One of the gifts of my life has been a succession of great professors—John McNaugher and John Whale, to name two. And to name another great one—Dr. Albert Baldinger, now retired on top of a beautiful hilltop in Longvue, Washington. This page could profitably be written about him, but I resist such a temptation. What I want to do is to get started with one of “Baldy’s” thought starters, and he had plenty of them He urged us in class one day to watch the shift of styles in theology, and he said we could always tell what was in style by noticing what subjects brought theological students to the edges of their chairs.

For 14 years now it has been my high privilege to teach in a theological seminary, and I think I have noticed for myself how some subjects come alive for a while and then seem to subside. For a spell it seemed we could never quit wrestling with theories of the Second Advent. Why, I do not know, except that the rise of the Bible School movement across the country seemed, on the whole, to emphasize dispensationalism which was being answered, in conservative circles at least, by men who took their amillennialism seriously. Then came the onslaught, to everyone’s surprise, of the European theologians at Evanston who insisted to the World Council that “The Christian Hope” was primarily an apocalyptic one.

Baptism, or more exactly, the validity of Infant Baptism, was highly debatable even in our seminary of Presbyterian persuasion. The Southern Baptists were no longer satisfied to be “southern”; many independent movements were showing attitudes of the early Anabaptists; the Barthian influence was being felt in every aspect of modern theology and Barth’s discussion on infant baptism with his European contemporaries was having repercussions everywhere. Arguments on the validity of infant baptism kept forcing us to reconsideration of covenants and covenant theologies, not to mention regeneration, new birth, the order of salvation, repentance and faith, and therefore the theological bases of Christian education especially for young people.

It seems self-evident that classroom discussions in theological seminaries are clear reflections of current religious thought. Why not! In our own seminary and at the last count we had representatives from 11 different denominations, 52 colleges and universities, from every synod of our own denomination, and from three different foreign countries. Here is a true and live cross section of contemporary religious thought, not in the upper echelons of churchmanship but from those beloved grass roots. What may not be so self-evident is my own judgment of what brings these theological students to the edge of their chairs now. But my judgment for what it is worth is that there are at least three live topics on which you can get discussion at the drop of your chalk: critiques of the ecumenical movement; the revision of confessional statements; and what it really means to call the Bible the Word of God.

On the subject of ecumenism we can all agree that we do suffer—and that we ought to suffer—over the divisions in the church. They are an offense and a scandal. Paul never answered his own rhetorical question, “Is Christ divided?” He didn’t need to. But Calvin answered it for him and posed one of his own. “Christ is divided,” said Calvin. “Who bleeds?” One cannot contribute knowingly and willingly to the rending of the body of Christ. With this kind of thinking the ecumenical movement was initiated, found answer in the thinking of multitudes of serious churchmen everywhere, and is still sustained with vigor.

But other movements are observable. With emphasis on the invisible rather than the visible church (and I recognize this as an over-simplification for the sake of brevity) there have been countless movements against the ecumenical even in this day in which the climate and atmosphere of the church dictate unions and federations and councils. Differences which began vertically between denominations now run in horizontal stratifications across all denominations. Liberal Baptists, for example, are closer to liberal Methodists than they are to other Baptists; inclusive churches like the Episcopal can support seminaries both high and low and somehow absorb the anomaly. Independent seminaries at both ends of the orthodoxy spectrum have sprung up, are finding sturdy financial support, and are drawing students from all denominations. In the meantime there are so-called divisive movements marked by Bible schools and rival publications even in the same denomination.

There are serious questions in all this: if we are to unite on essentials, what are the essentials? If we can lay aside essentials for the sake of union, are they then really essential? Why must the World Council have three different communion services? If the member churches are not united at the Lord’s table, are they united at all? If we all “see through a glass darkly,” which is an argument against the dogmatism that divides, do we, conversely, have hold of any truth on which we can unite, including the truth that we ought to unite? In the ecumenical game is it ever possible to get any enthusiasm worked up except among the few who play on the varsity (and they always look like the same team), the kind of enthusiasm, for example, some misguided laymen feel for the Berean Class bowling team? Have ecumenical groups become means for the union of the churches in order to present a solid front to the world and remove the scandal of divisiveness, or have they become organizations by which our betters tell us what’s good for us? So the discussions run.

If my judgment is correct, there are still two other questions very much alive among seminarians: the revision of confessional statements and the Bible as the Word of God. Mutatis Mutandis we shall work the theme in our next exciting chapter!

An Adventure In Christian Evidences

Reasons for Faith, by John H. Gerstner (Harper, 1960, 241 pp., $4), is reviewed by Bernard Ramm, Professor of Systematic Theology, California Baptist Theological Seminary.

Reasons for Faith is a popular presentation of Christian evidences with some apologetic materials. The first six chapters develop a natural theology and discuss the theistic proofs at a popular level. Commencing with the seventh chapter, the good professor presents the case for special revelation followed by discussions of miracles, prophecy, archaeology, comparative religions, and the influence of Christianity. From this he turns to treat standard objections to Christian faith from science, criticism, and the shortcomings of the Church. He concludes the book with a short chapter called “The Pragmatic Test.”

Dr. Gerstner informs the reader that his exposition is guided by two considerations: (1) that he writes from the perspective of the older apologetics, and not the newer; and (2) that he writes popularly for the average college student. So far as the second consideration is concerned, the goal is achieved. The book is well written and the thought and sentences flow along rather smoothly. Of the first consideration we are not so sure. Dr. Gerstner does not identify the old or the new in apologetics. My guess is that by the old he means the old Princeton school of Alexander, Hodge, Greene, Warfield, and Machen. First, the antiquity of this school is not older than Butler (unless one wishes to equate Butler’s system with that of Aquinas). Thus the new apologetics which Gerstner declines is in point of time much older (going back to Calvin, Anselm, and Augustine) than his old apologetics. Secondly, I do not think that Professor Gerstner accurately represents the old apologetics, at least as it is found in Warfield. There are deep-seated differences between Gerstner’s theses in Reasons for Faith and those propounded by Warfield in his great essay on “Calvin’s Knowledge of God,” or his equally great essay on “Augustine’s Doctrine of Knowledge and Authority.”

Reasons for Faith is a work which will be of help and guidance to those students and lay people who need a straightforward, uncomplicated defense of the main truths of the Christian faith. However, it will be particularly disappointing to those students who are fighting a real battle in their souls with the modern intellectual world. Although the book shows some revelance to twentieth century thought, it is basically nineteenth century in its mode of argumentation, in its philosophical terminology, and the kind of logical inferences it makes. But we simply cannot write apologetics from the philosophical stance of the nineteenth century. Existentialism and analytic philosophies are the contemporary philosophies with which we must contend. Furthermore, can we discuss the proofs for theism or modes of arguing for theism and disregard the writings of Wiggenstein, Carnap, Russell, Ayer, or Feigl?

The author apparently has not read the works of any hard-hitting analytic philosopher, or else he is not familiar with the Oxford debates over the character of theological language. Yet, this is where the alert twentieth century college and seminary student is being pushed, and where an apologetic must become relevant. I am also surprised that Dr. Gerstner has completely by-passed the issues of general and special revelation. This is certainly Zeitgeist with orthodox (Berkouwer, General Revelation) and neo-orthodox thinkers. One has to take sides in the Barth-Rome controversy (the validity of the analogy of being), and the Barth-Brunner controversy (the validity of general revelation) and the Berkouwer-Barth controversy (the validity of the historic orthodox relationship of general and special revelation).

BERNARD RAMM

A Melee

American Catholics: A Protestant-Jewish View, a symposium edited by Philip Scharper (Sheed & Ward, 1959, 235 pp., $3.75), is reviewed by C. Stanley Lowell, Associate Director of Protestants and Other Americans United.

This particular symposium manifests more lack of coordination and planning than do most. It would appear that the editor must have called the writers on the phone and said; “Look, will you be a good fellow and give me 3,000 words on what you think of American Catholics? You take history.”

The result is a hodgepodge in which some topics are inadequately treated two or three times, and certain fundamental problems are not properly faced at all. This kind of project deserved more careful preparation.

Protestant readers will find greater interest in the Protestant-Catholic confrontation than they will in Judaism and Catholicism. Martin Marty, a parish minister and one of the editors of The Christian Century, undertakes to debunk the Protestant-American dream. There is a petty accuracy in much that he writes. Still, he overlooks the forest for the trees. The Protestant-American dream has been one in which men have lived and moved and had their being. Perhaps America is not a “Protestant nation”—a designation most of the writers seem to deprecate. Yet America cannot be accounted for without this very Protestant-American dream. It deserves more than debunking treatment.

Robert McAfee Brown, a professor at Union Theological Seminary, writing on “The Issues Which Divide Us,” does state on page 73 a number of the major issues dividing the religious communities, but he does not indicate broad understanding of their import. The commanding issue of our day—government subsidies for Catholic schools—receives bare mention, but its relation to the “money barrier” by which tax funds have been denied to churches under our system is not traced.

Dr. Brown may be suspect as to prejudice in his discussion of Protestant-Catholic issues. He discloses on page 83 that he has espoused a view of Roman Catholicism which has little documentary warrant. Why has he done this? He does not give the answer but one can guess. Dr. Brown is a revered participant in what is called “the dialogue.” There is one requirement for participation in “the dialogue” which seems to be rigidly enforced. One must sign a loyalty oath to accept as infallible the Courtney-Murray-John Cogley line on what the Roman church teaches in regard to religious liberty. Dr. Brown writes from this aberrational stance. The fact that he acknowledges the aberration is helpful, but that he rests his work upon aberration is dubious scholarship.

Father Murray is actually an inconsequential cog in the vast mechanism of the Roman Catholic church. His view that this church really does believe in religious liberty in a situation like America, and would not destroy it even if it could, is a view that has never made any headway at the Vatican. Not a single papal encyclical supports it, and there are many that can be cited against it.

Prejudice is again exhibited when Dr. Brown in a footnote attacks POAU for criticizing the Vatican as a church, then as a state depending on “the polemical needs of the moment.” The fact is that the Vatican is a State-Church hybrid which alternately poses as a church and as a state depending on which will prove the more profitable at the moment. The Vatican claims all prerogatives as a state, but denies all responsibilities as a state because it is a church. This aspect of the matter has probably never occurred to Dr. Brown.

Allyn Robinson who heads the New York office of the Conference of Christians and Jews offers what might be expected from a representative of this group. Its leaders are obsessed with the virtues of talk. They are committed to the proposition that if people of different convictions can only get together (preferably at a good dinner) and talk and talk, then tensions can be resolved. One wonders what warrant there is for believing this. Much talk sometimes worsens rather than betters relations. Dr. Robinson’s uncritical and unfair classification of POAU with the Know-Nothing Movement is rather startling in a professional exponent of brotherhood. He gently slaps wrists all around, but always comes back to the Conference theme which stresses sentimental confrontation rather than realistic grappling with issues.

C. STANLEY LOWELL

Exegetical Studies

Notes on the Epistles of Paul, by J. B. Lightfoot (Zondervan, 1957, 336 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by Wick Broomall, Author of Biblical Criticism.

Perhaps all ministers who have studied Greek exegesis in seminary days have become acquainted with Dr. Lightfoot’s never-to-be-outdated commentaries on some of Paul’s epistles. Though the good bishop died in 1889, his commentaries have had few equals up to our time.

In the present volume, which contains, in the order of treatment, Dr. Lightfoot’s notes on I and II Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians 1–7; Romans 1–7, and Ephesians 1:1–14, the hand of this old master of exegesis is seen on every page. It is true, unfortunately, that many ministers today, unacquainted with Greek and Latin, will pass over the many quotations from the early Church Fathers; but even those with only a smattering of Greek will find these pages replete with satisfying material for the mind and soul.

Lightfoot will always remain among the elite of commentators. This position has been merited because of his sound and judicious treatment and interpretation of Scripture. His vast erudition is so gently employed in the service of divine truth that even the average reader will understand readily the simple English style found in this volume.

In these Notes the reader will find excellent studies on individual passages and words. The reviewer calls attention to katartisai (p. 47), skeuos (pp. 54 f.), hemeis hoi zontes (pp. 65 ff.), apo tou ponerou (pp. 125 f.), hilasterion (pp. 271 f.) dikaioma (p. 292), oikonomia (pp. 319 ff.), anakephalaiosasthai (pp. 321 ff.) and arrabon (pp. 323 ff.) as illustrations of the deft way in which Dr. Lightfoot enriches our knowledge of Paul’s words. Like Ellicott, an equal among exegetical giants, Lightfoot was a careful student of Greek grammar and syntax. Naturally, therefore, the reader will expect to find questions and problems of syntax—largely ignored in more recent commentaries—the subjects of careful investigation. This expectation is well rewarded when one considers, for example, Lightfoot’s treatment of the genitive (p. 15), of hina (p. 151), of me in questions (p. 154) and of similar problems. Nor is that all. Does the reader desire to know the difference between dokimazo and peirazo (p. 21), between ou and me (p. 39), between anagke and thlipsis (p. 45), between to kalon and to agathon (p. 86), between oida and ginosko (p. 179), between bios and zoe (p. 211), between laleo and lego (p. 269), between eulogetos and eulogemenos (pp. 210 f.), or between phronesis and sophia (pp. 317 f.)? If so, Lightfoot will not disappoint him.

Critical and introductory problems receive only scant attention. There are, however, detailed analyses of all the epistles dealt with in this volume—except Ephesians.

Today, in the light of the missile age, secular educators are demanding that our schools return to the fundamentals of learning. Perhaps it is not too late for us to suggest that the ministerial world, grown flabby on a mushy diet of predigested “popular” commentaries, should, right now, return to the study of Lightfoot’s commentaries. These Notes offer a wonderful opportunity to begin an exegetical study of Scripture with the help of a man fully qualified as a guide.

Zondervan Publishing House, let us add, has done a real service to our generation in adding this volume (published posthumously in 1895) to their valuable “Classic Commentary Series.”

WICK BROOMALL

Historical Commentary

The Acts of the Apostles, by E. M. Blaiklock (Eerdmans, 1959, 197 pp., $3), is reviewed by Raymond O. Zorn, Minister of Faith Presbyterian Church, Fawn Grove, Pennsylvania.

Readers interested in short commentaries that are neither unduly technical nor unhelpfully brief should procure the commentaries of this series of which the volume under review is the seventh and most recent in publication. As with the others, this book has a neatly printed format and a 33-page introduction dealing with the date, authorship, and historical setting of Acts, which reveals a scholarly awareness of critical problems. A detailed outline of Acts and a brief but adequate bibliography are other helpful features of this book.

Since the book of Acts presents a history indispensable to our knowledge of the earliest decades of Christianity’s advance, the commentator, professor of classics in University College, Auckland, New Zealand, is well equipped to set forth the contents of the book especially with regard to the historical setting in the ancient world.

But the value of the book does not end as an historical commentary. Throughout it reflects a scholar’s knowledge of the original Greek (significant words are given in transliteration) combined with a sincere effort to remain faithful to the basic meaning of the text. Problems are faced and wrestled with to satisfying conclusions for the most part (e.g., the Pentecostal tongues, pp. 55–57); yet there will be differences of opinion on the part of readers over other matters (e.g., the toning down of the predestinarian emphasis of 13:48 on p. 110; the interpretation of “church” in 7:38 as merely political, pp. 82–83; and the feeling that Acts was either unfinished, or that Luke intended to write a third volume, pp. 12 and 195).

The reader will find provocative the author’s treatment of Paul with detailed implications as to the significance of his being a Roman citizen (pp. 83–87); his exegetical effort to prove that Luke was a native of Philippi (pp. 123–124), though the Anti-Marcionite Prologue dating from the latter half of the second century makes Luke a native of Syrian Antioch; his support of the south Galatia hypothesis as the region where Paul established churches (pp. 121–123) to which the Galatian epistle was subsequently sent; his detailed background of Greek achievement as epitomized in the glory of Athens (pp. 132–136), and numerous other matters.

The major shortcoming of the commentary, if it can be classified as such, is its exegetical brevity. However, a commentary of 200 odd pages, the biblical text being omitted as is uniformly true of all in this series, may yet do justice to the exegesis of the text. The author subdivides Acts into rather large pericopes with comment on these sections in the form of condensed essays. Then a brief section on additional notes is appended in which exegetical treatment is given to selected verses of the context. A suggested remedy for future editions of this otherwise useful work, as well as for the commentaries not yet published for this series, might be the enlarging of the “Additional Notes” section by approximately 50 pages. This would still keep the volume within the handy limits of its originally intended range.

Blaiklock, in giving his estimate of Luke, says that he had a “scholar’s ability to strip away irrelevant or dispensable detail” (p. 15). Blaiklock has achieved to an admirable degree this same quality in his commentary.

RAYMOND O. ZORN

Strides In Archaeology

Light from the Ancient Past, by Jack Finegan (Second edition, Princeton University Press, 1959, 638 pp., $10), is reviewed by Charles F. Pfeiffer, Associate Professor of Old Testament, Gordon College.

Since its first publication in 1946, Light from the Ancient Past has been one of the most readable and informative works on the historical and archaeological backgrounds of Scripture. The reader is able to visualize the cultures of Sumer and Egypt, of Canaanites and Hittites, and relate them to the biblical narrative in such a way that both the Bible and ancient history take on new meaning.

Rapid strides have been made in archaeological studies since 1946, and the new edition brings both additions and changes. The volume has been enlarged by 138 pages which in part is old material reworked in the light of more recent studies, and in part consists of material unknown at the time of the first edition. Important in the latter category is the Dead Sea Scroll material.

Finegan has adjusted his chronologies in numerous instances. Changes are in decades rather than centuries. The division of the Israelite kingdom is dated 931/930 B.C. in the new edition, and 926 B.C. in the old edition of this work. The Egyptian twenty-first dynasty began, according to the 1946 edition, in 1150 B.C., whereas the new edition gives 1090 as the date.

The factual nature of Finegan’s work accounts in no small measure for its popularity. When controversial subjects are discussed (e.g. the date of the Exodus, pp. 117–121), arguments for the differing viewpoints are given fair hearing and the author presents his own conclusion in cautious terms.

Biblical studies need to be based on historical data. Finegan will help the student to read his Bible in the light of the world in which it was written.

CHARLES F. PFEIFFER

Spiritual Dynamic

Power Through Pentecost, by Harold J. Ockenga (Eerdmans, 1959, 128 pp., $2), is reviewed by Robert B. Dempsey, Pastor of Carlisle Congregational Church, Carlisle, Mass.

The nations are engaged in a race for power that the world might be changed for the better. Ironically, the Christian Church, the only body that could transform the world, is the one that seems least interested in doing so. Often she does not realize her weakness. When she does, she does not know where to find strength.

In this timely volume, the minister of Boston’s Park Street Church presents a soul-searching study of Pentecostal power in the individual experience. It is not a systematic study of biblical pneumatology but a thoughtful presentation of the secret of the unleashed dynamite of the Spirit in New Testament lives. Such a study will best teach us how this power may be unleashed in individuals and in the Church of this decade.

After two introductory chapters, the author examines the experiences of men wherein the power of the Holy Spirit was plainly manifested. The author repeatedly avers the New Testament truth that every believer is baptized, sealed, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and that this is entirely different from being filled with the Spirit (pp. 41, 57, 58, 60, 61, 74).

The term “second” is boldly used to describe the experience of being filled with the Spirit. It is a second crisis experience (pp. 61, 81, 125, 127). We do not tarry for the Spirit, but we must tarry for his power in our prayer of confession and consecration (pp. 31, 32, 23, 126). Dispelling any notion about sinless perfectionism (p. 23), the author is clear in stating that sin and self-centeredness are a barrier to power (pp. 14, 22). In fact sin will rob us of power and the fullness of the Spirit (p. 24).

The genuinely converted will earnestly seek to be filled with power through a Pentecostal experience. Christians who do not come to the place of surrender are living truncated, abnormal, and carnal Christian lives. They will lack power to change the world through revival. Like Peter, Stephen, Paul, and Philip, they are urged to yield themselves to the Holy Spirit.

The Church today needs to understand the secret of the power that rocked the first century world, if it is to rock the twentieth century world for Christ. “If the Holy Spirit is here in the Church and in the believers, there is no excuse for our not exercising power” (p. 104).

The weakest part of this most helpful study is Chapter 10 which expounds Acts 19:2: “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” A treatment of the meaning of the word “received” would have been helpful. Consistently it has been stated that believers already have the Spirit, and therefore questions directed to present day believers about receiving the Spirit seem inconsistent (pp. 95, 99).

ROBERT B. DEMPSEY

Essentially Theistic

Ancient Judaism and the New Testament, by Frederick C. Grant (Macmillan, 1959, 155 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by H. L. Ellison, author, Christian Approach to the Jews.

Dr. Grant, Professor of Biblical Theology at Union Theological Seminary, New York, has been for many years one of the leading biblical scholars of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Both his standing as a scholar and his conviction of the vital importance of the thesis put out in his present work demand that we consider it seriously.

Unfortunately the title is doubly misleading. The book is really an urgent plea for a return to a humanistic liberalism firmly based on the Bible and also on our classical heritage from Greece and Rome. The Bible is regarded as above all the treasure of the worshiping Church; its interpretation is to be based on strictest scholarship, but its evaluation is clearly to be a matter of sanctified rational subjectivism. The resultant religion is to be essentially theistic, not Christocentric, and ethical. He makes it clear that his evaluation of Judaism, and indeed of the Eastern religions generally, is in relative and not absolute terms, and he looks forward to Christian-Jewish rapproachment.

The other ambiguity lies in the term “Ancient Judaism.” Dr. Grant accepts, at least in general lines, the Wellhausen picture of the Old Testament and makes the Pentateuch in its present form, the Psalter, and considerable portions of the prophets post-exilic. For him ancient Judaism is not merely the religion of the Jews as it developed in the intertestamental period but also that of the Old Testament taken as a whole in the form that the best elements in the time of our Lord interpreted it.

The greatest weakness in the book is the author’s failure to grapple seriously with the New Testament’s presentation of the problem of the Jew. For him Matthew 27:25; John 8:44; 1 Thessalonians 2:16 would be blots on “any sacred books.” Our Lord’s condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees, his rejection by the Jews, and Paul’s agonized argument in Romans 9–11 are dealt with most superficially or not at all. Paul is even depreciated as a Hellenist to the greater glory of Palestinian Pharisaism.

The last defect we would mention may be due more to the publishers than to the author, for it is a growing defect in American books. Though the author complains rightly of the inability of most to check statements by reference to original sources, he has made it almost impossible for his readers to do so. There is no bibliography and we are given only four footnotes and rare indications of authorities. As a result only the specialist reader will be able to judge whether the strong and often sweeping statements and judgments are correct, as they often are, or whether they are controversial and debatable, or biased and unfair, or sometimes even simply false.

We appreciate Dr. Grant’s deep sincerity and his reaction from many perversions of truth in Christian circles made apparent by the horrors of Hitlerism. We quite understand why it received the 1958 award of the Christian Research Foundation, but we cannot recommend it except those who are sufficiently experts hardly to need it.

H. L. ELLISON

Marxism

Foundations of the Responsible Society, by Walter G. Muelder (Abingdon, 1959, 304 pp., $6), is reviewed by Irving E. Howard, Assistant Editor, Christian Economics.

Dr. Walter G. Muelder, author of Foundations of the Responsible Society, is dean and professor of social ethics at Boston University School of Theology. In this volume, he betrays an awareness of the thought of the so-called neo-orthodox theologians, if not of the orthodox, but he is himself a religious liberal of the old school. What is more significant, he holds uncritically several Marxist dogmas. Thus, he states on page 53: “Karl Marx, for example, showed that class conflict characterized Western society.” This Marxian dogma of the inevitability of class conflict in a capitalistic society has distorted much modern thinking. However, both Kenneth Boulding and Ludwig von Mises have shown that a capitalistic market economy makes for peaceful cooperation while government intervention in a planned economy produces tension, conflicts, and war. Of course, this is the contrary to what Dr. Muelder assumes. One should read the Foundations of the Responsible Society with the understanding that it has been written from a Marxian point of view.

The early American political philosophy, which produced our Constitutional system, is ridiculed without being identified. The core of that philosophy was fear of government. Says Dr. Muelder on page 108: “Too much thinking about the state today is rooted in fear.…” While agreeing with opponents of the omnicompetent state, Dr. Muelder continues by describing the function of government in such a way that it implies a government with power equal to any totalitarianism. “The state takes logical and ethical precedent over the economic order,” says Dr. Muelder as he continues an argument for a welfare state which extends beyond national boundaries. A government with the power to do all that Dr. Muelder wishes to have it do would be a government with too much power to be controlled by the so-called “democratic process.” Indeed, the government Dr. Muelder describes looks like a lamb with compassion for the welfare of people, but, if realized, such a government would “speak like a dragon.”

Since Dr. Muelder reports the various ecumenical conferences as though they represent the synthesis of “Christian” thought, this book is valuable as documentary evidence of the direction the ecumenical movement is taking in social ethics. It is valuable for little else. It offers no biblical insights into the problems discussed. It misrepresents both capitalism and the political philosophy of the American Constitution. Nevertheless, it is a persuasive book which uses a descriptive approach and makes a pretense of scholarly objectivity while it is, in truth, a clever example of special pleading for the welfare state.

IRVING E. HOWARD

Neglected Heritage

Freedom and Federalism, by Felix Morley (Henry Regnery, 1959, 274 pp., $5), is reviewed by Carl F. H. Henry.

A champion of limited government and of free enterprise traditions against socialist encroachments, Felix Morley’s political perspective cherishes America’s neglected heritage of Federalism. With the blurring of representative government into majoritarian democracy, he warns, “the era of the American Republic” may be “drawing to a close” a scant two centuries after its beginnings. The implementation of centralized government, rather than the dispersal of political power, is the corrupting evil.

Although more an idealist than a biblical theist in temperament, Dr. Morley is alert to the political implications of Christianity. He views the maintenance of limited government as a moral issue, its preservation as much dependent upon the alertness of the churches as upon legislators and law courts. “The growth of Big Government goes hand in hand with the loss of Big Convictions” (p. 240).

CARL F. H. HENRY

Sermon Methodology

We Prepare and Preach, edited by Clarence Stonelynn Roddy (Moody Press, 1959, 190 pp., $3.25), is reviewed by H. C. Brown, Jr., Professor of Preaching, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Throughout the history of Christianity successful preachers have stimulated other ministers to give more diligent attention to the art of preaching. But alas, it is also true that some undiscerning preachers have imitated and copied in toto their more talented brethren and have thereby destroyed their own creative talents. The level of pulpit excellence rises and falls to the degree that the mass of ministers is motivated toward copying or creativity. Blessed is that capable preacher who can convey to his fellow ministers “abiding principles” without causing them to become slaves to homiletical minutiae or without encouraging them to become “addicted to plagiarism.”

Creative practice should produce creative principles and rules, and these in turn should make for better practice in the next generation. In recent years several volumes of sermon methodology by successful contemporary preachers have been compiled for the purpose of improving preaching. This volume by Clarence Roddy is another volume attempting this task. It makes available biographical sketches, sample sermons, and personal homiletical theories of William Ward Ayer, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Howard W. Ferrin, J. Lester Harnish, Robert G. Lee, J. Vernon McGee, Harold John Ockenga, Alan Redpath, Paul Stromberg Rees, Wilber Moorehead Smith, and J. R. W. Stott.

The reader should study and analyze, compare and contrast, and agree and disagree with Roddy’s contributors if he is to receive full benefit from this book. Since these men are individualistic in their methods, the reader wall profit most by making a personal homiletical synthesis from the preaching theories expressed. When the digest has been prepared, then let the reader pass judgment on the various parts of his synthesis. This book has much to teach the careful and thoughtful reader.

H. C. BROWN

Inter-Testamental Period

Between the Testaments, by Charles F. Pfeiffer (Baker, 1959, 132 pp., $2.95), is reviewed by Edward J. Young, Professor of Old Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary.

What occurred in Jewish history between the close of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New? This is a question upon which many Christians are ill-informed. To many the period is hazy, and it is difficult to keep events clearly in their proper order. One need has been for a concise, popular history of the period that would help to place events and people in their proper perspective.

That need has now been filled. The present work is a popular history dealing with the period between the two testaments. It treats of matters in a popular, readable style, and whets the appetite for more. Despite the concise nature of the book, the author has managed to include a tremendous amount of useful material and to do justice to all the principal events. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls are included, and the author is most competent to deal with these.

Helps are provided for further study. The reading of this excellent little work should make the general outlines of the period clear to anyone. The writing of the book must have been a difficult task, but Dr. Pfeiffer has done a most creditable job. This book is ideal for young people, and indeed for anyone who wishes to understand the period of which it treats.

EDWARD J. YOUNG

Limitation Of Offspring

Planned Parenthood and Birth Control in the Light of Christian Ethics, by Alfred Martin Rehwinkel (Concordia, 1959, 133 pp., cloth $2.25, paper $1.50), is reviewed by E. P. Schulze, Minister, Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer, Peekskill, N. Y.

Rehwinkel defines planned parenthood or birth control as “the voluntary limitation of possible offspring by artificial means.” Having listed hygienic, eugenic, and economic considerations, he concludes that “there are times and circumstances in the life of a married couple when they are free to practice birth control with a good conscience and that the method employed is of no maerial importance from the moral point of view.”

It was the late Dr. S. Parkes Cadman, a man not to be suspected of strong evangelical leanings, who said: ‘The only proper form of birth control is self control.” Sublimation has its virtues. Rehwinkel, however, holds continence in low esteem, regarding it as being under normal conditions “contrary to nature and undesirable from a psychological point of view.” With regard to contraceptive devices he seems to have no such scruples.

The command, “Be fruitful and multiply,” has not yet been repealed, and children are still “an heritage of the Lord.” Let us be thankful that our own ancestors did not deprive us of the opportunity of temporal and eternal life. Let us thank God that Leah did not stop with three boys and that Jesse had an eighth son named David; else the Messiah had not come. In gratitude, let the omniscient Father of us all determine the size of our families. He does it with infinite wisdom, and often permits us fewer children than we wish. And yet one may look upon the subject of birth control with considerable equanimity when we view the wholesome desire for children manifested by most young married couples, and the likelihood that the people who are best fitted, spiritually and morally, to be parents are the least apt to limit the number of their offspring.

Rehwinkel, a professor at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, has written one most excellent book, The Flood. Probably the outstanding influence of the present work—whatever the intention of its author may have been—will be to foster a sexual life divorced from its basic purpose and responsibilities.

E. P. SCHULZE

The Fundamentals

God Hath Spoken, by T. Roland Philips (Eerdmans, 1959, 181 pp., $3), is reviewed by Massey Mott Heltzel, Minister of Ginter Park Presbyterian Church, Richmond, Virginia.

The great Glasgow preacher, Norman MacLeod, often visited a certain elderly, sick lady in his congregation. On every occasion she would place her ear horn to her ear and say, “Now, Normie, gang ower the fundamentals.”

That is what Dr. Philips does in this book of sermons. He goes over the fundamentals. He deals only with the great biblical themes. He lets the reader hear again and again the good tidings of God’s saving grace. He rides no theological hobbies, but presents a rounded view of the Christian faith.

The author served nearly 40 years as pastor of the Arlington Presbyterian Church in Baltimore. From his pastoral experience he draws effective illustrations for his sermons. He deals with profound matters in simple terms and his down-to-earth language has clarity and force. The sermons are straightforward and hard-hitting. Here is a sample: “I buried a man who belonged to a certain fraternity. They had a service at the grave, and in the ritual they said this: ‘We cannot hope to see beyond the veil. We can only seek for truth, and hope that we shall find it.’ Well, that may be true of them, but that is not true of me. I am not seeking for truth. I have found it. I am not hoping. I know.”

This book is not what could be called gripping. The reviewer admits that, in spite of the good qualities just mentioned, he did not find the sermons interesting. This is due not to the themes handled, but to something in the manner of handling, for the reviewer finds the “fundamentals” not only interesting, but exciting. He would not give this book as a Christmas present to a minister friend. But he would, without hesitation, give it to a seeker after basic Christian truth.

MASSEY MOTT HELTZEL

Maps And History

Rand McNally Historical Atlas of the Holy Land, edited by Emil G. Kraeling (Rand McNally & Company, 1959, 88 pp., including 22 maps in color, 70 photographs and line-cut maps, and a Table of Early History, $2.95), is reviewed by William Sanford LaSor, Professor of Old Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary.

This volume is essentially a reprint of the maps and some of the other materials in the Rand McNally Bible Atlas (1956), together with a very brief sketch of early history in the form of extended captions for the illustrations. While it is a useful work, it is too brief for serious study and too much vitiated by the uncertainties of extreme critical scholarship. The reproduction of the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll (Plate 5) is upside down.

WILLIAM SANFORD LASOR

The Apostolic Idea

Preaching to Meet People’s Needs, by Charles N. Pickell (New York: Exposition Press, 1958, 82 pp., Bibliographies, $3), is reviewed by Andrew W. Blackwood, Author of Leading in Public Prayer.

The subtitle, ‘The Meaning of the Acts as a Guide for Preaching Today,” accurately describes the contents and purpose of this little book. It opens up a field that has been strangely neglected. Preaching bulks large in the Book of Acts, but there is in print no adequate discussion of the preaching by Peter or Paul, as an example of what to preach today, as well as how and why.

The author has read the appropriate literature by C. H. Dodd and others. The book reaches sound conclusions about the preachers and the preaching of apostolic times as ideals for today. In his Boston ministry, according to my friends there, this young man’s pulpit work follows these ideals.

His book will serve any student or class as a suitable guide for a fresh and rewarding way of dealing with the Acts. The subject deserves fuller development and discussion of the good ideas in this book.

ANDREW W. BLACKWOOD

Seminary Centennial

A History of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, by William A. Mueller (Broadman, 1959, 256 pp., $4), is reviewed by Richard L. James, Minister, of the Riverside Christian Church, Jacksonville, Fla.

When an American institution passes the hundred year mark, it deserves an appraisal from the perspective of history. Professor Mueller does this in an interesting manner. Though of primary value to Southern Baptists, the book will assist others in appreciation of the development of theological education in America.

Professor of philosophy of religion at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Mueller approached his task largely from the biographical viewpoint. He follows the development of the seminary by concise accounts of the lives of its founder, the presidents, and faculty members.

The separation among Baptists and the organization of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845 left the South without a source of training for its ministry. To meet this need Southern Seminary came into existence. It was a difficult struggle and its achievement owed much to James P. Boyce, John A. Broadus, Basil Manley, Jr. and William Williams, the “Faithful Four” who constituted the founding fathers and original faculty.

Under James P. Boyce, the Seminary pioneered in the study of the Scriptures in the English language in contrast to the practice of other institutions which specialized in Bible study in Greek and Hebrew. The development of a system of electives in the curriculum was also in keeping with the experimental spirit of the founder.

The shadows of the founders have lengthened into an institution celebrating its centennial, and the story makes for fascinating reading.

RICHARD L. JAMES

Although Liberia as a republic is a distinct product of U. S. Christian colonization, it may well prove to have been a difficult introduction to Africa for the Billy Graham team. Some team members felt that the first stop on their nine-country evangelistic tour posed more problems than any other.

The Graham African crusade began January 13 in a 1,500-seat stadium in Monrovia, Liberia’s capital, chief port, and principal city. Nightly meetings were conducted for a week with evangelist Howard Jones, U. S. Negro minister who is the African expert of the Graham team. Graham dedicated a new 50,000-watt transmitter for ELWA, a Christian broadcasting station, and addressed the two closing services of the Monrovia series, on January 21 and 22.

When slaves freed from America were settling on the west coast of Africa during the first half of the nineteenth century, they found they had to battle aborigines just as colonists in America fought Indians. Nevertheless, a chunk of land now compared in size with the state of Ohio became an independent country in 1847. It was the first republic in Africa (the second: Egypt). It is one of only two Negro republics in the world (the other: Haiti).

Descendants of the slave colonists, called Americo-Liberians, still form the ruling and intellectual class of Liberia, though they are far outnumbered by the natives of the interior. Some estimates say there are fewer than 15,000 Americo-Liberians in the entire country, said to have a population nearing 2,000,000.

“This is a sick country,” John Gunther’s Inside Africa quotes an American official in Liberia, “maybe it will get well.” In 1953 Gunther found the Liberians “too poor, too mercilessly exploited,” more than 90 per cent illiterate, and abounding in thievery and corruption.

A chief drawback to mass evangelism in Liberia is the lack of adequate roads. There are only a few miles of paved highways in the entire country. Other roads become impassable during rainy seasons. Result: Travel between communities is at a minimum and large gatherings of people are rare.

Liberia’s backwardness is a distinct reflection on Christian America, for the country has been closely linked with the United States politically and religiously from its inception. Monrovia was named after U. S. President James Monroe. Many sincere, well-meaning Christians were behind efforts of the private American Colonization Society which promoted the settling of the slaves in what is now Liberia. These slaves took along their Protestantism. A number of missionary groups in Liberia trace their roots back more than 100 years.

Most Americo-Liberians are still nominal Protestant Christians living largely along the 350-mile coast line. Methodist and Episcopalian work is well situated among these coastal people. Lutherans are noted for their work in the interior, where as many as 40 dialects are spoken and where paganism prevails.

Other groups working in Liberia, both on the coast and in the interior: Baptist Mid-Missions, Seventh-day Adventist, Assemblies of God, Child Evangelism Fellowship, Sudan Interior Mission, World-wide Evangelization Crusade, and Open Bible Standard Missions.

The nominal Christian culture does have official standing. Competent missionary work has the fullest sympathy of the government. William V. S. Tubman, President of Liberia since 1943, is a graduate of a Methodist missionary school and first visited the United States in 1928 as a delegate to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Kansas City.

Roman Catholicism is represented in Liberia, but its influence is not believed to be strong.

The Graham team, having flown in from Dakar via commercial airliner, landed at Roberts Field, some 50 miles from Monrovia. Their auto trip to the capital took them through the rubber plantations which are now so closely identified with the Liberian economy. Rubber is the chief export, and most of it comes from land acquired in the twenties by Firestone Tire and Rubber Company interests. Firestone employs more than 25,000 Liberians and is a major source of government revenue. Gunther said Firestone does more for its workers than the government itself does for the majority of citizens.

Another bold U. S. enterprise was set up in 1952 when R. G. LeTourneau, noted Christian industrialist, leased 100,000 acres of land and shipped in construction and agricultural machinery for large scale commercial cultivation and mechanized production of rice, sugar, cocoa, coffee, and lumber.

Under Tubman, Liberia has made remarkable progress in recent years. But as with its physical resources, which have yet to be fully measured, Liberia’s spiritual potential still represents a challenge to the Christian world.

Mrs. George A. Padmore, wife of the Liberian ambassador to the United States, has said that the Christian church has in Africa the most massive single opportunity of its history.

But she asserted that “here is the first time that the challenge of an entire continent has confronted the church with such a limited timetable.”

Crusade Coverage

Coming issues of CHRISTIANITY TODAY will include special, interpretative dispatches cabled directly from the scene of Graham’s African meetings by News Correspondent Tom McMahan.

McMahan also is preparing twice-weekly stories for the Columbia State, largest newspaper in South Carolina, where he is religion editor, and for more than 425 other U. S. dailies which sought coverage of the crusade in Africa.

McMahan will travel with the Graham team for the duration of the crusade.

8,500 Hear Graham In Monrovia

Billy Graham’s two evening meetings in the Liberian capital city of Monrovia drew an aggregate attendance of approximately 8,500.

The meetings addressed by Graham climaxed a crusade begun a week earlier with associate Howard Jones.

Some 1,160 persons recorded commitments to Christ, of which 671 were first-time decisions.

Although the Monrovia crusade was pitched to English-speaking city church people, a surprising number of semi-illiterates attended the meetings.

A new transmitter erected by ELWA, Christian radio station, was pressed into temporary service, extending the impact of the crusade. Missionaries and national churchmen said the crusade saw unprecedented unity.

On the day of his arrival, Graham was invited to the executive mansion of President William V. S. Tuban, who extended an official welcome.

Later, in a special ceremony, the evangelist was awarded the Order of African Redemption, second highest decoration in Liberia.

From Liberia, the Graham team was scheduled to move on to Ghana, then to Nigeria, where meetings were slated for this week.

Temperance Aloft

Commercial airlines are prohibited from serving alcoholic beverages to any passenger “who appears to be intoxicated” under a Federal Aviation Agency regulation which becomes effective March 10.

The rule also imposes civil penalty of up to $1,000 on any passenger who insists on drinking from his own bottle while aloft. The passenger must give his bottle to the stewardess who can then supply the “set-ups.”

FAA Administrator Elwood R. Quesada, in announcing the regulation, stoutly defended the growing practice of airlines in serving alcoholic beverages to passengers in flight and attacked legislation pending in Congress which would ban the serving of liquor on planes.

“It is a generally accepted fact that flat prohibition has not proven successful in preventing consumption of alcoholic beverages,” said Quesada.

A Mosque for Zürich

The Ahmadiyya Moslem Mission plans to build a mosque in Zürich, the first in Switzerland.

Layman’s Leadership

Some 850 persons, including leading business and political figures, assembled in Miami Beach’s Americana Hotel last month for a four-day “Layman’s Leadership Institute.” Aim: to strengthen spiritual lives of participants.

Addresses, personal testimonies, and discussions constituted the program.

Information to the selected and invited participants stressed the institute’s functioning as an interdenominational meeting without a membership organization, without elected officers and void of funds solicitation.

The institute, fifth of an annual series, was a project of a laity research foundation now known as Christian Men, Incorporated. Sponsors were Dr. Duke McCall, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, evangelist Billy Graham, and Texas grocery executive Howard E. Butt.

Why The Jews?

A prominent Hebrew Christian identifies current anti-Semitic demonstrations as part of an “anti-Christian scheme.” [See also editorial on page 23—ED.]

The Rev. Daniel Fuchs, missionary secretary of the American Board of Missions to the Jews, suspects some foreign demonstrations may also betray anti-American feeling.

Fuchs characterizes the anti-Semitic expressions as a trend inspired by Satan.

Among those at this year’s institute: Senator Stuart Symington, Florida Governor LeRoy Collins, Dr. L. Nelson Bell, Executive Editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, and Maxey Jarman, shoe manufacturer.

Ecumenical Radio

The Lutheran World Federation plans to share broadcasting time of its projected radio station in Ethiopia with the Near East Christian Council.

The two groups worked out an agreement for joint use of a proposed 50,000-watt transmitter after each had asked a franchise from the Ethiopian government only to learn that just one would be issued.

The government informed the LWF early in December that it had been granted permission to erect and operate the first private radio station in Ethiopia.

As part of the radio project, plans call for studios to be erected in five countries—Ethiopia, Tanganyika, South Africa, Madagascar, and perhaps India. These studios will feed programs in various languages to the Ethiopian transmitter. Some of the funds for the project, which also includes a second 50,000-watt transmitter, will be raised in the United States by the National Council of Churches’ overseas radio, visual education and mass communication committee.

Both short and medium wave frequencies will be utilized. The station is scheduled to be on the air by Christmas Day, 1961.

Participating in the Near East Christian Council are national Protestant, Orthodox and Coptic churches in the United Arab Republic, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Aden, Sudan, Algeria, Tunis, and Iran, plus foreign missions groups situated in those countries.

Easing Rules

Two Eastern universities eased chapel attendance rules last month.

Princeton University trustees announced that sophomores will not be required to attend chapel services, leaving only freshmen who must be present for worship at least half of the Sundays of the school year.

Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut, will no longer require any of its students to attend chapel.

Fire at Taylor

A $750,000 fire last month destroyed the administration building of Taylor University, liberal arts school in Upland, Indiana, which numbers among its graduates many leading evangelicals.

Following the pre-dawn blaze, which started in a basement chemistry laboratory, classes met without interruption in improvised quarters.

University officials immediately launched a drive for $1,500,000 to erect replacement facilities.

Taylor University was established in 1846 by Methodists. The school became independent in 1922, but retained high Christian standards.

After the Twelve

A Dutch father gave his newborn son the names of all 12 of Christ’s Apostles, the Dutch Radio reported last month. It said a registry office clerk argued with the father, saying the boy would have much trouble filling forms when he grew up, but the man insisted on officially recording all 12 names.

Protestant Panorama

• President Eisenhower says construction of the National Presbyterian Center in Washington “will be something that will challenge us and show that our Protestant beliefs can be held forth as one of the truly basic values of civilization.” Eisenhower made the remark during the unveiling last month of a tentative design for the center, projected at a cost of $20 million to replace the National Presbyterian Church.

• Some 10,440 converts from Roman Catholicism were admitted to the Church of England between 1954 and 1956, says the latest Anglican yearbook.

• The Salvation Army in the United States will be received as an affiliate member of the National Holiness Association at the NHA’s spring convention. The Army, now numbering more than 250,000, becomes the 14th denominational group to be fully affiliated with the NHA.

• The first Protestant communion service at the U. S. South Pole Station was conducted last month by Navy Chaplain Edwin R. Weidler, minister of the Evangelical and Reformed Church.

• A National Council of Churches agency is sponsoring what is described as the first effort to train Protestant church administrators at the regional level in responsibilities involved in administering large, corporate church enterprises. The effort got under way with a 12-day session in Detroit last month. More than 50 ministers from 13 Protestant denominations attended the session, held under auspices of the NCC’s Department of the Urban Church.

• “A Protestant minister should not vote for a Roman Catholic candidate under any circumstances.” The statement, which appeared on a questionnaire sent to readers of Monday Morning, a magazine for Presbyterian clergymen, drew this reaction: 379 agreed, 390 disagreed, and 17 were undecided.

• A number of Protestant ministers are under subpoena to appear before a grand jury in Wheeling, West Virginia, when it begins a probe of vice and corruption February 8.

• Dr. Lester A. Crose, secretary of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Church of God (with headquarters in Anderson, Indiana), is making a world tour in connection with the board’s 50th anniversary observance.

• The United Church of Christ is introducing a new Sunday School curriculum to some 8,000 congregations across the country.

• Baylor University Press plans to publish a semi-annual Journal of Church and State to be devoted to a study of Church-State relations.

• A specially-commissioned committee of the Kentucky Methodist Conference is exploring possible merger with the Louisville Annual Conference.

• Dallas Theological Seminary dedicated a $400,000 library building January 18. The edifice, of modified Spanish modern architecture, is designed to accommodate 100,000 volumes.

• Twenty Protestant ministers joined six Catholic priests in a joint protest last month to the Port of New York Authority, denouncing its choice of a site for a jet airport in Morris County, New Jersey. The clergymen say the airport would cause a mass turnover of area residents and would give rise to deterioration in living conditions.

• Lung cancer is 90 times less likely to occur among Seventh-day Advenists, who don’t smoke, according to a report made public last month by the Sloan-Kettering Institute of Cancer Research. The report also discounts air pollution as a great risk factor inasmuch as it came out of a study made mostly of Seventh-day Adventist men who live in smog-ridden Los Angeles.

• “Voters do well” to study papal decisions which place the church over the state, according to a statement adopted last month by the Harris County (Houston, Texas) pastoral conference of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

Church Attendance

A Gallup Poll shows church attendance leveled off during 1959 following a record high in the previous year.

An estimated 49 million adults attended church services during a typical week in 1959, or 47 per cent of the adult civilian population (excluding those living in institutions).

During an average week in 1958, 49 per cent of the population was to be found in church, the poll said.

‘No Basic Changes’

A special fact-finding commission of The Methodist Church advises against “basic changes” in the church’s regional and racial jurisdictional structure.

A 32-page report prepared by the church’s 70-member Commission on the Jurisdictional System says immediate alteration of the system would be “harmful” to the denomination and “especially disastrous to Negro Methodists.”

The report will be presented this spring to the quadrennial Methodist General Conference, which appointed the commission four years ago to study segregation in the church and the jurisdictional system.

Since 1939, The Methodist Church has been divided into six U. S. administrative jurisdictions—five regional and one all-Negro central jurisdiction. Opponents of the existing system claim that it encourages sectionalism and segregation.

“The central jurisdiction assures racial integration in the highest echelons of our church,” the report counters. “There is no other denomination in America where this degree of racial integration in the governing bodies of the church has been achieved.”

AME Observance

Philadelphia will be the focal point of a three-day celebration by the 1,200,000-member African Methodist Episcopal Church in honor of the 200th birthday of the denomination’s founder, Richard Allen. Services are planned February 14–16.

Allen was born in Philadelphia February 14, 1760, of slave parents. In protest of the segregation of Negroes he withdrew as a communicant of Old St. George’s Methodist Church in Philadelphia and founded the first AME congregation in 1816.

The AME Church is represented in 47 states, Canada, Bermuda, the West Indies, South America, and Africa. In the United States there are some 5,000 local AME congregations.

The Drive For Peace

The Christian message bears “tidings of peace” to the world. Why, therefore, does widespread distrust shadow the “drive for world peace” currently being advanced in the churches?

Answer: Ecclesiastical leaders today insist on blending Christian concerns with political propaganda. Doubtless legitimate elements of Christian motivation support these Church efforts for peace. But the ecclesiastical thrust often dilutes and even loses the biblical emphasis on spiritual regeneration and reconciliation in a cross-current of political and ecumenical tensions.

• In the United States, the National Council of Churches is following up its Cleveland World Order Conference, which urged U. S. approval and U. N. admission of Red China, by a “peace program” (see “The Church’s Mission and NCC’s Propaganda Drive,” page 22) distressing to many American Protestants. Despite the NCC General Board’s artful dodge of responsibility for the Cleveland commitments, NCC policy, to many observers, seems an evasive disguise in politico-economic affairs (see Council President Dahlberg’s comments in Formosa, p. 27).

• The Third Christian Peace Conerence (CPC), scheduled in Prague, Czechoslovakia, from April 20–24, 1960, has an eye on “ending the Cold War.” Not only pro-Communist regime Protestant and Eastern Orthodox churchmen, but all ecumenical agencies are being invited. The conference expects 150 participants, among them representatives of churches (including the “young churches”), church councils, and individuals. Its leaders welcomed Khrushchev’s proposals to the United Nations.

• An All-Christian Conference for World Peace (ACC) is tentatively projected early in 1961 somewhere in Europe, after the World Council of Churches assembly in New Delhi the same year. Behind the scenes leaders are debating the merits of 1961 or 1962 for this ACC session, which is viewed by some as the fusing point of the world thrust by both the ecumenical and peace movements. Some ecumenical leaders think a 1961 date will prove damaging to the New Delhi assembly, at which integration of International Missionary Council into WCC will be in the forefront. But peace proponents think that a world conference will be “stale” by 1962. They argue that Khrushchev’s U.N. initiative has now “left the churches behind the politicians.” The effect of Khrushchev’s visit to the United States has already been to persuade some satellite rulers that the churches are no longer indispensable peace propaganda agencies, but can now be by-passed by a strictly political thrust.

Anxieties over the blending of Christian concerns with specific programs of political action exist on many levels. Some Christian observers are distressed over the activities of politically-minded secretaries. Others note the readiness of certain leaders (some serving even on theological commissions) to dispense with dogmatic foundations for practical Christian goals and programs. Many complain that the peace propagandists tend to oversimplify the problem of reconciling Christians and Marxist atheists. Others, although recognizing that church spokesmen are determined not to become agents of government, point out that ecclesiastical strategy nonetheless often seeks and shapes an official status-role with government.

C.F.H.H.

The League of Nations, which after World War I set up principles for recognition of governments, said recognition should not be extended to any government that came to power in any way other than by the will of the people over which it ruled. Has the Red Chinese regime come into power by the will of the people? A resounding “no” comes from some 10,000 people who each month flee the mainland into Hong Kong. A similar answer is voiced by the majority of Korean war prisoners, who voluntarily went to Formosa rather than to return to their Red-dominated homeland. These have had the privilege of making their choice; most Chinese have not had the chance; their rulers dare not let them see the outside world.

Another principle established by the League of Nations was that recognition should be extended only to a government which keeps its promises and honors its agreements. When the present regime came to power in China, it immediately seized U. S. consular property, appropriated American business, and confiscated other foreign property. Protests were ignored. This lawless behavior has characterized the regime to the present time. It is difficult to imagine normal relations with such a government.

What happens when groups of people in the Free World—sometimes even Christian groups—send petitions to their governments advocating recognition of Red China and pressing for her admission to the United Nations? Millions of oppressed Chinese, Poles, Hungarians, and others feel they have been betrayed. These have suffered for their principles in the hope that the Free World will likewise challenge tyranny, condemn its principles, and oppose its spread.

Inasmuch as there are today two Chinese governments, each purporting to be the rightful government, people in favor of recognizing the Red regime often belittle the Nationalist government. On the mainland, they say, it was a corrupt and inefficient government whereas Communists have brought reform and modernization.

Those who were in China at the close of World War II must admit that there is much truth to this charge. The country had been through a long war with Japan, as well as a simultaneous civil war with Communists in the northwest. Actually, the end of the war did not bring peace to China. Civil war flared anew when Russians who disarmed the large Japanese army in Manchuria turned over their war equipment to the Communists. There was little time to reorganize the government and to put things in order. People were weary of fighting. Communists descended with fresh troops and glowing promises. Quickly they rolled up a large following.

To judge the government of Chiang Kai-shek, you must begin in 1927, when his government came to power. During Chiang’s first five years in office China made the greatest progress of her long history—in education, sanitation, industry, communications, and in many other ways. Some say that despite its imperfections, the government of China at that time was the best the country had ever had.

Then China was involved in a terrible war for more than a decade. Her coasts were blockaded, her soil occupied. All the evils of that grim period came to fruition in the post-war years.

The government of Nationalist China finally moved to Formosa, where again it established democratic rule. There, many U. S. advisers and observers have praised the kind of government now in operation as even better than that of Chiang’s early years on the mainland. People enjoy a free press, public education, and progressive governmental policy which is changing the country from an agricultural to an industrial economy.

The issue often comes down to a choice between Free China and Red China. Considering all the facts, it seems hard to understand that anyone in good conscience would not favor Free China.

Christian people often ask: “Is Generalissimo Chiang really a Christian?” Yes, he is, however unusual that may seem for a president in a nation largely non-Christian. So is Madam Chiang. Both attend church regularly and are earnest students of the Word of God. They witness outspokenly to their Christian convictions. Having such national leaders in these dark and uncertain times is a strong encouragement to the Christian cause in Free China.

End of an Era?

Noted Protestant theologian Paul Tillich warns that there is “a trend away from Reformation individualism” and toward “authoritarian” forms of religion which may end the Protestant era.

He remarked to newsmen in Los Angeles last month that this trend was indicated by recent mergers of Protestant groups, the ecumenical movement, and Roman Catholic encouragement of Christian unity.

“Ecumenicity doesn’t do much theologically,” he noted. “What is produced in terms of theology is not very impressive. A committee cannot make a theology,” so victory is based on “the lowest common denominator.”

Dr. Tillich, professor at Harvard Divinity School, made the observations at a news conference preceding a lecture series he delivered at Occidental College (United Presbyterian).

“The Protestant theology is essentially non-conformist,” he said, “but rugged individualism has disappeared and has been replaced by ‘Organization Man,’ the development of the collective spirit.”

He declared that “the trend toward spiritual security and, therefore, authoritarian forms of religion poses a threat to Protestantism.”

Tillich’s remarks, however, gave scant comfort to the mid-century “evangelical revival.”

Popularity of “primitive orthodoxy revivalism” also evidences a desire for security since “authority gives security,” he said.

“Today’s younger generation wants to be sociologically, ethically and spiritually secure,” he observed. “One hardly finds a type of liberal theology in theological faculties of American educational institutions.”

“The liberal philosophy which I found when I came to America 26 years ago does not exist today,” the German-born theologian added. “The liberal movement came suddenly to an end in the 1920s.”

Despite all this, Dr. Tillich said, “You can’t kill the prophetic spirit, although it may go underground” if the Protestant era should be ended by authoritarianism.

Mental Health

The first annual meeting of the Academy of Religion and Mental Health was held in New York January 14–15. Organized in 1955, the academy claims to be the first organization ever to be established for research in relations between religion and mental health. Membership includes 1,000 psychiatrists and 1,300 clergy. The meeting helped to inaugurate 1960 as “World Mental Health Year.” The World Federation for Mental Health was a joint sponsor.

Among those who addressed the New York meeting was Dr. Paul Tillich. Tillich, who rejects the concept of a personal God, credited depth psychology with helping theology to rediscover the biblical doctrine of God as a near, embracing and accepting God.

People: Words And Events

Deaths:Dr. Reuben E. Nelson, 54, until last year the general secretary of the American Baptist Convention, in New York … Catholicos Melchisedek III, 88, head of the Orthodox Church in the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, in Tbilisi … Professor Max Huber, 85, known in ecumenical circles for his role as Church-State chairman at the 1937 Oxford Conference of the Life and Work Movement, in Zurich … the Rev. August M. Berg, 64, American Baptist missionary to India, in Malden, Massachusetts … Dr. Thomas Moseley, 73, retired president of Nyack Missionary College, in Glendale, California … Charles Manuel “Daddy” Grace, founder of the “House of God” following, in Los Angeles.

Retirement: As president of Blue Mountain College of the Mississippi Baptist Convention, Dr. Lawrence T. Lowery, effective May 31.

Resignation: As chairman of the board of directors and the corporation of the American Friends Service Committee, Dr. Henry J. Cadbury.

Recommendation: To be next general secretary of the Baptist World Alliance, Dr. Josef Nordenhaug, president of the Baptist Theological Seminary at Ruschlikon-Zürich, Switzerland (the recommendation will be made by the BWA executive committee to a special nominating committee of the Baptist World Congress).

Appointments: As president of the National Association of Schools and Colleges of The Methodist Church, Dr. Willis M. Tate, president of Southern Methodist University … as co-pastor (with his father) of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who became a noted champion of integration while pastoring the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama … as president of Wesleyan College in Macon, Georgia, Dr. W. Earl Strickland … as president of Baptist Mid-Missions, the Rev. Allan E. Lewis … as the first holder of the Lilly Endowment Visiting Professorship of Christian Ethics at the International Christian University near Tokyo, Dr. Charles Wheeler Iglehart … as professor of New Testament at Pacific Bible Seminary, Dr. T. Ralph Applebury … as African radio director for the Lutheran World Federation, Dr. Sigurd Aske … as educational secretary and citizenship director of the International Society of Christian Endeavor, Delno W. Brown.

Top ecumenist Edwin T. Dahlberg, on a year-end world tour of U. S. military installations, found himself called upon in Formosa to answer for anti-Nationalist China recommendations of the Fifth World Order Study Conference, held in Cleveland more than 14 months ago.

Far East News Service reported that Dahlberg voiced “complete agreement” with findings of the widely-criticized Cleveland report which urged that Communist China be recognized by the United States and admitted to the United Nations.

Dahlberg stopped in Taipei while on the annual visit of the National Council of Churches’ president to American servicemen abroad. At a dinner in the Grand Hotel he faced 21 representatives of American missionary, military, and government bodies.

Asked point blank about his stand, Dahlberg replied: “My personal conviction regarding this NCC world study group recommendation is that I am in complete agreement with their report. Furthermore, I think that years from now we will look back to this as one of the great steps of the Christian Church. I do not think that the NCC will repudiate the recommendation of the world order study group.”

Dahlberg thus discarded recently emerging hesitancies on the part of Ernest A. Gross, chairman of the Cleveland conference and of the NCC’s Department of International Affairs, which sponsored the conference.

Several weeks earlier, Gross told a church council seminar in Albany, New York, that Communist China is “not entitled” to be recognized by the United States. He had made no such public statement during the Cleveland meeting.

Gross is a former U. S. ambassador to the United Nations and a former assistant secretary of state. He said:

“For the United States to grant judicial recognition to the Chinese Communist regime so long as it pursues its present course appears to many of us to confer upon that government a benefit to which it is not entitled.”

Prior to arrival in Formosa, Dahlberg had been given an advance billing as “principal voice of American Protestantism.” He was accompanied by Dr. Fred S. Buschmeyer, assistant general secretary of the NCC and director of its Washington, D. C., office. Buschmeyer also was a delegate to the Cleveland conference.

In the hotel meeting, Dahlberg conceded that perhaps as many as 90 per cent of the Chinese people oppose the present mainland regime. His comment:

“I don’t think that our Christianity depends on our freedom. I believe we will get farther with all countries in the United Nations. Wherever the United Nations steps in, it brings a healing influence.”

At that point one missionary challenged the NCC leader to explain what “healing influence” the U.N. was able to exert in the Red rape of Hungary.

Asked how he could urge the U. S. government to recognize and cooperate with a government which has persecuted churches, Dahlberg replied:

“Recognition and cooperation are two different things.”

His strong endorsement of the Cleveland conference’s recommendations drew vigorous protests from American Protestant missionary leaders in Formosa. They charged that he had embarrassed the missionary community of Formosa and had flagrantly abused his “diplomatic immunity” (as a guest of the U. S. government) in advocating Red China recognition while visiting on Free China soil.

“No objection to the NCC’s study course was answered,” observed one missionary, “and no effective notice was taken of the unanimous opposition of those here whom Dr. Dahlberg admitted were qualified observers.”

Another missionary asserted that Dahlberg’s statements were a basic violation of the American principle of separation of church and state.

The Case For Free China

James Dickson, Taipei correspondent forCHRISTIANITY TODAY, is one of the most noted and respected missionaries on Formosa. Except for a five-year stint in British Guiana during World War II, Dickson and his wife have served there continuously since 1927. Though both are Americans, they work under the General Board of Missions of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. Dickson holds degrees from Macalester College and Princeton Theological Seminary.

Here is his appraisal of tensions between Red China and Free China:

China is one of four nations which in the past few years have been divided between communism and democracy.

Little is said for recognition of Red regimes in Germany, Korea, and Indochina. But certain groups have rather persistently demanded recognition of Communist China. Why?

Many well-meaning people, in no way sympathetic with the Communist system, sincerely feel there is good reason to recognize the Peking government.

Some argue that recognition of Communist China might cause her rulers to become more conciliatory, and that international tensions would thereby be eased.

But is there evidence of such change of heart where other Communist regimes have been recognized? On the contrary, Communist leaders have used added prestige to further their own diabolical aims at the expense of non-Communist governments. It is unrealistic to imagine that Red China, already notorious for the oppression that has characterized communism everywhere, will do an about-face.

Some feel recognition of Red China would be valuable because it would result in increased international trade.

Again, evidence does not support the argument. Great Britain, which extended recognition to the Chinese Reds soon after they took over, found that it took years to bring the value of its trade with mainland China to the levels recorded in pre-Communist days. On the other hand, West Germany, which still has not recognized the Peking government, annually surpasses Great Britain in the amount of trade with Communist China. Communist countries seem to have a well-established trade principle; when it is to their advantage, and at their own terms, are they ready to do business. There is no free trade on a people-to-people basis. Trade must be done with the government.

Then there is the argument that Communist Chinais the de facto government of China, and—so the advocates of recognition say—it is wrong to recognize the government of Free China in Formosa (which controls only a small portion of the area which made up the Chinese Republic at the end of World War II) and to refuse recognition to Red China.

True, the Communist regime is in control of the great land areas of China. But is this the decisive determinant in recognition of a government?

“FATHER, OUR CHILDREN KEEP”

In speaking to parents of the responsibilities of parenthood in our day, I have known many fathers and mothers to throw up their hands in despair. Those who would rationalize their failures have transferred parental duties to outsiders—teachers, Scout leaders and the like—in the expectation that they will or ought to succeed where parents cannot.

The fact remains that God has placed into the hands of parents a privilege and a duty which only Christians can appreciate.

To pagans (and these may be cultured Americans) children are often little more than biological trophies (or accidents) of marriage. While there exists for them a degree of love which finds expression in providing for their physical needs, there is no sense of spiritual obligation. The outlook for such children is rather bleak.

Christians believe that children are a blessing from the Lord. With the Psalmist they say: “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate” (Ps. 127:3, 4, 5).

What then is the duty of Christian parents? Are there scriptural guides which they may follow? Yes, there are certain specific leads of importance.

Concern

Christian parents should be deeply concerned about the spiritual welfare of their children. The patriarch Job exhibited concern and exercised a priestly ministry for his own family.

In Job 1:5 we read: “And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.”

In his day Job offered sacrifices for suspected breaches of the divine Law. Today we have the great eternal Sacrifice to whom we turn for protecting and cleansing power in the lives of those we love.

It is a lack of such concern that is in part responsible for the juvenile delinquency of our time. Adult delinquency spawns the same in its offspring. The tragic thing is that many of today’s parents are themselves victims of neglect by their fathers and mothers who gave scant heed to the things of the Spirit.

Convictions

Christian parenthood entails convictions that find expression in action. There are things to be believed and truths to be imparted.

Moses, speaking to the children of Israel in the sunset days of his life, said: “Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law. For it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life” (Deut. 32:46, 47a).

The ability of parents to command their children in Christian love and conviction is almost a lost art. We have passed through a generation of pernicious philosophy which has demanded that children be permitted to follow their own inclinations. Child psychologists are belatedly learning (it was in the Bible all the time) that children need to be commanded, guided, and disciplined for their own souls’ good. Many a spanked child has found in that encounter a sense of security and of being loved which has carried its blessings into mature life. To know that a parent cares enough to demand obedience and good behavior is itself sound child psychology.

Teaching

Not only should Christian parents learn the grace of commanding their children when necessary, but they also must acquire the ability of teaching them the things of God. The principle involved in the days of Moses has never been abrogated: “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up” (Deut. 6:6, 7).

Christian teaching involves example; no amount of lip profession can atone for a life inconsistent with professed belief. But an inescapable part of our obligation to our children is to teach them the truths of God’s Word. And children still thrill to hear stories of adventure, daring and divine deliverance that are found in the Bible.

Such teaching can become a fascinating game and the basis of life-transforming faith under the guidance and blessing of the Holy Spirit.

Decisions

There are times when Christian parents must make decisions for their children, even though this idea runs counter to some contemporary teaching.

Children and teen-agers are often confronted with problems that they cannot handle. Because of limited outlook and experience they desperately need the guidance of older and wiser minds. Therefore, at times a strong parental “Yes” or “No” can stem the headstrong impulses of youth as nothing else can.

It is neither fair nor right to leave to immature minds certain decisions which have to do with their immediate and eternal welfare. While the ultimate decision of eternal salvation through faith in Christ is made by no other than the individual himself, God does use the decisions of godly parents in starting children in the right direction.

Joshua, in his final exhortation to the people, urged them to make a clear-cut decision to follow God. But should they waver in their allegiance, he testified that “as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Young people need the stabilizing influence of parents who have Christian convictions and the courage to make them stick in their own homes.

Prayer

God has placed in believers’ hands a privilege and a power that will never be fully appreciated or understood this side of eternity.

Through the ages God has attended to the prayers of parents to protect, restrain, and bless their children.

Some of us can thank God for parents whose consistent lives and prayers blessed us during the formative years.

This ministry of prayer for our children is not one to be lightly exercised. It involves importunity—the claiming of God’s promises and faithfulness in our own lives. It may even mean hours of wakefulness on our part, yet the reward is that we may see precious young lives secure in the everlasting arms.

When Christian parents are themselves faithful, they can rest in full assurance of the faithfulness of God for their children.

L. NELSON BELL

COLLAGE

Thanks to Picasso, collage is now regarded as a fine art as well as a kindergarten pastime. Recently a New York Times critic objected to the technique of a Swiss collagist who wadded up pasted paper to resemble oil paint. It reminded him of a woman who achieved newsreel recognition through the unusual occupation of making pictures from pellets of chewing gum.

Ecclesiastical collage is a deserving subject for thesis research. Comprehensive surveys of the undersides of pews would reveal collage creations accumulated by generations of discreet chewers. Chemical analysis of deposits might indicate when Wrigley displaced peppermints as sermon solace.

Pulpit collage is even more fascinating. Few pulpits have parked chewing gum undercoatings, but sermon collaging is a diligently practiced art. To understand the popularity of outlandish scissors-and-paste theories of biblical criticism, we need only to scan the sermon notes of the more gullible divines.

There are three main types of homiletical collage: the anecdotal, the quotational, and the sampler. The anecdotal is the most common and the most varied. It presents a sermon collage of stories, usually from the minister’s own experience, real or imagined. The personality of the preacher determines whether the selection is humorous or lugubrious. Favorite classifications are: Personal Problems I Have Solved; My Summer Travels; Happy Memories of a Former Charge. A good anecdotal collage will not average above one minute of connective material between stories.

Quotational collages require either a wide acquaintance with literature or the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. Long quotations from Shakespeare are favored; hymn quotations are excellent, particularly if the hymn has seven verses. This method has been falling into disuse, however, and is seldom found in churches with pew collages.

The sampler collage is a craftsmanlike assembly of paragraphs from various printed sermons that have some possible relation to the subject in hand. Fortunately there are manuals with material for this kind of thing. A firm artist’s hand is necessary to hold the seams together.

There are many ways of expressing your appreciation of artful pulpit collage. Attempts at source criticism will show your alert interest. You may murmur, “Your sermon was simply mosaic! Wasn’t that last issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY stimulating?” Or you may whisper confidentially, “My cousin was a member of your church in Kankakee, and I was intrigued by your imaginative description of her neurosis.”

Your contribution to our gallery of pulpit collage will be appreciated.

EUTYCHUS

CHURCH TAX

Your editorial (Jan. 4 issue) concerning Dr. Eugene Carson Blake’s suggestion that churches should voluntarily pay taxes is an excellent statement of the many facets of this complex problem.

As I see it, the central issue is the question: What should the government subsidize?

Very few will disagree that government should subsidize national defense and police activity for this is the proper function of government. Beyond that, disagreement begins. When Dr. Blake’s suggestion is limited to houses of worship, many questions arise. What about the almost endless list of other government subsidies in our shored-up economy? If Dr. Blake were to demand the abolition of all subsidies including tax exemption for churches, libertarians would applaud his consistency.

However, since Dr. Blake does not appear to be willing to abolish public education, TVA, public housing and many of the other subsidies Americans have grown to accept, I am constrained to ask: “Why should a religious leader wish to give the churches a greater handicap than any other cultural institution in our subsidized economy?”

IRVING E. HOWARD

Christian Freedom Foundation

New York, N. Y.

In the eyes of the state the church is performing a function and is being paid for that function by being released from the obligation to pay real estate taxes and the like. It is when the churches cease to fulfill that function which the state demands that the religious organizations of this country should be taken to task and made to pay the tax.

JOHN H. FRYKMAN

Philadelphia, Pa.

Having wrestled with the taxation problem for many years as a vestryman and churchwarden, let me list some specific decisions of our vestry, out of which a philosophy can be read:

1. Some of our funds go to aid a struggling country church, whose members contribute time and labor to till the church’s small landholding, bringing in produce which is either sold or given away. We have felt that neither the value of the land nor the produce should be taxed.

2. We have vigorously supported the program of our Diocese to “Raise Our Sites,” designed to acquire 5-acre plots in areas of anticipated community development, before prices go out of sight. We do not consider this a land-grab—just prudent planning. Since these lands do not produce income, we do not think they should be taxed.

3. An opportunity arose recently to purchase a close-by walk-up apartment building, which would have saved us a lot of annual expense and also produce some welcome revenue. We refused to do it because we could no longer certify that we received no rentals.

4. Our dear ladies developed a plan to open an “opportunity shop” on the church premises, mainly for the redistribution of children’s clothing and accessories. Although the women pointed out many instances where this sort of praiseworthy activity is going on, we could not in conscience permit it and still claim tax exemption.

5. Whenever the women put on a bazaar or the like, we do collect and pay the local sales tax.

The emphasis which you have been giving to the church taxation matter is most timely and objectively intelligent.

JOHN H. DONOGHUE

Old St. John’s Protestant Episcopal

Washington, D. C.

The Church is here neither to serve the State financially nor to be served by the State financially. I am disturbed over the way Dr. Blake, Stated Clerk of our General Assembly, materializes the Church, “the Body of Christ,” in his article “Tax Exemption and the Churches” (August 3). To talk as he does about taxing the body of Christ appears to me to be the latest long step down the secularist road away from the perfectly unique spiritual reality of the Church. The average American church with its average of 200–300 members, these small divine communities, isn’t the “large and rich” institution Dr. Blake fears it is, especially where these evangelical congregations are sending away to mission fields all they can spare from their current expenses.

It is tragic that a churchman can be so obsessed with ‘this worldliness’ as to blur principle like this and thus plant such effective propaganda against God’s business as if His business were no different from the world’s. Fortunately, a Stated Clerk in our United Presbyterian form of government has never been regarded as a spokesman in himself for the Church on matters theological, moral or spiritual!

ROBERT W. YOUNG

North Presbyterian

Pittsburgh, Pa.

WHITHER BAPTISTS?

In reviewing Harrison’s book, Authority and Power in the Free Church Tradition (Dec. 21 issue), it is noted that the author “grants to separationists that ‘organized Christianity’ represents a ‘compromise of the Gospel.’ ” One could hardly expect a Baptist and an Episcopalian to agree on polity, but I wonder if those who consider all ecclesiastical organization to some extent a betrayal of the Gospel can legitimately quarrel with any historical developments of institutional leadership, such as that taking place in the Baptist fellowship.

STANLEY R. SINCLAIR

St. John’s Church

Roseville, Calif.

I cannot agree with everything you say, since I write from a somewhat different theological perspective, but I deeply appreciate your careful reading of the book and your general appraisal of it and share with you the hope that these issues will be discussed, whether or not this particular book is used as a foundation for the discussion.

PAUL HARRISON

Princeton University

Princeton, N. J.

The author has explicated what should be obvious to all concerned, namely that an exaggerated conception of local autonomy has hindered the Baptists from developing an orderly relationship to their agencies. The fact that power resides in the hands of bureaucratic experts is not the result of an evil conspiracy, but the inevitable outcome of a system which delegates responsibility without assigning and delimiting authority. Pure autonomy of local congregations not only frees them from external control, but it denies them the opportunity of providing controls which would make their agencies responsible to them.

In several places you suggest that Baptists can solve their problems by a return to their distinctive principles. There is no contradiction between a recovery of our heritage and the proposals offered by Harrison. The difficulty is that so many Baptists seem to think that slogans like “soul competence” and “local autonomy” represent classic Baptist doctrines, whereas they are only caricatures of Baptist views. Baptists do need a more adequate view of the Church than they commonly have today, and they can find guidance toward such concepts in early Baptist confessions of faith. Many early Baptists were much more “ecumenical” in their understanding of the Church than are some contemporary Baptists.

NORMAN H. MARING

Eastern Baptist Seminary

Philadelphia, Pa.

It is quite futile to suggest that the situation be corrected by a return to an insistence upon local autonomy, for it is an insistence upon local autonomy that has produced the present concentration of irresponsible power within both the American Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention.

Actually “local autonomy” is a twentieth century term rather than a New Testament term. The idea of local autonomy among Baptists, to lie sure, antedates the twentieth century. It was partly the product of the Lockean philosophy of individualism and it was partly the product of the agitation of some nineteenth century Baptists who seized upon it as an ideal instrument by which denominational societies could be controlled by a denominational elite. It is hardly a New Testament concept nor a distinctly Baptist concept. Indeed, the old-line Baptists opposed it as an innovation.

What the early Baptists emphasized was the fact that a local church was fully the church, and fully equipped to minister Christ in the place where it was set without having need to derive either authority or power from any bishop, synod, or presbytery. This they believed to be the New Testament concept of the church. But this did not mean that these churches should remain isolated from one another. Nor did it mean that the joint concerns of local churches should not be carried on jointly in an ordinary fashion, with clear lines of authority by which those who administered the joint activities could be held responsible by the local churches.

WINTHROP S. HUDSON

Colgate-Rochester Divinity School

Rochester, N. Y.

CRITIC OF CHALCEDON

“Have We Outmoded Chalcedon?” (Dec. 7 issue). My own answer to this question is: Yes, long ago—insofar as concerns the authenticating by that council of the heathenish, yes, blasphemous epithet “Theotokos” for Mary, mother of Jesus.

MEYER MARCUS

New York, N.Y.

WORLD RELIGIONS

Your [Dec. 21] issue containing a symposium on Christianity and World Religions was generally very good.… It seems to me unfortunate, however, that in the article on Judaism no mention was made of the Hasidim or of Martin Buber, which represent a current of faith within Judaism that I think is much akin to the spirit of Protestantism within Christianity, and something from Which many Protestants could refresh their faith—or in any case an optimum point of contact for interfaith dialogue. It is all too easy for us to speak of Judaism as legalistic and Christianity as liberated from legalism, when in point of fact much of Christianity suffers from legalism and there are such currents as Hasidism alive within Judaism. This is not to equate Judaism and Christianity at all, but to indicate that the superiority of the Christian faith is not something to be lightly established by comparing Christianity at its best with merely normative Judaism.

WILLIAM ROBERT MILLER

Managing Editor

Fellowship

Nyack, N. Y.

Thank you for the symposium.… This comprehensive presentation helps the readers understand more clearly that the church, at its heart, is mission, and that Christianity is challenged today by powerful, dynamic faiths. Man needs a renewed dedication to proclaiming God’s Word—Christ—unto the far corners of the globe.

JAMES W. CARTY, JR.

Bethany College

Bethany, W. Va.

It is now 70 years since the University of Pennsylvania sent out the first American archaeological expedition to the Near East. Since that day American scholars have played a prominent role in exploration and excavation; and some of the greatest finds are now to be found in the Museum of the University. Among living American scholars who have engaged in such work, Dr. W. F. Albright, recently retired from Johns Hopkins because of age, occupies a pre-eminent place. Among the younger men, few if any have accomplished more in the wide field of archaeology than Dr. Cyrus H. Gordon, an alumnus of the University of Pennsylvania, now professor of Near Eastern Studies at Brandeis University. Like Albright, Gordon is a remarkable linguist. At Dropsie College he was professor of Assyriology and Egyptology. But for a number of years his special interest has been Ugaritic, which many scholars call Canaanite. He published an authoritative edition of the mythological texts discovered at Ugarit (not far from ancient Antioch) about 30 years ago, as well as the first extensive grammar of this new Semitic dialect. He has also interested himself in the Minoan civilization of ancient Crete and Greece, and he has made what is regarded as a promising start in the decipherment of the so-called Linear A script, which he believes reveals a Semitic language related to the Accadian—a very interesting and even surprising discovery since Michael Ventris a few years earlier had proved that the later Linear B script represents an early form of Greek.

THE REVOLT AGAINST WELLHAUSEN

We have said enough to indicate the remarkable versatility of Dr. Gordon. No wonder, then, that he should also be a decidedly independent thinker. In an article in CHRISTIANITY TODAY (NOV. 23 issue), Dr. Gordon challenges the widely accepted Wellhausen hypothesis. He is willing to recognize various sources in the Pentateuch, but he regards the time-honored JEDP analysis as thoroughly inadequate and discredited. He rejects it largely on the ground of archaeological evidence.

It may be well to note that Dr. Gordon is by no means the first Old Testament scholar to raise his voice against this regnant hypothesis. Conservative scholars, Jewish as well as Christian (Dr. Gordon is a Jew), have never accepted it. In recent years it has found opponents even in what may be called “critical” and “scientific” circles. Twenty years ago, Dornseiff, professor at Greifswald, published a series of articles in the Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, a journal founded by the distinguished higher critic Bernhard Stade, in which he boldly declared that no great body of literature such as the Pentateuch was ever put together by such a “scissors and paste method” as the critics claim for the Pentateuch. Pedersen of Copenhagen had already in his Israel declared his independence of the Wellhausen theory; and this attitude has been characteristic of the Scandinavian or Uppsala school ever since. Meek of Toronto, Robinson of Manchester, and others have taken a more or less similar attitude. Among eminent Jewish scholars we may mention Benno Jacobs.

ONE THEORY FOR ANOTHER?

In 1946 in reviewing the last two parts of Pedersen’s Israel, Professor Rowley of Manchester made the following comment: “The Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen view is not a dogma, but a scientific hypothesis, which can be surrendered without tears as a more satisfactory one enters the field. But it must be a more satisfactory one, and not merely a new one.” A number of more or less new hypotheses have in fact been proposed. The principal ones are represented by the Form Critical School, the Myth and Religion School, the Traditio-historical or Uppsala School. While differing in some respects they have a common feature: they all reject the early date and the full trustworthiness of the Pentateuch. Despite the fact that it has now been proved conclusively that writing, even alphabetic writing and several forms of it, was known as early as the time of Moses, they insist that the Pentateuch is late and that it and all the Old Testament books relating to the early period were handed down in oral tradition and were not, except for a few poems, written down until the time of David; some would say, until the time of the Babylonian Captivity.

In this connection a curious fact is to be noted. On the one hand these scholars insist that in the Orient oral tradition was and still is wonderfully dependable, even more so than written documents. On the other hand they are equally insistent that these documents being late are untrustworthy and that the narratives they contain have been so molded and modified in the course of tradition that it becomes the task of the modern critic to free them of the later accretions and get back to the core or kernel, if this is possible. This means in the last analysis that it is up to each critic to decide for himself just how much of the Pentateuch is really dependable and how much is not. Since Dr. Gordon is vigorously opposed to the Wellhausen hypothesis, we may well ask what his attitude is to this important question.

For an answer we turn to his recent book, The World of the Old Testament (1958). Dr. Gordon tells us that down to the tenth century B.C. we are dealing with the “epic precursors” of history (p. 144). He tells us further: “To what extent the patriarchal institutions are those of actual life, and to what extent they reflect epic tradition, can now be outlined by the Nuzu (for real society) and Ugaritic (for epic) parallels respectively” (p. 119). As an example of what this means, we may cite the case of the name “Isaac.” Dr. Gordon recognizes that the name, which means “laughs,” is explained in the Bible as due to the laughter of Abraham or Sarah because the birth of a child “seemed ridiculous.” But he declares that it is more probable that it refers to the laughter of God, because “God (expressed or understood) figures frequently in Hebrew names” and also because “the Ugaritic texts refer to the good-natured laughter of El.” So for this and the added reason that “in the Homeric poems the laughter of the gods is jovial,” he feels justified in holding that “God laughs” makes Isaac “a congenial personal name” (p. 119).

Commenting on Genesis 25:25, which states that Esau was born “red all over like a hairy garment,” he tells us that this “has a purpose”: “Frequently in Cretan and Egyptian art, the men (but not the women) are colored reddish brown. In the [Ugaritic] Legend of Kret, the hero is told by El to redden himself to become ceremonially fit. Obviously such was the color that males assumed for heroic or ceremonial purposes. Esau’s being born red presaged his heroic stature. The only other person in the Bible who was of that color by nature is David (1 Sam. 16:12): significantly the hero par excellence” (p. 125).

Here the implication is clearly that Esau was not born “red all over,” but is so described to make him of “heroic size.” And while David is said to have been “of that color by nature,” the fact that Gordon mentions him in this connection seems clearly to imply that the Ugaritic explanation of Esau holds good also of David, since even in narratives dealing with the time of David we are still dealing with epic literature for which we are to find explanatory parallels in Ugaritic. Dr. Gordon assures us that “The historical kernel of the patriarchal narratives is no more to be doubted than the historical kernel of the Trojan War in the Iliad.” But if this historical kernel is to be determined not by what the Bible says but by the imperfectly understood customs and traditions of the Canaanites, if Ugaritic is to be the standard for determining the amount of historical accuracy of the patriarchal narratives, are we really much better off than under Wellhausen?

RULES FOR BIBLE INTERPRETATION

When the writer was a theological student, his professor of Old Testament exegesis at Princeton Seminary, Dr. John D. Davis, was accustomed to give his students three rules for interpreting the Bible. They may be stated thus: (1) Exhaust the possibilities, that is, get all the light you can from every available source; (2) Sift the possibilities; (3) Distinguish carefully between possibility, probability, and proof. They were good rules 50 years ago. They are equally good today. Tested by them we submit that Dr. Gordon’s interpretation of the name Isaac and of Esau’s redness is not proved; it is not probable; it becomes possible only if the biblical narrative is regarded as a garbled and inaccurate account of the actual facts.

Coming down to the time of Moses and the giving of the Law, with which four of the five books of the Pentateuch are concerned, we observe that in his treatment of the career of Moses, Gordon makes no mention of the Law, except to claim that the Decalogue teaches only henotheism not monotheism (p. 145). He is not willing to treat Deuteronomy as a forgery. He insists that laws and codes were usually forgotten or ignored. So he tells us: “The significance of 621 is not that a great forgery was foisted on a gullible world. The significance of that date is that for the first time in human history a written document was actually adopted for all time and without interruption as the permanent guide of a nation” (pp. 247 f.). Does this mean that the account of the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai is simply “epic” and is not to be taken at its face value? As to the Book of the Law discovered by Hilkiah, Gordon is not certain as to its extent, but thinks “one of the most applicable parts” is Deuteronomy 17 and 18. If so, in what respect is Dr. Gordon’s hypothesis an improvement on that of Wellhausen? The most regrettable feature of the emphasis now placed on Ugaritic (Canaanite) by many archaelogists and biblical scholars is that their intense interest in archaeology and in comparative religion, with its emphasis on similarities, has blinded them to a dangerous degree to the utter difference between the religion of Israel and that of the Canaanites. The Old Testament writers knew this cult at first hand and they denounced the practices of the Canaanites as “abominations.” Their estimate has been fully confirmed by the excavations. Dr. Albright, realizing this, has said: “The sedentary culture which they [the Israelites] encountered in the thirteenth century seems to have reflected the lowest religious level in all Canaanite history, just as it represented the lowest point in the history of Canaanite art” (Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 94).

The mythological texts from Ugarit illustrate this statement to the full. They reveal a polytheism which is gross, grotesque, and vile. Its worst feature is bestiality, which it affirms even of the gods themselves. The Law of Moses took cognizance of this sin and punished it with death (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:24). Dr. Gordon points out that “the Hebrew is to a great extent a conscious reaction against the Canaanite milieu.” He adds: “This is illustrated by the fact that bestiality far from being looked at askance in Ugarit, was practiced by the adored Baal, who copulates with a heifer as is celebrated in the religious texts.… If it be argued that Baal assumes the shape of a bull for the act, the same cannot be said for his priests who re-enacted his mythological career cultically” (p. 99). As to this he tells us “Apparently no moral issue was made of bestiality in Ugarit. Or, to state it differently, bestiality had no significance in Ugaritic criminology. In Israel (whose attitude we inherit), however, it was a heinous crime” (Ibid). This serves, we think, to show in a most striking way the utter depravity of the religion of the Canaanites.

Elsewhere in speaking of that “perfect world” in Isaiah 11, when “all the beasts shall live together in peace with a little child leading,” he tells us: “This reconciliation of man and beast fits into a pervasive aspect of the Bible World, where beasts were accorded almost human status.” He supports this statement by referring to such passages as Genesis 9:9; 9:5; Exodus 20:10; Jonah 3:7–8; 4:11; Exodus 11:5; 12:29, and adds the following: “While the Hebrews forbade carnal relations between man and any kind of animal, the Hittite Code permits human copulation with certain animals but not with others. Thus some of the people in the Bible World felt varying degrees of kinship with the different animal species; some degrees ruled out but others permitted carnal relations with animals; much as our laws of incest spell out the permitted and forbidden degrees in terms of human kinship” (p. 242).

That the beautiful picture of the Messiah’s reign in Isaiah and such other biblical passages as the ones mentioned should be appealed to as in any sense suggesting, not to say excusing or justifying, the abominations of the Canaanites is an amazing illustration of the lengths to which able archaeologists and students of comparative religion are prepared to go in seeking parallels between the religion of Israel and the practices, even the abominations, of the Canaanites and the other nations which were Israel’s neighbors.

We would not have it thought for a moment that in offering these severe criticisms of Dr. Gordon’s position we are attacking him personally or suggesting that he approves or condones such abominations as have been mentioned. We think of him as a very able representative of a theory or hypothesis widely accepted by archaeologists and other scientists today, according to which the solution of the problem of the origin, nature, and development of the religion of Israel is to be found in relating it to and deriving it from the ethnic religions by a process which stresses superficial similarities and minimizes or ignores basic and essential differences.

Dr. Gordon is opposed to the Wellhausen hypothesis. He believes that by means of archaeology and comparative study he can furnish what Dr. Rowley demands—a new hypothesis which is “more satisfactory” than the old. We submit that the more satisfactory hypothesis, in fact the only really satisfactory one, is not to be sought among the Canaanites or other ancient peoples but where the Psalmist found it when after recounting the blessings of God which are shared by man and beast, he cries out: “He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them.”

The Shade of Lincoln Walks

The shade of Lincoln upon these streets

Looking with longing at the passing men;

He yearns to speak something to those he meets,

For here he feels the ancient pain again.

Fear plants a furrow on their countenance,

Dread casts a darkness on their tortured path:

They walk in fetters who were born to dance,

Languish in bondage who were meant to laugh.

KENDIG BRUBAKER CULLY

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.

Many parish ministers seem to have ill will toward the full-time clerical leaders of the churches, that is, to men in various executive positions. This writer respects church leaders—full-time secretaries of church boards, presidents, bishops, editors, seminary professors, superintendents, and so on. All these executives are under constant criticism. Criticism is frequently merciless. This is no doubt because the ministry is a profession that, perhaps above all others, is individualistic; each man thinks that he and his opinion are in a special class almost sacred—because he is working for Christ.

My contacts are largely limited to my own denomination through various connections with committees, serving as a delegate to area, state, and national conventions, through personal acquaintance with many executives, and some contacts with other denominations through local councils of churches.

Too often there is no appreciation of what executives are doing. There is instead a strong tendency to blame them, even for the things over which they have no control, or for wrongs that have existed for years and which no one person can possibly correct.

It is a common saying among ministers that if a man aspires to an executive position in the church he must be beside himself. To be sure, in the church the office should seek out the man rather than the man of ambition seek out the office. The church ideal is service.

Church executives are mostly in a class by themselves, because theirs is a lonesome existence. In trying to get along acceptably with a large number of churches and ministers, they unwittingly become aloof.

Remember that these leaders are men, and that they were men even before they became executives. They have, therefore, all the weaknesses of human beings—they are sinful, make mistakes, are not omniscient nor omnipresent.

Executives must face tremendous jealousy all along the line—from those near the top who might have been selected for the same position to clergy who hold humble positions—not to mention the laity, “leading” and otherwise. Then there is jealousy issuing from fellow-executives, that is, men in equal positions or similar positions on other boards, and so forth.

Awareness of criticism and jeolousy among the clergy came as something of a shock to me, because I have always had a certain measure of diffidence and respect toward those in authority and honor, and was inclined to place such men upon a pedestal. With the passing of years, however, I have come to the realization that criticism and jealousy are basic to human nature, and also that clergymen are quite human.

From the standpoint of these executives, many things need to be said. Most executives (perhaps there are a few exceptions) have left behind them large, prominent, well-established churches where they were receiving good or at least better than average salaries. They reached those large churches in most cases through hard work, based on an adequate training over a period of years. Of course, some came to their positions through influence, but the number of such instances is not large. Moreover, even when influence does get a man a particular call, he does not hold it long if he cannot fulfill the duties required.

To be sure, the executive is likely to receive a higher salary than he would in his parish church, or at least higher than the average for active pastors. But men in such positions have high expenses. It is the common experience of anyone that the more he gets the more he spends. That has been my own experience with the passing years. My salary is much more than it was in the depression, but we are no better off in the long run.

Many of the men in executive positions left the pastorate reluctantly. They knew fully what they were leaving, but they knew also what they were entering. At least in the pastorate, with all its difficulties, there is still the intimate contact with people. There is the Christian joy of preaching God’s Word to them, of ministering eternal truths to them in home and hospital, and in the crises of life. One misses these things in executive work, for many contacts are superficial.

Executives, of course, do get a certain amount of publicity, often on a national scale, but publicity does not mean too much, as the newest fledgling among pastors can testify. In a year or two every pastor has had enough publicity to tickle his vanity, and he knows how little it advances the kingdom of God, and that it does not necessarily indicate that one is making progress in serving Jesus Christ.

One great problem of executives is obtaining cooperation. Committees that fail to function; assigned tasks and duties that are not fulfilled; letters which attract no answers, or are answered inadequately or too late; vital questionnaires that are ignored—these are the result of noncooperation. Yet those failing to cooperate are often the ones who complain the most.

TOP LEVEL ENGAGEMENTS

Leaders have many engagements and they must keep fresh for each one. They can never give their constituents the idea that they are not fully alert. None can acknowledge that he is tired. Many executives must travel a good deal. This may be interesting for pleasure, but it becomes monotonous after awhile. Results are that one gets insufficient and improper rest, misses a full home life (for which even the Protestant parsonage is notorious), and the constant change in food and water is not conducive to good health.

In conversation with one of the best-known church executives of our times, he once related, without particular concern, his various engagements. He traveled by air, car, and train, back and forth constantly in the United States and Canada, and often making appointments by small margins.

Here are two letters, dated two years apart, in which this same denominational leader refuses in a tactful manner to speak at a week-end retreat for men:

• Enthusiasm and persistence like yours ought to win the day. My own conviction that laymen’s retreats are a constructive, good influence is strongly in your favor too. In view of both factors, I hardly have the heart to say no.

However, as I wrote to another minister when he sent me the first invitation to next fall’s retreat last month, I am finally taking the good advice of my friends and trying to reduce my appointment schedule to manageable size. Everybody agrees that I ought to do so, of course. The only place where every single one of my friends demurs is about his own request! His isn’t the one that makes the overload, he’s quite sure. The worst part is that I half agree that he’s right. The only trouble is that the end of it would mean the end of me too.

Your words have a seductive sound when you picture the whole affair as delightful relaxation but, honestly, the climbing on a train, then chugging to the lake, and finally giving perhaps three addresses in a day and a half isn’t a perfect vacation. I am sorry to confess it but if I ever did have a day and a half for loafing, my first choice would be at the home I seldom see.

Please do assure all your colleagues that it would be an honest joy to be with you and that I am reluctant to disappoint such good friends.

• Even the Unjust Judge gave in finally. It is a little disgraceful for an alleged Christian to be even stubborner than he was, isn’t it? I hope that the Lord and you will keep on thinking kindly of me even though I am just unable to accept your invitation for September.

I do not feel yet that I am coming to the end of my rope as I look over my appointment schedule but I do feel the rope tightening around my neck. I just cannot increase my load early next fall without tempting Providence.

I regret that I ever have to decline any service at all that I am asked to give anywhere in the Kingdom. Believe me, I never do so except in an effort to be a wise steward of the energy which the Lord has given me.

Please don’t think too harshly of me. I know you won’t. You are too understanding a friend for that.

It is difficult to know just how strong to make this thesis. It may even be overstated. It is hoped that no one will get the idea that this is a blanket endorsement of everything church executives do. Every minister knows of actions of these men that have been wrong.

It may be acknowledged that there is a certain small percentage of “swivel-chair” executives. Any man who may be selected for an executive position in the church can find plenty to do, and can give the appearance of being extremely busy by way of sending out circular letters, attending committee meetings and conferences, filling speaking engagements, and writing articles and books. The very volume of mail being sent out by an executive can be a means of perpetuating a bureaucratic official in his position. Program and promotion become more important than the Church and Jesus Christ. It is easy to give the impression that one is really busy by employing clerks who in turn help to cultivate the idea that their “boss” is doing an indispensable work. Furthermore, it is easy to find various types of work which ought to be done in the fields of promotion, administration, welfare, education, and missions, all requiring a leader to organize and publicize the work. More activity on the part of an executive may not indicate that he is fulfilling a necessary position.

Even though the executive may repeatedly state that he is above all else a “servant” of Christ and His Church, in the final analysis one feels that some executives have the idea that ministers and their congregations exist in order to give the executive an opportunity not merely to work but to exercise dominion, even as a few pastors give this impression in their relationship to their congregations and members.

But church executives have a large assignment on their hands. Without question, the majority of them are carrying out their duties in a highly conscientious manner. On the part of their constituents, they ought to be obtaining a greater degree of cooperation, and to express appreciation to them more frequently.

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.

“Liberty seems to demand,” wrote James Madison in The Federalist, “… not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those entrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments.”

The practice of limiting terms of office in the churches is widely applied to laymen. For them indefinite office holding is generally forbidden. But the tenure of the clergy has been assumed to be otherwise. This arrangement has worked fairly well for local pastors since they labor in close association with the members of their congregations who actually are the source of final power over tenure of the clergy. Inefficient or arbitrary action at the local level has been quickly checked. But at the national level such control is much more difficult and consequently more rare. Top administrators—bishops, executive secretaries, presidents, and ministers who run the denominational machinery—have usually served despite awkwardness or near heart failure until they retired of old age. In practice the average tenure of national executives is about 20 years.

Experience indicates clearly that the losses resulting from such long terms in office far outweigh the gains. That is, administrational know-how is more than balanced by losses in perspective and sensitivity. The average high executive after a decade in office loses touch with what is going on at grass roots. More and more he turns for counsel to the denominational elite, and uninfluential people come to learn that they get little consideration from them. Moreover, men in places of leadership vary in the extent to which their energy and spirit remain unimpaired through advancing years.

An obvious way for denominations to mitigate the risks of over-long office terms is to require denominational leaders to stand for re-election and then to limit them to two terms of reasonable length, say eight years in all, a limit that was recently placed on the tenure permitted the President of the United States.

Members of some denominations, when confronted by this proposal, affirm that the constitutional framework already exists in their church for the proper control of office terms, since officials must stand for periodic re-election by national assemblies. This is true for the reason that the machinery does exist; but it is seldom really used. In other words, it does not elect but rubber-stamps the selections of a nominating committee chosen by insiders. The mores of conducting business at some national assemblies are such that actual authority is usually exercised elsewhere. The majority in these assemblies is commonly made up of persons who do not know the ropes and are attending for the first or second time, who know that free debate would lengthen the time the assembly must sit to unmanageable and expensive lengths, who are intimidated by the onward rush of an overfull agenda, and who are bewildered by the complexity of the problems on which they are asked to vote. Such a situation does not permit wise deliberation, and consequently these assemblies generally give the power of actual decision to committees or boards. Frequently the membership on these committees is influenced by the executives themselves. One of these committees, a nominating or personnel committee, often acts as the real agency for selecting denominational leaders, and it determines their tenure as well as chooses the members of other denominational committees and boards. The assembly secretary is sometimes instructed to cast one ballot for the entire slate of the nominating committee when no additional nominations have come from the floor. The techniques of genuine elections—preassembly campaigns, nominating speeches, and vote soliciting in the foyer—constitute bad form in many denominations. Thus a process which has the appearance of periodic elections can be turned into a process that results in indefinite tenure.

The same effect can follow from the more genuine elections held by other denominational assemblies. Once elected, officials in these denominations are expected to serve for the rest of their active careers.

The power of in-groups increases as a result of this situation. Government is a process whereby some people make decisions for other people. The ever-present danger, of course, is that those in power will not give equitable weight to the concerns of those out of power. Groups in power for a long time develop techniques for getting work done and for speeding up the democratic process; but all too often they tend to brush aside groups not in power, especially those that have never been in power. The opinions given weight, therefore, seem usually to come from the few.

That denominational leaders are not merely executives but also legislators heightens the urgency of the problem. So great is the prestige of their offices that they frequently determine policy, and then there is little division of governmental powers. This situation must probably continue, the realities of denominational life being what they are. The time, information, and money necessary to make denominational statesmen out of the delegates to the average national assembly will undoubtedly not be available in the near future. Consequently, the role of legislator as well as executive must in all likelihood continue to be carried in most of the denominations by top officials.

It stands to reason that such a combination of powers should not be held by any man indefinitely, however able and consecrated he may be. Ministers in high office have the same kind of human nature as the rest of us have. Because the use of power runs naturally to the abuse of power, administrators can come into their positions with deep humility only to fail after a few years to distinguish its dignity from their own. Forthright opposition to their policies is sometimes labeled obstructionism, or even called going contrary to the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

A proposal to decrease markedly the policy-making powers of the denominational executives would be an obvious reaction to the situation. Such action would probably be a mistake were not a denomination to possess a legislative assembly that truly assumed responsibility for policy making.

Another proposal would be a scheme of choosing for high office men who are within a decade or less of retirement. If it were generally adopted, this plan would deny leadership to younger men and would saddle the leader with the knowledge that he was chosen for his availability as well as for his ability.

Perhaps a better scheme would be that executives be chosen for a defined term, and be permitted to succeed themselves but once. In fairness such a scheme ought not to apply to those in office at the time it goes into effect. And for the sake of efficiency, the scheme ought not apply to nonpolicy-making technicians, or editors, research workers, and financial experts.

The present pertinence of this proposal for denominations now revising constitutions or adopting new ones is surely evident. The Proposed Constitution for the United Church, for example, provides that, “No officer of the Church shall be elected or re-elected after attaining the age of 65 years.” A better reading would be, “An officer may succeed himself but once.”

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.