From a cottage porch overlooking Lake Winnepesaukee, some five hundred miles from Washington, the world seems peaceful and the problems that torture mankind are far removed. But the sun-drenched morning is deceptive. Men are still dying in Biafra, the Near East, and Viet Nam; Russians, disillusioned by a Communism that promises material plenty at the expense of human freedom, continue to defect to the West; Mr. Nixon has circled the globe in an effort to end the war in Viet Nam and to establish bridges with Soviet satellite nations; the stock market has plunged and the bears are pommeling the bulls; inflation continues to erode savings, push up wages and prices, and create distress. The astronauts have returned from the moon in what some have called man’s greatest feat in history. But is it?

We still divide history into B.C. and A.D. The incarnation of Jesus Christ, the cross of Calvary, and the empty tomb tell men everywhere and for all time what history’s greatest event is. But isn’t even this simply prelude? Is not history’s greatest event before us?—an event that will occur not in outer space but right here on earth, where history began. Jesus Christ is coming again in power and great glory to end history. This is to be the last scene in the drama of redemption, when the paradise we lost in Adam is restored in Jesus Christ. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus!

“At this blessed moment, for the first time in history, the successor of Peter as vicar of Christ sets foot upon the soil of Africa,” declared Pope Paul VI as he arrived in Kampala, Uganda, July 31, amid a bedlam of tom-toms, native dances, and yellow-and-white papal bunting everywhere. Kampala moviegoers had paid an extra twenty cents a seat that month to help pay for the celebrations.

Christ’s vicar took a little longer getting to Africa than Christ himself, who, as a toddler, journeyed almost as far down into Egypt land to escape the wrath of King Herod. (Although the Pope flew 3,145 miles each way, it’s less than 400 air miles from Rome to the African coast.)

Nonetheless, the pontiff, making the eighth foreign visit of his six-year reign, was welcomed warmly by black Africans and chiefs of state led by Ugandan President Apollo Milton Obote. Although his hope that his visit would produce peace in the Nigerian civil war was fruitless, the Pope’s fifty-one hour stay in Uganda was generally considered to have brought a healthy degree of unity to the country, which has been torn by political, religious, and ethnic divisions.

Alternating peacemaking and church business, Paul consecrated twelve new bishops and gave communion to them, Africa’s seven cardinals, and 100 selected clergy and laymen. Earlier, the Pope had indicated he might prolong his African visit in efforts to get peace talks started between Biafra and Nigeria. But he subsequently ruled out a Biafra stop, lest political motivations be attributed to him and “cancel the impartial assistance which we can still carry out.”

Meantime, the Biafran government announced its forces were observing a three-day ceasefire during the papal visit; the Nigerians rejected the truce as a meaningless grandstand ploy.

Paul’s pursuit of dialogue also brought him face-to-face with the Roman church’s first pan-African conference. Although the conference ostensibly was to steer clear of sensitive political issues, war and tension overshadowed the discussions. Besides Nigeria, topics included Rhodesia, where apartheid on the South African model is increasing; the Sudan, where the Islamic government in the north has been virtually at war with some black tribes in the south; and colonialism in the Portuguese territories of Angola and Mozambique.

Pursuing ecclesiastical “decolonization,” the pontiff told the closing session of the all-Africa bishops’ symposium: “From now on, you Africans are missionaries among your own people. The Church of Christ is well and truly planted in this blessed soil.”

Yet he stressed the need for the universal and traditional expressions of the Catholic faith—noting that its expressions may vary.

“If you are able to avoid the possible dangers of religious pluralism, the danger of making your Christian profession into a kind of local folklore,” he admonished, “or into exclusivist racism or into egoistic tribalism or arbitrary separatism, then you will be able to remain sincerely African even in your own interpretation of the Christian life … you will be capable of bringing to the Catholic Church the precious and original contributions of negritude which she needs particularly in this historic hour.”

Despite his plea, most African churches are inadequately prepared for self-reliance and are largely dependent on outside aid and personnel. More than two-thirds of the 15,000 Catholic priests in Africa are white missionaries from abroad. Unless the recruitment of native priests increases sharply in the next few years, missionaries in many areas could be living on borrowed time. Religious News Service correspondent Frank Comerford, a veteran Kenya newsman, believes that within a decade there could be African bishops in every diocese without even the trickle of priests necessary to man the missions now open—much less to meet the needs of an expanding church¹.Africa has about 30 million Catholics, and their number is growing at the rate of 4 or 5 per cent a year. In the last twenty years, the Catholic population has increased by 163 per cent; during the same time, the number of priests has increased only 93 per cent. One estimate of Christians of all groups on the continent is about 44 million. There are more than 100 million Muslims, and it has been estimated that of every three converted pagan animists, two become Muslims and one a Christian.

The Pope chose Uganda for his visit because he wanted to make a one-stop trip, and because the central African country has deep Catholic roots. Anglican and Catholic missionaries brought Christianity to Uganda in the late 1870s, engaging in a struggle with Islam. In the 1880s, Mwanga, the young Ugandan monarch, loosed severe persecution on the missionaries and native converts.

Pope Paul closed his visit by consecrating the altar of a shrine commemorating twenty-two black African martyrs who were burned to death by Mwanga. The Pope himself had proclaimed them saints in 1964. In an ecumenical gesture, he joined Protestant leaders less than a mile away at the shrine where twenty-three Anglican and Catholic converts perished in the same massacres. Natives dressed in animal skins and carrying rubber-tipped spears reenacted the role of the savage executioners.

The 71-year-old pontiff seems to thrive on the excitement of enthusiastic crowds and strange faces. Waxing exuberant after he had debarked from his plane-hop and had returned to his summer home at Castel Gandolfo, Italy, he did a little hop of his own. Describing how a group of nuns had danced up and down, flapping their arms to greet him, he swung his arms up and down and skipped.

Evangelicals In Trouble?

Protest and Politics, edited by Robert Clouse, Robert Linder, and Richard Pierard (Attic Press, 1969, 271 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by S. Richey Kamm, professor of social sciences, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.

Evangelical Protestants, assert the authors of this volume, are in deep trouble. Their leaders are failing to provide clear answers to the problems of today. Either they are completely absorbed in the propagation of the Gospel of individual salvation, or they are trying to project a biblical social ethic couched in the language of an outmoded nineteenth-century ideology. What evangelicals need, say these eleven angry young men, is an ethic based on the biblical doctrine of love illuminated by the findings of modern historical research and psychological analysis. Since all of them are presently or were previously engaged in the study and teaching of history or political science in American colleges or universities, it is reasonable to suppose that they are in a position to make a contribution to the cause of evangelical Christianity in the realm of public affairs.

The opening essay by Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon sets a high standard for the other contributors. The call of Christ to evangelicals, he declares, is twofold: (1) “to redeem the citizens of our society and thereby to build a better foundation for government,” and (2) “to be willing to serve God in politics and government if that is where he wants you.” The succeeding essay, building on the Senator’s foundation, argues that Christians must be prepared, also, to accept the responsibilities of the franchise even though the issues be neither black nor white nor the candidates morally upright.

In the nine succeeding essays an attempt is made to challenge evangelicals to the responsibilities of Christian citizenship in a number of controversial areas. Among these arc the problems of militarism, civil rights, the welfare state, prayer in the schools, the population explosion, Communism, the Israeli-Arab conflict, and the war in Viet Nam. Each topic is treated historically or analytically. It is then analyzed in the light of the ethic of Christian love, and suggestions are made concerning an appropriate Christian answer.

The bibliography accompanying each chapter shows that the writers have surveyed a good deal of current literature. Their analysis of issues is helpful, and their attempt to apply the Christian ethic of love is quite stimulating. But in some case the historical analysis is open to question. To identify the American Constitution as “a states’ rights document” with no protection for the personal liberties of the people, as one writer does, and to describe the political economy of colonial America as one of “rugged individualism,” as does another, raises serious questions about the accuracy of some of the contributors.

A more serious issue is raised, however, in the development and application of the Christian ethic of love by some of the contributors. The opening essay had warned against the danger of deducing any particular political point of view or ideology from the Scriptures. Failure to heed this timely warning leads one contributor to assert that there is only one biblical answer to the problem of war and national defense, namely, pacifism. Similarly, the writer on Viet Nam demonstrates a comparable perspective in his historical analysis of the conditions underlying the present conflict and the role of the United States in it. Each writer is, of course, entitled to his personal convictions on the controversial issues discussed, but it is evident that some of these writers have become ideologically committed to the point of being unable to present perspectives held by other Christians.

Most of the contributors have avoided this pitfall. Adult study groups will find the chapters on civil rights, prayer in the schools, the population explosion, and the responsibility of the Christian voter helpful as a sound basis for discussion. The essay on Communism leaves much to be desired because of its identification of the problem with Stalinism rather than the avowedly atheistic Marxist-Leninist ideology which challenges both Western culture and Christian doctrine at every point.

Perhaps the finest chapter on a controversial issue, a chapter which is sound in its scholarship, lucid in its exposition, and genuinely expressive of Christian love in its frank presentation of the alternatives confronting the evangelical, is the one on the Israeli-Arab controversy. This chapter demonstrates the spirit of compassion and intellectual humility that characterizes the initial chapter and that could well serve as a model for the next volume on contemporary affairs to be written by these angry young men.

Illumination On Numbers

Numbers, by Martin Noth (Westminster, 1969, 258 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by Lester J. Kuyper, professor of Old Testament, Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Michigan.

This commentary on Numbers is a significant addition to the “Old Testament Library,” a series that is under the editorial direction of American and British scholars. Many of the works in this series were written in German. With the translation of Numbers, first published in German in 1966, the five books of the Pentateuch have been completed: Genesis, 1961, and Deuteronomy, 1966, by Gerhard von Rad; and Exodus, 1962, and Leviticus, 1965, by Martin Noth. In comparing the works of these much appreciated scholars, I find that Professor von Rad adds much significant theological interpretation, while Professor Noth has primary interests in source traditions, in geographical locations, and in relationships of families, tribes, and nations. Yet I should note Noth’s treatment of a theological problem of Yahweh’s supremacy in the Balaam story (Numbers 22–24).

The introduction deals with contents, sources, and significance of the book. Since Noth is especially skilled in literary criticism and tradition, he seeks the original core of Numbers and the additions that became part of the book to determine the meaning of the book as it finally emerged as a part of the Law, the first part of Israel’s sacred canon. The significant theme is that the promises made to the patriarchs are about to be fulfilled, since Israel has finished her wilderness wanderings and is prepared to cross the Jordan for the conquest.

The numbering of the twelve tribes (Numbers 1) has interesting parallels in other ancient nations, as testified to in Mari. The problem of the excessive number is dealt with carefully. With some diffidence Noth adopts the explanation that “thousand” (’elef in Hebrew) is a military term meaning troup. Thus Reuben’s number, 46,500, would be forty-six troops, the equivalent of five hundred men who bear arms. This explanation would mean that on the average a troop would contain nine or ten men. Thus the number of men bearing arms would not be excessive and would be in line with troop listings of other nations. Professor George E. Mendenhall’s study in the Journal of Biblical Literature (1958:52–66), which unfortunately is not cited, offers detailed elaboration on this solution to the census problem.

The next section in Numbers (3:1–9:14) contains instructions for the Levites and various ordinances largely concerned with the cult in Israel. Here the author shows his wide knowledge of the Old Testament as he relates the materials of Numbers with laws and events both to other parts of the Bible and to practices of the cult in pagan nations.

The remaining part of the book has two sections: “III, Further Sojourn in the Wilderness: 11:1–20:13” and “IV, Preparation for and Beginning of the Conquest: 20:14–36:13.” These sections deal with a few laws and with many historical incidents during the wilderness wanderings. Here the author displays his wide range of knowledge both of the Old Testament and of the surrounding nations and offers many new and helpful insights.

All of us owe a debt to scholars like the late Martin Noth (he died in May, 1968) for shedding light on parts of the Old Testament that we commonly bypass in our study but that were very important in the social and religious life of Jahweh’s covenant people.

On Human Reproduction

Birth Control and the Christian, edited by Walter O. Spitzer and Carlyle Saylor (Tyndale House, 1969, 589 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by David O. Moberg, chairman, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

This “Protestant Symposium on the Control of Human Reproduction” includes many divergent viewpoints supported by biblical and scientific evidence and will prove to be of equal value to Protestants and non-Protestants who are wrestling with pertinent ethical and moral issues. Its tone is indicated by the “Protestant Affirmation on the Control of Human Reproduction,” which emerged as the written consensus of 25 scholars in a four-day consultation jointly sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and CHRISTIANITY TODAY. It declares “that ultimate values come from God through biblical revelation rather than from the human situation alone.” Sexual intercourse is interpreted as a gift of God that includes the purposes of companionship and fulfillment besides procreation.

The papers deal with biblical data and the theological basis, perspectives from the health sciences, medical ethics, societal realties, the legal framework, a historical review, and evaluative responses following the symposium. Statements of several Protestant bodies on relevant topics, Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, and an excellent classified bibliography appear in appendices.

Conjugal love, the population explosion, the nature and development of the soul, sterilization, artificial insemination, genetics and human reproduction (including the “ethics of genetic duty” and “stewardship of the human gene pool”), and most methods of birth control are discussed in some detail. Fascinating sideline discussions touch upon situational ethics, celibacy, natural law, Teilhard de Chardin’s “neo-evolutionism,” why increased knowledge of contraception is likely to increase the demand for abortion, and numerous other subjects.

There are a few documentation flaws, and some of the authors appear to disregard problems of poverty that are related to birth-control methodologies. Others, however, have a keen sense of such matters as the “growing social anger at hypocritical manipulations of the law so as to favor wealthy candidates for abortion.”

Since, to use the words of theologian Kalland, “a problem so close to the center of human existence has the potential of revolutionizing man in his basic social relationships,” this book has the potential of making Christians intelligent leaders in the current revolution in matters related to sex and birth control. It should prove well-nigh indispensable to those who are in medicine, the biological and behavioral sciences, the ministry, social work, counseling, and teaching. It can also provide a basis for stimulating adult discussion groups related to the family and Christian social ethics.

A Pleasant Book

New Moon Rising, by Eugenia Price (Lippincott, 1969, 281 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Ann Paton, professor of English, Geneva College, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania.

It takes courage to burden oneself with a wornout setting (the ante-bellum South), stereotyped characters (the gruff pater familias, the wise old slave, the lovely child-wife, etc., etc.), and a hackneyed plot (how we came through the Waah, suh). But this is exactly what Eugenia Price has done. Rushing in where Margaret Mitchell and a host of others have already trod, Miss Price attempts in a modest 275 pages to recount thirty years of family and national history. Courage she has, and talent too; but such a task would defeat a far more experienced novelist than Miss Price.

She has faithfully done her homework, so that her treatment of the Gould family on their St. Simons Island, Georgia, plantation is convincing in detail and genuine in atmosphere. But these virtues are submerged in a serious flaw of disproportion: e.g., the entire span from Secession to Reconstruction occupies a mere thirty pages at the end of the novel. Miss Price has written some moving passages and memorable scenes. Would she had done so consistently, for her insistence on romping through so much time means that her characters never have a chance to catch their breath of life. The novel opens with a student rebellion (ho-hum, another one) at Yale, in which Horace Gould behaves with a conviction he never again displays. One wonders what happened to all that moral fiber. Late in the book he suffers a sense of guilt for owning slaves—but with no motivation. His convictions have simply emerged full-blown. Horace’s brother Jim, unhappily married, predictably takes to drinking; one day he quits, for no apparent reason, just in time to be brushed out of the novel. Mary Gould is an attractive heroine, potentially a great one; but just as she is achieving full-dimensional humanity, she is thrust aside to her own plantation, hardly to be heard of again. The reader is left dissatisfied, irritated, unsure what, or whom, the book is all about.

In contrast to the hypersexuality of most modern novels, New Moon Rising is so unimpassioned that the appearance of nine little Goulds seems wondrous. Strange, too, to the contemporary mind are such patronizing, Old South expressions as “high-pitched Negro laughter.”

Eugenia Price’s real ability is to describe, to evoke sights and sounds, to recreate moments of high tension. She may one day write first-class fiction. In the meantime, New Moon Rising is a pleasant book. It can be circulated through church libraries, reviewed at circle meetings, or read by teen-age daughters. It cannot be taken seriously as a novel.

Book Briefs

Bible For Children, by J. L. Klink (Westminster, 1969, 319 pp., $4.95). The New Testament is presented for children in narrative, poetry, plays, songs, and illustrations.

Focus: Building for Christian Education, by Mildred C. Widber and Scott Turner Ritenour (Pilgrim, 1969, 146 pp., $6.95). This practical guide uses numerous illustrations in its helpful discussion of church building problems.

The New Israel Atlas, by Zev Vilnay (McGraw-Hill, 1969, 112 pp., $7.95). A combination history and atlas presenting the story of Israel from Bible times to the present.

Practical Studies in Revelation, Volume I, by Theodore H. Epp (Back to the Bible Broadcast, 1969, 212 pp., paperback, $1.50). Deals chiefly with the letters to the seven churches in the opening chapters of Revelation.

Change and the Church, by Erwin L. Lueker (Concordia, 1969, 134 pp., paperback, $3.24). Points to the need for change in the Church if it is to deal with the problems of the modern world and affirms that the Church’s ministry continues to center in Christ.

Everyday, Five Minutes with God, compiled by William S. Cannon (Broadman, 1969, 157 pp., $3.50). Eighty different authors offer a variety of daily devotions in a format designed to cover one hundred days.

What’s worth promoting in your church? A strawberry festival, a revival meeting, an attendance contest, a social-action project?

Think again. The church wins more people through its educational program than any other way. Why not then give priority to publicizing the church’s learning opportunities?

Churches are beginning to capitalize on today’s growing interest in adult education. There is a great new thirst for instruction in everything from cake decorating to taxidermy. Surely this extends to such fields as theology, philosophy, church history, and the Bible. Churches are starting to offer “electives” in these subjects and they should promote them.

Offering such instruction is not merely a gimmick to add more names to the church rolls. The educational route is the soundest way to win people to Christ and to the church. Congregations have all too many hangers-on who were brought in through short-cut methods and who add little to church vitality.

How can a church begin an aggressive outreach with emphasis on education? Good publicity technique is a must. Once a church publicist is chosen, he should concentrate first on developing an effective internal information program. The people closest to the life of the church ought to know more than anyone else about what’s going on.

To be specific: Get all you can out of the venerable Sunday church bulletin. No one has come up with a better medium for keeping congregations abreast of activities. The bulletin should be attractive but not gaudy, interesting but not corny, and instructive but not sermonic. If you can’t do another thing publicity-wise, publish a good bulletin to be distributed at Sunday services.

Ideally, the bulletin should be supplemented by a church newsletter with content that is helpful in itself in addition to being promotional. It should be mailed weekly or monthly. Second-class permits that assure speedy delivery of timely material are available to churches for the mailing of such regularly issued printed publications at only a fraction of a cent each.

Developments in the offset process have brought individualized printed materials within the financial range of virtually every congregation. The U. S. and Canadian post offices recognize offset as printing acceptable for second-class mailing (mimeographed material must go via the slower bulk route, or by expensive first-class). Zip-coding and pre-sorting are required in all but first class. Commercial typesetting for offset can be very expensive. You can get the next best thing by purchasing an IBM or other electric typewriter with carbon ribbon. The IBM “Selectric” is an especially good investment because it offers readily interchangeable type faces at relatively low cost. It can be put to a wide variety of uses in the church.

Every church should maintain a “clean” mailing list of fringe people and prospects as well as members. Keep the list several times as large as the church membership roster. Addressing of mailings can be done in several ways. The most inexpensive is to purchase a quantity of labels at a stationery store and recruit a typist. Sophisticated machinery can be acquired to do the same task when the list is large.

Brochures, flyers, and the like are particularly good means of promoting church educational programs. Avoid the temptation to try for fancy, colorful designs. Focus upon facts, as many as possible, of what your church has to offer educationally. Present them clearly and interestingly. Light touches with candor go over better in today’s world than flatulent puffery and tricks. Among older people it is still necessary to refute the notion that Sunday school is only for kids.

Among other internal promotional tools are calendars, posters, telephone campaigns, exhibits, visitation, post cards, and letters. Souvenir literature packets ought to be given to first-time visitors. Bulletin boards and contests may be outliving their usefulness; the former invariably look sloppy and the latter appeal to the wrong motives.

So much for internal publicity. The amateur church publicist can pick up a wealth of helpful data in Ralph Stoody’s Handbook of Church Public Relations. And many church publicists never really need to go beyond the internal stage. There is much spillover so that outsiders are reached through what are primarily internal efforts—a fact that should be kept in mind when determining content.

External publicity programs can, of course, do a lot more for the church. But they require more technical know-how if financial waste is to be avoided. The main tools include secular newspaper advertising, radio, and television, and all these entail great expense, especially in large cities. In smaller towns, churches can expect occasional free news stories and pictures in the local media, but these will not contribute greatly to long-range growth.

Desperately needed these days are new approaches and new ideas on how local congregations can publicize themselves among the unchurched. So many skillfully worked-out advertising campaigns are competing for attention that individual churches can hardly get into the ball park. All the big denominations have publicity bureaus, and pastors should seek counsel and cooperation from them. But the United Church of Christ is currently the only one that is sponsoring any significant advertising campaigns with local-church tie-ins. Methodists have a thirteen-minute motivating film available; it is entitled As Others See Us.

Educational programs, if properly promoted, may provide a breakthrough in reaching outsiders. Aggressive churches eager to avail themselves of the benefits of modern media should be encouraged, but only if there is a thorough understanding of the field. Start by reading Edward L. Greif’s The Silent Pulpit: A Guide to Church Public Relations.

The wise local church doesn’t try to take on too much but does its best to carry out smaller plans effectively. A comparatively inexpensive idea for any church would be to duplicate a flyer on “Where to Get Help.” This would tell how to contact police and fire departments, hospitals, sources of legal aid, power, water, and sewage companies, government officials, and other community problem-solvers. On the reverse side a modest offer of spiritual help could be made—including a listing of study courses available at the church.

Much more church promotion needs to be based on evangelism. This is a long-term process that makes every churchman a “publicist.” Howard Weeks, a Seventh-day Adventist, has handled the subject well in his comprehensive work Breakthrough—A Public Relations Guidebook for Your Church. “We do not move in and cut down the community tree in order to pluck such fruit as happens to be ripe for plucking,” he says. “We cultivate, nurture, take what matures, then go on cultivating and nurturing, looking toward future returns indefinitely, until the Lord one day lets the church know its work is finished.”

Not far from my home a tragedy occurred recently—a young man instantly killed in the crash of a car.

He had been drinking, ignoring the fact that alcohol and gasoline must not be mixed. He was driving at an excessive speed, estimated by the highway patrol to have been nearly one hundred miles per hour—when the posted limit was forty-five. There was a warning sign, “Sharp Curve,” which he ignored, and beyond the curve another sign, “Narrow Bridge,” which, if he saw it at all, he saw too late. And he was driving at night!

There was a deafening crash against the heavy concrete abutment. Twisted metal and broken glass scattered in every direction around the blazing inferno. And in a ditch forty feet away lay the shattered body of a young man who had neglected to give heed to the law and the warning signals of danger ahead.

The Bible warns constantly that there is danger ahead for the unrepentant sinner, a danger so great that God has taken every precaution to enable man to avoid it. How solemn the words, “He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck will suddenly be broken beyond healing” (Prov. 29:1).

A key word of the Christian faith is “salvation.” Although it may not be popular in some circles today, the fact remains that, if the Scriptures are true, Christ came into the world to save sinners—to save them from the dangers ahead, and for his eternal home.

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews begins by telling of the many ways in which God has spoken to us, first by the prophets and then by sending his own Son, “whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb. 1:2b–4a).

After showing how much higher Christ is than the angels, the writer continues: “Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the message declared by angels was valid and every transgression … received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?”

How shall God’s ministers escape if they fail to give warning of danger ahead and the promise of safety in Christ? And how shall we escape if we take no heed to the warning or the offer of salvation?

Many people think “Christianity” has to do with man’s efforts and achievements, and pay scant attention to the reason for the intervention of the Son of God in human history. The caricature of Christianity thus presented is described as the evangelical’s concept of “the good guys and the bad guys.” The distinction is not ours, however, but God’s. It is a distinction to be found from beginning to end in the Bible, one that is determined, not by what man can do for himself, but by what Christ has done for him.

The central theme of the Scriptures is man’s peril and God’s salvation. It is based on man’s sinful nature and God’s remedy for sin. Man crosses the stage of time into the realm of eternity, and his destiny is determined by what he does about Jesus Christ.

Little wonder that we are told to pay close attention, to beware lest we drift away from God’s message. Little wonder that we are asked bluntly, “How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” And the direct implication is that for those who so neglect the saving mercy and grace of God in the person of his Son there is no escape!

It is high time that pulpits once more rang with the message of warning and hope, of judgment and mercy, of heaven and hell. In fact, how can the Gospel be honestly preached if not against the backdrop of God’s judgment on sin? Our Lord indicated the alternatives in the words “shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” He came to perform the rescue of the ages, and for those who neglect him there is no escape from the consequences.

In the Bible we are confronted with the facts of this world and the next. We are told about good and evil, God and Satan, heaven and hell. To ignore or explain away these clear teachings is infinitely more foolish than to drive furiously down a highway ignoring the law as well as the warnings put there for our own good.

There is no adequate explanation of the Cross unless we recognize the danger ahead. There is no meaning to the Gospel of salvation from sin if we are not aware of the reality of the alternative.

God’s warnings to Israel are valid for America today: “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, says the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of any one, says the Lord GOD; so turn and live” (Ezek. 18:30–32).

The nature of sin has not changed, nor has the holiness of God declined. He is still sovereign. Sin is still an offense to him, and its wages are still death. The holiness of God is still seen in the Cross, and the penalty for sin is eternal separation from him.

But oh, how the Gospel has been changed today! And what folly to bypass the revelation of God’s truth in favor of man’s lie! It is a new gospel that is being preached, one that ignores the matter of judgment. We should remember that the God of love and compassion is also the God of justice and judgment. While he is love, he is also a “consuming fire.” His love is demonstrated for all to see in the death of his son on the Cross, and in that act we catch a glimpse of the awful alternative—of the judgment that falls on those who reject his salvation. To fail to see love and judgment combined on Calvary is to fail to sense the nature of sin and its penalty.

“Salvation” means deliverance from the guilt and penalty of sin. To ignore or minimize the nature of sin and its consequences is far greater folly than to ignore the evidence of cancer and refuse treatment. Jesus tells us that those who reject him are “condemned already.” In his death and resurrection we are offered freedom from the condemnation resting on all sinners.

The Apostle Peter makes it plain that man is offered salvation in one way only: “There is salvation in no one else.” And Jesus affirms, “No man cometh to the Father, but by me.”

The uniqueness of Jesus Christ and his salvation, the inclusiveness of “whosoever,” and the simple condition placed on men—that they believe and accept—combine to magnify the folly of neglecting the salvation of our souls.

To many the question “Are you saved?” is corny and impertinent. But every time I have entered this or any other country, the immigration officials have checked to see if I had been vaccinated for smallpox and there was no feeling that they were being impertinent. Surely salvation from sin through the shed blood of the Son of God is the greatest gift God offers to mankind! God forbid that we should neglect it.

The Case Of The Lunatic Boots

It can only be a matter of time before the literary revolution wrought by Apollo 11 is made the subject of a doctoral dissertation. For example, after four centuries of high-flying, if you will pardon the figure in this context, green-cheese stock has slumped badly. Another diversion of our and General James Wolfe’s childhood, Gray’s Elegy, needs to be rewritten at one point; at no extra charge I proffer the following:

O moping owl that erstwhile told the moon

The grievous things that did thy spirit vex,

Cut it right out, for now thy peevish tune

Will be relayed forthwith to Houston, Tex.

Even Shakespeare could be amended, for nothing is sacred here. No more may we declaim: “It is the very error of the moon; / She comes more nearer earth than she was wont, / And makes men mad.” For “moon” try substituting “earth” and vice-versa, but be sure to retain that last clause for my next para depends on it.

One guy perhaps made mad wrote a letter to an influential newspaper which promptly and unkindly published it. “During the television broadcast,” he complained, “I was alarmed to hear that among the debris to be left on the moon will be a couple of pairs of old boots. One is used to finding such relics on Earth’s more popular beaches and picnic haunts, but must this disgusting habit be practiced the very first time man steps outside his own backyard?” I agree: you can’t nail this sort of thing too early. Future moongoers should be read a lecture on lunar litter laws and warned of the dire penalties for violating what will come to be known as the dreaded Triple L.

An evangelical has solemnly insisted that “the devil’s in the moon for mischief”—a word uttered originally with all the authority of that eminent theologian, Lord Byron. He may be on to something, but I can’t get down to the undoubted profundity there for wondering why our brother was reading Don Juan in the first place.

The moon safari has predictably been condemned most often on the basis that the billions of dollars involved might have been given to the poor. While acknowledging that a case of sorts could be made for that, one might inquire whether regular concern for the poor is not a necessary condition of adopting such a line of talk (the middle part of Mark 14:7 tends to be unjustly neglected).

Years ago I found a poem in which the writer said something like this, which may be thought pertinent to the current controversy: “God may have other words for other worlds, but for this world the word of God is Christ.” A useful thought for religious speculators, new Athenians, diversion-creators, and all in danger of falling into the gutter while gazing at the moon.

EUTYCHUS IV

Humanity In The Heavens

I thoroughly enjoyed the interview with Dr. Rodney Johnson (July 18). It is the best I have seen on this topic. I especially appreciated his development of the idea that space travel does not represent man playing God, but man becoming more human.

Director

The Dight Institute for Human Genetics

University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, Minn.

Eagle landed, Armstrong and Aldrin walked, and my mind began to wrestle frantically with all the theological implications of our new age.…

Now the evangelical theological world (labels are so important, aren’t they?) is frantic. The space age is here, and we have little to say about it except to desperately search for some Christian employees of NASA who can tell us it’s all right for men to walk on the moon.…

I confess a certain bewilderment on these issues. Like many others, I want to discover how adequately our “old, old story” meets the needs of a new, new age. I am confident that the Gospel is as alive today as ever, that men need Christ more than ever before. But perhaps it is time for us to cast off into the space of God’s Word, discarding the timeworn labels, words, and all-star cast of evangelical theologians. Perhaps we need fresh questions, and fresh answers.

First Baptist Church

Collinsville, Ill.

What about ethical matters as they relate to space: How does an astronaut treat other forms of life that do not appear human? What does he do if attacked? Suppose an astronaut is stranded in space—do we leave him?

I think now that the moon landing has been accomplished, theologs will begin to think seriously about developing a space theology. So far it has been mere theory. Also, what are some of the ethical and theological problems space scientists are grappling with? Theologs need to know.

Temple Baptist Church

Fullerton, Calif.

I have read with interest the interview with Dr. Rodney W. Johnson. Without any idea of criticism at all, I would appreciate your comment on Psalm 115:16, “The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’s; but the earth hath he given to the children of men.”

Houston, Tex.

“The Apollo 11 Astronauts: Recognition of Religion” (July 18) is a surprisingly shoddy piece of reporting and is an arrogant judgment of the astronauts’ faith.

Astronaut Collins’s high-school teacher is quoted and evaluates Collins as he was in high school. Do you honestly expect your readers to assume there has been no spiritual growth since high school? Would you want your current religious profile based on someone who knew you only in high school?

The reporter apparently never asked the astronauts themselves; and the reporter seems to miss from their friends the comfortable and recognizable code words … that agree with the legalistic standards of your reporter.

Your so-called “news” item reeks with pharisaism.

Lansing, Mich.

The Ground Of Government

John Montgomery’s article “Demos and Christos” (July 18) was, as usual, quite excellent.

I agree that the link between Christianity and democracy is better demonstrated from Scripture than history. I felt, however, that he missed the most fundamental biblical passage of all that bears on the subject.

The creation record provides us with two truths that are indispensable for a successful democracy. Because we are related in Adam, we have a common ancestry and a common birthright to humanity. The ground in Eden as well as at the Cross is level.

Secondly, the creation record implies that we have an awesome personal responsibility before God. No democracy will be successful without this dual sense of equality and responsibility.

By the way, I know Montgomery likes Luther and so do I, but that quote from Luther does nothing for Luther or Montgomery’s argument.

Northeastern Collegiate Bible Institute

Essex Fells, N.J.

I was somewhat disappointed in the article by Montgomery. Certainly the true attitude of Christianity is to be ascertained from Scripture, but Jesus’ injunction that none of his followers be called master since they were brethren hardly implies that the democratic state is optimum.…

Another bothersome point is the unqualified fiat, “[democracy] is unquestionably the best government for ‘sinners saved by grace.’ ” The good professor’s bag may be history, but moot is such a sweeping generality, along with the idea of obligatory participation in the democratic process. True, the Christian is called upon to eschew evil and hold fast to that which is good, but whether this entails holding office, campaigning, or even voting for every Christian is highly questionable, especially in this day when usually neither the candidates nor the issues are either clearly Christian or anti-Christian. Let us thank God for the land we live in and for its freedoms, instead of extolling a particular form of government.

North Kingstown, R.I.

From Grasshopper To Gadfly

When a self-confessed “grasshopper mind” (Eutychus IV, July 4) finds relevancy in the 1831 defense of John Macleod Campbell’s teaching on the atonement, your grasshopper has become a burden.

On page 258 of the book Scottish Theology by Principal John Macleod, D.D., we find this criticism: “This view [of Campbell] held implicit in its bosom the Deistic teaching that an adequate repentance is the only Atonement that is needed.… Its engrossing doctrine was that of a Divine Fatherhood which is quite universal.”

If in this area the Church of Scotland now takes a soft line, and “many an evangelical’s reputation for orthodoxy depends on his not being asked certain questions,” it is time the grasshopper changed into a gadfly.

The Garden Grove Orthodox

Presbyterian Church

Garden Grove, Calif.

The Specific Response

You err, and you err seriously, when you list what you term the “specific response” (“Itemizing the Reparations Bill,” News, June 6) made to the Forman demands by the United Presbyterian Church. The truth of the matter is that no specific response was made to the Forman askings. Instead the General Assembly moved in a direction to which it was already pointed to respond to human needs.

The 181st General Assembly did take a preliminary step toward planning a fund-raising effort on behalf of deprived and dispossessed persons in our nation. It authorized a study of this whole matter and development of proposals which will be considered by the next General Assembly. No exact dollar figure has been determined, although the assembly’s action suggested that the goal of such an effort should equal or surpass the one attained in the recent Fifty Million Fund for capital needs.

Stated Clerk

The United Presbyterian Church

Philadelphia, Pa.

The chasm between Europe and America is fast being bridged. The tired old world and the tireless new one face common problems. The unrest of Berkeley and Columbia is matched by Paris and Berlin. Students have stolen the limelight from the hippies in New York and the provos, a similar movement in Amsterdam.

Police of American and European cities are wrestling with youth delinquency. On both continents youth alcoholism is being replaced by drug-taking. Yet on both continents there are also young people who are eager to help in what has come to be known as the Third World. Suddenly they are found fighting the structures of establishment while being somewhat vague about the structures of the world they want to create. The old and the new world are rapidly becoming one.

Youth on both continents are facing the same problems, asking the same questions, discovering the same challenges. They feel equally estranged from their parents; they are equally afraid of the future. This means also that American and European evangelicals are alike challenged to reach this new and troublesome generation for God. But does it understand our Gospel language?

A British Anglican, John C. King, has just produced a book about evangelicals. He calls them the “people who know they are saved.” We might be proud of such a description. The words “saved” and “salvation” have always been the core of evangelical theology. Do young people understand what we mean by them?

We tend to forget that in past centuries other words have sometimes stamped theology. The characteristic word of the Reformation was not “salvation,” but “justification.” Luther was not so much thrilled by the fact that he was saved as by the fact that God had accepted him, sinner as he was. The word “salvation” did not really take its central place in theology until the revival movement of the last century.

These different accents caused variations in vision. Reformation theology—especially in its Calvinistic form—was rather earthly minded. God was the sovereign Lord of the whole earth. Evangelical theology tends to be more heavenly minded. God awaits saved people, who are not of this world, in his heaven.

But the now generation is exclusively earthly minded. That is why much modern preaching is being shrugged off. This became evident at the Uppsala Assembly of the World Council of Churches. The rich young rebels of Club 68 in the Swedish city had no good word for the work of Section II, which dealt with missions. “Patch-work!” they cried. They were much more interested in WCC answers to social and economic problems.

There are Christians who will not hear of changing their preaching. They claim to be setting forth the everlasting Gospel. They have no intentions of adapting that Gospel to the moods of a new generation. Rightly so, but they never consider the possibility that the Gospel they inherited from their fathers perhaps had been adapted to their generation. The time has come to compare our evangelical message with the teachings of the Bible. The Gospel has a message for present-day youth—of this I am sure—but I often wonder whether our theology has. The time has come also to study the state of youth and ascertain what possible answers are offered by the Bible.

The past has little or no relevance to young people. They are not interested in old confessions, nor are they concerned about tradition. Two years ago, three books suddenly became best sellers in the Netherlands. The first gave a selection from pre-war advertisements, sermons, speeches, songs, and radio talks of Protestants; the second of Roman Catholics; and the third of Socialists. These men of the thirties turned out to be far funnier than Fred Flintstone. The past no longer sets us thinking; it makes us laugh.

How did this happen? We are reaping as never before the final fruits of the evolution theory. I am referring not to Darwin’s hypothesis but to the philosophy of his successors. In the struggle of life, it is claimed, the best species survive; thus every new generation must be better than the one before. Tradition loses its value. What is important is not what lies behind, but what is ahead. This outlook has influenced former generations too, of course, but never has it been as influential as now.

The impact of evolutionary optimism is being strengthened by technological optimism. Every new plane is bigger and better than the one before. Every new refrigerator is colder and roomier. Every new invention improves life. And it is only a small step to slip from technological into ideological thinking. Life today must be an improvement on life yesterday.

Naturally some past generations also have been swayed by this technological ideology. But it is now a conquering spirit because of the world the past generation offers the new. Two world wars, an economic crisis, a Korean and a Viet Nam war, plus the fact that no peace treaty has yet been signed to finish World War II—these cannot be regarded as examples to make young people long for the world that was.

The loss of the past could have been overcome were the present more challenging. Social security in the broad sense can be a curse as well as a blessing. The aim of modern welfare states is to take care of people from the cradle to the grave, but they deprive men of opportunities to fight for something. Young people are confronted by the utter drudgery of the welfare state.

Moreover, man has become a social security number. Mankind is being depersonalized. We are rapidly creating a “masskind” to take the place of mankind. Our kids feel lost in mammoth schools, our students in campuses that are bigger than the towns they were born in. Mass clothing and modern cosmetics turn out young people as out of one mold. If they escape the “bourgeois life” and turn into hippies, they are just being transformed by another mold. A former generation had its “great characters,” but we are turning out uni-men and uni-women.

But the Bible says that God has created men and women without a mold. Every one of us is unique. In every culture that tried to kill the personality of men, people started to rebel. If we continue on this road, we should fear not so much a new war as a clash between generations. Son against father. Is that not an apocalyptic image?

The main philosophy of the early fifties maintained that our only hope was that we have no hope. The early sixties saw a rebellion against that view. Slowly philosophers showed a new glimmering hope. Jürgen Moltmann even wrote about the theology of hope. But during the past two years it is as though the curtain has gone down again. We have suddenly been confronted by the spirit of technology which we ourselves have let out of the box but which we can no longer control.

We are being threatened by our own inventions. We can split atoms and destroy the world. We are trying to grow human beings in test tubes. Soon we will be able to reach any nook of the earth with satellite television. Either East and West will bombard each other with slogans, or we will get programs carefully screened by a world agency like the United Nations. In either case our mass-culture will cover the earth like a weed. This will only increase the “mold-iness” of life.

We must face the fact that the new generation lives between the void of the past and the fear of the future in the emptiness of the present. No wonder many of them want to escape in either drugs, good works, or a violent defiance of present structures.

The first form of escapism among the young was the hippie world, which suddenly sprang into existence. They step out of the struggle for life of the capitalistic society. They badly want to be different, but they become so differently alike. Already we seem to have passed the peak of this movement. The Amsterdam provo movement ended in the clutches of drugs. The same thing is true of many American hippies. This is an escape into a dream world which completely depersonalizes men.

Evangelical theology had a message for men confronted by personal sin, but the new generation is far more obsessed by corporate sin. We are being taught new consequences of original sin. Sin is that unique men are being turned into numbers, creative beings lowered to consumers, God’s beautiful creation turned into a gas chamber of polluted air, God’s pure rivers into streams of poison. Mankind is busy playing suicide. Is it so incredible that many want to step out of this Western way of life? What was once our pride, our technical power, has become the torture of the teens.

It seems to me that the young generation is more conscious of corporate sin than the old. This technological world is too much of the old generation’s making for them to see the weak spots. But youth, inheriting this world, realize deeply its deficiencies. Some become dropouts from society in order to redeem themselves from this sense of corporate sin.

This is the point where the evangelical theology in its traditional form fails. By concentrating on salvation from this world now, it gives the impression that faith is a religious sort of dropout. Such a Gospel has no appeal to the modern dropouts of society. But the biblical message has. The first thing the Bible stresses is that God is not frightened off by sin. God came into this world. When Adam and Eve sinned, God did not withdraw but came and called them. God comes into this technological world. We can be “with him” because he has come to be with us.

But there is another form of escapism. The sixties are marked by a new willingness to serve developing nations. The world looks favorably upon the scores of young people who give up the possibility of a career to bury themselves in some faraway spot. As a way to redeem the sins of the colonial past, this is a form of escapism. Personal guilt is not erased by good works; neither is corporate sin.

Paul Verghese of India once warned European church leaders: “It is painful for the West to look into its own soul and discover the emptiness and the guilt [because of expansion in the direction of the Third World]. Because it is so human it is not able to walk the road of contrition and repentance. Contrition is completely the opposite of activism and that is why the West thinks it best to redeem its guilt by good works. But good works are different from seeking forgiveness. Good works must follow repentance, but can never take its place.”

I quote this Indian Christian (now bishop of the Syrian Orthodox Church) because evangelicals have the wrong image. They too often have been condemned, because of their tendency to give most of their attention to preaching and none or too little to handing out the cup of cold water to the thirsty. Proclaiming the Gospel surely means both speaking and acting it.

Our younger generation rebels against the preaching of the past and replaces it by good works. But improved living standards do not necessarily improve spiritual conditions. Evangelicals have often too easily said that converted people will change the world. Church history should have taught them better. Young people now too easily think that a changed world will convert people. The crime rate of America and the neurotic state of Sweden should have warned them.

What is needed more than ever is the biblical message that God comes into this world to change it by redeeming it unto himself. Christians should take their rightful place in this world, because they are called to be fellow-workers with God. Guilt should not force us into good works; redemption should prompt us to accept our part in the work God is doing. We should not go to the Third World seeking redemption, but as representatives of God. Then we will no longer work ourselves to death improving living standards, which is no more than teaching people the Western way of life, but we will live to reveal God’s way of Life.

Already some young people sense that “a raving group of world improvers” will never be able to improve the living standards of the Third World merely by good works. During the last two years a new answer has been offered. Young people all over the world are discussing changes in the structures of society. With revolutionary zeal they are attacking them. Where peaceful means do not succeed, often young people try to bulldoze themselves through the present structures. Their call to revolution often ends in acts of violence which reveal the frustration of modern-day youth. The new slogan is “participation.” Young people want to take the world into their own hands.

An opinion poll in Amsterdam showed that students of sociology and political science tend more to the political left than any other group of students. Students who studied engineering or agriculture have a chance to escape into activism. The young nations need them. Sociology students have far fewer opportunities to serve in the Third World. Therefore they had to find another way of escape. Through their studies they are preoccupied with structures of society. The result is that they see them as the causes of failure.

They have discovered a biblical truth which we tend to forget. The Church has often given the impression of considering traditional structures as God-given. In WCC circles one always hears people talk about “conservative evangelicals.” But are evangelicals of necessity conservative?

Sometimes we have sanctified existing orders in spite of the teachings of the Bible. We have too often forgotten that the devil is the prince of this world. We have forgotten that when God enters this world he comes to turn it upside down. God has to change the structures of this world. They are unacceptable in his eyes. Our democratic Western society is not the best world, but the least evil one. We too easily have equated our own country with God’s revelation. In the Netherlands we put God, the Netherlands, and the House of Orange on one line as inseparable entities. America is often referred to as “God’s own country.” Is the Kingdom of God revealed in our earthly nations? We should be more careful when equating our order with God’s.

The new storm-troops against the structures of establishment are only very vague about the world they want to create. They want something new. Here the influence of evolutionary and technological thinking is being felt. It is enough to call for something new, for everything that is new is better than anything that is old. That is why they do not have to spell out what they mean by “new.”

These people teach us that the structures of this world are not the structures of God’s world. That is a biblical truth. But they do not solve anything. The positive message is that God’s Kingdom comes. No human structure can ever stand before the criticism of the Bible. But we cannot improve this world by destroying it. Anarchy succeeds only in doing in a short time what takes the world itself a long time to do.

If we want to reach these young people, we will have to stress the promise of God that he recreates a new world. He promises a new heaven and a new earth. That is a message for us evangelicals and for all would-be reformers. It warns us that this heaven is not even good enough to receive us. It warns the reformers of our day that this earth will never be good enough to receive God.

And in the meantime, he wants us not to destroy this world but to live in it for him. We do not have to be frustrated, for the past is not void. God created heaven and earth, and they are his. The present is not dull, for we as his children can reveal him in work for him. And we do not have to fear the future, for his Kingdom comes.

Jan J. Van Capelleveen was ordained a minister of the Evangelical Free Church in the United States. Formerly a Youth for Christ evangelist, he is now religion editor of “De Rotterdammer,” a newspaper in the Netherlands.

Last summer’s heart-rending spectacle of Soviet troops and armor moving across Czechoslovakia, squelching and smothering the fresh flowers of freedom newly blooming there, was heightened by the tensions within the Czechs themselves: Should they resist or not?

Peace-loving Protestant theologian Joseph Hromadka, who had to his own satisfaction defended the accommodation Christians were making under the Czech Communist government, suddenly lashed out against the Soviet aggressors. Was he wrong before, right now? Or vice versa?

What ought a Christian to do about living under totalitarianism? Christians of the West were largely unprepared for this question in the events before, during, and after World War II. Should they simply follow Romans 13 and accept any government unconditionally? If not, where would they draw the line? At what point—if ever—does a government so violate Christian principles that resistance becomes obligatory?

A theology of resistance is not something abstract and impractical; it is related to life-and-death issues in many parts of the world. In this discussion we will explore a few possible avenues, seeking to provide a framework for intelligent, biblical decision-making.

The Christian begins by asserting that the state is necessary for order in society. God ordained it for man’s well-being and protection. But the question is, Can a Christian place himself unconditionally at the disposal of the state?

Definitely not, according to Emil Brunner and many others. Brunner says that “an unqualified justification of the state … is impossible from the point of view of the Christian faith” (The Divine Imperative). Because states tend toward absolutism, he says, the Christian must meet the sovereign claims of the state “with the classic words of the Apostle, ‘We must obey God rather than man.’ ”

So, according to this view, the Christian must protest every form of state totalitarianism. The state’s autonomy does not free it from doing the will of God.

Can we then state categorically that a Christian has the right to resist when the state is perverted? Does responsibility to government cease when it fails to establish law and justice? Can a state actually cease being “A minister of God” (Rom. 13)?

Walter Kunneth, among others, holds that one cannot objectively assert the right to resist based on one’s displeasure at a corrupt state. After all, look at the state as it existed in the Apostle Paul’s time. The Roman state was absolutist, yet obedience was demanded of Christians because even a perverted government was better than anarchy.

Following another line, some have thought to build the right to resist on the universal rights of man as man. This idea, of course, clashes with the idea of the creation of authority for the purpose of preservation. It could be argued that a perverted government has a stronger potential for preserving order than the appeal to human rights.

Another problem is that if one falls back on so-called natural law to justify resistance, he can use the same reasons to forbid rebellion. “Commonweal” is at best ambiguous when it comes to substantiating any right to resist. Perhaps that is why Count Stauffenberg, the German Roman Catholic officer who tried to assassinate Hitler, found no encouragement from his own church.

Neither utilitarian considerations nor rational judgments give a clear answer to the problem. Biblically, another road to take is to limit one’s obedience to the state by evaluating the state’s commands in relation to one’s duty to God. The early Church invariably asked whether the commands of the state were contrary to the clear will and command of God. Commands that infringe on faith were rejected. This disobedience did not question the authority of the state as such but rather insisted that the state’s authority was limited.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that the New Testament only describes specific incidents or collisions. Refusal to obey the state seems to come from incident to incident and cannot be ascribed to a casuistic code. For example, when Paul was struck by order of the high priest, he deferred to apostate authority. The high priest’s office had to be respected, irrespective of the wrong use of that office (Acts 23). There is no indication of permanent disobedience, with resistance as the guiding principle.

One might say that the Christian life is to be lived in a tension between loyalty to God and loyalty to the state. The Christian’s loyalty may consist at times in resisting a perverted and unjust order.

If this is in fact true, how far can one follow this route? How can the individual claim to hear God’s command clearly? He may lack political insight and judgment; he may not have access to all the facts, either at home or abroad, needed to make a decision. Further, can the individual trust himself to be right over against the majority opinion or against the view of tradition?

In the face of such difficulties, the only solution comes from God’s revelation, which deals with a personal God who relates to individuals on a personal basis. Christians therefore act not so much in response to abstract principles as in response to the Spirit of God, and in harmony with the written Word of God. Any attempt to systematize the answer by subtle moral reasonings must be rejected because of the danger of both legalism and impersonal orthodoxy.

But is it really satisfactory and safe to trust personal decision-making instead of relying on the norms of tradition, for instance? Both are subject to human error. History shows us that, on the one hand, tradition cannot be trusted, and that, on the other, great reforms have been sparked by individual initiative.

Another factor is the element of human guilt, especially when one decides to resist an unjust political order. Consider the deep personal anguish involved in trying to decide whether or not to use force against a totalitarian government.

A confrontation with despotism may bring a greater awareness of the far-reaching implications arising from resistance. In surveying the available material on the German resistance movement, one is impressed by the careful deliberations and scrutiny of every possible factor. The Christians must have asked themselves again and again whether they might be contending against God when they took part in resistance. On the other hand, they must have felt that submission to the perverted order would ultimately affect their concept of God. The question of human guilt needs to be examined in this context, for the people involved in overthrowing an unjust order will certainly face it, especially when force is used.

Even if there is no question of guilt, questions of conscience are sure to arise from the uncertainty about the outcome and consequences of resistance. However, one cannot base ethical directives on whether the resistance succeeds or fails. As Kunneth says, “every decision of resistance stands in need of God’s forgiveness.”

No hasty assertion that “It’s God’s will,” no good conscience, can of itself make an action sinless. What is needed is the assurance that there is forgiveness in extremity even for a sinful and bloodstained political act. This is not to treat sin lightly but to realize that in most of our deeds, no matter how sincere and noble, there remains mixed the possibility of human sin.

We conclude, then, that only the possibility of remission of sins is the final ethical and theological answer to the moral problems of resistance. Given that, however, there are still some safeguards against pure arbitrariness in the highly personalized acts of resistance. Kunneth lists the following (Politik zwischen Daemon und Gott, Eine Ethik des Politischen, Berlin, 1954, pp. 308–13):

First, only certain persons are called upon to perform acts of special resistance, and then only in extreme danger because such acts affect the whole order of government and the people’s existence. Kunneth is perhaps thinking of the history of German resistance, where it would have been irresponsible for anyone from the rank and file to kill Hitler.

Second, there needs to be forethought and planning about what to do after the leader is removed. In the case of German resistance, there were those in responsible state positions who had proved themselves and who shared the responsibility, and who were the “logical” people to engage in resistance.

Third, individual citizens may be exempt from the obligation to act on behalf of the people. Those select few who, according to Kunneth, could be called on to use force should do so only after all parliamentary avenues of bringing about a change have been exhausted. Even then, the individual’s right and mission of resistance should be backed by the conscience and support of a group. For a politically improved order is possible only through like-minded persons. This group element is an important check against a dangerous subjectivism, inherent in every personal action.

Helmut Thielicke, who lived and preached in Hamburg through the Nazi era, offers an alternative to forceful, direct resistance. When the state depersonalizes man and degrades him to a mere functionary, Thielicke says a “confession” is required of Christians (Die Evangelische Kirche und die Politik, Stuttgart, 1953, p. 68). Those who make this confession must be willing to back it up by life or by death. This would include the preaching of judgment and not mere morality. He follows Luther in saying that the state must be called back to its God-given place.

Thielicke uses the word Unterwandrung to describe what he means, and the Apostle Paul’s treatment of slavery as an example. “Our task is not to change the orders of the present aeon, but to speak to men as responsible beings,” says Thielicke. Therefore, the reason Paul didn’t attack slavery was that it would have been an endless task. It would have led away from Christ to a concentration upon the order of society. But by sending Onesimus back as a Christian brother to Philemon, Paul in effect breaks the old order of slave-master from within. This is the meaning of Unterwandrung. The change in the individual will be reflected upon the order.

For Thielicke, Unterwandrung involves making indirect inroads, which he accepts as an alternative to direct political action. He supports this by citing the feminine image applied to the Church. Just as the God-given talent for woman is to exert indirect influence on her husband and the world, so as the Church accepts its God-given place and identifies itself as a divine institution, it stands above the times and yet serves man who stands in time. As such, it has the promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Perhaps Thielicke’s proposals are not the answer; their inclusion here is not meant to imply that non-violent resistance is to be preferred. However, it is possible that this strategy could show us the way toward a transforming potential that has proven effective. Perhaps against totalitarianism, Unterwandrung wouldn’t work; but the New Testament certainly shows the dynamic possibilities for changing a perverted order from within.

To sum up:

1. Studies on resistance reflect trends away from a static dogmatism as a guide to action toward a more dynamic interpretation in which personal decisions are made in response to God’s call. This is a healthy development. Instead of seeing resistance anchored in either the first article of the Apostles’ Creed or in the order of creation with fixed laws, there seems to be a certain validity in anchoring it firmly to the second and third articles, and thus relating even resistance to the redemptive act of Christ.
2. Obedience to a given authority is no longer considered an absolute. This brings resistance into focus as a practical and live option.
3. It is necessary to scrutinize human acts and apply necessary criteria to guard them against subjective misjudgment.
4. The Church’s image is undergoing a radical transformation. The world seems tired of the system, but there is great interest in the dynamic life qualities concentrated in Jesus Christ and his new life. While the Church used to be looked upon as an institution that would rather suffer injustice than commit it, in this century the Church has had a vital part in resistance. Many Christians have resisted at the cost of their lives and are revered for it.
5. Extreme caution is the word for evaluating forms of resistance, say between the indirect Unterwandrung and direct political action. I am personally convinced that nonviolence with Christian motivations is by far the most effective, with long-range redemptive features, but I am prepared to allow that there may be times when God directs people to use violence, especially where totalitarian governments are involved.

Had the attempt to remove Hitler succeeded, the necessary personnel structure was already prepared to assume the functions of state. In consequence, much misery and suffering would have been averted.

Herbert R. Dymale is associate professor of religion at Malone college, Canton, Ohio. He was born in Poland of German parents and during World war II served in the German air force. He was taken prisoner of war during the Normandy invasion and was brought to the United States. After his release, he returned to Germany an began his seminary training, which he concluded in the United States. He holds teh Th.M. from Princeton Seminary and the Ph.D. from the State University of Iowa.

A young Christian mother was looking at dresses for her little daughter in the mail-order catalogue of a well-known company. She was shocked to see that accompanying some rather abbreviated clothing for children was the caption, “Nudity is nice.” The revolution she had been reading about in the papers and encountering in the theater and books has seemingly become a part of normal everyday life. “Rudi Gernreich’s nude fashions for women have caught on and have changed people’s minds and life styles as well as the way they dress,” comments Newsweek in a cover article (April 14, 1969) on the phenomenon that has assaulted the sensibilities of that mother and of millions of other parents, young people, and leaders in every area of American life.

While the new permissiveness is most obvious in today’s fashions and films and in plays such as Hair, it is being felt in subtler ways, too. Tom Wesselmann, painter of erotic nudes, is quoted in Newsweek as saying, “Every time I begin to deal with a new theme, I see it on the evening news, in bath oil or deodorant commercials.” Even the willingness of the news magazines themselves to illustrate lavishly their discussions of sex and nudity in American life is an example of the revolution.

Most evangelical Christians are outraged and not a little bewildered by all this. Many of us tend to respond in the manner of a reactionary who can only look negatively at any change, or an obscurantist who is angry not only at what is happening but also at those who want to evaluate it realistically. What we ought to do in times like these, however, is to return to our only rule for faith and practice, the Bible. Unlike many who claim to speak in the name of Christian morality, the Bible speaks quite freely and plainly about matters of sex and nudity. And because the Bible presents life from God’s perspective, the accent is on the positive; prohibitions are necessary because it breaks a father’s heart to see his children misuse and destroy the beauty and quality of life that he meant for them to enjoy. The bliss of the Garden, the ecstasy of the lovers in the Song of Solomon, the comparison in Ephesians 5 of Christ’s relation to his Church and a husband’s relation to his wife—these are only a few examples of the biblical expressions of the goodness of sex.

Another reason for starting from the biblical point of view rather than our own instinctive reaction is that only the Bible provides an objective standard. Many standards to which we cling are relative and are acquired from our culture. Very few Christians today would consider a woman’s hemline just below the knees to be immodest, but several generations ago this length would have been thought scandalous. How can we be sure that our reaction to current trends does not come from similar cultural mores rather than from Christian convictions? The advocates of nudism are telling us that nudity means freedom, and in a superficial sense this is obviously true. Are we quite sure that our aversion to nudity is not just Victorian prudishness? These are legitimate questions and are not so easily answered as we might hope.

The early chapters of Genesis provide an excellent vantage point from which to survey the biblical understanding of nudity. At the conclusion of chapter one, God surveys his entire creation and pronounces it “very good.” The events of chapter two, a more detailed description of the events that occurred during the latter part of the sixth creative day, are certainly included in this divine evaluation of the creation. In the familiar account, God formed the first man from the dust, gave him breath and life, and placed him in the garden of Eden. Adam was told to look among all the other creatures to find a suitable helper. When he found none, God created once again and made a woman to stand beside and complement the man. The first poetry in the Bible is appropriately enough an expression of delight from a man upon meeting a woman:

This at last is bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called Woman,

because she was taken out of Man.

The author of Genesis then adds the following comment: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.”

Note the specific mention of the fact that the man and his wife were not ashamed of being naked. Here, before the devastation of the next chapter, is the positive meaning of life, life as God created it and meant it to be. Several things are apparent, even from the little we are told about the ideal order of things. In the first place, since God created man and woman without clothing and declared all that he created to be very good, we may conclude that the human body is good and beautiful as it came from the hand of God. Nakedness in itself is not evil but good; that is how we were created and lived originally. This fact has been celebrated since time immemorial in the appreciation of the beauty of the human body. The professing Christian artist Michelangelo felt that nowhere was the glory of the Creator more in evidence than in the nude male torso, and he painted and sculpted his classic figures for the glory of God. In our fallen order there is a thin line between aesthetic appreciation and the “lust of the flesh,” but this should not keep us from affirming the beauty of God’s order.

A second conclusion properly drawn from the original state of man is that the role of the sexes is to be clearly distinguished. Under God, a man is a man and a woman is a woman. They were given individual, complementary roles to fulfill for the mutual enrichment of their lives. This does not force the conclusion that personal fulfillment cannot be achieved outside marriage; it does, however, strongly suggest that efforts to obscure the distinctions between masculinity and femininity are contrary to the created order. It can be said, then, that homosexuality and the trend in clothing toward what is called “unisex” are unnatural and inherently destructive.

In the light of the essential goodness of nakedness, and the relation of the sexes in God’s order of things, Genesis 2:25 becomes very meaningful. The man and the woman were naked before each other and before God without shame, because nakedness represented the most beautiful thing about the Garden—openness and freedom. This is life as God meant it to be lived. But for most of us, whether in the over-thirty or the under-thirty generation, it is not easy to see how this could match the excitement of every-day living. What did Adam and Eve do for fun? We ask such questions because we so poorly understand what it means to have fellowship with God. This was the key to the quality of life of that first couple. The natural beauty and tranquillity and marital bliss were added benefits; but to be open and naked before God, totally free to have fellowship with him with nothing to be ashamed of—this is living, even if we in our blindness think otherwise. Christians today can only partially know this fellowship; yet even that partial knowledge makes life a joy. Think of what it was for Adam and Eve.

But while we must try to understand the ideal or created order of things, we must also deal with the reality of life as it has existed since the fall of man, recorded in Genesis 3. The account itself throws some light on our subject. Satan tempted Adam and Eve by telling them that they did not need to submit themselves to the authority of God. If they wanted to, they themselves could be like God. Adam and Eve listened, and they chose to defy God.

As a result of their rebellion, for the first time they experienced the sense of shame that accompanies sin. Significantly, their shame was evident in the immediate recognition that they were naked: “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.…” With the coming of sin, nakedness took on a totally different meaning. Originally it meant openness and freedom; now it meant shame. And so to cover their shame, they took leaves and made a pitiful attempt to cover their nakedness. Theologically speaking, this is the meaning of clothing. This item, for which an immense amount of effort and time and money is expended, is but a development of that first primitive attempt to cover shame. Is it any wonder that the Bible scorns those who spend all their time primping and adorning the outward body while inwardly their true shame is uncovered (Isa. 3:16–24)?

Adam and Eve were quite foolish, of course, to think that clothing could hide them from the all-seeing God. When God called to them they resorted to a second expedient, hiding. And when God called them out of hiding, they had to admit that they hid because of their nakedness. Their shame before God was overwhelming, and they lost the most precious thing in life—freedom with God. Consequently, they lost the true meaning of nakedness. Although clothing cannot hide one from God, clothing did at that point become a part of human existence. God himself made the first clothing; he clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins as a better covering than leaves (3:21). Thereafter in the Bible, except within the intimacy of marriage, the exhibition or flaunting of nakedness or the act of disrobing is associated with shame or sinful indulgence.

The shame of the foolish drunken spree of Noah is called to our attention by the fact that because of his stupor he “lay uncovered in his tent” (Gen. 9:20–27). This led to the sin of Canaan and the consequent cursing of the race. A frequent theme in the Prophets is the shame that the people of God had brought upon themselves and the name of God. This would in turn cause further great shame to come upon them. Very often nakedness is spoken of in connection with one form or another of this shame (Isa. 3:17; Mic. 1:8–11; Hos. 2:3). Isaiah was told to walk naked and barefoot for three years to illustrate the shame that would come to Egypt and Ethiopia (Isa. 20). Ezekiel 16 speaks of the tragic way in which Israel stripped off her clothing to “play the whore” by following false gods. God promises that in judgment he will uncover her nakedness before her lovers. But in spite of this “shame” and much to Israel’s shame, his covenant mercies would continue. In Revelation 3:19 the church of Laodicea is cautioned to clothe herself in the white garments of God’s righteousness so that the shame of her spiritual nakedness will not be revealed.

Seen in the light of the Scriptures, the current trend toward nudity and sexual “freedom” is but another manifestation of man’s rebellion against God. While it is shocking, it should not be surprising in view of what the Bible teaches about the sinfulness of man. In this godless age when there is almost no sense of the holiness of God, there is also no sense of shame. Adam and Eve were terribly ashamed because though they had sinned, they still understood the character of God. That is not so today. And this fact should cause some thoughtfulness on the part of concerned Christians. At the root of our moral revolution is a spiritual problem. We must realize that while it is imperative that we resist the tide of moral corruption, if there is to be any permanent change there must be a spiritual change.

Young people today are being told that nudity means freedom. As we have seen, that is true. Or better, it was true before sin became a part of human life. But those who have no concept of a holy God whose law is absolute have no concept of sin. On that basis, then, there is no reason for adhering to any moral code—an idea that is being argued widely in our courts today. This may make modern conduct more understandable, but it certainly doesn’t make it any more right. The fact is that there is a holy God, and there is such a thing as sin; whether or not one senses the shame of sin, it is still there. Nudity on film, in books and magazines, in TV advertisements, is not freedom; it is shame. And by flaunting our shame we are becoming even more hardened in our sin and our defiance of God. In the process, we are destroying our society.

But there is a spiritual answer to this spiritual and moral revolution. Just as God gave adequate clothing after the Fall, he also provides that which truly covers our sin and our shame. Through Christ, we can know the freedom and openness that Adam once knew. The Christian open and free before God is pictured not as naked, however, but as clothed in a robe of righteousness.

This is not our righteousness, or innocence—that has been lost and we are shamefully naked—but Christ’s righteousness. He covers us so that we do not need to be ashamed before God. This is a theme in the Old Testament (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:16; Isa. 52:1; 61:10; Zech. 3:4) and in the New (Luke 15:22; Matt: 22:11, 12; 2 Cor. 5:2, 3; Rev. 3:18). God gives us garments to cover our shame. In the Book of Revelation, the saints are pictured as standing before God in white robes (6:11; 7:9, 13, 14; 19:7, 8).

We ought to be outraged and indignant about what is happening to our society. But also, what is perhaps more important for us as Christians, we ought to look with pity and compassion on those around us. Modern attempts to find freedom without God might be more sophisticated, but they uncover the same raw shame that Adam and Eve encountered when they thought they could do without God. In ignorance and sinfulness, men think that by returning to nakedness, they can find that freedom they sense they have lost. Poor, poor fools. Freedom can be found only in the return to God.

Stephen E. Smallman is pastor of teh McLean Presbyterian churhc (Reformed Evangelical Synod) in McLean Virginia. Helds the M.A. from Bob Jones University and the B.D. from Covenant Theological Seminary.