What is man? Man is a creature superior to all other creatures in this world—and therefore having rule over them—by virtue of his ability to know and love his Creator. This ability to know (mind) and love (will) is the imago Dei because in so knowing and loving God man knows and does in finite measure what God knows and does in infinite measure. Implicit in this knowledge of God is the knowledge and love of all other creatures (man supremely because man is the supreme creature) who are so many manifestations of God, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously, rationally or nonrationally. Man as he now exists, apart from re-creation or regeneration, no longer possesses the imago Dei in this sense but his present condition does not concern us here.

Exposition. 1. Creation. In Genesis 1:27 it is recorded, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.” Thus, according to the Bible, God created man or made him out of nothing by the mere word of His power. We need not labor the point that the Bible does teach ex nihilo creation, it being almost universally granted (though Barth denies it as a “spekulative Konstruktion” and in characteristic fashion gives it a new and novel meaning (Kirchliche Dogmatik, III/2, p. 187).

2. Ideal Man. If God created man and was pleased with His work, as the Bible says, then man was originally a far nobler creature as he came into being “trailing clouds of glory” than he is now after centuries of wallowing in the sinful pit into which the fall from pristine excellence brought him. Luther may be justified in conjecturing that Adam’s “powers of vision exceeded those of the lynx” and his strength enabled him to manage lions and bears (H. T. Kerr, Compendium of Luther’s Theology, p. 79). Robert South, in his famous sermon on “Man Created in God’s Image,” was probably right in saying that an Aristotle was the “rubbish” of an Adam (because the natural ability of newly created man must have been greater than that of fallen man) but probably not right in saying that Athens was but the “rudiment” of Paradise (because the acquired culture of the first man could not have been so great as that of the experience of a race).

3. Male and Female.Genesis 1:27 teaches that man was created male and female: “Male and female created he them.” Woman was not a separate creation although the Bible presents her as differentiated from the male by being drawn from his side, made of him. It is so universally agreed today that woman, as well as man, was created in the divine image that it seems almost quaint to find Dr. Franz Pieper lining up four or five formidable biblical arguments to prove the point (Christliche Dogmatik, p. 261).

4. Body and Soul. That man was made a composite creature—a body and a soul—is taught in the first chapter of Genesis. He is made as the other creatures before him were made though later and evidently more complex (1:26), but in addition and distinguishingly God breathes into him (not into the others) and he becomes a living soul (Gen, 2:7). So, though the body is good and divinely made and therefore never to be despised or downgraded, not to mention charged with being evil, it is still inferior to the soul which God breathed into man exclusively.

Of course, if man was created body and soul it goes without saying that Adam was a historical being. He was not merely “man”—he was a particular man. He was not everyman but one individual. It is fashionable in our time to take Genesis 1–3 as Urgeschichte or primal history and Adam as “Urmensch” or primal man. We will save ourselves the labor of a positive exposition of this difficult idea and make but one observation: whatever this does mean it denies that Adam was a person as we are persons and that his history is history as our history is history. But the Bible teaches that Adam was a person as we are persons and that his history is a history as ours is. First, on the surface of it, these three chapters, as the other chapters of Genesis, purport to be genuine history (Historie, not Geschichte). Second, the Church universal has so understood these chapters up to this very time with the exception of the dialectical theologians and their converts. Third, it is extraneous factors (geological and anthropological theories) and not biblical exegesis that have produced this deviation. Fourth, Genesis 1–3 is integrated with the rest of Genesis which is typical history (virtually everyone admits this of Genesis 12–50, at least). Fifth, Genesis 5:1–5 specifically mentions Adam, as does 1 Chronicles 1:1, in an indisputably historical sense. Sixth, the New Testament also mentions Adam in historical genealogy in Jude 14 and Luke 3:38. Seventh, Paul compares and contrasts Adam with Jesus Christ as the first and second Adam. There is a dualism here, as the demythologizers contend, but not a cosmic dualism—simply the dualism of two historical persons in representative roles. Eighth, if Adam can be “demythologized,” we see no reason to stop Bultmann from demythologizing the entire Bible as he seems intent on doing. Ninth, if we were to demythologize, then not only can Bultmann do it to the entire Bible, but he or anyone else can interpret the demythologized Bible as he pleases.

5. The Image of God. But without question the most significant aspect of the nature of man is the imago Dei.Genesis 1:26 (“let us make man in our image, after our likeness”) reveals the nature of man. As created or made, he is a dependent being. As created in the image of God he is rational, for God deliberates and plans his creation; he is social for God made him in “our” image; he had dominion over the other creatures for of none of these was this superior image predicated. But does this text not imply materiality in God (as the Mormons teach) and eternality in man (as the pantheists say)? Should the “image” not be construed exhaustively rather than restrictively? No, because the creation context carries vast implications that are part of the teaching of the text. God being here presented as Creator but himself uncreated and independent is infinitely and eternally superior to the creature. Thus the spiritual qualities of the imago are those which are consistent with the Creator-creature relationship such as knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. The physical qualities of man are manifestly not part of the imago because an eternal, independent spirit could not possess a temporal, dependent body as an essential, necessary part of his being.

What is taught didactically in Genesis 1:26 is set forth by description in “they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (3:8)—an anthropomorphic representation of fellowship between creature and Creator. This illustrates the ability of man’s rational nature to understand, in a measure, the rational being of God as the latter chooses to reveal it. Likewise the assignment of “naming the animals” (2:20), that is, classifying the subordinate creatures presupposes rationality, scientific knowledge, or potentiality. Moral duty is implicit in such an assignment but the moral nature of man is more evident still in the command and the prohibition concerning eating of the forbidden fruit (2:16 f.). The intellectual nature of man is usually designated as the image of God in the broader sense; the moral, or holy, nature is the image of God proper in the narrower sense. The former is inalienable even in hell; the latter was losable even in the paradise.

Apart from the creation narrative itself, little in the Bible is concerned with the description of man as such, but with man as sinner. Psalm 8 is a rare passage reflecting on ideal man. Most of the post-Genesis anthropological references are oblique—to the restoration of man as sinner toward his former state of man as man. Psalm 8 does not so much add to our knowledge of the basic nature of man as accentuate his exaltedness in comparison with the other creatures and his insignificance in comparison with his Creator. Though man is little lower than the angels (to whom he is inferior in nature though superior in destiny) it is a mark of extreme condescension that God visits him. First Corinthians 15:47, 48 shows that man as originally created was of the earth earthy in contrast to man as re-created and resurrected who possesses the Spirit in a manner not formerly characteristic. In Ephesians 4:24 Paul shows that the regenerated man is restored in principle to his former state of knowledge and holiness. When Paul indicates that the Thessalonian Christians should be sanctified in body, soul, and spirit (1 Thess. 5:23), I believe he is viewing the soul of man in the double aspect of animating principle (psuche) and imago (pneuma).

Application. 1. Causal Evolutionism. How do causal evolutionists account for the origin of man? Ultimately it is not by natural selection; that is merely a proximate cause. Ultimately it is by chance. G. G. Simpson in his The Meaning of Evolution (1951), seems to think that man was an unintentional accident. Bertrand Russell says: “… even if it is enormously improbable that the laws of chance … will produce an organism capable of intelligence out of a casual selection of atoms, it is nevertheless probable that there will be in the universe that very small number of such organisms that we do in fact find” (Why I Am Not a Christian, 1957, p. 24). A still more recent statement by William S. Beck in Modern Science and the Nature of Life (1961, p. 252) is to the same effect: “When the time scale is long enough, the improbable becomes the inevitable.” But this probability thinking and the dice analogy used by Russell do not fit the case before us. With dice, any number from two to twelve may occur and the law of averages says that all possibilities will occur in certain proportions. But what does the law of averages have to say about getting blood from a turnip? or a silk purse from a sow’s ear? or, to stay with the original analogy, about getting a “one” or a “thirteen” out of a pair of dice? Emergent evolution, epiphenomenalism, and creative evolution are merely quasi-scientific, question-begging terms no more acceptable than “spontaneous generation,” of which they are indeed merely sophisticated modern variations.

2. “Psychologism.” Much psychology has become very deterministic in our time and philosophy, at least in its existentialist varieties, extremely voluntaristic. M. B. Arnold (“Psychology and the Image of Man,” Religious Education, 1959), regards Jung and Adler, as well as Freud, as necessitarian; Reinhold Niebuhr notes that Sartre is voluntaristic to the point of denying human nature (article on “The Self” in A Handbook of Christian Theology, 1960). The truth lies between them, as we shall see. Against the view that man is as he eats, or as he secretes, or as he is stimulated, is the biblical view that man’s choices are influenced by these but not “determined” in the sense of constrained or coerced by these factors. God commanded the ideal man, the “first” and the “second” Adam. The Bible does not accept the doctrine that man’s choices belong not to him but to his glands. Nor does the God of the Bible become angry with man’s nerves when sin is committed. Nor are the organs of a man—in distinction from the man-sentenced to judgment.

3. Existentialism. Existentialism moves to the other pole—from cause without voluntary action, to voluntary action without cause. Reasons, motives, causes do not determine the actions of men, but the actions of men determine the reasons, motives, causes. Existentially speaking, man is absolutely free, his actions altogether contingent; his decision are in the moment of crisis. Man does not act because of such and such reasons. But the “reasons” are given substance by the decisions. Free actions involve a crucifixion of the intellect. Existentialist theologians sometimes think that they have the Bible to father inasmuch as it says that out of the heart are the issues of life (Prov. 4:23) and every man does what is right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25). This is the type of thing which has led some Roman Catholic theologians to think themselves and even Thomas Aquinas existential. The notion is effectively scotched by F. H. Heinemann in his “Existentialism, Religion and Theology” (Hibbert Journal, July, 1960) not to mention Pius XII in Humani Generis (1950). Protestant scholars have been even more susceptible.

While existentialism has hold of an important truth (it seems to me that 90 per cent of existential writing could come under the title, “On the Importance of Being Earnest”), it is badly out of focus. Genesis represents the creature, man, as being given reasons for following virtue, avoiding sin. If man eats of a certain tree he dies; if not, he lives. His decision is called for (which puts the Bible against the determinist) but the decision is motivated by reasons (which puts the Bible against the paradoxical existentialist).

4. Neo-orthodoxy. There are at least three fundamental neo-orthodox deviations from the biblical doctrine of man. First, Adam is presented not as one historical individual but as the eternal non-historical symbol of every historical individual. “Adam is Everyman” (Theological Word Book, ed. by Alan Richardson, 1950, p. 14). Second, there is no original righteousness or created goodness but mere potentiality. Third, the natural and moral image tend to be confused and both eradicated by the Fall. “Barth goes far beyond Calvin” (who sets forth the biblical view) “in holding that Imago Dei is effaced, not defaced, so that our human nature is not only incapable of spiritual good, but can neither retain nor pass on a divine gift” (A. M. Fairweather, The Word of Truth, 1944, p. 1).

Bibliography: J. Edwards, Freedom of the Will, P. Ramsey, ed.; H. Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics; J. G. Machen, The Christian View of Man; R. Mixter (ed.), Evolution and Christian Thought Today; J. Orr, God’s Image in Man (2nd ed.).

Professor of Church History

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE

Within the Bible we have a panorama of events, eternal and temporal; a picture of God, of man in history, and of God’s eternal plan.

So far as man is concerned his primary duty is to take advantage of the love and mercy of God so that his own life, now and for eternity, may be adjusted to God’s will for him.

Because God has provided us with this view of eternity, into which there is inserted what we call time, there is nothing more important than studying, by the help of the Holy Spirit, this God-given picture wherein lies divine wisdom and human hope.

This vista begins with the revealing and awe-inspiring statement, “In the beginning God.” Here we have something every scientist should heed and every individual ponder, for within the compass of those four words man is made to see not only the origin of all that is visible but also the spiritual and philosophical background on which alone existence should be predicated.

The dilemma of the world order stems from the fact that mankind, though seeing the works of God’s creative power and experiencing his sustaining grace day by day, neither recognizes nor is concerned about Him who is sovereign over the universe.

Accustomed to look with pity or disdain on the “benighted heathen” who bow down to gods of their own making, we fail to see that we have built up, even in “Christian America,” an educational system which more and more is divorced from God and all spiritual values. In fact it is an ominous fact that most of the great institutions of learning in our country—institutions founded for the specific purpose of propagating the Christian faith—are now its most active and effective enemies, and this is because they no longer remember, “In the beginning God.”

When we read the words of the last verse in the book of Genesis, “in a coffin in Egypt” the panorama further unfolds—in the intervening years an incomparable tragedy has occurred.

Man, created by God for fellowship with himself, no longer enjoys this primal relationship because something has come between him and his Maker. Disobedience, the source of all sin, has led him to the folly of independent action and in its wake there has come death—spiritual and physical.

But God has never been willing to leave man to his own folly. Throughout the Old Testament the yearning love and mercy of God is proclaimed against the background of divine judgment. Conditioned on repentance, the forgiveness of God is continually offered. “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”

These words of Isaiah are echoed again and again by the prophets, men whom we are told spoke by the Spirit of God, and at his command.

But the last words of the Old Testament carry with them a picture of man’s continued rejection of the love of God “… lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”

To the vineyard of his own planting, God has sent the prophets to offer forgiveness and healing. Some they have beaten, others they have ridiculed, and yet others they have stoned.

In spite of their privileges, men still rejected God, still chose their own ways, and as a result the wages of sin were exacted thus vindicating the righteousness, holiness, and justice of God.

But God had not finished with his creation. In his foreknowledge the panorama of man’s reaction to divine pleading was also known, and in the councils of eternity his Son was destined to enter the vineyard of lost humanity.

God entered into human history in the person of his Son Emmanuel, and in due time the Cross unfolded as the way of redemption. From that Cross with its shed blood and the Empty Tomb with its victory over death there emerged the way—the only way—whereby man may be reconciled to God.

In the last 19 centuries we have seen this simple but effective way of redemption preached around the world. In each generation there have been those who, faithful to their obligation, have passed on the Word of life.

Today we find the Gospel preached across America and throughout the free world, while the radio reaches even behind the Iron and Bamboo curtains. We have the witness of the Church and of individual Christians in almost every land.

Just where do we stand in the panorama of time, in that area in which we have such grave personal responsibilities?

None of us knows when the curtain of history will be pulled down by the One who is the center of all history. But our own task is not left in doubt.

Once our Lord said, “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.”

Down to this moment it is yet “day” for Christians. The opportunities for witness and service at home and abroad are still almost unlimited.

But we seem affected by a kind of stupor and indifference to the needs of the world. Or, we become enmeshed in activities which are humanitarian only, and forget that man does not live by bread alone.

This spiritual torpor has a deadening effect on our personal testimony and is reflected in the Church. Having lost any sense of perspective we live as though today is the important consideration.

Now what we do today is certainly vitally important, but only because it is a part of that great unfolding panorama of time and eternity for which we are responsible, a responsibility we cannot escape.

How then can we regain a right perspective?

There is but one way—by a re-orientation to the One who is Eternal and who lived and died that we too might share in His eternity.

Once we orient our lives to the living Christ things take their proper perspective. Through prayer and the study of God’s Word—DAILY—we gain the wisdom and understanding which alone enables us to fulfill our part in his divine plan.

To some this seems an oversimplification, but it is God’s way. It is he who provides these means of grace and it is he who has sent his spirit to clarify our thinking and direct our lives. For those who are skeptical there is one way to find out—Give God a try. Spend time DAILY in studying His Word and in prayer.

When this happens things begin to assume their rightful places, for now and for eternity.

L. NELSON BELL

Some Anglican Thoughts about Bishops

It is sometimes said that among Episcopalians there are two schools of theological opinion about bishops. One holds that bishops are of the esse of the church, the other that they are its bene esse. The former believe that bishops are essential to the church, the latter that they are not essential, but beneficial. At a recent clergy meeting it was suggested that in view of Bishop Pike’s article in The Christian Century last December a third possibility ought to be considered: bishops are neither essential nor beneficial!

The word “episcopal” is, of course, Greek in origin and means “bishop.” Its use in the titles of daughter churches of the Church of England emphasizes the Anglican conviction that the office of Bishop is necessary to the life of the church. In every Anglican diocese the bishop is chief pastor. The bishop is responsible for teaching and defending the Word of God as revealed in Holy Scripture, for maintaining Christian discipline, and for ordering public worship. The bishop in each diocese is the source of lay and priestly participation in the church, for it is the bishop who admits to the lay order by Confirmation, and creates the ministry by conferring Holy Orders.

Many evangelicals believe that Episcopalians cling to episcopacy because it is one of the ecclesiastical institutions which has been inherited from the English church. But this is not generally true. Many Episcopalians who give some thought to theology are loyal to episcopacy because they believe that the bishop is the living link which binds them to that Church built upon the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. And they find the origins of episcopacy not in the later ages of Catholicism but in Christ’s setting apart of an apostolic ministry.

In the creeds the Church is described as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. When these four words are explained in the Book of Common Prayer, the Church is said to be apostolic “because it continues steadfastly in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship” (Prayer Book, p. 291). The importance of this continuation in the apostolic faith is expressed in a vivid image by the Book of Revelation. In the 21st chapter, John describes his vision of the holy city, New Jerusalem, whose walls “had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14).

RESPONSIBILITY OF BISHOPS

In the service for the consecration of a bishop, the Prayer Book repeatedly stresses the responsibility which the bishops have for keeping the Church soundly established on her apostolic foundations. The collect recalls that Christ gave many gifts to the apostles, and prays that the present bishops and pastors of the church may also be given the grace to preach God’s Word diligently and administer the disciplines. The man who is to be consecrated must declare that he believes Holy Scripture to contain all things necessary for salvation, and that he promises so to exercise himself in its study that he will be able to withstand and convince unbelievers. He must assure the church that he is ready to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word and will encourage others to do the same. In the closing prayer, the Holy Spirit is invoked upon the new bishop so that he may receive power to preach the Word, and to be a wholesome example in faith as well as in love and chastity.

A CHANGE OF IMAGE

There have been periods in the history of Anglicanism when bishops have been something other than apostolic. There have been times when bishops have been servants of the state or lordly prelates. The liberal drift of the last half century has given the American church bishops who are successful corporation executives, public personalities, social leaders, or promoters of radical doctrines in politics and religion. But such concepts of episcopal ministry are departures from orthodox Anglican doctrine.

A key to traditional thought and attitude toward episcopacy is found in a quotation from a book by the late Bishop Frank E. Wilson. Contrasting Christianity with the other major world religions, Dr. Wilson observes that “Christianity is fundamentally different from other religious. Confucius left his classics. Buddha left a system of instruction. Mohammed left the Koran. But Jesus Christ left disciples … life comes only from life, it takes Christians to make Christians” (Common Sense Religion, p. 130).

The Anglican churches have remained loyal to episcopacy because they believe that bishops are living apostolic men. As Peter, James, John, and Paul did centuries ago, the bishops sustain and continue the life of the church by their ministry of word and sacrament. Being the living successors of Christ’s first ministers, the bishops have been called and set apart to do apostolic work—to preach and to bear witness that their Lord is the Son of God, that he is truly risen from the dead and is the living and only Saviour of all mankind. And like those first ambassadors of the King of kings, the bishops bear in their sacred office the authority of him who sends them out: “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.”

We Quote:

Our nation—indeed the world—today stands in our gravest time of peril, from the standpoint of human survival on earth. Nuclear, thermonuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the swift means to deliver these weapons of mass destruction to virtually any point on earth carry grave signs that perhaps the Biblically-prophesied Battle of Armageddon may not be too far away. Many who once scoffed at this prophecy … are now concerned for fear of its validity.

For our nation to come through these dangerous times with survival and preservation of our liberties, we need not only to remain strong economically and militarily, but—above all—we must be strong spiritually and ever seek the guidance of Almighty God. We must be sure—as Mr. Lincoln so aptly put it years ago—not only that God is on our side, but more importantly, that we are on God’s side, individually and as a nation.

Our nation, though richly blessed by God, is certainty not immune from His judgment. Therefore, every American must give consideration, prayer, and effort toward individual spiritual regeneration so there can be no question as to our nation’s being on God’s side. We, who are in positions of leadership, must be humble and seek God’s guidance in determining the course of our Nation. For, it is written in Proverbs: “Righteousness exalteth a nation.… When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice.”—From remarks of Senator STROM THURMOND to the U. S. Senate Prayer Breakfast group.

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

OIKOS

Dear Eutychus:

Greetings from OIKOS House. Nestled in an Alpine valley, this most recent experiment in Christian community was founded only two weeks ago by a group of tourists from Texas. Two laymen in the party were acquainted with recent efforts to escape institutionalized, religionized Christianity by organizing religious institutes for laymen. After lunch one day they bought a chalet and OIKOS had its house.

It is a lovely place in a spectacular movieland setting. Some repairs are needed; new plumbing is being installed through the generosity of the founders, but other work will be done by members of the community. We have been most involved in the planning of our chapel. We gather each morning in the ski lounge where the chapel will be located and begin our encounter.

The experience has been utterly devastating. We decided that tame acquiescence in traditional forms would offer no jolt of judgment and therefore no resurgence of renewal. Another way must be found. What piercingly direct, contemporary expression could be found to bring our existence into the present?

Launching out in a disconcerting probe for meaning and identity, we hit upon psychological drama as the ideal medium. Accordingly, we have fixed up the ski room as Psyche Community Room. A screen divides the Chancel of Consciousness from the Unconscious Nave. A trap door to the basement leads to, or rather from, the Crypt of Libido. The Super-Ego-Pulpit is suspended from the beams by a cantilevered arrangement.

I can tell you I was shaken in our first enactment. It was not a performance, you know. There were no spectators, only participants. What involvement! The howling rush up through the trap door, the wild bacchanalian dance, then the stern tones of the Super-Ego, denouncing the revelry … back, back behind the screen in repression. Then the sallies around the barrier—to the left, by the Aisle of Neurosis, to the right, by the Stair of Sublimation.…

Through it all I could feel the mask of my personality being snatched away. This was no bland formalism. It was real. It was rough. Especially the last time they dragged me down the Stair. When I come home my own analysist won’t know me. Well, as we say at OIKOS, I’ll be encounterin’ ya!

ALBERT IVY

TONIC FOR PESSIMISM

I wish to express my appreciation and satisfaction with Dr. Elson’s article (June 5 issue). Its long-range factual soundness, its healthy realism, and definite challenge are a good tonic against a much over-rated pessimism of late years regarding Protestantism.

F. J. MONSCHKE

Alhambra, Calif.

CALL FOR INSURRECTION

“The Suburban Captivity of the Churches,” by Professor Gibson Winter (Books in Review, May 22 issue) is one of the most vital, scientific and relevant studies of contemporary Protestant churchianity of this generation.

How shockingly superficial, then, is the review by Sherwood E. Wirt, who shrugs off a demonstration of the facts with … typical evangelical platitudes.… I have had opportunity to study several suburban churches with very conservative ministries, and we can be assured that Professor Winter’s analysis fits them as snugly as a new glove. They are as insular, provincial and parochial as liberal suburban churches.

The remedies are complex, and call for (1) a new evaluation of the role of the pastor and a strengthened definition of his authority and prophetic function, (2) a new discovery of the inner city as one of our great mission fields, (3) denominational and interchurch backing for those evangelical ministries that seek to reach all races and economic strata within parish bounds despite the protests of important laymen in control of the church’s life, (4) a translation of the power of the Gospel into terms of evangelism and inclusive social service to all men regardless of their condition, together with a refusal to channel this power into a smug, middle-class individualistic piety.

ROBERT JAMES ST. CLAIR

North Hill United Presbyterian Church

Akron, Ohio

OUR CLAMANT DEEDS

“The Tragic Loss of Our Era” (May 22 issue) enunciated very adequately one of my classroom emphases: the ethical and social results of Christianity fade after Christian beliefs are forgotten, ignored, or denied. However, I have a question: Why doesn’t the “world” realize this danger and dilemma? One reason is, of course, its philosophical bias, and another is the effect of this viewpoint in interpreting the last two millennia of history, especially Christianity’s role in Western culture. But may I add a third? The Church, whether conservative or liberal, Catholic or Protestant, has often lived as if there were no relation between belief and applied ethics. If Christianity has so performed, we can hardly blame the secularists for failing to see this connection. We gave them a dim pattern.

ALBERT E. CRAMER

Associate Prof. of Bible and History

London Bible Institute

London, Ont.

NEO-ORTHODOXY DEFENDED

Your lead editorial “The Logic of Our Mission” (June 5 issue) represents a misunderstanding of my Convocation address at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary last September, while at the same time it reflects a basic error of its own. Because of the misinterpretation and misquotation, I would urge that your readers secure and read a copy of the full address, available for 25¢ from the Missionary Research Library, 3041 Broadway, New York 27, N. Y.

Your basic error is the assumption that rationalism in the Greek sense is the only valid epistemology, and that we are shut up, in our apprehension of reality, to the dichotomy of “logic vs. illogic,” with the corollary that if something is “logical” it must necessarily be true. Even science today contradicts this presupposition. This leads to a further error, namely, that the biblical revelation is one of propositional statements, whereas that revelation is one of interpersonal relations: the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob; the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ who said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” It leads further to a failure to recognize that man is more than mind, with the consequent deduction that all that is not propositionally statable is necessarily “anti-intellectual” and “nonlogical.”…

The address admittedly breaks new ground, but in a prophetic way, as President Duke McCall said when I concluded delivering it. We trust that creative dialogue will be the consequence, and I know this will be the case from letters received widely from many parts of the world. In no other way can we meet the challenge of our day for the “furtherance of the Gospel”—a challenge thrust upon us, whether we will or not, both by the renascence of non-Christian religions and by the rise of the Christian Church on the soil of all the various cultures of the world.

HERBERT C. JACKSON

Professor of Comparative Religion and Missions

Southern Baptist Seminary

Louisville, Ky.

TASK OF THE TRANSLATOR

Mr. Robinson has used theological arguments to justify his contention that “translations [should] … present our Lord and Saviour with pronouns appropriate to faith’s portrayal of him …” (Eutychus, June 5 issue). He ignores the linguistic problems.

What the translator must do is use the resources of the target (or receptor) language in such a way as to convey the message of the source language—no more, no less, an ideal hardly ever, if at all, realized. Sometimes the target language forces him to introduce more information than is conveyed in the original message, but sometimes less.

The task facing the translator is, in this particular instance, to determine what was the function of the Greek pronouns. If any one implied respect or reverence, the translator is compelled to find some linguistic equivalent. But if no such distinction existed, then the translator has no right to introduce one, regardless of theological considerations.

Here we have raised a question that Dr. Rees could have added to his four queries (same issue): What is the role of language in revelation? (In the total context of human behavior—that is, in culture—what role does language play? What, in fact, is language? And as God conveyed his message to man, how much came in linguistic form and how much in nonlinguistic form? If the Scriptures are conceived as the “kernel” of revelation, how does one reconstruct the total message?) Not until Christians address themselves to these questions, using not only theological but also anthropological and linguistic findings as well, will there be satisfying answers.

Such works as Dr. Nida’s Message and Mission (whose bearing on this subject is lost to some of his reviewers) and Dr. Pike’s recent article in CHRISTIANITY TODAY (May 8 issue) provide the kind of stuff out of which the answers will be found.

WILLIAM J. SAMARIN

Dept. of Linguistics

Hartford Seminary Foundation

Hartford, Conn.

TWO ANTERIOR DECISIONS

Lloyd Gaston’s letter (June 5 issue) was much appreciated. I think the point he makes is one which the traditionally Reformed thinker should keep carefully in mind. I sincerely hope that many of the “neo-orthodox” camp accept the theological inferences he draws from his etymologically-supported definitions of terms, although Bultmann and his followers could not possibly do so. However, I do not think that that type of theological distinction which his terms necessitate is a healthy one for either theology or historical science.

While Barth differs from Bultmann in many important points, yet, theologically considered, the difference is mainly a matter of emphasis from a theologically orthodox Protestant viewpoint. For while Barth and his group can with justification accuse Bultmann of making an “anterior existential decision” to interpret human existence apart from God, both Barth and Bultmann make the anterior existential decision to interpret human existence apart from propositional revelation of … Scripture, the infallible Word.

Should not the biblically-informed Christian refuse to give in to the non-Christian at this point? Should he not refuse to shut the word-revelation of God out of his “historical” (historisch) thinking, holding as incontrovertible that it is the “historic” (geschichtlich) which is the necessary presupposition of the “historical” (historisch)? Should he not criticize “critical inquiry” at this very point and show that it cannot be truly critical so long as it is narrowly “historical” (historisch)? Should not critical inquiry be able to justify itself? And how can it do so apart from the “historic” (geschichtlich) as presupposed? “Critical inquiry” is treated by neo-orthodoxy as if it were absolutely justifiable in its basic intellectual autonomy as well as in its ultimate intellectual uncertainties.

DONALD D. MORELAND

First Baptist

Sidney, N. Y.

PENTECOSTAL WITNESS

I read your report on the Jerusalem Pentecostal World Conference (May 22 issue).… The very first approach to ecumenical and WCC leaders originated with me personally. “The Spirit bade me go” (Acts 11:12) and witness to these men. The first I talked to was Dr. John A. Mackay of Princeton Seminary. He introduced me to others. Then I was invited to the IMC Meetings at Willingen, as observer. From there on out “conversations” became numerous, with persons and groups in the IMC and WCC and other “ecumenical forces.” Only once has the question of “Pentecostal affiliation” been asked, and rejected. On every other occasion the motive for the discussion was the question of the “experience of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” and the consequences of this “experience” within Pentecostal circles. There was no attempt to “woo or to win” Pentecostal movements into the WCC. Since most of the larger Pentecostal societies were affiliated with the International Missionary Council, there was a search in that direction for a better understanding and improved relationships on the mission fields, but that was all. Beyond this, I am convinced, there was merely an honest Christian interest in “what made Pentecostals tick” and “should not the historic churches reconsider their position with regard to a present-day Pentecostal experience?”

DAVID J. DU PLESSIS

Dallas, Tex.

NOT EXCLUSIVE TO ROME

Regarding President Kennedy’s Memorial Day proclamation in which he urges the invoking of God’s blessing on those who have died in defense of our country (News, May 22 issue), I would say that praying for the dead is not a Roman Catholic superstition but rather that it is a belief of the Catholic Church, of which the Episcopal Church is a part. The Episcopal Church clearly teaches that praying for those who have departed this life is perfectly proper.…

PARKER F. AUTEN

Trinity Episcopal

Swedesboro, N. J.

For your information prayers for the departed are not a superstition, Roman Catholic or otherwise. The Apology to the Augsburg Confession specifically states that prayers for the dead are not forbidden. The Church of Sweden has authorized such prayers. The late Dean of the Roskilde Cathedral (Denmark), Dr. H. Martensen-Larsen, has written an entire volume arguing for the practice.

A. C. M. AHLEN

Dean and Prof. of Philosophy

Northwestern Lutheran Seminary

Minneapolis, Minn.

BACK TO THE SOURCE

The article “How Great Thou Art” by Cliff Barrows (Dec. 5 issue) quotes almost verbatim certain sections of my publication The Story of How Great Thou Art.… Some of the matter quoted in the article … was first published simultaneously by me and in Swedish (in Stockholm) by one who obtained his information in his own personal interview with Boberg, the Swedish composer, and agreed to my publishing the same in English. From the point where the hymn goes from Swedish into Estonian, German, Russian and finally my own account of how I wrote the English lyrics, this story is told for the first time only in my publication … [which] gives photos of the Swedish author and his home, music of the hymn in its original folk-tune form, verses in 15 leading … languages, etc. [The price is 75¢ (mailed—80¢, 4 copies—$3.00)] and usual trade terms to booksellers are available.

STUART K. HINE

“Carpathia,” Brean Road, Berrow

Burnham-on-Sea, Somerset, England

IMPLICATION CORRECTED

Your news item in the May 8 issue was correct in stating that Northern Baptist Theological Seminary considers its Chicago location strategic to the interests of American Baptists. So also you were correct in pointing out that there have been informal discussions participated in by officials of the Board of Education relating to the desirability of reducing the number of seminaries by means of mergers. This may serve to correct your previously published item which may have implied that the 35 member Board of Education had itself taken action on this issue. No action has yet been taken by the Board except to initiate the Committee of Seventeen to study theological education among American Baptists. Therefore, Northern has not “rejected” any Board action since no action has been taken by the Board thus far.

BENJAMIN P. BROWNE

Pres.-Elect

Northern Baptist Seminary

Chicago, Ill.

There was a no-doubt-inadvertant implication that the seminaries involved (Northern more than Central, but certainly Central by inclusion) and the Board of Education of the American Baptist Convention had moved ahead to make proposals for merger and/or decisions about new courses of action regardless of the fact that our convention has commissioned a “Committee of Seventeen” to study theological education in the convention and to recommend a denomination-wide program and strategy of theological education. In other words, Central by being included in this article was made to appear as if it was moving ahead of any denomination recommendation or program from this special committee.

While our Board of Directors is completely independent in control, we desire to work in co-operation with our American Baptist Convention. Since many of our constituents saw the implication in the CHRISTIANITY TODAY article, our Board, rather than merely deny that Central had been involved in any precipitous discussions about merger, has chosen to make a definite statement telling our constituency including the whole American Baptist Convention that Central expects to co-operate fully with the Committee of Seventeen, that it looks forward to a denomination-wide program of theological education whether this means discussions of possible merger or not.…

PAUL T. LOSH

President

Central Baptist Sem.

Kansas City, Kans.

From the prophet Haggai to Roger Babson, men have seen that social, economic, and other troubles stem from the realm of the spirit. This word from Haggai (1:5–6) lays it on the line. “Now therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts: Consider your ways. Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes.” God’s ancient people were having a boom which was headed for a bust. It was a story that was old in that far-off day, and even older and sadder today. So few learn. Man learns physical laws and by correct application can achieve amazing results. He may even fly to the moon. He has transformed life on earth beyond the wildest fancies of those deemed visionaries a few generations ago.

Chemical law discovered and applied heals the sick, makes the field fertile, multiplies material comforts and conveniences of mankind. Everything goes well until man tries to thwart law, or allows himself to forget it. The only laws which can be flouted for the time are economic, political and spiritual laws. Affront gravity and you will break your neck. Mistake your chemicals and you will eat and drink death. Mishandle the fields and nature stops growing the seed, the fruit fades and the leaf mildews. In these things, the time is brief between mistake and miscarriage. But in areas of social relations and spiritual concerns the time span is greater because God is merciful. The mills of God may grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine; and in the end the greatest damage is done because the greatest good has been refused. The forgotten regulative principle is recognition of God.

Tithing is the expression of faith in God through material resources and possessions. It makes God a partner in business. Most people recognize the relation between God and life up to a point. Life itself is the gift of God. Health is one of God’s blessings. Power to learn and skill to invent both spring from sources deep within human personality where the human and the divine are close together. Tithing translates the confession of faith into the daily pattern of life.

Tithing may be defined as the setting aside of a definite portion of income, specifically a tenth, to be administered under a separate category of outlay generally described as “honoring God with our substance.” This aggregated fund may be literally abstracted and put into a special account. Or it may be handled by simple bookkeeping. Payments therefrom are various. Sometimes it is paid in kind. The physician who serves philanthropies without fees is tithing in principle. The storekeeper who provisions the shelves of orphanages, or “helps out” the stricken neighborhood family, is tithing in principle. Most tithing is the payment of money to appropriate causes, a sum that is equal to 10 per cent of an income.

Tithing has the biblical promise of blessing. What is this blessing? It can be in the form of large gross income from business, farm, or profession. Such it often is. It can amount to a lesser annual income, but evenly received over long periods of time. Or, the blessing may be found in the psychological benefits derived, with modest money intake. Prosperity is the right word for any of these. My great grandfather lived 83 years a farmer and tithed all his life. He said there was never a day when he could not lay hands on a hundred dollars if he needed it. To modern ears this may seem a very modest security, but one day is all we ever have at a time.

Hardheaded people want to know why tithing is so much praised by those who practice it. It sounds like magic to them. They are averse to miracles, especially in business life. Tithing is not a miracle except in the general sense that all God’s care is amazing and divine. And thus, tithing becomes an operating rule of prosperity for reasons such as these:

1. Tithing makes a man consider his income. Setting out one tenth inevitably compels him to see also the nine tenths remaining. This induces budgeting as well as tithing. Budgeting has a wholesome effect on any economy. It is paradoxical but true: money is not possessed until it is spent. Then only does it reach the stream of life.

2. The tither tends to avoid extravagance and self-indulgence. If the part is holy, the whole becomes holy. Where one’s heart is there will his treasure be, and the person who reserves one tenth of his income for God is less likely to play fast and loose with life, health, business risk, or unlawful practices.

3. Tithing provides means for so much good that insofar as it becomes generally practiced much of the reason for governmental spending disappears. Around 1800, England went on to a scheme of public relief for the poor. Scotland did not follow but continued the old custom of parish relief through the kirk-session and the freewill offerings “for the poor.” Relief was more adequate and less expensive in Scotland than in England. The reason was that people on relief at one time might be members of the dispensing kirk-session another time. Money coming from freewill offerings was not wasted either by the dispensers or by the recipients. What the receiver’s conscience did not do the critical eye of the donating neighbor accomplished.

4. Tithing is a prophylactic against depression because it attacks the chief destroyers of prosperity which are luxury and vice. The prophet Haggai told the people that they all had handsome houses but the house of God was still a ruin.

It has been said that no tither ever gave up the practice, but this saying can be neither proved nor disproved. The Bible says this: “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it” (Mal. 3:10).

We Rend Our Garments

We rend our clothes but not our hearts

As at our shrines we bow to hide

The jaded madness of the eye

That glows in lust to gorge again

On formed and animated dust.

We rend our clothes but not our hearts

When, whimpered through our prayers for those

Who rot and starve, there goes the hot,

Dry undertone of greed—the groan

For self that vitiates the plea.

We rend our clothes but not our hearts

When trademarks blotch our thoughts of God;

For though we mock elite facade

And title—we “accept ourselves”—

Our carefree role is fearful pose.

We rend our clothes but not our hearts:

The hands of Christian brotherhood

We offer, often are thumbs down;

The crown of sonship that we claim

We force on folk as thorns of shame.

MERLE MEETER

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

What is stewardship? What is the minister’s stewardship responsibility? What are the best ways to promote stewardship, and how can it best be preached? What is its relation to tithing? The aim of this article is to seek answers to these questions in order to give practical aid to the minister as he faces his stewardship task.

THE PROBLEM OF DEFINITION

The word stewardship is a translation of the Greek oikonomia from which we get our English word “economy.” Thayer in his Greek-English Lexicon defines this word as “the management of a household.”

This concept of stewardship finds abundant illustration in the Old Testament. Every king had a steward in charge of his household and finances, and every well-ordered house had a steward in charge of the master’s money and property. Such a steward was often a slave elevated to a position of trust, and was therefore more than a servant. The steward was next to the master himself as “the highest official in the household.” Abraham had such a steward named Eleazer (Gen. 15:2; 24:2, 10). Joseph was a steward in the house of Potiphar (Gen. 39:4) and finally became the steward of the house of Pharaoh and of all of the land of Egypt (Gen. 41:40–44). Joseph in turn had a steward in charge of his own household (Gen. 43:19).

Stewards are also mentioned in the New Testament. A reference is made to Chuza, the steward of Herod (Luke 8:3). Another illustration is the Ethiopian eunuch who was the treasurer or steward of the Queen of Ethiopia, “a man of great authority” who “had charge of all her treasures” (Acts 8:27). In three parables Jesus deals specifically with the theme of stewardship. These parables, listed in the order in which they appear, are: the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14–30), the parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:1–2), and the parable of the pounds (Luke 19:12–27).

As the leader of his people, the minister faces a problem in relation to his own stewardship responsibility. Paul speaks of ministers as “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1). J. B. Phillips in his translation of this passage speaks of ministers as “trustees of the secrets of God.” One of these divine “secrets” is the truth of stewardship. In order to be true to himself and his God the minister must faithfully share this message with his people, for “it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful” (1 Cor. 4:2).

THE PROBLEM OF PROMOTION

Of all the problems facing the minister in his stewardship responsibility the problem of promotion requires much careful planning. Fortunately, considerable help is available. Here are some suggestions.

Hold a School of Stewardship. Designate a Stewardship Week at a convenient time of the year, and, well in advance, appoint a committee to help develop plans for a successful week of training. The school might meet five nights, Monday through Friday, with two classes and a brief chapel period each evening. A small school would offer one course. Larger schools would offer four to six or more classes at the same hour, such courses being designed for the various age and interest groups. The Joint Department of Stewardship and Benevolence, 297 Fourth Ave., New York 10, provides a Stewardship Bibliography, price 10 cents. Also, The Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, 127 Ninth Ave., North, Nashville 3, Tennessee, issues a Catalog of Stewardship Materials.)

Use Motion Pictures and Filmstrips. Motion pictures and filmstrips can be used effectively for stewardship education. High-quality films are available from many denominational and interdenominational agencies (Stewardship Bibliography, pp. 15–20). Films should always be previewed, and are most effective when followed by discussion under the direction of a competent and prepared leader.

Use of Tracts and Pamphlets. Tracts and pamphlets dealing with every phase of stewardship can be ordered from the various stewardship organizations (ibid., pp. 9–13; also from stewardship publishers, listed on pp. 21–23). Such stewardship literature, often well designed and well printed, may be secured in almost any quantity at cost, and in many cases without cost. During periods of stewardship emphasis, such literature may be enclosed in mailings of church announcements or distributed at the close of worship services. Church tract racks should carry at all times a selection of good stewardship tracts and pamphlets.

Other Methods of Promotion. Stewardship may also be publicized by means of posters, church offering envelopes, special Sunday School lessons, essay contests, plays, and special church bulletins. Various denominational publication houses provide church bulletins. The Layman Tithing Foundation, 8 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, has for many years published bulletins with stewardship messages, giving special emphasis to the tithe, on the back page.

THE PROBLEM OF PREACHING

Preaching involves the twofold problem of preparation and presentation.

It has been said that “a call to preach is a call to prepare to preach.” He who feels the burden of preaching on stewardship should feel the burden of adequately preparing himself to preach on this subject. The minister’s preparation should embrace a thorough acquaintance with the major Scripture passages dealing with stewardship, as well as the kindred subjects of tithing and giving. It should include an acquaintance also with some of the best books on stewardship. Valuable books for study as the minister prepares to speak on stewardship are Earle V. Pierce’s The Supreme Beatitude (Revell, New York, 1947) and Alphin Conrad’s The Divine Economy (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1954). The Stewardship Bibliography, mentioned earlier, provides a good list of stewardship books.

The presentation may employ many approaches.

The Indirect Approach. This approach was used by the late Dr. George W. Truett. Dr. Truett’s classic book of evangelistic sermons, A Quest for Souls, will reveal an abundance of stewardship emphasis and many illustrations.

The Sermonette Approach. By the sermonette technique, stewardship truth is administered in pleasant capsules. Constant weekly emphasis on stewardship is an effective method of indoctrination.

The Direct Approach. This approach consists of the delivery of one or more sermons on stewardship by the minister, or the giving over of a whole week of evenings to what is called a “Stewardship Revival.” Such a revival is sometimes brought to a climax with a visitation program for the enlistment of tithers.

If a School of Stewardship, as outlined in a preceding section, is conducted, a stewardship message or two from the minister just before the opening of the school would be helpful. Perhaps a message following the school would give opportunity for enlistment.

The minister, desiring to bring only one message on stewardship, may use as his Scripture lesson the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14–30). His text can be 1 Peter 4:10: “As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” The subject might be “A Good Steward.”

A study of this passage of Matthew in the Greek will indicate that the servants referred to were in reality bond servants or slaves. They were the property of their master, for we are told “he called his own servants.” They were his servants by right of purchase in the market. In Romans 1:1 Paul uses the same word for servant. According to the literal translation of the verse in Romans, Paul, by the phrase “a slave of Jesus Christ,” recognized himself as the property of his Lord.

That the possessions of these servants did not belong to them is clear because they were slaves. They themselves were property, and for that reason had no legal right to own property. Moreover, we are told that it was “his goods” that the master delivered to them.

Christians need to learn the truth that in the final analysis property and earthly possessions do not belong to them. “The silver and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts” (Hag. 2:8). “The land is mine” (Lev. 25:23). “Every beast of the forest is mine and the cattle upon a thousand hills” (Ps. 50:10). Again it is written, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein” (Ps. 24:1). “It is he that giveth thee power to gain wealth” (Deut. 8:18).

It was Paul who wrote, “We brought nothing into this world, and it is certain that we will carry nothing out” (1 Tim. 6:7). All our possessions were here before we came into the world, and they will remain here after we are gone. These possessions are but the gifts of God. With David we too must confess, “All things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee” (1 Chron. 29:14).

Again the parable of the talents illustrates the truth that the bondservant is an administrator for his absent lord. Though he does not own the things that are his possession, he is duty bound to administer the property of his lord in such a way that it will yield the highest possible dividends for the master upon his return. This is what the man traveling into the far country desired of his servants to whom he delivered his goods. This is what our Lord desires of his servants as well. To put it another way: the chief aim of the good steward is to bring glory to his absent Lord.

The anticipated day of his Lord’s return is in the future. Everything must be in readiness for the day when the Master “cometh, and reckoneth with them” (Matt. 25:19). It will be upon the occasion of his return that the Lord will say, “Give an account of thy stewardship” (Luke 16:2b). Then “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ” (Rom. 14:10). “So then every one of us shall give an account of himself before God” (Rom. 14:12). In that day the Lord will speak to the good steward wonderful words of commendation, saying “Well done, thou good and faithful servant” (Matt. 25:21a, 23d). The two-talent man who is faithful will receive the same commendation as the man with greater ability, having the five talents. Such words of approval from the divine Master will give a glow of satisfaction to the faithful steward throughout the ages of eternity.

THE PROBLEM OF PROPORTION

The problem of proportion concerns the question of the tithe. Authorities differ as to the wisdom of emphasis upon the tithe. Since in any age no smaller proportion than the tithe for God has ever been suggested, and since our Lord placed his approval upon the tithe by putting it in the category of duty by using the word “ought” (Matt. 23:23), and since Paul in speaking of Christian giving refers to proportion when he says “as God hath prospered” (1 Cor. 16:2), and since the giving of the tithe seems to be the most practical way for the disciple to recognize his stewardship, it would seem logical that the tithe should be regarded as the minimum standard for Christian giving.

This brings our study to a close. It has been found that a steward is a trusted servant charged with the management of resources which are not his own, but which belongs to his Lord.

The stewardship of the minister is unique. If his people are to grasp the concept of stewardship and becomes sacrificial in their giving to Kingdom interests, the minister must lead in both precept and practice.

Stewardship must be taught. The minister with vision and resourcefulness will use every available method to proclaim this vital truth to his people, because he realizes that a sacrificial church is also likely to be the church that is devoted to truth in doctrine and purity in life.

To make the stewardship emphasis practical, the tithe must be held up as the minimum standard for Christian giving. The recognition that the tithe in a special way belongs to God and that it is to be used only for the advancement of his work in the world is a fundamental step toward the recognition of all of life and its resources as a sacred trust.

The stewardship spirit must also be caught, and when the church of our century catches this spirit she will give herself in whole-souled abandon to meet the tremendous needs of this age, and will one day hear the gracious words of the Master saying, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.”

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

“I am a Pentecostal!”

In many Christian circles the very mention of the name causes the erudite to react as did the philosophers at the appearance of Paul on Mars Hill: “What will this babbler say?” (Acts 17:18). In fact, the Pentecostal is classified by most of the Christian world as a fanatic who is guilty of behavior that is neither sane nor spiritual, and who holds to a doctrine of emotionalism centered in the expression of “gibberish” that could not possibly edify a Christian saint.

Meanwhile, the Pentecostal experience is having its effect upon men, and the discovery by a minority of persons of the dynamic of God’s spirit moving in human life is keeping alive the consciousness of an active God in this degenerating world.

Appeals are being made in our Christian society for more positive teaching on the activity of the Holy Spirit. It is because of such appeals that I am attempting to speak for my Pentecostal brethren, who feel that their views have been widely misrepresented and distorted by both the liberal and conservative wings of Christianity. We believe, in truth, that our theology is biblical and orthodox, even though our representation in the theological field is decidedly weak. It may be another decade before the Pentecostal faith can be set into a systematic theology. In clarifying some of the issues relating to our faith in God’s spiritual activity, however, we cannot even gain a hearing until we have first slain the giant of prejudice.

SEMANTICS AND THE SPIRIT

Today the subject of evangelism is being discussed everywhere by Christians. Pentecostals know something about evangelism. We believe that evangelism is one of the orthodox doctrines that has kept alive what little life we still have in the Christian world. We have seen men of God such as Billy Graham bear the brunt of systematic opposition to mass evangelism from those who advocate a more “realistic” approach to converting the human heart to God. In the “seat of theology,” Berkeley, California, where I studied during the 1958 “Crusade,” it was evident that the Graham type of evangelism was not wanted. The seminaries preferred to segregate theology into separate departments as a subterfuge to eradicate the conservative viewpoint. They preferred to devise a “special system of semantics” to further the doctrine of a “realistic” theology for modern man’s needs.

The contention that such “realism” is stimulating and intellectually superior, while orthodoxy is unimaginative and vapid, is a fallacy. One proof of the validity of a theological viewpoint is in what it produces. The masses will not profit by a systematic theology that caters only to the intellect rather than to the whole man. The outpouring of God’s Spirit in these last days is a religious awakening that is giving stimulus to a spiritual hunger. Intellectuals have had their opportunity in the last century to prove what man can do; now there is a theology emerging that is proving what God can do.

NOT BY MIGHT, NOR BY POWER

The apparent lack of dialectic on the part of the Pentecostal stems from two basic reasons: First, Pentecostals are comprised largely of Christians whose backgrounds do not furnish them with equipment for philosophic argumentation. Secondly, they recognize that there was wisdom in the injunction given by God that avoidance of words to no profit would increase their godliness (2 Tim. 2:14, 15). The reluctance has been shared by many in our ranks who are well qualified to deal with the subject of the moment. However, because of the failure of modern theologians to prove themselves capable of dealing with one of the most important theological issues of the last 19 centuries, namely, the activity of the Holy Spirit in this dispensation, the task falls to us of lesser minds. The challenge is given to us to articulate what most Christians view as a fanatical experience of an unpopular sect.

The apostle Paul’s apologetic for avoiding philosophic excursions was that he should not give the impression that knowledge through speculation could be substituted for knowledge through experience, “lest the cross of Christ be made of none effect” (1 Cor. 1:17). We shrink from dialectic, but not for lack of reason for the hope that lies within us. On the contrary, those who challenge the validity and necessity of the Pentecostal baptism into the Holy Spirit will not heed Scripture; rather, they demand of us a rational explanation for the superrational reality that enters into a believer’s soul. We cannot so reason any more than Paul or the other apostles could. If we resort to argument alone in an effort to convey the reality of God’s activity in the human soul, we tend to make the cross of Christ of no effect.

Pentecost is almost synonymous with “tongues.” The popular modern view of the ecstatic equates it with 1 Corinthians 14:14 and then casts it aside as something to be abhorred. The classification of all ecstatic utterances as useless is a rejection of God’s gifts to the Church. The failure on the part of many to distinguish between “initial” and “subsequent” manifestations of the Holy Spirit’s activity has tended to cause a turning away from that which was unequivocally set in the Church as an essential function of spiritual edification.

The Christian who persists in refusing to acknowledge the Pentecostal experience (Acts 2:4) can never be persuaded with argument alone any more than a person can be persuaded to become a Christian by argument alone. Faith is the victory and becomes the essential motivation which enables an individual to believe that what happened at Pentecost (Acts 2:4) and later on in the streets of Jerusalem (Acts 2:6) were two distinct acts, one giving evidence of an initial infilling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4) and the other a subsequent manifestation of the gift of tongues to convince the unbelieving (Acts 2:6–11).

THE DEVIL IS NOT ASLEEP

We Pentecostals have as much, if not more, error creeping into our camps as any other group of believers. The only explanation we have is that whenever God’s Spirit moves, Satan sets up his counter-measures with tactics of delusion and false doctrine. Our camps have been decimated by his forces. Yet, despite such adversity, statistics reveal that Pentecostals are the fastest growing evangelical force in the world today.

The first thing Satan does is to attack the mind of the seeking Christian by planting fear in his heart. If he can prevent the Christian from seeking a more profound experience with God, then he can defeat Christ’s cause.

Jesus said in Luke 11:11–13, “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Sprit to them that ask him?” If the devil can keep the Christian from asking God for more of his Spirit, he will be able to trick, deceive, and defeat the Christian society until it becomes so insipid and worldly that it has no life-giving appeal. It will topple over into dead orthodoxy or revert to a rationalistic religion that can never have appeal to the masses in our world that are finding themselves in a spiritual vacuum which is rapidly being filled by the anti-Christian forces of international communism.

AS THE SPIRIT BLOWS

If there ever was a time when the people of God should seek a Holy-Spirit outpouring it is now in this fast-changing world! Perhaps if the evangelical churches had not been so fearful of spiritual exercise and had exerted proper teaching and discipline, there would not have been the necessity for a Pentecostal Movement so-called. Nevertheless, the reaction of the formalistic against the free-moving of the Spirit established barriers. Pentecostals are not such merely because they demand liberty to allow the Spirit to move as he wills nor because they desire to bask in the ecstatic experience of tongues. Neither are they justified in laying claim to any special endowment that would appear to lift them above their brethren as superior Christians; God forbid! Pentecostals are such because they have had an experience in the Holy Spirit that has revolutionized and challenged their lives. The experience has indelibly imprinted the necessity for evangelizing the world while there is yet time.

Acts 1:8 is the motivating basis for our existence: “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea … and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” If we Pentecostals cease to function in this capacity, may God write “Ichabod” over our door!

Prayer of Thanksgiving

Lord, Thou needest not

Such gifts as I can bring.

Yet, from a grateful heart

These offerings do spring;

Take them, not as all

I owe to Thee, or part

But take them as a pledge

That Thou has won my heart. Amen.

JOHN C. COOPER

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

“Alcoholism” is a rather recent word in our vocabulary and expresses a condition which many persons develop when they persist in drinking liquor.

In the past these people have commonly been called drunkards: the extreme symptom of their condition has been known as delirium tremens, or, colloquially, “snakes-in-the-boots.”

With the increased use and disastrous effects of alcohol as a beverage in our day, various groups, including the distillers themselves, have been setting about to study the problem. Best-known and most influential of these groups is the Yale Summer School of Alcoholic Studies where the approach is purely scientific and objective, while the moral aspect appears to be entirely ignored. The “searchers,” however, having traced the effect of alcohol upon the human body, have produced some very striking films which reveal these effects. Also, they have sought to study and chart the psychology of alcoholics, and have produced some exceedingly interesting, and perhaps quite accurate, behavior patterns of the alcoholic.

FIVE MILLION ALCOHOLICS

It is reported that in the United States there are 5 million “alcoholics,” including all those in the various stages of alcoholism, and 20 per cent of these are women. It is also reported that among the 65 million alcoholic beverage users in the United States, there are drinkers crossing over the line into alcoholism in such numbers that before long there will be an alcoholic on the average to every family.

Alcoholics in the United States now number six times as many as there are cases of cancer, 11 times as many as there are active cases of tuberculosis, and 155 times as many as there were polio cases in the nation last year.

Is it any wonder, in the light of these statistics, that there should spring up all over the country efforts at various levels to do something about the situation? Seminars and workshops on alcoholism are being conducted on local and county levels and supervised usually by recently-organized state clinics and hospitals. Representatives of various organizations are seeking to be heard at meetings of service organizations and other available groups.

Hospitals owned and operated by religious groups are developing departments devoted to alcoholism.

Such an awakening is long overdue. It is much later than we think in regard to combating an enemy that is right within our own nation. The threat of alcoholism is more dangerous and deadly than any danger from the outside.

But what has the church been doing? The church should never have ceased its vigil and crusade against the subtle enemy of alcoholic drinking in American life. Yet practically nothing has been done by the church either to solve the liquor problem or to keep even a proper perspective and correct label upon alcoholism as such.

The Protestant church has failed to make itself clear on the fact that the use of alcoholic beverages is a moral problem. Roman Catholicism has almost totally ignored the moral issue involved. Temperance organizations have arisen as, for example, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and dry forces which continue to be largely of nonpolitical character. But because alcohol for beverage use is licensed by the state, and the church has projected no solution to the issue, the people of America now find themselves confronted by a problem which they cannot adequately handle politically or religiously.

RISE OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS

Largely to the credit of alcoholics themselves, there quietly arose in 1935, with no publicity sought or wanted and without recognized organization, a movement among alcoholics known as “AA”—Alcoholics Anonymous. A few struggling alcoholics, coming into touch with various religious groups whose conduct and faith awakened in them a possibility of hope, followed out their trail of hope and banded themselves together to try to escape further entanglements with alcohol and to help each other. Since its founding, this organization has done and continues to perform a wonderful work and has taken on sizable statistics. The official statement concerning the nature and purpose of Alcoholics Anonymous is given in the booklet titled, Alcoholism the Illness (published by Alcoholics World Service Co., Inc.) and is reprinted here by permission.

Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength, and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for AA membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions. AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy, neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.

The several efforts being made in the study of alcoholism, on whatever level the study is, appear to follow the same pattern and arrive at the same conclusions. First, it is concluded that alcoholism is no moral or ethical problem; secondly, it is stated that alcoholism is a disease, the cause of which is unknown. Whoever the speaker or chairman is conducting the seminar, workshop, or study, he observes in most cases a dogged determination to countenance no suggestion other than this announced conclusion.

SUPPOSEDLY NON-MORAL ISSUE

This thesis concerning alcoholism, that it is a physical disease the cause of which is unknown, and that there are no ethical or moral involvements, has been handed down by those professing to be scientific in their investigation, along with a host of superficial, wishful thinkers who have caught the dictum and parrot it to whom they will. The dictum once accepted carries with it a hush-hush suggestion that there must be no “crusade” against alcoholism, which in turn casts a spell on any suggested crusade against the use of alcoholic beverages. Nothing could please the wet forces of the country more than this.

That alcoholism reflects a diseased body no one will intelligently deny. For a long time our dictionaries have given as a definition for delirium tremens, which is a late, unmistakable symptom of alcoholism, these words: “A disease of the brain caused by the excessive and prolonged use of intoxicating liquors.” So this knowledge is nothing new.

But that we may say there is nothing about alcoholism involving the ethical or moral is a dangerous heresy which this modern movement is seeking to popularize. The moral aspect of the use of alcohol was well known in the writing of the Old Testament, when nine Hebrew words of varying shades were used to point out the moral dangers of strong drink, and prophets pronounced woes against the users (Hab. 2:15; Prov. 20:1). In addition there is the positive condemnation by the New Testament of the drunkard (1 Cor. 5:11; 6:10).

The claim that no one knows the cause of alcoholism is a subterfuge so thin that it can be answered by saying that everyone—the simpleton, the drinker, and the alcoholic—all know it, and no one denies the cause except those who wish to evade, cover up, or becloud the issue. If the language of the doctor who says that alcohol is the cause of alcoholism is “oversimplification,” then to say that no one knows the cause of alcoholism is a thousand times overcomplication. The cause of alcoholism is so well and so indisputably known that we have named the result “alcoholism” after the cause alcohol. Where there is no alcohol there is no alcoholism. Plenty may be said and written about the physical and psychological traits and behavior of pre-alcoholics and alcoholics, but the fact is that there is only one scientific cause for alcoholism which is alcohol.

Even alcoholics themselves are being spiritually betrayed in this handling of their situation, and there is evidence that they sense it and are resenting it.

From the booklet, Alcoholism the Illness, a cutting is included by permission of the publishers from an address delivered by “Bill W.” before the New York Medical Society, May, 1944.

That there is a moral and ethical aspect to alcoholism, despite attempts to deny it, is eloquently and repeatedly enunciated by this representative of Alcoholics Anonymous in his comparison of what “Medicine says” and “Religion says.” Without decrying the physical or psychological aspects of alcoholism, this experienced exponent of alcoholism found a moral aspect at every turn of the alcoholic’s condition and need.

This quotation from an authoritative source within the organization of Alcoholics Anonymous does not satisfy an evangelical on what religion says, but it is quoted to prove that the victims of alcohol know and confess that alcoholism is not a disease only, but a moral and ethical matter for which the alcoholic is personally responsible—in spite of what the professed scientist, their would-be comforter, says.

We can readily see that it is high time we awaken to the predicament in which the American people find themselves with regard to alcoholism. In the face of this regrettable number of alcoholics, plus millions more who are daily crossing the subtle line into the ranks of alcoholics, false prophets before our very eyes are beclouding the issues, making the moral nonmoral, and intimidating every effort to stay the deadly march of physical and spiritual death. They would have us hurry in our efforts to mop up the results of alcoholism, yet leave wide open the root of the problem which is the continuous traffic in beverage alcohol.

The Church, temperance societies, and all good people ought to throw off the intimidations imposed by superficial, would-be authorities on the subject of alcoholism, and get back to preaching the gospel of Christ with its power to save from all sin, even that of the use of alcohol. Churches and temperance societies should again inaugurate their crusades against the use of alcoholic beverages, and again prosecute vigorously the now nearly abandoned total abstinence pledges of both youths and adults. Then a great crusade should be set in motion to deliver the brain-washed American public from its false stupor concerning alcoholism, its cause and its cure. Unless such an awakening comes soon, America is alcoholic doomed.

The Methodist Church is setting for us a splendid example. Not fearing the intimidation of those who decry “crusades,” The Methodist Church, under the leadership of the Council of Bishops and at the direction of the General Board of Temperance, is conducting annually, on a definite and uniform date, what they call “Commitment Sunday.” On this date all Methodist Sunday schools and churches are asked to invite young and old to sign or even re-sign the pledge of total abstinence.

No one can evaluate the results of pledges made, particularly on the part of the young, to abstain from all forms of alcoholic beverages for life. The testimony of an octogenarian recently came to my attention. This man, reared under Christian influences, promised his mother on her deathbed that he would never touch alcohol. Although he was not an unbeliever, he unfortunately has never identified himself with any Christian church; but though in business and commercial life he has been severely tested by those who practiced the use of alcoholic beverages, he testifies that the total abstinence pledge which he made to his mother has kept him from drinking throughout his long life.

Children and young people today are targets for the liquor industry, and constitute the ranks from which the alcoholics of tomorrow will come. Shall we continue to be unconcerned and unalarmed while the cause of alcoholism, which is alcohol, goes on ignored and unindicted?

Next Issue: The Trend In Britain

The July 31 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY will be devoted to a comprehensive survey of the present spiritual situation in Great Britain. The survey has been projected from CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S recently opened London office under the guidance of Dr. Philip E. Hughes, British Editorial Associate. Facts and figures concerning the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, and the Free Churches reveal a situation that is both alarming and challenging. The great cities, the country districts, the schools and universities, and the industrial community are to be surveyed, as well as trends in crime and delinquency. This will be an issue of unusual significance, realistically describing the mission field that is Great Britain today. It should be studied and prayed over by all who have a concern for the spiritual virility of the Western world.

The contributors are men ably qualified to define and assess the spiritual problems and needs which confront the Church in Britain at the present time.

The London office of CHRISTIANITY TODAY is located on Fleet Street, a few blocks from Smithfield (scene of the burning of many Protestant martyrs). London Manager is Gervase E. Duffield, graduate in theology of the University of Oxford, who formerly was Secretary of Tyndale House and engaged in research studies in Cambridge. CHRISTIANITY TODAY has a growing role in stimulating the evangelical witness and molding the theological thinking in Great Britain as well as in other lands at this strategic moment of history.

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

Listen, people. You demanded that your minister be servant of the Word; you shook him loose from trivialities, and you vowed to hear and heed him when he came before you with only God’s Word to speak. Behold him now approaching your pulpit—back from long counsel, torn from prayer’s vigil and worn with study but his eyes aflame with a fire. He goes down on his knees, rises, and mounts the pulpit. He opens the Bible on the sacred desk. The air is charged with suspense. This man has been with God, and now he is before you, and he is not alone: dare you listen?

A suspicion touches every heart; this man may become disagreeable, he may rebuke the slovenly thinker, expose the self-righteous, offer divine love to those afraid to admit their need of it, and leave all breathless before the excruciating exactness of the Word’s application to their lives. Will this man have the effrontery to preach the piercing Word of the holy God to the sin-ridden hearts of this comfortable people? Nothing about him suggests that he will offer easy steps to peace of mind, or that he will hand out sermonic tranquilizers. Indeed, he stands before all as one who holds his mind apart; he bears the mien of one intent on being faithful, not to this world but to God alone.

He comes as one resolved to fire a fusilade against falsehood and to ignite a rocket for righteousness. Listen!—human words, refined in the fire of the Holy Word, and searing already the soul of their speaker, are poised to flame against your ears. Listen!—a mind that has dived through this world’s dark perplexities to rest at last on the bright Word of God, unclouded and unconfused, commandeers your minds to reason’s counsel before God. You asked for him and now you have him and it is too late to look for the exits. Listen, people, listen!

This strange, new minister in your refurbished pulpit raises arms against the air and speaks: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” At this audacity a hush grips the congregation. Folk once prepared for a light trip through the airy regions of psychology, sociology, case studies, literature, and the “best sellers” realize that no flippant side-trips will be made this hour, no ears will be titilated, and no emotions tickled. Each hearer senses that he and his condition are to be brought up short against the will of the living God.

Many begin to wish they had not summoned this man to preach. Most are uneasy because they did not leave their foibles, follies, prejudices, and presuppositions with their coats in the cloak room. Some blush already, fully expecting their words at the bridge table, their temper tantrums in the home, their shady business deals, and their indecent ambitions to be broadcast from the pulpit, laid out plain before all, and the owners identified by name. This man, speaking in God’s name, will indeed proclaim God’s judgment in the House of God; the hearers may take it as wrath, but the preacher will say it in love. Listen, people, listen!

This man in the pulpit will tell you that Christ is not concerned to make you better, but to make you new, not to help you but to heal you, not to accept you but to convert you. He will tell you that Christ wants your words and your deeds, but first He wants you. He will tell you that although you are rich in this world’s goods, you are a spiritual pauper and a financial incompetent until Christ enters your life and requisitions your possessions. He will tell you that all your subtle claims to status are filthy rags before God. He will tell you that before you can work you must worship, before you can speak for Christ you must hear from Christ, and before you can serve Christ you must be transformed by Christ. He will tell you that until you have followed close by Christ in relation to wife and husband, family, business associates, play partners, and casual contacts on the street, across the highway and in the air, you have not followed him, but deserted him and shamed him. He will tell you that what you hear, read and say here, there and everywhere, are not necessarily truths, and never will be truth until brought into captivity to Jesus Christ, the Truth. He will tell you that until your love for all around you is broad and deep, a compulsive reflection of God’s love for you, it is a sham and a fake. He will tell you that unless you are born again by the grace of God in Christ you have not lived, and indeed, that you will never live until Christ lives in you. He will tell you that until the Holy Spirit cauterizes your heart it will not be free from the fatal infection of self-love. He will tell you that decisions and attitudes must be structured to centered loyalty in Jesus Christ, or you will continue to live in broken frustration, macerated cross-purposes, and in futility’s busy despair. This man calls you to surrender to the love that has conquered all, and will conquer all. He pleads with reason’s calm and passion’s thrill for your allegiance to the things of the Kingdom.

The pleasantries of human expression are unknown to this man who speaks God’s Word. He calls sin sin, and fears not to drag it out from under the robes of the upright and from beneath the hats of the highly praised. When the situation calls for the brutally plain or the lovingly redemptive, this man of the Word says precisely that. Listen, people, listen to this Word!

If a man makes an idol of his self-indulgence, the Word shows him in his pig pen. If the woman is caught in adultery, the Word calls it adultery, and the Word dares anyone without sin to throw the first stone at her. If the conceited materialist boasts of his bigger bars, the Word shows him damned in the night when God requires his life. If the grain rots in the bins and the overweight owners are deliberately deaf to the starving enemies’ groans, the Word shouts: feed them! If the self-righteous man recites his virtues before man and God, the Word portrays the wretched sinner beating his breast beside him and going down to his house justified, and the self-righteous floundering in the quagmire of self-adulation. If society’s pillars make public ritual of the money they give to the church which should have gone to needy fathers and mothers, the Word says a stuffy propriety has voided God’s law. When those who rule come, possessing all, the Word says: give all. If the sensitive man, hurt by the jibes of others, refuses to forgive, the Word says God will not forgive him. If case-hardened sinners scorn the Word, that very Word says they have judged themselves fit for the hell they desired. If nations rattle their nuclear sabers and ideological spears at each other in the world’s mad, rat-race for power, the Word says that those who take the sword shall perish by the sword. If injustice rages across the land, leaving a wreckage of broken hopes, unfulfilled lives, decaying bodies, jobless men, unwanted oldsters and neglected children, the Word demands to know where are the upholders of the justice of God, and where are those redeemed to bear the burdens of the afflicted and to lift up the fallen. If wild and self-centered racing down the highways strews out 30,000 dead bodies in its wake each year, the Word cries: You are your brother’s keeper. If vice strides through the nation, adorning every bookstand, enriching every syndicate, winning every Oscar, and piercing the young and the weak with its filth-tipped dagger, the Word states: Woe to those who cause these little ones to stumble. If lies go abroad, neatly packaged and steeled with weighty arguments, the Word says: Test the spirits. If Christ’s people rest at ease in Zion, doling out pennies to gospel the ungospeled, while merchants of evil unload billions for exploitation, the Word, with a vision of countless souls harmed by our neglect, declares that we have not been our brother’s helper but his destroyer. If the gossip mongers and the hate spreaders run to and fro with their choice morsels and their calculated insinuations, the Word says you shall not bear false witness. If many come casually seeking an easy way and a cheap salvation, the Word shall visit them with a vision of a thorn-crowned Christ and a death-bought glory, and the words with the vision are, “No one comes to the Father, but by me”; and that way runs hard by Calvary yet, and that salvation still comes sealed by costly grace. And when the sinner flees to the throne of grace, begging mercy, the Word, flaunting our social standards, states: Come home, forgiven, a father waits to love you. Will the sinner find a mind of Christ, a truth in love, and a joy in pardon in your midst? Listen, people, listen and ponder!

This prophet in your pulpit will catch you unawares and slam the redemptive Word against the quick of your unguarded souls. He will admit that this two-edged Word cuts him deeper than he can make it cut you, that he needs its redeeming thrust equally as much as you. He hopes that a holy Flame will speed his words, scorched though they be, and that some of the burn will light on your hearts. Recall that it is by your insistence and assistance that this man seeks unswerving fidelity to the Commander’s command: “And preach as you go!” Remember that he preaches from the terrible conviction that he must one day give account for your souls before God. Your man is vulnerable and he will fail miserably in this world’s eyes and he will also fail in the eyes of the faithful unless, by God’s grace and your loyalty, you give him your prayers, your ears, your minds, and your hearts; for, until the final assize, God has provided no other way to salvation than through the faith imparted and continuously startled by the preaching of Christ.

When your minister comes down from the pulpit, and when you and he know that Christ has spoken his Word through your minister’s words, hoard them all on memory’s tablets and force them through the redactors of your hearts; and, when explosive power erupts, trigger its application to all of life by the thoughts of your minds, the words of your speech, and the deeds of your hands.

And woe to him who cries “Hold!” when the countdown is finished!

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

Just four days ago, I was listening to the radio while driving along a road in Iowa, and heard the full report of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church regarding their action on the use of alcoholic beverages. The report is long and subtle but leaves one with the impression that whereas a great many Presbyterians serve liquor in their homes, and whereas a great many Presbyterians engage in social drinking, it is not nice for the nondrinkers to criticize them, and we ought all of us to seek to redeem these social drinkers by loving them into abstinence, because abstinence is the goal and ideal.

On Sunday morning in Missouri I had to wait outside the study door of the pastor in whose church I was preaching until a Sunday school class was dismissed, and I overheard the discussion of the high school class. One gay girl was bubbling over with the following discovery, and I think I quote her almost exactly: “Did you hear that the General Assembly of our church, that’s the Assembly of the whole church, mind you, has said that it’s all right to drink so now we’re allowed to drink at parties. What do you think of that?” The poor teacher was hard pressed as to just what to think; apparently these subtleties of the General Assembly’s statement had been lost in the newspaper accounts and in the impressions high school church-goers get from newspaper accounts. If the Sunday school teacher has any notion of teaching abstinence to that class, the General Assembly did not make his job any easier; in fact, I think they pulled the rug right out from under him.

In the general theological and ethical drift of our day, one need not criticize the Presbyterians more than others. Their particular statement just now happens to illustrate “Current Religious Thought” and leads me to make a few observations.

1. In dealing with drink and similar ethical questions we seem to be desperately afraid of “legalism.” Personally, I am more afraid of “illegalism.” At the basis of any good society there must be “order” and order is always related to law. I think it is quite possible to draw distinctions between law and legalism and I know what my friends are trying to say when they say “don’t be legalistic.” But it seems to me the time is ripe and overripe for us to reassess how much of our life must be under law and, whereas we all agree that the attitude of “legalism” might be condemned, no one is seriously arguing for lawlessness. If the use of alcoholic beverages is wrong or even potentially wrong, it is not “legalistic” to say so, and to condemn it.

2. When the Kinsey report came out it was suggested that since men behave as described in the Kinsey report, our laws ought to be rewritten to adjust to the actual behavior of men instead of over against or above the common behavior of men. I remember reading the scathing criticism of Reinhold Niebuhr regarding this approach, as if law has no absolute authority but is constantly adjustable to how the majority appears to be operating at any given time. This is existentialism gone wild. The brakes on my car are related to some absolute laws and I am very happy that the laws are valid every hour of every day regardless of the weather or my feelings. Moral laws are not divorced from absolute truth, always and everywhere applicable. A survey revealing that 58 percent of the Presbyterians serve liquor in their homes has nothing whatever to do with whether the church condemns or condones social drinking. Only 7,000 people in all Israel had not bowed the knee to Baal in Elijah’s day, but the minority was right and the prophets of God kept saying so.

3. Somebody needs to remind us afresh that there is no necessary distinction between “law” and “love” just as we have been reminded by recent theologians that often we find the grace of God in His judgment. The law can well be the most loving thing around, unless we are talking about lovey-dovey instead of the real thing. Martin Luther King is quoted in this week’s Time as saying “we cannot legislate morality but we can legislate behavior.” I think the church ought to be on the side of legislating behavior until we have done more than we have about morality and the spiritual foundations of Christian ethical behavior. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in the last issue of Reader’s Digest has in its advertisements these words; “… as little as two alcoholic drinks is enough to cause a definite impairment of the judgment and reactions of many people … you don’t have to be intoxicated to become a potential menace to yourself and everyone else.…” All this raises the question as to where the “love” lies—in our refusal to condemn the social drinker or in our insistence on condemning the social drinker as a menace. All the hard drinkers I know start out drinking socially. All the alcoholics I know started out as social drinkers. The question remains just where do we bring love to bear (try P. T. Forsyth’s Holy-Love) on this total complex?

4. It has always appeared to me that there was something phony in calling alcoholism a “disease.” Once you call it a disease the moral issue drops out; I would like to put the moral issue back in. Alcoholism is a disease; so is syphilis; so is the measles. Thus calling something a disease simply means that we have to treat it as it appears, but I think we all recognize that calling it a disease is not the only thing involved. How the disease was contracted puts a moral content in the problem, and I am not willing to admit that a helpless alcoholic was not morally involved when he began the process which now makes him helpless. I also think that I am morally involved when I contribute by precept or by example to his belief that there is no real issue involved when he takes his first steps along the road of potential alcoholism. Many deaths are caused by people who say “I didn’t know the gun was loaded.” The church does know that this gun is loaded.

Perhaps those churches that believe in “moderate” drinking could find a good source of revenue in “moderate” liquor advertising in church papers and some “moderate” investments in liquor stocks.