When this issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY reaches the mailbox I will be in Dortmund, Germany, watching the Billy Graham television crusade that will reach into the major cities of Europe. With church attendance at an all-time low, this crusade is strategically important; the direction Europe will take for the next decade may hang in the balance.

No one can remain unmoved by the inroads made into the Church by men and movements that are far to the left of the Scriptures and that account in large measure for the plight of the Church today. I have in mind particularly humanism, syncretism, and universalism, to which we will address ourselves in a future essay. The worldwide decline in church attendance, the increasing missionary retrenchment, the loss of income at a time when money has never been so available, and the decay of morality are the consequences of theological erosion. The dictum of Scripture that as we sow so shall we reap continues to operate inexorably in history.

We thank God for evidences of the Spirit’s working in various ways around the world, and we fervently hope this will widen into a fullblown awakening that will change the course of history. But we cannot believe this will occur until there’s a great deal more preaching on sin, judgment, and the need for genuine repentance.

Long lines will form across Moscow’s Red Square this week to view the remains of Lenin, the man who perhaps more than any other in the twentieth century changed the course of world politics. Under the encouragement of Soviet leaders, millions will commemorate the one-hundredth anniversary of the birth of the Russian revolutionary.¹Forty Lithuanian Catholic priests, in a recent appeal to the Soviet government for relief from religious persecution, quoted Lenin as saying: “Every person must have full freedom not only to profess any religion he wants, but also to publicize and change his faith.” Lenin didn’t live up to these words, according to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. It just posthumously excommunicated him from the faith in which he was baptized for alleged desecration of holy places and torture of believers. But while propagandists crank out effusive plaudits for the 1917 “liberation” from czarist decay, many thousands of Soviet Christians will continue to lament the oppression instigated against their faith by the revolution.

To be sure, thousands of churches are open every Sunday all across the Soviet Union. Many are crowded. But the Communist authorities enforce strict regulations against evangelism and Christian education. Those elements are indispensable to a virile church.

Because of these restrictions, many Protestant Christians in the Soviet Union go underground. They defy the law and often find themselves at odds with the authorities. Some are harassed.

A detailed document sent to the West last fall from dissident Protestants estimated that “tens of thousands of believers” died in prisons or in exile between 1929 and 1961. It said that since 1961, “more than 500 brethren have been arrested and imprisoned, chiefly ministers of the church, presbyters, preachers. Among them are our dear young sisters with clean hearts forced in prisons and camps into the depths of sin and depravity among fallen women.”

The full document, typed single-space, stretched across eight pages. With it were sixty-two signatures and data on 174 Christians most recently arrested, giving details such as date of arrest, charges, sentence, place of imprisonment, next of kin, and number of dependents.

An expert on religious persecution in the Soviet Union is a Czech-born Presbyterian minister, the Reverend Blahoslav Hruby. He edits a newsletter for the National Council of Churches called Religion in Communist Dominated Areas. Some National Council leaders are opposed to regular exposure of Communist religious oppression, and Hruby’s newsletter has been on the verge of extinction a number of times.

The NCC’s current financial pinch makes the situation more precarious than ever, and Hruby is quietly appealing for outside funds. His main interest is not theological (he calls himself neoorthodox) but educational; he wants Christians in the West to know what is going on. Last month he succeeded in getting the New York City Presbytery to adopt unanimously a resolution appealing for prayers for persecuted Christians in the Soviet Union and other countries. The presbytery is also asking the United Presbyterian General Assembly to compile a comprehensive report on “the growing number of violations of religious freedom and other human rights in many countries.”

The 58-year-old Hruby, whose translation work is enhanced by his working knowledge of more than a dozen languages, says the Soviets are sensitive to foreign reports on religion in the Soviet Union. One of the most important reactions came last October from Izvestiya (News), the chief daily organ of the Soviet government. The paper carried a long rebuttal of religious-persecution charges written by Vladimir A. Kuroyedov, president of the Soviet Council on Religious Affairs.

Kuroyedov did not mention RCDA by name but noted that “in the U. S. A. there is an active center for studying religion in socialist lands.” He claimed that much information published about supposed religious persecution in the Soviet Union is false. As Exhibit A he cited reports in Ukrainian-American periodicals that two well-known Baptist preachers, H. P. Wins and Joseph Bondarenko, had died in Soviet prisons.

“Actually,” Kuroyedov gloated, “these ‘glorious heroes’ are alive and in good health; Bondarenko, indeed, not long ago, celebrated a rousing wedding.”

Hruby maintains that his newsletter “is not in the category of those who produce false propaganda, as its sources are the Soviet press or verified documentation. We stand by the record.” He adds that he does not deny Kuroyedov’s contention that thousands of churches are open.

“Our concern,” Hruby declares, “is that the Soviet authorities, the council and its deputies, and others in the bureaucracy have not permitted the opening of more churches when formal requests have been submitted in accordance with existing legal procedures. In fact, we feel that they themselves have helped to develop disloyal attitudes by their delays or rejections.”

DAVID E. KUCHARSKY

Delegates Of Four Faiths Hold Beirut Dialogue

Thirty-eight scholars specializing in dialogue, representing four religions, gathered officially in Beirut, Lebanon, last month to discuss—for the first time—their areas of agreement and disagreement.

The nine-day “Dialogue Between Men of Living Faiths” was attended by three Hindus, three Muslims, four Buddhists, and twenty-eight Christians of various backgrounds. The World Council of Churches’ Study Department sponsored the event.

WCC study secretary S. J. Samartha of India described the gathering as “not a conference of world religions” or of “official representatives.” Major objectives were “to set up conditions for dialogue between Christians and men of other beliefs and to think about the priority tasks of the Church.” Jews were not invited to the meeting—not because there has been insufficient Christian-Jewish dialogue to set the stage, but because the consultation took place in tension-filled Lebanon. Jews should be included in future meetings, Samartha said.

The consultation, which was closed to the public, was the outgrowth of a 1967 conference held in Ceylon.

Noted a Muslim participant afterwards: “By the very fact that we lived together, over those nine days, shared our common religious concern, and also prayed together, we were made to feel something new, something which cannot be put into words except that we were all too small before God, too small to dispute him among ourselves, and that we had just to surrender, kneel down, and pray.”

But a Buddhist said the meeting “was structured in a manner of one-way traffic … our Christian brethren had the opportunity of knowing and sharing more about Buddhism, and opportunity afforded to the Buddhists to know about Christianity was not as much as we desired.”

Dr. Hassan Askari, a Shiite Muslim from India’s Osmania University, said he felt the search for a broad philosophy covering all religions “is a denial of religion.” Conference officials said this view was typical of Christian, Muslim, and Hindu theologians who attended, but not of Buddhists.

Canon David Jenkins, Anglican theologian from the WCC staff, said the conference spent a day and a half on the Palestine question without reaching agreement. Theologians doubted one more statement would add much, anyway. There also was apparent disagreement on communal distrust and violence in India, the Buddhist-Christian tension in Ceylon, and the Christian-Muslim encounter in Indonesia.

Dr. Samartha noted one outcome of the sessions was that participants planned to initiate similar dialogues between the faiths in their own countries.

LILLIAN HARRIS DEAN

Religion In Transit

A committee of Catholic bishops assumed credit for bringing together three southern California table-grape growers and Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Workers Organizing Committee in a union contract. The pact, involving pickers for about 1 per cent of the state’s table-grape crop, was considered a minor break-through in the nearly five-year-old grape strike.

Disciples’ Non-Stance

Staff of the United Christian (Disciples of Christ) Missionary Society are free to take part in the 1973 Key Bridge transdenominational evangelism emphasis if they wish (see February 27 issue, page 26).

The mission society’s trustees voted last month to table a recommendation on the matter. Dr. Albert M. Pennybacker, a Shaker Heights, Ohio, pastor, said the tabling didn’t represent a stance for or against the evangelism emphasis (he had criticized the idea as “fundamentalist” rather than social-action-oriented at a January meeting of the trustees).

“We have not taken a posture,” declared Pennybacker. “We have simply moved away from a posture.”

Rare-book dealer Hans P. Kraus of New York is offering for sale at $2.5 million or more a two-volume Gutenberg Bible, one of forty-six copies known to have survived from the fifteenth century.

Trouble-tormented First Presbyterian Church of Chicago (see July 19, 1968 issue, page 54), was used for the mock trial and beating of a youth, the head of an investigating committee confirmed last month. Paul Gebhard said police arrested six Blackstone Rangers for aggravated assault and battery after a complaint. The Rangers regularly meet at the church.

David C. Cook and Gospel Light publications will jointly produce an adult Bible-study curriculum beginning with the 1971 winter quarter.… Eternity magazine has agreed to take over the approximately 5,000 subscribers who received the now defunct Watchman-Examiner.

CBS radio cut short an Easter sunrise service broadcast from Albuquerque, New Mexico, when a Spanish-speaking group attempted to seize the microphone to press poverty concerns.

According to a South Baptist poll, 97 per cent of the convention’s pastors and 93.1 per cent of its Sunday-school teachers would expel college students who break laws while participating in college demonstrations.

United States Congress aspirant John Dae Check told a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, court he was eligible for the office because he computes his age from conception, since Roman Catholic belief is that life begins at that time. But the judge ruled that Check, who will be only 24 years and three months old next January, was ineligible because the U. S. Constitution says a congressman must be at least 25. “This is not a religious issue,” the jurist said.

The Rabbinical Council of America, the nation’s largest Orthodox rabbinic group, called upon Protestants and Catholics this month to join it in a campaign against drug abuse. The invitation was believed to be the first time a major Orthodox body had promoted interfaith cooperation at any level.

Roman Catholic high schools are more effective than public high schools in sending graduates on to college, a private poll by two educators showed.

President Nixon signed into law this month a bill outlawing cigarette commercials on radio and television beginning January 2.

Personalia

Catholic archbishop John Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia preached to former President Lyndon Johnson and President Nixon at White House worship services April 5.

Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor Richard J. Neuhaus of Brooklyn was eliminated in a pre-primary contest for the Democratic party nomination for the U. S. congressional seat now held by John Rooney (D.-N. Y.).

Two Southern Baptist professors at the University of Richmond took to heart a statement by SBC president W. A. Criswell that those who couldn’t agree with Baptist doctrine should leave the church. William C. Smith and Jerry L. Tarver said they would quit their posts at the SBC school and leave the denomination. “It’s kind of like the Boy Scouts,” Smith told the Baptist Press. “It’s a fine organization, but there comes a time to leave.”

The Reverend Donald Black, associate secretary of the United Presbyterian Commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations, will move up to the top post of the agency when Dr. John Coventry Smith retires December 31.

Basketballer Tom Dykstra of Wheaton College has been drafted by the Baltimore Bullets.

Roman Catholic theologian Jean-Paul Audet of the University of Montreal was named one of three $15,000 Molson Prize winners by the Canadian Council last month, causing the Canadian edition of Time magazine to note that it was the first time the government-sponsored council “has acknowledged theology as falling within its field, thus ending a curious anomaly in which classical scholars were given grants to study ancient gods while scriptural scholars were denied recognition.”

Because he is convinced that politics in the Church “should be as open and as honest as possible,” Dr. Keith Bridston, professor at Pacific Lutheran Seminary in Berkeley, California, has announced he is a candidate for the presidency of the American Lutheran Church this October. The action is believed to be unprecedented in major denominations in the United States. No candidates have been nominated by ALC districts yet, but likely choices are Dr. David W. Preus, ALC vice-president, and Dr. Kent Knutson, president of Wartburg Seminary at Dubuque.

Archbishop Iakovos, primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, has been named Clergyman of the Year by Religious Heritage of America.… Dr. Howard F. Moffett, superintendent of the Presbyterian Hospital in Taegu, Korea, has been named Man of the Year and given the Distinguished Christian Service Award by World Vision International.

Dorothy C. Haskin, known widely for her radio program “Dorothy and Her Friends,” is retiring after writing seventy-one books for the religious press since 1940. She has been a staff writer for World Vision International for the past eleven years.

Betty McConkey, head of the Wide Awake Anti-Communist Crusade, had herself designated a “home missionary” so gifts supporting the agency could be tax-exempt. But a jury didn’t find her exempt from fraud: the Iowa woman was found guilty of bilking a Roseau, Minnesota, farmer of more than $170,000.

The president of the North American Baptist Seminary in Sioux Falls, Dr. Frank Veninga, will become executive vice-president of Eastern Baptist Seminary, Philadelphia, August 1.

World Scene

Churches newly recommended for membership in the World Council of Churches are the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Gereformeerde Kerken), with a membership of 850,000; Nigerian Baptist Convention, 76,000; United Church of Papua, New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands, 72,322; Methodist Church in Malaysia and Singapore, 35,255; and Moravian Church, Eastern West Indies Province, 10,275.

Bishop Ambrosis of Eleftheroupolis, Northern Greece, told the Holy Synod of the Church in Greece that he instructed all priests in his diocese to drop Athenagoras of Constantinople from their prayers because of the “heretical ideas” of the patriarch who is spiritual leader of world Greek Orthodoxy. A week later, Athenagoras was critically ill in a Vienna hospital and churches of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in North and South America were asked to suspend usual programs to pray for his recovery.

According to a doctoral thesis at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, electronic computers have proved “beyond doubt” that two Isaiahs, living 200 years apart, wrote the Book of Isaiah. Tests analyzed stylistic and linguistic details.

Pravda, a Communist party newspaper in Czechoslovakia, blasted the Church, particularly the Roman and Greek Catholic clergy, at Easter, thus dimming hopes the regime will continue liberal policies toward religion started during the 1968 reform era.

Parishioners took over five Roman Catholic churches at Corrientes, 500 miles north of Buenos Aires, last month to protest the excommunication of a liberal priest.

Pope Paul VI will make a one-day visit April 24 to the Island of Sardinia, where he will celebrate mass at a shrine.

Deaths

HENRY NICHOLAS Hancock, 63, dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of St. Mark in Minneapolis, author, church executive; in Minneapolis.

DAISUKE KITAGAWA, 59, World Council of Churches executive, author, Episcopal clergyman; in Geneva, Switzerland.

WILLIAM H. RHOADES, 69, retired American Baptist Home Mission Societies executive secretary, lawyer; in St. Petersburg, Florida.

J. M. T. WINTHER, 95, American Lutheran Church missionary, former professor at Kobe Bible Institute; in Kobe, Japan.

So who is Bernard J. F. Lonergan? Just possibly the most important orthodox philosopher-theologian of the century in the Anglo-American Christian world. And March 31-April 3 may mark the time when the rest of the world began to know it.

During those four days, seventy-seven high-powered intellectuals gathered in St. Leo, Florida, to analyze and criticize the thought of the 65-year-old Canadian Jesuit—a former faculty member of the Gregorian University in Rome, and one of only three English-speaking members of the new Pontifical Theological Commission.

Up to now, Lonergan’s reputation has largely been limited to top Catholic academic circles and has rested on one masterpiece, Insight, a study of human understanding. The work attempts to provide a methodological framework for epistemology in all disciplines.¹He will lecture on theological method at Boston College June 14–26.

Protestant stars attending included theologians Langdon Gilkey and Schubert Ogden (University of Chicago); Thomas J. J. (“death of God”) Altizer; New Testament scholar James M. Robinson (Claremont); and Lutheran theologian Carl Braaten. Major Catholic figures included Scripture scholars John L. McKenzie (Notre Dame) and Quentin Quesnell (Marquette); British bishop Christopher Butler; Charles Curran (Catholic University); Charles Davis (English theologian and noted defector from the church); Kenneth Rexrath (a founding father of the beatnik philosopher-poet); Leslie Dewart (University of Toronto); theologians John Dunne and David Burrell (Notre Dame); and Michael Novak (State University of New York, Old Westbury).

A few who admitted to knowing little of Lonergan were also around, including Senator Eugene McCarthy and distinguished English philosopher and Catholic convert Elizabeth Anscombe (Oxford and the University of Chicago). Some luminaries scheduled to attend did not: German theologian Karl Rahner (who sent a paper), Harvard’s Harvey Cox, Dutch theologian Eduard Schillebeeckx, and French philosopher Paul Ricoeur. No evangelical Protestants were invited, a probable reflection of their lack of distinction in philosophy.

It isn’t often that a major thinker receives this kind of scrutiny from his intellectual peers during his lifetime. In advance the seventy-seven participants turned in and read papers totaling over 700,000 words (to be published later). The papers were the basis of small-group discussion (the conference had two plenary sessions). The conference was an honor, but no panegyric. Existentialists claimed that Lonergan was not existential enough, liberals that he was too traditional, and Scripture scholars that he had no adequate room for Scripture.

Lonergan’s attempt to restructure traditional Catholic philosphy to accommodate empirical science, existential philosophy, and modern culture excites the whole scholarly Catholic spectrum. English scholar Hugo Meynell (University of Leeds) believes Lonergan “states doctrines intelligently and as though he meant them” while asserting Christianity’s “present relevance without making nonsense of its past.” Meanwhile Catholic dropout Davis was able to write in his conference paper: “I myself should never have been able to leave the Roman Catholic Church, had it not been for my reading of Lonergan.”

Since the emphasis of Insight is on method rather than content, many liberal conference participants, including agnostic Rocco Cacopardo (Italian Olivetti executive), tuned into Lonergan’s first 633 densely reasoned pages on the “inquiry into inquiry.” But they turned off at chapter nineteen: “General Transcendent Knowledge.”

This group argued that Lonergan’s thought had changed since Insight (1957), and that his new book (Method in Theology, to be finished in a year) would show the subjectivist orientation of his more recent interaction with existential philosophy. The liberals thought they sensed victory when Lonergan, in an April 2 plenary session, said he might as well have put chapters nineteen and twenty into his new book. But it was the conservatives who went home happy: in the closing session the next day Lonergan stressed the logical continuity of all his work, stating that his later writing reflected only a change of context rather than a shift in opinion.

The key question on this point, appropriately enough, came from Altizer: Has Lonergan, as some of his fans claim, revised his concept of God since Insight? The answer came as a flat, resounding “no!” Pointing out that he had written extensively on the Trinity (some 600 pages in Latin) he added: “If chapter nineteen [of Insight] is eliminated, then all the rest falls under contingency, relativity, and temporality, and there is nothing left.”

For evangelicals seriously interested in grappling with the critical problem of providing an adequate philosophical underpinning for an orthodox Christian faith in the contemporary world, Bernard Lonergan is a name to remember.

JOAN K. OSTLING

Priests’ Union: Talking Tougher

Ubi episcopus ibi ecclesia: “Where the bishop is, there is the church.” So says an ancient Roman Catholic dictum. But at least 250 of the nation’s Catholic priests think they should share more responsibility for church affairs with the hierarchy. They planned to test their beliefs at the national meeting of the U. S. bishops this month.

Members of the National Federation of Priests Councils (NFPC) said they would take the suggestion for a National Pastoral Council and an appeal on behalf of nineteen disciplined Washington, D. C., priests to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in San Francisco April 20. And they said that if they were not permitted to enter the usually secret meetings and present their case, they would stage a public protest.

NFPC spokesmen (the group claims to represent 35,000 of the nation’s 55,000 priests) are both demanding and taking a larger voice in church matters. One such thrust was a unanimous vote last month at the NFPC national conference in San Deigo calling for the formation of a National Pastoral Council to become the legislative body of the U. S. church. It would have delegates ranging from bishops to priests and nuns and lay people. All delegates would have equal votes in deciding all church matters except theology.

NFPC past president Patrick O’Malley says he is sure it will take three to six years to get a council working even after the assent of the bishops.

Meantime, the young lions of the U. S. priesthood have other things in mind. Prominent among them are the Washington priests who have appealed directly to Pope Paul VI for a decision on their case against the Washington Archdiocese. They suffered various punishments imposed by Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle after they and twenty-one other priests signed a statement saying they believed Catholic couples could decide on birth control according to their own consciences.

Roman theologian Bernard Haring meanwhile told 200 Italian moral theologians (who applauded) that the dictates of human conscience are better guides to proper behavior than are the possibly mistaken declarations of a pope, the New York Times reported.

And in New York, a group of Catholic scholars said this month that a secret Vatican document proposes a basic church code that would bring progress in the church to a standstill. If implemented, it would cause “a crisis of major proportions,” according to the Reverend William Bassett of Washington, D. C., a canon lawyer of Catholic University. The document, containing ninety-four broad provisions for governing the church, clearly defines the powers of the pope but leaves ambiguous what powers are granted to other members of the church, the scholars said.

Forecast For Charity: A Bit Cloudy

The new federal tax law leaves some questions unanswered, according to an Illinois lawyer who has made a thorough study of the statute.

C. William Pollard gave a detailed interpretation of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 at the eighth annual meeting of the evangelically oriented Christian Stewardship Council in Dallas last month. He focused upon facets of the law that relate to charitable contributions and private foundations.

A key feature of the new law is an increase in the deduction for substantial charitable giving. The general limitation on deductions for charitable gifts from individuals has been raised from 30 per cent of adjusted gross income to 50 per cent of the taxpayer’s “contribution base” (adjusted gross income computed without regard to any net operating loss carryback).

A number of tax loopholes are closed by the new law. But Pollard said there is a question left hanging on so-called bargain sale gifts. These are donations made through transfer of property to qualified charitable organizations for less than fair market value. The donor is entitled to some tax break, but according to Pollard, “it is not clear under the new law whether this deduction is limited by the 30 per cent limitation or the 50 per cent limitation.”

Also up in the air, Pollard said, is whether transfers to “annuity trusts” will be treated as taxable sales. “Annuity trusts” are carefully defined in the new law, as are “unitrusts” and “pooled income fund trusts.” A gift of a remainder interest in trust to a qualified charitable organization is not deductible unless the trust can be defined under one of these three designations.

The new tax law is currently taking on added significance because a number of religious groups are reporting revenue declines (see also January 16 issue, page 31).

Florida Easter Week: Student ‘Exkursions’

Even though a rock music festival set for Easter week in Fort Lauderdale was canceled, the largest crowd of sun-and-fun-seeking collegians to hit the Florida beach city since 1961 gathered there for the vacation break.

This could be, according to Pete Hammond of the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship—which conducted the major witnessing effort on the beach—because the gap was filled by the Exkursions. The hard-rock musical group told, in concert, about their encounters with Jesus Christ.

Singing and witnessing from the beach bandstand, the Exkursions had an audience of some 30,000 students. The group also played at the Alternative, an IVCF coffeehouse set up with the help of CASE (Christians for Action and Student Evangelism), the local interdenominational body to coordinate Christian beach activities with city officials.

Observers noted an irenic mood at the festival. “The temperament of the kids is different,” noted Police Lieutenant J. E. Miller. “They don’t want to get messed up with the long hairs or the drug scene.”

Besides beach and coffeehouse concerts, mornings were devoted to Bible study and classes in personal evangelism, and afternoons to discussion groups on the sand, with IVCF members scattered about strategically.

“For the first time in our nine years on the beach, people are coming looking for us,” said Hammond. No accurate count of decisions for Christ was compiled, but twenty-five were reported the first day. Hammond also noted a great demand for New Testaments and a psychedelic “love” version of the Gospel of John provided by the American Bible Society and Southern Baptist Convention.

The Baptist Student Union and a group from Bibletown, U. S. A., shared in the Fort Lauderdale beach ministry. Campus Crusade for Christ, which frequently works that city, shifted to Daytona Beach this year, where the largest Florida vacation student crowds (50,000) collected.

Meanwhile, motorcycle gang members policed a dude ranch south of Orlando where perhaps 40,000 youngsters—some cuddled in sleeping bags, some smoking marijuana—awaited the start of an abortive rock festival scheduled by the promoters of the canceled one in Fort Lauderdale.

Finally, some little-known rock bands performed and the promoters were arrested. There was no organized witnessing at the muddy cow pasture.

ADON TAFT

Smoking Out State Aid

Twenty million dollars in state aid will begin to flow to Pennsylvania’s non-public schools next September under terms of a new law signed by Governor Raymond P. Shafer last month. The annual aid is expected to be collected from the state’s eighteen-cents-a-pack cigarette tax; the revenue will help pay for salaries, textbooks, and instruction materials for non-religious subjects in denominational and private schools.

A similar bill, which would have produced an estimated $12 million annually in aid for Maryland non-public schools, was killed in the state legislature.

Shafer noted Pennsylvania “was the first state to acknowledge the need to assist the education of all its students.” Since last May 31, $4.8 million has been raised for private schools in Pennsylvania from harness and flat-track horse racing (see May 23, 1969, issue, page 34).

Union’S New President

Taking over the presidency of 134-year-old Union Seminary in New York City this October will be the Right Reverend J. Brooke Mosley, 54, former Episcopal bishop of Delaware who is now head of the overseas program of the Episcopal Church.

As predicted (see April 10 issue, page 52), Mosley will follow Union’s eleventh president, Dr. John C. Bennett, who will retire July 1 after seven years as administrative head of the interdenominational seminary. A search committee spent two years seeking Bennett’s replacement.

Mosley became known as an early supporter of civil rights while in Delaware (he became a bishop there in 1953), and he was an early critic of the Viet Nam war. Much of his ministry has been in urban situations. He has not previously held any academic post. He said he had been reluctant to take the Union post because he lacked this background.

The whitehaired bishop will inherit a campus situation already pocked by dissent among student, faculty, and administrator factions. The seminary board meeting at which he was elected March 31 was interrupted when about thirty students walked in with a petition seeking a delay in the election.

The reason? The student body as a whole had not had a chance to meet with Mosley, the students said.

Kansas City Methodists: Horse Of A Different Color

White circuit-riding Methodists in Kansas City, Missouri, are having difficulty saddling their wild stallion. The horse of another color is the black Inner City Parish, and the circuit includes frequent missions to the Black Panthers.

As a result, seven local ministers have issued a formal complaint, bishops of both Missouri and Kansas have declared themselves “polarized against the Panther-sympathizing parish,” sixty white area clergymen have met in secret council, and Kansas City Methodist members have cut contributions in protest.

Drawing added attention to the situation, the House Committee on Internal Security (formerly the House Un-American Activities Committee) subpoenaed Phillip Lawson, executive director of the Methodist Inner City Parish, to explain the church’s relation to the Panthers. Kansas City Black Panthers are the first of several metropolitan chapters to be scrutinized by the committee.²An international news service with a North Korea dateline quotes in full a telegram said to have been sent from the Black Panther party of the United States to North Korean leader Kim Il-song last December 30. It says, in part: “The Black Panther party will join hands with the forty million Korean people in our common struggle against the facist and imperialist administration of the United States, our common enemy, and its ruling classes. We renew the determination to … deal merciless and mortal blows to it.…”

But the battle looms even larger, reflecting a widening division between conservatives and liberals in the mid-western segment of the United Methodist Church. Some of the church’s conservatives have also scored other Kansas City-based “specialized ministries believing in a theology of power and a sociology of violence.”

Why has the Methodist Inner City Parish, composed of three United Methodist churches in decaying neighborhoods and designed to minister to the city’s 200,000 blacks, come under attack by white Methodists? The opposition charges that:

Two members of the parish board of directors are also presidents of local welfare-rights organizations; two other member directors are Black Panthers, including Pete O’Neal, head of the local Panther chapter; the parish has rented two buildings to Panthers for use as their headquarters (the most recent rented for $1.00 per year); the parish paid utility bills for the Panthers last spring, as well as supplying them with a station wagon, and paid nearly $1,000 in bail bonds for Panthers last year.

It has, in addition, financially assisted Panther free-breakfast programs for ghetto children, hired two Panthers to direct Methodist youth and drug programs, and accepted $200 from the government’s Human Resources Center to run a community patrol.

United Methodist bishops Eugene M. Frank of St. Louis and W. McFerrin Strowe of Topeka consequently issued a joint statement rejecting the philosophy and actions of the Black Panthers, admitting they were forced into a “polarized position,” and calling on the Inner City Parish to “sever all relationships” with the Panthers. The bishops’ statement follows a request made by the Kansas City Police Department a year ago objecting to the Panther-parish link.

A secret meeting of sixty United Methodist clergy was held a few days later in an all-white suburban church to plan protests against radical social ministries of the church. The meeting was closed to the press (virtually all Panther meetings are also), but word leaked out, and six uninvited blacks participated.

But Lawson and his assistant executive director, John Preciphs (both are black), are ignoring the complaints. Lawson says: “I tend to think the people who raise doubts and fears about the Panthers are people who are dealing with their own anxieties and problems.” Preciphs contends that the Panthers are the best thing that has ever happened to the black community.

St. Paul School of Theology professor Paul W. Jones, also under attack, defends the directors as well as the Panthers: “I see as entertainable the possibility of property-directed violence.” But when he meets with the black leaders, he says, he tries to lead them into thinking of new ways of “being human.” The Panthers have agreed to discuss the Christian way of solving problems with Jones, which leads him to criticize area ministers “who are undercutting our ability to relate, dialogue, and influence these people.”

Indications are that the pace of circuit-riders on both sides will increase. And relations between them will very likely get hotter before they get better.

JAMES S. TINNEY

Revolution is coming, and if the evangelical church wants a piece of the action it must begin to come to grips with the burning issues of the day. This challenge confronted a recent week-long gathering of more than 300 evangelical leaders. Most seemed ready to respond.

Seminar ’70, sponsored by Christian Leadership Seminars, brought together at a Buck Hill Falls, Pennsylvania, resort a cross section of top evangelical leaders to consider “Youth, the Church and the World.” Some college students represented the younger generation.

On the opening night, Francis Schaeffer of Switzerland’s L’Abri Fellowship warned that problems the Church encountered in the sixties are “child’s play” compared to what it will face in the “post-Christian” seventies. In the sessions that followed, the group took a long, hard look at the Church and the present decade.

Black evangelist Tom Skinner painted a sad picture of evangelicals’ failure to reach the inner city and the black community. He charged that black people are locked out of the evangelical church and called upon evangelicals to present a “de-honkified Christ” to blacks. He also said that in many instances evangelicals’ efforts in the inner city are hampered because no evangelical churches remain there.

It became clear at the conference that frustration with the Church felt by the young is not confined to those outside it. Evangelical young people questioned how they could continue to work within the structure of the evangelical establishment when leaders seem “hung up” on the status quo and deny them the freedom to carry out the implications of their Christian faith in the political and social realm. The group responded to their plea for change with an openness to forms that would help the Church tune in to the world of young people. Some of these forms, such as drama and the coffeehouse (complete with folk and rock music), were introduced in the evening sessions.

Schaeffer affirmed that the Church must always hold on to the absolutes clearly taught in Scripture (orthodoxy of doctrine, orthodoxy of compassion, certain matters of polity) but called for New Testament freedom in the area of non-absolutes (including a freedom to break away from the “evangelical liturgy”).

Samuel Moffett of the Presbyterian Seminary in Seoul, Korea, sounded a note of optimism and encouragement. Rejecting the idea that the human race, the Church, and the missionary movement are near the end, he quoted heartening statistics demonstrating rapid church growth in several areas not yet affected by the “church blight” that has hit America. And he contended that though the mission in the foreign field has changed considerably, professional missionaries are still needed.

Seminar ’70 was a time for exposure and interchange. Young and not-so-young were beginning to listen to each other. Some might feel that at times the talk was too radical and too “socially” oriented to be “evangelical.” But there was never any doubt that the Scriptures were the absolute authority governing every discussion, or that the group saw as its primary mission bringing lost men to Christ. In fact, it was this twofold commitment that compelled those present to relate biblical truth to the needs of society and individuals.

Carl F. H. Henry, editor-at-large of CHRISTIANITY TODAY and professor at Eastern Baptist Seminary, warned that if they keep on the way they’re going, by 1975 evangelicals might as well be in the Dead Sea Caves as far as a formative influence on Western culture is concerned. He warned of the danger of perpetuating Christianity’s isolation on the margin of culture to the detriment of both the world and the Church.

Henry sounded a word of caution against Christians’ casting their lot with what is “anti”; Christians are pro-Christos, he said.

Most attending the seminar were from what program-committee chairman Glenn Heck called the “mid-generation,” the “emerging evangelical leadership,” a group ready to accept young people and to move out with them to face the problems of the day. For some, the conference was a freeing experience: they concluded that the forms of biblical Christianity weren’t so rigid as they had thought. And they decided they could confront the needs of the whole man without compromising their evangelical heritage.

But many expressed concern about how to share their “freedom” with those “back home” who would probably want no part of it. Some compared Seminar ’70 with the Minneapolis U. S. Congress on Evangelism, but indicated they experienced greater involvement in the seminar.

In his closing address, Schaeffer said: “Don’t worry about youth; worry about the Church. If the Church is what it should be, youth will be there.” He warned that the evangelical church is dreadfully behind, adding: “We specialize in being behind.”

Many evangelical leaders left Buck Hill Falls worried about the Church and determined to break the habit of being behind.

RICHARD L. LOVE

Seminar ’70 Survey

The mood of Seminar ’70 was reflected in a survey taken at its close by Ted Ward, director of the Human Learning Institute at Michigan State University. Participants (asked to respond either yes, question, or no to a series of declarative sentences) reacted in virtual unanimity on many issues and substantially differed on a few. None of the statements was rejected by a majority. Following are some of the statements, with the yes-question-no response:

The local church must restructure itself to permit flexibility and diversity of forms (150–4–1). There is a necessity of seeing and loving men as human beings as well as “souls to be saved” (154–1–0). The evangelical church must be courageous enough to experiment with new forms of youth ministry, e.g. coffeehouse, worship forms, etc. (148–7–0). We see social justice as an indivisible part of the Gospel (139–12–4). The evangelical church needs to be shocked into taking an active part in the race issue, bearing the burden of the indictment given at Seminar ’70 (126–25–4). The “underground church” is an appropriate mode in the face of impending revolution (48–81–26). There should be a moratorium on constructing church buildings (54–54–47). New Testament “pacifism” is a valid philosophy and should have been faced more squarely (51–59–45). Evangelicals have had more social concern than they have been given credit for (62–53–40). We would be supportive of interracial marriage (89–50–16). “Gradualism” as a practical methodology must immediately be done away with (44–62–49).

Negro Evangelical Association Moves Toward Activism

Plagued with airline and postal delays, the National Negro Evangelical Association (NNEA) nonetheless gained momentum over the four days of its seventh annual meeting, held in New York City April 1–4. For the second straight year, black identity for Negro evangelical Christians was the overriding theme. But the 1970 meeting stressed this even more than last year, when there was a counter-emphasis on piety and foreign missions.

A trend is apparent over the years. The NNEA was founded as a fellowship and practical aid to strengthen the black evangelical cause. Many charter members are no longer active, and the convictions of those who are do not represent as broad a spectrum as they once did. At the 1969 meeting in Atlanta there were two factions: those conservative in sociology and methodology of evangelism, and activists in sociology who were radically unconventional in evangelism.

The conservative element generally didn’t bother to attend this year; at least some observers saw this as a move away from a fellowship of all black evangelicals towards the fellowship of black activist evangelicals.

Trinity College instructor Columbus Salley is an embodiment of the current NNEA mood. Salley, a featured evening speaker, wore mod pants, turtleneck sweater, and a Mongolian beard. He spoke against racists and white Christianity, and in favor of biblical Christianity—with a strong addition of black awareness.

In a message generously sprinkled with quotations from “Brother Stokely” (Carmichael), “Brother Malcolm” (Malcolm X), and “the honorable Elijah Mohammed,” he argued that biblical Christianity, rightly understood, gives a blueprint for extensive social involvement and identification with black culture. A radical new involvement in social issues and black identity is the only hope of winning even a portion of today’s black people, Salley maintained.

The association passed two significant resolutions without verbal opposition. One supported NNEA member John Perkins, a missionary in Mendenhall, Mississippi, who recently received severe physical mistreatment and jailing for his involvement in social issues.

The other resolution deplored apathy (“benign neglect”) toward social evils, and was clearly aimed at the Nixon administration’s apparent lack of enthusiasm for racial justice and the cause of the oppressed. It specifically found fault with white evangelicals’ support of conservative politicians, including evangelist Billy Graham’s support of the Nixon administration.

Outgoing president George Perry stated that the need for social involvement is so great that those who disagree with this stance of the NNEA “just don’t know what time it is.” The NNEA’s new budget of more than $24,000 will aid this thrust. For the next two years the leadership will be in the hands of genial William Bentley, a Chicago social worker and inner-city pastor.

ALAN DAN ORME

Christian Kibbutz: Blossoming Like A Rose?

Everything seems to be coming up roses—and avocados—at Nes Ammim, Israel’s fledgling Christian kibbutz. It was not ever thus. Planted seven years ago by American, Swiss, Dutch, and German Christians, Nes Ammim at first produced mostly thorns instead of the hoped-for flowering of rapport between Christians and Jews.

The thorniest problem was how to plant that rapport: in evangelistic efforts (which the Americans and the Swiss favored) or in concern over Christians’ historical mistreatment of Jews and overtures of friendship to them (which the Dutch and the Germans preferred).

The Israeli government helped remove that thorn. Orthodox Jews in the Knesset feared that to approve the kibbutz would be to establish a seedbed of missionaries. Accordingly, the government approved the settlement on the condition that no missionary activity originate there; this prompted Americans and Swiss to pull up roots.

With Dutch leadership and German support, Nes Ammim has begun to put down roots—again. Today the roses that bloom in ultra-modern hothouses are a profitable export; the avocado orchard recently planted is a potential profit-maker.

And once-wilted relations are reviving. Late last year the kibbutz welcomed its first German volunteers, a couple who, though once members of the Nazi party, arranged the escape of a constant stream of Polish Jews during World War II. An American couple has also joined the community to oversee the avocado project. And this summer a group of Swiss students plan to participate in a work-camp project there.

Jewish interest in Nes Ammim is growing also. Dr. Yohan Pilon, the Dutch physician who directs the kibbutz, reports that “our neighbors are interested in our success—not just economic success but the ideological part as well.” Success depends to some extent on the depth of Nes Ammim’s roots. So long as it remains a center for transient Christians who stay only a few months, warn the local Israelis on the governing board, Nes Ammim will never be completely accepted as a part of the local scene.

Dr. Pilon agrees. “But,” he adds, “our real performance depends on the churches and religious organizations abroad.”

DWIGHT BAKER

Sharp division over the value of Billy Graham’s Germany crusade was evident when the evangelist addressed a turbulent meeting of state church clergymen in Dortmund, on the third day of his “Euro 70” campaign this month. From the capacity crowd of 500 came boos and hisses, mingled with applause and the banging of tables.

Industrial Dortmund, in the heart of the Ruhr area, was the hub of Graham’s latest crusade. But the outreach was continent-wide. The 13,000-seat Westfalenhalle meetings were carried by the largest closed-circuit TV network ever attempted in Europe. Tens of thousands of people saw the evangelist nightly on large screens in auditoriums from Tromso, Norway (300 miles north of the Arctic Circle), to Geneva, Switzerland.

His sermons were simultaneously translated into seven languages for thirty-five European cities.

The Lutheran ministers’ meeting, a session in one of their regular conferences, was not relayed and was not organized by the crusade committee. Graham had accepted an invitation from the churchmen.

As he began to address them, he acknowledged their “division” about his ministry. This was about all he could do before a bearded demonstrator shoved his way to the front. The interloper was involved in a scuffle, smashing his roughly made banner. Graham then allowed him several minutes to speak. The interrupter denounced the crusade and the amount of money spent “to rescue people from spiritual death” (a problem he claimed could be solved by a quick visit to the nearest parish priest) and “taken away from those in danger of physical death by starvation.”

There was loud applause when the interrupter claimed: “It’s a shame that the Christians give so much money to unimportant things.”

Minutes later, Graham resumed his prepared address, referring to “a technological revolution that is changing our lives … a moral revolution in which old standards are passing away … a social revolution in which more people are starving to death every day than ever before in this century … a revolution in warfare in which millions of people can be killed in a matter of minutes … a psychological revolution in which there is a dehumanization of the personality.…”

He emphasized personal redemption and social responsibility. “The two go together,” he said, “but true social concern should be based on the Scriptures and compassion.”

Graham referred to his own involvement in the U. S. poverty program and race problem. Then he answered those who ask: “What about the demonstrations? Why don’t you go out and march in the streets?” He claimed: “I’m already holding demonstrations in the biggest stadiums and halls in the world, but because they are non-violent, people think that’s not a demonstration. It is a demonstration.”

Booing mingled with applause died away as the evangelist concluded: “I do not believe that man has the capacity, with his sinful nature, of solving all the problems of the world permanently. We can try, but we will ultimately fail. Only Jesus Christ is going to set the world right. God is going to have to intervene in human history and bring peace and social justice and racial brotherhood. God is going to have to do it.”

Questions and speeches followed, some with strong left-wing overtones. Graham answered simply, carefully avoiding political involvement. One question was: “What do you believe is more important, the spreading of the Christian faith among the people of these underdevelopment countries, or solving their social needs?”

His reply: “Both are important. But ‘what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?’ That is the answer of Jesus.”

The words of Jesus appeared to be of less importance to many of the listeners than the political views of the preacher. Pressed to make some comment on Viet Nam, Graham concluded his already extended stay at the conference by stating: “You greatly misunderstand my ministry. I do not represent the U. S. government. I represent the kingdom of God. I am an ambassador in a strange world. This world is a foreign world, with all its evils. I am to minister in it. I’m to witness to it every way I possibly can, but I belong to a different kingdom. My flag is the flag of Christ. Why did Jesus Christ not lead a demonstration against the tyranny of Rome? Why did Paul not lead a demonstration? Because they represented a different kingdom.”

The atmosphere quieted and then became electric as he said, in a supreme moment of candor: “I cannot defend the United States, any more than you can defend what went on in the thirties and forties in Germany. He concluded: “Now concerning Viet Nam, I promise you this: If Germany is invaded by a foreign power, and the United States comes to your aid, I will not lead a demonstration down Pennsylvania Avenue against giving you that aid.”

Prolonged, and for the first time unanimous, applause followed.

At the crusade’s half-way point, results were “encouraging”—according to one spokesman, “greater than we anticipated in many of the relay centers.” The total attendance for the opening service at the TV centers throughout Europe was 94,000. There were nearly 1,000 inquirers that night throughout the network.

Norway had the highest attendance outside Germany. Oslo was the only city operating two relay centers. Kristiansand’s opening night saw as many turned away as were in the capacity crowd jamming a 4,000-seat auditorium. Traffic jams were reported to stretch for many miles. Zagreb, Yugoslavia, the only Eastern European hookup, had a hall seating only 500. On the opening night an estimated crowd of 1,000 filled every available space; the next night there were even more. An interior wall was removed to accommodate them.

One Swiss theologian emphasized the timeliness of the crusade by stressing Germany’s need for a new emphasis on the authenticity and relevancy of the Bible. Modern technology enabled Graham’s endorsement of this to be taken far beyond the confines of the Westfalenhalle, all across the continent.

DAVE FOSTER

Carl Mcintire’S Victory: ‘In This Sign Conquer’

Radio evangelist Carl McIntire doesn’t believe in losing. It just doesn’t fit into his or God’s landscaping. On April 4 the fiery fundamentalist marched with as many as 50,000¹Washington police chief Jerry V. Wilson, whose department at first refused McIntire permission to march down Pennsylvania Avenue, estimated the crowd at between 10,000 and 15,000. United States Park Police estimated the crowd at more nearly 50,000. McIntire credited Representative L. Mendel Rivers, South Carolina Democrat and war matériel boss, with “showing them who runs this town” by getting the march permit. of those who feel much the same way to the foot of Washington Monument. At his beck, the group turned to the White House and chanted, “We want victory in Viet Nam.”

For McIntire, the march has to be the biggest single victory in his relentless fight against the “international conspiracy of godless Communism.” But for all his announcements that 100,000 persons would be on hand to “help turn the tide,” the press paid little attention beforehand. Even after he made his point and nearly 1,000 busloads poured into the city tying up traffic for hours, reports were downplayed (despite pageone stories in Washington and New York) in contrast to the splash given anti-war rallies.

Forgotten when newsmen started comparing the figures with the New Mobe’s anti-war protest in the same area on November 15 was the fact that McIntire’s effort was almost a solo affair—one man haranguing on 600 radio stations. Forgotten also was the fact that this was the first sizable pro-war demonstration (that was not a counterdemonstration) and that it attracted nearly twice as many marchers as the first anti-war demonstration four years earlier.

Now the time had come, said the founding president of the International Counoil of Churches, for the “silent majority” to make some noise; while they had been tongue-tied the Communists had taken over.

The biggest noise-maker of them all, the restaurateur who swung his way into the governor’s chair in Georgia on the talking end of an ax handle, dished out the warmed-over hash that has been his and McIntire’s specialty. Bible-quoting Lester Maddox told the enthusiastic crowd: “We did not lose our war over Communism in Southeast Asia. We lost it here in Washington.”

Louisiana’s Representative John R. Rarick earlier had scored points on much the same theme: “We are here to seek peace in Viet Nam—peace the American way—with victory.” The Democrat dean of House conservatives denounced the Nixon Administration’s “no-win” policy and the New Mobe’s concept of unilateral withdrawal as foreign to the American spirit.

Here and there groups of hippies and others whooped it up, flashing the “V” sign and, when the Americanisms got thick, bursting out with “oink oink” and “Sieg Heil.” But McIntire was not nonplused. He put static into their “V”-sign thunder when he said the youths “stole” it from patriotic Americans. Then he had his throng flash the famed Churchillian sign.

The demonstration, for all the valid or at least plausible points it was making, was an orgy of religious symbolism, patriotism, and militarism. “In this sign conquer” pins had been sold by the thousands. McIntire called on Americans to begin to wage “a holy war against Communism.” He warned his audience about the history of the Church in Communist countries and said it was not politics that motivated him to call the march: “One of the reasons why I’m in this fight is to keep the doors of my church open. There’s not a single church in Communist China open now.… That’s what will happen in this country if they take over.”

McIntire is a master at making money out of efforts to thwart him. Playing into his hands most of all was an eleventh-hour letter from the White House saying the march had been postponed. “This just simply is not so.… This just makes my blood boil. People believe in the White House—at least they’re supposed to.” The White House hastily sent a correcting letter and a promise of an FBI investigation—but not before the evangelist’s cries of persecution and harassment brought thousands of dollars of “the Lord’s money” into his war chest.

But it was from Dixie that he drew most of his support. The Stars and Bars fluttered alongside the Stars and Stripes. The crowd sang “Dixie,” and got some of the words wrong. The appeal was to causes popular in the South: Stop interference in school affairs, put Bible reading and prayer back in the schools, and get sex out. “I like our good brothers in the South,” McIntire said. “It looks like they’ve got more fight in them than we’ve got farther north.”

Aside from traffic problems, the marchers caused not a speck of trouble. One policeman volunteered the opinion that it had been the most peaceful march he had ever seen.

Now that the radio preacher has gained a sorely needed victory within shouting distance of the White House (see editorial, page 25), there is little doubt that, if he speaks for the silent majority, there will be a lot more noise around Washington in months to come.

WILLIAM WILLOUGHBY

Editorial Laurels

CHRISTIANITY TODAY has received an Associated Church Press Award of Merit “in recognition of the general excellence of its editorial advocacy” during 1969. The judges singled out for special praise the nine editorials that appeared in the July 18 issue.

In all, twenty-three awards were presented at the ACP’s annual meeting in Chicago this month. Face to Face, a monthly published by the United Methodist Board of Education’s curriculum resources division, and World Encounter, a five-times-a-year production of the Lutheran Church in America’s Board of World Missions, pulled down top honors by receiving four each—photography, reporting, editorial advocacy, and general excellence.

‘Only Her Doctor Knows’

Liberalized abortion laws, three Roman Catholic prelates declared recently, “legalize what is tantamount to murder on demand.” Their distress was prompted by what may be the nation’s most liberal abortion law so far. The bill, which was passed last month in Maryland, makes abortion strictly a matter between a woman and her doctor, without restrictions on residency or fetal viability.²The bill liberalizes an already liberal Maryland law adopted in 1968.

Maryland Governor Marvin Mandel did not indicate immediately whether he would sign the bill, veto it, or ignore it until June 30, when a “pocket veto” would kill it. But Roman Catholic leaders—including Lawrence Cardinal Shehan, archbishop of Baltimore, and Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, archbishop of Washington, D. C.—promptly denounced it as an “utter repudiation of the sacredness of, and the right to, human life as found in the unborn child.” Furthermore, they said, the bill would repudiate that life “without so much as even a consultation with the father.…”

A week earlier, Roman Catholics in Massachusetts, led by Richard Cardinal Cushing, voiced similar protests about a package of bills that would have legalized abortion there. The bills were defeated.

A strange twist of the knife, attributed by some to Roman Catholic influence, narrowly killed abortion reform in New York. For several years, the State House had tried to liberalize abortion while the Senate thwarted every attempt. But last month the Senate approved a bill making abortion the decision of patient and physician, and the House tabled the measure after eight hours of heated debate. The proposal, which includes a fetal-viability restriction, can be voted on again this session.

Meanwhile, in Hawaii, where a liberal law took effect earlier this year (see March 27 issue, page 36), forty-six abortions were performed in one week. In the previous eleven months, seventy abortions were recorded.

Defying Ian Smith

The Roman Catholic Church in Rhodesia, three days before the country’s election of a new parliament, sharply attacked sweeping segregationist powers proclaimed last month by the white-controlled government.

Prime Minister Ian Smith’s Rhodesian Front was expected to renew control in the election, but the Catholic Church appeared ready to defy his regime if multiracial worship and education are ended in the African country where 228,000 whites rule 4.8 million blacks.

A fifty-six-page booklet issued by Rhodesia’s five Catholic bishops said the church “will not compromise its principles or its conscience. In saying this, the church, like its founder, is prepared to lose all so as to gain all.”

A Major Old Testament Study

Introduction to the Old Testament, by R. K. Harrison (Eerdmans, 1969, 1,338 pp., $12.50), is reviewed by R. Laird Harris, dean of faculty, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.

This magnum opus of Dr. Harrison is a welcome addition to the literature on Old Testament introduction. The book falls into two major sections: about 500 pages of general material on Old Testament study, and about 700 pages of special introduction treating the individual books. There is also a helpful section on the Apocrypha. The first section, which could well have been bound as Volume I, gives material on the history of the science, archaeology, chronology, the text of the Old Testament and its canon, and the theology and worship of the Old Testament.

As is obvious from the bulk of the book, it is a major study. Not only does Harrison range widely in the topics he treats; he also shows a tremendous grasp of the literature of the field. His work is especially valuable for citations of British and Continental authors. A few American key studies have not been noted, as, for instance, the article by Jack Lewis (“What Do We Mean by Jabneh?,” Journal of Bible and Religion, 1964), which brings into question the Council of Jamnia (cf. pp. 278 and 1186). But in general American authors are also used extensively, and writers of all shades of theological opinion are cited.

Although the work is extensive, it still is somewhat of a survey in some areas for the simple reason that it covers so wide a field. For instance, Part Two on archaeology covers only sixty-two pages, whereas J. A. Thompson’s book The Bible and Archaeology covers almost 500 pages. Harrison’s Part Seven, Old Testament theology, covers seventy-eight pages, whereas Payne’s Theology of the Older Testament has 550 pages. (In my opinion, incidentally, Parts Six and Seven, Old Testament religion and Old Testament theology, could well have been treated together.) The section on Old Testament history has a discerning section on historiography. Harrison’s treatment of problems of text or material in the Old Testament is in general very satisfactory. In such discussions he carefully gives the history of the matters concerned and a moderate statement of the situation with helpful suggestions for answers to the difficulty.

On the whole the work is from the evangelical viewpoint and a valuable contribution to such literature. I found it a bit more concessive at some points than was necessary; e.g., a local flood, the late date of the Exodus, the low value of the Psalm titles, monolatry rather than monotheism for the Patriarchs’ religion, and inaccuracy of the censuses in Numbers. On the other hand, there seems to be too much trust in the early date of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Harrison holds that the Cyrus passage in Isaiah 45 is a gloss but argues that the disputed word in Isaiah 7:14 really means “virgin.” He strongly opposes the documentary divisions of the Pentateuch, drawing heavily on the archaeological arguments advanced by C. H. Gordon, W. F. Albright, and others.

The section on textual criticism might have been strengthened, which is not surprising, inasmuch as only recently have orthodox Old Testament scholars entered this field and likewise only recently have critical scholars become more cautious. Both groups would profit by attention to such study of the New Testament, where the principles have been better worked out. On page 259 it could be added that, as Warfield observed years ago (Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 10), another objective of the textual critic is the validation of our present texts. The new discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls help mightily here. These are criticisms of individual points and should not negate the positive value of the work as a whole.

The book is to be highly recommended and the author commended for his industry, patience, and wisdom. He has given us a book that should be widely used as a text and reference book by Old Testament scholars.

Especially For Children

The Children’s New Testament, by Gleason H. Ledyard (Word, 1969, 628 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by Donald W. Burdick, professor of New Testament, Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, Denver, Colorado.

Paul said of Timothy, “You have known the Holy Writings since you were a child” (2 Tim. 3:15, Children’s New Testament). And it is no less true today that familiarity with the Scriptures ought to begin in early childhood. To meet this need, veteran missionary Gleason H. Ledyard has attempted to render the New Testament “in language children can read and understand.” He limited himself to a vocabulary of about 850 words and replaced such technical terms as “propitiation,” “sanctification,” “Pharisee,” “synagogue,” and “resurrection” with simpler explanatory expressions. The work reflects a theologically conservative viewpoint.

To make the New Testament understandable for children, a considerable amount of paraphrase is necessary. However, the more a translation moves toward paraphrase, the more it must be interpretative, and the greater is the possibility that it may miss the point.

Considering all the excellent qualities of The Children’s New Testament, I would like to give the volume unqualified endorsement. But there are some weak spots. In some instances where passages are obscure and open to more than one interpretation, Ledyard arbitrarily adopts a specific interpretation. For example, in Acts 2:4 the apostles speak in “other languages,” but in First Corinthians 12:10, 28, 30glossa is translated as “special sounds,” suggesting ecstatic speech in heavenly languages not current among the nations of earth.

In a number of passages the words righteous and righteousness are interpreted forensically where the context clearly refers to a righteous life. For example, in First John 2:29 Christ is described as “right with God” (dikaios) and his children are characterized likewise as “right with God.” In the second instance, however, the Greek poion ten dikaiosunen means “practicing righteousness.” John refers, not to standing before God, but to right living.

The term for “kingdom” is always rendered “nation,” so that John declares, “The holy nation of heaven is near” (Matt. 3:2). One wonders if even a child would not find it easier to understand “The kingdom of heaven is near.”

If such deficiencies as these could be remedied, this translation would be of inestimable value for family Bible reading and for use by children themselves. It is to be hoped that publisher and translator will perform this useful service.

Victims Of Persecution

Strangers and Exiles: A History of Religious Refugees, Volumes I and II, by Frederick A. Norwood (Abingdon, 1969, 1,023 pp., $25), is reviewed by C. George Fry, assistant professor of history, Capital University, Columbus, Ohio.

What is the proper response of a Christian to persecution? Should he be “a roaring lion of defiance (rebellion), a meek lamb of peaceful resistance (martyrdom), or a wise fox maneuvering (flight as refugee)”? Through the centuries, multitudes have chosen the way of the fox. This work tells their story.

This “straight-forward and comprehensive history of religious refugees” by Frederick A. Norwood, professor of the history of Christianity at Garrett Theological Seminary, was written for three reasons. First, Dr. Norwood has had a lifelong personal interest in the plight of the refugee. This concern began during his student days at Yale in the 1930s and was reflected in his doctoral dissertation, prepared under Roland H. Bainton and published as The Reformation Refugees as an Economic Force. These volumes, therefore, are the ripe fruit of research and reflection. But second, the problem of the refugee is a challenge to the entire Christian community today in this “century of the homeless man” when millions have been uprooted. And third, in the career of the refugee Norwood finds a new life style for the Church—that of the Lord’s diaspora in secular society.

The story of the religious refugee has its roots in the Old Testament. As Norwood observes, “almost the entire history of the Jews is refugee history.” In this work he traces the wanderings of the Jews from the time of Abraham to that of David Ben-Gurion. But the main emphasis is on Christian refugees. The process by which the Church changed from a persecuted minority into the persecutor of its dissenting brethren is discussed. The primary stress in the first volume is on persecution in the medieval and early modern periods. It concludes with the dawn of legal toleration in the Enlightenment. Quite properly, Norwood devotes an entire second volume to the problem of persecution in modern times. Half of this volume focuses on the twentieth century. We are again reminded, as the late Kenneth Scott Latourette once noted, that there have been more martyrs and pilgrims for the sake of the Gospel in our century than in the nineteen preceding ones combined.

This was a difficult work to write. Norwood has handled his subjects in a sensitive and thorough manner. Through the exploration of a vast body of literature in English and the Continental languages, he has collected an amazing amount of data about the many pilgrim peoples—from the little-known Christian Assyrians of the Middle East to the much publicized Waldensians and Huguenots of Europe. The diverse strands are woven together with a goodly degree of continuity.

In spite of great care, some errors have crept into print. Transylvania was never part of the Holy Roman Empire (I, 443), “Hanoverians” is preferred to “Hanovers” (I, 489), and to refer to the Palatines, Dutch, and Norwegians as part of a colonial “Celtic” migration is unfortunate (II, 192). But these are very minor matters when compared with the conscientious and exhaustive scholarship on which this history rests.

A serious disappointment for all evangelical readers, however, will be the author’s acceptance of the view of Vatican II on the Church as a sacrament and the corollary conviction that “salvation will include many who, although they have not received and accepted the gospel, come unknowing under its redeeming grace” (II, 476). While the author is certainly not a universalist, he does feel that “the choir of heaven is being enlarged.” For him the Church is the “advance party” of “that larger company who do not yet know who and what they are—all children of God.…” I cannot concur with Dr. Norwood in drawing this conclusion from the history of religious refugees. But I respect his scholarship and commend this well-researched work to all serious students of church history.

Archaeology Illustrated

Tells, Tombs and Treasure, by Robert T. Boyd (Baker, 1969, 222 pp., $7.95), is reviewed by Marvin R. Wilson, chairman, Division of Biblical Studies, Barrington College, Barrington, Rhode Island.

“A Pictorial Guide to Biblical Archaeology” is the fitting subtitle of this work. Robert T. Boyd, a pastor and evangelist, seeks to make a “dead” subject come to life for the general reader. In this he succeeds, and here is the book’s greatest value.

Nearly half the volume is illustrations—320, to be exact, many Boyd’s own. Among the most unusual pictures are the “Lion’s Den,” “ ‘Cup’ of the 23rd Psalm,” and “Earliest Crucifix.” The rest of the book is mainly popularized commentary revolving around the illustrations. The novice will appreciate the frequent explanations of archaeological jargon.

In seven chapters Boyd covers data from both Old and New Testaments, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many readers will find the second chapter the most interesting. Here the author draws upon his limited field experience (he was a member of Wheaton’s team under J. P. Free at Dothan) to describe the process of a dig.

Boyd fails to interact with many key secondary and primary sources in the field. Consequently, certain issues tend to be oversimplified. There are no footnotes. The King James Version is appealed to throughout. One searches the bibliography in vain for such notables as Kenyon, Wright, and Yadin.

A number of statements are open to question. Boyd fails to note Glueck’s retracted interpretation (1965) of the ruins at Ezion-Geber as a copper refinery. Though he argues that “Sarah was only following a custom of the day when she gave Hagar to Abraham to bear a child,” he seems, on the other hand, to disclaim any relation between

the Mosaic law code and Hammurabi’s. In addition, Boyd is unconvincing in stating that “many scholars accept the book of Job as the oldest in the world.”

Other questionable matters include the suggestion that “since early writing was in the form of marks, or symbols, writing began when God put a ‘mark’ on Cain after he had slain Abel.” Also, Boyd feels it is not unreasonable to assume that our knowledge of creation was handed down from Adam, who in the garden asked countless questions about himself and things around him. One may also ask why “Elephantine” is omitted and why “Mrs. Lot—A Pillar of Salt” gets more space than that allotted for the Gezer Calendar, Megidde, and Masada combined.

Some of Boyd’s analogies are inimitable. In the first chapter we find such lively expressions as “Man Kills Wife While Taking Bath,” “society dame,” and “hit the bottle.” Nude images of ancient religion are likened to the “original ‘pin-up’ girl” and a topless dancer in a California nightclub. A parallel is made between Mesopotamian priests (medical exorcists) and modern psychiatrists. Such expressions may help some to “turn on” to archaeology, but they may turn others off.

Boyd writes with apologetic and evangelistic passion. Throughout, he disagrees with the Bible “critics” (whom he never names). In earnest he writes, “Every broken piece [of pottery] will also be a reminder of a sinner’s heart—broken and completely beyond repair,” and “Thank God His Word is not scientific trash.” To the last statement this reviewer will offer no argument.

Introduction To Psychology

Man in Triumph, by Harold W. Darling, is reviewed by Vernon C. Grounds, president, Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, Denver, Colorado.

Post-Freudian psychology is a bewildering maze of systems and theories. A Christian attempting to find his way through this jungle may soon become so disoriented that he heads back to the highroad of theology and decides that the disciplined study of human nature is forbidden territory for a biblicist. So what the chairman of the social-science division at Spring Arbor College has done is provide a kind of map for would-be explorers. Dr. Darling, a psychologist, helpfully charts the terrain for his fellow believers.

The introduction he provides is, fortunately, free from dry-as-dust pedantry. Almost painlessly he acquaints his readers with key ideas of the pivotal figures in this burgeoning discipline, not only Freud but also Adler, Jung, Rank, Horney, Fromm, Sartre, May, Maslow, Allport, Rogers, Frankel—many of the significant names on the roster of post-Freudians. Crisply he sums up those aspects of their theorizing that impinge on Christian faith, and these summaries, while very condensed and at times somewhat simplistic, are admirably done.

More specifically, Darling discusses the relation between theology and psychology in four areas: the nature of man, the universality of guilt, the springs of motivation, and the dynamics of motivation. All the while he grapples with moral as well as spiritual issues. His well-informed, balanced, evangelical and yet irenic discussions will do much to enable his fellow believers to find their way through the tangles and thickets of psychology. At the same time, they correct certain misimpressions and show why there is need for a radical transformation of personality that human therapy cannot effect.

Darling’s treatment of extremely recondite matters can be accused of superficiality; but an adequate analysis of them would take a book rather than a paragraph, and would confuse and bore many of those whom the author is trying to assist. Experts may fault him for being too brief, too uncritical, occasionally too hortatory. Non-experts may complain that, though he holds up biblical faith as the way to self-understanding and self-fulfillment, he rarely explains in specific terms how the Gospel is to be changed from theoretical theology into operational technique. But one must not demand that an introductory study be a spiritual panacea.

Book Briefs

The Victorian Church, Part II, by Owen Chadwick (Oxford, 1970, 510 pp., $12.50). This conclusion of an extensive study of the Victorian Church includes detailed accounts of the problems that confronted the Church in the latter part of the nineteenth century.

Biblical Predestination, by Gordon H. Clark (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969, 155 pp., paperback, $1.95). Examines this controversial doctrine in the light of the Scriptures.

The Affable Enemy, by Wallace E. Fisher (Abingdon, 1970, 157 pp., $3.95). Uses an exchange of letters by two fictitious characters to challenge the casual Christian (the affable enemy) to a vital Christian commitment through doctrine and deed.

Like It Is, by Mort Crim (Warner, 1970, 124 pp., paperback, $2.50). A former minister, now a radio and television newsman, relates Christianity to the problems of our time and suggests what Christians should be doing to correct injustices.

Time Bomb in the Middle East, by Yehoshafat Harkabi et al. (Friendship, 1969, 96 pp., paperback, $1.35). A bird’s-eye view and analysis of the opposing viewpoints in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Release from Tension, by David A. Blaiklock (Zondervan, 1969, 92 pp., $2.95). Relates the truths of the Christian faith to problems and circumstances that often lead to unbearable stress and tension.

The People Who Couldn’t Be Stopped, by Ethel Barrett (Regal, 1970, 138 pp., paperback, $.69). A look at Acts in the Ethel Barrett style.

I Meet God Through the Strangest People, by Daniel R. Burow (Concordia, 1970, 206 pp., $3.95). Devotions for 9-to-13-year-olds.

General Epistles of James and Jude, by Richard Wolf (Tyndale House, 1969, 113 pp., paperback, $1.95). A verse-by-verse commentary.

The Puritan Lectureships, by Paul S. Seaver (Stanford University, 1970, 402 pp., $12.50). Examines the influence of the Puritan lectureships upon English society during the century after 1560.

The Treasury of Quiet Talks, by S. D. Gordon (Baker, 1970, 251 pp., paperback, $2.50). Those familiar with the S. D. Gordon “Quiet Talks” will appreciate this reprint.

Youth Meditations, by Walter L. Cook (Abingdon, 1970, 96 pp., $2.50). Thirty-nine meditations that compare problems of today’s teen-agers and experiences of biblical characters.

Lamentations-Daniel, by J. Stafford Wright (Eerdmans, 1969, 93 pp. paperback, $1.25). A “Scripture Union Bible Study Book.”

Pauline and Other Studies, by William M. Ramsay (Baker, 1970, 415 pp., $6.95). Reprint of an important work by an outstanding authority on the life of Paul.

Projections: Shaping an American Theology for the Future, edited by Thomas F. O’Meara and Donald M. Weisser (Doubleday, 1970, 233 pp., $5.95). A look into the future by several well-known theologians, each of whom discusses a particular theological trend and its influence on the future of Christian theology.