As I sit in a German hotel room waiting to board a plane for Paris (there to attend a two-day conference on evangelism in Europe in the next decade), I am very much aware of the great difficulty the language barrier has produced for missionaries across the centuries. Now the Bible has been translated, in whole or in part, into more than 1,300 tongues and dialects. Most of the people in the world who can read have the Word of God available to them, and in this we can all rejoice.

I’ve been reading the galleys of a forthcoming book by Stephen Neill, who has been closely associated with the ecumenical movement and the World Council of Churches, and I want to share with readers this word from him: “Experience has shown that the order of priority must always be first conversion and then social change; if the inner transformation has been brought about, the problem of social change and uplift can be tackled with far greater prospects of success. The old principle of the gospel, ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you,’ has proved itself to be not a remote and distant ideal but the most practical of advice” (Call to Mission, to be published soon by Fortress Press).

Despite the pleasures of travel, the prospect of returning home is inviting. I’m reminded of a stanza from a poem by Henry Van Dyke I learned years ago:

So, it’s home again, and home

again, America for me!

My heart is turning home again,

and there I long to be

In the land of youth and freedom

beyond the ocean bars

Where the air is full of sunlight,

and the flag is full of stars.

Astronauts viewing the Earth from the moon’s surface gave man a vicarious look at himself and his crowded spaceship. This “giant step for mankind” has given new impetus to a critical look at our environment, a look that might well have been taken earlier, as for example when Rachel Carson published her Silent Spring in 1962. Today few are prepared to repeat the criticisms that then greeted Miss Carson’s work.

“Love for our spaceship Earth” is rapidly becoming a surrogate for the love of country. It is the young who have seen the problem most clearly, and who are today prodding our society to give its most earnest attention to environmental matters. With some of these youth, the societal prodding assumes bizarre forms; but in attempting to return at selected points to “nature” they somehow express the sense that man, in removing himself so far from nature, may find that very nature to be his judge and his destroyer.

The religious and theological bearings of the problem have come to the surface later than the purely ecological aspects. But the growing conflict of interest between the environmental issue and our present social and economic policies has involved man himself, a question of overpowering significance to the Christian cause. In our day of ecological backlash, the Evangel itself has been called into question.

I am indebted to one of my students, Dwight U. Nelson, for excellent bibliographical data on the specifically religious aspects of the question. While Christian thinkers have tended to ignore the problem as being irrelevant, secularists have brought the Christian movement to book for its alleged misuse of biblical insights into the question of man’s relation to his environment.

One is taken back, for example, by the charge leveled by Lynn White, Jr., in an article in Science (issue of March 10, 1962) that Christianity has played a negative role in the pattern of historical developments that have contributed to our current crisis. White’s thesis at this point is that in uprooting animism in the area within which it has played a controlling role, Christianity has destroyed man’s relationship to nature. As a result, the way has been left wide open for man to exploit and ultimately to destroy his environment.

Granted that this thesis is overly simplified (as anyone knows who has lived and worked in an area conditioned by animism), there is just enough of truth in it to make it painful. That is to say, Christians have tended to make much of the mandate “have dominion over” the earth “and subdue it,” and relatively little of the profound statement, “The earth is the Lord’s.”

We of the West have failed to take with proper seriousness the profound passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “but we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.” The tendency has been to take this as a challenge, not to a holding-in-trust of the earth, but to an unconditional subjugation of its resources. The Christian is under strong temptation to forget that man is, among other things, an element in the natural world, and that any attempt to exalt man’s welfare by the degradation of his environment must in the nature of the case be self-defeating.

The statement “God created the world and it was good” lends itself to distortion and misuse. As Richard L. Means points out in an article in the Christian Century (May 1, 1968), this Scripture “may easily be subverted into a doctrine that rationalizes exploitation of the world for immediate gain.”

It does not help us greatly to cite St. Francis of Assisi, Christianity’s shining exception to the misapplication of the doctrine of man’s role in earth-dominion. But we may learn from this medieval poet-preacher that man’s environment ought to be, not an “it” to be exploited, but rather a “thou” to which man must make vital adjustments.

It has become a commonplace to say that man’s relation to the soil has been profoundly and irreversibly altered by the coming of the machine age. The machine does tempt man to exploit nature, rather than to work with it. But it simply will not do to make the machine bear full responsibility for today’s ecological crisis. Rather, the use men make of their environment depends largely upon inner attitudes, and more especially, upon the attitude assumed toward human destiny and the ultimate destiny of man’s world.

Even thoughtful scientists are today demanding that the Church do more than merely acquiesce in a cultic faith in technology. Some are urging that Christians earn the right to criticize the scientific establishment. This must come, not by the route of some Luddite attack upon the external symbols of technology, but through the projection into society—and especially into the scientific community—of a wholly new appraisal of man’s environment—of a typically biblical view of ecology.

This position assumes, of course, that the Christian Scriptures do contain a set of valid insights into man’s environmental problem. It will build upon the rather evident fact that the potential of “pure” science for eschatological destruction has caught up with the scientific community. It will call into question the view that analytical modes are adequate guides for making decisions about the use of our earth.

The Christian should face with frank realism the fact that the biblical understanding of things must run counter to many prevailing modes of thinking. He must, for example, challenge the current stress upon purely quantitative evaluations of economic success, usually stated in terms of the annual increase in our Gross National Product. It is not only that infinite expansion is impossible within a finite order, but also that “man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

Obviously, there is no easy solution to the current problems of environmental dysfunction, rooted as they are in centuries of thought-patterns and decades of shortsighted policies. But there must be some category sufficiently inclusive to serve as a guideline for the Christian’s thought and influence. I submit that stewardship may qualify for such a controlling role.

Taken seriously, the concept of biblical stewardship will permeate human life with the conviction that man holds his environment in trust, under God. It will remind man that abuse of his trust will bring, not only a searing final judgment from the God under whom man lives, but strong intermediate judgments in the form of impoverished lives and hungry bodies. It is in these terms that our decision-makers need to be reminded of the consequences of an outraged environment.

HAROLD B. KUHN

“Bring us together” may have a hollow ring when used as a slogan for the Nixon Administration, but it was a vibrant theme at the twenty-eighth annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals, held April 7–9 in Kansas City. More than 1,000 delegates attended numerous sessions, large and small, to be challenged, inspired, and informed about the task of “Saving the Seventies.”

Ever since the Protestant Reformation, evangelicals have been divided organizationally, ethnically, theologically, and geographically. The NAE is attempting to bring together evangelicals across these divisions in matters where cooperation is possible, perhaps necessary.

The NAE is concerned about drawing many more black evangelicals into its fellowship. The National Negro Evangelical Association (see April 24 issue, page 37) is a member, a black pastor was the principal speaker one morning, and a black evangelist gave a hard-hitting challenge at one of the luncheons. A major challenge is to go beyond tokenism; how this will be done is yet unclear.

More promising was the attempt to bridge the generation gap. For the first time young evangelicals were recruited to attend the convention. Scores responded, and youth were in charge of an evening session. Already college students have been added to some of the commissions, and the central board will soon add student members. For most observers, participation by the young people, many of them refreshed by the nationwide Asbury revival (see March 13 issue, page 46), was a convention highlight.

The new NAE president, who will serve for a two-year term, is Hudson Taylor Armerding, 51, president of Wheaton (Illinois) College. Armerding, scion of a prominent Plymouth Brethren family, is a member of the independent College Church of Wheaton and has a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago.

He succeeds Arnold Olson, the executive head of the Evangelical Free Church. Armerding believes that the NAE has an excellent opportunity to widen its constituency both among evangelicals who have been reluctant to cooperate even in limited areas outside their own denominational traditions, and among evangelicals who are in denominations dominated by more liberal theological views. The new first vice-president is Myron F. Boyd, a Free Methodist bishop; the second vice-president is G. Aiken Taylor, editor of the (Southern) Presbyterian Journal.

Rather than demand an all-or-nothing commitment, the NAE seeks to serve evangelicals to the extent and in the areas they desire. Of the scores of evangelical denominations, only thirty-four, all predominantly white (with a total of about 27,000 congregations), are full members of the NAE. Another 3,000 congregations that are either independent or in non-NAE denominations have joined individually.¹The better-known National Council of Churches has thirty-two denominations with about 140,000 congregations. Of these, 51,000 are in its six black denominations, and more than 40,000 are in the United Methodist Church.

Many thousand more congregations are served through 180 local associations (liaison with them is maintained by five NAE regional offices) and fifteen commissions and affiliate bodies. All fifteen had program sessions interspersed through the Kansas City convention.

Many have executive staff and conventions of their own, such as the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, National Religious Broadcasters, and the National Sunday School Association. The NAE has an active World Relief Commission. Last year it distributed over $3 million worth of goods abroad. The NAE also maintains a Social Concern Commission to advise on domestic agencies and affairs, and an Office of Public Affairs to inform the government of NAE positions.

This year’s resolutions included support for “every legitimate effort to maintain balance in ecology”; for “the rights of all nations in the Middle East, both Israeli and Arab, to exist as sovereign nations”; and for strict enforcement of drug laws.

Indicative of the harmony pervading the meetings was the fact that only one resolution provoked much discussion. Whether to say “some” or “most” public schools are doing well in inculcating moral and spiritual values was resolved by affirming that “many” were. This is the kind of “bringing together” the NAE wants to do, but on more substantive matters.

DONALD TINDER

Houston’s Mayo ‘Clinic’: Complicated Chemistry

Members of the Mexican-American Youth Organization (MAYO) in Houston have promised to take to other Texas cities their fight to gain “community control” of little-used church buildings.

Several militant brown youths took over the former Christ Presbyterian (U.S.) Church in February, after the mostly white congregation moved out of a neighborhood becoming mainly Mexican-American. The Brazos Presbytery had promised the Christ Church building to its Juan Marcos Church, a Mexican-American group trying to find its own place in the brown community of Houston’s north side. Accusing all hands of failing to minister to the poor of the community, the MAYO youth forced their way into the temporarily vacant building and set up a free breakfast program and a tutoring service. It took a court injunction to make them allow Juan Marcos to enter its new property.

MAYO leaders appeared at a Texas Council of Churches meeting in Dallas after the Houston confrontation had made state headlines, to warn other churches they could expect similar treatment. In Houston, meanwhile, they continued to press their claims by picketing the prestigious First Presbyterian Church (second largest in the denomination) every Sunday morning. At first, they were not allowed inside. After finally being granted entry, thirty demonstrators marched around the sanctuary with raised fists and interrupted pastor John William Lancaster’s sermon with shouts. The church sought an injunction to keep the MAYOs out.

Behind what some see simply as a dispute between poor, brown “Chicanos” and affluent Anglos lie other complex problems. The incident has underlined a schism between tradition-oriented Mexican-Americans and the New Left among them. Juan Marcos pastor Ruben Armendariz, 62, admits: “They call me Tio Tomas [Spanish for ‘Uncle Tom’], and Malinche.” (Malinche was an Indian who supposedly married a Spaniard and helped Cortez conquer Mexico.)

The charge is made against brown Americans who refuse to champion the militant plea of groups like MAYO, La Causa (The Cause), and La Raza (The Race), many of which claim that all lands in the American Southwest should be returned to Mexican-Americans. While conceding that the militants are making some inroads against poverty, Armendariz objects to what he views as a racist thrust: “I’m against pitting our people against the Anglos.”

Also involved is a secularism as rampant in the brown community as it is among Anglos. For the MAYOs, it is not enough for the Church to meet the needs of the poor. Control of social programs must be handed over to “the people,” or the MAYOs themselves.

Some observers question the motives of MAYO community-service programs, believing this is merely a front to elicit support for MAYO racial causes. Only when they speak to church groups do they claim, “When we shout ‘Viva la Raza’ [Long Live the Race], we’re really praying.”

The matter is further complicated because Anglo denominational staff members are more socially minded than many minority-group churches within the same presbytery. While Juan Marcos plans some community-aid programs—now that it has moved into its new facilities—Armendariz stresses that social action is not the primary function of the Church. Meanwhile, MAYO says that Juan Marco’s community programs are “too spiritual” and that they should be dominated by people from the community, regardless of church affiliation.

The Reverend William J. Fogleman, executive presbyter, invited representatives at the Dallas ecumenical meeting to survey the whole picture in Houston, in light of the MAYO promise to carry the battle to other cities. “You might use it as a test-tube case,” he told them in a metaphor appropriate for an issue with complicated chemistry.

RONALD DURHAM

Religion In Transit

The committee working on plans to unite the United and Southern branches of the Presbyterian church wants six other denominations to enter the talks: Associate Reformed Presbyterian, Cumberland Presbyterian, Hungarian Reformed, Second Cumberland Presbyterian, Reformed Church in America, and United Church of Christ.

A graduate of San Francisco Seminary (United Presbyterian) left $10 million in her estate for a library on religious law at the University of California at Berkeley. It was the largest single donation to the school since its founding 102 years ago.

Wycliffe Bible Translators is closing a deal to buy seven acres in Santa Ana, California, for its general offices and southern California center.

Missionaries from widely scattered and isolated settlements in Canada held a conference in Yellowknife last month sponsored by the Evangelical Fellowship of the Northwest Territories.

Membership in the Presbyterian Church U.S. declined 4,256 last year, the first loss since its origin as a communion in 1861.

Contributions to the National Committee of Black Churchmen (for the Black Economic Development Conference) passed the $200,000 goal last month … In Philadelphia, a group of 100 Quakers turned over $3,000 in personal “reparations” to the local branch of the BEDC.

Under attack for alleged racism, the Mormon church held its 140th semiannual conference in Salt Lake City last month with a doubled security guard. Meanwhile, Boyd Packer, assistant to the Council of the Twelve, hinted a future change in God’s revelation concerning Negroes might lift the Mormon doctrine that bars blacks from the priesthood.

Twenty scholars and editors disclosed a plan in Durham, North Carolina, last month for a thirty-volume edition of the works of John Wesley. The project could take twenty years.

A state court declared Maryland’s 247-year-old blasphemy law to be unconstitutional last month. When the law was enacted, the penalty called for the offender to have a hole bored through his tongue.

Delegates at the first convention of the Black Christian Nationalist Movement voted to make the church a primary “revolutionary force for the liberation of black people.”

Deaths

PATRIARCH ALEXEI, 92, head of the Russian Orthodox Church since 1945, a bishop since 1913, and metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod during the church’s dark days after the Russian Revolution; in Moscow.

JAYMES P. MORGAN, JR., 37, assistant professor of systematic theology at Fuller Seminary; of cancer, in Pasadena, California.

TOM REES, 59, director of Hildenborough Hall conference grounds in Kent, England, evangelist and Bible teacher in Europe and the United States; in New York City.

J. W. STORER, 85, retired executive secretary of the Southern Baptist Foundation and a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention; in Nashville.

Personalia

United Press International senior editor Louis Cassels received Villanova University’s St. Augustine Award for “distinguished achievement in communications journalism.” Cassels’s Religion in America column appears in 500 newspapers throughout the nation.

Two more priests have thrown their hats in the political ring and are running for the Democratic nomination for Congress. Episcopalian Thomas B. Allen, active in civil-rights and antipoverty causes, will challenge the seat held by Representative Gilbert Gude in Montgomery County, Maryland, and militant Roman Catholic Louis R. Gigantafrom the inner city of New York will seek a seat from his state.

The United Church of Christ Board for World Ministries has named Dr. David M. Stowe, head of the National Council of Churches’ Division of Overseas Ministries, as chief executive of the UCC agency.

Metropolitan Opera star Jerome Hines is one of eight new directors elected to the board of the Laymen’s National Bible Committee.

The Reverend Ernst Lange, 42, has resigned as associate general secretary of the World Council of Churches and director of its Division of Ecumenical Action.

Missioner, lecturer, and scholar Arthur F. Glasser, former home director of the China Inland Mission Overseas Missionary Fellowship, has been named associate dean and professor of missions at the Fuller Seminary School of World Mission.

World Scene

The Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church is now officially recognized as an independent national church for America within the worldwide Orthodox Communion by the Patriarch of Moscow. The move so far has not been recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul (see February 27 issue, page 37).

A key recommendation by the Committee on Society, Development, and Peace (SODEPAX), meeting in Baden, Austria, was that churches set up an international, interconfessional information office to collect and evaluate reports of “political assassinations and torture” throughout the world.

Evangelist Luis Palau opened a Mexico City crusade backed by 200 evangelical churches last month with 12,000 persons attending. Of these, 989 made decisions for Christ.

In order to witness publicly to their faith in Christ four Argentine couples were married in a Buenos Aires park.

Reconstruction of the site of Dan began near the Golan Heights last month as archaeologists’ excavations revealed evidence of the biblical city’s ruins.

Two Protestant Polish churches, the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession and the Reformed Evangelical, have declared full pulpit and altar fellowship, a step started 400 years ago.

Billy Graham’s Euro 70 crusade was unprecedented. Preaching to overflow crowds of up to 20,000 in the German city of Dortmund’s Westfalenhalle, the evangelist was seen and heard simultaneously from Norway to Yugoslavia.

A nightly total audience of more than 100,000 people in thirty-five relay cities across eleven countries shared the crusade through the largest closed-circuit TV network ever attempted in Europe.

“Never before have we tried to reach so many people in so many countries at the same time by TV,” commented Graham. “This week I have preached to more people in person than any previous week of my life.”

German opposition to the crusade seemed to melt away. Even a demonstrator who crashed a meeting of clergy (see April 24 issue, page 34) to denounce Graham, later showed up at an evening meeting sitting quietly in the crowd. A bomb threat in the main auditorium proved false, and promised left-wing student demonstrations never materialized.

Bishop Hans Timme of the Protestant State Church of Westfalia made this assessment: “While many Lutheran clergy of Germany do not support Dr. Billy Graham … there has been a major breakthrough with many sympathizers coming to the side of the evangelist and recognizing that he is an instrument of God. The present hour for Germany is the hour of evangelization, and the churches of our country would do well to learn from Billy Graham’s methods, and especially the use of mass media in communicating the message of God. There is no doubt that thousands of German young people are reacting to him positively. This is a great joy to me.”

Pastor Paul Deitenbeck, who heads No Other Gospel, the controversial new confessional movement in the German state church, said: “Billy Graham’s Euro 70 is the greatest and most successful evangelistic effort that Germany has known in the twentieth century.”

Spiritual effectiveness was undoubtedly aided by technological efficiency. Three hundred technicians combined their efforts to transmit sound and vision over a 3,600-mile network. Some manned radio links on mountain tops in Norway. Others were alongside huge Eidophor projectors that put the picture on large screens, giving relay audiences a greater sense of communication than that experienced by some sitting in the back of the Westfalenhalle (to them the preacher was a pinpoint in the distance). One Eidophor operator left his projector during a meeting—just long enough to join those responding to the invitation to “commit your life to Christ.”

Such relays had been done before but only within a single country, Britain. Euro 70 was different because Graham had never visited most of the countries to which he preached. Precrusade observers wondered whether this would hinder local interest, but many centers reported overflow crowds.

Many European leaders agreed with Algemeen Dagblad, a Dutch national daily, which headlined one crusade story: “Billy Graham Dusts the Church in Europe.” Commented Graham: “Many people told me that for Europe today the Bible is not relevant and that people would not listen to a simple biblical message. But the great crowds throughout Europe night after night were saying, ‘The Bible is relevant. Young people will listen.’ ”

Dr. Wilhelm Gilbert, president of the German Evangelical Alliance, claimed the crusade touched Europe “on a scale we never dreamed possible even a few days ago. The effect of the preached Gospel is in all our churches, and true Christians found courage to proclaim this same Jesus.”

Another evaluation came from the Reverend Johannes Heider, pastor of the largest state church in Dortmund and chairman of the local crusade: “The simple proclamation of the Bible by Billy Graham has brought more results than we ever expected, and it has also brought many problems to German theologians. The hearts of Protestant pastors in Germany have been opened to the unchanged, authoritative Gospel message.”

Before Graham, tired (“I don’t have the energy and strength of ten years ago”) but obviously happy, left Dortmund, he said: “The crusade went far beyond all expectation in most of the cities of Western Europe.… It was a technological breakthrough.… We intend to use this method in other parts of the world. It is too early to evaluate, but I suspect that religious history will record that this crusade has been the greatest evangelistic breakthrough in Europe in this century.”

DAVE FOSTER

This Land Is ‘His Land’

Jewish leaders in Jerusalem praised a motion picture described as “a musical journey into the soul of a nation” made by Christians. General reactions were best summed up by Israeli actress Dahlia Lavi, who described it as “a most beautiful film … done with so much love you could feel it.”

The film, His Land, is the latest production of World Wide Pictures, the film division of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. It features Britain’s popular singing star Cliff Richard and was written and directed by James F. Collier.

At the first of two special showings in the Israeli capital last month, World Wide Pictures president Cliff Barrows, who is featured in the film, welcomed a select group headed by Prime Minister Golda Meir. He told her: “No film we have ever produced has given us greater satisfaction and fulfillment.”

Neither has a World Wide film ever evoked such an immediate response from Christians, for whom it was made, and from Jews, whose history it vividly depicts. According to executive producer Frank Jacobson, the company has never placed a larger print order, and it is still inadequate. Between ten and fifteen thousand people daily are seeing it in the United States. Recent premiere showings in London were packed, and bookings for the film are solid for months ahead. There are plans for it to be dubbed in French, German, Spanish, and Japanese.

“How about Arabic?” Mrs. Meir asked smiling, as she settled down to watch the film’s more than hour-long endorsement of fulfilled prophecy in the land she leads. As it finished, she was visibly moved and said quietly: “So many thanks for picturing our land as it is. I’ve never seen it so beautiful.”

Later the film came under the wider scrutiny of Israeli state officials, government ministers, civic dignitaries, and leaders of the film industry. Of particular interest to Jerusalem’s affable mayor, Teddy Kollek, were the sequences about the city with which his name is synonymous. He is generally recognized as one of the world’s best authorities on the Holy City. “I was deeply moved.… I haven’t seen a better film about Jerusalem—ever,” the mayor said.

One of the few non-Jewish viewers of the film was film actress Leslie Caron, presently co-starring with Richard Boone in a Western now being made in Jerusalem. “It’s dynamic and moving … and it made me want to read the Old Testament, if only to check on what the film was saying,” she said in an interview.

Before the showing, film director Jim Collier told a reporter: “If God would use any part of this picture as a gesture of love from a Christian to a Jew, it will be more than worthwhile.” The spontaneous and warm applause given by a Jewish audience left no doubt about that.

DAVE FOSTER

Abortion: ‘Holy Innocents’?

Roman Catholic opposition to liberalizing abortion laws has given state legislators pause, though it has failed to prevent liberal laws in Hawaii and New York (see April 24 issue, page 36). When the New York bill came before the State Assembly the second time last month, a Jewish legislator changed his negative vote—which reflected the opinion of his largely Roman Catholic constituency—to an affirmative, allowing the measure to pass. Now George M. Michaels’s county Democratic committee has refused to endorse the five-term assemblyman for re-election.

In another striking piece of resistance, Roman Catholics in England and Wales (where abortion was legalized two years ago) plan to observe December 28, the Feast of the Holy Innocents, as a day of prayer in sorrow for the “unborn victims of abortion.” The feast commemorates the young children slain by King Herod in his attempt to kill the baby Jesus.

Battle For Berkeley

Christians were in the thick of it when leftists plunged the Berkeley campus into violence described by Chancellor Roger Heyns as the worst in the history of the University of California.

On Sproul Steps at noon on the second day of April Moratorium activities, Chinese refugee Calvin Chao addressed nearly 1,000 persons on the evils of Mao and the virtues of Christ. The rally, legally scheduled, was sponsored by the Christian World Liberation Front (see December 5, 1969, issue, page 35), headed by former Penn State professor Jack Sparks. The CWLF, despite threats, refused to yield to anti-war spokesmen. Angered, the leftists—including scores of enraged Maoists—set-up an illicit amplifier next to Chao and harangued the crowd, then began throwing rocks at windows, and set afire the nearby ROTC building. Chao concluded just as police—and tear gas—arrived.

In San Francisco two days later, an anti-war parade that was expected to attract 20,000 drew only 700 hardcore militants. Early arrivals were met at the Golden Gate Park staging area by nearly 100 CWLF’ers, who handed out pamphlets and underground-style newspapers. Maoists upset the CWLF sound system, an act ignored by American Civil Liberties Union observers. Undaunted, the CWLF’ers joined the rear of the march, behind the New Left’s red banners of revolution and Viet Cong flags. They carried gospel placards and banners, leafleted spectators, and spiritedly proclaimed Christ as the only answer to hate and war.

Back on campus the following week, clusters of somewhat subdued activists were engaged in dialogue with CWLF’ers. On two successive nights hundreds of students and “street people” showed up at CWLF Bible-study sessions on campus. Significantly, it was exactly one year earlier that the first CWLF’ers had arrived in town; their mission: the New Left.

EDWARD E. PLOWMAN

Paisley’s Progress

Belfast bookies were offering odds of two to one on “The Big Fellow” who was canvassing last month for election to Ulster’s parliament. The constituency was a unionist stronghold; his chief opponent was backed by a party machine long entrenched but not underestimating the threat; his policy was to “root out that nest of traitors” in the Belfast legislature that was allegedly betraying its Protestant heritage; his campaign platform was “For God and Ulster.”

In that sign he (and the bookies) conquered. In a three-cornered fight, Ian Paisley secured 7,981 votes to the government candidate’s 6,778. With the Labour representative, a Roman Catholic, coming a poor third after the two Protestants, the inference has been drawn that some Catholics voted for Paisley—for reasons that would be devious anywhere but in Ireland.

Overshadowed by the Paisley contest had been the other casual election of the day in South Antrim, where a Free Presbyterian colleague of Paisley was a contender. In a much greater upset, the Reverend William Beattie confounded even the bookies by romping home against an official candidate himself regarded as a Protestant hard-liner.

Four days later, Paisley and the 27-year-old Beattie took their seats in Stormont as the first representatives of their Protestant Unionist party. Their election is a shattering setback to an administration which has for years become both accustomed to and complacent about the absence of any concerted opposition. The government has reason to be apprehensive, for this comes on top of a deep division within its own ranks, the very real threat of civil war, and the humiliating and increasingly resented presence of British troops as peacemakers.

Paisley’s double success may be seen also as an answer to Bernadette Devlin’s victory last year. It cannot be ruled out that Paisley’s purpose ultimately is to sit also in the London Parliament. Even the Big Fellow’s electioneering door to door in Bannside was a remarkable performance, combining tender pastoral concern with blunt warnings to all comers that any sellout to Rome will be resisted to the death.

Questioned about his nonstop activity, he says: “My fantastic energy is the gift of God.…” He has promised that far from being muzzled by his new status, he will be the most acute embarrassment the unionists have had in fifty years of unchallenged rule—a declaration that will provoke no argument even in Ireland. As a starter, he asked for the resignation of Prime Minister James Chichester-Clark. “I’ll make it so hot for the Prime Minister he will want to retire,” Paisley vowed.

J. D. DOUGLAS

Expo 70: Few Mindful Of ‘What Is Man?’

Japan’s Expo 70, says an official brochure, helps answer a question people often ask themselves: “What is Man?” If such a philosophical question is much on the minds of those attending the fair, though, they rarely show it.

Ten million had passed through the Osaka turnstiles by mid-April—waiting in line four hours outside major pavilions, dazzled by the 35,000 reflecting lamps of the Swiss exhibit, grumbling at high food prices, often carrying tags or flags to avoid getting lost from their groups. But what most were not doing, apparently, was pondering meanings. Instead, they were having fun.

Nor did the pattern seem to vary significantly at the joint Protestant-Roman Catholic Christian Pavilion, designed by its sponsors “to help fairgoers, in perhaps the most gala extravaganza ever, to reflect upon the state of contemporary man and upon his own life.”

Ten thousand people a day descend into a catacomb-like chamber filled with thought-provoking photographs, three Vatican tapestries, and two sculptures (one a likeness of Christ carrying a broken world on his shoulders). Then they return to a lighter room and hear recitals on the world’s largest bamboo organ.

Frequently the pavilion succeeds. A collegian pauses to read the single Japanese Bible on display. Someone asks one of the attractive mini-skirted guides the significance of an unexplained chalice and saucer in the upper room. A Tokyo Buddhist is moved by a word from the Lord’s Prayer in a brief noon service. Another visitor buys a New Testament at the small bookstand.

But by and large the mood differs little from that of other pavilions. Christian culture clearly overshadows Christian challenge. Direct presentation of the person of Christ, or explanation of his message, is missing. Noted one guide: “The most popular spot here is the washroom; it’s convenient.”

But overt evangelism isn’t totally absent in Expo-land. Nine Pocket Testament Leaguers pass out Japanese-language Scriptures daily. And the Mormon pavilion, staffed mainly by American students speaking a heavily accented Japanese, clearly tries to convert visitors.

JAMES HUFFMAN

A Rainbow For Religion?

The most dramatic moment of the three-day Religious Communication Congress came during a luncheon session when it was announced that the Senate had just rejected Supreme Court nominee G. Harrold Carswell. The news was greeted by applause, but a moment later everyone went back to his fruit cup. Much of the rest of the Chicago meeting was devoted to indicting traditionalism in religion in a way that has become ho-hum (see also editorial, page 25).

“There is no way to call off the unfolding drama,” said sociologist Jeffrey K. Hadden. “Holding onto traditional beliefs and practices involves a gradual but certain estrangement from the central and critical problems of our society and world.”

Hadden, a young professor now at Tulane, wrote The Gathering Storm in the Churches two years ago. In the book he documented the downhill trends of organized religion. In his speech at the congress he said things look even worse. But there might be a rainbow, Hadden said, if churches are willing to subsidize autonomous sociological studies. He is not sure how sociology might help religion, but he advocates dialogue because “too much is at stake not to try.”

Most of the speakers at the congress shared Hadden’s pessimistic view of the Church, though his was the most thorough presentation. Perhaps the most challenging word came from Paul Simon, lieutenant governor of Illinois (a liberal Democrat and Missouri Synod Lutheran), who said that people in the religious media may be taking on a more significant role if church attendance continues to decline.

The meeting was the first in North America to draw together on a continent-wide basis key professionals in religious communications. Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish groups were represented. The Associated Church Press, the Catholic Press Association, and the Religious Public Relations Council held concurrent annual meetings.

Participants were shown a preview of Acts, an eighty-five-minute color feature film commissioned by Lutheran Film Associates (remembered for Martin Luther, Question 7, and A Time for Burning.) The new film is a sometimes sordid account of a young father who is preoccupied with himself. The setting is the controversial Washington Square United Methodist Church in New York’s Greenwich Village. Although purporting to use the cinéma vérité idiom (without actors and without script), the film stereotypes older people and exploits their theological ignorance.

DAVID KUCHARSKY

A simulated walnut pulpit stood before black clergy leader James M. Lawson as he issued a forceful call to repentance. His audience in Kiel Auditorium, St. Louis, one day last month had been “symbolically” surrounded by hundreds of peaceful supporters. There was nothing artificial, however, about the $21,500,000 annual price tag attached to the repentance. It was by far the biggest financial demand ever made upon America’s second-largest Protestant denomination, the United Methodist Church.

Lawson read from a carefully prepared document: “Black Methodists for Church Renewal (BMCR) call upon the special session of the 1970 General Conference to repent publicly its traditional neglect of the black communities’ need for empowerment for social justice as well as economic development. Every delegate is urged to repudiate the overt but subtle racism of the church which has permitted this pattern of neglect.”

The Memphis pastor, currently president of the BMCR, urged “immediate reordering of priorities” to provide for an annual guarantee of $10 million to the twelve black Methodist colleges. He asked that 25 per cent of the money annually deposited in the denomination’s central treasury—a minimum of $5 million—be diverted to his organization to “undergird the concept of self-determination.” He said further that at least $5 million from the Methodists’ two-year-old “Fund for Reconciliation” should go to the BMCR “for economic development in poverty pockets of America.” Another $1 million was requested for a scholarship loan fund for minority-group high-schoolers. Also asked was a minimum quota of 30 per cent black representation of all general boards and agencies of the church, and the same percentage of black voting delegates to all annual, jurisdictional, and general conferences.

Lawson did not use the term reparations, but his group’s decision to put Methodists under a massive financial siege obviously had been influenced by the wide publicity given James Forman’s financial demands upon organized religion last year. More significant was the BMCR’s reinforcement of a trend begun many months before Forman gained prominence. That trend shifts the liberal churchmen’s major hope for social restructure from political to economic power.

Lawson himself was a model of decorum as he spoke to the 900 delegates (half clergy, half lay) at the Methodist General Conference. He was clad in a conventional gray suit with clergy collar. His explanatory remarks were clean and persuasive, though unpolished. He voiced no threats. The only stir among the “demonstrators” came in occasional cries of “Right On!”

The five-day conference began uneasily. Rumors were rife that confrontations were planned and violence might ensue. The rumors gained momentum with a pair of incidents on the weekend preceding the Monday, April 20, opening session. Two bishops were reported slightly hurt when they tried to break free of a group of protesters following a Saturday meeting. On Sunday morning, twenty-three white persons were arrested for disrupting services at a Methodist church in downtown St. Louis; one was charged with possession of marijuana.

That evening, a coalition of militant blacks and radical whites staged a marathon meeting at a local YMCA. Among the speakers were Senator George McGovern, Congressman James Brademas, and the Reverend Ralph Abernathy. Abernathy’s speech covered the whole range of current social issues. He accused President Nixon of making a deal with the South, and charged that the administration is perpetuating discrimination in its financial aid programs.

That the conference expected the worst was coincidentally reflected in a stage backdrop (designed by a suburban St. Louis housewife) that summarized First Corinthians 13 thus: “Love bears, believes, hopes, endures all things.” Hippies attending the conference had their own slogan, inscribed on small buttons: “Can These Bones Live?”

Increasing beliefs that dollar-power makes the big difference in today’s world did not gain recognition, however, in the bishops’ Episcopal address, a traditional state-of-the-church declaration delivered this year by J. Gordon Howard of Philadelphia. The address extended over a wide range of issues, but steered clear of any commitment on economic clout. Howard warned that “society never tolerates either chaos or tyranny indefinitely. If the record of history means anything, after a period of widespread self-indulgence and social turbulence there comes a time when the pendulum swings the other way. The danger is that the swing will be all the way toward a police state with dictatorial powers under hard leaders who exercise authority without mercy to restore some degree of order and law observance.”

Lawson, who was not a delegate and therefore spoke under a special privilege, took a different tack. At one point he characterized his recommendations on redeployment of denominational funds as “symbolic but corrective.” But in speaking for the demonstrators he also said that “we come in the spirit and in the hope that the United Methodist Church … will want to greet all of these persons, not simply as symbols, but as what Christ is already bringing to pass in our own nation and in our own times.”

The United Methodist Church, though currently experiencing declining income, is still the richest Protestant denomination in North America. Southern Baptists may be associated with more property, but Methodists with their connectional polity actually hold collective title to more. Latest figures show a total of more than 40,000 local Methodist congregations with an unencumbered real-estate worth of nearly $5 billion. The BMCR declaration pointed out that, in addition, the combined assets of just two of the denomination’s major general boards approaches $1 billion.

Lawson asked implicitly whether General Conference delegates were satisfied that all these assets were producing adequate spiritual return. His presentation was discreet, however, and his influence undoubtedly served to cool tension temporarily.

“Last night was Passover among our Jewish brothers,” he told the conference. “If you’ll recall, there was a first day of the week in the time of our Lord just before Passover, when he led a massive, we are told, march of people into Jerusalem in a great celebration of what he saw to be the role of the one who came in the name of the Lord.”

Lawson recalled Christ’s words that the stones would cry out if the disciples did not. “He says yet to us that if the church cannot respond, then God will have to have the boards of this floor, the bars of these tables, the girders of this building cry out as witnesses to the reality of what he is trying to do today.… No one needs to call today for a revolution, for if the God that we worship is the God of Jesus Christ, then the very history in which we live will pull down judgment upon the Jerusalems of our time.…”

What disappointed evangelical Methodists about Lawson’s commendably rational campaign was its failure to confront the humanistic assumptions that have bred hypocrisy and indifference. Good News, a rapidly growing group that seeks a renewal of scriptural Christianity within Methodism, issued a statement at the outset of the conference that cited lack of motivation in thousands of Methodist churches.

Grassroots sentiment lays much of the blame at the feet of Methodist publishers. Conference spokesman said that 171 petitions, the second-largest* number submitted for consideration by delegates, dealt with requests that the Division of Curriculum Resources of the Board of Education produce curriculum materials that are more evangelical in nature.

DAVID KUCHARSKY

Bishops’ Agenda: Human Problems

Grapes. Priests in politics. Power to the people. The National Council of Churches: asset or liability? Merger with the Episcopalians. Social action, or a spiritual ministry?

These were among opening-day topics that greeted the National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ semi-annual meeting in San Francisco’s $44-a-day Fairmount Hotel atop Nob Hill.

Apostolic Delegate Luigi Raimondi arrived from the Vatican with a strong word of caution: “There are human problems involving justice and the dignity of men, but, above all else, there are greater needs of a spiritual nature, which only the church by her divinely received mission is able and has the means to satisfy.”

However, the agenda reflected the trend of the age and dealt mostly with the human problems.

The 216 bishops extended firm support to their Ad Hoc Committee on the Farm Labor Dispute, involving Cesar Chavez and the California grape boycott. The committee, spearheaded by Bishop Joseph F. Donnelly of Hartford, Connecticut, and Bishop Hugh A. Donohoe of Fresno, California, got some growers and workers to the bargaining table, and three contracts signed, in March. The committee asked for—and got—authority to speak in the name of the NCCB in future deliberations, including “any necessary statement justifying economic and legal pressures in support of social justice.” The committee plans farm-labor organizing efforts in other states later.

The NCCB also approved a recommendation that bishops be instructed to discourage priests from running for public office. (Currently, a number of clerics have received dispensations to engage in such campaigns.)

The bishops accepted the ecumenism unit’s report. This spoke of moving into an “advanced stage” of merger talks with Episcopalians, for eucharistic doctrine was “no longer a major obstacle to reconciliation.” It flatly declares that “organic union” is an avowed goal of the talks. “Positive findings” of the consultation with Lutherans would soon be released, the report said.

As for National Council of Churches membership, a commission spokesman explained there are too many questions yet to be explored.

Some recommendations and implied accusations submitted by self-styled reform groups were rejected. The Society of Priests for a Free Ministry failed in its request for an office for “priests in transition.” The bishops sidestepped a request by the National Association of Laymen for more grassroots participation in NCCB agenda- and program-planning. Meanwhile, the NCCB is proceeding with plans for an advisory National Pastoral Council. But a national assembly of the American Catholic Church in Washington, D. C., this November—as demanded by the People’s Coalition—is definitely out.

The NCCB did look with approval on a recommendation by the Intra-Church Relations Committee that confrontation tactics be replaced by dialogue.

EDWARD E. PLOWMAN

Praying The Space Heroes Home

It was the splash heard round the world.

An anxious audience from Houston to Hanoi hovered near TV sets, watching America’s crippled Apollo 13 space ship come in on an explosion-ripped module—and a prayer.

In a sophisticated Age of Aquarius, a power failure and oxygen leak 200,000 miles in space brought a nation to its knees—first beseeching a merciful God to return the three American astronauts safely to earth, and then thanking him for the successful splashdown.

President Nixon proclaimed a national day of prayer and thanksgiving, and there were special services April 19 in churches and synagogues throughout the country. “The prayers of millions all over the world helped to bring them home safely,” the President said.

When he saw the parachutes unfurling over the Apollo 13 capsule in the South Pacific Ocean, Pope Paul rose from his chair before the television set in his Vatican City apartment and said a prayer of thanks. So did other world religious leaders, including Archbishop Iakovos, primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in North and South America.

Time magazine’s cover showed the astronauts praying on the deck of the recovery vessel. The ship’s chaplain offered a short prayer: “O Lord, we jointly welcome back to earth astronauts Lovell, Haise, and Swigert, who by your grace and the skill of men on earth have returned back safely. We offer humble thanksgiving for the safe recovery.…”

In Jerusalem, about 100 Jews gathered at the Wailing Wall for a special prayer service during the orbital ordeal. In Timber Cove, Texas, Marilyn Lovell and her two daughters attended Communion at a local Episcopal church, while in nearby La Porte a Methodist minister prayed for lunar-lander pilot Fred W. Haise, Jr., and his wife Mary, seven months pregnant with their fourth child. And in Denver, a Catholic priest said prayers in the home of Dr. and Mrs. John Swigert, parents of bachelor crewman John L. Swigert, Jr.

The trouble-prone flight welded a world together as few events in history have done. In the opinion of Billy Graham, never had so many people at one time prayed more for a single event. The evangelist said the flight “might be used to bring a spiritual renewal that the world so desperately needs …,” adding that he found himself “praying almost day and night” for the astronauts’ safe return.

At an Ontario, Canada, Leadership Prayer Breakfast, the main speaker, referring to the moon-mission plight, asked: “Why is it we wait until there is a catastrophe, until it is evident that human efforts are not able to cope with the situation, to turn to prayer?”

Meanwhile, Marietta, Ohio, Jaycees delivered a resolution to space officials in Washington, D. C., protesting attempts to ban prayers broadcast from outer space.

When it comes to bold social criticism alongside courageous evangelical evangelism, one must not overlook the “evangelical hippies.” They, more than any other phenomenon of our times, bear the clear marks of an underground movement. Questioning evangelical institutions as well as organized ecumenism, they set their sights on both the New Testament and the modern social crisis. If, on the one hand, they charge modern radicals and revolutionaries with a lack of valid solutions and point them to Jesus Christ, they also call the churches to uncompromising fulfillment of their responsibilities.

Looking much like other hippies, these evangelical troupers infiltrate the secular colonies and identify themselves with the people and their discontents. Impatient with acceptance of the social status quo by evangelicals, and especially the evangelical jet set, they want social re-examination and activism. Ashamed and outraged by the race prejudices of many of their elders, they eagerly engage in interracial evangelical witness. Without apology, hippie evangelicals not only point out the inadequacy of the secular solutions being bandied about but also point to Jesus Christ as the only adequate resolution of life’s problems. Trademark of the usual hippies is the V-for-victory sign; that of the evangelical band, one raised finger rather than two, to signify: “One way! One way!” At the Berkeley campus of the University of California, evangelical hippies made a significant impact on the radical youth movement; urging personal commitment to Christ as the only alternative to ultimate disillusionment, they succeeded in redirecting the revolutionary enthusiasm of not a few converts into recreative channels and toward durable Christian goals.

In Hollywood the hippies publish underground religious newspapers that are psychedelic in mood yet evangelistic in thrust; these tabloids depict not sexual license or drug trips as life’s supreme bliss but rather conversion to Christ. The courage these hippies have for the Gospel puts to shame the reticence and trivial preoccupations of many of their kooky evangelical contemporaries. They seem to sense more deeply than does the so-called evangelical establishment the awful chasm and clash between Christianity and contemporary values, and to feel more existentially the sting of the revolutionary protest against accepted patterns of social morality.

This first-century-like boldness for Christ lends enviable substance and vitality to the commitment and convictions of these young people. Impatient with the wary, even wavering application of many independent fundamental churches to racial and other proper social changes, they are no less indignant when evangelical clergy in ecumenically oriented churches exalt socio-political concerns above the Gospel. They have been known to contemplate attending one such church and, in the middle of the “sermon,” calling for “Gospel! Gospel!” while pointing to “One way!” Whatever may be said of such strategies, it is unlikely that an evangelical minister would summon the police to quell hundreds of young people calling for a preaching of the biblical “good news.”

The evangelical hippies gain from the Bible a certain historical perspective that offsets their lack of experience and that infuses them with a higher, more disciplined sense of personal morality than that which characterizes their secular counterparts. Nonetheless, their solutions can easily be simplistic and not deeply reasoned, and in this sense the hurried strategy of the evangelical hippies may be not unlike that of the radical secularists. Like the extreme groups, some of the evangelical hippies—often as a reflex of their discontents concerning Viet Nam—refuse to salute the flag. Without consigning all elders to intellectual moribundity, they nonetheless know themselves to be better informed than their parents in many things (and suspect that they are therefore wiser). Their sense of social concern can easily approach the borders of self-righteousness.

Never should their readiness to open the Bible be overlooked, however, especially when their secular fellows confess ignorance both of the real answers to the real questions and of where to find them. Obviously the phenomenon of social concern, among evangelical hippies at least, reflects far more than just a current flash of dress, hair style, and pop music.

The various “unofficial” Christian movements, as we have said, are unmistakably significant. No less significant is another trend, one that is explicitly concerned with the logicality of the Christian faith and champions return to the truth of revelation as the only cure for the irrationalism of our times.

Aggressive atheism in our universities and classroom indifference toward classic Christian theism are almost hallmarks of contemporary American education. Much of modern society, in fact, lolls in a peculiar kind of anti-intellectualism. The backwash of modern philosophy, modern theology, and modern scientism has left Western man in a muddy puddle of irrationality. To arrest this stagnation demands a convincing recovery of the significance of logos, of universal truth, of rational faith, concerns crucial to historic Christianity but obscured, unfortunately, by neo-Protestant religious trends.

The truth of revelation has inescapable ultimate consequences. That fact is miserably belied, however, by the vogue ideas that stuff the academic world today and bear not even a semblance of the convictions familiar to Moses or Paul, or Jesus.

Many young people, it should be said, express lively interest in a vital Christianity—not in the institutional church, to be sure, but in the person and claims of Jesus of Nazareth. The great masses of mankind as well, longing for a super-scientific world, grope for transcendent realities. Yet the academic hierarchy, in contrast to society as a whole, busies itself for the most part with the scientific quantification of modern life, and poses little challenge to the secularization of modern culture.

When inflation canceled the practicality of a great Christian university, a number of evangelical scholars on various campuses proposed as feasible and urgent the Institute for Advanced Christian Studies. Organized to develop an agenda for research, to subsidize scholars working on target-projects, and in time to establish a functional headquarters under proper administration, the institute envisions periodic conferences where scholars discuss in depth the relevance of Christian faith to the whole field of learning, and especially to new frontiers. Such an enterprise might very well inject into the American university world an exposition of the validity and relevance of the Christian world-life view.

CARL F. H. HENRY

There is only one way to a healthy Christian life. I am not talking about how we become Christians: that is through faith in Jesus Christ and in no other way. But it is a fact that the average Christian has little to distinguish him from the people about him. Although he is “saved,” there is little joy or peace in his heart, little power for living above the plane of ordinary human existence.

Like those in the Chinese proverb who are “rich men living like beggars,” the average Christian is living in spiritual poverty when he should be reveling in the fullness of God’s grace. With the revelation of God’s wisdom at hand, he nonetheless lives in the blindness and ignorance of sophisticated paganism.

This should not be so. By using the “means of grace” available to us we will find that a loving heavenly Father has made full and complete provision for our daily living and our relationship to him. He offers to give us the peace and joy reserved for the Christian alone, as well as compassion for and usefulness to those about us.

There is no substitute for a consistent daily devotional life. Without it days can prove chaotic and nights filled with restless foreboding.

What do I mean by daily devotions? A time when I surrender my mind, will, and body to the supernatural presence and teaching of God, my heavenly Father, Christ, my Saviour and Lord, and the Holy Spirit, my Comforter and Guide. It is a time when I can rest in God, wait on him, listen to him, and talk with him.

Many Christians think of prayer solely in terms of asking God for things, or for help in times of emergency. Actually prayer is a two-way communication of God with us and us with God. Our prayer should be, not an arrangement of stilted phrases, but natural conversation, as one would talk to any loved one. It should include worship, praise, petition, and thanksgiving. There is the statement of a problem, as when Hezekiah of old took the threatening letter of the Assyrians, “spread it before the Lord, … and prayed” (2 Kings 19:8–19). And there is the claiming of God’s promises with reference to any problems we may be having.

Our petitions include those personal matters that seem so large to us and yet are so simple for God. They include requests for others and their problems. And they include broader concerns about such matters as those who make and administer laws, the witness of the Gospel in every land, and the moral conditions through which Satan would make a hell on this earth.

What about the daily reading of the Bible? Like the charts of the pilot, the maps of the traveler, so is the Bible to the Christian. In this Spirit-given Book we learn of the nature of God, his perspective on time and eternity, and his will for us personally.

As combat pilots are briefed in the “ready room,” so Christians are briefed through their daily reading of the Bible. It is true that “all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

This briefing for immediate tasks and problems is the most important time of the Christian’s day. With it we are prepared for all contingencies; without it we walk as blind men, stumbling over we know not what.

Who of us does not need wisdom? The deepest wisdom of the ages is found through communion with the God of time and eternity. Who does not need guidance? We have God’s promises to guide us if we acknowledge him above all else. In the frustrations of life in our time, who does not need assurance? And in the Scriptures we find assurance that rises above any contingency.

What about the practical problems involved in daily devotions? The answers will vary with each person, but the general principles would seem to be the same:

1. Decide on a regular time and let nothing interfere with it. If you ever get “too busy” to spend this time in prayer and Bible study, then you are indeed too busy! To permit laziness, or trivialities, or the routine pressures of daily living to interfere is like performing plastic surgery on a harelip while the patient is dying of cancer. I find early in the morning the ideal time for devotions. Others may prefer late at night or some other time. Each person must decide on a time in the light of the circumstances of his own life.

2. Find a quiet place where you will not be interrupted, some part of the house not frequented by others during that particular time.

3. Get a good chair and use it. There is no reason to inflict punishment on the body and every reason to be comfortable.

4. Have good light, where you can see without straining your eyes.

5. Have at hand a notebook and pen or pencil. Spirit-directed thoughts and impressions, if written down, can be the basis for helpful conversations and teaching.

6. Get a fine-point red pencil and use it to underline passages of Scripture that speak to your heart as you read them. As time goes on, your Bible will itself become a commentary, and these underlined verses will catch your eye and refresh your memory.

7. With that red pencil use a six-inch plastic ruler. Why underline verses with quavering lines?

8. As you read the Bible, have an attitude of openness to the Lord. Ask him to speak to your heart. Present to him an obedient will. Ask him to open your mind so you can see and understand the wonderful teachings of the Holy Spirit. And as you read, be assured of God’s faithfulness, love, and power.

9. Get a good concordance. As you become familiar with more and more passages of which you may remember only a word or two, you can find them again by using a concordance. If you are studying by subjects or topics, get a Nave’s Topical Bible.

The daily devotional hour should begin with a confession of sins in which we hide nothing from the One who sees and knows all. With confession we know we have forgiveness, and with forgiveness there is healing and preparation for anything God may have in store for that day. When we have complied with those things God requires of every Christian, we find ourselves on “praying ground.”

The devotional time can become a joyous experience, for by it we are nourished in the things of the Spirit and prepared for the business of living. Although we may not know the future, when we know the God of the future and surrender our lives to him, we will find him sufficient for any and every thing, today and every day.

L. NELSON BELL

Putting It Over The Young

It’s frightening how three decades and the Waters of Lethe can produce a middle-aged view of youth as “lean hungry savage anti-everythings”—and that without qualification. Campus thuggery seems less appalling when I think of one religious denominational group whose annual conference opens with the singing of “And Are We Yet Alive?” Looking at their faces, and watching them sink thereafter in a morass of minutiae, one sees the relevance of the question.

Before anyone fells me with a point of order, I hasten to quote a sagacious comment for times like these. “Young people,” says the writer, “have exalted notions because they have not yet been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations. They would rather do noble deeds than useful ones. They overdo everything—they love too much, they hate too much, and the same with everything else.” That’s Aristotle and, with qualifications, may induce some to deplore the decline of classical studies in modern education.

What made me mention a subject manifestly too profound for me was a couple of press reports earlier this year on macabre happenings in Sweden. First, the state-supported Modern Museum got five hundred children to a lecture on America by a Black Panther leader. He told them to disbelieve everything said by the new U. S. Ambassador, because he was “a fascist Negro swine.” Such exploitation of William Pitt’s suggestion that “youth is the season of credulity” will do little for either Swedish-American or race relations.

Then another government setup, the Swedish Broadcasting Corporation, invited British children from the Anglo-American school to a concert of modern music. Instead, the kids were lined up, told they were to be a choir in a comic opera, and tricked into shouting slogans which included “Smith is a bad man” and “Smith is a murderer”—all this being recorded. It would be fascinating to learn how a country without overseas responsibilities would have handled the Rhodesian problem.

T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia) once used a memorable phrase about youth’s being “pitiably weak against age.” Last summer in the Swedish city of Uppsala, when an impressively strong police force was always on hand to protect an ecumenical occasion from the youthfully disturbing, some frustrated ones distributed a broadsheet with the pitiable challenge: “We urge all teen-agers to support a nationwide petition demanding the raising of the moral standards of adults.” Which might suggest that they know something we don’t want to know.

EUTYCHUS IV

Glorious Good

I praise God for the insight into the true nature of man in “Hope in the Midst of Horror” and “Dark Counsel at Easter” (Mar. 27). These two articles are the best I have read on Easter anywhere at any time.…

If my soul (me) never dies, I can get along very well without a resurrection; but if death is the antithesis of life, resurrection is the most glorious good news that man has ever heard!

MRS. H. M. SPILMAN

Rochester, N. Y.

Two recent articles in CHRISTIANITY TODAY contained statements about the agony of Jesus in Gethsemane that do not honor him.

“The Human Experience of Death” a few issues ago stated that Jesus’ agony was due to his human fear of physical death.… The second article, “Hope in the Midst of Horror,” … states the same idea again.…

The New Testament clearly states that the true believer in Jesus did not need to fear physical death. Rather, I believe, the agony Jesus experienced was due to the revulsion of the holy, sinless Son of God taking into himself the corruption of human sin so he could atone for it on the cross.

Jesus’ cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?,” was not due to the absence of God the Father from Jesus, but because while one is in sin he cannot feel the Father’s comfort and presence.

(The Rev.) RALPH A. BROWN

Bristol, Tenn.

A word of appreciation for the encouraging and thought-provoking article by Dr. Robert L. Cleath. Christ died the sinner’s death, i.e., he went to the tomb without the encouragement of the Father or other divine or angelic agencies to sustain him in his darkest hour.

Martyrs have died with songs upon their lips and praise in their hearts, due to the presence of such heavenly agencies. Our Lord had none, but died feeling utterly forlorn, forsaken, and neglected, if I read my Bible correctly.

JAMES J. SHORT, M.D.

Carmel Valley, Calif.

For the most part, the article was an inspiring and much needed expression of the significance of Christ’s resurrection. On the other hand, I was surprised that Dr. Cleath accepted Oscar Cullmann’s assertion that in death the soul also dies and that it must be brought back to life again by a divine creative act. Regardless of the fact that God would recreate the soul at the resurrection, to say that the soul dies is a denial of the immortality of the soul. Scripture clearly attests to the fact that the soul lives on after death and that death is a separation of the soul from the body.

E. RICHARD STALLINGS, JR.

Springfield, Ill.

N.E.B. ‘Ifs’ And ‘Ands’

Professor Pfeiffer’s lucid and incisive review of “The New English Bible: The Old Testament” (Mar. 27) leaves one with the impression—due to lack of space for a comparison in depth—that what the New English Bible translators have done with the beginning of Genesis is really like the work of the Jewish Publication Society in the Torah or E. A. Speiser in the Anchor Bible.…

More basic than the question of whether the first word of the Hebrew Bible is in the construct state is a vexatious Semitic habit of using coordination (independent expressions tied together by “and”) to express ideas that are really subordinate (dependent expressions that would start with “if” or “when” in a non-Semitic language).…

Now the “surface structure” of Genesis 1:1–3 is—in the jargon of linguistics—“coordinate”—thus, the King James Version. But thoughtful Jewish scholars, steeped in their language, feel in the “deep structure” a subordination. If their perception is valid—a subtle, subjective “if” that no amount of discussion is likely ever to rub out—if it is valid, then the all-important question becomes: “What is the first principal clause, the first independent statement, in the Bible? Here the New English Bible is poles apart from Speiser-J.P.S.

… Far more is involved than mere grammar. The important thing is the placement of emphasis.… The gist of the Speiser and J.P.S. translations is that when God began his creation the first thing he said was, “Let there be light.”

The emphasis of the New English Bible—with God relegated to a dependent “when-clause”—is that “in the beginning of creation … the earth was without form and void, with darkness … and a mighty wind”—as in the Mesopotamian mythology.…

Finally, may I say in all humility that when Professor Pfeiffer finds it “surprisingly conservative” for the Israelites to “cross the Red Sea in the NEB,” he displays an attitude of mind that is better and more wholesome than mine? A former auditor who cannot break himself of looking between lines with a jaundiced eye does not find this translation surprising. It is not conservative. If one thinks that the incident really happened (histoire), one reports the locale as precisely as possible: Sea of Reeds. But now suppose one still believes the event is true, but on a different plane, in another dimension (geschichte).… Then, when one retells the sacred story, one preserves the familiar place-name—geographically inexact but precious to the English-speaking world: Red Sea.

I am disturbed by the way evangelical intellectuals, including my preceptor, F. F. Bruce, are reacting to the New English Bible. They are being too careful, too charitable. They are leaving the field of attack wide open for fundamentalists, who soon will ride roughshod to the attack with predictable and unfortunate results.

PAUL W. GAEBELEIN, JR.

Pacific Palisades, Calif.

Heart Of Spurgeon

Your correspondent Donald M. Poundstone suggests (Mar. 27) that I did not get to the heart of Spurgeon’s genius (should he not have said “theology”?) in quoting Kenneth Latourette’s statement that Spurgeon was a “moderate Calvinist.” Let me quote one of the great preacher’s own statements:

I recollect great complaint being made against a sermon of mine “Compel them to come in,” which I spake much tenderness for souls. That sermon was said to be Arminian, and unsound. Brethren, it is a small matter to me to be judged of men’s judgment, for my master has set his seal on that message. I never preached a sermon by which so many souls were won to God; and all over the world, where that sermon has been scattered, sinners have been saved through its instrumentality. And if it be vile to exhort sinners, I purpose to be viler still … and herein imitate my Lord and his apostles, who, though they taught salvation is of grace, and grace alone, feared not to speak to men as rational beings and responsible agents, and bid them “strive to enter in at the strait gate.” … [Reprinted from the Sword and Trowel, Oct. 11, 1956].

Surely his preaching was “warmly evangelistic” because his Calvinism was not of the extreme type—despite your correspondent’s quotation from Spurgeon’s autobiography.

JOHN PITTS

Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Rated ‘Cop-Out’

Two editorials in your Easter issue (Mar. 27) implied an evangelical retreat into inaction: the ones on integration and on Christian colleges.

More than prayer is needed to correct the inequities of our black fellow citizens (and Christians). A little courageous movement on the part of evangelicals has been long overdue. To be sure, black schools need improvement as well as integration. But sociological studies have shown repeatedly that separate education produces deep-seated psychological feelings of inferiority. That the answers are complex, that bitterly disheartened blacks are crying for separatism and black power, should not be used to rationalize backward steps. To the Christian, the basic outlook should be clear: in Christ, we are told, there is no Jew nor Greek (no black nor white).

The Christian-college editorial is a cop-out, too. That Christian-college students are Christian hardly seems an acceptable defense for academic mediocrity. Evangelicals—in contrast, for example, to Jews—are a long way from pulling their own weight academically and creatively. The anti-intellectual hostility of evangelicalism has been, and continues to be, costly. Why should evangelical intellectuals have to be apologetic about using their minds in response to the command that we give of our best to the Master? There should be an unabashed, unapologetic support within evangelicalism for intellectual and creative achievement. Lack of it is a bad witness—and implies bad, Docetic theology.

JOAN K. OSTLING

Teaneck, N. J.

Your cure is nearly as bad as the disease in your editorial attempt to remedy confusion regarding Christian-college evaluations. Although you make the important point that Christian colleges must be evaluated first by criteria that will have relevance at the judgment seat of Christ, you create a serious false impression with regard to other standards.

Speaking of criteria by which secular agencies “rank” colleges, you claim that the New York Times Almanac “goes out on a limb” to divide institutions according to the demonstrated academic potential of the student body. The Times Almanac, however, cautions in bold letters: “IT IS NOT A RATING OF COLLEGES.” In fact the Almanac is providing only a “rough guide” to the academic competition a student will meet in applying to or attending various colleges. By using in your editorial this single criterion to distinguish among eight Christian colleges by letter grades (C for Wheaton and E for the rest), you are ignoring the precaution against ratings and leaving yourself, rather than the Times, far out on a limb. Academic potential of students is certainly one of the criteria for judging the quality of any college. There are, however, a substantial number of other criteria which you should mention as well.

GEORGE MARSDEN

Assoc. Prof.

Calvin College

Grand Rapids, Mich.

The German city of Dortmund, which was the center of Billy Graham’s recent Europewide evangelistic crusade, lies in the heart of the industrial Ruhr Valley. This old city was flattened by bombs in World War II. It has risen again from the ruin and rubble and now bears all the marks of our affluent age, including unconcern for God and his Church. The churches of Germany and the rest of Europe are relics of another age, symbols of what the Church was in the days following the Reformation. Religious life is at a lower ebb than at any other time in four centuries. Whether this mission field (it is this in the same sense that Asia and Africa are) can once again become dynamically Christian remains to be seen.

Graham conducted his “Euro 70” campaign at a time when the theological centers of influence and the churches, like their counterparts in North America, lie under the devastating spell of humanism and theological liberalism. With this as a backdrop Graham brought a series of simple evangelistic messages from familiar passages of Scripture. There was no homiletical pretentiousness, no negativism, no presentation of doubts or disbelief—just the positive affirmation that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.

Although Graham did not press for decisions, well over fifteen thousand were recorded during the crusade. The scene on Saturday night in the Dortmund Westfalenhalle was typical. The hall was packed with people, and seven thousand more had gathered in secondary facilities even before the meeting began. At least half were under twenty-five. After the message hundreds of young people and old massed in front of the podium to confess Jesus Christ as Saviour. It was a dramatic time. There was no other explanation than that God was at work. At the forty halls where the closed-circuit television broadcasts were received, the scenes were similar. Among these was the Palais du Sports in Paris. There God worked mightily, in a city and a country where Protestant Christianity has never had more than a tiny beachhead.

Graham is constantly searching for new ways to reach the masses of people with the Gospel. Euro 70 was something new, and the Graham team did not know whether the effort would succeed or fail. Numerically it was a smashing victory, and it may well set the pattern for further closed-circuit television efforts around the world. The chief obstacle is the language problem. Graham spoke through a German interpreter and was supported by a team of interpreters who brought his message to other Europeans who do not speak German.

The response of evangelical leaders from around Europe makes it clear that Euro 70 gave a heartening lift to those who have felt isolated from their brethren and have carried on their ministry as a tiny minority in a sea of spiritual unconcern. The constantly declining religious situation in Europe is recognized by evangelicals as evidence that what they have been doing for the last hundred years hasn’t worked. The churches have lost ground, and adherents are spiritually flaccid and lethargic.

What lasting impact will this crusade, which touched only a small fraction of the total population of Europe, have on the people and problems of that continent? No one can say. But this much can be said: God’s message went forth with great power and persuasiveness and through his Spirit made its mark in many thousands of hearts (see News, page 38).

Particularly impressive was the large number of young people who made commitments. Although the effects of Euro 70 will never be fully known, some of them will surface ten, twenty, and thirty years from now. Among the many who found Christ during that week there may be future political leaders; there may be new Whitefields, Wesleys, and Grahams; there may be Wilberforces, Shaftesburys, and General Booths who will go out to bring justice and healing to society.

One existentialist student asked Akbar Haqq of the Graham team, “What do you think of Jean Paul Sartre and his view that life is meaningless?” Dr. Haqq replied: “It is—without Jesus Christ.” Under the impassioned and powerful preaching of Graham, thousands of Europeans made the life-changing discovery that knowing Christ is indeed what brings meaning to life.

A Lesson From The Governor

The next time Florida governor Claude Kirk, Jr., speaks out in favor of law and order, his words will have a hollow ring. His behavior in the recent Manatee County school integration crisis has pretty well undermined anything else he might have to say on the subject.

When U. S. district judge Benjamin Krentzman ordered Manatee County to reorganize its busing pattern to provide the same black-white ratio in schools as exists in the county, Kirk suspended the school superintendent and the five-member school board and announced he was personally taking control of the county schools. Then he moved into the superintendent’s office and issued an order forbidding the county to bus its students for the purpose of achieving racial balance. When U. S. marshalls threatened to remove three of Kirk’s aides and Sheriff Richard Weitzenfeld from the school administration building, Weitzenfeld said he had been “directed by the governor to use force, if necessary, to prevent you from leaving in the company of anyone under arrest.”

In joining other Southern governors who have stood in the schoolhouse door to oppose court decisions on school integration, Kirk undoubtedly enhanced his popularity with some Floridians. But in the process he defied a U.S. district court order and ignored the Supreme Court’s refusal to stay the ruling of the lower court. And the irresponsible threat to use force to resist arrest sounds no better coming from a Republican governor than from a Black Panther. Kirk may challenge the court’s order through the proper channels, but he is no more entitled than anyone else to break the law.

It’s too bad that so many school children had to be watching the show. They weren’t in school, but they were learning. And when someday they begin to ignore the laws they don’t like, someone will ask, “What’s the matter with those kids?”

Mod, Mod Mamas

Mother, like the old gray mare, “ain’t what she used to be.” In fact, many modern mamas are discarding that image of a bedraggled workhorse saddled with dishes, diapers, and dirty floors in favor of the vision of a slim, long-haired swinger putting TV dinners in the oven and the final touches on picket signs for her current protest.

The “old gray mare” (if that’s a fair term) didn’t break out of her corral overnight. Suffragettes campaigning for women’s right to vote first opened the gate a crack, though only a few women ventured out. World War II put others out to roam in what had been almost exclusively men’s fields, and, once out, some of them refused to be roped in again. Subsequent inventions—dryers, dishwashers, and garbage disposals—may have opened the gate wide, but higher education for women probably instigated the stampede. Mothers whose intellects and creativity had been sharpened by classroom and profession began to find days of conversation with toddlers (interrupted only by salesmen and repairmen) maddening. They hardly needed society’s sugar-coated enticement to make more money and fewer babies.

But before they gallop off, Christian women might do well to ruminate about their God-given ability to be mothers. Excellent motherhood demands unselfishness—a yoke not easy to bear but worthy, ultimately, of a “well done.”

Bias In Communication

Here and there the chronicler of American religious life finds signs that its influential leaders may be tiring of their long preoccupation with social concerns to the exclusion of the personal Gospel. Sadly, no such signs appeared at the Religious Communication Congress in Chicago last month. One speaker after another urged continued assaults upon contemporary social structures, each equating such strategy with relevant religion. Most still seemed to be under the erroneous assumption that evangelicals lack a social conscience.

Honest study may some day show that evangelicals exercise more compassion than do the theologically liberal churchmen who are so vocal about it. But sociologists of religion currently seem unable to move beyond the measurement of prejudices of some who call themselves evangelicals.

If bias is going to be scrutinized, we suggest that it be done across the board. The Chicago meeting, billed as an inter-faith event embracing conservative as well as liberal views, did little more than provide a platform for the theological and political left. The “welcoming speech” at the very opening session included a disparagement of evangelicals. The next speaker called President Nixon a “robot” and accused Vice-President Agnew of harboring fascist views. He suggested that editors of religious publications turn over an entire issue to draft-dodgers and college dropouts. Another speaker scored “American tyranny.” And so the argumentation went on, with virtually no reference to communication technique.

The only theological balance came in an articulate, scholarly presentation by the Reverend Carroll Simcox, editor of the Living Church. Simcox cited individual Christian motivation as a prerequisite for changes in social institutions.

De-Polluting Ecology Theology

Earth Day was a hybrid holiday, a national jubilee-jeremiad. It focused attention on the crimes against nature that have made ecology an American obsession, and marked a growing anxiety over the pervasiveness of pollution. April also saw the first Environmental Sunday on record, set aside to “highlight the religious dimensions of the ecological problem.” Churches, schools, and seminaries played leading roles in Earth Day observances.

We have already spoken at some length in these pages on the monumental civic, scientific, and theological ferment surrounding the environmental issue. Non-biblical theologizers have thrust before us a view of man that makes him a part, rather than lord, of the created order. Those who urge less human assertiveness over nature fail to understand (or apply) Genesis 1:26–28. Correctly understood, the biblical world view instills a reverence for life and brings the humble acknowledgment that “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” Man is to be a steward—never an absolute owner—of the earth’s resources.

Accompanying this nonbiblical view is a twin pollutant in the ecological movement: the intrusion of political-economic restructure philosophy. This wing of ecology demands the total overhaul of our social and economic systems, and some of its leaders are the same leftists who led the now-ebbing peace movement that gripped the nation as the decade closed.

The Church should shun political-economic involvement in ecology. To become a political force for environmental reform would be to recommit the folly of the sixties, when many churches identified themselves too closely with the revolutionary movements for political and social justice. Because of this, many humanistic and liberal clergy and their denominations alienated blocs of conservatives. It is just that following that the churches now need to make appropriate responses to the environmental crisis.

That radicals are also speaking to these issues does not mean evangelicals should be silent. We rejoice when men of other faiths or of no faith by common grace embrace views that coincide with biblical truth. But as the Church speaks prophetically on the stewardship of resources, it must also firmly reject erroneous views of scriptural teaching regarding man and the world.

Man is to subdue the earth. But far from spoiling it or subverting it to his own ends, he is to be a responsible lord. Evangelical theology can thus best establish the ethical framework needed to solve some of the most baffling problems man has faced since Creation.

‘Saint’ Lenin

On April 22 the United Nations honored Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the patron saint of Communism, with only seven of its 126 members voting against the resolution. Why honor should be paid to Lenin and not to other national heroes, such as George Washington or Winston Churchill, is nowhere explained. Maybe this odd performance is a sign of the senility of the U. N. and its inability to perform the functions for which it was created. Indeed, it may be on the way to becoming an organization whose genius lies in observing the birthdays of strange characters. Perhaps the U. N. should give thought to including Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in its pantheon and do for them what it has done for Lenin.

What was amusing, if not frightening, was the extraordinary claims made on behalf of Lenin. He is the greatest man who ever lived, according to some. By this standard, Jesus Christ fades into insignificance. No one can fail to agree that Christ and Lenin are antithetical persons, so diverse that comparison would be odious. This much we can say, however: Because Lenin lived, millions die; because Jesus Christ died, millions live.

Fletcher’s Folly

Joseph Fletcher, the most renowned spokesman for situation ethics, addressed 400 people at the Southern Baptist Christian Life Conference in Atlanta recently (see News, April 10 issue, page 45). He was not in the least evasive when he openly declared: “I am prepared to argue that Christian obligation calls for lies and adultery and fornication and theft and promise-breaking and killing, sometimes, depending on the situation.”

It hardly seems necessary to refute Fletcher’s views; even the untutored can pick out the fallacies in his position. What bemuses us about the whole thing is this: How do we know that Fletcher was not misrepresenting his own position in that situation? Whatever his protestations that he was telling the truth, we have no way of determining whether he might not have thought he had good reason to deceive his hearers. Under Fletcher’s system we can never know.

‘That The World May Believe’

Jesus prayed that those who believed on him through the word of his apostles “may all be one … so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:20, 21). Evangelicals cannot be content with sheer spiritual unity, important as it is, because the world is unable to perceive this dimension of reality. To the extent that conscience permits, they should be willing to express their unity in ways that the world can see.

There are many methods of doing this, most of them specialized or temporary. One organization in America that offers a more comprehensive and permanent way of showing Christian unity, without claiming to be a “church,” is the National Association of Evangelicals (see News, page 42).

The NAE is for all followers of Christ who accept the authority of the Scriptures and a few basic doctrines (once almost universally accepted among Christians) such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the need for regeneration and empowering by the Holy Spirit. It does not attempt to resolve long-standing disputes over the interpretation of Scripture on such points as predestination, baptism, speaking in tongues, holiness, church government, perseverance, the Lord’s supper, and the second coming of Christ. It offers association not only to denominations but also to congregations that are independent, or are in uncentralized fellowships, or are in denominations that do not wish as a whole to join the NAE. In addition, individual Christians can join. The NAE does not restrict its services to members; its commissions and affiliates offer special services to and on behalf of evangelicals who wish to be linked only in some aspects of Christian life and witness.

The NAE differs from the National Council of Churches, another cooperative organization, in at least two important ways. First, the NAE seeks to include only evangelicals while the NCC has a wide diversity of theological positions among its members. Second, the NAE welcomes denominations, congregations, and other organizations, as well as individuals, to membership, while the NCC, as presently constituted, includes only denominations as full members.

Evangelical laymen increasingly feel the need for what one recently described as “more cooperation and brotherly love and less suspicion and competition between individual churches.” The only structures presently available to them are the NAE, the NCC, and the American Council of Christian Churches (which, however, excludes Pentecostals, among others). Congregational and denominational leaders will increasingly be called upon to respond to these desires for cooperative relationships as they try to fulfill the prayer of their Lord for the unity of all his disciples, a unity expressed in such a way that the world can see—and believe.

Skirting An Issue

Women have gone to great lengths to suit fickle fashion. But when Paris dropped hemlines this year, lots of ladies refused to change their habits. It was one thing, they complained, to pare calf lengths thigh high; it is quite another to repair to old lengths. Furthermore, to many women mini skirts meant maxi freedom of movement. Now female freedom has become a movement, and, with shouts of male tyranny, women are declaring themselves independent of designers’ dictates. The long and short of it, they assert, is their determination to suit themselves.

The gals who want to hang up their acquiescence to fashion have uncloaked a truth: appearance does not define character, something God warned Samuel about. Jesus said that those who fit themselves with truth find freedom. By donning the truth that it’s what’s inside that counts, we can all lengthen the fabric of freedom.

Does God Answer Prayer?

There is no reason to think it was planned this way, but America’s space program has had a notable spiritual impact upon the world. Interestingly enough, two moon trips that did not achieve a manned landing were the ones that did the most to remind men of their Creator.

Superstitious people will make much of the fact that it was Apollo 13 that almost didn’t make it, and that the trouble developed on April 13. But if an adverse association of cause and effect is to be made, we might tend instead to look with suspicion at the astronauts’ appropriation of the pagan sign “Aquarius.”

Be that as it may, millions of persons around the world were moved to pray for the imperiled astronauts, and God answered the intercession. President Nixon did well to declare the following Sunday a day of thanksgiving (see News, page 37).

It might be appropriately observed that God began answering the prayers for Apollo 13 before liftoff. The space training program has instilled a high degree of discipline into the astronauts, and it was this discipline that God used to bring back Apollo 13 safely to earth. Discipline unfortunately is a nearly forgotten trait in much of modern culture. In this case it enabled the astronauts to remain calm and collected under the most intense kind of mental pressure.

Worldliness According To James

It’s too bad that when the letter of James was divided into chapters the first break was put right after James’s exhortation to keep ourselves “unspotted from the world.” That way we often miss the particular illustration of worldliness that James himself gives and instead emphasize taboos that are frequently sanctified more by evangelical custom than by exegetical criteria.

The particular worldly problem that confronted Christians in the first century has not yet been conquered even within the Church, much less in the world itself. It is the sin that was known in King James’s time as “respect of persons.” We know it as partiality, or discrimination, or, to be blunt about it, snobbery.

Before protesting that this particular sin is not a problem with us, we ought to consider the straightforward rendering of this divine command in Today’s English Version: “My brothers … you must never treat people in different ways because of their outward appearance.” Which of us has not paid more attention to the apparently rich person who comes to our church than to the apparently poor man? Which of us has not let the color of a man’s skin or the beauty of a girl’s face affect our attitudes and behavior toward that person?

James mentions prejudice as a sin right along with adultery and murder (see for yourself—James 2:9–11). It is good that Christians have almost always spoken forthrightly against adultery and murder and have disciplined those of their number who transgressed. But the same zeal must now be applied to eradicating differences of behavior and (though here the task becomes much more difficult) attitude toward persons simply because of outward characteristics.

Christians who are concerned about not being “worldly” and Christians who are concerned about the ills of society should unite in a campaign to extinguish prejudice from themselves and from the Church. The congregation that tolerates unrepentant acts of discrimination by its members is just as disobedient to God’s Word as the one that tolerates unrepentant adulterers or murderers.

In The Tradition Of Warfield

The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, by René Pache (Moody, 1969, 349 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Robert Strong, minister of Trinity Presbyterian Church, Montgomery, Alabama.

Placing himself squarely in the tradition of Gaussen, Warfield, E. J. Young, and J. I. Packer, the president of Emmaus Bible School in Lausanne, Switzerland, gives us a notable exposition of the doctrine of verbal inspiration. This is a book for laymen; it is not so technical that it will defeat them. This is also a book for ministers; it is wide-ranging, abreast of recent scholarship, thoroughly competent. Evangelicals cannot but be enthusiastic about this work. Helen I. Needham, professor of French and English at Moody Bible Institute, deserves high commendation for her highly readable translation.

The careful organization of the book reflects Pache’s legal training (he holds a doctorate in law). Sub-headings make the argument easy to follow.

Half of the study is devoted to inspiration, which is thus defined: “We believe that in the composition of the original manuscripts, the Holy Spirit guided the authors even in their choice of expressions—and this throughout all the pages of the Scriptures—still without effacing the personalities of the different men.” Confidence in the inerrancy of the original manuscripts breathes in every chapter.

Pache squarely faces the critical problems. He deals with the documentary hypothesis and other suggestions from negative criticism. As he examines the major so-called difficulties in the Bible, it becomes clear that they constitute no barrier to full confidence in the Scripture. His discussion of the problems of the canonization of Scripture shows that the Bible made the Church, not the Church the Bible; the New Testament books, for example, made their way by an intrinsic authority of their own, which was recognized and deferred to by the Church.

The material on transmission of the text is a helpful condensation of the vast amount of work that has been done in this field. Pache appreciates the accuracy of the Masoretes and dwells upon the confirming significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The selection of quotations from great authorities is excellent and provides a storehouse of scholarly judgments particularly useful for laymen.

One of the best features of the book is Pache’s treatment of modern theology and its attitude toward Scripture. Barth and Brunner in their acceptance of negative criticism could not be expected to be safe guides in the world of theology, he says. Bultmann in his radical skepticism toward Scripture stands exposed as irrational and subjective. The neo-orthodoxy of Archbishop Temple and the essential pantheism of Tillich and Robinson are shown to grow out of their low view of Scripture. The author’s summaries of the modern contrary positions are accurate and useful.

Scripture’s self-testimony, its undeniable supernatural characteristics, its obvious superiority to all other sacred books, its beauty and power, its doctrine of God and salvation, its portrait of the incomparable Christ—these themes are forcibly developed.

The issue of all issues is Scripture. We should be grateful to Dr. Pache for his up-to-the-minute statement of the evangelical case for the full inspiration and truthfulness of the Bible.

Verbal Inerrancy Dead?

Is the Bible a Human Book?, edited by Wayne E. Ward and Joseph F. Green (Broadman, 1970, 159 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Jerry Perrill, tutor in philosphy of religion, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Is the Bible a human book? This question is discussed by fifteen leading Southern Baptist pastors, professors, and denominational leaders. They are in accord in saying that the Bible bears the unmistakable mark of the men who wrote it. Conrad Willard discusses the writers, who were “very human people.” H. Leo Eddleman sees the Hebrew language as a testimony to the humanness of the Bible, while Scott L. Tatum reaches the answer by looking at the New Testament writers’ use of Koine Greek.

Robert J. Norman and John F. Havlik speak of the availability of the Bible when used by “human messengers” or “human witness” as a testimony to the human aspect of the Bible. Carl Bates concludes that without the Bible one is without God, and that this Book will stand and its power continue regardless of attack.

As a whole, however, Is the Bible a Human Book? does more than emphasize the human element involved in the production of the Scripture; it tends to conclude that errors are present in the Scripture and that the issue of verbal inerrancy is finally dead. (Brooks Hays says that verbal inerrancy is an “irrational and unhistoric position of a few literalists.”)

This issue shows itself in the neoorthodox concept that the Bible contains, rather than is, the Word of God. Notwithstanding James Flamming’s remark that such a distinction is “just so much theological shadow boxing,” this popular and dangerous concept removes the objective authority from the Bible and gives that authority to the individual. Thus John M. Lewis can say, “The Bible contains world-knowledge and God-knowledge.… This earthen vessel—the language of the writer and the limitations of his world knowledge—is not to be confused with the divine message of revelation itself.” Such a position removes “God-knowledge” not only from the Bible but ultimately from its availability to men. By this same Barthian reduction principle, John R. Claypool can speak of the “mistakes and errors and conflicting opinions of the biblical record” and its “authenticity” all at once!

Claypool also states the case against an authoritative Scripture in another way, hoping to render the discussion of inerrancy irrelevant:

The ultimate authority in a living religion can never be something as static as a book.… It must be none other than God himself, authenticating his truth in his own freedom and in the most personal of ways.

This is why it borders on the heretical to speak of the Bible as the final authority in all matters religious.… The biblical name for such a practice is the sin of idolatry! [p. 28, italics his; cf. p. 134].

Such a position borders on the absurd. What employee would get away with ignoring a letter of instruction from his boss by saying that he did not take orders from any printed letter, but from the boss only? In the quotation above, Claypool rejects the authority of Scripture in favor of some mystical personal experience but then cites Scripture in support of his position.

W. Boyd Hunt closes his article with the question implied in the title: “Is the Bible less inspired because it is so human?” The contributors to this volume have answered “No!” but in so doing some have answered a tragic “Yes” to another important question: “Must the Bible err because it is so human?” This question could be asked of our Lord Jesus, who was really human. The answer to this question with respect to both Jesus and the Bible must be, for the evangelical Christian: inerrant though human.

Black Power Defined

Black Self-Determination, by Arthur M. Brazier (Eerdmans, 1969, 148 pp., $4.95), is reviewed by William Henry Anderson, Jr., professor of sociology, Virginia Union University, Richmond.

The Rev. Dr. Arthur M. Brazier provides much of the leadership of The Woodlawn Organization (TWO), a neighborhood community organization in Chicago. Black Self-Determinationconsists of a narrative account of several aspects of TWO’s life put between two chapters on power. These two chapters are the meat of the book. The first is a definition of black power and the last is a short study of the biblical justification for the use of power.

Black power is a rational means of applying leverage to the political and economic structure. This explanation makes sense, but whites get confused about black power by its rhetoric in the black community. Most of the mature leaders do hold a reasoned view of black power, and Dr. Brazier’s view of it is adequate.

The last chapter, on biblical justification for the use of power, is not very convincing. It seems to be a post facto excuse for what has already been done. I am not sure whether I got this impression from the unfortunate placement of the chapter at the end (as an afterthought) rather than at the beginning (as a guide for action), or because the argument is weak. No rigorous exegesis is used, and the eschatological basis is lacking.

I myself am an activist in the social and political arena for philosophical reasons based on a mix of implications of the Decalogue, the Beatitudes, and love of neighbor held together by eschatology—realized and futuristic. I think that the ideas of the Quakers and old-fashioned pacifists against the use of power have an eschatological base that is more biblical than the material in Black Self-Determination. Hope is the only game around, and it is located in the Kingdom of God.

The book is valuable and useful for those who need some assurance that Christians have a stake in the shaping of the future. Also, the multitude of readers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY who live in the shadow of the Chicago Tribune can get a fuller account of some local events of religious significance. Finally, an evangelical publisher is to be commended for publishing such a book.

Urbanization And The Church

Will the Church Lose the City?, edited by Kendig Brubaker Cully and F. Nile Harper (World, 1970, 256 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Richard K. Morton, professor of sociology and religion, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, Florida.

Expanding urbanism has rather commonly meant expanding Catholicism and expanding secularism, which has led to a weakening or abandonment of the central-city ministry by Protestant churches and other religious centers. Experienced members of the faculty of New York Theological Seminary have gathered in this volume discerning evaluations of the modern city and its relation to religion and the churches. These include historical, sociological, economic, psychological, aesthetic, and integrative views. Another section takes up the structure and functions of the city church, while the concluding one describes some projects being carried on by various churches.

Because of the limitations of space, presumably, the book suffers from superficiality. Much that needs to be said from a sociological and psychological perspective is missing. Also questionable are certain broad statements, such as, “The church provides the city with a means of identity.” And, from a psychological viewpoint, what is the actual meaning of the affirmation that the city man lives in a world of deeds? Nevertheless, much of what is here is enlightening and useful analysis of the impact of the urban area upon the Church and vice versa.

It is disappointing and serious, I think, that the book does not first ask, Will the Church lose its own soul and abandon its historic Gospel? Will it simply become absorbed in an attempt to be relevant to a socio-economic situation that it ought to fight hard to change in some respects? The Church must learn to understand the socio-economic and ecological problems of the city, but it must also be able to deepen, strengthen, and redirect its historic mission so as to be more than a voice for morality and for religious ceremonialism in a dynamic and pluralistic society.

I think that we need a rediscovery of the Gospel and especially of the indwelling Christ, whether we are in the city or elsewhere. I think, too, that we need a new and dynamic evangelism and a broader ministry that can bring Christ and his redeeming love and power to men wherever they live, whatever the problems and difficulties they struggle under.

Descriptive Literary Criticism

The Apocalyptic Vision in Paradise Lost, by Leland Ryken (Cornell, 1970, 239 pp., $7.50), is reviewed by Virginia R. Mollenkott, associate professor of English, Paterson State College, Wayne, New Jersey.

For those of us who deny the necessity of a gap between Christ and culture, it is encouraging to see serious contributions to scholarship and criticism from people who are clearly working within the evangelical tradition. Of these contributions, The Apocalyptic Vision in Paradise Lost is a stellar example. Leland Ryken, who teaches English at Wheaton College, has produced a model of descriptive literary criticism that simultaneously illuminates the reading of Paradise Lost and provides correction for many of the methods and conclusions current among Miltonists.

Ryken uses the term apocalyptic to designate “a transcendental state that is not located in history and the order of nature but that is placed either above or prior to ordinary time.” He uses the term vision to indicate that Milton views the transcendental state as remote from fallen reality, as related to a higher truth, and as an ideal emancipation from anxieties and frustrations. After a brief theoretical consideration of the doctrine of accommodation, the Platonic theory of ideas, and Christian humanism, Ryken analyzes the techniques by which Milton embodies his apocalyptic vision. First among these are various types of contrast, such as the use of enameled images of jewels and gold that lend “a quality of sculptured permanence” to Heaven and Paradise, yet are juxtaposed with images of abundant life and motion. Concludes Ryken, “These contradictory motifs … [combine] two empirical phenomena to suggest a transcendental realm in which the sum is greater than its parts.”

Other Miltonic techniques for describing the divine realms include negation, which stresses the great gulf between nature and transcendence; analogy, which stresses certain similarities between nature and transcendence (including anthropomorphic depictions of God); remoteness, by which Milton makes the apocalyptic vision oblique rather than direct, at a distance from ordinary reality; and apocalyptic imagery, much of which is deliberately conceptual rather than sensory, generic rather than individual, or olfactory/aural rather than visual. The final chapter demonstrates how these elements, by interrelating and reinforcing one another, contribute to the organic wholeness of Paradise Lost.

Because Ryken is consistently descriptive rather than impressionistic, he can unequivocally identify certain inaccuracies in many respected studies of Milton’s work. If literary criticism deals in general impressions and subjective evaluations, then it is impossible to label a specific interpretation as right or wrong; but if the critic submits himself to the surface facts, describing what is there, then it is usually just as possible to identify errant readings as it is to identify errant biographical or textual information. By patient enumeration of Miltonic techniques and consideration of their effect within the apocalyptic context, Ryken is able to explode many misconceptions about Milton’s art and ideas: that he has no sense of mystery, that his descriptions are vague, that his concept of God is too anthropomorphic, and the like. The footnotes provide a valuable annotated bibliography for each topic touched upon, and there is a useful index.

It seems impossible to overestimate the importance of this book. Bravo, Professor Ryken!

Fresh Approach To The Psalms

Psychology in the Psalms: A Portrait of Man in God’s World, by Morris A. Inch (Word, 1969, 202 pp., $4.95), is reviewed by Charles Lee Feinberg, dean and professor of Old Testament, Talbot Theological Seminary, La Mirada, California.

Commentaries and expositions on the Psalms are available by the scores. For the most part they treat the book devotionally, since here is found the unsurpassed devotional literature of the Christian faith. But Inch’s work is refreshingly distinct. His aim is to treat man from the standpoint of both theology and the behavioral sciences.

The twelve chapters deal with the nature, degradation, and salvation of man; Christian experience, with emphasis on the nature of the regenerate life and the need for maturity; the critical aspects of the Christian life; and finally, man in time perspective, with considerations of history, hope, and present help. Of the thirteen psalms covered, seven are well known (8; 14; 32; 1; 2; 22; 23) and six (20; 52; 67; 76; 87; 135) are less known. A free translation of the text precedes each chapter. The approach is experimental.

This is not the place to seek customary exposition of the passages; of some 117 items in the bibliography, only six are on the Psalter proper. Inch has a different purpose, and he has done his work splendidly. His discussion is orthodox, reverent, well informed, and eminently practical. He is well acquainted with the theological issues involved and with the works of both sociologists and psychologists. His chapter on Psalm 135 is exceptionally acute, revealing a fine grasp of the philosophy of history.

Book Briefs

An Evangelical Theology of Missions, by Harold Lindsell (Zondervan, 1970, 234 pp., paperback, $2.45). Reprint of an earlier work in which the editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY sets forth a theology of missions that is rooted in the Scriptures and is aware of what is happening in the world.

The Gospel of John and The Epistle to the Romans, by F. L. Godet (Zondervan, 1969, 1110 pp., and 530 pp., $9.95 and $6.95). Zondervan has performed a valuable service in reprinting these two classic works of one of the outstanding leaders of evangelical Protestantism. Godet combines a warm devotional spirit with solid scholarship, and his works are a worthy addition to any library.

Parents on Trial, by David Wilkerson with Claire Cos (Spire, 1970, 174 pp., paperback, $.75). First paperback edition of this penetrating challenge to parents.

Who’s Who in Church History, by William P. Barker (Revell, 1969, 319 pp., $6.95). Brief sketches of more than 1,500 men and women who saw themselves as part of the Christian community and who left an imprint on the history of the Church.

The Politics of Doomsday, by Erling Jorstad (Abingdon, 1970, 192 pp., $4.95). A documented study of the views and activities of Carl McIntire, Billy James Hargis, and Edgar C. Bundy with fewer mistakes and more attempt at fairness than most such works by non-admirers.

Men Who Knew God, by William Sanford LaSor (Regal, 1970, 196 pp., paperback, $.95). A study of God’s dealings with some of the great personalities of the Old Testament.

Words of Wisdom, compiled by George M. Wilson (Tyndale House, 1967, 299 pp., paperback, $1.95). Using the Living Psalms and Proverbs paraphrase, this volume arranges daily readings from Psalms and Proverbs so that both books can be read in a month.

Who Shall Live?, edited by Kenneth Vaux (Fortress, 1970, 199 pp., $6.75). A variety of contributors wrestle with some of the issues raised by the twentieth-century revolution in medical and biological technology.

The Biblical Philosophy of History, by Rousas J. Rushdoony (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969, 148 pp., paperback, $2.95). Sees the sovereign Creator God as the key to the interpretation of history.

Good News for Children, by Sheri Dunham Haan (Baker, 1969, 240 pp., $4.95). A Bible-story book arranged by topics and designed to be read by young children.

James: A Practical Primer for Christian Living, by Earl Kelly (Craig, 1969, 282 pp., paperback, $3.95). Thirty-three expository sermons on texts from the Epistle of James.