American society lacks commitment to a cohesive world-life view.

Christianity today’s Gallup Poll of social attitudes reflects both remarkable convergence and divergence among evangelicals, clergy, and the general public, but leaves some important issues in midair. Here are eight conclusions:

• The American public put physical health far above spiritual salvation as life’s major need. That fact may explain the broad appeal of some healing movements that proclaim both bodily and spiritual healing.

• The general public rank financial security even above personal freedom as a human priority. While evangelicals stipulate personal salvation foremost, they also rank personal freedom lower than financial security.

• In contrast with an impressive response by evangelicals and the clergy, about 30 percent of the general public have done little or nothing to alleviate poverty.

• While most evangelicals designate world evangelization as their basic duty, the public perception is that the Christian’s prime task should be personal and family spiritual growth.

• Clergy are more tolerant of divorce than evangelicals, but the general public are much more permissive than either the clergy or evangelicals.

• One in three of the general public totally abstains from alcohol, while one in three drinks excessively. Among evangelicals, two out of three are total abstainers. One-fourth of the conversionalist evangelicals who are not abstainers say they sometimes drink more than they think they should.

• Lay evangelicals consider the church’s political and economic pronouncements less important than do clergy, including evangelical clergy, and the general public are even less persuaded of their value. Conversionalist evangelicals esteem them slightly higher than do other evangelicals.

• The general public are more reluctant than evangelicals to seek clergy counsel in times of personal or financial crisis, and, unless problems are alcohol or drug related, they also avoid community agencies. But in times of spiritual crisis, the public turn first to the clergy.

Some of the poll’s findings on major points:

The Christian’s Prime Task. The general public much more (37 percent) than evangelicals (27 percent) consider personal and family spiritual growth to be the prime Christian priority, whereas twice as many evangelicals (about 53 percent) consider world evangelization the top priority. These figures perhaps reflect the greater stability of Christian family life and the fact that the evangelistic mandate devolves upon believers rather than upon the world. But two in five evangelicals declare personal and family spiritual growth the second most important Christian priority. The public divide almost equally over family, piety, joining community causes, and strengthening the local church as what they perceive to be the Christian’s second most important duty. Evangelicals, on the other hand, by two to one consider involvement in groups and causes that strengthen the entire community less important than strengthening the local church. Only 4 percent of evangelicals regard efforts to influence public legislation as Christians’ second most important priority, compared to 11 percent of the general public.

Needs of the Disadvantaged. That society has a duty to meet “basic needs” of children, the handicapped, and the elderly was affirmed by 98 percent of evangelicals and by 95 percent of the general public. Most respondents agree that these needs should be met by a combination of government and voluntary organizations. Conversionalist evangelicals want government to assume a larger role than voluntary organizations. But 10 percent of all evangelicals and 8 percent of the general public say that voluntary organizations and individuals rather than government should be responsible for meeting basic needs.

Confronting Poverty. Noteworthy differences emerge between the general public, evangelicals, and the clergy over the preferred course of personal involvement in confronting poverty. Evangelicals (42 percent) and the general public (33 percent) emphasize personal contributions to religious and community organizations that aid the poor, in contrast to the clergy (33 percent) who put more emphasis on direct personal help and on persuading church, religious, and government organizations to assist. Virtually none of the clergy think that government taxes and emergency aid exhaust one’s duty to the needy; yet 6 percent of evangelicals do think so, and 18 percent of the general public consider government-supported programs and emergency assistance as completely fulfilling one’s duty.

Personal Response. In coping with poverty locally, 27 percent of the general public conceded that they have done none of the things they acknowledged to be their duty, and another 3 percent can’t recall what they have done—a remarkable gulf between conscience and performance among an overall 30 percent. Among conversionalist evangelicals and among clergy of all groups, only 1 percent fall into the nonperformance category.

Plea For Guidance

The cry for help by Christians who have identified spiritual growth for themselves and their families as a top Christian priority requires vigorous response by the church. The building of the kingdom of God in our world and our time may well depend upon that response.

The message to the church is loud and clear: Help us to find our way as Christians. This is a cry of those who seek first things first, and the church dare not disregard it. It is a cry to the church to bring the good news to believers and nonbelivers alike, for increased emphasis by the church on the nurture of its members can only increase the important and necessary role of the church in the secular world, the so-called world of public affairs.

We know that practicing Christians, firmly rooted in the faith, bear powerful and daily witness in every facet of our national, state, and local life. Believing Christians are the dynamic link between the temporal world of everyday living and the eternal values that Christianity espouses.

The church must therefore affirm and reaffirm that Christian participation in the issues of our day must be measured against Christian principles, with consummate respect for justice and ultimate truth. The church must light the way, nudge gently but firmly toward the eternal light of Christ’s teachings, his mercy and his love.

Causes and procedures come and go, but the Word of God endures forever. My plea is this: We must know the Word, What is that Word? Tell us again and again, that we may be guided by it in every facet of our lives—the personal and the public, and above all, the spiritual.

Ruth Beeler White, director of consumer communications, U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

About half of the evangelicals contribute to religious and community organizations, about two-thirds of the clergy do, though only 38 percent of the general public do. This is the general public’s most extensive involvement: only 19 percent personally and directly help the poor. About one-third of all evangelicals personally and directly help the poor, but twice as many clergy do so. By almost three to one, clergy are more active than evangelicals, and by four to one more active than the general public in trying to persuade church, religious, and government organizations to aid the poor.

Political and economic pronuncements. Ecumenical study conferences and bureaucracies publicizing political and economic positions intended to influence public and political opinion have long drawn heavy fire from their own constituencies as well as from independents. How do the churches and the secular community now view such pronouncements? Whereas most of the clergy (52 percent) consider such pronouncements “very important,” and 81 percent of the clergy reckon them as either “very important” or “fairly important,” evangelicals (34 percent) are somewhat less convinced; only 60 percent find them to be “very” or “fairly” important. By contrast, the general public figure was only 44 percent, while 27 percent of the general public declare such statements “not at all important,” and 16 percent of evangelicals agree. Surprisingly, conversionalist evangelicals value politico-economic pronouncements slightly higher than do other evangelicals.

Religious lobbies. On religious lobbying in behalf of specific legislation, more of the general populace oppose (45 percent) than approve (41 percent), whereas both evangelicals and clergy favor such lobbies (by 62 and 82 percent respectively), with conversionalists slightly more disapproving than others.

Divorce. Regarding divorce, the general public and the clergy are notably more permissive than evangelicals, with conversionalists least permissive. Of the clergy and the public, 10 percent held that divorce should always be avoided. But belief that divorce, however painful, is preferable to an unhappy marriage ranked highest among the general public (45 percent), almost twice as many as evangelicals who hold this view. Among evangelicals, about 60 percent, compared to 64 percent of the clergy and 40 percent of the general public, hold that divorce should be avoided except in an “extreme situation.”

Fears Of Lobbying

As the cleavage between a secular anti-Christian society and Christians has widened, two results have followed: (1) non-Christians increasingly see Christian values as a threat to their way of life and view “Christian legislation” with suspicion or antagonism (e.g., the assault on Anita Bryant), and (2) Christians and Christian organizations have increasingly found themselves regulated and curbed by governmental agencies and laws. The survey shows that the general public fears what will happen if Christians en masse strongly influence legislation, while Christians, on the other hand, fear what will happen if their influence is weak.

Recent threats to Christian education by regulative agencies suggest that Christians should try to persuade congressmen to defeat restrictive legislation, which is something different from the enactment of “Christian legislation.” Given the federal government’s insatiable appetite for regulation and power, it is inevitable that Christian organizations will find it necessary to lobby aggressively for their interests.

Leland Ryken, professor of English, Wheaton College, Illinois.

Remarriage after divorce. The general public consider remarriage after divorce “always acceptable” by a percentage (37 percent) significantly greater than the clergy (11 percent), or than evangelicals (about 13 percent). By contrast, 37 percent of the clergy approve remarriage only if reconciliation is impossible after divorce; 27 percent only in cases of desertion or adultery; 18 percent believe remarriage is acceptable only after a mate’s death, a view also held by 25 percent of evangelicals and 17 percent of the general public.

Deepest Personal Need. In one of the most striking contrasts disclosed by the poll, almost two-thirds of the evangelicals declare salvational closeness to God to be life’s most important need, while only 21 percent of the general public rate it highest. Eliminating the evangelicals from the figure for the general public would leave only a tiny fraction of nonevangelical general public holding closeness to God as life’s greatest need. By contrast, 47 percent of the general populace designated physical well-being as their first or second most important personal need, but only about one-third of evangelicals did so. Both the general public and evangelicals elevate love and affection and a meaningful life above financial security as a personal need.

Seven percent of the general public declared financial security to be their greatest personal need, above personal freedom (6 percent), accomplishment (4 percent), or friendship (4 percent). Yet, love and affection (16 percent) and purpose in life (14 percent) outweighed these considerations. Among evangelicals, 5 percent (not far behind the public’s 7 percent) listed financial security as most important; for both, it outranked friendship and achievement. As the second most important personal need after salvation, evangelicals valued personal freedom more than a sense of achievement, but conversionalists valued it lower than financial security.

Seeking Help in Trouble. In a time of trouble the general public and evangelicals alike would turn first for help concerning personal growth to a member of their immediate family; two in five named this their initial resource. But whereas evangelicals, in almost the same numbers, would turn as readily to a clergyman above a friend or neighbor, the general public ranked second by equal percentages a friend, neighbor, or clergyman. Conversionalists are slightly less prone to turn to a minister than fellow evangelicals. Eight percent of the general public said they would try to work things out on their own. Reliance on government agencies for help rated very low, and reliance on volunteer community organizations little better.

Alcohol or Drug Problems. The percentages change notably when the problem concerns alcohol or drugs. The general public would turn first to a volunteer community agency (27 percent), then to the clergy (20 percent), next to an immediate family member. But evangelicals, by contrast, by two to one would turn first to a clergyman, then to a member of the immediate family. Some 5 percent of the general public and almost as many evangelicals said they would not know where to turn.

Facing a Spiritual Problem. The percentages change even more dramatically when a spiritual problem is in view. Both the general public (64 percent) and the evangelical community (75 percent) would, by a very wide margin, turn first to the clergy. However, 12 percent of the general public indicate that they would turn first to an immediate family member and so would 7 percent of the evangelicals.

Alcoholic Beverages. Two-thirds of the general public use liquor, wine, or beer at least occasionally (double the number who did so a quarter of a century ago). Clergy divide almost equally: 47 percent use alcoholic beverages; 53 percent totally abstain. Evangelicals reverse the figures for the total population—two-thirds are total abstainers. Of those who use alcoholic beverages, more than one in three of the general public admits to excessive drinking at times, whereas one in five clergymen do so. One in five of the general public says that use of liquor has been a cause of family trouble, and one in nine clergymen admits the same thing. Compared to orthodox evangelicals, conversionalists who drink are more likely to drink too much (25 to 17 percent).

Taking a closer look at the breakdowns of poll data, many striking factors emerge. Slightly more women than men consider the family’s spiritual growth and world evangelization top priorities. Men more than women tend to be group joiners or cause joiners, but they also take more interest in strengthening the local church. Methodists, Lutherans, and Catholics show least interest in world evangelization. Southern Baptists and all other Baptists are most evangelistically oriented. Notably less evangelistically concerned than others are people with college backgrounds. They are more interested in the family’s spiritual growth and in joining groups and causes. Those most interested in evangelism have had a conversion experience, read the Bible frequently, and are likely to be tithers. Americans living in the South are twice as interested in evangelistic priorities as those living elsewhere.

For meeting basic human needs, Baptists (26 percent) and Southern Baptists (25 percent), along with Lutherans (25 percent) and Catholics (24 percent), lean more heavily than Methodists on government help. At the other end of the scale, Catholics and Lutherans depend least on individual resources. But people of all churches designate a combination of government and voluntary organizations as the preferred means of providing for basic needs. The older and less educated people are, the more they approve government as the prime source. Southern Baptists (25 percent), closely followed by Methodists (24 percent), and other Baptists (23 percent) personally and directly help the poor in noteworthy numbers; Catholics (13 percent) and Lutherans (15 percent) are least inclined to do so.

More Southern Baptists (31 percent) than others consider public political and economic pronouncements by religious organizations “very important”; other Baptists run a close second (27 percent). By contrast, many in mainstream churches seem now to hold such pronouncements in lower esteem. Among Catholics and Methodists, only 17 percent consider them “very important” (Lutherans only 14 percent); and, in fact, 25 percent of Catholics (31 percent of Methodists and Lutherans) declared them to be of no value.

Fifty-four percent of Southern Baptists approve persuasion from religious groups to promote specific congressional legislation, with other Baptists (49 percent) close behind. Catholics who approve religious lobbying (44 percent) barely outnumber those who disapprove (42 percent). Likewise, as many Lutherans (46 percent) disapprove as approve; and, amazingly, more Methodists (49 percent) disapprove than approve (37 percent).

Concern For Society

Evangelicals, this survey indicates, have been underestimating their own regard for, support of, and participation in “social action.” Indeed, the more frequently they read the Bible, attend church, tithe, witness, watch religious television, and listen to religious radio, the more committed they are to social involvement. These findings should encourage other evangelicals to come out of that particular closet.

A sobering note is that on so many social issues, the general public and evangelicals differ so little. Evangelicals still appear to be followers or fellow marchers, rather than easily identifiable leaders. For example, both believe overwhelmingly that society has special obligations to children, the handicapped, and the elderly. Both think their obligation should be met by a combination of government and voluntary organizations, and both minimize the obligation of individuals.

When it comes to poverty programs, although a somewhat larger percentage of evangelicals than the general public believe they should personally and directly help the poor, the largest percentage of both feel their contributions should be channeled through religious and community organizations that help the poor. Most clergy, on the other hand, feel they should personally and directly help the poor.

Surprising was the high importance evangelicals attach to political and economic pronouncements; they led the general public by as much as 11 percentage points. Clergy led all. Support was general and substantial by lay evangelicals and clergy alike for, of all things, political lobbying.

This survey on social attitudes offers evidence that increasing numbers of evangelicals are realizing that although they are not of the world they are most assuredly in it, and that when they own Jesus Christ as Lord they do not resign from society but shoulder a new concern for it.

Kenneth L. Wilson, special assistant to the president, World Vision International.

Fourteen percent of Catholics oppose divorce regardless of circumstances, followed by other Baptists (12 percent), Southern Baptists (10 percent), and Lutherans and Methodists (6 percent). Southern Baptists, however, by 48 percent, believe more than other Protestants that divorce should be avoided except in extreme situations; many Catholics (43 percent) also support this view. By contrast with others, about eight out of ten evangelicals reject divorce altogether, or permit it only in extreme situations.

Methodists (44 percent) are much more open than others to remarriage after divorce on any grounds; Southern Baptists (29 percent) are less open than Catholics (32 percent). Yet one in ten of all Baptists is unsure about its propriety. More Lutherans (38 percent) than others think remarriage is acceptable (regardless of the reason for divorce) if reconciliation is impossible, with Methodists next at 33 percent. Other Baptists find it least acceptable and Catholics are in the middle. More Catholics (25 percent) than others think that remarriage is acceptable only after a mate’s death, with all Baptists a close second. Only 9 percent of Catholics and Methodists next at 33 percent. It is least acceptable to other Baptists, while Catholics are in the middle. More tery or desertion. Generally, Catholics and all Baptists tend to be more restrictive, and Lutherans and Methodists more permissive, on this issue.

On divorce and remarriage, Prof. Paul Ramsey of Princeton University, a distinguished Methodist layman, comments, “Methodists have moved to remarriage following ‘no fault’ divorce more rapidly than has the general public.” In this trend he sees “an extraordinarily individualistic concept of the marriage covenant. Only one partner (still and for the foreseeable future, the husband) testifies that the marriage is irreconcilable, and therefore it is!”

Among those who put salvation first among personal needs, Catholics and Methodists (14 percent each) ranked lowest. Methodists (31 percent) gave physical well-being highest priority. Catholics (19 percent) and Methodists (16 percent) rated love and affection, along with health, as more important than salvation. Lutherans put least emphasis on financial security (2 percent).

While evangelicals would turn first to an immediate family member for personal counsel, Southern Baptists and Lutherans are less disposed to do so. Compared to members of other denominations, they more readily turn to their pastors. Notably few Methodists (17 percent) would go first to a clergyman. As people move through college, they are less disposed to consult a pastor first. But in few cases would more than 1 percent of any subgroup approach a government organization for such help; the small exception (2 percent) are those who listen to religious radio, are tithers and frequent Bible readers, and talk often about their faith—although any causal connection is difficult to discern.

When facing alcohol or drug problems, Catholics are most likely (31 percent), closely followed by Lutherans (30 percent), and Methodists (29 percent), to turn first to a volunteer community organization, whereas Southern Baptists (26 percent) and other Baptists (24 percent) would turn first to a pastor. People tend to seek clergy counsel more as they become older.

While most persons would go first to the clergy with a spiritual problem, women (67 percent) more than men (61 percent) do so while more men (8 percent) than women (5 percent) seek help from a neighbor or a friend first. Southern Baptists and Methodists (74 percent each) are most likely to rely on a pastor, though Methodists would not do so for problems other than spiritual.

Of the general public, more men (72 percent) than women (60 percent) imbibe alcoholic beverages; 40 percent of American women and 28 percent of the men are total abstainers. Among drinkers, twice as many American men (47 percent) as women (23 percent) say they drink more than they ought. Some 20 percent of the male imbibers and 18 percent of female imbibers say their drinking has precipitated family troubles. Lutherans (79 percent) and Catholics (76 percent) rank highest in use of alcohol, but 67 percent of Methodists also do so, a surprising statistic in view of Methodism’s leading role in the cause of Prohibition earlier in this century. Southern Baptists, most of whom agree to an abstinence clause in their membership covenant, have only 53 percent total abstainers. Alcohol consumption is highest (77 percent) in the 18–29 age bracket, and slowly recedes to 68 percent in the 30–49 year bracket and to 55 percent for those age 50 and older. The figure for those with college backgrounds is 79 percent.

Perils Of Pronouncements

The questions to be raised concerning the pronouncement-ridden churches are these: Whom do religious organizations think they are addressing? Who listens? It seems not to be the public generally, nor the ordinary Christian in the pew. The clergy likely believe that political and economic pronouncements help make Christianity relevant to the contemporary world. The question then is, What is the standard of relevance? Several suspicions surface:

1. Are the clergy seeking to use a crutch to make the gospel relevant rather than the slower but more surely working yeast of their vocation that may create a Christian moral ethos?

2. Have the pronouncement-ridden churches and these clergy been brainwashed to believe that any other course is a censurable individualism versus the social importance of authentic Christian churches and tradition?

3. Finally, and most important, what is meant by relevance? If the general public does not consider most church political and economic pronouncements very important, nor the Christian in the pew, whence comes the churches’ and the clergy’s definition of importance?

I suggest that these notions are incestuously derived from the secular elites, the makers and shakers of contemporary opinion. Our churches and clergy have derived their judgments of importance and relevance from what Francis Bacon called “the idols of the market place.” Better said, from the streets, from the pundits, from secularized liberals in universities. So they tithe mint and anise and cumin, and neglect the weightier matters of the gospel, and the law contained in that gospel.

Paul Ramsey, professor of religion, Princeton University, New Jersey.

Liquor has become a cause of family trouble among other Baptists (24 percent) more than in other denominations; among Southern Baptists and Methodists, 20 percent reported that it had caused family problems. Among Catholics, liquor caused family trouble for 16 percent, and among Lutherans, for 12 percent.

The poll leaves unexplored the impact of public education and of radio and television upon community and Christian social attitudes. It cross-tabulates educational background (grade school, high school, college) with certain convictions and practices. More people listen to religious radio and television, for example, than consider world evangelism the church’s primary duty. The poll reflects no evidence of decline of faith in education as a character-shaping influence, although evidence is presented that college learning nurtures permissiveness and puts a distance between many students and clergy.

Yet the poll maintains a useful wide-angle focus on important contemporary trends, with special attention to the stability of the home, basic human survival needs, and noteworthy ethical and social attitudes. It reflects, among other things, the destabilizing family impact of alcoholism, although it does not trace the destructive habit of cigarette smoking in a society that curiously declares human health and well-being to be life’s prime priority. What the survey most clearly attests is that American society lacks a cohesive world-life view in terms of which consistent commitments are ventured. And further, although considerably more idealism and self-sacrifice are to be found in the churches, many values-related uncertainties tend also to shadow the lives of people in Christian congregations.

Carl F. H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, is lecturer at large for World Vision International. An author of many books, he lives in Arlington, Virginia.

The use of higher criticism to fuel doubts about the Bible has obscured its significant contributions.

Early in this century Christians hotly debated the validity of higher criticism. Some Bible students declared it would destroy Christian faith and undermine the churches. Others, insisting it provided a valuable step forward, asked, “Why should we be afraid of scientific fact? How could Christian faith be harmed by treating the Bible the same way as other books?”

The phrase “higher criticism” came into wide use in the eighteenth century. The term did not imply superiority to “lower criticism,” but simply that it dealt with a different aspect of literary study. Lower criticism tried to determine the correct text of ancient documents and is now generally called “textual criticism.” Higher criticism dealt with authorship, dating, and unity, so in itself the term conveyed no idea of anything harmful.

At the close of the Middle Ages, that period we now call the Renaissance, many were interested in the study of ancient documents—secular as well as biblical. Students were thrilled as a new universe seemed to open before them. The first impulse was to accept anything in an ancient manuscript as necessarily true, but then scholars began to search for frauds among these manuscripts and higher criticism became a useful tool.

Higher Criticism and Frauds

In one of its earliest successes, higher criticism discovered in the fifteenth century that the so-called Donation of Constantine was not genuine. For centuries this document had been taken as proof that the first Roman emperor to become a Christian had turned over a large part of Italy to the Roman bishop when he himself moved to his new capital at Constantinople. In 1440 Lorenzo Valla presented evidence that the Donation contains references to historical events that occurred several centuries after Constantine, and therefore could not be genuine. Although scholars disagree over the perpetrator of the fraud and his purpose, all now agree the document was a fraud. So indisputable was Valla’s work that seven years later Pope Nicholas made him an apostolic secretary. In the next century, after the Reformation had begun, Luther used Valla’s evidence as part of his polemic against papal claims.

In postbiblical Christian works, we may illustrate the success of higher criticism by looking at material from the second century. Nine writings supposedly from Justin Martyr have come to light, but critics are now convinced that only three of these are genuine: the two Apologies, and the Dialogue with Trypho. The others may be frauds or later unsigned works, mistakenly ascribed to Justin.

In certain instances, therefore, higher criticism has been valuable in detecting fraudulent literature. We are grateful for its service to the church and to scholarship in separating authentic works of early Christians from later productions.

Higher Criticism and the Bible

The story of higher criticism as applied to the Bible is, unfortunately, far less happy. Although some critical scholars have attempted to show that one canonical book or another of the Bible is fraudulent, no one has ever proved the case.

In 1805 W. M. DeWette declared that Deuteronomy was written not by Moses, as the Bible says, but by the Jerusalem priests in the time of Josiah, to increase their power and emoluments by centralizing worship at Jerusalem. His idea won rapid acceptance among critics, so liberal scholars commonly came to speak of the book as “a pious fraud.” This view of Deuteronomy was held by most critical scholars until well into the present century. Then archaeologists began to show that many parts of Deuteronomy reflect a period earlier than Josiah’s. Today most liberal scholars believe that the book as a whole was gradually put together nearer to the time of Josiah than to that of Moses, but few if any would now consider it “a pious fraud.”

If the evidence indeed proved Deuteronomy to be a fraud, all who love the truth would, of course, accept it. But if such proof were found, evangelicals would be greatly confounded as the book itself claims to be written by Moses and the internal evidence from the book generally fits in with a Mosaic authorship. The New Testament, moreover, often quotes it as his work. Jesus accepted the entire Old Testament as God’s Word, free from error and thoroughly dependable. One who accepts the lordship of Christ, therefore, can rest assured that Moses was the primary author of Deuteronomy, though its last chapter may have been added by another. This would be true even if its vocabularies had been updated in later centuries.

In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, great skepticism prevailed regarding all ancient documents, including the Bible. Some scholars held that any such document must be assumed fraudulent unless proved true. But the situation today is quite the reverse as far as general literature is concerned, largely because of the rise of archaeology.

Higher Criticism and Authorship

Detection of fraud, however, was only one portion of the work of higher criticism. Determination of authorship was another. Its task here is much more difficult. Various theories about the originator of the Donation of Constantine have led to no solid agreement. The same is true of many other proven forgeries.

Some books of the Bible are anonymous (for example, Genesis, Samuel, certain of the Psalms, Hebrews), and the stated authorship of others has been challenged. What has higher criticism to say about the real authors of these books?

While the Bible designates Moses as the author of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, it makes no such statement about Genesis. Jesus refers to statements in these other four books as the work of Moses, but makes no such reference to Genesis. Did Moses write Genesis, or did Joseph? Perhaps Abraham wrote the history up to his time; then Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, or others added to the account then being preserved among the Hebrews; finally, Moses may have joined it to the four Pentateuchal books he wrote. If higher criticism could give us provable information about the writer of Genesis, such information would be welcome. But information of this nature would not bear on our conviction that Genesis, like the rest of the Pentateuch, is God’s Word and free from error. This conviction rests ultimately not on who wrote the book but on the authority of Christ, who expressed full confidence in the entire Old Testament.

Those who believe the Bible to be the true Word of God accept its own witness to the authorship of the biblical books. But in some cases the name of a book indicates its subject rather than its author. Many psalms are anonymous, although the psalm headings name an author in a majority of cases. Nearly half claim David as author; one names Moses, and two, Solomon. Several ascribe their authority to Asaph. We do not know for sure that the names of all of the authors specified in the headings were really attached to the original psalms. In any case, many other psalms are anonymous.

Higher criticism has tried to determine at least the period in which these psalms were written. Some of them use terminology that suggests the Babylonian exile. Fifty years ago higher critics taught that many supposedly Davidic psalms reflected Maccabean times, many centuries after David lived. Today few would say any were written so late.

We have no clear evidence as to the authorship of Hebrews. Thirteen epistles specifically state that Paul is their author, but Hebrews nowhere says who wrote it. Some have suggested Paul, and others, Barnabas, Apollos, or even Nathaniel. We would be grateful if higher criticism could give us a convincing answer (though again, it would not affect the book’s reliability).

A further complexity in authorship arises where the author used a scribe or assistant. Toward the end of the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul indicates that he was writing with his own hand, perhaps implying that this was not his usual custom. He may have been following a procedure also used in parts of the Old Testament where the material was dictated to a scribe. Jeremiah, for instance, dictated his prophecies to Baruch. Nor can we rule out the idea that on occasion a writer may have given an assistant a general idea of what he wanted, telling him to put it into written form. In such a case, he would have checked it over to be sure it represented what he wanted to say, and therefore he could truly be called its author. The Holy Spirit would have guided the entire process so that what was finally written expressed the ideas God desired his people to have.

Probably Paul seldom followed this latter procedure, since he was highly educated and must have had confidence in his ability to express himself in Greek. But the situation may have been different in the case of Peter and John. The styles of First and Second Peter differ so considerably that some critics have suggested one is a fraud. Yet Peter could well have written one book in Greek himself (II Peter?) and, for the other, expressed his thought in Aramaic to an associate who was more experienced in writing Greek (I Peter). This associate could then have written Peter’s ideas in his own style, afterward making alterations Peter might have suggested. The two letters would thus differ in style; yet, under the direction of the Holy Spirit both would express Peter’s thought as truly as if Peter had dictated every word. John Calvin held such a view, but had no doubt that both presented Peter’s thoughts accurately. Higher criticism has, however, been insufficiently cautious in drawing conclusions about fraud from stylistic data.

Style is an especially poor guide to authorship if the subject matter of the texts differs greatly. Styles vary with different subjects. Fifty years ago many Americans were charmed by the writings of “David Grayson,” who wrote such books as Adventures in Contentment, The Friendly Road, and other beautiful idylls of country life. Another group of Americans was greatly interested in the economic and political writings of Ray Stannard Baker, who edited the Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson and wrote such books as The New Industrial Unrest and Woodrow Wilson and the World Settlement. Few if any would have guessed that both sets of books came from the same author. Knowing his books would appeal to different groups of people. Baker used a pseudonym, David Grayson, for some of them. The two styles differed greatly because of the great difference in the subjects.

Reflecting on the use of different styles by the same author, Gilbert Highet of Columbia University declares that while Gibbon had only one style (and therefore becomes monotonous) most good writers have many styles. Cicero, he points out, had at least six.

So differing styles are no proof of different authors, for the same author often can and does employ different styles. Yet an identical style found in two lengthy pieces of writing is support for a single author. The book of Isaiah is a case in point. The author claims in the text to be Isaiah the prophet, and New Testament references support this. Despite the different subjects discussed, moreover, the language of all sections of Isaiah is strikingly similar. This author possessed unique literary gifts, and they are evident throughout the book. If one were to listen to 10 consecutive verses from almost any part of Isaiah, and then to 10 verses from almost any other part of the Bible, he would have no difficulty in determining which series Isaiah wrote.

After some higher critics had generally accepted the idea of “a second Isaiah” on the ground that predictive prophecy was impossible, some of them continued to marvel at its great similarity of style to “first Isaiah.” One even said that this second Isaiah wrote in such a way as almost to make one think that he was actually Isaiah come back from the dead! Higher critics who have adopted a naturalist framework on which to stretch the books of the Bible have not done well in helping us to determine the author of the biblical Book of Isaiah. The same could also be said for the Book of Daniel.

Any light that higher criticism can therefore shed on the authorship of a book of the Bible, or on the circumstances of its writing, is desirable. Yet we must take great care to avoid being misled by antisupernaturalists who rule out the activity of God in directing the writers.

Christians are interested in every fact that can be discovered about the books of the Bible. When the author is explicitly named in the text, we do not bury our heads in the sand and refuse to consider evidence that a biblical book might be a fraud (but we are convinced that, as a matter of fact, no biblical book is fraudulent). And when authorship is not stated we are interested in any valid evidence that can help us determine who the author is and the circumstances in which he wrote.

Higher Criticism and Literary Sources

During the last two centuries higher criticism has devoted an even larger portion of its activity to dividing books into alleged original source documents written by a variety of authors. Much of this activity has focused on two groups of material, the writings of Homer and the books of the Bible, but most other ancient or medieval books such as those of Shakespeare have been similarly treated.

Until recently it was common for critics to claim that they could separate out of Shakespeare’s plays portions he had written himself and portions from others; some even claimed that almost everything came from others. The extreme reached by this type of “source criticism” was somewhat ironically described by George Steiner in 1962:

“In the late nineteenth century dismemberment was all the rage. In a single chapter of Luke, textual analysis revealed five distinct levels of authorship and interpolation. The plays attributed to that illiterate actor Shakespeare appeared to have been compiled by a committee that included Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Marlowe, recusant Catholics, and printers’ devils of extraordinary ingenuity. This fine fury of decomposition lasted well into the 1930s. As late as 1934 Gilbert Murray could discover no reputable scholar ready to defend the view that a single poet had written either or both the Iliad and the Odyssey. Today the wheel has come full turn.… To Professor Whitman of Harvard, the central personal vision and ‘ineradicable unity’ of the Iliad are beyond doubt” (Homer: A Collection of Critical Essays, George Steiner and Robert Fables, editors, Prentice-Hall, 1962).

The attitude that was so widespread in the nineteenth and earlier twentieth centuries has now largely disappeared. Literary criticism has become more and more a study of the value and meaning of literary works than an attempt to divide them into sources or to determine what brought them into being. In The Business of Criticism (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1959) Prof. Helen Gardner of Oxford described the change: “The modern scholar or critic concentrates in the first place on making what he can of his text as it has come down to him. There has been a strong reaction against the study of even extant and known sources, much more against the discussion of hypothetical ones.… The importance of the single author and the single work dominates literary studies.”

An interesting result of this change of attitude in secular literary criticism has been the almost total disappearance from secular books of the term “higher criticism.” On examining the index of many recent books on literary criticism one rarely finds the term included at all, and when it does occur it generally refers only to the theories of the biblical critics. The fifteenth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, under the heading “Higher Criticism,” simply says, “See Literary Criticism, Biblical.”

Although secular critics have almost totally abandoned the attempt to divide a book into sources, theories produced by such outmoded methods are still presented in most biblical and theological courses as established fact.

An Example: Wellhausen’s Theory

In biblical studies, higher criticism’s search for source documents has centered in the Wellhausen theory of the Pentateuch. Today the evangelical world largely ignores it, but its main features are still taught as established fact in nearly all the older theological seminaries and in most university courses in religion. In evaluating Wellhausen’s theory, we need to note three factors:

1. The theory leaves no room for divine revelation. Wellhausen claimed that by rearranging the materials in the Pentateuch he could show how the religion of Israel grew from very primitive ideas into more abstract beliefs, and how simple acts of worship had been changed into a highly involved system of ritual.

2. Wellhausen explicitly declared that we can learn nothing from the Pentateuch about the history of patriarchal times, but only about ideas, customs, and rituals that came into being many centuries later. He said that “the inner and outer features of this later age are here unintentionally projected into remote antiquity.… Abraham is certainly not the name of a person, as also Isaac and Lot; he is in any case rather indistinct; of course he is not to be considered as a historical person; he might rather be thought of as a free creation of unconscious art. He was probably the youngest figure in this group and was not put before his son Isaac until a comparatively late period.”

3. The theory rests ultimately on the idea that the Pentateuch can be divided up into a number of interwoven documents, and that these documents can be shown to have had an original separate existence.

We should note that no one has ever discovered either an ancient copy of any one of these alleged documents or an ancient reference to the separate existence of any one of them. The assumed existence of such sources is purely hypothetical and is based largely upon the claim that the religion of Israel evolved from very simple to very complex features. In fact, probably no scholar living today would still accept all the main features of Wellhausen’s theory of how Israel’s religion developed. Further, we have no evidence that a similar development occurred elsewhere. Archaeological findings and newly discovered facts about the ancient world make the development he assumed seem more and more improbable.

Among the basic arguments for the theory is the assertion that the Book of Genesis contains repetitions that would hardly occur in normal writing.

This claim overlooks the use of repetition for emphasis, which is probably far more common in ancient writings than in English. Certain elements in the story—the corruption of mankind, the tremendous nature of the flood, and the eventual drying of the earth—are thus repeated for emphasis. Each of these is repeated several times, not only in the Genesis account, but (and this is specifically damaging to the theory) in each of the two documents into which it is divided by the critics.

The devil never tempts us with more success than when he tempts us with a sight of our own good actions.

—Thomas Wilson

The theory further asserts that the Genesis text can be divided into interlaced documents, each of which by itself provides a complete and continuous narrative. Thus it is said that the story of the flood in Genesis 6–9 is composed of two integrated documents and that it can be divided so as to produce two complete stories. However, this does not prove out because features of the story mentioned only once in Genesis fall to one or the other of the so-called J and P documents, producing two stories that do not flow smoothly and that omit vital information.

For example, the theory assigns to the so-called P document the warning to Noah that a flood is coming, the order to build an ark, and the description of its specifications. All these are omitted from the so-called J document which never mentions the ark until it abruptly announces that the Lord said to Noah, “Come thou and all thy house into the ark.” Thus neither alleged document really gives the complete story.

According to W. F. Albright, Wellhausen never showed any interest in the discoveries of archaeology. He probably did not know that a cuneiform tablet had been discovered, which contained an ancient Babylonian flood story (probably composed about 2200 B.C.) remarkably similar to the Genesis account. It doubtless represents a somewhat corrupted recollection of what actually occurred. Compared with the biblical account, however, it includes all the elements of both documents. All parts of the two alleged documents, J and P, are needed to produce the complete account, and they are paralleled in the single Babylonian story.

It seems impossible that the flood story (which existed in unity in the earlier Babylonian story) later became divided into two independent accounts (J and P) each of which contained half the facts, and finally that these two independent accounts were welded into one in our Book of Genesis just like the unified flood story extant in Babylon a thousand years earlier. The single instance in which we have documentary evidence to check the theory, therefore, shows Wellhausen’s attempt to discover J and P sources in Genesis to be clearly mistaken. Since he and liberal higher critics used exactly the same methodology to trace sources in other parts of Genesis, this analogy casts serious doubt on their conclusions as well as their methodology employed throughout the Pentateuch.

In an article reprinted in CHRISTIANITY TODAY (June 9, 1967) C. S. Lewis declared that he had often read reviews of his books and books written by his intimate friends in which the reviewers stated opinions as to the way these books had been written. However, Lewis says, he did not find one case in which the reviewer was even partially correct. Source criticism, when tested by its handling of contemporary evidence, has failed to reach any dependable result. When biblical study entered the area of source criticism, it usually became involved in a maze of unfounded speculations and guesses.

In sum, the work of higher criticism in detecting fraud has been commendable. Its effort to determine authorship has often failed. Its entrance into the field of source criticism, based on erroneous assumptions, has led it into shaky territory and usually brought it to conclusions quite unsupported by the facts. Dissatisfaction with the futility of such efforts when applied to general literature has led most literary critics to lose interest in it, so that they no longer use the term “higher criticism” except in reference to the theories of biblical critics. To continue to use the outmoded term only in referring to critical studies of the Bible seems prejudicial, and we would do well to drop the term altogether and employ the contemporary term “literary studies” for legitimate investigation of author, background, origin, style, and character of any biblical composition.

Carl F. H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, is lecturer at large for World Vision International. An author of many books, he lives in Arlington, Virginia.

All that Christ calls us to do in society must be done first in the local church.

There are at least two reasons why Christians should ask the specific, practical question of how might they engage in meaningful social action. The first reason relates to the growing awareness among earnest believers that the Bible clearly teaches that the pursuit of holiness and the development of true piety involve two distinguishable yet inseparable duties: evangelism and social action.

To glorify God, we must proclaim the gospel and care for the needy. We must condemn personal as well as societal sin. We must make the way of redemption plain as we seek justice for the oppressed. Evangelism and social action are equal partners; each is an end in itself, but Christ is the reason for both. Faithfulness to Christ means obedience in both areas.

But it is one thing to be impressed with the clear teaching of the Word of God and another thing to obey. Such a dichotomy should not exist. It is not difficult for evangelical churches to agree that “boat people” from Indochina need our immediate assistance. But what is difficult is to move from the theoretical to the practical: to become responsible for a particular refugee family. It is easy to give money to a relief organization; it is another matter to give time and energy to help one family. How to put our biblical knowledge to work is the question uppermost on the agenda of our local churches.

The second reason stems from the growing popularity of evangelical Christianity—for if the pollsters and the public media are right, evangelicals are becoming the mainstream of active Protestantism.

But how shall we understand this growing popularity? What does evangelical identity mean? Is our image clear and forthright, showing a practice that supports our proclamation? Are we known for a distinctive, sacrificial lifestyle? Do we have a reputation for love? What makes us a stumbling block to the watching world—our hypocrisy or our holiness? Time magazine’s report on the evangelical movement (Dec. 26, 1977) stated that the big question facing evangelicals “is what they will do collectively with this passionate sense of God’s presence in everyday life.”

The question remains: How do we demonstrate to ourselves and to the world the love and justice exemplified in Jesus’ ministry and in the experience of the New Testament church? And if the Bible demands social action and our local and world situation calls for it, where do we begin the task?

We are sometimes naive when we talk about social action. We do not understand the size and complexity of the system we confront. Partisan politics, international trade relations, multinational corporations, unemployment, health care, world hunger—all are mind boggling. It seems sufficiently burdensome just to discuss such concerns, let alone do anything about them. The very idea of Christians actually doing something to change the system seems hopeless, and the people who talk about it visionaries, not realists. I believe this accounts for those sincere evangelicals who accept the biblical imperative of social action but whose definition of Christian obedience serves to defend the status quo, and whose perception of the system defeats them before they even start.

The early church did not define social action by what they thought could be accomplished within the Roman system. Instead, they began in the same place we must begin, for all that Christ calls us to do within society at large must first be done in the local church. I am not saying it is necessary to meet all social needs within the church before we can deal with those within society; but the local church—our immediate community of believers—is the place to begin.

The church described in Acts provides a striking demonstration of holistic Christianity. Not only did the believers devote themselves to the Word of God, fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayer (Acts 2:42), but they shared their material possessions to such an extent that there was not a needy person among them (Acts 2:45; 4:34). The church became the training ground for social action. These early Christians show us that concern for the poor, the needy, the widow, and the orphan begins in the church. Thus in Paul’s letters to local churches he advised the believers on matters of political importance, family relations, social class divisions, legal issues, and vocational concerns.

Jesus designated the church as the agent of God’s sovereign work in the world. In the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 Jesus emphasizes that social responsibility begins in the community of the king. We meet the Lord as we meet our brothers’ needs. Jesus’ radical promise to his disciples in Mark 10:29–30 finds its fulfillment in the body of believers. “I tell you the truth, no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life” (NIV). The church is the answer to Christ’s promise. As believers in Jesus Christ, not only are we members together of a worldwide body of faith, we are also coworkers in a worldwide family of resources.

While the New Testament does not limit our social responsibility to believers, it does begin with the church. The messianic community reaches out, exemplifying Christ’s love and compassion, and the individual Christian is admonished, encouraged, and guided in his or her social concern. Christians reach out in the strength of God’s Spirit, supported in prayer and the shared wisdom of fellow believers. To bypass the church—going directly to the system—is to undercut our effectiveness in social action.

But what does it mean to our churches when we say that everything we want to do in society at large must first be done in the church? We might ask several questions.

1. Are we concerned for the poor? Let us begin by meeting the needs of the poor within our fellowship. For some churches this will mean turning to the inner city and recognizing that there are brothers and sisters in Christ there who need financial assistance. Instead of excusing our lack of concern on grounds that the government provides for the poor, we must learn to take a “first-person” interest in the life of our fellow believer.

2. Are we concerned about public school education? Let us begin by preparing our youth to think through the issues with which they are confronted at school. Do parents and Sunday school teachers know what novels their children are reading in English class? Are they aware of the presuppositions accepted in science and social studies classes? Instead of ignoring significant elements in our children’s education we must learn to use these to reveal truth more relevantly. The church will be better prepared to call for changes in education when we demonstrate that we can train our own youth effectively.

3. Are we concerned for the elderly? Let us begin by doing more than simply praying for them when they are sick. The earnestness of our prayers will be reflected in the way we meet their needs. A local fellowship could designate several middle-aged people to whom the elderly could turn for advice and counsel on any number of practical matters, from health care to legal assistance. Why should the elderly have to make their own way through government red tape and confusing forms? Why should they go without aid they are entitled to simply because they are not aware of it?

4. Are we concerned about unjust international trade policies? Let us begin by establishing personal contact with Third World local churches. Through our missionaries, we should endeavor to learn about issues and concerns that affect our brothers in Christ. Our prayer interest and financial help ought to move beyond the missionary to the local church. We have a political responsibility to challenge our national policies that exploit people in our brother’s country.

These four questions illustrate the practical importance of beginning in the church to meet social needs. When the church is a training ground for social action, we become sensitive to the impact we make on one another and on society. We should bring our vocational concerns to prayer meeting and a biblical sense of love and justice to our jobs. We are guilty of leaving too much to private perspective, cultural habit, and individual whim. There needs to be a free exchange within the local church between laborers and lawyers, doctors and pastors, concerning ethical decisions and the use of material wealth. We need to remind one another, pray for one another, and admonish one another to be truly Christian in all our endeavors. This cannot be done in isolation; it must be done in the fellowship of believers.

It is both biblical and practical to emphasize that social action begins in the church, but it is most important that we also recognize that social action must be informed by the Word of God.

Social action guided by the Word of God is first of all realistic. It will not fall prey to utopian idealism. It will not identify existing or would-be sociopolitical structures with the kingdom of God. It will face man’s sin nature squarely. Guided by the Word of God, we shall understand that man is alienated from God and needs redemption. Even though many men do not accept the goodness of Jesus Christ, we realize that under the authority of God’s Word we are not excused from acting in behalf of their social well-being. Biblical realism is essential to fulfilling our social responsibility.

Second, social action guided by the Word of God is consistent. The biblical teaching on the dignity of man rests on the fact that man was not only made in God’s image but that he was made to find fulfillment in God’s moral order, which is clearly expressed in the Bible. Consequently, those who are guided by God’s Word often contradict the contemporary humanitarian spirit. Objections to liberalized abortion laws, heterosexual immorality, and homosexual practice may appear anachronistic to many people, but to the Christian they are consistent with a position that upholds man’s moral and spiritual nature. Facing societal sin does not mean the believer can ignore personal sin.

Third, social action guided by the Word of God subjects the means as well as the end to the scrutiny of God’s judgment. The manner in which we engage in social action should be characterized by love and sincerity. We may be angry and distraught frequently over grave injustices, but our manner of confronting sin should not degenerate into bitterness and blind rage.

Social action begins in the church informed by God’s Word and empowered by God’s Spirit. We are dependent upon the work of the Holy Spirit to move us to action and to fill us with wisdom. At times we forget that God’s Spirit enables us for a life-long task. Social action is not tied to a certain program of limited duration. It is an ongoing task, always pressing for the attention of the church. When it comes to both evangelism and social action we must act as if Christ were coming today and plan as if he were not coming for a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8).

Even as Jesus hung on the cross he fulfilled the challenge he entrusted to the church. To the repentant thief he spoke words of redemption and forgiveness, “Today you will be with me in Paradise.” To his mother he spoke words of comfort and concern, committing her into the care of his disciple. Wherever the church of Jesus Christ is vital, an abiding concern will be manifested for the eternal destiny and temporal care of men, women, and children.

The Witness Wing

When I am tuned to the wing of a wren

I am in tune with wonder, then:

aware of the hinge that is muscle … and more …

that feathers are a swinging door.

It opens and closes, opens and closes,

giving a wren what sky it chooses.

I am aware that feathers are roof

above the sturdy warp and woof

of vein and bone. The wing is tough:

sufficient to meet the wind’s rebuff:

and tender, too, for it bears along

the sunny, summer sky, a song.

I am aware that ancient weather

and ancient accident could never produce

a wren. It, I know well,

is progeny of Miracle.

I sing Creation when I sing

of a mite of a wren … even the wing.

PEARL LUNT ROBINSON

The Finitude Of Man

I understand that matter can be changed

To energy; that maths can integrate

The complex quantum jumps that must relate

The fusion of the stars to history’s page.

I understand that God in every age

Is Lord of all; that matter can’t dictate;

That stars and quarks and all things intricate

Perform his word—including fool and sage.

But knowing God is not to know like God;

And science is a quest in infancy.

Still more: transcendence took on flesh and blood:

I do not understand how this can be.

The more my mind is stretched to understand,

The more it learns the finitude of man.

D. A. CARSON

Carl F. H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, is lecturer at large for World Vision International. An author of many books, he lives in Arlington, Virginia.

A synthesis of “New Testament theology” can only come after justice is done to its manifold diversity.

In the opinion of some students of the New Testament, Gospel criticism has reached an impasse. Source criticism, form criticism, tradition criticism, and redaction criticism have all been pursued as far as they are likely to take us, and the situation in which we now find ourselves is not encouraging.

The main end of Gospel study has been the more secure establishing of the life and teaching of the historical Jesus, and there has probably never been a time when Christian practitioners of Gospel criticism were more skeptical about the prospect of achieving this end than they are today. When there was widespread acceptance of the Marcan hypothesis—the hypothesis that the outline of Mark’s Gospel corresponded well enough with the historical development of Jesus’ ministry—certainty on some of the most important phases of that development seemed to have been reached. My own opinion is that the Marcan hypothesis was a reasonable one, but if (as many hold nowadays) Mark’s arrangement of his material was altogether the product of his own genius, there is nothing to take its place as a basis for constructing a coherent account of the ministry.

Nearly 50 years ago T. W. Manson published his great work on The Teaching of Jesus. He expounded the teaching according to the various audiences to which it was addressed, and according to the period in the ministry from which it came—before or after Caesarea Philippi. But it is commonly believed today that the varying audiences are simply part of the framework which the evangelists devised as a setting for the sayings of Jesus they had received, and that the placing of the sayings before or after Caesarea Philippi is similarly redactional. Indeed, one scholar carried others with him when he argued in 1963 that the Caesarea Philippi episode itself is a piece of Marcan composition, designed to convey a theological lesson.

The much discussed “criteria of authenticity,” by which the sayings ascribed to Jesus are to be assessed, have been of little help. At best they attract attention to those sayings of his which cannot be paralleled either in Judaism or in Christianity, and insofar as they portray Jesus at all, portray an eccentric rather than a historical Jesus. One of the most assiduous exponents of these criteria remarked to me not long before his death that he thought six, or at most eight, of the sayings ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels were likely to be authentic. I felt I could do better than that with Socrates.

It is not that the well-trodden paths of Gospel criticism have led people astray, but that attempts have been made to force criticism to do more than it is capable of doing by its very nature. No one will be a successful historian unless he is gifted with a sympathetic imagination; but some seem afraid to exercise it in their studies, lest it should detract from a proper objectivity. That is a pity. None of us can escape from subjectivity, because we are all thinking subjects; an imaginative subjectivity (with all necessary controls) is to be preferred to an unimaginative subjectivity.

One way forward is for individual scholars to take particular limited areas of Gospel study and explore them in depth. If, after some time, their findings are compared and prove to lead to a synthesis, that can be promising. The Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research has recently launched a “Gospels Research Project” along this line; the first of a series of volumes entitled Gospel Perspectives, published earlier in 1980, presents the first fruits of this project.

Another way forward is to stand back and contemplate the figure that dominates all strands of the Gospel tradition. The historical Jesus makes a continuing impact on the life and thought of humanity. Whatever may be set down as post-Easter interpretation is a measure of his stature: Jesus is the sort of person who could without absurdity be interpreted in those ways. Readers of the Gospels should allow his personality to make its impression on them; as they do, they will recognize with increasing certainty whether or not the words and actions attributed to him have “the ring of truth.” And, lest this should be a merely subjective impression, they should learn to formulate their reasons for this recognition, so that they can be submitted to the judgment of others.

Primitive Christianity

The gap between Jesus and Paul is not all that wide, chronologically speaking, but in the eyes of some historians of early Christianity it is a vacuum that demands to be filled. There is one New Testament document—the Acts of the Apostles—that offers some help in filling it, but this offer of help has not always been accepted. The heritage of Tübingen, with its understanding of Acts as a late attempt to reconcile in a synthesis the sharp antitheses between Palestinian and Pauline Christianity, is still with us. It may be regarded as poetic justice that Tübingen today, in the person of Martin Hengel, should have provided a corrective in the slim but meaty volume entitled, in its English dress, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (London, SCM Press, 1979).

Indeed, within a few years Hengel has made a most impressive contribution toward pointing a new way forward in New Testament studies. His two-volume work, Judaism and Hellenism (Fortress, 1975), has gone far to demolish two theses that have attained almost axiomatic status in a very influential school: (1) that Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity were widely different; and (2) that Paul’s debt was to Hellenistic, not to Palestinian, Christianity. (We may recall Rudolf Bultmann’s imaginary construction of the thought of the pre-Pauline Hellenistic churches in his Theology of the New Testament.) Palestine itself was part of the Hellenistic world from the late fourth century B.C. on. When Howard Marshall read a paper along these lines to the Society for New Testament Studies at Claremont, California, in 1972, the meeting almost broke up in disorder and it was only by the exercise of great self-control that the president (the most distinguished post-Bultmannian of them all) preserved the impartiality of the chair.

But there are still a number of questions to be answered. Paul’s relation to rabbinic and Palestinian Judaism has been explored by W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders; others can follow where they have led. What was Paul’s relation to those who were “in Christ” before him? What was the composition and outlook of the church of Damascus, where he first found Christian fellowship? What can be discovered about the spread of non-Pauline Christianity in Paul’s lifetime, even in the lands of his own Gentile mission? What is the significance of Apollos? Can we reconstruct the early history of the community to which the Letter to the Hebrews was addressed?

Several scholars have recently given fresh attention to the Johannine writings and the environment in which they appeared. A particularly suggestive work is Raymond Brown’s The Community of the Beloved Disciple (Paulist, 1979); one reader of this book will find it difficult to approach the Johannine writings in the future without having Brown’s thesis in mind. Brown has not said the last word, but the word he has spoken should provoke others to speak a further word or two on the subject. Nothing that affects the place of the fourth Gospel in the New Testament can ever be unimportant.

Unity and Diversity

The title of J.D.G. Dunn’s Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (Westminster, 1977) and that of the Festschrift for G. E. Ladd, Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology (1978), will remind us of the rich variety to be found within the New Testament, and sometimes within one body of literature in the New Testament, such as the Pauline corpus. Where the center of unity—the acknowledgment of the crucified Jesus and the exalted Christ as one Lord—holds firm, the New Testament theologian can rejoice without misgivings in the diversity of witness and appreciation with which the New Testament writers present him. If a synthesis of “New Testament theology” is to be attained, it can only come after proper justice has been done to the manifold diversity. To make Paul and John say the same thing does a disservice to both. That Christ the Lord could call forth from minds like theirs such a wealth of varying insight is a tribute to the many-hued wisdom that resides in him, part of which was grasped by one and part by another as the Spirit enabled them. If a Bampton lecturer in the nineteenth century (T. D. Bernard) could trace The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament (1865; Klock & Klock, 1978), could not a New Testament theologian in this generation contribute to his subject by tracing “the progress of doctrine in Paul?” That would be a more exciting exercise than a flat picture of “Pauline theology.”

Jewish Influence

Several years ago Professor Dennis Nineham remarked that the task of today’s historian of Christian origins is “to wring truth relevant to the history of Jesus from the increasing stock of remains of the Judaism of his time.” There is no need to restrict the field of research to Judaism, but even in Judaism there is still ample room for research in the voluminous material available. Professor E. P. Sanders’s Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Fortress, 1977) showed how fresh insights can be obtained from a thorough reexamination of familiar material; not everything has been said even about Paul in relation to rabbinic theology. Who will undertake a comparable study of “Jesus and Palestinian Judaism”? Our knowledge of Palestinian Judaism itself has not stood still, thanks to the research of Jacob Neusner and others into the situation before A.D. 70; some of these new findings could profitably be applied to New Testament exegesis.

Nor has the bearing of the Qumran texts on the New Testament been exhausted. One of the most fruitful aspects of the comparative study of Qumran and early Christianity has been the analogy between Old Testament interpretation at Qumran and in the New Testament. There are still many commentary fragments from Cave 4 at Qumran awaiting publication (the delay in publishing them has indeed been disgraceful), and while their publication is not likely to dictate a radical change in the picture already built up, it will certainly make it possible to fill in the picture with much more detail. The New Testament interpretation of the Old provided what C. H. Dodd called “the substructure of New Testament theology,” and equally biblical interpretation at Qumran provided the substructure of Qumran theology. New Testament theology is as different from Qumran theology as early Christian exegesis is different from Qumran exegesis, but the comparison between the two areas of study can be illuminating for both.

It should not be necessary to say that no one should undertake to compare the New Testament with any area of Judaism—the Qumran texts, rabbinic tradition, or Hellenistic literature—without an adequate mastery of the relevant writings in their original language. And any one who makes pronouncements on the rabbinic material on the basis of Strack-Billerbeck alone will swiftly expose the second-hand and limited character of his knowledge.

Gnosticism

The long delays in publishing much of the remaining Qumran material have not been paralleled in the publication of the documents from Nag Hammadi. Much gratitude is due to James M. Robinson and his colleagues for the admirable promptitude with which they have published those Coptic texts, not to mention the one-volume English version of The Nag Hammadi Library (Harper & Row, 1977).

Long before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi documents, attempts were made to relate the New Testament writings to Gnosticism, and even to find Gnostic influence in them. As early as 1925 Bultmann discussed the bearing of Mandean and Manichean sources on the Gospel of John, and concluded that it betrayed knowledge of a Gnostic myth that was clearly discernible in those sources. When once the myth was reconstructed, it was possible to discern it in other early Christian works. There was a real difficulty in the relative lateness of some of the primary evidence: in particular, the Mandean texts on which Bultmann relied were shown by F. C. Burkitt to presuppose Manichean doctrine (mid-third century A.D.) and the Peshitta text of the Syriac Bible (early fifth century A.D.).

Wonder

Do apples hang like pendants

on wooden stems, so small,

to demonstrate unearthly engineering?

And bumblebees lift bulky bodies high

with bungly wings too scant to fly

to disprove impossibility?

If we would believe God’s promises

and yield ourselves to Him,

would our feet water-walk?

would mountains move? would

we be whole? Would every good

we could conceive come true?

Just seed-small faith, and thrust

of childlike trust will turn our most

limiting impossibilities into unlimited

possibilities for good. Oh, His miracles

are staggering; but it is the sheer

simplicity of His logic that confounds.

VIVIAN STEWART

But now the Nag Hammadi library has provided us with a wealth of Gnostic literature of an earlier age. True, the Nag Hammadi documents are in Coptic, belonging mostly to the fourth century A.D., but many of them are translations from Greek originals to be dated two centuries before that. It is to be hoped that among those who study them will be found some whose primary interest lies in the New Testament field and who will pay special attention to the problem of whether or not they bear witness to a pre-Christian Gnostic system—not to say a pre-Christian Gnostic myth. If it could be established that such a system or myth is detectable in them, that would be the time to embark on the further question: Has this system or myth exercised any influence on the New Testament writers? Or, if it exercised no influence on them, did it exercise any influence on the forms of teaching attacked (say) in the Letter to the Colossians, in the Pastorals, or in First John? Here is a whole area of study open to the New Testament student who will take the trouble to learn Coptic. (And, be it said, a knowledge of Coptic is a gateway to fields of knowledge other than the Nag Hammadi papyri.)

The works of Elaine H. Pagels on this subject have been given a significance in some popular media, exaggerated beyond anything that Dr. Pagels herself claims for them. Some cautionary words were uttered a few years ago by Edwin M. Yamauchi in Pre-Christian Gnosticism (Eerdmans, 1973); “a very good and very important book,” according to Gilles Quispel of Utrecht, who does not throw compliments around carelessly. But he agrees, for example, that “the Nag Hammadi texts do provide us with new materials for the investigation of the Fourth Gospel” (p. 34). We may expect to see further investigation of the interrelation of the New Testament and early Gnosticism in the years ahead of us; if some of this investigation is carried out by evangelical scholars, so much the better.

The Sociological Approach

In 1960 the Tyndale Press, London (Inter-Varsity), published a monograph entitled The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century, by Edwin A. Judge. It was a pioneer essay, attempting (in the author’s words) “to clarify certain early Christian ideas about society by defining the particular social institutions that are presupposed, and showing how the behavior of the Christians was related to them.” It proved more influential than could have been foreseen at the time. Quite recently Gerd Theissen, one of the leading explorers of the sociology of primitive Christianity, has acknowledged that it was Judge’s book that first encouraged him to undertake a more far-ranging study of the subject.

Such a study can be especially helpful in the understanding of Paul’s letters. Some knowledge of city life in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire will inevitably illuminate letters that were addressed to city dwellers in those provinces. The acquisition of such knowledge is rendered the more difficult because of the variety of legal and social institutions between one city and another, and the scantiness of information about these institutions in the first century A.D. as compared with the abundant information available on the civic and imperial institutions of Rome. What we can learn from classical authors finds welcome augmentation in inscriptions; it is from them that we are most likely to gather data bearing on local conditions.

When we come across confident statements that such and such passages in the Epistles are “culturally conditioned,” that may well be so; but what is the factual basis on which these statements are made? Only a painstaking collection and piecing together of fragmentary data can provide us with a stable foundation of knowledge here. Conventions, for example, regarding women’s public headgear may have differed from city to city and from community to community: we need to be sure of our facts before we make pronouncements.

The status of a local church in a cosmopolitan city is illuminated by an inscription from Philadelphia, belonging to the first or second century B.C., setting forth the rules of membership of a religious group which was explicitly open to “men and women, free persons and household slaves,” and in which ethical probity was emphasized. The Philadelphia church to which one of the seven letters of the Apocalypse was sent had probably a similar status in relation to the municipal law of Philadelphia.

If we wish to know how the recipients of the Epistles would have understood or reacted to them, it could help to discover what were the commonly accepted presuppositions of thought and behavior in their environments. Six years ago Sir Kenneth Dover published an important work on Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Univ. of Calif., 1975). If someone would do the same for the Aegean world in the apostolic age it would provide valuable background knowledge for the study of the Epistles. What were the accepted opinions of the man in the street in those lands at that time? Did he think that gnosis was a good thing? Did he venerate the ideal of the divinely inspired man—the theios anthropos—or would he have recognized that expression had he heard it? How did he contemplate death, and the possibility of existence after death? Had he been initiated into a mystery religion, or did he use mystery terminology in daily speech? What kind of rhetoric did he find impressive? What were his ideas of public and private decency? Did his wife accept his presuppositions, or did she and other wives have ideas of their own? (This last question is particularly difficult to answer, because women in the home had minimal opportunity for giving open or lasting expression to their thoughts; Paul’s affirmation that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female must have made a difference in this respect.)

The answers to questions like these could have differed from province to province, but inquiries of this sort, patiently conducted with all proper sifting of the relevant evidence, might substantially fill out the context of the Epistles and help us to see more clearly how their first readers understood them.

I expect that there will be much more of this kind of investigation in the 1980s, along the trail blazed by Judge, Theissen, and Malherbe. True, the study of the social culture of the New Testament is only one approach among others, but in itself it is nearly as important as the study of the language of the New Testament: after all, the language of the New Testament is one aspect of its social culture.

Never attempt to bear more than one kind of trouble at once. Some people bear three kinds—all they have had, all they have now and all they expect to have.

—Edward Everett Hale

Carl F. H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, is lecturer at large for World Vision International. An author of many books, he lives in Arlington, Virginia.

In the world of New Testament scholarship, but especially among evangelicals, Frederick Fyvie Bruce has already become a legend even in his own lifetime. Born October 12, 1910, he celebrates this year his seventieth birthday with a second Festschrift presented to him by grateful students. He is held in honor by all who know him.

F. F. Bruce is no juiceless pedant cloistered in isolated halls of ivy. He is a man of warm and vital faith in Christ. All who know him personally recognize that this is supremely important for him in his life and ministry, including his life as a scholar. Yet that love for his Lord has overflowed to a gentle kindliness and sacrificial ministry for others that far surpasses an amiable tolerance of mere courtesy. He has respected even those like his former colleague, Prof. S. G. F. Brandon, who disagreed radically with his most sacred convictions.

Professor Bruce’s scholarly productivity is phenomenal—rivaling the German Adolph Harnack who averaged one significant work per week during his active life. In the last 10 years, Professor Bruce has published approximately 500 separate volumes or articles. Most notable among the glittering array of his works are his treatise on the apostle Paul (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free), his New Testament commentaries on Acts and Hebrews, his volume on church history (The Spreading Flame), and his popular The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?

In this interview by J. D. Douglas, we catch a glimpse not only of his amazing erudition but also of his gracious warmth as a person and his unswerving commitment to biblical Christianity.

Your father was a well-known Brethren speaker in northern Scotland. Tell us a little about him: how did he influence your development?

He was my first and best teacher of theology. He was a natural scholar and student, who brought to his understanding of Scripture a finely balanced judgment. Although his period of formal schooling was brief, I never had to unlearn anything I learned from him. While I could say much about him, let it suffice that he was continuously engaged in evangelism—mainly, but not exclusively—in northern Scotland from 1899 until his death in 1955.

I had little option in the matter of becoming a Christian. The truth of the gospel was the major premise of all thinking and living in the home into which I was born. When I came to years of discretion, I naturally had to make an independent and deliberate commitment to it. But it never occurred to me to do anything else. I should like to think that the truth of the gospel remains the major premise of my life to this day.

Would you trace your own theological development over the last 40 years?

Forty years ago I held a teaching appointment in the Greek department of a British university. I had just begun to apply my classical training to the study of early Christianity; but I have continued on this course to the present day. My theological development has largely been a matter of an increasing knowledge and understanding of the New Testament documents, in the context of Near Eastern history between 300 B.C. and A.D. 300.

When I produced my commentary on the Greek text of Acts (my first major work), I approached the text as a classical student. When I read Acts today, I approach it primarily as a student of the writings of Paul; that provides an additional, and indeed, indispensable perspective. I have learned to regard Paul as the greatest man who ever wrote in Greek. If anyone should call him the greatest writer of all time, I would not dispute the claim.

Has your theology changed during these years?

No, it has not essentially changed. It was evangelical then, and it is evangelical now. But it has gained, I hope, in depth as a result of 40 years of study and teaching.

A scholar’s nice polite ambiguities apart, what do you think of James Barr’s book on fundamentalism?

I have not read this book. I dipped into it briefly soon after it was published, and my first impression was that he was getting something out of his system. I share many of his earlier experiences, but I have reacted differently to them.

Concerning your view of Scripture, you commit yourself to a late date for Daniel in your book on the Dead Sea Scrolls. When did you change your mind on this—and why?

I have not consciously changed my mind on this subject. When the second series of Robert Dick Wilson’s Studies in the Book of Daniel was published posthumously in 1938, I learned from some remarks of his on page 255–257 how to recognize our present text of Daniel as the second-century edition of sixth-century work.

In my book on the Scrolls all that I committed myself to regarding the date of Daniel was that it must have been sufficiently early to have acquired canonical recognition in the Qumran community.

Did this influence or in any way accompany a changing view about the nature of scriptural authority?

No, I don’t think so. And I am not sure about my “changing view” on scriptural authority. For 40 years I have signed the Inter-Varsity doctrinal basis. That includes a rather strong assertion of biblical infallibility. And I still hold that the first chapter of the Westminster Confession is the finest statement on the doctrine of Scripture ever published.

Do you think the Graf-Wellhausen documentary theory is basically on the right lines?

No; it is too much bound up with a theory of the development of Israel’s religion. That was acceptable only when much less was known about early Semitic religion than is known today. When documentary analysis is based on internal evidence, it is compatible with any view of the nature of Scripture and scriptural authority, which is itself based on internal evidence. If, however, that analysis is influenced by philosophical presuppositions that are at variance with the outlook of Scripture, then it is not likely to be compatible with that outlook.

What is your view of the increasingly common (since Barth) near-universalistic views of Christian redemption?

I find myself in large agreement with the views of C. S. Lewis. There are some people who deliberately, and conclusively, contract out of the redemption accomplished for the whole world. If they do, it would be contrary to the character of God to violate their integrity. If their choice is to be left alone, they will have their choice.

Does the Bible permit us to accept as true believers sincere Muslims who are simply mistaken in doctrine?

It depends what is meant by “true believers.” Muslims are believers in the God of Abraham, but they are not believers in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the world, which is what the New Testament means by “believers.”

There are those who suggest that Christians arepledged to preach Christ—not to combat one or another particular ideology.

That is true; our primary commitment is to preach Christ. But this will inevitably involve opposition to ideologies that are incompatible with the preaching of Christ.

What about the controversy over human rights?

The biblical view of God and man has greatest possible bearing on this. My paramount reason for respecting human rights is my belief in God the Father, who has created me and all mankind, and in Jesus Christ his Son, who has redeemed me and all mankind. Moreover, the biblical view of God and man teaches me to be as concerned about my own duties as I am about other people’s rights.

As you travel overseas, what encourages you most about churches in the world?

I am specially encouraged by the thoroughgoing commitment of so many young people to the cause of Christ. Although my travel does not take me much into the non-Western world, I see this in both the Western and non-Western world.

What advice would you give to a young man or woman about to begin teaching in a theological faculty?

Teach the fruit of your own study—not second-hand opinions, whether orthodox or unorthodox. And encourage your students to think for themselves and to form their own judgments on the acceptability or unacceptability of what you teach them.

There is an American religious encyclopedia that has slipped in a spoof entry in order to catch plagiarists. Have you found plagiarism to be widespread in the academic world?

No, not very widespread, although it crops up sometimes in, say, the lifting of references from other people’s works without verifying them. But the ease with which this practice can be detected is a check on it.

Have you found membership in the Christian Brethren to be a handicap in your academic career?

No; in no way.

Your fellow Scot, Prof. William Barclay, doubted whether his wife had ever read one of his books. He seemed to imply that this contributed to a happy marriage. Does this reflect Mrs. Bruce’s position?

No. She has read several of my books. In addition, she has helped to check the proofs and compile the indexes of some. This does not appear to have detracted from the happiness of our marriage.

Which of your books has given you the most satisfaction?

Probably Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit, if I may call it by its proper title, the text of which has been corrupted in American transmission by subtitling it—presumably to avoid ambiguity—“Apostle of the Heart Set Free.”

Is it true that you are relinquishing the editorship of the Evangelical Quarterly after more than 30 years?

Yes; and I am delighted to pass on the job to my distinguished friend, Prof. Howard Marshall of Aberdeen University.

I know you are still busy. Could you tell us what you are working on at present?

I have practically finished the volume on Galatians for the New International Greek Commentary series. Then I plan to start on a similar work on Thessalonians for the new Word Commentary series.

In The English Bible (1961) you expressed a hope for more translations in “modern English.” Would you call a halt now—since we seem to have had a flurry of them in recent times?

Yes. We have enough versions now to satisfy all requirements and I can’t see what good purpose would be served by adding to them. I can’t keep up with all that we have.

Remembering your own training in what Matthew Arnold once called the “grand, old, fortifying, classical curriculum,” how do you regard the declining emphasis in schools on the teaching of Latin and Greek?

It leads to cultural impoverishment in more areas than one might imagine. Further, no civilization will flourish that deliberately cuts itself off from its roots, and the roots of our Western civilization are in the Greek and Latin classics, together with the Bible. People who ignore such areas of study disable themselves from appreciating their cultural heritage.

What factor do you think is more likely than any other to decide Christianity’s influence upon the secular thought of the next decade?

The faithfulness of Christian people to the essential gospel of redeeming grace, intelligently believed and clearly proclaimed. If Christianity is thought to say the same sort of thing, albeit in a religious idiom, as, say, the United Nations says in a nonreligious idiom, its influence on secular thought will be imperceptible.

What is your attitude toward mass evangelism?

There is no nobler gift than the gift of the evangelist—a gift I do not possess. You will not think I am decrying mass evangelism for a moment, however, if I add that one-to-one is the most effective. Only personal evangelism could have reached, for example, Nicodemus or the woman at the well.

What do you think is the proper line to take on the doctrine of the Second Advent?

What is not important is a preoccupation with matters of timetable. The Gospels remind us that we do not know the time; I think they imply also that we do not know the manner. I must confess to some uneasiness over the fact that colleges and schools have been founded on some finely drawn eschatological interpretation. What is important is that we be prepared for the coming of the Son of Man.

Carl F. H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, is lecturer at large for World Vision International. An author of many books, he lives in Arlington, Virginia.

Carrying the Promises; Aching from the References

My good friend Art Blair had his right arm in a sling when I met him at the annual church business meeting.

“Making out those reports finally got to you, eh?” I asked.

“Watch it!” he whispered. “Keep your voice down!”

“Don’t tell me you were shot robbing a bank?” I whispered.

“Very funny,” he said. “Come out in the hall and I’ll explain.”

As the business meeting opened (with the congregation singing “Bringing In the Sheaves”), Art and I slipped out of the auditorium. We stood in front of the missionary bulletin board, knowing nobody would bother us there.

“I have something entirely new,” he said, pointing to his lame arm. “Dr. Kendall said that the Christian Medical Society knew of only three other cases. It’s called ‘reference Bible elbow.’ ”

“You got an infection from your Bible?” I gasped.

“Of course not!” he retorted, looking to see if anybody was listening. “I got it carrying my big reference Bible around.”

I understood. “Maybe it’s the weight of the chains in the chain references that does it,” I suggested.

“Quit joking about it,” he replied. “You should feel the pain that I’m feeling right now. Why, Dr. Kendall had to give me a shot of cortisone.”

I had a brilliant idea: “You could always buy a smaller Bible. I heard about a guy who printed a Bible the size of a postage stamp. But then you’d have to carry a microscope around, and that might be inconvenient.”

“Give up my reference Bible!” he quietly shouted. “And have nothing to read during the sermons? There’s enough material in those margins to keep me going for years!”

I suddenly got practical. “Doesn’t your affliction bother you at work?”

“All of us have to suffer for the Lord,” he said, “and it gives me lots of opportunities for witness. You’d be surprised how many unsaved people have never even heard of a reference Bible.”

The business meeting was getting under way so we headed for the auditorium.

“Don’t tell anybody what I’ve got,” Art whispered as we slid into the back row. “They might think I’m holier than thou because I got an affliction from the Bible. It’ll help me stay humble.”

Yours for smaller Bibles and bigger saints,

EUTYCHUS X

Dollars and Sense

The two September 5 editorials, “Public Disclosure: Accountability Before a Higher Court” and “Being on the Board—and Getting Off,” were models of “speaking the truth in love.” It is difficult, sometimes impossible, to press for procedural reforms in the church without sending out signals that some misinterpret.

Both of the editorials related to the responsibility tax exemption lays upon churches and their related organizations. Churches are supported by tax-deductible contributions. The money the government needs but does not get through these tax deductions is provided by those who do not contribute to the church. All of this adds up to a massive privilege extended under our system to the church and its ministry, and there is an attendant responsibility.

Most of our religious people and organizations are fulfilling this responsibility very well. A few are not. I would commend to you and your readers the proposal that the tax exemptions and advantages extended by the national and state government be extended only to those organizations that make an independently audited financial statement available to the public. Under this plan an organization that wished to withhold such information from its donors for whatever reason could go on doing so, but could not go on asking the rest of us to take its good faith without evidence.

SYDNEY E. ALLEN, JR.

Chairman, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies

San Bernardino Valley College

San Bernardino, Calif.

Two elements spur this investigation: the editorial touching on the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts and public disclosure, and the seal for the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability that accompanied the “Jews for Jesus” advertisement. Does the ECFA’s existence speak of a trend leading to the evangelical Christian having assurance, through public disclosure, of the proper use of funds?

As a minister I receive in the mail each week numerous requests for aid to worthy projects. As a steward I desire to see any donations properly distributed. I must say, I was impressed by the seal on the ad mentioned above. I just want to know more.

REV. PAUL BRAZLE

Church of Christ

Oklahoma City, Okla.

(Editor’s Note: Inquiries may be sent to the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, P.O. Box 1750, Pasadena, Calif. 91109.)

Ministry or Business?

Next week I begin my tenth year in the ministry of Christian bookselling. The article by Stephen Sorenson “Christian Bookstores: For Business or Ministry?” (Sept. 5) is the best I have seen on our “ministry-business.” While Christian bookstore managers wrestle daily with this dilemma, most pastors have never realized this difficulty facing the bookstores serving them.

A frustration for Christian bookstore managers is the incredibly small number of Christians (including pastors) who ever enter a Christian bookstore. I find many pastors simply do not read and do not share with their congregations about the literature available. I hope that this article will challenge pastors to become more involved in the ministry of Christian literature and see it as a natural extension of their own ministry.

EDWIN BOWDEN

Lebanon Bible and Bookstore

Lebanon, Mo.

The idea that religious bookstores are a “ministry” is preposterous. The answers to three questions will show that most Christian bookstores are a business, not a ministry: (1) Does it give away its product when the customer (or should we call him a “client”?) cannot afford to pay? (2) Does it try to move books discovered to be worthless or harmful by putting them on 25-percent-off sales, and the like? (3) Does it rigidly select its books on the principle of what is pure doctrine, what will edify, and what promotes the gospel—or on the principle of what won’t offend its clientele?

REV. ALAN DAN ORME

The University Church

Athens, Ga.

We consider our bookstore exclusively a ministry. A legitimate profit-oriented business would not tolerate the 10-hour lunchless workday at below the minimum-wage salary, or all the “nonprofit” hours spent with customers in counseling and in prayer. Only a ministry would find satisfaction in such things.

We know that we are responsible for what we sell over our counter. And, since the industry is not that “clean,” our “tension” is trying to gain back the valuable time lost spent in checking each new “Christian” publication to see if it is of the faith, or another counterfeit.

VICTOR V. BRYDITZKI

Nuggets of Wisdom Bookstore

Auburn, Calif.

Test Questions

After tallying my score on Donald Bloesch’s “What Think Ye of Christ? A Test” (Sept. 5), I was rather surprised and dismayed that not only did I miss the narrow gate of orthodoxy, I couldn’t even squeeze through the wider door of neoorthodoxy. Indeed, I barely escaped the stigmata of “extreme liberal, humanist, or confused.”

I found that I failed the test of orthodoxy because I have been tinged (however faintly) by evangelicalism. I believe that if the Good News is to be meaningful to unbelievers, it must be expressed in language meaningful to them. In other words, evangelical theology is best when it speaks as well or better to the unchurched than it does to the Born-Again-Bible-Believing-Fundamental-Pre/Postmillennial-Orthodox Christian.

To the orthodox, “propitiatory sacrifice” and “vicarious substitutionary atonement” are adequate descriptions of Jesus’ suffering on the cross. But to those who are trying to convey the significance of the Cross to a secular world, such cumbersome, scholastic jargon only impedes communication.

JAMES A. GROVES

First United Presbyterian Church

Arkansas City, Kans.

I would like to share some reactions regarding Dr. Bloesch’s “puzzle.” For the record, I have an M.A. in theological studies. I was nevertheless frankly overwhelmed by the vocabulary of Dr. Bloesch’s questions (or should I say “answers”?).

I am not in basic disagreement with the thesis, or purpose, of Bloesch’s quiz. Bravo! My hat is off to anyone daring to raise Nicene issues in what seems like a post-Nicene, post-Reformation age in theological discussion, especially within the pages of a popular Christian magazine. But I do think the quiz would have served as a wonderful introduction to an article on some of the heresies and knotty problems raised in early Christological considerations.

WILLIAM D. BLAKE

Lyttleton Street United Methodist Church

Camden, S.C.

News Note

I note in your news article “Churches Go on Offensive over Draft Registration” (Sept. 5) that you identified the American Friends Service Committee as Quaker. While the AFSC is very vocal on many issues and many Quakers support it, many more of us do not support its secular political activities, nor does it speak for us.

With regard to registration for a possible military draft, the California Yearly Meeting of Friends at its annual session in July agreed that we should provide counseling, pray for, and support young persons of registration age in their personal decisions whether to serve or not to serve.

ROBERT D. ESCHERICH

Big Bear City, Calif.

Hungry for More

It was refreshing to find a Christian who has a grasp of the “big picture” regarding the complex world food and hunger problem. However, in her article “World Hunger: Starve It or Feed It?” (Sept. 5), Dr. Bee-Lan Wang failed to clarify an important point. She agrees that an increase in food supply reduces death rates while birth rates remain high. But she fails to emphasize that if this is where we stop, then helping the hungry does indeed increase the problem of poverty and starvation.

What’s wrong with a more basic integration of Scripture—that feeding the poor really includes helping them to greater socioeconomic development resulting in reduced birth rates and an increase in self-sufficiency?

A. IRVING DOW

Prosser, Wash.

I couldn’t help but feel that Bee-Lan Wang’s conclusions were much too simplistic. For example, she suggests that “we” can “ask” the multinationals to stop their exploitative policies, as if “we” are not ourselves guilty of feeding the production-consumption cycle. I’ve always found it difficult to believe the pastors and church members with “spare tires” felt much compassion anyway, at least in their actions.

PETER BYLER

Chicago, Ill.

Response to the Poor

With so much talk about the “poor” bandied about in evangelical circles today, it was refreshing to read George Sweeting’s sensible, biblical article on this subject, “Our Response to the Poor: A Barometer of Belief” (Sept. 5). This was a much needed response to the romanticization and idolization of poverty so prevalent among certain evangelical groups.

SUZANNE GEISSLER

Upsala College

East Orange, N.J.

Dr. Sweeting’s approach to the amelioration of the world’s massive problem of poverty is in my opinion rather naive and simplistic. While one is expected to do his part by addressing in a positive way the immediate situation, one simply has got to get beyond the pat answers of the “white evangelical community,” What is needed is prophetic commitment, initiative, and demonstration on the part of leaders like Sweeting to deal with many of the obvious causes. Much of the cause can be laid at the doorstep of “white evangelical leaders” who have aided and abetted the heresy of a “dichotomized gospel,” rather than stressing the gospel of the kingdom with its heavy ethical demands for the believer.

REV. JAMES C. OFFUTT

Peoria, Ill.

Doesn’t ‘Ad’ Up

In your articles (Sept. 5) on the poor and disadvantaged I could hear the frustration and concern on the part of the writers as they sought to deal with the issues that world poverty and hunger raise. The scriptural injunctions about our care for the poor and their plight came through with graphic intensity.

With this in mind, I find it somewhat incongruous to find in the same issue an advertisement for a piece of jewelry that is “simple, sincere, and full of Spirit” that retails in 14K gold for $381.50. This would seem to me to be somewhat akin to the placement of cigarette ads in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

REV. ROY THOMAS

First Baptist Church

Laurel, Md.

In your hands is the largest single copy in CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s 24-year history. While we would not dare claim it as the best issue ever, we believe it is a good issue, offering you a variety of articles discussing with sobriety, fairness, and integrity questions that challenge the church today. For over a century, many conservative Christians have reckoned “higher criticism” to be a tool of the devil designed to undermine biblical faith. Allan MacRae, Old Testament scholar widely trusted by most evangelicals and fundamentalists, assesses its legitimate role. He dispels many misconceptions and points out higher criticism’s true values as well as its shortcomings.

Tom Minnery reports on a decisive shakeup in the Seventh-day Adventist church and sheds new light on the puzzling question of whether or not this rapidly growing body is evangelical. John Maust relates the struggles of seceding United Presbyterians to form a new association of thoroughly evangelical Presbyterians. Maust includes an update on efforts of four other Presbyterian groups to unite and the serious efforts of some others to remain united in their troubled but historic denomination.

J. D. Douglas interviews F. F. Bruce, one of the truly great evangelical scholars of this generation. From Professor Bruce’s own pen we find a mature assessment of where New Testament studies are headed.

Years ago, Carl Henry shook evangelicals out of their political and social isolation with his volume, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. Now 30 years later he assesses the social stance of evangelicals and the entire American church as revealed by the CHRISTIANITY TODAY-Gallup Poll. And Douglas Webster provides practical suggestions to help the local church get involved where people are hurting.

All told, this issue supplies you with a rich diet to expand your mind. Happy reading.

In this issue you will notice a few masthead changes. It is always delightful to see people grow, and we’re very pleased to announce the promotions of Keith Stonehocker to vice-president of marketing, and Roy Coffman to vice-president of sales; John Chilson has just joined us as circulation manager. All of this is part of our strategy for facing the tough challenges of publishing in the 1980s.

An additional marketing strength is our new “rep” program. We now have over 100 people across the country representing CHRISTIANITY TODAY and LEADERSHIP to churches, bookstores, and advertisers. This month Clemence N. Butts will take over the fledgling but already productive program as its manager.

We are often asked, “How’s LEADERSHIP doing?” The new publication continues to far exceed expectations; we printed 60,000 of the last issue. It’s obvious there is a great need in our churches for this kind of practical help, and we are right now wrapping up issue number four.

It seems strange to be making these announcements and not sharing them with Maxey Jarman, who was so heavily involved with C.T. (since its inception) and gave us so much encouragement to launch LEADERSHIP. Maxey died September 9 (see page 13). For so vital and so element force to be gone from us is to leave a strange vacuum.

Maxey was a man of great vision, building the Jarman Shoe Company into Genesco-which Time magazine termed in Maxey’s obituary “the world’s largest apparel conglomerate.” Yet he could show concern for the smallest details. Five years ago, when CHRISTIANITY TODAY ran into financial difficulties, he pored over ledgers and met for hours with staff members. Later, as we searched out a building for C.T„ he would willingly hop on an airplane to Washington or Chicago and tramp through various properties, always cheerful and optimistic—even when nothing materialized. When we finally had two good options he said, “Oh, definitely, this one” (Carol Stream, Ill.). And he was right!

Maxey usually was. He was decisive and candid. His candor could smart, and of course, he could also be wrong. But there was never anything personal in his statements. He held no grudge. None! I was personally amazed to see how his prayer life lifted him above bitterness in what most of us would consider devastating events.

Paul Robbins asked Maxey after a C.T. board meeting not long ago, “What are the most important lessons you’ve learned over the past 35 years?” Maxey thought long and hard, then responded. “Number one, I’ve learned how to suffer; you can only grow through pain.” Then he said, “Number two, I’ve learned to love the Word. Ever since I was 11 years old, I’ve read the Bible through each year; but in these last years I’ve learned to love the Word.” This was richly evident in Maxey’s funeral at First Baptist in Nashville. He had chosen extensive passages full of hope and resurrection promise, and his pastor read them with conviction from Maxey’s well-marked NIV. This tremendously uplifting reading of Scripture was the center of his memorial service, as it had been the center of his life.

Maxey was also a learned man. Most people never heard about his honorary doctorates. His reading encompassed an unusually broad spectrum of writers. Stopping with him in a bookstore one day, I was amazed at all the Jewish history he had read. He had a breadth of interests—his office was decorated with his own abstract paintings. Some thought all this contradictory: the man of “simple faith” and broad insights. But as Fred Smith, his friend of 43 years, has pointed out, once you understood his commitments and perspective, his actions were always completely logical.

Maxey loved to work. Golf? Why waste time when you could be pursuing the joy of working? Though 76, he looked like a man of 60 at our last board meetings. His red hair was still full, his handshake firm, and his involvement vigorous. Even near the end, as he drifted in and out of a coma with Fred at his side, his intense curiosity was intact: “What do you know about the black holes in space?” he asked. Fred had just read his files on the subject and told him everything he knew about them. Maxey’s next question was, “What do you consider the greatest problems facing the world today?” His focus was on the future, not the past.

Maxey still has a future! He expressed it so eloquently in his selections of Scripture for his memorial service: 1 Corinthians 15:20–26, 35–49, 57, 58; Ephesians 2:4–10; 3:14–19; Psalm 34:3–5, 8–10; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18; 1 Peter 1:3–9; 1 John 4:7–21. The ringing convictions of those verses resonate perfectly with Maxey Jarman’s life.

President, Christianity Today, Inc.