My soul doth magnify the Lord … He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy; And he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

In 1521 Luther was writing an exposition of Mary’s Magnificat. He was extremely affected by the sharp contrasts that Mary put into her song. Luther’s fascination for the astounding contrasts is not very surprising, since his own day was also going through enormous shocks. He could perhaps read certain parallels from his own time into Mary’s song. In a time when everything seems suddenly uncertain, one is faced with the question of whether the great changes taking place auger a revolution against all that is worth while or a reformation of what has become evil, a revolt that in the end will curse the men who caused it or a reform that will bless the life of many. This was a question that faced Luther. Were the events in which Luther was leading the way simply a turning upside down of all values, only an “overthrow of values” as Nietzsche would later say? Luther must have asked the question, but history had to answer it.

Our concern here is not with the question of the Reformation, however, but with the “overthrow of values” that Mary sang about in her hymn. One could look at her Magnificat as a profound perspective on history. For history takes shockingly sudden turns so profound that history itself almost seems a perpetual “overthrow of values.” But, it is different with Mary’s vision. We have something entirely different in this passage than a revolution born of discontentment with the status quo.

The possibilities opened up by the thought are nonetheless alarming. It is no small thing when the proud are scattered, the mighty pulled down from their seats, the humble exalted, and the hungry fed while the rich are sent away empty (Luke 1:51–53). Mary sees these upsetting events as though they had already happened. The world had not yet heard the new glad tidings; the shepherds were quiet on the hills; Herod was still comfortable on his throne; the sceptor was still steady at Rome. The angels had not broken through the dark sky of advent eve with their anthem. Yet, Mary sings as though the world had already been turned upside down, as though the thunder had already ripped the sky above a quiet earth. Mary sees the power of God breaking through. She sees everything changed. She sees a new measuring stick in the hands of God taking its new measure of things long counted certain. What has seemed very normal in the world suddenly is seen as abnormal, what has seemed secure suddenly is seen shaking at its foundations.

The magnificat alludes to another hymn, sung long before by Hannah. This hymn sees the bows of the mighty men broken and those girded with strength stumbling. It sees those who were full hiring themselves out for bread and those who were hungry now filled. It sees the Lord in action. The Lord kills and makes alive. He brings men to the grave and raises men up again. He makes poor and makes rich. He brings low and raises high (1 Sam. 2:4–7). Again, everything is upset. Places are changed; the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, the hungry and the filled—all exchange their positions.

But it is especially in Mary’s song that all these things draw very near. The relationships in life that have been looked on as stable do not really conform to the way God sees them and to what God shall do with them. When he really comes to earth in Jesus Christ, all these so-called stable relationships are undermined. There have even been attempts to use Mary’s hymn to justify revolution; but then it has been forgotten that Mary sees these revolutionary events as purely the work of God. And what God does is wholly oriented to the event that is happening around Mary at Advent time. God’s order of things is being brought to earth in the events of Christmas night, events to which the deeds of men can do only intentional or unintentional service.

This is why Advent preaching is such exciting opportunity. It is surely the proclamation of a great joy. But when the angels of the night choir sing of great joy, they have more in mind than a holiday’s gaiety. Angels do not exaggerate. They do not exaggerate when they sing of such enormous joy. But the proclamation is also an exposé. It exposes all sham, all cant, all pretense in which men customarily hide themselves. The divine Advent—Christ in his measureless humiliation—has revealing consequences for man’s life. One learns from the Advent proclamation to look through the masks of human life. For it carries with it a divine judgment, a judgment which results first of all in the scattering of the proud. God scatters the proud with the light of what happens at Advent. The proud cannot hide their real poverty in the light of this poverty. The poverty of Christ exposes their hidden poverty. There are only two alternatives allowed by the divine exposé of the Advent: the proud must either be filled or be scattered. Once the Light has shone, there is no other choice.

This is why the Gospel of the Advent is for all times. No one since Advent can go on as though nothing new had really happened. One can celebrate the event with festivity. There is a place for Christmas feasting. But through the celebration sounds a voice of urgent warning. It is a voice with overtones of crisis, a voice which somehow must have an answer. It is like an echo of Psalm 146, in which we read of an enormous blessing poured out on the oppressed, the hungry, the prisoners, the blind, the bowed down, the stranger, the orphans, and the widows. But there is an exception to the universal blessing: “the way of the wicked he turns upside down” (Ps. 146:9). Unequalled wealth is poured out on all kinds of unfortunate creatures. But with the shower of blessing, an alarm is sounded. It is an alarm that points to the proud who have no need of the blessing. It is an alarm that shows up the proud for whom the Gospel of the Advent has become an antiquated, though sentimental romance.

In spite of the upsetting nature of the event, it gets its force from the Father’s love. It goes back for its vitality to the great humiliation for which the proud have no feeling. God’s way of turning things around has no response from them. But he who humbles himself at the Advent message shall indeed be lifted up. He who bows humbly before the great poverty shall indeed be made rich. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.

Selected Passages

Calvin: Commentaries, ed. by Joseph Haroutunian (Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 414 pp., $5) and Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, by Ronald S. Wallace (Eerdmans, 253 pp., $3.50) are reviewed by G. Aiken Taylor, Minister of First Presbyterian Church in Alexandria, Louisiana.

The first of these books is the second of three volumes on Calvin projected for the Library of Christian Classics. The first volume (Theological Treatises), appeared some four years ago and included a great many hitherto untranslated selections. The selections here offered are freshly translated but the material has been available in English for a long while.

The editor has collected representative passages from the commentaries under such headings as “the Bible,” “The Knowledge of God,” “Jesus Christ,” “Faith,” “Ethics,” etc. There is also splendid introductory material on Calvin himself and two additional works: The Preface to Olivetan’s New Testament and the Dedication to the Epistle to the Romans. The overall affect is a handy reference work for uncritical study.

Most selections of Calvin material suffer from the natural tendency of any editor to select passages in keeping with his own viewpoint or interpretation. And Calvin wrote so voluminously that he can be made to say almost anything. The present collection does not altogether escape this danger. I looked to see how many of the proof-texts selected by R. S. Wallace (see book-review below) to support his thesis were included in Haroutunian’s selection of passages on the same subjects. There were almost none.

However, the danger of misinterpreting Calvin is largely avoided, in this work, by the editor’s practice of letting long passages speak for themselves. Instead of clipping and editing the several pages of commentary which Calvin frequently wrote on a single verse, he has printed the whole of each passage selected.

The second of these books is a thorough and scholarly work which develops Calvin’s thought as follows: (1) God cannot be known directly and, consequently, he cannot reveal himself directly to man, for man is unable to bear it.

(2) God, therefore, must adapt himself to man’s capacity to receive, revealing himself indirectly through signs and symbols. These offer him veiled, but they truly disclose him even as they veil him. In short, though God cannot be known, he can be encountered in and through means.

(3) Now Christ is the Mediator of all revelation, standing between God and man as the Word of God. God is apprehended only through his Word and this Word is always Christ. It is the Word (Christ) which makes the words and signs (the means) become revelatory of God.

(4) In the Old Testament the Word (Christ) revealed God primarily in the signs and symbols of worship under the Law. In the New Testament the Word revealed God primarily in the Cross and the Resurrection. The apostles spoke of this revelation of God in Christ in their capacity as preachers of it and commentators upon it. Their words become the Word, to us, when it is received in faith.

(5) Today the Word (Christ) continues to reveal God through words and signs: through the preaching and the sacraments of the Church. The frail word preached by man can actually become God speaking. It does so become when the grace of the Mediator makes it so … as faith is exercised.

To all practical purposes, then the Word of God can be spoken of in three ways: (1) with reference to Christ, (it is ever Christ, of course, and in any case); (2) with reference to the words of Scripture when they are taken, in faith, as the Word of God and when, as the effect of such faith, they become the Word; and (3) with reference to the preaching of the Gospel, whenever it is also received, in faith, as the Word.

Essentially there is no qualitative difference between the ministry of the Word in Scripture and the ministry of the Word in preaching, for in the case of each the revelation occurs only as faith is exercised. There is, however, an “added” act of faith presumably required of the preacher (although this isn’t discussed). This is the faith he exercises as he takes the words of the prophets and the apostles as his own, that his words may become the Word of God. When he does this, his words become the Word just as their words became the Word.

The above, it can readily be seen, is Calvin with a Barthian flavor. The difference between Wallace’s Calvin and Calvin himself is small, but important. Calvin himself viewed Scripture as the objective, self-verifying Word of God in a manner Wallace has not allowed. Witness this: “But God wants us to respect His mouth and we know where that is: it is where He has spoken to us by Moses, by His prophets and, lastly, by His Apostles, in order that we may be accurately taught everything that He wants us to know. So let us profit by this doctrine, that we be not rebels against the very mouth of God, his Word” (Trans. from Sermon on Deut. 1:22–28).

G. AIKEN TAYLOR

Realm Of Ideas

Luther’s World of Thought, by Heinrich Bornkamm, translated by Martin H. Bertram (Concordia Publishing House, 1958, 315 pp., $3.00) is reviewed by E. P. Schulze, Minister of the Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer, Peekskill, N. Y.

Since university men live in the realm of ideas, they will naturally produce books like this one, written by a professor of church history at Heidelberg University who has done a great deal of previous research and writing in the field of Lutherana.

The essays in this volume largely complement and sometimes overlap those found, for example, in Boehmer’s “Luther in the Light of Recent Research” (1916) and Dau’s “Luther Examined and Reexamined” (1917). Boehmer’s work is a critical evaluation of the man and his development in the environment of his times. James Harvey Robinson called it “a fresh and stimulating conception of Luther,” and it is indeed a lively book. Dau’s purpose, on the other hand, is to rebut Roman Catholic slanders concerning Luther’s life, work and doctrine. More recently, Ewald Plass in “This is Luther” has studied his character, personality, and his everyday life. And a few years ago Schwiebert, a pupil of Preserved Smith, gave us “Luther and his Times,” in which the historical setting is strongly delineated.

All these books were written by academic men, and Bornkamm has added his contribution to the ongoing business of analyzing Luther by this study of his principal ideas about theology, nature, history, politics, sociology and philology. We see in these pages his towering figure emerging from the middle ages and drawing multitudes after him. His theology, of course, was not new, but it was not medieval; it was that of primitive Christianity, based firmly upon the Holy Scriptures. In matters of science he had the modern outlook, rejecting Aristotelianism and saying, “Science consists in differentiating and sifting.” In the field of economics, he foresaw and fulminated against the excesses of an unbridled capitalism. Some of his concepts (that concerning the best form of government, for example) remained medieval throughout his life, but his insistence on the line of demarcation between the jurisdictions of Church and State, so clearly expressed by his co-worker Melanchthon in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, is essentially modern, though with some defects which are evident to anyone who has studied his views concerning the duty of government toward the Jews and the Anabaptists, in the promulgation of which Luther appears in his least pleasing aspect. One misses in this volume a discussion of Luther’s thoughts on education. This is indeed an important topic, and it is strange that Bornkamm, an educator, gave it no place in his book.

“Luther’s World of Thought” is an easy book to read. To Lutheran pastors, and indeed to many other clergymen of scholarly bent, much of its contents will seem familiar and elementary. But it is likely enough that even many well-read Lutheran ministers can learn much from Bornkamm’s pages on Luther as a translator of the New Testament.

Bornkamm’s work is to be recommended to all who are interested in what Luther thought, which, after all, is of as great importance as what he did. But by its very physical limitations it can be no more than an introduction to its vast subject. Those who wish to delve deeper and can read German should turn to Volume XXIII of the Concordia edition of Luther’s Works. Between the covers of that fat quarto they will find an excellent summary of Luther’s thought on every conceivable topic, indexed (originally in cigar boxes, I am told) by the indefatigable editor A. F. Hoppe. In those abstracts is the quintessence of the matter, and it is presented for the most part in Luther’s own stout and trenchant words.

E. P. SCHULZE

Missionary Autobiography

Land Beyond the Nile, by Malcolm Forsberg (Harper, 1958, 232 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Marian J. Caine, Editorial Assistant of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Although it says on the jacket “the real life drama of a dedicated and dauntless missionary couple,” this book has rather little to commend it for drama, and in comparison with the classic and moving epic of five missionary martyrs published a year ago, it is something of an anti-climax.

There is admittedly no glorious tragedy to Land Beyond the Nile; but this alone would not make it a weak book. It professes to be a portrayal of the kindling devotion of two people for Christ and claims to be “a great Christian adventure” (cover flap), but unfortunately the writing succeeds in only saying as much from page one to the end. A disappointment, this book is like too many other Christian books in recent years; it glosses over life and events in a rather pedestrian, threadbare manner, and as an autobiography it has little to say beyond itself.

The story is about a missionary couple, Malcolm Forsberg and his wife Enid who go to Africa as missionaries. The author carries their experiences from the time they meet at Wheaton College to their mission work in Ethiopia and later in the Sudan. The strong point of the book perhaps is in the details which Mr. Forsberg gives of missionary living, tribal primitivism and the geography of the land. Some of these descriptions are articulate, and for those contemplating missionary work in Africa and readers interested in Africa for its own sake, they are instructive. Useful also are the maps in the beginning pages of the book and photographs representing the ways and practices of Uduk and Ethiopian peoples.

MARIAN J. CAINE

Salvation Via Suggestion

The Single Path, by James W. Fifield (Prentice-Hall, 1957, 335 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Walter Vail Watson, Minister of the Lancaster Presbyterian Church, New York.

This is a book charmingly written by a winsome and materially successful member of the Weatherhead-Peal school of spiritual health through devotion to psychological formula.

Throughout the book the brilliant pastor of Congregationalism’s largest church treats us to a succession of interesting anecdotes gleaned from his pastoral experience in Los Angeles. We view souls of all states and ages who have resolved their problems through taking the “creative plunge,” an expression which lies at the book’s heart (pp. 28–41).

This creative plunge is defined as “the bold, decisive act by which you smash through a wall that has hemmed you in through life” (italics mine). This plunge is taken “mostly … when, at long last, you lift your face to God.” In other words, God is just waiting for men to get tired enough of their failures to find every sort of success and victory through self-commitment to him. There seems to be no real need for any sort of atonement because a man is a sinner and under the guilt of unforgiven sin.

But, anyhow, Dr. Fifield presents an array of people who have found some sort of peace (he only implies it is permanent) through a rational commitment abetted by sound, discerning psychological counsel.

It is cheerfully agreed that this sort of victory over frustration may work when the focus of real need is for personal adjustment to other persons one has hitherto been unable, or has refused to understand. This may prove to be helpful in some cases.

The gospel according to Fifield also seems to assume that if we can convince ourselves that God approves our efforts at self-improvement and self-victory a happy issue is bound to be just around the corner.

The new birth, for instance, seems to be quoted with approval (p. 28). But the supernatural concept of John’s gospel is travestied in these words which immediately follow the reference to the new birth: “Forget your real or fancied lacks—your rebirth in Christ will truly make you a little lower than the angels!” Is this what Jesus meant when talking to Nicodemus? What warrant is there, pray, for taking this kind of liberty with the context of the Word of God?

Whatever he advocates it is not the Christian faith. If Dr. Fifield assents to what Paul in the Spirit referred to as the “offence of the cross,” he is very careful to conceal it. There is no evidence that he truly believes in the Christian doctrine at the heart of the gospel of John, or of Paul as expressed in the epistles to the Romans and Galatians. He fails to give due emphasis on the doctrine of vicarious atonement.

WALTER VAIL WATSON

Authoritative Work

Augustine to Galileo, by A. C. Crombie (Heinemann, 25s.) is reviewed by G. C. B. Davies, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Trinity College, Dublin.

This volume, containing a history of science during the Middle Ages, is a reissue, without alteration, of a work first published in 1952. It provides a most interesting and exhaustive survey of the subject, such as is not to be found in treatment and scope in any other single volume. Of particular value is the section which describes the trends and experiments in technics, medicine, and science in the thirteenth century, introduced from Greek and Arabic sources, and which relates them to the subsequent developments of the Renaissance era. The work of Grosseteste, Albertus Magnus, and Roger Bacon in pure science or in philosophical criticism of Aristotle prepared men’s minds for the scientific revolution associated with Copernicus, Galileo, and their contemporaries. The emphasis on the work of medieval mathematicians brings a wholesome corrective to those who have dismissed this period as comparatively insignificant in that field.

The revolution in scientific thought of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was caused not only by new discoveries, but by a fundamental change in the type of question asked by scientists regarding the world and man himself. This new attitude is developed in considerable detail in the fields of astronomy, physiology, chemistry, botany, and anatomy. The first reception of this massive and authoritative work made apparent that it supplied a real need in tracing the origins and growth of ideas which have had a profound influence upon the life of mankind. The appearance of a cheaper edition will be welcomed as placing what has become a standard work within the reach of a wider circle of readers.

G. C. B. DAVIES

Excellent Study

Ezekiel: the Man and His Message, by H. L. Ellison (Eerdmans, 1956, 144 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by Anton T. Pearson, Professor of Language and Literature at Bethel Theological Seminary.

H. L. Ellison, Tutor for Old Testament Studies in the London Bible College and contributor of the sections on I and II Kings and I and II Chronicles in the New Bible Commentary, has given conservative Christianity a stimulating treatment of the prophet Ezekiel. In the nature of an expository commentary, the book follows the chapter order of Ezekiel and is best read along with the Bible text itself.

Aware of the textual problems of the M.T., the author often cites a preferred LXX reading, and makes constant use of the renderings of the R.V., Moffatt, I.C.C., and R.S.V. For example, the reading, “in the eleventh year of our exile” of LXX, Syr., is preferable to the M.T. “twelfth year” and would bring the news of the fall of Jerusalem to the exiles at Tel Abid six months after the event rather than a year and a half later (p. 118). With the fall of Zedekiah, the old order was to pass until the Messiah came, whose it is. This seems to be the first extant interpretation of Genesis 49:10. For Shiloh, Ezekiel reads shelloh, “Whose it is,” which reading is followed in the R.S.V. of Genesis 49:10 (p. 86).

Symbolism was congenial to Ezekiel with his priestly background, and the actions of chapters four and five are to be regarded as symbolical rather than literal (pp. 31–33). The prophet’s most elaborate allegories are contained in chapter 16 and 40–48. Caution must be exercised to discriminate between symbolizing and spiritualizing. The latter requires mainly a fertile imagination (p. 130).

Some selected views of the author are here adduced. The Ezekiel of 14:14 is the Dan’el of the Ras Shamra tablets of 1400 B.C. (p. 59). The similarity of the Messianic picture in 17:22–24 to the mustard seed in Mark 4:30–32 precludes requiring the birds to represent evil (p. 70). Ezekiel was not only a formalist; note his ethical stress in 18:6–9 (p. 74). Contra Pember (Earth’s Earliest Ages), Scofield, et al., Ezekiel 28:11–19 does not depict the fall of Satan. This passage and Isaiah 14:4–23 must not be detached from their setting (p. 108). “Flesh” has different connotations in the O.T. and the N.T., so that a “heart of flesh” (36:26) refers to the will as God designed it to be (p. 128). Particularly helpful is the discussion of why Tyre and Egypt were not destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar although their doom had been predicted (29:18). This is an evidence of the conditional character of national prophecy, illustrated by Jeremiah 18:7–10 and the book of Jonah (p. 102).

Ellison predicts that with the establishment of Israel as an independent state, its spiritual transformation cannot be far off. The revolt of Gog (man’s last attempt to defy God at Satan’s urging) in chapter 37 takes place at the end of the Millenium, Revelation 20:7–11, and so “that careful thinker, E. Sauer,” in From Eternity to Eternity (p. 134). Hence it is futile to attempt to identify the symbolical names Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal.

The author allots only a scant eight pages to a discussion of chapter 40–48, but he characterizes this section as apocalyptic, not prophetic, as millenial, and symbolic. He repudiates the re-establishment of a literal temple and animal sacrifices during the Millenium.

He seems a little too lenient with the false prophets (pp. 51–56). This reviewer would like to have seen some reference to Holscher’s and Irwin’s attempts to dissect the book of Ezekiel, and a notice of Howie’s analysis of the charge that Ezekiel was afflicted with catatonic schizophrenia, but a brief book cannot include everything.

We are in debt to Mr. Ellison for this excellent study!

ANTON T. PEARSON

Biblical Theology

When the Time Had Fully Come, by Herman N. Ridderbos (Eerdmans, 104 pp., $1.50), by David H. Wallace, Professor of New Testament at California Baptist Theological Seminary.

Professor Ridderbos’ monograph, the third title in the Eerdmans Pathway Books, is a useful addition to the current literature on biblical theology. In the brief span of 96 pages the author discusses the kingdom of God in the synoptic Gospels, the Sermon on the Mount, Paul’s preaching on redemption, the law of God in the Pauline doctrine of salvation and the New Testament treatment of the history of redemption. On p. 19 he disparages “eschatologism” which he defines as “an undue stress upon eschatology”; this is an appropriate corrective both to extreme dispensationalism and post-Schweitzer liberal thought. He neatly outlines the relationship of the Kingdom to the Church (p. 20 f.) by affirming, as over against the older view of the identity of the two, that the Church “derives its existence and the mode of its existence from the Kingdom of God.” Thus, the Kingdom is the prior and greater institution. The interpretation of Matthew 5:28 is taken not to mean moral equality with God, but rather the “consistency of love” (p. 30) which is expressed in loving enemies as well as neighbors. In the third chapter (p. 53 f.) the author takes up the question of the meaning of Paul’s term “in Christ.” He denies any mystical quality to the phrase and asserts that it is only a “redemptive-historical formulae.” That this is true enough is shown by 1 Corinthians 15:22 where we all die “in Adam.” But there is a legitimate mysticism in Paul which characterizes the believer’s relation to Christ as James Stewart has pointed out in A Man in Christ. The “in Christ” formula may be both ecclesiological and mystical. In the last chapter Ridderbos discusses Barth’s view of Scripture (the word of God is contained in the Scriptures but is not to be identified with them) and holds that it is “spiritualistic.” It is emphasized that while Barth exhibits far more fidelity to the word of Scripture and its historicity than does Bultmann, Barth lacks the theological justification for his treatment of the Bible, and “Bultmann with his radical criticism can in a sense use Barth’s own conception of the word of God” (p. 80).

A few inaccuracies appear in the book. On p. 16 the phrase “dynamic power” occurs. Dutch transliterations of Hebrew words persist in place of English: malkoeth for malkuth (p. 14), meschalim for meshalim (p. 27), schaliach for shaliach (p. 82). Errors in Greek are present: “for us” is given as the translation of hyper hymon (p. 53). On p. 92 marturia appears for martyria, and p. 96 reads sarks in place of sarx. However, these trifling details in no way diminish the virtue of this timely and competent contribution to modern theological discourse. Recent emphasis on biblical theology makes this work very relevant.

DAVID H. WALLACE

CHRISTIANITY TODAY NEWS

NCC’s Fifth World Order Study Conference made staggering commitments in foreign and domestic policy.CHRISTIANITY TODAY’Scoverage of the four-day conference, held in Cleveland, Ohio, last month, follows:

Special Report

By sharp criticism of American foreign policy and demand for softer approaches to Russia and Red China, the Fifth World Order Study Conference virtually repudiated major facets of Free World strategy shaped by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, one of the National Council of Churches’ own elder statesmen.

Searching for ecclesiastical “middle ground” in the tense international crisis, 600 delegates from 33 communions met in wind-swept and word-swept Cleveland (where the NCC was formed 8 years earlier) and nudged “the ecumenical Church” to fuller involvement in political affairs. Unanimous support was given early U.S. recognition of mainland China and her admission to the U.N., bolder moves toward U.S. disarmament, and enlarged reliance on the U.N. (see Message to the Churches, Plenary Conference Resolutions, Report on Power Struggle and Security below). The spirited “social action breakthrough” was hailed as an effective prelude to a $35,000,000 ecumenical peace offensive scheduled June, 1959, to June, 1960, in 144,000 NCC churches.

Mr. Dulles himself addressed delegates in Cleveland’s half-filled Music Hall (reflecting grass-roots disinterest in ecumenical affairs). Recalling his participation as an NCC official in earlier studies of world order, he credited mobilization of religious support after the 1942 conference as “a decisive contribution” to formation of the U.N., and described the 1942 “guiding principles” as of enduring worth. In the face of its political overtones, he summoned the 1958 conference on “Christian Responsibility on a Changing Planet” to an “indispensable contribution to the spiritual redemption of our nation.”

Noting American materialism and moral license, Dulles stressed that “we must not ignore the need to change ourselves.” To delegates eager to modify foreign policy, he voiced a firm call to consistency in political morality: “Nothing could be more dangerous than … the theory that if hostile and evil forces do not readily change, it is always we who must change to accommodate them. Communism is stubborn for the wrong; let us be steadfast for the right.… We resist aspects of change which counter the enduring principles of moral law.”

Dulles affirmed the responsibility of the churches to proclaim “the enduring moral principles by which governmental action as well as private action should constantly be inspired and tested.” But he noted that the churches “do not have a primary responsibility to devise the details of world order.” He emphasized “dependence of our policies upon individuals” and welcomed “development by and through the churches of a citizenry … alert to promote and assure that result.” America was founded, he said, “by those who felt it their personal mission not just to accommodate themselves to change brought about by others, but to be themselves a force for change. Their sense of mission derived largely from their strong religious faith.”

Message To The Churches

The 5000-word message, which was drafted by a 23-member committee headed by John C. Bennett, and adopted in plenary session, urged:

• U. S. recognition of Communist China.

• Admission of Communist China to U.N.

• Progress toward universal disarmament by multilateral (i.e., U.N.) agreement.

• “Competitive co-existence” and limited cooperation with Communist nations.

• More liberal, imaginative foreign aid to under-developed lands.

• Full support for the U.N. as the “best flexed instrument of reconciliation now available to the nations.”

• Strong support of Supreme Court decision on school integration.

• Selection by churchmen of political leaders who will challenge defiance of the Court’s decision.

• Clergy initiative to end segregation in churches, housing, public services, economic or occupational opportunities.

• Support by churches of U.N. Genocide convention and other covenants on human rights.

Plenary Conference Resolutions

With less than half of the 600 delegates attending in the final plenary session, the NCC Study Conference on World Order adopted these resolutions in addition to the Message to the Churches:

• Birth Control: Urged “an agreed Christian basis” for understanding and action regarding population control and family life.

• Race Relations: 1. Urged national and state leaders in government to vigorous enforcement of the law. 2. Urged President Eisenhower immediately to call them to confer on faithful compliance with the Supreme Court decisions, considering local problems and need for progress. 3. Called NCC churches, laymen, ministers and councils to meet locally across racial lines to detail plans for implementation in local churches.

• Red China: Supported right of press to travel in other lands.

• Soviet Russia: Urged NCC inquiry into reports of intensified Communist persecution of Jews and Moslems.

• Roman Catholicism: Urged NCC inquiry into reports of persecution of Protestants in Spain.

• Genocide Convention: Urged State Department to present to the U.S. Senate and to support the U.N. Genocide Convention, and other U.N. conventions for the enforcement of human rights.

• Foreign Aid: 1. Urged support of self-determination of all peoples by peaceful means. 2. Urged foreign aid on condition that recipient nations promote rather than impede the human rights of their populations.

• Middle East: 1. Urged efforts to negotiate agreement through U.N. or directly; implement U.N. resolutions for return of Arab refugees, or compensate for loss. 2. U.S. support for legitimate aspirations for Arab unity, Israel’s survival in peace; political and economic progress of both. 3. Supported U.N. recommendation for internationalization of Jerusalem.

• War and Weapons: 1. Categorical rejection of the concept of preventive war. 2. Acknowledgment that peace presently rests in part upon capability for nuclear retaliation. 3. Asked earnest study of the question whether Christians ought to participate in a nuclear war.

Report On Power Struggle And Security

Of the four sections into which the Study Conference on World Order divided, Section II on “The Power Struggle and Security in a Nuclear Age” was most controversial. Its report was received by the plenary session and commended to the churches for appropriate action:

• Declared its non-support of the concept of nuclear retaliation as well as preventive war.

• Would abolish military conscription and allow Selective Service System to lapse in June.

• Declared obsolete a nationalistic approach to freedom, social welfare and security.

• Urged greater U.S. willingness to resolve its disputes through U.N. and World Court.

• Required that the U.N. sanction and control the use of military force.

• Supported international disarmament and security to supersede regional alliances.

• Approved permanent U.N. police force.

• Urged more U.S. initiative in effecting international arms inspection and control; that U.S. propose a comprehensive disarmament plan and extend suspension of nuclear tests, even if unilaterally.

• Proposed that U.S. disarmament savings be used for U.N. allocations to undeveloped countries.

• Supported extension of trade and travel with mainland China, Eastern Europe and Soviet Union.

• Urged more seminars between social scientists as well as scientists from East and West.

• Suggested exploration of more effective use of U.S. surplus food in Communist lands.

• Urged more World Council meetings of East-West clergy.

• Proposed U.N. determination of peace in Formosa area and Nationalist China’s evacuation of exposed positions.

• Urged U.S. economic and technical assistance to India.

• Urged U.S. support for unification of Germany.

• Supported U.N. proposals to internationalize Jerusalem.

A Clash of Perspectives

Dulles’ words provided an unwitting rejoinder not only to facets of earlier keynote remarks by Methodist Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, but anticipated much of the later conference discussion. Oxnam deplored refusal to recognize Red China and to admit her to the U.N. “Try the hand-clasp instead of the fingerprint,” he implored, urging that Russians be allowed to visit by “tens of thousands.”

Oxnam had few approving words for American foreign policy. “Too much of our policy is based upon fear of communism rather than faith in freedom.… We built bases in a great circle, and we cooperated with dictators who had the bases to sell, and we paid our thirty pieces of silver to tyrants who had already betrayed our Lord.” He called justification of foreign policy by national self-interest rather than altruism “pagan realism.”

“Let us so change the planet,” he urged, “that when our first visitors from Mars arrive they will find a society fit to be called the Kingdom of God.” The bishop’s highly applauded blueprint bore its usual marks of revolt against free enterprise traditions. Chairman of NCC’s Division of Life and Work, he defended the Tennessee Valley Authority as non-socialistic, supported federal aid to education, and labeled critics of Walter Reuther as “men who seek to set labor relations back half a century.”

Social Action in a Theological Void

Lack of theological orientation was a characteristic feature of the sessions. Study groups (Section IV on Human Rights was an exception, holding in view the God of creation, history and redemption) deliberately shunned a theological basis in view of NCC’s inclusive commitment. Discussions operated in a theological vacuum; connections between a fixed theology, governing axioms and tentative policies (given the priority) were usually obscure. The theological prelude to the “Message to the Churches” was superimposed.

From the outset, assuredly, the social strategy of Union Theological Seminary’s Professor John C. Bennett (“the absolutizing of ‘compromise’,” one delegate called it) shadowed the sessions. Conference initiative, though not necessarily majority identification, lay with the so-called “realists” who stressed the sinfulness of man and history, shied away from revealed principles, urged reliance on temporary axioms, and proclaimed the inevitability of sinful choices.

To Princeton President John A. Mackay this approach was “profoundly pessimistic or agnostic” when evaluated by the norm of biblical-historical Christianity. “To suggest that within history nothing can represent God’s order, that faith in Christ’s redemption projects us only into a period beyond history where God will win out,” he protested, contradicts what is “deepest in our Christian faith: that sooner or later God’s purposes will be fulfilled in history through the manifestation of inexorable moral law and divine power. Discard this, and … nothing in history fulfills the prophetic dream.” Summarized Mackay: Bennett’s social philosophy leaves man hopeless against the power of the view that history moves inexorably to a Communist climax, and it deprives the Christian Church of its dynamic in the historical order.

Program for the End-Time

But others found Bennett’s “theology of modern weapons” realistic and hopeful: “It gives a modus vivendi for 1958. Nuclear war may strike tonight. What does the Christian do?” The “real world situation” now requires recognition of “the facts of life in the power struggle.”

Dr. Ralph W. Sockman’s address noted that “the names of Nasser and Nehru and Khrushchev have become household words among us.” In the study sessions, in fact, the modern Herods and Pilates crowded God out of centrality in ecumenical deliberations. Demanded one participant: “What is the attitude of the Church toward U.S. policy on Quemoy and Matsu? Our people won’t be helped by telling them we agreed on the Ten Commandments and Sermon on the Mount and not much else.” The “Message to the Churches,” in fact, shared the New Testament sense of end-time only in a secular way (“We find ourselves always on the brink of annihilation”) and lost priority for the apostolic commission to evangelize the world through its speculative and pragmatic formulation of Christian duty:

“The immediate task of every Christian is to seize the initiative in the prevention of war and the advancement of peace.… We cannot sit complacently and hopefully behind the moral subterfuge which divides the world into ‘good and bad’ peoples (the context referred to West and East rather than Church and world—ED.), waiting for the ‘bad’ ones to be converted to our position. To do this is to insure the inevitability of war. The processes of peace … are the concern of every Christian … dedicated to ‘the sovereignty of love’ in human affairs.” Thus delegates tied their hopes to a revival of social gospelism and turned from the redemptive legacy of Christ (“My peace give I unto you; not as the world giveth give I …”).

New Socio-Political Thrust

Although the line between liberalism and neo-orthodoxy at first became more intransigent as presuppositions were clarified, the conference soon saw a fusion in which pacifist forces of many shades cooperated at certain levels. In contrast with the old social gospel, this maneuver no longer expected to usher in a millennial age, nor was there a reigning concern to formulate fixed principles of social morality. It was enough to seek peace in our time, even if by action based on “axioms” whose validity was hardly self-evident. Alongside the flight from reason there remained an excessive trust in the reformation of unregenerate human nature, and a readiness to rely on massive political action independently of the message of spiritual redemption.

Protestant Panorama

• Italian Catholic Bishop Pietro Fiordelli, fined for branding as “public sinners living in concubinage” a young couple married in a civil ceremony and not in church, was acquitted by the Court of Appeals in Florence.

• Alberto Castello, Assemblies of God lay preacher from Copiague, New York, was kidnapped during a visit to Sicily by two bandits who demanded $8,000 for his safe return. Castello was held captive in a cave for six days before fleeing to safety, unharmed.

• Police in Konitsa, Greece, arrested Gregorious Moulaites, 36, of the Evangelical Church, for allegedly trying to proselytize a fellow villager and “deceiving him” with a bribe of more than $300. Moulaites labeled the charge “completely groundless.”

• King Olav V of Norway dropped in on the 50th anniversary celebration of the Free Theological Faculty, founded to counter liberal theology by championing true biblical teaching.

• Prime Minister John Diefenbaker of Canada was received in private audience by Pope John XXIII. It was the new pontiff’s first audience to the head of a government … The annual convention of the Fellowship of Evangelical Churches in Canada proposed further study of a move to merge with the British Columbia Regular Baptist Convention and the Regular Baptist Fellowship of the Prairies. A combined church would have a membership of some 24,000.

• Southern Baptists plan to open missionary work in Viet Nam. They may also aid Baptist work in Portugal … The Indonesian Ministry of Religious Affairs reports that the number of Christians in the island nation has increased from 4½ million in 1950 to 6 million this year.

• The winner of the 1958 Nobel Peace Prize, the Rev. Dominique George Pire, 48-year-old Belgian-born Dominican priest, says he will use his $41,420 award to aid displaced persons. He has been active in refugee work since 1949. He became noted for his resistance to the Nazis during World War II … Belgium newspapers ceased publishing Sunday editions after a government order banned Sunday distribution.

• The Free Methodist Church’s Board of Administration voted to create a world-wide body by bringing into full fellowship with the parent organization its mission conferences. World membership of the church is about 90,000, more than one-third of which is in mission areas.

• Cleveland Police Chief Frank W. Story warned newsstand proprietors that unless the November issue of Playboy magazine was removed from display, they ran “the risk of criminal prosecution.” Last month’s number of Playboy was branded obscene by the Post Office Department, which said legal action was being instituted.

• The eighth National Assembly of United Church Women called on the United Nations to establish permanent and well-armed police to inspect and enforce any future disarmament agreements. Some 2,500 delegates at Denver also urged development of warning systems against all forms of aggressive attacks, elimination “insofar as practical” of nuclear weapons testing and manufacture, control of outer space and all scientific discoveries to ensure their peaceful uses, and full U. N. entry in areas where peace is threatened.

• B’nai B’rith President Philip M. Klutznick warned some 1,000 delegates attending the 60th biennial convention of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America against splintering by “sectarian differences” among Reform, Orthodox and Conservative branches of American Jewry.… Trustees of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations announced a comprehensive program to strengthen Reform Judaism, the goals of which include the winning of 500,000 new adherents among an estimated 2,500,000 unaffiliated Jews in America.

• An average of 13,493,462 Scriptures in more than 270 languages were distributed annually during the last five years by the American Bible Society.

In this circumstance evangelical Christianity paid heavily for its failure to elaborate a social ethics conformable to the theology of redemption. Beyond criticisms of vulnerable features of Western policy, and rejection of extreme NCC positions, most evangelical delegates—and they were few in number—lacked an effective counter-thrust. Or, if they had one, the gathering winds of official commitments swiftly reduced them to a scattered minority, and frustration led to silence.

The Cleveland conference in its expressions did not preserve centrality for the Church’s revealed commission; it assumed, rather than justified, the propriety of specific Church positions in political affairs; it did not establish the rightness of its positions by any norm beyond the majority vote of delegates; and it left in doubt whether those delegates fully expressed the views of constituencies they represent. The crucial question now is whether the “Message to the Churches” will be hailed as a legitimate definition of Christian responsibility.

Between East and West

Delegates went far beyond criticism of U. S. foreign policy (alliances with totalitarian rulers; Israeli guarantees promotive of Arab anxiety; exploitation of Near East oil reserves; pursuit of inordinate self-interest; and so forth). Sympathy for the Soviet orbit was easier to detect than censure. References favorable to America were so qualified, sputtered one delegate, they were “like pronouncing heaven a relatively good place for Christians.”

While few questioned Dr. Bennett’s challenge to “the assumption of the world’s division into two ideological blocs,” observers (more than delegates) wondered whether the antithesis between Christianity and unbelief had now been diluted. Long a critic of free enterprise traditions of the West, and a champion of “competitive coexistence,” Bennett headed the 23-member committee that prepared a 5000-word closing message. The report on “The Power Struggle and Security” generously incorporated his background papers. His plea for abandonment of the U. S. “black and white moralistic approach” seemed to some, however, to yield a moral shadowland indifferent to many legitimate concerns, and indisposed to chide the Soviet bloc without simultaneously censuring the West. Dr. G. Frederick Nolde, director of the NCC Commission on International Affairs, told delegates likewise that negotiations will be fruitless “if Communist officials are obviously and patently dealt with as … adult delinquents.” Some observers thought such emphases would not only weaken faith in American policy, but bemist the ideological divide between East and West.

From the first a major revision of policy on Red China and foreign aid had behind-the-scenes approval.

The Section III report (“Overseas Areas of Rapid Social Change”) endorsed “substantially larger sums of money … through the government as well as individuals and voluntary groups for economic development in the areas of rapid social change” to help “underdeveloped countries establish their own sound economies.” The plenary session protest of John Nuveen (Baptist) of Chicago, that this would allow aid “behind the iron and bamboo curtains” permitting Communist use of it for their own ends, was unavailing. “We may be making the nations strong and Communist, rather than strong and free; we should be as interested in human freedom as in human abundance,” he said. Nuveen also warned against overemphasis on multi-lateral (U.N.) as against bi-lateral aid, because a “multi-lateral program cannot take cognizance of political factors.” Nuveen had also cautioned Section II that its projected seating of mainland China in the U. N. would assign Red China the permanent Security Council seat originally reserved for Nationalist China as a World War II ally. His warning, however, gained nothing. In closing moments of the plenary session, Dr. Ernest Griffith (Methodist) of Washington, D. C., sought to tie U. S. recognition and U. N. admission to “relaxation of aggressive posture” in view of mainland China’s recent history in Korea and Formosa straits, but the effort was overwhelmingly defeated. Conference chairman Ernest A. Gross, head of NCC’s Department of International Affairs and former U. S. Ambassador to the U. N., when sketching the dilemma of admission or rejection of mainland China, failed even to mention the implication of such admission for the Security Council.

People: Words And Events

Deaths: Dr. Frank H. Yost, 64, Seventh-day Adventist theologian and editor, newly-appointed to the chair of religion at La Sierra College, Arlington, California, of a brain tumor, in Los Angeles … the Most Rev. H. W. K. Mowll, 68, Anglican primate of Australia, Archbishop of Sydney, and president of the executive committee for next year’s Billy Graham crusade in Australia, in Sydney … Jorge de Oliveira, Baptist missionary to Portugal … Dr. William Gaius Greenslade, retired Presbyterian missionary to Lebanon, in DeLand, Florida … William P. Phillips, Baptist Sunday School leader.

Elections: As president of the Canadian Council of Churches, the Very Rev. George Dorey … as president of the new National Methodist Theological Seminary to be established in Kansas City, Missouri, Dr. Don W. Holter … as president of the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association, Dr. R. T. Davis … as treasurer of the Board of Home Missions of the Congregational Christian Churches, Dr. Howard E. Spragg … as president of the Christian Business Men’s Committee International, Harry W. Smith, vice president of the Bank of America, San Francisco … as president of the Association of College and University Ministers of the Methodist Church, the Rev. Darold Hackler … as president of the Northern Missionary Council, Danish Bishop Halfdan Hogsbro … as honorary president of the Christian Writers Association of Canada, Alan E. Haw; as president, George Bowman; as editor of the association’s quarterly, Earl Kulbeck.

Nomination: As moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Dr. Robert H. W. Shepherd.

Appointments: As chairman of the radio and television department of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., Dr. John K. Mitchell … as associate publisher of the Methodist Publishing House, Dr. George M. Curry … as assistant professor of Old Testament interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Dr. Jerry Vardaman.

Awards: To James D. Zellerbach, United States ambassador to Italy, the World Brotherhood Gold Award of the National Conference of Christians and Jews for “promoting good will and understanding among all the peoples of the world” … to Mary Jo Nelson, religion editor of the Oklahoma City Times, the first press citation of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma for “outstanding reporting of church news.”

Correction: Dr. Jesse H. Ziegler, listed in CHRISTIANITY TODAY for October 27 as having been appointed to a professorship at Bethany Biblical Seminary, actually has been on the Bethany faculty since 1941. It should have been noted that Dr. Ziegler was named associate secretary of the American Association of Theological Schools. CHRISTIANITY TODAY regrets the error.

Former U. S. Ambassador for Disarmament Harold Stassen, who was to have aided Section II throughout the study conference, arrived only in time to hear the section report presented in plenary session and made the closing comment on it. He found the report “much too dogmatic” in its view of communism as God’s judgment on the West; said he was “troubled” by its agreement that military force be sanctioned and controlled by the U. N., since this would subject it to Soviet veto; said that in the “overall context of the present struggle” he would be reluctant to approve the section’s opposition to present U. S. reliance on nuclear armaments and the request for a slowdown in military time-table; and noted that negative appraisal of American policy in the Far East might well include some things to be expected from Communist China.

Overall Trends in Cleveland

What overall trends were discernible at the NCC conference? The historic American principle of separation of church and state is clearly on the wane. Not even 30 Baptist delegates (NCC currently has a Baptist president) rose in its behalf, being seldom vocal. Nor did the prospect of enlarging Roman Catholic exploitation of church-state opportunities act as a deterrent. Direct pressure upon government policies by religious leaders of institutionalized Protestantism (“the Ecumenical Church”) is more and more approved, despite lack of a mandate at the grass-roots level (conferees were reminded of the “mandate from the National Council” to constituent churches, councils and agencies) and frequent conflict with convictions of lay constituencies, and the inherent risks when political influence and power is concentrated in any religious collectivity. However, the Big Church allows itself to become enmeshed more fully in state procedures, and identifies the Christian message with specific positions and policies on state matters, some anxiety rises lest the churches become mere agencies to accomplish government objectives. The evangelical wing of NCC was not strongly represented; its frustration mounted in attempting a counter-position, until at last its voices became silent. Pacifist-minded delegates, far from satisfied with the outcome, nonetheless viewed many resolutions as significant gains for their cause. What Cleveland dramatized most, however, is a lack of a uniform and approved Protestant theology of church-state relations, and the willingness of many delegates to move only with the rising tide. Cleveland delegates spoke much of world order, but they halted far short of a Christian agenda for civilization.

C. F. H. H.

Rally In Retrospect

The peak of excitement is past. The charges and counter-charges are being forgotten. Considered now, what did evangelist Billy Graham’s climatic Carolinas crusade meeting leave to be remembered? HereCHRISTIANITY TODAYCorrespondent Tom McMahon reflects on the big integrated meeting at the Fort Jackson Army post near Columbia, South Carolina. These are his impressions:

Mass Evangelism

The statistics were impressive—60,000 present; 1,243 decisions for Christ—adding up to Billy Graham’s largest rally on an armed forces base.

But the Reformation Sunday service at Fort Jackson had a significance far deeper than numbers, amazing as these were for a meeting that was shifted from the South Carolina capitol grounds, less than four days before.

A prominent Presbyterian minister said the rally’s outstanding contribution was that it raised a landmark for moderation in the race relations controversy.

Nearly 200 ministers, some of whom were rather cold to Graham’s ministry, rallied behind the one-day crusade after Governor George Bell Timmerman, Jr. charged that it was planned to boost an “integrationist” preacher.

The small flood of vicious criticism which followed the governor’s attack was stemmed by the obvious success of the meeting and by the presence, on the platform, of James F. Byrnes who was the state’s chief executive when Timmerman was a pale and inconspicuous lieutenant governor.

Byrnes changed some plans in order to attend the meeting and entertain Graham afterward in his home. His action threw back into Timmerman’s face the twisted charges that the evangelist’s presence at the state house would have violated laws and would have been misinterpreted as a sign of softness on the racial issue in South Carolina.

There was tragi-comedy in the one-sided controversy which Timmerman launched two weeks before the rally and intensified 10 days later in apparent violation of his initial promise not to try and stop the meeting.

In the face of prominently-displayed newspaper stories to the contrary, the governor charged that the state house site was chosen solely to boost an “integrationist.” The fact was that sponsors tried first to get Carolina Stadium, scene of Graham’s first great outdoor service in 1950, but were turned down because of “too much state fair and football” just before the only possible date.

Actually, the racial issue probably was involved in the stadium decision. Prominent University of South Carolina alumni were heard from a few hours before the decision and the attitude of a key university official changed radically.

Then, some garden club ladies, long zealous for the integrity of the capitol grounds, began to protest in fear that grass and shrubs would be trampled. The rally was moved, perforce, from the spacious north side of the capitol to the south steps, almost on the street.

To cap it off, extremists began to second the governor’s stand, but in a more vicious fashion. Some of their letters were unprintable. A Ku Klux Klan spokesman threatened to make trouble for pastors who stood by Graham.

There was a strange note in the governor’s attacks, especially when he practically forced removal of the rally from the capitol by calling its sponsors liars and lawbreakers and by charging that Graham would be a trespasser if he mounted the platform which had been up only a few hours.

This strange argument, coming from a politician who is not deeply religious, said an evangelistic rally on state property would violate the principle of church-state separation. Added evidence that some of Graham’s “fundamentalist” critics had captured the governor’s ear was Timmerman’s claim that he had been applauded for his stand by a number of ministers and ministerial students.

So the site was changed, as the early apostles sometimes changed their preaching places when persecution arose. But the sponsors of the rally, and Graham, stood pat on the message.

The evangelist himself made a brief statement on the racial issue at a press conference, then closed the door on questions regarding this matter. He said:

“Some have been so unbalanced on the whole issue that segregation or integration has become their one gospel. God pity us if we let our differences about this prevent us from presenting Christ to a lost world. My only motive at any time in coming to Columbia was to preach the Gospel and that is what I intend to do today.”

The racist, and “fundamentalist” opposition was joined later by other religionists who protested in newspaper letters and tried to bring pressure to bear on Fort Jackson’s commander for throwing wide the post’s facilities for the meeting.

But evangelical pastors stood firm. Their singers overflowed the choir stands and hundreds of ushers and counsellors turned out. The rank and file of citizens, white and Negro, responded to the situation by clogging the roads two hours ahead of time and standing, 60,000 strong, around the platform from which Graham preached. In closing he invited people to come forward as a token of the fact that at the foot of the Cross all are equal and all problems must ultimately be solved.

The rally took on the nature of a state-wide crusade. With the interest of news media whetted by the controversy, the meeting achieved new significance in the eyes of millions. A state-wide network of some 23 radio stations broadcast the service. Highlights were presented the next morning on a television network.

It is highly probable that the fellowship forged during the preparations, and the impetus of the meeting itself, will result in a city-wide, and perhaps even area-wide, program of visitation evangelism and preaching missions next spring. If such comes to pass, it may be the first time such a broad effort has stemmed from a one-day Graham stand.

Greeting From Moscow

Evangelist Billy Graham turned 40 last month. Most surprising among hundreds of greetings was a telegram from the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians (Baptist) in Moscow:

“We heartily congratulate you on your 40th anniversary. Our hearts are full of gratitude to God for your birthday and for the years of your blessed ministry. We pray that God may give you the longest life and the richest blessings and success upon your furtherances of the Gospel.”

The message was signed by Jakov Zhidkov, president of the council, the only organized religious group in Russia other than the Orthodox church, and Alexander Karev, general secretary.

Graham is preparing for a crusade in Australia early next year.

His next U. S. crusade will be in Indianapolis, a month-long effort to be held at the State Fairgrounds Coliseum next October.

A 10 to 12-week crusade is tentatively planned for Chicago during the summer of 1961.

Anxiety Over Arms

The Canadian Council of Churches called for international control and inspection of nuclear weapons at its 12th biennial meeting in Winnepeg.

Dominion Of Canada

A Committee on International Affairs report adopted by the 100-odd council delegates urged the Canadian government to press for development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes only. Another resolution urged a more generous immigration policy.

Although refusing to urge Canadian diplomatic recognition of Communist China, the council expressed a feeling of “deep concern about the unsatisfactory position of China in the community of nations.”

A special commission of the council claimed that it is necessary to develop an “ecumenical approach” to the role of churches in universities. The council resolved to call a conference to consider how Christian work on the campus can best be inter-related.

In an address to the convention, Dr. Emlyn Davies, outgoing president, said strikes are outmoded as a means of settling industrial disputes. He called the strike an anti-social weapon because it involves “the whole community.” He said he had a great sympathy for workers who have been “shockingly exploited,” but added that the church cannot be a party to strike violence.

The great problem in evangelism, delegates were told, is “the half-awakened, indifferently-trained and lethargic members of congregations and parishes.” Nominal religion is not sufficient for those who live in a “world of fear and indecision,” said the Rev. P. P. W. Ziemann, chairman of the council’s department of evangelism.

A Move For Merger

Expressing “firm intention and desire” to continue merger talks with the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada Executive Council voted to convene the full 35-member Anglican reunion committee and the 33-member House of Bishops for a joint meeting next February to discuss union.

Merger negotiations between the two bodies, initiated by the Anglicans 15 years ago, have been at a standstill for some time. The full Anglican reunion group has not met since the talks were begun.

Meeting in Toronto with the church’s Council for Social Service, the Anglican council also urged the abolition of capital punishment and endorsed sections of the Lambeth Report favoring abolition of war and nuclear weapons.

The five-day sessions of the executive council, which meets between the triennial General Synods, were attended by 33 archbishops and bishops and 77 priests and laymen. The action for merger undoubtedly grew out of an appeal from the United Church General Council in September that the Anglican church “make it plain whether it really wishes to continue these [merger] conversations, or whether it now desires to terminate them.” [See CHRISTIANITY TODAY (October 27 issue) for earlier story.]

Electoral Rock ’N’ Roll

The National Assembly of the Church of England tangled with the laity at its fall session.

Great Britain

A lively debate marked discussion of the role of the laity in the life and work of the church. A resolution was adopted welcoming “closer association of the laity with the clergy in the synodical government of the church.” However, the laity’s association would be “subject to the advice of the Convocations of Canterbury and the House of the Laity of the Church Assembly,” the resolution added.

Earlier, the assembly agreed that the resident of a parish must attend church at least once every six months in order to keep his name on the church’s electoral roll.

“Only too often,” lay delegate Oswald Clark argued, “electoral rolls contain certain names entered years ago of persons, who, in spite of frequent approaches, decline to enter into the family of the church, yet these names cannot be removed.”

Another speaker had called the electoral situation “unreal.” His illustration, presumably real if obscure, cited the case of a woman who was asked if she would like to be on the roll. “No,” she was quoted as having replied, “I am the rock ’n’ roll of the next village.”

Then there was the lay delegate who suggested that a good way to raise money for the church’s teacher-training colleges would be to sponsor football pools. Cries of “shame” greeted the proposal.

The assembly decided to ask the Ministry of Education to increase state grants for aided schools from 50 to 75 per cent. It was agreed that the church itself should accept the task of raising an extra $2,800,000 for expansion of the teacher-training colleges.

SANTA FORUM

Our holiday feature is a forum in which leading spokesmen answer a question of absorbing current interest: Is there a Santa Claus?

Professor Grundgelehrt writes:

Your question, unfortunately, is framed in speculative, ontological terms. I prefer to leave abstract metaphysics to the middle ages and to ask with contemporary, existential passion, have we encountered the Santa-event? The rich and diverse tradition of Santa Claus in its world-wide spread is a proper subject for historical and phenomenological investigation, but the real Santa occurrence to which its points lies beyond history in Northpolar Time, where all the relative longitudes of Greenwich time meet and are transcended. The descent of Santa down the chimney symbolizes the vertical relation of Polar Time (Schlittengeschichte) to standard time. As you participate in the stocking-hanging ceremony you await the Santa encounter in which he again becomes profoundly true.

Dr. Eugene Ivy says:

Of course there is a Santa Claus. Can you look into the sparkling upturned eyes of your little child as you hang up her stocking and not believe in Santa Claus? Santa is there, for there is real Santa faith. Scholars disagree about the historicity of Nicholas of Patara. Personally I believe he lived in Lycia in Asia Minor during the early fourth century, as tradition asserts. I am also willing to accept him as the patron saint of children, merchants, and thieves. The first of these roles is rarely questioned and the last two are increasingly vindicated in the Santalands of our great stores. But even if it could be shown that the Nicholas of history was unacquainted with reindeer, my faith in Santa Claus would be undisturbed. Aren’t my children’s stockings full on Christmas morning?

Senator B. B. Fuddle:

Yes, Santa Claus exists as the great unitive symbol of our age. Americans may be divided by creedal clauses, but they are united by Santa Clauses. Certainly Santa has an important place in our working faith, the American Way of Life. It is un-American to be anti-Santa. Fight dis-santagration!

FIFTY-ONE PER CENT

The article by C. Stanley Lowell (“If the U. S. Becomes 51% Catholic,” Oct. 27 issue) is a prize. This and similar articles that have appeared are a magnificent contribution to alerting our people concerning a dangerous evil. So many of our Protestant people seem afraid to face the facts and to champion our religious liberties.

Columbus Area Council of Churches

Columbus, Ohio

I feel that this is one of the most biased, emotional and unfactual articles on this subject that I have ever read. It is full of error.… If one will compare Roman Catholicism in Spain with that in the United States he must also compare American democracy and the philosophy that it has given to Americans with the philosophy of Franco in Spain to see how impossible it is for one state of mind to exist in the other country.… Negative articles such as this do nothing but help to draw our Protestant theology into a shell.

Quincy Point Congregational Church

Quincy, Mass.

If such facts as are pointed out in this article do not awake the Protestant population of America to evangelistic zeal and activity, the land for which our fathers died will go by default to that church from which we have sought to be a free nation under God.

Hunterdale Union Church

Franklin, Va.

When Roman Catholics can dictate the prescriptions for non-Catholics in a New York hospital, when they can persecute Protestants in … (Columbia), all with little resistance, then either we’d better prepare our childreen to live by the infallible decisions of the pope, or come to grips with the situation.

Berkeley, Calif.

The article … has disquieted me. I sincerely hope it had the same effect on everyone else who read it.

Evangelical United Brethren

Bloomsburg, Pa.

May we have more articles of this nature to awake America.

Salem Lutheran Church

Montevideo, Minn.

Should … be placed in the hand of every Protestant in the United States. Is this article available in pamphlet form? Evangel Temple

Colorado Springs, Colo.

• Reprints are available at cost from Protestants and Other Americans United, 1633 Massachusetts Ave., N. W., Washington 6, D. C.—ED.

Timely … in the light of the election returns just in, according to which at least two of the greatest states … have elected Roman Catholic governors.…

Desert Highlands Bap.

Palmdale, Calif.

I don’t see how a Catholic that adheres to all doctrines of the Roman Catholic church could possibly take the oath to be a judge, juryman, legislative member or President of the U. S. To uphold the Constitution means the first ten amendments … too. Religious freedom for all.… Evidently they will use the amendments to gain their own purpose and then turn right around and deny these same rights to another person.

Greensboro, N. C.

Recently, a Roman Catholic priest in high standing, spoke at Smith College. One of my senior students asked him this question, “If the U.S. should become dominantly Catholic, so that our government, our schools, our press, and our radio, and T. V. were under the control of the Roman church, would we still have freedom?” His reply was that there wouldn’t be much change; the U.S. would simply become like Spain.

Springfield College

Springfield, Mass.

Two American cardinals, Spellman and McIntyre, presumably voted for the head of a foreign state the other day. One supposes they hope to remain citizens, yet may they do so legally? We have a law, Section 1418 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which states that a citizen “shall lose his nationality by … voting in a political election in a foreign state or participating in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory.”

It is the position of the Roman Catholic Church itself that the pope is head of the Vatican city state as well as of the church. That is the basis on which many of the world’s leading governments send ambassadors or ministers to the Vatican city state. That is the basis on which $1,000,000 was claimed from our tax monies a year or so ago to repair the pope’s summer home which had been damaged during World War II. Cardinal Spellman himself has said: “The Holy Father is not alone the Supreme Head of the Catholic church. He is also the head of a sovereign state.” By canon law the pope exercises complete sovereignty over the Vatican city state—the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.

Not just since 1952 have we had a law forbidding a citizen to vote in a political election of a foreign state. Since 1940 we have actually had such a law, and since that time American courts have deprived many Americans of citizenship for its violation. The last pope was elected in 1939, which means that this is the first time the problem of the official illegality has arisen.

Our State Department has been contacted regarding this recent voting, and it has said that the fact that the pope is the political head of a foreign state is incidental to his position as the head of a church. If it is incidental that he is head of a state, why have we considered that state so important as to have sent it an official representative? The law itself does not make any exceptions. Why doesn’t young John Kennedy get on the ball? He might get an exception made for such distinguished persons as cardinals.

Nazarene Theological Seminary

Kansas City, Mo.

Our … Baptist paper New Aurora … published an … article (May, 1910) concerning an episode … in Rome between [Theodore] Roosevelt and the Vatican when he returned from his hunting trip in Africa.… Before Roosevelt reached the Eternal City, the American ambassador in Rome had made arrangements for him to visit King Victor Emmanuel II, the pope, and the American Methodist Church, whose pastor was the Rev. Dr. Walter Lowrie.… The secretary of the pope … Spanish Cardinal Merry Del Val, … informed the American ambassador that Roosevelt could have an interview with the pope on condition that he would not go to the Methodist Church. At this news Roosevelt became very indignant at the audacity and intransigence of the pope and his secretary. A dispatch was immediately sent … to cancel the appointment with the pope, as an American freeborn citizen would not submit to such a humiliating condition. So he went to see the King, visited the American Methodist Church but not the pope.… The identical thing had happened a few weeks before with … Charles Warren Fairbanks … ex-vice president.… Now how about the later Roosevelt whose flirtation with the pope is well-known.…

Oh Teddy Roosevelt! Arise from your grave and warn the unprincipled politicians of Washington and elsewhere not to play with the Vatican whose insatiable hunger and thirst for political power, wealth and dominion over the affairs of our beloved country are never satisfied.

West Sand Lake, N. Y.

In practice they … deny [Jesus’] lordship for tradition …, which gives them … full reign over fearful believers.

Pittsburgh, Pa.

I’m as afraid of them as of the communists, even more so because I believe that Russia is to be defeated before the tribulation but that antichrist will come from the church.

Rapid City, S. D.

I am a Catholic.… The church forbids us to read the Bible. They claim that we cannot understand it, … but eight or nine years ago I bought it and I found that what they teach us is the contrary of what the Bible teaches. I came to the conclusion that they do not want us to read it because they don’t want us to find the truth.… I have come to the conclusion that the Catholic church “is not the true church” … If they were real Christians they wouldn’t encourage the hate to the non-Catholics as they do.

Jesus Christ … was not carried in a throne.… [He] came to teach … humility.

St. Paul, Minn.

You are to be congratulated upon the placement of two significant articles, … “Protestant Strategy in California” and “If the U.S. Becomes 51% Catholic.” The virility and relevance of CHRISTIANITY TODAY will depend very largely on your courage and decision to clarify and state the basic facts and issues with which we are all confronted in this generation.

Gospel Light Publications

Glendale, Calif.

“Protestant Strategy in California” … starts … with an alleged quotation … of a Protestant minister, “If it will hurt the Catholics, I’m for it!” and states that it reflects the thinking of an impressive segment of California’s Protestant clergy.” After talking with Protestants … it is difficult for me to believe that more than a rabid few would give utterance to it.

… Roman church schools create and foster bigotry of the most evil kind, manifesting a thoroughly un-American spirit and endeavoring to build up a spirit of loyalty to the pope that will supercede all other loyalties. By joining with the Roman church in demanding tax-exemption for religious schools, other churches are giving aid to this build-up of loyalty to the pope.

Berkeley, Calif.

MOST STRIKING

The Paul Peachey article, “Beyond Christian-Communist Strife” (Oct. 27 issue), is one of the most striking and distinctively evangelical articles you have published.

Yale University Divinity School

New Haven, Conn.

COMMENDATION

Just a note to commend you on the article “Christians and the Crisis of Race” and the editorial “Desegregation and Regeneration” (Sept. 29 issue).

All Saints’ Episcopal Church

Paragould, Ark.

LAW AND GRACE

Let praise descend upon you for that forthright and dynamic editorial “Law and Reformation” (Oct. 27 issue) … To preach the law as the basis of the cross fits well into the appeal methods of Wesley, Moody, and Graham. But … are you sure you will not be branded by that horrid name “legalist” by certain elements of evangelicalism? The oft-repeated attempt to do away with the law by the grace of the cross, or of pitting grace against law surely has done much to create a situation of corruption which you picture so well.… Let converted Christians not ignore the law but keep it in their Christian liberty.… Let the law be enhanced by the cross.…

Sacramento, Calif.

What is the very heart of the gospel message? Because of the many doctrines having to do with the Christian faith, and of the many implications and interpretations of these individual doctrines, it would seem relevant to consider all of them and then determine those which must at all times be a part of the message.

The Gospel centers in the Person and Work of Christ, the Son of God, and his deity is the cornerstone of Protestant faith. But along with his deity there are many other truths which are not only of theological importance but of practical significance.

The Christ who is the center of the Gospel is the Christ of the Bible. To preach another Christ, divested of his supernatural and miraculous attributes, may seem to answer some people’s intellectual problems, but it poses greater problems that prove in the last analysis baffling. Now, while we magnify the deity of our Lord, we must at the same time recognize his full humanity, without which the Incarnation could never have been a reality.

But the gospel message, while having its background and explanation in the deity of our Lord and in those things recorded about him in the Scriptures, is based primarily on what he, the Son of God, did for sinful man.

The Apostle Paul, writing to the Galatian Christians, said: “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

On the basis of that revelation he wrote to the believers in Corinth: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.”

That is the heart of the gospel message. The deity of our Lord and all of the wonderful things about his person are the background of the message, but what he did must lie at the very core of that which we preach if our message is to be the “Good News” which is the Gospel.

Isaiah, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, though dimly understanding that which he wrote, said: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

When the Ethiopian official asked Philip about whom this was written, he “began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.”

When John the Baptist cried out: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,” he was speaking in terms of sacrifice for sin which was the warp and woof of the Jews’ religion and the implications of which they fully understood.

The deep significance of our Lord’s death is enshrined in his words during the last supper: “This is my body … this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

Leave out the central fact of the gospel message, that Christ died for our sins, and the death of our Lord becomes solely a matter of academic interest and its implication at best one of ethical significance.

The occasion of this article is a meeting we recently attended at which a group, thoroughly evangelical, presented the program.

There were many familiar phrases such as: “give your heart to Christ,” “surrender your life to Christ,” “let him meet the longings of your heart,” “let him give you the peace and joy you have been looking for,” “take the step and follow him,” and many others.

There was nothing wrong with this urgent call for people to surrender and follow Christ. But the trouble was that not once was the basic reason for accepting Christ presented, namely, because he died for our sins.

There is grave danger that we too often preach an incomplete Gospel. Theological liberalism has often chided the evangelical because of a “pie in the sky” attitude. Wherever the Gospel is preached without a resulting sense of obligation to those about us, something is lacking. But, where a message is given, by evangelical or liberal, which omits the fact that Christ died for our sins, we may be sure that the “Good News” has not been preached in all its fullness and power.

Basically, our problem goes back to the doctrine of sin itself. Man is in danger of placing on himself an estimate wholly at variance with the estimate God has of us. Not only does the Bible teach the sinfulness of all men, but history and personal experience confirm this truth as well.

And none of us can understand the reality and implications of sin until we see ourselves in the light of God’s holiness. It is his perfect holiness which reveals the sordidness and evil of our hearts and lives and the impossibility of our standing in his presence as we are.

Combine the fact of sin and the cleansing power of Christ’s redemptive work, and we through faith come to see ourselves for what we are and God’s love for what it is.

Consciously, or otherwise, the world lives under a burden of sin. This is seen in the escapism of Park Avenue and in the religious rites of the jungle. The psychiatrist may bring release from those elements of a guilt complex which stem from the subconscious traumas of childhood, but there is no release from the burden of sin’s guilt until that release is found in a glorious realization that Christ died for our sins.

There are many and wonderful implications in the cross of Christ. The Atonement includes such a wealth of truths having to do with the love of God that, this side of eternity, none of us can ever fully understand them all. It will only be when we enter into that place of eternal fellowship with our Lord, which is the heritage of believers, that we will come to see all that he has done for us.

But right now we can know that He died for our sins and in that knowledge find release from guilt, power for daily living, and hope for eternity.

It was only after the perfect sacrifice was made, only when the Atonement for all the ages was completed that our Lord bowed his head and said: “It is finished.”

Why do we so often omit the very heart of the message? There may be a number of reasons, but none of them is valid.

Try making his death for our sins the center of that which we teach and preach about Christ, and see what happens. It does something to us and it does something to others too:

“CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES”

It is the most wonderful message a sinner can ever hear.

The two great questions currently raised about the epistle to the Ephesians concern the identity of its author and the definition of its central theme. The first asks whether Paul actually wrote this letter and is primarily a problem in higher criticism. The second asks whether the visible or the invisible church is the theme of Ephesians, and is a problem in lower criticism or interpretation. There is also a question whether the letter was addressed “to the saints in Ephesus?” We feel that this latter question is not of great importance inasmuch as it is clear to all that Ephesus was at least one of its destinations although perhaps there were other places in Asia Minor to which it was sent as a circular letter.

The question of Pauline authorship is of prime importance. This is especially so because the alternative to Pauline authorship is no known authorship. If canonicity rests ultimately on apostolicity, as this writer believes, taking this book from Paul and leaving it of uncertain authorship, makes it impossible to affirm, with confidence, that it is an inspired document. This accentuates the importance of the problem but does not afford the solution. We maintain Pauline authorship because the strongest external evidence, such as the manuscripts and tradition, testify to it. Why, then, does anyone doubt it? Many, including Interpreter’s Bible, deny it in spite of this powerful external evidence because it is felt that certain things are said in the letter which Paul could not have said.

Since space precludes any thorough discussion of this question here, let us simply mention one of the texts which, supposedly, Paul could not have written; show that he might have written it; and let the matter rest there. In 1:15 we read: “For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus …” If Paul had written this Epistle, how could he have “heard” of the faith of the Ephesians, it is asked. Would he not have known this from first-hand experience? That is a perfectly reasonable question. If this statement in 1:15 means that the writer was hearing, for the first time, of the faith of the very persons to whom Paul had earlier ministered, it simply could not have been Paul who wrote the words. Granted. But do these words require this construction? If Paul did write this letter, could he not have heard of the continuing faith of some of these people to whom he had earlier ministered? And, could he not have heard of the new faith of some of the new people who had come into the great parish after his leaving? If, today, pastors were in the habit of writing letters to congregations which they had formerly served, could they not congratulate a former people on “hearing” of their (continuing) faith?

Visible Or Invisible?

So far as the message of Ephesians is concerned, the engrossing interest of our time is whether it is speaking of the visible or invisible church. No one doubts that its central teaching deals with the Christian church. There is a lively debate, however, whether this is the church visible or invisible. Those who are most enthusiastic about the “ecumenical movement” are strongly inclined to regard this letter as its manifesto. They suppose that when the writer speaks of there being but “one body” (4:4) he means “one visible and organized church.” Many others, however, find that very expression “one body” conclusive proof that the writer is speaking of the invisible, and not the visible, church. They argue thus: Paul writes that the church is one body, not merely that it ought to be one body. If he meant to say that the church actually is one body in the sense of a visible organization, and always would be so long as the church exists, that would simply be contrary to fact. The church never has been one organized body and certainly it is not so now. If, therefore, Paul is saying that the church is one body, in the sense of one visible organization, he is saying in the same words that the church is not. Instead of affirming the church he would be denying it. Granted that the church ought to be one visible body; granted that no Christian ought ever to be content without striving to visibilize the spiritual unity of the church and more and more; still, all of this assumes that the church, as it now is, is not one visible body. And the church was not such in apostolic times; or, if it was, it shortly thereafter became defunct, and has not existed again for the last 1900 years. Therefore, these words themselves indicate that Paul speaks of the church invisible. There is very much more to this question, but this must suffice for an indication of the drift of the discussion.

Content

Introduction 1:1, 2

I. Doctrines 1:3–4:16

A. Election 1:3–6

B. Redemption 1:7–2:10

(1) Objective Aspect (by blood of Christ) 1:7–12

(2) Subjective Aspect

(a) Faith 1:13

(b) Sealing 1:14

(Paul’s first ejaculatory prayer, 1:15–23)

(c) Regeneration 2:1–10

C. The Church 2:11–4:16

(1) Unity

(a) Of Jews and Gentiles 2:11–19

(b) Of Christ and Believers 2:20

(2) Mystery 3:1–13

(Paul’s second ejaculatory prayer 3:14–21)

(3) Members

(a) Unified 4:1–6

(b) Diversified 4:7–11

(c) Edified 4:12–16

II. Duties 4:17–6:22

A. General Principles 4:17–24

(1) Negative 4:17–22

(2) Positive 4:23–24

B. Application to Specific Matters 4:25–6:9

(1) Practical 4:25–30

(a) Honesty 4:25

(b) Anger 4:26, 27

(c) Stealing 4:28

(d) Conversation 4:29–32

(2) Contrasts 4:31–5:20

(a) Love vs. Lust 5–7

(b) Light vs. Darkness 5:8–17

(c) Spirit vs. Wine 5:18–20

(3) Human Relationships 5:22–6:9

(a) Husband-Wife 5:22–33

(b) Parents-Children 6:1–4

(c) Masters-Servants 6:5–9

C. Summary Exhortation 6:10–22

Conclusion—Benediction 6:23, 24

Doctrinal

The outline of the content of Ephesians shows clearly that it is evenly divided between doctrine and duty. The doctrinal part, after the instructive salutation, begins in the eternities with divine election. This context, together with Romans 9, is the locus classicus for this theme. The difference between these two Pauline passages is that the Romans context deals with negative and positive predestination, or reprobation as well as election; while here, in the opening verses of Ephesians, only the positive aspect of predestination, namely election, is in view.

Some persons seem prone to think that if election is true there is no necessity for a Gospel. “If a person is elected to salvation then it does not matter whether he hears or believes …” Paul did not think so; for no sooner does he articulate election than he shows how it unfolds in the great redemptive work of Jesus Christ. This engrosses his attention in most of the rest of the first chapter.

Discussing the eternal election of God and the provision of the atonement in Christ must have led Paul’s inspired mind to think of the problem of men’s ever believing and being saved, inasmuch as they were dead in trespasses and sins (2:1). So he marvels at the fact that God not only provided salvation but applied it as well: “And you hath he quickened, who were dead … quickened us together with Christ.” He concludes this discussion of salvation by hearkening back to his earlier teaching of election. Paul sees the redemption of Christ, both in its provision and application, as a working out of the purpose of God. “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (2:10).

Having laid the foundation-election and salvation, Paul now builds on it his structure of the church. For it is because Jew and Gentile alike are saved by the same Christ and his shed blood that the “middle wall of partition” is broken down between them and they are made one. This is the “mystery” which had never previously been revealed “as it is now revealed” (3:5). As intimated earlier, this church, the one true church, founded “on the apostles and prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (2:20) is the central theme of the whole book.

Practical

The ethical or practical part of the Epistle is rich and full. And it grows out of the doctrinal emphasis on the unity of the church. The various admonitions are inculcated to promote that harmony among the members of the church which befits those who are redeemed by one Saviour and are built on one foundation.

This is particularly apparent in the duties pertaining to the three sets of fundamental human relationships discussed: husband-wife (5:22–33); parents-children (6:1–4); masters-servants (6:5–9). Authority binds them all together in one unity. And that authority of the husband, of the parent, and of the employer, is actually the authority of Christ working through these subordinates whom he has placed as his vicegerents in these basic human groups. Thus Christ by his death unites all in one and by his living authority binds all together into a growing unity.

The conclusion pictures the Christian as engaged in a battle to the finish with the powerful hosts of evil whom only the strength of God is able to vanquish, but which strength is available to the humble and dependent Christian soul.

We close with a brief word about commentaries on Ephesians. There are many good ones; more than we have space even to list. In our opinion the work of Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, (New York, 1862), its fine exegesis, its incisive doctrinal analysis, and its valuable practical observations is still the best. Meyer and Abbott, International Critical Commentary, are important critical works; Francis Beare is well worth reading in Interpreter’s Bible, but with a critical eye. John Mackay’s God’s Order; the Ephesian Letter and This Present Time (New York, 1953) shows a leading ecumencist’s competent handling of this significant letter. The dispensational view of this church epistle is clearly given in L. S. Chafer’s The Ephesian Letter (New York, 1935).

JOHN H. GERSTNER

Professor of Church History

Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary

• ED.—For a detailed discussion of points raised in the above article, readers are referred to an excellent study of the epistle in the Shield Bible Study Series, The Epistle to the Ephesians, by John H. Gerstner, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, $1.50.

Though I am no theologian I venture to disagree with most of W. Norman Pittenger’s recent criticisms of the writings of C. S. Lewis. Dr. Pittenger concedes that Lewis writes charmingly and provocatively in some of his books, particularly those of a fictional character, but he does not believe that Lewis’ writings have much theological value. My own judgment is that Lewis has done more to clear the theological atmosphere of our time and to create a deep interest in Christian things than many theologians together. Lewis’ avoidance of theological jargon (I use the word in no derogatory sense) is a studied avoidance and should not be taken as ignorance. It seems to me that such an assumption of ignorance is the basis of Dr. Pittenger’s wrong critique of Lewis. But to some of the particulars.

The Sense Of Decency

Dr. Pittenger says that Lewis is crude, even vulgar. As examples, he violates our sense of decency by attempting to explain the Trinity by the figure of a cube which is “six squares while remaining one cube,” and by saying that Christ was either what he claimed to be—the Son of God—or else a madman. I believe that one of Lewis’ greatest contributions to orthodox Christianity is his demonstration that a sanctified imagination is a legitimate tool for any Christian apologist. If Dr. Pittenger thinks a cube may not be used to illustrate the Trinity, what can he say of Jesus’ own invariable use of things close at hand to illustrate holy things—vines, and fig trees, lamps, and bushel baskets, and even vultures? Or what can he say of Paul’s allusions to sounding brass and tinkling cymbals or the resurrection of Christ as the firstfruits? Or of St. Augustine’s historic analogies in De Trinitate, confessedly inadequate but none the less helpful for pedagogical purposes? In his Weight of Glory Lewis says, “Perfect humility dispenses with modesty.” Can it be that we have a false modesty on spiritual things, a modesty in which the “classical view” (a favorite idea in Dr. Pittenger’s criticism of Lewis) is substituted for a downright eagerness to set forth the reality of Christ?

The Book And The Times

Again, Dr. Pittenger says that Lewis’ Christianity is often not orthodox. At the same time Lewis is said to hold to an “uncritical traditionalism” and to be dogmatic in his proclamation of it. Dr. Pittenger says that Lewis proceeds in his books by a “smart superficiality” and does not present a “credible theology.” Dr. Pittenger makes fairly clear as he goes along what he believes to be credible theology. He declares that never in the synoptic gospels is there either statement or implication that Christ claimed to be the Son of God. He is upset with Lewis for using the Fourth Gospel so uncritically. The validity of our Lord’s unique place, says Dr. Pittenger, does not rest on such “mechanical grounds” as Lewis advances but on “the total consentient witness of all Christians from the apostles’ time.” Lewis is declared to be “too cavalier about the actual historical Jesus” who is described by Dr. Pittenger as “a Prophet who announced the coming of God’s kingdom and who may even have thought that he himself was to be the Anointed One, or Messiah, who would inaugurate it.” In other words, Dr. Pittenger diminishes the impact of the Fourth Gospel, holds to a “credible theology” based to a considerable extent, apparently, on general belief through the ages which he interprets as denying that Christ was the unique Son of God, and at the same time accuses Lewis of unorthodoxy and “uncritical traditionalism.” Lewis’ faith, says Dr. Pittenger, is not a reasoned one. Instead, Dr. Pittenger prefers a faith “open and reasoned … built on history, confirmed in experience, checked by reason, and demonstrated in Christian life.” (Note the double emphasis on reason.) He is unhappy with Lewis for his preferring “the Pauline ethic based on man’s sinfulness and helplessness” (Dr. Pittenger’s language) to the Sermon on the Mount. Isn’t Dr. Pittenger himself behind the times here? Does current theology divide Paul’s ethic from Jesus’?

Furthermore, says Dr. Pittenger, the sophisticate Lewis “pretends to be very simple indeed” by taking what the Church has said is in the Scriptures “as the last word.” What does Dr. Pittenger put beside this for his own authority? He repeatedly accuses Lewis of failing to take cognizance of recent theological research. Lewis, for instance, confounds “the Fall” (quotations Dr. Pittenger’s) “with an event in history,” and confuses the “biblical myth” concerning Adam with “a literal description.”

God And His World

But Dr. Pittenger’s article is taken up in large measure with a somewhat detailed criticism of Lewis’ Miracles. Again it seems to me that Dr. Pittenger is far-fetched in his denunciation. He describes Lewis’ book as “one of the worst books ever written on this subject.” In the first place, Dr. Pittenger appears to forget that Lewis, as Chad Walsh has well said, is the “apostle to the skeptic,” not to the seminary professor. No one who has read the Bible with any care could possibly be unaware that it teaches the omnipresence of God. God dwells in the heart, but he dwells also in the heavens. It is therefore altogether proper for Lewis to speak of God as being outside his creation. In the second place, throughout the whole of Miracles Lewis makes clear that all his discussion is, of necessity, metaphoric. His effort is to deny the deterministic and deistic conception that God is confined to his creation. Hence his metaphor of “intervention” to the idea of which Dr. Pittenger objects. In Appendix B to Miracles and elsewhere Lewis makes his metaphoric usage very clear. “If God directs the course of events at all then he directs the movement of every atom at every moment; ‘not one sparrow falls to the ground’ without that direction.” Does this sound as if God is an absentee landlord? Dr. Pittenger’s own list of quotations from St. Augustine and others show that they also spoke metaphorically of miracles. In fact, his quotation from St. Augustine contains the same word—“above”—to which Dr. Pittenger seems to be objecting in Lewis.

Lewis is also accused of being 50 years behind the times for not knowing that a self-explanatory universe is out of date. No “respectable philosophical writer and no first-rate scientist” during the last half century has held to a deterministic universe, says Dr. Pittenger. Only ignorant people are “naturalists” in Lewis’ sense and therefore he has proceeded in his “smart superficiality” to knock down a straw man. To answer Dr. Pittenger on this point it is perhaps sufficient to let the reader think a moment for himself. It is true that at some point in their studies many scientists have acknowledged that they were confronted by a mystery or have even spoken of the whole universe as mysterious, but that is no indication whatever that they have come over to the side of the angels. Admittedly, deistic-type mechanism is passé, but is this all there is to materialism? A great many philosophers and theologians are wrong unless our Zeitgeist may properly be described as “naturalistic” in Lewis’ precise meaning. Whatever they may imply in print or on state occasions, men live as if no miracle is possible, and it was this condition to which Lewis was addressing himself—not to a “classical” theory of miracles.

It might be well to stop for a moment and cite from a couple of reputable science-philosophers who hold to a non-supernatural view of life. In his William Vaughan Moody Lecture at the University of Chicago, in 1931, Anton Julius Carlson said, “As I see it, the supernatural has no support in science, it is incompatible with science, it is frequently an active foe of science.” Dr. Carlson was described by Time as the “scientists’ scientist” and by others as “the Ajax of science.” Here, then, is one reputable scholar who can hardly be described as anything other than a “naturalist.” In Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian, published last year, he says: “There are some who maintain that physiology can never be reduced to physics, but their arguments are not very convincing and it seems prudent to suppose that they are mistaken.” Also, a little later, “God and immortality, the central dogmas of the Christian religion, find no support in science.” Can this reputable scholar be described as anything but a “naturalist”?

Lewis is also accused of writing a book on miracles without looking at the words translated “miracle” in the Old and New Testaments. Isn’t this a little too much? I do not know what sort of Hebrew scholar Lewis is, but I do know that he reads Greek with as much facility as most of us read English. Dr. Pittenger tells us that had Lewis read his Greek New Testament he would have been more fully aware of the Sitz im Leben of the miracles described there, i.e., he would have noted that though they are symbolically accurate they are not necessarily factually so. I suppose it would do little good to quote the New Testament itself against Dr. Pittenger, since he can assume the same symbolistic finality for all situations, but one does not need to be a theological student to notice that thousands swarmed around Christ in his days on earth simply because of what they at least supposed to be miracles—just plain miracles without “classical” or scholarly qualifications.

Naturalism In Our Bones

Could it be that Dr. Pittenger’s objection to Miracles arises in part from an unstated criticism? In the last chapter of Miracles Lewis gives an unmistakable warning to his readers: “If … you turn to study the historical evidence for yourself, begin with the New Testament and not with books about it.… And when you turn from the New Testament to modern scholars, remember that you go among them as sheep among wolves. Naturalistic assumptions, beggings of the question such as that which I noted on the first page of this book, will meet you on every side—even from the pens of clergymen.… We all have Naturalism in our bones.”

In all my reading of Lewis I think one of his very best qualities is his avoidance of technically theological language. It is the very thing which has made him spiritually thrilling to thousands of people around the world. This directness, this “orthodoxy,” is the element which Dr. Pittenger appears to dislike most. There is of course a place for theologians and all the fine points of theological discourse. As to C. S. Lewis, I am sure that he would be the first to acknowledge that his works are not flawless. But let not the theologians smother this man who brings into the soul the fresh air of spiritual reality.

END

C. S. Lewis and W. Norman Pittenger, two of this generation’s influential apologists, currently are engaged in a debate of words provoked by Dr. Pittenger’s recent criticism of the gifted English author’s views (“A Critique of C. S. Lewis,” The Christian Century, October 1, 1958). Dr. Clyde S. Kilby, Chairman of the English Department at Wheaton College, enters the controversy with this rejoinder in Lewis’ behalf.

The April issue of the Journal of the Central Conference of American Rabbis contained a lengthy article, “Christians and Jews in Western Civilization” by Professor Reinhold Niebuhr of Union Theological Seminary, New York, in which the Christian missionary obligation to the Jew is virtually dissolved. The article attracted wide attention in the secular and religious press, and was received with great joy in many Jewish circles. The editor of the CCAR Journal, Abraham J. Klausner, introducing Niebuhr’s article, stated: “For the first time in Christian history,” we believe, “a leading scholar suggests that an end be put to the attempt to convert the Jews.”

Professor Niebuhr maintains:

These (missionary) activities are wrong not only because they are futile and have little fruit to boast for their exertions. They are wrong because the two faiths despite differences are sufficiently alike for the Jew to find God more easily in terms of his own religious heritage than by subjecting himself to the hazards of guilt feeling involved in a conversion to a faith, which whatever its excellencies, must appear to him as a symbol of an oppressive majority culture. Both Jews and Christians will have to accept the hazards of their historic symbols. These symbols may be the bearers of an unconditioned message to the faithful. But to those outside the faith they are defaced by historic taints. Practically nothing can purify the symbol of Christ as the image of God in the imagination of the Jew from the taint with which ages of Christian oppression in the name of Christ tainted it.… We are reminded … of anti-semitic and semi-fascist groups, claiming the name of Christ for their campaigns of hatred.

Niebuhr recommends:

The problem of the Christian majority, particularly in America, is therefore to come to terms with the stubborn will to live of the Jews as a peculiar people, both religiously and ethnically. The problem can be solved only if the Christian and Gentile majority accepts this fact and ceases to practice tolerance provisionally in the hope that it will encourage assimilation ethnically and conversion religiously.

From the above it follows that Niebuhr’s two main objections to missionary activities among the Jews are these: (l) the efforts are futile and have little fruit to show, (2) they are wrong because the Jew can find God in the pattern of his own religious heritage.

Let us consider these objections.

Futility Of Jewish Missions

The statement that missionary activities among the Jews are futile is untrue. Christ and Christianity were born among the Jews. The first Christians were Jews. The first apostles and martyrs who carried the message of Christ into the pagan world were Jews. The preaching of the Gospel by Peter and Paul to the Jews of their day was not futile then, else there would have been no Christianity. Why should it be futile today?

When Christianity later became the religion mainly of Gentiles, it lost much of its original purity, and above all, its original love for Israel. Instead of a persecuted minority, Christendom became a persecuting majority. In a large measure this alienated the Jews from the Christian faith. Nevertheless, throughout history there have always been earnest Jewish believers in Christ, and whenever the Gospel has been preached in humility and sincerity, it has made its impact upon Jewish minds.

In the middle centuries an arrogant and unchristlike church tried to force Jews into baptism. This left a tragic and lasting scar upon the Jewish mind, even to the present day. However, abuse and distortion of the Christian message by a corrupt Church could not cancel its eternal validity, even as the rejection of Christ by ecclesiastical authorities of his own nation never voided the truth that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish …”

Modern Jewish missions go back to the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and parallel the revival of Christian missions across the world. In spite of severe handicaps and age-old prejudices, the impact of the Gospel upon the Jews throughout Europe, Africa, Palestine and the American Continent was little short of amazing. Those acquainted with the history of Jewish missions have estimated that proportionately conversions to Christ among the Jews have far outnumbered conversions from other religions to Christianity. Qualitatively Jewish Christians have greatly enriched the Church by adding a new dimension of depth, a new sense of reality and immediacy to evangelical Christianity.

Some of the finest pages in the history of the Church during the last 150 years were written by Jewish men won for Christ through the preaching of the Gospel. Among them were Michael Solomon Alexander, first Anglican bishop of Jerusalem, and translator of the New Testament into Hebrew. Many Jewish Christians carried the Gospel not only to their native land, but like the Hebrew Christians of the early Church, went far and wide as ambassadors of Christ. Isidor Loeventhal was the pioneer missionary to Afghanistan and died there as a martyr to Christ. Bishop Schereschevsky was the famed translator of the Bible into Mandarin Chinese and founder of the St. John University in Shanghai. Neander, the Jewish Christian, is known as a great Church historian. Alfred Edersheim, Oxford University professor, wrote extensively about early Christianity, and his works are still studied profitably by earnest students of the life of Christ and his times. In more recent years Jewish Christians of the highest spiritual and intellectual stature included Adolph Saphir, David Baron, Rabbi J. Lichtenstein of Budapest, Max Reich, and others.

Jewish Interest In Christ

Today there is a resurgence of Jewish interest in the person of Christ and in the New Testament. Never before has the subject of Christ been given so much attention in Jewish literature as now. In Israel the New Testament is used in many government schools. Most Jewish homes have a New Testament in some language. Today more Jews are accepting Christ here in America and in Europe than ever before in the history of the Jewish nation. There are probably more Jewish Christians in the world nowadays than there were in the early Church. Most of these people do not seek assimilation, but continue to consider themselves as Jews, the core of a spiritual remnant. They were driven to Christ by an inner need which Judaism could not meet.

There is hardly a major city in the Western world without a substantial group of Jewish believers in Christ. In this country many belong to various churches of their choice, while a goodly number have formed themselves into several Hebrew Christian congregations with their own pastors, elders, and other church officers. These Jewish Christians represent a cross section of the Jewish community in America at large. They are craftsmen, laborers, businessmen, professional men, people of every walk of life, including the proverbial “tailors, bakers, and candlestick makers.”

In Philadelphia some 150 to 200 people, of whom the vast majority are Jewish Christians, gather at the annual dinners of the local branch of the Hebrew Christian Alliance. These represent a fraction of the Jewish Christians in that one city. Similar gatherings could be duplicated in many major metropolitan areas of the United States.

Is this a futile effort? With little fruit?

The preaching of the Gospel usually is an uphill task, not only among the Jews but among all people. It was so when Christ and his apostles were the original missionaries. Why should it be less so for his lesser disciples of this generation?

In any case Christian missionary activities are not determined primarily by their fruitfulness or fruitlessness. The determining factor for the Christian is: (1) obedience to his Lord, who commands, “Ye shall be my witnesses,” and (2) the inner compulsion of the believer who, if he is true, must witness.

Jewish Missions Are Wrong

Niebuhr’s second argument is this: “They (the Jewish missionaries) are wrong, because the two religions, despite their differences are sufficiently alike for the Jew to find God more easily in terms of his own religious heritage than by subjecting himself to the hazard of the guilty feeling in the conversion to the Christian faith.”

Dr. Niebuhr’s assertion about the futility of Jewish missionary activities can be partly excused by ignorance of the facts. But the second contention of this prominent theologian is little short of a betrayal of the Christian faith. It goes far beyond the issue of Jewish missions. For if what Niebuhr maintains is true, then the Christian faith is not the Truth and the Rock of Salvation, but a delusion and a snare.

If these two religions are so basically alike, then why in the first place did Christ have to come into the world to die upon the Cross? Under what kind of delusion did he labor when he proclaimed, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the father but by me?” (John 14:6). Didn’t he know that “The two religions are sufficiently alike for the Jew to find God more easily in the pattern of his own religious heritage?”

What kind of an obsession was that of the apostle Peter when he declared to a vast crowd of Jews in Jerusalem, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). If Peter and the other martyrs could only have studied theology under Professor Niebuhr, would they have deviated from the need to lay down their lives for their Master? If Niebuhr be right, why did Paul, so steeped in Judaism and its traditions, declare, “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16).

And what of Professor Niebuhr’s statement that the Jew who accepts Christ does so outside his “own religious heritage and subjects himself to the hazard of a guilty feeling?”

Christ and the New Testament are the Jew’s own religious heritage, at least as authentic as the Rabbinical heritage, and certainly far more nourishing. And, as for the hazard of a guilty feeling, the contrary is true. The Hebrew Prayer Book for The Day of Atonement reflects the tremendous burden of guilt under which the Jewish people labor. The more conscientious and sensitive the soul of the Jew, the greater the sense of guilt. It is when a Jew finds Christ that he is able to rid himself of the guilty feeling through Christ his sin-bearer.

There is no alternative: If Niebuhr is right, then Christ and his apostles were wrong. But the men of every nation (including Jews) who have found in Christ forgiveness of sin, new life and the peace of God which passeth all understanding, would declare: “No, Christ has not deceived us. He is God’s power unto salvation.”

Those of us who were raised in Judaism, know from our own most intimate experience, that it is incapable of satisfying the deepest spiritual yearning of the human soul. Like millions of other Jews, there was a time when we had lost touch with God but found our way back to the living God and to a satisfying fellowship with him through Christ.

Multitudes of Jews today, who are not Christians, attest that Judaism has left them spiritually sterile and unsatisfied. Professor Niebuhr need only follow the Jewish press and read what leading Jews themselves say about the spiritual condition of Jews today.

In saying that missionary activities among the Jews are futile and wrong, Niebuhr goes far beyond this immediate issue. His is essentially a denial of Christ. For if Niebuhr be right, that Christ is powerless to win the Jewish heart and mind, why should he be able to win others for himself? If the deepest longings of the Jew can be satisfied through “the Jewish heritage of religion,” could not others also find fulfilment in their own religious heritage?

Where then is the uniqueness, the universality, and finality of Christ and of his Gospel?

Plea For Tolerance

Niebuhr’s plea for tolerance vis-a-vis the Jews is as confusing as it is misleading. Every sincere Christian and every man brought up on the ideals of Western democracy is in favor of tolerance. We would oppose any discrimination that would infringe upon the civil, religious, or cultural rights of the Jews, or of any other man. But does tolerance mean that a Christian should be spiritually deaf and mute and cease giving expression and sharing with Jews or anybody else his deepest convictions and his faith?

Missionary activity is at the very heart of Christianity. Without is there is no Christianity. “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” were the last words of our risen Saviour.

Does tolerance mean that we disobey Him and disregard the innermost promptings so ingrained in the soul of every Christian believer? The kind of tolerance which Dr. Niebuhr advocates is not really tolerance but moribund indifference, born posthumously of a faith which died.

As a matter of fact, everybody, whether he knows it or not, is a missionary of some cause. We share and propagate our political, social, educational and economic beliefs. We even spend millions of dollars propagating certain brands of cigarettes or motor cars, beer or toothpaste.

When two people meet and each of them advocates his particular viewpoint, they are both missionaries. Should the Christian be deprived of his privilege to advocate his Lord and His Gospel, or to share that which means to him more than anything else in the world? Would that be tolerance?

The Christian has a right and a duty to express his faith and to seek to win everybody else for his Lord. Everybody else has a right to listen or not to listen to him, to believe or to disbelieve. And as long as Christ will continue to call men to follow him and to become fishers of men, there will always be missionaries. When Christians stop being missionaries they will stop being Christians.

END

Two Ways

Religion may be fashioned by a man

from out the hope and heartache of his need,

may draw its form, its spirit, and its creed

from desperation; but it never can

find God that way. For God is past the scan

of human mind, and though a man may seed

his soul with speculation, yet the weed

resulting leaves him worse than he began.

Religion cannot rise from earth to God.

It must come down from God to man. The Word

in which we find our life is He who trod

the land we know, who spoke what we have heard.

When Christ was born, our God came from above.

By showing us Himself, God showed his love.

TERENCE Y. MULLINS

Victor Buksbazen is Vice President of The International Hebrew Christian Alliance of London and General Secretary of The Friends of Israel. He lives in Philadelphia where he is active as President of the local branch of the Hebrew Christian Alliance. Mr. Buksbazen was born of Jewish parents in Warsaw, Poland. It was here that he accepted Christ in 1922.