Death in the Twentieth Century

Death is so disturbing a prospect that modern man pushes it down out of sight for as long as he can.… Ours is a death-denying age.

Death is not discussed in polite society today. It is a forbidden subject, to be snickered at in jokes (as another generation snickered at sex) but too shocking for ordinary conversation. To modern man, the attitudes toward death evident in the Bible are utterly incomprehensible. Paul, for example, discusses dying much as a New Yorker might discuss moving to California. It is an important step, but hardly a frightening one. He considers the advantages of living and dying and muses, “Which then am I to choose? I cannot tell” (Phil. 1:22, NEB). Today, if someone said something like this, we should probably change the subject as soon as we could.

This is a death-denying age. Death is so disturbing a prospect that we push it down out of sight for as long as we can. Man, the one creature that knows he must die, is trying desperately to forget it. That is why people are so poorly equipped to handle death. No matter how the idea of it is repressed, death eventually presents itself as an inescapable fact, and often as an overwhelming one.

The rejection of death is seen in countless ways. One is our great emphasis on youth, both in common behavior and in the advertising techniques that play so effectively on the public longings. Middle-aged men join clubs to indulge in teen-age horseplay, relive their youth through spectator sports, buy impractical sports cars. Women support gigantic industries whose sole purpose is to make them seem younger than they are. Advertisers try to induce people to buy beverages, foods, and cars by picturing young people engaged in athletic activities that would be physically impossible for the middle-aged potential buyer.

Other generations buried their dead with great ceremony and raised monuments, large and small, to their memory. Today few attend funerals, and the cemetery is likely to be a park-like swath of grass, with the tablets marking graves so artfully hidden that it is easy to forget they are there. When someone dies, it is hoped that final arrangements can be made as quietly as possible, so as not to attract the attention of anyone not immediately involved.

The denial of death is also shown in the way we treat grief. We act as if sadness were immoral and unworthy. Everyone wants to “cheer up” the bereaved. A widow or widower soon learns that after the first few days no one wants to talk about the dead spouse; people quickly change the subject whenever it is mentioned. Although this is thought to be kindness to the bereaved, it is equally likely that the idea of death itself is so upsetting that great numbers of people want to deny not only that it has taken place but also that the one who died has ever lived.

In his book The Meaning of Death, psychologist Herman Feifel points out that our attitudes toward death may be partly a result of our changed manner of dying. In earlier times most people died in their own beds, without the benefit of drugs and life-extending devices. Their family and friends were around them. Even children knew the reality of death at an early age. Death came, not imperceptibly at the end of a long, drug-induced coma, but close on the heels of consciousness. Today death is quite another matter. The dying are in hospitals, isolated from us by oxygen tents, intravenous tubes, and sedating drugs. Visiting them is a journey to a strange world. Often people die alone except for the attending professionals. Many adults have never seen anyone die, and so they can forget that death happens. Feifel says, “It is as if death’s reality were being obscured by making it a public event, something which befalls everyone, yet no one in particular.”

It is not surprising, then, that the most common statement of bereaved persons is, “You never think that it will happen to you.” Our ways of living and dying make it quite possible to deny that death exists—until it proves its existence near at hand.

Ministers sometimes unwittingly conspire in death denial by conducting the anonymous funeral that is prevalent today. A decade or more ago, ministers and laymen alike revolted against the crudities of the Victorian funeral. Funerals had been an occasion for ornate display. They were often cruelly emotional, marked by fulsome and insincere eulogies. There has been a commendable trend toward briefer and more dignified services that offer comfort instead of a performance. Yet sometimes the funeral becomes so impersonal that it is nearly impossible to tell from listening who has died, or indeed whether anyone has died at all. The service seems to say, “Something called death has occurred, but no one in particular has died. Not anyone’s father, not anyone’s friend, not anyone that we talked with on the street last week.”

No wonder, then, that death is deeply disturbing. It is kept hidden, in the realm of the unspeakable. When it does break through the conspiracy of silence, it comes as a shocking fact for which we are not prepared. Denying the existence of death is essentially self-defeating, because the time always comes when the lie must be given up. For every one the truth of death must be faced at last.

What can we do, then? What was that New Testament response to death that robbed it of its terror? The biblical faith has something to say to our generation about death that is better—both more comforting and more honest—than the common evasions.

The first tiling that needs to be said is that grief is normal and not shameful. One of the most understanding descriptions of Jesus is a line borrowed from Isaiah: “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” No words could better convey the impression of a man who has looked deeply into life and understood it. No one can be called profound who is not acquainted with grief. The description is a portrayal not of a weak man but of a strong one who has looked beneath the surface of life.

There is real sorrow over the death of loved ones, and it is neither honest nor fair to pretend that there is not. We cannot ask the bereaved to act as if nothing serious has happened. Something very serious has happened. Death means separation, and even if the separation is recognized as not permanent, it will last through the foreseeable future and through all the important events of earthly life. Bereavement means loss, the loss of the gift of life with someone important to us. At its best, this is the finest earthly gift we have. The more the person brought to enrich our lives, the greater the pain in our separation. The more we were given in them, the more we had to lose.

That is why the death we fear most is not our own. Many people face the certainty of their own death (when they know they are suffering from a fatal illness, for example) with great composure. The fear they do feel is often not for death itself but for the effects it has. They wonder what will happen to the people they love and dread being apart from them. People who ask about life after death are usually asking not about themselves but about someone they care for very much. The hardest thought we have to bear is not that we will die but that someone we love will, and possibly before we do.

But the grief of loss is not a hopeless grief. The Christian knows with Tennyson that “ ’tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.” He counts himself fortunate to have had what he now must give up for a time. He remembers that God gave this rich gift of fellowship that lies behind his grief. He knows that the God who has blessed him this way has not abandoned him. He is confident that the person he loves is safe in the hands of the God who gave him. And the Christian knows that he himself has not seen the last signs of God’s love.

There is an even stronger resource that makes grief bearable. The Viennese psychiatrist Viktor Frankl tells in The Doctor and the Soul of an elderly physician who came to him as a patient. The doctor had lost his wife some months before. They had been very close, and the whole meaning of his life had been bound up in happiness with her. Now he felt useless, shattered. He could find no interest in going on.

Dr. Frankl did not try to tell his patient that things were not so bad as they seemed, for indeed they were. Nor did he exhort him to bear his grief bravely. Instead, he asked him a question: “Tell me, what would have happened if you had died first and your wife survived you?” The doctor thought a moment. “That would have been terrible,” he said. “How she would have suffered.” He saw then that his own suffering served to spare his wife. There was a meaning to it. By bearing his grief courageously he was doing something for her.

Although men are crushed by irrational, meaningless blows, they can carry incredible burdens when they do it for a reason—and with a hope. When men face the fact of death honestly, they are more likely to see a meaning in their sorrow. When they see a meaning in their sorrow, it is easier for them to be honest in facing death.

But what of the fear of death itself? Death represents the greatest uncertainty. It is underlain by what Dr. Gardner Murphy, director of research at the Menninger Foundation, calls “fear of the unknown in the broad sense—the Hamlet soliloquy or unknown country kind of thing.” Whatever is unknown is frightening, and nothing is further beyond our investigations and experiments than the far side of death. How can men help being afraid of this great blackness?

It is not fruitful today to answer the fear of the unknown by trying to make it known. Literal descriptions of a life of heavenly bliss or eternal punishment cannot be understood by modern men. Brimstone and harps and wings—all meaningless. This is not only because we are less naïve but also because we are so relentlessly literal-minded. Men of another day could think like poets. Today we think like engineers. We see blueprints, not paintings, and the best painting may be dismissed as being a poor blueprint. A short time ago men could read and understand Marc Connelly’s description of heaven as a kind of endless catfish fry. Today his picture would be smiled at as too literal, the one thing it was never taken to be by the people Connelly portrayed.

There is, however, a better answer to fear of the unknownness of death, and it is the one evident in Paul’s letter to the Philippians. The unknown need not become known to lose its terrors. Every child faces hundreds of unknown events. The first day at school is as uncharted for him as death is for an adult. The first ride in an automobile, the first night away from home, the first visit to a department store: for a child, life is a succession of ventures into the unknown. Yet children are not normally frightened by these experiences. A child who has learned to love and trust his parents faces the unknown with confidence. He counts on the people he knows, not on knowledge of what he will face. He feels safe with the people he trusts in the midst of the most surprising novelties.

This is exactly the train of Paul’s thought. He does not discuss life after death as if he knew the names of the streets. In death or life, he says, he will be with God. The one stabilizing companionship in his life was the only one that death could not touch. In his faith he had found something invulnerable. The one thing he knew for sure about death was that he would not be left alone, and that was the only thing he needed to know.

Admittedly, this is meaningless to anyone who thinks of God as a vague abstraction, or thinks of him seldom at all. It is of no help to the ordinary limited-commitment kind of Christian. But Paul did not think that way. He knew nothing of religionless Christianity. For him, Christ was a present reality: present in life, present in death.

This way of thinking gives a new definition to eternal life. It is common to think that eternal life is something that begins when a man dies. But if eternal life is the continuation of a lasting fellowship with God, it begins far earlier. It begins when a man makes the commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour that is not interrupted by death. From the time that he made that commitment, Paul knew that he had begun something that could not be broken. The unknownness of death did not trouble him. The most important thing in his life would go on: and since that was known, there was no fear attached to the things he did not know.

This is the only understandable answer to man’s fear of the unknown in death. We cannot give him an accurate literal description, and he cannot understand a poetic one. If I tell him that the Lord is my shepherd, he sees only sheep. But he can understand what love means, and he can find confidence before the unknown in knowing the Lord who is there as well as here.

Man need not hide from death as the ultimate, unmentionable tragedy. Neither need he pretend that it is less serious than he knows it to be. He may even come to know death as the New Testament does: as a fact we cannot afford to obscure but not an unbearable one. The Bible insists that men must not deny the facts of sin and death. Modern man has found both almost too much to bear, and has obscured them. He pays a heavy price for the deception. The Christian, of all people should be able to face the fact of death without denial or stoic acceptance, and with hope.

We Celebrate Jesus as Lord of All

Today the Risen Lord of the Church still “stirs up the people” and sends us into the world to witness and to work

He lives! God is not dead! And because he lives, we celebrate. We celebrate Jesus.

Jesus, no martyred saint or fallen hero, no frail and gentle memory, no fading echo and dimming afterglow, but living Love—victorious, strong, enduring still. We celebrate him as Lord of all. My God and King!

Death, bend your stiff neck. Bow your proud head, for we celebrate Jesus. Death, you are no match for Love. It is presumptuous to think that you can hold him fast. Your reign is broken. He lives. He has won, and in his victory your crown is struck from your head.

God is not dead. “He stirs up the people,” they said. They said it about Jesus when God walked the streets of time and space for those brief years. It was true. But it was not only true then. It is true today, for he lives.

I cannot escape him, this Living One. When I celebrate him, he gets me into trouble. I want to be just a face in the crowd. I want to hide, but he keeps drawing me out and I am afraid. I want to run!

Why are you such a high-voltage presence, Lord Jesus? Why must my choice be between you and my pleasant stagnation? Why can I not celebrate “in peace,” in comfortable aloofness from the festering facts in our human situation? Why must you, the Prince of Peace, come as the Messenger of strife? Why? Why?

Because you live.

“He stirs up the people … teaching.…” What a frightening definition of teaching. And yet, I find it to be true. To celebrate Jesus in reflection is always to be prodded into action. To be taught by him is to be stretched, and I fight that. It hurts to be stretched. Can it be that all learning is change and change is pain?

When I listen to Jesus, I can’t stop with formal mastery of facts. Fierce street fights break out along the avenues and back alleys of my mind. New thoughts engage old prejudices, and big burly lies challenge truth’s right to the road. I am anxious, and again I want to run. But we celebrate Jesus, and in faith’s fellowship you and I may learn to stand.

He lives! He lives! We will repeat it. Words shatter under their burden as they try to say it. All language fails, and our best doxologies break into wordless wonder and silent awe. But the Word finds words for his purpose, inadequate though they be. Though they cannot say it all, they are enough, enough for you and me.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and to an inheritance which is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

No, God is not dead. And to you who have said this, we who celebrate Jesus quietly affirm that it is not so. If you mean that our God is hidden, that he is the God who hides in the testing circumstances of our dangerous time as he once hid in diapers and on the Cross, we agree. He is not only the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ. He is the “hidden God” as well. But he is not dead.

If your intent is only to raise some questions that we may not ignore, then raise them—but not with words that mislead and even blaspheme! If your purpose is to say that we are dead to his loving approaches, say this; but do not presume to fashion a death bed for God. Death is death, and if God were dead no tongue could tell it. No man could proclaim it, for it is by the creating and sustaining hand of the Ever-living One that we live.

“And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,” says our ancient creed. I come to the Scriptures in order to celebrate Jesus. I come remembering what a friend has said: that a love letter must be read for what it is; that a young woman receiving an urgent message of proposal from one who loves her will not read it as an English composition, though it is that, nor as data on courtship in our culture, though it is that, too; she will read it for what it is, a heart’s expression of a great longing, the longing to be one! This is what the Bible is to me, God’s message of longing and willingness, but more than that, God’s news that all barriers have been broken down, that I am accepted and forgiven.

“Father.” When I say that in faith and trust, I celebrate Jesus, for “when we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” Where there is Easter there is Christmas and Pentecost, too. Whenever I say, either alone or with you, “Our Father,” I celebrate my baptism into the body of Christ.

I know that life is single file. It is true, as Luther said, that “every man must do his own believing even as every man must do his own dying.” Remembering that there is a world of difference if I say only “he is risen” and do not affirm that he is risen for me, I place myself before his face. I build my house of life on this Rock, that “he has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature, bought and freed me from sin, death, and the power of the devil, not with silver or gold, but with his holy and precious blood, and with his innocent sufferings and death.”

Today the Lord of the Church “stirs up the people.” He arrests us and addresses us. He calls and sends. He asks his Church to leave her sheltering walls and walk the streets with him. He uncovers long-forgotten issues. He exposes frontiers more vast than any we have ever known before. I am a member of this Church, but my temptation is to “send him to Herod.” I have been well schooled in this art of sending him to “someone else.” I still like “truth in the sky” better than Truth in the flesh, wearing work clothes. I prefer to think of Love rather than acts of love and Justice rather than acts of justice.

In a world that is glutted on trivia and sick unto death of itself, a world starving for the daily doxology of loving service, the holy liturgy of self-giving and fellowship, we affirm: No, God is not dead. He lives. And “no one who believes in him will be put to shame.”

Christ ‘For Us’?

These days a lot is made of this sentence from Melanchthon: Christus cognoscere est beneficia eius cognoscere (“To know Christ is to know his benefits”). Rudolf Bultmann has a famous penchant for putting all theological knowledge this way, and uses it to recall another well-known statement, this one by Wilhelm Hermann (nineteenth century): “We never know God as he is in himself, but only as he acts on us.” For Bultmann, statements like these crystallize what he is trying to say in his hermeneutics.

In all talk about God, Bultmann contends, man must be taken into account as the one addressed by God. Kerygma and existence must go hand in hand. The message is always conditioned by the person who hears and responds to it. Melanchthon, then, is said to have seen the real problem of interpretation when he insisted that knowledge of Christ is knowledge of what he is for us.

Unfortunately, Melanchthon’s famous words are usually plucked out of their context. In his Loci Communes of 1521, he is talking about the true knowledge of Christ in terms of a contrast between wisdom and folly, the words Paul uses in First Corinthians 1. He is directing a complaint against the scholastics and their method of disputation, a method by which the personal, urgent demands of the Gospel were lost in intellectual abstraction. In contrast, he insists that the mystery of God must be, in the first place, not an object of speculation, but an object of worship. Melanchthon’s admonition about knowing Christ in his benefits is not an indictment against the Church’s dogma; it is a cautionary word in view of scholastic penchant for objectivizing Christian truth in a way that beclouds the vision of Christ’s redemptive action and effects.

Melanchthon’s words are worth listening to. We find the same sentiments in Luther’s opposition to scholasticism. Ebeling has reminded us that this anti-speculation motif within the Reformation is not to be misunderstood as a rejection of the traditional confessions of the Church. Bultmann clearly sets Melanchthon in a new context that in turn changes the intent of his words. Within Bultmann’s existentialist hermeneutics and his demythologizing program, the words of Luther’s disciple take on a wholly different color.

The “for us” (Christ’s benefits) did play a large role in Melanchthon’s thinking. But they do in the ecumenical creeds, too. For example, the Nicene Creed speaks of Christ’s becoming man for us sinners and our salvation. And Paul himself wrote that Christ was delivered for our transgressions and raised for our justification (Rom. 4:25). According to the Heidelberg Catechism, the work of Christ was all directed to our behalf; most of its questions ask what all this means for us. What does it mean for us that Jesus was born of a virgin (Quest. 36)? What value does it have for us that he arose from the dead (Quest. 45) and ascended into heaven (Quest. 51)? The for us motif is reformed and biblical.

The Gospel is not a list of abstract truths; it always has to do with us. But the phrase “for us” is not something that can become a hermeneutical principle. It is not a key for interpreting the Gospel in terms of human existence. Recently new voices have been heard in Germany warning against the tendency to define the structure of the Gospel by means of its significance for us. Such voices are encouraging.

Whenever we let theology become anthropology, we are in trouble. We know about Ritschl’s interpretation of the Gospel in terms of human value judgments, and how he thus rejected all metaphysical reality. This sort of approach left theology defenseless against Feuerbach’s dogmatic thesis that theology is indeed only anthropology, only a construction of man’s religiously oriented self-projection.

Feuerbach too appealed to Luther, incidentally, because Luther stressed the significance of salvation for us. But anyone who read Luther seriously knew that Luther never put salvation’s significance for us in place of the objective reality and glory of God. Today the approach taken by Feuerbach has been revived, and many are again making our experience of salvation the key to what is important about Jesus Christ. More, they are again making the same appeal to the Reformers that Feuerbach made.

The Reformation was against speculative objectivism in regard to the Gospel of Christ. It was concerned to say that the Gospel was directed at us and was proclaimed for us. The pro me theme is a legitimate and essential aspect of the Gospel; it is not a principle of interpretation. Luther fought against what is called the theologia gloriae back in 1518 because of its concentration on what God was in himself apart from the cross (theologia crucis). He knew that theological issues were deeply involved in the fact that no one could come to the Father except through Jesus Christ. But this is a far cry from building a theological system in terms of our existence.

Bultmann relates Melanchthon’s words to his own criticism of the doctrinal basis of the World Council of Churches. He says that the faith of man in Jesus Christ is a matter not of his natures but of his significance for us. Bultmann’s critique is simply a miscalculation of the deepest motives of the confessions of the Church. Chalcedon, for example, was not speculating in the air when it confessed that Jesus Christ was “true God and true man.” It was dealing with the person and work of the Saviour, and so with a genuine “for us” motif.

It must be clear to anyone with a sense of the Gospel that it is unwarranted to find historical precedent in the Reformation for reducing the pro nobis aspect of the Gospel to a hermeneutical principle for understanding the Gospel. The approach must be from the other direction. The Gospel sees a relation between seeking and finding the truth (Ps. 27:8; Amos 5:4; Matt. 7:7). But we must not forget the other dimension, that God was and is there to be found even before we seek him (Isa. 65:1; Rom. 10:20). The answer of grace can not be deduced from the question we ask before the answer is given.

The relation between question and answer is the problem we find in Tillich’s theology. It is also the problem in many new approaches to hermeneutics. In them all, the real priority of grace and revelation is sacrificed to the basic interpretative significance of the human question. In view of this, we must see that Barth’s (and Gollwitzer’s) attack on the question-answer hermeneutics is biblically justified and demanded. Whenever the priority of revelation and grace is abandoned to the priority of anthropocentric experience, the Church and its theology are in deep trouble.

Editor’s Note from March 18, 1966

Almost annually one or another member of our editorial staff has managed to garner a coveted Freedoms Foundation award. This year three such awards were announced at the Valley Forge ceremonies. Associate Editor Harold Lindsell received $100 and a George Washington Honor Medal for an address at Eastern Baptist College on “With Liberty and Justice for All.” Executive Editor L. Nelson Bell received an honor medal for an editorial in the Presbyterian Journal. And this writer received one for an editorial in CHRISTIANITY TODAY (“A World Short of Breath”). So we congratulate ourselves!

Readers may be interested also in the Moody Press paperback Frontiers in Modern Theology, which attractively gathers together my recent essays on current theological trends. And the 1965 W. H. Griffith-Thomas Lectures at Dallas Theological Seminary, along with some other special-occasion addresses, have just been published by Word Books under the title The God Who Shows Himself.

The Rebel Priests

“I am a Catholic priest. That, to me, is a great joy. I am not permitted to marry. That, to me, is a great mistake.”

So begins an impassioned attack on the celibacy requirement from a priest, writing under the pseudonym Stephen Nash, in the March 12 Saturday Evening Post. The same week that Nash’s gnashing of teeth hit the newsstands, the London Observer came up with an educated guess on the worldwide scope of the celibacy revolt. The newspaper says the Vatican has gotten at least 10,000 requests in the past few years from priests who want to renounce their vows and become laymen. Almost all of them want to get married.

Meanwhile, two other rebels in the American priesthood are coming upon rough days. Right-winger Gommar DePauw of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement was barred from celebrating Mass at the University of Notre Dame and from a meeting in Detroit, because of his jurisdictional dispute with Baltimore’s Lawrence Cardinal Shehan.

And left-winger William DuBay, who has criticized James Francis Cardinal McIntyre and wants to form a labor union for priests, has been given yet another job transfer and barred from some priestly functions.

The celibacy question cuts to the heart of church authority and tradition. It is so touchy Pope Paul specifically declared it out of bounds for Vatican II discussion. Mindful of mounting priestly requests to marry, the Pope recently urged self-control.

Nash contends that “there is no theological necessity, no doctrinal or spiritual insistence on celibacy. Only the discipline of the Church has made celibacy the mark of the priesthood in the West.” It may have been important in “the age of political religion and monastic corruption” such as that which spurred the Reformation, he says, but the practice has also “helped build a wall between clergy and laity” and “created a Church that could at times abandon the people.”

The priest counters traditional arguments. Does the dedication of the priest leave no time for marriage? It leaves time “for golf and poker and smörgasbords.” Does it keep fly-by-nighters from religious careers? “I found Protestant ministers genuine men of faith.”

Birth-Control Omen

The most powerful archconservative in the Roman Catholic Church has been placed in charge of Pope Paul’s reorganized birth-control commission, according to reports from Rome. The naming of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, 75, to lead the group was taken as a severe blow to liberals who have been lobbying for a change in the Vatican’s traditional ban on the use of contraceptives.

The Pope’s reported choice as Ottaviani’s deputy was Montreal’s outspoken liberal, Paul-Emile Cardinal Leger, which to many observers appeared to be an obvious attempt to balance contrasting viewpoints. But Ottaviani would have a decided edge in influencing the commission’s decisions because of his higher rank and his access to the Pope as a Vatican resident.

This month’s Ladies Home Journal, meanwhile, provides some inside information on the problems of the original advisory birth-control commission. It says “the conservatives, championed by such powerful Vatican insiders as Ottaviani, fear that the authority of the Church would be shamefully eroded if it treats contraception with less than the most ringing condemnation.”

The Journal is sympathetic to the Pope’s plight: “Perhaps never has one man faced a decision that so intimately affects so many lives.”

Nash, who is 39, describes his own agonies of “examining my motives, increasing my penances, in order that I might live in a way that I do not believe Christ intended.” Of striving “to move from a religion of stone tablets and legal decrees to a personal union with Christ.” Of not having another person to share things with, finding it hard to get to sleep, driving around at night and stopping for a beer at “some obscure roadside tavern, drinking alone, thinking alone.…”

The Vatican Curia, mindful of the thousands of requests to break the celibacy vow during the past few years, has set up a behind-the-scenes commission on the problem, the Observer reported.

Celibacy is not one of the platform planks for the proposed “American Federation of Priests,” but this embryo organization represents a similar spirit of revolt. DuBay, the 31-year-old priest who heads the union drive, says the basic idea is that “employers—the bishop and his chancery officials—have interests distinct from those of priests on the firing line. The administrator’s job is mainly public relations and finance, while the professional worker’s service centers directly on the needs of persons.”

He wants freedom of speech and conscience, and collective bargaining with chancery management on wages, grievance procedures, tenure and transfer policies, and other matters.

Asked what organized labor thinks of the idea, AFL-CIO President George Meany, a Roman Catholic, said such an organization would be turned down and suggested DuBay apply to the Teamsters instead.

DuBay carries the rebellion further in his new Doubleday book The Human Church. According to Time, the book “puts forward a program of reform that makes the ideas of Luther seem positively papalist by comparison.” Samples: abandonment of the parochial school system and church tax exemptions; a limited term for bishops; and formation of liturgies and creeds by local congregations.

DuBay is the same priest who cabled Pope Paul in June, 1964, calling for removal of Cardinal McIntyre for “gross malfeasance” and “abuses of authority” in his conservatism on racial discrimination and “repression” of those who were more liberal. DuBay had twice before been transferred, reportedly for his vigorous civil rights stand. After that fuss, he was moved from a mostly Negro parish to a hospital chaplaincy. Once the union proposal hit the headlines, he was moved again (with a cut in pay), on a half-day’s notice.

The Vatican’s apostolic delegate in Washington, Egidio Vagnozzi, recently criticized those priests in a teachers’ union in New York City presently in a dispute with St. John’s University. He said unions are for laymen, not clergymen.

Even liberal Pope John XXIII dissolved France’s “worker-priest” movement because the priests got too heavily involved in union politics, and several renounced their vows and got married. The worker-priest program has been reinstituted on a cautious scale by Pope Paul.

Vagnozzi has also had some bad news for DePauw, the conservative rebel. He backs Cardinal Shehan in his contention that DePauw is under Shehan’s authority. DePauw, who persists in his Traditionalist Movement, says he has unimpeachable documents showing he has been legally transferred.

In a round of speech-making, DePauw seemed at times to be tipping toward the professional anti-Communist role, but lately he has played down politics.

He has called for an alliance between “conservative Protestants” and Catholic traditionalists “to save whatever is left of Christianity.” He contends that “the same forces of atheism that have destroyed some of our best Protestant denominations are now attacking the Roman Catholic Church.” The Roman church is “finished” in Europe, he says, and America is the “last bastion.”

But DePauw’s emphasis on Mary’s “unique position in the economy of our salvation,” the Rosary, statues and crucifixes, the Latin Mass, and other traditions are unlikely to light a fire under the conservative Protestants.

Protestant Panorama

A group of twenty Methodist delegates to the conference scheduled to merge their denomination with the Evangelical United Brethren are raising “grave reservations” over the plan of union. A spokesman said the proposal is “badly out of step” with the ecumenical movement as a whole. The delegates say they will withhold approval until major changes are made.

Southern Baptists reported a record membership of 10,772,712 in 33,797 churches for the end of last year. But 12,784 fewer baptisms were counted in 1965 than in 1964. Total gifts of Southern Baptists through their churches increased by 7.8 per cent to a high of $637,958,846.

The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa says relocation of Negroes is leaving many of them churchless. A spokesman for the church’s mission board reported that it had only thirteen ministers available to tend to “the spiritual welfare of 400,000 colored people.”

Personalia

Dr. James D. Bales of Harding College, Searcy, Arkansas, sent a yard-long telegram signed by some 1,000 churchgoers in Monroe. Louisiana, challenging Dr. Thomas J. J. Altizer to defend his “death of God” views in a public debate. Altizer, at Emory University, said he would refuse because Harding has “done so much harm to the Christian faith” by identifying it with “the extreme right.”

Duke Ellington, who recently presented a religious jazz concert in New York (see January 21 issue, page 41), did a rerun February 21 at England’s historic Coventry Cathedral. The Daily Mail enthused, “Here was jazz, for all its antecedents in the low life, for all its trafficking with the worldly, making the point that it too has a soul, it too has the right to worship.”

The Rev. Henry Harvey succeeds the late Dr. Everett Swanson as president of Compassion, Inc., of Chicago, which maintains 170 Christian orphanages in Korea.

Miscellany

In Toronto, the Salvation Army reports its suicide prevention bureau counseled more than 1,000 persons during suicide crises in the past year. Each inquirer was visited, and many were aided in getting psychiatric help or hospitalization.

The 23-year-old Boston Evening School of the Bible will be renamed Boston Bible School and inaugurate an expanded program under new full-time dean Joseph C. Macaulay, former president of London (Ontario) College of Bible and Missions. The school, an outgrowth of Park Street Church, has trained 6,000 laymen.

First official tallies showed that Maine voters had approved a 1965 legislative act to permit limited Sunday liquor sales. The margin was slim, however, and a recount was being demanded.

Baker Book House is moving its religious publishing operation to a $100,000 building in an industrial park outside Grand Rapids.

They Say

“A reaction against the endless expansion of official bureaucracies has resulted in the government’s turning to private groups, including the churches, for the performance of welfare and educational services. The churches offer a particularly attractive apparatus for such purposes.”—C. Stanley Lowell, acting director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Deaths

DR. CHARLES CLAYTON MORRISON. 91, who bought the Christian Century at a sheriff’s auction in 1908 and as its editor for 39 years turned it into the most influential journal of liberal Protestant thought; in Chicago.

DR. BERNARD BRASKAMP, 79, a Presbyterian who was chaplain of the U. S. House of Representatives for the past sixteen years; in Washington, D. C., of a stroke after a long illness.

DR. CARADINE R. HOOTON, 70, former general secretary of the Methodist Board of Christian Social Concerns and longtime temperance leader; in Washington, D. C., of a heart attack.

CESAR DACORSO FILHO, 75, first native bishop of the Methodist Church of Brazil; in Rio de Janeiro.

DR. WALTER N. ROBERTS, 67, president emeritus of United Theological Seminary; in Dayton, Ohio, the day after he returned home from a 4½-month survey of African seminaries.

DR. EUGENE R. KELLERSBERGER, 78, former general secretary of American Leprosy Missions and Presbyterian pioneer in the Congo; after a heart attack caused him to fall off a boat into the ocean off Melbourne. Florida.

Matthew Minus Hollywood

The film The Gospel According to St. Matthew, which opened in New York City last month, could not have been made in America. Its lack of the spectacular, the sentimental, and the lurid is separated from Hollywood by a gap as wide as the ocean dividing Europe from America.

It is an outsider’s endeavor to follow Matthew’s presentation of Christ. The director, Pier Paolo Pasolini, is a Communist who, while confined to an Assisi hotel by crowds and traffic during a visit by Pope John XXIII, picked up a Gideon Bible and read the first Gospel.

The unusual absence of theatricality is achieved by the use of non-professional actors. A Spanish student (Enrique Irazoque) portrays Christ, an Italian student is the Virgin Mary, Pasolini’s mother is the older Mary, an Italian lawyer is Joseph, and a truck driver portrays Judas. Filmed in southern Italy near the Mediterranean, where the terrain resembles that of Israel, this picture is bluntly but reverently realistic and done with a minimum of crowds and with restraints (as in Salome’s dance).

From the opening scene, where Joseph realizes his betrothed is with child and the angel appears to tell him of the miraculous conception, the picture reminds the viewer of classic art, sometimes the Italian masters, sometimes El Greco. The dialogue is thoroughly biblical, spoken in Italian with English subtitles that, because of the swift and often impassioned speech, linger on the screen only briefly. The English used is apparently from a Roman Catholic version.

The black-and-white film underlines the stark reality of the narrative and helps give a sense of the burning Oriental sun and the harshness of the terrain. The music (Bach, Mozart, Webern, Prokofiev, and others) is appropriate and not over-obtrusive.

Aside from the problem that inevitably arises when an actor portrays the incarnate Lord, Irazoque is remarkable. Not physically robust, he conveys a sense of moral strength and complete control, and at times suggests the majesty of divinity. He smiles rarely, and only in the presence of children, who appear often. Some scenes are outstanding: Christ healing a loathsomely disfigured leper, cleansing the temple, matching wits with the scribes and Pharisees, and instituting the last supper. The crucifixion is brutally realistic, somewhat in the spirit of Grünewald’s great painting.

How faithful is this film to Matthew’s Gospel? The dialogue is grounded in Matthew’s text. There are omissions, notably the transfiguration, and liberties are taken with Matthew’s order of events. In the scene in which disciples and then Jesus are baptized by John, those baptized kneel as John scoops up a handful of water and puts it on their heads—a procedure even non-Baptists might question on historical grounds. The trial emphasizes Jewish leaders; Pilate appears only briefly. Strangely, none of the Jewish leaders appears at the crucifixion. Toward the end one feels that Mary, the mother of the Lord, gains prominence quite beyond what biblical evidence allows.

Nevertheless, the picture carries the power of understatement. It corrects the sentimental concept of Jesus fostered by inferior art and misreading of the Scriptures.

Despite its faults—and any attempt to portray the Lord Jesus Christ inevitably fails to do justice to its subject—there is enough of the plain truth of the gospel record in this picture that it might well turn empty-hearted viewers to the Lord of life. In New York where this reviewer saw the film, the sophisticated audience watched in rapt silence.

The Gospel According to St. Matthew shows what can come about when a serious attempt is made to follow the gospel record, even though the attempt be that of an unbeliever. It is thus a tribute to the inherent power of Scripture and of the Lord whom Scripture sets forth.

Iowa: Amish Truce

Iowa’s Governor Harold Hughes has spent about as much time on the fate of fifty Old Order Amish schoolchildren as on anything else in recent months. Late in February he arranged a truce between Amish leaders in Charity Flats and local school officials.

The Amish had persisted in running two one-room schools whose teachers were not certified, as the law requires, because they had only eighth-grade educations (see editorial, December 17, 1965, issue, page 24). The Danforth Foundation helped break the log jam by offering §15,000 to pay for the accredited teachers the Amish said they could not afford, and to make a start toward bringing building facilities up to state standards.

Officials will seek teachers “satisfactory to the Amish,” continue German instruction, and tone down the teaching of evolution and other touchy scientific topics. Because of Amish beliefs, no teaching aids such as TV or movies will be used.

The Danforth-Hughes plan is a stopgap, and next year the state legislature will be asked to provide state aid in place of the Danforth money. Hughes admits this could open the door to state aid for other religious groups.

Theologians In The White House?

Politician Brooks Hays thinks “one of the great needs of this age is the theological education of politicians,” and lay churchman Brooks Hays thinks “another great need is the political education of theologians.”

This dictum from the former Arkansas congressman and White House adviser opened a lecture at a centennial conference of the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California, oldest seminary on the West Coast.

Hays, a Baptist, said that Jefferson and Lincoln were “two of the great theologians of the nineteenth century” and that Pope John was one of the great politicians of the twentieth.

The Church, he said, must send its children into government, both as professionals and as voters. He advocated civil disobedience in circumstances such as those of Nazi Germany, but warned that “respect for authority is a vital rule for conduct.… Aggrieved people have more to be obtained by upholding law than by disregarding it.” Asked whether a layman should withdraw support from a church if he disagreed with his minister on politics, Hays replied with an emphatic no. But he urged restraint on ministers in lobbying for specific legislation unless “there is a clear moral foundation for the action and substantial unity on the matter. And seldom, if ever, is there any reason for a clergyman to preach for or against an individual candidate or proposition in the pulpit.”

About 850 clergymen (ranging from Assembly of God to United Church of Christ) attended the PSR’s three-day conference.

Professor D. Gerhard Ebeling of Zurich, who was a fellow student of the late Dietrich Bonhoeffer, said the now famous theologian’s term “religion-less Christianity” referred to the religion of the nineteenth century. As for Bonhoeffer’s teaching about man’s “coming of age,” Ebeling said it is nonsense to say man is autonomous in relation to God. He is, however, autonomous concerning religious tradition.

Dr. William G. Pollard, an Episcopal priest who directs the Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies, predicted Christianity “will have a message of hope and truth about the nature of reality which will be peculiarly meaningful” after current social and scientific revolutions are past. “It will grow and flower with great power in a world from which all alternative religions will have died out and no viable alternatives other than a sterile secularism will be contending against it.”

JEROME F. POLITZER

Brief Pact With Black Muslims

As muscular members of the “Fruit of Islam” stood guard, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., called for an hour at the Chicago home of Black Muslim chieftain Elijah Muhammad. After their first meeting, a “common front” against Negro slum conditions in the city. King’s current project, was announced. King said “there now appear to be some areas, slums and areas other than slums,” in which he can cooperate with black supremacists.

But if there was a pact it lasted less than a day. At the Muslims’ national convention, Elijah lashed out at King during a four-hour diatribe. To shouting, applauding accompaniment, he called the civil rights leader a “lover of white folks” and a “white man’s black man.” King is “a nice, friendly man” who has “fallen in with unfriendly people,” explained the 69-year-old Elijah. But King is also a “deceiver” who will “have another meeting, and another meeting, and another meeting.”

Among Elijah’s fans was the movement’s best-known convert, heavyweight boxing champion Cassius Clay, who wore a Fruit of Islam uniform. Clay recently caused a furor by making anti-American remarks when informed he had been reclassified and was eligible for the military draft.

Pastor Loses The Klan Vote

John Buchanan, ordained Baptist and Republican congressman from Alabama, earned the wrath of the Ku Klux Klan for his part in the recently completed Klan investigation by Congress.

On the last day of hearings, Georgia lawyer J. B. Stoner took the Fifth Amendment when asked if he was in town the day a Birmingham Negro Baptist church was bombed, killing four girls. But after the hearing, Stoner was suddenly talkative and declared Washington was “full of Communists” and that “loyal white people” would defeat Buchanan and other investigators up for election this fall.

One unbeatable exception was Georgia Representative Charles Weltner, who originated the Klan hearings. Stoner explained he has “the Jew bloc, the black bloc, and the idiot bloc.”

Buchanan contends that a Klan ally “couldn’t be elected dogcatcher” because the Klan has brought “scorn upon the head of the people of the South” and an overwhelming majority of Southerners have only contempt for the organization.

Quebec’S Sectarian Dollars

It is the ultimate in church fund-raising. The Benedictine monastery of St. Benoit du Lac. Quebec, got itself incorporated as a town back in 1939. As a result, it has raked in $369,000 in federal and provincial aid in the past five years.

As construction on a $240,000 auditorium and other projects proceeds at the community seventy miles southeast of Montreal, the government is beginning to groan. Seventy-five monks working on construction get unemployment insurance, and the “town” is eligible for public works subsidies as well.

Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs Pierre Laporte said that when the federal government approved the payments “I started to believe in miracles.”

Meanwhile, McGill University in Montreal claims discrimination in Quebec Province’s distribution of $17 million in new federal aid for colleges, since it is getting a smaller percentage increase than five French universities. McGill is English-speaking and has 12,000 students. Its staff includes an accredited, ecumenical divinity faculty composed of Anglican, Presbyterian, and United Church of Canada personnel.

The dispute reflects a long-standing rivalry between Quebec’s British and French populations (see December 18, 1964, issue, page 44), and the channeling of college aid through the provincial government is a concession to Quebec’s drive for more autonomy.

Academia In Acadia

Baptist control of Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, is under attack from proponents of academic freedom. They are sponsoring a bill in the provincial legislature to cut the Atlantic Baptist Convention’s representation on the school’s board to 25 per cent.

The ABC, eastern third of the Baptist Federation of Canada, now names all thirty board members, and ABC President Kenneth Spencer says the change “would deprive this convention of its historic rights.”

The battle began last summer when the ABC recommended that non-Christians be barred from the faculty, which made Jewish and agnostic teachers uneasy, and that board members’ terms be cut from nine to six years, which was seen by some as a move to weed out liberals.

The bill’s backers claim the ABC provides only 1 per cent of the revenue at Acadia, which was founded in 1838 and has 1,500 students.

Britain: More School Aid

Britain’s Labor government, which has called for a national election March 31, wants legislation to provide 80 per cent construction aid for new church-related school buildings. Education Minister Anthony Crosland said the proposal falls short of requests from churches which face rapidly growing enrollments. Government aid now goes to 7,300 Anglican and 2,200 Roman Catholic schools, plus 430 others, largely Methodist and Quaker.

Greek Prelate Convicted

A long-standing controversy between the Orthodox Church in Greece and the Greek government was climaxed in Athens last month by the first civil court conviction of an Orthodox prelate in the nation’s history.

Charged with illegally “usurping” administrative powers of the Diocese of Piraeus, Metropolitan Chrysostomos, formerly of Argolis, was given a suspended two-month sentence.

The prelate was one of fifty-one bishops who in November voted the election of new bishops and permitted transfer of others. Transferability of bishops is banned under Greek law.

The government had called on the church to halt action on election of bishops until a long church-state crisis could be settled with legislation satisfactory to both.

Metropolitan Chrysostomos was one of two bishops transferred to other sees. Lay Orthodox critics charged that he had been reassigned to a wealthy diocese, noting that the law barring transfers had been enacted to prevent the move of prelates into wealthy sees.

NCC Again Puts Priority on Peace

Eugene Carson Blake flew back to his native St. Louis last month carrying all the prestige that goes with having just been elected potentate of a Protestant-Orthodox global coalition. But for the next three days, at a meeting of the National Council of Churches’ General Board, of which he has been a vocal member, the burly Presbyterian churchman was publicly overshadowed. The board looked instead to a lay member, scholarly, diplomatic Dr. Arthur S. Flemming, to propel it through a plethora of selected social issues.

The 60-year-old Flemming applied all the political savvy learned in thirty months as an Eisenhower Cabinet member to implement findings of last October’s peace-seeking Sixth World Order Study Conference. Peace can best be assured, he persuaded the General Board, by playing up to Red China and disowning South Africa. A pair of major policy statements were adopted to that effect.

At least a few board members sensed a problem. “These approaches appear to be contradictory,” said the Rev. L. Doward McBain, pastor of First Baptist Church in Phoenix. “People will say we promote one tyranny while decrying another.”

Flemming countered that “we don’t live in the kind of world where a method that is effective in one area can be expected to work in another.” McBain, despite his observations, agreed with Flemming and voted for both statements. The Baptist clergyman observed that “the one sin we just can’t forgive anyone for is racial prejudice.”

In a separate context, Dr. Benjamin F. Payton, the NCC’s new expert on racial affairs, issued an attack on allegedly inconsistent foreign policy methods of the U. S. government. Payton asserted that most nations in the so-called third world seem to believe that “America would not be using napalm, toxic chemicals, and noxious gases in an indiscriminate slaughter of peasant women and children if Viet Nam were a white nation. Few of them have forgotten our quick military action in the Congo, the Dominican Republic and Viet Nam, in contrast to our patience in dealing with the Russians during the Berlin blockade and the Hungarian revolution.”

Payton, a Baptist who as executive director of the Commission on Religion and Race is the only Negro to hold a major NCC post, promises to be something of an iconoclast. He suggested abolition of Brotherhood Weeks and Race Relations Sundays “and all of the other little aspirins by which we salve our consciences” in favor of “a drama which celebrates our life together in metropolis.”

Payton’s bent for controversy contrasted with Flemming’s conciliatory spirit. It was no accident that the rarely ruffled former welfare secretary under Eisenhower was given such touchy tasks as heading the NCC’s World Order Study Conference and an ad hoc committee on Viet Nam. He is comfortably confident but unpretentious, and his tall, dignified frame commanded respect from board members. Flemming, a Methodist who is now president of the University of Oregon, has been serving also as an NCC vice-president.

As it turned out, only the Viet Nam question produced any stir in an otherwise dull board meeting. The board followed up a December policy statement on Viet Nam with a special resolution “in light of recent developments.” Stressing a collective rather than unilateral approach, it was couched in considerably milder and more general terms than a statement on Viet Nam adopted by the World Council of Churches’ Central Committee in Geneva the week before. The Associated Press reported that “top sources” in the NCC had said Presidential Press Secretary Bill D. Moyers succeeded in toning down a draft of the statement before it was proposed to the board. Moyers, Flemming, and Blake all denied the report.

One board member was able to add a passage urging prayer and sympathy for victims of the Vietnamese conflict, but two phrases, “with our President” and “in the cause of freedom,” were deleted. Although the amendment was proposed as a response to a Presidential appeal for prayer, specific reference to the President was voted down.

Out of the 250 members of the General Board, hardly more than 100 showed up for the meeting, a typical turnout. Some of these came late and left early.

The NCC’s Division of Overseas Ministries called the board’s attention to the prospect of five to ten million persons’ facing starvation in India this year unless massive remedial measures are undertaken. The board members responded by adopting a brief statement. They urged NCC member communions “to express their identification with the people of India by fasting, prayers of intercession and sacrificial giving for the needs of the famine victims during periods of special devotion such as Good Friday.” Special offerings for India were suggested for such appeals as the “One Great Hour of Sharing” March 20. (Protestants now spend only about half a cent per dollar of benevolence funds to combat world hunger.)

While contemplating famine, board members were advised of the NCC’s next General Assembly, to be held in December at two of Miami Beach’s plushiest hotels. Mrs. Norman Vincent Peale brought the report. She noted without comment that evangelist Billy Graham had accepted an invitation to be a luncheon speaker. This will be the first time the nation’s most widely known and respected churchman has been an NCC program participant.

Mrs. Peale was visibly nettled by a pacifist board member’s qualms that the program did not reflect much of a priority on peace. She said that though not labeled as such, peace was indeed on the agenda. To ease anxiety, she proposed to marshal a corps of volunteers to rubber-stamp “Peace” at appropriate places on the 75,000 programs already printed.

The National Council has had “priority” peace programs off and on for a number of years. The latest such venture calls for an expenditure of §200,000 annually, some §25,000 of which is to be paid in salary to a soon-to-be-named peace czar of ecclesiastical renown. He will succeed NCC international affairs chief Kenneth Maxwell, who resigned rather abruptly last month; the new office, however, will be higher on the NCC chain of command. A foundation grant of §150,000 has been promised for the peace program, but it will be spread over four years. NCC leaders expect to be hard pressed to raise the remainder.

Biggest drain on NCC financial reserves has been the controversial Delta Ministry, described by proponents as an exemplary gesture of compassion and by critics as a pilot project in socialism. A special committee is currently investigating the merits of the Mississippi ministry. The plight of the underprivileged was dramatized for the board by the appearance of a special delegation, mostly Negroes, representing various grass-roots efforts to combat poverty. Their criticism of federal poverty programs as inadequate and badly handled was especially telling in regard to St. Louis. There the National Park Service is investing approximately §30,000,000 on the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, whose nearly completed 630-foot Gateway Arch casts a shadow over the adjacent Mississippi River.

NCC leaders are also involved in combating poverty at the inter-faith level. After more than six months of spadework initiated by the General Board and General Secretary R. H. Edwin Espy, the Inter-Religious Committee Against Poverty was officially inauguarted in January. IRCAP is designed not only to support governmental and private programs for helping the poor, as emphasized in early reports, but to exercise responsible criticism of such programs.

At its St. Louis meeting, the General Board approved five policy statements (see box), plus a “statement of concern” about alleged pressures on the Orthodox Patriarchate at Constantinople. Consideration of a special report on the NCC’s use of government resources was put off until June.

How Did Blake Win?

Election of Dr. Eugene Carson Blake as general secretary of the World Council of Churches (see Mar. 4 issue, p. 45) has probably brought to an end an era of internal turbulence among the ecumenical elite. Blake will doubtless bring with him a generous measure of solidarity when he assumes his new post December 1.

Tension in WCC ranks began building up more than two years ago when Dr. W. A. Visser ’t Hooft initiated plans to retire from the office he has held since its inception. Many of the 100 members of the World Council Central Committee felt that a special committee should be formed to nominate a successor. But a British member, protesting the cost of an extra procedure, persuaded fellow churchmen to turn over the screening process to the fourteen members of the WCC Executive Committee as a matter to be considered in their regular order of business.

The first man approached for the job of general secretary was Dr. Lukas Vischer, who had joined the WCC in 1961 as research secretary of the Department of Faith and Order. But Vischer would not allow his name to stand, insisting that he preferred work of a scholarly nature. Young Vischer is a native of Basel, Switzerland, and an ordained minister of the Swiss Reformed Church. Largely on the basis of his highly touted reports as an observer at the Vatican Council, he was chosen last month to be director of the Department of Faith and Order.

When Vischer turned down the nomination, the Executive Committee decided upon the Rev. Patrick C. Rodger, then head of the department, and made public its choice in a way that provoked heated controversy. Although the nomination had to be put to a vote of the full Central Committee, many felt that pressures had been created to make it appear that Rodger’s nomination was tantamount to election. Many who might otherwise have voted for Rodger balked. Others voiced outright opposition to him because he was an unknown. The upshot was that the Central Committee refused to act on the nomination and chose instead to name a special committee to begin screening all over.

The special committee, composed of eighteen members, tapped Blake as its first choice. Dr. D. T. Niles of Ceylon, general secretary of the East Asia Christian Conference, was understood to have been the committee’s second choice. But in a secret session the Central Committee voted in Blake, apparently without any great measure of disagreement. Because of the secrecy at this highest level of inter-church politics, however, speculation will continue on what really happened and why.

What The Ncc Is Saying

Here are salient excerpts from the five policy statements of the National Council of Churches’ General Board, along with a tally of the votes by which each was approved last month:

On China (90 yes, 3 no, 1 abstention)—“… Even while recognizing the increasing belligerence of the mainland China government, we … recommend … That the United States, without prejudice to its own policy concerning diplomatic recognition, and under conditions which take into account the welfare, security and political status of Taiwan, including membership in the United Nations, develop a new policy of support to the seating of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations; That careful study be given by the United States to regularizing diplomatic communication with the People’s Republic of China and to the conditions under which diplomatic recognition may appropriately be extended.…”

On Southern Africa (94 yes, 4 no, 2 abstentions)—“The General Board … urges the Government of the United States to apply a firmness toward South Africa corresponding to that which it has indicated it would apply to Southern Rhodesia, and to that end to explore and exercise such political and economic pressures as may lead to the effective dissociation of the United States … from implicit support of South Africa’s denial of rights to nonwhites.”

On dissent (92 yes)—“The right of dissent is a part of our nation’s legal and cultural heritage.… The presence of persons of questionable character or motivation in gatherings and demonstrations is often unavoidable and … the witness of the group as a whole should not be invalidated solely on that ground.”

On unemployment insurance (65 yes, 5 no, 2 abstentions)—“Payment of unemployment insurance benefits should be adequate in amount to sustain human dignity, while preserving incentives to seek further employment.”

On economic life (64 yes, 4 no, 4 abstentions)—“Exercise of the traditional right of private property must be conditioned by the right of all mankind including future generations to enjoy the resources and fruits of the earth. Legal ownership of resources does not confer unlimited right of use or misuse. Biblical teachings about the hazards of great wealth and the necessity of regarding all private possession as a divine ‘trust’ were never more timely than today.”

Blake Sees Baptist ‘Wisdom’

Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, initiator of the Consultation on Church Union, apparently doesn’t feel too badly that American Baptists are avoiding the proposed superchurch. In fact, Blake complimented their decision last month (see February 18 issue, p. 42).

“I agree with the wisdom of the American Baptist Convention in this decision,” said Blake. “It would put undue strains upon the denomination if it were in the negotiations.”

He declared that because of their ecclesiology, American Baptists will have to decide “church by church” if they want to join the COCU communion.

After Blake Who?

Who will succeed Eugene Carson Blake as stated clerk of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A.?

Among those most often mentioned are Dr. John Coventry Smith, Dr. William Phelps Thompson, Dr. Theophilus M. Taylor, and Dr. Kenneth G. Neigh.

A speculative story in the New York Times said that Ontario-born Smith and Thompson, a 47-year-old lawyer from Wichita currently the denominational moderator, are “leading the field.” Smith, 63, is general secretary of the United Presbyterian Commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations. Thompson apparently is the only layman being given serious consideration.

Other potential candidates, in addition to Taylor, who is secretary of the denomination’s General Council, and Neigh, who serves as general secretary of the Board of National Missions, are:

Dr. James McCord, president of Princeton Theological Seminary, Dr. Robert McAfee Brown, professor of religion at Stanford University, and Dr. H. Ganse Little, minister of the Pasadena church where Blake served before becoming stated clerk.

25 Years Of ‘Crisis’

The arguments among the Protestant intelligentsia in those awkward months before Pearl Harbor make weird reading from a distance of twenty-five years. The debate was recalled last month in the wave of nostalgia at the twenty-fifth anniversary of the magazine Christianity and Crisis.

The magazine was born in the split on the Protestant left between the optimistic neo-pacifism of the Christian Century, then the only well-known independent Protestant journal, and the “realism” of Reinhold Niebuhr and his colleagues at Union Theological Seminary.

In pre-war years, the Century fought Franklin D. Roosevelt’s foreign policies, hoped for peace, and saw the silver lining in the Hitler cloud hovering over Europe.

Incredibly, it was unconcerned about the fall of Poland because of its “record of persecuting its minorities.” When France fell to the Nazis, the Century said that “in a united Europe governed from the German center, with a unified planned economy covering the continent, France will be able to find compensations in terms of human values.”

The month that Crisis first appeared, the Century was troubled by the “master race” problem but hoped that a Nazi victory would establish a form of socialism by breaking the power of the capitalist class and the international bankers.

Niebuhr lashed out at such myopia about nationalism, “maniacal fury” toward Jews, and the belief that “the peace of such a tyranny is morally more tolerable than war.” Months after he had helped found Crisis, Pearl Harbor removed the ambiguities of the international struggle.

Twenty-five years later, ambiguity is again part of the international scene, and Crisis and Century have evolved into a unison chorus in opposing the Johnson Administration’s Viet Nam policy.

A day-long anniversary colloquium rumbled with dissent on Viet Nam, but the main speaker was ardent Administration supporter Hubert Humphrey. The Vice President, who the day before had returned from an Asian tour, declared:

A Scholarship In Religious News

The first fellowship program announced by the new Washington Journalism Center is in religious news. The fellowship, which includes an internship with CHRISTIANITY TODAY, is one of several the center will offer in specialized reporting fields when it opens next fall in the nation’s capital.

Under a one-semester, $2,000 grant, the fellow will work twenty hours per week at the magazine and participate in seminars and research as one of the center’s select students.

Applications for the first semester of 1966–67 are due April 15. The student must have a bachelor’s degree, and if the degree is not in journalism he should have some practical experience in the field.

Preference will be given to students enrolled in graduate journalism schools, but the center plans to allow considerable latitude. The student selected could be a working newsman, a minister, a recent college or seminary graduate, a missionary on furlough, or anyone who needs to know religious journalism to do his job.

From its inception, the center has considered religion one of the special areas the fellowships should encompass. Center director Ray E. Hiebert, presently journalism chairman at American University, calls Washington, D. C., a “laboratory” that is “perfect for high-level journalism study.”

“We reaffirm our intention to sustain the struggle against the forces of Communist expansion—against the forces of poverty, illiteracy, famine, and disease—for as long as the cause of freedom and human decency requires it. We reaffirm our intention of using military power of almost limitless quantities in measured, limited degree.”

Besides Viet Nam, the two liberal independent journals have come much closer together on Roman Catholicism, with the Century sharing Crisis’s mild-mannered ecumenical perspective. But Crisis Managing Editor Wayne Cowan, highest ranking of four full-time staff members, still sees a distinct role for each publication. Crisis is read more by laymen and the unchurched, he said, and “I could frankly say that we are closer to Commonweal [a liberal Catholic weekly] on many issues than to any Protestant journal.”

Besides, the Century “just doesn’t have a John Bennett,” he said, referring to Union’s president who has shared the editorial chairmanship with Niebuhr and whose views, according to Newsweek, “permeate the magazine.”

Crisis now circulates 17,500, compared to the Century’s current report of 42,000. It is slim (usually twelve pages), comes out fortnightly, and operates on less than $100,000 a year. The format is spare, although changes are in the works this year.

Until two years ago, Crisis paid paid 500 for articles, but now it offers as much as $50. The for articles, but now it offers as much as $50. The magazine survives by individual gifts, the biggest recent one ($5,000) from Walter Lippmann, dean of America’s political columnists.

Niebuhr, now 73, is in failing health and was unable to attend the magazine’s twenty-fifth anniversary gala because he is still recuperating from an operation in early February. Before entering the hospital, he wrote an essay for the special anniversary issue contending that the magazine’s title isn’t out of date.

“The social life of mankind is in a perpetual crisis of community and conflict on various levels,” he said. One crisis is “in the church’s relation to the political and international order” and the absence of responsibility in meeting such events as “the fantastic nuclear dilemma.” Though America is cured of “irresponsible neutralism,” it is “tempted to self-righteousness.”

In the twenty-five years, the heaviest reprint requests came, not for Niebuhr’s or Bennett’s rarefied commentary, but for an article on obscenity last year by the Rev. Howard Moody of Greenwich Village, in which he declared that “the word ‘nigger’ from the sneering lips of a Bull Connor” is the dirtiest word in the English language.

Book Briefs: March 18, 1966

A Theology Of Communion

God with Us: A Theology of Transpersonal Life, by Joseph Haroutunian (Westminster, 1965, 318 pp., $6), is reviewed by Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, associate professor of philosophy, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The true end of man, argues Professor Haroutunian, is fellowship, conceived not as working together in institutions for the achievement of common goals but rather as loving, faithful communion with one another. He puts the point even more strongly: We are human only to the degree that we are in communion with others. In so far as we limit our engagement with others to the use of them as a means for achieving our own goals, we exist simply at the level of organisms. All men, by virtue of being intelligent creatures of God, place on others a claim to love and faithfulness. Only as this claim is answered do we exist as human beings. The absence of such communion is death and sin and yields anxiety; its presence is salvation.

The Church must be conceived as a communion in this sense, as a fellowship among men and with Jesus Christ. Traditionally the Church has been thought to be an institution that through its ministers dispenses grace to all its members. The hope has been that, from faithful attendance on these means of grace, a fellowship would grow. Yet fellowship has been seen as a consequence of the work of the Church, rather than as its very nature.

Perhaps these themes as such are no longer new and startling. What is fresh and promising in Haroutunian’s book, however, is that he uncompromisingly adheres to them in exploring some of the theological consequences of this way of seeing things. He begins the development of a “theology of communion” in which God’s dealings with us, and our knowledge of and response to God, are conceived always in the context of a fellowship among men that exists in covenant with God. The “hub” of this fellowship is our fellow man Jesus Christ, who established fellowship among men by way of forgiveness. His forgiveness evoked forgiveness, so that a company of men was brought into being who exist in fellowship with one another through Jesus Christ, not as perfected saints, but as sinners who can yet exist in communion by being able to forgive. And this new fellowship is now the basic means of God’s grace to men: my fellow is God’s minister to me. Just as God’s Word is manifested in the forgiveness extended by Jesus Christ to other men, so the Holy Spirit is manifested in the forgiveness that the Church—a fellowship among men and with Jesus—extends to other men. But it is not only God’s grace that comes to us through the fellowship of Christ and the Church, for in this fellowship God is known. Just as he does not act toward us apart from his Word and his Spirit, so we do not know him apart from the communion that he establishes in Christ and in the Church.

Though this gives only the slightest indication of the promising possibilities of this theology of communion—I have, for example, said nothing about one of the finest sections of the book, the critique of the agape understanding of Christian love—let me go on to mention two important points at which I find obscurity.

What is the connection between communion as the true end of man and Christ? Would we men not have known that this is the true end, were it not for Christ? Is Christ’s fellowship with men indispensable to all human fellowship? Is our acquaintance with Christ’s fellowship indispensable to all fellowship? Is our acknowledgment of Christ’s fellowship as God’s grace indispensable to all fellowship? Or is Christ’s fellowship with men just the paradigm of all human fellowship? I find the answers to these questions unclear, or inconsistent. In his discussion of how God acts, Haroutunian seems to say that communion is disrupted among men, that it can be restored only by forgiveness, that it is normally impossible to forgive except in response to forgiveness, that the initial forgiveness in human affairs is Christ’s, and that this forgiveness sets up, as it were, a chain reaction of forgiveness. But other parts of the book seem to contradict various of these connected theses. The obscurity cannot be fully cleared away without a clear understanding of what communion or “fellow-manhood” is; and this central concept is one of those least adequately developed.

Secondly, Haroutunian sometimes seems to hold that to say that God, or God’s Word, or the Holy Spirit forgives is just to say that Jesus and/or my fellow man forgives; and more generally, that to say something about God’s mode of acting is just to say something about man’s mode of acting. And to the question, “But why use the ‘godly’ mode of speech?” his answer would seem to be, “Because the action (e.g., forgiveness) surprises us, it is miraculous.” Similarly, he sometimes seems to hold that to say that a man has responded in a certain way to a certain action of God is just to say that he has responded in a certain way to his fellow men. On this view, then, God is not an independent being, a “person,” with whom we can have communion. Rather, to speak of communion between us and God is only another way of speaking of communion with one another. Yet many passages in the book indicate that Haroutunian does not at all hold to such reductionism. At times, for example, he explicitly urges a distinction between God’s action and man’s action, rightly insisting that to fail to make this distinction is to wind up in humanism. And all in all, it seems that the author wishes not to reduce divine action to human action, but rather to insist that God exercises his grace through human action, especially the action of forgiveness establishing fellowship. Still, the force of this word “exercises” is left obscure.

At several important points, then, there is obscurity. But I do not at all wish to suggest that a theology of communion, as begun by this author, is an unpromising line of exploration. I think that it is necessary, and that Haroutunian has captured a great deal of the biblical Christian understanding of how God has to do with man and man with God.

NICHOLAS P. WOLTERSTORFF

Pulpit Polish

The Art of Dynamic Preaching: A Practical Guide to Better Preaching, by Peter-Thomas Rohrbach, O.C.D. (Doubleday, 1965, 190 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by James Daane, assistant editor,CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Few men of the pulpit read books on how to preach; most think either that they already know or that they do not have the time to learn. Yet preaching is an art to be pursued all one’s life, and is not acquired without conscious reflection on Sunday-to-Sunday performance. If baseball players and concert pianists never outlive the need to practice their techniques, neither do men of the pulpit.

This book is an incentive to improve pulpit performance. It gives a rich supply of practical suggestions about the art of public speaking, the psychology of the speaker and his audience, and the art of putting together a well-knit sermon with a consistent pattern and a relevant message. Rohrbach’s advice will be very helpful to the man just beginning his pulpit career. And it will be, I think, even more helpful for the experienced pulpiteer who will more easily recognize these problems of the pulpit to which the author offers means of solution.

Although this book was written by a Roman Catholic and was designed to help the priest preach more effectively, almost everything in it is of value for the Protestant minister. The author calls for biblical preaching that rings with “the Lord God says!,” acknowledging that “there is something unique and entirely special about Scripture.” He confesses that “there has been a disheartening decline in the vigor and quality of Catholic preaching during the past four centuries,” a criticism that is valid for much of contemporary Protestant preaching. Protestant pulpiteers who are not too sensitive may profit from another criticism Rohrbach levels against much of the preaching of his own church. Decrying the lack of sermonic preparation and organization, the author, who is the superior of the Discalced Carmelite Monastery in Washington, D. C., says, “Unfortunately, too many priests deliver what has been called ‘the steer’s-head sermon’—a point here and a point there, and a lot of bull in between.” Rohrbach maintains that a preacher should be able to state the message of any sermon in one sentence.

One of the most interesting and profitable parts of the book is the discussion of the psychological factors that play on the man who in a social gathering converses with ease but who in the pulpit speaks uneasily and haltingly about Jesus Christ.

For better preaching—a matter on which we can afford to be bipartisan—this is a valuable book for Protestant and Roman Catholic preacher.

JAMES DAANE

Recipe For Manna

Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo, by Peder Borgen (E. J. Brill, 1965, 217 pp., 38 guilders), is reviewed by Larry L. Walker, instructor in Semitic languages, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.

This book, Volume X in the series “Supplements to Novum Testamentum,” discusses the following central questions in Johannine and Philonic research: (1) sources and traditions, (2) form and style, and (3) origin and interpretation of ideas. The author’s purpose is to investigate the Johannine and Philonic exposition of the pericope on manna, the bread from heaven. His study is technical and requires of the reader more than a general acquaintance with Philo, the Mishna, and the Midrash.

Chapter one shows how Philo and John wove together fragments from Haggadic traditions and words from Old Testament quotations. After examining six relevant Palestinian midrashim about the manna from heaven, the author concludes (pp. 8, 10) that they were merely different versions of the same Haggadic tradition, a tradition probably from Palestine. Chapter two is a thorough study of the homiletic pattern used by Philo and John, and chapter three continues with the survey of how the midrashic method, patterns, and terminology are employed in such homilies.

In the fifth chapter Borgen concludes that Philo developed his ideas of the cosmic and ethical order much in accordance with the higher level of Stoic philosophy and Platonic thought patterns, but also that his ideas are to some degree parallel to the cosmological interpretation of the Torah found in the Palestinian midrash as well as in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. The author also points out that Philo’s non-Jewish (Greek) ideas about philosophy, encyclia, and cosmic order were interpreted within the context of the situation of the Jews in Alexandria and combined with thoughts from the common Jewish heritage. On the other hand, traces of non-Jewish ideas were found in Palestinian traditions as well, an observation which shows that in different degrees Judaism as a whole—Palestinian Judaism included—was part of the Hellenistic world, with its Oriental and Greek components (chapters four and five).

The value of Borgen’s book for research in this field is unquestioned; his source material is fully documented, his bibliography is extensive, and his indices of authors, references, and subjects are complete.

LARRY L. WALKER

Job’S Point

The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job, by Robert Gordis (University of Chicago, 1965, 389 pp., $8.50), is reviewed by Robert B. Laurin, professor of Old Testament, California Baptist Theological Seminary, Covina, California.

Over the centuries men have turned to the Book of Job for understanding and solace in a world that often seems to require denial of faith. Robert Gordis, a rabbi and a professor at Jewish Theological Seminary, has provided a learned and exciting look into Job’s contribution to man’s perplexing faith decision.

The book is not a commentary (the author tells us that such a volume is in preparation), and therefore many exegetical and linguistic evidences are frustratingly absent. Nevertheless, this work is exceedingly useful as (1) a discussion of the variegated problems of introduction and theology and (2) an original translation with a summary of contents before each division of the text. Here the author’s wide knowledge of world literature, particularly Jewish writings, opens up the cultural and literary milieu of Job.

Professor Gordis classifies Job form-critically as “the only book of its kind,” for although it has many of the characteristics of both lyric and didactic poetry, yet its setting within a framework of a prose tale sets it apart as a unique literary genre. In spite of this, the author stresses the unity of the book and scorns anything but a conservative approach to emendations. Gordis sees the book as a whole as having been formed by a Hebrew writer, probably in the fifth century B.C., who took an ancient folk tale dealing with a “patient Job” (chaps. 1:1–2:10; 42:11–17). retold it in his own words, and provided transitional prose material (2:11–13; 42:7–10) as links to his poetic dialogue about a “protesting Job” (3:1–42:6). Written partly as a protest against the prevalent narrow particularism of post-exilic Judaism, the Book of Job shares with Ruth and Jonah a universalism of spirit that is concerned with the problem of all men’s place in the universe. And what is that problem specifically? It is the mystery of the suffering man must endure in God’s world.

To this the author of Job speaks. Although he recognizes that suffering may have an educative function, he finds the real answer in the words of the Lord spoken “out of the whirlwind.” One is to recognize in the complexity, order, and beauty of nature that “nature is not merely a mystery, but a miracle.” Man cannot fully comprehend the order of the natural world; yet at every turn he is aware of its harmony. So, given this analogy in nature, man may have faith in God and believe that there is an essential rightness to the moral order as well.

Professor Gordis has given us an important book that, if used with a good commentary, will do much to help us to see Job’s point that ultimately justification is only by faith.

ROBERT B. LAURIN

Exciting Book

The Psalms: Their Structure and Meaning, by Pius Drijvers, O.C.S.O. (Herder and Herder, 1965, 269 pp., $5.50), is reviewed by Clyde T. Francisco, professor of Old Testament interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.

This study, an English translation of the popular Dutch work that first appeared in 1956, is a worthy example of the recent efforts of Catholic scholars. Father Drijvers has clearly sought to work within the bounds of the papal encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), which encouraged the use of historical research within the limits of biblical inerrancy.

On the one hand, critical views are boldly stated. Father Drijvers observes that “the Vulgate edition of the psalms is so to speak second-hand, and it has, as well as its own translators’ faults, those of its original translation, the Septuagint” (p. 21). He declares that “the literary criticism that is connected with the name of Julius Wellhausen has established the fact that there are several documents in the five books of Moses, namely, the Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly Code” (p. 33). He affirms that none of the royal psalms were originally Messianic, each one having been composed with a contemporary Israelite king in mind. In all his work he obviously is dependent upon the form-critical labors of Hermann Gunkel.

On the other hand, the author has been able to achieve a goal few modern scholars have attempted. Since Gunkel, most of the serious psalm studies have been content with determining the original Sitz im Leben, leaving the average reader wondering just where in the strange world of the ancient Israelite there is a word of God for today. With evangelical fervor Father Drijvers attacks this problem. He does not attempt to exegete individual psalms, since his purpose is to give a Christian perspective to the historical study of the Psalter. His procedure is “by methods of exegesis to arrive at the division of the psalms into various groups; to elucidate the themes of these groups; and to transpose these themes onto the Christian and liturgical plane” (p. 15). The result—although repeated allusions to Old Testament ideas fulfilled in the Eucharist seem out of proportion to the number of New Testament references involved—is an exciting and compelling book.

CLYDE T. FRANCISCO

As He Began

Man in Conflict, by Paul F. Barkman (Zondervan, 1965, 189 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Glenn R. Wittig, assistant librarian, Tidwell Bible Library, and graduate student in psychology of religion, Baylor University, Waco, Texas.

This book is a first attempt at a “biblical psychology.” It is also an early product of the new Graduate School of Psychology at Fuller Theological Seminary. In these two respects the work is both encouraging and disappointing.

It is particularly encouraging since the author, a confirmed biblicist as well as a clinical psychologist and professor at Fuller, openly relates a scientific theory of knowledge to a portion of Scripture. He compares Freud’s theory of neurosis with the theme of double-mindedness in the Epistle of James, thereby attempting to ferret out the psychological meanings in that New Testament book.

The work is also commendable for the stance toward Christianity and mental illness. Barkman strongly states that the Christianity provides no guarantee against or panacea for mental illness (pp. 31, 47). Repeatedly neglected by others, this position is most welcome here.

But although the approach to the subject is praiseworthy, the quality of the work is disappointing. Man’s deterioration (from “choice” to “repression” to “anxiety” to “neurosis”) is discussed simply and clearly. The description of the “true direction” back to health and “integration,” however, is weak and sometimes unconvincing. The chapter summaries are excellent; yet Barkman’s style is disturbingly colloquial.

Those who have watched with anticipation the encouraging developments at Fuller expected something more in this early product than another popular essay on mental health. The work was not meant to be a commentary, but neither is it a true psychoanalytic interpretation of James. Rather, psychological knowledge is highlighted with quotations and references drawn equally from James and the rest of the New Testament.

Nevertheless, this study opens vast new vistas in biblical interpretation. One hopes that Barkman will continue to provide material in this area of constructive integration and analysis.

GLENN R. WITTIG

Book Briefs

How the Communists Use Religion, by Edgar C. Bundy (Devin-Adair, 1966, 162 pp., $3.50). The executive secretary of the Church League of America spent eight years on the “wearisome job” of proving that top Soviet churchmen are Communists. But while pointing them out, with an eye on the World Council of Churches, he indicates little about the problems of the Church in a repressive, atheistic state.

God in Creation and Evolution, by A. Hulbosch, O. S. A. (Sheed and Ward, 1965, 240 pp., $4.95). The author, influenced by Teilhard de Chardin, argues that evolution can enrich theology.

The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays, by Richard Hofstadter (Alfred A. Knopf. 1965, 333 pp., $5.95).

The Amplified Bible (Zondervan, 1965, 1,400 pp., $9.95). A version of the Bible which leaves the reader to decide whether the original Hebrew or Greek means this, that, or something else, or all combined, resulting in a Bible that has lost its serviceability for public or family reading. Even in private devotional use one must stumble through it rather than read it. Its pages are studded with brackets giving numerous, varied readings of the original—sometimes with the aid of Webster’s dictionary (!)—assurances that this is fulfillment of prophecy, and even definitive elaborations of such words as “good” and “bad.” Why “blessed” has different meanings in different beatitudes is not indicated: “Blessed—happy, blithesome, joyous, spiritually prosperous [that is, with life-joy and satisfaction in God’s favor and salvation, regardless of their outward conditions]—are the meek (the mild, patient, long-suffering), for they shall inherit the earth!” (Matt. 5:5); “Blessed—happy, to be envied, and spiritually prosperous [that is, possessing the happiness produced by experience of God’s favor and especially conditioned by the revelation of His grace, regardless of their outward conditions]—are the pure in heart, for they shall see God!” (5:8). Already more than a million copies have been printed.

Blessings out of Buffetings: Studies in Second Corinthians, by Alan Redpath (Revell, 1965, 240 pp., $3.95).

Paperbacks

Gripped by Christ, by S. Estborn (Association, 1965, 80 pp., $1.25). A study of individual conversions in India.

A Treasury of Christian Verse, edited by Hugh Martin (Fortress, 1966, 126 pp., $2). Some of the finest Christian verse gathered from the centuries. First published in 1959.

My God, My God, Why …?: Messages on the Seven Last Words, by Adolph Redsole (Baker, 1965. 67 pp., $1). Evangelical and suggestively practical.

Separated Brethren: A Survey of Non-Catholic Christian Denominations (revised edition), by William J. Whalen (Bruce, 1966, 286 pp., $1.95). Revised in 1961. First published in 1958.

Threat to Freedom: A Picture Story Exposing Communism (Standard, 1965, 32 pp., $.35).

The Forgotten Commandment, by Ed Smithson (self-published, 1965, 71 pp., $1). Derives most of its value from its subject.

Two Worlds—Christianity and Communism, by James D. Bales (Standard, 1965, 128 pp., $1.25). Study course for youth and adults.

Children’s Talks for Sundays and Holidays, by Marion G. Gosselink (Baker, 1965, 80 pp., $1). Evangelical, practical chats of the kind that is for many the most difficult to make.

What Do Presbyterians Believe?, by Gordon H. Clark (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1965, 284 pp., $3.95). An exposition of the Westminster Confession, sometimes quite philosophical.

The Voice from the Cross: Sermons on the Seven Words from the Cross, by Andrew W. Blackwood, Jr. (Baker, 1965, 71 pp., $1). Good short sermons on the Seven Words. First published in 1955.

The Economics of Poverty: An American Paradox, edited by Burton A. Weisbrod (Prentice-Hall, 1965, 180 pp., $1.95). A series of essays on the why of poverty and the how of its elimination.

How to Understand the Bible, by W. Robert Palmer (Standard, 1965, 112 pp., $1.25). More well-intended than well-wrought.

In the Beginning …: Genesis 1–3, by Jean Danielou, S. J. (Helicon, 1965, 106 pp., $1.25). Translated from the French, this exposition considers the creation narrative late recorded, early conceived, and theologically significant only in anticipation of Jesus Christ, Lord of the new creation.

A Reconciliation Primer, by John H. Gerstner (Baker, 1965, 51 pp., $.85). The author contends that Christians eternally existed in Christ and fell from this eternal union with Christ into sin, and that on the basis of this eternal union, reconciliation reunited them with Christ eternally.

A Bible Inerrancy Primer, by John H. Gerstner (Baker, 1965, 63 pp., $.85). A remarkable argument for biblical inerrancy which some will find not inerrant.

The Living Book

Imagine an ocean-going liner without anchor, compass, or rudder. Wrecking and loss would be inevitable. And all around us, inside and outside the Church, there are millions of people in an analogous spiritual condition.

Day after day countless Christians start out without any conscious anchor of the soul, without a compass by which their lives can be properly oriented, and without the rudder of God’s guidance to enable them to steer a straight course through the confusing situations of life.

This happens to all who do not know and use the Bible, the written Word of God; for it is the Bible that is an anchor in the midst of shifting opinions, a compass that orients us to God’s eternal verities, and a rudder that turns man toward God’s way. Above all else the Bible tells us of Christ and how we may obtain salvation through faith in him.

The world is full of changing opinions. The speculations of men are as numerous and as varied as men themselves. On every hand voices clamor to be heard; some are foolish, some wise, but all are subject to change with the passing of time. In the midst of this situation, the Bible stands as an unending source of wisdom. In it are to be found the answers so many seek but few find; for the wisdom of this Book is divine, a revelation of truth man can never discover from any other source.

Since this is so (and it can be put to the test by anyone), what should our attitude to the Bible be?

I speak from a long and soul-satisfying experience. I know the aridness and frustration of days lived without the comfort and guidance of the Scriptures. I also know the joy that comes when things and events fall into a clear pattern because the Captain and his Word hate been consulted at the beginning of the day, and because divine wisdom has been given precedence over human opinions.

The daily reading of the Bible and the appropriation of the things it has to offer is of such great importance, and the end result so soul-satisfying, that it cannot be over-emphasized.

We live in a secularized and materialistic world. Only in the Bible and through the teaching of the Holy Spirit can we come to know and appreciate spiritual values, and compare them with the values of a world alienated from God. The Bible points us in the right direction in the midst of conflicting claims. It shows us the way, even when the sun is obscured by clouds of adversity and the fogs of doubt surround us. Like a brilliant light, the Bible shows the path of God in the midst of other paths that beckon to ultimate disaster.

In our time moral values are considered to be relative, not absolute; right and wrong are said to be determined by the situation, not by a moral code. It is clear that Satan has undermined the morality that is a basic part of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

How can young people—or any of us—live lives of purity when all around there are enticements to violate the moral standards on which our society has been built?

In the Book of Proverbs, young people can find the answers to their problems today. Bookstores stock hundreds of books containing advice to young people, but the clear teachings of this marvelously modern Old Testament book have never been surpassed or superseded.

Who does not have problems? There is hardly a day when we are not confronted with them in one way or another; but the man whose mind is steeped in the Word of God can find basic answers to life’s problems. The answer may be a warning against the personal sins that lie at the root of the problem; or it may be a word giving the solution as a light flashing in the dark.

In our time knowledge has multiplied astonishingly, and it probably will continue to multiply far beyond the capability of man to make use of it. But over and beyond all that may be learned about the world there is the fact of God’s transcendent wisdom offered to man in the Bible, without which he continues to be an earthbound creature. This wisdom can bring peace of heart and serenity of mind because it is fixed on the One who is Truth itself.

No one would deny that our world is full of staggering uncertainties. Many suffer from the constant tensions caused by an unknown future. Wars and rumors of wars are only a part of a world where political, social, and economic ferments point to possible disaster.

Yet he who has his faith firmly rooted in the Word of God sees beyond these uncertainties. He has an anchor that reaches far beyond what is visible, and he knows that no turn of events can separate him from the love of God. He knows that God is sovereign, and that all that occurs is permitted by him. He knows that all things in his own life are working out for his good, because he loves God.

In the Bible, and nowhere else, a man can find an unfailing frame of reference. On every hand the lives of men are being shipwrecked because they have nothing to hold them steady amid the temptations to which they are subjected. This is tragically true within the Church when men accept a low view of the inspiration and authority of the Word.

On the personal level, the Bible is an unending source of comfort and hope. Who has not had his spirit lifted by the affirmations and promises in the Word? Who has not had his soul buoyed up by the sure hope that comes from this source? Whose heart has not found expressed in the Psalms the words of praise and thanksgiving he feels to the God of love who has dealt so wondrously with his erring children? As in no other literature, the heart’s deepest feelings find articulation in the Psalms.

Like a man dying of dehydration when a gushing spring is near at hand, or one starving when a feast is within his reach, so men and women are perishing because they do not make daily use of the Book that is found in almost every household.

With the reading of the Word there comes spiritual enlightenment, growing confidence, and adjusted perspectives. There is no substitute for the Bible. Books about the Bible have an important place; but they are at best the words of men, and too often they are tainted by unbelief.

The Bible is a living book, more relevant than tomorrow morning’s newspaper. It is not, of course, to be worshiped; we worship the Christ it reveals. It is not a fetish but a living revelation from the living God.

I challenge all who read this to test these claims for themselves.

Ideas

Evangelicals in the Church of Rome

What will be the outcome of spiritual breezes that are blowing through the traditional forms and bringing new life?

The worn, tired, sterile apologetic of many Protestants that nothing can change in the Roman Catholic Church, at least nothing that makes any real difference, is being soundly disproved today and exposed for what it always was, an all too easy defense of Protestantism. Big changes are occurring in the church of Rome, and many of these changes are wholesome, the work of the Holy Spirit and a source of joy to Protestants who are learning that easy slogans long used to characterize the other side are only half true. Protestants are also learning that many of the theological problems engaging Roman Catholic thinkers should also engage Protestant thinkers. The question of Scripture and tradition is surely one of these. Protestants, with their strong belief in the power of the Word of God, are heartened by the current renewal of interest in Scripture reading, teaching, and preaching among Roman Catholics. And, conscious of the power of the Word, they realize that no one can safely predict the possible extent of reform and renewal within the Roman church.

At no time since the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century has the church of Rome faced so many internal and external pressures toward action and reform. Within that church today, forces are at work that are in many ways similar to those at work in the church before the Reformation, though the problems of the two periods are etched against sharply contrasting backgrounds.

Since the time of Luther the papacy has been reformed so that recent popes have lived exemplary lives. There are no modern Tetzels hawking indulgences, promising buyers that the souls of their loved ones will fly out of purgatory even before their gold coins fall to the bottom of wooden chests. Simony and nepotism are not a grave problem, and red hats are not handed out to teen-agers or to those of royal blood. While there still is persecution of non-Catholics in some parts of the world, the days of the Inquisition are over. The church does not hand over heretics to the secular authorities to burn at the stake. The rack, the strappado, and the “iron lady” are no more. Thus the church of Rome in the twentieth century, faced with new pressures and problems, approaches them from within a situation vastly better than that in which the Reformers rose in the fifteenth century.

In the church of Rome before 1500 there emerged men like John Wyclif and the Lollards, John Huss of Bohemia, Jerome of Prague, and Savonarola. Some of them bore witness to their religious convictions as they were burned at the stake. They were succeeded by Luther, Calvin, Beza, and Knox, and the Reformation was born and grew. Surely it served a useful purpose even for the church of Rome. But the Counter-Reformation followed the Reformation, and one of its chief instruments was the Council of Trent, which convened intermittently from 1545 to 1563. There the Roman church was renewed, its witness consolidated, and its forms settled for four hundred years.

Now the Roman Catholic Church is at a major crossroads once again. From scores of sources around the world reports filter in of priests, nuns, and laymen who have experienced the same kind of religious experience as their counterparts of Reformation and pre-Reformation days. Unlike the Reformers, who were forced out of the church, these modern disciples remain within the fold. Yet they have come to know Jesus Christ in an intimacy that sometimes surpasses the devotion of many Protestants. The reality of their experience we cannot question; the depth of their commitment and the open expression of joy in their newfound faith are good to behold. This movement of God within the church of Rome comes at a time when it faces grave problems, some common to all faiths in the Christian tradition and some peculiar to that church. Atheism, higher criticism, the spread of Communism, the population and knowledge explosions, and the need for organizational updating to meet the challenge of the times are common problems. But the Roman church also faces knotty difficulties rising from an internal surge toward democracy, a marked interest in the priesthood of all believers, the question of the relevance of archaic church forms in modern society, the cry for religious liberty for all men, and a desire for academic freedom in educational institutions.

Undoubtedly, dissent and discontent within the Roman church was in some measure responsible for the calling of Vatican Council II. That council is over now. But the church will never be the same. The council opened windows through which refreshing breezes will continue to blow for many decades. There were the statement on religious liberty; the acknowledgment that the Jews are not unilaterally guilty of the death of Christ; the movement toward ecumenism and dialogue with other faiths; the reorganization of the church; a return to the Scriptures and the emphasis on biblical theology; the putting of the mass into the vernacular; and many others.

But amid these many changes one must recognize that the church of Rome has not changed and will not change in its essential theological position. Pope Paul is an intelligent man who knows who he is, what his office signifies, and what he must preserve. He must “reconcile the spirit of change … with the protection of the office he has inherited,” says Sanche De Gramont in Dominion (January, 1966). Paul’s definition of the papacy is unacceptable to Eastern Orthodox and Protestant alike. As late as two years ago he said to an assembly of the faithful: “This, dearest sons, is what an audience with the Pope should leave in your souls: the impression, indeed the stupor and the joy, of a meeting with the Vicar of Christ” (ibid.).

Now that the church of Rome has begun to reform itself once more, and will continue to do so in the future, we must ask what the outcome will be. Can the church contain the new revolutionary forces and tame them? Will those who press for change be satisfied if the church moves slower than events warrant? Will there come another schism in which spiritually vital elements of the church will be drawn off into new channels or into already existing but non-Catholic structures? Surely to meet the challenge of the spirit of change and at the same time maintain the papacy in its historic forms is a formidable task for Paul VI and his successors.

In the midst of change and renewal, evangelicals should reach out with heart and hand to those who, though they are in the church of Rome, are our spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ. Substantive changes have taken place within Protestantism, too. There are conflicting currents and opposing viewpoints. And it is unmistakably clear that Protestant evangelicals are far closer, in theology and commitment, to many within the church of Rome than to many liberals in the Protestant tradition.

History has its own sifting process. Therefore evangelicals must not isolate themselves from those of evangelical conviction within the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, Protestant evangelicals have nothing to fear and much to gain by frank dialogue with the church itself. Bridges can and must be built and more intimate contacts made. If there is risk in encounter, so is there risk in any of life’s relationships. And conversations with Roman Catholics pose risks for them as well as for evangelicals. Whatever the risks, they are minimized when Protestant evangelicals test all opinions (even their own) and sustain all doctrines by fidelity to the Word of God and insist that all fellowship and all conversation start and end with the Scriptures. In line with this principle, evangelicals can talk to anybody, at any time, and about any subject anywhere.

Adrift On A Red Sea?

The National Council of Churches climbed farther out on the socio-political limb last month (see News, page 36). It is a tribute to the deep-seated convictions of the NCC leaders that they do not waver even at the specter of defection and financial adversity. But it is a condemnation that they are so persistently insensitive to the viewpoints of very many of their fellow Christians.

One wonders at times whom the General Board of the National Council represents. Surely it does not even begin to reflect the many theological and social stances included in the NCC constituency. Despite the wide criticism of the council’s stand on Red China, hardly any of the 250 board members seem willing to stand on the floor and speak against it. Furthermore, none of the members ever seems to question the propriety of the NCC’s speaking out on such subjects.

Perhaps the situation is in no small degree attributable to the notable indifference and isolation of those NCC members that disagree with the council’s policy. If they would exert more initiative in winning seats on the board and challenging the presuppositions on which the NCC operates, the council might more fairly reflect the convictions of its constituency.

The Fall Of A ‘Messiah’

Francis Nwia Kofie Kwame Nkrumah, for fifteen years the chief cook of Ghana’s political stew, was ignominiously deposed from his perpetual presidency while receiving plaudits and flowers from his fellow Communists in China. Nkrumah’s embarrassed hosts were caught royally entertaining a king without a kingdom. Indeed, he was hardly a welcome guest at a time when Communist China was licking its wounds after a series of political reserves around the world.

Nkrumah committed just about every mistake a dictator could make. But from the Christian perspective the worst of them all were his absurd, not to say blasphemous, claims to deity. “The Messiah” proved finite after all, and was deposed. Time magazine captioned its picture accurately; “Redeemed from the Redeemer.” He immediately began engineering a return to power from Guinea, but the rejoicing in Ghana at his ouster suggests that he has little grass-roots support for another revolution. We wish for Ghana, a harassed and troubled land, a brighter day under more mature leadership.

The Strachan Memorial

The Latin America Mission has acted wisely in its choice of a memorial for the late R. Kenneth Strachan, whose contribution to missions, particularly through Evangelism-in-Depth, was so great. Rather than erecting a memorial building on the field, such as a hospital or school, the Mission has established the R. Kenneth Strachan Memorial Fund for World Evangelism. This fund will be administered by a committee composed of Dr. Arthur Glasser of the Overseas Missionary Fellowship; Dr. Paul Rees of World Vision, Inc.; and the three general directors of the Latin America Mission—Dr. Horace L. Fenton, Jr., the Rev. W. Dayton Roberts, and the Rev. David M. Howard.

We see in this Memorial Fund great possibilities, including the provision of instructional materials in Spanish (such as filmstrips and manuals) that can be used to communicate in-depth principles of evangelism to the whole Spanish-speaking world and to other countries as well. Kenneth Strachan’s vision was not provincial; his strategy of Evangelism-in-Depth is applicable to the whole world. The Memorial Fund will open up means for training increasing numbers of men and women for the worldwide task of evangelism. (Already the Latin America Biblical Seminary in Costa Rica is planning to include in its structure a department of evangelism and mission.)

CHRISTIANITY TODAY salutes the Latin America Mission on the establishment of this Memorial Fund.

It Speaks For Itself

The Church and its ministry are increasingly under assault from some unexpected quarters.

Study Encounter, quarterly publication of the Division of Studies of the World Council of Churches, says that the material in its pages reflect “only the personal opinions of its several contributors.” But one of those contributors writes, “Certainly in the Gospels one simply does not find a Jesus who is the first Evangelical Churchman! As a matter of fact, if it is the function of the preacher to ‘pluck brands from the burning’ (whether eschatological or nuclear), one can only say that Jesus is rather irresponsible! When he confronts the crowds, he does not speak of their eternal destiny, nor even try to make them take the issue of slavery seriously. He tells them how damn lucky they are to be alive and that there is no need to overdo it with their prayers.”

There’s good news the like of which the pulpit hasn’t preached before!

A Thrust For Revival

Is it possible that we are taking our age too seriously? Think of the time we Christians spend reacting to “latter-day prophets” who change their minds each time they prepare a new manuscript for the press. We wait for the next radical assault, flinching in anticipation, wondering in our timidity whether the Church can stand the pummeling.

Meanwhile the great body of the faithful seems to absorb the slings and arrows of this present age and to go right on believing in the Word of God. The Billy Graham Greater London Crusade is a case in point. Hundreds of churches in the island capital are marshaling their forces to bring the unsaved and unchurched to Earls Court stadium beginning next June 1. It will not be a spectacular “new departure” in identifying the church with the community. It will not be a crash program in religious novelty or a chrome-plated experiment in relevance. Rather it will be an old, old appeal to men, women, and young people to unshackle their lives and give them to Jesus Christ. It will not be an effort to scuttle the existing church; it will be a revival of the existing church.

We congratulate the congregations of the London area that are mobilizing for this major event of faith in our time. We admire their largeness of spirit in this response to an evangelist from another country. We predict that great blessings will be showered from heaven upon many thousands of Britons in the days ahead, and we invite our readers to pray for such a supernatural result.

Our age needs to be taught a lesson about itself. London, where the faith was nurtured and so many of mankind’s dreams were born in centuries past, is a good place to begin.

The Forgotten Child

Today Franklin D. Roosevelt’s phrase “the forgotten man” might well be changed to “the forgotten child.” We live in a time when adult self-indulgence insists on allowing just about anything to be printed and published, no matter how indecent and vile. In thus protecting their own freedom to wallow in mental filth, many adults have forgotten a whole generation of youth.

There is evidence that dirty books and pictures develop dirty minds and that inflamed imaginations lead to sexual violence. Says New York psychiatrist Max Levin: “I am convinced pornography is undermining the mental health of countless youngsters.… Unscrupulous publishers cater to their sex hungers, and their lurid books are hot numbers on newsstands, in candy stores and wherever teenagers gather.”

Dr. Nicholas G. Frignito, director and chief psychiatrist of the County Court of Philadelphia, declares: “The most singular factor inducing the adolescent to sexual activities is … the lewd picture, the smutty book, the obscenely pictured playing card, indecent films, the girlie magazines.… Pornography fosters impure habits and desires.… It can cause sexually aggressive acts and in some instances lead to the slaying of the victim.”

The late Dr. Benjamin Karpman, chief psychotherapist at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Washington, D. C., said: “… there is a direct relationship between juvenile delinquency, sex life and pornographic literature.”

According to J. Edgar Hoover, “Sex-mad magazines are creating criminals faster than jails can be built to house them.” And O. W. Wilson, Chicago police superintendent, states: “Obscene literature is a primary problem in the United States today. Sexual arousals from obscene literature have been responsible for criminal behavior from vicious assaults to homicide.”

In a resolution, the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges declared: “The character of juvenile delinquency has changed as a consequence of the stimulation of salacious publications, being no longer the mischievous acts of children, but acts of violence, armed robbery, rape, torture and even homicide, for which the vicious publications condition the minds of our children.”

A good many cynical adults insist that no limit whatever can be placed upon purveyors of dirt. As a consequence, panderers of smut hide under the cloak of a liberty that destroys the right of decent-minded people to enjoy freedom from the sex-obsession that mass media, hidden persuaders, and wide-open show business, to say nothing of the out-and-out pornographers, make capital of.

Is there no freedom for parents who want to bring up their children in purity of mind and heart? Must the moral atmosphere be polluted? Must we continue to live in a smog of indecency and perversion?

Americans who put profit and pleasure before human life come under the condemnation of him who said, “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin” (Luke 17:1, 2, RSV).

Censorship entails great and well-nigh insuperable problems. There must be some effective way to call for restraint in the exercise of freedom of press, stage, and screen. One hesitates to add an additional burden to a President who already bears crushing responsibilities. But because the welfare of American youth is threatened, we need desperately to hear from the highest authority in the land a call to self-restraint and a return to at least minimum standards of good taste. And we need also to hear such a call from other leaders and from the pulpit.

We are a free people, but now that every kind of immorality and perversion is paraded ad nauseam before our eyes and ears, we must return to decency—not just for our own sake but also for the sake of our children.

A Time To Speak

Ours is an age of pessimism and negation, a period in which man is threatened with deluge by forces over which he has no control. On every hand modern anxieties support the pessimistic mood. We are told that there will be standing room only on this planet in a short time; that man cannot supply enough food for multiplied billions of people; that nuclear holocaust will ruin the race, or genetic catastrophe overtake man because of the effects of radiation.

As if this were not enough, the age of negation has struck the Christian Church so that what some men do not believe is paraded more openly than what others do believe. Newspapers, radio, and television echo the denials of the trustworthiness of the Bible, of a living God, of a virgin birth, of a resurrection from the dead, of a relevant Church, of an atoning death, and of a second advent.

Surely the time has come for “simple” Christians to focus on the “uplook” rather than the “downlook” and to speak with affirmation, not negation. And we can do no better than to say with fervor and certainty in our hearts: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord.… Amen”; and “Thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.… Even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.”

GETHSEMANE

windless valley

between sunlight

and starlight

breathless but

for whispers of

blood in the

olive leaves—if

thou hadst known

even thou only-begotten of stony ground the agony among thy sweat-hung thorns … because thou knewest not, thy visitation falls shadowlike upon the rocky ground

nevertheless

suffer it to be so.

smitten Rock and

sleeping rock—

the stones cry

out, could ye

not watch and pray

but pray now

for the rocks

and mountains

behold the hands

are at hand

torchlight red and

tilting lanterns

interrupt twilight

stumbling feet in

clanging armor

ascend the hill

swinging swords

staves of reed

shaking in the wind

silver eyes

dusty ears

circumscribed

with blood conspiring

perspiring

trample the garden

kiss of cords

mocking cock

whom seek ye?

sunset scarlet

nailed against

the night—

behold hypocrites

discern the morrow!

KENT CALKINS

addApple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseellipseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squarefolderGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastprintremoveRSSRSSSaveSavesaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube