“No animal may continue to exist, no bird fly in the air, or insect roam at will, except by the will of man. He now chooses which trees, plants and grasses are useful to him at present, and eliminates the remainder. Modern medicine keeps alive the unfit, who would not have survived under the natural conditions where mankind evolved from lower forms of life, and allows them to breed. This control of all life on the planet throws a very great responsibility on the shoulders of mankind. Unwise action, whether in ignorance or deliberate, could result in irretrievable harm. Only increasing knowledge can ensure that man’s mistakes are few, and this can come only from researches in the basic sciences.”

These are the words of Sir Mark Oliphant, one of Australia’s greatest scientists, as he surveyed the awesome possibilities now before mankind. He was arguing that we have for too long put up with the idea that there may be two cultures, a scientific culture and one more closely connected with the humanities. His thought is that this will not do for the needs of our day. Unless there is a greater willingness all round to see life as one whole, we will be in trouble.

This is, of course, a position that many Christian thinkers have also been arguing for a long time. They have been pointing out that on New Testament premises it is not possible to confine one’s Christianity to any one part of life. Either Christ is Lord of all we do and are or we have no real claim to be among his followers. All of life is God’s.

Sir Mark is not writing as a Christian apologist. He is a man of science, and he sees the dangers in which we stand with frightening clarity. Man is supreme over his environment, holding in his power the fate of birds, animals, trees, plants, grasses, and more. He has already altered the face of much of the earth, with his destruction of forests, creation of dust bowls, building of dams to form artificial lakes, and much more.

But man’s activities are now at the point where he is endangering large sections of animal life and himself as well. The horrible consequences of pollution of the environment are becoming plainer and plainer. And the threat of a nuclear holocaust hangs as a grim shadow over all that man does.

Most of us pay little heed to all this. It is outside the range of our knowledge. We differ from men in earlier and simpler ages when to know all knowledge was a legitimate aim. Leonardo da Vinci could be an outstanding expert in several fields and feel that he had not overlooked any really significant area of human knowledge. And, while lesser mortals did not quite reach that pinnacle, they yet thought it quite natural that their studies, of whatever sort they were, should extend over a variety of fields. In principle all knowledge was open to everyone.

This is no longer possible. In our age of increasing specialization, when an expert knows “more and more about less and less,” most of us are quite reconciled to the fact that we will never know anything about quite large areas of knowledge. Our men of science must spend so much time on science that they normally find little to spare for becoming skilled in any of the humanities. A few especially gifted persons manage this. But most accept the fact they never will.

So with our men of letters. In principle they might well hold that they should know something about science. But they tend to be deterred by the difficulty of entering the scientist’s kingdom. To get a real grip on any science seems to require so much time and so much detailed knowledge that our experts in the arts simply decline to make the attempt. They extend their range of knowledge and activity to disciplines other than their own in the endeavor to avoid a narrow specialization. But they beg to be excused from coming to grips with science.

The result is that, whatever our theory, we are building up two cultures. A few brave souls are trying to bridge the gap, but by and large we go our several ways and become either scientists or students of the humanities. And this is only the first of our divisions. Our technicians may take no interest in science, and many of us simply live out our lives for our own enjoyment without taking seriously either the humanities or the sciences.

In this situation there is the danger that we will drift into ever wider destruction. We have done this before. Most of the pollution of our environment has been accidental. We have not set out deliberately to ruin our world. We have simply found out how to do something, for pleasure or for gain, and have been no little surprised to find that when we have done it we have harmed our surroundings.

But now, as Oliphant reminds us, the potential for disaster is much greater. Any species in this whole wide world is at man’s mercy. Not evil intent but simple carelessness can cause incalculable destruction.

It is time we took stock of our situation. Oliphant’s counsel is that our scientists should know more of non-scientific aspects of life, and that politicians and others should know more of science. In this way we will all act more responsibly. And who knows? If we take action soon enough, we may yet be in time to save life on our planet.

There is undoubtedly something in this. Our too ready acceptance of a dichotomy of knowledge is dangerous. Granted that none of us any longer can become an expert in more than one field, there is nothing to stop us from becoming intelligently informed about what others are thinking and doing. We can recapture some sense of the wholeness of life, and so make a contribution to survival.

This is an area in which Christian men should have something to say. We are usually quick to denounce the scientist who intrudes into the field of religion with theologically naïve pronouncements. But we are not nearly so apt to be informed enough scientifically to speak to our scientific brothers. The theologian must earn his right to speak to the scientist.

And the word he must speak is that knowledge is not enough. We cannot act sensibly without knowledge, it is true. Anything our scientists can contribute to our understanding of ourselves and our environment is to be welcomed and used.

But we do not need profound theology to know that up till now men have not acted rightly simply on the basis of knowledge. An elementary acquaintance with history is all we need to make that clear. If there is to be one culture and if we are to live the harmonious life rather than the disjointed one, there is need for a right religious faith in that culture and that life. It is still the case that if we try to live without God, we lack an essential dimension.

The apparent thaw in relations between the United States and Communist China raises hopes that the Peking government will ease restrictions against Christianity.

No one expects Mao Tse-tung to begin granting visas to foreign missionaries, but there is reason to think that overt suppression of Christian activity in the largest nation in the world may subside somewhat. With Communist leaders opening the borders to Western newsmen, Chinese Christians who have stood by their faith may be allowed to breathe a little easier.

Christian leaders nonetheless reacted cautiously to diplomatic moves made in Washington and Peking. The most enthusiastic response came from United Methodist bishops meeting in San Antonio. They expressed appreciation for the relaxation of tensions but voiced no interest in returning missionaries to China.

R. Arthur Matthews, U. S. director for Overseas Missionary Fellowship, formerly the China Inland Mission, contends that while Communist attitudes may be changing, their goals are not. “The Church is always the enemy of the Communists,” he says, “because it demands a loyalty beyond that accorded the state.” He sees the most immediate effect of the thaw as simply strengthening the hand of Christians there now. Matthews reports that his mission has been getting reports of conversions of young people in the underground church on mainland China, and that the movement shows steadily increasing growth.

Vatican press officer Federico Alessandrini said Red China’s new diplomacy is aimed only at an “economic” thaw, not a “political” one. In an article in the Vatican City daily L’Osservatore Romano, Alessandrini said Mao is merely opening the door to capitalist trade.

Experts on the church scene in Red China say that Red Guard attacks on churches, temples, mosques, and individual believers in 1966 closed down all open practice of religion. On paper, religious freedom is guaranteed (Mao has said, “All religions are permitted … in accordance with the principle of freedom of religious belief. All believers … enjoy the protection of the people’s government so long as they are abiding by its laws. Everyone is free to believe or not to believe; neither compulsion nor discrimination is permitted”), but in practice religious freedom does not exist in Communist China.

Christianity in China probably dates back to the era of the early Church and contacts made through travelers who traversed Asia. Nestorian Christianity made an impact through missionaries who entered the Middle Kingdom in the seventh century A.D. A Nestorian monument erected at Sian in A.D. 781 was excavated in 1623 and has attracted world renown. The so-called Luminous Religion faded, however, and Franciscan missionaries had to reintroduce Christianity several centuries later. The first Protestant missionary to the people of China was Robert Morrison, who landed in 1807. J. Hudson Taylor founded the China Inland Mission in 1865; it became the largest Protestant missionary work in China.

From time to time Christianity has flowered in China, but it has never been able to claim more than 1 per cent of the population. Foreign missionary strength in China reached its peak in 1925 with 8,518 in active service.¹The library of Yale Divinity School has launched a China Records Project to gather systematically the letters, diaries, journals, and other records of these missionaries. They or their families are urged to get in touch with the project. Until the Communists took power, the biggest blow against Protestantism had been the murder of nearly 200 missionaries and their children during the Boxer rebellion of 1900.

When the Communist government gained control of mainland China in 1949, there were 13 Protestant universities and colleges, 322 hospitals and medical centers, 15 theological seminaries, and more than 30 Bible schools. These were soon assumed by the state. The churches themselves were obliged to organize under the Three-Self movement (self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating). Eventually all missionaries were expelled. A theologian who had been one of ten Chinese Christian leaders at the World Council of Churches’ organizing assembly at Amsterdam and who had been elected one of the six council presidents resigned in 1951. The curtailment of Christian work was climaxed during the Cultural Revolution in 1966. How many Christians were killed or imprisoned for their faith will never be known.

Pentecost And Poison

German Catholics and leaders of the German Evangelical Church will convene Germany’s first “Ecumenical Pentecost Meeting” June 2–5 in Augsburg. Preparations were marred by police disclosure that someone had sent threatening letters to those scheduled to participate. Samples of poison were said to have been contained in the letters.

A Wcc Lament

The American wing of the World Council of Churches criticized the government of South Viet Nam for expelling from the country a 36-year-old American who helped to expose the “tiger cages” in which political prisoners were held. The complaint came in a resolution adopted by the WCC’s U. S. conference meeting in Albany, New York. It paid tribute to Don Luce, who has worked in Viet Nam as an agriculturalist and has written anti-war reports for the WCC, and expressed regret that he “will no longer be permitted to give voice to the hopes and needs of the silenced people of Indochina.”

At one point in the four-day meeting participants divided themselves into seven discussion groups. One of the groups focused on “Salvation Today,” which is to be the theme of the next meeting of the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism, to be held in Indonesia in December of 1972.

To Bind Or Not To Bind

If there is a “moral consensus” in favor of it in the Church of England, divorced persons should be allowed to remarry in church. Such a view, says the report of a commission appointed by the archbishop of Canterbury, “would be compatible with reason, the word of God in Scripture, and theological tradition.”

Published last month, the 166-page document entitled Marriage, Divorce and the Church suggests that marriage vows cease to be binding when, because of divorce, they can never again be honored. Before any remarriage, however, three questions would demand answer: Have all possible obligations from the first marriage been discharged? Are the couple capable of a permanent relationship and genuinely desirous of God’s blessing in a church service? Do they intend life-long fidelity in their new marriage?

Predictable criticism has followed the report. The Church Union (an Anglo-Catholic body) states that what is most needed is “a clear declaration of Christian doctrine and duty in this matter,” and that any change would weaken the witness of those trying to live by such principles. Other critics satirically suggest that after “till death us do part” the minister will add, “This agreement, of course, is not legally binding.”

The matter is likely to be discussed by the general synod; a spokesman estimates that it would be at least a year before any recommendations could be implemented.

J. D. DOUGLAS

At Issue …

Although persons have a right to read any obscene book, the United States Supreme Court ruled this month, there is no comparable right to distribute or sell obscene materials through the mail. The decision upheld federal law granting government the right to seize obscene material brought into the United States for commercial purposes and to prosecute those who send pornography through the mails.

Catholic Ups And Downs

The Roman Catholic Church in the United States is having its ups and downs; 1970 figures show an increase of 342,640 Catholics, bringing the total population of the faith to 48.2 million. This was a dramatic switch from the 1,149 decrease in 1969.

The directory lists several minus statistics. The number of priests decreased by 1,031, brothers by 1,467, and sisters by 7,286. The remaining 58,000 priests, however, serve in a record number of parishes.

‘Long Way Back’

Behind their long hair, tie-dyed clothes, and free life style, many street people, radical students, and young drug users are desperately searching for meaning. A gripping new film, The Long Way Back, shows how many of these young Americans are finding wholeness of life through faith in Jesus Christ.

Produced by Mal Couch of the Evangelical Communications Research Foundation in Dallas (he is also a newsman for a Dallas TV station), the thirty-five-minute documentary-style color film focuses on California scenes where bold, personal Christian witness and strong compassion are having a decisive impact on youth. There is a raucous confrontation involving street Christians, Hare Krishna chanters, and Buddhistic adherents on a Berkeley pavement.

The film includes shots of the spacious hillside residence of Lambert Dolphin that has become a Christian haven for wandering hippies; ministers of the Peninsula Bible Church of Palo Alto telling what God is doing among youth; and former drug-users now living in the fellowship of a Christian World Liberation Front commune. Young converts stirringly describe how Christ has delivered them from the futility of the drug culture and given them new life and power.

The authenticity of the scenes, together with director Tom Doades’s creative film work and Marshall Riggan’s tight script—skillfully narrated by Robert Hopkins—makes The Long Way Back appealing to both non-Christians and Christians. Non-Christians detect in the film’s soft-sell a sincere attempt to understand and communicate spiritually with them. Christian viewers are heartened by signs of new demonstrations of the Gospel’s power and are motivated to emulate the New Testament style of witnessing.

ROBERT L. CLEATH

Music(Al) To Tumble Walls By

“A big, empty nothin’ ” is inside Joey, the seeker-protagonist of Show Me. In this newest addition to Christian folk musicals, the story of Joey’s search is obvious and expected; after all, how can there be a Christian musical without a non-Christian looking for truth?

But this one is not like most of the others. The music and words are fresh, the approach honest. This musical tells of two searches. The Christians, Patti and Chris, are also on a search. They want to communicate Christ to their peer group but don’t quite know how. As Chris says, “I don’t know many non-Christians.”

After the first rousing chorus, “Jesus!” (the composers leave us in no doubt about where the answers lie), we learn of Patti’s and Chris’s frustrations, even before learning of Joey’s search. “Break Down the Walls” voices the standard cry: “We want to tell the world, but they aren’t listening.” But these are perceptive Christians—“maybe we just aren’t lettin’ it show.” The song changes to a hymn with organ background, words and music fused to accentuate the message. Those beautiful walls have got to come down. Keeping the same harmonic structure and melody line as the hymn, and even retaining organ accompaniment, the song changes to a rhythmic, pulsating determination. The Christians want to “come down out of our ivory tower” to reach non-Christians with the Gospel.

In “Long Distance Love,” Julie, another non-Christian, and Joey pick up the ideas of “Break Down the Walls,” only from the opposite viewpoint. She asks the Christians: “Are you afraid of me?” The melody is haunting, and her blues-like voice expresses completely the emotion of her questions. She capsules the message and emotion of the musical in one verse of this song:

This God you listen to …

The One with all the plans and new directions,

How does He talk to you?

How does He find a way to make connections?

Does He distribute tracts or does

He buy some time on local radio?

Or does He come to you and tell you like a friend the things you need to know?

If this is so … Why can’t you do the same for me?

Everybody learns something in this show. The Christians don’t know how to share Christ, how to break down walls. Neither do the non-Christians know how to break down sin’s walls. Each group needs the other.

Show Me will surely help to bring those walls tumblin’ down!

CHERYL A. FORBES

Drama In Panama City: Bringing Jonah Up Again

In biblical times the giant fish heaved on the beach that would-be runaway and recalcitrant preacher Jonah. On the shores of Panama City, Florida, a modern-day version of the Jonah-and-the-fish drama will for a second summer point the high-school dropout and religious castaway to the proper path.

The Reverend Bob Curlee, pastor of Ensley Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, and originator of the musical comedy, will have Jonah and the Whale back on the beach (see September 25, 1970, issue, page 24). But because the drama was so successful (an estimated 1000 young people made decisions for Christ after watching Jonah turn full circle from fleeing God to run toward Jesus), Curlee will have two other plays going: Daniel and the Lion’s Den, which deals with drug abuse and alcohol problems, and Noah and the Ark, a play about pornography.

Noah is based on a nautical theme; Curlee says he hopes to have an ark-shaped pier built out into the surf at Fort Walton Beach, where the play will run. Daniel and the Lion’s Den will play five nights a week at Gatlinburg, Tennessee, because of a friendship between Curlee and the pastor of that city’s First Baptist Church. A wealthy woman reportedly donated an amphitheater to the ministerial association for drama-comedy entertainment with a message.

Every production of Curlee plays ends with an invitation—just as his church services do. But in the plays, a performer steps out of character and shares what Jesus has done in his life. Many young people come forward for initial conversions and rededications.

LEONARD CHAMBLEE

Communications Awards

Awards for excellence in journalism, television, radio—and a special award for a documentary phonograph record—will be presented to media specialists at the Faith and Freedom Awards breakfast of the Religious Heritage of America next month in Washington, D. C.

Washington Star religious news editor and CHRISTIANITY TODAY correspondent William Willoughby will receive the journalism award for interpreting and examining religious news and issues (see page 40). The television award will go to Douglas Adair, producer-newscaster for WKYC-TV in Cleveland, for his ninety-minute special “Crisis in Christianity.” George McManus, KCBS radio producer and newscaster of San Francisco, for his “Man and His Religion” daily two-minute features will receive the radio award.

The special award was merited by Robert M. Johnson of Broadcast Productions and Services for his eighty-minute phonograph documentary of the Honor America Day program of July 4, 1970, in Washington, D. C.

Religion In Transit

United Presbyterian proxy challenges to Gulf Oil operations in Portuguese Africa were beaten 100 to 1 by the corporation’s stockholders at the annual meeting last month. But UP leaders said their 1.5-million-share votes (against 172 million) were more than expected. The denomination charges that Gulf supports white-dominated, oppressive regimes, especially in Angola.

The religion discussion group at the White House Conference on Youth held at Estes Park, Colorado, last month, scored “the hypocrisy of organized religion” but added that social programs “will be more effective when people are spiritually alive and awake …” and called on the churches to “foster more vigorously the spiritual health of the people.…”

Seattle Jesus People have opened a new coffeehouse, the Highest High. Another, the Catacombs, averages 2,000 young people weekly, according to leader Linda Meissner. Her movement’s eight communes now house seventy-five full-time workers who average fifteen payless hours of work daily—including five hours of personal witnessing and another two to four of Bible training.

The “witness watch,” a special wristwatch for Christians, is selling for $14.95 through the Melodyland Drug Prevention Center in Anaheim, California. The four-color timepiece has the words “Jesus People” on its face.

There was “Hair” in the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City this month when selections from the hit rock-musical were performed as the offertory by combined cathedral choirs and the cast and musicians of Hair.

United Methodist and United Presbyterian children and young people will soon use some of the same church school publications, originally published as part of the UM curriculum series.

An unprecedented bill that will allow Vermont’s local school boards to lend teachers, texts, and other services to parochial schools became law last month after squeaking by the House. Annual cost of the parochaid is expected to be between $500,000 and $800,000. Americans United for Separation of Church and State immediately called the bill a “subterfuge.”

The American Council of Christian Churches dedicated its 47-acre national headquarters in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, May 1. The property cost $200,000.

Detroit’s John Cardinal Dearden says 40,000 students may be forced into area public schools within a year by the closing of fifty-six parochial ones.

Deaths

MERLE D. BROWN, 32, an American Lutheran Church chaplain (captain), the first clergyman of his denomination to lose his life in combat in Viet Nam; near Danang when his helicopter was hit by enemy fire shortly after he conducted Easter services there.

WILLIAM B. LIPPHARD, 84, editor for many years of Missions, an American Baptist international magazine, and a former executive of the Associated Church Press: in New York.

HAROLD C. DEWINDT, 60, pastor of the Kirk-in-the-Hills, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for seventeen years and pastor of the West Park Presbyterian Church in New York from 1942 to 1953; in Detroit after a short illness.

TED A. STUDEBAKER, 25, a Church of the Brethren agriculturalist for Viet Nam Christian Service; at Di Linh, 140 miles northeast of Saigon, when North Vietnamese soldiers reportedly stormed the VCS headquarters there.

A newly formed Missouri Synod group known as the Federation for AuthenticLutheranism vows to leave the church unless it breaks ties with the American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. and disciplines doctrinal deviates.

The Synagogue Council of America approved a new policy statement that endorses selective conscientious objection. The council is the central coordinating agency for American Jewry. An orthodox element in the council abstained from voting.

Personalia

Chaplain Gerhardt W. Hyatt of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod will become chief of Army Chaplains August 1 with the grade of major general. He will replace Chaplain Francis L. Sampson, who is retiring. Hyatt, a native of Saskatchewan, Canada, is the first chaplain of his denomination to be named to the post and also the first foreign-born.

Street evangelist Arthur Blessitt plans to open a street outreach in New York City’s Times Square this summer while other staffers man His Place on Sunset Strip in Hollywood. He will also lead a witness march in Chicago this month.

The granddaughter of a slave, Mrs. Clarie Collins Harvey of Jackson, Mississippi, was elected national president of Church Women United last month.

The Reverend James L. Merrell has been named editor of World Call, the Christian (Disciples) Church monthly magazine … The newly appointed editor of Messenger magazine, the national publication of the Church of the Brethren, Howard B. Royer, was named president of the Religious Public Relations Council last month.

Bolivian painter Benjamin Mendoza y Amor was found guilty of the attempted assassination of Pope Paul VI last month in the first case of its kind in modern history. The incident occurred last November when the pontiff arrived in Manila on a visit; the Pope was scratched by Mendoza’s dagger, reports said.

German Lutheran missionary Marcus Braun was convicted last month of illegally accommodating thirteen African churchmen at the mission he operates in Roodepoort, South Africa. Earlier Braun had been told by government authorities his non-citizen’s visa wouldn’t be extended.

Lord Laurence Olivier, the famed actor, has been signed to narrate the first Bible series to be specially developed for television and the video-cassette market. The series of familiar Old and New Testament episodes will be produced by Manual Video Productions of New York and the Genesis Company of Teletronics International.

Dr. Frank C. Peters, president of Waterloo (Ontario) Lutheran University, and Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski, theology professor at Regent (Vancouver) College, lectured at Prairie Bible Institute’s first annual pastors’ conference in Alberta this month.

World Scene

The Latin American Biblical Seminary (Seminario Biblico Latinoamericano) in Costa Rica has enrolled eighty-two students—largest in its history and announced plans to open an extension center in New York City to train Spanish-speaking pastors.

World Vision International has opened new offices in southern Africa and Sydney, Australia, thus increasing the agency’s support bases to seven.

The Lutheran World Federation Commission on World Service last month approved an emergency grant of $155,000 to aid refugees from East Pakistan who are moving into northeast India.

America’s Roman Catholic bishops decided to steel themselves against the rising howl for change in the church’s standards for priests. In so doing last month at the semi-annual conference in Detroit, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) appeared to reject the findings of a $500,000, four-year study of the priestly life that the NCCB itself had commissioned.

The most visible issue in the conflict between the hierarchy and the priests, both at the three-day assembly of the 230 prelates and for several weeks beforehand when the study results were leaked to the press, was celibacy. But the controversy goes far deeper, relating to the very nature of the church and the priesthood itself. And judging from the stance of the bishops in Detroit, for now at least they have chosen a hard-line approach that emphasizes the sacerdotal aspects of the priesthood and the traditional authority. This approach flies in the face of what surveys—including their own—indicate the majority of priests believe is right.

John Cardinal Krol, head of the bishops’ committee for Study of Priestly Life and Ministry, said the study was “the most massive single examination of the priesthood in history.” Its purpose was to take an in-depth look at the priesthood today and to fit the contemporary view into the permanent, theologically based understanding of the role and ministry of priests. Studies were made in the areas of theology, history, sociology, psychology, ecumenism, spirituality, and pastoral ministry. The first four were released to the bishops in mid-April. The press wasn’t to be let in on the findings until the Detroit meeting, but the New York Times obtained the reports and the cat was out of the bag twelve days early.

The sociological and psychological studies focused on the problems of authority, loneliness, and relating to people. And although a majority of Catholic priests, according to the survey, favor a change in the church’s mandatory celibacy law, that issue—like the others—is tied more to freedom than to the desire to marry. Only one in five would marry if they had the right, and an overwhelming majority consider celibacy an advantage in their work, according to the studies. But priests want the freedom to choose or reject celibacy.

A majority also feel that Roman Catholics should have the right to choose artificial birth control and divorce.

The sociological portion of the study was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center in Chicago and involved a sample of 5,200 active priests, both diocesan and in religious orders. Sociologist Andrew M. Greeley, NORC program director, headed that study. The psychological survey was based on 271 lengthy interviews with priests.

If the bishops were nettled by these results (committee chairman Krol told the bishops in a report that “psychological and sociological data cannot be used as a criterion of truth or as a norm of action”), they were even more displeased by the theological study. Relatively brief (twelve pages), it was written by Jesuit theologian Carl J. Armbruster, who took over the work less than a year ago; the original author had resigned from the project—and the priesthood—to marry.

Celibacy as a life style is not necessary “to the charisma of priestly service,” Armbruster said. And bishoply eyebrows were raised when he added that there are “no scriptural or dogmatic arguments against the ordination of women to the priesthood, and in fact some theological and pastoral reasons for doing so.”

The studies found, however, that the Catholic priesthood is in no danger of collapse. And, despite the prevalent permissive moral atmosphere, the studies showed “little evidence of a change in position on either premarital sex or abortion” by the priests surveyed. Younger clergy, however, are “somewhat more sympathetic to premarital sex and a substantial segment of priests think that the abortion issue ought to be carefully investigated.” The younger a priest, the less likely he is to celebrate Mass or pray every day. But surprisingly, the youngest priests read the Bible more often than any other age grouping.

The tie between priestly resignations and marriage was flavored with a dash of irony just a few days before the NCCB meeting. Prominent Catholic pastor Robert F. Duryea of Pacifica, California, was excommunicated and removed from his post when his archbishop learned that the 49-year-old priest had been secretly married for nearly seven years and had a 5-year-old son, Paul—named after the present pope.

Said Duryea and most of his parishioners: This proves the traditional objection to a married priest is nonsense. Not so, squawked the conservative National Catholic Register editorially: “Yeah, like the guy who gets away with bigamy proves the traditional objection to polygamy is nonsense.”

The debate is likely to rage on at the October world synod of bishops in Rome. “Priests need a more genuine experience of freedom in all those areas of life which are recognized as significant to the process of personal development,” the psychological study said. “These include freedom concerning celibacy, self-support, place of residence, life-style, and mode of Gospel service.”

That the nation’s 59,000 active priests would find ears sympathetic to the seven-part study among the four U. S. delegates to the Rome synod seemed most doubtful. Only NCCB president John Cardinal Dearden of Detroit is considered a progressive. The other delegates, Krol of Philadelphia, John Cardinal Carberry of St. Louis, and Archbishop Leo C. Byrne of St. Paul-Minneapolis, are conservative to ultraconservative.

In the midst of the tumult, however, there was a slight thaw on one front: The Vatican ruled April 29 that a simmering, 33-month-old dispute between Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle of Washington, D. C., and nineteen of his priests over the papal encyclical on birth control could be ended through a semi-compromise. All would be forgiven, the Holy See ruled, if the disciplined priests presented themselves to O’Boyle for the restoration of “full faculties.” The Vatican statement was considered ambiguous enough to allow both sides to claim a moral victory. It provides for the “subjective norm” of individual conscience and the “objective norm” of official church teaching.

Meanwhile, Catholics at the grass roots noted in regional meetings that a clear distinction is needed between the priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood of the ordained in order to remove confusion about how authority in the church is exercised.

Perhaps future rounds of discussion here and in Rome will come back to the words of Cardinal Krol. Saying that he was sure he was speaking for all bishops and priests, Krol observed that the priesthood is a ministry of service. “How,” he asked, “can priests more effectively serve God and the people entrusted to their spiritual care?”

‘Pope Joan’

From London comes word that a film, is being made of the mythical Pope Joan and that a 26-year-old Norwegian actress, Liv Ullman, is cast in the role of the pontiff.

There is little historical evidence that a female pope existed. But a story appears frequently in literature of the late Middle Ages to the effect that a Pope Joan reigned briefly in the ninth century. One source says, however, that she was elected to the pontificate in about 1100 while pregnant, that she gave birth during the procession to the Lateran palace, and that she was then dragged out of the city by her feet and stoned to death. Protestant polemicists picked up the story in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

The film may arouse controversy. It is entitled simply Pope Joan.

Ferment At Central Baptist

“I think this school just voted to kill itself,” predicted student-body president Johnny Andres after the Central Baptist Theological Seminary’s board of directors in Kansas City voted to accept the resignations of three of its professors: Dr. Warren L. Molton, Dr. Alvin C. Porteous, and Dr. M. Edward Clark.

The three American Baptists had tendered their resignations conditionally in a letter asking for a clarification of the school’s policy and image. But the executive committee recommended that “the resignations be acted upon at once apart from the issues.” The board complied, summarily releasing the trio, and later rejected their pleas for reconsideration of the decision.

“I am mystified as to what really happened to us,” commented Molton, who is professor of pastoral theology. “This was a steamroller decision caused by professional jealousies.” Clark, professor of Christian education, said the intent of their letter was misinterpreted, and he blamed the ouster on their controversial involvement in social and racial issues. The three have participated in civil-rights, peace, and environmental movements, including last year’s war moratorium in Washington, D. C. One professor even led a downtown march against Kansas City’s superintendent of schools, O. L. Plucker, for failing to provide a hot-lunch program in ghetto schools. Plucker is also president of the seminary board.

The action was precipitated by student controversy over a statement in the school catalogue that posits agreement with the historic—and conservative—New Hampshire Confession of 1833. “The seminary has been represented as a conservative school. When students come here, though, they are sometimes shocked to find that both the faculty and larger body are, in fact, theologically pluralistic,” explained Andres.

One student wrote a letter to the school newspaper charging that some professors did not believe in the virgin birth or bodily resurrection, and questioning their integrity as representatives of the institution. “We are not fundamentalists by any means,” conceded Molton. “But no one questioned my theology when I came in 1965.”

The seventy-two member student body met with the board and asked for a reinterpretation of the school’s position, or at least recognition that the seminary indeed represented diverse viewpoints. One conservative seminarian tongue-lashed President Paul T. Losh: “Even when you go to liberal churches, you are liberal, and when you go to conservative churches, you are conservative.”

When the board failed to clarify the official position, the three professors submitted their resignations in a move intended to force the board “to deal with the issues.” A majority of the students, in support of the trio, petitioned the board for “either a delay in the decision or rejection of the resignations, because we felt a vote to accept would close the door to reconciliation.” But, replied Plucker, “it is no longer possible for us to work together.”

“A few men had an opportunity to settle a grudge, and they pushed it through,” Andres complains. He says two-thirds of the students pledged not to return to the school next fall. They plan, however, to form “a new-life-style Covenant Community here, in an attempt to humanize Kansas City, rather than transfer to other schools,” he says. “And the three professors have assured us they will remain in the area, if possible, to lead us in this new ministry.”

If the students do leave, one close observer speculates, the seminary’s doors may not open again, especially since most of the remaining six faculty members have doctorates from Central, an inbreeding that could lead to loss of accreditation by the American Association of Theological Schools.

JAMES S. TINNEY

NEWS

The theme for the twenty-ninth annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals was “Jesus Christ, Lord of All.” Indeed, before the convention was over, the evangelicals made it unequivocally clear where they stand in matters of faith and in acknowledging Jesus Christ as sovereign over mankind. “There can be no real humanity and no true life apart from him,” their statement of purpose said.

They called for individual Christians to make Christ, therefore, Lord of life. “Jesus the Lord is calling his people to full surrender, non-conformity, radical self-denial, and servanthood in identification with the brokenness of the world,” their statement proclaimed.

But before the last delegate boarded his plane homeward to expound for the locals the impact of the NAE Los Angeles convention, if his mind had been open to new movings of the Holy Spirit, a new meaning in the words “Lord of All” had been confirmed.

Especially from evangelist Billy Graham there had come persuasive evidence that the word all might include more than the “thus-and-so” breed of Christians NAE has under its aegis. Graham spoke convincingly of what he recognized as the Spirit’s moving among the off-beat, New Testament-type Christianity springing up spontaneously among youth across the land.

The evangelist had his information first-hand. He told of going incognito down Hollywood Boulevard and the area around Sunset Strip to see for himself these “way-out” happenings he’d been hearing about. He said he had entertained some doubts when he set out but had come back a believer. “These youth tried to get me down on my knees,” he said.

Graham’s endorsement of the basic soundness of this type of “street Christian” was one of the key developments of the convention, because the phenomenon has aroused a measure of controversy among evangelicals.

Things have been going unduly well for evangelicals—possibly too well. It appeared that they unwittingly might be failing to keep up with the new evangelical surge occurring not only in the Southern Hemisphere and, to a degree, in Europe, but right in their own back yard. Some were calling it “wild-fire.”

Graham, NAE president Hudson Taylor Armerding, and CHRISTIANITY TODAY editor Harold Lindsell all affirmed that the ground had been broken up under the liberals and the existential nihilists, with their doctrines of despair and meaninglessness. The youth, they indicated, and churchmen who have at last begun to wake up, were proving that.

Each interpreted this big groundbreaking by the Spirit as a necessary prelude to completing the Church that Christ established at Pentecost, with the mandate to spread the Gospel. Now, as they saw it, the consummation of that temple was close, with Christ soon to return.

Armerding especially stressed the need to “occupy” until Christ returns. He chastised those Christians who in these days have an attitude of withdrawal and isolation. As a result of this, he said, “involvement in the world” has been left “to those who are unworthy to lead or to those whose primary motivation is activism and whose goals are those of this life only. Their zeal for the amelioration of social ills is commendable, but the incompleteness of the remedy they present to mankind is tragic indeed.

The Wheaton College president said that evangelicals should regard their life’s work as being under the direction of God, and that even though that work might be secular, they could become the “salt” and the “light” of the world.

“I have in mind here the activity of Christians in the major decision-making areas of our culture where integrity and commitment to high principle were never more needed than today.… It is well to emphasize that the lordship of Christ is not designed to divide witness and service into separate categories but rather to make them complementary elements in the life of the obedient Christian.”

Graham’s stress appeared to be considerably more activist and more open than this. He suggested, before a standing-room-only crowd at Hollywood Palladium, that it was time for evangelicals to “get in step with God.” This could mean marching on Washington—a somewhat less than acceptable idea to many of the thirty-nine denominations making up NAE’s three-million-member constituency.

Graham’s call was, however, that evangelicals march to declare that “we are concerned about race, war and pollution, but that our greatest concern is the spiritual welfare of America and the world.” What if, Graham asked, all those who say they favor restoring prayer and Bible reading in the public schools should suddenly march through the streets of Washington? He saw such a prospect as a good means to get the moral message of Christianity across to a world that views it only from the outside.

Since 1942, when the NAE was formed, the strides of evangelicals—partially at the impetus of the NAE and the movements and leaders that have grown out of it—have been tremendous.

In 1942, Graham said, “evangelicalism was not laughed at as it had been in the twenties when Elmer Gantry was written. It was just ignored. The evangelicals weren’t considered to be a force to be reckoned with.”

Although Graham didn’t say so, few delegates present would question that the evangelist himself was probably the biggest single factor—humanly speaking—in winning this new-found acknowledgment of the evangelical.

The NAE, Graham pointed out, established cooperative ministries and brain trusts that emerged into increasingly reputable institutions, and these promoted leaders who were increasingly able to give academic respectability to what once was laughed at.

Graham may have stunned many of the delegates when he placed heavy stress on forming a type of evangelical superstructure (see May 7, page 37) comprehensive enough to include evangelicals of all stripes, from all churches and from around the world.

This international umbrella group, clearly the most important suggestion to come out of the convention, would in effect supersede the NAE. Heresy? Or a necessary step if evangelicals are to keep pace with God? Graham is not alone in thinking the answer should be found soon. The Spirit of God might not be in a waiting mood.

But what also remained to be answered after the conference was this: Are the evangelicals of the NAE—less than one-tenth the United States’ total—willing and ready to enter the second and possibly final lap of the race? The NAE inner sanctum is quite divided over the youth movement. And some members look askance at the charismatic movings in the mainline churches, which are making strong inroads even into the Catholic Church.

In short, evangelicals are turning up in unlikely places under unlikely circumstances. Can old-line evangelicals take them in stride? Will they catch the extended meaning of Jesus Christ as Lord of all? Or has their success caught them off guard?

The Seven-Minute Module

Bring your child to Calvary Temple’s Sunday school in Denver, Colorado, and he’s apt to be evaluated through a battery of scientific, computerized tests. Then he may be programmed through two or three seven-minute modules of personal Bible study (through earphones), and another set of seven-minute modules of worship.

“Concept Five” is part of Calvary Temple’s 2,700-attendance Sunday-school program, said to be the tenth largest in the nation and the object of study by numerous religious educators seeking to adapt it to their own churches. Concept Five and the Omega Youth Program are brainchilds of James R. Spillman, Calvary’s minister of education, who now heads Christian Dynamics, a subsidiary of the Miami, Florida-based International Computer Group. Adaptations of Concept Five will be the backbone of Christian Dynamics.

The concepts include personal Bible study, teaching of a particular Bible lesson, a physical expression of the lesson, its application to missions, and worship. Extensive use is made of audio-visual aids and team teaching.

Calvary’s Sunday-school program, reports Miami Herald religion writer Adon Taft, is one of the reasons why a recent business survey of Denver showed that the church is the mile-high city’s sixth most popular attraction. Annual attendance at Calvary tops that at the Denver Broncos football games, all the “X” and “R” rated movies, and that tourist favorite (no free samples) the U. S. Mint.

Demonstrating For Jesus

What role, if any, should Christians have in such events as the recent anti-war demonstrations in San Francisco and Washington, D. C.?

Ask the young activist evangelicals who showed up at these and other protest gatherings a few weeks ago—to introduce demonstrators to the Prince of Peace.

The Berkeley-based Christian World Liberation Front fielded several hundred to witness to the 200,000-plus rather docile marchers in San Francisco. The Christian youths carried gospel placards, preached, sang, and handed out 100,000 copies of a special edition of CWLF’s newspaper Right On (see April 9 issue, page 38) and 50,000 peace-in-Jesus pamphlets. They also operated a lemonade stand next to the speaker’s platform at the post-march rally in Golden Gate Park.

“This gave us a chance to rap with people about Christ while caring for a physical need,” explains Pat Matrisciana, a CWLF leader. He says there was more openness to the Gospel and less hostility than at similar events in the past. An undetermined number of persons prayed to receive Christ, he reports, and follow-up is under way.

In addition, the Gospel was heard by thousands of others when a popular radio station broadcast a taped conversation between two of the Jesus people and a non-Christian at the demonstration.

A lower-keyed but no less effective witness was carried on by evangelicals in Washington who decided that the way to a demonstrator’s heart is through his stomach. Street Christians of the four-month old Maranatha House and the older Presbyterian-backed Agape community set up shop in West Potomac Park and fed thousands of war protesters and drug-dazed rock-fest revelers. But they served up plenty of Gospel with the beans and sandwiches. They also cared for the sick who came seeking help, and they looked after some of the countless drug-overdose victims. Their operation indeed resembled something of a mobile rescue-mission ministry in the midst of a floating youthful skid row. Conservative church members who disliked the protesters’ views and behavior provided food and other logistical support.

“We made it clear to everybody that we were not there to advocate any position on Viet Nam or to talk politics,” says Maranatha leader Denny Flanders, former World Bank employee and a veteran of the Indochina conflict. “We were there only to share Jesus and to express the love of God in a tangible way to people in need.”

His band more than tripled itself through conversions. Some converts were given a crash course in basic Christianity and put to work almost immediately in reaching others for Christ. Among other things they circulated 20,000 copies of the Hollywood Free Paper among the 50,000 at the protest-related rock festival.

After police broke up the encampment, the long-haired Christians continued to witness and provide food and medical aid to the remaining thousands of hard-core militants who staged disruptive tactics in the streets, and some of the faithful were arrested in the ensuing police roundup even though they did not engage in any illegal activities. But, said one youth, this merely created a captive audience for Jesus people.

Elsewhere, Christian students staged a one-day “Jesus Festival of Love” at Kent State University during campus activities in memory of the four Kent students slain by National Guardsmen a year ago. The Crimson Bridge, a Christian rock group from Chicago, sang and testified to the 500 who attended (while entertainer Dick Gregory addressed a rally of 6,000 nearby), and street evangelist Arthur Blessitt of Hollywood preached. Two dozen received Christ, reports festival organizer Lee Birdsong, a Baptist student worker.

Blessitt next took off for Belfast, Northern Ireland, to walk the streets of that religious strife-torn city with a large wooden cross (“half Protestant, half Catholic”), and to fast and pray for several days in no-man’s-land while calling for repentance and revival. He said the act was in response to a harsh slur against Christianity by a British Broadcasting Company cameraman to whom he recently witnessed.

Meanwhile, in the midst of a Beirut, Lebanon, crowd marching in protest against the presence of American secretary of state William Rogers, a lone Lebanese-version street Christian lugged a Blessitt-style cross. Tacked to it was a thirteen-point Jesus-centered program for world peace to be delivered to government officials.

Jesus demonstrators are popping up everywhere.

EDWARD E. PLOWMAN

Recalling Revival

Major evangelistic forays in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana last month recalled the initial phase of the Second Great Awakening experienced by that part of America. The proclamation of the Gospel in 1971 lacks much of the emotion that characterized the frontier camp meetings, but the ultimate impact may be greater.

Billy Graham’s four-day crusade in the University of Kentucky’s Memorial Coliseum in Lexington undoubtedly had its greatest effect upon young people, and therefore will be felt for years to come. Counselors noted on the opening Sunday afternoon that about 70 per cent of those who responded to the invitation to receive Christ were young people. They came forward not with tears so much as with enthusiasm and determination and an open expression of joy.

As Graham crusades go, the Lexington effort was almost an afterthought. Normally, up to two years of planning and preparation go into a campaign. But in this case the city had only ten weeks’ notice. The meetings nonetheless came off without a hitch and attracted overflow crowds. The aggregate attendance was 77,500, approximately 2,000 of whom recorded decisions for Christ.

Prior to the crusade, only Kentucky’s perennially front-running basketball team had filled the Lexington coliseum since it was built in 1947. The building accommodates about 15,000. Those who couldn’t get in sat across the street in a football stadium and heard Graham over loudspeakers. All the meetings were videotaped in color and are to be shown on television stations all across the country this month.

In Canton, Ohio, Tom Skinner held a week of meetings that captivated the attention of the population. Again the focus was upon youth, but not limited to them. Said a crusade spokesman, “There was a coming-together on a beautiful level of young and old people, Protestants and Catholics, blacks and whites, laymen and church leaders.”

The response to Skinner’s invitations was particularly gratifying. Out of some 32,000 who attended the meetings, about 1,200 stepped out to accept Christ. The crusade was described as “a genuinely spontaneous outworking of the community,” the result of two years’ prayer and work by a group of Christians in Canton. This group had gotten together to try to reduce divisions and tensions in their churches and to show concern for violence and unrest in the city.

In Elkhart, Indiana, an eight-day crusade was led by evangelist Leighton Ford, a brother-in-law of Graham. He preached to 45,000 people, and 669 of them walked down the aisles as a sign of commitment to Christ. His accent was likewise on youth, and he stressed the freedom offered by the Saviour. An offering of approximately $2,000 was donated to community-service projects in line with Ford’s continuing concern for Christian social involvement.

On the frontier, evangelism got its biggest impetus through camp meetings. The West experienced the Second Great Awakening around the years 1795–1810, after a post-Revolution period of spiritual depression. The most memorable manifestation came under the preaching of Barton W. Stone at Cane Ridge, Kentucky, in an August, 1801, meeting that was attended by a crowd variously estimated at from 10,000 to 25,000. Stone went on to form a church body, part of which became the Disciples of Christ and part of which eventually merged with American Congregationalism.

DAVID KUCHARSKY

Evangelicals Speak Up

The United Methodist publicity office issued a four-page news release last month describing a plea by three of the denomination’s leading evangelicals for a return to Wesleyan theology in curriculum resources and educational programs of the church.

The three testified during a week-long meeting of the United Methodist Program Curriculum Committee in Nashville. One of them, Dr. Claude Thompson of Candler School of Theology, submitted a paper but became ill and was unable to attend. The two who were there were President Frank Stanger of Asbury Seminary and Dr. Evyn M. Adams of Central United Methodist Church, Phoenix. Invitations went to the three on the heels of increasing criticism of United Methodist curriculum materials, some of which are soon to be used by United Presbyterians also.

A Church Restored

Renovation of the church where Patrick Henry delivered his famous “Give me liberty or give me death” speech is scheduled for completion this year. St. John’s Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia, has been undergoing repairs since 1965, when structural deterioration was discovered. A restoration fund drive has collected some $250,000.

The building was the site of the Second Virginia Convention, which met in 1775. Speaking on a resolution favoring the establishment of a Virginia militia to fight the British, Henry chastised those who called the plan too radical. “Is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” he asked. “Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for myself, give me liberty or give me death!”

Last of Three Parts¹A reprint of the three articles in this series is available at ten cents per copy, $3 per hundred.

It happens every sunday night. Eight hundred or more people pack into a church auditorium designed to seat comfortably only 750. Seventy per cent are under twenty-five, but adults of all ages, even into the eighties, are mingled with the youth, and people of widely varying cultural backgrounds all sit, sing, and pray together.

A leader stands at the center front, a microphone around his neck. “This is the family,” he says. “This is the body of Christ. We need each other. You have spiritual gifts which I need, and I have some that you need. Let’s share with each other.” When a hand goes up toward the back of the center section, a red-haired youth runs down the center aisle with a wireless microphone. It is passed down the pew to the young man, who stands waiting to speak. “Man, I don’t know how to start,” he says, his shoulder-length hair shining as he turns from side to side. “All I know is that I’ve tried the sex trip and the drug trip and all the rest but it was strictly nowhere. But last week I made the Jesus trip—or I guess I should say that He found me—and, man, what love! I can’t get over it. I’m just a new Christian, but man, this is where it’s at!” A wave of delight sweeps the auditorium, and everyone claps and smiles as the leader says, “Welcome to the family. What’s your name?”

Other hands are waving for recognition. The leader points to a well-groomed, attractive woman in her midthirties. “I just wanted to tell you of the Lord’s supply to me this week,” she says into the mike. She is a divorcée with small children. Her income had dwindled to the point that she’d had only forty-two cents to eat on that week. But unsolicited food had come. The family had eaten plenty, and she wants to share her thanksgiving. Another enthusiastic round of applause.

Then a sensitive-faced girl with waist-long hair: “I just want the family to pray with me. My brother’s blowing his mind with LSD, and it’s killing me to watch him coming apart, but we can’t get him to stop.”

“Phil, go over and stand by her and lead us all in prayer for this real need,” the leader requests. “You were on LSD, you know how it feels.” A tall, thin youth with a scraggly beard crosses to the girl and takes the mike. “O Father,” he prays, “you know how Ann feels and you know how her brother feels. Show him the way out, through Jesus, and show him that you love him just the way he is.” He goes on, his prayer eloquent in its simple earnestness, the whole audience listening quietly, with bowed heads.

Then a clean-cut college boy is on his feet, his Bible in his hand. “I just want to share something the Lord showed me this week.” For five minutes he expounds a verse from the first letter of John, and the crowd laughs with delight at his practical application.

Other needs are shared. One blonde youth asks for prayer that he might be able to buy a car cheaply so he won’t have to depend on hitch-hiking to get to his college classes on time. When the prayer is finished, a middle-aged housewife stands at the back and says, “I don’t know how this happened, but just this week the Lord gave me a car I don’t need. If Ernie wants it, here are the keys.” She holds up a ring of keys, and the crowd applauds joyously as the blonde boy runs to pick up the keys.

Then an offering is announced. The leader explains that all may give as they are able, but if anyone has immediate need he is welcome to take from the plate as much as ten dollars to meet that need. If he needs more than ten, he is warmly invited to come to the church office the next morning and explain the need; more money would be available there. While ushers pass the plate, a young man with a guitar sings a folk song that asks, “Have you seen Jesus my Lord? He’s there in plain view. Take a look, open your eyes, we’ll show him to you.”

After the song someone calls out a hymn number, and everyone stands to sing it together. Then the teacher for the evening takes over. There is a rustle of turning pages as hundreds of Bibles are opened. For perhaps twenty-five minutes the teacher speaks, pacing the platform, Bible in hand. He illustrates with simple human incidents, some humorous, some sobering. The crowd is with him all the way, looking up references, underlining words, writing in the margins. A few hands are raised with questions on the study. The teacher answers briefly or refers the question to an elder or pastor in the congregation. Then the people stand for a closing prayer. They join hands across the aisles and sing softly, “We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord.”

When the meeting is dismissed, few leave. They break up into spontaneous groups: some praying, some rapping about a Bible passage, some singing quietly with a guitar, some just visiting and sharing with one another. Gradually the crowd thins down, but it is a good hour or more before everyone is gone and the lights are turned out.

The gathering is called a Body-Life Service, a time for members of the body of Christ to fulfill the function of edifying one another in love. It began in January of 1970 when the pastoral staff of Peninsula Bible Church met to discuss the spiritual status of the church. Concern was expressed about the Sunday-evening service, which at that time followed a conventional pattern of song service, announcements, Scripture, special music, and preaching. Attendance was rather sparse, running about 150–250 with only a handful of youth present. The major concern was whether we were fulfilling the admonition of Scripture to “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” Other texts haunted us, such as, “Confess your faults one to another and pray for one another that you may be healed”; [admonish] one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” Where was this occurring among our people? Where could it occur?

We determined to make a place for this ministry by wiping out the traditional structure of the evening service and using the time to invite a sharing of needs and gifts by the people. We began with the question, “Where are you hurting? Not where did you hurt ten years ago, but now, where are you right now?”

Predictably, it was slow getting started, but soon a climate of honest realism began to prevail. When that was noised abroad, without any particular invitation youth began to appear—many long-haired, barefoot, and in bizarre dress. Our middle-class saints gulped at first but were determined to be genuinely Christian. They welcomed the young people, listened to them, prayed with them, and opened their hearts. The kids did likewise.

The numbers increased by leaps and bounds. For over a year now it has been going on with no sign of a let-up. Every service is different. Love, joy, and a sense of acceptance prevail so strongly that awed visitors frequently remark about a spiritual atmosphere they can almost scoop up in their hands. Koinonia has come!—The Reverend RAY C. STEDMAN, Peninsula Bible Church, Palo Alto, California.

The magician’s secret is the ability to divert the attention of those watching so that they fail to see the deception. Houdini, Thurston, and others down through the years have excelled in this form of entertainment. The use of previously prepared “props” makes possible some astounding effects, but the basic element in the performer’s act is the directing of the audience’s minds and eyes away from what is actually being done.

Watching one who is accomplished in sleight of hand can be interesting, confusing, and entertaining, and certainly not harmful. The audience knows it is being fooled. Mystification is part of the fun. But in the spiritual realm there occurs a deception that is not entertainment. It is rather a deadly attempt by Satan to divert our minds and hearts from God and his Son and to lead us to destruction. Truly the devil should be called “The Great Diverter,” for he never ceases his attempts to distract us and divert our lives into channels of his choosing that end in eternal loss.

“The Great Diverter” works incessantly to distract our attention from God’s plan for our lives. Knowing that the sanctification of the soul is the will of God (1 Thess. 4:3), Satan diverts the processes of thought, leading us to “a way which seems right to man, but its end is the way of death” (Prov. 14:12). His unending objective for man is spiritual death.

I was once making my way through a large city by following the frequently posted route numbers, and should have emerged at the other side of the city on the right road. But I did not. In front of my car was a large moving van, and at a crucial turn it blocked my view of the road signs. As a result I followed the truck rather than the highway number.

In this case a return to the proper route was not very difficult. But how often Satan diverts our lives to the point where we lose sight of God’s way and follow some person or project that leads us far astray!

Again, we may find ourselves victims of a ruse something like one used in the Indian wars—a hat was placed on a stick and made visible so that the enemy fired at the hat instead of the owner of the hat. How adept the devil is at diverting our attention from primary to secondary concerns. The seeming “rightness” of some good objective can easily lead us into concentrating on this goal while we neglect the thing God would have us place first in our lives.

In our spiritual warfare we are up against not a novice but “organizations and powers that are spiritual. We are up against the unseen power that controls this dark world, and spiritual agents from the very headquarters of evil” (Eph. 6:12, Phillips). If we think we can cope with that “unseen power” in our own wisdom and strength, we thus prove that he has deluded us.

We all know the danger of having our eyes and thoughts diverted, even for a moment, while driving on a crowded highway. How much more dangerous to permit Satan to divert us from looking to and following after our Lord!

Perhaps Satan’s greatest diversionary tactic is the dulling of spiritual perception and awareness through the glitter and allurements of the world, of which at the moment he is the prince. In the parable of the sower Jesus tells of the unproductive seed, and in each case it is the evil one who has snatched away the seed, instigated persecution, or caused the “cares of the world and the delight in riches” (Matt. 13:22) to bring about unfruitfulness.

The Apostle John warns against the diversions of the world, so appealing and yet so harmful in their effects on the believer. “Do not love the world or the things of the world. If one loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but of the world. The world passeth away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides for ever” (1 John 2:15–17).

Satan tempts us, usually in subtle ways to pervert our priorities so that we seek first that which the world has to offer—money, things, fame, power, pleasure, humanistic “goodness” rather than the things that pertain to God and his kingdom.

In our own time one of his most effective ploys is to poison with doubt the cup of those who would drink from the spiritual fountain of God’s Word. Men are led to believe that the Bible is “untrustworthy,” “archaic,” “irrelevant,” and of minor importance. Satan has been devastatingly successful with this deception.

I once heard the amusing story of a man driving at night in a dense fog. Just ahead he saw the red tail-lights of another car, and he decided his only hope was to follow them closely. After a while the other car stopped. When the follower leaned out and called to the driver in front, “Why don’t you go on?” he received the reply, “Why should I? I’m in my own garage.”

Many victims of satanic diversion today have followed men, their opinions and their “interpretations,” only to find themselves at a dead end with no way to turn.

Satan also uses the devastating device of discrediting our Lord by denying his unique birth, his miraculous power, his vicarious death for our sins, the reality of his resurrection, and the certainty of his coming again. Remove these scripturally based truths and there is no Christ, no Christianity, and no hope. And that is exactly what has happened for many today who have followed the wisdom of this world while rejecting God’s wisdom.

Don’t let ingenious camouflage fool you. Perhaps “The Great Diverter” uses this as one of his most effective ruses. The Apostle Paul was aware of his devices and warns us against his agents: “Such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his servants disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds” (2 Cor. 11:13–15).

Be sure of this: Satan will try to catch us at the point where we are weakest. But also be sure that we can have the victory through our Saviour and Redeemer. He has given us an armor to wear, a shield that is unswerving faith in him and all that he has done and is doing on our behalf, and a Spirit-inspired Sword against which our archenemy has never been able to stand.

To those who deny the personality of Satan, I say: For him to have convinced you that he does not exist is his greatest possible victory. Against a “non-enemy” there can be no warfare and no victory. This side of eternity the Christian will always be engaged in battle. So if for you “The Great Diverter” does not exist, you are much to be pitied.

EDITORIALS

Contemporary American society exhibits a curious combination of greater moral sensitivity and increasing immoral behavior. It is good to see concern for the rights of minorities, the wrongs against the environment, the improvement of the lot of the poor, and the propriety of the conduct of the Viet Nam war. But no one need take these concerns as harbingers of an impending millennium, for along with them has come an increase in vandalism, shop-lifting, cheating in schools, crime in the streets, and so-called white-collar crime. Tax evasion and political corruption persist at appallingly high levels. Shoddiness in manufacturing and in service, deception in advertising and in salesmanship, absenteeism and laziness on the job, drunkdriving and, perhaps even worse, the continued toleration of it, marital infidelity and break-ups—these are but a few of the signs of the essential and pervasive wickedness of men.

We rejoice that God in his common grace permits men to rise above the basest levels of behavior on specific issues at certain times. But those who are concerned with destruction in Viet Nam often seem heedless of the destruction of the environment at home. How else explain the immense amount of litter they leave in their wake after assembling to protest or the air- and lung-polluting smoke to which their discarded cigarette butts give testimony? (At least the Army teaches you how to “field-strip” a cigarette!)

It is good that so many in our society are concerned with obedience to the law, but it is distressing that, for example, when the law was enforced against Lieutenant Calley, countless Americans rose up to revile the conscientious jurors and argue that in war anything goes, even the killing of unresisting prisoners. Many of the people who were quick to deny Calley’s responsibility on the grounds of background considerations are just as quick to ignore background factors that help to explain why many men become street criminals or drug addicts.

On the other hand, some Christians need to be reminded that things are not so bad as they could be. (If they were, we wouldn’t be around to talk about it!) Neither are conditions worse now than they have ever been. Almost two thousand years ago the Apostle Paul wrote that men are “filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless” (Rom. 1:29–31).

What has taken place since Paul wrote those words is a gradual, uneven, and often superficial penetration of the Christian ethic throughout the Western world. Respect for others, for work, for authority was inculcated though often violated. There developed a sense of accountability to God for one’s behavior. This influence has been present even though true disciples of Christ and more or less faithful practitioners of New Testament ethics have always been a small minority. But now, especially with the declining sense of future judgment by God, much of this Christian influence is receding, and some Christians talk as if this means the end of the world. Like its advance, the retreat of Christian influence is uneven. The greater moral sensitivities of our time are without substantial parallel in lands with little Christian heritage. What evidence is there, for example, of North Vietnamese concern over atrocities committed by their troops and their Viet Cong allies?

The retreat in many areas of Christian influence on the ethics of Western men should not cause despair. For one thing, our goal should never have been that of making people practice as much of Christian ethics as we could. Christian influence upon behavior apart from a personal relationship to Jesus Christ does indeed contribute to a more just and pleasant society and should certainly not be discouraged, but it counts for little when compared to the leading of men to saving faith in Christ. Our goal is men with a changed relationship to God, which issues in changed behavior. We are not aiming simply for better behavior in itself.

Another reason why we should not despair over the present moral retrogression is that the early Church did not despair even though—hard to believe as it may be—its society was much more vicious and corrupt than ours by almost any measure. What we should do is what the early Church did: live as lights in the midst of a dark world, contrasting consistently good deeds with the works of wrong-doers and of those whose good is partial and inconsistent. We should at the same time hold forth the good news of salvation to all men, even though experience tells us that only a small percentage will respond.

Although the possibility of stemming the tide of immorality should have no effect upon how faithfully we fulfill our Lord’s command to do good and to spread the good news, we can take heart by what has happened before. The early Church prevailed over its enemies and in at least some aspects profoundly influenced the behavior of Western man. Likewise, at a time when the truth was obscured by those who claimed to be its guardians, the Reformation occurred, bringing forth, among other things, a new zeal for the Gospel and for obedience to divinely revealed ethical standards. Perhaps in our own time of decline, God may grant a new resurgence of the truth. But even if he does not, we are to continue our mission in full confidence that ultimately, with the return of Christ, God will prevail.

Shall The Christian Colleges Die?

So serious is the plight of the Christian colleges today that nothing short of a great outpouring of support can save numbers of them from extinction. The situation described in the first essay in this issue compels not only attention but action. Colleges and schools—for secondary as well as higher Christian education is in jeopardy—that are fighting for survival cannot wait for increased government aid, which may, if it comes, be too little and too late. They must have help now and in immediately succeeding years.

According to an estimate by Dr. John A. Mackay (CHRISTIANITY TODAY, May 27, 1966), a quarter to a third of the members of conciliar churches are conservative evangelicals. These millions of Christians are no strangers to God’s material blessings. They have their share of the national wealth; they can, if they respond prayerfully and sacrificially, help Christian education weather the present storm.

The Bible speaks to every age and every situation. A word from God for the educational crisis comes from Haggai 1:3—“Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins?” In the prophet’s day, God’s people after returning to Jerusalem from exile had been building luxurious homes for themselves instead of rebuilding the temple. God challenged them on the issue of priority. And today the evangelical public must reorder its priorities in respect to Christian education.

We speak with admiration and reverence of our Pilgrim forebears. When they came to New England they had their priorities right; one of the things they did early in the history of the colony was to begin a college for training an educated ministry.

If we let our colleges and schools wither and die, the whole Christian enterprise will suffer calamitously. Without question evangelical private education has been the major source of personnel for missions abroad and for God’s work at home. And much of the Christian leadership among laymen has come from the same source. No Christian may contemplate with equanimity the possible demise of a sizable portion of the evangelical colleges and schools in America.

For God’s people, a need constitutes a call. Our colleges and schools are in great need. Let our answer combine prayer with open-handed giving.

Sex In The College Dorm

The college crisis is not only financial; it is also moral. Nowhere may this be seen more clearly than in the movement toward twenty-four-hour unrestricted visiting privileges in dormitories. Many secular schools quickly capitulated to student demands for “no hours,” and some students in Christian colleges have caught the disease and pressed for relaxed restrictions or none at all.

A survey that appeared in the Christian Science Monitor found that in some colleges (Bennington and Connecticut were cited) male visitors have become “permanent guests” of girls in the dorms. At Yale, which now admits women, Dr. Philip Sarrel operates the Sex Counseling Service. He and his wife, a social worker, when asked by students for their opinion on premarital sex, reply: “It’s just as O.K. not to have it as it is to have it.” Dr. Sarrel notes that his counseling service has helped to keep the pregnancy rate low on the Yale campus. If pregnancy does occur, abortion is available to take care of that problem.

In view of the innate and God-given sexual impulse, for an institution to permit twenty-four-hour visitation is tantamount to approving premarital sex. Surely no thoughtful Christian parent would permit men to visit his daughter in his home and in her bedroom on a twenty-four-hour basis. Nor would he wish for his daughter to live in a dormitory situation that might seriously impair her morals.

Scripture specifically bans (a nasty word in a permissive age) fornication as well as adultery, and includes it in the list of sins that, if unforgiven, keep men out of the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9, 10). A. T. Robertson in his Word Pictures (IV, 119) pithily states about this passage (“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God”): “It is a solemn roll call of the damned even if some of their names are on the church roll in Corinth whether officers or ordinary members.”

Back in the eighteenth century Jonathan Edwards preached a powerful sermon about an event that had occurred almost twenty centuries earlier. The sons of Eli the high priest had sunk so low into degeneracy that they were engaged in illicit relations with the women who served “at the entrance of the tent of meeting” (1 Sam. 2:22). God put an end to the house of Eli and pronounced judgment on him “because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them” (1 Sam. 3:13). Eli did reprove his sons; but as Edwards put it, “he reproved them but restrained them not.”

The Bible makes it clear that fornication is wrong. In this decadent age, every Christian college needs to maintain parietal standards that will help to restrain young people from succumbing to sexual temptation. One of the prime contributions of Christian schools is that of helping to form Christian character. And this process can only succeed where there are some “don’t’s” as well as some “do’s.”

Memorial Day Musing

There is no paradox so deep as death. We were born to life, yet live to die. Sometimes through a mother’s death her child gains life. Soldiers, whom we honor at this month’s end, may be called upon to die for the lives of others. Martyrs and heroes may give life to some by relinquishing their own. Christ sacrificed his life, and took it up again, to give our death-filled existences life in the full. But to receive this life we must die to self and live, born anew, in Christ. As Emily Dickinson said:

A death-blow is a life-blow to some

Who, till they died, did not alive become;

Who, had they lived, had died, but when

They died, vitality begun.

Another Demonstration?

Evangelist Billy Graham suggested recently that it might be high time for committed Christians to march on Washington in a demonstration of spiritual concern for the nation (see News, page 40).

“[We would] tell the nation that we believe in God, that Christ is our Saviour, that we believe in love of neighbor, and that the only solution to our national ills is Jesus Christ, that we are concerned about race, war, and pollution—but that our greatest concern is for the spiritual welfare of America and the world,” he declared.

“Suppose a million evangelicals marched down Pennsylvania Avenue,” he conjectured. “It could be a turning point in our generation. Maybe we ought to do it, and make it a positive demonstration.”

The suggestion should not be lightly dismissed or viewed with dismay. Young evangelicals have already led the way with a dozen witness marches in various cities in the past year, and there are probably enough turned-on-to-Jesus young people right now to pull off the largest mass demonstration in American history.

Such an event of positive proclamation would transmit a note of hope to young Americans bogged down in the negativism and dreary pessimism of protest. Graham correctly observes: “Millions are rejecting the materialism, the secularism, and the agnosticism of their elders. They are on a gigantic search for reality, purpose, and meaning.” Jesus Christ alone can satisfy that quest, and evangelicals ought to say so—and show so!

The Christian-witness marches to date have been marked by a discernible, almost tangible presence of love, joy, and unity among participants. Such an outpouring of genuine oneness among one million believers in the shadow of Congress would offer living proof to the nation that Christ succeeds on vital fronts where politics and social action utterly fail. Mass prayer meetings outside the headquarters of government agencies, the Supreme Court, and legislative office buildings would help point up a tragic void in national life.

This gathering would not endorse political positions other than the declaration that Jesus Christ is King of kings. It is regrettable when radio preacher Carl McIntire, for instance, organizes a group of Christians and non-Christians to march on Washington calling, in the name of Christ, for escalation of the war in Indochina. Equally disconcerting are the actions of liberal church leaders who use the Church as a front for their own political projections. Who will, as ambassadors of Christ, declare convincingly that only a turning to him will stop war, whether it be among nations or inside the home down the street?

The huge demonstration Graham proposes would yield important by-products for evangelical Christianity.

It would encourage the cause of biblical unity by providing the occasion for disparate participants to meet one another and to be “one in the Spirit.” Our younger brothers and sisters in the faith, while theologically straight, are not as inclined toward denominational fragmentation and doctrinal fractiousness as their forebears. They would rather make agape than war. Thus the event would stir up a refreshing pan-institutional breeze of the Spirit that might just blow down some of the scandalous walls that now separate evangelicals.

It would provide an outlet and objective for youthful activism. Today’s younger generation wants to stand up and be counted, to be involved, to do something that will help change the world for good. That activist spirit needs to be cultivated and channeled, not condemned.

Some young Christians have already taken to the streets for Christ in another way; a good example is those who conducted witness ministries to demonstrators in the recent wave of anti-war protests (see News, page 41). They have been set aflame Acts-style, boldly and effectively proclaiming Christ where the action is. An evangelical march on Washington could similarly turn on and provide proper group identity for prospective participants now stagnating in churches or otherwise log-jamming the Gospel. It would in essence liberate Jesus from church captivity.

Evangelicals have been conducting Sunday sit-ins for years. Now perhaps it’s time to march. The first steps can be next door or to the desk across the aisle—or even to searchers already in the streets—with the message of life and peace in Jesus. But someday—Washington?

Shutting Down The Government

During the first week of this month Washington experienced a major confrontation in the continuing battle by some members of the younger generation to halt the war in Viet Nam. Shortly before this, approximately 200,000 people had gathered around the Washington Monument to express their dissent peacefully. The attempt to shut down the government was quite different. What is the evangelical to think about all this?

It is evident that the majority of Americans earnestly desire to see the war ended, and that most young people are motivated by good will and genuine idealism. But the Mayday disruption went a good deal beyond all this. To many observers it was apparent that this small percentage of young people are undeniably radical. Many of them are hardbitten Maoists or Trotskyites concerned about Viet Nam not because of the loss of life but because they see there an episode in the historic struggle between communism and capitalism. They would like to see the United States government overthrown. They did not hesitate to use force, fly Viet Cong flags, and make clear what their true ideology is. The success of the authorities in keeping the streets open and the traffic moving shows that such efforts can be contained. But the fact remains that radicals like these are termites eating away at the vital structures of American life and democracy.

Maoists and Trotskyites are anti-God, anti-Christ, and anti-Church. Evangelicals should distinguish clearly between the larger group of young people who are non-violent, well-meaning, and constructive, and this group that is dangerous, dissident, and destructive.

Evangelicals should raise their voices against non-peaceful dissent; they should penetrate the strongholds of the radicals with the Gospel that can transform them; and they should pray earnestly that God will overrule to prevent the radicals from fulfilling unlawful objectives.

Christians who love their country have a twofold responsibility in a chaotic age. One is to reinforce the foundation on which our government is founded. Ours is a government of laws, not of men, and this needs to be affirmed again and again. The other is to be salt and light to the nation, to help to weld it together more firmly, more consistently, and more harmoniously, so that it may endure.

Priming The Top 40

“Put your hand in the hand of the man from Gaililee” is good evangelistic advice reaching millions of people today, with advertisers footing the bill. And Judy Collins sings “Amazing Grace” the same way it’s been sung in churches throughout the land for years, only now it’s a hit tune on rock radio too. It was even recorded in a church so it would have the right effect, we’re told.

Other songs with a Christian message have likewise made the Top 40 hit tune lists. More are coming. Ralph Carmichael’s “Love Is Surrender” is increasingly in demand. New converts in the professional music ranks are beginning to write and sing out for Christ. One snag, however, is listeners’ lack of knowledge of what gospel-message releases are currently available. Thus audience influence is not readily exerted on the ratings.

The Fellowship of Christian Composers has come up with an idea to remedy that information gap—and to keep the Gospel in the Top 40. The group aims to enlist 10,000 young people in a write-in and call-in campaign requesting pop songs with a Christian message. That many kids contacting disc jockeys two or three times a week, it is estimated, will make for the same influence as millions of listeners otherwise. The Sheet, a free monthly containing the words of current heavy-God songs, will keep the young Gospel-pushers cued in to new releases.

It sounds like a good idea to us. The Sheet is available from P.O. Box 6181, Fort Worth, Texas 76115.

Discipleship Plus Forgiveness

Jesus’ standards for discipleship are high. Multitudes then, as now, were eager to make “decisions” for him, but he knew that, regrettably, many of these “commitments” were superficial. On one occasion he startled the crowds around him by saying that no one could be his disciple unless he hated his parents and children and brothers, and even his own life (Luke 14:25–27). In the context of our Lord’s life and his other teachings, it is clear that what he meant was that in the case of conflict between pleasing Christ and pleasing others or oneself, Christ must, without hesitancy, come first. He went on to state that in the eyes of the world, following him was equivalent to bearing a cross like a condemned man on the way to execution.

It is especially noteworthy that immediately after this emphasis on the rigors of discipleship, our Lord stresses the searching and forgiving love of God through the parables of the one (out of 100) lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son (Luke 15:1–23). Each parable in its own way demonstrates that the holiness of God is fully compatible with his mercy, and shows his strenuous activity to draw rebellious men into his family.

As they see multitudes responding to Christ, many of them probably superficially, some supposedly more mature Christians are keen to stress the rigors of discipleship but not so quick to demonstrate eagerness to draw others into the family. As we all so often do, they manifest one or the other of two attitudes when God wants both. The parable of the prodigal son was occasioned by the murmuring of the Pharisees and scribes at the response of the tax collectors and sinners to Christ. To the Pharisees, the main point was not the profligacy of the younger brother or the forgiveness of the father but the hard-heartedness of the outwardly faithful but inwardly unforgiving older brother. In our legitimate concern for discipleship, let us not be or seem to be unforgiving.

The Challenge Of Persecution

Patriarch and Prophets: Persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church Today, by Michael Bourdeaux (Praeger, 1970, 359 pp., $10), and The Urgency of Marxist Christian Dialogue, by Herbert Aptheker (Harper & Row, 1970, 196 pp., $6.95), are reviewed by Blahoslav Hruby, managing editor, “Religion in Communist Dominated Areas,” New York City.

A matter that should be of great concern to Christians in this country is the plight of religious and political dissenters and of Jews and ethnic minorities in the U.S.S.R and other Communist countries, and the violation of human rights there. Nobody can excuse himself by saying that information on this subject is lacking: several works published in recent years deal in detail with these problems, and Religion in Communist Dominated Areas, a semi-monthly of the National Council of Churches, has been covering this area for the past nine years.

Michael Bourdeaux is a clergyman of the Church of England and the author of two previous books on religion in the Soviet Union. He has now produced yet another timely and important volume.

In some church circles, there is a tendency to be very cautious in dealing with the religious situation in Communist countries. This is said to reflect a desire to work toward a dialogue between East and West and toward a detente. In these circles, it seems, the theology of revolution and Christian dialogue with Marxists are cultivated, while protest—or even prayers—on behalf of harassed and persecuted Christians in the Soviet Union are discouraged.

Bourdeaux’s new book is an urgent reminder to the Christian community and to all who are concerned about freedom and human rights. Its great value is that Bourdeaux, instead of describing the plight of the Russian Orthodox Church today, lets the participants in the present drama of that great church provide their own testimony. The documents cover all aspects of Orthodox Church life and are grouped into nine chapters by such topics as “The Persecution of the Clergy” and “Destruction of Parish Life.”

In the concise and perceptive introduction to his book, finished shortly after the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia and dedicated to the people of that country, the author does not pass judgment on the Orthodox establishment, which reached a modus vivendi with the Soviet regime. In a well-balanced ecumenical spirit, Bourdeaux recognizes both the Orthodox establishment and dissent. I fully agree with him when he says: “The problem of balance in the presentation of the two positions has been impossible to solve. This book presents the new voices at length, because they have had only an inadequate platform elsewhere, while officials from the Patriarchate have been able to speak at great conferences of churchmen all over the world.”

These documents, seen in the context of the ever increasing number of letters and appeals coming out of the Soviet Union, show a growing solidarity between the Orthodox religious community striving for freedom and human rights and others struggling for the same goals among intellectuals, students, and various nationalities and religious groups.

Bourdeaux rightly appraises these significant documents as “a convincing testimony to the continued vitality of the Russian Orthodox Church among both young and old, both the little educated and intellectuals, in circumstances which would have crushed a purely human agency devoid of the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

To turn from these moving documents to Aptheker’s The Urgency of Marxist-Christian Dialogue is like entering a dream world. Though the book appeared after the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia, Aptheker writes as if it hadn’t happened. Yet Prague was one of the places where the dialogue he calls for was most advanced, and those who once participated in it are continually attacked in the Communist press. The book has an excellent bibliography and a worthwhile discussion of the views on religion of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, but Christians would be better advised to engage in rational, scholarly examination of present Marxist and Communist systems, especially in light of developments since the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the upsurge in anti-Semitism.

The All-Stars Of Christian Education

Adult Education in the Church, edited by Roy Zuck and Gene Getz (Moody, 1970, 383 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by William Boyd, Christian service director, Western Bible Institute, Denver,

The first of the two sections of this book is “Teaching Adults” and includes the entire scope of adult education in a local church. The writers cover the need for adult education, the biblical foundations, the nature and needs of all ages of adults, and the implications of these for instruction, evangelism, training, and lay movements tangential to the church. The second section, “Helping Families,” deals with current pressures on the family, biblical principles relating to it, and preparation for marriage. Also discussed are elements needed to maintain sound family life, such as marital unity, discipline, worship, sex education, and a family educational program. (This section will be available in a separate paperback binding in July.)

Included are such all-star authors as Sisemore, Moberg, Aultman, Brubaker, Loth, Bayly, Feucht, Hendricks, Fields, Richards, and sixteen others. The variety of the authors’ backgrounds enhances the book’s strength. And through excellent organization, the fragmentation, overlapping, and insufficient correlation that often mar a book with multiple authors are not present.

As would be true of any book having twenty-six authors, the individual chapters range from weak to outstanding. Yet the vast majority are good or excellent. There previously was no one book of evangelical flavor with sufficient scope and depth to become a widely accepted text on adult education. This one will undoubtedly be used as the basic textbook in many college classes in Christian education of adults, and will become a supplementary text in Christian-home classes. Although the content of the “Family” section is not weak, its scope is not great enough for the book to become a primary text in this area. In a local church situation, however, the book could well serve as the primary resource book for training in both adult education and family education. In this vein, it is encouraging to note the increased family emphasis in the adult educational ministry of the church.

Surprisingly, nothing is said in the book about the widening influence of small groups in the church. Some of the benefits and dangers in that area might well have been presented along with some biblical principles for use as guidelines.

Those who have been searching for a textbook for adult education in the church will welcome the appearance of this one.

Newly Published

Jesus and Israel, by Jules Isaac (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971, 405 pp., $12.50) and The Trial and Death of Jesus, by Haim Cohn (Harper & Row, 1971, 419 pp., $12.50). Two very significant books. Isaac presents a necessary re-emphasis on the Jewishness of Jesus and on the evil of anti-Semitism, but both he and Cohn are much too skeptical on the Gospels’ accounts of the trial of Jesus in their attempts to remove blame from Jews. Of course, anyone, Jew or Gentile, who fails to see that Jesus died “for the sins of the whole world” has completely missed the point.

Unhooked, edited by James Adair (Baker, 1971, 159 pp., paperback, $1.25). Seventeen ex-addicts tell their stories. This book makes the heart ache and the spirit leap joyously.

Marriage to a Difficult Man, by Elisabeth D. Dodds (Westminster, 1971, 224 pp., $5.95). The delightful, heart-warming story of the “uncommon union” of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards. A well-written look at the domestic life of America’s greatest theologian.

Quest for a Black Theology, edited by James J. Gardiner and J. Deotis Roberts (Pilgrim, 1971, 111 pp., $5.95). Six leading black theologians each contributed an essay. Topics include the Black Messiah, the ethics of black power, and the blackness of black religion.

A Dispensational Theology, by Charles F. Baker (Grace Bible College [Box 9008, Wyoming, Mich. 49509], 1971, 688 pp., $9.95). The traditional subdivisions of theology, except for ethics, are systematically and clearly considered. The author summarizes various views among conservative Protestants before arguing for his own position. On ecclesiology it represents only that small minority of dispensationalists who believe today’s Church began with Paul rather than Pentecost, but this variation does not mar the overall usefulness of the book.

Prophecy and the Seventies, edited by Charles Lee Feinberg (Moody, 1971, 255 pp., $4.95). Twenty-one messages by nine Bible expositors—including Stephen Olford, John Walvoord, and two Jewish Christians—delivered at a conference in 1970 sponsored by the American Board of Missions to the Jews on its seventy-fifth anniversary.

Environmental Ethics, edited by Donald R. Scoby (Burgess, 1971, 239 pp., paperback, $2.95). Not even the most assiduous reader can expect to keep up with all the new eco-books, but by reading this collection of reprinted and original articles one can at least become aware of the diversity of material and concern that our environmental crisis is provoking

Living With Guilt, by Henry McKeating (Judson, 1971, 125 pp., paperback, $1.95). A good analysis of the neuroses of our times—feelings of guilt, inadequacy, and worthlessness. The author thinks the New Testament contains the key to healing and restoration.

The Listener, by H. S. Vigeveno (Regal, 1971, 153 pp., paperback, $.95). If you want to know what atheists, Black Muslims, or Buddhists think, read this book. The author records his conversations with people of these and other non-Christian persuasions. The information reported here should be important to all concerned Christians.

The Scientific Enterprise and Christian Faith, by Malcolm A. Jeeves (Inter-Varsity, 1971, 168 pp., paperback, $2.25). As an alternative to the spate of books available that stress a conflict between science and Scripture, this is a welcome appearance in paperback of a summary of the 1965 International Conference of Science and Faith, which involved three dozen professors who are evangelicals and who are reflective rather than combative on the crucial issues.

Kierkegaard’s Presence in Contemporary American Life, edited by Lewis A. Lawson (Scarecrow, 1971, 299 pp., $7.50). Fourteen articles from the journals of various academic disciplines reveal the diverse influence of the great Dane. Includes a bibliography of over 600 periodical articles in English on Kierkegaard.

Humanistic Psychology: A Christian Interpretation, by John A. Hammes (Grune and Stratton, 1971, 203 pp., $7.95). Here is a good survey of the basic principles of psychological investigation. The author attempts to demonstrate that there is “no disagreement between experimentally established data and those truths proposed by the Christian frame of reference.” An important, well-written book.

The Mathers: Three Generations of Puritan Intellectuals 1596–1728, by Robert Middlekauff (Oxford, 1971, 440 pp., $12.50). This great Christian family has long deserved better treatment than the usual caricature. The author makes a very good beginning, with special emphasis on the Mathers’ influence on contemporary and succeeding Americans. In the process he offers an unconventional view of Puritan development on these shores that merits thorough consideration.

Ten Words of Freedom, by Jay G. Williams (Fortress, 1971, 226 pp., paperback, $4.95). A verse-by-verse commentary on the Ten Commandments, useful for one preparing to preach on them.

The line of distinction between study of the religion of Israel and study of the theology of the Old Testament is not always clear. The former focuses on a description of the ideas and actions (both good and bad) that were representative of any given period in Israel’s relationship to the divine. The latter, by contrast, seeks to establish what was normative for Hebrew religion, and its context is that of revelation as described in the Old Testament rather than religion per se. Such a definition presumes, of course, a particular understanding of biblical theology that is not always shared by writers on the subject; in actual fact, some of the books described as Old Testament theologies are actually histories of Israel’s religion, and vice versa.

The Religion Of Israel

Religious history (sometimes indistinguishable from what is called Old Testament theology) is amply covered at all levels. Basic to such a discussion is still the classic work of W. Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (Black, 1907; reprinted with supplements by KTAV, 1969). Smith leans heavily on comparative Semitic materials, drawing much material from primitive Arab cult practices; although his method is inadequate to explain the uniqueness of biblical religion, it does throw much light on externals. For a more theological treatment emphasizing the distinctive element of Israel’s faith in Yahweh as its liberator, Th. C. Vriezen’s The Religion of Ancient Israel (Westminster, translation, 1967) may be recommended. A somewhat more specialized study from the pen of H. H. Rowley, Worship in Ancient Israel (Fortress, 1967), discusses ways in which the worship of Yahweh came into Israel and various aspects of this worship in the temple and the later synagogue. From H. Ringgren comes another general treatment of the subject, Israelite Religion (Fortress, translation, 1966). Ringgren, whose main interest is the period of the monarchy, has written a book of great use to the general reader.

Similarly committed both to comparative methodology and to the uniqueness of Old Testament religion are three by W. F. Albright: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Doubleday, revised, 1968), From the Stone Age to Christianity (Doubleday, revised, 1957), and Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (London University, 1968). The first volume looks at the subject from the standpoint of modern archaeological research and deals particularly with the period between the conquest and the early monarchy; the second is a more extensive analysis of the developing process of monotheism and might be considered Albright’s classic effort; the third contains the mature reflections of the author on the relation between Israelite and Canaanite religion. Also from the pen of an archaeologist, and graced with a foreward by Albright, is the non-technical survey by J. L. Kelso, Archaeology and the Ancient Testament: The Christian God of the Old Testament vs. the Canaanite Religion (Zondervan, 1968).

Greatly divergent views are represented by the collected essays of certain Old Testament scholars, notably A. Alt’s Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (Blackwell, 1966), I. Engnell’s A Rigid Scrutiny (Vanderbilt, 1969), and M. Noth’s The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essays (Oliver and Boyd, 1966). Each of these volumes is made up of selections from the author’s more extensive writings; all are intended for the advanced scholar, and despite their unquestioned value, none of them reflects a particularly conservative attitude toward the biblical sources. For a minority report on Hebrew religion, see Y. Kaufmann’s The Religion of Israel, abridged from an eight-volume Hebrew original (University of Chicago, 1960), a book that should be required reading for all aspiring Old Testament scholars. Kaufmann combines reverence for the Scriptures with a creative approach to critical questions, a combination that has produced considerable stimulation to research as well as its share of controversy.

A number of monographs treating various phases of Canaanite or Israelite religious history could also be mentioned alongside the more general treatments listed above. For research purposes, however, the student should familiarize himself with works on Ugaritic literature, Palestinian archaeology, and Babylonian ritual (cf. our earlier sections on these subjects). Perhaps a coming day will see the production of a much needed major work from an evangelical writer in this fruitful field.

Theology Of The Old Testament

To an earlier generation of theologians, biblical or Old Testament theology was simply the exegetical preparation for doing systematic theology. The older literature in this genre is abundant, and we shall make no attempt to outline the material. Most scholars who write theologies of the Old Testament today have in common a concern that the content of Hebrew theological thought be developed within a historical context. But having said this, we must point out that much difference of opinion exists among the various writers.

To get some idea of the issues involved and the historical development of the subject, the reader should begin with an introductory volume, such as the concise treatment by R. C. Dentan, Preface to Old Testament Theology (Seabury, 1963). Considerably less comprehensive, but important as an apology for a more traditional, Reformed formulation of categories, is E. J. Young’s The Study of Old Testament Theology Today (Revell, 1959). A good survey of seven influential writers on Old Testament theology is Contemporary Old Testament Theologians, edited by Robert Laurin (Judson, 1970).

There is really no “best” textbook on the theology of the Old Testament; the student will be best advised to sample the various volumes mentioned below and learn first-hand the organizing principle used in each. A good starting point is F. F. Bruce’s New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes (Eerdmans, 1968), which opens with a chapter organizing the subject under the category of promise and fulfillment. In actuality, Bruce is arguing against any single “catch-phrase” as dominant within the study of Old Testament theology; he claims that only in light of New Testament fulfillment can a true unity be found (cf. the discussion of von Rad, below).

One approach is to organize the subject under some combination of the doctrines of God, man, and salvation. The older work of L. Koehler, Old Testament Theology (Westminster, translation, 1957), which stresses the concept of God as Lord, contains useful word studies but is marked by the curious description of the cult of Israel as “man’s expedient for his own redemption.” Organized similarly to Koehler, and highly rated for comprehensiveness and clarity, is E. Jacob’s Theology of the Old Testament (Harper, translation, 1958). This volume stresses God’s mastery of history and is, among the theologies organized in the traditional form, perhaps the most useful textbook for students. Although all the theologies noted here are “Christian” in overall point of view, An Outline of Old Testament Theology by Th. C. Vriezen (Westminster, translation, 1958) and A Christian Theology of the Old Testament by G. A. F. Knight (Westminster, 1959) are distinguished by a more definite commitment to a specifically Christian understanding of the Old Testament message. Although it has weaknesses, the latter is characterized by new ways of looking at old subjects and will prove especially useful to the audience for which it was written (i.e., the intelligent churchman). The many paragraphs devoted to Old Testament imagery will be found homiletically useful.

Only two major American works are available representing the traditionally evangelical point of view. In 1948 G. Vos’s useful Biblical Theology (Eerdmans) was published; this was followed in 1962 by J. B. Payne’s Theology of the Older Testament (Zondervan). The former book is rather dated; it fails to consider certain areas of Israel’s thought (e.g. the Wisdom movement) and does not refer to recent theological research. Vos attempts to trace the subject historically, but his subordination of historical matter to categories of traditional covenant theology make the entire work sound more than faintly like another systematic theology. Payne’s work, though significantly different from that of Vos, has been criticized for the same reason. The book is organized on the principle of “testament” or “will” rather than simply “covenant” behind the Hebrew word b’rith (based on Hebrews 9:15 as a starting point!) and constructs its theology on the various relationships involved in this testament. Although each subject is analyzed according to its development throughout ten historical periods, there is little indication of any meaningful distinction between various periods or groups within Israelite history. A European-origin alternative to the two books just mentioned, representing a modified form of dispensationalism, is E. Sauer’s The Dawn of World Redemption (Eerdmans, translation, 1951). Sauer follows a traditional historical outline and can be counted on for a scriptural and sometimes extremely fresh approach to his subject.

Without a doubt the two most influential works in the field are those of the German scholars Walther Eichrodt and Gerhard von Rad. Eichrodt’s Theology of the Old Testament (two volumes, Westminster, translation, 1961, 1967) uses the Covenant concept as the unifying principle and will appeal to those who see theology as firmly rooted in the historical response of the people of God. Especially useful for comparative consideration is Eichrodt’s “Excursus” at the end of the first volume, in which he deals briefly but trenchantly with his competitor von Rad. In his Old Testament Theology (two volumes, Harper & Row, translation, 1962, 1965), von Rad, like Eichrodt, rejects traditional categories of dogmatic theology (although Eichrodt seems to return partially to them in Volume II) and speaks instead of a saving history in the proclamation of God’s mighty works in the context of Israelite worship. Just what relation exists between this proclamation and the actual history of Israel (which is in fact often less than redemptive) is, to von Rad, unimportant; this point is sharply criticized by Eichrodt and modified by some of von Rad’s own students (e.g. R. Rendtorff). The only real point of unity in an Old Testament theology is, for von Rad, the typological exegesis of which he has long been an advocate. Thus we are presented with various “theologies” instead of an Old Testament “theology,” a point that the theological conservative will find difficult to accept.

Three major works from Roman Catholic scholars merit mention. Intended primarily as a students’ handbook is the very useful treatment by P. Heinisch, Theology of the Old Testament (Liturgical Press, translation, 1955). Its approach is systematic (under the headings God, Creation, Human Acts, Life After Death, and Redemption), and only the spelling of the names (following the Douay-Rheims system) and frequent references to papal encyclicals concerning the study of the Bible betray its Catholic heritage. A more ambitious work, P. van Imschoot’s Theology of the Old Testament (Desclee, translation, 1965), again follows dogmatic categories. Especially useful to the specialist are the extensive bibliographies heading each section, which include lesser-known French works along with the standard German and English materials. For the American reader, however, a much more palatable work than either of these is the volume by J. L. McKenzie, The Two-Edged Sword: An Interpretation of the Old Testament (Bruce, 1956). McKenzie’s categories are closer to those of the American biblical-theology movement, and the student wishing to evaluate current Catholic biblical thought might well begin here.

Several additional books will prove very useful for understanding the theology of the Old Testament. H. H. Rowley, the late dean of British Old Testament scholars, has left us two short volumes stressing the unity of the Old Testament and the uniqueness of its theological concepts, though without denying its evident diversity. In The Unity of the Bible (Westminster, 1955) Rowley offers a corrective to tendencies he observed in both church and missionary situations toward an almost complete neglect of the Old Testament. He felt the point of focus had to be the unity of the two testaments, and this forms the burden of his earlier work; by contrast, The Faith of Israel (SCM, 1956) provides a sketch of Old Testament theology. Although no major work on the subject has been written from a conservative evangelical point of view, Rowley’s short study, stressing both revelation through history and revelation through persons, gives some indication of the direction such a book might take.

Equally important in any discussion of Old Testament theology are the works of the American archaeologist and biblical theologian G. E. Wright. Two important monographs, both in the “Studies in Biblical Theology” series (Allenson), are The Old Testament Against Its Environment (1950) and God Who Acts (1952). In the former volume, Wright, like Rowley, is concerned to show the uniqueness of the world of the Bible, a thesis that is introductory to his work in biblical theology. In the second book he portrays Old Testament (and New Testament) theology as a recital of the great acts of God as developed in the salvation history of the testaments. This work has been fundamental in the subsequent development of the biblical-theology movement in North America and should be read by anyone who wants to understand this important trend. A third book by the same author, The Old Testament and Theology (Harper & Row, 1969), is a mature study of the socio-political content of Old Testament thinking about God and a corrective to much current existential emphasis.

Another work stressing the unique contribution of Old Testament theology is the brief treatise of N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (Shocken, 1964). It is Snaith’s conviction that a distinctive concept of God is at the root of the distinctiveness of the Old Testament, and so the book becomes a study of Hebrew ideas of God: his holiness, his righteousness, his covenant-love, his election-love, and his Spirit as a life-giving power.

The aforementioned provide just a sampling of the kind of works available from which one interested in biblical theology may choose. Important bibliographies have been provided at several points in the more general surveys, and for specific subjects the bibliographies in the better Bible dictionaries should be consulted.

Old Testament Interpretation

Closely related to Old Testament theology, both as a preliminary study and as beneficiary of the results of that discipline, is the category of Old Testament interpretation. Essays on the subject are numerous, but two particularly useful collections may be found in C. Westermann, editor, Essays on Old Testament Interpretation (John Knox, translation, 1963), and B. W. Anderson, editor, The Old Testament and Christian Faith (Harper & Row, 1963). Both books represent more of a German than American or British contribution, but leading thinkers in the area are included. Among the current literature significant articles have been contributed through the medium of two new Festschriften. Essays by G. E. Wright (“Historical Knowledge and Revelation”) and R. L. Hicks (“Form and Content: A Hermeneutical Application”) are contained in Translating and Understanding the Old Testament, in honor of H. G. May (Abingdon, 1970), edited by H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed. Another important article, “The Limits of Old Testament Interpretation” by the Edinburgh scholar N. W. Porteous, is found in Proclamation and Presence, in honor of G. H. Davies (John Knox, 1970), edited by J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter.

Two books may be mentioned that deal specifically with the relation between the testaments. C. Westermann’s The Old Testament and Jesus Christ (Augsburg, 1970) is a translation of a brief but important German work and pleads for a fresh realization that Christ is relevant to the main sections of the Old Testament and not simply to certain proof-texts. A much more difficult book, but one vital to a study of the relation between the testaments, is J. Barr’s Old and New in Interpretation (SCM, 1966). Here Barr continues arguments begun in his Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961) and closes with an extremely critical analysis of propositional revelation in modern fundamentalism.

Two recent volumes concerned with applying biblical theology to the hermeneutical crisis in the Church are The Authority of the Old Testament (Abingdon, 1967) by J. Bright and Biblical Theology in Crisis (Westminster, 1970) by B. Childs. Bright advocates an American brand of biblical theology as the answer to the embarrassment and confusion the preacher often feels toward his Old Testament; Childs appeals for a reassessment of the biblical-theology movement in view of its current collapse. Significantly, both authors conclude with extended chapters showing how the interpreter might use the principles advocated in approaching certain passages or problems. Childs calls for a return to the Christian canon as the authoritative Scripture with which the theologian is to be concerned vis à vis recent attempts at theologizing from “some form of positivity behind the text, such as Heilsgeschichte, language phenomenology, or in a mode of consciousness illustrated by the text, such as authentic existence or the like.” Coupled with this appeal is another for a recovery of classical exegetical methodology (but not in a pre-critical sense), with its ability to view the Scripture as a whole and to discover therein the “bread of life.”

Significantly, not only Childs but Wright and others have recently taken a new look at the great classical exegetes, particularly Luther and Calvin, whose exegetical work has often been overshadowed by their systematic formulations. We are fortunate today in having access to several works that will help in this recovery. 1969 saw the publication both of J. S. Preus’s From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther (Belknap) and of an English translation of H. Bornkamm’s important Luther and the Old Testament (Fortress). Major work on Calvin’s exegetical method is still wanting, but for a preliminary bibliography Wright’s article in Translating and Understanding the Old Testament (p. 284) may be consulted.

A corollary to the new interest in classical Christian interpretation is a renewed focus on early rabbinic exegesis. The literature on the subject, particularly from Jewish writers, is voluminous, but pride of place belongs to The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, 1970) by J. Bowker. Through use of selected portions of Genesis as reflected in the Targum (an interpretive Aramaic translation from the Hebrew Bible) of Pseudo-Jonathan, Bowker has written an introduction to Jewish interpretation that will be of exceptional value both to the specialist and to every student concerned with Jewish Scriptures or Christian origins.

Finally, in the field of homiletical interpretation, anyone concerned with preaching the Old (or New) Testament will want to be familiar with the small work of E. P. Clowney, Preaching and Biblical Theology (Eerdmans, 1961). Clowney represents a combination of abilities as exegete, theologian, and preacher, and calls for a return to great exegetical proclamation through the help of a covenant-oriented biblical theology.

Carl E. Armerding teaches Old Testament at Regent College in Vancouver. He received the B.D. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and the Ph.D. from Brandeis. He spent a year in Israel doing post-doctoral study.

SECRETS OF A POSTMISTRESS

Of late there has been a hue and cry about the loss of privacy in American life. Many people seem to sense a threat in the fact that both government and private agencies systematically collect this information about us.

Those who are so profoundly disturbed obviously have never met Mamie, our local postmaster. (Once when I called her “postmistress,” trying my best to be correct, she nearly threw me out of the post office for using suggestive language on government property.)

Mamie knows everything and never forgets a thing—except once in a while to have the mail delivered. When the February issue of one of four magazines came, Mamie apparently remembered that she was still reading the January issue. Both issues arrived at our house the same day with the January issue neatly dogeared where Mamie had marked her place in the continued fiction piece.

The comprehensiveness of her information was brought home to us a few months after we arrived in town. My wife dashed off a postcard to her mother signing it “M.B.” She was interrupted while addressing it and absent-mindedly mailed it with only her mother’s name on the address side.

The following day when she was in the post office Mamie handed her the card saying, “Here’s your card to your mother. You forgot to address it.” Some of our best friends don’t know my wife’s maiden name, but Mamie does.

Where the FBI collects material, Mamie assimilates it and forms a judgment about the character and personality of the individual involved. By carefully studying what various members of the community are reading, she has put together a mental dossier on each that would put the FBI to shame.

Jim Hicks is the “seed catalogue man.” The fact that he earns his living as a consulting economist is to Mamie not nearly so indicative of his character as the fact that he regularly receives seed catalogues.

Sam Furman is the “writer fellow.” Sam, an electrical engineer, receives Writer’s Digest and other publications designed for the professional writer. I don’t know if Sam has ever put a line

on paper, but he’s forever identified in Mamie’s mind as a writer.

I shudder to think what might happen if some unwary student in our town decided to study Communism directly from Communist publications.

You see, in Mamie’s view a man is not what he does but what he reads. And perhaps she’s more profound than she realizes.

SHAKY GROUND UNDER ‘ISRAEL’

As a faithful reader of your magazine, I am continually rewarded by the insights within its pages. But I believe that a Christian periodical is on shaky ground when it ventures to make political position statements other than those which follow directly from Christian tenets. Such an aspect was not obvious in the editorial “Pressures on Israel” (April 9). A statement weighing purely political issues deserves no place in the editorial pages of your fine magazine, unless the writer considers himself privy to information that is otherwise not widely available.

Surely many of your readers feel, contrary to your editorial opinion, that the first step toward peace in the Middle East (in accordance with the November 22, 1967, United Nations Security Council resolution) must be Israel’s return of Egyptian territories obtained as the result of a pre-emptive first-strike war, and that modern warfare makes an illusory “geographical security” a poor exchange for political security. But to elaborate further on this alternate view would be beside the point, for who is to decide between our varying political convictions? Rather, my point is that essentially non-religious pronouncements on clouded issues serve only to dissipate the authority with which, on other occasions, you can effectively relate the claims of Christ to the affairs of men.

Brookline, Mass.

HERE ARE THE ‘FACTS’

With regard to [John Montgomery’s] “Current Religious Thought” column (“The Last Days of the Late, Great Synod of Missouri,” April 9), please note the following facts:

“Non-evangelical theology that espouses non-inerrancy” is not an issue in “the central trouble-spot, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.” Forty-one of the fifty members of the faculty, over their signatures published in Synod’s official organ, stated November 15, 1970:

We affirm with the Constitution of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (Article II) and in keeping with our vows of ordination and installation that we accept without reservation the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the written Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and of practice and all the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God.

Taking the Scriptures seriously directs Christians, also their theologians, as pilgrims to bring the Word of Life, while there is time, to all who need it, rather than to hover like vultures waiting for churches to die.

“I know you cannot endure evil men.… But I have this against you: you have lost your early love. Think from what a height you have fallen” (Rev. 2:2, 5, NEB).

Secretary of the Faculty

Concordia Seminary

St. Louis, Mo.

I much appreciated Dr. Montgomery’s series on the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church and especially the last installment, despite the chagrin in the Editor’s Note. Christianity needs more men of his caliber who refuse to be mollycoddled into believing that “time” will “implement their mandate and maintain the integrity of the synod’s historic witness without doing irreparable damage to its structure,” for history demonstrates the opposite; who, when they see that a church has departed from the faith, no longer try to work from the inside, but scripturally forsake it, regarding it as apostate; who realize that half of affirming the truth is denying error, in opposition to the doctrinally inclusivistic attitude so prevalent even among evangelicals; who can see an end of being tactful and a need for rebuke, despite pressure groups which would like to minimize doctrine, setting it in contraposition to practice; and whose guide is sola Scriptura. Would that certain other Protestant denominations had men like him!

Cambridge, Mass.

EVIL ARGUMENT

“The Problem of Evil” by Hubert P. Black (April 23) attacks a subject that should receive much more attention than it does.… Dr. Black is to be commended for writing on a subject many short-sighted Christians prefer to avoid. Nevertheless … [his argument] is unacceptable because it contradicts Scripture.

The author tries to defend divine omnipotence. God can do anything, but he limits himself by giving man freedom. Whatever small value this may have relative to omnipotence, it has no bearing on God’s goodness. Can God be good if he grants man freedom, knowing ahead of time what terrible evils man will commit? If God were good, he would not have made such a man.…

Further, the appeal to freedom completely ignores the tragedies of earthquakes in California and Peru, tidal waves in East Pakistan, and the Black Death in medieval Europe. God can control nature, can’t he?… [But] the author contradicts the doctrine of creation ex nihilo in his statement, “God’s power is not limited by natural events that thwart his will but is relative to actual occasions in the sense that they provide the conditions for the exercise of his creative power.” This sentence not only makes God’s acts of creation dependent on a prior existing nature, but also asserts that nature thwarts God’s will. Apparently God cannot prevent tidal waves and earthquakes. The sentence quoted begins by saying that God’s power is not limited, but it ends by nature thwarting God’s power.

Professor of Philosophy

Butler University

Indianapolis, Ind.

The discussion of the problem of evil given in current articles published on the subject might mislead one to suppose that the Scriptures have no contribution to make toward a solution of this problem. Surely the statements of Genesis 50:20 and Romans 8:28 were made by men who had insight into the answer to this question.

Boulder, Colo.

“The Problem of Evil” does not really slip between the horns of the dilemma: if evil exists, how can God be both good and omnipotent?

Though man indeed sins “because he chooses to do so and is responsible and thus culpable,” his sinning act, nevertheless, is predetermined. Only one example is necessary to disprove the article’s contention to the contrary: the greatest sin of all time, the crucifixion of our Lord, was brought about by the “predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23, NASV). Yet human responsibility and guilt for this action are not diminished. Rather they are juxtaposed with divine predetermination in the same verse, “This [Man] … you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put [Him] to death.” Thus, God planned the crucifixion, but men were responsible for its sinfulness. We accept on faith that God is not the author of sin, as James 1:13–17 shows.… From our point of view the problem of evil must remain a problem. God’s predetermination and man’s culpability are equally taught in the Bible. They must be equally accepted. Yet the Christian can rest in the sure hope of the God who works everything—even evil—together for good and his own glory.

Jackson, Miss.

HOW COULD HE?

I was shocked and disappointed to read Eutychus V (“Jesus and Juicy Fruit,” April 23) saying: “I don’t condemn beer drinking.”

(MRS.) GRACE C. MILLER

Anderson, Ind.