Tax Churches on Business Profits?

Not long ago Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, former president of the National Council of Churches, made a startling statement: “In view of their favored tax positions, with reasonably prudent management America’s churches ought to be able to control the whole economy of the nation within the predictable future” (CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Aug. 3, 1959, issue).

Dr. Blake and many other churchmen—Protestant, Catholic and Jewish—are seriously concerned about the rising number of tax-free church business enterprises that have nothing to do with religion. There is good reason for their concern.

In a nation-wide study I found that many religious denominations and their subordinate agencies have gone into competitive profit-making businesses on a large scale. Churches own radio stations, hotels, office buildings, parking lots, bakeries, warehouses. They do contract printing, invest in stocks and bonds, and speculate in real estate. They have investments in stocks and bonds that for some major denominations run into millions of dollars.

The federal government and all the states specifically exempt places of worship, whatever their name or faith, from taxes of all kinds—33 of the states by their constitutions. Churches pay no property taxes. They pay no federal income taxes, even if they derive profits from unrelated business enterprises. Estate and gift taxes cannot be levied on them.

Tax exemption for churches and their related activities rests upon two historic American principles: complete freedom of conscience and worship, and recognition of the benefits of organized religion to society.

American tradition solidly upholds exemption for all nonprofit religious organizations, and few would ever question that religious worship and teaching add a moral strength to the nation incalculable in money.

But when churches and agencies under their control step over into business enterprises, unrelated to their religious and sacerdotal functions, they raise pressing questions as to the justice of their favored tax position.

Today those questions are acute. Churches and their agencies have increased their business activities tremendously in the last decade, and at the same time all levels of government have been forced to find more and more revenue. Many tax officials have told me during this research: “Something has to give!”

Churches In Unrelated Business

Thirty years ago, about 12 per cent of real property in the United States was tax-exempt; today, about 30 per cent pays no taxes. Biggest exemption goes to government property, such as post offices, parks, military posts, state universities, city halls, and public schools. Next come churches and other religious organizations, accounting for about one third of all exempt properties. While exemption from property taxes for religious organizations is not a great burden on any community, the rub comes when a church with its favored tax status embarks upon business for profit.

“I buy all my gas at a filling station on a lot owned by my church,” a prominent Methodist layman in Washington, D. C., told me. “An oil company leases the lot, with an agreement that the church will receive one cent a gallon on all gas sold.”

“And your church pays no tax on such business income?” I asked.

“Of course not,” he replied.

A realtor in Missouri, prominent in his Presbyterian church, drove me to an expanding residential area. “My church owns that tract adjoining mine,” he said, pointing it out. “When the church sells its tract, it will pay no capital gains tax. When I sell mine, I’ll pay the tax. Thus my church presents unfair competition to every real-estate firm in town.”

Many churches own and operate retail stores, industrial plants, and cattle ranches—all free of taxes on sales and profits. A large farm in Nebraska was recently taken over by a church organization, which meant that it was taken off the tax rolls.

Does your church conduct bingo games for profit? It pays no income or amusement taxes. Does your church organization operate a cafeteria primarily for its employees? Again, no tax. Proceeds of athletic contests, motion pictures and other paid entertainments, given to a church, are exempt from admissions tax.

Does your minister, priest, or rabbi live in a manse owned by your church officials or congregation? In most states, the property is not taxed. A Church of Christ minister informed me that when he purchased his latest automobile the salesman suggested: “Why don’t you buy this car through your church? That would save you the state sales tax.” The minister related further: “I told the agent that would not be right, and he assured me that many preachers do it that way.”

From its headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah, the Mormon church operates numerous business enterprises to help support its missionary and welfare activities. These include a newspaper, radio and TV station, apartment houses, hotels, mercantile and banking establishments. In October, 1960, Mormon President David O. McKay announced a large building project for Salt Lake City, to cost more than $40,000,000 and to include construction of a 28-story office building and the addition of 17 stories to the church-owned Hotel Utah. More recently this church purchased 786 acres of land and 14 industrial buildings in an expanding area of the city, to be held for investment and development purposes. Noted for its program of self-help for its members, the Mormon church owns and operates hundreds of “welfare farms.” One of the largest is in Florida, with 740,000 acres and 100,000 cattle.

Some Mormons business enterprises are administered by Zion Securities Corporation, which pays property taxes on all holdings not used for religious purposes, and pays both state and federal corporate income taxes. The church pays no income taxes upon dividends it receives from its vast unrelated profit-making activities.

Three churches of Bloomington, Illinois—First Christian, First Baptist, and Second Presbyterian—own the Biltmore Hotel of Dayton, Ohio, purchased in 1954 for $3,300,000. Eight business men, members of these churches, borrowed $200,000 for the down payment; mortgages took care of the rest. The property was leased to the Hilton hotel chain. An agent corporation assumed liability for the Hilton payments, and also for any damage suits that might arise in the hotel management. One of the laymen in the transaction told me:

“This type of business arrangement is especially profitable for churches. We leased out the hotel for a substantially lower figure than could a company not exempt from federal income taxes. From rentals, we have already paid off the amount we borrowed. Each church is now receiving about $2,500 annually, and will get more when the mortgages are liquidated. It’s a perpetual tax-free endowment.”

Office buildings are sources of business income for many congregations. The First Methodist Church of Chicago owns and worships in the Chicago Temple, a 22-story structure in the downtown area, completed in 1924 and valued today at about $6,000,000. The congregation pays property taxes, amounting to about $155,000 per year, assessed upon the offices rented out for commercial purposes, but pays no income taxes upon its receipts from office rentals, which gross about $250,000. Income from this business enterprise is used to support ministerial aid and other church welfare projects.

In downtown Los Angeles, the Temple Baptist Church owns the entire stock of the Auditorium Company, which owns the Auditorium Office Building and the Philharmonic Auditorium, valued at several million dollars. The company pays property taxes upon the offices and auditorium leased to the city’s philharmonic orchestra, the civic opera, and other commercial enterprises, but pays no state or federal income taxes because as a church it is exempt.

Station WWL in New Orleans, radio and television, is owned and operated by the Jesuits of Loyola University. It takes commercial advertising, yet the Internal Revenue Commission ruled the station tax-exempt as an integral part of a church.

Bread And Wine

In addition to spiritual food, numerous church organizations turn out cheese, bread, cakes, preserves, and packed meat. St. John’s bread is produced under franchises sold by a church organization in Minnesota, and is made by a formula brought to America by monks from Bavaria many years ago. Tax-free profits from this bread are used chiefly for education. The monks of St. Joseph’s Abbey in Massachusetts derive income from their business in high-grade jellies, distributed through a commercial firm.

Seventh-day Adventist churches have long specialized in the production and sale of vegetarian foods. One of the largest such operations is the Loma Linda Food Company of California, owned by the Pacific Union Conference of this denomination. Sales of the Loma Linda products total several million dollars a year, income-tax exempt. A large part of the profits goes to carry on research in nutrition.

Fastest growing of the profit-making activities for churches is the “sale and lease-back” enterprise. Churches have discovered that they can make up to 20 per cent on their money by this device. It works this way:

A business firm sells its physical properties to a religious organization, then leases them back, keeping the same management, personnel and production as before, and agreeing to pay all taxes, insurance, and other overhead expenses. The firm can write off the rentals and other expenses against its profits in greater amounts than would be permitted through depreciation if it still owned the plant—thus effecting savings in income taxes. The church group can almost always recover the entire cost of the property, plus interest, in 20 years, since it is exempt from the taxes a private business would have to pay. Then it holds what amounts to a tax-free endowment.

Under such an arrangement, the owners of the Yankee Stadium in New York sold this property to a Chicago broker for $6,900,000. This broker sold the land of the stadium to the Knights of Columbus and leased it back at $182,000 annual rent for 24 years. Then he leased the stadium and the land to the original owners. Here was a triple play that knocked Internal Revenue out of a 24-year inning! Is this legitimate tax exemption for religious reasons? Or is it, as it seems, a tax dodge for business purposes?

The Southern Baptist Annuity Board in 1959 purchased a property of Burlington Mills at Cheraw, South Carolina, for $2,900,000, and leased back the property to the firm. In 20 years’ time, rentals from the mills will liquidate the purchase and pay interest on the investment. “Our board has the advantage of paying no corporate taxes on the rentals from the property, while the company has the advantage of using the purchase money for other purposes,” Fred W. Noe, treasurer of this church agency, told me.

A growing variation of the lease-back plan is possible through a federal tax provision that permits nonprofit institutions to take over profit-making industries for five years tax free. Generally the purchase is made with small payments spread out over many years, which permits the business firm to pay capital gains taxes on the amounts each year rather than continue paying the higher income taxes. Of course the institution employs the former owner to keep running the business, and pays him a “salary.” At the end of the five-year period, the tax-exempt institution sells the property to a church group which can own and profit from the business indefinitely—tax free.

In 1954, Methodist-related Wesleyan University in Illinois purchased two California hotels for $10,000,000; it paid only $200,000 cash and carried the rest through mortgages. Five years later the institution had all its cash investment back, plus tax-free profits, and sold the hotels to the St. Andrew Catholic diocese of Chicago, which can carry them indefinitely as sources of tax-exempt income.

Concern By Church Leaders

Under existing laws such transactions are entirely legal. And income from church-owned businesses uniformly goes to support worthy causes, namely, missions, seminaries, colleges, community welfare, and religious programs. Is this not reason enough for exemption?

Most church leaders say no. They are concerned by the frequent charge that tax exemptions are poorly-concealed forms of tax support for organized religion. They reflect that it was the ever-increasing wealth of churches that led to revolutionary expropriations of church property in England in the sixteenth century, in France in the eighteenth century, in Italy in the nineteenth century, and in Mexico as late as 1942. They are aware that when the funds entrusted to them by their churches are invested in profit-making ventures, they enter the field of unfair competition with taxpaying citizens.

“It has been my observation that where churches have been supported by business enterprises there is the loss of the spirit of voluntary giving on the part of church members: this has the effect of deadening the spiritual life of the church,” says Dr. Billy Graham, noted evangelist.

Church leaders seem agreed that the deductions allowed on income taxes for contributions to churches and related organizations should be retained, as proper incentives to support religious causes. Many insist that in any sweeping reform of taxation policies, fairness demands that all nonprofit tax-exempt groups and foundations should be reviewed along with religious groups, and none should receive preferential treatment. “Still, our churches should take the lead in proposing and adopting rules that will be fair to both the churches and to our government,” comments C. Stanton Gallup, Connecticut businessman and former president of the American Baptist Convention.

Several official rulings point the way to a fair solution of the tangled problem. In Nashville, Tennessee, two major denominations, the Southern Baptist Convention and The Methodist Church, have large publishing houses to produce their religious literature. In 1959 for the first time the municipality assessed all the properties of these two church agencies.

Both church groups appealed to the state tax authority. That official agency ruled for the Baptists in striking out the taxes on the ground that their properties are used “either exclusively for religious purposes or for purposes so close thereto as to come within the tax exempt status provided by Tennessee law.” The Baptist position was strengthened by the fact that taxes have always been paid upon property owned by its board not used for religious purposes. The tax authority ruled against the Methodist Publishing House on the ground that a portion of its activities was secular and therefore outside its own denominational needs.

In the Napa Valley of California, Christian Brothers Winery, operating as the De LaSalle Institute, in a modern seven-million-dollar plant, turns out more than a million cases a year of high-grade wines and brandies. For several years the winery has contested assessments of federal income taxes on the ground that its organization is church-related. In August, 1961, a federal court ruled that this business enterprise was not an integral part of a church and therefore taxes must be paid on its profits.

A Pennsylvania court ruled that tax exemption for church property applies only to that used for actual worship, plus whatever land is needed for access. New York courts have held that occasional suppers, bazaars, and entertainments to raise money for church purposes are not taxable, while a cafeteria under church ownership, open to the public, is taxable.

Ending Tax Abuses

These and similar rulings form a pattern for a tax policy that meets the approval of spokesmen for many churches. This is their consensus: churches should not be taxed by any level of government for facilities and services related to their religious functions, and this historic policy should be maintained inviolate; on the other hand, churches should be taxed when they engage in business enterprises for business profit.

What is “related” and what is not? “If it is an integral part of its church organization, essential to the effective pursuit of its religious programs and not a device for financial profit from an outside enterprise, it is related,” says an active layman engaged in government tax affairs.

Following this rule, the use to which church-owned realty is devoted would determine whether it is taxed. Along with sanctuaries of worship, exemption from taxes would apply to auxiliary buildings used exclusively for religious instruction and training, offices for administration of religious activities and parking lots for the convenience of worshipers or church workers. Schools and welfare facilities owned or controlled by churches would be exempt as both religious and nonprofit institutions.

All facilities not used exclusively for church purposes, and particularly those that produce business income, would bear their fair share of taxes. A church-owned office building would be taxed for any proportion rented out commercially. Property owned by churches for future use or speculation, whether vacant or improved, would go on the tax rolls; as soon as the church began using it for church purposes, the property would of course attain tax-free status.

In the matter of income taxes, the source of the income should determine the tax liability. Some state and federal courts dealing with questions of taxation as applied to religious groups have followed the rule that the use to which the income is put is the proper test to determine tax exemption. But widespread support has been given the policy expressed a year ago by the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs: “Earnings from businesses that have no direct connection with the religious purposes of the church should pay income taxes, regardless of how that income is used; the basic criterion should be the source from which the income is derived, rather than the use to which it is put.”

Following that rule, profits from the lease-back and other commercial ventures would pay corporate income taxes. Profits from publishing literature used by the church would not be taxed; profits from outside contracts would be taxed.

Numerous actions and statements by church groups indicate the concern felt over the widespread intrusion of religious organizations into profit-making businesses. The General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. on June 2, 1958, requested its foundation “to make no investment in unrelated business where such income tax exemptions are allowable.” The National Association of Evangelicals takes the stand that profit-making by churches and their related organizations constitutes an unlawful subsidy forbidden by the first amendment to the Constitution.

The trustees of many churches, bequeathed income properties such as apartment houses and business blocks, have requested that all taxes be continued as before. Churches of many faiths insist upon collecting and remitting sales taxes on all items from their bookstores open to the public, paying property taxes on parking lots leased out for commercial use during the week, and accepting no subsidies by special interest rates on public loans for their institutions.

Some observers contend that uniform state laws should provide that all tax-exempt real property should be listed on the tax rolls, with a notice as to its value and reason for exemption. D. D. Cameron of Tulsa, a Protestant layman and assistant county attorney, comments that Oklahoma has just such a law—entirely ignored by public officials, presumably for fear of offending the countless members and friends of nonprofit organizations. Most churchmen and tax officials agree that such a provision would create better understanding of the reasons for fair tax exemptions, as well as place under scrutiny some practices that take unfair advantage of exemptions.

The attitude of the vast majority of American churchmen was summarized by the Rev. Robert E. Van Deusen of Washington, D. C., prominent Lutheran: “While we of the churches insist upon tax exemption for our exclusively religious activities, we should willingly pay our share of taxes when we get into profitable businesses, and thus render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

The Way into the Kingdom

John 3:3

THE PREACHER:

Born in Cedarville, New Jersey, Frank Bateman Stanger was ordained by The Methodist Church in 1938, and served Methodist churches in his home state until, in 1959, he became executive vice president of Asbury Theological Seminary. Fie holds the B.A. degree from Asbury College, Th.B. from Princeton Theological Seminary, S.T.M. and S.T.D. from Temple University, and the honorary D.D. from Philathea College. He is author of the volume A Workman That Needeth Not To Be Ashamed. In denominational posts he has served as president of the New Jersey Conference Historical Society, Northeastern Judisdictional Methodist Historical Society, and as a member of the executive committee of the American Association of Methodist Historical Societies. He has also been a delegate to four World Methodist conferences.

THE TEXT:

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus said unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.

It was a memorable interview between Nicodemus, one of the chief Pharisees, and Jesus Christ. The very circumstances surrounding it speak with eloquence. A man stood in the presence of God. A ruler of the Jews was seeking entrance into another kingdom, the kingdom of God. A teacher came seeking information from the Great Teacher. Moreover, it was night—a vivid figure of any soul outside the kingdom of God. But the wind was stirring, a spiritual symbol of the working of the Spirit of God.

Little wonder that this interview between Nicodemus and Jesus continues to be of vital significance. It is representative, on the one hand, of the continuing divine purposefulness in establishing the kingdom of God and, on the other, of man’s persistent quest to enter into that realm of spiritual experience which the Kingdom represents. So men in all centuries, and contemporary man is no exception, have sought the way into the Kingdom.

The kingdom of God is the master thought in the teaching of our Lord. Mark records: “Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel.” The teachings of Jesus reveal the Kingdom to be that domain of life, personal or corporate, in which the will of God is done. In the “Lord’s Prayer” the Kingdom is equated with the will of God: “Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” In the light of New Testament teaching and experience, the Kingdom is that realm of life in which there is deliverance from sin, power to live righteously, and delight in doing God’s will.

That man has ever sought to gain entrance into this kind of spiritual existence is not difficult to understand. For the kingdom of God is realism. Jesus makes himself and the Kingdom synonymous with life. He declares that living works satisfactorily only in the Kingdom way. “The kingdom of God,” He points out, “is within you.” It is built into the very structure of the self. The Kingdom is our “real” nature. The laws of the Kingdom are actually the laws of our being. Life will work in God’s way and in no other. Only as we co-operate with the nature of the universe do we live in accordance with our true nature. When we default against the Kingdom we default against ourselves. Sin is actually an attempt to live against the laws of one’s own created being and get away with it.

Even unregenerate man, living under the influence of an inherited sinful nature, recognizes his inalienable right, by divine creation, to attain such a level of existence as that expressed by the Kingdom.

For Nicodemus as a person, and as the representative of spiritually concerned individuals, the kingdom of God is tar more than a traditionally nationalistic issue. How often Nicodemus’ forbears and contemporaries had asked: “Wilt Thou restore the Kingdom to Israel?” But for him the issue was intensely personal: “How may I gain entrance into the kingdom of God?” Man in his patriotism may covet the Kingdom in a nationalistic sense. But man in the depths of his created being lias a longing for the Kingdom in a personal, spiritual sense.

Here, then, we discover the essential characteristic of the universal spiritual quest of mankind. Man, realizing that the kingdom of God and life are synonymous for him, knows that in his sinful state he is not a citizen of that Kingdom. So, conscious of the crucial conflict, he becomes desperately intent upon the resolving of this spiritual tension. This universal pursuit is the crux of the story of religion. Man is seeking continually to transform Paradise Lost into Paradise Regained. He is looking persistently for the Gate into the Kingdom.

Because of his sinful nature, man has attempted to follow wrong ways into the Kingdom. Nicodemus was a learned man, deeply religious, sincerely ethical, a leader in spiritual matters. Even so, the longings of his soul remained unsatisfied, and the result was spiritual death. He must find yet another way, the right way.

The kingdom of God is not entered along the way of special privilege. The gospel narrative tells of the mother of James and John seeking for her sons the promise of a place of privilege in the Kingdom. Here is our Lord’s response: “Can ye drink of the cup that I shall drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?… Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: but to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.”

Neither does the way of mere formal orthodoxy lead into the Kingdom. When one of the scribes, a paragon of orthodoxy, commended Jesus for His correct recital of the two great commandments, the Master replied: “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” “Not far”—but not in it. To sanctimonius Pharisees Jesus spoke in the same vein: “You shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.”

Nor does he who follows the way of material security gain entrance into the kingdom of God. Because he had great possessions the rich young ruler turned sorrowfully away from Jesus. And Christ’s wistful comment was: “How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!”

Moreover, the way of good works does not lead into the Kinodom. The words of our Master in this regard were stern and decisive: “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The scribes and Pharisees were religionists of works: they held fast the traditions, they worshiped, they observed the ceremonial enactments, they tithed, they evangelized. But their righteousness was a formal, mechanical, legalistic, lifeless thing. Their works could not save them.

What, then, is the right way, the only way, into the Kingdom? Christ’s own answer to this question leaves us with no doubt: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” A new spiritual mood is demanded. There must be a spiritual transformation as radical as birth. A new birth, through the Spirit of God, is the only way into the Kingdom.

In 1752 Whitefield wrote to Benjamin Franklin: “As I find you growing more and more famous in the world of letters I recommend to your unprejudiced study the mystery of the New Birth. It is a most important study and if mastered will abundantly repay you. I bid you, dear friend, remember that He before whose bar we must both soon appear has solemnly declared that without it we shall in no wise see His Kingdom.”

The New Birth has been described in various, yet suggestive ways. It has been spoken of as “that inward happy crisis by which human life is transformed and an issue opened up toward the ideal life.” Or, to use more theological language, “the New Birth is that great change which God works in the soul, when he brings it into life: when he raises it from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. It is the change wrought in the whole soul by the Almighty Spirit of God, when it is created anew in Christ Jesus.”

The Apostle Paul declares: “If anyone is in union with Christ he is a new being; the old state of things has passed away; there is a new state of things” (Goodspeed). Commenting on this Pauline declaration, Paul Tillich says: “The New Being is not something that simply replaces the old. It is a RENEWAL of the old which has been corrupted, distorted, split, almost destroyed—but not wholly destroyed. Salvation does not destroy creation; it transforms the old creation into a new one.”

The spiritual decisiveness of the New Birth can be understood more fully by noting three of its characteristic elements: repentance, regeneration, and conversion. Repentance is a change of mind concerning sin, a changed mind which results in the confession and forsaking of sin. This is man’s responsibility, and is a prerequisite for the exercise of the faith that saves.

Regeneration is a change in nature, solely a divine work. To use the words of E. Stanley Jones, “This New Birth, John (1:13) says, is ‘not of blood’—it cannot be inherited from the bloodstreams of our parents; nor of the will of the flesh’—you cannot get it by the efforts of the will, lifting yourself by the bootstraps; nor of the will of man’—no man can give it to you, neither pastor nor priest nor pope; ‘but of God.’ It is direct from God or not at all.”

Conversion, the inevitable response to both repentance and regeneration, manifests itself in a continuing change of life. This is effected through an active spiritual co-operation between God and man. Such a converted life is the essence of Christian discipleship. Even after we have been initially converted through the divine act of regeneration, we are only “Christians-in-the-making” in relation to the many areas of our lives which must be transformed into the likeness of Christ. Hence, we “grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord.” Thus conversion is seen also as the process of spiritual maturity: we become more and more like Christ through his power which works within us.

In his description of Pilgrim after his conversion, John Bunyan makes clear what happens when a person becomes a Christian. Three “shining ones” appeared to Pilgrim. The voice of one spoke: “Thy sins be forgiven.” This is the forgiveness of sins. The second gave him beautiful raiment for the rags of sin. This is the beauty of Christ’s righteousness in one’s life. The third placed a mark on his forehead. This signifies his adoption into the family of God.

The steps along the way into the kingdom of God are well marked and decisive. First, there must be an intense personal desire: “I want to be a Christian.” Second, desire is manifest in confession: “I am sorry for my sins. I confess my sins to God.” Third, there is personal acceptance through faith: “I believe that Jesus Christ died for me. By faith I accept him as my Saviour now.” Then inevitably there results a wholehearted dedication: “I belong to Christ forever—I am his and he is mine.”

Human experience has revealed a paradox in this matter of entering the Kingdom. On the one hand, to those who are spiritually sincere and intensely desirous, who renounce all hope of salvation save in Christ, it is a simple way. But to those who persist in holding on to any self-efforts or who place any confidence in things other than the salvation Christ offers, it continues to be an imposing, foreboding, difficult way. Such individuals experience the probing meaning of Jesus’ words: “How difficult it is for those who trust in riches (or in other things) to enter into the kingdom of God.”

Comment On The Sermon

The sermon “The Way into the Kingdom” was nominated forCHRISTIANITY TODAY’SSelect Sermon Series by Dr. James D. Robertson, Professor of Preaching in Asbury Theological Seminary. Dr. Robertson’s overcomment follows:

This sermon has much to commend it. It deals with a great theme, the New Birth—the foundation and genesis of Christianity. It breathes a bracing evangelical spirit: the Kingdom is real, it is here, it’s for you; life can be meaningful now. This is a redemptive preaching of a high standard. It is grounded in the Word. It speaks with authority—authority, one feels, girded by the preacher’s first-hand knowledge of what he is talking about. It is, moreover, anchored in the stream of life—today’s life. Christ appears not one whit less vocal today than in the long ago; he is our great contemporary. Adaptation of the truth of the text is accomplished with verve and freshness. The preacher does not hesitate to express his orthodoxy in current terms. The oral style of the message has the marks of straightforward speech. Sentences are clear, correct, often forceful. The number and variety of extra-biblical materials suggests breadth of reading interests. Illustrations and quotations are well integrated into the sermon and are a vital source of illumination and power.

Psychologically, the sermon moves from a troubled insecurity, through sober reflection, into joyous hope. Early, the sense of personal involvement is aroused. The problem is aggravated by the exposure of “wrong ways” men follow in their search for the Kingdom. The description of the “right way” helps scatter the gloom which, for the serious seeker, may well be dispelled altogether in the great conversion hymn that concludes the whole.

If a discourse is to be intellectually respectable its content must be structurally clear. In this instance the idea unfolds in the light of the preacher’s aim. The sense of advance and the prospect of arrival significantly fashion the thrust of the message. It gets off to a dynamic start in the terse, suggestive description of the night meeting, in which Nicodemus’ role shadows forth our own restless seeking after the kingdom of God. The aim of the sermon is at once made clear: to help man find the way into the Kingdom. But first it must be made plain just what Everyman, in the person of Nicodemus, is really seeking, and why he is seeking. The Kingdom is explained in terms of life lived in God’s way through Christ possessing us, and man is seen as so constituted that he cannot live his life satisfactorily in any other way. But man, conscious of the gulf between his present sinful state and his attainment of Kingdom status, has ever sought to initiate on his own a way into the Kingdom. Here follows a brief treatment of “wrong ways.” Till now, all has been preparatory to the setting forth of “the right way”—the way of the New Birth. The New Birth is emphasized as a “Divine Must”; it is defined from several standpoints; it is further explained by breaking it down into its elements; then the steps necessary to its attainment are presented. Before his final word, the preacher takes his truth and, setting it squarely in the midst of our times, makes us face up to it. It is the one thing needful in our generation. It bears a message of perpetual relevance. The sermon ends on a high note—a poem in which a greatly beloved Christian describes exultingly his own conversion experience. This is a God-exalting, triumphant, resounding appeal—altogether a forthright and effective sermon.

J. D. R.

The contemporary relevance of the New Birth must ever be kept in mind. What Jesus said to Nicodemus centuries ago he continues to say to “John Smith” and to “Mary Jones.” The words of our Master which filled that moonlight-flooded conference room still constitute the pertinent spiritual message of sanctuary and chapel, of mission hall and private oratory. As Paul Tillich has said, “If I were asked to sum up the Christian message for our times in two words, I would say with Paul, it is the message of a ‘new creation.’ ”

Modern psychology says that a man must be “born again.” For life is shattered and broken. Life is fragmentary and has gone to pieces. Life needs to be reintegrated into a satisfying unity. But psychology, apart from the reality of Christian experience, cannot provide the means of reintegration. For purposes of scientific experiment Carney Landis of Columbia University once submitted himself to a full psychoanalysis. In the course of the experiment he asked his analyst, “What is normality?”

“I don’t know,” replied the analyst, “I never deal with normal people.”

“But suppose a really normal person came to you?” Landis asked.

“Even though he were normal at the beginning of the analysis the analytical procedure would create a neurosis,” the analyst admitted.

The experience of the New Birth brings spiritual unity to the personality. The soul, previously in conflict because of sinful desires, and disoriented toward God, receives a new nature which manifests itself in a new sense of direction. The life, formerly tied up inwardly and stunted, receives release and incentive through spiritual conversion. A prominent man in India said of E. Stanley Jones, “We always know where Dr. Jones in his messages is coming out. Even if he begins with the binomial theorem he will come out at conversion.” Upon hearing this, Jones commented, “Most assuredly I come out at conversion, for life comes out there.”

“Except a man be born again” he cannot enter the kingdom of God. “Except a man be born again” he cannot enjoy the kingdom of God. “Except a man be born again” he is not in possession of the spiritual power to live as a citizen of that Kingdom. “Except a man be born again” he will not see the kingdom of God in its consummated glory.

How expressively, in his conversion hymn, Charles Wesley has described the experience of the New Birth! The “poet of the Methodist Revival” was ill at the time, in the home of a brazier named Bray, on Little Britain Street in London. Like his brother John, Charles had been seeking earnestly the rest that comes from vital, personal faith. It was on Whitsunday, May 21, 1738, three days before his brother’s Aldersgate experience, that he entered into the kingdom of God and found his spiritual rest. The following morning he penned this moving description of his spiritual conversion:

And can it be that I should gain

An interest in the Saviour’s blood?

Died He for me, who caused His pain?

For me, who Him to death pursued

Amazing love! how can it be

That Thou, my Lord, shouldst die for me?

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,

Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;

Thine eye diffused a quickening ray,

I woke, the dungeon flamed with light:

My chains fell off, my heart was free,

I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

No condemnation now I dread,

Jesus, with all in Him, is mine;

Alive in Him, my living Head,

And clothed in righteousness divine,

Bold I approach th’ eternal throne,

And claim the crown, thro’ Christ my own.

In the life of every man, the kingdom of God can become a glorious reality when Christ’s words are taken seriously; “Except a man be born again.…”

Jehovah-Jireh

Who set the morning stars to singing

And caused their light-years to commence?

Who packed the atom’s annihilative power

In such minute circumference?

Who gave the earth to its diurnal spinning

With a divinely cosmic shove?

Who brought the moon to bear upon the tides

And ranged the firmament above?

He is the holy just Jehovah

And we His creatures sin-defiled.

Nor can we by finite endeavor

Our ruined souls make reconciled.

But Deity divinely loving

Purposed before the world’s foundation

His Son to be our sin atonement

And reconcile His lost creation.

Now I can face Jehovah-Jireh

When space and time in Him are ending,

And with His universe triumphant sing

Redeemed creation’s song ascending.

JOAN WISE JESURUN

The Messianic Concept in Israel

THE EDITOR

Third in a Series (Part 1)

Through all the dark hours of Israel’s history the promised and longed-for messianic redemption was “the one prop and stay” of the Hebrew community.

Various expectations concerning the Messiah of Old Testament promise determined acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ. Jewish religious leaders in the first century looked for a supernaturally-endowed ruler who would restore the nation to socio-political greatness. Until his very ascension even Jesus’ disciples harbored this hope of an immediate earthly manifestation of the divine Kingdom (Acts 1:6).

In view of Revelation 20 many Christians still expect an earthly millennium to consummate the divine plan of redemption. And in view of Romans 9–11 they insist that in the crowning days of the Christian era the Jew will play a significant role in relation to the Church.

Except for a small remnant, modern orthodox Israelis regard the return of the Jews to Palestine and the revival of the State as a spiritual event that relates somehow to a coming divine era of justice and peace on earth. In at least one significant respect, however, these Israelis differ from New Testament Jews. First century Hebrews like Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, Paul, and many thousands more (Acts 21:20) believed that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of Old Testament promise. This conviction prevailed even though inquiry about the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel yielded no information about “the ‘times’ or the ‘seasons’ ” (recall the clue to the mystery of the “end of days” in Daniel, the one canonized apocalyptic tract). These early believers rejoiced in their newfound Messiah. And they recognized the relationship between the unbelief of the Jewish nation and the divine founding of the Church as a primarily spiritual rather than earthly body. By contrast, while modern orthodox Israelis see providence at work in the Jews’ return from dispersion and in restoration of the nation, they are uncertain about the messianic concept.

In New Testament times both believing and unbelieving Jew’s referred the messianic promises to a person (John 1:19 f.; Acts 8:34). Today the Natorei Karta, a small cluster of some 5,000 Orthodox Jew’s in Jerusalem, consider the State of Israel a profane development because it is “Messiahless.” They believe that messianic redemption will accompany the promised return of the dispersed Jew; they therefore dismiss the Zionist movement as an effort of self-redemption. Most strictly Orthodox Jews now look for an ideal messianic leader who is spectacular in his exploits but not supernatural in essence. They are unsure, however, just how to link this expectation to the already inaugurated state. Besides those who await a personal reigning Messiah are 200–300 Messianic Jews or Christian Hebrews who look to the supernatural and glorious return of Jesus of Nazareth to inaugurate the messianic age. For them the recent regathering of the Jews even in their present “preliminary state of unbelief” in the Christian Messiah is a spiritual sign. Most Israelis, however, have no expectation of a personal Messiah.

The Messiah In Judaism

Modern confusion over the messianic concept results from the confluence of biblical and philosophic influences. Already in New Testament times Jewish hope of national socio-political deliverance overshadowed the importance of personal spiritual-moral redemption. And in modern times further deference to religious philosophers, especially to the medieval codifier Moses Maimonides (A.D. 1135–1204), has complicated the messianic hope still more.

In the Old Testament, Messiah (the Anointed) appears first as a designation for the anointed King Saul (at a time when David resists the temptation to kill him). Here Messiah 1. is a man in the flesh and 2. fills a special office in an exalted spirit. At this stage this office does not necessarily uniquely qualify the nature of the exalted one. Appearance of the Messiah in flesh and blood was never realized in Old Testament times. Jewish thinkers recognize that Christianity, by contrast, spread because Christians worshiped Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah who unites humanity to both a divine office and nature.

It is noteworthy that in most statements idealizing King David, the Talmud exonerates David of the very sins which the Bible attributes to him. A distinguished traditional Jew, Professor Ernst Simon of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, comments on this fact. He explains David’s exoneration from fault by inability of the Jews of the Diaspora any longer to withstand thorough prophetic self-criticism, and by their widening preoccupation with the ideal David who was to come.

Later tradition, however, dimmed this expectation of a personal Messiah. In the third century A.D. one rabbinic authority, Samuel, declared: “There is no difference between the times of the Messiah and our times today, except that the yoke of the foreign kingdoms on us will be broken.” This view virtually reduces messianic hope to the expectation of an era of peace that Israel will attain in connection with universal freedom.

A third tradition—which combines the vision of an era of national and international justice and peace with the expectation of a personal Messiah—reaches back both to the Old Testament prophets and to the Talmud.

Today’s typical Jew, however, gains spiritual inspiration less from the Old Testament itself than from rabbinical interpretation in respect to messianic expectation. It is significant, therefore, that Maimonides, one of the great rabbinical ‘deciders,’ offered decisions not on practical problems alone but on questions of theology and philosophy as well. Maimonides’ Review of the Torah ends with an exposition of “The Messianic Era” (Yale Library of Judaica recently published this work under the title The Book of Kings). Here Maimonides differentiates between 1. the days of the Messiah and 2. eschatology (the last days). With certain reservations he adopts the “political” interpretation of the former. The Messiah-King who liberates the Jews from their yoke must have moral perfections—unlike Bar Kochba (leader of an ill-fated rebellion in the second century A.D.) who died in the fulness of his sins. For Maimonides the messianic reference has also a second stage: “the last days” in which Isaiah’s prophecy will come true, and God’s word will fill the earth as the waters cover the sea.

An illuminating treatment of the messianic movements and so-called false messiahs studding Hebrew history is Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver’s book, A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel (Macmillan, 1927). Silver indicates that messianic stirring quickens in times of international crisis when the map of the earth is subject to swift change, and that the messianic spokesmen have consistently pledged the restoration of the Jews of Palestine.

What Of Messiah?

During my 11 days in Israel this summer, I spoke with hundreds of Israelis—taxi drivers, tour guides, government leaders, university professors, religious leaders, and many others “at my side.” In these conversations, I invariably posed one question: “And who or what is Messiah, as you see it?” Their answers were remarkably illuminating.

Although here and there the reality of God is energetically rejected, there is little open philosophical atheism in Israel and the number of vocal atheists is small. “Once I believed, but the Jews’ sufferings under Hitler put an end to that,” said one of our drivers. By and large, Western European Jews drifted much farther from Orthodoxy than Yemenite, Iraqi, and other Jewish immigrants. Agnostics may be found in government posts, university faculties, and among the common people. But even Jews who reject supernaturalism as well as “practical atheists” retain overtones of religious idealism through the restoration of the Jewish State which attracts a socio-political content to the messianic-idea. Virtually all Jews are messianists (that is, they expect Messiah) even if they are unsure whether Messiah is a person, an outpouring of the Spirit, or an ideal of political justice. “Messiah is not a person,” said a staff member of the Foreign Office (giving his personal view), but rather “an ideal State, and Israel will lead the nations in establishing it.” But another Foreign Office staff member expressed his view in this way: “Messiah is an ideal of justice, peace, and good will. This ideal holds universal significance; its realization is not suspended on Israel as the bearer of political redemption.”

Unbelief in Messiah as a person leads to a wide diversity of views, but widespread retention of the messianic-idea. Many Hebrew rabbis contend that the messianic concept is “deliberately vague” in Jewish theology, that the element of biblical faith animates people in many ways. Intellectuals may complicate the subject by looking for “dialectical development” of the messianic idea. “The messianic concept,” such spokesmen argue, “doesn’t begin and end with Isaiah, nor the Talmud, nor the medieval mystics.” Rabbi Bernard Casper, dean of students of the Hebrew University, says Messiah is a “forward-looking” concept which links the Hebrews and their ingathering to the Holy Land. Many rabbis therefore refer the messianic concept to an era, not to a person. It includes also the condition of peace and co-operation between all peoples as a national outlook for Israel, and as a universal development that enlists and preserves other nationalities as well. The late Dr. Leo Kohn, political advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, commented that “there are many, many interpretations,” but recalled especially Maimonides’ view of a coming age of freedom and universal peace. “This age will be not simply another pax Romana when all were subject to the (Roman) emperor. Instead it will fulfill the vision of Isaiah 2: all nations will be equal before God, and all will come to his holy mountain.” But, added Dr. Kohn, there may be more to the messianic concept than an era: Messiah could be an ideal King—a man—who rules the earth.

It is interesting that in Jaffa, where he ministers at a “synagogue” for Bulgarian Jews, “Rabbi” Zion—no longer a ‘recognized’ rabbi among Jews—affirms that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, in fact, he may be the very Son of God. Zion (sometimes misrepresented in the American religious press as a convert to orthodox Christianity) thus represents a mediating view. He personally acknowledges difficulties with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Blocs Of Messianic Opinion

About 200–300 Christian Jews along with many Christian Arabs in Israel worship Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah of the Old Testament promise and look for his return in power to usher in the millennial era.

But the majority of Israelites reflect other lines of thought and speculation. While messianic vision remains, expectation of the Messiah has waned. Ben-Gurion has said, “Whereas two centuries ago a Jew would have described himself as “a descendant of Abraham, who obeys the commandments and hopes for the coming of the Messiah,” this definition no longer satisfies “a large part of our people, perhaps the greater part. Ever since the Emancipation, the Jewish religion has ceased to be the force which joins and unites us. Nor is the bond with the Jewish nation now common to all Jews, and there are not many Jews in our time who hope for the coming of the Messiah.” But he added: “The Messianic vision of redemption … fills the very air of Jewish history … and … in our own day has led to a revolution in the history of our people.”

Some 35 to 40 per cent of the population is reportedly indifferent to the question of Messiah and disinterested in its precise definition and exposition. On the other hand only a small proportion deliberately dismiss the messianic question. Such persons usually assimilate whatever spiritual nourishment the idea of messianic mission provides but insist that because it “produced” the messianic vision Judaism is therefore not ultimately dependent on it. For some, covenant replaces messianism as the central concept. For others neither the Hebrew vision of redemption in our times, nor attachment to the Holy Land or to the Hebrew language rests on devout attachment to Hebrew religious law and tradition.

While the support for differing major positions is difficult to gauge, a long-time Israeli resident on the faculty of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem distinguishes them as follows:

1. Messiah is a man (supernatural in office but not in being), an ideal ruler. This is now the Orthodox Jewish view held by 25 to 30 per cent of Israeli Jews (mainly immigrants from Oriental lands and elderly Jews), and taught in the Orthodox religious schools.

2. Messiah is a personal outpouring of the divine Spirit upon individuals. About 10 per cent of the Israeli Jews, mainly liberal intellectuals and some socialist youth and (as our informant put it) some other “nice vague people,” hold this theory.

3. Messiah is the moral ideal of justice and peace wholly transcendent to present history, but to be manifested historically in the “messianic era.” Only a small percentage, mainly “real intellectuals,” believe this interpretation. Its advocates equate messianism with the idea of socio-political-spiritual fulfillment or perfection, a condition as yet completely outside present reality.

4. Messiah is the socio-political ideal of justice and peace gradually being realized in the Israeli State. Perhaps 10 to 15 per cent of the people follow this view. Professor Mordecai Kaplan declares that Hebrews live no longer in the age of “the coming” of Messiah, but in the days of the Messiah himself. Dispersed Jews now live in freedom, hence are redeemed, he says, even if this “salvation” is, as it were, a kindness of the Gentiles, while the State of Israel is Messiah for the others. (Kaplan’s view has been criticized because it no longer stresses “the ingathering of the exiles,” one of the chief historic tenets of the messianic concept. Zionists oppose the tendency to equate the experiences of the Diaspora and those of immigrants regathered from exile.)

5. Messiah is the state of Israel in its ideal development. Ten to fifteen per cent of the people follow this concept. They represent many “primitive” citizens as well as Ben-Gurion and others who speak of “the messianic character of the movement of the State.” In Ben-Gurion’s words the prophets of Israel not only preached righteousness, loving-kindness, and mercy, but also foretold “material and political redemption for their people.… After the rise of the State and even after the ingathering of the exiles … we … shall not have reached the end of the vision … a vision that is both Jewish and universal … comprising all man’s supreme aspirations and values. This is possible only in the Messianic vision.… The vision of redemption of the prophets of Israel … was not confined to the Jewish people, although the redemption of Israel was a basic and inseparable part of the vision.

… Together with the redemption of Israel our prophets foretold the redemption of all the nations, the whole world.… The miracle that has taken place in our generation is that there has been established an instrument for the implementation and realization of the vision of redemption—and the instrument is the State of Israel, in other words the sovereign people in Israel.” The messianic vision, Ben-Gurion contends, assumes different forms in different periods. In our time he identifies the “inner kernel” of the messianic vision with the national sovereignty of the Jew. This inner kernel has “germinated in the State of Israel,” an event which signals national redemption of the Jew in the promised land. Ben-Gurion considers the state, however, not just an end in itself, but an instrument for a mission. The renewal of national sovereignty in a moral state assertedly constitutes the Jewish people once more a chosen people whose mission promises human redemption by replacing tyranny and cruelty with international peace, justice, and equality.

Messianism And State Policy

Many Hebrew writers do not hesitate to personify the State as redeemer of the people. One writer, for example, asserts that the new State “redeemed hundreds of thousands of Jews from poverty and degeneration in exile, and transformed them into proud, creative Jews … it poured new hope into the hearts.…” By restoring “as in the days of the Bible, a complete unity of existence and experience, which embraces in a Jewish framework all the contents of the life of man and people …” the State has delivered the Jew in Israel from the Diaspora’s divided allegiance to Gentile rule in political-economic affairs and to Jewish authority in their restricted community of Mosaic faith.

Precisely this tendency to reduce messianism to state policy by elevating the political factor has brought criticism from scholars like Dr. Martin Buber. He agrees that the messianic vision imposes a unique divine demand upon nations to realize Messiah’s Kingdom and thus to participate in the world’s redemption. But he considers today’s tendency to secularize messianism quite unjustifiable. Many, Buber protests, think only in “the narrow naturalistic form which is restricted to the Ingathering of the Exiles,” and thereby eliminate belief in the coming of the kingdom of God. “A Messianic idea without the yearning for the redemption of mankind and without the desire to take part in its realization is no longer identical with the Messianic visions of the prophets of Israel.”

This widespread tendency to merge the biblical vision of an ideal messianic society with the new State of Israel elicits sharp fire from American critics of Ben-Gurion’s Zionism. Hebrews, of course, have long linked the messianic hope of redemption with their national existence and destiny. Zionism, therefore, gives religious significance to the current politico-historical events that established the new state, and regards the new state as the national center of “the whole house of Israel.” Some dispersed Jews, especially in America, criticize the Zionist movement because it seems to advance a nationalistic political thrust behind a façade of Judaism. In this respect American nonorthodox Jews criticize the new state as severely as the orthodox Naturei Karta, although from a different perspective than personal messianic expectation. They argue that since 1900 the Zionist movement has been essentially political, despite some religious elements and motivations. They call it a well-financed national political mechanism that exploits the traditional messianic hope to gain the support of those who profess Judaism. Critics of Zionism note the tendency to identify movements toward independence as modern revival; to designate new social ideals and opportunities as integral to the vision of messianic redemption. These critics trace establishment of the Jewish state not to God but to the Hebrew’s self-confidence in his own ability to shape a new destiny. Nowhere does the newborn state’s Proclamation of Independence mention God’s name except for figurative reference to the “Rock of Israel.” Motivation for establishing the state, it is contended, was not religious (an impulse from the Torah) but rather patriotic—an achievement of Jews weary of persecution, exile, and foreign rule. The new state therefore assertedly rests on secular, and not on messianic foundations, and stems from human organization rather than from divine providence.

Christian Elements in the Poetry of T. S. Eliot

Clearly, T. S. Eliot is the most influential poet writing in English in our time. There is probably no living writer about whose work there has grown up such a body of critical commentary. So great has been his reputation that a few years ago an American university had to move the site of a lecture by the poet from its largest auditorium to the football stadium (in the manner of a Billy Graham rally) to accommodate the 14,000 people who wished to hear him, a phenomenon surely unique in the current neglect of poetry.

Eliot’s work, both poetry and prose, although the poetry alone can be considered here, has a peculiar significance for the Christian, whether he be theologian, preacher, or layman, for Eliot has diagnosed and described with the most acute perception the spiritual malaise of our time. He has portrayed the lost inhabitants of “the Waste Land” with an irony that is at once pitiless and compassionate. He has shaped phrases that are unforgettable and has fashioned rhythms that, once heard, haunt the ear forever. He has fused the past and the present, ugliness and beauty, the majestic and the tawdry, the timely and the timeless, in poetry which is (according to his own unrivaled definition) “thought felt.” And in some of his work, he has lifted a prophetic voice that has echoes of the great voices of the past in an idiom that is uniquely his own.

While his name is known everywhere since he was awarded the Nobel prize in 1947, and while his greatness as an artist and his importance as a critic are generally acknowledged, the Christian implications of his work are probably not widely recognized. Surely if the history of literature teaches us anything, it is the power of great poetry to survive “the rude wasting of old Time.” Whether Eliot’s poetry has this quality of enduring greatness, or whether it is likely to be limited to the age which gave it birth, we cannot say. But it is a voice crying in the wilderness of our Waste Land.

In his earlier work the almost innumerable literary allusions in several languages, combined with the abruptness and discontinuity of his juxtapositions, weave patterns so complex as to be almost incomprehensible to some intelligent readers; but, unlike the work of many of his imitators, his patterns, in spite of their apparent fragmentation, their unusual syntax, do yield up meaning upon study and analysis. And the riches, once discovered, are certainly worth the strenuous effort they demand.

One may compass a small and simple chapel in a brief inspection, but the great cathedral requires time and study for its appreciation. So the true poet demands and deserves our study and reflection. No mere “reading” will yield up his riches. Nor will a smattering of anthology selections give any idea of such a poet’s stature, nor any proper understanding of his work, for it is a whole and rises structurally out of the vision of a lifetime.

The Pre-Christian Mood

Eliot’s work ranges the modern world from the time of the First World War. It falls basically into three stages. There is the first period of the early poems, prior to his conversion to Christianity, a period characterized by a revulsion from the spiritual aridity and moral decadence he saw making a waste land of our Western culture.

In this stage, his work is chiefly negative, beginning with the pathetic portrait in “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” of a self-conscious, indecisive and futile middle-aged bachelor of the Boston Brahmin class who is afraid of life, afraid of its demands, its responsibilities, its mystery. Trivial decisions and enervating indecision beset him, compass him about, drown him in frustration.

Eliot can move from this refined and inhibited type of character, who “measures out his life with coffee spoons,” to the man of excess vitality and little intelligence, “Apeneck Sweeney.” With his incomparable gift for irony, Eliot pictures him “among the nightingales” that are singing near the Convent of the Sacred Heart where he is ashore in some low dive about to be “rolled.” The vulgarity of the scene with the drunken “person” who tries to sit on Sweeney’s knees, is sharply juxtaposed against the singing of the nightingales which bring to mind the night of Agammemnon’s murder by his wife. So, as frequently in other poems, the noble and tragic chords of the past are played against the ignoble and strident dissonances of the present.

In “Gerontion” there is an old man in a dry month waiting for rain and for death without having really lived:

I was neither at the hot gates

Nor fought in the warm rain

Nor knee deep in the salt march, heaving a cutlass,

Bitten by flies, fought.

My house is a decayed house …

In this poem there is also a sense of imminent judgment.

In the juvescence of the year

Came Christ the tiger …

No longer is He the Lamb of the paschal feast, of the Holy Communion,

To be eaten, to be divided, to be drunk

Among whispers …

Now He is the Lion, the tiger. “Us he devours.”

The poem is an almost terrifying compression of the horror of the spiritually purposeless and unredeemed life. “Vacant shuttles weave the wind.” It is a modern version of the twelfth chapter of Ecclesiastes. All is vanity, and age is a slow dwindling to dust.

In all these early portraits of Eliot’s gallery there is an almost surgical objectivity. His people are like patients “etherized upon a table.” They are dead while they live.

It is this aspect of our society that preoccupies him at this time and horrifies him. It is the spiritual emptiness of “the hollow men,” sterile, impotent, without purpose, drifting in a sort of limbo like Dante’s, a valley of shadows, of dry bones, a cactus land, where they ‘grope together and avoid speech,” where “lips that would kiss form prayers to broken stone,” unable to complete even an incantation of the Lord’s Prayer. They can only dance around the prickly pear in a sort of nursery ritual awaiting the end of the world. They are not “lost, violent souls,” but only hollow men.

His most famous poem of this period, “The Waste Land,” is an extremely concentrated and cryptic analysis of our Western civilization, without God, and therefore without faith, without hope, without genuine love. The perversions and travesties of love are revealed at all levels of the social scale and are sharply juxtaposed to hone the incisive irony of the sketches.

There is first, in the section entitled “A Game of Chess,” the portrait of a lady in her boudoir, and the description of the sybaritic setting not only parodies but rivals in beauty the famous description of the barge of Cleopatra which Shakespeare puts into the mouth of his Enobarbus. The unnamed woman here is clearly distraught, nervous, neurotic.

“What shall we do tomorrow? What shall we ever do?” she cries finally, and the masculine voice of resigned ennui replies

The hot water at ten.

And if it rains, a closed car at four.

And we shall play a game of chess,

Pressing lidless eyes and waiting for a knock upon the door.

Directly from this scene among the upper class, we are taken to a pub at closing time where two women are talking over their beer about a third who is trying to prevent the birth of a child, her sixth. (She is only thirty-one.) Love at both levels has been twisted, debased, its growth inhibited, and its proper fulfillment denied.

The third scene, mediating between these two, is curiously placed in the third section. Here we find the same denial of genuine love. A young typist “home at teatime” submits passively, morally and spiritually apathetic, without any real desire, to the utterly selfish approach of “the young man carbuncular.” When he has gone, she rises, “hardly aware of her departed lover”

Paces about her room again, alone,

She smooths her hair with automatic hand,

And puts a record on the gramophone.

The poem ends with a kind of wistful hope. There is a sound of thunder. Perhaps there will be rain in the desolate land. At least the speaker, the mutilated and impotent ruler (symbolic of fallen man’s spiritual heritage and moral incapacity?), can attempt to set his own lands in order. There is here at least the recognition of man’s need of grace, the life-giving water on a thirsty land.

One can detect in the poems of this early period Eliot’s increasing revulsion as he contemplated life at its various levels without God and without hope.

Spiritual Affirmation

Eventually, in 1927, after a growing interest in the English church and state, he united with the Anglican church and became a British subject. Exactly what motivated or advanced his conversion to Christianity we cannot say, for he has not told us explicitly. But his reading of Lancelot Andrewes, the great Elizabethan Christian and scholar, and the metaphysical poets, chiefly Donne, and particularly his reading of Dante, were undoubtedly factors. And the very great influence of the critic, T. E. Hulme, is also notable. At any rate, the change becomes apparent in his poetry and critical essays.

The second stage in Eliot’s development is characterized by a turning toward and statement of spiritual affirmations. At the beginning of this period there are two specifically Christian poems, biblical in their source and both related to the Incarnation, a concept which is to become central in his thinking. There is “Journey of the Magi,” based on a Christmas sermon by Lancelot Andrewes, and suggesting the Birth that was “hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.” The dramatic voice, one of the Magi, says that they returned to their places, their Kingdoms,

But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,

With an alien people clutching their gods.

“A Song for Simeon” speaks in a similar voice, but here the old man speaking has come from the Chosen People who have been anticipating and longing for the appearing of their Messiah. Now the aged prophet can die in peace, having seen His salvation.

Let the Infant, the still unspeaking and

unspoken Word,

Grant Israel’s consolation

To one who has eighty years and no tomorrow.

But the most famous poem of this period of turning to positive Christian themes and values is undoubtedly “Ash-Wednesday.” It is a poem of conversion, and one of the central symbols in it is the purgatorial spiral stair, the turning, the moral struggle, and recovery. This poem most clearly suggests the influence of Dante and is full of echoes of his work, especially the Vita Nuova and the Purgatorio. But there are biblical allusions also, from Song of Songs, Ezekiel, the Revelation, and the Gospels. It begins with the death of hope, with the existential despair of self. There is a rejection of carnal love as incapable of satisfying the thirsty soul, but still there is the persistence of desire.

Blown hair is sweet, brown hair over the mouth blown,

Lilac and brown hair …

And there is echoed the word of the centurion in Luke, “Lord, I am not worthy.” Then from this Everlasting No, and from the Center of Indifference, which Carlyle a century earlier had so vividly depicted, the poet moves to the Everlasting Yea, to resurgent faith, to the lost vision of Light. But the Word still escapes, is beyond reach. There is the need for grace, there is the prayer for humility, and there is the final surrender in the phrase of Dante’s, “Our peace in His will.”

The images in this poem, as its title would suggest, are essentially Catholic, but, beneath the images, a spiritual experience is shared which is very similar to any genuine turning, whether Catholic or Protestant, a turning to God the Saviour from the false gloria mundi. The thoughtful evangelical Christian can recognize here the spiritual ascent essential to the growing experience of the grace of God in the work of the Spirit in sanctification. It is no accident, although it is a curious observation missed by many, that the two most widely separated extremes of the Christian faith—the hierarchical and liturgical Roman Catholic and the free, almost formless Society of Friends—meet at the point of the mystical experience of God in self-surrender and self-abnegation, and the need for grace and redemption. Actually, Eliot’s work combines in a mysterious fashion strands from the Puritan and Calvinist as well as the Catholic traditions. Undoubtedly he is eclectic, but not in the amorphous manner of Emerson. All that he has gathered from the literatures of the world, from anthropology and modern psychology, from Greek and Oriental thought, he has woven in some way into a basically Christian design.

Eliot moves from these earlier “Christian” poems in the “third voice” to a group of poems of the highest order of contemplative and philosophical verse. The group, now known as “Four Quartets,” begun with “Burnt Norton” in 1934, was not completed until the third stage of his development in 1943, although this group is essentially of the second.

It would be impossible in a short essay to deal at all adequately with the closely-woven texture of these poems. They contain the finest distillation of his thought. Not only are they structurally and musically supreme works of art, but they carry a very heavy burden. They evolve and whirl like galaxies of light out of the mysteries of Time, not only out of “the pastness of the past,” as he says, but out of its presence. As Matthiessen suggests in his perceptive analysis, The Achievement of T. S. Eliot, here is

the difficult paradoxical Christian view of how man lives both ‘in and out of time,’ how he is immersed in the flux and yet can penetrate to the eternal by apprehending timeless existence within time and above it. But even for the Christian the moments of release from the pressures of the flux are rare, though they alone redeem the sad wastage of otherwise unillumined existence.

And in the same essay, commenting on “The Dry Salvages,” the third of the quartets, Matthiessen says further,

The doctrine of Incarnation is the pivotal point on which Eliot’s thought has swung away from the nineteenth century’s romantic heresies of Deification. The distinction between thinking of God become man through the Saviour, or of man becoming God through his own divine potentialities, can be at the root of political as well as religious belief. Eliot has long affirmed that Deification, the reckless doctrine of every great man as a Messiah, has led ineluctably to Dictatorship. What he has urged in his Idea of a Christian Society is a reestablished social order in which both governors and governed find their completion in their common humility before God.

The Quartets have rightly become the most intensively studied and the most extensively expounded of his poems. They best represent the ripeness of his wisdom and the intricate complexity of his thought.

But his most explicit statement of Christian themes is to be found in the choruses from The Rock, a pageant performed in 1934, which he helped to write on behalf of a fund for the repair of old churches in the London diocese.

The chorus opens with the famous passage on the “endless cycle of idea and action,” modern man’s whirling activity and expansive knowledge which bring him no nearer to God.

Where is the life we have lost in living?

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?

Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?

The weakened plight of the Church is graphically set forth, with the excuses men offer for its neglect in city and suburb.

We toil for six days, on the seventh we must motor

To Hindhead, or Maidenhead.

If the weather is foul we stay at home and read the papers.

Against this indifference, against the shoddy house of plaster and corrugated roofing erected for worship, “filled with a litter of Sunday newspapers,” the voice of the poet is lifted like the voice of a prophet of old declaiming against the sins of his people. Not only the rhythms and accent, but the very words beat with the indignant intensity of one who speaks his divine burden:

The Word of the Lord came unto me, saying:

O miserable cities of designing men …

The Word goes unheard in the cities

And the wind shall say, ‘Here were decent godless people:

Their only monument the asphalt road

And a thousand lost golf balls.’

The Choruses mount from invective and denunciation, through passionate and heart-broken appeal, to surrender and the ultimate vision of Light, celebrated in a hymn to Light that rivals Milton’s.

This work not only epitomizes the affirmations of the second stage in Eliot’s development, but strangely leads into the third, characterized by ambiguous analyses and tentative proposals. Made aware, by this first venture into dramatic poetry for the theater, of the possibilities in the more direct use of the “third voice” to reach the unchurched. Eliot has since devoted his writing almost wholly to the dramatic form. He has done more probably than any other writer to quicken the revival of religious drama in our time.

The Third Stage

Murder in the Cathedral, written for the Canterbury festival in 1935, was his first full-length drama. This dramatization of the murder of Thomas á Becket in 1170 (projected in a more recent version by Jean Anouilh), had a number of themes: the spiritual testing of a martyr facing death; the spiritual training of people witnessing his sacrifice; and the conflict between Church and State, becoming in our time again a live issue with the rise of Hitler’s Germany and the spread of communism. The play is full of significant insights and memorable lines.

However, Eliot soon abandoned the historical setting for his poetic dramas and attempted a much more difficult thing, to write poetic drama out of contemporary material with contemporary characters.

In this third stage, the Christian reader or spectator at first will be puzzled and disappointed by the almost total absence of any specific Christian reference. But the later plays have been concerned with people in need of Christian grace and discovering in one way or another their need.

Of the four contemporary plays produced since 1939, The Cocktail Party probably suggests more of the Christian message than the others. Instead of a clergyman, there is the now familiar psychiatrist. No specifically Christian solutions are offered to the dilemmas of the characters, but indirectly they are forced toward them.

The young girl Celia, who had been in love with the married protagonist, Edward Chamberlayne, shares her problem with the psychiatrist. There are two symptoms, she says, that disturb her. One is the feeling of the lack of real communication in the noises people make when they talk to each other. The second, she hesitates to express. Reilly, the psychiatrist, persuades her to share it.

Celia: It sounds ridiculous—but the only word for it That I can find, is a sense of sin.

Reilly: You suffer from a sense of sin, Miss Copplestone? This is most unusual.

Celia: It seemed to me abnormal.

So sharp is Eliot’s irony.

Celia eventually abandons the attempt to find peace in merely human love, and gives herself to the divine. She goes to Africa as a missionary nurse. And we learn at a later cocktail party among the same, although changed, characters with whom the play began, that she has been killed by the natives there. Her death, and the shocking manner of it, affect differently all who hear of it.

This is the method of the plays—by indirections to find directions out. They will not satisfy at all the one who desires a more explicit statement of Christian themes. But in his plays, Eliot thinks of himself as a sort of Virgil, preparing men for the Advent, making them aware of their need. And surely there is a place for such a contribution.

It is only as one studies and reflects upon the total work of a great poet that he can come into any adequate perception of his total vision. C. S. Lewis has spoken directly in Christian terms to the unbelieving sophis treated minds of our day. It has been Eliot’s more difficult task to speak obliquely to them, to steal upon them unawares, to haunt with images that stir memoir and desire, to waylay with hopes and aspirations not wholly dead, to surprise the unbeliever with gleams of faith that will not leave him at ease in the desiccated charade of his existence.

The Christian witness, be he minister or layman, will be better equipped to communicate with the intelligent unbeliever in our time if he knows the work of this significant poet.

Review of Current Religious Thought: September 25, 1961

The Western world is in danger of forgetting that education of the young is not just a matter of imparting factual knowledge and technical skills, but, if it is to be education in the true sense of the term, must concern itself with morality as well, and indeed primarily. Its proper task is to prepare the child to become a balanced and integrated adult and a responsible member of society. If this task is not faced and fulfilled, then education is a failure and even a menace.

To the peripheral watcher from the British side of the Atlantic one of the most startling contradictions in the American way of life is that a great people, who flourish the slogan “This Nation under God,” should, because of the interpretation they place upon the principle of complete separation between church and state to which they are dedicated, systematically exclude all religious instruction and worship (including the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer) from the state schools. This means in effect that America’s schools are godless institutions, or at least institutions which God is officially forbidden to enter. This would be understandable in an atheistic country, but in a country that professes to place itself under God it does not make sense. It can hardly be hoped that such a policy will be productive of God-fearing citizens.

For a spectator to make so radical a criticism is no doubt rash. Be that as it may, it is certainly not meant to imply that all is fair in the British pedagogical garden. Of this we have been forcibly reminded in recent days by both political and medical leaders. It is true that religious instruction is compulsory in the state schools of Great Britain by Act of Parliament, as is also the opening of each school day with a corporate act of worship. Nevertheless, in a notable speech in the House of Commons during the last session of the British Parliament the Minister of Education, Sir David Eccles, referred to the widespread anxiety about the conduct and behavior of boys and girls of school age. While emphasizing that the great majority of British school children are well behaved, he reminded his audience that this was not the case with “a small minority of teenagers attending the secondary schools.”

Speaking of the need for suitable discipline in the schools, Sir David observed that the teacher who deals reasonably but firmly with a pupil ought to be supported by the general public. (Cases of parents suing teachers for exercising disciplinary powers over their children are not unknown!) The problem, however, does not arise solely from the children and their backgrounds, for, as Sir David wisely pointed out, “the teachers themselves are subject to the standards of the age in which we live, an age in which it is widely believed that a decline in Christian morality is a fact and is a main cause of the growth of irresponsible behavior, especially among the young.”

Sir David asked what were the values that the teachers were trying to hand on, and how seriously was religious instruction taken in the schools. “These are questions often asked and seldom answered,” he said. “But they go to the root of our present discontents. If we concern ourselves solely with vocational education, then, vital as science, technology, and foreign languages are to the economy of the nation, we shall be like men who build a great ship and forget the compass and the steering gear.” This warning could hardly be more timely.

At exactly the same time the opening session of the British Medical Association’s annual representative meeting was being held in Sheffield. Grave concern was expressed by the doctors present over the alarming increase in venereal disease among adolescents. One of the delegates recalled that the acme of success in girls’ schools used to be the winning of one’s lacrosse, swimming, or hockey colors. But he had heard of a girls’ school in England where another achievement had now been added—the pinning of a certain mascot on one’s chest to indicate to one’s fellow pupils that one had lost one’s virginity. While he avowed the greatest respect for psychiatrists, he thought that, up to a point, they had had their day, and that what was needed to correct the loss of moral discipline which was sweeping round the country was the rod, adequately and properly administered. Another delegate stressed that it was “the most terrible tragedy in the community if young people ceased to feel that chastity and decency mattered.”

In an article in the Church of England Newspaper that same week Archdeacon Eric Treacy (now appointed to the suffragan bishopric of Pontefract) addressed himself to the question: What can we do about teenage morals? He suggested that those who write and produce plays for television, radio, and cinema should desist from glamorizing young thugs and dramatizing their youthful lusts. He deplored the fact that the call to idealism was so little heard nowadays. “To be told that we have never had it so good is all right as an election gimmick, but it is a pretty sterile philosophy to live by. We have expected too little of our young people, and we have got as little as we expected.” He blamed also the unsavory example in matters of morals and sex set by older people to younger people at their places of employment. “The road back is a long one,” he ended, “and there is no short cut. The problem will only be tackled effectively as it is seen as a matter of laying sound foundations; those foundations are those of Christian teaching as to the sanctity of personality and obedience to the Ten Commandments, which are all too rarely proclaimed in our churches today.”

Let the last word be with one of the great Christian educators of our time, the late Bishop Spencer Leeson, and let it be in the form of a catena of brief quotations from his Bampton Lectures on Christian Education: “We have to put the faith back again at the heart of education, and that means that we must put it back at the heart of the national life … (The teacher’s) work is in the highest and truest sense pastoral.… The relation of teacher and pupil, at whatever stage and whatever age, must be before all things pastoral.… The mind of a nation is reflected in its schools.… If Christian ethics are separated from the Christian faith, and the latter abandoned, the former will not long endure.” What, in short, we desperately need is genuinely Christian teachers, whose vital faith will be “caught” by the children under their instruction. The young men and women in our universities and training colleges should be encouraged to regard the teaching profession as a definite Christian vocation, and to respond to it with the same vision of faith and spirit of commitment as is expected of those who respond to the call of the mission field.

Book Briefs: September 25, 1961

The Choice: Verbal Revelation Or Skepticism

Religion, Reason and Revelation, by Gordon H. Clark (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961, 241 pp., $3.75), is reviewed by Bernard Ramm, Professor of Systematic Theology, California Baptist Seminary.

In five clearly-written and incisively-argued chapters, Gordon H. Clark has given us his basic thinking about Christian apologetics whose function he conceives to be to give us a “rational worldview” (p. 111). Clark operates from two basic points of leverage. On the positive side he considers that only in special revelation do we have a religion capable of rational defense; on the negative side he uses the law of contradiction to show that all competing systems fall victim to the reductio ad absurdum.

There are several felicitous features to the book. The literary style is a model of English clarity. The logic of the book is beautiful! One had better have his logical house in order or Clark will make short work of him (and this makes reviewing his book difficult!). Time and again Clark uses the law of contradiction to decimate an opposing view. He challenges the logical positivists to state their philosophy in defiance of the logic of contradiction. In the past century there have been many theologians who have defended the notion of a finite God as a resolution to the problem of evil. Clark argues decisively (to this reviewer) that from the standpoint of logical form one can argue for a finite devil who finds too much good going on in the universe to suppress it all! The logical structures of the two arguments are isomorphic so we are left with no criterion to choose one over the other.

Furthermore a refreshing honesty pervades the entire book. Clark believes that all thinking starts from presuppositions. Therefore there is no real sense in trying to cover them up or introduce them covertly into the argument. Clark comes right out in broad daylight and forcefully announces his assumptions. For example, he affirms that he is out to defend Christianity, and Christianity in the form of Calvinism, and Calvinism as exhibited in the Westminster Confession of Faith (pp. 23 f.).

Clark’s basic procedure is to show first that alternatives to Christianity default at the point of consistency and fall victim to the reductio ad absurdum; and then to show that only in Christian revelation is there grounds for a rationally-consistent world-view. To accomplish this he discusses five different topics which are the chapter divisions of his book: religion, philosophy, language, ethics, and evil.

In chapter one he shows that all attempts to define religion in a general way result in a logical mess. The only way out is to define religion as Christianity and that in turn as Calvinism. In chapter two he attempts to show that the history of modern philosophy results in ignorance or contradiction or skepticism. Only in Christian revelation can reason find its way to true rationality. This is to this reviewer the most rewarding chapter of the book. In chapter three Clark shows that attempts to define theological language as in some way logically odd or as complete symbolism fall to the ground for they only manage to say that religious language is meaningless or senseless. Only in literal religious language (coupled with revelation, verbal inspiration, and innate logic, cf. p. 150) is there a resolution to the problems of religious language. In the fourth chapter Clark finds the solution to the fundamental problem of ethics in the expressed will of God which is the right in itself purely because God so utters it. In the last chapter the resolution to the problem of evil is not to be found in the so-called doctrine of the freedom of the will (which is customary) but in the Sovereign God who is the cause of all things but not the author of all things.

One of the clear statements of his position is found on page 87: “Therefore I wish to suggest that we neither abandon reason nor use it unaided; but on pain of skepticism acknowledge a verbal, propositional revelation of fixed truth from God. Only by accepting rationally-comprehensible information on God’s authority can we hope to have a sound philosophy and a true religion.” He also calls his view a Christian intellectualism by which he means the primacy of the truth (p. 105). In the traditional language of apologetics his formula is the Augustinian-Anselmic one that we must believe in order to understand.

Clark does not fear a frontal attack on any who may in some manner confuse the strong position of the Westminster Confession. Accordingly he frequently takes on the fundamentalists for their pietism or obscurantism or anti-intellectualism. He also crosses swords with Hodge, Carnell, and Berkouwer for at some critical point each of these has waivered from the Westminster Confession.

Clark is strongest in philosophy where his meticulous knowledge of the history of philosophy is used to the best advantage. And he is best in philosophy when he is engaging in refutation. How refreshing is his logical clarity in a day when truth, proposition and consistency are reckoned as spiritual and theological penalties. If any student or pastor or professor is low on apologetic ammunition, here is plenty for replenishing the arsenal.

Some of the points about which there could be further discussion and at which there is perhaps some difference of opinion between author and reviewer are: 1. It cuts down on the labor to define Christianity in terms of the Westminster Confession of Faith but this stipulation stands in need of considerable justification. 2. The Westminster Confession puts great emphasis upon the witness of the Spirit which is missing in Clark’s approach, which suggests not so much an oversight but an inability to see how this doctrine can possibly fit into his scheme of verification (Westminster Confession, I, v, vi.). 3. The equal ultimacy of reprobation and election (p. 238) seems to me to commit the Gospel to arbitrariness and not to the good news of love and redemption for sinners. 4. There is no development of the dynamic side of the Word of God as found in Isaiah 55 or Heb. 4:12–13 and as expressed in the Hebrew word, dabar. 5. With Clark’s basic theses about language I am in agreement. But I feel that his understanding of language is formed too exclusively under the shadow of logic and does not allow enough for what may be learned from literature and linguistics. In that he believes all metaphorical language can be reduced to propositions without remainder I suspect that his theory of aesthetics and mine are divergent. 6. His treatment of ethics sounds to me like an ethical nominalism. The right is solely, simply what God decrees. God is ex-lex and is therefore responsible only to himself. But what is this “himself?” Is God ex-love? ex-pity? ex-mercy? ex-righteousness? Can it really be that it is wrong to sacrifice Isaac on Monday, right on Tuesday, and wrong again on Wednesday? 7. Clark argues that the idea of God is innate. The Reformed tradition has been very cautious at this point. Warfield agrees that the idea of God is innate but says it is a doctrine to be treated with great care (Calvin and Augustine, p. 34, fn. 4) whereas Bavinck rejects the idea outright (Doctrine of God, pp. 48 f.). They (the Reformed theologians) did teach the sensus deitatis and the semen religionis but never in any traditional philosophical sense of an innate idea of God. It was rather a piece of general revelation speaking to God’s continuous witness within the creature but never as the creature’s “possession.” 8. The most difficult chapter is the last because it contains a number of precise, almost hair-splitting, definitions and distinctions as well as a very closely-reasoned argument which at times becomes very difficult to follow. It defends a traditional Calvinistic determinism (in contrast to a mechanical or Islamic determinism) in which God is the cause of all that happens but not the immediate author of all that happens. I do not think that this absolutizing of the sovereignty of God in theology really catches the heartbeat of Scripture. At this point I find more scriptural consistency in Christological Lutheranism.

BERNARD RAMM

Madison Avenue Regnant

The New-Time Religion, by Claire Cox (Prentice-Hall, 1961, 248 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Floyd Doud Shafer, Pastor, Salem Presbyterian Church, Salem, Indiana.

That the world has joined the church, at the church’s friendly invitation and to the conversion of the church to the world’s ways, is no longer news: all that remains is to record the results. Miss Cox, United Press International religion writer, documents the victories of Madison Avenue, the men in grey flannels and the keen executives in the best of brisk, gay, crisp, statistics-studded and quotation-filled reportorial manners. In 17 chapters, Miss Cox describes the “new look” and the new folklore of snappy American religion. She discusses: why religion is so popular and so irrelevant, the new genre of soft-sell evangelists, the frustrating effect of the burst of religious activity on the pulpit and manse, architecture as a symbol of confusion, conflicts regarding hymns, Bible translations, biblical illiteracy, the ambiguous situation in the church school, the cult of togetherness, the new religion and social issues, and the kind of theology required to fit the atmosphere surrounding the busy church office, swimming pool and coffee hour. Through it all we see a clergy busy with everything but essentials, immensely popular yet strangely unwanted except in the more frivolous aspects of “successful” religion, and here we see a religion whose volubleness on every subject is equalled only by an attending inability to influence itself or its society toward righteousness. Most of the big names of the popular leaders are present with their appropriate quotes. Miss Cox makes small effort to criticize and an air of happy accord with the whole business pervades her writing. She does, however, make a meek plea for the return of The Old Rugged Cross to the hymnals, and she hopefully suggests that religion’s growth to bigness through merger will lead to a complete reunion of all Christendom. Roman and Jewish churches are included in her survey; however, the Jews are omitted from the final merger. Surely, Madison Avenue will find some way to include them, if Romans 11 won’t work.

The serious omission of the work is the failure to take cognizance of the vast number of pastors and lay people to whom this new-time religion is not progress but apostasy, not theology but anthropology, and not soteriology but social acceptability. In sum, Miss Cox records the modern parallel to the popular religion of Jeroboam II; and, by a mere recitation of the successful facts, she unwittingly summons many Amoses to arise in the land. When we have all finished with these clever reports, the Amoses will come: will the official priests of the new-time religion have ready-to-mouth the rebuffs that greeted Amos?

FLOYD DOUD SHAFER

Christ And The Modern

Christianity and Modern Man, by Albert T. Mollegen (Bobbs-Merrill, 1961, 160 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary.

This is a book with some obvious merits. It is short and lucid. It covers some of the great themes of the modern age in simple and understandable terms. The development of recent thought is clearly and adequately portrayed, and the weaknesses in modern systems, both philosophical and psychological, are exposed with acumen. Good use is made of modern literature, especially Auden, Eliot, and Koestler. The main themes of Christianity are presented with general fidelity, although in modern terminology and not without a measure of reinterpretation.

This leads us to some no less evident defects. The phrasing might have been amended to avoid certain colloquialisms in the original spoken form. Again, an index would have been useful considering the many references and the relatively high cost. More seriously, one wonders if the balance of the work is really satisfactory. Does not the positive statement require more space than is given? I further query whether the constructive statement is materially so good as the preceding analysis. The intellectual content of revelation is unnecessarily depreciated on page 102. Again, the element of general revelation is overemphasized on page 105. There is a distinct demythologizing trend on pages 114 ff., and justifiable impatience with historiographical pedantry is carried too far on pages 120 ff. Even such great doctrines as the Incarnation and the Atonement, though maintained, seem to have suffered from a process of generalizing and trivializing which is hardly in keeping with the New Testament.

In short, we have here a work which is to be commended for its avoidance of jargon and its historical analyses, but which unfortunately falls short of the full and definite presentation of the Gospel which is primarily required.

GEOFFREY W. BROMILEY

Novelists And Religion

The Ark of God; Studies in Five Modern Novelists, by Douglas Stewart (Carey Kingsgate, 1961, 160 pp., 8/6), is reviewed by Arthur Pollard, Lecturer in the Department of English, Manchester University.

Mr. Stewart, who is Assistant Head of Religious Broadcasting for the BBC, considers his chosen novelists (from James Joyce to Joyce Cary) as representative of various religious allegiances. Within their limit, these 1960 Whitley lectures are a brave and quite successful attempt at a large subject. It is good to find a person so well aware of the literary presentation of contemporary religious problems.

Nevertheless, the chapter titles suggest some strange associations, Aldous Huxley and mysticism, for instance. Huxley can be classified as a mystic, but only in a very special sense. Similarly, Graham Greene’s is a particular kind of Catholicism. Mr. Stewart, be it said, pleads that we regard his linkages loosely; and he has made some effort to indicate the necessary qualifications. Again, Rose Macaulay’s Anglicanism (in The Towers of Trebizond) is only partial. Can there indeed be a comprehensive statement about a church itself so comprehensive? Certainly many Anglicans would prefer to be aligned with Joyce Cary’s Protestantism. And is Rose Macaulay important enough to be placed alongside the others? I should have preferred a fuller treatment of William Golding who gets a few paragraphs in a parenthesis, for he is certainly the most significant religious thinker among practising novelists.

Mr. Stewart intersperses in his chapters some theological comments, for example, on the ineffective, because antiquated, use of ecclesiastical and literary dogmatism (“the Church teaches,” “the Bible says”) in our day. But he has not quite recognized the essential relationship of a live dogma with the Pentecostal experience which he later eulogizes. There is also an enlightened comment on the Church of England’s obfuscated attitude towards divorce.

The criticisms above should not be misinterpreted. They have been provoked by the stimulating quality of Mr. Stewart’s book.

ARTHUR POLLARD

God’S Son: Light Of Light

Light Against Darkness, by Bela Vassady (The Christian Education Press, 1961, 176 pp., $3), is reviewed by M. Eugene Osterhaven, Professor of Systematic Theology, Western Theological Seminary.

The author of this volume is representative of one of the oldest members of the Protestant family of churches, the Reformed Church of Hungary. Responding early to reform once the movement got under way, the five royal free cities in Hungary became Protestant in 1525, and the whole country embraced the new faith and became a bastion of evangelical religion in Eastern Europe. Centuries of oppression and persecution by Hapsburg, Jesuit, and Turk were not able to eliminate it from the life of the people, so 4 million Hungarian Protestants remain today in Europe. Dr. Vassady taught in three of the seminaries of the Reformed Church of Hungary before coming to America after World War II as the official representative of Magyar Protestantism. Presently he is professor of systematic theology at the seminary of the United Church of Christ in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

This volume, his second in English, represents the author’s “system” of theology. It is no closed system of thought but rather one in which all is seen in the light of God manifest in his revealed Word, the quintessence of which is Christ. The theme “light against darkness” runs from creation through the redemption promised in the Old Testament and declared in the New, to a chapter on the Christian’s walk and two additional chapters on the mission of the Church and the Christian. God’s command, “Let there be light,” marked the beginning of creation and is the reason that science is possible. Science needs religion; its two theories of the origin of the universe, evolution and the steady-state theory, are reminiscent of the Christian truths of creation and providence. Science is not sufficient to itself but must move out into metaphysics and theology (p. 22). Theology too is dependent on the physical world to express the inexpressible (p. 15 f.).

The fact that in the salvation of mankind light overcomes darkness shows that God is good and almighty (pp. 78 f., 164). In his light-bestowing goodness he binds his people into a partnership of repentance, gratitude, hope, love, and obedience so that they may discharge their light-bearing mission to the whole world (pp. 82 ff., 168).

The book employs much Scripture in establishing its positions. It is a happy blend of scientific and devotional writing, as all good theology should be, and stylistically it makes for pleasant reading.

M. EUGENE OSTERHAVEN

Titans Of The Church

Valiant For Truth, compiled and edited by David O. Fuller with biographical introductions by Henry W. Coray (McGraw-Hill, 1961, 460 pp., $7.95), is reviewed by Earle E. Cairns, Chairman, Department of History and Political Science, Wheaton College (Illinois).

Few collections of documents cover the whole scope of church history. Hence, evangelicals will welcome David O. Fuller’s collections of letters, sermons, prayers, speeches, theological works, and autobiographical selections from the pens of godly men from Paul to Machen.

Not only do the selections reflect several types of Christian literature but the choices embody the main interest of each writer’s life. Carey’s otherwise not readily obtainable essay on Christian missionary obligation or selections from the diary of Brainerd demonstrate this. The hitherto unpublished “On the Trinity” by Jonathan Edwards adds interest. The inclusion of many fine specimens of expository preaching provide illustrations of that technique which is so much needed in the contemporary pulpit.

The selections are enhanced by accurate, relevant, and creative biographical sketches of each writer from the pen of Henry W. Coray. Biographer and compiler have co-operated fruitfully.

Ministers or laymen who feel at times that they alone are “valiant for the truth” or need encouragement to declare the “whole counsel of God” will receive encouragement and inspiration from the reading of these selections. The great Christians portrayed here valiantly upheld, even at the cost of life, such verities of the faith as the authority of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, and the atoning death and resurrection of Christ.

EARLE E. CAIRNS

Tragedy Reconstructed

On the Trial of Jesus, by Paul Winter (Walter De Gruyter, 1961, 216 pp., 22 DM), is reviewed by Palmer D. Edmunds, Professor of Law, The John Marshall Law School, Chicago.

A reviewer of a recent book dealing with the life of Jesus asked the questions, “How many lives of Jesus, I wonder, have been published in the last century? Is there, after all, anything to be said about the four Gospels?” Whatever may be the answer, there would doubtless be general agreement that the way should be left freely open for attempts to throw new light upon the life and death of the One who, to the Christian, is the most important figure of human history.

In his book, On the Trial of Jesus, Paul Winter undertakes a reconstruction of Jesus’ trial and execution. Manifesting, by copious annotations, familiarity with surviving pagan and Jewish records, the author recognizes these as being of supplementary value with reference to such matters as the character of Pilate and the workings of Jewish law and legal institutions. For his main source material, however, he goes direct to the Gospels and undertakes a historical analysis “of documents which were neither written for historical purposes nor by persons used to thinking in historical terms.” In the process, which involves frequent recurrence to the precise language of the original Greek texts, “editorial accretions” are separated from “traditional elements,” and distinction is drawn between “primary” and “secondary” traditions. The author admits frankly that some questions cannot be answered with certainty, but one following through his analysis becomes impressed with the reasonableness of the conclusions reached. The need of spreading the events described in the four Gospels over a period of several days is held to be obviated. Thus, instead of five descriptions of the mockery of Jesus, one emerges to correspond to the very earliest setting. Jesus is held to have been arrested by Roman military personnel for military reasons, and condemned on grounds of a political rather than a religious character. Concepts such as orthodoxy or heresy did not then exist. “Heresy in its modern sense is an achievement of Christian history.”

More readily meaningful to the one already well-grounded in biblical learning, the book is nevertheless readable by the layman who is interested in gaining for himself the greater insight into the Scriptures that comes from a workable understanding of their history and composition.

PALMER D. EDMUNDS

Creativity Enthroned

Intellectual Foundation of Faith, by Henry Nelson Wieman (Philosophical Library, 1961, 212 pp., $3.75), is reviewed by David Hugh Freeman, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Rhode Island.

Mr. Wieman asks the question: What can save man from his self-destructive propensities and most completely actualize the constructive potentialities of human existence? Wieman examines answers of Dewey, the Personalists, Tillich, Barth, the world community, education, and freedom in order to give his own answer in terms of “the faith of liberal religion.”

Liberal religion, as Wieman conceives of it, rejects deliverance by way of an infinite, omnipotent and perfect being and seeks it in a creativity in human life which is not infinite, omnipotent, and perfect “but which operates in human life under knowable conditions, many of which man can provide.” When creativity generates insights, creativity may be called “God.” God is not a person any more than a square is a circle. “God is found in the divine creativity empirically transforming man as he cannot transform himself, thereby expanding the range of what he can know and control, can appreciate as good and distinguish as evil, can understand evaluatively in the unique individuality of his fellowmen and himself.”

While Wieman’s analysis of the position of others is informative, his rejection of historic biblical Christianity is frequently written in language that is utterly meaningless. Such an expression as “creativity creates ex nihilo” is similar to a “grin without a cat.” God, the Creator of heaven and earth, has vanished in Mr. Wieman’s world. What remains is creativity without a creator. It is most curious!

DAVID HUGH FREEMAN

Need: Evangelical Toynbee

Prophecy for Today, by J. Dwight Pentecost (Zondervan, 1961, 191 pp., $2.95), is reviewed by Merrill C. Tenney, Dean of the Graduate School, Wheaton College (Illinois).

In the past 30 years there has been a noticeable decline in the preaching of prophecy due partially to a reaction against extreme positions that some of its advocates formerly held, and partially to the rise of other questions, such as the nature of revelation and the character of the church, which have shifted the focus of theological discussion in a different direction. Dr. Pentecost re-emphasizes the value of predictive prophecy for the modern church, while making allowance for the errors of the past. He attempts to restate its basic truths for the present situation.

In 17 short chapters, based on sermons delivered to an average church audience, he discusses such subjects as “The Next Event in the Prophetic Program,” “Israel’s Title Deed to Palestine,” “The Coming Great World Dictator,” “The Rise and Demise of Russia,” and others. He follows generally the premillennial scheme of predictive prophecy advocated by Seiss, Scofield, Gaebelein, and others—namely, the rapture of the church, a seven-year period of tribulation in which the world will be dominated by a revived Roman empire, the preaching of the Gospel by a small group of Jews who acknowledge Christ as their Messiah, the ultimate destruction of the Gentile forces by the armies of heaven, and the establishment of the millennial kingdom.

The most novel feature of the book is the statement that Russia will become the means of awakening a reconstituted state of Israel to its need of God, and that the attack upon Israel by the “King of the North” will take place in the middle of the tribulation period.

Whether Dr. Pentecost is correct in all of his interpretations only time will tell. He has endeavored to deal with broad trends rather than with petty detail, and to retain the practical evangelistic note that should characterize all preaching of prophecy. He does not attempt to set dates, though he believes that the chain of events associated with the advent of Christ could begin at any time. He makes the rapture of the Church an integral part of the total process of consummation rather than the “trigger” of the end-time.

It seems to this reviewer that the Christian Church today needs an evangelical, premillennial Toynbee who can analyze the world process in the light of prophetic revelation, and who can interpret the totality of past, present, and future in terms of God’s purpose in Christ. Such a man should be both historian and prophet—“A Daniel come to judgment.” Perhaps Dr. Pentecost or some other scholar can develop more fully the process of thought which he has initiated in this book.

MERRILL C. TENNEY

Pulpit Luminary Of Boston

Focus on Infinity, A Life of Phillips Brooks, by Raymond W. Albright (Macmillan, 1961, 464 pp., $4.95), is reviewed by T. Robert Ingram, Rector of St. Thomas’ Episcopal Church and School, Houston, Tex.

Professor Albright has offered an entertaining diary-type record of the life of Phillips Brooks, the preaching star of both Boston and the Episcopal church of the post-Civil War era. It is 60 years, he writes, since the appearance of a similar but more lengthy work by Brooks’ close friend, Professor A. V. G. Allen, who like Dr. Albright, was at Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where Brooks was closely associated. The passage of time, together with the fact that the 125th anniversary of Phillips Brooks’ birth was marked on December 13, 1960, warrants a new study, says the author.

However, one wonders whether anything except a new and time-tested evaluation of Brooks could be added to the data available in the earlier biography. Unquestionably Brooks was not only a preacher of great power, but he also personified a particular and partisan Christian expression which was controversial in its day and has left an important mark on both the Episcopal church and the nation. One looks in vain for any attempt to come to grips with the issues which are hinted at, such as Brooks’ whole-hearted endorsement and propagation of the theology of England’s F. D. Maurice.

In view of the implications which time has effected in the development of Maurice’s views, as well as the current struggle over ecumenicity in which Brooks took a significant and interesting position, it might be hoped that a fuller analysis might be offered. Nonetheless, Professor Albright has portrayed Brooks much as he must have struck his contemporaries, with emphasis on a magnetic personality, the tweedy parson pleasantly dealing with the great issues of life while on a vigorous passage through the parlors of the great at home and abroad in the high style of the best of the nineteenth century.

T. ROBERT INGRAM

Athens And Jerusalem

The Memoirs Called Gospels, by G. P. Gilmour (Judson, 1960, 299 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Robert Mounce, Associate Professor of Biblical Literature and Greek, Bethel College.

With the publication of The Memoirs Called Gospels, Dr. Gilmour, president of McMaster University, brings to the broader reading public the results of more than a quarter century of lecturing to university freshmen on the gospel story. Approximately one third of the text itself is devoted to establishing an intelligent approach to the interpretation of the gospel record as literature and history. The rather extended section for footnotes and recommended reading will be of great assistance to the layman who desires to dig more deeply into the various areas discussed in the text.

Early in the book the author distinguishes between two views of life which predominate in the Western world: the Greek with its rejection of the childish myths of a primitive cosmology, and the Palestinian with its preoccupation with the religious ordering of life. It would seem to me that Dr. Gilmour is essentially involved in building a bridge between the two. At every point where the two perspectives would point to differing conclusions (such as the Virgin Birth, demons, miracles, nature of the Atonement, Resurrection, etc.) the author reaches for the best insights of Greece while never completely dismissing the less sophisticated faith of Palestine.

Dr. Gilmour writes as a litterateur rather than a professional New Testament scholar; thus while it is eminently quotable, the book never delves at any depth into the basic problems of gospel criticism, nor is it free from that type of incidental error that recourse to primary sources would have prevented as, for example, “the word saint never appears in the singular in the New Testament” (p. 152)—(but cf. Phil. 4:21, panta hagion).

ROBERT MOUNCE

Philadelphia Clergy Measure Crusade Impact

In Philadelphia, where historic churches abound, many an old pew was dusted off this month as converts from the Billy Graham crusade sought out regular places of worship.

Some 15,000 persons recorded decisions for Christ during the four-week crusade, which drew an aggregate attendance of more than half a million despite an unseasonably hot September. It was unquestionably the most far-reaching religious endeavor ever seen in the three-state Delaware Valley area.

Ministers were especially jubilant over the grass-roots impact of the crusade.

“It’s going to mean additional members for us,” said the Rev. A. Scott Hutchison, pastor of Third Baptist Church. “But, more important, it has resulted in a kindling of spiritual fire which will continue to grow.”

A district conference superintendent of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, the Rev. Carl M. Schneider, observed that church people were beginning to show new concern for their neighbors as a result of crusade participation.

“This is the wholesome thing,” declared Schneider.

Clergymen’s lives also were touched, according to the Rev. Robert W. Bringherst, minister of Leverington Presbyterian Church, who said that within evangelical ranks the crusade greatly strengthened cooperation among denominational and independent ministers.

At least four ministers were known to have made new personal affirmations of faith during the crusade, including a platform guest who stepped down during Graham’s invitation.

Personal workers said more than 50 per cent of those making decisions were 20 years of age or under. One teen-age convert, destined for the Jesuit priesthood, enrolled in the Philadelphia College of Bible instead.

Graham team members were gratified at the number of Negroes who turned out for the crusade, occasionally numbering up to 10 per cent of the audience, a record for American crusades, all of which have been integrated. Philadelphia’s population is estimated to be 28 per cent Negro, 42 per cent Roman Catholic, 6 per cent Jewish and 24 per cent white Protestant.

Graham’s next major U. S. crusade will be held in Chicago, beginning next May 30. During January and February he will tour South America, with rallies scheduled in seven key cities.

The Philadelphia evangelistic effort was augmented by a two-week follow-up seminar for ministers conducted by Charles Riggs, chief of counselling work for the Graham team.

Bypassing Doctrine

“The time has come,” said Dr. Truman B. Douglass, “when it is not necessary to wait for the solution of all problems of doctrine and form to begin to act together in fulfillment of the Church’s mission.”

Expressing skepticism that church union such as envisioned by Dr. Eugene Carson Blake can be achieved, Douglass proffered what amounts to an alternative: merge the mission boards of as many Protestant denominations as possible.

Douglass made the proposal in an address this month before the annual meeting of Ohio ministers of the United Church of Christ. He said he will recommend to the United Church Board for Homeland Ministries, of which he is the designated head, that merger conversations begin immediately.

“I suggest that the way to get the ecumenical movement off dead center is to return it to the missionary movement which gave it its original impetus,” declared Douglass.

He cited several specific forms of missionary work which ought to be unified: television and radio broadcasting; the making of motion pictures; establishment of churches in new communities; publishing and distributing books and periodicals; development of curricular materials for child education; “work of the Church in the field of higher education”; health and welfare projects; and the education and training of ministers.

Douglass lamented Protestant “disunity.” He declared: “Lay people who are finding ways of living together despite wide differences of ancestry, culture, and race are asked to separate themselves within the church because of theological quarrels conducted by their ancestors over issues which few of us today understand and even fewer care about.”

Some observers countered to the effect that mission work is hindered most, not by denominational competition as such, but by competing messages (often within the same denomination) wherein the uniqueness and finality of Christ is asserted by some and rejected by others.

Protestant Panorama

• Construction of a $2,000,000 religious center next to United Nations headquarters was endorsed this month by the Methodist General Board of Christian Social Concerns. The building would house a chapel, meeting rooms, offices, and a cafeteria, and would rise some 13 stories. It still needs the sanction of the Methodist Coordinating Council.

• The first evangelistic campaign ever conducted in modern Rome drew hundreds of persons nightly to Brancaccio Theater in summer meetings addressed by the Rev. Harold Herman of the U. S. Assemblies of God.

• A neatly-designed magazine geared to YMCA members and employees made its debut this month featuring a congratulatory letter from President Kennedy who noted that “the YMCA has provided a significant service to our nation by establishing sound programs of healthy recreation for both young people and adults through the years.” Editor of The Y Magazine, which will appear monthly, is Robert W. Moore.

• Three California students returning from the National Methodist Student Conference in Urbana, Illinois, were among 78 persons killed in the crash of an airliner near Chicago this month.

• A professional school for the training of ministers beyond the baccalaureate degree will open on the Tennessee campus of Milligan College next fall. To be known as the Emmanuel School of Religion, it will have no organic relationship to Milligan, but co-operation will be maintained. The curriculum will include Bible, biblical languages, church history, Christian education, theology, and practical ministries on a graduate level.

• Observance in England and in Calcutta marked the 200th anniversary of the birth of William Carey, famed Baptist missionary to India.

• A $100,000 grant from the estate of Mrs. Amelie McAlister Upshur will enable Fuller Theological Seminary to begin construction of a new library building to accommodate more than 200,000 volumes, with room for expansion.

The Sunday-School World, a Christian workers’ monthly published by the American Sunday-School Union, is marking its centennial.

The Negro Rift

Because of the controversy over racial integration, opening of the fall school term spelled more than a little strife in the United States in recent years. This year, however, while more schools were integrating peacefully, the battleground shifted to an unlikely site: the church convention floor, where the conflict was between the Negroes themselves over integration methodology and where a leadership dispute led to the death of a prominent delegate.

In a surprising turn of events, the presidents of the nation’s two largest Negro religious organizations denounced Freedom Rides.

“What do you produce when you are in jail?” cried Dr. J. H. Jackson, whose claim to the presidency of the 5,000,000 member National Baptist Convention, U. S. A., Inc., was upheld in a court-monitored election in Kansas City.

“We want our rights, but we must assume responsibility,” said Jackson. “Negroes have got to learn that there is something else in the country besides civil rights.”

He said other Negro integrationists “want somebody else to solve the problem. They want the government to do it.”

In San Francisco, where the 2,500,000-member National Baptist Convention of America was holding its own annual sessions, President C. D. Pettaway affirmed “a better way” to integration.

“Of course I want all the freedom to which a law-abiding citizen is entitled and that includes the freedom to ride on a bus, if I have the money,” he said. “But I wouldn’t want to go to jail just for a ride.”

The 75-year-old clergyman from Arkansas said his own formula to bring about integration was, “Just be a good citizen and a high-class man.”

In Kansas City, Jackson’s views were challenged by a strong minority group led by Dr. Gardner C. Taylor of Brooklyn, New York, past president of the Protestant Council of New York, and Dr. Martin Luther King, noted integrationist.

Taylor claimed to have defeated Jackson in an election for the presidency at last year’s convention in Philadelphia. Jackson, who had then been president for seven years, said he was re-elected when a convention assembly moved to accept a nominating committee’s recommendation to that effect.

After Jackson declared the Philadelphia session adjourned, however, a crowd stayed behind and held another election which Taylor won by 1,864 to 536. The convention was then stalemated when both sides obtained temporary court injunctions to prevent the conducting of business.

When the dispute went into the courts, a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge ruled that he had no jurisdiction.

Then, in October of last year, the directors of the convention decided in favor of Jackson’s presidency.

Taylor, however, continued to declare that he was the rightfully elected president and he came to this year’s convention in Kansas City pressing his claim. His supporters stormed the convention speakers’ platform in an effort to obtain recognition and a near riot ensued.

During the melee, the Rev. Arthur G. Wright, a convention director, plunged headlong from the platform and was rushed unconscious to a hospital. He died of a head injury 17 hours later.

Wright, 64, was a wealthy businessman from Detroit and pastor of one of the city’s largest Negro churches.

Kansas City detectives said a preliminary investigation indicated that Wright had fallen accidentally—that he had apparently not been pushed.

Subsequently, Kansas City Mayor H. Roe Bartle took the rostrum and warned, “If you came here to raise hell in God’s name, then we’ll have to cancel the contract.”

After the violence, a petition for an injunction filed in a circuit court resulted in the appointment of Dr. D. A. Holmes of Kansas City to monitor the election. The 84-year-old minister was accepted as monitor by both factions.

The polling of nearly 5,000 delegates to the convention took some five hours. Jackson was declared the winner by a vote of 2,732 to 1,519.

Taylor then acknowledged his defeat and urged delegates to support Jackson:

“The supreme court of the National Baptist Convention has spoken,” he said. “Let us all close our ranks behind the leadership of Dr. Jackson.”

In the fight for the convention leadership, both the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and President Kennedy were brought into the dispute.

Taylor’s supporters accused Jackson of attempting to use a routine telegram of greetings from the NAACP to further his cause. They obtained a second message from Roy Wilkins, executive secretary of the NAACP, saying that the organization was supporting neither candidate.

Because President Kennedy did not send a telegram of greeting to the convention, Jackson’s supporters charged that Taylor’s camp had turned the President against their leader.

Convention Circuit

At Bethlehem, Pennsylvania—New regulations on the remarriage of divorced persons were approved at the 29th Synod of the Northern Province of the Moravian Church in America.

The church’s previous rules had permitted remarriage only in the case of “an innocent party” in a marriage broken by adultery. Under the new regulations, a pastor is permitted to officiate in the remarriage of divorced persons if in his judgment, and the judgment of the congregation’s board of elders, the persons have met the following requirements:

Recognition of personal responsibility for the failure of the former marriage, penitence and an effort to overcome limitations and failure, forgiveness of the former partner, fulfillment of obligations involved in the former marriage, and a willingness to make the new marriage a Christian one by dependence on Christ and participation in his church.

In addition, one of the parties must be a member of the local Moravian congregation, and one year must have passed since the divorce.

The synod also went on record in favor of family planning. Some 110 delegates ended the eight-day meeting by adopting resolutions opposing capital punishment and federal aid to church-supported schools and reaffirming the 1956 synod’s call for racial equality in the church.

The Moravian Church in America (Unitas Fratrum) is divided into the Northern and Southern Provinces with a total membership of more than 60,000.

At Tyler, Minnesota—A warning to laymen against the tendency to let their pastors become “errand boys” was made by the president of the American Evangelical Lutheran Church. The Rev. A. E. Farstrup told delegates to the AELC’s 84th annual convention that denominational congregations should organize themselves so that many more duties could be taken from the shoulders of their pastors. He said this was particularly important as the AELC moves into union with three other Lutheran bodies and pastors are busy with merger negotiations. Pastors, he advised, also must have time to study and meditate and to counsel with those seeking their help.

One of the actions taken at the AELC convention was ratification, by a vote of 260 to 7, of an agreement of consolidation with the Augustana Lutheran Church, the United Lutheran Church in America, and the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church (Suomi Synod). The four groups are of Danish, Swedish, German, and Finnish background.

Vernon E. Nelson, AELC statistician, reported that latest available figures credit the denomination with a total of 24,201 members.

At Cape Girardeau, Missouri—A resolution adopted at the 56th annual General Assembly of The Church of God urged aid to the Russian and Chinese people. It called on President Kennedy and Congress to “feed all the hungry of Russia and China from America’s overabundance in the greatest diplomatic move ever proposed.”

Presiding at the sessions was Bishop Homer A. Tomlinson of Queens Village, New York, where the church has its headquarters. He has been general overseer of the church since 1943 when he succeeded his father, Bishop A. J. Tomlinson, who founded the body in 1903. Current membership is about 74,000. The church is not connected with any other group having a similar name.

At Tacoma, Washington—The 25th General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church, Inc., saw ratification of a proposed change in the name of the denomination to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The change had been proposed by the preceding synod and consequently approved by a majority of the 11 presbyteries throughout the country.

The reason given for the name change was to avoid confusion with the Bible Presbyterian Church, Collingswood Synod, made up of churches formerly associated with the General Synod.

The new name became effective immediately and involves about 70 churches in the United States.

Elected moderator of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church was Dr. John M. L. Young. Stated clerk is the Rev. Robert Hastings.

At Cheyenne, Wyoming—Delegates to the seventh annual meeting of the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches moved to establish the group as the official denominational body for Congregational churches that did not join in the merger with the Evangelical and Reformed Church.

The group has been in existence since 1955 and has from the outset expressed opposition to the merger which created the United Church of Christ.

At the most recent three-day meeting, some 370 delegates voted to launch a $4,000,000-$5,000,000 fund-raising drive and to authorize establishment of a “Congregational Center for Graduate Studies.”

At Lockland, Ohio—Churches and mass media were urged to awaken America “to the danger of Communist infiltration of youth and student groups” at the 11th annual meeting of the Baptist Bible Fellowship.

In a resolution adopted by nearly 1,000 delegates, the group appealed to the country’s schools to educate “our youth in our glorious American patriotic heritage.”

The fundamentalist Baptist Bible Fellowship, founded 11 years ago with 64 co-operating churches, now claims a 1,200-church fellowship and a “total membership and Sunday School enrollment constituency” of more than 1,000,000. A missionary arm supports 160 missionaries on 27 foreign fields. Affiliation is maintained with the International and American Councils of Christian Churches.

In another resolution, delegates declared that the United States should withdraw from the United Nations if Communist China is admitted.

In other actions, delegates called for an investigation of the World Federation for Mental Health, a UNESCO agency, charging it with being “an instrument of socialism, subversion and an enemy of biblical Christianity.” Members were urged to avoid use of the recently-published New Testament of The New English Bible.

Among convention speakers was past president John W. Rawlings, who lamented “the new-time religion” as having “turned churches into recreation halls, nurseries, social service agencies and psychological clinics.”

“The new-time religion,” said Rawlings, “is just a new worldly Mother Hubbard movement that covers everything and touches nothing. It is not the old-time religion of the Bible at all.”

Call for Chaplains

An urgent plea for volunteer chaplains is being made by Major General Frank A. Tobey, chief of Army chaplains. Some denominations will continue to have more than their share, but the expansion opens up the quotas for a number of others. Tobey observed that there already was a shortage of Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, and Jewish chaplains.

Moving Ministers

An Ohio Congressman is sponsoring a bill to provide that the amount paid to a minister for moving expenses shall be deductible for income tax purposes.

Republican Representative Jackson E. Betts’ measure provides an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that would exclude from taxable income “amounts received for moving himself and his immediate family, household goods, and personal effects to a place at which he is to perform duties as a minister of the Gospel, to the extent used by him for such moving.”

Betts pointed out that clergymen in many denominations are required to move from time to time by the custom or rules of their church bodies.

Moving expenses are ordinarily not deductible because the IRS holds that a person usually moves to secure a better position or avail himself of better environment and that moving, therefore, is a personal rather than a business expense.

The Ohio Congressman said the situation is different with regard to members of the clergy.

Brotherly Dispute

A new fight for control of the Lutheran Brotherhood, a billion-dollar fraternal life insurance society, is reported brewing.

A committee of 100 clergymen and laymen has been organized to attempt to call a special convention of society delegates.

Such a meeting, if called, would “review the conduct of the administration since the last convention and reorganize the administration if it appears feasible,” one of the leaders of the movement, Gordon A. Bubolz, said.

Bubolz, a director of the society for 18 years, supported the Lutheran Brotherhood’s management, led by Carl F. Granrud, president, when an attempt was made to unseat it at the society’s 1959 quadrennial convention. This time he is opposing Granrud.

One of the charges that will be made, Bubolz indicated, is that the directors of the brotherhood, on Granrud’s recommendation, set aside an action of the 1959 convention putting an age limit of 65 on company officials and department heads.

Bubolz claimed the board action meant that at least four of the society’s 12 directors, including Granrud, who were near retirement age, “voted to extend their own terms of office.”

The society has members from all Lutheran bodies, but has no official relationship with any particular denomination.

Mending Fences

On a cold day in 1778 British troops tore down a fence belonging to St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in Philadelphia and burned it for firewood.

The church, which is marking its 200th anniversary this month, never wrote off the loss.

In this case, the perseverance paid off to the tune of $18, recently paid by British Chancellor of the Exchequer Selwyn Lloyd—out of his own pocket.

Officially, the British government rejected the claim made by the rector of St. Peter’s, the Rev. Joseph Koci, for payment of the original debt plus compound interest of $756,000.

But Koci said that with receipt of Lloyd’s personal check for six pounds, eight shillings, and one penny, he would see that the account was closed.

“As for the compound interest,” he declared, “we can willingly forget it in the interests of Anglo-American amity.”

The $18 will he applied toward classroom renovation.

Holding Seats

The three Arab Christian members of the 120-member Israeli parliament were re-elected last month.

One was Elias Nakleh, Eastern Rite Catholic, a member of Premier David Ben-Gurion’s Mapai Party.

The others were Youssef Khamis, a Protestant Episcopalian, who is a member of the leftist Mapai Party; and Tewfik Toubi, a Greek Orthodox.

Communists increased the number of their seats from three to five. In Nazareth they gained almost half the votes.

More Angola Arrests

Portuguese secret police arrested four American Methodist missionaries in strifetorn Angola, according to an announcement from the Board of Missions of The Methodist Church in New York.

Two ministers and two laymen were taken into custody, the board said, adding that charges against the missionaries are unknown.

The arrests brought to five the number of American Methodist missionaries picked up by Portuguese police in Angola, where a civil war between white settlers and Africans has been raging for nearly six months.

The Rev. Raymond E. Noah of Palco, Kansas, was arrested July 14 and held for 28 days before being deported to Geneva.

Two of the missionaries, the Rev. Wendell Lee Golden of Rockford, Illinois, and Marion Way, Jr., of Charleston, South Carolina, were reportedly arrested in Luanda, capital of Angola.

The others, Fred Francel of Endeavor, Wisconsin, and the Rev. Edwin LeMaster of Lexington, Kentucky, were said to have been picked up by police in the city of Quessua.

Communist Cynicism

East German authorities, in a move branded by church circles in Berlin as one of unprecedented cynicism, barred Dr. Kurt Scharf, chairman of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany, from returning to East Berlin this month after he had paid an eight-hour visit to West Berlin on official business.

The action was taken despite the fact that the East German officials, acceding to a request from the management of the Evangelical Church of Berlin-Brandenburg, had issued a temporary pass to Scharf permitting him to cross the border barricades.

When Scharf, who has resided in East Berlin since 1951, returned to the border checkpoint, Communist police took away his East Berlin identity card and pass, ostensibly to investigate the documents. Thirty minutes later, he was informed that he would not be allowed to re-enter East Berlin and that the decision was “final and not subject to further discussion.” His identity card and pass were confiscated.

Reason given for Scharf’s expulsion was that he had retained his West Berlin identity card and thus failed to make clear his claim to East Berlin citizenship.

Fear was expressed that Scharf’s expulsion might result in a breakdown of German Lutheranism over the political barrier. The church is the only remaining major institution which operates on both sides of the divided Germany.

People: Words And Events

Deaths: The Rt. Rev. Theodore Nott Barth, 63, bishop of the Episcopal diocese of Tennessee; in Memphis … the Rt. Rev. Charles A. Clough, 58, bishop of the Episcopal diocese of central and southern Illinois; in Springfield … Dr. Thomas M. Johnstone, ex-moderator of the General Assembly of the Irish Presbyterian Church … Colonel P. L. DeBevoise, former national secretary of the Salvation Army; in Atlanta … the Rev. Joseph Scott, 93, a founder of the Church of God denomination and an adviser to William Jennings Bryan in the historic Scopes trial; in Chattanooga … the Rev. Norman S. Townsend, 44, newly appointed chaplain of Gordon College and Divinity School; in Wolfboro, New Hampshire.

Resignation: From the editorship of the Ohio Baptist Messenger, the Rev. R. G. Puckett.

Appointments: As professor of Bible and religious education at California Baptist College, Dr. Cecil M. Hyatt … as general director of The Evangelical Alliance Mission, Vernon Mortenson.

Elections: As president of the Northern Province of the Moravian Church in America, the Rev. Kenneth C. Hamilton … as moderator, National Assn. of Congregational Christian Churches, Laurance E. Frost.

The Communist Terror: Plight of the Korean Christians

The West is keenly aware of the terrible Nazi persecution of the Jews, but the story of Communist persecution of the Christians in Korea and mainland China remains to be told.

Glimpses of terror for North Korean Christians are given in the following interview with Dr. Kyung Chik Han, minister of famed Young Nak Presbyterian Church in Seoul. Founded in 1945 by refugees who fled the Communists in North Korea, where they hoped to return “after reunification,” this church today has a daily morning prayer meeting at 5 a.m. Its two Sunday morning services and its Sunday evening service are each attended by more than 2000 worshipers.

Dr. Kyung Chik Han ministered for 10 years on the Yalu River frontier. Born of Confucian parents, he had attended a small Presbyterian church school, and there made a Christian confession. He attended Soong Sil Presbyterian College (oldest in Korea); Emporia (Kansas) College; and Princeton Theological Seminary (where he studied under Professors J. Gresham Machen and Oswald T. Allis).—ED.

DR. HENRY: Dr. Han, what was the Christian strength in Korea at the end of World War II?

DR. HAN: The Christian community in Korea numbered a half million persons, two-thirds of them in North Korea. In the Yalu River frontier city of Sin Wiju, (pop. 130,000) one-fourth of the inhabitants were Christians.

DR. HENRY: Japanese authorities asked a small group of Christian leaders (of whom you were one) to organize the community and to maintain order until UN forces arrived. Is this so?

DR. HAN: Yes. That’s why we organized the new city council of Sin Wiju (the Yalu River frontier city). The late Ha Yung Youn, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, and I were vice chairmen of the new government. A Presbyterian layman was chairman. Ha Yung Youn’s church was then the largest in all Korea; it had 2200 worshipers.

DR. HENRY: You never expected, of course, that Russian Communists would arrive to stay, but rather that American forces would come in as representatives of the United Nations.

DR. HAN: That is right. When we first had the UN liberation, every church was filled and overflowing. And I think that if the American forces had come into North Korea instead of the Communists, the whole of North Korea would have become Christian, maybe.

DR. HENRY: So you all gave a great welcome to the Russians as representatives of the UN forces. Only 10 days later did you learn, I am told, that two forces would occupy a “temporarily divided” Korea—as you thought it would be at that time. When the Russian forces came into the city, what were the consequences for the Christian leaders who had been given the responsibility of organizing and restoring order?

DR. HAN: As soon as the Russians came in they began to recognize our city council, and they put Christian citizens and ministers out of the council and they changed many other members. They put in Communists in order to dominate the council.

DR. HENRY: How long was it before they organized the Communist party as such?

DR. HAN: As soon as they reorganized the council they organized the Communist party also.

DR. HENRY: Now what did the people as a whole do, inasmuch as so large a percentage of them were Christians?

Communist Techniques

DR. HAN: In those days we really didn’t know there were any Communists in the city. I think they brought some farmers from some outlying farms and they just more or less made Communists out of the tenants. They told the tenants that ‘if you join our Communistic party the land will belong to you’ and through some such word made a lot of ‘trick’ Communists out of them.

DR. HENRY: What did the people of the city do when the Communists organized their Communist party?

DR. HAN: Most of the leaders organized the democratic party to fight against this new movement which was contrary to the will of the people.

DR. HENRY: You said about 25 per cent of the people of the city were Christians. Did the Christians actively co-operate in this democratic party or take the leadership in it?

DR. HAN: Yes, Christians took leadership, and all co-operated—not only Christians but many non-Christians also.

DR. HENRY: Then how long was it before the Communists began to take active measures against this party?

DR. HAN: As soon as the Communists had organized, their Communist party dominated all city affairs and also provincial affairs and began to persecute all those leaders not in favor of communism. One morning they began to round up the leaders who opposed Communism.

DR. HENRY: What form did this persecution take?

DR. HAN: They interfered at all kinds of meetings. They made it impossible for those in favor of democracy to meet, and then they began to arrest the leaders of the opposition party. They would throw them in prison and leave them there on nebulous charges.

Fleeing the Oppressors

DR. HENRY: Were you also in jeopardy?

DR. HAN: Both Mr. Youn and I were no longer pastors. If we had been pastors in those days we couldn’t have escaped. I suppose we would have been arrested. One day in October, 1945, we learned that they were also planning to arrest Pastor Youn and myself. So we hurriedly had to leave our home and we rode by truck for about 50 miles down south, and then we took a train. When we came near to the separation line (38th parallel) we walked 50 miles over mountain paths through the night. That’s how we reached South Korea.

DR. HENRY: Did pressures mount against the Christians who remained behind in North Korea?

DR. HAN: When the Communists started to come in they proclaimed publicly that complete freedom of religion would be given the people. But they really didn’t keep their promise. Through many indirect ways they interfered with the Christian Church.

DR. HENRY: What were some indirect ways?

DR. HAN: Well, for instance, they would hold all kinds of meetings on Sundays that would interfere with church worship. Then they began to control the schools. They usually held meetings for the children so the children couldn’t come to Sunday school. And then later, of course, they almost systematically put Christians and democratic leaders out of jobs, especially from government offices. And that way gradually they shaped such conditions so that anyone opposing communism simply could not live in North Korea.

DR. HENRY: When did the Communists first show open violence and hostility toward the Christians—imprisoning them, and so on?

DR. HAN: Well, I think the persecution began about October of that year.

DR. HENRY: Already at about the time you left?

DR. HAN: Yes. Then later they rounded up practically all the leaders—I mean leaders in religious circles, leaders in the business world, and leaders in society.

DR. HENRY: All who resisted communism on Christian principles?

DR. HAN: Not only on Christian principles, but also on democratic principles. I mean, even non-Christian leaders were rounded up. And then they also began to hold those people who belonged, as they called it, to “the bourgeoisie.” For instance, usually business leaders who had fine homes were ordered to leave the home within two or three days. And landlords who owned land were sometimes ordered to get out within 24 hours. And the purge—the real crisis—began in late 1945. These leaders who lost their homes and who lost their business and did not know where to turn became refugees and began to move down from North to South, leaving everything behind.

DR. HENRY: What specifically happened to the Christians in Sin Wiju?

Persecution and Vitality

DR. HAN: In spite of persecution most Christian leaders remained in their position until they were imprisoned and sent elsewhere. Most pastors who had a church remained even if they knew what was coming. But some elders and most leaders, realizing that they couldn’t live in North Korea any more, just felt that they had to escape. Such people tried to come down to South Korea. Some succeeded and some did not. In spite of Communist persecution the churches in North Korea were going strong. They did fine until the Communist war. Then the Communists began to invade South Korea, and they arrested practically all of the pastors.

DR. HENRY: With the invasion of South Korea by the Communists, there seemed to be a systematic plan to get rid of the Christian leadership in North Korea?

DR. HAN: They arrested the Christian ministers and usually sent them off to coal mines and such places for hard labor.

DR. HENRY: Did they have a trial of any sort, or were they just removed overnight, or what happened?

DR. HAN: They just take you—they take you and nobody knows where you have gone, and no information whatsoever is given the family. In North Korea even today, if anyone disappears he just disappears; that’s all. Nobody knows what has happened with him.

DR. HENRY: What of the reports that many of the Christian leaders were summoned to a meeting by the Communists and that these Christian leaders vanished as a group?

DR. HAN: Yes, some such things happened in a good many places, I think. Now for instance, as I understand it, when the Communists temporarily occupied Seoul, during 1950, they called some kind of meeting for all Christian leaders. When they all got together in a certain place, they were ordered to ride in trucks and then taken some place.

DR. HENRY: How many leaders were there?

DR. HAN: Well, during the Communist occupation in 1950, during that summer, something over 500 Christian leaders were taken that way.

DR. HENRY: What was ever heard from them?

DR. HAN: We have never heard what happened with them.

DR. HENRY: Who were these leaders? Pastors and elders, and who else?

DR. HAN: Mostly pastors and elders. For instance, among them there was Bishop Yusun Kim who was bishop of the whole Korean Methodist church. Then there was Dr. Nankoong, who used to be the general secretary of the Korean National Council.

DR. HENRY: What do the Christians think the Communists did with these Christian leaders whom they removed?

DR. HAN: We do not know exactly. We believe that they were held in North Korea somewhere.

DR. HENRY: You think they are still alive?

DR. HAN: Yes, we believe that most would be alive. The most tragic thing that happened was, of course, when the United Nations forces marched up to North Korea. As you know, the Communists were defeated by MacArthur’s forces. The United Nations forces (UN soldiers and Korean national soldiers) were marching up to North Korea, so the Communists had to retreat. At that time, in many places, these retreating Communists would gather together Christian leaders and also civic leaders, and many cases of massacre happened. They would be gathered and shot down with machine guns.

DR. HENRY: Before General Mac-Arthur’s forces arrived, the Communists moved to destroy the Christian and civic leaders?

DR. HAN: Yes. In many places throughout all North Korea such massacres happened.

DR. HENRY: Why did they do this?

DR. HAN: That’s the way of a Communist.

DR. HENRY: Dr. Han, you managed to escape from North Korea. Now we want to learn some of your experiences in that process.

A Church Born in Prayer

DR. HAN: After I left, a good many young people followed me down to Seoul. We didn’t know what was happening and what was ahead of us. Everybody was lonesome, and naturally we got together for prayer meetings.

DR. HENRY: Did you go back to North Korea?

DR. HAN: No, except once. When the UN forces reoccupied Northern Korea, within a week I followed UN forces north. As soon as the way was open to go to North Korea, the churches in South Korea sent a deputation composed of Korean ministers and missionaries. And I think there were about 10 of us who went within a week of occupation to Pyongyang as a deputation from South Korea, in order to help those leaders who were in North Korea. When we got to Pyongyang many people who had been hiding under Communistic rule came out of their hiding places with long beards. We met many ministers who escaped death under Communistic rule. We had a great meeting, the one Sunday we stayed there. Everybody had some story to tell. It was a great experience which we can never forget.

DR. HENRY: What did these ministers say? How long had they been in hiding and what had they been doing?

DR. HAN: Some a few years; everyone was in hiding at least more than three or four months. They were the ones who escaped the Communist regime. And so the church was reopened, we had a big meeting with lots of people. We had a big Sunday.

DR. HENRY: Was this just in Pyongyang or was it duplicated in other places in North Korea?

DR. HAN: Many places. In fact, our delegation was planning to go further into North Korea. My object, of course, was to go to Sin Wiju, my old town. So in Pyongyang we planned to go further north. But at that time we were advised by UN authorities not to proceed to North Korea because the Chinese Communists were crossing the Yalu River and invading. Since they advised us not to proceed further from Pyongyang, we had to return to South Korea.

DR. HENRY: What did you think then of the Christians who still remained in North Korea, as the Chinese Communists pressed into North Korea?

Traveling 500 Miles on Foot

DR. HAN: At first we thought that these Chinese Communists could be resisted and could be driven out of the country. But they just came on, masses of soldiers, and at that time I suppose the UN authorities thought it best to retreat. And then, as you know, President Truman didn’t allow General MacArthur to bomb Manchuria. And so he had to fight only south of the Yalu River. In such a case, one can’t maintain an army in North Korea. So General MacArthur had to withdraw the UN forces from North Korea. And that, of course, gave all the people of North Korea a great scare, because they were so happy to welcome UN forces. Now they were bewildered. And when they realized that the Communists were coming back, they knew they couldn’t live under a Communist regime anymore. They tried to follow the retreating UN forces down to South Korea, most of them by walking. It was a very severe winter. Some of them had to walk 500 miles to reach South Korea, and many of them did.

DR. HENRY: Were you with a company of people who came to South Korea this way?

DR. HAN: No, we returned to Seoul rather early, while the UN forces were holding against the Communists. So we came back safely by mission jeep. But those who were following UN forces had to walk down.

DR. HENRY: Did you have great hardship? Were some lost on the way?

DR. HAN: Yes. One tragic thing was that the UN air force simply couldn’t distinguish whether they were infiltrating Chinese Communists or whether they were Korean refugees. So a good many of them were bombed on the way by UN forces.

DR. HENRY: Did some also die from the hardships of the trip?

DR. HAN: Yes. Later, when the Communists regained North Korea, there was also much loss of life as refugees sought to cross the 38th parallel. They had to escape Communist guards. They had to cross over by night. Some had to ride on small boats along the seashore. When they were found out by Communist guards, sometimes they lost their lives, and families got separated. That’s how we had so many orphans along the 38th parallel. And that’s how our orphanage was organized—to take care of these children coming to Seoul and not knowing where to go. Since our church was known as a refugee church, they would come to our church for help.

DR. HENRY: I understand that as some Christians died along the way from the rigors of the journey, they would commit their children to other members of their congregation to take care of them.

DR. HAN: Yes. There were many such cases. They usually would come down in groups. When they were found out by Communists and when shooting started, everybody just had to take care of himself as best he could. Then they got separated one from another.

DR. HENRY: Can you tell us about how many of the Christians fled the Communist persecutions and escaped from North Korea to South Korea? About how many remained, and what is the condition of the Christian witness in North Korea today?

DR. HAN: Of course, we have no exact figure; that is impossible. We wonder, maybe about 100,000 Christians might have come down from the North. But that means still the vast majority are still remaining in North Korea. But the tragic thing is after this Communist war they could not have open services in North Korea. And the Christian movement went underground entirely. So we have no open church whatever in North Korea. For 10 years many Christians, hiding in the different places and meeting in houses and in secret meetings, have prayed and cried to our Lord for the deliverance throughout North Korea.

A Land without Churches

DR. HENRY: There is not a single church, you say—so no pastors, no missionaries are at work there?

DR. HAN: That is right.

DR. HENRY: What lesson ought the events in North Korea teach the Christian community around the world about the attitude of communism toward the Christian religion?

DR. HAN: Well, we must tell to all Christians who are living in the free world that as long as Communists remain in power in any country, Christian activities will be almost impossible. That does not mean that you can’t have Christian faith. But as far as organized Christian witness is concerned, that would be almost impossible, unless the church is ready to compromise in some way to get along with the Communist regime—which is rather very hard for Christian conscience.

Prayer for the Brethren

DR. HENRY: What is the prayer of the Christian community in South Korea for the Christian community in North Korea?

DR. HAN: We always pray for our brethren who are remaining in North Korea, that God will strengthen them and give them courage to live through these dark days. But at the same time, we also pray for such a time when the Communists will be driven out of North Korea so that North Korea might be Christianized. We believe such a time will come.

DR. HENRY: What is the situation now in South Korea from a Christian stand-point?

DR. HAN: Since the liberation of Korea from the Japanese dominion, the Christian church has been greatly strengthened throughout South Korea. Such strengthening came from many sources. One of the main sources was the Christian refugees from North Korea. Wherever these Christian refugees came down from North Korea, the Gospel came with them. And through these refugees many new churches have been founded throughout South Korea, and many new converts made through them, because these refugees literally became evangelists wherever they went. So today you will find a large Christian community. It is said that there are about 2 million Christians in South Korea today—that means almost seven or eight per cent of the population in South Korea.

DR. HENRY: Dr. Han, you were born shortly after the turn of the century, and you are living through the clash between Christianity and communism. What do you personally expect as you look into the future of this generation with its terrible struggle between Christianity and the non-Christian faiths?

DR. HAN: I think a very hard, severe struggle is ahead of us. But I also firmly believe the day will come for the final victory of Christ. Until such a day comes, we Christians should fight the good fight of faith and give everything we have for the cause of Christ. There is always a sound rule in a time of trouble: preach the Gospel and cheer up.

Ideas

God Give Us Writers

It is high time something is done about Christian literature. Evidently nearly everyone is interested in writing a book, seeing it published, and entering a substantial royalty on his income tax returns. But this is not quite the same thing as providing our generation and those to follow with the stuff that builds men for God.

In an interesting address before the Christian Librarians’ Fellowship at Buffalo, Miss Ruby Dare, of Greenville College, Illinois, listed four qualities which, she contended, can be found in classic Christian writings of any age. They are: a well-trained mind, a devout spirit, the capacity to say something about God, and the ability to say it well.

Great Christian literature from the past keeps on blessing mankind century after century. Its powers of endurance have had an incalculable effect upon the human race. As Miss Dare points out, Paul’s Letter to the Romans influenced Augustine; Augustine’s Confessions affected Luther; Luther’s Preface to his Commentary on Romans moved Wesley and his Commentary on Galatians stirred John Bunyan. Wesley and Whitefield were both mightily swayed by William Law’s Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life. Wesley in turn wrote his Plain Account of Christian Perfection which has had an astonishing ministry down to our own day. Recently a Presbyterian church prayer group in Indiana began to read William Law’s volume, and a new edition of the book resulted.

When we move from this realm of exalted reading to the latest religious pot-boiler off our high-speed modern presses, we are apt to become discouraged. Where are the giants of our age? Surely the Bible bookstores are not so dusted with subjective piety that they will not open their doors to arresting and exciting (let alone great) Christian waiting when it appears. Miss Dare says that C. S. Lewis has been heralded as “the only writer of this generation who has originality in Christian thought and skill in recording his ideas.” Where are the C. S. Lewises of America? Who is speaking to the people who will influence the great sections of population, in their own idiom, telling of Jesus Christ?

Henry Zylstra, the late professor of English literature at Calvin College, made some interesting observations about contemporary Christian literature. He drew a sharp distinction between competent craftsmanship and artistic integrity. Of one serialized novel which won an $8,000 award for Christian fiction he said, “The whole novel is contrived; it is trade writing; it is not authentic; it is not literature.”

Zylstra maintained that more is needed for the production of literature than an individual writer. If Christian literature is to be important, it must acknowledge and maintain its relations with the total life and culture which come to expression in it. Thus, he says, “an important Reformed novel really requires the satisfaction of two conditions: a Reformed writer and a Reformed culture.” Culture alone, he says, is the liberal heresy. Christianity versus culture (and nothing more) is the fundamentalist heresy. “It is as human beings that we are Christians,” he maintains. Therefore the true path of our literature must be: “Christianity through culture” (Testament of Vision, Eerdmans, 1958).

Christian writers need to gather for something more fundamental than talks on current market conditions and how to slant material for the “slicks.” We can see such a “colony” of writers, of course, attracting such adjectives as “long-hair,” “beatnik,” and so on. Yet Longfellow, Whittier, and Lowell were not “beatniks,” and they all emerged from a single New England cultural atmosphere.

A great counterattack on the deadly materialism of our time could be made by a school of writers deliberately reaching for something beyond the levels of escapism, sentimentality, and propaganda that characterize much of our current religious literature. The Saturday Review is bewailing the emergency of “anti-liberalism” in modern letters. The poet Stephen Spender says in his book, The Creative Element,” “Today there is a reaction toward orthodoxy, and the most vital movement in literature in the West is religious.” But who are the authors? Are they converted men? In so many cases they know less about the nature of God and man than does a well-trained fifth-grade Sunday school pupil.

The times are calling for genius to emerge—with an apostolic accent. A born-again Graham Greene, perhaps, with a genuine vision of Jesus Christ and fire in his bones. God, give us writers! Our feeling is that the publishers would rise gratefully from their mass of sticky manuscripts, and follow such a lead in our time with alacrity.

NEW ERA AHEAD FOR EVANGELICAL BOOKS AND TEXTS

Chartists scanning the signs of the times expect that the United States will be in the midst of the biggest baby boom ever by 1965. Many industries, they say, will benefit from this boom in the next generation.

Book publishing especially will develop greater opportunities. In 1954, economists note, book sales yielded $385 million in total receipts; in 1959, above $1 billion. More than 800 companies are now releasing textbooks, trade books, and paperbacks. The five largest firms together publish only about one-eighth of all the new books. In the interest of cost-cutting and competitive advantage, mergers may more and more become the order of the day, but of the “making of many books” there will be no end.

In the midst of these trends one notes several significant developments. Most publishing houses have an eye on “the religious mood” and offer quite a conglomeration of titles—some mere metaphysical madness, shallow sentimentalism, or pious paganism. It is encouraging to note, however, that one by one the major religious publishing houses are incorporating sound evangelical works, and that the burden of publishing such works is no longer left to a few interdenominational publishers. Only a minority of publishing houses specializing in religious books any longer act as if the rising interest in evangelical works is an ephemeral and transient affair. These mainly are a few denominational houses whose production schedule at the same time reflects the theological prejudices of some denominational leaders rather than the lively interest of the Protestant clergy as a whole. Not only are more and more evangelical titles appearing on publishing lists, but the long-neglected area of evangelical textbooks for use in Christian colleges is being studied by some major publishing houses as a field holding remarkable potential during the next decade.

THE BEAT OF POPULAR MUSIC AND THE SONG OF FAITH

Under the caption “It’s all directly from the Gospel,” a UPI press release from Hollywood credits recording star Sam Cooke with the thesis that the peculiar beat of popular music derives from modern gospel songs. The big difference, Cooke declared, “between gospel songs and traditional hymns is the emphasis on a more rhythmic beat. This same beat is carried into today’s popular music.”

Syncopation admittedly does not characterize the traditional hymnology of the Church. The genesis of the modern beat must therefore lie elsewhere. Does it lie, as Cooke contends, in modern gospel songs—from whence it passed over into today’s popular music?

If the origin of the modern beat lies where Cooke thinks to find it, ’t were better for Christians to make confession than to accept the intended tribute. Many Christians would at least prefer the thesis that such gospel songs as Cooke has in mind have rather succumbed to than fathered the modern beat. Others, appealing to history, contend that the modern beat has pre-Christian origins in ancient paganism.

The Hollywood singer is of course not responsible for the caption placed over his comments on the genetics of the modern beat. Son of a Chicago minister in whose church he began his singing career, Cooke himself must doubt that the modern beat has its origin in the Gospel. Paul enjoined the singing of “spiritual hymns,” and David was song writer and dancer, but Cooke himself must feel the incongruity of establishing direct lineage between them and Chain Gang or his more recent recording, Cupid.

There is a relationship between popular music and the gospel songs to which Cooke refers. Studies have recently been made by clergymen to determine the relationship between jazz and religious music. One time art critic of the Dutch daily newspaper Trouw, Dr. H. R. Rookmaker, is currently delivering lectures in the United States and Canada evaluating jazz and Negro spirituals from a biblical perspective. A relationship is further indicated in the consideration that today’s romantic song writers would be rendered almost inarticulate if they did not have recourse to the biblical religious vocabulary of love, divine, angel, Paradise, heaven, reconciliation, and the like. Studies to uncover the relationship existing between popular and religious music would disclose that the romantic concepts of much popular music derives directly from the Gospel. But they would also disclose that the peculiar beat of modern popular music was fathered elsewhere.

WILD WINDS OF FURY SOUND THE CHILL PROSPECT OF DOOM

The hurricanes and tornadoes that struck and staggered Texas and Louisiana left a stark succession of damage and death. But Soviet detonations of multi-megaton bombs, violating the moratorium on atomic tests, faced the wide world with the far worse prospect of nuclear holocaust. The hard alternatives of “peace” only if Communists get their way, “war” if they don’t, amounts to a world in which civilization peers headlong into the abyss. One thing is sure: nuclear attack by any great power is only minutes away from push-button retaliation.

For our part, we don’t expect the world to come to its end that way. The final stroke of power will be an act of divine judgment and justice. That is why Christ’s Gospel still carries a larger wallop than Premier Khrushchev’s threatened 100-megaton warheads.

18: The Covenant of Grace

The concept of the covenant might well be described as the normative idea of biblical revelation. It does justice to two important elements in that revelation, namely its unity and its progressive character. There is in Scripture a divine unfolding of the eternal purposes of God; but amid all the diverse modes by which that revelation is made there is an inner coherence, so that the complete revelation is the Word of God, the one perfect and fully coherent utterance of the Most High. Yet it is probably a fairly safe generalization to say that even in evangelical thought, which claims to be biblical, this normative concept has tended to become a peripheral idea.

A covenant is essentially a pledged and defined relationship. There are three main elements in it—the parties contracting together, the promises involved, and the conditions imposed. It is clearly possible to have a covenant between equals or one which is imposed unilaterally by a superior. It is obvious, however, that any covenant between God and man can never be as between equals, but must be imposed from above. The LXX translators clearly saw this point when they translated berith not by suntheke but by diatheke which still retained something of its original connotation of a sovereign disposition.

Grace after the Fall. In God’s dealings with man, the Fall presents a clearly-defined line of demarcation. Prior to that point it is with man in a state of innocence that God deals. Afterwards it is to man as a guilty rebel that God extends his free and undeserved favor. Hence the distinction has been drawn between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The former in so far as it is still a gracious act of condescension might be better described in Matthew Henry’s phrase as “the covenant of innocency.” It is true of course that the term covenant is not explicitly mentioned, but the elements of a covenant relationship—contracting parties, promises, and conditions—are all present.

With the Fall a completely new situation emerges. Man is now a sinner under God’s wrath and condemnation. The fellowship between the creature and his Creator has been severed; and he is estranged. Yet his changed condition is seen not only in his alienation from God, but in the corruption of his nature. Thus he is not only out of touch with God but is utterly displeasing to God and, further, is incapable of restoring the relationship. This means that if there is to be a renewed relationship it will be entirely due to the grace of God. God must take the initiative, for man in his rebellious state will not of his own accord turn Godward. But God must also enable him to return; for, because of his sin, he is in such a state of bondage that he cannot turn. The covenant then, if it is to be established, is inevitably a covenant of grace. It is one in which God freely, and without any constraint outside himself, brings men who are wholly without merit into fellowship with himself. The promises made are gracious ones, for man deserves not blessing but condemnation. The conditions imposed are also gracious, for it is only by the enabling grace of God that man can fulfill them. The guarantee of the blessings of the covenant, which is to be found in God’s own character, is a further token of his gracious activity. That God the sovereign Judge should pledge himself to guilty men in such a way that they should have claims upon him, is the supreme demonstration of his grace.

The One and the Many. The further question now arises: In what sense can it be valid to speak of the covenant of grace as if there were only one covenant when in Scripture there are a number of covenants? But it is surely at this very point that we find how essential the covenant idea is to an understanding of the structure of biblical revelation, for it is in terms of the oneness of the covenant of grace that we can trace the unity which is a fundamental characteristic of Scripture. And it is because of the diversity of administration of the one covenant, as seen in the successive covenants, we do justice to the progressive nature of God’s self-disclosure in his Word.

The Covenant with Abraham. Turning first to the diversity of covenants, we find a succession of these culminating in the one sealed by the blood of Christ. Prior to Abraham there are elements of a covenant relationship, but the terms are not explicitly formulated, unless one includes the covenant with Noah which does not however seem to fall within the main stream. But for the precise formulation of the covenant we must wait until the call of Abraham. Here the covenant is rooted in the electing grace of God who takes the initiative in calling Abraham. In the relationship, established by God in Genesis 17, he pledges himself to Abraham to be his God. He promises blessing to him and through his seed to the nations of the earth. He gives to him as a seal of the covenant the rite of circumcision, and Abraham’s acceptance of this rite and of the promises of God is his fulfillment of the demand of the covenant, namely, faith in the God of the covenant.

The Covenant on Sinai. That the covenant with Israel on Sinai is still a covenant of grace is seen in various ways. It is because of what God has done, rather than what they will do, that God establishes his covenant with them. Thus in Exodus 19:4 it is the redemption from Egypt which is the basis of the covenant. But this redemption from Egypt is itself the outcome of the covenant with Abraham. It is because God had pledged himself to be their God that he delivered them (Exod. 2:24; 3:16–17). Hence the law of Sinai must not be interpreted apart from the covenant of grace, for it is itself embedded in that covenant. Indeed it was this separation of the law, in an attempt to make it a means of salvation, which was the error of the bulk of the Jews and which was the target of the great polemic of the Apostle Paul. The law in isolation becomes a system of bondage. The law viewed within the covenant becomes itself an expression of grace, for by intensifying the awareness of sin and leading God’s people to self-despair, it intensifies also their longing for the promised deliverer and leads them to cast themselves upon the mercy of God. Obedience to the law then is not a means of establishing the covenant but of enjoying and retaining its blessings.

Further Covenants. This Sinaitic dispensation of the covenant really embraces the period from Moses to Christ. There are in this period further covenants, but while they fall within the terms of the one made with Moses, there is more of the Messianic element in them. Thus in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:12–17; Ps. 89:3–4, 26) the promise given is primarily in terms of the coming Davidic king (see also Isa. 55:3–4). So it is with the covenant with Israel after the Exile. While it looks back to God’s past mercies and while it insists on obedience as a condition for enjoying the fruits of this gracious covenant, it also looks forward to culmination of God’s mercies in the coming of the Messiah (see Hag. 1:13; 2:4–9; Zech. 12–14; Mal. 3:1–4; 4:4–6).

The New Testament Culmination. The New Covenant, inaugurated by the Messiah and sealed in his blood, is thus the culmination of the gracious activity of God already manifested in the covenants made with Israel. In it the blessings promised, and already received by faith, are fully realized. The prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31 is fulfilled. Thus in Luke 1:72 the coming of the Saviour is viewed as the outcome of the promises of God to the fathers. The law written on tables of stone is now written on the heart. The blood of the sacrifice by which forgiveness is effected is no longer in terms of a mere prefiguring by means of animal sacrifice, for the blood of the Saviour himself is shed that he might become the mediator of the covenant (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; 1 Cor. 11:25). The central affirmation of the covenant, so often declared in the Old Testament, is again declared; but now it is accompanied by a deeper assurance rooted in the full and final revelation of God in Christ and imparted to the believer by the Spirit of God so that it is with a deeper awareness of its wonder that believers now listen to the gracious word: “I … will be your God, and ye shall be my people” (Lev. 26:12; cf. Gen. 17:7; Exod. 19:5; chap. 21; Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10).

There is a development also in the character of the community with whom the covenant is made. Formerly it was with a particular family, the offspring of Abraham, and then with the nation of Israel. To participate in the blessings of the covenant involved membership of this nation. Of course not all those who were outwardly numbered among the covenant people were partakers of the inward and spiritual blessings of the covenant. But the new covenant breaks forth from this Jewish limitation. Now the promises of the Gospel extend to every nation. The covenant people in its visible aspect is now the Church of Christ dispersed throughout the world, while in its inward aspect it remains what it has always been, the elect of God.

The Unity of the Covenants. The attempt has been made in this brief survey of the various covenants within Scripture to stress the common element throughout, namely the gracious activity of God. But the unity of the covenants may be demonstrated in other ways. In the New Testament the men of the Old Testament are always reckoned as true believers, and the Church of God is continuous throughout both dispensations (Rom. 4; 11:17; Heb. 11; see also John 10:16; Acts 7:38; Gal. 3:29; 6:16). Nor is this some artificial reconstruction based on a romantic estimate of Old Testament religion, for it corresponds to what is apparent within the Old Testament itself. Believers there are promised not just material blessings but spiritual; Canaan, for example, is clearly not their final goal (cf. Heb. 11:13). Indeed, one could scarcely read the Psalms with their passionate aspirations for God and their exuberant delight in him without discarding the notion that such men were laboring under the bondage of a covenant of works. They are surely recipients of the rich blessings of the covenant of grace. That which distinguishes the covenants of the period before the Messiah, and the new covenant inaugurated by his coming, is not a difference of essential character but rather a diversity of administration. The former are administered in terms of promise, prophecy and type, the latter in terms of fulfillment. The privileged position of the New Testament believer is not that he lives by faith in contrast to those who tried to live by works. It is rather that while they rejoiced in the signs of the dawning day, he stands in the full blaze of the noonday of revelation, with a fuller knowledge, a deeper assurance, and a richer experience of the Spirit, yet at the same time sharing with them a common faith in Christ, the mediator of the covenant.

The Mediator of the Covenant. From the foregoing it may be seen that when we say the covenant of grace is the unifying theme of Scripture, we are not saying anything different from the assertion that Christ is the one who gives Scripture its unity. For Christ is at the heart of the covenant of which he is the mediator. We may view this from two different standpoints. We may speak of the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son, which is the basis of the covenant of grace between the triune God and the elect. Or we may speak throughout of the covenant of grace made with the Son as the head and representative of his people. In either case Christ is the mediator in that his work is the foundation of the covenant, and union with him is the effectual means of membership. The Old Testament believer thus looked forward in hope to the Christ who was yet to come. We look back to the Christ who has already come. All alike are justified by faith in the one Saviour whose blood brings to us the blessings of the covenant.

Summary of the Elements. We may well follow Pierre Marcel in summarizing the essential elements of the covenant of grace. It is freely given by God himself and in this gracious activity the three persons of the Trinity are at work. The Father chooses those whom he will call into covenant relationship. It is with the Son that the covenant is made and it is his blood which establishes its basis. It is the Spirit who realizes the covenant in the life of the believer. It is an eternal and thus an unbreakable covenant. It is made with a particular people, formerly with Israel and now with God’s elect in every nation. Throughout God’s dealings, the covenant, while differently administered, remains essentially the same.

Privilege and Responsibility. A firm grasp of this truth is not only vital to a clear understanding of the unity of the biblical revelation—it is also an essential element in a healthy spiritual experience. So we study it, not merely to have a neat theological system, but as the great means of strengthening faith in the God of the covenant. Has he pledged himself to be our God? Then we can face whatever life may send, with calm assurance. Indeed, death itself can hold no terrors, for this is an everlasting covenant. But while it is a source of encouragement, it also brings a challenge and often a rebuke. It speaks of privilege but also of responsibility. It promises blessing but demands obedience. The inevitable corollary of the gracious promise “I will be your God” is the call to holy living implicit in the searching words “and ye shall be my people.”

Bibliography: J. Calvin, Institutes, II.x–xii; C. Hodge, Systematic Theology; P. Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism; J. Murray, The Covenant of Grace; G. Vos, Biblical Theology.

Vicar

St. Paul’s Church

Cambridge, England

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube