The battle cry of the Reformation was justification by faith. The issues at stake demanded that this doctrine be made focal. The gospel of grace is polluted at its fountain when justification of free grace and by faith alone occupies other than a central place. Rome had its doctrine of justification. But it was stated to consist in sanctification and renovation and was construed also as a process out-wrought in the works which are the fruit of faith.

It has ever been the objection that justification complete, perfect, and irrevocable by faith alone is inimical to the interests of holy living. Does not such a doctrine remove the need for and the incentive to good works and the sanctified life evidenced thereby? Paul had to meet this challenge and the Reformers encountered the same allegation.

In a nutshell the answer to the charge is the doctrine of sanctification. Justification and sanctification are inseparable and a faith divorced from good works is not the faith that justifies. Justification is concerned with righteous standing in the sight of God, sanctification with holiness of heart and life. Faith itself is faith in Christ for salvation from sin and acceptance with God. Implicit in the faith by which we are justified is hatred of sin and commitment to God whose glory is holiness.

Definitive Sanctification. To speak of sanctification as definitive might appear to deny its progressive nature and open the door to the fallacy by which the doctrine has so frequently been distorted. But biblical teaching is not to be suppressed or toned down because of an objection that springs from too restricted an understanding of the biblical witness nor by fear of the distortions to which the doctrine has been subjected.

When Paul addressed the believers at Corinth as the church of God “sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints” (1 Cor. 1:2) and later reminded them that they were washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:11), it is obvious that he coordinated sanctification with effectual calling, with their identity as saints, with regeneration, and with justification (cf. Acts 20:32; 26:18; 2 Tim. 2:21; 1 Thess. 4:7; Heb. 10:10, 29; 13:12). It would be a deflection from biblical patterns of thought to think of sanctification exclusively in terms of a progressive work. What is this definitive sanctification?

There are various ways in which it can be characterized. The specific and distinguishing action of each person of the Godhead at the inception of the state of salvation contributes to the decisive change which this sanctification denotes, and not only contributes but insures the decisive nature of the change itself. But perhaps the most significant aspect of New Testament teaching and the aspect requiring particular emphasis is that a believer is one called by the Father into the fellowship of his Son (1 Cor. 1:9). Union with Christ is the pivot on which the doctrine turns, specifically union with him in the meaning of his death and the power of his resurrection. When Christ died he died to sin once for all (Rom. 6:10). And the believer, called into union with Christ, dies with Christ to sin. “We died to sin” (Rom. 6:2) is the answer to all licentious abuse of the doctrine of grace. If we died with Christ we must also live with him, “that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, even so should we walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). No datum is of more basic importance than the definitive breach with sin and commitment to holiness secured by identification with Christ in his death and resurrection. And this relation of the believer to Christ’s death and resurrection is introduced by the apostle not in reference to justification but to deliverance from the power, defilement, and love of sin. The breach with sin and the newness of life are as definitive as were the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ in his death and resurrection broke the power of sin, triumphed over the prince of darkness, executed judgment upon this world, and by this victory delivered all those who are united to him. Believers are partakers with him in these triumphal achievements. The virtue accruing from the death and resurrection of Christ affects no phase of salvation more directly than that of insuring definitive sanctification. If we do not reckon on and with this relationship we miss one of the most cardinal features of redemptive provision (cf. 2 Cor. 5:14, 15; Eph. 2:1–6; Col. 3:3, 4; 1 Pet. 4:1, 2; 1 John 3:6, 9). Believers have the fruit unto holiness.

Progressive Sanctification. It might appear that the emphasis placed upon definitive sanctification leaves no place for what is progressive. Any such inference would contradict an equally important aspect of biblical teaching. No New Testament writers accent the definitive more than Paul and John. Yet John in the same epistle in which he says that every one born of God does not commit sin and cannot sin (1 John 3:9; cf. 3:6) says also, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8), and he sets before the believer the consolation that “if any one sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). For John there is likewise the self-purifying aspect of the believer’s life: “Every one that has this hope in him purifies himself even as he is pure” (l John 3:3).

When we take account of the sin that resides in the believer and of the fact that he has not yet attained to the goal of conformity to the image of God’s Son (cf. Rom. 8:29), his condition in this life can never be conceived of as static. It must be one of progression, a progression both negative and positive, consisting thus in both mortification and sanctification.

Paul’s references to mortification are striking because of the contexts in which they occur. In the contexts the once-for-all death to sin and the translation thereby to the realm of new life in Christ are in the forefront. No place might appear to be left for mortification of sin. It is not so. “But if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Rom. 8:13; cf. Col. 3:5). We are to “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit” (2 Cor. 7:1).

Sanctification involves more than cleansing from sin. It is eloquent of something more positive that Paul should have added “perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” The most expressive term used in the New Testament to indicate the progression that terminates in conformity to the image of Christ is that of transformation. “Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2). “But we all with unveiled face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord, the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18). No text defines for us the fact and mode of progressive sanctification more specifically than the latter. Whether the precise thought is that we reflect the glory of the Lord Christ or that we behold his glory, the outcome is the same. If we behold his glory we also reflect it, and if we reflect it, it is because we first of all behold it (cf. John 1:14). It is a law of our psychology that we become like that in which our interests and ambitions are absorbed. That law is not suspended in this case. But the apostle reminds us that natural factors are not the secret of this transformation; it is from the Spirit of the Lord that the transformation proceeds.

The progression which must characterize sanctification has respect not only to the individual but also to the Church in its unity and fellowship as the body of Christ. Believers may never be regarded as independent units. In the eternal counsel they were chosen in Christ; in the accomplishment of redemption they were in Christ; in the application it is into the fellowship of Christ they are ushered. And sanctification moves to a consummation which will not be realized for the individual in his own particularity until the whole body of Christ is complete and presented in its totality faultless and without blemish. The practical implications of this corporate relationship for responsibility, privilege, and opportunity become immediately apparent (cf. Eph. 4:11–16).

No concept is of more significance, as sanctification is viewed in this perspective, than that of “the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13; cf. 1:23). The stature of Christ’s fullness unto which believers are to attain, not as discrete individuals but in the unity and fellowship of the Church, is the stature of being filled with the grace and virtue, truth and wisdom, righteousness and holiness which have their abode in Christ as the firstborn from the dead.

The process which sanctification involves is, therefore, nothing less than conformity to the image of God’s Son, a conformity realized not through external imitative assimilation but through an impartation of the fullness that is in Christ (cf. John 1:16), an impartation which flows through a life organism that subsists and operates on an immensely higher plane than any form of organic or animate life with which we are acquainted in our phenomenal earthly experience. Christ and the church are complementary: there is no need of ours, no exigency arising from the high calling of God, no demand flowing from membership in Christ’s body, and no office which we are called upon to discharge that is not supplied out of the fullness that resides in Christ as the head of the Church.

The Agency in Sanctification. In definitive sanctification the pivotal consideration is that believers died with Christ and rose with him to newness of life. From whatever perspective this relationship is viewed we are compelled to recognize our passivity. From the perspective of the past and finished historical, it is apparent that our activity was not enlisted in the death and resurrection of Christ. On the other hand, when these events are viewed as taking effect actually and practically in the persons concerned, we are not permitted to think of human agency as enlisted in the decisive breach with sin and commitment to holiness. Even faith may not be construed as the agency in death to sin and life to righteousness. The language used is clearly to this effect (cf. Rom. 6:3, 4, 6, 17, 18; 7:4; Eph. 2:4, 5). Furthermore, the bond that makes effective in us the efficacy of Jesus’ death and resurrection is union with him. It is by the call of the Father that this union is established. And this call may never be defined in terms of human agency. Again, the operative principle by which we are freed from the law of sin and death is the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:2). Thus the agency of all three persons is brought to bear upon this decisive change.

What is the agency in progressive sanctification? It is to God the Father Jesus addressed the intercession: “Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17). And it is of the Father he speaks when he says: “Every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit” (John 15:2). Paul points to the same truth that the Father sanctifies (1 Thess. 5:23). By way of eminence, however, the Holy Spirit is the agent. The Holy Spirit is brought into relation to the transforming process by which believers come to reflect the glory of the Lord (2 Cor. 3:18). It is the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Christ (Eph. 1:17). It is by the Spirit we put to death the deeds of the body (Rom. 8:13). The virtues which are both the marks and fruits of sanctification are the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). It is by the Holy Spirit that the igniting flame of God’s love to us is shed abroad in our hearts (Rom. 5:5). It is the distinctive prerogative of the Holy Spirit to abide in believers, to work effectually in their whole personality to the end that they might be filled unto all the fullness of God and attain to the goal appointed for them. Sanctification progresses not by some law of renewed psychology but by the indwelling and constantly renewing activity of the Holy Spirit.

We are always liable to distorted emphases. Out of deference to all the stress that falls upon God’s agency in sanctification we must not fall into the error of quietism and fail to take account of the activity of the believer himself. The imperatives directed to the believer imply nothing less (cf. Rom. 6:13, 19; 8:13; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 5:16, 25). Perhaps the most instructive text is Philippians 2:12, 13, a text frequently misapplied. The salvation spoken of is not initial salvation but that to be attained at the revelation of Jesus Christ (cf. Rom. 13:11; 1 Thess. 5:9; Heb. 1:14; 9:28; 1 Pet. 1:5; 2:2). It is salvation as completed and consummated that we are to work out. And this means that our agency and activity are to be exercised to the fullest extent in the promotion of this salvation. Hence the implications. Our working is not dispensed with or made superfluous because God works. God’s working is not suspended because we work. There is the correlation and conjunction of both. The fact that God works in us is the encouragement and incentive to our working. Indeed, God’s working is the energizing cause of our working both in willing and doing. Our working is the index to God’s working; if we do not work the working of God is absent. Presumptuous self-confidence is excluded; fear and trembling in us are the reflection of our helplessness. Yet the more assured we are that God works in us, the more diligent and persistent we are in our working. Our whole personality is not only drawn within the scope of, but also enlisted in all its functions in, that process that moves to the goal of being conformed to the image of God’s Son.

Bibliography: G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Sanctification; J. C. Ryle, Holiness: its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots; A. Köberle, The Quest for Holiness; A. W. Pink, The Doctrine of Sanctification; W. Marshall, The Gospel-Mystery of Sanctification; J. Fraser, A Treatise on Sanctification.

Professor of Systematic Theology

Westminster Theological Seminary

Philadelphia, Pa.

Many of the problems of the individual Christian, and of the Church, are brought about by failure to understand our position in the world.

Soon to be separated from his disciples our Lord prayed for them. In that prayer are some significant statements, only too often overlooked.

In John 17:9 we read, “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.”

In verse 14 we read, “I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.”

Again, in verse 16 we read, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.”

Arc we not foolish when we try to blur a distinction our Lord affirms, a distinction the validity of which is necessary if Christianity is to have real meaning?

Christ is unique and distinctive.

In like manner the distinctive status of the Christian makes him unique, and in a spiritual sense, apart from the world. As a new creature in Christ he is different from the unregenerate world in perspective, life and destination.

Then too, the Church as a spiritual organism is unique and distinctive. Composed of redeemed men and women it is entrusted with the message of salvation to those whom the Bible calls lost.

A God-revealed realism demands that these distinctions not only be recognized but maintained at all costs, for it was to this end that our Lord came. “Should not perish, but have everlasting life” depicts both the redeeming love of God in Christ and man’s lost condition without him.

When unregenerate and regenerate men are equated isn’t violence done to the redemptive work of our Lord? The new birth means nothing if it does not mean a supernatural change, newness of life in Christ.

This very difference is a witness in itself. Living in the world a Christian is a citizen of heaven and as such he is to exert a heavenly influence on his earthly environment. Our Lord said that salt is to be tasted and light seen. God forbid that we should lose our savor, or hide the light of the Spirit’s presence.

Paul wrote urgently about this. He warns against blurring the Christian distinctives by conforming to the world.

Some would confuse the place of the Christian and the mission of the Church in the world. We are here to witness, not to conquer, to give consistent and continuing evidence of the transforming power of Christ.

Nowhere in the Bible are we led to believe that all will accept Christ’s universal offer of salvation. The distinction between the two roads, the two gates, the regenerate and the unregenerate, between heaven and hell are never blurred. The “great gulf” is fixed but to all men everywhere Christ says, “Come.” The reality of “outer darkness” and the “joy of our Lord” are determined by man.

Nor can we bypass the individual element in our witness. One church leader has recently expressed the hope that the church should “adopt the principle of aiming at the conversion of whole societies, in contradiction to the traditional Protestant view of aiming only at individuals.” How this is to be accomplished without conversion of the individual is not explained. Christ came to seek and save lost individuals for it is they who make up society.

We may not like the concept that some are God’s children (through faith in his Son), while others are children of the Devil (through disobedience and unbelief), but such is the plain teaching of the Scriptures. Shall we deny the clear affirmations of the Bible because they do not fit our own ideas?

This very distinction makes it imperative that individual Christians and the Church itself shall maintain a clear and unimpaired testimony. The evidence of God’s operative grace should be there for all to see. To continue hampered by the impedimenta of the world spells personal and corporate defeat on the one hand and a lost witness on the other.

When we are inclined to bemoan the powerlessness of the Church in the world we would do well to examine the cause, not compound it. Power comes, not from worldliness in any form but from the Spirit of the living God.

Our Lord’s affirmation that Christians are not of the world, even as he is not of the world, precludes popularity either for the Church or for individual Christians. Ours is often a lonely road. Not for naught does John remind us, “Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you” (1 John 3:13). And then he speaks of the “false prophets” to be found in the world, “They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them” (1 John 4:5).

The distinction between the redeemed and the lost is as real as that between life and death, between light and darkness. Maintain this distinction and the Christian witness stands as a lighthouse for all to see, as salt with its saltness intact. Merge Christianity into the pattern of world conformity and instead of life there is the pallor of death.

Confronted by proposed compromises with idolatory Paul wrote the Corinthian Christians in no uncertain terms: “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils” (1 Cor. 10:21).

The reality of our surroundings is highlighted by the Apostle John, “We know that we are God’s family, while the whole godless world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19, NEB).

How then can we witness effectively in a corrupt and dying world? In a spirit of self-righteousness or condemnation of others? God forbid! We are to witness to man’s lost condition with love in our hearts and praise on our lips. Wise as serpents and harmless as doves we grieve over the death-dues of sin while we magnify the gift of God which is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Nowhere is the winsomeness of Christian love needed more than right here. There should be a brokenheartedness in our approach, an urgency in our appeal, backed by the unassailable evidence of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in our own personal lives.

Our warfare is not of the flesh but of the Spirit. It is he alone who gives the victory, for we oppose forces against which no man can stand alone. For the Church and for the individual Christian the whole armour of God is a necessity. We are engaged in combat with the “unseen power that controls this dark world, the spiritual agents from the very headquarters of evil” (Eph. 6:12, Phillips).

Fight in God’s way, and with his weapons and the victory is sure. Compromise with evil, take up the weapons of this world, and the battle is lost.

Just over 100 years ago the British Association for the Advancement of Science met at Oxford, England. Chief topic of discussion was the idea that all living things had developed over a long period of time from simpler organisms, an idea which had been suggested in a book published toward the end of 1859. Present to defend the book and its author was a young biologist, Thomas Huxley. Opposition to the new theory was spearheaded by a bishop of the Anglican church, Samuel Wilberforce by name. The debate droned on until finally the good bishop turned to Huxley and sarcastically asked whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed descent from a “venerable ape.” Huxley is reported to have replied, “If I am asked whether I would choose to be descended from the poor animal of low intelligence and stooping gait, who grins and chatters as we pass, or from a man, endowed with great ability and a splendid position, who should use these gifts to discredit and crush humble seekers after truth, I hesitate what answer to make.”

The conflict dragged on; there were divisions on both sides. Some scientists and clergymen supported, others opposed the new theory.

The controversy over evolution has continued. Almost all scientists today, however, have come to accept the theory, and a great many churchmen also. What is to be our position? Can evangelical Christians endorse the idea that all living organisms have developed from simple beginnings? Is it true that this is a scientific problem and not a theological problem? Are we being obscurantists in opposing this theory?

God’s Creation Is Not Static

We begin by defining terms. Some scholars hold that evolution is synonymous with change, and they ask whether we would insist on a static universe. Change occurs, unquestionably. Scripture nowhere speaks of a static creation. Indeed, Scripture refers repeatedly to changes that take place in the world in which we live and contrasts these with the changelessness of God. Evidences of change are found all about us. The landscape changes from erosion and deposition before our very eyes. Living things, too, change. We would deny the testimony of our senses as well as the clear statements of Scripture were we to insist on a static creation. The idea of a static creation comes from the Greeks, particularly from Aristotle, and not from Scripture.

This means that we must expect changes also in the living world. Specifically, we cannot accept the idea of fixity of species, a concept developed by Linnaeus. There is no question but that new species develop. The extent of such possible changes cannot be defined exactly. We do not know the exact taxonomic significance of the phrase “after its kind” which occurs in Genesis. The Bible does teach, however, that extent of change is limited. There are fixed bounds. Changes may take place within the kinds but there can be no change from kind to kind. The Bible also teaches very clearly that life existed from the beginning in a wide variety of forms, some relatively simple, others already highly complex. While there have been changes within these kinds, we have not had a development from the very simple to the highly complex.

The Role of the Creator

Most evolutionists today would also insist that life has developed from inorganic materials. They believe that, by some fortuitous combination of circumstances, nonliving material acquires that property which we call life, and that from this very simple beginning all things that are now alive have developed.

Now what has this to do with theology? Is this not strictly a scientific problem? Should we not seek the answers to these questions in the laboratory rather than in the Bible?

We ought first to recognize that the Bible itself speaks repeatedly of creation and always ascribes it to God. There are over 65 passages in Scripture which refer to creation. (These include: Gen. 1:1–31; Exod. 20:11; 1 Sam. 2:8; Neh. 9:6; Job 12:8, 9, 26:7, 13, 28:24–26, 37:16, 18, 38:4, 7–10; Pss. 8:3, 19:1, 2, 33:6–9, 65:6, 74:16, 17, 78:69, 89:11, 12, 90:2, 95:4, 5,102:25, 103:22, 104:2–6, 119:90, 124:8, 136:5–9, 148:5; Prov. 3:19, 8:26–29, 30:4; Eccl. 3:11, 11:5; Isa. 40:26, 28, 42:5, 44:24, 45:7–12, 18, 48:13, 51:13, 66:2; Jer. 5:22, 10:12, 27:5, 31:35, 32:17, 33:2, 51:15, 16; Amos 4:13, 5:8, 9:6; Jonah 1:9; Zech. 12:1; Mal. 2:10; John 1:3, 10; Acts 14:15, 17:24; Rom. 4:17, 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16, 17; 1 Tim. 6:13; Heb. 1:2, 10, 2:10, 3:4, 11:3; Rev. 4:11, 10:6, 14:7.) It is not true that creation is referred to only in the book of Genesis, nor is it true that the doctrine of creation is an obscure biblical doctrine. It is very clearly set forth in Scripture. Throughout the Bible, man’s obligation to God is made dependent upon the fact that God is his Creator.

Mechanistic and Materialistic

Moreover, evolution (except as it incorporates broken fragments of the biblical view) is mechanistic and materialistic, and this cannot be fitted into the Christian framework.

Theistic evolutionists ought to recall the theological consequences of Newtonian mechanics. Newton himself was a sincere and devout Christian. He not only acknowledged the existence of God but he accepted Christ Jesus as his Saviour. He believed that the majesty of God showed itself in the laws which he had established and through which he governed the universe. Yet the logical consequences of his own theories caused Newton great concern, because they seemed to make God unnecessary once the universe had been created and its laws established. The Bible speaks of God as both immanent and transcendent. While Newton believed that the laws of nature testify to God’s glory and to his majesty, his followers applied Occam’s principle of parsimony to eliminate God completely. Evolution at least denied divine immanence, applying the clockwork universe of Newton to the biological world. The universe became completely mechanistic; causal determinism became the watchword. The world of living things is ruled solely, it was said, by cause and effect, and the answer to the question of origins is to be found in natural law. While theistic evolutionists professed to see the hand of God behind natural law and behind cause and effect relationships, many evolutionists eliminated God completely.

Being mechanistic, evolution not only denies miracles, but the very possibility of miracles. It explains these away either as instances of faulty observation and reporting, or as instances where we are still ignorant of cause and effect relationships. Yet it is a fact that our Christian faith rests on miracle. Its foundationstone is the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This miracle was proclaimed by the apostles beginning on Pentecost. This miracle they preached to the ends of the earth. And this miracle is still the basis of our evangelical faith today. It is interesting to note that the clockwork universe of Newton no longer rules the world of physics today. Instead, we have the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg, and while this principle applies only on the sub-atomic level it casts serious doubt on the general principle of causal determinism.

Evolution also denies the reality of sin in the scriptural sense. A strictly evolutionary scheme denies man’s responsibility for sin and thus denies the need for a Saviour. Sin becomes not the consequence of a fall from the state of perfection, but the heritage of man’s supposed animal ancestry. Man acts contrary to God’s law not because he has deliberately chosen to defy God but because, coming up from the lower organisms, he assertedly has brought with him some of the moral standards of the jungle and barnyard. We ought not so much to criticize man for what Christians call sin, as to congratulate him for the progress he has made in overcoming his animal heritage.

Evolution is essentially fatalistic. We have noted that its basis is causal determinism. Even the God of the theistic evolutionist, sketched in conformity with this theory, was withdrawn completely from the world presumably created through natural processes. He neither works nor can he work miracles, since natural law assertedly governs this universe. Man is the hopeless and helpless victim of his environment. Except as an emotional catharsis, prayer is useless.

What about those evangelicals who say they are neither fiat creationists nor theistic evolutionists? Is there an alternative such as progressive creationism or scientific creationism?

Some reject fiat creationism because they believe it demands acceptance of the idea of fixity of species. They say they must accept horizontal radiation though they reject the vertical radiation of theistic evolution. But Scripture does not teach fixity of species or a static universe, and there is reason to believe we have had horizontal radiation—the development of new species within the “kinds” of creation.

Yet some of the concepts developed by those who call themselves progressive or scientific creationists do not really answer the difficulties they are supposed to answer. In an attempt to reconcile the geological record with the Genesis account and to solve the problem of time, many scientific creationists have accepted “day-epoch” or “day-revelation” interpretations of Genesis 1. Even if such interpretations did not go counter to principles of sound hermeneutics and exegesis, it should be noted that to regard the “days” of Genesis as long periods of time does not solve the problem of reconciling the Genesis sequence with the sequence of the geological record. It supplies an easy step to the mythological interpretation of Genesis and to theistic evolution.

What of Theistic Evolution?

What about theistic evolution? Can this be fitted into the scheme of our conservative Christian heritage? Some scholars assert that all who reject the Aristotelian concept of a static universe are theistic evolutionists, and they wonder why we shy away from this classification when we recognize the fact of change. Theistic evolution, however, is more than change. It is the acceptance of the Darwinian concept that all living things developed from relatively simple organisms. Those who hold to this idea believe that evolution was God’s way of effecting creation. They ask whether it would not be possible for God to create in this way, and they ask further whether using evolution as a means of creation would really detract from his glory. We must answer, of course, that God could have used evolution, and that we recognize in the operations of natural law a testimony of God’s glory. Yet it is not a question of what God could do; it is a question of what God does and of what he tells us he has done. Moreover, if God used evolution as a means of “creation,” then he owes us “redemption,” since he would then have created us imperfect and sinners.

Many theistic evolutionists, even in evangelical circles, have accepted a liberal or neoorthodox approach to the creation account. They tend to view the language of Genesis 1 through 11 as allegorical or mythological. They tell us that it is not to be regarded as a literal historical account, but rather as a story teaching “the great truth” that God was behind the process of creation. It is true, of course, that Scripture in places uses phenomenal language rather than exact scientific language. It speaks of the sun rising and setting, and we ought not to regard this as a testimony to the correctness of the Ptolemaic system. The fact of the matter is that we ourselves use such phenomenal language in everyday speech. Although we accept the Copernican theory, we speak daily of the sun rising and setting, rather than of the movements of the earth. Yet the extent and detail of the creation account, and the repeated scriptural references to it, certainly indicate that it is meant to be regarded as an historical account.

The Origin of Man

Theistic evolution necessarily denies the historicity of Adam and Eve. In any scheme of evolution it would be inconceivable to have a single man and woman as the first examples of Homo sapiens. Rather than individuals, Adam and Eve must represent an evolutionary population, the group of organisms which had achieved the status of Homo sapiens. Yet Christ refers to Adam and Eve as our first parents and indicates that he is speaking of two individuals. The Apostle Paul refers to Adam by name (Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; 1 Tim. 2:13 f.). The last passage is particularly interesting because Paul says that Adam was formed first and then Eve. It is inconceivable that we should have had a population solely of males for a period of time before females were formed. It is also interesting to note that Paul here speaks of Eve being formed out of Adam, a clear reference to the creation account in Genesis 2:20–22. Paul makes Christ the second Adam. He compares him with the father of us all. If Adam is to represent an evolutionary population, then Christ also must represent a group.

Logically, any system of evolution leads finally to evolutionary humanism as a substitute for Christianity. It was this of which Julian Huxley, the grandson of Thomas Huxley, made so much at the recently-convened Darwin centennial festival. It is this which G. G. Simpson stressed at the December meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science in Chicago, where he referred to orthodox Christianity as “the higher superstitution.” It is true that there is a fortunate inconsistency in many evolutionists who also are sincere Christians. They do not carry out the theory to its logical conclusions. They still accept Christ Jesus as their Saviour from sin. Yet logically, “euglena to man” evolution can only lead to strict mechanism and materialism which certainly have no place in Christian theology.

JOHN W. KLOTZ

Chairman, Natural Science Division

Concordia Senior College

Fort Wayne, Indiana

Automatic Ecclesian

Our research associates report a positive outcome to experimental procedures designed to determine the feasibility and desirability of programmed instruction utilizing free operant, controlled operant, or classical conditioning for the development of verbal skills in Ecclesian. Made it through that first sentence, did you? Welcome to our little group. You are either a speaker of Ecclesian and a member of five or six committees or you have aptitude that you should report at once to denominational headquarters.

I know that you will be interested in our teaching machines for instruction in Ecclesian. Actually, our researchers worked with pigeons, but they assure me that the stimulus-response patterns they tested should work equally well with churchmen of average intelligence. To be machine-teachable, one needs only the ability to emit responses. (It helps if the subject can read and write, but this is not necessary, since we can start him on the pre-primer program.)

Our Ecclesian “teaching machine” has no moving parts. It is a programmed textbook. More elaborate machines are equipped with hardware to keep the student from cheating, but we assume that Ecclesianists will not peek.

Test yourself on the programmed material below. After filling in each blank, turn the column upside down and read the correct answer. If your answer was right you experience reinforcement—no answer is ever wrong in Ecclesian.

Ecumenical encounter may contribute significantly to the broadening of the perspective of the conversants.

Q: How may ecumenical encounter contribute to the broadening of the perspective of the conversants?

A: Significantly.

Q: Describe the broadening of conversants to which ecumenical encounter may contribute significantly. Broadening of the

A: Perhaps’ but we meant perspective.

Q: Would an ecumenical conversation signify a contribution to the perspective of broadening encounter?

Certainly; just as an ecumenical perspective may encounter the broad significance of contributions.

EUTYCHUS

The Great Commission

“Ecumenical Merger and Mission” by Harold Lindsell (Mar. 30 issue) was a real eye-opener. However, no mention was made of the Assemblies of God with our 800 foreign missionaries besides the ones to Alaska and the American Indians. The Assemblies of God is not a merger either, and our missionary force is constantly expanding as we realize the message of the Great Commission.

A. REUBEN HARTWICK

First Pentecostal Church

Coraopolis, Pa.

Is “the foreign witness of the church” only dependent on the number of missionaries they have on the field? Is not at times a reduction … a sign of wisdom? There are some boards which feel that missionary offerings can best be used to help national churches attain selfhood, undergird their own programs and grant adequate scholarships to train nationals rather than to send an army of North American missionaries overseas.

The premise of a numerical comparison at this point is by no means conclusive. Neither is a great increase in the total missionary giving of a church a sure index because at times these funds are being used in a way which sets the missionary cause back rather than advances the national church.…

It may be best for Latin American evangelical Christianity that some “Yankees go home” and some … offerings be invested for the present in the U.S.A. to evangelize North America rather than create problems for the national churches in Latin America.

JOHN H. SINCLAIR

Latin America Commission on Secy.

Ecumenical Mission and Relations

The United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.

New York, N.Y.

May I voice my objection to Dr. Lindsell’s attempt to unite the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches with the American Baptist Convention.

Instead of trying to increase the ABC missionary force with outside figures, Dr. Lindsell would have done better to point out the combined total of 701 missionaries, for Mid Missions and Association of Baptists for World Evangelism far exceeds the total for the ABC. Add to this figure the missionaries serving with Evangelical Baptist Missions, Fellowship of Baptists for Home Missions, and Hiawatha Land Independent Baptist Mission (all GARBC approved agencies), and one can readily see that the GARBC has an impressive force on the mission fields of the world.

The whole tenor of Dr. Lindsell’s article seems to lend credence to the belief that the loss of evangelical orientation in missionary endeavor is accompanied with a proportionate loss of missionary vision and activity.

JACK BELLAIRS

Grand Rapids, Mich.

I am one who voted for the union (of 1925), and later entered the ministry of the United Church of Canada. The greater part of my 27 years as an ordained minister … has been spent in the Maritime Provinces.…

While having a reduced staff overseas, in our mission fields, we are extending our cooperation with other church groups in these far places. An example of this is seen in our United Church work in Japan. Here we cooperate with the Nippon Kirisuto, or the United Church of Japan.…

As a Maritimer, I am totally unfamiliar with what Dr. Lindsell calls “wounds yet unhealed” which he says were caused by the union of 1925. The church where I worshipped, and my father and grandfather before me, came into the union as simply and painlessly as though we were to have a summer amalgamation for the holidays. I was not aware of any upheaval. One day we were Methodists, and the next we were members of the United Church of Canada, and found ourselves working with a larger group of fellow Christians.…

ARTHUR H. LONG

Westfield Charge

Westfield, New Brunswick

I cannot see how reunion in itself is to blame for lack of power for missions as exhibited in reunited churches.… The basis for reunion is the culprit. Those who say, “We are only going, by different roads, to the same place,” are indeed saying that Christianity is some vague thing and of no real import in the world today. The complete watering down of the faith is the destroyer. Many proponents of reunion are ready to ignore Christ in order to come together. The … only basis for reunion lies in Christ and the Church he founded. Missionary zeal comes from commitment to Christ.

The Church is God’s, and he can do his work with or without denominations. When the denominations begin to see God in his Church, then there will be a real return to the Catholic Faith once and for all delivered to the saints. There are too many people working for the devil on both sides of the ecumenical movement. Those who are opposed to any idea of reunion must need to consider self in relation to the Church of Christ. To be closed to the disgrace of separation is indeed as large a sin as being ready to give all to man’s super-church of pan-protestantism.

CARL C. RICHMONDS

St. Luke’s Church on the Island

Wheeling, W. Va.

The issue on missions was a gem. It has certainly justified my own observations and limited experience, even though this truth is very saddening. But there is an answer on how to evangelize the world, and that is through a missionary conference and faith-promise plan of missionary giving.…

In our own church, it has doubled attendance, increased missionary giving from $800 to over $7,000, raised candidates for full-time service, and led to the conversion of many in less than two years. We did more for world evangelization last year than we did the previous ten. His plan is still best, and still works.

ORVILLE WOLFF

Grace Evangelical United Brethren

Yankton, S.D.

Dr. Kermit Eby’s “New Delhi Doesn’t Excite Me” (Mar. 30 issue) struck a responsive note in my soul. I can’t get excited about “bigness” especially when it is moving so fast toward a monolithic union misnamed unity. I don’t trust big Protestantism any more than big Romanism, for power corrupts men.

Out of 25 years in pastorate, seven years in foreign mission fields, fellowship with men and women of both the Council churches and the independent movements, I am convinced that mere bigness is no surety of spiritual power, but that every time men slice off the edge of conviction to be able to “unite” with some other group, they lose the vitality of faith and often submerge the Holy Spirit leadership under the paraphernalia of bureaucracy.

Let us review Harold Lindsell’s “proposals for action” in his article … humbly and prayerfully.

P. E. WILLIAMS

First Church of God

Chicago, Ill.

Expository Preaching

Professor Lloyd M. Perry reviewed a volume (Mar. 30 issue) that I have compiled and edited, Special-Day Sermons for Evangelicals (Channel Press, 1961). In the first part of the review, he called attention to features in accord with what I strove to do.… In the latter part, he expressed a preference for a larger degree of “direct exposition of the Word of God.” With this feeling I am heartily in accord. Anyone who reads my books knows that I have long advocated expository preaching worthy of the name. But as a compiler of two volumes of contemporary sermons, I have had to select from the messages that I received, and among them I found few that seemed to me expository. For these printed sermons I make no apology. More than a few able pulpit masters, such as Spurgeon and Macartney, almost never preached expository messages, and yet God honored their way of dealing with his inspired Word.

ANDREW W. BLACKWOOD

Philadelphia, Pa.

We’Ll Only Tell Kinfolk

“For depth analysis I prefer a blotter to a couch because.…”

I am participating in your survey (Eutychus, Mar. 30 issue) lest, by sheer failure to do so, I should be labeled a “non-cooperative” in this ecumenical, organizational and program-minded world.

Please forgive my use of blue rather than black ink. I merely seek to retain one shred of individuality. Yet, herein lies the trait that may well nullify my good intent in participating. Please don’t tell on me!

ROBERT E. MANN

First Baptist Church

Mt. Carmel, Ill.

As a daily newspaper editor of many years, this one has learned that most scrawls are not worth the trouble it takes to convert them into English, whether it be done on couch or blotter.…

Every scrawler scrawls in three different forms: (a) on newsprint with soft pencil; (b) on unglazed paper with ball point; (c) on highly glazed paper with expensive gift fountain pen. Specimens of each must be studied to analyze the real character of the scrawler. And it can’t be done lying down.

C. M. STANLEY

Editor

The Alabama journal

Montgomery, Ala.

Book Of Common Prayer

The account by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (Current Religious Thought, Mar. 16 issue) of the 1662 Common Prayer Book is a poignant instance of how a particular stress affects the whole story. In substance, the Fifth Common Prayer Book was no different from the Fourth which appeared in 1604. As a historical fact, the Fifth which the British Parliament agreed upon in 1662 was not so much a reaffirmation of the Reformation but rather a reaction of the Restoration under Charles II to the Puritan changes in the form of worship during the Commonwealth. A continuous acceptance of many of those changes, as proposed by Richard Baxter at a conference held at Savoy in 1661 between the progressives and the reactionaries, was rejected by Parliament the following year. The story of 1662 is not complete unless we also admit that one out of every three clergymen refused to follow the Fifth Prayer Book as a means of worship as their predecessors had done in 1559 under Elizabeth. The Non-Conformists of England and Wales, this year, will have every reason to celebrate the gallant stand of the 2,000 clergymen who lost their livings and suffered imprisonment like Bunyan because they believed that the British Parliament should not interfere in such matters as freedom of conscience and religious liberty.

R. R. WILLIAMS

Llandudno, Wales

The Book of Common Prayer is all that writer Hughes claims for it, but let us not deprive of its heritage a book that has for its origin an antiquity of 413 years—also from a Book (of 1549) which in some respects is superior to any subsequent revision, and to which all revisions seem to tend to revert.

HORTON I. FRENCH

Trinity Episcopal Church

Excelsior, Minn.

Our Heritage

The year 1620 marked the first colony in northern Virginia, established “for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith,” according to the Mayflower Compact. Some years later the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut made a confederation to maintain and preserve the “liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” In 1643 a number of colonies joined and stated their end and aim in coming to this country thus: “Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the gospel in purity and peace”—this is the New England Confederacy. God greatly honored their faith and their stand and made of that small beginning a mighty and prosperous nation. Does he not say in his Word, “… for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed”?

Now we read in our newspapers of the efforts of some to ban all Bible reading from the public schools. The Massachusetts School Law of 1647 established the first system of public education for the express purpose of teaching our children to read the Scriptures.

In the past the United States has been called a Christian nation and has been a land where the Bible was revered and the Gospel preached to the world. Now it becomes necessary to define these terms. A Christian is one who is in Christ and Christ in him because he has believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and has been saved from his sins.…

In 1959, I visited a country in Southeast Asia. It was grievous to see that the people knew all about the United States except the God who had made her great. They had been introduced to our movies, television, electric appliances, engineering feats, fashions and customs, but the Lord who gave all this prosperity had been ignored. I was invited with other new arrivals to a reception at the home of the ambassador. He made a very good speech and then presented a film made by the United States Information Service. It should chill the blood of any Christian. The film showed scenes of the places and people of Thailand and some of the Buddhist religious customs, and summed it up by saying that Buddhism has contributed much to the peace and happiness of the world. The United States Information Service also published a book on Buddhism. The inscription in the front says, “This volume dealing pictorially and descriptively with the life of Buddha has been published by the United States Information Service and is presented to the people of Thailand by the people of the United States on the occasion of the observance of the year 2500 Buddhist Era”.… Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Religious freedom has deteriorated into promotion of idolatry. Christianity is an exclusive religion. Our God states that all others are idols and that he is a jealous God.

When former President Eisenhower made his trip to many countries, I hoped that he would give glory to God, but I listened in vain for any mention of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The results of that trip are well known.

In the United States we have Moslem mosques, Hindu temples, and hundreds of religious organizations that are not Christian. In the light of the stated purposes of the early documents of America, is this what the founding fathers mean by religious liberty? The amalgamation now prevailing will result in controlling heathenism and we can expect the judgment of God to come down upon it. We put “In God We Trust” on our coins and extol Buddha. Jonah warned Nineveh to repent and the city heeded the warning and was spared. Will America have that much sense? Our only remedy is to turn to God—God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. In our present state we cannot sing “God Bless America.” We should be crying “God save America.”

ELIZABETH S. LANDON

Arlington, Va.

Into The Dialogue

Some editor did an uncommonly perceptive and compassionate job on “The Hunger of the Masses” (Mar. 16 issue). I intend to give it some currency in the evangelism-social action dialogue within the United Church of Christ.…

WILLIS E. ELLIOTT

Literature Secy.

Office of Evangelism

The United Church of Christ

Cleveland, Ohio.

Book Of The Month Plan

“Book of the Month” clubs are quite popular in America today. Sharing this popularity is a renewed interest in Bible reading. With the publication of the revised editions of the Bible, people are again manifesting a renewed interest in the reading of the Scriptures. As preachers, we should capitalize on these interests. To do this, one might suggest the use of what may be referred to as the “Book of the Month” plan of biblical preaching.

This plan of biblical preaching puts the emphasis upon one particular book of the Bible.… It is a concentrated effort to learn the nature and structure of a book of the Bible with a view to making its truths alive in the experience of the hearer today.

You might introduce this type of preaching to your people by using the Bible as the first “Book of the Month.” An introductory sermon might be entitled, “How We Got Our Bible.” Here, you could present the facts as to (1) how we got this “most beloved book,” dealing with the development of the canon; and (2) how we know it to be the Word of God. For the remaining three Sundays of the month, you might preach on such subjects as: (1) “How to Read Your Bible;” (2) “How to Study Your Bible;” and (3) “How to Understand Your Bible.” Having introduced this type of preaching, you might proceed some time later by using the same approach with your favorite book of the Bible.…

Instead of choosing sermons at random …, you might choose to preach on a book of the Bible where you could use the basic outline of the book as the plan for the sermons. The Epistle of James affords a good example. You might use as the title of the introductory sermon “God’s True or False Examination.” In this sermon you could use the five major divisions of the book as the outline for your message. This sermon would thus call for a brief treatment of the following subjects: (1) “The Truth about Testing;” (2) “The Test of Attitudes;” (3) “The Test of Faith;” (4) “The Test of Wisdom;” (5) “The Test of Conduct.” In such a presentation, you should always exercise caution so as to present the truth as it is found in the particular book from which you are preaching. You should stress the truth as it is found in the book and not use the occasion as a springboard “to go everywhere preaching the gospel.”

You could fill out the remaining Sundays of the month by preaching on one of the divisions of the book of James. You might use as the titles for these sermons: “God’s Word for Those in Difficult Places” (Chaps. 1 and 5:7–20); “God’s Answer to the Integration Problem” (Chap. 2:1–13); “God’s Evaluation of Your Faith” (Chap. 2:14–26); and “God’s Judgment of Your Speech” (Chap. 3 to 4:13). In these sermons, you would deal more specifically with the passage and devote more time to the practical application of the truth than you did in your introductory sermon.

Using these two general methods of approach, one can utilize any book of the Bible as the “Book of the Month.” He can suggest to his people that they read the “Book of the Month” in preparation for the sermon series.

G. WILLIS MARQUETTE

The Methodist Church

Spring City, Pa.

No doubt it seems presumptuous to speak of the failure of science in a scientifically saturated age. Nevertheless, there is a failure aspect to science which ought to be recognized and exploited by evangelical Christians today. For this failure represents a unique opportunity for the proclamation of the Gospel with renewed effectiveness.

Faith in a New Savior

There was a time when science was hailed as the new savior. It was the modern wonder drug for the age-old ills of mankind, both collectively and individually. August Comte’s hierarchy of intellectual disciplines perfectly illustrates this idea. He claimed that the development of human society patterned the development of man’s intelligence. This occurs in three stages, the first, or earliest, of which is the theological. This is a primitive approach and will be outmoded and cast off in a progressive society, which passes through the next stage, the metaphysical, and culminates in the scientific, or positive stage.

Comte believed that man guided society into this stage by utilizing scientific principles. Darwin’s evolution gave impetus to another viewpoint, which is especially associated with Herbert Spencer. Spencer maintained that the forces that cause progress are not man-made, but part of natural evolution. But however the method, the idea of progress was in full flower, and the optimism it generated continued unabated until it was shattered by the First and Second World Wars. The intellectual world was shocked and disillusioned, and the hope of inevitable progress and belief in man’s “natural goodness” was discredited.

This whole attitude of faith in science, however, is by no means dead. There are a few scientists who still cling to their test tube faith, although they are outnumbered by those who recognize the limitations of their discipline. But it is at the grass-roots level that, consciously or unconsciously, “science” remains a magic word. For many people, to say that something is “scientific” is automatically to verify it.

One need only follow the methods of Madison Avenue, observe the content of advertising, to perceive the effect that “science” has on the average person. Television announcers counsel us to watch their “scientific comparisons,” “scientific demonstrations,” and “scientific proof.” We are constantly made aware of the results of research. This is not to disparge such research, but to point out that the use of such appeal by ad men testifies to the effect on the grass roots of anything “scientific.”

It is time to get the situation in perspective. For such an attitude is not inherent in science itself. The early scientists were not led to worship their discipline by the discoveries which they made. Such men as Kepler, Galileo, and Newton looked upon their findings as validating their faith rather than leading to its rejection. Science of itself does not beckon us to idolatry; to the contrary, it can be used to intensify the wonder and majesty of our God. Dr. Howard Kelly was both a world-famous gynecologist, and a devout Christian. His scientific training did not preclude an evangelical faith. In fact, he arrived at his faith by “treating the Bible as I would any branch of science.… I reached, then, this point, ‘I will see carefully just what the Bible says of itself, and will accept its own dictum as my working hypothesis in studying it’ ” (A Scientific Man And The Bible, The Sunday School Times Co., pp. 43–44). As a result of his study he was able to affirm “that the Bible is the Word of God, with an assurance greater than all other convictions directing my course in this brief earthly pilgrimage” (ibid., p. 41).

Thus it is not science per se but, science wrenched from its natural moorings that leads to its distorted image as savior. If science is contained within its objective boundaries, it becomes a real factor in the enrichment of human life. But unfortunately scientists themselves have abandoned the scientific method and ventured arrogantly into philosophy, metaphysics, and theology. Hugh Elliot, for example, declares that there is no such thing as “spirit” or “purpose” in the universe. Why? Because there is no room for such concepts in the subject matter of astronomers and physicists! “No sign of purpose can be detected in any part of the vast universe disclosed by our most powerful telescopes” (quoted in Harold H. Titus, Living Issues In Philosophy, American Book Co., p. 110). One can expect Khrushchev to point out that the Soviet space probes fail to see anything of God, but one hardly expects such nonsense from a man supposedly committed to scientific method.

In other words, the failure of which I speak is not the failure of science as such, but the failure of the attempt to thrust science into the role of savior. It is the failure of scientism, the idolatrous enthronement of science as the final judge of all truth, the sure guide for every decision, and the ultimate hope for the redemption of mankind. Science fails at this task for the same reason that theology would fail at the task of formulating laws of planetary motion. The only difference is that no theologian, we trust, would be so foolish as to make the attempt.

Many scientists today, as we have noted, do realize the limitations of their discipline. Herbert Butterfield, for example, in speaking of academic history wisely observes:

“… those are gravely wrong who regard it as the queen of the sciences, or think of it as a substitute for religion, a complete education in itself. Those who promoted its study in former times seemed to value it rather as an additional equipment for people who were presumed to have had their real education elsewhere, their real training in values (and in the meaning of life) in other fields. Those who complain that technical history does not provide people with the meaning of life are asking from an academic science more than it can give …” (Christianity and History, Fontana Books, pp. 34–35).

Such perspective will bring science down from its idol’s stand, and make it a tool of man, as it should be.

The failure of science, or, more properly, of “scientism,” can be illustrated in a number of ways. One is the widespread agreement that ours is the “Age of Anxiety.” And this in the face of the flourishing science of psychology! Psychology, and its sister psychiatry, were expected to take care of the psychic, marital, and social ills of man. But psychic, marital, and social problems have shown marked increase rather than diminishing. And there is growing skepticism regarding the effectiveness of psychotherapy. At least it must be admitted that this science has not been able to fulfill its expected role as the psychic savior of man.

Again, we want to emphasize that this is no disdain of the science as such; psychological studies have much to contribute to our understanding of man. But the idolatrous enthronement of the psychic scientists will only result in disillusionment. To understand the pervading anxiety of the age one must not only observe the psychic stresses, the social and political uncertainties, and the rapid changes occurring in every facet of life, but also the crumbling of man’s spiritual foundations. Man, created by God, cannot thrive in a godless life.

A second illustration of the failure of “scientism” is seen in the rise of despair, which is reflected in modern man’s art, literature, philosophy, and even some theology. The most scientific of any age is also one of the most despairing of ages. The reign of reason has given birth to irrational despondency over the meaning of life. Thus we have witnessed the rise of the “beat generation” and the “angry young men,” who plunge to the depths of their hell to pick up handfuls of foul invectives and hurl them at the society they detest.

And we see the atheistic existentialists, forlornly drifting on their vast, meaningless, inpersonal sea. Jean Paul Sartre writes a novel and entitles it Nausea. The newest fiction to come out of France is the alitérature, which reduces man to an atom, bounced around by impersonal scientific laws. In the theater a new movement is called “the theater of the absurd,” which portrays life as disordered, distorted, and thoroughly repulsive.

Every facet of modern art and thought is, to some extent, tainted by this despair, whether it is the philosopher W. T. Stace who speaks of the “disease of existence,” or the painter, George Grosz, who paints a hole to symbolize the “nothingness of our time.”

A third, and penetrating, illustration of the failure is seen in what Cherbonnier has called “sophisticated nonsense,” the absurdities to which science leads those who blindly worship it. He quotes Lin Yutang who has dug up some doctoral dissertations which are sheer nonsense. One is on ice cream, which concludes that the sugar used in its manufacture has the primary function of sweetening it! Another studies the bacterial content in cotton undershirts, and discovers that this content tends to increase with the length of time such garments are worn.

Pitirim A. Sorokin levels his guns at the same sort of thing in the results of small group researchers. He says:

“ ‘The term (of group) cohesiveness refers to phenomena which come into existence if, and only if, the group exists.’ (How wonderful!) Or ‘The members of a group who are … friends … are likely to be more interested in one another as persons, perhaps more supportive of each other, more cordial in interpersonal relationships.’ (What a revelation again!…) Reading these revelations I am inclined to borrow G. Saintsbury’s expressions: ‘O cliches! O Tickets! O fudge!’ ” “Physicalist and Mechanistic School,” in Joseph S. Roucek, ed., Contemporary Sociology, Philosophical Library, pp. 1168–69).

As Cherbonnier observes, “… the irrationalities of an Age of Reason are due, not simply to a residue of ‘prescientific thought-ways,’ but to a direct consequence of the dictatorship of science itself” (E. La B. Cherbonnier, Hardness of Heart, Doubleday & Co., Inc., p. 155). Such irrationalities lend credence to Anatole France’s skeptical remark: “The Sciences are beneficent. They prevent man from thinking.”

Opportunity and Obligation

This failure has significance for the Christian church. It presents us with both the opportunity and the obligation to proclaim with renewed vigor and intensity the biblical message: “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:22). When men become aware that, concerning their idol, “… one shall cry unto him, yet can he not answer, nor save him out of his trouble” (Isaiah 46:7), then it is the imperative of the people of God to capture the imagination of men with the true God, the living God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the situation today. Karl Heim said that secularism goes through two stages of development. In the first stage, man is infatuated with his own ability to create; he is awed by his own technological progress, and thinks that through it he shall become lord of all. In this stage, God is irrelevant. The second stage finds man with a wealth of technological inventions, but a poverty of spirit. He has not become lord; he is an empty slave. In this stage, says Heim, man is able to ask questions concerning God, his own existence, etc. in a way impossible to him in the first stage. Further, said Heim, to a great extent Europe and America has passed into this second stage. (“Christian Faith and the Growing Power of Secularism,” in Walter Leibrecht, ed., Religion and Culture, Harper and Bros., p. 188).

Thus, man’s idolatrous enthronement of science has clearly failed. This failure needs to be recognized at the grassroots level, as has been increasingly done among the intelligentsia. And along with this awareness, the call of God is to a renewal of forceful proclamation of the Gospel of Christ, of the God who “will not fail thee nor forsake thee.”

ROBERT H. LAUER

Pastor

Salem Baptist Church

Florrisant, Missouri

What has been called the “impending tidal wave of students” has now reached the college level. The statistics which formerly were presented to predict this flood have now been corroborated, in many instances, by record-breaking enrollments in institutions of higher education. Total registrations in the nation’s colleges and universities, affected by heavy increases in the birthrate and by a growing demand for educational services, rose from 2,650,000 in 1950 to 3,750,000 in 1960.

In view of the pressing need for a well educated leadership and for an informed membership in the church, it is depressing that a corresponding increase in enrollments has not been reported by those colleges which are Christian in the evangelical sense. Some of these institutions have had a modest growth and others are filled to capacity. But there are also a number of Christian schools which find it necessary to spend large sums of money to recruit students—and despite this expenditure they still have space in dormitories and classrooms for additional students.

This inability to expand has serious financial implications for certain Christian colleges. Moreover, it may indicate a waning strength on the part of these institutions and point to increasing difficulties in the future. Interested and competent observers have predicted that some of the weaker four-year Christian colleges may pass from the scene during the next decade or two. It would seem reasonable to assume that the craft which will not float during the flood will be stranded at the first diminution of the tide.

One of the chief contributing causes to the low rate of growth in some Christian colleges is the growing preference of the American college student for training in a public institution of higher learning. Although all higher education in this country was once under private auspices, the situation is radically altered today; tax-supported institutions have steadily increased in size and influence through the years. The break-even point came in 1947–48 when private and public colleges conferred about the same number of first professional degrees, that is, the bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. By 1958–59, however, public institutions conferred nearly 55 per cent of all such degrees. If the present rate of change continues, public colleges and universities may well graduate 80 per cent of all post-secondary students by 1980.

Where Are The Students Going?

Why do students choose state schools over private Christian colleges? To this question prospective students give a number of answers. State schools, they say, have lower tuitions, better social life, and greater personal freedom. These responses can be met by the Christian college by an appeal to its special character and purpose. Another student observation, however, is one which cannot be answered quite so readily, and that is: I cannot get the courses I need in a Christian college.

The crux of the situation lies in the simple fact that today’s citizen expects a wider variety of services from higher education than most small colleges have been able or willing to provide. These services are offered at public institutions and the student plans accordingly.

Recent studies concerning motivational factors in college entrance indicate that, particularly with boys, college aspirations are often expressed in terms of vocational goals. Young men speak of going to medical school, to law school, or to engineering school rather than to a particular institution. That this initial intention is often realized is witnessed by the distribution by fields of the degrees awarded in the various four-year institutions in the United States for any current year. The distribution for 1958–59 was as follows:

The bachelor’s degree in education is ordinarily awarded to those who have majored in teaching on the elementary school level, and it is not surprising to find that 70 per cent of these are women. However, 93 per cent of the business and commerce degrees, nearly 100 per cent of the engineering degrees, 71 per cent of the social science degrees, and 63 per cent of the degrees in the health professions were conferred upon men. Most of these latter areas are not ordinarily emphasized in Christian colleges.

One hundred years ago both the formally educated and the uneducated had good prospects for personal success somewhere in American society. At that time, technical knowledge had not outstripped man’s ability to master a field in his lifetime. Today the proliferation of knowledge is so vast that it is all a man can do to keep abreast of the general trends in a single field, and to develop some skill in one branch of that. This is the age of specialists and of experts. In this context, higher education must not only disseminate the rapidly expanding body of knowledge, but must also provide the facilities for further research. However, the courses currently required to equip men and women with the specialized knowledges and skills for this task are not offered in many Christian colleges. As a result, young believers who feel called to serve the Lord in business or industry are often compelled to enroll in secular institutions which lack the peculiar benefits which attach to the climate of Christian schools.

Another Competitor Is Rising

A further threat to the security of the smaller Christian college is the increasingly popular community college. Up to now, many of these institutions have gained the larger part of their tuition fees from freshman and sophomore students. After these two years, large scale dropouts occur due to financial or academic difficulties, to marriage, and to transfer to larger schools which offer needed courses and greater academic and professional privileges.

Inasmuch as the community college provides for these first two years of college work, and often does so without tuition cost while the student continues to live at home, the Christian college will doubtless feel this competition. By attracting new students and by diverting others from the four-year institutions, the junior college is expected sometime during the 1970’s to account for perhaps one out of every three first-time college enrollees. How many potential Christian college students will be siphoned into these schools should be a matter of purposeful concern.

The Financial Picture

Student recruitment, however, is only one of the many problems of college administration today. Financial crises are common. While several well-filled institutions are in a position to deal selectively with applicants, and have been able to raise tuition rates somewhat realistically, many less fortunate schools have had to face the competition of state colleges and even of fellow schools. To meet this pressure they, therefore, may peddle learning at bargain rates—but certainly not because they can afford to do so financially.

Even high tuition charges cannot cover a student’s full expense to the college. Gifts and grants are necessary in any institution to make up the difference between the cost and selling price of higher education, and also to provide for capital needs. Except for government aid (which contributes little or nothing to small, private institutions) financial assistance to higher education comes principally from business, from alumni, and from other individuals. How much can the average Christian college expect to receive from each of these sources?

A survey conducted by the National Industrial Conference Board of the contributions of 280 companies for the year 1959 revealed that only.42 per cent of the $98.6 million reported went to religious causes. It is well known that many corporations discount all requests for assistance from institutions that have religious affiliations, and this discrimination applies to non-denominational Christian schools as well. There is, however, a growing voice in some educational circles for the return of spiritual content to learning; it may be, therefore, that an appeal may yet be formulated which will tap the resources of business and industry for evangelical institutions. At the same time, it is unrealistic to imagine that corporations will invest their funds in ventures that appear to be poorly organized, impractical, and likely to fail. Business does not ordinarily contribute money on the basis of need; rather it underwrites promising ventures that have challenging goals. At the moment, business is devoting very little to the Christian college.

Alumni giving, a form of “living endowment,” is disappointing in the smaller Christian college. Even where the percentage of response to the annual fund appeal is good, the total income derived in this manner is usually small compared to the needs of the institution. Some of the smaller schools are of recent origin and, therefore, have few alumni. Moreover, many of these Christian college alumni are missionaries and ministers whose work is not ordinarily highly remunerative.

The remaining financial resource for the small institution lies in those individuals who have been blessed with a sense of divine stewardship. Among these are the many, who have little of this world’s goods, and the few, who have more than a little. To develop a broad-based program of support from many donors of small gifts is expensive, and requires the talents of an expert. Efforts to secure large individual contributions may also call for professional assistance. However they may be secured, gifts from individual donors are at this time the most hopeful prospect for the smaller college.

The Problem Of Faculty

A third aspect of the dilemma facing the Christian college today concerns faculty. As their financial security becomes uncertain, professors may yield to offers of better remuneration in other institutions or in business. One must be deeply thankful that because of a spirit of loyalty and dedication to Christ and to his appointment good professors have often elected to remain with their struggling institutions. At the same time it must be remembered that, in many cases, this dedication is equivalent to an annual contribution of several thousand dollars.

It is impractical to suppose, however, that quality teaching can be maintained under such circumstances. Institutions which have managed to hold their faculties are temporarily in good shape, but it will be increasingly difficult to replace those who die, retire, or leave, for anything like the same salaries. Someone has said that institutions die hard, and this may indeed be true of colleges. But their fate would be worse than death itself it the quality of instruction ultimately reached the level of the usual salary scale of professors!

While these problems are not the only ones faced by the Christian college they are certainly among the most pressing. To solve, or even to alleviate these particular difficulties would help in resolving some of the others also.

The situation today calls for thoughtful and deliberate cooperation, intelligent, long-range planning, and prompt action by those institutions which are determined not only to survive, but also to meet the demands of the hour in an energetic manner. The most valuable and essential resource at this time is consecrated courage to face the situation realistically, and to exercise the proper measures in good time.

Ideas, Vision And Action

Obviously most institutions do not individually possess the resources to make surveys, hire experts, and construct adequate plans for their long-term growth. Moreover, they cannot singly and independently plan a comprehensive program to meet the needs of the entire Christian community. By working together, however, a number of them could cooperatively chart the activities of the several institutions with great profit for all concerned. Through a diversity of curriculum on the part of the many, and specialization on the part of the few, an academic program of quality and depth could be realized to utilize the resources of all the schools and vitalize their function in the society of believers.

The extent and complexity of the problems involved make it quite unlikely that any one individual can depict the one “best” proposal for engaging evangelical institutions in a cooperative effort. In the interests of evoking further discussion, however, and in anticipation of some possible action we offer the following suggestions for earnest consideration:

1. Let some qualified person, institution or agency call together the presidents of the Christian colleges, along with representatives front their boards of control and of their faculties to delineate the needs and challenges of Christian higher education.

2. Let these educational leaders determine an appropriate plan of action and a program for its implementation.

3. Let the plan and program include such items as the following: a survey of the human resources, both of students and faculty, of all the schools represented; a study of those subjects or fields not currently offered in the curricula of the Christian colleges; and an exploration of possible cooperation with community junior colleges in complementing the lower division work of those institutions.

4. Let the plan and program indicate a division of labor among the Christian colleges whereby the desires of all the boards and faculties, the abilities, geographic and other variables would help determine which institutions are best prepared to handle given specializations and responsibilities.

5. Let these institutions anticipate further consultation and cooperation to evaluate and to adapt the program in terms of changing conditions and needs.

From the complex of evangelical colleges this endeavor should produce at least one, and perhaps several, Christian schools where Christian young people could secure the instruction, guidance, and training they consider necessary for their vocational and professional aspirations. The Christian community as a whole would benefit from this expansion, and also the individual institution. Through the specialization it chose to develop, each college would profit from others’ increased support.

Such a venture would not require participating institutions to surrender any of their special distinctives. Each school would continue to operate under its own board and according to the guiding principles of its own charter. Both in curricular and extra-curricular pursuits each college would practice its own characteristic program of living Christianity.

No doubt considerable labor and expense would be involved in conducting the basic studies and surveys. It is possible, however, that a cooperative program as indicated above might be endorsed and supported by one or more philanthropic foundations. At least, such assistance should be sought.

Some Christian colleges have found it helpful to work cooperatively in fund raising through an organization such as the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges. Others have cooperated in sports and in efforts toward accreditation. However, the need at this time is for cooperation along academic lines. Strong secular institutions have found it advantageous to cooperate in meeting present educational needs. Certainly, then, Christian colleges have even greater need to do so. Perhaps, in view of the scriptural admonitions to unity in the Body of Christ, Christian colleges have also the greater motivating purpose.

RONALD C. DOLL¹Ronald C. Doll at the recently chartered City University of New York is organizing a doctoral program in administration and supervision of elementary and secondary schools. Formerly Professor of Education at New York University, he holds the B.A., M.A., and Ed.D. degrees from Columbia University.

How are adolescents changing with the times? At New York University in 1960, Merrill Harmin defended his doctoral dissertation on the intriguing title “Have Adolescents Changed?” Harmin observed that between 1946 and 1956 adolescents had gained in knowledge, curiosity, understanding of other persons, occupational certainty, political insight, and interest in acquiring an education. However, they had demonstrated more concern for present than for future; more relationships with peers, and a greater conformity to standards of these age mates; less respect for adults; more cynicism about their role in improving society; less patience for being alone, and correspondingly greater desire to be with the crowd; more tendency to differentiate among social classes; and more anxiety.

Only perennial attackers of the young will rejoice at these words. One can hear them say, “We told you so. Young people in our day were superior.” Actually, across a wide range of characteristics, the generations show marked similarity, and any unfortunate differences may be attributed chiefly to those of us who have lived long enough to help mold our materialistic civilization.

But what shall we say of American youth at midcentury? We may be sure that they possess much knowledge. Most parents realize that when they themselves were young, they knew less. Test statistics tend to support this realization. For several reasons, of course, today’s youngsters should know more. Exactly as Daniel prophesied, knowledge is steadily increasing while many run to and fro. Schools are offering varied experiences in breadth, and some experiences in depth. The printed word surrounds us, and it is continuously augmented and reinforced by television, radio, motion pictures, and other mass media. Never in the history of the world has there been so much information. However, a hard truth in 1962 is this: young people between the ages of 12 and 25 have more knowledge than youth have had in any previous generation, but they are somewhat lacking in wisdom. They have the facts, but they don’t know what to do with them.

Lack Of Spiritual Dimension

Unfortunately, the information the young possess does not substitute for wisdom. Most youth today have contact with some human wisdom but with little of the wisdom that comes down from above. How could they when the schools are secularized, the home has no altar, and the church has too frequently lost its message? The consequence, now and in the future, is almost certain to be a generation that knows not what it believes, that lacks valid principles against which to make life’s decisions, and that has no enduring, central core of values.

A dozen pieces of recent inquiry tend to support these statements. A review of four representative ones appears below:

1. In 1957, Philip Jacob, writing in Changing Values in College, reported that American college students showed marked uniformity; that three-fourths of them were “gloriously contented” with things as they were; that they aspired mostly to material gratification; that they fully accepted the conventions of their society; that they believed in sincerity, honesty and loyalty, but winked at moral laxity; that they were well informed; and that they expressed hollowly their need for “religion.”

2. At about the same time, Gillespie and Allport published a study of the values of college youth in ten nations. They found American students, in comparison with their foreign counterparts, frank, open, unsuspicious, and cooperative, but self-centered, passive, and unadventuresome.

3. George Gallup and Evan Hill, who discussed the “cool generation” in The Saturday Evening Post (Dec. 30, 1961, issue), concluded that “the largess of the father has weakened the son.” Of the 3,000 young people between 14 and 22 who were questioned in a lengthy Gallup Poll, most appeared to be knowledgeable, pampered houseplants. The American youth, say Gallup and Hill,

is a reluctant patriot who expects nuclear war in his time and would rather compromise than risk an all-out war. He is highly religious yet winks at dishonesty. He wants very little because he has so much and is unwilling to risk what he has. Essentially he is quite conservative and cautious. He is old before his time; almost middle-aged in his teens.

While he has high respect for education, he is critical of it—as he is about religion—and he is abysmally ignorant of the economic system that has made him what he is and of the system that threatens it. [Certainly this is a major deficiency in his knowledge.]

In general, the typical American youth shows few symptoms of frustration, and is most unlikely to rebel or involve himself in crusades of any kind. He likes himself the way he is, and he likes things as they are.

4. Major Mayer, of the United States Army’s special psychiatric study, has reported in speeches in many American cities the tragic yielding of American prisoners of war to Communist brainwashing during the Korean conflict. His statistics are appalling: only 5 per cent of the American prisoners genuinely resisted brainwashing; the 5 per cent were almost uniformly of strong religious faith or of thorough, values-oriented education; the Turkish prisoners, who seemed to know what they believed and what they stood for, had the best record for staying alive under adverse conditions; and a higher percentage of Americans simply lay down and died in the prison camps of North Korea than had given up their lives as prisoners in any of our previous wars since the days of the disease-ridden American Revolutionists. According to Mayer, “give-up-itis” resulting in death occurred without medical cause. Numerous additional prisoners, lacking built-in values and principles to counter it, yielded to gentle, clever onslaughts of Communist propaganda.

The Need Of Regeneration

These studies show that our young people know many things about their world, have certain commendable attitudes, and, to a degree, exhibit signs of mental health. Running through the findings, however, is a disturbing sense of youth’s uncertainty, its lack of real purpose, and its failure to fix upon a core of life meanings. When young Americans view standards of behavior relatively; when they feel contented with themselves and the present condition of their world; when they wink at moral laxity; when they show themselves to be self-centered and materialistic; when they readily yield to Communist propaganda, they need regeneration. Merely “growing up” will not satisfy their needs when the growing must be done in the midst of a sick society.

The sickness of our society is manifested in the failure of our people to interfere with physical attacks on defenseless persons in public places, while observers say, “It is none of our business.” The sickness is manifested further in a view commonly held by foreigners that our chief export is advocacy of sin, especially in the form of salacious literature and suggestive motion pictures. Youth who are already confused about their values and beliefs find damaging experiences increasingly available to them. Adolescents easily enter motion picture houses that show pictures “for adults only.” In many public and private schools, our young people are being invited to read material like J. D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye and his Franny and Zooey, novels that have attained first place on the best-seller lists and are being acclaimed as excellent modern literature. Disoriented modern youth are finding in this “literature” enough perversions to disorient them further. The perversions are spiced with interesting, simple, profane language:

“Let’s go, chief,” old Maurice said. Then he gave me a big shove with his crumby hand. I damn near fell over on my can—he was a huge sonuvabitch. The next thing I knew, he and old Sunny were both in the room. They acted like they owned the damn place.…” (From J. D. Salinger, Catcher in the Rye, Signet Paperback Edition, p. 93).

The Attack On Christianity

The average college bookstore contains books attacking Christianity, Judeo-Christian traditions, and American institutions. The total effect on the young person who lacks belief and commitment is a willingness to accept and act upon those values to which he has been exposed most recently. Evil begins to resemble good, and black soon looks like white. Uncertainty and laissez-faire become pervasive attitudes. After a while, the youth says to himself and others, “Isn’t everything relative? Why shouldn’t I roll with the moral and ethical tide? What can I be sure of, anyway?”

We cannot expect American youth to develop valid beliefs and values fortuitously. Young people will never get what they need from the trash they are viewing and reading. Nor will they find appropriate beliefs and values in the great literature of the ages, Messrs. Hutchins and Adler notwithstanding. They must find them exemplified in the lives of parents, teachers, and church leaders who know Christ and who endure the test in times of ethical and moral crisis. They are sure to find them in the Word, which is still a light unto man’s path and a lamp unto his feet. If they are Christians, they will be guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Need Of Wisdom

The Bible makes a distinction between knowledge and wisdom. It upholds knowledge as a necessity for man’s functioning, but it identifies the acme of human functioning as the wisdom of Solomon. Solomon knew a great deal, but, more significantly, he had the God-given power to organize his knowledge for decision-making about the crucial issues of life. The Bible says that fear of the Lord is wisdom, that divine wisdom stands preeminently above the wisdom of men, and that prayer serves as a spiritual pipeline through which we have access to the source of ultimate wisdom. In these terms, the dictionary definition, “ability to judge soundly and deal sagaciously with facts,” takes on special meaning.

In our own day, something definite and concerted must be done to strengthen and coordinate the work of church, home, and school in rebuilding beliefs and values. Too many of us are already standing for nothing and falling for everything. In our desire not to offend and in our zeal to protect the rights of minorities, we are losing the strength and power of our witness. There is little wonder, then, that in the environment we provide, our children lack the wisdom to make sound judgments and to order their facts for effective decision-making. Somehow we must take positive action to alter the current picture of American youth by changing the influences that makes young people vacillating, uncommitted, and unwise.

In the summer of 1960, I stood in the Church of St. Peter in the city of Geneva. This beautiful Gothic structure was once a Roman Catholic cathedral. But in May of 1536, the City councillors and leading citizens stood within the walls of that cathedral and solemnly swore to accept the Gospel for the sole rule of their faith and life; and at the same time resolved to have done with all masses, images, idols, and other objectionable rituals. Unfortunately, neither the council nor the people knew anything about the principles of the Gospel; but they were sick and tired of the political domination of the bishop and were determined to rid Geneva of the immoral influence of the priests. Their adoption of Protestantism was not due to their conversion, but rather to their desire for political freedom.

They invited a visiting Frenchman to organize the new Protestant church. This was John Calvin. At the beginning of the Reformation era, Geneva was a city of moral filth. Bishop and priests set a woeful example of debauchery. Encouraged and inspired by this example, the people engaged in all kinds of vice and corruption. Every third house was a tavern. Public and private parties were followed by wild orgies. Geneva, indeed, presented a deplorable picture.

Then, in the course of the next 28 years, Calvin was instrumental in uplifting the city from its moral filth to a worldwide example of civic righteousness.

While the decadence in American life has not yet reached that which obtained in Geneva in the early part of the sixteenth century, the statistics, with which we are all familiar, indicate that crime, delinquency, immorality and unethical practices are increasing at an alarming rate.

Light From The Archives

It was this frightening moral decadence in American life that prompted our study of the reformation of Geneva, in the hope that it might provide a key to a program of reform for this country. Fortunately we found in the archives of Geneva the exact information which we were seeking.

One of the first things Calvin did in organizing the new Protestant church was to set up two groups: one he called the “Consistory”—this was composed of five ministers and twelve lay elders; the other he called the “Company of Pastors”—this was composed solely of ministers. Calvin himself was a member of each of these groups. They met independently once a week. Minutes were kept of many of these meetings. We now have in our possession the microfilms of these minutes. In one or another of these 2,000 odd meetings and in other writings, Calvin’s philosophy and beliefs dealing with a wide gamut of human affairs are recorded. Why this information was not brought to light long before this, is difficult to understand. It would have avoided much published misinformation about his life and work.

The ecclesiastical body known as the “Consistory” was limited to spiritual jurisdiction. The Constitution stated, “All this is to be done in such a way that the ministers have no civil jurisdiction and wield only the spiritual sword of the Word of God, as St. Paul commands them.” The Consistory could reprove according to the Word of God. The severest punishment it could mete out was excommunication. It was denied any civil jurisdiction.

The ecclesiastical body known as the “Company of Pastors” had in its constitution that the pastor’s duty was “to preach the Word of God, to instruct, to admonish, to exhort and reprove in public and in private, to administer the sacraments, and, with the Consistory, to pronounce the ecclesiastical censures.”

The minutes of these groups reveal that the great emphasis of the Reformer was on the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. He believed the Bible to be the inspired and infallible Word of God. He believed that the laymen should have an important part in the work of the church. He believed that the Church should not become involved in outside affairs. In support of this position, he stated that the church had no scriptural authority to speak outside of the ecclesiastical field. He contended that the time and energy of the pastor should not be taken from the important task of saving souls. And he further stressed that meddling in politics was divisive and inimical to the success of the church. Almost every day Calvin lectured and preached from the sacred pages. These biblical messages, spoken in plain language, brought about a reformation in the hearts and lives of the Genevans.

So successful was this emphasis on the knowledge of the Scriptures that Geneva became the theological center of the world. Ministers trained in Geneva went forth to many nations. One-third of France was converted by ministers trained under Calvin. Then the Protestants, over the protests of Calvin, resorted to politics and physical warfare, with the result that France was lost to Protestantism.

The Role Of Laymen

It is interesting to note that with the important role Calvin gave to laymen, they for the first time in many centuries had a part in running church affairs. This was a return to the biblical teaching of the priesthood of all believers and the practice of the early Church. As a matter of fact the First Century Church grew in influence and power far beyond that of any subsequent period, because the laymen were largely responsible for the spread of the Gospel. Since Calvin’s time the genius of the Protestant system is that it gives a vital place to laymen.

There are many things which we laymen can do:

First: Spreading the Gospel, by our life and witness.

Second: Relieving the minister of many of his responsibilities so that he can devote the major portion of his time to the things of the Spirit.

Third: Helping prepare policy and program, particularly at the higher judicatory levels.

Finally: Providing the money necessary for our church to carry out those things for which it has a clear responsibility.

On Church And Politics

The place that Calvin gave to laymen in conducting the affairs of the church is quite the opposite of those statements which have frequently been made indicating that he attempted to set up a theocracy in Geneva whereby the clergy ruled the city. It has often been stated that Calvin was a dictator and dominated the civil affairs of Geneva. The minutes of the Consistory and pastors reveal the very opposite. Calvin struggled continuously to establish a church free from state control, and was equally opposed to the church using its power to influence civil affairs. In a letter to Zürich in 1555, Calvin wrote:

I know well that the impious everywhere cry out that I aspire with an insatiable passion to political influence, and yet I keep myself so strongly separated from all public affairs, that each day I hear people discoursing upon subjects of which I have not the least knowledge. The government has recourse to my counsels only in grave affairs, when it is irresolute or incapable of deciding by itself.

The freedom of the church to proclaim the Gospel; the right of the church to regulate her own spiritual life; and the willingness of the church to adhere strictly to the ecclesiastical sphere—these were the principles that brought success to the Reformation.

The Reformation prevailed in Switzerland, Holland, Rhenish Germany, Scandinavia, Scotland, England, Wales, and Colonial America. It is no mere coincidence that those nations, where the church adhered to the Reformation principles, experienced the greatest measure of religious and political liberty. It is no mere coincidence that those nations produced the rugged individuals who pioneered in every field of human endeavor. It is no mere coincidence that those nations were known for their integrity, decency and thrift. It is no mere coincidence that those were the nations which developed the greatest industry and wealth in fulfillment of the Lord’s promise: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” Let the church be the church and social, economic and political blessings will follow.

Our nation is losing its precious Reformation heritage and its attendant blessings. And I suggest to you that it is because the church no longer strongly believes the Bible to be the very Word of God, and, too, because she has left her proper spiritual sphere to meddle with social, economic and political affairs.

During the last 50 years, the church has caused many to doubt the trustworthiness and infallibility of the Bible. And is it not true that within the last 50 years the church has gradually lost her former powerful influence over the life of the nation?

During the last 50 years, the church has increasingly become involved in social, economic and political affairs. And is it not true that during this period the spiritual and moral life of our nation has deteriorated to a frightening degree?

The Church’S Great Mandate

I have come in contact with hundreds of clergymen who believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God, and who deplore the church meddling in economic, social and political affairs. But we laymen have done little to strengthen their hands. The Reformation gave the laymen a responsible place in the church. Are the laymen going to abdicate their rights; or are they going to insist that the church limit her activities to those mighty spiritual weapons that have so wonderfully blessed this nation in the past?

I have been speaking as a Presbyterian layman from the background of my Calvinistic heritage. But a Lutheran layman, a Baptist layman, a Methodist layman, an Episcopalian layman—each could give the same witness. Your church’s strength and mine was built up by faith in Christ and his infallible Word. Your church’s growth and beneficent influence on the life of our nation was due to an exclusive use of spiritual weapons. All of our Protestant creeds, without exception, give witness that the Bible is our infallible guide for faith and morals. And the history of every one of our denominations shows that its greatest strength came during that period when it placed first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.

Our beloved nation faces a greater danger of being destroyed by moral decadence than by Russia. Our desperate need is a Reformation. That will come only as you and I labor to restore the church to her God-given jurisdiction and to her God-given spiritual weapons.

Christianity Versus Communism

I believe that the church is the only institution that can save this country from communism. The reason for this is quite simple. Communism is atheistic; the church is Christian. The one is the very antithesis of the other. The church must inculcate in the minds and hearts of its people that God alone is the Lord of Creation. When the church takes its stand that man is a creature of God, it denies the very concept of communism.

Communism, crime and delinquency are not caused by poverty, unequal distribution of wealth, bad laws, poor housing, or any other economic, social or political condition. They are caused by sin; and the only way to eradicate sin is by the redemptive power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Clarence E. Macartney, in one of his great sermons, told of an old Saxon king who set out with his army to put down a rebellion in a distant province of his kingdom. After the insurrection had been quelled and the army of the rebels defeated, he placed a candle in the archway of the castle in which he had his headquarters. He then lighted the candle and sent his herald out to announce to those who had been in rebellion, that all who surrendered and took the oath of loyalty while the candle still burned, would be saved. The king offered to them his clemency and mercy; but the offer was limited to the life of the candle.

We are all living on candle time. While the candle still burns, let us accept Christ as our Lord and Saviour. Let us by our life and witness spread the Gospel. Let us adopt the precepts of Calvin and thus help to make this country a better and finer place in which our children and our children’s children may live and work.

The close, analytical study of the Scriptures is an absorbing pursuit. But it must never be isolated from a disciplined devotional life in which the Bible is used for the nourishment of the soul. Careful scholarship, patient attention to detail in searching the Scriptures—these are essential. Yet the Bible must always be seen for what it is, the actual Word of God, “living and powerful,” as the writer of Hebrews puts it in that remarkable passage (4:12, 13), in which the written and the incarnate Word so wonderfully merge. As Luther picturesquely said of the Pauline epistles, “The words of St. Paul are not dead words; they are living creatures and have hands and feet.” Therefore, the objective, scholarly study of Scripture must be guarded and supplemented, lest even the best of methodology should lapse into unfeeling dissection of the living Book.

Consider, then, three corollaries of biblical scholarship.

1. The cultivation of the devotional life must go hand in hand with the scholarly study of Scripture.

2. All Bible study, however analytical and objective it may be, must always stand in subjection to our Lord Jesus Christ.

3. In all Bible study the truth must be paramount.

Devotional Use

Now what is the devotional use of the Bible? It is a use of Scripture in which immediate outcomes such as analysis, research, or homiletical study, do not have priority. Thus it is in essence a disinterested use of Scripture, which means that we come to it first of all as spiritual food—feeding upon it in our souls, letting it speak to us, claiming its promises, meditating upon its teaching, resting in its truth, letting it judge us, seeking from it God’s will, living in its light, resolving to walk in its precepts.

For such use of the Bible there is a chief requisite. And that is the discipline of time and place. One speaks personally of his own use of Scripture with humility and diffidence.

Nevertheless, were I to evaluate the influences that have formed my mind and instructed my heart, I should place first, above all my education, the simple habit of daily, devotional Bible reading begun in boyhood and continued uninterruptedly until the present, which means over half a century of daily reading. To be sure, there is nothing unusual about this experience. Many thousands have done likewise. But for myself I should say that, along with prayer, this one thing has meant, next to my knowledge of Christ, more than anything else.

In a recent issue of The Christian Century, there is a moving account of life in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s seminary in Germany in the days before the war. Says the author of the article, who was a student under Bonhoeffer:

We members of the community rose in silence each morning, then assembled in silence in the dining room for prayers. None of us was allowed to speak before God himself had spoken to us and we had sung our morning praise to him. After a hymn, one or more psalms were read antiphonally. The Old Testament lesson was followed by a verse or two of a hymn, a hymn that was used for a week or more. After the reading from the New Testament, one of us offered prayers. Then, again in silence, we went to our dormitories to make our beds and to put things in order. Next came breakfast, during which we continued to practice taciturnitas; after breakfast we retired to our studies, which each of us shared with one or two of his fellows. For half an hour our task was one of meditation on a short passage from the German Bible, a passage about which we were asked to center our thoughts for a week, not to gather ideas for our next sermon or to examine it exegetically but to discover what it had to say to us. We were to pray over it, to think of our life in its light, and to use it as a basis for intercession on behalf of our brethren, our families, and all whom we knew to be in special need or difficulty. Such meditation did not come easily to us, for few of us had learned to read the Bible devotionally.

Evening prayers were at 9:30 P.M., taking much the same form as those of the morning; thereafter we were expected to maintain silence until bedtime, for God’s word was to be the last word of the day just as it had been the first.

Surely this is the devotional discipline of the Word at its best. Few of us are under such strenuous discipline as that in Bonhoeffer’s seminary, but we should at the very least hear God speaking through his Word the first thing in the morning and the last thing at night.

Relation To Christ

The second corollary of biblical scholarship is that all Bible study, however analytical or objective, must stand in relation to our Lord Jesus Christ. We see this principle at its highest in the wonderful narrative of Luke 24, where the risen Christ, the incarnate Word, teaches the written Word to two obscure disciples on the way to Emmaus. This is without doubt one of the greatest of all passages about Bible teaching. Notice the emphasis of our risen Lord as Luke reports it: “Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” Later, after he had said the blessing and broken bread at the evening meal, and after the eyes of the two disciples had been opened so that they recognized their Teacher, they hastened back to Jerusalem with burning hearts, eager to tell how they had seen the Lord. There, in a room with the door locked, the living Saviour appeared and said, “All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me.” To which Luke adds, “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.”

Let us set it down as a fact that, unless we are alert to see Christ in the Scriptures, we shall never understand them as we ought. A question every Bible scholar must be asking himself by way of correction and direction is this: “Is my study of the Bible, my handling of it in research, in teaching, and in preaching, as well as in my devotional life, really bringing me closer to Christ?”

For the Christian scholar the study of the Bible is of a different order from the study of any other book, or of any other subject. By reason of its inspiration, the Bible is uniquely related to God through the Holy Spirit. And we Christians are indwelt by this same Spirit. Thus in a way that passes understanding, the scholar who knows the Lord and comes prayerfully to the Scriptures, seeking in them the Lord, will not fail to find him there. For it is the function of the Spirit not to speak of himself but to glorify Christ (John 16:13, 14).

Submission To Truth

Related to this is a third corollary, which reminds us that in every kind of Bible study the truth must be paramount. Our Lord is himself the truth. As our study of Scripture must always be in submission to him, so it must be in submission to the truth.

If I may venture to coin a word, those who live and work in the Bible must shun at all costs any kind of “aletheiaphobia”—fear of the truth. Sometimes evangelicals are tempted to be afraid of newly apprehended truth. If this is the case, it may be because they have made the mistake of equating some particular, cherished, doctrinal formulation or historical position with final truth. Therefore, when they are faced with some hitherto unrealized truth, some breakthrough into wider knowledge, it may appear as a threat to a dearly held system and the reaction may be one of fear or even of anger. But, as Plato said in the Republic, “No man should be angry at what is true.” Why? Because for the Christian to be angry at what is true is to be angry at God. Trusting, therefore, in the infinite greatness of the Lord of truth, the evangelical scholar must resolutely put aside the fear of any valid disclosure of truth.

But there is another side to “aletheiaphobia,” and it relates to those of a liberal persuasion theologically. Priding themselves upon their openness to everything new, and prone, perhaps, to accept the new too readily and uncritically as true, they may see in old yet unwelcome truth a threat to their breadth of view. Theirs is not so much the fear of the expanding aspect of truth, as it is the fear of the particularity of truth. But what if some of the older positions that have been discarded as outmoded, mythological, or unhistorical, are proved by modern knowledge to be, after all, true? Then they too must be accepted, because truth is sovereign.

Under The Word

In his book, Paul’s Attitude to Scripture, E. Earle Ellis tells how an admirer once said to Adolph Schlatter, the renowned New Testament scholar, that he had always wanted to meet a theologian like him who stood upon the Word of God. Schlatter replied, “Thank you, sir. But I don’t stand on the Word of God; I stand under it.” The distinction is significant. Moreover, it rebukes the tendency to erect our own structure of thought upon Scripture instead of submitting our thought to Scripture come what may.

Great indeed is the privilege and opportunity of the Bible scholar and minister of the Word in days like these. God has given us the Book that has the answers for this apocalyptic age, when men’s hearts are failing them for fear. This is a time when, as never before, the Bible is speaking to our common human need, when the Book is coming alive under the stress of portentous events. And its whole message is summed up in the terse yet infinitely spacious declaration at the close of Hebrews: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever.”