In the current issue of Theology Today Professor George S. Hendry of Princeton Seminary has an editorial on the following words of Bishop Johannes Lilje of Hannover: “The Christian

Church seems to have lost … the capacity to speak about its beliefs in a manner which should convey the impression of something real and alive. The language of the theologian seems to have become so artificial, so self-centered and so remote from real life that one can only dream of the times when theology took the lead in the universities and was the most formative influence in the intellectual life of the Western nations.” Under the title, “O Holy Simplicity,” Professor Hendry discusses the bishop’s statement and, while insisting on the propriety of a specialized vocabulary for theology, agrees in general with his point of view.

In an age preoccupied with science and with secular ideologies, communication not only in theological writing but also in the pulpit Sunday by Sunday does indeed stand in the forefront of the Church’s problems. Especially is this true of evangelicalism in which the communication of the Gospel through what Dr. R. A. Ward of Wycliffe College, Canada, calls the “royal sacrament” of preaching is so central. We evangelicals are not immune to the peril of obscuring a “holy simplicity” in preaching Christ. On the contrary, we are in some respects peculiarly prone to failure to get through to those who most need our message.

There is, for example, the tendency to talk to ourselves through using a pious vocabulary that becomes a badge of orthodoxy and at times elicits hearty “amens” from the hearers. At a Bible conference such a vocabulary may be understood, but there are sometimes present at Bible conferences Christians, to say nothing of unbelievers, who are unacquainted with our terminology. As for evangelical church services, they are regularly conducted with the assumption that strangers to the Gospel are in the audience. We need, then, a more critical awareness of any kind of pious phraseology that does not register on the consciousness of those we are seeking to win to Christ.

But there is another side of the coin. The endeavor to communicate clearly is never served by concealment of truth. We must by all means present the Gospel in plain words. Yet it remains the Gospel that must be presented. Concern for intelligibility must never blunt the cutting edge of the evangel which is the proclamation of the facts about man’s lost condition in sin, Christ’s death for man’s sin, and Christ’s glorious resurrection. These facts may repel some who hear them. We are not, however, responsible for “the offense of the cross,” although we are responsible for adding to that offense through inept expression.

This leads to consideration of a kindred danger. In a time of revival of scholarly interest among evangelicals, there is a need for alertness regarding mistaken identity between good communication and over-concession to present-day trends in theology or science. Because philosophical theologians like Paul Tillich with their existential emphasis are the vogue, effective communication does not require presenting the Gospel in philosophical terms to the rank and file of Christians. It is possible to preach to the existential condition of modern man without beclouding the living waters of biblical truth with metaphysical language.

Nor must preaching that will reach our non-Christian neighbors necessarily be phrased in accord with current scientific, literary, and political fashions. Familiarity with modern thought is necessary; awareness of the relevance of the Gospel to every area of life should be reflected in preaching. But these do not require attempting always to clothe the grand particularities of the faith in the latest intellectual garb.

Another hazard in communication springs from one of the most necessary elements of preaching—namely, authority. The minister who is convinced that Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life,” and who believes that apart from His redeeming work men are eternally lost, must speak with authority. Yet it is possible for even the godly to confuse the innate authority of the message with its effective presentation. While a man’s conviction of the truth he preaches immeasurably helps the reception of that truth, conviction does not solve every problem of communication. For the authority of personal conviction may pass over into uncritical dogmatism.

To be sure, authority does lie at the heart of communicating the Gospel with power, provided that the message is biblical not only in thought but also in its use of the very words of Scripture. The highest models of effective communication of God’s truth are in the Bible. Because Scripture is uniquely inspired by the Spirit of God, its use in preaching is uniquely accompanied by the authority and power of the Spirit. In its combination of directness and depth the Word of God stands alone. The proclamation of the truth of that Word by a man of God who believes the Gospel and who places all his resources of education and experience at the disposal of Christ will bring forth fruit in human life and conduct. Such a man will eschew any parade of learning for learning’s sake, simply because to flaunt learning smacks of pretense, which is the deadly enemy of vital proclamation of spiritual truth.

James Denney was right when he said that no man can at the same time persuade an audience that he is clever and that Jesus is the Christ. To use the title of one of Rudolph Fesch’s books, “The Art of Plain Talk” is an indispensable requisite of preaching that really communicates. To cultivate that art demands consecrated humility and unremitting self-discipline in the use of words. And to practice it effectively will mean even more than exercising what Bishop Lilje called “a formative influence on … intellectual life”; it will mean reaching through the Spirit the hearts as well as the minds of men with the reconciling message of Christ.

Talking Sense About The Holy Spirit

With the Holy Spirit and With Fire, by Samuel M. Shoemaker (Harper, 1960, 127 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by Paul S. Rees, Vice-President at large, World Vision, Inc.

“So much real nonsense has been talked about the Holy Spirit by some people who scorn education, and so much is missing from churches that mention Him only theologically or preach about Him at one season of the year, that I think someone must try to talk sense about the Holy Spirit, avoiding the extremes of a pedestrian Christianity that leaves Him out of practical life, or of an excessive emphasis on experiences that seem merely strange or bizarre.”

With these candid words, snipped from the “Introduction,” the dynamic and dauntless minister of Pittsburgh’s Calvary Episcopal Church begins what must be at least his twelfth book. There is first a look at “Our Situation Today.” By and large, the world is not listening to the Church; nor will it listen until again, as in the New Testament beginning of it, the Church can speak with “a freshness, a stimulus, a shining sparkle.”

This leads to a discussion of “The Experience of the Holy Spirit,” an analysis that turns out to be primarily neither theological nor psychological, but practical. “The Christian experience of the Holy Spirit,” it is pointed out, holds “awesome power and cleansing judgment.” It holds more: the conviction of a Presence that can be relied on as Helper (Paraclete), the reality of guidance, the melting down of barriers between Christians, the creation of fellowship, and being used to bring others to faith in Christ as Saviour.

“Coming Into the Stream of the Spirit” is a chapter whose brevity belies its importance. Here an Episcopal minister, without conscious effort, finds certain affinities with all those “Deeper Life” movements (so variously named) that have arisen within the life of our Christian communions through the centuries.

“The New Reformation” that the book envisages as desirable will, on the one hand, recover an emphasis on the sacraments (an emphasis excessively deflated by the historic Reformers) and will, on the other, make room for “the freedom of the Spirit as He works beyond the borders of Church or Bible” (p. 64). By “beyond” the author means more than this reviewer finds it possible to concede, but he does not mean at all what some critics will he sure to assume that he means. That no real denigration of Scripture and Church is intended may be seen from the position clearly taken on another page: “I think that the experience of the Holy Spirit can grow individualistic and thin when pursued apart from constant absorption of the Word and constant immersion in the fellowship.”

In the chapter on “The Holy Spirit and Evangelism” the question from Paul Tillich (‘True communication of the Gospel means making possible a definite decision for or against it.’) is true enough, but one wonders about leaving the impression that Dr. Tillich is a safe interpreter of what the Gospel is in fact. The chapter sparkles with some first-rate suggestions for effective evangelistic preaching.

The freshness, candor, and verve that blow, gale-like at times, through the chapters on “The Holy Spirit and the Church” and “The Holy Spirit and the Layman” are not to be conveyed in a review such as this. The reader must feel their force for himself. This he will do, despite sentences here and there that he would like to recast to keep the truth in sharper biblical perspective.

PAUL S. REES

Criterion Of Love

Know Your Faith, by Nels F. S. Ferré (Harper, 1960, 125 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by Edward John Carnell, Professor of Ethics and Philosophy of Religion, Fuller Theological Seminary.

This is a model of concise writing. It is a summary of Ferré’s unremitting effort to define Christian theology from the perspective of self-giving love. “No book,” says Ferré, “has caused me more pain of authorship than this one.” I can understand why. The book breathes an authentic spirit of honesty and integrity.

Ferré is not easy to evaluate, however, for rather than using traditional theological language, he tends to coin expressions all his own. Sample: sanctification “denotes the process, sudden or gradual, whereby the person who has been saved in intention becomes saved in fact.” If a classical theologian has ever expressed the matter this way, I for one have never heard of him.

Since Ferré employs self-giving love as an all-encompassing criterion, he senses no necessity to be found by the exegetical limits of Scripture. He toys with the idea of human reincarnation; he argues for some sort of redemption for animals; and even in the heart of his Christology he does not seem to rise above traditional modelism. Still, he speaks with a candor that will disarm all but the most choleric reader. He attains rare heights when he develops the relation between our encounter with Christ and our fellowship with the saints.

We may disagree with Ferré; but at least he makes us earn our right to disagree. Ferré will have no truck with cheap faith.

EDWARD JOHN CARNELL

Fascinating Anthology

The Church and the Fine Arts, by Cynthia Pearl Maus (Harper, 1960, 902 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by Calvin D. Linton, Professor of English Literature and Dean of Columbian College, The George Washington University.

Anthologies would seem to be the easiest kind of book to produce. All one needs, after all, are scissors, paste, and copyright permission. But not so. Really good anthologies are notoriously rare. If, despite their diversity, they are to possess a true unity and a clear point of view, the anthologist must have a critical judgment which is at once broad and deep—broad enough to appreciate widely differing artistic purposes and effects, and deep enough to distinguish the truly excellent. Above all, he must hold criteria of admission which are rigorously defined and ruthlessly imposed.

This volume, while interesting, possibly useful, and astonishingly varied, is not, by these standards, a good anthology. Granted its vast purpose, it really could not be, for it sets out to cover (I quote the word) “the growth and development of the Church through nearly twenty centuries of Christian history, from the viewpoint of the four major fine arts: pictures, with their interpretations; poetry; stories; and music, in the form of hymns, canticles, and chants.” To do this, it calls on literally hundreds of authors.

Small wonder, then, that even with 900 pages available, less than two, on the average, can be devoted to each entry; small wonder that no single standard of taste can emerge. The poetry of John Milton joins that of Clarice White Luck and Walt Whitman; the prose of Erasmus shares space with that of Honomi Nagati; Raphael gives way to a photograph of the Kimpese Christian Institute in the Congo.

Fortunately, a sensible and consistent pattern of organization is used to channel this flood of droplets. Five different “specialists in the field of church history and the fine arts” handle the six major divisions: The Apostolic Church of the Palestinian Area; The Eastern Orthodox Church; The Roman Catholic Church; The Protestant Reformation in Europe; The Protestant Church in North America; and Christianity, A World-wide Religion. Within each section the sequence of entries is: Pictures, Poetry, Stories, and Music—the last given with music as well as words.

It is a fascinating volume to dip into. One cannot safely expect to find in it something particular in which he is interested, but he will usually be interested by something he did not expect to find.

CALVIN D. LINTON

Modes Of Thought

In the Twilight of Western Thought, by Herman Dooyeweerd (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1960, 195 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Gordon H. Clark, Professor of Philosophy, Butler University.

According to the author, all philosophers construct their different theories on the common ground of objective fact. These facts are not ordinary facts, such as the discovery of America or the sum of two numbers, but they are the “structural data” from which philosophy starts and to which it must conform. “One of the first structural data of human experience is the fundamental modal diversity of this experience.… My transcendental view of the mutual relation between the fundamental modes of experience is capable of verification by’ those who do not share my starting point” (p. 57).

These irreducible modes, which all philosophers must accept, seem to be 15 in number. “Our temporal empirical horizon has a numerical aspect, a spatial aspect, an aspect of extensive movement … followed by the economic, aesthetic, juridical, and moral aspects, and finally by the aspect of faith or belief” (pp. 7, 122).

The failure of other systems of philosophy, not only ancient pagan and modern secular philosophies but also the nominally Christian philosophies of Augustine and Aquinas, derives from their “absolutizing” of one or another of these fifteen modes.

For example, time has usurped faith, so that some ask whether the days of creation are 24-hour days or six geological ages. These days are neither the one nor the other, for “God’s creative deeds surpass the temporal order.… It was God’s will that the believing Jew should refer his six work days to the six divine creative acts … and it eliminates the scholastic dilemma concerning the exegesis of the six days of creation …” (pp. 150–151). Thus Scripture is not to be taken literally or univocally, for some of the Scripture is just legend (p. 68), but it is to be interpreted “analogically.” The analogical meaning apparently comes in a revelation. Creation, and presumably other parts of Christian belief, are not to be understood intellectually, but are revealed in our “heart.” This revelation “does not occur in any individualistic way, but in the ecumenical communion of the Holy Spirit …” (p. 186).

Not having had the same revelation as the author, the reviewer wonders whether the universe has had a finite past in astronomical time, or whether it is as eternal as God.

GORDON H. CLARK

Missions Classic

The Progress of World-Wide Missions, by Robert Hall Glover, revised and enlarged by J. Herbert Kane (Harper, 1960, $5), is reviewed by Harold Lindsell, Dean of the faculty, Fuller Theological Seminary.

This book, which was originally written by Robert Hall Glover, served a very useful purpose over many years as a textbook in the history of missions. It has needed revising for some time and the task has been undertaken by J. Herbert Kane of the Missions Department, Barrington College in Providence, Rhode Island.

The book has been brought up to date in the latter sections so that it has become usable once again for those who are interested in a history of missions. The statistical charts at the end of the book are helpful and the enlargement of the bibliography is all to the good. There are some titles which are missing, but in general there is a distinct improvement in the updating of the book.

The volume would be useful not only in college missions classes, but also for ministers who desire a source of reliable and easily obtained information about the various mission fields of the world.

HAROLD LINDSELL

Effective Preaching

Dynamic Preaching, by James W. Clarke (Revell, 1960, 128 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by Ben L. Rose, Professor of Pastoral Leadership and Homiletics, Union Theological Seminary (Virginia).

In the preface, the author correctly affirms that this is “not another work attempting to deal with the whole field of homiletics,” but it enforces three special truths. Belief in these truths, Dr. Clarke feels, is vital to effective Christian preaching.

The truths are: (1) “While the preaching of the Word is not the minister’s exclusive task, it is his supreme one”; (2) “The true and able Christian preacher is the most significant man in the community …”, and (3) “The bedrock on which Christian preaching builds is the devotional life of the minister.”

Each of the three sections of the book develops one of these three truths.

While little of the content is new, it is presented in a fresh and captivating style. The material is well organized and well illustrated, which makes the book easy to read.

The reviewer laid the book down with a new sense of gratitude for the glory of the task to which he had been called and with a new determination to hold himself with stricter discipline to his spiritual preparation.

Every preacher should read at least one book of this nature every year.

BEN L. ROSE

Medieval Song

The English Carol, by Erik Routley (Oxford, 1959, 272 pp., $5), is reviewed by F. R. Webber, Author of A History of Preaching.

To most Americans a carol suggests a picture of four singers and a fiddler, all dressed after the manner of Micawber, and standing before a British pub (the Boar’s Head or the Hare and Hounds), and all singing “God rest ye, merry gentlemen.” Dr. Routley, of Mansfield College, Oxford, assures us that the carol is much more than this. A carol is usually of Medieval origin, whereas a hymn is usually the product of the Reformation. A carol is not necessarily an act of praise to the Lord. It may be simply a joyous song of Christmas or Easter. This explains some of the curious things that came to us by way of England, such as “As Joseph was walking,” “God rest you, merry gentlemen,” “I saw three ships come sailing in,” and such German carols as “O Tannenbaum,” and “We gather ‘round the Christmas tree.” A carol may be seasonal, but it is not always especially religious.

Dr. Routley includes the history and the text of many carols. He tells us of the vehement efforts of the Puritans to suppress carol singing. The book contains several interesting illustrations, among which is one of Loughborough Pearson’s majestic Truro Cathedral, which is so hemmed in by other buildings that only its top is visible. It is not true, however, that the ancient church of St. Mary was demolished. Much of it stands intact, and forms the south aisle of the modern cathedral. Here the famous “Service of Nine Lessons and Carols” originated.

F. R. WEBBER

Togetherness For What?

The Social Sources of Church Unity, by Robert Lee (Abingdon, 1960, 238 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by Cary N. Weisiger, III, Pastor of Mt. Lebanon United Presbyterian Church, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Carrol M. Shanks, president of the Prudential Insurance Company of America, spoke recently in Pittsburgh at an annual brotherhood dinner of the National Conference of Christians and Jews. Citing the large-scale migration of Americans today as a cause of rootlessness, he said many “live on the surface of our society rather than in it.”

The reviewer cannot help putting the observation alongside of the thesis which Dr. Lee ably establishes in his book that social and cultural forces are thrusting unity upon us. Almost any pastor, except those in isolated pockets of rural and urban life, knows that new people in his parish area appraise him, his youth program, and his church’s location as decisive factors in the choice of a church home. Too often convenience, not conviction, brings new members. Probably most of us pastors soft pedal denominational distinctives to win new members. We build up a reserve of hearty welcomes. “Yes,” we say to the new Methodist family, “we need Methodist fire in our Presbyterian program”; or, “Lutheran solidity”; or, “Baptist loyalty.” Other appropriate flattery can be thought up as occasion requires.

Dr. Lee, Assistant Professor of Church and Community at Union Theological Seminary (New York), gives competent documentation of the reduction of old differences of race, section, and nation. The broadening of the middle class in the last generation and the standardizing of eating, dressing, and thinking habits have aided the centripetal tendency now manifested in church councils, mergers, reunions, community churches, and comity processes.

Dr. Lee is not disturbed by the resurgence of sectarianism (Assemblies of God, Church of the Nazarene), the renewal of fundamentalism (the National Association of Evangelicals), and the non-ecumenical Southern Baptist Convention. Such instances, by parallel tendency to the ecumenical movement or by resistance to social change, support his thesis.

So where are we going in our ecclesiastical togetherness? This is the big question provoked by Dr. Lee’s book and with which he does not pretend to deal. Is church unity a surface phenomenon of a people without depth of feeling? Will “common-core Protestantism” become so dogmatically diluted that it will be empty of real biblical and Christian content? Can we redeem the trend by bringing into it the strength of our best and most central denominational convictions? These questions clamor for consideration.

CARY N. WEISIGER, III

Evolution And Creation

Darwin, Evolution, and Creation, edited by Paul A. Zimmerman (Concordia, 1959, 231 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Thomas H. Leith, Associate Professor of Science and Mathematics, Gordon College.

Here is a book to commend and condemn. It is to be commended as one of the most complete surveys available of all areas of the relationship of evolutionary thought to the Christian faith. Written by a group of Lutheran scholars, it is packed with the useful references, interesting facts, and thought-provoking ideas of the diligent student. There are competent articles on the past and present ideas of the origin and history of life, on the exegesis of Genesis chapters 1 and 2, on the presumed evidences for creation in nature, on the supposed evidences for evolution, on the age of the earth, and on the social and philosophical influences of Darwinism. It is to be condemned as not quite fair. The authors are opposed to much that they see in a century of evolutionary biology and its attendent philosophies. One may or may not agree with their conclusions, but the fallacious arguing they often use to get themselves there is thoroughly disagreeable. It leaves their claims often without valid demonstration.

Space forbids detailed analysis, but I shall review several widespread misconstructions. Perhaps the most glaring one is to argue that because evolution “has failed to achieve the absolute and factual” it is to be rejected. Apart from the fact that theories are never proven, this statement ignores their true role in science which is to synthesize data and suggest future experiments. Competitors who best achieve this gain the adherence of the majority of the scientific community. Evolutionary theories have survived this test for a century. Furthermore, disagreement on detail or unanswered problems does not provide grounds for rejecting a theory if no competitor can do as well. Some sort of evolution is the working hypothesis of almost all biologists, and there is no ground for a falling away.

Another fallacy presented is the thesis that nature provides a strong argument for creation as against “blind chance.” As expressed, the argument not only grossly misunderstands probability, but evidence for creation (logically impossible) is confused with arguments for design, and the whole ignores the quite unacceptable nature of the latter.

Then there is special pleading. Arguments generally used to defend evolution are criticized, but the genetic and paleontological case is mutilated by ignoring obvious disagreements with the critique presented. Again there is guilt by association. There are many examples which I could give here, but the final chapter on social Darwinism is most pertinent for discussion. Because of the gross philosophical, sociological, and theological ideas of varied evolutionists, the scientific thesis is rejected, and that this thesis in no way necessitates most of its misuse in the former ideas is forgotten. And again, the chapter on the age of the earth is one long fallacy of converse accident. One is asked to hold reservations about methods of age determination and dates obtained by taking unusual cases and precautionary statements in the literature and generalizing about them. This chapter is thoroughly misleading to the uninitiated, and I know no expert who would willingly accept its thrust.

Finally, although there is a most informative and thorough survey of pertinent biblical passages on the history of the world and the life on it, the writer so confuses the exegesis by an unconvincing literalness, an attempt to label those who differ as compromisers, a failure to see that even evolutionists believe in life reproducing “after its kind,” and a confusion of a scientific view of man as “nothing more” than animal with a necessary rejection of man as seen in Scripture, that he makes his whole position appear dubious.

This could have been a fine hook, and it still is useful, but it vitiates many of its possibilities with a coloring that can do little more than perpetuate the misunderstanding that has permeated 100 years of the dialectic.

THOMAS H. LEITH

Exposition On James

The Work of Faith, by Spiros Zodhiates (Eerdmans, 1960, 223 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Walter W. Wessel, Professor of Biblical Literature, North American Baptist Seminary.

This is the first of three proposed expository volumes on the Epistle of James. The author is a Greek and prepared his studies under the auspices of the American Mission to Greeks.

The present volume contains 44 expositions on James 1:1–2:13. A warm devotional spirit pervades the treatment of the text. The author’s aim is to apply the message of James to practical life.

My basic objection to the book is its forced exegesis performed under the guise of a knowledge of the underlying Greek text. The author says, “As we scrutinize every word in the original Greek to get the utmost out of it we are really amazed at the discoveries we make” (p. 37). His amazement is shared by the reader when, for example, he categorically states that the lesson the Holy Spirit wishes to teach us in James 1:21 by the use of the word rhuparia, “filthiness” (a cognate of rhupos, “wax”), is that “sin in our lives is like having wax in our ears; it prevents the word of truth from reaching our hearts” (p. 105). Now this is an interesting idea and may have devotional value, but there is not a shred of evidence that rhuparia has anything to do with wax (cf. Arndt-Gingrich and Mayor’s rejection of this idea). There are all too many cases of such exegesis in the book.

WALTER W. WESSEL

Bishop Of Souls

Spencer Leeson: Shepherd, Teacher, and Friend. A Memoir by some of his Friends (SPCK, London, 1958, 149 pp., 15s. 6d.), is reviewed by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Editor of The Churchmen.

All who knew Spencer Leeson loved him and looked up to him, and to them this brief memoir will be more than welcome. It is indeed all too brief, even though it is intended to be a reminiscence rather than a biography. Yet this brevity must, in some measure at least, be attributed to the essential humility of Spencer Leeson, who, regarding the details of his life as of little moment, had purposely destroyed all records and letters in his possession so that the writing of a typical biography might not be possible. There must, however, be in existence many documents in the files of the institutions he served and letters written by him to others, which would afford material for a fuller study of this outstanding man.

After a disappointing start, the memoir gains momentum and presents a portrait of some warmth and vitality. The work of his life may perhaps best he described as pastoral, both in school-mastering—to which more than 20 years were devoted, notably as headmaster in turn of two great “public” schools, Merchant Taylors’ and Winchester—and in the final 10 years as Rector of St. Mary, Southampton, and Bishop of Peterborough successively. A notable feature of his excellent Bampton Lectures on Christian Education (1944) was the emphasis he laid on his conception of the teaching profession as a pastoral vocation, the chief task of which is to lead children to faith in Christ. His heart was that of a pastor, giving himself in affection and understanding to others.

In reply to a question concerning what he considered the three main qualities of a headmaster, he once said: “Spiritual leadership, intellectual distinction, and administrative ability—very definitely in that order.” Another thing he insisted on, as head of a school and as head of a diocese, was accessibility: “You must not become a distant inaccessible figure in an office,” he advised a young man about to become a headmaster. “If there is a danger of that, you must alter the whole organization of the school to prevent it.” Certainly no bishop was more accessible to his people than Spencer Leeson—concerned for the welfare of their souls, and respecting their dignity as persons, conscientious in the performance of his duties, entirely free from pomposity, loving and lovable, a true father in God to all. What a wonderful Archbishop of Canterbury he would have made! But it was not to be. As the present Archbishop says in his foreword to this book: “Because he was an enthusiast with a passionate devotion to his friends, to all under his care and to every good cause, he drove himself mercilessly to a premature end.… He changed little in his working life. From first to last he burned with the same bright and incandescent flame.”

PHILIP EDGCUMBE HUGHES

Baptist Evangelism

Basic Evangelism, by C. E. Autrey (Zondervan, 1959, 182 pp., $2.95), is reviewed by Faris D. Whitesell, Professor of Practical Theology, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary.

What is the secret of Southern Baptist expansion? The answer is evangelism, and here’s the book that outlines the theology, the principles, and the practices of Southern Baptist evangelism.

Written while he was occupying “the chair of fire,” the professorship of evangelism at Southwestern Baptist Seminary, Fort Worth, Dr. Autrey has since become director of evangelism for the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, which means their number one man in evangelism.

Believing that a sound, scriptural theology is essential to vital evangelism, the author gives the details for planning and executing all major phases of local church evangelism. Not confusing evangelism with “do good” projects, Autrey says, “Evangelism is not everything we do. One might conceivably spend all his time doing good and never evangelize. Moral righteousness is not evangelism. One never evangelizes until he stands directly before the heart’s door of a sinner and clearly confronts him with the Gospel of Christ” (p. 27).

Everything about this book is good, but readers familiar with the literature of evangelism will find little that is new. The style is somewhat tame, lacking both fire and fervor, but the strength of the volume lies in its strong scriptural undergirding, its earnest tone, its clear handling of every idea, and its complete coverage of those tried and true evangelistic principles and methods that are rapidly making Southern Baptists the largest non-Catholic denomination in America.

FARIS D. WHITESELL

Religious radio appears to be in for even harder times.

New curtailments on paid religious broadcasts go into effect this fall, forcing more programs off the air. Hundreds of big stations now refuse to sell time for religious programs.

Latest to announce a cutback is the American Broadcasting Company radio network, which has the nation’s second largest chain of station affiliates. ABC has dropped four of its eight paid religious programs, including the Oral Roberts broadcast.

Network spokesmen say that failure of local stations to air the programs is responsible for the move, which follows a creeping trend toward general elimination of paid religious broadcasting. The trend runs in accord with National Council of Churches policy favoring bloc allocations of free time to major religious groups instead of individual sales to religious broadcasters. Evangelicals generally oppose such an either-or arrangement, but radio stations have asserted a right to refuse to sell time. Even though the broadcasting industry is federally-regulated, no religious broadcaster has thus far been able to prove his legal right to radio time.

A strong argument against paid religious broadcasting revolves on the poor quality of some programs which have been aired under such an arrangement. Once the time is sold, stations have no control over amateur producers who may alienate an audience.

Paying broadcasters will counter with the assertion that the free time concept does not guarantee quality programming inasmuch as there is no agreement on what constitutes good religious radio.

Another consideration: size of audience is not in itself a fair measure of religious program effectiveness.

Faced with the loss of radio time on commercial stations, some Christian groups are looking to stations all their own. A number of these have been springing up around the country, eight of them having already announced plans for an “inspirational network.”

Some evangelical groups are even launching into television. A non-profit Christian organization headed by radio evangelist Percy Crawford purchased the facilities of an ultra high frequency station in the Philadelphia area and began daily telecasts this summer.

Two Analyses Of Religious Broadcasting

Protestant broadcasting suffers from the lack of a master strategy, according to Charles Brackbill, Jr., executive director of radio and television for the New Jersey Council of Churches.

“It is a picture of confusion, waste, out-dated and incredibly dull programming,” he says, charging that individual producers follow patterns that seem right in their own eyes and fail to cooperate with other broadcasters.

Brackbill asserts that the Protestant ministry has failed to keep pace with developments in radio.

“Preachers could always preach,” he declares, “and they have been doing it on radio since the first religious broadcast. All during radio’s heyday of great variety productions, they preached. And now that radio has its strength back, religious broadcasters still preach. They haven’t moved backward, they just have not moved.”

Brackbill suggests that Protestant broadcasters should cooperate if only because they have in common so many problems, such as: (1) ineffective programming, (2) schedule extremities (“And it’s our own fault … The ‘public interest, convenience and necessity’ clause of the Communications Act will not protect our poor programming forever”), (3) mercenary motives, (“If a Congressional committee ever investigates the deceit and chicanery of some religious broadcasting, there will be a bigger scandal than that of the recent payola exposures”), and (4) denominational pride (“We ought to decide whether we are selling individual automobile brands or transportation”).

“Too much money is being spent to ‘save the lost’ by programs which the ‘lost’ never listen too,” according to Brackbill. “Often the whole program is pitched to the ‘beloved in Christ’ and then to ‘O sinners’ in the last 30 seconds. The ‘dear Christian friends’ must never stop praying for God to bless the program in its soul winning, or to send in the money on the chance that a ‘lost one’ will tune in.”

He charges that many Protestant broadcasters gear their programs to Christian supporters, fearful of abandoning “successful” formats.

“Radio today has changed drastically since its pre-television days.… Today on radio you move goods, sell services, and create good will, not by ‘programs’ as such but by short capsule messages repeated over and over to reach as many kinds of people as possible. With few exceptions, the only sponsors of 15-minute or longer programs these days are religious groups. So long as they are willing to pay, many radio station operators just smile and take the money.”

Brackbill suggests that Protestant broadcasting groups (1) call a “summit conference” of highest-echelon churchmen to coordinate broadcasting aims on an interdenominational scale, (2) establish an experimental study center to eliminate guess work, (3) set up, after study, local production priorities, and (4) seek to discover what could be the function and structure of an inclusive Protestant broadcasting agency.

The need of the hour is for more “programs dedicated to the moral and spiritual upbuilding of America,” says Dr. Eugene R. Bertermann, executive director of the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) Foundation and for 24 years the director of the famous “Lutheran Hour.”

How does Protestant broadcasting measure up?

“Sometimes the caliber of the program content leaves much to be desired,” Bertermann declares. “As a result, the audience level drops drastically, and station managers conclude that religious broadcasts must be relegated to marginal hours and minimal schedules. Regrettable, too, is the fact that some broadcasters have employed the vehicle of a religious program for personal profit. At the same time, however, it must be asserted that the vast majority of Protestant broadcasters are dedicated servants of Christ, earnestly determined to utilize effectively the twentieth-century miracles of radio and television for the proclamation of the Gospel.”

Program quality must ever be stressed, he says, for “the religious broadcast is not ‘good radio’ or ‘good television’ simply because it has as its purpose the salvation of human souls.”

“The radio and television industry has, on the basis of sound experience, developed proven principles of broadcasting which help to insure an effective presentation and, through the Holy Spirit’s power, help to attain blessed results in the lives of listeners,” Bertermann declares. He adds: “In preparing his radio or television program, the religious broadcaster has often been pictured as confronted by a two-fold dilemma: he will obtain either a maximum audience for a minimum message, or a minimum audience for a maximum message.

Actually he desires neither alternative; he wants maximums all down the line!”

As a means of silencing critics who picture the religious broadcaster as a “huckster,” Bertermann proposes issuance of periodic public financial statements. He urges evangelical Christians, moreover, to support continued access to the broadcasting media by Gospel broadcasters. “We heartily commend the granting of sustaining time, but we assert the basic freedom of a station to sell religious broadcasting time and the basic right of anyone to buy it.”

Does Bertermann suggest means specific of raising religious standards?

Yes, he says, by seeking and applying principles drawn from surveys and studies and by utilizing capably-conducted radio and television workshops and seminars throughout the country.

Finally, according to Bertermann, “a master strategy for Protestant broadcasting must have as its very cornerstone the positive proclamation of Bible truth, the preaching of the historic Protestant faith, and the fundamental biblical doctrines.

“An abundant measure of the Holy Spirit’s power accompanying the broadcasting of the Word will prove it to be ‘the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.’ ”

Protestant Panorama

• Special services this month commemorated the restoration of Trinity Church—said to be America’s oldest with an active congregation—near Church Creek, Maryland. The church, now Protestant Episcopal-affiliated, dates back to about 1675.

• The Protestant Chapel Choir of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (Ohio) is the winner of the U. S. Air Force’s 1960 chapel choir contest.

• A Georgia pastor is demanding the ouster of any member of his church who has signed a petition for a local referendum on beer sales. Dr. E. B. Shivers of the Central Baptist Church, largest in the city of Gainesville, says he is acting in accordance with the church covenant.

• Ground was broken this month for a $3,000,000 Assemblies of God administration building in Springfield, Missouri. Occupancy is scheduled for December of 1961.

• Consolidated Presbyterian College, to be opened next year by the North Carolina Synod of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S., will require all students to take a “Christianity and Culture” course during each of their four years.

• Theological schools in Africa and Asia will get the bulk of current grants totalling more than $1,000,000 under the International Missionary Council’s Theological Education Fund program. The grants are the latest of a series under the program established in 1958 by the Sealantic Fund and eight Protestant mission boards.

• A gigantic retirement center is planned in St. Paul, Minnesota, to be sponsored jointly by the Lyngblomsten Society and a group of Evangelical Lutheran Church congregations. Some 1,000 residents are expected in a decade. The cost of building may run as high as $10,000,000.

• The Navigators, Protestant lay organization which stresses Bible study and personal witness, will send representatives to 10 new areas this fall, including Beirut, Karachi, The Hague, Frankfort, Kenya, and Toronto.

• A key tourist attraction in Nashville, Tennessee, this summer is the Upper Room Chapel. The chapel features a giant woodcarving replica of Da Vinci’s “Last Supper” plus a striking stained-glass window symbolizing Pentecost.

• A merger of four church groups gives South African Lutherans a 160,000-member association known as the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Zulu-Xhosa-Swazi Region. Lutheran statistics, which show a slight loss this year because of a reported membership drop in East Germany, now credit the world’s largest Protestant confession with a constituency of 71,101,780.

• Protestants travelling through Brussels may hereafter avail themselves of the services of the “International Christian Fellowship Center,” which has been opened with funds derived from the sale of the Protestant Pavilion of the Brussels World’s Fair to the American Church at The Hague, The Netherlands.

• The Jungle Aviation and Radio Service, technical arm of Wycliffe Bible Translators, is establishing its international headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. Larry Montgomery, veteran missionary pilot and mechanic, is director.

• The Church of the Nazarene is sponsoring four regional missionary conferences in September: in Indianapolis, September 5–6; in Charleston, West Virginia, September 8–9; in Dallas, September 12–13; and in Phoenix, Arizona, September 15–16.

• A number of Protestant groups are represented at this year’s Canadian National Exhibition, being held in Toronto. In all there are 12 religious groups on the grounds of the world’s biggest annual exhibition: the Oriental Missionary Society, the Salvation Army, the Upper Canada Bible Society, the Lutheran Laymen’s League, the Baha’is of Canada, Gideons International of Canada, World Vision of Canada, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the Christian Businessmen’s Association, and three Roman Catholic organizations.

Enter ‘Kneel-ins’

“Kneel-in” demonstrations will spread across the South in coming weeks, according to a spokesman for a group which initiated the campaign August 7 when Negro college students attended Sunday services at six white Protestant churches in Atlanta.

Agenda: Doctrine

Delegates to the 46th convention of the Lutheran Synodical Conference in Milwaukee this month voted to call a special adjourned session for next Spring. The agenda: doctrinal differences which have threatened to disrupt the 88-year-old conference.

Such a recessed meeting had been suggested by the presidents of the four synods comprising the conference (the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, with 2,400,000 members; the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod with 350,000 members, the Synod of Evangelical Lutheran Church [Slovak] with 20,000 members, and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod [Norwegian] with 15,000 members).

The doctrinal dispute centers on accusations by the Wisconsin and Norwegian synods that the Missouri group pursues unscriptural cooperation with other church bodies.

Moments before the recess was requested, the convention approved a compromise proposal aimed at relieving tension by calling for a study of the dispute by foreign theologians representing conservative Lutheran churches in doctrinal harmony with the synodical conference. A preliminary report from the study committee is scheduled to be made in November.

Also approved was a resolution asking the four synods to express their desires regarding possible creation of an international federation of confessional Lutheran groups.

The Rev. John Daniel was elected conference president, succeeding Dr. John S. Bradac, whose health forbade him to run for re-election.

There were approximately 300 voting delegates and 100 advisory members on hand for the Milwaukee meeting. Among other actions they voted to close Immanuel Lutheran College in Greensboro, North Carolina, and to build a $1,000,000 campus at Selma, Alabama. This project will be a four-year high school and a two-year junior college. The new school will be primarily for Negroes, as is the present Immanuel Lutheran College.

Re-entering Congo

As of the middle of August, Protestant missionaries who had evacuated the strife-tom Congo were slowly returning, urged on by appeals such as one received by Dr. C. Darby Fulton, executive secretary of the Presbyterian U. S. Board of World Missions. The letter to Fulton from Congolese Christians cited, in halting English, the “necessity” of having the missionaries return.

“We ask you to get them back in Congo immediately,” the letter said.

During his visit to North America this summer, Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba said that missionaries had done much for the “moral and intellectual upbringing” of his people.

“We want the missionaries to remain,” he said. “For years it was only the missions who looked after the Congolese. We ask them to continue their help.”

The Swiss Catholic press agency KIPA said, however, that it had secured a copy of a “secret instructions” document issued to militants of the Congolese National Movement singling out Christian missionaries as the “greatest enemy” of the people. The document apparently was issued before the proclamation of independence. Lumumba was head of the Congolese National Movement.

Mission Medicine

Sixteen U. S. medical students are gaining clinical experience by working at Protestant mission hospitals this year.

They are spending an average of 12 weeks at their remote posts, having won financing fellowships under a program made possible by the Smith Kline and French Laboratories of Philadelphia. A total of 29 U. S. medical students are going to various foreign hospitals and dispensaries under the program for 1960. Others will compete for similar fellowships in 1961 and 1962, all of which are to be paid from a $180,000 Smith Kline and French grant being administered by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

These are the Protestant institutions where the students are being assigned: the Bangkok, Thailand, Christian Hospital (Presbyterian); the McCormick Mission Hospital in Chiengmai, Thailand (also Presbyterian); the Mari Baptist Hospital in the Philippines; several Southern Baptist hospitals in Nigeria and Southern Rhodesia; several Methodist clinics in Bolivia; the Methodist Ganta Mission Hospital in Liberia; the Methodist Washburn Memorial Hospital in Southern Rhodesia; St. Theodore’s Episcopalian Hospital in the Philippines; the Takum Christian Hospital in Nigeria; and the Seventh-day Adventist Hospital at Bandung, Java.

Bethel Expedition

Archaeologist James L. Kelso says his expedition at the site of ancient Bethel this summer turned up the “altar” where early Canaanites sacrificed their animals. Kelso, a professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, directed the expedition conducted jointly by the seminary and the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem.

The high place (altar) was located atop a hill at what is now Beitin, Jordan.

“At many points along an area of 50 feet, we noticed what appeared to be blood stains,” says Kelso. “We applied an FBI test at 10 points for identification of blood and secured a positive reaction each time.”

He describes a small temple built nearby whose proportions are similar to that of a tabernacle, the length being about three times the width.

“The earliest use of the high place which we were able to double check with pottery was about the twenty-second century B.C., although some shards dated back even further,” Kelso reports. “The temple was definitely still in use in Abraham’s time. The old Canaanite god El was worshipped here, and since it was a major sanctuary dedicated to his honor, the city was called Bethel (Beth-El).

This was Kelso’s fourth season at Bethel. He was assisted by Professor Theol M. Taylor.

Court Acquits Vocal Worshipper

Dave Van Ness shouted “praise the Lord” so often during an Apostolic church service at Hudson Bay, Saskatchewan, that other members took the case to court. He was acquitted last month of a charge of disturbing a religious gathering.

While agreeing that Van Ness could be a nuisance to others in the church, Magistrate Robert Macara ruled that the ejaculative member had not violated civil law.

Pastor Maurice Fuller said Van Ness had the habit of declaiming at great length during the time in the church service given over to testimonies. The congregation’s ruling body had decreed that the man could not speak in church or take part in church activities.

At a July 15 service the accused repeatedly shouted: “Praise the Lord. Amen.” Eventually, the pastor had to abandon the service. Fuller said Van Ness shouted the words even when they did not apply and disturbed the spirit of worship.

Van Ness, producing receipts to show he had made substantial contributions to the church during the last year, said his only purpose was to pray and sing.

In testimony prefaced by a prayer in which he led the court, he tried to quote lengthy passages from the Bible but was restrained by the magistrate.

“This is a most peculiar situation,” the magistrate said. He suggested that church authorities consult their legal advisers to seek some way to promote harmony.

J.N.

Correcting Mistakes

The American Friends Service Committee, world-wide Quaker welfare agency, reportedly plans to study and correct “mistakes,” following allegations that the AFSC has been infiltrated by “very pink” admirers of communism.

The Indiana Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, headed by Dr. D. Elton Trueblood, noted professor of philosophy at Earlham College, said it was pleased that the AFSC will undertake the self-examination.

Dr. Trueblood, clerk of the meeting, earlier had called for a “house-cleaning” of alleged un-American elements from the committee. Sharing in an effort to arrive at a “creative decision” on the problem, he said, were Dr. Landrum Bolling, president of Earlham; and Dr. William Cullen Dennis, president emeritus.

“The AFSC has done an outstanding humanitarian work,” Dr. Trueblood told the Indiana Meeting. “But persons who believe in peace at any price and are strong admirers of the Communistic system have been able to work their way into the committee.”

Dr. Trueblood said the Friends had received many complaints about a youth camp near Richmond, Indiana, sponsored by the committee this summer. He said the complaints alleged that high school youths were told that the Russian system was better than the democratic way of life and that the United States was responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor that started World War II.

‘I Am a Protestant’

Wallet-size cards identifying the carrier as a Protestant are being distributed by The Protestant Council of the City of New York.

Some 80,000 have already been sent out in the New York area.

Birmingham Crusade

English evangelist Eric Hutchings is on a three-month tour of North America following a five-week crusade in Birmingham which drew an aggregate attendance of more than 120,000.

Hutchings and his “Hour of Revival” team never disclose the exact number of inquirers, but the figure is said to have been about 3,500 for the Birmingham meetings, held in famous Bingley Hall.

The evangelistic crusade was the largest in England since Billy Graham’s meetings at Harringay. Support came from all major denominations.

Hutchings, 50, has been conducting crusades since 1952. He left the business world to become an evangelist and now conducts a religious radio broadcast as well. He is married but has no children. His next crusade is scheduled for Brussels, beginning October 15.

To the East?

If evangelist Billy Graham enters the Communist sector of Berlin to hold a meeting he will be arrested, says Waldemar Schmidt, Red deputy mayor.

“Hysterical mass psychosis is not desired in socialist countries,” Schmidt declared.

Graham plans a week of services in West Berlin beginning in late September. The arrest threat came when the local committee sought permission to hold a single service in East Berlin.

The evangelist’s crusades in Switzerland are already under way. Here is a schedule of his European meetings:

Studying Liberalism

A permanent “Commission on the Study of Theological Liberalism” was created by delegates to last month’s annual meeting of the National Association of Free Will Baptists in Fresno, California.

The commission was made a permanent unit of the 200,000-member association following adoption of a commission report which warned against the infiltration of theological liberals.

“It is not enough to be relatively free from the peril now,” said the report. “Safeguards should be taken against future encroachments.”

The Rev. Ralph Staton of Belmont, North Carolina, was elected moderator.

The Five Years Meeting

Delegates to the quinquennial sessions of the Five Years Meeting of Friends, held last month in Richmond, Indiana, urged the United States to continue its moratorium on nuclear weapons testing.

Race prejudice and hatred were condemned as “spiritual and moral diseases,” the traditional Quaker stand on peace was reaffirmed, and opposition was expressed to capital punishment as violating “the Gospel we proclaim.”

The Five Years Meeting is the largest Quaker group in the world with 79,000 members in North America and more than 30,000 overseas. This constituency includes more than half of the world’s Quakers.

In other action, the delegates voted that hereafter they will meet triennially. They also decided to combine the meeting’s two publications, the American Friend and Quaker Action, into one magazine to be called Quaker Life.

Executive Secretary Colin Bell of the American Friends Service Committee reported that his group was involved in a “re-examination” of its role and relationship. The committee traditionally has been known as a world-wide quaker welfare agency.

Some 120 official delegates were on hand for the business sessions, while a worship service with Dr. Elton Trueblood drew more than 2,000 persons.

“Our trouble is having too low a goal,” Trueblood said. “We have an easy complacency and are satisfied with too little.”

The noted philosopher, a professor at Earlham College, challenged his fellow Quakers to rekindle the “blazing fire” of the 1660’s when Quakerism first came to America.

CONSERVATIVE DISCIPLES HOLD LARGEST CONVENTION

Burgeoning growth of the evangelical wing of the Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ) was dramatically demonstrated in the North American Christian Convention, Columbus, Ohio, July 12–15. More than 5,000 ministers and lay leaders made up the largest convention turnout in the NACC’s 34-year history.

Disciples, since their beginnings in 1809, have been strongly congregational in polity. Their national agencies have been voluntary in character and there was nothing unusual when evangelicals launched a national gathering in 1927 which had as its sole avowed purpose to exalt Christ and his Gospel and declare the cardinal doctrines of the apostolic church. The NACC seeks in no way to duplicate the ministry of the International Convention of Christian Churches.

The Columbus gathering did no politicking, passed no resolutions, promoted no agency programs and transacted no business except that necessary to provide a 1961 convention at Wichita, Kansas. There was, however, a gripping sense of evangelical commitment and purpose in all the proceedings. Program planners covered every phase of the functioning church in sermons, addresses, panel discussions, forums, and workshops—a veritable seminar of immense practical value in building the Kingdom.

“Jesus Christ is Lord of All” was the convention theme—Lord of Creation, Lord of Life, Lord of the Church. Edwin G. Crouch, well-known Indiana attorney and first lay president of the convention, keynoted this idea on the opening night. He asserted that “all the doctrinal difficulties in the church may be traced to the ignorance or indifference of laymen.… If the people in the churches knew their Bibles and respected the authority of Christ they could never be blown astray by popular winds of doctrine that blight and destroy the true faith.” University of Tennessee atomic scientist George Schweitzer stirred the convention with appeal for the Church to “get into orbit around Christ the center of all creation.” He characterized Christ as earth’s first visitor from outer space, who must eventually subdue all the earth to the glory of God. Ard Hoven, Lexington (Kentucky) pastor and “Christian Hour” radio preacher, gave the closing message on “Christ the Lord of the Church” in which he asserted that the only valid ecumenicity is to be found “in the pattern of the New Testament Church which was founded by Christ, grew and prospered under the personal direction of the Holy Spirit and the Apostles.”

NACC attendance was augmented this year by joint sessions with the National Christian Education Convention, concerned chiefly with Bible school work. There was much sentiment for a continuation of this arrangement.

Over 80 exhibits at Columbus reminded delegates and visitors that evangelical Disciples support more than 500 missionaries at home and abroad, more than 30 Bible colleges and seminaries, an immense publishing program and many other cooperative enterprises.

In effort to avoid the pitfalls of centralized authority over local congregations, the NACC has failed to give strong leadership to the million or more numbers in evangelical constituency. Growing problems confront the “brotherhood” such as responsibility in missionary activity, higher education, ministerial training standards, legal rights of local churches, inter-church cooperation, church extension, ministerial pensions, chaplaincy appointments, adequate national radio and television broadcasting media. Whenever these and other practical issues arise conservative Disciples have a big “blind spot” in their otherwise growing vision. The convention could well provide a forum whereby these problems might be resolved, and some consensus discovered for their solution, but reactionary forces have thus far blocked progress.

A “bull session” on internal unity packed out one of the conference rooms of the Deshler-Hilton Hotel. A series of consultations were proposed looking toward better understanding and unity.

Sentiment at the Columbus confab favored establishment of communication between these two groups in an effort to promote a more effective Gospel witness and to forestall the divisive tactics of left-wing Disciples bent on centralization of authority in state and national conventions and eventual merger with the United Church of Christ.

J.D.M.

A New Campus?

Plans are under way for a multi-million-dollar expansion of Bethel College and Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota, under authority granted by delegates to the 81st annual meeting of the Baptist General Conference in Long Beach, California, this summer.

The delegates authorized the conference’s board of education to map plans for presentation at next year’s convention in St. Paul. The campus may be moved to a new 100-acre site.

People: Words And Events

Deaths:Dr. Ralph S. Cushman, 80, retired Methodist bishop and former head of the Anti-Saloon League; in Herkimer, New York … the Rev. Peter Kwei Dagadu, 52, Methodist leader in Ghana and member of the world Council of Churches Central Committee; in Accra … Dr. Fred F. Brown, 78, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention; in Knoxville, Tennessee … the Rt. Rev. Vedder Van Dyck, 71, Episcopal bishop; in Burlington, Vermont … Dr. A. E. J. Rawlinson, 76, Anglican bishop of Derby from 1936 to 1959 … Commissioner J. Allister Smith, 96, retired Salvation Army missionary to the Zulus; in Capetown, South Africa … Dr. Frank Benjamin Fagerburg, pastor for more than 20 years of the First Baptist Church of Los Angeles; in Redlands, California … Miss Evangeline French, 91, veteran missionary in the Gobi Desert under the China Inland Mission.

Resignation: As executive secretary of the Lutheran World Federation, Dr. Carl E. Lund-Quist.

Promotion: To the rank of Rear Admiral, Navy Chaplain Joseph F. Dreith (Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod), first Lutheran chaplain in naval history to be promoted to flag rank.

Elections: As bishops of The Methodist Church, Dr. Everett W. Palmer, pastor of the First Methodist Church in Glendale, California (Western Jurisdiction); Dr. Charles Golden, staff member of the Division of National Missions; Dr. Noah W. Moore, Jr., pastor of Tindley Temple in Philadelphia; and Dr. M. Lafayette Harris, president of Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Arkansas (Central Jurisdiction—all-Negro); Dr. James W. Henley, pastor of the West End Methodist Church in Nashville, Tennessee; Dr. Walter C. Gum, chairman of the jurisdictional committee on missions; Dr. Paul Hardin, Jr., pastor of the First Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama; and Dr. John Owen Smith, pastor of Bethel Methodist Church in Charleston, South Carolina (Southeastern Jurisdiction) … as president of the North American Christian Convention (Disciples of Christ), Robert O. Weaver … as moderator of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, David E. Niland … as president of the National Association of Church Business Administrators, Leif R. Larson.

Appointments: As president of Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Dr. F. Eppling Reinartz … as director of the University of Hamburg, Germany, Professor Helmut Thielicke, first Protestant theologian ever to hold the post … as president of Pasadena College, Dr. O. J. Finch … as president of London (Ontario) Bible Institute, Dr. Joseph C. Macaulay … as visiting professor of ecumenics at Princeton Theological Seminary, Dr. J. Robert Nelson … as chairman of the Department of Religion at (West Virginia) Bethany College, Dr. Lester G. McAllister.

!

Sue is away at camp and her correspondence has piled up in the family mail basket. The urge to communicate becomes strong during the summer dispersion of the teen tribes. Sue receives an average of four letters a day, and I notice that her own writing efforts have reduced her telephone time encouragingly. There is a delightful prospect that she will recruit a fresh platoon of correspondents at camp.

No doubt if these epistles were accessible to me I should find a wealth of suggestion for my own fortnightly letter. Indeed, the barest glance at one postcard that fell from the pile led to this column. The card was written in green ink in a precise backhand, and vigorously punctuated with exclamation points drawn in outline.

I had observed long ago that young women find exclamation points particularly congenial, and I began to reflect on the psychology of punctuation. Letters, of course, do not tell the whole story. In the same mail was a card from Charles, who never fails to write his mother from camp because this is required as a meal-ticket for dinner on the second day. Charles’ note was innocent of any punctuation whatever, although an exclamation point might have been appropriate after the statement that they had thrown the counselor into the lake. Punctuation appears to be deeper than the conventions of the style-book.

There are crisp individuals whose sign is the period. Often they are married to flighty, confused types, whose lives and speech are a wild succession of afterthoughts, qualifications, exceptions, and other interruptions, which careen along breathlessly in an endless rush of commas (when they do not stop for parentheses), or break down altogether into dots.… And who has not encountered the persistent rising inflection which betrays the question-marked man?

We may resent people who are in a perpetual comma, and tire of the endless series of the punctuational colonial, but unpunctuated life would be no less dull than confusing. Consider the rich punctuation of Scripture. The fervent rapids of a Pauline sentence cascading down a steep slope of thought, filled with whirlpools of unfinished movement … the great questions and the sublime answers of John’s gospel … the measured semicolons that mark the poetic parallels of Isaiah.…

But not least in Scripture is the exclamation point of praise. When we lose that we have lost worship and life! Preachers should learn from Paul the punctuation of doxologies. Even teen-agers might listen then!

EUTYCHUS

ACIDS OF MODERNITY

Gittings’ “A Letter to Ministering Brethren” (July 4 issue) graciously shares with us an unusual spiritual experience.… The acids of modernity have eaten deeply into a once healthy church.… The world task of the church is to speak the Word and let it do its own work. Time spent working out some type of syncretistic religion would be better spent understanding the needs of non-Christian peoples and in presenting the Gospel of Christ to them. Nationalism may be forcing us to reshape our procedures, but there is no need to attempt to reshape the Gospel.

W. L. THOMPSON

Christian Missionary Fellowship

Aurora, Ill.

I am one of those Gittings attacks in his “Letter.” I do not know whether everyone will be saved or not. I do not know whether there is a hell either. One thing I do know is, if there is there will be a special corner for those who spend their time attacking their fellow Christians in the Church who disagree with them theologically.… I am quite sure that the shepherd instinct of men like Paul Tillich and Nathaniel Micklem does more to point men to Christ and the Kingdom of God than the naked hatred of a neurotic like Gittings.

W. E. HINES

First Congregational

Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.

The Gittings “Letter” is one of the finest things I have read for some time. His attitude and concern should be displayed by more of us here on the “home” field.

RODERICK E. HURON

First Christian Church

Canton, Ohio

The Gittings Letter from West Pakistan ranks with the letters to the seven churches. The lukewarm “common dishonesty” of ministers who maintain membership in churches characterized by doctrines they no longer accept is but a symptom of the decay of the Church itself.

For the most part our numbers-conscious churches have been so intent on keeping a “relaxed, unstilted fellowship with other human beings” that we have indeed removed the offense from the Gospel. If we fearlessly preached the Gospel Sunday after Sunday our pews would grow more and more empty until we finally came to the hard core of those who are willing to follow Christ to the cross as the unavoidable cost of discipleship.

… We who see real but not extra-biblical merit in the Confessions are hard pressed to make our point: the Confessions were never meant to intellectualize the faith, and so give rise to the danger of equating faith with assent to definitive doctrines. But they were meant it be affirmations of faith called for in the light of … the abuses in theology in the time in which they were written.

RAYMOND A. PETREA

St. James Evangelical Lutheran

Brunswick, Ga.

SEX AND SOROKIN

It is good to see your publication (July 4 issue) presenting a confrontation of contemporary sex expression in America with the Gospel. The Church has been greatly remiss in its silence and blindness. But I was disturbed that such an extreme rightist as Pitirim Sorokin … completely oblivious to the dangers of population explosion … was chosen for an unbiased searching for a Christian message on sex.… With all due respect to the learned gentlemen who composed the panel on “Sex in Christian Perspective” their remarks are as uninspired as though they were sharing favorite recipes.… Thanks for the try.

ROBERT W. WOOD

First Congregational Church

Spring Valley, N. Y.

Dr. Sorokin claims Hegel coined “Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht”.…

The author is the German poet Friedrich Schiller.

T. W. BAULDER

Zion American Lutheran Church

Eureka, S. D.

BRUNNER ON COMMUNISM

The article by Emil Brunner (Apr. 25 issue) is a major landmark in the ever growing struggle for freedom. I am sure that it will have great impact among our churches in the United States.…

HERBERT A. PHILBRICK

Rye Beach, N. H.

The article is being prepared for insertion in the Congressional Record.…

DONALD L. JACKSON

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

Washington, D. C.

• The article has since appeared in the Congressional Record for June 28, 1960, pp. A5619, A5620. CHRISTIANITY TODAY reprints are also available at five cents each or $2.50 per hundred.

—ED.

ON UNIVERSALISM

With respect to “universalism,” you employ it generally as a diversionary channel through which you can send to oblivion any idea that might entail consideration of God as the Saviour of all men. Because this associates “universalism” with obscurantism, I eschew the term, and substitute therefore the appellative Christusaviorism—from Christ, the universal Savior.… For anyone who can discern that the Scriptures depict God as infinite in every respect, nothing less than universal regeneration can possibly serve as a measure of His will and power to turn the blasphemy of men into the mighty chorus of praise that His majesty demands.

F. S. DONN

San Luis Obispo, Calif.

STEWARDSHIP AND STAMPS

If there is a pauper-sized fund anywhere to be found, in the church, it is hiding in the gingham apron pocket of the Ladies Missionary Society. Our tithes do the great work of Christ, but the small leftovers that find their way into the Ladies Missionary basket have their job to do, also. If we do not want it to be a potluck job we have to put our thinking-chef-caps on and come up with a new recipe.

Recently some ladies in our missionary aid did just that. We do not claim the originality of the idea, only its ingenuity. Hoarding every penny of our prayed-for monies for the spreading of the Gospel, and [desiring] … a silver tea set which would be perfect for fellowships, we searched for a new solution.

Someone suggested trade stamps and the idea spread like virus. We brought them in: red, blue, green, any kind. If they were the wrong kind our resourceful committee exchanged them with other stamp collectors. Frequent announcements were made as to our progress and here and there a pep talk to remind us of our goal.

Today, it was on display, smug and shiny, reminding us that we didn’t have to use one cent of the Lord’s money. Why, it’s almost too beautiful to soil with the pouring of tea.

ROMAYNE ALLEN

Detroit, Mich.

WHAT THEY DIDN’T TEACH

After a second reading, the full impact of … “Spiritual Training of the Pastor” (July 18 issue) came upon me. So obvious it is that one wonders why it has not dawned on those responsible for teaching the future ministers of the Church.… Those who trained me were conscientious, dedicated and sincere men, earnestly attempting to train students for the ministry. Yet such disciplines as personal prayer and group fellowship were not insisted upon.

… I’m wondering why … the author … left out the … discipline which was most prominently used by our Lord—… that of field training.

THOMAS D. HERSEY

Methodist Church

Popejoy, Iowa

I owe much to my own seminary instructors. They taught me many things, but they did not teach me how to grow spiritually. The basic purpose of any seminary should be to train its students to lay hold of the great verities of our Christian faith in such a way that they become living realities in their lives, rather than intellectual concepts.

ROLAND J. BROWN

Clarendon Hills, Ill.

CONGRATULATIONS!

Heartiest congratulations on articles by Malik and Schaeffer in June 20 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

RALPH W. SOCKMAN

Christ Church (Methodist)

New York, N. Y.

Because of your fair coverage of the Methodist General Conference (May 23 issue) and your more usable articles recently you may renew my subscription.

EARL E. JOSTEN

First Methodist

Coon Rapids, Iowa

TEACHING—METHODS AND MESSAGE

Christian education has now become a highly specialized science with ever-increasing emphasis on methods and communication.

Many has been the Sunday School class that has gone through the boredom of a period of “teaching” which reflected the ignorance and ineffectiveness of the teacher.

That the curriculum and methods of the Church School are now under careful study is certainly to the good—provided that the biblical message is honestly and clearly presented.

With the increased concern for the Sunday School, the scientific methods of teaching being carried over from the secular to the religious field, and with new concepts of communication, it becomes imperative that these and other advances or improvements he anchored to the divine revelation and not become a clever means of substituting human opinions for the clear affirmations of Scripture.

To be an effective teacher of a Sunday School class, beginner or adult, he or she must know the Bible, not books about the Bible but the Bible itself. This is a basic requirement, and such knowledge is not acquired in a short time; rather it comes solely through the reading, studying, pondering, and obeying the Word of God in our personal lives.

To expound the opinions of men is only a matter of research, but to be able to teach the Holy Scriptures is a matter of faith and experience.

We need very much to guard against coldness or legalism, while at the same time we guard against every tendency to rob the Bible of its clearly indicated meaning.

With the increasing emphasis on methods of communication there goes hand in hand the question—What is it we are trying to communicate? It is possible to communicate untruths so effectively that they appear to be facts. It is possible to be pedagogically perfect and at the same time a menace to those whom we teach.

I mention these things because there is in the realm of Christian faith a great volume of truth to be imparted. And in many areas of doctrine there is no room for speculation or argument. An honest teacher of Christianity for instance, stands without equivocation on the deity of Christ and will support that fact along with its many implications.

Therefore while discussion, questions, yes even arguments may have their place in a class, they all must find their solution in an authority and wisdom which is above man, namely, the authority and wisdom of the Holy Scriptures.

Many is the “discussion class” that has foundered on the rocks of individual opinion because the leader, moderator, or teacher has failed to prove a worthy pilot, and because the course was not charted by the Bible itself. The same can be said for many things done in the name of “group dynamics.”

As important as methods and effective communication are, however, the primary concern in a Church School is the message. And it is here that many modern curriculae fail. Writers, giving often a lavish lip service to “biblical content,” leave people cold and uninstructed because their pious references to Scripture are lost in a miasma of rationalistic unbelief.

Of what use is teaching which results in unbelief rather than belief? What spiritual food can a little child, or adult, get from clever “explanations” which in effect deny the clear affirmations of Scripture? What is gained by explaining away the miraculous and making light of the supernatural? What has a method, coupled with adroit techniques of communication, accomplished when it leads people to question rather than believe the Bible which is supposed to be the heart of Christian instruction?

These are very relevant questions—not in all major denominations but in some, and not in all issues of materials but in some.

In the imparting of Christian truth there is an element not present in the secular realm, and this is spiritual. Also, in Christian teaching there is a supernatural Person without whom all is in vain—the Holy Spirit.

Methods may be perfect. The art of communication may be superb. But unless God’s Holy Spirit takes the message and makes it clear and applies it to the heart of the individual, no permanent good has been accomplished.

It is the spiritual phase which places the Church School in a class by itself. It is the need for supernatural help that places both teacher and pupil in a position unknown in the secular field.

Not only must the teacher in a Church School depend on the presence, illumination, and power of the Holy Spirit, but his efforts must be bathed in prayer. Prayerlessness is an affront to God and at no time more so than in presuming to teach of Him without adequate preparation and looking to Him for guidance and empowering.

Nor can the Christian teacher do his or her work effectively if one’s personal life gives the lie to the spiritual truths he is teaching. Consistency of words and life are nowhere more important than at the level of the teacher.

Much emphasis is also placed on making the lesson relevant to our times. This is of course good provided that divine revelation is applied to current problems on the basis of the principle involved. For instance it is imperative that the Christian’s obligation to love his neighbor be affirmed and taught with all the vigor at one’s command. But the enforcement of various concepts or programs by governmental intervention may transfer the problem to a category entirely separated from divine revelation. The man who demanded of Christ that he speak to his brother about an undivided inheritance did not get his wish because Christ saw through to the covetousness of his heart.

The inequity of an undivided legacy would appeal to any of us, yet Christ’s judgment of covetousness was the matter of prime importance.

Does not our Lord give us an example of placing emphasis on the things that are not seen rather than on things material? Is this not a principle on which Christian teaching should stand? We see the injustices and inequities of the world around us. With great zeal and enthusiasm we go out to correct social problems, but we fail to grasp the Christian principle that all of these things are symptoms of a disease which is sin in the hearts of the men and women making up society.

Those who teach in Church Schools have a glorious opportunity to go to the source of our problems and to the Fountain Head of their solution. Once those whom we teach come to know Christ as Saviour and make Him the Lord of their lives, all other things fall into their proper place and perspective, as promised in Matthew 6:33.

L. NELSON BELL

Classed with the poetic books of the Old Testament, Job is a book of deep philosophy which deals with some of the basic problems of life. It is cast in the form of a dramatic poem. There is a prose beginning which explains the situation and a prose ending which concludes the story. A rich man of antiquity, Job was noted for his righteousness. Satan was allowed to test him by deep suffering. The major discourses with the comforters are about the problems of suffering and of life itself. In rounds of conversation Job speaks three times with each of three friends, with the exception of the third speech of the last comforter which is given by a newcomer, Elihu. After this, God himself speaks to Job and in humility Job accepts God’s reproof. The book ends with Job’s restoration.

OUTLINE

Introduction, Job’s calamities, chapters 1:1–2:13.

Job’s nine speeches, chapters 3; 6–7; 9–10; 12–14; 16–17; 19; 21; 23–24; 26–31.

Eliphaz’ three speeches, chapters 4–5; 15; 22.

Bildad’s three speeches, chapters 8; 18; 25.

Zophar’s two speeches, chapters 11; 20.

Elihu’s speech, chapters 32–37.

Jehovah’s reproof and Job’s submission, chapters 38–41.

Conclusion, chapter 42.

Some have argued that the first two and last chapters which are written in prose, were by an author different from the writer responsible for the body of the work which is poetry. But Terrien, speaking on Job in the Interpreter’s Bible, calls attention to the fact that other ancient pieces also exhibit such a structure (Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 3, p. 879). Actually, the argument of the book really depends on the setting as given in chapters 1 and 2.

Job is a theodicy. It faces the problems of why the righteous suffer and offers an answer or answers justifying the ways of God with men. Job has ever since been an example of integrity (Ezek. 14:14, 20) of suffering and of patience (Jas. 5:11).

THE NARRATIVE

The record of Job’s experiences is given with great artistry. The first chapter, though in prose, attains by a simple recitation of the staggering facts a climax of tragedy. Job is bereft of all. Unknown to Job but given to the reader is the information that his misfortunes have occurred under the permission of God at the instigation of Satan.

Now what should be Job’s reaction?—despair?—rebellion?—abandon? No, his attitude is one of absolute submission to the will of God (1:21). It should be noted that this is not only Job’s reaction, it comes with the approval of the inspired author (1:22). Job, having passed the test, is attacked by Satan, again with God’s limitation that Job shall not be killed. Again Job had no way of knowing that God had set these limits. Indeed, Job knew no more of the divine purposes in his trials than we do in ours. He could not sense that he was just then the special arena of Satanic forces contending with the divine, while angels watched to see the supporting power of the grace of God. God never let Job go. In all his affliction He was afflicted, and as his eye is upon the sparrow so Job was the object of God’s loving care even when God seemed to be most withdrawn. Satan has great power over Job and over us, but God speaks the last word.

In Job’s further trial his wife turns against him. But again Job expresses submission (2:10), and again this attitude is the one approved by the author, “In all this did not Job sin with his lips.”

Now absolute submission to the will of God is the proper attitude for a Christian to take. And this is neither fatalism nor irrationalism. It is not fatalism because the will of God is the will of a personal Father rather than a blind impersonal force. It is not irrational because the Christian has adequate reason to know that in the long light of eternity the will of God is best.

Inability to understand this is one of the failures of the current play J. B., by Archibald MacLeish. The play cleverly reproduces Job’s suffering in terms of present society. It sharply poses the problem of how to know the chief end of man and can God himself be known. But the play offers no answer to either question. It lamely ends that all our answer is “we are” and that what suffers can love. Love on earth and the fact of existence are apparently all the play leads to. This is merely the road to despair. The play ends in a blank. But existence without God is a terrible blank (Eph. 2:12). The end of Job is very different as James 5:12 assures us. Job meets God and is satisfied and God blesses Job at the last.

The answer of Job to suffering is, however, no easy and superficial answer. Job in his person and in his thought plumbs the depth of suffering. At first, as we have said, he declares that his confidence is anchored in the rock of sublime trust in the ultimate goodness of God. But in the following chapters he is shaken by the extent of his anguish. Here the so-called “comforters” play their part. The book does not call them comforters, though it does say they came to comfort their friend in his disasters (2:11). Their function in the book is to discuss the “why” of suffering. Apparently the answers of the three men are all alike and make no great progress. They claim that Job has greatly sinned and therefore his great suffering is penal. If he will repent and reform, all will be well (4:8; 8:3–7; 11:6, 13–16). Some of the remarks of these men are in a measure true. God does punish sin; repentance and reform are commanded by God; He does do unsearchable things beyond man’s wisdom. But these limited answers do not fit Job’s cause. Why do the righteous suffer? How can we explain the inequalities of life?

Job at times falls into blank despair. He sees no answer. He curses his day. He sees nothing beyond the grave (7:9; 10:21, 22) and longs for death in a passage as poignantly beautiful as it is spiritually hopeless (3:17–19). These thoughts are not recommended by the author nor are they to be considered as divine instruction any more than Asaph’s preliminary observations on a similar theme (Ps. 73:13–16). They are the anguished questions which at last bring forth the epochal advances in God’s revelation to Job.

Job never loses sight of two points, first that he is guiltless of the grievous sins charged against him, and second that God is righteous. An important verse is 13:15, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.” Unfortunately, there is a dispute here on the reading. The Hebrew “lo” (preposition l plus him) is vocalized by some of the Jewish witnesses as “lo” (not) and is read, “He will slay me, I have no hope” (RV and RSV). But all the older translations, the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, the Jewish Targum, and the Latin Vulgate take it as does the King James, and in the Hebrew grammar the verb hopeor trust needs the preposition I to compliment the meaning. The King James reading is preferable. Job retains his faith in God.

And he concludes that present injustice is remedied hereafter. The force of the passage in 14:7–14 is missed in most translations, but it clearly considers the hereafter. The argument is that even a tree when cut down sends up a second growth. “It will sprout again” (yachlîph). But how about man? Can it be that the summit of creation, a sentiment being of moral possibility is of less consequence to God than a tree? “If a man die, shall he live again?” Job answers his plaintive cry by the affirmation of an abiding faith, “I will wait till my second growth (chalîphah) come. Thou shalt call and I will answer thee. Thou shalt have a desire to the work of thy hands” (14:14, 15). The word chalîphah comes from the root “chālaph,” meaning to pass away or succeed (hence our word Caliph). In this context there is doubtless an allusion to the second growth of a tree as symbol of resurrection mentioned in verse 7.

The affirmation of Job forms the background of the famous passage in 19:23–27. Through his groping Job sees the possibilities of an ultimate answer. His sufferings cannot now be justified. But they will be justified at last. In a solemn appeal to the future Job declares his confidence that his “vindicator” (more accurately than “redeemer”) lives and shall at last appear. Verse 26 is difficult. The words “after my skin” hardly makes sense. After can be a preposition of time (as after two days) or of place (as behind the tree’), but “after my skin” is inappropriate. But the root “ ‘wr” (skin) is identical with that of the verb awake used of resurrection in 14:12. It would fit the Hebrew grammar much better to translate “after my awaking.” This is the marginal reading of the King James translators. The RSV reading “after my skin has been thus destroyed” is impossible. It would require the preposition after to be used with the infinitive of the verb destroy and the word skin to follow. The Hebrew does not read this way. The next phrase “worms destroy this body” is more difficult still. The Hebrew lacks worms and body. Perhaps it means “when this (suffering) is struck off (or finished).” The verse would then read, “After my awaking, when this misery is over in my flesh shall I see God.” It is debated whether the phrase should read “in (i.e. out from) my flesh” or “apart from my flesh.” The Hebrew “min” (from) could mean either one, but inasmuch as the following verse emphasizes that Job himself with his own eyes shall see God, it seems that the reading “in my flesh” is fully justified. Consideration of these details is necessary to show that the above suggested translation of the crucial verse does full justice to the Hebrew and considers the verse in relation to Job’s triumphing faith in his eventual blessing in a future life.

The above concepts are carried on in Job’s recognition that the wicked, though they may prosper in this life nevertheless can expect God’s condemnation at last (21:7–30; 24:19–24; 27:13–23). Job, however, declares his firm trust in God (23:10; 28:28) and his innocence before his accusers (31:1–40).

Elihu, a fourth comforter enters the picture at chapter 32, but seems to add nothing new to what has previously been said. He too alleges Job’s guilt (34:7) and declares that God would bless if he would return from sin (36:12, 16).

At last the trial of Job is over. God himself speaks. In highly poetic form he shows Job (and we should take the lesson to heart) how little of the ways of God are known to man. How complete then should be our submission to His will.

In the speech of the Almighty, Job is reproved for lack of perfect trust in God (40:7, 8), and Job at last finds full satisfaction in meeting God face to face (42:1–6). God then reproves Job’s companions, accepts Job’s sacrifice and intercession, and finally restores his possessions. It is beautifully remarked that he was given twice as many possessions as before, but only an equal number of children. Yet he had not really lost his former children—those he would meet again in heaven.

DATE

The date of Job has been much discussed. In one sense it makes little difference when the book was written for nowhere is it dated in the Old Testament or New. Conservatives have often dated it in the general time of Moses, as it mentions Abraham’s nephews, but omits all reference to the worship of the tabernacle or temple. This is a sound argument. Other conservatives have suggested the time of Solomon. Critics have claimed that the language is late and a few have held that the book is as recent as 200 B.C. The latter date is now impossible to sustain as fragments dating from that time have now been found in the Dead Sea caves. Parts of Job are among the earliest fragments found. Surely a date in the prophetic period, that is, from Moses to Ezra, is most logical. One reason for conservative zeal for an early date is that usually the critical considerations arguing for a later date of Job would indicate too late a date for other books such as Proverbs, some of the Psalms, portions of Isaiah, and so forth. It is true that the style of the body of the book of Job is unique. This may be due not so much to a late date as to the mixed non-Hebraic dialect of the area where Job was written. Affinities of the language with both Aramaic and Arabic have been pointed out. More significant are affinities with the old Canaanite language of Ugarit. Indeed it is likely that some items in the peculiar dialect of Job are marks of antiquity rather than of lateness. As to the ideas of Job, they are not a sufficient guide to dating for we do not know the ideas of hinter-Palestine in antiquity. Some have supposed that the concept of the resurrection in Job marks it as late. This is begging the question for we do not know how early the idea was revealed to Israel. Others have denied that Job teaches the doctrine of the resurrection at all! The fact is that as far as we can tell, Job’s doctrine of the resurrection cannot be denied to early Israel. The book of Job itself may well have been a milestone in God’s revelation of this truth.

LITERATURE

The standard commentaries of Keil and Delitzsch and Lange are helpful. The work of E. S. P. Heavenor in the New Bible Commentary (IVCF, London, 1953) is also good, but does not go into detail on the crucial passages in chapters 14 and 19. Works on introduction and critical questions are fully covered in Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 1949). For the mass of literature on Job, mostly critical, compare the treatment of Samuel Terrien in the Interpreter’s Bible (Abingdon, 1954).

R. LAIRD HARRIS

Professor of Old Testament

Covenant College and Theological Seminary

Uniform Lessons are not without limitations. They are not a perfect panacea for the religious illiteracy and moral ills of our nation. But strong evidence could be marshaled to support the statement that Uniform Lessons, the most widely used curriculum materials in the Sunday Schools of America, have been the foremost factor in the Christian culture of the nation during the past 75 years.

QUESTIONS AND CRITICISMS

Vigorous criticism of Uniform Lessons is not new. Such criticism, from the early years of this co-operative effort among Sunday School leaders in America, has led to improvements in Uniform Lessons and to the development of other needed curriculum materials. But questions continue to be raised, and even charges of the most grievous nature are leveled against this plan of Bible study. Most of these questions and charges arise from misunderstanding and lack of information. Some of them spring from deep concern for the cause of Bible teaching in the churches. Unfortunately, some criticisms are inspired by pure prejudice and a desire to embarrass the groups responsible for Uniform Lessons.

The more frequent questions and criticisms are the following: 1. Uniform Lessons seem to follow a hop, skip, and jump plan—why not study the Bible book by book and chapter by chapter, straight through? 2. There are too many passages in a given lesson—we get confused and can never cover all the ones listed. 3. Much of the Bible is left out—why not study all the Pentateuch, all the Psalms, all the Old Testament prophecies, all the New Testament epistles, and all of Revelation? 4. The lessons are too topical, about some moral problem or some current situation in human relations—why not concentrate on the Bible and learn what it means? 5. The lessons major on the “social gospel”—why not leave politics and race relations to the modernists? 6. After a lifetime in Sunday School, people are hopelessly ignorant about the Bible. They don’t know whether Noah built the Temple or preached on Pentecost, whether Peter betrayed Jesus or was stoned to death on the Damascus road, or whether Ruth was the mother of Moses or the wife of David. Why cannot Sunday School lessons major on Bible knowledge instead of moralizing about how to get rid of worry or how to treat your neighbor? 7. Uniform Lessons repeat the same historical material cycle after cycle—why do we not provide for the study of fundamental doctrines? Protestants are amazingly ignorant of what they believe. 8. The lessons are all from the Bible but never about the Bible; there is no clear-cut facing of critical problems about the Bible. Do not people need to know how we got the Bible and what it is as the Word of God? 9. The lessons never seem to come to grips with social issues, with the critical problems in modern society—Bible study means little unless we get guidance for living in our time. 10. Why are Uniform Lessons copyrighted by the National Council of Churches? Why do we have to study something handed down by the National Council?

BASIC PRINCIPLES

The confusion and false implications indicated by most of these questions is evident. Often the question is an indictment rather than a request for information. Let me undertake to answer them by calling attention to some basic principles underlying Uniform Lessons.

Uniform Lessons are designed to provide a plan for Bible teaching and Bible study suitable for groups, primary through adult. These lessons are meant to be used in churches of varying sizes with varying levels of trained leadership. It is expected that Sunday School teachers and officers will be voluntary workers, seriously committed to the importance of Bible teaching but not specialists in theology or education. It is further understood that attendance at Sunday School is voluntary, often being interrupted by change of residence, which is a fact that must be faced, and which imposes inevitable limitations on what curriculum materials can be. Uniform Lessons, designed for reaching multitudes of people for Bible study, cannot be conceived or developed as a formal course in biblical studies. Some highly desirable outcomes in biblical knowledge, Christian understanding, and matured social insights cannot be achieved in such a plan of study. This does not reflect on the validity of Uniform Lessons, but simply means that they cannot serve all the needs for Bible study. Their genius, their basic values as a program of Bible study suitable for people generally, must be understood.

It follows, therefore, that the units of study and the lesson materials must have variety for the sake of interest. The average Sunday School constituency is not prepared for sustained study of abstract truths, of consecutive portions of the Bible, or of the more profound theological concepts of the Hebrew prophets or the letters of Paul. Provision must be made for materials that have value in spite of irregular attendance, in spite of persons moving from one community to another, and in spite of the shortcomings of inadequately equipped or dedicated teachers. And, especially, a plan of study must be provided that lends itself to participation by the unreached multitudes which churches should strive to reach, not just at the beginning of courses but week by week throughout the year. Some plan, at least similar to Uniform Lessons in their basic characteristics, must be followed if churches are to accept their divine commission and responsibility to teach the Bible to all the people.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Some of the questions and criticisms of Uniform Lessons point to strengths in what might be considered weaknesses. The lessons do have in some instances a collection of passages for study. This is necessary in drawing upon the most relevant biblical material about given topics. A study of topics is just as sound educationally—and in some cases far more fruitful spiritually—than the study of continuous chapters. Such passages reveal the truth of God about the topic or problem being studied. And students are thus helped toward more familiarity with the content of Scripture as it bears on the experiences of life.

Some units and some particular lessons do place major emphasis on social issues. The Bible is God’s revelation for man’s living in relation to the society around him as well as for his redemption from sin. The Gospel of Christ contains the clearest kind of teaching about the Christian’s social responsibility. A plan of Bible study that omits this teaching would be untrue to the Bible. It remains to be said, however, that a study of any given cycle of Uniform Lessons will indicate a conscious effort to balance the units with stronger social implications with those of historical, doctrinal, missionary, and inspirational character—of which the latter certainly have the strong predominance.

The builders and users of Uniform Lessons have never thought of these lessons as being the only curriculum materials for use in the churches. There are many other media in the educational mission of a church. To blame Uniform Lessons for a low level of biblical knowledge—and it ought to be understood that questionnaires and generalizations often exaggerate this with false conclusions—ignores responsibility and opportunity at many points. Homes ought to teach the Bible. Preaching ought to provide instruction in biblical knowledge and indoctrination in Christian truth. Training in churchmanship and Christian living is a sacred responsibility of churches in addition to what is undertaken through the Sunday School. Nearly all denominations provide a variety of teaching and training activities for children, youth, and men and women designed to supplement the Bible study program in the Sunday School. All of these must share the responsibility for developing Christians with fullness of knowledge and maturity of faith.

The criticism is sometimes made that Uniform Lessons are controlled by the National Council. In recent years Uniform Lessons have been prepared by the Committee on the Uniform Series. The committee is sponsored by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches. The majority of the denominations choose to co-operate through this medium. Participation in the work of the committee is not restricted to denominations affiliated either with the Division of Christian Education or the National Council. Thus, I have served on the committee, along with other representatives of the Southern Baptist Convention, a denomination which is not a member of the National Council of Churches. I have shared in the work on the same basis as any other person. The committee does its work in a democratic process. Its work is restricted to developing the plan for the Uniform Lessons—planning the cycle, selecting the Bible material, selecting titles and age-group topics, and preparing a list of Home Daily Bible Readings. All of it is subject to review by denominational curriculum committees for criticism and suggestions, and then denominations are free to modify the outlines to meet their own needs. The lesson materials proper are of course the product of denominational writers, editors, and publishers. It is misleading to say that Uniform Lessons are “controlled” or “handed down” by the National Council of Churches. I have served on the committee since 1943 and recall no instance when pressure was brought to bare on the committee. When the committee completes its work, outlines are released under the copyright of the Division of Christian Education, National Council of Churches. This is done to protect the interests of the co-operating denominations.

I should like to emphasize some positive values in Uniform Lessons. These need to be seen in the perspective of the basic principles which guide in the development of this plan for Bible study.

First, Uniform Lessons place major emphasis on the Bible. Every lesson is a study of a Bible passage. The importance of biblical content is recognized. In each six-year cycle, effort is made to cover as much of the entire Bible as is deemed practical for study in the Sunday School situation when the program aims at reaching as many persons as possible for Bible study. Lessons are intended to encourage Bible study and to develop understanding of, love for, and obedience to the Scriptures as the Word of God.

Second, Uniform Lessons recognize the supremacy of Christ. It is a fixed principle that the lessons for at least one quarter each year will be devoted to a study of the life of Christ or to his teachings as set forth in the Gospels. Other units include material directly related to Christ and his work and to what he means as the Saviour of the world. Persons are confronted again and again with his invitation to salvation, with the demands of his lordship, and with the hope of mankind in his Kingdom.

Third, Uniform Lessons provide a practical plan for Bible study that lends itself to effective use by churches and denominations. It is the mission of the Church to minister to all classes of people, to reach the lost and spiritually illiterate and the saved and spiritually maturing. Even so, churches themselves differ widely. Their Bible teaching mission calls for lesson materials that can be used in widely varying situations, with the central objective of helping persons to find in the Scriptures the way of salvation and guidance in Christian duty. It is just here that we have the key to the tremendous impact of Uniform Lessons on the Christian culture of our nation. Small churches by the thousands, for the past six or seven decades, found these lessons a medium for gathering people together to study the Word of God. Large and strong churches found the lessons adaptable to serving masses of people. The simplicity of the plan, with the Bible at the center, captured the minds of evangelical Christians, and it became a medium of witness and growth. It helped to start churches, hold thousands of struggling churches together, and build thousands of them into strong units of Christian work. It is doubtful if there is any parallel with what Uniform Lessons have contributed to the warp and woof of Christian faith and Christian ideals in American life.

Fourth, Uniform Lessons contribute to Christian unity. The major evangelical denominations of America and Canada have participated in developing and using this plan of Bible study. Their representatives have become acquainted in a fellowship around the Holy Scriptures and have come into deeper insights and taken on greater concern for their common mission. The people of varying denominations and distinctive forms of worship have deepened their sense of kinship with other Christians as they have followed a uniform plan of Bible study. Thus Christian unity has been strengthed without compromise of Christian conviction.

Fifth, Uniform Lessons aim at supreme Christian objectives. This plan of Bible study seeks to help persons know and understand the message of the Bible that they may relate its truth to life. The lessons are adapted to the several age groups. Thus Bible truth is related to life experience, and to the moral and spiritual needs of individuals. Furthermore, the problems of personal Christian living and Christian social responsibility are dealt with normally and naturally—whenever the Bible material being studied bears on these matters. The aim of Uniform Lessons is not biblical knowledge per se. It is knowledge that makes one wise unto salvation, that equips the Christian with insights and attitudes and convictions that lead to good works, and that motivates the highest level of loyalty and service in the Kingdom of God.

Granting the positive values in this plan for Bible study, let me emphasize two further points. First, Uniform Lessons call for improvement. The work of planning in the initial stages can be improved. The lessons as published by the denominations can be improved. Second, Uniform Lessons alone are not enough. There must be improved teaching. And there must be a new dedication on the part of competent Christians to the supreme importance of the educational mission of the churches. The Word of God is adequate. The power of the Gospel is sufficient. But the commission to teach the whole counsel of God for the whole of life must be carried out with greater zeal and greater skill if our nation is to be blessed with salvation and established in justice.

Preacher In The Red

PENALTY

Many years ago, I went to preach in a popular church on the south coast of England. In the vestry, before the service, the vicar spoke very severely to the choirboys whose behaviour he said had been disgraceful. Then he turned and said to me, “As a rule the choirboys are taken into the vestry during the sermon and somebody reads them an interesting book, but today as a punishment, they are to listen to the sermon.”

—The Rev. P. R. P. BARKER, Woolpit Rectory, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk.

Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.

It is common knowledge in educational and psychological fields that the formative years, the most impressionable years of one’s life, are preschool years when the child’s basic life pattern is formed and attitudes are shaped that affect the rest of his life.

DETERMINING YEARS

Testimonies are easily gathered from sources concerned with mental health, juvenile delinquency, and divorce—the social problems of our day—as to the root importance of the first years of life in such areas. For example, according to Parents’ Magazine (Aug., 1952), “Modern psychologists and psychiatrists are convinced that the chances for healthy mental development are largely determined during the first six years of a child’s life.” In the magazine Say, put out by Roosevelt College (Spring, 1955), “It is a well-established fact that the seeds of insanity are sown from the ages of one to six.” International Journal of Religious Education (Oct., 1951) asserts: “By the time a child is five or six, his emotional pattern and his habit structure are fixed. Of course, variations in development can be expected in one direction or the other, but in general the pattern has become permanently set.… It is surprising that the Protestant Church has not kept pace with what we know to be true about the sensitivity and receptivity of these younger children. Preventative treatment is better than remedial medicine.”

Says Parents Magazine, “Still another recurring stereotype … is that juvenile delinquency mysteriously blossoms out among teen-agers. The truth is: It begins very early! Citing the famed Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck study of 500 delinquents, nearly half were noticeably delinquent before they were eight years old. Judge Joe Glasser in Link (Feb., 1957) makes this observation: “It is important for parents to concentrate upon the family environment. This is especially true during the first six years while basic behavior patterns are being established.… I am firmly convinced that almost 95 per cent of the juvenile delinquents are such because of environmental factors and improper parental guidance during the critical age above set forth.” Dr. C. W. Hall, Director and Professor of Bible and Religious Education, University of Texas, in his dissertation at Yale said: “A study of the home backgrounds of 300 happily married individuals and of 300 divorced individuals reveals the fact that the atmosphere of the home during the early impressionable years of a child’s life determines his later success or failure in marriage. In other words, a successful or unsuccessful marriage is usually made in childhood.” And Time Magazine (Feb. 13, 1956), reporting a gathering of leaders from industry at the Menninger Foundation in Topeka, said that some of the businessmen “boggled over the immense importance attached by the experts to the preschool years in character formation.” Dr. Roy Burkhart of Columbus, Ohio, declared he was more concerned with what went on in the nursery of his church than what went on in the pulpit. One director of education in a large wealthy church explained to a visitor that all teaching in the Sunday School was done by volunteers from the church membership with the exception of the nursery department. “This age needs such specialized training and is so important that we hire a professional.”

How much weight does the average church attach to such knowledge? If most church members come through the Sunday School, as is widely stated, church leadership ought to be concerned with the basic training that future church members are receiving. Can we say that the best teachers are being chosen to teach the two through five year olds? Is there insistence that teachers be trained for such specialized work? Or is any willing individual being urged to perform a babysitting service? Perhaps some zealous soul is seating little children in rows and preaching at them diligently each week to “give their hearts to the Lord.”

MISLED CHILDREN

Look briefly at the kind of training that goes on in the average church. Take the matter of prayer, for instance. Here is a concrete situation: Mrs. S. tells her group of two and three year olds, “Now we’re going to pray. Close your eyes. Bow your heads.” She stands before them, closes her eyes, and proceeds to pray. She prays for the pastor and the missionaries, the young men in service, the events of the coming week, and for the whole Sunday School. This is a good prayer to utter when she is home alone, but with two and three year olds, it is not, for none of them are praying. As the teacher continues, they open their eyes and begin enjoying their moments of “freedom.” Some even get up and walk around till an assistant corrals them, while others play with any object at hand or with each other.

Unfortunately the situation is not one of “no learning.” Children are constantly learning. They are learning that prayer is meaningless, long, tiresome—something to avoid when possible. They are forming attitudes that will militate against their being in prayer meeting when they grow up. Perhaps the point sounds stretched, but those who waive aside adult rationalizations for motives will find that early attitudes are most determinative. Such attitudes may be changed, of course, but they are always harder to break once they are established, and many never are changed.

As to sermons and the reading of God’s Word, we may ask what attitudes are engendered in young children toward learning Bible verses and having the Bible taught to them? Do teachers “assign” verses for parents to teach at home? And how do parents “teach” verses? Are children understanding what each verse means, or are they being told to repeat words, the truth of which they will need years later? We would hardly teach algebra to first graders on the grounds that it will be so useful when they get to high school! God’s own laws of learning and remembering are against the system so widely used in churches to justify some of the material given to small children.

Nonetheless, the child still learns something about Scripture. It is meaningless, it is a chore, verses are something to be said for adult approval, a star, or a prize. The Bible has no relevance to life, and so he forms a habit of sitting and outwardly “listening” to get adult approval with his mind turned off. He repeats glibly, “Let us love one another,” and forthwith proceeds to hit the child next to him. The teacher scolds him but makes no connection between the Bible verse and the deed; neither, of course, does the child. Pastors grieve over the unchanged lives of adults who sit Sunday after Sunday through biblical sermons. But early in life the people learned to let pious truth and daily living run in parallel courses.

RIGHT GUIDANCE

Children are so pliable, easily led, open to suggestion, and ready to love what we made lovable to them. Good training is available, not only in secular schools and Bible schools which give educational insights even by correspondence, but in easily available books. Curricula for nursery and beginner departments have methodology and helps for the untrained teacher in recognition of the usual local church situation. Bible materials suitable for the young child and ways of teaching to make truth vital and relevant to his life may be obtained from evangelical publishers. Would that churches insisted that teachers follow such material. Within the lessons, verses and Bible stories are carefully selected, carefully used, and repeated to make them a part of the child’s thinking and living. Short verses are repeatedly used in conversation, rather than formally taught in parrot-like repetition. Activities are so geared into Bible teaching that the child, from his first years in the nursery department, learns he is responsible to live what he knows. Real teaching involves helping the child to understand the truth and to put it into action.

In regard to giving, it is certain that good habits of bringing money to church will begin long before the child has much appreciation for the value of money. The time when he does come into such appreciation varies from child to child, depending upon his experiences. His offering should be called “money,” not “pennies,” and should be brought for the valid motive of love for the Lord. It is not “to give to Jesus,” but “to help in Jesus’ work.” “Giving to Jesus” is taken too literally by the nursery child to render it a clear expression for him. That is, he is likely to identify the Sunday School secretary who collects offering envelopes as “Jesus,” as some little children have done. The generalization, “Jesus’ work,” may be defined, even in the nursery, as buying pictures and chairs, or paying for the lights and the heat.

Prayer also may be real and a delight for children two and three years old. One idea is enough for one prayer, which must be offered when the child is prepared and feels thankful or ready to confide in the Lord something of interest to him. Expression must be short and pointed. Posture is perhaps the least important thing, although even a small child can feel the helpfulness of closing his eyes so he does not see other children while he talks to God.

TRAINING FOR TOMORROW

Were pastors and church leaders to look into the preschool departments of their own churches and see how few of them operate with understanding and skill, they would begin to show concern for the foundational training that is being given. Children will continue to grow up with habits that defeat what the pastor is trying to accomplish. And pastors will continue to grieve over the hardness of the human heart. Adults will act as they have been trained to act, for the laws of human development are God’s laws.

Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.