Mrs. Billy Graham addressed 11,000 women in Anaheim, California, last month, and admitted nervously it was the largest audience she had ever faced. Mrs. Ronald Reagan was hostess for the luncheon, part of preparations for the Southern California Billy Graham crusade that began September 26. The sit-down meal was the largest ever served under one roof west of the Mississippi; nearly half of the audience watched on closed-circuit TV.

In a soft, conversational voice—“quite different” from the louder, faster style of her husband, commented one listener—Mrs. Graham discussed practical Christianity. Using the Bible, homey personal anecdotes, and a wide variety of literary references, Mrs. Graham said her design for living is to please God and her key to rearing children is to listen.

“My advice to single women is to marry a man you don’t mind adjusting to,” said the woman who married Billy Graham twenty-six years ago. After the wedding, she added, it is up to the wife to create an atmosphere of love, appreciation, and encouragement for her husband: “Find a new way every day to tell him how wonderful he is.” For wives who think their husbands need changing, she advised: “Make him happy, not good. Leave the miracles to God.”

At a press conference before the luncheon, the mother of five children, now a grandmother, defended young people. “I think our teen-agers today are the most intelligent, most gifted, most informed crop of young people that the United States·—and perhaps the world—has ever seen,” Ruth Graham said. They have reacted in “intellectual disenchantment with the emptiness of society as they see it … with the hypocrisy of their elders.”

Saying she had “quite a few friends” among the so-called hippies, she added: “Long hair and beards don’t bother me. In fact, I like a handsome beard; it’s a good way to tell the boys from the girls. What’s important is what’s inside.”

More than 500 Southern Presbyterian ministers have signed a “Declaration of Commitment” vowing continuance of a denomination that is both Calvinistic in doctrine and representative in government.

The declaration was published as a three-quarter-page advertisement in more than thirty metropolitan newspapers from Baltimore to Fort Worth. A similar message was to appear in four church periodicals.

The statement appeared just after a committee of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. (Southern) began merger negotiations with the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. It is addressed to the denominational membership (nearly a million persons) and comes at a time of considerable anxiety among the rank and file.

Among other points of tension is the Southern Presbyterian General Assembly’s decision to commission a confession. A special drafting committee has announced it would not recommend adoption of the highly controversial United Presbyterian Confession of 1967.

Included in the advertisement was a coupon and an invitation to other Presbyterians to commit themselves to the statement. The signatures are being collected by the Rev. John E. Richards of the First Presbyterian Church of Macon, Georgia. He is a leader in the organization known as Presbyterian Churchmen United.

Adjoining is the declaration text:

To the membership of the Presbyterian Church, US, in light of the questions and concerns being expressed in the Church as to the nature of our faith and order, we, the undersigned ministers declare our conviction:

—That the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ turns men from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God. By coming to faith in Him alone is there genuine reconciliation between man and God and man and man.

—That the Holy Scriptures are the infallible Word of God, and that these Scriptures commit the Church to a mission whose primary end is the salvation and nurture of souls.

—That Christian faith must bear fruit if it is to remain virile. These fruits vary from believer to believer. But common to them all are evidences of love, concern and neighborliness, toward all races of men without partiality and without prejudice, especially to the poor, the oppressed and the disadvantaged. The man of faith views all men as neighbors and himself as debtor, for Christ’s sake.

—That, for the implementation of the above principles, in obedience to our ordination vows, we must strive to preserve a confessional Church, thoroughly Reformed and Presbyterian. Thus, our support of or opposition to any proposed union will be determined by these considerations.

—That, being fully committed by our ordination vows to the system of doctrine set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, we must oppose all efforts to change in substance or otherwise debase our historic doctrinal commitment.

—That we are in the same context by vow committed to historic Presbyterian polity with its representative system and its parity among teaching and ruling elders. Thus, we are forced to oppose any effort to take our Church into the massive organization envisioned by COCU.

—That, should the basic theology or polity of the Church be altered or diluted, we shall be prepared to take such actions as may be necessary to fulfill the obligation imposed by our ordination vows, to maintain our Presbyterian faith.

Roman Catholics are cutting back on their educational enterprises, and evangelicals seem to be cashing in on the opportunities. At least three big Catholic campuses have been purchased by evangelical schools so far this year.

The latest and biggest deal was announced by St. Paul (Minnesota) Bible College, a 53-year-old school of the Christian and Missionary Alliance. St. Paul said it is acquiring for $3,100,000 the 173-acre campus of Jesuit College near the Twin Cities suburb of St. Bonifacius.

The Bible college, which has an enrollment of 405, had been planning to build a new campus on a site it owns in another suburb. The move to the Jesuit school will be made next summer. The Rev. Arthur P. Johnston will become president of St. Paul February 1.

Also planning a move next summer is newly merged Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which is buying for $2 million a 120-acre campus from the Carmelite Fathers in Hamilton, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston.

The Washington (D. C.) Bible College dedicated its new sixty-three-acre campus in suburban Lanham, Maryland, last month. The property formerly housed Divine Saviour Seminary.

Christians everywhere are called to be agents of reconciliation and to transcend temporal differences that separate them, a group of Soviet and American churchmen said after five days of disarmament discussions this month in St. Louis.

“The Christian faith has direct and profound implications for world problems such as arms limitations and disarmament, because such problems are at root human problems, the resolution of which can predetermine the quality of human community itself,” a statement issued by the consultation said.

Nine Russian churchmen, headed by Bishop Juvenaly, vice-chairman of external church affairs for the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow, and sixteen representatives of U. S. church bodies attended.

The first thing Juvenaly said to newsmen as the conference opened was: “We are not agents of the Russian government. We are here because we welcome this opportunity to discuss this issue with Catholics and Protestants in the United States.”

But Lutheran pastor Lawrence Lilligard of Ballwin, Missouri, denounced the presence of the Soviet churchmen as a Communist conspiracy. “These men are agents of their government,” he said. “It is ridiculous to talk about Christianity in the Soviet Union while Christians are being systematically imprisoned and tortured in that country.”

The consultation was sponsored by the National Council of Churches and the United States Catholic Conference, with St. Louis University Divinity School as host. All sessions were closed, and only one brief statement was issued.

Dr. Robert S. Bilheimer, executive director of the NCC Department of International Affairs, and Monsignor Marvin Bordelon, of the USCC Division of World Justice and Peace, headed the American delegation.

The predominant theme was concern for international peace and an acknowledgment of the perils to mankind from nuclear annihilation. The statement said: “The common conviction among the group was the absolute folly of thinking that continuing the spiraling arms race is a means of achieving world peace or national security. Also evident was the unanimous agreement that arms limitation is essential as a step toward the ultimate goal of general and complete disarmament.”

Participants were most concerned about limitation of strategic weapons, a ban on underground and underwater nuclear tests and weapons, and a ban on chemical and biological weapons.

CHARLES BUNCE

In the relative security of their campus chapel, a group of students at Boston University School of Theology (United Methodist) conducted a memorial service for the late Ho Chi Minh. In particular Ho was praised for having “lived and fought for the freedom of people all over the world.” We must ask, however, whether this included freedom for the North Vietnamese who disagreed with some of the policies of the Ho regime. In America there is considerable freedom to disagree publicly with our government’s policies regarding South Viet Nam. Is there comparable freedom in North Viet Nam?

The memorial service was also held to protest against the military and business leaders of our country for having “caused the death of thousands of brothers in America and Viet Nam.” Was there any protest against Ho for having caused the deaths of tens of thousands—probably hundreds of thousands—of his countrymen? (The United States came to the aid of South Viet Nam with the intention of preventing that kind of slaughter from happening there.) Would it not have been more fitting to hold a memorial service for the victims of Ho rather than for their murderer?

But then we have come to expect a perverse sense of ethics from many theological schools. It is not surprising that those who have seemingly abandoned any authority outside their own preferences and prejudices can fashion an imaginary world in which wrongs are to be righted, not by doing right but by doing wrong. And so these theological students can accuse American leaders of mass murder while memorializing a North Vietnamese leader who has practiced it. When those who accuse the U. S. government of immorality proceed to set forth Ho Chi Minh as the example of how a good leader should act, then we can only be glad that such men are not politicians.

“When I was twelve years old, my daddy took me to the circus—the greatest show on earth. There were clowns, elephants, and dancing bears, and a beautiful lady in pink tights flew high above our heads. As I sat there watching, I had the feeling that something was missing. I don’t know what. But when it was all over, I said to myself, is that all there is to the circus?…

“Then I fell in love with the most wonderful boy in the world.… One day he went away, and I thought I’d die. But I didn’t, and when I didn’t I said to myself, is that all there is to love?…

“I know what you must be saying to yourselves: ‘If that’s the way she feels about it, why doesn’t she just end it all?’ Oh, no, not me. I’m not ready for that final disappointment. ’Cause I know, just as well as I’m standing here talking to you, that when that final moment comes and I’m catching my last breath, I’ll be saying to myself:

“Is that all there is?

If that’s all there is, my friends, then let’s keep dancing.

Let’s break out the booze and have a ball,

If that’s all there is.”

That’s all there is to singer Peggy Lee’s new record. It’s a common question; no doubt at some time everyone wonders if life is worth its vicissitudes, if, in fact, routine has daily significance. Even for the affluent and the sophisticated, meaning and satisfaction are elusive elements that neither food nor booze, drugs nor fun can net. For “men whose portion in life is of the world,” another singer prayed in Psalm 17, “May their belly be filled with what thou hast stored up for them; may their children have more than enough; may they leave something over to their babes.” But for David himself, meaningfulness was something else: “As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; when I awake, I shall be satisfied with beholding thy form.”

Charles Haddon Spurgeon was called “the prince of preachers.” Since he began his ministry at London’s New Park Street Chapel in 1855, his sermons have made their mark on thousands of lives. For those who were not privileged to be numbered among his congregation at New Park Street or later at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, it is indeed fortunate that the sermons of this master of the pulpit were recorded on the printed page.

Spurgeon’s sermons are filled with the necessary ingredients of good preaching and have set a standard rarely reached in today’s pulpits. They demonstrate that a sermon can combine thorough biblical exegesis and deep theological instruction with uplifting spiritual insight and practical application to life.

Access to Spurgeon’s sermons has become increasingly difficult in recent years. A few years ago the Banner of Truth Trust in London republished in six volumes the sermons preached at the New Park Street Chapel. Now Pilgrim Publications of Pasadena, Texas, is beginning an unabridged reprint of the fifty-six volumes of the “Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit” to be photographically reproduced from the originals. The first volume is now available, and there is to be continuous printing until completion in the early 1970s.

Although the reproduction process leaves something to be desired in the quality of format and printing, it is gratifying that this incomparable series of sermons is being made available once again. Hopefully they will not only serve as a source of blessing to those who read them but also point those behind the pulpit to the kind of preaching so desperately needed in our day.

Open Letter To Mr. Nixon

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:

The Soviet Union says our nation cannot win at the conference table what it has not won on the battlefield in Viet Nam. That is the language of force. We think that the United States has shown the Viet Cong they cannot win on the battlefield and that now our problem is to keep them from winning at the conference table, too. Force, diplomacy, and psychology—these have been tried, and so far nothing has worked. May we respectfully call attention to the power of prayer?

Many centuries ago a king of Judah and his people were in a not too dissimilar situation. Jehoshaphat called for prayer and fasting throughout the land. He himself prayed: “We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon thee.”

It seems to us that our nation does not know what to do to bring peace. We believe it needs the help of God. We think that if you as our president will set aside a day for prayer, if you will go to some church to pray, if you will openly confess to God your and our dilemma and need, then God will hear and bless.

Some years ago Congress provided for an annual day of prayer to be set aside by the president. This year, why not designate the day as one of prayer for an end to the war in Viet Nam? Maybe, just maybe, the peace that has eluded us will come—“not by might, nor by power, but by [God’s] Spirit.”

A great deal more heat than light has been generated by the growing controversy over sex education in public schools. Citizens’ groups—many affiliated with or influenced by nationally known organizations—have denounced sex education as immoral, pornographic, subversive, and Communist-inspired. Sex-education leaders themselves have been called Communists and pornographers. On the other hand, supporters of the program have represented opponents as ignorant and irresponsible obstacles to necessary progress.

Many who are in the front ranks of this bitter battle of words identify themselves as Christians. Certainly Christians should be keenly concerned about this important issue, and there are certain things about the approach of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) that they must question. But there is no excuse for irresponsible name-calling and accusation; such actions are foreign to the spirit of Christ. If criticism is to be constructive and effective, it must be informed. One cannot assume a charge is true solely because it was voiced by his favorite radio preacher.

Those who take the trouble to inform themselves discover that public-school sex education isn’t all bad. Investigation makes it downright difficult to believe that “Commies” are behind the whole thing, and the “pornography” often turns out to be some very un-titillating charts and diagrams. Furthermore, kids are getting sex education anyway, and sometimes what they get is pretty bad. Too often parents and churches have failed to face the problem. Perhaps the schools can be of great service in meeting a need in the lives of many young people. Sex education in the schools certainly does not deprive parents of the privilege; it could well be a useful supplement to the instruction given in the home.

But the current programs of sex education are not free of major problems for the Christian parent. Sex cannot be rightly understood as a purely physical experience, nor can it be taught in a moral vacuum. To present it in this manner implies that a moral and spiritual framework is not necessary for a proper concept of sex. Such a separation is unacceptable to those in the Judeo-Christian tradition and could lead to serious moral problems. There is also the concern—voiced by competent psychologists and psychiatrists—that too much sex information too soon can be more harmful than helpful in the normal development of the child. Another problem has to do with teaching about perversion. Will what the students learn about it be more suggestive than instructive at certain stages of development? And by no means of least importance is the question of who does the teaching. Unless the teachers are qualified technically, psychologically, and morally, the treatment can be inadequate and even dangerous.

It is a waste of time and a glaring distortion of Christian integrity simply to engage in a crusade of accusation and innuendo. Christians should use their time and energy to inform themselves, to offer constructive criticism and guidance, to work for a strong moral foundation in the programs, to consider the role of the Church in sex education, and, above all, to see that the Christian home meets its responsibility in giving information, in teaching moral standards, and in demonstrating what real love is all about.