In a dramatically bold legal gesture, a group of Soviet Protestants has asked the United Nations to intervene in behalf of victims of religious persecution. Their remarkable thirty-two-page plea, in the form of a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, is perhaps the best authenticated document of Communist repression of the Christian community ever to come out of the U. S. S. R.

“We would not turn to the international organization if we had only the slightest hope that our applications to the government in the U. S. S. R. would have a positive result,” the group declares. “But cruel war against the unregistered congregations widens.”

The letter, which reached the West on the eve of the fiftieth anniversary celebration of the Bolshevik Revolution, appeals repeatedly to legal guarantees under Communist law and indicates thorough familiarity with the Soviet penal code. An English translation is being distributed by the European Christian Mission in London.

“We intercede with you, U Thant, to organize a committee for the examination of the condemned believers,” the group pleads.

An appendix identifies 202 Protestants now said to be imprisoned and gives a virtually complete listing of names, addresses, legal citations,¹Slavic temperament undoubtedly underlies many spontaneous and unnecessary violations of Soviet law. The law and the authorities’ interpretation of it nonetheless represent something considerably less than religious liberty. dates of arrest and sentence, and number of dependents. Most of the alleged offenses took place in 1966, though some are recorded from as late as August of this year. Many more Protestants have been arrested, the letter says, but the information about them could not be collected.

The letter is signed by “The Council of Relatives of Prisoners” and gives a Moscow address to which a reply should be sent. The group is obviously part of the bloc of Protestants who have broken with the so-called Evangelical Christian Baptists sanctioned by Moscow authorities.

The letter charges that the faction is not allowed to have places of worship unless they are registered with the government and that all new congregations that have applied for registration have been refused.

The letter also says that the government has confiscated chapels in at least eighteen cities. Two homes where believers met for worship and prayer were bulldozed. Soviet militia have broken in on services and dispersed or arrested worshipers.

As a result of the intimidation, Protestants have begun to hold services in open woods, but they have been harassed by authorities there, too.

In Kiev alone, the letter declares, there was a wave of eighty-five arrests in ten to fifteen days.

Apartments of believers are searched repeatedly, and children are interrogated and taken from their parents. Prisoners are forbidden to have Bibles. At Barnaul, a religious prisoner is said to have been tortured to death.

Although the letter is a well-authenticated document that deserves sympathetic attention, little is gained by appealing to the U. N. The organization is powerless to intervene in cases where its Declaration on Human Rights has been violated. A U. N. spokesman said its policy is neither to confirm nor to deny receipt of such letters, of which it gets a great many. Normal procedure, he said, is to delete identification and then send the letter to the government concerned.

The letter recalls the incident in Moscow in January, 1963, when thirty-two evangelicals broke into the U. S. Embassy to present a list of religious grievances. The list was sent to Washington and to U. N. headquarters, but its effect has never been officially traced.

The letter is apparently being distributed quite widely in Great Britain. An agency of the British Council of Churches last month reported that it had before it “disturbing evidence of the persecution of Christians in the U.S.S.R.”

The persecution is not limited to Christians. It extends to adherents of the Jewish faith, and Jews in the West, well aware of the suffering, are becoming increasingly vocal about it. They have been purchasing large amounts of newspaper advertising space to call attention to the plight of Soviet Jews.

No corresponding effort is being made in behalf of Soviet Christians, whose plight is as bad or worse. So far, the American religious establishment has settled for exchanges of Communist-approved churchmen as its way of identifying with the Soviet Christian community. The latest such exchange is taking place this fall between the Church of the Brethren in the United States, which sent a three-man team and a translator, and the Russian Orthodox Church, which is scheduled to send a three-man team to the United States this month.

In contrast to American indifference, German Protestant leaders plan extensive research on the persecution of Christians around the world. The plan was prompted by the slaughter of tens of thousands of Christians of the Ibo tribe in Nigeria some months ago.

The persistence of widespread repression of religious activity in the Soviet Union is, of course, an indirect tribute to religious faith and to the believers there.

“The fifty years of Soviet struggle with religion add up to a case study of ideological failure,” says Peter Grose in the New York Times. “It is the doctrine of atheism, not faith in God, that is dying in Soviet Russia today.” He adds that “an intricate police operation is seeking to penetrate and control the church that could not be destroyed.”

Grose thinks the prevalence of middle-aged and elderly persons among the worshipers may not be so significant as it seems; many Soviet citizens, he says, “do not feel like disclosing their convictions until they have reached their professional peak or retired on a pension.” One Western resident of Moscow is quoted as saying he was “willing to bet that fifty years from now those churches will be just as crowded as they are today—and still with old people.”

The perennial plea of Soviet Protestants is for more Bibles. Religious News Service reports that since 1917 the Soviet government has sanctioned only three printings of the complete Bible: 25,000 copies in 1926, another 25,000 in 1956, and 10,000 in 1957. To capitalize on the demand, Soviet government publishers have been issuing various interpretations of scriptural accounts and revised narratives of biblical events.

Bill Kapitaniuk, Canadian-born evangelist of Ukrainian origin, reports that Siberia is experiencing a new surge of Christian faith. The reason, he says, is that believers who were shipped there years ago have influenced those who came later to populate rising cities and industrial areas. Kapitaniuk, who is working with the Slavic Gospel Association, estimates that since his last visit to the Soviet Union, in 1965, about 1,000 new churches have been formed. He adds: “The Communist tactics appear to be a mixture between wanting to crush the Church and destroy it, and yet at the same time not wanting to drive the Church underground where it would be harder to control.”

PROTESTANT PANORAMA

A Southern Baptist church near the Little Rock, Arkansas, Air Force Base lost five families when it decided to pioneer and solicit Negro members. Since then, however, membership and giving have nearly doubled.

The Southern Baptist Convention joined two Negro Baptist denominations in a six-night inter-racial revival in Harlem.

The 400,000-member Baptist association in North Carolina will now require its churches to limit membership to immersed persons, possibly forcing out Myers Park and St. John’s churches in Charlotte.

Fifty persons from eight Baptist denominations met in Chicago to lay plans for a 1968 evangelism congress and the 1969 Crusade of the Americas. The council of the non-participating American Baptist Convention sent best wishes to ABC members involved in the planning.

Baptist Bible Seminary, affiliated with the General Association of Regular Baptists, will move next year from Johnson City, New York, to a 153-acre campus in Clark’s Summit, Pennsylvania, purchased from a Roman Catholic seminary.

A Methodist home near Washington, D. C., cut off from federal medicaid for alleged discrimination, was reinstated.

The American Lutheran Church Council will discuss in February background reports on whether to recommend that the denomination join the National Council of Churches in 1968.

The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands synod decided a 1926 declaration of the literal historicity of Genesis 1 and 2 is no longer binding on members; it now permits an understanding of the stories as myths or symbols. An accompanying statement affirmed the authority of Scripture and limited interpretation to the bounds of the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism.

A nationwide evangelism drive by Portugal’s thirty-six Baptist congregations led to 750 converts. Wide publicity in the press was used, and four Lisbon dailies carried news accounts.

Methodists in Cuba will form an autonomous church at a February conference.

PERSONALIA

The Rev. Howard B. Spragg was promoted to executive vice-president of the home-missions board for the United Church of Christ, to replace the retiring Truman Douglass. The press announcement claimed the agency “has led the ecumenical movement in American Protestantism.”

The Rev. Tom Foley, a Presbyterian from Jackson, Missouri, will be first Protestant chaplain at New York’s Kennedy Airport.

Albert H. van den Heuvel, formerly of the World Council of Churches’ youth department, is the new director of the communication department. He is a minister of the Netherlands Reformed Church.

The Rev. Robert Caul of the Graymoor Friars became the second Roman Catholic priest on the faith-and-order staff of the National Council of Churches.

Alvin Plantinga, philosophy teacher at Calvin College (Christian Reformed), won a $10,000 Danforth grant to study the relation between epistemological problems and the nature of scientific hypotheses.

Raymond J. Davis, general director of Sudan Interior Mission, was appointed president of the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association, which marks its fiftieth anniversary this year.

Church of England vicar Stephen Hopkinson has a hunch that homosexuality may be a socially and morally desirable answer to the population explosion. Honest.

Deaths

MRS. RUTH KERR, 73, Baptist laywoman and president of the Kerr Glass company who founded Westmont College as the Bible Missionary Institute in 1937; in Burbank, California.

HUGH MURCHISON, 71, California stock broker, radio executive, and Presbyterian elder, who served the Union Rescue Mission in Los Angeles and several other evangelical organizations.

W. P. Baugh, 95, oldest active Anglican priest in Canada until he retired from three rural parishes last year; said never to have taken a vacation; at Morin Heights, Quebec.

MISCELLANY

The World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church will sponsor a joint conference on world economics next April, probably in Africa. The WCC planner is evangelism staffer Philip Potter. “The gap between rich and poor nations” will be a major topic.

Toronto taxi drivers and druggists will hand out cards advertising the suicide-prevention telephone service of “the Samaritans,” led by Anglican priest Andrew Todd.

The Register quotes the archbishop of Quito, Ecuador, as saying that by the end of last month the nation’s Catholic Church had given up more than half its land as part of an agrarian reform program.

Only Muslims in Israeli territory had access to Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock for the holy day marking Mohammed’s brief assumption into heaven. The next day, the constituent assembly of the World Islamic League in Mecca urged a holy war to regain the shrine city.

The “Freedom City” begun in Greenville, Mississippi, by National Council of Churches staffers will have fifty families build permanent homes under a $200,000 grant from the war on poverty, plus private gifts. Further east, at Grenada, a Negro Methodist church was burned Sunday, October 29; church officials call it arson.

Georgia’s new Sunday closing law was ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court, but Governor Lester Maddox may try another version. Maddox reportedly has asked state legislators to pledge not to smoke or drink.

The Montgomery, Alabama, Baptist Association voted to continue the ban on federal or state aid to its hospital.

A House committee killed for this year the proposal to make more long weekends by putting five national holidays on Monday.

Arizona’s Supreme Court approved state welfare payments to the Salvation Army on the grounds that the “true beneficiaries” are poor people, not the Army.

The U. S. Supreme Court reversed three lower-court convictions involving nudist magazines, some of which opponents said were aimed at homosexuals.

The student government at Wheaton College in Illinois pulled out of the U. S. National Student Association because it meddles in partisan politics too much. After CIA support was revealed earlier this year, Brandeis, Amherst, and Michigan also withdrew.

“A Pentecostalist is a person who thinks he’s arrived because he speaks in tongues.”

These are not words from a critic of the “charismatic renewal,” which continues to penetrate the historic denominations and Roman Catholicism. This is Pentecostalist David J. du Plessis, World Council of Churches gadfly, speaking to a Presbyterian congregation. Sharing the platform last month was renowned Presbyterian John A. Mackay, former president of Princeton Theological Seminary.

“Forgive all the Pentecostals for all their blunders, but don’t shun the experience,” du Plessis continued. He was talking about the baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues, an experience that twenty years ago you probably didn’t admit to unless you belonged to a Pentecostal church.

Du Plessis’s comments typify a counter-trend: In many Pentecostal circles the big issue isn’t tongues anymore; it’s the total ministry of the Holy Spirit. Unlike the cork-popping new wine of Pentecostal revivals following the 1906 Azusa Street Mission meetings—which resulted in the Pentecostal churches—the characteristic of the charismatic renewal of the sixties is reformation from within. For instance:

• A charismatic communion of more than one hundred Presbyterian (U. S. and U. S. A.) ministers maintains an aura of anonymity and meets with minimum publicity. Last month twenty gathered in Austin, Texas, with Mackay and J. Rodman Williams, professor of systematic theology at Austin Seminary. Stated aims: avoiding the quenching of the Spirit, and becoming a “leavening rather than a divisive force in the Church.”

• Ecumenical, Inter-Church Team Ministries, based in Newhall, California, promotes “full Gospel” conferences “in all branches of the Christian Church, as well as in seminaries, universities and colleges.” Catholics, Southern Baptists, and Lutherans were among those who testified to receiving “the baptism” at an ICTM seminar last month in Chicago Guideposts editor John Sherrill, author of the glossolalia-approving They Speak With Other Tongues, is a board member.

• Stratford Retreat House sponsored a ten-day “charismatic airlift” to Jerusalem last month. Led by “Spirit-filled” Bible teachers and preachers, it was a follow-up of a London airlift two years ago with Oral Roberts, Harald Bredesen (Reformed Church tongues-speaking minister), and the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship.

“Imagine,” beckons the brochure, “preaching and testifying and handing out Hebrew tracts in Jerusalem … praying in the Upper Room for a new infilling.…”

Noisiest—and most open—promoters of the “second baptism” among non-Pentecostals are members of the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship. Du Plessis recently told several thousand persons from twenty-two denominations that FGBMF has been bridging the gap between Pentecostals and “mainliners.” But he privately swatted its Madison Avenue techniques, which “exploit well-known men to boost the movement.”

Federated American Baptist-Disciples of Christ minister Don Basham told the audience he kept his Spirit baptism secret for nearly five years for fear of public reaction. His case is typical. After an initial outburst of publicity and a round of church tongue-lashings, denominational charismatic cells largely moved underground. But the movement is spreading—quietly, cautiously.

Pentecost Revisited

The Assemblies of God has called for an extensive evaluation of the Pentecostal movement—the first in its fifty-three-year history—to point out overall strengths and weaknesses. The denomination’s 13,000 churches and missions have agreed to abide by the committee’s recommendations when they are presented to the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America in St. Louis next August. Assemblies Superintendent Thomas Zimmerman said the study is “an attempt to be relevant.”

Trying to count tounges-speakers within non-Pentecostal churches is like sizing up an iceberg by observing the part above water. Du Plessis estimates more than 1,000 Catholic converts this year alone. Episcopalians Dennis Bennett of St. Luke’s, Seattle, and Bishop Chandler W. Sterling of Montana, head of the American Church Union, estimate that 10 per cent of the Episcopal clergy (about 700) speak in tongues.

Bennett touched off the modern glossolalia movement and split his Van Nuys, California, church in 1960 when he announced from the pulpit he had spoken in tongues. Now Bennett and Presbyterian pastor James Brown of Parkesburg, Pennsylvania, pack their churches with late-night weekend audiences without official opposition.

Bennett, who recently married Rita Reed—sister of surgeon William Standish Reed, a tongues-speaking columnist for Christian Life—says about one-third of attenders are older teen-agers and collegians. His “Spirit-baptized” people win three or four persons to Christ every week, he says.

Numerous Baptists have spoken in tongues, but no one hazards a guess on just how many. Michigan American Baptist official Francis Whiting has supported the charismatic movement. Lutherans, Methodists, Christian Adventists, and Mennonite Brethren also are involved.

In addition to outbreaks of tongues at schools like Princeton and Yale after lectures there by du Plessis and Church of God Bishop Homer A. Tomlinson (who now claims to be “King of the World,”), Pentecostal cells are flourishing among Catholics at Duquesne, Notre Dame, and Michigan State, and lately at Iowa State and Holy Cross (Worcester, Massachusetts).

Personalities who use the tongues experience devotionally include Catherine Marshall LeSourd, authoress and wife of the late Peter Marshall; Coleen Townsend Evans, former actress and wife of Presbyterian minister Louis Evans, Jr.; and New York Times feature reporter McCandlish Phillips.

Tongues-speakers are not stigmatized as they were five years ago, but there are detractors among ultra-conservative elements, especially Dispensationalists (tongues were for Pentecost, not today), and some liberals (excessive emotionalism).

Campus group leaders have come cheek-to-jowl with the tongues issue. Bill Bright’s Campus Crusade for Christ forbids its 1,100 staffers to speak in tongues, even in private devotions (it’s divisive).

Critics from all sides raise the sticky question: Are tongues real language or mere sounds? Bennett claims a truck-driver parishioner speaks fluent Mandarin under Spirit influence. American Bible Society linguist Eugene Nida analized scores of tongues tapes, concluded it was nonsense. Hartford Seminary Foundation Professor William Samarin is seeking tongues-speakers for an “unbiased investigation.” Some apologists, citing Romans 8:26, say non-language glossolalia can be Spirit-inspired.

Insiders in the Order of St. Luke say there is a shake-up over reported infiltration of spiritualism. The nub of the contention is that healing, speaking in tongues, and discerning of spirits all are listed by Paul (1 Cor. 12) as gifts of the Spirit.

The once charisma-chary Bishop James A. Pike now says a “second baptism is a valid spiritual experience.” But Assembly of God pastors warn against séances and shun “communications with the dead” through mediums. Warns Gordon Swanson of San Bruno, California: “It’s the keen edge of the demonic; you can no longer recognize the power of the blood of Christ.”

Presbyterian elder statesman Mackay is obviously impressed with the charismatic renewal: he calls it “the most significant and influential movement of our time.” And the white-haired Scotsman foresees a more cordial rapprochement between Catholics and Pentecostals than between adherents of mainline denominations.

Charismatic communion provides a powerful, personal appeal, and a sense of excitement often disdained in formal, mainline churches.

Proffers Mackay: “The future of the Church could be with a reformed Catholicism and a matured Pentecostalism.”

PROGRAM-PANNING

The American Baptist Convention’s evangelism program needs an overhaul. Despite diplomatic language, that was the brunt of a report this month from the Executive Committee of the ABC’s General Council.

The evidence was old but impressive (see June 9 issue, page 35): official complaints from New Jersey and Ohio, frequent unofficial complaints from groups of ministers, and estimates by some regional executives that three-fourths of their people “are unhappy with our existing program.”

The evangelism report, to be voted on by the General Council at its January 31-February 1 meeting, played down many local complaints as just passing the buck to national headquarters. But the theologically diverse study committee named by President L. Doward McBain found at least a “seeming neglect of the more ‘familiar’ forms of evangelistic effort” and a failure of the national staff to sell its “new forms.”

Since the General Council has no actual authority over the home-mission society, the report can only nudge the agency to make its own study of the problems and to mend its ways. Among suggestions for reform are better leadership in winning new church members, and balancing of the staff and program to include traditional views.

A major gripe has been withdrawal of national funds from support of regional evangelism executives. The report absolved evangelism Secretary Jitsuo Morikawa from charges that he dosen’t believe in personal salvation, but Ohio’s complaint about his universalism was not mentioned.

After the General Council voted for the evangelism probe in May, Morikawa flatly denied in a home-mission paper that he was a universalist. He then offered a complicated explanation of his “who knows?” position on the subject.

Morikawa’s major interest is mission to secular city structures. One-third of the General Council’s upcoming crammed agenda will be spent touring his Philadelphia projects. At the next meeting, a home-mission staffer is supposed to react to the report, but the response is predictable. Executive William Rhoades said it includes nothing his board hasn’t already considered.

The home-mission staff’s sensitivity is seen in reaction to a rather bland, rather conservative series of three editorials on evangelism ideology in the denominational monthly Crusader. The paper didn’t mention any names, but headquarters suddenly worked out a brand-new set of guidelines for ABC publications, reportedly including a call for “sympathetic treatment” of denominational programs. This month a General Council committee, after intense debate, added an appendix guaranteeing editorial freedom. The compromise version will be presented at the next meeting.

In contrast to the home-mission controversy, the ABC foreign-mission board this year quietly came out with a balanced policy statement, the first since 1933. It begins, “the basic aim of the Christian mission is to proclaim and exemplify the Gospel of Jesus Christ by word and deed. The personal dimension of this outreach is to bring men everywhere into a redemptive and transforming relationship with Jesus Christ.… The wide dimension requires the involvement of all Christians, individually and collectively, in bringing the Christian Gospel in all its fullness to bear on every aspect of human life and society.…”

The General Council’s future agenda also includes a proposal for a three-year study, to cost up to $100,000, of denominational reorganization. Among the issues are closer ties between General Council and the independent agencies, representation of regions in the General Council, and giving full program-planning responsibility to the office of General Secretary Edwin Tuller.

THAT ROMANESQUE SYNOD

“Forty years ago,” the gray-haired woman told the overcrowded auditorium, my Protestant fiancé and I went to my priest to ask him to marry us. When my husband-to-be heard what the church required of him he got up and walked out, never to go to church again. I followed him. Not until last year did I return to the church as a widow, because I felt there had been a real change.”

The woman may have been influenced more by the rebellious Roman Catholic press of Holland or the violently anti-Roman spirit of the Catholic teach-in she addressed at Dordrecht than by the Synod of Bishops in Rome. For that same day the bishops rejected all but a few minor changes in church attitudes on mixed marriages.

Only thirty-three prelates backed the proposal to recognize marriages that have not been performed before a Catholic priest. The liberals felt let down, especially by their North American colleagues who belonged to the majority of 125 that rejected major changes.

Apparently secular newspapers were also disappointed. Although they had given the synodical Roman holiday tremendous coverage at first, they said little about its romanesque results.

During the vital, final voting week, the synod’s news releases were cut to minimum length. What had started as a highly significant meeting collapsed into a rather dull symposium.

The Dutch Catholic journal Time, seeking to explain the abatement, stressed the important advisory task of the synod: “… it threw pre-conciliar laws and resolutions drafted by the Curia into the wastepaper basket of history.”

Undoubtedly the best work was done in the field of “dangers that threaten the faith.” After voting down a catalogue of errors enumerated by Cardinal Ottaviani’s office, a committee of bishops drafted a far more pastoral report that was accepted with an overwhelming majority. In it, the bishops propose formation of an international committee of theologians to advise the pope. It was a clear vote of no confidence in Ottaviani’s colleagues.

The Pope’S Operation

“Procedamus in nomine Domini.” With that order on November 4 from Pope Paul VI (“Let us proceed in the name of the Lord”), six doctors began surgery for removal of his enlarged prostate gland. It was the first internal operation ever done on a pope. The chief surgeon was Dr. Pietro Valdoni, who in 1948 saved the life of Italian Communist Party leader Palmiro Togliatti by removing three assasin bullets. First medical reports after the operation indicated there was no sign of cancer. The 70-year-old pontiff was up and around in a few days and was expected to make his first public ceremony December 8.

The bishops recommended:

• That the pope publish a positive pastoral encyclical on church teachings.

• That bishops, not the pope, be allowed to give dispensations to mixed couples to marry outside the Catholic Church.

• That the Apostles’ Creed, not the longer Nicene, be read during Mass, and that three portions of Scripture be used in services instead of two.

• That rules for reforming canon law be heavily amended.

As the bishops sat down to vote, Pope Paul received his eastern friend Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras, who was on a precedent-shattering visit to the Vatican. They decided to keep in touch with each other, especially about pastoral problems like mixed marriages. The patriarch’s conclusion was: “I am too old to see the recovery of the unity of our churches, but I’m sure it will become a reality.” Then he was off to visit the World Council of Churches offices and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The visit had worn out Paul so much that his doctors forbade him to attend the synod’s closing meeting. Long-proposed surgery soon followed (see box below).

Only once did the Pope call the bishops’ meeting “important.” He didn’t say why he thought it was, nor what he would do with the results of the month-long deliberations, nor whether there would be a second meeting.

JAN J. VAN CAPELLEVEEN

LAY POWER IN LUBBOCK

Despite the chilly snowfall outside, Texas Baptist laymen debated hotly and won a larger role in the affairs of the 4,000-church state convention. The 3,000 delegates at Lubbock this month supplanted the largely inactive Texas Baptist Brotherhood with a new lay organization, Texas Baptist Men, which has increased power to act on missions and missions education. The delegates endorsed virtually all recommendations of the controversial, investigative Committee of 100, created by the convention last year to head off demands for a separate laymen-only organization.

Many committee recommendations sought increased efficiency in the state’s billion-dollar Baptist empire. Other accepted proposals strengthened the Christian Life and Welfare Commissions and expanded evangelism among military men and laymen. A major rejected recommendation would have required that one of the top three state officials be a layman.

Also at Lubbock, the Church Loan Board came under fire for encroaching on private business in two speculative California real-estate deals, in which the board stands to turn a million-dollar profit. The Baptists also urged a “sweeping investigation” of laxity by the state liquor control board.

MARQUITA MOSS

ANOTHER BISHOP STEPS DOWN

Chandler W. Sterling of Montana will become the second Episcopal bishop to resign when he steps down next July after eleven years in office. Resigned Bishop James Pike left leadership of the Diocese of California last year.

Sterling is president of the American Church Union (Anglo-Catholic wing of the Episcopal Church) and a supporter of the charismatic movement within the historic denominations (see page 39)

The 56-year-old prelate, who has favored direct church involvement in areas such as civil rights, says he has no definite plans for the future.

In his resignation announcement, he noted that bishops traditionally remain in office until retirement. But the custom is passing, he said, along with the “paternalistic nineteenth-century religion” that fostered it. Sterling said he was under no pressure to resign.

WHAT EVANGELICAL TEENS WANT

Evangelical teen-agers want church guidance on sex, marriage preparation, and job choice, and favor racial integration, according to a poll described at last month’s meeting of the National Sunday School Association. The survey was made of 2,646 youths between the ages of 14 and 19 who belong to thirty-seven conservative denominations and professed to having “received Christ as Saviour.”

William Greig, Jr., California Presbyterian and first lay president of the NSSA, called it “a very honest attempt by the conservative wing of American Protestantism” to see how to minister more effectively to youth.

The study showed a great majority do not approve of teens lying, cheating, gossiping, having premarital sexual intercourse, breaking speed limits, drinking, or reading lewd literature. Three-fourths were willing to attend a racially integrated Sunday School or live in a mixed neighborhood, but most opposed interracial marriage.

Ants And The Incarnation

The man who created the controversial Parable film for the New York World’s Fair has a sequel-just in time for Advent season—on the Incarnation theme. The Antkeeper, written and directed by Rolf Forsberg and produced by the Lutheran Church in America, was released to TV stations last week.

In the half-hour color film, a Mexican Indian gardener and his son raise a colony of winged ants who ruin their Eden. The ants are tempted into another garden and lose their wings. Then the son is born into the society as a red ant who tries to teach love. Eventually the ants turn on him and tear him apart.

For some reason Forsberg denies that his work is an allegory of the Incarnation story. “If people see God in the gardener and themselves in the ants, fine. But the story can be enjoyed in and of itself. The beauty of the film is that it leads the imagination outward and lets the mind come to any number of conclusions.”

The narrator is Fred Gwynne, who plays a Frankenstein monster on the TV series The Munsters. The essential ant photography was done by Robert Crandall, insect expert for the Walt Disney nature films. Insects as actors are a first in films, Crandall says. It took him three months to get one five-second scene showing friendship between red and black ants, which are natural enemies.

One source said complete findings will show, however, a considerable difference between what the teens profess and what they admit actually doing. The full report is due in 1968.

JOHN NOVOTNEY

DEATH-OF-GOD PSYCHIATRY

O. H. Mowrer, heralded as a leading figure in the movement to mesh religion and psychiatry, says “the Church must decide whether it wants to be theistic or non-theistic,” and leans to the latter. “Theism is in trouble,” says the University of Illinois psychiatrist. “It has become a stumbling block for greater numbers of people.” In past ages it has provided neither the “power” nor “an adequate psychiatry” to deal with deep-seated human problems, he told a symposium last month sponsored by Roman Catholic Marquette University.

In his view, religion can exist with or without God, since its purpose is “reconciliation of ruptured relationships.” Mowrer, much-publicized proponent of “integrity therapy,” postulates that a disturbed person is separated from others because of secret guilt. Restoration to valid relationships comes as the therapist helps the patient confess and, make restitution for his wrongs (see review, October 27 issue, page 32).

“In many ways mine is a works religion,” he conceded. Mowrer is unsure whether God exists, and is sure Jesus was not divine. Raised a Presbyterian, he left the denomination in college, later returned and took a church office, then quit because he could no longer accept the Westminster Confession. But now the confessional stand has changed, he noted. “I’m not sure if I should be in or out.”

BARBARA H. KUEHN

New York State this month held the first major plebiscite on church-state separation since the concept was added to the U. S. Constitution in 1791. And nearly three-fourths of the 4.7 million voters opposed the new state constitution, with its weakened limits on state aid to church schools.

The dramatic, lopsided “no” vote followed weeks of intense religious lobbying and confusing political endorsements (see box below). National Catholic Reporter said the pro-constitution drive showed “a militant fervor unequalled” in the history of the state’s Catholic bloc. The lay weekly Commonweal said you’d have to hark back to the Massachusetts birth-control furor of the forties “to find anything quite like it.”

Thus Glenn Archer, chief of the strictly separationist Americans United, had special praise for Catholic laymen. “Born free, they have now voted to preserve this birthright for their children,” he exulted. Since 41 per cent of the electorate is Roman Catholic, for the constitution to lose a sizable chunk of the laity had to reject explicit pleas from the hierarchy. As it turned out, the charter not only failed in New York City but couldn’t carry the city’s Catholic strongholds, Queens and Staten Island.

New York spent ten years of agitation, six months of convention sessions, three million delegate words, and ten million tax dollars to revise the state’s 1894 constitution. The delegates decided to replace the “Blaine amendment,” which banned any aid to religious schools, with the wording of the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Democrats, with an apparent eye on the Catholic vote, forced the constitution as a take-it-or-leave-it package, despite pleas for a separate ballot on the church-state question. The gamble was that conservative Catholics who feared higher spending under other charter provisions would vote yes in order to boost a parochial school aid. The one-package handling, and state aid itself, became the major campaign issues.

The strategy backfired. In addition, the mostly-Catholic Citizens for Educational Freedom overplayed its hand during its million-dollar drive¹By contrast, the state council of churches had a war chest of about $15,000. with a series of ads hinting that anybody who didn’t want state money to go to church schools was a bigot or a meany. One TV spot showed a tow truck hauling away a smashed car while the announcer sobbed, “Unless we have a new constitution, one out of every four kids in New York State—Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant—may never be taught to drive safely.”

Choosing Sides

Here’s how some of the New York State stars fell during the furious politicking over the proposed constitution:

Pro—The state Roman Catholic hierarchy and lay lobbyists, the Democratic party, Governor Rockefeller, Bobby Kennedy, New York City’s council president, state AFL-CIO executives, many Orthodox Jews, and some Lutherans and Episcopalians who sought more aid for their church schools.

Con—State and New York City church councils, many Protestant groups, Senator Javits, Mayor Lindsay, the lieutenant governor, Liberal and Conservative parties, League of Woman Voters, American Civil Liberties Union, CORE, three New York City dailies, city Episcopal Bishop Horace Donegan, most Reform and many Conservative Jews and such secular groups as B’nai B’rith—and Mrs. Helen Sweeney, a Roman Catholic who said she got $50 a week to spy on an anti-constitution lobby for a pro-constitution lobby.

Liberal Party Chairman Donald Harrington, a Unitarian minister, called the tactics “essentially dishonest.” Even Christianity and Crisis—New York-based Protestant journal that supports a liberalized reading in church-state matters—was ashamed. Another liberal voice, the Christian Century, lost its ecumenical cool long enough to charge that Catholic lobbyists were “determined to overthrow the church-state principles on which this country was founded and by means of which it has endured.”

Among Catholic money-raising plans to support the constitution was an alleged blind collection through a charity in the Diocese of Brooklyn. Laymen charged that parish funds were secretly “tapped” for the campaign.

The major irony in the constitutional fuss was that the new charter would have allowed taxpayers—for the first time—to challenge constitutionality of church-school aid programs. Sophisticated separationists were torn between having an aid ban without the right to legal challenges, or having the First Amendment plus the right to oppose grants in the courts.

Even with Blaine in force, New York church-school pupils get $38 million a year in state aid, under the “child benefit” loophole. The major categories are busing, $16.4 million; textbooks, $3.5 million; and health services, $3.3 million. The U. S. Supreme Court has agreed to rule this term on Flast v. Gardner, a New York suit challenging state and federal aid for books, guidance services, and reading instruction.

Repeal of Blaine is not a dead issue. Both Republican and Democratic legislative leaders are planning to work for repeal in the next session, and predict success. Presbyterians in Albany, the state capital, are pledged to work with Catholics to seek repeal.

The New York results may indicate not only an increasingly independent Catholic laity but disenchantment with the parochial-school idea. Not only the state’s system, with 640,000 elementary students alone, but church schools across the country are having trouble getting support. In Philadelphia the predominantly white parochial system is thinking of charging tuition because half the parishes are already behind in high-school assessments this year. A hot-potato move for Pennsylvania state help for church schools was postponed until after election day by the legislature.

In neighboring Maryland, a constitutional convention is trying to decide what to do about aid, as well as formal recognition of the Deity.

ACTIVISM ALL OVER

Church activists—and their critics—grabbed the spotlight in recent anti-war, civil-rights, crime, and vice skirmishes.

Jail doors clicked shut on Martin Luther King, Jr., in Bessemer, Jefferson County, Alabama, and—in Baltimore, Maryland—on Roman Catholic priest Philip Berrigan, United Church of Christ minister James Mengel, and two members of the Baltimore Interfaith Peace Mission. These four were charged with destroying property and records after they entered the U. S. Customs House and poured blood into Selective Service filing cabinets to protest U. S. policy in Viet Nam. The blood was a mixture of their own and that of ducks, the protesters said.

King and three Negro clergy companions surrendered to sheriff’s deputies at the Birmingham airport and served five-day terms for contempt-of-court convictions received in 1963. Small demonstrations against the jailings were staged in Baltimore and Birmingham.

At Yale’s New Haven, Connecticut, campus, University President Kingman Brewster, Jr., scored Chaplain William S. Coffin as a “strident voice of draft-resistance” after Coffin turned in fifty draft cards of students to Justice Department officials. The ruckus touched off a campus investigation. FBI agents withdrew after Divinity School Dean Robert C. Johnson charged their presence was disrupting classes. Coffin has also proposed that Yale’s Battell Chapel be used as a “sanctuary” for draft-resisters.

In a different style of protest, New York’s Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine apparently will remain unfinished as a symbol of the “anguish” of nearby slums. Episcopal Bishop Horace Donegan said last summer’s riots and the urban crisis had changed his mind about going ahead with plans to complete the seventy-six-year-old Gothic edifice.

In Philadelphia, a controversy over the Church’s role in civil disobedience prompted Negro Episcopal Rector Arthur Wooley to demand the resignation of his bishop, Robert L. DeWitt, who spoke out against civil disobedience.

In Cambridge, Maryland, Negro Bishop James L. Eure of the Churches of God in Christ padlocked the Rev. Ernest Dupree’s church to prevent the Black Action Federation from meeting there, and persuaded Dupree to resign as local president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Civil-rights and liberal groups put pressure on St. Louis Episcopal Bishop George L. Cadigan, and he decided to back down on his suspension of militant civil-rights clergymen Walter W. Witte and William L. Matheus. The two charged they were fired for civil-rights activities. Several church and rights groups picketed Cadigan’s office to protest their dismissal.

With a different militancy, crimefighting Presbyterian minister Albert F. Hill of New Rochelle, New York, recently organized brigades of housewife-spies to stamp out the “Mafia guerrilla army in our midst.” His petticoated-commandos use walkie-talkies and a movie camera in their crusade against organized crime and illegal gambling in the suburban city.

BEYOND BIAFRA WHAT?

The six-month-old civil war in Nigeria has left virtually the entire southern section of the country without a foreign missionary. Last month, several missionaries were still reported working in Biafra, the breakaway eastern regime which was near collapse under attacks by federal troops. But most had been evacuated.

Refusal by the United States to sell planes to the central government and its subsequent criticism of the Nigerian purchase of Communist planes has created serious anti-American feeling, Missionary News Service reported. However, MNS said, “there is no indication as yet of the extent of this on missionary relations with the people.”

Sir Francis Ibiam, former governor of Eastern Nigeria, who is currently one of the six presidents of the World Council of Churches, has reportedly written to Queen Elizabeth, returning the knighthood conferred upon him. He condemned both “Christian Britain and Communist Russia for their shameless support of Muslim Nigeria.”

Actually, about half of the 60,000,000 people of Nigeria are Muslim and one-fourth are nominally Christian. The federal head of state, military leader Yakubu Gowon, is an outspoken Christian, the son of an evangelist. He challenges the contention that the war is in any sense religious.

Gowon has ordered his men to treat prisoners humanely, not to molest women or children, and not to desecrate churches and mosques. There have been numerous reports of atrocities by federal troops against the 7.5 million Ibo people, who dominate the eastern region.

Nigeria, whose population makes it one of the ten largest countries in the world, has been a relatively fertile field for missionary effort. Particularly dramatic has been the “New Life for All” movement, an interdenominational effort along the lines of Latin America Mission’s “Evangelism-in-depth.” The movement hopes for a saturation campaign for the north of Nigeria by next year. Meanwhile, Sudan Interior Mission spokesmen say that “even if the East and West and North decide to work together, any peace will be a delicate, uneasy balance for years to come.”

WITTENBERG SOURS

Partly because Communists fear the Christian community and partly because East German authorities tried to make political hay of Martin Luther, the 450th anniversary of the Reformation at Wittenberg went sour.

A sample of the Communist tack is a quote in the Washington Post from Leo Stern, vice-president of the East Germany Academy of Science. Luther’s teachings, said Stern, “although cloaked in religious terms, were eminently political teachings.”

“The foundations of Luther’s teaching that man is justified by faith alone meant, under the circumstances … not only a proclamation of fundamental religious differences of dogma with the Catholic Church, but, at the same time, a revolutionary program of extraordinary political explosiveness,” Stern reportedly said.

Things got so bad at Wittenberg that even so eminent a bridge-builder as Eugene Carson Blake was miffed. Complaining of restrictions, Blake joined two other churchmen in issuing a statement that said they doubted they would have come if they had known of the hindrances in advance.

An East German Protestant bishop and two senior Lutheran clergymen from Wittenberg resigned from a state-organized commemoration committee in protest against Communist interpretations of the Reformation.

Numerous churchmen from the West were turned away at the border. Some had come long distances, hopeful of securing East German entry visas. (Some Communist countries do not normally issue visas in advance but instruct travelers to apply at border crossings.)

Dr. Eugene Smathers, moderator of the United Presbyterian General Assembly, was slightly injured when a car in which he was riding overturned in Czechoslovakia. Stated Clerk William P. Thompson and three other United Presbyterians were excluded from East Germany, but Markus Barth got in.

Dr. George W. Forell of the University of Iowa, described as the only American invited to speak at the East German Reformation ceremonies, seized the occasion for some candid commentary. The university’s news service released an English version of his lecture said to have been given in German.

Forell lashed out against “Utopians who see the historical process itself as the agent of redemption.” He noted that a prevalent kind of thinking “attributes a moral conscience to the evolutionary process itself. It is almost tragic how rapidly these optimistic theologians of evolution are crushed by the events that were to redeem mankind.”

“The same William Hamilton who only yesterday described the great changes taking place in the relationship of the races in the United States of America in terms of what he called ‘the new optimism’ stands today condemned as the typical false prophet by the events he so completely misunderstood,” said Forell.

“Hamilton quoted the sentimental song of the civil-rights movement ‘We Shall Overcome’ as evidence for the power of the new optimism produced by ‘the death of God.’ Today, only a few years later, these same young people in America sing ‘Burn, baby, burn,’ rejecting the naïve optimism of the civil-rights movement and demanding instead ‘black power,’ ” Forell declared.

He also criticized advocates of the new morality for assuming that “the life of love, the life of discipleship, is a simple human possibility, without the need for justification by faith.” And he called attention to Luther’s argument that the problem of man is man.

New Day For Japanese Christmas

An estimated 16,000 Christians live in Tokyo, the world’s largest city, and nearly that many persons responded to invitations to Christian commitment during Billy Graham’s crusade there (see November 10 issue, page 53). The attendance total for the evangelist’s meetings was 191,950.

The day after the final game of Japan’s World Series, Graham also drew a standing-room-only crowd of 36,000 at Korakuen Stadium for his closing meeting. The throng braved a cold north wind of fifteen miles an hour in the aftermath of Typhoon Dinah.

Students predominated in the audiences Graham attracted, and more than half the inquirers were in the 19-to-29 age group. Despite student unrest over the Viet Nam war, no anti-American demonstrations disrupted the meetings.

The ten-day crusade was probably the largest ecumenical Christian effort in Japan’s history. Japanese church leaders hailed it as a significant turning point in national church life.

“This is the rising sun of a new day for the church in Japan,” declared radio evangelist Akira Hatori, who served as Graham’s translator.

Anglican Bishop Tsunenori Takase said, “I believe from this day on the Church in Japan will be a missionary, sending Church rather than just a receiving church.” Shuichi Matsumura, a leader of the Baptist World Alliance, said that “our churches will never be the same again.”

Graham’s own comment: “This crusade indicates to me that regardless of race, nationality, or language, man is the same the world over and the message of Jesus Christ meets man’s deepest needs.”

NEW QUMRAN SCROLL

Another ancient parchment manuscript, tentatively called the “Temple Scroll,” has been found near the Qumran community in the Dead Sea area, according to the Israel Exploration Society. The document, said to be the longest found in the area, measures almost twenty-six feet and dates from the Herodian period (55 B. C. to A. D. 93).

Archaeologists say that the scroll contains previously unknown details of a temple and its courts, vessels, and service. The scroll apparently was in the hands of a Bethlehem merchant during the Israeli-Arab war last June and was obtained when Israel captured the city. Religious News Service said the merchant still claims ownership of the scroll and may sue to regain possession.

Hebrew University archeologist Yigeal Yadin says the scroll indicates that one group of Jesus’ followers joined the Qumran community shortly after the Crucifixion and influenced it to adopt some Christian doctrine.

The first Qumran scrolls were found in 1947 by Bedouin tribesmen who were seeking lost goats in hillside caves.

EVANGELICALS INHIBITED

During an annual retreat of evangelical mission executives at Winona Lake, Indiana, some criticism was expressed of the lack of evangelical interaction in the social sphere. An unofficial report on the retreat by a “findings committee” said: “The evangelical mind-set … has inhibited constructive thought and action. These attitudes may be summarized as follows:

“A fear that any form of social action or concern will pre-empt or displace evangelistic witness; an assumed correlation between a conservative theological position and a non-interventionist attitude toward social problems; an insensitivity and apathy because of generations of silence on social issues; a predominantly status quo mentality; a narrow view of the compass of Christian ethics and morality; an unwillingness to accept criticism and a persistent tendency to blame conspiratorial sources for social problems.”

The committee said the report merely expressed concerns that had come up during the four-day retreat, sponsored by the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, and did not represent a consensus of the 100 participants.

The committee urged Christians to express their convictions more effectively in personal as well as social righteousness.

Pursued By The Tiger

Christ the Tiger: A Postscript to Dogma, by Thomas Howard (Lippincott, 1967, 160 pp., cloth $4.50, paper $2.25), is reviewed by Virginia R. Mollenkott, assistant professor of English, Paterson State College, Wayne, New Jersey.

With the publication of Thomas Howard’s first book, a bright new planet swims into the ken of the evangelical reader. Unto us is born a writer—a writer whose passionate prose makes one simultaneously love and ponder, laugh and writhe. The honesty that lights every page of Christ the Tiger is nothing less than astonishing.

The title is neither a device to catch attention nor an attempt to cash in on Madison Avenue’s recent fondness for tigers. Drawn from T. S. Eliot’s “Gerontion,” it goes to the heart of Howard’s concept of Jesus the Christ: “He has been the subject of the greatest efforts at systemization in the history of man. But anyone who has ever tried this has had, in the end, to admit that the seams keep bursting. He sooner or later discovers that he is in touch, not with a pale Galilean, but with a towering and furious figure who will not be managed.”

Howard admits at the outset that he is writing the story of one man’s experience. His childhood he describes as “a massive effort to get cozy,” during which he learned a “non-lunatic-fringe view of God” in his conservative Protestant home. During high school he scorned “the world,” which he defined as “sex, alcohol, tobacco, bridge, the fox trot, the races, and the movies.” It was “a highly specific vision and therefore eminently manageable.” But college, with its welter of options and its myriads of questions, forced him to “think of life in terms of quest rather than of arrival”; and the army gave him friends whom he could no longer see merely as potential converts.

Then, “in the cozy juvescence of Thomas Howard’s life … the world broke in and clobbered him.…”

He grooved all the grooves. Of the mind, of

The body. Art, sin, sex, love, words with ideas,

Ideas without words.…

In the course of his quest, Howard found he “must abandon the effort to insist on Love as the demonstrably operative energy behind human existence,” because life is “marked by limitation and outrage.” Finally, “in the frantic/Putrescence of the year came Christ the tiger.” Howard discovered that in the Incarnation man’s myths of perfection and beauty were actualized. Christ validated “our eternal effort to discover significance and beauty beyond inanition and horror by announcing to us the unthinkable: redemption.” Howard’s description of the meaning of redemption is soaring and sublime, a passage to be read aloud with tears of joy.

The intensity of this book is a demanding intensity; its questions are full of anguish and its terms are precisely defined. Its answers may seem unexpected and disturbing, but they are also large and liberating. Meeting Christ the Tiger is not only well worth the effort; for any person who wants with all his might to be authentic, it is an urgent necessity.

A Rising Star In Theology

Theology as History, “New Frontiers in Theology,” Volume III, edited by James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr. (Harper & Row, 1967, 276 pp., $6), is reviewed by James Montgomery Boice, assistant editor,CHRISTIANITY TODAY

For years now the great era of dialectic theology in Europe has been passing, both in its Barthian and Bultmannian forms. In the decade following World War II, Bultmann stole much of the Barthian thunder. But Bultmann is now being deserted by his followers, and the leadership of the theological world is up for grabs.

Reading For Perspective

CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S REVIEW EDITORS CALL ATTENTION TO THESE NEW TITLES:

• Parents on Trial, by David R. Wilkerson with Clair Cox (Hawthorn, $4.95). The founder of Teen Challenge relates stirring experiences from his inner-city youth ministry and calls for responsible parenthood to help curb delinquency.

• A Varied Harvest, by Frank E. Gaebelein (Eerdmans, cloth $4.95, paper $2.45). Out of his life as headmaster, editor, and writer, Gaebelein offers choice essays on Christianity, education, public affairs, and mountain climbing.

• Beyond the Ranges, by Kenneth Scott Latourette (Eerdmans, $3.95). With gratitude that “God sent his whisper to me,” this Yale University professor emeritus, America’s foremost church historian, humbly and intimately describes his life as scholar and servant of the church.

Who will give direction to a new generation of students and professors? Who will dominate theology for the final third of the century? The newest contender is Wolfhart Pannenberg, the thirty-eight-year-old professor of systematic theology at the University of Mainz, Germany, whose radical emphasis upon the nature of revelation as history is already regarded by many as an increasingly viable option in modern theology.

As leader of the Pannenberg “circle” (R. Rendtorff, K. Koch, U. Wilckens), the Mainz professor speaks for those who are dissatisfied with Bultmann’s radical skepticism in regard to biblical history and who question the basic disjunctions of faith from fact and revelation from history that characterize much modern theology. On the one hand, Pannenberg rejects existential theology, since it dissolves real history into the historicness of individual existence; on the other hand, he rejects the assumption of a superhistorical content of faith that is evident in Barth and others. Pannenberg’s objective, outlined in the original Offenbarung als Geschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1961) and carried a step beyond in the focal essay in the present work, is to create a theology in which faith can rest on fact. Faith is not mere knowledge, according to Pannenberg. Still less is it opposed to knowledge. Faith is God-given. Yet faith, if it is not to be mere illusion, must be founded on a revelation given in history and hence on a revelation demonstrable by objective historical research.

The distinction of the Pannenberg group, as over against the Heilsgeschichte school of Oscar Cullmann, is the attempt to locate revelation in the whole of history, in universal history, and to find the clue to that history in the proleptic character of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For Pannenberg the resurrection is genuinely historical, though he allows that the language used to describe it is mythological.

For some time Pannenberg has written largely for European readership. Now through the work of Claremont’s James M. Robinson, the Mainz professor writes for American scholars and responds to their objections. In Theology in History, the third volume of the “New Frontiers in Theology” series, Pannenberg’s lead essay is followed by reactions from Martin J. Buss, Kendrick Grobel, and William Hamilton. Buss questions Pannenberg’s idea of universal history. Grobel examines Pannenberg’s arguments for the historical character of the resurrection. And Hamilton offers an unusual theological critique, questioning whether the historical method does not replace the internal witness of the Holy Spirit in Pannenberg’s epistemology.

In a final essay the young German professor responds to his critics, reserving his harshest words for Hamilton, whose remarks, he says, caricature his position. In these pages he reaffirms the necessity of faith for individual salvation, stressing only that faith must be based on knowledge and that theological knowledge rightly understood eventually leads beyond itself into faith. With these emphases Pannenberg’s work may well endure as long as that of the theological giants who have preceded him.

A Practical Tool For Ministers

Baker’s Dictionary of Practical Theology, edited by Ralph G. Turnbull (Baker, 1967, 469 pp., $8.95), is reviewed by Robert N. Schaper, assistant professor of practical theology and dean of students, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California.

In name and orientation, though not in format, this volume follows Baker’s recently published Dictionary of Theology. The eighty-five contributors are properly representative of the varied specialties of the ministry. Where the articles have significant theological implication, the position is conservative and evangelical. Although the problems of practical theology do not lend themselves to doctrinal rigidity, this work casts the preacher and pastor against biblical imperatives and evangelical commitments. Presbyterians and Baptists are dominant among contributors, and there is thus a Calvinist influence. The only intramural problem of the book seems to be ecumenism. George Peters and Harold Lindsell find it theologically suspect, but Norman Hope is content to leave the history uninterpreted.

The book is self-described as neither an encyclopedia nor a history but a source book for pastors and students. It is arranged in ten sections, the first three (preaching, homiletics, hermeneutics) having to do with the sermon and the last seven dealing with various ecclesiastical tasks. Inclusion of hermeneutics in this volume is somewhat excessive, since this field is no more relevant to the task of preaching than biblical theology, church history, and so on. Strictly speaking, the volume is not a dictionary but a condensation of standard works on practical theology. Although the articles are somewhat uneven and in some cases repetitive (e.g., there is a section on “The Pastor as Worshiper” and another on worship), the busy pastor will be glad to have the essence of more elaborate volumes distilled in one readily available source.

Of note are the helpful bibliographies, especially the article by Ilion T. Jones on “The Literature of Preaching,” which is an excellent compilation and tells which works are in print.

Some of the theological trends within evangelical Christianity can be detected in this volume. One section is entitled “Evangelism-Missions”; yet the articles fall clearly into one category or the other, largely by geographical or historical criteria. The arrangement probably reflects the theological conviction of the unity of the mission of the Church. In the area of liturgy and worship, articles are heavily weighted toward a more formal liturgy and observance of the Christian year.

This is a reasonably useful tool. For the uninitiated, anticipating the many responsibilities of the pastor can be frightening. One might be encouraged if instead of being told of eleven different groups to whom the pastor should be a friend, he were simply told to be friendly. Perhaps this type of impracticality suggests why there has been no comprehensive book on practical theology since 1903.

The New View Of Original Sin

Christ and Original Sin, by Peter De Rosa (Bruce, 1967, 138 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Warren C. Young, professor of Christian philosophy, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Oak Brook, Illinois.

This author is a young Roman Catholic scholar in Britain, and his work reflects the thinking of the young Catholic scholars of today—perhaps best understood as the spirit of Vatican II. In dealing with two central theological themes, Christ and original sin, he presents briefly the traditional teaching of Catholicism and then devotes most of his study to contemporary discussion among Catholic scholars.

His discussion of Christ centers primarily on the mystery of Incarnation or the two-nature doctrine. The tendency in older Catholic theology was to overemphasize Christ’s divine nature and neglect his human nature—after all, is not Jesus God? As a result Catholic thought tended to docetism. Although there was no outright rejection of Christ’s humanity, in effect it just was not really there.

To correct this, De Rosa says, contemporary scholars want to get away from the “Jesus is God” approach and emphasize that Jesus was also fully human. Better to say that God became incarnate in a man, Jesus of Nazareth. God’s Son was not a puppet but a real man “called to make decisions and to learn obedience by suffering, called to endure in our humanity a condition of distance or exile from God.”

De Rosa makes an interesting point in dealing with the place of Mary in traditional Catholic thought. Since Christ was fully God rather than man, Mary in effect became the Mediator between God and man. Hence, he grants the validity of the charge made by some Protestants that in Catholic thought Mary has replaced Jesus as Mediator.

One has a feeling that De Rosa is writing to evangelical Protestants as well as to Catholics. Have we not also tended to neglect the real humanity of Christ in our zeal to stress his deity? No doubt this is often a defensive measure against a liberal theology that stressed his humanity almost exclusively.

In discussing original or Adamic sin, De Rosa says that most contemporary Catholic scholars view Genesis as a pictorial, not literal, presentation of theological truth. The basic elements in the Genesis story were taken over from neighboring communities, and these elements became the bearers of divine revelation. Adam, then, is to be considered not so much a historical man as the typical or universal man. And original sin is not the sin of a particular man but the sin of every man. “Original” sin is what results in us by reason of our birth into this condition of sin that precedes our own personal and conscious choices and inescapably effects us. The old view of original sin as something passed on through the race has no foundation. Indeed, the Jews “knew nothing of a sin handed on from parent to child.”

Furthermore, Augustine’s interpretation of Romans 5:12 is unjustified. The Douay version, following the Vulgate, reads, “Death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned.” Augustine believed that “in whom” referred to Adam. Actually the Greek should be translated, “Death spread to all men because all men sinned” (RSV). Many other theologians have pointed to this same error in Augustine’s understanding of Romans 5:12 and have insisted that this verse should not be used to support the doctrine of original sin.

Whether or not one can fully agree with the author, who claims he is presenting the views of others more than his own, one will profit by reading this very stimulating book. If for no other reason, it should be read as an excellent introduction to the theological discussion presently occupying the younger Roman Catholic scholars. We will surely be hearing more from this author in the years ahead.

A Denominational Danger Spot

Peace! Peace!: A Search for a Sincere and Alert Christian Perspective, edited by Foy Valentine (Word Books, 1967 162 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by C. Gregg Singer, chairman, Department of History, Catawba College, Salisbury, North Carolina.

This volume is a collection of addresses given at summer conferences sponsored by the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Offered as an honest and realistic attempt to deal with the church’s conception of political peace, these eleven essays fall short of their goal. Although there are frequent references to the Scriptures throughout the book, there is actually very little biblical foundation for the conclusions advanced.

The first chapter sets the pace for all that follows. In it Carlyle Marney not only fails in his attempt to set forth a foundation for political peace but seems to go out of his way to replace the Scriptures with a humanistic outlook. He goes so far as to say that “the Eternal gets His character and His name from us.”

All the writers show a great awareness of the predicament of contemporary man and the possibilities of atomic warfare, and their sincerity is obvious. But their approach to the problem shows nothing of the insight that is so evident in Peace Is Possible, recent essays edited by Elizabeth Jay Hollins.

Not only does this book lack a scholarly approach to the issues at hand: it also betrays great theological weaknesses. The obvious lack of insight into the nature of war and peace results from an almost total neglect of the implications of the doctrine of sin. The omission of any discussion of the sovereignty of God raises many problems. And there seems to be no awareness that God may well use war as a corrective judgment on peoples and nations from time to time. All these authors proceed on the humanistic assumption that war is the greatest of all evils, and their position suggests that peace at any price may well be the biblical imperative. One writer attempts to make a sharp distinction between non-violence and the biblical role of non-resistance.

When the writers turn to practical ways of securing peace in our world, they fall into some serious pitfalls. Some of the solutions they devise are quite unrealistic. Frank P. Graham resorts to the theory of evolution and offers the hope that the next step in the evolution of human beings will be a step away from nation states toward a more effective United Nations for the collective security of all member nations. The chapter on missions subverts the missionary enterprise from its biblical purposes and offers it as a vehicle for international peace.

This book leads one to conclude that committees like the Christian Life Commission are a danger spot for the evangelical life of the Southern Baptists and other major denominations.

A Solid Punch

To the End of the Earth, by Rolf A. Syrdal (Augsburg, 1967, 177 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by Don W. Hillis, associate director, The Evangelical Alliance Mission, Wheaton, Illinois.

As a former missionary to China, foreign-missions executive for the Evangelical Lutheran Church and later the American Lutheran Church, and seminary professor, Dr. Syrdal is well qualified to write on mission principles and practices. His evaluation of the concept of missions during the various missionary ages merits careful study. And the book also offers much valuable mission history.

To the End of the Earth is well documented with quotations from such well-known authorities as Kenneth S. Latourette, Lesslie Newbigin, Hendrik Kraemer, Robert Glover, and Stephen Neill. But the most significant things are said by the author himself. For example:

During our present period of international tension and insecurity, of literal realism, impressionistic art, philosophical nihilism, man’s focus has been drawn to himself, and his attitude is one of frustrated cynicism. The result is an existentialism that goes no farther than Man’s experience for the moment. God, objective spiritual realities, and a divine goal are eliminated. To the extent that this spirit influences the people within the church, missions will be regarded as a vague, unrealistic dream of the past.

Just why this book discusses “mission concept in principle and practice” to the end of the earth and stops short of the end of the age—indeed, of the twentieth century—is not clear. Even his chapter on “Era of the Mission Societies” ends at the three-quarter mark of the nineteenth century. Furthermore, he makes almost no mention of the great interdenominational missionary movement that gave such impetus to the whole mission program in the closing decades of the last century.

Does he feel the principles and practices of such large and effective “faith” missions as the Overseas Missionary Fellowship, Sudan Interior Mission, and Wycliffe Translators have nothing to say to us about mission concept? Or does he have some homework to do in the biographies of Hudson Taylor, Fredrik Franson, C. T. Studd, Rowland Bingham, and the thousands of missionaries who have followed in their train?

The final punch in Syrdal’s book is solid and right to the chin:

The day of missions is not over till the day of the church is over. The church’s vitality is in its mission, to which it is called and driven by the Holy Spirit. This mission does not decrease because of difficulties or problems. There are different situations to be faced in each generation. Mission is increased by the addition of each new church in each new area of the world. Mission will continue till the consummation of our age in the return of the risen Lord.

And so it will.

Svetlana’S Tale Of Death

Twenty Letters to a Friend, by Svetlana Alliluyeva (Harper & Row, 1967, 246 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by David E. Kucharsky, associate editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

This is the manuscript Svetlana Alliluyeva smuggled out of the Soviet Union. It is not the exposé some might have expected from the daughter of the late Josef Stalin. Nor is it the chronicle of a spiritual search others might have expected in view of Svetlana’s widely reported declaration of religious faith upon her arrival in the United States.

Instead, she presents a series of character sketches of the people who have been part of her life. The book gets to be a depressing tale of death as one by one the characters fall victim to political terrorism.

General criticisms of Soviet ideology abound, but Svetlana was limited by an all-too-obvious conflict of interest. The critique of the regime her father headed from 1929 to 1953 is tempered by her understandable regard for him.

“It’s true my father wasn’t especially democratic,” she allows in a staggering understatement. The reader is assured, however, that Stalin “never thought of himself as a god.”

Apart from references to a Protestant grandmother on her mother’s side, Svetlana says little about religion. She does give a succinct summary of her beliefs: “It seems to me that in our time faith in God is the same thing as faith in good and the ultimate triumph of good over evil. Religious differences no longer have any meaning in the world today, where men and women of reason, intelligence and compassion have already attained an understanding of one another that transcends the boundaries between countries and continents, races and tongues.”

Svetlana is bound to write more. Let us hope that in future volumes the restraint and ambiguity that characterize her first book will yield to candor and objectivity.

Understanding World Religions

The History of Religions: Essays on the Problem of Understanding, edited by Joseph M. Kitagawa (University of Chicago Press, 1967, 296 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by James E. Aydelotte, assistant professor of religion and history, Tarkio College, Tarkio, Missouri.

In honor of its 100th anniversary, the Divinity School of the University of Chicago is sponsoring an eight-volume series, “Essays in Divinity,” by its alumni and faculty, both past and present. This first volume is largely the product of a 1965 alumni conference.

The introduction, a 1935 essay by Joachim Wach, sees the main task of the study of history of religions as sensitive, thorough, and objective research into the vital spirit of every religion. Mircea Eliade explores the discipline’s contribution to an understanding of the contemporary milieu. Joseph M. Kitagawa demonstrates “a hermeneutical principle which would enable us to harmonize the insights and contributions of both historical and structural inquiries.” Charles H. Long examines the relation between the phenomenological and historical methods.

Kees W. Bolle, rejecting any obligatory approach, advocates “a deprovincializing of Christian theology” to make it more useful hermeneutically. Thomas J. J. Altizer argues that in the Incarnation God fully and finally “abandoned or negated His transcendent form,” indissolubly linking spirit and flesh on earth; thus belief in the Resurrection is seen as a retreat to the past and a separation of God and man.

The remaining contributors discuss the discipline’s methodology in relation to their specialties. Philip H. Ashby concludes: “We seek to understand, and to do so we question, we re-enact, we seek to participate, and we are called upon to contribute our understanding to present and future religious man.” Charles S. J. White illustrates the subtle difficulties of participation in another religion.

Charles J. Adams questions the applicability of many of the discipline’s methods to any living “higher” religion. H. Byron Earhart advocates a methodology “capable of taking at face value the pertinent religious phenomena, analyzing them historically and structurally,” and interpreting them on that basis. Jerome H. Long examines the relation of symbol and reality among the Trobriand islanders.

Paul Tillich rules out the “orthodox-exclusive” and the “secular-rejective” approaches, as well as those based on supranatural or natural theology. He proposes “a theology of the history of religions in which the positive valuation of universal revelation balances the critical valuation”; “this phrase, a fight of God against religion within religion, could become the key for understanding” and directing this discipline.

The origin of these essays has produced a certain amount of “clubiness” that an analytical outside introduction would perhaps have overcome. The book will undoubtedly appeal to the increasing number of religion departments in state universities, and it is a valuable glimpse into present formative thinking about the study of history of religions. Methodology is seen as the “single most important problem.” There is serious questioning whether it is possible to analyze every religion with appreciative but objective participation, and whether one’s Christian faith, however tenuous and detached, enhances or precludes true knowledge of another religion. Like Archimedes, these scholars seem to be searching for some “neutral” place from which to understand all religions.

Book Briefs

Theologians at Work, by Patrick Granfield (Macmillan, 1967, 262 pp., $5.95). Interviews with sixteen working theologians (including R. Niebuhr, J. Pelikan, R. M. Brown. Y. Congar, K. Rahner, and A. Heschel), conducted by a Catholic theological professor and editor, provide intimate glimpses into the ideas and approaches of influential thinkers.

Gods, Graves, & Scholars, by C. W. Ceram (Knopf, 1967, 455 pp„ $7.95). Students of archaeology will “dig” this revised and enlarged edition of a work that considers archaeological discoveries in Egypt, Babylonia, the eastern Mediterranean, Central America, and elsewhere.

Your Influence Is Showing! by Leslie B. Flynn (Broadman, 1967, 127 pp., $2.50). Flynn uses a popular style and scores of inspiring true-life incidents to show the importance of a Christian’s personal influence on others.

The Land, Wildlife, and Peoples of the Bible, by Peter Farb (Harper & Row, 1967, 171 pp., $3.95). A naturalist offers a wealth of information on the habitat and inhabitants of the Holy Land. Beautifully written and illustrated for family reading.

Salvation in History, by Oscar Cullmann (Harper & Row, 1967, 352 pp., $6.50). The first American edition of the 1965 German book in which Cullman shows that the “event-interpretation” occurrences of salvation history are essential for a proper understanding of the New Testament. Reviewed in CHRISTIANITY TODAY, July 16, 1965. Read this book!

By request this article is reprinted, with slight changes, from the February 2, 1962, issue.

America’s young people are being sold short, and with tragic results.

All of us should be concerned over the evidences of moral and spiritual degeneration on every hand. The “Hippies” are an extreme example of the problem. But our greater concern is for that large group of decent young people who look at life aimlessly, without the moral and spiritual standards and restraints that are a vital part of Christian character.

We are letting these young people down in multiplied ways, and the harvest of our neglect will be reaped in the years that lie just ahead.

They are being let down in our homes whenever the place where we live becomes just a house, and not a home. Parents have no right to expect more of their children than they themselves contribute toward their moral and spiritual upbringing. Parental delinquency begets youthful delinquency, and the economic and social standing of a family has nothing to do with it. Neither money nor social prestige is a substitute for right values, nor do the social graces do more than veneer a life devoid of spiritual perception.

Young people are being let down in our schools wherever the imparting of knowledge is considered an end in itself. The Bible tells us that the “fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.” An analysis of the curricular and extracurricular activities of most schools today—be they high schools, colleges, or universities, secular or church-related—shows that the overwhelming majority of our young people are receiving an education completely divorced from God and his Word. We are confronted by the tyranny of a small minority who desired to eliminate from all schools even a prayer or the reciting of the Ten Commandments.

But far more reprehensible is the fact that so many to whom are entrusted the duties of teaching have no faith in or concern for God, who is the source of all true wisdom. Secularism and materialism are so thoroughly entrenched that a Christian boy or girl finds the school environment a battleground rather than a training ground.

By and large American education is so largely in the hands of secular forces that what once was the very bulwark of Christian ideals is today a force attacking and tearing down the institution to which it owes its origin.

The Church is letting down our young people wherever it is neglecting its primary task and responsibility in favor of secondary considerations.

I have examined the youth programs of some of the major denominations and have found them so diluted in their Christian approach as to be almost useless. Apparently those who prepare these programs have a definite philosophy in mind by which they hope to influence the next generation. But the Christian message is not there. The Bible receives scant notice, if any, and young people are sent out into the “brave new world” with neither the shield of faith nor the Sword of the Spirit.

In almost all these programs, the authors have strong convictions on world problems—social, economic and political—but little other than negative convictions about the verities of the Christian faith.

We are letting our young people down by not teaching them the right attitude toward work. Rightly concerned about child labor in the past, we have raised a generation of young people, many of whom know little or nothing of the blessings and honor of hard work. Our labor-saving gadgets have contributed to this situation, but the chief cause is our goal of as little work as possible for as much pay as possible. This has eaten through to the very core of honest endeavor.

We let our young people down when we let them think our high standards of living are an end in themselves, rather than a means to an end. Man does not live by bread alone—nor can he subsist solely on cake. Only as spiritual values are given their rightful place can youth see the futility of life without Christ.

We have let them down by our example. On radio and TV they hear the advantages of various brands of cigarettes extolled and learn that only those who use alcoholic beverages can enjoy “gracious living.” We have also set before them the example of sex obsession, and today many young people speak casually of things that should rightfully be reserved for man and wife alone.

A recital of our shortcomings is of little value unless we face squarely up to the solution. To take constructive steps to solve the problem is the only right approach.

I am writing here to Christians, for unbelievers cannot be expected to exhibit concern or to lead in the way out.

There are three places where effective counter-measures can be taken: the home, the school, and the church.

Christian parents must make their homes truly Christian. Where Bible reading and prayer are a part of the home environment, a foundation is laid for children that can sustain them all through life. Children are acutely aware of parents’ sincerity, or lack of it. When the mother and father take their rightful place as priests of the family altar, give Christian instruction, and demand obedience and right living, a large part of the problem of youth is solved.

Again, our schools should cease to be purely secular institutions. Separation of church and state was never intended as separation of children from worship. Where militant minorities try to use legal means to enforce their own will they should be confronted with a higher law—that of the good of the majority.

Where godless teachers scoff at the Christian faith or in other ways try to undermine religion they should be dismissed—for “contributing to the delinquency of minors” if for no other reason. Teachers are paid to teach truth, not to destroy it. If they are found actively engaged in anti-religious activities they deserve to be dismissed.

As a final resort Christian parents may find it necessary to set up private Christian institutions where their children can be taught and trained as they need to be taught and trained.

Finally, the Church needs to take a long, hard look at its own programs for youth. Take nothing for granted. Most of these young people do not know Christ as Saviour. Therefore they are incapable of making him Lord of life. By taking for granted a personal experience with Christ—or ignoring its necessity—the Church tragically lets our young people down and fails in its greatest responsibility and challenge.

Dear Teetotalers, Moderates, and Lushes:

On this first anniversary of my letters to you about the zany sector of religion-land, I feel like celebrating. My crude wielding of the ecclesiastical mace has occasionally brought a brace of flying missals my way, but somehow I’ve survived. To commemorate this great day, I suggest we all hoist a few. By so doing we also can strike a blow against the alcohol problem in America, in accordance with recommendations in the new book, Alcohol Problems: A Report to the Nation. The report suggests, among other things, the use of alcoholic beverages at church youth gatherings to help modify improper attitudes toward liquor and thus curb alcoholism. So join me and my friend John Barleycorn as we educate the youth. Come on, have a snort. After all, you don’t want to become an alcoholic, do you?

Please don’t think I no longer respect your abstinence. But you must realize that if you look upon “the sauce” as forbidden fruit, you will subconsciously develop a thirst for it. And when you finally give way to your restrained desire for liquid courage, you’ll be three sheets to the wind in nothing flat. I mean you’ll be plastered, potted, pickled, blotto, smashed, stewed, and stoned.

Thaaat’s right! Down the hatch. Say, you’re really getting in the spirit of this occasion. You’ll surely not be a party pooper at our new series of B.Y.O.B. meetings at the church. No, not Bring Your Own Bible. Bring Your Own Booze. In case you forget, we’ll have some Christian Brothers brandy handy. If necessary, man, we’ll trundle out the vintage where the grapes and mash are stored. Then after we bend the elbow a few times at “the dear old temple bar we love so well,” we’ll join in a sad rendition of the “Whiffenpoof Song”: Baa, baa, baa. We may have to install a brass rail on the mourner’s bench.

By hooch, hasn’t this celebration been a blast? What a way to put demon rum on the run! Since that NCC official said our solution to the drinking problem will tend to be wet, our church meetings should always follow an open-tap policy. As those theologically tipsy clergymen sloganize: “Draft beer, not people!” Every time we churchmen meet, we should hoist our glasses high to strike a bloody blow against problems brought on by the nectar of the gods. Now, everybody, bottoms up!

Cheers,

EUTYCHUS III

450 YEARS AFTER

Thank you so much for the wonderful article (Oct. 27), “95 Theses … for the 450th Anniversary of the Reformation,” by John Warwick Montgomery.

The denomination to which I have always belonged is one that seems to be taking the lead in “way out” thinking, and the stressing of social concerns, before the spiritual development of its flock. This may cause us someday to shed tears for our lost offspring.

One wonders at the ministers and teachers who dare to preach less than the real Gospel of Jesus Christ when one studies the New Testament truths for oneself. Yes, we are apt to be led straight to hell by these false teachers. But the average member of our churches hasn’t studied the Scriptures very thoroughly, and looks to his minister for truth.…

When the churches take a stand for peace at any price, knowing that the enemy is a godless one, led by Satan and not by the Holy Spirit, it would do us all good to read your good articles, and think and pray and communicate our weakness and our lack of spiritual vision to our Heavenly Father, and ask for more insight into his will for us.

MRS. RODGER BRODIN

Minneapolis, Minn.

Jesus was condemned by the orthodox of that day. Luther was condemned by the orthodox of that day. John Wesley was condemned by the orthodox of his day because he took the Gospel out of the Church (institutionalized) and into the mining towns and the open fields. The orthodox of today in the institutionalized church are the ones who are condemning anyone who attempts to take the Gospel into the world in anything but the eighteenth-century revivalist terminology; and John Warwick Montgomery (and his cohorts) condemn those who try to interpret the Gospel in the language of the twentieth century.…

What is so sacred about the way the Gospel was preached in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries?

STUART I. PRICE

Brillion Methodist Church

Brillion, Wis.

Like the original Ninety-five Theses, the declarations were rooted in the biblical faith, were based upon man’s timeless need to rely upon the all-sufficiency of Christ, and reaffirmed the fact that religion must be intensely individual to have vital implications either spiritually or socially.

We hear much chatter about relevance; here was something truly relevant!

HAROLD L. TROTT

St. Paul’s Reformed Episcopal Chapel

Albuquerque, N. Mex.

It was nothing less than shocking to read the following in your editorial “Remember the Reformation!” (Sept. 29):

“Roman Catholicism, inspired by saintly leaders from Ignatius Loyola to Pope John XXIII, has sought internal reforms …”

“Observance of Reformation Day will be ecumenically meaningful …”

Ignatius Loyola’s rules include the following unreasonable dictates:

“Rule 1: Setting aside all judgment, we ought to have a spirit which is prepared and ready to obey completely … the hierarchical church.”

“Rule 13: We should always be disposed to believe that the white which I see is black if the hierarchical church so declares it.”

Pope John XXIII was known to have used blasphemy as blatantly as any agnostic. In the light of these facts, how can any honest historically cognizant evangelical publication call men such as these “saintly leaders”?

JOHN JAMES

Ottawa Bible Church

Ottawa, Kan.

Thank you for a thought-provoking editorial (“Protestantism’s Lost Momentum,” Oct. 27). Let us say “sola scriptura” and “sola fide.” Recently I was reading in the Today’s Modern Version, “For the wife is the head of the husband, even as Blake is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

JAMES D. MCGOVERN

The Church of Christ

Pomeroy, Ohio

WORDS FOR WYCLIFFE

I found the article “Wycliffe Translators: A Controversial Success” (Oct. 27) very interesting. As a former member of another evangelical mission I have had a number of contacts with the Wycliffe Translators, and am well aware of the facts which you present. I think that it is timely that the Christian public be informed of such matters. So much is heard in the homelands of the romance, the adventure, the success of missions. So little is heard of the hard, cold facts of sustaining a missionary enterprise, conventional or not, in a hostile environment.…

A further concern, which you do not mention, is the fact that Wycliffe does very little in some fields towards the organization and establishment of the local church—surely the prime objective of all evangelism should be the building up of the local church. Because of the secular, scientific image projected by Wycliffe into their relationships with foreign countries, their missionaries are almost precluded in many situations from becoming actively involved in the work of the national church.

On the positive side, I agree that Wycliffe has chalked up some very real accomplishments in the field of Bible translation. Furthermore a total budget of $5,000,000 divided by a membership of 2,000 works out at $2,500 per person per annum to pay for everything—a very real indication of the measure of personal sacrifice involved.

F. J. SMITH

Brantford, Ont.

The rather picayunish charges listed as sometimes hurled at Wycliffe by evangelical missionaries may miss the real issue.… More significant is the role that Wycliffe and others have played in siphoning a disproportionate amount of missionary resources from strategic, high-population areas to sparsely populated tropical rain forests. In some instances, and Ecuador might be an example, Wycliffe seems to have set up an expensive parallel to existing missionary outreach to indigenous tribes. A more appropriate alternative in such countries would have been for Wycliffe to have sent linguistic specialists to cooperate with translators already working in the tribes.

This is written from a background of twelve years of personal overseas experience in which warm friendship and mutual cooperation was developed between our missionary staff and translators from the Summer Institute of Linguistics.

PAUL ERDEL

Foreign Secretary

The Missionary Church Association

Fort Wayne, Ind.

The article [says], “Total Wycliffe membership stands at nearly 2,000, making it the world’s largest Protestant missionary organization.”

I would not detract from Wyclffe’s great accomplishments, but for the sake of accuracy I call attention to the fact that the “overseas” missionary force of the Southern Baptist Convention stood at 2,279 as of September 1.

M. O. OWENS, JR.

Parkwood Baptist Church

Gastonia, N. C.

• We erred in crediting Wycliffe with the title “world’s largest.” Apologies to the rightful claimants, the redoubtable Southern Baptists.—ED.

A MEANS TO THE END?

Your editorial on “the Danger of Christian-Marxist Dialogue” (Oct. 27) demonstrated to me your lack of faith in the providence of God, a misunderstanding of the ultimate need of man for God, and an ignorance of religious life in Russia.…

Could it not be that God in his providential care is working through the “revisionists, demythologized, dedogmatized” Marxists to bring once again freedom and the Gospel of our Lord to the Russian people and other suppressed peoples of the Communist world?…

We criticize their bond of “humanistic orientation” and “the need for revolutionary political action.” Evangelicals may not be able to go the whole route with either the Communists or the secularist theologians, but the living and written Word certainly does not disengage us from humane concerns and social, political action. My biblical faith and understandings portray a revolutionary Gospel.

There may be dangers in such dialogue, but since when do we operate out of a fear to communicate rather than out of passionate concern to use any means at our disposal to glorify Christ that men might know the benefits of his Kingdom? May the spirit of love rather than the spirit of fear push us. May faith in a providential God rather than a stale belief in a God boxed in by creeds motivate us to be where creative possibilities exist to redeem man and society.

MYRON R. CHARTIER

Baptist Campus Center

Hays, Kan.

COUNCIL COUNSEL

After reading “The Council and the Bible” (Oct. 27), this thought occurred to me: Why was not Dr. Hughes invited to write the “Response” to the Constitution on Divine Revelation in The Documents of Vatican II? His sympathetic understanding combined with incisive critique stand in sharp contrast to the vapid ramblings of the response contributed by Dr. F. C. Grant. Could it be that the Roman church is invincibly ignorant of the existence of evangelical scholarship?

WILLIAM S. SAILER

Evangelical Congregational School of Theology

Myerstown, Pa.

THE WAY IT IS

The carefully worded news item (“Church Anti-Poverty Problems,” Oct. 27) concerning Senator James Eastland’s declaration on the Senate floor concerning the Child Development Group of Mississippi still manages to discredit the United Presbyterian Board of National Missions as the administration office of the project.…

You should have been cognizant of the attitude of a man who represents Mississippi, a state where every effort to aid the Negro is hindered, even if it means the murder of civil-rights workers and the burial of their bodies in an earthen dam, and the mass display of the emblem of rebellion by the spectators at the nationally televised football game at the state university.

H. GLENN STEPHENS

Adena-Harrisville United Presbyterian Churches

Adena, Ohio

SOCIAL WORK

Traditional fundamental Christianity has been accused of emphasizing individualistic salvation in the spiritual sphere to the neglect of social improvement. How inaccurate this accusation is, is highlighted in Christiana Tsai, Queen of the Dark Chamber:

Who can estimate the results of missionary service in China? It made Christ known; it built churches, schools, orphanages and hospitals far and wide; it opened the door for women to enter the schools and have the same opportunities as men; it helped rouse the people to the evils of foot binding for women, and opium smoking; it healed the sick and brought comfort to the blind, the deaf, the dumb and the lepers; it brought knowledge of sanitation, fed famine victims, and cared for the war sufferers; it helped prepare Chinese of the following generation to take over the missionaries’ work, to carry on their own evangelistic campaigns, and build their own churches; it showed the infinite value of a human soul in God’s eyes, and wherever the light of the Gospel shown, it enlightened that society so that it soon outstripped other places in its progress toward modern culture.

I earnestly hope that the pages of CHRISTIANITY TODAY will continue to point up the total values of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. LESTER E. PIPKIN Appalachian Bible Institute President Bradley, W. Va.

GOOD DEAL!

Since you are mending your ways by dropping the freeloaders, I have decided to mend mine by a clean confession and a renewal of my subscription by accepting the deal you have made.

BILL G. CAMPBELL

Southland Baptist Church

Houston, Tex.

Thank you for the many free copies of your journal. I am enclosing a very modest check, in token of my appreciation, as a gift. I myself am liberal in my outlook but have profited by your publication, and it has enriched my sermons.

CLARENCE NETH

Columbia Station, Ohio

My thanks to … the entire staff for so fine a magazine. The world needs magazines like yours, and I hope that it will never suffer as so many other good Christian magazines have suffered. I am enclosing my check to cover a year’s subscription.

E. JAMES CAIN

First Baptist Church

Elko, Nevada

For my money, CHRISTIANITY TODAY just has to be one of the best of today’s journals, irrespective of classification. This is evident from the fact that my Christianity Today gift-subscription list is the longest of all such lists.

JOHN F. SCHMIDT

Peoria, Ill.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY will reinforce every aspect of my ministry.…

CECIL F. MCKEE

Department of Corrections Chaplain

Huntsville, Tex.

I take this opportunity to congratulate you on producing an evangelical magazine that I don’t feel uneasy about lending.

DENNIS G. PAPE

Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil

BANG!

The October 13 cover was armed with a delayed-action fuse. After careful surveillance of the menacing fieldpiece topping a formidable offensive arsenal, I did a double take at spotting the tracer and spent projectile of the secularist salvo.

OVERTON W. BROWN

Chiapas, Mexico

SPACIOUS TOGETHERNESS?

Immediately following an editorial which seems to plead for the united thrust of evangelicals upon a divided world for the salvation of mankind (“Ours Is the Generation,” Oct. 13) comes the editorial concerning the need and nature of conversion (“The Urgency of Personal Conversion”). In stating that “Christianity proclaims original sin” the writer once again has driven the dividing wedge between myself and him. If we are ever going to get together we had better allow a little more room in the areas of opinion of our theology or we shall remain poles apart.

RICHARD L. JONES

Westfield Church of Christ

Porterville, Calif.

THE TIE THAT BINDS

Your news story, “ ‘Divided They Merge’ ” (Oct. 13), and its poll were most interesting. If your poll of the faith of the Missouri Synod ministry is correct, it would appear that a small minority of the Synod’s spiritual leaders are masters of mendacity. Some of the questions are poorly worded. However, faith in Christ’s physical resurrection and virgin birth, a personal devil, and a divine judgment with positive and negative consequences have always been accepted by the Synod. All pastors and teachers are required to accept the Scriptures, the three ecumenical creeds, and the Lutheran Symbols which teach these doctrines. It seems to me that any minister who no longer holds these basic beliefs is obligated by honesty to deny them openly and to withdraw from the Synod, which still accepts them (e.g. The New York Convention, summer, 1967). I would not regard such a minister as my co-worker in Christ, and it seems that the last verse of the Athanasian Creed supports this belief.

DONALD POHLERS

Sea Cliff, N.Y.

EPISCOPALIANS EXPLAIN

Thank you for the rather full coverage given to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church (News, Oct. 13). But why must such reporting always tend to be so quantitative?…

The provision for trial use of the “New Liturgy” got pushed to a mere mention at the conclusion of your article. With the ecclesiastical body’s celebration of the Mass being the most thoroughly Christian action possible—the beginning and end and central action of our lives on earth—is it not much more consistent to give such action of the convention more than a mere notice? Certainly it is more significant than much of the superficial matter so thoroughly covered in your article. The last revision of our Prayer Book was effected in 1928, and a very minor one at that. Our Eucharistic Liturgy has been practically the same since its adoption in 1789–178 years! And practically all the revisions since the 1552 English Liturgy have been attempts to “patch up” the work of Cranmer since he abandoned what was essentially his English translation of the Latin Mass of 1549. Now we have something which appears to be fresh, dynamic, living, and meaningful for the people of God today.

Along this same line, the fact that the resolutions “authorizing and creating the machinery for a revision of the Book of Common Prayer” were adopted by the Convention was not mentioned. And finally we are permitted to use translations of Holy Scripture other than the AV, including the Jerusalem Bible, NEB, and RSV, for any lections, including those at Mass as well as at the Offices.

Finally, must we continue to beat a dead dog? Neither I nor any of my brother clergy in the Episcopal Church are “Protestant ministers” as you indicate on page 48. As it is generally understood within the context of the current (at least) American dichotomy, bishops, priests, and deacons within the tradition of the apostolic succession cannot be termed “Protestant ministers”!

GUS L. FRANKLIN

Saint Paul’s Cathedral

Springfield, Ill.

I feel as a clergyman of the Episcopal Church that I cannot just sit back and let your article go without comment.

The title alone—“Episcopal Church Endorses COCU”—is rather misleading. The General Convention approved the report of the Consultation on Church Union (with no audible opposition either) and commended their work, but made it quite clear that the Episcopal delegation had no mandate or authority to go beyond the talking stage when it came to discussions of organic unity. Further debate and discussion by some future General Convention will have to take place, and that convention will have to authorize the delegation to go ahead before anything more than talk can be done. Please—we have enough problems as it is convincing our own people that COCU is worthwhile with out having to cope with a misleading press.

Secondly—we do not “sack” bishops! The discussions were not about “sacking” bishops but about what procedures should be implemented to deal with a bishop who seems to be talking in a direction opposite the orthodox. The old canon stated that a bishop could be “presented” upon the written advice of three bishops. The new canon makes presentment very difficult, as was noted by the writer, requiring the written consent of ten bishops to start the proceedings and the written consent of two-thirds of all the bishops in the American church to proceed to the trial. So you see, we just don’t up and “sack” bishops!

BRUCE G. BREHM

The Church of St. Edward the Martyr

New York, N. Y.

CHOOSING SIDES

Dr. Hunnex’s article, “Have the Secularists Ambushed God?” (Oct. 13), is food for thought by all laymen and clergy who are concerned about the influence of the peddlers of secular theology.

How such teachers or scholars can so blatantly ignore the historical significance of the Church’s dependence on Holy Scripture as an absolute guide to man’s understanding of God, his Son, and man’s struggles with forces outside of himself—objective in every sense—is a tragic commentary on the pride of man. Searching for new truth is always commendable; but inventing “truth” at the expense of established truths is tragic! It seems that “subjectivity” has come to mean “invented truth.”

One basic truism that the secular theologians seem to miss (or ignore) is that man is historically linked to his past. The long chain of history was forged by the supreme Maker, and not a flaw or crack can be found in any generational link because all of the links are mysteriously tied together, bound up in the procreative system established by the Creator. He has made us, and he will not abandon his own; neither will he be “secularized.” No matter how much the mind of man may be determined to compartmentalize God, man must always be man (limited), and God must always be God (unlimited)!

I’ll “stick to the original teachings” (1 John 2:24, Phillips), as Dr. Hunnex suggests. The foundations are clearer, surer, and stronger. Besides, history is on our side!

WALTER W. SCOTT

Executive Vice-President

American Sunday-School Union

Philadelphia, Pa.

Second of Two Parts

Luke has always been highly regarded for historical accuracy and for his breadth of knowledge. Nevertheless, his reliability has often been questioned. And the pall of doubt falling on one part of the work inevitably casts a shadow on the whole. Can the Gospel According to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles be trusted? In some ways this question is more important than the question whether the Gospel of John is reliable, the problem discussed in the previous section of this article. John’s Gospel could be regarded as a somewhat restructured, even stylized, account of Jesus’ ministry. But Luke explicitly claims to be writing an “orderly account” of Jesus’ life and of the rapid expansion of the early Christian Church (Luke 1:1–4 and Acts 1:1, 2).

What can be said about Luke’s accuracy? In some places there will never be a way to check his data, for often his statements are unique. Over the years, however, Luke’s reputation has progressively been enhanced through archaeology and historical research.

The Accuracy of Luke

It is difficult today to imagine the obstacles that faced a historian in ancient times. There were no newspapers—in fact, no printed documents of any kind. The official records of the Roman Empire were not distributed. Postal service was available only for military or governmental correspondence, and it was irregular. There were few books.

In addition, the task of writing the history of the early Christian Church had its special problems. Herodotus wrote about the clash of empires and Thucydides about the well-known struggles between Athens and Sparta at the height of their influence. But Christianity was, at the beginning, a small and insignificant movement among the lowest classes of society. It was under local leadership. Yet it spread so rapidly that within forty years after the death and resurrection of Christ there were Christian congregations in most of the major cities of the empire—from the eastern capitals of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch to Rome itself—and in many lesser places. To capture this movement and present it intelligently, concentrating upon its major figures and its major lines of advance, was a monumental task.

Yet this is precisely what Luke did. He speaks of thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine of the Mediterranean islands, and he presents them in such a way as to chronicle the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. He speaks of four emperors and indicates their significance for Christianity. He speaks of many prominent men: Roman governors (Quirinius, Pilate, Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Felix, and Festus), Herod the Great and his descendants (Herod Antipas, Herod Agrippa I, Herod Agrippa II, Bernice, and Drusilla), and leading Jewish figures such as Annas, Caiaphas, Ananias, and Gamaliel.

Clearly, Luke is concerned to present the expansion of Christianity in its broadest scope within the Roman world and to commend the Christian faith to the widest possible spectrum of intelligent Gentile readers. But this is a dangerous procedure. For having painted upon so broad a canvas and for so wide an audience and having thereby given his critical readers many points to test his work, the author may anticipate rejection of his message if the facts are wrong. Luke, however, repeatedly passes the highest test of accuracy.

1. In the first place, Luke shows amazing accuracy in handling official titles and the corresponding spheres of influence. In a small book entitled The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Professor F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester is at some pains to document this fact. He writes:

“One of the most remarkable tokens of his accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned in his pages. This was by no means such an easy feat in his days as it is in ours, when it is so simple to consult convenient books of reference. The accuracy of Luke’s use of the various titles in the Roman Empire has been compared to the easy and confident way in which an Oxford man in ordinary conversation will refer to the Heads of colleges by their proper titles—the Provost of Oriel, the Master of Balliol, the Rector of Exeter, the President of Magdalen, and so on. A non-Oxonian like the present writer never feels quite at home with the multiplicity of these Oxford titles” [p. 82].

Luke does feel at home with the Roman titles, however, and he never gets them wrong.

Moreover, Bruce adds, “Luke had a further difficulty in that the titles sometimes did not remain the same for any great length of time.” A province might pass from administration by a direct representative of the emperor to senatorial government, and would then be governed by a proconsul rather than an imperial legate (legatus pro praetore). Cyprus, for instance, an imperial province until 22 B.C., became a senatorial province in that year and was therefore governed no longer by an imperial legate but by a proconsul. Thus, when Paul and Barnabas arrived in Cyprus about A.D. 47, it was the proconsul Sergius Paulus who greeted them (Acts 13:7).

Similarly, Achaia was a senatorial province from 27 B.C. to A.D. 15, and again subsequent to A.D. 44. Hence, Luke refers to Gallio, the Roman ruler in Greece, as “the proconsul of Achaia” (Acts 18:12), the title of the Roman representative during the time of Paul’s visit to Corinth but not during the twenty-nine years prior to A.D. 44 (Bruce, op. cit., pp. 82, 83). Such accuracy is remarkable and argues forcefully for Luke’s care in writing and for his presence at many of the events he describes.

2. In Acts 19:38, the town clerk of Ephesus attempts to calm the rioting citizens by referring them to the Roman authorities. “There are proconsuls,” he says, using the plural. This remark might be considered inaccurate since there was only one Roman proconsul in a given area at a time. But an examination of the data shows that only a short time before the rioting in Ephesus, Junius Silanus, the proconsul, had been murdered by messengers from Agrippina, the mother of Nero, who was yet in adolescence (Bruce, op. cit., p. 83). Thus, since the new proconsul had not arrived in Ephesus, the town clerk’s vagueness may be intentional. It may also be, as Bruce suggests, that the words refer to the two emissaries who had committed the murder, Helius and Celer, who were Silanus’s apparent successors. Disturbances among the populace seem especially appropriate in a time of turmoil among the ruling classes.

3. In a number of places in the Book of Acts (16:10–17; 20:5 to 21:18; and 27:1 to 28:16) Luke speaks in the first person, indicating that he himself was with the characters he mentions and thus an eyewitness of the events. In one of these passages, that which relates the dangerous journey in which Paul was taken to Rome for trial, the technical vocabulary used for the parts of the ship and its management by the sailors is so precise, as shown by other ancient texts, that it is believable not only that Luke was present on the ship, as he indicates, but also that he had taken some time to learn the sailors’ vocabulary.

Readers should exercise great humility in the presence of works whose factual details have so often been vindicated.

4. In the broad sweep of his two-part work, Luke has occasion to report the words of many different people: Jews, like Stephen and Peter; Romans, such as Felix and Festus; and international and bilingual figures, such as the Apostle Paul. These men undoubtedly expressed themselves in different ways and geared their addresses to different audiences. But in each case Luke captures the tone of the speech correctly. Paul’s address to the Greeks of Athens is a remarkable example of a learned apologetic to cultured pagans. The sermons by Peter recorded in the first half of the Book of Acts preserve Aramaic turns of expression, even though they are written for a Gentile audience and recorded in Greek.

It is of interest for this general subject that the accounts of the virgin birth of Christ and the accompanying events of those early days bear a stronger Aramaic flavor than any correspondingly long passage in the New Testament, as J. G. Machen observed years ago. To conservative scholars, this is clear evidence of the antiquity of that section of the Gospel, a section embodying either a very early written tradition or else the personal reminiscences of Mary, whose point of view is reflected throughout.

5. Just as the tone of the speeches is varied, so also were the cities Luke mentions in the course of the narrative. There was Antioch, with its tumultuous mixture of races, its busy atmosphere, and its irreverent populace (as the Emperor Julian found to his mortification many years later). There was Jerusalem, tense and hostile, on the brink of a war that finally erupted in violence and led to the destruction of the city in A.D. 70. There was Ephesus, with its business interests centered in the cult of the goddess Diana. And there were many other cities, each with its own particular flavor. Luke paints each picture perfectly, showing either that he himself was present or that he gathered his information about these places from reliable witnesses.

Any presentation of evidence for the reliability of the Lukan material should mention, however, that in at least two places the author of Luke-Acts appears to be in error, at least on the basis of the information available to historians today. In Luke 2:2, at the beginning of the well-known Christmas story, the evangelist says that the taxing under Caesar Augustus was made while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Apparently this is impossible, for Quirinius became governor of Syria in A.D. 6, ten years after the death of Herod the Great, in whose lifetime Jesus Christ was born. Several solutions to this problem have been offered, the most successful being the arguments for a prior governorship of Syria by Quirinius. But no solution has met with general acceptance.

Similarly, Luke seems to commit an anachronism as well as to reverse the order of two well-known revolutionaries in Acts 5:36, 37. He reports in a speech by Gamaliel that the rebellion under Judas, which took place in A. D. 6, the year in which Quirinius became governor of Syria, was preceded by a rebellion under Theudas. But Josephus dates Theudas’s rebellion A. D. 45, after that of Judas and at least ten years after Gamaliel’s speech in Acts. One may suggest, however, either that Josephus may be the one who is wrong, or that Luke is referring to another Theudas, otherwise unknown to us, who lived in the time he indicates.

In such cases a careful historian will suspend his judgment until further information appears, and he will exercise great humility before a work whose factual details have so often been vindicated.

Pauline Authorship

The writings of the Apostle Paul do not pose the same problems of historical reliability as the Gospels and the Book of Acts, and few scholars of any note question their historical statements. Instead, critical questions have centered around the authorship of the books themselves, particularly the pastoral letters—First and Second Timothy and Titus. According to the most articulate critics, the pastorals differ in style and vocabulary from those letters definitely known to be Pauline and reflect a type of church organization unknown before the second century. To explain the letters’ own statements that Paul is their author, such writers appeal to the alleged acceptance of pseudonymous writing in ancient times. To write in the name of another person was an accepted practice, we are told, and no one considered a pseudonymous work deliberate forgery.

Whatever the value of some of these points of argument (and the value of the evidence varies), it is apparent at the very least that the matter is one of probability. For if the explicit claims of the books to be Pauline are rejected, there are no definitive data to resolve the issue. When, therefore, the alleged disparity in style is set forth as evidence of an author other than Paul, a number of conscientious scholars, without denying the differences, also bring forward factors that weigh against this possibility. And they do so more and more.

The Parable Of The White Rat

One day a scientist who was experimenting with white rats created an intricate maze, and in it he placed one of his choice white rats named “Theo” (short for “Theologian”).

For days and weeks Theo was puzzled about the mysteries of the scientist’s creation. He said to the other white rats in the laboratory, “How great is our scientist!”

Then one day, after weeks of experimenting, Theo was able to solve the baffling network of the maze.

With an air of arrogance, he turned to the other white rats in the laboratory and said, “Our scientist is dead.”—RAY E. STAHL, director of information, Milligan College, in Milligan College, Tennessee.

In the first place, it has become very evident that the form of church organization reflected in the pastoral letters was not confined to the Church of the second century. In actual fact, the offices mentioned (presbyter and deacon) may be of considerable antiquity, for they are reflected in a striking way in the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of which are dated before A. D. 70 and many of which are considerably older. On this point W. F. Albright observes:

The repudiation of the Pastoral Epistles of Paul, now commonly assigned by critical scholars to the second quarter of the second century A. D., becomes rather absurd when we discover that the institution of overseers or superintendents (episkopoi, our bishops) in Timothy and Titus, as well as in the earliest extra-biblical Christian literature, is virtually identical with the Essene institution of mebaqqerim (sometimes awkwardly rendered as ‘censors’) [From the Stone Age to Christianity, p. 23].

There is also increasing cause to question the cavalier manner in which some writers ascribe the acceptance of pseudonymity to the New Testament age. For a number of years some scholars, among them Donald Guthrie, have maintained that evidence for the acceptance of this practice in ancient times is entirely lacking. Now an elaborate work in German—Pseudonimität im Altertum, by Joseph Sint—has made the same point with great erudition and with characteristic German thoroughness. Since two epistles attributed to Paul by the second-century Muratorian fragment (the Epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians) were rejected from the canon by the later Church, it might also be argued that the Church of the third century certainly did not accept the principle of pseudonymity and that the Christian scholars of that age, whose language was Greek and who lived much closer to Paul in time than we ourselves, accepted the pastoral books as genuine.

It is not a mark of obscurantism, therefore, if the conservative scholar adheres to the traditional authorship of the pastorals, and includes in his conviction of the reliability of the New Testament documents the belief that they are reliable on questions of their authorship.

Contemporary New Testament studies do not prove the total reliability of the New Testament documents. No amount of research could do that, for frequently the necessary facts are lacking. Nevertheless, the studies of recent years, some of which have been noted, have gone a long way to verify the extraordinary reliability of these books. Verification of the biblical writings is often slow, and many are impatient with the slowness. But little by little the data seems to come. It comes from archaeology, from history, and from a better understanding of the sacred and secular texts. It will also, we believe, continue to come, until, in God’s good time, the sum-total of the overwhelming evidence for an integrated and reliable Bible is complete.

Milton D. Hunnex is professor and head of the department of philosophy at Willamette University, Salem, Oregon. He received the B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Redlands and the Ph.D. in the Inter-collegiate Program in Graduate Studies, Claremont, California. He is author of “Philosophies and Philosophers.”

Four ethical systems are very evident on the contemporary North American scene. Three emphasize a single basis for decisions: for one it is freedom, for another law, and for the third love. But each of these principles alone is inadequate. The fourth system successfully integrates these principles, and it alone is valid.

Existentialism

Jean-Paul Sartre is probably the best-known exponent of this view. Sartre believes there is no God, and he therefore is pessimistic about the human predicament. Man is alone in the universe, says the existentialist; he is free to act, but he is under the necessity to act in order to be free. He exists, but existence is void of meaning, absurd. Man is a biological curiosity, temporarily arising in nature, struggling to survive and to find meaning to life before he dies. He lives for himself and establishes values as situations arise. All guidelines are irrelevant. Authentic decisions arise spontaneously from man’s inner sense of what the moment demands.

For Sartre, freedom is the nearest thing to a guideline. There is no one correct decision for freedom to make in any circumstance. Decisions are not right or wrong; they are only authentically free or not free. In this view, man is condemned to a freedom so absolute that it knows no limits other than that of ceasing to be free at all. Unfortunately, many men who have never heard of existentialism or Sartre share this position and will say they “just do what is right”—decided solely by their feelings.

Hyperlegalism

This distortion of true Christian ethics is all too prevalent among Christians. Its spirit is to make hard and fast rules for everything and then maintain that they are biblical. This view makes absolutes of many things that are relative, things that individuals must decide on principle in their own situation. Is a Christian one who puts his faith in Christ and then “neither smokes, drinks, dances, or chews, nor associates with those who do”?

The lists of do’s and dont’s are often bound more closely to cultural traditions than to true biblical principles. However, those not bound by this legalism are often unnecessarily hostile and critical toward those who are.

Laws certainly have value, but they can be misused. There is often a confusion of the letter and the spirit of the law. Non-scriptural absolutes on such matters as dress and entertainment are sometimes stressed more than loving concern for others. Often the details of the code are transplanted directly from biblical times into the twentieth century, with the result that the underlying principles are missed. We can have the letter but miss the spirit. Thus concern for feminine modesty is lost sight of in the debates about hair length. Modesty is a constant, but the meaning of hair styles can vary. Such things must be understood in their earlier cultural context and then be translated accurately into the context of the twentieth century.

Many hyperlegalistic Christians are sincere, but they substitute appearance for responsible conduct. They may then do the right thing for the wrong reasons, thereby bringing little satisfaction to themselves and predisposing to rebellion those who see through the inconsistencies. It is worth remembering that hyperlegalism was soundly condemned by Christ: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (Matt. 23:27, 28).

Situation Ethics

In part, situation ethics is a reaction to the hyperlegalism that has at some times and in some places existed within the Church. But it is more. It is also a part of man’s recurrent temptation to overestimate himself, his reason, and his essential goodness. In short it is idolatry, the ethical equivalent of worshiping the created and neglecting the omniscience and sovereignity of the Creator. To the degree that situation ethics denounces excessive legalism, provincialism, pride, and oversimplification, it has merit. It has a healthy skepticism of traditions; but unfortunately it classes God-revealed laws and principles as “mere traditions” and concludes by making all absolutes relative.

It then follows inevitably that there are no rules that can be applied apart from the complex nature of the particular situation. Admonitions of Scripture are regarded as inflexible and therefore inadequate. The only guideline permitted is love. The question one must ask is: “What does love demand of me in this situation?” From this perspective no situation is always wrong. Because love can never express itself in absolute laws, one can never prejudge any situation.

But why this assumption? What is the basis for accepting the teachings of Christ on love as valid and universal, yet denying his confirmation of the Ten Commandments? Presumably just plain reason. But assuming that man is neither completely rational nor completely irrational, how can we be sure that the advocates of the new morality are correct? If Jesus is God, however, this fact alone provides a completely rational base for Christian ethics.

A major problem in situation ethics is that man cannot really define “a situation.” From his limited view, with all his subjectivity, a man simply cannot foresee the future repercussions of what he decides at this moment. Might not an omniscient God be able to see the total situation objectively and be able to define absolutes?

It is sometimes implied that Christ set the precedent of doing away with rules and substituting love. But this view fails to distinguish between rules made by God and rules made by men. We should be ready and willing to rebel against man-made rules and to substitute love. But God’s rules are an expression of his love. Christ did not do away with any of the Ten Commandments. He did, however, point out the way a legalistic spirit had thwarted the meaning of those laws. He broke down a number of man-made traditions about the Sabbath, for instance, but he did not say we were not to keep the Sabbath holy. Rather, he showed what it meant in the first century to keep the Sabbath holy. Certainly he expressed love to the woman taken in adultery; he treated her as a person with meaning and value and prevented her being stoned. But he did not say that adultery was right. On the contrary, he said, “Sin no more.”

The Scriptural Approach

This approach to ethics seems to provide the freedom, law, and love that the other approaches seek. It accepts love as the guiding principle of conduct, yet recognizes too that man is not completely rational in all his choices and that, without some guidelines, he can talk himself into many unloving things in the name of love.

Submission

Although corralled in Grace,

My will still sometimes balks

And stomps and stamps the earth

And rears and flails and neighs

Defiance, for

The bit is hard.

Once, Lord, you rode

An untried colt—

Unbroken, yet for you,

Submissive—and it heard

Hosannas to your name!

O Lord, subdue—

I long to hear hosannas too!

JANE W. LAUBER

An imperative of the scriptural view is the truth that love and law are not opposites; they are complements. Just as the love of God motivated the giving of these laws for man’s own welfare, so does the person who truly loves God try to keep his commandments. Love is clearly superior to cold law in human relations. But love subjectively experienced and humanly interpreted is quite inferior to divine love which is experienced in the Godhead and is objectively revealed to man—in Christ and in the biblical propositions. Hence, human love cannot be the final norm for ethical conduct. The decision is not really between love and law, both on the human level, but between the revealed divine love and human love apart from revelation. Scripture maintains that man experiences love from God and then in turn expresses this love in his situation within certain revealed guidelines. The Christian seeks to live an ethical life because he is a Christian; love makes him wish to live as his Lord and Master would have him live.

Love can be seen as the basis for each of the Ten Commandments. I love God, so I do not worship other gods or graven images or take his name in vain. I love my neighbor, so I do not steal from him, seduce his wife, or lie to him. In these situations, law merely expresses what love demands.

Having accepted this scriptural approach, we still often meet problems in which it is difficult to be sure just what the demands of love are; these must be resolved situationally. Although the commandments define the larger boundaries of personal conduct, those who accept God’s explicit commands still are left with enough decisions to make to insure the development of ethical responsibility. How are we to be Good Samaritans in our own century with its poverty, exploding population, and threat of nuclear war? What does it mean in an affluent society to have no other gods? We are to keep the Sabbath holy, but what does this imply about our conduct in the twentieth century? How does one honor father and mother in what increasingly seems to be a welfare state? Premarital intercourse is wrong, but how do we show Christ’s love and concern situationally to the pregnant single girl? Murder is wrong, but are abortions always murder? In these areas we must act situationally and through prayer, Scripture, and the Holy Spirit seek to find what God’s love demands of us. We can be certain it demands action.

Why should God not express his love in rules? As a parent I express my love for my children in rules I know are for their benefit. God also can express his love in rules as well as in relationships. Rules are certainly no substitute for love. But love expressed to us by God, and by us to others, may well include some rules. Rules alone cannot express the full meaning of love in any relationship. Yet rules may well define what love permits and what it disallows.

Milton D. Hunnex is professor and head of the department of philosophy at Willamette University, Salem, Oregon. He received the B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Redlands and the Ph.D. in the Inter-collegiate Program in Graduate Studies, Claremont, California. He is author of “Philosophies and Philosophers.”

What new church forms are emerging?

One of Christ’s sharpest satires was directed against those of his contemporaries who did not know what time it was. They could forecast the weather, he said, but they seemed to be wholly unable to “interpret the present time” (Luke 12:56). The more we ponder this, the more we realize that our efforts cannot be effective if we do not know where we stand in the temporal sequence. To provide answers to questions that are not being asked is a waste of time.

Examples of being out of date are all around us. Only a few days ago I heard a sermon that was devoted, for the most part, to an attack on the excessive Puritanism of the preacher’s aunt—thirty years ago. If this man had been at all alert, he would have known that his point was obsolete. Excessive Puritanism, though it may have been a danger once, is not our danger now. A far greater danger is the faddish paganism that in its glorification of self-indulgence is the exact antithesis of Puritanism. If the preacher wants to be helpful, he must get around and try to see what the danger is now.

Another illustration of obsolescence is the motion picture Hawaii. In contrast to the book on which it is supposedly based, the picture goes to absurd lengths to caricature and ridicule one of the early New England missionaries in Hawaii. Anyone who knows anything about the situation soon realizes how unfair this portrayal is. Unfortunately, however, many viewers know little about past missionaries and hardly any more about contemporary ones. The result is that they are unaware of the distortion and are strengthened in the anti-missionary bias that is now prevalent. The producers of the picture are no doubt making money, but they are doing harm by fighting the wrong battle at this time.

If we are to be truly conscious of what time it is, one of the chief facts we must know is that, so far as the Christian religion is concerned, we are in the post-denominational age. The person who spends his effort attacking denominationalism is fighting a battle of another period. Denominations, as we know them, are not evil; they simply are not very important! There is no harm in their continued existence, and they may do some good that would not be done otherwise. But they are no longer in the central Christian stream; they occupy the side channels. It is as inept to condemn the side channel as it is to spend one’s life limited to it. Strong denominational loyalty and bitter attacks on denominationalism are equally out of date.

It is important to remember that denominations as we know them are only about 400 years old at most. The period of denominational usefulness and manifest strength is only a fraction of Christian history—a fraction that has already come to an end. The external forms of denominational activity will undoubtedly continue to exist for quite a while as vestigial elements in our culture, but people will be less and less interested. When people move from one neighborhood to another, they now change their denominational affiliation with ease and with no agony of decision. Even the line between Roman Catholics and Protestants is being crossed and re-crossed with ease, as the differences become less apparent. One reason is that Roman Catholicism has at last become one of the denominations.

I hope no reader will suppose that this essay is one more effort to beat the drum for church union. I realize that we shall have some more mergers, but the times have changed so rapidly that these are no longer matters of major interest and concern. After all, the Church is the people, and the people are the same, regardless of the label on the bulletin board. Union can overcome duplication in villages, but villages are not where most of the people live today. Despite a good deal of talk about mergers, the main thrust of our time has been toward renewal rather than unification.

A Christian who tries to know the time of day will usually retain his denominational affiliation while at the same time he puts his major effort into the new movements that are really on the Christian frontier in this last third of the twentieth century. I myself am a Quaker both by heritage and by conviction. My family has been Quaker, without a lapse, for more than three hundred years. Earlier this year I visited the town in Lincolnshire that was the residence of Arnold Trueblood in 1658 when he died in prison as a persecuted Quaker. Denominational loyalty was not a side eddy then; it was a matter of both intensity and power, and I thank God for it. We know a great deal about the declining importance of denominations when we realize that, while men were martyrs for denominational ideas three hundred years ago, today the idea of such martyrdom is fantastic.

What I want to make clear is that my heritage is one for which I shall always be grateful and to which I shall always adhere. But I cannot be loyal to it if I am loyal to it alone! Although I take my Quaker membership seriously, my purpose is to mingle constantly with Christians of all denominations or of none, in the effort to put my energies where the real battles of our time are found. The membership is necessarily of the part, but the concern is for the whole.

Most of the Christians whom I most respect today recognize clearly that it is the total cause of Christ to which they are loyal. They do not know how big the Church of Christ is, but they at least know that it is bigger than their particular church. They are not, for the most part, arguing for one great monolithic ecclesiastical structure, but they are humble enough to try to learn from one another. They realize that no group has a monopoly of truth. They are perfectly willing to allow their denominational affiliation to stand, but they know it is out of date to get excited about it. A man who is visibly enthusiastic about his denomination is now obsolete, so far as the main thrust of Christianity is concerned.

As we move further into a time in which the denomination is neither an idol nor a target of attack, our major effort should be to envisage the new forms the Christian movement ought to take. Some of these we dimly see. For example, the Christian task force may come to be a standard unit in our operation. The basic Christian fellowship may be that in which the members see themselves as missionaries rather than those who merely support missionaries. The promotion of the general lay ministry is more important than the promotion of any particular denominational viewpoint and, fortunately, is consistent with any. The new evangelical theological stance, which is marked by a union of mind and heart, transcends all sectarian lines and is far more important than those lines. The last third of the twentieth century is an exciting time in which to live, provided we know what time it is.

Milton D. Hunnex is professor and head of the department of philosophy at Willamette University, Salem, Oregon. He received the B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Redlands and the Ph.D. in the Inter-collegiate Program in Graduate Studies, Claremont, California. He is author of “Philosophies and Philosophers.”