The Christian Century of April 2, 1958, carried an interesting editorial entitled, “A Choice of Miracles.” The choice was between the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Christ; between “the Womb and the Tomb.” Men like Bultmann reject both, but not so our writer. For him only the Virgin Birth needs to be rejected, “because it is so radically out of character with the rest of the manner and the matter of Christian revelation.” It is beside the point; not an impossibility, but an irrelevancy. What does it prove? Only that Jesus was “half and half”—half God and half man. And this cannot be because Christ “is not God in his structure.”

Since this editorial represents a modern and fashionable way of disposing of the Virgin Birth it calls for comment. It seems to have the great advantage of permitting a person to eat his cake and have it too. We will not disprove the Virgin Birth, it argues, for that is not the point—proven or unproven it is irrelevant. But then we are told in the next sentence that it is not so much irrelevant as untrue. “Christ is not God in his structure.” This is very slippery apologetics—a theological legerdemain almost faster than the reader’s eye.

But let us go over this reasoning in slow motion. First, we are told that the Virgin Birth cannot be disproved but it need not be because it is irrelevant. Then, we are told that the Virgin Birth, if true, would prove that Christ is God and man. But to be told that Christ is God is false because Christ “is not God in his structure.” If the Virgin Birth is true, and our writer does not deny it, then, according to him, it proves that Christ is of the structure of God. But this he does not reject because it is irrelevant but because it is untrue. How he knows that it is untrue he does not inform us.

This Virgin Birth, if true, proves, it is conceded, that Christ is of the structure of God. As far as this present writer is concerned, we do have undeniable evidence that Christ is of the structure of God. The only consideration which is offered against this conclusion (that Christ is of the structure of God) is the ex cathedra deliverance of the editor of the Century. I should think that all readers of the argument and the writer himself would be inclined to favor miraculous evidence when put in the balance against sheer dogmatism.

So, we try the evidence against the Virgin Birth and it is found wanting. Let us now notice the evidence which is given for the Resurrection. The Century editorial is moderate; it does not reject all miracles. Its writer is selective; he picks and chooses among his wonders. He refuses to take his stand with the all or nothing theologians who say that we must accept all of the Biblical miracles or none of them. With respect to the Virgin Birth he will stand with the unorthodox who accept none of the miracles, but when it comes to the Resurrection he will stand with the orthodox who accept all of them.

“As Easter reminds us, we cling to the Resurrection as miracle that extends and confirms the revelation of God in Christ.” Why is the Resurrection to be believed? Because—apparently—it “is the full center of the New Testament and is what the first preaching was all about.” Furthermore, the meaningful message of Easter is this: “God certifies his creation. He says of his world and of his people: I made you and I can remake you.… Death be damned. I did it, and I can do it again.”

But these reasons for this miracle are as arbitrary as the reasons advanced against the other miracle. It would seem that the writer has no better argument for accepting the Tomb than for rejecting the Womb.

If we accept the Resurrection because it is the full center of the New Testament preaching, then, presumably, we accept it because it is part of the New Testament witness. But as the writer admits, the Virgin Birth, although far more obliquely and less centrally taught by the New Testament nonetheless is therein taught. If the New Testament argument is valid for one miracle it is valid for another. And the deduction from the fact that the Resurrection is more emphasized than the Virgin Birth would be that we also, while believing both, should emphasize the Resurrection more.

Consider the second reason for accepting the Resurrection—its meaning. If it says or means that God will remake us, does the miraculous birth of Jesus not say that God will re-bear or re-create or remake us? If we are to “demythologize” the miracles should we not demythologize both of them? all of them? I, of course, do not advocate this type of hermeneutics but I do urge those who do so to be thorough about it and not to exercise a choice in hermeneutics as well as in miracles.

Rather, I believe that the New Testament is to interpret the events as well as relate them for us. And, incidentally, when we do look to the New Testament for interpretation we find Paul saying that the Resurrection proves the very thing which our author supposes that the Virgin Birth did; namely, that Christ was of the structure of God: “… the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:3, 4).

Theology And Sociology

The Society of the Future, by H. van Riessen (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958, 320 pp., $4.95), is reviewed by Vernon C. Grounds, President of the Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, Denver, Colorado.

As a Christian faces the problems of our twentieth century civilization, problems which are of appalling magnitude and baffling complexity, can he offer anything more than pious advice and daily prayer? He has a sustaining eschatology, to be sure, but does he have a viable sociology, a program of action grounded in his theology? Without degenerating into an advocate of an untheological social gospel, can he show that the Gospel is socially relevant? And can he show this relevance specifically in terms of education, government, law, economics, racism, and morals? This is of course the threadbare issue of the relationship between Christianity and culture. So much has been said about it that seemingly nothing of value has been left unsaid. Yet Dr. H. van Riessen clothes this threadbare issue in the stout homespun of his Calvinistic Biblicism, leaving it far from a thing of rags and tatters.

Though he does not call his position critical interactionism, that is in fact the viewpoint he advocates. A Christian cannot withdraw from secular activities into a desert or a cloister; neither can he practice a world-accommodating compromise, forgetful of his world-transcending principles. While enmeshed in the world, he must nevertheless stand above it, participating wisely and redemptively in its affairs. A doctor in both engineering and philosophy, Riessen is admirably equipped for the task of stating the position of critical interactionism. He has written extensively, produced a major work on Philosophy and Technique, and engaged vigorously in the political, economic, and intellectual life of the Netherlands. An evangelical who adheres to the tradition of those Dutch titans in theology and philosophy—Kuyper, Bavinck, Dooye-weerd, and Vollenhoven—Dr. Riessen seeks to relate his faith to the totality of human existence, developing what the Germans call a Weltanschauung, a coherent view of things.

The Society of the Future is an analysis motivated by “a deep sense of alarm” (p. 13) with respect to the course which Western civilization is now taking. For today, Riessen states, we face a crisis which is “more than serious” (p. 211). “The secularization of life, its nihilism and collectivism, give ample reason for anxiety” (p. 223). Moreover, a strange inevitability, a benumbing fatalism, characterizes our portentous era (p. 33). But his confidence in God’s sovereign ordering of history prevents a Christian from yielding to fatalism. Relatively a pessimist, he is ultimately an optimist because he knows that in the end all enemies will be conquered by his Lord (p. 236).

Caught up in the appalling situation of the twentieth century, what can a Christian do except resign himself passively to the fervent hope of the Second Advent? Riessen denounces such passivity as a shameful “neglect of our vocation” (p. 308). A Christian is called upon to work with God for the liberation and fulfillment of life; and a Christian believes God “has appointed men who, as stewards of reality, exercise freedom in their decisions” (p. 19). Hence “with the Bible and history as aids” (p. 20) a Christian must give thought to the future as it is being shaped by the present.

The principle which Reissen follows is that of sphere sovereignty, a concept worked out by Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven. This rather abstruse theory can be quite simply explained. All authority is derived from the absolute authority of God who has created the various orders of existence—the family, the state, and the church—each with its own distinctive laws and responsibilities. This pivotal fact furnishes us with a clue to the relationship between authority and freedom.

“Each sphere of authority is limited by its own societal relationship. The relation of authority and freedom exists within such relationships and not externally (e.g., not between them).

“Parents have authority over their children within the family; they do not have authority over the school. Therefore, insofar as children are pupils they are under the authority of the principal, their teachers, and the school board. The government has authority insofar as its subjects are citizens; it does not rightly control economic activity and enterprises; the latter are subject to the owner, the director, the board of trustees, and the stockholders. The session or consistory of a church has authority over the congregation, but not over other forms of association, even if composed only of church members; the exercise of authority in such other groups rests with their independent committees.

“The social relationships exist together on a basis of equality; the one is not subordinate to the authority and control of the other. Subjection to authority exists only within a relationship. Societal relationships properly stand in a coordinate relation to each other, not in a preferred or subordinate position” (p. 71).

Reissen believes it is at this juncture in the freedom of each sphere of life to exercise authority within its God-created boundaries “that the decisive battle will be fought against totalitarianism and in the contest for a Christian society” (p. 73). For the central issue of our time, as he sees it, is human freedom. Can it be preserved and regained in face of the spurious blessings promised by a collectivism which in the outworking of its implicit logic must become increasingly tyrannical? Communism is unquestionably a towering issue, yet even “Communism is rather insignificant, when we consider what it is that we have to combat. Our struggle is concerned with the social development in the countries that are still free, where the conditions for communism or something like it are developing. If we lose this battle, loss or victory in the struggle against a Communistic bloc will be of little significance” (p. 239).

Our transcendent problem, therefore, is the development of a society “in which through a proper balance of authority and freedom there is an earnest endeavor to leave every one a maximum of free responsibility” (p. 240). Needless to say, a society which provides maximum freedom for each man to fulfill himself in work and worship is impossible unless it is founded upon faith. For without faith life is bereft of meaning, and consequently people flee for refuge from meaninglessness into the delusive security of totalitarianism. Thus faith is indispensable; indeed, “the attitude of faith is the condition for free choice, for free formative activity, for enterprise and adventure, chances and risk, the inseparable accompaniments of a life of faith and trust” (p. 237).

Convinced that the freedom which faith makes possible must be preserved and regained, Riessen subjects to pulverizing criticism the predetermined society of “democratic” collectivists like Karl Mannheim. He attacks the Utopian dream of social engineers who, from an hierarchical apex and governmental center, would control the activities of people—and yet leave them free! An hierarchical and centralized planning, Riessen argues, will prove to be not only economically inefficient but also socially disastrous. Regardless of all its noble intentions, it will simply verify Holderlin’s aphorism, “What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.” And how will this work out?

“The defenders of planning operate with the shadow of what man ought to be. They would establish a stable society that would make man forget that his life is a continuous death, a fact understood even by the existentialist Heidegger. By providing man with security, he can take a nap and abandon the security of the faith in Jesus Christ. What is desired is a planned world that is no longer in need of God’s providential guidance.

“On the basis of the Christian faith, breaking through their science and serving as the basis of our own social principles, we reply that such an image of man is defective; that the way of planning does not end in stability but in the liability of wars and rumors of wars, in a reign of terror and the threat of terror; that instead of security, they will reap unrest, confusion, and agony (John 14:27). Such a planned society will not become a fellowship but a monstrosity without any resemblance to what God purposed in his majestic scheme of creation. And we base our prediction on the Christian faith that God is a jealous God who avenges himself on idolatry and permits man to destroy himself by his own sins” (p. 185).

From a Christian standpoint, then, what is to be done? “Diagnosis is but half of the work; therapy, a method of cure, is also needed” (p. 35). Riessen’s therapy, aside from urging a revitalized faith in the Gospel, consists in specific suggestions for creating an industrial system which will implement decentralization as defined by Fourastié: “Decentralization is the placing of authority and responsibility as close as possible to the scene of action and permitting a wide range of discretion to those at each level in the system” (p. 277). Rather than centralizing everything in the hands of a remote managerial elite, industry must so arrange its functionings that the individual is enabled to “carry the full measure of his responsibility in the enterprise” (p. 261). In short, guided by the principle of sphere sovereignty, it must keep the individual from becoming an emotionally uninvolved automaton: instead it must help him to become a responsible participant. This may necessitate revolutionary changes, a few of which Riessen mentions as he discusses the relationship between management and labor.

Riessen, it must not be forgotten, is a Biblicist who believes that Antichrist will eventually dominate the world. He does not hesitate to say that “the building stones of the structure of the society of the antichrist are for the first time in evidence” (p. 33). Neither does he hesitate to say: “The antichrist will not just fall out of the blue sky. He will start with exactly such good intentions as Mannheim’s elite. And God will punish him in the very practice of his planning. God will transform his unbelief and relativism into a false myth, lying propaganda, and a nihilistic view of life. And because of their unbelief the masses will also be punished” (p. 219). Our civilization, Riessen further asserts, “is moving to a final catastrophe. Kuyper understood how far humanity had advanced on that road. He knew that the parousia is drawing near and that humanity is wrestling through her mortal agony, unless a reawakening shall come through the Gospel. A religious revolution, a revival of faith, is needed, Brunner said. Should this not come, then a total collapse is not to be averted. Europe is dying, because it has no God” (pp. 235–236).

It is impossible in this sketch to give more than an insubstantial impression of the depth, range, and power of Riessen’s study. What an encouraging experience to find an evangelical who, with an impressive background of knowledge, demonstrates that his faith is relevant to the concrete problems of our age!

VERNON C. GROUNDS

Influence Of Form Criticism

Essentials of New Testament Study, by Eric Lane Titus (Ronald Press, 1958, 261 pp., $3.75), is reviewed by Walter W. Wessell, Professor of New Testament at North American Baptist Seminary.

This book was written as a textbook in the introductory New Testament field by the professor of New Testament in the Southern California School of Theology, formerly of the University of Southern California School of Religion. As a text it has many good features. It is written in short sentences and in simple, understandable English. The material is treated in a systematic fashion with suggestive discussion questions and a list of selective readings at the conclusion of each chapter. More background information would have been desirable, but, of course, the book has much material to cover in a relatively small space.

Although the arrangement is commendable, this book leaves much to be desired as an adequate interpretation of the New Testament. Far too much credence is given to form criticism: “The tendency was to ascribe to Jesus the Church’s own beliefs …” Thus “the historian of the life of Jesus must exercise the utmost caution in his attempts to get behind the incrustation of ecclesiastical thought to information about Jesus of Nazareth” (p. 26). “What Jesus ‘would have said,’ becomes ‘what Jesus said.’ ” A. M. Hunter’s criticism of Formgeschichte applies here: “Reading the form critics, we easily get the impression that when the Gospel tradition was taking shape, all the eyewitnesses of Jesus had either ‘fallen asleep’ or were in safe hiding.”

Dr. Titus is far too skeptical of New Testament history. For example, Luke 2:41–51 is dismissed as “probably legendary,” since it has all the earmarks of a wonder child story. He makes no attempts at reconciling apparent discrepancies in accounts, and one gets the impression that he considers such attempts dishonest! The author considers it “highly improbable” that the gospel saying concerning taking up one’s cross originated with Jesus, because “the Cross became a symbol of dedication only after Jesus died upon it” (p. 33). It hardly seems necessary to say that the Cross is not only a symbol of dedication but of suffering and death, and this meaning of it was known to all in Roman-controlled areas before our Lord’s crucifixion.

The treatment of Acts and the Pauline corpus is no more satisfactory. The genuineness of the accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts is open to suspicion because Paul in his letters is “most reluctant to speak with deliberation about his conversion experience” (p. 111)! As for the letters of Paul, only I Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, and Romans escaped unscathed.

Mention has been made of the bibliographies which occur at the end of each chapter. These are entitled “Selective Readings.” How “selective” they are is revealed by the fact that such authors as Case, Colwell, Fosdick, Branscomb, Enslin, McCasland, Goodspeed, and Harnack are repeatedly listed, whereas little mention is made of mediating New Testament scholars, and no mention is given of those of a conservative viewpoint.

Essentials of New Testament Study will not provide the student with the essentials for an adequate understanding of the New Testament.

WALTER W. WESSEL

Sermonizing

Preaching for the Church, by Richard R. Caemmerer (Concordia, 1959, 352 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by Andrew W. Blackwood, Professor Emeritus of homiletics, Princeton Seminary.

The able professor of homiletics at Concordia Seminary of the Lutheran Missouri Synod has written the largest and weightiest of recent textbooks about preaching. Like most authors with a German background, he stresses homiletics as a science rather than preaching as an art. He deals with many aspects of his subject, and has done a work both sound and admirable which will be especially helpful for Lutherans.

The author bases everything he says on Holy Scripture. Often he cites chapter and verse references as he guides the student into a sound philosophy of preaching and an understanding of the conventional forms that sermons assume, including separate sermons, sermons in a series, in courses, and throughout the Christian Year. Toward the end of the book he devotes 60 pages to a discussion of the preacher.

A distinctive feature of the work is the often searching proposals “For Further Thought,” given at the end of each of the 12 main sections. At the end of the book there is an unusually complete annotated list of selected books “For Further Reading.”

As to literary form, Dr. Caemmerer writes with simplicity of thought and clarity of expression. If the written word seldom gets off the ground, the same holds true of most homiletical works which are aimed to inform, not to inspire. If the various chapters do not include examples of master sermons from earlier times, the reason may be that such an inclusion would call for a book twice this size. Dr. Caemmerer has done well in what he has set out to do, and this volume should take its place among the few available standard evangelical works in this field. Especially among Lutherans will it win primacy as the basic seminary textbook.

ANDREW W. BLACKWOOD

Dated But Relevant

Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by Patrick Fairbairn (Zondervan, 1957, $29.70 a set of 6 vols., $4.95 ea.), is reviewed by R. J. Rushdoony, Author of By What Standard?

This important reprint of an 1891 publication is of interest not only in terms of its still valuable contents but also for its notable contributors, who included Franz Delitzsch, A. B. Davidson, Horatius Bonar, and Gustav Oehler in the work. Its usefulness can best be evaluated by comparing it on a number of representative listings to another major work of the same era, A Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols., 1898), edited by James Hastings. Here are three topics:

1. Abomination of desolation. Hastings’ description, as in most cases, is longer than Fairbairn’s; and though he gives extensive data, it is inconclusive. Fairbairn gives an excellent and closely developed analysis of this topic and concludes: “The abominations which were the cause of the desolations are ever spoken of as springing up from within, among the covenant people themselves, not as invasions from without. They are so represented in Daniel also, ch. 11:30, 32; 12:9, 10; and that the Jews themselves, the better sort of them at least, so understood the matter, is plain from 1 Mac. 1:54–57, where, with reference to the two passages of Daniel just noticed, the heathen-inclined party in Israel are represented, in the time of Antiochus, as the real persons who ‘set up the abomination of desolation and built idol altars;’ comp. also 2 Mac. 4:15–17.” It is such conclusive interpretations that give the Fairbairn encyclopedia its high quality.

2. Election. Hastings’ dictionary is concerned with demonstrating at length that “no scheme of election which assumes the doctrine of everlasting punishment as one of its fundamental postulates, can claim to rest on the authority of St. Paul” (J. O. F. Murray), and is thus universalistic. In the Fairbairn encyclopedia Robert Frew is concerned with a presentation and defense of the Reformed point of view.

3. Marriage. William Lindsay’s article in Fairbairn cannot rival the study by W. P. Paterson in Hastings. Here, as usual, Hastings provides more data which, when it is brought to focus, is decisive; when it is not, it is but a mass of undigested data. Fairbairn does not possess massive data, nor the extensive correlation or contrast to nonbiblical cultures and data of Hastings, but he does provide the biblical data.

Fairbairn contains valuable introductory articles on inspiration by Ryle and Waller as well as a long study on the subject in volume three. The theological consistency which is characteristic of the encyclopedia makes for a dependability as well as directness in writing. Its republication is an event to be welcomed, and, despite the new research and extensive archaeological advance that has taken place since then, it has value and is a useful tool. Perhaps its weakest point is that it is dated at times, and reflects too strongly the temper and thinking of the day in its discussions. This does not alter the value of the conclusions.

R. J. RUSHDOONY

Relevant Exegesis

I and II Timothy and Titus, by William Hendriksen (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1957, 404 pp., $6), is reviewed by Wick Broomall, author of Biblical Criticism.

Here is no “dry-as-dustdom” commentary; nor does it effervesce with foam and froth. Hendriksen is now well established as a thoroughly reliable exegete. His star, already approaching the first degree of theological acumen, shines even brighter with each addition to the “New Testament Commentary” series, of which he is the sole author. This series has already been enriched by contributions on the Gospel of John and on I and II Thessalonians.

Although much more of the New Testament remains for him to conquer, we can pause here, at this favored position, and wish him well with God’s special blessing as he makes the still higher ascent of his Mount Everest.

It is perhaps needless to say that Hendriksen is conservative in critical matters and Calvinistic in theological questions. His defense of the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, as presented in the volume under review, is perhaps as persuasive as will be found anywhere in modern criticism.

One will find in Hendriksen that rare combination of astute scholarship, which never loses sight of the grass roots, and evangelical fervor, which never evaporates into nebulosity. Our commentator always remembers that truth is not a mere academic search: it is for our souls—for our sanctification and growth in holiness. There are, therefore, many outlines, illustrations, summaries—all designed to make the inspired page more real and relevant to our present age. What more could the reader expect?

We should not overlook another commendable feature of this commentary: its citation of theologians (e.g. Warfield and Berkhof) as well as many previous commentators. On the whole, theologians have often been ignored by exegetes; and, sad to say, theologians have sometimes minimized exact exegesis. But Hendriksen brings the theologian and exegete together in sweet fellowship in the work of exposition.

Typographical errors in this excellent commentary are almost non-existent. There are a few slight ones, however, affecting Hebrew and Greek words (pp. 71 and 379).

WICK BROOMALL

And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall heat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (Isaiah 2:2–5).

In all these prophecies (Is. 2:2–4; 42:1, 7; 60:1–3) the conversion of the Gentiles to a religion proceeding from Judea is unequivocally foretold. For that such expressions as, a law, judgment, covenant, light, in the prophetic volume, are descriptive of some doctrine, or revelation of a religious nature, is no more to be doubted than that the phrases of Euclid relate to the subject of Geometry. “The law going forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” is therefore a definite and unambiguous description of a religious doctrine thence communicated to the world. And “The influx of all nations into the mountain of the Lord’s house in Zion,” is no less definite in describing the conversion of the Gentiles to a faith or worship of the true God, originating in that mountain, as the place where it should be first instituted or taught.

He who appeared in the preceding verse as the lawgiver and teacher of the nations, is now represented as an arbiter or umpire, ending their disputes by a pacific intervention, as a necessary consequence of which war ceases, the very knowledge of the art is lost, and its implements applied to other uses. This prediction was not fulfilled in the general peace under Augustus, which was only temporary; nor is it now fulfilled. The event is suspended on a previous condition, viz., the confluence of the nations to the church, which has not yet taken place; a strong inducement to diffuse the gospel, which, in the meantime, is peaceful in its spirit, tendency, and actual effect, wherever and so far as it exerts its influence without obstruction.

This does not make all war absolutely unlawful among Christians, nor is it a prophecy, that in the days of the Messiah there shall be no more wars. The Jews urge this against Christians, as an argument that Jesus is not the Messiah, because this promise is not fulfilled. But, (1) it was in part fulfilled in the peaceableness of the time in which Christ was born, when wars were in a great measure ceased. (2) The design and tendency of the Gospel are to make peace and to slay all enmities. (3) Jews and Gentiles were reconciled and brought together by the Gospel. (4) The Gospel of Christ, as far as it prevails, disposes men to be peaceable, soften men’s spirits and sweetens them. (5) The primitive Christians were famous for brotherly love. (6) We have reason to hope that this promise shall yet have a more full accomplishment in the latter times of the Christian Church, when the Spirit shall be put out more plentifully from on high.

Calvin’S Exegesis

In the last days—When he mentions the end or completion of days, let us remember that he is speaking of the kingdom of Christ; and we ought also to understand why he gives to the kingdom of Christ this appellation. It was because till that time everything might be said to be in a state of suspense, that the people might not fix their eyes on the present condition of things, which was only a shadow, but on the Redeemer, by whom the reality would be declared. Since Christ came, therefore, if that time be compared with ours, we have actually arrived at the end of ages.

And shall say, come—By these words he first declares that the godly will be filled with such an ardent desire to spread the doctrines of religion, that every one not satisfied with his own calling and his personal knowledge will desire to draw others along with him. And indeed nothing could be more inconsistent with the nature of faith than that deadness which would lead a man to disregard his brethren, and to keep the light of knowledge choked up within his own breast.… This points out to us also the ordinary method of collecting a Church, which is, by the outward voice of men, for though God might bring each person to himself by a secret influence, yet he employs the agency of men, that he may awaken in them an anxiety about the salvation of each other.

And he will teach us his ways—He shows, first, that God cannot be worshipped aright until we have been enlightened by doctrine; and, secondly, that God is the only teacher of the Church, on whose lips we ought to hang. Hence it follows that nothing is less acceptable to God than certain foolish and erring services which men call devotion; and likewise, that though he employs the agency of men in teaching, still he reserves this as his own right, that they must utter nothing but his word.

All nations shall flow unto it—Now, though this was never fulfilled, that the nations of the whole world, each of them leaving their native country, made a journey into Judea; yet, because the doctrine of the gospel, by which God gathered to himself a Church indiscriminately out of all nations, proceeded from Mount Zion, he justly says that they will come to it who having, with one consent of faith, embraced the covenant of eternal salvation, have been united into one Church. We must also observe the harmony between the figures of the law and that spiritual worship which began to be introduced at the coming of Christ.

For out of Zion shall go forth the law—This is an explanation of the former verse, in which he said that Mount Zion will be placed above all mountains; that is, that she will be raised to the highest pitch of honor, when she shall become the fountain of saving doctrine, which shall flow out over the whole world. He calls it the law; for (torah) means instruction, and the most complete of all kinds of instruction is contained in the law. He speaks, therefore, after the manner of the prophets; for since the rule of godliness was to be obtained from the law, they were wont, by a figure of speech (Synecdoche,) in which a part is taken for the whole, to include under the word law all the instruction which God has given; just as under the word altar they include the whole worship of God. Hence, the term is applied, without limitation, to the word of God.

END

As Easter came and went, Protestant interest turned to a document purportedly containing new words of Jesus, while Roman Catholics gave attention to professedly new evidence for the burial place of the Apostle Peter.

Somewhat perturbed by the “sensational” treatment given a lecture of his by the American press was Professor Oscar Cullmann of the University of Basel and Paris’ Sorbonne. The well-known New Testament scholar was lecturing at New York’s Union Theological Seminary, where he is visiting professor, on the 1946 discovery of the self-designated “Gospel of St. Thomas,” one of 44 Coptic treatises contained in thirteen leather-bound papyrus books found in a tomb about 60 miles from Luxor in Upper Egypt. Described as a Gnostic library, the manuscripts were written in about the third or fourth century, says Dr. Cullmann, but “they surely go back to Greek originals which are much older—some parts probably from the first half of the second century.”

Most important part of the discovery was the Gospel of St. Thomas, in reality not a gospel at all but rather a collection of 114 sayings, including parables, attributed to Jesus and lacking any narrative framework. Only 14 of these had been known heretofore. “Comparable in importance to the Dead Sea Scrolls and of even greater significance to students of the New Testament,” was how Cullmann described the logia.

They fall into four categories: those which are word-for-word the same as in the canonical Gospels, those which provide independent variants to their canonical counterparts, those absent from the Gospels but known through citations in writings of the church fathers, and those completely unknown.

One of the unknown sayings: “Jesus said: If those who lead you say to you: Behold, the kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of heaven will precede you; if they say to you that it is in the sea, then the fish will precede you. But the kingdom is within you and it is outside of you.”

Beleaguered by phone calls, Dr. Cullmann patiently points out that though the American public may have been unaware of the discovery, such was not the case with specialists and others. He himself has been in possession of the text since 1956 and a book has already been published on the subject, albeit its inferior quality limited its sale. However, this state of affairs will soon be corrected by Cullmann’s Paris colleague Henri-Charles Puech and others who will publish a good illustrated text and translation. Cullmann feels that the question is not yet sufficiently mature for the widespread publicity given his lecture, about which he declares the only new thing was his assessment of the significance of the find.

Has it reopened the question of the canon? No, says Cullmann. It cannot be said for sure whether any of the “words of Jesus” are authentic, though some of them could be as old as or older than canonical material. About half the “gospel” is Gnostic, the reviser producing the present form being a Gnostic of the middle of the second century who put the work under the authority of the Apostle Thomas, though probably more than half of it originated in his own day.

Cullmann concludes: “Our four canonical Gospels are the only ones on which we can rely.… In the language of theology we must say that the Holy Spirit has been actually at work in the formation of the canon.… On the other band, it is possible for previously unknown and yet genuine sayings of Jesus to be found in other documents which are not in the canon, sayings which, even when they bring no fundamentally new revelation, are capable of enriching and furthering our understanding of the canonic gospels.”

Certain Roman Catholic scholars wasted little time in deprecating the sayings as belonging to a type of literature both fraudulent and puerile. But at the same time widespread publicity attended an announcement by Dr. Margherita Guarducci, professor of Greek epigraphy at Rome University, that new evidence had been found for the Roman Catholic belief that the Apostle Peter was buried under the spot where the papal altar of St. Peter’s Basilica now stands. Though many non-Romans question whether Peter was ever in Rome, Pope Pius XII in 1950 announced that “the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles has been found.”

For twenty years Vatican archeologists have been excavating under St. Peter’s, uncovering beneath the papal altar several tombs bearing no identification, only graffiti—ancient inscriptions roughly scratched on stone or other masonry. Five years of Vatican-sponsored study of the graffiti have convinced Professor Guarducci that they embody a mystical cryptography developed by persecuted second-century Christians and that she has unlocked the cipher. According to her interpretation, one inscription dating to about 160 A.D. read, “Peter is buried here.”

Professor Cullmann flatly rejects Dr. Guarducci’s conclusions, dismissing them with a curt “All that she wrote is false.” But he waxes enthusiastic over something he considers more newsworthy at the present time than either the Gnostic library or the graffiti—a plan of his for improving Protestant-Roman Catholic relations.

In Europe, some Roman and Protestant theologians meet regularly for study. And one week of each year is recognized by members of both communions in many European countries as a time of prayer for Christian unity. Lutheran Cullmann would add another step toward “improving the atmosphere”: yearly collections by Protestant churches for Roman Catholic poor and vice versa. He has been preaching this for two years in Europe and some churches have taken it up, amidst praise and criticism. The idea was suggested to Cullmann by the offering taken by Paul among the Gentiles for the poor in Jerusalem.

Certain requirements must be met for the plan to work, declares Cullmann. Protestants and Catholics must recognize each other as brothers in Christ but must also see that church unity is impossible in “the modern situation.” The two doctrines of the church are irreconcilable—for church unity one of the churches would have to disappear. The pope would cease to be the pope were he to sit down to negotiate with an oriental patriarch or the Archbishop of Canterbury without presiding. Only the “naive ones” saw hope for unity in the recent papal announcement concerning an ecumenical council.

Though the “ecumenical offering” cannot be a symbol of unity, it can be one of “solidarity, of brotherhood among all who invoke the name of Christ.” Were this proposal adopted in Spain and Colombia, the persecutions would become “impossible.” Would this plan ever lead to missionary cooperation between the churches? Says Cullmann, “That would be difficult.”

Two of the other difficulties which present themselves: the problematical Vatican disposition toward any implications of equality involved in the reciprocal nature of the plan; and certain Protestant reservations as to the efficacy of Roman Catholic soteriology, raised by the question of Christian brotherhood—it may be asked, “How necessary was the Reformation, anyway?”

Ecumenical Movement

Statement Of Faith

Presented as a “testimony and not a test of faith,” the proposed statement of faith for the United Church of Christ was made public last month.

The 231-word document will be presented in July to the second General Synod of the United Church, which is being formed out of the General Council of Congregational Christian Churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church.

Dr. James E. Wagner, co-president of the United Church, said creeds are part of the “poetry” of religion rather than its “systematic rational exposition.”

Some evangelical Protestants viewed the statement as a vague adumbration of the Apostles’ Creed if not a travesty on basic Christian doctrine. The Virgin Birth, for instance, is not mentioned.

Here is the text of the statement, said to be the first of its kind in the United States for merging denominations with differing theological, sociological, and ecclesiastical backgrounds:

“We believe in God, the Eternal Spirit, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and our Father, to whose deeds we gladly testify:

“He calls the worlds into being, creates man in His own image, and sets before him the ways of life and death.

“He seeks in holy love to save his people from aimlessness and sin. He judges men and nations by His righteous will declared through prophets and apostles.

“In Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth, our crucified and risen Lord, He has come to us, shared our common lot, conquered sin and death, and reconciled the world to Himself.

“He bestows upon us His Holy Spirit, creating and renewing the Church of Jesus Christ, binding in covenant faithful people of all ages, tongues, and races.

“He calls us into his Church to accept the cost and joy of discipleship, to be His servants in the service of men, to proclaim the gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil, to share in Christ’s baptism and eat at His table, to join him in His passion and victory.

“He promises, to all who trust Him, forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace, His presence in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in His kingdom which has no end.

“Blessing and honor, glory and power be unto Him. Amen.”

Lutheran Fellowship

A retraction from the head of Missouri Synod Lutherans prompted new unity overtures from fellow church leaders.

Ecumenically-minded Lutheran officials apparently were encouraged by Missouri Synod President John W. Behnken’s withdrawal of statements charging that doctrines of three bodies now merging as the American Lutheran Church were in a “state of flux.”

Cooperative talks with the National Lutheran Council would include doctrinal discussion, Behnken was assured. He was asked, moreover, to initiate doctrinal discussions with merging Lutherans “toward the ultimate aim of church fellowship.”

Behnken withdrew his “state of flux” remarks when he felt they had been misinterpreted as “unwarranted judgment.”

Clergy And Industry

Moral Concern

Eighteen prominent clergymen—Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish—constitute an advisory council newly formed by the National Association of Manufacturers, the representative body of U. S. industrial management.

An NAM announcement said its “Clerical Advisory Council” is to meet three times a year, jointly with the association’s advisory committee of industrial leaders. Chairman of the council is Dr. Edward L. R. Elson, minister of the National Presbyterian Church in Washington.

The program was described as having a “dual objective: (1) To.alert the association’s members to major trends of thought in religious circles regarding moral and ethical problems affecting American business, and (2) to present industry’s point of view on such questions to the clergy and lay people of the nation’s churches and synagogues.”

Centenary Observances

Ratio: 200 To 1

This is the 100th year of Protestant missions in Japan. Out of a population of more than 90,000,000, there are reportedly less than 400,000 Protestant Christians divided among some 70 or more denominations. Broken down, it indicates that fewer than one in two hundred Japanese citizens are evangelical Christians.

The Evangelical Missionary Association of Japan hopes to use the centennial observance to make a stronger impact for Christianity. Biggest prospect: Buddhism, which claims a majority of the people.

EMAJ’s executive committee has prayerfully set a goal of seeing at least 2,000 evangelistic campaigns in 1959. Two major Bible conferences are planned as well, one in Tokyo and the other in Osaka, both in October.

Next month, World Vision will begin a three-week evangelistic campaign in Osaka with a team of distinguished American preachers and musicians. Principal speaker will be World Vision President Bob Pierce. Also on the team are Dr. Paul S. Rees, vice-president-at-large of World Vision; Dr. F. Carlton Booth, professor of evangelism at Fuller Theological Seminary; Ralph Carmichael, noted Gospel composer and conductor; and Jack Conner, famed marimba player.

Norman Nelson, singing missionary from the Philippines, will join the team.

From Haili Kulamanu

Haili Church of Hilo, founded by pioneering Congregational missionaries to Hawaii, is observing its 100th year in the same Colonial wooden edifice.

Fearing earthquakes, original builders chose in place of stone the timber of a nearby forest called “Haili Kulamanu,” which means “Paradise of the Birds.”

The church has become one of the most famous in the Hawaiian Islands. Repairs have kept the building in shape.

People: Words And Events

Deaths: Dr. Harold Lundquist, 64, pastor of the First Mission Covenant Church of Chicago and a distinguished evangelical leader, in Chicago … Miss Edith Torrey, 76, daughter of famed revivalist R. A. Torrey and former Wheaton College professor, in Santa Barbara, California … Dr. Eric Sauer of Wiedenest, Rhineland, author of Dawn of World Redemption.

Nomination: For general secretary of the American Baptist Convention, Dr. Edwin H. Tuller.

Appointments: As president of the new Methodist Theological School at Stratford, Ohio, Dr. John W. Dickhaut; as dean, Dr. Van Bogard Dunn … as president of the American Baptists’ Keuka College, Dr. William S. Litterick … as first president of the Methodists’ North Carolina Wesleyan College, scheduled to open in the fall of 1960, Dr. Thomas A. Collins … as associate executive secretary for American Baptist Men, Hermon C. Dilmore … as professor of systematic theology at Central Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Ernest Pickering … as superintendent of the Church of the Nazarene’s Hawaiian district, Dr. Joseph E. Purinton.

Elections: As chairman of the board of trustees of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Lamar Jackson … as chairman of a joint committee working for a merger between the United Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Evangelical and American Lutheran churches, Dr. William Larsen … as president of the Seventh-day Adventists’ Washington Missionary College, Dr. Charles B. Hirsch … as president of the National Association of Christian Broadcasters, Darrel Malcom … as president of the Protestant Church-Owned Publishers’ Association, Birger Swenson.

‘Year Of Grace’

Northern Ireland is marking the 100th anniversary of its revival of 1859, often referred to as the “Year of Grace.” A series of lectures, teaching missions, and evangelistic crusades were scheduled in commemoration of the event, which owed much to the 1857 revival experienced in the United States.

One of the first anniversary observances was a luncheon meeting at Belfast which drew 400 ministers and laymen. Guest speaker was Dr. J. Edwin Orr, author of The Second Evangelical Awakening in Britain, a history of the “Year of Grace.”

Orr said various parts of the world are now experiencing what they could regard as the Third Evangelical Awakening. He cited Brazil, referring to an admission from a Roman Catholic source that more attended Protestant services than could be found in Catholic masses.

Orr said he believed that the Spirit of God had raised up Billy Graham to lead evangelism and to serve the whole church of God. He asserted there had been a considerable change in evangelical emphasis which he described as a “moving to the center” combining a sense of unity, social reform and brotherly love with more objective features of the orthodox Christian faith—authority of the Bible, creeds, and biblical evangelism.

NEWS

CHRISTIANITY TODAY

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary trustees sought to close debate on one of the most embarrassing squabbles in the annals of U. S. theological education when, climaxing a dramatic March 30–31 meeting, they rescinded dismissals of 12 professors. The professors were asked, instead, to resign.

In a resolution, the trustees admitted procedural “mistakes” in dismissals last June which followed a long-standing feud between nearly half the 27 School of Theology professors and Dr. Duke K. McCall, scholarly seminary president.

The Louisville institution, mother seminary of the second largest U. S. denomination, is observing the 100th anniversary of its founding this year.

Dissident professors have consistently charged McCall with maladministration. McCall, in turn, claims that the major issues have revolved on whether the faculty is largely independent, both academically and administratively.

One of the dismissed professors who is now pastor of the First Baptist Church of North Wilkesboro, North Carolina, Dr. Heber F. Peacock, has been acting as spokesman for the dissident group. All now have churches or are teaching or studying elsewhere.

Seminary trustees called their latest meeting after a special committee of Southern Baptist Convention presidents laid groundwork for what had been billed as a possible “reconciliation.” The dismissed professors replied that their interest was the welfare of the seminary. They made clear that they did not seek reconciliation.

The March 30–31 proceedings, which began with a 6 p. m. supper and did not adjourn until 4:30 a. m., were influenced by a warning last December from the American Association of Theological Schools, which threatened to withdraw accreditation. Present were the entire seminary staff, trustees, members of the special presidents committee, as well as the dismissed professors.

Here is the text of the resolution:

“Whereas, the action of the Board of Trustees of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on June 12, 1958, when thirteen faculty members were dismissed, has been criticized by the AATS Accrediting Commission; whereas, the Board of Trustees has made a restudy of its action and its procedures; whereas, the Board of Trustees desires to repair damage done to the former faculty members and to the seminary, and to any other persons involved; whereas, there was neither precedent nor procedure by which the Board of Trustees might have been better guided; therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Trustees of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, meeting in extraordinary session in Louisville, Kentucky, on March 31, 1959:

“1. That we express appreciation to the committee of Convention presidents for its prayer, efforts, and leadership for the extraordinary session.

“2. That we express appreciation to the former faculty members for their willingness to be present for the extraordinary session, and for their desire to be helpful.

“3. That we express appreciation to the faculty for its presence in the extraordinary session, and for its fine statement and spirit.

“4. That we assure the former faculty members that there is no bitterness in our hearts toward any one or all of them; we love each of them.

“5. That we admit errors in the dismissal procedure followed, and express our regrets for such errors.

“6. That we rescind the June 12, 1958 action in which the former faculty members were dismissed; and, that we respectfully request the resignation of each as of this date.

“7. That the faculty and the president are at liberty to consider by current faculty acquisition procedures any person deemed appropriate for faculty membership.

“8. That we encourage the trustee subcommittee on faculty acquisition … to continue its work, looking to adoption in May of improved faculty acquisition and tenure procedures.”

The resolution notwithstanding, issues were not resolved. Many felt that the disputants merely “agreed to disagree.”

The dispute at the Louisville seminary dates back to May 4, 1943, when its board of trustees adopted a committee report which began, “The president of the seminary shall be recognized as the executive head of the institution.…”

In reviewing the controversy for the board last year, McCall noted that although the 1943 report removed the seminary from faculty control, the change never was “fully accepted” by the faculty. He said the rejection caused tension during the administration of his predecessor as well as his own, adding, “The ability of the wisest board of trustees, made up of those not engaged in theological education, to determine the [seminary life] is questioned by some.”

After smouldering inconspicuously for nearly 15 years, the dispute was given formal expression in March of 1958 when a School of Theology faculty report noted “low morale” among professors and asserted that “it is virtually impossible for seminary teachers to provide their families with adequate housing, educational opportunities and an acceptable standard of living without the assistance of outside remunerative activity.”

McCall confirmed “regretfully” the existence of the situation, but insisted that “the occasion for such a situation is temporary disappointment, frustration, and depression.” He asked the board to state “clearly and unequivocally precisely what is the trustee position on the problems and questions raised by the faculty.”

The board gave McCall a vote of confidence. “We do not believe it necessary to alter the structure of the seminary or any instructions given to the seminary administration,” a board statement said.

Last April 28, 13 School of Theology professors presented to a special trustees committee a “supplementary report” which the seminary administration subsequently labelled “libelous.” The report questioned McCall’s honor, charged him with “deceit,” and asserted that he “attempted to rule the faculty by coercion and threat.”

Direct negotiations between McCall and the dissidents failed.

On June 12, the board of trustees voted 32 to 9 to dismiss the 13 faculty members. A special reinstatement committee was named and authorized to reinstate “any one or more of these 13 men upon the basis of full confidence of the committee that the reinstated member can cooperate with the administration and work harmoniously within the framework of the charter and by-laws of the seminary and serve in good conscience as part of the faculty.” Salaries of the dismissed professors were extended.

The reinstatement committee invited the 13 professors to a meeting July 9 in hopes of effecting a reconciliation. Only one came, Dr. J. J. Owens, who was reinstated retroactively to June 12.

During the same committee meeting, Dr. Charles Taylor, executive director of the American Association of Theological Schools, appeared. He had but one request: that financial provisions for the dismissed professors be extended. Accordingly, the seminary continued to pay the dismissed professors and is still making up any differences in earnings.

Five months later, the Louisville seminary was visited by an investigating committee of the AATS, the recognized accrediting authority among U. S. seminaries. At its annual meeting in December the AATS put the seminary on virtual probation for a year, warning that another inspection would be made within twelve months. The implicit threat was that accreditation might be withdrawn. McCall was asked to resign his AATS vice presidency and his membership on the Commission on Accrediting.

The AATS never has specified how the seminary is to “repair the damage.”

Protestant Panorama

• Design of the Air Force Academy Chapel is being simplified to cut construction costs. The Air Force rejected all contractors’ bids, observing that they were “far in excess of official estimates of construction costs,” originally about three million dollars.

• One of every four younger clergy of the Anglican Church of Canada was discouraged from entering the ministry by one or both parents, according to a survey run by the denomination’s recruitment commission.

• HLKT, first Christian relay station in the southern part of the Republic of Korea, went on the air in Taegu shortly before Easter. The new 250-watt transmitter will be operated by HLKY, Christian broadcasting station in Seoul, in cooperation with Taegu’s Keimyong Christian College.

• A ceremony was scheduled for April 15 in Beirut to initiate the merging of Protestant mission work in Syria and Lebanon. Control and ownership of American missionary facilities, development of which was fostered by Presbyterians and Congregationalists, will pass to the National Evangelical Synod of Syria and Lebanon, the indigenous Protestant church.

• Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company of Des Moines, Iowa, last month became the first company in the United States to write fire insurance exclusively for non-drinkers.

• Midwest Bible and Missionary Institute is changing its name to the Midwest Bible College.

• Among first refugees to arrive last month under a new U. S. law which admits displaced Dutch citizens from Indonesia were a young couple sponsored by the Christian Social Relations Department of the Episcopal Church’s Diocese of Colorado.

• The Graduate School of Theology at Oberlin College is beginning an internship and field work program in cooperation with the Cleveland Inner-City Protestant Parish. The program is designed to train ministers for service in urban areas characterized by large proportions of low-income people, racial and minority groups, and overcrowded substandard housing.

• President Eisenhower was on hand to see his wife receive an honorary doctor of laws degrees from Roman Catholic St. Joseph College at Emmitsburg, Maryland, last month.

• The Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, in a resolution passed last month, expressed disapproval of congregation-sponsored social dancing.

• The Pennsylvania Baptist Convention is purchasing a 205-acre private resort near Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, for some $250,000. The property will be used for a year-round camp and conference grounds.

• Beginning in June, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association will produce a monthly publication for distribution among those particularly interested in world evangelism. Editor is Dr. Sherwood E. Wirt, who resigned as minister of Hillside Presbyterian Church, Oakland, California, to take the post.

• More than 60 U. S. television stations have shown “Martin Luther,” according to Robert E. A. Lee, executive secretary of Lutheran Church Productions, distributors of the film. Another 60 stations, Lee said, will televise the movie within a year.

• Eight stations of the United Christian Missionary Society (Disciples of Christ) in the Belgian Congo will soon be linked by a radio network if the government approves the plan.

• Three major Protestant denominations now have their largest congregations in Dallas. Highland Park Presbyterian Church is the largest in membership in the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. First Baptist Church of Dallas is the largest in the Southern Baptist Convention. Highland Park Methodist Church holds a similar distinction.

• The Bible Institute of Los Angeles broke ground last month for a $125,000 student commons building on its La Mirada, California, campus site.

Mass Evangelism

Bad And Mad

Billy Graham’s Australian timetable called for the start of a month-long crusade in Sydney, the continent’s largest city, this week.

Graham was to fly into Sydney after concluding short series of meetings in principal cities of New Zealand. On the eve of the New Zealand campaign, he reported that his vision was “the best it has been in nine months.” Doctors had ordered him to get as much rest as possible to relieve a rare affliction which caused blurring in his left eye. The evangelist relaxed at a seaside resort following his climactic Melbourne meeting which drew a crowd estimated as high as 150,000 for a new record in Christian evangelistic efforts.

“After Melbourne,” many were asking, “what was the prospect for Sydney?”

Melbourne is a relatively conservative city, while Sydney’s population of nearly 2,500,000 is called “bad and mad.” Sydney has seen its share of a church building boom, but the average congregation attracts little more than 50 worshippers per service. Known as Australia’s most cosmopolitan city, Sydney generally represents indifference to religion. Materialism seems to prevail.

Graham’s meetings were scheduled to begin Sunday afternoon, April 12, in the Sydney Showground, which was being modified to accommodate 80,000. Chairman of the Sydney crusade executive committee, Bishop R. C. Kerle, said that the governor of New South Wales, Lieutenant General Sir Eric Woodward, has granted his patronage to the crusade and expressed willingness to chair the opening meeting.

The actual start of the crusade was preceded by weeks of prayer and training among volunteers. More than 10,000 people were crowding into Sydney’s largest buildings six days a week for counsellor training. Thousands of cottage prayer meetings were also held daily.

In New Zealand, likewise, Graham found that great preparations had been made, even though an extended campaign had not been planned. “It is a raid,” wrote Professor E. M. Blaiklock, CHRISTIANITY TODAY correspondent in Auckland, “an all-out brief attack on evil things for which the church has made magnificent preparations.” Rugby football grounds were booked for the Graham rallies.

“New Zealand has never known the genuine breath of religious revival,” Blaiklock said. “The witness of evangelical Christianity is strong, the church is not without life and vigor, and in common with the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world in this decade, there has been a stirring of activity. But over the century or more of history, no one voice has moved the country, no sudden fervor ever came.

“Hence it was with astonishment that experienced observers watched Graham. The sanity and relevance of his preaching won the interest of a folk so averse to emotional demonstration that they are content to clap, rather than cheer, even at the sight of royalty.”

Communism Vs. Buddhism

No Surprise

A former missionary to Tibet says he was not surprised at an anti-Communist revolt in the capital city of Lhasa.

Marion Duncan, who served at the Tibetan-West China border for 13 years with the Disciples of Christ, declared that Communists could have expected trouble from devoted Buddhists in the sparsely-populated, mountain country.

“It was a natural gesture of mountain people,” he said.

He speculated that the insurrection had its roots with wealthy nobles who oppose distribution of their lands under the Communist system. Peasants would have fought on orders from their lords, he observed.

Duncan said Communists have had great difficulty in setting up communes in Tibet. A contributing factor, he noted, was the small population scattered over a wide area.

Tibet has little more than token Christian witness, he added, and there is little hope that the revolt will result in any missionary opportunity.

Duncan now works as a consultant with the U. S. government.

World Religious Populations

The world’s major religions gained numerical strength last year largely in proportion to increases in population, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year for 1959, out this month.

The Britannica’s figures show no unusual spurts in numbers of adherents. All the statistics are estimates gathered from authoritative surveys.

Last year, the Britannica yearbook listed 835,564,542 Christians in the world, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. This year, the figure was 848,659,038.

Here is the Britannica breakdown: Roman Catholic, 509,505,000; Eastern Orthodox, 129,192,755; Protestant, 209,961,283; Jewish, 12,035,774; Moslem, 424,813,000; Zoroastrian, 140,000; Shinto, 30,000,000; Taoist, 50,053,200; Confucian, 300,290,500; Buddhist, 150,310,000; Hindu, 325,929,809; Primitive, 121,150,000.

Weather Phenomenon

History Repeating

It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun’s light failed …—Luke 23:44–45

Metropolitan Washington experienced a Good Friday this year which alluded meteorologically to the day Christ died.

Rain-laden skies suddenly grew wholly dark over the U. S. capital and surrounding suburbs at 3 p. m., the time generally associated with the Bible’s “ninth hour” and the suffering Christ’s last words. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record three hours of darkness immediately preceding the climactic cries of Jesus.

Worshippers emerging from traditional 12–3 p.m. services found a nightlike atmosphere. Most who stayed home or worked took up vigils at windows. Telephone lines were flooded with calls, many of them directed to the Weather Bureau.

The intense, midafternoon darkness, which lasted for several minutes, was reported to have stretched over an area 50 miles wide. Skies gradually took on an eerie, pale yellow glow, then turned into the ordinary gray of rain clouds. A heavy thunderstorm followed.

Four flights at Washington National Airport were delayed in the squall.

The Weather Bureau explained that the darkness was the result of an unusually heavy cloud build-up accompanying a cold front. The ceiling was zero, a spokesman said, and the cloud layer was estimated to have extended to an altitude of 30,000 feet.

The spokesman described the phenomenon as very unusual for the eastern part of the United States. He added that such blacking-out does occur, however, in advance of tornadoes and is seen more frequently in plains states.

Religious Assemblages

The Issue: Red China

U. S. attitudes toward Red China claimed the floor of debate last month at the annual meeting of the National Council of United Presbyterian Men.

Dr. Will W. Orr, president of Westminster College, called on 3,000 delegates to repudiate a recommendation by the Fifth World Order Study Conference in Cleveland last fall. A message from the conference urged steps toward recognition of Red China and its admission to the United Nations.

Taking issue with the message, Orr said he found himself “sick at heart at some of the statements made by prominent churchmen regarding what should be our country’s relationship to Communism.”

Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, stated clerk of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., stood to the defense of the controversial Cleveland recommendations. Blake asserted the “present political stalemate in Asia is, month by month, making democracy weaker—not stronger—in East and Southeast Asia.”

He charged that “one of the results of the present policy is that during the last six months, repressions and persecutions of the Christian churches in China have increased in scope and severity.”

Representing 400,000 members, the council is the laymen’s organization of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A.

Missionary Enterprise

The World Scene

The most encouraging aspect of today’s world-wide missionary scene is a surge of activity among lay Christians, according to Dr. Clyde W. Taylor, executive secretary of the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, who returned March 27 from an 80-day, 35,000-mile global tour which took him to 18 countries.

Taylor said lay participation in church work is the outstanding feature of missionary work in many areas. He added that layman zeal often matches or surpasses that of the clergy.

Taylor urged more attention toward evangelizing youth around the world.

He called present ministries among youth “inadequate,” adding that young people are “most receptive to the Gospel.”

He said latest on-the-spot surveys indicate that the number of Christians in the Far East has increased by nearly 100 per cent during the past five years.

These studies show, according to Taylor, that there are now 5,200,000 Christians in Formosa, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and the Philippines, compared to 2,600,000 five years ago.

The missions expert noted that Japan is lagging behind other Far Eastern countries in numbers of converts. He blamed this largely on cultural patterns which limit church activities of laymen. Another contributing factor, he said, was the Japanese custom to regard marriage as a secular matter. Such attitudes inevitably lead to a large number of marriages between pagans and Christians, he said.

World Of Islam

A Holy War?

Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut, a top Moslem leader, is calling upon the world of Islam to declare a jihad, or holy war, against communism.

The rector of Cairo’s 1,000-year-old Al Azhar University, Islam’s chief theological seminary with an enrollment of more than 2,000 students, has previously said that “Arab soil will not bear Communist feet.”

Sheikh Shaltut’s appeal climaxed a war of words between stations in Cairo and Baghdad which developed after Communists in Mosul, Iraq, were reported to have burned Korans and murdered a number of learned Moslems.

Moslem sources in Cairo said that a call for a holy war—only one has been declared since the days of the Crusades in the Middle Ages—would ordinarily come from the Caliph of Islam. But they said since the caliphate was abolished by Ataturk of Turkey, the declaration of a jihad now rests with the governing body of Al Azhar.

Baghdad Radio denied that incidents in Mosul were organized by the government and asserted that “the freedom of religious beliefs in Iraq is safe.”

The Baghdad station charged United Arab Republic President Gamel Abdel Nasser’s regime with “committing the ugliest crimes in the name of religion, at the same time hypocritically pretending to show concern for religion in Iraq.” Religious leaders in Iraq, the station added, have often denounced “the attitude of the Egyptian rulers.”

Wives’ ‘Decalogue’

Mrs. John Osborn, whose husband is pastor of the world’s largest Seventh-day Adventist congregation (Sligo Seventh-day Adventist Church in Takoma Park, Maryland) has a list of “Ten Commandments” for clergymen’s wives.

Addressing wives of delegates to a church meeting in Atlantic City last month, Mrs. Osborn gave this list:

1. Thou shalt love all your members at all times and under all circumstances.

2. Thou shalt learn to live as the most observed woman in the church.

3. Thou shalt always remember your family obligations first of all.

4. Thou shalt learn to develop a remedy for loneliness for the many nights your husband is away from home.

5. Thou shalt learn to live on a limited income and a strict budget.

6. Thou shalt learn how to meet discouragement.

7. Thou shalt learn how to be adaptable and willing to learn.

8. Thou shalt develop your natural talents and abilities.

9. Thou shalt have a definite interest in the daily work and program of your preacher husband.

10. Thou shalt often renew your personal consecration to the task of the church.

The potentials of destruction in nuclear warfare are such that there is a crescendo of demand for some type of organization or machinery that will insure peace in our time.

But these appeals for peace on the part of political and ecclesiastical leaders involve considerations which few people are prepared to face.

Peace is not something that man can will for himself. It is a God-conferred blessing based upon obedience to God-ordained moral laws. Man cannot defy these laws and claim the blessings of peace.

Furthermore, while self-preservation may be the first law of nature, it is not so for the Christian. His chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, regardless of the consequences on earth. Once a man makes peace the prime goal of human existence, other things of infinitely greater worth are sacrificed in the process.

Someone has said: “When for truth man should die, it is his perdition to be safe.” The demand for peace at any price, so much the part of certain current philosophies, is a far cry from the righteousness that should be man’s highest goal.

Part of man’s confusion today is due to his failure to understand what peace really means. The average person of the world desires peace only so he may continue, unharmed and uninterrupted, in serving the devil.

Our Lord made it plain that the peace of which he spoke had little in common with that concept of peace held by the world. He affirmed that he had come not to bring peace but a sword and that the peace he gives is foreign to, cannot be understood by, nor conferred at the behest of the world. And an understanding of this is possible only to those who are taught by the Holy Spirit.

Peace is an inclusive term. There is peace with God which is the foundation of all true peace, and is acquired solely by faith through the merits of the redeeming work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The immediate corollary of this peace with God is the peace of God which dwells in the hearts of believers. This is a peace of conscience which stems from our knowing that all is right between us and our Creator because of the finished work of Christ. It is an inner sense of peace emanating from the fact that all is well, not because of anything we have done but through that which our Lord has done for us.

Finally there comes to our hearts a peace with our fellow men. This is twofold. We share an abiding love and consideration for those who love Christ with us. And then we have a peace of compassion for those who do not believe—peace which is a love for their temporal and eternal good.

This is what the Bible means when it speaks of peacemakers. Paradoxical as it may seem, however, this peace may involve strife on our part against evil. In fact it is this paradox that can cause us to misconceive the character of true peace.

In the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord said: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

However, when struck by one of the officers of Pilate’s court, Jesus did not turn the other cheek but rather said: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?”

Had our Lord changed his attitude? Assuredly not. How then do we explain his injunction—“turn the other cheek,” and his refusal to do so in protest against unlawful and unjust action?

Is not the answer to be found in the implications of two unrelated matters? The Christian ought to suffer in silence when the matter is one of personal affront. But where the question is one of basic righteousness, he should protest.

Christianity must bring conflict into the world, for it is antagonistic to the world order. Because the principles of right, freedom, and justice flow from it, there are times when forces, encroaching on these principles, must be resisted. Our Lord’s action in cleansing the Temple is an example.

We see a robber attack a woman on the street. We hasten to her aid and do not hesitate in using force to drive off or capture the criminal. Police are employed for the very purpose of enforcing our protection.

If our homes are invaded, our loved ones attacked, we use every force at our command to protect and deliver them.

On the international scene, there have been times when we have engaged in wars with the only consideration of delivering weaker nations from the oppression of stronger powers. No one would affirm that all wars are justified; but to deny there is ever any justification for war is to deny the reality of righteousness itself, and to play directly into the hands of the most evil force in the world.

It is significant that our Lord said we can have peace in the midst of tribulation, and that the Apostle Paul tells of a time when men will boast of a peace and safety of their own devising only to have sudden destruction fall upon them.

James tells us that wars come from the lust to have, which lurks in every human heart. Men fight and war to obtain power and things, but such wars can only generate more strife.

Much of the agitation for world peace today stems from a deep but misplaced concern. We see loss of life, property, and moral and spiritual values on every hand and conclude that there surely must be a better way. And there is, but it is a way that the world has rejected—the way of Jesus Christ and his Cross of redemption. The unbelieving world continues to fight and strive for the things which satisfy not, that they may consume them on their own lusts.

Paul gives a perfect description of the peace which belongs to the Christian: “And God’s peace (be yours, that tranquil state of soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot of whatsoever sort that is, that peace) which transcends all understanding, shall garrison and mount guard over your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:7, Amp. N. T.).

ZOO, PLEASE!

James Younger, our new Minister of Christian Education, organized our Sunday School pilgrimage to the Metropolitan zoo. Former zoo outings were hectic and exhausting, punctuated with an occasional lost child or lost lunch (before or after the picnic in the grove). But this year Mr. Younger made the whole project a Planned Learning Experience And Social Event (Project Zoo PLEASE).

After three staff conferences, a teacher workshop was set up to discuss correlation with the Sunday School curriculum. Miss Fixture refused to modify the lesson suggestions in her quarterly, but the others decided to prepare their children for shared experience in the zoo. Mr. Burns projected a series of Junior lessons on animals of the Bible: Eve and the serpent, Balaam and the ass, Samson and the lion, Elisha and the bears. No one else followed this lead, and it was found that a flexible lesson plan was important once the zoo trip was mentioned in class.

The Saturday morning departure time was delayed when an exuberant Junior let air out of the bus tires, but our two busses and small fleet of cars left well filled. Another slight delay resulted when one of the boys threw Patsy Miller’s shoe out of a bus window. Fortunately, Mr. Younger was on the bus, and when the loss was discovered, it became a learning experience. The group decided that this was thoughtless behavior, and the bus returned to the Parkway where the loss occurred. Traffic patterns made it difficult to reconnoiter the spot, and when the bus reached the zoo an hour later, it was found that Miss Fixture had already retrieved the missing shoe, which had cracked her windshield.

For more spontaneous learning, the children were not lined up as before in touring the zoo, but were free to investigate in pairs of “buddies.” This method developed many informal learning situations in encounters with zoo fauna and personnel. The zoo superintendent expressed to Mr. Younger appreciation of our visit and offered to provide a fully guided tour if our group should wish to come again after a year or two. He graciously furnished zoo guards to assist in reassembling the students when we were ready to go. The children had responded so actively to the project that it was after closing time before the last two were found in the moat around the elephant yard. The zoo chief himself saw us off with a pleasantry about turning his animals loose in our Sunday School.

A SOCIETY AT BAY

Harold Kuhn (Mar. 2 issue) … criticizes correctly the naive idealism of advocates for U. S. unilateral disarmament and/or surrender to communism. But is it not more naive idealism to hope that U.S. bravado will win us survival? “Christian” courage—to go to a nuclear hell! Is it not even more naive still to think that our TV-and-beer society can rise to Kuhn’s ideal? Suppose these pagan Americans would rather survive and exist a dozen more years, even under communism, than go to a nuclear and spiritual hell, even for Kuhn’s lofty ideal, today? Choice irony! For Christian surrender to communism we are offered the alternative of Christian surrender to Americanism. When will Kuhn offer us the chance to surrender to Christ?

Garrett Biblical Institute

Evanston, III.

One of the best articles on the subject ever written and published. Let’s have more straight thinking like that!… Worth the price of a subscription.…

The Florence Congregational Church

Northampton, Mass.

ON BROTHERHOOD

In the editorial “Brotherhood for a Week” (Feb. 2 issue) … you say “Biblical religion declares that all men by creation are children of the one Creator” (Acts 17:28 f.). That is the only text I can possibly see as support for the original sonship of man, but in actuality Adam was a creature and not a son. Paul is using the pagan metaphor merely to meet the Greeks on their own ground. But it seems that here is where the proponents of “brotherhood” make their false assumption—that all men are children of God. They are all creatures of God (Acts 17:26), but God had only one Son and through Him the new race of Spirit-born sons are adopted. And Jesus never spoke of universal brotherhood, but rather “neighborhood.”

Ridgecrest Methodist

Muskogee, Okla.

On the point of NCWC’s warning Catholics not to attend Billy Graham’s New York Crusade.… NCWC, as an entity, did not officially or unofficially issue any such warning. Nor did any of the various NCWC departments or bureaus.… That the identification for my wholly personal article listed me as belonging to the NCWC, does not warrant the CHRISTIANITY TODAY conclusion.…

Director

National Catholic Welfare Conference

Washington, D. C.

• CHRISTIANITY TODAY regrets the confusion. Since Father Kelly’s warning to Catholics not to attend the New York crusade carried his NCWC identification, the inference seemed natural that he was speaking ex cathedra.—ED.

I’ve spent more time with … Roman Catholics … than with my own family.… If I mention … the Bible, my church, or a good sermon, they start to squirm.… There is only fellowship when we talk about different drinks, good food, or bingo!

Covington, Ky.

FLUCTUATING AUTHORITY

Gordon H. Clark’s excellent review (Jan. 5 issue) … exposes the fallacy of Dr. Ferré’s position. In the summer of 1957 it was my privilege to become personally acquainted with Dr. Ferré and to hear him lecture to young college teachers for a week. I have also read several of his books. He is not only a brilliant thinker but also a humble, sincere, and lovable man. He left the impression, at times, of longing for greater fellowship with adherents of historic Christianity. This goal he seems unable to attain, primarily because he possesses no final authority in matters of faith beyond the fluctuating findings of his own reason. As a result, his writings are often confused and contradictory. Only as men submit to the full authority of the Word of God, as expressed in 1 Corinthians 1:18–25, may they become qualified interpreters of the divine mind.

Minneapolis, Minn.

CHRISTIAN YEAR OPTIONAL

What gives Mr. Shepherd (“Eutychus,” Feb. 16 issue) the idea that in the Lutheran Church it becomes mandatory to follow the Christian Church Year?… What St. Paul condemns is not the observing of times and seasons, as such, but making them a law for Christians.

Hope Lutheran Church

Muskogee, Okla.

The main thing that bothers me about any High-Low church discussion is that each side ordinarily is so rude to the other as to betray a lack of love. As for myself, as a Lutheran, I have learned to love the discipline of the Church Year. I don’t follow it slavishly, nor am I required to.

Mizpah Lutheran

St. Louis, Mo.

OPTICAL DELUSION

If “Billy” Graham … would try an ophthalmologist instead of an opthomologist (Feb. 2 issue, p. 28—two of them mentioned), he would probably improve rapidly. God bless him anyway!

St. George’s Church

New York, N. Y.

• Many of our readers have manifested Mr. Davidson’s keen vision. Ours was blurred.—ED.

Not to recognize Red China is like refusing to recognize a change of administration in our own country.

First Christian

Lemoyne, Pa.

CALVINISM AND BAPTISM

Professor John H. Gerstner’s article (Jan. 5 issue) awaked my special interest, since I am an ardent admirer of Calvin … and use his writings more than those of any other in my ministry. As a conservative Baptist, I consider myself also a Calvinist. However, Professor Gerstner seems to classify as neo-orthodox all who reject anything peculiar to Calvin’s original Calvinism. Under his treatment of neo-Calvinism, he asks, “What correspondence can there be between a theology (neo-Calvinism) which … denies infant baptism … (and) the theology of John Calvin?” I … resent the implication of neo-orthodoxy, as would another 20 million Baptists and numerous other anti-pedobaptist groups.…

Calvin devotes a long chapter in the Institutes (book IV, chap. 16) to the question entitled “Pedobaptism Perfectly Consistent with the Institution of Christ and the Nature of the Sign.” Both the wording of the title and the contents of the chapter indicate that pedobaptism is not an essential feature of Calvinistic theology.… It may be that Professor Gerstner was thinking of Presbyterians who have abandoned covenant theology and no longer find good reason or adequate justification for the practice.… But not all Calvinists are Presbyterians.

Mexico, D.F., Mexico

INSULT TAKEN

The CBS network program “The Business of Sex” by Edward R. Murrow should not be taken seriously against business but as an insult to private enterprise.…

Oakland, Calif.

READER FOR READER

V. R. Edman, president of Wheaton (Ill.) College, hit the nail on the head when he said in his letter (Feb. 16 issue) that education is not the province of the federal government. Amen, amen. The need for more clear thinkers like President Edman is great.

Birmingham Post-Herald

Religion Ed.

Birmingham, Ala.

STIMULUS FOR FELLOWSHIP

Thank you for the article, “Barth: A Contemporary Appraisal” (Feb. 2 issue).… I think more good, objective theological debate … could be a stimulating and healthy thing for our ministerial fellowships, as well as in publications such as yours.

Lidgerwood Church

Evangelical United Brethren

Spokane, Wash.

ON IDENTIFYING REBELS

One of the letters … printed in your issue of February 2, would include me among some rebels who should lay down their arms. [These comprise, according to Methodist Superintendent Stanley H. Mullen, Christians who hold the Bible, rather than the church, to be their final authority.] If this is true, I shall do so, but I am far from convinced of the truth of the charge.

Upon taking my first step into the Methodist ministry, it was required that I state publicly my reaction to the following ‘official’ position of the church:

“The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” This sounded to me as though it made the Bible the final authority of the Christian. I still believe it.

When a young man taking his first vows of ordination kneels before the altar, the bishop holds an open Bible before him. The candidate places his hand on the Bible. The bishop places his hand upon the candidate’s head and says: “Take thou authority to read the Holy Scriptures in the Church of God and to preach the Word.” No other authority is recognized.

When a bishop is consecrated, the first question given him is this: “Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all Truth required for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?”

Who are the rebels who should lay down their arms?

Superintendent

Wabash District

The Methodist Church

North Indiana Conf.,

Huntington, Ind.

REPENTANCE

I am … surprised that … John F. Walvoord, in his statement of “What Is the Gospel?” (Jan. 19 issue), left out any mention of repentance. In this he sets aside all the messages of the Old Testament prophets, including John the Baptist, the life ministry of our Lord (Matt. 4:17), and the preaching of the Apostles (e.g. Acts 2:38), including … Paul (Acts 20:21; 26:20).… This is no small matter.

Seattle, Wash.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Your reader Ernest V. Liddle (Jan. 5 issue) gives a misleading impression about the Church of England. By reason of the fact that it is the State Church it has unique opportunities for Christian witness. If it is desired that any form of religious observance shall form part of an official function, be it anything from the coronation of the sovereign down to the appointment of a chaplain, it is the Church of England to which officialdom turns. Rarely do the free churches get any such opportunity. This is regrettable, but true. And these chances of witness are just as available to evangelicals as to those of other traditions.

As a Briton, Mr. Liddle should know that the Church of England is currently experiencing an evangelical revival. At a recent ordination service in St. Paul’s Cathedral two thirds of the ordinands were evangelicals. He should also know that in the Billy Graham crusades in this country in 1954 and 1955 evangelical Anglican clergy and laymen led by the Bishop of Barking formed a high percentage of the sponsoring body.

Redhill, Surrey, Eng.

THE SYNOPTICS

Concerning the article, “More light on the Synoptics” (Mar. 2 issue), why not take the words of Christ found in John 14:26: “But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you”? That is, each Synoptic wrote independently under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The dependence idea, that of one writer on another, borders on the “Documentary Theory” which is only a figment of man’s imagination.

United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.

Sparta, Ill.

Those comments by Dr. Ned B. Stone-house (Feb. 16 issue) … seem to present a massive indictment, but in fact they can be easily answered.…

Indictment No. 1: “I do not believe that he has solid understanding of Form Criticism. He, for example, seems to judge that Form Criticism is rather exclusively concerned with Mark.” … There are two opinions on the subject. The first is before us. The second is that of the entire department at Yale which passed me with honors in seven final oral examinations. One of them was entirely devoted to the subject in question and was designed to bring to light whether or not I was qualified to teach the subject at graduate level. Either opinion may be right, but there are two opinions.

As to the particular fault specified, I did not attempt in my articles to discuss Form Criticism as such other than to mention its method and to raise a question as to its validity.… What I really discuss is its relation to source criticism. Indeed, I thought when I wrote, and I still think, that I was saying in my own words only what Bultmann says (History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 1). Speaking of the work of Wrede and the conclusion he reached, Bultmann says: “The gospel of Mark is the work of an author who stands inside the pale of the Christian community’s theology. He arranges and edits the tradition transmitted to him in accordance with the viewpoints of the Christian Community’s faith. That was the result. And the task for historical investigation which arose out of that result was to separate and to recognize the layers in Mark which contain the old historical tradition that the author is editing.” And again Bultmann says (same work, p. 3): “The result of comparative study of the Synoptics, the Two-Source-Theory, is pre-supposed in this work.” … the trouble would disappear if Dr. Stonehouse’s sentence were changed to read: “He, for example, seems to judge that Form Criticism is rather exclusively built upon the Mark-hypothesis.” This statement is accurate. My contention, and this conclusion is unavoidable, was that if Source Criticism had concluded that Matthew was the earliest gospel, then Wrede would have exercised his “annihilating criticism” on Matthew.… I think that Bultmann’s understanding of this matter, not mine, has been impugned …

Indictment No. 2: “He also seems to identify the Markan Hypothesis simply with the idea of the priority of Mark.” There are two distinct ideas here. One is primary, the other secondary. The first is the idea that Mark is a more original documentary source, which was used as the foundation of Matthew and Luke. This I called, carefully and consistently, the Mark Theory, or Mark-hypothesis. The second is a distinct question which arises after it has been concluded that Mark came first and was used by the writers of Matthew and Luke: namely, what is a legitimate way to use what we find in the Mark-document in writing a Life of Jesus? There is a theory that we may rely on Mark in writing a “Life” of Jesus. I call this the Marcan Hypothesis. I do so because others call it that. I always apologize for so doing and point out the confusion that easily arises and must be averted. These are two entirely separate matters. I was, as Dr. Stonehouse says, and I meant to be concerned in my articles only and exclusively with the first.…

Indictment No. 3: “He is far from taking account adequately of the arguments which have been presented on behalf of the priority of Mark, seeming to say that it is largely a matter of words used, whereas the argument is based upon many other considerations including especially subject matter and order of materials.” The first part of this statement is correct so far as the articles are concerned, but is not new. The articles themselves say so and give the reasons why I left the matters undiscussed. I quote: “As much as I might like to discuss some of the reasons given by the books, it is not possible to attempt to deal with them in the present short article. There are many different arguments.… It is, however, with great reluctance that I forego such a discussion.… If Dr. Stonehouse will tell me an argument he thinks valid, I will try to show why in my opinion he should not so regard it. What is “the” argument—specifically—of which he writes?… What I “seemed to say” I do not know. I did say I could find no internal evidence of any kind favoring Mark’s priority.

Indictment No. 4: “His contention that the theory is strongly astray in terms of percentages is incorrect since the assertion is not that 90 per cent of the words of Mark are found in Matthew but rather that 90 per cent of the subject matter of Mark is found in Matthew.” The only fair way in my judgment, Mr. Editor, is to interpret my comments in the light of a full statement I have worked out and mentioned in my articles. But let me say one or two things which are important. My contention regarding the percentages is that the 90 per cent statements are misleading. First, they almost always assume that the transfer of material went on in one direction, and, as I think, they pick the wrong direction. Secondly, they obscure the fact that between 40 and 50 per cent of Mark’s contents are not found in Matthew. An accurate and scholarly statement, should, in my judgment, run as follows:

If we eliminate the last verses of Mark, and then compare Mark with Matthew in the roughest way possible, taking sections as wholes and making a verse-count of all the verses in the sections that have something in common, we find that 90 per cent of Mark has, in the loose sense stated, corresponding elements of some kind or degree in Matthew. But if we establish an exact parallel layout and count words, we find that 4,573 words are the same in Matthew and Mark (40.6 per cent of Mark’s total words), 868 more words are nearly the same in Matthew and Mark (7.71 per cent of Mark’s total words), 904 more words in Mark (8.03 per cent of the total) are different but synonymous with some 884 corresponding words in Matthew. So that it is correct to say that the substance of 4,918 words in Mark (43.66 per cent of the whole) is not paralleled in Matthew in any strict sense; but 6,345 words in Mark (or 56.34 per cent of the whole) do have distinct correspondents of some sort in Matthew.

This statement covers both figures, is accurate, and is not misleading. I think, Mr. Editor, with all due respect for everybody’s special involvements and preferences, there is virtue in a clear statement of facts which does not prejudge the question of literary dependence, and which does not obscure the quantity (I will not now mention the extraordinary quality) of material that is peculiar to Mark. The real complaint seems to be that I am unfair to organized theoreticians.

Indictment No. 5: “My impression also is that the appeal to manuscripts of Judges overlooks the fact that we have to do with essentially different situations when, in one case, scribes copy a manuscript or even translate a manuscript and so might use many of the same words and, in the other case, authors are understood as making substantial use of another work.” My use of the texts of Judges rests on the assumption that two men, independently of each other, have translated from Hebrew into Greek. Their independently created translations (in which presumably they were not able to know or borrow each other’s words) are compared and found to contain numerous exact agreements in Greek. You will note that this is distinctly not the situation contemplated in part of Dr. Stonehouse’s first alternative (“when in one case scribes copy a manuscript”). Two things are confused in that statement of the first alternative case. I bring the data from Judges, where copying in Greek is not insisted on as a necessary explanation into a well-defined situation in New Testament studies where a theory of copying in Greek is insisted on as a necessary, and the only possible explanation of the same kind of facts, namely, exact agreements in Greek. The theory has long been current in Gospel study. European writers, who are grounded in a tradition of such studies all know of it. The theory involves and implies copying in Greek. This is clear (and even indisputable) from the fact that in proving it scholars give lists of Greek words that they say could not have been used by two writers independently. My argument was aimed at that theory, an aspect and part of modern criticism of the gospels that has always been understood by the well-grounded scholars of Europe. And I claimed that N. T. scholarship had wrongly asserted the necessity of holding the Benutzungshypothese, that is, a theory of one special kind of literary dependence, namely copying in Greek. The point, therefore, Mr. Editor, is that quantities of exact agreements can arise, and apparently have arisen, in at least two different ways, namely, by independent translation and by copying. Therefore, I have claimed, it is wrong to insist that they can only arise from copying a Greek text. This is my whole point. May I speak my mind freely? I fail to see how any difference in the two (really three) situations which Dr. Stonehouse contrasts has any direct connection … to my point as I argued it in the articles.

Indictment No. 6: “The use of the term ‘plagiarism’ seems to me to be out of place in this situation.” As to this, I think that three or four, perhaps five or six, generations of scholars may be chided, but not me. They invented and used the term Benutzungshypothese. A German engineer, an immigrant to America, suggested that “Plagiarism Hypothesis” was the proper translation of Benutzungshypothese. The only question here, I think, is for the German professors (or better still, for native Germans like my engineer) to decide. If they give an adverse decision, I will be content to stop using the term. There are many who will administer you a severe whipping if you presume to call literary borrowing for the purposes of pseudonymous authorship “plagiarism” in connection with New Testament writings. I personally consider it the precise right word. But … I do not use it in describing what I think happened, as I hope to make abundantly clear when I come to publish my own views. At the same time, I think that it conveys very precisely the exact idea of those who invented and used the term in gospel criticism. Yes, right from the very first, and most clearly and irrefragably of all in the work of Griesbach.…

Community Church on Hudson Avenue

Englewood, N. J.

A LUTHERAN VIEW

West Point … cadets should be given the choice of attending either … [chapel] … services or those of their own denomination.

St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church

New York, N. Y.

Recently opened in Ashkhabad, the capital of Turkmenistan, near the U.S.S.R.-Iranian border, is a University of Atheism now offering a six-month course to further the spread of scientific-atheistic knowledge. Graduates are expected to continue “the struggle against religion.”

The teaching content of this university is undoubtedly structured by Marx-Lenin atheistic materialism. The article on “Atheism” in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (second edition, 1950, Vol. III, pp. 347–354) surveys this theory. We summarize it here and evaluate the ideas in its introductory paragraphs.

1. Definition: “Atheism—godlessness, that world-view which denies religion, faith in supernatural powers, in God or gods, in a world beyond, explaining all processes occurring in nature and society by natural regularity [conformity with law—tr.], and leading the struggle against religious outlooks.”

This definition, it will be noted, reveals the basic philosophical assumptions of communism.

The world of reality is equated with nature; beyond matter there is no reality. Therefore, man is a time-bound creature and has no eternal purpose; his soul is meshed to the material world.

All phenomena are to be explained exclusively from data gathered and classified from nature. To explain the processes of matter, no appeal to supernatural forces may be made. (An elemental trustworthiness of sense perception is assumed.)

Explanations of nature are founded on laws inherent in matter and discoverable by man. Phenomena are measured by natural laws. Thus the existence and validity of natural law are avowed. This in turn assumes either that natural laws are immutable, or that, if changing and merely descriptive, no ultimate unchanging principle of explanation exists. If, however, natural laws are immutable, from whence comes their immutability? What guarantees their changelessness? If natural laws are mutable, conditioned by the changing flux of sense data (so that nothing is really changeless), by what right does atheism claim to be the absolute and final explanation of reality? So-called scientific atheism, whether affirming the mutability or immutability of natural law, must assume eternal fixed principles before it can speak confidently about itself. Communism has unconsciously borrowed certain “corrupted” notions of an absolute, despite its denial of dependency on absolutes. Most notable is the very foundational dogma of Marxism: dialectic materialism. In brief, atheism must assume eternal principles in order to disprove them.

Atheism cannot be defined merely abstractly; it always includes active hatred for religion. Thus atheism, to be atheism, must lead “the struggle against religious outlooks.” This discloses the “uneasy conscience” of the atheists. They lack calm confidence that their convictions will ultimately triumph through the sheer power of truth. Rather, atheism is always constrained to propagate its views by the sword. The initial arguments of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans remind us, relevantly, that men in revolt are forced to wage constant warfare against the convicting knowledge of God that burns in their consciences.

2. Atheism and society: “The manifestation and development of atheism is bound with the development of class struggle and with the development of (our) knowledge concerning the laws of nature and society.”

Here again, we note, the atheists make certain assumptions. Atheism is not primarily a theoretical or logical deduction; rather, it is assertedly the product of social needs. This view fits the anti-intellectual atmosphere of Marx’s times. The revolt against Hegelian rationalism led the founding fathers of communism not only into materialism, but into doubt concerning the very reliability and competence of reason to exhibit an all-inclusive world view. Communistic atheism is therefore not based on calculated philosophical speculation (which enters later only to support its conclusions); rather, it is existential: it breathes the air of social reform, hunger, and poverty.

“The laws of nature and society” are incompatible with religion, we are told. As comprehension of the processes of nature and society increases, man assertedly becomes aware that religion contradicts his findings. At very best, religion is seen to be useless as an explanation of life. But these claims call for comment.

We note, first, that any philosophy hammered out in the flames of social upheaval is likely to bear the scars of passionate but careless reasoning. In the writings and actions of the Communists contradictions abound. This is no concern to them, since their revolt against Hegelian confidence in reason brought with it a lack of concern for philosophical consistency. “Social consistency” is considered far more important: what advances the Communist social ideal is the “true.” However, can that which is inconsistent philosophically prove itself consistent socially?

Moreover, communism’s lack of primary concern to prove its atheism philosophically leads us to suspect that this is for them impossible. We have yet to be convinced that atheism is the basis of communism, as they claim, and not one of its many rationalizations.

Furthermore, if the laws of nature are relative and hypothetical, how can communism prove the absolute irrelevance of religion? How can it be shown that studies in natural law necessarily lead to atheism? Should not the atheist at least suspend judgment? Yet communism’s existential social commitment will not allow it to suspend judgment.

3. Atheism—the only road toward social reconstruction. In developing this theme, the Encyclopedia views religion as a “brake” on society, holding back the powers of production, science, and culture by those “foremost social classes, striving to cast off the old, outlived … orders.” “As far as religion justified the existing social order, so for each new class coming into power the battle was an inevitable one against religion as the ideological sanction of the old order. This struggle has been usually carried out under the slogan of a cleansing and a reformation of the old order, but in a more revolutionary manifestation it grew into present-day militant atheism, into the complete disavowal of religion. Although the history of nations gives not a few clear examples of the struggle against the religious narcotic, consistent scientific atheism became possible only with the development of the proletariat, with the emergence of the Marxist-Leninist scientific theory: dialectical materialism.”

Here again the atheists make sweeping assumptions. Religion assertedly justifies most of the ills of society. We must admit that, according to history, many social enormities were sanctioned or condoned in the name of religion.

However, let us note that to commit a crime in the name of a religion does not necessarily make the religion itself guilty of the crime. Many of the crimes performed in the name of religion are actually condemned by religion; this is especially true of Christianity. Those who have sought to glorify the Cross by means of bribery, the sword, economic injustices, the suppression of learning, and the like, all stand condemned by Christ. It is wrong to judge Christ by the disfiguring portraits that have been sketched of him; man must evaluate him as he is and what he can do in society if men will but submit to him. A religion must be evaluated in terms of its first principles, not according to perversions of its teachings in history.

To hold Christianity responsible for social sins of established churches is unjustified. Nowhere in Communist writings do we discover the pure and passionate sense of social justice that is found in the New Testament. Christ never sanctioned what communism calls the “religious narcotic in society.” Who can read the Prophets, the Sermon on the Mount, or the Epistle of James and say this?

Nor are Christ’s methods impotent for our times. He does not seek simply “to reform the old order.” In fact, he is far more revolutionary than communism. Communism seeks to reform man from without, by changing his environment, his economic setting. Christ’s revolution begins within, changing society by transforming the individual.

Christ proposes no mere “cleansing and reformation of the old order”; rather, he requires a rebirth of every man, a sweeping away of those prejudices and egocentric passions from which spring all social injustices, inaugurates a relationship with God that produces love and a new sense of justice and human value.

Should men accuse Christ’s methods of social reconstruction as being too slow, we would remind them that if they are (slow insofar as men fail to apply them), they are as thorough as any that can be utilized in this corrupt world. Christ reconstructs the soul first. Then society’s rebirth is given an immovable foundation. Communism seeks to renovate society superficially, and the individual is left bewildered and unconvinced.

By denying God, communism has fallen prey to the fluctuations of the material world. As such it lacks a well-reasoned and consistent argument against religion. Moreover, because of a denial of God, its definition of man is superficial and unsatisfactory.

Communism’s basic goal is the reconstruction of society. Yet, because of its weaknesses it is unable to rise above the vexing problems it seeks to resolve.

Christians should soberly judge themselves in the light of biblical standards. We have much for which to repent. But the Christian faith does what communism, no matter how hard it may try, can never do: Christ gives life eternal significance and a God-orientated purpose, and Christ alone can revolutionize man in society with a real fitness for eternity.

END

David V. Benson is President of Russia for Christ, Inc., which broadcasts the Gospel weekly to Europe and Russia from Voice of Tangier. He holds the B.A. from University of California, and the B.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary. Translations from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia are by Mr. Benson, who took graduate work in Russian at Harvard.

Christianity is the answer to Communism.” Few slogans are more certain to gain an enthusiastic response from any typical gathering in America than this one. It can be used with the widest variety of groups—Catholic or Protestant, evangelical or liberal, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon or Christian Scientist—and the response is always favorable.

Even superficial investigation discloses that the Christianity which is the “alleged” answer to communism is differently conceived by the representatives of these various groups. Each interpret Christianity in the context of its own peculiar creed.

Some Distressing Facts

Using the term Christianity in its widest and loosest connotation, the claim that it is the answer to communism is extremely difficult to substantiate. The following facts are high hurdles to surmount.

1. In little more than a generation the Communists have brought under their control more people than the total world population that today has heard the story of Christ in minimal detail. Approximately one billion people are now under Communist control. It is true that the great majority of them are not Communists. Nevertheless, the entire younger generation of this one billion is being taught the doctrines of communism in schools which are Communist-organized, directed, and controlled. Many of them can articulate the doctrines of communism far more coherently than the majority of youth living in so-called Christian countries can articulate the doctrines of Christianity.

2. The Church has failed in the basic task committed to it by the Lord Jesus. He said, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” This we have utterly failed to do. Take India as an example. This nation has an approximate population of 400 million. Of these, 10 million are nominal Christians. This means that 390 million know nothing of the gospel of Christ. We have not obeyed the command of our Lord; many of us are not even conscious of our failure; more are totally unconcerned. Yet we still proclaim that we are faithful and obedient servants of our Lord.

3. In 1957, in the Indian elections, a Communist government was freely chosen in Kerala, the best educated and the most Christian of the Indian states. One third of the population professes to be Christian. It is widely reported that a majority of the Christians voted for a Communist candidate.

Meeting Ignorance And Indulgence

We are impelled to a restatement of two basic propositions we tend to overlook: An ignorant Christianity is the answer to little. “Study to show thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim. 2:15) remains an imperative. A self-indulgent, lukewarm Christianity is an offense to God. “Because you are lukewarm, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:16).

Before Christianity can meet the Communist challenge, some things are urgently required. Instead of parroting slogans, which are frequently boastful, we need a deep sense of our failure to obey our Lord and to heed his command. This realization of failure should lead to repentance, and this repentance in turn to a deep search for the causes of our failure and a determination to remedy them.

The Great Barrier

Recently, in a meeting in the Los Angeles area, a man rose and asked: “What is the greatest barrier to Communist advance?… The greatest barrier everywhere, in all countries, under all conditions?”

“I think I know what you want me to say,” I replied. “I wish I could say ‘Christianity,’ but the record is against it. For example, the most Christian Indian State has just elected a Communist government by free election.”

“Your brand of Christianity is different from mine.” I realized he was a Roman Catholic.

“I presume you believe the Roman Catholic religion is the great barrier to communism. Again the facts contradict this. Italy, the home of Catholicism, has the largest percentage of Communists in its population of any country in the world: larger than Russia, larger than China.”

“The Communists are the enemies of God and Christ. They are atheists.”

“I know they are; you know they are; the Communists know they are. But Indian Christians don’t.”

“They must know!”

“Why must they? Who told them the truth about the real nature of communism? The democratic governments have not done so; the churches have not done so; the Communists certainly have not done so. All the Communists have told them is the false promise of abundance, happiness, and freedom. This freedom allegedly includes religious freedom. This promise is proclaimed in beautiful and most convincing literature. Consequently they are unconscious of any offense to their Christian conscience when they vote a Communist into power.”

The Need Of Understanding

It is easy to convince evangelicals that Catholicism is not the answer to communism. Many of us, however, are equally convinced that we have the answer, “the pure Gospel.” Preach the Gospel and you have the answer to communism. Recently in a meeting in an Episcopal church, I was warmly supported by a fine Baptist brother. During the question time he rose to ask a question: “When all is said and done, would you not say that a true, born again experience is the real answer to communism?”

I fear I could not have hurt him more had I lashed him across the face. “No, I wouldn’t. A born again experience is the answer to the question of the possession of eternal life. It is not the answer to the question of safety on the highway. You need to know the rules of the road and to obey them. Nor is it the answer to poliomyelitis.”

Ignorance is dangerous, and frequently sinful. The ignorance of leaders, even Christian leaders, of the true nature of communism is appalling. Superficial observation of local Communist behavior is no substitute for a knowledge of the philosophy, motives, morals, and organization of this evil enemy.

Consider this visitor to a tuberculosis sanitarium. He is conducted around beautifully landscaped gardens. Tuberculosis certainly creates an environment of beauty. He is escorted through the marble columns into the reception hall and met by a charming receptionist who takes him on a tour of the institution. He is impressed by the pride of the institution, the kitchen with its most modern cooking equipment and its superb sanitation. Next, the plumbing fixtures impress him. Finally, he is escorted into the wards. In preparation for his coming the patients have all been given a dose of anti-pertussive mixture so that coughing is minimal. The linen is snowy white. The nurses are neat, beautiful, and attentive. Many of the patients have a rather attractive flush—a type of ethereal beauty. Many of them have the optimistic outlook characteristic of the disease, the famous “spes pthysica.”

Duly impressed, he makes his report. “I am impressed by what I have seen. It seems to me there are many features to tuberculosis equal, if not superior, to health. It has created an environment of beauty; the patients have all achieved the goal for which most healthy people strive—economic security. They don’t have to rise from bed early in the morning and undergo the dangers and frustrations of modern peak hour traffic. They are liberated from the competitive aspects of modern life; no hotel provides the intimate personal service the tubercular patient receives from the nurses. I think we ought to allow tuberculosis to go its own way; coexist with it.”

An astonished listener asks, “What about the Tubercle Bacillus?” The reply is prompt. “I did not see one. I looked under the beds and behind the doors and saw no trace of a single one. I think rabble-rousers have invented them for their own selfish purposes.”

In any circumstances such a report would be ludicrous; from a medical man it would be insane.

In the spiritual realm, ministers and church leaders are analogous to physicians in the bodily realm. They should appreciate the evil nature of the germ of godlessness. They should see beneath the superficial symptoms to the underlying spiritual pathology.

The record of many leaders of the National and World Council of Churches in relation to communism is reprehensible indeed. Their judgments have been predominantly superficial and symptomatic. Many religious delegations to Russia and China give reports appropriate to second-rate sanitary inspectors. One well-known ecclesiastic visited Russia in 1938. This year climaxed the Stalinist murder orgy during which Stalin soaked the soil of Russia with the blood of the Communist elite. This visitor reported that Russia was fulfilling the kingdom of God on earth.

What Communism Involves

The Christian attitude to communism should be lucidly clear. Communism believes, teaches, and practices the doctrines that:

1. There is no God.

2. Man is a beast, created by evolution and molded by the economic environment.

3. The Communist Party has been historically ordained to conquer the world and environmentally to regenerate mankind.

These doctrines are in fundamental conflict with every fundamental and vital evangelical Christian truth.

God’s Word is lucidly clear concerning the consequences of godlessness. Psalm 14 says, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.” The consequences are specific, “They are corrupt; They have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good; They have shamed the council of the poor.” Godlessness and contempt for human life are linked in Romans 3: “Their feet are swift to shed blood” (v. 15), “There is no fear of God before their eyes” (v. 18).

Christian leadership should have proclaimed the truth that all the evils of moral degeneracy and mass murder that have characterized Communist conduct are inherent in Communist doctrine. The trumpet should give a certain sound. To rationalize Communist conduct—to pardon and excuse and justify simply because Christians also have failed—is evidence of spiritual blindness and abdication from Christian leadership. To praise communism because of material achievements is treason to spiritual truth.

The unbridgeable gulf between communism and Christianity, both in theory and practice, is obvious to the average thinking Christian. It takes someone skilled in the mental gymnastics of theological semantics to see in communism merely a “Christian heresy.”

Practical Program

Communism is very largely a triumph of organization. It must be combatted with an organized program. With deep humility and an acute awareness of our failure to obey our Lord, with a clear picture of the godlessness, immorality, bestiality, and tactical mobility of our spiritual enemy, we must find a way to work actively against the Communist danger.

The great weapon at our disposal is the Truth. From their ideological base in the dialectic, the Communists can emerge in any guise. They wear the uniforms of their enemies and appear devoted to all manner of contradictory causes. They can assume the contour and color of any environment. They become all things to all men that they may enslave all. A Christian missionary working in a Moslem country could not embrace the Moslem faith, live a life of apparent matchless devotion to all Moslem causes for the sole purpose of opening a door for the Christian Gospel. To the Communist this is normal conduct, righteous and honorable. They assume the mantle of Christian, Moslem, or Jew, worker or business man, traitor or patriot, libertine or puritan, with equal facility.

Since the great majority of people in the unconquered areas of the world meet communism, not in the form of abstract doctrine, but in the form of passionate advocacy of their immediate self-interest, they are very likely to be deceived by it. Vaccination is necessary or they will succumb as the unvaccinated fall prey to the smallpox virus. The effective vaccine is the truth concerning the ultimate reality of communism. As a loving mother warns her child never to accept candy from a stranger and then get into his automobile, so the children of God should be warned never to accept the Communist candy, however sweet and nutritious it may be. Behind it lurks limitless evil, slavery, and death.

Every preacher and missionary should administer this vaccine of truth. The tragedy is that so many simply do not possess the requisite knowledge or even the desire to secure that knowledge. The leadership in the battle against godlessness is the prerogative of the ministers of God. Adequate knowledge of Communist deceitfulness should be the possession of every preacher and Christian teacher and should be woven into the fabric of their entire ministry. When we consider the missionary, the need is unspeakably urgent. To send missionaries to the field today without adequate knowledge of the philosophy, organization and strategy of communism is like sending out an Arctic expedition unequipped to meet ice.

The hour is late. The enemy is gaining on all fronts. Christian civilization appears in its death throes. To confront this danger with pious phrase-mongering is to substitute garrulity for spirituality. To take refuge in prophetic fatalism is escapism. Nevertheless, our confidence is in God who took a boy’s lunch and fed five thousand. He took all the food there was available and then performed the miracle of multiplication. As we give to the limit of our intellectual, spiritual, and material assets, we may yet with the eye of faith see the approaching victory.

END

A Brighter Hellas

Our sun-born schools have reared in Ocean Stream

A snakeless isle where in the quiet glade

On Rousseau and romance graced youths may dream,

On golden joys ere sin made man afraid,

In native honour girt, a gleaming knight,

Our Wilson rode to Versailles’ mirrored hall;

But witchery of Wales and Gallic sleight

His dazzled reason gently did enthrall.

Our Roosevelt at Yalta chinked his glass

Gainst Stalin’s cup with guileless bonhomie;

The charming son of Groton smiled, alas,

And wrought a wastrel’s peace unwittingly.

The north blows grey, and we awake, to find

Dire wars before us, vanity behind.

DAVID S. BERKELEY

Fred C. Schwarz, surgeon and psychiatrist from Sydney, Australia, is Executive Director of the Christian-Communism Crusade with headquarters in Long Beach, California. In his world lecture tours he has addressed the nation’s largest civic, professional, student and industrial management clubs on the menace of communism and the Christian answer.