selected by his parents but was a part of the divine annunciation to Joseph: “And thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

Once the significance of the name, Jesus (Saviour), is lost, the meaning of Christmas ceases to exist; for this intervention of God in human history has significance only as we understand its purpose.

That the Christian Gospel is a declaration of this divine intervention is the one thing that makes it relevant to each succeeding generation.

For man this intervention must begin with a recognition of its personal relevancy, redeeming it from theory and bringing it into the realm of immediate and eternal importance.

That the purpose of Christ’s coming into the world strikes at the very root of human pride should make us doubly wary lest having seen we fail to see, and having heard we fail to believe.

Once the reality and consequences of sin are explained away, the significance of Christmas vanishes. A lovely tradition? No more so than the birth of any other man. The commemorating of a marvelous gesture of love? Not unless the “gesture” is explained. A unifying spirit of brotherly love? Not unless the reason is understood.

We say it reverently but with deep feeling: Unless the reason for the first Christmas is admitted, its celebration can be blasphemous.

Strong words? Yes, because the greatest event of all history occurred when God sent his Son into the world to save sinning men from the guilt and penalty of their sins. To deny, ignore, or minimize the reason for his coming is a slap in the face of a loving and holy God.

Deep theology? Yes, for in the coming of God into the world in human flesh there are involved truths which no man can understand unless the Spirit of God teaches him.

Simple theology? Yes, for despite all the deep currents of God’s redemptive purposes in Christ, there is the marvelous simplicity of man’s need, God’s love, and eternal life through his Son—truths which even a little child can grasp and believe.

“For he shall save his people from their sins,” poses the fact of sin, its universality and effect, and man’s lostness because of it.

Sin and Christmas? What a depressing combination! Why spoil thoughts of Christmas by bringing in the sordid subject of evil? Why not emphasize the love demonstrated in the coming of the Christ-child? Why not think more of the angels, the wise men, the star, the shepherds, and the gifts?

All of these have their part in the Christmas story and in our thoughts about Christmas. But why Christmas? Why did Christ come into the world? We may shrink from a confrontation with truth, but to do so leaves us blind to the meaning of Christmas.

Christ came into the world because of the ugly fact of sin. He came to earth because people, the work of his creation, were lost, separated from God and in need of a Saviour.

Why the name? Because Christ’s coming was no sentimental gesture but a work of rescue. An example of love? Yes, a love so great that it might redeem. To meet a need? Yes, a need which has existed from man’s beginning and which will continue down to the end of time.

We are too sophisticated today to sing hymns like “Rescue the Perishing,” but that is the reason for the first Christmas.

We are much too “mature” to sing, “What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus”—but Calvary lay silent only a few miles north of Bethlehem on that first Christmas night, and there was the unseen but real shadow of a Cross as the breezes whispered across “the place of a skull.”

When the angel announced to terror-stricken shepherds, “Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10, 11), the glorious news was the coming of a Saviour.

Our Lord, his disciples, the writers of the Epistles, the early Church, all stressed the reality and effect of sin. That sin is no longer a popular subject for public preaching or theological discussions does not decrease its importance or relevance; it only indicates the distance that we have come from the vital realities of the Christian faith.

The first Christmas ushered in a “new deal” for humanity, a new frontier of hope for the sinner. With it came a new concept of ethics, a new dynamic for living, a new perspective for this life and for the one to come, all proceeding from the redemption that Christ came to effect and to offer to all who would believe.

While the reason for Christ’s coming is indicated in his Name, and while this work of redemption is made central in all of the Gospel, men have a strange tendency to explain away or play down its basic necessity. Lose sight of the depressing reality of sin with its tragic end for the sinner, and the joy of Christmas is blighted.

Where salvation is made central in the Christmas theme, there is true joy to the world. Where it is omitted, the songs, gifts, and gaiety of the season become an empty mockery. Unless we look beyond the manger to the Cross and to the empty tomb, we miss completely the reason for celebration itself.

In the councils of eternity the necessity for the advent into the world of the Lord of glory was known, and in the fullness of time—at exactly the right moment in human history and at the right spot—this divine plan for man’s redemption was set in motion.

Little wonder that the event took on all the attributes of the supernatural—for it was supernatural. Small wonder that it was the Holy Spirit who revealed to Joseph and Mary the divine plan, or that there was a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men”—for the curse of sin was to be removed and estranged men were to be reconciled to God!

Christmas is a time of joy, hope, peace, thanksgiving, and praise because the One whose birth we celebrate was marvelous in his Person and in his Work. He was God in the person of his Son come to take away the sins of the world, to bear our griefs and carry our sorrows, to be wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities; for the sins of men he was to be stricken, and God in infinite love and compassion was to lay on his sinless body the iniquity of us all.

There is a new note of gladness to “Joy to the World” when we look beyond the Bethlehem fields to Calvary, and then on to the mount across the Kidron in the east—when, knowing that he has saved us from our sins, we hear the words of angels again: “This same Jesus … shall so come in like manner,” and know that at that time we will meet him in the glorious company of the redeemed.

Eutychus and His Kin: December 6, 1963

WHO’S FOOLING WHOM?

I try, but I just can’t get worked up over beer cans. Where I live there are full-sized billboards all over the countryside going into ecstasies over the discovery that a can of beer can be opened by a simple flip on the top. If I were going into ecstasies, it would be over the fact that I held the patent on this little gadget or had the advertising account. To consider seriously the millions and millions of dollars which are being spent to make us feel real good about this sort of thing makes me feel, on the contrary, very dismal indeed. This is not so much an argument about beer as it is about what people have come to think is important.

Some two weeks ago I was at dinner with friends who had a pride of children. One little boy made no contribution to the table talk one way or another from the beginning to the end; and, in a way, it was kind of a special research assignment just to see how he managed to get everything he wanted without saying “please” or “thank you” or even asking. I bear witness that he had a splendid meal. His one contribution at the table, and I can’t think now what triggered the remark, was, “You should have seen on television where the beer flowed clean up over the glass.” Whatever was on the boy’s mind—good, bad, or indifferent—this is the only thing that came out.

One whole family was slated to go to church because I was doing the preaching (true hospitality knows no bounds), but at the last minute there was a call for the oldest daughter to go as a baby-sitter. There was not one split second of decision as to whether baby-sitting should or should not outrank church attendance. The decision may have been a sound one (there was money in it), but I am sure that it was actually made on the basis of all the presuppositions about values for the whole family.

I shall never forget a little piece of cheating described at a dinner one time; this lovely church woman said exactly, “Well, you can hardly blame a man for $700.” I suppose that you can blame him for $70, and you can’t blame him at all for $7,000. Our religion loses more ground by default than by sober decision.

EUTYCHUS II

THE RACE REVOLUTION

Congratulations! At long last the article has appeared which many Christians must have longed to see in regard to the race question. I am referring to W. H. Anderson’s article “Evangelicals and the Race Revolution” (Oct. 25 issue).

Living in the South is wonderful, but the brightness is clouded over many a time when to me, who [have] lived for some years under the Nazis, language is used (actions too!) in regard to Negro citizens which are too reminiscent of the Nazi attitude to the Jews. There were also too many people in the German churches then who felt that the Jewish question was one of race alone which had nothing to do with the things of the Spirit; hence negligence became the order of the day too easily, and the cause of Jewish evangelism can only be approached with some genuine feeling of embarrassment today on account of this. Missionary work and the race question are closely related to each other.

LUDWIG R. DEWITZ

Dept. of Old Testament

Columbia Seminary

Decatur, Ga.

Thanks for finally printing an article on a social issue which errs because of the “white heat of deep conviction” rather than the deep drag of political and ethical caution. You are also to be congratulated on the same article in that the author is allowed to at least hint at the possibility that an evangelical Christian may have liberal political and social views. Admittedly a rare bird, but partly because he is practically outlawed in many evangelical circles in America.

EDGAR METZLER

Akron, Pa.

Many evangelicals are deeply concerned with the race problem but are unwilling to knuckle under the socialistic—and almost Communistic—approach of the liberal. There is evidence that there is considerable “red activity” inciting today’s racial revolution.…

I do believe … that the Bible teaches racial equality apart from forced integration. We must help educate and evangelize the Negro. For the record, we have experienced the privilege of having Negro members in our fellowship. They are first-class members. We are one in Christ! However, we have not promoted the one-race-one-world-one-church delusion which we believe to be Satan’s doings and not God’s design.

ERNEST L. LAYCOCK

North Syracuse Baptist Church

North Syracuse, N. Y.

We real Southerners fully realize that the Negro has not had a fair deal in many ways, but he has also failed to get it in the North. The difference is that we knew something had to be done, while in the North, the colored people were slammed into Harlem and other slum areas, and forgotten.

Progress was being made in the South—slowly, but being made, just the same. So many Southern people, who do not care whether their actions are judged by Mr. Anderson or not, have been gravely hurt by the unsympathetic attitude of so many witch hunters. Why help could not have been offered instead of abuse, Southern people cannot quite understand. But we know that love and respect cannot be the outgrowth of recrimination and physical violence, or the invasion of states by federal troops.…

That I am not speaking out of turn may be testified by the fact that I have worked with Negroes all my ministry, both spiritually and materially. I have many Negro friends. And there is something that I can say that many of those who condemn my position cannot say: I have received the Holy Communion from the hands of a Negro priest, and I did it happily.…

JAMES M. STONEY

Ret. Bishop, Protestant Episcopal Church

Albuquerque, N. M.

Should confront conservatives everywhere with the necessity of making a decision. We must either stand for justice and love or admit that we lack the courage to do so.…

As an evangelical who was asked to leave a pulpit because of a conflict over the race problem I heartily endorse Dr. Anderson’s outstanding article and would encourage every reader to stop evading the decision to which it calls us.

JOHN ELLINGTON

Decatur, Ga.

Does the fact that the Communists are directing the “race revolution” automatically mean that evangelical ministers and leaders are to take up the poor benighted Negro’s cause?

BEN A. BYRD, JR.

Prof. of Church History and Polemics

Tennessee Temple Schools

Chattanooga, Tenn.

We evangelicals have soft voices when it comes to issues involving the plight of people—slums, center-city, race problems, etc. We just don’t seem to be interested in them or their problems. Sometimes, we’re against them; more often we just don’t get involved. There is little doubt in my mind why young people don’t want our “selective involvement,” that is, involvement with Christ but not with the masses and their problems.

HERBERT WAGEMAKER

Dept. of Surgery

University of Florida

Gainesville, Fla.

The manic preoccupation with integration and the drive for cheek-to-cheek coexistence which has, with some ministers, replaced the Gospel, is becoming nauseating.

Materially, the American Negro is better off than most white people of the entire world. As for his spiritual condition, ministers would do well to review the Sermon on the Mount and repeat daily, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God” before they degrade themselves by joining in with some of the absurdities of current Negro demands.

M. MCCORMICK

Louisville, Ky.

Thank God for a relevant word on race to evangelicals! William Henry Anderson’s article … points up the tragic failure of conservatives to “become biblical and assert the oneness of all believers in Christ.”

ROSS COGGINS

Director of Communications

The Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention

Nashville, Tenn.

THE STATE OF METHODISM

I especially appreciated your fine article in the October 25 issue, “The Predicament of Methodism.” It is a penetrating but sympathetic look at Methodism today. As a pastor of live years’ experience, and as a student now enrolled in a fine Methodist seminary, I am involved in the crisis of which Mr. Robb so ably speaks.

CECIL D. CLIBURN

Dalton, Ga.

Even a hasty check of Methodist literature today will reveal that although contemporary theologians are making their mark, a large amount of material by and about the Wesleys is flooding the scene. A neo-Wesleyan movement is surging today which can be attested to by casual reference to the gamut of Methodist publications. We Methodists and all our Christian brethren should rejoice in this.

Granted the stigmas of salary and seniority are too much in our organizational structure. But the solution does not lie in reforming the structure away from episcopal authority, but in returning to it. We are now too much controlled by power blocs and theological and ecclesiastical cliques both at the local church and annual conference level. But these develop where the episcopacy is weak administratively. If our bishops could act with the decisiveness of early American Methodist bishops, this aspect of our predicament would be resolved. The suggestion of … Robb is likely to take us even farther into the predicament and further [to] accommodate to the cultural norms of a materialistic secular society.

… Robb’s article might have been quite valid some five years or so ago, but it fails to portray Methodism’s predicament accurately at the present time.

RICHARD BOWYER

Director

Wesley Foundation

Fairmont, W. Va.

Maybe one of the shames of the church is that the world has so infected her ranks and point of view that we have to talk about promotions and demotions at all.

HAROLD E. MILLER, JR.

The Community Methodist Church

Massapequa, L. I., N. Y.

His thoughts reflect the thinking of many Methodist ministers and laymen. Perhaps those in authoritative positions in The Methodist Church—bishops and heads of general boards—would do well to consider Mr. Robb’s suggestions, lest the church continue to fall toward a state of mediocrity.

CARL HERNDON

Warrington Methodist

Warrington, Fla.

Dr. Robb’s discussion on the “liturgical crisis” is the weak point in an otherwise challenging article.…

A liberal cannot be a High Churchman, and it was long after Aldersgate that Wesley described himself as “a High Churchman, the son of a High Churchman.”

The confusion of aesthetics with liturgies was part of the so-called “enriched worship movement” of the 20s and 30s but is certainly not characteristic of the liturgic movement of the present time.

The supposition that the present-day return to Wesley is based on principles which Wesley repudiated is easily corrected by looking at the dates of those writings which have been the inspiration of the present movement. “The Sunday Service” was issued in 1784. “The Duty of Constant Communion” was published by Wesley in 1788. “The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice and Hymns on the Lord’s Supper” was published in 1745 and republished nine times during Wesley’s lifetime with a tenth edition shortly after his death. Wesley’s Aldersgate experience was in 1738. The dates are sufficient refutation of Mr. Robb’s thesis.

MILTON JAY PEDEN

First Methodist

Macon, Miss.

Mr. Peden’s letter contains several mistaken assumptions:

Nowhere in the article do I equate High Churchmanship with liberalism. Rather, I imply that it is a weak and insufficient answer to the vacuum left in worship by liberalism.

The High Churchmen that I know certainly put a premium on aesthetics.

While Mr. Wesley continued to have some High-Church prejudices throughout his ministry, the High-Church spirit had no significant influence on the revival. It was the preaching of the evangelical Gospel and the singing of the great Wesley hymns that were used of God to bring revival.

The early Methodists followed their leader in the warm evangelical faith but were not significantly influenced by the High Church he maintained.…

In the biographical sketch under my article I was incorrectly listed as chairman of the Board of Evangelism of the North Texas Conference of The Methodist Church. It is the Northwest Texas Conference.

EDMUND W. ROBB

St. Paul Methodist Church

Midland, Tex.

Criticism of the divided chancel because it was “unknown in Methodism a generation ago” is terribly narrow. Where the chancel is divided the cross is central and the minister is not the focus of attention during worship. I should have thought that Mr. Robb would prefer the centrality of the cross, especially in light of his dissatisfaction with modern Methodist theology.

CHARLES A. GREEN

Cambridge, Mass.

A shocking but fair appraisal of the great issues at stake in Methodism.

We hear reverberations coming from the younger ministers like: “I don’t believe in the Holy Spirit and all that jazz,” and “I was not called to the ministry but have chosen it as a profession.”

Where are the district superintendents when the younger ministers flounder in a sea of confusion; when they show such utter lack of mature judgment?

The Methodist Church needs, as it has needed for a long time, a voice like … Edmund W. Robb calling primarily for a re-evaluation of the theological beliefs of The Methodist Church at the pulpit level. The pendulum has swung so far to the left, liberal wing that anybody now who still believes in the Virgin Birth is considered a fundamentalist.

The truth of the matter is that the liberal influence is so predominant in The Methodist Church that there is no longer any equalizing influence.

If the basis for Christian belief in The Methodist Church continues to be based primarily upon intellectual comprehension, we might just as well join the Unitarian flock and receive “A” for honesty.

ROBERT ERICSON

Shelton, Conn.

Hit the nail on the head, and, we hope, hit those in responsible leadership on the head hard enough to awaken them. This article ought to be published in Methodism’s Together, or at least our Christian Advocate. Dr. Robb is to be commended for his courage of conviction.

VERNON F. CALE

South Side Methodist

Huntington, W. Va.

Mr. Robb said, “Barth emphasizes the transcendence of God to the neglect of Christian experience. He stresses the holiness of God but has little to say about holiness of life.” Barth’s position is no longer that which Mr. Robb enunciates, but rather Barth has changed, maybe grown is the word, to the point where he wrote an article in 1956 entitled “The Humanity of God.”

SUSAN T. HOLLIS

Millers Falls, Mass.

Theologically The Methodist Church has degenerated from teaching the Gospel of grace to a humanistic philosophy of good works as the basis for salvation; from the Scriptures to books about the Scriptures; from leading men to realize that, before a holy God, they are sinners in desperate need of God’s redeeming love into some kind of vague “togetherness” that requires only that joining the church is similar to becoming a Democrat or a Mason.…

I was reared in the Methodist parsonage. I loved The Methodist Church, for it was under its concern that I became a Christian when a lad of eleven years. Under the ministry of Wilbur Chapman in 1907 in New England, and through the combined effort of the churches of the city, I was led to see that I needed to be born again, born from above. For the past twenty-four years I have vainly sought for a church home, of the Methodist persuasion, wherein the Bible is preached and taught to the extent that it was revered and obeyed in other days. So, I have settled for a home church of another denomination all these years.

May I close with the heartening note that it was blessed to my soul to read of the cooperation and the devotion of Bishop Kennedy to the recent Billy Graham Crusade here in Southern California.

W. W. SPEAR

Culver City, Calif.

Edmund W. Robb’s look into the soul of Methodism is tantamount to laying bare the significant needs of the larger denominations of Protestantism in general which have suffered the same damages of liberalism and the concurrent attempt to do “repair work” but with inadequate materials.

The spiritual life of the traditionally liberal churches is heart-breaking, and the wounds are healed only when we see these churches so joyously receiving the biblical witness and worship which is understandable to the common man.…

Let us pray that the “awakening” in Protestantism (particularly that of the liberal persuasion), evident by the continuous “recognition of problems.” continues to gain momentum until a world-wide revival of the Church becomes an irresistible, God-sent reality.

ROBERT S. HESS

Medway Village Church (Congregational)

Medway, Mass.

It was a tremendous spiritual encouragement to see “The Predicament of Methodism” examined so carefully and accurately.…

As a minister, planning to spend a lifetime in The Methodist Church, I am glad to see that others are aware of this “predicament.” Now let’s do something about it!

REID W. STROUD

Philadelphia, Pa.

May this choice article serve as notice to the world that Methodism is far from being dead. Many of us realize there is much wrong within The Methodist Church, but nonetheless there remain hundreds of Methodist pastors yet declaring the Word of truth and yet holding high the bloodstained banner of the Cross. Thank God for men like Edmund Robb and magazines like CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

PAUL GEORGE

Harlem Springs Methodist Church

Harlem Springs, Ohio

SAID A LOT VERY WELL

The lead article in the October 25 issue entitled, “How To Resolve the Quarrel Over Evangelism” by Jesse Baird said a lot very well.

He has used some very convincing logic and testimony to persuade some of our quarrelsome brethren to the evangelistic position. One was mightily disappointed, however, to look in vain throughout this entire writing for the most basic, immutable, and irrefutable reason for evangelism—the commandment of the Head of the Church who said, “Go … preach the gospel.…”

ROBERT F. RAMEY

Detroit Bible College

Detroit, Mich.

Of the many articles I have read, few, if any, have warmed my heart as did the article by Dr. Baird.…

O. E. SANDEN

Minneapolis, Minn.

GNORAMUSES DIMINISHED

In your October 11 issue (Eutychus) Merrill C. Skaug says that “on Continental Europe and the British Isles the minister must have four or five degrees or he is regarded as an ignoramus.” The Church of Scotland has always believed in a well-educated ministry, but it is no contradiction of that fact to point out that only about 5 per cent of its ministers have more than two degrees. The percentage is rather less in the Church of England.

J. D. DOUGLAS

London, England

FOR THE RECORD

In my recent review of The Reality of the Resurrection by Dr. M. C. Tenney (Aug. 2 issue), an omission was made that has called my orthodoxy in question. The statement that “Psalm 16:10 probably voices confidence that God will deliver the righteous sufferer from death before it occurs, not after.” was followed by this further omitted statement: “Peter’s application to Jesus’ resurrection rests on pressing the words to their fullest possible sense, legitimately since throughout the New Testament righteous-sufferer psalms are heightened in meaning by application to Christ, the righteous sufferer par excellence.” I mean simply that in such passages the Holy Spirit intended much stronger and more literal meanings with reference to Christ than the human author did with reference to himself.

ROBERT H. GUNDRY

Santa Barbara, Calif.

The Nature of Humility

Many years ago we had staying with us a clergyman to whom I listened with close attention. One day he spoke of someone as “having the rare grace of humility.” I think he must have meant that this person had the real thing that we mean by humility and not the counterfeit. Real humility is always spontaneous and attractive. False humility is easy to detect and is always unattractive.

It is false humility when we pretend we do not have a capacity that we do have. If you can sing, or write, or get through a lot of business in a day, humility does not require you to pretend that you can do none of these things; it only requires you to remember that you did not create these things yourself, and that therefore gratitude fits better than pride.

It is false humility when you mistake an inferiority complex for humility, for many an inferiority complex is only pride backfiring. Most people with an inferiority complex are as proud as Lucifer underneath and love attention and acclaim. You can never have real humility while you are preoccupied with yourself, and an inferiority complex is the most self-centered state of mind in the world.

It is false humility, when you know your religious experience is not sufficient, to play down what genuine religious experience you have had. More people than we often think have had true dealings with God and possess a very real working faith. Let us not claim more than we have, but let us not belittle what we do have. We do not grow in faith by pulling up our faith by the roots every few days to see how it is getting along. Sabatier says that “excellent men religiously betray their own convictions to avoid asserting themselves.”

Some religious assertion is pride; but much refusal to assert our beliefs is cowardice, not humility. The person who sits silently by while God, faith, the Church, take a beating from some loud-mouth is not being humble; he is being cowardly. A good-natured word on the other side need not be pride; it can be necessary courage. It is not humility when honest men say they will not dirty their hands with practical politics. All they do is leave it to men with dirtier hands still. Evil thrives when good men do nothing.

There is often a false humility in too much family acquiescence. Some of the problems ministers are called on to deal with do not stem from situations where there has been a family row but from situations where one of them is due. A dominating mother or father rules the roost. The rest have concluded it is better to give in than to walk into the buzz saw. Many a girl should have married but did not, from false loyalty to a mother. An article in Reader’s Digest called “The Company We Keep” concerns the habits of animals. It says, “One of the most interesting laws we have observed is the finality of the departure of the young from their parents. One October afternoon the fox goes under the fence … and we know she will not be back. The owl circles the lawn, climbs high into a tree, swirls his head and looks fiercely at the horizon. He flies along the path his eyes picked, in a determined, steady flight, and we know he is gone.”

There is a reason why Jesus spoke of leaving father and mother when a new home is set up. Parents must resist the wish to keep the old relation as it was. Children must not be told they are not humble and grateful when they want to leave the nest and make their own way in the world. Love and thoughtfulness can and should remain—but not docility and acquiescence.

We all know that one can become proud of being humble, especially if one has had a genuine religious experience and for the first time seriously takes Christ into daily life. For a time it looks as if this had set aside the old pride and willfulness; but there will probably come a time when these will positively use this religious experience to aggrandize themselves. There is a story about a Carthusian monk who said, “The Dominicans are famous for their learning, and the Franciscans for their piety; but when it comes to humility, we’re tops!”

What True Humility Is

Consider now what real humility is, remembering that it is sometimes hard to identify. There was once a well-known diplomat, our ambassador to a European country, who one of his fellow diplomats said was the only man he ever saw that could strut sitting down. The diplomat was a small man, and was so pleased with the realization of his ability that gratification at his success did not come from a feeling of surprise that he had done so well—which is a kind of humility after all!

Real humility may allow one to have a quite fair sense of one’s own capacities; without reasonable confidence nobody can ever do anything. We must remember at all times, however, that whatever capacity we have, although we may have developed it, came to us as a sheer gift from God. “What hast thou that thou didst not receive?” People who talk about how poorly they do are usually “fishing” and hoping somebody will strongly disagree and give them some praise. If any of us says he does not like encouraging things said to him, he probably lies. But when they are said, there is something we can always do. A friend tells of being in a certain military office in Europe during the war. When mail came in that was intended for some higher command, they had a stamp they quickly put on top of the letter, “Referred to G.H.Q.” That’s a good thing to do with a compliment!

Real humility walks the fine line between self-criticism and self-acceptance. We go for high ground as Christians, and we fall back from it again and again. The two extremes are total disillusionment and despair at one end, and a demand for perfection at the other. Both become in the end impossible. The first puts us out of the race altogether. The second, when successful, is exactly like pride; when unsuccessful it is still like pride, for what hurts is that I—with my noble ideas—have failed again.

Bishop King, a wise spiritual adviser who was one of England’s great spiritual forces in a past generation, said, “You must not over-worry yourself about your advance in the Christian life. It is very simple, the love of God and love of man. That is perfection.” Such counsel may too easily comfort our mediocrities and failings, but it should save us from the perils of perfectionism.

What about humility as touching our church? We Episcopalians are not noted for our humility. And if this means satisfaction with the extraordinary comprehensiveness and wisdom of the Anglican church, we are on solid ground. But this is not the same thing as satisfaction with ourselves. What is given us in our church is magnificent. What we have often done with what is given us is sometimes deplorable. We can love our church, yet keep mindful of our often complacent and stuffy ways. We might well take a cue from that humorous Virginia evangelist, Sam Jones. One night in Baltimore he was giving it to his own people, the Methodists, pretty hard. Somebody said to him, “Sam, why don’t you jump on the Catholics sometimes?” Sam Jones said, “When I get through with the Methodists, it’s time to go to bed.”

And what about humility as touching our nation? When we hear about “the ugly American,” we fly to our own defense and want to tell people how quick this country is to respond to some crisis overseas that affects a lot of people tragically. This is true to some extent. But why haven’t we thought out wise ways to take our technical help to these people so that fewer crises will arise? It could be done. It must be done if we are not to drive more hundreds of millions into the Communist camp.

Again, we can be proud of our heritage. We certainly do not have very much to be proud about in what our half-pagan America has made of that heritage. We must keep these distinctions in our minds and in our policies, for national pride in this day is a very dangerous commodity.

How do we come by humility? None of us has a sufficient amount of it. We can say of ourselves what Churchill said of Atlee, when someone said to him, “Atlee is at least a humble man.” Churchill is said to have replied, “He has plenty to be humble about!” So have we all. It is a strange thing how full of pride the world is, yet how much we dislike it in others and fail to perceive it in ourselves. Pride of place, pride of race, pride of face, and pride of grace—this is the oft-mentioned quartette.

God Speaks Through Life

Life is always a great teacher. Other people and their opinions may most often prove to be the file that rubs down our corners of pride. Do we take umbrage, or do we listen, when somebody comes uncomfortably close to one of our great faults or sins? Many times others hint at these and say as much as they think we will stand; we would often do well to multiply what they say by ten, if we would understand what is really in their minds. Sometimes they will be good enough friends to be frank and say what is in their hearts; we can play dumb and make excuses and be evasive—or we can be honest with the truth, and try to be grateful to them. We can all swell with pride over a great success or promotion, or we can swell almost as much over some minor advancement.

All men are prone to pride. One of the most moving things about the Pope’s enthronement is a little ceremony in his procession to the high altar of Saint Peter’s: he is halted three times by the Master of Ceremonies to receive a small brazier of glowing coals. On this the Pope to be enthroned throws a handful of flax. And as this flares up and is gone in a puff of smoke, the Master of Ceremonies looks into the Pontiff’s eyes and intones the ancient warning, “Pater sancte, sic transitgloria mundi”—“Holy Father, thus passes the glory of the world.” Every Christian ought to be sufficiently under the spell of Him whom we serve (and He on a Cross) to say such a word to himself every time he is tempted to pride.

Sometimes our pride (what the Greeks called hubris) carries us beyond reason and control, and we experience humiliation. We lost a job because of our tempers or meddlesomeness or passions. God and life speak to us through those events that mirror in a terrible way our pride, our faults, our sins. It may be that humiliation is one step in our path toward greater humility.

We ought all to be ever mindful of human fallibility along all lines. Our whole democratic form of life, with at least two parties in politics, is witness to the partialness of all human wisdom and goodness. One man or party too long in power usually incarnates pride, and it is time for a change. We must have convictions and try to live by them. But we must always remember Oliver Cromwell’s warning: “By the mercy of Christ, remember that you may be mistaken.” We must hold by our faith but be always open to the beliefs and methods of others if they are tested by thought and by results. It is ever so easy for men in my kind of work to deify their own aims and methods and even themselves. When any of us is beyond hearing what is to be said on another side, he is really “dead in sin.” Nobody knows as much as he thinks he does. We are not meant to surrender our beliefs: we are meant to surrender our pride in the way we state and carry out those beliefs.

There are two ways, I think, in which our Christian faith can help us to find a greater humility.

Only Christian faith can give a person courage and humility at the same time. Without God our courage becomes pride, and our humility becomes spinelessness. It was said of D. L. Moody that he was as humble as a child before God and as bold as a lion before men. That is what we need. The same God who gives us spiritual victories keeps us from being proud about them. Paul says concerning his spiritual revelations (2 Cor. 12) that “to keep me from being too elated … a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated.” He says three times he prayed it would leave him (we do not know what it was—perhaps malaria or bad eyesight), and God only said, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” He adds, “When I am weak, then I am strong.”

And one final thing. To seek humility is always dangerous. I discovered long ago that the best antidote to pride is not humility but gratitude. The more we cultivate a spirit of thankfulness for happy events and even unhappy ones, seeking not for favoring circumstances, but for grace to meet all circumstances as God wants us to do it, the more shall we be at leisure from ourselves and therefore free to think about God and other people.

I think this is what moves us more and more toward Christian humility.

A Christmas Carol

In the bleak mid-winter

Frosty wind made moan,

Earth stood hard as iron,

Water like stone;

Snow had fallen, snow on snow,

Snow on snow,

In the bleak mid-winter

Long ago.

Our God, Heaven cannot hold Him

Nor earth sustain;

Heaven and earth shall flee away

When He comes to reign.

In the bleak mid-winter

A stable-place sufficed

The Lord God Almighty

Jesus Christ.

Enough for Him whom cherubim

Worship night and day,

A breastful of milk

And a manger full of hay;

Enough for Him whom angels

Fall down before,

The ox and ass and camel

Which adore.

Angels and archangels

May have gathered there,

Cherubim and seraphim

Thronged the air,

But only His mother

In her maiden bliss

Worshiped her Beloved

With a kiss.

What can I give Him,

Poor as I am?

If I were a shepherd

I would bring a lamb;

If I were a wise man

I would do my part

Yet what I can I give Him,

Give my heart.

CHRISTINA ROSSETTI

When invited in 1886, near the end of her life, to contribute to Representative Poems of Living Poets, Christina Rossetti picked “A Christmas Carol” as one of three of her poems to be included.

Samuel M. Shoemaker, who died October 31, was the retired rector of Calvary Episcopal Church, Pittsburgh. Nationally known for his evangelical witness, he had been a contributing editor ofChristianity Todaysince its inception. Beginning Your Ministry, the most recent of Dr. Shoemaker’s books, appeared this year.

John Henry Jowett: Prince of Preachers

Boy, I would like the morning paper,” said a kind yet imperious voice to me as, at 6:30 A.M., I handed out newspapers at the railway bookstall in my home town. I glanced in awe at the well-dressed, distinguished man who thus commanded me, as I, a six-teen-year-old lad, handed him the paper and took his money. For he was the person whom the evening before I had heard thrill a great congregation with a tremendous sermon on “Prevailing Prayer.”

It was an anniversary occasion, and for such church events John Henry Jowett was a name to conjure with. He had come from Birmingham, where he was minisister of Carr’s Lane Congregational Church, for this special event. When I reached the church it was packed to overflowing, with several hundred people outside. I wormed my way through the crowd and came face to face with an usher guarding a closed door. “You can’t go in,” he said; “the church is already packed to suffocation.” “Do you think that Christ would keep a boy from hearing the Gospel?” I countered. That did it! He opened the door to let me in, and several scores of people got in behind me before the door could be closed again.

The preacher’s text was: “When he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few. Pray …” (Matt. 9:36–39). After many years three things stand out in my memory, above the overwhelming impression of the sermon as a whole. One was the thrilling way in which he said Pray, and finished reading the text with that great word. The second was a quotation from the Latin poet Horace: “I hate the vulgar crowd and keep it at a distance,” which Jowett contrasted with, “When he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them.” The third was a personal illustration: “When I pray for my little girl, whom I have left home in Birmingham, tonight, I will be cutting a channel of grace from the throne of God to her heart.” That is what he made us feel intercessory prayer essentially is: cutting channels through which the divine power and grace can flow to meet human need.

Five years later, soon after I had entered Spurgeon’s College as a student for the ministry, I heard Jowett preach two mighty sermons from Spurgeon’s famous London pulpit. It was in the opening month of World War I. At that time Jowett was at the pinnacle of his fame as the pastor of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, New York City, and was paying a return visit to his native land. The great church was filled to overflowing, and several hundred people outside vainly sought admission. Both morning and evening sermons were based on texts taken from the prophecy of Isaiah. The morning one was a bold utterance in which Jowett urged Britain to be a mediating power between Germany and France. “In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance” (Isa. 19:23–25). This was a theme which he took up with vigor and devotion after the war, also, when he had returned to Britain as pastor of Westminster Chapel, Buckingham Gate, London. He endeavored in practical ways to bring about a reconciliation between French and German Christians, recalling them “solemnly and tenderly to their common brotherhood in Jesus Christ.”

Jowett’s evening sermon in Spurgeon’s tabernacle was based on a verse much more familiar than the morning text: “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint” (Isa. 40:31). The preacher spoke with dramatic effect about power to fly (for youth), power to run (for the middle-aged), and power to walk (for the elderly)—power which comes to those who put their trust in the Lord.

I once heard a noted minister say that he did not care for Jowett’s preaching because it was too flowery, and not floury enough: “When I am hungry I would rather go to a baker than a decorator; and Jowett is a decorator.” His preference was G. Campbell Morgan. I doubt if the analogy was a genuine one. At any rate, whatever decorating Jowett may have done on that Sunday in August, 1914, the impression left on most of his hearers was, I think, that they had been fed with the Bread of Life.

A Hundred-Year Mark

This year is the hundredth anniversary of Jowett’s birth-date (August 23, 1863). He died at the age of fifty-nine. He was then the minister of Westminster Congregational Church, situated within a short walk of Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey, Westminster Cathedral (Catholic), and Westminster Central Hall (Methodist). His was a strategic position, and he made full use of it. The church was crowded every Sunday, reminiscent of the days when Campbell Morgan occupied that famous pulpit.

Before Jowett had returned to England, just as the war was closing, several churches in Britain had sought to secure him as minister—St. George’s West Free Church, Edinburgh (the illustrious pulpit of the great Alexander Whyte), and Richmond Hill Congregational Church, Bournemouth (where the persuasive J. D. Jones preached for forty years). But it was to London that he wished to go, for he felt that there he could best serve the Church and his nation in those distressful days.

In 1915 an effort was made to secure him as successor to R. J. Campbell at the City Temple, and the deacons would have extended him the call. But the majority of the church opposed this, on the ground that some years before Jowett had severely criticized Campbell’s so-called “New Theology.” Fancy that—a congregation refusing to have as its minister the man who was so frequently referred to in the press as “The Greatest Living Preacher”!

From the very beginning, discerning friends and listeners saw that Jowett was destined for pulpit greatness. This was clear even in his student days at Edinburgh University and at Airdale and Mansfield Theological Colleges. It became even more evident during his six years’ ministry in his first pastorate, St. James’s Congregational Church, Newcastle-on-Tyne. It was therefore no surprise when Jowett was called to succeed the great Robert William Dale at Carr’s Lane Congregational Church, Birmingham. Dale was the intellectual leader of English Nonconformity, a mighty exponent of evangelical Christianity, and a bold advocate of the social implications and applications of Christian principles. Once when a somewhat narrow brother, objecting to Dale’s political interests, said: “Dr. Dale, there are no politics in heaven,” the great man retorted: “Yes, and there are no evils in heaven either.”

Preaching With Heat And Light

How different were Jowett’s preaching and writings! He was wise enough, in succeeding Dale, to be himself. Before he entered upon his great ministry in Birmingham, he had made up his mind to develop the type of preaching he had already found effective in Newcastle-on-Tyne. So he was devotional instead of didactic, emotional rather than intellectual. That does not mean that his preaching was all heat and no light; he gave much care to the construction of his sermons, and there was much thought in them. He realized, however, that the mere abstract statement of Christian truths lacks the power to move men’s wills and set their hearts aflame. So was he able to take up where his illustrious predecessor had left off, and continue in another vein the evangelical tradition, not only of Robert William Dale, but also of Dale’s Puritan predecessor, the distinguished John Angel James.

Like Dale, Jowett was “mighty in the Scriptures,” yet in a different way. He had his own technique in expounding the Word, and this became more and more effective as the years passed. He had no liking for “topical preaching,” unless the topic was something to be found in the Bible. He felt that the preacher who spent his time in the pulpit presenting essays on remote subjects, or even in dealing with the so-called “living issues” of the time, was failing to proclaim “the unsearchable riches of Christ.”

Of course, Jowett seems not to have passed through what the medieval mystics called “The Dark Night of the Soul.” In this respect he was like Alexander Maclaren, but unlike Campbell Morgan. Therefore he had no liking for apologetics in the pulpit, and no confidence that proclaiming the social gospel would be of service to the Church of Christ. Probably he felt—as James Denney did—that most preachers who proclaimed the social gospel did so because they had no other Gospel to preach.

It has to be admitted that on both counts Jowett’s attitude was extreme. There is room in the modern pulpit for sensible apologetic sermons, even though it is true that “it has never pleased God to save His people by argument.” Successful apologetics serves the useful purpose of prying open closed minds. Furthermore, the modern preacher cannot be indifferent to the social and political problems of the time—racial discrimination, for example, and the possibility of a nuclear holocaust. It is the one-track mind in the pulpit that has to be deplored; the preacher who seldom talks about anything else than the evidences for Christianity or the East-West tensions is offering a truncated Gospel.

When Jowett returned to England in 1922 it was clear that the war had made a great impact on his preaching. His hearers noted with satisfaction that new notes had crept into his sermons, even though he still spoke persuasively about the great apostolic themes. Christ—crucified, risen, ascended, the Lord of Life and Glory, of whose kingdom there would be no end—was still the center of his message. But Jowett had become more ecumenically minded; he now saw more clearly the social implications of the Gospel; and above all he felt the urgent necessity for the Church to lead the way in the establishment of international peace. Alas that he died when he was at his best, a victim of pernicious anemia. His death at a time when his voice was so much needed was as much a tragedy for the Church as was the death of William Temple twenty years later.

In essence Jowett was an old-fashioned preacher. He was well-versed in what are called the “assured results” of modern biblical criticism (had he not been trained by the great philosophical theologian Andrew M. Fairbairn and the fine Old Testament scholar Archibald Duff?), but he never obtruded such matters into the pulpit. Was it because he did not wish to commit himself? At the time of the great preacher’s death an influential religious journal contained an article entitled, “The Tragedy of Dr. Jowett,” suggesting that he deliberately refused to face up to the perplexities of the faith. Thus while he was able to comfort the saints he was unable to enlighten the doubter. And even in addressing himself to those who were secure in the faith, his was a “Gospel of delicate sympathy rather than of sturdy strength” (Horton Davies, Varieties of English Preaching, p. 42).

Jowett was a preacher par excellence of the certitudes of the Christian faith. If he did not canvass in the pulpit the intellectual problems of the Gospel, it was not because he was afraid to do so but because he regarded such questions as irrelevant. He is reported to have said privately to a fellow minister: “The man who spends half-an-hour in the pulpit trying to prove that there were two or three Isaiahs is a fool; the man who spends the time trying to prove that there was only one is a bigger fool.”

Was he not wise in concentrating on the centralities of the Gospel? As Ernest H. Jeffs points out, in his Princes of the Modern Pulpit, the keynote of Jowett’s preaching was grace. The grace of God revealed in Christ he held to contain all the mystery and poetry and sublimity of the Gospel. To him the Bible was the alphabet of the literature of grace; and he rang the changes on this one grand theme as Dale’s successor in Birmingham, as the pastor of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, New York, and finally in the heart of London, in the shadow of Buckingham Palace.

Yes, he was an old-fashioned preacher; yet he was nevertheless up to date—a mighty herald of the Christ who is always ahead of his people, “the same yesterday, and today, and forever.”

John Pitts has held pastorates in London and Liverpool, England; Montreal, Canada; Bloomfield, New Jersey; and Nassau, Bahamas. A minister of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., he now lives in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He holds the B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of London, and is a graduate in theology from Spurgeon’s College, London.

My Pilgrimage from Liberalism to Orthodoxy

The problem of the relation of science to religion is still the greatest stumbling block for those who are earnestly seeking to believe that Christianity is true. Thus the story of my spiritual journey from liberalism to orthodoxy, which CHRISTIANITY TODAY has asked me to write, is the story of clearing the ground of the obstructions offered by science, so that I could with intellectual honesty believe the biblical religion I had loved from childhood.

My parents were earnest Christians and independent students of the Bible. My first childhood orthodox (i.e., supernatural) theology was pieced together bit by bit from routine Sunday school, and the hymns, Bible reading, and scattered remarks in sermons, in our plushy, liberal Congregational church. At seventeen I had read the Bible through of my own volition.

The real initiation into the currents of scientific humanism came in my undergraduate years at Smith College, 1922–1926. It did not worry me in the least to be told that no educated person believed either that God was an old man with a long white beard, or that there was a platform in the sky on which he lived. My picture of God, drawn from my Bible reading, was a picture of his character, and I was already conscious enough of the way my mind worked to recognize the shadowy outline of human form that sometimes accompanied my thought of God as part of the mind’s technique for thinking. And by the time I was sixteen I was already conscious “that the great distances are those we carry around within us.”

The awareness of genuine (i.e., non-metaphorical), non-spatial distance is nothing new in religion (Isa. 57:15; 2 Cor. 12:2–4). I find myself puzzled by the Bishop of Woolwich’s distress as to whether God can be thought of as “up there,” or “out there,” or neither. The idea of another form of existence all about us, other than our space-time universe, has never seemed to present insuperable difficulties. And as a specialist in higher mathematics once said, “The fact that mathematicians can do valid calculations with dimensions beyond the four of our space-time universe is not the slightest proof that the Christian heaven exists. It is, however, proof that scientists and philosophers cannot say dogmatically that the Christian heaven does not exist.”

The really grim problem for faith came with an understanding of chemistry’s claim that all matter comprises a closed system moving on undeviating schedule, in which a measured amount of any chemical action could be depended upon to bring about an exactly predictable amount of chemical reaction. Since this was true of all physical action, including brain action, all thought, according to the behavioristic psychology of the day, was only a conscious registering of the brain action of the moment, which brain action was completely determined, because it was exactly corresponding reaction to previous chemical action. This claim, if true, would eliminate Christianity by disproving its claim that a supernatural, righteous, Creator-God has interacted with the world on man’s behalf by inspiring the prophets, and by the Incarnation and bodily Resurrection of his Son, and by the subsequent strengthening and guiding power of the Holy Spirit. For if a supernatural God’s direct activity initiated these events, then these events would not have been initiated by previous chemical action. This point is the essential problem. If one tries to bypass the problem by describing God as everywhere present as part of the universe, then, since the universe contains evil, God cannot be described as perfectly righteous. If God is perfectly righteous, he has to be supernatural to the creation.

Before one now talks glibly about behavioristic psychology being superseded and about scientific thought becoming less mechanistic, it is well to remember that science, if it is staying within its own sphere of studying objectively measurable reality, is still forced to describe all action in relation to other physical action within the cosmos. The opposition of present-day physicists and chemists to accepting the Duke University experiments as valid proofs of telepathy, is an indication that the idea of non-physical mind influencing physical matter is still contrary to the scientific way of looking at the mind-matter relation.

A Limit To The Sphere Of Science

I rightly began looking, not for scientific proofs of Christianity, but for a means of limiting science’s sphere of intellectual authority, in favor of that of the Bible.

The first permanent conclusion that I reached was that, as far as its being a total philosophy of existence is concerned, the mechanistic-behavioristic view could be eliminated on scientific presuppositions themselves. For science proceeds on the assumption that, of all hypotheses, that one should be assumed to be correct that stands up under testing and accounts for all the relevant data most simply. Mechanistic behaviorism had a neat water-tight explanation that made the mistake of omitting the relevant datum of consciousness itself. Its theory explains completely how the Encyclopaedia Britannica could have been written, published, and read with only the nervous system and its reactivity being involved. No human consciousness need ever have existed!

The all-important realm of consciousness is outside of the scientific domain, because the subjective consciousness, which objectively exists, cannot be objectively known, even by introspection. The nearest we can come by introspection to an objective knowledge of ourselves-thinking, is the content of our consciousness in the split-second past. So between the subjective consciousness and the realm open to scientific investigation there is a gap permanently unbridgeable to our understanding.

Since much of the activity of our bodies is unconscious metabolic chemical action, as unconscious as both the chemical reactions of inanimate matter and the activity of the lowest organisms, the point at which Christian apologetics should take its stand is at that aspect of man which is made in the image of God, man’s conscious intelligent-spiritual nature. That there is a God, or Supernatural-Creative-Mind, seemed intellectually reasonable to suppose. The FBI would be unable to decode a message from a can of alphabet soup, because the letters in it had been assembled not by mind but by chance. But since the intelligent minds of chemists can at least partially decode the mathematically precise constituents of primeval matter, the indications are that intelligent mind arranged matter in the first place. Furthermore, the fact that values are existences occurring in conscious minds, and not in and for objective matter as such, places all values, such as righteousness, outside the realm of science. It is not scientifically proper even to say that man is a higher type of life than the giant squid. All that can be scientifically said is that both the physical organism and the reaction pattern are more complicated in man than in the giant squid. The relation of consciousness and values to matter is, frankly, a mystery.

Intelligence and values exist in subjective conscious minds. The idea of a Great Intelligence arranging the order of the universe seems a necessary presupposition if our human intelligence can make headway in “decoding” nature. If the consciousness we have of values, especially righteousness, can be thought of as likewise derived from a characteristic of the Great Intelligence, then we have the theoretical groundwork on which the Christian picture of God can be built. And it is valid so to build it, even though we do not see fully how this description of God and his actions relates to the scientific picture. For the problem of the relation of this righteous God to the world is an extension of the problem of the relation of the subjective consciousness and values in man to the objectively measurable world which science investigates. As we have already seen, there is a gap, which science cannot bridge or explain, between the subjective consciousness and the world that can be objectively measured.

The initial consciousness that Ultimate Reality is righteous comes partly from the pressure of our inner awareness of duty—that we ought to try to do what is right, partly from reasoned arguments, partly from the “spiritual hunch” that comes to us when we read the Bible, especially the Gospels, and partly from the leap of faith. Life constantly presents us with moral choices; we are forced to choose, and thus to gamble our brief earthly careers on the belief that Ultimate Reality is intrinsically righteous, or on the denial of this. The refusal to commit oneself to one of these alternatives becomes eventually a denial by default that Ultimate Reality is righteous.

In order to be righteous, Ultimate Reality would also have to be conscious, intelligent, and purposeful—in short, a personal God. He could not be part of the world, since the world contains evil. So he would have to be the Creator of the universe, or nature, and therefore supernatural to nature. This much we can deduce philosophically, granted the initial belief that Ultimate Reality is righteous. But these things that we can deduce are in line with the biblical description of God as the supernatural, righteous, powerful Creator. Also, since righteousness is an active social virtue, the Christian claim that God is eternally a Community (the Trinity), who has from before the creation practiced righteousness among himself, would seem to be at least possible.

Acceptance Of The Bible’S Authority

I believed that Ultimate Reality is righteous. Also, by my human intellect I could recognize the Bible as the greatest existing book on the subject of righteousness, and so as the greatest authority on that important aspect of man’s relation to God. Since the Bible stood the intellectual test in that area, I could accept it as authoritative in the vital non-repeatable area that is not subject to philosophical proof, namely, the account of man’s redemption through God’s revelation to Israel, culminating in the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of his only begotten Son.

The intellectual obstructions offered by science had now been adequately dealt with, so that I could with intellectual honesty accept the Bible as authoritative. The next fall, 1926, found me at the University of Chicago Divinity School, studying for a master’s degree in New Testament, preparatory to becoming a Bible teacher.

I have never in my life hated anything with the permanent, creative passion with which I hated my Chicago experience. The New Testament was taught with so much emphasis on the Greek and Hebrew cultural backgrounds, and from such an “objective” point of view, that I was much longer in understanding the school’s over-all pattern of liberalism—with its denial that God is supernatural—than I would have been had I been specializing in theology. I came bitterly to resent the fact that in my naïveté I had assumed that all teachers in Christian divinity schools are Christian, and that by means of that trust they had led me blindfold.

In long retrospect there were positive gains in my work in Chicago, besides the training in historical backgrounds and exact scholarship, and the one course in Old Testament under Professor J. M. Powis Smith that was sheer joy. Behind all the anthropological detail that cluttered his lectures, the novice could sense that he had personally known and loved the God of Israel. The full greatness of Professor Edgar J. Goodspeed I never realized until, when he was nearly ninety years old, he wrote Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist, thereby retracting, in his devotion to the search for truth, many of the scholarly assumptions with which his fame was associated.

Besides, the virulence of the liberal poison was its own antidote. The turning point came not long before I took my degree at Chicago. In my perplexity I finally insisted in a seminar that the teacher tell me whether he personally believed in God. He answered, after a moment’s hesitation, that he was “operating [his] religion on a non-theistic basis.” I was inexpressibly shocked. Avowed humanists I had known and respected at Smith College. But that a humanist would pretend, by teaching in a Christian divinity school, to be propagating Christianity, was spiritual indecency beyond any I had ever imagined. The feeling that that divinity school had any moral or spiritual authority, or that it had any rightful claim upon my love or loyalty, vanished at that moment.

My perennial objection to liberal leaders and their neoorthodox variants is that they too largely confine their intellectual honesty to the circle of their professional peers. How many of them stand up before their assembled students, congregations, and Sunday schools, and put baldly, into words of one syllable, precisely what practical assistance they really believe Jesus Christ was able to offer the first Christian martyr, when the dying Stephen cried out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”; or even state, without mental reservation, whether they believe that at that moment the individual, Jesus Christ, heard Stephen’s prayer at all, or was conscious of the predicament he was in? The present student generation’s almost total unconcern with the issue of truth, which troubles all thoughtful teachers, including Dr. Henry P. Van Dusen in his current book, The Vindication of Liberal Theology (pp. 72, 73), can, I believe, be traced more directly to the evasions and equivocations of the pulpit in the last half century than liberals would like to admit.

Faith Undermined From Within

When in the spring I received the offer of a position teaching Bible at the Northfield School, I was not sure whether I could honestly accept it. The University of Chicago Divinity School had successfully undermined my faith from within, as science had not been able to do it from without. The influence of the accumulation of the school’s teaching was to make the New Testament seem merely the outgrowth of its first-century milieu, to focus attention away from some of the main lines of thought of the New Testament, and to imply that Jesus did not himself claim to be the Son of God or to teach many of the sayings which the Gospels attribute to him. If I could not intellectually accept “our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour,” which includes by corollary the belief in intelligently conscious, supernatural Deity domiciling himself at a particular time within created nature, then to pretend that I was teaching Christianity would be a lie.

I decided that, since I did not fully disbelieve in Christ’s divinity, it would be proper to try teaching for three years on the basis of my undergraduate insights, to see whether, with more maturity and further thought, I finally came to accept or reject the Chicago position. At the same time I decided to begin immediately a program of four summers’ study for a master’s degree in English literature, so that if after the three years’ experiment in Bible teaching I found that I had permanently accepted the Chicago position, I would be equipped to change my professional field, and would not be economically tempted to spiritual dishonesty. There was one comforting thought: the University of Chicago Divinity School’s portrait of Jesus had depicted him as not only not divine, but also as not even interestingly human. Since I was confident that greatness must exist in human experience before it can be embodied in literary form, I was sure that the school’s portrait of Jesus’ humanity, because it was uninteresting, was at fault. And if they were mistaken in their picture of his humanity, they might be mistaken on the subject of his divinity.

By the end of the summer of 1931 I had finished my three years’ experiment in Bible teaching and had completed my master’s degree in English literature at the University of Colorado, where, after the Chicago deep freeze, I had gradually thawed out spiritually under the deeply human scholarship of the well-known Shakespearean authority, Professor George Reynolds. By then I knew that I believed God to be supernatural, and therefore the Chicago New Testament interpretation to be off-center; so that I was now in a position to believe the basic teachings of orthodox Christianity to be true. The struggle was now entering its steady long-term phase of understanding the Christian teaching more fully, and intellectually struggling at particular points with liberalism to substantiate the orthodox supernatural Christian faith I believed. There was no longer any doubt about my wanting to make religious teaching a life work. So I returned to graduate study, and entered Yale Divinity School to take my Ph.D. in church history and doctrine.

If I say nothing about the galaxy of great professors under whom I studied there, it is because the major battle had already been fought. The pain of the feeling of theological isolation was becoming an old story, and so less acute. Yale was in some ways the haven after the storm. These new teachers were of course also liberals, but liberals by whom whatever lack of confidence they experienced in basic Christian belief was felt as a misfortune against which they were consciously working. My debt is incalculable to these men who furnished my mind, who gave lavishly of their time and energy to help me, and who kept their thinking a constant intellectual pressure upon me, without allowing that pressure to degenerate into the professional pressure of academic power, to the hindrance of the independence of my own thought. Of all the educational institutions in which I have studied, it is Yale that I think of as home.

I took my degree in 1937, and the following year saw me teaching in Kobe College, Japan, during the strain and uncertainty of the first year of the Sino-Japanese War. During this year there emerged into consciousness a practical difficulty, the question of whether as a general tendency I was putting the service of God or my own ambition first in my life. As soon as I fully identified the problem, I gave in immediately, because I made some nice calculations and decided that if I fought against God I could hold out only two or three years, after which he would force a nervous breakdown without any sentimental hesitation. “God’s ‘no’ was an ultimate refusal, and there was no use in trying to argue the point. This may sound like an unhappy experience. As a matter of fact, it was a very peaceful one. For in the midst of the strangeness of a foreign country, and all the instabilities of my own nature and the warring world around me, it was reassuring to know that there was one thing that could be depended upon not to change—that God has the will and the power to hold out for his own terms, forever. The hand of God may be heavy, but it feels safe. For the measure of his power is the measure of our security. ‘Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me’ ” (quoted from my book, God’s Boycott of Sin, 1947, p. 122). The evening of the decision was marked by a life-directing experience of the presence of God.

Fishing For A Hearing

Too many preachers and teachers behave like female anglers. You know how it is with the average woman. The thought of picking up a live, wiggly worm and jabbing a hook through it sends shivers down her spine. And the thought of sticking lively, red-blooded words into … sentences chills many Christian communicators.

Indeed, the whole business of providing a lure for their would-be public repels them. To be assertive, imaginative, different, or humorous in order to attract listeners or readers seems unnecessary. “The fish are there and waiting,” they maintain. “Just let down the line, wait a bit, and then reel away.”

Ah, the fish may be there, but they are not myopic; they know a naked hook when they see it. And they aren’t going to impale their interest on our drabness while hundreds of fancier prospects swim by.

Or, “The fish are weary of frills,” the non-communicator declares. “Give them a simple message from the heart and they will respond.” (Which sounds admirable.) But usually such messages, when they come out, sound more like they originated instead in the area of the soft palate. Or at least from somewhere between the mind and the heart.…

If by a message from the heart we mean something like Psalm 130—fine! (“Out of the depths I cry to thee, O LORD! Lord, hear my voice!”) But if we mean a tepid concoction of generalities, a string of sentences that look like they came from a drowsing committee—then fie!—Sue Nichols, Words on Target (John Knox Press, 1963). Used by permission.

Rachel H. King is chairman of the Department of Bible at the Northfield School, East Northfield, Massachusetts. She has the A.B. degree from Smith College, the M.A. degree from the University of Chicago Divinity School, and the Ph.D. degree from Yale Divinity School.

The Mystery of the Incarnation

In the latter part of the first century Paul wrote to the church in Galatia that “God sent his own Son, born of a woman …” (Gal. 4:4), and thus touched on a truth recorded in much greater detail in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Both stories state that Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, was born the son of Mary, a virgin betrothed to Joseph. Two astonishing details about this conception and birth are reported: (1) Mary conceived her son by the Holy Spirit, and (2) Jesus was conceived and born before his mother had had any sexual contact with Joseph. Of the two reports, Luke’s is more detailed, a fact noteworthy in the light of his competence and authority as a historian.

Out of these two narratives emerges the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, and although it did not receive further elucidation within the New Testament, it soon became an integral element in the early creedal affirmations of both the eastern and western branches of the Church and in most of the Reformation creeds. Today it persists in the best known of the early formulations, the Apostles’ Creed, which contains these words: “… who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary.”

The seeming incredibility of the story and of consequent doctrine has led to numerous attempts to remove it on textual and historical considerations. For example, some have held that Luke 1:34 and 35 is an interpolation put in the text to support the doctrine; but this effort, along with all attempts to excise the entire narrative from both Gospels, has been without success. The earliest and strongest textual traditions of the New Testament require this story to be retained as an authentic element of the Gospel story.

Similarly, scholars have adduced parallel types of stories in the Greek mystery religions in order to show that the Virgin Birth of Christ is but an assimilation to these non-Jewish motifs. But these alleged parallels are only superficial, for they have no historical foundations, clearly being myths, and moreover have no adequate theological context. It may be concluded that these efforts to explain the miraculous birth of Jesus are not convincing.

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries witnessed a long series of reinterpretations of the Virgin Birth designed to bring it into conformity with modern insights of science and philosophy. Schleiermacher and Harnack in many respects represent this school of thought. A variety of opinions may be found within this school, ranging all the way from a consent to the possibility and fact of divine intervention in human affairs but a rejection of the Virgin Birth, to the other extreme of an inflexible rejection of any extraordinary operation of God. In general, the net effect was either an outright rejection of the doctrine and its textual foundation, or so severe a reinterpretation of the doctrine that its native sense was vacated in favor of a more acceptable understanding. A great amount of this kind of criticism was animated by a serious skepticism about the credibility of the biblical account, and coupled with this skepticism was an indifference to the revelatory character of the narrative. The issue at stake was not always the matter of supernaturalism or the sovereignty of God, but the historicity of the Gospel narrative and the divine character of the entire episode.

On the other side of the theological spectrum, the defense of the Virgin Birth too often was set at the biological and genetic point. The doctrine was thought to guarantee the sinlessness of Jesus Christ by interrupting the entail of sin which is endemic in the entire human family. Roman Catholicism pressed this argument one stage backwards, arguing for the sinless conception of Mary herself; but this serves only to postpone the problem, not to solve it. All attempts to understand the Virgin Birth in this light rest upon a misunderstanding of the basic theology involved, the erroneous assumption being made that a moral fact is to be explained in terms of physical considerations. Biology and genetics are irrelevant in a discussion of the divine-human origin of Jesus Christ. Too frequently this school of thought became preoccupied with the starting gun and therefore lost the race. However, it remains to the credit of this line of defense of the doctrine that it began with an attitude of belief in and commitment to the reliability and revelatory nature of the New Testament record.

A Work Of The Holy Spirit

Taking this same stance, it is not only possible but also necessary to look at the doctrine essentially in terms of revelation in order to arrive at a theology of the Virgin Birth that exists without recourse to the natural sciences or philosophy. At least three basic affirmations may be made in this direction. First, the Virgin Birth is the initial event in the life of Jesus Christ that is radically affected by the Holy Spirit. Luke slates with restraint but clarity that “the Holy Spirit will come upon” Mary, so that He is directly and solely responsible for this unique birth. At all critical points in the life and ministry of our Lord, the Spirit plays a key role. At the baptism the Holy Spirit descended upon the Son to empower him for the work which lay before him. Again, at the temptation the Spirit led Jesus into the desert to undergo trial at the hands of the devil. When Jesus preached his first sermon, he chose a prophecy of Isaiah to declare that “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me …” (Isa. 61:1; Luke 4:18), and in his ministry of healing he stated that it was by the Spirit of God that these things were done. Paul states that the Resurrection was a Spirit-designated indication that Jesus is the Son of God. Therefore, it may be said that the Incarnation in all its aspects is a work of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, the Virgin Birth of Christ is to be understood as an eschatological sign of the advent of the Kingdom of God. It is God himself who is the author of the sign of this unique activity in the world, terminating the centuries of silence which seemed to suggest that God had withdrawn himself from men. But now this sign, first to Mary and then to the entire community of faith, pointed to the intervention of God, an intervention which signaled a new age, new blessings, new revelation, and a new relation with God. It is a sign of his own presence among men in the person of the Infant of Bethlehem. It is the first of many such signs in the life of Christ, and it is paralleled by the last miracle of his life, the Resurrection. So these two signs form the first and last of a series, all of which characterize the Incarnation. The Virgin Birth is the external sign of Emmanuel, God with us.

Thirdly, the Virgin Birth is a mystery which ultimately lies beyond the reach of human comprehension and analysis. Lecerf, the Reformed theologian, once wrote that “the presence of mystery is the footprint of the divine.” Because of the mysterious and divine quality of this strange birth, it is not open to substantiation or refutation by the natural sciences or historical investigation, although the New Testament preserves an apostolic tradition recorded with historical fidelity. It is a sovereign, free act of God himself, and it must finally be recognized on this consideration alone. As such it does not overturn the legitimate prerogatives and canons of history and science, but these cannot evaluate a claim of revelation. On the other hand, the affirmation of mystery must not be made in a capricious way that may lead to a premature silencing of discussion, for it is a human right to ask questions. It is also, however, a human responsibility to recognize genuine mystery in the activity of God. The mystery of the Virgin Birth is only a part of the larger mystery and incomprehensibility of the Incarnation of God in Christ.

It is immediately clear that the Virgin Birth has extensive implications for the doctrine of Christ. Some have taken this to mean that God was initially obligated to accomplish the Incarnation by this means, and had there been no Virgin Birth there could have been no true Incarnation and no Atonement. To such a school of thought the Virgin Birth is the foundation stone of the Christian faith. This grasp of the doctrine rises from an inadequate view of God, for it is impossible to declare in advance what he must do. Moreover, it is noteworthy that Paul constructs his Christology apart from any specific reference to the Virgin Birth; his emphasis falls upon Christ’s pre-existence, Incarnation, and exaltation. However, those who assert that Paul either knew nothing of this truth or scorned it if he did know it, may need to re-examine his prolonged association with Luke, his reserve about Jesus’ legal father Joseph, and the implications of Galatians 4:4 and 5. Similarly, the silence of John and Mark does not have to be understood as ignorance or rejection of the Virgin Birth: it is possible to read their Gospels as complementing the accounts found in Matthew and Luke. If there had been a conflict on this issue, it is strange that it never came to the surface, as did the conflict between Peter and Paul.

Not An Optional Doctrine

Sometimes the feeling against this dogma, or against those who affirm it, grows so intense that the feeling itself begins to assume the proportion of a dogma. Then others assert that the Virgin Birth represents an idea unacceptable to the modern mind, and that therefore Christians are not bound by it. This attitude becomes in its way a new kind of theological authority, but it lacks an adequate rationale. Those who in conscience cannot accept this account of the birth of Jesus Christ do well to pass by the matter in silence rather than oppose what the apostolic and historic Church has quite uniformly believed. While the New Testament nowhere sets forth this doctrine as a part of the kerygma (1 Cor. 15:3, 4), neither can it be successfully argued that it is some kind of an optional doctrine.

A positive assessment of the Virgin Birth regards it as a coherent, credible, and convincing element of the entire New Testament story about Jesus Christ. It offends nothing taught elsewhere in the New Testament, and it positively correlates the doctrine of the preexistence of Christ and his Incarnation. It is the task of theology not to spell out what God was obligated to do, but to understand what he did do in history for our salvation. In short, the Virgin Birth is appropriate to the doctrine of Christ.

The Virgin Birth is not the proof that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Rather, he is the eternal Son of God from the beginning, and it is this truth and this mystery which require the Virgin Birth to be recognized as the mysterious operation of God. Jesus’ Sonship both explains and dignifies his miraculous conception and birth. The mystery of the Virgin Birth does not derive its strength from the miracle of this kind of birth, but the miracle derives from the eternal mystery of the Son, and the miracle serves as a sign to draw reverent and worshipful attention to the Infant of Bethlehem.

It is to the discredit and shame of the theological enterprise that this doctrine has so frequently become a battleground across which theologians have leveled cannonades and barrages of polemic shot and shell. What was revealed as a cause of praise has instead been too often debased to an issue of resentment and exclusion from personal fellowship. In the approach of the Advent season Christians will best uphold this doctrine by first recognizing it as an occasion of the highest praise to the God at the birth of whose Son the angelic hosts sang their great doxology. Indeed, joy, thanksgiving, and praise are the hallmark of the biblical account of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. The response of Mary must be the response of the entire Church to the good news of the birth of the Christ-child, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour.”

David H. Wallace, professor of biblical theology at California Baptist Theological Seminary, has the B.D. and Th.M. from Fuller Theological Seminary and the Ph.D. from New College of the University of Edinburgh.

What Christmas Really Is

What is Christmas, anyway? A blowout with all the trimmings? A riot of color and sentiment to decorate the otherwise drab year? A sham and fraud perpetrated upon mankind?

In Japan, where it is widely observed, Christmas has become almost altogether a thing of toys and tinsel, of songs and selling, stolidly secular in conception and appeal. In that educationally and industrially advanced nation, few people are shocked, apparently, when a Tokyo night club bills a striptease to the accompaniment of “Silent Night, Holy Night.”

For Western tastes, this is carrying matters a bit far. It smacks of the “Black Mass” intended to lampoon and desecrate the holy. The mere suggestion that the sacred song of Christmas could be associated with one of the lowest forms of entertainment jars our Western sensibilities. Why?

Yes, why? Where did the Japanese, with little or no Christian tradition of their own, pick up the idea of a completely secular Christmas, observed with no regard for its origins and with no particular interest in its religious significance? Yes, where?

Japanese businessmen know a good thing when they see it. Their penchant for imitating, and occasionally improving upon, the products of the West received recognition in a post-World War II British cartoon, depicting two executives of an English pottery firm engaged in puzzled examination of a letter, while one of them remarked: “Here is a gentleman from Japan who wants one of everything in our line.”

The flamboyant Christmas of Japan, however, did not come from England. It is a typically American product our friends across the Pacific borrowed along with the optical instruments, electronics, toys, textiles, pottery, and automobiles of the West. What they saw they took, adding a few embellishments of their own: a national holiday built upon legends and fairy tales: the Christ-child taking his place alongside Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, “Silent Night” and “O Come, All Ye Faithful” blared forth together with “Deck the Halls” and “White Christmas.”

Is this really Christmas in America? On the supposition that it is, the suggestion has been made, at least half seriously, that Christians abjure Christmas altogether, turning it over in entirety to the hucksters. Appearing to be in the finest Christian tradition of self-abnegation—and probably offered in that spirit, the proposal smacks of the dog-in-the-manger attitude popular among some Christians today, usually expressed with a shrug of the shoulders implying that nothing can be done in response to a hopeless situation except to abandon the field.

The real story of Christmas needs to be told. Catching the world with its head in the clouds or, as it more often does, down in the dumps, Christmas proclaims what our world desperately needs to hear and to take to heart!

It is a true story, confronting the unvarnished facts of life with the plain facts of history. The people of the Christmas story are real: Caesar Augustus, Cyrenius, Mary, Joseph, and, of course, the Child.

The news had come by angel messenger to a young Jewish virgin in the distant and somewhat despised north country that she was to be the mother of the world’s Redeemer. The announcement was not easy to take. Used to keeping her thoughts to herself, Mary must have wondered about the man to whom she was engaged to be married. What would he think?

Going off quietly to visit her cousin in the hill country of Judea, she took those months to think it all through for herself. There the whole plan became plain, as it would unfold, with the birth first of John and then of Jesus.

When it came time for the Child to be born, another event intervened to complicate the situation. What appears to have been the first general census of its kind in the entire Roman Empire was carried out at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, requiring a journey to the ancestral home in Bethlehem at this most inopportune time. Taxes cannot wait, for the world must go on.

The Most High is wakeful while the world sleeps. His government is at work, while people all unknowingly become part of a grand design that they probably would knowingly refuse to accept.

In the unlikeliest town and at the unlikeliest spot in that town, the Baby was born. Only shepherds heard the music of angelic choruses sweeping the skies. Only they came to worship.

In the jungle of international politics complicated by domestic conflict, where a rattlesnake sense of justice permits well-intentioned people to condone the killing of young children attending Sunday school, there is still God.

The Good News Of Christmas

God has come and is even now with us. Having appeared unexpectedly and decisively in his Son, he still comes with the good news of the Saviour though “the many” do not anticipate his coming. There is still God. “Fear not,” said the angel: “fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.”

God has come. This is the good news of Christmas! This is hard reality from which there is no escape. Who would want to escape from it?

Yes, who? Who turns away from the good and gracious God to follow his own self-chosen path? Who sees himself in a mirror and straightway goes his own way, forgetting what manner of man he really is? Who hears the Word of God, offering forgiveness of sin, life, and salvation to all in Christ the Saviour, but sees no necessity for taking it personally to heart? Who turns Christmas into a secular festival, good for merchants and for children?

God has not just come and gone. He is with us in Christ Emmanuel—himself God with us. He is with us, such as we are, in all his grace and glory, as Martin Luther said in Thesis 62 of his 95 Theses: “The true treasure of the Church is the Gospel of God’s grace and glory.” Who gratefully proclaims the good news of the grace of God, come to dwell with men in his own Son, our Lord Jesus Christ?

Without a good and gracious God, there is no hope for our world. The Apostle talks in the same breath of those who are without God and those who are without hope in the world.

A hopeless world without God is ceaselessly searching for a God who is no God at all, one who will be and will do what the world wants him to be and do—a kind of universal bellhop. The situation is similar to that of the girl who had jilted her faithful suitor because he was poor. Very unexpectedly he received a letter from her pleading for reconciliation and concluding with the words: “I love you very much.” There was a postscript: “Congratulations on the fifty thousand dollars you just inherited from your grandfather.”

The world does not really want what God has to give. As a matter of fact, it does not even want to know him as he is. The world just wants to get from God what it wants.

A World In Confusion

Having a distorted view of the Almighty, the world has a twisted conception of morality, of the standards by which it may be expected to live. Excuses are the order of the day, like that of a woman charged with forgery who naïvely pleaded innocent: “I’m not guilty; I burned the money.” Competition justifies almost anything. A book entitled How to Win at Golf needed only one word inside its cover: “Cheat!” Cruelty and hatred have a field day in a world aptly described by the little verse:

In a day of illusions

And utter confusions

Upon our delusions

We base our conclusions.

Among all the illusions, delusions, and confusions of our work-a-day world, Christmas happened. Not a pleasant little fairy tale, it was all dreadfully real: the mighty, incomprehensible, all-powerful Ancient of Days coming into the world, a helpless, homeless, hapless Baby.

God must be accepted as he came—heaven’s majesty clothed in earth’s humility: “You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that you through his poverty might be rich” (2 Cor. 8:9).

Christian faith rests its claim not on the splendor of its history nor even upon the brilliance of its theology, but on this quiet scene with a mother holding her Child and the angels talking to the shepherds. When the Church has done its best, still we must stand before a manger, lost in wonder and praise at the mystery of the Incarnation—God made manifest in the flesh.

Fear not! He is with us, mighty to save. Having met the last enemy, which is death, he is with us. The Bearer of our nature has passed from death to life, along with all who follow him in true faith; and the good news of Christmas is caroled by good and honest hearts:

O holy Child of Bethlehem,

Descend on us, we pray;

Cast out our sin and enter in,

Be born in us today.

We hear the Christmas angels

The great glad tidings tell;

Oh, come to us, abide with us,

Our Lord Emmanuel.

Dr. Oswald C. J. Hoffmann, a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) clergyman, is the preacher on the “International Lutheran Hour,” which is the most widely heard radio program in the world. The most recent of his books is Life Crucified. Dr. Hoffmann supervised the production of the films Martin Luther and Question Seven.

Mark Hatfield’s Personal Use of the Bible

The governor of Oregon explains how he regards the Scriptures.

The Hon. Mark O. Hatfield is Governor of the State of Oregon. Before entering political life, he was dean of students and associate professor of political science at Willamette University, Salem, Oregon.

God is not a mysterious Being who has isolated himself completely from us. He has taken the initiative to communicate with us in a way we can understand. He has given us the Bible, which is so readily available to us for reading, studying, exploring, discussing, and teaching. In the Bible we learn who God is and what he desires of man. Christ established the pattern for our relation with God, with our neighbors, and with society. He makes his own power available to us for a more abundant life.

I do not regard the Bible as a bedtime story to prepare me for a restful night. Nor is it simply an order of worship to be used on Sunday mornings. Since it is the source of God's truth, we need to be saturated with it. We need to delve into it systematically, with enthusiasm, with curiosity, and with willingness to apply God's will as it unfolds to us. Often I need the peace and refreshment of the Book of Psalms. On other occasions, I need the assurance of God's unfailing, unchanging, eternal, and personal love for me as it is wonderfully revealed in passage after passage of the New Testament.

It is through the message of the Bible that we meet Jesus Christ, and become committed to him. Then naturally and increasingly our selfish motives and actions are revealed to us. We seek God's forgiveness and move to a higher plane of living. This constant interaction with God, through the Scriptures, is the only way to maintain a healthy Christian life.

This article originally appeared in Christianity Today on November 22, 1963.

Copyright © 1963 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Christianity Today interviewed Mark Hatfield for a 1982 cover story

Book Briefs: November 22, 1963

An Aristocrat For Your Bookshelf

The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, edited by S. L. Greenslade (Cambridge, 1963, 390 pp., $8.30), is reviewed by Calvin D. Linton, dean of arts and sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, D. C.

Very occasionally, a new book will begin to assert its importance the moment one takes it in his hands. The dignity of its format, the solid permanence of its binding, the excellence of its printing, the repute of its publisher, the significance of its title, the stature of its author—all make a quick appeal. This volume, the first of a projected two-volume Cambridge history of the Bible in the West, is such a book. Those who for many years have made room in their libraries for the fourteen-volume Cambridge history of English literature instinctively began deciding which peasant volume to push aside to make room for this new aristocrat.

Such courtesies over, however, it is necessary to scrutinize the newcomer’s credentials carefully. And, as with many distinguished personages, one finds at least enough weaknesses to keep his critical impulse alive without diminishing his admiration.

The basic claims to significance are those essential to such a history: comprehensiveness, authoritativeness, objectivity, currency of scholarship. As to the first, breadth is achieved not by giving equal attention to everything (with the inevitable consequence of superficiality), but by a highly selective set of topics chosen for concentrated treatment, each area handled by one of a score or more distinguished (and chiefly British) contributors. Writes Editor S. L. Greenslade, Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, “We have tried to give … an account of the text and versions of the Bible used in the West, or its multiplication in manuscript and print, and its circulation: of attitudes towards its authority and exegesis; and of its place in the life of the western Church.” It was not intended to “include the composition of the individual books, nor the historical and religious background and content of the Bible itself.” Neither was it intended to write a history or summary “of Christian doctrine, though considerable attention is paid to theories of biblical authority and inspiration and to principles and methods of exegesis.”

Necessarily, perhaps, given the editorial method and the above purposes, the volume is somewhat short on continuity. For the same reasons, however, one may select a particular essay—perhaps “The Religion of Protestants,” by the late Norman Sykes, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Cambridge; or “The Rise of Modern Biblical Scholarship and Recent Discussion of the Authority of the Bible,” by Alan Richardson, professor of theology, Nottingham University—and read it at one sitting, finding it self-coherent and complete. The range of styles is wide, particularly between those sections which undertake a closely textured, philosophical examination of the flow of ideas within a period (as does, for example, “Biblical Scholarship: Editions and Commentaries,” by Basil Hall, lecturer in ecclesiastical history at Cambridge) and those chiefly concerned with communicating, with encyclopedic exactness, large chunks of facts and statistics.

The reader at all familiar with the roiled deep of recent theological writing will naturally look for signs of “party bias” in editorial emphasis or essay content. The active partisan, however, will find little to comfort him; for throughout there has been sustained an admirable mingling of demonstrable scholarly competence and objectivity. Only one piece of fairly gross special pleading came to my eye; this was in the otherwise splendid section entitled “English Versions since 1611,” by Dean Emeritus Luther A. Weigle of the Yale Divinity School. In commenting on the Revised Standard Version (of the committee for which Dean Weigle himself was chairman), the author begs a sizable question rather blandly when he says that, “like the King James Version, the Revised Standard Version has endured some misrepresentations and attacks. But these have withered under honest scrutiny.”

Although the broad orientation of the book may be said to be that of liberalism, there is a very fair and appreciative appraisal of the modern conservative evangelical reaction against liberalism, and a clear recognition of the untenability of certain of the more advanced outposts of the older higher criticism. “With the development of religious thought in the twentieth century,” writes Professor Richardson, “the defects of the liberal view of biblical authority have become obvious enough,” particularly in view of the rapidly mounting mass of archaeological evidence supporting the historicity of the Bible. He sees the “conservative reaction” operating, first, as an ingredient in the Reformation reaction against medieval Roman Catholic scholasticism; and again in the eighteenth century against a kind of Protestant scholasticism.

In each case, the pressure was toward “a warm and personal experience of salvation. Beyond this it is also a reaction against the new historical criticism, especially its excesses. In each of these reactions its positive affirmations were both necessary and salutary.…” On the effort to psychoanalyze religion, he writes, “It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the psychology of religion has thrown no light on the mysterious processes by which the revelation of God is communicated to his prophets or by which the knowledge of God is born in the heart of the simple believer.” Spotted among vigorous contemporary trends are “a marked determination to take seriously the attitude of the Bible toward itself”; “interest in the question of the relation between historical event and divine revelation”; the question of “the relation of history to witness”; and the growing awareness that the “Bible in both Testaments is the witness of those who ‘saw and believed’ the things which God did in their day, and this is why the Bible is different from all other books.”

The last 120 pages are devoted to an epilogue by Editor Greenslade, two appendices listing aids for further study (mostly quite esoteric, but essential to advanced work), a separate bibliography for each chapter of the text, a separate binding for forty-eight beautifully printed plates, and an excellent index. All in all, a notable addition to the shelf of essential books for the pastor, the biblical scholar, the public and college library—and even for the general reader, for while there is no effort to popularize, there is an effort to speak clearly, no matter how complex the subject. Even the most casual reader will find much to enjoy—even if no more than a rather wryly apt translation of Acts 26:24 (from A New and Corrected Version of the New Testament, 1933): “Festus declared with a loud voice, Paul, you are insane! Multiplied research drives you to distraction.” (Almost as good as a 1768 version of what Peter said at the Transfiguration: “Oh, Sir! what a delectable residence we might establish here!”)

CALVIN D. LINTON

The Wall That Words Built

The Wall Between Church and State, edited by Dallin H. Oaks (University of Chicago, 1963, 179 pp., $6.73; paperback $1.95), is reviewed by James Daane, editorial associate, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

If the price of a book is determined by cost plus the size of anticipated market, the publishers of this book apparently expect a relatively small market. Its sale should, however, rebuke small expectations, for it is the best discussion I’ve seen of one of our greatest social problems.

The Law School of the University of Chicago recognized the need of Americans of diverse positions regarding church and state, religion in the schools, and federal aid to private schools, to meet together and listen to one another. To meet this need it summoned authorities of diverse positions to Chicago. Their essays, plus others written in response to them, constitute this book. The contributors are Robert M. Hutchins, Harold E. Fey, Robert F. Drinan, S. J., Paul G. Kauper, Philip B. Kurland, Monrad G. Paulsen, Murray A. Gordon, and William Gorman.

In a perceptive introduction Editor Dallin H. Oaks expresses hope that the metaphor “wall of separation between Church and State” will soon give way to something more accurate, because it is not found in the Constitution and tends to cut off discussion between those on one side and those on the other. To point up its inadequacy Oaks says the wall is one “that will admit a school bus without the ‘slightest prejudice,’ but is impermeable to a prayer.” He adds satirically that the metaphor may have its highest and best use as the title of a book.

Hutchins blows the trumpet and lays siege to the Jericho wall—one which seems to protect the interests of the Canaanites but thwarts those of the people of God. “Its past has not been brilliant; its future is not bright.” It entered the church-state discussion in an opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Waite, says Hutchins. The Chief Justice appealed—for other reasons—to a letter of Jefferson which contained the metaphor, and with that the metaphor entered to stay. This was in 1878. All remained quiet along the wall until the Everson v. Board of Education case in 1947. Since then the wall has obtained massive proportions, chiefly as something literary and ornamental. Hutchins agrees with Mr. Justice Reed’s observation that “a rule of law should not be drawn from a figure of speech.” The wall-builders, he contends, would have done better to pay more attention to the Constitution than to words appearing in what may have been a routine acknowledgment of a complimentary address, words written by a man who did not take part in the adoption of the First Amendment. The wall has done, he says, what walls usually do: “it has obscured the view. It has lent a simplistic air to the discussion of a very complicated matter.… The wall is offered as a reason. It is not a reason; it is a figure of speech.” He further observes, and quite rightly, that “a man who rests his opinion on the necessity of separation is bound to try to answer the question whether separation can, in fact, occur. If it cannot occur, then, according to his own doctrine, the state will be supporting religious teaching.”

Harold Fey argues for the strict maintenance of a wall of separation between religion and the state. His argument is the simplest and also the least convincing—except to those already convinced. “Wall of separation” makes a catchy slogan for those who adopt and make propaganda for Fey’s position—and quite obscures the fact that absolute separation, total neutrality, is impossible. Fey does not face the fact that a purely secular, humanistic education is after all a religious philosophy of education, namely, an irreligious one. It does not take much reflection to detect the incongruity of maintaining that atheism is a form of religion which must not be violated by a theistic religion or by prayers in a school, but that a wholly secularistic, humanistic philosophy of education is religious neutrality. Here lies the real problem for many Christians, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, with public school education, a problem which the simplistic appeal of Fey (and of many others) solves by pretending it does not exist. His reference to the Black Muslims and his contention that tax support for private or church schools would require the government to do what it cannot do, namely, decide on what is “orthodoxy,” diffuses more darkness than light. Aside from the consideration that in the present situation non-religious education is by the government judged “orthodox,” tax support for private or parochial schools of any religion or none does not necessitate a government judgment as to what is or is not “orthodoxy.” Indeed, in such a situation the government would be far more neutral than it is in the current situation, where “orthodoxy” in education is non-religious, or secular-humanistic, education.

No matter what one’s personal position on federal aid to private and parochial schools, the essays of Drinan and Gorman, both Roman Catholics, are by far the most scholarly, carrying tremendous persuasive power because they face the essential religious issues involved. Unlike the positions of Fey and Gordon, which a non-Christian or even an irreligious person has no difficulty in accepting, the positions of Drinan and Gorman touch the very essence of the problem of religiously neutral public school education, the problem which quite properly disturbs so many Christians. True, their position is complex and cannot be reduced to a slogan; but if the book as a whole proves anything, it proves that no mere slogan can contain the solution to the very complex problem at stake. The essays of both these men are rich with insights, and as they unpeel the layers of the problem, are extraordinarily rewarding reading. This review cannot relieve the person concerned with one of America’s most serious problems of the task of reading this book. It can only seek to induce him to buy the book and read it.

Perhaps such inducement may be incited by reporting Gorman’s contention that our American religious liberty is the “residuary legatee” of (1) religious people who suffered persecution in Europe and wanted “freedom from the state for religious communities” and of (2) people of the Enlightenment who in animosity toward all ecclesiasticism wished a pox on all religious houses and “wanted freedom from religion for the political community.” He continues, “The first wanted no intrusion of civil authority or power into the religious realm; the second wanted no intrusion of religious authority or power into the political realm. The first wanted politics not to corrupt religion; the second wanted religion not to corrupt politics.” The “neat enough” solution was the First Amendment, whose first sixteen words comprise two grammatically coordinate parts which seek to satisfy both groups. Our current controversy stems from an attempt to reconcile in history what was so easily compromised in language. Hence the solution cannot be achieved by a linguistic metaphor, for such a metaphor only obscures the reality of the problem in actual life.

The “wall of separation” has only a literary reality. Its defense seems real and valid if one is convinced by mere words and slogans. In the concrete flesh-and-blood actualities of American life, the wall does not in fact exist.

JAMES DAANE

Gain Or Loss?

The Life of The Celtic Church, by James Bulloch (Saint Andrew Press, 1963, 240 pp., 25s.), is reviewed by A. M. Renwick, emeritus professor, Free Church College, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Dr. Bulloch has rendered good service in writing this book on the Celtic Church, and presents his case with great clarity and attractiveness. His account of the Celts in the earlier days is able and refreshing, and his references to St. Patrick and St. Columba, written with much spiritual insight, are among the best in the book; but his criticisms of Columbanus (A.D. 540–615), who originated the vast and successful missions on the continent, are much too drastic. These missions were begun simply because of the deplorable state into which the Roman church and the Frankish people had fallen (see p. 81). The stern, unbending Irish saint and scholar was the right man to confront the brutality, immorality, and tyranny which prevailed, and he deserves great praise for his stupendous work.

We are told that the Celtic missionaries “caused particular inconvenience by their disregard of the authority of the diocesan bishops” (p. 86). Why should these lovers of independence, members of another communion, recognize an authority which had brought Gaul and other countries to the verge of ruin (pp. 80–83)?

The high praise lavished on Wilfred is exaggerated (pp. 75–80). He was a wily ecclesiastic whose fatuous arguments led the pliable King Oswy, at Whitby, to bring the Northumbrian Church into the Roman fold.

Dr. Bulloch holds (p. 79) that the entry of the Celtic Church “into the culture, discipline, and unity” of the Roman church produced a great enrichment of church life in England. Note, however, that the greatest culture in Europe was then in the monasteries of the Celtic Church. Discipline had broken down in many parts of the Roman church, and the boasted unity was a unity imposed by brutal force. The Celtic Church was outstanding for its piety, passionate love of the Bible, evangelical power, and purity of life. It could easily be shown that its absorption into the Roman hierarchical system was a staggering blow to spiritual religion in Europe.

A. M. RENWICK

For This Side Of College

The New Bible Survey, by J. Lawrence Eason (Zondervan, 1963, 544 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by Wilbur M. Smith, professor of English Bible, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.

Any conservative work whose object is to instruct the people of God about the Holy Scriptures is, if based upon careful investigation, worthwhile. In this one Dr. Eason, who before his recent retirement taught for many years at the University of North Carolina, has attempted to give a survey of all the books of the Bible, together with introductory chapters on the inspiration of the Scriptures, ways to read the Bible, the greater English versions of the Bible, and the land of Canaan. There are introductions to the Pentateuch, the Wisdom literature, the Old Testament books of prophecy, the Gospels, the letters of Paul, and the General Epistles. Most of the chapters conclude with helpful bibliographies. There is also a very extensive over-all bibliography and a commendable index.

This work has both merits and demerits. Probably many will regret that the author has arranged the books of the Old Testament in their supposed chronological order, “according to the best opinion of their order.” Thus, for example, one will find Jeremiah not immediately after Isaiah, but between Nahum and Habakkuk, and Lamentations follows Daniel. This will prove a little confusing to some and necessitates use of the Index.

There is one strange omission here: the Table of Contents says there is a “list of illustrations,” but no list is given. This is unfortunate; one does not know on what pages the maps can be found. The summaries of the biblical books are generally commendable. It would seem that three areas of writing have contributed extensively to the author’s material and to his answers to various biblical problems: the great New Bible Commentary published by Inter-Varsity, Dr. Anderson’s Understanding the Old Testament, and various writings of Professor E. J. Young of Westminster Theological Seminary. These works are referred to scores of times.

In places there is a disproportion in assignment of material: for example, the little Book of Micah receives practically as much space as the great and basic and difficult Book of Daniel; and as much space is assigned to the Book of Acts as to Mark, Luke, and John put together. And about the bibliographies I would add that although they are extensive, many important books, such as Boutflower on Daniel and Candlish on the Epistles of John, are not to be found in them.

The proof-reading is a little bit careless. The middle name of the great archaeologist. Dr. Albright, is in one case given as Foster instead of Foxwell, and the name of the late professor William G. Moorehead is incorrectly spelled throughout the volume. I believe I am correct in saying that there is no book by Dr. N. B. Stonehouse entitled Commentary on Revelation. He did write a very scholarly treatise on the history of the Book of Revelation in the early Church, but I do not think he ever wrote a Commentary on the Book of Revelation.

The work will be helpful in the study of the Scriptures in the home, and will aid some who are taking high school courses in surveying the Word of God. It does not come up to a collegiate level, and a great many problems in the Word of God that need to be faced these days are not referred to. All in all the book is sound, and the result of years of teaching. Its footnotes will be found helpful. It will have its place with those who are not acquainted with the larger volumes that embrace this same area of study.

WILBUR M. SMITH

Pious Legend

Interpreting the Miracles, by Reginald H. Fuller (S.C.M. Press, 1965, 125 pp., 8s. 6d.: Westminster [publishing date: Nov. 18, 1965], $2.50), is reviewed by Leslie R. Keylock, doctoral student in religion, Slate University of Iowa.

“Modern man is prepared to accept the healings of Jesus as due to his power of suggestion: the nature miracles … he can only dismiss as pious legend” (p. 121). This rather startling thesis gives the content of this book in a nutshell. Assuming that intellectual integrity forces the twentieth-century Christian to conclude that “there are no miracles, in the sense of breaches of the natural order” (p. 121), the English-born author, now professor of New Testament at the Episcopal Church’s Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois, approaches the biblical accounts of Christ’s miracles as a convinced disciple of Rudolf Bultmann. Utilizing the methods of form and source criticism, Fuller attempts to separate the biblical traditions into various strata according to their nearness to the original events. Needless to say, the book is interesting to read for its originality, but the majority of Christians will not be very happy about its radical conclusions.

The book divides quite reasonably into six chapters. Fuller’s opening definition of miracle in the biblical view eliminates “occurrences contrary to the laws of nature or what is known of nature” (p. 11). Rather is this world the arena in which faith recognizes the acts of God in history. On this basis the core of the book interprets the biblical miracles as form criticism suggests they must have appeared to a contemporary of Jesus, the changes which these mighty works underwent in the hands of the primitive Church, and finally the specific shades of thought on the miracles as seen by the eyes of each of the four evangelists. In a concluding chapter on preaching the miracles today, Fuller remarks, “The academic study of the New Testament can be an interesting intellectual exercise … but unless it is conducted as a service to the church in its mission to the world, it is a mere pastime” (p. 110). With laudable emphasis he says that “the preacher’s chief concern must be the meaning of the miracles for us, for his hearers today” (p. 113). The four examples which Fuller gives of the way a pastor might treat the miracles in a sermon will be considered the weakest part of the book by most readers, although what Christ can do for the existential predicament of modern man is touchingly outlined. To use the story of the miraculous draft of fishes as an occasion for an extended tirade against the “fundamentalist” view of miracle, for example, is exegetically questionable and provides a rather meager spiritual meal for a hungry Sunday-morning congregation. And to charge those who believe in the biblical miracles with intellectual dishonesty is at best unkind and lacking in ecumenical charity.

But the most serious criticism that can be made of this book is that it reflects a seriously defective Christology. The Christ who emerges from the pages of this book is a Christ whose deity has been so completely submerged that one feels Fuller regards it, too, as “pious legend.” He claims to believe in the deity of Christ (p. 110), but he repeatedly defines it as an “eternal relationship with the Father,” hardly a classical definition of the word. Although Fuller says: “That Jesus is God incarnate is a decision made by faith after it has been confronted by the history of Jesus, not an assumption to be made before we approach that history” (p. 19), at least one reviewer sincerely and honestly questions whether such a decision can ever be truly made when the history of Jesus is confronted as Fuller confronts it.

Although these criticisms are severe, they are not intended to be unkind. Nor should they be taken to suggest that the book contains no valuable insights. Like his German mentor, Fuller can at times couple his criticism with true evangelical fervor. His explanation of the significance of sabbath healing (p. 100) is most illuminating. His stress on the contemporaneity of the Gospel miracles (“The gospel miracles are not tales of what happened in far-off Palestine two thousand years ago, but proclamations of the works of Christ today,” p. 114) is one instance of a stress that is needed in the churches of America today. And as always works of this type perform an important intellectual function in that they do force us to ask ourselves whether we have accepted the biblical miracles too cavalierly and without an apropriate appreciation of the valid scientific demands of our time. If we disagree with the author’s conclusions, it is because we feel that they are not the only nor the most valid solutions to the questions which the biblical miracles pose in our generation.

LESLIE R. KEYLOCK

Good But Blurred

Towards a Theological Understanding of History, by E. C. Rust (Oxford, 1963, 292 pp., $6), is reviewed by C. Gregg Singer, chairman, Department of History, Catawba College, Salisbury, North Carolina.

This is a book that challenges the ability of any reviewer to deal fairly with the author and, at the same time, to uphold evangelical principles. There is so much of value in this work that one hesitates to issue any kind of a warning in regard to certain trends in the author’s thinking which tend to vitiate, to a degree at least, the insights which make the book of more than temporary interest.

Rust is at his best in the early chapters, in which he presents an analysis of the positions of the great philosophers of history, past and present; included are Greek and Roman writers, Augustine, Vico, Hegel, Marx, Dilthey, Comte, Spengler, and Toynbee. He offers trenchant criticisms of all deterministic theories of historical process, on the one hand, and of the optimistic schools of thought, on the other. His evaluation of Toynbee’s position is one of the best brief ones to have come to this reviewer’s attention.

Rust is quite emphatic that for the non-Christian history must forever remain an insoluble enigma, for the key to understanding it lies outside the historical process. For this reason he rightly repudiates the idea of a “philosophy” of history in the usual meaning of the word. Philosophy is unable to solve the riddle of history because it seeks the answers in the wrong place. He thus rejects the answers furnished by economic determinists and is equally disdainful of the optimism which characterized so much of the historiography of the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The evangelical Christian will find much to agree with in the early chapters of this book and relatively little that he cannot accept. But when it comes to Rust’s development of his own theological interpretation of history, this is a different matter. Although the thought often seems to be evangelical and the language might well sound familiar to the evangelical, the orthodoxy of this section is more apparent that real. The lack of a sound biblical foundation greatly weakens this theological approach to history, for the theology involved is not consistently biblical in character.

The basic weakness of the book is found in its loose view of revelation. For Rust revelation does not consist of the written word only, but of acts and deeds as well. Now, of course, there is a sense in which this is true, but Rust fails to draw a clear distinction between general and specific revelation and tends to equate these forms in a neoorthodox manner. Although his exact position on the authority of the Scriptures may be difficult to determine, it is quite clearly not the position of historic orthodoxy, for he accepts the German higher criticism of the Old Testament as a matter of fact.

Although he criticizes Bultmann, he in turn calls for the demythologizing of what he calls the “Biblical images.” Rust also denies such vital Christian doctrines as election and predestination and insists that God respects human freedom and deals with it in omnipotent love. At this point there is a very distinct existential tone to his position, although this reviewer would think that Rust would probably deny with vigor any close connection with this philosophy. This in turn leads him to deny the substitutionary view of the Atonement, and he says that God did not need to be reconciled (p. 197).

Rust wrestles with the problem of the final end of history, but his discussion is seriously weakened by his refusal to accept a literal second coming of Jesus Christ. As a result, his eschatology is hazy, providing no final supernatural climax to the historical process.

All in all, we must conclude that Rust’s attempt to formulate a theological interpretation of history fails because of its lack of a satisfactory biblical frame of reference. His failure to see that the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ for human sin and the doctrine of election lie at the very heart of the biblical message, deprives him of the necessary ingredients for a theological interpretation of history. The many fine insights which are scattered throughout this book lose something of their power simply because they are not placed within a frame of reference which is consistently and truly biblical. Thus the total message of this study is blurred and blunted.

C. GREGG SINGER

It’S All Here

The Crusaders, by Régine Pernoud (Oliver & Boyd, 1963, 291 pp., 30s), is reviewed by J. D. Douglas, British editorial director, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Translated into English by Enid Grant, this book was first published in 1959 in Paris under the title Les Croisés. Miss Pernoud sets out to show how ordinary people reacted to the Crusades; churchmen, barons, ladies, merchants, artificers—they’re all here. So too are the solders-of-fortune, the medieval carpet-baggers, the tellers of tall tales, and all the other hangers-on of an imaginative enterprise. Technical methods are fascinatingly dealt with: it is shown how the conquest was organized, how the West learned siegecraft (and built the first windmill), and how the Crusades led to a monetary system of exchange in Europe.

Though the book is well written, treatment of the subject in this fragmentary fashion rather than as a historical narrative stimulates a keener interest and at the same time necessarily blurs the chronology for all but the expert. A comprehensive index might have helped to set this right, but there is no index.

J. D. DOUGLAS

Book Briefs

Away in a Manger (Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1963, 32 pp., $3.50). Twenty-four imaginative Christmas paintings done by children throughout the world.

Apostle and Bishop: A Study of the Gospel, the Ministry and the Church Community, by A. G. Hebert (Seabury, 1963, 159 pp., $4). As an approach to Christian unity, an Episcopalian presents a study of the origin and development of the ministry of the Church. The real problem in the West, says the author, arose from the fact that Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Reformed, and Anglicans all righted wrongs in their own ways and with little regard for one other; the only hope for a solution now lies in examining one another’s remedies.

Perspectives in American Catholicism, by John Tracy Ellis (Helicon, 1963, 313 pp., $6). Twenty-three essays on the history of Roman Catholicism in America by a Roman Catholic historian.

The Millennium of Europe, by Oscar Halecki (University of Notre Dame, 1963, 441 pp., $8.95). The next few decades may decide whether or not the second millennium of Europe will end in disillusionment, as did Europe’s first 1,000 years. The author has faith in the durability of the Christian heritage.

John Doe, Disciple: Sermons for the Young in Spirit, by Peter Marshall, edited and with introductions by Catherine Marshall (McGraw-Hill, 1963, 222 pp., $4.50). A dozen sermons in the famous Peter Marshall style.

The Voice of the Prophets, by Rudolph F. Norden (Concordia, 1963, 161 pp., $2.75). Sixteen sermons which show how sixteen Old Testament prophets testified of Jesus Christ, and thus spoke to our times.

North of Heaven, by Agnes Sylvia Rodli (Moody, 1963, 189 pp., $3.50). The true story of two missionary teachers in an Indian village in the interior of Alaska. Not a “thriller,” but a record of missionary toil, failures, and successes.

To Light a Candle: The Autobiography of James Keller, Founder of the Christophers (Doubleday, 1963, 260 pp., $4.50).

Jacques Maritain, edited by Joseph W. Evans (Sheed & Ward, 1963, 258 pp., $5). Thirteen essays by thirteen men on thirteen facets of the life and thought of the Roman Catholic philosopher and cultural critic.

The Human Rift: Bridges to Peace and Understanding, by Noel Keith (Bethany, 1963, 128 pp., $2.50). Perceptive Christian essays which address themselves to the estrangement that cuts through human life—and to the possibility of conciliation.

Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Hebrews and I and II Peter, translated by W. B. Johnston and edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Eerdmans, 1963, 378 pp., $6). A new translation replacing that of the Calvin Translation Society made in 1853 by John Owen; gives Calvin in clean, lucid English.

Borneo Breakthrough, by Sylvia Houliston (China Inland Mission, 1963, 204 pp., 10s). An account of missionary activity on this island over the last decade, relating the struggles against Communist oppression and its accompanying evils. Though incoherent in parts, it sounds a note of Christian triumph throughout.

The Religions of the Oppressed: A Study of Modern Messianic Cults, by Vittorio Lanternari (Knopf, 1963, 357 pp., $6.95). A continent-by-continent study of religious cults revealing what they are and the fermentative role they play in revolutions of the twentieth century. Useful to mission stations and to American embassies in foreign countries.

The Americans: A New History of the People of the United States, by Oscar Handlin (Little, Brown, 1963, 434 pp., §6.95). Not the usual kind of American history but one which focuses on the development of that national character which makes the American what he is today. Interesting and provocative, but twere better read for enjoyment and information than for a deep analytical insight into the American soul.

Bible Words That Guide Me, edited by Hubert A. Elliott (Grosset & Dunlap, 1963, 248 pp., §3.95). Sixty-three prominent Americans relate their prominence to a selected scriptural text; with line drawings and a biographical sketch of each.

Precede the Dawn: The Church in an Age of Change, by Samuel Wylie (Morehouse-Barlow, 1963, 126 pp., $3.50). The author writes knowingly about the present in which the Church lives and the changing future into which it moves. Good reading.

Guide of the Perplexed, by Moses Maimonides, translated by Shlomo Pines (University of Chicago, 1963, 658 pp., $15). A new translation of a book of rabbinical exegesis written at the end of the twelfth century—a book which contains both public and secret teaching about the meaning of the Law. With an introduction and notes by Shlomo Pines, and an introductory essay by Leo Strauss.

Mary, Archetype of the Church, by Otto Semmelroth, S. J. (Sheed & Ward, 1963, 175 pp., $3.95). A Roman Catholic discusses the place of Mary in Christian theology—one of the massive roadblocks in Protestant-Roman Catholic discussions about unity.

Commandos for Christ, by Bruce E. Porterfield (Harper & Row, 1963, 238 pp., $3.95). The exciting story of the life and work of pioneer missionaries as they made contact with unknown aboriginal tribes of Bolivia.

Paperbacks

Best Foot Forward, by Jerry Beavan (Walfred Company [1634 Spruce St., Philadelphia 3], 1963, 50 pp., $1.25). Brief suggestions about ways and means to bring the Gospel to the attention of the public. Plastic-ring bound.

God and Your Family: Devotions for Families with Children Ages 4–9; God’s Wonderful World of Words: Devotions for Families with Children Ages 9–13; Design for Family Living: Devotions for Families with Teen-Agers; New Courage for Daily Living: Devotions for Adults, by Lois Vogel, Charles S. Mueller, Roy Blumhorst, and Martin H. Franzmann (Concordia, 1963, 102, 102, 112, and 95 pp., $1 each). In the solidly evangelical Lutheran tradition.

The Nature of Protestantism, by Karl Heim, translated by John Schmidt (Fortress, 1963, 164 pp., $1.75). A Roman Catholic scholar looks hard at Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, and compares and contrasts them. A translation of Das Wesen des evangelischen Christentums, first published in 1929.

Three Men Came to Heidelberg, by Thea B. Van Halsema (Christian Reformed, 1963, 48 pp., $.25). The story of the production of the Heidelberg Catechism told in terms of the three men most responsible for it: a prince, a preacher, and a professor. Very well done.

Josephus: Complete Works, Illustrated, translated by William Whiston, Foreword by William Sanford LaSor (Kregel, 1963, 770 pp., $4.50; also in cloth, $6.95). Second printing of a great classic places it within reach of almost anybody.

Beliefs That Live, by William B. Ward (John Knox, 1963, 126 pp., $1.75). A lucid, readable exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, with application to modern life.

Worship and Congregation, by Wilhelm Hahn (John Knox, 1963, 75 pp., $1.75). Another study of what happens when a congregation is at worship.

Write the Vision: A Manual for Writers, by Marion Van Horne (Committee on World Literacy and Christian Literature, 1963, 128 pp., $2.50). A how-to-do-it book for those who have something to say.

Christmas: An American Annual of Christmas Literature and Art, edited by Randolph E. Haugan (Augsburg, 1963, 68 pp., $3.50). The spirit and delight of Christmas as captured in art, literature, poetry, and song—and even in recipes for Christmas cookies. A lovely, artistic Christmas gift of fine craftsmanship.

Philosophy and the World, by Karl Jaspers (Regnery, 1963, 314 pp., $1.95). Five essays by world-known existentialists on such topics as philosophy, Christianity, and doctor-patient relationships. With an autobiographical sketch of Jaspers.

The Book of Psalms, with commentary by Robert North, S. J. (Paulist Press, 1963, 80 pp., $.50). Twenty-two psalms of thanksgiving with brief explanations and a quiz test to aid self-teaching. Volume 46 in a Roman Catholic “Pamphlet Bible Series.”

God and Man in Music, by Carl Halter (Concordia, 1963, 79 pp., $1.25). An attempt to “think music through” from a Christian perspective.

The Life I Owe: Christian Stewardship as a Way of Life, by William J. Keech (Judson, 1963, 109 pp., $1.50).

Life of Elijah, by A. W. Pink (Banner of Truth Trust, 1963, 313 pp., 6s). A detailed life story of the prophet and his activities, spiritualized and applied to everyday Christian living. Excellent devotional study.

Death and Western Thought, by Jacques Choron (Collier, 1963, 320 pp., $1.50). A history of how men have feared, hoped for, or ignored death, with an evaluation other than Christian.

Instead of Death, by William Stringfellow (Seabury, 1963, 72 pp., $.95). From a context of theological definitions sometimes profoundly Christian and sometimes quite novel, the author addresses young people about the pervasive character of death—and the Resurrection—in an existential, provocative fashion.

Here for a Purpose, by Frank B. Fagerburg (Judson, 1963, 95 pp., $1.75). A series of well-wrought sermonettes for college students. Delivered at convocations at the University of Redlands, whose president thought them so good that he pushed their publication.

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