Current Religious Thought: November 20, 1964

Earlier this year I had occasion to call at the United States Treasury Department in Washington. Doubtless fraught with terrible significance, the precise purpose of my visit now eludes me; but I did carry away an employee suggestion blank, to my soul’s enrichment. A projected scheme’s chance of acceptance would be enhanced, it was made clear, if various steps were followed. One of these was, “Turn loose the imagination”—a magnificent Goethe-like utterance well worthy of the italics given it by a discriminating Uncle Sam. C. S. Lewis somewhere points out that the devil’s most effective work is done, not (as is commonly assumed) by putting thoughts into men’s heads, but by keeping them out. What a splendid sermon could be based on the perils of a free-ranging imagination!

The latter led me into a frightening experience recently at the British Faith and Order Conference. We were singing “For All the Saints Who from Their Labours Rest,” when suddenly the words came alive for me. Lifting my eyes to the spacious upper reaches of Nottingham University’s Great Hall, I imagined them crammed with the celestial company looking down on us and perhaps wondering how much we meant it. I am no mystic (my colleagues will readily confirm this), but the exhilarating vision persisted until rude recollection came that heaven, alas, was no longer “up there.” (I’ll never forgive the Bishop of Woolwich for that.)

Scope for the imagination was abundantly found at the conference. “We dare to hope,” said a resolution setting a target for church union, “that this date should be not later than Easter Day 1980.” Only 15 per cent of the delegates voted against this plan, which was rightly called a “splendidly irrational symbol.” And this in an assembly representative of all Britain’s major denominations.

There is about the whole conception a breathtaking quality we must admire, an echo of the same “tendency toward the colossal” that (according to an engaging guidebook I found in Rhodes last month) characterized the ancient workers in bronze. Church merger proposals are peculiarly vulnerable things. If I may repeat myself in these pages, it is notable that whenever striking and imaginative variations are played around a familiar theme, the strident cry of heresy is heard in the land, and dark allusions are made about building new boats to founder on old rocks.

But the Nottingham conference has confirmed the conviction held by some British evangelicals that their attitude toward the ecumenical movement demands reappraisal and elucidation, if only to refute the accusation of Pharisaism.

O God-like isolation which art mine,

I can but count thee perfect gain,

What time I watch the darkening droves of swine

That range on yonder plain.

Laurence Housman once advised that staunch individualist Dick Sheppard to “remain explosively within the church.”

Similarly, because we think that evangelicals should in some sense be involved in contemporary discussions, seven of us in Britain have prepared a paperback, Evangelicals and Unity (Marcham Manor Press, Abingdon, Berkshire, six shillings). In this little volume which (commercial) I have edited, the writers look at the current ecumenical scene, evaluate it in the light of evangelical principles, and express some of their hopes and fears.

Dr. Philip E. Hughes, for example, thus sounds a warning note against one of the tendencies of our times: “Rome has always shown herself accommodating to paganism, whether noble or ignoble. She has developed over the centuries a hieromantic system which is highly adaptable to the most widely differing cults and cultures. Thus she has found a prominent place for the Queen of Heaven in her celestial realm; she has canonized Aristotle among the theological elite; and her missionaries have manifested a remarkable readiness to baptize the ancestral rituals and superstition of heathendom into the worship of the local congregation. The adjustments she is now busy making at the Vatican Council are of a kind that would ease the way for Protestants who are not punctilious over matters of doctrine and worship to return to the papal fold.” Dr. Hughes makes a point of stressing that he is speaking about a system and its officialdom, not about individuals.

All the paperback’s contributors have freely expressed their viewpoint. Four of them are actively involved in official ecumenical dialogue. The book suggests various topics for a future ecumenical agenda, including: the work of the Spirit in relation to Scripture; the relation between the doctrine of the Church and the Gospel of justification by faith alone; the relevance of justification by faith alone in the field of sacramental theology; whether biblically based creeds and confessions are necessary to safeguard against error; and whether the historic episcopate is essential to a true notion of the continuity and catholicity of the visible church.

One of the triumphs of the Nottingham gathering was the presence of a number of conservative evangelicals; one of the mysteries was that a major address should have been devoted to telling them what a prickly lot they were. In what he called a “frank airing of difficulties,” the Rev. John Huxtable made an appeal to them to reconsider some questions. He put it thus (I quote in full): “Is your expression of the Christian Faith so complete and perfect that you can afford to be suspicious of those who do not and cannot share it? Is the Gospel so inevitably related to that form of expressing it that you really endanger it by cooperating with other Christians? Are you sure that your understanding of Christian unity is truly scriptural? Is it not altogether likely that, if we all submitted to the bond of love and service as well as truth, we should all sooner grow up into Christ who is our Head?” This distinctively ecumenical brand of word-formation would have become more meaningful had Mr. Huxtable’s questions been addressed equally to the Vatican Council, for which the Nottingham conference assiduously prayed twice daily.

Lest the lesson had not been sufficiently conveyed, one of the conference officials took it upon himself at the closing session to express grave misgivings about the projected Graham crusade in London, because he questioned the evangelist’s “presentation and understanding of the Gospel” and his method of reaching the unchurched. If the speaker had found a better method he did not share it with us. Three cheers for Rome! Down with Minneapolis, Minnesota! With that single proviso, on to 1980.

- More from J. D. Douglas

Baptists: An Uneasy Dialogue

Frank Farrell

For Ulysses Grant the road from Washington to Richmond was a harrowing one of blood and agony; yet his successes there made possible the reunion of the nation. For church leaders, however, that road seemed unmarked. The Protestant Episcopal Church had withstood the stresses of civil strife and remained united. On the other hand, Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians divided. Not until 1939 were the Methodists reunited, and the Baptists and Presbyterians still look across the chasms that were created more than a century ago and that to many seem even wider now.

Unsuccessful Presbyterian moves toward reunion are well known. By comparison, efforts of the more loosely organized Baptist churches have been scant. Seeking to redress the situation, even if in a limited and inchoate way, is a volunteer group called the Baptist Unity Movement, which held its third annual conference last month in the First Baptist Church of Washington, D. C.

Mostly young ministers, the conferees included thirty-four Southern Baptists, nineteen American (formerly Northern) Baptists, and ten from the dually aligned District of Columbia Convention. The neighboring states of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania contributed two-thirds of the total attendance. Not all present were in harmony with the movement’s declared purpose; ultimate “organic union of Baptists in the United States … as soon as may be possible.” Supporters realistically acknowledge that the goal appears to lie far in the distance, but they seek now to create a favorable climate for its eventual realization. The formidability of their goal is highlighted by claims of some observers that their very existence as a group tends to retard rather than advance their purpose.

Proponents of merger point to the common heritage of American and Southern conventions until 1845, when division occurred chiefly over the slavery question.

The question of theological differences continually arises but is usually played down by spokesmen of the Baptist Unity Movement, who point to differences within the two conventions that are believed to be as large as those between them. But some Southern Baptists claim that their problems of internal unity, which are considerable, would only be exacerbated by interconvention unity efforts. And they maintain that the general theological orientation of the Southern convention is considerably more conservative than that of the American convention.

An indication of this was seen as the unity conference listened to evaluations of the Baptist Jubilee Advance, the recently concluded five-year program aimed at cultivating a spirit of fellowship and interdependence among Baptists of North America. An American Baptist perspective reflected the views of Dr. Jitsuo Morikawa, head of the ABC division of evangelism, who has said that “there cannot be individual salvation,” that “salvation has more to do with the whole society than with the individual soul.” A Southern Baptist presentation quoted Dr. Albert McClellan, program planning secretary of the SBC’s executive committee: “It is possible that our different methods of evangelism may indicate a different doctrine of salvation, for, after all, the method properly is the child of the doctrine.”

Baptist Unity chairman, the Rev. Howard R. Stewart, pastor of First Church, Dover, Delaware, has spoken out in favor of participation of all Baptists in the ecumenical movement, even while noting strong Southern Baptist resistance at this point. But in last month’s Washington meeting, sentiment was voiced for modification of Baptist polity. Theologian Dale Moody of Louisville’s Southern Baptist Seminary said to the accompaniment of “amens” that Baptist associations “need to move on” to become presbyteries, from which, he added, would then emerge bishops (no “amens” on the latter point). He asserted the emergence of episcopacy in the later New Testament period but took pains to reject the state church concept of secular appointment of bishops.

Conferees voted to become a dues-paying membership organization, partly because the group is $600 in the red. Some Southern Baptist leaders point out that official convention leadership is not involved in this movement but rather is generally friendly to the idea of joining the proposed North American Baptist Fellowship. Such action was defeated at this year’s Southern Baptist convention but is to be reconsidered next year, reportedly with good chance of passage inasmuch as organic union is not envisioned in the fellowship plan.

Denominational leaders note that there are only some 600 names on the Baptist Unity mailing list, while there are more than 40,000 ministers in the conventions. Some Baptists fear that merger between the 10,395.940-member Southern convention and the 1,559,103-member American convention would be less a matter of union than of a large gulp followed by a severe case of indigestion. Conferees noted that the SBC has become a national rather than a regional body and shows far more interest in expansion by growth than by merger.

Editor Gainer E. Bryan, Jr., of the Maryland Baptist spoke candidly to the Washington gathering in favoring the North American Baptist Fellowship approach: “I do not believe that the idea of organic union will get to first base, and I fear that continued advocacy of it might be a stumbling block to approval of the more limited continental fellowship.” On the other hand, Chairman Stewart, in asserting the need for the Baptist Unity Movement, indicated that the distant goal of organic union cannot be achieved unless something is done now to create a favorable climate. Responded one conferee: “I think we should create a climate for God’s will to be done. I’m not sure it’s organic union.”

Protestant Panorama

Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs will sponsor development of a Baptist research center in Washington, D. C.

Methodist Judicial Council will continue a hearing next April 22 on whether the denomination’s law-making General Conference has authority to integrate annual conferences.

Christian Education

A new interdenominational theological seminary is scheduled to open in Bareilly, North India, next summer. To be known as the North India Theological College, it will be formed by a union of three seminaries formerly located at Indore, Saharanpur, and Bareilly.

A $640,000 campus religious center was dedicated last month at American Baptist-related Keuka College for women at Keuka Park, New York. The school is marking its seventy-fifth anniversary.

Financing for a $500,000 student apartment building was approved by the trustees’ executive committee of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. A Nashville firm was employed to prepare a master campus design to be coordinated with the current $600,000 renovation program.

Foreign Missions

China Inland Mission is being reconstituted as the Overseas Mission Fellowship with membership “thrown wide open to people of any and every race who are suitably qualified and give evidence of a call from God to serve in countries other than their own homelands.”

West Indies Mission faces the task of rebuilding its Mission Center in southern Haiti, hit by Hurricane Cleo in August. Of the twenty-eight main buildings, twenty-five were severely damaged.

Missionary Aviation Fellowship began air service in Venezuela last month.

Evangelical Union of South America plans to open a Bible institute in Bahia Blanca, province of Buenos Aires.

Personalia

Dr. Horace Savage was appointed president of Texas College, Tyler. Texas.

Dr. Archibald Watt was nominated to be next moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

The Rev. E. C. Thomas was elected president of the National Sunday School Association.

Dr. Harry Denman announced he will retire soon as general secretary of the Methodist General Board of Evangelism.

- More from Frank Farrell

Theology

Forging Tighter Lutheran Links

Harold Lindsell

The second general biennial convention of the American Lutheran Church convened at the Veterans Memorial Auditorium in Columbus. Ohio, October 21–27, 1964. In an atmosphere of growing maturity after a four-body merger in 1960, the main drive of the convention was directed toward implementing the union and widening the effort to close Lutheran ranks in America.

To this end, high priority was given to creation of a new cooperative agency that will bring 81/2 million Lutherans into closer relations than ever before. The American Lutheran Church is the first body to act upon the proposal to establish the Lutheran Council in the U.S.A.; this will replace the old National Lutheran Council, which has outlived its usefulness. The projected council will begin functioning in 1967, and its membership will include the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, the Lutheran Church of America, and the Synod of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, in addition to the American Lutheran Church. By overwhelming agreement the proposal was voted and sent down to the district conventions for approval in 1965. It is expected that the other Lutheran bodies will vote affirmatively at their own conventions.

Indicative of the delicacy of present negotiations involving the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod was the response of delegates to memorials from three districts that asked the convention to formalize pulpit and altar fellowship with the Lutheran Church of America. Dr. Fredrik Schiotz, president of the ALC and also of the Lutheran World Federation, acted to prevent the adoption of these memorials. Speaking from the rostrum, he warned the delegates that any such action would impede negotiations with the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. He added, however, that he did not want to make public any details. The delegates voted not to formalize pulpit and altar fellowship with the LCA.

In President’s Schiotz’s report to the convention he stressed the necessity of employing every peaceful means for supporting civil rights measures. “The state may have to use the sword, but the church eschews compulsion,” he said. “The state protects and punishes; the church proclaims and instructs. And surely a part of this instruction must be the scriptural teaching that human rights take precedence over all other rights—be they called property or states’ rights.” Later the delegates adopted a position paper asserting that “congregations must avoid segregation” and that “all pastors are expected to teach, to support and to practice the concept of the inclusive ministry. Any pastor who in word and deed denies the Biblical mandate should receive the pastoral counsel of his district president and executive committee.” Congregations that “stubbornly cling to patterns of segregation … should become the object of the pastoral concern of the ALC through the district president and executive committee of the district of which the congregation is a member.”

The convention could not seem to get its bearings, at least for a while, on the subject of compulsory attendance at chapel services for students at the military academies at West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs. First a resolution was adopted calling for complete freedom to attend or not to attend chapel services as a cherished right of religious liberty. But a number of military chaplains and former military chaplains pressured for a reconsideration of this resolution, and after heavy debate and a better understanding of the crucial issues the convention voted a new resolution calling for “freedom to attend available religious services of their choice in lieu of compulsory attendance of academy chapel services.” The new motion did not condemn compulsory attendance, as the earlier motion had, but simply asked that the cadets be given a choice of worship services.

Several unusual features marked the convention proceedings. Following a report on the film, radio, and TV activities of the church, the delegates called for the presentation of 191/2-minute audiovisual account of these activities, which have netted more than $2.5 million in free air time. The response of the delegates to the presentation was enthusiastic.

Several days prior to the adoption of the budget, the delegates saw a pageant that gave a pictorial view of the ministry of the church made possible through the budget. The pageant had such a dramatic effect that the representatives wanted it reproduced for home consumption.

The report of the Department of Youth Activity elicited considerable negative reaction, and dissatisfaction was expressed with certain aspects of its work. But the delegates sustained the department by substantial majority vote. The convention voted to continue discussions with the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod regarding the possibility of cooperative theological education on the West Coast and asked that a report be presented at the 1966 convention. Other action of the convention included:

• Adoption of a statement of basic church teachings on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and pastoral practices in these areas.

• Adoption of a position paper on church-state relations advocating separation of church and state; opposing public bus transportation for parochial school students and any form of direct public support for religious institutions; and favoring payment of local taxes for municipal services such as water, sewage disposal, and police and fire protection.

• Adoption of a resolution against commercialism in the churches directed against ownership and management of income-producing properties and the selling of goods and services to support the work of the church. The resolution also opposed sub-Christian fund-raising methods, such as lotteries and games of chance.

• Adoption of a position paper on Sunday closing laws advocating settlement of the issue, not by law and the force of government, but by voluntary agreement worked out by each community. Lutherans were cautioned to buy only necessities on Sunday.

• Return to the commission for further study of a position paper on issues of war and peace which held that Christian doctrine does not require a belief that war is inevitable.

• Adoption of a $23,750,000 budget, largest in the history of the new denomination, despite the fact that previous budgets have never been met.

From Quebec To India

Some 400 delegates to the eleventh annual convention of the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada witnessed a four-day program of missionary emphasis.

Six more missionaries were commissioned for service in India under the fellowship’s newly established missionary society. India was chosen to bridge a missionary gap created by entry restrictions against American personnel. Two Canadian missionaries are already on the field.

The fellowship is also trying to step up evangelistic activities among 5,000,000 Roman Catholic, French-speaking people in Quebec. During the convention, held last month in Toronto, delegates were told of efforts to establish French-language schools for Protestant children, most of whom now have no alternative but to attend Roman Catholic schools.

Eight Evangelical Baptist pastors now conduct gospel radio broadcasts over private stations in Quebec. One has a regular telecast. Another edits a Protestant magazine in the French language.

Revolt At The Vatican

What might be described as a minor revolt erupted this month at the Second Vatican Council when more than 800 of the 2,000 bishops present expressed disapproval of what they thought was a move to play down their authority in the church.

Religious News Service reported that the “revolt” came as council fathers voted on the first chapter of a schema in which the crucial issue of collegiality is involved. The chapter deals with practical measures to increase the bishops’ power and decentralize the church’s government.

Extensively debated at the council’s second session last year, the draft was revised and is now a combination of two schemata.

The ballots showed that of the 1,965 fathers voting, 1,030 favored the chapter and 77 were against, while 852 were in favor but with reservations. Six votes were declared void.

These “reservations” were occasioned by a textual alteration in a passage of the chapter that had originally stated that the bishops, in union with the pope, enjoy “full and supreme” power over Roman Catholicism as a whole. The text had been amended during revision so as to eliminate the word “full” and to speak simply of “supreme power.”

No explanation was given for the change. It was generally believed that the bishops voting “yes with reservations” felt that since the old draft had defined the power of the college of bishops in union with the pope as “full and supreme,” this principle should be reflected in a similar passage in the schema on the duties of bishops.

Archbishop Pericle Felici, the council’s general secretary, announced that because the chapter failed to receive the necessary two-thirds majority of votes it will have to be amended.

Early this month Pope Paul VI presided for the first time over a working session of the council. He said in a brief Latin homily that he meant his appearance to dramatize “the importance of the missionary activities of the church.” He stayed for two hours as council fathers took up discussion of a missionary schema. The mass that day was conducted in the Ethiopian rite with native African singers chanting, clapping, and beating tom-toms.

Recalling A Heritage

Seldom has Billy Graham preached in a place so steeped in religious history. The very name of the city of Providence was given by the pioneering Roger Williams more than three centuries ago “in grateful remembrance of God’s merciful kindness to him in distress.” Although New England’s second city can claim no special piety today, Graham did find there the same kind of spiritual hunger that pervades much of contemporary Western culture.

Graham’s appearance in Providence climaxed a four-city tour of New England hurriedly arranged following his Boston crusade (see the three previous issues of CHRISTIANITY TODAY).

Some 10,000 persons turned out to hear him, but only 8,000 were able to get inside the overcrowded Rhode Island Auditorium. The remaining 2,000 listened outside on a balmy autumn evening via an amplification system.

Rhode Island, as everyone knows, is not an island. It is, however, as everyone also knows, the smallest state in the union. It dates back to the 1630s when Williams, a victim of religious persecution who was banished from Massachusetts, set up a “lively experiment” in church-state separation. The original island in Narragansett Bay was named after the Mediterranean Isle of Rhodes, and the entire locality subsequently became known as Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

The new church-state relation, significantly enough, presupposed the helping hand of God. The original charter of the American Isle of Rhodes read: “We, whose names are underwritten, do swear solemnly in the presence of the Great Jehovah, to incorporate ourselves into a body politic, and as he shall help us, will submit our persons, lives and estates, unto the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and to all those most perfect laws of his, given us in his most holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby.”

Graham’s coming to Providence this year seems especially appropriate in light of the fact that 1964 marks the bicentenary of the founding of Brown University. Originally established to educate ministers (Adoniram Judson was an early graduate), Brown has long since lost any appreciable Christian orientation. The spacious campus in downtown Providence lies adjacent to the historic meeting house that claims the title “First Baptist Church in America.” The church with its 1,400-seat sanctuary is in good repair and is used regularly. A typical Sunday morning service, however, draws no more than 200 persons, and Brown’s 4,635-student enrollment is poorly represented in the turnout.

The university and the church are joining in a special commemoration this month in memory of James Manning. Two hundred years ago on November 15 Manning became the president of the university now known as Brown. He was also pastor of the church, which was closely allied with the school and used regularly for commencement exercises.

- More from Harold Lindsell

Negroes and the Christian Campus

George Williams and J.D. Douglas

What are the attitudes toward Negro students at evangelical colleges and Bible schools in North America?

In a survey conducted by CHRISTIANITY TODAY, twenty-six such institutions in the United States and two in Canada were asked to describe their admission policy on North American Negroes.

Of the twenty-three that replied, seventeen chose to say, “We admit qualified Negroes if they apply to us.”

Three checked the answer: “We admit qualified Negroes and pursue an active program aimed at attracting both white and Negro students to our campus.”

Two schools wrote in their own answers, both indicating open policies, and one school checked the answer: “We admit qualified Negro students but heretofore have not done very much to attract them or encourage them. We are concerned about the general low Negro enrollment in Christian institutions and seek ways to meet the problem.”

The schools were also asked: “To what extent do Negro students mix with white students? Does an integrated student body create problems on campus?” Here are some of the answers:

“General socialization excellent. Mixed racial dating prohibited.” “Negro students say they feel accepted on our campus.” “There is free mingling. All participate in all activities.” “Dating is the biggest issue. Culturally, most whites are not ready to accept ‘mixed’ marriages.”

Other schools indicated that race problems were either minimal or non-existent. And, in general, the questionnaires give the impression of an evangelical academic world that is uniformly agreed on the main issue of accepting or not accepting the Negro on campus, though not unanimous on inter-racial dating, courtship, and marriage.

The survey also indicated that the Negro is welcomed on campus after admission, gets elected to important campus offices, and generally participates freely in campus life.

In this serene picture there is at least one major flaw: Only a handful of Negroes are enrolled in evangelical schools. CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S questionnaire revealed that at the twenty-three responding schools, some eighty-seven Negroes were enrolled last year. By way of contrast, the twenty-eight schools queried have an estimated enrollment of 22,000 students. Many schools also had dark-skinned students from other countries, but over half of the schools had no American Negroes at all.

These eighty-seven come from a total U. S. Negro population of twenty million, about ten million of whom are in racially separate denominations and conventions.

What is the explanation for this paradox of a score of comparatively open-minded Christian schools on the one hand and a practically non-existent Negro constituency on the other?

CHRISTIANITY TODAY asked several American Negro Christians—a writer, a graduate student, and three ministers—for their views. Excerpts follow:

Many Negroes, it was said, cannot afford to go to private evangelical institutions. In the past many schools have had a “lily white” policy, and the Negro is not aware of the changes that have been made.

(One director of admissions says the problem is how to get the word out that qualified Negro students are wanted.)

The problem seems not to start or end with the schools; it goes back to America’s segregated churches, to the lack of communication between white and Negro Christions. “You start with the churches,” said one minister. “It’s going to take an actual New Testament revival among both white and Negro evangelicals.”

The Negro church has not been so much a place of redemptive ministry as a “social gathering,” said a Negro writer. “We’re not producing the kind of men we could channel into a Bible college.”

“The initial responsibility … belongs to the Negro applicant,” said a Negro minister. Another of those queried referred to a “vicious circle”: The Negro churches are not getting from the evangelical schools the leaders they need to educate and train the younger generation; the younger generation is thus left unprepared for post-high-school Bible training; the colleges are not getting qualified Negro applicants to train and send back to the churches; and so on.

Some concerned schools have taken steps to break this pattern. At one of the better-known colleges, a group of faculty members wrote an unofficial letter to last year’s graduating seniors, asking them to keep on the lookout for qualified Negro high school students.

Another school, which indicated it pursues an active white and Negro recruiting program, advertises in Christian periodicals, sponsors displays in churches and conventions, and sends out literature and representatives. This school had about twenty-five Negro students last year—the highest figure noted. Still another institution listed high school visitations as part of its active recruiting program for whites and Negroes.

Other suggestions by the Negroes queried were: advertising in such Negro magazines as Ebony, including pictures of Negroes in promotional literature, recruiting by regional alumni groups, building up contacts between college representatives and Negro churches and ministers, and offering scholarships for Negro students.

One well-known school closed to Negroes is Bob Jones University, whose president, Bob Jones, Jr., publicly supports racial segregation. At another institution, a Negro girl reportedly was not allowed to sing in the choir because a Southern tour was planned. Another school simply suggested to a Negro applicant that he would feel more at home somewhere else.

However, the poll indicates that much of the issue today is not in the admissions office. The problem is perhaps most clearly expressed by the most popular answer to the multiple-choice question on the poll: “We admit qualified Negroes if they apply to us.” Thus the passive resistance movement on the part of the Negro in the sixties is matched with the passive acceptance attitude of the “white evangelical school,” a phrase used by the Negroes questioned without noticeable rancor—to them it is simply a descriptive term.

In situations where open-minded white people sit down with other open-minded white people to talk about “the race problem,” the Negro himself, as a person, seems almost unnecessary. The discussions need him only as an issue.

“We ought to initiate some real communication,” said one of the Negroes. “It’s not enough to have an open-door policy,” said another.

He mentioned a Negro married couple at one school he visited. The husband went to school, and the wife stayed in the apartment, knowing practically no one. They were “lonely, so lonely,” he said.

Reflections On Reformation

More than 200 ministers heard Premier Ernest Manning of Alberta and Editor Carl F. H. Henry of CHRISTIANITY TODAY in a Reformation Day program held in Toronto by Canadian Evangelical Fellowship.

Premier Manning said that while Canada cannot hope to lead the world in military power, political influence, or population totals, she could nonetheless make history’s supreme contribution as “one nation on earth transformed by spiritual and moral dedication” and giving a living witness to the world of “what Christ can do through a people redeemed by his blood and filled by God’s Spirit.”

Speaking on the crisis in contemporary theology, Dr. Henry asked whether it is “perhaps a sign of God’s judgment that many Protestant theologians no longer know precisely what the word of God is; that the leadership of the churches is given over to so many spokesmen who prize truth less than merger; and that multitudes within the churches remain strangers to new life in Christ Jesus while purple politicians are seeking new ecclesiastical structures. Is it a judgment on contemporary Protestantism that the gains of the Reformation are now being erased—so that Protestant theologians reject or ignore the doctrines of the Reformers and Rome speaks well of them as persons, while Christendom is more and more insulated from their teaching and influence?”

Surveying The Offerings

Contributions to American churches continued a modest climb last year, according to compilations made public this month by the National Council of Churches’ Department of Stewardship and Benevolence. Per-member giving among the forty-one major denominations included in the report reached a record of $69.87.

The Free Methodist Church, with 53,601 members, topped the list among those denominations that submit their statistics to the NCC. Free Methodist per-capita giving reached $358.17. The Wesleyan Methodist Church was second with $264.20.

Seventh-day Adventists, who are not included in the NCC compilation, released their own figures last month showing a per-capita average of $250.28.

Flying Needle Ii

Five years ago the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of Olympia, Washington, relinquished his diocesan work to become the first executive officer of the Anglican Communion with its worldwide association of autonomous churches, now eighteen in number. “He has stitched them together with his person,” says a Westminster official source with unofficial imaginativeness, “a flying needle travelling over 120,000 miles a year.”

Last month, a few hours after clocking another few thousand miles from the United States, Bishop Stephen F. Bayne welcomed his successor at a press conference in London. He made it clear that the job was still in the pioneering category but hinted it was not without excitement by a striking if obscure reference to “a slight amount of blood running in the gutter ecclesiastically.” Bishop Bayne now becomes director of the overseas department of the American Protestant Episcopal Church.

He introduced as the new executive officer Dr. Ralph Stanley Dean, Bishop of Cariboo, whose rugged diocese in British Columbia is larger than England and Scotland combined. Born in London’s east end, Dr. Dean went to Canada in 1951 as principal of Emmanuel College, Saskatoon, a post he held until his consecration six years later.

Chairman of the program committee that planned the Anglican Congress in Toronto last year, he was startled by an unscheduled item on the agenda when the fathers and brethren burst into song in acknowledgment of his fiftieth birthday. With the help of nine regional directors, the new executive officer will coordinate Anglican missionary activities and help men and money to find their way to the places where they are most needed. Bishop Dean has been given five years’ leave of absence from his diocese.

Another change announced from Westminster is the resignation, effective next spring, of Colonel Robert Hornby, chief information officer to the National Assembly of the Church of England since 1960.

Congo: The Rebel Arc

A second American Protestant missionary was reported to be among the known victims of rebel forces in the Congo.

William Scholten, 33, a missionary teacher working under the Unevangelized Fields Mission, is said to have died after repeated beatings by rebel troops. His wife and five children were still in rebel-controlled territory this month, along with an estimated forty-five other UFM missionaries and children. Mr. and Mrs. Scholten both graduated from Columbia Bible College in South Carolina.

The total of unevacuated Protestant missionaries is estimated at sixty to seventy persons, the others having fled to unaffected southern parts of the Congo or to neighboring countries such as Kenya and Uganda.

The rebel movement is reportedly assisted by Chinese Communist embassies in nearby countries. It began to affect mission activities last July and, after moving up from Katanga, had captured an estimated one-sixth of the entire country by November 1. The rebel-held territory roughly describes an arc beginning just above Bukavu on the east and extending through the northeast and northwest sections of the Congo, down to Coquilhatville on the west.

Congolese government forces have since recaptured some cities and have liberated several missionaries who had been under “house arrest.” These include five American Methodist missionaries in the Central Congo town of Wembo Nyama (where the Rev. Burleigh Law, also a Methodist missionary, was killed in August when rebel troops overran the mission station there).

Previously, fourteen British Protestant missionaries, reportedly under a Pentecostal missionary society, were liberated by Congolese troops in North Katanga. The whole of Katanga has reportedly been cleared of rebel control; and in general, “the tide has turned in favor of the central government forces,” said a U. S. State Department official.

Missionaries have praised the State Department, which, said one, “did everything possible to be of help to us.”

“We sincerely hope that we shall be allowed back into the Congo,” said a mission report, “but should we not be, then the fledgling Church has found its wings and will fly until the Rapture … Pray for the Congolese Church and their noble band of patriots.”

Religious News Service, meanwhile, reported that Father Martin A. Bormann, 34-year-old son of Hitler’s right-hand man, was said to be one of forty Roman Catholic missionaries missing in the Congo.

The Sacred Heart of Jesus monastery in Eichstatt, Germany, disclosed that no word of the missionaries—twenty men and twenty women, all assigned to the Stanleyville area—had been received since August.

Father Bormann arrived in the Congo a little over three years ago after having completed post-graduate studies in Innsbruck, following his ordination there in 1958. He said then he was dedicating his life to bringing “the grace of God to all mankind.”

The elder Bormann, often called the No. 2 Nazi, disappeared at the end of World War II and has since been reported as either dead or in hiding.

- More from George Williams and J.D. Douglas

Religious Impact of Johnson’s Sweep

President Johnson’s thumping victory at the polls this month promises to have important repercussions for the American religious scene.

Perhaps the most immediate if not the most important effect is the likely burial of the proposed Becker amendment to the U. S. Constitution, which would have overridden the Supreme Court’s ruling against public school devotional exercises. The legislation lost its chief sponsor when Republican Congressman Frank Becker, a Roman Catholic from Lynbrook, New York, declined to run for re-election. But the Republican platform included an implicit endorsement of the measure, and it could have been revived had the GOP candidates made a better showing.

The Harris poll indicated just four days before the election that an overwhelming 88 per cent of American voters agreed with Senator Barry Goldwater’s contention that prayers in public schools should be restored. But a tide of votes swamped Goldwater, and inasmuch as Democrats have been largely silent on the school prayer question, a constitutional amendment now appears unlikely.

The results of the election also seem to underscore the fact that a political candidate’s religious affiliation no longer makes much difference to American voters. Johnson is said to have won substantially larger majorities in predominantly Roman Catholic areas than John F. Kennedy did in 1960. Goldwater’s selection of a Roman Catholic running mate, William E. Miller of New York, obviously failed to attract any appreciable Catholic support. Miller lost his own county by a margin of more than two to one.

The 1964 election campaign drew many churchmen into the political fray. When Goldwater questioned the propriety of the condemnations he got from liberals, Johnson was obliged to rally to their support. The President said that “men in the pulpit have a place in political leadership of our people and they have a place in our public affairs.”

Presumably such encouragement will tend to stir a greater degree of political activity among American religious leaders in future election campaigns as well as in the continuing legislative process.

The National Council of Churches, no stranger to political maneuvers, came through last month with a well-timed indictment of “the radical right.” Information Service, a bi-weekly publication of the NCC’s Bureau of Research and Survey, devoted a special twelve-page issue to the extremists, charging that their “primary challenge is to the basic philosophy of democracy and to government itself as we have known it.” The publication’s appearance was followed by news release mailings from the NCC’s Office of Information announcing the material as “the first comprehensive review of material on the nature, methods and objectives of right-wing extremists and their organizations.” Neither Goldwater nor the Republican party was mentioned, but an unsigned introduction to the review declared that “these forces and their ideas have moved from the fringes of American life into a prominent role in the current political campaign.”

One thing the campaign seems to have made clear is that American religious figures, both rightist and leftist, are losing respect for the principle of church-state separation. They find it cramps their style. And the public’s growing interest in politics, especially since the advent of television, creates envy in the heart of many a churchman who longs for a wider hearing. Those who champion the church-state separation principle on old norms are finding themselves increasingly removed from centers of public discussion. A new complex of church-state questions is emerging, but vested interests discourage debate.

Increasing political activity by church leaders could conceivably result in the eventual creation of a Christian or even an interfaith religious party. Most observers still regard that hazardous development as unlikely, but the presuppositions of today’s politically excitable churchmen coincide to a remarkable degree with the old arguments advanced in favor of religious political parties.

The outcome of the 1964 election apparently demonstrated that a generalized appeal for moral recovery elicits little response from the American people. Goldwater’s plea for “law and order” seemed only to produce its own kind of backlash: the antagonisms of liberal churchmen.

A Question Of Values

Dr. Wayne Dehoney, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, says the election results show that “the American people refuse to accept the premise that responsibility for the moral dereliction of the nation can be laid at the doorstep of any one party, administration, or individual.”

Dehoney declared that the strongest planks in the party platforms were appeals to personal values. “For one, it was ‘individualism and personal responsibility,’ for the other it was ‘compassion and concern for human welfare.’ Both are basic in our Baptist tradition.”

Protestant Prizes

Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower was honored with the second annual Family of Man Award by the Protestant Council of the City of New York last month at a $100-a-plate dinner in the Hotel Astor. Eisenhower, unable to attend because of a bronchial infection, was represented by his son. Some 3,000 guests were on hand.

Special citations and $5,000 grants also were made for outstanding “examples of excellence” to Adlai E. Stevenson, U. S. ambassador to the United Nations, for world peace efforts; Zulu Chief Albert John Luthuli of South Africa (a Nobel Prize winner who was not permitted to leave the country to receive the honor); Edward R. Murrow, noted newsman and former chief of the U. S. Information Agency, for communications; and New York’s television channel 13, a non-commercial educational station.

John Hay Whitney, editor-in-chief of the New York Herald Tribune, who served as chairman for the dinner, said it netted $259,685.

Second Chance For Clergymen

Clergymen who have not signed up for social security may do so until April 15, 1965, under recent amendments to the law.

Since 1962, when a previous deadline expired, only newly ordained clergymen have been eligible to initiate social security participation. Now the amendments make it possible for all clergymen to be covered on a voluntary basis, since by law they are excluded from automatic social security coverage.

To become eligible, a clergyman must file a waiver certificate (Form 2031) with the district director of internal revenue, report his earnings from the ministry, and pay social security taxes on the earnings for the taxable years 1962, 1963, and 1964.

A clergyman reports his earnings as a self-employed person, even though he may be an employee for other purposes, so that the church or religious organization that he serves will not become involved.

After a clergyman has elected coverage, he may not withdraw from the social security program. Filing of a waiver certificate obligates him to pay social security taxes for each year he receives $400 or more in net income, any part of which comes from the exercise of his ministry.

Exemptions For Designated Gifts

The U. S. Tax Court overruled the Internal Revenue Service last month in a case involving designated missionary contributions.

The IRS had disallowed the gifts as income tax deductions, contending that since they were designated for the support of certain missionaries named on the receipts, they were not contributions to the mission. An attorney for the donors countered that the mission’s policy as stated in printed materials gives the mission control over all funds, even though they are designated.

The Tax Court ruled that “it was the petitioners’ intention that their funds go into a common pool to be administered and distributed by the mission as it desired.”

Missionary News Service, reporting the action, noted that “the favorable decision was based largely on the written policy statement of the mission which made very clear the fact that the mission had full control of the disposition of the funds contributed.

War On The Air Waves

A group of prominent women declared war on the publicly owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation last month by demanding a “cleansing” of programs that they say promote violence and perversion.

The women endorsed a statement charging that many CBC programs present a stream of “constant prostitution of sex and violence for entertainment.”

They are asking other women across the nation to sign a “Declaration by Canadian Women,” to be presented to Parliament with a demand that CBC programming be reformed.

Their action coincided with Jewish and other protests against the recent screening of a filmed interview with George Lincoln Rockwell, U. S. Nazi leader. The Canadian Jewish Congress assailed the CBC interview of Rockwell as an “irresponsible action.”

A CBC spokesman in Ottawa said the women’s declaration had been rejected by most major women’s groups in Canada.

The Pen And The Bomb

A “Feed the Minds of Millions” campaign to raise some $2,800,000 for Bible and Christian literature distribution in Africa, Asia, and Latin America was launched in London last month at a St. James Palace reception attended by Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

Giving her patronage to the drive, she expressed belief it would be a landmark effort in the history of Christianity in Britain.

Also in attendance and endorsing the drive were Britain’s new prime minister, Mr. Harold Wilson; civic heads from throughout the country; Dr. Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury; and Dr. Frederick D. Coggan. Archbishop of York.

The campaign was organized by the British and Foreign Bible Society, the National Bible Society of Scotland, and the Archbishop of York’s Fund for Christian Literature.

Dr. Coggan, noting that it is expected that the United Nations’ literacy program will create more than 300 million new readers in the coming decade, commented: “The hunger of the mind as millions become literate is sweeping like a forest fire through nations which we have hitherto regarded as backward. That fire will never be put out. I do not want to see it damped down.… I want this nation to have a say in the kind of literature with which this desire will be satisfied.”

He added that the Communists “think they have a philosophy worth propagating and they rightly believe that this is the most effective way of doing it. The pen is more powerful than the bomb.”

About This Issue: November 20, 1964

Above all else, modern man should be thankful for God’s gracious gift of justification by faith. A prominent Lutheran leader supplies an exegetical study, and a distinguished Presbyterian scholar supplies the companion exposition, of Romans 3:21–26, sometimes called “the Gospel in epitome.”

The series on cross-currents of European theology continues with an essay on the crucial issue of revelation and history. The theological survey includes material that Editor Carl F. H. Henry is presenting in lectures at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Bannockburn, Illinois.

Addison H. Leitch and Ilion T. Jones assess the lingering “Honest to God” debate in terms of the inadequacies of liberal Protestant theology.

Theology

Paul’s Credibility

L. Nelson Bell

A favorite device of lawyers—a normal procedure, in fact—is to call in question the competence of witnesses. Any one of a number of avenues of attack may be used: the witness’s integrity; his previous record in regard to convictions; his understanding of the subject, if he is called as an expert; reliability of the sources of information advanced—anything that might raise in the minds of the jury a question about his truthfulness and his knowledge of that about which he is testifying.

Because of the large part that the Apostle Paul plays in the New Testament, from the ninth chapter of Acts on through his thirteen epistles, he has been subjected to objective and subjective scrutiny by Bible students in every generation to determine the source of his religion, his authority to speak thereon, the validity of the doctrines he proclaims, and the binding nature of the rules for Christians and the Church that he lays down with such certainty and clarity. Fortunately, we are not left in doubt about any of these things.

Three things in large measure explain Paul and his place in the message and history of the Christian faith: a unique conversion experience with the risen Lord, direct revelation of divine truth, and an intimate knowledge of and faith in the Old Testament scriptures.

Paul’s conversion. The history of the Christian Church is replete with stories of unusual conversions, and such conversions continue to happen today. But none of these stories of life-changing confrontations with Jesus Christ compare to what happened to Paul on the Damascus road.

Paul met Jesus Christ in person, and the dazzling splendor of the risen and living Lord blinded him. He heard our Lord’s voice with his ears and received from him specific instructions. His was not a general call to witness to which all who know and love the Lord are subjected; it was rather a unique and specific call to a certain task at that time in history. He was, the Lord told Ananias, “a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15, RSV).

Years later, in speaking of this experience before Agrippa, Paul quotes the Lord’s command to him: “But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you” (Acts 26:16).

There are numerous evidences of Paul’s spectacular and complete conversion, none more conclusive than the fact that he immediately started on his God-given task as a Spirit-filled witness. He appeared in the synagogues of Damascus but did not carry out his original intention of arresting believers. Rather, “immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, ‘He is the Son of God’ ” (Acts 9:20).

Direct, special revelation. Not only did Paul have a unique experience with Christ, a conversion different from other conversions; he also received direct revelations from the Lord, which had been promised to him. For that reason we read Paul’s letter knowing that the inspiration by which he spoke and wrote was also unique.

In his letter to the Galatian Christians, Paul told them he was not expressing his own view or the opinions of others: “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11, 12).

Writing to the Ephesians, Paul again refers to this special revelation: “… assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, how the mystery was made known to me by revelation.… When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ … as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit …” (Eph. 3:2–5).

Paul probably received many direct revelations. In his second letter to the Corinthian church he refers to one of them, when he was “caught up to the third heaven”; at this time he “heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter” (2 Cor. 12:1–4).

Not only did the other apostles recognize Paul as one of their number, but Peter writes with candor of Paul’s letters: “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:15b, 16).

Place of the Old Testament Scriptures. Paul was a highly educated and intelligent Pharisee and as such was deeply versed in the Old Testament. His years at the feet of Gamaliel evidently gave him training second to none. But until his conversion and infilling with the Holy Spirit, he was like the Jews about whom he wrote: “… for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.… When a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:14–17).

From the beginning of his ministry Paul used the Old Testament Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God. A study of his sermons, recorded in the Book of the Acts, shows his dependence on that record for proving Christ to be the Messiah. In his epistles he affirms Christian doctrine and ties that doctrine to the Old Testament revelation.

In his defense before Felix he says, “But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the law and written in the prophets” (Acts 24:14).

Finally, the nature and predicament of man and God’s provision for him came to Paul as a direct revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ, who said to him: “ ‘… the Gentiles—to whom I send you to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me’ ” (Acts 26:17, 18).

It was testified of the Lord that he spoke with authority. What we need to know is that Paul spoke by that same authority, and his message is valid today—God speaking to us. The “relevance” of Paul’s message is questioned by some; but as is true in other parts of God’s Word, the eternal principles and specific doctrines that are laid down we ignore to our own loss.

According to the record, the credibility of Paul is unassailable. Lacking similar experiences we can but thank God for the man through whom He has done so much for the Church, and who at the end of his life was able to say with assurance born of deep conviction, “I have fought the good fight.”

- More from L. Nelson Bell

Are the Churches Coddling Atheists?

The Church, it would seem, would be the last place to look for an atheist. Fools who say, “There is no God,” would be wise enough, one would think, to stay out. But not so. Although there may be no atheists in foxholes, a recent study conducted by the Survey Research Center of the University of California in Berkeley attests that there are atheists in the churches. The same investigation also revealed that many church members deny the deity of Christ and disbelieve in the New Testament miracles and in life after death.

Rodney Stark and Charles Y. Glock, two sociologists who conducted the investigation for the university, report that 1 per cent of the Protestants and 1 per cent of the Roman Catholics they investigated are agnostic. These said baldly, “I do not know whether there is a God, and I don’t believe there’s any way to find out.”

As for atheism, the investigation discovered that 1 per cent of the Congregationalists (United Church of Christ) and something less than one-half of 1 per cent of Methodists and of Episcopalians interviewed asserted, “I don’t believe in God.”

These percentages are admittedly small. But the actual number of atheists within American churches, computed on this basis, is not. The 1 per cent of the membership of the United Church of Christ amounts to about 20,000 atheists; and even if only one-third of 1 per cent of Methodists and Episcopalians are atheists, this means there are about 45,000. A total of 65,000 atheists in three American denominations is a lot of atheists. The most recently published FBI figure for membership of the U. S. Communist party is 17,360.

If these atheists were inquirers and seekers in the pews, that would be one thing. But they are in the churches as members and have received baptism because in the judgment of the ministers, they are Christians.

How does an atheist manage to feel at home within the membership of the Christian Church? In foxholes, where men face the realities of life and death, the atheist is so uncomfortable that he soon ceases to be one. How does he manage to survive within the membership of the Church? Does the pulpit confront the pew with nothing to convert it into a place where the issues of life and death are also faced?

If as many confessed subversives, Communists, and men of moral corruption infested the United States government as there presumably are confessed atheists in the churches, there would be a loud cry to ferret them out. Men would see corruption in high places and a threat to the security of the nation. Will there be a similar concern and a similar cry that will summon the American churches to put their house in order?

Some clergymen have urged that non-Christians ought not to be removed from the membership of the Christian Church. The argument is that we show a greater concern and love for lost souls if we allow the admitted non-Christians to stay on the rolls in the hope that they will become Christians. We would offend such “members”—so it is asserted—if we informed them plainly that they are not Christians.

Will the statistics of this investigation put an end to such bland nonsense and sentimentality? And will a serious attempt be made to find out who is who in the Christian Church?

According to the New Testament record, the preaching of our Lord drew believers to him, yet sent unbelievers away so that “they walked no more with him.” In the preaching of the Apostle Paul there was always the possibility of being offended, and the very least his offended hearers did was to leave. Authentic preaching of the Gospel in the pulpits of the American churches today will do the same. Official acts of excommunication are rarely needed where the Gospel of Christ is so preached that men both recognize it and react to it. But if thousands of atheists can remain comfortably within the membership of the Christian Church, the homiletical pablum they receive from the pulpit must be such that it neither pleases nor offends their taste.

Religious discussions and arguments outside the pulpit easily create tense situations in which friends are lost and enemies made. But how rarely is anything said from the pulpit that offends the man in the pew enough to make him get up and walk out, to return only when he is ready to do business with God.

And what more shall we say about the pulpit when this same investigation reveals that 32 per cent of the Congregationalists, 24 per cent of the Methodists, and 16 per cent of the Episcopalians do not believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God; that 43 per cent of the Protestants do not believe in the Virgin Birth; that 72 per cent of the Congregationalists, 63 per cent of the Methodists, 59 per cent of the Episcopalians, 42 per cent of the Presbyterians, 38 per cent of the Disciples of Christ and of the American Baptists, and 31 per cent of the American Lutherans do not believe that the biblical miracles actually happened; and that 35 per cent of the Protestants either believe that Christ’s promise of eternal life is only “probably true” or have “no hope” for a future life at all.

The Stark-Glock survey reveals that there is a much more prevalent skepticism about these Christian doctrines in such churches as the United Church of Christ, the Methodist Church, and the Episcopal Church—those that are enthusiastic about the ecumenical movement—than in more orthodox bodies such as the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, which are less interested in the current ecumenism. The ecumenical movement would doubtless prosper if the churches most dedicated to it would set their theological house in order, since, according to this report, these are the churches with the greatest weaknesses in Christian doctrine. If ecumenical leaders have their eyes open, they will recognize a lesson this survey teaches—and it would be better to learn the lesson now than later. For the same survey reveals a higher degree of orthodoxy on these matters in the Roman Catholic Church. If the ecumenical movement cannot compete with the doctrinal earnestness of some of the large and many of the small Protestant denominations, what will it do when it really meets Rome?

The Business Of The Ministry

The Sunday newspaper magazine Parade recently noted the verdict of Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic leaders that “many clergymen are not qualified for their role in the changed and changing world of today.” One Protestant theological educator (whose institution has been famed for training scholars and not parish ministers) said that “the church in America cannot cope with the problems the country faces. And the primary reason is that the clergy is not educated to handle these problems.”

The criticisms are valid indeed. Changes must come, and quickly. But the problem is not simply a need for more or different education for the parish minister. It goes deeper.

In the medical field there are few general practitioners. In their place are obstetricians, pediatricians, internists, proctologists, orthopedists, dermatologists, radiologists, anesthetists, otologists, ophthalmologists, and geriatricians, along with neurosurgeons, chest surgeons, plastic surgeons, and general surgeons.

The parish minister ought not to try to be a specialist in everything. Indeed, he cannot be. Maybe the Church should memorize the scriptural teaching that there are apostles, prophets, teachers, healers, helpers, administrators, and workers of miracles (1 Cor. 12:28). Certainly, not all ministers possess all the gifts. In an age of increasing leisure time, it is wrong to call on an overworked and underpaid ministry to assume a variety of functions that no one person can fulfill. Let’s train healers, helpers, and administrators, and let the prophets and teachers get about their business, which is to win the lost and build up the saints in the holy faith.

From The Tumult To The Task

Despite the bitterness of their political campaigns, Americans close ranks quickly behind elected leaders. The man who was elevated to the Presidency by an assassin’s bullet has now been continued there by the largest popular vote in United States history. The final tally, of about 42 million to 27 million, gave President Johnson 61 per cent of the American ballot in his victory over Senator Goldwater.

The crucial issue of a sound political philosophy, so sadly blurred during the election campaign, must not long remain out of sight. America’s freedom and power are providential gifts for the preservation and promotion of human liberty. If these entrustments are dedicated to peace and plenty above all else, and not to truth and right, we are simply writing our own epitaph. Not President Johnson’s highly impressive margin of victory but an enduring commitment to holiness and justice on the part of the people will ensure America’s strength in the years that lie ahead.

The slashing offensive of the political campaign cut deep wounds. It may also have deteriorated the character of the democratic process and widened cynicism over political techniques. Every campaign necessarily leaves its disappointed voters. But multitudes of citizens are convinced that a candidate who served the United States Senate for eleven years and the United States Air Force as major-general was not simply defeated but maligned and slandered, along with the conservative cause generally, as essentially un-American. Yet President Johnson effectively carried two impressions to the public—that he would keep America out of the war that Barry Goldwater would assertedly have triggered, and that he is more truly conservative than Goldwater “radicalism.” Senator Goldwater’s pledged support of President Johnson sets the citizenry a worthy example. Many Americans are unpersuaded that the present foreign aid program and military policy assure a recovery of freedom. The plea for unity must not repress sincere political criticism, while the pursuit of criticism must not disrupt national unity.

If the great priorities of human destiny and survival are kept in the forefront, America will be spared the disillusionment of worshiping graven images. To the Presidential Prayer Breakfast on February 5, President Johnson said: “In this capital city today, we have monuments to Lincoln, and to Jefferson, and to Washington, and to many statesmen and soldiers. But at this seat of government, there must be a fitting memorial to the God who made us all.” Mr. Johnson seemed then to be speaking of a monument of stone or metal. The American people have lodged President Johnson in the White House with a vote of landslide proportions. Now he has an opportunity to help make of the nation itself precisely such a memorial.

The Great Delusion

There exists within the Church a philosophy, evidenced by many, that Christianity can be legislated. The National Council of Churches, for example, often lobbies for specific legislation. Proponents of this approach apparently believe that Christianity is a matter, not of personal regeneration, but of social compulsion.

A member of the platform committee at one of the recent national political conventions remarked that within that committee there was genuine indignation when a representative of the NCC appeared and asked for a platform predicated on social engineering.

There is no such thing as enforced Christianity, nor is there the possibility of making a non-Christian society act as if it were Christian. The Christian faith is a matter of heart, of a changed allegiance, of a spiritual renewal beyond the act of man.

That Christians should give evidence of their faith through obedience to God’s holy laws goes without saying. The outward manifestation of an inward transformation is a great New Testament theme. But men cannot be coerced into Christian action; nor is the state to be considered an agent of the Church to enforce ecclesiastical morality.

Theology

Reflections on Honesty in Theology

The well-known title of a recent book has raised again in an acute and challenging form the question of honesty in theology, and indeed in the Christian ministry at large. From one point of view the title stands for something good, and this is the aspect that by and large has gained attention. It is good that a man should be forthright. It is good that genuine doubts and questionings should be expressed without fear or favor. There is nothing to be gained by paying lip service to things no longer believed in the heart. If it is genuinely felt that the old statement will not do, then it is better to say so and to indicate the lines along which a better statement might be attempted. The pulpit and the professorial chair should be the very last places to afford refuge to cant and humbug.

We might go even further along these lines and say that a spirit of honest questioning can be for the better health of the Church. The Church is not itself infallible in its order and formularies. Legitimate questions can thus be raised whether this practice or that doctrine is truly biblical. Whatever answer is given, the Church is thus kept from a false complacency and the possible perpetuation of error. Indeed, even illegitimate questions that are not concerned about biblical authority will at least force the Church to test its statements and to be sure that they are grounded, not in tradition, nor in the Church’s own authority, but in the written self-revelation of God. This does not mean that such questionings are valid in themselves. But it does mean that from this standpoint they can serve a useful end. No Christian should ever become orthodox in the sense of a complete surrender of his own faculties or judgment to the imposed formulations of his peers. No church should ever become established in the sense of a rigid imposition of church authority that compels the man who is supremely loyal to the written Word of God to be either revolutionary or dishonest.

Nevertheless, when all this is said, and when it is recognized that all this is true, there are other aspects of this question of honesty that may be far less striking and popular but that still have a valid claim to our attention. To say what we truly think is undoubtedly a good part of honesty. But the theologian or the Christian minister has to put this question of honesty to himself in other forms. To the question in these other forms he owes a no less honest answer.

First, he must ask himself whether he can honestly make his honest statement from the position of responsibility he holds. There was a time when this problem would not have existed, since church discipline would have seen to his deposition or even excommunication if necessary. The temper of our time is against such action. But this sharpens the aspect of individual responsibility. There is undoubtedly a dimension of honesty which demands that the sham of an accepted but unfulfilled responsibility be put off with the sham of a professed but unaccepted conviction.

Secondly, it must be allowed that this is a corporate as well as an individual matter. No one suggests that the man who, wishing to replace what he regards as outmoded or ill-founded forms, clings to a responsible position, is deliberately or consciously dishonest. Nor does anyone deny him the precious right of individual judgment. The only point is that responsibility in the church is corporate as well as individual. On certain matters a church has to accept common standards, and it has a right to expect that its ministers will honor these standards and work at their amendment or reform only within the constitutional procedures of the church, not by unilateral action. If a responsible individual feels compelled by his own conscience to take a stand that does not conform to the corporate standards, does he not have a duty of honesty either to act nonetheless within the established order or to relinquish his office and to make his more violent protest from a position of freedom as an ordinary member of the congregation?

Thirdly, cases may even arise where the radical convictions expressed are so extreme that they conflict with the very essence of the Christian faith according to its plain scriptural formulation. When this is so, the problem arises whether the honest man who wishes to speak honestly has any honest right to make a profession of Christianity at all. Is it not the part of honesty to say quite plainly that Christianity is wrong or only partially right, that from within some individual source of authority a better opinion may be offered and a better way proposed? And if we are to talk of honesty, is it not essential that when we make forthright utterances we should have the ultimate readiness to face up to their ultimate implications?

Fourthly, there is the point that when the issues are stated in this sharper form, much of what passes for honest statement may be shown to be no more than honest questioning. But if this is so, is it not better to be quite honest and to say so? After all, Martin Luther, who was not in any case dealing with defined doctrines, began by putting up theses for academic disputation and even at Worms still admitted that he was open to persuasion from Scripture or by clear reasons. If a man is convinced that the biblical or historic statement is wrong, that is one thing. If he is not sure in face of new problems of thought or learning, that is another. But if he is not sure, then the wider problems of honesty come back with full force. Can a man be a responsible teacher of others if he has really no measure of clarity himself? May it be that he has made a completely wrong beginning and ought to have the honesty to admit this and go back to the primary classes in Christian instruction? Could there even be an element of pride in this particular honesty as distinct from the honest humility of the believer?

Finally, the question may be asked whether there is any greater honesty in doubt or unbelief than there is in faith. Only too often it is glibly assumed in some circles that if a man is honest he will have to come out with doubts or heterodoxies. Only too often it is implied that the man who conscientiously fulfills his responsible ministry is in some sense engaged in intellectual and practical humbug. But there is basically no reason why, in this or any other century or culture, there should not be honest believers who in all humility and yet also in all integrity genuinely mean what they say. There is basically no reason why those who accept and fulfill a position of trust on the making of a solemn confession should not do so with serious conviction of heart and sincerity of dedication. We do not deny that there is honest doubt and honest unbelief. But surely, there is also a less glamorous but no less solid and abiding honesty—the honesty of honest faith.

Ideas

A Future Big with Hope

The finger of history in this twentieth century is relentlessly writing into man’s awareness the fact that his problems are bigger than he is. It is especially difficult for Americans to admit that there are problems that will not bend to their energy and ingenuity. Theirs has been the cheerful boast that it takes them only a little longer to do the impossible than the difficult. For almost two centuries Americans have faced whatever the future might offer with buoyant optimism. They were not, after all, children of a “beat generation.” Recognition of insoluble problems was no part of the credo of their ancestors, who conquered poverty and won their freedom by leaving all the past behind to respond to a future bright with hope. With undaunted confidence the early Americans crossed a forbidding ocean and mounted rocky shores to fashion out of an untamed continent the greatest nation the earth has seen.

For decades America was a reassuring image to the world that a man can do anything. Had not Americans defeated a great foreign power to create the first successful democratic government in history? Was not the world’s wealthiest nation hewn from a wilderness? Had it ever lost a war? Were not its contagious idealism and its technological achievements the wonder and admiration of the world? A long history of overcoming difficulties had created a boundless, bouncy optimism, and a hope as long as the future itself.

But if America was once a leader of the world and a power that could shape the future, it is this no more. Optimism has evaporated and bright hope has now faded with the sudden, confidence-shattering realization that man is no longer king. He who thought he was king over the world and its future now knows he is but a man with king-size problems.

Gone today is the liberal faith that earth has no problems man cannot solve. The liberal has always believed in the unlimited possibilities of man, rather than in the Christian idea that all things are possible only with God. Gone is the dream that America can lead the world. Today her very existence depends on her ability now to sail ahead, and now to tack into the political storms of a revolutionary century. Gone is the dream that the United States can make the world safe for democracy; gone too the illusion that an increase of affluence can create a great moral humanitarian society. Not that there ever was any scientific evidence or intellectual basis for the notion that an increase in morality will be the automatic by-product of material prosperity. Nor was there ever any real evidence for the optimistic liberal faith that ignorance is the matrix of evil and that evil can therefore be resolved by universal education. Such faith was a great liberal dream suspended on human aspirations rather than on actual human achievements. While it summoned and fired the best and loftiest aspirations of many men, it remained a dream floated on the hopes of the future rather than a belief grounded in the evidence of the past.

Gone is the optimism that we can eliminate crime from our streets, and greed and hatred from human hearts. Gone the cheery hope that the future is ours to shape. Indeed, most of us prefer not to think much about the next ten or twenty years, when not only Red China but even smaller nations of more warm-blooded peoples will have nuclear weapons to brandish at their enemies. No matter how much men of good will may try, they can find no evidence to support the assumption that every nation under provocation will be free of the suicidal impulse that is willing in vengeance to include itself in the destruction of mankind. The existing realities of the present combine with the dark possibilities of the future to drain hope from the spirits of men and to leave them with a despairing realization that the world’s problems are bigger than the world can solve. History is now showing what Christianity has long asserted—that man’s most critical problems are greater than he can handle.

Yet there is hope, a hope that nothing can overcome. In the incarnation of Jesus Christ, God himself has come to help. This faith keeps the Christian from the debilitating despair that comes when men’s brightest hopes prove false. The Christian never expected mankind to save itself. Had this ever been possible, God would not have come to help. God would not have come to provide a way out of the present into a future salvation, if mankind had had a way of its own.

Although there are both Christians and non-Christians who believe that man’s greatest problems lie neither in man as an individual nor in man as a corporate unity but in the social structures man has created, the truth is rather that man’s biggest problem, whether seen individually or collectively, is man himself. It is man’s own sin, whether viewed as original or individual, that produces crime, fosters hostility, promotes war, and accounts for the death that comes to every man and to all his political and cultural achievements, even to his idealism. A more liberal and optimistic faith may deny all this; yet the evidence, if not the dreams, is on the side of the Christian claim. None of these results of man’s own evil, not even the shattered dreams of non-Christian hopes projected by an unfounded idealism, is the final word.

There is hope. There is a hope that cannot be shaken. In the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God has conquered every evil that man has devised and fulfilled every legitimate human hope. The world’s king-size problems have met their Lord and King in Jesus Christ risen from the dead. He alone is the hope of the world, a hope that has already taken the form of evidence and the substance of reality in the hearts and lives of everyone who has believed in his coming and looks for his reappearing. The world’s only Hope shall return, and a newborn world shall see the triumphs of his justice!

Christ is the hope that may be enjoyed by every man who is willing to admit that his problems are bigger than he is, and who is willing to accept help from the God who came to help.

The future of the world is big with hope, because it contains him who fills its future and determines its destiny. Jesus Christ is he who is, who was, and who is to come; as such he is the world’s true past, its authentic present, and its only future. He came, not that the world might be condemned, but that the world through him might be saved. Therefore the Christian—and he alone—can sing, “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.” In what others face only with despair, he sees the Lord “trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.” In those events of history that others can view only with hopelessness, he has hope, for he sees in those same events that Christ’s “truth is marching on.”

The Christian has an indomitable hope even in the twentieth century. What others see, if reluctantly, as the finger of history, he sees as the finger of God casting out the demons of this world; and he knows that the rule of God controls the world.

Give Today

Share

Share

Share

Protestant Panorama

Christian Education

Foreign Missions

Personalia

Share

Share

From Quebec To India

Revolt At The Vatican

Recalling A Heritage

Share

Share

Reflections On Reformation

Surveying The Offerings

Flying Needle Ii

Congo: The Rebel Arc

Share

Share

A Question Of Values

Protestant Prizes

Second Chance For Clergymen

Exemptions For Designated Gifts

War On The Air Waves

The Pen And The Bomb

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

The Business Of The Ministry

From The Tumult To The Task

The Great Delusion

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share