The NCC: Evangelism in Focus

“Evangelism” is back in focus for the recently reorganized National Council of Churches. After two days of discussion by the council’s section on church renewal (one of five such controlling “sections,” which oversee priority areas of the council’s work), the NCC’s Governing Board, meeting in Los Angeles last month, approved plans to create a working group on evangelism complete with a paid staff—if the funds come in from member denominations.

The new group is described as being aimed at member denominations’ evangelism executives, though nonmembers will be invited to join also. The action was suggested by a task force on evangelism set up by the board at its Pittsburgh meeting last year and headed by Lutheran Church in America evangelism director Raymond May. The task force asked the board to set up a unit to assist member denominations with evangelism by providing resources, doing research on evangelism, offering training in “witnessing and proclamation,” and engaging in field projects. The group is to be lodged in the NCC’s division of Church and Society. Its first meeting will be in the spring, said May, by invitation only.

Contingent approval of the working group came about because of denominational grassroots concern over the NCC’s neglect of evangelism, according to board members who spoke up during the section discussions.

John Anderson, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Dallas and a former Southern Presbyterian evangelism head, said in an interview that preoccupation with social activism during the 1960s meant evangelism was “not a hot agenda item. It went by the boards.” Now, he said, the pendulum is swinging back to evangelism—although the board noted that its new group will seek to work in the areas of both “personal and societal salvation.” Every denomination represented at Los Angeles “is more aware of the need,” said Anderson. Certainly the council “underplayed” it, affirmed May, adding that the new group is “an attempt to recognize a growing concern” signified in part by Key 73. (Both Anderson and May were involved in the year-long Key 73 evangelism program, and several NCC member churches, including the Lutheran Church in America and the United Methodist Church, supported Key 73 heavily.)

Opening the evangelism group to non-NCC members is seen as one way of carrying out another of the board’s decisions—to reach out to “conservative evangelicals.” That was one of several priorities laid out by the section on church unity. Other targets of the interest of this section were Roman Catholics and Jews. In fact, increased cooperation with the Catholics was listed as the section’s number-two priority (topping the list was a regionalization plan to increase liaison between ecumenical bodies at national, state, and local levels). In a welcoming address, the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles, Timothy Cardinal Manning, invited the council to join Catholics in celebrating “Holy Year” in 1975. Pope Paul proposed the year as one of “renewal and reconciliation” for Catholics. Manning said a formal invitation for NCC participation is forthcoming from the U.S. Catholic conference of bishops.

The NCC executive committee announced a $200,000 Lilly Foundation grant to establish a Jewish-Christian relations office at NCC headquarters in New York. The grant, spread over two years and to be divided between the new office and the NCC’s existing Middle East desk, got the Jewish-relations office off the ground. Approved last year, it has been waiting for financial backing. NCC staffers say the office will develop “strategies for encounter” between Jews and Christians and operate as an information clearing house. (The American Jewish Committee applauded the new office, calling it a major step in overcoming “past misunderstandings.”)

But while busy with resolutions and hours-long section meetings, the Governing Board also made time for non-NCCers to castigate the council over real or imagined sins. Heading the parade of critics was a group of New York blacks (and one white social worker) who had taken over and barricaded the NCC offices only five days before the Los Angeles meeting began. Calling themselves the Committee for Justice—Social, Racial, and Criminal, the activists demanded the ouster of the brand-new NCC general secretary, Claire Randall, for alleged “racist bigotry,” a radical restructuring of the council by establishment of an autonomous division for justice funded by a 10 per cent “tithe” of the NCC budget, and a public apology to a former black NCC staffer, Robert Chapman, fired with fourteen other staffers in a staff shakeup last year.

The group appeared in Los Angeles as part of the deal to end the thirty-six-hour office take-over. But after listening to a forty-five minute harangue, described by one delegate as “mid-sixties inflammatory rhetoric,” and larded with personal invective against Ms. Randall, the Governing Board rejected the demands in a nearly unanimous vote. (Ms. Randall took office on January 1 and was installed in a quiet service at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Los Angeles.) Nevertheless, delegates spent a total of eight hours in a racism workshop spread out over the four-day meeting.

Next were representatives of a Native American conference also taking place in Los Angeles. The Indians, with less rhetoric but equal passion, demanded recognition from the NCC that Indians are oppressed. They challenged the council to support demands that Indians be exempt from taxation and that a 1 per cent tax on the gross profits of American business be turned back to the Indians as “reparations” for past injustice. The Indians also demanded that the council issue a pronouncement “that all religions, especially those outside Christianity, be considered equal within the eyes of the Almighty.” The prime beneficiary of such a declaration, they added, should be traditional Indian religions.

Appearing before the board with thanks instead of demands were representatives of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, which promoted a boycott of the Farah Manufacturing Company in El Paso, Texas (see March 15 issue, page 59). The clothing workers thanked delegates for supporting the boycott. Announcing settlement of the dispute, ACW spokesman Arthur Keyes drew laughter with his end-the-boycott appeal that delegates “please buy Farah slacks.” United Farm Workers leader Cesar Chavez also stopped by to thank delegates for aid in farm-produce boycotts and to laud the council as the first major religious body to support the UFW. (After passing a resolution of support, ten NCC delegates personally took the UFW case to the Gallo Wine Corporation, which is engaged in a union dispute with the UFW. They later reported to the 200-plus other delegates that they had made little headway.)

In other council actions, Christians in Korea and Haitian refugees in the United States came under scrutiny. Delegates called for restoration of freedom in Korea, noting that six clerics had been jailed and many others “harassed” under current martial law in that country. They also urged the U.S. State Department to drop its plan to deport more than 400 Haitian refugees; the refugees had been deprived of their rights, they said, and faced possible death or imprisonment in Haiti.

The Governing Board also: established an Energy Crisis Task Force to work with energy agencies to “alleviate the impact of the crisis” among the poor; condemned further U.S. aid to South Viet Nam until freedom of press and speech are restored there; called for Congress to act “expediently” on impeachment of President Nixon for his sake and the nation’s; and, finally, called for public financing of election campaigns.

Worse Than Kidnapping

Forced abduction of teen-agers and adults for the purpose of changing religious beliefs came under heavy fire at the Los Angeles meeting of the National Council of Churches’ Governing Board (see preceding story).

“Kidnapping for ransom is heinous indeed,” a board resolution declared, “but kidnapping to compel religious deconversion is, if possible, worse.” The resolution condemning “deprogramming” grew out of a study by the NCC section on Culture and Life Fulfillment and was drafted by staffer Dean Kelley, who heads the NCC’s religious-liberty division. Kelley drew on his studies of deprogrammer Ted Patrick and gave the board background information from Patrick’s trial in New York last year, in which he was acquitted of assault and unlawful imprisonment charges brought by the New Testament Missionary Fellowship. Kelley appeared as a prosecution witness in the case (see August 31, 1973, issue, page 40).

The board adopted the resolution with little debate and few negative votes. It charged that while kidnapping is a serious federal crime, few grand juries are willing to indict those charged with kidnapping for the purpose of deprogramming, and fewer court juries are willing to convict.

The board invoked the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in defense of those who choose different religious life styles and said that while defection from the family faith may cause “intense anguish for parents” it is not justification for forcible abduction. It scoffed at charges that some religious groups employ force, drugs, and hypnotism to hold believers. “If true, such actions should be prosecuted under the law,” it said, “but thus far the evidence all runs the other way: It is the would-be rescuers who are admittedly using force.”

The solution, said the board, may lie in putting the right to choose a religion in the same category with the right to vote and guaranteeing both to 18-year-olds.

Armstrong Aftermath: A New Church

A new national church was born in Washington, D. C., this month, offspring of thirty-five former ministers of the Worldwide Church of God. Their labor pains were induced by unhappiness with the theological and administrative leadership of the WCG’s chiefs, Herbert W. and Garner Ted Armstrong; some resigned, others were expelled (see March 15 issue, page 49).

The new group, called the Associated Churches of God, has gathered between 2,000 and 3,000 members surfeited with Armstrongism. Two former WCG regional directors, Kenneth Westby of Washington, D. C., and Walter Sharp of Big Sandy, Texas, are chairman and vice-chairman of the fifteen-member board of trustees of the new church.

The breakaway group immediately set forth distinctives from the parent body: no requirement for tithing; permission for persons to remarry after divorce and remain members of the church; and autonomy at the congregational level with no rigid central authority.

Reaction from WCG headquarters in Pasadena, California, was predictable: the action proved that a “handful of ministers” had schemed for months to split over trumped-up issues, declared Stanley Rader, the WCG’s chief legal counsel. Their insubordination, he continued, had “breached their trust to the church, the brethren, and to God,” and apparent widespread unhappiness over the church’s booklet, “Divorce and Remarriage” (now recalled by Herbert Armstrong), was only “an excuse.”

Rader also said regional directorships (three of the departing ministers had filled these positions) had been scrapped in favor of direct communication between field ministers and headquarters (dissidents called it a spy system).

Meanwhile, the future of two WCG vice-presidents remained queasy. After resigning because certain demands made of the Armstrongs went unmet, David Antion (Garner Ted’s brother-in-law) and Albert J. Portune reconsidered two days later. Both were “offered” two months’ leave with full pay, and Herbert Armstrong promised to devote his “life and energies” to binding up the wounds.

Antion and wife retreated to Hawaii; Portune said he would go to desert regions, either along the Colorado River or at Palm Springs. “I feel the organization is trying very hard to solve this problem,” Portune said of his change of heart.

Antion’s and Portune’s decision to stick with the establishment—at least for now—seemed to be an about-face. Hours before, the pair had given a reporter a copy of the letter they had written the Armstrongs. Among other things, it said doctrinal and administrative problems were “bonafide issues” that Garner Ted himself had “agonized over to both of us and before dozens of other of the headquarters and field ministers for a long time.”

Their accusations were blunt: “You, Ted, yourself, have decried the dictatorial and unbearable rules and labeled it as being out of the dark ages. You … have been one of the primary ones to repudiate your father’s methods and conclusions in the D&R [Divorce and Re-marriage] booklet. You, Ted, yourself, have been one of the most outspoken of us all about the opulence, ornate buildings, and hundreds of thousands of dollars—even millions—spent on paintings, punch bowls, gold fixtures, vases, sculpture, jewelry, bric-a-brac, and the like … and we could go on and on.”

Dissidents were predicting at mid-month that up to 30 per cent of the WCG’s 167 active pastors (there are 263 U. S. congregations) would leave within weeks. Also to be seen is how the breakaway congregations will fare without the Armstrong aura, and whether, as Rader insists, the purge was a spring tonic to the ongoing church.

RUSSELL CHANDLER

BODY FOOD

The little community of Chapin, Ohio (population: 150), has been without a grocery store for three years. But Pastor James Davidson and his congregation at the Salem United Methodist Church have decided to do something about it. They are going into the grocery business.

Davidson says the store will hire low-income Chapin residents to operate it. Equipment for the venture is being donated by church groups.

Key: Epidemic, ’74?

There’ll be an epidemic of evangelism in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) this year and next if the Reverend Roy C. Key has anything to say about it. And he may. Last fall the Ames, Iowa, minister was elected president of the church’s National Evangelistic Association (see November 23, 1973 issue, page 58).

In the loosely structured Christian Church, the association has no policymaking power and a small budget. But, says Key, successful evangelism needs a “contagious community of faith” more than power or money or even methods. “All the traditional methods are pretty important,” he drawls in a Southern accent still strong after more than a decade in the Midwest, but it’s faith that must be catching.

Although two full-time staffers in the Disciples’ Indianapolis headquarters provide evangelism materials, the Evangelistic Association is “not an integral part of the structure,” according to Key. Still, in a church historically devoted to unification, there have always been “those of us really concerned about evangelism, about personal commitments to Jesus Christ as Lord,” who have kept the bug alive. At times evangelistic concern has waned, Key says, because of crises of faith rather than because potential evangelizers don’t know what to do. Now, he believes, interest is swelling, and he hopes the Evangelistic Asociation will inject it with insights from the perspectives of both individual conversion and social action and with the implications of current theologies for evangelism.

Ideally, he muses, all elements of church structure should be “inbreathed by evangelistic concerns.” Usually, though, that structure departmentalizes evangelism, education, worship, service, and the like. But “without being a worshipping community a church can’t be an evangelizing community,” Key says. And the people need to “know what Christian faith is and have some ability to communicate it.”

Key and his First Christian Church in Ames know from recent experience what an injection of evangelistic fervor can mean. During a year of All Church Evangelism (ACE), members dialed every listed telephone in their university town—about 10,000 calls. For their pains their church grew hardly at all, and Key himself suffered a heart attack. One professor they contacted ultimately made a Christian commitment—and began attending another Church.

Still, Key says, he would advise other congregations to expend that kind of effort. “Just keeping house as usual is not very rewarding,” he notes. “Reaching out helped us become what we wanted to be anyway.”

JANET ROHLER GREISCH

Skeeter’S Still Singing

Country music star Skeeter Davis left Nashville for a March tour of Africa with Bill Lowery and the Christ Is The Answer crusade. Miss Davis, 41, was a fifteen-year veteran of the world-famous “Grand Ole Opry” until she was suspended on December 8 after criticizing Nashville police on the live WSM radio show the night before.

Just before singing “Amazing Grace,” Miss Davis chided police for arresting eleven young people from Christ Is The Answer as they distributed tracts at a local shopping center. According to Miss Davis, who witnessed the arrests, she felt compelled to speak out “on behalf of my brothers and sisters who were arrested for telling people that Jesus loves them.” After the Opry performance, Miss Davis visited the jail, saying that her heart was heavy for her people.

Nashville police would say only that shoppers had complained that members of the group were pestering them. Those arrested were charged with either trespassing or disorderly conduct. Only two out of a total of sixteen persons arrested during December were convicted, and they served ten-day jail sentences.

Officials at the “Grand Ole Opry” and its parent corporation, National Life and Accident Company, have declined to comment on the entertainer’s suspension. Miss Davis meanwhile has publicly stated that she has no intention of apologizing to the police for her remarks.

Miss Davis, known for her mod wardrobe and for a menagerie of dogs, a dove, ducks, and a wildcat, skyrocketed to stardom with her 1953 recording of “I Forgot More.” The twenty-year veteran RCA recording artist continued as a soloist after the death of her singing partner that same year and later received a Grammy Award. A non-drinker, she has always refused to appear in clubs that serve alcohol. A few years ago she stopped growing tobacco on a farm she owns because of her stand against smoking.

In Nashville, Miss Davis attends an interdenominational church, Lord’s Chapel, pastored by Assemblies of God minister Billy Roy Moore. Since her December suspension from the Opry, Miss Davis has been touring the South with Lowery’s group. She first met the so-called Jesus people during a record promotion tour in Indianapolis, then began participating in their services when Lowery moved his group to Nashville last fall.

In January she sang at a “Jesus Country Rally” with Lowery’s group in Las Vegas, a favorite crusade mission field where last year the group met with stiff opposition from casino operators and the police.

A number of evangelicals in Nashville and elsewhere once sympathetic to Lowery say they were turned off by his negative preaching.

Lowery and his band were formerly part of a Milwaukee-based Christian youth commune headed by street-Christian leader Jim Palosaari. Palosaari and another segment of the Milwaukee group have been evangelizing in Europe for more than a year. They plan to tour the United States with a musical (The Lonesome Stone) they produced about Jesus people.

GENEVIEVE J. WADDELL

Consulting On Canterbury

As expected, Anglican Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury for thirteen years, announced he will retire in November when he reaches the age of 70. The announcement touched off another round of speculation as to his successor from among a field of likely candidates.

At the recent Church of England general synod Ramsey fielded several questions about the appointment of his successor. For some time the procedure whereby episcopal appointments are made has caused mutterings in the ranks. The Queen appoints the new archbishop on advice from the Prime Minister. But for the first time members of the church will have some say in the choice. Under amended rules of the general synod, its standing committee—composed of clergymen and laymen—is consulted (the committee was scheduled to meet with Prime Minister Wilson’s man this month).

After Ramsey had countered questions at the synod with the customary soothing assurances about “the fullest possible consultation with the church,” longtime establishment scourge Christopher Wansey of Chelmsford put the issue more bluntly: “Is the standing committee content that the next successor to the chair of St. Augustine should be selected by a civil servant, and finally be decided upon by a politician, neither of whom has the slightest moral or legal right to usurp an entirely Christian function?”

The aghast archbishop sidestepped, pointing out that any suggested change involved going through proper channels. He might have added that it would mean political as well as ecclesiastical legislation. All told, the usurper’s prerogative of choosing the 101st archbishop this year is not in jeopardy.

J. D. DOUGLAS

Religion In Transit

Among the Grammy Award winners: the Bill Gaither Trio for “Let’s Just Praise the Lord” (best inspirational performance); the Blackwood Brothers for “Release Me From My Sin” (gospel); and the Dixie Hummingbirds for “Love Me Like A Rock” (best soul gospel).

A new convenience for immersionists is being advertised. It’s called Bapto—a disposable baptismal robe. The complete kit includes a cloth to keep water out of the nose, a paper towel for drying, and a plastic bag in which to put everything after the ceremony.

New York Seminary will cut back its courses, enrollment, and facilities, according to President George W. Webber. It will move to the Union Seminary campus, discontinue biblical studies, and concentrate on “model programs in the practice of ministry.”

A county court in Pittsburgh ruled that property used by four congregations which withdrew from the United Methodist Church belongs to the denomination. (The churches were formerly part of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, which merged with the Methodist body, and have since affiliated with the Evangelical Church of North America.)

The occupational title “clergyman” is one of fifty-two “sex-stereotyped job titles” that is being eliminated by the U. S. Census Bureau from its classification system. From now on, the job title will be simply “clergy.”

Some 3,000 delegates to the executive board meeting of the 4.5-million-member National Baptist Convention of America, a predominantly black body, voted unanimously to ask poor people not to accept the food the kidnappers of Patricia Hearst demanded for her release.

The Washington National Cathedral will get a piece of the rock returned from the Sea of Tranquility by Apollo 11 astronauts, thanks to former NASA administrator Thomas O. Paine and some string-pulling at the White House. Paine has donated a stained glass window depicting creation in which the rock chip will be embedded.

Personalia

Succeeding Professor William Barclay, 67, Scotland’s best known biblical scholar (see March 15 issue, page 52), in the chair of biblical criticism at Glasgow University will be Irish-born Dr. Ernest Best of St. Andrews.

Miss Ann Douglas, daughter of a black United Presbyterian minister in North Carolina and a staffer of the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization (IFCO), was chosen to be IFCO’s new executive director. To date, the coalition has allocated some $4 million in grants to U. S. and foreign groups.

DEATHS

HERBERT J. ELLIOTT, 76, bishop of the separatist United Christian Church, a small denomination of churches in New York and New Jersey (not to be confused with an older Pennsylvania group); in Glendale, New York.

LEROY EDWIN FROOM, 83, prominent Seventh-day Adventist historian and ministerial leader; in Takoma Park, Maryland, of a heart attack.

RUTH G. JEFFREY, 76, pioneer Christian and Missionary Alliance missionary to Viet Nam and daughter of Jonathan Goforth, famed Canadian Presbyterian missionary to China; in Markham, Ontario, of a heart attack.

PAUL J. LINDELL, 58, director for thirty-three years of the World Mission Prayer League, an independent Lutheran fellowship with 130 missionaries in ten fields; of cancer, in Minneapolis.

HARRY B. MCCORMICK, 90, leader in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and in ecumenical circles; in Martinsville, Indiana.

O. CLAY MAXWELL, 90, pastor of New York City’s Mt. Olivet Baptist Church and National Baptist Convention leader; in New York.

WILLIAM T. PHILLIPS, 79, founder and bishop of the Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God, a black body claiming 100,000 members in 350 churches; in Mobile, Alabama.

As expected, Federal Communications Commission member Richard E. Wiley, 39, an evangelical Methodist (see February 15 issue, page 45), was appointed by President Nixon to head the FCC, replacing Dean Burch.

New presidents: Assembly of God pastor Robert H. Spence, Evangel College, Springfield, Missouri; educator C. Ellis Nelson, Louisville Seminary (United Presbyterian); Christian education specialist and seminary teacher KennethO. Gangel, Miami Christian University. Former pastor and seminary executive Ray P. Rust was named acting president of New Orleans Baptist Seminary (Southern Baptist).

THE CHANGING FRONTIERS OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

The thirty-two people who staff the headquarters office of Americans United for Separation of Church and State are keeping their fingers crossed this spring. Legally, things have been going their way: they have won nineteen out of twenty court cases opposing state aid to religious schools (see News, March 1 issue, p. 107). Financially, however, the non-profit organization is in a bind, having run up a deficit of nearly $200,000 last year.

AU leaders realize that the lack of funds is partly the result of success. Some supporters, caught in complacency, have not increased their giving to offset inflation. The organization’s income was reportedly about average last year, but expenses increased considerably. A large amount was spent to set up retirement funds for several key people who have served the organization faithfully.

Executive Director Glenn Archer thinks AU would have received more money had not the economic situation been unconducive to the selling of stocks. He says the political climate also discouraged giving.

Still another factor is that gifts to Americans United cannot currently be deducted from income tax. AU’s appeal of the withdrawal of its tax-exempt status by the IRS is now before the U. S. Supreme Court.1A sister organization has been set up as a tax-exempt group that vows to do no lobbying. Lobbying is what prompted the IRS to revoke AU’s tax-exempt status.

AU does have somewhat of a financial cushion in that it owns its own office building in Silver Spring, Maryland, just outside Washington, D. C. Regional offices in Atlanta, Chicago, and Los Angeles may be shut down to cut costs.

The financial challenge is not the only one to be faced by the successor to Archer, who is to retire later this year. Different kinds of issues are being raised than those in which AU has been immersed for a generation. Until recently, church-state separationists have been concerned mainly with keeping sectarian influences out of public education. Now they may be called upon to do battle with anti-religious and occult influences. So-called deprogrammers and prayer-amendment advocates also bring up the need for more protection under the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment.

So far, AU has not offered to help citizens who want to bring suit against anti-religious teaching in public schools. One such case has been brought by Washington Star-News religion editor William Willoughby, who wants the courts to require that government-financed textbooks deal more fairly with the question of origins.

AU has also been silent on the Equal Rights Amendment. And although the sympathies of AU leaders are with the Supreme Court’s pro-abortion ruling, they have not taken an official position.

New leaders may be prodded to take a hard look at the growing fascination of public school teachers with supernatural phenomena. A prime example is Bryant Junior High School in Minneapolis, where a course being given covers not only superstitution and myth (vampires, werewolves, ghosts, witches, and so on) but astrology, palmistry, numerology, and ESP. A letter from the English Department told parents that a séance would be conducted, and that if finances permit, a medium or witch would be brought in as a guest speaker.

DAVID KUCHARSKY

World Scene

Global population has reached 3.8 billion, say statisticians, and is increasing by 70 million souls a year. It is expected to double within 35 years.

A dissident Catholic priest known popularly as “Padre Chemita” nearly won the election for mayor of Guatemala City. He placed second in a field of twelve, losing by less than 3,000 votes. The padre was bitterly opposed by the hierarchy (he has advocated social reform, “desacrilization” of the priesthood, and an “authentically Guatemalan” church that will give its wealth to the poor). Evangelicals apparently gave him strong support; several were on his slate.

Nene Ramientos, leader of the Christ the Only Way (COW) evangelism program in the Philippines, reports that 10,000 evangelistic home Bible-study groups and nearly 6,700 Christian fellowship groups have been formed in the first phase of the program. In this year’s second phase, evangelistic campaigns will be held in twenty cities.

A group of forty-two evangelical Baptists in Barnaul, Siberia, have requested permission to leave the Soviet Union, citing Soviet Jews as a precedent, according to a Swedish Baptist source.

Church membership in East Germany dropped from 9 million to 8.4 million over the last year, according to East German sources. Most losses were in Lutheran and Lutheran-Reform churches.

According to a story in the African Christian Messenger the city of Accra, Ghana, has been shaken by reports of resurrection of a 39-year-old man named Kwaku Adjei. Pastor S. K. Badu of the Holy Trinity Healing Church at Dichemson, Kumasi, is said to have interrupted his morning service to go to Adjei’s deathbed and bid him rise.

A new African Methodist Episcopal printing house was recently dedicated in Capetown, South Africa. It will provide bilingual materials in ten dialects for AME churches in South Africa, Liberia, Ghana, and Nigeria. (There are 75 AME churches in Africa and two church-sponsored colleges, supported by annual gifts of nearly $150,000 from the denomination in the United States.)

Theology

The Spirit in Jerusalem

Despite political, economic, and religious turmoil in Israel, more than 4,000 persons from all over the world (the majority of them from the United States) traveled to Jerusalem this month for the first charismatic-oriented World Conference on the Holy Spirit. In all, thirty-five nations were represented.

The conference contributed to a revival of Israel’s vital tourism business, badly crippled by the October Yom Kippur war. For a while, the New Jersey-based Logos International Fellowship, sponsor of the conference, had considered canceling it. But, said Logos president Dan Malachuk to conferees on opening night, “God said to go ahead with our plans.” (Later, Logos announced another conference for 1975.)

The three-day meeting—part of a Logos fund-raising tour package—centered on worship, praise, and teaching, involving a variety of speakers and other participants. Loosely organized, the conference meetings at times were interrupted by prophecies and messages in tongues followed by interpretations; there was handclapping, dancing, and “singing in the Spirit.” The sessions were held in Congress Hall, the largest convention center in Jerusalem. Closed-circuit television brought the service to overflow crowds in rooms outside the main auditorium. Such speakers as the well-known author Corrie Ten Boom, theologian J. Rodman Williams, and broadcaster Pat Robertson emphasized the work of the Holy Spirit in lives today.

A healing service conducted by Kathryn Kuhlman got major attention in the Jerusalem press and was much discussed in Jerusalem streets. By popular request she held another service on the final evening of the conference.

The interest generated by the conference (even the Orthodox Jewish newspaper on the final day decided to devote attention to the story) was in marked contrast to the uneasiness over recent acts of terrorism in the city. Two weeks before the conference opened, several Christian-owned buildings were bombed, allegedly by members of the Jewish Defense League in apparent retaliation for mission activity. (But, according to a Jewish Christian source, one group bombed had no evangelistic outreach.) The Israeli government immediately offered to pay for the damage. Since last year’s rash of bombings and threats, the government has instituted stiffer punishments and increased efforts to catch terrorists badgering Christians who live in Jerusalem.

Some missionaries were concerned that with 4,000 evangelical and charismatic believers in town, some might be overly zealous in attempts to witness to the Jews—with the consequence of further hardship on those who live in Israel. But, said a Southern Baptist missionary, “we were relieved to find that this has not happened.”

The convention got some press coverage, but competition was stiff: Henry Kissinger was huddled with government negotiators, and Golda Meir had announced her willingness to resign as prime minister in the aftermath of the national election.

The overflow crowd—Logos had at first anticipated only about 3,000 participants—was a blessing to Israel’s strained economy. In the first two months of this year Israel’s cost of living rose 7 per cent; the increase in 1973 was more than a third. The price of food has nearly doubled in a year. Beef is scarce, and many conference delegates, especially Americans, complained of the steady poultry diet.

Delegates had more to complain about than lack of beef. Making arrangements for more than 4,000 people was a huge problem for the travel agents handling—or, chided some, mishandling—the task. Luggage was lost or misplaced, and there were mixups in accommodations (some who had paid for single rooms, for instance, were shoehorned in with two and three other persons).

Other than logistical complaints, the most commonly heard criticisms of the conference were that it lacked solid Bible teaching and placed too much emphasis on tongues and exuberance in worship. In commenting on the group’s worship style, Justus Du Plessis, brother of the well-known Pentecostal spokesman David Du Plessis (the conference’s keynote speaker), said: “It seems to be an infantile stage that newly Spirit-filled Christians must go through.”

He stressed that Bible teaching should have top priority. But unlike several other name personalities, Du Plessis, who is from South Africa, said he found some good instruction at the conference.

Interviews with various delegates indicate that the charismatic movement continues to grow throughout the world. In South Africa, for example, the attitude of the largest Dutch Reformed denomination toward neo-Pentecostalism has completely changed, according to Du Plessis (the two smaller Dutch Reformed bodies, however, still maintain an anti-charismatic stance). Also, the Anglican church in South Africa has at least one charismatic bishop and many charismatic priests. And there is a growing involvement of Catholics. All this has happened within the past two years or so.

Missionaries in Israel, too, are not unaffected by the new wave of the Spirit. Southern Baptist, Scottish Presbyterian, and Mennonite missionaries (they work mainly among the Arab population) now have charismatics in their ranks, and several of the few hundred known Israeli believers are part of the movement.

THE GOOD SEMINARIANS

Some Princeton Seminary students are a bit red-faced over an article in the March issue of Human Behavior.

It all started when a couple of researchers decided to find out if seminarians are Good Samaritans. They met individually with forty of the ministerial students under the pretence of doing a study on careers in the church. Each student was instructed to walk to a nearby building to dictate an impromptu talk into a tape recorder there. Some were told to talk on the Good Samaritan parable, others on their career concerns.

Meanwhile, the researchers planted an actor along the path who, as a seminarian approached, groaned and slumped to the ground. More than half the students walked right on by, reported the researchers in Human Behavior. “Some, who were planning their dissertation on the Good Samaritan, literally stepped over the slumped body as they hurried along,” they noted.

Winning With Watergate

As recent special congressional elections have shown, Watergate has been costly to Republicans. One of the losses was the seat left vacant by the elevation of Gerald Ford to Vice-President. Running for it were Republican Robert VanderLaan, 43, a Michigan state senator of Grand Rapids, and Democrat Richard F. VanderVeen, 51, a lawyer also of Grand Rapids.

Loser VanderLaan, considered a virtual shoo-in by just about everybody before the election, is a member of the Millbrook Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids and is forthright about his faith and its place in politics (“I believe that it’s a Christian politician’s responsibility to set a moral tone which will permeate that scene”).

Winner VanderVeen is an elder of Westminster (United) Presbyterian Church in town (his grandfather split from the Reformed camp), a past president of the Michigan Presbyterian men’s organization, and a former member of the United Presbyterian national missions board. Leaning toward universalism, he downplays religion as a factor for selecting candidates. “Christianity is action more than words,” he says. He doesn’t like civil religion (symbolized, he thinks, in national prayer breakfasts and the like), and he finds evangelist Billy Graham’s association with President Nixon “appalling” because of what he feels is a cloud of immorality over the White House. His win may seem like the prophet’s knock at the White House door; he made morality and Watergate the main issue of his campaign.

Britain: Surviving The Crisis

When then British prime minister Ted Heath last fall slapped heavy restrictions on public lighting as part of an energy conservation program, it looked bad for the night-playing soccer club, already hurt by slumping attendance. But the teams came up with a solution: Sunday soccer. The Sunday Observance Act passed in 1780 forbids the charging of entrance fees for Sunday sports. The promoters, however, took a tip from their cricket colleagues and sold programs for the Sunday matches.

Since November, attendance has doubled at many of the events. A recent poll showed that 64 per cent of all Englishmen want to scrap the 1780 Sunday law, but an attempt to repeal it failed in Parliament last month. Meanwhile, the militantly traditional Lord’s Day Observance Society continued to assail the Sunday sportsmen for acting “contrary to one of the express commands of God.”

The soccer controversy is but a small facet of the upheaval in English life growing out of the Arab oil ban and national labor problems. Among measures to conserve energy was a call to Britons to curtail Sunday driving. Heating and lighting in commercial premises were sharply reduced (churches were permitted six hours of heating per room each week). Heath ordered the nation into a three-day work week. The state-owned British Broadcasting Company shut down its nightly television operations at 10:30. Householders were urged to “S.O.S.”—“switch off something.” (In the process Heath and his government got switched off in last month’s election.)

The seething political-economic turmoil has had an impact on the life-style of British evangelicals. Many took seriously Heath’s plea regarding Sunday driving. Families who once drove two cars to church now make it with one. Many suburbanites who motored to large center-city churches now worship closer to home. (In response, Lansdowne Baptist Church in downtown Bournemouth, for one, helped to finance a suburban chapel.)

That is not to say the evangelicals are suffering in silence. Declared Baptist layman Sir Cyril Black, a former Member of Parliament from Wimbledon: “It seems strange indeed that it should be acceptable on six weekdays for people to use their cars to attend theaters, cinemas, or sporting events, but unacceptable for them to do so to attend God’s House on His day. Perhaps the malaise from which the nations suffer so grievously at this time arises from the fact that they have gotten their priorities wrong.”

Not only transportation bedevils the British church. Mission sources say the shorter work week has resulted in reduced contributions to mission work. Christian bookshops are suffering from the restrictions on light and heat. Industrial unrest is also cutting the production of tracts and books. On the other hand, many men are apparently devoting chunks of their additional leisure time to voluntary work with home mission agencies.

Archbishop Michael Ramsey spoke out on the economic crisis at the General Synod of the Anglican Church, which convened during the election campaign. He said that both strikes and property speculation thwart the struggle against inflation, adding that neither labor nor management is innocent. Concluded Ramsey: “Crisis confronts us with the divine judgment upon our whole civilization.”

WAYNE DETZLER

Twenty-Five Hours In Cuba

Increasingly, Christian students, laymen, and even pastors are getting involved personally in the needs of the foreign mission field. Project Partner, a rapidly growing private missionary-help group within the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana), is one of the parachurch organizations that help believers get next to the action. Based in Wichita, Kansas, the agency sponsors work projects, traveling seminars, relief efforts (it helped with reconstruction of many houses in Managua, Nicaragua, after the 1972 earthquake), and the like.

Such involvement has its perils—and unexpected opportunities. In late February, thirty-five workers were on their way back to Ohio from Jamaica and Haiti, where they had helped nationals build a parsonage and a schoolhouse, when two Russian-built Cuban MIGs intercepted Project Partner’s twin-engine Convair 240 over Camaguey, Cuba. Forced to land, pilot Donald Shaver showed the written permit granting clearance over Cuba, but for some reason it was not enough. Authorities announced it would cost nearly $7,000 in “fines” to release the plane and party. Twenty-five hours later the money was sent through the Swiss embassy, and the group took off for home. (In all, Project Partner had to borrow some $10,000 to pay for the diversion.)

What were those twenty-five hours like?

“We figured it was a once-in-a-lifetime chance to witness to Communist Cubans,” says work-team leader Claude Ferguson of Alliance, Ohio, “so we took it. We had three tremendous public prayer meetings in that time, and dozens heard our witness for Christ.”

The group was held under guard in a motel in Camaguey. Members opened the windows and sang gospel songs at the top of their voices. Hundreds listened as the group conducted a service in a courtyard. “We even sang ‘God Bless America’ with all our might as we stood between busts of Marx and Lenin,” commented stewardess Bobbie Feiring.

In both English and Spanish the workers told their captors about Christ. “No one was rude, and many seemed to genuinely appreciate our feelings and views,” says John Gobeli of Louisville, Ohio. “They’d turn their radios down and listen to our singing and testimonies for Christ.”

“We’ll go back to Cuba again,” vows Gay Combs of Windham, Ohio. “We know God wants to reach back into Cuba, and we’re praying that he will bless the seeds we have sown.”

DAN HARMAN

Muslim Summit

Delegates from thirty-six Muslim countries last month attended the second Islamic Summit Conference in Lahore, Pakistan. Among the delegates were several heads of state, including President Sadat of Egypt, President Gaddafi of Libya, President Amin of Uganda, and Prime Minister Mujib Rahman of Bangladesh.

One of the chief items discussed at the summit was Jerusalem, a city holy to Muslims as well as to Christians and Jews. The summit called for the liberation of Jerusalem and restoration of the city to Arab sovereignty as a “paramount and unchangeable” prerequisite for any settlement in the Middle East. A resolution, adopted unanimously by the conference, said any proposal that did not restore Jerusalem to Arab rule would be unacceptable to Islamic countries. Internationalization of the city was also opposed.

Meanwhile, a non-Muslim delegation led by Greek Orthodox patriarch Monsignor Elias IV arrived from Lebanon to extend nominal Christian support to Muslim demands on Jerusalem, and several Pakistani Christian organizations gave similar backing.

HUBERT F. ADDLETON

Plans For Pakistan

The cold mid-February rains in the northern regions of Pakistan did not chill or dampen the spirits of the members and friends of the Evangelical Fellowship of West Pakistan, who met in mile-high Abbottabad for the sixteenth annual EFWP conference. Plans laid for the coming year include continued outreach in Azad Kashmir and an EFWP campaign in Peshawar, gateway city to the Khyber pass. Amid the planning, talks, and evangelism reports, conference participants found time to mount a witness effort of their own in the local bazaar.

William Gill, pastor of the Brethren Assembly in Rawalpindi, was reelected EFWP chairman.

Guest conference speaker Anis Shorrosh of Mobile, Alabama, a Nazarethborn Arab and Southern Baptist evangelist, also held forth at EFWP-sponsored campaigns in four cities. Shorrosh said he appreciated the love shown him by his evangelical friends but wished there were more love among the brethren for one another. (A number of church groups have been hurt by warring factions. The strife is for the most part intra-church rather than inter-church; generally, however, the EFWP has been spared the conflict.)

The EFWP has no full-time executive secretary, and programs are somewhat limited by funds (the annual membership fee is five rupees—fifty cents—and donations are slim), yet the evidence indicates the EFWP is here to stay. It’s well grounded in Pakistani leadership—and in the Gospel.

RALPH E. BROWN

Church Presses Pressed

At the recent annual meeting of the Protestant Church-Owned Publishers Association in Orlando, Florida, representatives faced two imminent problems: the increasing competitive pressure for professionalization in what has long been a fairly sedate branch of the publishing industry, and threats of rising government intervention in several areas. These areas involve hiring practices (requiring a religious test of prospective employees), real estate taxes, and income taxes on “unrelated business.” A really strict interpretation of existing tax laws might make a non-profit publisher subject to real estate and income taxes if any of his property is used for any “unrelated” business activities—if, for example, one church-related publisher prints Sunday-school materials for another publisher.

According to Albert Anderson of Augsburg Publishing Company (American Lutheran Church), currently proposed tax “reforms” aimed at charitable and church-related enterprises might mean donors will be unable to claim tax exemptions for their contributions. Augsburg recently won a court decision in Minneapolis recognizing publishing as an integral and legitimate activity of the church “just as world missions are,” but the long-term battle is far from over.

HAROLD O. J. BROWN

Books

Book Briefs: March 29, 1974

The Last Enemy

Death in American Experience, edited by Arien Mack (Schocken, 1973, 201 pp., $7.50), The Mystery of Death, by Laudislaus Boros (Seabury, 1973, 201 pp., $2.95 pb), The Phenomenon of Death, edited by Edith Wyshogrod (Harper & Row, 1973, 235 pp., $2.45 pb),Deaths of Man by Edwin S. Shneidman (Quadrangle, 1973, 238 pp., $8.95), Death and Western Thought, by Jacques Choron (Macmillan, 1973, 320 pp., $6.95), and The Denial of Death, by Ernest Becker (Free Press, 1973, 304 pp., $7.95), are reviewed by Thomas Howard, associate professor of English, Gordon College, Wenham, Massachusetts.

One of the most peculiar of our activities is our scrutiny of the topic death, and our ceaseless dilating upon it. What is there to say, really, we might ask ourselves, since nothing at all can be done about it—nothing that matters, in any case. We can approach it, and make rushes and forays at it, and try to get some angle on it. But the maxim written over the whole enterprise is, “You don’t know, do you?”

And yet, not to talk about it is to be guilty of triviality. Most reflective minds, nay, all reflective minds and wakeful imaginations, have found themselves occupied with it sooner or later. Mutability, transitoriness, inevitability, implacability, non-being—we are mesmerized by these thoughts. Like a hen before a cobra, we find ourselves incapable of doing anything at all in the presence of the very thing that seems to call for the most drastic and decisive action. The disquieting thought that stares at us, like a face with a freezing grin, is that there is, in fact, nothing we can do. Say what we will, dance how we will, we will soon enough be a heap of ruined feathers and bones, indistinguishable from the rest of the ruins that lie about. It will not appear to matter in the slightest whether we met the enemy with equanimity, shrieks, or a trumped-up gaiety. There we will be.

Perhaps the best way to review at least one of the books in question here is to quote Jacques Choron’s foreword to his Death and Western Thought:

The author hopes that this survey of what the great philosophers of the Western world have thought about death will not only be a contribution to the history of ideas but also helpful to those who, at a time when the consolations of religion have lost their force, seek to come to terms with death.

That is the entire foreword. And it indicates exactly the task that Choron set himself. In his book, there are brief accounts of the viewpoints of Antiquity, the Renaissance, and Modern and Contemporary Philosophy. Between the first two sections there is a section called “The Christian Answer to Death,” including both the Old and the New Testament views. I should think any Christian would find Choron’s brief description of the biblical teaching on death to be fair enough. He emphasizes the lack of any very widespread and firm notion of eternal life in the Hebrew experience, and, on the other hand, St. Paul’s teaching of the resurrection of the body as over against the Greek immortality of the soul. Choron concludes this wide and careful canvass with a modest demurral:

It may be that all that humans can aspire to is to have led the kind of life which will allow them not to feel before the last curtain as Rabelais felt, that “la farce est joué.” Still, even this may not be possible unless one is supported by a vision of the cosmic drama which gives also to the most humble life a meaning which would place it beyond the ravages of time and death. Perhaps its discovery is not forever denied to those who seek it.

On quite another wave-length are three of the books under review here. Death in American Experience and The Phenomenon of Death are collections of essays. Most of the contributors are professionals in medicine, the behavioral sciences, or sociology. A few write from the viewpoint of religion and philosophy. The other book in this category, Edwin Shneidman’s Deaths of Man, is a study by a behavioral scientist of the person who is dying and of the survivors.

These three are, you might say, about the ars moriendi. Everything is here—essays on the stages in the psyche of the one who is approaching death, on the “teamwork” necessary among family, doctors, clergy, and psychologists, on every conceivable medical, legal, domestic, and psychological nuance that attends death. We find out how we may handle the grief of the dying person, and our own grief, by frankness, by courage, by sensitivity, by tenderness. There are sociological analyses of the place death holds (or doesn’t hold) in the American experience, and anthropological analyses of the place that it holds in others’ cultures. There are models by which we may try to handle death—such as death as game, death as apprenticeship, death as sacral.

The common denominator in these books is that they are all largely occupied with systematic scrutiny of the face that death presents to us. There is little or no speculation of the non-verifiable sort that philosophy and religion concern themselves with—no attempt, in other words, to locate death in any larger cosmic vision. It is we humans talking to ourselves about the epidermis on the face that stares at us from every point on our horizon.

This is a good enterprise, perhaps. We are creatures of curiosity and imagination, endlessly inventive in producing methods and disciplines and schemes and categories by which to speak of our experience to our fellows, and it may be helpful here and there to see what light this method or that one can throw on our experience. Certainly the sciences in question here have enormously increased the vocabulary by which we attempt to understand our existence.

But the limitation is obvious. When all’s said and done, we haven’t said or done much. All our travail, all our preciosity and fecundity in elaborating analyses of the face that is looking at us, does nothing, either by way of getting it to budge or of giving us a look into those opaque eyes. You get the unhappy feeling that analysis won’t do here, and that the only authentic way to approach it is with censers and bells and dirges and blood, as all of humanity did before someone told us that the way to get at reality was to dissect it.

For that is what is being attempted. We have made a topic of death, as we have made a topic of sexuality, and of friendship, and of emotions, and of every given of human experience; so that the activity characteristic of our epoch is not weeping or praying or loving or laughing or slaying dragons, but rather getting together to talk about, or hear papers on, weeping and praying and loving and so forth. We are an epoch that congratulates itself on having exorcised the specters that haunted our terrified fathers, and now we propose to draw the sting of death by analyzing it. Control is our own special word: we are moving further and further toward the point of control over our environment and the ambiguities of existence, and it is via science and technology that we will do this—by cryogenics, if all else fails.

NEWLY PUBLISHED

Justice Now! (American Bible Society [Box 3537, G.C.S., New York, N. Y. 10017], 58 pp., 10ȼ). A bargain price. The inspired prophecies of Hosea, Amos, and Micah are now available in Today’s English Version, a modern language translation (not a paraphrase).

And There Will Be Famines, by Larry Ward (Regal, 114 pp., $1.25 pb). From personal observation of starvation come some startling accounts and insights. Ward’s purpose is to inform Christians and give a biblical basis for concern and specific suggestions.

Train Up a Child: Guidelines For Christian Parents, by Richard D. Dobbins (Baker, 87 pp., $.95 pb). General comments, many from Scripture, some from common sense or psychology, on the practical side of child rearing. Helpful in initiating study and thinking.

Charismatic Catholics: Are They For Real?, by R. Douglas Wead (Creation, 120 pp., $3.95), and Look Out! The Pentecostals Are Coming, by Peter Wagner (Creation, 196 pp., $4.95). Here are two outsiders’ observations on aspects of the Pentecostal movement. The first is a long-time Protestant Pentecostal’s survey of the movement among Catholics since its beginning in 1967. The second is a non-Pentecostal’s observations on the movement in Latin America. Both are sensitive, sympathetic reportings.

Exposition of Second Timothy, by N. A. Woycheck (Revell, 171 pp., $4.50). A warm, personal exposition of Paul’s last letter and his instructions and relationship to the young man Timothy. Sound study and enticing reading.

Faith at the Top, by Wesley Pippert (Cook, 187 pp., $1.50 pb). Interviews by a UPI reporter with Senator Mark Hatfield, football player Charley Harraway, Representative John Anderson, and seven other prominent Christians.

The Case of a Middle Class Christian, by Charles Merrill Smith (Word, 149 pp., $4.95). Critical look at the cultural overtones in many Christians’ beliefs as seen through the author’s experiences. Calls for an honest evaluation of what we believe and why. Lightly written, but the content is serious enough to challenge most.

The New Man, edited by John Meyendorff and Joseph McLelland (Standard [364 Somerset St., New Brunswick, N.J. 08901], 170 pp., n.p., pb). A dialogue in essay form between Presbyterian and Eastern Orthodox thinkers in an attempt to begin to establish ecumenical understanding.

The Cadillac Modern Encyclopedia, edited by Max Shapiro et al. (Derbibooks [110 Enterprise Ave., Secaucus, N. J. 07094], 1,954 pp., $24.95). First edition of a very useful reference tool. There are some 18,000 alphabetical entries with up-to-date coverage of the whole range of human activity, plus numerous illustrations and charts. The many entries pertaining to religion largely succeed at accuracy and impartiality. This volume would serve most purposes for which multi-volume (and much more expensive) encyclopedias are consulted.

After the Flowers Have Gone, by Bea Decker (Zondervan, 184 pp., $3.95). Excellent help on the problems of the widowed. It also serves indirectly as a practical help on problems that confront the solo parent. The author candidly discusses in several case histories antidotes for the trauma of losing a loved one. Perfect gift for either the divorced or recently widowed.

Beginnings in Bible Geography, by Howard F. Vos (Moody, 126 pp., $1.50 pb). Introductory survey from Iran to Italy.

Concerning Death: A Practical Guide For the Living, edited by Carl Grollman (Beacon, 365 pp., $7.50). Twenty practical essays on topics such as “Care of the Dying Person,” “Children and Death,” “Insurance and Death,” and the “Condolence Letter.” Various religious practices are surveyed.

Preschool Teacher’s How-to Book, six volumes, by Marie Hibma Frost (Moody, approx. 30 pp. each, $.60 each pb). Christian education guides in the areas of pupil characteristics, effective teaching, visitation, songs to sing, action rhymes, and arts and crafts. Concise and helpful especially for the new teacher.

The Restless Pastor, by Gerald W. Gillaspie (Moody, 96 pp., $1.95 pb). Simple, practical guide for one contemplating a change of pastorates.

A Matter of Life and Death, by M. Basilea Schlink (Bethany Fellowship, 96 pp., 95ȼ). The co-foundress of the Evangelical Sisters of Mary (Darmstadt, Germany) approaches the problem of pollution with her familiar gift for prophetic insights and challenging analysis.

A New American Reformation, by James F. Drance (Philosophical Library, 166 pp., $6). Philosophical survey of the youth culture of today, first from the secular side and then from the religious, focusing on the Jesus movement. Attempts to define the movement objectively.

The Gay Church, by Ronald Enroth and Gerald Jamison (Eerdmans, 144 pp., $4.95). Two of the three authors of a widely acclaimed report on the Jesus movement now turn their attention to professedly Christian congregations that deny that homosexual practice is sinful. The movement more or less headed by Troy Perry is primarily in view. Enroth teaches sociology at Westmont College, and Jamison graduated from there.

To Kiss the Joy, by Robert A. Raines (Word, 151 pp., $4.95). Fourteen highly readable essays on such topics as “You Can Choose to Be Real,” “The Confidence to Change,” and “The Dynamics of Growth.” The author leads one carefully into spiritual handling of life’s pains and joys. His frequent references to personal experiences may repel some readers, attract others.

The Long Day of Joshua and Six Other Catastrophies, by Donald Patten, Ronald Hatch, and Loren Steinhauer (Pacific Meridian [13540 39th Ave. N.E., Seattle, Washington 98125], 328 pp., $8). Analyses of the alleged astronomical cataclysms that are used to explain biblical miracles such as the long day of Joshua, the Egyptian plagues, the tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah. Theorizes that the movement of Mars and Earth caused the disturbances.

Revelation: God and Satan in the Apocalypse, by James Kallas (Augsburg, 128 pp., $2.75 pb). A Lutheran college professor comments on the style of Revelation and on various interpretations of the book. Definitely for the beginning student but takes a less sensational approach than that of many bestsellers.

The Foundations of Morality, by Henry Hazlitt (Nash, 398 pp., $12). One of America’s outstanding conservative economists makes a major effort to create an individualistic basis for a socially healthy system of ethics. Contains much of value as an antidote to collectivistic ethics, but has no theological basis.

An Introduction to Christian Economics, by Gary North (Craig Press [Box 13, Nutley, N. J. 07110], 413 pp., $9.95). Interesting and literate essays by an economist who feels that the Bible teaches certain economic principles that he pugnaciously grants are not recognized by the vast majority of economists. His biblical exegesis is also open to more questions than he seems to think. His call for secular economists to be more modest, which events are forcing them to be anyway, is well taken. But “Christian economists” need to be more modest also.

But this is too severe, of course. The editors and contributors to these books do not claim that their essays solveanything. These men and women are doing what they can to throw some light on the most terrifying of all human experiences, and to help us cope. Certainly the most well-known practitioner of non-religious means to alleviate the death experience is Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, and her modesty and apparent integrity in seeking to understand the complexities that surround this experience, and to offer real human help to dying people, are nothing but praiseworthy. Her essay “On Death and Dying” is one of four in the section “The Dying Person and His World,” in Edith Wyschogrod’s collection The Phenomenon of Death. Also in this volume is a long essay on the Hiroshima debacle by Robert Jay Lifton, and then a section of five essays under the collective title “The Death Throes of Culture,” in which death is treated as a phenomenon impinging on the self-consciousness of cultures.

If there is any way to distinguish the two collections of essays here, it might be to say that Arien Mack’s Death in American Experience is much more exclusively sociological, psychological, and anthropological than The Phenomenon of Death, which includes more material that might be called religious or philosophical. To me, the most fascinating essay in Mack’s collection is one by David Gutman entitled “The Premature Gerontocracy,” in which he draws a number of astonishing parallels between the life-denying forces at work in the counter-culture and plain old age.

Ernest Becker’s The Denial of Death is perhaps the most ambitious of the works under review here, for in it he undertakes, really, to make a new statement about the nature of man. Briefly, his thesis is that the fear of death is a (the?) mainspring of human activity, and that mental illness represents our failure to suppress our terror of death. Becker proceeds from the insights of Otto Rank, the disaffected disciple of Freud, and of Kierkegaard. He criticizes both traditional religion and traditional psychology, the former for its unabashed substitution of transcendence for an authentically heroic grappling with the real problem of death, and the latter for its attempt to analyze away our anxiety in the face of the “panic inherent in creation.” His conclusion is a somewhat elusive affirmation of “sacrosanct vitality,” and a “cosmic heroism … sacred and mysterious.” “The most [he concludes] that any of us can seem to do is to fashion something … and drop it into the confusion, make an offering of it, so to speak, to the life force.” Selah.

For the reader looking for specifically religious treatments of death, the sixth book in question, Ladislaus Boros’s The Mystery of Death, is one to read. It is heavy going, make no mistake about that. It involves a closely reasoned case, taking account of methodology and the philosophical basis for the hypothesis that “death gives man the opportunity of posing his first completely personal act; death is, therefore, by reason of its very being, the moment above all others for the awakening of consciousness, of freedom, for the encounter with God, for the final decision about his eternal destiny.” If it sounds like nonsense for a man to be elaborating an idea like this (that is, that at the point of death, we are all confronted with the occasion of making a momentous and definitive decision) when no one has ever come back from that point to tell us what it is like, the answer lies in Boros’s method. It is a matter of projecting the lines suggested to us in living existence, and seeing their point of intersection to be the point of death, and hence of having some clues as to what that intersection is like. In the second section of his book, Boros pursues some of those lines (volition, knowing, perception, and love) to that point of intersection. In his last section, he tries out his theory on several of the cardinal doctrines of the Church, to see how it works with orthodox dogma. He tests it with respect to the Christian notion of death as being in some sense final, and with respect to the doctrines of salvation through personal fellowship with Jesus Christ, and of redemption, original sin, and purification (which last item results, for Boros, in an “interiorization of the whole doctrine of purgatory”).

Books about death. They exhibit various ways of getting at it. The medical scientist must approach death as a case, with symptoms and treatment; the social scientist sees it as a topic, to be handled in papers, symposiums, and interviews; the theologian sees it as a datum in a whole scheme that encompasses death and thereby makes it in some sense significant. And we are all helped or not helped by what they have to say. Perhaps the dis-ease we feel about analytic efforts to cope with death is a fair index of our situation: it is our great Enemy, and it will destroy us, talk as we will about it. And to this situation, only the poet or the prophet can finally speak: the poet, by giving shape to the experience (e.g., Tolstoy, in The Death of Ivan Ilyich), and the prophet with the word of the living God, proclaiming that the One greater than death has himself drawn its sting by passing through that dark gate in our flesh, and opening to us mortals the way to Life.

Three Approaches

Do and Tell: Engagement Evangelism in the ’70s, by Gabriel Fackre (Eerdmans, 1973, 106 pp. $1.45 pb), Evangelism For Today’s Church, by Leslie Woodson (Zondervan, 1973, 159 pp., $1.25 pb), and The Seven Last Words of the Church, by Ralph Neighbour (Zondervan, 1973, 182 pp., $1.25 pb), are reviewed by Harold Frederic Green, pastor, The People’s Church, Gainesville, Georgia.

Everyone seems to know what to do but few seem to know how to get started when it comes to the Christian’s prime task of evangelism. And when believers do get started, disagreements over technique often appear right away.

These two publishers are to be commended for bringing us three very fine little books on evangelism. The books are highly readable, reasonably priced, and attractively printed. They offer varying approaches to the task of evangelism by a member of the United Church of Christ, a United Methodist, and a Southern Baptist.

Baptist Ralph Neighbour tries new methods to win the lost in his experimental church in Houston. He recounts, in the first section of his book, his own experiences in church renewal and spiritual outreach. In the second part he frankly evaluates attempts at church renewal and discusses evangelism methods. He closes with an excellent bibliography.

Woodson, an evangelical Methodist pastor, deals directly with the meaning, motivation, method, and mobilization of evangelism in the contemporary Church. In each category he comes to grips with some of the thorny problems of evangelism in the seventies.

Fackre, a professor of theology and culture at Lancaster Seminary, urges that evangelism concern itself primarily with doing deeds. He believes that the telling of the “old, old story” comes after the “doing,” and offers pertinent guidelines for an integrated proclamation of the whole gospel message.

Fackre has a worthwhile point, but he never comes to grips with biblical evangelism as does Woodson, who surveys the entire field from philosophy to preaching. Fackre feels that all agree on what needs to be done but that few, if any, know how it is to be done.

Neighbour, on the other hand, knows what needs to be done and is actively experimenting with methods of doing it. He also seems to have researched his book in more detail than the other two writers, even though his is more of a personal narrative than the others. He is the only one of the three to give a bibliography; the serious student of church renewal and evangelism will thank him for this.

These three books reflect three different backgrounds and philosophies on church renewal and evangelism. All three are quite good. However, Woodson reflects the Good News with a certain dynamic optimism that is absent in the others. The breadth of his knowledge and the enthusiasm with which he imparts it are gratifying and impressive.

Building Up The Body

Organization and Leadership in the Local Church, by Kenneth Kilinski and Jerry Wofford (Zondervan, 1973, 288 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Donald J. MacNair, executive director, National Presbyterian Missions, St. Louis, Missouri.

“The time has come for the local church to re-examine its purposes, principles, and practices and to confront the demands of our generation with renewed confidence and energy.” Kenneth Kilinski and Jerry Wofford put this conviction to the test in their own church, the Pantego Bible Church in Arlington, Texas, with good results. They have turned the principles used and experience gained there into a practical guide for other churches to use.

Kilinski and Wofford are clearly committed to evangelical theology. They insist on discerning whether or not a “cause is directed by the Spirit or by forces of human nature,” and they make multiple references to the Bible. However, a less than complete theology somewhat diminishes the effectiveness of this base. For instance, they propose that the power for developing spiritual maturity is based on the influence of the Holy Spirit on the third dimension of man—self. Self they define as that which was “originally created in the image of God.” When yielded to the Spirit, they say, self no longer just referees between motivational man (the first dimension) and inner law (the second dimension), but is now subject to His control and, proportionate to being yielded to that control, enjoys “inner peace” in relating the other two dimensions to God’s will. But they create a conflict of interest, so to speak, by relegating conscience to the second dimension and considering the third dimension of man (his creation in God’s image) the facet capable of communication with God. By failing to account for conscience as part of man’s self, the authors conclude that submission to the Holy Spirit results almost exclusively in bringing “fulfillment,” without due emphasis that it first must motivate one’s conscience to an increasing awareness of the sinfulness of sin before fulfillment is possible. For instance, while discussing submission, the authors say: “If we are to grow, we must yield to God in an attitude of total surrender of self-will. We need not spend time in more than a brief confession of our past failure to yield, but concentrate primarily on what His will is for the next moment.” A further consequence of this emphasis appears to be an inadequate expression of the need for “ruling” and especially for “discipline” in the church in the discussion of the Church’s “primary objectives” and the “structuring of the official board.”

The authors set forth their purpose in this statement:

In the belief that the most effective approach for a local church is adoption rather than revolution, we shall lay a foundation for progressive change within the concept of a congregation that holds tenaciously to the scriptural forms, but has the will and the capacity for fulfilling its basic purposes through the exercise of its freedoms.

They present their material with logical precision and chronological development. The book has three divisions: (1) “Equipping the Saints” (guiding toward spiritual maturity); (2) “The Work of Service” (role and function of church leaders in equipping others); and (3) “Building Up of the Body of Christ” (orderly and systematic organization in planning).

Several premises underlie the book. One of them is that the organizational structure proposed would indeed do much for a democratic type of church government (such as a Baptist or an independent church). It is unlikely to fit well with a republican (Presbyterian) or hierarchical (Episcopal) type. The use of an “official board,” a “board chairman” separate from the pastor, and almost no use of positional authority (power vested by virtue of the office held) demonstrate this premise.

A second premise is that every church must have goals. It is refreshing to find evangelical Christians who recognize the need for long-range goals and the consequent immediate objectives, and the author’s discussion of goals is most helpful. However, in defining the basic value system in which all goals must find their justification, the authors do not define the individual personality of the local church in a way that supplies sufficient “nitty-gritty” for a unified set of immediate objectives to be developed, used, and later refined via experience, while yet holding true to the original basics.

The book is filled with names, definitions, and illustrations of practical psychological tools for leadership and organization. These will enable the pastor now operating by “sanctified common sense” to understand what he is doing and to do it better. The book seems to imply that all these tools should almost always be used in evaluating personnel, designing the ways and means of helping Christians to mature, and so on. This may be more than a pastor and his officers can or need achieve.

The authors clearly spell out the steps for reorganizing and then operating a church, giving useful diagrams, charts, and forms. Few churches will fail to get valuable help from this material. One element too often is missing, however:—a clear, practical statement, based on experience, of just how to adapt the material to the rough-and-tumble of everyday life.

Chapter 10 and parallel material in chapter 22 deal with making changes and making decisions. Kilinski and Wofford propose a “profile of an innovative church organization.” They point out that a church should have “change agents”—the staff plus an “innovation and improvement group.” Excellent. These sections are worth the price of the book.

This book merits serious study by all leaders of evangelical churches.

Profitable Reading

Theological Investigations, Volumes IX and X, by Karl Rahner (Seabury, 1972, 268 and 409 pp., $9.75 each), are reviewed by James Daane, professor of pastoral theology, Fuller Seminary, Pasadena, California.

These two books by the well known Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner of the German University of Münster contain thirty-four chapters, each devoted to a theological subject. All but one were written between 1965 and 1967. They reflect Rahner’s theological reaction to many of the matters dealt with by Vatican II.

The style differs throughout the book, since chapters were produced for different audiences and different occasions. Some chapters are for professional theologians only, others for non-professional theologians. This should put most of them within the competence of a clergyman.

Volume IX has three parts: “The Shape of Contemporary and Future Theology” (with a lead-off chapter entitled “The Second Vatican Council’s Challenge to Theology,” indicating the point of departure and perspective of both volumes), “Doctrine of God and Christology,” and “Theological Anthropology” (which deals largely with man’s self and genetic manipulation). Volume X has four parts: “Ecclesiology,” “Sacraments,” “Eschatology,” and “Church and World.”

Rahner is more than pleased that the Second Vatican Council convened and very pleased that it did not do what many Roman Catholics had planned it should do: simply repeat what Catholicism had said before. Rahner is too good a Roman Catholic to have hoped that Vatican II would say something really “new.” But he is pleased that it challenged Roman Catholic theology and gave that theology both a new dynamic and more room in which to theologize.

As a Reformed Protestant I find the declarations of Vatican II and Rahner’s theological exposition of these declarations both exciting and scary. When I read that the one Catholic church of Christ is not a merely ideal, universal hypothesis, but that the local church is the fullness of the Church because “the highest truth which can, in the last analysis, be applied to the Church as a whole is in fact asserted of the local community itself, namely that in it Christ himself, his gospel, his love and the unity of believers are present,” then I am urged to say Amen. But when the Church is defined sacramentally in such a way that it is the sign of that grace of God by virtue of which “anonymous Christians,” men of good will who have never heard the name of Christ, are also caught up into the membership of the Church though they are not aware of it, then I begin to back off.

I usually like what a Roman Catholic theologian says—until he defines it, and says something else. As a Reformed Christian I have the same reaction to what many a non-Reformed evangelical says, and then defines. Barth has said the Roman Catholic first says the right thing and then adds an “and” that perversely distorts what was said. Barth therefore said this “and” was the theological anti-Christ in Roman Catholicism.

These volumes illustrate what in my judgment is the most distinctive Roman Catholic doctrine, namely, its doctrine of the Church. It is this doctrine of the Church that has kept the Roman Catholic loyal to the objective reality of Christian truth and protected it from the subjectivistic, individualistic, pietistic, low estimate of the Church that I think characterizes all non-Episcopal, non-Lutheran, non-Reformed evangelicals.

These two volumes of Rahner can be read by all non-Roman Catholics with profit, but none need it more than those Christians who, with a dissenting eye on all the numerically larger and politically established churchly and theological traditions that came out of the Reformation, designated themselves “evangelicals.” For in my opinion nothing more characterizes the theology of evangelicals than its (at best) faulty view of, and (at worst) complete lack of concern about, the doctrine of the Church. Evangelical opposition to historically “mainline” churches derives its strength and impact from the weaknesses of these churches, not from a more biblical doctrine of the Church. It therefore, I predict, has no future. Those who doubt the truth of this most need to read these two volumes of Rahner.

Theology

The Meaning of Joy

The following is a guest column by Allan C. Emery, Jr., a businessman affiliated with Servicemaster in Boston, Massachusetts.

C. s. lewis in his autobiography, Surprised by Joy, writes, “Joy is never in our power and pleasure is. I doubt whether anyone who has tasted joy would ever, if both were in his power, exchange it for all the pleasure in the world.”

The word joy is not often on our tongues today, but it was very much a part of the writing of Bible authors. Have we, as Christians today, lost the experience of joy? The Lord Jesus Christ places great value upon joy when he says in John 5:11, “These things have I spoken with you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.” A purpose of Christ’s ministry was to impart his joy to us. It is to be a gift to the Christian and a characteristic of the Christian. It is a life purpose, and it is to be an eternal destiny.

What is joy? It is the prospect of possessing what we love. It is a sense of gladness and delight. It is a free happiness. It is an inner peace flavored with purpose and accomplishment. Christian joy does not depend on external circumstances. In Hebrews 12:2 we read, “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” It is difficult to see joy in the Cross, but Christ’s purpose was through and beyond the Cross to provide redemption for lost humanity.

The Apostle Paul at the tearful farewell to the elders of the church at Ephesus explains the certainty of bonds and afflictions awaiting him in Jerusalem but states, “None of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24).

One must have a Christian life purpose to know the depths of joy. In Galatians 5:22 we read that joy is one of the fruits of the Spirit. The benediction in Jude 24 begins, “Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.…” Joy becomes available upon request to any Christian, promised to him by the Lord Jesus: “Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name; ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. How exciting it is to know that our Creator wants us to have joy now and throughout eternity, and that he will provide us with it.

During World War II, as a junior officer on a frigate, I visited a South Sea island for the first time. This island was far from the tourist trade, and I remember the amazement of the islanders who visited our wardroom and saw ice for the first time. We explained that it was water so cold that it had become solid. They were unbelieving at first, and when the ice in a glass melted they were afraid to drink it until they saw us do it. They asked about our land, and we told them about snow and fog and cold—things they had never experienced. Finally we realized that we must explain by telling them what we did not have that was common to them. Only then did they begin to see a bit of what New England was like.

Perhaps this principle may help us think about joy. It is not the acquisition of things—a rich man can be miserable and a poor man filled with joy. It is not security. It is not pleasure. It is not power. It is not fame. It is not status. It is not popularity. It is not freedom from problems.

Joy is: freedom from guilt. Freedom to serve. Freedom from anxiety. Freedom to love. Freedom to be yourself. Freedom to be needed. Freedom to give. Freedom to belong. Freedom to burn out for God.

Joy comes as a by-product of a life commitment to Jesus Christ. When you accept Jesus’ invitation to live a life with him and for him, he gives you a purpose, a destiny, power, love, and joy.

Ideas

Three Crosses

When Francis of Assisi had an audience with a Muslim ruler, he had to approach the potentate by walking on a carpet decorated with crosses. The Muslim taunted him for having trodden on the symbol of his Lord, but Francis replied, “There were three crosses on Calvary. I have walked on the other two.”

The cross of Jesus Christ was unique among all of the instruments of execution devised and used by humans in that it was the scene of God’s mighty work of reconciling man to himself. In fact, it was unique not only in the sense that nothing else like it ever happened, before or since, but also because what took place there was ep’ hapax, once for all: in the words of the Book of Common Prayer, Jesus Christ “made there, by his one oblation of himself, once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice for our sins and the sins of the whole world.…”

Yet, as the confrontation between Francis and the Bey of Tunis indicates, in another way Jesus’ cross was not at all unique—there were three on Calvary, and thousands lined the Roman roads when rebellious slaves were put to death. In that sense, the cross was common, all too common, and the remarkable thing about the cross of Jesus is not the singularity of his suffering or the cruelty of his death but who he was and is, and the absolutely unique effect of his death.

Through the centuries, Christians—and non-believers as well—have frequently been ill at ease with the cross. They have tried to stylize it or make an abstract symbol of it, thus relieving it of some of the oppressive sense of cruelty and suffering that an instrument of torture and execution conveys. In the tradition of Roman Catholicism and some liturgically minded denominations, the cross is commonly presented as a crucifix, bearing the Saviour’s tortured body, sometimes shown as still in torment, sometimes slack in death. The Eastern Orthodox tradition shows Christ on the cross, but glorious, crowned, and triumphant: the cross on which he suffered is really only a backdrop to his appearance in glory. Protestant symbolism tends to use an empty cross, from which the body of Jesus has been removed.

The common explanation for using the empty cross rather than the crucifix—aside from the obvious but no longer common one, reluctance to portray Jesus at all—is that we worship a risen, living Lord, not a dead one. This is true indeed. Yet the empty cross can appear abstract, intellectual, almost mathematical. The neo-orthodox theologians spoke of God’s intervention in human affairs as coming “perpendicularly from above,” and the upright of the cross can represent the vertical dimension of God’s intervention in history, intersecting the horizontal cross-beam, the plane of human existence.

Surely this description is valid, and yet it may seem to harbor the danger of presenting the event of the cross as a kind of abstraction, a mathematical concept rather than part and parcel of our human history in time and space. The Eastern tradition does not show us an impersonal cross without Christ, and yet it too may incline one to view the cross too abstractly, as only a symbol of Christ’s office as Saviour, rather as a shepherd’s crook traditionally depicts the office of bishop. The crucifix, on the other hand, may fix our attention on the terrible suffering alone, binding us in imagination to the process and what it cost, rather than encouraging us to see through and beyond to its destined and accomplished consummation.

In attempts to explain what is specifically human, what distinguishes human from other forms of existence, modern philosophers have fastened on the notions of time and of death. Of course other beings die, but man, as far as we know, is the only one who can anticipate death, reflect on it, and understand some of what it implies about his own significance. And man is aware of time, both as potentiality and as bondage; the animals are unaware of time. God, we suppose, is beyond time; mathematicians can suggest models by which it is impossible to conceive that all that we experience as time—past, present, and future—appears as constant present to God, as he stands beyond our finite space-time universe.

In going to the cross, Jesus was fully man in the experience of death, one of the fundamental realties of created human nature since the Fall. Even more, he also experienced, as we do, time. The trial, suffering, crucifixion, and death were not concepts, not mere symbols of office. They were realities that had to be experienced in sequence: no anticipating the triumph and glory without going through the suffering and death. And in this, too, Jesus showed that his love for us was strong enough to make him join us in that difficult and fateful journey through time and death, relinquishing his rightful position above or beyond it all.

The crucifix alone is an incomplete symbol, for it might hold us in our contemplation the prisoner of time, and keep us from seeing that Jesus’ struggle, fought out in time, has its consummation in the resurrection, ascension, second coming, and reign. But in the context of the other two depictions—Christ victorious against the backdrop of the cross, and the empty cross, with Christ ascended at God’s right hand—the sad crucifix, laden with Jesus’ broken body, reminds us that he experienced not only death but also the strange human bondage of time, earning for us a place in eternity.

Coping With Technology

Admiral Hyman G. Rickover recently spoke some words of caution that all of us whose daily lives are greatly affected by technology should hear. In a lecture at Notre Dame, Rickover expressed concern about innovations that have a potential for doing harm. He said it troubles him “that we are so easily pressured by purveyors of technology into permitting so-called progress to alter our lives without attempting to control it—as if technology were an irresistible force of nature to which we must submit.”

It is gratifying to hear such concern from one who is himself one of the great technologists of our day, having presided over the development of nuclear submarines. We think it particularly noteworthy that Rickover also calls for more ethical sensitivity on the part of engineers. He urges better education of engineers to reflect this, and also establishment of professional ethical codes.

The multiplicity of hazards inherent in our modern gadgetry is only too obvious. Last fall the Consumer Product Safety Commission came out with a “hazard index” of hundreds of items based on frequency and severity of injuries reported to hospital emergency rooms. Such guidelines from the government are often helpful and needed, but let’s not presume that this alone is going to solve the problem. The enforcement problem is too great, for one thing. A greater sense of responsibility is needed on the part of those who design and manufacture the stuff in the first place. Among these are undoubtedly many church people, so it is really an opportunity for the churches to infuse into their constituencies the heightened level of ethical sensitivity that is needed for our technology.

Another Singing Nun

The biggest hit in religious music so far this year is a record featuring an Australian nun in a contemporary music version of the Lord’s Prayer. She is thirty-six-year-old Sister Janet Mead, who heads the music and drama departments at St. Aloysius’ College in Adelaide. She has had a rock band and has led weekly rock masses attracting crowds of upwards of 2,000. She is currently working with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in the production of a rock mass for television.

A & M Records describes the tune as having a solid rock beat, but most listeners find it a very mild kind of rock. The arrangement is by Arnold Strals, whose work is a welcome antidote to the preoccupation with the devil that our culture has been experiencing.

Ncc And Evangelism

Now that Key 73 is over, the Governing Board of the National Council of Churches has announced it plans to start something in evangelism (see News, page 42). We welcome the new interest, but we wish it had developed sooner. NCC leaders refused to have anything to do with the Key 73 evangelism effort even though a poll taken at the NCC General Assembly in Dallas in 1972 showed that a majority of the delegates favored participation.

There was another spurt of NCC interest in some kind of evangelism in 1966, when Billy Graham was a guest luncheon speaker and NCC president Arthur S. Flemming vowed there would be a major emphasis on evangelism during his three-year term of office. Nothing came of his promise. A small office of evangelism maintained by the NCC was subsequently closed down. We hope that the current plans hold more promise.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the NCC has no agreed-upon definition of evangelism. Some religious theoreticians might stretch the definition to include the adoption of political pronouncements, and others might even stretch it to embrace violent revolution. The most influential people in the NCC reject the idea that evangelism is simply the preaching of the Gospel with the aim of leading people to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

The new evangelism program projected for the NCC hinges upon whether funds can be raised for it. But who is going to put up money for “evangelism” without a fairly clear idea of what is going to be done with it?

The Egg And You

Anyone who has received a Ukrainian Easter egg knows what a pleasure it is to examine these wonderfully decorated objects. Before working on the eggs with wax and dye, Ukrainian women have traditionally prayed “God bless us and help us.” The designs on the eggs often incorporate Christian symbolism—crosses and fish for Christ, wheat for the bread of life, triangles for the trinity. However, the egg-decorating custom is believed to have originated with the sun-worshiping Ukrainians as part of the celebration of the rebirth of spring before their conversion to Christianity in 988.

Evangelicals are inclined to take a somewhat jaundiced view of symbolism. But what could be more appropriate than to take the egg, which represents fertility, and embellish it with symbols of the living Lord, who made the egg and who gives us springtime and harvest?

We need to incorporate more symbols of our faith into our everyday lives, not fewer. Let a thousand eggs be decorated this Easter—all with reminders of God’s redeeming love and blessing.

The Appeal Of Robert Frost

The nice thing about the late great Robert Frost, the one-hundredth anniversary of whose birth we mark this week, was that his poems appealed to a wide variety of tastes. He was appreciated by those whose literary demands are considerable as well as by many who were otherwise indifferent to poetry. Recognition of his work took much longer than it should have. But he did win a great measure of acclaim before his death in 1963 (including a part on the program of President Kennedy’s inauguration). Four simple lines from “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” are the best known of all:

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,

But I have promises to keep,

And miles to go before I sleep,

And miles to go before I sleep.

The Streaker Of Scripture

“Those young whippersnappers thinkin’ they’res’ smart!” You can almost hear the husky voices blending with the rustle, crinkle of a thousand evening newspapers. “Why, when I was a smart-alecky kid …” and the voice dissolves into a muffled chuckle over a madcap dash from a Model A to an awaiting Essex.

The words of the preacher come to mind that, indeed, “there is nothing new under the sun.” The only innovation brought to the old craze by this generation of running “buffs” seems to be the en masse lumbering (at best) of hundreds of would-be streakers who in their quest for college memories have blocked major roadways, such as U.S. Route 1 near the University of Maryland. No doubt, there is boldness as well as safety in numbers. After all, what do you say to 1,500 naked students ambling down the road?

The current craze that takes its place alongside telephone-booth-packing and goldfish-swallowing is deplorable, but it at least beats building-burning.

Scripture tells of at least one inadvertent streaker. In the Gospel of Mark, it says a young man (possibly the writer) bade his linen cloth a hasty adieu, narrowly escaping a Roman centurion as he fled the Garden of Gethsemane. Have you wondered where he went—home? to a friend’s?—and what his first words of explanation were? And what he related about the rest of the events that night, and the One who didn’t flee?

And Those Bearing Gifts

“God,” according to Paul, “loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). And so do the churches, of course. So, it has seemed, does the United States government, which allows givers to deduct contributions made to churches and other charitable bodies from their taxable income, thus greatly increasing cheerfulness among them. But unfortunately the government, needing ever more money to finance its ever-increasing range of operations, is losing some of its cheerful attitude toward givers. Calling the deductibility of contributions a “loophole” and the taxes not collected on them “losses,” some government spokesmen, senators, and representatives are working to reduce and perhaps ultimately to eliminate the deductibility of contributions (see News, page 41).

If great numbers of people were contributing large portions of otherwise taxable income to charities, we might understand the practical reasons for the government’s concern. In fact, though, contributions by those who itemize deductions average in the neighborhood of 3 per cent of the individual’s gross income—less than a third of the traditional biblical tithe. Not much new revenue would be gained if such deductions were abolished, and a great deal would be lost. After all, private and religious organizations provide many socially valuable services at lower cost than the government could possibly do. We suspect that if non-profit organizations, including churches, but also schools, hospitals, and benevolences of various kinds, could no longer receive tax-free money, the government would ultimately wind up having to pay more to duplicate the services they perform than it took in in taxes—despite the fact that it would obviously make no effort to duplicate those services that are purely religious rather than secular.

The prospect that dropping tax deductibility would cost the government more than it would bring in is real and ought to be carefully considered. But over and above that, we challenge the idea that taxes not imposed on charitable contributions may properly be called a “loss” to the government, as though the government had a natural right to all the income produced within its borders. An individual’s income may well be a guide to the amount of contribution he can reasonably be asked to make to the cost of government. (Such “contributions”—unlike charitable donations—are obligatory, of course.) When an individual voluntarily contributes to church and charity, he voluntarily limits his income. Up to a point, at least, the government should allow such contributions as a matter of individual right, not of government concession, and not seek to impose obligatory additional taxes on income that the earner has already given away voluntarily.

The government may reasonably say—as it does now—that at least part of an individual’s income must be taxed, no matter how much he contributes to charity. But it should always admit that at least a part of his income, not less than the biblical tithe, may be contributed to charity without being taxed by the state.

Capable Of Meaningful Life, Anyone?

The decision of the United States Supreme Court of January 22, 1973, in effect establishing the principle of abortion on demand, used some language that has great potential for development. The state, the seven assenting justices proclaim, has no “important and legitimate interest” in protecting anyone (or anything) that lacks “the capability of meaningful life” (Roe v. Wade, X).

The language of the chief and associate justices is intended to apply only to unborn life. Nevertheless, the criterion “meaningful life” may show an unexpected capability of meaningful expansion. After all, the momentous “right to privacy,” from which the justices derived their conclusion that a woman and a physician, privatissime, may lawfully “terminate” the life of the fetus in utero, originates, according to Roe v. Wade, in an 1891 Court decision that for the Union Pacific Railroad to strip and search a Mr. Bolton was an assault on his person. If the criterion of privacy protecting one from a humiliating bodily search can be extended to privacy permitting one to “terminate” unborn life without interference, then who can predict the lengths to which the criterion of “meaningfulness” may yet be taken?

Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher, his long fight for the right to terminate unborn life apparently won, has now taken up euthanasia. Supporters of this cause appeal for the right to terminate other “meaningless” life—such as those in advanced senile degeneracy, uncontrollable pain, or prolonged comatose conditions. It should be noted that what the euthanasia camp calls the right to “death with dignity” is not the right to be allowed to die, or to let someone die, naturally instead of resorting to “heroic” measures to prolong life by hours, days, or weeks. Allowing a dying person to die without resorting to drastic measures to maintain his vital signs is not euthanasia; it is neither morally nor legally wrong. Euthanasia involves deliberate killing (“termination,” to use the language favored by the Court). There is a vital distinction between the decision not to attempt to prolong life beyond a certain point and the decision to “terminate” it at a certain point.

According to the study Your Death Warrant? Implications of Euthanasia, edited by Jonathan Gould and Lord Graigmyle (Arlington, 1973), the various proposals for establishing euthanasia in Britain and the United States generally provide that the patient must be an adult suffering from an “irremediable condition,” for example: (a) physical illness thought in the patient’s case to be incurable and terminal, and (b) grievous physical affliction occasioning the patient serious injury and/or disability, thought to be permanent and expected to cause him severe distress; (c) physical brain damage or deterioration to the point that the patient’s normal mental faculties are severely and irreparably impaired. While patients fulfilling conditions a or b might themselves ask for euthanasia, in case c the decision would have to be made by “competent authorities.” No present proposals call for applying euthanasia to those who object, but attitudes change. Back in the early 1960s, for instance, Dr. Guttmacher was writing that a pregnant woman’s physician has two patients, “the woman and her baby,” but since then baby seems to have lost its standing.

The biblical standard is not “meaningfulness” but innocence. From Genesis on, the taking of innocent human life is forbidden and placed under divine condemnation. American courts have shown a great diffidence about whether a person’s being guilty of a “capital” crime (murder, for example) is a criterion for taking his life. But they are showing considerable enthusiasm for the far more arbitrary and ambiguous criterion of “meaningfulness.”

The 1973 Supreme Court decision has already resulted in 1.5 million legal abortions. Those opposed to abortion on demand were not prepared to take up the fight against it before it became a million-fold reality. Perhaps the abortion decision can be overthrown; we hope that it can. But time marches on, and now a proeuthanasia climate is being generated by many of the same people who prepared the way for abortion on demand, using many of the same methods. It is high time to start working against it.

Take Time To Be Useful

According to a recent study made by Allen Nauss at Concordia Seminary (Springfield, Illinois), statistics show that ministers who remain in a pastorate for less than a four-year stay are less effective in virtually all areas: pastoral care, counseling, interpersonal relations, evangelism, religious education, preaching, conduct of worship, and administrative activity. Moreover, pastoral tours longer than twelve years apparently do not diminish effectiveness, contrary to what is often alleged.

In the early Christian Church, a priest who left his first parish was thought to be just as bad as one who ran out on his first wife. In Puritan times it was common for a pastor to spend his whole active ministry in one parish, and this practice is still followed in some quarters. Admittedly, excessively long pastorates can lead to problems; we know of some once powerful preachers who hung on to their pulpits long after they had ceased to be effective. From a statistical perspective, however, it would appear that the Church today has more of a problem with short pastorates than with long ones. It takes time to get to know people, to build relationships, to win confidence. In a day of exaggerated mobility, clergymen should be encouraged to think about the value of stability in the pastoral ministry.

Eutychus and His Kin: March 29, 1974

Problems Of The Brain Drain

After getting along for centuries on a small number of select universities, Germany has found it now needs more. And so West Germany has founded several new ones. But it has discovered, to its distress, that in certain disciplines there were not enough qualified German professors to staff them. In the United States, on the other hand, there has been a surplus of Ph.D.’s. In the wake of government cutbacks in funds for research and teaching, unemployed Ph.D.’s can be found doing anything from driving taxis to raising cattle. America’s problem became Germany’s opportunity, and the West German state of Bavaria decided to call several American scientists to teach at its new universities.

But a problem of academic protocol arose. The Americans were for the most part gratified to learn that, because of their earned Ph.D.’s, they were called “Herr Doktor” or even “Herr Professor Doktor.” But many Germans, who had heard that American schools are mostly diploma mills, were aghast at hearing those titles bandied about with abandon. Several proprietors of German doctorates protested to the Bavarian Kultusminister (Minister of Culture): the title “Doktor” is protected by law in Germany. When a person has been awarded an honorary doctorate in Germany (they are very rare), a subtle distinction is sometimes enforced by referring to him as “Herr Doktor h.c. So-und-So.” The “h.c.” stands for honoris causa. Shocked, the Herr Kultusminister decided that no American was entitled to be Herr Doktor unless his degree was “made in Germany.” He might, however, be called “Herr Ph.D.”

We do not need to explore the question whether the American Ph.D. is really an “Unterdoktor” by comparison with a German-made Dr. phil. (The German goes directly to the “university” at age nineteen or twenty, Abitur in hand. Granted, an Abitur is far superior to the typical American high school diploma. But is it superior to a good B.A.? If he pushes, the German can get the Dr. phil. in three or four years—rather fast by comparison with the American route through the B.A. and possibly a master’s before the Ph.D.)

Never mind, the Germans feel strongly about the “Doktortitel,” and for the sake of academic courtesy the distinction can be preserved. But what are we to do when speaking English? We can hardly call a colleague “Ph.D. Smith”; we can’t even agree on the pronunciation of Ms. The best solution is to go on calling American Ph. and other D.’s doctor, as in the past, and observing the distinctiveness of a German-earned degree by designating it “Dr. Germ.” (doctor germanicus), or “Dr. Teut.” (doctor teutonicus).

In this way, too, those Americans who for one reason or another have earned their degree in the Vaterland would gain instant recognition. If asked, “Why are you called Doctor Toot?,” they could launch into an explanation of the superiorities of Teutonic education. If mocked and thereby enraged, they could legitimately pass their ire off as the famous furor teutonicus, already observed by the ancient Roman historian Tacitus. Swiss degrees could be called Dr. Hel. (for helveticus), Dutch Dr. Bat. (for batavicus), Japanese Dr. Jap., and so on, but too many complications might arise. It would probably be better to limit the benefits to the squeaky wheel, so to speak, and confine ourselves to Dr. Teut.

For those seeking employment in theological schools, the Dr. Teut. would virtually have cash value, except for certain institutions where it might be regarded with more suspicion than reverence. But the virtues would probably outweigh the disadvantages, and above all the Bavarians would be suitably repaid for their precision.

EUTYCHUS VI

Listening To Radio Church

I wrote C. Benjamin Hale, Jr.… expressing my appreciation for his article “Radio Church: Is Anyone Listening?” (Jan. 18).… I found his article very meaningful for me and my radio ministry. I wish that CHRISTIANITY TODAY would have more articles on religious radio.

PHIL C. BRYANT

Great Salkehatchie Baptist Church

Ulmer, S. C.

One Theology

The two of us have read with interest the article “A Church Without Theology” by C. René Padilla (Current Religious Thought, Feb. 1). Both of us have spent most of our adult lives in South America and know the author well. One of us had the joy of instructing Rene in the ABC’s of Bible truth and baptizing him over twenty-five years ago in Quito, Ecuador.

Sr. Padilla and many others in our day feel that several different theologies need to be developed—a European theology, a Latin American theology, a youth theology, a theology for the blacks, a theology for the intellectuals, etc. We suggest: What’s wrong with biblical theology? There is no need for many theologies. One theology is sufficient and satisfactory for the whole wide world.… Most main-line denominations here in the United States have their sophisticated theology systematically organized, and yet they are “dead” as concerns fervor for the Lord. We prefer that churches in all parts of the world have less “man-made theology” and more concern to preach Jesus to the lost and the fruit of the Spirit to the believers.

JAMES SAVAGE

ROBERT SAVAGE

Maracay, Venezuela

Muskegon, Mich.

Memo To Wormwood

I herewith send you a reaction to “An Intercepted Memorandum on Guerrilla Warfare” (Feb. 15):

DEAR WORMWOOD:

Flash! We must abandon at once our strategy of formalize, organize, and institutionalize as regards the Enemy and the guerrilla followers. Like an oil well that gushes all over the place until it is channeled through the pipeline … the guerrillas are more effective against our Father below with some measure of formalization. What we must do is keep them “gushing” and prevent the development of “pipelines” which effectively channel their resources, strength, and power.… Our research department has discovered that guerrillas organized and institutionalized have amazing guts for the long pull and frequently hurt our cause when there appears to be little life left. I guess, dear Wormwood, what I am saying is that our Plumbers Unit has discovered that the “pipelines” are an asset to the Enemy, not to us. We have misjudged the enemy camp.… If we can keep them “happy” as guerrillas, there is a good chance that their enthusiasm will be a passing fad, and the ultimate result will be that many of them will be more firmly in our Father’s camp than before they ventured forth into Enemy territory.

Your affectionate uncle,

SCREWTAPE

DELMAR L. ANDERSON

Newport Covenant Church

Bellevue, Wash.

Lutheran Footnotes

I sincerely hope that your news story “Missouri Synod: The Showdown” (News, Feb. 15) will be the last you will print concerning the troubles which are facing the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

While the events within the Missouri Synod may simply be a leading religious news story to the rest of Christianity, they are painful trauma to those of us who love our Synod dearly. At the present time we have received wide coverage in both religious and secular news media. Those articles have only served to add to the misinformation which has shaped the opinions of many people both within the Synod and without. The issues are complex and have been developing since the foundation of our church body in 1847. Most people that I have spoken to have the idea that the issue is the old Liberal vs. Conservative conflict.… That is an oversimplification. By briefly listing many complex events in a few columns you encourage such reactions and hurt our denomination. We need time to heal our wounds, time to try and reunite our church.

GARY W. SACKETT

Saint John Lutheran Church

Emporium, Pa.

In “Missouri Synod: The Showdown” you distinguish between liberals and conservatives in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Our “liberals” would be considered arch conservatives in other denominations. The battle is really between those interested in confessional Lutheranism and the proponents of the strange views of J. A. O. Preus. Whether Bryant calls deals attempts at “conciliation” or not, a deal is a deal is a deal. If Jacob Preus and his cohorts get a footnote in history, it will not be as ethical exemplars.

ARTHUR M. WEBER

Lutheran Services

Cornwall-on-the-Hudson, N. Y.

God Vs. Caesar

In reference to your editorial entitled “Smugglers Are Deceivers” in the March 1 issue, I have the following comments.

In Matthew 22:21 we are commanded by Jesus to “render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” That command is not an instruction to render God’s things to Caesar. Caesar has no right to usurp authority over the Bible, which is the word of God. It is not the legitimate right of Caesar to forbid us to do as Jesus commanded us when he said in Matthew 28:19, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations.” Where Caesar makes an attempt to usurp authority in the sphere which is properly God’s, we have an obligation to obey God rather than men.… The governments of the world are not sticking to the things due to Caesar when they attempt to stop the Scriptures of God from reaching people.…

Frankly, I am horrified at your colossal misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches. It is wrong to interpret one passage of Scripture in contradiction to another.… There are so many passages which command us to go and spread God’s word that I find it simply incredible that you consider this activity something which comes under Caesar’s authority.

B. COADY

Thompson, Conn.

The Refiner’s Fire: Television

The Patriarchs On Prime Time

“Time is ripe like a fig and there is only one fruit on the tree.” With these words Rebekah convinces her son Jacob to trick Isaac into giving him the blessing—and she does so on prime television time. Time, it seems, is also ripe for television networks to give religion prime-time airing.

Such programs as “Catholics” (CBS), the “Religious America” series on NET, and the Waltons with their homespun Christianity have had wide publicity and good reviews. And now ABC plans a two-hour special, “The Story of Jacob and Joseph,” for Palm Sunday, April 7, at 8:30 P.M. Filmed by Screen Gems and produced by Mildred Freed Alberg, the story closely follows the biblical narrative. Ms. Alberg at a preview screening in New York last month explained that “The Story of Jacob and Joseph” begins with the assumption that the patriarchs were real people, that the events described in Genesis actually happened, and that the Lord God moved in their midst. These beliefs are evident in the film. Nevertheless, the script-writer not only added imaginatively to the biblical story but altered it in a few places. The emphasis on its factuality is good, but the tampering with the biblical record is not.

The agony of Rebekah’s labor, begun in the heat-scorched fields, opens the film. The viewer is plunged immediately into the misery of a long barren woman who now feels too old to bear children. In her despondence she cries out against God, who tells her of the two nations in her womb. (The film departs from the Genesis account by moving this scene up to the time of labor.) To portray such despair without seeming melodramatic is no easy task, and Colleen Dewhurst as Rebekah does not quite succeed. But subsequent moving portrayals compensate for the weak—or perhaps too emphatic—beginning.

Alan Bates in his narration succinctly explains God’s command that all living creatures be fruitful and multiply. God’s blessing is seen in the fertility of cattle, and sheep, and goats—and wives. This point explains Rebekah’s agony and gives focus to the jealousy between Leah and Rachel.

For dramatic purposes author Ernest Kinoy depicts Esau’s anger as immediate and violent when he discovers his brother’s deception. In the film Esau (Julian Glover) does not intend to wait for his father Isaac’s death before killing his brother, as he does in Genesis. Nor does Isaac know of Jacob’s leaving, when at his mother’s suggestion he runs away to Laban. Taking this liberty with the biblical narrative does not seem to violate the spirit of the story.

The same cannot be said for a few other liberties taken with the scriptural text. On the way to Padanaram, Jacob (Keith Michell of “The Six Wives of Henry the Eighth” fame) dreams of the ladder of God and receives the promise that his descendants will be as numerous as the dust of the earth. The production fortunately does not try to show the dream, nor do we ever hear God speak; we learn from the visitant the words of God. But unfortunately, perhaps because of a time limitation, the scene at Bethel is combined with that of Jacob’s name change when he returns to Canaan twenty years later. Jacob takes the name of Israel for himself; he does not even report that God gives it to him (“I shall call myself Israel”).

In Part II, “Joseph and His Brothers,” Potiphar is portrayed as homosexual; his whole appearance is too reminiscent of that of Herod in the film Jesus Christ Superstar. The man is flabby with a pasty complexion. He is greedy and lacks nobility as well as intelligence. When we first see Potiphar he is petulantly complaining that he paid for forty fowl but received only twenty. Joseph’s ability to read and write—he explains to the pouting Potiphar that the problem was one of bookkeeping only—brings about his promotion.

The portrayal of Potiphar as a homosexual is meant to justify his wife’s numerous attempts to seduce Joseph (Tony Lo Bianco). “I was ten when I was married to him” she explains, “and he cannot use me.” Genesis offers no such excuse for her; neither should we.

Touches of humor contribute to a sense of realism. The bargaining of Laban and Jacob is such a scene. In words, tone, and body movements, Laban is a shrewd but amusing bargainer. Without approving his shrewdness, the film provides Laban (Hershel Bernardi) with a quasi-ethical justification for giving Leah to Jacob first. The bargain, Leban reminds the irate Jacob, was that Jacob would work seven years to earn Laban’s daughter (no names mentioned), and in that country, the elder always gets married before the younger. “But the hair was the hair of Rachel!” exclaims Jacob. And then, remembering his own trickery, he shouts, “O Esau, Esau!” To placate Jacob, Laban lets him marry Rachel in return for another seven years of work. “Can I dishonor one daughter by asking less for her than I did for the other one?” asks Laban with a shrug.

The reunion between Esau and Jacob, while slightly inaccurate (no servant goes before Jacob with presents for the injured brother; instead Jacob offers him “all I have,” which Esau obligingly refuses), mixes pathos with humor. After they weep on each other’s shoulders, Jacob brings forward his wives, concubines, and eleven children (Benjamin has not yet been born). An amazed Esau asks, “Are all those yours?” When Jacob replies, “Yes,” Esau exclaims, “Little brother!” and begins hugging him again.

“The Story of Jacob and Joseph” also makes real the nomadic nature of the early Israelites. Jacob is a rich man, yet he still sleeps on hard desert ground in a tent and wears rough-woven clothing. With authenticated costumes and artifacts the film brings the viewer the sense of period, and the filming on location gives the right feeling of place (the latest Arab-Israeli conflict interrupted the production but did not force the film crew to leave the country).

Several scenes stand out among the many exceptional ones in the film: Jacob at the well with Rachel, Rachel’s agony at her barrenness (her words are taken directly from Scripture, as is Jacob’s reply), Jacob’s mourning at the tale of Joseph’s death, and Joseph’s emotion-torn blessing of Benjamin, given before the eleven brothers realize who he is. Such spots balance the weaker ones, as in the rather staged quality of Joseph’s visits to the court of Pharoah. (The formalistic scene is another unfortunate reminder of Superstar—its scene in which Jesus is brought to Pilate’s throne.)

Perhaps the best scene of the film is the last, which is understated, yet powerful. Pharoah’s words of joy for Joseph fade into the face of Jacob and his sons traveling to Egypt: “For the best of all the land of Egypt is yours.” After the trials of the last two hours the leading of the progenitors of eleven of the twelve tribes to Egypt in full blessing (Joseph was, of course, already there) shows the goodness of the Hebrews’—and our—God.

The striking portrayal of the character of the Lord God is one of the strongest features of the film. God is unseen and unheard, but certainly not unfelt. He is as real a character in the narrative as is Joseph or Jacob.

ABC should be congratulated for providing prime-time viewers with a forthright declaration that this part of Genesis is fact and not fable. And if the producer is right, “The Story of Jacob and Joseph” will be the first in a series of Screen Gems-filmed Bible narratives. We welcome the Old Testament to prime-time television and hope for similarly well done treatments of the New. The fruit is ready.

Theology

Easter—Myth, Hallucination, or History?

Conclusion of a scholarly inquiry.

Second of Two Parts

C. Ancient Concepts of the Afterlife

If the Resurrection of Christ can be investigated as a historical question, one may inquire about the ancient concepts of the afterlife at the time of Jesus and ask whether the Resurrection of Christ was a doctrine that arose from contemporary beliefs.

The ancient Mesopotamians had a pessimistic view of the afterlife, which they conceived as a gloomy, shadowy existence. Gilgamesh sought in vain the secret of immortality. When Ishtar tells the gatekeeper of the Underworld “I will raise up the dead,” she utters this as a threat “so that the dead will outnumber the living”—a calamity and not a hope! (cf. S. N. Kramer, “Death and Nether World according to the Sumerian Literary Texts,” Iraq, XXII [19601], 59–68; H. W. F. Saggs, “Some Ancient Semitic Conceptions of the Afterlife,” Faith and Thought, XC [19581, 157–82).

The Egyptians, as noted in our discussion of Osiris above, did have a more optimistic view of their afterlife. But to call the survival of the Ba and Ka, hovering over the mummified body, a “resurrection” is to obscure, the essential differences in concepts.

The ancient Greek attitude was an essentially tragic outlook. Epitaphs reflect an almost universal pessimism about life beyond the grave. Achilles in Hades says he would rather be a landless peasant on earth than king of the Underworld. After Homer’s time a hope for a blissful existence in the Elysian Fields was held out, but only for heroes (cf. Lewis R. Farnell, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality, 1921).

In the classical period the immortality of the soul was stressed in opposition to the body, which was described by the Orphics as soma sema, “the body a tomb.” Plato in The Phaedo taught that the body is the chief hindrance to wisdom and truth.

In the Hellenistic age the Greek philosophers varied in their views on immortality but agreed on the undesirability of reviving the body. The Stoics, who were pantheists, believed that souls left the body to ascend to the celestial regions of the moon before being absorbed in the All. A Stoic epitaph reads: “The ashes have my body; the sacred air has borne away my soul” (cf. Franz Cumont, After Life in Roman Paganism, 1922, reprinted 1959, p. 15). Seneca, the Stoic tutor of Nero and Paul’s contemporary, spoke of “the detestable habitation of the body, and vain flesh in which the soul is imprisoned.”

Epicurus, whose philosophy was based upon the atomistic cosmology of Democritus, taught that at death the atoms of the body simply disintegrated. There was no immortality but instead freedom from the terrors of the Beyond. The Epicurean indifference to the afterlife is reflected in such epitaphs as: Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo, “I was not, I was, I am not, I do not care,” and Es, bibe, lude, veni, “Eat, drink, play, come hither” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:32). It is therefore not surprising that the Stoics and the Epicureans at the Areopagus in Athens disdainfully dismissed Paul when he began to preach to them the Resurrection (Acts 17:31, 32). According to Robert Grant (“The Resurrection of the Body,” Journal of Religion, XXVIII [1948], 189): “In educated circles only the soul of man is valued. For those who took this standpoint as axiomatic, fulfillment of the Christian hope was impossible and in any event undesirable.”

That the concept of bodily resurrection was just as difficult to accept at the dawn of Christianity as it is for some today—for different reasons, to be sure—is shown by the reaction of pagan critics and of the Gnostics. The raising of a corpse was ridiculed as a shameful act by Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian. Gnostic teachers such as Valentinus taught a Docetic view that the “resurrection” involved only the non-corporal elements of personality (cf. Malcolm Peel, The Epistle to Rheginos: A Valentinian Letter on the Resurrection, 1969).

If the early apostles of the Gospel had altered their teaching of the resurrection to make their message more palatable to their contemporaries, as we are sometimes advised to do, there would have been no historic continuity of Christianity but only shifting patterns battered to and fro by every passing intellectual fashion.

D. Jewish Concepts of the Resurrection

As is well known, faith in the resurrection of the dead rose but intermittently and gradually in the Hebrew consciousness, culminating in the declaration of Daniel 12:2 (cf. R. Martin-Achard, From Death to Life, 1960; G. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, 1972). On the basis of Ugaritic lexicography M. Dahood claims that there are more references to the resurrection in the Psalms than we had realized (cf. Elmer B. Smick, “Ugaritic and the Theology of the Psalms,” J. B. Payne, editor, New Perspectives on the Old Testament, 1970, pp. 104–16.

Faith in the resurrection, generally for the righteous alone, is clearly expressed in some of the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical books such as Second Maccabees, Second Baruch, and Fourth Ezra, but is not mentioned in Jubilees or the Book of Enoch. Philo in his Legum Allegoria (III, 69) holds that the body “is wicked and a plotter against the soul, and is even a corpse and a dead thing.”

According to the Pharisaic Mishnah, Sanhedrin X, 1:

All Israelites have a share in the world to come.… And these are they that have no share in the world to come: he that says there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law, and [he that says] that the Law is not from Heaven, and an Epicurean.

The Sadduccees, on the other hand, rejected the resurrection—a division of views that Paul exploited in his trial before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:6).

Despite the rash claims of a few writers that the leader of the Qumran community was believed to have risen from the dead (cf. my article, “The Teacher of Righteousness From Qumran and Jesus of Nazareth,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, X [May 13, 1966], 12–14), it is not at all certain whether the Dead Sea Scrolls affirm a faith in the resurrection. John Pryke comments: “The bliss of the elect as described in the Manual is much nearer to the ‘immortality of the soul’ than to the ‘resurrection of the flesh’ ” (“Eschatology in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in W. F. Albright et al., The Scrolls and Christianity, 1969, p. 57). Matthew Black also notes: “It is surprising that no unambiguously clear evidence has so far been produced for any belief by the Qumran sect in the resurrection or in resurrection” (“The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins,” ibid., p. 106).

Though there were scattered indications in the Old Testament of a germinating faith in the resurrection and though important segments of Judaism did maintain this conviction, neither in the Old Testament nor in contemporary Jewish tradition was there a belief in the resurrection of the Messiah (cf. P. Grelot, “The Resurrection of Jesus,” in P. de Surgy, op. cit., pp. 24, 136). As Merrill Tenney concludes:

The idea was not so essential a part of Jewish theology that it would be read into the phenomena of the life of Jesus or arbitrarily superimposed upon His teachings. His predictions of rising from the dead and His interpretation of the Old Testament were original with Him; they were not the echoes of current theology that He had absorbed and repeated unthinkingly [The Reality of the Resurrection, 1963, reprinted 1972, p. 28].

E. The Pauline Evidence

No one questions the centrality of Christ’s Resurrection in Paul’s teaching (cf. D. M. Stanley, Christ’s Resurrection in Pauline Soteriology, 1961). Nor does anyone deny the genuineness of Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, written but twenty-five years after the crucifixion of Christ. In First Corinthians 15:1–8 Paul gives a list of the appearances of the risen Christ to various believers including himself. Moreover, Paul says he received this tradition in a manner that indicates its great antiquity. According to M. Carrez:

Framed by these two words, gospel and kerygma, we find a text and a tradition whose Aramaic tenor, archaic character, and primitive catechetical form have been recently pointed out by B. Klappert.… The appearance to Peter, confirmed by the allusion to Lk 24:34, and the appearance to James … show the Jerusalamite character of this tradition. What should we derive from it? That, in any case, this formulation already existed in an established way six years after the events of the redemptive drama at the latest, and that everything concurs in underlining the great antiquity of this formulation [“The Pauline Hermeneutics of the Resurrection,” in P. de Surgy, op. cit., p. 40].

Of crucial significance is the fact that Paul can claim in First Corinthians 15:6 that of the more than 500 disciples to whom Christ appeared at the same time, most (hoi pleiones, not just “the greater part” as in the King James Version) were still alive at the time Paul wrote. As William Lillie, head of the Department of Biblical Study at the University of Aberdeen, notes:

What gives a special authority to the list as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, “If you do not believe me, you can ask them.” Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago [“The Empty Tomb and the Resurrection,” in D. E. Nineham el al., Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament, 1965, p. 125].

F. The Evidence of the Gospels

The canonical Gospels were all written before the end of the first century A.D. at the latest, and Mark may have been written as early as A.D. 50. Although they differ in details, they concur on the basic point: the two factors that together convinced the disciples that Christ had risen were the empty tomb and the appearances of the risen Christ on at least ten occasions. As C. H. Dodd has pointed out, the gospel narratives are free from the legendary embellishments of later apocryphal accounts. They simply recount the surprise of the empty tomb and the gradual realization of its significance after encounters with the risen Christ. The apocryphal Gospel of Peter is not content with such artless narratives. It claims that the soldiers on guard beheld:

… three men come out from the sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the other, and a cross following them, and the heads of the two reaching to heaven, but that of him who was led of them by the hand overpassing the heavens [E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha I, 1963, p. 186].

One feature of the Resurrection narratives that indicates they were not late inventions of the Church is the striking fact that the first appearances of the risen Christ were not to the apostles but instead to women. As C. F. D. Moule comments:

Further, it is difficult to explain how a story that grew up late and took shape merely in accord with the supposed demands of apologetic came to be framed in terms almost exclusively of women witnesses, who, as such, were notoriously invalid witnesses according to Jewish principles of evidence [C. F. D. Moule, editor, The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ, 1968, p. 9].

If one rejects the traditional interpretation of the empty tomb as resulting from the Resurrection of Christ, one is obliged to supply a better alternative. Such theories have been often discussed—e.g., Frank Morrison, Who Moved the Stone? (1930, reprinted 1963); Daniel P. Fuller, Easter Faith and history (1965). We may briefly summarize these proposals and the objections to them.

Heinrich Paulus in his Life of Jesus (1828) suggested that Jesus was not dead when he was taken from the cross. The coolness of the tomb revived him. After exchanging his grave wrappings for the gardener’s clothes, Jesus spoke to his disciples for forty days and then walked into a cloud on a mountain and went off somewhere to die. The implausibility of this reconstruction was recognized by Strauss, who wrote:

It is impossible that one who had just come forth from the grave half dead, who crept about weak and ill, who stood in need of medical treatment …, and who at last succumbed to suffering, could ever have given to the disciples that impression that He was a conqueror over death and the grave … [The Life of Jesus, 1879, I, 412; cited by Wilbur Smith, The Supernaturalness of Christ, 1940, p. 208].

A modern variation has been proposed by Schonfield in his celebrated work The Passover Plot. Jesus plotted with Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus, a Judaean priest, and an anonymous “young man” to arrange a feigned death on the cross by taking a drug. Schonfield seeks to maintain that neither Jesus nor his accomplices were guilty of any fraud. Yet the mysterious young man is mistaken for the risen Jesus on the four occasions of the “appearances” admitted by Schonfield without ever correcting the misapprehension of the disciples. We are asked to believe that the skeptical disciples were confused by the appearance of this young man into believing that Jesus had arisen, and that they were so transformed by this confusion that they turned Jerusalem upside down with their preaching (cf. my review in the Gordon Review, X [1967], 150–60; reprinted in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, XXI [1969], 27–32).

Kirsopp Lake in The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (1907) emended Mark 16:6 so that it read: “He is not here, behold (pointing to the right tomb) the place where they laid him.” His ingenious theory that the women saw an empty tomb but the wrong one hardly explains their amazement and fear. Nor it is plausible in view of the fact that Jesus was buried in the private garden of Joseph of Arimathea, and that the women noted where he was buried (Mark 15:47). J. Jeremias has demonstrated that about fifty tombs were venerated by the Jews before the time of Jesus. In the view of such interest in the tombs of holy men, J. Delorme asks:

In these circumstances, is it possible that the original community of Jerusalem could have been completely uninterested in the tomb where Jesus was laid after his death?…

Can the existence of this tradition at Jerusalem, centered around a specific place, in a relatively short lapse of time after the events, be explained as a pure legendary creation? Could one show an ordinary tomb as being the tomb of Jesus? Can one question without foundation known persons, the women designated by name and Joseph of Arimathea? [“The Resurrection and Jesus’ Tomb: Mark 16, 1–8 in the Gospel Tradition,” in P. de Surgy, op. cit., pp. 88, 101].

If the tomb where Jesus was laid was indeed empty, could his body have been stolen away by someone? To assume that the body was stolen one must first of all disregard the story of the guard posted at the sepulchre (Matt. 27:65, 66). We need then to ask, Who would have stolen the body and why? The Romans had no reason to do so; they had surrendered the body to Joseph of Arimathea. It is illogical to suppose that the Jews stole the body, since they could easily have suppressed the nascent Christian movement and exposed the Christians’ claim of Christ’s Resurrection by simply producing his body.

Hermann Reimarus, whose works were published posthumously by Gotthold Lessing in the eighteenth century, did suggest that it was the Christians who removed the body and hid it somewhere. But this is psychologically incredible since the disciples would not only be perpetrating a fraud but also be dying for a deliberate deception. The neatly deposited graveclothes and napkin observed by Peter and John (John 20:7) are evidence against tomb robbery by ordinary thieves, as they would not have taken the time to tidy up the sepulchre.

G. The Impact of the Resurrection

Not even the most skeptical can deny the historical attestation of the faith of the early Christians in the Resurrection of Christ. This simple fact is of importance if we accept as genuine the numerous predictions of Jesus concerning his death and resurrection (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 22, 23; 20:18, 19; 26:2; etc.). Charlatans such as Theudas (Josephus, Antiquities XX. 5.1), who claimed to have the power to divide the Jordan River, or the Gnostic Menander, who claimed his disciples would remain ageless, were quickly exposed by the failure of their claims. The Qumran community, which has some features in common with the Christian community, did not survive the destruction of its monastery by the Romans in A.D. 68 because the people had no comparable faith to sustain them.

Something earth-shaking must have transformed the despairing disciples. A. M. Ramsey (The Resurrection of Christ, 1946) reminds us: “It must not be forgotten that the teaching and ministry of Jesus did not provide the disciples with a Gospel, and led them from puzzle to paradox until the Resurrection gave them a key” (p. 40).

It should be obvious that the early Christians were completely convinced of the Resurrection. If this were not so, they had everything to lose and nothing to gain. By preaching the Resurrection of Christ they further antagonized the Jewish authorities and in effect accused them of slaying the Messiah (Acts 2:23, 24, 36; 3:14, 15; 4:10; etc.). As H. C. Cadbury notes:

The effect of the belief in Jesus’ resurrection on the early Christian belief in the wider resurrection experience can hardly be overestimated. It was the kind of assurance, contemporary and concrete, that the most ardent though speculative convictions of Pharisees or other non-Christian Jews could not have equalled [“Intimations of Immortality in the Thought of Jesus,” in I. T. Ramsey et al., The Miracles and the Resurrection, 1964, p. 84].

Professor Lillie concludes:

The followers of a religious group do not preserve traditions of their leaders forsaking their master and behaving in a cowardly and despairing fashion unless these traditions happen to be true. The fact that the Gospel was boldly and successfully preached by these same followers is attested not only by the New Testament record, but by the historical fact of the growth of the Christian Church. It is indeed one of the few New Testament facts for which we have independent evidence outside the Christians’ own traditions. The Roman historian Tacitus (Annals XV. 44) states that “a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment (by the crucifixion of Jesus) again broke out” [in D. E. Nineham et al., op. cit.].

I would argue that only the appearance of the risen Christ can satisfactorily explain how Jesus’ skeptical brother James (John 7:5) became a leader in the early Church (1 Cor. 15:7; Acts 15), how despondent Peter became a fearless preacher at Pentecost, and how a fanatical persecutor of Christians became Paul, the greatest missionary of the Gospel.

A Concluding Challenge

I have tried to show that theories attributing the Resurrection of Christ to the borrowing of mythological themes, to hallucinations, or to alternative explanations of the empty tomb are improbable and are also inadequate to explain the genesis and growth of Christianity. To be sure, the Resurrection of Jesus is unprecedented, but Jesus himself is sui generis, unique. As Tenney remarks, “Although the resurrection was without precedent, it was not abnormal for Christ.… He rose from the dead because it was the logical and normal prerogative of the Son of God” (op. cit., p. 133).

The historical question of the Resurrection of Christ differs from other historical problems in that it poses a challenge to every individual. Christ said (John 11:25): “I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” For the Resurrection of Christ to be more than a beautiful Easter story, each person needs to believe in his heart that God has raised Christ from the dead and to confess with his mouth Jesus as Lord.

Whatever Happened to Church Discipline?

How to maintain unity and purity.

God designed the Church on the pattern of his own character. But today that pattern is twisted and distorted, sometimes beyond recognition. What is the character of God? “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4). “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty” (Rev. 4:8). God is one, and he intended his church to be one. “[I pray] that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:21). God is holy, and he intended his Church to be pure, undefiled in faith and in life. “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1 Cor. 5:13).

How important is it for the Church to be pure and united? The answer is apparent in another question: How important are these characteristics of God? How important is it that God be holy, separated from all defilement? How important is the righteousness of God to his nature? And how important is the unity of the Trinity? How important is love as a characteristic of God? The Church was designed to be both holy and united in love. When it is unholy or disunited, it denies the character of God.

Furthermore, to the extent that the Church loses this basic character of God it loses its power. When either the unity or the purity is lost, the Body of Christ no longer has a right to expect its ministry to be fruitful. A fighting, bickering, divided church projects an image of God that can be expected to turn people away. It is when men see the love that disciples have for one another that they believe. When the Church compromises and becomes hypocritical either in doctrine or in life, the power is drained off.

But this is not all. A disunited church or a compromising church not only denies the character of God and loses its testimony to the world but cannot adequately fulfill God’s purpose for its own members. For each member to grow into the likeness of Christ, the relations among the members ought to be right. God designed the Church to be a true family; the eternal blood ties of Calvary are even stronger than human blood ties. It is in the context of this koinonia or loving mingling of life that God does his work of building Christians into the likeness of Christ (Eph. 4:11–16). This is no superficial Sunday-club relationship. God intended an intimate sharing of life on the pattern of the character of God, the Trinity. To have such family solidarity, there must be discipline. Fellowship without purity of faith and life is flawed at its core. Unity and purity are interdependent elements of a single relationship. Just as in the family so it is in the Church that where either love or discipline is missing, the children will be greatly handicapped.

And yet, as it is difficult for theologians to balance the justice and mercy of God, and as it is difficult for parents to balance firm discipline and loving acceptance, so it is very difficult for the Church to maintain unity and purity at the same time. It is much easier to go to a consistent extreme than to stay at the center of biblical tension. Whether in the local congregation or in the Church at large, the Church of Jesus Christ seems incapable of having both. The result is that the reflection of God’s image is distorted, the evangelistic thrust of the Church is blunted, and Christians are stunted in spiritual growth. There is a great polarization between the professional unifiers on the one hand and the professional purifiers on the other. It seems that a person must work at uniting all churches no matter how delinquent in doctrine or life or that he must give himself wholly to separating all the wheat from the tares now.

Do not misunderstand. Separation is good—this is the very meaning of the word “holy” or “sanctify.” But there is an unholy separation that begins in the neglect of the complementary characteristic of love, descends quickly into an unlawful judgmental role, and ends in the terrible sin of schism.

Unity is good—it is the ultimate character of God and is his revealed will for the church. But there is an unholy unity that begins by failing in faithfulness, quickly descends to unbiblical compromise and ends in the terrible sin of impurity—defilement of faith or life.

Is there no solution to this great dilemma? Can we have success in one characteristic only at the expense of the other? I believe God intended that we be successful in both at once. Furthermore, I believe he has given clear and rather simple instructions for achieving success in both.

It is significant that the New Testament emphasis on both unity and purity has to do with the local congregation. In contrast, most of the emphasis in the twentieth century, whether on unity or on purity, is on larger interchurch or interdenominational relationships. But it is at the level of the local congregation that both unity and purity are most important. There the presence or absence of unity or purity is most visible. And this is where the battle for unity or purity will be won or lost. The local congregation is also where unity and purity are most difficult to achieve and maintain.

The Bible is very clear in teaching that there should be church discipline and that the ultimate discipline is the breaking of fellowship, or separation. Certain people are to be separated from the church. I take it that those who speak of “separation” base the doctrine on this New Testament principle of church discipline. When one does not have power to put out the person who should be put out, the only way to separate is to leave oneself.

How does one identify a congregation that is guilty of unholy unity, the sin of unbiblical compromise? The New Testament clearly outlines a pattern for church discipline—who is to be disciplined, why he is to be disciplined, and how he is to be disciplined. If for any reason such a person or persons is not disciplined, the congregation is sinning against the revealed will of God.

How does one identify a congregation that is guilty of unholy separation, the sin of schism? Since God has told us who should be disciplined, why he should be disciplined, and how he should be disciplined, if that discipline or separation is of the wrong person, of the right person for the wrong reason, or of the right person for the right reason but in the wrong way, the Christian or congregation is guilty of the sin of schism.

What is this biblical pattern of discipline?

1. Who should be disciplined?

The New Testament teaches that a person must be disciplined if he is guilty of unrepented, overt, moral delinquency (for example, 1 Cor. 5:1, 11) or one who is guilty of teaching heresy (Gal. 1:6–9; 2 John 7–11). It is important to notice that the discipline is not for one who fails in some sin of the spirit or who sins and repents, but for one who sins deliberately and continues without repentance. It is also important to notice that the discipline in matters of faith is not for one who has doubts. Jude 22 says clearly that we should show mercy on those who have doubts and save them. But when one teaches heresy, he must be disciplined.

When a congregation does not discipline in either of these cases, it has an unholy unity and is guilty of the sin of impurity, standing under the judgment of God.

On the other hand, when a congregation or individuals discipline for reasons other than moral dereliction or the teaching of heresy, they are guilty of an unholy separation, the sin of schism, and come under the judgment of God.

In the light of this biblical teaching, it does not take much discernment to see that a great deal of ecumenical promotion is uniting the wrong people and a great deal of separatist agitation is dividing the wrong people.

The only point on which Bible-committed Christians can legitimately differ in this area is the question of what is heresy. Without going into a detailed defense of the position, I suggest that biblical example would seem to limit a definition of disciplinable heresy to a denial of one of the great fundamentals of the faith, those doctrines confessed by the Church at large in all ages. Disciplinary action for teaching deviant doctrines of a lesser kind is schismatic.

2. Why should one discipline?

The primary purpose of discipline in Scripture is to save or restore the person who has sinned (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:19, 20; 2 Thess. 3:13–15). Discipline is designed as a means of grace, not of destruction; as an evidence of love, not of hate or of fear. A secondary legitimate motive is that discipline may serve as a warning to others: it has a deterrent value (1 Tim. 5:20).

We may derive a third legitimate motive from biblical principles in general. Church discipline is useful in protecting the reputation of Christ and of the Church. It is also useful in protecting other believers from defilement. However, it is quite significant that when the New Testament deals with the problem of church discipline it does not use protection as a motive. First John 1:19, 20; First Corinthians 5:6, 7, and Second John 11 may include this concept, but this is obviously not the central thrust of the teaching even in these passages. Jude, who uses stronger words to denounce heretical teaching than any other biblical author, does not end with an injunction to begin disciplinary procedure or to separate from such people but instead exhorts the Christians who were faithful to keep on being faithful (20, 21). He then concludes the passage with these words: “And on some have mercy, who are in doubt; and some save, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” (22, 23, ASV). Following this Jude again turns to the faithful ones, assuring them that God is able to guard them from stumbling and to keep them till that day when they will stand in the presence of his glory without blemish in exceeding joy (24).

One could reasonably expect the protection of the reputation of Christ and the protection of the Church to have been the primary motives given for church discipline. But the Bible seems to take a rather nonchalant attitude at this point. Why? Perhaps because the name of Christ and the Church of Christ are strong and quite able to care for themselves. Or is it because if these were the primary motives rather than that of love for the sinner, discipline could quickly degenerate into inquisition? Christ also seemed to be less than careful—“He that is not against us is for us” (Luke 9:50). Paul also rejoices that the Gospel is preached whether in pretense or in truth (Phil. 1:18). He excoriates the heretic, but doesn’t give protection as the reason for church discipline.

Note that one motive is excluded as a motive for discipline or separation. Church discipline is not to be punitive, retributive. God clearly reserves this motivation to himself—“Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” (Rom. 12:19). This is different from God’s pattern for relations with governmental authority and in the home. In the Church, only God can be the ultimate judge—“Who art thou that judgest the servant of another?” (Rom. 14:4). We are all in the fellowship of mercy-receivers.

From this brief outline of biblical teaching on motivation for disciplining an errant brother it seems clear that when Christians discipline or separate from motives of legalism, vindictiveness, fear, or pride rather than with the basic motivation of saving the brother, they are guilty of the sin of schism.

3. How is church discipline to be administered?

Before any thought of discipline, of course, there must be prayer and self-examination (Gal. 6:1; Matt. 7:1–5). If a person has not given himself to prayer for the brother and if he has not carefully examined his own life, he is disqualified because he does not have the love and humility necessary to be God’s agent in discipline.

The biblical pattern is outlined clearly in Matthew 18:15–18:

a. The first stage is to go to the brother in personal counsel (Gal. 6:1, 2; Rom. 15:1). It is schismatic to go to anyone else first.

b. The second state is to take others and counsel with the brother (Titus 3:10, 11 and First Timothy 5:19 seem to imply adherence to the pattern set in Matthew 18:15–18).

c. Church discipline then follows as the final step (1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14, 15). (Note that this is church discipline. Before a person appoints himself as the disciplinarian, he must be very sure that he is the one responsible for this disciplinary activity at whatever stage. It is very dangerous to assume the responsibility for administering discipline outside the responsible relationships of the congregation.)

From this brief outline of the biblical pattern for the exercise of discipline, it is plain that one who goes to others, to the church, or to the general public with a brother’s failure before seeking in humility and love to restore the brother on an individual and private basis has violated the biblical pattern and is guilty of the sin of schism. Furthermore, those who separate a brother through means other than official church action are guilty of the sin of schism. There are many ways to break fellowship, to separate a brother, to separate from him, to hurt, discipline, or punish him. It can be done through critical talk, through political activity in the church, through pressures from the pulpit or the pen, and in other ways. But these ways are not biblical ways, and those who employ them are guilty of the sin of schism. God does not view lightly the sin of schism—“Now the works of the flesh are manifest … enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings … of which I forewarn you even as I did forewarn you, that they who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19–21, ASV).

With this brief overview of the biblical doctrine of discipline, it becomes quite possible to identify the sin of impurity and the sin of schism. If a church leaves undisciplined one who is guilty of moral dereliction or of the teaching of heresy it may preserve or create unity among Christians. But such unity is unholy and not the unity of the character of God. It is a mixture of pure and impure, and lacks the cement of truth. Sooner or later it will come apart. Purity is essential to true, lasting unity.

On the other hand, to discipline in any way—through word or action—one who is not biblically guilty; to discipline one who is guilty without the primary motivation of restoring him; to discipline without first seeking to restore the brother on a personal, private level; or to discipline him in ways other than official, responsible action of the congregation may give the appearance of purifying the Church, but it will be an unholy separation, not partaking of the character of God. Such an action cannot be called a means of prescribing purity, because it is impure at the core—failing to reflect the loving character of God. The true biblical purity of doctrine includes purity of life, which above all else is solidarity in love with the rest of God’s family.

In this latter half of the twentieth century the purifiers who are weak on love and the unifiers who are weak on faithfulness are wreaking havoc with the image of God seen by the lost world. Furthermore, they are creating a climate that makes growth to spiritual maturity exceedingly hard. Amid this strong polarization, is biblical balance possible?

Imbalance does not come from an over-emphasis. It is impossible to have too much love or too much faithfulness. However, it is quite possible to have unfaithfulness masquerading as love. When God’s people compromise through sentimentality or self-love or for some other reason are unwilling to exercise church discipline, they are unfaithful though they speak much of love. Again, it is quite possible to have unlove masquerading as faithfulness. When God’s people create schism by disciplining the wrong person, or with the wrong motive, or in the wrong way, they are unloving though they speak much of faithfulness. I do not ask the ecumenist to be less loving. I urge him to be more faithful. I do not ask the separatist to be less faithful. I urge him to be more loving.

“Depart from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it” (Ps. 34:14). This is God’s balance. God’s Holy Spirit will give us the ability to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15).

Righteousness and peace embraced at Calvary. May they embrace again in the Church of Jesus Christ in this last quarter of the twentieth century, lest the King return and find us compromised and polluted or dismembered, grotesque and impotent. And yet, since there was no way for righteousness and peace to meet except on the cross, no doubt they will meet in our day only where there are those willing to be crucified. When God’s people fill up that which is lacking in the suffering of Christ (Col. 1:24) through choosing the way of personal sacrifice, His character will shine through again as it did at Calvary. The way of the cross is to exercise discipline faithfully and with love that chooses to act for the welfare of another even at personal sacrifice.

Theology

The Torn Veil: A Sign of Sonship

Exploring the great meaning.

The rending of the veil of the temple when Jesus breathed his last is usually seen as a symbolic interpretation of his death. As the inner shrine of the temple had been veiled from human gaze by the curtain that separated it from the outer room, so the holiness of God had been veiled in mystery before Christ’s death. Now, as the tearing of the curtain revealed the inner shrine, so Christ’s violent death on behalf of man’s salvation reveals fully the loving heart of God.

Jesus himself, looking ahead to his death, had understood it in terms of the sacrificial system. We know this from the prominent part that the Suffering Servant passages of Isaiah played in his idea of his messiahship, from his belief that he came to give his life a ransom for many, and from his saying at the Last Supper that the wine was his blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many.

The Book of Hebrews, which depicts Christ as the great high priest, makes the sacrificial aspect of his death explicit by saying, “We have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh” (10:19, 20). The reference here is to the biblical regulation by which only the high priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, and he only once a year, bearing sacrificial blood. So Jesus, by the death that tore his body, carried his own life-blood “beyond the veil” of this life into the ultimate mystery of God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins, thus opening fully for man the way back to the Father.

Whether or not the writer of Hebrews had in mind at this point the rending of the curtain of the temple at the moment of Jesus’ death is an undecided question. Certainly that incident is not specifically referred to. And it is also true that the writer of Hebrews customarily thought in terms not of the Herodian temple but of the biblical specifications for worship in the Mosaic tabernacle in the wilderness.

In this passage the writer might have been thinking primarily about Jesus’ own teaching of the relation of himself and his death to the temple, rather than about the tearing of the temple curtain at the time of Jesus’ death. For the attempted charge at Jesus’ trial, which was also thrown at him during the crucifixion, was probably a garbled account of something Jesus had really been saying. The charge that he had said, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands,” is probably a reference to his saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19), upon which the evangelist comments, “But he spoke of the temple of his body.” There are other clear suggestions that Jesus thought of his own person as a sanctuary for men. One is the well-known “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden” passage, and another is his regret that he could not gather the inhabitants of Jerusalem together “as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings.”

I find that I have always tended to pass over rather hurriedly the account in the Synoptics of the rending of the veil of the temple and go on to the account of the entombment. Perhaps there is a kind of embarrassment in witnessing the crucifixion, even in imagination. Perhaps, important though the symbolic interpretation of the death is, any symbolic interpretation coming immediately after the awfulness of the event it symbolizes seems anticlimactic.

But recently a different interpretation of the rending of the veil of the temple has occurred to me, and I offer it here, not as a substitute but as an additional interpretation of the event. It has often been said that the crucifixion is the point of intersection of many aspects of reality, and so I see no reason why the incident may not have several noncontradictory interpretations.

Mark’s Gospel, the earliest of the four, is a concise, factual account of the activities of Jesus’ ministry and his death, and of the empty tomb. Comparatively little space is given over to teachings, and the book is conspicuously lacking in an interest in symbolism.

So often we forget that our Gospels are very Jewish documents. Perhaps, as Mark understood it, the account of the tearing of the curtain was not primarily symbolic but was simply part of the factual narrative. That is, God in person had acted directly at that point, and had done what any devoted Jewish father, standing by the deathbed of a beloved son, would have done: he rent his garments. On this interpretation that brief event climaxes the pre-resurrection evidence that Jesus Christ was God’s Son.

Christ’s divine sonship is conspicuous in Mark’s account. The book begins with the words, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus at his baptism was reassured by God of his divine sonship. The demons that were cast out had to be told to be silent because, as discarnate spirits, they had extra-mundane information as to Jesus’ true identity. Jesus assumed God’s prerogatives to command the forces of nature and to forgive sins. At Caesarea Philippi Jesus confirmed the statement that he was the Christ, and God himself corroborated the divine sonship shortly afterward at the transfiguration.

I suggest that God’s third direct indication that Jesus was his Son, this time not given privately but made publicly to the nation as a whole, came in the tearing of the curtain.

This strategic use of the customary Jewish mourning gesture has all the directness, finality, efficiency, and economy of motion characteristic of divine intervention. It answers the questions and ties the threads in the account of the final battle for man’s redemption. Jesus had been so sure that he was the Son of God, and that his position and person were vital to what he was to accomplish, that he had allowed himself to be condemned as worthy of death before the high priest on the basis of his claim to be the Christ, the Son of the Blessed. At the crucifixion itself the priests had mocked him with his error, pointing out that obviously he could not be the Christ, since he was so easily and helplessly done in by his opponents. And in this situation God had to leave him unvindicated, just as God had later to leave him unsupported in the final minutes of his life, in order that the complete sacrifice might be fully his. The final battle for man’s redemption had to be fought by the God-man without the Father’s undergirding.

But the moment Jesus breathed his last the great battle was won, and God was free to answer the taunt of the priests by a quick, decisive gesture. By that same gesture he also indicated to Jesus’ followers that he had personally been close by during the whole terrible ordeal. And further, from that token of God’s concerned nearness we can, in imagination, get some hint of the welcome Christ received when he returned to the Father, more footsore and weary after his stay in the far country of sinful men than the prodigal son had been after his sojourn among the pigs. That most poignant of the homecoming parables Jesus had told during the last weeks of his ministry, after he had steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube