Interest in and literature about the coming Second Vatican Council keeps growing. The council called by John XXIII will be the first since 1870. (The dogma of Mary’s assumption was a papal declaration, not a conciliar decree.) The calling of the council took the world by surprise at first. What was the Pope’s real purpose? Archbishop Lorenz Jaeger wrote a piece whose title characterized much of the questioning of that time: “The Second Vatican Council and the Expectations of Christendom.” Well, what was the church legitimately to anticipate from such a council? Can Christendom await a genuine contribution to church unity? May it expect approachment between Rome and Reformation?

Cardinal Tardini, who is playing a key role in the preparations underway for the council, has said that the council would not be predominantly theological in emphasis. We need not expect any decided changes in the teaching and pretensions of the Catholic church. The approaching council will not be a pendent of the unity councils of Lyon (1274) and Florence (1439). The great traditions of Catholicism will be maintained. When this was made clear, many observers expressed disappointment. The council, they said, would be an ecumenical council without an ecumenical spirit, without that is, an eye to the reunion of the churches.

Still, there was an air of expectation abroad. Hans Küng, a Swiss Catholic known for an excellent study on Karl Barth, wrote an article on the council and its implications for reunion. Pope John himself expressed hope that the council would open for those outside the church a vision of the one united church within our divided world. He wrote in his original encyclical: “It (i.e., the council) shall surely be a glorious display of truth, unity, and love. We trust that this manifestation will cause those separated from this apostolic chair to feel drawn to seek and realize the unity for which Jesus Christ so fervently prayed to his Father in heaven.” Words like these have led Küng to hope that the council will be a great summons to unity.

The council will be called at a time when the Mariological doctrine has reached a temporary halt in its development. It comes at a time when many Roman theologians are speaking with reserve, but with great concern, about the ecumenical movement. The present Pope is not enamored of a cheap romantic notion of unity, to be sure. But he will be diligent to make it clear to his separated brethren that they are lingering outside the mother church’s bosom without reason.

What can we expect from the council? The First Vatican Council gave us the dogma of papal infallibility and a significant decree on reason and faith. Karl Malik (a Greek Catholic) has spoken of “unlimited possibilities” for the coming Vatican Council and has said that it will be the most important event of this or even of several centuries. Malik’s appraisal may be a bit exaggerated, but at least one Roman writer has agreed with him. In any case, there is every reason to follow the coming events with keen interest and concern. Even though it is an internal Catholic matter, it will have profound historical significance. From this council will come signs of what the future tendencies of the Roman church will be.

The council may also be occasion for Protestant reflection. We may note the current revival of Catholic activity in biblical study. Everywhere in Roman circles there is manifest reaction against the scholastic imprint on church doctrine. Add to this the attempt in many Roman circles to accentuate the ecumenical aspects of this antischolastic ferment. The development of the so-called New Theology within Roman circles is far from ended. All of these straws in the wind give us reason to pay close attention to what will be taking place at the Vatican.

As for the New Theology, we may well ask what it means when Roman theologians keep insisting that they maintain “sola fide” and “sola gratia.” Or when they say that, though it is correct to speak of human merit, we must keep in mind that grace is always the basis for merit? I am certainly not prepared to conclude that after all the Reformation was based on a misunderstanding of Rome. But one does pick up his ears when he listens to some of Rome’s biblical theologians. One also wonders, in view of what they are saying, why the Council of Trent condemned the Reformation so roundly for having proclaimed the sovereignty of grace.

Is something new really happening in Roman theology? Are the voices we hear only those of individual theologians who in no way reflect the real life of Catholicism? Are some of these writers themselves headed for banishment? The Pope warned against a tendency to relativize dogma back in 1950. But in the decade since that time, the newer movements have lost no momentum and are, in some areas, growing stronger. Some of the progressive and ecumenical figures are represented on the planning commissions for the coming council.

We shall not hazard a prophecy. But we do know that two shadows hover over the preparations. One is the infallibility dogma proclaimed by the First Vatican Council. The other is the development of Mariological dogma from 1854 (the immaculate conception) to 1950 (the assumption into heaven). These two shadows bring sobriety to any expectations we may have for the coming gathering. But they cannot take away the deep interest that we must have in this crucial event in the life of the church that spans the world. The council called by Pope John will be of decisive significance for the relations between Rome and Reformation for a long time to come.

The review is prepared in sequence by Professor G. C. Berkouwer of Free University, Amsterdam; Dr. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Editor of The Churchman (England); Professor Addison H. Leitch of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Pennsylvania; and Dr. Paul S. Rees, Vice President of World Vision.

—ED.

Adult Education In The Church Of Tomorrow

The Future Course of Christian Adult Education, edited by Lawrence C. Little (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1959, 322 pp., $5), is reviewed by C. Adrian Heaton, President, California Baptist Theological Seminary.

With the awareness that nearly fifteen million adults are enrolled in American Church School classes, ninety leaders in the field of Christian education and related disciplines met for a workshop at the University of Pittsburgh, June 15 to 17, 1958. They faced the present status and probable future of adult Christian education.

This volume contains 18 major addresses plus three group presentations. Also included is the study outline prepared in advance of the workshop and a bibliography compiled by Lawrence C. Little, Conference Director. Space permits comment on only a few of the papers.

Protestant churches are beginning to take with greater seriousness their obligations to their adult members according to Gerald E. Knoff, Executive Secretary of the Division of Christian Education of the NCC (chap. 2). He gives six reasons for this: (1) there is a new concern for the nature of the Gospel and the Church; (2) there is a deepened interest in the Bible; (3) there is a growing interest in cooperative Christianity; (4) there is a renewed sense of denominational particularity; (5) there is a fresh sensitivity to the needs of people along with the challenge of numerical growth; and (6) there is a consciousness that the crucial questions of our time are not going to be answered finally by children and youth. Albert D. Martin writes on “Changing Obligations of Citizenship” (chap. 4). The citizen in America today cannot function effectively unless he re-evaluates “the valued judgments that control his conduct as the dynamic figure of a great democracy” (p. 47). Martin believes that the citizen must re-evaluate his notion that “peace and progress will be obtained only by recreating the world in the image of the United States” (p. 40). Another concept which needs to be challenged is that “good intentions and a moral outlook are satisfactory substitutes for adequate power” (p. 41). A third unsatisfactory belief of American citizens is that the “expert” is more competent to make decisions than the politician (p. 42). Again, citizens must get over the notion that the independent voters are the “heart and conscience of the American political system” (p. 44). Actually, the government is much more determined by the parties than by the independents. Finally, citizens must realize that they have not fulfilled their function merely by exercising their right to vote (p. 45). All of these beliefs remind the reader again that citizenship is far more complex and responsible than is generally thought.

Samuel McCrea Cavert, retired Secretary of the World Council of Churches, strikes out against the church’s temptation to conform to the world (chap. 5). After citing the Westminster Confession of Faith statement that the church is “sometimes more and sometimes less visible,” Cavert says, “We might well say that the task of Christians is to make the Church of Christ visible. It is just this vitalizing of the fellowship of the local church which I am urging as a major objective of Christian adult education” (p. 57).

Paul Bergevin reports (chap. 11) on the special research conducted in Indiana to improve adult religious education. He begins by quoting J. B. Phillips’ line that “all religions attempt to bridge the gulf between the terrific purity of God and the sinfulness of man, but Christianity believes that God built the bridge Himself.” Christian education is the means the church uses to bring us into relationship with what God has done for us. Such education can be successful if adequate specific goals are constantly before us and if we will implement seven principles of learning which Bergevin outlines (pp. 131–133).

Jesse H. Ziegler, Associate Secretary of the American Association of Theological Schools, writes “An Adaptation of Personality Theory to include Christian education” (chap. 15). He believes that the educators should “consider carefully whether adult education which aims at attitudinal change will not share much more in the nature of therapy than will that of the learning of children.” He further suggests that we must use “every means, and especially such as cut through the defenses of adults, such as symbol, drama, identification with a role, to open doors for the divine-human encounter as a result of which man’s spirit continues to grow” (p. 201). Ziegler makes a strong case for teaching procedures which are quite in advance of the usual Church School classes.

These few remarks merely highlight the variety and richness of material in this volume. Here is no neat unity, sociologically, psychologically, theologically, or educationally. The book is, however, rich in research, interpretation, and recommendation. The Lilly Endowment, Inc. which sponsored the workshop has made a genuine contribution to religious education.

C. ADRIAN HEATON

Simeon Bicentenary

Let Wisdom Judge, by Charles Simeon, edited by A. F. Pollard I.V.F. 1959, 190 pp., 9s.6d.), is reviewed by Herbert M. Carson, Vicar of St. Paul’s, Cambridge.

Charles Simeon was one of the outstanding preachers and leaders who emerged from the Evangelical Revival. His was a far-reaching ministry, profoundly influencing both town and university in Cambridge. He brought life to a large part of the Church of England through the men he trained in his sermon classes and by his vigorous advocacy of world evangelization. It is good therefore to hear the authentic voice of this spiritual giant.

Simeon lived through some of the bitterness and acrimony of the Calvinist-Arminian controversy, and tried to pour oil on the troubled waters. We must bear this in mind when we read of his repudiation of “System Christians,” for if Simeon had been consistent he could hardly have accepted such a systematic theological statement as the Thirty-nine Articles, nor could he have preached some of the sermons in this volume which are certainly systematic.

Simeon’s aim in preaching is admirable—to humble the sinner, to exalt the Saviour, and to promote holiness. His preaching exemplifies this aim; and we can detect the reasons for his power. Here is authority coupled with humility, lucidity of expression emerging from clarity of thought, and a burning conviction of the truth of the Scriptures he preaches. Here we have the kind of preaching we need today—clear exposition coupled with vigorous application of the word which emerges from Scripture, which was for Simeon the final authority.

HERBERT M. CARSON

Trends And Fashions

New Accents in Contemporary Theology by Roger Hazelton (Harper, 1960, 144 pp., $3), is reviewed by Carl F. H. Henry.

The author has done us the service of corralling (for the moment) some of the divergent trends in recent modern theology. The book focuses attention especially on “new accents”; pursuing the novel, it tends to ignore the theological enterprise in terms of evangelical stability. There is little emphasis on authoritative criteria, and consequently no awareness of heresy. The alert minister will want to be informed, nonetheless, of both legitimate trends and current fashions, and this work will prove a serviceable one. When Dr. Hazelton relates that “some of us have been learning … that a novel by someone who, like Faulkner or Camus, does not wish to be known as a Christian believer may come closer to the biblical and churchly truth about more than a Sunday morning sermon” (p. 14), he seems to forget, as many a modern theologian, that the Christian view of man is specially anchored in God’s revelation in Christ and the Scriptures. Readers will note the widening emphasis on church tradition (pp. 76 f., 84 f.), bridging toward Romanism, while evangelical confidence in “the faith once for all delivered” is narrowed.

CARL F. H. HENRY

Sure Foundation

Our Dependable Bible, by Stanley E. Anderson (Baker, 1960, 248 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Faris D. Whitesell, Professor of Practical Theology, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Here’s the book to put into the hands of young people and laymen who have been disturbed about the inspiration and dependability of the Bible. Written by one who loves the Bible and who has made a lifelong study of its reliability, Dr. S. E. Anderson, director of the correspondence department of Northern Baptist Seminary, makes a vigorous and forthright defense of the verbal inspiration and total trustworthiness of the Holy Scriptures. His thesis is that amid the conflicting opinions of uninspired men, the world needs a dependable cosmic compass or be forever lost. The Bible alone is the answer to that need.

The author insists that Christ’s attitude of acceptance and approval of the Scriptures should be ours. The overwhelming proofs from archaeology, from fulfilled prophecy, and from the Bible’s teaching about itself give a firm ground of faith to trust the Bible. Dr. Anderson marshalls the evidence clearly and convincingly until it is mountain high.

Adverse critics will not be persuaded. They will likely say that the book is overloaded with quotations (some not from men of highest scholarship), that it touches Barthianism too lightly and Bultmannism not at all, that it is slanted to the past rather than the present, and that it is too elementary. However, the reviewer can see nothing but good to the cause of Christ coming from the use of this book, for it builds faith not only in the Bible but in the God of the Bible, and this we all greatly need in these faith-testing days.

FARIS D. WHITESELL

Song Of A Warm Faith

The Presbyterian Way of Life, by John A. Mackay (Prentice-Hall, 1960, 238 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by William Childs Robinson, Professor of Historical Theology, Columbia Theological Seminary.

This is a beautiful volume by a distinguished church leader of rare gifts, wide contacts, and high position. His large vocabulary and alliterative use of language, which at times breaks out in a heart rhapsody, add to the charm. The purpose of the writer is not to give a detailed historical survey but an interpretation (p. 28); and since the author was at times a prime actor in what he records, the book becomes a kind of apologia pro vita sua. As such it represents the author’s own individuality and positions which are not always those of the reviewer.

The chapters on the understanding of God, of man, and of the Church will prove a blessing to the popular reader for which they are designed. The first is strengthened by references to the Psalms in the Free Church tradition in which the author was reared. The one on man is enriched by references to the Shorter and the Heidelberg Catechisms. In these quotations one finds the single clear statement that Christ with his precious blood has fully satisfied for our sins and that his righteousness is imputed to us and received by faith alone. This is the heart of the Reformed faith. There is a good emphasis on the Church and a call to seek discipline without disruption. The recognition of the Lord as the servant with the obligation of the Church and the believer to carry on the servant image is excellent. Indeed, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the presence of the Holy Spirit is power, the beginning of all thinking with God—the God who spared not his only Son and who has gripped our lives in a vital encounter—are the great notes in this book.

The statement on page 7 that in Presbyterianism “the ultimate authority is vested in Presbytery” could make that court as absolute as a Hildebrand or a Hitler would wish. But the real meaning of the author seems to be to exalt the presbytery above the higher courts in the matter of deciding whether a candidate for ordination is to be received despite his scruples with regard to certain Presbyterian doctrines. Certainly, as this book and as the constitution of the UPUSA Church set forth, the General Assembly is in important ways above the Presbytery. Our own view is that every court in the Presbyterian system gets its authority directly from Jesus Christ, the Head and King, whose authority alone is ultimate. In his historical treatment, Dr. Mackay has ignored the Adopting Act of 1729 which gave the Synod, then the highest court of the church as well as Presbytery, authority to decide which articles were necessary and essential for ordination. The book is a valuable warning against absolutizing any parts of the faith; it does not give a clear answer as to how the church is to safeguard the faith once delivered to the saints.

In the interest of interpretation, there are details which need questioning. Calvin seems to have written on all the books of the New Testament except Revelation, and on many, not all, of the Old Testament (p. 10). His views can hardly be called baptized Stoicism (p. 8), since he said, “For ourselves we have nothing to do with this iron philosophy which our Lord and Master condemned not only in word but also by example, cf. Matt. 5:4.” The account of and references to the affair of Servetus are marked more by subjective interpretation than by factual detail (pp. 13–15, 207). Calvin did more than consent to his execution; he was the religious prosecuting attorney. On the other hand, he vigorously opposed burning as the method of execution. Calvin’s was not a momentary seizure but a settled position as, in his opinion, the only way to show that the Protestants were not encouraging Servetus’ heresies on which charge the evangelicals were being burned in France. There is no evidence that “To the end of his days he could not forgive himself for Servetus’ death.”

The chapter on worship may be the high peak of the book. Would that every Presbyterian and every Christian minister might take to himself the exhortation to preach the Word under the Lordship of Christ, and lead the extempore prayers with the warm heart, the scriptural preparation, and the Spirit’s presence as is here commended. The warning to those who minister in cathedral-like environments with the support of elaborate choirs and ritual lest “The hungry sheep look up and are not fed” is most timely. So is the following warning against pressing a current fad too far: “To be a pastor, to have a shepherd’s heart, to be sensitive to human need, to know out of one’s own faith and experience how to meet this need, without having to recur everlastingly to a psychiatrist, is or should be the “way” of the Presbyterian minister. Were the Good Shepherd always followed in our time by his under shepherds, agitated human spirits would be given spiritual food as well as psychological diagnosis and advice. They would be introduced to the divine Redeemer and not chiefly to that new Divinity whose name is the Analytical.”

The presentation of the Lord’s Supper is more thoroughly Calvinistic than is the discussion of the questions asked for Baptism. In the case of the latter the emphasis seems to be wholly on what man does, i.e., the parents or the adult candidate. Could the Presbyterian Church US ask its larger and elder sister the Presbyterian Church UPUSA to take a leaf at this point from our Book of Church Order in which the parents are asked to acknowledge their child’s need of the cleansing blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and the renewing grace of the Holy Spirit, to claim God’s covenant promises in his or her behalf and look in faith to the Lord Jesus Christ for his or her salvation as for their own?

It is quite interesting to have President Mackay on page 124 declare that Presbyterians will not accept as a precondition of union reordination by a “historic episcopate” or submit to the hands of a bishop being laid on them at the very time when Stated Clerk Dr. Carson Blake is proposing a four-way denominational merger which envisages what Mackay here repudiates in no uncertain terms.

One gets the impression that Mackay wants to carry over into the Presbyterian Way of Life the faith of his old pastor, Principal John Macleod, and of his old professor, Dr. B. B. Warfield, and that he does not quite know whether they will fit into the broadening church of his ecumenism. Yet one has also the feeling that this is written by the noted ecclesiastic as perhaps his swan song with the lyric of eternity in his soul and the Christian hope in his heart.

WILLIAM CHILDS ROBINSON

Nebulous Faith

Christian Belief and Science, by Robert E. D. Clark (English Universities Press, 1960, 160 pp., 12s 6d), is reviewed by Arthur F. Holmes, Director of Philosophy, Wheaton College.

This book, written by a scientist who is also a committed Christian, is an attempt to relate religious faith to scientific reason via the phenomenon of intuition. The author draws upon examples of scientific imagination which facilitated new discovery, likens them to physical occurrences such as mental telepathy, and then assimilates religious faith to the psychological model thus established.

As with all too many treatments of the relationship of faith to reason, it suffers from a failure to understand sufficiently the nature of the end-terms involved. Reason is defined very loosely, as the ability to arrange our thoughts in order (p. 9), with the result that the role of reason in both science and religion is grossly underestimated. At times the scientist-author actually calls logic the “enemy” of science and claims that “discovery comes when the rational mind is asleep” (e.g., p. 32). Even sensory knowledge, we are told, sometimes bypasses the mind. The discovery of truth is taken to be intuitive, accompanied by firm conviction and great joy. Yet for all the eminent “success” of intuition, science is still more often wrong than right (p. 9). A more careful analysis of both reason and intuition would show a much closer affinity between analytic and spontaneous thought than this allows.

Similarly Clark defines faith very loosely, as an intuition analogous to mental telepathy (e.g., pp. 119, 137). The reader is left with the suggestion that faith arises in an intellectual vacuum and is barely distinguishable from credulity. This poses two problems. First, it implies that revelation is a subjective and non-cognitive “hunch.” At no point which this reviewer observed did the author indicate the objectivity revelational character of Scripture; at one point he advised Bible reading as having “brought a sense of certainty and conviction into the minds of men and women” (p. 154). This may be true, but is not faith an intelligent commitment to the God in Christ as set forth in the Biblical revelation, and therefore more objective, cognitive and defensible than an act of intuition?

Secondly, to identify faith with intuition tends to divorce faith from reason. The author detects the danger, and concedes that reason has value in clarifying faith and in helping to prevent its being undermined. The role of reason in the genesis of faith is omitted. Even its subsequent role is restricted by the assertion that “if by thinking we alter the faith we are examining then we act foolishly and wrongly” (p. 119). On the contrary, one cannot expect that early and somewhat naive faith should for ever go unrefined. It is not enough, for instance, to reiterate uncritically the distorting oversimplification that in the Incarnation God appeared in a human body. This “faith” should be “altered.”

A verdict is difficult. The thesis may reflect the influence of someone like Bergson, or it may represent the brave attempts of a fine scientist to discuss issues outside his field. Scientific competence does not qualify one to discuss authoritatively questions in epistemology and the philosophy of religion. The book is attractively presented and very readable.

ARTHUR F. HOLMES

On War’S Edge

St. John’s Gospel, by Walter Lüthi, translated by Kurt Schönenberger (John Knox Press, 1960, 348 pp., $5), is reviewed by Merrill C. Tenney, Dean of the Graduate School, Wheaton College (Illinois).

A Swiss pastor, preaching during the turbulent years of the Second World War “on the edge of the crater,” has given us a new exposition of the Gospel of John. Driven back to the Bible by the crushing problems of his age, he has found a fresh message in the Gospel which rationalists had condemned as “unhistorical” and had consequently ignored. With penetrative discernment he selects the truths which may be applied to current life, and expounds them with lucidity and skill. There is much food for profitable thought in these sermons.

Theologically, the writer is existential in his approach. All of his teaching is geared to the immediate moment of the individual, or to problems of experience. He attempts no systematic presentation of Johannine theology, and his viewpoint is mystical rather than creedal. This tendency is best illustrated in his chapter on “The Resurrection of Christ” in which he says, “Easter is not a return to the temporal world, but a breakthrough into eternal life. Between Mary Magdalene and the risen Lord there now lies that mysterious barrier that divides this world from the beyond, time from eternity, and God from us men.” Lüthi does not deny the physical realities of the resurrection; on the contrary, he asserts that Thomas touched the body of the risen Lord. Rather he treats the evidence as secondary in importance to the application of spiritual truth, and presses upon his congregation the meaning of the principles laid down in the Gospel without discussing technicalities.

Much that is helpful will be found in this book. The simplicity and directness of its language, and its positive affirmation of the authority of Christ commend it to readers who wish to see how the Fourth Gospel is relevant to their experience. It is, however, homiletical rather than exegetical, and is in no sense a full commentary on John, nor is it a complete guide to Johannine thought.

MERRILL C. TENNEY

Socialist Reformation?

The Reformation, by Archibald Robertson (Watts, 1960, 232 pp., 21s.), is reviewed by Gervase E. Duffield, Secretary to the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research, Cambridge.

“Scientific advance … has rendered both the Catholic and the Reformed theologies obsolete. The battle of ideas has shifted from the interpretation of scripture to the interpretation of nature and of human institutions. New conditions … have made possible a worldwide Socialist movement based on a scientific analysis of history and society” (p. 219).

This is the author’s conclusion, in a book which starts with a brief survey of medieval Europe and traces the Reformation through to the outset of the seventeenth century. It is perhaps good for Christians to be reminded that politics and class struggles were mixed up in the sixteenth century upheavals, and Mr. Robertson is at his best when dealing with matters like the political intrigues of Spain in the Netherlands, or the plots and counterplots centering round the Guise family in France, or the Jesuit attempts to overthrow Queen Elizabeth and bring England back to Rome. In the last he rightly shows that these papists were guilty of treason, and were not “the faithful martyrs” of Romanist hagiography. Yet he does not understand the theological issues, and one might almost think the Reformation was concerned with politics and economics, and religion simply provided a useful pretext! The idea of a book covering the whole European Reformation in brief outline is a good one, especially when we have a chronological chart and a good index included, but this work is too inaccurate. As footnotes never give page numbers, and sometimes not even chapters, the checking of doubtful statements becomes impossible. Luther did not mark the beginning of modern Biblical criticism (p. 66); Lorenzo Valla, Erasmus, and a host of others preceded him. Calvin was not the trusted adviser of the Genevan government from 1541 onwards (p. 135); in fact, he frequently had to oppose the Libertine dominated councils. The 1552 Prayer Book was not Zwinglian (p. 156). And did Zwingli become a Reformer for political reasons primarily (p. 175)? Is it fair to speak of Cranmer’s unceasing subservience to Henry (p. 153)? And why Elizabeth’s condemnation of Mary Queen of Scots is justifiable only on the principles of Calvin and Knox is quite unintelligible (p. 107).

This book is an interesting revelation of just how far an author who sets out to read class warfare into history can go. Occasional references to Engels give us the clue to the author’s leftwing outlook. Despite the amount of ground this work covers, and the good patches, it is not a trustworthy guide. We learn as much about Mr. Robertson’s prejudices as we do about the Reformation.

GERVASE E. DUFFIELD

World Peace

The Religious Foundations of Internationalism, by Norman Bentwich (Bloch, 2nd ed., 1939, 303 pp., $5), is reviewed by W. Stanford Reid, Associate Professor of History, McGill University, Montreal.

Originally delivered in 1932 as a series of lectures at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, on Professor Bentwich’s inauguration as incumbent of the Weizmann Chair of the International Law of Peace, this work now appears in its second edition. Basing his argument on what one might call a comparative religion interpretation that all religions lead to God, Professor Bentwich holds that “religion” as such will provide a suitable foundation for true internationalism.

In studying this work, one quickly realizes that it has serious weaknesses. Most obvious to the reviewer was the author’s old-fashioned liberal interpretation of Judaism and Christianity. The nineteenth century theme of “the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man” dominates the book. One cannot but suspect that perhaps his interpretation of Islam, Buddhism, and other religions mentioned similarly misses the point. Likewise there are obvious historical inaccuracies. Written also with high hopes in the League of Nations, the book is obviously dated, so that one cannot but wonder at its republication.

The final chapter which was added for this new edition, reveals the author’s disillusionment with his own thesis. Religion is becoming increasingly tied to a violent nationalism—as for instance in the case of Islam and even African paganism. Consequently the old optimism does not appear in this more recent addition. Perhaps his most important conclusion is that man must experience a change of heart if he would find peace. To this every Christian will assent, but he will also hold that such peace only comes by God’s action, accompanied by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ.

W. STANFORD REID

Imaginative Sermons

Unconquerable Partnership, by Reuben K. Youngdahl (Augustana Press, 1960, 258 pp., $3), is reviewed by Andrew W. Blackwood, Professor of Homiletics, Emeritus, Princeton Theological Seminary.

This volume contains inspirational sermons by the pastor of the largest Lutheran congregation in America. Evangelical in content, these messages show how to attract and hold throngs of city folk, especially the young people. We who plead for a popular Bible teaching ministry ought to study this volume. It shows how to use present-day methods in securing variety and appeal to human nature by profuse use of illustrations from personal experience and observation, life in the homeland today, biography, and travel in mission fields. On the whole, this is the most interesting book of sermons that I have read of late. Why do not more of us orthodox preachers excel in simplicity, resourcefulness, and appeals to the imagination? These were the qualities that marked the popular speaking ministry of our Lord.

ANDREW W. BLACKWOOD

The Church In Red China

Come Wind Come Weather: The Present Experience of the Church in China, by Leslie T. Lyall (Moody Press, 1960, 95 pp., $2), is reviewed by Margaret Sells, Missionary in Taiwan.

The author, many years a missionary to China, presents an objective, well-documented account of the Protestant Church in Red China today. Lifting aside the Communist-devised “Propaganda Smoke Screen,” he reveals Communist methods for rooting out Christian belief.

He answers such questions as: “How has the church become wedded to the state?” “What happens to Christians who refuse to compromise?” “What has become of China’s historic family system?” “What is the ‘Three-Self Patriotic Movement’?”

The book will be a guide to intelligent prayer for our Chinese brethren. Every American should read it. It may well be an expose of the pattern of things to come.

MARGARET SELLS

Book Briefs

Dead Stones with Living Messages, by Bob Boyd (Hall, 1960, 182 pp., $4.95). Bible archaeology made interesting for laymen. Profusely illustrated.

Love is a Spendthrift, by Paul Scherer (Harper, 1961, 230 pp., $3.75). Stimulating daily meditations in the pattern of the Christian Year—from Advent to Trinity.

Seven Words to the Cross, by Robert F. Jones (John Knox, 1961, 92 pp., $2). Unique series of vesper meditations based on reactions of people who saw Christ crucified.

Bibliography of the Theology of Missions in the Twentieth Century (second edition, revised and enlarged), compiled by Gerald H. Anderson (Missionary Research Library, 1960, 79 pp., mimeographed, $1.50). A comprehensive, classified bibliography of books and essays on the topic of the theology of Christian world mission.

An Admiral’s Log II: In Search of Freedom, by Ben Moreel (IAI, 205 pp., no price given). A noted Admiral of the U. S. Navy views, with some spiritual overtones, the American social and political scene.

My Father’s World, by David Hood (Zondervan, 1960, 124 pp., $1.95). A Bible-based sermonic journey through God’s great out-of-doors.

The Labor of Love, by Spiros Zodhiates (Eerdmans, 1960, 376 pp., $4). Second in a three-volume exposition of the Epistle of James, based on a close scrutiny of the original Greek text.

Seasons of the Soul, by Archibald F. Ward, Jr. (John Knox, 1960, 135 pp., $3). Beautiful poetic translations of 100 selections from the Psalms designed to comfort and inspire those who are ill or discouraged.

The Reconciling Gospel, by Culbert G. Rutenber (Judson, 1960, 183 pp., $1.50). Written for American Baptist Convention use, it seeks to provide a theological undergirding for evangelism.

The Rough Years, by Chad Walsh (Morehouse-Barlow, 1960, 266 pp., $3). An exciting new novel about and for teen-agers with a Study-Guide ($1.50) for group discussions by Edward T. Dell, Jr. Youth organizations seeking imaginative and challenging meeting techniques will welcome these volumes.

A Bibliography of Bible Study for Theological Students (second revised and enlarged edition) (Princeton Theological Seminary, 1960, 107 pp., $1). An inclusive bibliography confined to theological works on the Bible, in the English language, and to linguistic helps in the biblical languages.

The Soviet Union from Lenin to Khrushchev, by David J. Dallin (U. S. Government Printing Office, 1960, 367 pp., $1.25). Vol. 2 of Facts on Communism, a series of scholarly works prepared under the auspices of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the U. S. House of Representatives.

In Habakkuk, a slender book of 56 verses, one encounters glorious passages, such as 2:4, 14, 20; 3:2, and sparkling apothegms, 1:11; 2:2, 11, which beckon one to learn more about the book and its author.

The Hebrew proper name Habakkuk (from root hābák, “to embrace”) occurs only in Habakkuk 1:1 and 3:1 and apparently means “embrace” or “ardent embrace.” A few savants regard it as a nickname or pseudonym or the Assyrian name for a garden plant. The Septuagint equivalent Ambakoum (= abba koum) is defined “father rising up” by some of the patristic writers.

On the basis of the rubrics in 3:1 and 19, Keil and Delitzsch infer that Habakkuk was a member of the temple choir and therefore a Levite. On the other hand, Hezekiah, credited with a psalm to the accompaniment of stringed instruments (Isa. 38:20), was clearly not a Levite.

All that can be said with certainty about Habakkuk is that he is specifically termed “the prophet” in 1:1 and 3:1. The book bears marks of prolonged mental struggle and may have been committed to writing without having been delivered orally. Its author can appropriately be described as prophet, poet, and philosopher.

CRITICAL PROBLEM INTRODUCED

Some scholars allow Habakkuk all three chapters of the book, and others concede only nine or ten verses at the most to him. Chapter 3 in particular is held to be the work of a later hand or hands. Furthermore, there is no unanimity as to the time of writing. Dates varying from 701 to 170 B.C. have been proposed. The traditional interpretation of Part I regards the righteous in Israel as suffering at the hands of wicked fellow countrymen (v. 4) and the Chaldeans as being raised up to punish Israelite wickedness (v. 13). Recent critics, dissatisfied with this explanation press the questions: Are the righteous and the wicked the same in verses 4 and 13? and who are raised up to punish whom? First, we shall survey the interpretations and backgrounds suggested for the three sections of the book; then the literary structure will be examined and the religious ideas.

Chapters 1:2–2:5 have elicited the most divergent conclusions. The earliest date proposed for the book of Habakkuk is the year 701, after Hezekiah had received Merodach Baladan’s Chaldean embassy. Betteridge (1903) held that the Chaldeans were raised up to punish Assyrian oppressors of Israel. By transposing 1:5–11 after 2:4, Budde (1901) maintained that the Chaldeans were the instrument to harass the Assyrians of 621–615 B. B., and George Adam Smith (1929), using the same transposition, viewed the Egyptians from 608–605 as menacing the Assyrians. Duhm (1906) and C. C. Torrey (1935) emend the Hebrew Masoretic Text to Kittîm and Yāwān (1:6; 2:5) and date the book in the time of Alexander the Great, around 332 B.C. Happel (1900) characterized the book as an eschatological oracle at the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes, around 170 B.C. Other attempts have been made to explain Part I, but actually there is no need to resort to omission, partition, transposition, or violent emendations.

AN ANSWER OF FAITH

There are no insuperable obstacles to dating Part I in 605 B.C., just after Nebuchadnezzar’s victory at Carchemish. The Assyrian empire had already crumbled, and Nebuchadnezzar had defeated the Egyptians to become master of the world (cf. Jer. 46:2). Habakkuk bewails domestic oppression in 1:2–4, such as accords with the tyranny of Jehoiakim (Jer. 22:12–19, 26). The Chaldeans, well known to Israel from the time of Merodach Baladan and Nabopolassar, now are being raised up to punish Judah, an imminent invasion, 1:5–11 (cf. Jer. 25:9; 36:29). The prophet argues that a wicked Judah is more righteous than a wicked Chaldean and utters his second query, 1:12–17. God’s use of a nation to chasten his people and then his destroying that instrument had already been pictured in Isaiah 8:9 f; 10:15–27; 14:24–27, and so forth. Therefore, to the puzzled prophet comes the answer of faith, 2:1–5.

Stade in 1884 concluded that all of Part II, 2:6–20, was secondary. Most critics find a large amount of post-exilic material in the section and concede only a few verses to Habakkuk. Nevertheless, 2:6 is closely connected with the preceding verse, and placing the maledictions in the mouth of the oppressed is a skillful device. The historical allusions can all be explained as coming from the period between the fall of Ninevah, 612 B.C., to the battle of Carchemish, 605 B.C. The taunt-songs are intended for the Chaldean nation and are comprehensible only as the sequel of what has preceded. Objections to the genuineness of this section are not of overwhelming force.

THIRD CHAPTER QUESTION

Again, Stade in 1884 was the first to deny the Habakkukan authorship of chapter 3. The chapter is rejected because (1) it is a psalm, (2) it has a different historical background, (3) it is of composite character, (4) it has linguistic and stylistic peculiarities, (5) it exhibits a difference in temper and aim, and (6) it is characterized by a difference in religious concepts.

With the publication of the Dead Sea Scroll Habakkuk Commentary (cf. W. H. Brownlee, “The Jerusalem Habakkuk Scroll,” BASOR 112, Dec. 1948, pp. 8–18) containing only chapters 1–2, a number of scholars concluded that the psalm had not yet been added to the book of Habakkuk when the commentary was composed.

Brief replies can be made seriatim to the objections listed. (1) Why may not a prophet compose a psalm? (2) There are no allusions in the psalm inconsistent with the prophet’s days. (3) The “late liturgical appendix,” verses 17–19, is a typical psalm epilogue and describes sufferings such as would follow in the wake of a destructive army. (4) The so-called late words all appear in earlier poetry. “Thine anointed” (v. 13) is not a post-exilic reference to the nation, for nowhere is the nation Israel called “the anointed.” It is normal to expect in a theophany a style different from that in chapters 1–2. (5) The psalm is an expansion of the text, “The just shall live by his faithfulness.” (6) The “late apocalyptic” ideas in chapter 3 appear in Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 33, and Judges 5, which are not late. There is no incongruity in language, style, or circumstances between the psalm and the rest of the book. The psalm, as well as the first two chapters, fit the period just after the battle of Carchemish 605 B.C.

The Masoretic Text has a number of problematic readings, particularly at 1:11; 2:4, 5, 10, 18; 3:8, 9 (over 100 translations had been suggested in Delitzsch’s day), 13, and 16. The use of versions and textual emendations have not completely cleared up these difficulties. The Dead Sea Scroll Habakkuk displays 50 variant readings from the Masoretic Text in chapters 1–2. Generally these variants are not significant, though a smoother reading is obtained in 1:17; 2:15, 16, as seen in the RSV. It is noteworthy that the Dead Sea Scroll and the versions support the M.T. of 1:12, “we shall not die,” as over against the tikkun sōpherîm (“correction of the scribes”), “thou shalt not die” (cf. W. E. Barnes, “Ancient Corrections in the Text of the Old Testament,” JTSI, 1900, pp. 387–414).

Dr. Albright’s reconstruction of the text of chapter 3 based on Ugaritic parallels proposes 38 corrections in the M. T. (W. F. Albright, “The Psalm of Habakkuk,” in H. R. Rowley, ed., Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. Scribner’s, 1950, pp. 1–50). Even this resultant text is still conjectural.

The LXX of Habakkuk is markedly inferior to the M. T. Some of its readings are startling: “look, ye despisers,” 1:5; “wolves of Arabia,” 1:8; “beetle from the wood,” 2:11; “with a song,” 3:1; “in the midst of the two beasts thou shalt be known,” 3:2; “tents of the Aethiopians,” 3:7; “that I may conquer by his song,” 3:19.

LITERARY STRUCTURE

Since Lowth’s pioneer work on parallelism (1753) and Jebb’s treatment of chiasmus (1820), scholars have recognized that much of Old Testament prophecy is couched in poetic style. Poetry is a fit vehicle for the prophet’s message.

In the book of Habakkuk the normal poetic devices are employed: parallelism, alliteration, hapax legomena, and a host of poetic figures, such as, simile, metaphor, metonymy, oxymoron, personification, and so forth (cf. F. T. Kelly, “The Strophic Structure of Habakkuk,” AJSL 18, 1902, pp. 94–119).

The outline of the book reveals the carefully wrought structure of 1:2–2:5. In this section we note a combination of national dirge and oracle (employed in Mic. 7:7–20; Ps. 24; Isa. 26:8–21; Joel 1:5–2:27) which constitutes Part I a closely-knit unity.

The strophical structure of 2:6–20 is apparent. There are five maledictions of three verses each. The first four all begin with “woe,” and the last verse in each begins with “for.” The pride and fall of the Chaldean is pictured in five different images. The woes correspond to the first clause of 2:4, while chapter 3 is an elaboration of the second clause of 2:4.

Habakkuk’s “Pindaric Ode” in Chapter 3 ranks with the finest that Hebrew poetry has produced. Without chapter 3, the book appears truncated. The elaborate chiastic structure of the book admits no deleting of a chapter, much less of verses (cf. Walker and Lund, “The Literary Structure of the Book of Habakkuk,” JBL 53, 1934, pp. 355–370).

RELIGIOUS IDEAS

Habakkuk discloses a number of powerful religious truths, some of which we shall consider briefly.

1. Tyranny is suicide. In chapter 1:13–17, there is an inspired appeal against man’s inhumanity to man, against crimes committed in the name of empire. The conqueror who “makes his might his god” (1:11) has his prototype in Lamech’s “Song of the Sword” (Gen. 4:23 f) and in the autotheism of Babylon (Isa. 47:2 ff). The concept that pride goes before destruction, that hybris draws divine wrath is an ancient one. In the affairs of nations a lex talionis is assumed: “Because thou hast plundered many nations, all the remnant of the peoples shall plunder thee” (2:8). The warning of Christ, “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matt. 26:52), sounds a knell to the nations’ warring madness.

2. The Book of Habakkuk is a Theodicy. Despite the Greek genius for philosophical inquiry, the classic statement of the problem of evil appeared in the Hebrew tradition. The question in 1:13 becomes a difficult one to reconcile with the concept of the Holy God in 1:12, 13a. The prophet, aiming to justify the ways of God to man, presents us an incipient theodicy. In the midst of stress, he has a pou stō appointed of God (2:1–4). He sounds forth his conviction that above all earthly power, the glory of the God of Israel shall flow like the waves of the sea (2:14). The song in chapter 3 ends in a note of victory, “God is enough.”

3. “The righteous shall live by his faithfulness.” The Hebrew word ’emunāh comprises the idea of “steadiness” (Exod. 17:12), “trustworthiness” (2 Kings 12:15), and “faithfulness” (Ps. 89:1, 35c). J. B. Lightfoot has thoroughly discussed “faith” in its Hebrew, Greek and Latin usages (St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Draper, 1891, pp. 341–346).

Habakkuk, employing the word in its passive sense, declared, “The just shall live by his faithfulness” (2:4). In that statement, avers the Babylonian Talmud, he reduced all the 613 precepts of the Mosaic Law into one (Makkoth 24a).

The New Testament word pistis is used in the active sense, “faith, belief” (Gal. 2:16), and the passive, “fidelity, constancy, faithfulness” (Rom. 3:3), and several other shades of meaning. Paul renders the prophet’s words, “The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). He enlarges the Old Testament passages and shows its fulfillment in the light of the gospel revelation. Faith means belief in Christ which justifies (Rom. 4:23–25) and union with Christ which sanctifies (Rom. 6:4).

This Pauline concept is implicit in Habakkuk. For to the faithfulness of God that verifies his work corresponds that of man which trusts God’s word unwaveringly despite all contrarient appearances.

Faith of this kind issues in life says Habakkuk. The magnificent declaration of 2:4 is enlarged upon in chapter 3, especially verses 17–19 where, despite the loss of all things, the prophet rests in the Lord and waits patiently for him. The term “live” carries the germs of belief in future life, thus being both qualitative and quantitative (cf. John 10:10; 1 John 2:17).

Small wonder that these glorious words of Habakkuk have been a foundation stone and a lodestone to the Church throughout the ages!

BIBLIOGRAPHY

In addition to the references in the article, the following works in English are highly recommended:

Davidson, A. B., The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. (Cambridge Bible). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1920.

Driver, S. R., The Minor Prophets: Nahum to Malachi (The New Century Bible). New York: Frowde, 1906.

Keil, C. F., The Twelve Minor Prophets, vol. II. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880.

Kirkpatrick, A. F., The Doctrine of the Prophets. London: Macmillan, 1932.

Kleinert, P., The Book of Habakkuk (Lange’s Commentary). New York: Scribner’s, 1876.

Leslie, E., The Prophets Tell their Own Story. New York: Abingdon, 1939.

Pilcher, C. V., Three Hebrew Prophets and the Passing of Empires. London: Religious Tract Society, 1921.

Smith, G. A., The Book of the 12 Prophets (Expositor’s Bible). Garden City: Doubleday, 1929.

Stonehouse, G. G. V., The Book of Habakkuk. London: Rivingtons, 1911.

ANTON T. PEARSON

Professor of Old Testament Language

Bethel Theological Seminary

St. Paul, Minnesota

A program to recruit social workers and other personnel for Lutheran health and welfare agencies was authorized by the National Lutheran Council at its 43rd annual meeting, held in Detroit January 31-February 3.

The council is a cooperative agency for six U. S. Lutheran bodies that represent about 5,483,000 members, or about two-thirds of American Lutheranism. The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, which has 2,387,000 members, is not officially connected with the NLC, but cooperates in some of its programs.

The recruitment service will be launched next July in an effort to alleviate the shortage of qualified personnel in the field of Lutheran social welfare. A major aim of the program will be to develop and maintain a common registry of Lutheran social work personnel for referral on request to church welfare boards and their allied agencies and institutions.

At its opening session, the council welcomed as a new participating body The American Lutheran Church, formed last year by a three-way merger. The churches which went into the merger all had been NLC members.

A guest at this year’s NLC meeting was the Rev. Kurt Schmidt-Clausen of Geneva, acting executive secretary of the Lutheran World Federation.

Schmidt-Clausen declared that church mergers not based on sound theological doctrine may increase instead of reduce the number of Christian creeds.

He said the “essence” of some interdenominational mergers is to be found “in the attempt to make the merging churches give up not only autonomy of their church organizations but also their doctrinal ties with their fellow-confessional churches in other countries.”

This loss of international doctrinal ties, he asserted, will lead “inevitably” to the creation of national churches “all bound together by the name of ‘Christian Church’ and nothing else.”

A statement on “Religious Faith as a Factor in American Elections” was adopted by the council and recommended to its participating bodies for use as they may determine. The document stresses that the religious affiliation of a candidate for any office is a “valid concern” of the voter, “but it has to be balanced against all the qualifications of this candidate and other candidates and should not be taken out of the context of the total political situation in which the voter has to make his decision.”

Also approved by the NLC was a statement on “Church Hospitals and the Hill-Burton Act.” The statement urges religious groups to “make every effort” to finance their hospitals completely with their own resources and other voluntary contributions, accepting public funds “only when the possibility of providing much-needed facilities under community auspices has been thoroughly explored and found not feasible.”

The council also adopted a budget of $2,068,422 for regular work and certain special phases of its program in 1961, a budget of $2,214,428 for 1962, and a tentative budget of $2,327,269 for 1963. Funds totalling $4,179,000 were allocated for distribution from the 1961 Lutheran World Action appeal.

A report from the Lutheran Immigration Service said that nearly 60,000 refugees had been resettled in the United States since 1948 by the agency and its predecessors. The LIS, operated jointly by church bodies participating in the NLC and the Missouri Synod, was inaugurated in January, 1960, combining activities of the former Lutheran Refugee Service, the Lutheran Resettlement Services, and the immigrants’ service bureau of the NLC.

Dr. Robert W. Long, executive secretary of the council’s Division of American Missions, called for finding “new and imaginative ways to witness together” in an effort to win the unchurched.

He said the task which looms before the Christian forces at the beginning of the sixties is “monumental,” as some 350,000 persons annually are added to the unchurched millions of the United States. But, he said, the task is also “fraught with opportunities and glowing potentialities.”

Nazarene Gains

The Church of the Nazarene counted 10,792 new members on profession of faith following a four-month “Try Christ’s Way” campaign which ended February 1. They were among 92,831 persons who sought spiritual help at Nazarene altars during the church’s evangelistic thrust.

The crusade began with a church-wide prayer and witnessing campaign in which about 1,800,000 persons were contacted with the Christian message and invited to church. It was in keeping with the Nazarene quadrennial (1960–1964) theme of “Evangelism First.”

The Church of the Nazarene is one of the larger Protestant denominations that stands for “scriptural holiness in the Wesleyan tradition.” Emphasis is given the doctrine of sanctification as a second work of grace. The church claims the best record of growth among Holiness denominations in the United States during the last 50 years (current total: approximately 318,500 members in 4,741 churches).

Unity Movement

Presidents of seven major Baptist bodies are being asked by a Providence, Rhode Island, minister to appoint committees for a “grand convention” launching a movement toward Baptist unity.

Dr. Homer L. Trickett, pastor of historic First Baptist Church in Providence, in a recent sermon called for union of all Baptists in America and for a return to the New Testament as a “common point of beginning” by all groups “seeking the road to unity.”

Now he has sent letters to Baptist leaders urging action on his proposal. The messages went to heads of the American Baptist Convention, National Baptist Convention, U. S. A., Inc., National Baptist Convention of America, Baptist General Conference, North American Baptist General Conference, Seventh Day Baptist General Conference and Southern Baptist Convention.

Trickett asked the presidents to “appoint a representative committee on the unity of Baptists in the United States and to authorize this committee to carry out negotiations that shall be aimed at securing a significant unity of fellowship, of program and of action among all Baptists in this country.”

He suggested the convention take place in his church, which is the oldest Baptist sanctuary in the country and the first church of any denomination in Rhode Island.

EUB-Methodist Merger?

A proposal definitely for or against merger with The Methodist Church will be presented to the next General Conference of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, according to Dr. Reuben H. Mueller, senior EUB bishop. The conference will meet in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in October of 1962. Between now and then, regional conferences will discuss the possibility of union.

Methodists favor a merger with the EUB Church. But EUB leaders have in the past voiced concerns about such factors as the difference in size (Methodist, 9,000,000; EUB 760,000) and “questions of absorption” into the episcopacy and the Methodist organizational structure.

End of a Row

Vanderbilt University’s Divinity School announced a successor this month to Dean J. Robert Nelson, who resigned last year in a row over sit-in demonstrations and racial integration.

The new dean, who will take office in September, is Dr. William C. Finch, president of Southwestern University, a Methodist-related school in Georgetown, Texas.

Nelson had resigned, along with 11 members of the Vanderbilt Divinity School faculty, in protest against the school’s dismissal of a student, the Rev. James M. Lawson, Jr.

Lawson, now a Methodist minister in Shelbyville, Tennessee, was ousted following his arrest as leader in the sit-in demonstrations in Nashville.

Of those who resigned with Nelson, all subsequently withdrew their resignations except Nelson and one faculty member who had committed himself to another position. Nelson is now professor at Princeton Theological Seminary.

The Parish Level

Harvard Divinity School is establishing a new academic department on church history and traditions to strengthen training of young men and women for the parish ministry.

In the school’s three-year course of study leading to the B.D. degree, the new Department of the Church will concentrate on church history and traditions as they relate to actual ministerial work at the parish level.

J. Lawrence Burkholder, faculty member at Goshen (Mennonite) College, is the first appointee to the new department. Burkholder has been named associate professor of pastoral theology.

Relocation Leader

Dr. Benjamin P. Browne will begin a two-year term as “Administrator and President-Elect” of Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Chicago, beginning September 1.

Browne, who is resigning as executive director of Christian publications for the American Baptist Board of Education and Publication, has been a part-time acting administrator for the seminary for the past year.

His new post will entail special leadership to the school as it relocates its campus in suburban Chicago.

Currently president of the Associated Church Press, Browne is one of the nation’s most distinguished Christian journalists. He founded six writers’ conferences, including the famous National Christian Writing Center of Green Lake, Wisconsin.

Browne has studied at Boston University, Andover Newton Theological School, and Harvard University.

People: Words And Events

Deaths: Retired Methodist Bishop William T. Watkins, 65; in Louisville, Kentucky … Dr. John L. Seaton, retired educator, Methodist; in Short Hills, New Jersey.

Appointments: As general secretary of the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, Dr. Leland A. Gregory … as moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Rev. W. A. A. Park.

Elections: As chairman of the National Council of Churches’ Broadcasting and Film Commission, Dr. Harry C. Spencer … as president of the Protestant Federation of France, Pastor Charles Westphal.

Grants: To the following, fellowships ranging from $1,000 to $4,000, fifth of an annual series (made possible by a $500,000 Sealantic Fund grant) aimed at stimulating advanced faculty study and strengthening sabbatical leave policies, administered through the American Association of Theological Schools: Ross T. Bender, Goshen College Biblical Seminary; Lowell P. Beveridge, Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary in Virginia; Thomas J. Bigham, General Theological Seminary; William H. Brownlee, Southern California School of Theology; Joseph A. Callaway, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Paul K. Deats, Jr., Boston University School of Theology; Vinjamuri E. Devadutt, Colgate Rochester Divinity School; Edward A. Dowey, Jr., Princeton Theological Seminary; Allan L. Farris, Knox College; Charles R. Feilding, Trinity College; Reginald H. Fuller, Seabury-Western Theological Seminary; James H. Gailey, Jr., Columbia Theological Seminary; Brian A. Gerrish, McCormick Theological Seminary; Harvey H. Guthrie, Jr., Episcopal Theological School; Ray L. Hart, Drew University Theological School; R. Lansing Hicks, Berkeley Divinity School; Edward C. Hobbs, Church Divinity School of the Pacific; Bernard J. Holm, Wartburg Theological Seminary; Charles H. Johnson, Perkins School of Theology; Robert C. Johnson, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary; Gordon D. Kaufman, Vanderbilt Divinity School; Charles F. Kraft, Garrett Biblical Institute; William S. LaSor, Fuller Theological Seminary; Paul L. Lehmann, Harvard Divinity School; Harvey K. McArthur, Hartford Theological Seminary; Frederick W. Meuser, Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary; Paul W. Meyer, Yale University Divinity School; John H. Otwell, Pacific School of Religion; Harold H. Platz, United Theological Seminary; William L. Reed, The College of the Bible; McMurray S. Richey, Duke University Divinity School; Ray F. Robbins, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary; Jim A. Sanders, Colgate Rochester Divinity School; Richard L. Scheef, Jr., Eden Theological Seminary; James D. Smart, Union Theological Seminary; Charles W. F. Smith, Episcopal Theological School; Lawrence E. Toombs, Drew University Theological School; Paul M. van Buren, Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest; Arthur Vööbus, Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary; John von Rohr, Pacific School of Religion; Herndon Wagers, Perkins School of Theology; John T. Wayland, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; John R. Weinlick, Moravian Theological Seminary; David J. Wieand, Bethany Biblical Seminary; John F. Wooverton, Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary in Virginia.

By 8 a.m. on February 9 nearly all of the 950 guests had crowded about damask-covered tables in the ornate Grand Ballroom of Washington’s Mayflower Hotel. A side door opened, and guests stood to their feet as a line of distinguished men filed up to the head table. Army choristers sang softly, “Sweet Hour of Prayer,” and Chairman Boyd Leedom of the National Labor Relations Board stepped forward to lead the invocation. The bowed heads represented perhaps the highest concentration of U. S. governmental leadership ever to assemble for a hearing of the Gospel, in this case the ninth annual Presidential Prayer Breakfast of International Christian Leadership.

Sitting to the breakfast (eggs, ham, bacon, fried apples, grits, et al) were New Frontiersmen in such abundance that in sheer numbers they had outdone eight years of Eisenhower administration representation. The delegation to the first Democratically-dominated Presidential Prayer Breakfast was led by President John F. Kennedy, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, U. N. Ambassador Adlai E. Stevenson, and six other Cabinet members.

The breakfast program included testimonies which would equally have fit a revival service. Jerome Hines, Metropolitan Opera soloist, and William C. Jones, Los Angeles publisher who has picked up the tab for the last four breakfasts, both told of their conversions. Evangelist Billy Graham arrested attention by quoting from the famous message on labor of Pope Leo XIII: “When a society is perishing, the true advice to give those who would restore it is to recall it to the principles from which it sprang.”

Graham stressed that the nation’s problems are primarily personal and spiritual, that they amount to “heart trouble,” and that the problems will never be solved apart from a spiritual transformation of the human heart. In the Bible, he explained, the heart refers to the total man. He quoted Jeremiah as saying that the heart is “desperately wicked … above all things.” The key to a change in the human heart, he said, is found in such verses as John 3:16.

Kennedy’s four-minute address underscored the thesis that every U. S. president has “placed a faith in God” and that religious freedom has no meaning without religious conviction.

“Every President,” he said, “has taken comfort and courage when told as we are told today, that the Lord ‘will be with thee. He will not fail thee nor forsake thee. Fear not—neither be thou dismayed.’ ”

Kennedy was the first to rise when Graham was introduced.

Following the benediction, which closed with joint recital of the Lord’s Prayer, Kennedy, Johnson, and Graham stepped across the Mayflower lobby to greet 600 women who had participated in a similar “First Lady Breakfast.” The Vice President’s wife headed the list of notables. Mrs. Kennedy did not attend.

In 20 state capitals across the nation simultaneous gubernatorial prayer breakfasts were being sponsored by International Christian Leadership chapters. Some had a strong “inter-faith” leaning, as in Minneapolis, where a Jewish rabbi spoke, a Roman Catholic priest gave the invocation, and a Lutheran minister pronounced the benediction.

The program at the main breakfast in Washington began with a recital of the ICL credo by Dr. Richard C. Halverson, the group’s associate executive director who is pastor of Fourth Presbyterian Church in suburban Washington. The credo identifies ICL as “an informal association of concerned laymen united to foster faith, freedom and Christian leadership through regenerated men who in daily life will affirm their faith and assert their position as Christians, believing that ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself … and has committed unto us the word of reconcilation.’ ”

The following Sunday The Washington Post carried a picture of books which Kennedy keeps on his White House desk. Among them was Halverson’s Perspective.

The breakfast prefaced ICL’s 17th annual four-day Christian Leadership Conference, high spot in the calendar year for the 26-year-old organization (see CHRISTIANITY TODAY, March 14, 1960).

Presiding at the breakfast was U. S. Senator Frank Carlson, Republican of Kansas, who with Leedom is an ICL president. Chief Judge Marvin Jones of the Court of Claims quoted Proverbs 3:1–10 and Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara read Romans 8:28–37. Representative Bruce Alger, Republican from Texas, and Senator Frank J. Lausche, Democrat from Ohio and a Roman Catholic, also spoke. Dr. Abraham Vereide, ICL founder, gave the closing prayer.

Sticks and Stones

“The day for using sticks and stones in dealing with Protestants has ended.”

So commented a Roman Catholic priest of Colombia last month in remarks to a Protestant missionary in Cali. They were together for a Bible study which embraced both Roman Catholics and Protestants, latest of a series of events ostensibly aimed at ushering in an era of rapprochement in a country where more than 100 evangelical Christians have been martyred since 1948.

The new approach was highlighted in a huge religious rally in Cali last December 6 when Protestant ministers and Roman Catholics appeared on the same program before 9,000 persons crowded into the city’s Gimnasio Cubierto.

First speaker was the Rev. Hugo Ruiz, a Baptist, who spoke on “The Message of the Bible.” Concluding his address, Ruiz held high his Bible and began to quote from the Spanish hymn, “Santa Biblia para mi eres un tesoro aqui.” A thunderous applause drowned him out.

Ruiz was followed to the rostrum by a Jesuit priest, the Rev. Florencio Alvarez, who delivered an address on “Literary Types in the Bible.” Others who spoke included the Rev. Jose Hajardo (Cumberland Presbyterian), “The Personality of Jesus Christ;” the Rev. Carlos Alvarez (Catholic), “Baptism by Sprinkling;” and the Rev. Harry Bartel (Assemblies of God), “Baptism by Immersion.”

An occasional “Viva la Virgen” punctuated the proceedings, but on the whole the crowd was orderly. Never before in Colombia had Roman Catholics been confronted with the Gospel on such a scale, and Protestant missionaries rubbed their eyes in disbelief.

Some observers are convinced that the new approach is genuine and that Roman Catholic strategy for Colombia is undergoing radical change. One of the first inklings was in 1959 in a book by a Bogota priest who called for an ecumenical approach to supersede eras of “repression” and “tolerance” which had proved unfruitful for Catholicism. He appealed for practicing love in an effort to win over Protestants.

The recent developments seem to indicate that the new approach is being implemented at a remarkable rate, at least in urban areas. Some incidents of persecution have been reported recently, however, indicating that the “violent repressive” era is not wholly history. But an ecumenical spirit predominates, and the recent elevation to cardinal of Colombia’s ranking Roman Catholic prelate indicates Vatican sanction of the reversal.

Protestantism in Colombia has thrived under persecution. Though still small in relation to the country’s population (14,000,000), the Protestant community has seen an average 16 per cent annual growth for the past eight years, according to statistics newly-released by CEDEC (Evangelical Federation of Colombia). Nearly 166,000 Colombians now call themselves Protestants, including 33,156 baptized church members.

Haiti and Rome

Ernest Bonhomme, Haitian ambassador to the United States, cited improved relations between the two countries in an address this month before a regional convention in Washington, D. C. of Full Gospel Business Men.

Bonhomme, a Methodist, said recent spiritual concern and material aid from the United States has reduced anti-American feeling in Haiti and has helped to check Communist influence. He specifically referred to a public rally sponsored by American Protestants which drew 35,000 persons and to foreign aid grants from the U. S. government.

He did not mention the deportation in past weeks of several of the highest-ranking Roman Catholic prelates from Haiti. He did imply gratification over the U. S. State Department’s decision last year to recall ambassador Gerald Drew, a Roman Catholic. Drew was succeeded by Robert Newbigin, a Protestant.

Some reports have linked tension between the Roman Catholic church and the Haitian government with the refusal by President Francois Duvalier to renew a 100-year-old concordat with the Vatican which expired last year.

Miami Crusade

Evangelist Billy Graham opens his Miami crusade this week with addresses to University of Miami students, to a combined civic club luncheon, and to a breakfast ministers’ meeting.

Next Sunday, March 5, the Graham team will begin a three-week campaign in Miami Beach Convention Hall.

Graham and his associate evangelists have been holding week-end meetings in key Florida centers, in conjuction with the height of the tourist season, since early January. Totals to date:

The Congo Question

U. S. missions boards are keeping a close eye on developments in the Congo, where the slaying this month of deposed Premier Patrice Lumumba spelled new trouble for the strife-torn, eight-month-old republic.

Last month’s mass missionary evacuations were limited to the eastern sections of Congo. As of the middle of February, a relatively stable situation still prevailed in western sections.

African Slaying

Edward Adkins, 64, an American Methodist missionary, was fatally injured this month when he and his wife were attacked by a group of thugs while walking home from a Sunday evening church service in Krugerdorf, South Africa.

Mrs. Adkins suffered a possible skull fracture.

A U. S. State Department spokesman speculated that robbery may have motivated the attack. Missing were a briefcase and purse which the couple were carrying.

Halted at the Gate

Seven bishops and about 30 laymen from West Germany were barred by East German police from entering East Berlin to attend a special service in St. Mary’s Church marking the opening of the week-long Synod of the Evangelical Church in Germany. The churchmen were told by police at the Brandenburg Gate barrier between East and West Berlin that their presence was “indesirable.”

Mayor Willy Brandt of West Berlin called the police action “a breach of law and a violation of existing agreements.” The service was the only synod event scheduled for East Berlin, the main sessions having been arranged to take place at the St. John Foundation in West Berlin.

For some unexplained reason, however, Communist authorities made an exception in the case of Bishop Hermann Kunst of Bonn, Chaplain General of the West German armed forces. Others permitted to enter East Berlin included Bishop Otto Dibelius and Pastor Martin Niemoeller.

Some observers saw the East German restriction as a bad omen for the next Kirchentag, now scheduled to be held in Berlin in July.

The Rockefeller Plan

Students of the Church-State scene are attaching great significance to New York Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller’s proposal to give tuition-aid payments of up to $200 a year to college students in his state, even those in church-sponsored schools.

The Rockefeller plan has been widely criticized as a violation of the principle of Church-State separation.

Observers are pondering possible political repercussions of Rockefeller’s position, which carries the favor of most Roman Catholics. The Republican governor is often mentioned as a presidential contender in 1964, perhaps opposite President John F. Kennedy, who—despite the fact that he is a Roman Catholic—has taken a strong stand against government aid to parochial schools.

The New York State Catholic Welfare Committee has endorsed the Rockefeller tuition plan, which would help students defray tuition costs in excess of $500 a year (graduate students would receive up to $800 in assistance), as “reasonable” and constitutional. Walter J. Mahoney, Senate majority leader in the state legislature, has warned that he will not support any expanded financial aid for higher education in New York unless it includes both private and public colleges.

Sharp criticism came from many Protestant quarters. Rockefeller himself took his proposal before the State Council of Churches’ annual legislative seminar. He denied his program was designed to aid the colleges rather than students. Asked if it was not an effort to subsidize private colleges, he replied: “No, and I resent your saying that.”

The council had charged that the Rockefeller program attempted to “circumvent” the state constitution, which prohibits the use of public funds to aid sectarian institutions.

Expressing confidence that the council would agree to the legality of his proposal, he also chided the group for criticizing the plan before he had outlined it in a special message to the legislature.

“You judged me and condemned me before I got my message out,” he said.

Public Policy

The ramifications of a school’s acceptance of government funds were underscored in a statement issued by the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs last month.

The statement cites a report from the Civil Rights Commission urging the Federal government to use disbursement of Federal funds to public institutions as a weapon to force compliance with segregation decrees. The commission split 3–3 on recommending that such pressure also be exerted on private schools.

Commenting on the report, C. Emanuel Carlson, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, said that “we must expect” that in due time “public policy” must prevail in institutions that use “public funds.” The statement added that integration happens to be the focal point at the present time, but in due course other policies will develop and will be enforced in institutions using public funds.

“If funds are accepted in 1961,” Carlson warned, “public policy will certainly control the institutions before 1971. The churches cannot both eat their cake and still have it. The freedom of the churches has always had a price tag—pay the cost. While integration is in harmony with positions taken by our Baptist conventions, we cannot assume that public policy always will reflect church insights.”

POAU Parley

The 13th National Conference on Church and State heard a declaration that it is morally wrong for “any religious institution to accept a subsidy” from the government when “it declines supervision and regulation.”

The statement was made by the Rev. Charles R. Bell, Jr., pastor of First Baptist Church in Pasadena, California, in an address to the conference this month in Portland, Oregon. The conference is sponsored by Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Bell declared that state funds accepted by a church “inevitably breed indifference” and “no amount of money can give vitality to a church.”

Elder R. R. Bietz, president of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, described “clericalism” as a great danger to religious freedom in the United States. He defined it as “the pursuit of political power by a religious hierarchy carried on by secular methods and for the purpose of social domination.”

“We do not object if a church believes it is the only true church,” he said. “However, when a church wants to use the power of the state to silence others who might differ from it, we would reply, ‘Your liberty ends where my nose begins.’ ”

Dr. W. A. Criswell, pastor of Dallas’ First Baptist Church, at a conference public rally said that “the way to prevent clericalism is to make churches free, independent, self-supporting, redemptive in their mission and not agencies for political domination.”

Criswell labelled as the greatest danger to Church-State separation “the campaign to shift the cost of Roman Catholic schools to the American taxpayer.” He contended that Francis Cardinal Spellman’s bid for federal funds for parochial schools was “a declaration of war against separation of church and state.”

“It presents a dramatic challenge to Mr. Kennedy at the very threshold of his term in office,” Criswell continued. “Millions of voters will want to know immediately whether our new President will bow to the wishes of Cardinal Spellman or respect his magnificent pledges given in the last campaign.”

Spellman, Archbishop of New York, has condemned as “unfair” to the country’s parochial and private school pupils a proposed federal aid to education program restricted to public schools.

Dr. W. Kenneth Haddock of Church-land, Virginia, a Methodist district superintendent, told the conference that “the Church-State separation battle must continue to be done on the real issues of public tax support for Roman Catholic schools, tax favoritism for Roman Catholic nuns who teach in public schools and clergy who serve as chaplains in the armed forces, and Roman Catholic baking, brewing and broadcasting industries, as well as insistent demand by the Roman Catholic church that its views on birth control shall be forced upon the United Nations policy and the U. S. foreign policy.”

Pre-Marital Agreement

The Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court is studying a child-custody appeal by a Baptist mother legally separated from her Roman Catholic husband. She contends that her premarital agreement to bring up any children as Catholics is unconstitutional.

Mrs. Ruth Begley of Brooklyn is seeking to reverse an earlier ruling by Supreme Court Justice Charles J. Beckinella placing her three sons in the custody of their father, Hugh Begley, Jr.

In his decision last July, when the separation was granted, the judge ruled as binding the pre-marital agreement made by Mrs. Begley as required by Catholic church law when a Catholic marries a baptized non-Catholic.

Under this agreement the non-Catholic promises that the Catholic party shall have complete freedom in the practice of his religion and that all children born of the marriage will be baptized and reared as Catholics.

Morris Shapiro, Mrs. Begley’s lawyer, told the Appellate Division that the premarital agreement had been signed by the wife under duress. Mrs. Begley, he said, had been pregnant when the agreement was made and Begley had warned that he would leave her if she did not agree to a Catholic wedding.

Shapiro also said that the mother was a “fit person on moral and other grounds” to have custody of the children, while the father was not.

Begley’s attorney, Vincent J. Malone, denied that his client was not morally fit to have the children and said the agreement had been “freely made and ratified by Mrs. Begley.”

A “friend-of-the-court” brief in support of Mrs. Begley was filed by the American Jewish Congress. In it the congress said that the lower court’s order awarding custody of the children to the father because of the pre-marital agreement is an “infringement on religious freedom and an impairment of the Church-State separation principle.” Such agreements were called unconstitutional.

Assuring Missionaries

Sixty-two Baptist missionaries paid a visit to President Kennedy in the White House this month.

Kennedy assured them that he is concerned for religious liberty both in the United States and around the world. He expressed appreciation for the contribution Baptists are making to the ideals of religious and political liberty upon which this country was founded.

The visit with the President was made during a school of missions in the churches of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention. The missionaries were from the American and Southern Baptist Conventions.

Kennedy greeted the missionaries with handshakes.

Capital Orientation

Some 95 students from 14 evangelical colleges assembled in Washington this month for a four-day seminar on the prospects of government employment and its special meaning for committed Christians.

It was the sixth annual Washington Seminar on Federal Service sponsored by the public affairs office of the National Association of Evangelicals. Through such seminars the NAE hopes to whet interests of Christian college students in taking up federal service careers and to outline the opportunities therein, both from a secular and spiritual standpoint.

This year’s seminar included a 40-minute tour of the White House and numerous other visits to places of interest in Washington. The program featured talks and discussions with government officials, including an economist with the Housing and Home Finance Agency who was introduced to government service as a college student in a similar seminar four years ago.

Losing a Bid

Christian Scientists lost a bid this month to have the Ontario legislature place their healing practitioners on equal legal standing with medical doctors.

The bid was made by Leslie Tufts of the Christian Science Committee on Publication while a legislative committee was considering amendments to the Coroner’s Act. One of the amendments specified that every person who believes someone has died from a disease or sickness for which he has not been treated by a duly qualified medical practitioner must so advise the coroner.

Tufts had urged the legislators to add after the words “medical practitioner” the phrase “or by a duly accredited religious practitioner of a well-known church or denomination, through prayer or spiritual means alone.”

The legislative committee turned down the request.

To the Convent

Yvonne Dionne, 26, one of the world-famous Dionne quintuplets, plans to become a nun.

She will enter Baie St. Paul, Quebec, convent of the Little Franciscan Sisters, a Roman Catholic order which operates schools and hospitals in Quebec and New England.

Miss Dionne will be a postulant until August when she advances to a two-year novitiate before taking final vows. She has been serving as a nurse in Montreal.

One of the Dionne sisters, Emilie, died in 1954. The other three sisters are married.

Eyeing Hollywood

Keeping an eye on the products of Hollywood film factories is an implicit responsibility of the Los Angeles office of the National Council of Churches’ Broadcasting and Film Commission. But what to do in cases where the West Coast office people don’t like what they see is yet to be determined.

The Los Angeles office headed by George A. Heimrich has been a source of controversy since 1959 when Heimrich spoke out sharply against the increasing portrayal of sex and violence in U. S. movies. He stressed that “something very definite must be done about this situation.” Some interpreted his remarks as suggestive of boycott or censorship, and criticism was heaped upon him even by members of the Commission. Dr. S. Franklin Mack, executive director of the NCC’s Broadcasting and Film Commission, dissociated himself from Heimrich’s position.

Last December the BFC Board of Managers’ executive committee recommended closing the Los Angeles office by transferring it to the jurisdiction of the NCC’s Department of Public Relations in New York. This month the full board met, however, and reversed the executive committee decision, urging instead that the Los Angeles office be strengthened, thereby assuring it of additional financing.

The board met in connection with the commission’s annual meeting. A proposal by the agency’s West Coast Committee that the NCC or one of its units set up a board to review and rate movies was referred to the executive committee for study.

The Bible institute movement has grown rapidly since 1882 when Nyack Missionary College was founded, and 1886 when Moody Bible Institute was begun. More than 200 Bible institutes and colleges are presently in existence.

The movement has been hailed by its friends and alternately condemned and pitied by its foes.

On the asset side of the ledger an emphasis on sound doctrinal belief has been paramount. Bible schools have positively proclaimed the virgin birth and deity of Christ, man’s sinfulness, redemption through the substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection, the imminent return of Jesus Christ, and the full inspiration of the Bible. This doctrinal emphasis was a bulwark against the onslaught of nineteenth century rationalism which impatiently waved aside biblical supernaturalism.

Strong emphasis also was placed on the direct study of the English Bible. The logic of the early Bible school leaders demanded that no peripheral interest should supplant the firsthand study of Scripture, the written Word of God. Such methods as inducive Bible study and Bible synthesis have largely been popularized in Bible institutes.

Equipping the layman and laywoman with a practical knowledge of the Bible for use in teaching in Sunday Schools, supervising rescue missions, and in other areas of Christian service was the original purpose of the Moody Bible Institute. The goal of Nyack, on the other hand, was to train recruits for a practical and evangelistic ministry on the foreign mission field.

Complications soon set in because students looking forward to the pastorate began to apply in large numbers, and the pressure mounted to increase the range of subjects and to deepen the content. This type of training began to register a marked effect on some phases of the religious life of America. Many trained in liberal seminaries did not know their Bibles. In countless churches across the country, everything from politics to community welfare became the pulpit diet. The fact was ignored that the unregenerate man in the pew needs a message from God to redeem his soul and transform his life. A goodly number of Bible institute graduates had this message, and spiritually hungry people responded to their ministry. These preachers were not always scholars, but they usually had a grasp of basic Bible themes and doctrines, and an insight into practical Christian living. The layman was encouraged to study the Bible and to carry it to church. Such churches became enthusiastic Bible-teaching and evangelistic centers.

The mission field, too, felt the impact of Bible institute training. These early graduates with admittedly meager training became witnesses on the frontiers of the world, by engaging often in pioneer work. Authoritative missionary sources substantiate the fact that even today the majority of missionaries on the field have had some of their training at Bible institutes and Bible colleges. The battles won by Bible institute graduates were not won in the scholastic arena but in the pragmatic fields of the pulpit and pew, and in the primitive mission wilderness.

Then, too, the Bible institute fostered an emphasis on personal piety and devotional dedication. This warm-hearted campus atmosphere encouraged personal spiritual development.

A Look at the Liabilities

Not all of the facts, however, registered on the asset side of the ledger. There were serious shortcomings in the Bible institute movement, and some liabilities remain. Its most ardent advocates would, I think, be willing to admit this. In the early years of the movement there was an aversion to high academic principles. By way of reaction against the intellectual pride of nineteenth century rationalism, there arose a disposition to glorify a lack of formal education for faculty members. A “good working knowledge of the English Bible” was all that was required.

Sometimes easy answers to difficult problems were proposed. Oversimplification often became the rule of thumb. Armed with memorized proof texts, young graduates were supposed to be adequately equipped, mentally and spiritually, to rescue the perishing world. Stereotyped explanations of difficult texts were given more than occasionally. Not enough time was devoted to serious study of the Greek and Hebrew texts themselves. Liberal arts subjects were derided as “of the devil.” In some quarters a decided spirit of anti-intellectualism prevailed. In certain areas of theological thought even spiritually-minded men were sometimes adverse to logical procedures.

Unfortunately, the Bible was not always allowed to speak for itself even in the Bible institutes. Mimeographed notes and outlines were frequently substituted for personalized study of the Scriptures. Special “pet” interpretive points of view were given the importance of creedal belief. Of course these abuses were not all characteristic of every school, but frequently were found in the movement as a whole.

However, the Bible institute movement grew much as a baby does. Boundless newborn energy manifested itself at first in clumsy actions, and then became constructively active with disciplined coordination and, by and large, produced good results. Many of the abuses were frankly recognized, and constructive steps were taken to correct them. Serious self-appraisal by the leadership of the movement is still going on in schools that value constructive criticism.

The Rise of Accreditation

The main core of the Bible institute was and is, as the name itself suggests, the English Bible. This emphasis differentiates the Bible institute from the Christian liberal arts college. As academic standards were raised, the level of work soon became comparable with that of some Christian colleges. In some instances it was higher. Yet no accreditation for this work existed on a national level to recognize it as of collegiate level for credit transfer purposes. In 1947, representatives of the leading Bible institutes and Bible colleges met to discuss this vexing problem.

The Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges was born and was recognized by the Office of Education of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in Washington. Interest multiplied in correcting the weaknesses of the movement while conserving its basic good qualities and objectives. Degree standards for instructors, more rigid requirements for libraries, standardized business and bookkeeping procedures, as well as sound administrative principles, were set up.

Many institutions added a fourth year to their three-year curriculum and granted a bachelor’s degree in Bible. The additional year usually provided more liberal arts subjects. Methods of effectively communicating the Gospel were studied as well. Even with the addition of selective courses in liberal arts, the central core of the curriculum remained a minimum of 30 to 40 hours of Bible and theology.

With accreditation came the ability to transfer credits to graduate schools and other colleges. This added to the stature and effectiveness of the Bible school graduate. Without compromising the uniqueness of its original purpose and aim, the Bible school thus markedly increased its prestige and appeal. Large institutions like Moody turn away hundreds of applicants each year. To its firsthand study of the Bible, adherence to sound doctrine, and emphasis on missions, the Bible institute has added a new measure of academic respectability.

Bible institute training is not a panacea for Christian education. Nor can one substitute a three-year Bible institute course for four years of college and three of seminary. Each has its own place and function in the Church of Christ. However, the Bible institute can and does meet a real need in the total picture of Christian education. Its fruit over the last 90 years has been good. The addition of academic status and the progressive elimination of obvious weaknesses are strengthening its approach to Christian training. Spirituality and orthodoxy are no longer associated with ignorance and anti-intellectualism. The Bible institute movement has come of age.

WESLEY A. OLSEN

Executive Vice President

Northeastern Bible Institute

Essex Fells, New Jersey

The Westminster Shorter Catechism beautifully describes God as “Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth” (Question 4). The Belgic Confession of Faith begins similarly: “We all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good” (Article I). Most of these terms are called the attributes or the perfections, of God.

The attributes may be defined as those perfections of God which are revealed in Scripture and which are exercised and demonstrated by God in his various works. Reformed and Evangelical theologians have frequently distinguished communicable and incommunicable attributes. The communicable attributes of God are those which find some reflection or analogy in man who was created in God’s image, while the incommunicable attributes of God find little or no analogy in man. The latter-unity, independence, eternity, immensity and immutability—emphasize the transcendence and exalted character of God.

Preliminary Considerations. 1. It is important to recognize that all of the attributes, both communicable and incommunicable, are the attributes of the one only true and living God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The attributes of God may not be discussed as if they were attributes of deity in general, in order then to move on to consider the triune God as one God among many. Christianity is rightly monotheistic, and therefore all the attributes are attributes of the only true God of Scripture. The recognition of this uniqueness of the living God has sometimes been discussed under the incommunicable attribute of the unity of God (unitas singularitas). (Cf. Deut. 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6; Mark 12:28 ff.; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5.)

2. Since the only true God is the triune God of Scripture, the communicable as well as the incommunicable attributes belong equally to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. There is therefore no absolute necessity for discussing the attributes prior to the doctrine of the Trinity. There is a good reason for doing so, however, since the attributes characterize the divine nature of the triune God. However, the incommunicable attributes of God must not be confused with the “incommunicable property” of each divine Person, that is, with generation, filiation, and spiration.

3. Discussion of the attributes must also acknowledge the incomprehensibility of God. Finite man can never comprehend the infinite God. The believer will not even be able fully to understand all that God has revealed concerning his attributes.

4. The attributes must be regarded as essential characteristics of the divine being. It is not man who attributes these perfections to God. God himself reveals his attributes to us in Scripture. The attributes are objective and real. They describe God as he is in himself. Hence they are also exercised or demonstrated in the works which God performs in creation, providence, and redemption.

Again these various attributes must not be regarded as so many parts or compartments of God’s being. Each of the attributes describes God as he is, not just a part of his being, or simply what he does. Furthermore, there is no scriptural warrant for elevating one attribute, such as love or independence, to pre-eminence and making others mere subdivisions of it. While there is a mutual relation and inter-relationship between the various attributes, there is a divinely revealed difference between the eternity of God and the immutability of God, between the love of God and the holiness of God, for example. These themes are often considered under the attribute of simplicity (unitas simplicitas).

Discussion of Specific Attributes. Attention will now be directed to a brief consideration of specific incommunicable attributes. The unity and simplicity of God have been discussed. We shall now consider the independence, eternity, immensity, and immutability of God. (The source and norm of our assertions here, as everywhere in theology, must be exclusively the inspired and inerrant Word of God.)

1. Independence (Aseity). Scripture indicates the independence of God in various ways. When Moses was sent to Israel and Pharaoh, it was “I am that I am” (Exod. 3:14) who sent him, the living God who has “life in himself” (John 5:26). God is not “served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath and all things” (Acts 17:25). He works “all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11) and his counsel “standeth fast forever” (Ps. 33:11). In this light the independence of God may be defined as that perfection which indicates that God is not dependent upon anything outside of himself, but that he is self-sufficient and all-sufficient in his whole being, in his decrees and in all his works.

Although God has the ground of his existence in himself, he is not self-caused or self-originated, for the eternal God has neither beginning nor end. The independence of God includes more than the idea of God’s aseity or self-existence. His independence characterizes not only his existence, but his whole being and all his attributes, his decrees and his works of creation, providence, and redemption.

The biblical view of God’s independence does not permit one to identify the God of Scripture with the abstract philosophical concept of the Absolute of Spinoza or Hegel. The self-existent, independent God of Scripture is the living God who is not only exalted above the whole creation, but is at the same time its creator and sustainer. And in governing the world, God entered into fellowship with man before the fall, and after the fall he established a new fellowship in the covenant of grace. Although God works all things according to the counsel of his will, he sometimes performs his will through intermediate and secondary causes. He uses men, for example, in the all-important task of publishing the Gospel.

2. Eternity. The infinity of God is sometimes considered as an absolute perfection which characterizes all God’s attributes as limitless and perfect. In this sense all the communicable attributes would be characterized by the incommunicable attribute of infinity. It is primarily with reference to time and space, however, that the infinity of God is considered as the eternity and the immensity of God.

Scripture speaks of “the eternal God” who is our dwelling place (Deut. 33:27). He is “the King eternal” (1 Tim. 1:17) existing before the foundation of the world “from everlasting to everlasting” (Ps. 90:2), “the Alpha and the Omega” (Rev. 1:8). He “inhabiteth eternity” (Isa. 57:15); his “years shall have no end” (Ps. 102:27); and “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8).

Eternity may be defined as that perfection of God which expresses his transcendence with respect to time. God has neither beginning nor end. He does not undergo growth, development, maturation. He existed before the world, he dwells even now in eternity, and he will continue as the eternal God even when history has ended.

Although we must acknowledge that God is not subject to the limitations of time, we must also recognize that time is God’s creation and that he is the Lord of history. History is the unfolding of his sovereign counsel. It was in the “fulness of time” that “God sent forth his Son” (Gal. 4:4). Time is meaningful for the eternal God, for it was on a Friday that Christ died on the cross and on Sunday morning that he rose from the grave. The risen Christ told his disciples, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20). The Christian, therefore, confidently confesses: “My times are in thy hand” (Ps. 31:15).

3. Immensity and Omnipresence. God is both a God at hand and afar off so that no one can hide himself in a secret place: “Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith Jehovah” (Jer. 23:23 f.). Heaven is his throne and the earth is his footstool (Isa. 66:1). Therefore no one can escape the omnipresent and omniscient God (Ps. 139). “He is not far from each one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:27 f.).

In the light of such passages the immensity of God may be defined as that perfection of God which expresses his transcendence with respect to space. And omnipresence expresses the fact that this transcendent God is yet present everywhere in heaven and earth.

Here again one must seek to grasp the positive implications of this incommunicable attribute. God is spirit; he has no body and hence is not limited by space. Therefore we are not bound to Jerusalem or any other place in our worship of the true God (John 4:21 ff.). On the other hand it was into this world that God sent his only begotten Son. And Christ who now governs the whole cosmos will come again physically at the end of history to judge the living and dead.

4. The Immutability of God. God is described in Scripture as “the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning” (James 1:17). “For I, Jehovah, change not” (Mal. 3:6) is his own affirmation. And by an oath he has “immutably” witnessed to the “immutability of his counsel” (Heb. 6:17 f.).

Immutability is that perfection which designates God’s constancy and unchangeableness in his being, decrees, and works. He remains forever the same true God, faithful to himself, his decrees, his revelation and his works. He undergoes no change from within, nor does he undergo change due to anything outside of himself.

It is necessary to ask whether the immutability of God can be maintained in the face of several scriptural assertions concerning a certain “repentance” of God. For example, with respect to the unfaithfulness of Saul, God told Samuel: “It repented me that I have set up Saul to be king” (1 Sam. 15:11). However, there is a specific statement in the same chapter which indicates that God cannot repent. After telling Saul that God was taking the kingdom from him and giving it to another (David), Samuel adds: “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent” (1 Sam. 15:28 f.; cf. Num. 23:19). It appears then that God’s “repentance” must be understood in an anthropomorphic sense to describe the depth of his displeasure and grief in relation to the horrible sins of men. At the same time the faithfulness, constancy, and immutability of God stand out in taking the kingdom from Saul and giving it to David for the sake of keeping his faithful covenant.

There are also instances in which the “repentance” of God is related to a condition, either expressed or implied. The general rule in such instances is expressed in Jeremiah 18: “… If that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them … if they do that which is evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them” (vs. 8 ff.). Thus with respect to Nineveh, Jehovah “saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil which he said he would do unto them; and he did it not” (Jonah 3:10; cf. 3:9; 4:2). Similar references to God’s “repentance” occur in Amos (7:3, 6) and Joel (2:13 f.). In these instances also the word “repentance” it used in an anthropomorphic way to express God’s faithful response to the meeting of a condition, either expressed or implied in his promise, or threat. Rather than contradict the immutability of God, this “repentance” in the total context of Scripture emphasizes that God is faithful and true to his word and promise forever. There is no “holy mutability of God” as Karl Barth claims. “The Lord hath sworn and will not repent” (Ps. 110:4), and his “counsel shall stand” (Isa. 46:10).

The immutability of God does not mean, however, that God is immobile or inactive. The Christian God is always active, never unemployed, or incapacitated. He not only sustains or preserves all that he has created, but he actively governs it in accord with his sovereign and immutable counsel. In all his works the eternal and sovereign God executes his decree and shows himself “the same yesterday, and today, yea and forever” (Heb. 13:8).

Conclusion: The incommunicable attributes describe the transcendent greatness of the Triune God. He is self-sufficient and all-sufficient, transcendent above time and space and yet present everywhere in heaven and earth; he remains forever the same true God, unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Since all theology concerns God and his relations with men, one’s entire theological position is reflected in the doctrine of the attributes of God. Therefore, a biblical doctrine of the attributes of God should reflect itself in the whole of one’s theology.

Bibliography: Reformed: H. Bavinck, The Doctrine of God; L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology; S. Charnock, The Attributes of God; A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology; C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. I; W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. I. Neo-orthodox: G. Aulén, The Faith of the Christian Church; K. Barth, Church Dogmatics II/1, E. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God.

Associate Professor of Systematic Theology

Calvin Theological Seminary

Grand Rapids, Michigan