Whither the World Council of Churches? This is a question which has been in the minds of many for a considerable time. Is the WCC aiming at the goal of a single massive uniform World Church? Is it seeking unity at all costs, especially at the cost of truth and spirituality? Is it, in fact, Christian mainly in a superficial sense rather than in depth? It is quite proper that questions such as these be asked—and that they be asked in all seriousness by those who are intimately involved in the WCC no less than by those who may be classed as spectators. The movement is beset by dangers. For example, the temptation is ever present to make, for the sake of unity, the common doctrinal denominator as low as possible. It is not difficult to deceive oneself into confusing uniformity of order with unity in faith, whereas, as Church history has constantly shown, the latter is not at all dependent on the former. The meetings of the Commission on Faith and Order and of the Central Committee of the WCC in St. Andrews, Scotland, this summer have therefore been of special interest to the Christian world.

Whatever else these meetings may have revealed, they have certainly shown that the WCC is not standing still. It is a genuine movement, the impulse of which is an earnest longing that the true oneness of Christians in Christ may be visible as well as invisible, to the end that the world may believe (John 21:21). As the movement increases in size, however, so the machinery of organization is also necessarily increased, the staff is expanded, and the peril grows of degeneration into an ecclesiastical bureaucracy and of that stagnation which the shadow of the impersonal hand of officialdom so readily induces. If this peril is to be avoided it must be remembered that organizing geniuses are a menace unless their hearts beat with the loving and essentially personal dynamism of the Gospel.

At this summer’s meetings there were certain welcome signs of movement in the right direction. One was the evident desire on the part of the majority of those attending the Faith and Order Commission for freedom to express oneness in Christ by openly uniting at the Lord’s Table in obedience to his command, “This do in remembrance of Me.” How much longer will the manifest disunity at the very place where above all others the unity of Christians should be displayed to the world be allowed to continue? This is a stumbling block which cries out to be removed. The desire for the way to be opened for all fellow-believers to the Lord’s Table (which should be “fenced” only against unbelievers and hypocrites) cannot indefinitely be inhibited by those whose views of ecclesiastical purity or of ministerial validity and sacramental efficacy are narrowed by limiting concepts which the New Testament does not in any way encourage.

This desire is apparent in the following statement which occurs in the Report to the Central Committee on the Future of Faith and Order: “The Commission on Faith and Order understands that the unity which is both God’s will and His gift to His Church is one which brings all in each place who confess Christ Jesus as Lord into a fully committed fellowship with one another through one baptism into Him, holding the one apostolic faith, preaching the one Gospel, and breaking the one bread, and having a corporate life reaching out in witness and service to all; and which at the same time unites them with the whole Christian fellowship in all places and all ages in such wise that ministry and members are acknowledged by all, and that all can act and speak together as occasion requires for the tasks to which God calls the Church.”

The desire is most trenchantly apparent in the Report of the Ecumenical Youth Assembly in Europe, held in Lausanne in July of this year, unanimously presented by the delegates who attended (some 1,600 in number, I believe). “In that we are deliberately returning home to our local churches, we are also deliberately returning to our own denominations,” they say. “But we are all going home as Christians who are profoundly disturbed by the guilt of division. We are going home as Christians who have experienced what it means not to be able to become one at the Lord’s Table.… We will not stop asking: What really keeps us apart from the others? Which of our objections, measured against the testimony of the Bible, are today no more than prejudice and nontheological traditions? How far are we kept apart only by our national loyalties and state church organizations? Are we really making any effort to clear away these differences?”

This particular Report constitutes a remarkably realistic and challenging document, the burden of which may be summed up as a demand for less talk and more practice. The impatience, the vision, and the candor of youth may well prove a decisive factor in preserving the World Council of Churches from spiritual arthritis.

Two developments at the St. Andrews meetings should go some distance toward allaying the misgivings of those who have feared that the WCC is moving towards the objective of a monolithic World Church and that its basis of membership is so inadequate, especially in that it makes mention neither of Holy Scripture nor of the Holy Trinity, as to leave the door open for the entry of those whose position is not that of the historic Christian faith; for, firstly, the Report on the Future of Faith and Order declares that “we would state emphatically that the unity we seek is not one of uniformity,” and, secondly, the Central Committee has decided to recommend for adoption at next year’s assembly to be held in New Delhi an expanded form of the present basis of membership, which will include explicit reference both to the Scriptures and to the Trinity, as follows: “The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of Churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfill together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

Those scriptural and evangelical principles which we hold sacred must not indeed be compromised. But the WCC is a movement which cannot be ignored, and an attitude of aloofness and scepticism on the part of evangelicals means not only a restriction of their own influence within the wider sphere of the Church Universal, but also a withholding from the WCC of that very influence which should play so vital a part within its development. As things are, the WCC is not devoid of evangelical membership. Such membership, however, could with advantage be strengthened. If we know, clear-sightedly and in love, where we stand, then there is no place for fear and nothing of which to be ashamed.

Evangelical Certainties In Our Day

The Word for This Century, edited by Merrill C. Tenney (Oxford, 1960, 184 pp., $4), is reviewed by Dr. C. Adrian Heaton, President, California Baptist Theological Seminary.

“Evangelical Certainties in an Area of Conflict” is the subtitle of this lively volume. What certainties?

First, sin is a “willful revolt against the sovereign Holy God” says Carl Henry. Darwinism had laughed at the sense of sin. Freudianism dealt with “guilt feelings” rather than “guilt.” Liberalism almost completely lost the sense of sin, but “man’s iniquity forced the reappraisal of both secular and religious optimism” (p. 10). Biblical revelation, which true evangelicals take with complete seriousness, requires a depth concept of sin as a necessary part of an adequate doctrine of redemption and incentive to evangelism.

Second, the Bible at one and the same time points to the Living Word and is the God-breathed, authoritative interpretation of Christ, says Kenneth S. Kantzer. His chapter is not a rehash of clichés about the Bible but a treatment showing insight on the contemporary debate about revelation and authority. This chapter should be read along with Bernard Ramm’s new volume The Witness of the Holy Spirit, which is a fuller treatment of the same fresh insight.

Chapters on “The Person of Christ” and “Redemption by Christ” by Stuart C. Hackett and the late T. Leonard Lewis state other universally accepted evangelical certainties. Sanctification is treated by Billy Graham under the heading of “Christ in the Believer.” The chapter is largely sermonic in four points. First, “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.” Second, the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new. Third, self-denial, “if any man come after me, let him deny himself” (Luke 9:23). Fourth, “and be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2).

Glenn W. Barker writes of “The Church of God” as both visible and invisible, the redeemed and the redeeming community. The Church is the new Israel, but not the complete fulfillment of the promises to Israel. Also she is the Body of Christ and the Possessor of the Holy Spirit. Some important questions are raised but hardly answered. For example, what is the proper order of ministry within the Church, and how is the unity of the Church to be expressed?

V. Raymond Edman contributes a chapter on Christian Ethics. His writing is devotional in nature. Especially helpful is his section on “The ethics of the Lord Jesus.”

The final certainty is “The Hope of the World,” by John F. Walvoord. “Christian hope is simply and completely faith in Christ,” says the author (p. 157). It includes bodily resurrection, the second coming of Christ, and the new heaven and new earth. Walvoord has much to say about the millennium. He seems to force the concept of the millennium into the Old and New Testament Scriptures wherever possible. He says (p. 174) “the Scriptures present the doctrine of the millennium as major theme of revelation.” While this will be debated by many, Walvoord surely writes consistently with this view.

The book is a splendid contribution to contemporary thought. Although it has some of the marks of spottiness growing out of its multiple authorship, and is somewhat weak in social ethics and in its view of the Church, it should have a wide reading and help people to understand some of the dynamic thought now going on among the graduates and staff of Wheaton College. This anniversary volume was edited carefully by Dr. Merrill C. Tenney, Dean of the Graduate School of Wheaton College. He affirms, “God has spoken His final word to men through the historical Christ, and because Christ still lives His truth is applicable to our age” (p. xv).

Confronted with the inadequacy of the “newer views” of modern scholars it is heartening to see the certainties of the orthodox Christian faith presented with such clarity and scholarly cogency. The writers adhere to the meaning and spirit of God’s Word and speak with refreshing relevancy to the times in which we live.

C. ADRIAN HEATON

Love Silhouetted

The Four Loves, by C. S. Lewis (Harcourt, Brace, 1960, 192 pp., $3.75). Reviewed by Clyde S. Kilby.

If I confess that this book has not, for me at least, the high merits of some of Lewis’ earlier ones, I hope it will not be supposed that it is by any means a second-rate book. Lewis is most at home, and most brilliant, on controversial issues—on those topics which we suppose we have long since settled and which he, like G. K. Chesterton and a few others, is able to bring before us again silhouetted as we have never seen them before. Except for his chapter on friendship, Lewis’ main discussion at least is in the traditional vein, and the value I discover in the present book is fully as much in the incidental and illustrative remarks as in the theme itself.

For instance, we learn once again of Lewis’ deep love for good walking and good talking and his antagonism to modern education, the “adjusted” child, and the notion of “togetherness.” And again we find Lewis taking sides with youth rather than age. He says he has been far more impressed with the bad manners of parents to children than the reverse. He analyzes with great sharpness the perversions of love, yet the reader is surprised to learn that these perversions are not precisely the ones he might expect.

As with most of Lewis’ books, this one will bear several readings. It is filled with provocative ideas on each of the four types of love discussed: Affection, Friendship, Eros, and Charity.

CLYDE S. KILBY

Modern Presupposition

Mysticism and the Modern Mind, edited by Alfred P. Stiernotte (The Liberal Arts Press, 1959, 206 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by Robert D. Knudsen, Instructor in Philosophy, Westminster Theological Seminary.

This book is a loosely organized collection of essays which seek to point out the relevance of mysticism to contemporary intellectual movements. An occasional essay shows insight and is helpful; but for the most part the writing is second-rate and uninteresting.

It might be admitted that certain contemporary movements approach what can be loosely called “mysticism.” But what this book designates as mysticism is so broad as to become almost meaningless. Even though one might agree to call certain tendencies mystical, he is left in considerable doubt as to precisely what can be gained by pointing them out.

One thing the book clearly shows, however, is how closely mysticism is wedded in the minds of the various authors with liberal religion. There is a typical mystical depreciation of the word revelation. Dogma becomes the expression of a general, ineffable religious experience. One looks in vain for the biblical view of man’s sinfulness or for the biblical message of redemption in Christ Jesus.

If one desires to read an enthusiastic attempt of some mystics to relate their mysticism to the contemporary scene, he might read this book. If he desires to read a succinct and penetrating exposition of what mysticism is, he should turn elsewhere.

ROBERT D. KNUDSON

Christian Missions

Earth’s Remotest End, by J. C. Pollock (Macmillan, 1960, 336 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Sherwood Eliot Wirt, Editor of Decision.

The former editor of The Churchman, Anglican evangelical journal, and his wife report the fascinating results of their 33,000-mile adventure to Christian mission stations from Nepal to Japan, by way of Ceylon, Indonesia, and way points.

An able journalist, Pollock succeeds in getting to the root of world evangelization in many lands, as the profile of Christian missions in transition is clearly exposed through his adroit questioning. Interviews with Nehru, U Nu, Akbar Haqq, and others make the issues clear. The foreword is by Billy Graham.

SHERWOOD ELIOT WIRT

Zen’S Voidness

The Practice of Zen, by Chang Chen-Chi (Harper, 1959, 199 pp., $4), is reviewed by Edward John Carnell, Professor of Ethics and Philosophy of Religion, Fuller Theological Seminary.

In commenting on this cursory but competent statement of Zen Buddhism, I am tempted to deal with its plethora of unproved assumptions about the nature of mind and ultimate reality. Instead, I shall content myself with observing that the Zen way of salvation is reserved for an intellectual aristocracy. No consolation is offered to the masses in the Orient who must labor 16 hours a day for enough to eat.

One of the signs of the Messiah in Christianity is that he would preach the Gospel to the poor. The poor have no status in a sinful society, and neither have they the leisure or the endowment necessary to accept the disciplines of Buddhism. Zen transcends the miseries of life by a contemplation of Voidness. It escapes the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings, but at the same time it surrenders the hope of the Resurrection. A Christian would observe that the cure, in this case, is worse than the disease.

EDWARD JOHN CARNELL

Faith At A University

Faith and Learning, by Alexander Miller (Associated Press, 1960, 218 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Cornelius Jaarsma, Professor of Education, Calvin College.

Dr. Miller is engaged in a unique experiment as professor of religion in Special Programs in the Humanities at Stanford University, California. The experiment, now about 10 years and without much publicity, is aimed at demonstrating how the truths of the Christian faith can be integrated in the humanities program of a modern university without permitting theological doctrine to stifle free investigation in the general field of learning. Dr. Miller thinks we can work toward what he calls an integral university where the community of faith and the community of learning are in constant communication, being enlightened by one another, and without one imposing its findings on the other.

It is stimulating to hear him as he comes to grips with the modern university problem. He speaks of its growing secularism, its lack of a genuine sense of direction, and the fact that it is a victim of pressures from without. Having been liberated from theological and ecclesiastical controls, men of higher learning have sought liberal education in a curriculum without presuppositional thinking, without faith. Indoctrination of a most vicious sort has been the result.

The author holds out hope for the modern university if it will incorporate a genuine presentation and study of Christian (not merely religious) truth as an integral part of the curriculum. The presuppositions of Christian thinking must receive consideration together with other sources of study. The community of faith and the community of learning should communicate with one another in mutual appreciation. The Christian college has a contribution to make if higher learning is its great enterprise in a community of faith rather than personal piety and ecclesiastical loyalty. The latter are not to be excluded, but they are the focal point of the church in the development of the Christian faith.

In Dr. Miller’s book there is no consideration of religious education in general. He is opposed to a department of religion in a university or college. He believes God has made and is making himself known, not in “the inerrancy of any written record or of any oral word” but in “truth mediated in history and community, and appropriated in love.” Revealed truth must be communicated in the community of learning.

Alas, Dr. Miller is likewise far removed from an objective norm for truth in thinking and living. Only as the Bible has its rightful place as the light in which we see light will higher learning have chart and compass for its curriculum in bringing about fruitful communication of faith and learning. Only a Christian university can constitute a truly integral university.

CORNELIUS JAARSMA

Today’S Challenge

Toward Tomorrow by Martin H. Scharlemann (Concordia, 1960, 160 pages, $1.95), is reviewed by Faris D. Whitesell, Professor of Practical Theology, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Director of graduate studies at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Dr. Scharlemann presents 11 papers and essays in this book. They deal with the general subjects of welfare, human relations, theological essays, and miscellaneous.

Believing that “the full life of the Church embraces three ‘w’s’: worship, witness, and welfare” (p. 17), the author produces plenty of Scripture to prove that the Church is responsible for human welfare. He reviews the history of welfare in the Lutheran Church and concludes that “our church in its organizational structure never assumed responsibility for a welfare institution” (p. 59), but much has been done by individual pastors, congregations, and synods. He insists that the time has come “to start insisting that welfare work is a part of the total life of each congregation and that it is just as important as education and worship” (p. 63).

All of the essays conform to conservative theological thinking and are stimulating and helpful. The chapter on the biblical view of sex is well done and proves the adequacy of the Christian view. The most stimulating chapter to the reviewer was the one on creative scholarship in our profession, an essay presented to a synodical professors’ conference. He claims that creative scholarship requires freedom of expression, leisure, appreciation and encouragement, and an adequate income. The personal qualifications for such scholarship are self-discipline, sacrifice, courage, and curiosity.

FARIS D. WHITESELL

Eschatology

Jesus and the Future Life, by William Strawson (Westminster Press, 1960, 250 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Edgar W. Boss, Dean of the College of Northern Baptist Theological Seminary.

This study in biblical theology combines brevity, clarity, and thoroughness with knowledge of the problems involved and the literature of the field. However, in a study designed to meet “the needs and questions of ordinary men” (preface, xi), it takes for granted considerable knowledge of present day critical studies.

So far as accepting the results of modern criticism is concerned, the author stands in a moderating position. He takes the words of Jesus seriously and feels that the Gospels reliably reflect those words. However, he is not as restrained as could be wished by those who are suspicious of the results of criticism (see pp. 64 and 152).

The author knows the problems involved in an honest attempt to understand Jesus in his first century setting and to interpret that Jesus to the twentieth century. So often, however, an author making this attempt resolves the difficulties by giving way to a mood which does not take Jesus seriously when he speaks of things otherworldly. Because of a supernaturalistic world view, Dr. Strawson takes the concept of the future life quite in stride, and finds that “raising the dead may be no more remarkable than cleansing a leper” (p. 87). Consequently he takes such a concept as “heaven” quite sincerely, although he cannot subscribe to an “outmoded view of a localized heaven” (p. 36). He grants that the reality of the future life is not susceptible to proof, but he must reckon with the fact that “Jesus believed in a future life” (p. 233) and the witness of the “living Word of God” is not for any Christian a “second-rate” ground of certainty (p. 236).

It is at the point of his conclusions concerning the destiny of the lost that the author’s statements become most controversial. He repudiates Restorationism (which is becoming increasingly more popular), but does espouse Annihilationism (see p. 155).

This is a book which belongs in any library on synoptic theology. Both the ordinary man and the scholar can profit from the study. The ordinary man will find it reverent and sensible, and the scholar will find that it deals adequately with the issues.

EDGAR W. BOSS

The Spirit In Nature

The Holy Spirit and Modern Thought, by Lindsay Dewar (Harper, 1959, 214 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by Bernard Ramm, Professor of Systematic Theology, California Baptist Theological Seminary.

Dewar’s basic intention is to present the reader with new ideas of the working of the Holy Spirit in the natural realm, and to work out a principle or two whereby we can differentiate the supernatural from the natural workings of the Spirit. As preliminary to developing his theses (an attempt to correlate the psychology of both Rhine and Jung with the work of the Spirit), Dewar gives us a summary of the biblical and the historical materials.

The two characteristics of this book with which I find myself in substantial agreement are: (1) the necessity of making the biblical and historical coverage before expressing one’s self; and (2) the necessity of a penetrating investigation of the so-called “natural workings” of the Holy Spirit.

This could have been a great book had the bibliographical coverage been more thorough. No reference is made in the Old Testament surveys to the Old Testament theologies of such men as Vriezen, Jacob, Knight, Köhler, or Rowley. In the historical section there is a fateful omission of Letters Concerning the Holy Spirit, by Athanasius, which represents a great turning point in the Church’s understanding of the Holy Spirit. Dewar’s treatment of Luther and Cabin is very unsympathetic. He nowhere cites Prentor’s Spiritus Creator which is devoted entirely to Luther’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Dewar simply cannot stand Calvin, and the odium theologicum mars virtually every reference to Calvin. Dewar is not aware of the meticulously written dissertation of Krusche (Das Wirken des Heiligen Geist nach Calvin) which, to my opinion, virtually contradicts every point Dewar makes against Calvin. Nor does he profit from Warfield’s brilliant essay on “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God,” which spells out so much of Calvin’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit. In Dewar’s concern for the natural operations of the Holy Spirit, he could have enriched his exposition by reading Kuyper’s great masterpiece, The Work of the Holy Spirit. There is also an extensive reformed literature on common grace which also explores the area of the natural operations of the Holy Spirit.

Some of us are not happy with the virtual canonization of the Anglican doctrine of baptismal regeneration, let alone Dewar’s odd defense of it by recourse to clinical psychology. Rhine’s psychological investigations are accepted as true even though presently they are not in good standing with most psychologists. Contrary to Dewar, there are psychologists who have made a study of Rhine and find his methodology very questionable (e. g., Rogasin).

The most suggestive and also the most controversial part of the book is Dewar’s attempt to correlate the work of the Spirit with modern psychiatry. He makes the bold claim that the work of the psychiatrist is the clearest analogy we have to the working of the Holy Spirit. I demur at two points: (1) Is this not basically a truism of long theological standing that all healing is but the beneficial working of God’s “secondary causes”? Are we really saying anything more significant when we attribute psychiatric healing to the Holy Spirit, than when we attribute the healing following a surgical operation to Him? (2) Is this the kind of correlation we should seek in our doctrine of the Holy Spirit? I would feel easier if Dewar had built a more sturdy bridge from exegetical foundations to dogmatic expositions, and then on to psychological and psychiatric interpretations.

BERNARD RAMM

Surgeon And Christian

Dr. Kelly of Hopkins, by Audrey W. Davis (Johns Hopkins Press, 1959, 242 pp., $5), is reviewed by Orville S. Walters, Psychiatrist, University of Illinois.

A celebrated painting by Sargent hanging in the Welch Medical Library at Johns Hopkins University portrays the men most responsible for the excellence and fame of its School of Medicine. “The Four Physicians” were Osler, Welch, Halsted, and Howard A. Kelly. The youngest of the group, Kelly went to Hopkins when he was 31, soon gaining a surgical reputation as “the most rapid and brilliant operator in America.” Only when he was almost 80 did he discontinue operating. When he died in 1943 at the age of 85, he was the last of the Four Physicians.

Dr. Kelly was generally known as a fundamentalist. Reared in a deeply religious home, he made an early commitment to Christ. The evening of his graduation from medical school he wrote in his diary, “I dedicate myself—my time—my capabilities—my ambition—everything to Him. Blessed Lord, sanctify me to Thy uses. Give me no worldly success which may not lead me nearer to my Saviour.” He began the day with an hour of Bible study and prayer and closed it the same way. At odd times during the day he was accustomed to read his Greek New Testament. His biographer writes of him, “… Because his heart belonged to Jesus Christ, wherever he went and in whatever he did a sweet savor of Christ abounded.”

Born into a wealthy family, Dr. Kelly was installed upon graduation in a fine office and home in Philadelphia, but he was attracted to the poor millhands of Kensington and divided his time with an office there. His interest gradually focused upon gynecological surgery, and it was in this field that he eventually became one of the most eminent authorities. In 1889, after nomination by Osler, he left Philadelphia to join the pioneer group that later brought fame to Johns Hopkins Hospital.

Throughout his 60-year career in medicine, and most of all after gaining world-wide prominence in his field, Dr. Kelly maintained a simple Christian witness. On his lapel he wore a button bearing a question mark. When asked its significance, he would reply that the emblem referred to the most important question in life, “What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He?” This was often the occasion for further conversation concerning the Christian life. On one occasion he discussed eternal life with Bernard Shaw.

Dr. Kelly’s insatiable curiosity as a naturalist made him an authority on herpetology, which was a lifelong interest. In his major field, he published nearly 600 medical articles and books. He assembled an enormous library, parts of which he eventually donated to establish notable collections elsewhere in mycology and lichenology.

Dr. Kelly’s biographer was his secretarial assistant during his last 20 years, and to her he left the diaries and notebooks which he kept throughout his life. What the biography lacks in literary luster is balanced by documentary detail.

ORVILLE S. WALTERS

For the third consecutive year, the news section ofCHRISTIANITY TODAY’s anniversary issue features a panel of 25 of the world’s foremost religious scholars responding to a timely question:

Do you see any hopeful basis of Protestant-Roman Catholic church unity?

KARL BARTH, professor, University of Basel: “Certain indications seem to point to a possible, perhaps already operative, inner renewal in today’s Roman Catholic church. The holy Scriptures are being read and studied, are being expounded academically and also in preaching with greater delight and accuracy than before. In connection therewith is a deepened attention to Jesus Christ, only Lord and Saviour, as the center and object of all church life and teaching. And we must not fail to appreciate a more earnest understanding of God’s free grace and therefore of the sinner’s justification by faith alone among some forward-moving Roman Catholic theologians, and also many efforts toward a more kerygmatic form of the mass. If and how all this will some day lead to a change with reference to a new interpretation of the Roman Catholic concepts of the mediatorial role of the virgin Mary and of the saints; of the merit of tradition; of the authority of the church, and particularly of the pope; and above all of the sacraments we cannot contemplate at the moment. In our opinion even the best Roman Catholics in no case could and would be expected simply to put aside these peripheral considerations. But neither can we expect them to find those central truths (Scripture, Christ, grace) better preserved and better championed in our Protestant churches than in their own. We ourselves would need to be, think, teach, and live more evangelically, if our Protestantism is to have any attraction whatever for today’s Roman Catholic Christianity that perhaps is newly seeking the gospel. On the other hand, we cannot therefore suppress our estrangement in view of peripheral matters of the Roman Catholic system (Mary, the church, the pope, the sacraments) as they have come to us thus far, inasmuch as we cannot conceive how they (these peripheral matters) can be joined to the central teachings. Therefore church unity between Rome and us cannot yet be in prospect today, but there is possibly a new brotherly discussion concerning what can unite Rome and us, and concerning that which always must divide Rome and us. At the same time we must reckon with the strange possibility that some day it might be apparent that what must and could unite Rome and us is comprehended in certain Roman spheres just as well, if not better, than in large segments of our own Protestant constituency.”

G. C. BERKOUWER, professor, Free University of Amsterdam, Netherlands: “The future of the Roman church is determined by its past. The very structure of Rome, especially its claim to infallible teaching authority, would seem to exclude an open future. New considerations of unity are restricted by the constitution of Rome. Unity must involve the profoundest conversion for Rome. In view of this, possibility of church union seems nil from the human perspective. My own answer, nonetheless, is that of 2 Timothy 2:9: ‘The Word of God is not bound.’ We would be guilty of unbelief and a failure of faith if we allowed ourselves to limit the future to the past. The Word of God is not bound!”

ANDREW W. BLACKWOOD, professor emeritus, Princeton Theological Seminary: “With countless Catholic laymen and some clergymen we Protestants can cooperate in various movements not ecclesiastical. But since that church does not recognize Protestants as Christians, or permit her priests to worship with us, I see no hopeful basis for church unity between Rome and followers of the Reformation.”

F. F. BRUCE, professor, Manchester University: “While there are many welcome signs of increasing and fruitful interchange and cooperation between Protestants and Roman Catholics in a number of fields, not least in biblical and theological studies, I see at present no hopeful basis at all of church unity between them in any proper sense of these two words.”

EMIL BRUNNER, professor, University of Zürich: “If the question is put in these terms, then the answer is a flat no. The churches can never unite. But within the churches there are some who have seen that the Bible knows of no church but of the ekklesia, the people of God, the brotherhood of men united in Christ. This rediscovery of the ekklesia, totally different from anything which is called ‘church’ is a real basis for a hope of progressing unity between Protestants and Catholics. It was this rediscovery which was on the origin of Reformation and which at present is a fact in both camps. It was always the emphasis upon the church which separated. The totalitarianism inherent in ‘churchism’ is what separates. He, Jesus Christ alone, is our peace.”

EMILE CAILLIET, professor emeritus, Princeton Theological Seminary: “Rome can only offer integration by unconditional surrender. The reason our Reformed tradition is losing sight of this basic fact is an insidious one. Loss of first love for the Lord has resulted in a drift to ‘churchism’ encouraged by self-seeking organization men filled with ambition to rule and covetous of worldly honors. Let therefore a prophetic Christianity reassert itself and give the Woman on the Beast a wide berth.”

EDWARD JOHN CARNELL, professor, Fuller Theological Seminary: “The Roman claim to infallibility precludes the possibility of unity through gestures of mutual repentance. But this grim fact should not prejudice the value of sincere, exploratory conversation. A more perfect understanding of the issues will bring sweeter attitudes into what is and will remain a tragic division in the body of Christ.”

GORDON H. CLARK, professor, Butler University: “Chapter 25, section 6, of the Westminster Confession reads as follows: ‘There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof; but is that anti-christ, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church, against Christ, and all that is called God.’ For true Presbyterians this is the authoritative answer to questions of union with Rome.”

OSCAR CULLMAN, professor, the Sorbonne: “Based on that collection of primitive Christianity (Gal. 2:9–10), the reciprocal collection (Protestants for Catholics, Catholics and Protestants), I proposed as the foundation of unity, has actually been realized for three years in various European countries during the ecumenical week of prayer. [See CHRISTIANITY TODAY, April 13, 1959, page 30—ED.] It has become known also in America through my publication, A Message to Catholics and Protestants (Eerdmans). Next to theological discussion (especially mutual biblical studies) this collection, it seems to me, is the only hopeful basis of unity in Christ, since a genuine unity of the church is impossible among those Protestants and Catholics who remain true to their inmost convictions concerning the structure of the church. Oversimplified statements of my suggestion have resulted in misunderstanding, as if we were dealing merely with some humanitarian benevolence. In actuality, it is intended to be an ecumenical symbol of unity. The answers I have given in my booklet to all criticisms should be carefully examined. There is good prospect that the Roman Catholic Ecumenical Council will take some position concerning this basis for unity, inasmuch as it is beginning to bear fruit in many places.”

FRANK E. GAEBELEIN, headmaster, The Stony Brook School: “Despite a few apparently encouraging signs, such as attendance of Roman Catholic observers at Protestant councils, there seems to be no real expectation of Protestant-Roman Catholic church unity. The doctrinal intransigence of Romanism is a hard fact of history, current as well as past. Moreover, it is highly questionable whether any union could be consummated short of surrender of vital convictions. Such union would be far less desirable than the present state of separation.”

JOHN H. GERSTNER, professor, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary: “Since the Roman Catholic church considers herself the only true church and since the Protestant churches do not consider themselves false churches, the only hopeful basis I see for Protestant-Roman unity is for the Roman church to cease to be Roman or the Protestant church to cease to be Protestant.”

CARL F. H. HENRY, Editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY: “I do not find in a Bible a basis for discussing ‘Protestant-Roman Catholic church unity,’ but simply the unity of regenerate believers in the spiritual body of which the crucified and risen Redeemer is authoritative head. On this scriptural basis we may rest confident in a unity against which hell’s gates will not prevail, and which will survive into the eternities.”

W. BOYD HUNT, professor, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary: “Though the lines of communication between ‘catholic’ minded Protestants and the less sectarian Romans are multiplying, any organic unity between main line Protestantism and papal Romanism is inconceivable in the foreseeable future. The most encouraging contemporary development in ecclesiology is the deepening realization that Christianity stands in judgment over every aspect of institutional Christendom, both Roman and Protestant.”

W. HARRY JELLEMA, professor, Calvin College: “Meaningful unity would on both sides require more than the current sporadic, even though genuine, evidences of profound Christian spirituality and historical understanding. But, equally, a greater measure of these than is generally discernible is needed if we are to remain responsibly divided.”

HAROLD B. KUHN, professor, Asbury Theological Seminary: “The differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are not superficial but fundamental. Any achievement of Protestant-Roman Catholic unity becomes thus a question of the negotiation of basic differences through mutual adjustments and concessions. There are limits to the kind and degree of adjustments to which Protestants can and will agree. And it remains to be seen whether the Roman church is willing to correct her assumption that she alone possesses the Truth, so that a beginning can be made.”

J. THEODORE MUELLER, professor, Concordia Seminary: “I see no hopeful basis of Protestant-Roman church unity, since, on the one hand, the Roman church at the Council of Trent (1545–1563) has once for all rejected the two fundamentals of the Evangelical Church Reformation, namely, 1. that Scripture is the only source and rule of faith, and 2. that sinners are justified and saved solely by divine grace through faith in Christ without works. By declaring these two Scripture doctrines anathema, the Council has fixed an impassable gulf between Romanism and believing Protestantism.”

REINHOLD NIEBUHR, professor emeritus, Union Theological Seminary, New York: “I see many hopeful signs of more Catholic-Protestant dialogues than there have been and I think these dialogues could be creative. I see no sign whatever of a Catholic-Protestant church unity.”

BERNARD RAMM, professor, California Baptist Theological Seminary: “The decrees of the Council of Trent, the papal dogmas of the nineteenth century, and the Marian dogma of the twentieth show that the Roman Catholic church cannot discipline her theological life by the word of God, and therefore any proposed unity of the Roman church and the Protestant bodies is not difficult, but impossible.”

W. STANFORD REID, professor, McGill University: “No, I do not. The Roman Catholic church’s insistence that it is the sole repository of grace and the sole interpreter of Divine Revelation means that the only possible unity which can come between Protestants and Roman Catholics is the unity that Jonah had with the whale, namely that the Protestants should be swallowed. Moreover, there is no evidence at all that the Roman Catholic church is prepared to change its approach or modify its exclusivist claims. Until Romanism ceases to claim exclusive authority and is prepared to modify and even reject some of its doctrines, unity would seem to remain as far away as ever.”

WILLIAM CHILDS ROBINSON, professor, Columbia Theological Seminary: “There is hope in the very way you have phrased this question. You have not asked the question on the Roman Catholic or horizontal basis, which would be, ‘Is there any hope of organizational unification?’ To such a question one could only answer, ‘No, we have no expectation of recognizing the Pope as the head of the church, or of becoming a part of his system.’ You have asked the question on the Protestant or vertical basis, ‘Is there any hope of church unity?’ Yes, there is hope that the Lord Jesus Christ will bring his people of every name to recognize their unity in him. We find the one Church wherever the Gospel is preached in its biblical character and its promises sealed by the sacraments Christ instituted.”

HERMANN SASSE, professor, United Evangelical Lutheran Church seminary (Australia): “No! the question calls to mind the tragic situation of Christendom today. Roman Catholicism needs the witness of the Reformation to counteract the pagan elements it has assimilated. Modern Protestantism is no longer able to bear this witness since it has abandoned too many of the doctrines of the Reformation. The true Church knows that its unity is not a human hope, but a reality in this world which will become manifest when with the glory of Christ the hidden glory of his body, the Church, will be revealed.”

JAMES S. STEWART, professor, University of Edinburgh: “I do not see any hopeful basis of Protestant-Roman Catholic Church unity at the present time and under present conditions. The most hopeful basis on a long-range view will be the realization that the things Christians hold in common—the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection—are so stupendous, so divinely and shatteringly wonderful, that they far outweigh the things that disrupt the Body of Christ.”

MERRILL C. TENNEY, dean, Graduate School, Wheaton College: “Unity between the Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic church can be achieved only by accepting reconciliation on Rome’s terms. The price of doctrinal compromise and of hierarchical absorption is too high to pay. Organic unity would be the funeral of free Christianity. Rome’s unchanging attitude makes discussion futile. Until there is a thoroughgoing reformation within the Roman church that returns that body to the Scriptures as the final authority, and that strips it of the pagan accretions that have gathered during the centuries, we cannot hope for any unity.”

CORNELIUS VAN TIL, professor, Westminster Theological Seminary: “The dynamic categories of Romanism and the activist categories of such Protestant theologians as Karl Barth, Paul Tillich and others alike involve the rejection of the Reformation principle of the sole and direct revelation of God in Christ and the Scripture. Both parties appeal finally to self-sufficient human experience. Why should they not ‘bury the hatchet’?”

H. ORTON WILEY, president emeritus, Pasadena College: “I see no possibility of union between Protestantism and Catholicism. First, the essentially Protestant principle of justification by faith alone is not shared by Catholicism. Second, Roman Catholicism regards itself as the only true church, and apparently seeks to dominate the religious world. It will make no adjustments with Protestantism.”

Venture for Victory

The Venture for Victory basketball team, made up of Christian college all-stars, achieved 76 victories against 4 losses in its eighth annual tour of the Far East.

In addition to the 80 games played under all kinds of weather and court conditions this year, the team conducted 55 religious services, ministering to an aggregate audience of 200,500 in Formosa, Hong Kong, and the Philippines.

The team now has overall won-lost record of 586–11 for its eight years of overseas play.

Florida Bound

Billy Graham’s next major evangelistic effort is scheduled for Florida, beginning in January. Graham will tour key resort cities during January and February, winding up with a three-week series in Miami Beach’s Exhibition Hall.

Following his return from Germany Graham was slated for a “Spanish-American Crusade” in New York City’s Madison Square Garden. The three-night crusade, October 7–9, was geared to the metropolitan area’s Spanish-speaking population, estimated at 250,000, under sponsorship of the Protestant Council of the City of New York.

Tokyo Crusade

Use of radio and television may make the Tokyo World Vision crusade the most effective evangelistic campaign in Japanese history. The month-long series is scheduled for the 10,000-seat Meiji Auditorium May 6–June 5, 1961. World Vision President Bob Pierce will speak.

Selection and training of a 1,000-voice choir is already under way. At least 2,000 counsellors also will be trained for the crusade.

Tokyo, with 9,100,000 inhabitants, is the largest city in the world.

Second Chance

U. S. clergymen are getting a second chance to participate in the Social Security program.

Under a new amendment to the Social Security act, members of the clergy can initiate voluntary coverage anytime between now and April 15, 1962.

Back in 1954, when Congress first enacted legislation providing Social Security coverage to clergymen who wanted it, a cut-off date of April 15, 1957 was set for filing. Some confusion over the provisions developed, prompting Congress to create a new opportunity.

Complete details of the new program are found in “Social Security for the Clergyman,” available for five cents from the Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

Clergy Travel Aid

An inter-airline coordinating agency for clergy fares won recognition from the Civil Aeronautics Board last month.

The agency, known as the Airlines Clergy Bureau, is now issuing identification cards which will enable clergymen to travel (first class or tourist) at 50 per cent of the regular fee. Under this arrangement, the clergyman is listed as a standby passenger and travels on a space-available basis.

The only major carrier currently offering such a clergy discount is Northeast Airlines, which serves the eastern seaboard, and which sponsored creation of the Airlines Clergy Bureau. But negotiations are under way to cover six central states and all western states from Alaska to Arizona by the end of the year.

The Airlines Clergy Bureau has also negotiated with 39 independent hotels and motels across the nation and four hotel chains for “special consideration” of 25 per cent discount off regular room rate when the identification card is presented.

Army and Religion

The Army is launching what it terms “the most ambitious program” in its history for the training of lay religious leaders.

Six-day schools are being conducted at 31 Army posts across America this fall under the leadership of civilian religious educators. Dr. J. Gordon Chamberlin, professor of religious education at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, is overall director of the project.

The current series is for Protestant personnel. Roman Catholic and Jewish programs are being developed.

Chapel in the Ice

Chapel services were held for the first time last month in an ice tunnel 70 feet below the surface of the Greenland ice cap. The worshippers were U. S. servicemen stationed at Camp Tuto, a research and development post more than 500 miles above the Arctic Circle.

The “chapel” had been hand-mined out of ice estimated to be 2,000 years old. Carved in the round, it is 8 feet in diameter and 20 feet long.

Conducting the initial services for Protestant men were Chaplain (Captain) Jack Cutbirth and Chaplain (First Lieutenant) Grover G. DeVault. Catholic services also were held.

During the summer, services can be held above ice, but with the coming of winter it is necessary to “go below.”

Call to Worship

The twelfth annual Religion in American Life campaign, aimed at promoting church and synagogue attendance, will again have the benefit of some $8,000,000 worth of space and time donated by the major communications media.

The drive will reach its peak next month with the appearance of newly-designed RIAL posters bearing the caption, “Worship together this week.” The posters will appear on more than 6,000 billboards. Another 85,000 will be seen on buses, street cars, subway and commuter trains.

Simultaneously with the nation-wide advertising program, community campaigns will be held in more than 500 cities and towns.

RIAL advertising, distributed through the Advertising Council, a public service agency, is created voluntarily by the J. Walter Thompson Company.

A sample packet of community or congregational campaign materials is available for 25 cents from RIAL, 184 Fifth Avenue, New York 10, New York.

Honoring Gabriel

Plans are under way for a $3,000,000 basilica in Nazareth, which promises to be the biggest Roman Catholic shrine in the Middle East.

Vatican authorities have already approved the blueprints, according to a Religious News Service report.

The new basilica will replace an eighteenth-century church, razed six years ago, that occupied the site where the Archangel Gabriel is said to have announced to Mary that she was to be the mother of Christ.

Banquet Evangelism

Churches and religious organizations conducting promotional banquets can find a wealth of advice in Come and Dine, a 460-page handbook based upon the successes and failures of nearly 200 banquets.

The book is being published this month by the W. C. Jones Publishing Company of Los Angeles, whose owner and operator authored the book on the basis of banquets he has conducted from coast to coast, most famous of which is the annual “Presidential Prayer Breakfast” in Washington.

A minutely-detailed analysis of the art of sponsoring a banquet, Come and Dine warns of pitfalls and points out essentials (“at 9:30 p.m., the human body tires to the point of diminishing returns”) (“wisecracking is hazardous”) (“rheostatic control of the lights is an important factor”).

Come and Dine is basically a reference work which offers rules, comments, and suggestions according to such criteria as the purpose of the banquet, locale, type and number of guests, and financing.

“Do not pursue the idea of an banquet unless conditions ensuring success can be established,” cautions Jones. “Being conversant with all phases of organizing a banquet is the prerequisite to success.”

He says that “almost any banquet can be guided to a successful conclusion, if rules and suggestions are followed.”

‘Unity in Christ’

The twenty-first North American Liturgical Week of the Roman Catholic church, held in Pittsburgh this past summer, featured an invitation to Protestant and Orthodox clergymen to share in an emphasis on “Unity in Christ.”

“This is a new climate,” said the Rev. Robert L. Kincheloe, executive director of the Council of Churches of Christ in the Pittsburgh Area.

Monsignor Andrew J. Pauley, rector of St. Paul’s Cathedral and chairman of the welcome committee, stated in the letter of invitation to non-Roman religious leaders: “We wish we were as sure of heaven as we are sure that you will receive this invitation in the same spirit in which it is offered—a spirit of charity, affection and good will.”

Monsignor Pauley reported that 200 clergymen responded to the invitation and were observers at the exhibits and general sessions of the liturgical conference which drew about 5,000 delegates from the United States, Canada and Cuba.

At a mass in Point State Park, Bishop John J. Wright of the Pittsburgh diocese, referring to Christ’s resurrection appearances recorded in the Gospel of Luke, declared that Christ was not fully disclosed to his disciples in dialogue or discussion but in the breaking of bread.

Quoting the late Episcopal leader, Bishop Manning of New York, who said, “Reunion will come not by compromise of faith and conviction, not by throwing aside creed and doctrine, but by a fuller appreciation of the truth revealed in Christ,” Bishop Wright affirmed, “The central reality in Christianity is and must always be Jesus Christ … but as in the days of the first disciples, so today Christ is most vividly and perfectly recognized in the breaking of bread, in the liturgy which perpetuates his presence among us in the manner that He ordained and ordered.”

Their annual liturgical conference is now the third largest rallying point of U. S. Roman Catholics. Its attendance is surpassed only by the numbers who attend the Catholic educational and charities meetings.

The conference was signalized by a special greeting from Pope John XXIII whose message caused Protestant observers to see a connection between the cordiality shown by the local diocese and papal policy.

Following the conference, this distinction was underscored:

“The one fear,” said Bishop Wright, “is that our intellectual judgments concerning the theologies and philosophies of groups carry over unjustly and irrelevantly into moral judgments of the persons who hold the ideas which we reject.” He added that he could understand how Roman Catholics and Protestants might regard each others’ convictions in some areas as absurd, but that this did not justify the regarding the persons holding these convictions as absurd.

C.N.W.

Christianity Today’s ministerial survey (made by Opinion Research Corporation at a cost of $20,000) indicated that 74 per cent of the Protestant clergy in the United States regard themselves as either fundamental or conservative in theology (with slightly more than half preferring to be called “conservative” rather than “fundamentalist”). Of the remainder, 14 per cent describe their theology as “liberal” and 12 per cent as “neo-orthodox.” This essentially conservative bent of the Protestant clergy is seldom reflected in theological surveys of our time, which center their interest in the changing tides of liberal and neo-orthodox theologians.

While 93 per cent of all ministers interviewed hold that the Bible is the authoritative rule of life and faith, and classify this as an essential doctrine, 33 per cent (26 per cent being liberal or neo-orthodox) dismiss as unessential the view that the Bible was verbally inspired in the original writings.

In respect to other doctrines, 18 per cent reject the virgin birth of Christ; 17 per cent, the vicarious, substitutionary atonement; and 11 per cent, Christ’s historical, literal resurrection (neo-orthodox ministers being less prone than liberal ministers to question the importance of this doctrine).

Some 89 per cent of the Protestant ministers interviewed think it essential to teach and preach the unique deity of Christ as the Son of God; the others do not.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s survey thus attests the fact that the dilemma of modern Protestantism in America stems largely from a lack of doctrinal stability and conviction due to a departure from the Bible.

Interest in Church Union

Despite the contrary impression given by the ecumenical dialogue and some theological literature and ecclesiastical journals, only 27 per cent consider it “very important” to work for organic church unity. Despite ecumenical sentiment indifferent to doctrinal priorities, an impressive segment of the ministry, polled privately, believes that whatever mergers take place should be based primarily on doctrinal accord. Only 18 per cent favor church union through organic mergers, whereas 24 per cent oppose any form of merger. Almost half (48 per cent) of all ministers interviewed believe that church unity should be premised on doctrinal agreement. A summary by theological camps shows that liberal and neo-orthodox ministers tend to support merger based on organic union, and that only 17 per cent of liberal clergymen advocate merger on doctrinal beliefs only. Denominational differences are noteworthy: 83 per cent of Lutheran ministers are determined to accept mergers only on doctrinal beliefs, whereas only 25 per cent of the Methodist clergy take this view.

Denominations and the Creeds

Doctrinal latitude or strictness on particular tenets dramatizes this point. While virtually all Presbyterian ministers insisted that affirmation of “God as Creator of man” is important as a basis of church union, the percentage dropped to 92 per cent among Baptist pastors and 93 per cent among Episcopalian rectors. The lowest percentage was registered geographically in the South.

With respect to the historical, literal resurrection of Christ, only 68 per cent of Methodist clergy, and only 70 per cent of Presbyterian ministers thought the doctrine important as a basis of church unity. The main areas of doubt lie in the liberal and neo-orthodox ranks; only two in five of the liberal clergy and two in three of the neo-orthodox clergy think belief in our Lord’s bodily resurrection important for church unity.

Episcopalian clergy scored low on some other doctrinal concerns: only 93 per cent thought the affirmation of Christ as Saviour and Lord important; only 90 per cent thought the affirmation of one sovereign God important. (One will not be surprised, in view of this, that Episcopalian ministers also showed up most poorly with respect to the Bible as the authoritative rule of faith and life.) Baptists and Lutherans supported the doctrine’s importance for church unity by 97 per cent; Methodists and Presbyterians by 95 per cent; Episcopalians by only 97 per cent.

Both neo-orthodox ministers and liberal ministers showed up better than the Episcopalians as a group, percentagewise, in their view of the importance of the Bible. When this question was addressed in terms of the verbal inspiration of the Bible in the original writings, 87 per cent of the fundamentalist clergy, and 70 per cent of fundamentalist and conservative clergy together, held this an important basis of church unity, whereas only 21 per cent of the neo-orthodox and 23 per cent of the liberal ministers agreed. Only 90 per cent of Episcopalian and Presbyterian ministers thought the unique deity of Christ as the Son of God important (only Methodists held a laxer view on this doctrine, with 88 per cent affirming its importance). One in four liberal ministers thought the unique deity of Christ important as a basis of church unity.

Probed about the virgin birth of Christ, only 48 per cent of Presbyterian and 52 per cent of Methodist ministers thought this important; Episcopalians scored higher (83 per cent) and Baptists (87 per cent) and Lutherans (88 per cent) highest. Only 37 per cent of liberal ministers and 44 per cent of neo-orthodox clergy thought the doctrine significant as a basis of church unity. The figures on the vicarious, substitutionary atonement of Christ were: Methodists, 55 per cent; Presbyterians, 59 per cent; Episcopalians, 66 per cent; Baptists, 83 per cent; Lutherans, 91 per cent. By theological positions, only 42 per cent of liberal and 49 per cent of neo-orthodox ministers considered the doctrine important for unity.

“Second Coming” of Christ

An interesting reaction, not necessarily related to the issue of church union, came from ministers on the doctrine of the literal return or “second coming” of Christ. It was held essential by 32 per cent of the Methodists; Baptists were highest with 83 per cent and Lutherans with 78 per cent; Episcopalians voted 48 per cent and Presbyterians 46 per cent. Only 25 per cent of liberal and 26 per cent of neo-orthodox clergy thought the doctrine significant.

Economic and Religious Liberty

In respect to economic freedom, a majority (three in four) of the United States clergy stand in the free enterprise tradition, a minority lean strongly toward socialism. Four barometer questions indicate that the ministers definitely socialistic in their leanings number approximately one in five.

The first question tested whether religious freedom is jeopardized by a state philosophy involving government ownership of industry (“Economic and religious freedom are linked. If the government owns and operates all industry, religious freedom will disappear”). Of all ministers interviewed, 55 per cent agreed, 22 per cent disagreed, and 23 per cent had no definite opinion. The fundamentalists (64 per cent) are most positive in seeing the connection between economic and religious freedom; the neo-orthodox (46 per cent) least positive. This result indicates the extent to which the American clergy have already accommodated themselves to the fragmented view of freedom (for which a precedent may be found in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s now famous “four freedoms”), rather than viewing human rights and responsibilities in a unitary manner within the revelation of the sovereign God.

The poll of economic sympathies of the Protestant clergy shows a movement during the last 10 years in a conservative direction, while denominational social action pronouncements have meanwhile looked to the left. Whereas a decade ago a ministerial survey indicated that 33 per cent of the Protestant pastors (as attested by their answers to barometer questions) subscribed to the processes by which a socialistic economy is effected, the more recent poll narrowed the figure to 25 per cent (in contrast to 40 per cent for the general population average). Of these, the pollsters designated two per cent of the ministers as Communist, 10 per cent as socialist, and 15 per cent as fellow-travelers in their economic outlook, these being predominantly liberal and neo-orthodox in theological stance. Taken as a whole, the Protestant clergy, as indicated by the same poll, are slowly moving away from their earlier larger commitment to the left toward a more conservative social view.

MISSING—ONE KNIFE

The operating room was gleaming with the multiplied perfections of modern equipment. Not only was everything spotless, but the cool, conditioned air was constantly subjected to the purifying light rays which reduced even normal bacteria to a minimum.

Two surgeons, along with residents under training, were standing motionless in their pale green sterilized gowns and caps, their faces partially covered by germ-inhibited masks.

Both the chief surgeon and his first assistant were men whose years of arduous training and experience had earned for them certification in their surgical specialty. They were members of a number of learned societies. The elder of the two had only recently been honored by his associates by being made chief-of-staff of the hospital, and just prior to that he had been the president of a society of distinguished surgeons.

The patient, draped with sterile sheets and towels, was breathing deeply as the anesthetic began to take effect.

Then the anesthetist looked up and nodded his head. The patient was ready.

On the Mayo stands and the tables adjacent to the operating table there was a shining array of instruments, each designed for a specific purpose—clamps, clips, retractors, spreaders, scissors, sutures of various kinds—everything needed to facilitate the operation.

The surgeon finished draping the patient, already thoroughly prepared by scrubbing and the application of antiseptic solutions. Then, looking around he took up first one instrument, and laid it down, and took up another, and laid it down.

No incision was made! He did not me the knife.

Fingering the various instruments, the surgeon went from one to the other, looking at one, making futile passes with another.

It was a strange pantomime. Under perfect surroundings, with a patient who desperately needed surgery, the entire procedure consisted of meaningless motions.

Naturally, some in the room were disturbed, others were confused, and some were exasperated.

After an hour, the patient was rolled from the operating to the recovery room.

There he was cared for until fully reacted from the anesthetic, then he was taken to his room where relatives waited anxiously to see him. Friends sent in flowers and messages, evidences of their love and concern.

Before long it was obvious that the patient was no better. The same old symptoms recurred. There was still pain and weakness. Why was the patient no better?

Hospital authorities were asked to investigate. The surgical staff met and discussed the case and also a number of similar ones which had occurred in the same hospital. Every step in the patient’s history was gone over again and again in an honest attempt to uncover the cause of repeated failures to cure these patients.

One night during a general staff meeting, the mystery was again under discussion. The internes and residents were encouraged to share in the procedures. One young man, not considered as bright or promising as some of the others, ventured to speak up:

“Mr. Chief-of-Staff,” he said, “I have scrubbed in on a number of these unsuccessful operations and there is one thing I have repeatedly noticed: the surgeon does not use the knife. There is no incision, no bleeding, no going down to the source of the illness, nothing is removed; when the patient leaves the operating room, he is in exactly the same condition as when he went in.”

“But,” the chief surgeon said, “the knife is old; it is full of imperfections; I do not trust the quality of its steel; in fact I feel that it is more an ornament than an instrument—something suitable to keep on the table, but not necessary or effective in the complicated surgical conditions confronting us today.”

The interne was subdued, but as we left the room we thought we heard him mutter under his breath: “Those poor patients! They are still sick; they leave the hospital just like they came in. Surely something is wrong. Why don’t they me the knife?”

The Sunday morning service was about to begin. The sanctuary was filled with quiet, well-dressed, well-fed people. They were comfortable, thanks to air conditioning and cushioned pews.

In all of the city there was not a finer pipe organ, and the man at the console was a master in his profession. The choir was well paid and highly trained. The whole atmosphere was one of quietness, reverence, and expectancy.

The minister and his associate took their places and the order of service proceeded with the quiet dignity and efficiency of a thoroughly prepared program. At precisely the scheduled moment the minister stood up to preach. In his robes he was the epitome of scholarship and grace, and when he spoke it was obvious that he was a man of eloquence and conviction.

Prior to the beginning of the sermon, a passage of Scripture had been read; but the main appeal was to philosophical reasoning and a confrontation of today’s problems along the line of one’s personal responsibility and duty to engage in social engineering. Many authorities were quoted; there were frequent references to great leaders of our day; fragmentary quotations from some of our finest literature revealed the wide reading of the preacher, and many in the congregation were impressed.

At the conclusion of the service there was some subdued chatting among members of the congregation; the ministers greeted them as they went their several ways—some for a time of rest, others to spend the rest of the day in amusements or recreation.

With most of them there was an unappeased sense of spiritual hunger. One could see that the stone of human opinion was hard to digest. Like a serpent, sophisticated denial of divine revelation gnawed at the place where men desired peace and assurance.

Many realized that there was something wrong. Church officers discussed the problem. In the denomination intensive efforts were set on foot for evangelism, missions, and stewardship.

One day a member of the congregation remarked to a friend: “I wish we heard more about what God has to say. Sunday after Sunday, I hear what men have said or are saying. Occasionally the Bible is quoted and then there is light, conviction, and a sense of God’s nearness.”

“Yes,” said the other, “the one thing that will change the situation completely is using the Bible in all of its wonder and power. After all, it is the Sword of the Spirit, the only weapon for an attack on the stronghold of Satan.”

Word got around, the Sword was unsheathed. Sinners were saved, Christians were revived—and the church once more became God’s house.

L. NELSON BELL

SERENDIPITY

This outlandish word was coined by Walpole, who also built a mansion with secret passageways and sliding panels. The term is a splendid trap-door to spring on unwary intellectuals, although the esoteric charm has been spoiled a bit through the use of the word in national advertising. Very well, I’ll admit that I never heard of it either until I saw that ad.

In fact, I’m not out of the passageway yet. I know that serendipity is the fortunate capacity of finding things one wasn’t looking for. The advertisement stressed the debt science owes to serendipity. I have also discovered that Walpole was referring to the legendary exploits of the Three Princes of Serendip, who possessed this quality.

But just there serendipity takes over. I have accumulated a modest collection of Buddhist legends, Hindu fables, and European folk-tales for which I was not looking, but not even one Prince of Serendip (alleged to be Ceylon) can I find. It was a surprise to find Bonnie Prince Charlie hidden in Mother Goose, and to learn the political implications of Old Mother Hubbard, but I have yet to uncover a lead in the Serendip affair.

Perhaps a learned reader knows the answer, having come upon it by accident while investigating agriculture in Ceylon, or haunted houses in England.

Any information will be gratefully received. Serendipity must have a place of honor in our vocabulary. I suspect that for every instance of serendipity in the laboratory there must be a score in the history of the church. Recall the serendipititious experience of Saul who set out to find his father’s asses, and found a crown instead. David once marched forth to punish an ingrate and discovered a charming wife. Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus had the most dramatic experience of all in finding what he wasn’t seeking.

Outside of sacred history there are many more instances. There is a wonderful serendipity in the sequel to Martin Luther’s effort to earn salvation through monkish zeal.

On second thought, perhaps we can get along without the term serendipity, so long as we remember the meaning of such words as Christianity and grace. “But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.”

EUTYCHUS

MUSIC IN THE CHURCH

The feature interview Music in the Church Today (Aug. 29 issue) expresses, I believe, a philosophy of church music that is held by many of today’s church musicians and laymen: to wit, a middle-of-the-road, balanced program of service music is the most effective approach to worship through the art of music. I should suggest, however, that other issues might better determine the nature and quality of the church musician’s offerings.

Rather than being concerned with gearing church music to the musician or to the man in the pew, might we not rather present music as a worthy offering to God who deserves and demands only the best? This can be achieved by using consistently only such music that has genuine artistic merit; and this includes much that is uninvolved, simple, and devotional. If the objective of true art is sought, then the church musician need never be plagued with the criticism that his music is too lofty or intellectual for some people or too naïve or trite for other members of the congregation.

Mr. Prussing expresses the crux of the matter when he says that a choir which has studied and understands its music can communicate its message, regardless of the type of composition. If this be so, why not confine its music solely to that which constitutes noble and artistic musical expression? Regarding the panel’s comments of Gospel hymns, the observation could have been made that the message of the Gospel set to poor poetry and worse music does not make the hymn a sacred art work.

Dr. Ellinwood’s conclusion is noteworthy in recognizing the importance of seeking to praise God with the best means possible. It is my observation, however, that we cannot do this as long as we compromise our standards of musical excellence in an effort to satisfy alternately the various segments of the congregation whose tastes demand personal gratification rather than encouraging only God-directed art in the music ministry.

ARTHUR BIRKBY

Western Michigan University

Kalamazoo, Mich.

The information of the music experts certainly was very interesting but one thing about anthems not mentioned is that the organists often play too loudly, no doubt to cover up off-key singers.

EDWIN L. LEHMAN

Woodbury, N. J.

That was a splendid article; in fact, the August 29 issue as a whole was one of your very best.

HOYT L. HICKMAN

College Hill Methodist Church

Beaver Falls, Pa.

F. R. Webber’s article “The Gospel in the Great Hymns” (Aug. 29 issue) contains good advice. We should be careful to select hymns that contain definite evangelical truth. This same care should be taken in selecting a church hymnal.… There are … denominational hymnals … that have deleted gospel hymns about the Trinity and the blood of Christ. Committes appointed to choose new church hymnals should keep this in mind.

WILLIAM N. RANDALL

United Congregational Church

Sharon, Pa.

I certainly enjoyed the excellent interview article on church music, Webber’s article on “The Gospel in Great Hymns,” and Mary Lebar’s article on the preschool child.

W. L. GAST

The Lutheran Church of Peace

Platteville, Wisc.

ADENAUER (CONTINUED)

After my remarks about the West German Chancellor Dr. Konrad Adenauer were published in CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Jan. 18 issue) I received many letters containing remarks about my report. Some letters agreed with my opinion, some of them objected and tried to repudiate my statements by questioning the sources of my knowledge. It did not, therefore, surprise me that even the Hon. Representative Walter H. Moeller of the 10th District of Ohio, and the Department of State, represented by Assistant Secretary William B. Macomber, Jr., found it necessary to reply to my remarks (July 4 issue). The letters objecting to my statements use a variety of arguments, but all of them have one thing in common, namely the idea my report is just the product of my imagination or an invention for personal … purposes. But the report about the rift between Dr. Adenauer and Dr. Heinemann was published in a magazine … in Germany a long time before the Treaties of Paris (May 5, 1955) to which the State Department refers and which now are given as reasons for Dr. Heinemann’s resignation. From that article I learned for the first time that Dr. Adenauer had restored the concordat with the Vatican, but had refused to restore the privileges of the Protestants. I doubt that a paper in Germany would have published such criticism, if it would not have been based on facts.

The writers of the letters criticizing my first statements will do well to learn the sources for my report. After the last election in West Germany, The Daily News, a paper published in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, a city with a Catholic majority, brought the following report:

BONN, Germany (AP)—The Bundestag today elected Konrad Adenauer to his third 4-year term as Chancellor of West Germany. He instantly ran into trouble in forming a new Cabinet.

He was faced with a revolt from the farmers and from the Protestants within his own party. They were reported angry because they were given too few seats in the reorganized Cabinet.

So serious were Adenauer’s problems that he was forced to cancel plans to introduce his new Cabinet to the Bundestag tomorrow.…

… Protestant members of Adenauer’s party were reported incensed over the fact the Chancellor had only six of their number on his 18-member Cabinet slate, while he had chosen 10 Roman Catholic party members. Adenauer is a Catholic.

The remaining two Cabinet posts were to go to deputies from the German party, a small coalition party.…

… Protestant deputies also were reported complaining that Fritz Schaeffer, 69, former finance minister and a Catholic, had been slated to be Vice Chancellor. They said the post should go to a Protestant.…

The magazine Church and State published monthly in Washington, D. C., in its April, 1960, issue brought the following report:

The so-called prayer-book formula by which top governmental posts in West Germany since World War II would be divided or alternated between Protestants and Roman Catholics has been abandoned by Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, it has been announced by the Christian Democratic Union, his party. With the recent election of a Catholic president, Heinrich Luebke, the four highest positions are now held by Roman Catholics: chancellor, president, minister of foreign affairs, and minister of defense.”

Here the critics of my statements have the opportunity to learn that now even American newspapers, whose editors don’t know me, become critical of Dr. Adenauer’s Catholic tendencies in his political activities. The statement of Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. William B. Macomber, that in three national elections since the establishment of the Federal Republic Chancellor Adenauer has received the majority of the national vote, loses its weight if one looks into the manner of Adenauer’s propaganda. Every time, before an election in West Germany, the Chancellor suddenly shows up for a visit in the U.S.A., though there does not exist any special reason which would make his visit necessary. Many American newspapers, mostly those influenced by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, hail Adenauer as a devout Catholic and report that a full agreement was reached between him and the American government. But it is never said in what matter an agreement was reached. Then the West German newspapers, influenced by Adenauer, continue to make propaganda by claiming that Adenauer is the only man favored by the Western Allies and that it is doubtful that they would accept and recognize another German representative in their midst. The newspapers published in Germany after World War II during the years before the establishment of the West German Republic under the supervision of the occupation authorities repeatedly announced that the Germans would be treated without mercy for many years and never would be allowed to make their own decisions in political matters of their country. Now, the people in Germany, scared by sad experiences, try to prove themselves as obedient coworkers of the Western powers by voting according to propaganda developed in American and German newspapers.

RUDOLPH FLACHBARTH

Duquesne, Pa.

October 10, 1960, marks the four hundredth anniversary of the birth of James Arminius (1560–1609), the Dutch theologian whose name has been given to the Protestant theological tradition of Arminianism. It is appropriate that attention be given again to this late voice of the Reformation whose influence has been so great and about whom so little study has been done. Noteworthy is the fact that in the persistent “Arminian-Calvinist” controversy of the intervening centuries, neither side has had much to say about Arminius himself. He seems to stand somewhat aloof from the later battle, and those who have gone to his writings commonly report that they do not find what they expected to find; that is, they often come to the conclusion “he isn’t really an Arminian.” Some suggest that he was in transition, not completely liberated (or backslidden, as the case may be) from his early Calvinism. Others have held that he was a clever dissembler whose published works were scripturally based and orthodox enough but whose “beliefs were worse than his writings” or who taught many grievous errors in private.

Who was this enigmatic figure? Born in South Holland of simple people, orphaned at an early age, and raised by pious Reformed guardians, he was educated at Marburg, Leiden, Basel, and Geneva, his teacher at Geneva being Theodore Beza, the celebrated successor of Calvin. He was a brilliant student and later distinguished himself as pastor for 15 years of the Reformed churches of Amsterdam. He spent the final six years of his life as professor of theology at Leiden. During his pastoral and professorial years he became engaged in the controversy which gave rise to Arminianism.

AUTHORITY FOR ARMINIUS

He always regarded himself as a Reformed thinker. In common with the earlier Reformed leaders, he opposed the exclusive claims of the Roman church by appeal to the sole authority of the Scriptures. He asserted that “we now have the infallible word of God in no other place than in the Scriptures,” which were written by “holy men of God … actuated and inspired by the Holy Spirit.” He pointed out that the authority of Scripture is not dependent on the testimony of the church nor subject to its dogmas, but that the church “is not a church unless she have previously exercised faith in this word as being divine, and have engaged to obey it.”

Arminius was not unaware of the remaining problems of tradition and interpretation. At this point again he followed the Reformers in giving a certain priority to the patristic church and to Augustine (but expressing misgivings about some of Augustine’s later writings). When it came to the Reformed tradition itself, he professed allegiance to the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, the only Reformed symbols with any sort of binding authorities in the Low Countries at that time. He had a high regard for the exegetical work of Calvin, and in a letter written two years before his death he said, “I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read … for I affirm that in the interpretation of Scriptures Calvin is incomparable …, so much so that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, yea, above all.”

Insistence upon the sole authority of Scripture prevented Arminius, however, from ascribing to Calvin the kind of ultimate authority allowed him by the Leiden professor, Francis Gomarus. Gomarus had tried, unsuccessfully, to make Beza’s extreme predestinarian reading of Calvin mandatory in the Dutch churches.

BY GRACE ALONE

Arminius warned that Calvin and the other Reformers were men, and that “they may deserve well of the Church, and yet be entangled in some error: and the illustrious restorers of the Churches perhaps did not spy out everything with which the Church was deformed, and perchance themselves built a superstructure of some errors on a true foundation.”

This implies that Arminius found in the Reformers some points which could stand correction in the light of the word of God, but it also means that he found in them “a true foundation.” This common ground which Arminius shared with Calvin, for one, included the doctrine of the total inability of man as sinner to save himself, with salvation made possible by grace alone. Calvin had said, “When the will is enchained as the slave of sin, it cannot make a movement toward goodness, far less steadily pursue it. Every such movement is the first step in that conversion to God, which in Scripture is entirely ascribed to divine grace” (Institutes, II, III, 5). Arminius said, “Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good without grace.… I affirm therefore, that this grace is simply and absolutely necessary for the illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and the inclination of the will to that which is good” (Writings, 1956 printing, II, 472). Calvin, following Augustine, had said that there is no “apportionment between God and man, as if a proper movement on the part of each produced a mutual concurrence.… Whence it follows, that nothing is left for the will to arrogate as its own” (Institutes, II, III, 11). Arminius said, “But this [cooperation], whatever it may be of knowledge, holiness, and power, is all begotten within him by the Holy Spirit” (Writings, I, 529). Both are agreed that grace alone is the ground of salvation.

PREDESTINATION AND CHRIST

Calvin and his disciples had used the biblical figures of election and predestination to express the truth of sola gratia and to combat the Roman doctrine of works. Theological literature often gives the impression that Arminius simply “denied predestination.” It was his well-grounded fear that Beza, and Gomarus, the supralapsarian interpreters of Calvin, were in danger of divorcing the doctrine from Christology and making Christ the mere instrument or means of carrying out a prior, abstract decree. Arminius sought to state the doctrine in the light of Scripture and in integral relation to Christology, and he referred often to Malachi, Romans 9, the “universalist” texts, and particularly the emphasis of Ephesians 1:4 that God “hath chosen us in him.” For his contention that election must be understood “in Christ” he found considerable support also in the Dutch confessions and in Calvin himself.

The “first decree,” then, for Arminius, was that by which God appointed “his Son, Jesus Christ, for a Mediator, Redeemer, Saviour, Priest, and King, who might destroy sin by his own death, might by his obedience obtain the salvation which had been lost, and might communicate it by his own virtue.” Christ is thus not merely the agent but the very foundation of election. The second decree was to receive into favor sinners who are “in Christ” by repentance and faith, and the third had to do with “sufficient and efficacious” means of grace. The final decree was the election of particular individuals on the basis of the divine foreknowledge of their faith and perseverance.

Arminius thus affirmed the doctrine that Christ is the foundation of election and adumbrated the position that He is the content of election. He retained the position that this makes man responsible for his own believing. It would seem, however, that Arminius built his doctrine of election on the notion of foreseen faith, and thereby made man’s decision the cause or concurring cause of salvation (man electing God). It should be noted, however, that Arminius put the latter notion in a position subordinate to the appointing (or electing) of Jesus Christ, and that election in terms of foreseen faith can stand neither alone nor first. Arminians have not always kept this distinction clearly, and the Remonstrance of 1610 itself begins with what Arminius put in fourth place. This tendency, carried to its conclusion, leads to a defection in emphasis from free grace to free will (a point made forcefully by Robert E. Chiles, “Methodist Apostasy: From Free Grace to Free Will,” Religion in Life, Vol. XXVII, No. 3, 1958).

The free grace of God in Jesus Christ did confront sinful man with a “decision-question” for Arminius, but the response of faith was not done in strength which is some sort of residue of goodness. Apart from Christ there could be no response, but the response of faith is nevertheless man’s act, an act to be sure not of achievement and merit but of surrender and acceptance. In this act man gives all glory to God, but for it he himself is responsible. Grace, for Arminius, created freedom and responsibility; it did not destroy or displace them.

SOME CONSEQUENCES

Predestination in Christ was the heart of Arminius’ contribution to Reformed thought, and from it he drew certain consequences or supporting corollaries. Free will, for instance, is bound in the sinner and needs liberation; yet it actually concurs in this liberation. Grace, moreover, is not an irresistible force. There is the possibility of falling from grace, although Arminius pointed out that properly speaking it is impossible for a believer to fall from grace, but that it may be possible for a believer to cease believing. Where Arminius’ contemporaries had made a rigid distinction between common and peculiar grace (as against Calvin’s more cautious distinction between a universal and a special call), Arminius affirmed a continuity of grace in which qualitative distinction between prevenient grace and following grace is erased. Denying, however, a universal election, he pointed out that saving grace is given only to those who are saved, that those who are saved are not so because they will to be saved, but that they are saved because they are in Christ by faith. Commenting on Romans 9:16, Arminius said that “it is not he that wills, or he that runs, who obtains righteousness, but he to whom God has determined to show mercy, that is, the believer.” Finally, Arminius showed a concern for the problems of assurance and holiness. He held to a necessary assurance of present salvation on the basis of faith, but to no present assurance of final salvation. Herein he maintained that “believers” and “the elect” are not interchangeable terms inasmuch as election includes within it the notion of perseverance in faith. These positions have continued to characterize much of subsequent Arminianism, especially in its Wesleyan development.

BEFORE AND AFTER ARMINIUS

Arminius differed with some of his contemporaries, but he was not exactly an innovator. He was thrust into the role of spokesman for a stream of Reformed thought found broadly in Sebastian Castellio, Jerome Bolsec, Heinrich Bullinger, the Second Helvetic Confession, the early Dutch confessions, and the early Dutch pastors under the influence of the Reformed church of Emden. The humanist element in this stream must be acknowledged, but Arminius was perhaps even more influenced by Calvin himself. His articulation of the liberal Reformed tradition was extremely conservative; he attempted to express what was valid in the humanist dissent in the context of a biblical theology of grace.

After his death his influence was felt in a diversity of movements. The Remonstrants retained less and less of his dogmatics, stood more in the liberal tradition, and preferred to remember Arminius for his concern for religious toleration. The Arminian label in England became attached to an already existing opposition to Puritanism and then to any dissent from any Calvinism. In New England looseness of terminology permitted the identification of Arminianism with Unitarianism. The most faithful appropriation and development of the primitive Arminian dogmatics is found in the Wesleys and the early Methodist writers.

Although much has taken place in theology in the intervening centuries, there are many Christians today whose religious thinking has been molded by the Arminian tradition. They would do well to examine the careful work done by the founder of that tradition, and they will find there firm support for resisting an easy-going, culture-Protestantism which confuses man’s work with God’s. And those who call themselves Calvinists will discover that it is too simple to dismiss Arminius as a Pelagian who did not see clearly the issue of sola gratia. They may find themselves closer to him than they had supposed.

What the Communist party is in the vanguard of the world revolution, the evangelical movement must be in the world revival.

What is an evangelical? An evangelical is a Christian “holding or conformed to what the majority of Protestants regard as the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, such as the Trinity, the fallen condition of man, Christ’s atonement for sin, salvation by faith, not works, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost.” A subsidiary definition is “in a special sense, spiritually minded and zealous for practical Christian living, distinguished from merely orthodox.” Another secondary definition is “seeking the conversion of sinners, as evangelical labors or preaching.”

The doctrinal position of an evangelical is that of orthodox or creedal Christianity. This doctrinal basis is stated in the incorporation papers of the Church, namely the New Testament, and in the great creeds and confessions of Christendom. It is the Chalcedonian Creed and the later reformed confessions such as those of Heidelberg, Augsburg, and Westminster. Only those who embrace these objective truths have the right to the name evangelical.

Evangelical Christianity should be differentiated from other movements. First, it must be differentiated from Roman Catholicism, or sacerdotal Christianity, which emphasizes a salvation mediated by sacraments and erected on tradition rather than on the Word of God. Second, it must be distinguished from liberal or modernist Christianity. Many modernists appropriate the name evangelical merely because they are non-Roman Catholic, but do not embrace the basic truths of historic orthodoxy. It is a misnomer to call a modernist an evangelical. Third, an evangelical must be distinguished from a fundamentalist in areas of intellectual and ecclesiastical attitude. This distinction was made by Dr. J. Gresham Machen who was often called a fundamentalist. Said he, “The term fundamentalism is distasteful to the present writer and to many persons who hold views similar to his. It seems to suggest that we are adherents of some strange new sect, whereas in point of fact we are conscious simply of maintaining historic Christian faith and moving in the great central current of Christian life” (cf. Valiant for Truth, by Ned B. Stonehouse, pp. 40, 337, 343, 405, 428).

The evangelical depends upon the Bible as the authoritative Word of God and the norm of judgment in faith and practice. This brings him into tension with Romanism which, while giving lip service to the Bible, exalts tradition and papal infallibility above the Bible; with modernism which exalts the autonomy of the human mind; and with neo-orthodoxy which identifies the Word of God with something above and beyond the Bible but witnessed to in the Bible.

ECLIPSE OF EVANGELICALISM

Has evangelicalism fallen into eclipse? The history of the last five decades has been largely under the aegis of a triumphant modernism. Basically, modernism is evolutionary naturalism applied to the Bible and to Christianity. By it the supernatural in the origins and nature of Christianity was sacrificed by the accommodation of Christian theology to the data of the scientific method and the dicta of the scientific mind. Hence, by presupposition, there could be no Virgin Birth, no miracles, and no Resurrection as the Bible taught. Modernism was based on higher criticism’s view of the Bible. The books are redated in accordance with evolutionary naturalism; ethical monotheism is tolerated only later than polytheism, and the writing of the prophetic sections is placed after the events. Modernism developed a new theology concerning Christ, man, sin, salvation, the Church, and the Church’s mission. To say the least, the content of modernism was not the content of biblical theology. The departure from biblical concepts was radical.

Against this came the fundamentalist reaction. The name fundamentalist was derived from a series of treatises written by leading orthodox scholars on various biblical doctrines and published in 1917 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles with the aid of Lyman Stuart Foundation. The contributors to The Fundamentals were men like Melvin Grove Kyle, James Orr, George Robinson, W. H. Griffith Thomas, F. Bettex, George Frederick Wright and others, all recognized biblical scholars of their day. The resistance to modernist attack upon biblical Christianity precipitated the modernist-fundamentalist controversy which raged for several decades following publication of The Fundamentals. This reached its height in the successful effort of the Presbyterians, led by Clarence Edward Macartney, to oust Harry Emerson Fosdick from the pulpit of a Presbyterian church in New York City. In the controversy there arose the emphasis upon the essentials or fundamentals of the Christian faith, such as, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the Virgin Birth, the miracles of Christ, the vicarious atonement of Christ, and the bodily resurrection of Christ. On the wave of this controversy Dr. Macartney was elected Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 1924. Shortly thereafter a group of Presbyterian ministers signed the so-called Auburn Affirmation which denied that these doctrines were essential to the Christian faith. Not all signers of this document disbelieved the doctrines, but they held they were not essential to the Christian faith. What happend in the Presbyterian church repeated itself in almost every other denomination, and the Protestant Church was divided between modernists and fundamentalists.

SOME COSTLY WEAKNESSES

Time revealed certain weaknesses in the fundamentalist cause. First was the diversion of strength from the great offensive work of missions, evangelism, and Christian education to the defense of the faith. The fundamentalists were maneuvered into the position of holding the line against the constant and unremitting attacks of the modernists or liberals. Gradually the liberals took over the control of the denominations and began a series of acts of discrimination, ostracism, and persecution of the evangelicals. Many evangelicals suffered at the hands of ecclesiastical modernism. This reduced fundamentalism to a holding tactic, impotent in denominational machinery and indifferent to societal problems rising in the secular world. The Christian Reformed Church was a notable exception to this trend.

The cause of the fundamentalist defeat in the ecclesiastical scene lay partially in fundamentalism’s erroneous doctrine of the Church which identified the Church with believers who were orthodox in doctrine and separatist in ethics. Purity of the Church was emphasized above the peace of the Church. Second Corinthians 6:14–17 was used to justify the continuous process of fragmentation, contrary to the meaning of the passage itself. Emphasis was upon contention for the faith rather than the commission of missions, evangelism, education, and worship. The number of competent scholars declined in evangelical ranks as the decades passed.

Then came the rise of neo-orthodoxy under the influence of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner in which theology professed a return to biblical concepts without the acceptance of biblical authority. Neo-orthodoxy accepted the Word of God as revelation but differentiated this from the written Word. It spoke about the creation of man but repudiated the historical Adam. It believed in immortality but not in the physical resurrection of Jesus. Due to the aridity of modernism and a nostalgia of people for biblical ideas concerning God, man, sin, and redemption, the influence of neo-orthodoxy grew rapidly. Nevertheless, its attitude toward evangelical Christianity is essentially hostile because of its refusal to accept the biblical authority as the ground of its theology. The watershed of modern theology remains one’s attitude toward the Bible as the ultimate and final authority for faith and action.

THE EVANGELICAL REVIVAL

Is evangelicalism reviving? Is it emerging to challenge the theological world today? A new respect for the evangelical position is evidenced by the emergence of scholars whose works must be recognized. Westminster Press recently published a trilogy on The Case for Liberalism, The Case for Neo-Orthodoxy, and The Case for Orthodoxy. Here Protestant orthodoxy was again recognized as a live option. Great publishing houses today are not only willing to publish books by evangelical scholars, but several are actively seeking such books.

This may be due to a change in the intellectual climate of orthodoxy. The younger orthodox scholars are repudiating the separatist position, have repented of the attitude of solipsism, have expressed a willingness to re-examine the problems facing the theological world, have sought a return to the theological dialogue and have recognized the honesty and Christianity of some who hold views different from their own in some particulars.

Simultaneously, all branches of theological thought have felt the impact of mass evangelism under Billy Graham. In him we have seen the phenomenon of an evangelical who crossed all theological lines in his work while maintaining a strictly orthodox position. His work has not been disregarded by those of other theological convictions and has compelled them to rethink the basis of their approach.

EVANGELICALS AND FUNDAMENTALS

Evangelical theology is synonymous with fundamentalism or orthodoxy. In doctrine the evangelicals and the fundamentalists are one. The evangelical must acknowledge his debt to the older fudamentalist leaders. It is a mistake for an evangelical to divorce himself from historic fundamentalism as some have sought to do. These older leaders of the orthodox cause paid a great price in persecution, discrimination, obloquy, and scorn which they suffered at the hands of those who under the name of modernism repudiated biblical Christianity. For decades these fundamentalists were steadfast to Christ and to biblical truth regardless of the cost. They maintained the knowledge of orthodox Christianity through Bible schools, radio programs, Christian conferences, and Bible conferences. In the true New Testament sense, they were witnesses, or martyrs. Most of these leaders were well known to me personally. I speak of men such as James M. Gray, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Arnold C. Gaebelein, I. C. Haldeman, Harry Ironsides, J. Gresham Machen, J. Alvin Orr, Clarence Edward Macartney, Walter Meier, Robert Dick Wilson, W. B. Riley, Charles E. Fuller, Robert Schuler, Oswald T. Allis, Harry Rimmer, to mention only a few. These were great defenders of the faith.

The evangelical defense of the faith theologically is identical with that of the older fundamentalists. The evangelical believes in creedal Christianity, in the apologetic expression of Christianity, in the revelational content and framework of Christianity. Therefore, he stands by the side of these fundamentalist leaders. He differentiates his position from theirs in ecclesiology. These men were driven by controversy and discrimination to various shades of separatism. Some were compelled to leave their denominations, some operated as autonomous units within their denominations. Through controversy, in suffering, they sired a breed of fundamentalists who, in following them, confused courtesy in contending for the faith with compromise of the faith; academic respectability with theological apostasy; and common grace with special grace. They developed the theory that any contact, conversation, or communication with modernism was compromise and should be condemned.

Let it be repeated that there is a solidarity of doctrine between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. They are one in creed. They accept the inspiration and dependability of the Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the creation and fall of man, the vicarious atonement by Christ on Calvary, justification by faith and not by works, regeneration and sanctification by the Spirit, the spiritual unity of the Church, the evangelical, educational, and societal mission of the Church, and the kingdom of Christ experiential, ethical, and eschatalogical. The evangelical and the fundamentalist could sign the same creed.

Moreover, they have a common source of life, for they belong to one family. Christian life comes from the Christian faith and cannot be divorced from it. The repudiation of Christian truth cannot eventuate in a Christian life. In this the evangelical stands with the fundamentalist. But the evangelical goes a bit further and condemns doctrinal orthodoxy which does not result in a life of love and service. The test which Jesus gave to his disciples was that of brotherly love but it was given in the framework of an acceptance of his Deity, his miracles, his messiahship, and his imminent death as Saviour. If, therefore, the fundamentalist criticizes the evangelical or vice versa, that criticism should be within the family relationship and demonstrate the spirit and attitude of love which is a test of true discipleship.

EVANGELICAL OBJECTIVES

The evangelical has general objectives he wishes to see achieved. One of them is a revival of Christianity in the midst of a secular world. The world is helpless in the presence of its problems. Its attempt at solutions totally disregards the orthodox message and answer. The evangelical wishes to retrieve Christianity from a mere eddy of the main stream into the full current of modern life. He desires to win a new respectability for orthodoxy in the academic circles by producing scholars who can defend the faith on intellectual ground. He hopes to recapture denominational leadership from within the denominations rather than abandoning those denominations to modernism. He intends to restate his position carefully and cogently so that it must be considered in the theological dialogue. He intends that Christianity will be the mainspring in many of the reforms of the societal order. It is wrong to abdicate responsibility for society under the impetus of a theology which overemphasizes the eschatalogical.

The specific goals of evangelicalism are definite. It seeks evangelical cooperation. This was expressed in the formation of the National Association of Evangelicals in 1942. The NAE insisted on a positive position toward the then Federal Council of Churches and later National Council in distinction from the position later adopted by the American Council of Christian Churches. The NAE gathered evangelicals in fellowship for articulation of the evangelical cause in a score of different fields without attack upon other cooperative movements of diverse theology. It summoned together a fellowship in action of many of those denominations not in the Federal Council, and for the first time it gave them a sense of unity and strength. Many individual congregations whose denominations were in the Federal Council of Churches were received into the NAE in order to articulate their convictions and give them an opportunity of cooperative action on an evangelical and orthodox base. The influence of this movement was great. While the parent organization of the National Association of Evangelicals has not reached a numerical strength which some had expected for it, it nevertheless has stimulated many subsidiary movements which originated as commissions within the National Association or were bound together with the National Association. Many of these are powerful organizations and movements in their own right, such as the National Sunday School Association, the National Radio Broadcasters, the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, Youth for Christ, World Evangelical Fellowship and other related movements such as Child Evangelism Fellowship, the Christian Business Men’s Committee, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, and so on. It was, in fact, the parallel organizations to the NAE in England, India, and other areas that sparked the great Billy Graham campaigns in other parts of the world. Thus, the influence of the NAE has been far greater than its numerical strength.

Another objective was the training and feeding of evangelical ministers into the churches. Since the seminaries determine the course of the Church, it was felt necessary to fortify existing evangelical seminaries with additional professors and funds. As a result, several new evangelical seminaries were established. Here was adopted a positive attitude in inquiry, teaching, and proclamation of biblical Christianity. The students who passed through this training came forth with a certainty and knowledge expressed by “Thus saith the Lord” and with a practical program joined with a passion. In addition, there was inculcated an understanding of the connection of Christian principles with political and economic freedom.

It was the intention of evangelical strategy to reach evangelical churches who were pastored by ministers uncertain in their theological conviction. There are many ministers who have been trained in liberal theological seminaries who want to believe biblical Christianity but cannot because they lack theological education which supports the position. To reach these ministers with the rationale of biblical Christianity is the objective of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. The editorial contributors to this magazine have been selected with their theological and intellectual training in view. The success of CHRISTIANITY TODAY in articulating this viewpoint and in influencing the thought of ministers has been notable.

EVANGELICAL STRATEGY

An up-to-date strategy for the evangelical cause must be based upon the principle of infiltration. We have learned from modern militarism that the frontal attack has come to an end with certain notable exceptions. The French Maginot line was circumvented and thus antedated. The Communists in their battles in Korea, Indochina, and Tibet used the principle of infiltration. Once the line was infiltrated, defenses crumbled and a new line had to be established. We evangelicals need to realize that the liberals, or modernists, have been using this strategy for years. They have infiltrated our evangelical denominations, institutions, and movements and then have taken over the control of them. It is time for firm evangelicals to seize their opportunity to minister in and influence modernist groups. Why is it incredible that the evangelicals should be able to infiltrate the denominations and strengthen the things that remain, and possibly resume control of such denominations? Certainly they have a responsibility to do so unless they are expelled from those denominations. We do not repudiate the reformation principle, but we believe that a man has a responsibility within his denomination unless that denomination has officially and overtly repudiated biblical Christianity.

Evangelicals need a plan of action. The pressing demand is for an over-all strategy instead of piecemeal action by fragmentized groups. The younger evangelicals are determined to join hands with evangelicals everywhere in testimony and in action. They want to defend and maintain the institutions, endowments, and organizations which remain within the evangelical theological position.

It demands that each one of us make a personal commitment. We should examine our activities to make sure that we are engaged in intelligent service. Let us ask ourselves what is this organization accomplishing? Does this organization fit in with God’s plan? Is this movement advancing God’s cause? We must not dissipate our energy and money by serving on and supporting every work which is called to our attention. We must take an inventory of our investment of money. We should ask, is this institution or movement contributing to the ends which I seek? Should I continue my support of this movement? It is folly for businessmen and foundations to support institutions, movement, and individuals which subvert that for which the businessmen and foundations stand. This is paramountly true in Christian organizations. It is our responsibility to implement the strategy of evangelicalism by personal commitment.

An evangelical makes no apology in asking the help of convinced and committed Christians. This commitment is essential in developing evangelical leadership. Every evangelical should find his place in the implementation of the modern evangelical resurgence in Christianity.

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

The relationship that is to prevail between the organized Church and the informal groups which arise from time to time, seeking to bring about deeper spiritual experience, is an important subject. The voice of the organized Church has often warned that such groups do not constitute themselves a church, that they check their plans and work with leaders in the church, that they remind their people how important it is to join a church, and in general treat the church as the final authority. Undoubtedly there is wisdom in all this. But I think it is high time that someone remind the Church how important it is that she treat these groups with understanding and welcome, and remember how the organized Church stands in continuous need of awakening, and realize that the small group may be both a judgment and an answer from God.

Exception must be made, of course, in the case of groups that become deliberately inimical to the historic Church, or patently disloyal to her basic ethos. But that is something quite different from being dissatisfied with the ways and customs of some one local parish or minister that may be falling down in giving people what they need spiritually. It is right for the Church to “try the spirits whether they be of God.” Now and then a group arises that is not basically in line with historic Christianity; or it may begin so, but veer in unhealthy directions. Its leaders can become too much impressed with their own inspiration and importance, and the movement tends to become “the Church.” The awakening group may evince more power at some given time than the historic, accepted Church; but it has no more right to “unchurch” the organized Church than the organized Church has a right to “unchurch” the informal group. Untrue and unhealthy signs may appear in the utterances and from the leaders of movements that claim unique powers and do not see themselves in the long stream of Christian history.

But many of these groups are not heretical in any sense. They are doing Christ’s work, honoring his Name, and winning people to him. They are trying to be loyal to his Church, not only because hostility to the churches can go a long way towards putting them out of business but because they are aware that the conserving job of the churches cannot be overemphasized. My experience is that most of these movements lean over backwards to keep the good will of an organized church (which often has not enough spirituality to discern the working of the Holy spirit in the groups) because they happen to be personally distasteful to the church leader or the ethos of his group. It is dangerous ground to forbid men “because they follow not with us.” Every year I live, I am more impressed with the way God greatly uses some people that I question whether he ought to use at all! My own tastes, even the predilections of my own denomination, may not be sufficient grounds to rule out someone who is being blessed and used by God.

THE SCOPE OF THE KINGDOM

Perhaps I can say something on the whole question. I have dedicated my own services to that of being a parish minister and an evangelist. I have never felt any impulse to go out with a suitcase and travel around making speeches. I have wanted the Church, the old, organized Church, to be part of any awakening in which I was involved. I have wanted the continuous impact of the Church’s history and stored wisdom to be on my own work. I know that in the end the Church should be the conserving force for anything that evangelism turns up; and that, while the Church will seldom start an awakening herself (the settled clergy and people are not good at this), she can easily pour cold water on what the awakening does accomplish. I know the value of a local “laboratory,” where spiritual research is being done, and that what is said elsewhere is validated principally by what is happening at home. I know the need of spiritually new-born people for what the Church can give them, as, for example, the responsibility of Christian leaders to see people through, not only the early stage of new birth but the later stages of growth and spiritual habits which sustain the new birth, and the applications in life which give it contemporary validation.

However, I know that the local church and denominational exposure are not enough. If some kind of urging had not sent me, as a school boy and college student, to Northfield and there to come under the spell of the giants of those days (Speer and Mott especially), I suppose I should have been as churchy an Episcopal parson as could be imagined. I needed to learn something of the size of the Kingdom, its scope, and to see some of its great leaders in other communions. I needed to discover the constant influence in the direction of awakening which such conferences, with their steady evangelistic impact, represented vis-à-vis the old, settled Church. In constantly emphasizing the priestly and pastoral aspects, my own church is always in danger of minimizing the evangelistic and prophetic ones. Yet Anglicanism means both, or it means nothing: it has always claimed to be both, and we are ministers “of the Word and of the Sacraments.” More and more clergy of all communions rcognize this double nature of our calling and task. But many of them drift too easily into those aspects of the ministry which fail to emphasize evangelism. It is because the genuine awakening power of the churches is so rare that these cell groups, prayer groups, life-changing groups, are becoming widespread.

Sometimes these groups are local and unknown, and meet in houses and offices as well as churches. Although they often are out of touch with any other groups, they feel the need for fellowship between groups, as individuals have felt the need of fellowship between themselves. Sometimes these groups are of a different kind, large and necessarily organized, like the Yokefellow Movement, International Christian Leadership, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Faith At Work, Young Life, and many more that might be mentioned. Wherever men or women are given the charismatic gift of evangelism and can speak to large numbers of people with decisive spiritual results—like Graham, Peale, Sheen, and others whose names are yet more controversial to ultra-conservative, settled churchmen—the same need is evidenced and begins to be met. (When I say “ultra-conservative,” I refer, of course, not to doctrinal conservatism, but to plain stuffiness of spirit.)

THE ROOTS OF CRITICISM

Let me say that the clergy, especially those in settled parishes, are inclined to think their own strictures and objections to the informal group as pure concern for upholding the Church’s true message and the Faith. But in many cases I am sure that the origin of their criticism is not so lofty. Frequently their censure arises from (1) jealousy that the movement is able to win and begin to change people who have not been changed by the routines of parish life, and (2) stung and troubled consciences over these things that happen elsewhere but do not happen with nearly enough regularity in the old organized Church. Let’s face it: we do not do very much in a spiritual way with the rank and file of our people, and the fruits of the average “young people’s groups” are certainly nothing to brag about. When one of our official “children” goes out and finds a shining and enlivening faith and experience, the home clergyman just doesn’t like the judgment implied upon his own ministry. He retreats stuffily behind his ecclesiastical defenses, and talks about his people being “taken away” from the church! It is a shabby and contemptible rationalization. They have not been “taken away” from the Church if they have been brought nearer to Christ. And what is more, when a person with such an experience comes back to the church, the minister may subtly or openly undercut what has happened to the person, which is another instance of his own jealousy and stung pride. I have seen it too many times not to recognize it and call it by its right name. I remember going to an opening night of a play in New York and sitting behind a large company of actors. Their clapping and comments proved they were so generous and appreciative of the play, that it made me ask myself why the reverend brethren were not more often generous about what some other brother (or sister) has been enabled to do.

You know the little doggerel,

I hate the guys

That criticize

And minimize

The other guys

Whose enterprise

Has made them rise

Above the guys

That criticize

And minimize …?

THE NEED OF SPIRITUAL POWER

The old, organized Church needs the challenge of the small group. Theories about the Holy Spirit do not constitute an experience of him. While he works through official channels, he is certainly not confined to them; and there are times when he must work through something other than the established channels if he is either (1) to awaken the people in the churches, or (2) to reach those outside who are often disappointed and let down by the want of spiritual power in the churches. What he finds usable may be something or someone who is anathema to the old, plodding, organized Church. I often feel that any spiritual lash sharp enough to whip the sluggish beast of ecclesiastical organization into any semblance of spiritual life will also be so sharp that the organized Church will seek to retreat beyond its reach. What true awakening has not started in a despised individual or group on whom the Church turned thumbs down? How many such have been squelched before they ever got anywhere because the Church lacked imagination and sympathy? The Church often prays for awakening, but when God actually sends it in a form which the organized Church finds uncongenial, it is repudiated. The Holy Spirit is wider than we, more democratic, more “functional,” He seems to look rather for faith and dedication and expectancy than for right formulas and proper ecclesiastical ancestry.

If Irenaeus was right, that the Church is where the Holy Spirit is, we may need to revise some of our notions about the spiritual priority of the organized Church. What we think is the Church, and what God thinks is the Church, may be very different. I should greatly suspect that any person or group whom He can get through and use to reach his world is probably considered by God to be a genuine part of his Church. Punctiliousness about historical continuity and careful ecclesiastical arrangements sometimes have to give way to immediate usability. I know this can lead to anomaly at times: but I know also what failure in reckoning with this truth has done again and again in the life of the Church. When the Church does nothing but sit on her prerogatives and criticize the emerging group or movement that demonstrates the Holy Spirit, and when subsequently she refuses to accept the challenge and the judgment of God upon her own powerlessness which the fresh group represents, then the group tends to be driven outside the Church, all contact is lost with the authentic elements in the organized Church which the group needs for growth and sustenance, and the Church loses the value of new life which might have been infused into her. It is a loss both ways, and a loss to the world. The fresh movements need the breadth, balance, wisdom, and Sacraments of the ancient organized Church. That same Church needs the new fire of fresh awakening. Both constitute the Church, really. The organized Church cannot stand back and wait to be sought for and courted by the new movements, as if they were upstarts and the organized Church alone were the authentic thing: this is pride, and cuts the power of the Spirit. Neither can the fresh movement go on alone, critical and indifferent to the Church, as if itself were now the authentic thing, and the old Church outworn: this, too, is pride, and cuts the power of the Spirit. They have something for each other. I believe they are two sides of the same shield—the “ecclesia” and the “koinonia.” The mark of the true Church is always the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

It is always the high hope of those who help to initiate a new movement of the Spirit that this one may never drop to the level of routine and organization. Yet we know of no movement in history that has not to some extent suffered this fate. There seems to come a “hardening of the arteries” with age, and it appears to occur within about two decades of the real beginnings of the movement. When the Church proposes herself as the agent to prevent this deterioration, one is inclined to ask whether the accepted and familiar arteriosclerosis of the organized Church is any real improvement upon that which crops up in the new movement.

THE PERIL OF STERILITY

Dr. Henry P. Van Dusen of Union calls it “the logic of spiritual vitality,” and says we have seen it “re-enacted again and again in the pilgrimage of the Christian Church, whereby a period of intense and creative religious renewal is unfailingly succeeded by an aftermath of diminishing spiritual vigor but increasing theological and organizational rigidity, then by a time of comparative sterility—until revival bursts forth afresh, and the curve of descending life and power is re-enacted” (Spirit, Son and Father, Scribner’s, p. 27). In this remarkable book he gives a summary of “the fate of the Holy Spirit at the hands of the theologians and Church officials across the centuries,” and calls it “on the whole, a pathetic and tragic story” (Op. cit. p. 125). He goes on to explain something of why this happens: “… the Holy Spirit has always been troublesome, disturbing because it has seemed to be unruly, radical, unpredictable. It is always embarrassing to ecclesiasticism and baffling to ethically-grounded, responsible durable Christian devotion. And so it has been carefully taken in hand by Church authorities, whether Catholic or Protestant, and securely tethered in impotence … professional ecclesiasts constitutionally distrust the novel, the unconventional and, even more, the reproachful and the challenging.”

THE SPIRIT OF SUPPRESSION

I find it hard not to believe that much of the ecclesiastical fear and suppression of emerging groups is due not to greater wisdom or deeper realization of the meaning of the Gospel and even of the Church but more to spiritual snobbishness, shallowness, and pique. It isn’t as if we had a counter full of awakenings from which we might take our pick. Real awakening is rare. It never comes unmixed with the temperamental and theological limitations of its first stimuli and its leaders. The “ideal” awakening, temperamentally congenial and theologically satisfactory, only exists in somebody’s wishful imagination. But wherever we see genuine spiritual awakening, whether or not it falls in with our own predilections, we do well to welcome it warmly. Only a Church which takes that attitude towards the struggling group deserves respect and loyalty from the group, or is likely to receive it. Much of the loss which often follows the first fire of awakening is due to the fact that a church unfamiliar with conversion in her own daily life will tend to be all fingers-and-thumbs when it comes to ministering to converted people. When a person, especially a young one, has been exposed for years to the rather lifeless routines of a church, but without anything approaching a personal spiritual experience, meets up with individuals or groups that lead him into an experience that is dynamic and meaningful, though such may occur within a framework ecclesiastically or theologically uncongenial to his clergyman, he will, if he has any spiritual gumption, put his first loyalty where the challenge is greater and the experience deeper. If his fresh experience is greeted by his home church and minister in the attitude that he must have got caught in the toils of a bunch of fanatics from which he needs to be rescued as a brand from the burning, then I think the church is stupid enough to deserve to lose his loyalty. If on the other hand, the person’s new experience is treated with seriousness and respect, and the home pastor has grace enough to ask and seek humbly for something that may have been missing from his own ministry, but which the young person found in the other group, the church runs little risk of losing him at all. In such a situation, the two work in harmony, which I believe is God’s will.

The fresh group which brings about awakening is like an obstetrician who is needed at birth. The Church which nourishes the new life of the convert is like a pediatrician who takes care of the child after it is born. One has the feeling that the Church is very busy trying to act as pediatrician to large numbers of people who have never been born again at all. But both functions are essential, though they are different. The happy arrangement is for each to fulfill his function well. Surely the whole church needs to be engaged, both in bringing about the new birth and in nurturing that new life with the “means of grace” of which she is the custodian.

Dr. Hendrik Kraemer, has said (A Theology for the Laity, p. 86), “… the whole Church is constantly called to renewal. As we have got into the habit of not (as the Bible insists) considering Renewal the perennial and constant rule for the Church, but regard it as a miraculous episode which befalls us from time to time, self-assertion and self-affirmation are still very prominent in the confrontations of the Churches with each other.…” The small group, not being primarily doctrinal nor liturgical, may be, and I think very often is, the ecumenical movement at its grass roots levels, bringing people into fellowship in Christ across the barriers of denominations. And they are at least an honest effort to keep the Church mindful that renewal should be “the perennial and constant rule for the Church.”

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.