The development of thermonuclear weapons, together with fantastically powerful and frightfully accurate means for their delivery upon a global range of targets, has affected human thought in more ways than man usually recognizes. The results of this impact upon human culture will be felt for a long time. Christian thinkers and writers have felt the force of this shock to mankind with special weight in the field of social ethics. It may be helpful to notice something of the manner in which writers in this area have responded to the new problems which our modern technological development has posed.

Christian social ethics, in both the conservative and liberal wings of Christendom, has been concerned for a decade with the deeper implications of possible thermonuclear war. The past five years have shown a remarkably frank and forceful facing of the problems implicit in such policy decisions as are reflected by such terms as “massive retaliation,” “deterrence,” and the like.

There has been, first of all, a study of the possible objectives of a war fought with thermonuclear weapons. It is usually recognized that wars are fought to secure certain ends which are regarded as desirable. World War I was ostensibly fought “to make the world safe for democracy.” World War II was pursued with the hope of eliminating the drive toward dictatorship which threatened Western civilization. The fact that neither of these objectives was achieved (at least as they were envisaged) has led to a more sober appraisal of the possibilities of future wars.

In his volume Christianity and World Issues T. B. Maston concludes that the only possible good which might come from a war fought on the modern scale is the saving of a nation from enslavement by a foreign power. This sums up what many have been feeling; modern warfare can at best be defensive. This raises the further question: Can a war of defense of national values or of natural security be other than self-defeating? While such a consideration may seem to be largely or wholly negative, it does seem to have the positive value of stripping men of illusions concerning warfare as it may be waged in our time. It will be increasingly difficult for thoughtful persons to view a future world war as a crusade.

Equally significant is the reconsideration by writers in Christian social ethics of the question of a “just war.” It would have seemed inconceivable two decades ago, that Thomas Aquinas’ discussion at this point would be revived in the twentieth century. But so it has been; and a scholar of the stature of Paul Ramsey has given the most careful attention to the significance of the meaning of “just war” for our time.

This phase of the discussion represents an attempt to cultivate the wide field which lies between two extremes of the frank advocacy of a war to “get it over with” and to rid the world of the menace of communism once for all, on the one hand; and that of the pacifist who would be “rather red than dead” on the other. It is felt by writers who seek to explore this middle position that the advocates of both extremes fail to grasp many of the realities involved, and that it is the part of wisdom to seek to discover under what conditions a war involving the use of thermonuclear weapons might be waged with some semblance of justice.

The discussion in this matter usually turns around the traditional questions of means and objectives. In the treatment of the question, the powerful book by Dr. Herman Kahn, On Thermonuclear War, is never far out of sight. Kahn’s approach is, that it is easily possible to overestimate the effects of nuclear warfare in terms of the number of lives lost. His objective is, of course, to secure such policies as would serve to reduce the number of deaths in such a conflict, and to preserve the largest possible measure of capacity to recuperate. His work is a corrective to much of the irresponsible speculation concerning an instantaneous destruction of the entire human race.

Writers in the field of social ethics are concerned, not so much with the statistics of Kahn’s work, as with its failure to take into consideration the loss of spiritual values which a thermonuclear conflict would bring, and the loss of the structures of human community and human freedom which would ensue. These considerations vastly complicate the discussion of a “just war” in our time. But it is generally agreed among Christian writers that such a war should be “counter-forces” warfare—that is, that it should be directed against military objectives and not against civilian populations—and that it should be for limited objectives, and not for the purpose of securing world domination.

In other words, the writers under study seek to project into the discussion that which they feel the Christian message has to say in such a world at such a time. This is, we judge, designed to present an alternative to the proposals of the secular humanist, who would have as a guiding-star in all discussions of modern warfare “the preservation of the human race above any and all partial interests” (John H. Hertz, “International Politics and the Nuclear Dilemma” in John C. Bennett [ed.], Nuclear Weapons and the Conflict of Conscience.)

This does not mean that discussions of the question of nuclear warfare are always pursued in the light of man’s deep need for spiritual regeneration, or in view of the providential significance of history’s events. It does mean, however, that such basic questions as man’s obligation to view his fellowmen as God’s creatures, and to regard human life as sacred, are projected into the thinking of an age which thinks all to easily in terms of impersonalisms—in terms of reducing the loss of life from (say) 50 millions to merely 30 millions. Most discussions of the quality of life which would exist in a post-thermonuclear war area seem to neglect the possibilities of any positive role to be played by Christians who might survive such attack.

There is, finally, considerable emphasis placed upon the question of the strain which the nuclear arms race places upon the economies of today’s nations. This is, of course, a prudential matter, but one which has relevance in a world in which the Black and Pale Horses of hunger and death stamp about with such abandon. Current discussions do serve to keep alive an awareness of these things in the minds of men and women in affluent societies.

Thus, the possibility of thermonuclear war is provoking serious discussion upon the part of today’s Christian writers. Not all of this discussion is held within an adequate frame of reference. But it does serve the vital purpose of maintaining a conscience amid the perplexing events of our time. This conscience is one of the precious assets of a people longing to remain free.

The History Of The ‘Tithe’

Money and the Church, by Luther P. Powell (Association Press, 1962,252 pp., $3.75), is reviewed by Paul S. Rees, Vice-President-at-large, World Vision, Pasadena, California.

In what forms, by what devices, through what motivations, has the Christian Church through the centuries received the material support required for its manifold ministries and enterprises?

The answer to this question has occupied the mind of the author for more than a dozen reflective, researching years. It first helped to get him a Ph.D. degree, with a thesis entitled The Growth and Development of the Motives and Methods of Church Support with Special Emphasis Upon the American Churches. A subsequent decade of digging into history, digesting data, and deploying material has born its fruit in the present highly informative volume.

In Part I, called “Money and the Church Previous to the American Period,” the Church of the first three centuries is seen resting its giving on the principle of voluntarism, with tithing scarcely envisaged in the first century, more frequently alluded to in the second, but only beginning to be enjoined in the third.

In the period between Constantine and Gregory the Great voluntarism recedes and legalism moves to the front. Tithing “jells,” first as a law of the church and then as a law of the civil courts. Church finance grows intricate. “Legacies,” “endowments,” and “oblations” (bread and wine brought by the worshipers, along with money) were encouraged or required.

What with Gregory the Great’s assumption of ultimate papal power, the church waxes wealthy. “Subsidies” and “tributes” multiply. A “spoils” system-antedating by far the political oddities of the American scene—comes into lucrative play: “the pope quite naturally claimed the goods of an archbishop, bishop, abbot, or any ecclesiastic who died.” With the passing of medieval time the multiplication of revenue-producing devices and deviations seemed boundless: “fruits during vacancy,” “annates,” “expectations,” “illegitimate fruits” (revenues from a member of the clergy who had gained his benefice uncanonically), “servitia,” “the pallium,” “pluralities,” “Peter’s Pence,” “income taxes” (shades of modernity!), “apostolic tax,” “procuration,” “visitation tax” and so on ad nauseum.

Chapter IV halts the historical progression of the book for a close look at the motivations that lay behind the elaborate fiscal system of the papacy. The large place accorded to “a theology of merit” was not without consequences in what our author calls “revenue-producing doctrines:” the “penance formula,” “indulgences,” “relics,” “absolutions,” “dispensations.” There were more and more attendant abuses, which were “made possible through a previous distortion of the gospel.”

In respect of Reformation changes and improvements Powell holds that, by and large, the fiscal transformation was much less radical than the situation required, with Lutheran and Reformed churches clinging to the union of church and state, and leaving to the Anabaptists and Quakers the unpopular task of bearing witness to the authentic freedom of the redeemed community.

Turning to the American scene, a revealing spotlight is turned on the contrasting philosophies of church support: the voluntary and the compulsory. The Baptists, the Methodists, and the Quakers would have it one way; the Episcopalians, and the Presbyterians would have it the other way. Compulsory support was arranged through the town meeting, or with proprietors who were known as “patroons,” or, more magisterially, with the colonial government and the Crown. In New Amsterdam, for example, the town officials were to be responsible for the ministers’ salaries “in return for the excise tax on rum and whisky!”

On either scheme the methods, gimmicks, and tricks ranged from “glebes” (lands or farms owned by the church) to lotteries. Powell’s historical plowshare has turned up some “crawling things.” In more than one community the conscience of government outran the conscience of the church. Without benefit of the pious, the government declared the lotteries illegal.

Probing the financial techniques of contemporary church life in the United States, our author finds nearly all of them unsatisfactory substitutes for genuine stewardship. The one exception is the “every member canvass.” This approach, he feels, is not “fool proof,” but at its best, wedded to a genuinely Christian devotedness, it is worthy and workable. (Item for the Department of Little Known Infonnation: “a ‘pledge’ to a church has been declared legally binding by the courts.”)

Out of the concluding chapters, dealing with motives, principles, and what is called “The Discipline of Tithing,” there comes a distillation of insights and inferences that I have found more than ordinarily rewarding. Tithing, far from being a legal duty, is a gracious Christtian discipline—and the open door to larger ministries of proportional giving. But signing up as tither because a “prosperity” angle has caught one’s eye is a practice roundly to be disapproved.

“On which side of Calvary are you living?” Where you work for salvation or from it? This, says Powell, is the watershed of Christian giving. One is a calculation. The other is a holocaust—one’s all on the altar in sheer gratitude for the gift of the Saviour.

This is a book many cuts above the average. It is well documented. It is restrained. It never screams. But it “gets home.”

PAUL S. REES

Good Commentaries

Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, by Philip E. Hughes (Eerdmans, 1962,508 pp., $6), and The Epistles of Peter, by Cary N. Weisiger III (Baker 1961, 141 pp., $2.50), are reviewed by R. K. Harrison, Professor of Old Testament, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Dr. Hughes’ contribution to the New International Commentary on the New Testament is unquestionably a substantial piece of scholarship. His aim is exegetical rather than homiletical, but the preacher will find in this volume a good deal of sermonic material from both ancient and modern sources. While the author emphasizes, with an increasing number of modern scholars, the essential unity of II Corinthians, his designation of it as the “severe letter” will not be accepted in every quarter. Dr. Hughes shows an acquaintance with a wide range of scholarly opinion and strives to achieve a judicious balance on disputed points. Some of his arguments against dislocations of the Greek text are unconvincing, and the work as a whole exhibits some misspellings and misprints. Despite all this, however, the commentary is marked by profound scholarship and deep spiritual insight, and is a worthy addition to the series.

Cary Weisiger’s contribution to the Proclaiming the New Testament series expounds the chapters of I and II Peter in terms of historical setting, expository meaning, doctrinal value, practical aim and homiletical form. The author accepts the Petrine authorship of both epistles, and favors the view that II Peter preceded I Peter. The book contains much suggestive sermonic material and relates the message of Peter to the present day with profound awareness of the issues involved. The busy pastor will find this work a valuable addition to his library.

R. K. HARRISON

Cream For Students

Varieties of Christian Apologetics, by Bernard Ramm (Baker, 1961, 199 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Gordon H. Clark, Professor of Philosophy, Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana.

This revised edition differs from the earlier Types of Apologetic Systems chiefly by the omission of chapters on Carnell and Van Til and the addition of chapters on Calvin and Kuyper.

The three varieties of apologetics studied are: systems of subjective immediacy, systems of natural theology, and systems stressing revelation. As a textbook the material has been put on a student level; yet the chapter on Butler is excellent, and the one on Tennant runs a close second.

Sometimes brevity and simplification raise questions. Do Kant’s three Critiques really represent a defense of Christianity (p. 13)? Do Romish apologists believe that the claims of Christianity—beyond the existence of God—are demonstrable (p. 23)? And with Berkeley in mind, does empiricism stand in radical contrast to idealism (p. 111)?

On the whole, however, the author skims the cream off the three varieties of apologetics to give the student a rich diet.

GORDON H. CLARK

Christian Summit

Despatch from New Delhi, by Kenneth Slack (S.C.M., 1962, 96 pp., 3s. 6d.); and New Delhi Speaks, (S.C.M., 1962, 80 pp., 2s. 6d.; Association, 128 pp., $.50), are reviewed by Colin Brown, Tutor, Tyndale Hall, Bristol, England.

The General Secretary of the British Council of Churches with all the skill of a professional journalist spotlights the great moments of this multi-racial, multicreedal Christian summit. New Delhi contained the world’s churches in microcosm. Billy Graham was there. Even the Church of Rome was represented by five hand-picked observers. When the Assembly opened it contained 625 delegates representing 175 member churches. By the time it closed, its ranks had been swollen by the inclusion of 23 more churches, among them the Orthodox churches from behind the Iron Curtain. After the amalgamation of the International Missionary Council with the WCC, most missionary work, for good or ill, will come under the WCC umbrella. But still the most important aspect of New Delhi was its adoption of a trinitarian doctrinal basis.

Reading for prespective

CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S REVIEW EDITORS CALL ATTENTION TO THESE NEW TITLES:

* World Christian Handbook 1962, edited by H. Wakelin Coxill and Sir Kenneth Grubb (World Dominion Press, $7.50; 27s. 6d.). Invaluable reference work on Christianity’s current situation through the world, including statistics, articles, maps, and directory.

* The Role of the Minister’s Wife, by Wallace Denton (Westminster, $3.50). One for the lady of the manse, the “little minister” without calling, portfolio, or salary, often lonely in her fish bowl existence.

* Christ and Crisis, by Charles Malik (Eerdmans, $3). Seven addresses by the former president of the United Nations General Assembly, a Greek Orthodox layman whose insights into the culture crisis merit a hearing.

The companion volume contains the Message of the Assembly, its three Reports on Witness, Service, and Unity together with an Appeal to All Governments and Peoples. In view of the great doctrinal differences it is perhaps inevitable that much of what the Assembly had to say sounds platitudinous and frustratingly vague. But at least New Delhi gave our denominational leaders opportunity to meet. And in any case its real significance depends on the response of the churches hack home. With the publication of these books we are given the WCC’s election manifesto. What we do with it is our responsibility.

COLIN BROWN

The Judgment: Well Done

The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment, by Leon Morris (Eerdmans, 1960, 72 pp., $2), is reviewed by G. L. Archer, Professor of Biblical Languages, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California.

This little book comes at a fairly high price, but it seems quite worth the money from the standpoint of value received. The author is the very able biblical scholar, presently Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge (although formerly of Ridley College in Melbourne), who has published several excellent studies in New Testament biblical theology. In this present work he has included in his survey of the concept of judgment in the Scriptures a very careful study of the Old Testament Hebrew terminology, as furnishing a background for the New Testament development and consummation of the judgment-concept.

Prof. Morris combines in this treatment a thorough acquaintance with the views of modern scholars (such as Snaith, Pedersen, Köhler, Manson, and Aubrey Johnson) along with a level-headed, independent study of the Hebrew terms themselves in the light of their own context. Thus he makes a fair evaluation of interpretations with which he cannot concur, and then subjects them to a concise but satisfying critique. His method of progression is to deal with each Old Testament term in the order of frequency and importance, and indicate in a summary way the special contribution which each work makes to the biblical concept of judgment.

It is only natural that the most extensive treatment should be given to the term shāpat (“to judge”) and its nounform mishpāt (“judgment”), since this is the word most widely used in the Old Testament, and possesses the greatest variety of meaning. After pointing out the inadequacy of competing views, that the basic idea of shāphat is “rule” (Dodd), or “custom” (Snaith and Pedersen), he offers the following contributions to a just appreciation of its root significance and central thought: (1) It includes the idea of “protect by means of justice.” (2) Rather than a quiet acceptance of status quo and the established mores of society, mishpāt involves a dynamic principle of radical reform, if necessary to bring society back to God’s standards of righteousness. (3) The principle of discrimination between right and wrong, central to this term, is combined with an obligation to go beyond and take appropriate action, punishing the guilty and vindicating the rights of the innocent. (4) Mishpāt is inseparable from a covenant-context; it involves maintaining the sanctions and standards of God’s covenant with Israel. (5) When the Word is used to mean “ordinance” or “law,” it connotes a merciful provision on the part of a God who loves his people. (6) It also combines a love of right with a love of men, and thus involves loving kindness, faithfulness, and mercy. (7) This in turn leads to the notion of deliverance (of widows, orphans, strangers, or the oppressed nation), alongside the outpouring of punitive wrath upon the evildoer. Lately, Morris observes that the pious Israelite, dedicated though he was to the enforcement of mishpāt in his own community and age, nevertheless recognized that only God himself could bring perfect justice to pass in this world so out of joint. He therefore looked to Jehovah to punish the wicked, to separate his righteous remnant from among the ungodly, and to establish his holy rule upon earth.

The only criticism your reviewer can make of this treatment of mishpāt is that it is presented in too piecemeal a fashion; it would have achieved greater clarity had the author attempted an initial synthesis of the various motifs of shāphat, and then showed how each derivative application stemmed from the parent idea. Personally we have found the clue furnished by Girdlestone (“Synonyms of the Old Testament”) to be most helpful in organizing the data of mishpāt: that it involves the putting into practical application of the principles of sedeq (“righteousness” or “justice”)—that standard of righteousness which confonns to the holy nature of God. In other words mishpāt presupposes sedeq as its background, and enforces its sanctions to create situations. This is what happens when a panel of judges adjudicates a specific case; the judges (shõphetim) apply sedeq to the litigants before them, and their decision is called a mishpāt. This also explains the use of this same term to the numerous provisions in the Pentateuch which set forth a specific type of case (the “If … then …” type). Whether the word is translated “ordinance,” “judgment,” or “law,” the basic notion is that of putting the principles of sedeq in operation. Thus also we are to understand the function of the shõphetim in the Book of Judges; they were primarily executives, appointed by God to enforce his sedeq and his covenant sanctions in times of national crisis.

In his treatment of related words, like din (carry on a lawsuit, administer judgment or rule), pillel (intervene, interpose with judgment), yākakh (judgment as involving reasoning, argumentation or rebuke), and ribh (strive, conduct a suit, uphold the rights of), Morris is succinct, clear and to the point. His discussion of the disputed use of elõhim as “judges” is well done; his refutation of those who hold to a theory of subordinate deities as involved in Psalm 82:2–6 is quite masterly and compelling.

In his discussion of the New Testament terms for judgment, krino and krisis, Morris shows how the Old Testament concepts carry over into apostolic thought. The Lord deals vigorously with evil and is active in saving his people; in contrast with mere deterrent or curative penology (so prevalent in modern times), New Testament judgment involves meting out true punitive justice. It may also involve a discriminating or sifting process, in which human agents are themselves involved. On p. 51 the author comments: “Men today often reject the whole idea of judgment. They feel that it is not in keeping with the concept of God as a loving Father that He should judge men, and sentence them to hell. This objection overlooks entirely the way that judgment works. It is not that a tyrannical God looks down grimly on men and picks out certain with whom He will have nothing to do. God is love. Men sentence themselves. They choose darkness and refuse light.”

Morris’ final chapter deals with the future certainty of judgment according to New Testament teaching. He demonstrates most conclusively that C. H. Dodd’s concept of “realized eschatology” is an alien philosophical viewpoint foisted upon the New Testament writings, and not justly derivable from them. “Statements about the future judgment are so frequent, and so basic to the thought of the biblical writers, that no theology which fails to do justice to it can be reckoned as true to the New Testament faith. ‘If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most pitiable’, wrote Paul (1 Cor. 15:19)” (p. 58). In connection with Bultmann’s “reinterpreted eschatology” the author points out that Bultmann has to resort to large-scale tampering with the text of John in order to square his theory with the data of the Fourth Gospel. “Such a procedure,” Morris drily remarks, “gives us a good deal of information about the ideas of Bultmann, but little about New Testament teaching” (p. 59).

It is only natural that a subject of this sort should especially lend itself to homiletical treatment; there are many overtones of pulpit eloquence, and the result is quite moving. Nevertheless the limited size of the book has regrettably abbreviated his treatment of some aspects which deserve much fuller treatment. This is particularly true of the section on “Judgment is according to works” (pp. 66, 67), which outlines the problem of an apparent emphasis in some passages of Scripture upon the factor of deeds of human merit. He explains the teaching of 1 Cor. 3:10–15 concerning the works of faith, as a structure built upon the meritorious work of Jesus Christ. But he does not extend this reconciling principle to the various references to the importance of a Christian’s works in relation to the judgment of God in Christ. A more extended treatment of this theme would have rendered the reader a real service.

In conclusion we may say that few works on the key terms of biblical theology surpass this work for over-all excellence, clarity and balance of judgment. Despite its brevity it presents the student of Scripture with much nourishing, solid meat, and includes a good summary of the current views of the leading authorities in the field.

G. L. ARCHER

Posthumous

Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, by T. W. Manson (Manchester University Press, 1962, 293 pp., 30s.), is reviewed by F. F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis, University of Manchester, Manchester, England.

Those of us who eargerly read the papers contributed by T. W. Manson to successive volumes of the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library used to hope that one day they would grow up into a complete New Testament Introduction. The author’s lamented death in May 1958 deprived us of that hope, as of much else. But it is good to see so many of those papers gathered together in this volume. They have been edited by Principal Matthew Black, and preceded by an appreciation of the author by his former colleague. Professor H. H. Rowley. Part I, entitled “Materials for a Life of Jesus,” contains seven papers, the first of which—a lecture on “The Quest of the Historical Jesus—Continued”—has never been published before. Part II, entitled “The Epistles of St. Paul,” also contains seven papers, including (curiously enough) one on the Epistle to the Hebrews, considered Pauline by neither author nor editor nor reviewer.

It may suffice here to say something about the one paper hitherto unpublished. Professor Manson did not share the fashionable skepticism concerning the possibility of writing a life of Jesus, and he would have been the last man to listen to those who describe the quest of the historical Jesus as illegitimate. He did not consider that Schweitzer had said the last word on the subject. To him the ministry of Jesus, far from being an interim ethic or a mere prologue to the Kingdom of God, was and is the Kingdom of God. He knew, of course, and never tired of reminding us, that the ministry of Jesus did not come to an end with his death. As for Form-criticism, “a paragraph of Mark is not a penny the better or the worse for being labeled.… In fact, if Form-criticism had stuck to its proper business, it would not have made any real stir. We should have taken it as we take the forms of Hebrew poetry or the forms of musical composition” (p. 5). Well said!

We read this book with a renewed sense of the great loss that New Testament scholarship has suffered by the passing of T. W. Manson, to which the reviewer adds a renewed sense of the tremendous honor and responsibility of following him in his Chair.

E. F. BRUCE

Gripping Pages

Robert Moffatt: Pioneer in Africa, by Cecil Northcott (Harper, 1962,357 pp., $7.50), is reviewed by J. T. H. Adamson, Minister, First United Church, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Northcott provides an attractively written story of the missionary who has been somewhat overshadowed by his illustrious son-in-law, David Livingstone.

Moffat labored in South Africa for over 50 years from 1817. He proved a traveler and descriptive writer with an observant eye; a horticulturalist with “green fingers”; a practical man who could mend broken wagons and prescribe effective regimens for the sick; a translator of the Bible into Sechuana; a friend of African chiefs with a remarkable power of inspiring trust; and not least a zealous evangelist with a Calvinist theology.

Northcott does not seek to hide Moffat’s faults. He was authoritative, self-opinionated, over-pious, and not a little vain. But he had unflinching patience. He was a man made for the long haul. He would no sooner turn from a difficulty than, in Livingstone’s words, “a lion would run away from a turkey-cock.” He was utterly dependable, with a serene faith and simple, stubborn traits. He was a humanitarian who put the plough second to the Bible, and it was his achievement to pioneer white settlement and Christianity in Southern Rhodesia.

The book is written with a thoroughness and competence that should make it the definitive biography of Moffat. Although there is too much detail perhaps for the general reader, there are many fascinating and gripping pages.

J. T. H. ADAMSON

Fathers Of The Pilgrims

The Writings of Henry Barrow 1587–1590 (Allen & Unwin, 1962,680 pp., 84s.) and The Writings of John Greenwood 1587–1590 (Allen & Unwin, 1962,344 pp., 63s.), edited by Leland H. Carlson, are reviewed by Gervase E. Duffield. member of The National Assembly of the Church of England.

Volumes 3 and 4 of the Elizabethan Nonconformist texts give to the public writings hitherto known mainly to experts alone. They should be of special interest to American readers, as these British independents are the direct ancestors of the Pilgrim Fathers. Such men felt bound to leave the national Protestant church, as they thought her wrong in her liturgical worship, her ministry, her discipline, and her basis of membership. They held the “gathered” church view, and stressed individualism, freedom of enquiry and the priesthood of all believers. Their tone was not moderate, but neither was that of their age. Criticism was directed at Anglican and Continental Reformers alike, and even at certain Anabaptists.

Greenwood and Barrow were leading Separatists who suffered death for their convictions, though strictly they were traitors since the State recognized only one church, and toleration had not yet come. Their writings consist inter alia of theological treatises, letters, and accounts of their various examinations before the archbishop and other notables. Dr. Carlson of Claremont, California, has modernized spelling, corrected errors and given introductions. His superb editions will be specially gratifying to Protestants at a time when Roman Catholics are strenuously pressing the claims of their “40 martyrs,” executed for following Pius V’s orders to recover England “to the primitive obedience of this holy Roman See.”

GERVASE E. DUFFIELD

Book Briefs

God’s Gold Mines, by C. Roy Angell (Broadman, 1962, 118 pp., $2.50). Stories sprinkled with spiritual comment.

The Eight Pillars of Salvation, by Harold M. Freligh (Bethany Fellowship, 1962, 123 pp., $2). Brief, definitive evangelical writings about the foundations on which salvation rests. Both thought and language are tight and lucid.

Alone With God, ed. by Theodore J Kleinhans (Concordia, 1962, 104 pp., $2.50). Fifty devotional gems gathered from Luther’s sermons. As pungent as Luther.

The Christian Answer to Life’s Urgent Questions, by George E. Sweazey (Bethany Press, 1962, 192 pp., $3.50). Refreshing writing in language addressed to the street where you live, giving answers that some times rest on precarious theological underpinning.

Henry VIII and Luther, by Erwin Doernberg (Stanford University Press, 1962, 139 pp., $3.50). Collected evidence of the interesting particulars attending the exchanges between two leading Reformation figures.

The Great Commitment, by Lin D. Cart wright (Bethany Press, 1962, 144 pp., $2.50). Author deals warmly, devotionally, perceptively with the meaning of personal profession of faith in Christ.

The Mature Christian, by A. Morgan Derham (Revell, 1962, 128 pp., $2.50; Marshalls, 1961, 10s. 6d.). Mature observations on Christian maturity, lack of which often causes Christians to be disappointed with themselves. A nutshell treatment that is all meat and no shuck.

Commission, Conflict, Commitment (Inter-Varsity Press, 1962, 301 pp., $5.50, paperback $3.25). Messages of the Sixth International Student Missionary Conven tion held in December, 1961, at the University of Illinois.

The Gloomy Dean, by Robert M. Helm (John F. Blair, Publisher, Winston-Salem, N. C., 1962,310 pp., $6). A study of the life and writings of Dean Inge of London’s St. Paul Cathedral, an exponent of Plotinus. Denying man’s inevitable progress, he said that the world “was never meant to be a pleasure garden” and was dubbed the “gloomy Dean.”

Buddhist Thought in India, by Edward Conze (Allen & Unwin, 1962, 302 pp., 36s.). A history of Indian Buddhist philosophy from 500 B.C. to A.D. 600.

Melanchthon: Selected Writings, ed. by E. E. Flack and L. J. Satre (Augsburg, 1962, 190 pp., $4). Selected writings which open the window on Melanchthon and his thought, particularly on his relation to the “pure Lutheranism” of Luther.

The Red Carpet, by Ezra Taft Benson Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, 1962,325 pp., $3.50). Former Secretary of Agriculture Benson warns America that socialism is a red carpet providing a royal welcome to communism.

Heart-Cry for Revival, by Stephen F. Olford (Revell, 1962, 128 pp., $2.50). A heady, hearty, but sober discussion of revival in the light of biblical thought.

The Making of a Man of Goa, by Alan Redpath (Revel, 1962,256 pp., $3.50). Expository, homiletical studies of the life of David.

Worship with Youth, by J. Martin and Betty Jane Bailey (Christian Education Press, 1962,247 pp., $3.95). An almost fine book that sometimes teeters perilously on shaky doctrinal positions.

Refugee, by Donald E. Hoke, Paul B. Peterson and Laverne Donaldson (Moody, 1962, 176 pp., $3.50). Author points up the situation of political victims in trouble spots around the world, and pleads for an awakening Christian concern for these millions of refugees.

Romanism in the Light of Scripture, by J. Dwight Pentecost (Moody, 1962, 127 pp., $2.50). Popular evaluation of distinctive Roman Catholic tenets in the light of the biblical norm.

The Gospel of John, by Ronald A. Ward and The Epistles of James, John and Jude, by Russell Bradley Jones, (Baker; 1961; 142 and 164 pp.; $2.50 each). Practical, suggestive evangelical comments on key texts, which can enrich both pulpit and laymen. Part of 15-volume-series on the New Testament.

Southern Rebel in Reverse: The Autobiography of an Idol-Shaker, by D. Witherspoon (American Press, 1961, 178 pp., $3). A minister deposed in the South for theological liberalism becomes a rebel for freedom and social justice as he sees it. Regretfully, he broke more than idols. A gripping story in which sadness and humor mingle, throwing a light on the man and the times in which he lived.

The Collected Papers in Church History. Series I: Early and Medieval Christianity, by Roland H. Bainton (Beacon Press, 1962,261 pp., $6). Essays of quality scholarship on many aspects of church history by one of the deans of American church historians. One of a projected series of three.

Your Marriage—Duel or Duet?, by Louis H. Evans (Revell, 1962, 128 pp., $2.50). A fine discussion of one of the toughest and most sensitive of human relationships. Here is help for the many who know they need help, and for some who think they do not.

Paperbacks

Step by Step in Theology, by Hal and Jean Vermes (Association, 1962, 140 pp., $3). “An experimental book that works like a teaching machine,” guiding the reader through bite size sections (four to a page), until he has had a six-course meal. The method is strong; the theology sometimes wobbly.

Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C., 1962, 276 pp., $.70). A list of subversive organizations and publications, prepared and released by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

Selected Writings of Saint Augustine, ed. by Roger Hazelton (Meridian Books, 1962,320 pp., $1.65). A representative selection of the varied writings of one of Christendom’s most influential thinkers, with an introduction by R. Hazelton.

The Meaning of History, by Nicholas Berdyaev (Meridian Books, 1962, 192 pp., $1.25). A religious-philosophical analysis of history by the late, brilliant Russian thinker. First printed in 1936.

The Screwtape Letters, by C. S. Lewis (Macmillan, 1962, 172 pp., $.95). One of the wittiest Christian writers of the twentieth century adds a delightful and informative preface to his famous Screwtape Letters and a new Screwtape piece: “Screwtape Proposes a Toast.”

The New Testament in Modern English, tr. by J. B. Phillips (Macmillan, 1962, 583 pp., $1.45). Well-known translation in first-time paperback edition.

Your Pulpit in Life, by Waldo J. Werning (Church-Craft Pictures, Inc., 4222 Utah St., St. Louis 16, Mo., 1962, 72 pp., $1.25). Author defines Christian’s calling in authentic, biblical sense.

Invitation to Baptism, by R. E. O. White (Carey Kingsgate, 1962, 77 pp., 5s.). A small manual for those enquiring about baptism by a distinguished Baptist scholar.

Life and Religion in Southern Appalachia, by W. D. Weatherford and Earl D. C. Brewer (Friendship, 1962, 166 pp., $1.50). Religious, sociological study of the mountain people of the Appalachians.

Boys For Christ, by the staff of Christian Service Brigade (Christian Service Brigade, Wheaton, Ill., 1962, 172 pp., $2). A manual for leaders of boys.

Reprints

The Hidden Life of Prayer, by D. M. M’Intyre (Bethany Fellowship, 1962, 94 pp., $1.50). Wallet size classic on prayer for reading on the 8:15.

David: King of Israel and Ruth and Esther, by William M. Taylor (Baker, 1961, 443 and 269 pp., $2.95 each). Homiletical, biblical expositions of the lives indicated in the titles. Dated but competent. Original printing, 1886.

The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power, by John Owen (Kregel, 1960, 356 pp., $3.95). One of the great classics on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. First printed 1674.

The Saints’ Everlasting Rest, by Richard Baxter (Revell, 1962, 187 pp., $3.50). A devotional classic; held in honor for 300 years.

A Commentary on the Holy Bible: Volume I, Genesis—Job, by Matthew Poole (Banner of Truth Trust, 1962, 1031 pp., 35s.). “Matthew Poole is sound, clear, sensible,” declared Bishop J. C. Ryle, “and taking him for all in all, I place him at the head of English Commentators on the whole Bible.” A handsome reprint of a hitherto scarce work.

Introductory Hebrew Grammar, by A. B. Davidson, revised by John Mauchline (T. & T. Clark, 1962, 313 pp., 30s.). A complete revision by the Glasgow University Old Testament Professor of a famous grammar which has seen 25 editions in 90 years.

Tempest Over School Prayer Ban

JESUS AND THE JUDGES—Jesus, according to St. Luke, remonstrated with His disciples and said: “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.” Little children may not approach Him, however, through the public schools of New York. Six justices of the Supreme Court have forbidden it.—The Evening Star, Washington, D. C.

VICTORY FOR VOLUNTARISM—The Supreme Court’s decision … is an act of liberation. It frees school children from what was in effect a forced participation by rote in an act of worship which ought to be individual, wholly voluntary and devout. It frees the public schools from an observance much more likely to be divisive than unifying. And most important of all, perhaps, it frees religion from an essentially mischievous and incalculably perilous sort of secular support.—The Washington Post, Washington, D. C.

A CATHOLIC BISHOP’S VIEW—I am astonished that the men who are leading judicial figures of our country have shown themselves to be confused concerning the “establishment of religion” and religion itself. These are two distinctly different things. This apparent misunderstanding … about the “establishment of religion” (a state church) and the virtue of religion is most disturbing.—Bishop WALTER P. KELLENBERC, Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, L. I., New York.

A RABBI’S VIEW—It is incredible to think how very eminent jurists … can have been misled by the over-zealous quest for utter and complete separation between Church and State. We have as a nation recognized that we live in freedom under God, that we trust in God, that we invoke God’s blessings at public assemblies and at official national and local gatherings … the decision has utterly ignored this ineradicable ideal and reality of American public life.… Many Americans are exaggerating the alleged encroachments of religion in our public life.—Rabbi JOSEPH SHUBOW, Temple Bnai Moshe, Boston, Massachusetts.

THE HEARST NEWSPAPERS—The decision … is a misinterpretation of the Constitution. Using the religious liberty guarantee in the First Amendment as its reason, the ruling is a deprivation of liberty and a denial of the nation’s basic faith in God.—WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST, JR.

PRAYER WAS OFFENSIVE—The decision is sound.… The prayer was offensive to Bible-believing Christians because it was not made in the name of Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.… It is not tolerable that the State should presume to dictate an official prayer to God satisfactory to all religions, but most assuredly not satisfactory to Jesus Christ.—DR. CARL MCINTIRE, President, International Council of Christian Churches.

ILL-TIMED BLOW—At a time when the godly are in a deadly struggle with the ungodly for the freedom and dignity of men; when we are concerned with the moral strength of our people and the impact of the moral and the religious on our youth … when we should prove to the world that prayer to God shall be constantly with us for guidance to world security, peace of mind and moral fortification; this … comes as an unexpected and ill-timed blow.—Greek Orthodox Archbishop IAKOVOS.

SECULARISM ACCELERATED—This is another step toward the secularism of the United States.… Followed to its logical conclusion, we will have to take the chaplains out of the armed forces, prayers cannot be said in Congress, and the President cannot put his hand on the Bible when he takes the oath of office.—Evangelist BILLY GRAHAM.

THE WRONG CROWD WINS—When the Court in one breath tells us that narcotics addiction is not a crime, and literature about homosexuals is not offensive, but that we cannot lead our schoolchildren in prayer, they are coming dangerously close to destroying the confidence of the people in our laws and in our courts.—Congressman WILLIAM G. BRAY (R., Indiana).

WHERE WILL IT LEAD?—The Supreme Court has raised more questions than it answered.… Is mention of God to be divorced from all temporal matters with which government has any connection?… Those are the questions that the Supreme Court has now precipitated—and that the court will have a long, hot, bitter time trying to answer.—New York World-Telegram and The Sun.

SECURITY FROM SECTARIANISM—There is no good alternative to accepting in good spirit and good faith the Supreme Court’s decision.… At a time when the principle of separation of church and state is in danger of being compromised by those who favor Federal or state aid to religious-based schools, the court’s decision is the strongest possible security. It buttresses the President’s position that such aid would be unconstitutional.—ROSCOE DRUMMOND, New York Herald Tribune.

PIETY IN NEW JERSEY—The decision does not apply in our state. We in New Jersey read a prayer that was thought up by someone else: the Lord.—Governor RICHARD J. HUGHES.

NCC SILENT—There is no statement that can be made on behalf of the National Council of Churches regarding this decision.… The National Council has not spoken with regard to the issue involved.—ALCWYN ROBERTS, Associate Executive Secretary, Division of Christian Education, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

ASSORTED COMMENT—Leo Pfeffer, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress: “a great milestone”.… Herbert Hoover: “a disintegration of one of the most sacred of American heritages”.… Francis Cardinal Spellman: “I am shocked and frightened”.… Dr. Oswald C. J. Hoffmann, “Lutheran Hour” speaker: “cannot be termed anti-Christian”.… Congressman George M. Grant (D., Alabama): “They can’t keep us from praying for the Supreme Court.”

Summer Symphony

One delight of a blistering Philadelphia summer is the concert series of the symphony orchestra in Robin Hood Dell. Some regard mass popularity of these free outdoor concerts as evidence of the high culture of Philadelphia. Having been raised in a Philadelphia row house, I would credit the high humidity. Old residents who used to sit on the front steps now sit on a bench in the park and cool off to music.

Beethoven, Brahms, Strauss, or Stravinsky—it’s all cool music as it comes floating back from the twelve speakers of the orchestra shell. Starlings and sparrows plunge into the sunset through the rising waterfall of melody, while the flag begins to ripple above the violins. Colorful patches of people on the hillside across the Dell compose a Seurat painting in the stillness. As the light fades, they become a misty vision by Monet; at last only cigarette-lighter fireflies punctuate the darkness.

Under the stage lights a pianist is playing, his fingers flying with the blurring beat of insect wings, and escapes the pounce of the brasses. His ecstasy subsides and the clear silence of thousands hangs on two fingers twinkling in an upper octave of the keyboard.

The concluding coda of the full orchestra breaks the spell, and the magic ends in applause. The stadium lights go up. Vendors leap into the aisles: “Who’ll hev ize crim, body-buildin’ ize crim.…” The intermission crush presses a bearded student against a portly woman in a purple dress, purple earrings and a purple pansy hat.

Yet I know that somehow Beethoven has put a religious question, perhaps in spite of himself. Music is more than summer mystique, and it is also more than cooling reverie. It opens meaning for man.

After the intermission the orchestra played Stravinsky: a composition on the Psalms. The choir sang a mournful, “Laudate, alleluia” to the dissonant moan of bass viols throbbing with inconsolable grief. I wondered what our gospel disc-jockey would make of the thousands of students who sat listening.

EUTYCHUS

Pressure On Saturday

I would like to protest the scheduling that allows an issue such as the one received today (June 8) to come to a pastor’s desk on Saturday morning. You know that even though a sermon may be prepared early in the week, it is improved by last-minute polishing, and your cover page featuring “The Pastor and His People” with its fascinating and practical articles found me incapable of waiting until Monday morning.

It would also be helpful if you would put such “special issues” within hard covers, so that the frequent usage which they will receive will not shorten the period of their usefulness.

Aside from these minor evidences of thoughtlessness, you are doing a great job in a great way. Thank you sincerely!

WESLEY P. HUSTAD

First Baptist

Marshalltown, Iowa

Due to the fact that I am a young minister just out of seminary, this issue proved to be one of the most stimulating and helpful I have received. The editorial “The Pastor and His People” was worth the price of a year’s subscription.…

EUGENE TESTER

Germantown Christian Church

Germantown, Ky.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY.… is truly a pastor’s helper. The … issue was superb.

ROBERT PINDER

Tangelo Baptist Church

Orlando, Fla.

The Virgin Birth

Helen H. Colbert (Eutychus, June 8 issue) may truthfully believe in private interpretation. However, if she believes this symbolic view of the Virgin Birth … she is being led by something other than the God who led the Gospel writers.…

NORRIS ONSTEAD

First Baptist Church

Anson, Tex.

In Praise Of Perception

I rejoiced to read the sound and searching words from the pen and heart of minister Raymond P. Jennings (“Race and Reconciliation: We Reserve the Right”) in your issue of June 8.

The compass-quality comments … pointing to the unchanging poles of Christian freedom and reconciliation … drew my heart to the soul of this perceptive servant of the Lord. His call to selfless and compassionate awareness of other human persons should be passed on from the redeemed men to those who are bound until many shall sense with assurance that God indeed cares for their lives.

MILTON LEHMAN

Mennonite Central Committee

Akron, Pa.

On The Trinity

Thank you so much for your presentation of … “The Glory of the Eternal Trinity” (May 25 issue). A more concise statement on this essential doctrine of the faith would be most difficult to find.…

I find nothing in the New Testament that would give any indication—however slight—of any recognition of the possibility that there may be an apparent conflict between two roots of New Testament teaching and preaching: (1) belief in the ancient creed of the Jews, which was brought over into the New Testament by our Lord himself, “Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, He is one Lord” …; and (2) belief in “God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth”; “God the Son, Redeemer of the world”; “God the Holy Ghost, Sanctifier of the faithful.” I can find nothing in the New Testament that would resolve these two statements into the glorious proclamation, “O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, one God” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 54). Actually, it would seem much easier to draw the conclusion that Christianity is a tritheistic religion if we depend solely on the New Testament for our knowledge of the three Persons of the Trinity, because their unity in the Godhead is not made clear. Only when it was realized that careless believers and critics could twist the faith completely out of shape and to destruction, was any attempt made to resolve the apparent conflict between one God and three Persons.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not a New Testament doctrine, but it is required to insure the purity of the Gospel proclaimed by the New Testament. It is not an imposition on the New Testament proclamation, but rather it is developed from, and limited to (this is essential) New Testament teaching.

JOHN M. FLANIGEN

Trinity Episcopal Church

Pinopolis, S. C.

The Church’S Arm

After reading the letter from Mr. Hatfield (May 25 issue) …, I got to thinking.…

Why can’t the church make up its budget according to the need to reach all strata of our society? For instance, the church could have a ministry through the missions, among the alcoholics, among the children (like Child Evangelism), among teen-agers (like Young Life, YFC, HiBA), among college students (like IVCF, Campus Crusade for Christ), among foreign students (like International Students, Inc.), among officers in the service (like Officers’ Christian Union), among leaders in the government (like ICL), among businessmen (CBMC) and other groups.

Each of these groups is doing a job for the Lord, and each needs financial help, prayer support, and the interest of the local church. They are the church’s arm and not in competition with the church.

FRED TAYLOR

Philadelphia, Pa.

Iowan From Missouri

Concerning your article on Barth in Chicago (News, May 11 issue): Not only Barth, but most of our seminaries are teaching that the Scriptures are “sullied with errors, theological as well as historical.”

Would you or some of your readers please tell me what these errors are? I have studied Greek and Hebrew and read my Bible for a few decades and I have never been able to find these errors.

A young minister recently informed me that he had found 24 mistakes in the Bible. But when I challenged him he could not produce one. In fact, he told me that he did not know his Bible. He had little training in the English Bible.

JOHN R. STEVENSON

United Presbyterian Church

Allerton, Iowa

On J. D. Salinger

Re “A New Crisis in Adolescence” by Ronald C. Doll (May 11 issue) …: The attack upon J. D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye referred to it as “literature” (his quotation marks) with perversions in it, spiced with profane language. The only “perversion” in this book is a confused non-Christian boy searching for meaning in life. He doesn’t find any help, and has a mental breakdown. The book is not “spiced” with profanity; the boy uses monotonous teen-age profanity and slang because Salinger obviously is truthful about the society he is portraying. This society is non-Christian.

Would Mr. Doll smugly refer to Macbeth as “literature” in (quotation marks) because the characters are lost sinners who speak such lines as “Out, damned spot”?

MRS. KATHRYN LINDSKOOG

Orange, Calif.

I felt that the article … was most significant and sobering.

R. C. CHRISTOPHERSON

First Baptist Church

North Las Vegas, Nev.

Where God Is Banished

Thanks for “Scripture in the Schoolroom?” (May 11 issue).… It is one of the ironies of the American government and its people to be fighting atheistic communism within and without national boundaries, while at the same time condoning a secularized educational system that banishes God from the universe he created, and is designed to inculcate into the minds of American youth atheistic beliefs identical with Russian ideology-attended by a laxity of morals and discipline of which the Russians would be ashamed.…

SHEM PEACHEY

Quarryville, Pa.

Younger Churches In Need

Theological seminaries and their students in the younger churches in mission lands need books badly. Would retired ministers, teachers and librarians who can share their books or wish to dispose of their libraries gratis toward this purpose please contact the undersigned.

GRAHAM R. HODGES

Emmanuel Congregational Church

Watertown, N. Y.

Adoption

Might it not be that Calvin makes no allusion whatever to “Adoption” (April 27 issue) because it is not identical to the New Birth, and is not to be confused with it? It seems that the Bible very clearly shows the meaning of the word in the five passages where it is used.… In Galatians 4:1–7, “adoption” pertains to him who is already “heir,” and a “child” born into God’s family. It was desired that such a child should come of age, and enter into his inheritance. The prodigal “son,” when he came to his majority could ask for the portion of goods that fell to him, and did. The passage from Galatians would show that huiothesia applies to the child and heir, and not to bringing a servant into a place of sonship. Israel was a “child” under the Law until Christ redeemed from the Law, and this “adoption” pertained to them (Rom. 9:4).…

WILLIAM G. LOWE

Berlin Bible Church

Narrowsburg, N. Y.

A Different Purpose

Re “A Great Gulf Fixed in Scottish Ecumenism” (Editorial, Apr. 27 issue): I am sure your writer … spoke in sincerity, but perhaps if he had realized the true nature of the incident … he would have been inclined to take a different view. It is not true that Dr. Craig traveled across half a continent to see the Pope. He was in Rome for a very different purpose altogether, and while there paid a courtesy visit on the Pope.

You surely would not advocate Christian men playing such childish games as “I’m not speaking to you” in this day and generation when the whole world is tom by strife and divided by hostility.…

R. A. ELDER

Johore Bahru, Malaya

Call For Counterattack

Practically every sermon preached in churches belonging to the National Council emphasizes the dignity and significance of the individual as a child of God. This is a positive answer to the left-wingers’ socialistic and communistic emphasis. The churches did not get down to naming specific groups until they were attacked by a right-wing group publicly professing to use Communist methods. Don’t you think churches should attack any group practicing Communist methods—or is this, too, something you omit from your philosophy?

FRANCIS A. HOFFMAN

The Overbrook Presbyterian Church

Columbus, Ohio

Praiseworthy Patience

Since much of the subject matter … is of a timeless nature, it does not dismay us … that our copies of the welcome magazine arrive a couple of months after date of issue.

This tardiness explains my failure to write earlier in warm appreciation of your splendid readable issue of March 40 with the subject of missions as its leading feature. Some of the articles were the most penetrating I have yet come across in mission literature.…

ROLF VEENSTRA

Sudan United Mission

N. Nigeria, W. Africa

A fortnightly report of developments in religion

The greatest achievement ever made in the cause of human progress is the total and final separation of church and state. If we had nothing else to boast of, we could lay claim with justice that first among the nations we of this country made it an article of organic law that the relations between man and his Maker were a private concern, into which other men have no right to intrude.

—David Dudley Field

Governmentally composed prayers are ordinarily dismissed as an affront to the U. S. conscience. But in the emotional context of a historic Supreme Court decision last month they implicitly drew considerable support, creating thereby a major new church-state controversy which rivalled in intensity the reaction to President Truman’s proposal to send an ambassador to the Vatican and the religious issue of President Kennedy’s 1960 election campaign. Although the specific issue was narrow, the ensuing debate ranged far and wide, and some of the most ardent champions of church-state separation felt the court had gone too far. The American experiment in church-state separation, so often credited with fostering religious activity by keeping government out of it, had fallen upon lean times.

“It is a matter of history,” said Justice Hugo L. Black in delivering the majority opinion, “that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America.”

What the Supreme Court did on June 25 was to rule by a six-to-one majority that a 22-word interfaith prayer originating in the New York Board of Regents and recommended for daily recitation in state public schools was a violation of the Constitution.

Black declared that “it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.”

Justice Potter vigorously dissented. Justice Felix Frankfurter, who is ill, took no part in consideration of the case, nor did newly-appointed Justice Byron White.

The wave of indignation over the court’s decision was bathed in the fear that it had opened a new precedent toward secularization of American culture. The reaction was probably intensified by a separate concurring opinion issued by Justice William O. Douglas, who cast suspicion on the constitutionality of a long list of religious activities exercised by the government, including service chaplains and the coin inscription “In God We Trust.”

Most informed Washington observers were convinced, however, that none of the other eight justices share the extreme separation view held by Douglas. These observers noted that the nation’s highest court has yet to rule on pending appeals concerning the practice of daily Bible reading and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in schools of Pennsylvania and Maryland. The court did not rule on these cases because they were filed so late in the spring term that respondents did not have a chance to file their replies. The court reconvenes in October, by which time it may have still another such appeal from Florida.

Several other factors in addition to the extreme position taken by Douglas were behind the intense public reaction to the Supreme Court prayer decision:

—On the same day the court handed down decisions which permit magazines for homosexuals to use the U. S. mails and which throw out California legislation providing for imprisonment of narcotics addicts.

—The reaction was conditioned by a long series of unpopular decisions by the Supreme Court.

—The litigants who originally brought suit against the Regents’ school prayer are outside the Protestant-Catholic tradition. Two are Jewish, one belongs to the Ethical Culture Society, one is a Unitarian, and one is a non-believer.

Perhaps significantly, the court’s explanation of its decision did not defend the rights of the irreligious. Black’s majority opinion implicitly took the position that the decision serves the religious cause. Lawyer William J. Butler, who argued for the five litigants, echoed the view:

“In this country, with its many different faiths, religion has flourished because we have steadfastly adhered to the principle of separation of church and state.”

Evangelicals were divided in their opinion of the court ruling. Many feared a degrading precedent. Others said that the court’s only other alternative—to approve the Regents’ prayer—would have opened the way to much less inclusive prayers in other areas where one faith or another predominates. Some observers took a more neutral, positive stance and expressed hope that the widespread public discussion of the ramifications of the American church-state principles would have a wholesome long-range effect, one of the most immediate of which might be an impetus for Christian day schools. Still others were glad to see the New York prayer struck down because they said it promoted a highly-diluted religion-in-general and tended to reduce religion to mere form.

What The Supreme Court Said

Majority Opinion by Justice Black

… The Petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents’ prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State’s use of the Regents’ prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America. The Book of Common Prayer … set out in minute detail the accepted form and content of prayer and other religious ceremonies to be used in the established, tax-supported Church of England. The controversies over the Book and what should be its content repeatedly threatened to disrupt the peace of that country as the accepted forms of prayer in the established church changed with the views of the particular ruler that happened to be in control at the time. Powerful groups representing some of the varying religious views of the people struggled among themselves to impress their particular views upon the Government and obtain amendments of the Book more suitable to their respective notions of how religious services should be conducted in order that the official religious establishment would advance their particular religious beliefs.…

It is an unfortunate fact of history that when some of the very groups which had most strenuously opposed the established Church of England found themselves sufficiently in control of colonial governments in this country to write their own prayers into law, they passed laws making their own religion the official religion of their respective colonies.… But the successful Revolution against English political domination was shortly followed by intensive opposition to the practice of establishing religion by law.…

It has been argued that to apply the Constitution in such a way as to prohibit state laws respecting an establishment of religious services in public schools is to indicate a hostility toward religion or toward prayer. Nothing, of course, could be more wrong. The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion. And perhaps it is not too much to say that since the beginning of that history many people have devoutly believed that “More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.” It was doubtless largely due to men who believed this that there grew up a sentiment that caused men to leave the cross-currents of officially established state religions and religious persecution in Europe and come to this country filled with the hope that they could find a place in which they could pray when they pleased to the God of their faith in the language they chose. And there were men of this same faith in the power of prayer who led the fight for adoption of our Constitution and also for our Bill of Rights with the very guarantees of religious freedom that forbid the sort of governmental activity which New York has attempted here. These men knew that the First Amendment, which tried to put an end to governmental control of religion and of prayer, was not written to destroy either. They knew rather that it was written to quiet well-justified fears which nearly all of them felt arising out of an awareness that governments of the past had shackled men’s tongues to make them speak only the religious thoughts that government wanted them to speak and to pray only to the God that government wanted them to pray to.

.… To those who may subscribe to the view that because the Regents’ official prayer is so brief and general there can be no danger to religious freedom in its governmental establishment, however, it may be appropriate to say in the words of James Madison, the author of the First Amendment:

“It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.… Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?”

The judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Justice Stewart’s Dissent

… With all respect, I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an “official religion” is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.

The Court’s historical review of the quarrels over the Book of Common Prayer in England throws no light for me on the issue before us in this case. England had then and has now an established church. Equally unenlightening, I think, is the history of the early establishment and later rejection of an official church in our own States. For we deal here not with the establishment of a state church … but with whether school childrn wo want to begin their day by joining in prayer must be prohibited from doing so.

… I think that the Court’s task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the “wall of separation,” a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution. What is relevant to the issue here is not the history of an established church in sixteenth century England or in eighteenth century America, but the history of the religious traditions of our people, reflected in countless practices of the institutions and officials of our government.…

At the opening of each day’s Session of this Court we stand, while one of our officials invokes the protection of God. Since the days of John Marshall our Crier has said, “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” Both the Senate and the House of Representatives open their daily Sessions with prayer. Each of our Presidents, from George Washington to John F. Kennedy, has upon assuming his Office asked the protection and help of God.

The Court today says that the state and federal governments are without constitutional power to prescribe any particular form of words to be recited by any group of the American people on any subject touching religion. The third stanza of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” made our National Anthem by … Congress … contains these verses:

“Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land

Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserved us a nation!

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto ‘In God is our Trust.’ ”

In 1954 Congress added a phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag so that it now contains the words “one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” In 1952 Congress enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to proclaim a National Day of Prayer. Since 1865 the words “IN GOD WE TRUST” have been impressed on our coins.

Countless similar examples could be listed, but there is no need to belabor the obvious. It was all summed up by this Court just ten years ago in a single sentence: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313.

I do not believe that this Court, or the Congress, or the President has by the actions and practices I have mentioned established an “official religion” in violation of the Constitution. And I do not believe the State of New York has done so in this case. What each has done has been to recognize and to follow the deeply entrenched and highly cherished spiritual traditions of our Nation—traditions which come down to us from those who almost two hundred years ago avowed their “firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence” when they proclaimed the freedom and independence of this brave new world.

I dissent.

Concurring Opinion by Justice Douglas

… The point for decision is whether the Government can constitutionally finance a religious exercise. Our system at the federal and state levels is presently honeycombed with such financing. [Footnote cites numerous government ‘aids’ to religion.] Nevertheless, I think it is an unconstitutional undertaking whatever form it takes.

.… I cannot say that to authorize this prayer is to establish a religion in the strictly historic meaning of those words. A religion is not established in the usual sense merely by letting those who chose to do so say the prayer that the public school teacher leads. Yet once government finances a religious exercise it inserts a divisive influence into our communities.

.… Under our Bill of Rights free play is given for making religion an active force in our lives. But “if a religious leaven is to be worked into the affairs of our people, it is to be done by individuals and groups, not by the Government.” McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420,563 (dissenting opinion) …

In a televised news conference, President Kennedy observed that “we have in this case a very easy remedy, and that is to pray ourselves. And I would think that it would be a welcome reminder to every American family that we can pray a good deal more at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of all of our children. That power is very much open to us. And I would hope that, as a result of this decision, that all American parents will intensify their efforts at home.”

Kennedy also stressed the importance of supporting Supreme Court decisions “even when we may not agree with them.”

Asked about bills before Congress providing federal aid to higher education, the President did not indicate whether he preferred loans (Senate version) or grants (House), nor did he comment on possible effects upon such legislation by the Supreme Court church-state decision.

Reaction to the decision ran the full range from strong criticism uttered by evangelist Billy Graham and Cardinal Spellman to a defense by Dr. C. Emanuel Carlson, executive secretary of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, to non-committal comment from National Council of Churches President J. Irwin Miller and General Secretary Roy G. Ross. (For detailed comments, see page 46.)

Miller and Ross noted that “no one can speak officially” for the NCC. The National Association of Evangelicals did not immediately issue a representative statement.

The Detroit News said it was not excited, adding, “If our religious faith is weakened by lack of a public school prayer, it is already on the road to extinction.”

Generally, Roman Catholic leaders appeared to be critical of the decision. Protestants were divided. Jewish leaders were largely in favor of it.

Catholic reaction was largely predictable, for the hierarchy has never shown enthusiasm for the principle of separation of church and state.

Officials of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State said they would bring legal suits seeking a review of the Everson decision (see chart). They said they detected a change in the court’s thinking as to the location of the “money line” which separates church and state. In another statement, POAU criticized Kennedy’s support of federal aid to church-related colleges, now before Congress.

The New York school prayer litigation was filed with the state supreme court on January 22, 1959, by five parents of children in the public schools of New Hyde Park, Long Island. The local school board had voted the use of the Regents’ prayer:

“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.”

The parents contended that the prayer conflicted with their religious beliefs. The case has since borne the name of one of the parents, Steven I. Engel, and of William J. Vitale, Jr., who voted in favor of using the prayer when he was president of the local school board (the Regents left the decision on whether to use the prayer with the individual school boards).

The New York court rejected the protest of the parents by a vote of five to two.

When the U. S. Supreme Court reversed the New York ruling last month, a series of moves were proposed to overcome the decision. Dozens of resolutions were offered in Congress aimed at a Constitutional amendment and early public hearings were promised. The Governors Conference appealed to Congress for such an amendment.

The furor failed to settle the question of where the line of separation between church and state should be drawn. The late Justice Robert H. Jackson aptly illustrated the complexity of the question:

“It is idle to pretend that this task is one for which we can find in the Constitution one word to help us as judges decide where the secular ends and the sectarian begins in education. Nor can we find guidance in any other legal source. It is a matter on which we can find no law but our own prepossessions. If … are to take up and decide every variation of this controversy.… we are likely to make the legal ‘wall of separation between church and state’ as winding as the famous serpentine wall designed by Mr. Jefferson for the University he founded.”

Protestant Panorama

• The New York Presbytery’s ouster of the minister and session of Broadway Presbyterian Church was upheld this month by the judicial commission of the Synod of New York state. Dr. Stuart H. Merriam, the ousted pastor, said he would probably appeal to the General Assembly. Merriam also is being tried by the New York Presbytery on charges of “untruthfulness” and “talebearing.” The trial has been adjourned until September 22.

• Two Canadian Baptist pastors are planning to visit Russia in response to invitations from the Baptist Union of the USSR. They are the Rev. Leland Gregory, general secretary of the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, and the Rev. R. F. Bullen, general secretary-treasurer of the Baptist Federation of Canada.

• A replica of the six-sided study used by Alexander Campbell was dedicated last month in Washington. The $225, 000 shrine is known as the Earle Wilfley Memorial Wayside Prayer Chapel and stands beside the National City Christian Church. It is named after a former minister of the church. Building was financed by gifts from Mrs. Grace Phillips Johnson of New Castle, Pennsylvania.

• The Pocket Testament League will conduct an all-out Christian witness at the Communist-sponsored World Youth Festival, which begins July 28 in Helsinki, Finland. More than 200,000 copies of the New Testament in 22 different languages will be distributed. International Students, Inc. will aid in follow-up work.

• Nyack (New York) Missionary College won accreditation this month from the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. The 80-year-old school is the first of the Christian and Missionary Alliance’s four colleges to gain regional accreditation.

• Melrose Baptist Church of Oakland, California, voted last month to withdraw its affiliation from the American Baptist Convention. Supporters of the move charged the ABC with being too liberal in its theology and with becoming too involved in relations with non-Baptist bodies, according to Religious News Service. The vote to withdraw was 232 to 56.… The Kansas Supreme Court, meanwhile, refused an application from a re-hearing on its ruling that the First Baptist Church of Wichita may not withdraw from the ABC.

Lutheran Merger In Detroit

Meeting in Detroit, stronghold of unionism and home of mass production, four Lutheran denominations quit their separate ways and united in a new, massive “Lutheran Church in America” with a total membership of 3,200,000.

Each of the four churches met separately to conduct its final closing-out business prior to the constituting convention, June 28-July 1. The Augustana Lutheran Church (630,000) ordained 46 theological graduates to the ministry and brought its 102 years of existence to a dramatic end by singing the hymn “Rise, ye children of salvation.” The American Evangelical Lutheran Church (25,000) paid tribute to its pioneer Danish pastors as it terminated its 84 years. The Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Suomi Synod) (36,000) concluded its separate history and in its final convention decided that the pectoral cross worn by its presidents should be placed in the archives of Suomi College. The United Lutheran Church in America (2, 500,000), the largest of the four, whose origin goes back to colonial times, in a concluding action presented its president, Dr. Franklin Clark Fry with a new automobile in recognition of his 18 years of service as president.

These four churches in a constituting convention at Detroit’s Cobo Hall on June 28 merged into a single church bearing the name Lutheran Church in America. In an hour of business and pageantry a crowd estimated at 7,000 witnessed the largest Lutheran merger ever consummated in America. A three-foot-high, 12-inch-thick, quartered candle was used to symbolize the union of the four churches. Its separate lights were joined by four acolytes into a single flame and the union was then celebrated by a communion service.

The new Lutheran Church of America, sixth largest Protestant denomination in America, chose Dr. Fry as its first president. He was elected on the second ballot by the 1,000 delegates of the convention’s first business session in Cobo Hall. Dr. Malvin H. Lundeen’s election as secretary took only a single ballot.

The four churches, the United Lutheran (German), the Augustana (Swedish), the Suomi (Finnish) and the American Evangelical (Danish) united on a common acceptance of the Apostles, Nicene, and Anthansion creeds as “true declarations of the faith,” of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Small Catechism as “true witnesses to the Gospel,” and of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, Luther’s Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord as “valid interpretations of the confession of the Church.”

Painfully aware, as Dr. P. O. Bersell of Minneapolis pointed out, that the new union “represents only a little more than a third of the Lutheran membership in America,” the delegates were reminded that the goal remains to achieve “the unification of all Lutherans” in America. A resolution was approved by the delegates to invite the American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod to appoint delegates to a joint commission to study the revolutionary proposal that would permit baptized children to receive Holy Communion before they are confirmed. The provocative proposal was presented to the LCA by its Joint Commission on Confirmation. The commission spoke in sharp criticism of the popular idea of confirmation which raises it above the sacraments. “Baptism is a sacrament,” it urged, “confirmation is not.” For the asserted “purpose of stimulating discussion,” the commission suggested that children of 10 years be permitted to receive Communion.” The invitation extended to the Missouri Synod and the American Lutheran Church to face this question with the new LCA, will confront these churches with a crucial ecumenical question.

The LCA went on record as being in favor of a new inclusive inter-Lutheran agency to succeed the National Lutheran Council. The delegates of the LCA constitution convention voted unanimously to authorize negotiations with the American Lutheran Church and the Missouri Synod for the formation of the new association. The Missouri Synod earlier in the same week voted to participate in such a cooperative agency. The ALC will have opportunity to vote on this when it meets in Milwaukee in October.

The National Lutheran Council was organized in 1918. Because of mergers its membership has decreased in the past two years from eight to three, and will likely be further reduced to two by the end of the year by the expected acceptance of the membership of the Lutheran Free Church by the ALC. This would reduce membership of the National Lutheran Council to the ALC and the LCA.

“Cordial greetings and hearty felicitations” were extended to the new denomination by the Rev. John W. Behnken whose own denomination, the Missouri Synod, is supplanted by the Lutheran Church in America as the largest body in American Lutheranism. Urging that his church “has ever considered the issue of the Biblical doctrine and Scriptural practice of paramount importance,” he declared, “This is what we Lutherans in America and Lutherans throughout the world need most of all!” He thanked the Cobo gathering for being “so very kind and gracious as to invite me to your wonderful meeting,” and asserted that “it may please God to bring about union on the solid basis of true unity.” Dr. Behnken retired that very day from the presidency of Missouri Synod.

In other actions the new Lutheran Church in America adopted a combined over-all budget of $58, 641,332 for the first biennium of its history, and refused to adopt a floor resolution critical of the U. S. Supreme Court decision on prayer in public schools.

J. D.

Convention Circuit

Cleveland—As limousine proceeds from airport to city center, visitors to Cleveland pass the Bultman Coal Company. This (spelling and all) seemed to be about as close to neoorthodoxy as some 800 clerical and lay delegates of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod wished to go, as they assembled on the shores of Lake Erie, June 20–29, for their church’s 45th convention.

In the three years since the last meeting of the theologically conservative syn od, internal charges of doctrinal disloyalty to the standards of the church had been hurled. These seemed chiefly to center around the person of Dr. Martin Scharlemann, professor of New Testament interpretation at Concordia Semi nary, St. Louis, Missouri, and the key issue was the inspiration of Scripture. Two days of specially scheduled open hearings on doctrine and inter-church relations immediately prior to the convention, though helpful, did not dissolve tensions—Scharlemann objected to calling the Bible inerrant. And to the convention proper came a memorial asking that he be removed from office for having “publicly expressed teachings contrary to the clear doctrine of Scripture” and for failure to make a “clear-cut and decisive correction of these errors.”

In an hour of high drama, Scharlemann personally confronted the convention. In a soft voice he solemnly read a prepared statement: “By the grace of God, I am—as I have been in the past—fully committed to the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures. I hold these Scriptures to be the Word of God in their totality and in all their parts and to be utterly truthful, infallible and completely without error.” He confessed that some of his essays had created confusion because of inadequate formulation. He proceeded to “withdraw” four essays “in their entirety,” and asked forgiveness for his contribution to “the present unrest.” Then, hat in hand, he walked off the stage and out of the auditorium to depart for St. Louis.

After extended debate—Missouri Synod is traditionally reluctant to cut short debate on doctrinal matters—the delegates voted overwhelmingly, 650 to 17, to forgive. Not all so voting were satisfied that the incident was closed, for some of these yet wished a “retraction of false doctrine.”

In response to a number of memorials concerning the doctrine of Scripture, the convention itself left no doubt as to where it stood: “We reaffirm our belief in the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture, and that Scripture is in all its words and parts the very Word of God, as taught in the Scripture itself … and in the Lutheran Confessions.” The voice vote was seemingly unanimous for this resolution and virtually so for two others which dated back to the 1959 convention in San Francisco. There delegates had passed a resolution which declared that the synod’s pastors, teachers, and professors are held to teach and act in harmony with every doctrinal statement of a confessional nature adopted by synod as a true exposition of Scripture. This year’s convention ruled the 1959 action unconstitutional on the ground that it had the effect of amending the confessional basis of the synod’s constitution without having followed prescribed procedure for such action. Doctrine was assertedly not being questioned.

A follow-up resolution reaffirmed the Synod’s confessional basis to consist of acceptance of Scripture “as the written Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and practice,” and acceptance of the sixteenth-century “symbolical books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God.” As for later synodically-adopted doctrinal statements, the convention urged all members to uphold their doctrinal content and called for a study of their status in the church. Spokesmen interpreted the act as a refusal on the part of the synod to accept further doctrinal restrictions which would make difficult its witness to other Christians, Lutherans in particular.

The old Missouri Synod isolationism is being replaced by an emphasis on the need for spreading the denomination’s conservative doctrinal witness. Interchurch relationships are now becoming a weighty concern, most widely publicized of which has been the proposal for a new Lutheran inter-church agency, toward which all U. S. Lutheran bodies are to be invited to join in conversations. National Lutheran Council officials had agreed to a Missouri Synod suggestion that theological and confessional discussions should be given priority. So to this convention came a resolution authorizing appointment of a committee to enter into the conversations. As delegates settled back in their seats for what was expected to be a lengthy and spirited debate, the silence was startling. Not a single delegate spoke; the resolution passed unanimously; and some thought they could hear a sigh of relief from Detroit. The Missouri Synod decision on whether to join the proposed agency is expected at the next convention three years hence. Dr. Oswald C. J. Hoffmann, Director of the Department of Public Relations who doubles as the dynamic radio preacher of The Lutheran Hour, pointed out that the area of cooperation, if the agency materialized, would be limited and would not, for example, extend to pulpit exchange, missionary work, or student work.

Heated debate was reserved for the next resolution on the agenda, which recommended no action in response to several memorials requesting severance of relations with the National and World Councils of Churches. The resolution pointed out that though the synod is not a member of these organizations, various of its departments have found it advantageous to use certain NCC and WCC services, and this was declared not “to violate the Scriptural principles of fellowship.” Controversy centered on the NCC, the leadership of which was charged with being “shot through with subversives and fellow travelers.” But delegates were assured that use of certain NCC services did not thus identify their church with the council or its program. On a voice vote, supporters of the status quo seemed to prevail by three to one.

The convention heard Dr. Fred Kramer, Concordia Seminary professor, in a special essay praise the WCC for its refugee work and dismiss fears that it would become a super-church. But he presented two obstacles to synod membership: (1) some WCC churches minimize the doctrine of original sin and thus forfeit the purity of the Gospel; (2) some of its churches displace the biblical Gospel with a social Gospel and thus arrive at a false gospel.

Delegates voted to send official observers to future conventions of the World Council of Churches, the International Council of Churches, and other church federations, at the discretion of its presidium, and approval was given for continuation of doctrinal discussions between Lutherans and Presbyterians.

Turning to inter-church matters closer to home, the convention expressed its desire to re-establish doctrinal discussions with the Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, both formerly in fellowship with the Missouri Synod in the Synodical Conference. The first two Synods had severed relations with the Missouri Synod, which action the latter attributes to the extension of its theological witness to all Lutherans and others desiring to “talk biblical theology.”

Delegates also called for organization of an International Synodical Conference of Lutherans, based upon the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confession.

For the big-shouldered, fast-growing Missouri Synod (2,544,544 members), this convention marked the end of an era. Its president for 27 years, Dr. John W. Behnken, was now 78 years old, and he asked the delegates not to consider him again for the office he had held for a precedent-shattering nine successive three-year terms. He had been first elected here in Cleveland in 1935, when pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Houston, Texas. His successor at Trinity now became his successor as president: popular, forthright Dr. Oliver W. Harms, who had served in St. Louis since 1959 as synod first vice president. He told the press he foresaw no change in synod policies under the new admintration. Closing his acceptance speech, he quoted the synod handbook: “I pray that God may keep me loyal to the Holy Scriptures as the inspired and inerrant Word of God and the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church as a true exposition of the Scriptures.”

Though handing over his gavel, the eloquent Behnken, who has been aptly described as a towering figure of twentieth-century Lutheranism, was named the synod’s honorary president. An able parliamentarian, he would long be remembered with smiling gratitude by ear-weary delegates for his soft-spoken but inexorable counsel whenever a leather-lunged enthusiast would start shouting into a microphone: “Would you step back a little from the microphone, please.”

F. F.

Grand. Rapids, Michigan—Plans for calling the fifth world-wide Reformed Ecumenical Synod were completed by the Christian Reformed Synod, which met in Grand Rapids, June 13–23. Organized in 1946 in Grand Rapids, the RES has met in the Netherlands, Scotland, and South Africa, and will hold its 1963 meeting on the Calvin College campus in Grand Rapids. Only selected Reformed churches chosen by the Ecumenical Synod are eligible for membership.

Delegates who wondered why the Reformed Church of America was not invited were informed that ecclesiastical relationships did not yet warrant an invitation. The Christian Reformed Church owes its origins to a separation from the Reformed Church in the Netherlands and to a later separation from the Reformed Church of America.

Theologically conservative, and traditionally of strong doctrinal concern, the CRC has had a long history of small sympathy for the ecumenical movement. In 1924 it withdrew from the Federal Council of Churches declaring that “ecclesiastical alliances between orthodox and liberals are contrary to God’s Word.” It is not a member of the World Council of Churches, and in 1958 decided that no consistory or congregation should affiliate with any local arm of the National Council of Churches. A committee recommendation that the Synod of 1962 send a warning to its sister church, the Gereformeerde Kerken of the Netherlands, urging it not to join the WCC was rejected as an “affront to our sister church.”

Dr. Hendrik Bergema, professor of missions, member of the Indonesian parliament, and fraternal delegate from the Gereformeerde Kerken, spoke to the synod of the lively interest in his churches, and in other churches of the RES, for affiliation with the WCC. He also reported that his churches are astir over possible reunion with the Netherlands Reformed Church (Holland’s former State Church).

The most controversial issue found on the synod’s agenda was the reappointment of Dr. John Kromminga to the presidency of Calvin Seminary. The center of a small tempest last year over scriptural infallibility, Kromminga was reappointed by an overwhelming vote. Attempts to substitute a rotating rectorship for the office of president was defeated (by 12 votes) when the synod decided to give President Kromminga life tenure. Dr. Louis Praamsma of Toronto was elected professor of church history in the church’s seminary. The Rev. Bernard E. Pekelder was given a two-year appointment as student pastor for Calvin College. This is the first time the college has had an official college pastor for student counseling.

The synod moved to take option on an additional 105 acres of land adjacent to the recently-acquired new Knollcrest campus. Resolutions were adopted to proceed with the drawing of plans for additional new buildings on the new campus. The freshman class of 1962–63 will be the first to occupy the new college facilities. The church is attempting to sell its present campus.

In what may prove to be of far-reaching significance was the adoption of a new method of financing Calvin College. In the past each family in the denomination was under quota for an equal number of dollars for the support of the college. Last year the amount per family was $17. The new plan divides the denomination into seven geographical areas. The amount of assessment in any given area per family is determined by the number of students attending Calvin from that area. The new varying quota will range from about $ 11 for the Iowa and Canadian areas, to $24 for the Grand Rapids area.

This “pay according to service received” plan was regarded by some observers as the first step toward setting the college free from denominational ownership and control. Though committed by theological conviction and long tradition to free, non-parochial schools, the church, for practical reasons, has made Calvin College an exception. If these observers are correct, the new plan of regional payment according to services received may well precipitate new practical considerations which could drive the church back to the non-parochial principle for Calvin College.

The new method of financing Calvin was prompted by a demand for relief for such areas as Chicago and Iowa which have Christian colleges of their own but receive no support from denominational quotas.

Three other decisions indicate the ambiguities in which the church is caught because of divergence between principle and practice. It rejected an overture from Classis Alberta North “to change the status of Calvin College to conform to the principle that the church do not own a college.” In two other decisions the synod approved the decisions of Classis Sioux Center that the Rev. B. J. Haan could retain his ministerial status as president of Dordt College, and also approved the decision of Classis Chicago South that the Rev. Harold Dekker could not retain his ministerial status as president of Trinity College.

With the synodical approval of the ordination of Scott Redhouse, the denomination acquired its first Navajo minister. The church has carried on mission work among the American Indians of the Southwest for many decades. Authorization was granted to expand the church’s mission staffs in Formosa and Southern Argentina, and to take over new fields on Guam and the Philippine Islands.

Because of its covenantal theology the church counts itself in terms of families, of which it has some 54,000. Adopting an all-time high denominational budget of $4,351,000, the synod adopted a quota of $77 for each of its families. Of this $39 is earmarked for missions.

The synod rejected a call from one of its classes to issue a pronouncement on capital punishment.

J.D.

Detroit—At the annual meeting of the Conservative Baptist Association of America, more than 2,000 delegates witnessed an acute debate in which one amendment to the constitution of the association was defeated and another referred back to the CBA board for further clarification. The amendments would have tightened the requirements for churches wishing to affiliate with the CBA and redefined the purpose of the association along more separatist lines.

Submitted for debate by the members of the board, in a movement opposed in resolutions of the Eastern and Western regional conferences last fall, was an amendment to delete the phrase “without regard to other affiliations” from a statement regarding autonomous Baptist churches wishing to associate with the Conservative Baptists by affiliation. Exclusion of this phrase from the constitution would have made the outside associations of these churches a factor in discussion of proposals for their affiliation. A number of churches are associated with the Conservative Baptists while retaining their membership in other national bodies. After considerable discussion, the amendment was referred back to the board for reconsideration and will be submitted again at the next annual meeting scheduled for Atlantic City next May.

A second proposal sought to make the purpose of the association more explicit. It read in part, “The Conservative Bapist Association of America has been brought into existence to provide a fellowship of churches and individuals upon a thoroughly biblical and historically Baptist basis, unmixed with liberalism and those who are content to walk in fellowship with unbelief and inclusivism.” This proposal, cited by Dr. Rufus Jones, director of the Home Mission Society, as “the heart of controversy” at the Detroit meeting, failed to receive the required two-thirds vote.

Dr. Arno Weniger then countered with the proposal that the statement be adopted as a resolution, but this motion was also overrulled. According to association by-laws, a resolution requires only a majority vote of the assembled “messengers.” Commenting upon the rejection of both proposals to amend the constitution, Dr. Vincent Brushwyler, director of the Foreign Mission Society, expressed pleasure that motions which would have brought the CBA closer to the policies of the General Association of Registered Baptists had been defeated. “They would have made the Conservative Baptists more separatist,” he noted.

Further debate upon the floor of Cobo Hall centered around the application for membership of an independent Baptist church in Everett, Massachusetts. It ended inconclusively. In an action initiated two years ago, the Everett church had applied for membership in the CBA by a vote of 4 to 3 with 20 of those present at the meeting abstaining on doctrinal grounds. Both those abstaining and those voting against the application had reportedly done so because of the requirement in the CBA constitution that associated churches subscribe to a pre-millenial theology. When it became known that the action of the Everett church was two years old, a motion was passed to return the application to the church for reconsideration.

Three other resolutions were adopted at the final business meeting. One of these opposed the use of public funds for parochial schools; another expressed concern over two recent court cases in which the majority memberships of churches had lost their church property to minority groups. A third proposal, submitted by the laymen, was enthusiastically passed, overriding the objections of those who had opposed it on procedural grounds. It called for “a year of prayer for revival and spiritual unity among the conservative Baptists.”

No official action was taken at the convention regarding the new and widely controversial new mission society. At a series of pre-convention meetings held in the Joy Road Baptist Church in Chicago, however, the new World Conservative Baptist Mission elected officers and adopted policies for the society. Elected were Dr. Bryce B. Augsburger of the Marquette Manor Baptist Church, Chicago, as president; Dr. Ernest Pickering of Minneapolis, vice-president; Dr. Kenton Be-shore of Denver, secretary; and Rev. Henry Sorenson of Pekin, Illinois, treasurer. The new society did not have a booth at the convention nor did it distribute literature.

Nearly all the association’s officers were reelected.

Ocean Grove, New Jersey—Dr. Andrew W. Cordier, for 16 years an assistant secretary general of the United Nations, was honored at a testimonial dinner held in connection with the 176th annual conference of the Church of the Brethren. Cordier, an ordained minister in the historic “peace church,” left his U. N. post July 1 to become dean of the Graduate School of International Affairs at Columbia University.

In presenting an award to Cordier, Brethren moderator Dr. Nevin Zuck praised him for his “long, sustained, brilliant and dedicated services to the causes of international peace and justice.”

Some 6,000 church members who were on hand for the six-day conference voted to send an observer to the Consultation on Church Union to be held next year at Oberlin, Ohio. The consultation is made up of representatives to the Methodist, Episcopal, and United Presbyterian churches and the United Church of Christ who are discussing the possibilities of merger.

The conference was climaxed with a trip to Washington by 500 of the Brethren for a “peace walk.” Their vigil took them to the White House, the State Department, and to Capitol Hill. The demonstration, similiar to those conducted by those who object to nuclear weapons tests, was the first to be sponsored officially by the national leadership of a Protestant denomination.

Brooks Hays, special assistant to the President, conferred with the peace walkers in behalf of President Kennedy to receive their statement of belief that “war is sin” and that “evil is overcome by good.”

The Rev. Ralph E. Smeltzer, director of peace and social education for the Brethren, emphasized that the demonstration was a “witness” and not a “protest.”

Smeltzer says that as one step to help reconcile East-West tensions, the Brethren propose to carry out an exchange of its leaders with the Russian Orthodox Church. Moreover, they seek also to send an international delegation of Brethren into Communist China. The Brethren support membership of all nations in the United Nations, including Communist China, “in order to provide a forum for the discussion of the issues which divide mankind.”

Little Rock, Arkansas—Public apologies marked the 132nd General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Dr. Glen W. Harris, fraternal delegate from the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., said his denomination bears a great deal of the blame for the split which led to the formation of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Cumberland Presbyterians replied to the apology with a plea for forgiveness of their own sins and a pledge of future cooperation.

The Cumberland Presbyterians withdrew from the parent body in 1810 in a dispute over extending the church to the frontier west of the Appalachian Mountains. During 1906 and 1907 about two-thirds of the Cumberland Presbyterians rejoined the main Presbyterian body, which was then the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., but a series of law suits over property followed the reunion.

Said Harris: “Though we believe we were legally correct 55 years ago, it is clear that we in the larger church should recognize and repent what we did to these Christian brethren.”

“We are conscious,” he added, “that 55 years ago and in the years immediately following, our church appeared to be more interested in church property and legal rights than in Christian love and witness. For this, too, we ask your forgiveness.”

In an unprecedented gesture, the audience rose to its feet as Harris finished his speech.

In their reply, Cumberland Presbyterians observed that “it is much easier for both of us to confess the sins of those who have gone before us than it is to recognize our own failures and ask for personal pardon … But we reply in the same spirit of confession of our personal sins and a plea for pardon and future cooperation in our own day.”

“In our effort to maintain our right to be different,” the reply added, “and to fulfill what we consider a distinct mission, we have sometimes felt inclined to magnify our differences and to oppose those with whom we differ more than to recognize our common witness and to fulfill our mission.”

Later the assembly named a Permanent Committee on Inter-Church Relations to work for a closer relationship between Cumberland Presbyterians and other Presbyterian and Reformed groups. Some observers saw the move as a first step toward eventual reunion. The United Presbyterians number some 3,000,000, Cumberland Presbyterians about 100,000.

In other action the assembly voted to move the denomination’s theological seminary from McKenzie, Tennessee, to Memphis some time after 1964.

Also approved was the use of the Covenent Life Curriculum, a program presently being developed by the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. When the educational curriculum is introduced in October, 1963, five denominations will begin using it: the Southern Presbyterians, the Reformed Church in America, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, the Moravian Church in America, and the Cumberland Presbyterians.

During the Cumberland Presbyterian assembly a tract of land eight miles north of Little Rock was presented to Rose City Cumberland Presbyterian Church. It will provide for a log cabin shrine on the site where the first sermon was preached by a denominational minister in the Arkansas Territory in 1812. The City of North Little Rock gave the church a 50-year lease on the land for a token payment of one dollar.

Texarkana, Arkansas—A resolution supporting “all those in any Baptist group endeavoring to hold the line against infiltration of modernism into its ranks” was adopted by the American Baptist Association at its national convention.

The resolution charged that in recent years there has been a “departure from the historic Baptist position on the part of some of the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention.” It commended the efforts of some Southern Baptists to “weed infidelity” out of the convention.

The ABA, organized in 1905, comprises some 3,000 independent missionary Baptist churches, mainly in the south. A new headquarters building in Texarkana was dedicated in connection with the convention.

About 3,500 delegates and visitors at the meeting were greeted by Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, who contended that Americans are being given “the false philosophy of reward for idleness and sinfulness.”

“The welfare state, which we are seeing today, encourages young people to do wrong, and the honest and industrious are being taxed to give to people for sin and idleness.” he said.

Beer For The Boys

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Michael Ramsey, sent for a nine-gallon barrel of best bitter from the local pub for the refreshment of his guests. He was entertaining 35 shipyard workers on their annual outing from Sunderland, an industrial town in the north of England. “When I was Bishop of Durham,” said Dr. Ramsey, “I used to visit the shipyards and got to know the workmen. I know what they like and I know what I like—and I shall be having the same as them, of course.”

J. D. D.

Democracy In Action

Demonstrations against nuclear weapons are now a familiar part of British life, and the number of people arrested so far this year runs into thousands. In Scotland most of the protests are centered around the American Polaris submarine base in the Holy Loch on the Firth of Clyde. The nearest town is Dunoon which, because of the number of lochs which cut deeply into the country at this point, is most conveniently reached by sea from Greenock, on the north shore of the Clyde. This naturally creates difficulties of transportation for large numbers, but the demonstrators solved it easily in arranging the latest protest. From British Railways, a nationalized concern, they hired a special train from Glasgow to Greenock, and a special steamer from Greenock to Dunoon. British Railways regarded it as a purely business transaction, but one might think it a significant boost for democracy that a government is prepared to supply transport for the purpose of making demonstrations against itself.

Among the 140 arrested on this occasion was the Rev. Ian McDonald Tweedlie, 33, American-born minister of St. Ninian’s Church, Cumnock, who was given the choice of a fine or going to prison for two months. Tweedlie asked if he could be sent to prison at once, but the judge refused—said that he would have to wait until the expiry of the 14 days officially allowed for payment of the fine.

J. D. D.

People: Words And Events

Deaths:Dr. Franklin J. Clark, 88, former secretary of the National Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church; in Flourtown, Pennsylvania … Dr. Gilbert Q. LeSourd, 75, noted Methodist minister and former assistant secretary of the John Milton Society; in Schenectady, New York … Dr. Eugene M. Austin, 52, American Baptist minister and president of Colby Junior College; in Hanover, New Hampshire … William R. Barbour, 77, president of the Fleming H. Revell Company; in New York.

Retirements: As editor of the Mennonite Gospel Herald, Dr. Paul Erb … as executive secretary of the Colorado Baptist General Convention, Willis J. Ray.

Elections: As bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, the Rev. Albert A. Chambers … as moderator of the Church of the Brethren, Dr. Harry K. Zeller, Jr. … as moderator of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Eugene Warren … as president of the Christian Reformed Church, the Rev. John C. Verbrugge … as moderator of the Evangelical Free Church of America, the Rev. Andrew Johnson … as president of the Association of Council Secretaries, the Rev. Robert L. Kincheloe … as president of the National Conference of Quaker Men, George Castle.

Appointments: As professor of practical theology and dean of field education at Princeton Theological Seminary, Dr. Arthur M. Adams … as dean of students at Taylor University, Henry W. Nelson … as professor of pastoral theology at the University of Chicago, Dr. Charles Roy Stinnette, Jr. … as professor of English Bible at the San Francisco Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Charles A. Hauser, Jr. … as general secretary of the Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and (Honorary) Assistant Bishop of London, Dr. Ambrose Reeves.

Award: To William E. Rowley, religious news editor of The Knickerbocker News, Albany, New York, the 1962 James O. Supple Memorial Award “for excellence in reporting the news of religion in the secular press” by the Religious Newswriters Association.

Nomination: As Chief of Army Chaplains, Methodist Chaplain (Colonel) Charles E. Brown, Jr., effective November 1.

The apparent freedom of Christian churches in Communist countries tends to disarm many Western observers. Churches are open; worship services are undisturbed; and most people are free to exercise their religion.

While the previously dominant position of the large established churches (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinist and Lutheran) has been curtailed, smaller denominations (Baptist, Methodist, Brethren, Pentecostal) have lost comparatively little of their former freedom. Sometimes, in fact, Communist governments favor the latter more than the historic established groups.

Governments are even giving some financial help. After the Hungarian uprising in 1956, for example, the government helped churches to repair their damaged buildings. And in Budapest the First Baptist Church received substantial gifts of money to rebuild its organ.

But there is another side to this picture. Churches are not permitted to teach Sunday school classes or young people’s groups. While worship is unrestricted, ministers are not. They can preach only with permission from the state. The required license must be validated periodically. In some cases these preaching permits are revoked. Although prayer meetings and other smaller meetings may be conducted by any member deputized by the local pastor, only authorized people can occupy the pulpit and conduct services.

Denominational literature, moreover, must serve the state by alloting much space to the so-called Communist peace movement and by supporting government actions. Editors are government-picked fellow travelers or party members. That is the price exacted for government permission to publish materials.

While some Christian leaders are allowed to leave the country for short periods, they must have dependents, and these dependents must stay at home. Such leaders will be under surveillance during their absence and on their return must make a report. They know they can say only favorable things about their government.

The Communist press sharply criticizes any free country which restricts the churches, and the limited or qualified freedom granted to churches behind the Iron Curtain is well advertised all over the free world. When Communists temporarily relax their harsh methods for the sake of expediency they get quite a benevolent treatment in the free world press.

Deep Hatred of Religion

The whole picture is puzzling indeed when one recalls the tenets of Marxism, the announcements of Communist leaders like Lenin, the antireligious propaganda of the Communist government, and the inhuman persecutions of early Bolshevism. During those years, many Russian churches were transformed into museums, culture houses, and storage places. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Christian workers of different denominations were banished to Siberia to die of starvation, cold, and exhaustion.

The ruthlessness of Russian Communism in the first two decades is quite understandable for it regards religion, next to capitalism, as the greatest enemy of “socialist” progress. So the Communists proposed to right both simultaneously. But despite their inflection of cruel persecutions the Russians discovered that although they could confiscate or destroy church edifices, disorganize churches, disseminate antireligious propaganda, and even exile or kill religious leaders, they could not eradicate religion itself. They discovered what the free world knows: that man is incurably religious.

Communists, of course, are not yet ready to admit defeat in the battle between Communism and religion. Unwittingly, however, they have admitted losing the first round. The fact that they have changed their tactics from a policy of cruel persecution of the Christians to one of strict control of the churches proves this admission. What actually happened can be stated in that popular American sentence: “If you can’t lick him, join him.” Communists are students not only of mathematics but also of history. And so they have discovered that if they cannot destroy the churches, they can at least utilize them for their own purposes.

This uilization of the churches has many precedents in the history of Christendom. Recall the great age of absolute monarchies after the decline of feudalism. Kings were regarded as divinely appointed and endowed. Even biblical scholars defended the divine right of kings—among them the eloquent Bishop Bossuet who championed especially the cause of Louis XIV. Those who opposed Bossuet’s thesis that God ordains kings to rule and therefore endows them with peculiar gifts for the task were considered political rebels, heretics, and blasphemers. This story of Louis XIV had its parallels in English history. James I, II, and Charles I, II, enjoyed the ecclesiactical help of learned divines whose writings supported the theory of the divine right of kings. In reading church history, therefore, the Russians have taken special note of such developments and maneuvers.

This report was prepared forCHRISTIANITY TODAYby Dr. Bela Udvarnoki who from 1939–47 was president of the Baptist Theological Seminary in Budapest, Hungary, a post in which he succeeded his father. A native Hungarian, he attended Southern Baptist Seminary, receiving the Ph.D. degree in New Testament Greek under the late Dr. A. T. Robertson. Dr. Udvarnoki also taught Theology and New Testament in Budapest from 1931–39. Presently, he is chairman, social science department, Chowan College, Murfreesboro, North Carolina.

At times the Christian church became an obedient servant of nationalism. Said Frederick Engels, the colaborer of Marx, in his work on Historical Materialism: “Lutheranism became a willing tool in the hands of princes.” Communists read Engels as well as Marx, and thus are learning.

For Christians, Engels is not, of course, an authority on religion. But there are those of us who remember the first World War. We remember how churches in Hungary held special services to invoke God for Austrian-Hungarian victory. Protestant and Catholic clergymen alike blessed the arms and soldiers. Doubtless, the assistance of churches helped the morale of all the nations at war, thereby prolonging the bloody struggle and indirectly causing the death of countless thousands.

Today materialistic capitalism likewise is invading some of our organized churches. Quite a few even owe their existence to the capitalist system. Think of those churches that depend on income from large office and apartment buildings and hotels. What would happen if a socialist government “nationalized” these properties? What would such churches do? Disband? Does it not then appear more sensible to fight for the divine right of possession? It sounds plausible enough: Christianity and capitalism go well together, atheism and communism match well, too. But this is poor logic. Admittedly, Christianity defends human responsibilities and rights, including that of private property as a divine stewardship. But as a personal conviction, a way of life, a spiritual movement and a transforming power, Christianity in no way depends on kings, nations, or capital. For that reason it should in no way be expropriated by any earthly interest.

Is it true, then, that communism has come to terms with Christianity? This is unbelievable. Communism can no more be reconciled to spiritual Christianity than Christianity can be reconciled to atheistic Marxism. These two forces forever exclude each other. What then accounts for the present seemingly peaceful coexistence of the two forces inside Communist frontiers? Simply this: Communists are utilizing the forces of organized Christianity as tools for their own purposes.

The Bait of World Peace

The arsenal of Communist chicaneries is foisting another grand deception upon the world. At one and the same time the Russian bear blows hot and cold; it wants free men to feel only the lukewarm breeze.

This method is simple and plain. First, Communism finds an alluring or acceptable idea around which to gather the church leaders. If they cooperate peacefully, fine. But whoever questions the situation, or objects to it, is promptly replaced. In every denomination, unfortunately, will be those who for money, or prestige or power, are more willing to serve.

The Russian peace movement is one of the baits. After all, who would not work for peace? Is true Christianity not a message of peace? So a number of “peace” priests and “peace” ministers are stationed in Communist lands. But it is no secret that the impressive and lovely title of “peace priest” is nothing more than mere euphemism for “fellow traveler.”

It would be wrong to assume that all church leaders behind the Iron Curtain are red or even pink. I know personally a Calvinist bishop, a Baptist Convention president, and a very prominent university professor and lay church leader, all of whom have genuine reasons for painting a very favorable picture of the Communist system in Hungary. Bishop Berecky is sincere when he states that the changes made by the new regime in Hungary had a salutary effect upon the life of Hungarian Protestantism. Hromadka, the Czech theologian, says the same thing of his country.

One must remember the prewar condition of the Calvinist and Lutheran churches in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. As established churches they enjoyed the privilege of collecting religious taxes and of legally registering newborn babies on the rolls of the church where their parents were members. It is quite obvious that the Calvinist or Lutheran, even the Unitarian churches did not need to proselyte or even to evangelize. Churches grew with the birthrate. Moreover, there was little financial worry because the churches were supported by compulsory taxation. The soul-withering and spirit-killing effect of this system is apparent, and Berecky rejoices that this is now eliminated. There is no more church tax, no automatic legal registration of babies as church members. A new life, a deeper, spiritual atmosphere, prevails in the churches. And for these blessings praise goes to the Communist government!

The president of the Baptist Union in Russia and the president of the Baptist Convention in Hungary state in effect: “Under Communist rule we have achieved an equality with other denominations that before this system we could never have expected to see.” In Russia the dominant Orthodox church had despised the Baptists; Hungary had discriminated between the historic or established churches (Roman Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, Unitarian) and groups like the Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Brethren, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. This situation no longer exists—thanks to the new government! Praise and gratitude are understandably genuine.

A Modern Trojan Horse?

An effective and impressive show window to the world is the First Baptist Church of Moscow. With Russian devotion its several thousand members always crowd the services. State authorities see to it that visitors and tourists notice this church and photograph the throng of worshipers. It should be noted, however, that this is probably the only Baptist church in this city of four or five million people. Surely more Baptist churches would function in Moscow, if there were proper freedom to do so. A strange pattern of one-sided thinking characterizes the Baptist leaders in Russia. While they miss no opportunity to prove their freedom they dare not speak about the past, about the martyrdom of many Christians including Baptists who suffered and died at Communist hands. No one can really blame the Russian brethren for this silence, for it represents part of the price they must pay for today’s meager freedom.

In their hearts certain leaders feel that this Communist variety of liberty is not what they hoped for. Many nurture a deep-seated distrust of Communist leniency, and some are paying but lip service to the government. Although the Communist government does not and cannot trust ecclesiastics, it knows nevertheless that by bribing clerics with position, and power, or by severe or cruel controls it can use the churches for the time being for its advantage.

Some of the Christian leaders secretly hope that Communist authority will cease. At the same time Communist leaders hope that they can weaken the churches and finally do away with religion. Letters from Communist countries betray the uneasy, perhaps temporary, truce of this present hypocritical situation. Each side hopes the other will expire first. But for the time being it is important that hundreds of millions of Buddhists and Hindus in Asia, of Moslems in the Near East and Africa, and even of Christians in Italy or in South America, hear that Communism is no enemy of religion! Do not churches enjoy freedom of worship? Just the mention of God’s name by Khrushchev during his visit to America was enough to make him an angel of light for some pious Americans.

The aims and plans of Communists in regard to Christianity are clear enough: they are using the churches as a means of gaining world domination. In this respect Christianity may become a modern Trojan horse. Definite danger lurks in this Communist softness toward the churches. By strictly controlling the churches and by carefully regulating the education of the clergy, the Communists inject the younger ministers with enough Marxism that they and their churches become harmless. By placing restrictions upon religious life and by means of intensive atheistic propaganda the Communists hope to deflect young people from religion so that in time churches will simply die out. This scheme fits Communist ideology very well.

Some Encouraging Factors

One can take courage from at least two facts, however, that the Communists seem to ignore. Being irreligious, Marxists do not know the essence of Christianity. They do not realize that Christianity is not merely the result of education or indoctrination. Therefore, Christianity does not depend ultimately on priests or ministers—a fact which is not always clear to Christians either.

Dr. A. T. Robertson once said—not without a touch of humor—that God’s kingdom will prevail in the hearts of men despite the preachers. Communists approach Christianity within the presuppositions of their own irreligion. Since Communists evaluate Christian conviction as mere indoctrination, they believe that by controlling the indoctrinators they will be able to exterminate religion!

Another fact unrealized by Communists is the difference between external oganized Christianity and internal spiritual belief of Christians as individuals. Communists actually believe that Christianity will be vanquished with the destruction of church buildings or organizations. Nothing, of course, is further from the truth. Were they to raze every church building; to close every theological school; to suppress the publication of Christian literature; were they to banish Christians to the far reaches of the earth and allocate only one real Christian per square mile, Marx would nonetheless lose the battle to spiritual forces behind the Iron Curtain.

By manipulating ecclesiastical organizations Communists believe they have Christianity under control.

Herein lies a grave warning and an important lesson. Modern Christians seem to major in organization. Denominational papers feature so-called “since I came” articles that extol the visible results of the minister’s work. Money, buildings, statistics! Only the Lord knows how strong the Church really is. Yes, Communists can and do use the organized church for their purposes; but they are totally helpless before the spiritual power of Christian believers.

The greatest mission field today is right within the local church. Organization may be the enemy’s tool of death-dealing operation, but through the indwelling Christ millions of transformed Christians will live forever to the glory of their Saviour and Lord.

BELA UDVARNOKI

Murfreesboro, North Carolina