Episcopal Conclusions At Miami Beach

In a lush tropical setting which Cranmer and Ridley would have associated with privateers and Spanish gold, the 59th triennial General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, meeting October 5–17, concluded an eventful second week which saw debate upon upon many a lively issue.

In Miami Beach’s opulent, new Deauville Hotel, which would surely have raised the eyebrows of St. Francis, the sight of Episcopal monks and nuns, vowed to poverty, had to seem incongruous. But lifting eyes beyond the million-dollar strand, the House of Deputies, composed of clerical and lay delegates, and the House of Bishops moved to dig ecumenical gold in India.

The issue was whether to follow the lead of five other churches of the Anglican Communion in allowing limited intercommunion with the Church of South India (formed in 1947 through merger of Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational groups), as recommended by the Convention’s ecumenical commission. This involved recognition of the bishops, presbyters, and deacons consecrated or ordained in the CSI (this is done episcopally) “at or after the inauguration of that Church as true bishops, priests and deacons in the Church of God.” Included were conditions under which these officers may officiate in the Protestant Episcopal Church.

The resolutions passed the House of Bishops with only mild debate, but certain of the deputies, mostly of Anglo-Catholic persuasion, gave them a rough ride for more than three hours. The CSI had been referred to in some quarters as a heretical sect, and a waiting period of some 20 years for observation was urged. Debaters argued the withholding of Episcopal gifts of “holy orders” and the “ancient Catholic faith” on grounds of avoiding both schism in their own church and further impediments to “reunion with Rome.”

Supporters of the resolutions countered that the proposed action would strengthen both the Catholic (non-Roman) cause in strategic India, as well as serve toward reuniting the “fragmented body of Christ.” The resolutions passed with much greater ease than had been expected, with but minor modifications.

In this country conversations were to continue between Episcopalians and the Methodist Church toward possible intercommunion, though some said the talks had proven pointless. One priest observed privately that talks with Presbyterians had failed because of lack of doctrinal discipline by Presbyterians in ordaining ministers. “How much more the Methodists?” he exclaimed. (Certain Methodists and other churchmen voiced displeasure at an Episcopal commission report which cited biblical support in giving approval to social drinking “in moderation.”)

Presiding Bishop Henry Knox Sherrill predicted a coming church unity which would embrace even the Roman Catholic church. In regard to Episcopal interest in Latin America as a mission field, the Right Rev. Horace W. B. Donegan, Bishop of New York, stated, “Our church has no desire to win converts from Roman Catholicism, nor has it any plan to do so.” But he also said that Episcopalianism has a strong appeal to Latin Americans who wish to hold to apostolic order but also desire a church which “stands for evangelical truth.”

It had already been pointed out that the Anglican policy of not proselytizing from the ancient eastern churches in the Middle East was in contrast to the practice of American Presbyterianism. (The Protestant Episcopal Church gives financial aid to Eastern Orthodox churches.)

A petition suggesting that the National Council of Churches may become a “Protestant Vatican” or “super-church” was repudiated by the bishops. Another petition objected to expressions of disbelief in the Virgin Birth and Resurrection found in certain independent Episcopal publications such as W. Norman Pittenger’s The Episcopal Way of Life. A committee expressed the opinion that the “constant … use of the historic creeds” throughout the church “should reassure and hearten the petitioners.” California’s Bishop James A. Pike had said earlier that the movement toward biblical fundamentalism in some quarters of the Anglican Communion was not a problem here.

The bishops thwarted a move by the deputies to set up a special commission for revision of the Book of Common Prayer which would involve “considering the faith and doctrine of the church.”

The deputies voted confidence in the church’s Sunday School literature—the Seabury Series—but only after hearing a minority call for more reliance upon historic doctrines than upon “group dynamics and existential philosophy.” Speaking of the minister’s ordination vows to teach what is in the Book of Common Prayer, Maryland’s respected Dr. Don Frank Fenn said, “The church hasn’t aided loyal clergy for a long time.”

In other action, a resolution was passed recording strong opposition to capital punishment; a perennial proposal to allow women to serve in the House of Deputies was defeated; and a move to tighten rules for marriage annulments and thus restrict remarriage of divorced persons was defeated.

Exhilaration over the adoption of a record budget was dulled when churchmen found that in relation to the cost of living they had only now climbed back to their 1929 level. Known as comprising one of the wealthiest memberships in American Protestantism, they heard their church compared unfavorably with other denominations as to its stewardship. With more than three times the membership of the Southern Presbyterian church, their missionary giving is less. “We have been caring for ourselves first,” they were told. Thus delegates were presumably surprised to hear Australian Lord Bishop Ian Shevill thank them for giving to Australia their “gift of stewardship teaching,” tithing being “a revolutionary conception” in the Anglican world outside America. (The Protestant Episcopal Church has been taking over support for certain missionary work from the Church of England.)

Other missionary items: Episcopal women distinguished themselves with a thank offering of $3,869,985 (for missions), collected over the past three years; a unique missionary project was voted in the form of a gift of a nuclear reactor to the Episcopal Church in Japan, to be used for educational and medical purposes by St. Paul’s University in Tokyo; and the “missionary districts” of Arizona and North Texas were voted the status of self-supporting dioceses.

Bishop Donegan brought the sobering report that some parishes had produced no candidate for the priesthood in fifty years and that surveys had shown the majority of students in some Episcopal seminaries to have been converted on college campuses rather than having been brought up in the church.

One resolution noted that large sums of money had been spent for the “luxuries” of the last two convention sites (1955 site: Honolulu). Detroit was selected for 1961.

The Episcopal Convention is more leisurely-paced than many other ecclesiastical conventions, one explanation being that the governing done through the church’s National Council and dioceses keep the General Convention from being as integral to the life of the church as conventions of certain other churches.

The Miami Beach gathering formed the valediction for the able Bishop Sherrill—he of the ready wit and constant facility for the right word—retiring at the mandatory age of 68 after 12 years as presiding bishop. He was presented with a gift of $45,000 and had the pleasure of seeing his son the Rev. Edmund Knox Sherrill elected missionary bishop of Central Brazil.

A $15,000 annual salary was voted to provide an executive assistant for Presiding Bishop-elect Arthur C. Lichtenberger (for election, see October 27 issue).

Florida Governor LeRoy Collins, addressing his fellow Episcopalians, called upon non-extremists of the nation to produce a constructive plan for solution of racial conflicts. The bishops voted for an antisegregation resolution which was blocked by the deputies, who passed the substitute “Virginia Resolution,” dropping the call for an end to racial separation in favor of a plea for elimination of all spirit of racial discrimination. But both houses condemned “civil disobedience” in connection with public school desegregation. Afterward, a priest said, “Ours was the only major denomination which did not divide in Civil War days. It’s easy for northern denominations to pass high-flown race resolutions, for they don’t have to grapple with the issues in the same way.”

The close of the convention saw the reading of the “Pastoral Letter of the House of Bishops,” written against the background of the recent Lambeth Conference which had been attended by ninety-one members of the House.

Seeing in the race problem yet another harmful division of mankind, the bishops asserted the supremacy of reason over emotion for solution. Their concluding exhortation: “Care for your souls, brethren, amid the passions and prejudices of our day, and remember that truth alone is strong.”

F. F.

Christian Medicos

The Christian Medical Society is planning an “International Medical Missionary Convention” for the end of 1959.

At their last meeting in Grand Rapids, Michigan, society directors voted to proceed with plans for the convention as a “forum for expression of purpose and needs for medical missions.”

The society embraces 2,000 physicians, dentists, medical and dental students and medical school faculty members as well as more than 350 medical missionaries overseas.

Disciples And Ecumenism

“Ecumenicity” was the major concern of some 10,000 Disciples of Christ at the 1958 International Assembly of the Convention of Christian Churches in St. Louis, October 17–22.

This emphasis on Christian unity was nothing new for Disciples. Since Thomas Campbell wrote his prophetic Declaration and Address in 1809, his followers have ardently propagated the idea that the church is “essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one” and consists of all those in every place who are obedient to Christ according to the Scriptures and manifest the same by their tempers and conduct.

They have differed as to the visible and the invisible church, spiritual and organic unity, and methods of achieving unity; but they have with one accord insisted that a divided church is a sin and that their chief mission is to help answer Christ’s prayer in John 17.

At St. Louis the ecumenical thrust was in the now well-known pattern of the National and World Councils of Churches. The International Convention is a member of both bodies and has contributed largely to their personnel and their policy-making groups.

The United Christian Missionary Society, largest agency reporting to the convention, made it clear that it is abandoning denominational evangelistic policy in the foreign mission field and will participate enthusiastically in the new ecumenical policy of “world mission” promoted by World Council leaders. The UCMS reported 244 missionaries and 2,183 national workers in full-time service in 11 mission fields. A new all-time total of $5,537,784 was expended in its program. Nearly 10,000 baptisms were reported.

A year ago at their Cleveland convention Disciples passed a resolution looking toward the possibility of a merger with the newly-formed United Church of Christ (Congregational-Evangelical and Reformed). Dr. Fred Hoskins of the UCC was a guest of the St. Louis assembly. He was warmly received and Disciples passed a strong resolution urging continued explorations in this project.

No new churches will be established by Disciples without the consent of their ecumenical friends. The program of the UCMS Division of Home Missions and Christian Education is completely integrated with that of the councils of churches. The Board of Church Extension with its huge financial resources (approaching $25,000,000) is cooperating in this ecumenical evangelistic plan.

Higher education within the framework of the Convention is moving toward close cooperation with the Council of Protestant Colleges, an NCC-motivated agency, although a few colleges are lukewarm. Campus youth activities are also being consolidated under the Campus Christian Life program of the NCC. Despite the prosperity of Disciples colleges in other areas (they expended more than 16 million dollars last year) there is an alarming dearth of youth in training for full-time Christian service. Dr. Harlie L. Smith, secretary of the national education board, said that “at present fewer than one-fourth of our college-age young people are in college, and about one in fifteen of these is preparing for a vocation in the church.”

The “social gospel” has ardent supporters in the UCMS Department of Social Welfare and the “extra-curricular” Disciples Peace Fellowship. Their left-wing doctrines were vigorously advocated at St. Louis and were reflected in resolutions passed by the Convention. The assembly advocated income tax deductions for contributions to the United Nations Investment for Peace and opposed further U. S. military conscription.

Universal disarmament, suspension of nuclear weapons tests and other resolutions of the usual “ecumenical line” were approved. There was a rumbling in the lobbies against some of these actions of the Convention but opposition on the floor was deemed useless. One pastor said, “I wouldn’t dare tell my people what we did.”

The assembly authorized the Board of Directors of the Convention to set up a committee for the restudy of the organizational life of the whole brotherhood of Disciples looking toward revolutionary changes for the future. Evidently this involves the whole problem of the place Disciples will occupy in the new ecumenical era.

The address of Dr. Edwin T. Dahlberg, president of the National Council of Churches, marked the ecumenical climax of the assembly. Under the spell of the occasion he suggested that the ecumenical movement should go “even beyond the boundaries of the Christian religion. He proposed an International Spiritual Year in which a congress of religions might be held. Dr. Dahlberg expressed a wish to see “the coming together of Jewish, Protestant and Catholic leaders, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu and other leaders to work for that peace and understanding among men which somehow our political leaders have failed to achieve.” He congratulated Disciples on taking advanced ground at St. Louis.

Absent from St. Louis were two other wings of the movement that had its inspiration in the Declaration and Address of Thomas Campbell—the locally autonomous Churches of Christ and Christian Churches that believe unity can only be achieved by “the restoration of the New Testament Church in doctrine, ordinances and life.” Their combined numerical strength exceeds two and a half million. Refusing to cooperate with councils of churches and maintaining an almost isolationist position in American Protestantism they constitute two of the most rapidly growing religious fellowships in America.

Spokesmen in an evidently well planned propaganda thrust for the “new ecumenical day” among Disciples were Dr. Alfred T. DeGroot of Texas Christian University and Dr. Ronald Osborn of the Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis (formerly the College of Religion of Butler University). They paid high tribute to the fathers of the “restoration movement” but made it clear that the time had arrived for abandonment of “old paths.” They pointed out that changing patterns of the new ecumenical age and growth and maturity of the Disciples demanded a new interpretation of the old principles and a more adequate witness to the church and the world. They branded as virtual “subversion” a refusal to enter into serious ecumenical planning for “the joint concerns of the entire Body of Christ.” Along with the leaders of the UCMS, the Council of Agencies and the ICCC they called for “a more effective structure of coordination and cooperation” in the denomination’s life to accomplish new objectives “beyond 1960.” The specific nature of this revolutionary change was not spelled out at St. Louis, but it was sufficiently envisioned to cause rejoicing among liberals and engender grave doubts among conservatives.

The mass Communion service on the Lord’s Day when over 8,000 participated was a spiritual highlight of the assembly. Tables in the form of a huge cross occuped the main floor of Kiel Auditorium. Hundreds of deacons waited on the audience after elders had conducted an elaborate liturgical service.

Dr. John Paul Pack, pastor of University Christian Church, Seattle, was elected president of the Convention for the ensuing year. Dr. Gaines M. Cook was reelected as executive secretary.

Denver will be the scene of the next national gathering.

J. D. M.

Charlotte Epilogue

As one sits in the capacious, modern Charlotte Coliseum and watches Billy Graham preach to great throngs of inhabitants of the “Queen City of the Carolinas,” Graham’s home town, he may find himself musing upon the restrictive words found in all four Gospels—“A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.…”

This principle had been thrown up to Graham by local newsmen upon his arrival, and the evangelist had confessed he was entering the crusade with “fear and trembling” at the thought of preaching to his friends and acquaintances. But though there are many of these, they constitute a very small percentage of Charlotte’s present population. A small city by present standards, Charlotte would have seemed a teeming metropolis in first-century Palestine. And Graham’s Charlotte citizenship is one more of memory and loyalty than of fact. Dairy farmer Frank Graham declared that his famous son had left home some twenty years ago and had never since returned for a stay of any duration.

But if most of the populace does not know Graham personally, they know about him and seem grateful for the fame he has brought to their city. Their crusade support appears to indicate this.

The name of Charlotte does not have the ring of a Hong Kong or a San Francisco nor does it conjure up visions of greatness invoked by New York and London. Indeed, the Harringay habitué would probably ask the location. But though Charlotte is the smallest city to host a Graham crusade since the evangelist’s European and world tours, which found him meeting with crowned heads and prime ministers, the Graham team looks on the Carolina crusade as being in many ways the most fruitful of them all. Church cooperation was unprecedented. And as the campaign was breaking Coliseum attendance marks, the percentage of decisions for Christ was setting a record as the highest ever seen in a Graham crusade—this in the paradoxical setting of a perhaps unparalleled civic ratio of church membership (96%) coupled with a high rate of crime.

Response to the crusade surpassed Graham’s expectations, but not his only. Said the Rev. W. Kenneth Goodson, minister of the 4300-member First Methodist Church, “The crusade has made a tremendous impact. It has not been spiritual theatrics at all. It has been big business for Christ. I think that many ministers will testify that the results have been far beyond anything we ever imagined when we invited Billy Graham.” If Charlotte liked Billy Graham, the affection was reciprocated. Though he is more of a world citizen today, the evangelist spoke of his love for Charlotte and the long preparation for this crusade. “This is my home—where I was born and reared.” Perhaps he sensed responsibility toward it as “his Jerusalem” (Acts 1:8). “I’d give my life for this city,” he said.

In speaking of the exclusiveness of Christ’s claims, he said he “would not betray” his “friends and neighbors” in holding forth any hope for salvation apart from the Cross. And he emphasized, “It is hard to be a Christian. It costs something. The road is often lonely.”

But still they came, across what could be termed holy ground. Entering the inquiry room solemnly, they often emerged bright-eyed. Friends and relatives waited for them much as at a station. But these were not returning from Atlanta or Chicago. They had been to Bethlehem and Jerusalem.

Explaining, Graham speaks of the Holy Spirit and 3000 local prayer meetings.

There is another portion of Scripture which comes to mind as one sits in the Coliseum—“And he gave some … evangelists.…” Yes, he did.

F. F.

Crusade Windup

The climax of Billy Graham’s Carolinas evangelistic meetings came Sunday, October 26, when more than 60,000 persons assembled at Fort Jackson in suburban Columbia, South Carolina. The local steering committee shifted the rally site after Governor George Bell Timmerman twice protested plans to hold the meeting on State House grounds. Timmerman said Graham’s appearance on state property (1) “would violate the separation of church and state,” and (2) might be misinterpreted as an endorsement by South Carolina of nonsegregated meetings.

Among dignitaries at the Fort Jackson rally was James F. Byrnes, former South Carolina governor and one-time U. S. Secretary of State. Twelve hundred persons, including a number of Negroes, signed decision cards after the rally, one of the biggest ever held in the South.

The aggregate attendance for the five weeks of meetings at Charlotte Coliseum topped the 439,000 mark. There were more than 17,600 recorded decisions.

Hardiest Of Plants

“Too many people,” said Democratic Governor George M. Leader of Pennsylvania, feel that Christianity “is something of a hothouse plant incapable of surviving outside the hothouse.” “It seems wrong to me,” he added, to believe that Christianity cannot withstand “the temperature changes, the winds and hail and storms and frosts of the outside world … I think Christianity is the hardiest of plants and that it can be made to flourish just as well in the arena as in the conservatory.”

Thus did Leader address the opening session of the 39th quadrennial General Conference of the Evangelical United Brethren Church in Harrisburg, capital of Pennsylvania, the state he hoped to represent in the U. S. Senate next year.

The imaginary botanical challenge behind them, some 450 EUB delegates and 1,000 visitors went on to discuss more realistic issues like ecumenism, integration, and disarmament. Theological debate was inconsiderable.

The church’s Federation and Union Commission was authorized to enter discussions with the Methodist Commission on Church Union for “exploration of possible advantages and disadvantages” of merger. The commission was also directed to continue merger talks with the Church of the Brethren and “other denominations of kindred spirit.” The EUB Church was formed in 1946 by a merger of the Evangelical Church and the Church of the United Brethren. Its membership in the United States and Canada totals about 800,000.

A resolution strongly denounced the testing of nuclear weapons by any nation and urged world leaders to intensify efforts “to achieve a bold program for total universal disarmament.”

With only a few dissenting votes, delegates adopted another resolution which prohibits use of denominational facilities as public or private class rooms to avoid school integration. The resolution declared opposition to “all practices of racial segregation.” Also approved was a plan which provides for the appointment of EUB ministers from “other races as well as white” and which calls on the church’s constituents to welcome Negro residents in white communities. Of 4,277 EUB congregations, 120 are in Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Florida.

Three new bishops were elected. Bishop W. Maynard Sparks was assigned to the Pacific area, Bishop Herman W. Kaebnick to the Eastern area, and Bishop Paul Herrick to the Central area. The church’s four other bishops remain.

People: Words And Events

Deaths: The Rev. George Bennard, 85, composer of “The Old Rugged Cross” and many other Gospel hymns, in Reed City, Michigan … Dr. Walter A. Baepler, 65, president of Concordia Theological Seminary, in Springfield, Illinois … the Rev. Clifford Harris Nash, 91, founder of the Melbourne, Australia, Bible Institute … Dr. T. O. F. Herzer, treasurer of Canadian Lutheran World Relief, in Winnipeg, Manitoba … Dr. George N. Anderson, 75, veteran missionary to East Africa, in Minneapolis.

Elections: As Bishop of the Southern District of the Hungarian Lutheran Church, the Rev. Zoltan Kaldy, (succeeding Bishop Lajos Ordass) … as full-time executive secretary of the Commission on Presbyterian Cooperation in Latin America, Dr. Rafael Cepeda … as youth department director of the Methodist General Board of Education, the Rev. Joseph W. Bell … as president of the United Student Christian Council, Allan J. Burry … as chairman of the Southern Baptist Brotherhood Commission, R. L. Sherrick … as board chairman of the Rural Bible Crusade National, the Rev. Hamilton Sinclair … as president of the Christian Writers Association of Canada, G. M. Bowman.

Appointments: As minister of the Fourth Presbyterian Church, Washington, D. C., the Rev. Richard C. Halverson, associate executive secretary of International Christian Leadership … as head of a staff to “develop a comprehensive strategy for public interpretation of the ecumenical movement and the National Council of Churches,” James W. Wine, vice president of Park College and a former lawyer and judge … as European secretary of the Baptist World Alliance, Erik Ruden, general secretary of the Baptist Union of Sweden.

Retirement: As Evangelical Lutheran Bishop of Iceland, Dr. Asmundur Gudmundsson.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY NEWS

When Mrs. Elisabeth Elliot and Miss Rachel Saint went to live with killer Auca Indians last month, they took along into the dense Ecuadorian jungle a six-pound transceiver. Upon arrival near the Aucas’ “Terminal City,” the missionary women radioed back, “Friendly welcome.”

The following story includes first impressions of life in a community of savages. With the missionaries was Mrs. Elliot’s four-year-old daughter, Valerie, and the 10 Aucas who had emerged from the jungles with a tribal invitation for the two white women. (For events leading up to this daring exploit, seeCHRISTIANITY TODAY, October 27, 1958.)

“I’m sitting in a tiny leaf shack by candlelight,” said Mrs. Elliot. “Millions of insects swarm. Valerie sings ‘Jesus Loves Me’ to a group of Aucas in a hut a few feet away, and my heart sings praise to God Almighty who only doeth wondrous things. Keep praising and praying.”

An initial report from Miss Saint on October 9 said:

“It was a sweet picture to round the bend in the river last Wednesday and see the roofs of the little thatched houses and the lovely bronzed Auca bodies gleaming in the sun.

“To be able to communicate was wonderful. I am well aware that potential danger exists, but whatever, the welcome could not have been more friendly.

“It seems the most natural thing in all the world to be here, a thing I have felt the Lord was leading me to over five years ago. Do pray that it will be workable and accomplish the Lord’s purpose.”

Both Mrs. Elliot and Miss Saint have a working knowledge of the Auca language. Miss Saint, trained as a linguist by Wycliffe Bible Translators, has been studying the native tongue with the aid of Dayuma, young Auca woman who fled her tribe 12 years ago and has since become the tribe’s first convert to Christianity.

The women’s radio reports were relayed to the outside world by Mrs. Marjorie Saint from Quito. Both Mrs. Elliot and Mrs. Saint are widows of the “Palm Beach” massacre in which five young missionary men died at the hands of lance-bearing Aucas. Miss Saint is a sister of one of the martyrs.

Missionary Aviation Fellowship set up regular flights to drop supplies to the missionary women. “Terminal City” is about 15 minutes flying time from Arajuno, closest missionary outpost. Shell Mera, linked to Quito by road, is another 20 minutes away by air.

Another report from Miss Saint:

“Dayuma’s mother has arrived, dressed in the dress Dayuma had made for her. A dear, characterful face, older than I thought she would be, trembling with sheer happiness. I guess she ran most of the way. Before evening was over she said, ‘You are star, you came down from the sky. You are my daughter, call me mother.’ She hasn’t stopped smiling for almost a whole day.

“Love to all of you who share our present joy and our increased potential of telling of Him whose we are and whom we serve.

“Little by little I try to sow seeds of God’s Word, but mostly I’m tuning in, trusting the Lord to give me wisdom beyond my own.”

Missionaries in Ecuador attached considerable significance to the fact that the 10 Aucas came out of the jungles with an invitation for Mrs. Elliot and Miss Saint. In talking to the 10 Aucas, the missionaries felt they were able to establish something of the motive behind the “Palm Beach” slayings.

It was learned that the Auca whom the five missionary men had dubbed “George” was actually the chief of the settlement. According to reports, “George,” after he had made seemingly friendly gestures to the missionaries, went back to his tribe and told them that the white men wanted to eat the Aucas. Apparently provoked, the tribesmen joined “George” in killing the five men. Subsequently “George” himself became too overbearing and was killed by his own people.

Up until the latest contacts, the Aucas reportedly have felt that the white people were “people eaters.”

THANKSGIVING FARCE

Pastor Peterson is down again with a severe reaction. He is allergic to American holidays. This time Thanksgiving has him in trouble. He was asked to prepare the pageant for the Harvest Home Festival, and all went well until Mrs. Patience Alden Strauss, chairwoman of the Festival Committee, saw the dress rehearsal.

The curtain parted on three Thanksgiving tableaux arranged across the stage: Pilgrims on the way to church; a picture window view of an American family at dinner; and the home team float in the parade of Mohawk Bowl for the Big Game.

The band played a medley of Come, Ye Thankful People, Come; Hail, Hail, the Gang’s All Here; and On, Wisconsin. Mrs. Strauss thought that this completed the pageant and was applauding delightedly when the action started. The Pilgrims came alive, walked out of the woods, and gaped at the picture window.

A wonderfully confusing scene followed in which the Pilgrims gradually concluded that help should be found to seize this family of irreligious, bewitched heathen and commit them to stocks. The modern Americans had meanwhile decided that these Pilgrim actors were overdoing it, and directed them to the Mohawk Bowl parade, under threat of calling the police.

When the Pilgrims encountered the yelling Indians on the float, they bravely grouped for self-defense, and held their fire until the Mohawks made a hilarious charge with lifted tomahawks.

How the pageant was to have ended I don’t know. One of the Pilgrims had put too much powder in Judge Ronson’s old muzzle loader, and when it went off everything seemed to go up in smoke. After Judy Trout had stopped screaming and someone brought aromatic spirits for Mrs. Strauss, Pastor Peterson tried to defend his satirical fantasy. Mrs. Strauss admitted that the awkwardness of having Pilgrim visitors on Thanksgiving had been cleverly suggested. She thought the dialogue witty in the dining room scene, and she especially approved Uncle George’s speech explaining to the Pilgrims why an American Thanksgiving is above creeds and church-going. But she was offended by the implications of the “slapstick farce” that Thanksgiving has lost contact with the Pilgrim tradition. Her ancestors came on the Mayflower. Peterson cancelled the pageant but wished that every “Thanksgiving” farce could be called off—or transformed!

CALL TO ACTION

Let us take a look at the cold facts concerning the achievements and success of the Eighteenth Amendment during the Prohibition Era of 1920–1932: The breweries, distilleries and 177,000 saloons (all of them) were closed; according to Dr. Irving Fisher, author of book and highest authority on liquor problems, the consumption of liquor was reduced between 70 and 80%; the nation’s wealth was increased by more than $40,000,000,000.00; the number of savings depositors increased from 10,000,000 to 50,000,000; the number of automobile owners leaped from 7,000,000 to 26,000,000; Keeley Institutes for cure of alcoholics were closed; many jails and prisons were completely emptied; enrollment in high schools increased 65%, in colleges 75%; Christian churches made a gain in membership of 10,000,000. This constituted the most prosperous decade, economically and morally, in our national history. Informed industrialists, economists, sociologists, and political and religious authorities recognized this as the greatest reform ever accomplished in history in a similar length of time. Yet these gigantic strides were made while enforcement of the law was in the hands of its enemies, a leading distiller and a national administration which used all their powers to nullify rather than enforce the law!

That prohibition was a failure is one of the most colossal and unscrupulous falsehoods ever propagated by the forces of evil, yet their slogan has been repeated so long and so often that many uniformed people believe it.… The Eighteenth Amendment placed in the Constitution after a century of costly effort by 46 of our states, has been torn from the heart of the Constitution by the most unscrupulous forces and ruthless methods ever known to history, and 40 million of our citizens in about one-third of our states have been disfranchised by taking away their natural constitutional right to vote on the liquor problem by Local Option. No! It is not necessary to go through the long, difficult and costly work of adopting another Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Prohibition is already there in the second section of the Twenty-first Amendment, from which we quote: “The transportation and importation into any state, territory or possession of the United States for the delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”

All that is necessary is that patriotic Americans become indignant enough to fight to a finish the battle to win back their natural right to vote on the subject and that Congress change the laws of enforcement so that they would conform to the intention of the Constitution. The law is there—all we have to do is to elect candidates who will not perjure themselves by the violation of their oath to “Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” but who will enforce its provisions. The Supreme Court long ago declared that the manufacture and sale of liquor is permitted only by suffrance and not as a right inherent of citizenship. The Constitution and the Supreme Court have declared themselves—when will the conscience of the people respond? Twenty-five per cent of the professed Christians of the United States have a political balance of power. If they would use it they could close up every liquor outlet in a very short time. The next move is up to the Christian Church!

Townville, Pa.

BEST SERMONS

In order to find the last few “best” sermons for inclusion in Volume VII of Best Sermons, I am sending this final call for sermon manuscripts.

If you have a sermon which you think represents you at your “best” in the pulpit, may I read it? I am still seeking the last few top sermons for inclusion.

Sermons can be on any topic, although I prefer them on strong, distinctly Christian themes—God, Christ, Salvation, Faith, the Gospel; fine evangelistic sermons, sermons on the Christian home, education, national life are very welcome.

The rules are simple: Sermons can be any length. Manuscripts cannot be returned because of clerical shortage. All sermons should be original. Please secure permissions for copyrighted quotations. Kindly enclose a 1-page biographical sketch.

Little Silver Point Road

Little Silver, N. J.

JEWISH CONVERTS

As a Hebrew Christian and missionary to my people, I was grateful for the article by Dr. Jacob Gartenhouse (Apr. 14 issue) and for your report on Jewish missions (Sept. 15 issue). It would be more than wonderful if it were so … that “Jewish missions are three and a half times more productive of converts than Christian missions as a whole.” In fairness to our brethren who work among the heathen, and in fairness to the Apostle Paul himself, it should be pointed out that the large majority of these converts are not directly the result of Jewish missions, but have joined Christian churches by assimilation, by intermarriage, and by the witness of church people, Christians who are not directly connected with any Jewish mission. Fair comparisons can be made either by comparing Jewish missions abroad with Christian missions abroad, or Jewish missions at home with Christian missions at home; the latter will have to include the witness of the church as a whole. [I hope] that this will rather encourage than discourage Christian laymen to witness to the brethren of the Lord after the flesh.

New York Messianic Witness Exec. Dir.

New York City

I do not see why Christians should concern themselves with evangelizing the Jews when there are millions of so-called Christians who should be converted to Christianity. If one is to reflect on the antics in the South with regard to school integration, one would arrive at the conclusion that there is a broad field for evangelization among millions of Christians. Why should one think that the Jew is not capable of looking after his own moral and spiritual health.

Danville, Va.

EDITORIAL EXPLANATION

Some readers have commented on the form of the text of the Edwards sermon which appeared for the first time in CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Sept. 15 issue). This does differ from editions of other sermons of the same preacher which have been published. This explanation of editorial policy, which is given in far greater detail in the forthcoming volume, Jonathan Edwards’ Sermons on Romans, is here submitted. This sermon was transcribed from manuscript as accurately as possible. There was very little punctuation, except that of Edwards himself. The sermon was apparently hastily written and not revised by its author, who never intended it for publication. The editor has refrained almost entirely from smoothing out the text, in order to give the reader as authentic a reading as possible. Furthermore, as indicated, the form presented in CHRISTIANITY TODAY was somewhat abbreviated.

Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary

Pittsburgh, Pa.

ONLY TEMPORARY

Two matters in Man’s “Glorious Destiny” (Sept. 15 issue) … caused a personal reaction.… You say that Socrates is a follower of Plato. If this is not a typographical inaccuracy, I am sure that it is only a temporary mental one.…

I agree wholeheartedly that the church is not called to debate over fossil remnants.… I do object to the possible intimation that the debate over fossil remnants should not be carried on at all. Although the church is not called to do this, certainly science is.…

First Church of the Nazarene

Summerside, Prince Edward Island

HELPING THE CAUSE

I feel sure that the periodical will do much to help the cause of Protestant religion, and make a valuable contribution to the extension of the kingdom of God. Kirkintilloch, Scotland

The problems which abound in a study of the book of Ezekiel are apparent to scholar and layman alike. For the latter, questions arise mainly in the interpretation of the book, owing to its highly visionary character. For the former, other difficulties appear in the contents of the book, such as the dating, the literary style and locale. Such matters seldom bother the reader who is not initiated into the mysteries of literary criticism. In ancient times the rabbis recognized the possibility of misunderstanding the symbolism of Ezekiel and did not allow the first chapter of Ezekiel to be read in the synagogue services. Jerome reports that in his day, about 425 A.D., there was a regulation among the jews forbidding anyone under 30 years of age to read either the beginning or the end of the book. The opposite extreme to such caution has often been displayed by more modern students of prophecy, who have built quite detailed schemes of eschatology on certain chapters of Ezekiel.

The prophecy is a fairly closely-knit composition, so much so that many literary critics have said that Ezekiel’s own work has been radically revised and edited. Some sections of the book bear a poetic or near-poetic form while others are in very staid prose. This has given rise to the speculation that Ezekiel was a poet and that only the poetic sections and those which may, by changing the text, be forced into a poetic mold are the writings of Ezekiel. Thus, Gustav Holscher assigns about 170 verses out of 1,273 verses in the book to Ezekiel, while H. G. May in The Interpreter’s Bible more generously gives about sixty percent of the book to the prophet. The methods of analysis used in this type of criticism are so subjective that other scholars have reacted against them. Such men as G. A. Cooke, in the International Critical Commentary, R. H. Pfeiffer in his Introduction to the Old Testament and C. F. Howie in a thesis, The Date and Composition of Ezekiel maintain that the book comes substantially from Ezekiel himself. It is this writer’s opinion that although the text of the prophecy has suffered in the course of transmission more than most other biblical books, yet Ezekiel is the author of the book and he himself is very likely the person who arranged the contents in their present order and thus gave the book its unity.

Ezekiel lived and wrote among the Jewish exiles in Babylon, according to several references in the book itself, cf. 1:1; 11:22–25; 40:1, 2. He was of a priestly family and no doubt spent considerable time as a youth in or near Jerusalem. He was one of those who were exiled by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. and he seems to have begun his public ministry about five years later. The Jews enjoyed a good deal of freedom in Babylon, since they were allowed to build their own homes, operate their own businesses and exercise, within limits, their own religion. From the prophecy of Jeremiah we learn that there was communication with Jerusalem and that some of the exiles did not expect to have to remain in Babylon very long. In the earlier period of his ministry it was Ezekiel’s task to disillusion these folk and to warn of Jerusalem’s downfall. Later Ezekiel became a comforter to his people, preaching the promise of restoration.

Outline Of The Prophecy

The book seems to fall rather easily into two main divisions which correspond to the two periods of the prophet’s ministry and to the twofold nature of his work.

I. The Declaration of Judgment

A. Dedication of Ezekiel to his prophetic office, chap. 1–3:21.

B. Denunciations of Judah and Jerusalem, 3:22–24:27.

1. The prophet as a sign to the people, chaps. 4; 5; 12.

2. Prophecies against Israel, chaps. 6; 7; 13.

3. Visions of the casting off of Israel, chaps. 8–11.

4. A warning that intercession is useless, chap. 14.

5. Parables about apostate Israel, chaps. 15–19.

6. The final doom of Jerusalem in picture and parable, chaps. 20–24.

C. Prophecies against the nations, chaps. 25–32.

II. The Declaration of Salvation

A. The prophet as God’s watchman, chap. 33.

B. The false shepherds and the Good Shepherd to come, chap. 34.

C. The historic enemy, Edom, to be destroyed, chap. 35.

D. Promise of a restored and regenerate Israel, chap. 36.

E. Vision of Israel raised to new life, united under David and confirmed in an everlasting covenant, chap. 37.

F. The conflict of the ages, Gog versus God, chaps. 38–39.

G. Vision of the new kingdom, chaps. 40–48.

The student will discover that the first division is not devoid of promise for Israel, and the second does not consist entirely of promises of safety. It is evident that there has been a general grouping of subject matter and the whole prophecy is well-organized as a composition.

Themes Of Ezekiel

A comparison of the prophecy of Ezekiel with that of Jeremiah shows that the two men discussed several of the same themes, although Ezekiel almost invariably presents the topic at greater length than does Jeremiah. Common to them both are the figures of a seething cauldron, of adulterous sisters, of evil shepherds to be replaced by the Davidic king, the good shepherd. They share also the concepts of individual responsibility and of a new and final covenant to replace the Mosaic covenant. Both prophets inveigh against Edom, Ammon, Moab, Philistia and Egypt. It is altogether likely that Ezekiel heard many of Jeremiah’s messages before the exile from Jerusalem.

The opinion has been commonly held that prior to the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel the Flebrews had no clear-cut idea of individual responsibility. They were, supposedly, controlled by the idea of a corporate or community personality. Our two prophets both quote a proverb which had become common among their people, “The fathers ate sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge” (cf. Jer. 31:29, 30 and Ezek. 18:2–31). The people apparently were arguing that their oppression and exile were the punishment for their fathers’ sins, not their own. The answer of the prophets was that they were being punished for their own sins. The idea of community involvement is certainly found in the Old Testament and, indeed, it is a valid principle which is operative today. Neither Jeremiah nor Ezekiel is making any attempt to deny this, however.

It is in the area of the new covenant that Ezekiel has most to say. While Jeremiah mentions this covenant briefly in chapter 31 of his prophecy, Ezekiel mentions an everlasting covenant of peace in chapters 16; 36 and 37 and, by inference, in chapters 11 and 39. The era of the new covenant, as Ezekiel is given to foresee it, is one in which there is to be given to the people a new heart, 11:19; 36:26, 27. They will be a chastened, converted people, one household of faith with Samaria and Sodom, 16:60–63. At that time David, the good shepherd, will be their prince and God will have his tabernacle in their midst, 37:24–28.

Ezekiel And The Revelation

It is interesting to list the figures and symbols which occur first in Ezekiel and then in the Revelation. It is only a natural procedure in interpretation to let the two shed light upon each other. We see: The four living creatures

—Ezek. 1; Rev. 4

Command to eat a scroll and to prophesy

—Ezek. 2; Rev. 10

God’s people have a mark in their foreheads

—Ezek. 9; Rev. 7

God’s tabernacle will be with men

—Ezek. 37; Rev. 21

Battle led by Gog

—Ezek. 38; Rev. 20

Vision of the New Holy City

—Ezek. 40 ff.; Rev. 21

The river of water of life

—Ezek. 47; Rev. 22

Trees with leaves for the healing of nations

—Ezek. 47; Rev. 22

The city four-square

—Ezek. 48; Rev. 21

Gates of the city, three on each side

—Ezek. 48; Rev. 21

Each of the two books is, of course, apocalyptic and it is just for this reason that sharply varying systems of interpretation have been applied to both.

Interpretation Of Ezekiel

No attempt will be made here to offer a final answer to the different interpretations of the prophecy. Difficulties arise chiefly in the later section, where promises of a golden future are held forth to Israel.

The older liberal view, which is widely held in many quarters, is that Ezekiel envisioned a restored Israel in which the cult would be the centre of national life. He therefore drew a blueprint of what he hoped might be the situation in Judah. Although his plan was too idealistic at many points, it did provide a basis for some later legislation, so that R. H. Pfeiffer has called Ezekiel the father of modern Judaism. In other words, Ezekiel’s “visions” are to be understood quite literally even though they never could be fulfilled quite literally.

Another view which applies literalism is that of modern dispensationalism. To put the matter very tersely, it is held that Ezekiel’s prophecies apply to Israel, the nation, and Palestine, the land, literally. Since the visions have not been fulfilled literally in the past, and since the Scripture is the word of God which cannot be broken, they will be fulfilled in the future. Most dispensational brethren expect the fulfilment to take place in the period just prior to and during the millennium.

A third view tends to take matters more figuratively or symbolically, since the prophecy is so largely visionary, so full of figures of speech and symbols. The Israel which is to be restored is the spiritual Israel, not only chastened and converted Jews but Gentiles as well. The temple is symbolic, it is said, since such figures as the river of water of life and the trees of life are surely not a literal stream or literal shrubs, yet the river issues from the temple. The crux of this kind of interpretation is that Ezekiel spoke during the Mosaic economy under the figures of speech of that economy, but he pointed to the new era in Christ. The strongest argument for this position is that our Lord Jesus did inaugurate the era of the new covenant in his own blood and he is the Davidic king, the good shepherd as he himself said. Since volumes have been written on this subject, it will not be pursued further here.

There is a wealth of books and articles dealing with both the prophet and his prophecy.

Bibliography

The student will find that the available books are in general of the three schools of interpretation which are mentioned above. In the study of historical background the Interpreter’s Bible has some excellent material, though the commentary itself is given over to the analytical approach and denies much of the book to Ezekiel. The clearest presentation of the dispensational point of view is given by Arno C. Gaebelein in his commentary, which may be obtained as a separate volume or in the Annotated Bible series. Among the older commentaries which are valuable are those by C. F. Keil in the Keil and Delitzsch series, and one by Patrick Fairbairn. The latter is a thoroughgoing application of the principle of “spiritualizing.” There has recently been published a very readable but penetrating volume by H. L. Ellison, entitled Ezekiel, the Man and His Message. It is well worth much more than its moderate cost.

If one were starting a study of biblical prophecy in general it would be well for him to read Patrick Fairbairn’s Prophecy. The literalist would be infuriated at a number of points but it is wholesome for all of us to gain another point of view. E. J. Young’s My Servants the Prophets is of great help in understanding the phenomenon of Old Testament prophecy. It is recommended that anyone who wishes to approach Ezekiel seriously should use such background materials in order to employ the commentaries and a good reference Bible profitably. In this way he may come to his own conclusions in the area of interpretation and not be a mere sounding board for the ideas of others.

DAVID W. KERR

Professor of Old Testament

Gordon Divinity School

No GENERATION IN HISTORY has seen the completion and use of more bridges of every size and type than has our own. Not only are arches longer and higher but modern engineering has successfully spanned greater bodies of water and bridged over wider valleys and chasms than ever before.

But the greatest Bridge of all was completed more than 1900 years ago—the Bridge between God and man; between the finite and the infinite; between time and eternity; between earth and heaven; between Paradise Lost and the Paradise which may be regained.

It is this Bridge which is the heart of the gospel message. It is about this “missing link” between God and man that men are to preach. And it is of this Bridge’s perfection and uniqueness that men need to know.

The foundation of this Bridge is the Incarnation—that God actually assumed human nature, and came into the world that men might be transformed for now and for eternity.

No one has ever fully explained the mystery of the Incarnation. It is one of those facts of divine and human history which must be accepted by faith, the effects of which can be experienced in the heart and demonstrated in the life of the believer.

The uniqueness of this Bridge is attested to by our Lord himself when he said: “No man cometh unto the Father but by me”; by John the Baptist in the words: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him”; by Peter, filled by the Holy Spirit, as he affirmed to the rulers in Jerusalem: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”; and by Paul when he wrote: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

We all love to assume an attitude of sophistication but this has no place in such matters of life and death. The import of these statements should make us accept them with childlike faith and proclaim them with the conviction they deserve.

In the Cross of Calvary, with all of its implications, we see this Bridge. For in the Christ of that Cross and in this great central fact of all history God, disclosing his holiness and justice and his infinite love and mercy, provided the Way whereby sinful man may be reconciled to a holy God.

Just as the Bridge from God to man is found in the redeeming work of Christ, so too he is the Bridge to the enigma of Truth itself. Affirming himself to be the Way and the Truth and the Life, he is the only answer to man’s quest for answers of eternal import—“Who am I?” “From whence did I come?” “Who is God and what is he like?” “How explain the enigmas of life and death?” Only in Jesus Christ do we come to positive answers which are the embodiment of Truth itself.

Christ is also the Bridge of communication between man and God for it is only in his name that we can come with boldness to the throne of grace and hold communion with the infinite and eternal God. In fact, to pray on the basis of personal worth, without coming in his Name, is both presumption and blasphemy.

One of the ironies of our scientific age has been man’s unending search for a missing link between himself and the lower animals. This has led to some ludicrous and often utterly unscientific assumptions and conclusions. At the same time the missing link between God and man remains available for all who will recognize and receive Him. This bridge of the gap between man and his Maker is the only connection which leads to a certain future. Strange that in these modern times we are so often more concerned about a hypothetical link with an unrecallable past.

The necessity for this Bridge is expressed by our Lord in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Prior to death they stood on a common ground, but by inference we know that Lazarus knew and made use of God’s provision of salvation.

When these two had experienced the irrevocable step of death the means of transferring from one realm to the other was no longer available. In torment the rich man lifted up his eyes and sought relief. In this story, so full of awe-inspiring implications, Lazarus is heard to speak: “And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.”

Where now there is a Bridge available to all, there will some day be a chasm across which no Bridge is cast. So clear are the teachings of Holy Scripture on this subject that to hold out hope of a future opportunity for repentance and salvation does violence to revealed truth and creates a mirage to lure the unwary to eternal loss.

In all this a warning is also to be found against the erection of false bridges, bridges which are structurally unsound and which can never take the traveler into the presence of God. Such bridges are to be found on every hand—attempts to reach over into eternity in some way other than God’s way and by some person or method not ordained of him. False Christs, who bear no resemblance to the Christ of the Bible, religious leaders incapable of saving themselves or of saving others.

Certain conclusions are inescapable: Between unregenerate man and God there is a great chasm, a chasm produced by sin, because of which sinful man is separated from the holy God. But God was not content to have it thus and himself provided the Bridge in the person of his Son.

That which now confronts man is a fact—a chasm. But he is also faced with an alternative, the Bridge. God’s offer is a “whosoever will” which makes this Bridge available to all. The divine factor is God’s unlimited provision. The human factor is man’s will, bent to receive the goodness and mercy of God, or hardened to reject his gift and walk on in blindness to ultimate destruction. It is precisely at this point that man is confronted with his dilemma and also with his hope.

There is always danger in over-simplification. There is also danger in “ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.” There is no need for man to walk in the darkness of uncertainty when there is open to him the privilege of walking in the sunshine of revealed truth. In such a revelation is to be seen the chasm of eternal separation from God and the Bridge without which no man can cross over into the new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.

The Hebrew-Christian view of divine revelation is unmistakably clear. It allows us to see that in unbreakable harmony God has revealed himself in history, in word, and in deed: in the history of man’s fall and prodigality, in the history of uprising and rebellion. He deals most revealingly where sin reaches its highpoint, namely, in the cross of Christ. In the cross of Christ lies concentrated the great mystery of the revelation of God. In this cross we see on the one side the end of the ways of man in deep darkness and the extremities of his estrangement, but on the other side the definitive and new beginning of the ways of God. Here is the salvation of God unveiled; when the wisdom of the wise is revealed as coming to nothing: “Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”

Now the mystery of divine revelation is made manifest: “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

Now it would be a radical and hopeless mistake if men were to take this to mean that God is in the larger things of life, that he is there when men are strong and brave. No, he is there where the “foolishness” and the “weakness” of the Cross is accepted for salvation. If God has dealt definitively in the Cross and in the Resurrection of his beloved Son, then henceforth the vision of Mary, the mother of the Lord becomes reality: “He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away” (Luke 1:51–53).

That is the law of the continuance of history in the last days. It is a sobering thought that this reality of revelation is not generally reckoned with in our times. That is the greatest mistake of our age, that it lacks understanding of God’s revelation in justice and grace in the last days, now that God has spoken clearly in his Son, after he “in diverse manner spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets” (Heb. 1:1).

In our days much is spoken and written about the “absence” of God. Man has taken his own life in hand and goes forth on a course of fantastic discoveries. It appears as if man has become strong and great and mighty. But the great problem of our time, in the light of the Hebrew-Christian view of divine revelation, is not man’s greatness but his smallness: can he still be small before God? That is the most critical question that can be put to man.

The “absence” of God?

After Christ had instructed his young disciples, Philip posed the question: “Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us” (John 15:8). He had listened to his Master with holy desire, but he was not yet satisfied. There was still an unknown area: show us the Father!

To this question Christ gave answer with a counter-question: “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” (John 14:9).

There is no word in the New Testament, according to our knowledge, that presses more deeply into the mystery of the revelation of God in this world than this question of Christ, “how sayest thou then?” Here the fact became obvious that for those who already have learned to know Christ there exists no separate problem—the problem of the Father—that has not yet been solved. The revelation of God in Jesus Christ, upon which the entire history in the Old and New Testaments is focused, is definitive and conclusive. Here men cannot stray, if they will only cast themselves at the feet of him who is the revelation of the Father.

Threat To Revelation

In the history of the Church and of theology, faith in divine revelation has been threatened by many dangers.

There was first the threat of the heresy which attacked the absolute revelation of God in Christ Jesus, and after long periods of violent struggle the Church gave expression to its confession in more certain terms.

In modern times the mystery of divine revelation has been brought to trial anew.

It is not accidental that almost always the great battles in the history of the Church have centered themselves on the confession of Christ and in the answer to the question: “But whom say ye that I am?” (Matt. 16:15). That is not a subordinate point in salvation, but the absolute core. Often the fierceness of the defense of the Church against modernism has been unjustly charged to intellectualism and traditionalism. But the source of this energetic defense lies deeply and principally in a decisive outlook on God’s revelation.

Naturally, the danger of intellectualism and even orthodoxism is always present with us. Men can speak about the truth of God in the same manner as the Pharisees spoke about the Law, while in their hearts they held themselves far from the Lord of the Law. So one can accept all the “truths” of the Christian faith, but in his heart be a stranger to them. But this erroneous path of intellectualism without faith, present danger that it is, may never allow us to leave the faith to be blurred out in a mystical emotion, in which we are not interested in what has happened. When Paul points to the Cross and the Resurrection, then he is not concerned with a mere intellectual acceptance of these truths, but he seeks faith and love, surrender and expectation, hope and adoration.

Just when the Church in our time feels compelled to confess the mystery of revelation over against many kinds of criticism, then we should also recall that the self-same Apostle Paul, who gloried in the Cross, also called out: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:1–2). This is a serious warning against a misunderstanding of divine revelation.

But another possibility exists. This we see in the witness of John, the apostle of love, who in the struggle of his days cried out in spirited defense: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.”

Here love is tied in with indignation over the attacks on the great mystery. For John, everything hangs in the balances when that message is challenged. And the same John, at the end of his letter, warns with pressing earnestness: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen” (1 John 5:21).

Understandably, this letter, which is full of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, ends with a warning against idols. For there only one decision: that between Jesus Christ and the idols. Other gods press themselves forward when the divine revelation of God in Christ is mistaken or denied. In the history of Israel, idols brought forth only darkness. Now people bow down no longer to idols of wood or of stone, but modern idols are also hard masters and we are still warned in the last days, “Little children: it is the last time.”

Summoning The Whole Man

If one thing is certain, it is this: our insight into the Hebrew-Christian view of divine revelation is not an intellectual game. It is, and must be, a matter of the heart. It concerns the revelation of the living God, the God who calls and who promises, who is merciful and just, and who has spoken to us through his Son.

And so completely is the entire Word of God made manifest in Christ that he once said to his disciples: “If any man serve me, him will my Father honor” (John 12:26). We can hardly fathom the reality and the riches of this Word. We can picture to ourselves that we are called to the soli Deo gloria—but here we read: “him will the Father honor”—not our worthiness but a glory of God upon him who serves the Son.

That is the secret of the future, when the full and deep significance of divine revelation in history shall be unveiled, and when the word shall sound forth: “It is done” (Rev. 21:6). Among all the redeemed on earth a longing already exists to understand more and more the mystery of the revelation of God in its breadth and its length, its depth and its height (Eph. 3:18). Only in this communion is it possible “to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge” (Eph. 3:19). This word of the Apostle Paul has been called paradoxical, but the paradox becomes known and in this knowledge is experienced as inexhaustible.

The Lamb And The Book

In all the ages of man his heart has been set on a search for the purpose of history. And always human thinking stretches itself to understand the past, the present and the future. But for many, history appears to be nothing more than “a book written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals” (Rev. 5:1). But the last book of the Bible gives the explanation of purpose through “a strong angel with a loud voice” (Rev. 5:2). “Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.” (Rev. 5:5).

And even when the Lamb finally opens the book—for Christ Jesus is the purpose of history—there still remain depths in the revelation of God that we do not thoroughly understand. “How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” But they are and remain “the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” (Rom. 11:33).

END

G. C. Berkouwer is Professor of Systematic Theology in Free University, Amsterdam, and author of many significant books. He is one of 24 evangelical scholars contributing to the important symposium on Revelation and the Bible to be published in the latter part of this year by Baker Book House.

For the last 15 years there has been steadily developing in American Methodism a “High Church” movement. This has been connected with an earlier development in English Methodism, the principles of which were being advocated as early as 1914 by the “Wesleyan Guild of Divine Worship,” earliest representative of similar (and more developed) organizations.

A number of terms has designated the movement. Liturgical Movement is one, although this is likely to be misunderstood, as it means an emphasis not upon mere ritual but upon worship as the act of the whole congregation, and moreover it is a term used of a movement beyond the distinctive Methodist development. Sacramental Revival describes it better, although again casual readers may miss many implications of this term.

Distinctive Beliefs

The title we have used above is less commonly used, more descriptive perhaps of the actual nature of the movement. We may describe the Methodist High Churchman as one who believes in:

1. High views of the Christian Faith: the wholehearted acceptance of divine revelation given in the Holy Scriptures and witnessed to in the historic Christian creeds.

2. High views of Christian worship: the acceptance of worship as the principal business of the church and the duty of every individual, and the belief that such worship must center around the divinely given Word and sacraments.

3. High views of the Church of Christ: belief in the Church as a divine institution headed by Christ himself, and one which has a mission to the whole world.

4. High views of the ministry: belief in a divine call to the ministry, the importance of ordination, and the distinctiveness of the clerical vocation.

By whatever name, the movement stands for a distinct view of the Christian faith and is not to be confused with the aestheticism common in churches today. It is based upon a hard core of Christian doctrine.

Described by some of its supporters as a “militant attack upon humanism,” it is in fact a return to the historic faith after the inroads of secular philosophy in the present age. There is throughout the movement an emphasis upon the historic confessions of the Christian Church, especially those of an ecumenical character like the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds.

In those circles affected by this quietly growing force is the repeatedly used phrase “Nicene Christianity.” It represents part of the insistence upon the objective quality of Christianity, and is rooted in faith in the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the Resurrection. Members of one organization connected with the movement are pledged “to submit my mind humbly to the faith of the church as set forth in the Nicene Creed.” The faith in all ages whether in the first century or the twentieth is, and must be, one in essence.

The first issue of Present Age Leaflets, “I Believe,” published by the Wesley Witness of Rochdale, England, is a good example of this conviction that Christian doctrine matters. It challenges those who “make nonsense of Christianity” by preaching “Marx, Tennyson, Wells, and Shaw … a creedless religion which is agnosticism with a veneer of ritual.”

Methodism’S Heritage

In all this, Methodism’s own particular heritage comes frequently to the front. Methodists never quite escape their founder, and those hard sayings of Wesley, so often shelved by modern Methodists, are being rediscovered by friends of the Sacramental Revival. They know, if others do not, that Wesley did not just say, “We think and let think.” He said, “As to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think.” The preceding words make clear exactly what Wesley had in mind:

We believe, indeed, that all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God’; and herein we are distinguished from Jews, Turks, and infidels. We believe the written Word of God to be the only and sufficient rule both of Christian faith and practice; and herein we are fundamentally distinguished from those of the Romish Church. We believe Christ to be the eternal, supreme God; and herein we are distinguished from the Socinians and Arians.

The Sacramental Revival means a return to Wesley in regard to worship as well as doctrine. There can be no doubt that in worship, modern Methodism has largely departed from Wesley both in theory and in practice. Nowhere is this more evident than with regard to Holy Communion. Wesley through a long life communed about every third day and taught his followers to do the same. His “Directions Given to the Band Societies” urge members “To be at church and at the Lord’s table every week.… To observe, as days of fasting or abstinence, all Fridays in the year.” In 1784 in his letter to the American Methodists, regarding forming a separate church, Wesley said, “I also advise the elders to administer the Supper of the Lord, on every Lord’s Day.” His liturgy prepared for, and adopted by American Methodists in that year presupposes such a practice.

Not only in practice but in theory as well, a falling away from the Wesleyan ideas has occurred. The average Methodist minister or congregation is not at home with Wesleyan doctrine in regard to the sacraments. Wesley’s “Treatise on Baptism,” published 18 years after his Aldersgate experience, would be strongly opposed today by many in Methodist circles. The Methodist hymnal does not contain a single hymn on Baptism or the Lord’s Supper by the Wesley brothers. Wesley’s principal work on the Lord’s Supper is not even cited in Burtner and Chiles’ Compend of Wesley’s Theology, although this is an effort to set forth Wesley’s teaching.

Conservative Aspects

In that it seeks to return to basic principles within Methodism, the Sacramental Revival is a conservative movement. It seeks a return to the original character of the Wesleyan movement in opposition to the lowest-common-denominator revivalism that once prevailed in America and to the humanism which succeeded it.

The Sacramental Revival is conservative in that it seeks a worship rooted in biblical concepts. It magnifies the sacraments because the New Testament magnifies them. In them the drama of redemption is shown and becomes effective. The worship of the church must, in this view, center around the Gospel as an objective fact. The faith cannot be what each individual feels it is, but what Christendom has always declared it to be.

With regard to the church union, this movement also represents a distinct point of law. It believes in it, and prayer is constantly offered for that objective. But in contrast to the views sometimes held out, it does not hope for a union achieved by disregarding the basic doctrines of Christianity. Union however reached, must always be built upon the forthright acceptance of the faith revealed in the New Testament and believed by the undivided church.

The Past And The Present

The Sacramental Revival has vital relation to the past: to Wesley, to the Church of England, and to the primitive Church. It is related to modern movements: the revival of biblical theology, the liturgical movement, and the ecumenical movement. It is related to the personal spiritual needs of individuals, and is supported generally by those who have found it satisfying religiously. For these reasons it is reaching an ever-increasing number of Methodists.

The present writer is a convinced supporter of this movement. I believe in its principles. I realize that many, both inside and outside Methodism, have yet to evaluate it. But sooner or later they will do so. To the conservative that would consider the qualities of the movement, I would suggest that he keep in mind the following:

1. Its doctrinal base. Do not confuse it with externels: robes, candles, and incense are not the basic things in this movement.

2. Its unquestioned loyalty to the historic Christian faith, magnifying the Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection.

3. Its spiritual quality.

4. Its close connection with the thought and practice of John Wesley and other early Methodist leaders.

We Quote:

HENRY J. CADBURY

Professor, Haverford College

Whenever we review the higher criticism of past centuries, we realize how much it proceeded in accordance with changing styles or was affected by external influences. But we find it difficult to recognize and allow for similar patterns in our own day. Thus neo-orthodoxy and ecumenicity have replaced former influences, only to give place, I suppose, to other patterns of tomorrow. Even bodies of newly discovered or newly studied literature are successively exploited. The gospel of John has always proved puzzling. During the past half century one clue after another has been pressed to provide a solution; the mystery religions, apocalyptic Judaism, Mandaism, Hermeticism, have all had a turn.… Any experienced historian of criticism could have predicted that if a substantial body of new information about a contemporary Jewish or Christian movement were discovered in 1947, men would at once be found to claim therein a key to the gospel of John. Such a prediction has been enthusiastically and uncritically fulfilled since the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This reminds us how hard it is to acquire perspective towards our own time.—In an article, “Some Foibles of New Testament Scholarship,” in The Journal of Bible and Religion, July, 1958.

Mrs. Lillian Turner is a church secretary in Mississippi, and a graduate of Draughan’s Business College in Jackson. She writes of a small but growing movement in American Methodism. In England its strongest organizational expression is the Methodist Sacramental Fellowship, formed 1935, and in the United States, the Order of Saint Luke, founded 1946.

The present year is the anniversary not only of the death of Mary Tudor but also of the accession of her half-sister Elizabeth I to the throne of England. This opened the way for a Protestant restoration and a somewhat permanent settlement of the religious question. Apart from the Civil War and some regrettable schisms, this settlement has indeed lasted in its main features right up to the present time, and some of its characteristics will repay our closer study.

Elements Of Strength

On the credit side, it may be noticed that a firm doctrinal Protestantism was adopted with the acceptance of a revised version of the original Forty Two Articles of Cranmer. For a time, concessions were made to Lutheran opinion in respect of the Lord’s Supper, but these were abandoned later in the reign; and the final Thirty Nine Articles commit the Church of England to a distinctively Reformed position in all the disputed issues of the time. The wording of the Articles makes it clear that the counter-propositions of Trent were flatly rejected.

Again on the credit side, the liturgical practice readopted by the church was that of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer with its incontestable Reformed presuppositions. In keeping with the policy of Cranmer, a fixed liturgical form was maintained. This was almost inevitable at a time when so many of the available clergy could not be trusted to follow forms of their own devising, and it secured for the church many of the treasures of the past in a manner adapted to serve the edification of the present. Orderly, dignified and deeply spiritual worship was linked with evangelical truth and preaching in a happy combination which is the heart and strength of Anglicanism at its purest and best.

Third, the existing structure of ministry was retained, though with a new orientation in keeping with the new character of the church. Drastic upheaval was prevented by the continuance of ancient offices and organization. But it was made clear that the bishops and presbyters were now to be genuine preachers and pastors exercising a genuinely evangelical ministry no less than their Presbyterian counterparts elsewhere. In ecclesiastical as in liturgical order, there was no hasty discarding or evolutionizing of the past, but the time-honored structure was dedicated to the new purposes of the day.

Fruit Of The Reformers

In other words, Elizabeth brought to fruition the work already attempted by the Edwardian Reformers, and gave to the Church of England the particular impress which it still bears as a church committed to fully Protestant teaching but maintaining much of the traditional order. We thus learn from the settlement that reformation does not have to be revolution; that while changes may be necessary they need not be drastic; that the heritage of the past can be applied to the needs of the present and future; that genuinely spiritual life and vigor are possible even within the framework of that which is older and more stately and formal; and that while certain forms may be preferable to others, what really counts is the theology and spiritual power which finds expression within them.

At the same time there are certain dangers and weaknesses inherent in the settlement which also claim our attention and from which we can learn in the ordering of the church’s life and work and worship. The first is the obvious attempt at over-scrupulous uniformity which may be justifiable in the case of less qualified ministers but which can only lead to revolt and ultimate dissension in the case of others. In point of fact, even in the reign of Elizabeth herself, the ecclesiastical authorities found it impossible to enforce complete uniformity. But to try to do so in any legalistic sense is surely wrong in principle, since it stifles the free subjection of order to the test of Scripture and the constructive moving of the Spirit. Acts of uniformity were almost bound to result in nonconformity; and it is to be remembered in this connection that even today we must not confuse unity with uniformity or legitimate diversity with disunity.

Confusion Injected

Again, at two important points Elizabeth introduced confusion: first, and less seriously, by conflating the sentences used in the administration of Communion; and second, and more seriously, by an Ornaments Rubric which, on the face of it, sanctions far more of the ancient ceremonial than in 1552 book allowed or most Elizabethans were prepared to accept. It might be argued, as some argue today, that more elaborate vestments and ceremonial are not incompatible in principle with full evangelical teaching. But the fact remains that it is under cover of this rubric that Anglo-Catholicism has secured a re-entry into the Church of England and is finally planning an assault upon the Articles themselves. The retention of the old involves a serious risk if it is not brought into full conformity with the dogmatic norm and kept in clear subjection to it.

Finally, Elizabeth as a civil ruler, maintained a typically Tudor integration of her religion into her whole domestic and foreign policy. Whatever her private views—and there can be little doubt that she inclined to a form of Protestantism—she kept steadily before her the temporal welfare of her crown and kingdom, and bent her religious policy to the accomplishment of this final end. We must not be too hard on Elizabeth. She inherited a divided, discordant and defenseless country. Dependent at first upon the help of Spain against France, or France against Spain, she held out hopes of reconversion to Rome while fomenting Reformation in the Netherlands and Scotland to weaken both the French and Spanish positions. Determined to be mistress in her own house, she could not tolerate either Recusants and their incipient treachery on the one side, or Puritans and their independent attitude on the other. The settlement was a form of Protestantism which she found best adapted to the brilliant pursuit of her policies as a whole; and we may be thankful that it did not involve a much greater measure of ambiguity and compromise than was actually the case.

Religious Policy And Civic Policy

The final question remains, however, whether religious policies may rightly or even safely be integrated into civil, or if so, on what terms and in what relationship. The century which followed was vitally occupied with the same question, not only in the Stuart alliance of crown and episcopacy, but in the Puritan alliance with Parliament and the attempt of Independency to break free from all political entanglement. Up to a point there has obviously to be some integration, as even the Independents found when they set up their new order in the New World. Indeed, one of the firmest guarantees of the continued Protestantism of the Church of England is still its rootage in the constitution. But at least we may learn from Elizabeth that the crucial truth and order should not be subjugated to considerations of national policy whether at home or abroad. To do this is not only to be committed to a measure of compromise, but to check the constant work of reformation and to create tensions which can only lead to eventual, and altogether unnecessary, discord and disaster in the religious and civic life.

END

Geoffrey W. Bromiley is an Anglican clergyman, author of several books, and co-editor of a forthcoming dictionary of theology. He is currently serving on the faculty of Fuller Theological Seminary as visiting Professor of Church History.

A Thanksgiving Meditation

It is easy to capture the mood of Thanksgiving, or Harvest Festival. The autumn sun is shining warmly in a blue November sky. The Michigan maples and birches and oaks are ablaze with color. The farms have yielded another excellent harvest. The “frost is on the punkin’ and the corn is in the shock.”

Compared with other ages, or other lands, the countryside around me and the city in the distance are signs of an economy of abundance: a surplus of food, a wealth of all that factories can make, an ample provision of services, a fascinating variety of opportunities. A country church spire reminds me of even greater blessings—the gift of God’s Son, the fellowship of his people, the Bible in my own language, the daily care of a loving Father. Then, the disturbing thought: Why should I be so blessed and others be left in want and ignorance? If favors material and spiritual could be scaled somehow, and the earth’s peoples rated against the scale, I should surely be in the top five per cent.

Privilege Obligates

The mood of wonder and reverie gave way to one of burden and obligation. If privilege obligates, and this the Gospel stoutly maintains, what a heavy obligation belongs to one with so many privileges! If “from those to whom much has been given shall much be required,” then how solemn must the Day of Accounting be! How difficult to manage all these divine investments and make them all produce a fair return!

Anyone who calls himself a Christian must share the task involved in knowing the Redeemer, the task of making him known. And anyone who lives in North America or in Western Europe must regard himself as high on the scale of materially-blessed peoples. A half hour’s reflection on the million refugees in Hong Kong, or the displaced persons still in Europe’s camps, or the Arab homeless rotting away in the tent villages of the Middle East, should “drive a point” through the caked soil of self-centeredness and tap the deep wells of humble gratitude for one’s own lot. Few among us have known the desperation and humiliation of haunting garbage cans for food. Our concerns are for the next increment of an already high living standard.

Is it not strange that Christian devotional literature should have more to say on how Christians should suffer poverty than on how they should use abundance? The New Testament seems to reverse this emphasis.

In times of unemployment, depression, and the poverty that so often accompanies life’s closing years, Christians are encouraged to be patient, stouthearted, trustful, prayerful, more concerned over the “glory which shall be revealed in us” than over “the sufferings of this present time.” But what are the particular Christian virtues to be practiced in times of abundance?

Paul has a word in his letter to the Philippians that speaks to this point: “I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound” (4:12). “I know how to abound.” Blessed Paul, would that we Christians who are bowed beneath the weight of divine favor might discover thy secret this Thanksgiving season!

A Proper Response

Knowing how to abound, like most other kinds of knowledge, takes some learning. Few come by the knack of it naturally. Abundance puts a greater strain on character and consecration than poverty does. The pitfalls of even modest wealth are many and subtle.

“I know how to abound,” claims Paul. “Very well, noble Paul, share with us this knowledge.” Part of his reply may be found in a word he includes in his Colossian letter. He describes there the walk of those who have “received Christ Jesus the Lord” as a progressive establishment in the faith, “abounding therein with thanksgiving” (2:7).

In other words, the proper Christian response to God for the gift of “abounding grace” is thanksgiving. And should not the same response arise for the “all things” God gives his children richly to enjoy?

What a consistent example Paul gives us of this counsel! His letters breathe a spirit of thanksgiving. In nearly every one he has a thanksgiving section in the opening paragraph. Out of his own experience he can write, “In everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.”

But what is thanksgiving? It is more than a mood, more than a sentiment. It is deeper than reminiscence. Thanksgiving is essentially a relationship between persons. Christian thanksgiving is a vertical relationship between the believer and God. It belongs to the noble family called Prayer, and it is the twin brother of Praise. It recognizes that a blessing is a gift, and then it raises its attention from the gift to the Giver. Thanksgiving is therefore always response, for the Giver of every good and perfect gift always takes the initiative.

Sensible of who the Giver is, the thankful heart regards his gifts as mercy bestowed, not as payment owed. It allows that God might have withheld his gifts, and that even now he could withdraw them for reasons he considers wise. So the thankful heart sees a witness to be borne both in the receiving of God’s gifts and in the not receiving of them. It compares what heaven sends, not with the greater abundance of the wealthy, but with the need of the poor and with the just deserts of the receiver. In this way the thankful heart learns at the same time, and under the tutelage of either wealth or poverty, both lessons—how to be abased, and how to abound. This the Apostle Paul learned throughout his life as Christ’s disciple, from the Damascus road to the prison cell in Rome.

A Prime Relationship

Thanksgiving, however, is only part of the relationship between the believer and God. And it is likely to be just as strong—no more, no less—as the other parts of this relationship. Confession and forgiveness, worship and comfort, praise and blessing—these are other parts of the same relationship. The man who is seldom at church, who is a veritable stranger to his Bible, who is out of practice in prayer, will find it hard to execute a swift change in roles and to be truly thankful, Christianly thankful, once a year!

Sadly must we admit that our national holiday called Thanksgiving is often far removed from what Paul has in mind. The press and the radio admonish us to “be thankful.” But to whom? It is all so vague.

For many of our citizens this “being thankful” will amount to little more than thinking “Are we not lucky? Yes, come to think of it, we are indeed quite lucky.” There is nothing wrong with feasting, but the child of God feels he must first go to the house of God to pay his vows of thanksgiving and sing with might and main, “Praise God from whom all blessings flow!” He feels impelled to recognize the Great Giver. Not to do so would be as rude as to attend a birthday celebration and neglect to congratulate the person in whose honor the celebration is held.

The Christian also knows that the ungrateful heart keeps bad company—smugness, discontent, a grasping spirit, a lack of compassion, selfishness, an absence of tenderness, an unawareness of the shortness of life and the length of eternity. But these loiterers are too familiar to need much of an introduction. From them the thankful heart turns away.

A Privileged Return

But we cannot leave the matter here. Truly, the man who “knows how to abound” as Paul did, abounds with thanksgiving. Yet is this all? If it is, the thanksgiving is counterfeit! The genuine variety accepts the obligation to share with others that which abundance brings. The vertical relationship asks to be expressed horizontally. The Christian does not just thank God he is not poor; he identifies himself with those who are poor and shares. After all, one cannot give God a sandwich, or a winter coat, except as we give them to our neighbor. Nor does God give a sandwich, or a winter coat, to our neighbor, except as he gives them through us. And who is our neighbor? Jesus answered that question once for all in the story of the Good Samaritan. To be a link in the divine process of providence and liberality—what an unspeakable privilege! Let this thought be the afterglow of Thanksgiving Day.

When you come to think of it, who is doing most of the caring for the poor in our world? Is it not the world-wide community of Christians? True, the Christians probably have more to give than some others, but not all who can give do give. It is highly suggestive that it is Christian compassion, expressed through churches, independent agencies, and even governments, which reaches out to care for Arab refugees when many of their own oil-rich fellow religionists withhold aid. Nor do we read much about Russian rubles being offered to these pitiable people.

The arm of Christian mercy is long and effective. Church World Service, CROP, Lutheran World Relief—the list could be greatly extended. The heart of Christ’s true Church is sound because it is generous. In view of Calvary, how could it be otherwise? Still, there is room for even closer imitation of Christ. For where is there giving like unto his giving?

If knowing “how to abound” includes “abounding in thanksgiving,” then it also includes “always abounding in the work of the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58). And as we look round about our world on this Thanksgiving Day, 1958, we must agree that there is plenty of the Lord’s work to be done!

END

Harold N. Englund is Minister of Midland Reformed Church in Midland, Michigan. He is a native of California. He holds the B.A. degree from University of California, and is also a candidate for the Ph.D. degree from New College, Edinburgh.