Christianity Today’s ministerial survey (made by Opinion Research Corporation at a cost of $20,000) indicated that 74 per cent of the Protestant clergy in the United States regard themselves as either fundamental or conservative in theology (with slightly more than half preferring to be called “conservative” rather than “fundamentalist”). Of the remainder, 14 per cent describe their theology as “liberal” and 12 per cent as “neo-orthodox.” This essentially conservative bent of the Protestant clergy is seldom reflected in theological surveys of our time, which center their interest in the changing tides of liberal and neo-orthodox theologians.

While 93 per cent of all ministers interviewed hold that the Bible is the authoritative rule of life and faith, and classify this as an essential doctrine, 33 per cent (26 per cent being liberal or neo-orthodox) dismiss as unessential the view that the Bible was verbally inspired in the original writings.

In respect to other doctrines, 18 per cent reject the virgin birth of Christ; 17 per cent, the vicarious, substitutionary atonement; and 11 per cent, Christ’s historical, literal resurrection (neo-orthodox ministers being less prone than liberal ministers to question the importance of this doctrine).

Some 89 per cent of the Protestant ministers interviewed think it essential to teach and preach the unique deity of Christ as the Son of God; the others do not.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s survey thus attests the fact that the dilemma of modern Protestantism in America stems largely from a lack of doctrinal stability and conviction due to a departure from the Bible.

Interest in Church Union

Despite the contrary impression given by the ecumenical dialogue and some theological literature and ecclesiastical journals, only 27 per cent consider it “very important” to work for organic church unity. Despite ecumenical sentiment indifferent to doctrinal priorities, an impressive segment of the ministry, polled privately, believes that whatever mergers take place should be based primarily on doctrinal accord. Only 18 per cent favor church union through organic mergers, whereas 24 per cent oppose any form of merger. Almost half (48 per cent) of all ministers interviewed believe that church unity should be premised on doctrinal agreement. A summary by theological camps shows that liberal and neo-orthodox ministers tend to support merger based on organic union, and that only 17 per cent of liberal clergymen advocate merger on doctrinal beliefs only. Denominational differences are noteworthy: 83 per cent of Lutheran ministers are determined to accept mergers only on doctrinal beliefs, whereas only 25 per cent of the Methodist clergy take this view.

Denominations and the Creeds

Doctrinal latitude or strictness on particular tenets dramatizes this point. While virtually all Presbyterian ministers insisted that affirmation of “God as Creator of man” is important as a basis of church union, the percentage dropped to 92 per cent among Baptist pastors and 93 per cent among Episcopalian rectors. The lowest percentage was registered geographically in the South.

With respect to the historical, literal resurrection of Christ, only 68 per cent of Methodist clergy, and only 70 per cent of Presbyterian ministers thought the doctrine important as a basis of church unity. The main areas of doubt lie in the liberal and neo-orthodox ranks; only two in five of the liberal clergy and two in three of the neo-orthodox clergy think belief in our Lord’s bodily resurrection important for church unity.

Episcopalian clergy scored low on some other doctrinal concerns: only 93 per cent thought the affirmation of Christ as Saviour and Lord important; only 90 per cent thought the affirmation of one sovereign God important. (One will not be surprised, in view of this, that 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 97 per cent.

Both neo-orthodox ministers and liberal ministers showed up better than the Episcopalians as a group, percentagewise, in their view of the importance of the Bible. When this question was addressed in terms of the verbal inspiration of the Bible in the original writings, 87 per cent of the fundamentalist clergy, and 70 per cent of fundamentalist and conservative clergy together, held this an important basis of church unity, whereas only 21 per cent of the neo-orthodox and 23 per cent of the liberal ministers agreed. Only 90 per cent of Episcopalian and Presbyterian ministers thought the unique deity of Christ as the Son of God important (only Methodists held a laxer view on this doctrine, with 88 per cent affirming its importance). One in four liberal ministers thought the unique deity of Christ important as a basis of church unity.

Probed about the virgin birth of Christ, only 48 per cent of Presbyterian and 52 per cent of Methodist ministers thought this important; Episcopalians scored higher (83 per cent) and Baptists (87 per cent) and Lutherans (88 per cent) highest. Only 37 per cent of liberal ministers and 44 per cent of neo-orthodox clergy thought the doctrine significant as a basis of church unity. The figures on the vicarious, substitutionary atonement of Christ were: Methodists, 55 per cent; Presbyterians, 59 per cent; Episcopalians, 66 per cent; Baptists, 83 per cent; Lutherans, 91 per cent. By theological positions, only 42 per cent of liberal and 49 per cent of neo-orthodox ministers considered the doctrine important for unity.

“Second Coming” of Christ

An interesting reaction, not necessarily related to the issue of church union, came from ministers on the doctrine of the literal return or “second coming” of Christ. It was held essential by 32 per cent of the Methodists; Baptists were highest with 83 per cent and Lutherans with 78 per cent; Episcopalians voted 48 per cent and Presbyterians 46 per cent. Only 25 per cent of liberal and 26 per cent of neo-orthodox clergy thought the doctrine significant.

Economic and Religious Liberty

In respect to economic freedom, a majority (three in four) of the United States clergy stand in the free enterprise tradition, a minority lean strongly toward socialism. Four barometer questions indicate that the ministers definitely socialistic in their leanings number approximately one in five.

The first question tested whether religious freedom is jeopardized by a state philosophy involving government ownership of industry (“Economic and religious freedom are linked. If the government owns and operates all industry, religious freedom will disappear”). Of all ministers interviewed, 55 per cent agreed, 22 per cent disagreed, and 23 per cent had no definite opinion. The fundamentalists (64 per cent) are most positive in seeing the connection between economic and religious freedom; the neo-orthodox (46 per cent) least positive. This result indicates the extent to which the American clergy have already accommodated themselves to the fragmented view of freedom (for which a precedent may be found in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s now famous “four freedoms”), rather than viewing human rights and responsibilities in a unitary manner within the revelation of the sovereign God.

The poll of economic sympathies of the Protestant clergy shows a movement during the last 10 years in a conservative direction, while denominational social action pronouncements have meanwhile looked to the left. Whereas a decade ago a ministerial survey indicated that 33 per cent of the Protestant pastors (as attested by their answers to barometer questions) subscribed to the processes by which a socialistic economy is effected, the more recent poll narrowed the figure to 25 per cent (in contrast to 40 per cent for the general population average). Of these, the pollsters designated two per cent of the ministers as Communist, 10 per cent as socialist, and 15 per cent as fellow-travelers in their economic outlook, these being predominantly liberal and neo-orthodox in theological stance. Taken as a whole, the Protestant clergy, as indicated by the same poll, are slowly moving away from their earlier larger commitment to the left toward a more conservative social view.

MISSING—ONE KNIFE

The operating room was gleaming with the multiplied perfections of modern equipment. Not only was everything spotless, but the cool, conditioned air was constantly subjected to the purifying light rays which reduced even normal bacteria to a minimum.

Two surgeons, along with residents under training, were standing motionless in their pale green sterilized gowns and caps, their faces partially covered by germ-inhibited masks.

Both the chief surgeon and his first assistant were men whose years of arduous training and experience had earned for them certification in their surgical specialty. They were members of a number of learned societies. The elder of the two had only recently been honored by his associates by being made chief-of-staff of the hospital, and just prior to that he had been the president of a society of distinguished surgeons.

The patient, draped with sterile sheets and towels, was breathing deeply as the anesthetic began to take effect.

Then the anesthetist looked up and nodded his head. The patient was ready.

On the Mayo stands and the tables adjacent to the operating table there was a shining array of instruments, each designed for a specific purpose—clamps, clips, retractors, spreaders, scissors, sutures of various kinds—everything needed to facilitate the operation.

The surgeon finished draping the patient, already thoroughly prepared by scrubbing and the application of antiseptic solutions. Then, looking around he took up first one instrument, and laid it down, and took up another, and laid it down.

No incision was made! He did not me the knife.

Fingering the various instruments, the surgeon went from one to the other, looking at one, making futile passes with another.

It was a strange pantomime. Under perfect surroundings, with a patient who desperately needed surgery, the entire procedure consisted of meaningless motions.

Naturally, some in the room were disturbed, others were confused, and some were exasperated.

After an hour, the patient was rolled from the operating to the recovery room.

There he was cared for until fully reacted from the anesthetic, then he was taken to his room where relatives waited anxiously to see him. Friends sent in flowers and messages, evidences of their love and concern.

Before long it was obvious that the patient was no better. The same old symptoms recurred. There was still pain and weakness. Why was the patient no better?

Hospital authorities were asked to investigate. The surgical staff met and discussed the case and also a number of similar ones which had occurred in the same hospital. Every step in the patient’s history was gone over again and again in an honest attempt to uncover the cause of repeated failures to cure these patients.

One night during a general staff meeting, the mystery was again under discussion. The internes and residents were encouraged to share in the procedures. One young man, not considered as bright or promising as some of the others, ventured to speak up:

“Mr. Chief-of-Staff,” he said, “I have scrubbed in on a number of these unsuccessful operations and there is one thing I have repeatedly noticed: the surgeon does not use the knife. There is no incision, no bleeding, no going down to the source of the illness, nothing is removed; when the patient leaves the operating room, he is in exactly the same condition as when he went in.”

“But,” the chief surgeon said, “the knife is old; it is full of imperfections; I do not trust the quality of its steel; in fact I feel that it is more an ornament than an instrument—something suitable to keep on the table, but not necessary or effective in the complicated surgical conditions confronting us today.”

The interne was subdued, but as we left the room we thought we heard him mutter under his breath: “Those poor patients! They are still sick; they leave the hospital just like they came in. Surely something is wrong. Why don’t they me the knife?”

The Sunday morning service was about to begin. The sanctuary was filled with quiet, well-dressed, well-fed people. They were comfortable, thanks to air conditioning and cushioned pews.

In all of the city there was not a finer pipe organ, and the man at the console was a master in his profession. The choir was well paid and highly trained. The whole atmosphere was one of quietness, reverence, and expectancy.

The minister and his associate took their places and the order of service proceeded with the quiet dignity and efficiency of a thoroughly prepared program. At precisely the scheduled moment the minister stood up to preach. In his robes he was the epitome of scholarship and grace, and when he spoke it was obvious that he was a man of eloquence and conviction.

Prior to the beginning of the sermon, a passage of Scripture had been read; but the main appeal was to philosophical reasoning and a confrontation of today’s problems along the line of one’s personal responsibility and duty to engage in social engineering. Many authorities were quoted; there were frequent references to great leaders of our day; fragmentary quotations from some of our finest literature revealed the wide reading of the preacher, and many in the congregation were impressed.

At the conclusion of the service there was some subdued chatting among members of the congregation; the ministers greeted them as they went their several ways—some for a time of rest, others to spend the rest of the day in amusements or recreation.

With most of them there was an unappeased sense of spiritual hunger. One could see that the stone of human opinion was hard to digest. Like a serpent, sophisticated denial of divine revelation gnawed at the place where men desired peace and assurance.

Many realized that there was something wrong. Church officers discussed the problem. In the denomination intensive efforts were set on foot for evangelism, missions, and stewardship.

One day a member of the congregation remarked to a friend: “I wish we heard more about what God has to say. Sunday after Sunday, I hear what men have said or are saying. Occasionally the Bible is quoted and then there is light, conviction, and a sense of God’s nearness.”

“Yes,” said the other, “the one thing that will change the situation completely is using the Bible in all of its wonder and power. After all, it is the Sword of the Spirit, the only weapon for an attack on the stronghold of Satan.”

Word got around, the Sword was unsheathed. Sinners were saved, Christians were revived—and the church once more became God’s house.

L. NELSON BELL

SERENDIPITY

This outlandish word was coined by Walpole, who also built a mansion with secret passageways and sliding panels. The term is a splendid trap-door to spring on unwary intellectuals, although the esoteric charm has been spoiled a bit through the use of the word in national advertising. Very well, I’ll admit that I never heard of it either until I saw that ad.

In fact, I’m not out of the passageway yet. I know that serendipity is the fortunate capacity of finding things one wasn’t looking for. The advertisement stressed the debt science owes to serendipity. I have also discovered that Walpole was referring to the legendary exploits of the Three Princes of Serendip, who possessed this quality.

But just there serendipity takes over. I have accumulated a modest collection of Buddhist legends, Hindu fables, and European folk-tales for which I was not looking, but not even one Prince of Serendip (alleged to be Ceylon) can I find. It was a surprise to find Bonnie Prince Charlie hidden in Mother Goose, and to learn the political implications of Old Mother Hubbard, but I have yet to uncover a lead in the Serendip affair.

Perhaps a learned reader knows the answer, having come upon it by accident while investigating agriculture in Ceylon, or haunted houses in England.

Any information will be gratefully received. Serendipity must have a place of honor in our vocabulary. I suspect that for every instance of serendipity in the laboratory there must be a score in the history of the church. Recall the serendipititious experience of Saul who set out to find his father’s asses, and found a crown instead. David once marched forth to punish an ingrate and discovered a charming wife. Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus had the most dramatic experience of all in finding what he wasn’t seeking.

Outside of sacred history there are many more instances. There is a wonderful serendipity in the sequel to Martin Luther’s effort to earn salvation through monkish zeal.

On second thought, perhaps we can get along without the term serendipity, so long as we remember the meaning of such words as Christianity and grace. “But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.”

EUTYCHUS

MUSIC IN THE CHURCH

The feature interview Music in the Church Today (Aug. 29 issue) expresses, I believe, a philosophy of church music that is held by many of today’s church musicians and laymen: to wit, a middle-of-the-road, balanced program of service music is the most effective approach to worship through the art of music. I should suggest, however, that other issues might better determine the nature and quality of the church musician’s offerings.

Rather than being concerned with gearing church music to the musician or to the man in the pew, might we not rather present music as a worthy offering to God who deserves and demands only the best? This can be achieved by using consistently only such music that has genuine artistic merit; and this includes much that is uninvolved, simple, and devotional. If the objective of true art is sought, then the church musician need never be plagued with the criticism that his music is too lofty or intellectual for some people or too naïve or trite for other members of the congregation.

Mr. Prussing expresses the crux of the matter when he says that a choir which has studied and understands its music can communicate its message, regardless of the type of composition. If this be so, why not confine its music solely to that which constitutes noble and artistic musical expression? Regarding the panel’s comments of Gospel hymns, the observation could have been made that the message of the Gospel set to poor poetry and worse music does not make the hymn a sacred art work.

Dr. Ellinwood’s conclusion is noteworthy in recognizing the importance of seeking to praise God with the best means possible. It is my observation, however, that we cannot do this as long as we compromise our standards of musical excellence in an effort to satisfy alternately the various segments of the congregation whose tastes demand personal gratification rather than encouraging only God-directed art in the music ministry.

ARTHUR BIRKBY

Western Michigan University

Kalamazoo, Mich.

The information of the music experts certainly was very interesting but one thing about anthems not mentioned is that the organists often play too loudly, no doubt to cover up off-key singers.

EDWIN L. LEHMAN

Woodbury, N. J.

That was a splendid article; in fact, the August 29 issue as a whole was one of your very best.

HOYT L. HICKMAN

College Hill Methodist Church

Beaver Falls, Pa.

F. R. Webber’s article “The Gospel in the Great Hymns” (Aug. 29 issue) contains good advice. We should be careful to select hymns that contain definite evangelical truth. This same care should be taken in selecting a church hymnal.… There are … denominational hymnals … that have deleted gospel hymns about the Trinity and the blood of Christ. Committes appointed to choose new church hymnals should keep this in mind.

WILLIAM N. RANDALL

United Congregational Church

Sharon, Pa.

I certainly enjoyed the excellent interview article on church music, Webber’s article on “The Gospel in Great Hymns,” and Mary Lebar’s article on the preschool child.

W. L. GAST

The Lutheran Church of Peace

Platteville, Wisc.

ADENAUER (CONTINUED)

After my remarks about the West German Chancellor Dr. Konrad Adenauer were published in CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Jan. 18 issue) I received many letters containing remarks about my report. Some letters agreed with my opinion, some of them objected and tried to repudiate my statements by questioning the sources of my knowledge. It did not, therefore, surprise me that even the Hon. Representative Walter H. Moeller of the 10th District of Ohio, and the Department of State, represented by Assistant Secretary William B. Macomber, Jr., found it necessary to reply to my remarks (July 4 issue). The letters objecting to my statements use a variety of arguments, but all of them have one thing in common, namely the idea my report is just the product of my imagination or an invention for personal … purposes. But the report about the rift between Dr. Adenauer and Dr. Heinemann was published in a magazine … in Germany a long time before the Treaties of Paris (May 5, 1955) to which the State Department refers and which now are given as reasons for Dr. Heinemann’s resignation. From that article I learned for the first time that Dr. Adenauer had restored the concordat with the Vatican, but had refused to restore the privileges of the Protestants. I doubt that a paper in Germany would have published such criticism, if it would not have been based on facts.

The writers of the letters criticizing my first statements will do well to learn the sources for my report. After the last election in West Germany, The Daily News, a paper published in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, a city with a Catholic majority, brought the following report:

BONN, Germany (AP)—The Bundestag today elected Konrad Adenauer to his third 4-year term as Chancellor of West Germany. He instantly ran into trouble in forming a new Cabinet.

He was faced with a revolt from the farmers and from the Protestants within his own party. They were reported angry because they were given too few seats in the reorganized Cabinet.

So serious were Adenauer’s problems that he was forced to cancel plans to introduce his new Cabinet to the Bundestag tomorrow.…

… Protestant members of Adenauer’s party were reported incensed over the fact the Chancellor had only six of their number on his 18-member Cabinet slate, while he had chosen 10 Roman Catholic party members. Adenauer is a Catholic.

The remaining two Cabinet posts were to go to deputies from the German party, a small coalition party.…

… Protestant deputies also were reported complaining that Fritz Schaeffer, 69, former finance minister and a Catholic, had been slated to be Vice Chancellor. They said the post should go to a Protestant.…

The magazine Church and State published monthly in Washington, D. C., in its April, 1960, issue brought the following report:

The so-called prayer-book formula by which top governmental posts in West Germany since World War II would be divided or alternated between Protestants and Roman Catholics has been abandoned by Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, it has been announced by the Christian Democratic Union, his party. With the recent election of a Catholic president, Heinrich Luebke, the four highest positions are now held by Roman Catholics: chancellor, president, minister of foreign affairs, and minister of defense.”

Here the critics of my statements have the opportunity to learn that now even American newspapers, whose editors don’t know me, become critical of Dr. Adenauer’s Catholic tendencies in his political activities. The statement of Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. William B. Macomber, that in three national elections since the establishment of the Federal Republic Chancellor Adenauer has received the majority of the national vote, loses its weight if one looks into the manner of Adenauer’s propaganda. Every time, before an election in West Germany, the Chancellor suddenly shows up for a visit in the U.S.A., though there does not exist any special reason which would make his visit necessary. Many American newspapers, mostly those influenced by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, hail Adenauer as a devout Catholic and report that a full agreement was reached between him and the American government. But it is never said in what matter an agreement was reached. Then the West German newspapers, influenced by Adenauer, continue to make propaganda by claiming that Adenauer is the only man favored by the Western Allies and that it is doubtful that they would accept and recognize another German representative in their midst. The newspapers published in Germany after World War II during the years before the establishment of the West German Republic under the supervision of the occupation authorities repeatedly announced that the Germans would be treated without mercy for many years and never would be allowed to make their own decisions in political matters of their country. Now, the people in Germany, scared by sad experiences, try to prove themselves as obedient coworkers of the Western powers by voting according to propaganda developed in American and German newspapers.

RUDOLPH FLACHBARTH

Duquesne, Pa.

October 10, 1960, marks the four hundredth anniversary of the birth of James Arminius (1560–1609), the Dutch theologian whose name has been given to the Protestant theological tradition of Arminianism. It is appropriate that attention be given again to this late voice of the Reformation whose influence has been so great and about whom so little study has been done. Noteworthy is the fact that in the persistent “Arminian-Calvinist” controversy of the intervening centuries, neither side has had much to say about Arminius himself. He seems to stand somewhat aloof from the later battle, and those who have gone to his writings commonly report that they do not find what they expected to find; that is, they often come to the conclusion “he isn’t really an Arminian.” Some suggest that he was in transition, not completely liberated (or backslidden, as the case may be) from his early Calvinism. Others have held that he was a clever dissembler whose published works were scripturally based and orthodox enough but whose “beliefs were worse than his writings” or who taught many grievous errors in private.

Who was this enigmatic figure? Born in South Holland of simple people, orphaned at an early age, and raised by pious Reformed guardians, he was educated at Marburg, Leiden, Basel, and Geneva, his teacher at Geneva being Theodore Beza, the celebrated successor of Calvin. He was a brilliant student and later distinguished himself as pastor for 15 years of the Reformed churches of Amsterdam. He spent the final six years of his life as professor of theology at Leiden. During his pastoral and professorial years he became engaged in the controversy which gave rise to Arminianism.

AUTHORITY FOR ARMINIUS

He always regarded himself as a Reformed thinker. In common with the earlier Reformed leaders, he opposed the exclusive claims of the Roman church by appeal to the sole authority of the Scriptures. He asserted that “we now have the infallible word of God in no other place than in the Scriptures,” which were written by “holy men of God … actuated and inspired by the Holy Spirit.” He pointed out that the authority of Scripture is not dependent on the testimony of the church nor subject to its dogmas, but that the church “is not a church unless she have previously exercised faith in this word as being divine, and have engaged to obey it.”

Arminius was not unaware of the remaining problems of tradition and interpretation. At this point again he followed the Reformers in giving a certain priority to the patristic church and to Augustine (but expressing misgivings about some of Augustine’s later writings). When it came to the Reformed tradition itself, he professed allegiance to the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, the only Reformed symbols with any sort of binding authorities in the Low Countries at that time. He had a high regard for the exegetical work of Calvin, and in a letter written two years before his death he said, “I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read … for I affirm that in the interpretation of Scriptures Calvin is incomparable …, so much so that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, yea, above all.”

Insistence upon the sole authority of Scripture prevented Arminius, however, from ascribing to Calvin the kind of ultimate authority allowed him by the Leiden professor, Francis Gomarus. Gomarus had tried, unsuccessfully, to make Beza’s extreme predestinarian reading of Calvin mandatory in the Dutch churches.

BY GRACE ALONE

Arminius warned that Calvin and the other Reformers were men, and that “they may deserve well of the Church, and yet be entangled in some error: and the illustrious restorers of the Churches perhaps did not spy out everything with which the Church was deformed, and perchance themselves built a superstructure of some errors on a true foundation.”

This implies that Arminius found in the Reformers some points which could stand correction in the light of the word of God, but it also means that he found in them “a true foundation.” This common ground which Arminius shared with Calvin, for one, included the doctrine of the total inability of man as sinner to save himself, with salvation made possible by grace alone. Calvin had said, “When the will is enchained as the slave of sin, it cannot make a movement toward goodness, far less steadily pursue it. Every such movement is the first step in that conversion to God, which in Scripture is entirely ascribed to divine grace” (Institutes, II, III, 5). Arminius said, “Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good without grace.… I affirm therefore, that this grace is simply and absolutely necessary for the illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and the inclination of the will to that which is good” (Writings, 1956 printing, II, 472). Calvin, following Augustine, had said that there is no “apportionment between God and man, as if a proper movement on the part of each produced a mutual concurrence.… Whence it follows, that nothing is left for the will to arrogate as its own” (Institutes, II, III, 11). Arminius said, “But this [cooperation], whatever it may be of knowledge, holiness, and power, is all begotten within him by the Holy Spirit” (Writings, I, 529). Both are agreed that grace alone is the ground of salvation.

PREDESTINATION AND CHRIST

Calvin and his disciples had used the biblical figures of election and predestination to express the truth of sola gratia and to combat the Roman doctrine of works. Theological literature often gives the impression that Arminius simply “denied predestination.” It was his well-grounded fear that Beza, and Gomarus, the supralapsarian interpreters of Calvin, were in danger of divorcing the doctrine from Christology and making Christ the mere instrument or means of carrying out a prior, abstract decree. Arminius sought to state the doctrine in the light of Scripture and in integral relation to Christology, and he referred often to Malachi, Romans 9, the “universalist” texts, and particularly the emphasis of Ephesians 1:4 that God “hath chosen us in him.” For his contention that election must be understood “in Christ” he found considerable support also in the Dutch confessions and in Calvin himself.

The “first decree,” then, for Arminius, was that by which God appointed “his Son, Jesus Christ, for a Mediator, Redeemer, Saviour, Priest, and King, who might destroy sin by his own death, might by his obedience obtain the salvation which had been lost, and might communicate it by his own virtue.” Christ is thus not merely the agent but the very foundation of election. The second decree was to receive into favor sinners who are “in Christ” by repentance and faith, and the third had to do with “sufficient and efficacious” means of grace. The final decree was the election of particular individuals on the basis of the divine foreknowledge of their faith and perseverance.

Arminius thus affirmed the doctrine that Christ is the foundation of election and adumbrated the position that He is the content of election. He retained the position that this makes man responsible for his own believing. It would seem, however, that Arminius built his doctrine of election on the notion of foreseen faith, and thereby made man’s decision the cause or concurring cause of salvation (man electing God). It should be noted, however, that Arminius put the latter notion in a position subordinate to the appointing (or electing) of Jesus Christ, and that election in terms of foreseen faith can stand neither alone nor first. Arminians have not always kept this distinction clearly, and the Remonstrance of 1610 itself begins with what Arminius put in fourth place. This tendency, carried to its conclusion, leads to a defection in emphasis from free grace to free will (a point made forcefully by Robert E. Chiles, “Methodist Apostasy: From Free Grace to Free Will,” Religion in Life, Vol. XXVII, No. 3, 1958).

The free grace of God in Jesus Christ did confront sinful man with a “decision-question” for Arminius, but the response of faith was not done in strength which is some sort of residue of goodness. Apart from Christ there could be no response, but the response of faith is nevertheless man’s act, an act to be sure not of achievement and merit but of surrender and acceptance. In this act man gives all glory to God, but for it he himself is responsible. Grace, for Arminius, created freedom and responsibility; it did not destroy or displace them.

SOME CONSEQUENCES

Predestination in Christ was the heart of Arminius’ contribution to Reformed thought, and from it he drew certain consequences or supporting corollaries. Free will, for instance, is bound in the sinner and needs liberation; yet it actually concurs in this liberation. Grace, moreover, is not an irresistible force. There is the possibility of falling from grace, although Arminius pointed out that properly speaking it is impossible for a believer to fall from grace, but that it may be possible for a believer to cease believing. Where Arminius’ contemporaries had made a rigid distinction between common and peculiar grace (as against Calvin’s more cautious distinction between a universal and a special call), Arminius affirmed a continuity of grace in which qualitative distinction between prevenient grace and following grace is erased. Denying, however, a universal election, he pointed out that saving grace is given only to those who are saved, that those who are saved are not so because they will to be saved, but that they are saved because they are in Christ by faith. Commenting on Romans 9:16, Arminius said that “it is not he that wills, or he that runs, who obtains righteousness, but he to whom God has determined to show mercy, that is, the believer.” Finally, Arminius showed a concern for the problems of assurance and holiness. He held to a necessary assurance of present salvation on the basis of faith, but to no present assurance of final salvation. Herein he maintained that “believers” and “the elect” are not interchangeable terms inasmuch as election includes within it the notion of perseverance in faith. These positions have continued to characterize much of subsequent Arminianism, especially in its Wesleyan development.

BEFORE AND AFTER ARMINIUS

Arminius differed with some of his contemporaries, but he was not exactly an innovator. He was thrust into the role of spokesman for a stream of Reformed thought found broadly in Sebastian Castellio, Jerome Bolsec, Heinrich Bullinger, the Second Helvetic Confession, the early Dutch confessions, and the early Dutch pastors under the influence of the Reformed church of Emden. The humanist element in this stream must be acknowledged, but Arminius was perhaps even more influenced by Calvin himself. His articulation of the liberal Reformed tradition was extremely conservative; he attempted to express what was valid in the humanist dissent in the context of a biblical theology of grace.

After his death his influence was felt in a diversity of movements. The Remonstrants retained less and less of his dogmatics, stood more in the liberal tradition, and preferred to remember Arminius for his concern for religious toleration. The Arminian label in England became attached to an already existing opposition to Puritanism and then to any dissent from any Calvinism. In New England looseness of terminology permitted the identification of Arminianism with Unitarianism. The most faithful appropriation and development of the primitive Arminian dogmatics is found in the Wesleys and the early Methodist writers.

Although much has taken place in theology in the intervening centuries, there are many Christians today whose religious thinking has been molded by the Arminian tradition. They would do well to examine the careful work done by the founder of that tradition, and they will find there firm support for resisting an easy-going, culture-Protestantism which confuses man’s work with God’s. And those who call themselves Calvinists will discover that it is too simple to dismiss Arminius as a Pelagian who did not see clearly the issue of sola gratia. They may find themselves closer to him than they had supposed.

What the Communist party is in the vanguard of the world revolution, the evangelical movement must be in the world revival.

What is an evangelical? An evangelical is a Christian “holding or conformed to what the majority of Protestants regard as the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, such as the Trinity, the fallen condition of man, Christ’s atonement for sin, salvation by faith, not works, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost.” A subsidiary definition is “in a special sense, spiritually minded and zealous for practical Christian living, distinguished from merely orthodox.” Another secondary definition is “seeking the conversion of sinners, as evangelical labors or preaching.”

The doctrinal position of an evangelical is that of orthodox or creedal Christianity. This doctrinal basis is stated in the incorporation papers of the Church, namely the New Testament, and in the great creeds and confessions of Christendom. It is the Chalcedonian Creed and the later reformed confessions such as those of Heidelberg, Augsburg, and Westminster. Only those who embrace these objective truths have the right to the name evangelical.

Evangelical Christianity should be differentiated from other movements. First, it must be differentiated from Roman Catholicism, or sacerdotal Christianity, which emphasizes a salvation mediated by sacraments and erected on tradition rather than on the Word of God. Second, it must be distinguished from liberal or modernist Christianity. Many modernists appropriate the name evangelical merely because they are non-Roman Catholic, but do not embrace the basic truths of historic orthodoxy. It is a misnomer to call a modernist an evangelical. Third, an evangelical must be distinguished from a fundamentalist in areas of intellectual and ecclesiastical attitude. This distinction was made by Dr. J. Gresham Machen who was often called a fundamentalist. Said he, “The term fundamentalism is distasteful to the present writer and to many persons who hold views similar to his. It seems to suggest that we are adherents of some strange new sect, whereas in point of fact we are conscious simply of maintaining historic Christian faith and moving in the great central current of Christian life” (cf. Valiant for Truth, by Ned B. Stonehouse, pp. 40, 337, 343, 405, 428).

The evangelical depends upon the Bible as the authoritative Word of God and the norm of judgment in faith and practice. This brings him into tension with Romanism which, while giving lip service to the Bible, exalts tradition and papal infallibility above the Bible; with modernism which exalts the autonomy of the human mind; and with neo-orthodoxy which identifies the Word of God with something above and beyond the Bible but witnessed to in the Bible.

ECLIPSE OF EVANGELICALISM

Has evangelicalism fallen into eclipse? The history of the last five decades has been largely under the aegis of a triumphant modernism. Basically, modernism is evolutionary naturalism applied to the Bible and to Christianity. By it the supernatural in the origins and nature of Christianity was sacrificed by the accommodation of Christian theology to the data of the scientific method and the dicta of the scientific mind. Hence, by presupposition, there could be no Virgin Birth, no miracles, and no Resurrection as the Bible taught. Modernism was based on higher criticism’s view of the Bible. The books are redated in accordance with evolutionary naturalism; ethical monotheism is tolerated only later than polytheism, and the writing of the prophetic sections is placed after the events. Modernism developed a new theology concerning Christ, man, sin, salvation, the Church, and the Church’s mission. To say the least, the content of modernism was not the content of biblical theology. The departure from biblical concepts was radical.

Against this came the fundamentalist reaction. The name fundamentalist was derived from a series of treatises written by leading orthodox scholars on various biblical doctrines and published in 1917 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles with the aid of Lyman Stuart Foundation. The contributors to The Fundamentals were men like Melvin Grove Kyle, James Orr, George Robinson, W. H. Griffith Thomas, F. Bettex, George Frederick Wright and others, all recognized biblical scholars of their day. The resistance to modernist attack upon biblical Christianity precipitated the modernist-fundamentalist controversy which raged for several decades following publication of The Fundamentals. This reached its height in the successful effort of the Presbyterians, led by Clarence Edward Macartney, to oust Harry Emerson Fosdick from the pulpit of a Presbyterian church in New York City. In the controversy there arose the emphasis upon the essentials or fundamentals of the Christian faith, such as, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the Virgin Birth, the miracles of Christ, the vicarious atonement of Christ, and the bodily resurrection of Christ. On the wave of this controversy Dr. Macartney was elected Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 1924. Shortly thereafter a group of Presbyterian ministers signed the so-called Auburn Affirmation which denied that these doctrines were essential to the Christian faith. Not all signers of this document disbelieved the doctrines, but they held they were not essential to the Christian faith. What happend in the Presbyterian church repeated itself in almost every other denomination, and the Protestant Church was divided between modernists and fundamentalists.

SOME COSTLY WEAKNESSES

Time revealed certain weaknesses in the fundamentalist cause. First was the diversion of strength from the great offensive work of missions, evangelism, and Christian education to the defense of the faith. The fundamentalists were maneuvered into the position of holding the line against the constant and unremitting attacks of the modernists or liberals. Gradually the liberals took over the control of the denominations and began a series of acts of discrimination, ostracism, and persecution of the evangelicals. Many evangelicals suffered at the hands of ecclesiastical modernism. This reduced fundamentalism to a holding tactic, impotent in denominational machinery and indifferent to societal problems rising in the secular world. The Christian Reformed Church was a notable exception to this trend.

The cause of the fundamentalist defeat in the ecclesiastical scene lay partially in fundamentalism’s erroneous doctrine of the Church which identified the Church with believers who were orthodox in doctrine and separatist in ethics. Purity of the Church was emphasized above the peace of the Church. Second Corinthians 6:14–17 was used to justify the continuous process of fragmentation, contrary to the meaning of the passage itself. Emphasis was upon contention for the faith rather than the commission of missions, evangelism, education, and worship. The number of competent scholars declined in evangelical ranks as the decades passed.

Then came the rise of neo-orthodoxy under the influence of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner in which theology professed a return to biblical concepts without the acceptance of biblical authority. Neo-orthodoxy accepted the Word of God as revelation but differentiated this from the written Word. It spoke about the creation of man but repudiated the historical Adam. It believed in immortality but not in the physical resurrection of Jesus. Due to the aridity of modernism and a nostalgia of people for biblical ideas concerning God, man, sin, and redemption, the influence of neo-orthodoxy grew rapidly. Nevertheless, its attitude toward evangelical Christianity is essentially hostile because of its refusal to accept the biblical authority as the ground of its theology. The watershed of modern theology remains one’s attitude toward the Bible as the ultimate and final authority for faith and action.

THE EVANGELICAL REVIVAL

Is evangelicalism reviving? Is it emerging to challenge the theological world today? A new respect for the evangelical position is evidenced by the emergence of scholars whose works must be recognized. Westminster Press recently published a trilogy on The Case for Liberalism, The Case for Neo-Orthodoxy, and The Case for Orthodoxy. Here Protestant orthodoxy was again recognized as a live option. Great publishing houses today are not only willing to publish books by evangelical scholars, but several are actively seeking such books.

This may be due to a change in the intellectual climate of orthodoxy. The younger orthodox scholars are repudiating the separatist position, have repented of the attitude of solipsism, have expressed a willingness to re-examine the problems facing the theological world, have sought a return to the theological dialogue and have recognized the honesty and Christianity of some who hold views different from their own in some particulars.

Simultaneously, all branches of theological thought have felt the impact of mass evangelism under Billy Graham. In him we have seen the phenomenon of an evangelical who crossed all theological lines in his work while maintaining a strictly orthodox position. His work has not been disregarded by those of other theological convictions and has compelled them to rethink the basis of their approach.

EVANGELICALS AND FUNDAMENTALS

Evangelical theology is synonymous with fundamentalism or orthodoxy. In doctrine the evangelicals and the fundamentalists are one. The evangelical must acknowledge his debt to the older fudamentalist leaders. It is a mistake for an evangelical to divorce himself from historic fundamentalism as some have sought to do. These older leaders of the orthodox cause paid a great price in persecution, discrimination, obloquy, and scorn which they suffered at the hands of those who under the name of modernism repudiated biblical Christianity. For decades these fundamentalists were steadfast to Christ and to biblical truth regardless of the cost. They maintained the knowledge of orthodox Christianity through Bible schools, radio programs, Christian conferences, and Bible conferences. In the true New Testament sense, they were witnesses, or martyrs. Most of these leaders were well known to me personally. I speak of men such as James M. Gray, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Arnold C. Gaebelein, I. C. Haldeman, Harry Ironsides, J. Gresham Machen, J. Alvin Orr, Clarence Edward Macartney, Walter Meier, Robert Dick Wilson, W. B. Riley, Charles E. Fuller, Robert Schuler, Oswald T. Allis, Harry Rimmer, to mention only a few. These were great defenders of the faith.

The evangelical defense of the faith theologically is identical with that of the older fundamentalists. The evangelical believes in creedal Christianity, in the apologetic expression of Christianity, in the revelational content and framework of Christianity. Therefore, he stands by the side of these fundamentalist leaders. He differentiates his position from theirs in ecclesiology. These men were driven by controversy and discrimination to various shades of separatism. Some were compelled to leave their denominations, some operated as autonomous units within their denominations. Through controversy, in suffering, they sired a breed of fundamentalists who, in following them, confused courtesy in contending for the faith with compromise of the faith; academic respectability with theological apostasy; and common grace with special grace. They developed the theory that any contact, conversation, or communication with modernism was compromise and should be condemned.

Let it be repeated that there is a solidarity of doctrine between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. They are one in creed. They accept the inspiration and dependability of the Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the creation and fall of man, the vicarious atonement by Christ on Calvary, justification by faith and not by works, regeneration and sanctification by the Spirit, the spiritual unity of the Church, the evangelical, educational, and societal mission of the Church, and the kingdom of Christ experiential, ethical, and eschatalogical. The evangelical and the fundamentalist could sign the same creed.

Moreover, they have a common source of life, for they belong to one family. Christian life comes from the Christian faith and cannot be divorced from it. The repudiation of Christian truth cannot eventuate in a Christian life. In this the evangelical stands with the fundamentalist. But the evangelical goes a bit further and condemns doctrinal orthodoxy which does not result in a life of love and service. The test which Jesus gave to his disciples was that of brotherly love but it was given in the framework of an acceptance of his Deity, his miracles, his messiahship, and his imminent death as Saviour. If, therefore, the fundamentalist criticizes the evangelical or vice versa, that criticism should be within the family relationship and demonstrate the spirit and attitude of love which is a test of true discipleship.

EVANGELICAL OBJECTIVES

The evangelical has general objectives he wishes to see achieved. One of them is a revival of Christianity in the midst of a secular world. The world is helpless in the presence of its problems. Its attempt at solutions totally disregards the orthodox message and answer. The evangelical wishes to retrieve Christianity from a mere eddy of the main stream into the full current of modern life. He desires to win a new respectability for orthodoxy in the academic circles by producing scholars who can defend the faith on intellectual ground. He hopes to recapture denominational leadership from within the denominations rather than abandoning those denominations to modernism. He intends to restate his position carefully and cogently so that it must be considered in the theological dialogue. He intends that Christianity will be the mainspring in many of the reforms of the societal order. It is wrong to abdicate responsibility for society under the impetus of a theology which overemphasizes the eschatalogical.

The specific goals of evangelicalism are definite. It seeks evangelical cooperation. This was expressed in the formation of the National Association of Evangelicals in 1942. The NAE insisted on a positive position toward the then Federal Council of Churches and later National Council in distinction from the position later adopted by the American Council of Christian Churches. The NAE gathered evangelicals in fellowship for articulation of the evangelical cause in a score of different fields without attack upon other cooperative movements of diverse theology. It summoned together a fellowship in action of many of those denominations not in the Federal Council, and for the first time it gave them a sense of unity and strength. Many individual congregations whose denominations were in the Federal Council of Churches were received into the NAE in order to articulate their convictions and give them an opportunity of cooperative action on an evangelical and orthodox base. The influence of this movement was great. While the parent organization of the National Association of Evangelicals has not reached a numerical strength which some had expected for it, it nevertheless has stimulated many subsidiary movements which originated as commissions within the National Association or were bound together with the National Association. Many of these are powerful organizations and movements in their own right, such as the National Sunday School Association, the National Radio Broadcasters, the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, Youth for Christ, World Evangelical Fellowship and other related movements such as Child Evangelism Fellowship, the Christian Business Men’s Committee, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, and so on. It was, in fact, the parallel organizations to the NAE in England, India, and other areas that sparked the great Billy Graham campaigns in other parts of the world. Thus, the influence of the NAE has been far greater than its numerical strength.

Another objective was the training and feeding of evangelical ministers into the churches. Since the seminaries determine the course of the Church, it was felt necessary to fortify existing evangelical seminaries with additional professors and funds. As a result, several new evangelical seminaries were established. Here was adopted a positive attitude in inquiry, teaching, and proclamation of biblical Christianity. The students who passed through this training came forth with a certainty and knowledge expressed by “Thus saith the Lord” and with a practical program joined with a passion. In addition, there was inculcated an understanding of the connection of Christian principles with political and economic freedom.

It was the intention of evangelical strategy to reach evangelical churches who were pastored by ministers uncertain in their theological conviction. There are many ministers who have been trained in liberal theological seminaries who want to believe biblical Christianity but cannot because they lack theological education which supports the position. To reach these ministers with the rationale of biblical Christianity is the objective of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. The editorial contributors to this magazine have been selected with their theological and intellectual training in view. The success of CHRISTIANITY TODAY in articulating this viewpoint and in influencing the thought of ministers has been notable.

EVANGELICAL STRATEGY

An up-to-date strategy for the evangelical cause must be based upon the principle of infiltration. We have learned from modern militarism that the frontal attack has come to an end with certain notable exceptions. The French Maginot line was circumvented and thus antedated. The Communists in their battles in Korea, Indochina, and Tibet used the principle of infiltration. Once the line was infiltrated, defenses crumbled and a new line had to be established. We evangelicals need to realize that the liberals, or modernists, have been using this strategy for years. They have infiltrated our evangelical denominations, institutions, and movements and then have taken over the control of them. It is time for firm evangelicals to seize their opportunity to minister in and influence modernist groups. Why is it incredible that the evangelicals should be able to infiltrate the denominations and strengthen the things that remain, and possibly resume control of such denominations? Certainly they have a responsibility to do so unless they are expelled from those denominations. We do not repudiate the reformation principle, but we believe that a man has a responsibility within his denomination unless that denomination has officially and overtly repudiated biblical Christianity.

Evangelicals need a plan of action. The pressing demand is for an over-all strategy instead of piecemeal action by fragmentized groups. The younger evangelicals are determined to join hands with evangelicals everywhere in testimony and in action. They want to defend and maintain the institutions, endowments, and organizations which remain within the evangelical theological position.

It demands that each one of us make a personal commitment. We should examine our activities to make sure that we are engaged in intelligent service. Let us ask ourselves what is this organization accomplishing? Does this organization fit in with God’s plan? Is this movement advancing God’s cause? We must not dissipate our energy and money by serving on and supporting every work which is called to our attention. We must take an inventory of our investment of money. We should ask, is this institution or movement contributing to the ends which I seek? Should I continue my support of this movement? It is folly for businessmen and foundations to support institutions, movement, and individuals which subvert that for which the businessmen and foundations stand. This is paramountly true in Christian organizations. It is our responsibility to implement the strategy of evangelicalism by personal commitment.

An evangelical makes no apology in asking the help of convinced and committed Christians. This commitment is essential in developing evangelical leadership. Every evangelical should find his place in the implementation of the modern evangelical resurgence in Christianity.

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.

The relationship that is to prevail between the organized Church and the informal groups which arise from time to time, seeking to bring about deeper spiritual experience, is an important subject. The voice of the organized Church has often warned that such groups do not constitute themselves a church, that they check their plans and work with leaders in the church, that they remind their people how important it is to join a church, and in general treat the church as the final authority. Undoubtedly there is wisdom in all this. But I think it is high time that someone remind the Church how important it is that she treat these groups with understanding and welcome, and remember how the organized Church stands in continuous need of awakening, and realize that the small group may be both a judgment and an answer from God.

Exception must be made, of course, in the case of groups that become deliberately inimical to the historic Church, or patently disloyal to her basic ethos. But that is something quite different from being dissatisfied with the ways and customs of some one local parish or minister that may be falling down in giving people what they need spiritually. It is right for the Church to “try the spirits whether they be of God.” Now and then a group arises that is not basically in line with historic Christianity; or it may begin so, but veer in unhealthy directions. Its leaders can become too much impressed with their own inspiration and importance, and the movement tends to become “the Church.” The awakening group may evince more power at some given time than the historic, accepted Church; but it has no more right to “unchurch” the organized Church than the organized Church has a right to “unchurch” the informal group. Untrue and unhealthy signs may appear in the utterances and from the leaders of movements that claim unique powers and do not see themselves in the long stream of Christian history.

But many of these groups are not heretical in any sense. They are doing Christ’s work, honoring his Name, and winning people to him. They are trying to be loyal to his Church, not only because hostility to the churches can go a long way towards putting them out of business but because they are aware that the conserving job of the churches cannot be overemphasized. My experience is that most of these movements lean over backwards to keep the good will of an organized church (which often has not enough spirituality to discern the working of the Holy spirit in the groups) because they happen to be personally distasteful to the church leader or the ethos of his group. It is dangerous ground to forbid men “because they follow not with us.” Every year I live, I am more impressed with the way God greatly uses some people that I question whether he ought to use at all! My own tastes, even the predilections of my own denomination, may not be sufficient grounds to rule out someone who is being blessed and used by God.

THE SCOPE OF THE KINGDOM

Perhaps I can say something on the whole question. I have dedicated my own services to that of being a parish minister and an evangelist. I have never felt any impulse to go out with a suitcase and travel around making speeches. I have wanted the Church, the old, organized Church, to be part of any awakening in which I was involved. I have wanted the continuous impact of the Church’s history and stored wisdom to be on my own work. I know that in the end the Church should be the conserving force for anything that evangelism turns up; and that, while the Church will seldom start an awakening herself (the settled clergy and people are not good at this), she can easily pour cold water on what the awakening does accomplish. I know the value of a local “laboratory,” where spiritual research is being done, and that what is said elsewhere is validated principally by what is happening at home. I know the need of spiritually new-born people for what the Church can give them, as, for example, the responsibility of Christian leaders to see people through, not only the early stage of new birth but the later stages of growth and spiritual habits which sustain the new birth, and the applications in life which give it contemporary validation.

However, I know that the local church and denominational exposure are not enough. If some kind of urging had not sent me, as a school boy and college student, to Northfield and there to come under the spell of the giants of those days (Speer and Mott especially), I suppose I should have been as churchy an Episcopal parson as could be imagined. I needed to learn something of the size of the Kingdom, its scope, and to see some of its great leaders in other communions. I needed to discover the constant influence in the direction of awakening which such conferences, with their steady evangelistic impact, represented vis-à-vis the old, settled Church. In constantly emphasizing the priestly and pastoral aspects, my own church is always in danger of minimizing the evangelistic and prophetic ones. Yet Anglicanism means both, or it means nothing: it has always claimed to be both, and we are ministers “of the Word and of the Sacraments.” More and more clergy of all communions rcognize this double nature of our calling and task. But many of them drift too easily into those aspects of the ministry which fail to emphasize evangelism. It is because the genuine awakening power of the churches is so rare that these cell groups, prayer groups, life-changing groups, are becoming widespread.

Sometimes these groups are local and unknown, and meet in houses and offices as well as churches. Although they often are out of touch with any other groups, they feel the need for fellowship between groups, as individuals have felt the need of fellowship between themselves. Sometimes these groups are of a different kind, large and necessarily organized, like the Yokefellow Movement, International Christian Leadership, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Faith At Work, Young Life, and many more that might be mentioned. Wherever men or women are given the charismatic gift of evangelism and can speak to large numbers of people with decisive spiritual results—like Graham, Peale, Sheen, and others whose names are yet more controversial to ultra-conservative, settled churchmen—the same need is evidenced and begins to be met. (When I say “ultra-conservative,” I refer, of course, not to doctrinal conservatism, but to plain stuffiness of spirit.)

THE ROOTS OF CRITICISM

Let me say that the clergy, especially those in settled parishes, are inclined to think their own strictures and objections to the informal group as pure concern for upholding the Church’s true message and the Faith. But in many cases I am sure that the origin of their criticism is not so lofty. Frequently their censure arises from (1) jealousy that the movement is able to win and begin to change people who have not been changed by the routines of parish life, and (2) stung and troubled consciences over these things that happen elsewhere but do not happen with nearly enough regularity in the old organized Church. Let’s face it: we do not do very much in a spiritual way with the rank and file of our people, and the fruits of the average “young people’s groups” are certainly nothing to brag about. When one of our official “children” goes out and finds a shining and enlivening faith and experience, the home clergyman just doesn’t like the judgment implied upon his own ministry. He retreats stuffily behind his ecclesiastical defenses, and talks about his people being “taken away” from the church! It is a shabby and contemptible rationalization. They have not been “taken away” from the Church if they have been brought nearer to Christ. And what is more, when a person with such an experience comes back to the church, the minister may subtly or openly undercut what has happened to the person, which is another instance of his own jealousy and stung pride. I have seen it too many times not to recognize it and call it by its right name. I remember going to an opening night of a play in New York and sitting behind a large company of actors. Their clapping and comments proved they were so generous and appreciative of the play, that it made me ask myself why the reverend brethren were not more often generous about what some other brother (or sister) has been enabled to do.

You know the little doggerel,

I hate the guys

That criticize

And minimize

The other guys

Whose enterprise

Has made them rise

Above the guys

That criticize

And minimize …?

THE NEED OF SPIRITUAL POWER

The old, organized Church needs the challenge of the small group. Theories about the Holy Spirit do not constitute an experience of him. While he works through official channels, he is certainly not confined to them; and there are times when he must work through something other than the established channels if he is either (1) to awaken the people in the churches, or (2) to reach those outside who are often disappointed and let down by the want of spiritual power in the churches. What he finds usable may be something or someone who is anathema to the old, plodding, organized Church. I often feel that any spiritual lash sharp enough to whip the sluggish beast of ecclesiastical organization into any semblance of spiritual life will also be so sharp that the organized Church will seek to retreat beyond its reach. What true awakening has not started in a despised individual or group on whom the Church turned thumbs down? How many such have been squelched before they ever got anywhere because the Church lacked imagination and sympathy? The Church often prays for awakening, but when God actually sends it in a form which the organized Church finds uncongenial, it is repudiated. The Holy Spirit is wider than we, more democratic, more “functional,” He seems to look rather for faith and dedication and expectancy than for right formulas and proper ecclesiastical ancestry.

If Irenaeus was right, that the Church is where the Holy Spirit is, we may need to revise some of our notions about the spiritual priority of the organized Church. What we think is the Church, and what God thinks is the Church, may be very different. I should greatly suspect that any person or group whom He can get through and use to reach his world is probably considered by God to be a genuine part of his Church. Punctiliousness about historical continuity and careful ecclesiastical arrangements sometimes have to give way to immediate usability. I know this can lead to anomaly at times: but I know also what failure in reckoning with this truth has done again and again in the life of the Church. When the Church does nothing but sit on her prerogatives and criticize the emerging group or movement that demonstrates the Holy Spirit, and when subsequently she refuses to accept the challenge and the judgment of God upon her own powerlessness which the fresh group represents, then the group tends to be driven outside the Church, all contact is lost with the authentic elements in the organized Church which the group needs for growth and sustenance, and the Church loses the value of new life which might have been infused into her. It is a loss both ways, and a loss to the world. The fresh movements need the breadth, balance, wisdom, and Sacraments of the ancient organized Church. That same Church needs the new fire of fresh awakening. Both constitute the Church, really. The organized Church cannot stand back and wait to be sought for and courted by the new movements, as if they were upstarts and the organized Church alone were the authentic thing: this is pride, and cuts the power of the Spirit. Neither can the fresh movement go on alone, critical and indifferent to the Church, as if itself were now the authentic thing, and the old Church outworn: this, too, is pride, and cuts the power of the Spirit. They have something for each other. I believe they are two sides of the same shield—the “ecclesia” and the “koinonia.” The mark of the true Church is always the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

It is always the high hope of those who help to initiate a new movement of the Spirit that this one may never drop to the level of routine and organization. Yet we know of no movement in history that has not to some extent suffered this fate. There seems to come a “hardening of the arteries” with age, and it appears to occur within about two decades of the real beginnings of the movement. When the Church proposes herself as the agent to prevent this deterioration, one is inclined to ask whether the accepted and familiar arteriosclerosis of the organized Church is any real improvement upon that which crops up in the new movement.

THE PERIL OF STERILITY

Dr. Henry P. Van Dusen of Union calls it “the logic of spiritual vitality,” and says we have seen it “re-enacted again and again in the pilgrimage of the Christian Church, whereby a period of intense and creative religious renewal is unfailingly succeeded by an aftermath of diminishing spiritual vigor but increasing theological and organizational rigidity, then by a time of comparative sterility—until revival bursts forth afresh, and the curve of descending life and power is re-enacted” (Spirit, Son and Father, Scribner’s, p. 27). In this remarkable book he gives a summary of “the fate of the Holy Spirit at the hands of the theologians and Church officials across the centuries,” and calls it “on the whole, a pathetic and tragic story” (Op. cit. p. 125). He goes on to explain something of why this happens: “… the Holy Spirit has always been troublesome, disturbing because it has seemed to be unruly, radical, unpredictable. It is always embarrassing to ecclesiasticism and baffling to ethically-grounded, responsible durable Christian devotion. And so it has been carefully taken in hand by Church authorities, whether Catholic or Protestant, and securely tethered in impotence … professional ecclesiasts constitutionally distrust the novel, the unconventional and, even more, the reproachful and the challenging.”

THE SPIRIT OF SUPPRESSION

I find it hard not to believe that much of the ecclesiastical fear and suppression of emerging groups is due not to greater wisdom or deeper realization of the meaning of the Gospel and even of the Church but more to spiritual snobbishness, shallowness, and pique. It isn’t as if we had a counter full of awakenings from which we might take our pick. Real awakening is rare. It never comes unmixed with the temperamental and theological limitations of its first stimuli and its leaders. The “ideal” awakening, temperamentally congenial and theologically satisfactory, only exists in somebody’s wishful imagination. But wherever we see genuine spiritual awakening, whether or not it falls in with our own predilections, we do well to welcome it warmly. Only a Church which takes that attitude towards the struggling group deserves respect and loyalty from the group, or is likely to receive it. Much of the loss which often follows the first fire of awakening is due to the fact that a church unfamiliar with conversion in her own daily life will tend to be all fingers-and-thumbs when it comes to ministering to converted people. When a person, especially a young one, has been exposed for years to the rather lifeless routines of a church, but without anything approaching a personal spiritual experience, meets up with individuals or groups that lead him into an experience that is dynamic and meaningful, though such may occur within a framework ecclesiastically or theologically uncongenial to his clergyman, he will, if he has any spiritual gumption, put his first loyalty where the challenge is greater and the experience deeper. If his fresh experience is greeted by his home church and minister in the attitude that he must have got caught in the toils of a bunch of fanatics from which he needs to be rescued as a brand from the burning, then I think the church is stupid enough to deserve to lose his loyalty. If on the other hand, the person’s new experience is treated with seriousness and respect, and the home pastor has grace enough to ask and seek humbly for something that may have been missing from his own ministry, but which the young person found in the other group, the church runs little risk of losing him at all. In such a situation, the two work in harmony, which I believe is God’s will.

The fresh group which brings about awakening is like an obstetrician who is needed at birth. The Church which nourishes the new life of the convert is like a pediatrician who takes care of the child after it is born. One has the feeling that the Church is very busy trying to act as pediatrician to large numbers of people who have never been born again at all. But both functions are essential, though they are different. The happy arrangement is for each to fulfill his function well. Surely the whole church needs to be engaged, both in bringing about the new birth and in nurturing that new life with the “means of grace” of which she is the custodian.

Dr. Hendrik Kraemer, has said (A Theology for the Laity, p. 86), “… the whole Church is constantly called to renewal. As we have got into the habit of not (as the Bible insists) considering Renewal the perennial and constant rule for the Church, but regard it as a miraculous episode which befalls us from time to time, self-assertion and self-affirmation are still very prominent in the confrontations of the Churches with each other.…” The small group, not being primarily doctrinal nor liturgical, may be, and I think very often is, the ecumenical movement at its grass roots levels, bringing people into fellowship in Christ across the barriers of denominations. And they are at least an honest effort to keep the Church mindful that renewal should be “the perennial and constant rule for the Church.”

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.

First in a Series

At the invitation ofCHRISTIANITY TODAY, the distinguished director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, speaks his mind on the Communist threat to the Christian heritage. Based on his long experience in dealing with subversive forces, Mr. Hoover here relates forCHRISTIANITY TODAY’s wide readership how the Communist Party operates against the American religious heritage. He expresses some firm convictions on how churchmen and churchgoers may effectively confront the Red menace in prayer, thought, and action. Scheduled in three successive issues, Mr. Hoover’s future themes are “Communist Propaganda and the Christian Pulpit” and “Communist Domination or Christian Rededication.” Readers of Mr. Hoover’s best-selling book Masters of Deceit have found it to be a definitive analysis of the Communist menace facing the world today.

The twentieth century has witnessed the intrusion into its body fabric of a highly malignant cancer—a cancer which threatens to destroy Judaic-Christian civilization. One-fourth of the world’s land surface has been seared and blackened by this cancer, while one out of every three human beings is caught in its tentacles. At this very hour, some are wondering whether we as a free nation can survive the frontal and underground assaults of this tumorous growth of communism.

Just 100 years ago communism was a mere scratch on the face of international affairs. In a dingy London apartment, a garrulous, haughty, and intolerant atheist, Karl Marx, callous to the physical sufferings and poverty of his family, was busy mixing the ideological acids of this evil philosophy. Originally of interest only to skid row debaters and wandering minstrels of revolution, Marx’s pernicious doctrines were given organizational power by a beady-eyed Russian, V. I. Lenin, who, with his Bolshevik henchmen, seized state power for communism in 1917. From that wintry day in St. Petersburg, communism began to flow in ever greater torrents. After Lenin came the crafty and cunning Joseph Stalin and now the ebullient master prevaricator, Nikita Khrushchev. Communism is today literally a violent hurricane, rocking not only the chanceries of the world but seeking to capture the bodies, minds, and souls of men and women everywhere.

UNIVERSAL DOMINATION THE GOAL

The full implications of the Communist challenge are shocking. The ultimate Communist goal—as defined by Marx, Lenin, and other Communist leaders—is the ruthless overthrow of our Judaic-Christian heritage and the establishment of a world-wide Communist society. By its very nature, communism is expansionist and universalist. In fact, the Communists feel that they can find their true fulfillment only by conquering non-Communist areas and bringing the whole planet under their dominion.

This overriding Communist goal of universal domination becomes the key to Party activities. Feeling that history has destined communism for ultimate victory, the Communists believe that permanent peace with non-Communists is impossible, that life must be an inevitable struggle between the two. “It is inconceivable,” Lenin proclaimed, “that the Soviet Republic should continue to exist for a long period side by side with imperialist states. Ultimately, one or the other must conquer.”

REJECTION OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Hence, there arises the ugly manifestation of Communist “ethics”—namely, the Communist belief that morality must be subordinated to the class struggle, the inevitable conflict between communism and its opponents. What is moral? Anything which serves to destroy the enemy and promote communism. Lenin was most explicit: “Morality is that which serves to destroy the old exploiting society and to unite all the toilers around the proletariat, which is creating a new Communist society.”

Communist morality, of course, is rooted in total rejection of a belief in God and in the values of the Christian moral code. Supernatural concepts and divine revelation play no role in communism. “We repudiate all morality that is taken outside of human, class concepts,” Lenin proclaimed. “We, of course, say that we do not believe in God, and that we know perfectly well that the clergy, the landlords, and the bourgeoisie spoke in the name of God in order to pursue their own exploiters’ interests.”

This rejection of God gives communism a demonic aspect—transforming it into a fanatical, Satanic, brutal phenomenon. Morality is not determined by ethical standards grounded in an Absolute, but in the expedient interpertations of the Party—meaning, in actual practice, the whims and desires of the ruling clique or Party leader. This leads to the terrifying doctrine that “the end justifies the means.” Proof of the cynical ruthlessness of such morality is the following description by long-time American revolutionaries:

With him the end justifies the means. Whether his tactics be “legal” and “moral,” or not, does not concern him, so long as they are effective. He knows that the laws as well as the current code of morals, are made by his mortal enemies.… Consequently, he ignores them in so far as he is able and it suits his purposes. He proposes to develop, regardless of capitalist conceptions of “legality,” “fairness,” “right,” etc., a greater power than his capitalist enemies.…

A SOCIETY WITHOUT GOD

Hence, under communism we see a decisive break from and thrust against the Judaic-Christian heritage. Communism is not just another political party, social organization, or economic philosophy which can be understood within the framework of our traditional Western heritage. So to regard communism is radically to misunderstand its terrific driving power, insidious persuasion, and terrifying intent. The Communists are not interested in remodeling or reforming our society, but in organizing a completely different society—a society which by denying God hopes to create a new type of man: Communist Man. St. Paul, the great Apostle, could say, “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” The Communists would pervert this profound truth to say: “If any man be in the Communist Party, he is a new creature.”

CONFRONTING THE RED CHALLENGE

The question arises: how can a philosophy so anti-God, anti-religious, anti-human be so provocative and appealing to some people in our country? Perhaps in this strategic question we can find some of the challenges of—and answers to—this demonic way of life.

Let’s take a look at some of the Communist challenges today and see what we as Christians can do about them.

1. The Communists appeal to man’s idealism, and ask the very best of his life. Communist propaganda proclaims Marxism-Leninism “the greatest cause in the history of mankind,” worthy of man’s highest devotion. The Communist appeal is always to the noblest, the best, the most admirable in man. “The great vision and courage of us Communists has never been matched by that of any past heroes in the annals of mankind. In this respect we have every reason to be proud.…”

Answer: Have we in America and in the Church given sufficient emphasis to Christian ideals, and called for heroic effort in the attainment of great goals? In particular, have we imbued our young people with the moral idealism which helps to mold their lives for Christ? Perhaps we have contented ourselves with catering to man’s mediocrity, rather than attempting to bring out the noblest and deepest strands of character. Like Isaiah of Jerusalem, we must ever keep the awe, the majesty, and the holiness of God before us—and call men to ever greater efforts in His service. Are we pressing on toward the high calling in Christ, toward the goals of a Christian society? The Christian Church—as history has proved—has the power to capture men and lead them to divine levels. By exalting God and His purposes in the lives of men, the Church can unmask the utter falsity of communism’s siren calls.

2. The Communists do not doubt the validity of their cause; they press ever onward for their secularized Utopia, confident of ultimate victory. ‘We Communists must possess the greatest courage and revolutionary determination of mankind.… While we clearly see the difficulties confronting the cause of communism, we are not in the least daunted by them.…”

Answer: Are there too many pessimists, waverers, and people of little faith in the ranks of the Church today? Is there the enthusiasm among our people to match this Communist aggressiveness and certainty? The Church of Christ has a great message to sing, a great responsibility to fulfill. Never must she feel pessimistic, daunted, or uncertain.

3. The Communists expect from their members a deep sense of personal sacrifice and dedication. “To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation and even with a feeling of happiness, for the cause of the Party … is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.” This is a sacrifice of the members’ time, talents, and personal resources, financial and otherwise. Casual effort is not a Communist trait.

Answer: Do we in the church and society really expect a deep sense of personal sacrifice and dedication? Do too many individuals come to church exerting only a “casual effort” and not giving sacrificially of their time, talents, and personal resources? The Communists have discovered that a demand for the very best actually brings forth the very best from the individual. If the Communists can create such responses on the basis of a cold, cynical materialism, just think of the accomplishments which can be wrought by the power of the Holy Spirit!

4. The Party stresses the need for fidelity and loyalty to the mission of communism and the necessity of members to shun all temptations which would distract them from their assigned tasks. “But if for the sake of … the Party … he is required to endure insults, shoulder heavy burdens, and do work which he is reluctant to do, he will take up the most difficult and important work without the slightest hesitation and will not pass the buck.”

Answer: In our society today is there too much tendency to “pass the buck,” to let George do it. Do we not often start out enthusiastically in civic or church work, and then let temptations sidetrack us from our task? Are we embarrassed when we are criticized for doing Christ’s work? Are we ready to shoulder heavy burdens? Are too many following the easy road of conformity with secularism and not holding sufficiently high the banner of Christ?

5. The Communists proclaim that working for the Party brings internal peace, joy, and happiness to the member. He finds here creative achievement and self-fulfillment. “He will also be capable of being the most sincere, most candid, and happiest of men.”

Answer: The Christian Gospel tells of the deep joy, peace, and blessings which come from belief in Christ as Saviour and Lord. Is the Church doing enough to overcome the loneliness of contemporary man, his feelings of insecurity and frustration in a world growing more secular every day? Fear, personal unhappiness, and uncertainty stalk the streets today. Crime, juvenile delinquency, and disrespect for law and order are rife. Are we meeting these challenges in the Christian spirit, offering with maximum effort the true answer of the Gospel, telling people that belief in God is the true way to a peace of mind which passes all understanding?

PERVERSION OF THE TRUTH

These are some of the challenges of communism today, and the problems they pose for Christians. Communists, in fact, attempt to capture the historic values of Christian civilization, such as love, mercy, and justice, and after grossly perverting their true meaning, they actually turn these values against their parent!

With shameless perfidy, the Communists hail themselves as the great exponents of love—most truly, one of mankind’s most sublime virtues. Under communism, it is proclaimed, “there will be no oppressed and exploited people, … no darkness, ignorance, backwardness. In such a society all human beings will become unselfish.… The spirit of mutual assistance and mutual love will prevail among mankind.” We know, in fact, however, that communism means terror, fear, and slavery. Communism represents a new age of barbarism, which is repealing the centuries of progress of Western man toward tolerance, understanding, and human brotherhood. Communist Man—the product of this system—is a brute, ideologically trained, who unhesitantly conducts purges, runs concentration camps, butchers the Hungarian Freedom Fighters. He is immune to the emotions of pity, sorrow, or remorse. He is truly an alarming monster, human in physical form, but in practice a cynically godless and immoral machine.

ROLE OF THE MINISTRY

If communism is to be defeated, the task must rest largely upon the theologians and the ministers of the Gospel. Communism is a false secular religion with pseudo-theological explanations of the great verities of life, such as the creation, life on earth, and the world to come. Communism is an all-encompassing system with explanations—though wrong ones—for this great universe of God. The Party offers answers—though perverted ones—for the hopes, joys, and fears of mankind.

In the final analysis, the Communist world view must be met and defeated by the Christian world view. The Christian view of God as the Creator, Sustainer, and Lord of the universe is majestically superior to the ersatz approach of dialectical materialism concocted by Marx and Lenin. The task of our clergy today is to translate this Holy Truth into the daily lives of our men and women. This truly is their responsibility as Christian clergymen.

Strong, responsible, and faithful Christians, wearing the full armor of God, are the best weapons of attack against communism and the other problems of our day. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness.” In this way you will be playing a vital role also in helping defend our cherished way of life.

What Did He Write?

What message did the Master write that day,

As stooping down He traced on shifting sand,

What was the mystic meaning in the signs

Inscribed there by the finger of His hand?

The trembling woman standing alone

Was terror stricken, longing to be free;

No doubt she feared His answer might uphold

The death by stoning, Moses’ stern decree.

Self-righteous, vengeful men were waiting there—

Did His brief theme to their black hearts refer?

Or did He carve Love’s answer with the words:

“She need not die, for I will die for her.”

FLORENCE FRENCH

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.