FLIES OR ANTS?

Our patriotic picnic was over, the crowd had left for the lakefront and the ball diamond, and I remained, a sluggard among the ants. These regimented hymenoptera, with their proverbial industry, were transporting cake crumbs to their colony headquarters. My observations were interrupted as I drove away a fly which had buzzed up from a puddle of root beer to light on my nose.

John Ruskin once wrote a tribute to the fly as the freest, most republican (I suppose we should say, democratic) creature on earth. He contrasted the fly’s impudent individualism with the instinctual slavery of the ant. Our bandstand orator of the afternoon had described communism as anthill collectivism. He too preferred the fly life.

I had supposed that Ruskin’s dry admiration for the fly was an expression of nineteenth century individualism. He also observed once that no human being was ever so free as a fish. (Since fish can catch flies and flies fish, so that we have both flying fish and fly fishing, it is difficult to decide which is the better symbol.) It now appears that the fly should be cast in a symbolic role in this century also. What is more existential than a fly buzzing against a window pane? Perhaps the beatnik fly in a lamp globe!

Are we to choose, then, the liberty of the rebel fly, or the burden of the adjusted ant? As I swatted at the fly that had returned to my cheek, I decided for the ant. Anthill conformity is probably not at all confining for ants, and its efficient pattern is far more satisfying than droning meaninglessness.

Or is there a better candidate for Insect of the Century?

Pastor Peterson came back from the ball game with a sprained ankle and rescued me from my musings. He pointed out that it is not surprising to find all insect analogies to be one-sided caricatures of human life. True human freedom is the liberty of the sons of God. The real liberty tree grows beside the stream of grace from God’s throne. Any view of liberty that ignores God becomes inhuman license or slavery; men live like ants or die like flies.

FAKERY AND SHAME

Your article “Fake Degrees in the Pulpit” (May 11 issue) has done a real service to the cause of Christ. Dyrness’ statement, “With shame we must admit that our conservative brethren in the ministry are more susceptible to worthless degrees …,” should really disturb the evangelical conscience. Besides correcting the doctrine of the liberals, your magazine should continue to Christianize the ethics of the conservatives.… Your prophetic voice will continue to be really prophetic if it is heard in a prophetic way in its own camp.

Editor

The Canadian Mennonite

Altona, Manitoba

Such … articles … will discourage honest, sincere men and women from falling into the trap of “buying a degree.” And it will perhaps close up some of these fraudulent institutions.…

First Presbyterian Church

Ava, Ill.

While I am in full sympathy in cracking down on the diploma mills and fraudulent schools, would it not be worth while if Dr. Enock C. Dyrness would take a crack at the unearned doctor’s degrees given by accredited institutions for other reasons than that of merit.

Northside Methodist Church St.

Petersburg, Fla.

The University of London informs me that after one has taken his bachelor’s degree in residence there, he may then qualify for his master’s or doctor’s degree through off-campus study. I understand this is also done in many other countries. If it were done here by our recognized institutions, would not these fraudulent schools disappear for lack of patronage? Should higher education be reserved for only those who have sufficient time and money to leave their employment and families and go back to school?

East Liverpool, Ohio

I should like to commend you heartily for two very relevant articles, “Christ and the Campus,” and “Fake Degrees in the Pulpit.”

Roger Hull, Jr. did voice great and timely convictions and his words are tremendous. But I cannot share altogether the pessimistic view that a large majority of college students are indifferent, or a great deal more indifferent than their parents back home. Each year since the existence of our all-student congregation we have averaged at least a 40 per cent Sunday worship attendance of the total on our rolls, and each year we have received new Christian commitments through baptisms and confirmations of students. Furthermore, the attendance of student officers at our monthly chapel council meetings is as good or better than the attendance of council members of town parishes I have served. Since my ministry here is but one scholastic year, I can cite these examples without becoming suspect of drawing any attention to any personal success.

University Lutheran Chapel

Purdue University

West Lafayette, Ind.

BIBLE AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

My three grandchildren will be returning soon to the public schools here after two years in the Government schools in Europe, to be told that their grandparents are intolerant, stupid, bigoted, and otherwise incapable of their proper guidance and training. I would like to have it explained … why they are required by law to attend a school which bans the Bible.… The public school system was doomed when teaching of the Bible was prohibited.

Washington, D. C.

PERSPECTIVES OF THE KIN

The age we live in demands that laymen in the scientific professions develop a knowledge of the philosophy of Christianity—of theology—in order to find meaning for what they have accepted pragmatically by faith. It is in just this position that your periodical comes. Not all is acceptable or agreeable, but all is provocative.…

The “letters to the editor column” has opened my eyes to the narrow-minded bigotry of modern Christendom and has shown me the necessity of tolerance about minor differences.

I wish I could honestly state that I read the various medical publications that come to my desk with as much avidity as I devour … CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Vancouver, B. C.

No matter how many Eutychuses there may be, it would be nice if all your correspondents of differing schools would observe the simple rule of Christian courtesy.

Charlottesville, Va.

I am 19 years old.… I first came into contact with your magazine when I babysat for my pastor.… I was really impressed by the articles I read, and I read all his old copies. The issues are so well put and really make their points clear. I thought you might appreciate knowing that your magazine appeals to teen-agers such as I.… Enclosed please find $5 for a one year’s subscription.…

Winton, Minn.

I am now reading (for second time) Religion without Revelation by Julian Huxley. I live at Penney Farms …, where we have 20 breeds of Protestantism and nobody really doing any thinking. I am 92 years of age and have lived with a Bible in my hands all the time. I now think most of my teaching and preaching all these years has been erroneous.… The above … will furnish something of a reason … why I do not subscribe to your really excellent sheet. It is trying to prop what seems to me is a really lost cause.

Penney Farms, Fla.

I want to thank you for the contents of CHRISTIANITY TODAY which, in my opinion, is the best paper of its kind published in America today.… We Presbyterians, of course, have our denominational paper which is tops in its field, but you are covering a far wider and more general area and are doing it magnificently.

Grace Presbyterian Church

Kansas City, Mo.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY is filling a precise need in the evangelical world of thought and doing it very precisely.

The Presbyterian Church

White Plains, N. Y.

Your paper is the only one outside of my denominational literature that I read.… Much good can come from articles and material contributed from different denominational sources.

Hope Lutheran

Muskogee, Okla.

I’ve never found such an unbiased … magazine, denominationally speaking. Baytown, Tex.

I have been valiantly struggling against a subscription to “another” religious journal. With your March 2 issue my will to resist has been completely demolished! Please … enter my subscription to the most helpful and exciting religious publication in this country today.

Reformation Evangelical Lutheran Ch.

Lancaster, S. C.

Excellent publication …, particularly your … issue of … March 16.… God bless your testimony against the many watered-down pseudo gospels of “liberal” (?), “modernists” (??), who are enslaved and ancient unbelievers.…

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

St. Louis, Mo.

I am now eighty-seven years of age, and have been in the Baptist ministry over sixty years, but I have never read a paper that contained so many wonderful messages that can be accepted by evangelicals of so many denominations.

Shreveport, La.

To truly glorify God we must be careful to print only … what really is true to his Word in Scripture, and as you know most people today will not tolerate this—they demand the Arminian heresy, the denial of the true God who “will have mercy on whom he will have Mercy.”

Dundalk, Ont.

I find your magazine pertinent and stimulating. I am frank to tell you that it seems to me there is a bias toward Calvinism and against Arminianism, or Wesleyanism.

Northwest Nazarene College

President Nampa, Idaho

I do not enjoy reading your magazine.… At the very best it is 99% chaff in my opinion.… I am Pentecostal and I do not go for dead formalism or intellectualism. I would rather be a fool on fire than a scholar on ice.

No. Bonneville, Wash.

I want to know more about orthodox Protestant Christianity since I myself aspire to the Catholic priesthood.… We stand united in our mutual recognition that the Scriptures are definitive because they have, in a real sense, God as their Author.… Particularly interesting to me was the editorial “Theology in Ecumenical Affairs” (Feb. 16 issue). There can be real unity in Christ only if that unity includes unity in truth. Ecumenical discussions with those who do not subscribe to this fundamental principle are impossible, as you … so clearly stated.

Greencastle, Ind.

Strange as it may seem to you, Billy Graham is far from being God, and the Bible is far from being the Word of God.

Bucyrus, Ohio

• Billy Graham, of course, has never claimed to be God, but he has honored Scripture as the Word of God written as did Jesus (John 10:35) and the apostles (1 Thess. 2:13).—ED.

I appreciate your doctrinal soundness, spiritual depth, interesting news, and helpful articles which are often a help in sermon building.

Dearborn, Mich.

I can truthfully say that no magazine comes to me that so completely fills my wishes for a Christian presentation of everything a minister should have to enlighten and inspire him for the great work into which he is called.

Burbank, Calif.

From the very first issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, I have read and enjoyed the magazine thoroughly. After joining the faculty of Bethany Bible College I began using it in connection with my classes in contemporary theology.

You might be interested to know that we have made a card file of the writers and the “thumb-nail” sketch of their lives which you give … and by so doing build a reference file which is proving very valuable.

Bethany Bible College

Santa Cruz, Calif.

As a seminary student I want to say that the articles in this magazine have done much to help me stand firm for the fundamentals of the faith. I think that every paper I wrote for the various theological courses, and especially my B. D. thesis, which was on Luther’s doctrine of the Christian life, with special reference to justification and sanctification, contained quotations from various articles.… I have a complete file of CHRISTIANITY TODAY issues, and I am amazed at how many times I go through back issues for material. For example, in preparing a series of messages on the Gospel of St. Mark, I received much help from the article dealing with Mark, especially the list of good commentaries.… One of the things I especially like about the magazine is that the articles are of lasting interest, and are as valuable one or two years later as they were at the time of publication. I don’t honestly think I can say the same thing about any other Christian publication that I receive.

Cedar Rapids, Iowa

I enjoy your magazine very much. Some of it is over my head, a little, but if I read it, later I find parts of it have registered—to my great benefit.

Corodado, Calif.

Your last issue just simply nauseates me. I’ve tried to read the magazine—but now am convinced it does me more harm than good.

East Cleveland Baptist Church

East Cleveland, Ohio

I, for one, appreciate the mature adult context of the editorials, and the differing opinions I find quite refreshing.

Jonesboro, Ind.

Forgive me for failing to take the time to thank you for the best religious magazine that comes to my desk. Your uncompromising faith in the inspiration of the Scriptures is surely reassuring in this age of skepticism and unbelief. I appreciate the very fine articles, especially those of the gifted editor.

Church of Christ

Bellefonte, Ark.

I do not want to miss a copy of it. Many of the articles are worth the price of a year’s subscription. Nelson Bell’s page is worth much to me.

Sharpsville, Pa.

To me, … “A Layman and His Faith” … is worth the price of the subscription … alone. The statements are so clear, so close to God’s word, that it is a pleasure to read them.

Brockton, Mass.

A word of commendation … for Eutychus and his witty penetration of the essentially anti-Christian implications of the jargon of existentialism, Bultmannism, etc.!

The Rectory

Katonah, N. Y.

May God bless you in your continuing effort to present fundamental Christian verities to the intellectually discriminating, theologically conservative, sociologically compassionate, and spiritually humble.

First Methodist Church

Conway Springs, Kans.

Your magazine, for the most part, lives in the past and is very useless in coping with contemporary problems with meaningless “nice” Gospel phrases.

Central Congregational Church

Jamaica Plain, Mass.

I enjoy this magazine very much, but do not know how much longer I shall be able to read it. Eyes are growing dim with the years, and I have already entered the octogenarian class.

You may be interested in knowing that the first of my giant anthologies—Christ and the Fine Arts—now of age (21 years since it was first published in 1938), is now revised and enlarged. More than 300,000 copies of this giant anthology have been sold, and it has gone round the world in its circulation during the past 21 years.

Los Angeles, Calif.

I look forward to every issue without ever having been disappointed. It is wonder-food for an old lady who loves the Lord Jesus and who draws nearer the Heavenly Gate month by month to be so encouraged on my journey (I am 81) by the articles and editorials.

Hawkesbury, Ont.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY has … done so much to deepen my spiritual life …, done more than any other earthly experience to lead me to near “oneness” with our Saviour.

Fairmont, Minn.

Your very able and high-level paper is long overdue for our field, and I read the copies … avidly, wishing all preachers might have this help. I am retired now, after a ministry since 1895.…

Brevard, N. C.

I am a charter member, and, as long as our precious Saviour tarries and permits me to inhabit this earth, I desire to remain on your mailing list.

Phoenix, Ariz.

I want once again to express my Christian devotion to all who work on your magazine. Your ministry has been the main influence, humanly speaking, which has kept me from abandoning evangelicalism. When I verged on losing faith in the doctrine of plenary inspiration, it was CHRISTIANITY TODAY that held me true.

Palmyra, Pa.

Let me express to you the praise I give God for the intellectual gain and the Christian thrill which is mine with every issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

San Francisco, Calif.

Preponderance of this-worldism of religious emotional intellectualism.…

Berkeley, Calif.

I cannot too highly express my appreciation to all responsible for initiating and maintaining this excellent publication. How it keeps one’s mind “on the stretch” and in the way of basic issues.

The Baptist Parsonage

Paradise, Nova Scotia

I praise God for the … need filled by your scholarly magazine, one of which a Christian can be proud and not feel that the Lord is dishonored by inferior workmanship.

Springfield, Vt.

As I was bringing Senator Carlson in from the airport in a taxi, our conversation wandered across many things. The taxi driver interrupted us and displayed a large Bible that he carried in his cab and made reference to the fact that he had heard Billy Graham and Bob Pierce on the radio regularly and had committed his life to Christ, and now was actively interested in Christian things, including the regular reading of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. This is a further evidence of the extent of the influence of the paper.

Asst. Minister

Park Street Church

Boston, Mass.

It has been a source of encouragement and enlightenment … and appears to be improving as time goes on. You may take that word “improving” any way you like—either in the old Scottish way of “standing the test” or “getting better.”

Strathroy, Ont.

Are the “four freedoms,” as publicized by Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill during the early days of World War II, an attainable goal or are they a cruel mirage?

Only those who have lived under the tyranny of governments that curtail or deny personal freedom can appreciate the blessings which we in America have always enjoyed and take as a matter of course.

But the “four freedoms,” in a measure, go beyond those things which man may demand as his inherent right under a free government.

Freedom of speech and expression is certainly ours, but it may be used only within the limits of the common good. This does not imply the right to libel, to bear false witness, nor to assassinate somebody’s character. However, it does guarantee to those enjoying its privilege the right of opinion, criticism, and giving public expression to views on any subject, provided that such expression is not seditious or lewd.

Freedom to worship God according to the dictates of one’s conscience is another blessing which obtains where the basic freedoms are to be found. That some confuse freedom of worship with freedom from worship is a question which someday they will have to reckon with God.

Without minimizing the vital importance of separation of Church and State, one wonders whether those minorities which would prevent all children from coming under religious instruction in public schools, even on a voluntary and released-time basis, are not being permitted to impose freedom from worship on those who sense their need of and dependence upon God.

Freedom from want is not necessarily a good thing. It is not within the province of the Church or the State to promise to all of its citizens material benefits for life. The scriptural principle is twofold: those who refuse to work have no right to expect food; but when a Christian sees a brother in need of help, it is his duty to assist that brother to the best of his ability.

There is another aspect, however, to the problem of want. God at times permits people to experience privations in order that the experience may draw them back to him. It was hunger that drove the Prodigal to a realization of his plight. Material need frequently turns people back again and again to a despair of separation from God and a sense of dependence upon him as a loving Father.

Freedom from fear, the final promise of the “four freedoms,” offers from the political standpoint a hope that should be realized wherever there is responsible government. Men should dwell securely and safely from molestation. Their homes should not be subject to unlawful attack or invasion. Agencies of protection should be active, efficient, and impartial.

But there is another aspect of this matter. Fear can be a healthy reaction. It can be the agent by which man is startled and stimulated to protective action. It is a God-given instinct by which life is protected and prolonged.

There is an unhealthy fear of what others may think—“The fear of man bringeth a snare.” On the other hand, all men should have a righteous fear of the holy and living God. For Christians such fear becomes a reverential trust through the atoning work of Christ.

At the time of year when we Americans think of that freedom which brought into being our great nation, and the freedoms which have been a part of our heritage since that day, we should be wise indeed if we considered what is at stake when we turn freedom to license and dissipate our God-given rights for imagined gain.

Freedom to live and think and act without fear of restraint is one of man’s greatest blessings. And it has always been granted in those places where faith in God has established the climate, and where the dignity of man and his responsibility to his Maker are basic. We in America probably take our political freedom for granted. In so doing we have failed either to understand or oppose with strength those forces abroad which deny and destroy every God-given right of mankind.

Some of us have lived in or seen this blight in other parts of the world. The beginning of it may be overwhelmingly ruthless or deceptively insidious. Soon after China came under Communist domination, some of the Christians made this astute observation: “When the Communists first take over, they tien, tien t’eo (nod their heads in approval). Then they iao, iao t’eo (shake their heads with disapproval). Finally, they sah t’eo (cut your head off).”

Whatever methods are used when coming into power, communism sees to it that the basic freedoms disappear and regimentation, compulsion, and oppression take their place.

There is a higher freedom, however, that has not been mentioned. It is the freedom which comes from knowing and trusting Jesus Christ. Millions who enjoy all that freedom can offer in a land such as ours are pathetic slaves to sin. They are slaves because they were born in that condition, and because they have never been emancipated by the Great Emancipator. Freedom was effected on the Cross, but men continue to live bound to the ways of life that end in death.

Even Christians can be slaves to unworthy or harmful practices. How often we belie the faith we profess by rudeness, impatience, criticism, and prejudice! How often an unbelieving world fails to see in us the fruit of love, joy, and peace, all of which come from the indwelling Spirit!

The freedom which comes through faith in Christ knows no national, racial, or political boundaries. The Gospel says that men may know the Truth and be made free. Here is to be found the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. It is an emancipation from the demands of the Law which no man could keep. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death” is a practical reality, not a meaningless phrase.

We see then one of the many paradoxes of the Christian faith which the unregenerate can never grasp. God’s values and man’s are totally different. Despotism may hold man under its iron heel, but it is incapable of restraining the spiritual freedom that springs through faith. In like manner the “freedom” which a nation such as our own offers to her citizens does not in any way deliver men from the dominance of sin.

For the Christian there remains the certainty of ultimate and complete freedom, not only from the limitations of time and space and circumstance but also from the tears, sorrow, and death which are a part of our earthly heritage.

“Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

This may be called the “Fifth Freedom” and it lasts for eternity.

Because of the faith and perspective of Nehemiah himself, the book of Nehemiah might well furnish sermon, reference, and planning material for a modern building program. Nehemiah furnished leadership which demonstrated the deep religious nature of his building task and that it was not just a “superficial and external” challenge “to get a job done.” Along with the fine religious stimulus, the book also supplies valuable historical information on the period after the return from the Exile. Information contained herein is not to be found elsewhere.

It has been customary to emphasize the differences in the perspectives of Ezra and Nehemiah, and to stress a large variation in purpose. Their personalities were different. Ezra was stern and somewhat harsh, while Nehemiah was more loving and understanding. Nevertheless it is wrong to classify Ezra as the “religious” reformer and Nehemiah as the “political” reformer. Nehemiah was interested in political reform but only as a means of making possible a covenant commitment of a religious nature. If the terms must be used, then Nehemiah was both a religious and a political reformer.

Title And Date

Lack of Massoretic notation after Ezra 10:44 and the use of the title “Second Esdras” in the Septuagint for Ezra-Nehemiah combined would suggest that the two were originally one work. Because of the striking similarity of 2 Chronicles 36:22 and Ezra 1:1–4, Chronicles too may have been part of the larger volume. However, a fifteenth century division definitely established “Nehemiah” as a book in its own right. If once it was part of the trilogy of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, then the date can be easily ascertained. The genealogy of David extended six generations beyond Zerubbabel (1 Chron. 3:15–24). Allowing 30 years for each generation, there is a total of 180 years which, when subtracted from Zerubbabel’s date, gives us 340 B.C. as the earliest possible date of the writing. Mention of Jaddua as high priest in Nehemiah 12 is an aid to approximating the date since Josephus reports that Jaddua was high priest at the time of Alexander the Great, about the year 332 B. C.

Historical Setting

Though once mighty under Nebuchadnezzar (605–562 B.C.), the Babylonian empire reached a state of weakness and decay when Nabonidus became so engaged in his study of ancient history and archaeology that affairs were neglected and the kingdom itself was entrusted to his son Belshazzar. This aided the benevolent Cyrus of Persia in continuing his successes until in 539 B.C. he conquered even Babylon. By decree of Cyrus, conditioned upon their payment of taxes and continued loyalty, many Jews were then able to return to their homeland.

It was because of the policy set by Cyrus and continued by his successors that both Ezra and Nehemiah were able to return home during the reign of a certain Artaxerxes. With Artaxerxes I dated in 464–423 B.C., a seventh year return of Ezra (Ezra 7:8) and a twentieth year return for Nehemiah (Neh. 2:1) would place the returns at 458 B.C. and 444 B.C., while Ezra may have returned in the seventh year of Artaxerxes II, or 397 B.C. Thus the tradition of return would be reversed with Nehemiah having preceded Ezra.

Nehemiah was contemporary with the high priest Eliashib (Neh. 3:1) while Ezra was contemporary with Johanan (Ezra 10:6) who was Eliashib’s grandson (Neh. 12:22). The Elephantine Papyri from the little island at the first cataract of the Nile point to 408 B.C. as the time when Johanan filled the priestly office. Sanballat was governor of Samaria during Nehemiah’s time (Neh. 6), while possibly his descendants were Ezra’s thorns (Ezra 2–6). Nehemiah 12:26 actually names Ezra after Nehemiah and while Nehemiah’s work was to rebuild the walls, there is some evidence that Ezra found them already rebuilt (Ezra 4:12; 9:9). Ezra found many people in Jerusalem while Nehemiah seems to have arrived there before things were built up very much (Neh. 7:3, 4). All of this would suggest that there was no chronological intent in the biblical arrangement of Ezra before Nehemiah.

But one must not be hasty in concluding that the chronology of Nehemiah-Ezra is established fact. It is still a matter of needed research. The Elephantine material which has played such a prominent part in the discussions is itself inconclusive. In a critical note on “Hanani-Hananiah,” C. G. Tuland of the University of Chicago (Journal of Biblical Literature, 77, June, 1958, pp. 157–161) makes a good case for equating the Hanani of papyri 30, 31, with the Hananiah of Nehemiah 1:2; 7:2, Nehemiah’s brother. Should this be true, it would again place Ezra prior to Nehemiah since the date of Hanani of Elephantine was 445–419 B.C. Furthermore, if the ministries of Ezra-Nehemiah were under an Artaxerxes of two periods, it is strange that the author did not distinguish them to avoid confusion. It is doubtful also that Ezra found the “walls” already built, for the word for that which Ezra found was “gader” (fence). The wall which Nehemiah rebuilt is generally spoken of by the term “chomah.” The question is far from settled.

Content

Perhaps the book can best be comprehended through a three-fold division: A. Survey of Jerusalem’s Walls and Initiation of Work (chaps. 1; 2); B. Building the Walls (chaps. 3–6); C. Preparation for a Great Revival (chaps. 7–13).

A. Survey of Jerusalem’s “Walls and Initiation of Work, Chapters 1; 2.

Through Hanani his kinsman, Nehemiah received word of the destruction of Jerusalem’s walls (1:1–4). It must have been a recent catastrophe, for certainly Nehemiah would not have broken into grief for walls that had been destroyed over a hundred years ago. Perhaps the walls, rebuilt with the temple in 516

B. C., had been newly attacked by Jerusalem’s troublesome neighbors.

His response through an earnest prayer of confession and petition speaks well for the character of Nehemiah. “To whom one prays” is to be identified as Yahweh, the covenant God (1:5). “How we should pray” (1:6), and for “what we should pray” (something specific) is to be seen in Nehemiah’s request that the Lord grant him success and mercy in the eyes of Artaxerxes concerning this important matter (1:11).

Because of faithfulness to his master, and under the guiding hand of God (2:8), Nehemiah received both the king’s blessing and the grant of some materials for his journey and mission. Upon arrival in Jerusalem, he began his work in interesting fashion.

To avoid arousing both external and internal opposition, Nehemiah surveyed the Jerusalem situation at nighttime. His was an effort to count the cost involved, and then at the right moment he would make the announcement of his task. A premature announcement could have hampered what he felt deeply to be God’s mission.

Nehemiah’s strategy was to stimulate the “initiative” of the people (2:17–18) by showing what was needed, and then wait until they themselves responded with the desire to build. With the support of his people, Nehemiah was ready for opposition (2:19–20), for he knew that the cause was right (tsedaqah), which implies that Sanballat’s was not (2:20). Furthermore, the cause would not fail, for it was God’s and not man’s (2:20a).

B. Building the Walls, Chapters 3–6.

Superficially reading the names of the peoples who participated in the work, one finds the pattern a little monotonous. However, chapter three is a specimen of a division of labor and efficient cooperation. The completion of the task through the harmonious labor of so many individuals and groups speaks well for Nehemiah’s ability as a genuine leader. The contagiousness of a fine spirit is evident. When the example was set of repairing that part opposite one’s house, others followed the pattern (3:28, 29).

A willingness to work nullifies neither obstacles nor opposition. Nehemiah’s opposition presented itself in three ways: (1) External ridicule and conspiracy (chap. 4). Fearing their inability to control a walled city, Sanballat and his followers engineered a conspiracy that spread. But the turbulency of the hour was overcome through prayer (4:4), work (4:6), the cognizance of a noble goal (4:14), and through alertness (4:17). (2) Internal dissension (chap. 5). The difficulty of the work had already caused some to become faint-hearted (4:10), and the spark of complaint soon grew to a flame hitting against the task where it hurt most, namely, the people’s material means. They cried that the project was too costly (5:1 ff.). Complaint about financial affairs was increased by exorbitant interest rates charged by the wealthy class (5:4 f.). Discontent was more intense because of wives within the homes who were not dedicated to the necessity of their own important task (5:1). (3) Active opposition to the leader (chap. 6:1–14). The effort of Sanballat and Tobiah to stop the work soon gave way to a personal attack upon Nehemiah. The methods they used are the same employed today: deceit (6:2), feigned friendship (6:7), and the fabrication of false charges for the purpose of ruining Nehemiah’s reputation.

But the work was of God and so the project, started in the beginning of August, was completed in September (6:15). Less than one year had passed since in November of the previous year Nehemiah had received the very distressing news (1:1).

C. Preparation for a Great Revival, Chapters 7–13.

A sense of responsibility to consolidate the opportunities in a revived commitment to the covenant law resulted from the successful conclusion of the project. That the accomplishment of the building task was accompanied by a recognition of divine providence is to be seen in the part which various activities played in revival effort.

The recovered census of 7:5 is approximately the same as that of Ezra 2:1–70. Both for the purpose of ascertaining the population and dwelling of the city’s residents and of securing the purity and separateness of the new community (7:4, 5, 73), a new enrollment was needed.

Though placed with the book of Ezra in early Greek editions, chapter eight is more properly placed here just as one finds it in the Hebrew. The chronology involved is uncertain. It is the “seventh” month of which year? Had Nehemiah a long ministry before Ezra appeared, or was there a recall of Ezra from retirement? What consideration should be given to the fact that many scholars regard the three contexts where Nehemiah and Ezra appear together as suspect (Neh. 8:9; 12:26; 12:36)?

At any rate, the words of the book commanded great reverence, so much so that the people stood (8:5) for a half day (8:3) to be reminded of its demands. Through the tediousness of a translation (8:8) they were attentive (8:3). Much reverence had been learned through the hardness of the years.

Such a conviction of their negligence ensued that sorrow was accompanied by a revival of the Feast of Tabernacles (8:14), the ancient festival commemorative of God’s providence (Lev. 23:34 f.). With this time of repentance (8:9; 9:1), their wise leader seized upon the occasion to remind them that repentance could lead to joy (8:11 f.).

Lest the occasion be but a passing emotion, Ezra took this as an opportunity for an historical reminder of God’s dealing with them. Major events of significance in Israel’s covenant history were reviewed. Israel’s theology was summarized as she was confronted with creation (9:6), election (9:7), redemption (9:9), covenant (9:13), providence as seen in the gift of Canaan (9:15), sin as viewed in the rebellion of the monarchy (9:26), judgment as stressed by the time of exile (9:27), and grace as represented by the fact that they were once again in the promised land (9:31). So graphic was the presentation that a renewed covenant was made. That this time of commitment was widespread can be ascertained from the fact that groups symbolic of all the peoples signed the covenant pledge. There were civil (10:1), religious (10:2 f.), and lay leaders (10:14 f.). This commitment bore fruit in work and spirit as evidenced by the resettlement of land and by the enlistments of the various registers as recorded in chapters 11 and 12.

Often the repentance of men is shallow and at times short. Thus, upon Nehemiah’s return to Persia (13:6) impurity developed in religion and life. Fearless man of conviction that he was, Nehemiah returned and manifested his godly concern and righteous indignation through the expulsion of the impure Tobiah (13:4–9), the restoration of levitical support (13:10–14), Sabbath reforms (13:15–22), and thorough mixed marriage reforms (13:23–29).

Did ever a man work so diligently to accomplish reforms that would be pleasing to the living and righteous God of Israel? Regardless of loss of personal popularity Nehemiah worked hard and diligently to remove disobedience from the hearts and lives of the Israelites. Certainly he had cause to anticipate that God should remember him (13:31).

Bibliography

Introductions and commentaries of diverse backgrounds have much to offer: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (International Critical Commentary), by Loring W. Batten; Introduction to the Old Testament, II, by Aage Bentzen; Ezra and Nehemiah (Cambridge Bible), by H. E. Ryle, and An Introduction to the Old Testament, by Edward J. Young. Other helpful sources are the following: “The Date and Personality of the Chronicler,” Journal of Biblical Literature (40, 1921, 104–124), by W. F. Albright; A History of Israel, by W. O. E. Oesterley and Theodore H. Robinson; “The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah,” The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays in the Old Testament, by H. H. Rowley; and “Hanani-Hananiah,” Journal of Biblical Literature (77, 1958, 157–161), by C. G. Tuland.

RALPH H. ELLIOTT

Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

A local incident is fairly representative of a situation developing throughout the nation. The council of the PTA, concerned about juvenile delinquency, publicly demanded that certain magazines be withdrawn from the newsstands because, it alleged, they were demoralizing, particularly in their sex emphasis. The city’s daily newspaper gave editorial approval, saying, “We think the PTA members who have shown initiative in helping to make our city a decent place for children and young folk are deserving of support by every parent.” In response to this pressure the agency handling sales banned 25 men’s magazines of the “girlie type.”

Immediately several professors in the law school of a large university in the community protested the extra-legal proceeding. On a single day 300 students of the university signed a protest, similar to that of their professors, urging that such censorship over reading matter available on the newsstands violated the freedom of the press. They asked that it be discontinued. These opponents insisted: “An axe has been used where a scalpel was appropriate; freedom of the press is one of the most important and most deeply cherished of our constitutional rights; a publication is not obscene just because it is offensive to some persons; the magazines in question have not been legally proven obscene in a single instance; if obscene magazines are appearing, there are legal means to deal with them, rather than the haphazard and untrained judgment of a small private group.” The opponents concluded their argument thus: “We prefer to trust in the traditional orderly processes of government to determine such delicate and complex questions rather than to rely on even a public-spirited pressure group.”

An effort was made to provide for a public hearing, with both sides presenting their views, but the PTA council declined to have anything to do with it. Could it have been that their opponents had convinced them they were wrong? Or that they discovered somewhat to their chagrin that after all the banned magazines were read mainly by adults? Or that the sales agency intimated that it expected soon to resume distribution?

Some Salient Facts

Without presuming to pass upon the merit or demerit of this local action, perhaps we may use the occasion to point up some pertinent considerations.

First, it is true, according to Senator Estes Kefauver, who has seen the evidence, that some of the most objectionable publications and photographs are distributed to children, even mailed to them. Further, it must be observed that immense numbers of people in the United States are becoming attentive to what seems to be an alarming growth of pornographic publications.

The Postmaster General, who holds the high responsibility of passing upon what is mailable, is reported as about to ask Congress for a stiffer law. The law now reads: “Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, printing or other publication of an indecent character … is hereby declared to be nonmailable matter, and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any postoffice or by any letter carrier.” Law enforcement agencies complain that they are only partly able to restrict the distribution of “printed filth.” Why? Must enforcement always await formal complaint?

Special Agent Charles E. Moore Jr. of the FBI says: “Local action by church and civic groups is the surest way to put smut salesmen out of business and rid newsstands and drug stores of obscene publications.” Obviously this suggests use of free speech rather than forcible control. It should be accepted to mean, however, that churches and civic groups not only have the right of free speech to express opinion but have a duty in helping to form a moral public opinion by their exercise of that right, especially in respect to evil license.

Actually the problem is by no means new. It is as old as civilization. Censorship was demanded in ancient Greece and Rome. It has been a major weapon of autocratic governments from the days of the Caesars to the latest example of the Communist dictatorship which prohibited Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago. It was the chosen instrument of a church in the Inquisition and remains in force with that authoritarian church in respect to dress, printing, drama, and painting, and much else, so much so that the church is accused of telling a man what he can think, what tastes he shall cultivate, and how he must behave along all lines, except drinking and gambling.

Perhaps the loudest and most lasting protest against censorship in respect to printing was made in 1644 by John Milton. Milton addressed his Areopagitica to the English Parliament against a decree of the Star Chamber that all printing should be entrusted to the Archbishop, the Bishop of London, and the Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge. The practical effect was to give Archbishop Laud absolute control over every press in England. He used his authority after the manner of the papists whose practices were most detested by the Presbyterian Government of the time.

Milton’s masterpiece is strong meat, likely too strong to be palatable to many people. In it he declared that the attempt to keep out evil doctrine by censorship is “like the exploit of that gallant man who thought to pound up the crows by shutting the park gates.” He reminds his readers that ideas are spread as effectively by word of mouth as by the use of printing. He argues that censorship, if attempted over printed matter, to become effective must be extended to apply to garb, pastimes, eating, in fact to almost everything. Moses, Daniel, and Paul and the Church Fathers, he claimed, by precept and example, enjoined freedom in the pursuit of knowledge. Milton ended with a paean to England which through freedom of the press had come to be recognized as “a nation not slow and dull, but of a quick, ingenious and piercing spirit.” In a final burst he prayed, “Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely, according to conscience, above all liberties.”

The American Tradition

The founders of our Republic, steeped in Milton and resentful of the arbitrary proscriptions of a Laud, wrote into the first article of the Bill of Rights a guarantee for the freedom of utterance. We are not shocked when we read that Thomas Jefferson, on being informed that a book has been suppressed, exclaimed:

I am really mortified to be told that in the United States of America a fact like this can become a subject of inquiry, and of a criminal inquiry too, as an offense against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the Civil Magistrates. Is this our freedom of religion? Are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold and what we may buy? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or a layman, simple as ourselves, to set up his reason for what we are to read and what we must believe?

It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not.… For God’s sake let us hear both sides, if we choose.”

A Spiritual Approach

Desperate situations require desperate remedies. If pornography is regnant anywhere, interested citizens should consult the district attorney. They should, even before resorting to court action, endeavor to take all possible positive steps without the use of force. An influential Christian magazine editor advises that our real reliance must be upon spiritual disciplines which produce “a sensitized conscience.” A home counselor asks if those whose children are susceptible to corruption from salacious literature have provided an abundance of attractive wholesome literature for their homes. A pastor advocates adequate church libraries with a promotion of the offerings that will win readers. The churches should, he says, seek a power of persuasion and enlistment that will induce high standards and produce good taste. Their task is to teach youth to approve that which is excellent. Others have worked at maintaining a joyous social program that is Christian.

It is of the utmost importance that Christians try to see life whole, and not fatuously imagine that youth is lost through a single evil. An educator of wide experience recently declared that if one should today single out a sole factor in the creation of sex sins, it would be the scanty dress which obtains in Christian homes as well as in those that are godless. Another thinks that reading, which according to reports is now at a minimum, is far less corrupting than what is served upon screen and television. These opinions, and many others that might be quoted, add up to the conviction that home training, effective evangelism, and Christian education must confront the evil elements in our society and overcome evil with good.

Curiously enough censorship, whether operating openly or behind the scenes, whether officially constituted or asserted by self-appointed groups, has usually tended to ignore flagrant moral infractions and gravitated toward suppression of political policy on religious heresy. Generally censors have been notorious for partisanship and arbitrariness and almost universally hated for a ruthless disregard of human rights and freedoms. Who, then, is qualified to serve as a censor? Is Cato or any of his ilk anywhere? It is the arrogation of individuals or groups who assume superior ability and authority to become guardians of people’s choices and behavior, according to private canons, that arouses resentment. Democracy usually refuses to tolerate such. It is free, however, to give judgments on all matters without setting up committees to impose individual views on others apart from due process of law.

END

Dr. Joseph M. Dawson has served Southern Baptist causes effectively for more than half a century. Born in 1879 in Texas, he received the B.A. degree in 1904 from Baylor University which also conferred on him the D.D. in 1916. Dr. Dawson was cited in 1955 by Protestants and Other Americans United for his contributions to religious liberty. He is author of America’s “Way in Church, State and Society.

The National Council of Churches has promoted 10 books on social ethics. Sponsored by its Department of the Church and Economic Life, the project was launched 10 years ago under a large subsidy from the Rockefeller Foundation. Most of these books now also appear in popularized paperback summaries.

A member of the NCC’s General Board has suggested purchase of these books as gifts to church libraries. His endorsement describes the 10 volumes as “tremendously effective tools for your Christian work—the product of nine years of research by top economists, theologians, political scientists and psychologists.… You will find in these books invaluable insight … for use in all your efforts at guiding men toward that larger understanding which we know to be so essential to their effective Christian living.”

Other Christian leaders have taken exception on the ground that some of the volumes reflect left wing social philosophies. An influential layman has described the NCC’s promotion of this series of volumes on “The Ethics and Economics of Society” as “one of the boldest attempts to use the church for the purpose of disseminating the Collectivist philosophy that I have so far run across.”

CHRISTIANITY TODAY has sought an objective verdict on this series of studies by inviting 10 leaders to submit 350-word reviews with an eye on the presuppositions of these volumes. The several books are not lacking in individual differences. But the reviewers are in general agreement that the underlying bias of the series favors the “New Deal society” against a limited government, free enterprise, private property philosophy, even though this thesis is resisted in some of the volumes.—ED.

Goals Of Economic Life

Goals of Economic Life, edited by A. Dudley Ward (Harper, 1953, 470 pp., $4), is reviewed by J. Howard Pew, Director, Sun Oil Company, and President of the Trustees of the Foundation of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

Launched by the old Federal Council of Churches some years ago, this book, Goals of Economic Life, supposedly to determine to what extent our economic system is consistent with Christian principles, provides the introduction to the whole series of books on ETHICS AND ECONOMICS OF SOCIETY. It contains 15 essays, each by a different author taking his own approach to the subject, be it that of a philosopher, social scientist, biologist, anthropologist, economist, psychologist, or theologian. Such rarified atmosphere makes for strange observations which often fail to check with either Christianity or sound economics.

But the National Council takes cover in assuming no responsibility. Charles P. Taft makes this unequivocally clear in his Foreword to the book: “The National Council of Churches has taken no official position and assumed no responsibility regarding the content of any of the volumes.” This is tenuous cover, indeed, when it is stated specifically in the Introduction that the 15 authors were selected “with an eye to the requirements of the project …,” and in view of the aggressive promotion given to the “project” by the National Council.

Can the National Council sidestep responsibility so easily? It is incredible that a business man of integrity could or would hold himself aloof from any responsibility for the wares he produces or sells. By that same token it is incredible that the National Council can hold itself aloof from even a quasi endorsement of the authors’ theses which—give or take some points here and there—seem colored by Kremlin instructions to Party workers in our country to cast doubt on the efficacy of the free market system of economics and to advocate measures which would substitute government control or ownership for private control and ownership of property, and in other ways regulate the lives of its citizens. Such would be a sad day for freedom and Christianity. To this much of the world today gives dramatic testimony.

The final chapter—the summation and Statement of conclusions—was left to the skillful pen of Reinhold Niebuhr, but who, according to an earlier statement by his colleague, John C. Bennett, “follows the Marxist pattern in his political thinking.…”

Such Marxist overtones seep insidiously through the whole book. It lacks Christian motivation. It lacks a realistic understanding of the relationship between the Christian ethic and economics. And it is my conviction, in contradistinction to the statist philosophy that emerges from its pages, that Christianity and freedom are inexorably tied together, and the free market is but one of freedom’s parts.

Organizational Revolt

The Organizational Revolution, by Kenneth E. Boulding (Harper, 1953, 286 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Dr. Hudson T. Armerding, Dean, Gordon College.

This work is a descriptive and analytical study of the organizational revolution which today is of compelling significance. The author, an economist, demonstrates competence as a social scientist by his balanced and perceptive treatment of the subject. Despite the sponsorship by the National Council of Churches, Professor Boulding asserts that he writes in this volume as an individual, not as a spokesman. Inclusion in the text of verbatim comments by his critics supports his assertion that he is contributing to a discussion.

With the descriptive material there can be little disagreement. Some of the author’s analyses, however, are controversial, for his assumptions are those of the so-called classical economist. He insists, for example, that to the capitalists in their corporate activity should go the credit for the Western world’s economic development, including the improved status of labor. This is a viewpoint too little articulated today, but one bound to be vigorously challenged.

In attempting to explain the causes of the organizational revolution, Professor Boulding stresses the interaction of society and its environment. This, he believes, has become dynamic because of technological advance, particularly in communications, and not primarily because of a response to social needs. According to the author, sanctions governing group behavior locate primarily in human or social imperatives with the distinctive tenets of Christianity adjudged too intensely personal to be effective for organizations or groups. This apparent failure of the author to utilize Christian perspectives is nowhere more evident than in his suggested solutions to the major problems of the organizational revolution. In endorsing a limited world government as a practicable expedient to resolve the organizational dilemma, he does not even speculate upon what part the return of Christ or the establishment of the kingdom of God might play in this process.

The contribution of this study to the perspective of the Church, therefore, will be determined largely by the wisdom and skill with which informed Christians utilize such materials in relating revelational truth to the contemporary scene.

Social Responsibilities

Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, by Howard R. Bowen (Harper, 1953, 276 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by the Rev. Edmund A. Opitz of the senior staff of the Foundation for Economic Education.

Readers of this book may feel that businessmen are unwarrantedly lumped together as a class, and then singled out as the group in our society most in need of reformation. If they do, their suspicions are not without foundation. In effect, this book asks businessmen (to paraphrase the old leading question), “When are you going to start behaving responsibly?” If they were to protest the impropriety of starting an inquiry with an accusation, Dr. Bowen would inform them that, “In general, Protestant thinkers are … suspicious of arguments used by businessmen that their power is being used—or will be used—benevolently and point out the frequent proclivity of men in a given social class to hold views consistent with the interests of their class” (p. 35). The men in the dock are presumed guilty, and no testimony in their own behalf, it is alleged, can rise above mere special pleading.

This hardly qualifies as fair play. There are scoundrels in every walk of life, and virtue is not limited to the professions. The producer of honest goods and services has a vocation which doesn’t suffer by comparison with any other. Moreover, no businessman is just that and nothing else. Like most of the rest of us he functions in many capacities; as a citizen, a husband, a father, a churchman, a neighbor, second clarinet in the town band, coach of his son’s Little League team, and so on. In each of these roles he acts as a responsible person, trying to meet the moral, aesthetic, and legal demands that are made upon him. He is the same many-sided person when he enters his place of business. In his role as a businessman he manufactures some item, such as men’s suits; or runs a store selling a variety of merchandize; or operates a service, such as a garage or laundry. In no one of these pursuits does the businessman consult merely his own inclinations, as if they were hobby activities; he tries to form an estimate of the economic needs and wants of other people which he might be in a position to fulfill on a voluntary exchange basis.

As a result of his work, goods and services appear on the market in competition with all other products available to the buying public. If he wins customers, he prospers and makes a profit while they enjoy goods and services not otherwise available to them. The sum total of human satisfactions is increased, and no one is enriched at the expense of anyone else. But sometimes the customers turn in a negative verdict; there are no sales, and consequently no profits. In such a situation some businessmen have turned to government for a monopolistic grant of privilege—in which case they cease, in strict definition, to be businessmen. If Dr. Bowen understood the distinction between monopolist and businessman he might have written a more valuable book.

Income And Its Use

American Income and Its Use, by Elizabeth Hoyt, Joseph McConnell, Janet Hooks, and Margaret Reid (Harper, 1954, 362 pp., $4.00), is reviewed by Donald Grey Barn-house, Editor, Eternity Magazine.

American Income and Its Use maintains that the Christian Church should utilize the strengths of capitalism and the welfare state to formulate a practical, working compromise which will benefit society in general.

This volume contains five studies: “The Ethics of Consumption,” by Elizabeth E. Hoyt, Professor of Economics, Iowa State College; “Distribution of Income and Consumption,” by Margaret G. Reid, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago; “The Changing Family and Its Dependents,” by Joseph L. McConnell and Janet M. Hooks, both of the University of Illinois; “Conclusion: What Lies Before Us,” by Dr. Hoyt; and “Ethical Aspects of Income Distribution and Consumption,” by Walter G. Muelder, Dean of Boston University School of Theology.

The writers of this book believe that private wealth should serve the best interests of society. They do not believe that this can be achieved, however. They recognize the weaknesses of state socialism, and they do not believe that laziness should be encouraged, nor incentive destroyed.

Dr. Muelder sums up the study thus: “An adequate Christian stewardship, with a philosophy of vocation, recognizes the spiritual significance of detachment, non-possessiveness, and even renunciation, but it proceeds from a new motive and a vision of inclusive community responsibility. There is a need to restore the awareness that even man made things come ultimately from God. There is a need to see the diversity of gifts and talents in men in terms of the mutual service which all can render” (p. 317).

According to Dr. Muelder, the theological basis of this approach is the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Herein, I believe, lies the weakness of this book. The problems of the world arise not primarily from a faulty view of economics but from man’s faulty relationship to God. Although this view of the Christian social ethic aims at a Christian goal, nevertheless any attempt to build a better world with inferior material is bound to fail. The primary purpose of the Christian community is to so live before men that they see us as a people redeemed by Jesus Christ. Only thus can men know the true Fatherhood of God and exercise the true spirit of brotherhood.

Christian Values

Christian Values and Economic Life, by Howard R. Bowen, John C. Bennett, William Adams Brown, Jr., and G. Bromley Oxnam (Harper, 1954, 272 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Harold J. Ockenga, Minister, Park Street Church, Boston, Massachusetts.

This is the last of a series of treatises purporting to set forth a Protestant economic ethic, to be used as a standard in attempting to solve the complex problems resulting from our rapidly changing social institutions. The authors reaffirm commitment to the value and integrity of the individual, the character of government as a tool for service of the people and the capacity of human life for essential decency and justice. A sincere interest in human welfare, in avoiding totalitarianism, and in being Christian marks the work throughout. The reader (and I read the entire book) is impressed with the desire of the authors to grapple with difficult problems and to apply permanently valid Christian principles.

These principles are declared to be “a religious perspective, a sensitive concern for the human consequences of all economic behavior, a spirit of dedication and self-criticism.” The biblical doctrine of the depravity and hence the selfishness of the human race is lightly referred to and the biblical admonitions about the responsibility of wealth are emphasized. Responsibility corresponding to power of unions, management, farmers and government is recommended.

The authors all believe government must take a large responsibility and initiative in controlling and directing the economic life of the nation. Basic is their belief that the people have given a mandate to government to prevent a serious depression, to control inflation, to relieve unemployment, to set a subsistence support to the family unit, to care for the aged, to maintain educational opportunities.

Lack of faith in the law of supply and demand, in the self-regulating power of a free market, in the processes of capitalism, is evident. Large graduated income taxes are advocated even in a peace economy to enable the government to more equally distribute income and to lift the level of the masses. The profit motive as such is not condemned except when disproportionate to other motives and interests. Equalitarianism of incomes is repudiated in the interest of initiative, but stress is placed on social responsibility. The authors lean upon government regulation, control and direction of economic life to right the wrongs of society under Christian idealism. The work is critical of capitalism, but affirms belief in modified capitalism. This modified capitalism gives large place to the state in the economic order. But Christianity is identified with no form of social order.

The governing view is that of the social gospel stemming from Walter Rauschenbush. Personal evangelism is associated with laissez-faire capitalism. The book’s preoccupation is with the brotherhood of man, social justice, and labor’s rights. We cannot take exception to the application of the Christian ideal in a changing society, but can ask, what is this ideal? This whole study lacks the lift and incentive of “the eternal view.”

The resulting impression of the book is that though the authors repudiate socialism by name, they lay the groundwork for socialism in their resort to the state’s activity in the economic order. At best we have here no answer to socialism or communism or fascism.

The American Economy

The American Economy—Attitudes and Opinions, by A. Dudley Ward (Harper, 1955, 199 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by the Rev. Irving E. Howard, Christian Freedom Foundation.

The main drive of the classical economists was to find laws written into the nature of things which govern economic activity in the same inexorable fashion as the laws of physics and chemistry. In their search for these laws, they leaned heavily upon deduction, but not without observing the activity of the marketplace.

The reaction against the classical school provoked an inductive approach to economics which stimulated the gathering of statistics. This has made a worth-while contribution to the understanding of economics, but it has been carried to excess. All “fact finding” is useless unless the facts are interpreted, but the interpreter of facts must first select his facts from the overwhelming mass, and then he must interpret them. In both activities he is guided by some given philosophy. Knowledge is never arrived at by “fact finding” alone.

Nevertheless, the pretense of “going to the facts” and being “completely objective” became popular in the so-called “social sciences.” The American Economy-Attitudes and Opinions by A. Dudley Ward is an example. The Reverend Ward, a Methodist minister and graduate of Union Theological Seminary, is now Executive Secretary of the Board of Social and Economic Relations of the Methodist Church. Director of Studies for this series on ETHICS AND ECONOMICS OF SOCIETY, he compiled this sixth volume which reports the results of individual interviews and group discussions in various parts of our country.

While the volume pretends to be a random sampling of public opinion, a collectivist social philosophy clearly lurks in the background. Social justice by means of government intervention and social injustice as a result of “laissez-faire capitalism” are the two alternatives that are suggested. For example, one group is reported as concluding: “The social order of the day tends to reward, at least economically, the dishonest.” The possibility of social cooperation and economic justice resulting from a genuinely free market is never raised. Questions used in the interviews and discussions were loaded. One questioner frankly reported: “It had never occurred to these people that there were tensions such as so many of the questions in the questionnaire suggest.”

The American Economy—Attitudes and Opinions is evidence that a purely inductive approach to social and economic problems is an impossibility. Pretending to be engaged in objective fact finding is an excellent way to mold opinion while the people so molded think they are coming to their own conclusions.

Business Ethics

Ethics in a Business Society, by Marquis W. Childs and Douglass Cater (Harper, 1954, 191 pp., $2.75), is reviewed by Maxey Jarman, Chairman of the General Shoe Corporation.

It is difficult to understand the purpose of this book. Published as part of a survey sponsored by the National Council of Churches, it apparently has as its general thesis that “the Social Gospel is being grounded in a deeper theology.” It does not clarify that deeper theology, nor does it bring into focus the ethical problems of a business society.

A large part of the book is made up of quotations from a miscellaneous group of writers and speakers. Since many of these quotations are necessarily given out of context, the original meanings are frequently obscure.

The authors apparently have no personal knowledge of the actual conduct of business or the ethical problems involved. Few of the many quotations are by men active in business affairs. The absence of definite proposals or recommendations or clear discussion of many real ethical problems that do arise in business produces confusion. For example, there are a number of statements of politicians and professors about a growing concentration of power in big business. Yet several references, including statistics, show that small business and the total number of individual businesses are growing at a faster rate than big business.

There is evidence of a much greater concern about the material side of life than the spiritual side. But, supposedly, the book is written from a religious point of view. An indication of the viewpoint might be drawn from this quote: “There is no tendency [by the National Council of Churches] toward an easy acceptance of … complete socialism.” Consider the implications of this statement.

The book is scholarly but disappointing and lacking in worth. It confuses rather than clarifies. It has many pious platitudes, but has no strong message.

Mass Communication

Responsibility in Mass Communication, by Wilbur Schramm (Harper, 1957, 392 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by V. Raymond Edman, President, Wheaton College (Illinois).

Out of wide experience in newspaper and research work this Stanford University professor has presented a realistic approach to the problem of mass communication in mid-twentieth century America, and a careful evaluation of solutions. After surveying the historical background of communications since Gutenberg’s fifteenth century press, he depicts the tremendous power that has now accumulated to mass communications. The problem of responsibility to control communication is accentuated by the very largeness of the media, their relative fewness, centralization, mechanization, and distance from the general public.

Historical experience has proposed four approaches to the problem of responsibility for communications. They are the old authoritarianism based on medieval concepts such as the divine right of kings and the authority of one church; and second, the newer authoritarianism such as communism or fascism which in reality exercise totalitarian control over every aspect of national life. These two philosophies are ruled out at once. The third is libertarianism with its eighteenth century laissez-faire doctrine in which “free market of ideas” is alleged as inevitably banishing error. Twentieth century conditions call for a review of this basic concept of freedom so as to maintain liberty and require responsibility.

After an excellent and well-documented discussion on ethics in mass communication, the major problem is faced: whose responsibility is it to preserve and to promote the freedom and corresponding responsibility of the press, radio, television, and movies? The government is the ready answer of some social planners. But Schramm declares this to be the worst possible solution. He states clearly: “Our kind of mass communication system will be more healthy if the government keeps its hands off as much as it possibly can.” The government’s responsibility is to promote the public interest, and not to augment its power. However, experience has shown that the government moves into areas of responsibility not assumed by others. A large measure of social control can be exercised by the public if it is alive, articulate, and discriminating.

The major responsibility is on the media of communications themselves. Self-regulations and self-imposed standards are quick ways for assuming increased responsibility; however, most self-imposed codes have evidenced only minor effectiveness. The “czar” of an industry like motion pictures is, of course, an employee. The development of professional attitudes is a slower method, but is more promising in the long run. While mass communications can hardly become a profession like medicine or law, it can personalize professional responsibility and develop attitudes and programs for deepened responsibility to the public. If the media and the people are indifferent to their responsibilities, or are unwilling and unable to assume them, sooner or later government will take over.

Spiritual values as such are largely overlooked in this thought-provoking volume. But there is the suggestion that our basic freedoms must have a religious basis. In discussing libertarianism, Schramm quotes Toynbee who declared that “in relinquishing our hold on Christianity, we have deprived our belief in freedom of its religious foundations.”

Organized Labor

Social Responsibilities of Organized Labor, by John A. Fitch (Harper, 1957, 237 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Gordon H. Clark, Professor of Philosophy, Butler University.

Under this title one would expect to find arguments imposing some moral obligations on organized labor, especially since the Introduction says that the inquiry is based on Christian assumptions. One’s expectation, however, is largely disappointed. A few mild criticisms of the labor movement are made in the last two chapters, but the bulk of the book is almost totally historical.

Furthermore, the Christian assumptions are discarded in chapter one. The author speaks of ethical concepts, not as the commands of God, but as the outgrowth of human experience. The basis of moral conduct is asserted to be the result of man’s search for an acceptable way of life. “Social responsibility, then, is a response to the generally accepted code of behavior … and a sense of obligation to its major and most firmly established principles” (p. 4). Thus majority opinion, with no norm by which to correct or oppose it, is substituted for divine revelation.

The majority opinion which controls the selection of historical detail and by which the concluding criticisms are made is largely the opinion of labor officialdom. Thus Charles P. Taft in the Foreword can assert that the labor revolution of the past years “has been accomplished without violence.” F. Ernest Johnson in the Introduction speaks of “the stern measures provided for in the Taft-Hartley Act.” The author in several places shows his hate of the Right to Work Laws. Religious scruples against unionism are to be “compromised” by extorting dues from the resentful worker but graciously allowing him to be absent from meetings (p. 70). Indeed, one gets the impression that the author disallows all rights of minorities. He also admits (p. 46) that in President Truman’s 1945 conference the unions refused to specify a single area within which management decisions could not be questioned.

The author quotes Walter Reuther with apparent approval: “We have to assume ever increasing social responsibilities.” These include all national politics, foreign affairs, and public education. Only a person for whom the unions can do no wrong, for whom official union opinion is the norm, can acquiesce in this bid for unlimited power.

Farm Leadership

Social Responsibility in Farm Leadership, by Walter W. Wilcox (Harper, 1956, 194 pp., $3), is reviewed by Horace H. Hull, President of Hull-Dobbs Enterprises, Inc., Memphis, Tenn.

About half the book under review deals with the general farm picture in America. The author quite accurately relates the history of price stabilization, “surpluses,” migratory workers, farm credit and soil conservation.

The second half of the book surveys the leading farm organizations and summarizes their policies. The largest, the American Farm Bureau Federation, stands for limited, constitutional government, and free market farming. It vigorously opposes price supports, subsidies and other government interventions. Its opposite is the Farmers Union, which supports the welfare state idea, calling it the “legislative economy.” This group recommends a political program of “immediate action to eliminate rural poverty and to solve the problems of low income farm families. As many of these families as wish to remain in farming should be enabled to do so through assistance of federal and state programs.…”Somewhere between these two organizations is the National Grange. An appendix is devoted to farmer cooperatives.

Now for the ethics of the book. “Equity,” writes the author, “is perhaps the most important of the ethical considerations which have shaped our economic institutions, (although) such ethical norms as honesty, truth, and productivity also have left an indelible imprint.” Equity is defined as “even-handed impartiality.” Dr. Wilcox rightly regards equity as “a basic ethical goal in our society.” As the reviewer sees it, fair play as an ideal is based on the recommendation that all men in some aspects (but by no means all) are equal before God and the law.

However, there are those who have the conception that equality, fair play, and equity embrace a political redistribution of the economic spoils, a dividing of the wealth, the philosophy of “from one according to his ability to another according to his need.” The fact that these theses on social and economic life have been distributed under sponsorship of the National Council of Churches by no means guarantees the justice and equity of the pronouncements which some would beguile us into believing are true Christian principles. The effort to make us equal in a materialistic sense necessarily means the abandonment of fair play, justice, the rule of law and equity—both in concept and practice. Dr. Wilcox says as much, but hardly recognizes the implications. His first instance of how “considerations of equity come into play” deals with the effect of welfare state legislation.’some individuals, communities, and groups will gain,” he says, “if a proposed legislative or administrative action is taken; others will lose a part of their current economic advantages.”

Every piece of welfare state legislation is of this character: deliberately and on principle some people are hurt for the assumed benefit of other people. Such political action really denies the principle of equity. Nor is the principle restored by further political action which tosses a sop to the losers at the expense of a third group in society. This third group doesn’t like the short end of the deal either, and seeks redress by putting a fourth group at an economic disadvantage; and so it goes ad infinitum. We must indeed admit that this is the way things now are. But this is not the way things ought to be. “Injure no man” is the basic minimum of every sound moral code. Certainly, a religiously sponsored ethic for economic life must, at the very least, meet this minimum demand. The principle, “one man’s rights cease where he begins to trespass upon the rights of another,” is hardly subject to debate.

What good is the United Nations? Should a Christian support it? These two questions at the present time receive very different answers from Christian people.

One group is frankly and outspokenly antagonistic. The United Nations has no Christian basis, it is purely secular, and it is heading for world government. Therefore, the Western, so-called Christian nations, should pull out.

At the other extreme are people who hold quite a different view. To their way of thinking the United Nations is a bulwark of peace for it obliges the nations to discuss their mutual differences, and helps to bring better living conditions to the “have-nots” of the world. Christians, they hold, should support it wholeheartedly because it is doing what Christianity demands: practicing the love of one’s neighbor.

A Christian Criticism

Neither of these views, however, seem to be completely valid. The United Nations, like any other human institution, must be looked at critically from the Christian point of view. It has possibilities of great good, but it also has possibilities of great evil, so that one can never voice absolute praise or absolute condemnation. Rather one must endeavor to see its good points, its bad points, and even speak for points which might be improved.

Since the United Nations is primarily a political institution, we might begin our evaluation by recalling the Christian evaluation of political government in general. The basic biblical datum is that all civil government is the creation of God (Rom. 13:1 f.). It exists not for the purpose of preaching the Gospel or administering the sacraments but to maintain peace and justice, that men may be able to live upon this earth with at least a certain amount of personal and economic security. This is true of all governments, whether or not they recognize even the existence of God. An evil government usually is the result of evil in the body politic, but it is still the creation of God, subordinate to his purpose which is the working of his will to his ultimate glory.

Consequently, the Christian must recognize government, both his own and that of another country, as a divine creation existing under the rule of God. Concerning this, Paul exhorts (1 Tim. 2:1, 2) Christians to pray for their rulers that they may do that which is right for the preservation of peace. At the same time, however, the Christian has an obligation to oppose any attempt of the civil magistrate to go outside the proper bounds of his sphere of activity, that is, to interfere in spheres which pertain to other aspects of life, such as the church and the family. If these areas are intruded upon, the Christian then has the right and even the duty both passively and actively to resist, for his first duty is to obey Christ who is Creator and Lord over all spheres of life. Thus in spite of any threats of suffering or of death, the Christian’s duty is first to Him who is over all rulers and magistrates.

When we apply this touchstone to the United Nations, we must first of all ask what are the UN’s present objectives? By the charter of 1945 it appears that two basic purposes are involved: the maintenance of international equity and peace, if necessary by the use of force, and the solution of the nations’ economic, social, and cultural problems, without any infringement of national sovereignty. In both these fields the UN has so far achieved desired aims. With some success it has dealt with conflicts in Korea, the Near East and other areas, while at the same time it has exercised a beneficial influence in helping men to better their material position in this world. Thus although it has not done all that it might in either field, it has a number of accomplishments to its credit.

On the other hand it has also had its failures, as in the case of the Hungarian revolt; and there remains the danger of similar tragedies in the future. At the present time the UN is a forum for discussion, but if it contents itself with mere talk, or if one unprincipled group of nations should gain control it might well become an instrument of world-wide oppression. Even if this did not happen, but it simply degenerated into a sort of international Donneybrook Fair with every nation or small group of nations seeking its own advantage irrespective of the rights of others, it might become a monster powder keg which would bring destruction instead of peace and security. Like any other human organization it may deteriorate into a gigantic instrument of evil rather than of good. Until it does, however, one must take it as it is.

Negative And Positive

In this state of affairs, it would seem that the Christian’s attitude to the UN should be both negative and positive. He should oppose, for instance, any attempt of UNESCO to interfere in matters beyond its proper sphere of activity. He should be very distrustful of any motion on the part of the UN to interfere in a member country’s internal affairs. If the Western nations ever agreed to such actions, they would lay themselves wide open to UN intervention for the establishment of communism, should Russia and her satellites ever gain even a temporary majority. In other words, were the UN to become a super-state, it would be dangerous not only to national sovereignty but to individual human liberty.

At the same time the Christian should have a positive attitude towards this international parliament. He should not in any sense deny that the United Nations has achieved much for mankind generally. He should recognize that by the common grace of God it has and can continue to maintain a modicum of world peace. Similarly it has been instrumental in bringing material help to millions of people suffering from poverty, hunger, disease, and ignorance. Some have maintained that this has played into the hands of the Communists, but that is not the fault of the UN. Rather it is due to the lack of foresight by some of those who purport to lead the West.

Many Christians feel, of course, that there is still plenty of room for improvement, and with this most people, be they Christian or not, would heartily agree. Some believe that the first requirement is to force Russia and her allies to leave the UN. Others hold that a better idea would be to let Red China in so that she could speak for herself rather than have Russia act as her mouthpiece. There are plenty of other Communist nations in the UN, they maintain, so that there seems to be no reason for opposing the seating of Red China. Added to these assertions are the plans of the World Federalists and others who are seeking some changes in the United Nations’ charter.

The Believer’S Duty

What then is the Christian’s responsibility in all of this? It would seem that the ordinary Christian must realize that his first duty is to be as good a citizen as possible of his own country. What is more, he should realize that he is responsible to take an active part in his nation’s political life. He should endeavor to see that his country does its part and strives to act in a truly Christian way when dealing with others. This does not mean that he should favor the sentimentality and romanticism which often passes for Christianity in international relations, but rather he should call for firm realism which alone can see how Christian love may be made effective.

To be specific, he should oppose any attempt to hand over to the UN the responsibility for his nation’s defense. That is the national government’s responsibility which it cannot evade. Indeed, he should be very distrustful if, on the pretense of relying on the UN, the government should reduce its military forces to the point where defense would be impossible. This was what happened to the democratic powers in the 1930s with disastrous results, and it should not happen again. Only as the individual nations fulfill their obligations faithfully in matters of military preparedness will the UN be able to help maintain peace. In the economic and social spheres the same principles apply, for the UN can accomplish no more than the states composing it wish and are capable of accomplishing.

Yet in all of this the Christian has equally great responsibility in recognizing that Christ is still Lord over the United Nations. He has the duty of praying in faith for its leaders, the members of the Security Council—even the Russians—that they may do that which is just and true. Too often Christians are ready to criticize and carp, but they are completely unwilling to pray with heart and soul for those who hold in their frail hands the political, economic and physical destinies of the world’s people.

The Christian, on the other hand, may never place his ultimate trust and hope in human institutions, for none are absolute. They change and alter in the movement of time. Consequently, although the United Nations has the responsibility today of bringing peace that men may dwell together without fear, the Christian does not expect that, even under the most favorable circumstances, it will be entirely successful. Peace only comes when man truly has peace within, which means peace with God. For this reason, the Christian’s greatest contribution to the UN’s efforts toward peace is the bearing of a faithful witness to the grace of God in Christ. Yet even this will not bring perfect and absolute peace upon this earth, for that will come only when Christ has returned as Lord of lords and King of kings.

END

W. Stanford Reid is Associate Professor of History at McGill University, Montreal. He holds the Ph.D. degree from University of Pennsylvania. His published writings include the book Problems in Western Intellectual History Since 1950.

America is in the doldrums politically, morally, and spiritually. That fact is being brought home to us from all directions and can hardly be missed by anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear. Philip E. Jacob’s Changing Values in College for the academic world, William H. Whyte’s The Organization Man for the business world, Eugene Kinkead’s In Every War But One for the military world, and many other sources all point to the same low condition: conformity without conviction, ignorance of the most basic values of the American way of life, unconcern for one’s neighbor disguised under the name of tolerance. The political aspects of this condition are only too evident. Domestically we are without sense of direction or purpose. Internationally we are respected for our power but not for our ideals, and all the dynamism in this rapidly changing world lies with our ruthless and dedicated Communist adversaries. Threatened by lack of vitality inside and aggression outside, American democracy is in a critical condition.

How is it possible that our country with its vast natural resources, its large and educated population, its immense technological know-how, its stupendous economic power, its military competence demonstrated in two world wars, and its democratic and stable constitutional system could find itself in such a dreadful predicament? I submit that the answer lies with the progressive secularization of our national life which has eroded away much of the Christian foundation upon which American democracy was laid, upon which American democracy depends for its vitality and proper functioning, and without which we cannot successfully compete with Communists for the minds, hearts, and souls of the peoples who live behind the Iron Curtain and in the uncommitted parts of the world.

In the universally accepted Western sense, democracy means self-government, and self-government is expressed through majority rule for the common good and within the limits of minority rights and accepted constitutional procedures. Some political scientists might want to argue a little over some of the terminology used in this definition, but I know of none who would deny that it is correct enough in substance. Although this definition is a secular one, it has important theological presuppositions, and it is a serious indictment of the political science profession and of social scientists generally that they have been unaware of the existence of these presuppositions. The omission is the natural consequence of a secular education in an increasingly secularized society. Through textbooks, treatises, articles in learned journals, and classroom lectures, this omission is perpetuated and transmitted to the next generation of students, teachers, and practitioners of politics. As a result our explanations of democracy are inadequate and defenses unconvincing.

The Self At The Crossroads

When we speak of self-government, does it make any difference what kind of a “self” is doing the governing? This is a question which is seldom, if ever, asked by political scientists and politicians. Under the influence of social Darwinism with its key concept of the survival of the fittest, they have made national survival a matter of power pure and simple. It did not occur to them that perhaps some of these nations might not be fit to live. Even Woodrow Wilson, though he was a good Presbyterian and should have known better, did not ask it when he proclaimed his doctrine of national self-determination. Today this has become the most fundamental question in international relations, and the very survival of mankind depends upon it. The nearest public recognition of its importance is that provision of the United Nations Charter which limits membership in the U. N. to “peace-loving states,” and we know only too well that this provision is an aspiration and not a description. We faced this question in the reconstruction of Germany, Italy, and Japan after World War II. It confronts us every time a new state like Ghana and Guinea takes its place in the so-called “family of nations.” Like individuals, nations live by faith, and there are faiths like communism and fascism which are a threat to the world. To defeat them on the field of battle is sometimes impossible and sometimes too costly, but coexistence with them can give us a peace which is at best precarious and short.

Is there any way out of this dilemma? There is, and it can be summarized in one word: conversion. We must carry out the Great Commission. We must turn to Him who can make all things new and regenerate individuals and nations, for we are fast approaching the condition of widespread corruption and violence which was punished by the Flood. God is still a righteous God as in Old Testament times, and we may well be facing destruction once more, this time by the fire of nuclear energy. Like the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah and the ancient empires of Assyria and Babylon, all nations stand under divine judgment in spite of the modern—and pagan—notion that self-preservation is the first law of life. The first law of life should be restated thus: Whoever (whether individual or nation) would save his life shall lose it, and whoever would lose his life for Christ’s sake shall find it again.

The Spiritual Is Practical

Many people will object that this solution to our dilemma is impractical and far removed from the realities of world power politics. The objection is not well taken. What could be more impractical than building a democratic world order with Communist or Fascist member-states, or writing peace treaties if the signatories have no respect for the sanctity of engagements, or expecting a real public spirit from selfish and anti-social people, or trying to establish a regime of law among people who are not law-abiding? Political science is not creative but manipulative, and it is limited in its effectiveness by the defects of the human materials available to it. Reform depends on reformation, and the missionary must precede the statesman. Our real alternative, therefore, is this: convert your adversaries or perish with them.

We cannot bring the Gospel to other nations by putting ourselves in the position of the Pharisee unless we recognize our own unworthiness and emphasize that our message is not ours in the sense of something we have figured out of our own experience but of something which we hold by revelation from God through Christ and which we can communicate only under the direction of the Holy Spirit. We cannot take credit for the Gospel without becoming unjustifiedly and offensively self-righteous, thereby alienating others who will derive their idea of Christianity from the word of man instead of the Word of God and take us instead of Christ as the standard.

It is also necessary that we rededicate ourselves to the Gospel in order that our national life shall truly reflect the principles and the spirit of Christianity, for we too stand under divine judgment. Genesis makes it clear that sin (that is, alienation from God and therefore from man) lies at the heart of the problem. The meaning of sin in our national life is only too evident in our racial, class, and sectional conflicts. The solution requires, of course, that justice be done. But justice is not enough. The victory of unrighteous people over other unrighteous people, even in the name of righteousness, can result only in grief and greater evil. Reconciliation, which includes justice but goes far beyond it, is the Christian’s fundamental objective. The connection with American democracy is obvious because reconciliation is the prerequisite of community, and without community no democracy is possible.

The Lost Sense Of Guilt

Reconciliation is difficult in our society because secularism has all but wiped out the concept of guilt. Much is said about the deleterious psychological and social effects of a sense of guilt, but little about guilt itself because so many people do not believe in it. We have pretty well relegated guilt to criminal court proceedings where even the crassest relativist is forced to recognize it. What we are doing is to blame the symptoms and ignore the cause. Is it any wonder that a cure is not forthcoming? Only he who has caught a vision of God in his perfection, or has had a personal encounter with the radiant figure of Christ, or has measured himself in the light of the stringent standard of the Ten Commandments or the exacting requirements of the Sermon on the Mount can see something of the full extent of his sinfulness and therefore his guilt. Without an experience of this kind, it is impossible to know the meaning of guilt, however much we may suffer the consequences. It is one of the most insidious and devastating effects of secularism that it makes this kind of experience uncommon.

A Plea For Recovery

The survival of American democracy is thus intimately and inextricably bound up with the teachings of the Bible concerning sin and reconciliation because of the bearing of these teachings on the problem of community. Majority rule and minority acquiescence are morally valid and politically feasible only in community. Let community be destroyed, and they forthwith degenerate into a mere contest of strength. Moreover, majority rule in the United States is possible (and constitutional) only through representation. Here again Christianity is vitally involved since the quality of the candidates who are willing to run for office and to serve in it is religiously conditioned and the competence of the voters in recognizing quality is likewise religiously conditioned. Finally, what a man can accomplish in office is again conditioned by the same spiritual insight in himself and in those who elected him. Nations rise and fall with their spiritual level.

The only conclusion I can reach, therefore, is that the survival and proper functioning of American democracy demand a return to a truly evangelical Christianity nurtured in biblical truths, committed to Christ, and responsive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Such a return will give meaning and purpose to our nation, revitalize our democracy to the point where it will become attractive to the uncommitted peoples of the world, and supply us with the power to overcome Communist power. We must learn once more that money, political power, military force, and national prestige are only tools. Men and nations must use them but cannot live by them. The deepest level of existence is spiritual, and it is on that level that both the moral right and the actual ability to survive and to grow are determined. The political task of Christian statesmanship to which this basic truth points was concisely stated by a great evangelical Protestant, John Milton, in these words: “To make the people fittest to choose, and the chosen fittest to govern.…” (The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth.)

END

Rene de Visme Williamson has been Professor of Government at Louisiana State University since 1954, and is now Chairman of the Department of Government there. He holds the A.B. from Rutgers University, A.M. and Ph.D. from Harvard. He has served on the faculty of Princeton University, Davidson College, Beloit College, and Univ. of Tennessee.

Recent years have witnessed a new birth of interest in the theological aspects of the American Revolution. People of diverse theological positions have claimed the Declaration of Independence for their respective camps. Evangelicals have rejoiced to identify the origins of the nation with the historic Christian faith, while Unitarians and champions of even more radical positions claim the document as their own. Before a positive claim is laid by either group, it is important to assess the position of Jefferson and his associates in terms of the theological and philosophical outlook of the eighteenth century in the light of the twentieth century. Such an evaluation offers embarrassments to both parties. On the one hand, it is quite obvious that the Unitarianism of the eighteenth century, with its strong reverence for Jesus Christ and its devotion to the Christian ethic, is not that of our day, but on the other hand, it is also quite true that most of the leaders of the Revolutionary movement were not evangelicals.

Although nearly all of them were deeply indebted to the biblical heritage for their ethical and political philosophy, the long-cherished belief that the leaders of the American Revolution were evangelical Christians is open to serious question in the light of the theological and intellectual developments which had been taking place in the colonies after 1700. Deism and Unitarianism had been slowly but steadily gaining influence in the colonial mind since 1720, or so, and by 1776 they could claim a considerable following among the intellectual classes in most of the colonies. The identification of the Natural Rights philosophy with the cause of American independence gave to both Deism and Unitarianism a respectability in the eyes of many who would not necessarily agree with the basic theology of the more radical leaders of the Revolution. For this reason, in part at least, the more evangelical members of the Continental Congress of 1776 made common cause with those who desired separation from the mother country, although they had lost control of the movement for independence, for by 1776 the Deists and political radicals were firmly in control of the Continental Congress.

Thomas Jefferson, an avowed Unitarian, was one of the most outspoken critics of the historic faith, and opponent of the church of his day. His presumptuous attempt to edit the Gospel according to his own notions was equalled only by his contemptuous attitude toward Christian ministers, whom he accused of falsifying the simple teachings of Jesus by adding their own theological conceptions. His position, in general, was shared to varying degrees by such other leaders of the American Revolution as Benjamin Franklin, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and, for a time, John Adams. The extent to which Deism and Unitarianism gained the ascendancy among the intellectuals is open to question, but there is increasing agreement among students of the period that this intellectual revolt against historic Christian theology lay at the heart of the movement for political separation from England. The Declaration of Independence with its political, social, and economic implications could not become a reality and guiding force in American life until this religious and philosophical revolt had first taken place. Bernard Mosier is profoundly correct when he insists that the sovereign God of Calvinism was no less objectionable to the Deists and Unitarian architects of a new America than was the sovereign George III of England. But their revolt was not merely against Calvinism; evangelical Christianity in any form was distasteful to them.

The Revolt Against Christianity

The Deists rejected as untenable such vital doctrines as the infallibility of the Scriptures, original sin and total depravity, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the atonement and the resurrection. Following Hume, they banished the possibility of miracles in a world ruled by natural law, and looked to it as the final source and guarantee of truth. They were willing to grant to the Scriptures a relative authority to the extent to which they agreed with the laws of nature and conformed to the dictates of right reason. But they reserved the right to judge Scripture in the light of human reason.

Deism, with its religious corollaries, furnished the inspiration for the Revolutionary program. For the radicals, separation from England was not an end, but a means to an end. It was a necessary prerequisite for the realization of the true revolution which was a reconstruction of colonial life in a manner not possible so long as the colonies remained under English rule. It was their purpose to erect in the colonies not only a new nation, but a new society, democratic in its nature, which would reflect in its political, social, and economic life their basic assumptions.

The radicals desired a society dedicated to the sovereignty and goodness of man, for in it man would realize his native capacities. By the light of reason and with the aid of education, he will seek to do that good which he knows he must do. The Deists not only believed in the perfectability of human nature, but they were also quite optimistic concerning society at large, and were convinced that progress was not only possible, but inevitable. It was possible for mankind to achieve a millennial society on earth; Jefferson, and other architects of the American Revolution, were dedicated to this proposition.

It was not their intention to banish Christianity from the American scene, for, as we have seen, they actually held its ethical teachings in very high esteem, but it was their purpose to break the hold of the historic Christian theology on the political and social life of the American people. Jefferson was deeply convinced that only a liberal religion could offer the most favorable atmosphere for the realization of the democratic millennium. In a letter to John Adams, Jefferson ventured to voice the wish that every young American then alive would die a Unitarian.

It is thus obvious that this American dream was inspired by principles which were humanistic and even naturalistic. The society which the Deists envisaged was a far cry from the biblical view of the triumph of the kingdom of God. It was to be achieved by education and cultural progress rather than by regeneration and a final appearance of Jesus Christ. It looked to an earthly Utopia for the realization of human happiness and not a heavenly kingdom for the glory of God. Christianity was interpreted in terms of the democratic philosophy: what is Christian is democratic, and what is democratic must necessarily be Christian. This is tenable only if the Gospel is first shorn of all those elements which deny the basic assumptions of the democratic philosophy. This most dangerous premise has underscored the American dream from 1776 until now.

The Debt To Christianity

But the question remains to be answered: Are there any Christian elements in the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence, or might it be assigned, in toto, to the Deist camp? Does it owe its greatness to non-Christian sources, or may some of its continuing influence be traced to a biblical background? These are questions of great importance for all Christians who would seek to understand, and have the proper biblical attitude toward, the society of which they are a part. Devout Christians of that day were not unaware of these issues which confront us today, and some of them, like John Jay, consciously sought to curb the radical tendencies of the Revolutionary movement. Some leaders, like John Adams, later repudiated the earlier Deism and recoiled from the excesses of the Revolution itself.

Nature Or God?

In its assertion that human rights are derived from nature, and that government is of human origin, the Declaration of Independence was in serious error. It is quite obvious to the convinced Christian that men do not receive their rights from nature, but from God; and that all government is divinely ordained for the government of man and that it derives its just powers from God. It is equally clear that the belief in the right to revolution as it was set forth in 1776 is quite contrary to the Scriptures; also, Jefferson’s inclusion of happiness as a human right is much more compatible with pagan philosophy than with the Gospel. It may well be questioned whether happiness in this sense is a biblical concept. In respect to these points the Declaration of Independence can hardly be called Christian.

The Christian Tradition

Yet, after all of this has been admitted, it is equally clear that such a document could only have been drafted by those who were thoroughly at home in the Christian tradition. In its basic contention the Declaration of Independence stands squarely on a biblical foundation, for the Scriptures clearly set forth a doctrine of human rights—to life, liberty, property, and marriage. Such a conception of human personality is only tenable within a Christian frame of reference and flows naturally from the fact that God created man in his own image and laid on him certain basic creaturely obligations. Possessing the divine image and standing at the very head of creation as God’s vice-regent, man was given duties and responsibilities to his Creator which will call forth equivalent rights which God ordained to be the means by which man would fulfill his obligations as a creature.

Equally valid is Jefferson’s contention that government exists to defend these inalienable rights. When Jefferson penned the majestic phrases of this document, he was thundering forth to the twentieth, as well as to the eighteenth, century eternal truths which man rejects at his peril; for these propositions are derived from the Scriptures, and are a part of that infallible rule of faith and practice which He was pleased to give to his creatures.

The Failure Of The Deists

The Deists tried to maintain the ethical fruits of the Gospel while they divorced them from their metaphysical and theological foundations. At this point they committed their most serious errors. Convinced that the great scientific discoveries of their day had rendered any belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures impossible, they sought to separate the practical Christian life from its setting in the Scriptures as the only infallible revelation of God, and to find for it a more sure foundation in natural law and the dictates of human reason. They failed to realize that this natural law philosophy would, in turn, crumble in the face of the new scientific theories of the nineteenth century, and that those very human rights which they sought to strengthen would, in turn, fall victim to the naturalism, utilitarianism, and hedonism which would replace the Deistic conception of right reason. Still less could they foresee the philosophic nihilism of the twentieth century and the rise of those political despotisms which would make a mockery of all those values which they held dear.

Evangelicals And Government

One additional question presents itself. To what extent has the Declaration of Independence become the guiding influence in the life of the American people? The answer is found in the fact that very soon after the close of the war there was a growing conviction that the Revolutionary movement must be brought to a halt. As a result the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 met to draw up a constitution which, in many ways, was the direct antithesis to the Declaration of Independence. The calling of this convention was not only a triumph for those political conservatives who had lost power as a result of the Revolution, but it also marked a resurgence of evangelical convictions in the realm of government. Only a few of those who had been members of the Congress of 1776 were elected to the Philadelphia Convention; the only radical was the now mellowed Benjamin Franklin.

The Founding Fathers of 1787 represent not only a shift in political opinion, but a decided change in theological tone as well. Many of its leaders were evangelical in their convictions and the resulting Constitution clearly reflects the biblical tone in the thinking of the members of the Convention of 1787. Deism was no longer in the saddle but was under suspicion in many quarters. It is worthy of note that the modern cult of the Declaration of Independence had its origin in the days of Andrew Jackson and the rise of the modern democratic movement in this country.

END

C. Gregg Singer is Professor of History at Catawba College in Salisbury, North Carolina. Formerly he taught in Wheaton College, Illinois, and Belhaven College, Mississippi. He has earned the A.B. degree from Haverford College, and the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees from University of Pennsylvania.

Not long ago I read a Communist magazine. There was an article on a famous Bulgarian monastery. It told of the shrine’s historic beauty, gorgeous mountain setting and significance in the nation’s history.

Then the author, with bitter atheistic scorn, commented about the “new trends and tides” in Bulgarian life. The monastery, he happily proclaimed, “once a center of religious activity,” was now “mainly a haunt of artists and art lovers.” He added: “… it will no

doubt attract fewer and fewer devotees. For our young men today have set out to build heaven on earth, and they would rather go in for engineering, medicine and aviation than for theology.”

This article is typical of Communist propaganda against religion. The “new trends and tides” refer to communism, of course. Spiritual edifices such as monasteries and churches are mere antiques of history! Theology is the babbling idiocy of diseased minds! The job of building “heaven on earth” means the establishment of communism throughout the world.

Communism is a bitter enemy of religion. Karl Marx was an atheist. He violently attacked religion as an opiate. To him, God was only a figment of the imagination, invented by the “exploiting classes” to drug men’s minds. Lenin was also an atheist, as is Khrushchev. For this reason the Communists attack Western morality and seek to substitute a code of values destructive of the Judaic-Christian way of life.

The Communists would like to extirpate religion. However, even behind the Iron Curtain, they have found this most difficult. Hence, they attempt, wherever possible, to deride, scorn, and ridicule religion as an old wives’ tale or superstition which is contrary to the “modern” mind. “We Communists,” they say, “have outgrown the religious stage of history. Man no longer needs God.” “Bright young men find religion pure foolishness.” Religion is equated with ignorance; atheism with intelligence.

This bitter Communist campaign against religion is world-wide, extending also throughout our nation. The Communist Party, USA—though not as openly vocal as Iron Curtain Communists—is a believer in atheism. It works to weaken the tenets of religion. Every possible device—propaganda, front organizations, literature—is used to attack the believers of God.

The Fate Of Christian Values

What does the acceptance of atheistic communism mean in terms of the individual? What happens to the concept of man when Marxism-Leninism gains control? What is the fate of Christian values?

The answer: the individual is not a creature of God, loved and cherished, but a blotch of skins and bones to be trained, manipulated, and exploited for reasons of state. Love, mercy, and justice become meaningless symbols, mocked as “bourgeois weaknesses.” The state becomes supreme and man exists to serve a supreme master whose every whim is final and irrevocable. Man becomes a tool without personality or individuality. In other words, our Judaic-Christian history is completely reversed.

I think it would be most rewarding—as we celebrate again the Fourth of July—to view some of the evil effects of atheistic communism upon the human personality. To do so, I am sure, will make us appreciate more than ever our glorious heritage of freedom.

1. The inevitable rise of the dictator. Communism is based on dictatorship, brutal, aggressive, and efficient. Both the theory and practice of communism are anti-democratic. The power belongs to the strong, the unscrupulous, and the greedy. At all times the Party becomes the idol to worship—the Communist “Messiah” which is to lead the people to the ideal society. Within the Party there is constantly, overt or latent, a bitter personal struggle for position. Any “collective leadership” in a Communist society can only be a temporary or a facade. Ultimately, by the very nature of communism, the “strong man” emerges—a strong man whose credentials of validity are ruthlessness, tyranny, and naked force.

2. The relationship of person to person within communism cannot be based on love or respect for individual rights, but on deceit, hypocrisy, and falsehood. The history of Russia under Stalin shows how he dealt with his foes as well as his “friends.” Personal vanity, fear of position, and inveterate jealousy were Stalin’s ruling guides in dealing with his associates. He was, in every respect, the “law of the land.” There was no appeal beyond him. To love your enemies as yourself is an admonition unheard of in Communist power politics. Accusations, charges, and countercharges are the techniques of “advancement.” Smear your opponent. Accuse him of a wrong. Belittle his position. Inch your way ahead by any means possible. That is the testimony of Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, and Party leaders in the United States.

3. The individual, regardless of his Party position, is never to be trusted. The Communist is indoctrinated in an ideology—Marxism-Leninism. He is taught in Party indoctrination schools, he is forced to read the Party press, he is compelled to listen to Party policy. Never does a member finish going to school. Even if he’s a tested veteran, he must continue to secure Party training. The Communists live in perpetual fear that a member may “backslide,” or in Party language, become a “traitor”—that is, his enthusiasm for communism might wane. To become disinterested is to become a danger to the security of the Party. Hence, the member must be constantly watched. He must live under the closest of discipline. His every decision, even of his personal life, must be made under Party scrutiny. To trust him too much, to give him too much freedom from Party control, is to risk a Party defeat.

4. The individual, under communism, becomes an automatic responder, not an original thinker. In the Party apparatus, the Communist officials quickly learn what the superiors “downtown” (referring to district, state, or national headquarters) desire. Hence, many Party officials do everything they can, slanting their information and opinions, “to please.” If a difference of opinion develops—well, it takes a strong comrade to buck the known desires of headquarters. If he objects, he has vivid memories of how former objectors were expelled from the Party. Communist discipline, throughout the world today, is creating this mass mentality of obedience, the individual who is afraid to make an independent decision. Moreover, eventually, because he seldom uses the power of critical discernment, he loses this facility. We in the FBI have talked to many Party members—some who have been in the Party for many years. They will argue for hours, always in the same Communist groove. Many are incapable of making an independent judgment. This mentality represents a great danger to our way of life today.

5. The function of an individual in communism is to serve, produce, and work for any goal which might he defined by the state. Never, for a moment, is any thought given toward enriching the personality of the individual. In our society, we believe that each personality has merit itself, to be enriched and developed within the general structure of society as a whole. To Communists, this concept is utterly foreign. The office worker, the factory manager, the soldier exist to give their best for the state. In communism there is no personal gratitude for a job well done. There are only demands for further production or criticism for things allegedly gone wrong. The individual is strictly utilitarian: a piece of living matter, without the image of God, to be manipulated for the Party and/or the state. Hence, any alleged neglect of duty, a poor record of production, or faulty workmanship brings the most drastic penalties. Such acts are interpreted as treason against the state.

6. The individual is compelled to give idolatrous worship to the Party. With the true God “expelled,” so to speak, Communists have erected a new god—that of the Party. Communist men and women are compelled to worship it. Communism cannot be understood except as a false religion. Admittedly, and very unfortunately, communism can and often does secure the full allegiance of the human heart. The enthusiasm, devotion and dedication of many Communist devotees are a matter of record. The false Communist appeal to a better world, to a heaven on earth, to elimination of racial, economic, and political injustices is an alluring and powerful motive. The minds of thousands of men and women, including many in our own country, have succumbed and are today furnishing world communism the incentive, intelligence, and dynamic power to make it a master of millions of human souls.

Influence On Personality

This, then, is a brief picture of communism’s powerful influence on the human personality. We see the creation of “Communist man”—a man whose devotion is wholeheartedly to the Party, a man who is stripped of his powers of critical judgment, who works unceasingly for a Communist-defined goal, who is willing to be unfairly treated, who, when criticized, keeps on coming, a man whose daily life is saturated with fear and apprehension. Today he’s a “hero,” tomorrow he may be a traitor and outcast depending on what the Party says.

Can this be true, you ask? As ministers of the Gospel, you know that the attributes of Communist man are diametrically opposed to those of free man. We see the values of Christian society, very literally, being turned upside down. Good becomes evil. Love becomes hate. Help your neighbor becomes tear him down. Trust and confidence are transformed into fear and suspicion. The worship of the true God, the Maker of heaven and earth, becomes the idolatrous worship of a man-made Communist Party.

I think all of us should be aware of the dangers of communism. We must realize that we face a formidable foe. We see, all too tragically, that Communist man can create stupendous material wonders—the Sputniks and missiles. Never must we underrate him. To do so is to risk our freedom.

Yet, as for me, I have utmost confidence that this new creature of idolatry, this handmaiden of tyranny, will be defeated. The power of our Judaic-Christian tradition is too strong. We know from history what happens when men and civilizations stray from the path of God. Their immediate endeavors may be successful, but eventually they are doomed to decay. Communism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Communist man will ultimately fail.

We, as members of a free society, must stop, take stock of our own values. We must be willing, as Christians, to stand up to the challenge. Communism is an evil which is testing the defenses of our own beliefs. We must be willing to devote the same amount of time and devotion to our beliefs, to reading the Bible, to working for Christian values, as the Communists do for their institutions. We have a great heritage—a heritage of freedom and justice and love.

Challenge To The Ministry

You, as ministers, have a challenge to make your pulpits sound the trumpet cry of free men. Each Sunday morning literally millions of Americans listen to church sermons. Sermons represent one of the most potent forces for good in the nation today. Ministers must proclaim the obligations of free men to meet this atheistic enemy. You must urge a rededication to Christian beliefs.

To my mind, the ministers of America hold a vital place in the fight against communism. As men of God, you know what this atheistic enemy can and will do to the souls of men. You know that communism is an evil—an evil which would destroy Christian values. In a Communist society, clergymen would be one of the first targets of the Communist secret police—to be silenced or liquidated. Communism and the Church of Christ can never mix. You as ministers stand on the front line in our battle of survival. By urging Americans to rededicate their lives to God, to live the values they profess, to uphold the ideals of Christian truth and justice, you can do valiant service for our nation. No group in our population can do more to defeat “Communist man” than the clergymen of America.

The challenge is here. By faith in God this nation was created. By faith in God this nation shall endure, strong and free. By faith in God atheistic world communism can eventually be overcome.

END

J. Edgar Hoover has been Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation since 1924. He holds the LL.B. and LL.M. degrees from George Washington University, and seventeen honorary degrees from colleges and universities across the land. He first entered the Department of Justice in 1917.