The students and faculty of Oral Roberts University in Tulsa rolled out the red carpet for 178 collegians from thirty-eight participating schools gathered there last month for the annual meeting of the American Association of Evangelical Students (AAES) and its second Evangelical Student Congress (ESC).

The hospitality, special programs, classy music, and finger-lickin’ food were highlights of the three-day affair—and a distraction to student leader-types who were “all business.” In fact, the ESC passed a resolution asking that “social and recreational activities be kept to a minimum.”

But in the final analysis nobody really seemed to mind the fun and entertainment, since the congress was able to wade through nearly thirty resolutions dealing with everything from student curfew to DDT to the Middle East. After midnight on the last day, delegates even revised three resolutions previously approved because they wanted to make sure the papers clearly grounded Christian action in the Word of God—not just the “Christian experience.” Weary delegates finally adjourned (with a parting gift of oranges and apples from Oral Roberts University) at 1:25 A.M.

AAES president Ken Oman, 21, a junior at Taylor University, kept both AAES and ESC meetings on target. Leaders of schools with a total enrollment of more than 26,000 attended the meetings, which were initiated, organized, and directed by students. The few adults present usually stayed in the shadows. Seventeen AAES member colleges sent delegates; twenty-one other non-member schools were represented. Their delegates could vote on ESC—but not AAES—business.

After a special seminar on “The Christian Student and Contemporary Culture” (including a provocative lecture by Catholic charismatic Kevin Ranaghan, a rap session with several colonies of the austere Children of God, and dialogue with converted student-radical James Wallis, who helped organize a strike at Michigan State University last spring) the students knuckled down to what most had come for: confronting the issues (the congress theme). The main item of AAES business was a favorable vote on expanding its membership, thus allowing evangelical students on secular campuses to form AAES chapters. These chapters must have at least twenty-five members, and must subscribe to the AAES constitution.¹A doctrinal section upholds belief in the Bible as the unique, divinely inspired, and authoritative revelation of God to man; the Trinity; the substititionary death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ; and the need for personal belief in Jesus Christ for salvation.

For much of the congress the delegates appeared quite sober and formal. But by the last night, protocol wore thin, delegates loosened up (some shed their shoes), and everyone seemed to enjoy the sometimes heated—but good-spirited—debate on the plethora of resolutions mulled over beforehand by five major committees (campus governance, foreign affairs, domestic concerns, Christian witness, and educational direction).

The two resolutions that sent the most delegates’ hands flying in the air for recognition from the chair, and digging into Bibles for pertinent passages, concerned abortion and capital punishment.

O. R. U. Is Accredited

Six-year-old Oral Roberts University in Tulsa received accreditation by the North Central Association of Colleges this month, thus gaining full academic standing.

ORU asked for three years’ approval; it got ten. North Central officials reportedly acknowledged that accredited status usually takes ten to twelve years. The four-year liberal-arts college is oriented toward Pentecostalism but encompasses a broad spectrum of religious persuasion among its 1,033 students and 87 faculty members.

One mandate on abortion, passing easily, reaffirmed the sacred value of human life and urged that members of the medical profession not be required to accept abortion assignments contrary to their conscience. But a related paper, urging severe restriction of “the socially legal” and prohibition of the “illegal practice of murder of unborn candidates to the Kingdom, of God through … abortion” lost rather soundly.

The debate over capital punishment centered on whether it is biblically defensible. A resolution calling for abolition of the death penalty was approved by about three to two. Other measures favored voter registration, condemned the manufacture and sale of DDT pesticide, and called for revamping of the present selective-service system since it “may force upon draftees participation in immoral wars … contrary to principles of Christian love.”

A mandate on U. S. foreign policy that was defeated would have condemned the “expansion of the war by the United States and North Viet Nam into Laos” and called for a fixed timetable for withdrawal of all U. S. and North Vietnamese troops and air power from Indochina.

Another paper approved by the congress affirmed that “the activities of modern war and the offensive militaristic policies of both national and international powers are un-Christlike.” The congress adopted a neutral stance on the Middle East but condemned the “unnecessary slaughter of both Arabs and Jews.”

Turning to domestic issues, the students urged the National Association of Evangelicals (meeting in Los Angeles this month) to accept an ESC resolution asking American Christians to sell unneeded luxuries and give the money to Christian charities or to the poor “as a remarkable demonstration of Christian love.” Their evangelical elders (the NAE) were pointedly told that such luxuries include things like $100,000 homes, Cadillacs, boats, cabins by the lake, and second or third cars. A related mandate urged a negative income tax that would guarantee all Americans with a family of four at least $3,300 annually.

The delegates were hard on the institutional church (though they vowed to work within it) and on Christian colleges that use “societal values” instead of scriptural ones to establish school policy. Such societal values should be dismissed “insofar as they are violating the Christian community,” one resolution said. Another scored the institutional church for too often being unprophetic and enmeshed in racism, materialism, and nationalism “in direct disobedience to God’s Word.” “An orthodox biblical theology and the total Gospel of Jesus Christ necessitate a radical commitment to, and a non-violent activism for, social justice, and the eradication of sin through the blood of Jesus Christ through Christian witness,” said a resolution from the witness committee.

The students asked for the relaxing of penalties against marijuana-users in a statement that also called for uniform laws regarding the drug throughout the fifty states. The congress did not condone the use of marijuana, the paper stated, and rehabilitation and drug education were encouraged.

The students adopted papers on student government calling for student participation “in all administrative decisions affecting the spiritual, academic, and social welfare of the [Christian]

campus.” The congress also approved a Student Bill of Rights protecting assembly, privacy, trial, redress, expression, and personal exercise of biblical Christianity. “There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex in affairs such as curfews and employment opportunities,” the bill concludes.

For the first time in the fourteen-year history of the AAES, a woman was elected national president. Miriam Helfrink, 19, a home economics major, is a sophomore at Messiah College (Brethren in Christ) in Pennsylvania.

The pretty coed will be assisted by the new vice-president, Dan Franklin, 20, a sophomore at Evangel (Assemblies of God) College in Springfield, Missouri. Franklin, from Clarkston, Michigan, is a biblical studies major. The 1972 convention and congress will be held at Houghton College in New York.

Renaissance At Rensselaer?

Four thousand deacons, ministers, “Jesus freaks,” matronly Sunday-school teachers, and nuns converged last month on Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for a day and a half of “turning on to Jesus.” Their “thing” was celebration, good news, and “ecumenical and spiritual happening” for the Schenectady-Albany-Troy area.

It was a child of the Reformed Church in America’s Festival of Evangelism held in Detroit last spring. Delegates to this festival returned and found considerable support among local Christians (largely laymen) for a local version. An ad hoc task force got its strongest backing from Bishop Edwin Broderick of the Roman Catholic diocese of Albany, and its weakest from the evangelical churches.

Keynote speaker Tom Skinner preached his own unique combination of social revolution and personal salvation. An unchurchly crowd whistled and applauded and stood to “it seems quite odd that those who taught us of the glories of the American Revolution are not interested in having another one … show people that the Liberator has come!”

Less evangelistic were the approaches of Riverside Church’s Ernest T. Campbell and slum priest Robert Fox (a Roman Catholic drawing card), who called only for heightened social sensitivity. Christian disc jockey Scott Ross talked of the Jesus People and the Holy Spirit.

Small discussion groups were as heterogeneously organized as the speakers’ platform. A computer made sure each one had a Roman Catholic, different types of Protestants, an elderly person, a young person, and a clergyman, as well as those who fit no set category.

ROBERT FRIEDRICH, JR.

Personalia

William Culbertson, president of Moody Bible Institute since 1948, will retire soon; informed sources say his successor will be George Sweeting, pastor of Chicago’s Moody Memorial Church.

Southern Christian Leadership Conference official Hosea Williams was arrested Palm Sunday on charges of disrupting services in New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral when he and other demonstrators interfered with a clerical procession.

President Nixon urged a group of 100 clergymen at a White House conference on drug abuse to give youth “some sense of faith” as the best alternative to a life ruined by drugs. Helping youth find faith, he said, could perhaps have more effect than all efforts made by the government in law enforcement, rehabilitation, and education.

The Reverend Joe Hale, director of ecumenical evangelism for the United Methodist Church, has been named secretary of the National Council of Churches’ evangelism section.

Dr. C. Benton Kline, since 1968 dean of the faculty at Columbia (Georgia) Seminary, will succeed Dr. James McDowell Richards as president when he retires this June after thirty-nine years-

Parish pastor John David Newpher of Oreland, Pennsylvania, has been named president of Lutheran (LCA) Seminary in Philadelphia beginning next month.

Former military chaplain and inner-city worker E. B. Hicks has been named executive minister of the newly formed American Baptist Churches of the South, with headquarters in Atlanta.

The Reverend Brian Russell-Jones has been named director of the Belgian Gospel Mission in Brussels, not the Belgian Protestant Information service (BELPRO) as previously announced in these pages.

Deaths

MICHAEL CARDINAL BROWNE, 83, conservative Catholic scholar, a member of the Vatican Curia for eight years, superior of the Dominican Order; in Rome.

LUTHER WESLEY SMITH, 73, former head of the American Baptist Board of Education and leading ecumenist during the 1940s, founder of the American Baptist Assembly at Green Lake, Wisconsin; in St. Petersburg, Florida.

DOUGLAS TOMLINSON, 82, founder of All-Church Press and a leader in religious journalism; in Fort Worth, Texas, of an apparent heart attack.

Religion In Transit

With the expected signature of Maryland governor Marvin Mandel, a state-approved program of financial aid will give non-public schools $12.1 million in direct payments. The hotly disputed bill offers scholarship grants ranging from $75 to $200 for Maryland students in private elementary and secondary schools whose parents have less than $12,000 annual income.

The best two motion pictures of 1970, according to a joint decision by the National Catholic Office for Motion Pictures and the Broadcasting and Film Commission of the National Council of Churches, were I Never Sang for My Father and Kes. The Catholic agency also cited The Wild Child and My Night at Maud’s for awards.

The movie The Cross and the Switchblade starring charismatic actor Pat Boone is the biggest box-office attraction at a plush suburban Fort Worth theater since Airport, according to Religious News Service.

Black and white Christians of Texarkana, Texas, are joining hands in an ecumenical effort to rebuild two National Baptist churches that were recently fire-bombed during racial disturbances.

Dr. William Thompson, a professor at Philadelphia’s Eastern Baptist Seminary, will be editor and Catholic priest John J. Geaney of St. Paul’s College, Washington, D. C., will serve as associate editor of a new ecumenical magazine on preaching.Preaching Today, published bimonthly, will originate in St. Louis.

Miami, Florida’s Metropolitan Fellowship of Churches tabled a request for membership by a local homosexual congregation though a committee found no constitutional barriers to admitting the homosexual body. It meets the church council’s only requirement: proclaiming the lordship of Jesus Christ.

World Scene

The largest crowd ever to assemble in Guatemala’s National Olympic Gymnasium—12,000 persons—gathered on the closing night of Argentine evangelist Luis Palau’s three-week crusade last month. Aggregate attendance was 128,000; many more saw the program on nineteen one-hour telecasts. News coverage was unexpectedly large.

Work neared completion late last month on a huge new hall for mass papal audiences in the south corner of the Vatican. The new complex covers 107,600 square feet, is air conditioned, and will seat 8,000.

Interdenominational Evangelism—in-Depth committees have been formed in forty-five Mexico cities to form prayer cells and training workshops. House-to-house visitation will begin the first Sunday, in May, “Impact Day.”

Baptist churches in Kenya, Africa, last month unanimously approved a constitution forming a national convention.

The Assemblies of God are mounting an evangelism effort this year in Calcutta, the world’s fourth largest city.

Toot-N-Tithe

You pull up to a bullet-proof drive-in window, state your business, and receive clearance. An electric drawer slides out to accept your money. A modern bank? Not exactly, although the teller’s window and accessories came from one.

It’s St. Luke’s Lutheran Church in Reading, Pennsylvania. Pastor Samuel C. Jaxheimer installed the security precautions recently, according to United Press International, because the collection plate was too big a temptation to outsiders and the church secretary was endangered when alone in the building.

The electric drawer provoked curiosity—and a few quips. “It’s for your deposit,” advised the pastor. “We take it in but we don’t hand it out.”

The hottest agenda item at a number of this year’s denominational conventions may be abortion. Even in communions where the issue was thought to be “resolved,” a fresh round of debate can be expected as many responsible churchmen begin to rethink their positions. Sentiment for easy abortions, so evident as late as a year ago, is being increasingly countered at the level of public discussion, as well as at the legislative and judicial levels.

In a number of states, anti-abortion forces have been able to defeat liberalizing bills or to counter court decisions that struck down existing statutes. Last month the Maryland House of Delegates rejected by a surprisingly wide margin (77–59) a bill that would have permitted a physician to perform an abortion on request up to the twentieth week of pregnancy. The bill was similar to one approved by the Maryland legislature last year but vetoed by Governor Marvin Mandel.

President Nixon aligned himself with the anti-abortion movement this month in a statement confirming that he had overturned a Defense Department regulation issued last summer liberalizing abortion rules in military hospitals. “I have directed that the policy on abortions at American military bases in the United States be made to correspond with the laws of the states where those bases are located,” he said. The statement was issued following disclosure in the Washington Post of the policy change.

Nixon said he had acted partly because laws regulating abortion in the United States have been the province of the states, not the federal government. He went on to add, however, that “while this matter is being debated in state capitals and weighed by various courts, the country has a right to know my personal views.” He expressed those views with unusual candor—seldom has an American president talked so forthrightly on a hotly debated issue with personal as well as social ethical implications.

“From personal and religious beliefs,” he said, “I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. Further, unrestricted abortion policies, or abortion on demand, I cannot square with my personal belief in the sanctity of human life—including the life of the yet unborn. For surely, the unborn have rights also, recognized in law, recognized even in principles expounded by the United Nations.”

Nixon’s statement may prod a number of American clergymen who have supported the liberalization of abortion laws to rethink their positions. Several denominations are currently on record with statements adopted in legislative assemblies that virtually condone abortion on demand. Among the most liberal are the statements adopted by American Baptists, United Presbyterians, and United Methodists.

The United Methodist statement runs counter to the views of the denomination’s three top moral theologians, Albert Outler, Paul Ramsey, and J. Robert Nelson. Outler and Nelson were among twenty-two professors and physicians who recently signed an anti-abortion statement. The statement asked: “How long can we meaningfully say that all men are created equal while the innocent unborn are sacrificed to personal whim, convenience, or that new test of Americanism in our increasingly technologic and impersonal age: the qualification of being perfect, or being wanted, or being viable?”

Ramsey spelled out his position in some detail in last summer’s issue of Religion in Life, and in contributions to two books, John T. Noonan’s The Morality of Abortion and Daniel H. Labby’s Life or Death. Ramsey’s is probably the best brief argument against abortion currently in print. The most exhaustive is by Germain Grisez of Georgetown University, a 559-page work entitled Abortion: The Myths, the Realities, and the Arguments.

Pro-abortion arguments have tended to move on the premise that pregnant women should have the final say, that men have too long made these decisions—from a non-existential perspective. If there is indeed a change of public and/or ecclesiastical mood on abortion, it is undoubtedly attributable in part to the fact that women themselves have been speaking out more against—as well as for—abortion. And in some cases at least, they are not merely reciting rhetoric but are taking positive action in showing compassion toward pregnant women.

New volunteer groups called Birthright have initiated a telephone hot line for women with unwanted pregnancies. The group, offering alternatives to abortion, includes both Protestants and Catholics and now operates in Washington, Toronto, Chicago, Denver, Cleveland, and Minneapolis.

Birthright obviously attracts volunteers who oppose abortion, but is not a lobby as such. Its main idea is that pregnant women go through a great deal of tension and confusion and need help for this.

Another underlying premise is that abortion can bring on emotional trauma far exceeding that sustained by continuing the pregnancy.

Abortion is not an issue of theological liberals versus conservatives, nor is it grass roots versus leadership, as with many current matters. Most ministers are still publicly silent on the subject. Many clergymen as well as physicians are yet undecided or unclear about the moral issue. Lacking authoritative counsel, unmarried women and young couples often make decisions on existential grounds.

Presumably, the showdown on abortion laws will come when the U. S. Supreme Court rules on appeals. That may still be a number of months away.

The Churches’ Stand On Abortion

American Baptist Convention (resolution adopted in 1968): “… We … urge that legislation be enacted to provide: 1. That the termination of a pregnancy prior to the end of the 12th week (first trimester) be at the request of the individual(s) concerned and be regarded as an elective medical practice and licensure. 2. After that period, the termination of a pregnancy shall be performed only by a duly licensed physician at the request of the individual(s).”

Episcopal Church (resolution adopted at 1967 General Convention): “… Resolved, That the 33rd Triennial Meeting of the Episcopal Church support efforts to repeal all laws concerning abortion which deny women the free and responsible exercise of their conscience.…”

United Methodist Church (resolution adopted by General Conference in 1970): “… We urge … that church-related hospitals take the lead in eliminating those hospital administrative restrictions on voluntary sterilization and abortion which exceed the legal requirements in their respective political jurisdictions, and which frustrate the intent of the law where the law is designed to make the decision for sterilization and abortion largely or solely the responsibility of the person most concerned.…”

United Presbyterian Church (report to General Assembly, 1970): “Our committee’s position is that abortion should be taken out of the realm of the law altogether and be made a matter of the careful ethical decision of a woman, her physician and her pastor or other counselors. In the later stages of pregnancy, serious consideration must be given to the competing claims of the developing fetus as well as to the increasing risk to the life of the mother in surgical abortion.…”

Lutheran Church in America (resolution adopted at 1970 convention): “On the basis of the evangelical ethic, a woman or couple may decide responsibly to seek an abortion. Earnest consideration should be given to the life and total health of the mother, her responsibilities to others in her family, the stage of development of the fetus, the economic and psychological stability of the home, the laws of the land, and the consequences for society as a whole.”

All the above opinions presuppose the validity of the tissue theory, which Dr. Paul Ramsey, professor of ethics at Princeton University, rejects. “It is known,” he says, “that heart-pumping starts by the end of four weeks, at about the time the mother begins to wonder whether she is pregnant or not.… The fetus is capable of its own spontaneous motion at ten weeks and it responds to external touch or stimulation much earlier. All essential organ formations, except limbs, are present at eight weeks. Tissue, anyone?”

Unconditional Withdrawal: Strategy For Peace?

The anti-war movement in the churches, virtually dormant for a number of months, took on new life in the latter days of Lent. Dozens of young seminarians highlighted the latest protest with a sit-in near the White House in Washington during Holy Week. More than 70 were arrested.

Six well-known religious leaders¹President Daniel Burke of LaSalle College, Vice-president Stephen Cary of Haverford College, Episcopal Bishop Robert L. DeWitt, Rabbi Eugene Lipman, General Secretary Dudley Ward of the United Methodist Board of Christian Social Concerns, and United Presbyterian Stated Clerk William P. Thompson. not previously identified as extreme doves were among the demonstrators. They appeared on Palm Sunday vowing to fast the entire week in protest of American policy in Southeast Asia.

The protesters got unprecedented backing from four leading religious journals: The Christian Century, Christianity and Crisis, Commonweal, and The National Catholic Reporter. (Editors from Crisis, Commonweal, and NCR were among those arrested.) An editorial that appeared jointly in the journals said the United States is “repeating the crucifixion of Christ” through its Viet Nam policies.

The appeal for an end to the war was worded in a more general way than other recent statements. Some anti-war churchmen have become very specific.

Fifty American Protestant churchmen, most of whom had previously expressed anti-administration sentiments on the war in Southeast Asia, went to Paris last month and conferred with the heads of all four delegations to the stalemated peace talks there. They returned issuing a statement calling for unconditional withdrawal of U. S. troops and asking President Nixon to direct “all United States air, naval and ground forces in Indochina not to drop bombs or to fire weapons except in response to direct attack.”

The group said they did not seek or obtain any information on the whereabouts of five American missionaries who have been held captive by the Viet Cong, three since 1962.

Josiah Beeman, director of the United Presbyterian Washington office, arranged the trip.

A number of high-ranking denominational officials were among those who went to Paris. Some were said to have paid their way out of “office expenses,” others to have had their funds “raised locally.”

The group’s statement did not ask that a withdrawal date be made public, but appealed to the President and to Congress “to declare immediately their pledge to withdraw unconditionally all U. S. military forces from Indochina in the immediate future” (italics theirs).

The same day that the anti-war group returned to the United States, a team of four churchmen concerned about prisoners of war left for overseas. They said they hoped to talk to diplomats in a number of capitals in an effort to win release of the captives and regain peace in Indochina. They intended to end up in Hanoi if visas could be secured.

The four are Missouri Synod Lutheran president Jacob A. O. Preus, Roman Catholic archbishop Joseph T. Ryan of Anchorage, former United Presbyterian moderator George E. Sweazey, and President Nathan Bailey of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.

DAVID, KUCHARSKY

NEWS

The American Board of Missions to the Jews (ABMJ) may carry to the Federal Communications Commission—and the courts if necessary—the refusal of several television stations to carry the ABMJ’s “The Passover” telecast. At stake could be a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of free speech, as well as a possible violation of the FCC’s “fairness doctrine.” The ABMJ has turned the matter over to its attorney for possible action.

The ABMJ had scheduled “Passover” in twelve U. S. and five Australian cities on prime-time television during Holy Week. Its purpose was to depict Passover as being fulfilled in the Lord’s Supper and Christ as the Messiah. The program was professionally produced and contained no reference to missions in general or the ABMJ in particular, but the theme as it unfolded was clear.

The ABMJ, a seventy-seven-year-old mission, had spent about $35,000 of a $50,000 advertising budget in telling of the program through TV Guide, daily newspapers, national magazines, and one million flyers. Televising the program was to cost about $50,000 more.

Then, almost on the eve of the telecasts, one by one the stations began to cancel. WOR-TV in New York was the first. General manager Michael McCormick said the station had received protests from the New York Board of Rabbis, the Synagogue Council of America, and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. Quickly stations in Chicago, Washington, Minneapolis, Miami, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Phoenix, and Pittsburgh followed. They cited a similar reason for canceling the program: “It would be offensive to a great number of people.”

Jim Reid, program manager for WDCA-TV in Washington, said the station canceled after it received “five or ten” telephone calls in protest and conferred with WOR in New York. Explaining the decision, Reid said he would avoid “programming that would be offensive to the audience.”

The ABMJ immediately gained more publicity than it would have through “Passover.” The New York Times ran the story on page one, and other papers and the wire services began flooding Dr. Daniel Fuchs, ABMJ general secretary in New York, with calls. Time magazine devoted its entire religion section to the incident and a general discussion of “Is Passover Christian?”

In Philadelphia, fourteen Christian Jews picketed WPHL-TV for its cancellation of the program. One picket said the station “knuckled under to the pressure of the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith, an unrepresentative Jewish organization.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, long a defender of minority causes (the ABMJ’s constituency of 5,000 Jewish Christians represents one-thousandth of the U. S. Jewish population of more than 5 million), indicated an interest. Melvin Wolf, the ACLU’s national legal director in New York, promised a quick decision on whether it would intervene on the ABMJ’s behalf.

Wolf pointed out the dilemma: Does a station have a right to pick and choose what goes on the air? Or do the people have a right to programs they want?

Wolf said that the ACLU, for instance, never would bring suit against a newspaper to force it to accept an ad. Broadcasting stations are different, however, because they use the air waves, which belong to the public. The “fairness doctrine” requires stations to present diversity of programming, and to present both sides of an issue, as in a political campaign.

“The implications are very serious to all evangelical Christians,” said R. Terryl Delaney, a creative-minded ABMJ staff member who perhaps as much as anyone has been responsible for redirecting the ABMJ ministry through modern marketing and media techniques. He pointed out that Negro evangelist Tom Skinner might want to aim a broadcast to the black population, but if the “Passover”-rejection precedent was continued, the protests of other blacks could keep him off the air.

Some of the canceling stations said they felt they were getting an ecumenical program and claimed they didn’t know it had a Christian orientation. But the stations apparently were less than completely candid. WDCA’s Reid attempted to draw a line between programs that were “controversial,” such as the CBS documentaries on hunger and Pentagon publicity, and those that were “offensive,” which he said “Passover” was. He refused to say whether he personally thought the program was offensive.

Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, national director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Council and well known for his efforts in ecumenical and interracial affairs, on a radio broadcast in New York himself drew a connection between the Jewish Passover and the Christian Holy Week. He said Holy Week “cannot be understood, as Jesus and his early followers understood them, apart from their profound rootedness in first-century Judaism.”

Later in an interview Tanenbaum said there was a difference in the approach he used in his talk and that of the telecast. He said his talk affirmed the roots that Christianity has in Judaism, while the telecast saw the Passover as preparation for fulfillment in the Gospels.

But Tanenbaum admitted that he and his organization would not have protested the showing of “Passover.” He said he had refused several requests to review “Passover” in advance “because of our basic concern for the freedom of conscience and, in a sense, for free speech.” But he added that he felt the telecast was “a calculated misconception” in which the Christian message “was smuggled in” and that he understood why other Jewish organizations protested.

As it turned out, “Passover” was shown in at least four American cities as well as the five in Australia. In Dallas, KTVT attached a disclaimer and an ABMJ marketing survey estimated that 16 per cent of the city’s Jewish population watched. In Los Angeles, KBSC ran “Passover” five nights and said that it invited discussion. In fact, the station provided a fifteen-minute rebuttal for three rabbis after the program. At the last minute, local churches sponsored “Passover” in Amarillo, Texas, and Charleston, West Virginia, and efforts were under way to show it in El Paso.

Delaney, then assigned to Denver, first conceived of illustrating the Passover dinner on television. It was televised live from Calvary Temple in Denver in 1968; an advertising agency estimated 11 per cent of the Jewish community watched. Last year the twenty-eight-minute, full-color program was presented in Los Angeles. The response was so great that plans were made to go nationwide this year. Fuchs, whose parents were converted from Judaism, takes a very optimistic view toward the events that, on the surface, dashed ABMJ’s carefully laid plans. The ABMJ has gained publicity it never could have purchased, much from persons who were sympathetic—if not to the message at least to the principle of free speech.

It may well be that the ABMJ will find new truth in the Old Testament passage where Joseph tells his brothers: “As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive.…”

East Pakistan: ‘Joy Bangla; Joy Jesu’

Missionaries in foreign lands as a rule are non-political regarding the internal affairs of those lands. But in an extraordinary manner the ambassadors of the Christian faith in East Pakistan recently expressed strong sentiments in favor of a fiery, middle-aged nationalist named Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. One veteran of thirty-five years’ experience in East Pakistan summed up the feelings of the missionary community: “This is the most exciting time in the history of our beloved land. What a thrill to watch as the drama unfolds!”

These expressions are the result of an identification with the apparently legitimate demands of the “Bengali” for a greater measure of internal autonomy. Missionaries feel that the less populous western section of Pakistan (the two wings are divided by 1,000 miles of India) has too long dominated the economic and political life of the 78 million people of the eastern wing.

Supertrek

Jesus Christ is not “Superstar” but the Son of God, evangelist Leighton Ford told a youth-night audience of 5,000 last month during a two-week crusade in Northeast Philadelphia.

Billy Graham’s associate and brother-in-law said Jesus Christ Superstar, the rock opera from England that is the musical talk of the year, forces today’s youth to face the “most crucial of all questions: Who is Jesus Christ?”

Ford put down the opera for lacking “the clear compelling testimony of Scripture on the person of Jesus Christ.” The proof of Christ’s divinity comes home to a seeker when he meets Him, Ford added, challenging the young people to give their hearts to Christ.

“Will you worship, trust, and follow him as the God-man?” he asked. “Until he rules you, you cannot rule the world. Until he saves you, you cannot save the world. Until he changes you, he cannot change the world.”

In this turbulent scene, Mujibur Rahman has emerged as the champion of the rights of the common man. Having received 98 per cent of the votes of the East Pakistanis in the recent election, Rahman feels he has a clear mandate from his countrymen to pressure the central government to acquiesce to his party’s various ultimatums.

In response to a call by Rahman, 500,000 bamboo-stick-waving, slogan-chanting Bengalis gathered on the green turf of the Dacca race course on the warm afternoon of March 7. The anticipation was that Rahman would declare complete independence from the west. Instead, he chose a more moderate course and inaugurated a “non-violent, non co-operative movement” patterned very much along the lines Gandhi chose in the 1940s.

All government offices were immediately closed, flight of capital to West Pakistan was prohibited, and all taxes were ordered to be paid directly to Rahman’s new de facto government. Mail service was canceled.

Thus President Yahya of Pakistan (he is also the chief martial-law administrator) opted to maintain a low profile and sought not to further antagonize the people who constitute 60 per cent of his country’s population. Talks were going on in Dacca last month between the president and various political leaders; the mood among the Bengalis (Christian and non-Christian) was a militant unwillingness to settle for anything less than the installation of Rahman as chief of state.

At a recent press conference, the sheikh impressed this reporter as a man of authority who yet commands each situation with a winsome grace and politeness. He attended a Christian high school in one of the remote towns of East Pakistan. His political position, while admittedly pragmatic, is favorable to the minority community. He is a nominal Muslim.

There was a great deal of violence during the early days of this movement, but it then abated. All West German and Japanese citizens have been evacuated. The British government advised all non-essential personnel to fly out. Many missionaries were summoned to the capital city by their consulates last month to await further development.¹Pakistan’s civil war broke out March 25, and news reports indicated ten days later that Rahman had disappeared. Whether he was in hiding or under arrest was disputed. Some accounts said that all marketplaces in Dacca were destroyed during the uprisings by West Pakistan soldiers, and that a large part of Dacca’s population had fled into the countryside. Sections of East Pakistan bordering on India and accessible to reporters had not seen heavy fighting nor suffered widespread destruction during the first few days of this month, the Washington Post reported.

A previously planned missionary convention during mid-March in Dacca was canceled, but the three guest speakers did not receive word and with great difficulty managed to fly in as originally planned. Within a few hours the convention was rescheduled. The interdenominational group heard Dr. Christy Wilson of Kabul, Afghanistan, give a biblical exegesis of the book of James—with an emphasis on verses like, “My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into various trials.” The sound of evacuation planes flying overhead at times drowned out the songs of Zion.

Only four months ago this densely populated country was the scene of feverish news coverage as the world gasped in horror and sorrow at the report of 500,000 cyclone casualties. Today the reporters are back—hearing this time a chant of different cadence. “Joy Bangla, Joy Bangla” (victory to Bengal) is heard in every town, village, and market place of East Pakistan.

The missionary in East Pakistan has a different emphasis. Victory to Bengal, yes. But there is a longing that one day in the land “Joy Jesu” (victory to Jesus) will be fulfilled.

PHIL PARSHALL

Clerics May Not Duck Clerical Work

A U. S. district court in Atlanta, Georgia, last month ruled in favor of the Salvation Army in a case involving Billie McClure, a former employee and commissioned SA officer. She charged that the Army had discriminated against her on the job because of her sex (see October 9 issue, page 40).

The court dismissed the case, saying it had no jurisdiction in the matter because religious bodies are exempt from pertinent sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The ruling said that Mrs. McClure’s activities, “which might seem secular, such as secretarial work, are supportive of her overall role yet an integral part of the Army’s purely religious functions and activities.”

But Is It Educational?

Can a church qualify for radio or television channels reserved for educational use? No, said the Federal Communications Commission, rejecting for a second time an attempt by the Bible Moravian Church to apply for an FM station to operate on an educational channel at Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

The action sets the stage for a court test if the church wishes to appeal the ruling. The FCC first rejected the application out of hand, then granted a hearing when the church insisted that its principal purpose was “education, mainly but not exclusively religious.”

“Educational FM channels are available only to educational organizations,” said the FCC, “and it is clear that the applicant is not.…”

In Transit (Literally)

What does it take to uproot a 300-member congregation from southern California and cause its members to give up jobs, sell houses, and leave behind a 500-seat church for a move to Evansville, Indiana?

It wasn’t the February 9 earthquake, according to pastor C. J. Mears of the San Gabriel Gospel Temple. But the final decision was made in mid-February, said another leader of the congregation, adding: “God called us.” The nondenominational group expects to be on its way to the Ohio River Valley in a month or two.

The decision to leave Rosemead, reportedly unanimous, was made after weeks of prayer and periodic fasting. Three years ago there was an exodus of about 500 from five southern and central California congregations after their pastors reported visions of earthquakes. Those bands settled in Missouri, Tennessee, and Georgia.

Late last month another nomadic flock ended a month-long trek from California. Hippie-type followers of Stephen Gaskin’s 250-member religious band arrived at Old Hickory Lake in Tennessee looking for a farm in the central part of the state to convert into “an agricultural commune.” Gaskin is a former San Francisco State College professor. Most members of the caravan are young and married; some have entered group marriages.

Early this year about seventy-five residents of St. Helens, Oregon, pulled up stakes to join nearly 200 other members of Christ’s Household of Faith in Mora, Minnesota, where they hope Jesus will set up an earthly paradise.

The Northwest contingent was led by the Reverend Vernon Harms, a former Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod pastor. He and Donald Alsbury, who heads the combined group, are graduates of Concordia Seminary, Springfield, Illinois. Alsbury also left the Missouri Synod and his church at Giese, Minnesota, citing “liberal” trends in the denomination. The Household of Faith, who live in a semi-communal state, hold twice-daily study and prayer meetings that last up to eight hours. Alsbury relates his visions, interprets dreams, and castigates “hypocrites of the worldly church.”

A member of Mears’s Gospel Assembly congregation told Los Angeles Times religion writer John Dart why the group is moving to Indiana. “We’re kind of tired of the hustle and bustle,” he said, also mentioning smog and problems at public schools. “We’re kind of anxious to get back to a spot of land large enough where you can grow vegetables, where there is a slower atmosphere, and where many of our relatives live.”

Second of Three Parts

How do you extricate the Sunday-morning service from the proverbial rut where blessing and koinonia get bogged down in boredom?

Here are some of the things that helped us come alive:

Variety. We tried not to structure any two services alike for as long an interval as possible. This meant, among other things, reshuffling program elements every week. One week the sermon came first in the program, the announcements and offering last. Another week the invitation was injected near the beginning—right after a few songs and stirring testimonies—and the doxology served as benediction.

The shifting around was not an end in itself. Ideally, every service had specific purposes, and placement of program items was decided upon accordingly. I often spent hours preparing an order of service so that it would “feel” right (smooth transitions, proper blend of informality with order and dignity, meaningful participation, the most apt songs and Scripture for services built around such themes as love, joy, and peace).

The service one week might be designed to draw us into deep heart-expressed worship of God. Next week’s might be a lighter, joyous service with lots of music and plenty of what-God-has-done-this-week sharing. Two or three times a year I preempted all but ten minutes for special sermons (an annual Book of Romans survey; a study of how Bible prophecy lines are converging in our time). Other services were more smorgasbord in content.

Despite all the planning we tried to hang loose, too. On occasion we sensed that the Holy Spirit was leading us in an outpouring of prayer and sharing, thus canceling the bulletin’s agenda and postponing until another Sunday a sermon hammered out in sweat and tears.

Participation. We abolished class distinctions between pulpit and pew, and created opportunities for the people to participate in the services.

1. Scripture reading. Members took turns reading the selected Bible passages. Sometimes I handed out slips of paper with references to be read aloud during the service. Verses on a certain theme might thus be read by ten persons, young and old alike, from six different versions. Periodically we gave those in the congregation a chance to quote a favorite verse and to relate briefly (I imposed three-minute time limits) why it had fresh personal significance.

2. Prayer. We banned long, globe-encircling pastoral prayers. These tended to make even the most righteous among us drowsy and to further the cause of spectator-styled churchmanship. As individuals we prayed throughout the week about the matters that concerned us all, so I felt no special urgency to go through the entire list in pulpit prayers.

We instead encouraged short conversational-type prayers in most services. This enabled many—half the congregation on occasion—to respond to our calls for “a sentence of worship or intercession.” Young people joined in these sessions freely; some prayed aloud for the first time during them. Soft organ background music added just the right touch. Often we interspersed the prayers with appropriate choruses (words were printed in the bulletin).

Important tend-to-it-now needs received our united, concentrated attention in prayer, and this tended to cement us together spiritually.

3. Interviews. Much of the excitement we felt in our services can be traced to informal interviews of long-time members, visitors, and pulpit guests. We tried to interview at least one person in all but a few services.

When major trouble broke out on the Berkeley campus, we interviewed our students who attended the university: “What’s happening? What are the Christians doing?” When Christianity became the Number One issue on campus, we called them back to ask the same questions.

We interviewed hippie converts from Haight-Ashbury, ex-Black Panthers who had received Christ, a Jesuit seminary professor newly turned on to Christ, our high schoolers who were spreading the Gospel among their classmates, members who had gotten spiritual victories during the week, those to whom revival had come at a weekend retreat, witness teams back from outreach projects, members with an interesting past or unusual conversion experience, Christians whose work provided insight that might benefit us (police officer, doctor, college professor, newspaper reporter).

Interesting Christians I met at Saturday-night activities and meetings were usually interviewees next morning (a Hollywood actor-singer, a youth-work executive from Australia, a street-Christian evangelist from Seattle, a serviceman home from the war).

Our services drew a constant stream of visitors—we were an urban church in a port city that attracted tourists from all over the world. Our ushers cued me in when they turned up an interview prospect (a Philippine evangelist on his way home, a pastor from Guatemala, a Christian businessman from Hong Kong, a student leader from a Christian college).

With few exceptions our people loved it, because the blessings usually came down in sheets.

After severe racial disturbances in our city, I chatted in the pulpit with a husky black bus driver. A close friend, he was a committed Christian who worked among ghetto youths. Radicals had threatened to kill him because of his witness. As we talked, the love of Jesus gushed out of his heart. There were many tearful embraces after that service. I was surprised at the number of members who commented at the door: “I needed this, pastor. I had prejudice in my heart when I came in here this morning. Praise God, it’s gone now.” Another surprise: we had placed plates at the door for donations to the ghetto youth work—and we received the largest such offering in our history!

We always interviewed guest missionaries and seldom scheduled them to preach. It enabled us to learn far more about their work and about them. For these sessions we moved the pulpit aside, sat in easy chairs on the platform with a microphone between us, and chatted away. After a few minutes of questions from the congregation we closed in communal prayer, motivated by what we had learned. The missionaries, incidentally, nearly always remarked that it had been their best meeting ever, and that they had received personal blessing.

Potpourri. There were other things, too. A special welcome-visitors program. A do-your-thing-for-Jesus service (members recited their poetry, displayed art and photos, showed how skills could be used by God; I preached on consecration of abilities). A ten-minute evangelism laboratory (trainees shared the Four Spiritual Laws with neighbors in the pews). Periodic news briefings on the worldwide Christian scene. Introduction of new Christian music in sing-alongs. These and other features helped to unjam the Spirit’s frequencies, tuning us in to life.—EDWARD E. PLOWMAN, assistant editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY; formerly pastor of Park Presidio Baptist Church, San Francisco.

When martin luther rediscovered the basic truth, “The just shall live by faith”—salvation by faith alone—he found himself released from the burden of a conscience weighed down by sin from which no efforts of his own could have freed him. Out of this there came the Reformation with its recognition of the grace and mercy of God to which alone man owes his salvation.

But since that time there have been those who have misinterpreted “faith” to be a mere affirmation of words, and “grace” to be a gift without corresponding obligations.

Perhaps we all would do well to stop and consider that faith becomes saving faith when validated by obedience, and saving grace is God’s free gift only to those who do God’s will.

Many years ago I visited in the home of a man who was a prominent Bible teacher in his community. There I discovered by his own admission that he was living a life of open and unrepented-of sin. The “grace” about which he taught was a cheap grace that denied the holiness of God and the life of obedience God requires of those who call on his name.

The Apostle Paul answers this question once for all: “Now grace is the ruling factor, with righteousness as its purpose and its end the bringing of men to the eternal Life of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Now what is our response to be? Shall we sin to our heart’s content and see how far we can exploit the grace of God? What a ghastly thought!” (Rom. 5:21–6:2, Phillips).

Our Lord also made it clear that the only faith that counts is a faith that results in obedience. Near the conclusion of his “Sermon on the Mount” he declared: “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21).

That this applies to “religious” people is obvious. All of us who profess him as Lord should be very sure that he truly is Lord of our lives, enabling us to live in obedience to his revealed will. And what is his will?: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification” (1 Thess. 4:3). We know that sanctification is a work of God’s grace in our hearts whereby, empowered by the Holy Spirit, we “die unto sin and live unto righteousness” (1 Pet. 2:24).

The daily lives of many who call themselves Christians show only a very superficial Christianity. Our Lord’s words should warn us all—ministers, church officers, and those who sit in the pews: Calling him “Lord, Lord” has no meaning unless it is coupled with obedience. The God who sent his Son to redeem us from our sins is the same God of whom we read, “Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life” (Gal. 6:7, 8).

We may shout from the housetops our faith and orthodoxy, but unless they are coupled with obedience to the teachings of God’s Word, there will come a time when we find ourselves rejected from his eternal presence.

Obedience requires that there be both repentance for sin and a turning from it. The Apostle Paul is crystal clear on this when he says, “Do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience?… By your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom. 2:4, 5).

Faith without obedience is disobedience, and disobedience is rebellion. Satan—the instigator of all rebellion—and his cohorts know the truth but do not obey it. “Even the demons believe—and shudder” (Jas. 2:19). No Christian has the right to glory in his faith who does not with that faith try to obey the One who has redeemed him.

Obedience involves a recognition of God’s authority and right to command. Furthermore, in the line of obedience there comes the realization that God knows what is best for us. It is this recognition of the love and sovereignty of God in our lives that enables the true believer to rest in his promise that “in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28).

Let us get this clearly in our minds: Obedience is not legalism. It is not doing something whereby we earn or merit salvation. Rather, obedience is one side of the coin and faith the other. Neither can exist alone. We cannot ignore the fact that our Lord and the apostles rang the changes on the necessity of obedience in the Christian faith. The Apostle James warns against the deception involved in merely hearing the word. We must also obey that word. Furthermore, knowledge adds its own responsibility; we read that “whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (Jas. 4:17.)

Perhaps never in the history of the Christian Church has there been such a need for unswerving obedience in the realm of purity and moral living. The Apostle Paul, after affirming that it is God’s will for us to be sanctified, cautions “that you abstain from immorality; that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God; that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we solemnly forewarned you. For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his holy Spirit to you” (1 Thess. 4:3–8).

The temptation to moral uncleanness is all about us, and the communications media continually thrust before our eyes the strange fire of unbridled lust. On every hand there are those who claim to be experts on sex but who disregard the moral and spiritual aspects of this God-given drive and teach that it is merely a matter of physiology, biology, and psychology. They ignore the fact that God has the authoritative word in this matter and that obedience to his laws is the only way to peace and joy. I am convinced that Satan is attacking this permissive generation at its weakest point. Let us beware lest we heed his siren call to lust and lasciviousness and ignore what God has to say on the subject!

But God does not require an obedience we are unable to render. Whatever his requirements may be, we are at the same time given the strength necessary for victory. There is therefore no legitimate excuse for disobedience. The God who has revealed the inexorable fact that “the wages of sin is death” has also revealed that “the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). The same Jesus who requires of his followers that they obey the will of the heavenly Father has promised to be with us in the person of his Spirit right down to the end of the age.

Ecology And Apocalypse

Pollution and Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology, by Francis Schaeffer (Tyndale House, 1970, 125 pp., paperback, $1.95), Brother Earth, by H. Paul Santmire (Nelson, 1970, 236 pp., $4.95), This Little Planet, edited by Michael Hamilton (Scribner, 1970, 241 pp. $6.95), and The Doomsday Book, by Gordon Rattray Taylor (World, 1970, 335 pp., $7.95), are reviewed by Wilbur L. Bullock, professor of zoology, University of New Hampshire, Durham.

During the past few years we have been deluged with books, magazine articles, TV programs, and political speeches warning us of a variety of environmental crises such as pollution, famine, and overpopulation. Ecology, previously a little-known term for an obscure branch of biological science, has now become a household word. The environment has achieved equal status with race, poverty, and the Viet Nam war as an emotional issue with the younger generation, as well as in many political campaigns. That there are deep ethical implications is readily apparent. Yet, except for a few anti-pollution campaigns and some emotional controversy over abortion and birth control, the Church—and especially the evangelical sector—has been strangely silent. If this silence indicates a desire to handle a critical matter with a carefully reasoned approach, then the silence could be helpful. However, we cannot remain silent forever.

Four basic questions must be answered as we tackle the theological aspects of the ecological crises. What is the historical background of the present concern with environmental problems? Are these problems “for real” or have we been subjected to emotional exaggerations by prophets of doom? What is the biblical view of man’s relation to nature? And finally, what should our attitudes and actions be if in confronting these crises we wish to remain faithful to our primary objectives as followers of Christ? The four books under consideration here provide answers—at times vague—to these questions.

“The historical roots of our ecological crisis” have been widely discussed in environmentalist circles ever since Professor Lynn White, at the 1966 meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, attributed the crisis to the “Christian dogma of creation” and to “orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature.” (Schaeffer, though he deals more with the philosophical and less with the historical, includes the complete text of White’s paper in the appendix to Pollution and the Death of Man.) In what is perhaps the strongest chapter in This Little Planet, Professor Clarence Glacken traces the dominant human attitudes toward nature, with emphasis on changes during the nineteenth century. Although he, like White, indicts the Judeo-Christian view of man’s dominance over nature, he spends most of his paragraphs on recent developments. The transition from the Romantic period, when nature was considered holy and its beauty used as proof of the existence of God, is traced through Count Buffon, James Hutton, and the young Charles Lyell to the serious concerns of George P. Marsh in his Man and Nature (1864). Glacken describes the development of urban, industrial societies and the beginnings of the technological blight on the environment, citing people as diverse as Dickens, Engels, and Ruskin.

In Brother Earth Santmire reviews the historical perspectives. He relates two conflicting ethics of the past, “the ethic of adoration” and “the ethic of exploitation,” to the twentieth century “cult of the simple rustic life” and “cult of compulsive manipulation.” The former cult he views as the heritage of Thoreau, Emerson, and Muir; he expresses this theologically as the worship of Baal. (This theme of “nature worship” as seen in modern trends towards pantheism is considered in some detail by Schaeffer.) Compulsive manipulation is the end result of the somewhat paradoxical combination of the mechanical view of nature, the Puritan dogma of man over nature, and capitalistic economics. Unfortunately, the Church has all too often been a partner in this cult, which Santmire considers theologically as the domain of Mammon.

Glacken admits that tracing the history of ideas about man and nature is difficult and necessarily selective. However, the outline he presents in his chapter in This Little Planet, together with Santmire’s views, is important background reading for the Christian who would like a historical perspective on the ecological crises. Many evangelical Christians will be a bit unhappy with some of these views. However, we need to realize that the problem is not simple and that the Christian Church has often been passively and even actively involved in desecrating our God-given environment. Schaeffer also emphasizes the Church’s culpability, giving several case histories.

Persons on both the radical right and the radical left still claim that all this talk about pollution and overpopulation is either a Communist plot to destroy capitalism or a capitalist plot to eradicate Negroes and poor people. Therefore, we continue to need detailed accounts of the full scope of the problems. But many of these accounts either overstate or distort various aspects of the crises. This distortion becomes extremely serious since, when false alarms are exposed for what they are, we are in danger of dismissing the coming catastrophes.

Both Taylor’s The Doomsday Book and the anthology This Little Planet compile the many facets of the environmental crises in the late twentieth century. Taylor quotes some ominous passages from Revelation 7, 8, and 9 even before he gives his acknowledgments and table of contents. From there on his book is a detailed account of all the horrors, possible and farfetched, that have been predicted for the future. His subtitle is “Can the World Survive?,” and the book is described as a “terrifying roll call of man’s sins against earth as she plunges toward a future of sterility and filth,” Some of the terrors are highly unlikely, exaggerated, or mutually exclusive. For example, as we are rightly reminded of the dangers inherent in climate control, there is as much evidence that we will burn up as that we will freeze to death as a result of man’s conscious and unconscious manipulation of climate. Many of the horror stories concerning pesticides and other noxious chemicals in the environment are overstated. Taylor asserts that DDT is a proven cause of cancer and that it seriously interferes with photosynthesis in the ocean. Both these charges against DDT have now been discredited by competent authorities. DDT has been a blessing and a curse, but to Taylor it is just another example of man’s careless and thoughtless desecration of nature. Such distortions distract from his discussion of some of the real problems. Taylor includes valid evidence against DDT. He has good treatments of asbestos as a serious pollutant, of the world food problem, and of the population problem. His analysis of the credibility of population forecasts is excellent. It is true that the extremely high predictions have been all too accurate; if they have erred at all they have often been too low! Furthermore, affluent, comfortable American Christians should be disturbed by the substantial evidence that the present world population is too high if our goal is a standard of living for the whole world that approximates the standard of the average American.

Four chapters in This Little Planet are likewise devoted to outlining the awesome implications of our ecological problems. Their authors, people who are directly involved with the environmental problems they discuss, have written in a sober, realistic vein and have attempted to assess the moral and ethical implications. Ecologist Paul Sears considers “The Injured Earth” and physicist-clergyman William Pollard writes about “God and His Creation.” Both authors fault man for his thoughtlessness and irresponsibility. Sears describes the physical, chemical, and biological threats to the world we live in; he closes with a warning of “a complete and apocalyptic end of civilization.” Pollard emphasizes the serious depletion of natural resources as well as pollution and overcrowding. He clearly points out that man cannot “escape from his God-given dominion over the rest of nature.” Ivan Bennett, an M.D., and theologian Roger Shinn give thoughtful analyses of the food-population problem and make provocative suggestions about the ethical implications. These authors illustrate one of the difficult paradoxes of the ecological crisis complex. Sears and Pollard, concerned mainly with pollution, tend to canonize Rachel Carson (Silent Spring) when they remind us of the harmful effects of DDT and other pesticides. On the other hand, Bennett (who served as chairman of the Panel of World Food Supply of the President’s Science Advisory Committee) says, in writing of ways to meet the critical food shortages, “It will also be necessary to develop and utilize new, high-yielding plant varieties, to develop and utilize plants with a higher quality of protein, to increase the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and to use improved farm machinery” (italics mine). Careful study of ecological problems reveals other aspects in which the solution of one crisis (in this case, famine) will require aggravation and intensification of another (pollution by pesticides and fertilizers).

Faced with these gloomy and disturbing prospects for the near future, we need to re-examine the whole biblical perspective of man’s relationship with nature. In This Little Planet the authors never quite approve of White’s condemnation of “orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature”; yet they tend to comprehend only a part of the biblical view of man’s God-given dominion over nature. Pollard, for example, states that “the primitive nature religions enshrine an element which we desperately need to recover.” While there is mention of the biblical imperative for wise stewardship, there seems to be little awareness of the high regard for nature expressed in the Bible, especially in Job and the Psalms. I was particularly disappointed in Conrad Bonifazi’s chapter, “Biblical Roots of an Ecologic Conscience.” Despite his numerous quotations from the Bible and references to Hebrew and Greek words, it seems to me that Bonifazi does not give a clear picture of the biblical roots of these problems and their solutions. He is too preoccupied with demonstrating the weaknesses of orthodox Christianity, and he assigns too much of the Scriptures to the realm of myth and symbolism.

I appreciated far more Santmire’s treatment of the whole question of man and nature in a Christian perspective. After demonstrating that the Church has been involved to some degree in the cult of the rustic life and to a considerable extent in the cult of compulsive manipulation, Santmire considers the biblical view of man’s place in nature. In succeeding chapters he elaborates on this biblical view as he considers the “creative rule of God” and the “created realm of God,” with frequent references to Calvin and Luther. To Santmire, the reformers—in contrast to Barth and Bultmann—and the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments give a clear balanced view of man, nature, and the triune God.

After explaining why neither pantheism, a St. Francis type of Christianity, nor platonic Christianity will solve the ecological problems, Schaeffer presents a biblical view based on man and nature as unique creations of God. Both Santmire and Schaeffer emphasize the biblical picture of man as one with nature in God’s creation. At the same time, man is separate from nature by virtue of his God-given spirituality. For those interested in studying the biblical perspective on man and nature as it applies to our day, I enthusiastically recommend both Schaeffer and Santmire. Evangelicals may be a little uncomfortable with Santmire’s reference to the “priestly writer” instead of Moses and his use of “Deutero-Isaiah.” However, as an evangelical zoologist who has been much depressed at times by the awesome, apocalyptic implications of the ecological crises, I came away after reading Santmire with a desperately needed sense of hope and joy. He does not deny the problems; rather he puts them in a biblical perspective and comes up with calm assurance that God is in control. This is not new, in theory, to the believer, but often the people who understand the magnitude of mankind’s problems in the twentieth century do not see the sovereignty of Almighty God. And, alas, too many people who accept the omniscience and omnipotence of God are totally unaware of the catastrophic proportions of the ecological crises.

All the authors except Taylor try to point the way toward a Christian pattern of action. Schaeffer especially seems to come through with a balanced combination of social action and gospel proclamation. His last chapter, “The Christian View: The Pilot Plant,” is “must” reading for everyone concerned with the roles of the individual Christian and the Church in the trying days ahead. For Schaeffer, the Church “ought to be a pilot plant concerning the healing of man and himself, man and man, and man and nature. Indeed, unless something like this happens, I do not believe the world will listen to what we have to say.… The Christian Church ought to be this ‘pilot plant,’ to exhibit that in this present life man can exercise dominion over nature without being destructive” (italics mine). Santmire does not come through as strongly here, but both men get specific enough to make the reader a bit uncomfortable. For example, in considering the Christian “pilot plant” in relation to strip mining and highway construction, Schaeffer suggests that “as Christians we have to learn to say ‘Stop!’ Because, after all, greed is destructive against nature at this point and there is a time to take one’s time.” In the same vein Santmire warns that “if this corrective use of man’s dominion is to be anything more than pious talk, moreover, we must be prepared to make thoroughgoing changes in our social mores and social structures.… An ever increasing productivity can no longer be the criterion of national health; if anything it must henceforth be the criterion of national disease.”

These and other corrective measures are drastic and disconcerting. Certainly, if we accept the historical background and the scope of these potentially catastrophic problems, we should not be surprised that solutions are going to require drastic and unpleasant measures. Recognizing the biblical basis for both the problems and the solutions does not make this aspect of the crisis any simpler: it does, however, lead us to a view in which we can be both realistic and confident about the ultimate outcome. We may not be able to avoid world catastrophes of unprecedented proportions, but when they come we will be prepared to meet them.

To this reviewer there remains one puzzle. Secular writers on the problem often tend to be apocalyptic in their assessment of pollution, overpopulation, and famine. Some even quote Revelation, Jeremiah, Lamentations, and other ominous-sounding portions of Scripture. But neither Schaeffer nor Santmire considers a possible relation between the current crises and apocalyptic judgment. I was rather surprised that Schaeffer, who also wrote Death in the City, passed over this possibility. I do not mean to encourage date-setting. But isn’t it just possible that the end times predicted in Scripture and the catastrophes we are being warned of by the ecologically oriented may have something in common? One possible explanation for this oversight is that neither Schaeffer nor Santmire really comes to grips with the population problem; and it is the alarming acceleration in population growth that threatens the solutions proposed for most of the other problems.

In summary, I recommend This Little Planet for anyone who wants a reasonable presentation of the scope of the ecological problems. It has a calmer approach than The Doomsday Book and also provides a moral and ethical perspective that goes beyond social and political action. For a brief presentation of a biblically Christian analysis, with some practical advice for Christian action, I recommend Pollution and the Death of Man. (With it comes the bonus of reprints of two secular, humanistic papers that have had profound influence on the ecologically oriented intellectuals of our day.) And I recommend Brother Earth as a more detailed and equally stimulating view of the historical and theological perspectives.

Feeding Fires

The Gospels Without Myth, by Louis Evely (Doubleday, 1971, 167 pp., $4.95), and The Myth of Christian Beginnings, by Robert L. Wilken (Doubleday, 1971, 218 pp., $5.95), are reviewed by Watson E. Mills, associate professor of philosophy and religion, Averett College, Danville, Virginia.

New vistas for the study of the New Testament were opened in 1941 with the presentation and circulation in mimeographed form of Rudolf Bultmann’s essay Neues Testament und Mythologie. He called for a radical reinterpretation of the Christ event in terms that would be acceptable to modern man—terms that would eliminate the mythological language but preserve the essential message of the New Testament. Since this famous essay first appeared, the doctor of Marburg has been a central and highly influential figure in New Testament studies. Two recent books are illustrative.

Louis Evely, the best selling Roman Catholic author of the sixties, sets forth a “new” approach to the Gospels that attempts to do the kind of thing Bultmann called for three decades ago. Evely sounds more than slightly Bultmannian when he asks, “Is it essential to the fact of the resurrection that Christ’s tomb be empty?” and when he labels the virgin birth a “maladroit fable.” Such statements will be fuel for fire for those who already have serious reservations about demythologizing. With justification, many ask if demythologizing isn’t really desupernaturalizing.

The chapter on “interpretation of miracles” is interesting. Here the author predictably suggests that miracles and visions should be understood as natural phenomena. But there are some fascinating tidbits scattered throughout the chapter. For example, Evely draws an unusual parallel between the stilling of the storm episode in the Synoptic Gospels and the plight of Jonah while on board the ship. Admittedly, this accounts at most for the literary form and is not determinative for interpretation.

Robert L. Wilken, the first Protestant to teach theology at a Catholic university, shows how each theological generation does in fact demythologize the New Testament; however, in attempting to restore the biblical faith, theologians actually reinterpret that message to meet the needs of their day.

“Relevance” is now a common battle cry. Some totally resist innovation in any form, while others seek change simply for the sake of change. The disturbing result is that the institutional church often finds itself defending what nobody is against and criticizing what nobody advocates!

Newly Published

Infallible? An Inquiry, by Hans Kung (Doubleday, 1971, 262 pp., $5.95). One of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians contends that under no circumstances is the pope infallible. Unlike the Protestant Reformers (and traditional Catholic belief), he contends that Scripture is not infallible either, but he does believe it to be “the standard by which all … proclamation and theology are constantly to be measured” (see editorial, page 27).

Process Philosophy and Christian Thought, edited by Delwin Brown, Ralph E. James, and Gene Reeves (Bobbs-Merrill, 1971, 495 pp., paperback, $6.95). Twenty-five selections from nineteen thinkers, mostly approving the views associated with Whitehead and Hartshorne. Valuable for those wishing a first-hand introduction to this “new” approach to theology.

Why Not Creation?, edited by Walter E. Lammerts (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971, 388 pp., $7.50). Two dozen technical articles from the 1964–68 issues of the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, by Richard N. Longenecker (Allenson, 1970, 178 pp., paperback, $5.45). A professor at Trinity offers a high-level scholarly presentation, making full use of relevant Qumran and Nag Hammadi materials in offering his views on a much debated subject.

The Letters of John, by Dale Moody (Word, 1970, 136 pp., $3.95). An extremely helpful commentary for anyone planning to preach, teach, or seriously discuss these epistles.

Responsible Freedom: Guidelines for Christian Action, by L. Harold DeWolf (Harper & Row, 1971, 366 pp., $10). After surveying ethical systems past and present, the dean of Wesley Seminary offers some general principles and, thankfully, some guidelines to their application in such areas as family, environment, business, government, and international relations. Very readable and worthwhile.

The Constructive Revolutionary: John Calvin and His Socio-Economic Impact, by W. Fred Graham (John Knox, 1971, 251 pp., $7.95). An important study of the great Reformer’s social ethics, in theory and practice. Insists that Calvin’s impact on society was not simply indirect and that his strictly theological thought is not his only major contribution.

New Dimensions in Teaching Children, by Robert G. Fulbright (Broadman, 1971, 144 pp., $4.95). Sunday-school teachers of elementary-school-age children will find this book of great practical value.

Reconciliation Through Christ (Judson, 1971, 479 pp., $5) and Sent Into the World (Augsburg, 1971, 165 pp.). Representatives of most of the world’s Baptist and Lutheran denominations convened in July, 1970, in Japan and France, respectively. These books summarize what happened.

Love Song, by Sherwood Eliot Wirt (Harper & Row, 1971, $4.95). The editor of Decision magazine offers a new translation of Augustine’s Confessions. All who have not read the older translation or have found it difficult should try this one. And those who know the Confessions well will appreciate the freshness of Wirt’s effort.

Family Relationships and the Church, edited by Oscar E. Feucht (Concordia, 1971, 239 pp., $6.50). A thorough survey. The first half deals with both Old and New Testament positions and then gives a short history of the family up to the present. The last half concentrates on the changing family patterns in North America. Each chapter concludes with a summary. The viewpoint is Lutheran.

The Thought of Rudolf Bultmann, by Andre Malet (Doubleday, 1971, 440 pp., $8.95). Translated from the French edition of 1962. Heartily endorsed by Bultmann himself as a systematic exposition of his thought.

Some of the above books will later be reviewed at greater length.

JESUS AND JUICY FRUIT

One of these recent columns caused a South Carolina reader to question whether I could “imagine the sinless Saviour with a cigarette hanging between His lips, or drinking a can of beer.”

Waving the poker-game imagery, it’s a fair question. So I decided to see if I could imagine such a thing.

I began by imagining Jesus at the wedding in Cana lifting a glass of the wine he has just produced from water. At that moment I froze the mental tableau, transported Jesus to a sixteenth-century German wedding party, drained the cup of wine, replaced it with beer, and started the action again. It worked fine.

Freezing the action again, I transported Jesus to a twentieth-century dining table complete with ashtrays and tried to put a cigarette in his hand. It kept falling out so I gave the effort up as a bad job.

I decided to try to see if I could get Jesus’ reaction to a morally neutral but obnoxious practice—gum chewing. I pictured him working over a particularly intricate piece of carpentry work. He reached into his tunic, withdrew a shiny stick of Juicy Fruit, and carefully unwrapped it, replacing the paper in his tunic to avoid littering the byways of Palestine. As he popped the sugared nonsense into his mouth, the whole picture shattered and disappeared.

I wondered if the uniqueness of Christ was largely responsible for my results and decided to try Socrates to find out.

There was no point in trying beer drinking. There was enough alcohol flowing at the symposium to bomb a small city.

So I tried cigarettes. Socrates picked up the pack. He banged it confidently against the side of his hand. Nothing happened. He shook it and peered inside to verify the presence of a cigarette. He again banged the package on his hand, and a badly mauled cigarette fell to the Athenian dust.

At this point I decided he was stalling, so I stopped the action and put a pipe in his hand. It worked! That is, the image worked. Actually Socrates was new at it so he had a little trouble stoking the thing up and getting a good ash started.

I then tried my chewing-gum test. Socrates eyed the confection suspiciously, dipped one end of it into his wine, bit off a small piece, and began to chew it tentatively. He quickly passed it to Agathon with the observation, “Here, you need some excuse to keep your mouth moving. Your words don’t provide much justification.” The scene dissolved to the accompaniment of Aristophanes’ laughter.

It occurred to me that the results I achieved might be accounted for by the fact that I don’t condemn beer drinking, think cigarette smoking is dumb, and detest gum chewing.

But then I realized that there is no real reason why men of discriminating judgment should differ about these things.

NEWS OF DEGREE

We were delighted to read David Kucharsky’s news item, “A Life for Laos” (Feb. 26). Missionary G. Edward Roffe will receive an honorary doctor of laws degree on May 16, 1971, from Eastern Baptist College. Due to Mr. Roffe’s involvement in Laos, the degree citation and diploma will be received by his brother, Paul Roffe.

Eastern Baptist College President

St. David’s, Pa.

WHEELED MOCKERY

In this thoroughly secular age when men almost automatically belittle and mock things sacred, we who bear the Name of Christ do well not to give them additional cause for ridicule. I refer to the wheeled Agnus Dei on the March 12 cover, which strikes me as laughable at best and sacrilegious at worst. Surely there are other ways a [religious] publication can choose to depict contemporaneity and openness to changing times than to caricature symbols and sacred emblems long cherished by many faithful Christians.

St. Peter’s Lutheran Church

Hay Springs, Nebr.

WHICH COURSE?

While I agree with much of what Eugene Merrill says (“Who Are Today’s True Prophets?,” March 12), I find his “safe course” stifling and representative of (and the reason for?) today’s languishing, doctrine-oriented church. Further, I believe that to regard the Bible as “that which is perfect” (1 Cor. 13:10), when the canon was complete, is to become bibliolatrous.

On the other hand, Lawrence Crabb (“New Scientific Thought: Data and Dogma as Compatible”) offers a fresh approach which is more intellectually honest while it “runs the risk of being wrong.” I find his “risky course” as representative of today’s Jesus people, who are not merely “ecstatic, dervish-type automatons,” but rather today’s joyful Jesus-oriented church. It is no paradox that the latter, in their inductive-study approach to Scripture, read the Bible more with greater insight and understanding than those who must resort to text-proof deduction to justify their preconceived doctrines.

St. Cloud. Minn.

Apparently Dr. Merrill is not clear about the nature of New Testament prophecy. He quite conveniently ignores Paul’s own explanation in favor of a proof text which fits nicely into his own mold. New Testament prophecy is primarily a message of “edification, exhortation, or comfort” intended for the believer. Only secondarily is its purpose to convict the unbeliever.… Dr. Merrill has made a valiant attempt to preserve a position that is fast losing ground. Thank God for and give us more Spirit-anointed proclamation of the Gospel. But if the whole Body were an evangelist, where would be the prophet?

Calvary Assembly of God

Delaware, Ohio

GOD’S SPIRIT AT HARVARD

Thank you very much for your recent article on the need for revival within Christian communities (“Repentance as a Church Priority,” by Vance Havner, March 12). Only within the last month has God’s Spirit taken charge of our lives in a forceful new way here at Harvard. Several of us freshmen have stopped trying to “generate evangelism,” deciding that the Holy Spirit is better qualified to do that sort of thing. We have taken to our knees nightly in worship-prayer meetings and are asking to be used of God as he sees fit. The personal fruits are already visible.… All things are seen in a new perspective.

Cambridge, Mass.

Thank you for the excellent article. [Repentance] is our primary need and certainly ought to be our first priority.

You stated that Mr. Havner was ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention. Actually, no one has ever been ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention. A Southern Baptist minister is ordained by a local church, which affiliates with the other churches in the convention. We have no higher authority than that of the New Testament Church under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Highland Crest Baptist Church

Green Bay, Wis.

• Right! Sorry for the error.—ED.

BAD VIBES WITH THE ‘STATUS QUO’

Evidently the author of “Time to Get Radical” (Current Religious Thought, March 12) has little understanding of the Now generation’s needs, values, or problems, nor does he realize the sociological necessity of a college education today for the young adult. He accosts the student militants before considering and experiencing their view.

The first myth he propagates is that higher education is an opportunity and I not a requirement. A college degree has become the passport into any professional field. Without that piece of paper, one is very limited in what he can accomplish in our society. I am in school only because I need that B.A. to teach.

And it is definitely the older generation’s view: “If you don’t like it, leave.” No, baby, that’s not the way it is anymore, for change is invading the land. We want a society that is meaningful and relevant for all people, even if that means bucking the system that preserves superficial values. We want all men to experience freedom to be themselves anywhere, anyhow. We don’t need isolated communities where I all people dress, think, and behave alike. But what we do need is to learn the appreciation of differences.…

Before continuing in the tirade I against the student radical’s uncooperative spirit in considering established essence’s panaceas, I would advise the author and people of his disposition to read The Student as Nigger by Jerry Farber and It’s Happening by Simmons and Winograd. We are willing to hear 5 your side, “status quo,” but have you really listened to us? Or have you “picked up our vibes” and are too afraid to change?

La Mirada, Calif.

KEEPING UP WITH LEWIS

Thank you so much for the recent articles by C. S. Lewis (“On Moving With the Times,” March 12 and 26). His writings have meant so much to me throughout the years. Keep up the good work!

Piedmont Presbyterian Church

Burlington, N.C.

JOURNEY OF BLACK AWARENESS

Another radical is abornin’. Thank you, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, for sharing the good news. Virginia Mollenkott (“Up From Ignorance: Awareness—Training and Racism,” March 26) may not realize it, but she’s in the midst of a revolution, one that spells liberation for her.

We welcome her to the fellowship of those who are trying to “get themselves together.” We know where she’s coming from, and encourage her to continue her pilgrimage of black awareness. (In fact, we advocate such for others, too. We are grateful to our brothers like Joseph Daniels who help us by revealing their hearts.) It is an agonizing and costly journey, but leads to freedom from the racism that holds all men, oppressor as well as oppressed, in bondage. Right on!

Wheaton, Ill.

The particular point of the article with which I take issue is the discussion on the Wordless Book. Personally, I can readily see the racial implications involved in the use of the Wordless Book. I have in fact cautioned about its use. However, my concern is this: Virginia Mollenkott, in exposing the racial implications of the Wordless Book, misrepresented the typical teaching of the Wordless Book. She says, “We simply haven’t imagined how it would feel to be dark-skinned children listening to the white-skinned lady talking about how if only we will open our hearts to Jesus, we can be delivered from what we are and become the way she already is by birth.”

Such a statement is either an unintentional misrepresentation of what is in fact taught, or it is a conscious effort to further load the Wordless Book with racial overtones. The Wordless Book is used to teach that all people alike are in need of spiritual rebirth.… I deplore racism! Unfortunately our society abounds in it. For that reason I have written, hoping this statement can be retracted or corrected. The Wordless Book was never intended to be racist! But such misrepresentations lead to no other conclusion than that the Wordless Book is designedly racist in intent and purpose.

Area Director

Lakeland Child Evangelism Fellowship

Winona Lake, Ind.

Certainly Dr. Mollenkott’s [article] embarrassed blacks as well as whites. I commend her insight and sensitivity, but I doubt that her purpose will be served by the mawkish, patronizing tone of her comments. Only the insecure, pseudo-intellectual black will applaud this approach. The thinking black, Christian or non-Christian, knows the truth: skin color doesn’t matter. To argue or agonize over the point only tarnishes the truth.

Baltimore, Md.

EYE-OPENING SECULARIZATION

Belden Menkus (“Evangelical Responsibility in Public Education,” Feb. 12) is right that “these decisions did not remove God from the classroom.” He had been removed long beforehand. This was only the logical and inevitable outcome of the long process of secularization.… It may have served to open the eyes of some evangelicals to the real nature of the public school.… I was very disappointed that Mr. Menkus did not call for the establishment of Christian public schools—the only real solution to the educational dilemma that faces evangelicals today.

Smithers Christian Reformed Church

Smithers, B.C.

Artists and raconteurs have long realized that certain extrinsic patterns enhance a story, giving one more turn of the screw to the tale of horror or one or more wave of delight to the joke. Among these patterns are socially or psychologically or theologically forbidden ideas. Thus, a joke seems funnier if it in includes an ethnic reference or imitation—a pattern of commentary that is socially unacceptable in an “enlightened” age. A liberal may prove his liberalism by his willingness to tell ethnic jokes, using his own ethnic group or another for the butt of the laughter, and ending with the protest that “some of my best friends are …” Probably older than the ethnic joke—certainly as old as recorded tales told by man—is the dirty joke. The story here is enhanced by the addition of a sexual element that would not ordinarily enter into polite conversation. The combination of surprise and embarrassment and delight in the forbidden erupts in a richer laugh than the usual clean story provokes. Obviously the pleasure people take in discussing human sexuality has kept books on best-seller lists that would far sooner have fallen into disrepute if judged by literary standards of style, plot construction, or credibility.

Pure pornography (which is catalogued at our local book store by the form of the perversion explored rather than by author or title) is a different consideration. Some talented authors make use of pornography for aesthetic purposes. Portnoy’s Complaint, for example, is a witty, intellectually exciting attack on Freudian analysis and Jewish mothers as well as a thoroughly dirty book. Another Country is a remarkable study of the black man’s paranoia, his aspirations, and his tragedies as well as a thoroughly dirty book. These authors have a great deal to say and find that their audience enlarges with their sex scenes. So these are dragged in again and again in blatant currying of popular favor. Ironically, there is a diminishing return on this: in time the reader skips quickly through the description of intercourse the way he skips the description of scenery in another book. So the author fights to hold the reader’s attention by varying the language, the partners, the positions, or the perversions.

All of this is part of the age-old struggle for popularity, the constant love-hate relationship between the author and his audience. Novels must compete with TV and football for attention. And the novelist must compete successfully or perish—that is, go back to teaching English. Sometimes a first-rate author like Baldwin or Roth tosses off a pot-boiler to allow him to continue his serious writing. Sometimes he allows Hollywood to warp a beloved early novel so that he can finance another creation. It is all a part of survival or of success—the American dream.

One kind of twist added to literature almost as frequently as sex is religion. There is a kind of thrill in hearing Patton say he reads his Bible “every g—d—day.” Sinclair Lewis found a delighted audience for his attack on tent-evangelists. Chaucer drew a chuckle when he showed the corruption of some clergy and used them as the butt of his practical jokes. The admixture of religion has enriched horror stories, given depth to war narratives, added significance to proletarian novels of labor battles. In our day the catalogue of heroes with J. C. initials is ridiculously long. Whether he be Faulkner’s Joe Christmas or Steinbeck’s Jim Casy, he is relying on his meaning in the novel.

This again seems a legitimate enough undertaking in its context. We may quarrel with the identification and deny that every lynch victim is parallel to the crucified Christ, but we must recognize the naturalness of this trend. The novelist must make use of the life and ideas around him. No story has more thoroughly ingrained itself in the hearts of Western men than the narrative of the Crucifixion. Archetypal critics insist it echoes the scapegoat image, a portion of the collective unconscious. Social critics assert that it is the legacy of the Christian Church. But both admit that it is one of the most moving and richly provocative actions of all time. Thus the artist, who is always in touch with the theology of his world, would naturally draw on its central theological symbols.

Lately there has been an increase in a slightly different pattern that I identify as “pious pornography.” That is, authors have continued to use their central religious figure—be he saint, prophet, or Christ—but have added to this the titillation of exaggerated sexuality. We might observe this in such older novels as Lewis’s Elmer Gantry, in which the pseudo-saint of the sawdust trail is a secret sex goddess and the preacher brings women to Christ through his sex appeal, seduction following hard upon baptism. Maugham’s celebrated “Rain” follows a parallel pattern. Another earlier novelist who made use of this religion-sexuality theme was D. H. Lawrence. But for Lawrence, sex was close to religion, both a part of the dark unknown of the universe.

Several modern authors have taken a somewhat more subtle approach. Updike, after a number of books showing a strong tendency toward Calvinism and toward healthy sexuality, produced an overwrought, pornographic monster in Couples. He makes his hero a church-going, loving, virile saint (Peter) who sleeps with every woman he meets. If Updike is endeavoring to say (a la Tea and Sympathy) that sex can be a blessing bestowed upon those whom we pity, love, admire, or whatever, he fails miserably. The sexual activity is always violently lusty, full of appetite, signifying nothing. His point seems instead to be that the decent churchgoers who are married to non-churchgoers (who are also not very good in bed) are justified in copulating freely and frequently with all friends and acquaintances. They do have to pay for breaking the social/moral law, but this is largely because they take their lust more seriously than other people. Thus they abort their illicit progeny, break up their marriages, lose their homes and their friends, but do return to one another. Updike is a talented and brilliant writer; he should be embarrassed by this book.

Other writers are less disturbing because less capable or less religious. William Styron, though, is equally disturbing to the Christian reader. His latest hero, Nat Turner, is a saint-prophet-Christ in a far more exaggerated way than Updike’s Piet. Nat sees visions, dreams dreams, and turns ploughshares into swords. The biblical allusions abound, usually carefully interwoven with meditations on rape. The climactic scene, when Nat is transformed from an Old Testament prophet to a saviour full of love for his fellow man, is mingled with an act of masturbation. When he cries “I come,” the reader does not know whether to drift into an uplifting memory of the final words of Revelation or to snort at the innuendo. In this deliberate double entendre, Styron defeats his own purposes. What could have been a fine dramatic conclusion becomes a confused dirty joke. The flaw carries all through the book—a novel that has the makings of one of the finest artistic creations of modern America. Instead of being thoroughly classical, it is frequently baroque and maudlin.

I can only lament, “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” Gimmicks like these will bring a richer chuckle, a more thrilling shudder, a deeper despair—and a fatter pocketbook. But the artist has only one chance to live on earth. His talent is a treasure to be shared. His ideas will find form once, and the reader will know his mind and his ideas from that single form. There is a finality to the printed word that makes it differ from the spoken one and carry a greater responsibility. To some few writers in every age, much is given. Of them and their talents much is required—by man and by God. To use the cheap tricks to turn a fast buck, in Houlden Caulfield’s words “to prostitute your art,” is a great shame carrying with it a great punishment: that moment, that opportunity, that idea is less than it could have been and can never be recovered. The parading of pornography in saintly garb is even worse than blatant lust: it is more likely to confuse and convince the unwary. When we look carefully, we see that the halo is crooked and the wings do not elevate. And then we see that this earthbound creature has cleft feet and a lusty glint in his eye. No snake was ever more subtle than this creation of the modern artist.

Nancy M. Tischler is professor of English and humanities at the Pennsylvania State University Capitol Campus, Middletown. She received the Ph.D. from the University of Arkansas, and she is currently serving as president of the Conference on Christianity and Literature.

The most serious contemporary problem for a rational belief in God is also the oldest. The essence of positive evidence for the existence of God is the occurrence of many experiences that are not understandable unless God exists. Conversely, the essence of the negative evidence leading to the atheist’s conclusion is the occurrence of many experiences that are not understandable if God exists. The chief negative evidences have to do with the problem of evil.

The problem of evil is acute for those who hold to the traditional view that God is an all loving, all knowing, and all powerful being. A world in which there is evil seems to contradict the idea of a world created by the benevolent God.

J. L. Mackie, in “Evil and Omnipotence,” defines the problem in this way:

God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. There seems to be some contradiction between these three positions, so that if any two of them were true the third would be false. But at the same time all three are essential parts of most theological positions: The theologian, it seems, at once must adhere and cannot adhere to all three! [Mind, Vol. 64 (1966), p. 200].

According to Mackie, the problem becomes more evident if we employ some quasi-logical rules connecting the terms good, evil, and omnipotent. These rules are that good is opposed to evil in such a way that a good thing eliminates evil as far as it can, and that there are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do. From these it follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions (1) that a good omnipotent thing exists and (2) that evil exists are incompatible.

In the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume presented Philo’s challenge as follows:

1. The world contains instances of suffering.

2. God exists—and is omnipresent and omniscient.

3. God exists—and is perfectly good.

Nelson Pike, discussing “Hume on Evil,” reports Philo’s view as follows:

These three statements constitute an “inconsistent triad”.… Any two of them might be held together. But if any two of them are endorsed, the third must be denied. Philo argues that to say of God that he is omnipotent and omniscient is to say that he could prevent suffering if he wanted to. Unless God could prevent suffering, he would not qualify as both omnipotent and omniscient. But, Philo continues, to say of God that he is perfectly good is to say that God would prevent suffering if he could. A being who would not prevent suffering when it was within his power to do so would not qualify as perfectly good. Thus, to affirm propositions (2) and (3) is to affirm the existence of a being who both could prevent suffering if he wanted to and who would prevent suffering if he could. This, of course, is to deny the truth of (1). By similar reasoning, Philo would insist to affirm (1) and (2) is to deny the truth of (3). And to affirm (1) and (3) is to deny the truth of (2). But, as conceived by Cleanthes, God is both omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. Thus as understood by Cleanthes, “God exists” and “There occur instances of suffering” are logically incompatible statements.

Since the latter of these statements is obviously true, the former must be false. Philo reflects: “Nothing can shake the solidarity of this reasoning, so short, so clear [and] so decisive” [The Philosophical Review, Vol. 72 (1963), pp. 181, 182].

This argument against the existence of God has enjoyed considerable popularity ever since Hume wrote the Dialogues.

The amount of sheer physical suffering in the human family at any one moment is staggering to contemplate. Thousands are dying daily of cancer. Thousands are so crippled that they must be carried wherever they go. Parents look with sorrow on afflicted children who will never run and play again. The loss of lives in war is terrible to contemplate, as is the maiming of the bodies and the shattering of the minds of those who survive the conflict. Millions of people suffer from malnutrition. Even the non-philosopher recognizes a dilemma: Either God wills to remove the suffering but is not able to, or God does not will to remove it.

One possible solution to this serious problem is to give up at least one of the propositions that constitute it. If one is prepared to say that God is not wholly good, or not quite omnipotent, or that evil does not exist, or that good is not opposed to the kind of evil that exists, or that there are limits to what even an omnipotent being can do, then the problem of evil is solved.

Other possible solutions suggested by various writers include: (1) suffering is a direct result of sin, (2) evil is illusory, (3) evil is a necessary defect in a good plan, and, (4) God’s power is limited. Let us take a closer look at these.

Suffering is a direct result of sin and a just recompense for it. This is the theory presented by Job’s friends. Either suffering is visited directly on the sinner or it is visited on others, especially his descendants. Christ rejected both forms of this theory (Luke 13:1–5; John 9:1–3).

All evil is really illusory. This theory, represented by certain versions of absolute idealism, is described by J. L. Mackie in this way:

Some have said that evil is an illusion, perhaps because they held that the world of temporal, changing things is an illusion, and that what we call evil belongs only to this world, or perhaps because they held that although temporal things are much as we see them, those that we call evil are not really evil [quoted by D. E. Trueblood in Philosophy of Religion, p. 236].

The most serious practical flaw of this theory is that it would cut the nerve of moral effort. If evil is illusory, why fight it? It is difficult to think of God in moral terms if there is no evil to oppose.

Evil is a necessary defect in a good plan. This theory held that some forms of evil enter into the formation of a larger good or good process. Evil seems to be necessary in high moral endeavor, since a world without evil would not present man the opportunity to make the moral decisions necessary for developing moral strength. Many of the goods we value most highly are those a part of whose excellence we owe to the difficulty of attaining them. These goods could not be costly and dangerous apart from the opposing presence of evil in the world.

God’s power is limited. Those who hold to this proposition admit that the dilemma that the original problem involved is inescapable. If we must choose between God’s being wholly good and his being wholly powerful, the sensitive mind will probably choose the former. Admittedly, God seems likely to act only in accordance with logical consistency, and in this sense to be “limited.” He cannot lie, for instance. Neither can he create a stone too large for him to lift. The notion that God is limited and in some sense finite has received much support.

There is another explanation of evil in the world, one that is compatible with the traditional theistic view. Those who hold the traditional theistic view accept the propositions that (1) God exists, (2) God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, (3) evil exists, and (4) there are morally sufficient reasons for the existence of evil.

The position defended here is that there is no contradiction involved in the propositions that God exists and evil exists. This is not to say that there are no other plausible explanations.

Evil is a broad term whose meaning encompasses the conditions of physical and mental suffering and also wickedness. God did not originate evil; this would be incompatible with his holiness. However, he did create a world containing the potentiality of evil.

First, what is the nature of evil? Augustine viewed it as the negation of good. Considered in this light, evil should be viewed as the real privation of good. In other words, it is more than mere absence or negation, as for example the absence of feathers on a cow or eyes in a rock. Absence in these instances is not privation because the cow was not intended to have feathers, nor the rock eyes. If a man has no eyes, however, there is a privative absence of something good that he is intended to possess.

Evil, then, is the privative absence of good. Evil cannot be identified aside from, or without comparison with, that of which it is an exclusion or negation. Physical illness is the privation of physical health; it cannot even be given the status of being without reference to the positive good of which the condition is a privation. Wickedness is the privation of righteousness and holiness and does not have being apart from its referent.

Evil then is a fact and not an illusion. It is a real rejection that corrupts a part of the world that is itself good. This evil is always bad and cannot be the cause of good, since it has no status of being in independence of the good. This avoids the naturalistic claim that the existence of evil contributes to moral progress. Evil is not necessary for the existence of good because God created all things and declared them good.

Evil is actually an inevitable consequence of contingent being. This applies to both natural and moral evil; however, moral evil results from an intelligent choice of defection.

Contingent or dependent being can be conceived as “not being.” In other words, we can think of nothing in this natural world whose non-being is an impossibility. If it cannot be thought of as not being, then it is necessary and not contingent. It is better “to be” than “not to be,” and therefore any defection from being is a privative absence of good, i.e., evil. Evil then is an inevitable consequence of a world that can certainly be thought of as not being or as ceasing to be. For God to have created a world without the possibility of evil (i.e., the privative absence of good) would mean he had created a world containing only necessary being; but this is impossible, since God is the only absolutely necessary being.

There is no demonstration of limitation in God for creating contingent things that can defect from being. This potentiality for defection is the very nature of their contingency. God’s omnipotence is defined as the power to bring about everything possible, or everything not contrary to his own nature and the perfect balance of his attributes. It is not a limitation, then, that God could not create beings that were at the same time both contingent and necessary. It would actually be a limitation of God if he could not create beings that could defect from being.

God does not annul the past or deny freedom to the actualities or potentialities of contingent beings in a contingent world. Since actual occasions have freedom, some evil is inevitable. 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 powers.

God is not responsible for the evil that we as “parts of the whole” choose. God interacts with the world. He suffers as we suffer. We have a loving and suffering God, “the great companion … the fellow-sufferer who understands.” He receives into himself the sufferings as well as the joys of the world.

God’s omnipotence is seen as admirable, since it need not be equated with omni-causality. Moral persuasion replaces coercion as a manifestation of God’s power over us. There is no logical commitment to God’s being the active cause of all the moral evil present in the universe. In creating creatures that exemplify creativity themselves in their own small way, God permits moral evil (i.e. a defection from being), but he does not actively instigate it. He allows us to choose immorality, but he does not coerce us to do so

as an omni-causal agent would have to do. When moral evil is introduced into the world, it is through human and not through divine self-initiative. Thus we are responsible and blameable, and not God; and since God suffers as the world suffers, the pain we inflict upon our fellow creatures is ultimately inflicted upon God. Man’s inhumanity to man is ultimately man’s inhumanity to God, our fellow sufferer who understands. God suffers with us, not only in our sinfulness but also in our finitude and tragedy. Much of our frustration and lack of fulfillment can be laid to our finitude and imperfect knowledge, and not to premeditated evil toward our fellow man. However, God suffers with us in these lost opportunities and frustrations, just as he does in the consequences of our wickedness.

If the freedom of man is to be taken seriously, then when man sins he does so because he chooses to do so and is responsible and thus culpable; his sinning act is not predetermined. It is a sham battle if man is attributed freedom but only freedom that will be exercised according to predetermined choice.

Hubert P. Black is dean of education at Lee College in Cleveland, Tennessee. He received the Ed.D. from the University of Tennessee and is the author of two books.