Two books have crossed my desk in recent days. The first is John Murray’s Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty and the other is Emile Cailliet’s The Recovery of Purpose. Both are excellent pieces of work.

John Murray teaches theology at Westminster Seminary and has, in my opinion one of the finest theological minds of our day. As one would guess from his professorship he is orthodox, but more exactly Reformed. Describing a man as orthodox and Reformed does not classify him too exactly in these days when another man’s theological position depends so much on your own viewpoint. We can describe John Murray as orthodox and Reformed in terms of the Calvinism which found expression in the Second Synod of Dort and in the Westminster Confession of Faith. To put it in another way, he is not afraid of propositional theology. In fact, he glories in it. A confession of faith to him means that we are making definite statements about definite beliefs, and he has no trouble agreeing with the statements of the Westminster Confession.

The book has only 71 pages of printed material, and includes just three lectures on the doctrine of Scripture, the authority of Scripture and the sovereignty of God as reflected in the writings of John Calvin. It is a scholarly treatment, brief and penetrating, by a man who believes that Calvin was a Calvinist.

Murray believes in the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture. He believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures as originally communicated, and he believes that Calvin held these views also. He tells us why. In dealing with the authority of Scripture, he takes up the difficult question of the authority of the words of Scripture as against the living Word of Jesus Christ. He recognizes as we all do that people who may have difficulty with verbal inspiration find some easement in saying in effect “the words don’t really matter; what really matters is that we have communicated to us the Living Word.” Murray believes the antithesis to be false and argues that we cannot know the Living Word and have encounter with Him apart from the words in which Lie is made known to us. I quote the author: “To think of the revelation Jesus gave apart from the words He spoke and apart from the words spoken from heaven in witness borne to Him as the beloved Son of the Father is a pure abstraction. The words Jesus spoke were inspired and infallible. On any other assumption we must abandon the infallibility of Jesus as the incarnate Word as well as the centrality and finality of the revelation He was and bore … it would be strange if believers who are shut off from the special kind of privilege enjoyed by the disciples … namely his infallible verbal communication with them, should be placed at the disadvantage of having no infallible verbal revelation” (pp. 41–42). It would mean, Murray argues, that we would be at a great disadvantage in our encounter with the living Word, and there is no reason to believe that we are. I hope I have put my finger at the center of Murray’s argument and urge you to read his entire discussion.

Emile Cailliet’s book is of a different sort with a different kind of purpose. It will be my privilege soon to review the book briefly in CHRISTIANITY TODAY. The problem which Cailliet has set for himself is a study of the attitudes of our day apart from the Christian orientation, and the attitudes of our day reflected in the intramural struggles of the Christian Church. He is working toward a common meeting ground where we as Christians, with a better understanding of truth, can enter into conversations with non-Christians if they are willing to re-think their approach to truth. As anyone who has heard Dr. Cailliet or read his previous works might guess, the new book is a rich feast of intellectual delights. The breadth of this man’s mind and his mastery in so many areas of knowledge constantly amaze me.

In working out his thesis Cailliet has had to wrestle with the problem of Scripture, and he does so strenuously. One will find the book worth while if he does no more than cull out Cailliet’s reflections on the one subject. To make one or two quotations on it would hardly be fair to the author. He leans over backwards to make a case for the fundamentalists, their use of Scripture (which he sharply criticizes), and their very evident successes. He is interested, too, in their zeal (pp. 63–64). Having parted company with their obscurantist approach, he nevertheless makes this interesting comment: “Not that the text itself has lost any of its significance. Quite the contrary. It commands higher value than ever before, and this to the last word” (italics mine). As Cailliet’s argument continues, he treats “and this to the last word” his idea quite differently from the way in which Murray would. His argument would allow for considerably more criticism in terms of Form, Mythos, and the like. Where Murray would say that the words of Scripture speak directly to us, I think Cailliet would be careful to say first that the words of Scripture can be understood only in the setting in which they arose, and then they speak to us only in the setting in which we find ourselves, that is, existentialism at both ends of the line.

Many weeks ago I suggested in this column that from the standpoint of theological seminary conversations there are at least three current religious thoughts: the ecumenical movement, the restatement of our confessions and their use, and the doctrine of Scripture. These two books reflect the ongoing debate on Scripture and the end is not yet. Versions, translations, basic documents, archaeological supports, the sweet uses of higher and lower criticism, the virtual reconstruction of “the divine originals”—all of these are a meaty treat for theological theses.

“Review of Current Religious Thought” is contributed in sequency by Dr. G. C. Berkouwer, Dr. Frank E. Gaebelein, and Dr. Philip Edgcumb Hughes, scholars alert to the theological tides of our time.

Apologetic For Classical Calvinism

Divine Election, by G. C. Berkouwer (Eerdmans, 1960, 336 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by William Childs Robinson, Professor of Historical Theology, Columbia Theological Seminary.

The distinguished theologian from Amsterdam ably expounds and defends the doctrine of Divine Election set forth in classical Calvinism. His touchstone is ever the limit of God’s Word. He begins his apologetic with the revelation in Jesus Christ, not with the hidden counsels of God.

Again and again in the course of this treatment, he delivers Calvinism from the hands of those who would modify the Reformed faith to suit their own preconceptions. The second chapter differs from those who, professing Calvin, are echoing Faustus’ semi-Pelagian scheme: the preaching of the Gospel, decision for Christ, then the Holy Spirit. Instead Berkouwer draws from John 6:37–45 the following: “To hear, to learn, to be drawn, to be given, and then to come.” This is the evangelical order.

For the brethren who in their zeal for logical consistency insist on an equal ultimacy of election and reprobation, Berkouwer holds that this goes beyond Scripture and counter to the Canons of Dort in their assertion that the two are not eodem modo. While salvation is founded solely on God’s mercy in Christ, the cause and matter, the real source and ground of men’s condemnation is in themselves (see Institutes III. xxiii. pp. 8–9). Again, “two persons hear; one despises, the other ascends. Let him who despises impute it to himself; let him who ascends not arrogate it unto himself,” but recognize that faith is given us by the Spirit (Institutes III. ii. p. 35; cf. John 3:3–21).

But the neo-orthodox are perhaps the hardest on Calvin. They insist on ascribing to him a view of God as arbitrary power. According to P. Maury, Predestination (p. 35), in Calvin the liberty with which God loves “is replaced by the arbitrary decision of pure omnipotence.” But Calvin actually said the opposite of this, namely, “the notion of the absolute and arbitrary power of God is profane and deserves our detestation” (Institutes III. xxiii. p. 2; cf. I. xvii. p. 2).

Dr. J. K. S. Reid in The Scottish Journal of Theology (I. p. 12) is another offender. He takes these Latin words gratiam istam Dei praecedit electio out of their context in Institutes III. xxii. i, and uses them to ascribe to Calvin a view directly opposite of that which Calvin sets forth in that very section as well as elsewhere in the Institutes and the commentaries. Calvin does not teach that election precedes grace as Reid erroneously asserts. Rather he says that, “If election precede that grace of God by which we are made fit to obtain the glory of eternal life what then can God Himself find in us by which He is moved to elect us?” This is a rhetorical question in a conditional sentence. The sense thereof is that if election preceded grace, then there could be no election. Here, as in the sentences preceding this one in the same paragraph, the Father must turn his view upon Christ to choose those whom he would admit to his fellowship.

For Calvin, Jesus Christ as God “represents himself as the author of election” (Institutes III. xxii. p. 7), even as Calvin prays that “we may be led to Christ only as the fountain of election” (a prayer made in connection with Calvin’s exposition of Malachi 1:2). For the Geneva Reformer, “it is beyond all controversy, that no man is loved by God but in Christ; he is the beloved Son in whom the love of the Father perpetually rests, and then diffuses itself to us; so that we are accepted in the Beloved” (Institutes III. ii. p. 32; III. xxiv. p. 5; ii. xvi. p. 4; Commentaries on Ephesians 1; on 1 Peter 1, on 2 Timothy 1:9–10, and Calvin Tracts, containing Treatises on the Sacraments, Edinburgh, II. p. 133).

Dr. Berkouwer’s great work is a challenge to those who profess the Reformed faith to understand their own heritage before they undertake to revise it. It is also a challenge to those who differ from this tradition to read about it from the pen of a master before they impugn it.

WILLIAM CHILDS ROBINSON

Early Views Of Christ

The Christ of the Earliest Christians, by William M. Ramsey (John Knox Press, 1959, 163 pp., $3), is reviewed by C. Edward Gammon, Minister of Fairlington Presbyterian Church, Alexandria, Virginia.

Much of the material in this book has been circulated in scholarly New Testament journals representing several schools of interpretation. Dr. Ramsey has contributed a valuable synthesis of the best contributions of each to our understanding of the earliest Christians and the vocabulary of their faith in Christ. His use of the material in the book of Acts as an outline adds immeasurably to the value of his book.

James S. Stewart notes in the foreword that the book is “the substance of an academic dissertation … in a shorter and more popular form.” Dr. Ramsey is capable of rich, exciting language, “Jesus is transcendent, terrible toward sin, worthy of the uncompromising trust and loyalty He demands …” (p. 46). However, much of this first book still has the stiff, occasionally tedious, syntax of a thesis. A valuable aid for pastor and layman alike.

C. EDWARD GAMMON

World Religions

Modern Trends in World Religions, edited by Joseph M. Kitagawa (The Open Court Publishing Co., 1959, 286 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Harold Lindsell, Professor of Missions, Fuller Theological Seminary.

This is a symposium dedicated to the memory of Paul Carus, pioneer in interreligious understanding. The essays include Christianity, Judaism, Mohammedanism, Indian religion, and forms of Buddhism. Nothing is included on Shintoism, Sikhism, Jainism, and Zoroastrianism. Some of the essays are uneven in quality and scope while others are gems of analysis within the compass of the pages allowed. There is much with which one would be in agreement and much with which one would take issue. Rivkin in his essay on Judaism makes this statement: “The development of Judaism underwrites only one generalization: no doctrine, however divine its claim, can persist intact in a world of change, development and novelty.” However, the Old Testament proclaims the fact that God is and this doctrine has persisted and is still intact. The chapter on modern trends in Christianity is worthwhile.

HAROLD LINDSELL

A Neglected Doctrine

The Witness of the Holy Spirit, by Bernard Ramm (Eerdmans, 1960, 140 pp., $3), is reviewed by Boyd Hunt, Professor of Systematic Theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Bernard Ramm, professor of systematic theology at California Baptist Theological Seminary, has already distinguished himself by his writings in the area of conservative apologetics and theology. This latest volume from his pen is marked by the same qualities of relevance, forthrightness, and insight by which his writings have come to be known so widely.

The Witness of the Holy Spirit is subtitled, “An Essay on the Contemporary Relevance of the Testimonium Spiritus Sancti Internum.” The book was written because of Ramm’s conviction that the doctrine of the testimonium has been sorely neglected in current discussions of revelation and authority.

In the first three chapters Ramm treats the historical roots of the testimonium, its theological presuppositions, and its scriptural foundations. The lengthy fourth chapter, the heart of the volume, discusses the theological implications of the doctrine. Here the author treats a series of topics developing the Reformation themes of the union of Word and Spirit and the subordination of church to Word. In a final chapter the interpretations of the testimonium by Rome, liberalism, fundamentalism, Kierkegaard, and Pascal are evaluated.

Broadly speaking Ramm understands the testimonium as the inward and subjective illumination by the Holy Spirit of objective revelation, which for us is inscripturated. Since the Scriptures arc autopistic, the testimonium is merely the means by which the believer is assured of the divinity of the Bible. The testimonium is not the ground of the authority of the Bible. Furthermore, the believer’s certainty of the divinity of Scripture cannot be separated from his certainty of his divine adoption. If these two are divorced, then the form of Scripture is severed from its content, and revelation is severed from salvation. The believer’s certainty through the testimonium is the certainty not of discursive reasoning but of intuition. The testimonium is not the impartation of theological sentences. Its structure cannot be deciphered from the religious consciousness.

This position is distinguished from the Roman Catholic doctrine that it is the church, “the teaching Magisterium,” that confers Christian certainty. In the Roman view the church as persuader remains outside and at a distance from the believer, while in the testimonium the divine barrister, the Holy Spirit as persuader, is in the heart. Ramm also distinguishes his interpretation from fundamentalism. The fundamentalist forgets the instrumental character of Scripture and makes the written Word by itself equal to the Word and the Spirit. Ramm sees this as but little short of a completely ex opere operato doctrine of the printed word.

The author fails to distinguish his own position from neo-orthodoxy. In a passing sentence he complains that the neo-orthodox doctrine of the inspiration “does not render Scripture suitable for use as the instrument of the Spirit,” but he does not amplify his statement. This failure to come to grips with the neo-orthodox doctrine of revelation is a disappointing feature of the book. It is well to remember, however, that the doctrine of the relation of Spirit to spirit is one of the least developed areas of neo-orthodox theology.

This book is an invaluable study and will stimulate fresh interest in a timely and basic topic.

BOYD HUNT

Thought Provoking

Challenge and Response, by Max Warren (Morehouse-Barlow Company, 1959, 148 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by Horace L. Fenton, Jr., Associate Director, Latin America Mission.

The basic test of any book on Missions is whether it stimulates thought and action. This book should do both.

Evangelicals will not agree with everything that Canon Warren writes in these chapters. The author, in stressing the fact that God has not left any nation without a witness, seems to go far beyond this basic scriptural principle in his insistence that the religions of the world are a part of that witness, and that therefore the missionary, while stressing the finality of the Christian faith, must be prepared to find traces of God’s revelation in all these other faiths. In doing so, he seems to give little place to the demonic element in the religions of men, or to the delusion which Romans chapter one says has overtaken nations who have rejected the divine revelation.

Nevertheless, there is in a number of these chapters a great deal that evangelicals ought to ponder and think through. Canon Warren’s analysis of the current situation in Asia and Africa is fresh, thought-provoking, and solidly based on his own visits to these fields. His concept of what is involved in evangelism today is replete with helpful insights. The chapter on “Re-minting of the Word ‘Missionary’ ” should be studied, not only by those who are now talking in terms of “fraternal workers” (a title which Warren rejects), but by all of us who are concerned about the missionary task of the Church. Canon Warren writes well, and his message merits careful attention.

HORACE L. FENTON, JR.

Meaning Of History

The Christian Doctrine of History, by John McIntyre (Eerdmans, 1957, 118 pp., $2.50) and The Hinge of History, by Carl Michalson (Scribner’s, 1959, 256 pp., $3.95), are reviewed by W. Stanford Reid, Professor of History, McGill University, Montreal.

In line with the present desperate search of men for meaning in history, we have here two more works dealing with this problem. Neither claims to provide a full-orbed explanation of history but points rather to a criterion of explanation, in both cases Jesus Christ. To the writers He is central for the understanding of man’s historical situation. One might almost say that Christ is the hard core of history.

However, when one has said this, he must necessarily qualify his statement, for there is by no means entire agreement as to what is meant by Christ or history. McIntyre seems to accept the “historicity” of Christ in the usual sense of the term. Michalson, on the other hand, follows the approach of Rudolf Bultmann, and after finishing his chapters on “The Historicity of Christ” and “The Reality of the Resurrection,” this reviewer is still not sure what he thinks of Christ, nor is he by any means certain that it makes any difference to Michalson whether Christ actually died and rose again in what might be termed “temporal” history.

Along with this difference between the two authors goes another. Michalson, following the demythologizing techniques of Bultmann tends to make a radical separation between “eschatological history” (Heilsgeschichte) and “existential history” (temporal history). In his discussion of both he has many reasonable things to say, but when one puts his whole pattern of thought together one feels that Christ’s connection with the history of man is really very tenuous.

McIntyre, on the other hand, less philosophical and more theological is also more concrete. His exposition of Christ’s position as the nexus of history gives life to historical thought. His chapter on Christ as the fulfillment of history is particularly helpful as is his discussion of the relation of history to Heilsgeschichte in his last chapter.

Both books are useful—Michalson’s as an exposition of the existential point of view set forth by Bultmann, and McIntyre’s as a more theological and more “orthodox” interpretation of the meaning of history.

W. STANFORD REID

A Biblical Ministry

The Growing Minister, by Andrew W. Blackwood (Abingdon, 1960, 192 pp., $3), is reviewed by Robert Boyd Munger, Minister of First Presbyterian Church, Berkeley, California.

It is inevitable that the author who has given us so many choice volumes on the message and method of the ministry should now give attention to the minister himself. The book warrants careful attention not because of its profundity or originality but for the clarity with which it calls the servant of Christ to biblical patterns and provisions. Great themes are sounded in a grand setting—themes which we are in danger of overlooking in this superficial culture where men in pulpits are tempted to get their cue from “do-it-yourself” handbooks and manuals on “Psychology for the Simple.”

Perhaps this book will not be greeted with enthusiasm among some seminarians because its thrust is to the center of one’s being rather than to the “cortex,” to the whole man rather than to the intellect. Yet, if God were to give us a generation of ministers who walked in these ways, we would witness wonders in the church of God.

After outlining the ideals of the ministry and the influence that is exercised by godly personalities, the author directs our attention in Part One to the means of growth. The very chapter titles are both an indictment and an encouragement to the modern churchman. Here are a few of them: “Devotional Reading”; “Intercessory Prayer”; “Intellectual Labor”; “Fatherly Discipline”; “Personal Contact”—holy listening, praying, thinking, living, conversing.

In Part Two obstacles to growth are surveyed and ways of meeting them considered. For example, the other-directed preacher to the lonely crowd is charged to beware of pastoral cowardice, to have the courage “to be different,” “to decline,” or “to delegate.” Final confidence is to be placed in God.

The general orientation of the book tends to face backward instead of outward. For example, illustrative material is drawn heavily from Christ’s servants of the past century rather than from contemporary pulpiteers. It must be acknowledged that there is some reason for this: in former days ministers had power with God and with man. If the ministry of today seems oversimplified in this book-pastoral and peaceful rather than industrial and intense—the author nonetheless brings into clear view the towering summits of exalted ideals that rest on eternal truths.

ROBERT BOYD MUNGER

Social Uncertainty

Outside the Camp, by Charles C. West (Doubleday, 1959, 162 pp., $3), is reviewed by C. Gregg Singer, Professor of History, Catawba College.

In this book we are brought face to face with the tension existing between Christianity and the world of the mid-twentieth century. The author is well qualified to describe this as he finds it in many parts of the world. He has served as a missionary in China, as a faculty member of a Chinese university, and at the present time he is the assistant director of the Ecumenical Institute of the World Council of Churches in Switzerland. The immediate inspiration for this book came to the author while in a deserted Buddhist temple with other members of the university faculty, awaiting the advancing Communist army. He took stock not only of himself but of the civilizations on trial. In this book he presents the results of such reflections which constitute a challenging and searching analysis of the present dilemma confronting not only the West but much of the East as well. It is his conviction (and the reviewer shares it) that contemporary man is struggling with social changes that have uprooted his past and threaten his present existence, and that he is looking for a new frame of reference and new source of values to give meaning to life in a world of shattered idols. Rich and comfortable America, with its almost unquestioning trust in the permanence of the American way of life and the infallibility of the democratic philosophy, is not immune to the collapse of its own particular idols. Security in this world, for the American as well as for the European, the Asian, and the African, is an illusion.

In the midst of this revolutionary insecurity of our day, Dr. West poses two basic questions: What is God doing, and what is the role of the Church in this age? Unfortunately he is not at his best when attempting to answer these profoundly important questions. He agrees that the Church must at all times preach the gospel message of salvation and that God is confronting the world in Jesus Christ. He pays tribute to what Billy Graham and other evangelists are doing to spread this message, but he also feels that their approach has some basic weaknesses. It is the opinion of this reviewer that his criticisms of evangelistic efforts stem from Dr. West’s failure to comprehend the biblical view of sin, and that he is not so much concerned with the eternal redemption of the souls of men as he is with what Christianity can do to meet the human dilemma here and now. Evangelicals will also be disappointed with his definition of the Church. He seems to deny that she is essentially the fellowship of the redeemed ones, of those who have put their trust in Jesus Christ, and regards her as a vehicle of God’s revelation to mankind (pp. 131–132). The careful reader will soon come to the conclusion that these weaknesses have their origin in a more serious defect—the failure to accept the Scriptures as the infallible rule of faith and practice, and a willingness to regard sections of the Old Testament as being myth. It seems to this reviewer that Dr. West brings to the Church that very uncertainty which holds within its grip the secular age of the twentieth century. However, there is much insight in this short work that is of great value, and evangelicals will be the more thoughtful for having read it.

C. GREGG SINGER

Beliefs Are Basic

Beliefs Have Consequences, by Arnold H. Lowe (T. Y. Crowell Co., 1959, 178 pp., $3), is reviewed by Robert Strong, Minister of Trinity Presbyterian Church, Montgomery, Alabama.

This is a collection of 21 brief inspirational talks given to his congregation by the pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church, Minneapolis. The book takes its title from the first essay in the series.

The author’s theological liberalism often does not intrude upon the reader’s notice, for the constant emphasis is on how to deal with the practical problems of life. Dr. Lowe speaks, however, of the temptation and fall of our first parents in terms of the “legendary days of man on earth” and confidently adds, “of course, all this is a religious parable.” He says, “I believe in Christ. I believe him to be more than man,” and then stops there without committing himself on the central issue of the person of Christ. The doctrine of Atonement is never mentioned nor is the new birth.

Here is a preacher with a marked gift for describing modern man in his troubles of mind and heart. He is convinced that it matters supremely what a man believes, and is splendidly firm on the idea that out of convictions come actions. He is also thoroughly familiar with the materials of Scripture. One wishes that beyond the stabbing of consciences and the inspirational appeal, Dr. Lowe had majored in the great evangelical doctrines. These are the beliefs with consequences of true blessing.

ROBERT STRONG

Racial Unity

No Flesh Shall Glory, by C. Herbert Oliver (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1959, 96 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by T. B. Maston, Professor of Christian Ethics, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

This is another book in the growing number on race and race relations. The author is a Southern-born Negro who is now a Presbyterian pastor in Maine.

The title for the first chapter, “The Unity of the Human Race,” is the underlying, unifying theme of the book. The approach, in the main, is soundly biblical. Possibly the most distinctive material is in the chapter titled, “The Bible and Color.” Not only this chapter but the entire book should be interesting and helpful both to Negroes and whites.

Some will feel that Mr. Oliver labors too long with Shem, Ham, and Japheth. His arguments will not be convincing to rabid segregationists, and others will not particularly need them. There are a few generalizations not entirely justified. This is particularly true in the discussion of “Human Marriage.” He says that the background for opposition to racial intermarriage is a concept of racial solidarity (p. 86), which in turn stems from a sense of superiority. This is the background for much of the opposition to intermarriage, but not for all of it. There are at least some people who oppose intermarriage of those of different races on what they consider sound psychological and sociological grounds.

T. B. MASTON

Christianity Amid Islam

Sandals at the Mosque, by Kenneth Cragg (Oxford University Press, 1959, 160 pp., $2.75), is reviewed by Francis R. Steele, Home Secretary, North Africa Mission, Toronto, Ontario.

The concept of “frontier theology” certainly conveys the idea of adventure. But adventure in time of war can involve danger or even disaster, especially if the “adventurer” gets too far away from home base.

In his attempt to avoid the perils, as he sees them, of sticking by the fort and contesting with Islam at a distance, Dr. Cragg urges us to go out and fraternize with the “Indians” in order to discover whatever elements of strategy we might have in common. In so doing, he tends to obscure the fact that the common elements—we both carry guns and use gun powder—are insignificant as compared to those in which we differ. We’re on opposite sides, following contrary battle plans to achieve different objectives!

While Dr. Cragg recognizes the fact that Christianity has distinctive features (pp. 105 f.), he maintains that an effective ministry to Muslims today demands that we recognize the principle of “involvement” and “inter-religion” (p. 20) which assumes, to some degree at least, that there is evidence of God’s truth and God’s working in Islam. A corollary to this assumption suggests that Christianity is simply an outworking of potential truth in rather than a corrective to Islam (pp. 68 f. and 92 f.).

In order to support this thesis Cragg distinguishes between Islam, the present-day practice, and Islam the idealistic original faith (p. 89). But this distinction appears to be achieved by obscuring or else excusing the more objectionable features of Islam (or Islam),both in precept and practice throughout history, in a strained attempt to find a convincing contact point for Christianity.

Basically, however, this whole approach stands or falls on the question of origins and ultimate direction or control. Our answer to the question “Is Islam an inadequate, though sincere, attempt to present Truth or a deliberate scheme to counterfeit Truth?” will settle the matter once for all. If Islam is ultimately another product of the master genius of Satan for the purpose of counterfeiting Christianity, then apparent similarities are seen not as potential but distorted truth, and our ministry must be substitution, not completion. The fact that the Bible is replete with examples of Satanic deceit in both theology and religion, and this deceit contains all the elements seen in the development of Islam—admission of partial truth, vehement denial of basic truth, and emphasis on man’s ability himself to satisfy divine law—makes the answer plain. Our Christian “presence” among Muslims must not rest upon the assumption of common elements that can be exploited but upon a consistent witness to the unique elements of Christianity. This means a witness to the vicarious love manifested in the death of God the Son for the sin of man.

However, this little book contains a remarkable amount of detail concerning Islam, and for this we are grateful. Actually, it is not so much with the data as with the interpretation that we disagree. And books providing reliable current information on Islam for the Christian Church in these crucial days are much needed and most welcome.

FRANCIS R. STEELE

Book Briefs

The Church in the Thought of Jesus, by Joseph B. Clower, Jr. (John Knox Press, 1960, 160 pp., $3.50)—A Survey of the synoptic Gospels to discover aspects of the life and teachings of Christ which are relevant and normative to the Christian Church.

The Sermon on the Mount, by C. E. Colton (Zondervan, 1960, 158 pp., $2.95)—Thirty sermons of spiritual power based on Matthew 5–7.

Faith Is the Victory, by E. M. Blaiklock (Eerdmans, 1959, 64 pp., $2)—Studies in the first epistle of John originally presented at the 1959 British Keswick meetings.

How Churches Grow, by Donald McGavran (World Dominion Press, 1960, 186 pp., 12s 6d)—A survey of modern missions particularly concerned with Church growth of all kinds. It describes and evaluates many patterns used in the propagation of the Gospel. The author holds that true progress must be based on the unshakable ground of God’s revelation in Christ and a valid evangelism.

The Speaker’s Sourcebook, by Eleanor Doan (Zondervan, 1960, 304 pp., $3.95)—A valuable aid for Christian workers containing 4,000 quotations alphabetically arranged under 500 subjects.

The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse, by Massey H. Shepherd, Jr. (John Knox Press, 1960, 99 pp., $1.50)—Volume 6 in a series of Ecumenical Studies in Worship. Especially concerned with traditional observances of the Paschal Season.

The Romance of Lutheranism in California, by Richard T. Du Brau (Concordia, 1960, 280 pp., $2.50)—A regional history of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, profusely illustrated.

As Thy Days So Thy Strength, by Jesse Jai McNeil (Eerdmans, 1960, 167 pp., $3)—Forty-two daily readings centered around the promise of God indicated in the title, and the presence of God in Christ. Helpful to all who need new spiritual strength.

Invitation to Worship, by Clifford Ansgar Nelson (Augustana Press, 1960, 178 pp., $3)—Interpreting Lutheran liturgy to induce “a better appreciation of the lifting up of the heart to God in the worship of the Christian congregation.”

The Power of His Name by Robert E. Luccock (Harper, 1960, 159 pp., $3)—Sermons based on the great themes appropriate to the Church Year, from Advent to Trinity; practical and inspiring, with special relevance to daily living.

Shrines of God, by Kenneth Clinton (Wilde, 1960, 127 pp., $2)—Spiritual insights concerning the Family, the Church, the Bible, Prayer and other “shrines” of the Christian faith.

Shorter Atlas of the Bible, by L. H. Grollenberg (Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1960, 196 pp., $3.95)—A digest of Nelson’s Atlas of the Bible in a most convenient size.

Relativism, Knowledge and Faith, by Gordon D. Kaufman (University of Chicago Press, 1960, 141 pp., $3.75)—A liberal consideration of the proposition that truths and values are relative to the culture in which they are found.

John B. Conlan Jr., former Army officer and lecturer in international political relations at the University of Maryland, is a young lawyer residing in Evanston, Illinois. Trained at Northwestern University (B. S.) and Harvard University’s Law School (LL. B.), he was a Fulbright scholar at the University of Cologne, Germany. Widely travelled in Europe, Latin America, and the Near East, he has just completed a 20,000-mile, five-month trek through Africa, where he interviewed scores of Christian missionaries and native leaders. Here are his observations:

Toward the end of a beautiful day I strolled along the eastern edge of Africa’s famous Rift Valiey watching a burning sun disappear behind the 9,000-foot White Highlands of Kenya.

My companion, a tall and erect Kikuyu chief, had just shown me the Africa Inland Mission station where during the years of the Mau-Mau insurrection some 60 white missionaries and hundreds of Kikuyu lived behind barbed wire enclosures protected by floodlights and trip-flares. He showed me the scene near Kijabe where 300 of his fellow Kikuyu Christians were slaughtered in a night by other Kikuyus—Mau-Mau intimidators. Then he told of cleavages between pagans and Christians in his own tribe, of his present apprehensions about a resurgence of Mau-Mau and all that is pagan, primitive, and vicious, of local facts behind long-range problems.

Black Africa is in such flux that yesterday’s news is of scant meaning today unless read against long-term problems: 1. the extent of Moslem influence; 2. a growing indication, as recognized by the chief, that the struggle between black and white will be followed by a struggle among blacks—a struggle for reascendancy by pagan elements over westernized and Christian Africans once the restraint of colonial government is withdrawn; 3. the inexperience in government by Africans and the dominating role to be played by the handful of educated ones.

There is little doubt that every territory which is governed by a small official European community will become wholly independent and be governed by nonwhites. It is almost equally certain that this will lead to great upheavals in the territories concerned; and it will be a long time before they are well governed.

After living extensively in the African town locations as well as their shambas and rondavels in the reserves, it appears doubtful to me whether the masses want this. But a handful of political aspirants are bringing it about. Their lack of understanding of economics, government and ordered liberty within a modern society is appalling.

If pagan-oriented elements are able to seize total leadership and liquidate Christian influences, the responsibility for such loss can be traced in large measure to two sources: 1. Colonial Office indifference to and hampering of missionary activity and the propagation of the Gospel—whether by white or black; 2. refusal or failure in the mission schools to educate students intensely enough in biblical concepts of economics, government, and ordered liberty. Africans cry for uhuru (freedom), but missionaries are not teaching the young leaders what true freedom in Christ really means in the total Christian life and society. Consequently, African students thirsting for knowledge and a total philosophy of life that will enable them as present and future leaders of Africa to set the social, economic, political and spiritual goals of their lands in the quest for “democracy’ ” are prone to turn to Godless systems of socio-politico-economic thought.

Though missionaries have in large measure defaulted on this crucial segment of African society, the opportunity has not been lost. It has shifted here to America. The future of Christianity in Africa and, indeed, in many areas of the world, may well turn on what the response of America’s Christians is to the most productive mission field in the world: the thousands of foreign students within our borders. Every African wants to study in America; and every African who has studied here can name his own price and position on return home.

Dr. Billy Graham has effectively demonstrated the value of mass evangelism in Africa. Will the student-leaders hold open their homeland gates to further evangelization and Christian growth against surges of ignorant and educated pagans? From my conversations with them I believe they will, if Christian laymen and pastors actively seek out these foreign students within our shores, teach them of our church life, our private businesses and economic life, our local government, and, above all, the love of Christ as demonstrated in daily living in our homes. It is here in America that Christ can be brought to the hearts of Africa’s leading minds, and the mission field into the churches and homes.

Foreign Students

There are currently some 50,000 foreign students in the United States, according to the lnstitute of lnternational Education.

In addition, many thousands of foreign citizens are temporarily located in America for other reasons.

All represent what is described in the accompanying article on this page as “the mast productive mission field in the world.”

Here are some key concentrations of foreign students (figures approximate the number at each school):

Dramatizing Missions

What is a “Missionary Conference”?

For an increasing number of evangelical churches in North America, the annual missionary conference is a means of stimulating and creating vital new interest in the witness of the Gospel abroad Missionaries on furlough find such conferences strategic opportunities to share both their victories and their problems with fellow believers at home. The local congregation, in turn, gets a first-hand foreign-field report which lends itself to keener appreciation of the missionary enterprise and to more dedicated financial and prayer support.

Missionary conference programs usually van’ in scope according to the size of the church. Some conferences consist merely of inviting a single missionary for a pair of evening services. Others feature all-day services for a week or more with dozens of guest missionary speakers. Many include costumed marches, appeals for funds, and invitations for dedication of life.

The most ambitious of missionary conferences are those conducted annually by Peoples Church of Toronto and Park Street Church of Boston. Both climaxed their 1960 conferences this month with the prospect of adding, between them, more than a half-million dollars to foreign missionary work.

The four-week conference of the independent Peoples Church virtually assured a total missionary offering approaching $300,000 for the next 12 months (some 340 missionaries draw support from this total). As it has been for 31 years, the conference began under the personal leadership of Dr. Oswald J. Smith, founder and now pastor emeritus. On the third day, Smith was taken seriously ill and underwent emergency surgery. By mid-May he was reported to be off the “critical” list and associates said they were encouraged by his rate of recovery.

Meanwhile in Boston, the Park Street (Congregational) Church ran up total pledges payable within a year of more than $262,000. This was the 21st yearly missionary conference for the historic church located by Boston Common. Nearly $3,000,000 has been invested in the missionary enterprise during these years. The 2,200-member church grants support to 116 missionaries in 50 countries.

More than 50 missionaries participated in this year’s conference at the Park Street Church.

Manifest Unity

It is not enough that the ecumenical movement represents inter-church cooperation, according to Dr. W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, general secretary of the World Council of Churches.

Visser ’t Hooft told the WCC’s U. S. Conference last month that the council “can by its nature not be satisfied when the churches work together and maintain fraternal contacts.”

“For the question remains,” he said, “and it comes to us in the first place from the Lord Himself and the second place from the world: why are you not fully united in faith and order?”

The WCC leader asserted that the issue is not whether “we can agree about specific doctrinal consensus and the form of order which are required for full unity but whether manifest unity means visible, corporate, local unity.” This must be discussed, he added, so that no church may feel “forced.”

On hand for the three-day, annual meeting at Buck Hill Falls, Pennsylvania, were some 200 delegates from 30 U. S. church groups which are WCC members.

The delegates voiced gratitude to Episcopal Bishop Henry Knox Sherill, chairman of the conference, for his leadership of a committee which has raised some $2,000,000 toward a proposed new $2,500,000 WCC headquarters building in Geneva.

Welcoming Salvationists

A reception for its newest member, the 250,000-member Salvation Army of the United States, highlighted the 93rd annual convention of the National Holiness Association in Asheville, North Carolina, last month. More than 2,000 delegates and visitors were on hand. The association, a coordinating agency for Wesleyan-Arminian groups, now has a constituency of some 2,000,000.

In an economy move, delegates voted to dissolve temporarily the office of executive director. Duties will be shared by six elected officers.

Headquarters for the association, formerly in Minneapolis and more recently located in Marion, Indiana, was to be moved late this month to permanent offices in Elkhart, Indiana, in a building belonging to the United Missionary Church, a member organization of the association.

Reporter’s Reward

The Religious Newswriters’ Association bestowed its James O. Supple: Memorial Award for 1960 upon David A. Runge, religion editor of the Milwaukee Journal. The award was presented last month during the RNA’s 12th annual meeting in Denver.

RNA, a fellowship of newspaper religion reporters, grants the award in recognition of outstanding religious reporting, perpetuating the memory of James O. Supple, one of its founders. Supple, former religion editor of the Chicago Sun-Times, was killed while on an overseas assignment during the Korean conflict.

Runge, 48, has been religion editor of the Journal for six years and has been on the newspaper’s staff since 1949. Previously for 20 years he served with the Daily Northwestern of Oshkosh, Wisconsin. For three of those years he was city editor.

Methodist Sidelights

In the course of some 74 hours of oratory, the Methodists heard these items:

• Possible drafting of a plan of merger with the Evangelical United Brethren Church within two years.

• Arrival at a state of quiescence in merger talks with Episcopalians, one delegate speaking out against union on grounds of opposing views on temperance.

• Presentation of a revised book of worship for trial until 1964 when final adoption will be voted on. The trend of the revision is toward more formal and liturgical pattern of worship.

• Citation of retiring Bishop Arthur J. Moore, of Atlanta, Georgia, as “Methodist of the Year” by World Outlook, national Methodist magazine of missions. Moore has been president of the Methodist Board of Missions since its organization in 1940, and a biography of him has just been published.

• Proposal of the Methodist Television, Radio and Film Commission, located in Nashville, Tennessee, to open a branch office in Los Angeles to exert a “constructive influence on mass entertainment.”

Note of Gratification

The Military Chaplains Association is asking U. S. communities to follow the example of the armed forces in achieving peaceful racial integration.

In a resolution adopted at its 35th annual convention last month, the Protestant-Catholic-Jewish chaplains’ fellowship expressed “gratification at the degree of peaceful integration already achieved in the armed forces of our nation.”

“We express the hope,” the resolution adds, “that our American communities will follow the splendid example set by our armed forces.”

This year’s MCA convention was held at the U. S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland.

Such Is the Kingdom

The meeting place may be a fashionable split-level in Skokie or a noisy fair booth in Phoenix. It may even be in the open fresh air of an Iowa farm or in the dust of a Harlem playground. In such environs and others, Bible-carrying teachers of Child Evangelism Fellowship provided Christian instruction for more than 1,000,000 U. S. youngsters last year.

This month Child Evangelism Fellowship took a new look at its own scope as 400 delegates, including 30 missionaries from 15 countries, assembled in Memphis for their 13th biennial international conference.

Officials reported that the interdenominational CEF now has some 700 full-time children’s workers from coast to coast, plus some 35,000 volunteers. Much of their witness lies in the more than 18,000 “Good News Clubs,” neighborhood organizations which sponsor well-adapted weekly Bible classes for unchurched children. Abroad, support is provided 146 missionaries and 150 full-time national workers in 60 countries.

Featured at the Memphis conference were the finals of a national Bible knowledge competition among youngsters aged nine to thirteen. Three girls and a boy from Tyrone, Pennsylvania, took top honors.

Endeavor Awards

Top prizes in Christian Endeavor’s 1960 citizenship contest will go to Gloria I. McDonald, 16-year-old high school junior from Texas, and David M. Olson, 19, Christian education major at Wheaton (Illinois) College.

A newly-inaugurated society prize was won by the High School Youth Vespers Group of Trinity Evangelical Congregational Church in Lititz, Pennsylvania.

Individual winners were selected on the basis of an essay on “Christian Citizenship—Unlimited!” as well as by a review of the contestant’s citizenship activities. The Pennsylvania society was cited for a project which stressed the citizenship topic in store window displays, newspaper essays, and interviews with civic leaders.

All winners will be publicly honored at a mass “citizenship rally” scheduled in Ottawa July 2.

Chemist in the Pulpit

The American Chemical Society presented a citation last month to one of its most faithful members, a 75-year-old Ohio resident whose career has included 30 years as a chemist and 20 as a minister.

The Rev. Roysel J. Cowan was given a certificate of appreciation for 50 years of continuous membership in the society.

During his career as a chemist in Toledo, Ohio, Cowan also served as a Sunday School superintendent. At 55, he forsook the laboratory for the pulpit. Now, though ostensibly retired, Cowan still conducts two services each Sunday at a Free Methodist church in Bowling Green, Ohio, and tends to other needs of the parish during the week.

He asserts that there are fundamental relationships between physical laws and spiritual laws and that arguments arise only because the contenders know too little about each other’s fields. He has emphasized that there is a need “for the scientific viewpoint in helping the working man to understand religion.”

Birth Control Code

A Protestant-Jewish clergy committee came up with a birth control code last month. Those who drafted the plan say it is aimed at lessening religious controversy over birth control.

All public programs of birth control information service and research should exempt from participation anyone with ethical objections, said a statement released by the clergymen’s national advisory committee of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Conversely, the group said, “The objections of some must not be permitted to deprive others of contraceptive assistance which is scientifically authoritative, and which may be required of them when in conscience they believe birth control fulfills the will of God.”

The committee, formed last fall under chairmanship of Episcopal Bishop James A. Pike, urged government support for “research to develop improved childspacing methods, including techniques acceptable to those who object to some current methods.”

Inter-faith Safety

Protestant and Catholic clergymen in Youngstown, Ohio, cooperating in a campaign for traffic safety, plan to stress drivers’ moral responsibilities in sermons and literature during the summer months.

A similar “Christian road safety campaign” is under way throughout England with the endorsement of most church groups as well as the British government.

People: Words And Events

Deaths:Dr. J. Warren Hastings, 62, minister of the National City Christian Church in Washington, D. C.… Mrs. Charles E. Cowman, 90, noted religious writer.

Retirement: As senior professor and vice president of Union Theological Seminary, Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr.

Election: As president of the National Holiness Association, the Rev. Kenneth E. Geiger.

Appointments: As treasurer of the United Church of Christ, Charles H. Lockyear … as president of the Alaska Methodist University, the Rev. Fred P. McGinnis … as professor of sociology of religion at the National Methodist Theological Seminary, Dr. Lawrence Hepple … as managing editor of the Christian Advocate, the Rev. James M. Wall … as director of religious activities of the National Safety Council, Harold J. Holmes.

Resignations: As president of Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Charles W. Koller … as professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, Dr. Lars Granberg, to assume a professorship in psychology at Hope College … as professor of church history at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, Dr. Imri Murden Blackburn, to accept a post as chairman of the Department of Ecclesiastical History at Nashota (Wisconsin) House.

Ordination: As minister of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Rev. Armand Tagoona, first Eskimo ever to be ordained by the denomination.

“Though I am always in haste, I am never in a hurry.” Thus spake John Wesley in the slower-paced eighteenth century. If the 788 delegates to the quadrennial General Conference of The Methodist Church, assembled in Denver April 27-May 7, were in too big a hurry to catch Wesley’s “distinction,” they could blame a troublesome racial problem which hungrily consumed time ticketed for other business.

U. S. Protestantism’s largest church (9,815,459 members) desires unity and its leadership favors racial integration. The coupled goals proved beyond the body this year, with efforts toward the latter creating threats to the former. Friction centered on a report of a 70-member commission which after some four years of study recommended retention, for the time being, of the jurisdictional system embraced by three uniting Methodist bodies in 1939: The Methodist Episcopal Church, The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and The Methodist Protestant Church.

Without such a system it is generally agreed the South would not have entered the Union. The new church was thus divided into six jurisdictions—five of them geographical and one racial. This latter, called the Central Jurisdiction, contains all but 26,000 of the church’s 393,000 Negroes and is administered by four Negro bishops.

The 1956 General Conference adopted an amendment which made it easier for Negro churches and “annual conferences” to transfer from the Central Jurisdiction to regional jurisdictions.

The commission’s report suggested implementation of this amendment toward eventual abolition of the Central Jurisdiction. Its immediate elimination, the report claimed, would be “disastrous to Negro Methodists,” leaving many of them “without full fellowship in local churches or annual conferences.” “Drastic legislation will not accomplish the fully inclusive Church we all desire. We must give ourselves to education and experimentation in the creating of a climate—spiritual and psychological—in which an inclusive Methodist Church will be a reality.” “Unfortunately and erroneously, the jurisdictional system as a whole, mainly because of the Central Jurisdiction, has become for some a symbol of segregation.… Actually, the Central Jurisdiction assures racial integration in the highest echelons of our Church—in the Council of Bishops, the Judicial Council and in all boards, commissions and committees of the Church. Thereis no other denomination in America where this degree of racial integration in the governing bodies of the Church has been achieved.”

The jurisdictional system thus assures the Negro Methodist a higher proportion of leadership and representation than that to which he is entitled on a strictly numerical basis. But this, remarked one Negro delegate, is not satisfactory to the majority of Negroes (Central Jurisdiction office-holders excepted) who see here discrimination in reverse. He granted that immediate abolition of the Central Jurisdiction by the 1960 General Conference would result in chaos, but he was likewise convinced that a target date for abolition should be set, perhaps 1968.

This was attempted by none less than Dr. Harold C. Case, president of Boston University. But he was up against the dominant voice of this year’s conference, that of Charles C. Parlin, Wall Street lawyer and chairman of the study commission, who pointed to the commission’s discovery of Southern emotional reaction to such proposals. Case’s amendment failed, as did a later attempt to cut off financial support from seminaries which refuse to admit Negro students (two of the 12 Methodist seminaries retain color bars: Duke University Divinity School, and Candler School of Theology.

Lawyer Parlin did a masterful job in presenting and defending the commission report. His reasoned arguments and courtroom tones seemed to carry the weight of law itself for the delegates, as he debated the report through Northern opposition, then managed, despite Southern protests, to shepherd through its provisions for drawing the various jurisdictions closer to the General Conference and for moves toward increased interracial fellowship. During particularly emotional debate, he cautioned delegates against frothy arguments designed to catch newspaper headlines, and eventually he brought the report through the conference substantially intact.

Los Angeles’ Bishop Gerald H. Kennedy, new president of the Methodist Council of Bishops, hailed the conference for overcoming the temptations toward bitterness in the long and frank debate. “We came through it marvelously.” He reminded them of the road ahead—toward absolute racial equality and freedom—but voiced relief at the chance for a pause before pressing onward.

Methodist bishops sit on the platform and have no vote in conference business. They speak only by request. But their Episcopal Address to the delegates carries considerable weight. This year, consistent with traditional Methodist emphasis on the ethical and practical, the address sounded a trumpet call against beverage alcohol, “a beast tearing at the vitals of society,” and against the “enslaving habit” of tobacco.

Accordingly, the conference condemned “social drinking,” setting forth the standard of total abstinence for all Methodists, though voting down a proposal making this mandatory for all church officials. Also rejected was a committee report which would have dropped the specific ban on tobacco from rules governing ministers.

While Methodist stress on the ethical is well known, the movement has also been characterized by a minimized theological emphasis. This seemed to create a particularly hospitable environment for “old-fashioned modernism,” for which Methodism and her seminaries are famous.

Coupled one evening with an oratorio (“The Invisible Fire”) “expressing John Wesley’s experience of conversion,” was an address by retiring Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, which seemed far from Aldersgate. The topic “Methodism Faces the Future” elicited from Bishop Oxnam restatement of his conviction that this decade’s “most dramatic event will be The Interplanetary Conference on Religious Faith to be attended by the finest minds of all the planets of the universe.” The challenge to the Methodist seminaries is to prepare their students for such conferences. The “delegates who will represent the religious thought of all the religions of all the planets [italics ours—ED.] are counted on to “make known the revelation of God to all. Fundamentalist dogmatism and papal infallibility will have no place among men who love one another.… How did God make himself known to the inhabitants of Mars?… The sessions will be televised and the universe will come to know the universal truth that frees.” After outlining this mode of revelation, the bishop speculated that God may have revealed himself “to the peoples of other planets in a fashion,” compared to Jesus, “even more intimate, holier, and grander, in a love that not only demands all but gives all.”

But happily the Council of Bishops displayed awareness of other challenges of the future, one being a “reclaiming of our theological heritage.” They pointed to the “solid system of doctrine in Wesley’s ‘Sermons’ and ‘Notes’ and the manuals of Watson, Pope, Summers, and others.” They called for renewed theological study which is “biblical and ecumenical.” For the bishops have seen “ominous signs” that Methodism must change from its present course and root its “evangelism in sound doctrine.”

While still the nation’s largest Protestant church, the Methodist shoulder has felt the breath of the gaining Southern Baptists, a far more conservative body (all U. S. Baptists far outnumber U. S. Methodists). Other important statistics:

—For every four members gained in the last quadrennium, Methodists have lost three.

—During the next four years, 8,000 new ministers will be needed and the supply is far from being assured.

Stewardship is another area of self examination, per capita giving in 1959 (58.8 cents) being less than that of 1939 when measured by the dollar’s actual worth. The church’s Negro colleges are in “precarious condition.” Said Bishop Richard Raines: “In 1926, we had approximately 2,600 missionaries in more than 40 countries. Today we have 1,650. In 1926, the Methodist church gave about the same amount of money for missionary effort as we are giving this year, and the dollar then was worth two or three times what it is worth today.”

A Methodist theological graduate student observed: “One reason Wesley did not want the Methodists to leave the Church of England was that he knew they had no body of doctrine to replace that of the mother church. Subsequent events have vindicated his judgment.”

The bishops warned that their church could “become the same sort of church as that which Wesley and his preachers set out to reform and to revive more than two centuries ago.”

Cried Presbyterian George Buttrick, preacher to Harvard University: “My brethren in the Methodist ministry, I plead with you to accept the Cross. ‘Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy Cross I cling.’ ” And Bishop Kennedy’s last words at conference end were Charles Wesley’s: “His blood can make the foulest clean; His blood availed for me.”

As one gazes upon Denver’s setting in the shadow of the enormous plain’s eruption into the majestic Rockies, the mind’s eye envisions a mighty host of Wesleyans moving westward. So great is it that the vanguard begins the ascent, while the rear is not yet visible on the eastern horizon. But there is tragedy. As some leaders scale the heights, others fall back exhausted and unaccountably penetrate to twisted defiles of lower elevation than the plains they have just crossed. And they retain many of their followers.

The New Testament, no less than John Bunyan, speaks of Christian warfare along with Christian pilgrimage. The world has invaded the Church and there are two opposing views of God, of Christ, of man, and of salvation. Both within Methodism and without, these two views, sometimes covertly, are locked in deadly embrace.

Key Conference Actions

These were among actions which resulted from some half-million words of floor debate at the Methodists’ General Conference:

• Retention of the controversial Central (Negro) Jurisdiction for at least another four years.

• Condemnation of “social drinking” and use of tobacco.

• Approval of formation of a new Board of Christian Social Concerns which is a merger of the Boards of Temperance, World Peace, and Social and Economic Relations. Chief debate was over the new board’s locating in Washington, D. C., the question being raised whether this would appear as a political pressure move. Dr. Ralph Sockman’s opposition to a single chief executive was voted down.

• Toward universal disarmament, urging of permanent cessation of all nuclear tests (with inspection controls), establishment of a United Nations agency for cooperative exploration of outer space, reaffirmation of opposition to peacetime universal military training, and recognition of conscientious objectors, regardless of whether they profess religious grounds for their stand.

• Commendation of the Air Force for the “prompt apology” to the National Council of Churches “for the incredible blunder of allowing … slanderous charges … in a training manual.” Called for any group with charges to make against a Methodist to use the church courts, and expression of regrets that any Methodists contribute money or leadership to such organizations as Circuit Riders, Inc. This mention of a specific organization faced considerable opposition in a wild and woolly committee meeting before reaching the floor.

• Commendation for the “crucial” work of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

• Approval of granting permission to Methodist ministers to remarry divorced persons if there are awareness of factors leading to previous failure and preparation for making the proposed marriage “truly Christian.”

• Limitation of a bishop’s term of assignment to the same residence to 12 years.

• Increase of maximum General Conference membership from 900 to 1,400.

• Establishment of a 35-member commission to act as liaison with the National and World Councils of Churches.

Experiment’s End

Though hailed as a unique ecumenical experiment, the University of Chicago’s Federated Theological Faculty has been beset by tensions from the outset. Never has there been general agreement on distribution of administrative-academic responsibilities among the four seminaries—the University of Chicago Divinity School (American Baptist), the Chicago Theological Seminary (Congregational), Disciples Divinity House, and Meadville Theological School (Unitarian)—which pooled their faculties back in 1943. The seminaries retained their separate identities, but were ruled by a cabinet made up of their four chief executives. Articles of federation were rewritten in 1953 in an effort to straighten out differences. By last month it was apparent that these differences could not be resolved: Plans were announced to dissolve the federation as of May 1, 1963; officials hope to substitute a much more loosely-knit, “bilateral” relationship, details of which still must be worked out.

“The Chicago Theological Seminary’s interpretation of the 1953 articles is unacceptable to the other members of the federation,” said Chancellor Lawrence A. Kimpton of the University of Chicago. “Furthermore, it is clear that any interpretation acceptable to the other institutions is unacceptable to the Chicago Theological Seminary.”

Dissolution of the federation was prompted by withdrawal requests from “the other members.” CTS favored keeping alive the federation.

“There was a disagreement on the amount of authority the dean’s office should exercise,” observed Dr. Jerald C. Brauer, 39-year-old dean of the federated faculty. It was obvious, however, that the tensions were much more complex. Dean Walter Harrelson of the University of Chicago Divinity School admitted that the problems of the federation influenced somewhat his decision to resign in favor of a post as professor of Old Testament at Vanderbilt University Divinity School.

Did the dispute have theological overtones? “It’s hard to say yes or no,” remarked Dr. Howard Schomer, CTS president. “Everything we touch is intonated with theology, but the disagreements were not primarily theological.”

Schomer stressed that the three-year transition period should have no effect upon students. CTS has an enrollment of 120, the Divinity School 185, the Disciples Divinity House 25, and Meadville Theological School, 11.

Protestant Panorama

• Three U. S. missionaries were recalled from Cuba last month by their sponsor, Open Bible Standard Churches, Inc. The move, described as tentatively temporary, was made in view of current anti-American feeling, not because of any persecution. The group’s leaders felt that work could progress better under Cuban national Christians.

• The AFL-CIO presented three stained-glass windows to the Washington (Episcopal) Cathedral this month in memory of three noted labor leaders—William Green, a Protestant, Philip Murray, a Roman Catholic, and Samuel Gompers, a Jew.

• A light airplane belonging to the Board of World Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. was badly damaged last month when a charge of dynamite exploded under the engine while the craft was parked at an airstrip in Ometepec, Mexico. The plane is used by missionaries for visits to remote Mexican villages.

• George Beverly Shea and Tedd Smith, musical members of the Billy Graham team who have just completed a 24-concert U. S. tour, now plan a similar series in Canada in the late summer and fall. They also plan to record the concert program, which drew capacity audiences in virtually every city.

• Amish parents near Honey Brook, Pennsylvania, reached an understanding with state authorities this month which will enable them to keep their children out of a newly-opened public high school. Instead of attending the new consolidated school, which the Amish labeled too worldly, the children will be sent to an older school in a neighboring district. However, the parents, nine of whom were jailed for violation of school attendance laws, now must pay tuition for the right to educate children outside their immediate district.

• Newest church in the Congo is a 22,000-member body established by a society of U. S. Mennonites, the Congo Inland Mission. The church will be known as the Evangelical Mennonite Church of the Congo.

• Lutheran professors are setting up a non-profit corporation to publish their books. First volume is due June 1: The Natural Sciences and the Christian Message by Dr. Aldert van der Ziel, engineering professor at the University of Minnesota.

• Bloomfield College and Seminary, United Presbyterian institution in Bloomfield, New Jersey, won accreditation this month from the Middle Atlantic States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools.

• Ceremonies were scheduled in Bielefeld, Germany, this month to mark the 250th anniversary of the Canstein Bible Society, oldest in the world. The society was established in 1710 by Hildebrandt Freiherr von Canstein and August Hermann Francke, pietists who sought to print popularly-priced Bibles.

• The Church of the Nazarene topped its goal of $14,000,000 for world missions for the 1956–60 quadrennium by some $650,000.

• Baker Book House plans to issue the U. S. counterpart of the European “Modern Thinkers Series,” a group of monographs which critically analyze contemporary philosophers and theologians.

• Refusal of the Raleigh, North Carolina, City Council to approve a zone change to permit construction of a $750,000 motel and restaurant by the state Methodist conference may jeopardize the conference’s plan for a $600,000 office building in the city. The conference had been counting on revenue from the motel-restaurant to defray the cost of erecting the new headquarters.

• A 21-year-old Quaker student was dismissed from a clerical position in the U. S. Senate this month because the Washington Young Friends group of which he is chairman sent letters to 22,000 area high school students calling their attention to provisions in the draft law for conscientious objectors.

• Tunghai University, Christian school in Taiwan, plans to add a college of engineering.

Pieces of Silver

Police in Haifa, Israel, seized thousands of ancient coins this month from a Druze villager who tried to sell them. Some experts who examined the coins, made of silver, said they were minted at about the time of Christ and that they may even be of the same type as the 30 paid to Judas Iscariot. Police said they believed the villager found the coins near the summit of Mount Carmel.

Meanwhile, noted archeologists sifted evidence to determine whether recent discoveries by Dead Sea divers established the site of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Exit the Cross

Heeding pleas of Jewish religious leaders, Premier David Ben-Gurion of Israel ordered alterations made on a planned postage stamp which was to have showed a cross atop a church steeple in Nazareth. The new stamp will not show a cross.

Triumphal Climax

Some 2,000 professions of faith were reported in a Managua, Nicaragua, crusade which climaxed an “evangelism-indepth” series coordinated by the Latin America Mission. In a parade staged the day before the crusade finale May 8, 7,000 marchers wound their way through the streets of the Nicaraguan capital.

Riot at Church Site

A bloody riot followed attempts by state authorities to remove a cross from a proposed Roman Catholic church site in the Polish steel town of Nowa Huta last month. At least 15 policemen and an undetermined number of demonstrators were reported to have been injured.

Buddhism in Burma

An advisory commission appointed by Prime Minister LI Nu of Burma plans to interview religious leaders throughout the country in connection with a proposal to make Buddhism the state religion. Burma is about 85 per cent Buddhist.

Purpose of contacts with non-Buddhists, says the commission chairman, is to enable them to express any fears regarding establishment of a state religion and to suggest how their rights should be safeguarded.

U Nu says the constitution already protects rights of all religious groups. He has pledged, moreover, that “none of these rights will be infringed by any action we take in order to make Buddhism the state religion.”

Some eight years ago the government established a Ministry of Religion, one of whose chief occupations has been the promotion of Buddhism. Under government sponsorship, the Buddhist hierarchy has been reorganized, and countless shrines and pagodas built or refurbished.

The Latest Gibes

In disclosing to the Supreme Soviet the capture of a LI. S. intelligence pilot, Premier Nikita Khrushchev took the West to task for failing to live up to its Christianity.

“As one reads numerous comments and statements by foreign diplomats and journalists about this incident,” he said, “one cannot help wondering what land of morality these men are guided by. For they count themselves as Christians …”

“If such people really believe in God, they would be afraid of hell, where they inevitably would end because, according to the teachings of Christ, they will have to brail in tar in hell eternally for their foul deeds against peace and mankind.”

The Russian army newspaper Red Star also took a swing at U. S. morals in an article about the plane incident. The article made much of the fact that a book with the picture of a half-nude woman on the cover was found in the plane.

“From its age and dirty condition,” the newspaper said, “one can judge that American officers found the book popular reading.”

Pilot Profile

Francis G. Powers, U-2 pilot who fell into Soviet hands while on an aerial intelligence mission, is a graduate of Milligan College, Disciples of Christ school in Johnson City, Tennessee.

Powers enrolled at Milligan, located some 110 miles from his home in Pound, Virginia, as a premedical student in 1946. His grades were slightly above average, but not high enough to pursue medical studies. Upon graduation in 1950 he joined the Air Force.

During his boyhood, the Powers family attended a Baptist Sunday School and church near Grundy, Virginia. Powers did not list any church membership, however, in his records at Milligan. His parents now attend a Church of Christ in Pound.

Powers was married while in service and the couple joined a Methodist church in Georgia, where the bride lived.

Kennedy’s Victory

An important factor In the impressive West Virginia primary victory of Senator John F. Kennedy was his frank renunciation of the more conservative Catholic views on the separation of church and state, according to Paul Blanshard, author of God and Man in Washington.

“He satisfied thousands of non-Catholics,” said Blanshard, “by rejecting those policies of his church which had caused them the most apprehension.”

Latin Concern

U. S. Roman Catholic bishops disclosed plans this month to establish a Latin American bureau as part of their national secretariat in Washington, D. C.

Projected as a unit of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, the bureau will be directed by the Rev. John J. Considine, Maryknoll missions priest.

A Catholic press release explained that the bureau was established “in response to an invitation of the Holy See for various nations to cooperate in Christian solidarity to aid the church in Latin America.”

“Although its approximately 170,000,000 Catholics represent a third of the Church’s world membership,” the release said, “the Latin American Church has been plagued with difficulties in recent years, including a shortage of priests, religious indifferentism, poor social and economic conditions and the danger of communism.”

Objectives and responsibilities of the bureau were not spelled out, except to say that its activities will be determined by a committee of bishops.

Charles R. Erdman

Dr. Charles R. Erdman, 93, noted biblical scholar and a former Presbyterian moderator, died May 9 in his home at Princeton, New Jersey.

Erdman, a graduate of Princeton University and Princeton Theological Seminary, served the seminary as professor of practical theology from 1906 until 1936. He was moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. in 1925, and was president of its Board of Foreign Missions from 1926 until 1940. He wrote many books, mostly New Testament expositions.

Known for his evangelical stand, Erdman was a key figure in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the twenties. Although he disagreed sharply with modernists, he nonetheless sought to avoid church schism.

In December 1861, in the First Presbyterian Church of Augusta, Georgia, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (Southern) was constituted. Although slavery was the issue of that day, the particular action which precipitated a rupture within the National Church was a resolution, voted by the united assembly a few months before, requiring a pledge of allegiance of ministers and churches to the Federal government.

The Centennial General Assembly of America’s second largest Presbyterian body convened one hundred years later, April 28, 1960, in the Riverside Church, Jacksonville, Florida. Still shy of political entanglements, the highest court of the church refused to oppose the nomination of a Roman Catholic for President and defeated, in a 3 to 1 vote, a move to recognize U. S. responsibility for the first use of atomic weapons in war.

Confronting the 100th assembly were reports and overtures providing opportunity for definitive and historic pronouncements in such major areas of interest as world missions, inter-church relations, education, and race relations. But the Southern Presbyterian church is seriously divided, internally, and its behavior is not always predictable. The assembly seemed to drift—first one way, then another.

Obviously mindful of its responsibility in the area of race relations, the assembly urged its colleges and other institutions to speed processes of desegregation. Equally mindful of theological as well as social tensions, it rejected almost unanimously moves to reopen union negotiations with the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

Apprehensive of increasing centralization in administration, it defeated a resolution by Dr. E. T. Thompson, retiring moderator, which would, in effect, have made its Committee on the Minister and his Work a stronger watch-dog in the affairs of ministers who find themselves in difficulty for “speaking the mind of the Assembly in love”—an obvious reference to the racial situation in the South.

But it took steps which some observers felt would lead to increasing centralization in the sensitive area of stewardship by approving the preparation of a plan establishing a central treasurer’s office and “more equitable distribution of benevolent funds.” (It is understood that some home agencies have been operating short of funds while others, such as the Board of World Missions, have been more liberally supported.)

The 521 commissioners from the 19 states and the District of Columbia rejected a strong bid, through several overtures, to change the basis of the church’s relations with national churches overseas—specifically the Presbyterian Church of Mexico. A further request to reevaluate the denomination’s entire missions philosophy was also defeated, although the Board of World Missions was encouraged to initiate a more intensive study of its own policies overseas. (The Presbyterian Church U.S. is one of the few larger denominations which has not turned over full control and operation of its missions work to the various national churches. It nonetheless recognizes these churches as independent and autonomous.)

The denomination’s relation to the National Council of Churches came in for considerable attention. A resolution asking for an investigation of recent charges against the NCC was referred to the church’s representatives on the NCC itself while another resolution, to re-examine the constitutional validity of the church’s membership in the NCC, was rejected. In its report adopted by the assembly, the Standing Committee handling these matters deplored the “unmerited attacks” made against that ecumenical body.

Easily the most controversial report brought before the 521 delegates was that of the Standing Committee on Christian Relations, containing references to atomic warfare, to the United Nations, to desegregation and to capital punishment. It was understood that opinions represented on the Standing Committee had been rather lopsidedly in favor of strong action in all of these areas and that the work of committee had consisted mostly in deciding just how strong to make its report.

When the committee’s report reached the floor, however, unexpected opposition appeared to a paragraph which said that “although seemingly the [Second World] war’s outcome was not in doubt, we dropped the bomb on two Japanese cities, immediately killing more than 100,000 men, women and children and adversely affecting thousands of others including unborn generations … and we continued to endanger others by continued tests.”

The opposition, which exploded all over the assembly, urged the church to stay out of the realm of military science and tactics, deploring the pacifistic flavor of the paragraph. The assembly rejected a move to soften the language of the paragraph and, in a three-to-one vote, finally struck it out altogether.

Next, the body changed a reference to the United Nations as “the agency now in existence that holds the greatest promise of progress toward disarmament in a more peaceful world,” to “an agency which holds promise.…”

The sensitive problem of race relations came up in the form of a recommendation that the trustees of the church’s institutions be reminded of the action of 1954 assembly (taken before the Supreme Court decision) urging the opening of the doors of those institutions to qualified students “without regard to social distinctions.” After efforts were defeated to modify or to soften the language of the recommendation, it was passed, by a vote of 208 to 186.

New Officers

Dr. Marion A. Boggs, new moderator of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. and Dr. James A. Millard, Jr., inducted as stated clerk, are both graduates of Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia.

Boggs, 65, is minister of the Second Presbyterian Church in Little Rock, Arkansas. He was described by a nominator as a “symbol of reconciliation whereby the Christian leader speaks the truth in love to a troubled community.” Boggs favors integration, but has nonetheless held the respect of many in Little Rock who differ with him on the race issue. The mayor of Little Rock and the chairman of the school board are elders in his church.

Boggs was elected on the second ballot, when he received 260 votes to 251 for Dr. R. Matthew Lynn of Midland, Texas.

Millard, 48, was elected stated clerk in 1958 and assumed his duties last summer. He had been professor of homiletics and director of field work at Austin (Texas) Presbyterian Seminary and had served for a year as acting dean. From 1947 until 1952 he was minister at the First Presbyterian Church of Hot Springs, Arkansas, which Boggs has also pastored (from 1930 until 1939).

Boggs is a native of South Carolina, Millard of Tennessee.

Capital punishment has been under study by a committee of the assembly for the past year. The committee, however, was unable to agree on a report in time for this meeting. It was continued, to report to the 1961 meeting, as was another committee which has been studying the “feasibility” of amending the Confession of Faith so as to strike out references to the “negative” aspects of the church’s historic doctrine of predestination-references to divine election, to reprobation as well as to salvation.

In other actions, the Presbyterians: approved elaborate plans for centennial celebrations throughout 1961 featuring evangelistic “cavalcades” in 80 cities; recognized planned parenthood as a personal matter before God; instructed a committee to study spiritual implications of the use of tobacco and tranquilizing drugs; appointed another committee to “study” such evangelical movements as Youth for Christ, Young Life, Navigators, etc.; and sent to its presbyteries for approval a new Book of Church Order and Directory for Worship.

Also adopted was a resolution which “viewed with dismay the continued persecution of Protestants in the Republic of Colombia.”

The assembly declined to participate, with the UPUSA Church, in plans for the joint development of a $20,000,000 national Presbyterian cathedral in Washington, D. C., declaring that the “creation and construction of a ‘National’ church would be contrary to the nature and mission of the Church, which nature and mission are to be fulfilled through service and not through status.”

Elected to moderate the historic meeting was Dr. Marion A. Boggs, pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church of Little Rock, Arkansas, and brother of Dr. Wade Boggs, moderator of the 1954 assembly. This is the first time that brothers have been elected to the moderatorship.

Inducted into office during the meeting was Dr. James A. Millard, Jr., new stated clerk replacing Dr. E. C. Scott, who retired after occupying the office for 25 years.

The next meeting of the General Assembly will be held in the Highland Park Presbyterian Church of Dallas, largest in the denomination.

SPIRITUAL POLIO

I consider the Christian ministry to be the highest of all callings. My only son and two sons-in-law are ministers, and many of my ancestors have stood in that great procession of men who have preached the gospel of Christ.

We are deeply sensitive to the influence and reputation of ministers, particularly at a time when so many disruptive, distracting, and degrading influences are abroad.

Our deep conviction is that the minister’s spiritual power is directly related to his faith in, understanding, and effective use of the Holy Scriptures. Anything, therefore, which tends to diminish this faith in the Bible is of the deepest concern, not only to the Church but also to the unbelieving world.

That there is an unceasing attack on the authority and integrity of the Word of God is widely known. That much of the criticism is adroit, sophisticated, and destructive is not always so clearly understood. The “assured conclusions” of one group may be diametrically opposed to the equally firm “consensus of scholarly opinion” of another, but the views seem not to deter a united attack on the Scriptures by those who carry the philosophical bias that the Bible is often in error and that it is their duty to demonstrate the error.

I have just read a rather extensive newspaper report of a pastoral conference in Berkeley, California.

Insisting that man must be freed from biblical authority, one speaker made his main thesis the well-known neo-orthodox concept that only as the Bible speaks to a man does it become relevant. “Unless the Word of God is heard by us, that Word has no actual authority over us.” To be sure, Scripture becomes relevant to us as we respond to it; but is it only wrong to kill if I accept the divine order: “Thou shalt not kill”? Is adultery wrong only if I submit to the divine concept of purity?

Is not God’s Written Word valid regardless of what man may think of it? Ignorance of or indifference to divine truth in no way invalidates that truth. There are absolutes ordained of God which cannot be rationalized away and over which man stumbles to his own doom.

According to the same newspaper account, “Dr.… told his class … that the Bible is not the Word of God but merely of itself.”

How then does one know that God is speaking? he was asked. “You don’t,” he replied.

Little wonder that neo-orthodoxy has yet to produce a great soul winner! Wherever faith in the authority and integrity of the Scriptures is destroyed by injection of human interpretation denying clear affirmations of Scripture, the nerve of spiritual power is cut. One may exhibit a high degree of scholarship and intellectual attainment, but the one thing necessary is lacking.

From a practical standpoint, what is the layman to do with his Bible? According to the destructive thesis, he is told to view it only as a compilation of narratives written by men in the limitations of the flesh and bound by traditions and misunderstanding. Out of their efforts has come a book which he should study with the eye of a critic and from which he can receive blessing only as he sees in it divine truth for himself.

This is not a matter of minor importance. The world desperately needs the affirmations and absolutes of Holy Scripture. We as sinners need an authority which says “Thou shalt” and “Thou shalt not.” We need that which the Bible is—a divine revelation of truth which man could never discover for himself; a revelation which is objectively true and valid regardless of what man may think of it.

Many of us accept the Bible at face value because of our presupposition that God has spoken and that he has spoken clearly and factually through human agents. We believe that the writers were guided by the Holy Spirit so that they wrote in honesty and in truthfulness. That they may have but dimly perceived the full implication of what they wrote may of course be true. But to deny the truth of it through the presupposition that human fallibility exceeded divine inspiration is to destroy the message itself and thus allow “interpretations” that amount to presumptuous denials of truth.

If we approach the Bible with the presupposition that here we have a fallible human document through which God tries to speak to man but finds himself handicapped by the agents of his message, we immediately find ourselves trying to sift the chaff from the wheat and, through our own limitations, rejecting the kernels of divine truth in favor of the chaff of human speculation.

Were one to transfer the situation to the realm of modern medicine, the result would be chaos. In the study of medicine there are certain basic sciences which one is required to learn. The student is not permitted to pass off his own opinions or interpretations about anatomy, embryology, chemistry, or physiology. The whole scheme of modern medicine and surgery is built upon the acceptance of known factors. To be sure there is research, but only proven hypotheses are carried over into the realm of practice.

How different has the situation become in the realm of some modern theology! Clearly-stated doctrines of the Christian faith may no longer constitute the basis of either theology or preaching. Students and those long since graduated into the pulpit are now being presented with a multiplicity of opinions and deductions none of which have power to win men to Christ or lead men to godly living. Little wonder that we who sit in the pew are so often puzzled, and the hungry go away unsatisfied having received a stone instead of bread! Never has the world needed truly biblical preaching more than now. Never have men needed to be confronted with their lost condition and Christ’s redemptive work more than now.

How can one wage successful warfare with a Sword which one considers defective? How can one preach with authority when such authority never reaches higher than “I believe” or “I think”?

Rejection of the basic tenets of the Christian faith includes also a substitution of ideas and values. Satan to many is no longer a personality; hell is either a byword or never mentioned; conversion is no longer a work of the Spirit but a matter of personality and psychological adjustment, and the Gospel is reduced to a set of ethical and social values which are only dimly related to a new life in Christ.

Perhaps I have overstated the case and taken offense where no offense should have been taken. If so, I do regret it and apologize. But if the contention is right, and if this new approach to the Bible is cutting at the very heart of the Church’s message to a sinning and lost world, then the indictments ought to be made.

L. NELSON BELL

KEY TO ECCLESIAN

Many readers will be vacationing in areas where High Ecclesian is spoken in metropolitan pulpits, and a brisk refresher will make it possible to distinguish the language from ecclesiastical Latin or political English. (Ecclesian has much more affinity with the latter.)

Earlier approaches to Ecclesian through rhythm analysis have been abandoned. Compare the following examples:

“The dynamic relevance of this climactic event, which illuminates by its essential brilliance the peaks and vales of history’s horizon, burns also in your confrontation with the mystery of existence.”

“You exist. Now. In the event. The world event. The you event.”

These sentences mean roughly the same thing and provide some impression of the stylistic flexibility of Ecclesian. The sense in which Ecclesian is a tonal language is more debatable. Many masters of the tongue use decided falling inflections. Ecclesian has characteristic pronunciations of “static,” “scholastic,” and “creedal.” The cultivated pronunciation of “factual” creates an image of a contemptible little brute, deplorably dense and useless.

Less gifted speakers, however, may also use Ecclesian. Its secret lies in the classic statement of Humpty Dumpty to Alice, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Ecclesian impenetrability vanishes when Humpty Dumpty’s principle is understood. (The learned egghead defines impenetrability in that same passage, by the way.)

Occasionally a speaker of Ecclesian will say right out what he chooses to mean, which is appallingly bad form, but helps us get the hang of it. In a recent sermon the preacher chose to distinguish between “event” and “sheer event.” Only the second actually happened, but the first is “true history.” Can what didn’t happen be true history? Certainly, because history is the meaning of sheer events, and truth is expressed in fiction.

As Humpty said about his use of words, “The question is, which is to be the master—that’s all.”

EUTYCHUS

RIGHT TO WORK

Your editorial on Right To Work laws (Apr.25 issue) is fair and objective. Right to Work does not often receive this treatment in church publications. As a union member who was once fired for refusing to join a union, I strongly oppose the position of the Methodist Board of Social and Economic Relations on this issue. They take the position that the rights of the union are more important than the rights of its members.

Anyone desiring more information about this should write to the National Right To Work Committee, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Washington 6, D. C.

L. A. HOOSER

Indianapolis, Ind.

I wrote an article endorsing the principle of voluntary unionism and sent it to our denominational magazine: Presbyterian Life. They have refused to publish the article. If the “yellow dog” contract was morally wrong, then so is compulsory unionism. I personally believe it is that simple.

… Voluntary unionism [is] a principle which every freedom loving individual should endorse.

FREDERICK CURTIS FOWLER

The First Presbyterian Church

Duluth, Minn.

SUITING THE PULPIT

Mr. Petrie (Mar. 14 issue) points up a telling fact that with so many parishioners in evangelical denominations the acceptance of Unitarian preaching is because it is unrecognized. While this may be said for parishioners, I do not think it can be said for pastors and church administrators. The inroad of Unitarianism into denominations that are historically and officially evangelical is due to the knowing approval of those administrators, educators and ministers who manifest their approval either by overt promotion or by craven silence.

One thing Mr. Petrie’s article has done for me: it has substantially raised my estimation of those Unitarian ministers who have chosen to seek Unitarian pulpits.

C. GORDON CLEWS

Williamsport Methodist Church

Williamsport, Md.

I enjoy receiving CHRISTIANITY TODAY and feel rather flattered that a magazine of such size and stature would spend so much time, space, and concern on Unitarianism, relatively a tiny denomination.

CLARKE D. WELLS

St. John’s Unitarian Church

Cincinnati, Ohio

MARX AND DARWIN

Regarding the relationship between Marx and Darwin, mentioned by Dr. C. G. Singer (Mar. 14 issue), I enclose my translation of passages from the December, 1959, issue of Russia’s popular science monthly, Priroda. Almost every Russian periodical had an issue and a full page portrait dedicated to Darwin during 1959, the 100th anniversary of the appearance of Origin of Species.

“As to The Origin of Species Marx wrote Engels: ‘While the exposition is obscure and in English, this book provides a natural scientific basis for our doctrines.’ Vladimir Ilyich Lenin held Darwin’s doctrine in high esteem as having laid the groundwork for a beginning, and as having established the mutability of species and (their) interrelated lines of descent” (p. 10).

“In the Russia of the Soviets, Darwin’s doctrine found its second fatherland” (p. 11).

LEON H. KELSO

Washington, D. C.

I believe that God in history is going to halt the pending takeover of the U.S.A. by Communism. I believe this will follow the same “history curve” as the waning of Assyria before Jerusalem. From the human side I believe this involves both a wave of personal return to Christ and a revival of the principles of Christian scholarship. Hence what electrified me in the March 14 issue: … the breakthrough against Marx and Hegel … especially.

SAMUEL WOLFE

Santa Barbara, Calif.

CHURCH AND KINGDOM

Since Dr. McClain’s letter to the editor (Feb. 15 issue) involves not only a refutation of my review of his book (Oct. 12 issue) but the charge of “carelessness in handling the facts” at three points, a response is called for.

First, I wonder if Dr. McClain would repudiate Dr. Chafer’s classic definition of Dispensationalism alluded to in my review: “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity” (Dispensationalism: Dallas Seminary Press, 1936, p. 107). Although McClain does not use this terminology, this is the pattern of his theology, as the quotation in my review proves. McClain does indeed assert that the church will share in God’s theocratic (earthly) purpose; but the point of my criticism is that he has failed to show by what kind of theological logic or necessity this can be.

Second, my review quoted Dr. McClain to the effect that the church now enjoys the spiritual blessings of the future mediatorial (earthly) kingdom. However, critical theology must not only list facts and make statements; it must explain the internal coherence of its facts. This I believe McClain, and all dispensationalists, have failed to do. If the Kingdom by definition is the future earthly Davidic Kingdom, how can its blessings be experienced in advance by the church? A different definition of the Kingdom is called for to include this datum.

Third, McClain does not meet the main issue about the relation of the Cross to the Kingdom. Before the rejection of the Kingdom by Israel, the “few allusions to His death and resurrection … had been indirect, not much more than veiled intimations which could be read with understanding only in the clear light of the accomplished facts” (The Greatness of the Kingdom, p. 330). “If the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Mark 1:14) as preached by our Lord and His chosen disciples early in His ministry, is identical with the Gospel proclaimed after the Resurrection, why was the Cross not proclaimed as its central feature from the beginning?” (ibid., p. 332). [Note: I do not think the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel after the Resurrection are “identical” in form; but they do embody essentially the same redemptive reality although expressed in different forms.] McClain does indeed assert that there would be no final Kingdom apart from the death of Christ; this I freely recognize. My criticism is that his discussion on pages 330–334 relates the death of Christ to the Church rather than to the Kingdom. His statement is quite clear: “The objector [to the idea of a Kingdom without a Cross] might well be reminded, however, that there was once in Old Testament history a Theocratic Kingdom on earth before Messiah died, and therefor the possibility need not be rejected on a priori grounds” (p. 333). Certainly in the Old Testament, the death of Christ was implicit in the sacrificial system. Dispensationalists have not defended themselves against the criticism that the Cross is not an integral element of the Kingdom of God.

The central issue remains untouched: are we to interpret the Old Testament au pied de la lettre and fit the New Testament teaching into the Old Testament pattern (Dispensationalism), or are we to reinterpret the Old Testament by the New Testament teaching on the Kingdom of God (classical theology)? Dr. McClain is to be commended that he does not define the issue in terms of the authority of Scripture as some Dispensationalists recently have done. It is a question of hermeneutics, not the authority of Scripture.

GEORGE ELDON LADD

Fuller Seminary

Pasadena, Calif.

HAPPINESS AND THE SAINTS

The Christian Church has virtually taken over the doctrine of hedonism from John Stuart Mill. “Only if you come to Christ will you experience real happiness.” Both evangelistic campaigns and church services have become dominated by an endeavour to sell conversion on the basis that it is the sole means of being guaranteed happiness.

But has the Christian really got this divine right? Maybe it is just a lot of sales talk attempting to cash in on modern misery. The dictionary definition of happiness is “contented with one’s lot.” … Could it conceivably be argued that a Christian should be this?

The desire to feel good inside has almost become a universal compulsive neurosis. Desperate attempts are made to attain this state by dramatic witnessing to strangers and by self-denial as well as by rededication. When, inevitably, the “feel good inside” experience passes there is the inevitable spiritual reaction and in some cases eventual cynicism. The search for happiness is replacing the leading of a disciplined Christian life. It is becoming the touchstone for the validity of Christian truth. The supreme irony is that the best way to get happiness, on any level, is to forget it. Happiness as the critics of the hedonist have continually pointed out, is a by-product and never can successfully be pursued as an end in itself.…

We are promised in the Bible both joy and peace.… This is a peace coming from a restored relationship, the result of repentance and faith.… The joy of the New Testament believer … is a joy that at times may parallel emotional misery as it must surely have done in the occasion of Gethsemane. It is essentially the joy of knowing that we belong to Christ.

Our Lord was not always happy. It is not suggested that he was chronically unhappy. He would not then have been the welcome guest at banquets and other celebrations.… Yet there is no question that on a number of occasions he was greatly troubled. This is true of his relationship to his disciples, it was equally true in his lament over Jerusalem and of his condition arising from the death of Lazarus.… He knew extreme and utter agony.… Paul went through similar experiences. Are we today any different?… How could a Christian today be happy in the normal sense of the word in our present situation. The Lord’s work is in such great need and the church is so divided. The world is tragically determined in its sin and ungodliness. Few of us but have unconverted loved ones. Are we to be contented with our lot when we know this?… We will he able to overcome despair and defeat anxiety. But we will certainly have to meet sorrow, worry, depression, frustration and many other perfectly normal emotions. They are part of the lot of every mature adult. Our great strength as Christians is that we shall face them with Christ who knew them himself.… The honesty of such an approach may not be superficially attractive but as it is the New Testament message it will be more eternally effective.

ROY D. BELL

West Lane United Baptist Church

Moncton, New Brunswick

LUTHER, CALVIN AND KNOX

Calderwood’s letter (Jan. 18 issue) represents a new low among non-Romans. The way in which this man grovels before the figure of the Roman pope is enough to turn the stomach of a Luther or a Calvin.

JAMES P. COOKE

First Presbyterian Church

Morrill, Neb.

To think that a Presbyterian would express such sentiments would make John Knox turn over in his grave.

DOUGLAS W. J. NOBLE

Wayside Evangelistic Church

San Pablo, Calif.

The Second Book of Chronicles has no real independent existence. It was the translators of the Septuagint who divided the original Book of Chronicles into two to make it more easily adaptable to the standard papyrus scrolls of the time. They did the same to Samuel and Kings. That their action was a wise one is shown by the Jewish adoption of their division when the Hebrew Old Testament was printed. In fact it is probable that even earlier, though for a different reason, Palestinian scribes had detached Ezra-Nehemiah (one book in Hebrew) from the end of Chronicles. It follows that anyone wishing to understand II Chronicles must grasp the main concepts running right through from I Chronicles to Nehemiah.

The Former Prophets, that is, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, have shown us how God revealed himself in Israel’s history. These books exist primarily for the revelation they give of God and not for satisfying our curiosity about Israel’s history. There is nothing surprising in the fact that Chronicles can tell us much that is not in Samuel and Kings, or that archaeology has discovered facts not mentioned at all in the Bible, for example, Ahab’s part in the battle of Qarqar against Shalmaneser III, and Jehu’s submission to the same king (cf. Wiseman: Illustrations from Biblical Archaeology, p. 56).

After the Babylonian exile, the Jewish community centered on Jerusalem, had ceased to be a nation in the full sense of the word and was rather a religious community with a fair amount of local autonomy, a position that continued until the Maccabean priest-kings achieved political freedom in the later years of the second century B.C. The book of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah was intended to make this community understand its role better. Chronicles was designed to show that the real meaning of Israel’s history, once the period of the Judges was over, was to be found in the Davidic monarchy and the Jerusalem temple. It was meant less as a revelation of God’s character and more of the part to be played in his purposes by the institutions of his creating. The post-exilic community had been shorn of all the pomp and glory of the monarchy, but the restoration of the Temple and the purification of worship and national life (the chief topic of Ezra-Nehemiah) guaranteed that it was still the people of God, and thus the community had courage to carry out its task until the Messianic king should restore the monarchy once again. To the Church, the temple of God on earth, which awaits the coming of her Lord and King in glory, Chronicles has many messages to give.

There seems little to be gained in inquiring after the identity of the author of Chronicles. The Holy Spirit has left us as much in the dark as he has with the authors of the Former Prophets. Strong but not conclusive arguments have been brought forward in favor of Ezra. Jewish traditions, which have been quoted in his favor, may, even if they are reliable, mean no more than that he was responsible for the genealogies in I Chronicles. There seems little doubt, however, that if it was not written by Ezra, then some younger contemporary of his wrote it. Perhaps it is best to leave it at that and respect the silence of the Holy Spirit.

There is a strong tendency among moderns to belittle Chronicles as history, though there has been a reaction from the somewhat earlier tendency to regard everything peculiar in Chronicles as the invention of its author. Here again archaeology has tended to restrain undue scepticism. The usual reasons advanced today for belittling Chronicles are that in various ways it gives a false conception of the history of Israel. No one should doubt that the picture given by Chronicles is often markedly different to that presented by Samuel and Kings, but this in itself means little. Two works on history dealing with the same period are often very different because of differing approach and purpose. If we can show that the author of Chronicles did not want to contradict Samuel and Kings but to draw a different set of lessons from the same historical material, the usual liberal accusation of distortion falls to the ground.

The Chronicler has obviously used Samuel and Kings; this is doubted by none. In addition he has mentioned 20 other sources (14 in II Chronicles) from which he has derived information. (It seems certain that some of these are alternative titles for the same work.) We cannot know whether he had access to them all, or whether in some cases he was using a larger work into which some of the sources had already been incorporated. In any case he had a considerable number of sources at his disposal, but all of them he rewrote in his own marked style. How different was his use of Samuel and Kings! Though he has not hesitated to make occasional abbreviations and expansions or explanations, he has normally followed the canonical works with closest accuracy so that the modern textual critic is constantly appealing to Chronicles when scribal errors are suspected in earlier books. This can be explained in only one way. The Chronicler obviously regarded the Former Prophets as authoritative and probably canonical, and by his marked difference in his use of sources he was inviting his readers to study his work in the light of the earlier books. This does away with grounds for the charge of distortion. Most of the others are not based on Chronicles but on that reinterpretation of Old Testament history generally associated with the name of Wellhausen. In fact the increasing respect being shown today by many for Chronicles is one of the influences undermining the reputation of the Wellhausen theory.

The main differences between II Chronicles and Kings are of the same type as those between I Chronicles and Samuel. They will be best understood if we look at them in order.

In the story of Solomon (chaps. 1–9) the incident of Adonijah and the fate of Joab, Abiathar, and Shimei linked with it (1 Kings 1; 2), and also the account of Solomon’s sin and troubles (1 Kings 11) have completely vanished, though knowledge of the former is revealed by 1 Chronicles 29:22. These omissions may be compared with the silence on David’s sin and Absalom’s rebellion in I Chronicles. We are more concerned with the Davidic monarchy as a God-established institution than with the kings as individuals. As a result both the intrigue to prevent the true king from coming to the throne and the story of his later failure remain unmentioned.

There are also considerable abbreviations in the account of Solomon’s secular glory and in that of the Temple, though there are some small additions here as well. The former calls for no comment, but the latter is instructive. For the most part the abbreviations in the account of the Temple concern its ornamentation and other details which were not represented in Zerubbabel’s temple. This latter, however lowly, when compared with the glories of Solomon’s building, was Jehovah’s temple in which he would glorify himself (cf. Hag. 2:9). Hence the Chronicler omits these essentially secondary details lest his readers should belittle the house in which they worshiped.

When we pass on to the history of the divided kingdoms, we immediately meet the most striking feature in II Chronicles, namely, its silence about the Northern Kingdom except where the history of Judah is directly impinged. Not even the fall of Samaria is mentioned. Jeroboam had rejected not merely the Davidic monarchy, for which there was some justification, but also the Jerusalem temple, for which there was none. By so doing he had cut himself and his kingdom off from the main stream of God’s purposes. God continued to show his grace to Israel until there was no hope left, but this had no place in the working out of his purposes of redemption for the world; and so in II Chronicles the Northern Kingdom has no place except as some of its members from time to time link up with God’s people in the south. A fascinating example of the working out of this principle is given by a comparison of 2 Kings 8:25–9:28 with 2 Chronicles 22:1–9. These omissions are balanced by various additional information.

There are three stories of outstanding deliverances (13:3–20; 14:9–15; 20:1–30). They are often treated as stories of outstanding faith, but their true significance lies in their stress on the inviolability of God’s people whenever they put their assurance completely in him.

There is no suggestion that the inviolability is automatic, and so we have a number of other additions which enlarge on the sufferings of Judah and its kings when they forsook the Lord. These were Rehoboam (12:1–12), Jehoram (21:4–20), Joash (24:17–22), Uzziah (26:16–21), Ahaz (28:5–19), and Manasseh (33:11–13). The addition in the case of Ahaz should be specially noted. The main disaster, we are told, was caused by apostate Israel, yet there were in Israel people with a truer understanding of God’s demands than that possessed by most of the people of Judah. The same stress on conditional inviolability is found in chapter 36:11–21 where the reasons for the destruction of the Temple and the exile are given in unsparing terms. There is no nationalistic chauvinism in Chronicles. Judah is not exalted above Israel; the one difference is the electing grace of God.

Another group of additions is connected with the great religious reformations in Judah, namely Asa’s (15:1–15), Jehoshaphat’s (17:1–9; 19:1–11), Hezekiah’s (29:2–31:21), and Josiah’s (35:1–19). Except for Josiah’s reformation, these are only briefly mentioned in Kings because the prophetic writer saw their essentially external character. In this regard we note also Isaiah’s silence about Hezekiah’s reformation, and Jeremiah’s almost complete ignoring of Josiah’s. The purpose of Chronicles is a description of externals rather than a judgment on inner motives, and so much fuller descriptions are given.

Many have found some of the large numbers recorded in Chronicles a stumbling block. An example like that in chapter 14:9 with its “three hundred chariots” shows that we have not to do with mere exaggeration or phantasy. Some of the largest, like the million men of the same verse, arc to be understood merely as meaning a very large number. In other cases, for example in Jehoshaphat’s army (17:14–18), there are signs of scribal corruption. Until we know more of the history of writing numbers in the Inter-Testamental period, it would be dangerous to build any theory on an occasional difficult group of figures.

Modern commentaries are normally at their poorest when dealing with a book like Chronicles, except for linguistic technicalities. There has been little of value written from the conservative standpoint since Keil’s and Zöckler’s in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

Wallington, Surrey, England

At the age of 11 I marched forward from the rear of an assembly to accept Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. I was responding to an invitation extended by a bishop of the then Church of the United Brethren in Christ in a series of nightly meetings many years ago in Caba, La Union, Philippines. Three or four years earlier, my father had become one of the charter members of the first Protestant church organized in that section of the Philippines. For some time my mother remained faithful to the old Roman Catholic church, while I attended the children’s Sunday School and the Junior Christian Endeavor society meetings of my father’s church. I nonetheless joined mother in many religious observances of her church. Then within two years of my own decision for Christ, mother also espoused the new faith.

Pulpit evangelism had no doubt been the principal means by which our family of three had been brought into the evangelical church, although in my case Christian education had also played an important role in preparing my young mind and heart to respond to the Gospel when it was proclaimed (albeit in a foreign language I could hardly comprehend) and communicated through faulty translation into our native tongue. Evangelism, therefore, although distinguished from Christian religious education and other specialized functions of the Church, cannot be separated from them. It is the crux of all conversations in the Church. It lies at the core, even as it is at the very heart, of all the Church’s ministry to man and the world.

WHAT EVANGELISM IS

When discussing evangelism it is good and helpful to recall afresh its implications and to clarify its involvements. Real evangelism deals with the issue of life and death. It is concerned not with man’s wishes and hopes but with proclaiming the Gospel, the revealed, redemptive truth, the “faith once delivered to the saints,” in contemporary meanings and symbols, without secularization. Evangelism is the high and holy activity of bringing persons by the power of the Gospel into crucial encounter with God-in-Christ. It prepares the way for the Holy Spirit to lead men lost in sin and destined for destruction to find their way back to God for life’s renewal in Christ the Lord. It is, as Archbishop Temple put it, “the winning of men to knowledge of Christ as their Saviour and King, so that they give themselves to his services in the fellowship of his Church.” It aims at conversion, “at turning man from the way of ruin to the way of life.” It confronts man with the light of God’s truth and grace whereby man is constrained and compelled to do something about it. Its aim, as the Fourth Gospel declares, is that men “may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name” (John 20:31). The Gospel offers its own health and peace to the souls of men, and its own resources for the transformation of society.

A CONTINUING REQUIREMENT

Evangelism remains an unfinished task after it has gained the sinner’s assent to a statement of faith and his baptism into church membership. Indeed, the task of evangelism is never really finished. As evangelism is concerned with “leading nonbelievers to a living faith in Jesus Christ and into the fellowship of the Church through the power of the living word,” it is equally concerned with making believers “witnesses … unto the uttermost parts of the earth.” Evangelism must unceasingly thrust forth disciples as witnesses of “the Gospel to the whole of creation.”

As a young man graduating from an American college I was confronted with a crucial issue in my life. I had been preparing for the study of law and a political career. Suggestions from a missionary, a pastor, and others, that I give myself to Christian work, were long unheeded. Furthermore, in the Philippines, at a time when Protestantism was definitely a new thing, the call to Christian service in a Protestant church seemed like an invitation to obscurity, ridicule, and deprivation. Moreover, the desire of my fiancee, and also of my mother was that I should prepare for the legal profession.

But one night I experienced another confrontation with the Gospel. The crucial issue that sleepless night was: Should I not rather give myself to the Christian ministry wherein the need was great, and for which I felt a divine call, instead of to a career into which many were crowding and for which only human desires had been expressed? After hours of earnest thought and prayer, I experienced renewal and a new sense of commitment to the Lord, and decided forthwith and firmly to follow his bidding. Evangelism had kept its hold on me. It drew me at the age of 11 to give my heart to God; it drew me during young manhood to “give of my best to the Master,” and to devote my whole strength to his cause. While no visible preacher prompted me or convinced me to make this decision, the unseen Evangelist, who is the Evangel, brought forth this radical change in my life’s outlook and vocation.

Thus evangelism operates to convert and transform, to call forth and to hold for God. It seeks to make disciples of children and youth and men and women, and in the inspiration of the Gospel to raise them up and make them mature through the ministries of the church for service in the cause of Christ.

TASK OF THE WHOLE CHURCH

This primary, crucial, and continuing task of evangelism must be faithfully discharged by the Church, the whole Church. The very formation of the Church was involved in a witness; its beginnings, in a testimony. To Peter’s declaration of belief regarding Jesus: “You are Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus answered: “… on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” By its very nature the Church must be missionary and evangelistic.

This task has been undertaken by prophets and preachers, by apostles and pastors, by evangelists and teachers. Constrained by a vision splendid or impelled by a sense of mission, men and women have gone to call on people to repent and turn to God. It was and is today being done by individuals acting on their own initiative. As in the apostolic times, however, the task has been more effectively undertaken as a collective effort in which the whole Christian brotherhood participate, with preachers going forth to preach the Gospel at the behest and support of the people of God, the Church. “For everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?” (Rom. 10:13–15, RSV). Arthur C. Archibald. in his book New Testament Evangelism, says: “The New Testament knows nothing of evangelism apart from the church. Everything goes out of the churches, and draws back into the churches.… The early church far surpassed us in this, and they were, as churches, centers of organized evangelistic activity. The whole life of the church pushed out into evangelistic fervor and soul-winning persuasion and they were organized for such endeavor.”

The Church today should not forget or fail to employ another New Testament pattern which depends not solely upon ordained apostles or evangelists, utilizing the pulpit and platform, but calls upon the laity to render their apostolate. Someone has described it this way: “Evangelism is the participation of the total Christian community in Christ’s mission in the world.” The clergy and the laity who make up the Christian community may differ in office but not in vocation. After first sending the Twelve in teams of two, Christ later sent the Seventy in similar teams into all parts of the earth to confront people with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only were they organized in that fashion but the entire Church was mobilized, as we see when, following Pentecost, the whole Church was scattered abroad and the rank and file bore their witness.

It must be remembered again and again that “only the whole body of Christ can fulfill the purpose of Christ.” The world coming to believe in Christ as Lord and Saviour is premised upon the unity of God’s people, upon the unitedness of all members of Christ’s body, the Church. For this reason, the Church of clergy and laity, of West and East, and South and North, of white and brown and black, must sense more than ever before her need of “wholeness” and turn to Christ in repentance for a new dedication to the unfinished task of winning the whole world to him.

A DIVINE COMPULSION

Why must we as a Church give ourselves to such a task? First of all, because we have been called and commissioned by our Lord for such a task. We cannot be real disciples of Christ unless in glad and faithful obedience we enter upon the task.

Furthermore, because the Church and those in it have a great story to tell. Great historical, human events cannot be kept unknown. Here was the unprecedented action of God centering in Jesus Christ in and through which he inaugurated a new era in history. God-in-Christ visited his people, identified himself with them, bore their tragic condition, shared their frustrations and death, and he at the same time triumphed over the forces of sin and evil, rose from the grave, opened up heavenly possibilities for men, and “actualized” the kingdom of God in history! Who would and could withhold the story of such a momentous fact? Those involved in these events and those who came to learn of them could not remain silent. They must tell the story and release the news. What could keep the Good News from being spread? How could those who received it, who found new hope and new life in it, keep quiet? In the very words of Jesus himself, replying to the Pharisees who asked him to silence his disciples: “I will tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.” So the Church faces her calling to evangelism because “we have a story to tell to the nations.”

THE FACT OF REDEMPTION

Not only is it a story that we have to tell; we have an experience of redeeming love to share. The Church is in possession of a mighty fact in history; it is also in possession of a tremendous fact of experience. Evangelism rests upon the “inwardness” of the pentecostal experience by which the Jesus of history becomes the indwelling Christ of faith. J. B. Phillips, in his Introduction to Letters to Young Churches, states: “Mere moral reformation will hardly explain the transformation and the exuberant vitality of these men’s lives.… We are practically driven to accept their own explanation, which is that their little human lives had, through Christ, been linked up with the very Life of God.”

Precisely for this reason the Church across the years and faithful Christians in every generation could not be contained even at the sacrifice of their lives from sharing the glow and warmth of so wonderful an experience to a world and to human lives bereft of the unsearchable riches of his grace. It was so with Paul. “The love of God constraineth me,” he declared. “Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16). It was so with Latimer and Ridley who “lit a candle in England which never went out” because of their unwavering faith that Jesus was “Everyman’s Saviour.” It was so with John Knox who cried out, “Give me Scotland, or I die.” It is so with our pioneer Filipino missionaries, with Leones, Estoye, and Quismundo who dared to venture into dangerous situations for the Gospel because in no other than Christ could they find peace. It is so with us. The Church faces her calling to evangelism and missions because she has an experience of infinite love to share.

From ancient days to the present time the Word of God has constrained reluctant men to say, “Here am I, Lord, send me.” It has impelled men and women to go forth to proclaim that God omnipotent reigneth and Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour. And so the Church works and obeys in response to the Master’s call. Facing the calling to evangelism is integral to her very nature. The Church is most truly the Church when she is giving her utmost to the task of man’s redemption from sin and reconciliation to God.

To this end the call of the Head of the Church comes to us anew in our time, even at this hour. And if we who make up the Church are alive and faithful, we shall be earnest and quick to appropriate God’s fullness, and we and our sons and daughters with new power will confront the whole man with the whole Gospel to win the whole world to Christ. For such a task we may feel ourselves to be inadequate and insufficient. But we have One who is sufficient. It is he who has called us; it is he who goes before us; it is he who meets us every day. It is he who declared: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations … whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Therefore, “Lead on O King Eternal, The day of march has come.”

God’s Man

God’s man is more than a moral soul

Who lives a life that his friends extol,

Who pays his debts when his debts are due,

Whose wife will vow that he’s not untrue.

God’s man is more than a man who stands

Saluting the Lord and His great commands,

Who reads the Bible and kneels to pray

And goes to church on the holy day.

God’s man is the man whom Christ has freed

From sin and guilt and the grip of greed;

Who counts as gain all the earthly loss

Which he must suffer to gain the Cross

He knows that he at a precious price

Was bought by Calvary’s sacrifice;

Who knows, therefore, he is not his own,

But bound by blood to the Lord’s high Throne.

So live he must for the Christ above,

Who gave His all and whose name is Love.

The world that watches him as he goes

Will see no Christ but the one he shows.

Christ has no way to redeem the race

Save through the men that are saved by grace.

God’s man knows well that his life must count

For Him who spoke on the ancient Mount;

God’s man is witness, by deed and word,

That God is love and that Christ is Lord;

He sets a light in the field and mart

And leaves the Truth in his neighbor’s heart;

He walks with men on the common road,

And lives for them while he lives for God.

LON WOODRUM

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.