Christianity today’s series of articles on Bultmann raises the question: Why has the neoorthodox theology (of Karl Barth) not been able to avoid a relapse to liberalism (Rudolf Bultmann)? This is a most interesting and revealing question, even if Continental theology might state the question in somewhat different terminology.

From Theology To The Bible

What happened? Since 1945 the focus of theological discussion shifted not only from Barth to Bultmann, but also from systematic theology to biblical exegesis. Between 1920 and 1940 systematic theology mainly furnished the topics of discussion, such as the question of natural theology. The theological student chose his university primarily on the basis of the kind of systematic theology represented there: thus he went to Bonn to study dialectic theology under Barth, or to Erlangen to be taught neo-Lutheran theology by Paul Althaus and Werner Elert, or to Tübingen for Karl Heim, or to Zürich for Emil Brunner. Whereas before World War I there was the danger of theology’s being dissolved into philosophy and history of religion, these men had restored it as an important factor in the field of thought. Consequently the number of theological students rose impressively. Largely through these men the Church was enabled to assume a clear-cut position over against her adversaries, particularly against the oppressive measures of national socialism.

Following the German catastrophe of 1945 this theology had its great share in reorganizing the Church; the neo-Lutheran theology of W. Elert shaped—at least partially—the United Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany, and similarly the theology of Karl Barth left its imprint on the Evangelical Church of the Union. But the first theological topic which was commonly discussed after 1945 was put by exegesis: it was Bultmann’s program of demythologization! Bultmann himself had developed this program (without its eventual title) already in his essays and writings during the twenties; but while at that time it attracted limited attention, it now became widely debated, not only by theologians, but also by the general public. During the fifties the “Bultmann School” came to be one of the most influential factors in theological discussion; it is now represented in most of the West German theological faculties, and it has its own platform in the Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche.

In order to give a proper explanation to the prominence given to Bultmann and his school one must note also a parallel theological interest in Old Testament exegesis, centered particularly in the school around G. von Rad and M. Noth. The faculty in which G. von Rad was teaching attracted more students during the fifties than any other theological faculty in Germany. G. von Rad’s “Old Testament Theology” (Theologie des Alten Testaments) is rightly regarded as the most outstanding work of German theology since 1945. Each year there are more copies sold of the Neukirchener-Biblischen Kommentar zum Alten Testament, edited by this school, as well as of the new volumes of the Meyer Commentary, than were sold of any comparable work in ten years before the war! And only a very small percentage of these commentaries originates from the Bultmann school.

‘Reinterpreting’ Scripture

This overall picture of the situation provides a preliminary answer to the question: how could Bultmann’s influence outgrow Barth’s? Systematic theology in general was pushed into the background by biblical exegesis! And we must go on asking: how could that happen?

This process appears to me a good indication that the sola scriptura principle of the Reformation is still valid? The second decisive reason, however, was critical exegesis. We are gradually learning that the rise of historical research in Scripture during the eighteenth century has been, not a second Reformation, as is frequently said, but rather the most important theological event since the Reformation period. The terms of reference look very convincing at first glance: the body of literature incorporated in the Bible is to be scrutinized and exposed in exactly the same way as were other documents of the same time, namely, according to the principles of analogy, correlation, and criticism, to employ E. Troeltsch’s terms. But what does that mean? It means that the hermeneutical rule of the Reformation was abandoned, according to which Scripture was to be explained through Scripture, and Scripture again through faith in Christ! Thus Scripture is made the victim of the methods of modern autonomous science and of its underlying philosophical presuppositions! From the viewpoint of the history of thought, this was inevitable; for autonomous science had conquered step by step all areas of life since the day of the Renaissance. From the viewpoint of theology, however, this was at least partly necessary; for the biblical writings are real historical documents and the Son of God was born not only man, but a Jewish man of the first century. This is why historical Scripture research is necessary! But what was the result of this work? Historical Scripture research opened up to exegesis an invaluable treasure vault of philological and history-of-religion insights, but before World War I it ended in the so-called history-of-religion school (Religionsgeschichtliche Schule), by dissolving biblical exegesis into mere Religionsgeschichte. Original Christianity appeared as a branch of the Jewish or Hellenistic history of religion. Why it was still distinct from both could no longer be explained. Thus purely historical research had ultimately failed not only theologically, but also historically. This is why after World War I a change of attitude took place within historical research itself. Previously only those exegetes like J. Chr. K. Hofmann, J. T. Beck, and A. Schlatter, who stood somewhat removed from it, had pointed out that historical work with the Bible had to take the thinking of faith as its starting point, and not some philosophical ideology. Now, however, corresponding insights were perpetuated even within the circles engaged in historical research.

This happened through Barth and Bultmann. Both men had studied exegesis, not under A. Schlatter or Th. Zahn, but in the history-of-religion school, yet both of them discovered the limits of the “purely historical” exegesis. As a young Swiss pastor wrestling with the exegesis of Romans, Barth gained an insight which he expressed in the preface to his Commentary on Romans (1922): “The Epistle to the Romans will not be expounded, if you reproduce its contents historically as an objective observer; you will understand it only if, firstly, you will wrestle with it until the dividing wall between the first and the twentieth century will become transparent, until Paul himself will speak there and twentieth-century man will listen here, and secondly, until the dialogue between the document and its reader will be centered upon the matter itself.” This was the beginning of the most powerful movement within Continental twentieth-century theology! It was a courageous break away from the axioms of historical research. But has Barth really overcome it—or has he just shuffled it aside? His first principle, the principle of our being contemporary with Scripture, does not do full justice to its historical character. To state it simply: a truly theological exposition should not ask straightforward: what does the Epistle to the Romans say to me? But it rather has to ask the historical question first: what did Paul want to say to the Church at Rome? However, we can only answer this question—and this is the truth in Barth’s second principle—if we are captured by the same matter. It might, however, be that Barth looked at this matter too much with the eyes of Sören Kierkegaard. For these two reasons the exegetical meditations in Barth’s great Church Dogmatics, despite many deep theological thoughts, often deviate quite far from the verbal sense.

Because Barth only pushed historical Scripture research aside, instead of mastering it, its claim became all the more urgent after 1945. The impression spread that Barth, and basically also all the other systematic theologians, had not come to grips with the problems raised by historical Scripture research, and that their scriptural basis could not meet the challenge of modern exegesis. Over against this, Bultmann suggested an answer which honestly combined historical research and theological understanding of the Scriptures, and which offered a complete and overall theological system. In a different way from Barth’s, Bultmann gained distance from the history-of-religion school: he continued analyzing the texts historically, but at the same time he emphasized that the message of the biblical texts should not be described as an historical phenomenon, but should rather be interpreted. Bultmann contended that historical analysis ends up in mythical statements, while the proper sense has to be gained through existential interpretation. Here historical research was certainly taken into account, but apparently it was not dealt with in appropriate terms. The historical analysis and the philosophical principle of existential interpretation could rather be compared to two barriers which cannot be removed by means of a theological understanding of the text, but which limit such understanding. Exegesis is subject to these two principles just as Roman Catholicism is subject to the dogma of the church. The result is, to follow Luther, a similar “Babylonian Captivity”: historical results and philosophical thought-patterns become two walls barring the way toward an understanding of the text by faith. It is true that faith-rooted knowledge cannot ignore both, but we would have to grant it the possibility of coming to terms with both.

The present theological development thus finds its explanation through the decisive theological problems: Bultmann moved into the focus of theological discussion because he dealt with the most essential problem by which contemporary Protestant theology is being challenged—that is, the connection between historical Scripture research and theological exegesis; but he has gradually been losing the limelight these past two years, now that the solution offered by him is proving insufficient. Some additional factors supported this tendency. Since there was a vogue of self-criticism in post-1945 Germany, Bultmann’s critical attitude attracted many, but this criticism has led beyond him. Meanwhile German theological literature has also corrected not a few of his historical opinions and theories. Not only scholars adhering to other schools, like J. Jeremias and O. Cullmann, but also Bultmann’s own disciples and followers, have taken part in this revision from many sides. After 1945 new ways were explored for bringing the Gospel to people who sought it; Bultmann seemed to offer such a way, but his theology released no missionary power and brought the students adhering to it, once they had entered the ministry, into grave conflicts with what most church members held as their belief and confession.

What The Situation Demands

What, then, does this situation require?

1. We must not bypass historical Scripture research by simply returning to old-style dogmatics and exegesis! Speaking in the terms of church history, we cannot return to seventeenth-century orthodoxy or pietism; neither can we adapt their methods of exegesis. To mention just one example: we have to learn from historical Scripture research that “Son of Man” in the Gospels does not, as was commonly held from the second up to the eighteenth century, connote the human origin of Jesus, but that it is rather a term for Messianic dignity. During the last 20 years Roman Catholic theology, especially in Germany and France, has also adapted the methods of historical Scripture research!

2. However, when we engage in historical Scripture research, we must not forget what its 150-year-old history in Germany teaches us so clearly: the very moment when historical research stops merely collecting philological and historical material and starts explaining a biblical text, it becomes dependent on either the philosophical belief or the Christian faith of the scholar, basically even on both. Therefore historical research, whenever it aims at expounding Scripture, must go hand in hand with theological understanding! Certainly the field of history-of-religion research has grown so immensely in our days that there have to be certain specialists who engage, for example, in Qumran research or specific archaelogical problems; however, as long as these men do not go into theological reflections on the basis of the faith of the Church, they can merely furnish supplementary material towards the explanation of Scriptures; they cannot explain Scripture.

3. The crucial problem, and the question of life and death for a church which takes its stand on the scriptural principle, could be formulated as follows: in what way are historical research and theological understanding to be connected? Barth and Bultmann have both raised this question with much seriousness, but neither could offer a satisfactory solution; even A. Schlatter, whose commentaries are currently being translated into English, had found a better way in his day. In my opinion, we will have to seek for the solution in terms of the Reformers’ concept of the relationship between natural knowledge and the knowledge of faith. We must relate historical research (together with its underlying philosophical patterns of thought) and theological understanding to each other in a critical dialogue, in which the final word will lie with faith. Along this line we will have to make the principle of historical research, the analogia historica, subject to the principles of Scripture research as set forth by the Reformers, viz., the analogia fidei (analogy of faith) and the analogia scripturae sacrae (analogy of Holy Scriptures), and furthermore, we will have to adapt these principles in a new way.

It seems to me that this principle is already being put into practice, at least partially, in the method of Old Testament exegesis carried out by the group of theologians around G. von Rad. According to him, the Old Testament is properly explained only when there is an historical analysis which takes complete account of its relation to the world of the ancient East; but eventually it must be explained in the light of Jesus Christ, who is its end and its fulfillment. Accordingly, the New Testament is properly explained only when there is an historical analysis; but at the same time it must be understood by means of faith as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, as indeed the New Testament understood itself. This way, found in Julius Schniewind’s commentaries on Matthew and Mark, I endeavor to follow in my own studies and works.

It is significant that Bultmann and many representatives of his school are not able to gain a positive relationship to the Old Testament. Since they are not sufficiently aware of the reality of the living God, to whom the Old Testament witnesses and who is the Alpha and the Omega for the New Testament, they find themselves in a helpless position when it comes to dealing with certain central questions of the New Testament. Thus their historical analysis points out quite properly that Jesus has not directly fulfilled any of the Old Testament’s Jewish Messianic concepts, and they conclude that Jesus could not possibly have held himself to be the Messiah. It is little use when other scholars investigate the historical proof, and suggest that there must have been the concept of a suffering Messiah in Judaism, and that Jesus must have adapted it to himself. If, however, we relate this historical analysis to the understanding of faith in the light of the history of salvation, we see that the ministry of Jesus, viewed from the outside, was not and could not be Messianic. For he wanted to save the Faithful! Only he who believed and followed him could finally recognize: “Here is something greater than the temple,” greater than the prophets; here is, contrary to all evidence, the fulfillment (Matt. 11:2 ff.); for here the relationship to God becomes totally healed!

This example can clarify one thing: what we need in our situation are not some corrections of isolated single traits in Bultmann’s historical and theological concept, as they are presently being developed also in his own school. The only thing that could help would be to find a basically different way toward a solution of the central problem, by which the Church of the Word is being challenged in these days.

4. If it is true that the solution is to be looked for in the direction suggested above, then it will never come to us ready-made. Exegesis must enter into a constant dialogue between historical research and theological understanding, in course of which we must try constantly to renew our understanding of the biblical texts.

It will be the task of systematic theology, then, to confront the results of an exegesis, constructed from the acceptable methodical principles, with the theological tradition of the Church and with the philosophies and ideologies of our age. Systematic theology will then have to tell us what the binding teaching of the Church should be in our time, and help in its turn toward a further clarification of the presuppositions of exegesis, especially of the questions on faith and history, and of revelation and history. Systematic theology is not simply the extension of biblical theology; what is needed is a genuine dialogue between both disciplines.

The greater works of the past are seldom irrelevant to the present. In our own age of concern for unity, and of increasing ecumenical involvement with the Eastern Orthodox and Roman churches, this is particularly true of the famous Apology of the Anglican Reformer, John Jewel, which celebrates its four hundredth anniversary this year. This work enjoyed a European reputation in its day as representative of the whole Reformation position against Rome, and it was translated into several languages. Today, of course, it is little read. Nevertheless, the issues which it raises and the main points which it makes are no less apposite in our age than at the time of composition.

Unity And Authority

Jewel’s first concern is to rebut the charge that the Reformers are non-Catholic schismatics who destroy unity. This leads him to a discussion of the true norm of unity or catholicity. He finds it, not in obligatory conformity to a present organization and its authoritarian judgments, but in agreement with the doctrines and practices of the New Testament and their embodiment in the earlier patristic period. Judged by this standard, the Reformers are the true Catholics and the sixteenth-century Romanists are the eccentric innovators who destroy the only unity which really counts.

A second concern of Jewel derives naturally from the first. This was to establish the true standard or authority by which unity is to be evaluated. For Roman Catholics the one Catholic faith and order are decided not merely by Scripture, nor even by Scripture with the early fathers and councils, but also by tradition, by the teaching office, by decisions of Roman councils, and more recently by ex cathedra Papal pronouncements. Unity implies conformity to all these authorities. To Jewel, however, this is an impossible position. For one thing, the authorities are self-contradictory. In tradition and later councils there are things contrary to apostolic and patristic testimony. More basically, there are no good grounds on which to exalt the Roman authorities to parity with Holy Scripture. The early fathers and councils themselves acknowledge that they are bound by Scripture. Their witness is valuable to the extent that it agrees with what is found in the Bible. The truly catholic church is thus the church which is truly apostolic and therefore truly scriptural. All relative authorities in the church are subject to the absolute authority of Scripture and must be faithful to it.

Nor is Scripture authoritative merely because of its historical priority. This is important. We know what Christ said and did, and what the Church is meant to be, only through the biblical writers. Their work is the source and has normative value as such. Yet this is no ordinary source, nor are the apostles the mere inaugurators of a historical process. They are raised up by God, called by Christ and specifically endowed by the Spirit to do a particular work. Their work thus has a divinely imparted authority in and with its historical normativeness. To deviate from it is not just to introduce good or bad historical novelties; it is to diverge from the understanding and practice established by God himself. It thus involves fundamental aberration and disobedience, and cannot be justified by any lesser authorities, however valid in their own place.

Ecumenical Import

In terms of the modern ecumenical movement, the first value of Jewel’s work is that it enables us to see clearly the true nature and locus of disunity. Disunity is not just divergence from an institution. It is more than the competitiveness of two or more institutions. It goes beyond differences of opinion. As we are constantly told, it is a real sin. The sin, however, is not just to be disunited, nor is it just to be uncharitable or obstinate or supercilious as such. The sin is to be disunited from true apostolicity. We may introduce many relative standards in discussion of the issues of faith, order and practice which divide the churches. We may study historical circumstances of separation. We may evaluate the influence of conflicting trends, or the effects of nationality or personality. These things contribute to disunity and enable us to follow the process and apportion the responsibility. But they remain on the surface if taken in isolation. For ultimately the disunity which really counts, which is truly sinful, which demands investigation and which must he restored for true reunification, is departure from the apostolic standard. No ecumenical analysis which misses this issue, no discussion or plan which evades it, can bring the unity of the body of Christ which is so much desired and sought in the modern ecclesiastical world.

If this is so, however, then the central ecumenical issue is still that of the Reformation, namely, that of authority. Truly to know disunity we must measure what is by what should be. Truly to establish unity, we must bring what is into conformity with what should be. But to do this, we must have the norm by which to know what should be. Only the right standard can reveal disunity and help to unity. The wrong standard must inevitably breed disunity, prevent its basic understanding and hinder any attempts at its removal.

Modern Rationalism

Since the time of Jewel a new authority has come to dominate the Protestant world. This is reason. In some cases it may be hostile to Scripture, in others complementary, in others friendly; but always it claims superiority. Now reason is not to be despised. The Reformers, too, recognized that divine truth is not irrational, that the Logos is supremely logical, and that reason, purified and directed by the Spirit, has its own function. But reason alone or supreme makes an unfortunate master. It is anthropocentric, fallible and disruptive. It entails a clash of opinions which can be resolved only by compromise, relativism or abstraction. Little help is to be expected from it either in the profounder analysis of disunity or in approximation to true unity. Where reason is falsely enthroned, disunity is established.

In general, however, the promotion of reason as a supreme norm has been eccentric to the main development of the church. Neo-Protestant illusions should not blind us to the fact that this is still so today. The main challenge to Scripture has been, and is, from the related but rather different exaltation of tradition, the confessions, or the teaching office. This is not directly hostile to the Bible. Nor is it wrong in itself, for all churches can and should attribute some authority to their fathers, creeds, councils and authorized interpreters. The mischief enters when this relative authority is turned into an absolute alongside and finally above the Bible. As such it inevitably limits and muffles the authority of Scripture. And in so doing it forfeits its own pretended absoluteness, abandoning the solid truth of God to human change and novelty. It thus brings itself into inevitable conflict both with the Bible and with itself. The final result is the disunity of deviation from the apostolic norm, the forfeiture of any hope of true unity, and the probable attempt to impose a spurious counterfeit.

The Role Of Scripture

The only real hope for the ecumenical movement, or for the unity which it desires, is a return to real apostolicity in terms of the prophetic and apostolic authority of Scripture. This is a hard way. It involves a sharp and painful exposure of the real nature and ground of disunity. It makes compromise, evasion or self-complacency impossible. Yet it is an eminently fruitful way. It works back through the secondary complications to the solid ground which is common ground. It means the subjugation of all lesser authorities to the final norm, and therefore the overcoming of the differences, not by compromise, but by correction. It holds out hope for reconstruction in which the voices of the past are heard, and reason can do its proper work, but both positively and negatively the apostolic norm holds sovereign sway. It means the abandoning of unapostolic disunity in principle, and therefore the patient, humble, prayerful, obedience of faith in seeking the real unity which rests on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.

Whether those who absolutize secondary authorities will follow this Way, one cannot tell. If not, the ecumenical movement is an illusion indeed. Even if evoked by the Spirit, it resists the Spirit. It is thus left with no option but continuing disunity or false unity. Yet the circumstance of the day present the invitation to this hard but fruitful way as they did at the time of the Reformation. Within the ecumenical movement itself, there are the more perspicacious who see that this is the right way which is also the only way. And either within the ecumenical movement or outside it, evangelical theology has a special ability and responsibility to assist at this vital point. What is required of it is neither carping criticism nor the dialogue which aims at no more than harmonization. It is the positive presentation of a theology and practice which uncover the real issue and set a right example by their own faithful adherence to the apostolic norm. It is the patient but persistent discussion, in word or writing, which bores back insistently to the bedrock of apostolic authority. It is the achievement of such evangelical unity under the Word of God that the many variations in evangelical faith, order and practice may be discussed, not in terms of relative authorities alone, but supremely in submission to, and reformation by, the one authority which is the guarantee of real catholicity and therefore of solid and inviolable unity.

Acts 4:29 (RSV)

The Preacher:

John R. W. Stott has been since 1950 Rector of All Souls’, Langham Place, in the heart of London’s west end. After a distinguished career at Cambridge University, he was ordained in 1945. Appointed a. royal chaplain in 1959, he is also Chairman of the Evangelical Research Center at Oxford, and a frequent speaker at student conferences. Mr. Stott’s published works include Basic Christianity and Fundamentalism and Evangelism.

The Text:

And now, Lord, look upon their threats, and grant to thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness.

The Series:

This is the fourth in CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S series of sermons from the United Kingdom and Europe. Among the preachers scheduled for future issues are Jean Cadier, President of the Reformed Faculty at Montpellier, France; Charles Duthie, Principal of the Scottish Congregational College; G. C. Berkouwer, Professor in the Free University of Amsterdam; and Ermanno Rostan, Moderator of the Waldensian Church of Italy.

So began the persecution of the Christian Church. Since that clay it has never ceased. It continues unabated today.

Peter and John, after healing the lame man at the Beautiful Gate and preaching to the people, had been arrested, put in custody and brought to trial. The Supreme Jewish Council had forbidden them to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus, and when Peter and John quietly replied that they must obey God rather than men and that they could not help speaking of what they had seen and heard, the Sanhedrin further threatened them (whether with imprisonment, the dreaded scourging or death we are not told) and released them. Peter and John went straight to their Christian brethren to pray. It was a critical moment in the history of the infant Church. When Jesus had been arrested and tried, the disciples had all forsaken him and fled. And now the power of the enemy was turned on them. Would they falter and fail, or stand the test and hold firm?

In many parts of the world today the persecution of Christians is open and undisguised. Violent attempts are being made to stifle the Church’s witness. In Communist China the present experience of the Church has been exposed by Leslie Lyall in his book Come Wind, Come Weather, published by Hodder & Stoughton in 1961. He describes the subtlety of the indirect attack by the creation of the “Three-Self Reform Movement,” which is pledged to purge the Church of all “imperialist influence.” Disguised as a patriotic movement, it has woefully compromised the truth of God and is in fact a tool of the State. All who dare to disagree with it are publicly accused and imprisoned. In Nepal newly converted Christians have been thrown into prison because of their faith. In Germany recently the East German bishops were virtually prevented from attending the Tenth All German Congress of the Evangelical Church. These things are not far away. Do not let us imagine that we are safe in England, where the Communist domination of the Electrical Trade’s Union has shown us the great power of the Communist Party in this country. The Americans also have Cuba less than 100 miles from their coast to remind them. It is not in the least unlikely that within the next few years we shall have to undergo persecution for Christ.

Their Attitude To God

They trusted the sovereignty of God. The opposition of the authorities did not overthrow their Christian faith. They did not begin to doubt whether God was God. They did not complain against his providence or whine over their sufferings. No. They prayed. And as “they lifted their voices together to God” (v. 24), their hearts and minds were filled with the divine sovereignty.

They called God “sovereign Lord,” using the word despotes, which was used of the Roman emperors and slave owners and signified a sovereign and absolute rule. They also called themselves His slaves (v. 20). Moreover, the fact that Herod and Pilate, Gentiles and Jews, rulers and people, had been arrayed against Jesus did not frighten them. The enemies of God, who had been responsible for the death of Jesus, had only succeeded in doing “whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place” (v. 28). Twentieth century Christians have great difficulty with the doctrine of divine sovereignty and predestination, but the early Christians do not seem to have had. They held fast to it. They believed that God’s “never failing providence ordereth all things both in heaven and earth” (Collect for Trinity VIII). They did not deny either human responsibility or man’s freedom to choose, but they saw these things within the wider context of the over-ruling sovereignty of God. Herod and Pontius Pilate, Gentiles and Jews, rulers and people were free agents, who set themselves of their own purpose against the Lord and his anointed, and yet in so doing, they were accomplishing the very thing which God s hand and purpose had foreordained. The hands which killed Jesus were wicked and lawless, yet he was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). The same was true in their case; and they regarded the opposition of the world as under the controlling hand of God. What then was the source of their confidence? We must see how they qualified and elaborated the title “Sovereign Lord.”

1. They referred to creation. “Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them” (v. 24). God’s sovereignty is viewed first and foremost in his creative work. The whole universe and its contents (earth, sea and space) were brought into existence by the will of God. They owe their origin and continuance to the purpose and power of God. They have no inherent self-control; they are upheld by the authority of the living God. Only God depends for his being on himself; all things else come from him and depend on him. If we are tempted to doubt that the Most High rules in the kingdoms of men, and that he “orders all things both in heaven and earth,” then we need to do what these early Christians did and look at his work in creation. It is an easy step from faith in God as the Creator, to faith in him as the Sovereign Lord. It is this that we affirm in the Creed when we speak of God as the “almighty (i.e., All-Ruler), maker of heaven and earth.” That is, we state our faith in one who is ruler over all that he has made.

2. They referred to prophecy. In their prayer, the apostles spoke not only of what God had done (in creation), but also of what he had said (in Scripture); not only of his creative work, but of his prophetic word. “Sovereign Lord … who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit ‘Why did the Gentiles rage …’ ” (vv. 24, 25). This is a quotation from Psalm 2, in which God clearly foretold the raging and rebellious fury of the world against himself. Kings, rulers and people would conspire together saying, “Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us.” But the God who predicted the opposition of the world predicted also its final overthrow: “He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord has them in derision.… I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.”

This prophecy of the world’s opposition to God’s Christ had been historically fulfilled. In that very city of Jerusalem there had been a vile conspiracy of Gentile and Jew, leaders and people, against the anointed Son of God (v. 27). Yet the victory was not in the hands of God’s enemies. God has not abdicated his throne. His own purpose of love will ultimately triumph.

These assurances should bring us comfort. The most frightening fulminations of men against God and Christ should not alarm us. If opposition breaks over our heads in England and we are threatened with extinction, let us take fresh courage from the works and words of God, from the evidence of his sovereignty to be found in what he has made in the universe and what he has said in the Scripture.

Their Attitude To Their Persecutors

They preached the Word of God with boldness. We have seen that the apostles felt no bitterness in their hearts towards God, and complained against neither his love nor his wisdom. But what about their attitude towards their persecutors? Did they show resentment towards them or seek to take revenge? Did they plot against their enemies as their enemies had plotted against Christ and them? Or did they run away and seek safety in the hills and caves of Judaea or Galilee? No. They did none of these things. They stayed at their post, although it meant imprisonment and scourging for some, and death for others, and they prayed for boldness to preach.

How positive they were! They were not content just to grit their teeth, to stay and stick it out. They loved their enemies, and desired the eternal good of their persecutors. They longed to see them won for Christ and saved by him for ever. They thirsted not for the destruction, but for the salvation, of their foes. They wanted them to hear the Gospel, to embrace it and to enjoy its innumerable benefits. So they prayed for utterance, for freedom of speech and courage to preach the word.

And God answered their prayers. The place where they were assembled was shaken. They were all filled anew with the Spirit, and in the power of the Spirit they preached the word of God with boldness. Moreover, as they went forth, the Holy Spirit confirmed the word with signs following. These supernatural signs attending the ministry of the apostles (healings and other miracles) are probably the exception rather than the rule today. But the Spirit still can, and does, confirm the word with his own inner testimony, if not with outward signs.

In the book Come Wind, Come Weather which I have already mentioned, and in which Leslie Lyall gives an account of the present condition of the Church in China, he tells in one of his chapters the moving story of the Rev. Wang Ming-tao, whom he appropriately calls “Mr. Valiant-for-Truth.” Mr. Wang was the pastor of a church in East Peiping, actively engaged in the ministry of preaching and writing. When the Communists captured Peiping, he continued his ministry without fear. In 1951 he wrote these words in his magazine Spiritual Food Quarterly, as the opposition of the Three-Self Reform Movement was growing: “… the one who faithfully preaches the Word of God cannot but expect to meet opposition.… I know that this will come to pass. I am prepared to meet it. I covet the courage and faithfulness of Martin Luther.…” and he quotes one of his prayers. In 1954 Mr. Wang suffered the ordeal of a vast public accusation meeting. But still he continued without fear. In 1955 he wrote in a pamphlet: “We are ready to pay any price to preserve the Word of God, and we are equally willing to sacrifice anything in order to preach the Word of God.… Dear brothers and sisters, let us be strong through the mighty power of the Lord.… Don’t be cowards! Don’t be weary! Don’t give way! Don’t compromise! The battle is indeed furious and the battlefield certainly full of dangers; but God’s glory will be manifest there.… My dear brothers and sisters, let us follow in the steps of the Lord, and, holding aloft His banner, go forward courageously for His Gospel’s sake.”

That was, I think, in May 1955. On August 7, 1955, Mr. Wang preached his last sermon on “the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners,” with reference to the betrayal of Christ by the Three-Self Reform Movement. That night at 1 A.M. he was roused from sleep by the police. They bound him with ropes and took him to prison—“Mr. Valiant-for-Truth.”

Some Helpful Suggestions

Down the Christian ages persecution has too often caught the people of God unprepared. We need to get ready. Let me make three suggestions.

1. We need a deeper confidence in the sovereignty of God. The whole world is in the grip of a vast convulsion. The old order is passing away with bewildering speed. Nothing is secure or certain in the future. Our greatest need is a quiet, serene, unshakable confidence in the sovereignty of God. So we must meditate on the revelation which God has given of himself in his works and in his word, in nature and Scripture, until we are still and know that he is God, exalted among the nations, exalted in the earth. Then no catastrophe can shake us.

2. We need a deeper experience of the Spirit of God. A persecuted Church cannot stand in its own strength or survive by its own power. It will be engulfed, its life stifled and its witness smothered, apart from the power of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps our desperate need in the Church today of the fullness of the Holy Spirit will only come home to us when we are driven to it by the violent opposition of the world.

3. We need a deeper knowledge of the Word of God. If the day comes when we are forbidden to preach or teach in the name of Jesus, we cannot obey. The world can persecute the Church, but it must not be allowed to silence it. Our backs may be against the wall, but our mouths must remain open in testimony. But what would happen if they took the Scriptures from us, or if the Edict of Diocletian in A.D. 303 was re-enacted and all our Scriptures were ordered to be burned or confiscated? We must prepare soberly and sensibly for this eventuality too. We need to store God’s Word in our hearts, meditating on it, memorizing it. digesting it, until it is so much part of us that it cannot be taken away from us. They may take God’s Book out of our hands, but they cannot take his Word out of our hearts. So, if the storm breaks, we shall continue by grace to trust his Sovereignty and preach his Word.

A Poem

I

The age is a bastard

Born without a father to know,

Denying both its own being

And mine.

II

Melon-shaded light to read

The word from Logos-place

Is not enough. Melon-shaded,

Amber-shaded, dulcet, scarlet,

Jaded is not enough.

Spirit is enough.

III

I peeled the skin from my cheeks in a great spiral

As from a ripe orange. This is self-effacing.

I pulled shiny beads in a great shuffle

As on an abacus. This is self-negating.

I paraded God about on a silver chain

As one would a pet. This is self-piety.

God plucked me out of the grave

When I was corrupt with death and He breathed

A breath into me. And I live.

A. FRANKLIN GOODRICH

The sole objective of Communism is world domination through world revolution. On this foundation Marx based his economic and political philosophy. This objective directed every move of Lenin’s strategy and justified every act of his treachery. Mr. Khrushchev’s statements have never renounced this position nor has his conduct in international relations basically altered the Marx-Lenin procedure.

The official membership of the Communist Party is small, possibly 7 million in Russia and only 2 percent of the population in Red China. Yet in every particular it directly controls the lives of 900 million people.

Communism wants nothing of coexistence with us in the free world. Communism wants us—all that we are, all that we have. It wants you in complete submission to its authority; whatever it agrees to temporarily is but intended to achieve this ultimate purpose. It is not, therefore, the people of Russia or of Red China that we need to fear. Rather, it is Communism’s domination and the use of these people to gain control over our way of life, our resources, and us. Red China alone has fomented six wars and rebellions in other countries. So long as Red China is able to do this, Russia can afford to make deals which immobilize us in helping free nations to remain free and slave nations to revolt. Such was certainly the tragic case with Hungary. This strategy has divided Korea and undermined Tibet. It also may explain Red China’s continued castigation of the United States despite Mr. Khrushchev’s public warning against such outbursts.

However, not all the factors determining the direction of world affairs are on Khrushchev’s side. We have acted, regrettably, as if they were. Unfortunately, too, we have given him the advantage of the offensive.

What kind of world we shall live in depends on us. How accurately we appraise Communism, and what we are willing to do about it both in service and in sacrifice to secure for ourselves and for others the right to self-determination, will define the nature of our world and of our security.

Communism Is Not Moral

Before making agreements with Russia, the free world must ask: “How good is Communism?” To date we seem to be answering this question in terms of its military strength, industrial production, scientific invention, and mass education. These facts are but secondary. The main consideration is ethical. What character, what kind of personality the moral philosophy of Communism produces should determine the trustworthiness of Communism and our evaluation thereof. The Communists’ standard of action reveals their measure of integrity and tells us with what we must deal. Chesterton once observed that when you rent a room to someone, the real question to ask is not where he works or how much money he has, but rather, what is his philosophy of life. This advice could apply to nations also.

The basic question then, whether Mr. Khrushchev gives a watch to a worker, calls for universal disarmament, or speaks of peaceful competition in coexistence, is first and always the philosophy to which he is completely committed. The concept of “this jolly old Nikita” dare not fool us about the real Khrushchev. As Editor Ralph McGill of the Atlanta Constitution said, “Remember when Khrushchev turns on the charm that he also heads a police state.” Read Marx and Lenin alongside the current news releases. World revolution, world domination by any means, has been Khrushchev’s training school. He is committed to the very same tactics. Remember he vowed to bury our system of free enterprise. Remember that in advocating trade agreements, he is not embarrassed to repudiate a $2,600,000,000 indebtedness to the United States. Remember Communism’s endorsement of slave labor that incarcerates even now at least 12 million in Russian labor camps alone. When you think of your future and that of your children, remember Marx’s concept of man as a producing animal. Don’t ignore what Overstreet said and verified, that “during 40 years of existence the USSR has set a world’s record for breaking pacts.” Remember Zinoviev’s words on treaty making which Communist leaders have never repudiated, “We are willing to sign an unfavorable peace because it would only mean that we should use the breathing space obtained to gather strength.” Remember the nonaggression pacts signed with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and what happened to all three in Russia’s “Little-Red-Ridinghood” act. Remember the 50 out of 52 agreements with Korea which the Reds have flouted and broken.

These facts are but several illustrations of Dr. John Bennett’s conclusion in Christianity and Communism: “The only ethical test they (Communists) recognize is whether or not it serves the Communist cause, which in turn bears out Lenin’s principle that ‘there is room in life only for those who are not troubled by virtue’.” We dare not stake our whole future on Russia’s present “good faith,” nor pay in advance for some eventual delivery of goods. Russia favors a “negotiation in crisis” strategy: point one, create a crisis; point two, make demands; point three, offer to negotiate. The result? A compromise in Russia’s favor. By agreement we surrender what is ours; by agreement they get what was never theirs. With such strategy nothing ever gets properly nor finally settled. Reopened hostilities are a constant threat under such “blackmail” conditions. Take the Berlin situation, for example. Establishing peace is not Communism’s chief concern. Rather, Communists want to maneuver themselves into a position where, if necessary, they can wage a successful war to gain control of Berlin. Conferences, therefore, either go on endlessly or end in stalemate.

Rejection Of The Idea Of God

Communism’s rejection of all forms of historical religion is thoroughgoing and final. It is atheistic in theory. More than this, Communism is committed to the destruction of all historical religion as rapidly as circumstances permit because religion, as we define it, is incompatible with Communism and a hindrance to its goals. Like Marx, all subsequent Communistic leaders have evaluated and treated the individual as a producing animal. That man exists merely to work for the State (the Communist doctrine) contrasts sharply with the Christian view, where man, as God’s child, stands in personal relationship to his Creator and yields to him his ultimate allegiance. Obviously if Communism is to survive, it must declare war on historic religion. Lest we think that Communism has softened its attitude toward religion, we need only to read what Dr. I. Krivilov, Communism’s prominent philosopher, said about Canterbury’s Red dean, Dr. Hewlett Johnson’s attempt to reconcile Communism and Christianity. Writing in Kommunist, the Party magazine, Dr. Krivilov said, “When such prominent figures as Hewlett Johnson state that dialectical materialism can coexist with Christianity, notwithstanding our high esteem for this outstanding man, we must show him the groundlessness of his thesis.”

Militant Against Christian Principles

Atheism in Communism is militantly committed to eradicating Christianity. As an instrument of destruction it is no less powerful than Russia’s nuclear weapons. Atheism destroys the moral and ethical principles of Christianity as a basis for man’s action, removes his sense of guilt when Christian principles are violated, and honors the man who repudiates them. Atheistic Communism takes complete charge of educating a man’s children. It makes him responsible only to the State which in Russia’s situation is the Party. It finally and summarily destroys his manhood.

While we may deplore atheism, in America we at least proceed on the principle of freedom in religion and the right to think. In Russia such right to think has no place whatever. To avoid persecution and to receive rewards, the individual must think and act only according to the Party line. At this point we should warn Americans that many evidences of such militant atheism are appearing in the United States. Apparently it is finding ways to use the law and its current interpretation to deny Christians full exercise and development of their basic rights and of their Christian philosophy of life. When some law permits a small minority to deny a large community the right to have a house of worship, or permits one school child averse to hearing Scripture or prayer, which are the common possession of both Christian and Jew, to cancel that right for all other children, then we see militant and destructive atheism at work.

Communism uses an immoral and unethical basis for its negotiations, while quite aware that the Western world operates on the morality and ethics of historic religion, believes that agreements must be kept, and considers human rights as paramount. For Communism, the end justifies the means. Winning is the main thing; whatever advances the cause is right, be it deception, murder, violation, or repudiation of agreements.

Why Christianity and Judaism cannot be tolerated in a political system which operates on this principle must be quite apparent. Obvious, too, in her negotiations is Russia’s abuse of the fact that free nations recognize the Christian ethic as foundational to a better world.

Russia has been very clever in deceiving the outside world about the real conditions inside her boundaries. For one thing, the tourist is shown only what Russia wants him to see. And if he sees a church it will be a full one. We get a truer picture of what Russia is doing to the Church when we realize that for the 3 million Jews—conditions are such that they can no longer worship on Saturday—less than 200 synagogues with only 60 rabbis are permitted; that in Moscow, a city of 5.4 million, there are two Baptist churches, 33 Greek Orthodox churches, two synogogues, and one Moslem temple (U.S. News & World Report, Oct. 26, 1959). By way of comparison this equals 14 churches for all Philadelphia, a city of 2,500,000 inhabitants. The same pattern of attrition is operating in Red China. All churches, furthermore, function under civil, not ecclesiastical, authority.

Justice W. O. Douglas of the United States Supreme Court has recorded his findings in a hook titled Russian Journey. Mr. Douglas found no religious groups on the university campuses. The Communist Party, he was told, does all the educational work and supplies enough activities to keep the student busy without religion. Youth is taught that religion is evil and that atheism is the true faith. Religion, it was indicated, is for old people, for those too old to shake off their capitalistic philosophy. Soviets, according to Mr. Douglas, have confiscated all church property and demand 13 per cent of all church revenues. Church buildings are often desecrated by their use as cinemas, museums, and warehouses. What’s more, since in Russia the church has no legal standing, it cannot defend its property and other rights. “The State has destroyed the pulpit,” says Mr. Douglas. No church member can qualify for membership in the Communist Party, and without party membership it is impossible to secure public office or even any significant advance or promotion. The clergy dare not speak for social justice, and are so muzzled they can give only prescribed and stock answers to queries about religious freedom. To complain brings accusation of subversion or counter-revolutionary activities. To discredit Christianity, the propaganda ministry of atheistic Communism has taken pictures of Christ and hung them in Communist museums with the inscription, “A Jewish Fortune-teller.” Another portrays Christ among four horseman trampling down the people. Still another shows St. Christopher with the head of a horse. In one museum Mr. Douglas also saw a picture of drunken priests and nuns carousing together. The campaign against religion is an incessant one, he concludes, and aimed at Moslems as well as at Jews and Christians.

Because destruction of religion is a weapon used to destroy people’s confidence in the Western Powers, should not our free nations insist on real religious, as well as political, freedom as a quid pro quo for concessions which Communism seeks? In Tibet, the U.N. Commission discovered 65,000 Tibetans butchered, a military attempt to destroy national and racial groups, and an organized, ruthless campaign to stamp out Buddhism as a religion and to sack Buddhist shrines and buildings of their treasures. The hope of establishing common basis of morality and ethics on which to form trustworthy agreements is a religious problem. The “religion” of Russia still justifies slave labor for millions of people, and, according to a House of Representatives Committee report, in the last decade Red China has perpetrated 30 millions of political murders.

Significance Of Khrushchev

No movement or government is better than its leaders. When you ask, “How good is Communism?” you must therefore seek the answer in the character and conduct of its present officials. No competent observer will deny that from the beginning this leadership has been intelligent, shrewd and clever. These qualities, devoid of moral safeguards, explain Communism’s domination.

Khrushchev’s visit to the United States was intended to leave the impression that he is a different kind of Communist leader. While he became known not as jolly old Nikita” but as shrewd and clever “jolly old Nikita,” it appeared he would not push as hard and as far as his predecessors for world domination.

Is there any real evidence to support this hope? Many say Khrushchev is different from his predecessors. He is said to be easier to deal with and morally better, too. Khrushchev has murdered fewer political opponents than did Stalin, and is said to prefer the less devastating pattern of leadership as seen in Lenin. What are the real facts?

Coming to power through the promise of an election which he never permitted (Overstreet), Lenin achieved dictatorship by what is known in Communist procedure as the “big lie technique.” He then proceeded to increase that power by a worldwide strategy of conspiracy, evasion, and subterfuge. It was Lenin who propounded the principle that tactical collaboration with the enemy should be so designed as to disorganize the free world and to stregthen the forces of revolution. In his strategy, negotiation was never intended to settle anything but was to be used to weaken the enemy and to gain unfair advantage. Peace for Lenin and for Khrushchev as well is “a non-shooting phase of the permanent revolution.”

While in the United States, Khrushchev was actually subjecting us to a brain-washing operation of indoctrination and softening up. According to the surveys, he succeeded more or less with 13 per cent of our people. Whenever convictions and disciplines are weakened, and confusion and dissension set in, Communism is at work. Before we accept Khrushchev, therefore, we should insist on knowing exactly what he means by what he says. He may well be counting on the fact that by and large American businessmen, educators, clergymen and citizens will not insist upon such a translation.

When we decide how to evaluate Khrushchev’s proposal for disarmament, we should certainly be governed by all the immoral factors which constitute the true nature of Communism. While it was Khrushchev who enunciated the doctrine, it was really of Lenin’s making. The basis for good faith on which it was offered is no different from that by which Russia justified the violation of 50 agreements in respect to Korea. Khrushchev’s proposal sounds strangely similar to the Stockholm peace offer which would outlaw all atomic weapons as instruments of aggression; submit atomic weapons to strict international control; and brand as a war criminal any government that initiates use of such weapons against another. By omission, innuendo, and emphasis, this policy formulating leadership cast Western Powers in the role of would-be aggressors, but suggested no criticism whatever of Soviet policy. It said nothing about Stalin’s breaking of treaties and his conversion of East European countries into Soviet satellites. It held out against inspections and made numerous “promises” until the Western Powers complied with Soviet stipulations.

Words That Lie

It is extremely important that Americans know how Communists interpret and use certain key words. Communists, for whom Mr. Khrushchev is the spokesman, assume we will not be aware of or understand their double talk. We are indebted to Think magazine and to Mr. Edward Hunter, an authority on Red China, for the true definitions of these key words which Communists use in the Cold War to disarm us. We must always assume, indicates Mr. Hunter, that the Communist gives his words a meaning which best serves the purposes of psychological warfare. Thus “good in Communism means what is good for Communism, and “bad,” what is bad for Communism. “Truth” is whatever backs up the Communist line; whatever contradicts it is a lie, regardless of the facts. “Law” to the Reds is any regulation or order of the police or Party which governs only the accused; the authorities may uphold or disregard it according to the Party’s advantage. It is possible to be accused of a crime that violates a nonexistent law. And the “crime” could supposedly have happened generations ago. Linder terms of this “historic crime,” if the Reds took control of the United States, for example, every citizen could be punished for not helping in this endeavor. Two of the biggest lies ever perpetrated by any government, says Mr. Hunter, are those of the Moscow-Peiping axis: 1. that the United States engaged in germ warfare in Korea, and 2. that North American nuns attached to orphanages in China systematically murdered their infant charges.

“Peace” means simply the cessation of all opposition to Communism. “Struggle” is the Communists’ word for the war they wage until a Communist peace is achieved. “Unity” means submission to the Communist discipline. “War” means any resistance or attack on Communism. “Aggression” means any armed conflict against the Reds, even one of defense. “People” refers not to human beings as such, but only to followers of Communism. To say the people do not like something, as in Pasternak’s case, means the Party does not like it. When Communists mean “people” in our sense, they use the word “masses.”

By “coexistence” we mean live and let live. The Reds, however, mean thereby not interfering with Communist activity and expansion outside the Communist bloc. A “treaty” is binding only so long as it is of advantage to the Communist bloc. The Korean War truce is an example of this interpretation. To be pro-Communist is to be “liberal.” To be “tolerant” means to accept Red teachings; in other words, tolerance, as we know it is quite illegal for Communists. With such fraudulent language as a barrier, it is apparent there can be no real meeting of minds between us and the Communists.

Mr. Hunter exposes also the Communist trade double talk, something which every American businessman needs to understand. Trade to us is something non-political. For Communists, however, trade is that exchange which supports Soviet Russian economy and facilitates political control. In such an exchange Communism reaps most, if not all, the benefits. Thus its “economic warfare” becomes a major channel in subverting the free world. Merchants are rivals classified from a political point of view. In Burma, for instance, Peiping sold Japanese articles cheaper than they could be bought in Japan. The Communists had obtained them by barter as part of the Red China drive to prevent Japan’s development of natural markets in South Asia. In Thailand, Red China sold goods for less than the customs duties. A contract in Communist language binds only the non-Communist side. Our businessmen, therefore, need to recognize that with the Communists no security in contractual relations is possible.

On the basis of this information, are we to isolate ourselves from all relationship with a part of the world whose record has destroyed our faith in its integrity? Not at all! Let us continue to negotiate, if this delays a shooting war. Time is usually on the side of the democracies, so long as the Soviets postpone any action. But we must conduct our conferences realistically, with all the facts clearly in mind. Even at great personal sacrifice, we must meet the cost of maintaining material and military strength, but above all, of our spiritual principles and resources. We must use every opportunity to state our position and to win supporters for our cause. At all times, and especially now, “Eternal vigilance is still the price of our liberty and freedom.”

More people enjoy political freedom today than ever before. In Africa alone 26 free nations have emerged in recent years. Yet, paradoxically, never have so many felt caught in the grip of powers they cannot control. The criminal is regarded as the victim of his environment, the business man of unethical demands of “the corporation,” the laborer of his union, and everyman the victim of the powers of the subconscious mind. The alcoholic and the homosexual are the unfree persons caught in the web of uncontrollable physical or psychological forces; and the clergyman compromising his prophetic voice is regarded as the benign victim of the not-to-be-denied demands of eccleciasticism. Men sing “what will be will be.” Lovers riding a stream of passion claim: This is bigger than both of us. And if one escapes these, he is in any event caught in the meshes of a historical necessity which leaves him no choice but to see his free, capitalistic Western way of life plowed under by communism. Never were so many people politically free, yet hopelessly tossed as a leaf by inexorable winds of economic, psychological, historical, biological, and social forces.

False sovereigns have moved in to make puppets of those who have surrendered faith in a sovereign God. Against these modern impersonal sovereignties, Christians proclaim a God who is both Father and sovereign. On this they are in common agreement, though they differ in their definitions of sovereignty. Some define it as causality, making God the cause of everything, of war and peace, of sin and goodness. This view is the peculiar temptation of the philosopher, but it is alien to authentic Christian experience since it cannot be translated into prayer and worship. In moments of authentic Christian experience not even the speculative theologian of prayer or worship can entertain the idea that God is the cause of sin.

Others have isolated God’s sovereignty from his moral qualities and define it as unqualified, absolute power, a power that can do anything. This view is so indistinguishable from the arbitrary power of the Moslem’s Allah, that no thinking Christian can long subscribe to it. It ought to be remembered that the Reformers defined sovereignty not in isolation from, but in relation to, divine grace. They were not interested merely in abstract and speculative sovereignty, but in the sovereignty of grace.

In this the Reformers were in the tradition of the Apostles’ Creed where the almighty power and the fatherhood of God are professed in the same breath. Indeed, God is first professed as “Father,” and afterwards as “Almighty,” by which sequence the early Church indicated that it is precisely as Father that God is sovereign. The Creed, accordingly, asserts that as the almighty, he is the Father, that is, the maker of heaven and earth.

By creating the world God reveals the nature of his sovereignty through fatherhood. Sovereignty is might plus right. Through his creation of the world, God expresses both his right and might to share his existence and beatitude with man. As “Father, Almighty,” he expresses his freedom to share his life and glory with another, and thus his freedom not to do so, if he so wills. Thus the grace of God in creation—as also in his recreation of the sinner—Christians speak of as the “free” grace of God. This grace cannot be purchased. It is also free in the sense that man cannot demand or claim it as his right. God remains ever free to grant, or to withhold, as it pleases him.

This understanding of God’s fatherly right and might to share himself, his life and joy with man expresses the heart of the Gospel, and comports with authentic Christian experience. Such sovereignty is capable of translation into Christian prayer and worship. It prompts the worship of Him who is able and willing to call us into the joy of his presence, into the beauty and fellowship of his divine life. Such sovereignty is the hope of the saint, who though burdened by sin, yet dares to make the courageous request that God forgive his sins. He dares to be so bold since he knows that God has the might and the right to do so. It is also the hope of the lost, since his salvation is ever possible if God is ever the sovereign Father who has the right and the might to receive him back into his presence. Such sovereignty can be translated into the prayer and worship of the saint, and into the cry of the lost who call upon the name of the Lord to be saved.

The God who as sovereign Father has the might and the right to give himself even to sinful man is man’s only hope against the false sovereignties which tyrannize modern man. ’Tis better to be under a sovereign Father who is free for man, than under the impersonal and irrational modern sovereignties to whom appeal cannot be made. Since they are not themselves free, they are not free to help others.

Hans Urs Von Balthasar, along with men like Jean Danielou, Henri de Lubac and others, is one of the more prominent representatives of the “new theology” wing of the Roman Catholic Church. He is famous for a great number of publications, not the least of which is his important work on Karl Barth, to say nothing of a more recent book about Martin Buber, George Bermanos and Karl Barth. Von Balthasar leaves no doubt about his love and respect for the Roman Catholic Church. But there is also no doubt that his sober and even critical views of Roman tradition stem from his profound study of the Bible and his contact with Reformed theology and his fellow Baselian Dr. Barth.

Like other figures in the “new theology” movement, he feels that the development of Roman theology, especially since Trent, has been crippled by an attitude of reaction. This reactionary stance has, in Von Balthasar’s thinking kept Roman theology from seeing the fullness of the Catholic faith. He seeks, in his own way, to develop a consistent Christocentric theological viewpoint. It is this that has kept the door open for a rich personal and theological dialogue between Von Balthasar and Barth.

Barth, as everyone knows, has kept up a steady criticism of the Roman church, particularly for its serious sympathy with the natural man, natural theology, natural law, etc. But Von Balthasar wants to show that at heart Rome is not concerned with natural man and natural law as things in themselves, but from a basically Christological concern. We may say that when one genuinely seeks to do this, as in the case of Von Balthasar, he is bound to view any static theological tradition in a critical light and is equally bound to bring everything into a clearer evangelical perspective.

Recently Von Balthasar published the first volume of a triology on Beauty, beauty in the theological sense. This volume is on Glory. He seeks to show that the Beauty of God is diminished by theology whenever theology becomes a neat package of true propositions and practical statements. The quality of amazement is choked out of theology when theology becomes a system in which one has the truth in his complete control. In this respect, too, Von Balthasar manifests his sympathy with Barth. For Barth likewise has had a great deal to say about theologies which have lost the sense of the beauty of God, a loss which too long has empoverished both the church and its theology.

Theological reflection has indeed to do with “the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God” (Rom. 11:33), with the riches of Christ’s wisdom which, “if they could be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). I have thought about an expression in Psalm 50 as I read Von Balthasar’s book, the phrase which goes, “Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined.”

Von Balthasar’s book is unapologetically Roman Catholic. But it is a great work of a brilliant theologian warning us against superficiality, against rationalistic theology, against every temptation to reduce the mystery of God to a human vision.

Back in 1917 Rudolph Otto wrote his famous book, The Idea of the Holy, in which he too called attention to the element of mystery in man’s apprehension of God. Now, about 40 years later, Von Balthasar’s work appears, also seeking, without Otto’s mysticism, to lay full emphasis on the “mystery of godliness,” God manifest in the flesh, and the truth that in Christ “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9). In spite of much decisive difference between it and Reformed theology, we have in this book a witness to the glory of God that is of great significance not only for theology but for preachers of the Gospel as well.

Von Balthasar sets before us the question whether we are, in our preaching, facing men with the “Glory of God” and the great deeds of God, with the love of Christ “which passeth knowledge,” the love of him who “can do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think” (Eph. 3:19, 20). Against all the horrible superficiality of rationalism, a thing which can invade Christian theology, it is wonderful to be reminded once again of the glory of the Gospel. Before the judgment of human thought, the Gospel remains foolishness. Before the judgment of pure aesthetics, such as that of the Greeks, the Cross is ugly. But “the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1:25). The theology of our century depends on whether we have understood anything of this or whether we still depend for the glory of the truth of God upon our own rational predications.

We must watch out that we do not attempt to lock up the truth in our little systems. We must open the windows and keep them open so that we are always reminded that our talking and thinking must have something of Job in them. Recall Job saying of God that “he hangeth the world upon nothing” and adding, “Lo, these are parts of his ways, but how little a portion is heard of him but the thunder of his power who can understand?” (Job 26:14).

Job was speaking of the power of God, but the same thought is relevant for what Paul calls the “weakness” of God. Church and theology must always remember that they are not talking about important truths and practical wisdom of men. They are talking about the mysteries of Godliness. The men of both the chancel and the academy must capture something of the demeanor of the disciples of our Lord on their way to the city. “And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them and they were amazed” (Mark 10:32).

God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8).

I shall have nothing new to tell you. The message will be as old as the everlasting hills, and so simple that a child can understand. God’s commendation of himself and his love is not in words, but in deeds. Now for that mighty act whereby God commendeth his love. The truth here is twofold.

I. The First Commendation. “Christ died for us.” Note here both the Person and the deed. When men first sinned the angels felt helpless. No one of them could have dreamed that God himself would assume flesh and die. If you would have right ideas of God in splendor, think how he best commended his love for us, in that he gave his Son.

When Christ became man for a while he stripped himself of the glories of the Godhead. He gave us a perfect example by his spotless life. But the commendation of love lies here: He died for us. All that death could mean Christ endured. For as many of you as have not yet believed I pray that you may look to him for the expiation of all your guilt, as the key that opens heaven to all believers.

II. The Second Commendation. He died for us while we were yet sinners. Consider how many of us have been continual sinners, not once, nor twice, but ten thousand times, in our outward acts, the thoughts of our hearts, and the words from our mouths. Again, he has died for us though our sins were aggravated. When you sin against the convictions of your conscience, the warnings of your friends, the admonitions of your minister, you sin more grossly than others do. The Hottentot sinneth not as the Briton doth. But do not despair. Christ died for you.

Reflect again. We were sinners against the very Person who died for us. There is an old tradition that the man who pierced Christ’s side was converted. My master said, “Begin at Jerusalem,” because there lived those who had crucified him, and he wanted them saved.

There is this other commendation of love. Unasked, he died for us. God’s amazing work surpasses thought. Love itself died for hatred. Holiness did crucify itself to save sinful men. Unasked for and unsought, like a fountain in the desert, sparkling spontaneously with its healing waters, Christ came to die for men who would not seek his grace.

Sinner, I commend Christ to thee for this reason: thou needest him. A day is coming when thou wilt feel thy need of him. Dost thou believe there is a hell, and that thou are going thither? Let me tell you how to be saved. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” To believe is to give up trusting in self and to trust in Christ as thy Saviour. “What,” you say, “no good works?” Works will follow after, but first come to Christ, not with good works, but with thy sins.

Remember the striking words of Martin Luther: “Satan once came to me, and said, ‘Thou art lost, for thou art a sinner.’ Then said I, ‘I thank thee for telling me I am a sinner. If Martin Luther is a sinner, Christ died for me’.” Canst thou lay hold on that, by the authority of God? Even if thou be the chief of sinners, thou shalt be saved, if thou believest.

Sermons of the Rev. Charles H. Spurgeon, second series, Sheldon and Co., New York, 1865. The Preface is dated January, 1857. Sermon, “Love’s Commendation” (pp. 410–425).

Liberty, Law And License

CHRIST AND FREEDOM—We owe the entire conception of freedom as a human birthright to the coming of Christ. Until that time “absolutism held unbounded sway,” to use the phrase employed by Lord Action in his study of Freedom in Antiquity. Slavery was the universal condition of the great majority of mankind and was nowhere regarded as an improper social order. Even the Greek civilization, at its finest flowering, was based on slavery. It was the same with the Hebrews, to whom we also owe so much. A formal recognition of slavery introduces the long calendar of minute ordinances listed in Exodus 21, 22, and 23.…

The great problem of politics is how to reconcile the theoretically desirable condition of freedom with the fundamentally essential condition of order. Establishment of Christianity provided the formula whereby this difficult adjustment could be made. The devout Christian ipso facto led a law-abiding life. So laws forbidding offenses which we would not in any case commit were, in his case, superfluous. As the number of Christians multiplied, law enforcement, wherever they concentrated, thus became easier. The moral argument for slavery, resting on the assumption that the common man is untrustworthy, lost its validity, the more so because the particular appeal of Christianity was to the oppressed.…

This thesis that liberty is a human birthright … made headway slowly, and only among people with centuries of organized Christian experience behind them. For the same reason the concept of liberty will weaken, and eventually disappear, wherever and whenever men place their faith in political rulers rather than in God.

Americans are singularly fortunate in having the New Testament as the wellspring of their political thought. On the virgin soil of what is now the United States it was not utopian to plan a governmental system actively conducive to Christian practise.”—FELIX MORLEY, “Freedom and the Laity,” (1961), published by the General Division of Laymen’s Work, National Council of the Episcopal Church.

CONFUSION ON RIGHTS—President Kennedy’s message on protecting consumers drives the last nail in the coffin of the quaint notion, once expressed by Mr. Kennedy, that the citizen should ask, not what his country can do for him, but what he can do for the country.

A quick review does not reveal that the President has as yet proposed that the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Medical Association should be brought under the sheltering wing of the Federal Government. But he has spread Uncle Sam’s umbrella far enough to cover just about every other group in the country—the farmers, the aged, the workers, the students, the urbanites, and now that most comprehensive of all groups, the consumers.

With respect to the latter, Mr. Kennedy wants Congress to get on the ball and do something to protect four consumer rights. These, as he defines them, are the right to safety, the right to be informed, the right to choose and the right to be heard.

We would like to suggest that there should be a fifth right. This right would be for the benefit of those Americans, if any, who would like to know what they can do for the country, as well as for those who merely do not want the Federal Government to take care of everything for them. What we have in mind, simply stated, is the right to be let alone.—Editorial in The Evening Star, Washington, D. C.

SECULAR MATERIALISM—There is the militant atheistic Communist; there is militant Islam; there is a revival of non-Christian religions on a major scale; there is above all—and this is far more dangerous than openly hostile Communism—the secular materialism that has invaded every part of Western life, the subtle, insidious influences that lead to business without principle.—DENIS DUNCAN, Editor of the British Weekly, addressing Scottish Christian Youth Assembly.

FINANCIAL INTEGRITY—Intellectual dishonesty … has characterized the mental attitude in this country for some time toward the national debt. Even were the various administrations able to live up to their perennial pledges of balanced budgets, there would be no hope of getting out of the red.… With an evermounting national debt, we in this country may ultimately find ourselves beyond redemption. Meanwhile, the American taxpayer digs deeper for the money to pay the cost of a government which is directly responsible for the declining value of the dollar.—Editorial, “The Bitter Heritage We Leave our Children,” Florida Times-Union, Jacksonville.

TAX BURDEN—The average American workman currently is paying out some 31 per cent of his income in the form of taxes. About 10 per cent is withheld for income tax. Other taxes, direct and indirect, are estimated at 15 per cent. Social Security takes 6 per cent (while the employer pays half of this item, it is a part of payroll costs and might be available for workers if not taken by taxes). And according to The New York Times of January 19, the fastest growing item in our national budget is the interest which the Federal government must pay on the national debt. This interest will cost American taxpayers over $9 ½ billion in the 1961 fiscal year which begins July 1, 1960. To carry this load and other national government expenditures, the Tax Foundation recently pointed out that the average worker in an 8-hour day spends 2 hours and 16 minutes working for the Federal government.”—Dateline (March, 1960), Clergy-Industrv Relations Department, National Association of Manufacturers.

STILL MUNCHING CANDY—At the Village Church in Kalinovka, Russia, attendance at Sunday school picked up after the priest started handing out candy to the peasant children. One of the most faithful was a pug-nosed, pugnacious lad who recited his scriptures with proper piety, pocketed his reward, then fled into the fields to munch on it. The priest took a liking to the boy, persuaded him to attend church school. This was preferable to doing household chores from which his devout parents excused him. By offering other inducements, the priest managed to teach the boy the four gospels. In fact, he won a special prize for learning all four by heart and reciting them non-stop in church. Now, 60 years later, he still likes to recite scriptures but in a context that would horrify the old priest. For the prize pupil, who memorized so much of the Bible, is Nikita Khrushchev, the Communist czar.—Parade, Feb. 11, 1962.

In England and later in New York City Jowett became the most popular evangelical preacher. By study of master sermons, and by ceaseless toil he mastered “the fine art of making a little go a long way.” A few critics called his preaching thin, but common people heard him gladly. So did countless divines. As many as 300 Episcopal clergy attended his Vesper Services at Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church. They learned to value skill in the choice of words, and repetition of things memorable. “He being dead, yet speaketh.”

“Rejoicing in hope” (Rom. 12:12).

This is a characteristic expression of the optimism of the Apostle Paul. He is a child of light, wearing an armor of light, walking in the light, as Christ is in the light. This apostolic optimism is not a thin, fleeting sentiment begotten of a cloudless summer day; not born of shallow thinking. What then is the secret of this energetic optimism?

I. The Reality of Christ’s Redemptive Work. In all the spacious reaches of the Apostle’s life the redemptive work of his Master is present as an atmosphere in which all his thoughts and purposes and labors find their sustaining and enriching breath. In this Epistle to the Romans the early stages are devoted to a massive and stately presentation of the doctrine of redemption. When the majestic argument is concluded, the doctrine appears as the determining factor in the solution of practical problems. No one can be five minutes in the companionship of the Apostle Paul without discovering how wealthy is his sense of God’s redeeming ministry.

II. The Reality of the Believer’s Present Resources. “By Christ redeemed!” Yes, but that is only the Alpha and not the Omega of the work of grace. “In Christ restored!” With these dynamics of restoration Paul’s epistles are wondrously abounding. “Christ liveth in me!” He works within me “to will and to do of his good pleasure.” This is the primary faith of the hopeful life. The Holy Spirit worketh! So sensitive is the Apostle to the wealthy resources of God that amid all the world’s evil he remains a sunny optimist, “rejoicing in hope.”

III. The Reality of Future Glory. Paul gave himself time to think of heaven. He looked for “the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” This contemplation is largely absent from modern religious life. We have built on the erroneous assumption that the contemplation of future glory unfits us for the service of men. Richard Baxter’s labors were not impoverished by his contemplation of “the saints’ everlasting rest.” Neither are we impoverished by contemplations such as these. They take no strength out of the hand; they put much buoyancy into the heart. Contemplation of coming glory is one of the secrets of the apostle’s optimism, enabling him to labor and endure in the spirit of rejoicing hope.

Apostolic Optimism and Other Sermons, by John Henry Jowett, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1904. Sermon, “Apostolic Optimism” (pp. 1–18).

SERMONS ABRIDGED BY DR. ANDREW W. BLACKWOOD

JOHN A. BROADUS, “Let Us Have Peace with God.”

JOHN HENRY JOWETT,“Apostolic Optimism.”

CHARLES H. SPURGEON,“Love’s Commendation.”

Therefore being justified by faith let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1, from the Greek).

More than four centuries ago a young professor went from Germany to Rome. He was in trouble because of his sins. He could find no peace. While climbing up a stairway on his knees, pausing to pray at every step, he seemed to hear a voice: “The just shall live by faith.” With such an experience Martin Luther lived to set the world on fire with the thought of justification by faith.

I. The Meaning of Justification. The Greek word means, not to make just, but to regard as just, to treat as just. How would the Lord treat you if you were a righteous man, if all your days you had faithfully performed all your duty? He would bless you as long as you lived here and then delight to take you home. This is how the Gospel proposes to treat men who are not (yet) just, and do not deserve such treatment—if only they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

II. The Need of Faith in Christ. God not only proposes to deal with us now as if we were just, but in the end to make us just. This Gospel proposes to be the means by which to make men holy. It delivers us not only from the consequences of sin, but also from its power. But the Gospel can have no such effect unless we believe in Christ. What is faith? You know what faith is. Everyone knows: Let us cherish all that tends to strengthen faith in the Gospel. Let us read the Word of God, praying that we may be able to believe. Let us ask from day to day, “Lord, increase our faith.”

III. The Call for Peace with God, notwithstanding our unworthiness. We cannot have peace with him as long as we think we deserve it. Many cling to the thought that they must become worthy, and then be reconciled to God. They need to see that coming to God and being reconciled, they will be made good and become worthy, through Christ.

Peace with God, though we are still sinful and unholy. We ought to be dissatisfied with ourselves, but satisfied with our Saviour, and through him be at peace with God. Our sanctification is still sadly imperfect, but if we believe in Christ, our justification is perfect.

Peace with God, though we have perpetual conflict with sin. What a singular idea! In this conflict the Lord is on our side, and we are on the Lord’s side. And so, though we must wage battle against every form of sin, let us have peace with God.

Peace with God, though he lets us suffer a thousand forms of distress and trial. None of these things can separate us from God’s love. When we are in trouble let us take hold of this great thought. God’s peace can conquer trouble, and as in a fortress guard us against all its assaults (Phil. 4:6–7). [In the same volume, Sermons and Addresses, the next one deals with “How the Gospel Makes Men Holy” (Rom. 7:24, 25).]

Idem. Sermon, “Let Us Have Peace with God” (pp. 85–96).

Dedicated to assisting the clergy in the preparation of sermons, the feature titled The Minister’s Workshop will appear in the first issue of each month. The section’s introductory essay will be contributed alternately by Dr. Andrew W. Blackwood and by Dr. Paul S. Rees. In addition, the feature will include Dr. Blackwood’s abridgements of expository-topical sermons, outlines of significant messages by great preachers of the past, or of messages by expository preachers of our own time.—ED.

An address (here abridged) before the International YMCA.

The main support of all individual Christian life, of all high Christian work, must be the truth of God. Truth is the lifeblood of piety. Truth is always more precious and more potent when we draw it ourselves out of the Bible. The Christian work we have today in the world will be wise and strong and mighty just in proportion, other things being equal, as it is directed and controlled and inspired out of the Word of God.

The Bible is one Book, but the Bible is many books. Each of them must be read as a whole life if we would understand it well. You cannot understand any book if you read it by fragments. Take an epistle of Paul as you would take any other letter. Sit down and read an epistle from beginning to end, and see what it is about. Then take it afterwards in parts, and see what each part says about the subject.

[Here Broadus tells how in college he had heard a professor advise reading the Bible by books. Before Broadus became a professor at 32, he delivered a series of evening sermons on the Epistles of Paul, treating each in a sermon and as a whole. Thus he crowded the aisles, and led in building a new church.]

Take the Epistle to the Romans. Some people think the epistle tremendously hard to understand. I remember a time when I found it hard to believe; certain portions were the most difficult writing I knew. It seems to me now [age 54] that there never would have been any great difficulty in seeing what the Apostle meant to say if I had only let him alone, and let him say what he wanted to say. But I had my own notions as to what ought to be said, and not said, on the subject. The plainer he was in saying what he wanted, and I did not, the harder I found it to make him say something else.

As you read the epistle rapidly you find that it breaks into two parts. Eleven chapters contain doctrinal arguments and instruction. Then five chapters treat practical matters slightly connected with the doctrinal. The first eleven treat justification by faith. The first three give the whole substance of this doctrine. They show that the Gospel reveals the righteousness of God, which is by grace. Then they show that men need justification by faith, as they can not find justification in any other way. Their works will condemn them. If they find justification at all, it must be by faith.

This takes up the first two chapters, with part of the third. The remainder of the third tells about the provision God has made for justification by faith. His provision takes out of repentant souls all pride and humbles them into receiving the great salvation that God gives. The next two chapters give further illustrations of justification by faith. One whole chapter shows that Abraham was justified by faith. This whole matter of cur being justified through the effect of Christ’s salvation is paralleled by the effect of Adam’s sin on his posterity. This takes a large part of chapter five. These are merely illustrations of our being justified through faith in the Redeemer.

Chapters six, seven, and eight treat justification by faith from another point: in its bearing on sanctification, or the work of making men holy. Then the next three chapters are on the privileges of the Jews and the Gentiles. So the epistle divides into different sections about the same topic. After you have read it through a number of times, have tried to find out the line of thought, and have been willing to let the Apostle mean what he wants to mean, you will find that the subjects considered are not so very difficult. Of course, there are questions we can ask about them, questions that nobody can answer, but we must content ourselves with what is taught us.

So let us read the Bible by books, first taking each book as a whole, then seeing how it is divided up, and so coming down to details. In that way we shall learn for ourselves how to interpret the various parts of Scripture with reference to their connection. Everybody will agree that you ought to look at the connection of a Scripture passage. One day my father said that he did not like to find fault with ministers, but he wished some of them would pay more attention to the connection of a text, as the preacher of the morning had not done. I suppose that preachers have since grown wiser, and now do always pay attention to the connection.

Each of the sacred books has its special aim and practical value, and we ought to get at the practical impression that each of them is designed to make. It is easier to eulogize the Bible than to love it. I have spoken with the hope that by God’s blessing I may awaken an increased desire to read the Bible attentively, by books. I pray that we may all turn away with an earnest desire in our souls, before Him who knows the heart, that in the remainder of our lives we shall strive to know his Word more, to read it more wisely, and to live more fully according to its blessed teachings.

Sermons and Addresses, by John A. Broadus (ed. by Archibald T. Robertson), George H. Doran Co., New York, 1896, “On Reading the Bible by Books” (pp. 167–197). Address, International Convention of YMCA, Cleveland, Ohio, May 25, 1881.