Dear Christmas Shoppers:

Conservative and modest though I am, I do take a certain amount of godly pride in my liberal distribution of presents to ecclesiastical friends at Christmas time. To avert duplication of gifts, I want you to check what I have in mind for certain mutual friends:

✓Thomas Altizer—a one-way ticket to Argentina so that he can search for you-know-whom, said to be alive and hiding there. ✓John C. Bennett—a replacement for his dog-eared copy of Fabian Essays in Socialism. ✓Eugene Carson Blake—a hot cup of COCU and a cool head (but not the kind on Geneva ale). ✓Harvey Cox—a sacred hide-away deep in the heart of the rural Bible Belt. ✓Edward Dowey—a Presbyterian confessional box where he can privately read his favorite book of confessions and hear the contrite pleas of PUBC members. ✓Billy Graham—an authorized fire extinguisher to use on global conflagrations. ✓Billy James Hargis—a special red-letter edition of protest songs by Pete Seeger, inscribed: “Folk singers of the world, unite!” ✓Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry—an honest-to-goodness last name to go with his four first names: the unassuming monicker of Mr. Evangelical. ✓Bob Jones, Jr.—accreditation for his most unusual university and leads on qualified Negro professors he might hire. ✓Martin Luther King—a new pair of brogans and a 45 rpm of Nancy Sinatra’s “These Boots Are Made for Walkin’.” ✓Carl McIntire—an engraved scroll making him an honorary member of the World Council of Churches. ✓Chauncie Kilmer Myers—a military manual needed by any successor of Bishop Pike: “How to Shoot from the Lip.” ✓Pope Paul VI—a gift deserved by one who handled Vatican II with such dispatch: a lifetime post as manager of the St. Louis Cardinals. ✓Oral Roberts—a personal eternal flame like the one dedicated to financial backers at his new university. (Hope he doesn’t send me the eternal gas bill.)

My generosity, of course, does not end with this meager list. I have something for you, too: Merry Christmas! Undemythologized.

Yours Yulely,

EUTYCHUS III

Berlin Congress Footnotes

Only God in his perfect understanding will ever know how much good will result from this great World Congress on Evangelism, but I am personally convinced it will be most significant.

KERMIT LONG

General Secretary

The Methodist Church

General Board of Evangelism

Nashville, Tenn.

I would express my sorrow at being unable to be with you in Berlin. Kenneth Wilson [executive editor, Christian Herald] was deeply impressed.

DANIEL A. POLING

Chairman and Editorial Consultant

President of Philanthropies

Christian Herald

New York, N. Y.

We shall long rethink and relive those days: days like “Bible-days”.… Some wished for more “action,” more of a “program” to be projected. As if the molding of all those diversified evangelicals into a new oneness were not action—the deepest divine action!

ARMIN R. GESSWEIN

Pasadena, Calif.

It was a tremendous experience for me, and I feel that it has definitely brought me forward considerably in my work for the IFES among theological students. I was able to make contact with a vast number of theologians as well as many theological students from other countries around the world, and this has given me a much better idea of what is needed than I had before coming to the congress. Thus over and above the purposes for which the congress was called and from which I derived a great deal of personal benefit and inspiration, I also found that there was this unexpected and very valuable secondary benefit for me.

HAROLD O. J. BROWN

Theological Secretary

International Fellowship of Evangelical Students

Lausanne, Switzerland

It was a marvelous conference. It profoundly affected the lives of a thousand people, and its fruits will have an eternal significance. Not only were individuals helped, but entire denominations and organizations were affected. I am grateful not only for what the congress meant to me but also for what it meant to Dr. Laubach and to the cause of literacy-missions.

DAVID E. MASON

Associate Director

Laubach Literacy, Inc.

Syracuse, N. Y.

I was deeply impressed with the unity that existed. I moved a good deal amongst the delegates from India, Malaysia, and other parts of Asia and found them most appreciative, even though, as might be expected, certain parts of the program did not appeal to them as they might have appealed to Westerners.… Personally I could not help wishing that there might have been a little more time given to facing the problems of our African and Asian brethren, but there was so much to be fitted in that this was perhaps inevitable.

ARNOLD J. LEA

Assistant General Director

Overseas Missionary Fellowship

Singapore

I was glad to have the privilege of being there in that significant world fellowship, especially in view of the fact that many of those who were there are identified with the world ministry of The Upper Room. It was good to meet with many persons whom I have known and many who have written for our publication, like Joseph Horak of Yugoslavia and others. Four of the persons we have given citations to were there, Frank Laubach, Billy Graham, Helen Kim, and Harry Denman.

J. MANNING POTTS

Editor

The Upper Room

Nashville, Tenn.

Every detail of congress operation was beautifully handled and magnificently taken care of. Above all, the congress program provided a rich spiritual experience.… I know that we go back into our specific field of Kingdom labor refreshed and renewed, with a determination to do everything in our power, under the blessing of God, to help work toward the evangelization of the world in our generation.

EUGENE R. BERTERMAN

Executive Secretary

This Is the Life

St. Louis, Mo.

We shall continue to pray that the spirit and the inspiration of this great meeting may lead those of us who were present to follow through with the suggestions received to the end that every individual in all the world might be brought face to face with the Lord Jesus Christ.

J. A. PENNINGTON

Secretary

Dept. of Brotherhood and Evangelism

Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma

Oklahoma City, Okla.

Many precious memories linger with me in the afterglow of those days together, but I think the one impression which stands out most in my mind is the spirit of Christian fellowship which we shared. It was a genuine unity issuing from the sense of our common faith and mission.… The Congress on Evangelism demonstrated the basis for a true ecumenical movement.

ROBERT E. COLEMAN

Dept. of Evangelism

Asbury Theological Seminary

Wilmore, Ky.

There is no way to express fully the meaning of the congress not only to me but to every one of the seventeen men from Overseas Crusades who attended. We were blessed beyond measure, and we have asked God to help us carry the full meaning and the full fire of the congress back to the fields to which God has called us.

DICK HILLIS

General Director

Overseas Crusades, Inc.

Palo Alto, Calif.

I have come back with an even deeper and stronger sense of the Church’s primary task as the evangelization of the world, and I hope that this will have a marked impact on an even deeper commitment to evangelism on behalf of our own students.

MAURICE A. P. WOOD

Principal

Oak Hill College

Southgate, England

I returned from the congress with new horizons, and my own spiritual life greatly strengthened. It is my feeling that my own ministry can never be the same as a result of the congress.

J. C. MCPHEETERS

Representative for Development

Asbury Theological Seminary

Wilmore, Ky.

In Berlin, God warmed my heart and challenged my faith. Tears came to my eyes, and through them I saw a kaleidoscopic world in need of the Saviour. I return to my homeland and to Asia fired and imbued with a greater inspiration than Hitler’s youth possessed thirty years ago as they goosestepped to battle. I go in loving obedience to the Great Commission of the Führer of my soul, even the Lord Jesus Christ. Claiming the victory he has already won for me on Calvary’s cross and over the tomb, this Christian soldier marches on—conquering and to conquer.

MAX D. ATIENZA

Vice-President for Asian Evangelism

Far East Broadcasting Co.

Manila, The Philippines

God has done a new work in my heart, and I shall be returning to India with a new sense of responsibility—a new challenge and burden and a renewed dedication to God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

WINNIE BONNER

Hyderabad, India

So many of us who attended must confess that our lives will never be the same again; and we trust that under God our world will not remain the same as a result of the sharing we had together in the presence of God and each other.

JAMES EARL MASSEY

Principal

Jamaica School of Theology

Kingston, Jamaica

Especially am I thankful for the manner in which the idea of scholar evangelism was infused into the congress. We evangelicals have for too long, particularly in Latin America, turned away from scholarship and only offered a “milk” diet to our people. Berlin ’66 is the turning point …

Above all, the corporate sense of urgency in evangelism will urge upon the minds of all who attended to infuse this upon their colleagues around the world and usher in a new era—I pray—in evangelism.

WILBERT FORKER

Editor

Advance

Speightstown, Barbados

Farewell To Eutychus

I am doubly saddened at the retirement of Eutychus II. First, because I’ll miss Dr. Leitch’s “wry eye on life,” which has always made things a little more bearable; and second, because I’m losing the self-satisfaction of identifying an anonymous columnist to my friends. You see, his former students recognized his writing long ago. There are too many unique “Leitch-isms” and, besides, what other theologian ever drew key illustrations from baseball, and assorted other sports, and his barber? So we’re grateful for his term of office and grateful for the man. He fits the definition of an outstanding teacher—we didn’t learn everything from him, but we didn’t have to unlearn what we did learn. May he keep teaching and writing for years to come.

TOM STARK

University Reformed Church

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Mich.

It all adds up! As a former student of Dr. Leitch, I blush with shame to admit that I did not recognize his trenchant comments and witty, incisive style. In retrospect it all seems so clear.

R. DOUGLAS BRACKENRIDGE

Associate Professor of Religion

Trinity University

San Antonio, Texas

The Two Carls

I receive the Christian Beacon and was shocked to read the letter [Dr. Henry] wrote to Dr. Carl McIntire. I shall watch with interest what is written concerning the congress and your attitude toward evangelicals who differ with you.

WILLIAM RANDALL

Orchard View Congregational

Muskegon, Mich.

If only a few more persons like yourself would answer him as forcefully as you did, he would eventually reveal himself even to his devoted followers as a person who is not helping the cause of Christianity.

JOHN D. SCHWARTZ

Niagara Falls, N. Y.

I enclose a copy of a letter I wrote Mr. Kennedy, editor of the Christian Beacon, in regard to criticism of your letter to Dr. McIntire as being full of “acerbity.” I thought you might be interested. They have a bit of “acerbity” on their own doorstep to clean up before they pounce on others.

MARCIUS E. TABER

Delton Methodist

Delton, Mich.

I was very much disappointed in Carl McIntire’s attitude toward the great evangelistic congress.… I was equally disappointed in your letter to McIntire, which he printed in his paper.

MRS. WILLIAM GUSTAFSON

Hillsboro, Kan.

It seems to me that there is only one thing for you to do now in this matter, and that is to write an unconditional letter of apology to Dr. McIntire and the readers of the Christian Beacon, which I am sure Dr. McIntire will publish in full.…

C. D. HATTON

Alliance, Ohio

For the past few days, I have noticed that Dr. McIntire has spent an inordinate amount of time taking apart the recent congress held in Berlin.… This is to commiserate with you as regards the amount of damage this man must have done to the good purpose of the congress.

H. BRAYTON GIFFORD, JR.

Media Presbyterian

Media, Pa.

Progress Report

I would suggest that you run another article concerning your views on the need for an Institute of Advanced Christian Studies. I, for one, missed the original one and only after spotting your notation in the October 14 issue did I know of your idea. I feel sure this may be the case with many other readers of your fine magazine. If they knew about it, they would respond immediately.

MRS. F. I. KOLBE

Seattle, Wash.

May I suggest that you begin a little “box-score” corner to be published in a page corner of each issue, stating the amount received and banked as of press time? This would be greatly appreciated by the many “grass-roots” contributors, and would serve as a stimulus to action by those whose interest has not yet reached the point of commitment.

JOHN CAMERON MCDONALD

Osaka-fu, Japan

Here is our $4 for our family of four.

BILL SULLIVAN

Corpus Christi, Tex.

• Dollar gifts for the proposed Institute of Advanced Christian Studies now total $660. The spring education issue (Feb. 17) will carry further news about a dramatic endorsement of the project. The proposal was made editorially in our May 13, 1966, issue.—ED.

Like every other man, the Jew needs the Gospel. Christ was first proclaimed to the Jews. Peter began with the Jews. And although Paul was appointed to serve the Gentiles, wherever he went he opened his ministry by preaching to the Jews.

After the apostolic days, when Gentiles took over the task of proclaiming the Gospel “to every creature,” the Jew was usually neglected. The Gospel, if presented to him at all, was thrust down his throat. But in the last two hundred years the need of preaching the Gospel to the Jews has been rediscovered, with marvelous consequences. Hundreds of thousands of Jews have been converted to Christianity. Yet the results would have been far greater, if Christians had known better ways of approaching the Jew.

The Jew is not like the heathen, for whom Christianity is something new, something strange that arouses his curiosity. The Jew knows all about it. He was born and grew up among Christians, and what he has learned about Christians and Christianity has unfortunately led him to keep his distance. Furthermore, he has often been taught that the missionary who tries to convert him is a most despicable creature who has not only sold his own soul for material gain but is also trying to steal other people’s souls. And next to the missionary in Jewish odium stands the convert to Christianity, the so-called Meshumad, an epithet signifying an evil, corrupt, dangerous person.

Now whatever the Jew is, he is peculiar, a person different and set apart. Therefore there must be a particular way to approach him. The classic example of this approach is described in Acts 2, where, in dealing with the Jews, Peter is conciliatory, placating, compassionate, and persuasive. Paul’s approach was similar (see Acts 13). This approach in true Christian love can be very effective, for the power of love is great.

Through the centuries the relation between the Jewish people and Christianity has undergone serious changes. Both Judaism and Christianity have deviated from their fundamentals. Biblical Judaism has been transformed into Rabbinic (Talmudic) Judaism. If Moses were to come to the world now, he would not be able to recognize the Judaism of our times. On the other hand, Christianity since Constantine has to a large extent been secularized and paganized. An ever-widening chasm between the two faiths has been opened—a chasm that has become almost unbridgeable. Christianity inflicted upon the Jews deep wounds and indignities; and Judaism could only retaliate with contempt. In this atmosphere of mutual hate and distrust, a Christian way of approach to the Jew was almost impossible.

But whatever the approach was or should have been a few decades ago, there has to be a new one now, because today there is a “new” Jew. Two momentous events of recent years have radically changed the Jew in behavior, outlook, and aspiration. First there were the Nazi persecutions, which destroyed six million Jews, one-third of the Jewish population of the world. Second there was the establishment of the State of Israel. The Nazi onslaught nearly crushed the Jew. But the emergence of the State of Israel raised him up from the dust, straightened his back, lifted his head so that he could look any man straight in the eye and say, “I am as good as any other man.”

The Jew in exile was plagued by a false sense of superiority that often gave way to an inferiority complex. These conflicting emotions apparently were main causes in alienating him from his Gentile neighbors. But now he is no longer haughty and arrogant, nor is he servile and obsequious. For now the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile has begun to crumble.

BETHLEHEM’S STALL

The creatures there in Bethlehem’s stall

Who looked upon the Christ-Child small—

I wonder if they knew at all

That someday his skilled hands would form

An easy yoke; a stable warm

To shelter them from wind and storm;

That o’er his head a dove’s white wing

Would make the heavenly choirs to sing

That God was pleased his Son to bring;

That he would choose an ass’s foal

To ride upon, in kingly role

To claim the Kingdom of the Soul.

The little Lamb of God was he

Who lay there sleeping silently,

The Shepherd of us all to be.

The creatures there within the stall

Looked down upon that Baby small—

I wonder if they knew at all!

JILL MORGAN

While the old Jew emphasized Judaism as a mark of Jewishness, the new Jew places the emphasis on nationalism. Most Jews in diaspora still insist that the Jews in the various countries are Jews only by religion; in national allegiance they are, they insist, nationals of the countries where they live. Yet it is plain that religion is not the decisive factor in keeping world Jewry together. Many Jews no longer observe the laws and rites of Judaism. Others are outspoken atheists or agnostics. Yet all are reckoned as Jews. Only the Jew who believes in Christ is excluded from the national entity.

Even in the United States, where the Jews evince much religious activity and where the three main groups (Reform, Orthodox, Conservative) vie with one another in building imposing synagogues and centers, very many Jews are indifferent to their religion. Yet nearly all of them are enthusiastic supporters of the State of Israel first and of other Jewries next.

There is another characteristic of the new Jew that the concerned Christian should know. In Paul’s time, while the Greeks were seeking after wisdom as proof of the veracity of the Gospel, the Jews required a sign (1 Cor. 1:22). For them a “sign” was some supernatural act or evidence that Jesus was the one of whom Moses and the prophets wrote. But the new Jew does not expect miracles. Nor does he have much faith in his Bible. Like the Greek of old, he wants “wisdom”—that is, scientific, logical, incontestable proof that Christ is the one he claimed to be.

This Jewish desire for “wisdom” means that the new Jew has begun to discard many old superstitions held for centuries as truth. Among these has been a fictitious representation of Jesus, with ridiculous, puerile, impossible stories intended to malign and revile the one whom they have called “that man,” “the Gentile God,” and the like. No modern, educated Jew believes that kind of blasphemy any longer. Nor is the new Jew afraid of reading the New Testament, the book that for generations has been taboo to the Jews. This makes the Christian approach easier.

Consider now the two main objections the Christian may encounter when he approaches the Jew. One is religious, the other nationalistic.

Unlike the old Jew, the new Jew lays less stress on religion than on nationalism. Although he does not feel well enough grounded in Judaism to discuss its precepts and dogmas, the average Jew “knows”—that is, has been taught—that Christianity is a “foreign worship” with doctrines diametrically opposed to Jewish doctrines. He has also been taught that the essence of Judaism is the belief in the unity of God—monotheism as opposed to polytheism. He knows that the unity of God is the first Commandment, and the average Jew has learned to recite in the original Hebrew: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4). This is the formula (confession of faith) recited by the practicing Jew several times a day and with his last breath of life.

And the new Jew also “knows” that Christians worship “three gods.” The average Jew is not well informed about other Christian doctrines, such as the divinity of the Messiah, the Virgin Birth, and original sin. But he “knows” enough to argue about them. He “knows” that these beliefs are quite contrary to the Jewish faith.

Finally, even if he knows very little of Judaism and cares less about its usages, he deeply resents any Christian attempt to “destroy” it. He may not practice his religion, but deep in his heart there is a tender, nostalgic feeling for the faith of his fathers, thousands of whom sacrificed their lives in defense of that faith.

The main argument to be used in the Christian approach to the Jew is that Christ came not to destroy the Jewish faith but to fulfill it. The Jew must be shown that Christianity is not a “foreign religion”; it is organically related to Judaism. The doctrines that nowadays seem so foreign to Judaism are really an integral part of it, and in ancient times they were commonly believed by the Jews. The Jew today must be shown that the Trinity is not three gods but the one true God who has made himself known to Jews and Gentiles in three Persons. From the very first verse of the Hebrew Bible, and throughout it, the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, denotes a unity in a plurality. The other “Christian” doctrines, too, are not Christian inventions; they come from the Jews and from the Jewish Scriptures.

Christianity does not require the Jew to give up his Jewish heritage; it requires him only to give up his sins. All he has to do is to believe in the Jewish Messiah, as he is depicted in the Jewish Bible and revealed in the New Testament, which is also a Jewish book.

Although the new Jew may be indifferent to matters of religion, he is very sensitive and aggressive in matters of his race and his nation. He would not lay down his life for “his” religion, as his ancestors did, but would do so in defense of his people if necessary.

After centuries of mistreatment in Christendom and of indoctrination by his leaders, the Jew became convinced that Christianity is the prime enemy of his people and that the New Testament is the source of all anti-Semitic persecution and libel. Many Jews have done all in their power to perpetuate these accusations by quoting New Testament passages culled out of context and by citing cases of “Christian” persecution of Jews. Some writers even blame the Nazi atrocities on the teaching of the New Testament.

At this point the Christian approach should be as cautious as that of a surgeon performing a delicate operation. Above all, it must be made in the spirit of love. There must be genuine sympathy with the suffering of the Jewish people and honest regret and contrition that much of this suffering was caused by people calling themselves Christian.

And in addition these points should be made: that hatred and all other evil passions are the consequences of the fall of man—the original sin of all men, Jew as well as Gentile; that hatred, persecution, and murder are as old as Cain and Abel; that individual feuds and domestic quarrels as well as large-scale wars make up most of the history of human beings, and Jews have been no exception; that Jews were persecuted long before the advent of Christianity (and since then they have been persecuted by non-Christians and by anti-Christian people as well as by professing Christians: many anti-Semites have hated the Jews not for “killing Christ” but rather for giving birth to him); that Christ can no more be held responsible for the sins and crimes committed in his name than God can be blamed for the sins men, including Jews, have committed in his name; that although most of the wrongs perpetrated against Jews by so-called Christians were done in the name of God and although some anti-Semites have claimed that God wanted the Jews to be punished for killing Christ, Jesus never asked anybody to punish or persecute the Jew; that Jews have on the whole preferred to live in “Christian” countries, or in countries dominated by Christians; that God must have had a good reason for placing most of his chosen people in Christendom despite the reprehensible hate and persecution; and that, significantly, it was mainly the “Christian” nations that voted for the establishment of the State of Israel, that now support it, and that are likely to come to its defense in time of need.

Whether the Jew today wants a sign or wisdom, his very existence can serve both as a sign (miracle) and as wisdom (incontestable proof that the Bible is true). The survival of the Jewish people is an inexplicable fact, even a miracle. According to human logic, the Jew should have disappeared long ago. Mighty forces have worked for his destruction. But they have failed. There is only one explanation for this—a mightier force, the Almighty himself, determined to preserve the Jews for a certain purpose.

The Bible tells of the Jews’ election and the purpose of this election. It predicts the main course of their history, their stumblings, their frequent falls, their tribulations, and their ultimate rise, which for them will be like life from death (Rom. 11:15).

World War II left the Jewish people downcast, downtrodden, seemingly beyond repair; and yet within a few years they have converted a wasteland into a flourishing commonwealth. They had little manpower to begin with, few skilled workers to do the jobs needed in modern civilization, few mechanics, technicians, agriculturalists, miners, sailors. Their natural resources were meager. They had no trained army, no adequate implements for defense. Yet within a few years the Israelis have become proficient in the arts and crafts and masters in the various branches of science, despite relentless antagonism and obstruction.

Such progress can be explained only by the Word of God, which predicted this rebirth of Israel so that it might be a “light unto the nations.” This prediction, closely connected with that of Israel’s looking upon “him whom they have pierced,” points to their ultimate reconciliation with God.

The Christian approach to the Jew should always be based on the Scriptures. Although the Jew may sometimes be skeptical of their infallibility, yet as a rule he is proud of his biblical heritage and subconsciously reveres it. He should constantly be challenged to “search the Scriptures,” for in them he will find the truth about Christ, his Messiah.

The Christian Church must proclaim its unique message positively to followers of non-Christian religions

Soon to be released on commercial stations for public-service showing is a series of thirteen panel discussions sponsored by the Educational Communication Association on the subject “God and Man in the Twentieth Century.” The series was filmed under a grant from the Lilly Endowment and is also available for rental use by church and educational groups.

Panelists discussing “The Gospel and World Religion” are the general secretary of the Baptist World Alliance, Dr. Josef Nordenhaug, whose roots are in the Southern Baptist Convention (the more than 2,000 Southern Baptist missionaries from North America outnumber those of every other American denomination); Dr. Richard C. Halverson, executive director of International Christian Leadership and vice-president of World Vision (Dr. Halverson’s ministry in the United Presbyterian Church links him to the Division of Foreign Missions of the National Council of Churches, which has some 9,500 missionaries around the world—1,300 Seventh-Day Adventists from North America); and Dr. Clyde W. Taylor, executive secretary of the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association (which with the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association has more than 13,000 missionaries—the largest contingent of missionary leaders and workers around the world in our time). Moderator of the panel is Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, editor ofCHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Dr. Henry: Gentlemen, religion has always exercised a very influential role in human history, and does so still today. Does the presence of tens of thousands of Christian missionaries around the world mean that Christians must say only bad things about the non-Christian religions?

Dr. Taylor: I think not. Some of these world religions are outstanding in their teachings of ethics—for example, Buddhism, Confucianism, and also some of the other Oriental religions. Also, we can say that Islam is very strong in its teaching of personal discipline of the individual in regard to his religious convictions. And, as far as that goes, some negative things could be said about some forms of Christianity.

Dr. Halverson: I think of a personal experience I had with a friend in Japan, a pastor who was converted to Christ from Buddhism. He has great concern about the fact that missionaries so often alienate Buddhists by being negative toward Buddhism, instead of simply presenting Jesus Christ and his love and his offer of salvation. As a matter of fact, he once said that he really believed that, had Buddha been alive when Christ was upon the earth, he would have been a follower of Christ. He encourages missionaries in Japan not to be negative toward Buddhism but to be positive toward Jesus Christ and his love. I think this is a valid approach.

Dr. Nordenhaug: Then too, Dr. Henry, the world religions outside “the Christian family” are also missionary. In recent days they have intensified their own missionary effort to win converts among other religions, including Christianity. This means that we ought to understand them well and listen to them with sympathy. We are not called upon to give up our basic convictions, I think, but to show respect and understanding of their convictions, and to try to find a ground from which we can make the message of Christ applicable to them as well as to ourselves.

Dr. Henry: So that the problem of competition for adherents and this competitive stance on the part of one religion toward another is not something that Christianity faces alone today; it is a problem that accrues to all the world religions. Now, in a world such as ours, in which there are many forces that work against faith in the supernatural and against belief in eternal law and eternal truth—I think of Communism and scientism and secularism, for example—is there any room for some cooperation among the great theistic faiths? Are there some things they can do together?

Dr. Halverson: Well, you’ll have to forgive me for again resorting to a personal experience. On one occasion when we were in Burma in World Vision pastors’ conferences, General Ne Win, who was then the leader of the Burmese government and a Buddhist, entertained those of us who were on the World Vision faculty for these pastors’ conferences, which had gathered together, I think, over 2,000 Burmese pastors for a five-day meeting. He felt, though he was a Buddhist, that this opportunity with the Christian pastors of Burma represented a common front with the Buddhists against atheistic Communism. And so he was anxious not only to entertain us but to entertain all of the pastors, which he did later on.

Dr. Henry: Would you say that there are limits on the ways in which the non-Christian religions and Christianity can cooperate, or is there a possibility of unlimited cooperation?

Dr. Nordenhaug: There is an area in which there is a certain degree of cooperation, in social concerns, and concern for the welfare of people and the common striving of all the people of the world. But there are limitations. I think I as a Christian would be very hesitant to associate myself too intimately with a religion that would be tied to a certain political point of view, and promote a certain cultural pattern, lest my Christian faith be an adjunct to these political and secular endeavors rather than coming into society with a message that is revealed and that talks to man in all his conditions and circumstances.

Dr. Henry: Yes, and you do have examples certainly of world religions today which are so intimately tied to political nationalism that it is very difficult to draw any line between the two.

Dr. Nordenhaug: Yes, that’s true. There are religions that have adopted political means to fight other religions. We can think of the tension between Buddhists and Muslims in the Far East. We can think of the Soka Gakkai movement in Japan, which is actually a nationalistic, politically tinged movement. So we have to be on the guard against becoming too involved and becoming the satellite, so to speak, of some other purpose.

Dr. Taylor: Yes, in each of these groups there is an infinite variety of points of view, just as in Christianity we have many divisions.

Dr. Halverson: Of course, I wasn’t thinking so much of the cooperative movement when you asked that question as I was of the integrity of what we are as Christians and what they are as Buddhists and as Muslims and so on. Just because of what we are, we represent a common front against atheism, against the enemies of God in that respect, in a very general sense. But I certainly would not think in terms of an official or formal cooperative …

Dr. Henry: Yes, an amalgamation of religions or anything of that sort. After all, religions per se don’t cooperate with one another; but it’s human beings in a quest for justice and for the higher things of life.

Dr. Taylor: Don’t we assume, too, that all these religions are theistic? Of course, most of the primitive religions are; but not all religions are theistic. Some of these world religions are atheistic in the sense that they do not believe in a personal God. And we of course as Christians then would be brought to the position where we would be compelled out of loyalty to Jesus Christ to confront them with Jesus Christ.

Dr. Henry: Are you suggesting that Christianity is a unique religion—and if so, aren’t all the religions of the world unique? Don’t they all have distinctive features? Or are you implying also that the non-Christian religions are hopelessly inadequate and even false when judged from a biblical point of view?

Dr. Halverson: Dr. Henry, to me the answer to that is in the testimony of the great Indian evangelist Sundar Singh who, reared as a Brahmin, was never satisfied somehow with Brahminism in spite of all that his father and family did to encourage him in this area. He was constantly searching in his younger days for reality, and finally he found it in Jesus Christ. Then he traveled all over the world as a great evangelistic influence for Christ. When asked what he found in Christianity that he did not find in any of the Eastern religions, he said, “What I found in Christianity was Christ.” So in this respect Christianity is absolutely unique; it has Christ. Christians do not make pilgrimages to a grave to worship a dead teacher or master; they worship a risen Christ. He is love incarnate, one who himself shed his own blood on the cross of Calvary for the salvation of men. No other religion has this, which certainly makes Christianity absolutely unique in this particular area.

Dr. Henry: He brought life and immortality to light, I think the New Testament says of him.

Dr. Taylor: There is another unique factor in Christianity, and that is, that we have a Book. Now the Word of God, the Bible, is the most translated book in the world. It is now in over 1,250 languages. It is circulated all over the world. It is believed by hundreds of millions of people. We of course share this book with Judaism, as far as the Old Testament is concerned. We consider that the New Testament is the further expounding and fulfillment of the Old Testament. And this book itself is the source of all we know about the living Word, Christ Jesus. The written Word, the Bible, therefore becomes the fount of our main authority as far as the Gospel is concerned.

Dr. Halverson: It seems to me too that just the fact of the Bible—its composition, its growth over a period of 1,500 years, its authorship, more than forty authors, and yet its being a book between two covers that we think of all over the world as one book and have historically, with one theme, with a unity—this to me makes it absolutely unique among books.

Dr. Henry: There is an inspiration of the living God that is involved in the preparation of this literature which has been set apart from all other literature—so the Judeo-Christian movement has historically contended.

Dr. Taylor: No other book, of course, has been so attacked, so analyzed, as this book; and yet it still survives.

Dr. Henry: While the critical views perish.

Dr. Taylor: Right.

Dr. Nordenhaug: The uniqueness of Christianity is of course in Christ and in a book that is centered on Jesus Christ. The message of this Christ in the book, and in the persons who believe on him, is the message of the Gospel. This is the Gospel: that God was in Christ, that God revealed himself in Christ.

Dr. Henry: Develop this just a bit more for us now. I know that the Greek word euaggelion means “good news”, “good tidings.” What are the “good tidings” that Christianity proclaims?

Dr. Nordenhaug: I think quite simply it is that God is a loving, concerned God with every generation and every individual, and that in order to become intelligible and known by us he was incarnate in Jesus Christ. God was in Christ reconciling the world, which needed reconciliation, unto himself. We sometimes do not think this through quite, and we think that God needs reconciliation—as in many world religions you have to appease a god. But this is not Christianity. We need reconciliation, and he has provided for it in Christ. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not putting on the books the transgressions and sins that we had committed, but gave us a message of reconciliation. So Christianity goes into all areas of the world, to other religions, with the message of Christ, which is essentially a message of reconciliation to God, who is a loving God.

Dr. Henry: Yes, and does not Paul say in First Corinthians 15, when he gives a summary of the Gospel, that Christ died for our sins—the atonement has been made, God is propitiated, our sins are covered. And the good news, as I see it, is that God has provided salvation for all men who will believe in Christ, who will believe that forgiveness of sins is possible, that a new life is possible in Christ, that Christ has died for us and he lives to conform us to the holy image of God. He redeems us from the guilt and the penalty and the power of sin and restores us once more to holiness and to fellowship with God—is not this at the heart of the Gospel?

Dr. Halverson: This suggests also to me another very clear distinction, namely, that in Christianity salvation is a free gift that Christ has purchased and offered to man, to anyone who will believe, whereas in all other religions, irrespective of their labels and details, salvation is a goal achieved by man through his own effort, by his own works.

Dr. Henry: I remember years ago—what you have said carries me back to college days—one of my professors in a course in the history of ethics expressed this same contrast, if I can recall it, by saying that the philosophical moralists and the non-Christian religions all agree in emphasizing that man is to find salvation by the gradual perfection of his old nature, whereas Christianity insists on the crucifixion of the old nature and the birth of a new nature by the Holy Spirit of God. This may be a very abstract and profound way of putting it; but what you said is essentially right, that the non-Christian religions emphasize that man should be good in order to be saved, as it were, whereas Christianity says that your works will never be good enough to save you in the presence of a holy God. Salvation must come as a gift, and God offers it; you should receive salvation as a gift in order to do good works. Isn’t this the essential distinction?

Dr. Taylor: Yes, but one of the interesting things is that, if we are not careful, we even lose this uniqueness from the Gospel. I know when I was running a school down in Latin America, I discovered that many forms of Christianity down there had ceased to emphasize this uniqueness of the Gospel, that salvation is by faith. As Paul said, you are saved by faith and not by works. This is grace. And we found that there the stress was again on formalism and on good works without a real assurance of salvation now—you could only know after you died. And this of course is to lose the genius of the Gospel, because we can have assurance of salvation now and know that we have forgiveness of sins and eternal life. This is the great truth of the Gospel.

Dr. Henry: When we look at the Bible as a unique revelation, as an inspired revelation, we find here a special concept of God, a distinctive view of the good life, and a special view of human destiny—and Christianity in a sense is a schematic whole, isn’t it? It’s a comprehensive view. You can’t just chop off this part of it or that part of it. You must take the whole in terms of a divine revelation. And isn’t it remarkable that this is a coherent revelation that speaks to all the questions that philosophers and the world religions have raised and have left unanswered in many cases—that Christianity gives an adequate reply to them?

Dr. Taylor: Dr. Henry, isn’t it interesting how people will stress one little aspect of this and apparently ignore all the rest and forget that one is dependent upon the total whole.

Dr. Henry: Yes. Let’s zoom in, however, on the really central issue. Does the Bible teach that apart from a saving experience of Jesus Christ all men are lost?

Dr. Nordenhaug: There is no doubt about it. The answer is yes. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” “You must be born again.” We could quote ad infinitum from the New Testament.

Dr. Halverson: That would be the problem here. You could spend a lot of time quoting verses. But I think immediately of, “There is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” I think of Christ saying, “No man cometh unto the Father but by me.” This exclusiveness is certainly clear throughout all of the pages of Scripture, and pre-eminently in the person and teaching of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Taylor: May I just say too, Dr. Henry, I think this is largely a philosophical question in high developed cultures, because you go to most peoples of the world and this isn’t even a question. They are quite aware that they are sinners, and they are quite aware that they are lost. It’s only the intellectuals that try to talk themselves out of this. Every primitive culture that I’ve known—and I’ve lived among the savage Indians of the Amazon, for example—and this is one question you never have to argue with them. They acknowledge this immediately.

Dr. Henry: Well, then, I take it that the day of a missionary vocation and a missionary career is not over.

Dr. Taylor: This is for sure.

Dr. Halverson: I think from the missionary standpoint, even if you think of it conventionally, (which I personally don’t, because I’m primarily interested in the involvement of the layman of the Church in the mission of the Church, beginning right where he is to the ends of the earth), but even thinking of it conventionally, I think these are the most exciting days in history for the extension and the expansion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his Church, the greatest opportunity.

Dr. Nordenhaug: The spread of the Gospel then is, as we all agree, not in the hands of an elite professional staff of clergy. This is something we are all called to do; regardless of what our vocation may be in life, we are missionaries.

Dr. Halverson: The work of the ministry belongs to the man in the pew, Paul says, it seems to me.

Dr. Nordenhaug: “He has committed unto us the word of reconciliation”; to us, all of us who believe.

Dr. Halverson: The whole Church.

Dr. Taylor: I would say, that the usefulness of and demand for the missionary will depend to a great degree upon how effective the missionaries themselves have been in involving the national church and the lay people of that church in evangelism. And I think the greatest challenge today is—where this has not been done effectively—to see that it is corrected, because this is the only hope of reaching a world with a knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Henry: The Bible teaches that whoever has a personal experience of Jesus Christ partakes of a more abundant life, not only in the life to come but in this life. Did Jesus promise his disciples greater material blessing and a larger portion of the material things of life?

Dr. Taylor: No, I would say he did not. But on the other hand, it is interesting that wherever Christianity is proclaimed, the economic and social status of the people improves. God does bless obedience, and this may give the impression very often that these people are enjoying greater economic benefits. This is rather a unique aspect of Christianity as well.

Dr. Halverson: Well, I think that’s because, for example, Christianity infuses men—now there are exceptions to this—infuses men with a sense of responsibility, with the dignity of labor. I think of my experiences in Asia. It’s very hard to find in these Eastern religions any concept of the common good, any sense of responsibility to others—except, for example, as poverty is there in order that I might earn virtue by meeting the need of poverty, but no compassion toward that poverty.

Dr. Nordenhaug: Dr. Halverson, you mean to say, then, that the Christian religion will create in a man a concern for others, and take the center of gravity away from him and put it in God’s will for the total world, including his neighbor to the ends of the earth?

Dr. Halverson: I believe that that’s what it does, absolutely.

Dr. Nordenhaug: I believe that too.

Dr. Halverson: And of course this is what missionaries have done historically. They have gone out to reach the lost for Christ and preach the Gospel to them. The lost have had sick bodies, so the missionaries have healed them and built hospitals. They’ve been illiterate, so they have taught them to read and built educational systems. They’ve been hungry, and they have fed them; naked, and they’ve clothed them. This has been spontaneous in the missionary activities of the church.

Dr. Taylor: But it’s not the primary drive, is that right?

Dr. Halverson: No, they go out to preach the Gospel.

Dr. Henry: Well, the diversity of world religions is probably greater—numerically, there are probably more religions today than there ever have been. Do you think that the Apostle Paul, looking over the world of religion as such, would issue the same judgment that he issued in the New Testament on the world of Gentile religion in his day, that the multitudes were strangers to the living God and in need of redemption?

Dr. Halverson: I think he would, of course. I think this is true of humanity in all of history.

Dr. Henry: Gentlemen, that just about brings us to the end of our time, I believe, except for possibly a closing comment from each member of the panel. Perhaps, Dr. Nordenhaug, you would begin by telling us what Jesus Christ can bring that humanity desperately needs in our time.

Dr. Nordenhaug: Dr. Henry, if I may just put it in a personal witness and a personal word: Christ calls me to witness for him. He says, “Come,” and when I come he says, “Go.” He always says Come before he says Go, and he never says Come without saying Go.

Dr. Halverson: I think of a verse in Paul’s letter, “In everything you are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge.” Jesus Christ has meant meaning and purpose to me, and I recommend him highly to others because of this.

Dr. Taylor: With the entrance of Christ into my life I shared first of all this joy of salvation. The Scripture tells us that the joy of the Lord shall be our strength. And then this love for lost men: God showed me my personal responsibility to see to it that they had a chance to hear the Gospel.

Dr. Henry: John R. Mott once said that whoever has a religion must either give it up or give it away—give it up if it is a false religion, and share it with others if it is the true religion. Thank you, gentlemen, for sharing your convictions on “The Gospel and World Religion.”

The revised Confession of 1967 of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. is an essentially unhomogenized doctrinal statement. The unrevised C67 was homogeneously neo-orthodox. The significant revisions were also homogeneous—homogeneously orthodox. However, no effort was made to extend these orthodox revisions throughout the document. The result is a document that has its original neo-orthodox character still extant, and at certain places quite visible, and yet has also some unmistakably alien, orthodox elements superimposed on its basic structure. Or, to put it another way, the revised C67 has some of the features of its grandparent, the Westminster Confession, and some of the features of its immediate parent, the original C67.

As a result, some orthodox and some neo-orthodox Presbyterians accept the document for quite different reasons. The orthodox may be happy with it in spite of its neo-orthodox elements, while the neo-orthodox rejoice in what has survived the orthodox revision. Some of the orthodox indulge in wishful thinking, viewing the document as if it had become homogeneously orthodox. And some of the neo-orthodox pretend that the changes were minor.

What of the Book of Confessions? It consists, as everyone knows, of eight creedal documents: the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Scots’ Confession, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession and Shorter Catechism, the Barmen Declaration, and, finally, the revised Confession of 1967. Let us look at these creeds from the standpoint of the three levels of subscription involved in our historical endorsement of creeds: the catholic or universal, the evangelical or Protestant, and the reformed.

1. Apostles’ Creed—catholic.

2. Nicene Creed—catholic.

3. Scots’ Confession—catholic, evangelical, reformed.

4. Heidelberg Catechism—catholic, evangelical, reformed.

5. Second Helvetic Confession—catholic, evangelical, reformed.

6. Westminster Confession and Shorter Catechism—catholic, evangelical, reformed.

7. Barmen Declaration—ambiguously catholic (orthodox or neo-orthodox interpretation possible).

8. Revised Confession of 1967—ambiguously catholic (orthodox and neo-orthodox elements present).

Thus we have in the Book of Confessions four confessions that are merely catholic; that is, they teach the general Christian truths accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Protestant churches, as historically expressed in their creeds. Two of them (Apostles’ and Nicene) teach only and unambiguously catholic truths. The other two deal only with the general catholic truths: one (Barmen) is ambiguously orthodox or neo-orthodox, while the other (C67) is mixedly orthodox and neo-orthodox. Four of the confessions (Scots’, Heidelberg, Second Helvetic, Westminster) deal, in addition, with specifically evangelical doctrines that distinguish Protestant churches from the Eastern and the Roman (the sole authority of Holy Scripture, the doctrine of justification by faith alone). These same four documents are also reformed; they include the doctrines that distinguish the Reformed churches from other Protestant churches. These doctrines are usually designated as the five points of Calvinism: the corruption of the whole human nature (not the total corruption of human nature, but the corruption of total human nature), unconditional election, the specific design of the Atonement, efficacious grace, and the perseverance of believers.

It should also be noted that there are some extraneous elements in the Book of Confessions. For example, the Second Helvetic (Chap. XI) includes a reference to “the ever virgin Mary.” The perpetual virginity of Mary, while it has been held in some churches, cannot be called a universal or catholic doctrine. Again, the revised C67 still contains such expressions as: “The new life takes shape in a community in which men know that God loves and accepts them in spite of what they are” (Part I, Section C, 1). If God does accept men in spite of what they are, he accepts men who are unbelievers. Thus all men, believers and unbelievers, are accepted by God; C67 teaches the divine acceptance of all men. This is not catholic, evangelical, or reformed; it is a grievous heresy. In brief, then, we have in the Book of Confessions some documents that are merely catholic; others that are catholic, evangelical, and reformed; and, scattered throughout some of them, elements that are not catholic, evangelical, or reformed.

The crucial question, then, concerns subscription to the “Book of Confessions.” Would a church officer be required in taking his vows to indicate that he accepts the catholic? or the catholic and the evangelical? or the catholic, evangelical, and reformed? We turn to the text: “(3) Will you perform the duties of ruling elder (or deacon) (or, a minister of the Gospel) in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of the Scriptures, and under the continuing instruction and guidance of the confessions of this Church?” (Minutes of the General Assembly, Part I, 1966, pp. 248,249.) He thus would promise to perform his duties under the “instruction” and “guidance” of the Book of Confessions.

Some hold that these words do not necessarily commit the ordinand to believing that in which he is instructed and by which he is guided. They usually admit that the words call for a high degree of respect and consideration for the instruction and guidance of the Book of Confessions; but this may fall short of an actual adherence.

Since it is difficult for some to understand this mentality, let us attempt to explain it further. Those who take this position usually point out that a person who studies under a professor or receives his guidance in a subject from some book does not necessarily agree with either the instruction or the guidance. He may well be on his own as to what he does actually believe and what instruction he will follow. “Under the instruction and guidance” of anything means merely that a person considers, very respectfully, what these persons, institutions, or documents teach and presumably follows them, unless his own judgment is contrary. It is thus his own judgment that is the instruction and guidance he will actually follow, whether or not it concurs with the instruction and guidance he has received. The language of the vow does not clearly rule out this interpretation.

What appears to be the majority school of thought construes this language of subscription as meaning that the ordinand is to accept (and not merely consider respectfully) what is catholic, evangelical, and reformed in the Book of Confessions. This majority interprets “performing duties” under the “continuing instruction and guidance of” to mean the acceptance of this instruction and guidance on these three levels: catholic, evangelical, and reformed doctrine.

This view was very clearly evident at the 1966 General Assembly when this subscription vow was considered. A proposed amendment read: “These words to be added—‘which are affirmed of setting forth the catholic, evangelical and reformed faith.’ ” One can see that this amendment was intended to remove all ambiguity from the expression “instruction and guidance.” Had it passed, it would have made the subscription indubitably clear. In fact, it would have meant the adoption of what is, essentially, the present way of subscribing to the Westminster Standards. This amendment would have had the ordinand say explicitly that he accepts what is catholic, evangelical, and reformed, not merely in the Westminster Standards, which still continue (minus the Larger Catechism), but in the entire Book of Confessions. In other words, had this amendment passed, the United Presbyterian Church would have been, quantitatively, more catholic, evangelical, and reformed than it now is.

It is not enough to observe that this amendment to the subscription vow was defeated, in spite of a substantial minority vote. More significant is the reason why it was defeated. What was the mind of the General Assembly when it voted against this amendment? Let us recount the circumstances of the debate. As those present at the General Assembly in Boston well know, whenever an amendment to revised C67 was presented, the moderator called upon a member of the revision committee or of the original drafting committee to comment on the amendment. When this particular amendment was proposed, Dr. Edward A. Dowey was asked to comment. Speaking presumably for the two committees, he said he opposed the amendment because it was “unnecessary.” He was not basically against it, he said, but felt that it was already implicitly present in the proposal. It is extremely important to notice that he opposed this amendment, not because he was against it in principle, but because he felt its content had already been stated satisfactorily in the broad context of the Book of Confessions and the subscription provisions.

The Reverend Byron Crazier, of Indiana, Pennsylvania, as the mover of the amendment, was given the privilege of the final speech before voting. In that speech he argued that, since the substance of his amendment was conceded as already implicitly present, why not spell it out and make it explicit? In other words, he, as the main spokesman for the amendment, and Dr. Dowey, as the main spokesman against it, were standing on the same ground, that the substance of the amendment was already implicitly present. Dr. Dowey then opposed the amendment because he felt it was unnecessary, while Mr. Crozier urged it because he thought it advisable and helpful even if not absolutely necessary. That was the essence of the debate on this very, very crucial amendment, which then failed to pass.

What is the status of affairs now as the Book of Confessions goes before the presbyteries for decisive voting? In the opinion of this writer, it can be described only as ambiguous. For on this crucial matter of the subscription vow (far and away the most crucial, because it includes all others in its vast sweep) there is a conflict between language and intention. The language simply does not say that the ordinand believes the “instruction” and will necessarily follow the “guidance.” It would have been very simple to use clear language at this vital point, and it is inexcusable that instead, vague and debatable language was used. If a great church is going to have vows, it certainly ought to make them unambiguously clear. This vow is not clear.

On the other hand, it cannot be said that this language has no cogency at all. It may lack ultimate clarity, but it certainly moves in a particular direction. It may not say enough, but it definitely says something. A person who promises to perform his duties under the instruction and guidance of something certainly cannot be cavalier, disrespectful, or inconsiderate of it.

However, this point remains the most defective item in the entire Book of Confessions and threatens to vitiate the entire document if it is construed with strictest literality.

This leads us to observe the all-important intention of the 1966 General Assembly in recommending this document to the presbyteries. The mind of the assembly, as far as it was expressed by proponents and opponents of this amendment, was that the subscription to catholic, evangelical, and reformed elements in the Book of Confessions was present, implicitly at least, in this third vow. The animus imponendi (that is, the mind or intention of the one imposing) of the entire assembly, insofar as it was expressed on the floor, was that performing one’s duty under the instruction and guidance of the Book of Confessions is tantamount to believing what is catholic, evangelical, and reformed in the Book of Confessions.

This animus imponendi is vital in determining the meaning of any statement. Otherwise, subscribers would be permitted to construe words precisely as they pleased. Subscription would then mean nothing, because each subscriber could make the statement mean anything he wanted it to. As a New England divine once said, “You cannot write a creed which I cannot subscribe.” He meant that he could subscribe to any creed if he were permitted to place his own meaning on the words. But there is a meaning placed upon the words by the body that draws up a creed; there is an animus imponendi. It is a part of the understanding of the very words that future subscribers will endorse. This is vitally important. There can be no doubt that the animus imponendi of the General Assembly in May, 1966, as it was articulated in debate, was that the third subscription vow meant the acceptance of that which is catholic, evangelical, and reformed in the Book of Confessions.

(Incidentally, if this is understood, we can see that anything that is not catholic, evangelical, or reformed in any one or all eight of the documents would not be an item of subscription. Consistency would thus be maintained in subscribing the sometimes conflicting eight creeds.)

As the presbyteries proceed to vote and as the 1967 assembly perhaps faces the question of ratification, the situation confronting us is ambiguous. Because the language of this all-important vow is not precise and clear in binding the ordinand to the catholic, evangelical, and reformed elements in the Book of Confessions, we are unsatisfied with this document—in fact, grievously distressed with it. On the other hand, since the intention or the animus imponendi of the General Assembly made clear what the language left imprecise, we are profoundly grateful to God for the accomplishment of this past year of church-wide debate. If this overture is defeated, we hope it is defeated because of the inadequacy of the language. It it is passed, we shall insist that it was passed carrying the meaning that was given it by the General Assembly that referred it to the presbyteries. We will then say to the world that the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America is today, in its officially subscribed documents, more catholic, evangelical, and reformed than ever before.

The Christ who comforts troubled hearts is also the One who disturbs complacent men and exposes hypocrisy

We most often think of the Messiah as the Comforter who comes with healing in his wings, speaking peace to troubled hearts. But Isaiah writes: “So shall he startle many nations” (Isa. 52:15, RSV). Here the Messiah is seen as one who disturbs, startles, and confounds. For some he will be a Deliverer, for others a Disturber. Christ endangers the thought patterns and way of life of those who hear him.

First, Christ is a danger to closed and prejudiced minds. It has been said that there is no pain like the pain of a new idea. We all have our own little thought-world that we do not want disturbed. The closed mind of the first century passed Bethlehem by despite the Prophet Micah’s word that the Messiah was to be born there. The closed mind of Nathaniel answered Philip’s invitation to come and see Jesus with the question, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?”—and yet Jesus hallowed Nazareth by spending thirty years of his life there. The closed mind of the Jews who heard Jesus teach at the feast of tabernacles led them to ask, “How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?” Yet Jesus has been the inspiration for the founding of more schools and the writing of more books than anyone else. None of our prejudices are safe in the presence of Christ.

In the spring of 1924, Negro troops were stationed in Germany, and there was a great deal of resentment against them. Roland Hayes, the American Negro tenor, was touring Europe and had scheduled a concert in Berlin. When he appeared to sing, the audience hissed and booed. Hayes waited until they were quiet and then sang Schubert’s, “Thou Art My Peace.” The audience listened in hushed silence. After it was over, Roland Hayes said that this was not a personal victory but the victory of a force that sang within him and subdued the hatred of the audience. We too may know that power; it is the power of the dangerous Christ who will have no part with our prejudices.

Second, Christ is a danger to selfish interests. His stand on greed and exploitation is startling indeed. Listen to him: “Whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it.” And again, “What does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?” Was it not dangerous for the rich young ruler to come to Jesus with the question, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” For Jesus’ reply was, “Go, sell what you possess and give to the poor … and come, follow me.” The price was too great. The young man loved his possessions too much, and he went away sorrowful. But he went away.

Was it not dangerous for the scribes and the Pharisees to expose themselves to Jesus’ withering blasts about greed that hides beneath the cloak of religion? He said to them, “You devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers; therefore you shall receive the greater damnation.” Was it not dangerous for two of his disciples and their mother to request the chief seats in the coming Kingdom? Jesus let them know immediately that honors are not passed out in the Kingdom as politicians pass them out here. In reply to their request, Jesus asked, “Are you able to be baptized with my baptism?” And he gave us the guideline for our lives when he said, “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.”

Christ still stands as the greatest menace to greed and selfishness. We need desperately to learn that any evil promoted for selfish gain at the expense of human personality must face the condemnation of Christ. Slavery, the liquor traffic, prostitution, war, white supremacy—these stand in danger in the presence of Christ. For all of them, Christ spells ultimate doom.

Third, Christ is dangerous to those who casually and formally profess religion. Whenever he comes in contact with them, he tears the cloak of pride and unreality from their shallow piety. To those who came to worship he said, “Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.” To be insincere in Christ’s presence is always dangerous. It is perilous to attempt even a mild deception of God. “Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” To boast of piety is always dangerous. The Pharisee who came to the temple to worship said, “God, I thank thee that I am not as other men.” He did not receive the Lord.

When we come into the Lord’s presence we should always be searching our hearts to see what he sees. Too many of us have the outward form but inwardly are, as Jesus said to the Pharisees, “full of dead men’s bones.” Christ always sees us for what we really are. He detects our formality and our empty professions and declares that harlots and publicans will enter the Kingdom ahead of mere formal professors of religion.

Fourth, Christ is a danger to evil-doers and those who defy God’s moral order. This danger we recognize more readily than the others. We all can see that Christ imperils evil. Consider Herod. He was terrified when he heard of Jesus’ birth. And his terror was well founded, for the baby in the manger was a threat to everything Herod represented. After Hitler’s fall, William C. Kernan wrote, “It has taken ten years since the rise of Hitler to make us see that men who renounce sound moral principles have only the alternative left of acting like animals in response to the demand of their unbridled passions.” When Hitler came to power, he feared Jesus and realized that he was the greatest threat to all his insane plans. This led to his systematic persecution of Christians as well as Jews. “Those who sought the child’s life are dead”—this can still be said. None can defy God’s moral order with impunity, because “whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.”

Not many of us openly defy God’s moral order. We rather try to reconcile ourselves to an easy-going existence made up of too much evil and too little positive good. We excuse our sin: it is “just human nature” and we are not really responsible. Our mean disposition? Inherited from grandfather. And a really Christ-like life is impossible these days, we tell ourselves.

Yet all the while this dangerous Christ is making us uncomfortable in our complacency. He will not let us rest. He is always saying to us, “I offer you more than an example; I offer you myself. Let me come in. Let me speak the healing word of forgiveness and peace. Let me release my power in your life. Let me be your Saviour and Lord.” And our answer to him will determine whether he is our danger or our deliverer, our ruin or our redemption.

In the Times of London, a correspondent has said that the Christian Church today has two radically different views of how to change the world. One way advocated is personal regeneration and spiritual and moral influence, represented by Billy Graham; the other, world revolution and the corporate church’s engagement in political affairs, represented by Martin Luther King.

A dramatic moment in the World Congress on Evangelism opened a wide window on the redemptive power of the Gospel. Two Auca Indians from the jungles of eastern Ecuador, where five missionaries were martyred about eleven years ago, told how they had “lived like animals before we believed” and how Christ has transformed them and the Auca village of Tiwaeno.

No sooner had these Indians finished giving their witness for Christ at the Berlin Kongresshalle than a black-skinned African delegate stood up, ran down the aisle, leaped onto the platform, and threw his arms around one of the Aucas in a fervent Christian embrace. Only a century ago the Gospel had reached the interior of Africa; now Auca and African could rejoice together in the redemptive power of Christ over the dark forces of a fallen world.