If the season of Advent holds cheer that delights and dazzles a child’s heart, it holds challenge also that probes and haunts the most scintillant of learned minds. In his Cambridge Lectures on Christian Doctrine, Professor J. S. Whale makes the observation that “the Christological debates of nineteen centuries are a monument to the uniqueness of Him whom Christians know as the Incarnate Son of God.” A moment later he goes on to say that Jesus is inexplicable just because He cannot be put into a class. His uniqueness constitutes the problem to be explained. It is impossible to describe Him without becoming entangled in paradoxes. The great merit of the Creeds is that they left the paradox as such.

It is this uniqueness, in which the event of the atoning Cross is linked with the event of the incarnational Birth, that gives to us what Professor H. R. Mackintosh long ago called The Originality of the Christian Message. (The phrase is actually finer and firmer than the too subjectivistic theology with which the author supports it.) The fitness of the phrase is due partly to the telling appropriateness of the word “message.” No theology, least of all a Christology, is worthy of the New Testament that is merely treatise or discourse: it must be message.

For this reason I find particular stimulus in the theological writings of such contemporaries as Lutheran T. A. Kantonen, Presbyterian John A. Mackay, Methodist Edwin Lewis, and Anglican Stephen Neill. Their Christological concern is acute and their evangelical commitment at this point is unambiguous.

Consider Bishop Stephen Neill’s recent books, The Unfinished Task and Creative Tension. They are skillful attempts to bring into fresh focus the redemptive solitariness of Christ the Lord. Neill’s concern is not that of the theologian per se but of the missioner: he would insist (like Kantonen) that the theology of the New Testament is beyond all else kerygmatic. As a doctrinal commentator, therefore, he has always before him the missionary perspective.

In The Unfinished Task he “debunks” the myth that “each great World Christian Conference marks an advance on the one that has gone before.” As between “Edinburgh” in 1910 and “Jerusalem” in 1928 Neill holds that the direction was down rather than up. “A case could be made out,” he says, “for regarding the Jerusalem meeting in 1928 as the nadir of the modern missionary movement. This was the moment when liberal theology exercised its most fatal influence on missionary thinking, the lowest valley out of which the missionary movement has ever since been trying to make its way” (p. 151).

What Bishop Neill has in mind becomes abundantly clear to anyone who will acquaint himself with Re-Thinking Missions, produced under the editorship of Professor Hocking in 1932. An attentuated Christology evolved from an emasculated New Testament had so distracted, if not dominated, the Jerusalem Conference that the so-called “Laymen’s Inquiry” took the Hocking group around the world and crystalized its findings in the “Re-Thinking” volume. Here it was stated that “The relation between religions must take increasingly hereafter the form of a common search for truth” (p. 47). It was the crowning hour for the “comparative religion” school of thought. Christianity was still superior but it was not incomparable.

This influence, stemming from Jerusalem, has led Professor Wilhelm Andersen, a German Lutheran, to say in his recent Towards a Theology of Mission that what the dominant voices of the Conference were really asking was: “Is Christian faith, perhaps, only one particular form of the mystical experience of the divine which is the common groundwork of all religions? Should not Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed and the rest be considered simply as different branches on the single tree of the religious experience of mankind? Are the differences between the various religions perhaps only relative differences between a more perfect or a less perfect stage of evolution?” (p. 23).

How this way of construing, and thereby betraying, the Gospel has played into the hands of the now resurgent non-Christian faiths may be illustrated from the opening paragraph of D. T. Niles’ The Preacher’s Task and the Stone of Stumbling. Niles quotes a Hindu friend of his who one day said to him, “We shall put an image of Christ into every Hindu temple and then no Hindu will see the point of becoming a Christian.” On which Niles makes the observation, “It was a remark perfectly revealing the Hindu mind. For the Hindu attitude to Jesus Christ is to accept him and make him at home in Hinduism. It is also an attitude which refuses to accept either the validity or the necessity of a Hindu becoming a Christian.”

Since the Jerusalem Conference many a theological voice has been raised in protest against the erosion of the Church’s Christology and the dilution of the Church’s message. It was in protest against the viewpoint of Re-Thinking Missions that Robert E. Speer wrote his glorious book on The Finality of Jesus Christ. It was in connection with the Madras Conference of 1938 that Hendrik Kraemer wrote his The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World, with its rejection of the “comparative religion” approach and its insistence on the uniqueness of the person of Christ and of the saving action of God in His birth, death, and resurrection on behalf of all men. It is to reaffirm, albeit with fresh and constructive relevance, the sovereignty of Christ over all of life that Stephen Neill now tells us, in Creative Tension, that even religious systems represent those human aspirations and pretentions which the Cross must first reduce to ashes that so, from the rubble of human pride, might arise the new man of faith to whom Jesus Christ is Saviour indeed.

The issue is not now, nor ever has been, one religion in comparison with another, one philosophy as against another: the issue is Christ—God incarnate, God on a Cross.

Background Of The Reformation

Erasmus and the Humanist Experiment, by Louis Bouyer (Geoffrey Chapman, 1959, 220 pp., 18s.), is reviewed by Gervase E. Duffield, Secretary to the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research, Tyndale House, Cambridge.

Few people today know much about the humanism of the Renaissance but a knowledge of it is an essential prerequisite for grasping the background and context of the Reformation. To most, humanism has come to mean a system of morality and thought based solely on man’s ideas to the exclusion of everything divine. In the Renaissance era it had an element of this, but it was more a realization of man’s potentiality, his wonder and his achievements. The age was everywhere one of discovery, with Vasco da Gama and Christopher Columbus finding new lands, and Galileo and Copernicus exploring the mysteries of the universe; but though these were part of the whole movement, the main impact of humanism was in art and literature. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 had driven the Greek scholars westward and sparked off the Renaissance in Italy. Its artistic aspect, the paintings of Raphael and the sculptures of Michelangelo, and so on, are well enough known, so Bouyer concentrates on its literary side. He shows us the changing attitudes of the Popes to the new learning, as it began with the classical studies of Petrarch and the speculative mysticism of Nicholas of Cusa. The author traces it through the education reforms of Vittorino da Feltre, and the brilliant but eccentric cabalism of Pico della Mirandola and so on to Erasmus, the central figure.

There were in fact two humanisms, related but yet distinct. The writer at times seems aware of this, but it is not brought out with sufficient clarity. The Alps were the dividing line intellectually as well as geographically. To the south the emphasis was more secular, more artistic, and permeated by a greater scepticism. To the north it was more religious and educational, and linked with a pietism that had grown weary of scholastic dogma. The chief reason for the difference lay in the Brethren of the Common Life, who originated in the Low Countries.

Bouyer gives us much useful information about Erasmus, going through his Method of True Theology and his Colloquies. In the process he expounds his way of writing, his patristic interests, and his commentating, together with some of his political and moral ideas. The author takes issue with the French scholar Renaudet, who explained Erasmus in terms of the undogmatic approach of the 19th century Liberalism, and made him the virtual founder of the Renan type of Modernism. This is fair criticism, but we must ask if Bouyer himself is not guilty of some preconceptions in his analysis of the great Rotterdamer. Renaudet is accused of vagueness and lack of supporting references on p. 139, but what of Bouyer? Can we explain away The Praise of Folly as a mere verbal pleasantry from a select group and the result of a long chat with Sir Thomas More (p. 99)? Did Erasmus never attack monasticism as such? Did he not say some very strong things about the Pope? Later on, when he saw the way the Lutherans were moving, he drew in his horns, and, wishing to stay within the Roman fold, he claimed he had been misinterpreted, but all this does not mean he never made the attacks in the first place.

What, then, was the historical Erasmus like? His roots were in northern humanism, and he shared its concern for moral improvement and the pietist’s unconcern with dogma. He had more faults than Bouyer mentions, for he loved flattery and was too ambitious for the uninfluential circles of his monastery at Steyn. He advocated a conciliatory policy towards the Lutherans till he was coerced into attacking Luther. Our book passes lightly over this contest and total victory for Luther in The Bondage of the Will, and mentions only Erasmus’ moderation and Luther’s violence (p. 132). It is clear Erasmus was at best a poor theologian, and that his real milieu was the literary world where he could edit texts and write satires. In fact he used the same flippancy in attacking Luther’s view of predestination as he had earlier in his Praise of Folly, and we imagine Bouyer would not deny he really meant to attack Luther. The author places Erasmus between the ultra-conservative Catholics and the Protestant innovators (p. 98), and while this is very convenient, we must note that Trent later decided what Romanism was, and the Tridentine Fathers were certainly ultra-conservative. Further it would be more accurate to say that Erasmus, like his great hero Origen before him who tried to be a Platonist and a Christian, sought to be an orthodox Roman and a Humanist. Formally he was always a Roman, for it hardly occurred to him to be anything else: he hated division and strife of any sort, and though he had inherited the methods of historical and literary criticism from Lorenzo Valla, he was not a critical theologian and did not think theologically. His method of assailing the decadence around him was that of satire, but it breathed a different spirit from the Council of Trent.

Bouyer’s uneasiness with humanism appears towards the end of the book, when he discusses Pope Paul Ill’s three humanist cardinals: Contarini the Italian reformer, Sadoleto the commentator who sought to steal Geneva back from the Protestants, and Pole the Archbishop of Canterbury who so nearly became Pope. “The Christian spirit in these dedicated Churchmen still retained and embraced the humanist spirit, but could not penetrate it” (p. 218). The pietistic humanism of the north had some influence on the Counter-Reformation, but much of it was rejected by Tridentine rigidity. The Reformers had set aside the general man-centred view of life with its Pelagian tendencies and took up the literary tools of humanism, the study of philology, texts, grammar and syntax, historical criticism exposing frauds, and linguistic, classical, and patristic research. When these things ceased to be the domain of satirists and literary dilettantes—well, we know what Bucer, Melanchthon, Calvin, Zwingli, and Peter Martyr did, and they all came from humanist backgrounds.

The book is well written and printed in a large type which helps the reader. An index would have been an improvement, but the work is packed with valuable information, even if the Roman Catholic viewpoint is in evidence at times.

In expressing his opinion of the work of Renaudet Bouyer says that, though his “judgment seems untenable, his book is a valuable guide through a maze of events” (p. 251). We venture to suggest that this appraisal may be applied with equal appropriateness to the work of Bouyer himself.

GERVASE E. DUFFIELD

A Living Faith

The Royal Route to Heaven: A Study in First Corinthians, by Alan Redpath (Revell, 1960, 256 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Richard C. Halverson, pastor Fourth Presbyterian Church, Washington, D. C.

Alan Redpath accomplished his purpose, to provide “both food and fire for the hungry heart to which God has revealed the shallowness and ineffectiveness of the church in the world today.” In language notably free from the stereotypes so deadening to familiar truth, he writes as though First Corinthians was meant for twentieth century Christians. Fundamental ideas such as peace, perishing, salvation, mystery, carnality, separation are redefined in a way that stimulates new appreciation for the relevance of ancient truth to contemporary life. Difficult matters like schism, judgment, Tongues are handled with great care and delicate matters such as immorality, sex, marital relations, chastity bear the touch of reverence and wisdom. Discussions on the centrality of the Cross and the ministry of the Spirit commend this book to every reader who seeks to be all he believes Christ intends him to be.

RICHARD C. HALVERSON

Russian Christianity

The Russian Religious Mind, by George P. Fedotov (Harper, 1960, 431 pp., $1.95), is reviewed by Georges Florovsky, Professor of Eastern Church History, Harvard Divinity School.

The standing value of this volume is in its rich documentation. The author surveys in turn all basic writings of the early Russian literature up to the Mongol invasion, in the first quarter of the thirteenth century, and endeavors to discern behind the documents living persons, with their beliefs and convictions, their hopes and achievements, their disappointments and failures. He seeks to show, by a kind of case analysis, the variety and the growth of Russian Christianity, in its first formative age. This task is accomplished superbly.

The author has an unusual insight into the human soul. According to his own admission, Professor Fedotov was interested mainly in the “subjective side” of religion. Not only does he distinguish between the “subjective” and “objective” sides, but he opposes them. He writes as an historian, not as a theologian. This approach has its advantages, but also grave inconveniences. The author is actually interested in the “religious man,” not in the “objective” values to which this man is committed and dedicated. Yet, in the last resort, he does not, because he cannot, abstain from judgment, and this takes him beyond psychology.

The book is a kind of special pleading for a particular type of Christianity, which, according to the author, was characteristic of the Russian mind. He labels it as “Kenotic” (from the Greek word kenosis—self-humbling, humiliation). He contrasts it with the Byzantine pattern, dominated, as he believes, by the attitude of dread and fear. This section of the book is not only the weakest, but is a complete failure. The author does not know Byzantium well enough, and utterly dislikes its religion. The book should be widely read as an introduction to Russian religious psychology, but the reader must be cautious in adopting Professor Fedotov’s theological conclusions. In any case, the Christ of the Russian faith was not only “the Humiliated Christ,” but also the Risen Lord, and the Judge to come. This was also the Christ of the Byzantine.

GEORGES FLOROVSKY

Refined Wellhausenism

A Christian Theology of the Old Testament by George A. F. Knight (John Knox, 1959, 381 pp., $5), is reviewed by Earl S. Kalland, Dean and Professor of Old Testament, Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, Denver, Colorado.

G. A. F. Knight, lecturer in Old Testament and Hebrew in St. Mary’s and St. Salvator’s Colleges of St. Andrew’s University, in this work, has given to those interested in Biblical studies a positive, modern view of Old Testament theology.

Methodologically, the twin excellences of historic-grammatical analysis and positive presentation grace the book even though many of the historical and grammatical judgments might not be accepted as true.

With almost unfaltering consistency the alleged writers or editors of every section of the Old Testament are chronologically fitted into a somewhat refined and modernized Graf-Wellhausen scheme of authorship. Without a complete committal to this modern reconstruction of Old Testament formation the developmental order of Old Testament theology here espoused cannot be accepted.

An evolutionary historical approach leads Professor Knight to confuse the religion which Israel practiced with the religion which God revealed.

The ancient Near Eastern myths and the terminology which they have in common with the Old Testament have been taken much too seriously in this book.

While corporate Israel often stands out in the Old Testament, here corporate Israel becomes what the New Testament and what many writers since New Testament times interpreted as a prefigurement of Christ Himself. Extremely limited mention is made of the prophecy of an individual Messiah.

For one who is equipped to read it critically, this “theology” should afford some interesting reading but it is not a book for beginners.

EARL S. KALLAND

Backgrounds Of Freedom

Christian History of the Constitution, Volume I, a compilation by Verna M. Hall, edited by Joseph Allan Montgomery. Introduction by Felix Morley (American Christian History Press, 481 pp., no price given), reviewed by Stewart M. Robinson, pastor Second Presbyterian Church, Elizabeth, New Jersey.

It is like finding “pieces of eight” to be able to see some of the monuments of our Anglo-Saxon freedom through the photographic skill which brings the ancient page under our eye. The volume is an organized selection of some great chapters out of our national past, from original sources and later historians, indexed and illustrated by pictures of men and places of early days. Other volumes are promised. This is a book to read and ponder. Every portion of our history cost fortune, ease and even life itself to stalwart folk who scattered the seed of a free civil life under God.

Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, wrote: “The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is indeed difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster and encourage it among its citizens and subjects,” (Paragraph 1871). This and many other quotations from historic documents make this volume eminently valuable to patriotic Americans.

STEWART M. ROBINSON

Study In Patristics

A Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church Fathers, by Robert R. Williams (Eerdmans, 1960, 224 pp., $4), is reviewed by Earle E. Cairns, Professor of History, Wheaton College.

Those who are interested in the theological, ecclesiastical, and political problems of the Old Catholic Church between A.D. 100 and 400 and the solutions suggested by the Fathers of the Church will find this book quite useful. The title seems to be slightly misleading because the book is really the historical theology of the era with emphasis upon the teachings of the Fathers. These teachings are set forth by pertinent, brief quotations from their writings. Helpful primary and secondary bibliography opens the way for further study. The author’s evangelical treatment of this subject is a welcome addition to the history of the early church.

EARLE E. CAIRNS

Faith And Science

Protestant Thought and Natural Science, by John Dillenberger (Doubleday, 1960, 300 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by Bernard Ramm, Professor of Systematic Theology, California Baptist Theological Seminary.

This work by a professor in Drew University who is already a recognized scholar in historical theology sketches the reactions of some of the more important theologians and scientists of Christian faith to the critical problems modern science has raised in its course through the past four hundred years. It is a book based upon considerable research in continental libraries and is carefully and clearly written. If there is any over-all thesis to be deciphered from the book it is this: it took the theologians four hundred years to learn to differentiate between a theological sentence and a scientific one. The principal blunder by those who defended the Scriptures and by those who attacked the Scriptures was that the statements in Genesis 1–3 were interpreted as literal statements of scientific facts instead of literary statements of theological truth.

The book has two great values: (1) it is a good history for any professor or preacher or student who wishes to inform himself of the subject, its historical roots, and the essential issues. (2) It can serve as an eye-opener to the person who thinks his own views on Scripture and science are impeccably orthodox. By reading Dillenberger’s work he will discover that some of the opinions held today as constituting orthodox faith are very heretical compared to those of his predecessors. For example, the immobility of the earth was once considered established by very sound exegesis and any view that the earth moved was judged as heretical and contrary to God’s truth!

On the other hand I would question two features of the book:

(1) Barth, Tillich, Niebuhr, and Bultmann are treated as if they are more or less on the same team—they just take “a different stance at bat.” Whatever Barth may have in common with the other men is dwarfed into insignificance when we note his differences from them. Barth, for example, devotes four huge volumes of his Dogmatik to the doctrine of creation and treats the creation account with a seriousness which is far beyond anything found in the works of the other theologians.

(2) The author states that his theological opinion is “neither to the right of Barth nor to the left of Tillich. This is another way of saying that no single interpretation is assumed, but that Protestant orthodoxy, forms of Protestant liberalism, and fundamentalism are rejected” (p. 15). Certainly from such a theological stance no great new interpretation or no great new synthesis can come. It is this standing in three places at once which cripples the concluding part of the book. Dillenberger does admit that the important part of the volume is the longer historical section and with this we concur. While not contributing anything new in the science-theology debate it nevertheless is a most substantial historical contribution which no person who wishes to be completely informed on the subject can afford to overlook.

BERNARD RAMM

Zephaniah stands in danger of being overshadowed by his great contemporaries. He shares with Jeremiah an intimate concern for the plight of his people but lacks both the pathos and the scope of the weeping Prophet. Like Nahum he pictures with prophetic foresight the collapse of Nineveh, but his poetic style is no match for the stirring cadences and striking metaphors of the Elkosite. With Habakkuk he declares the necessity of divine intervention in judgment, but the personal qualities of righteous indignation and cordial trust which characterize Habakkuk are not so prominent in Zephaniah. However, the lack of originality does not mean that the book is unimportant. Zephaniah has summed up in his brief book many of the dominant prophetic themes, and, above all, he has bound them together with the lucid eschatological insights for which he is justly honored by students of biblical prophecy.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Our knowledge of Zephaniah’s life and ministry is limited to those clues which can be detected in his writing. He is not to be identified with any of the several Old Testament men who bear his name (“the Lord had hidden” or “treasured”). The introductory verse carries his genealogy back four generations to Hezekiah. This unusually complete family history seems somewhat pointless unless this Hezekiah is the great king of Judah. If so, it is likely that Zephaniah began his prophetic ministry at an early age, perhaps 25. This suggestion is based on the fact that there are three generations between Hezekiah and Zephaniah and only two (Manasseh and Amon) between Hezekiah and Josiah.

Aage Bentzen (Introduction to the Old Testament, 2nd ed., II, p. 153) has linked Zephaniah with the temple prophets which have received considerable attention in recent Old Testament literature (e.g., A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel, 1944). The possibility of such a connection cannot be denied, but the evidence adduced by Bentzen seems tenuous. E. J. Young’s evaluation of the relationship between prophet and priest is cautious but sound: “Johnson’s monograph serves as a wholesome corrective to the extravagant view of the older liberalism (which, following Wellhausen, pictured prophets and priests as militant opponents). It does cause us to see that there was indeed some connection between the prophets and the place of sacrifice. What this connection was, however, we … are unable to say” (My Servants the Prophets, Eerdmans, 1952, p. 103).

The only direct chronological statement (1:1) links Zephaniah’s ministry with the reign of Josiah (c. 640–609 B.C.). His descriptions of idolatrous practices in Judah and Jerusalem (1:4–6) point to a date before the extensive reforms brought about by the discovery of the book of the law (2 Kings 23) in about 622 B.C. In all probability our prophet’s ministry was brief, centering in the period around 625 B.C. J. Philip Hyatt’s argument for a date during the reign of Jehoiakim (c. 609–597 B.C.) has not gained general acceptance among biblical scholars (“Date and Background of Zephaniah” in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 1948, pp. 25–29).

Zephaniah’s grave concern for Jerusalem, whose religious and social condition he criticizes severely (1:4–6; 3:1–7) and whose ultimate joy and restoration he predicts (3:14–20), seems to indicate that he was a resident of the capital. This verdict is substantiated by the somewhat detailed description of the city in 1:10–11: the Fish Gate was undoubtedly on the northern wall at or near the Tyropoeon Valley; the Second Quarter (Heb. mishneh) was probably the northern section just west of the temple area: the Mortar (Heb. maktesh) seemingly was a natural hollow (perhaps part of the Tyropoeon Valley) used for a marketplace. Zephaniah concentrates on the northern sector because the topography of Jerusalem rendered that side the most susceptible to siege. Of this description George Adam Smith says: “In the first few verses of Zephaniah we see almost as much of Jerusalem as in the whole book either of Isaiah or Jeremiah.”

HISTORICAL-RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND

If the prophetic books were placed in chronological order Zephaniah would probably fit between Isaiah and Jeremiah. He has been called “the harbinger of the renascence of prophecy after the barren half-century of Manasseh.” Indeed, some have suggested that his name hints at the suppression of prophetic activity during the reign of Hezekiah’s impious son: he had to be “hidden of the Lord” in order to escape Manasseh’s massacres. When the prophetic silence is broken, it is with the awful knell of threatening doom: “the great day of the Lord is near … a day of wrath is that day … of trumpet blast and battle cry” (1:14–16).

In these words some have heard the riotous waves of Scythian hordes who, according to Herodotus (I, 104–106), flooded western Asia and lapped at the shores of Egypt. Contemporary historians are more cautious, however, due to the lack of corroboration of Herodotus’ account. More likely Zephaniah’s words reflect the widespread restiveness brought on by the instability of Assyria, whose collapse was imminent, and by the ominous rumblings from the ancient kingdom of Babylon which was beginning to bestir itself after centuries of subjugation. Within a score of years after Zephaniah’s prophecy, splendid Nineveh had fallen (cf. 2:13–15), Josiah had been mortally wounded at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29), and Nebuchadnezzar had routed the Egyptians at Carchemish to gain control of Syria and Palestine. For Judah the end was in sight.

The depraved religious legacy of Manasseh is described succinctly in Zephaniah 1:4–5. A fuller account of the syncretistic worship and the immorality which accompanied it is found in 2 Kings 23 where the reform of Josiah is depicted in detail. Though the immediate cause of the revival is the discovery of the book of the law, we may not go far astray in suggesting that the preaching of Zephaniah and Jeremiah (who began his ministry in Josiah’s thirteenth year, c. 627 B.C.) helped pave the way for the sweeping reforms.

MESSAGE

Zephaniah’s central theme is judgment. For almost two and a half of his three chapters the note of God’s burning wrath is sounded (the only relief being the call to repentance in 2:1–3). His somber message begins with a warning of universal judgment which will rival the flood in its cataclysmic effects (1:2–3). Judah and Jerusalem are the next objects of the prophet’s censure (1:4–2:3). He concentrates on their religious and social sins: worship of Baal, the host of heaven, and the Ammonite god Milcom; adopting of foreign fads and fashions and thus compromising of their distinctiveness as a nation; and ruthless looting of the goods of the poor. Leaping over the threshold (1:9) may reflect a pagan superstition (J. P. Hyatt, op. cit., pp. 25–6, suggests the translation “mount the podium” of an idol; cf. 1 Sam. 5:5) or, perhaps, the eagerness with which the servants of the rich entered the hovels of the poor to plunder their meager furnishings. The description of judgment in 1:7–20 is virtually unparalleled in biblical literature in sustained fury and awesome ire.

Foreign nations gain the prophet’s attention from 2:4–2:15: four of the key Philistine cities are singled out for judgment (2:4–7); Moab and Ammon will be repaid for their high-handed treatment of Judah (2:8–11); Ethiopia (2:12) and Assyria (2:13–15) will be desolated, with Nineveh, the proud capital of Assyria, earmarked for special judgment. Zephaniah’s God is the judge of all the earth, the absolute and ultimate sovereign of the destinies of all men.

In chapter three Zephaniah returns to the plight of Jerusalem (3:1–7) which, no less than Nineveh, has displeased God. In a passage reminiscent of Micah 3:9–12 he describes the total depravity of Judah’s religious and political leaders whose treachery is in marked contrast with the Lord’s faithfulness.

From 3:8 to 3:20, the theme of judgment gives way to a picture of deliverance and restoration. God’s judgment upon the nations and Judah is not only punitive but corrective. The chastened peoples will call on the name of the Lord with “a pure speech” (3:9) and a faithful remnant will dwell securely in Judah. The climax of God’s redemptive action is the double declaration that he himself will be in the midst of his people (3:15, 17) and will reverse their lot so that the humble attain prominence (3:12) and the lame and outcast achieve renown (3:19).

THEOLOGICAL INSIGHTS

Zephaniah fills in some details in Amos’ sketch of the Day of the Lord.Amos (5:18–20) had corrected a serious misinterpretation by showing that the wicked in Israel would not go unscathed on that day. The day of the Lord was not a vindication of the nation but of the righteousness of God. “A day of darkness not light,” said Amos, and Zephaniah, like Joel, shows the terrible extent of the darkness. He adds a startling figure: the Day is a banquet in which (after the fashion of Isaac) those who deem themselves guests turn out to be victims (1:7–8).

Another great emphasis of Zephaniah is his call to humility. He shares Isaiah’s vision of God’s greatness and recognizes that the only hope for his own people or the nations lies in an awareness of their own frailty. Judah is exhorted to seek humility (2:3) and the haughty hosts of Ammon, Moab (2:10), and Nineveh are rebuked for lack of it. Nineveh—the essence of insolence—says “I am and there is none else” (2:15). The most heinous of sins is declaring one’s independence of God. This pride-inspired rebellion is doomed for failure. Those who escape God’s wrath are those who in humility say “hangs my helpless soul on Thee” and “seek refuge in the name of the Lord” (3:12).

Like all the true prophets, Zephaniah was an interpreter of the covenant. As such, he saw that God’s judgment, though drastic, was not final. God’s covenant-love would triumph in and through the restoration of the remnant.Amos (3:12) had depicted this tattered group of survivors as two legs or a piece of an ear rescued by a shepherd from the lion’s mouth. Isaiah (4:2–3) predicted that with the survivors of Israel’s destruction God would do a new work. Micah (5:7–8) saw the remnant as an instrument of blessing and power among the nations. Zephaniah combined several of these emphases in his description of the remnant as the ruler of Israel’s enemies (2:7), humbly serving God in honesty and sincerity (3:12–13), winning victories for the nation in the strength of the Lord (3:17) not by military prowess.

Our prophet has a practical lesson to teach concerning the perils of complacency. With lamp in hand the Lord searches Jerusalem and finds mainly “men who are thickening upon their lees.” They are sluggish and lifeless like wine which has stood too long without being mixed (cf. Jer. 48:11–12). They are sedentary, relaxed, undisturbed by their own plight or that of their fellows. They share the punishment of those who had more actively rebelled against God, for they refused both to advance God’s program and to stem the tide of wickedness. George Adam Smith reminds us that such men are dangerous: “The great causes of God and Humanity are not defeated by the hot assaults of the devil, but by the slow, crushing, glacier-like mass of thousands and thousands of indifferent nobodies. God’s causes are never destroyed by being blown up, but by being sat upon.”

TOOLS FOR EXPOSITION

To the prophetic literature mentioned in the article on Joel(CHRISTIANITY TODAY, June 9, 1958) and the historical writings in the articles on I Kings (July 20, 1959) and II Kings (Apr. 25, 1960) the following should be added: J. M. P. Smith, “Zephaniah” in International Critical Commentary; Charles L. Taylor, Jr., in The Interpreter’s Bible; John Bright’s The Kingdom of God contains a helpful chapter on the concept of the remnant—“A Remnant Shall Repent” (Abingdon, 1953); both N. K. Gottwald’s A Light to the Nations (Harper, 1959) and B. W. Anderson’s Understanding the Old Testament (Prentice-Hall, 1957) contain brief but graphic discussions of Zephaniah’s message and times.

DAVID A. HUBBARD

Chairman

Division of Biblical Studies and Philosophy,

Westmont College

’TWAS THE NIGHT …

’Twas the night before Christmas

and all through the church

Not a creature was stirring

to halt my research.

As I sat in my study,

my sermon half done,

The electronic chimes struck

the hour of one,

When out in the narthex

there came such a clatter

I rushed through the nave

to see what was the matter.

As I dashed down the aisle it

began to be clear

That a crisis of major

proportions was here,

For out of the darkness

and down toward the choir

Came Santa Claus running,

his whiskers on fire.

With a presence of mind that

I blush to recall,

I seized the extinguisher

there on the wall,

And, directing the foam with

an aim sure and quick,

In the wink of an eye I

had put out St. Nick.

Over coffee and pie in

the kitchen downstairs

I tried to catch up with

the state of affairs,

While Santa was drying

the coat of his suit

And emptying foam frosting

out of his boot.

“Just how did it happen?”

I ventured to say,

“And why did you not throw

your whiskers away?

You’ll pardon my finding

this incident droll:

You nearly were carried

away with your role!”

But Santa replied with

a quizzical gaze,

While feeling the fringe that

remained from the blaze,

“Your little jest isn’t

without its appeal,

But what makes you think that

my beard is not real?”

Then laying his finger

aside of his nose,

He winked and was gone—to

his job, I suppose.

One must not prejudge

even foliage lush;

The alarm isn’t false when

there’s fire in the brush.

Don’t condemn all the holiday

sham equally, since

The flaming-haired beauty

may not use a rinse.

EUGENE IVY

VATICAN AND WHITE HOUSE

I fear November 8, 1960 was the U. S. A.’s darkest hour to date when a Roman Catholic became President of our beloved country. Not the man himself but the fact that we are now under the power of a foreign state (the Vatican) and as a result are, in reality, under totalitarian rule. Where are the great men in our generation, that our pilgrim fathers and the statesmen of Washington’s day could claim to be?… Our clergymen have proved weak and spineless and the golden opportunity missed by both Roman Catholic and Protestant clerics alike, to voice what they stood for, will only spell defeat for both.

The handful of brave Protestant clergy, who weren’t afraid to speak out like … yourselves with the best article I’ve read anywhere “Bigotry or Smear?” (Feb. 1 issue) will, in the end, come out on top, for courage is secretly admired by all mankind.…

MRS. E. W. CORNELL

Mamaroneck, N. Y.

One can understand, if not appreciate, that a majority of Catholics voted for the new President-elect. It is, however, most disheartening to note that he was also just as certainly placed in office by a majority of un thinking, undedicated Protestants (as well as the uncommitted, religiously and politically). Except for the minority, the former great evangelical witness of Protestantism in our land is apparently but a fading memory.

VERDUN LACHANCE

Lucerne Valley, Calif.

Protestants in the south have demonstrated that for the office of President of the United States they impose no religious test—an example for Catholics that they impose no religious test for the office of mayor in the big cities.

Methodist Parish

Hartford, S. Dak.

HENRY RATLIFF

I wonder if Americans now are not in a position a bit similar to the one Israel was in during the reign of Rehoboam. Taxes on Americans have been burdensome to the point of confiscation or legalized robbery. Now a leader (?) has been able to obtain the position of the Presidency, who is advised by men who propose more taxes and debts.… It may even be in harmony with Lenin’s plan for bankrupting Uncle Sam.…

Rehoboam was about the age of this nation’s choice of future leadership. During his reign Judah did evil in the sight of the Lord, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which were above all that their fathers had done, for they built high places and standing images … and there were sodomites in the land; and they did all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.…

Rehoboam’s decision to trust advice of young men proposing higher taxes (higher usury rates probably also) in my Bible is called foolish.

O. L. WILLSON

Monmouth, Ill.

This is a request for earnest prayer—in meetings and individually—that the President-elect might personally know the full meaning of redeeming grace through our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the Lord might use this means to win many Catholic souls to Christ.

VIRGINIA SCOTT

Seattle, Wash.

If the Protestant view of Church and State is to survive, the average church member must be given an articulate understanding of our position.

Catholics teach their people their view through the civics and history courses in the parochial schools. Our children get most of their instruction along this line from the secular courses offered in the public schools.… Our young people … cannot hold their own in the face of secularism or Catholicism.

… Denominational and independent publishing houses should produce graded courses on the Protestant view of Church and State.

… Church libraries should be stocked with some authentic Catholic civics texts and some of the books on Communism recently recommended in CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

OLIVER W. PRICE

Oklahoma City, Okla.

During Senator Kennedy’s campaign a little group of people in Chicago tittered with laughter on hearing the quip: “Worship in the church of your choice now—while there is still time!”

One of the group did not laugh. When asked why, he quietly but impressively replied, “I have just come back from a year in Catholic Spain.”

H. H. LIPPINCOTT

Morristown, N. J.

THE DIALOGUE

I particularly wish to thank you and Mr. Lowell for his very fine article, “The Protestant-Catholic Dialogue” (Oct. 24 issue). With the many distortions that have come to this question in recent months, it surely is helpful to see such an article bringing things back into focus.

FRANK J. VOTH

Bethel Baptist

Greeley, Colo.

It is to be regretted … that he should apparently ignore the fact that the Luther-Eck debate was possible in the 16th century because there was a common community of the church, whereas today there is no common community to support a debate. This is why any realistic conversation must begin with rather awkward and tentative dialogues in order to discover a basis for continuing the conversation.

W. THOMAS APPLEBEE

Community Congregational Church

Manchester, Iowa

The writer says that I favor “state subsidies to church schools.” This is quite erroneous. My most recent published statement on the subject appears in Religion and the Schools, a symposium sponsored by the Fund for the Republic.

I do favor the inclusion of parochial school children among the recipients of so-called “fringe benefits”—for example, free bus transportation—the constitutionality of which the U. S. Supreme Court has explicitly upheld. But I do not advocate subsidies to parochial schools and would not personally support such a proposal.

F. ERNEST JOHNSON

New York, N. Y.

Why is it that you refer to the Church of the Pope as “catholic” and not either Roman Catholic, or—as it should be called since the Lateran Treaty between the Pope and Mussolini, both dead—Vatican Catholic? For almost two years I have in vain looked for accuracy in describing the international Church of Popes by its proper name.… As yet—to my understanding, that is—there is not in existence a visible true Catholic Church for which our Saviour prayed before His death. The numerous and rich and influential Church of Popes is but a branch of Christianity and is one of the main obstacles of true unity among and of Christians.

ANTONI M. TURKIEWICZ

Miami, Fla.

CHRIST AND MARX

You should mail reprints of J. Edgar Hoover’s second article entitled “Communist Propaganda and the Christian Pulpit” (Oct. 24 issue) to every preacher in the United States.

CURTIS H. WILLEY

Terre Haute, Ind.

• Reprints of the entire series are available at ten cents per copy or $4 per hundred.

—ED.

The purpose of the Church’s ministers does not include condemnation of the Communist ideology (or for that matter, of praising a materialistic American style of life) but rather, it is the privileged duty of the Church’s ministers to proclaim the Gospel, the good news that Jesus is the Christ and all persons (not just America and her allies) can be saved through him.

A national culture whose claims of freedom and equality under the law are refuted by religious bigotry (even in a Presidential election where neither of the candidates have, by their actions, revealed that they are Christians), segregation of races, business dishonesty excused by the term “shrewdness,” unscrupulous advertising which is justified by the resulting sales, political lies which are described as “diplomatic necessities,” and a host of other atrocities—has no right to point to the log in his brother’s eye when the speck in his own has, through a loss of Judaic-Christian values, also become a log.

ROBERT M. HENDRICKSON

Chicago, Ill.

In 1945–1946 the United States was the strongest nation on earth. She had unprecedented prestige. If at that time we had used good judgment our nation would now be prosperous, free of debt, stable, secure, and at peace.

We did not use good judgment.… We felt insecure and fearful.…

In 1946 we made a series of far-reaching concessions to Russia. We were asked to believe these concessions were necessary to induce Russia to become a member of United Nations. They were not necessary. Russia was eager to become a member. She could use United Nations to further the cause of Communism-Atheism.

We all knew the nature of Communism-Atheism. We all knew Russia was Communistic-Atheistic. In our right minds we would not have accepted Russia as a member of United Nations. It was madness. With Russia as a member and with the far-reaching concessions we had made to her, United Nations can never fulfill the purposes for which it was created. United Nations will inevitably become a Communist-Atheist dominated organization.

In the autumn of 1946 I wrote: “This is the greatest folly in human history. The immorality of it is appalling. Never before has a people so knowingly chosen the wrong course. We are forsaking In God We Trust. We are saying In The Honor of Communist-Atheist Russia We Trust. This may well be the beginning of the end of our nation. We are planting a very malignant cancer deep in its vitals.”

LEE A. SOMERS

Champaign, Ill.

NUMERALS IN REVERSE

I am puzzled by … references to the Episcopalians in the October 10 issue.… On page 28 you say that only 97 per cent of Episcopal clergy believe that the Bible is the authoritative rule of faith and life …, a rather overwhelming percentage.…

An Episcopal ordinand must “subscribe and make in the presence of the Bishop a declaration that he believes the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God and to contain all things necessary to salvation.”

JAMES L. JENKINS

St. Paul’s Episcopal Church

Virginia, Minn.

• The report on “The American Clergy and the Basic Truths” included a proofreading error involving the figure corrected below:

“Episcopalian ministers also showed up most poorly with respect to the Bible as the authoritative rule of faith and life. Baptists and Lutherans supported the doctrine’s importance for church unity by 97 per cent; Methodists and Presbyterians by 95 per cent; Episcopalians by only 79 per cent.”

—ED.

Here is a résumé of significant religious developments during 1960 as reported by CHRISTIANITY TODAY news correspondents, Religious News Service, Evangelical Press Service, and Christian News Report:

EVANGELISM: Billy Graham and associates witnessed heartwarming response during a 10-week evangelistic trek of Africa and a five-week tour through Germany and Switzerland. In West Berlin, 25,000 students heard Graham’s plea for Christian commitment.

THEOLOGY: The Central Committee of the World Council of Churches recommended adoption of a Trinitarian statement of faith … The drift of Continental neo-orthodoxy from Barth and Brunner to Bultmann and a renaissance of liberalism, was brought into clear focus by CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

MORALITY: Preoccupation with sex, already at an all-time high, continued with the encouragement of books, magazines, films, and television programs … Alcoholism, with 5,000,000 U. S. victims, loomed an ever-greater domestic problem. So did the rising national crime rate, which continued to outpace the population increase.

ECUMENICITY: The Archbishop of Canterbury, world’s ranking Anglican, spent 45 historic minutes with Pope John XXIII at the Vatican … Stated Clerk Eugene Carson Blake of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. personally proposed a merger of four or more of America’s largest denominational groups … Dedication of the 19-story Interchurch Center in New York City highlighted trend toward geographical centralization of Protestant administrative activities … The 2,250,000-member American Lutheran Church was formed out of a three-way merger.

MISSIONS: Political upheavals set back missionary activity at scattered points across the globe. Hardest hit was Congo … The Presbyterian Church in Korea, the country’s largest Protestant denomination, was largely reunited after a four-month schism … The Rev. Paul J. Mackensen, 35-year-old Lutheran minister, returned to the United States after 12 years in Communist China, including five in prison. He was believed to be the last American Protestant missionary on mainland China.

CHARITY: Christians the world over rallied with funds and supplies when earthquakes and tidal waves in Chile caused extensive damage to church facilities.

EDUCATION: The U. S. government exposed scores of “degree mills,” including a number which purported to be religious institutions … Protestant seminarians joined sit-in demonstrations, and a student’s arrest in Nashville nearly precipitated wholesale faculty resignations at Vanderbilt University Divinity School … The University of Chicago’s Federated Theological Faculty, a unique 17-year ecumenical experiment, ended in failure. Although the federation was dissolved, constituent seminaries survive, each operated independently.

CHURCH-STATE: Senator John F. Kennedy became the first Roman Catholic ever to be elected President of the United States, following months of controversy … A National Council of Churches official publicly pressured the Air Force into withdrawing a reservist manual which purported to describe Communist infiltrations into U. S. church groups … The U. S. Supreme Court agreed to rule on the constitutional issue involved in Sunday blue laws and birth control legislation.

Archbishop’s Expulsion

The Haitian government expelled the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Port-au-Prince last month. He was reportedly accused of being implicated in support of Communist-inspired students seeking to overthrow the regime of President Francois Duvalier.

Archbishop Francois Poirier, 56, French-born head of the Port-au-Prince see since 1955, was arrested in his office and taken aboard a Florida-bound plane.

In Miami, where he had a stop-over en route back to France, Poirier denied charges against him.

Church sources in Haiti have been quoted in the past as stating that the root of church-state tension in Haiti includes government resentment of the preponderance of French-born priests among the Roman Catholic clergy of Haiti.

Jewish Influence

The center of Jewish religious life in Europe has shifted since World War II from Eastern Europe and Germany to England, according to the former chief rabbi of Ireland.

Dr. Immanuel Jakobovits, in an address last month at the 62nd biennial convention of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, said that England now has “by far the most vital and influential Jewish community in Europe.”

2000 A.D.

The year 2000 will see the Soviet Union a “free and democratic” country and peace will be established between Israel and the Arabs, predicts Premier David Ben-Gurion of Israel.

Ben-Gurion made the forecasts in a letter made public last month by Dr. M. N. Eisendrath, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations.

The American Reform Jewish leader had asked for Ben-Gurion’s views on the future for inclusion in a time capsule. The letter was to be added to a sealed capsule in the union’s House of Living in New York City.

Ben-Gurion also predicted that by the year 2000 cancer would be conquered, the United Nations would lead the world as a “moral force” if not a world government, and that a Jew “may be” elected president of the United States.

Labor And The National Council

A year after settlement of the 116-day steel strike (see “Steel Differences Settled; Everybody Loses,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Jan. 18 issue, p. 23) a special 17-member committee of the NCC Department of the Church and Economic Life issued a study report concluding that such work stoppages are no longer useful. The report avoids pronouncing such crippling strikes to be morally wrong, and views them rather as a “basic right”: “Our society, though still maintaining the basic right to strike, has advanced to the point where work stoppages will increasingly be felt to have outlived their usefulness.” While this implies that strikes of this magnitude once were useful, the report does not state what strikes are or are not useful for.

The Rev. Cameron P. Hall, executive director of the Economic Life department, characterized the report as a study document, not an official NCC statement. Hall emphasized that a special committee led by Charles P. Taft, chairman of the Economic Life department, prepared the report, and that no company or union representatives had any part in its preparation. The report claims “one clear lesson of the steel strike is that the provisions of the Taft-Hartley law for dealing with emergency strikes are inadequate, and the law should be revised.” The report left quite up in the air the question of what Taft-Hartley revisions are advisable.

Labor and Economic Life

NCC has not generally informed its constituency that the membership of the General Committee of the Department of the Church and Economic Life includes 18 salaried union officials, and a staggering array of churchmen of liberal political views. The larger committee is made up of 14 members of the Division of Christian Life and Work, 107 members at large (among them H.E.W. Secretary Arthur S. Flemming) and 12 members from other NCC units. Among the salaried union officials on the General Committee are Walter P. Reuther, President, UAW, AFL-CIO; designated as Lutheran (Missouri Synod) (Reuther has sometimes listed himself as Methodist, but as a youngster attended a Missouri Synod Sunday School); his brother, Victor G. Reuther (Methodist), Administrative Assistant to the President, UAW, AFL-CIO; Elmer F. Cope (Evangelical United Brethren), Secretary-Treasurer, Ohio AFL-CIO; Nelson H. Cruikshank (Methodist), Director, Department of Social Security, AFL-CIO; the Rev. W. G. Flinn (Christian Churches), Grand Lodge Representative, International Association of Machinists; George T. Guernsey (Methodist), Associate Director of Education, AFL-CIO; Paul L. Phillips (Methodist), President, United Paper-makers and Paperworkers Union; John G. Ramsay (United Presbyterian), International Representative, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO; Dallas Sells (American Baptist Convention), President, Indiana State AFL-CIO; Boris Shishkin (Greek Orthodox), Assistant to President, AFL-CIO; Donald W. Stone (Methodist), International Secretary-Treasurer, Amalgamated Lithographers of America; James A. Suffridge (Methodist), International President, Retail Clerks International Association; Elwood P. Swisher (Methodist), Vice President, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union; Charles C. Webber (Methodist), AFL-CIO Representative for Religious Relations; Charles F. West (United Presbyterian USA), Grand Lodge Representative, International Association of Machinists; and Albert Whitehouse (Christian Churches), Regional Director, District 25, United Steelworkers of America. In addition, the General Committee includes a group of representatives of the Division of Christian Life and Work, among them Tilford E. Dudley (United Church-Congregational Christian), Director, AFL-CIO Speakers Bureau.

It is noteworthy that 10 of the 18 salaried union officials on the NCC General Committe of the Department of the Church and Economic Life are Methodists. No less significant is the fact that Dr. Webber, an ordained Methodist clergyman on the AFL-CIO payroll, acts as Secretary of the Religion and Labor Fellowship in Washington, D. C. The movement aggressively indoctrinates clergymen in the legislative objectives of organized labor (see CHRISTIANITY TODAY “Labor Leaders Look to the Churches,” Mar. 17, 1958, issue, pp. 22 f.).

C.F.H.H.

The National Council of Churches, which like its predecessor the Federal Council was a creation of the denominations, made abundantly clear through its fifth General Assembly in San Francisco this month that the denominations are now virtually creatures of the ecumenical movement.

Four Major Denominations Nominated For Amalgamation

A prominent Presbyterian stepped into an influential Episcopal pulpit this month and made a far-reaching proposal: amalgamate United Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, and members of the United Church of Christ (Congregational Christian-Evangelical and Reformed).

Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, Stated Clerk of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. and former president of die National Council of Churches, made the proposal in the pulpit of Grace Cathedral, San Francisco, on the threshhold of the NCC’s fifth General Assembly.

Merger mechanics might consume 10 years, said Blake.

A name? Possibly the “Reformed and Catholic Church in the U. S. A.”

Size? Twice as large in membership as any single U. S. denominational organization now in existence. Total membership of the new church could easily reach 20,000,000, especially if other denominations joined with the four named (Blake left the way open for such a development).

Despite the fact that Blake is a noted champion of ecumenicity, his proposal came as a surprise to many. It caused some evangelical observers to conclude that super-church plans are moving along even more rapidly than had been generally supposed.

Blake projected immediate implementation of his plan. He suggested action by the United Presbyterian General Assembly in the spring and the Episcopal General Assembly next fall.

Here are excerpts from Blake’s sermon:

Led, I pray, by the Holy Spirit, I propose to the Protestant Episcopal Church that it together with the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. invite the Methodist Church and the United Church of Christ to form with us a plan of church union both catholic and reformed.…

… God requires us to break through the barriers of nearly 500 years of history to attempt under God to transcend the separate traditions of our churches, and to find a way together to unite them so that manifesting the unity given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ, his church may be renewed for its mission to our nation and to the world, “that the world may believe.” …

Our culture, our civilization, our world leadership are under the materialistic threat of Marxist communism. But our culture becomes increasingly secular, our civilization becomes increasingly decadent, and our world leadership becomes increasingly confused precisely because their Christian foundations are undermined and eroded. And our divided churches all more and more sectarian in fact, are all therefore less and less Christian in influence.

Let us begin by remembering the requirement that a reunited church must be both reformed and catholic. If at this time we are to begin to bridge over the chasm of the Reformation, those of us who are of the Reformation tradition must recapture an appreciation of all that has been preserved by the catholic parts of the church, and equally those of the catholic tradition must be willing to accept and take to themselves as of God all that nearly 500 years of reformation has contributed to the renewal of Christ’s church.

Let me pause here to be quite sure that all of you understand exactly the sense in which I am using the word catholic. In common parlance in America we often talk about “the Catholic Church” and mean “the Roman Catholic Church.”

That is not the meaning of catholic that I here use. At the other extreme all our churches repeat the Apostles’ Creed in which we say, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.” All claim to be catholics in the strict sense of confessing that Jesus Christ has established one universal church in all ages and in all places and that we are at least part of it.…

… The proposal I make is to establish a church both catholic and reformed, I mean one which unites catholic and reformed understandings and practices in an even broader and deeper way than that already present in your communion.

The reunited church must have visible and historical continuity with the church of all ages before and after the Reformation. This will include a ministry which by its orders and ordination is recognized as widely as possible by all other Christian bodies. To this end, I propose that, without adopting any particular theory of historic succession the reunited church shall provide at its inception for the consecration of all of its bishops by bishops and presbyters both in the apostolic succession and out of it from all over the world from all Christian churches which would authorize or permit them to take part.

I propose further that the whole ministry of the united churches would then be unified at solemn services at which bishops and representative ministers from each church would, in humble dependence on God, act and pray that the Holy Spirit would supply to all and through all what each has to contribute and whatever each may need of the fullness of Christ’s grace, commission and authority for the exercise of a new larger ministry in this wider visible manifestation of Christ’s Holy and Catholic Church.

The reunited church must clearly confess the historic trinitarian faith received from the Apostles and set forth in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. Hence there is no real issue between the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches. The difference that must be bridged is the issue between those in all our churches who stand for a corporate confession of historic faith and those who fear that any required confession is too restrictive.…

… It will be important for all entering this union to attempt creatively to develop a new form of government that avoids the monarchical, clerical and authoritarian tendencies that have been historically the dangers of Episcopal Church government.

Equally, this new form of government must avoid bureaucratic dangers that appear to be the chief threat of non-Episcopal churches. It is the essence of Protestant concern, however, that decisions should generally be made by ordered groups of men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit rather than by a man who has personal authority to impose on others his decision or judgment.

Ecumenical aggression was typified most strikingly in a move reported by Religion Editor George Dugan of The New York Times, a development which despite its failure was perhaps even more significant than the highly-publicized denominational merger proposal advanced by Dr. Eugene Carson Blake.

Dugan said in a dispatch from San Francisco that the rejected move would in effect have made the NCC a super church.

“It was learned,” he reported, “that at least two highly-placed churchmen had proposed that the National Council be permitted to ordain clergymen, administer the sacraments and accept individuals and denominations into membership.”

Dugan declared that the recommendation was turned down after heated debate in a closed Message Committee session.

Personal dissent to assembly message explained. See “Dissenting Duo” on p. 30.

Editor G. Aiken Taylor of the Presbyterian Journal, who provided on-the-spot coverage of the NCC assembly for CHRISTIANITY TODAY, said it was evident that the powers of a super-church had begun to take shape “even while interest in a super church was being publicly disavowed.”

Dominant theme of the Assembly was “comprehensive long range planning” for greater unity among the churches. Reports were saturated with references to “constantly enlarging areas of agreement” and to “increasingly effective denominational oversight.” Delegates listened to a bevy of speakers blaming the present ineffectiveness of the Church in a revolutionary world on a “fragmented witness,” an “inadequate sense of wholeness,” and the “scandal of our divided churches.” They heard repeated calls to “widen the base of ecumenical discussions,” to “go beyond togetherheit” (togetherness) in our relationship, to “reject denominational, racial, national or any other kind of division,” and to “shed the blood of our denominational separateness.”

The NCC’s Division of Foreign Missions suggested that unity must come in response to rising ecumenical desires of the churches. The Division of Christian Education announced plans to overhaul curriculum planning in the light of emerging ecumenical concepts. The Division of Home Missions indicated that its chief emphasis would now become one of reorganization in order to bring a new unity to program planning and execution. The Division of Christian Life and Work implied that solution to current problems depends on willingness to submit to bold and venturesome steps in united communication and implementation of the Gospel.

Uppermost in delegates’ thoughts was the pre-assembly proposal delivered in a sermon by Blake, Stated Clerk of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., that his church join with Episcopalians, Methodists, and the United Church of Christ in working out a plan of organic union patterned after the United Church of South India. The proposal, offered by Blake as an individual and not in his official capacity, was warmly endorsed by Bishop James A. Pike of the Episcopal Church, Bishop John Wesley Lord of The Methodist Church and Drs. Fred Hoskins and James E. Wagner, co-presidents of the United Church of Christ.

An indication of the temper of the assembly was afforded by interest shown in a faith and order luncheon. The Commission on Faith and Order was created three years ago explicitly to deal with theological and polity differences between the churches and to promote their unity. Five hundred tickets to the luncheon were sold out well in advance of the assembly. Guests heard Bishop Lesslie Newbigin of the Church of South India and Dr. William A. Norgren, NCC director of faith and order studies, reiterate the substance of remarks made earlier by Faith and Order Chairman James I. McCord, President of Princeton Seminary, to a plenary session of the assembly: “Cooperation is not enough.… It is a luxury now that we can no longer afford.… We must take a radical step forward in our quest for visible, corporate unity.” This theme appeared in the opening address by retiring President Edwin T. Dahlberg, who declared, “An effective Gospel for the whole world needs a united church.” It was echoed by General Secretary Roy G. Ross, later re-elected, who suggested in his decade report that the churches want the council to give them leadership in “depth thinking” and to articulate their common theological convictions and provide leadership in implementing these. Dr. A. Dale Fiers, chairman of the General Program and Field Operations Committee, said “the churches must be willing to lose their lives for the Church.”

Mixed Feelings Greet Merger Proposal

Dr. Eugene Carson Blake’s proposal to merge four or more major Protestant groups into a single denomination drew a variety of comments from highly-placed churchmen.

Bishop Gerald Kennedy, president of the Council of Bishops of The Methodist Church, said there was “nothing new” in the proposal.

He said “there is nothing specific enough in the proposal … to suggest a new approach to the problem [of church union] or the possibility of the elimination of difficulties involved …”

Kennedy noted “there are a large number of churchmen who are committed to closer cooperation but are not at all enthusiastic about organic union that would make a Protestant Church top heavy with administration and machinery.

“Certainly we believe in the value of the variety of our tradition, while at the same time we want to consider carefully every proposal leading to increasing Christian cooperation.”

Charles P. Taft, prominent Episcopalian and former president of the Federal Council of Churches, said he had no major objection to the plan but feared that many laymen preferred a diversity in forms of worship to the uniform liturgy which was likely to result from the amalgamation of national church bodies.

He expressed a preference for the unity in diversity approach of the World Council of Churches, saying that it encouraged but did not require union at the congregational level.

Dr. Fred Hoskins, general secretary of the General Council of Congregational Christian Churches and co-president of the United Church of Christ, expressed fear that Blake’s proposal will be “widely misunderstood in many places as a specific plan rather than as a proposal for a procedure.”

Dr. James E. Wagner, president of the Evangelical and Reformed Church and the other co-president of the United Church of Christ, said “there was a danger that those looking for an opportunity to criticize or minimize the National Council of Churches would seize upon this and say this [the Blake proposal] is what the National Council of Churches is doing.”

The Rt. Rev. Arthur C. Lichtenberger, presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, said, “It is the opening of a very significant move. Out of this might come a plan that would be acceptable to all the people involved.”

The most enthusiastic endorsement of Blake’s plan came from Episcopal Bishop James A. Pike, who called it the “most sound and inspiring” ever offered in the United States.

“I hope and pray,” said Pike, “that his plan will be received by the four churches—and others—in the Christian spirit in which it has been offered and that definite action toward its fulfillment will soon be forthcoming.”

Dr. Ramsay Pollard, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, characterized the possible merging of four denominations as “a fine thing for those who want to do it.” He added, however, that “I don’t think Southern Baptists would be interested.”

Dr. John W. Behnken, president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, lamented lack of attention to a doctrinal basis. “There should be agreement in matters of doctrine,” he asserted, in any projection of mergers.

Dr. C. T. Caldwell, noted senior minister (now retired) of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S., said he was “not impressed” with the merger idea. Fie said he feared that the plan might face so much opposition that it would itself cause division.

Church unity discussion occupied nearly two-thirds of the total “Message to the Churches,” adopted as the mind of the assembly.

As a practical way to begin implementing the desired unity at the local level, Pike suggested that denominations immediately begin establishing new churches on a cooperative basis, in a sort of “federated” operation within local congregations. According to the Pike proposal, a single congregation might well be fully a part of several denominations. In Pike’s thinking this could include multiple ordinations if necessary. “I envision a single congregation with multi-denominational connections as a practical step preliminary to church union,” he told a news conference.

Paralleling the theme of increasing unity was the theme of increasing NCC influence and direction in the life of the churches. It was made abundantly clear that the time has passed when the council should be viewed as an organ of expression of the fragmented (or even cooperative) will of the churches. The time has come—it was repeatedly insisted—when the council must increasingly provide leadership which the churches will follow, when comprehensive long range planning will be done on the behalf of the churches in areas of curriculum development and programming.

Speaking to consultants and alternate delegates, Dr. H. Conrad Hoyer of the NCC Division of Home Missions noted that the council is now being viewed less as an agency accomplishing work for the denomination and more as an agency coordinating and directing the work of the denominations.

In Christian education, papers prepared by NCC consultants are even now being used by numerous denominational bodies as material upon which these denominations are building their own curricula, according to reports submitted by the division. The Department of Higher Education sees itself charged with unifying the interests and programs of all who are interested in Christian higher education. And the Division of Education expects to formulate new patterns for training the Christian ministry within the denominations in cooperation with the American Association of Theological Schools. “Something newer and more creative is needed than the addition of new courses to the theological curriculum or the maintenance of present percentages,” said a departmental report.

The Division of Foreign Missions already is producing, through Friendship Press, study literature used by many member denominations. This service will be enlarged. A report to the assembly indicated that new avenues are continuing being explored to see “what can be produced interdenominationally to be fully used denominationally.”

Dissenting Duo

Following adoption of the “Message to the Churches” by the NCC General Assembly, two leading figures called newsmen together to explain their dissent.

Dr. Henry P. Van Dusen, chairman of the Message Committee, and Dr. Truman B. Douglass, who wrote the first draft of the message, objected to the deletion of a statement relating to the “churchly” nature of the NCC. Van Dusen and Douglass assert that the council needs to make more specific the nature of its own integrity as a church.

To meet this alleged deficiency, they had proposed (1) to extend the denominations’ surrender, for instance, of their missionary obligations to the NCC, (2) to commission laymen to special ecumenical service in what many interpreted to be tantamount to ordination, (3) to ask churches to alter ordination procedures to include references to a broader church, and (4) to arrange for the observance of the sacraments by council units.

The proposals were deleted in committee because some felt that the matter belonged within the purview of other committees and others questioned the strategy and propriety of using the message as the medium for a drastic move.

Van Dusen and Douglass made clear that they would pursue their plans later.

Assembly Actions

Here is a summary of actions taken by the fifth General Assembly of the National Council of Churches:

• Admitted as a new member the Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Church, with a membership of 110,000.

• Elected J. Irwin Miller, vice chairman of Division of Christian Life and Work, Disciples of Christ layman and wealthy banker from Columbus, Indiana, as president for the ensuing triennium.

• Re-elected Dr. Roy G. Ross as general secretary and Dr. R. H. Edwin Espy as associate general secretary.

• Adopted and ordered sent down to the churches a message dealing largely with the need for more unity between the churches and less self-sufficiency. The message also called for greater lay participation in the life of the churches; for the support of the aims of the emerging new nations of the world; for increasing zeal in evangelism; for the elimination of racial, national or personal distinctions; for the elimination of economic inequities; for a strengthening of family ties and individual integrity; for labor towards the establishment of a community of nations. In addition, the message (1) called on churches (1) to help in struggle to secure peace and world order in view of ever-present threat of annihilation, and (2) to “move forthrightly and more speedily to eliminate racial discrimination,” condemning all opposition to this goal, especially the use of violence.

• Adopted a resolution affirming Christian responsibility for world community which (1) acknowledged the tragic “turbulence of this revolutionary, nuclear-space age;” (2) affirmed that God calls Christians “to live and work” for “that real community which he had created through Jesus Christ;” (3) called on the churches to support the United Nations; (4) urged the support of reliable and realistic programs of disarmament; (5) urged the repeal of the Connally Amendment; and (6) urged the U. S. to ratify the Genocide Convention.

Ecumenical Student

Lutheran Bishop Anders Nygren, noted theologian of the Swedish “agape school,” is due to arrive in Chicago January 3 to spend 14 months at the Ecumenical Institute in suburban Evanston.

Nygren is the second research scholar to join the institute through a grant from the Danforth Foundation of St. Louis, joining Canon Theodore Wedel, warden emeritus of the College of Preachers in Washington, D. C.

The 70-year-old Nygren has been one of the top leaders in the ecumenical movement.

A New Interpreter

A political scientist who has been operating the United Presbyterian Office of Information for the last three years will become “general director of interpretation” for the National Council of Churches, effective January 1.

He is Dr. Murray S. Stedman, Jr., a 44-year-old Presbyterian layman who succeeds James W. Wine. Wine’s position was that of an Associate General Secretary for Interpretation until he resigned last August to join the campaign staff of Senator John F. Kennedy.

A 1939 graduate of Williams College, Stedman earned a Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1957. He had been elected a Rhodes scholar but World War II prevented his attendance at Oxford.

Stedman has taught political science at Swarthmore College, Brown University, and Columbia. He also served for a time as political science specialist with UNESCO in Paris.

People: Words And Events

Deaths: Dr. William Wistar Hamilton, 91, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention; in New Orleans … Dr. P. P. W. Ziemann, general secretary of the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec … Dr. Frederick Bronkema, 62, former head of the department of theology at the University of Dubuque.

Retirement: As president of Maryville College, Dr. Ralph Waldo Lloyd, effective next summer.

Appointments: As president of the Board of Missions of the United Lutheran Church in America, Dr. Paul L. Graf … as executive secretary) of the Board of World Mission of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S., Dr. Thomas Watson Street … as secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions of the Congregational Christian Churches, the Rev. B. Kenneth Anthony … as director of interpretation for the International Convention of Christian Churches, the Rev. James C. Suggs.

Elections: As president of Drew University, Dr. Robert Fisher Oxnam … as Anglican Archbishop of Uganda and Ruanda Urundi, Dr. Leslie Brown … as president of the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada, the Rev. J. F. Holliday … as president of the Association of the Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, Otto K. Finkbeiner.

Evangelism Endeavors

San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral, where Eugene Carson Blake delivered his now-famous merger sermon, played host to evangelist Billy Graham and his team later the same day.

Graham spoke to the Christian Men’s Assembly, which for the first time met concurrently with the NCC General Assembly. He had made the engagement at the urgent request of an old personal friend, Dr. S. J. Patterson, secretary of the Christian Men’s Assembly.

The evangelist went on immediately to Las Vegas, Nevada, where two days later he addressed a special rally sponsored by the Clark County Ministerial Association. Some 7,300 persons turned out in near-freezing temperatures (highly unusual for Las Vegas), including a 350-voice choir. About 400 registered decisions for Christ. A planeload of movie stars from Hollywood were on hand.

‘Homage and Courtesy’

Dr. Geoffrey Francis Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, paid his much-heralded visit to Pope John XXIII on December 2.

The Pope received Fisher in his private library in the Vatican Palace. They talked for 45 minutes or more. The only other person present was Archbishop Antonio Samore, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, who acted as interpreter.

Neither reporters nor photographers were permitted to be on hand for the meeting, which opened with handshakes.

Fisher later said that the Pope had expressed “his great desire—as he did on many other occasions—to increase brotherly feelings among all men.”

The Vatican subsequently issued a communique which said in part: “His Holiness Pope John XXIII this morning received in audience Dr. Geoffrey Francis Fisher, Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, who, as announced, had asked to make a visit of homage and courtesy.”

Congo Cannibalism

Two Protestant missionaries are believed to have become victims of cannibalism in North Katanga last month. Reported missing were Elton George Behrent Knaus, 50, of New Zealand, and Edmund Hodgson, 62, of England. Both men served under the Congo Evangelistic Mission. Knaus has a wife and three children. Hodgson was a widower.

U. N. troops relayed accounts of tribesmen who said they had witnessed the missionaries being hacked to death by machetes.

Missionary Totals

The world-wide Protestant missionary force now numbers 42,250, an increase of 3,644 in the last two years, according to newly-released statistics from the Missionary Research Library.

Of the 42,250 overseas personnel, 27,219 represent North American agencies.

Protestants in the United States and Canada gave almost 170 million dollars to foreign missions in 1959. The U. S. portion averages about $2.75 per capita.

Independent missionary societies showed substantial personnel gains. A slight decrease was recorded for agencies working through the Division of Foreign Missions of the National Council of Churches.

The statistics were released by Dr. Frank Price, director of the Missionary Research Library.

Protestant Panorama

• The Evangelical Union Church, in a statement read from pulpits throughout Communist East Germany this month, urged Christians not to flee to the West even though they are obliged to suffer afflictions. The Church comprises six “united” churches that are among members of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKID). The appeal showed special concern over the loss of vitally needed church and professional workers in East Germany.

• American Baptists plan to establish a standard educational requirement for ordination of four years of college and three years of seminary.

• The Roman Catholic president of Honduras, Ramon Villeda Morales, attended a Protestant worship service in Comayaguela last month. It is said to have been the first time that the country’s head of state had ever entered a non-Roman Catholic church.

• An aggregate of nearly 1,000 persons, some on crutches or in wheel chairs, witnessed a three-day spiritual healing mission at All Saints’ Episcopal Church in Chicago last month. Services were conducted by Dr. Alfred W. Price, Episcopal rector who is warden of the Order of St. Luke the Physician, interdenominational society stressing Christian healing.

• Student demonstrators wrecked the homes of two American administrators of Yonsei University, interdenominational mission-supported school in Seoul, Korea, last month.

• The Rev. Alexander Karev, secretary of the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians in Moscow, says he wishes Christians everywhere would be “permeated with a peace-loving spirit toward my country and seek the means of improving relations between our nations and easing international tension.” The Soviet churchman recently returned from meetings on cold-war tensions at Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, organized by editor Norman Cousins and financed by the Ford Foundation.

• Methodists are erecting a new office building in Chicago to house seven boards and agencies. The three-level neo-Gothic structure is tentatively scheduled for occupancy by next winter … Construction of the Minnesota Protestant Center, five-story church office building in Minneapolis is expected to begin in 1961.

• Radio advertising paid off quickly for Lutheran churches in Copenhagen. Broadcasting stations had hardly begun special programs aimed at persuading Danes to attend pre-Christmas services when pastors began to report increased church attendance.

• The Church of God plans to build a 12,000-seat auditorium in Anderson, Indiana, to replace the one wrecked by snow last year.

• A slight drop in Southern Baptist seminary enrollment this year was attributed to a variety of factors (including secularism of society and expiration of G. I. benefits) by President Sydnor L. Stealey of Southeastern Baptist Theological seminary.

• The World Literature Crusade organization plans to inaugurate missionary programs for children over U. S. and Canadian broadcasting stations beginning in January.

• American and European Lutheran theologians comment on the forthcoming Roman Catholic Ecumenical Council in a book due to be published next fall. Editor is Professor K. E. Skydsgaard of Copenhagen.

• Milligan (Tennessee) College, Disciples of Christ school, won full accreditation last month from the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools.

• A $13,000 federal government grant will enable two Union Theological Seminary students to participate in a pilot project aimed at giving spiritual help to the disabled. The program is being established at the Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at the New York University Medical Center.

• Hardin-Simmons University plans a $15,000,000 development program that will nearly double the Southern Baptist school’s size in 10 years.

Since the current controversy over the classification of Seventh-day Adventists (denomination or cult?) was first initiated in 1956, one interesting factor in the conflict has gone largely unnoticed. The Adventists apparently have been faced by growing internal tension and division as a result of the publication of their definitive volume, Questions on Doctrine, and of Walter Martin’s new book, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism.

The rumblings, first beneath the surface, can now be heard audibly in not a few quarters. The fact that there has been a marked change or redefinition of certain facets of Seventh-day Adventist theology, was pointed out by The Gathering Call, published by ex-Seventh-day Adventists. An article entitled “Moving the Landmarks” considers the Adventists’ volume, Questions on Doctrine, and articles published in Eternity magazine by Donald Grey Barnhouse and Walter R. Martin. The editors of the Call point out that some of the old Adventist landmarks have been moved, notably the alleged inerrancy of Ellen White, the vicarious nature of the scapegoat translation of Leviticus 16, and the literal interpretation of the Heavenly Sanctuary doctrine. According to The Gathering Call, historic adventism stands repudiated in these areas, a charge supplemented by other interesting considerations. A. L. Hudson, former elder in a large Adventist church in Oregon, in company with retired yet powerful Adventist leader Dr. M. L. Andreasen, has spearheaded a move to have those responsible for the publication of Questions on Doctrine censured for “misrepresenting the historic position” of the Adventist church. From as far away as Australia and New Zealand letters have reached us concerning the small but apparently vocal segment of Adventism that still wants to brand Sunday keepers with “the mark of the beast,” teach a literalistic sanctuary and scapegoat transaction, and hold Ellen White in esteem as an infallible “prophetess.” Dr. Andreasen at one time was professor of theology at the Adventists’ seminary in Washington, D. C.

Leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination have, however, discounted this faction as unrepresentative of the views of the major constituency of the Church. This affirmation is apparently underscored by the fact that the book, Questions on Doctrine, authorized by the General Conference as the denominational position, has had the widest circulation and general approval of the denomination of any volume of recent years. But the fact remains that there is a segment of Seventh-day Adventists vocal and apparently powerful enough to reverse some of the trends originally undertaken in good faith by the leadership of the denomination in 1956.

It is significant to note that The Signs of the Times and These Times, major Adventist publications, have identified themselves for the first time as publications of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, only to have the identification rescinded and withdrawn from the masthead. Certain publications which allegedly did not represent the position of the denomination are still widely circulated despite the assurance of the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination that “plans were already operative” to dispense with such inconsistencies in Adventist publishing houses. (Adventist spokesmen assert that, in a sense, each of their publishing houses is autonomous, having its own board of control, and that the reasons for masthead changes lie with the editors.)

Another interesting fact is the Adventist denomination’s attitude toward Mr. Martin’s book, which leaders endorsed as accurately representing their views. Martin’s book was to be stocked by Adventist publishing houses according to commitments made by top Adventist officials. Authorization to place his book on sale was not forthcoming, however, despite the fact that two non-critical non-Adventist publications were accepted for distribution. (Adventist spokesmen point out that their book and Bible houses are set up as retail outlets for their own publishing houses, and only occasionally is the sale of outside books authorized. “Martin’s book sets forth our views accurately,” said one leader, “but that’s only half the story. It also attempts to expose as fallacious the most distinctive of these views. Why should a religious body promote books that seek to refute these teachings?”)

The cleft in Seventh-day Adventism seems, however, to be deeper than appears on the surface. Some Seventh-day Adventist officials seem not to welcome any investigation of their views due to their divergence from what the church maintains as its true position.

One thing, however, is certain. Certain elements in the theology of Seventh-day Adventism are in flux; some of the old landmarks have apparently been moved; and some old errors have been or are being rectified. Perhaps the Adventist denomination would be wiser to admit these faults publicly. By so doing they would probably escape the growing conviction in some circles that they cannot control irresponsible, unrepresentative elements within the church, and are content to remain silent where decisive action would settle the issue. Such action would promote stronger ties of fellowship and respect for the integrity of Adventism among Christians of other denominations.

NOT THE ANSWER

The suggestion which was made, preceding the opening meeting of the National Council of Churches in San Francisco, that four of the major denominations in America formulate immediate plans for organic union, plus the sensational way this suggestion was publicized, highlight a behind-the-scenes activity that National Council leaders have been denying for years—namely, the eventual creation of a super-Church.

Under certain circumstances such a plan might strengthen the witness of contemporary Protestantism.

But unfortunately these favorable circumstances do not exist, and the writer believes that such a move (if consummated) will only add to the confusion already prevalent in the Christian world and demanding solution.

The suggested merger has been based on the assumption that the loss of Protestant influence and prestige is due to the fragmentation of the Church into multiplied denominations.

It may be admitted that many divisions in the Church are unwarranted when they stem from the enlongated shadows of certain personalities, or are based on dogmatic theses taken out of scriptural context and made the pretext for separation. Nevertheless the “scandal of Christendom” (a phase dear to the hearts of ecumenists) lies not in denominational differences so much as in a dilution and alteration of the content of the Christian message.

Those who continually harp on the need for merging existing ecclesiastical organizations lose sight of the fact that only when the message of the Cross and Resurrection, with all its implications, is made central, can the Church have any valid significance.

One prominent bishop has recently written an article for a secular magazine titled, “Christianity Is in Retreat.” Many of us are prepared to acknowledge, at least, that Christianity seems to have a decreasing influence on our contemporary world.

The disturbing fact is that some who recognize symptoms of retreat or defeat seem unable to diagnose either the cause or suggest the remedy.

Within the Church there is a confusion of Christianity with the humanitarian activities that should be the fruit of Christianity. There is no spiritual or scientific basis for expecting good fruit when the roots are unsound. Society can be regenerated only by regenerate men.

Furthermore, there are some persons so determined to make the benefits of faith in Christ accrue to mankind, regardless of their relationship to the Saviour, that they are willing to enlist the resources and power of secular government to further utopian schemes.

All of these developments lead to confusion in the minds of unbelievers who tend to look on the Church as a glorified United Fund for Social Services rather than a fellowship of men and women redeemed from sin by Christ, the Son of God.

In connection with the perverted emphasis, there is also a confusion of God’s universal offer of salvation, and its comforting “whosoever,” with a neo-universalism that quiets the conscience, extinguishes the fires of evangelism, and deadens the motivation for missions.

Probably never in the history of the Church have so many divergent voices been heard in the area of Christian doctrine and ethics. The one thing these voices have in common is a rejection of the complete integrity and authority of the Holy Scriptures and a substitution of human opinions (based on philosophical presuppositions which rule out God’s having spoken to men, as they claim in the Bible) for divine revelation.

This tendency to follow men rather than the Holy Spirit results in a magnifying of speculative reasoning and a minimizing of authoritative truth, and out of such an atmosphere comes an image of Christ which is other than the Christ of the Bible.

Moreover, the Church frequently tolerates in leadership and in the rank and file of ministers the rejection of such scripturally affirmed truths as the nature and consequences of sin, the full implications of the Cross, the reality of Satan as a personality and hell as a place, the validity of the new birth, conversion experience as a necessity or reality, and many doctrines having to do with the Person and Work of Christ.

Little wonder then that some speak of Christianity as being in retreat, and that the influence of the Church has waned in areas where once it flourished. Neither is it surprising to see that within the Church moral and spiritual values have so largely degenerated that distinctives between members and non-churchgoers have faded into a blending pattern of behavior.

The proposed merger of four large denominations will appeal to the unregenerate of the world. It will be acclaimed a “great forward step.” It will unquestionably lead to impressive ecclesiastical pageantry and the further centralization of power in the hands of men who would use it to dazzle and impress.

But the merger will not add one whit to the witnessing power of Christianity unless with it there is an unequivocal return to the gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures.

Furthermore, such a merger will not increase the power of the Church in an unbelieving world, because power belongs to God not to men, and he releases his power through the presence and work of the Holy Spirit and on conditions where faith, prayer and humility are dominant.

The concept of an ecumenical movement is spiritually sound. Christians are one in Christ, and love and unity of faith and purpose should exist among us for all the world to see.

But before ecclesiastical ecumenicity can be realized, there must first be faith, a faith in eternal verities which man may tamper with only to his own eternal destruction.

A very real ecumenicity already does exist, and it is a spiritual unity of believers which transcends denominational, racial, and national borders. We would join in pleading for an atmosphere in the Church where the witnessing power of the Gospel may again be demonstrated. An unloving pharisaical orthodoxy must give way to Christian love. The leaven of sadducean unbelief must be replaced by simple faith.

What is needed is not the pointing of an accusing finger at other Christians, nor more powerful ecclesiastical organizations where there is outward union without spiritual unity.

What is needed is not at the organizational level at all but at the spiritual level. That which is imperative is not to be found in ecclesiastical pageantry but in a humble falling upon our faces before almighty God, a confessing and repenting of sin, and a simple faith in the Christ of Calvary.

Means to a true Christian advance are not unattainable—they are very much available, right now.

L. NELSON BELL

The latest of the major cults arising and exercising much influence in our country is today known as Jehovah’s Witnesses—a cult which will soon count itself to be 100 years old, though its earlier days are strangely passed by in its more recent literature. Although this cult has always produced an enormous literature (one periodical has 3 million circulation a week) and its members are zealous in the promotion of beliefs and the circulation of books and magazines, it may be surprising that, according to their own statistics, they do not have today in this country—though approaching the century mark—more than one quarter of a million followers.

STRANGE TITLE

The very name Jehovah’s Witnesses, which has been the organization’s official title for the last 30 years, indicates somewhat the basic tenets of the group. “Jehovah’s Witnesses” is a title based upon a phrase found three times in a central passage in one book of the Bible, namely, Isaiah 43:10, 12, and 44:8, in which the Lord says, “Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen.” This title deserves more careful study than it has received. In the first place, the words of the Lord were spoken to the people of Israel. In these two chapters of Isaiah, the Lord again and again identifies the people to whom he is speaking as Israel, and sometimes calls them by the name of Jacob, the father of the 12 tribes from which Israel developed. God is speaking as “the king of Israel” (44:6). Whatever else Jehovah’s Witnesses may say, they would not dare to claim that 2,500 years ago, God, speaking through Isaiah, was referring to this cult when he used the phrase, “my servant whom I have chosen,” and yet it is to these “chosen” people that God assigns this particular type of witnessing. The word here translated witness in its various forms is found about 300 times in the Old Testament. Sometimes it is David who is the witness (Isa. 55:4): we read that God has established a testimony in Jacob (Ps. 78:5), or in Joseph (Ps. 81:5). Over 150 times the word is used in reference to the Tabernacle as “the Tabernacle of testimony.” Often it is used in reference to the word of God, as “Thy testimonies are very sure” (Ps. 93:5), and in the 119th Psalm.

This word witness holds great importance in the New Testament Scriptures. Christians are repeatedly exhorted and commanded to be witnesses, but never once are they referred to in the New Testament as “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” It is essential, I think, to enlarge upon the evidence here. The Holy Spirit has been sent to bear witness of Christ (John 15:26). All Christians are to be witnesses of Christ (John 15:27; Acts 3:15; 5:32; 10:39; and 22:15). The Apostle Peter says that he was a witness “of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Pet. 5:1). The Apostles were especially to be the witnesses of Christ’s resurrection (Acts 1:22; 2:32; 4:33; 10:41; 13:31). Our Lord just before his ascension told the disciples that they were to be witnesses of the things concerning himself (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8). Moreover, the Apostle Peter reminds us that it is to Christ that all the prophets bear witness (Acts 10:43), and this includes Isaiah. One verse in the New Testament does indeed contain the phrase “the witness of God.” But this is how that phrase is used: “… the witness of God is this, that he hath borne witness concerning his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he hath not believed in the witness that God hath borne concerning his Son. And the witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (1 John 5:9–11).

This modern cult, in taking the title of Jehovah’s Witnesses, thus identifies itself with a pre-Christian revelation given to Israel, and in so doing it ignores and in fact repudiates all the New Testament passages relating to this matter of witnessing. Because of this fact, we shall not be surprised to find that its literature denies the Godhead of Christ. Its adherents do not preach a gospel of redemption through Christ’s precious blood, and they do not bear witness to the resurrection of Christ, because they do not believe that he rose from the dead. As a corollary, the emphasis of Jehovah’s Witnesses is on an earthly kingdom, their many places of worship being called Kingdom Hall. It is not wrong to believe in a final earthly Messianic kingdom. But since the advent, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ this is not the basic message for the redeemed.

Jehovah’s witnesses did not always fear this name. From the beginning of Pastor Russell’s work in 1872 and for about 12 years, they lacked a specific name. In 1884, they adopted the name of Zion’s Watchtower Society (note again the Old Testament emphasis in the word Zion). In 1909 they were known as The People’s Pulpit Association, although they are silent about this in their own contemporary literature. In 1914 they took the widely-used name, The International Bible Students’ Association. Not until 1931, under the leadership of Judge Rutherford, did they adopt the title used today, Jehovah’s Witnesses, a title which Pastor Russell never used nor intended to use. One conclusion at least must be drawn. For 60 years this group was without the title which they now believe has been divinely given to them.

Moreover, in a very mysterious way they seem by their silence to be repudiating the work and teachings of their earlier leaders, both generally and specifically. For example, Pastor Russell put a great deal of emphasis on the prophetic teachings of the great pyramids of Egypt, but Judge Rutherford repudiated this in the cult’s later official publications (see The Watchtower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, Vol. 49, 1928, pp. 339–345, and 355–361). Christian Scientists are unwaveringly loyal to the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, their founder. But not so Jehovah’s Witnesses. Toward the end of Judge Rutherford’s leadership (he died in 1942), the writings of Pastor Russell were scarcely referred to, and for the last 20 years, they have not officially been distributed. The same thing has happened to the writings of Judge Rutherford. One cannot find the name of Pastor Russell as an author in the United States catalogue after 1935, and one cannot find the name of Judge Rutherford as an author in the same exhaustive work after 1944! This emphasizes one undeniable fact that the early teachings of the leaders, at least in part, are now given up, and that only the more recent literature, which by the way is always anonymous, is to be considered official and worthy of confidence for this generation.

As one delves into the literature, one will find many reasons why the earlier writings, of which millions of copies, once distributed, should no longer be recognized as authoritative. Take for example the constant shifting of dates from the end of this age, the coming of antichrist, and so on. In 1889 Pastor Russell wrote concerning the Gentiles: “The full end of their lease of dominion will be reached in 1914, and that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men” (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, pp. 76 f). This statement was repeated frequently, even after 1914 had passed. Judge Rutherford then set 1925 to be an epochal year in world government, but this likewise proved incorrect. Although the World War took place in 1914—which was hardly what Pastor Russell promised—he then declared that Christ did return to earth in 1914, expelled Satan from heaven, and proceeded to overthrow Satan’s organization and establish the theocratic millennial kingdom (see The Kingdom is at Hand, pp. 300 ff.). The fearful events that we have witnessed on earth since 1914 do not bear testimony to any theory that Satan’s organization is now being overthrown! In fact, in the 1923 edition of Studies in the Scriptures, the phrase “before 1914” is now changed to “very soon after 1914.” While they teach that Christ’s second advent has already occurred, for which there is no evidence, they at the same time repudiate the clear teaching of the New Testament concerning this event. Judge Rutherford insisted that “we should not expect the Lord’s second coming to be in a body visible to human eyes” (The Harp of God, p. 225).

SOME UNSAVORY FACTORS

Hundreds of pages have been written about the falsehoods, indiscretions, and questionable practices of Pastor Russell, and it is only necessary to recall these briefly. Pastor Russell’s wife, whom he married in 1879, and who in the early years was a devoted follower of her husband’s teachings, felt compelled to separate from him in 1897, and brought suit for divorce in 1913. The divorce was won, and, though the verdict was constantly appealed, yet five different times the courts sustained the original verdict. The sordid story of the Egyptian wheat need not be considered here. Pastor Russell faced numerous court trials, both in our country and Canada. While he was a man of great energy and organizing ability, with some facility in clearly expressing his views on the Scriptures, the subjects of holiness, of conflict with evil in the soul, of surrender to the leading and dominion of the Holy Spirit, find no emphasis in his literature nor in the cult’s teaching.

When we come to the doctrinal beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, we face the most tragic aspect of the entire movement. Underlying all its other teaching is the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses are anti-Trinitarian, and in repudiating the doctrine of the Trinity they remove themselves beyond the pale of the Christian Church. Specifically they say that “This One was not Jehovah God.… He was a mighty one, although not almighty as Jehovah God is.… He was a God, but not the almighty God” (The Kingdom at Hand, pp. 34 f; also Reconciliation, p. 111). In fact, they have the abominable idea that God had two sons, the Logos, to be identified with Christ, and Lucifer, the son of the Morning who, ultimately by his fall, became the devil. Not only do they repudiate the deity of Christ but they deny the personality of the Holy Spirit. “The Holy Spirit is not a person and is, therefore, not one of the Trinity” (Reconciliation, p. 114).

Furthermore, they hold the view that Christ was not crucified, but was impaled on a tree, and that the Cross is a pagan symbol, a phallic emblem. They insist that at Christ’s death, his human body somehow evaporated or God buried it somewhere unknown to anyone. Christ the Man has been dead all these centuries, and the one who was raised from the dead was not the human Christ but an invisible spirit, and the body in which he revealed himself to the disciples after his death was not the body in which he died.

These radical departures from the clear teachings of Scripture are not simply new or fantastic interpretations of what may be called “debatable areas” of biblical teaching; they are repudiations of the great central truths of the Christian faith! To deny these truths is to excommunicate oneself from the true Body of Christ, the deity of Jesus Christ, his redeeming work accomplished on the Cross, his bodily resurrection, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, a true love for the brethren, the certainty of a judgment to come, and the absolute oneness of all believers in Christ, whatever be their particular denominational adherence. Jehovah’s Witnesses have a commendable enthusiasm in propagating their views, but they proclaim a false religion.

BITTER REPUDIATION OF CHRISTIANS

One of the most deplorable features of the whole movement, from the very beginning of Pastor Russell’s teachings, is the constant and abusive verbal attack on clergy and Christians. They have been called the tools of Satan, the incarnation of anti-Christ, Haman, and so on. These anti-Church fanatics even go so far as to make Ezekiel 22:26–29 apply to clergymen of the Church today. The Church is called the great enemy of God, and they frankly say they must hate God’s enemies. The Church is likened to the Moabites whenever it opposes Jehovah’s Witnesses. One quotation from Judge Rutherford will suffice: “Organized Christianity is hypocritical and selfish in the extreme. There is no real love amongst the people who make up that crowd. The entire crowd is against Jehovah” (Preparation, p. 318). How wicked for a group not yet 100 years old to designate as servants of Satan, deceivers, and liars, thousands of faithful ministers and missionaries who have lived godly lives in this century and in others, winning souls, comforting the bereaved, bringing hope to the hopeless, and preaching the Gospel that has set millions free from the power of sin.

If such fantastic beliefs are proclaimed by Jehovah’s Witnesses, if the cult’s early days were overshadowed by the unethical experiences of Pastor Russell who alienated great numbers of his followers, how then can one account for the multitudes won to its fold? For one thing, the movement claims to be exclusively biblical, and many people still look upon the Bible as the Word of God, but lack the power to discern the false from the true, would be drawn to a group that talks so much about the Bible. Secondly, some people like to think that they belong to an exclusive group, such as “the 144,000,” especially if they are persecuted for it, as many of the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been. They therefore think that they are the specially elect of God, and this appeals to their pride. Thirdly, they are drawn and held by the very zeal of the movement. They are told to distribute periodicals, rap at the doors of neighbors, take on missionary activities, and promote the teachings of their cult with all the vigor they have. Finally, many people need someone to address them with absolute authority. They need an authoritarian teaching and such they find in Watch Tower literature.

I do not want to say anything disparaging concerning the persons found in this group. But for the most part (and here they differ from Christian Scientists) it must be said that they are rather uneducated. They are almost afraid of education. Sunday Schools are scarce among them. They have not founded educational institutions worthy of accreditation. In fact, they have never produced one volume of biblical interpretation worthy of notice in the progressive development of biblical interpretation in modern times.

SELECTION OF BOOKS FOR STUDY

Herbert Hewitt Stroup, The Jehovah’s Witnesess (Columbia University Press, 1945)—a thoroughly documented work by one who lived at various headquarters of this group to obtain authentic data.

Milton Stacey Czatt, The International Bible Students, Jehovah’s Witnesses (Yale Studies on Religion, No. 4, New Haven, 1933)—a careful study of sources.

Royston Pike, Jehovah’s Witnesses (Watts & Co., London, 1954).

Bruce M. Metzger, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ. A Biblical and Theological Appraisal” (Originally an article in Theology Today, Apr., 1953, now available in pamphlet form, from the Theological Book Agency, Princeton, New Jersey)—an unanswerable indictment of the heresies of this sect regarding the Person of Christ by an outstanding New Testament scholar.

W. J. Schnell, Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave (Baker Book House, 1956).

Walter R. Martin and Norman H. Klann, Jehovah of the Watchtower (Zondervan, 1953)—valuable discussion of and reply to the denial of the Trinity, with full bibliography of Judge Rutherford’s writings.

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.