Scientists hope to transfer brain matter and stored information from one person to another

Is the age-old struggle for domination of men’s minds about to enter a terrifying new stage?

This is the oldest struggle in the world, for it has been waged since the beginning of recorded time. The Old Testament places the first encounter in the Garden of Eden, and the New Testament tells of the battle for men’s allegiance between forces of good and evil within and without the Church, involving both intrigue and face-to-face confrontation.

In Athens and Corinth and later in Rome the struggle added philosophical and political aspects, but it was still largely face-to-face.

Then about 1450, with the invention of movable type by Gutenberg in Germany, a battle on a totally different plane and scale was opened up. Far easier printing and much wider ownership of books took the struggle into the home itself. Telling arguments could be preserved permanently.

After this, save for the slow development of propaganda techniques, nothing revolutionary appeared for another 450 years. True, the telegraph quickened news transmission, engraving brightened the pages, and mechanical typesetting and better presses sped printing processes. But the product was almost unchanged. When the movies appeared and three decades later the radio, their fascination for men’s imagination created a new world for exploitation by advertisers and entertainers.

Another twenty-five years later Pandora opened her box again, and TV’s parade of crime, horror, and mediocrity (though there is also much of merit) became another staggering problem. Books, magazines, newspapers, the pulpit, and even TV itself have flayed the misuse of this sometimes great communication medium. Yet mostly it appears that our generation has decided to try to live with TV as it is.

But what of the future? Can it be that modern science has new and worse problems in store for all humanity?

If present scientific portents can be interpreted correctly, men’s brain-stuff itself may be a sought-after prize in the next decade! Note the following progression.

In information theory, scientists have a well-developed body of hypotheses concerning the transmission of information electrically, as in the ordinary telegraph, and electronically, as in radio that uses electronic tubes. We also have a second body of theory to explain how human beings acquire, transmit, and react, to communication content.

Is it too early to anticipate that in the next decade further scientific theorizing will lead to biochemical means for transmission of information genetically from generation to generation and directly from person to person through transference of brain matter?

If this sounds fantastic or beyond belief, don’t be too certain. Look at the following recent reports.

Learning acquired in a scientist’s maze has already been transferred from “educated” flatworms to uneducated flatworms when the heads of the former were fed to the latter.

Hydén, the Swedish neurobiologist, not long ago discovered that RNA, the now-well-known ribonucleic acid, is basically changed within certain creatures during the learning process.

At the University of California, in experiments by scientists Fried and Horowitz, a “memory molecule” was transferred from one flatworm to another by the injection of RNA from the first into the second, so that the second knew what the first had formerly known.

One of the pharmaceutical manufacturers has announced the development of a compound that enables rats to learn five times faster. This drug works by speeding up synthesis of RNA. It is reported that the Food and Drug Administration has been asked to authorize its use in human beings.

And scientist Johns, formerly a brain researcher at the University of Rochester, has found that if the human brain is supplied with more RNA, more information can be stored in it. Such successes will speed other experiments to discover the relationship of RNA to human beings.

Also, at UCLA it has been announced that knowledge stored in the RNA in brain tissue can be transmitted from one species to another by hypodermic needles. Scientists Babich, Jacobson, and Bubash are said to have transferred knowledge from hamsters to rats through the medium of RNA.

Already we know that genetic material carries hereditary information that makes each individual be and look like what he is. This is carried in the DNA-RNA complex.

Science’s search for basic knowledge about human beings will not cease—and should not. It is the technological use to which such knowledge is put that gives concern.

For a long time parts of the human body have been transferred from one person to another. The blind have been made to see. The dying have been given new life through blood transfusions. A few other transplants have been successful or partially so. And mechanical devices are keeping still others alive.

We see no moral implications in ethically conducted transplantation of human matter.

But will the day come when biological technology will transplant “educated” human RNA with the hypodermic needle in order to preserve the knowledge of an Albert Einstein or a John von Neumann? What of experiments in which spiritual attitudes are modified, a task heretofore considered the special province of the Holy Spirit?

Possibly the experiment will be tried … perhaps the jab of that needle may already have been started on its historic path before this is published.

Some things we know …

That life, intelligence, and talents come as gifts from the One who created us all;

That on the day of judgment each man will be held accountable for his actions, and further that the omnipotent God knows all we do, say, and think;

That each man is expected to develop fully all the talents with which God has endowed him;

And, finally, that in all brain transplantation efforts, in the use of brain tissue to transmit human experience by whatever method, moral and theological problems are involved that are too grave for further laboratory experimentation until the issues have been made clear.

Man, born a sinful animal and not able to control his lust to exploit, misuse, and destroy his fellow men, is not yet wise enough to use the incredible powers science is gradually putting into his hands.

Should mankind try to alter human genes or chromosomes under any circumstances, would the creatures produced by such alteration be human robots? We may well ask, What of their souls? Man must not assume an impious and infamous role by trying to play God.

The High Cost Of Non-Evangelism

The budget for Billy Graham’s London Crusade ’66 was $840,000. This was, as Graham remarked, “about what Cassius Clay got for less than three minutes in the ring with Sonny Liston.” By any reckoning this is a lot of money, and to the uninformed critic of mass evangelism it seems a big “take” for Graham. The evangelist usually reiterates that none of the money raised locally goes to any member of the team; all is used to defray the expenses of the local crusade for which Graham and his associates have been invited. Still this cash flow for one month’s crusade for souls looks large—particularly to those who have given none of it, or to those who prefer to see church funds expended for non-evangelistic endeavors.

In London approximately 42,500 inquirers came forward for counseling. If only half of these inquirers made genuine decisions for Christ, the evangelistic cost would have been $40 each.

The United Church of Canada (1,063,951 members), largest Protestant denomination in Canada and one of the most vigorous critics of Graham during the past year, has had a steady decline of members “received on profession of faith” since 1958. In 1964, 34,226 members were received; but this was 7,489 fewer than in 1958. The total congregational expenses for the year 1964 were $52,402,219. If only one-fifth was spent on church growth, the cost of adding one new member was over $300, a figure comparable to that in some other larger churches.

If the main objective of every church and evangelistic crusade is church growth, can such an expenditure be accepted with indifference? Canadian ecclesiastics who deplore the high cost of mass evangelism ought rather to deplore the higher cost of non-evangelism.

Some ardent ecumenists also would do well to reckon with the plain facts when they hail church union as a way of accelerating the missionary program at reduced cost. The first large church union in North America came about in 1925, when Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists formed the United Church of Canada. At that time the Methodists and Presbyterians had a total of 550 missionaries in the field. Today, after forty years of combined effort, there are only 263 missionaries, even though the membership of the church has nearly doubled.

During this same period, the total number of missionaries sent by North American churches has increased. This increase comes chiefly from the small evangelical churches rather than from the larger union churches. Whatever might be the advantages of church union, expansion of the missionary program, which ought to have priority, does not appear to be one of them.

Many years ago i saw one of the world’s greatest magicians perform some amazing feats of legerdemain. If we in the audience had not known we were being deceived, we would all have believed he had supernatural powers. Through his quickness of hand, practiced diverting of the audience’s attention, and use of prepared props and equipment, the magician gave us a good show, both amusing and instructive.

Today, within the bounds of the Church, we are witnessing a Satanic work of deception and substitution that is intended to deceive even the very elect. This giant hoax is the substitution of humanism for Christianity.

The welfare of man is a worthy objective. But when that welfare becomes an end in itself, with no reference to man’s eternal soul, it is high time that Christians take a look.

Humanism’s concern is for material values, but Christianity places spiritual values above all else.

Humanism is concerned with now, with time and all that occurs in the present. Christianity’s eyes are set on eternity, on the city made without hands, eternal in the heavens.

For the humanist, the “gospel” has to do with man’s reconciliation to man; but Christianity’s Gospel puts man’s reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ above all else.

The humanist sees “sin” as primarily man’s maladjustment to man; for the Christian, sin is disobedience to God’s revealed will.

Humanism is concerned about man’s physical, environmental, emotional, and material welfare, but not about his soul. Christianity recognizes that only as man is reconciled to God can he be properly adjusted to the conditions of everyday life, and that by the presence and grace of God situations that otherwise would be unbearable are often means to draw him closer to God.

Humanism is willing to make use of any secular power or means to accomplish its ends. Christianity depends on the presence and power of the Holy Spirit for its effectiveness.

Christians need to recognize the solemn fact that humanism is not an ally in making the world a better place in which to live. It is a deadly enemy for it is a religion without God and without hope in this world or the next.

The danger lies in the confusion of the objectives of humanism and Christianity, a confusion rooted in totally divergent concepts of God and man.

In 1933 a group of humanists convened and prepared a manifesto. This was signed by thirty-four of their leaders, twelve of whom were prominent ministers. The manifesto was as follows:

“First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

“Second: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.

“Third: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

“Fourth: Humanism recognizes that man’s religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage.…

“Fifth: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.… Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

“Sixth: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of ‘new thought.’

“Seventh: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation—all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

“Eighth: Religious humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion.

“Ninth: In place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

“Tenth: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

“Eleventh: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

“Twelfth: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

“Thirteenth: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life.… Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

“Fourteenth: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself inadequate and that radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that equitable distribution of the means of life is possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

“Fifteenth and last: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from it; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.”

This manifesto is a frank statement of the great counterfeit being perpetrated on today’s world, one for which many within the Church have fallen.

Play down the fact of sin in the human heart; think of man as sufficient in himself; obliterate God and his Christ from their sovereign rights—then you have humanism as a substitute for Christianity, and man’s efforts in the place of redemption through Christ.

Humanism, the supreme counterfeit, is here among us. Recognize it and turn from it as you would turn from the plague. Our hope is in Christ and in nothing else.

Throughout the long years of the people of God, it has pleased him “by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”

Admittedly there is a great deal of preaching today unworthy of the name. There are dialectical sounds and existential fury, signifying nothing. There are the sounding brass of religious rationalism and the tinkling cymbals of a sterile fundamentalism. But in the midst of it all, God’s eternal Word continues to break through, bringing life.

Great preaching has always been and will ever be. Its nature remains substantially the same from age to age. First, and most important of all, a man must have great spiritual gifts. Natural talent is needed also, but the spiritual is the sine qua non. Great preaching is the result of a living and transforming relationship with the risen and ascended Christ, of a genuine and authentic piety, of a fellowship in the life eternal from which emanate great convictions, great compassion, and great understanding.

Unless a man is marked in some unmistakable measure as truly a man of God, then no matter what his gifts for preaching may be—a silver tongue, a golden voice, a towering intellect, a “powerful pulpit presence” (whatever that means)—he ought to consider some other calling. He might do splendidly on the stage or the screen, on the rostrum, in the school, the courthouse, or the chambers of Congress, but without the Spirit of the living God he has no place in the pulpit.

In my own preaching, I try to follow the lessons I have learned. The art of preaching is now a familiar skill. As is true of so many of my fellow ministers, my problem is no longer knowing what to do or how to do it. It is simply getting on with the job. We all find it too easy, with the many demands upon our time and energy, to shirk this sublime task for which we are peculiarly called.

This leads me to say something that is obvious, but that must be repeated often: A good sermon must be well prepared. No man should attempt to serve God in this high and holy way with that which cost him little. The preacher must read much; he must give much time and effort to his primary task. Preparation is general before it is specific.

Preaching is not preaching unless it is based upon the Word of God. Much of my own preaching is textual or expository. The mid-week and Sunday-evening messages are largely of this type. There is more variation in those of Sunday morning. Though predominantly textual, they are often topical in character; but they are always biblical.

The seasons and events of the church year form a significant part of my preaching program. I stake out the broad outlines of this “occasional preaching” well in advance. There is a certain discipline in these matters that comes to a man who speaks fourteen or fifteen years from the same pulpit—two, three and four times a week, “in season, out of season” (and sometimes he is more out of season!).

A man ought to be thoroughly familiar with any portion of Scripture he tries to expound, and he ought to know precisely the point he is trying to make. If he does not, it is doubtful whether many of his congregation will be able to divine his intention. Therefore, I believe that the structure of every sermon ought to be carefully and simply wrought. The sermon may be weighty, it may be profound, it may even be eloquent; but it ought to be simple in the best sense of that word (mine have not always been so). To quote Dr. William Evans: “Jesus said ‘feed my sheep,’ not ‘feed my giraffes.’ ”

Preparation includes not only wide reading in many fields—such as history, literature, biography, current affairs—but also careful observation of people (especially children) and quiet reflection upon what one has read, seen, and experienced. Remembering Him, there is not only a full heart but a full cup.

Illustrations, not always the most felicitous part of sermons, may well come from a variety of sources, but they come best out of one’s own experience. It took me a long time to discover this simple fact. Nothing ever exciting or dramatic happened to me, and so I would talk about what happened to others and what George Washington said at Valley Forge. Then I found that when I take proper care to avoid any unseemly projection of self, people really want to hear what Christ means to me in my daily experience.

However, just as an introduction should introduce and a conclusion should conclude, an illustration ought always to illustrate something!

The occasion is rare—all too rare—when I write out a sermon in full. Speaking is easy, writing a chore. I generally write out a brief introduction and a brief conclusion, and then write the outline of the body more or less fully as time and circumstances permit. The outline is clear (to me) and the transitions unmistakable. I then preach without notes. The advantages and disadvantages of this classic method are well known. The younger minister ought frequently to write out his sermons in full, but as he becomes more experienced he also ought to experiment with the tremendous freedom of extemporaneous speech.

As a sermon is not a sermon unless drawn from the Word of God, so preparation is not preparation unless conceived in prayer and concluded with prayer. Prayer is not only “the soul’s sincere desire” but also the touchstone of the preacher’s utterance.

Whereas preparation and prayer are the twin fountains of light springing from the oracles of God, so each sermon ought to be prophetic and personal. A prophet seeks to declare the mind of Christ—not his own views, not his own thoughts, predilections, hopes, or desires. The prophet is God’s spokesman, and his only authority is the Word of God, “which liveth and abideth forever.”

Many a good sermon fails of its purpose because the “net is left dangling”; the application is not made. George Buttrick would say that the Gospel ought to be applied in every sermon of whatever character, and Edward Mack would say that a good sermon like a good hymn should end in heaven.

Surely no matter where we start or where we go, we ought at last to make “cross country” to Christ. “Christ is the end for Christ is the beginning; Christ, the beginning, for the end is Christ.”

And this is the purpose of all preaching, the consummation of our noblest hopes, and the coronation of our best efforts.—The Rev. J. WAYTE FULTON, JR., Shenandoah Presbyterian Church, Miami, Florida.

Socialism and the Great Commission

The Classic Plot

I am just back from a conversation—or maybe a dialogue, but hardly a dialectic, although it could have been a plain argument—with my barber. Since he had his scissors in hand and gesticulated more than somewhat, he was able to make his points better than I.

To get the facts straight (though nothing ruins a good dialogue like facts), he told me that something he had read in some magazine—he couldn’t remember which one—had convinced him that a very strange thing has happened in these United States.

His information went something like this: although everyone is against the fact that 50,000 people are killed on our highways every year and about 500,000 very badly wounded, the whole economic system of the United States would end up worse than it was in the depression of 1929 if it weren’t for all “them” accidents.

“It’s a funny thing,” he said (using the word “funny” rather loosely, I think), “but when a man has a wreck on the highway, that gives business to the junk dealers or the body repairmen or the engine men, and the doctor, the lawyer, the policeman, the insurance companies, and the undertakers, not to speak of preachers and florists.”

“When you think about it,” he said, “what about all that money that circulates around just because of one accident? And how many accidents does it take to kill 50,000 people and hurt 500,000 other people? Then there are the hospitals, too, and you know those bills are pretty high. Where would we be if all that money wasn’t put into circulation?”

“It’s a funny thing,” he said again, “when your whole economic system depends on people getting killed and hurt. And then there are all those crazy wars, too.”

I tried to point out that this is what the preachers are saying when they talk about our participation in a sinful society. There is something dead wrong about the whole show.

Back in the gay twenties it was pretty hard to get people to talk seriously about sin. Everyday things were getting better in every way. Now everybody from Sartre to Camus to my barber has suddenly discovered the “exceeding sinfulness of sin.”

But the classic plot is as follows: Sin, Guilt, Redemption. What the world is waiting for now is some “good news”—in case anyone has any.

EUTYCHUS II

Standing By The Money Bags

Your advance treatment of the World Conference on Church and Society in Geneva (“The World Council and Socialism,” July 8 issue) correctly pointed out the dangerous continuing association between ecumenists and socialistic theory at the expense of the prime Christian witness. However, I believe CHRISTIANITY TODAY and other evangelical mouthpieces are continuing to slide into an equally dangerous anti-socialistic and pro-capitalistic rut.…

You state that “the Bible nowhere advocates Marxist theory,” but you fail to state what also follows—neither does the Bible advocate capitalistic theory. You also fail to draw a distinct line between Marxist economic theory and Marxist political theory. The latter is the only one the church can properly dispute since it suppresses religion and the dignity and freedom of the human conscience. Socialism per se is an economic, not religious, matter.…

JOHN ROSS THOMPSON

Asst. Minister

First Methodist Church

Carroll, Iowa.

I wonder if you realize that your attack on all liberals who may have socialistic tendencies puts you in a position of being the “churchmen” who are always found standing by the “money-bags.” I would not like to detail the proofs of this condition in the Church today. Would you like to have to make a detailed report on the sources of your income? It might be a reflection on the Church. Jesus himself would not carry money. Why should we as Christians be so devoted to it today … and all those who have it?

JOHN C. HIRSCHLER

Indianapolis, Ind.

Congratulations on the excellent issue of July 8, and especially the incisive and informative article on “The World Council and Socialism.” Splendid!…

V. R. EDMAN

Chancellor

Wheaton College

Wheaton, Ill.

Contrary to the apparent opinion of these men, the Christian faith is not whatever you care to make of it but is the faith once for all delivered to the saints by Christ, his prophets and apostles. If they don’t care to accept their testimony, that is their perfect civil right; but one would think that honesty would prohibit them from invoking our Lord’s name in describing their latest brainstorms.… If your purpose was to try to influence these men to rethink their positions by your able and valid critique, then I doubt if you’ll succeed, as these men obviously couldn’t care less if their thoughts are contrary to Scripture. They are their own authorities in matters of what they consider faith.

EARL A. BIELEFELD

Vicar

Zion Evangelical Lutheran

Hopkins, Minn.

I am astonished to read both your article and your editorial (July 8 issue) and to find that you attribute a series of quotations to me that are from Richard Shaull’s article. You must have read my name as the author of the Foreword and then failed to notice that on page 23 a new chapter begins by Shaull. I have some responsibility for printing Shaull’s chapter first because of its provocative character, but my own emphasis, especially on the issue of contextual ethics, is quite different. You do not give any indication of having read my Epilogue, but you will find an analysis of this subject on pages 375, 376. Also my whole way of dealing with “The Responsible Society” idea preserves principles. I refer to them as “the deposit of previous revolutions.” The deposit is the institutionalization of the principles rather than the principles themselves.

I am sure that you would disagree with my position, but your article does give to some of the ideas that belong especially to Shaull and to Paul Lehmann a disproportionate place. I am sure that the book as a whole is opposed to your emphasis on what would seem to most of the authors to be biblical legalism and also to your great preference for economic individualism.…

I am very glad that Shaull’s chapter is in the book because he provides the kind of shock that is most needed in the American churches, and not least by readers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

JOHN C. BENNETT

President

Union Theological Seminary

New York, N. Y.

• We apologize for attributing quotations from pages 26–41 of Christian Social Ethics in a Changing World, edited by John C. Bennett, to Dr. Bennett rather than to Richard Schaull. As he notes, Dr. Bennett does not identify himself with contextual theories of ethics but promotes principles (of a sort, we should add). While he affirms principles as “the deposit of previous revolutions,” he rejects universally fixed principles grounded in divine revelation and applicable to all concrete situations. How this repudiation of revealed principles maintains an assured devotion to the will of God and avoids moral relativism in concrete situations it is difficult to see. And why ought the Church to elevate to priority the promotion of particular policies and programs that God has not disclosed?

Ecumenical social theory today often differs from Marxism mainly in the rejection of the Marxist view of history, but the social changes it promotes are no less radical. On the ground of the supposed dynamic evolutionary character of history and its unique situational elements, it switches from principles to pragmatic political strategy, espousing socialist convictions piecemeal and advancing socialist institutional goals.

For all his affection for “principles” and dissociation from situational ethics, Dr. Bennett is no advocate of revealed biblical principles. Moreover, he views socialism as morally preferable to capitalism, as if collectivism were a divine social goal. All such programs of “Christian Marxism” seem to us to be based on a self-righteous illusion about modern man and society.

The New Testament indeed holds out the possibility of a new society, but it does not view socialism as the embodiment of justice. The new society exists in miniature in the regenerate Church, and only as men are spiritually renewed does it come into being, until Christ at last establishes it in power. Protestant liberalism, a generation ago, sought to bring in a new society not of regenerate believers but of socialist ideals inculcated by education and moral persuasion. Ecumenical social ethics retains much the same vision, and more and more approves government compulsion and even revolution as means.

It is noteworthy that Union Theological Seminary, with a capitalistic endowment of over $17 million has made no distribution of these assets to any “share the wealth” program.—ED.

Mosques In The East

The essay, “Why Did Churches Become Mosques in the East?,” by Hermann Sasse (June 24 issue), is a fine outline of Christian history, covering, as it does, much that has scarcely been mentioned by ministers from the pulpits. Just why ignorance of the Church’s failures in history has remained such a hush-hush matter remains no credit or value to the churches. The slogan: “Where ignorance is bliss ’tis folly to be wise” turns out to be a rather tragic strategy. You have done yourself and your magazine an honor by printing the essay.…

SHEPPARD O. SMITH

Mobile, Ala.

When I read [the essay] the question came to mind whether American churches will soon become political convention halls or simply social centers. As Prof. Sasse pointed out, Christians should be concerned about political and social matters, but the task of the Church as an organization is not political and social reform. It is rather the faithful proclamation of a Christian faith and life based squarely upon the Word of God. According to that Word, the Gospel is the message of a forgiveness that leads to a life of sanctification and service. As long as this is recognized, American churches will never be corrupted into mere political and social centers.

BERNARD DENOUDEN

Modesto, Calif.

Hermann Sasse’s article should be studied by all Christians, but especially by our Orthodox Christians.… I wish I could have fifty reprints.…

GREGORY ROWLEY

St. Mary’s Orthodox Church

Omaha, Neb.

Hitler’S ‘Christian Subhumans’

Your reference to 6,000,000 Jews in your editorial “The Church in Politics”. (May 13 issue) reminded me of something I had read recently.…

Max I. Dimont, in Jews, God and History, says:

From that first day in power to that April day in 1945 when, with Berlin ablaze, Hitler shot himself through the mouth, the Germans exterminated with systematized murder 12 million men, women and children, in concentration camps, by firing squads and in gas chambers. Of these 12 million victims, 7 million were Christians and 5 million Jews—1.4 Christians for every Jew. But because the Nazis shouted “Kill the Jews,” the world blinded itself to the murder of Christians.…

The “final solution,” as envisaged by Hitler, included not only the murder of all Jews in Europe, but also the enslavement of all “Christian subhumans” like Russians, Poles, Rumanians, Hungarians and Yugoslavs, and their reduction in number through a ruthless program of planned extermination [pp. 373, 379].

ANDREW POUSMA

Honolulu, Hawaii

Pseudo-Psychology

I appreciated very much your recent article, “Pseudo-Psychology in the Church,” by Richard H. Cox (June 24 issue). It is a healthy warning to the Church at this particular time and reminds us especially that the working of God and a thorough education along with professional skills do not contradict each other.

WILLIAM KLASSEN

Director

Mennonite Mental Health Services

Elkhart, Ind.

Richard H. Cox … mentioned “qualified marriage counselors,” but he did not include the name of a professional organization. I take the liberty, therefore, of listing the American Association of Marriage Counselors (27 Woodcliff Drive, Madison, New Jersey 07940). The association maintains a directory of professionally trained marriage counselors of demonstrated competence, who have fulfilled the requirements for membership in this professional body.

ROLLIN J. FAIRBANKS

Prof. of Pastoral Theology

Episcopal Theological School

Cambridge, Mass.

In my opinion, Cox has listed excellent guidelines to help churches in their selection of qualified psychological consultants. Unfortunately, it is still difficult to find psychologists who are both professionally qualified and evangelical Christians. Hopefully this situation will improve as more Christian young people are encouraged to prepare for service in the field of psychology.

GARY R. COLLINS

Assoc. Prof. of Psychology

Bethel College

St. Paul, Minn.

Graham In London

In your thrilling London report (News, July 22 issue) you mention, “Another significant fact: Two-thirds of the inquirers are under 25,” and contrast this with Harringay in 1954, “where those going forward were predominantly middle-aged.”

It would appear that this latter statement relates to some special phase of the crusade rather than the final results. When in his Psychology of Christian Conversion Dr. Robert O. Ferm states (p. 86): “The Billy Graham converts, though they include many adolescents, are noticeably among the more advanced age group,” one envisages his observing on a night like June 11, 1958, in San Francisco. That night 55.6 per cent of the inquirers were in the over-thirty age bracket. But the other extreme was May 22, when 6.9 per cent were such.

The actual final figures for the Harringay crusade given by Dr. Billy Graham (Intelligence Digest, May, 1954, p. 186) showed 65 per cent of the male inquirers and 62 per cent of the female as under nineteen, and eighty-three and seventy-eight per cent respectively under thirty. The official report, Rev. Frank Colquhoun’s Harringay Story is in agreement, as also is Dr. Charles T. Cook’s London Hears Billy Graham.

LIONEL A. HUNT

Toronto, Ont.

Beyond The Ivy-Covered Walls

Regarding the article, “Is There a Prophet in the Land?” (June 24 issue), written by, of all things, an associate professor of applied Christianity, who apparently has not gotten beyond the “ivy-covered” wall long enough to know what is going on in the Church and the world: … I would hope that Dr. John Thompson would move about in the Church and see some of the inspiring things that are being done in local parishes where ministers of the Gospel are actively engaged in leading their people to understand the challenge of the Gospel of Christ as they face the difficulties of life in the world.

I could not deny that there are many failures, but these failures are not defeats. It has been my experience in over thirteen years of parish life that men and women are anxiously receiving the challenge of the Gospel and responding to it just as they did at the time of Christ, no more enthusiastically and no less hesitantly. I believe that there are many “prophets in the land.”

EDWARD W. HOF

Bond Hill United Presbyterian

Cincinnati, Ohio

There are few prophets in the land. Dr. John Thompson discerningly states the case. His is another of the stabbingly correct analyses of the pulpit these days.

However, our numerous seminary critics should never forget that today’s pulpits are filled by yesterday’s seminarians. Maybe if the seminary profs were a bit more prophetic in the classrooms and a bit less tedious in their pursuit of “academic excellence” for learning’s sake, there might be a few more Isaiahs, Jeremiahs, Elijahs, and Pauls in the pulpits of our land, and fewer time-serving “pulpit politicians and money-raisers.” Or possibly we might suggest that the seminary professors go back to the parish ministry and show the world what real modern prophets are like. Or is that too humble a calling?

MAX R. GAULKE

First Church of God

Houston, Tex.

Brazil Speaks

The idea of a Christian university is sound in every respect and ought to be a priority item on the evangelical agenda. I’m for it 100 per cent.

ORVILLE L. WOLFF

Registrar

Instituto e Seminario Biblico

Registrar Londrin, Parana, Brazil

‘Cuckoo’

In your July 8 issue (News) you discussed “the 230,000-member Reformed Church” and “the 272,000-member Christian Reformed Church.” These figures are not arrived at from the same base. The Reformed Church in America has 232,414 communicant members and the Christian Reformed Church has 142,961 communicant members. The Reformed Church has 385,587 total baptized members and the Christian Reformed Church has 272,461. I was glad to hear of a closer fellowship between the two churches including pulpit exchanges. It has been my privilege to speak in a number of Christian Reformed pulpits.…”

I suspect that the reaction of a large part of the Reformed Church toward studying COCU will be similar to the reaction of many Southern Presbyterians toward joining COCU. Many of their leaders in this area speak of it as “cuckoo.”

JOHN H. MULLER

(Reformed Church in America)

Bethel Church

Miami, Fla.

Inner City

I would like to express my appreciation for the June 10 issue, “The Gospel and the Inner City.… It was most helpful in showing an awareness of the challenge and problems of the city and the relevance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to them.

HOWARD R. KEELEY

Executive Director

Evangelistic Association of New England

Boston, Mass.

Berlin Congress Hymn

The new hymn “Macedonia” (July 8 issue) is beautiful. The words are heartfelt and fitted to a grand old tune.

WINNIFRED M. DYER

Eliot, Me.

The hymn is meaningful to me as, so far, I have only read and reread the words. Surely we will all be singing it, one day.…

J. KENNETH GRIDER

Prof. of Theology

Nazarene Theological Seminary

Kansas City, Mo.

Lsd

As I read “The Gospel According to LSD,” by John Warwick Montgomery (Current Religious Thought, July 8 issue), I thought immediately of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, and a paraphrasing of Moffat’s translation: “And never get drunk on LSD—that means profligacy—but be filled with the Spirit …” (Eph. 5:18).

This is just another example of man trying to make a shoddy substitute for the real thing. The tragedy is that so many will pass by the “reals” and flock to the phonies.

GARDNER KOCH, JR.

Rock Hill, S. C.

Rename The Magazine

I am appalled at the lack of insight and the abundance of criticism aimed at those who have been progressive in their thought. I therefore suggest, in as loving an attitude as I can muster, that you rename your magazine: 15th Century Dogmatism and Christian Backbiting Today.

MARK BISHOP

Los Gatos, Calif.

He was a strange party guest and not altogether welcome. In fact, the Rev. Dr. Palmerson thought of him as …

Mrs. Palmerson still insists it didn’t happen at all. She says that her husband’s nerves gave way for a while that evening, or that he dozed off for a minute and dreamed the whole thing. I don’t know; he’s more self-possessed than I am if he could go to sleep even for a minute in the midst of the crowd that filled their house that night. And it would take a mighty expandable minute for all the action he keeps describing.

Judy thinks maybe there actually was an uninvited visitor at the party—though not the way her dad interpreted it, you understand. Some young fellow who had his own purposes in mind. Maybe a student from the U. who was doing a sociology paper on the Palmersons’ social stratum.

Nobody else has much of any theory at all. We just sit by watching to see what the results will be and talking over our back fences about whether we would like to have that kind of a visitor, or, for that matter, whether we’d like to have his counterpart come stepping in from the other side of the calendar. That might be even more eerie.

One thing’s sure. Dr. Palmerson is absolutely convinced. Otherwise he’d have kept quiet about the whole thing. Actually, half the people in the church wonder why he didn’t keep quiet anyway. You should hear my mother and Aunt Clarinda on that topic. But if they had heard him talk about it as much as I have these last three weeks.… I could almost believe I was at the party myself, instead of writing an exam at the U. that night in my course on Renaissance history. Hard course. If Dr. Palmerson really does resign and I have to take on more responsibility in directing Christian education at the church, I’ll be glad I got that course finished first.

January the twenty-fourth was the big night. There wasn’t any particular reason for having a party, except that the Palmersons like to entertain in a big way. Judy’s coming-out party two years ago got them in practice, and their silver wedding anniversary last year made it a habit. Some hoop-te-do that party was. So this year they just decided to have a party. Confidentially, I think it did something for Dr. Palmerson’s ego, and even more for his wife’s, to think that they could give the flossiest party of the season, with all of Cedar City’s upper crust happy to accept. Most of the guest list came from our own Third Avenue Church, of course, but there were plenty of others. Doctor, lawyer, merchant, chief—you name it. But no one from yon side of the tracks, of course.

That last fact was Dr. Palmerson’s first clue, he says. The string ensemble he had imported from the city was stringing away, the candles were burning as genteel candles should, the room was full of the fragrance of cut flowers and perfumed people, silks were shimmering, diamonds were sparkling. In the midst of it all, Dr. P. was playing the affable host par excellence when he heard a cynical voice say, “And the poor have the Gospel preached to them.”

Well, Dr. P. jumped a little and looked around. He didn’t see any face to match the voice, though, so he kept on making elegant small talk and telling his guests to have more refreshments. All the time he was trying to place that caustic voice, and the phrase it had quoted from St. Matthew was beating a refrain at the back of his mind.

After a bit he had to give his full attention to Mrs. Grierson, who was telling him how much she had liked his last sermon. Ministers at Third Avenue always have to give their full attention to Mrs. Grierson. That’s one of the dreary facts of life here. Not that she’s painful to look at; she’s my idea of what a dowager duchess ought to look like, with her sleek, smart gowns and her incredible quantities of jewelry. But she’s firm. Very firm. Diplomatic, but very firm. And she’s made a hobby of instructing preachers in the way that they should go for more years than she would like to admit.

Well, as I said, Dr. P. was giving his full attention to Mrs. Grierson when he caught a glimpse out of the corner of his eye of this shabby fellow—“about nineteen or twenty,” says Dr. Palmerson, “slender, not bad looking, with a gleam in his eye as stern as though he were helping to preside at the Last Judgment.”

“So you were preaching to please her rather than to please God,” the boy said to Dr. Palmerson. Right then, says Dr. P., thirty years of success slid off his shoulders and his soul felt utterly naked. And it was the same voice he had heard before.

He turned to ask the boy who he was and what he wanted, but the boy had moved on and mixed in with the crowd. It bothered Dr. Palmerson quite a bit. For one thing, he isn’t used to caustic comments on his preaching, and besides that he had an uneasy feeling that he ought to recognize the intruder. He was pretty sure it was an intruder; he had worked with the guest list too much to have any doubt there. He wondered what the boy wanted and what would happen next.

What happened next was pretty trivial, but it upset Dr. Palmerson more than ever. He was chatting with the Darcys and the Kramers, telling them about his last trip to Florida. “Well, I’d never been on water skis before,” he was saying, “but I thought I’d give it a try, just for the heck of it.…”

Well, he glanced up and saw the boy standing behind Mrs. Kramer, listening intently to what he was saying. When he got that far—“just for the heck of it”—the boy gave him a look of contempt and anger. “You have changed, oh, you have changed,” the boy said to him in a low voice, low but very cutting. “Thirty years ago you wouldn’t have said it that way for anything.”

Well, I guess Dr. P. just about had a coronary then and there, trying to decide in one split second how to put the impertinent boy in his place and protesting inside himself that “heck” isn’t such a bad word as all that and wondering how in the world that youngster felt qualified to talk about thirty years ago anyway and feeling mortified at being rebuked in front of his guests.

Then when he heard Mrs. Kramer saying solicitously, “Are you all right, Dr. Palmerson? You look a little ill,” he realized with some relief but with a growing uneasiness that the visitor must be a visitor only to him.

A few minutes later he saw the boy join a girl who was standing quietly and alone over by the fireplace, and the two of them started for the door. Dr. Palmerson is still wondering how things would have turned out if he had been content to leave well enough alone and had paid no attention to their departure. But he couldn’t, he says. He was pushed by an irresistible curiosity. He had more than halfway recognized the girl and had to find out.

She was about the same age as the boy, rather pretty, but as shabby as the boy and more out-of-date in her clothes. Her hair was faintly luminous and was done in a quaint style that gave Dr. Palmerson a half-conscious sensation of looking at an old photo album, he says. His wife had just stepped up to say something to him, but he muttered brusquely that he needed a breath of air and rushed to the front door just as the young couple were going out.

The girl’s face was even prettier than he had thought it from across the room; in fact, her attractiveness stirred him so oddly and so intensely that he says he should have caught on right then. The look on her face was one of indescribable sadness.

“We’re going,” she said, and Dr. P. groped like mad to try to place that voice. “You’re a bitter, bitter disappointment to us both.”

“To you? Who … what …”

“We wanted you to be a prophet and a reformer,” the boy cut in, and there was an ache in his voice that stopped Dr. Palmerson’s inquiry. “We wanted you to live by your conscience and do noble things and—and exemplify the Gospel. And instead you’re selfish and smug and materialistic.”

He bit his lip, shook his shoulders in an impetuous, indignant motion that Dr. Palmerson (startled beyond words) suddenly recognized, and started down the long stairway.

“Wait!” Dr. Palmerson’s voice was peremptory. “It’s all true,” he said slowly. “It’s all true, and more. But you can’t blame me entirely. After all, you made the decisions that started me on the road to where I am.”

Then the boy turned and came back to the top of the stairs and looked at Dr. Palmerson for a long, long moment. Dr. Palmerson says that for the first time he realized he was outside in the January night, but that the cold that chilled him was not just January cold.

“That was thirty years ago,” the boy said. “You can’t change it now, and neither can I. But you aren’t finished with your life yet. What about the man you’ll visit thirty years from now?”

Then, while Dr. Palmerson watched them, the two of them turned and walked down the long stairs, out to the street, and then down the street. He forgot to look to see whether they left any footprints on the snowy path. He says he doesn’t care.

Well, as I said, no one except Dr. Palmerson knows what to make of it, and you couldn’t really say that he knows either. But he is making it the business of his life to get ready for that rendezvous when he is eighty, I can tell you that for sure. No one knows yet just where his new quest is going to take him, but we can’t help envying him a little. He sort of makes me think of Schweitzer, or maybe John Wesley.

And, as I said before, it’s keeping our town busy in the back-fence forums, thinking about how we’d like that kind of a visitor.… Maybe I’d appreciate me a lot more twenty or twenty-five years from now if I do something more worthwhile myself than help pamper Mrs. Grierson. Maybe …

A Christianity that flirts with the reigning culture is on the way to secular enslavement

ROBERT H. LAUER¹Robert H. Lauer is pastor of Salem Baptist Church, Florissant, Missouri. He holds the B.S. in electrical engineering from Washington University, St. Louis, and the B.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Long ago, William Law warned that the world is now a greater enemy to the Christian than it was in apostolic times:

It is a greater enemy, because it has greater power over Christians by its favours, riches, honours, rewards, and protection than it had by the fire and fury of its persecutors.

It is a more dangerous enemy, by having lost its appearance of enmity. Its outward profession of Christianity makes it no longer considered as an enemy, and therefore the generality of people are easily persuaded to resign themselves up to be governed and directed by it [A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, London, 1906, p. 228].

Law here describes what is perhaps the most subtle temptation of the Christian church—to be captive to its culture. The Church succumbs to this temptation when it reflects its culture rather than exposing it to the light of God’s will, when it is a mirror of its age rather than an imitator of its Lord. So often has this cultural captivity been evident that Herbert Butterfield says the Church on the whole has been the “cement of society, the buttress of whatever was the existing order, and the defender of the status quo … (Christianity and History, New York, 1950, p. 176).

Since none of us can wholly detach ourselves from our culture, any criticism of contemporary religion cannot escape a certain ethnocentric tinge. It is far easier to discern the failings of our forebears than to perceive our own cultural shackles. But the very recognition of past failure compels us to examine the present, lest we too become merely a footnote of our times rather than a molding force for the future.

In his autobiography, From Pagan to Christian, Lin Yu-T’ang speaks of our age as one of destruction. He takes note of Picasso’s dissection of the material world, then continues: “Stravinsky laughed at harmony, Gertrude Stein destroyed grammar, E. E. Cummings destroyed punctuation, Lenin destroyed democracy, Joyce destroyed idiom, and Dali destroyed sanity. Everyone was tearing up something” (From Pagan to Christian, Cleveland, 1959, p. 200).

Unquestionably there is a strong iconoclastic hue to contemporary culture. And quite often it seems to overflow into capricious destructiveness. When we turn to theology’, therefore, we should not be overly surprised to find someone crying that God is dead. We can expect that in some way the destructive tendencies of our age will find expression in theology.

Another obvious aspect of our culture is its love-affair with science. In an age when the word of the scientist carries the authority that once characterized the word of the priest or king, we should not be surprised at the attempt to demythologize the Scriptures, to make them more scientifically palatable.

Some claim that these are attempts to interpret the Gospel to modern man. True, such interpretation is a never-ending task of the theologian. But insofar as these movements depart from the biblical revelation, they are not interpretations but cultural distortions. The Church has the hard task of communicating the Gospel without becoming merged with the culture of the age.

In personal and social ethics there is the same temptation to reflect cultural patterns rather than to imitate our Lord. We saw this in the Bible-quoting defenders of slavery and see it now in their progeny, the Bible-quoting defenders of segregation. We saw it in the German pastors who bowed before Hitler. We read it in the Kinsey reports, which indicated that social strata are more significant in sexual attitudes than religious affiliation.

Recently I heard a man high in my own denomination ask, “Are we trying to convert people to our culture or to our Lord?” He went on to say that the problem of any First Baptist Church in the South is the same—a cultural one. If a Negro enters, an aggressive church member may bodily escort him out. But if a frayed malodorous white man enters, in two or three weeks he will be frozen out. It was perhaps an awareness of this situation that led another to declare that we need to develop ways to win some people to Christ whom we will never win to our church. One’s thoughts are wrenched to James 2:1–9.

In the above cases, Christians were busily at work in the dreary business of defending the status quo. At the other extreme are those who wear the label of Christian and defend the new morality. They, too, are subject to their culture, though in its radical rather than its conservative expression. Max Lerner has said that the “reigning moral deity in America is ‘fun.’ ” As the song puts it, we must enjoy ourselves—it’s later than we think. Couple this with the moral relativity that has leavened our age, and the new morality becomes a logical, cultural development. Those who defend it are not merely making a realistic adjustment; they are capitulating to a cultural pattern.

The primary goal of American man is money. So claimed the late C. Wright Mills in his book The Power Elite. And one is tempted to believe it. A sign on a large Protestant church in St. Louis said, “The Church is America’s first business, because if the Church fails, America’s business fails.” One can only conclude that if we want our prosperity to continue, we had better let the Church have its share.

Is the Church of today using materialistic goals as a kind of lure to secure the loyalty of its members? I have read more than one tract and heard more than one sermon that implied that an increase in income awaited the tither. And I once responded to an ad that spoke of a new way of prayer. In the printed material I received there were such testimonials as, “Money is coming in from everywhere.”

What is the goal of the American Church? Many people choose a church for its social level rather than its doctrinal and spiritual level. Perhaps this is why Americans erect magnificent edifices in which they may worship, while channeling only meager funds into world missions. And perhaps this is why officials of a Presbyterian church in a metropolitan area, while interviewing a prospective pastor, told him, “We don’t care to have any new members. We just want you to come and minister to the ones we already have.”

What is the goal of the American minister? To be conformed to the image of his Lord? Or to slip into a comfortable position in his culture? In an article entitled “Slick-Paper Christianity” (The Nation, Vol. CLXXXV, No. 18, pp. 56–59) Dan Wakefield tells of a literature class at Columbia University in which Mark Van Doren discussed the modern minister and Christ. Jesus, said Van Doren, was far different from the ministers today “who try to be ‘one of the crowd’ and take a drink at a cocktail party to prove it, or tell an off color joke.” Van Doren paused, then added, “Maybe that’s why we hate them so much.” A survey of the minister’s image in modern literature confirms this attitude of contempt. Modern culture, like its ancient counterpart, will make every effort to quell the prophetic voice, and then despise the fallen prophet.

If the Christian Church is to rise above its culture, if it is to be a lamp and salt rather than mirror and cement to its society, it must be constantly vigilant. Reinhold Niebuhr has rightly said, “Only the most rigorous searching of hearts can prevent prophets from mixing the prejudices of communities and the desires of kings with the counsels of God, and offering the compound as the word of the Lord” (Beyond Tragedy, New York, 1937, p. 83). To this we could add one amendment: Above all, the Church must unceasingly search the Scriptures, subjecting its theology, its ethics, and its values to the light of God’s Word.

Fishers Of Men

There could be a hundred million new Christians in the world today … one hundred million new converts to Jesus Christ … if just one in every nine professing Christians were really interested in winning a friend to Christ, influencing a friend for Christ.

One hundred million persons might be born into the Christian family through the power of God today … translated by the heart-changing dynamic of the Gospel from darkness to light, out of death unto life … if one-ninth of us who claim to be Christians were really faithful followers of the One who said, “Follow me and I will make you fishers of men.”

Of course you don’t regiment the Spirit of God—and it is he who gives birth to the children of God. You don’t dictate to God—setting quotas or schedules for the harvest of souls.

Nevertheless, the statistics dramatize the thrilling possibilities of one day—any day—if we Christians were really serious about the mission to which our Lord has called us.

Who can measure what the Spirit of God might do today if we who make professions of faith in Jesus Christ were obedient to the mandate which he left his Church? What an absolutely exciting prospect if today each of us decided it was his duty—his vocation, his holy calling—to be a witness, by the Spirit, among his colleagues, friends, and associates.

Certainly the failure is not God’s! It is “not his will that any should perish.”

He who loved the world so much that “he gave his only begotten Son” is certainly not indifferent to the lostness—the waywardness—the disorientation of men.

He who loved the world so much that he laid down his life on the Cross—submitting to the ignominious treatment and shame of ruthless and profane men, letting his own blood pour out as a sacrifice for the sin of the very men guilty of the atrocity—surely he is not without care and concern for men everywhere. Surely he would speak to the hearts of men, woo them to himself, if he had a faithful servant through whom to speak and love.

Jesus Christ has his people everywhere! But many are indifferent. They are cold and heartless and preoccupied with their own achievements and acquisitions.

You aren’t responsible for the 900 million who call themselves Christian—but you are responsible for you! DR. RICHARD C. HALVERSON, in Perspective, a weekly devotional letter to businessmen.

Continue the dialogue, urges this Canadian psychiatrist, confident that no final science of man will contradict the Creator’s revelation

Are Christianity and psychiatry enemies? Are Christianity and psychiatry at odds with each other? Have Christianity and psychiatry reached a truce? Are Christianity and psychiatry allies? Such questions have not been answered to everyone’s satisfaction. Hence the dialogue goes on.

One of the major problems in relations between psychiatry and Christianity lies in their differing views of man and of God.

Christianity holds that man was created by God in the image of God but by his own choice became separated from God. Since then he has not been able to reflect a perfect image of God. In the Christian view, man’s basic problem is his separation from God.

The Christian believes that his view of man is a part of “revealed” truth, information that is known only because God chose to reveal it. Man could not have arrived at it through his own reason.

Psychiatry’S Approach To Man

Psychiatry, on the other hand, approaches man through observation, postulation, and theories. It tries to understand man largely by a process of inductive reasoning. Conflict arises when psychiatric theories of man clearly run contrary—or are wrongly thought to run contrary—to the Christian view of man.

Conflict arises also when psychiatrists—such as Freud, in his book The Future of an Illusion—dismiss the concept of God as a mere creation of man; that is, when they see God as created in the image of man.

The psychiatry of today owes much to Freud’s ideas, which continue to have a strong influence on much current thinking. Yet the Christian should realize that there are virtually as many “denominations” within psychiatry as within Christianity.

In his New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (London, 1933), Freud states that his “is a scientific world view.” Psychoanalysis has enabled science to study the mind, he says. Intuition and inspiration are seen to be wish-fulfilling illusions. Science claims the whole field of human activity as its own, declares Freud, and will not permit philosophy or religion to usurp any part (pp. 218, 219).

Such a strong stand, frequently reiterated, caused many Christians to reject Freud’s contributions entirely.

However, this statement by Freud is not based on any truth derived from his scientific psychology or observations about man; rather, it is based on his own philosophical presuppositions about the nature of the universe and on the assumption that “all knowledge can be gained by the scientific method.” Yet Freud seems to make this statement as a scientist, assuming the authority of science to add weight to his position, presumably unaware that he has left his scientific precepts behind and has entered the realm of philosophy. His conclusion is not scientific but rather philosophical. Hence the debate shifts to a philosophical framework in which naturalism confronts Christian theism.

This is apparent again in his claim that psychoanalytic scrutiny shows that God is really the over-rated father of childhood and ethical precepts merely the extension of parental commands and prohibitions. The truth of religion may be altogether disregarded, Freud says. It is a parallel to the neurosis through which the individual passes on his way from childhood to maturity. Religion is illusion and derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires (op. cit., pp. 222–24).

Leaving Science Behind

However, psychological explanations for believing or not believing that a certain entity exists in no way prove or disprove its existence. If I have psychological reasons for wanting to believe that God exists, may not Freud have had psychological reasons for not wanting to believe God exists? The question of God’s existence cannot be approached through conclusions drawn from the study of human personality.

The vehemence of Freud’s denial of religion seems to outrun the cogency of his supporting evidence and logic. In the words of Shakespeare, he “doth protest too much, methinks.” Indeed, Freud himself pointed out (in New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis) that imperfect logic demonstrates the existence of a particularly strong motive for making a denial, a motive that can only be affective and serve to bind an emotion. As possible reasons for his strong anti-religious bias, Freud’s biographers have noted his childhood encounters with anti-Semitism and his negative attitude toward his father. (In old age Freud admitted himself that an underestimation of his father had supplanted his childhood overestimation.)

Christianity was alarmed by Freudian psychology because with it, in a package deal, went a philosophy that ruled out God and therefore any Christian view of man; but this was based on Freud’s presuppositions, not his objective findings about personality.

Two-Sided Error

There were errors on both sides. Psychiatrists erred in assuming that the study of man alone could lead to an inclusive metaphysical system that could pass judgment on the existence of God. Christians erred by throwing out the good with the bad. Gradually, however, Christians began to separate Freud’s philosophical presuppositions from his objective observations.

The contemporary neo-Freudian Eric Fromm also closely intertwines philosophical assumptions with his scientific observations and presents a non-Christian view of man.

Fromm has spoken of the need for man “to face the truth, to acknowledge his fundamental aloneness and solitude in a universe indifferent to his fate, to recognize that there is no power transcending him which can solve his problems for him.” Such statements suggest that the Christian must approach psychiatric theories with caution. But approach them he must.

Christianity and psychiatry can be allies while frankly recognizing differences of presupposition and function. Each has a role; neither can totally supplant the other. Each has its own primary area of concern. Paul Tillich notes the three basic sources of existential anxiety: the threat of death, meaninglessness, and guilt. These belong to existence and affect all men. But surely existential anxiety is a priestly concern, while pathological anxiety is the concern of the psychiatrist. As Orville Walters has written, “The goal of both professions is to help the patient achieve full self-affirmation. They may collaborate fruitfully, but neither should try to replace the other” (“Metaphysics, Religion, and Psychotherapy,” Journal of Counselling Psychology V, 4, p. 247).

Shakespeare observed this years ago. In Act V of Macbeth, the question arose as to who should treat Lady Macbeth’s distress. A physician was brought in. But listen to his opinion:

This disease is beyond my practice.

Foul whisperings are abroad!

Unnatural deeds do breed unnatural troubles;

Infected minds to their deaf pillows will discharge their secrets.

More needs she the Divine than the physician.

God, God forgive us all.

Here the theoretical issues are brought to the bedside of the patient.

It is significant that, while theoretically Freud objected to religion, on the level of empirical observation his statements are more positive toward religion. In 1928 he wrote, “The true believer is in a high degree protected against the danger of certain neurotic afflictions” (The Future of an Illusion, New York: Live-right Publications, 1949, p. 77). Also, in a letter to a Protestant clergyman he wrote, “You are in the fortunate position of leading them on to God, fortunate at least in the one respect that religious piety stifles neuroses” (Ernest Jones, Sigmund Freud: His Life and Work, II, London: Hogarth Press, 1955, p. 489).

A second problem in the dialogue has been the lack of clear understanding between clergy and psychiatrists of each other’s aims, methods, and views.

Most psychiatric workers in North America have little idea of what is meant by such Christian terms as “conversion,” “salvation,” “justification,” “sanctification,” and “stewardship.” They often regard the clergy as guilt-producers, failing to see that the Church cannot be absolutely permissive. The Church has been commissioned to the ministry of reconciliation. To be reconciled to God, a man must first recognize his guilt and his estrangement from God. The Church must point out guilt, but only to lead the guilty to the one source of forgiveness.

Still A Rotten Egg

Clergymen, on the other hand, have often had defective views of personality development and function and of mental hygiene. Many Christians also wrongly feel that to explain something is to explain it away—that psychiatry explains away sin and personal responsibility. The fact is, however, that human personality and conduct are approached from two different viewpoints—that of Christianity and that of psychiatry—at two different levels, by two groups using different language. To explain why a small boy steals helps us understand him, but it does not make his stealing proper. A rotten egg is still a rotten egg, whether diagnosed by the farmer or explained by the biochemist. The psychiatrist seeks to understand a patient and his motives in a non-judgmental way, quite apart from the moral issues involved.

A third area of difficulty is largely semantic. The psychiatrist speaks of decreasing a patient’s “guilt,” meaning his guilt feeling. Perhaps this is a guilt feeling about something he should not feel guilty over at all. Or perhaps he has a feeling of guilt but no awareness of its origin.

Now guilt, to the clergyman, is an objective ethical state in the relationship between man and God. If the clergyman fails to see the semantic problem, he may feel that the psychiatrist is trying to convince the patient that he is not guilty, when the clergyman himself knows that the only real solution is admission, repentance, and forgiveness through Christ. In interdisciplinary dialogue we must remember, from Through the Looking Glass, what Humpty-Dumpty said to Alice: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

Frequency And Morality

A fourth area of difficulty is the assumption social scientists sometimes make that because some act or behavior is frequent, it is normal, and—going a step further—that “therefore it must not be considered sinful. Dr. Kinsey’s “purely scientific facts” of sexual behavior were mostly facts; but the report also pushed the hidden premise that frequency could be equated with naturalness, that naturalness could be equated with normality, and that normality made the behavior licit. This leads to the view that all moral standard are relative, a view that disturbs most Christians despite the current popularity of “situational ethics.”

Frequency seems to have little to do with morality. Murder is relatively infrequent, adultery relatively common; yet the Christian views both as sinful. Risking one’s life to rescue a stranger is rare and unnatural. Making love to one’s wife is common and natural. Yet the Christian views neither of these as sinful.

As a Christian and a psychiatrist, I cannot solve all the paradoxes of Christianity. Nor can I always be sure which of several rival theories in psychiatry is the correct one. Many current psychiatric theories are mutually contradictory. It is not to be expected that such a young science can be perfectly integrated or harmonized with Christianity. However, I know of no solid facts about human personality or psychiatric disease that run contrary to or undermine my Christian beliefs. And on faith I can only believe that the final science of man will not contradict the revelations about man given us by the Creator of man.

I encourage Christian young people to accept the spiritual and intellectual challenge of working in the social sciences. Christianity can use the insights of the social scientist, and I firmly believe the social sciences need the insights of Christianity. For a young person desiring a future in which there will be both challenge and the opportunity to express Christian love and concern for others, this area will do just fine.

A glimpse at the precepts of an ancient book that casts divine light on many everyday problems

In this age of the transistor, there is a sense in which God may be said to have given us “transistorized wisdom.” The Book of Proverbs contains hundreds of verses that present truth in the smallest possible package.

Proverbs are apt, succinct, and clear—characteristics of all good teaching. They are handles on truth to make it portable. Like road signs, they fulfill a specific function quickly.

The Hebrew word for “proverb” comes from the root for “likeness” or “comparison.” And in the Septuagint, “proverb” and “parable” came to have much the same sense; there the heading of the Book of Proverbs uses both words. A proverb might be thought of as a condensed parable.

“Answer A Fool … Answer Not”

Compilers of proverbs sometimes place contradictory thoughts in juxtaposition. An example is Proverbs 26:4, 5: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” At first thought such contradictions seem very strange.

Yet is not life itself full of seeming contradictions? The proverb has the flexibility to be applied to the great problems of daily living. It carries truth into the realm of practical application. The intellect is persistently plagued with paradoxes and contradictions. Reality, however, is larger than the mind of man, and living requires more than jungle instinct on one hand and pure reason on the other. Thus the proverb is a view of life, designed for immediate practical action.

The proverb is intense. Brevity often means urgency. Stenciled emergency notations are on aircraft, not hidden in shelves of books. The shortest prayer in the Bible is Peter’s “Lord, save me.” Three words were sufficient to reach the Lord’s ear. God sometimes speaks an urgent command or strengthening promise when he speaks most briefly, directly, and intensely.

The proverb often takes the form of “a dark saying.” In Habakkuk 2:6 (“Shall not all these take up a parable against him …?”) the Hebrew word means “conundrum.” The concept of the “dark saying” suggests that the proverb was sometimes hard to understand. On the other hand, the word “proverb” also took on the meaning of “popular with the people”—hence, a byword, a commonplace. “To understand a proverb, and the interpretation [as figure or image]; the words of the wise and their dark sayings [conundrums]” (Prov. 1:6).

The New Testament uses both of these senses. For example, in Second Peter 2:22, paroimia, from Greek words meaning “by the way,” has the sense of a wayside saying or byword. However, the same term is used in John 10:6 and 16:25, 29 in the secondary sense of figure, parable, and allegory. These, as dark sayings, were hard to understand.

Jesus’ Use Of Proverbs

The Lord Jesus used proverbs in his teaching. Twice in the Gospels we have the proverb, “A prophet has no honor in his own country” (John 4:44, Luke 4:24). Jesus’ enemies used proverbs against him, such as, “Physician, heal thyself” (Luke 4:23). This reminds us of Psalm 69:11, “I became a proverb to them.” Jesus often taught through proverbs. Yet “the time cometh,” he said, “when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father” (John 16:25). In both the parable of the soils (Mark 4:1–12) and the discourse on John the Baptist (Matt. 11:2–19), Jesus said, “He who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” This proverb recurs in the last book of the Bible eight times (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 13:9).

The New Testament quotes or alludes to the Book of Proverbs thirty-two times. One proverb, “Shall he not render to every man according to his works?” (Prov. 24:12), is alluded to six times.

Ephesians 6:17 is a striking example of the sufficiency of a transistor-sized word. The sword of the Spirit is said to be, not the Word, considered in its totality (for the customary logos is not used), but rather the phrase, or saying (rhema), of God. The Christian warrior is to take the appropriate expression to use as the Lord’s sword in spiritual warfare.

Proverbs is a highly practical book. The problems of youth, middle age, and old age are mentioned. Mild vexation and international strife are both dealt with in principle.

There are thirty-one chapters in the Book of Proverbs, one for each day of any month. For years, in addition to my other Scripture reading, I read one chapter of Proverbs daily. This was one of the most practical steps I ever took in my Christian life.

In fact, Proverbs is a good place for anyone to start reading the Bible. It is well fitted to create a “market” for the Gospel. In it the human heart can see its own lack of practical righteousness and thus discover its own need. By showing us how far short we fall of God’s standards, Proverbs shows us that we need a Saviour. And indeed, the Saviour is foreshadowed in Proverbs 8:22–31, 23:11, and 30:4.

When the words of God in Proverbs have been discerned, the Word of God in the Gospels can be more personally appreciated. Practical thinking as well as emotional turmoil introduces people to Christ. Christ is concerned with every aspect of life, and Proverbs may well be studied for the way God meets the diverse psychological needs of men.

Plain Advice For Youth

The Book of Proverbs is, in a special sense, dedicated and directed to youth, as the prologue (1:1–6) shows. There are few pieces of writing that young people need more than this book. The children of God should be wiser than the children of this world. As they go to school or to ball games or on dates, Proverbs is a spiritual transistor that can be carried in the heart if not in the pocket. In the barracks, in town, in school and home, the Book of Proverbs speaks to plain, everyday situations. It is an inspired part of the literature of realism, helping us face life as it is—difficult and demanding. None of us will ever outgrow his need for this type of plain-spoken wisdom.

The housewife, the professional man or businessman, the workman or the shopkeeper—each may turn to this most practical portion of the Word of God. The ear may be opened to the Spirit of God as he calls us to Jesus Christ above the noise of the day. In Proverbs we may all learn of the wisdom of him who at the appointed time made his Son, “Christ crucified … the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

Love for God, devotion to truth, and submission to the Holy Spirit are features of a mature Christian life

NORMAN VICTOR HOPE¹Norman Victor Hope is professor of church history at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is a graduate of Edinburgh University with the M.A., B.D., and Ph.D., and author of “One Christ, One World, One Church.”

A scribe once asked Jesus, “Which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus replied by quoting from Deuteronomy, “Thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.… But then he added, “and with all thy mind,” a clause not found in Deuteronomy (although mind is surely comprehended in the term “soul”). And not only did Jesus expressly state this obligation to love God with the mind; he also told a story—the so-called Parable of the Unjust Steward—in which a man is specifically commended and held up for admiration because he used his mind, his God-given intelligence, to accomplish the master purpose he had in view.

Yet although this commandment to love God with the mind—to put brains into Christian devotion—is so clearly expressed in the gospel record, too often it has been ignored by the followers of Jesus Christ. The late Dr. B. H. Streeter, who during his many years as an Oxford University don doubtless heard some of the most intellectual preaching in England, once said this: “I may have been unfortunate, but it is certainly the fact that I have never heard a single sermon devoted to emphasizing the important fact that the love of Truth is a fundamental element in the love of God” (quoted by Frank Ballard in Twentieth Century Christianity, p. 126). The late Dr. Rufus M. Jones once received a letter from someone who objected to his emphasis on intelligence in Christianity. The critic wrote, “Whenever I go to church, I feel like unscrewing my head and placing it under the seat because in a religious meeting I have never any use for anything above my collar button” (quoted by John S. Bonnell in The Practice and Power of Prayer, p. 85).

Surely, on the basis of Christ’s teaching, it is an inescapable part of Christian commitment to think out the significance and present-day relevance of Christianity in intelligible terms, and to search out the most effective means of advancing the cause of Jesus Christ in every area of life. To say this is not to deny or to minimize the work of the Holy Spirit; rather, it is to affirm that when we use our dedicated intelligence we are cooperating most fully with the Holy Spirit. Our minds must be consecrated to the service of God in Jesus Christ.

This means at least the following.

First, we must think out the meaning of our Christian faith in terms that are not only true to our spiritual experience but also relevant to our present-day life.

Some years ago, Dr. D. Elton Trueblood, the eminent Quaker philosopher and teacher, wrote a book entitled Your Other Vocation. In it he emphasizes the responsibility of Christian laymen to spread the faith, not only by the witness of their consecrated lives but also by their personal verbal testimony. He goes on to say, however, that many laymen are handicapped in this important ministry because they have not been taught to think out the meaning of their faith in present-day terms.

Dr. Trueblood is all too right in saying this. A little poem that appeared in the British Weekly in February, 1951, expresses a common situation:

I’m a Christian in my way.

How, it’s difficult to say.

I’ve the haziest sort of notion

What I mean by my devotion.

Clichés clutter up my head,

Catchwords are my daily bread.

Exquisitely undefined

Is the thing I call my mind.

After asserting that education is really too good a thing to waste on the young, Dr. Trueblood suggests that ministers should guide their laymen in the study of Christian theology, the knowledge of God, which he says is the most mature discipline in which men and women can engage.

Asking Hard Questions

He goes on to specify some of the difficult questions which this kind of study should confront: On what grounds does the Christian justify belief in the uniqueness of Christianity, when there are certain elements of truth in the teaching of other world religions? How does the Christian believe in the efficacy of intercessory prayer and yet at the same time believe that there is an objective order of natural law that makes possible the scientific prediction of events? How does he justify belief in both the goodness and the power of God, when so many innocent people suffer with such obvious injustice and without profit to themselves or others? How can he believe in the evidential value of the widely reported direct experience of God, when it appears that such experience is purely subjective or can be explained in psychological terms? This effort to work out a reasoned faith, marked both by scientific integrity and by evangelical vigor, is one aspect of our Christian obligation to love the Lord our God with all our mind.

Secondly, it is our duty to think out how to apply our Christian faith most effectively to every situation that confronts us. Each Christian faces a daily combination of circumstances peculiar to him; he must determine the way in which his faith can best operate in those circumstances.

A story told by Andrew D. White, United States ambassador to Russia during the later years of the nineteenth century, illustrates this point. He tells of walking down the Nevsky Prospect in St. Petersburg, then the capital of Russia, with Leo Tolstoy. In their walk they encountered a number of beggars asking for alms, and to each Tolstoy gave a kopeck. Dr. White protested that this indiscriminate charity encouraged the creation of a dependent and debauched population, which was one of the gravest social problems of the day. Tolstoy’s reply was that it was not his business to consider the consequences of his action, and that the Gospel of Jesus Christ said simply, “Give to him that asketh thee.” It was his duty, he said, to obey the Gospel without considering the consequences.

But Tolstoy was quite wrong. It most emphatically is the Christian’s business to think out the consequences of his actions. Before acting he must be as sure as he can be that what he does will make the greatest possible contribution to the Christianization of men. Sometimes his duty will be to give all he can, poor though he may be. But at other times his duty will be to refuse to give money—even though he may be wealthy—and try to aid needy people in some other way, such as helping them get a job.

Preacher In The Red

THANKS TO ALL

It was the young minister’s first funeral service. Although the man who had died had not had a very commendable reputation, a fairly large crowd came to pay their last respects. All were curious to hear the new minister’s message. The text was well chosen and fitting words were spoken, but at the graveside it seemed that something had been forgotten. The undertaker stepped to the minister when the benediction had been pronounced and whispered something in his ear. The minister took the cue and with strong voice said, “I have been asked to announce that the family would like to have me thank all those who have helped to make this funeral possible.”—The Rev. JOHN NIEUWSMA, pastor, Ebenezer Reformed Church, Morrison, Illinois.

War: Can Christians Take Part?

The Christian encounters another aspect of this principle when he tries to determine the attitude he should have toward war. The question of war, which is the most pressing public question in our world, is peculiarly difficult for Christians, since they agree that war is contrary to the mind of Jesus Christ, their Lord and Redeemer. Some have contended that the question is answered by the saying of Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount: “Resist not evil.” This is Christ’s own word on the matter, these persons say, and it should prevent any Christian from participating in war in any way.

But on a deeper and sounder interpretation of the mind of Jesus Christ, this utterance alone—though it is very important and must be considered carefully—cannot be allowed by itself to determine the final Christian attitude toward war. The Christian will, of course, do all in his power, both individually and in cooperation with other Christians, to prevent war; he will indeed be willing to make all kinds of sacrifices for this end. But if war should break out, he will then have to consider most carefully the consequences of any proposed attitude toward it; and if he should decide, after careful and prayerful reflection, that the results of abstaining would be less Christian than the results of participating, then, with however heavy a heart, he will be bound to participate. Thus he will choose what for him is the lesser of two evils.

These are only two examples of the general proposition that it is our business as Christians to think out how our faith may best be expressed in each situation that confronts us.

Thirdly, it is our duty to think out the most effective means by which to spread the Christian faith in the present-day world. One of the basic and inescapable tasks of the Christian Church is so to present Jesus Christ to men and women that they surrender to him as Saviour and serve him as Lord in the fellowship of the Church. This task is known as evangelism. And one of the most encouraging features of present-day church life is that churches—not only the store-front groups but also the standard brands—are becoming interested in evangelism as they have not been in many years. They are realizing what is surely the truth, that the Church that does not evangelize will fossilize.

Now, in order to evangelize most effectively, two things are needed; first, a deep heart-devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ, and secondly, the ability and willingness to think out the most convincing ways of presenting his Gospel to the unevangelized.

History serves to confirm this truth. The Apostle Paul, for example, conducted his great evangelistic campaigns by going to the great cities of the Roman Empire, those strategic centers from which religious influences radiated to the hinterlands. And in the cities he started to preach in the Jewish synagogues, where for some years there had been growing up a large fringe of Gentiles who were deeply interested in the Jewish religion because of its doctrine of one sovereign God and its high ethical standards. There, in those synagogues, Paul could count on a favorable reception; and from such Gentile “God-fearers,” as they were called, came many of the earliest Christian converts.

Again, in the sixteenth century, Luther spread his great Reformation revival, first by translating the Bible into the vernacular language of his German people, and then by writing short, pithy tracts in German to expound his point of view. These tracts of Luther circulated not only throughout Germany but over a large part of Europe and unquestionably did much to win converts for Protestant New Testament Christianity.

Then in the nineteenth century, D. L. Moody, who according to one comment “reduced the population of hell by one million,” not only preached the Gospel in a vivid, pointed style, so as to bring his hearers to the point of decision, but also persuaded Ira D. Sankey to play and sing gospel hymns in order to present Christian truth in song. In addition, Moody set up organized inquiry rooms where those who wished to decide for Jesus Christ could be led into an understanding acceptance of him and could be shown how to grow in grace and in the knowledge of their Lord and Saviour.

Using Mass Media

This age in which we live is very different in many ways from that in which Paul lived and from Luther’s sixteenth century and Moody’s nineteenth. The Gospel we proclaim is of course the same: our Lord Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. But we are obligated to think out the most effective ways to present Christ to the men and women of today. We shall have to employ those tremendous media of mass propaganda—the press, the movies, the radio, and television—that modern science has placed in our hands, as Billy Graham and others are doing. If these media are not used for good, they will most assuredly be used for evil.

Finally, it is our duty to think out how Christianity can be applied most effectively to the problems of group relations.

One fact frequently pointed out by thoughtful readers of Scripture is that the New Testament has virtually nothing to say, at least explicitly, about the problems that arise out of the existence of social groups. Dr. T. E. Jessop, that thoughtful English Methodist layman and professor of philosophy, has written a book entitled Social Ethics, Christian and Natural, in which he draws attention to this general fact and specifies several such problems. Among the questions he raises are these: (a) How should a group—a labor union, say, or a government, a nation, or the United Nations—behave? What principles should govern the actions of such bodies? (b) How should an individual behave while acting as a member of a group—as a citizen, for example, or as a member of a labor union that is taking a strike vote? (c) How should an individual behave when he acts as the representative of a group—as, for example, a member of Congress, or a wage-negotiator?

Freedom Brings Responsibility

The Bible in general, and the New Testament in particular, has little or nothing to say about specific rules of conduct for such situations as these. Doubtless the main reason for this absence lies in the twofold fact that most such groups did not exist in New Testament times and that, in any case, the government under which all New Testament Christians had to live was a totalitarian dictatorship that demanded obedience, not responsibility.

But today this situation has changed greatly, at least in all those countries that are not behind the Iron or Bamboo Curtain. The Christian of today, whether he likes it or not, has to live in a world of social groups. It is therefore his Christian obligation to think out the methods by which his Christianity may most effectively be brought to bear upon group situations; and in order to do this, he will have to rack his brains as well as say his prayers.

In John Bunyan’s allegory, The Pilgrim’s Progress, Mr. Greatheart’s party on the road to the Celestial City finds an old man, obviously a pilgrim, asleep under a tree. They awake him and ask him who he is. Somewhat resentful at being disturbed, he replies that his name is “Honest” and that he comes from the town of “Stupidity.”

Then says Mr. Greatheart to him, “Your town is worse than the city of Destruction itself.” This is Bunyan’s vivid and picturesque way of stating the New Testament truth that the Christian is obligated to love the Lord his God, not only with all his heart and soul and strength, but also with all his mind.