Making Religion Rollicking

With mixed feelings I have been perusing a communique from the Society for the Promotion of a Sense of Humor in Religion. Among its aims and activities: “finding salvation through laughter … the Gospels and the humerous [sic] attitude … establishing a new office—that of ‘Church Jester’ … humor nights for fun and purpose.” The massive solemnity and objectivity of it all frightened me. Can you really in cold blood promote humor? Moreover the founder and president of the society describes himself as a “humorist.” He offered no taste of his wares, but promised “help in dealing with life problems [more sic].”

I know of someone who would have been aghast at the whole business. “It would be a gain to the country,” declared John Henry Newman, “were it vastly more superstitious, more bigoted, more gloomy, more fierce in its religion that at present it shows itself to be.” That was, of course, before he became a cardinal.

Since a decadent society has done away with the stocks, a salutary corrective for religious humorists would be a sojourn in a certain European country where visiting American church folk are given a duplicated sheet containing twelve recommendations. What follows is not Eutychusian fantasy—I have the sheet in front of me as I write.

“Do not put your hands in your pocket in the pulpit,” it urges, “especially when you pray.” Do not “jump up and down in the pulpit when you arc preaching” (a ban sure to cramp the style of any aspiring jester). No legs, male or female, to be crossed “in the pulpit or in church.” Lipstick, short/sleeveless/low-cut dresses, jewelry, painted eyes/nails/hair—all these are taboo. So are fancy clothes, in or out of church. No pulpit jokes, no political cracks, no fraternizing with local boys or girls unless marriage is a definite prospect. No hugging your own spouse in front of others, no talking about “your sweet wife, your intelligent children or your amazing husband, etc.”

And if that is not indicative of how well they know Americans, hearken to this counsel that has a section all to itself: “Avoid wearing bow ties anywhere.” Having taken my measure on the spot, though my hair was manifestly unpainted and my tie staunchly unbowed, they still wouldn’t let me get into the pulpit when I addressed the congregation.

I wish our American humorists no harm, but I would like to see them fly there for their vacation (details available for a small commission). On an exchange basis, naturally. Those Europeans could do First Baptist a power of good.

EUTYCHUS IV

Blooming Wealth

I had come to the conclusion that pastors with deVries’s convictions (Jan. 2) were sanctified, galvanized, and petrified. Kittel and Nestle were simply doorstops—but there was his article for real: “Ignorant Preachers.”

I concur enthusiastically with his statement to the effect that many seminarians, after the opportunity of studying the Hebrew and Greek, have found that the Word began to “glow with vitality.… How shallow and superficial their previous understanding and knowledge then appears.” This was my experience. A college Greek prof put it this way: when you read the English Bible it is like a drive at freeway speeds; the countryside is a blur. But when you pursue the originals, it is like a walk through the countryside; the details blossom and bloom, and the wealth of God’s Word opens up in refreshingly new ways.…

I thank God now for the sweat shed as a Hebrew major with Greek minor. It was rigorous … but the dividends personally are unmeasurable.

GEORGE MEISINGER

Maranatha Bible Church

Minneapolis, Minn.

I unapologetically believe that the study of Greek and Hebrew is only of secondary importance in the training of the minister, though I passed the requirements in both for my theological degree.…

I agree with the author that preaching cannot be biblical unless it is based upon exposition of the authoritative Word of God, but I protest his insinuation that such study can be made only in the original languages. Neither do I make man the center of my study because I do not prepare my expositions from the original languages. DeVries’s God is too small if God is able to give man a Word only in Greek and Hebrew.…

No one is more delighted than I in the riches that are to be found in the Scripture’s original languages, but in urging that the study of these languages be made optional I am only asking that theological faculties be as realistic as possible in assessing the gifts of those men God has called into the ministry. I take courage in deVries’s admission that there have been competent preachers unlearned in Greek and Hebrew. It just may be that in this day of a shortage of ministers, if seminaries will liberalize their requirements in this respect, more vacant pulpits can be filled.

GERALD C. STUDER

Scottdale Mennonite Church

Scottdale, Pa.

Soar From Stooping

Your “Personalia” paragraph concerning the theological student robbing a Chicago bank (News, Jan. 2) caused my righteous indignation to soar. I am not condoning his act, but he now needs the compassion and help of all who are Christian. I am at a total loss to understand such actions of a Christian journal. What have you accomplished by stooping to the sensationalism of secular journalism? “When I was in prison you visited me.”

CHESTER C. PARKER

Muncie, Ind.

Hearty Good

I was tremendously excited and blessed by “Religion at Sixes and Sevens in the Sixties and Seventies” (Jan. 2). I have always been interested in unique titles, and I feel that your journalism reached a splendid degree of excellency in the preparation of this article, as well as its title. I just wanted you to know my appreciation for the depth and scope of the material, and the unique presentation of it. It did my heart much good.

GEORGE E. VANDEMAN

Director, General Conference

Seventh-day Adventist Church

Washington, D. C.

Stepping With Pride

As an “evangelical,” a graduate of Wheaton College, and a regular reader of CHRISTIANITY TODAY who has not always been proud of the social awareness exhibited by these elements of American Protestantism, I would like to express my great pride in your article “Read, Baby, Read: A First Step to Action” (Dec. 19).

God grant that this immensely practical first step not be our last and that subsequent steps be taken with utmost haste.

WILLIAM HOYT

Big Springs Baptist Church

Alcester, S. D.

Holey Theology

While J. Edgar Hoover had some interesting points (Dec. 19), I do not understand how an “evangelical” magazine could give such prominent billing to an article laden with unevangelical ideas. While such things as patriotism, morality, law and order, good behavior, and respect for elders are desirable in a “good” society, they will not, in themselves, make us good. I am only a layman, but I can see the many perforations in Mr. Hoover’s theology. Only faith in Jesus Christ can make us good and worthy in the sight of God.

LEO L. RIDDLE

Spruce Pine, N. C.

A Football War?

Billy Graham’s article “Three American Illusions” (Dec. 19), coupled with his close association with President Nixon, illuminates the present trend in Viet Nam policy. Dr. Graham’s address has for its first “illusion” the concept that war is natural to man and that only God’s intervention can change that condition.… If even the “redeemed” can do nothing but wait for God to act, then the game of war seems as normal as football. My Lai is simply a bad play resulting in a long penalty.…

If Dr. Graham is correct that man can do nothing, then Mr. Nixon’s efforts need our praise. Let us Vietnamize this inevitable game of war, keep the fighting at nearly the most distant point from our shores, insist on thorough and friendly TV coverage and trade or generously give the “team franchise” to South Vietnam. Many a reader will see little relevance between Dr. Graham’s thesis and the God who was incarnate in the Prince of Peace, but striking relevance between this thesis and Vietnamizing rather than stopping the tragedy in Southeast Asia.

RICHARD A. HOWARD

Defiance, Ohio

Silent Prelude

Thank you for the needed, poignant reminder (“Has God Forsaken the World?” Dec. 19) that what might appear to be silence on the part of God is a likely prelude to our Lord’s second coming. Today’s generation is so concerned with the “now” issues that, in my judgment, there is a tendency to relegate the hope of future glory to a less than appropriate emphasis.

RICHARD E. GERIG

Director of Public Relations

Wheaton College

Wheaton, Ill.

Transcendent Teaching

Mary Le Bar’s “Seedtime in the Church: The Nursery” (The Minister’s Workshop, Dec. 19) is an excellent article. From my years of teaching Sunday School I, too, learned that even two-year-olds can develop a concept of God and a love for Jesus that can comfort and guide them, young as they are.

I agree that if there are conscientious, trained teachers for each grade level it is well to separate the twos and fives, etc. However, in the absence of teachers I grouped children from two to six together.… I was able to present the material simply enough for the youngest and yet with interest for the older ones.… It is a comforting sort of atmosphere in which the younger learn from the older and the older ones, especially the overprivileged, learn to help the younger ones.…

The love and sincerity of the teacher, combined with the congeniality of the group, sometimes transcends the physical structure of the room or adherence to the grouping and curriculum.

NORMA S. ASHBROOK

Flourtown, Pa.

Counting The Days

“The Lord of the Manger” (Dec. 5) was well written and gives glory to the Christ child, which he deserves.

Though the article is well written and worth reading, I cannot agree with the following quote: “When the infant of the manger was taken to the temple a week after his birth.” A careful reading of Luke 2:21, 22 shows that he was not taken to the temple for circumcision, which was on the eighth day, but for the purification of Mary, which according to the law was on the fortieth day.

I don’t suppose that anybody will ever be led astray by this slight slip, but it bears correction nevertheless.

HERBERT F. PEIMAN

St. John Lutheran Church

Lariat, Tex.

Dr. Edmund P. Clowney says, “The Age of Aquarius begins to look like a bad trip,” and, “the Star of Bethlehem led astrologers from the bondage of the zodiac to the worship of the infant Saviour”.…

The Wise Men saw the conjunction of two planets in the sign of Pisces, and thus concluded that the Saviour was born, and that the Piscean Age had begun. The symbol for Pisces is the fish (two fishes). The earliest symbol for Christianity was also the fish; in fact, the Christian movement was first called “The Order of the Fish.”

On February 4, 1962, five planets, the sun, and moon, were in conjunction in the sign of Aquarius. To astrologers this signified the beginning of the “Age of Aquarius.” The symbol for Aquarius is the man pouring water from a vessel. Could this be symbolic of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on all flesh at last? Is the universal Kingdom of Peace soon to become a reality?

The Christian world has ignored all the implications that were abundant in the ancient symbolism, just as Judaism chose to ignore the obscurita of the beginning of the Church Age. As the people of God, let us have the wisdom to look up, study the heavens (for they do declare the glory of God), and see if they might possibly contain a truth.

FRED A. POTTER

Oklahoma City, Okla.

Fattening Files

I trust that I shall never cease in my gratitude for the excellent material in each issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. My files grow steadily on the diet they are fed by your writers.

Being a part of the university atmosphere today frequently finds one groping for help beyond the confines of his own study. CHRISTIANITY TODAY helps meet this need in excellent fashion.

HOLLIS C. MILLER

University Church of Christ

Murray, Ky.

Some contemporary churchmen have developed a de facto doctrine of revolution that defies order and encourages violence. Both in the World Council of Churches and in the National Council of Churches there have repeatedly been calls for revolution, for the use of force to alter structures of society that will not yield peacefully and to curb the misuse of power. Unlike Communist, existential, and anarchistic revolutionary theory, churchmen have tied their views to the Christian faith and given them religious sanction. But the result is the same: Law and order break down; force and brutality take over.

No one will deny that there are powerful structures that perpetuate racial discrimination and other injustice, work against the down-and-outers, and support repressive legislation designed to protect selfish interests. This has always been so, and will always be so. The question is, then, How are we to combat these forces of injustice?

The Scriptures and psychology teach us an incomparable lesson: the weapons one chooses to use will be the weapons with which one is opposed. The Christian may use force for what he considers to be good ends; the opponent will use force for evil ends. The issue then turns on who exercises more force, not on whose objectives are valid. It becomes a tit-for-tat situation in which those who possess the greater force ultimately survive. Is this the Christian way?

History readily supplies lessons about the demonic aspect of force. In the French Revolution, intense violence was used to overthrow the French monarchy. Finally the guillotine caught up with its users, who themselves became victims of worse oppression, and totalitarian monarchy was replaced finally by the Napoleonic dictatorship. In Russia, the tyranny of the czars is gone, but the repressive, freedom-hating dictatorship of the Communists has replaced it. Cuba is a pitiful illustration of the substitution of one totalitarian government for another. And who would argue that China’s lot has improved, bad as it formerly was, under the murderous regime of Chairman Mao.

Rarely does violence lead to freedom and the betterment of the public interest. What generally happens is that one kind of force replaces another; one kind of oppression is destroyed, but another takes its place. He who takes the sword shall perish by the sword. (We are not here talking about policemen and their use of force against law-breakers in national states. Every state, whether we approve of it or not, has the right to defend itself from violence aimed at its overthrow.)

If any state is so bad that Christian conscience feels it should be overthrown, what means shall Christians use to accomplish this objective? Shall they intimidate people who don’t agree, throw Molotov cocktails in subways, murder policemen, bum down buildings, and assassinate political leaders?

In the democracies the people have the ballot box and can bring about peaceful change. This kind of change may well be difficult to accomplish, and some barriers may yield slowly; yet it has been done in the past, is being done, and will continue to be done. But what about countries where there are no democratic processes and change by peaceful means appears impossible?

There is a force that is not physical and has nothing to do with violence. It is peaceful. It is moral. It is from God. It is the only force that one would cheerfully commend to his enemy. It is a force that no one could object to when it is used against him. It appears weak and useless, and no one who is uninstructed in the Christian faith is likely to embrace it. Yet despite its apparent uselessness, it is the ultimate weapon. Scripture says that “the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds” (2 Cor. 10:4).

The greatest example of the use of spiritual power to change the structures of life and society came in the early history of the Christian Church. Caught up in the era of the Caesars, harried and persecuted, the disciples of Jesus used the power of prayer and the purity of yielded lives. They beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. The Roman Empire, mightiest of them all, collapsed before this horde of peaceful proponents of Jesus, whose kingdom is not of this world. They did not riot; they did not kill; they did not destroy property. Yet they won!

Revolution in our day? Yes! But how? “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts” (Zech. 4:6). The Church must not only refuse to advocate force but also condemn and forsake the use of force. It must then live, and die, if need be, by the power of peace and love. It must repudiate lawlessness and work for order. It must use the weapons of God’s kingdom, not Caesar’s. And if it does, a new age can come, at least for a season, while we wait for the coming of the Prince of peace.

The Recovery Of Purpose

Every man and every nation must have goals, purposes, objectives. Without them, the man or the nation will die. All complex organisms rust out and ultimately perish if purpose goes or if, once the last goal is fulfilled, nothing remains to be done. Thus both capitalism and socialism, if totally successful, would perish. Both have as a goal the satisfaction of human material needs. If any nation accomplishes the goal of providing adequate food, clothing, housing, and medical care for all its people, that nation will die unless it has other and more lasting objectives. Ultimately life is meaningless if only material considerations are dominant.

Our world today is convulsed precisely because it has no larger goals than the solution of material problems. The agony rises in part from the fact that perceptive men now doubt that these material goals can ever be achieved. Thus Professor John Holt of Yale, who spent some time teaching at the Berkeley campus of the University of California, has written:

Nobody seriously believes that we are likely to solve, or are even moving toward a solution of, any of the most urgent problems of our times—war, the proliferation of atomic, chemical, and bacteriological weapons, overpopulation, poverty, the destruction of the earth’s natural resources, the degradation of man’s physical and biological environment, the fossilization and depersonalization of his political and economic institutions, his increasing alienation, boredom, anger. We do not think any more that we can really make the world a fit and happy and beautiful place for people to live; we scarcely think that we can keep it a place where people can live at all.

Because they are convinced that material goals are the sum total of life, despair grips the hearts of many. If material ends are all there is to life and if these ends cannot be secured, then life is a meaningless charade.

Dag Hammarskjold, in his earlier days, found life meaningless. He wrote: “What I ask for is absurd: that life shall have a meaning. What I strive for is impossible: that my life shall acquire a meaning. I dare not believe, I do not see how I shall ever be able to believe: that I am not alone” (Markings, p. 86). Such a feeling is the mother of despair, and of self-destruction.

Like Hammarskjöld at this stage in his pilgrimage, many young people today think that life has no ultimate meaning. They tell us this through the use of pot and LSD, the occupation of buildings and other assaults on the Establishment. They know only too well that the structures are ephemeral and that decay has set in. Sensing the impermanence, they continue to search for genuine meaning without any conviction that it exists. They want to find purpose in life. They want to lose themselves in something to which they can be fully committed and for which they can work, suffer, even be willing to die.

Dag Hammarskjöld found what he was looking for in Jesus Christ. He said yes to God. From that hour, he says, “I was certain that existence is meaningful and that, thereafter, my life, in self-surrender, had a goal.”

In these early days of 1970 we say to people everywhere that beyond the material things of life stand the great spiritual realities that endure forever. And beyond the spiritual realities there is God, revealed in Jesus Christ.

Before and beyond Christ there is nothing—for he is life’s ultimate. When men say yes to him, they find purpose and meaning in life, and a goal to which they can commit themselves without reservation.

Josef Hromadka

The late Josef Hromádka wrote in 1964 that although “believing Christians have certain objections to the principles of Marxist thought,” we dare not overlook, among other things, its concern for man’s “yearning for freedom of thought, ethical dignity, and a rich emotional life.”

We doubt whether Hromádka could have reaffirmed this earlier idealistic appraisal on his deathbed. The Czech Reformed theologian spent the Second World War teaching at Princeton Theological Seminary. He returned after the war to a Czechoslovakia that had become a Soviet satellite and spent the rest of his life trying to build a theological bridge between the Communist and capitalist worlds. As a member of the Executive Committee of the World Council of Churches, he helped to formulate pronouncements that subjected American policies to severe scrutiny but seldom said anything of Soviet attitudes. Hromádka founded the Christian Peace Conference, which reflected a similar, more intense bias. Although he denied he was a Communist, he left the impression that Marxist socialism was preferable to capitalism.

Hromádka’s optimism was shattered on August 21, 1968, when Soviet troops invaded Czechoslovakia to crush the “democratization” program of Alexander Dubcek. To his credit, Hromádka courageously defied the intervention. He wrote a letter of protest to the Soviet ambassador in Prague the very next day.

It appears that relations between Eastern European churchmen deteriorated steadily thereafter. The showdown came at a meeting of the Working Committee of the Christian Peace Conference held last October in Bucknow, East Germany. One wing of the committee came demanding the resignation of Dr. J. N. Ondra as general secretary of the conference. Subsequently Ondra did resign. His opponents had hoped to keep the eighty-year-old Hromádka as a figurehead president, but Hromádka gave up the post in protest of the pressure upon Ondra.

Hromádka said in his letter of resignation that he “realized very clearly that the background of the drive against Dr. Ondra was purely political.” He felt that he himself was the real target because of his criticism of the Soviet-led invasion. “After a long talk with an official personality,” he said, “I came to realize that the issue of Dr. Ondra had been decided at a higher political level and that any activity of Dr. Ondra as general secretary would be made utterly impossible.”

Hromádka suffered a heart attack several weeks after submitting his resignation and died in a Prague hospital the day after Christmas. The question he seems to have left behind is whether he ever really trusted Communist leaders, or whether he was engaging in an experimental strategy on behalf of Christians who have no choice but to live under Communist rule. If indeed he had confidence in Red officialdom, then he surely died a disillusioned man. If the whole posture was a strategic experiment, it must be judged a failure, though one from which mankind can learn. The evidence seems to show that the Communists played along with him as long as he served their purposes. That is part of the essence of Marxism.

Mormons And Blacks

For many years the Mormon church has been under pressure from within and without to change its doctrine that forbids black males from becoming priests even though all other Mormon men are expected to do so. George Romney had to contend with this discriminatory doctrine when he was a presidential aspirant. More recently Brigham Young University has faced the refusal of blacks to compete against it in athletics. In response to this an authoritative statement has been issued from the church’s highest officials.

We commend this religious body for refusing to let popular protest shape its doctrines. Full civil liberties for blacks were affirmed, but the church contends that its priesthood is not a matter for civil law (unlike polygamy, where civil pressure was allowed to change practice if not doctrine). Freedom of religion demands that Mormons be allowed to have the kind of priesthood they want. In view of the rising women’s rights movement, one could expect future demands that not only blacks but women also be admitted to the Mormon priesthood!

On the other hand, we do not believe that any blacks should feel deprived because they are not eligible for this particular priesthood. While we applaud the Mormons’ stand for morality, we believe they are tragically misguided in their acceptance of Joseph Smith as a prophet and the books he allegedly discovered as divine revelation. They claim to accept the teachings of the Bible and assert that the other books in their canon do not contradict the Bible. But on this very issue of racial discrimination (as well as on many others) the Mormons go against the clear teachings of the New Testament. Whenever in the apostolic church there appeared the tendency to discriminate because of race, wealth, or religious or cultural background, it was roundly denounced. Paul said, for example, that among those for whom Christ is Lord “there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all, and in all” (Col. 3:11). To the extent that any group teaches or practices such discrimination it cannot be considered true to the biblical revelation.

The Biafran Tragedy

CHRISTIANITY TODAY has urged readers to pray for the resolution of the Biafra-Nigeria conflict, and we greeted the news of the ending of its military phase with thankfulness to God. But the war has not really ended (see News, page 32). Left are thousands of suffering people whose physical agony and whose devastated homeland constitute a desperate cry for help. The marks of the struggle will not be erased from the bodies or the minds of many Biafrans all the days of this life.

The prayers of Christian people are still essential. But more is required of them. May they, and the nations of the world, respond with an extraordinary outpouring of compassion, sending food, medical supplies, and other help, and doing whatever else they can to promote the reconstruction of this stricken land.

We hope that the nations of the world will see to it that the Biafrans in defeat are treated humanely by Nigerian leaders, brought back into the councils of the state, and given every opportunity to develop fraternal relationships that will encourage peaceful progress in a nation that can ill afford war as a means for the resolution of differences.

Jock Yablonski

In the final hours of a decade marked by a series of assassinations, Jock Yablonski and his wife and daughter were murdered in their home in the heart of the western Pennsylvania soft-coal country. The motive behind the slayings may never be known, but the potential effects are obvious and should be resisted. Yablonski campaigned unsuccessfully for the presidency of the United Mine Workers on a reform platform. Other union leaders with courage ought not to be intimidated by his death. Christians of all people need to be in the forefront of efforts in behalf of integrity and justice—in the labor movement as in every other social institution.

Betrayals Of Purpose

Every year after Christmas the many learned societies congregate, and thousands of professors renew contacts with men in their own disciplines. Ever since their beginnings these organizations have, like shoemakers, stuck to their lasts. But this year things were different. Under the proddings of New Left professors, most of the learned associations endured disruptions and serious challenges to the purposes for which they were established.

At the heart of the thrust by the New Left was the old endeavor of trying to politicize scholarship, to make these organizations the agents of revolution. The American Philosophical Association was exposed to two hours of raised voices and illogic before it yielded to the demands of the radicals and voted for an immediate pullout of U. S. forces in Viet Nam. What competence the philosophers have to make pronouncements on political matters remains undefined. The Modern Language Association learned the language of politics amid scuffles, loud voices, and protests. The usual left-wing proposals were advanced and will be voted on by mail since they were not adopted at the annual meeting. The American Historical Association suffered from a bruising foray designed to bring radical left-wing historian Staughton Lynd to the presidency; the attempt failed by a vote of 1,040 to 396.

What has this all to do with the Church? Perhaps the words of a refugee professor from Nazi Germany answer the question. Aron Gurwitsch said: “The problem before us is whether a professional and scholarly association does not become unfaithful to its destiny, to its logic by taking a stand on political questions. It would mean the beginning of complete politicization of our organization and all spheres of life, and this is the beginning of totalitarianism.” One need not look further than the World Council of Churches meetings at Uppsala in 1968 or the recent imbroglio of the National Council of Churches in Detroit for the moral. The ecumenical movement has been politicized more than any of the learned associations, and this has caused it to become unfaithful to its destiny and to its logic. In the transition the trumpet the Church is called to sound has been muted, the Gospel it is called to proclaim has been concealed.

Surely the time has come for the Church to reverse the process of politicizing, to discover again its spiritual mission, and to redevote its energies to what its genius consists in—proclaiming the Gospel, by which men are reconciled to God and to one another.

On Admiration

The Gallup organization asked 1,500 American men and women last November which two living men (from anywhere in the world) they most admired. As usually happens, the incumbent President headed the list. A little fewer than one-fourth of those interviewed named President Nixon as one of their two choices. In second place was Billy Graham, who was named by one out of every twelve people polled. Third place went to Vice President Agnew. Graham and Pope Paul (who was ninth most admired, named by one in forty) were the only men in the top ten who were not connected with the presidency or vice-presidency, either as incumbents or as aspirants.

That 8 per cent of a representative sample of Americans think so highly of Graham is illuminating. But unlike the politician, Graham is not seeking recognition for himself. He desires instead that all men admire and believe the God of whose Gospel he is privileged to be the most conspicuous proclaimer in our day. We fervently hope that the adult Americans who greatly admire Billy Graham are serving Jesus Christ in their own ways as devotedly as Graham serves him.

Honoring Parents

“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold” (Rom. 12:2, Phillips). For the Christian young person, refusal to fit into the world’s mold is difficult and challenging. One of the most important—and most often overlooked—ways for a Christian young person to be different is in his attitude toward his parents. In contemporary society, obeying and respecting parents is out, and “doing your own thing”—regardless of what anyone else may think—is in.

Both the Old and the New Testament make it clear that part of obedience to God is obedience to parents. One of the commandments of the Decalogue deals specifically with this issue, and that commandment is repeated in the New Testament. Paul says to children, “The right thing for you to do is to obey your parents as those whom the Lord has set over you” (Eph. 6:1, Phillips).

Paul bases this exhortation on a specific command from God himself. He does not suggest obedience simply as a pragmatic appropriation of the wisdom of parents, nor does he recommend it only as an expression of love for parents. He states that children should obey because it is right; it is the clearly revealed will of God.

Paul has in mind the young person who finds himself in a Christian home, and so he calls for obedience “in the Lord.” He is not asking young people to follow the guidance of parents who deliberately oppose the will of God for their children. But the general principle is that parents are a God-ordained authority and are to be obeyed.

Although this obedience is not optional, it is not represented as a grudging, resentful yielding to an oppressive power. It is the outgrowth of honor and respect and love for those who have first demonstrated their love for their children. There is no doubt that some children question with some validity whether their parents are worthy of honor. And parents are faced with a grave responsibility to their children. But Christian young people must beware lest in criticizing the “hypocrisy” of parents they reveal their own hypocrisy by ignoring God in their attitude toward parents while they busy themselves doing “important” things for God.

It is folly to ignore God’s commands, and this is especially true in the case of the command to honor father and mother. Society suffers when parental authority breaks down. The Christian young person who refuses the will of God at this point can hardly expect the blessing of God in other areas. And perhaps saddest of all is the fact that often Christian young people have been a hindrance to unsaved parents because they have failed to take their Christianity into the home.

Survey Of Biblical Lands

The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Atlas, edited by E. M. Blaiklock (Zondervan, 1969, 491 pp., $9.95), is reviewed by Wilbur M. Smith, professor of English Bible, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.

We have in this attractively printed volume the work of a number of biblical scholars from outside our own country, including the editor himself, who is the emeritus professor of classics of the University College, Auckland, New Zealand. The articles on geology are written by D. R. Bowes, senior lecturer in geology in the University of Glasgow, and J. M. Houston, university lecturer in geography at Oxford. Many pages are from the hand of that indefatigable evangelical scholar F. F. Bruce. Among the contributors from this country are two professors at the Wheaton College Graduate School of Theology, J. Barton Payne and Merrill C. Tenney. One does not read far into this book before he is aware that what is here is the product of rich scholarship and deserved authority.

Apart from the opening chapter, “A Geographical Background to the Bible Lands,” and four appendices (on the cities of the Bible, archaeology and the Bible, the languages of the Bible lands, and the geology of the Holy Lands and adjacent regions), what we have here is a history of biblical events with emphasis upon their geographical aspects. Interspersed between chapters on Israel’s major historical periods are chapters on the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persian Empire, the Hellenistic Empires, and Rome. Of course, we cannot expect much of the material in a book of this type to be altogether new, though it is fully up to date archaeologically.

I found Bruce’s chapter on “The Palestine of the Gospels,” in which he guides us through the very complex details of the rule of the Herods and the procurators in Palestine, to be unusually well done. Probably the most unusual chapter of this volume is the editor’s thirty-five-page discussion of the cities of the New Testament. The following statement will present for many a new theme in the study of biblical history:

Cities are not prominent in the Old Testament. There are the twin capitals, Jerusalem and Samaria, and the two aggressors, Nineveh and Babylon, of which the latter became a Biblical symbol for organized evil.

In the New Testament the whole situation is diametrically different. Cities dominate the story, and that fact makes the study of the New Testament and the processes of the first Christian evangelism such relevant reading in a century in which history has come full circle, in which cities dominate cultures, and the looming megalopolis threatens a Babylon of apocalyptic proportions.

One must not expect to find in this volume a consideration of theological matters, or even of some of the great prophetic utterances of the Old Testament. This is not a history of Israel’s religion but an atlas. Thus, for example, in the two columns devoted to Daniel, it is a little irritating to read that “his book contained predictive elements,” without being told what these were.

There seems to be a contradiction between a statement appearing in the first chapter and one relating to the same subject in the second chapter. Dr. Houston says, “Contrary to previous views, that the great river valleys of Egypt and Mesopotamia were the environment where man first passed from the stage of the pastoral nomad to that of the farmer, it is more likely this took place first in Palestine.” Dr. Harrison begins his chapter on the world of Genesis by affirming something quite different: “The most casual reading of the early chapters of Genesis indicates that the geographical setting for the earliest activities of mankind was in an area dominated by two great rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates. Toynbee’s famous theory of the river origins of human cultures finds cogent illustration here.”

One very important factor, especially for the early history of Israel, seems to be more or less ignored here, and that is the matter of chronology. It is suggested that the Pharaoh of the oppression was Rameses II (1290–1224 B.C.), but I do not see any hint as to actually when the exodus took place or at what specific time the Israelites entered Palestine under Joshua.

Some of the 220 pictures in this volume relate to recent excavations and and have not yet appeared in Bible atlases. The aerial views of Susa, the Euphrates River, the Sinai Peninsula, and Anathoth have been possible only in recent years. The views of Rome and Athens are well chosen, and we can be grateful for the full-page plate of Delphi. One could wish that all the pictures were as clear as those of the site of Capernaum and the Arch of Galerius.

When examining this new Pictorial Bible Atlas, one thinks at once of Zondervan’s earlier Pictorial Bible Dictionary. A few of the pictures are identical. But we regret to note that some of the pictorial accompaniments in the earlier dictionary are far superior to those in the atlas, such as those that relate to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran, the Jordan Valley, the River Jabbok, Mt. Hermon, Mt. Tabor, Petra, the Plains of Esdraelon, the mound of Megiddo, and the Appian Way. Many of the illustrations in the new volume are poorly reproduced—as the view from the top of the great pyramid, the city of Jerusalem, and Byblos.

There are eighty-five maps, of which nine are in full color, and four bibliographies, covering the Old Testament period, the return from captivity, Bible archaeology, and cities of the Bible.

The book concludes with three indexes—of Scripture references (about 900), of persons, subjects, and places (about 3,000, including numerous items entered variously), and of full-color maps. Even in such full indexing, important matters are ignored; for example, although George Adam Smith does not appear anywhere in the index, not only is he quoted four times but more than half a page is devoted to him, in tribute, in the preface.

The indexing is in some places rather technical. Under “geology,” for instance, nearly 200 items are listed, and under the subentry “sandstone” there are seven general references and then a list of ten kinds of sandstone, each with its page reference! All the geological periods are listed under “Geology.” I could wish that other items in the index were equally informative; under the entry “Jerusalem,” for instance, we have sixty page references, but no hint of what aspect of Jerusalem’s history or geographical factors or excavations is treated on these various pages.

In Opposition To Evolution

Evolution and Christian Faith, by Bolton Davidheiser (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969, 372 pp., $6.50), is reviewed by R. L. Mixter, professor of zoology, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.

Bolton Davidheiser holds a doctorate from Johns Hopkins with an emphasis in genetics. His knowledge of the voluminous literature in the areas of heredity and evolution is impressive.

Following a testimony to his Christian conversion (which came after he took his doctorate), Davidheiser carefully defines evolution and Christian faith and states the issue. He clears up the misconception that Darwin did not believe man evolved from monkeys, referring to Darwin’s Descent of Man, in which he wrote, “The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World [western hemisphere] and Old World [eastern hemisphere] monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe proceeded.”

In discussing the history of evolutionary thought, the author cites much interesting material not often found in anti-evolutionary writings. For example, he discounts the story of Lady Hope that Darwin in later life regretted his evolutionary views and reminds us that Darwin’s wife, who was very religious, would surely have announced his conversion.

Davidheiser evaluates the views of fellow Christians who differ with him. His criticism of the American Scientific Affiliation would have been tempered had he quoted its present statement of faith, “The Holy Scriptures are the Inspired Word of God, the only unerring guide of faith and conduct. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and through His Atonement is the one and only Mediator between God and man.” The ASA puts no restrictions on its members in any other fields of thought, and it brings to its conventions speakers who explain theories not acceptable to the majority of members.

Davidheiser deals with the trend in education toward permeation of evolutionary thought into all schools, including those with a Christian philosophy. His chapters on teleology and the brands of evolution, such as atheistic, theistic, and threshold evolution, show the refinements in his own thinking and will sharpen the reader’s understanding of these variants of evolutionary faith.

The bulk of his disproof of evolution consists of carefully selected quotations from many sources to emphasize that although the evolutionists believe in their theory, they often are hesitant about the reliability of its evidence. A critic should be very careful, in selecting quotations, to show the total view of an author. This anti-evolutionary work is commendable for its attempt to state accurately the essential view of all writers quoted; it is to be expected, however, that some of those criticized will feel that their full intent has not been realized.

I find many helpful ideas in David-heiser’s sections on the mechanism and evidences of evolution. He says:

Mutations and artificial and natural selection, together with hybridization and chromosomal changes, can produce new forms of animals and plants which may be designated as new species, or even new genera, by the taxonomists, but it remains to be shown that any known phenomenon or series of phenomena could produce the kinds of changes which had to be produced if, as the great majority of biologists profess to believe, life on earth evolved from simple beginnings. This is quite a different problem.

Most readers who are acquainted thoroughly with the multiplicity and diversity of organic life will admit some change in living forms since their creation. We can spend pleasant hours arguing how much change has occurred and is also allowed by our interpretations of Scripture.

Preaching Christ In New York

The Challenge, by Billy Graham (Doubleday, 1969, 173 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by Stephen F. Olford, minister, Calvary Baptist Church, New York City.

The Challenge is a book of ten sermons preached by Billy Graham during his 1969 New York crusade “to overflow audiences at the Madison Square Garden and to the largest nightly TV audiences ever to follow a religious event.” In his introduction, Graham laments that “it is impossible to capture in print the rapport, the camaraderies and the banter of oral delivery between speaker and audience.” As one who heard every one of these sermons, this reviewer feels that the spirit and style of delivery have been remarkably preserved. In fact, as a book of sermons, the collection could well have had a little more editing to give the material greater lasting value.

To study these sermons is to encounter proclamation in the great evangelical tradition. Here is a Moody or a Torrey preaching for today. The messages are biblical, yet simple (note the recurring phrase “The Bible says”); they are expository and yet evangelistic; they are theological and yet intensely practical; they are evangelical and yet refreshingly relevant (observe the evidence of research in current literature and events); and they are pointed and personal, ever pressing for a verdict.

Some might feel that the sermons are not sufficiently weighted on social issues, but this seems an unfair criticism of evangelistic preaching. Introducing the evangelist to an American Jewish community after the crusade, a noted rabbi in New York said, “In auditing his sermons at the Madison Square Garden, we were all surprised at the amount of social content in his preaching.”

God signally honored the delivery of these sermons by convicting and converting tens of thousands of young and old from all strata of society—as if to show once again that, contrary to the claims of some religious thinkers of our day, God’s man, preaching God’s Word and anointed by God’s Spirit, always reaps God’s harvest. The Challenge is truly a challenge to our age.

Theology Without God

The Secular Search for a New Christ, by Gustave H. Todrank (Westminster, 1969, 174 pp., $2.65), is reviewed by Warren C. Young, professor of Christian philosophy, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Oak Brook, Illinois.

In a sense this little volume is an attempt to produce a systematic approach to the recent secular theology. After an introduction to the contemporary scene the author turns to such themes as the person of Christ, salvation, the Christian community (Church), the new life, and finally, the mission of the Church in our age.

The treatment is radical from the first page: Indeed the preface begins with the blunt assertion: “Traditional Christianity is largely irrelevant to the current world situation.” We must write a new “Christian” theology for this new age.

What is needed to accomplish this task? The author has the answer. We need a theology without God, a Bible without authority, a Church without clergy, salvation without immortality, and morality without immorality. The solution is nothing short of the complete secularization of life. This world is enough—what more does man need?

A glance at the author’s Christology will be sufficient to show the tone of the work. Traditional Christianity has transformed a man into a deity, says Todrank, when in fact Jesus is simply a man of his own times. Although the New Testament tries to make him unique, there were many Christs before Jesus. Jesus was not and is not the only Christ for man. His uniqueness must be rejected. “We cannot continue to refer to Jesus as ‘the Christ’ today.… There are Christs besides Jesus.” Indeed, the role of the Christ is not unique to Judaism or Christianity but is found in other faiths; and in our world we have the Christ symbol fulfilled in such persons as Gandhi, Schweitzer, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Mao Tse-tung.

What can one say about this work? That it is not traditional Christianity! But the author has indicated this in the first line of the preface. Yet his concern seems sincere: he sees a world to which traditional Christianity has become irrelevant. We can proceed by condemning his program of social betterment because he wants to label it Christian. Would it not be much better to try to discover why many feel that traditional Christianity is irrelevant and see what can be done about the situation?

Book Briefs

Privilege and Burden, by Robert G. Middleton (Judson, 1969, 157 pp., $4.95). A fresh look at the role of the pastor in the light of changing attitudes toward the institutional church.

Christian Initiation, by Geoffrey Wainwright (John Knox, 1969, 107 pp., paperback, $2.45). A study of baptism from a biblical and historical perspective, with special emphasis on the theology of initiation as it relates to the ecumenical movement.

Reconciliation in Today’s World, edited by Allen O. Miller (Eerdmans, 1969, 122 pp., paperback, $1.95). Six authors, speaking with differing theological accents, wrestle with the meaning of reconciliation in today’s world.

The Church in Experiment, by Rudiger Reitz (Abingdon, 1969, 205 pp., $4.75). An informative analysis of the many changes and reforms—both in structure and function—taking place in American Protestantism.

The Shape of the Christian Life, by David C. Duncombe (Abingdon, 1969, 208 pp., $5). Seeks to identify in a concrete way those things that distinguish a Christian life from the life of one who has never come into contact with Christ.

The Book That Speaks for Itself, by Robert M. Horn (Inter-Varsity, 1969, 127 pp., $1.45). A closely reasoned and well-balanced affirmation of the authority and infallibility of Scripture and of the importance of propositional revelation.

Wild Tongues, by Franklin H. Littell (Macmillan, 1969, 173 pp., $5.95). A survey of pathological extremism—both left and right—in American life.

Is God Necessary?, by Larry Richards (Moody, 1969, 160 pp., paperback, $1.95). In a style that will appeal to young people, this little volume shows that the Christian faith offers an adequate and honest answer to the needs of the young.

A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical Essays on the Old Testament, by Ivan Engnell (Vanderbilt, 1969, 303 pp., $10). Argues that the Old Testament is a product of the Near Eastern culture of which Israel and its national literature are a unique part.

The Crucible of Christianity, edited by Arnold Toynbee (World, 1969, 368 pp., $29.50). In this richly illustrated volume, fourteen authorities explore all aspects of the very complex world in which Christianity first appeared and experienced its early years of growth.

God’s Lost Cause, by Jean Russell (Judson, 1969, 143 pp., paperback, $2.50). A penetrating historical analysis of the relation between Protestant theology and the continuing apathy of American Protestants toward racial problems.

Personal Growth and Social Change, by Harvey Seifert and Howard J. Clinebell, Jr. (Westminster, 1969, 240 pp., $6.95). This volume, described as “a guide for ministers and laymen as change agents,” suggests techniques and tactics for dealing with today’s social problems. Somehow the Gospel of Jesus Christ doesn’t seem to qualify as an effective agent of growth and change.

Tongues as of Fire, by Prodencio Damboriena (Corpus, 1969, 256 pp., $7.50). A Roman Catholic scholar offers a comprehensive account of the rise and spread of Pentecostalism.

Search for Reality, by Gary Collins (Ley, 1969, 207 pp., paperback, $1.95). A thoughtful study of the religious and spiritual implications of psychology, written from an evangelical perspective.

An Introduction to the Theology of Albrecht Ritschl, by David L. Mueller (Westminster, 1969, 214 pp., $8.50). A survey of the thought of one of the most influential theologians of the nineteenth century, with an evaluation of his position as it relates to the contemporary theological discussion.

I Peter—Revelation, by H. L. Ellison, (Eerdmans, 1969, 92 pp., paperback, $1.25). A “Scripture Union Bible Study Book.” In the same series: Isaiah 40-Jeremiah, by Arthur E. Cundall.

For Missionaries Only, by Joseph L. Cannon (Baker, 1969, 96 pp., $2.95). This collection of straightforward vignettes of missionary life will prove stimulating and perhaps disturbing to both missionaries and supporting churches.

Profile of the Son of Man, by Ralph G. Turnbull (Baker, 1969, 159 pp., $3.95). A verbal portrait of Christ based upon the presentation of the Son of Man in all his glory recorded in Revelation 1.

Honey for a Child’s Heart, by Gladys Hunt (Zondervan, 1969, 127 pp., $3.50). Directs parents and teachers to the best in books for children and offers suggestions toward the effective use of books in a child’s development.

Dag Hammarskjöld’s White Book, by Gustaf Aulén (Fortress, 1969, 154 pp., $4.75). A distinguished Swedish theologian and lifelong friend of the Hammarskjöld family analyzes the religious faith of Dag Hammarskjöld as presented in his Markings.

The Russian Protestants, by Steve Durasoff (Fairleigh Dickinson University, 1969, 312 pp., $10). Recounts the struggles and triumphs of the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians-Baptists (formed in 1944 by the merger of the Baptists, Evangelical Christians, Pentecostals, and Mennonites) in the U.S.S.R.

The United States of America is not the Kingdom of God. Nor is any other nation or state. Only great confusion can result if we insist on applying biblical teachings concerning the Kingdom of God to kingdoms of this world. Yet this is precisely what many sincere Christians have been doing in the discussion of the Viet Nam tragedy.

The problem arises from the fact that a Christian is a member of the Kingdom of God and at the same time of his own worldly kingdom. A Christian who is a United States citizen, for example, has obligations—biblical obligations, it should be emphasized—both to the Kingdom of God and to the United States of America.

The Kingdom of God is ruled by God. Its primary objective is to spread the knowledge of the redeeming love of God that is revealed in his Word and above all in his incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. Its method of achieving that objective is love—sacrificial love like that of its Master.

A member of the Kingdom is obligated to know and to do the will of God. In sum, this is expressed in “the first and greatest commandment,” which is, as Jesus Christ pointed out, “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and … your neighbor as yourself” (see Matthew 22:36–40). The detailed specifications of loving God and neighbor are set forth in the Bible, which is the Word of God. The Christian is under obligation to study that Word “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). It is particularly the Christian’s duty to study the life of Jesus Christ, who is our God-given example of life that is wholly committed to the will of God, so that we “may walk as that One walked” (1 John 2:6). God discloses his will for his people through his Word.

The kingdoms of this world are ruled by men. It is a scriptural teaching that these earthly rulers rule by the will of God, but this does not mean that they are knowingly obedient to the will of God. Rather, they are designated as a “terror to evildoers,” a restraining force upon the satanic powers of disorder and lawlessness in this present age (cf. Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Pet. 2:13, 14; 2 Thess. 2:1–10). The primary objective of a worldly kingdom is its “national interest,” which is defined by its rulers. The method of achieving that objective is force (which does not necessarily, nor even primarily, mean war), scripturally described as “the sword.”

A member of a worldly kingdom is obligated to obey its ruler. In a state established on law and justice, obedience to the ruler is better defined as obedience to the laws of the state. Individual human rights, as well as the corporate rights of the society, are set forth in that law. In a state ruled by a dictator or by a small council whose will is supreme, obedience is defined by the will of the ruler. Individual rights are usually suppressed. Only the rights of the state (as determined by the ruler) are important. In either case, it is a citizen’s duty to discover what the law or will of the ruler is, and to obey.

The Christian member of an earthly kingdom, however, finds that the will of God (as he understands it) is sometimes—perhaps often—in conflict with the will of the state. It is at this point that the greatest problems arise. We cannot avoid this conflict, for this present age is satanic. “If they have persecuted me they will also persecute you.” “In the world you shall have tribulation.”

Sometimes the conflict arises because of misinterpretation of the Word of God. The law of God says, “Thou shalt not kill.” A Christian policeman is armed with a revolver and told to use force in apprehending a dangerous felon, if necessary to “shoot to kill.” He at once feels he is being ordered to disobey the will of God. Further study of the biblical word, however, shows that the law really says, “Thou shalt not murder.” Moreover, the very law of God that forbids murder expressly commands that under certain circumstances man is to be killed (compare Exodus 20:13 with Exodus 21:12–17). Laws of all nations make a clear distinction between “killing” and “murder.” However, if the Christian has not come to this understanding of the law of God, he can either refuse to be a policeman or as a policeman refuse to obey the order and then take the consequences. He has no biblical authority to tell the state it must renounce the use of force in order to preserve law, or to demand that the law of the state be changed to disarm policeman. This would be to take the “sword” from the “magistrate”—and the bearing of the sword by the magistrate is recognized and approved by the Word of God.

The use of force in international relations is an extension of the use of force in state matters. At the state and local level, the power of the sword is exerted to defend the laws of the state. At the international level, the power of the sword is exerted to achieve some goal in the national interest. A citizen may be ordered into the armed forces, armed, and later given a command to “Fire!” The same conflict arises as in the case of the policeman. The same set of reasons apply. But there is possibly one additional area of conflict. This comes through the introduction of the concept of “unjust law.”

At this point, the Christian has another obligation, namely, to defend the existence of law and justice in the worldly kingdom. He may, for conscience’ sake, refuse to take the sword. He may exert his effort to have unjust laws changed and unjust national objectives withdrawn. He may use every legitimate effort to convince the ruler (in the United States, the governing powers) that the laws are unjust or the war is unjust. But he has absolutely no scriptural authority to incite to anarchy.

Anarchy is satanic. God does not will anarchy in this present world; he wills order. Satan is the one who seeks anarchy, in order to oppose the will of God. Anarchy is the method used by a minority to impose its will on the majority. Anarchy was the method used in the Russian revolution, with the result that less than 15 per cent of the people took over the rule. Anarchy was used to take over China. Sometimes fancy names are used to describe anarchy, as when a “Young Guard” seeks to wipe out the “customs” (= laws) of the past. Whatever the original motives—and some of them may well have been unobjectionable or even desirable—the riots in Watts, Chicago, and elsewhere degenerated into anarchy. One leader of the Viet Nam Moratorium said on television that if this method doesn’t get action from the President, “we will use other methods.” This is anarchistic. By no stretch of the imagination, much less of sound biblical exegesis, can any form of anarchy be equated with the will of God.

The Christian way is to enter into orderly discussion, to seek to influence the legally chosen representatives in a representative form of government, to show the way of Christ by word and by example, to suffer for righteousness’ sake, and to pray for the coming of the Prince of Peace, at whose coming the kingdoms of this world shall become the Kingdom of our God and of his Christ.

Two current questions provoke immediate visceral reactions—sex education in the schools and gun-control laws. The response may be wild—transcending logic and even the facts—or it may be reasoned, but always it is marked by intense conviction.

In the matter of sex education in the public schools, it appears evident that the real issue is not whether there will be such programs but rather what kind of instruction will be offered, to whom it shall be given, and at what age. The data from polls indicate that the majority of the American people favor sex instruction in the schools. Some want it because they believe it will reduce the problems of venereal disease and premarital pregnancy and improve social conditions. Others are convinced that it is essential for marriage stability, will shield young people from the influence of harmful information from unreliable sources, and will diminish prurient interest. Undoubtedly many parents who opt for sex education in the schools do so because they feel it will relieve them of a responsibility they hesitate to shoulder, an embarrassing duty they shrink from facing. By delegating this responsibility to the schools they are delivered from a sense of guilt and can disclaim blame for any untoward consequences.

Some people are opposed to sex education in the schools regardless of what it consists of and who does it. For them the question is not one of curriculum or teachers or value judgments about extramarital sex. Even if the materials used were wholly acceptable, they would still hold that sex education has no place in the schools.

Many people are indignant, however, not because sex is being taught, but because of the abuses that have sometimes accompanied this teaching. They fear it is getting out of hand morally, socially, and religiously. More than a score of state legislatures are now considering the subject, and undoubtedly some of them will act either to ban or to sharply curtail such programs.

Old wives’ tales have been circulated around the country about offensive acts stemming from the teaching of sex. When these have been discounted, enough reliable data remains to justify the angry complaints of aroused parents. Unfortunate incidents should be anticipated in any program dealing with sex. The nature of the subject will always prove attractive to people who have abnormal drives or psychological hangups about sex. Homosexuals, voyeurs, exhibitionists, and other deviates will be tempted to join the teaching ranks in an attempt to gain either an outlet for their sexual drives or a platform from which to propagandize for public acceptance of their irregularities.

One minister who became actively concerned about the sex-education program of his school system wrote us of his experiences. One of his complaints was that though evangelicals are criticized for lack of involvement in social matters, when he got involved and took exception to what was being offered, he was criticized for doing it. What was expected of him, he says, was acquiescence, the uncritical acceptance and endorsement of a program to which he objected. He complained that he and his group got little or no help from school administrators, and that educational materials they wished to scrutinize were withheld from them. Eventually, of the twelve high-school teachers considered a problem in his community because of their erotic approach to sex (one of them encouraged students to kiss her, fondle her, and express themselves in any way they saw fit), nine were dismissed, and the sex-education program in the schools was halted.

Conversely, a teacher from a Bible school in Oregon wrote saying: “In our area, the city of Portland, the sex-education program is an excellent one, worthy of support by evangelicals.”

Squarely in the middle of the current controversy stands the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States. All sorts of charges have been broadcast about this organization, and its opponents have subjected its leadership to exhaustive investigation. As a result, considerable misinformation has been spread abroad. Dr. Mary S. Calderone, the executive director of SIECUS, has been attacked vigorously, and her husband’s activities have been used against her in campaigns that have sometimes reached the point of vilification. All this has of course produced a defensive reaction by supporters of SIECUS.

If one were to decide for or against sex-instruction programs solely on the basis of SIECUS, a strong case could be made for scrapping them. No one can deny that the idea behind SIECUS—that children need instruction in this area because parents and churches have not fulfilled their duties adequately—is sound. Moreover, by no means is all the instructional material endorsed by SIECUS unsatisfactory. The most telling argument against SIECUS is this: the organization has become so embroiled in controversy that much of the value it might once have had has been nullified. Its usefulness may have been irretrievably lost.

In the first place, SIECUS has been inextricably identified with people whose viewpoints and life style have deeply offended many Christians. Chief among these is Isadore Rubin, one of the founding fathers and the first treasurer of SIECUS. Rubin was dismissed from his position in the New York City school system. He was identified as a member of the Communist party before the House Committee on Un-American Activities and took the Fifth Amendment before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, refusing to answer questions about his alleged Communist affiliations. He is now the editor of Sexology magazine, of which more will be said later. Rubin has maintained close ties with people deeply involved in SIECUS and its operations and has never been repudiated by SIECUS. Consequently a number of organizations have pounced upon him and his career and used it tellingly against SIECUS. In the minds of many people, the activities of this one man serve to make SIECUS and its programs totally unacceptable.

Another person whose views have helped to tarnish the image of SIECUS—even though it seems he is not officially connected with the organization—is Dr. Albert Ellis. He has been lauded by Isadore Rubin as one of America’s leading sexologists, and there is no doubt that this is true. But what is also true is that as a leading sexologist he has raised the hackles of Bible-oriented believers by his humanistic and non-biblical views. At the University of Bridgeport he espoused “heavy petting to climax” for unmarrieds, and “as much sex activity as possible before you’re married—as intense as possible.” He encouraged married couples to have “intercourse in the same room at the same time.” He approved “communal” sex and said, “A great many people would enjoy mate-swapping occasionally. Have a ball.” Rightly or not, his name and his views have been so firmly linked with SIECUS that dissociation may be impossible.

A third association that has hurt SIECUS is its close tie-in with Sexology magazine. The editor of that magazine is Isadore Rubin, and four members of its board of consultants are also directors of SIECUS. Sexology has been labeled as pornographic by many of its critics. It hardly fills that bill when compared with the usual run-of-the-mill pornography. Its articles concentrate on sexual themes that are dealt with in a professional, didactic, and factual way. It answers questions many people would rather not ask a physician, a clergyman, or a counselor. From the biblical perspective its leading weakness is its a-moral stance. It generally neither approves nor disapproves of sexual aberrations. But on occasion some of its essayists have endorsed extramarital sex as beneficial. Because of all this, Sexology is a millstone around SIECUS’s neck, guaranteed to hinder its efforts as an educational agency for schools. No amount of propaganda will change this so long as Rubin and Sexology consultants are linked with SIECUS.

Perceptive observers have been disturbed also by the apparent mass exodus of members of the SIECUS board of directors. In 1965 thirty-four names were listed. Today twenty-four of those thirty-four no longer appear on the organization’s letterhead. Their places have been filled by others and the number of directors enlarged to forty-eight. Among those whose names are no longer listed are Mary I. Bunting, the president of Radcliffe College; William Graham Cole, the president of Lake Forest College; and professors from Harvard Medical School, New York University, the University of Southern California, Hunter College, and Columbia University. This rapid turnover in board membership in an organization little more than five years old lends credence to the suggestion that something is amiss.

Because of these and other aspects of SIECUS, the organization has been under heavy attack. And since in many minds sex education and SIECUS are inseparably linked, the fortunes of sex education tend to rise or fall on the basis of support for, or opposition to, SIECUS. This is unfortunate. As this essay is being written, the State of Virginia is faced with strong objections to its sex-education program, and the main charges are that SIECUS is behind the program and that Communist influence is being exerted.

It must not be forgotten that SIECUS, which seems to be the catalyst that makes people either fervid opponents or passionate supporters of sex education, is a Johnny-come-lately on the sex-education scene. Many schools offered satisfactory courses long before 1964, when SIECUS began. And if SIECUS were to disband tomorrow, sex-education programs would continue.

What are the minimum standards for sex-education courses that will satisfy the Christian who takes his life and world view from the biblical revelation?

First and foremost, sex need not and should not be taught in isolation. Instruction should deal with the whole area of love, courtship, marriage, family, and society; sex should be treated as only a part of that total package.

Critics have been quite justified in expressing disapproval of graphic materials that depict chickens, dogs, and human beings engaged in the sex act. Unless sensitive teachers offer further explanations, this type of presentation implies that intercourse is merely an animal act. It is indeed a physical activity that satisfies a normal appetite; but it is much more than this, and a child is cheated when the sexual relationship is not presented in a context of love, personal concern, the giving of self, and the concept of moral choice.

Moreover, children should be taught the facts of life only when they are old enough and mature enough to accept them without psychological harm or undue embarrassment. Even teen-agers do not need to be given detailed information about all aspects of the sexual relationship. Some things can wait for the post-high-school years and the approach of marriage. Sex is a very personal and intimate matter, and those who feel the urge to tell all in the supposed interest of candor and honesty should remember that the law of love may transcend candor and honesty at this point. Not all inhibitions are bad.

The part of family-life instruction that deals with the sex act should be taught to young people in separate classes. Some if not many students are totally unprepared for open discussion in mixed groups; to be placed in such a situation would cause them great embarrassment and perhaps real harm.

Sex cannot be presented in a moral vacuum. A school that allows its students to be taught that extramarital sex is a matter of personal choice or that no moral standards are binding is bound to create havoc for them. Moral principles are the cement that holds a culture together; history affords numerous examples of nations that collapsed and disintegrated when moral principles were set aside.

To speak of a moral framework for sex education is to raise the issue of church-state separation. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was framed not to do away with religion but to prevent any one religious group from becoming officially related to the government of a pluralistic society. We still have “In God We Trust” on our coins; we still have chaplains in the Senate and House; we still take oaths on the Bible in court, and the president of the United States still uses a Bible in his inauguration.

A school in which students are taught to believe in a system of relativistic ethics, especially in the area of sexual behavior, is taking advantage of Christian conscience at this point. All teaching is undergirded by some life and world view, whether it is held consciously or unconsciously, and complete neutrality and objectivity is impossible. Only the rarest teacher is able to present all sides fairly and to keep his students from being influenced by his own bias. And even this teacher may be forced to take a stand when students probe to find out what he himself believes.

Since sex is inextricably linked with morality and religion, sex-education classes should not be mandatory for all children. Parents have an inalienable right to decide whether their children should be exposed to this teaching, particularly since the programs will always vary widely from community to community. Some communities will offer courses of study offensive to Christian conscience; others will offer highly satisfactory ones.

Observers have pointed to Sweden as an example of a nation where universal sex education has become traditional in the schools. And opponents of sex education have been quick to reply that in Sweden the statistics for premarital intercourse, rape, sodomy, illegitimate births, and venereal disease have shot up at an alarming rate. It would be incorrect, however, to lay the sole blame for this at the door of sex education. By and large Sweden is now one of the world’s large mission fields. Few of its people attend church, and the moral principles of Christianity have little or no place in Swedish life. The value of sex education can hardly be tested fairly in a moral vacuum.

Given the present situation, what can Christians do about sex education?

First, Christians should get involved in their local schools. They can do this through the PTA. They can review the books and other materials used in sex-education courses. They can try to persuade school administrators, elected school-board members, and even teachers, to maintain standards that do not violate biblical teaching. Parents have a high stake in their children’s education and should have a determinative voice in what they are taught. If colleges and universities allow their students to be involved in the decision-making processes, how much more should parents be represented in these processes on the grade-and high-school levels. Teachers and administrators are more qualified than parents in some areas, but not in moral matters.

Secondly, parents owe it to their children to instruct them in the home, by example as well as by precept. If they themselves lack information, they should get it. Concerned parents can establish their own teaching classes, bringing in well-informed instructors who can help them learn what they need to present to their children.

Thirdly, Christian parents should see that their churches provide sex-education classes as part of the Christian education program. Churches can help parents also by offering instruction for them as well as for their children. Evangelical Sunday-school publishing houses have an opportunity and a responsibility to make materials for sex education available. Concordia Publishing House has done much in this area, and others will do well to follow that example.

Ultimately the kind of education that children receive can be determined by the parents. If their children are given what they disapprove of, they have no one to blame but themselves. Human nature, marred by sin, stands in need of correction, and sex education will never be any better than the people who control it. Therefore eternal vigilance by parents is the price of adequacy, purity, and biblical soundness in sex education—a highly important need ideally fulfilled by a properly functioning program involving the home, the church, and the school.

On March 16, 1970, the complete text of the New English Bible is due to be published, nine years after the appearance of the New Testament part of the work, and nearly twenty-four years after the adoption by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland of an overture from the Presbytery of Stirling and Dunblane calling for production of an entirely new English translation of the Bible. The Church of Scotland approached the Church of England and the principal free churches of Great Britain and Ireland, and a joint committee of the cooperating churches was set up in 1947. With these churches were also associated the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the National Bible Society of Scotland. Three panels of translators were appointed, to take responsibility for Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocrypha; a fourth panel was created for consultation on literary and stylistic questions.

Several changes in the membership of the committee and the panels have been occasioned over the years by death, emigration, and other causes. But Professor C. H. Dodd has seen the enterprise through as general director from start to finish. In addition, he has served as convener of the New Testament panel. The Old Testament panel has met under the convenership of Professor Sir Godfrey Driver, joint director, and the Apocrypha panel under the convenership of Professor W. D. MacHardy, deputy director.

The New Testament translation was discussed by me in the March 13, 1961, issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. It was impossible at that time to foresee how successful the translation would be in terms of sales: within twelve months some four million copies had been bought—and not only bought, but read. In the first few weeks after publication especially it was a common sight to see people whom one would not normally class as Bible readers reading the new version in public vehicles and such places, and in many instances understanding what they read for the first time. The New English Bible has deliberately broken with the tradition of “Bible English” maintained for over four centuries, from William Tyndale to the Revised Standard Version. The Revised Standard Version could justly be called a revision of Tyndale—at several removes, naturally!—but the New English Bible is not a revision at all; it is a new version based directly on the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts in the light of the most comprehensive and up-to-date information available on both language and text.

Because of this departure from traditional Bible English, some people have felt that the new version is not quite so “holy” as the older ones, while a distinguished English poet and author remarked that he would not feel that an oath sworn on the New English Bible was so binding as one sworn on the King James Version. But the translators’ main purpose was that people should understand the text of Scripture, and this purpose has been abundantly achieved. Time and again people reading in the New English Bible a passage with which they had long been familiar in an older version found themselves suddenly thinking: “Oh, so that’s what it means!” They had known the words before, but not the sense. And it could be that some of the criticism evoked by the new version was due to the fact that when certain readers realized what the sense actually was, they didn’t like it. One is reminded of Mark Twain’s observation that it wasn’t the bits in the Bible he didn’t understand that troubled him, but the bits he did understand.

Here and there the text of the New Testament, when it appears in March as part of the complete Bible, will be found to have undergone some slight revision, mainly stylistic. These revisions will no doubt go some way to meet criticisms of the 1961 edition.

The first installment of the Old Testament (Ruth) was submitted to the joint committee of the sponsoring churches in 1952, and the last (Ecclesiastes) in 1965. The present chairman of the joint committee is Dr. F. D. Coggan, Archbishop of York, who will contribute the preface to the New English Bible of 1970 as his predecessor, the late Dr. A. T. P. Williams, Bishop of Winchester, did to the New Testament of 1961.

It may be found, when the Old Testament part of the work is read, that Sir Godfrey Driver’s influence has been even more pervasive here than Professor Dodd’s was in the New Testament. This is really inevitable, since the original draft translations of the Old Testament books were submitted in the first instance (we understand) to Sir Godfrey, who examined them in the light of his exceptional mastery of Semitic philology and suggested improvements that the respective translators might adopt or not as they thought fit; after this the drafts were submitted to the appropriate panel. One major source of strength of the Old Testament part of the work is that it was able to draw unstintingly on Sir Godfrey’s scholarship.

Those acquainted with this scholar’s contributions to Hebrew lexicography over the years know how freely he has had recourse to other Semitic languages—whether surviving ones like Arabic or dead ones like Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Aramaic—to elucidate the meaning of Hebrew words and roots. This frequently has had the effect of reading an Old Testament passage in quite a different sense from that traditionally given to it, and readers of the New English Bible must be prepared for a good deal of this kind of thing. In several places the new interpretation will commend itself as self-evidently right, and this must be the final justification of any such reinterpretation, as it is of conjectural emendation. But there will no doubt be other places where the new interpretation is less than convincing. We may hope that before long a companion volume to the New English Bible will be provided, explaining why the Hebrew has been rendered so differently here and there from what we have been accustomed to—explaining it, moreover, not in the technical language of scholarship but in terms that can be understood by the intelligent Bible reader whose special studies have not lain in this field.

Another point should be made: especially where the Old Testament is concerned, the interpretation of Hebrew by reference to cognate languages is such an important and delicate exercise that it requires definite rules of procedure. This matter has been dealt with in James Barr’s most recent work, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1968). Professor Barr conducted his research for this book in independence of the New English Bible project, but in fact he discusses critically a number of the reinterpretations that appear in the Old Testament part of the project (this will not surprise anyone who observes that “Driver, G. R.” has a much longer entry in Professor Barr’s index than any other scholar). It may be thought a pity that the translators did not have the benefit of considering what he has to say before they completed their task; at any rate, readers and reviewers who raise their eyebrows at some of the translations will do well to consult Barr’s treatment of them.

Again, the reader may discover that the ancient versions (the Septuagint and others) have been used freely for the reconstruction of the Hebrew text—to a greater degree than in the Revised Standard Version, not to speak of the older versions. Here too is an area of scholarly activity that would profit by being subject to agreed procedural rules. The Greek (Septuagint), Syriac (Peshitta), and Latin (Vulgate) translations of the Hebrew Bible represent a Hebrew text some centuries earlier than our oldest Masoretic manuscripts, whether that text (as with the Peshitta and Vulgate) be the ancestor of the Masoretic text or (as with the Septuagint) a part of a separate type. The ordinary canons of textual criticism would therefore lead us to expect that here and there these versions may preserve a correct reading that has been corrupted in the course of subsequent transmission (as, for example, all three of them have preserved Cain’s words to Abel in Genesis 4:8); but the emendation of the Hebrew by reference to the versions varies so much from one editor to another that some means of severely reducing the element of personal preference would be welcome.

As is well known, the canonical texts discovered since 1947 at Qumran and elsewhere in the Dead Sea region have enabled scholars to write a new chapter in the textual history of the Old Testament. Although Sir Godfrey Driver has developed a line of his own on the origin of the Qumran scrolls, he is in substantial agreement with most of his colleagues in dating the biblical fragments found among them between 150 B.C. and A.D. 50, a millennium earlier than our most important Masoretic manuscripts. But the oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible go back a further millennium, and the circumstances of their transmission during that earlier period are but scantily documented. This may give some scholars additional encouragement to practice the art of conjectural emendation; but in view of our imperfect knowledge, the wiser course at this stage would be to try to establish the text attested by our earliest surviving witnesses, and wait for further light on the earlier period.

The New English Bible, however, does not run to excess in this matter, though it indulges in conjectural emendation much more than did the Revised Standard Version—which in this respect was remarkably conservative. It is no longer fashionable among serious scholars to postulate large-scale corruption of the Hebrew text. Today they are much more cautious and conservative—partly because the great increase in knowledge of Semitic languages during the past generation or two makes it plain that much that was once thought corrupt or meaningless is perfectly sound and intelligible Hebrew.

Three years after the publication of the New Testament in 1961, there appeared a volume, under the editorship of Professor R. V. G. Tasker, entitled The Greek New Testament, Being the Text Translated in the New English Bible 1961. It will not be necessary to publish a parallel edition of the Hebrew Bible for the Old Testament part of the work, for this has been based on the third edition of Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica.

The ineffable name of the God of Israel is usually translated “the LORD” (occasionally “GOD”), as in the KJV and the RSV, but in the few places where a personal name is required the traditional form “Jehovah” is used. It is rather surprising that the translators did not venture to break with tradition and use “Yahweh,” as the Jerusalem Bible and (in some degree) the Berkeley Bible have done. It might be pleaded that the form “Yahweh,” for all its familiarity to scholars, has not yet been naturalized in English: but if the New English Bible had popularized it, the process of naturalization would have been well launched.

In the Hebrew text of the Song of Songs, the sex of the speaker is commonly indicated by pronominal suffixes and other inflections that have no English counterparts, so that what is obvious in Hebrew is ambiguous in English. The New English Bible has compensated for this deficiency in English by indicating clearly who the various speakers are. This is one of the ways in which the translators “have had in mind not only the importance of making sense, … but also the needs of ordinary readers with no special knowledge of the ancient East; and they trust that such readers may find illumination in the present version.”

Among interesting features in the new translation of the Apocrypha, the dragon in the story formerly called “Bel and the Dragon” has now been demythologized; the new title is “Daniel, Bel and the Snake.” One of the most helpful things in this part of the work is that the entire Greek Esther has been translated as a continuous narrative, with the “Additions to Esther” appearing in their proper contexts, instead of being printed as disconnected fragments. Those parts of the Greek Esther that were translated from the Hebrew Bible (and therefore have not usually been printed in the Apocrypha) are distinguished by being placed within square brackets.

It has not been possible at this stage to give actual quotations from the New English Bible. But perhaps enough has been said to show that when it is published it will arouse great interest, excitement, and probably controversy as well. This will be all to the good, provided the controversy is conducted in a reasonable and temperate spirit, and does not descend to vulgar vituperation or aspersions on the faith and integrity of the translators. They have deserved well of the English-speaking public by the patient devotion with which they have undertaken and carried through their gigantic task, and they would be the first to agree that their aim can only be promoted by well-informed and well-expressed criticism.

Among the external resources available to the church, the printed page stands first. The invention of printing from movable type was one of the right-angle turns in history. Marshall McLuhan aptly gives his book about how we have been molded by “the print technology” this title—The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographical Man. That is what we all are—men and women who in one way or another have been conditioned through the printed page.

The origin of movable type is a complicated story. Here is an invention wholly independently at different times and with different results in Occident and Orient. Asia was first. Block printing in China goes back to the eighth century A.D. and printing from movable type to the eleventh century; yet results were not the same in China as in the West, because with its thousands of ideographs Chinese is not an alphabetical language. Therein lies one of the reasons for the difference between China and the West. Typography in Europe also began with block-printing, which was used as far back as the fourteenth century. But it is Johann Gutenberg in Germany who is generally credited with the invention toward the middle of the fifteenth century of printing from alphabetical type.

So there came into history a vast expansion of the “dimension of repeatability,” as McLuhan puts it. This quick, manifold repeatability of the written word has opened the door to modern civilization. And though we stand today on the verge of a new era through mass electronic communication, the printed page will endure. It will endure because it is the unique extension of one of our most important capabilities as human beings—the use of words to convey thought and feeling—and because it makes the verbal products of the human mind available for continuing study and reflection rather than flashing them electronically on our consciousness.

Behind the first printed book in the Western world, commonly taken to be the Gutenberg Bible of 1455–56 (though we have a few smaller pieces of printing from about ten years before that), there stood the written word. And behind the written word stands the alphabet: and behind the alphabet stands our unique faculty of speech; and behind our speech stands our capacity for thinking; and behind our capacity for thinking stands our creation in the image of God; and behind all these stands the Word. For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.… All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made.”

As Herbert M. Butcher says, “Communication is the primary fact, for God communicates Himself.… It was through this that everything came into being.” Supremely and historically, the divine self-communication took the form of a human being, the Man Christ Jesus, the Word who invaded history in the stupendous miracle of the Incarnation. There, in the self-communication of the living God through the actual events of the birth, teaching, deeds, and, paramountly, the death and resurrection of his Son, lies the divine model of communication.

“But what,” someone asks, “has this to do with the printed page?” Well, it was not by chance that the unknown genius who invented the alphabet came, not from the people of Egypt, or India, or China, but from the Semites of Syro-Palestine. Moreover, God chose a Semitic people, the Hebrews, for revealing himself step by step through the centuries. To them he began to commit scriptural revelation as far back as the time of Moses and continued to do so through the prophets and other inspired writers until the fourth century B.C., thus preparing in written words as well as mighty acts the way for the incarnate Word. Then when Christ had come, God continued until the close of the first century to use the written, alphabetical word—now for the inspired record of his revelation through his Son.

The Bible is still the most influential and most widely read piece of communication the world has ever known. Why? Because in it God speaks to man. Like paper impressed with a watermark, every page of Scripture in some way points to the incarnate Word. As James Stewart says, “It was a favorite dictum of the preachers of a bygone day that just as from every village in Britain there was a road which, linking on to other roads, brings you to London at last, so from every text in the Bible, even the remotest and unlikely, there was a road to Christ.” When we follow that road we find the cross. Malcolm Muggeridge speaks truly when he declares, “One thing at least can be said with certainty about the Crucifixion of Christ; it was manifestly the most famous death in history. No other death has aroused one hundredth part of the interest, or been remembered with one hundredth part of the concern.” And, he might have added, the reason for this is that only through Christ’s death and the inevitable sequel for his resurrection can men enter into the glorious liberty of the sons of God.

The influence of Scripture has reached into literature, law, government, art, music, modern science (the basic concepts of which can be traced to the Reformation)—in fact, the whole of our culture. Public education found its first motivation in the century following Gutenberg’s invention of printing. The Reformers insisted on the establishment of schools so that the people could know how to read God’s Word for themselves. The biblical impetus to literacy, which is the key to the vast realm of human knowledge, has continued ever since in a chain reaction now at its height as throughout the world language after language is reduced to writing so that people can learn to read the Scriptures in their own tongue. Today, at least one book of the Bible has been translated into 1,337 languages or dialects. And it is expected that by the year 2000 there will be translations in all the as-yet-unwritten tribal languages of the world. The implications, just on the literacy and educational levels, stagger the imagination.

Let no one say, This may be all very well, but in what some call a post-Christian age the influence of the Bible is petering out (as the writer of a poorly researched article in the Wall Street Journal maintains.) This is simply not true. In a single year (1967), more than 104 million copies of Scripture were circulated—a ration, according to the American Bible Society, of one copy for every thirty-three persons living today. Consider that a single New Testament translation, the Today’s English Version, first published in 1966, attained a circulation of ten million copies its first year and a half—one for every twenty people in the country. Add to that the millions of sales of the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible (New Testament) and other recent translations, such as those of Kenneth Taylor, and all contemporary best-sellers are left very far behind. The Bible remains the most influential and most enduring of all books. In this secular age not only does its circulation stand at its highest level in history but also for the first time Roman Catholics are joining Protestants in the effort to make it accessible to all.

What about the Christian use of the printed page for purposes other than the circulation of the Scriptures? When in 1517 Luther nailed his ninety-five Theses to the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg, it was a printed, not handwritten, Latin page he posted there. He meant those Theses, which were a profoundly biblical document, to be a challenge to scholarly debate. But they were soon translated into German and surreptitiously circulated all over the land. So the Reformation may be said to have begun through the printed page. What a literature it gave rise to! There were the writings of scholars like Melanchthon and Erasmus; there was Calvin’s Institutes, the towering classic of Reformed theology; there were the works of Luther himself. There were also those of his Catholic opponents like Eck, and there were many pamphlets or what we today call tracts. This stirring period of church history was a time of intense literary activity.

Christians have kept on using the printed page. As they have done so, world literature has been immeasurably enriched. Examples from among many that could be cited come readily to mind, ranging from Pascal, Milton, and Bunyan to modern and contemporary writers like Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Browning, Unamuno, Mauriac, T. S. Eliot, C. S. Lewis, James Weldon Johnson, and Flannery O’Connor.

There is, however, a special way in which Christians have long been using the printed page to persuade others of the truth of their faith. This is the kind of writing known as the tract. Such literature comes under the head of propaganda. Although the word gained a disreputable connotation during the First World War, there is nothing essentially ignoble about propaganda. It is simply the use of words to persuade others of a point of view. Gorham Munson refers to it as a garden hose. As through a hose there may pass pure water from a crystal spring, or contaminated water from a river like the Potomac, or fluid from a cesspool, so propaganda may present the clear truth, or a muddy mixture of lies and truth, or a poisonous stream of prejudice.

The Chinese proverb, “One picture is worth more than ten thousand words,” sounds good. But unless the picture is a masterpiece of a Rembrandt or a Renoir, it is not true. Even in this electronic age, words, far more than pictures, are the most potent of all means of affecting human beings. The perennial battle for the minds of men is still being fought by words—some of them violent and crude, others strong and healing.

Paul’s Epistle to the Romans is a tract of the most exalted kind. As Munson says, “The sixth book of the New Testament is probably the greatest letter in all literature and reveals the height to which propaganda in the noble sense can attain.” Paul’s example has been followed by many Christian leaders through the ages. Even before Gutenberg’s invention of printing, the tracts of John Wycliffe together with his translation of the Bible into the vernacular looked forward to the Reformation and established English prose. The Reformation itself became what one historian calls “a pamphlet warfare.”

It was John Fox in the English Reformation who declared, “God has opened the press to preach and by this printing as by the gift of tongues the doctrine of the Gospel sounds to all nations and countries under heaven.…” John Wesley, the leader of the great revival in eighteenth-century England, left 233 written works, many of them pamphlets or tracts. Here is an excerpt from Wesley’s diary for December 18, 1745: “We have within a short time given away thousands of little tracts among the common people.… And this day ‘An Earnest Exhortation to Serious Repentance’ was given at every church-door in or near London to every person who came out, and one left at the house of every householder who was absent from church.” Wesley’s use of tracts probably led to the formation in England of the Religious Tract Society in 1799. Similar societies were established in other European countries, and in 1825, the American Tract Society began its work. In his History of Christianity, Kenneth Scott Latourette says, “In 1832 the American Tract Society adopted a plan to place some of its literature in every religiously destitute family in the United States. In 1847 most of its 267 colporteurs were in the Mississippi Valley, in much of which frontier conditions still prevailed.”

That word frontier points to a challenge for our Christian use of the printed page today. Geographically, America has only one remaining frontier, sparsely populated Alaska. Sociologically and spiritually, however, frontiers lie all around us, with explosive ones in every city and in every state. For this is a day of frontiers between young and old, between rebels and the establishment, between white and black. But while education, politics, and the mass media-cannot by themselves transcend these barriers between people, the Bible can cross every frontier and the Christ whom it proclaims can reconcile men to one another and to himself through his redeeming love. It is his truth that makes men free from the barriers that shut them off from accepting one another as members of the common brotherhood for whom Christ died. And that truth can be dynamically presented in writing.

Using the printed page to persuade men to receive the message set forth in the Scriptures entails an awesome responsibility. It is that of telling the truth. Here we must look again at the divine model of communication through the incarnate Word and the written Word. Complete and perfect trustworthiness characterizes this communication. Because propaganda, even with the highest aims, can easily be made a medium for distortion, every writer who makes use of it, whether in a tract, religious essay, or apologetic work, must hold unswervingly to the criterion of truth.

Truth is the most spacious word we can use apart from the Name of Deity himself. Commitment to it must be the hallmark not just of tract, sermon, or essay but of every kind of Christian writing from editorial to newspiece, from novel to poem. Because the Christian message is everlastingly true, in Christian writing the medium must indeed be the message. For the Christian writer, editor, or publisher, this means a conscience for truth in the use of facts. It means checking every reference, every statistic, every implication. It also means cultivating a style that has the authentic ring of reality. With John Bunyan, who said in that most honest of autobiographies, Grace Abounding, “God did not play in convincing of me, the devil did not play in tempting of me.… wherefore, I may not play in my relating of them but be plain and simple and lay down the thing as it was,” the Christian writer cannot be content with anything less than striving as best he knows how to “lay down the thing as it was.” In the language of today this means to “tell it like it is.” For to express the truth is the unchanging goal of Christian writing.

The long story of the way in which the forces of the Christian faith, though operating slowly, finally made a difference in how men lived, should give us, if we are willing to observe it, a practical hint about the problems that we face at the end of the twentieth century. Many, it is true, talk glibly of the sacredness of persons, and this includes several who have no conscious adherence to the faith of Christ, but it is quite possible that without a religious anchorage the doctrine of inherent human sacredness cannot be maintained. The forces of impersonalism, we must remember, are very strong. The deepest roots of what we call democracy are not to be found in ancient Greece, where democracy experienced one of its greatest failures. It was, after all, the Athenian democracy that pronounced the death sentence upon Socrates, “concerning whom I may truly say,” said Plato, “that of all the men of his time whom I have known, he was the wisest and justest and best.” (Phaedo, 118A). The deepest roots of democracy are found in the Bible, particularly in the revolutionary story of Naboth’s Vineyard, in which both king and commoner stand on exactly the same level because both derive from the Divine paternity.

Whether the dignity of the individual, which lies at the heart of the entire struggle for equal rights and social justice, can be maintained permanently on any other basis we cannot know, but we shall, if we wish to be realistic, pay careful attention to the one basis that is known to be an effective place to stand, and from which many loads may be lifted. When we realize, with Whitehead and other historians of ideas, the way in which a free society traces its roots back to a religious belief and commitment, we shall not lightly neglect this revelation of how emancipation comes. Contemporary thinkers can profit from a new study of a striking essay, “The Free Society and Individual Rights,” written by Theodore O. Wedel in The Christian Demand for Social Justice, edited by Bishop William Scarlett (A Signet Special, 1949). Canon Wedel was at great pains, in this essay, to show that the doctrine of the worth of every man is fundamentally derivative, rather than “a truth standing on its own.” The needy neighbor may, in fact, be an unlovely person and might, in a purely secular society, reasonably be liquidated to the profit of the state. The most notorious of Roman dictators operated unashamedly on this basis, but Christianity, with all its mistakes, became an opposing force.

“The dogma of individual rights,” wrote Wedel, “is not a truth standing on its own. It is a derivative dogma and depends upon divine, not secular sanctions. It does not derive from a doctrine of the inherent goodness of human nature, or a sacredness of personality which man has earned. It derives, rather, from the doctrine of the sinfulness of human nature and the universal judgment and grace of a righteous God” (p. 15). Here is a profound and exciting idea. If every man, in spite of his personal ineptitude, is God’s handiwork, and if every man, including the leader or the king, is under judgment, we have a powerful motive for the creation of a social order in which there is maximum chance for equality of opportunity as well as equal justice. No one is outside the law, just as no one is outside the Divine Concern.

Such an understanding of the nature of the human situation provides a far stronger motive for overcoming racial injustice than does any merely economic or political or legal conception. If it could be followed with any sincerity, it would provide an antidote to all racism, whether of the white or the black variety. General acceptance of such convictions would not make laws unnecessary, but it would lead to the enactment of laws and, furthermore, help to provide some of the spirit that keeps men from circumventing laws by their own clever devices. A world in which men of different races can look upon men of contrasting color as Children of God is one in which equal freedom can come without bitterness.

We cannot say too often that Christianity is the most revolutionary of faiths, far more revolutionary, indeed, than any known form of communism, whether Marxist or Maoist. Contemporary schools of communism claim to be revolutionary, but they are not thoroughly so. They may decide to distribute property and thereby aid the dispossessed, but there is nothing, in any of their systems, about compassion for the person from whom the property is to be taken. He is a hated imperialist, and that is enough to say about him. But the Christian, if he understands his Lord, goes further. He is, of course, eager to help the poor, but he is not willing to settle for hatred or contempt for the original owner, since the owner, too, like the landless, is an unconditional object of Divine Concern. We need to work in all known ways to see that the Negro in America is given a chance to earn a decent living, to enjoy equal schooling, and to inhabit equal housing, but underneath all these forms of equality is that of equal respect. This is what every man desires, and the most powerful motivation for giving it is that provided by the Gospel of Christ. We do well to insist upon voting rights, but if we end there, the battle has only begun. We are never far on the way until the white man sees the Negro, not only as an equal politically, but spiritually as a brother.

Any honest observer is bound to admit that some of the worst examples of oppression have occurred in areas in which the Gospel has been preached and believed. But while this is true, it is only part of the truth. The other, and the more important part, is that the most encouraging changes in the southern part of the United States, in regard to race relations, are coming from primarily religious motives. Anyone who spends much time in southern states can hardly fail to notice the role of Christians in the effort to solve the problem that is so deep-seated and that has been with us so long. (For a careful estimate of this, written by one born in the South, see Kyle Haselden’s book entitled Morality and the Mass Media (Broadman, 1968), page 68). Wherever the Bible is honored there is real hope, because the Bible clearly teaches that all mankind is of one family.

Another valuable teaching, which needs to be remembered when we are working to bring about a better social order, is that we shall never have perfection in the relations between human beings. Much of the frustrated anger of our time results from utterly naïve expectations that are inevitably unfulfilled. The Christian faith, when understood, helps to avoid the bitterness of disillusionment by making it clear in advance that there will be no Utopia. The impossibility of Utopia follows logically from the chronic character of human sin, which infects the planners in the same way that it infects those for whom the new social order is planned. The experience of ideal communities in America is pathetically uniform, and the sad truth is that each fails.

We shall avoid much bitterness and idle recrimination if we realize in advance that there is a wide difference between the degree of perfection possible in an individual and in a society. There was, for example, much more that was admirable about the character of William Penn than there was about the “Holy Experiment” that he sought to execute in the new world. Though his experiment had some good features, it was, in considerable measure, a failure, as is bound to be true with anything that has people in it.

The personal life, particularly in its solitude, can often attain a high degree of excellence. It is more nearly possible, in short, to learn to pray well than it is to serve well, because, though some prayer involves others, all service involves others, and that is where the trouble begins. A man has made a few steps on the road to wisdom if he knows the difference between the two complementary realms. The door to life represented by “we” opens more widely than the door represented by “I,” but it is harder to keep it open.

There are two forms of foolishness to be avoided assiduously in this connection. It is equally foolish either to entertain Utopian hopes or to abandon the struggle because of lack of perfect accomplishment. Perfectionism … causes people to give up when they learn that the ideal commonwealth cannot be established on the banks of the Wabash or anywhere else. Perfectionism is always harmful when the abstract best becomes the enemy of the concrete good. The intelligent procedure is to understand that the ideal will not be achieved and then to try, with all our might, to make the situation relatively better than what it was before. We shall not experience a perfect social order, either now or a thousand years from now, but some improvement is possible, and this is what keeps thoughtful men going.

The person who sincerely desires to serve his fellow men soon finds that the service side of his life, far from standing alone, requires not only a deep inner life of devotion, but also the third leg of our stool, the life of critical intelligence. Without careful thought, the individual may easily find himself upholding positions that once made sense, but do so no more because the battle front changes. A good many people are still fighting old battles on the supposition that the major danger is still what it formerly was. It is part of our needed realism now—a realism in which committed Christians should take the lead—to point out that we are in a new day in which the major danger, which once came from the right, now comes from the left.

Without vigilant examination of what we are doing, it is easy to evince more interest in causes or in dogmas than in persons. It is not uncommon, for instance, for white crusaders, deeply committed to civil rights, to have no close friends or even acquaintances among the Negroes, but social action cannot meet the test of authenticity unless it is profoundly personal. Careful intellectual attention may likewise save us from the mistake of supposing that others who do not share our particular solutions of social problems are less concerned with social action than we are.

Almost everyone has heard some public speaker deplore the obvious gap between what we do technologically and what we do socially. If we would only put as much disciplined intelligence and money into psychology or sociology as we now put it into physics and chemistry, it is implied, we should do as well with the social order as we have done with landing men on the moon. This popular judgment reveals a pathetic fallacy. We are dealing with problems of a radically different character when we deal with persons rather than with things. It is possible to achieve striking success in producing a rocket, since we are dealing with essentially passive materials that do not exercise freedom of decision and do not sin. But people, by contrast, cannot be manipulated as physical objects can be, and we are glad that this is true. The study of psychology is worth pursuing, but it is naïve to suppose that such study will bring to human society the kind of success possible in a scientific laboratory. Scientists, it should be carefully noted, find it far easier to manipulate their environment than to manage themselves.

The much-publicized gap between scientific success and success with human life is not surprising to anyone who understands something of the Christian faith. We must use all the intelligence that we can muster in the organization of human behavior, for emotion will not suffice, but even when we do so, there will be disappointments at every level. We must build colleges, but colleges will be centers of dissension; we must support labor unions, but unions will be involved in power struggles; we must have a movement for civil rights, but the movement will be exploited by demagogues; we must administer welfare, but there will be corruption in its administration. Only the realist can operate without debilitating discouragement.

We need to give careful attention today to the relationship between social service and evangelism. The danger is that service may take the place of evangelism or that evangelism may be redefined so that it is social service and nothing more. However desirable it may be to help workers to organize or even, in extreme instances, to strike, this does not and cannot take the place of evangelism in the sense of confrontation with Jesus Christ. The more deeply involved a person comes to be in the Christian Cause, the more he will reject simplistic approaches, and the reduction of evangelism to social action is such an approach. The early injunction of Christ was to become “fishers of men” (Mark 1:17), and this is quite as significant as the injunction to feed the hungry. To feed a man is important; but man does not live by bread alone, so it is equally important to make him sense the love of Christ. If we do only the one and not the other, we may, in the end, undermine the motivation even for the feeding itself. It is a serious mistake to seek to change the environment without also changing the man.

The people who think that evangelism is dead or is fully incorporated in acts of justice and mercy would do well to think again. How is the fire of social sensitivity to be sustained and replenished? The Christian is a man who, regardless of the century in which he lives, knows the answer; he knows that the way to become ignited is to approach the Source.

The end of a year always stimulates in me the sort of mood that might not have been tolerated for a moment by Adelaide Ann Procter. That indomitable lady, whose restless fingers originally hit upon the “Lost Chord” (rediscovered a century later by J. Durante), struck also a brisk note worthy of a school principal after summer vacation:

The Past and the Future are nothing,

In the face of the stern To-day.

There’s something theologically awry with that—perhaps because it seems to preclude the blessed memories and lively hopes that are to me inseparable from the present season.

What follows here may be dubiously current, religious, or thoughtful, but may be welcomed as affording some relief from my customary high-handed discussion of this or that.

Of all my recollections of 1969, the drollest was of an item by William Pratt in Conference, a missionary magazine:

Twinkle, twinkle, little star,

I don’t wonder what you are;

I surmised your spot in space

When you left your missile base.

Any wondering I do

Centers on the price of you,

And I shudder when I think

What you’re costing me per twink.

My most bizarre memory of the year I owe to the question-and-answer column of a religious weekly not normally given to humor. “Is it sinful,” a correspondent asked, “to use extra-sensory perception to correspond with an atheist … while the mailmen are on strike?” You think the question a humdinger? Read the answer (I’ve mislaid the precise wording, but I can vouch for the sentiments): “You do not mention the purpose of your correspondence. If it is the conversion of the atheist, by all means go ahead, but the indiscriminate use of ESP for general secular purposes is not recommended.”

My most nerve-shattering moment came at a conference center on being wakened to the ear-splitting tidings over a loudspeaker that “We Shall Know Each Other Better When the Mists Have Rolled Away.”

The most asinine piece of red tape in a country where it flourishes came in the news that a fellow Scot in exile, a distinguished surgeon, was solemnly censured for discrimination by the Race Relations Board because he advertised in an English newspaper for a Scottish cook.

The most sermon-provoking word came from a notice I saw while walking within the legal precincts of Lincoln’s Inn, London: “Persons with burdens are not allowed to pass through.”

My most memorable moment poses a conflict, but innate modesty must take second place to the reputation of this journal. During the Church of Scotland General Assembly in Edinburgh, the Queen invited the twenty-four-strong regular press corps to a reception at the Palace of Holyroodhouse. Having been presented to the royal couple, I was asked by Prince Philip: “Who are you with?” Before I could reply the Queen said: “CHRISTIANITY TODAY.” It could, of course, have been a deft piece of regal oneupmanship after consulting the list in advance, but I would like to think …

For the worst ecclesiastical policy of the year I nominate a high-level Baptist pronouncement on ministerial manpower: “The superintendents are always conscious of the need not to place a man where his message is unacceptable or where he feels ill at ease theologically.” I would like to hear C. H. Spurgeon on that.

My most moving experience of 1969 came during a brief stop in American Samoa. A coachload of Roman Catholic ladies with their aged choirmaster had come to see their bishop off. For half an hour the airport lounge rang with a fascinating recital of Samoan secular and sacred songs. The choirmaster then politely requested everyone to be quiet. They were. He invited them, regardless of creed or color, to join them in saying goodbye to “the first real Samoan boy” who had ever made bishop. As we walked out to board our plane, it was touching to see each of the singers take farewell of the bishop, who can visit that part of his diocese only every third year. For the first time they broke out into English, singing over and over again, “Oh, we never will forget you.” The bishop, who was traveling alone, was still brushing away tears as he took his seat in the economy section of the plane. I couldn’t help contrasting the incident with the hurried and arid manifestation of Protestantism at the previous day’s church service in a local hotel, when worship was curtailed to thirty minutes so that the room could be used for a fashion show.

My most gripping—and most jolting—book of the year was the Zondervan publication Black and Free by Tom Skinner. Brash it undoubtedly is in parts, but even that is a byproduct of the singlemindedness found in too few of us. Listen to this: “I don’t have to go out and struggle for human dignity,” says the young evangelist. “Christ has given me true dignity.… As a member of the family of God, I am in the best family stock there is.… My message to society is very simple. If you want status, maybe you ought to rub shoulders with me because I’ve got it as a son of God.”

Some people tend to go all morbid at New Year. One could understand it of someone like Caesar Augustus, who, when fortune had been lavishing her richest gifts on him, prayed that some very great sorrow might speedily come, lest the gods be jealous. But even Charles Kingsley, a writer for whom I have the greatest admiration, could say at the start of a new year: “I am never better than at present; with many blessings, and, awful confession for mortal man, no sorrows. I sometimes think there must be terrible arrears of sorrow to be paid off by me, that I may be as other men are. God help me in that day!” (He sounds a little like a friend of mine who, far from regarding it as a bonus, greets a sunny day in December with the dark mutter: “You’ll see; we’ll suffer for this yet.”)

And yet and yet … There is something right-rooted about Kingsley’s reaction to God’s overwhelming benefits. While I know that the proper tack should be “Glory to Thee for all the joys I have not tasted yet!,” I find that this stocktaking season invariably cuts me down to size with the realization that nothing will ever alter my status as an unprofitable servant. It irks me that I am called not just to action, but to dependence; not to give God instructions, but to report for duty.

As a spiritual corrective I find much value in occasionally reading books originating in another religious tradition. Here the most helpful of all to me has been Friedrich von Hügel. This baron of the Holy Roman Empire, master of seven languages and one of the greatest Christian thinkers of modern times, is buried in a little Somerset churchyard beneath a tombstone that displays the simple but profound thought: “Whom have I in heaven but Thee?” Seven salutary words for the self-sufficient seventies!

J. D. DOUGLAS

Since hitting a low point of 21,025 in 1964, enrollment in seminaries holding membership in the American Association of Theological Schools (AATS) has been slowly gaining. It appears to have reached a plateau over the past two academic years.

Institutions reporting in both 1968 and 1969—not including nineteen new AATS schools—had an increase of one-half of one half of one per cent: 28,033 in 1968 and 28,177 in 1969. All 171 U. S. and Canadian schools represented pushed the AATS total enrollment to a new high of 29,690.

Interestingly—but perhaps not significantly—seventeen non-AATS seminaries surveyed by CHRISTIANITY TODAY show an upturn of 9.8 per cent in enrollment from 1968 to 1969. The schools—all with at least fifty students currently enrolled—had a total of 2,178 students a year ago last fall, and 2,391, or 213 more, in the fall of 1969.

Figures supplied to CHRISTIANITY TODAY (see chart below) include candidates for the master of divinity degree (which is rapidly replacing the B.D.), or its equivalent, as well as students in post-graduate, continuing-education, and (in several cases) non-degree programs.

NON-AATS SEMINARIES WITH MORE THAN 50 STUDENTS

The largest non-AATS seminary (and one of the ten largest seminaries in the nation) is Dallas, with a record enrollment of 445 last fall, up seventeen from the previous year’s 428.

Information was requested from non-AATS seminaries thought to have at least fifty students. One of the seventeen queried, Bob Jones Graduate School of Religion, refused to release any information. It was learned, however, that the graduate school of religion there has 130 students in various programs, most of which are one year in duration. A master of divinity degree is offered at Bob Jones and normally requires three years to complete.

In releasing its statistics last month, the AATS noted that certain comparisons “can be misleading.” Students in “post-ordination” continuing-education programs were not included in 1969 enrollment totals, for example.

Despite some closures and mergers, the trend has been toward increasing enrollment in AATS schools, according to AATS executive director Jesse Ziegler. He predicts there will be 200 member institutions within a year or so.

All but one of the new AATS affiliates are Roman Catholic; the traditionally Protestant association began receiving Catholic and Orthodox applicants in 1966. There are now some forty Catholic member-schools. (The AATS is the only organization in North America that accredits graduate theological institutions.)

Ziegler noted that “one of the most notable features of the report is the sharp decline in the number of non-college graduates in professional programs.” This category declined from 1,338 to 781 between 1968 and 1969. Ziegler explained this by saying that churches increasingly are demanding fully qualified clergy. This in turn has resulted in major upgrading of seminary entrance requirements.

AATS Canadian schools reported 848 students in 1969, compared to 876 the year before, a drop of 3.2 per cent.

Of all AATS-related students, 67 per cent were working on ministerial degrees, 5.5 per cent were interns, and 5.6 per cent were registered in Christian education.

AATS statistics usually are broken down by denomination; this was not done for 1969. Instead, according to Ziegler, there will be a “sample comparison” for thirty “representative” schools to show enrollment, finances, faculty and library data, and minoritystudent ratios, to be published early this year.

Much of this “theological fact book” will be compiled from computer research siftings. (The AATS has received a $450,000 grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to further its accreditation and research.)

Statistics from 90 per cent of the U. S. Roman Catholic diocesan seminaries (they do not belong to the AATS) have been compiled. They indicate a 1.4 per cent drop in enrollments from 1968 to 1969. The greatest slippage is at the high-school level, or minor seminaries, where there are 2,313 freshman students this semester, compared to 2,458 the year before.

There are 1,729 men preparing for the priesthood at the college freshman level, while there were 1,790 in 1968. First-year graduate (theology) students, however, total 1,067 now, compared to 967 in 1968.

A spokesman for Catholic diocesan vocations said the data from the nearly 500 seminaries was “complex and difficult to analyze.… What’s happening is that some who formerly were called seminarians aren’t [in that category] anymore.”

From other information on seminaries:

• A survey of five denominations by a research bureau at Garrett Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois, showed that many of the ablest younger ministers are leaving the pastoral ministry to take staff positions, teach, engage in social work, and enter business.

• A total of 1,626 degree candidates were enrolled in the six seminaries of the Boston Theological Institute last fall. Catholics (421) lead the enrollment, with 250 United Church of Christ students second. There were fifty-two black students in the six seminaries.

• The combined enrollment at the six seminaries of the Southern Baptist Convention showed almost no change over a year ago. Enrollment for 1969 was 4,578, compared to 4,575 in 1968.

• Seventy-six per cent of the 498 students in the eight Disciples of Christ-related seminaries last fall were preparing for the pastoral ministry. Another ninety-four Disciples students are studying in non-Disciples schools.

Hromadka Dies

Dr. Josef Hromádka, 80, the Communist world’s leading Protestant theologian, died of a heart attack in Prague last month. He recently quit the presidency of the Communist-dominated Christian Peace Conference in a dispute over the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia, which Hromádka condemned. He taught theology in a Prague seminary and was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary during World War II.

Roberts’S Ratings: Rising

Actress Anita Bryant gave a clear witness to Christ as the only answer on the fourth prime-time hour TV special produced by evangelist Oral Roberts (both she and the Pentecostal-healer-turned-Methodist are from Tulsa and of Cherokee ancestry).

Christ is the answer to youth who “cop out” by blaming their parents for things that go wrong, added the actress. The show, appearing on more than 160 stations across the nation just before Christmas, typifies Roberts’s “new look” in evangelism (see March 28, 1969, issue page 40).

New lookers apparently will keep the quarterly specials going this year. Two are already scheduled, one at Easter and a second in June. Roberts’s mail is at an all-time high, and the programs “are almost self-supporting,” according to a Roberts aide. Mail to his Tulsa-based university admissions office has doubled, too, indicating that the animated singing and slithering of the World Action Singers and the melodic, rich voice of son Richard Roberts have caught on with the younger set. (Another half-hour, Sunday TV show for the church crowd—and one suspects, a much older audience—is also successful, Roberts’s spokesmen say,)

The Christmas special show also had the luster of the Ralph Carmichael Orchestra behind it, and an assist from Mark Hatfield, Roberts’s longtime friend, who read “The Incomparable Christ.” Roberts closed a short sermon with his usual injunction. “Let’s touch each other and pray,” he said, taking Anita’s hand.

Although there was no appeal for funds, Roberts offered a Christmas recording to all. And, perhaps as an index of his rising respectability (and visibility), he told viewers to write simply to “Oral Roberts, Tulsa, Oklahoma.” “That’s all the address you need.”

Silent Night

National Council of Churches president Cynthia Wedel announced early last month that “surely not one of us can object to prayer,” referring to prayers for penance and peace to herald local Viet Nam Moratorium activities on Christmas Eve. But special services were scant, according to reports—or lack of them.

In the nation’s capital, for example, where November’s moratorium march attracted nearly half a million protesters, only fifty people heard Paul Moore, Jr., the newly elected Episcopal bishop coadjutor of New York.

Apparently, most people who stirred the night before Christmas did so for traditional candlelight and carol services.

Lutheran Ecumenism Boost

Lutheran churches considering union with non-Lutheran denominations will get help and encouragement from the Lutheran World Federation. The LFW’s executive committee, meeting in Denmark last month, said that aid—rather than efforts to prevent union conversations—is “consistent with respect for both the fellowship and autonomy of member Churches.”

The LWF will be restructured from seven to three main commissions: studies, church cooperation, and world service. About two-thirds of the world’s 75 million Lutherans are represented by the LWF.

From Tents To Stadiums To Straw …

Evangelist Billy Graham made his first public appearance at a rock music festival between Christmas and New Year’s and was so pleased with the response that he plans to attend more.

Graham told a youthful audience of about 2,500 sprawled on a straw-covered field at the Miami-Hollywood (Florida) festival to get high on God instead of drugs. Some accepted the challenge. About 100 youths later congregated in a striped tent to receive literature about Christ.

Freezing temperatures kept attendance (estimated to be 10,000) far below the promoters’ expectations. Arrests for drug use were few, but even as Graham spoke, some youths passed out stickers calling for the legalization of marijuana.

Wearing a bright gold jacket, dark trousers, and a yellow shirt, a beaming Graham told the youth: “Tune in to God today and let him give you faith.” In a press conference afterwards, Graham said he had been prepared to be shouted down at the festival (promoters had invited him to come). Instead, he noted, he felt a “tremendous response.… I’ll be happy to come to any rock festival where I’m asked.”

The evangelist, who of late has been tailoring his ministry to reach far-out youth in particular (he sometimes puts on a false mustache and beard and stalks rock gatherings to get the feel of what young people are thinking) had an immediate taker: California promoter Bill Starns invited him to speak at a nine-day rock spectacular tentatively slated for Easter in San Luis Obispo.

Hanging Is Dead In Britain

Permanent punishment—the death penalty—for murder has been permanently abolished in Great Britain. The public galleries of the House of Lords were filled for the historic vote last month. The measure already had been approved almost two to one by the House of Commons.

Eighteen Anglican bishops in black and white robes sat with Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey and voted against hanging for murder, a penalty Parliament temporarily suspended for five years in 1965.

All western European countries except France have now abolished the death penalty. There is a trend toward its abolition in the United States and the Soviet Union as well.

Eleven of the fifty states¹Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, North Dakota, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. have outlawed capital punishment, and in New Mexico, New York, and Vermont, it is permitted only for special cases such as the murder of a prison official. There have been no executions in the United States since 1967, and more than 500 prisoners are awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on capital punishment.

From 1930 through 1964, 3,857 persons were executed in the United States for state and federal crimes. The crimes of which they were convicted were: murder, 3,324; rape, 455; armed robbery, 24; kidnapping, 20; burglary, 11; spying, 8; and aggressive assault, 6. Of those executed, 178 were teen-agers. According to the Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service, there have been seventy-four known wrongful convictions for criminal homicide since 1883; eight of these were executed.

Although the death penalty was prohibited in the Soviet Union in 1947, it was revived three years later for traitors, spies and “wrecker diversionists.”

South Bend Echoes

Echoes from the second special General Convention at South Bend, Indiana, last September were still reverberating through the Episcopal Church at year end. In New York, two Episcopal laymen filed a suit in the State Supreme Court seeking to bar the denomination from transferring $200,000 to the Black Economic Development Conference through the National Committee of Black Churchmen.

The laymen charged that the grant, approved at the South Bend meeting (see September 26 issue, page 42) is illegal because the BEDC “supports violence.” The plaintiffs did not mention in their suit that $43,000 has already been transferred to the militant organization born last April at the time James Forman issued the Black Manifesto. (That money launched a Detroit-based publishing house this month—see January 2 issue, page 43.)

David Arms, a marketing economist, and Walter Gates, a business executive, claim that the Episcopal grant is an “illegal subterfuge” and that the BEDC does not meet the “non-violent” criteria required of Episcopal-funded organizations.

Their suit asks the court to declare the convention’s actions “null and void,” and to restrain the church from further solicitation for the grant. It names the NAACP or “some other established Negro self-help group” on record as advocating non-violence as rightful recipient of the money already raised.

Arms and Gates also contend that the grant was illegal because the convention was improperly convened and the grant voted “under duress and threats.”

In another controversy, Muhammad Kenyatta, Philadelphia director and national vice-president of the BEDC, occupied the Wellsprings Ecumenical Center in Philadelphia to protest the center’s refusal to act as a “conduit” for funds to the BEDC.

After Kenyatta (who was the leader of the South Bend confrontation) and other BEDC leaders reportedly forced their way into the building with a tire iron, and several remained overnight, the Wellsprings board of directors backed down and agreed to accept $2,000 from a United Church of Christ agency for the BEDC. But author-pastor Robert Raines of Germantown’s First Methodist Church, chairman of Wellsprings, said that he expected the center and the BEDC would continue in “dual use of the facilities” though Wellsprings did not necessarily totally endorse the BEDC.

Brazil Church Surges Ahead

Brazil’s Protestant churches are increasing more than twice as fast as its population. According to figures recently released by the Missionary Information Bureau, the country has an annual population growth rate of 3 per cent, while Protestant church membership is gaining at the rate of 6.7 per cent each year.

After Indonesia, Brazil is said to have the fastest-growing church in the world: it now has 3,244,000 Protestants, more than double the number of Protestant church members in all other Latin American countries combined.

Two-thirds of Brazil’s Protestants are Pentecostals from the fast-growing Assemblies of God, the Christian Congregation, the Brazil for Christ movement, and independent Pentecostal groups. Evangelistic emphasis is seen as the reason for the phenomenal rise of the Pentecostal churches.

Fifty-eight per cent of the church membership is concentrated in the south of Brazil, which has only 10 per cent of the area and 37 per cent of Brazil’s 90 million inhabitants.

The report also shows that Brazil now has 12,884 pastors, 23,776 deacons, and 15,890 presbyters. There are nearly 30,000 meeting places for Christians; half of these are organized churches, and the rest are preaching points. Including wives, there are 3,000 non-indigenous missionaries in Brazil.

Half of Brazil’s people now live in the cities, and about 52 per cent of the population is under twenty years of age. The trend in literacy is up. In 1920, about one-third of those fifteen years and older could read and write; today two-thirds can.

PETER CUNLIFFE

Looking Romewards

Not only from the evangelical camp is the roll of secessionist drums being heard in England at present. Fifty Anglican clergymen recently made a secret, or at least unpublicized, call on the Archbishop of Westminster, John Cardinal Heenan. Members of the 115-year-old Society of the Holy Cross, they strongly oppose new moves toward merger with Methodists (the union scheme was narrowly defeated last summer; see August 1 issue, page 38).

The society wishes to set up a “uniate” church on the lines of those found in the East which, recognizing the supremacy of the Pope, are self-governing. The idea was one likely to elicit a frosty response from Heenan, who otherwise welcomed what his secretary was at pains to call an “entirely unofficial” delegation.

Though smaller and more extreme than the Church Union, a body which itself was notably unenthused by the Methodist plan, the Holy Cross has 300 clergy, now augmented by 10,000 layfolk concerned about the threat to the “Catholic” wing of the Church of England. “We are not an effete organization,” says the society’s head, Father Alfred Simmons. If the worst happens and the diluting Methodist hordes are allowed to pour in, the society will take legal action to ensure that with them into secession will go a fair share of Anglican property and endowments.

J. D. DOUGLAS

Greek Orthodoxy: The Junta Defied

A small group of Orthodox clergymen in Greece have launched an attack on church leaders. And in doing so, the group, led by Bishop Chrysostomos, Metropolitan of Piraeus, is indirectly challenging the nation’s military government.

The metropolitan was known for liberal views even before the coup that brought in the current political leaders. He was a close friend of the late George Papandreou, the ousted prime minister who was an idol of youth. When the military staged the coup in April of 1967, Chrysostomos felt the pinch.

The junta picked the king’s special chaplain, Ieronimos Kotsonis, who then had a reputation for being progressive, to lead the conservative Church of Greece. Ieronimos was not a bishop, however, and his appointment over a number of senior bishops was a surprising move.

The new archbishop soon showed his loyalty to the new government. When young King Constantine staged a counter coup in December of 1967, he got no support from Ieronimos. Instead, the archbishop swore in General Zoitakos as regent to fill the throne vacated by the fleeing king.

Last March, Ieronimos supported a purge of the Holy Synod, the twelve-member governing body of the church. A new church charter acceptable to the military also was adopted. But an apparent conflict between the new appointees and the precepts of the new statute went unnoticed. Within a few months the flaws of the ecclesiastical action were brought to light before a number of judges were dismissed for their non-compliance with the spirit of the revolution.

The liberal metropolitan and four other bishops, all left out of the new synod, are now questioning the legality not only of the new synod and the new charter but also of the appointment of Ieronimos and the ouster of the old archbishop.

In a land like Greece, where religion cannot be fathomed as independent of politics, the bold stand of Chrysostomos and his colleagues is seen as a daring defiance of the ruling military junta. The voice of these dissenting clergy is thus being added to the more general discontent with present leaders.

The battle has led to a threat by Ieronimos that he might expel Chrysostomos, who in turn warned that he would initiate a lawsuit. Two mediating bishops were reportedly appointed to investigate.

THOMAS COSMADES

Marxist Abcs

“We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism and therefore of Marxism …,” says an article in the Communist theoretical magazine Hungch’i (Red Flag). The official article condemning all religion breaks the long silence by Red China concerning its attitude against the churches.

“Scientific Communism and religion are antagonistic. The struggle for the realization of the ideals of Communism in the whole world and the ‘building of the kingdom of Christ on earth’ are incompatible … like fire and water,” the magazine said.

The Asia News Report, published in Hong Kong, said the article followed a religious conference held on the outskirts of Moscow under Soviet leadership, and was printed to blast the gathering.

Asia News also said reports that agencies are successfully smuggling large quantities of Bibles and tracts into Red China are “incredible and naïve.” Asserting that the claim, appearing in an American church magazine, was accompanied by appeals for money to distribute the Scriptures, Asia News added that indigenous Chinese Christians “have no knowledge that any Scriptures have been received by believers in China and … discountenance these exotic claims.”

Meanwhile, Australian Radio reported that Anglican clergyman Herbert Arrowsmith of Sydney planned to distribute 20,000 copies of the New Testament inside Communist China by placing them within the personal effects of travelers going there.

Arrowsmith was quoted as saying that although Red guards burned Bibles during the so-called cultural revolution several years ago, he believed the official Communist view was now more lenient.

Religion In Transit

Membership in the United Methodist Church, second largest U. S. denomination, fell 201,096 in the past year, a drop of about 2 per cent.… The nation’s Lutheran bodies grew .02 of 1 per cent—lowest combined gain ever.… The Roman Catholic Church reported a gain of less than 1 per cent for the same period—smallest growth in twenty-five years. The Christian Church membership fell 1 per cent.

Two-thirds of 600 consultants to the National Council of Catholic Men said in a survey that Catholics should be willing to campaign for public money for parochial schools, “even if it means stirring up controversy.”

Two more Orange County (Indiana) Amish have been arrested for driving horse-drawn vehicles without required amber warning emblems.

The Alliance of Concerned Episcopalians (ACE), a group of churchmen in the Diocese of Southwestern Virginia formed to combat “overly liberal tendencies” within the denomination, placed an ad in Roanoke newspapers asking Episcopalians to withdraw financial support from the national church. In rebuttal, a pro-General Convention II group also bought a full-page ad.

“Remarkable and fundamental agreement” on the theology of Holy Communion was noted by Roman Catholic and Orthodox churchmen meeting at Brookline, Massachusetts, last month.

A top U. S. Labor Department official said religious discrimination against Jews and Catholics in executive-level positions “needs immediate attention.”

Agreeing with a similar landmark ruling in Boston last April on another case, a San Francisco federal judge has ruled that a draft resister may not be prosecuted if he opposes the Viet Nam war on religious grounds, even if he does not oppose all war. The case probably will be appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court.… Meanwhile, the Justice Department was studying for possible federal law violation a $1,000 church gift to help U. S. draft evaders and deserters in Canada.

The biggest factor in determining differing attitudes among clergymen is probably age, according to a study made for Garrett Theological Seminary. A steady increase in the percentage of conservative reactions among clerics was also noted.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has lost ten pastors and five congregations because it voted fellowship with the American Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod president Jacob Preus reported.

After a student takeover shut down the school, Fisk University officials named a committee to consider demands that the United Church of Christ-related Nashville institution become all-black.

Artist Ronald White was required to paint leaves over the naked figures of Adam and Eve in his three-story mural for Toronto’s Willowdale United Church.

A ninety-minute television documentary called “A Matter of Faith,” which will attempt to incorporate the thoughts of one hundred VIPs, will be produced for Metromedia by former Newsweek correspondent John Peer Nugent.

What may be the first “ladies auxiliary” to an order of nuns was organized by the Franciscan Sisters of Wheaton, Illinois.… In a move to “democratize” the Paulist Fathers, the Reverend Thomas F. Stransky was chosen president of the 110-year-old order by direct popular ballot.

Calvinist Contact, a weekly newspaper published in Canada, has created a new department, World of Young Writers, edited by C. W. Barendrecht of Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Personalia

Baptist pastor Walter B. Hoard, 44, of Milwaukee, is the first Negro to be named an associate general secretary of the American Baptist Convention.

On a Saturday night, a shotgun blast sent buckshot ripping through the living room of pastor J. Wesley Shipp of Wake Forest, North Carolina, as his daughter entertained black and white youths. Next morning, the deacons at Ridgecrest Baptist Church fired Shipp for his “views on racial matters.”

Altar The Call?

Is the altar call scriptural, or a “sacred cow”? A survey of sixty evangelical teen-agers throughout Illinois revealed that 95 per cent dislike the practice. Reasons ranged from “I went forward and nothing happened” to “I was scared.” Many said they feel public invitations repulse and scare visitors and often use too much emotion and manipulation.

Yet 95 per cent of the same young people said that if they were a pastor, they would give altar calls. And Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Christian education professor Elmer Towns notes that there are public invitations to the unconverted in the ten largest Sunday schools in the United States.

TOBY NELSON

The Right Reverend Chandler W. Sterling, former Episcopal bishop of Montana, has written a spicy sex novel about a lady-chasing lecher who also happens to be an Episcopal bishop. Sterling, 58, claims his book, The Holroyd Papers, is a new form of ministry to win attention and make money so he can turn to the spiritual books he really wants to write.

Century-old segregation of Southern cemeteries was overruled in a Birmingham federal court last month in a case that could have nationwide implications. Negro Viet Nam veteran Bill Terry, 20, was ordered buried in private, all-white Elmwood Cemetery after his 16-year-old widow brought suit and Jesuit priest Eugene Farrell drew national attention to the issue.

After a furor of faculty opposition, Mrs. Jacqueline Grennan Wexler, former president of Webster College, St. Louis, and a former Order of Loretto nun, was unanimously voted by the board of education to be ninth president of Hunter College of the City University of New York.

Maryknoll priest Dan McLellan, 53, said to be the best-known American in Peru and founder of the largest savings and loan association in South America (Mutual El Pueblo), married his longtime secretary in a Lima civil ceremony. Gregory Robertson, 52, former president of St. Mary’s College, Winona, Minnesota, withdrew from the Christian Brothers order last month to marry former nun Maura Couglan, 42. They and McLellan received dispensations from religious vows.

Jerrie Mock, first woman to solo around the world in a single-engine plane, has delivered a plane to Catholic priest Tony Gendusa, twenty years on the New Guinea mission field, for work in his 85,000-square-mile diocese. Ecumenical efforts raised money for the craft.

Betty Medsger, 27, religion editor of the Philadelphia Bulletin, became assistant religion editor of the Washington Post this month. Kenneth Dole, Post religion editor and writer for twenty-three years, retired.

Colonel Gerhardt W. Hyatt, Continental Army Command chaplain at Fort Monroe, Virginia, and a Missouri Synod Lutheran, has been named Deputy Chief of Army Chaplains. He succeeds Brigadier General Ned R. Graves (Disciples of Christ), who retired this month after thirty years.

Southern Baptist hip minister Arthur Blessitt (see December 19, 1969, issue, page 34) began a coast-to-coast hike from his Sunset Strip gospel nightclub in Hollywood to Washington, D. C., lugging a ten-foot wooden cross. With him to trigger a “spiritual awakening in the nation” is his gospel rock quartet, the Eternal Rush. A giant prayer rally will climax the trek.

World Scene

Two new, autonomous Methodist churches were formed last month: the Methodist Church of Bolivia, and the Methodist Church of Uruguay.

Forty-one countries pledged a total of $13,878,786 toward 1970 United Nations programs for Palestine refugees.

A Protestant-Catholic congress, called the Ecumenical Pentecost Meeting and the first gathering of its kind, will be held in Germany on Pentecost, 1971.

In the first phase of a thirty-year plan to evangelize all of Latin America, six regional evangelism conferences will be held in as many years.

After thirteen years of negotiations, merger plans of four regional Evangelical Lutheran churches in West Germany are slated for completion next spring. The projected 3.5 million-member body will be called the North Elbian Church.

Because Communist leaders refused to grant the Federation of Evangelical Churches’ leader Bishop Gottfried Noth of Saxony a travel visa, the East German organization canceled plans to visit the World Council of Churches in Geneva.

To meet the mounting need for Scripture literature in Latin America, the World Home Bible League of Chicago and the New York Bible Society have formed Scriptures Unlimited, with plans to place five million Bible pieces by this April.

A painting of a man in a tunic looked like a priest, so Vatican officials hung it a few yards from a portrait of Pope Paul VI in the Vatican press room. It turned out to be no priest but Mao Tse-tung (now 76) as a youth. Chagrined church officials nevertheless said the painting would stay, but barred permission to photograph it.