A fortnightly report of developments in religion

The long-awaited Second Vatican Council, which opens in Rome October 11, has already produced some marked effects upon thought and action throughout Christendom.

Speculation over what the council may do is only part of the picture. There is a new air of independency in some Roman Catholic circles which finds expression in many ways. The overall strategy still seems to be geared to creating a climate whereby the “separated brethren” might more easily return to the Church of Rome (see editorial, page 27). But some evangelical leaders feel that current trends are to be welcomed nonetheless.

Dr. Clyde W. Taylor, public affairs secretary of the National Association of Evangelicals, says Pope John XXIII’s call for the council is having a “beneficial” effect on Protestant-Catholic relations. He credited the present pontiff with having done much to bring about such an effect.

Taylor made the remarks to newsmen in Detroit last month where he delivered an address at the annual meeting of the Conservative Baptist Association of America.

He said that in the eyes of Protestants, “Pope Pius (XII) was a pugilist, but Pope John is a jolly, good-natured fellow.”

“Pressure has gone off of Protestants in Colombia and conditions changed remarkably,” Taylor added. “And things have even softened a little in Spain, and mild opposition (to Protestant missionaries) has been withdrawn in other countries.”

He said that a number of NAE pastors have asked the organization to send observers to the council, but that NAE officials turned down the idea.

As for Spain, there may be pressures from within Roman Catholicism for more tolerance toward Protestants.

The Danish Roman Catholic paper Katolsk Ugeblad, in a sharp criticism of the Spanish government policy, has said that “arguments intended to prove the freedom of the Protestants in Spain rebound upon the person advancing them. Compared with Danish conditions, they do not testify to tolerance, but rather to the contrary.”

Even Martin Luther seems to be gaining respect in the new climate. Catholic scholars no longer regard him as the villain they once did, according to a Jesuit professor of church history, the Rev. Edward D. McShane of Alma College, Los Gatos, California.

Vatican View Of Marilyn Monroe

Osservatore Romano, the Vatican City newspaper, asserted last month that American film producers passed the “last boundary” in directing actress Marilyn Monroe to appear nude in a motion picture scene.

The actress was subsequently discharged from the picture, “Something’s Got to Give,” for failure to appear for work. She claimed she was suffering from colds.

Osservatore noted that the film director had reproached Miss Monroe for catching cold while wearing a “five-ounce dress” during her appearance at a birthday celebration for President Kennedy in New York.

Said the newspaper: “The unbelievable part is that neither the directors nor the producers had the slightest suspicion that the sequence of colds may have been caused by the bath without even that five-ounce dress.”

In Boston, the archdiocesan newsweekly The Pilot also chided a public figure, but for different reasons. The target was former President Eisenhower, who, in defending a cabinet official said:

“They can kill me on a cross and drive the nails into my hands and the spear into my side if …”

The Pilot said that “the unconscious remark” contained “nearly blasphemous implications.”

“He appears more as a seeker for religious conviction who became in turn a catalytic agent for real reform within the church,” McShane said in an address to the American Society of Church History last month.

Another important development in American Catholicism has been the emergence of a more powerfully influential laity. This move has been taking definite shape and substance during the first six months of 1962, according to Religious News Service.

Msgr. John Tracy Ellis, prominent priest-historian at the Catholic University of America, believes that the trend is already so marked as to have created a theology of the lay movement. Theologians in recent years, he said in a commencement address at Carroll College, Helena, Montana, have refined this concept in a way which “suggests the revival of the part once played in the early Church by the deacon” in spreading Christian truths.

Ellis predicted that if the laity is going to assume a bigger role, care must be taken that the layman not overstep his bounds into realms which properly belong to the clergy, while at the same time the clergy must relax some of its accustomed control over the laity. He spoke of “symptoms that suggest an anticlerical sentiment hitherto unknown to American Catholics” and warned that this “virus” would spread unless clergymen ease some of their traditional control over the laity.

Another prominent Catholic professor, the Rev. John Walsh of Weston (Massachusetts) College has gone so far as to suggest a popularly-elected hierarchy for the church.

Perhaps the greatest stumbling block to better Protestant-Catholic relations in the United States is represented by church-state issues. Continued insistence upon public funds for parochial schools is a constant source of tension. Although they are rarely heard from, some leading Catholics do not want government aid, for they fear that such subsidy invites outside control or at least conformity.

Leading Catholic churchmen realize they must desegregate their schools, for instance, if they are ever to get federal funds. But the process is nevertheless slow. Desegregation has been ordered in New Orleans and Atlanta, although large parts of the South still have segregated parochial schools including the entire states of Alabama and Mississippi, the cities of Memphis and Chattanooga, Tennessee, and St. Augustine, Florida, and four of the seven dioceses in Texas.

How do current trends affect efforts to evangelize Roman Catholics?

Alert evangelicals feel that a more friendly climate will be advantageous to such efforts. Said one key evangelical observer a few days ago: “Good will is on our side.”

Reconsidering Taiwan

Church World Service has scrapped its plans for a gradual phaseout of its mass distribution program for U. S. surplus foods on Taiwan. Instead, the National Council of Churches overseas relief arm will continue the program until June 30, 1963, at which time a new system “that can be administered with integrity” is expected to go into effect. Disclosure of the change of plans came last month during a meeting of the policy-making NCC General Board.

CWS Director Hugh D. Farley said the decision to continue the mass feeding program had stemmed from previous commitments and the feeling that the program could not be reduced now in view of the need for food on the island. Lutheran World Relief, which cooperates with CWS on Taiwan, also announced that it would continue its part of the shipments.

On May 8 CWS and LWF announced they would discontinue mass food distribution and it was reported at that time that inequities and black market operations were factors in the decision (see “Problems with Food” on page 27 of the May 25 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY). The latest CWS statement said that “subsequently there was an unauthorized leakage to the press of some of the information that had led to this decision, with a consequent public misrepresentation that CWS was taking a hasty and unilateral action.”

Farley also made public during the General Board meeting in New York a telegram to legislators in Washington protesting the proposed termination of aid to Poland and Yugoslavia.

Among other business which came before the board was a proposed pronouncement on mass communication media. The board recommended that NCC President J. Irwin Miller appoint a special commission to redraft the proposed pronouncement. The commission will represent the NCC Divisions of Christian Education and Christian Life and Work as well as the Broadcasting and Film Commission.

The board also authorized a first-time national study conference on church-state relations to be held in February, 1964, in Chicago. The conference, made up of representatives from NCC-member bodies as well as non-member churches, will deal with a broad range of church-state questions, including federal aid to parochial schools, religious practices in public schools, and tax exemption for church property. The conference was proposed by the NCC’s Department of Religious Liberty and the Division of Christian Life and Work.

The board noted with “gratification increasing evidences of warmer relations with the Roman Catholic Church in many parts of the world.” The note was in a resolution passed unanimously without discussion.

A wide range of moral and ethical problems were considered at the board meeting, but no pronouncements were issued. A staff committee was reported to be developing a “position paper” which would “explore in thorough manner the philosophical and ethical issues involved in the confrontation of Christianity and communism.”

Wcc And The ‘New Society’

Five more Soviet bloc churches are applying for membership in the World Council of Churches, among them the Union of Evangelical Christian Baptists of the U.S.S.R. This denomination, which purports to embrace virtually all Protestants in Russia, claims a constituency of 545,000 members and upwards of 5000 pastors.

Other churches to apply are the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Estonia and the Georgian Orthodox Church. Three of these denominations, whose combined membership totals almost six million, were visited by Dr. W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, when he was in Russia in 1959.

Almost simultaneous with the WCC announcement a twelve-man delegation of the World Council arrived in Geneva after a two-week tour of the Soviet Union, remarking that the “spiritual strength of the (Russian) people was particularly impressive.” They had been invited to visit Russia as guests of the Russian Orthodox Church, itself accepted into WCC membership at last year’s New Delhi assembly.

“A number of points of historical, cultural and national interest were visited,” the churchmen reported, “and the delegation was impressed with the strenuous efforts of the Russian people to build a new society.” The statement also noted that theological questions and world peace had been discussed with Russian leaders.

On another front, the Communist-sponsored Christian Peace Conference noted “with joy and attention” a report about negotiations between representatives of the CPC and the World Council that took place in Geneva this March.

Pampering The Church

Methodist Bishop John Wesley Lord of Washington warns that the church must voluntarily assume a fair share of the tax burden if it is to avoid a growing wave of anti-clericalism and regain its stature in the American scene.

“How often the church accepts the dubious role of the pampered darling of a sinsick society,” the bishop noted in an address at the 178th annual meeting of the Baltimore Methodist Conference. “Far from seeking favors from the state, already overburdened with the need for a new and higher taxation, the church must recognize that it has a corresponding obligation to the state. It must cooperate with the forces of good government to provide the good life for all the citizens.”

Lord challenged the delegates to righteous action. “If the churches as institutions in our land will seek no favors, accept no tax exemptions on other than property used for worship, they may once again in this dark hour which is passing over our nation, exert a power which is not of man but of God, for righteousness and peace throughout the nation.”

In a seeming demonstration of the sub-tilties of church-state problems, however, the following week witnessed the dedication of the Methodists’ new Sibley Hospital in Washington, where Lord paid tribute to House Speaker John W. McCormack, a Roman Catholic, for his sponsorship of some key enabling legislation. Congress gave the Methodists a section of public park land on which to erect the $9,000,000, 340-bed hospital and a nursing school, in return for which the hospital turned over to the government its old building and other church-owned land.

A church tax controversy cropped up. meanwhile, in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, where the Upper Merion Township Board of Education announced its intention to seek an annual tax of $174,000 on the newly-constructed headquarters of the American Baptist Convention which has been assessed at $3,000,000. The board contends that the convention’s Judson Press has been publishing books and periodicals for profit, and that the building, or a portion of it, is therefore taxable.

“The important thing to us in this case,” observed Dr. Edwin H. Tuller, ABC general secretary, “is the principle that religious organizations, under the law, are tax exempt for those properties and activities that are necessary to the function of the church.”

Tuller denied that the convention’s printing operations placed the Judson Press within a profit making category. “Certainly we sell books that are printed by our presses, but they are not sold for profit. We just meet expenses and needs.”

While hoping to settle the disagreement without litigation, Tuller nevertheless expressed a willingness to go to court if necessary.

Tensions In Spain

Serious tensions were developing this month between the Franco regime and Roman Catholic leaders in Spain. The tensions are a result of hierarchy support of mass strikes in Spain in recent weeks.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco charged that the wave of strikes had been fomented by Communists and liberals and that “lay organizations of the Church” had encouraged them.

At the same time, he insisted that “relations between Church and State are in perfect harmony because both know who their common foe is.”

He accused foreign propaganda of having “set against our regime the excess of some Basque separatist priests or the clerical errors of some other exalted priests, none of which means anything in the framework of the great spiritual renaissance of our nation.”

The tension was nonetheless apparent, Franco’s remarks notwithstanding. Use of Spain’s national radio network to broadcast masses from Roman Catholic churches was forbidden by the Spanish Ministry of Information, reportedly because of a broadcast sermon delivered by a Jesuit priest from a Barcelona church. The exact nature of the sermon was not disclosed, but it was understood to have dealt with “social problems” and controversial problems centering on labor-management relations as pointed up by striking mining and industrial workers in the northern part of the country.

Five Spanish Roman Catholic bishops subsequently denied reports appearing in the foreign press that they supported the strikes, according to information disclosed in New York City by Spain’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations.

Following release of this information originally in Madrid, similar announcements were made by Spanish overseas offices to offset a growing impression that the church—particularly some members of the hierarchy—and the Franco regime are split on the strikes.

In Madrid, six priests were suspended for supporting the strikers. At the same time, however, a leading Roman Catholic paper urged Spaniards to follow church principles in labor matters.

Miracle In The Congo

Tribes which have been at war since 1959 came together in a miraculous reunion at the spring synod meeting of the Presbyterian Church of Congo, meeting at Bulape, deep in the Kasai Province.

Here is one missionary’s description of the delegates’ journey to the meeting as reported by Ecumenical Press Service: “Members of opposing tribes, who had not spoken to each other for two years, found themselves sitting side by side in the car for several hours of travel over rugged roads. The silence was awkward; everyone in the car was quiet, for they didn’t have much to say to each other.” Difficult problems faced the delegates. Many small tribes wanted their own presbyteries. One large tribe wanted its own synod. Political problems and mission-church relationships added to the meeting’s complexity.

At Bulape, “as the meeting progressed, there were tense moments and heated tempers at times. Yet far-reaching decisions were made for better administrative organization of the church, a committee was set up to consider the establishment of a General Assembly, and many other matters were discussed.”

The climax came one afternoon. “After the minutes had been read and approved, Congolese pastors and elders got up, one after the other, and confessed the collective sins of their tribe and some personal sins. You could feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. This was a truly great religious experience for all who were there. What we had been trying to do for months, the Holy Spirit did within a few minutes. To close the meeting we had a communion service with a Lulua, a Mukete, and a Muluba leading.

“After the meeting I couldn’t tell a Muluba from a Muena Lulua or a Mukete, they all seemed to be so happy to be together again.”

When the delegates left, their reconciliation was spread in local villages. A missionary wrote later, “it was a thrill to see the way the people of the different tribes greeted each other … Last April, a year ago, they were fighting each other and burning the villages and killing each other. Now they are together in one presbytery … Since I have been at Luebo, a miracle has taken place.”

‘Osagyefo’ The Provider

Methodist, Presbyterian, and Anglican leaders in Ghana sent a carefully-worded memorandum to the Ministry of Education last month. They outlined in no uncertain terms their reasons for disallowing “Young Pioneer” groups to be formed in their church schools.

The memo was in response to the ruling Convention People’s Party decree that the Marxist youth movement must be represented in every school.

The Protestant leaders’ anxiety over such a development is apparent in view of the Young; Pioneer catechism, which has passages such as these:

“Who gives us our daily bread?”

“Answer—Osagyefo Dr. Nkrumah.”

“Who gives us our clothes?”

“Answer—Osagyefo Dr. Nkrumah. Osagyefo will never die.”

“Osagyefo” is a traditional title meaning “redeemer, messiah, saviour.”

“Dr. Nkrumah” is Ghana President Kwame Nkrumah.

Obstacle To Unity

Ecumencial Press Service reports that proposals for church mergers in North India, Pakistan, and Ceylon have been rejected by the Calcutta Diocesan Council of the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma, and Ceylon. The council is a diocese of one of the bodies involved in the plan. Its action is considered significant because the Bishop of Calcutta is also the metropolitan of the Anglican body. The entire church is expected to act on the proposals at its General Council in 1963.

The mergers would result in the formation of the United Churches of North India and Pakistan and the United Church of Lanka (Ceylon).

The North India and Pakistan plan would be a union of the Anglican body, Methodist Southern Asia Central Conference, British and Australian Methodist Conferences, Church of the Brethren, Disciples of Christ, Council of Baptist Churches, and the present United Church of Northern India. In Ceylon the Lanka Church would combine Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists.

Convention Circuit

Buck Hill Falls, Pennsylvania—The oldest continuous denomination in America may soon lose its individual identity. The Reformed Church in America, convened last month for the 156th meeting of its General Synod, was confronted by 18 overtures pressing for merger with other churches. Thirteen came from the denomination’s classes and three from particular synods. Eight of the overtures sought possible union with the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. (Southern), eight others with the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., one with the United Church of Christ, and one with the Christian Reformed Church.

The feeling of urgency for church union was apparent not only from the high number of overtures, but also in their edgy language. The overture from Classis Metropolitan Jersey declared, “If it be the policy of General Synod to continue aloof … the General Synod should clearly state that policy, enabling constituent congregations, ministers and members to plan accordingly.” The Classis of Ulster was even more plain-spoken: “If … a majority … prevent us again from merging in strength … why then should not (1) Synods …, (2) Classes … (3) Churches unite individually?”

The Standing Committee on Overtures reported that it had “grave doubts whether the ecumenical urge can again be thwarted with impunity.” The synod adopted a committee recommendation “to take steps looking toward merger” with the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. Earlier the Synod had adopted by a unanimous, standing vote a “Joint Resolution” that the two denominations explore 14 areas of common concern. The “Joint Resolution” had been drawn up by committees of the two churches, and had earlier been adopted by a unanimous, standing vote by the Southern Presbyterian General Assembly in May.

The synod also decided “to hold other union possibilities in abeyance.” It was felt that fruitful discussion could not be held at this time with United Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ since both are engaged in ecumenical discussion with three other churches.

Synod debates also had a historic flavor. Echoes of the 334-year-old denomination’s origin were heard as delegates spoke of King George I and the royal charter he had granted to the Collegiate Reformed Church of New York. Collegiate Church is part of the Reformed denomination but still operates under the British royal charter. Discussion centered on the charter’s provisions for the obtaining of ruling elders which conflict with the method prescribed by the denomination’s constitution as amended in 1960. Decision on this highly technical church-state issue was deferred for further study.

An overture from Classis of South Grand Rapids to withdraw from the World Council of Churches was rejected. The classis asserted that the theological position of the Orthodox churches was contrary to the faith of the World Council itself and to that of the Reformed Church, and that the Russian Orthodox Church admitted last year at New Delhi was “completely subservient” to Russian communism. The overtures committee countered that a completely subservient church would not still have its seminaries and churches closed and its bishops imprisoned, and that the admitted divergence of theological position was not such as to exclude such fellowship as obtains within the World Council of Churches.

The Rev. Herman J. Ridder presented a moving report on the denomination’s Preaching-Teaching-Reaching Mission. He declared, “Any evangelism that is not convicted of the fact that men are lost apart from Jesus Christ will die from lack of motivation.” Ridder informed the delegates that many ministers confessed that the impact of the church’s new PTR Mission had changed their view of their own ministry.

The General Synod urged “constant scrutiny” of right-to-work laws and affirmed “the necessity of preserving just collective bargaining.” It also voted “to stubbornly resist all attempts to deprive our children of the religious symbols of Bible reading and prayer in our public educational systems.”

In other action the synod declared that “adultery and desertion may be illustrative rather than definitive patterns through which the ‘one-flesh’ relationship is destroyed.” It urged study to discover whether modern life presents other such “involuntary breache(s) of the marriage ties.”

J.D.

Union Seminary And Accreditation

An emotional floor battle enlivened the twenty-third biennial meeting of the American Association of Theological Schools in Toronto last month.

The debate centered on 150-year-old Bangor (Maine) Theological Seminary, which has been unable to win complete accreditation because some 65 per cent of its students have no undergraduate degree.

An AATS Committee of Review sustained the decision of the Commission on Accrediting not to accredit the seminary.

Bangor President Frederick W. Whittaker appealed to the assembly for a reversal of the decision. The problem came into focus when it became apparent that proposed changes in the AATS constitution and standards of accreditation would make Bangor’s plight permanent.

Dr. Henry P. Van Dusen, president of New York’s Union Theological Seminary, fought vigorously for underdog Bangor. He declared on the floor that if the association adopted the provisions he dissented from he would ask the Union faculty to surrender its own accreditation in favor of an associate ATTS membership. He averred that he was in dead earnest.

Reactions to Van Dusen’s threat were mixed, but the adoption in principle of the proposed changes leaves a question as to whether he will make it good.

It was also announced at the AATS meeting that Meadville Seminary (Unitarian) has been placed on probation for two years following breakup of the Federal Faculty of the University of Chicago.

Toronto—A decision on whether to open formal conversations with the United Church of Canada was postponed for another year by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.

The proposal from the Presbytery of Victoria for talks to “create better mutual understanding” between the two denominations was referred to a committee on inter-church relations which will report to next year’s assembly.

Both the United and Presbyterian churches in Canada are conducting exploratory conversations with Anglican theologians but not with each other.

Total giving for all purposes to the denomination last year amounted to a record $1,735,000, an increase of seven per cent over 1960. The denomination embraces about 200,000 members.

The assembly raised the basic minimum salary for some 400 ministers by $800 a year to $3, 900. This is in addition to a free manse and a small travel allowance.

In other action, the assembly referred a report on nuclear weapons for Canada to the Board of Evangelism and Social Concerns for study and presentation at next year’s meeting. The report said no nation has a right to resort to nuclear weapons.

Minneapolis—Delegates to the 66th annual conference of the Lutheran Free Church accepted terms of a proposed merger with the American Lutheran Church by a vote of 530 to 112.

The action climaxed several years of deliberation by the 90,250-member LFC on whether it should join the 2,365,000-member ALC, third largest unit of U. S. Lutheranism. It followed two hours of orderly debate in which 24 speakers were heard, 18 for the merger and six against. The opposition cited concern about administrative control over congregations in the ALC and charged modernist and neoorthodox inroads at the larger body’s Luther Seminary at St. Paul, Minnesota.

Augsburg College and Seminary of the LFC will be separated when the merger takes effect. The future of the seminary has not yet been determined.

The LFC originally took part in the planning and discussion that resulted in the formation of the ALC but withdrew from union negotiations after a congregational referendum in 1955 failed by 35 votes to gain a required three-fourths majority favoring the merger. A second referendum in 1957 lost by 15 votes. Approval of the merger finally came last fall when a third referendum resulted in a 32-vote surplus over a required two-thirds majority.

The LFC’s application for membership in the ALC will be presented to its general convention in Milwaukee in the fall. LFC President John Stensvaag said the certification of membership to the ALC will include all congregations, omitting only those that have taken definite action to sever their LFC connection.

Dr. Paul C. Empie, executive director of the National Lutheran Council, predicted that the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod eventually will come into a new Lutheran cooperative association.

Hendersonville, North Carolina—A report condemning corruption in government and degeneration of private moral standards was adopted at the 158th meeting of the General Synod of the Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church.

A request for a study program on physical healing through prayer was referred to a committee for consideration. The committee is expected to report to next year’s synod.

The denomination has some 28,000 members in 147 churches.

Belfast—The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland reaffirmed its membership in the World Council of Churches, although an amendment critical of the basis and policies of the WCC drew considerable support, particularly from younger ministers.

The assembly also reaffirmed a resolution passed last year which emphasizes the refusal to accept episcopal reordination in the interests of negotiations on union with other churches.

Dr. Austin A. Fulton, foreign mission convener, reported that the church has more missionary candidates for its work in India and Nyasaland than it has had in many years. A plentiful supply of ministerial students also was reported.

For the first time an official representative of the Irish Congregational Union was present at the sessions. Informal talks on church union between the Presbyterians and Congregationalists have been going on for some time. Other representatives at the assembly included top officials of the Church of Scotland, United Church of Canada, United Church of Northern India and the Presbyterian Churches in England and Wales.

At a foreign missions session the assembly received a report from the World Presbyterian Alliance urging that Presbyterian and Reformed churches “must undertake, or develop, discussions with the Roman Catholic Church.”

“The calling of the Second Vatican Council is an event which the Reformed churches cannot ignore,” the report declared. “Sympathetic and discerning theological study of the meaning of all these developments for Reformed churches, and for the ecumencial movement as a whole, is a responsibility which the Reformed churches must take seriously.”

Observing that ecumencial discussions are not limited to those churches within the movement, the report said:

“They should be pursued, in addition to the Roman Catholic Church, with those numerous groups, often very slightly organized in an ecclesiastical sense, which had undertaken an enormous amount of missionary work, and were extremely powerful in the countries where the younger churches were established.”

Recruiting Drive

The Church of England is lining up a full-time recruiting officer in a drive to enlist more men for the ministry. The Bishop of Guildford, Dr. George Reindorp, says local clergymen will be urged to preach on the need and that recruiting posters will be sent to every boys’ secondary school in the country.

The Faithful On File

The Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales is checking up on its 3,500,000 baptized members. A census conducted by the Newman Demographic Survey (officially recognized by the hierarchy) aims to cover every parish, and to get such details as educational standard, occupation, size of family and reading habits. Some 26 questions are asked in each interview. “Our inquiry is 100 per cent thorough,” said A. E. Spencer, director of the survey and a former Inland Revenue officer. “Every single household, whether it is known to be Catholic or not, is visited in the parish area. We even cover such places as lodging houses, hotels, and hospitals to be sure we miss no one.” There is a special five-question card for children.

When all the cards are completed for a parish they are sent to London for processing; then a copy is returned to the parish priest, who will pay anything from $200 to $550 for the data.

J. D. D.

An Invitation Declined

Some bellringers find the practice of their ancient art is thirsty work and take steps to remedy this—a fact which has been worrying the Anglican Bishop of Dunwich, the Right Rev. Thomas Cash-more.

Rededicating the bells at a service in Eye parish church, Suffolk, the bishop said: “In some churches bellringers enter the tower to ring the bells calling people to worship and then we see them leaving the church after proclaiming something of the Gospel through the bells. They slink off to the nearest pub to refresh themselves after their energetic action.”

The bishop felt this was like a clergyman who challenged people to come to church, but didn’t appear himself.

Suffolk bellringers, describing the remarks as “not true, uncharitable, unjust, and in rather bad taste,” added curiously: “A real attempt by the incumbent to reform these alcoholics or, alternatively, deny them the use of the bell, would at least indicate that some welcome interest was being taken in their activities.”

J. D. D.

Like A Mighty Army

The crowd at right is one of the largest ever assembled to hear the Gospel. It is a picture of Christendom united around the proclamation of the Word of God. The scene is Soldier Field, Chicago, on Sunday afternoon, June 17, at the final service of evangelist Billy Graham’s 19-day Greater Chicago Crusade. Stadium officials estimated the turnout at 116,000.

Under a cloudless sky the thermometer climbed to 95 at the gigantic stadium along Lake Michigan. The heat was tempered only by a 12-mile-an-hour breeze out of the southwest. Thousands sat under umbrellas, donned straw coolie hats or improvised newspaper headcovers.

Graham spoke twice during the two-hour service, first challenging church people to follow-up Chicago’s new spiritual opportunities, then evangelizing the multitudes. His sermon was based on King Agrippa’s poignant utterance to the Apostle Paul:

“Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian” (Acts 26:28 KJV).

High over the north end of the stadium hung a scriptural inscription, traditional decor at Graham meetings. It blew in the breeze as the evangelist spoke. Ten-foot letters suspended between two poles some 80 yards apart spelled out the Christian definition:

“JESUS SAID: I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE.John 14:6.”

Graham drew a parallel between factors responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire and conditions currently prevailing in America such as the sex binge, deficit government spending, lust for pleasure, reliance upon armaments, and the decay of religion into mere form.

The evangelist, described as “very tired” from having spoken as many as five times a day, recovered to exhibit a closing-day vigor which was unusual even for him. It was Father’s Day, but Graham, whose sermons ordinarily make a point of special occasions, ignored it in deference to the urgency of the hour.

Crowds began to arrive at 9 a.m. for the 3 p.m. service. Like a mighty army they filed into Soldier Field. They included sizeable delegations from as far away as Denver and Toronto. Halfway through the service stadium officials told the Rev. Walter H. Smyth, crusade director, that about 85,000 were then seated in the stands. Up to 5,000 were on the field. Other thousands, especially latecomers, chose to go under the stands instead of venturing into the end zone bleachers behind the platform where the only vacant seats were located. Some who set out for Soldier Field never got there because of traffic jams and lack of parking space.

Several hundred persons in the stands were overcome as a result of the heat. Only two, however, were hospitalized.

The audience at Soldier Field was the largest Graham has ever had in the Western Hemisphere. It eclipsed even his 1957 Yankee Stadium crowd which was estimated at 100,000. Only in England and Australia has he drawn attendances larger than the Chicago turnout (120,000 in London, 143,750 in Melbourne, and 150,000 in Sydney).

Graham’s crusade in Chicago produced an average attendance of 37,000 per service—another record—and an aggregate of 703,000.

The numerical success of the crusade was attributed to four major factors: “Operation Andrew,” a program under which persons interested in the crusade bring friends and neighbors (a spokesman estimated some 1,000,000 visitations in all); unprecedented press coverage; the facilities of McCormick Place, a strategically-located exposition hall the size of six football fields where all meetings but the last were held; and a great emphasis on prayer.

Of infinite more importance in crusade statistics are those who indicated a new commitment to Christ by walking to the platform at the close of a service. In Chicago there were 16,451 of these, including 1,729 who stepped forward at Soldier Field. They represented 2.34 per cent of the audience, compared with the 3.16 per cent average established in 260 weeks of crusades around the world.

The Chicago campaign was shorter than most conducted by Graham in major cities. It seems certain, nonetheless, that never before has a crusade had such an impact upon a metropolitan area. Virtually all sociological strata were penetrated. Teen-age gang members, for instance, attended by the score. The lone segment of the citizenry not significantly touched was the high-rise apartment dwellers, who are often sealed off from visitation efforts.

Among the converts were leading North Shore socialites, a beauty queen, and a youth gang leader. A divorced couple, neither having known the other was there, responded to the invitation at the same service. They plan to be remarried.

The teen-age son of a team member came forward to rededicate his life.

The converted gang leader, in acknowledging his new-found faith, handed over to his counselor a pistol, a knife, and a razor.

One boy met his probation officer in the counselling room.

Decisions were also being made outside the framework of crusade but as a direct result of it. The minister of a large Chicago church came to Graham with a confession that for years he had been preaching beyond his experience. He said he had been convicted of his shortcomings during the course of the crusade and that the Holy Spirit had made him “miserable.” Upon making a commitment he said he would face his congregation the following Sunday as a new man.

At a meeting with 1,400 ministers Graham had urged them to make it a point to preach evangelistically on the morning of the last day of the crusade and to extend an invitation at the close of the service. Some churches reportedly experienced their first such public invitation. At one church that morning a known gangster stepped to the altar and fell to his knees in repentance.

With its reputation as a capital of vice and graveyard of evangelism, Chicago’s spiritual heritage is meager. Little has been done in evangelism since Billy Sunday held his largest crusade there in 1918. The last attempt at a city-wide crusade was made in 1946 with a “Life Begins” campaign with Dr. Paul Rood, Dr. John R. Rice, and Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. The meetings attracted an average of 2,500 per night, with 9,000 present for the final service.

Theologically Chicago has been a center of liberal thought, whereas the city’s evangelical forces have been fragmented. Because of these and other factors, including the mass exodus to the suburbs and the changing population complex in recent years, some observers had been skeptical of a Graham crusade in the city proper.

There were other factors, however, which provided favorable conditions for the crusade. Moody Bible Institute and its radio station, WMBI, have long been champions of the evangelical cause in Chicago. Several other evangelical colleges and conservative seminaries also have been influential. Many evangelical leaders make their home in the Chicago area.

Opposition to Graham’s Chicago crusade came from right and left, although it was not so pronounced as during some crusades. Ministers of the General Association of Regular Baptists were the most aggressive in their opposition, sowing virulent attacks against the evangelist. Some Plymouth Brethren groups underscored a distaste for mass evangelism in general. Other evangelicals, dubious of contacts with liberals, were said to be “swallowing hard.”

In a few cases there was disagreement between laity and clergy over posture toward the crusade. One congregation reportedly demanded the resignation of its minister after he spoke against Graham.

The most outspoken liberal seminary professor was Dr. Gibson Winter of the University of Chicago Divinity School, who said the crusade had set back the church 50 years. Graham countered by saying that Winter had grossly understated Graham’s intentions, which were to carry modern theology back 19 centuries to that of Jesus and the Apostles.

A few liberal Baptist ministers seemed to be the only other vocal opponents although several denominational church groups had voted to stay aloof. Many ministers belonging to these groups cooperated with the crusade wholeheartedly.

The Church Federation of Greater Chicago, which had voted not to endorse the crusade, subsequently opened its offices to serve the effort.

Graham, often advised by physicians to adopt a lighter schedule, finds it hard to limit his speaking engagements to the nightly mass meetings of a crusade. He has more invitations than he can handle, but he is reluctant to turn them down because they frequently represent opportunities not normally available for the proclamation of the Gospel. The evangelist’s friends also make great demands on his time (“His friends,” says a source close to Graham, “are often his worst enemies”). In Chicago Graham appeared on college campuses, in prison compounds, at military installations, and before a variety of civic clubs and community centers. At times these activities are more productive of new spiritual awareness than the mass meetings. Two weeks after Graham spoke at the Chicago House of Correction, the chaplain was quoted as saying that 197 inmates and 7 wardens had come to him for counselling, while chapel attendance increased more than 25 per cent.

Perhaps the greatest impact of the Greater Chicago Crusade is yet to come. More than 167 television stations from coast to coast scheduled a series of five hour-long telecasts made at McCormick Place and Soldier Field. Each program closes with a plea by Graham for viewers to make decisions for Christ.

The scope of the Graham effort made a great impression on officials of the Church Federation of Greater Chicago. The Rev. Charles M. Crowe, a leading Methodist minister, hailed the crusade as having magnified the Protestant faith. He said Christ had been honored and the sordidness of sin held up in the clear light of the Word of God. He credited the Graham team with having demonstrated the meaning of genuine ecumenicity.

“Some of us of the ecumenical crowd,” said Crowe, “have been ecumenical to our own group only.”

Also enthusiastic was Dr. Edgar H. S. Chandler, executive vice president of the federation who as a consultant to the U. S. Information Agency is top religious affairs advisor in the Federal government.

Chandler said he had seen positive results of the Graham crusade around the world and that he had expected great things when the evangelist came to Chicago.

However, he said, the crusade had accomplished “even greater things than I had anticipated.”

It is up to the Chicago area churches to follow-up the personal commitments made during the crusade, he added.

Chandler cited the fact that Graham had “dealt so honestly and definitely with some of the basic social problems of our city and generation.”

He declared that he knew of a number of ministers who previously had been antagonistic or lukewarm toward Graham who had developed more positive attitudes after witnessing the crusade.

Chandler said flatly that if another Graham crusade were scheduled in Chicago he would urge the federation to endorse it officially.

Such an opportunity may indeed come. Herbert J. Taylor, general chairman of the crusade, said the executive committee and crusade supporters in some 1,200 churches will work and pray for a return of Graham and his team—perhaps in 1965.

People: Words And Events

Deaths:Dr. Russell J. Humbert, 57, president of DePauw University; at Traverse City, Michigan … Archbishop Teodors Grunbergs, 92, of the Latvian Church in Exile; at Essingen, Germany … Dr. William Edgar Gilroy, 86, former newspaper columnist and Congregationalist editor; at Newton Centre, Massachusetts … Dr. Frederick Ponsonby Wood, 77, cofounder of the National Young Life Campaign of Britain; in London.

Retirements: As minister-at-large for United Presbyterian Board of National Missions, Dr. Louis H. Evans, Sr.… as pastor of Delmar Baptist Church, St. Louis, Dr. Edwin T. Dahlberg, former president of the National Council of Churches … as president of the American Bible Society, Dr. Daniel Burke.

Elections: As president of the American Association of Theological Schools, Principal G. Johnston of Montreal United Theological Callege … as executive bishop of the General Church of the New Jerusalem (Swedenborgian), the Rt. Rev. Willard D. Pendleton … as moderator of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Rev. Robert L. Atwell … as general secretary of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, Dr. Andrew J. Gailey … as president of the Methodist Church in Ireland, the Rev. James Wisheart.

Appointments: As American counsul-general to the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland, Dr. Paul F. Green, noted Southern Baptist educator … as general director of United Church Men, Dr. Don L. Calame … as executive secretary of the Board of Higher Education of the United Lutheran Church in America, Dr. E. Theodore Bachmann … as executive director of the Church Federation of Los Angeles, the Rev. Harry A. McKnight.

George Burnham

George Ralph Burnham, 43, first news editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, died last month in a Chattanooga, Tennessee, hospital. Burnham, who suffered from ulcers, had undergone intestinal surgery and was expected to recover when complications set in.

Burnham left CHRISTIANITY TODAY at the end of 1957 to work with World Vision. He subsequently returned to the Chattanooga News-Free Press, where he had been a reporter for many years.

Burnham was author of two books on overseas evangelism, Billy Graham: Mission Accomplished and To the Far Corners. He also wrote Prison Is My Parish, a biography of Chaplain Park Tucker of the federal penitentiary in Atlanta.

It is necessary to preserve intact the revelation of the Bible which lays hold of so many layers of human existence, and not to lose sight of God’s way among men and in Israel. Man is related to God as creature to Creator, as object of God’s grace and judgment, and in his responsibility for his fellowmen. We should be aware in the present situation of these basic principles of God’s dealing with men because our world has fallen into disorder, and it doubts and even rejects so much of His word and commandment pertaining to our lives.

Schleiermacher, by defining religion as feeling and contemplation of the universe, thought in aesthetic categories, and thus missed the earnestness of the fundamental relation which the Bible sets forth between God and man. In the present age, when religion as such is threatened by secularization, we cannot be satisfied with a placid and aesthetic concept of it. We must discern what it is as prophecy and witness.

The reason that Christianity to a large extent has become so weak is because it has wasted its vitality on rationalistic theories and useless controversies. As a result the absoluteness of the biblical message and imperative has been lost to many areas of life. That has endangered its respect also among other religions and faiths. Whoever speaks of revelation must live with a sense of obligation, and not in denial of limits and enamored of Christian liberty. Even concentrating Christian faith on sole allegiance to Jesus Christ can become dangerous for it, when thereby the organic relation between the Old and New Testaments is disrupted. We must, therefore, raise the question, how far the contemporary theological schools enable us: 1. to expound the interrelation of the Old and New Testaments; 2. to take the text of the Bible seriously as God’s living message and instruction; and 3. to integrate the separate historical witness of each book into a total understanding. Thereby an important test is whether we preserve the revelation of God in a way which allows us to engage in fruitful dialogue with Israel as the older people of God.

The Contemporary Movements

The scientific situation of today is characterized by a remarkable state of transition which is quite typical for the general crisis of mankind. Nowhere in the field of science or in spiritual life do we find anything complete and definite which is able to determine the future. We can merely recognize beginnings, experiments, and critical comparisons and contrasts with previous scientific results. Existential interpretation which, in the area of Protestant theology, is especially connected with the name of Rudolf Bultmann, goes hand in hand with this condition of scientific and spiritual life. In view of the general crisis of mankind we are obliged to take this scientific method of hermeneutics very seriously. It remains to be seen how far it will yield something certain and lasting for future generations. That has been a subject of lively debate for some years, and is still going on.

Besides Bultmann and his followers, who lay stress on hermeneutics and existential exegesis, there are representatives also in German Protestant theology of the dialectic-dogmatic method. For Karl Barth and H. Diem the Word of God is basic, and they seek to uphold dogmatic certainty of interpretation over against the existential hermeneutics of Bultmann.

Last, but not least, we should mention the representatives of historical exegesis. They strive to understand the text out of the process of history and from the meaning inherent in it. As scholars of historical realism I would name in the field of Old Testament: A. Alt and M. Noth; in the field of New Testament: G. Dalman, A. Schlatter, J. Jeremias, and myself. We are not concerned with a romantic or heilsgeschichtliche line of interpretation, but try to grasp anew the objective truth which lies embedded in the process of life and of human existence. It should be clearly recognized that the path of theology, which has been so markedly influenced by the Enlightenment, by the new scientific understanding, by psychology, and by the development of human philosophy, cannot be allowed to forget a former period of scientific understanding. We must learn from the past as we face the tasks which are given in the present situation.

Deficiencies of Existentialism

Although existential interpretation should in principle be receptive to the requirements and criteria adduced above, it is held back by a certain attitude. It considers that its own consequent interpretation of the text is more to be desired than the full variety of biblical themes. Not the biblical word, but the kerygma distilled from it, is taken as decisive. The fact is, however, that the Old Testament proclaims a characteristic message of its own over against the New, that various parts of the New Testament do not entirely coincide with the main Pauline themes. What, then, does existential interpretation do? It proceeds critically to call these passages in question, to subordinate their importance, or to interpret them otherwise than the text intended.

Our understanding of history in the Bible becomes difficult if one uses Formgeschichte, so often connected with existential interpretation, in a radical way. Such is the case when it is assumed that the sayings of Jesus belong to an earlier stage of the tradition, to which later the narrative material was attached. That leads to a skeptical attitude toward the life of Jesus. Must we, however, give up a realistic picture of Jesus for the sake of the kerygma? If the historical elements, which the Evangelists used, prove to be unreliable, then the message to be proclaimed, the kerygma, would lose its power. The primitive Christian proclamation did more than offer us the grace of God and summon us to a new understanding of ourselves. It showed how the grace of God, offered through Jesus, was accepted, exhibited, and fulfilled in his life. The truth which he lived out was decisive for the offer and summons of the kerygma. There came into being a definite history which was integral to revelation, and cannot be detached from it. This history could pass through stages, be interrupted and concealed, undergo transformation and renewal, but it retained the character of valid and final truth. All the biblical traditions are directed toward the future goal of God. Their history partakes so essentially of it, that none of them can give it up. To be sure the present ever requires decision, but a decision always with reference to the future which includes and transcends it. As biblical history went on, it issued in traditions which became normative for subsequent times, even though subject to continual question and opposition. But they made their way despite invidious effort from within and without to discredit and to invalidate them. Man was never capable of grasping and holding the mystery of God. The entrance of God’s revelation into history always met with forces which sought to suppress it. From that we know that we must ever hear again and understand anew the history of God’s revelation, and upon the basis of our study and understanding be ready at any time to make a fresh start. But we do not thereby put an end to the past. Its traditions help us to distinguish more clearly between truth and error, light and darkness.

Since each biblical tradition converges upon an ultimate goal, we should hesitate to set one over against another, as the Synoptic against the Johannine, or the Jerusalemic against the Hellenistic. Each performs its service as a strand of history mingling with others to reach a single end. It should not be unraveled and exposed to each person’s existential judgment. The radical existential criticism in Germany today, which puts Paul in opposition to James and to Luke, is in the last analysis unhistorical; for it disguises the inner logic of history whose character as revelation is given us in the Old Testament, and is an important heritage of the Christian faith.

Our present crisis in exegesis recalls the controversy of Apostolic preaching with Gnosis. The Gnostics interpreted the message of the Gospel in the light of the hic et nunc, adapted it to the existence of the believer, to his intention and feelings. That thrust out of the picture the historical setting of the Gospel, the objective continuity of revelation in history, and displaced it with anthropological criteria.

So also existential interpretation discounts the understanding of revelation in history which the Old Testament, itself bound up with that history, began to disclose. It disputes the Messianic self-consciousness of Jesus which linked his life with the hope of Israel. It slights the apocalyptic heritage received from Jewish tradition. All that produces a shrinkage in the substance of the kerygma which cannot be made good by recasting it in the mold of existentialism.

The Inroads of Philosophy

Existential interpretation is drawn from Formgeschichte, from the philosophy of Heidegger, and from the theology of the Reformation. The combination of these various elements lends considerable strength to its method, but therein lies also its weakness. What happens if this combination breaks up? The weakest element within it is that of philosophy. In field of faith and theology it is the element least able to bear its weight. While it offers considerations and reflections which are akin to the Christian faith, they must not be confused with it. The concern of Christian faith is to take God seriously, and to conform experience to his Word, not to interpret philosophically the essence of human existence. It is at this point that Bultmann is the most vulnerable. Existential philosophy imbues the believer with a new sense of self-understanding, whereas the believer should recognize the necessity to be cautious and to admit fallibility of judgment. In the midst of the dangers of history the believer must look beyond himself into a future that is more than his present. In his existence before God the believer can only draw partial conclusions as to the true nature of man from the Bible. It is not likely that at the beginning the kerygma had an anthropology. Certainly the chief aim of theology should not be to develop one, so that it can argue anthropologically.

The theology of the Reformation recovered and interpreted anew the truth of the Bible. It did not make place of itself for radical biblical criticism, of the kind that broke out later in the period of the Enlightenment. When we persist in the same sort of criticism, old struggles within the Christian church are kept alive. Basically the question is whether the faith of which E. Fuchs, G. Ebeling, and others speak today comes from the Bible, or rather from a philosophical position which feels itself constrained to establish a connection with the Bible. Further, can the program of “demythologizing,” which may be meaningful as a philosophical method to obtain theoretical understanding, be carried out in the field of religion? What is most important is not to make faith intelligible to our way of thinking, to our philosophical ideas, but rather to let the process of revelation in history speak for itself. The philosophical approach to faith has given rise to a “religion of the intellectual,” far remote from the faith of ordinary members of the church. For years there has been open, sometimes concealed, controversy between them. The “intellectual” side, with its group of theologians, contends that theology requires a new language for the modern mind, and to this end submits the categories of existential thinking. But these ideas meet with resistance on the part of biblical data and concepts which simply do not fit in with them. Here is objective ground which refuses to give way to varied forms of attack, and sets a limit to the introduction of existential categories. For this reason it has not been possible to break down resistance within the Christian church.

Still it is significant that all the problems concerning the “historical Jesus” have become acute again, although one was inclined to suppose from the side of neoorthodoxy that the case was closed. There is good reason, therefore, to keep before us the basic biblical position of A. Schlatter and M. Kähler, coupled with steadfastness, faithfulness, and patience, those primary attributes which go along with biblical faith. We are not thereby acting out of longing for human security, or with lack of courage to face the modern age. We know the way ahead is full of peril. That is a necessary consequence of decisions which have shaped our world in recent years. But we did not get our faith from subjective experience or hermeneutics. It is grounded on the all-embracing, objective order of creation, history, and church.

OTTO MICHEL

Director

Institute of Judaic Studies

University of Tübingen

Two ritual observances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, are maintained by members of the Church of Christ irrespective of their denomination or of their personal spiritual maturity. Whether these observances are regarded as possessing only symbolic value, or whether they are sacraments which confer spiritual grace directly, they are central to the worship of all groups. In them the heart of Christian doctrine is enacted in visible form.

Baptism. This is the rite by which a professed believer was inducted into the fellowship of the New Testament church. By submitting to immersion in water, pouring, or sprinkling, he confessed publicly his need of cleansing from sin and his faith in Christ. Peter instructed his audience on the day of Pentecost to “Repent, and be baptized … in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), and each subsequent stage of the church’s growth was marked by baptism of the believers (Acts 8:12, 38; 9:10; 10:47, 48; 16:33; 18:8).

The concept of baptism is rooted in the Old Testament law which prescribed certain washings for the cleansing of diseased persons (Lev. 14:8). Proselytes entering Judaism were expected to strip themselves of their former clothing, submit to circumcision, and bathe themselves completely, after which they were reckoned members of the Jewish community. The rite was acknowledgment of defilement and of the acceptance of the law as a purifying agent. The baptism of John must have been founded upon current usage, for his hearers were not surprised when he proclaimed it, and the Scriptures take the significance for granted (Mark 1:4, 5). John the Baptist, however, realized that his ministry of baptism was only preparatory, for he expected the advent of another who would baptize “in the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:8).

Jesus’ personal acceptance of John’s baptism was a public avowal of his consecration to God and of his mission to men. By taking his stand with sinners, although he was sinless, he provided a link between the symbol of repentance and the fuller significance implied in the final commission to his followers. He enjoined them to “… make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). By this command he related baptism to the total work of the Trinity in salvation, and prescribed it as the universal practice of the church.

The key passage on baptism is connected with Paul’s argument for holiness in Romans 6:4–6 (ARV): “We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.”

Assuming that the Roman Christians were familiar with the ceremony, he explained it in terms of death and resurrection. Since the claims of retributive justice cannot be executed upon a dead person, the union of the Christian with Christ in His death frees him from condemnation, and through the Resurrection he shares in a new life. By the rite of baptism he enacts this experience symbolically and accepts its reality by faith, though his full realization of the truth may develop gradually.

Parallel with the baptism by water is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which insures this progressive experience of union, and which constitutes the Christian an active member of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). The same term, “baptism,” is used both of the external rite and the internal reality, as if to indicate that they are interdependent and equally necessary. The internal experience necessitates outward confession; the external confession must be supported by inward reality.

The efficacy of baptism lies in the relation of the individual to God rather than in any property of the water. The only passage in the New Testament that connects salvation directly with baptism is 1 Peter 3:20, 21 (ARV): “… wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God.…” Although the translation seemingly conveys the idea that baptism saves men, a careful study of the context reveals that “saved through” does not mean “saved by,” but “preserved through.” The baptismal water does not provide the means of our salvation, but is rather representative of the peril through which we are brought into a new life as Noah passed through the waters of the flood to safety. Obviously water cannot save any man; salvation is by the grace of God.

The long dispute over the proper mode of baptism will probably never be settled satisfactorily to all concerned. The Greek verb baptizo, which has been transliterated rather than translated, means fundamentally to dip, plunge, immerse. After making allowance for certain occasional exceptions, such as passages where washing is implied, the etymological meaning indicates that baptism was originally by immersion. Historically this mode has been perpetuated by the Eastern Church, and it prevailed in the West until the Middle Ages. Pouring, or affusion, according to the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, a second-century document, was permissible if water were scarce, and sprinkling was a later substitution developed in the Middle Ages.

Of greater importance than the mode of baptism is the question of the proper candidates. Where the New Testament speaks clearly, it emphasizes the personal belief of those concerned. Faith must precede commitment; the external act of water baptism will not transform an unbeliever into a Christian. Can infants, incapable of an individual act of faith, rightfully receive baptism? On this question the Scriptures make no direct pronouncement. The mention of the Philippian jailor’s household (Acts 16:33, 34) does not necessarily imply that infants were included, nor is there any other passage that affords an obvious answer. The varying views on baptism are the logical consequences of attempts to interpret the implications of the Scriptures.

At the moment of baptism the Christian makes an irrevocable commitment to Christ, whose death is the means of his redemption and whose life will be the continuing dynamic of his career. He takes a step in spiritual experience which he cannot retrace, and need not, if he is sincere. He enters a new relationship with God and with other members of the redeemed community who constitute the church.

Having accepted baptism and having agreed to all that it means, the Christian is henceforth destined for a life of progress in holiness. He cannot logically revert to the old sins which he has abandoned, but he must rather devote himself to holiness and to conscious spiritual growth. The teaching of Paul in Colossians 2:12, 13, 20–3:2 indicates that the baptized believer is obligated to put away his former loose thinking and conduct, and to adopt the standards of the new fellowship of the regenerate into which he has been inducted. Such a life is not negative aceticism, but is rather the spontaneous response of a renewed conscience to the ethical revelation of God. Baptism, according to the New Testament, is not merely a religious ceremony, but it is also a moral and spiritual pledge of devotion to holiness.

The Lord’s Supper. The second ordinance is the memorial feast instituted by Jesus on the eve of his death. As he celebrated the passover with his disciples, he gave them bread and wine, saying, “… this is my body,” and “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many” (Mark 14:22, 24). The Pauline record (1 Cor. 11:23–26) shows that the Lord’s Supper had become the focal point of worship in the early church (c. A.D. 50), and that it was observed regularly. Justin Martyr states in his First Apology that Christians met on the first day of the week to worship and to break bread. With few exceptions the sacred meal has been perpetuated in all denominations to the present day.

The primary significance of the Lord’s Supper is its representation of Christ’s death as the seal of the New Covenant between God and man. The breaking of Christ’s body and the shedding of his blood made the sacrifice by which atonement for sin was accomplished, thereby reconciling man to God. As the bread and wine are assimilated into the physical body to contribute to its well-being, so the person of Christ enters spiritually into the life of the communicant. By this impartation the saying power of Christ is constantly appropriated, and his strength becomes the source of the believer’s life.

Although the Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice offered by a priest, since the death of Christ occurred once for all, its origin implies that it is more than a social meal. The bread and wine were part of the passover feast which was itself symbolic of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and of the beginning of new life as a redeemed nation. By analogy, “… our passover … hath been sacrificed, even Christ” (1 Cor. 5:7), so that the elements of which we partake imply union in a body of individually redeemed men who are bound together into the church of God.

The bread and wine cannot be fragments of the literal body and blood of Christ, for when he said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” he was reclining at the table with his disciples. They would have understood that the bread and wine were only representative of his physical being, as a picture represents the person whose likeness it reproduces. This figure of speech was discussed by Jesus in his discourse on the bread of life, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves” (John 6:53). His language created consternation among his hearers, who took it with absolute literality. Jesus provided the initial clue to its meaning by adding: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me” (6:57). The relation between the Father and himself was so close that the same relationship, expressed by the figure of “eating,” should obtain between him and his disciples. When they grumbled at the obscure expression he replied. “It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing” (John 6:63). The eating of the material emblems is both a reminder and a pattern of this appropriation of the spiritual essence of Christ.

Jesus also intended by the observance to keep alive his memory and the obligation of his disciples to serve him until he should return. “… ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” was his final word. Although he did not reveal the details of his purpose at that time, Jesus contemplated a program extending beyond his death and resurrection to the establishment of his kingdom. Knowing that his departure would remove him from visible companionship with his disciples, he gave them this stimulus to hope that they might not become discouraged nor forget the true objective of their calling.

The table of the Lord establishes also a new basis of fellowship. Those who partake of it cannot consistently maintain evil associations; complete severance from all defilement is required. Paul, in reproving the Corinthians for idolatry, says. “… ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons” (1 Cor. 10:21). Furthermore, it creates a bond of union between believers, for hatreds, jealousies, and divisions are incompatible with the principle of love which was the very motive for Christ’s sacrifice. Negatively and positively, Christians are bound into one fellowship around the center of his living person.

Participation in the Lord’s Supper was therefore limited to believers who receive the elements in a spirit of thankfulness and honesty. Absolute sinlessness was not a prerequisite, else there would be none to partake; but careless indifference or willful impenitence unfits the spirit for joining others who assemble in humility and sincerity to celebrate the feast. Flagrant sin was adequate cause for exclusion from the Lord’s table—the last and most drastic step in the discipline of the Church.

By these means of grace the life of the believer was initiated and sustained. His public declaration of faith in deliverance from sin and possession of a new life is manifested in baptism; his public avowal of dependence upon Christ and association with others of like faith is maintained in communion.

Dr. G. W. Bromiley, in his work on Sacramental Teaching and Practice in the Reformation Churches (p. 106), has well summarized the value of these rites:

“To know their meaning and purpose is to be helped to their true enjoyment.… But properly to use them … is to do so with a readiness to see Christ Himself and His saying work, and therefore with prayer to the Holy Spirit that He may dispose of the means which He Himself has chosen and of which He Himself is the Lord.”

Bibliography: “Baptism,” Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, J. H. Blunt, ed.; K. Barth, The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism; A. Carson, Baptism in its Modes and Subjects; O. Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament, trans. by J. K. S. Reid; W. Flemington, The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism; G. H. W. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit; J. G. Lawson, Did Jesus Command Immersion? (rev. ed.); J. Warns, Baptism, trans. by G. H. Lang; A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament; J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus; C. L. Wallis, The Table of the Lord.

Dean of the Graduate School

Wheaton College

Wheaton, Illinois

There are some words we may permit to lose their significance and implications, but only to our great loss.

In a day of cynicism, disillusionment and existential jargon we do well to remember that truth, honesty, love, faith and faithfulness (to mention but a few) are words with deep abiding meaning.

In the realm of the Christian faith there are also words which still have deep relevance to man and his relationship with God.

We are perfectly aware of the fact that many of these words are no longer popular, having been supplanted by others intelligible only to some who devised them, and only too often devoid of any true spiritual significance.

One wonders why words like conversion, repentance, confession, salvation and faith (again to mention but a few) are no longer popular in certain theological circles. Can it be that their significance has been discarded for new concepts, the fruit of human imagination rather than of divine revelation?

One of the most articulate proponents of this new concept has said: “The Biblical revelation of God shows us a God who acts, who reveals himself in events, rather in the imparting of information about Himself. And so neoorthodoxy (rightly, I believe), has misgivings about ‘plenary verbal inspiration,’ since it always runs the danger of leading us to believe statements about God, rather than in God Himself.”

No one questions that the Bible reveals to us a God who acts. Nor does anyone question that, as the God of all history, God reveals himself in events. But we believe that God has also revealed himself in words and that these words have eternal implications for all men.

There are many interpretations of the phrase, “plenary verbal inspiration,” and those who use it should never do so carelessly. But, believing in the complete integrity and authority of the Bible we have frequently noticed that those who inveigh against the emphasis on words are those most prone to deny doctrines conveyed by words.

Some years ago Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, a man of unquestionable scholarship, affirmed with deep conviction that no new discoveries had invalidated one single doctrine of the Christian faith.

Only a few weeks ago Dr. William F. Albright, one of today’s outstanding scholars, said in speaking of recent discoveries: “Nothing has been found to disturb reasonable faith, and nothing discovered which can disprove a single theological doctrine.”

If doctrines are to have ultimate meaning they must, of course, be translated through faith into action. But this in no way invalidates the fact that truth is expressed in words—and it is to some of the words which have great relevance in the Christian faith that we now write.

Conversion speaks of a spiritual transformation. Not only is it a good word but it describes a transition our Lord declared to be a “must”: “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3).

Conversion is a good word because it speaks of passing from death to life, from self to Christ, from time to eternity. It is a good word because it means that the center of gravity of one’s life is changed, the objective for living transformed, the motive of thought and action to know and do God’s will.

Another good word, a part of the conversion experience, is repentance. Not much is said about repentance today but this silence does not mean this change of mind and heart is not a necessity—it just means that some men think they know a better way.

Repentance involves a recognition of sin for what it is and an admission that we too have sinned and come short of God’s glory. Repentance means that we come to grips with the enormity of sin, its offence to a holy God and that we are sorry for our sinful nature and acts.

An equally good word is confession, for confession of sin is an integral part of repentence and conversion.

Confession involves first of all a recognition and statement of our unworthiness before God. It means coming clean with the God we have offended. It means a recognition of our own helplessness to solve our problem.

Confession is also a positive affirmation of our faith in Christ as the Son of God, an acceptance of his as Saviour and a desire that he should become the Lord of our lives.

The Bible emphasizes the significance, the meaning and the importance of these and other words having to do with God’s saying grace in Christ:

Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch telling of the conversion of the Gentiles through the preaching of Christ.

David, in Psalm 57, tells of the chain reaction of conversion—repentance and confession followed by forgiveness, and by spiritual power to go out to others: “Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee” (vs. 13).

Has not God indicated to us here the sequence of events? We become effective witnesses for our Lord only when we have experienced the conversion about which we preach to others.

In Luke 22:32 our Lord speaks to Peter of the conversion experience he was to have (involving a sense of sin, remorse, repentance and confession) after which he would become a spiritual power.

This same Peter, in Acts 3:19, preaching in the power of the Spirit, said to the people: “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.”

The Apostle James declares: “Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (James 5:20).

The Apostle Paul affirms: “… if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:9, 10).

Repentance—the three words, repentance, confession and conversion, cannot be put into separate and unrelated categories—means a complete reversal of direction. In this, as in all phases of man’s conversion, the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit is essential. Where man’s free agency and God’s sovereign grace merge God alone knows. But man’s responsibility before God is a fact, as well as God’s offer of redemption in Christ.

It therefore becomes a matter of the utmost importance, that God requires of men repentance and confession and offers as their reward conversion—a new life in Christ.

Can we exchange these words of such vital import for something else, something which evades the truths they convey?

God forbid!

Pilgrim’S Analysis

Now I saw in my dream that Christian entered again through a door with a brass plate on which was the name, Sigmund Schlaf, M.D.

Christian: Sir, my anguish of spirit has much abated since leaving the dungeon of the Giant Despair.…

Dr. Schlaf: So you feel you have responded to analysis. Are you able to take a balanced view of your earlier hallucinations?

Chr.: Whether the Giant Despair was but the creature of my sick soul I know not, but the blows of his cudgel were very real.

Dr.: And the Celestial City?

Chr.: I have come to bid you farewell. I must now resume my journey to the City of the Great King.

Dr.: I see. You don’t question the existence of this City?

Chr.: No longer, sir. There was a time in the dungeon when the City seemed a dream, but now I know it stands foursquare about the throne.

Dr.: I should like to refer you to a specialist friend at the Peacehaven Sanatorium. Peacehaven has the facilities for the therapy you should have at this time. If you sign this committal form …

Chr.: You still think me a madman.

Dr.: Not at all. At least not what that term implies. At first I thought you had the common symptoms of the normal modern neurosis, but the persistence of certain delusions.…

Chr.: What malady is this normal neurosis of which you speak?

Dr.: I was referring to existential vacuum. Nearly everyone has it. With the loss of instinctual behavior and the fading of social tradition, life has become aimless and meaningless for modern man.

Chr.: So it was in the City of Destruction. But do you point your patients to the Way of Life that leads from the little wicket gate to the garden of the Prince?

Dr.: Unfortunately mythology no longer serves the interest of adjustment to the real world. Retreat into delusion is the way of mental illness.

Chr.: Sir, think you that the Prince, too, is a phantom?

Dr.: I am a doctor, not a theologian. If you wish further treatment, I recommend Peacehaven. Goodbye, Mr. Christian.

Now I saw in my dream that Christian went forth upon the King’s Highway, singing this lament:

Destruction’s citizens do find

An empty vertigo of mind;

The doctor’s diagnosis

Is vacuum neurosis;

His learned perspicuity

Discerns complete vacuity;

He causes blinded minds to see

The darkness of reality.

O Great Physician, grant him sight,

And speak again, “Let there be light!”

EUTYCHUS

Torquemada’S Reaction

Your editorial in the May 25 issue entitled “Uncle Sam or Big Brother?” has been sent to me by my father. I want to commend you for some clear thinking.…

M. O. ALEXANDER, M.D.

Rockford Memorial Hospital

Rockford, Ill.

Your editorial expresses precisely the same viewpoint of Caiaphas. Just as Calvin put the torch to Servetus, he must have said, “Love, mercy, kindness and goodness are superfluous pieces of sentimentality in government.” I think Torquemada from his front seat in hell must have rejoiced in your Big Brother bit.…

O. CARROLL ARNOLD

First Baptist

Boulder, Colo.

The Legs Seem Flexed

The men who write of the “Free Church” in relation to ecumenism (May 25 issue) appear to be taking a longing look at the “Coming Great Church.” They’re not ready to jump on the bandwagon until certain assurances are made, but all the same, they seem as those whose legs are already flexed to make the hop.

Why? Their analysis of the ecumenical fever of our day is on a purely rational plane. Humanistically speaking, what could better meet the exigencies of the global situation than a “framework of collective influence”? But spiritually speaking, what could more flagrantly contradict the whole tenor of our faith than a man-made organizational unity never even hinted at in the Bible, except as an apostate end-time entity to be judged during the tribulation?

When our Free Church friends conceive of ecumenism in its biblical perspective as nothing more nor less than the existing spiritual oneness of the redeemed, they’ll quit worrying … about the feasibility of getting “Catholic and Reformed and Free Church Christians” on the shaky bandwagon of the “Coming Great Church.”

H. EDWARD ROWE

Church of the Open Door

Los Angeles, Calif.

Anxieties For The Church

“Calvin’s Influence in Church Affairs” by J. Howard Pew (May 11 issue) … expresses the fears and anxieties for our church and state of many laymen. From my observation, the church has lost much of its power because of its failure to believe the Bible to be the Word of God. I have been present in small prayer meetings and seen a young minister completely confused, and having to resort to vague and unsatisfactory answers when questioned by sharp young people present, all because he had no foundation Word of God from which to draw his answers.…

MRS. HARRY B. GAUSS

Washington, D. C.

Does Mr. Pew mean that the Church, including the clergy, must now cease its criticism of the United Nations? Should it be quiet about the Chinese government on Formosa? Can it no longer exalt the virtues of “free enterprise”? Must it be silent about the abuses of the Supreme Court?…

If Mr. Pew means this he is going to put a large number of conservative preachers out of business! These men are meddling with social, economic and political questions as has rarely been seen in the history of the church.

W. WESLEY SHRADER

First Baptist Church

Lewisburg, Pa.

• Mr. Pew’s essay registered no veiled plea for ecclesiastical meddling in behalf of conservative causes. His appeal to Calvin is unqualified: “… the Church should not become involved in outside affairs.… the Church has no scriptural authority to speak outside of the ecclesiastical field.… Meddling in politics is divisive and inimical to the success of the church.”—ED.

Howard Pew does beautifully! He shows the cause and power of the Reformation—in Geneva. And it was not a question of theology.

As it was power-organization then, so it is now. And so it is ever. Organization needs correcting balances. And when the balances fail, and the organization expands in power-application, then the Spirit is crushed. Luther was asked only one thing: “Will you obey the Church?” Right or wrong; creeds, orthodoxy, historical truth, had no part in the thinking and proceeding of the Church against him.

JOHN F. C. GREEN

Evangelical Congregational Church

McKeesport, Pa.

May I humbly suggest that the only error the church has shown … is that its efforts of witness in the social, economic, and political realms have been so weak, short-sighted, and without a Christ-centered aim that they have been far too little and too late, rather than as Mr. Pew suggests (without backing of any figures) an increasingly great involvement.…

RALPH F. HUDSON

Eau Claire, Wise.

Interpreting Genesis

The bulk of Dr. Klotz’s argument (“Evolutionary Theory: Some Theological Implications,” May 11 issue) … is a series of rationalistic conclusions from certain premises. It seems to me that theologically the single issue is this: What is the correct interpretation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis? In my opinion—and many of the professors of the seminary of which Dr. Klotz is a graduate share this view—the answer to this question has nothing to do with the arguments about the inspiration of Scripture. If the first 11 chapters of Genesis constitute a form of literature in Scripture that need not be taken as a straight historical account then there is no difficulty, theologically speaking, in accepting the teachings of science regarding the sequence in which various living forms appeared over long periods of time. To Dr. Klotz the fact that St. Paul refers to Adam and Eve proves that the Genesis account has to be taken as a historical one. It would seem to me that this is an assumption on his part which does not follow directly from Scripture itself.…

It is also stated that the doctrine of evolution is mechanistic and materialistic. There is one form of materialism which is to be condemned: this is the view that only material things are real. Since evolution deals with material things it has to be materialistic, in the same way that the study of the brain in terms of neurophysiology is materialistic. This, however, does not mean that those who study neurophysiology must reject the Christian doctrine of the soul. To reproach biology for being materialistic is just as meaningless as to reproach the astronomers for being materialistic.…

In this day and age when all Christians, and particularly young people, are assailed from all sides by materialism and unbelief it would be a pity to confuse them further by insinuating that their acceptance of certain scientific statements would put them outside the pale of Christianity. We live in a world of dualism—in that by faith we see God’s actions, but through the eyes of science we see connections between created material events. We had better face this because there are many apparent conflicts similar to the one about evolution. Viewed with the eyes of a scientist many events are determined by purely materialistic causes, whereas to a Christian they would appear as expressions of God’s will. It seems to me that if we cannot develop a world view that can embrace both our faith and the findings of science, which in my view are also gifts of God, we are doomed to failure in our communication to twentieth-century people.…

M. GERGELY

Retina Foundation

Boston, Mass.

Thank you for printing “Some Theological Implications” by Professor John W. Klotz. There are still some of us around who do not believe that we are “naive literalists” or “fighting fundies,” but we do believe that science needs to be checked and trimmed by Scripture, and not Scripture by science. We will not “interpret” the Bible to fit the world’s demands.

PAUL H. SEELY

San Francisco, Calif.

Gift Worthy Of The Magi

A Soviet clergyman, frustrated by the appalling shortage of Bibles in the U.S.S.R., challenged me: “Why don’t the visitors who come to our country each bring in and leave a Russian Bible?”

From this challenge evolved the offer of one free Russian Bible to each tourist who plans to visit the U.S.S.R.

Last year, many found this experience of participation meaningful and satisfying. Among them were businessmen, housewives, ministers, scientists, doctors, teachers and students.

If any of your readers plan to visit the U.S.S.R. this summer, each may receive one free Russian Bible by writing to: Box 3456, Grand Central Station, New York 17, N. Y.

STEVE DURASOFF

New York, N. Y.

Anti-Semitism

It was encouraging to read “The Theology of Anti-Semitism” (Apr. 27 issue), since this is a subject too long neglected by the Christian churches.…

One paragraph to which I take special exception, however, is the one that appeals to the sufferings and plight of the Jews as a continuing “object lesson” on the consequences of disobedience. While … we cannot rule out the element of divine judgment in Israel’s history, … God has made clear that he stands in universal judgment on all groups.… For Christians it is more fitting, and more true to the biblical spirit, to perceive the divine judgment that has fallen upon our own groups and institutions in the history of the churches and in present-day events. In a sense, Dr. Stephens comes almost to the point of saying this.… In an oblique way, for example, he seems to be stating a fundamental truth, namely, that sinful men are eager and content to discern judgment on the Jew …, while at the same time blindly resisting any application of the same biblical insights to themselves. The hostile reaction of any man to the Jews, therefore, is a self-blinding to the scriptural message, a running away from God and his demands for love, mercy and justice, and a refusal to confess and repent.… In short, the anti-Semite (devout Christian though he may profess to be), whether he knows it or not, in his rejection of the Jew is denying the validity and efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross.…

Christians today, especially in view of the tragic events in Germany, should thus reappraise what it is that God is trying to say to the Church … in preserving the Jews despite the many past attempts of Christians to get rid of them.

BERNHARD E. OLSON

New York, N.Y.

Do you agree that the Christian world owes the Jewish people an eternal apology for persecuting, tormenting and killing them during the last 2,000 years, because of a myth?

LOUIS BERGER

Santa Monica, Calif.

Pacifist Riposte

In the April 27 issue, an article appears entitled “Better Red than Dead?” … The article in question amazes me almost beyond description by saying: “The reasoning that love is the answer is next to preposterous … (Love) is not the whole of Christian morality”! And this in the light of Galatians 5:14 and related passages: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” We must understand that the heart of our Lord’s teaching on this subject is admittedly the “non-resistance” and “love-your-enemy” sections in Matthew 5:38–48 and Luke 6:27–36.…

DONALD K. BLACKIE

Calvary Reformed Church

Grand Rapids, Mich.

Certainly the issue presented by the question, “Why wasn’t this pamphlet given widespread coverage when Russia engaged in its recent testing program?” is [irrelevant]. I submit that the only reason for such a question is the highly unethical one of subtly suggesting Communist influence. Actually it is a silly question for the author to ask. If Russia is as thoroughly evil as he suggests, certainly arguments invoking the Christian gospel are not going to change her mind. On the other hand, we still have a certain amount of respect for Christian ideals in the United States, and there might be a little glimmer of hope that we could get our government to act in accord with those principles.

JAMES T. HENDERSON

The Methodist Church

Jeromesville, Ohio

Mr. Scutt asks: “Why wasn’t this pamphlet given widespread coverage when Russia engaged in its recent testing program …?”

The pamphlet was published and distributed toward the end of 1960! Not only was [it] distributed …, but in February, 1961, the journal Worldview, reproduced the pamphlet in full.…

I agree with Mr. Scutt that the … authors have not come to terms with the necessity of force in international affairs, but as between their position and Mr. Scutt’s rather casual dismissal of the suffering and destruction involved in a nuclear war, I would prefer the former.

HERMAN F. REISSIG

Council for Christian Social Action

United Church of Christ

New York, N. Y.

Critic’S Notebook

One violates a taboo among contemporary theologians and social prophets by raising the question whether, when a minister smokes, he is setting a very good example.

The current ideology in connection with this question is well known and well pondered. We are saved by grace, not good works. Legalism should have no place in our Christian admonitions. Will anyone call Spurgeon a second-class Christian, or deny to Jowett or Campbell Morgan the evangelical label? (Fundamentalism, too, is vulnerable here, especially in the South. It can hardly point the scornful finger at tobacco as the handmaiden of theological apostasy!) And time would fail us to tell of Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth, J. B. Phillips and C. S. Lewis who, pipe in mouth, have put to flight armies of aliens, et cetera.

Others, less famous but no less worthy of the praise of their colleagues for perspicacity and piety have reminded us that tobacco helps soothe nerves and aids in weight control, and that it is better to smoke here than hereafter; in other words (to paraphrase a bit loosely the apostolic dictum) that it is better to smolder than to explode. I expect to see many of these good men of moderation-in-all-things-carnal in heaven where, on good evangelical grounds, I can even conceive of myself (beam exchanged for gleam) as passing muster and gaining entrance at the Last Day.

But frankly I wonder often about this whole matter of smoking in its relation to the minister’s self-image and so make timorously bold, behind this veil of anonymity, to voice a few questions. For instance:

1. Why does one almost never come across a minister who has quit smoking? or, as a wholesome preliminary, who confesses humbly that he wishes he had the will power to do so? There are multitudes of laymen who are ready to testify to their deliverance from this admittedly bad habit. “It was tough,” say they with a bit of the martyr glow, “but I did it. Now I can taste food again!” Or if, as yet, the flesh still wavers and retreats from the awful prospect of life without nicotine, one hears the honest layman croak a warning to young men not yet trapped.

My first question, then, is why laymen who smoke do quit it, or advise young people not to start, while in my experience, which is fairly lengthy, I have never known a fellow minister to stop smoking and have never heard one who was a smoker advise young people to avoid beginning. Why this odd aversion to being candid, and calling a bad habit just that? For what lurking fear are we “over-compensating?”

2. Or take the stewardship implications of the question. Some of us eschew the ownership of a Cadillac or a Mercedes-Benz not because we can’t afford to drive a “fine car” but because we suspect that any symbolic lack of frugality would compromise our witness in a world where half the population goes hungry most of the time. And yet the sheer waste of money represented by the annual tobacco bonfire bill must make very strange incense to the nostrils of Jehovah. I recall a church men’s meeting which was being addressed on the subject of the Overseas Mission of the Church by an outstanding Christian layman, executive head of one of our largest merchandising corporations. The room was blue with smoke, and his audience puffed away without blinking while he pointedly talked about the relative amounts we spend in America on tobacco and on foreign missions. One does not need to insist on smoking as a “moral” question to recognize certain spiritual considerations in its use.

3. As for the health factor, this is a rather weak lever on most of us ministers who abuse our bodies with overwork and under-rest and by snatched nourishment at luncheon committee meetings! Yet one wonders whether we ought to be forever bringing up the rear when it comes to living the disciplined life and keeping the temple of the Spirit in good order. A recent AP news clipping informs us that the British government has launched a hard-hitting poster campaign against cigarette smoking.

“The government is using three different posters. Across the top of each is the word ‘Danger!’ ‘The more cigarettes you smoke the greater the risk of death from lung cancer, bronchitis or heart disease,’ one poster continues. The second version: ‘Heavy cigarette smokers are 30 times more likely to die of lung cancer than non-smokers.’ The third: ‘Deaths from lung cancer are nearly five times more than 20 years ago and they are still rising. The more cigarettes you smoke, the greater the risk’.… The director of a big London hospital called on the British Armed Forces to stop supplying troops with cigarettes.”

The fact that we limit our smoking to a pipe or occasional cigars may tend to increase our life expectancy over that of a fellow pastor who must have his pack or two of cigarettes a day. But this distinction is a bit too subtle for youngsters who are encouraged on every hand to discount what the American Cancer Society is trying to tell them in school health classes. “After all, our minister smokes … and our doctor smokes.” What more could a teenager ask who is looking for rationalizations wherever he can find them?

A syndicated newspaper column not long ago deplored the mounting tide of teen and sub-teen smoking. The author, an M.D., concluded with these words:

“For all this, I don’t want to appear as an apologist for these youngsters. But I must say you can hardly blame them when they see their parents, teachers, clergymen [italics mine], favorite actresses, actors and athletes smoking and endorsing cigarettes. And when they hear those of us who oppose smoking being attacked as killjoys, alarmists, fuddy-duddies and the like.”

4. Question four has to do with our sense of courtesy. There are plenty who are allergic to tobacco smoke, and many more, one suspects, who greatly dislike the smell. These “second-hand smokers” usually try to grin and bear it when subjected to third-degree suffocation. Some ministers consciously avoid subjecting others to their atmospheric tastes. Many do not seem to realize that anyone could possibly fail to enjoy their redolent self-advertising. Most smokers, religious or otherwise, settle euphemistically for a “You don’t mind if I smoke, do you?” If the victim were to say “Yes, I do!” I suppose we would put him in our little book as “maladjusted.”

I have an idea that preacher-smokers fall into three main categories:

1. Those who smoke in order to project a cherished self-image.

2. Those who without so intending have developed an addiction which is riding them whether they will it or not.

3. Those who smoke for pure pleasure, without particularly considering the allergies or scruples of others.

Before we all crowd into category three which is likely to look a little more ethical than the other two, let us briefly recall again that there are a lot of our less guarded parishioners who frankly admit being in category two. Like one of my members who has circulatory trouble and has already lost a couple of toes rather than give up smoking.

As for category one, who would admit such a thing! But I’d like at least to sow some seeds of dark suspicion. Are we a bit adolescent at this point? Are we perhaps trying to prove something which could be better proved some other way?

A PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER

THE CHANGING CLIMATE OF FAITH—Burmese Buddhists are sending missionaries to Europe and America. They hope that the Light of the Dhamma (“The Truth”) will lead the “natives” of those “darkened continents” nearer to peace than they believe the Light of the World has done.

What is more, the lights in the west do appear to be “going out.”

A recent survey in England, for instance, reveals that altho 26 million persons are baptized Anglicans, only 2,887,671 are registered on church membership rolls. In Latin America, long considered a Christian stronghold, 88 per cent of the population are baptized Roman Catholics, yet Catholic authorities report that the “vast majority” seldom see the inside of a church. In the United States, nearly two-thirds of the nation call themselves Christians, the much heralded “religious revival” of the 1950s is now regarded as a will-o-the-wisp, and some American theologians are already describing our age as the “post-Christian era”.…

In every corner of the globe today, the historical boundaries of belief are splitting open.… In West Germany, land of Luther and wellspring of Protestantism, there are fewer Protestants than Roman Catholics.… Old religions, long though dormant, are rumbling with the promise of new eruptions. While Buddhism is preparing to “save” the west, Islam is launching an aggressive missionary offensive of its own, and Hinduism is establishing mission bases as far from its home grounds as the United States, reversing for the first time the traditional flow of missionaries from west to east.

And new religions are springing up to confront the old. Some 120 energetic sects have suddenly blossomed in Japan, embracing between 12 and 20 million devotees. Much the same thing is happening in India. In South America, faith-starved thousands are turning to Spiritualism, a shadowy cult whose worshipers practice animal sacrifice. The Black Muslims, a quasi-Moslem sect, now number 200,000 in the United States and they are growing.… Throughout the world, the climate of religion is changing.

For Christianity, the climate is one of wintry discontent. Despite its impressive plurality in the world (883,803,000 adherents) it has become so “diluted” … that it no longer inspires contemporary culture.… Never has Christianity penetrated so many lands (all but three: Tibet, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia do not have organized Christian churches).…

These faiths, however, are overshadowed by two other religions—“counter-religions” is a better term—which are spreading east and west with tidal-wave force, ramming headlong into the foundations of established belief and rivaling the classical religions with gospels of their own.

The newer and by far the more aggressive of the two was founded just 44 years ago and now possesses the minds and bodies, if not the souls, of half the world—communism.…

The other “religion” is older, subtler, and harder to pin down, for it has neither organization nor orthodoxy, and its high priests are often unaware of their ordination. Even its name is obscure. Some call it “scientism”; some call it “humanism”; some simply lump it into the catch-all category of “atheism.” But whatever its name, it is winning adherents in increasing numbers, especially among the educated of the world’s urban centers.…

Scientism and communism are powerful rivals of the classic faiths—powerful because their aims are man-centered and unequivocal, powerful because they are at home in the pervasive secularity of the twentieth-century life.…

As science reaches farther into space, the easy notion that God is “out there” become more remote. As science learns new ways to combat disease, famine, and early death, these plagues seem less the will of God than penalties for man’s ignorance. And as science probes deeper into the heart of matter and into the creation of life itself, many men find it more and more difficult to discern the hand of God in the workings of the living world.…

The times are ripe for a true revival of religion. In some areas of the world, it has already begun. But it will not be a soft-footed revival.

Today, almost every man is free to worship or reject whatever gods he pleases, regardless of the faith he happens to be born into, regardless of his nationality or race. Few countries still sanction a state religion, and of those that do, less than a handful still attempt to suppress nonconformity.… For the first time in history, all faiths, ideas, and ideologies are forced to compete with one another in the open marketplace of the human soul.…

With few exceptions, today’s religious thinkers believe that a union of the major faiths is neither desirable nor probable, for it would mean whittling the doctrines of each religion to a common core which would be so vague that no faith could accept it. However, there is increasing interest in promoting unity within the several faiths by bridging the gaps between sect and sect.…

Among Christians, a union movement is gathering momentum.… The immediate issue is how to bring together the disparate Protestant groups, which range from “high church” Anglo-Catholicism to the spare theological independence of the Baptists, with a confusing gamut of persuasions in between.… One more barrier was breached last December when the Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches voted to admit the Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Polish Orthodox churches.… Meanwhile the Vatican has announced its first ecumenical council since 1870.… Some Christian leaders hope that this dialogue will lead to a reunification of all churches, while others hope at best for a “commonwealth” of churches. But no one foresees achievement of unity, even among Protestants, in this generation or in the next.… Yet few churchmen deny the urgent need for all churches, whether united or autonomous, to seek spiritual unity which transcends doctrine and practice.…—GORDON GOULD, “Religion Today,” in the Chicago Sunday Tribune Magazine, June 3, 1962.

FIT FOR THE TASK—Take your share of hardship, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. A soldier on active service will not let himself be involved in civilian affairs; he must be wholly at his commanding officer’s disposal.… Reflect on what I say, for the Lord will help you to full understanding.—The Apostle Paul to Timothy (2 Timothy 2:3 ff., NEB).

The men upon whose shoulders rested the initial responsibility of Christianizing the world came to Jesus with one supreme request. They did not say, “Lord, teach us to preach; Lord, teach us to do miracles; or, Lord, teach us to be wise” … but they said, “Lord teach us to pray.”

Where do you suppose the Disciples learned the supreme importance of prayer? They learned it from Jesus. No one has given more encouragement to prayer than did Jesus. The followers of Christ were both encouraged to pray and taught how to pray. They saw constantly the example he set in praying and they noted the direct relationship between Jesus’ unusual ministry and his devout life of prayer.

Jesus considered prayer more important than food, for the Bible says that hours before breakfast, “… in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed” (Mark 1:35).

To the Son of God prayer was more important than the assembling of great throngs. The Bible says, “… and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities. And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed” (Luke 5:15–16).

The precious hours of fellowship with his heavenly Father meant much more to our Saviour than sleep, for the Bible says, “And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God” (Luke 6:12).

He prayed at funerals, and the dead were raised. He prayed over the five loaves and two fishes, and a multitude were fed with a little boy’s lunch. He prayed, “Not my will, but thine,” and provided sinful man access to a Holy God.

It has pleased God to relate his work in the world to the prayers of his people. Noah prayed, and God handed him a blueprint of the ark of deliverance. Moses prayed, and God delivered the Israelites from Egyptian bondage. Gideon prayed, and the host of a formidable enemy fled in fear before his valiant, prayerful three hundred. Daniel prayed, and the mouths of the lions were closed. Elijah prayed, and the fire of God consumed the sacrifice and licked up the water around the altar. David prayed, and he defeated Goliath on the Philistine battleground.

The disciples prayed, and they were filled with the Holy Spirit so that three thousand were added to the Church in one day. Paul prayed, and hundreds of churches were born in Asia Minor and Europe. God does answer prayer.

What a privilege is ours: the privilege of prayer! Christian, examine your heart, reconsecrate your life, yield yourself to God unreservedly, for only those who pray through a clean heart will be heard of Him. The Bible says, “The effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” Pray in times of adversity, lest we become faithless and unbelieving. Pray in times of prosperity, lest we become vaunted and proud. Pray in times of danger, lest we become fearful and doubting. Pray in times of security, lest we become self-sufficient.

Christians, pray for an outpouring of God’s spirit upon a wilful, evil, unrepentant world. Sinners, pray to a merciful God for forgiveness! Parents, pray that God may crown your home with grace and mercy!

Satan trembles when he sees the weakest saint upon his knees—so pray, Christian, pray!—Evangelist BILLY GRAHAM in a sermon on “Prayer.”

The Reformation reemphasized the birthright of the priesthood of believers. The consequence of this doctrine in the realm of prayer is far-reaching in terms of privilege but also of liabilities. It is concerning the liabilities that we wish to speak. The priesthood of the believer means that the individual is admonished to enter into the presence of the Creator (Heb. 4:14–16) to seek mercy and grace in time of need. This doctrine has given rise to the practice of “free” or spontaneous prayer. Consequently among less liturgical churches—I say less, for most churches have their liturgies, whether they call them that or not—it is common practice for the pastor to ask some layman to lead the congregation in the invocation, in dedication of the offering, or in the benediction. Especially in the Sunday school the layman comes into his own. There he leads the group in corporate prayer in the opening and closing services, as well as in the class session.

The practice of “free prayer” has led to definite problems in the corporate worship of the church, among which a prominent one is the stereotype prayer. This can be predicted even before it is uttered. It generally runs something like this:

Oh, Lord, we just thank thee for this beautiful day. We just thank thee, Lord, for all the blessings of life, Lord. God, we ask, dear Lord, that you would just bless us as we worship today, Lord. We just thank thee, God, for the freedom of worship, dear God. We pray for the pastor, dear Lord, that you would just give him words from on high, dear God. Now we just want you to forgive our many, many sins, dear Lord, and Father, we just ask thee to help us glorify thy name in this day, dear Lord, in Christ’s name, Amen.

This stock prayer, by changing a phrase or two, can be adjusted to meet almost any occasion. The words, “Please bless all those who gave this morning,” make it suitable for the offering. The addition of “Bless all our missionaries around the world” or “Bless those who could not be here, and those who are sick,” adapts the prayer to still other situations.

Although it is embarrassing to admit the fact, many churches are bound to this low calibre of expression. Such prayer is decidedly illiterate, grammatically impoverished, full of tautology and of repetitious phrases that Jesus condemned. Even college students who are brilliant in many areas, often seem unlearned and illiterate in prayer. While a book of prayers is not the solution to the problem, it points to an ingredient our spontaneous prayers often lack—forethought!

Obviously God does not answer prayer on the basis of its literary merit. If a layman leads the congregation in prayer, however, his prayer should express the heartfelt thoughts of the group. To do this demands big and vivid thinking and includes the right choice of words as well as sincerity. Too often prayers become occasions for mental vacations.

Generally speaking, the nature and content of prayer have been of concern to the church. Origen’s Treatise on Prayer in the third century condemned repetitious phrases and attempted to give direction for constructing prayers. And the many subsequent worship manuals and prayer books likewise have stressed the need for instruction in prayer. Several things can be done to improve our present situation.

1. The church must teach its people to pray just as Jesus taught his disciples. Because a man is converted and on speaking terms with God does not automatically give him proficiency in prayer. He does the logical thing—imitate someone else! New church members would find it helpful, therefore, to read a book of prayers for all occasions; one good example is worth far more than any number of poor ones. By analysis and study one soon learns, for example, that an offertory prayer is limited to the dedication of the offering—it need not include everything else in the catalogue of human concerns.

2. Every church member could profitably write out a number of prayers. By recording our thoughts to God—giving thanks for his inexpressible love, casting ourselves upon his unshakable mercy, expressing our needs and requests—we can discover what our prayers ought to be. We are not suggesting that public prayer should be read, although some occasions might very well demand such procedure. By writing out a prayer, however, one is apt to remember key thoughts and will be more adequately prepared for public prayer.

In cooperation with Dr. Henry Eason of the Wayland Drama Department, a number of students were asked to volunteer their cooperation in composing prayers for chapel services at Wayland Baptist College. One obvious result was a marked decrease in the repetition of pet phrases. But in the spontaneous portions of their prayers that incorporated the chapel leader’s prayer requests, students tended to revert to their customary phrases. It was also observed that when students prepared beforehand, their prayers improved grammatically as well as in content. Students also tried to express the same thought in different ways. This experiment definitely succeeded in encouraging students to think before praying.

3. A third essential for improving the quality of prayer must come from the pastor or the leader of a meeting. He must forewarn those who will be requested to pray. Often the endless repetitions in prayer are due to the spur-of-the-moment assignments we make to lead in prayer. Taken by surprise, and perhaps a bit nervous, the assignee can think only of Deacon Repeatem’s customary prayer. So he steals the Deacon’s fire and form.

4. Christian people need to learn that there is nothing wrong with pausing to think in the course of prayer. The fear of silence too often prompts us to throw in our favorite phrases like “dear Lord,” “our dear heavenly Father,” “dear Jesus,” and so on. In a prayer of a minute and a half, we heard one student use the title “dear Lord” 12 times. In conversation with a friend, such repetition would sound ridiculous. Pausing to think may very well eliminate disturbing and pointless repetition of phrases.

5. We need to say fewer but pray more prayers. Stop for a moment and recall the total number of prayers given in the course of an ordinary Sunday’s services. Without exaggeration there could easily be anywhere from 20 to 25 prayers. Unfortunately, most of them are the same. Instead of padding our services with “rote prayers” we need to pray more by repeating less.

Perhaps in no other area of our Christian lives are we so poverty-stricken as in prayer. We know that God will not hear us for our “much repetition of words.” And we know that men will not grow in prayer unless we lead them in meaningful prayer.

Perhaps now, as never before, we need to say, “Lord, teach us to pray.”

In his hymn “O Master, Let Me Walk with Thee,” Washington Gladden expresses this request: “Tell me thy secret.” Prayer, I believe, was the secret of the life of Jesus Christ, God’s Son. On one occasion, after he had finished praying, one of his disciples said, “Lord, teach us to pray.” This is the only record we have of a request by the disciples to be taught of Jesus. Scripture nowhere indicates that the disciples asked him for instruction in how to preach or visit, how to organize, or to sing, or to play, or even to cook. But they did ask him to teach them to pray. The disciples knew that Jesus had spiritual power; the secret of that power they believed was his prayer life.

Jesus did not give us many rules about prayer, but he gave us a life that demonstrated the practice and power of prayer. Let me suggest that you read the four Gospels to discover what Jesus’ experiences were in regard to prayer.

Jesus prayed when he was baptized by John the Baptist (Luke 3:21).

Jesus prayed at the Mount of Transfiguration. “And as he prayed,” we read, “the fashion of his countenance was altered …” (Luke 9:29). Hours of prayer do indeed change the fashion of one’s countenance.

Jesus prayed on the occasion when Peter confessed faith in him as “the Christ of God” (Luke 9:18).

Jesus performed his miracles in the power of prayer. One day the Pharisees witnessed a strange thing. They had seen a man sick with palsy brought by some friends to Jesus. Because of the multitude these friends could not enter the house where Jesus was teaching. So they lowered the sick man into the dwelling through the tiliing of the roof. When Jesus saw their faith he healed the man. To those who witnessed the scene this was a strange occurrence. Luke precedes his account of this miracle by giving us this fact about Jesus: “He withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed” (Luke 5:16). No wonder unusual things happened. If the Church today prayed in greater power people would see strange things.

Ministry Steeped In Prayer

Early one morning when Simon Peter and others sought Jesus they found him praying in a solitary place (Mark 1:35). “All men seek for thee” (Mark 1:37), they told him. Jesus answered, “Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth” (Mark 1:38). The Jesus who prayed in the solitary places went out to bless the multitudes.

In the Garden of Gethsemane he agonized: “O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39).

And he prayed as he hung on the cross: “Father, forgive them”; he said, “for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

Christ’s entire ministry was steeped in prayer.

Not Many Rules

Our Master’s rules about prayer were few.

He told us to pray for laborers (Luke 10:2). He himself prayed for Simon Peter. “Simon, Simon,” he said, “behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:31, 32).

In the high-priestly prayer offered on the eve of his crucifixion, Jesus said, “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine” (John 17:9, ASV). Jesus knew that his laborers would witness with their very lives in a needy but hostile world.

Jesus also admonished his followers: “… tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high” (Luke 24:49), thereby pointing to an essential factor for effective service. Both laborers and spiritual power come from our prayer-hearing and prayer-answering God.

Jesus tells us the manner in which to pray. He said, “… enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly” (Matt. 6:6).

Jesus never prescribed long prayers. In fact, he advised against using vain repetitions, and reminded us, “… your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him” (Matt. 6:8).

The prayer Jesus gave his disciples is recorded in Matthew and Luke. It is a revolutionary prayer. To pray “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” will change our lives, our homes, and our churches. We say this petition many times a day, but do we really pray it?

Jesus said, “… pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matt. 5:44). Here is a good place to put specific persons in your prayer list. I guarantee that if you pray for them lovingly and sincerely, God will change you. I know this truth by experience.

Jesus said, “If you ask anything in my name I will do it” (John 14:14, NEB). I have discovered that one cannot ask for spiritual power if it is to be for one’s own glory or even for the glory of the Church. If spiritual power will bring glory to Christ, then ask for it in his name.

Jesus illustrated that “… men ought always to pray, and not to faint” (Luke 18:1) by means of a parable. No matter what the difficulty, problem, or trouble may be, we need not be fainthearted nor defeated. We still have the presence of the Holy Spirit to comfort and buoy us. God has sent us the Holy Spirit that he may abide with us forever.

Plea For A Prayer Table

Jesus had a certain place to pray. I know it is possible to pray anywhere at any time. But Jesus had a certain place. As I visit in numerous homes, I often see a certain place for prayer, namely, a table. On this table are a Bible and devotional books, and sometimes a picture of Christ.

In our homes, we have a table for eating, for cooking, for sewing, for games, even for beauty preparations. Why not a prayer table?

Some years ago a Mr. Brown lived in Meridian, Mississippi, who was known as Praying Brother Brown. One day he took me to a closed door in his home. “Brother Harry,” he said, “I do not let many persons go into this room, but I am going to let you enter. This is Peniel.” Jacob, you remember, had given this name to a place where, he said, “… I have seen God face to face” (Gen. 32:30). What a blessed room to have in a home!

“And it came to pass, that, as he [Jesus] was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples” (Luke 11:1).