High-level ecumenical meetings come and go, but for the membership, mixed marriage remains the stickiest practical problem of a divided Christendom. With the arrival of the marrying season, the World Council of Churches plan to include a paper on this flaw in the ecumenical ointment in its upcoming Study Encounter volume.

The paper was the basic resource for a World Council team that discussed marriage problems with Roman Catholic representatives at a four-day meeting near Rome last month. The WCC paper expresses disappointment that the Vatican mixed-marriage decree a year ago merely reinforces old requirements, rather than applying the spirit of Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism. Because Rome can’t quite recognize the “separated brethren,” a Protestant-Catholic marriage in a Protestant church is invalid, and children of a mixed marriage must be raised as Catholics. These nettlesome rules are not only under study in the WCC, but in the negotiations between Roman Catholics and the National Council of Churches.

Just before the meeting, the Vatican eased up considerably on Eastern Orthodox marriages. Applying rules Vatican II made for Eastern Rite Catholics to Orthodoxy, local Roman Catholic bishops have wide discretion in freeing the Catholic partner from canonical requirements so the wedding can be held in an Orthodox church.

This liberalization went into effect on Easter Eve, and a week later an even more revolutionary step was planned. The Vatican gave permission for a Catholic girl to be married in a Catholic church by the groom’s father, United Church of Christ clergyman Alden A. Read, a retired Navy chaplain now assigned to a prison at Las Padres, California.

Msgr. William Baum, Catholic ecumenical director, says it’s the first dispensation like this from the Vatican that he knows of. Father George Crespin, who handles marriage problems in the Oakland Diocese, said the Vatican provided “no explanation,” so “it is difficult to generalize from this case.” Last year’s mixed-marriage decree said that if difficulties arise, the local bishop should refer the case to Rome. Although John Read and Marie Immekeppel succeeded this way, Crespin doubts that “this general permission will be extended to include Protestant churches in the near future, but perhaps there will be a bit more leniency in individual cases.”

The even more nagging problem of religious instruction for children is not at issue. The groom has agreed that they will be raised as Catholics. The WCC suggests that Rome agree to make parents promise merely “to bring up their offsprings as Christians” (see below).

In response to Rome’s new leniency toward Orthodoxy, Archbishop Iakovos, Orthodox primate of North and South America, said he expects Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras to issue a reciprocal statement, probably sometime in April. In practice, this would mean Catholicism and Orthodoxy are closer in this matter than the Orthodox and Protestants, who are both members of the WCC. Current Orthodox practice is to recognize Roman Catholic marriages if the couple converts to the Orthodox faith. But Protestant marriages are usually reconsecrated.

The WCC paper suggests that all branches of Christendom should be as flexible on marriage as most are on baptism. Despite such notable cases of rebaptism as that of Luci Baines Johnson, any form of baptism in the name of the Trinity is normally recognized by both Catholics and Orthodox.

Oakland’s Father Crespin points out that ecumenical flexibility may be possible because, strictly speaking, Catholic teaching is that the couple performs the marriage and the priest is “merely an official canonical witness.” The witness at the Read wedding was to be Father John Ritzius, director of the Newman Center at the Berkeley campus of the University of California, where the couple went to school and met.

Father Robert A. Graham, writing for Religious News Service, raises the possibility that the world synod of Catholic bishops this September might discuss mixed marriages. Graham says opinion among both authorities and experts in Rome favors “general discontinuance of any formal and explicit prior pledge on the part of the non-Catholic party in regard to the Catholic upbringing of children.” This would give way to instruction of the Catholic spouse on his responsibility to raise the children as Catholics, with more emphasis on family unity and the conscience of the non-Catholic spouse.

Graham says German and British bishops have been reluctant to scrap the premarital pledge, while U. S. prelates apparently have no strong feelings one way or the other.

Besides the problem of choosing the clergyman and the church for the ceremony, a mixed marriage usually raises problems of family diplomacy also. Despite the ecumenical thaw in this area, conservatism hangs on. Just last month, Our Sunday Visitor columnist Father Winfrid Herbst offered a tract that teaches that if a Catholic circumvents church law and marries a Protestant in a Protestant church, a Roman Catholic should not attend or take any part in the service and should not even send a gift or a congratulatory note. And social contacts after the marriage “should be avoided by Catholics, or at least reduced to a minimum.”

Whether because of the ecumenical climate or the increasing social integration of immigrant ethnic groups, mixed marriages are becoming more frequent in America. The cruel fact is that, as with other religious regulations, the problems fall hardest on the most devout. The tensions are not great for the nominal Protestant, who is normally less concerned about becoming a Roman Catholic himself, or at least fulfilling church requirements for the wedding and for the training of children. And the nominal Roman Catholic would be less worried about leaving the church, and its mixed marriage rules, behind.

How About The Children?

A World Council of Churches study document on mixed marriage (story above) advocates that “religious education of the children must as far as possible be regarded as a common task.” Especially in the early years, children “must be instructed in one church. They ought not to be presented with the disagreements of various traditions.” But the parent from the other church “should contribute to the establishment of faith” and lay a foundation for “confrontation with other confessions.”

Also, the couple must find a form of common family worship. One possibility is joint Bible study. “When the couple has decided on one church, the children will attend the public worship services of this church.” Both parents should be present on major occasions such as confirmation, special feast days, first communion, or communion.

Personalia

A Presbyterian educator in New Zealand fanned the flames of a theological controversy by last month publicly denying the immortality of the human soul. Principal Lloyd Geering had been under fire for denying the historicity of the resurrection stories (see March 31 issue, p. 42). His latest denial brought demands for his resignation.

Dr. Lloyd J. Averill, vice-president of Kalamazoo College, has been named president of the Council of Protestant Colleges and Universities, an organization of 239 church-related institutions. He succeeds Dr. James M. Godard, who resigned to direct an educational research project.

Dr. John W. Turnbull was named associate director of the Washington office of the National Council of Churches. Ordained in the Congregational ministry, Turnbull became an Episcopal clergyman in 1955. Until recently he taught Christian ethics at Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest.

The theologian’s real value to God is determined by how he applies his doctrinal expertise to soul-winning. So says Dr. Andrew D. MacRae of Glasgow, general secretary of the Baptist Union of Scotland. He told Baptist Theological Seminary students in Rüschlikon, Switzerland, that “more has been owed to Christians by society for their evangelism than for any other area of Christian activity.”

Dr. A. J. Glaze was inaugurated president of the International Baptist Seminary in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Glaze, a native of Mississippi, holds the B.D. and Th.D. degrees from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville.

Dr. C. Eric Lincoln was appointed professor of sociology of religion at Union Theological Seminary, New York. Lincoln, an ordained Methodist minister, is the first Negro to hold a full professorship at Union. He is author of the authoritative Black Muslims in America.

‘The Judas Tree’

Four pallbearers bore a black-draped bier to a huge, steeply raked white cross. Excruciating, dissonant music (eerie strings and sizzling cymbals) filled the air. “I’m scared, Daddy,” piped a four-year-old.

Thus began the American premiere of The Judas Tree during Holy Week at Washington, D. C., Cathedral (Episcopal). The stark, brutal drama was written by Thomas Blackburn with music by Peter Dickinson. It was first performed in Liverpool Cathedral, England, last year.

Dickinson’s startling musical score has the orchestra alternately in whispers and snarls, with abstract mood sounds from the strings, brass, percussion, piano, and organ. The narrator is a tenor soloist. A chorus, mostly homophonic, provides poetic counterpoint for the spoken roles of Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, a Dominican monk, Simon Peter, and a Nazi commandant.

The drama’s theme is curious. Blackburn’s Judas is a necessary contributor to the ultimate good of the Crucifixion; therefore, his role in the passion should not be eternally damned. A monk provides the church’s rites for the dying to help Judas move from his 2,000 years of withdrawal-by-guilt into eternity—a merciful “birth unto death.”

Judas is made a symbol of universal evil through a replaying of the betrayal in a Nazi setting. The experience of crucifixion as the power of expiation within and for every man is shown as Judas’s “birth unto death” through identification with the Crucifixion. “It is finished!” cries Judas at the end, arms outstretched, while the organ thunders and a spotlight marks a huge crucifix over the crossing. The Judas Tree is a forceful drama with an impressive score. It is beautifully written and can be powerfully staged. Its theology gives pause.

JOAN KERNS

Miscellany

An interdenominational West African Congress on Evangelism is being called for July, 1968, to implement the findings of last year’s World Congress on Evangelism in Berlin and the Congress on the Church’s Worldwide Mission in Wheaton, Illinois. It will be sponsored jointly by the Nigerian Evangelical Fellowship and the African evangelism-indepth effort known as “New Life for All.”

The National Lutheran Campus Ministry is taking steps to end its financial support to chairs of religion at four tax-supported universities: Iowa, North Dakota, Kansas, and Montana. Chairs of religion at Texas and UCLA, currently supported by the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, also are expected to lose the aid.

Ministers and scholars of the Churches of Christ are preparing their first commentary on the New Testament. The first of the nineteen volumes of The Living Word Commentary will appear in the fall. Dr. Everett Ferguson, associate professor of Bible at Abilene Christian College, is the editor. The R. B. Sweet Company, of Austin, Texas, is the publisher.

Mother Madeleine, superior of two Benedictine nuns who teach in the public schools of Boerne, Texas, said they will not be back next year. With that word, a citizens’ group, formed to protest the presence of nuns in the schools wearing religious habits, announced it had disbanded. The disposition of a lawsuit filed by the group was not immediately clear.

The Rev. Clarence (Kelly) Walberg, Los Angeles area radio preacher, was given a three-year suspended sentence and a $1,000 fine for issuing promissory notes without a state permit. He had raised $500,000 to convert a seedy beachfront hotel into a youth evangelism center.

Metropolitan Nikodim, external affairs director for the Russian Orthodox Church, is visiting the United States this month as a guest of the Church of the Brethren. The Christian Churches (Disciples) have invited the Rev. Ilia Orlov of Moscow’s Baptist Church to visit next month.

Police in Durango, Mexico, charged two suspects with robbing and strangling Roman Catholic Bishop Jose de la Soledad Torres y Castaneda.

At this summer’s convention the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod will again discuss whether to join the Lutheran World Federation. Memorials both for and against have come from local conferences. The Commission on Theology and Church Relations will announce its recommendation on the LWF question next month.

Deaths

ROBERT M. SKINNER, 64, vice-president of Princeton Theological Seminary; in Westfield, New Jersey.

HENRY H. BAGGER, 75, president emeritus of Philadelphia Lutheran Seminary; in Philadelphia.

HOWARD G. JOHNSHOY, 48, academic dean at Gustavus Adolphus College (Lutheran) in Minnesota; in a plane crash with seven other educators surveying South Viet Nam’s schools.

For the estimated 400,000 “common law” marriage partners in Canada, the nation’s 1967 centennial may be worth special celebration. Prime Minister Lester Pearson has promised parliamentary legislation this year for divorce reform and for changes in the criminal code that now outlaws birth control and abortion. Prompting revisions are about 600 petitions, largely from Canadian churches. In all the arguments there is not a single objection to widening grounds for divorce.

The existing divorce statute is built upon the “marital offense” concept. Adultery is the only grounds for divorce in all Canadian provinces except Nova Scotia, where charges of gross cruelty can also dissolve a marriage. Divorce hearings are conducted under the aegis of the provincial supreme courts, except in Quebec and Newfoundland, where divorces require federal parliamentary enactment.

To replace the “marital offense” rationale, divorce-reform advocates are campaigning for the “marriage breakdown” concept. Under this idea divorces are deemed advisable in cases where there are seemingly irreconcilable issues. The United Church of Canada advocates a waiting period of at least three years between the initial marriage collapse and the granting of divorce.

The new theory, which is supported by the Anglican Church of Canada, eliminates the listing of causes. The court granting a divorce must be convinced that there is no chance of reconciliation and that children will have adequate protection. Among groups advocating parliamentary divorce reform are the Seventh-day Adventists, the Canadian Bar Association, the Law Society of British Columbia, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Congress of Women, the Canadian Committee for the Status of Women, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Baptist Federation of Canada, and the Unitarian Church.

The Unitarians go along with a “marriage breakdown” concept, or advocate “divorce by consent.” The Roman Catholic Church, which regards marriage as a sacrament as well as a contract, has not yet expressed official opinion on the civil statutes. Before making any major divorce reform, Canada’s Liberal government will weigh very carefully the Catholic position. Any church that represents about half the population, as does the Roman Catholic Church of Canada, is bound to play a major role. The present government may feel that the liberalizing tendencies within the Roman Catholic Church will permit divorce reform in the government without costing votes in the next election.

To date, the evangelical churches in Canada have said nothing. Either they feel overpowered by the giant denominational hierarchies or else their own position on divorce lacks sufficient clarity. While the more liberal churches exert influence upon Parliament, the evangelicals tend to talk to themselves in their own little ghettos.

Soviet Baptists Urge Peace

Soviet Baptists are marking their centennial with a 438-word appeal for peace, sent to major religious leaders all over the world. They ask “earnest prayer for the end of war in Viet Nam in the near future.”

The statement comes from the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians-Baptists—a body recognized by the Communist government—which celebrates its hundredth anniversary this year. The Baptists said Christians are partly to blame for past wars because they “gave the cause of the defense of world peace so little consideration.” They said Christians must work to “prevent a world war disaster with the use of the most terrible kind of weapons—nuclear weapons.”

Besides a search for “a durable peace and justice for all people and for each individual person,” the statement advocated Christian concern over racial inequality, social and economic injustice, disease, and illiteracy. It said the Church “was not anxious enough about all these problems” and “due to her isolation was indifferent …”

Mandatory Social Security?

Franklin Clark Fry, 66, making his first appearance before a congressional committee, last month urged automatic Social Security coverage for all clergymen unless they apply for exemption because of religious objections.

The president of the Lutheran Church in America said that under the current voluntary program, about three-fourths of the nation’s clergymen have sought coverage, but that this includes almost all older ministers and only 60 per cent of the younger ones. Thus “the proportion of ministers who are covered may well drop to only 50 per cent.”

A bill for universal coverage was introduced by Rep. George Rhodes of Pennsylvania, and copies were sent to pension agencies of all major Protestant groups. In supporting the bill, Fry said younger ministers are avoiding Social Security because of either a political dislike of the program, “a belief that a better-protection buy can be obtained elsewhere,” or “a desire to spend less money currently.”

In other hearings on upcoming Social Security legislation, spokesmen for the National Council of Churches, United Church of Christ, and Methodist Church favored a law requiring states to meet their own standards for welfare assistance by July, 1969. At present, only nineteen states meet their own minimums, according to NCC President Arthur Flemming. The UCC urged that the bill include a national minimum for welfare payments, noting that in Mississippi the state offers less than one-third the subsistence minimum under its own regulations.

Pope Paul VI pleads eloquently for the downtrodden masses in his fifth encyclical. The 20,000-word message entitled Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples) calls upon “all men of good will” to give “a loving response of charity” to the cry of the hungry for help. It was dated Easter Sunday and issued two days later.

The pontiff shakes an accusing finger at prosperous lands and wealthy citizens. “The superfluous wealth of rich countries should be placed at the service of poor nations,” he says. He urges special compassion for those who are “struggling to free themselves from the yoke of hunger, misery, disease, and ignorance, who seek a larger share in the fruits of civilization and a more active realization of their human personality.”

The encyclical’s most provocative paragraph, however, is the one in which the Pope concedes that population growth is a problem. His reference to population control is ambiguous, though some headline writers inferred an easing of the Vatican’s strictures against contraceptives. This is what the Pope said:

“The size of the population increases more rapidly than available resources, and things are found to have reached apparently an impasse. From that moment the temptation is great to check the demographic increase by means of radical measures. It is certain that public authorities can intervene, within the limit of their competence, by favoring the availability of appropriate information and by adopting suitable measures, provided that these be in conformity with the moral law and that they respect the rightful freedom of married couples.”

The encyclical deals with numerous economic issues. Among other things, it:

♦ Insists that the right of private property is not “absolute and unconditional” and asserts that the common good may sometimes require “expropriation of property.”

♦ Condones revolution in extreme cases as a means to social justice.

♦ Criticizes the profit motive and competition as determinative factors in economic activity.

♦ Calls for reform in the system of pricing for agricultural products and raw materials that are the major resources of developing countries.

Populorum Progressio frequently appeals to the Vatican Council’s statement On the Church in the Modern World. It repeats a suggestion the Pope made while visiting Bombay that a “world fund” be established to alleviate misery, and that money now being used for arms be channeled into it.

“Too many are suffering,” the Pope declares, “and the distance is growing that separates the progress of some and the stagnation, not to say the regression, of others.”

He says that “urgent reforms should be undertaken without delay. It is for each one to take his share in them with generosity, particularly those whose education, position, and opportunities afford them wide scope for action.”

The pontiff contends that “both for nations and for individual men, avarice is the most evident form of moral underdevelopment.”

“If the world is made to furnish each individual with the means of livelihood and the instruments for his growth and progress, each man has therefore the right to find in the world what is necessary for himself,” the Pope says.

He suggests that “the new name for peace is development.”

The papal plea for the underprivileged comes at a time when Christian leaders generally are demonstrating new concern for the apparently growing imbalance between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” It recalls last summer’s Conference on Church and Society, conducted in Geneva by the World Council of Churches, in which many current economic practices came under fire.

The week before the encyclical came out, evangelist Billy Graham told reporters in Puerto Rico, “I am against any give-away program and against any program which causes people to depend on the government where they should depend on themselves. But I do favor much of the poverty program, and, in the light of our total budget, my criticism is that it is too small.”

Pope Paul’s indictment of the rich includes a demand for more taxes on the wealthy to meet the cost of aid programs for the poor. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the whole document was that it failed to give any indication that the Roman Catholic Church was willing to submit its own vast resources and income-producing ventures to taxation. Reports from Rome several weeks ago said a secret agreement had been reached between the Vatican and the Italian government exempting Roman Catholic enterprises from taxes.

The potential of Roman Catholic wealth is cited by Episcopal Bishop James Pike, whose choice of a medium (this month’s issue of Playboy) is questionable but whose arguments are eye-opening. He trains most of his guns on the Jesuits, who, he says, own controlling stock in the Bank of America, Phillips Petroleum Company, Creole Petroleum Company, and the Di Georgio Fruit Company. He says the Jesuits also are heavy investors in Republic Steel, National Steel, and four of the largest aircraft companies: Boeing, Lockheed, Curtiss-Wright, and Douglas. From these and other holdings, the Jesuits are said to realize a yearly income of at least $250 million, on which they pay no taxes at all.

If Pike’s report is exaggerated, as the Jesuits are likely to argue, the fault lies as much with the Catholic Church as with the controversial bishop. Unlike virtually all Protestant groups, Roman Catholics never issue public financial statements to indicate the extent of their earnings or holdings. Reports in British newspapers last year estimated Vatican securities alone are worth at least $5.6 billion dollars. Not long ago the Wall Street Journal said the Vatican had sold the U. S. Treasury $4.5 million worth of gold.

Southern Baptists And Society

At last year’s Southern Baptist Convention, social isolationism was so strong that delegates drowned an attempt to put contemporary problems on upcoming convention programs. A resolution supporting America’s Viet Nam policy was thrown out, on the grounds that the SBC can’t speak for its membership.

But at this spring’s convention in Miami Beach, the Christian Life Commission—the SBC version of a social-action avant-garde—plans to have Senator Mark O. Hatfield speak on war and peace as part of its report.

Hatfield is a theologically conservative Baptist, all right; but his criticisms of the Viet Nam war¹Hatfield told Harvard Young Republicans last month that President Johnson is “falsely redesigning the war as a war of aggression.” Hatfield said it is basically a civil war, not a contest between democracy and Communism. are hardly in tune with the views of the SBC constituency, and raising such a topic at the national meeting is something of a milestone in itself.

But then, maybe the SBC isn’t the fossilized giant described by its liberal critics north of Mason-Dixon. The April edition of Home Missions offers ten guidelines for increasing the ecumenical contacts between Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics, advocating a middle ground between “wholesale condemnation” and “naïve optimism.” Then there was ex-SBC President Wayne Dehoney’s invitation to Roman Catholics to join the SBC-promoted Crusade of the Americas in 1969. Dehoney later explained that he wasn’t thinking of a formal tie-in but he hopes the Catholics will preach New Testament grace and stress evangelism at the same time the Baptists do.

Then last month came Ross Coggins, director of communications for the Christian Life Commission, urging that social action be an integral part of the crusade.

A Coggins speech contended that “total evangelism” will refuse “to allow irrelevant barriers like race, class, and nationality to close the doors of the church.” He declares that Southern Baptists should either generate support for President Johnson’s fair-housing law or come up with an alternate solution to “the awful problem created by segregated housing.” And he says Baptists could accomplish great good if the $670 million they contribute to their churches every year were totally cut off from businesses that discriminate.

The crusade’s focus is Latin America, with its extremes of wealth and poverty. Coggins says that without economic reform there, “violent upheaval, Marxist opportunism, and national disruption are inevitable.” Coggins also urges more Christian interest in fighting poverty in the United States.

The Coggins credo will be codified in a forthcoming book. This critique—by a loyal SBC staff member who accepts its conservative theology and is just as likely to attack the new morality as the old racism—will be difficult to ignore.

A similar book, recently published, falls into another category. Southern Churches in Crisis by Samuel S. Hill, Jr., a Southern Baptist who is chairman of the religion department at the University of North Carolina, expresses dissatisfaction with the status quo. But Hill’s distaste doesn’t end with social symptoms; it goes straight to the theological roots of the South.

Hill notes that when Southerners do get interested in social ethics, they pour their efforts into the problems of obscenity, gambling, and alcohol, while neglecting discrimination, poverty, and ignorance. Despite their biblicism, Hill charges, Southern Protestants are highly selective about which passages they use and thus distort the content of the Bible.

Lawsuit On ‘Larger Catechism’?

A legal snarl looms over efforts to change the confessional standards of the United Presbyterian Church. A leading Philadelphia law firm has produced a twelve-page brief challenging the proposed deletion of the Larger Catechism from the church constitution.

A package proposal due for final ratification vote at the United Presbyterian General Assembly in May provides for establishment of a Book of Confessions that includes the new Confession of 1967, the Westminster Confession, the Shorter Catechism, and six other creeds. The Larger Catechism, which until now has been one of the creedal standards of the church, would lose official standing.

The legal question is whether the power to alter and amend a constitution includes the authority to remove altogether an integral part of it. A paper distributed by the Fellowship of Concerned Presbyterians, U. S. A., contends:

“State and federal courts throughout the United States have almost invariably ruled that amending a document in a constitution, such as the Larger Catechism, implies the continued existence of the thing to be amended, and not its extinguishment, as is the case with the Larger Catechism.”

The Olympia Presbytery of Washington state, which approved the Confession of 1967 by a vote of 36 to 34, subsequently voted 26 to 22 to send an overture to the General Assembly requesting a study of the constitutionality of the confessional package in view of the deletion of the Larger Catechism. More than twenty-five other presbyteries are said to be considering similar overtures.

The new confessional package has been approved by more than the necessary two-thirds majority of the presbyteries. The final vote scheduled for the assembly in Portland next month must be a yes or no. No further amendments can be proposed. If the church has to get around the legal problem, it must adopt a new overture and then submit it to another vote of the presbyteries.

The Larger Catechism, which dates back more than three centuries, consists of 196 questions and answers that exhaustively cover the precepts of the Christian faith. It is replete with scriptural references. There is little in contemporary Christian literature to compare with it. It has fallen into disuse partly because of its archaic language.

The Shorter Catechism, which also dates back to the mid-seventeenth century, is basically a condensation of the Larger.

No civil action against the United Presbyterian Church has been threatened as yet. But there has been speculation among conservatives that churches wishing to withdraw from the denomination after adoption of the new confessional standards may have some legal grounds in the deletion of the Larger Catechism. The legal brief prepared by Pepper, Hamilton, and Scheetz cites numerous court decisions and asserts that “almost without exception” the courts “have treated a power to ‘amend’ as a power to modify, add to, or delete front an existing document, without abrogating the existence of that document thus amended.” It argues that “the courts have recognized that, of necessity, the concept of ‘amendment’ implies the continued existence of the thing to be amended.”

With Billy Graham’s Holy Week San Juan crusade, the Protestant church in Puerto Rico passed an important moment.

The cliché of Catholic domination came under strong challenge as the face of Latin American Protestantism began to emerge.

For eight days of meetings in San Juan and twelve “satellite” crusades held in major cities across the island during the preceding month, attendance reached just over 175,000. A total of 7,975 decisions were recorded.

All this took place on an island where less than 15 per cent of the 2.75 million population can be called Protestant. But more significant to the island’s religious life is the fact that even by Catholic estimates, no more than one-fifth of the baptized Catholics attend services regularly. And many Protestants claim that the real proportion is much lower.

“It is important to understand,” said Dr. Raymond Strong, president of Puerto Rico’s Evangelical Seminary, “that in Latin America, Catholicism is a minority movement. It’s a larger minority than Protestantism, but it is nevertheless a minority movement.”

The island’s religious majority—Catholics connected to the church by membership only—gets most of the attention. This group, perhaps 70 per cent of the population, is the church’s vulnerable outer shell. For the highly evangelistic Protestant church, this outer shell is the focus of much of its activity—and most of its success.

The crusade reflected the emphasis. Eighty per cent of the inquirers made “first time” decisions—double the normal Graham-team percentage.

The force of Protestant outreach is slowly being felt. Where the Catholic church once meant control, it now many times has to settle for only influence—and in some areas even this is diminishing. The shifting trends can most easily be seen in the political sphere. In Puerto Rico’s 1960 and 1964 gubernatorial elections, for example, church-backed candidates opposing birth control and favoring aid to private schools suffered significant defeats. A seven-year-old church-sponsored political party regularly gets less than 2 per cent of the vote.

Slowly, then, things are beginning to change in Puerto Rico and, to a lesser extent, throughout Latin America. On the island, Protestants have felt a sharp need for a symbol of the change. For many churchmen the Graham crusade provided the first important symbol.

If anything, the crowds would probably have been bigger had the crusade been held a different week. Many Protestants were forced to divide their support between the crusade and conflicting Holy Week meetings traditionally scheduled in the local churches.

The Rev. Rafael Boissen, president of Puerto Rico’s 300-church Evangelical Council (which endorsed the crusade) and a key member of the campaign’s executive committee, said that “it was a mistake to have the Billy Graham meetings at this time of year.” The view was supported by officers of most of the island’s major denominations. Even a Catholic priest in the office of the Archbishop of Puerto Rico agreed. “For attendance, Holy Week was the worst possible time in Puerto Rico for a Graham crusade.”

In a Latin American setting, Easter Week holds nearly as much cultural significance as religious. Nearly all Protestant churches schedule special meetings during the week, some every night. In Catholic churches, there is a service in every church every night from mid-week on.

The crusade was originally set for February, but was shifted when Graham’s schedule changed. Many of the churches opposed the switch because it would conflict with their own programs; but when faced with an Easter Week crusade or no crusade at all, most churches altered their plans so they could join the campaign. The local press, however, virtually ignored the crusade.

By the time the meetings began, there was a unity among the churches unusual even for a Graham crusade. Direct help came from about 500 churches—nearly half the Protestant churches on the island. Other churches too rural to participate indicated they would back the meetings with prayer.

The church support was particularly important in the twelve secondary campaigns. Graham-team associate evangelists and national preachers spoke to capacity crowds almost everywhere they went. When the meetings concluded, nearly 70,000 people had attended with 3,610 registering decisions.

The San Juan meetings that followed got off to a slow start. For two nights early in the week, the evangelist addressed crowds under 10,000—for the first time in a major campaign in nearly two years. But Wednesday was “youth night,” and the crusade attendance seemed to turn a corner. It began increasing and reached a peak of 17,500 in the 23,000-seat Bithorn Stadium on Good Friday.

The crusade was climaxed Easter morning with a 6 o’clock sunrise service, an event sponsored annually by the city’s Protestants. Despite the hour, the meeting drew 13,500 people—three times the normal turn-out. That brought the total attendance for the San Juan meetings to 105,700, with 4,355 recorded decisions for Christ.

San Juan (Spanish for Saint John), capital of Puerto Rico, is the oldest city under the U. S. flag. For the Graham team it meant not only opportunity but a bit of relaxation. Said the evangelist, “This is the most relaxed crusade I have ever had anywhere in the world.” Midway through the meetings, he jokingly inspected the faces of several staffers, declaring, “I want to see who has been working and who has been on the beach.”

The truth was that while they all worked, many got some time at the beach too. To conserve strength, Graham made no public appearances apart from the nightly services. His blood pressure was checked before and after each address.

WILLIAM FREELAND

Baptist Evangelism In Poland

European Baptist Press Service reported last month that evangelistic tracts are now being printed in Poland.

“The tracts apparently will be useful as Polish Baptists make ready for evangelistic campaigns,” EBPS said. “Every church has been assigned an evangelist and set a time for its participation.”

Thirty thousand tracts have been printed, the report said. Among the subjects are “Main Facts of Faith,” “Love,” and “Polish Brethren.” Polish Baptist Union President Aleksander Kircun was quoted as saying that the Brethren tract refers to a branch of Anabaptists highly respected in Polish history.

According to Kircun, the evangelists are being asked to hold special meetings for church officers, young people, and other specialized groups in addition to the general revival services. The auxiliary meetings will take place during the day and the main preaching services at night.

Kinshasa For Christ

Not since 1958, when Protestants celebrated the seventy-fifth anniversary of their missionary work in Congo, had the capital of Kinshasa seen a city-wide convocation of evangelicals.

Some 15,000 local church members and their families sang as they marched down Avenue Kasa Vubu, carrying banners and Bibles. The convocation was part of the “Christ For All” national campaign of evangelism, and it involved more than sixty-five churches and church-related organizations.

Nearly all the marchers wore colorful uniforms and waved flags and signs. Many hundreds of women bought new dresses for the occasion. Three bands provided the music for the procession to Reine Astrid Stadium.

In the stadium, many thousands watched as the marchers poured through two side gates and positioned themselves on the field. Among the dignitaries on hand was the minister of education for Congo.

The Rev. Howard Jones, an associate of Billy Graham who is a popular crusade evangelist among English-speaking Africans, preached. More than 600 persons recorded decisions for Christ.

Building upon a four-month literature-distribution program conducted in 1966 and upon tent rallies held in the latter half of the year, as well as upon the formation of hundreds of prayer cells, the parade and mass rally brought Christians to a new awareness of the potential of mass evangelism.

It isn’t easy to bring Christian compassion to Viet Nam. The war—which causes most of the need for compassion—is not the only problem. A sad case in point is the six-month battle in which refugees in Bien Hoa, led by a Catholic priest, have stopped World Vision’s attempts to build an orphanage for 2,000 children on government-granted land. A violent scene at the site shortly before Easter was filmed for national broadcast in the United States by NBC television.

In the melee, World Vision staffer John Weliczko had his arm fractured. One member of the knife-wielding mob crowded World Vision President Bob Pierce against a wall and said, “If you come back I’ll kill you.” Two NBC cameras were smashed, and cameramen were roughed up.

Pierce says “our problem at Children’s City really is a big Vietnamese problem in microcosm”—how to “overcome the bitterness, tensions, and friction built up during thirty years of war.” He said his evangelical Protestant welfare group had never before had such trouble with Roman Catholics.

At latest count, more than 1.6 million are homeless in South Viet Nam. Despite great interest, Protestant aid efforts budgeted for all of 1967 pale before the cost of even a single B-52. World Vision plans to spend $750,000; Viet Nam Christian Service, $481,750; and the National Association of Evangelicals World Relief Commission, $38,000.

The victims of Viet Nam are so important in the policy debate that they often seem to be publicity pawns rather than human beings. Anti-war propaganda makes much of civilians killed by U. S. soldiers. On the other hand, U. S. officials pointed out the week before Easter that so far this year the Communist Viet Cong have murdered thirty-three village chiefs, thirty-one government aid workers, twenty-seven national policemen, and 376 other civilians.

Reliable information on U. S.-inflicted suffering is difficult to get. In the January Ladies’ Home Journal, Martha Gellhorn contended that “civilian casualties far outweigh military casualties.” In the same month’s Redbook, Dr. Richard E. Perry said that between 1962 and 1966 the United States lost 1,500 men in Viet Nam, while the civilian population often has “this many casualties in a single week.”

Both Gellhorn and Perry made much of the disfigurement of children by napalm burns. Despite this and other publicity, New York Times medical writer Howard Rusk reported last month he could not find a single case of napalm burning in twenty hospitals he surveyed.

Of all the efforts by American Christians to counteract the ravages of war, none has gotten more publicity recently than an attempt by a group of Quakers to get a boatful of medical supplies into North Viet Nam. During a stopover in Hong Kong in mid-March, boat captain Earle Reynolds, an anthropologist, said he and crew members have been threatened with up to ten years in prison and $10,000 in fines under America’s Trading with the Enemy Act. White House pickets protested this threat.

Barring use of force by the U. S. Seventh Fleet, Reynolds said he intended to deliver his eighty-two boxes full of medical kits, purchased for $10,000 by the ad hoc Quaker Action Group. Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury Department put a ban on sending money to Canada for aid to North Viet Nam. Because of this, the Action Group’s bank assets have been frozen, setting the stage for an important civil-liberties lawsuit.

While Quakers aim to help both North and South, most of the Protestant aid in the South is administered by another peace group, the Mennonite Central Committee. It acts for Viet Nam Christian Service, an aid mission that also includes Church World Service, related to the National Council of Churches, and Lutheran World Relief.

The Mennonites began their work in Viet Nam in 1954, the same year the Geneva Conference set the terms for “temporary” partition of the nation and President Diem took over as ruler of the South. Enlarging with the war, Viet Nam Christian Service now includes sixty-four staffers from Western nations (fifty-five are Americans), and it hopes to make this eighty by the end of 1967. Projects include widespread distribution of U. S. surplus food, two medical clinics, six community-aid teams, and refugee aid.

An important Roman Catholic agency is Catholic Relief Services, which handles food for nearly one million people. Although most of this goes to dependents of Vietnamese soldiers, some refugees are aided also. Ten staffers from Western nations work with CRS.

The World Relief Commission of the National Association of Evangelicals is emphasizing self-help at its major new project, the Lay Leadership Training Center at Hue. Working with the National Evangelical Church of Viet Nam, which is affiliated with the Christian and Missionary Alliance, NAE plans to provide vocational and farm training and to help Vietnamese set up small industries. The program also includes literacy training and the distribution of clothing, medicine, and 1.7 million pounds of food this year. Similar education centers are planned in Da Nang and Khe Sanh.

Last month, when U. S. planes accidentally bombed out a village and killed more than 100 persons and injured 250, NAE responded to a U. S. Special Forces request and brought in six planeloads of food and clothing.

The direct relief activities of U. S. soldiers, usually administered by chaplains, are difficult to measure. At a recent Pentagon press conference, returning Navy chaplain Francis Garrett said soldiers hand out thousands of tons of food and clothing, as well as such things as building materials.

In late March, World Vision announced it would join the Evangelical Church in sponsoring child-care centers to accommodate 2,000 children. And despite the setback, Pierce said World Vision would continue its “desperately needed” Bien Hoa orphanage project, because of urgent appeals from “the South Vietnamese government, responsible citizens, and the Vietnamese military command.”

Sight-Saving In Cuba

Emory University eye specialist William Hagler, with State Department approval, made a secret trip to Cuba last month for surgery to save the sight of captive Baptist missionary Herbert Caudill.

Hagler said the retinal detachment apparently was successful. He had operated on Caudill in Atlanta in 1964 in an unsuccessful attempt to save the sight in his other eye.

Caudill, a 63-year-old Virginian and veteran missionary, directed Baptist work in Cuba until his arrest by the Castro government two years ago last week. His missionary son-in-law David Fite and forty Cuban pastors were arrested then also. Caudill and Fite were imprisoned on charges of illegal exchange of currency. Four months ago, Caudill got a conditional release from jail to seek eye treatment in Havana, and Fite recently was transferred to outdoor quarry work. Baptist Press reports that Fite’s parents left the United States for Cuba February 25 to visit their son and try to get him released. Hagler said the Fites have been treated politely and have seen both their son and Cuban officials. It was not known immediately when they would return to the U.S.

Canada: Evangelical Pallor

Last month’s second annual convention of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada drew a sparse 150 registrants, mostly from the Toronto area. Indifference among evangelical ministers was blamed for the poor turnout. The organization’s recent drive to enlist 5,000 members brought in only 600 and put the EFC heavily into debt.

Under the presidency of neo-Pentecostal J. Harry Faught, the EFC aims at setting up branches in every Canadian province as part of a national evangelical thrust. Faught called on members to “confess our fragmentation; our suspicions of one another and our quarreling with one another.…”

The two-day meeting stressed the need not only for a united voice for evangelicals and cooperation in national and foreign evangelism but also for a fully accredited, interdenominational seminary of evangelical persuasion.

In a fiery speech, the Rev. Hugh MacDonald of Knox United Church, Regina, criticized the heretical liberalism permeating his own United Church of Canada. But he also rapped evangelicals—for crude presentation of the Gospel, nauseating radio programs, sickening music and revolting financial appeals, and for hinging salvation on some isolated dogma. “In our zeal for Christ, we must not be guilty along with the liberals of making the Gospel unintelligible,” he said.

J. BERKLEY REYNOLDS

The Ominous Future Of Protestantism

Secular Christianity, by Ronald Gregor Smith (Haper & Row, 1966, 222 pp., $5), is reviewed by John A. Mackay, president emeritus, Princeton Thelogical Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey.

This book by a distinguished Scottish theologian, an admirer and devoted disciple of Rudolf Bultmann, witnesses to a present-day fact that is both tragic and ironic. At a time when Roman Catholics throughout the world are rediscovering dimensions of the Christian faith they had lost, and when the dynamic faith of Pentecostals in maturing and becoming increasingly relevant to basic issues in the secular order today, evidence grows that main-line Protestant denominations are losing the Christian insight and spiritual vigor that produced the movement that gave them birth.

In this volume we have an intellectual symbol of a decline that gives growing concern, and of ominous portents on the horizon of tomorrow. The concern I have in mind is this: The evangelical dimension of Christianity—using the term “evangelical” in no sectarian or other-worldly sense but as expressive of the luminous and dynamic core of the Christian religion—is tending to become disdained and abandoned in traditional Protestant circles.

Here is the basic thesis of Secular Christianity: We do not know whether history has a meaning or, if it does, what that meaning is. But we humans, if we so desire, can give history a meaning. And today is the historical moment when the “secular,” in its fullest dimension, must be accorded precedence over everything that has been traditionally associated with the “religious.”

Smith’s reasoning is this. History’s chief event is the “paradoxical reality of Christ,” who symbolizes, in his life and death, “the forgiving act of God and the meaning of love as powerless self-giving.” The resurrection of Christ, the author says, is to be regarded not as an objective happening but rather as “the symbol of the new life, a way of affirming the forgiving act of God.” Those who take this act of forgiveness seriously must become “people for others,” wedded to “secularity.” Only out of this wedlock can true meaning be given to history, so far as Christians and the Christian Church are concerned.

Let us be quite clear on a crucial point. The basic issue involved here is not the historical relation between Christianity and the secular order nor what that relation should be if Christians take their calling seriously. It is rather whether the relation between these two realities must involve, as Professor Smith demands, that we “demythologize” God as the decisive absolute in history and at the same time “divinize” man, who in becoming a “being for others” becomes thereby the creator and goal of the future.

According to this view, God, following his act of forgiveness in Christ, remains “incognito,” so far as human history is concerned. He is not a living power or presence through contact with whom a human being can experience “conversion” or enjoy “fellowship,” in the biblical connotation of these terms. God cannot therefore be made the meaningful center of a theological system founded upon his self-disclosure and the revelation of his purpose for mankind, “according to the scriptures.”

In consequence of this, creeds and confessions become meaningless. Man is solely and absolutely responsible for his own history. “Evangelism” has no validity. The missionary concept is utterly outdated. The Church as the community of faith has no real basis for its existence. Inasmuch as the sole absolute is “modern man,” the supreme role of a “Christian” is to become involved in “modern man’s” life and relations, but without in any way seeking to relate him to a living, redemptive Presence.

Secular Christianity presents a twofold challenge to all who take seriously the evangelical core of the Christian religion. First, Christians must have a theology that is centered in the crucified and risen Christ but is at the same time relevant to the total problem and concern of “modern man.” Second, they must themselves become truly incarnate in contemporary reality, not as “gods,” but with the supreme objective of making Christ and a community of Christians a meaningful and potent reality in the world of our time.

Reading for Perspective

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

• The Other Son of Man: Ezekiel/Jesus, by Andrew W. Blackwood, Jr., (Baker, $3.95). Blackwood relates Ezekiel’s message to current problems and considers the prophetic background of Jesus’ designation as the “Son of Man.”

• Christian Reflections, by C. S. Lewis (Eerdmans, $3.95). The devout faith and brilliant intellect of the late Cambridge scholar and Christian apologist illuminate vital topics of culture and religion. A must for C. S. Lewis enthusiasts.

• Theology of the English Reformers, by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (Eerdmans, $3.95). A compendium of writings by English reformers (e.g., Tyndale, Latimer, and Cranmer) that shows the biblical basis of their teachings.

The Knowledge Of God

Between Faith and Thought: Reflections and Suggestions, by Richard Kroner (Oxford, 1966, 203 pp., $4.95); The Saviour and the Scriptures, by Robert P. Lightner (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966, 170 pp., $3.75); and God’s Word Written: Essays on the nature of Biblical Revelation, Inspiration, and Authority, by John C. Wenger (Herald, 1966, 159 pp., $3.50), are reviewed by R. Laird Harris, dean and professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.

The Reformers taught that faith could be analyzed into knowledge, assent, and trust. Kroner, adopting a usual post-Kantian dichotomy, suggests that one must choose between faith and knowledge as a basis for religious belief. Faith is contrasted at every point with knowledge. The way to know God is the way of mystical belief, where both knowledge and speculation fail.

Kroner, a German refugee from Hitlerism, taught at Union Seminary in New York and at Temple University in Philadelphia. He may be classed in the general neo-orthodox tradition. His analyses of Barth, Tillich, Heidegger, and others are capable and helpful, though brief. Kroner argues that just as the methods of natural science do not uncover all reality, so the speculations and thought of philosophy do not exhaust the remaining areas of truth. Some truths—specifically truths of God—can be reached only by reflection and the experiences of faith.

Kroner claims that life is full of absurdity that can be made acceptable to men only by faith—not by complex rational or dogmatic systems like Hegel’s and Barth’s. God is hidden. We can only trust in the “ultimate guarantor of meaning.” “True mysticism is truly religious.” But Kroner’s god must be spelled without the capital letter. “God … should not be conceived as being.” He is “not outer being.” God “does not dwell in a transcendent place outside us, except in metaphorical language.” Indeed, Kroner cannot conceptualize his god at all. One may well ask whether such a god can be maintained; is this not a long step toward a god who is dead?

By calling language in the Bible metaphorical, Kroner demythologizes as much as Bultmann. The eternal is not endlessness, he says, but a kind of “superanimal being.” Jesus is on a plane with Buddha, Mohammed, and others, but he is higher. “Jesus is called ‘Son of God’ because of his most intimate relation to God.” Of course, Jesus is not the God-man of orthodox theology. “The compassion with which Jesus meets the sinner is supermoral; it is the divine feature in him.” Man’s immortality is affirmed, but survival after death is denied; immortality turns out to be only meaningful life here and now. The resurrection of Jesus is only an image of reality. And “the image of resurrection does not correspond to any physical or historical fact.” No attempt is made to treat the biblical evidences for miracles seriously. We are left with no after-life, no knowledge of God, no really truthful revelation. Faith becomes a feeling that there is a “guarantor of ultimate meaning.” As the quip goes, one may now pray that the “guarantor of ultimate meaning” will bless you real good!

It is a relief to turn to the books of Lightner and Wenger. These authors do not take up the problems touched by Kroner but rather give a positive and helpful discussion of the origin of Scripture and its truthfulness.

Lightner’s book is popular and useful but mainly traverses ground others have already gone over. He rightly grounds inspiration—verbal inspiration—in the witness of Christ, giving the exegetical evidence rather fully. His special contribution is a consideration of opposing views—neo-orthodox, liberal, and new evangelical. The neo-evangelical denials of verbal inerrancy come in for special attention.

More solid, though perhaps not quite so strict, is the work of Wenger, who not only brings a fresh approach to the authority and truth of Scripture but also offers helpful discussions of interpretation, textual criticism, and the history of the English Bible. The book is very well written and full of a wealth of illustration and interesting sidelights that make the reading a pleasurable and profitable experience.

Heavy-Handed Inferences

The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts, by Eldon Jay Epp (Cambridge, 1966, 210 pp., $8.50), is reviewed by Clark H. Pinnock, associate professor of theology, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, New Orleans, Louisiana.

This third in a series of monographs projected by the Society for New Testament Studies is a model of careful scholarship. The author reveals intimate knowledge of the intricacies of textual criticism and history. The weakness of the work lies in the somewhat heavy-handed theological inferences drawn from often minute variations in the Western Text. Earlier studies into the peculiarities of Codex Bezae contented themselves with assessing the historical worth and originality of textual variants. Less attention was given a possible bias in the editor that might have prompted his interpretive changes. Professor Epp believes that a large number of deviations in the Western tradition ought to be explained on theological, rather than mechanical or historical, grounds. The common denominator to these variations can be uncovered by postulating an anti-Judaic bias on the part of the editor. Previously, scholars like J. H. Ropes, F. J. A. Hort, and Th. Zahn had attributed the changes to other causes than deliberate falsification for dogmatic purposes; e.g., two authentic versions of Acts itself, explanatory expansions, Semitic backgrounds.

The thesis here is not altogether new (P. Corssen noted some anti-Jewish tendencies in the Western Text of Acts in 1896), but it has never been presented before in so thoroughgoing a manner. “The present study takes this anti-Judaism as its focal point,” Epp says. The pursuit of this thesis is a worthy one, but at times the momentum of argument places heavy strain upon fragile lines of evidence. Codex Bezae has in the past produced some novel theories to account for its existence, as the author admits, and the reader is left wondering about the finality of this latest novelty.

The anti-Judaic tendency in Codex Bezae appears in three dimensions; (1) the text portrays the Jews and their leaders as more hostile toward Jesus than does Vaticanus; (2) the text devaluates the importance of Judaism in the origins of Christianity; (3) the text puts more stress on the hostility of the Jews to the Gospel. “In short, the Jews come out rather poorly in the D-text” (p. 166).

Much of the evidence for these conclusions, however, exists only in the field of Epp’s microscopic vision. Does the addition of ponerion in Acts 3:17 show a bias, or does it merely expand the sense of B-text? Has the omission of humon from Acts 2:38 really altered the sense into a direction of greater universalism? Even the famous change from “people” to “world” in Acts 2:47 reflects no bias but simply expresses the thought of tout le monde (a French expression for “everybody” which has an exact parallel in Jewish Aramaic). When Epp explained the frequent addition of kyrios as a slap in the face of non-believing Jews, I began to lose sympathy with the whole effort. Even the addition of “by you” to a verb that implies it anyway in Acts 4:9 is supposed to heighten the fact that the leaders of Israel were not pleased with the early success of the Christian mission. Such imaginative form of innocent textual variants leading to so bold a conclusion does not sit well with otherwise painstaking scholarship. If earlier students did not pause to give the possibility of an anti-Judaic bias in Codex Bezae a fair hearing, then an avenue of investigation was overlooked. But cure like this is as bad as the disease. For in this approach, an assumed theological bias is made an absolute, before which even the facts must humbly bow. A great deal can be “proved” by this means—to the satisfaction of a very few.

Unsilent Women In The Church

Women in the World of Religion, by Elsie Thomas Culver (Doubleday, 1967, 340 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Margaret Johnston Hess, minister’s wife and Bible-class teacher, Detroit, Michigan.

Anyone who has taken it for granted that woman’s position in America today is one of comfortable equality can learn much from this book about other times, other places where woman has been more “equal”—or less so. Mrs. Culver, an ordained Congregational minister who for fourteen years was director of public relations for the World Council of Churches, has written a book of closely packed facts about the history and present status of women in religion, from pagan priestesses to modern ecumenical delegates.

The book is thoroughly researched and well-documented; the author has a mind of remarkable scope and a broad background.

The value of the book for an evangelical is marred by the author’s critical view of the Scriptures. She has some fresh insights into the place of women in the Bible, especially in her treatment of the New Testament, but the chapter on the Old Testament is scarcely worth wading through.

However, this is only a small part of the book. There are also some twenty chapters that deal with attitudes toward women in the ancient fertility cults, in the Apocrypha, during the early centuries of the Church, and after the break-up of the Roman Empire. Mrs. Culver describes the rise of woman’s position in the eleventh century and the decline under Luther and Calvin.

One familiar with the modern church scene reads about Luther’s and Calvin’s attitudes toward women with a shock of recognition. At this point the book picks up speed, showing the strange and varied strands that make up the not wholly equal—nor wholly biblical—position of women in our churches today.

This book would be stimulating to anyone interested in using women’s talents to greatest effectiveness in the church—provided the reader compensates for the theologically liberal viewpoint.

The author is not violently feminist. She calmly states and effectively supports her thesis that the Church is the poorer when it does not encourage women to use in the Church whatever talents God has given them.

Response To Vatican Ii

Challenge and Response: A Protestant Perspective of the Vatican Council, edited by Warren A. Quanbeck (Augsburg, 1966, 226 pp., $5), is reviewed by Charles A. Bolton, former Roman Catholic priest, now a Protestant teacher and preacher.

There is a refreshing candor in most of the ten essays of this survey of the recent Vatican Council. The message of the Reformation is again proclaimed with a pacific and sincere intention. Most of the authors carry with ease a theological or historical erudition and show themselves to have a real understanding of the Roman Catholic position. It is good to have Luther’s words repeated with a new if gentle emphasis. The authors claim that the best possible unity at present is “the unanimous testimony of brethren to Jesus Christ the Lord.” We should not forget, however, that the council speaks of “separated brethren.”

The book begins with a short account of the fourth and last session in 1965. Then follow seven evaluations of some of the main declarations of the council. Kristen E. Skydsgaard contributes a valuable review of “Scripture and Tradition.” He quotes usefully from Luther about Scripture as the living word of God, derived from the faith of the apostolic Church, and needing always to be interpreted within the context of a living church tradition. “Biblicism” is not enough; yet ecclesiology and tradition can be equally dangerous, as some of the more restive Roman theologians are well aware. “There can be no ecclesiology and that means no doctrine of tradition apart from the knowledge of the constant threat of the Antichrist.” Skydsgaard is afraid that too much traditional theology of the Roman school is in a magic circle that cannot be broken—it involves some Scripture but more of tradition and of the church. He asks how a prominent theologian like Rahner can maintain that all dogmas are implicit in the Bible.

J. Aagaard gives a good assessment of the new missionary endeavor. He is aware of the tensions (largely involving control of the millions collected by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith) between the Italians in Rome and the bishops in the field.

Quanbeck, while admitting the usefulness of the historic episcopate, cannot accept the council view that bishops have apostolic authority to teach, govern, and sanctify. He maintains the apostolicity of many church forms. Incidentally, he might have reminded his readers that in all probability the Roman (local) church was presbyterian until the second century, despite Rome’s efforts to derive a monarchical episcopate from Peter.

George A. Linbeck, writing on religious liberty, is disappointed that the council tried to cover up the historic crimes committed in the name of orthodoxy. And Oscar Cullmann seems discouraged by the many triumphs of the conservative and fanatical minority.

Challenge and Response is a thought-provoking work, with a polyglot background.

Treading The Tough Terrain

Religion in Contemporary Debate, by Alan Richardson (Westminster, 1966, 125 pp., $2.75), is reviewed by David Allan Hubbard, president, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California.

Few theologians can move through the tough terrain of contemporary theology with the ease of Alan Richardson, Dean of York. With practiced eye he scouts the pitfalls of the modern views as he maps the approaches of Tillich, Bultmann, Fuchs, Ebeling, and Braithwaite, among others, and evaluates them in the light of biblical theology.

Although he salutes Tillich’s profound religiosity, Richardson lays bare the basic atheism of his system, which seems no closer to the Gospel than were the various Gnostic systems of the early Christian centuries. Bultmann’s demythologizing draws the author’s fire in a section that stresses the non-mythological character of biblical revelation and makes a strong case for the historicity of Christ’s resurrection. Heidegger, whose existential philosophy is fundamental to Bultmann and his successors, such as Fuchs and Ebeling, is severely criticized for his subjectivity and his failure to grapple with biblical categories like righteousness and obedience.

As a pungent and profound critique of modern theological trends, this book can evoke deep appreciation from pastor, layman, and especially university students. Richardson’s greatest drawback is his undermining of the historicity of certain hard-to-handle biblical narratives (e.g. Tower of Babel, Pentecost) by branding them parables.

A German Lutheran Views Dogma

A Short History of Christian Doctrine, by Bernhard Lohse, translated by F. Ernest Stoeffler (Fortress, 1966, 304 pp., $5), is reviewed by J. A. O. Preus, president, Concordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Illinois.

Bernhard Lohse, professor of church history and historical theology at Hamburg University, writes out of broad experience in Germany, where more history of dogma has been made than in any other area in modern history. His book is not a profound piece of work that reveals tremendous new insights. It will, however, do good service for those who want something quite concise and objective.

Professor Lohse believes in the concept of dogma, both Catholic and Protestant. He points out that Harnack, for all his brilliance, really “saw in the development of dogma over the years nothing but a process of decay, which had allegedly led to the Hellenizing of Christianity.” He likewise breaks with the post-Bultmannians by criticizing Ebeling for saying, “Where Christology is concerned nothing may be said of Jesus which does not have its ground in the historical Jesus himself and does not confine itself to say who the historical Jesus is.” In its context, of course, Ebeling’s statement means that there is little or no dogma about which we may dogmatize. He points out that from the beginning, most history of dogma has been written by its critics. Lohse sets out to do the job from another standpoint, evident throughout his work.

He deals at length, but not in a wholly satisfactory way, with the question “What is dogma?” Although he gives an excellent summary of what others have said, he is somewhat unclear about what his own position is. He believes that dogma must be drawn from Scripture, that it has a propositional element, that it is historically conditioned. He stresses the good point that it is also a confessional act: to assert a dogma is to make a confession of faith. He also asserts that dogma always has an anti-heretical note. He disagrees with Rome’s claims of ecclesiastical infallibility. He seems to fail to come to grips with the point that a creed based squarely on clear Scripture can claim infallibility.

Lohse then proceeds to deal at some length and quite satisfactorily with the place of the biblical canon, which he calls the first dogma of the Church; with the development of creeds, which he approves; and then, in the usual order, with the Trinity, Christology, sin and grace, Word and sacrament, justification, dogma within recent Catholicism, dogma within Protestantism, and the present quest for outward unity and union in the Church. His treatment in most instances is correct. He takes a more sanguine view of the Marburg Colloquy than this reviewer. His treatment of the sacraments is good and shows his Lutheran orientation.

The author brings us right up to the recent developments in the ecumenical movement but offers no solution to the problems involved. Yet he is cautiously optimistic about the outcome. Like most German Evangelicals of our time, he takes a most favorable view toward the Barmen Declaration, which he calls a modern confession.

Readers of this valuable book will develop more respect for the confessional position of their own churches and for the place of confessions in the Church of the late Twentieth century.

Portraits Of Six Servants

Men of Action in the Book of Acts, by Paul S. Rees (Revell, 1966, 102 pp., $2.95), is reviewed by C. Russell Bowers, minister, First Christian Church, Charleston, Missouri.

The reality of Jesus Christ becomes more vibrant and vital to us today as we see him in the lives of men of the past. The examples of Christians who have faithfully served their Lord give other believers the desire to accomplish more as they too follow Christ. In this book Dr. Rees presents word pictures of six servants of Christ whose stories are told in the Book of Acts. He stresses a particular quality of each person. This approach offers readers guidance in certain crucial areas of life.

The life of Peter, “the rock,” was occasionally characterized by fear. As we examine his fear, we are led to understand what fear is and how, like Peter, we may overcome it through Christ.

Stephen shows what it means to have conviction. So often we find ourselves lacking in this quality. We tend to be “problem-conscious” but not “powerconscious.” Stephen had the winning conviction necessary in the time of trial.

Barnabas is an example of goodness. The key to his life is found in Acts 11: 24a—“He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.” Here the reader is led to a fuller understanding of what it means to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

To see faith in its fullness one need only look at the Apostle Paul. If we desire to capture for ourselves this great quality, we would do well to accept for our lives the key he used for his: “I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision.”

These are all fine character sermons. Rees forcefully shows that God can take the most unworthy men and transform them into messengers of light.

Book Briefs

Frontline Theology, edited by Dean Peer-man (John Knox, 1967, 172 pp., $4.50). A compilation of articles in the Christian Century’s “How I Am Making Up My Mind” series, which prides itself in having triggered the death-of-God controversy. These “frontline” thinkers, so concerned to adapt Christian truth to current philosophical and sociological thought patterns, would do well to examine their own presuppositions. One finds that their outlooks are based more on philosophical speculation than on the revealed Word of God.

Theology and Proclamation: Dialogue with Bultmann, by Gerhard Ebeling, translated by John Riches (Fortress, 1966, 187 pp., $3.95). A “post-Bultmannian” consideration of the inter-relatedness of theology and preaching.

The Secularization of History, by Larry Shiner (Abingdon, 1966, 236 pp., $5). An analysis of the theology of Friedrich Gogarten in which secularization of the West is seen as the fruit of the desacralization of the world through the Christian faith.

Introduction to the Psalms, by Christoph F. Barth, translated by R. A. Wilson (Scribners, 1966, 87 pp., $2.95). Offers background data on the Psalms and states that literary categories should be applied to them, but not in a rigid way.

Understanding God: The Key Issue in Present-Day Protestant Thought, by Frederick Herzog (Scribners, 1966, 191 pp., $4.50). In his first book, Herzog examines significant strands of modem theology to show that a new quest for God is at the heart of the current debate. A good review of recent theology but its creative content is limited.

The Epistle of James, by C. Leslie Mitton (Eerdmans, 1966, 255 pp., $4.95). A worthy exposition showing that the Book of James emphasizes a vital phase of New Testament truth.

Jesus of the Parables: Introduction and Exposition, by Eta Linnemann (Harper & Row, 1967, 218 pp., $4.95). A student of Ernst Fuchs presents principles for interpreting parables that help the reader to recover Jesus’ intention in the original setting. Includes stimulating expositions of eleven parables.

A Guide to Modern Versions of the New Testament: How to Understand and Use Them, by Herbert Dennett (Moody, 1966, 142 pp., $2.95). Descriptions and evaluations of many modem New Testament translations—literal, colloquial, simplified, and expanded.

Paperbacks

A Defense of Biblical Infallibility, by Clark H. Pinnock (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967, 32 pp., $.75). In this 1966 Tyndale Lecture in Biblical Theology, Pinnock not only forcefully defends biblical infallibility but also contends that without it the principle of sola scriptura and the entire epistemological base of Christianity are undermined.

Biblical Studies in Final Things and Amillennialism Today, by William E. Cox (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967, 226 and 143 pp., $3.50 and $2.50). For Bible students grappling with eschatology, Cox presents the case for amillennialism and attempts to refute pre-millennialism.

Ears That Hear: Some Thoughts on Missionary Radio (Radio Worldwide, 1966, 85 pp., 4s.). Promotes the use of the vast resources of radio for spreading the Gospel.

Jewish Sects at the Time of Jesus, by Marcel Simon (Fortress, 1967, 180 pp., $2.95). A valuable little book that considers the status of Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, Essenes, and other strands of Judaism in the time of Christ.

Successful Youth Work, by Elmer Towns (Regal Books, 1966, 416 pp., $2.95). An analytical and comprehensive survey of the entire church’s ministry to today’s teenagers.

Sir William M. Ramsay: Archaeologist and New Testament Scholar, by W. Ward Gasque (Baker, 1966, 95 pp., $1.50). A survey of the vital work of the archaeologist-scholar whose discoveries established the reliability of Luke-Acts.

Instruction in Christianity, by John Calvin, translated by Joseph Pitts Wiles (Sovereign Grace Union [Redhill, Surrey, England], 1966, 196 pp., 12s. 6d). Reprint of the 1920 abbreviated edition of The Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Third Session Council Speeches of Vatican II, edited by William K. Leahy and Anthony T. Massimini (Paulist, 1966, 334 pp., $1.45). Eighty-eight speeches on such topics as divine revelation, the Virgin Mary, religious liberty, the apostolate of the laity, and the church in the modern world reveal the diversity of viewpoints present at Vatican II.

Sex, Family, and Society in Theological Focus, edited by John Charles Wynn (Association, 1966, 256 pp., $2.25). Essays by notable writers that explore the issues involved in the sexual revolution and its impact on family life.

Cyrus I. Scofield was born in Michigan in 1843 and died on Long Island, New York, in 1921. A lawyer admitted to the Kansas bar, he was appointed United States attorney for Kansas by President Grant. That same year he experienced a dramatic conversion and began intensive study of the Bible, and in 1882 he became minister of the First Congregational Church of Dallas, Texas. Later he was minister of the Congregational Church of Northfield, Massachusetts, and president of the Northfield Bible Training School, at the insistence of his fast friend Dwight L. Moody.

In 1902 Scofield retired from the pastorate and for seven years gave himself to the production of the reference Bible published in 1909 and then revised in 1917. Oxford University Press was its United States publisher, and it has sold more copies than any other title issued by that press in the States. The Scofield Bible has encouraged tens of thousands of people to study the Scriptures dispensationally and intensively. Even thousands who have not embraced Scofield’s dispensationalism have been blessed by a wealth of other material useful to Christians of various theological persuasions.

The Scofield Reference Edition of the Bible has been a formidable if not determinative force in fundamentalism for more than fifty years. When Oxford announced a revision was on its way, rumblings from Scofield admirers could be heard from Boston to Bombay. To some, change was unthinkable. Indeed, with several million copies in print, the Scofield Bible had attained an almost impregnable position in the hearts of multitudes. But the “new” Scofield has been now unveiled, and countless critics will compare the two versions.

Members of the 1967 revision committee were E. Schuyler English, Frank E. Gaebelein, William Culbertson, Charles L. Feinberg, Allan A. MacRae, Clarence E. Mason, Alva J. McClain, Wilbur M. Smith, and John F. Walvoord.

On the credit side much can be said for Scofield II. Although tied to archaic King James language, the revisers have made the best of this bad bargain by replacing antiquated words with up-to-date ones. This involves hundreds of words, and all such changes are marked by vertical lines. For example, “Replenish the earth” (Gen. 1:28) has become “fill the earth,” which is decidedly better; “let it forth” (Luke 20:9) has become “leased it” and “householders” has become “tenants”; “publican” (Luke 18:11) has become “tax collector.” Approximately six hundred changes in names have been made (mostly spellings) and these have been indexed. Ussher’s chronology has been abandoned; no dates are supplied for events prior to 2000 B.C., and those between 2000 and 1000 B.C. are approximate.

Footnotes or annotations at page bottoms have been identified by chapter and verse. This makes it easier to locate the verse from the footnote than it was in Scofield I. The index to annotations has been enlarged, for there are many new notes dealing with textual and critical matters as well as recent archaeological discoveries. Curiously, Scofield II, like Scofield I, makes no mention in the index or in the footnotes of divorce, a contemporary problem of great importance. Scofield himself was divorced.

The introductions to the sixty-six books have been completely redone and are vastly improved. Old Testament authors are identified wherever possible, something Scofield I omitted, and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is strongly asserted. The case for the unity of Isaiah does not appear in the introduction, where one would expect to find it; it appears in a footnote to Isaiah 40:1.

Some of the Scofieldians who have objected ardently to newer translations for omitting words, phrases, and verses that never should have been in the King James in the first place will be amazed to discover that Scofield II has often done the same thing. The closing part of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13) is a case in point; the footnote mentions the absence of manuscript evidence for its inclusion. Unfortunately, Scofield II does not do enough of this. For example, there is no adequate manuscript evidence for “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” in Revelation 1:11; but the reader cannot learn this from Scofield I or II. Many similar examples could be cited.

Excellent maps accompany the new edition, and the concordance is splendid. A new simplified system of diacritical markings for proper nouns has been added. This is desirable, but unfortunately the system used will not be familiar to most Americans. Zebu’lun rather than Zeb’ulun, Aristobu’lus instead of Aristob’ulus, and scores of others suggest that all Bible publishers should get together and use similar pronunciations and the same diacritical marks for proper nouns.

The heart of the Scofield Reference Bible is its dispensational system of interpretation. Basically this system remains unchanged in Scofield II. The revision committee was charged to maintain the system and did so with remarkable fidelity. There are still seven dispensations, although the name of the sixth has been changed from Grace to Church. The definition of dispensation has been refined. The distinction between Israel and the Church continues. The Church is not to be found in the Old Testament. Scofield I had a very damaging note on Zechariah 9:10 (“Except in verse 9, this present age is not seen in Zechariah”); this part of the note has been deleted.

In eschatological outlook there has been no change. Scofield II is pre-tribulational and pre-millennial. The parenthesis between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth weeks of Daniel is continued, with the Church being raptured at the beginning of the last week. The secret, any moment aspect of the rapture of the Church is continued. The note on Daniel 9:24, however, seems to support the any-moment rapture only after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Scofield II clarifies one pivotal point at which the earlier version was roundly criticized: the charge that in some dispensations men were saved by works. This arose from notes such as the one for John 1:17: “The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation.” Scofield II eliminates this and says: “Prior to the cross man’s salvation was through faith, being grounded on Christ’s atoning sacrifice, viewed anticipatively by God.” In the introduction to the 1967 edition, the revision editors carefully state that salvation in every dispensation is “by grace through faith.” Moreover, the revision acknowledges that dispensations cannot be strictly limited as to time and that they overlap.

Scofield I, in the note for Revelation 14:6, spoke about four forms of the Gospel: the Gospel of the kingdom, the Gospel of the grace of God, the everlasting Gospel, and “that which Paul calls, ‘my Gospel.’ ” The new Scofield deletes “my Gospel,” changes the order by beginning with “the Gospel of the grace of God,” and uses lower case for Gospel when speaking of “the gospel of the kingdom” and the “everlasting gospel.”

Scofield II has made concessions about the rigid distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. In the footnote to Matthew 3:2 Scofield I did not appear to recognize the synonymous use of these terms. Scofield II indicates that they are “often” used synonymously. The footnote for Matthew 6:33 in which the same distinction is made in Scofield I is refurbished in Scofield II. Significantly, whereas Scofield I dogmatically placed forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:12) on “legal ground” and thus provided ammunition against the use of the prayer in public worship, the revision enlarges the footnote and opens the door wide to its liturgical use.

Of Acts 15:13, Scofield I said, “Dispensationally, this is the most important passage in the N.T.” Scofield II is reductionist; it reads, “this important passage shows God’s program for this age.” In discussing the message to the seven churches in Revelation 1:20, Scofield I laid down the dictum. “Most conclusively of all, these messages do present an exact foreview of the spiritual history of the church, and in this precise order.” Scofield II eliminates this dogmatic approach and uses softer phrases such as “illustrative of.”

The 1967 Scofield locates the footnote on the inspiration of the Bible at Second Timothy 3:16, whereas Scofield I had two major notes on the subject, one at First Corinthians 1:13 and another at Second Peter 1:19. The revision is excellent, preserving both the integrity of the human authors and the work of the Holy Spirit. It comes out flatly for Scriptures that are “authoritative and without error in their original words, and constitute the infallible revelation of God to man.”

A footnote for Second Kings 17:23 knocks the ground from beneath the Anglo-Israel heresy by asserting that there are no “ten lost tribes” of Israel, and that conjectures that these “lost tribes” are the Anglo-Saxon people, gypsies, and so on “arise from a misreading” of the Scriptures.

To render judgment on dispensationalism per se would be to go beyond the limits of a review comparing Scofield I and Scofield II. However, this much should be said: Those who have no use for the dispensationalism of Scofield I are not likely to view Scofield II with any greater enthusiasm: those who revered Scofield I may decide to argue with Scofield II but cannot ignore it; and those who appreciated Scofield I but viewed it with a critical eye will be pleased with improvements in Scofield II and the more irenic, less dogmatic, and certainly more sophisticated notes and other material it contains.—HAROLD LINDSELL.

We have all heard about people who are said to be “so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly use.” Perhaps there are a few such people. But most of those in this world—many Christians among them—are so wrapped up in the things of this earth that they have no time for heaven or eternal values.

The Christian should realize that he has changed his citizenship. In praying for his disciples, our Lord said, “I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:15, 16, RSV).

When the seventy returned from their mission, they were rejoicing that even the demons were subject to the name of Jesus. The Lord’s reply was, “Do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20).

Speaking of the heroes of faith, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, “These all died in faith, not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted it from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city” (Hebr. 11:13–16).

Moses, the same writer says, “refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to share ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin.… He endured as seeing him who is invisible” (vv. 25, 27b).

And Abraham “went out, not knowing where he was to go.… For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (vv. 8b,10).

Christians need to know the place of their spiritual citizenship. It helps clarify many problems and prevent unnecessary frustrations.

But being a Christian involves far more than a heavenly citizenship; it also involves living as a Christian in this world. It means being the very best kind of citizen. It means showing the fruits of the Holy Spirit in daily relationships with other people. It includes not only love for God but also love for our fellow man. We should be concerned for our neighbor’s best interests as if they were our own.

Almost immediately after our Lord affirmed the heavenly citizenship of those who believe on him, he spoke of their earthly obligation to others through the story of the Good Samaritan. No degree of heavenly involvement can absolve us from our responsibility to be good neighbors.

What then, is the proper balance in the life of one who is a citizen of two worlds, so to speak?

Balance is established, first of all, by a firm footing. We can maintain a right relation with God and with man only by standing firm on Jesus Christ, the immovable foundation. There can be no right relation with men unless there is a right relation with God, and no man can attain this merely by being a good neighbor. Rather, he becomes a good neighbor by receiving Christ into his own heart. Then and only then is it possible for him to love his neighbor as himself.

This effective balance in life is the result of God’s grace in the human heart. It is God who puts life in proper perspective. He speaks to us in his Word about how to live with and for others and how to glorify him.

In the same prayer in which our Lord speaks to believers as being in but not of the world, he also speaks of “eternal life” as a gift and as a right apprehension of God through Christ.

The esoteric nature of this prayer is most enlightening, particularly when so many today are placing believers and unbelievers in the same category: “I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine” (John 17:9).

And then we read this remarkable and deeply significant statement, “I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (v. 14).

Were the disciples to rest in their assurance of eternal life and from then on merely wait for their translation into the heavenly Kingdom? Far from it. They had a message to proclaim, a work to do. Their lives would not be easy. They would be rejected as he had been rejected. They were to be witnesses because they had been with him from the beginning. Some hearers would believe the message; many others would reject it.

The life of the believer is that of a messenger with a message. Because he lives in an unbelieving world, one that crucified the Lord of glory and would crucify him again if he were here today in the flesh, the Christian must expect hostility toward himself and toward the Gospel he lives and preaches. “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18, 19).

The Christian’s reaction to hostility must be one of love. For this our Lord has set the perfect example. Paul speaks to the problem: “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:24).

As a citizen of heaven, the Christian lives in enemy territory. He is involved in deadly warfare. He is up against, not a physical enemy, but “the unseen power that controls this dark world, and spiritual agents from the very headquarters of evil” (Eph. 6:12b, Phillips). In his own strength and with his own resources he is helpless.

But the battle is not lost. God has provided his own with an armor against which Satan’s wiles are useless. He has provided the one offensive weapon against which Satan can never stand, “the Sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

Where so many of us fail as heavenly citizens is in our attempt to fight with carnal weapons—criticism, invective, worldly wisdom, and a host of other things that are of the flesh, and not of the Spirit.

The Apostle Paul has put our citizenship and inevitable warfare in perfect perspective with his words in Second Corinthians 10:3, 4—“Though we live in the world we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds.”

Dear Job-Seekers:

“WANTED: versatile YOUNG MEN. For job opportunity requiring multiple skills,” announced the full-page magazine advertisement. Here, I excitedly thought, might be my big chance for a fantastic new career in the space program or corporation management. So I read on. “Applicants must expect to serve as teacher, counselor, administrator, psychologist, preacher, and brother to people in all walks of life.” How could any mortal handle such an assignment?, I mused. The ad further stated: “Compassion, understanding, patience and endurance necessary qualifications.” Finally came the appeal from the United Presbyterian Church Council on Theological Education: “Interested applicants should address themselves to: The Christian Ministry.”

I hate to reveal my naïveté, but I had always thought that basic requirements for the Christian ministry were Christian conversion and a call to this sacred office from God (rather than an advertising copywriter). But it seems that such hoary requirements may no longer be operational in modern Protestant seminaries.

Another ministerial recruitment ad apparently supported this conclusion. Placed by the Episcopal Seminaries, it was entitled, “He Didn’t Wait for Voices in the Night.” Under a picture of a thoughtful seminarian the ad stated, “Like most young men searching for a career he gathered all the facts he could … and made up his mind. But instead of deciding to be a lawyer or an engineer, he decided to be a minister.” How embarrassed, I thought, this seminarian would have been by divine illumination! The ad continued: “He didn’t see the ‘light flash’ or hear ‘voices whisper.’ Neither have most men in seminary! Because the call to the ministry is much like the call to any other profession, it doesn’t bowl you over.” Then, to assist inquirers, the ad offered the booklet, “Are You a Many-Sided Man?”

I asked myself, Am I a many-sided man? Certainly I deny being a square. But the four sides of the “now” minister do intrigue me. What other profession would allow one to serve as (1) the compleat expert on matters ecclesiastical, theological, political, and economic, (2) the enrobed prelate of liturgical renewal, (3) the courageous leader of marches that shake up placid communities, and (4) the symbol of religious good will at ceremonial occasions?

Maybe I will answer those advertisements after all. With my versatility, multiple skills, and no-nonsense approach to this challenging career, I could give God a real lift and possibly lead the Church to heights unknown since Constantine secularized Christianity.

Your would-be man of the cloth, EUTYCHUS III

Insights Into The Impasse

I appreciate Mr. Kucharsky’s insights (“Confronting the Impasse in Evangelism,” Mar. 3) into the present-day impasse in evangelism. He sees through our programs as an expression of our sense of guilt at not being a Nate Krupp or a D. L. Moody.

I wish he could have pursued this idea of guilt to a solution instead of leaving us condemned before a Christ-less world. One reason evangelical Christians don’t witness is that in spite of all our preaching on assurance of sins forgiven, they are not at peace about their standing with God. Decades of condemnatory preaching have produced Christians who are paralyzed by guilt and almost totally devoid of the New Testament keynote: joy.

We should know by now that we can’t witness to something which is not vitally real to us.

TIM SHUMAKER

Missionary Intern

Spring Arbor, Mich.

The article … is food for thought for every evangelical, and liberals, too.

ROBERT W. SCHWARTZ

The Pittsburgh Press

Pittsburgh, Pa.

Your article ends with the haunting question, “Where do we go from here?” This is a question which bothers all who are concerned about world evangelism.

The only answer it seems to me is how to get Christians reading the Gospels again and sharing their findings. I long for the day when someone will come up to me and say, “I just read an incident in the life of Jesus Christ and God spoke to me through it.” I must confess that this is rare in my evangelical circle.

JAMES E. BERNEY

Richmond, Calif.

The reticence of evangelical Christians may not be because they have not been taught how to witness but because not having found the Christian life in practice as abundant as they were led to expect (a fact they dare not admit openly) they simply cannot commend what has been a disappointment to them with enthusiasm to others.

W. FRANCIS B. MAGUIRE

Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd

Bonita, Calif.

You have rightly, in my estimation, pointed the finger of responsibility, or lack thereof.

JERRY BEAVAN

Vice President

Rexall Drug Company

Los Angeles, Calif.

How Many Jews?

I admire your magazine.… But you say (“Evangelical Failures and the Jew,” Mar. 3), “Hitler’s dastardly extermination of six million Jews.…”

I have seen that quote in the New York Times and the Washington Post, and considered the irresponsible source.

For God’s sake, please don’t be a “copy cat” of such publications. Who says there were 6,000,000 Jews exterminated?

FRANCIS H. DUNN

Rockville, Md.

Et tu, Brute: the great myth of the six million Jews killed by Hitler. Wrong is wrong, against whomever committed. And let the facts at last become known. The legend has no factual basis. You, perhaps, would be willing to give space to truth.…

We had hoped that CHRISTIANITY TODAY would be the clear counterpart to the anti-Christian, Communist “ecumenicity” of the entire system of the World Church. A part of that “ecumenicity” is the sacredness of all things Communist, including Zionism—the brain and leadership of Communism—and all things damned that are anticommunist, such as Germany.

JOHN F. C. GREEN.

Pastor Emeritus

Evangelical Congregational

McKeesport, Pa.

• In his meticulous study The Final Solution (1953), Gerald Reitlinger put the figure at 4,194,200 to 4,581,200. The post-war Anglo-American Committee used the figure 5,721,800 in preparing the Nuremburg indictments. At the trials, two S. S. officers testified that Karl Eichmann, chief of the Gestapo’s Jewish Office, said that between five and six million Jews had been killed. In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960), William L. Shirer reports there were ten million Jews living in Nazi territory in 1939 and “by any estimate it is certain that nearly half of them were exterminated by the Germans.”—ED.

Hard-Headed Witness

James Warwick Montgomery’s “Inductive Inerrancy” (Current Religious Thought, Mar. 3) was a delight. His hard-headed egg-headed witness to faith in the written Word is always a refreshing thing to read.

WILMA LITTON

Espanola, N. Mex.

It was good to learn … that he accepts the priority of induction.… I was pleased to learn that even the gestalt must be inductively derived.

After this initial concession, however, he appears to muddy the waters. To be explicit: any gestalt which decides ahead of time that certain phenomena are not compatible with a proper doctrine of inspiration can hardly be an inductively derived gestalt.…

The other point which calls for rebuttal is the implication that the serious exegetes who wrestle with the literary problems of the text do not trust Scripure in the same way as Jesus and modern evangelical dogmaticians. An unwillingness to smooth over textual difficulties in no wise means a “doctrine of limited biblical authority.”

ROBERT H. MOUNCE

Dept, of Biblical Literature

Bethel College

St. Paul, Minn.

Montgomery’s comments are unconvincing for the following reasons, among others.

1. Choosing a gestalt to facilitate understanding is itself an inductive procedure.…

2. Mr. Montgomery makes the factual material (such as genealogies and other lists) seem relatively irrelevant, whereas it is probably more relevant than any other kind of information, if it can be had.…

3. In any case, there is no such thing as the gestalt any more than there can be one and only one (legitimate) explanation for some event or class of events. Bloomington, Ind.

ALLEN HARDER

There is no need to bolster the authority of either Christ or the Bible by making the kind of sweeping assertion that he makes. I wish that our dogmatists could stop making us look ridiculous. The Bible will argue well enough for itself if people will stop waving red herrings. Prestwick, Scotland

PHIL PETTY

We who do not believe that the Bible is absolutely inerrant also follow the Lord Christ.

PAUL H. SEELY

Philadelphia, Pa.

Barking Up The Wrong Tree

Your editorial, “An Infallible Hatred” (Mar. 3), is barking up the wrong tree. What arouses antagonism on the part of those this editorial condemns is not the idea of biblical inerrancy but the arrogance it so often produces in those who embrace it with idolatrous devotion. I can understand how the adjective “demonic” might come to mind in such instances.…

That some “liberals” find it easier to regard the pope as a Christian brother than some Protestant fundamentalists is easily explained. They see signs of the Catholic Church moving away from concepts of its infallibility as interpreter and applier of Scripture teaching, while fundamentalism is moving in the opposite direction. The Catholic Church in due caution limited infallibility to one person at a time, the pope, while fundamentalism tends to disperse it among all its adherents.

MARCIUS E. TABER

Delton, Mich.

Reading the dully familiar meanderings of Willis “scribal mentality” Elliott on the “proper” use of the Holy Scriptures is about as interesting as a posthumous interview with Laura Secord. His kind ought to be crowned. Hard!

ARTHUR DURNAN

Scarboro, Ont.

I am forced to write this letter (I really couldn’t hold it back!) by the beautiful editorial on “An Infallible Hatred.” I hope you keep repeating it until the ecumenists are forced to take a stand on the dogma of an infallible pope.

JACK E. MARTIN

Eatontown, N. J.

Two things:

1. Dr. Elliott is not “a spokesman for the United Church of Christ.”

2. We must be patient with his overzealousness as he comes to us from another denomination and as a “convert” is likely to overdo at times.

PAUL DOUGLAS

St. Paul’s United Church of Christ

Mineral City, Ohio

Two matters of some substance:

1. In the opinion of every Catholic intellectual I personally know—and that is not a few—the doctrine of papal infallibility is a preposterous fraud perpetrated by a Tridentine council (Vatican I) which, because of the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War, did not have time to produce the polar balancing doctrine of conciliar authority (though that arm could not have established a real balance, anyway). Of course it was not inappropriate for Vatican I to pronounce on the authority of the papacy, but it was tragically inappropriate and excessive to set that pronouncement in the infallibilist frame. This, too, is precisely my opinion. But let me now put my objection to biblical infallibility similarly: it is tragically inappropriate and excessive to set the doctrine of Scripture in the infallibilist frame. (Bible and pope both suffer from the overclaim.) Your editorial’s implication that I am hard on biblicism and soft on papism has, in its second member, nothing to back it. I am, and have been for more than a quarter century, hard on all claims of historical infallibility. But this does not prevent my working closely with Rome: soon I shall be working in the Vatican as a Protestant theologian (in a consultation on the faith and the new leisure). Nor would it prevent my working closely with evangelicalists if they would permit it. From another angle: within the Roman church so many so high-placed voices are denouncing papal infallibility that recently the pope has been making noises that sound suspiciously like “I am too infallible!” Among evangelicalists no comparable groundswell of intellectual leaders against biblical infallibility exists. Rome may well let God deliver it from its idolatrous primitivism before the evangelicalists are willing to surrender theirs—and this for the simple reason that, like monolithic Communism (now, Maoism), evangelicalism liquidates internal criticism. I need not tell you that instant ostracism occurs when an evangelicalist openly denies biblical inerrancy, though I might remind you that it happened to me four times.

2. In a previous letter I told you of a woman (incidentally, the wife of America’s most exciting lay theologian in the Roman church) who gave up individual infallibility (inner-light Quakerism), then biblical infallibility (Southern Baptist variety), then papal infallibility (since Vatican II). She, a gay and creative Christian if I ever knew one, was recently discussing with me these three deliverances.… She has let go three times, and each time has gained.…

WLLIS E. ELLIOTT

United Church Board for Homeland Ministries

New York, N. Y.

You quote my fellow United Church minister, Dr. Willis Elliott, regarding hatred of biblical inerrancy.

You conclude by suggesting that it is evangelicals whom we ecumenically minded dislike.

Precisely.

I prefer not using the word hatred at all. But honestly I’m more ill at ease in the company of evangelicals any day than in the company of priests (Roman Catholic).

Probably there is a good psychological explanation for this feeling, but I’ve noted many of my fellow United Church ministers who feel the same malaise with evangelicals, so it is not a private discomfort.

Individual evangelicals I like, respect. Their doctrine, as for instance that often delineated in “A Layman and His Faith,” is quite obviously the kind we dislike, as you so clearly observed.

Impasse? Yes, so long as evangelicals insist upon the old Calvinist essentials, however modified.

But then we ecumaniacs are doctrinaire too, aren’t we? Nobody’s perfect. First Congregational

BRADLEY LINES

Moravia, N. Y.

I could not help wondering whether the antagonism which exists between we new evangelicals and the ecumenical movement is caused not by our possession of an infallible Bible so much as our supposedly infallible opinions regarding ecumenism. Possibly the reason the ecumenists have closer liaison with the Vatican than with the evangelicals is because of less recalcitrance on the part of the former.

There are areas, for instance, where the NCC and the NAE could find a certain fraternity, especially in the area of diakonia. But instead we go to the expense of establishing our own “evangelical” counterpart of such things as “The One Great Hour of Sharing.” We may have our reservations about the ecumenical movement, but let’s leave the uncharitable opposition of this movement to the members of the International Council of Christian Churches. The possibility does exist that the Holy Spirit who worked at Berlin can also work at Geneva, and even Vatican City!

ALAN R. HARLEY

Free Methodist

Goderich, Ont.

It’S No Monkey

The Elder Board of the Bibletown Community Church has asked me to write you expressing the shock we received when we read the news report, “Under New Management” (Mar. 3). We want your whole staff to know our auditorium is not a monkey (“the biggest monkey on Bibletown’s back is a 2,500-seat auditorium …”).

For your information Dr. Eshelman was not removed. For three years, he had asked to be released from his duties. This year he insisted on doctor’s orders.

C. E. GANNON

Secretary, Elder Board

Bibletown Community Church

Boca Raton, Fla.

A Brilliant Parody

“Amos Goes to Washington” (Mar. 17) was a brilliant parody, with accurate and disturbing insights. It most certainly ought to be reprinted as a tract.

C. R. STEGALL, JR.

Westminster Presbyterian

Fort Walton Beach. Fla.

Lon Woodrum’s modernization of Amos was very clever, managing to make Amos sound like a “right-winger and extremist” saying “naughty, naughty!” to LBJ and a seedy cast of bohemians. Carthage Christian

ROBERT B. LEWIS

Cincinnati, Ohio

Persecution After Affluence?

Your pictorial presentation of “Hindrances to Evangelism Through the Ages” (Mar. 3) attracted my attention. I am not sure that it was intentional, but it certainly leads one to the sobering thought that the next phase in the cyclical trend to follow affluence is persecution.

RALPH GIANNONE

Wyckoff, N.J.

Combatting Anti-Semitism

My sincerest congratulations to Geoffry W. Bromiley for the article, “Who Says the New Testament Is Anti-Semitic?” and to CHRISTIANITY TODAY for the splendid editorial, “Evangelical Failures and the Jew.” The latter was a particularly penetrating analysis of a very sensitive and complex issue. Such publications cannot help but aid in spreading a mutual understanding between Christians and Jews.

WILLIAM C. WILLIAMS

Kearny, N. J.

It is a valuable contribution towards a better understanding between Jews and Christians. Both Jewish leaders and anti-Semites, although their aims are divergent, have been misquoting and misinterpreting various passages to prove that the New Testament is an anti-Semitic book.…

Jewish leaders who seek to discredit the New Testament as being anti-Semitic would do a real service to their people if they would credit it as being the most pro-Jewish book in the entire world. It is certainly more pro-Jewish than the Old Testament. If they really wish to promote good will between Jew and Christian, they should advocate the study of the New Testament. It is a fact that wherever the New Testament is revered and studied, as for example in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries, the Jews have prospered. On the other hand, in those countries where the New Testament is little known and revered, the lot of the Jew has been most deplorable.

JACOB GARTENHAUS

Founder and President

International Board of Jewish Missions

Atlanta, Ga.

‘Scarcely A Report’

Your report about the American Baptist Evangelism Team’s biennial meeting (News, March 3) left much unsaid. In fact, it scarcely could be considered a report at all. The team … adopted three major areas of work for 1967–69, as follows: (1) the new American Baptist Curriculum, known as the Faith and Work Plan; (2) promotion and use by local church planning conferences of the new book by Paul L. Stagg, The Converted Church, and (3) continued emphasis on programs previously introduced: (a) ministry to Baptists who change residence, (b) relational visitation with biblical studies, and (c) area-sponsored preaching missions.

FRANK A. SHARP

Director

Department of Public Interpretation

American Baptist Convention

Valley Forge, Pa.

Mergers And Vows

Your report (News, Feb. 17) on the merger plan for the Reformed Church in America and the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. leaves one mistaken impression. After quoting the first of the proposed ordination vows for a merged church, you say that “Presbyterian ordinands now are asked if they ‘believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.’ … The draft follows current RCA forms for clergy ordination except that the vow omits the promise to ‘reject all errors’ contrary to the Bible and doctrinal standards.”

As a matter of fact, the proposed ordination questions deviate from the practice of both denominations by the omission of any vow specifically asserting the divine origin of the Scriptures. RCA ordinands have heretofore affirmed that they “believe the books of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God and the perfect doctrine unto salvation …,” paralleling the PCUS vow quoted above. The absence of such a vow, presently required in both churches, will certainly be one of the most serious weaknesses which the drafting committee will be called upon to correct before presenting a final draft.

TOM STARK

University Reformed Church

East Lansing, Mich.

Most Helpful

Hermann Sasse’s challenging article, “Sin and Forgiveness in the Modern World” (Mar. 3), was most helpful.

JOHN V. MOORE

Charleston, W. Va.

Is sin and forgiveness any different today than it has been at any time from Sinai until today?… Please thank Mr. Sasse. I have extracted sixteen very useful thoughts from the three pages. It is well worth the time to read and restudy.

L. E. MORRIS

Norfolk, Neb.

The Institute Marches Forward

Please accept from the Evangelical Covenant Church Sunday School the enclosed gift to go toward the proposed Institute for Advanced Christian Studies.… We are all fully cognizant of the importance of this ambition to the growth of evangelicalism in our age.

EUGENE H. LOWE

Sunday School Supt.

Evangelical Covenant

Pasadena, Calif.

• The action committee is proceeding toward early incorporation of the Institute. This $25 gift, the first from a Sunday school class, lifts the total to $798, including interest.—ED.

Enclosed you will find my dollar. I believe it is of utmost importance that such an institute be established for the greater glory of God.

BRUCE EDWARDS

Roxboro, Que.

Please keep reminding subscribers to send in their dollars for the proposed institute. We had forgotten. Enclosed $3 for our family of three.

ANNETTE BOOMKER

Oak Park, III.

Enclosed please find two dollars from my wife and myself.

FRANK L. ARNOLD

The Brazil Presbyterian Mission

Sao Luiz, Maranhao, Brazil

[Contribution enclosed] for the Institute of Advanced Christian Studies.

STEPHEN TSUI

Hong Kong

I am enclosing my check for $5.

J. FURMAN MILLER

Bryan College

Dayton, Tenn.

Forward!

JOHN, FRANCES,andALLEN HARDER

Marshalltown, Iowa

Sorry to be so slow in sending my dollar.…

JACK FRIZEN

Executive Secretary

Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association

Ridgefield Park, N. J.

Evangelism And The Ncc

If evangelism consisted of a constant running and negative attack on the National Council of Churches, you are indeed evangelical.

If evangelism is down-grading, perhaps even falsifying, the work of the National Council of Churches, you shall surely be known as the evangel.

If evangelism means publishing a magazine that has little to contribute editorially other than to lean on the National Council of Churches, you are evangelistic. (If the National Council of Churches should go down, you’d really have to dig for an idea of your own.)

W. T. HORST

Brunswick Methodist

Crystal, Minn.

The Funeral Problem

The Christian vs. sinner funeral-service dilemma to which Duane H. Thebeau refers in his virtually textless “Are We Burying the Gospel at the Grave?” (Mar. 17) is another example of un-scriptural tradition. Scripture does not support the Church’s dabbling in the heathen-oriented … funeral service. Bible Study Chapel

W. F. HADEL

Mountain Home, Ark.

Mr. Thebeau, as well as others who share the problem he raises, will be interested in knowing that the Liturgy of the Reformed Church in America provides a service “for one who has lived apart from the church.”

ARIE R. BROUWER

Bethel Reformed

Passaic, N. J.

The funeral when rightly conducted is a worship service in which we worship our wonderful risen Lord. This is at least true of the saved who are present at the funeral. In this respect the funeral can always be Christian. The service at the grave can very easily be geared for the benefit of the living without making any consignment of the departed’s soul. First Baptist

SEIDE B. JANSSEN

Tuscola, Ill.