Preparation, Penetration, and Preservation

A year-long evangelistic series in the Atlantic provinces of Canada was climaxed last month with open-air services and a ministers’ conference in the historic seaport of Halifax. The series, spearheaded by 32-year-old Leighton Ford, an associate of Billy Graham, embraced Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland. Attendance figures for the twelve-month effort totaled an estimated 500,000, and about 7,000 decisions for Christ were counted.

The closing events in Halifax included an evangelistic service in a natural amphitheater where Graham addressed a crowd of 30,000 seated on the grass. A week-long ministers’ conference on evangelism, the first such ever conducted by the Graham team, drew 300 registrants.

Graham also addressed rallies in Saint John, New Brunswick, and Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. But the rest of the meetings were conducted by associate evangelists Ford, Joe Blinco, Larry Love, and Lane Adams.

Looking at one crowd of inquirers prompted a pointed observation from Dr. Ralph Chalmers, professor of systematic theology at the United Church of Canada’s Pine Hill Divinity School.

“This is Pentecost,” he said. “There are our ministers and missionaries for the future.”

It is a point of record that the Atlantic provinces have produced more ministers and missionaries than any other area of Canada. The populace retains an important measure of religious ties, which helped the evangelistic effort. But it is also conservative and cautious, which produced some impediments.

The Ontario-born Ford and his colleagues conducted a total of fifteen crusades in the four provinces. They covered all the major and several of the minor population areas.

Ford says that a thorough attempt was made to evangelize in depth. The theme was “Preparation, Penetration, and Preservation.” There were the usual pre-crusade counselor training sessions, prayer meetings, rallies, radio and television programs, and follow-up procedures. But this time there were also such things as regular morning Bible classes in a dozen cities, “conversational evangelism,” and “penetration teams.”

Some of the morning Bible classes attracted 1,000 persons each. In Halifax, a penetration team of thirty laymen moved into factories, offices, civic clubs, and homes to speak and answer questions. Team members took on informal luncheon assignments, mixing with businessmen and students to talk on spiritual themes.

Occasionally the crusades got support from unexpected sources. In Charlottetown the Roman Catholic bishop postponed a convocation in deference to the crusade and wished the Protestants well.

Ford feels that the effort vindicates the introduction of new dimensions to mass evangelism. A similar approach is scheduled for the West Coast provinces of Canada next year.

Honors At The Fair

Evangelist Billy Graham, addressing nearly 4,000 persons at the Court of the Universe at the New York World’s Fair, declared that only a “great religious revival” can save America from anarchy and revolution.

In an outdoor address on June 26, “Billy Graham Day” at the fair, the famed clergyman stressed that this nation and the world today “can see the possibility of having all our dreams fulfilled. But we also see the possibility that the human race might be destroyed. However, in the hand of God, the whole course of history moves like a guided missile to the fulfillment of his purpose. Not military might, but God will ultimately triumph.”

Before his address, Graham received the George Washington Carver Memorial Institute’s 1963 Gold Award for his “outstanding contribution to the betterment of race relations and human welfare.”

The award was presented by Republican Senator Jacob Javits of New York on behalf of the non-profit educational institution, which this year is marking the 100th anniversary of the eminent Negro agronomist and scientist.

At a press conference earlier, the evangelist hailed the courage and idealism of civil rights workers in Mississippi but questioned the wisdom of the college-student “summer project.”

Graham also received the fair’s Silver Medallion from Robert Moses, president of the Fair Corporation, and was presented with a $100,000 check to support his ministry at the exposition.

The check, which was 60 inches long and 22 inches wide, was made of polished Tennessee black walnut and was carved in the shape of the state of Tennessee. It was presented by the Billy Graham Special Train Committee of Tennessee, Inc., an organization which provides transportation to and from the evangelist’s crusades.

Made from wood taken from the farm of the famed Sergeant Alvin York, the check contained a plug of wood from a schoolhouse where Sam Houston taught. It was inserted to represent the state capital at Nashville.

After being processed, the canceled check was to be made into a coffee table for the Graham family home at Montreat, North Carolina.

Earlier last month, Graham spoke to some 30,000 persons crowded into the Arlington Park Race Track near Chicago. It was the closing rally of the Suburban Chicago Crusade, a follow-up to Graham’s Greater Chicago Crusade of 1962. The rally was preceded by a week of nightly evangelistic services.

This week Graham was scheduled to be conducting a crusade in Columbus, Ohio. The ten-day series has the support of some 800 churches.

Graham’s schedule for the remainder of 1964 includes two additional major city crusades: September 4–13 in Omaha and September 18–27 in Boston.

Books

Book Briefs: July 17, 1964

The Value Of The Old

The Old Testament and Christian Faith, edited by Bernhard W. Anderson (Harper & Row, 1963, 271 pp., $5), is reviewed by Lester J. Kuyper, professor of Old Testament, Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Michigan.

The essays in this book contribute interesting and discerning light on the much discussed subject of the relation of the Old Testament to the New Testament, or the place the Old Testament has in Christian thought. It is apparent that the Old Testament cannot be taken over bodily into our way of thought and life. In fact, some wonder whether it can contribute anything to Christians who consider the Christ-event—incarnation, death, and resurrection—as the only and final event with which we have to do.

The scheme of this book centers around Rudolph Bultmann’s teachings concerning the significance of the Old Testament. The writers of the various chapters offer their criticisms and reactions to the famous Marburg professor’s essay, “The Significance of the Old Testament for the Christian Faith,” presented as the first chapter of the book.

Bultmann’s essay surmises that since man’s relation to God is bound to the person of Jesus, the Old Testament must recede into a very secondary place. Luther observed that the Old Testament as law placed divine demands on man that made man aware of his need of the Gospel. However, this contrast of law versus grace overlooks the grace in the Old Testament and the place of law in the Gospel. Bultmann has rightly understood the element of grace in law in the Old Testament, and therefore Luther’s distinction is less than satisfactory.

Since the Christ-event is God’s final redemptive act in history, the redemptive acts in the Old Testament are no longer revelation for the Christian as they were and still are for the Jews, according to Bultmann (p. 31). The Old Testament has value only in the sense in which it brings better understanding about the New Testament. To this reviewer, Bultmann’s position is too radical a rejection of revelation in the Old Testament. To be sure, not all of it can be considered authoritative and relevant for Christians. However, even in its message to Israel, the Old Testament carries in itself the essence of validity for Christian faith and life. In fact, the record of God’s people through the long span of history reflects more clearly the relation of grace and judgment than the record of the comparatively brief history of the New Testament Church.

Cullmann’s chapter on the “Connection of Primal Events and End Events” stresses the non-historical or mythological features of these events in the New Testament. The in-between redemptive event of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection is historical and projects special meaning to the beginning and end events. Jesus of Nazareth is truly historical in a way in which Adam is not a historical person. However, the intent of the New Testament is to place the non-historical beginning into vital relationship with the historical Christ. Cullmann senses the overall significance of beginning and end by placing it under the redemptive Christ-event.

Alan Richardson answers the question, “Is the Old Testament the Propaedeutic to Christian Faith?” by stating that it is that and more. And the “more” is important, since the Old Testament is the kerygmatic record of God’s redemption in history which is completed in the New Testament (pp. 47, 48). This reviewer agrees that a firm adherence to the Heilgeschichte concept of the Old Testament properly relates the Old Testament to the New Testament salvation event in Christ. Yet one may ask whether this is not propaedeutic in another form.

Carl Michalson finds that Bultmann’s use of the Vorverständnis given in the Old Testament as the proper preparation for understanding and accepting the New Testament successfully combats ancient Marcionism or the present-day “creeping” Marcionism. This chapter (3) has much material on the proper pre-understanding the believer must have to believe rightly. When the exegete makes his own Vorverständnis the “assured state of affairs,” he has perverted hermeneutics and is unable to sense the kerygma of the New Testament.

Wilhelm Vischer’s chapter, “Everywhere the Scripture Is About Christ Alone,” attempts to establish the value of the Old Testament for Christians in his opposition to Bultmann’s dismissal of the Old Testament for the new community in Christ. What value does Vischer see in the Old Testament? God’s people in history, in their election by God, rebellion against him, and consequent need of redemption, establish the pattern by which the New Testament community encounters Jesus Christ. The history of Israel was recorded for the purpose of bringing present-day man to Christ. We learn from the Old Testament that God encounters Israel in history, which is the model for God’s encounter of Israel and all people in the historical Christ-event. This reviewer is not convinced that Vischer has successfully dismissed Bultmann’s rejection of the Old Testament’s having positive value for the Christian (pp. 98–101).

Other scholars in their essays express their views on the Old Testament-New Testament relation by subjecting Bultmann’s position to critical study. Most scholars accept the “negative” values of the Old Testament; however, many search the Old Testament for the “positive” contributions it makes for Christian faith and life. I find myself among the latter.

LESTER J. KUYPER

The Full Day

The Day of His Coming: The Man in the Gospels, by Gerhard Gloege (Fortress, 1963, 302 pp., $4.25), is reviewed by Ronald A. Ward, rector, Kirby Cane and Ellingham, Bungay, Suffolk, England.

This book is a study of the “single day” of the New Testament in which the thousand years of the Old Testament are realized. Appropriately enough, a large introductory section is devoted to the intertestamental period, the special danger zone of Hellenism and the Roman Empire. Then comes the earnest search for the historical Jesus. Use is made of the critical methods of historical research and the results of modern scholarship. The assumption of form criticism that the pericopai originally circulated as independent units is accepted, in spite of the acute observation of others that only an anecdotal form has been proved by the form critics, not necessarily an existence in separation.

The author believes that the record of Jesus is so colored by the believing Church that we cannot make a clean break between his own words and those of the early Church, which misunderstood a great deal or formulated his words afresh. Our Lord’s words were shaped and filled by the community. This does not give sufficient weight to the possibility that the influence of the community may have rescued differences and “contradictions” for the record instead of manufacturing them. For our Lord, like many a preacher, must often have repeated himself with a difference. He was prevented from conducting dialogues in Socratic fashion by the authority of the law and the prophets; the truth did not tolerate any human support. Strangely enough, however, the New Testament writers are engaged in a dialogue: with their contemporaries, with one another, and with us.

I am wondering if Dr. Gloege has put his finger, perhaps unwittingly, on the great defect of modern scholarship, massive though that scholarship is. In contrast to the New Testament itself, we are interested in every possible detail of our Lord’s life: his birth, his youth, his education—in short, how he became what he was. We may, and do, understand this sympathetically; but it may be dangerously misunderstood. Exegesis itself might be helped if scholars, as scholars, determined to know nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified. This does not mean restricting themselves to the Passion story; it does mean letting the Cross color every text.

In spite of what we have said, and in spite of the author’s apparent belief that the Bible has been taken over uncritically from a pious generation without any personal confrontation or conversation, and in spite of his attack on the “biblicists” (see Matt. 23), this is a stimulating book, full of arresting things. Sin is rebellion against God and retreat from God. Men speak and write about life but refuse to live. The man who loves lives on forgiveness. Our Lord’s words bring salvation, not solution. Jesus releases man from the curse of planning. The Gospels give no indication of a process of development (in Jesus). Bureaucracy is the secular form of theocracy.

Best of all is the interpretation of the Cross. As a man, Jesus is afraid of death and its physical pain; but “far more terrible for him is the fact that death comes to him to execute the judgment of God.… In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus was aware of the power of God’s wrath. He trembled before it.… The Cross means that God himself rejected Jesus—not for his sake but for our sake.”

The volume includes a short bibliography, an index, and an interesting epilogue on “The Rescue of Sisyphus” (Camus).

RONALD A. WARD

Militant For Peace

The Militant Ministry, by Hans-Ruedi Weber (Fortress, 1963, 108 pp., $2), is reviewed by H. C. Brown, Jr., professor of preaching, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.

“Almost everywhere the church is becoming a minority in a world which does not stand in awe before the miracles of God but is fascinated by the miracle of Technology.” With this statement Hans-Ruedi Weber, a minister of the Swiss Reformed Church and associate director of the Ecumenical Institute at Chateau de Bossey, sets the stage to challenge the Church to a “militant ministry” in a hostile, skeptical, and unbelieving world. If the Church is to have a “militant ministry,” says Weber, it must become involved in and with the world according to that pattern found in the New Testament and in the first four Christian centuries (centuries which, according to Weber, are more relevant for the Church than is the Reformation period).

This volume defines “ministry” as “the calling and task of Christ and all members of God’s people (it is therefore often synonymous with the ministry of the laity), while the term ‘ministers’ is used in a more restricted way, designating those church members who have received a calling for a special office within and for God’s people, such as pastors, missionaries, and bishops.” Throughout this volume there is a wholesome challenge to all Christians to involve themselves in God’s work.

Five aspects of the Church’s struggle depict the “militant church”: (1) baptism as the initiation into the ranks of the militant Church, (2) the mission of peace, which shows the apostolic character and purpose of the Church, (3) the equipment of grace (given for service to each true convert and to the whole Church), which is charismatic in character, (4) the sacrificial way of life, which imparts a distinct quality of life to those involved in the battle of faith, and (5) the true Christian joy, which depicts the Resurrection victory and foreshadows the Kingdom.

In some ways this volume will impress the technical student of the New Testament, of church history, and of theology more than the pastor. But the pastor will discover fresh insights into the total involvement of all Christians as well as numerous biblical and historical illustrations that throw new light on old thoughts.

Weber adds a word of caution about his book: he is examining the New Testament and early historical use of military imagery and is fully aware that this is only one minor section of the total data. “Writing from such a limited standpoint one cannot claim to express the whole truth.” His desire is that “laymen and ministers … discern what their particular task is today in the battle of faith of the militant church.” To a considerable degree, he succeeds.

H. C. BROWN, JR.

Berlin Novel

Behind the Wall, by Robert E. A. Lee (Eerdmans, 1964, 169 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Harold B. Kuhn, professor of philosophy of religion, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky.

Two worlds, two ways of life, touch each other at the Wall in Berlin. Robert E. A. Lee, executive secretary of the Lutheran Film Association, has in this work chosen two persons to dramatize the opposing ways of life: Werner Hirm, a West German Lutheran who has come to take his freedoms for granted, and Lise Lehman, an East Berliner devoted to the Communist party in the so-called German Democratic Republic.

This novel presents a series of meetings of Werner and Lise in East Berlin and Leipzig. The plot is simple: the two people are attracted to each other, but there is no place in Communist ideology for sentiment. Their contacts in Leipzig dramatize the conditions of secrecy that must surround party affairs. The fanatical devotion to the party of Lise’s mother complicates the problem. In Leipzig Werner meets the pastor who baptized and confirmed him, and he is brought face to face, perhaps for the first time, with the realities of the Christian faith that as a nominal Lutheran he has taken for granted.

In the course of the conversation, the author reveals to us the incredible hardships against which pastors must work in the East German puppet state. Werner comes from the conference challenged by Pastor Moser to “fight the good fight of faith.”

As Werner returns to East Berlin, Lise is assigned the sordid task of “softening up” a certain Comrade Blatnik from Yugoslavia. From this moment on she is torn between an innate sense of decency and the demands of the party. In East Berlin, Werner makes plans for Lise’s escape by one of the tunnels under the Wall. When at last all plans are complete, a note from Lise reaches Werner; in it she says that she has met a Frau Spier, through whom the Light of Christ has come to shine upon her heart, and that she must stay in the East to face an uncertain future for deserting her assignment for the party.

The book must be read to be appreciated. It lifts the curtains a little upon the Red world, with its intrigue, its diabolical cunning, and its war of attrition against the Church of our Lord.

HAROLD B. KUHN

He Is Not Without Love

The Unpopular Missionary, by Ralph E. Dodge (Revell, 1964, 167 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by H. Cornell Goerner, secretary for Africa, Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Richmond, Virginia.

This book is not quite so radical as the title suggests. Written by a Methodist bishop who had fourteen years of missionary service before he was placed in charge of all Methodist work in Angola, Rhodesia, and South East Africa, it is thoroughly constructive and keenly critical.

Bishop Dodge adds his voice to a swelling chorus of protests against any lingering remnants of colonialism, racial prejudice, and the presumption of cultural superiority. With clear-eyed realism, he confesses for the Church that its missionary representatives have sometimes reflected imperfect attitudes of their own cultural background and have not always been the champions of change. His self-criticism on behalf of the missionary enterprise is the more sharp because lie speaks from the point of view of the churches in Southern Rhodesia, Angola, and Mozambique. These are the remaining strongholds of white supremacy, where missionaries find themselves caught between their desire to serve the African masses, with whom their sympathies largely lie, and the necessity of being loyal to, or at least law-abiding in, countries in which a European minority is still firmly in control of government. The only alternative open to missionaries in these territories is identification with African nationalist groups that would promptly eject them from the country in which they are serving.

It needs to be clearly recognized that the conditions in the southern part of the African continent that Bishop Dodge describes are by no means typical of the entire African continent. In the newly independent African nations of West Africa and East Africa, the situation is quite different. There is no excuse for continued racial prejudice and for attitudes of superiority on the part of the missionaries; but there is even less evidence that these attitudes are present. It would be erroneous to regard Bishop Dodge’s book as an accurate description of the attitudes and activities of Protestant missionaries in most of Africa. It would also be erroneous to suppose that missionaries are “unpopular” with the African people they are serving. Quite the opposite is true in many parts of Africa. The services that missionaries are offering in education, in medicine and public health, and in those activities directly related to the growth of the churches, are received with appreciation and gratitude by millions of African people. There is a clamor for more missionaries, and there is competition for the services of those who are available.

Books that cause us to confront the realities of our changing world and that prompt us to confess the shortcomings of methods used in the past can be wholesome for the rethinking and the reorganization of the missionary enterprise. It would be unfortunate, however, if these generalizations made with reference to one section of the African continent should be uncritically applied to the continent as a whole. Perhaps someone will now dare to write about “the popular missionary,” who is quite real in many parts of Africa today.

H. CORNELL GOERNER

Broad And Narrow

Psychology’s Impact on the Christian Faith, by C. Edward Barker (Allen & Unwin [London], 1964, 220 pp., 28s.), is reviewed by M. G. Barker, lecturer in psychiatry, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Scotland.

The title of this book is misleading, for by psychology the author means psychoanalytic theory. The psychology of Jung and Adler and the more recent contributions of workers such as Piaget are not even mentioned in the book. This is an attempt to synthesize psychoanalytic theory and what the author considers to be true Christian faith without the accretions of Paul and the theologians. He may seem well qualified for this in that he was a Methodist minister for the first half of his working life and then, after undergoing a training analysis, became a lay psychotherapist.

The argument of the book is that the difficulties of many nervous sufferers “can be traced back, not to the teaching of Jesus himself, but to the misrepresentation of the mission of Jesus found first in the theological letters of St. Paul.” Original sin is discounted as a distortion of troubled minds, and “atonement by the blood of Christ is a theory initiated by the Apostle Paul”; while the “church is bogged down by such themes as reconciliation, forgiveness, atonement and sacrifice.”

The author divides his material into two sections. In the first he expounds his view that obsession, masochism, and distorted views of sex have clouded the true Gospel of Christ. Since Paul is subject to each of these traits, his exposition of Christian doctrine is thereby contaminated. Part II is a dull and labored reinterpretation of the biblical doctrines of man, the Kingdom, the Cross, and the Resurrection, as well as of suffering, marriage, and divorce.

This work is at times an ingenious one, but its theology will be too broad for most readers of this journal and its psychology too narrow for most psychologists and psychiatrists.

M. G. BARKER

Expositor Incomparable

A Commentary on The Holy Bible: Volume III: Matthew-Revelation, by Matthew Poole (Banner of Truth Trust, 1963, 1,008 pp., 42s.), is reviewed by A. Skevington Wood, evangelist-at-large, York, England.

We have already welcomed the reprint of the two Old Testament volumes of Matthew Poole’s Bible commentary in these pages. The appearance of Volume III, which covers the entire New Testament, completes a finely produced and exegetically valuable set. The publishers are to be congratulated.

Poole is one of the classic expositors of the seventeenth century. Indeed, Richard Cecil, the noted Anglican evangelical preacher of the succeeding century, claimed that he was incomparable. In an age like ours, when all too often faithful elucidation of the text is subordinated to critical considerations, to turn to the single-minded Poole is both salutary and stimulating. His one aim is to demonstrate what the Protestant Reformers called the perspicuity of Scripture. For this reason, he spends most time on those passages that have been regarded as hard to understand.

For example, in Philippians 2:7 he anticipates and resolves kenotic dilemmas by insisting that our Lord did not abandon the form of God when he took the form of a servant but merely veiled his majesty and power. In Romans 7:14 he recognizes the significant change of tense that supplies the clue to Paul’s self-analysis. In John 3:5 he refuses to bind regeneration to baptism in a mechanical way, while allowing that “the new birth is signified, represented, and sealed” by the ordinance. He lists the interpretations of Matthew 16:18 that identify the rock with Christ, with Peter as the typical apostle, or with Peter’s confession of faith. “In which sense soever it be taken,” he concludes, “it makes nothing for the papists’ superiority or jurisdiction of St. Peter, or his successors.”

Poole quotes William Perkins, the Puritan, as advising readers to begin with John and Romans because they are the keys of the New Testament. His own treatment of these two books is outstanding.

A. SKEVINGTON WOOD

Delightful And Disturbing

The Miracles of Christ, by David A. Redding (Revell, 1964, 186 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by James P. Martin, associate professor of New Testament, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, Richmond.

Here is an eloquent, delightful, and disturbing volume on the miracles of Christ by the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in East Cleveland, Ohio. David A. Redding reveals his mastery of English style, his faith, and his sincere concern to communicate the wonder and offense of the miracles and, through them, the wonder and offense of Christ. His only prerequisite for this study is belief in the miracle of Christ himself. This book offers such a fascinating mixture of good and weak exposition, marvelous illustration, apologetic barbs, miscellaneous scientific support for miracles, and exhortations and challenges to faith that a complete review would demand pages of comments. We restrict our remarks to major considerations.

The style reflects more the sermon than the classroom disquisition. The delicate phraseology, the striking figures, and the illustrations that illustrate will greatly stimulate and freshen the art of preaching on the miracles. The apologetic key is frequently sounded, albeit in different notes. Rhetorical questions catch modern man off guard, prick lazy indifference and stab conceit, and skillfully direct us to think afresh of Christ. At times Redding harps on the limitations of modern knowledge; at other times he pounds directly on factualness—it happened and that’s that! This apologetic style will certainly help many, and, of course, will not help others who need a more detailed, argued, and reasoned-out approach to profound questions in a scientific age.

The convenient four-division arrangement of the miracles: Mastery of Nature, Healing of the Body, Healing of the Mind, and Raising of the Dead, examines similar materials together and allows the author to provide general information for each group. Nevertheless, scattered observations on the setting of a miracle within a given Gospel point up the fact that this topical approach cannot measure up to the demands of biblical interpretation in terms of the books in which the miracles are set. The context of the given Gospel can be of decisive importance for interpreting a miracle. The miracle at Cana (John 2), the paralytic at Bethesda (John 5), and the raising of Lazarus (John 11), cannot be understood except in terms of the total historical-theological structure of the Fourth Gospel. The horizontal line of the ministry of Jesus according to John cannot be broken without damaging individual pericopes. For example, the saying at Cana, “My hour is not yet come,” is crucial to the meaning of that miracle (sign), and the Lazarus narrative is designed by John to speak about the death of believers in view of the delayed parousia as well as to tell of an immediate cause of the final plot against Jesus.

The admirable emphasis throughout the book on the mystery of how Jesus performed these miracles and on the fact that he did (so there!) tends to obscure another equally important question—why and to what purpose? The answer to this question (on the dust jacket), that Jesus did not do these wonders as “isolated bits of magic but in a compassionate response to faith and human suffering,” is only a partial answer and does not reflect the Gospel’s proclamation of Jesus as the eschatological Redeemer. A few hints thrown in the direction of the Resurrection do not suffice to account for the gaps left in the picture of the purposeful work of Jesus. The lack of a clear note on purpose also sets in relief another problem with which the author is genuinely concerned and yet which he does not quite meet head on; that is, the problem of the relevance of miracles today in the Church’s mission as well as in her theology. A brief, questioning reference to a possible healing ministry in the Church (p. 122) does not suffice, and we are left with an odor of historicism (pastness) hanging over the miracles of Jesus. Not even the use of miracles to point up the personal miracle of Jesus himself is sufficient to answer this problem, for it annoyingly leads to a further query: Is the resurrected Christ incapable or unwilling to do for “suffering humanity” what he was so able and willing to do in the days of his flesh? The author is certainly not alone in his dilemma, and we can be thankful for the sharp manner in which he illustrates it for us. Time and again the realistic and colorful description of first-century sickness, disease, and wretchedness and their remarkable real cure by the action of Jesus, is suddenly transposed into a spiritualized application to our “unbelief” and scientific fixations. But what does the Christian say about Jesus Christ to the real and agonizing suffering of twentieth-century disease? Such a clever remark as, “Good health is not the absence of symptoms, but the beating of a thankful heart” (p. 80), does not describe the healing of the leper, nor does it suffice for the modern cancer-eaten sufferer.

Redding’s own strong belief apparently reaches its limits in the case of the demoniac Legion, who, it seems, is most probably a psychopath (à la Weatherhead’s description, p. 146), although the word “demoniac” is preserved in the description. But is psychosis a prerequisite for recognizing the transcendent (not in Bishop Robinson’s sense!) origin, holiness, and purpose of Jesus? The same feature is central in the account of the demoniac in Capernaum. The author should not dilute his rugged realism at such a critical juncture but should, in accordance with the demand he repeatedly makes upon his hearers, drink the bitter medicine of biblical realism straight. For the miracles raise not only the question of sickness but also the problem of evil in its totality. What kind of a universe is this in which man dwells, and what kind of a Saviour is Jesus Christ?

A strange omission in this book, and one that reveals a basic hermeneutical weakness related to the question of the why of the miracles, is the absence of an effective historical dimension. The Gospels set forth Jesus’ miracles, not as wonders better than Egyptian magic or good enough for twentieth-century scientists, but as the fulfillment (proleptic, or inaugurated) of the Old Testament pattern of eschatological expectation (e.g., the question of John, and the answer of Jesus in Luke 7 given in Isaianic language). Old Testament references, figures, and allusions are generally missing in this treatment of miracles. But we ignore this historical dimension at our peril, for no amount of dazzling rhetorical pyrotechnics is able of itself to keep the Church seriously concerned about the inner meaning of the miracles, namely, the cosmic and realistic salvation intended by God and to be proclaimed, offered, and realized in our misery and our time. The miracles of Jesus point to the new creation and the Last Day and are thereby imbedded in the time process.

The author may protest that this review has raised questions beyond the intention of his book, but we should be thankful that he has written so well that he compels us to think about matters basic to the Church’s message and mission. If his purpose in writing was to aid the quality of sermons on miracles, then he may rest assured of success, for his work will greatly assist a genuine wrestling with the texts and will not merely shore up preconceived agreement or disagreement with the miracles of Christ. The real test of this book is whether it will make plushy sermons on miracles an integral part of our plushy church life, or whether it will move the Church to the mission of Jesus Christ to humanity outside.

JAMES P. MARTIN

Book Briefs

And Our Defense Is Sure: Sermons and Addresses from the Pentagon Protestant Pulpit, edited by Harmon D. Moore, Ernest A. Ham, and Clarence E. Hobgood (Abingdon, 1964, 191 pp., $2.50). Selections from what is heard at the Pentagon’s weekday noon-hour program for personnel assigned to duty in the nation’s capital.

Hod-Carrier: Notes of a Laborer on an Unfinished Cathedral, by Gerald W. Johnson (William Morrow, 1964, 211 pp., $3.95). Salty reflections on American life, morals, and government.

For Preachers and Other Sinners, by Gerald Kennedy (Harper & Row, 1964, 110 pp., $3). Three-minute essays that cover the waterfront of common everyday subjects. Written with zest, they will be read with pleasure.

History of Christian Education, by C. B. Eavey (Moody, 1964, 430 pp., $5.50). A wide-ranging study with special emphasis on the part played in education by the Christian Church.

The Psalm of Christ: Forty Poems on the Twenty-second Psalm, by Chad Walsh (Westminster, 1963, 80 pp., $2.95).

Youth Looks at Love, by Letha Scanzoni (Revell, 1964, 128 pp., S2.95). The title is hardly appropriate; a loyal-to-the-Bible treatment that scarcely gets out of the Bible to the world of youth for which it was written. Endless textual references won’t encourage teen-age reading.

The Greek New Testament: Being the Text Translated in the New English Bible 1961, edited by R. V. G. Tasker (Oxford and Cambridge, 1964, 460 pp., $4.50).

Family Altar: Devotions for Everyday of the Year, by F. W. Herzberger, revised by Harry Huxhold (Concordia, 1964, 382 pp., $4.95). Brief daily devotions based on Scripture texts. 1964 edition.

Youth Seeks a Master, by Louis H. Evans (Revell, 1964, 126 pp., $2.75). A long-time friend of young people speaks understandingly and sincerely about the meaning of Christ for them.

Group Counseling, by Joseph W. Knowles (Prentice-Hall, 1964, 144 pp., $2.95). A detailed discussion of the therapeutic value of group counseling within a Christian context.

The Holy Bible, Catholic Edition, and The Holy Bible, Protestant Edition (Publishers Company, Inc., 1963, 1962, $49.50 each). A large “family Bible,” with an extensive section for recording family records, with a section of stories and a section on the Bible’s “spiritual gems,” with concordance, pictures, and large print, sometimes poorly inked. Protestant edition has the King James Version, and the Roman Catholic the Douay Version. Both are bound in white.

Minister’s Service Manual, by Samuel Ward Hutton (Baker, 1964, 224 pp., $2.95). A convenient, pocket-size book of forms and services for all occasions. Of particular value to ministers in denominations that have none of their own.

Jesus Christ, Light of the World, by Waldemar Roberts (Nelson, 1964, 96 pp., $1.95). Pictures and stories of the religious exhibits of the various Protestant and Orthodox churches at the current New York World’s Fair.

Prayers That Are Different: For Church and Home and All Times of the Year, by Frederick White Lewis (Eerdmans, 1964, 166 pp., $2.95).

Reshaping the Christian Life, by Robert A. Raines (Harper & Row, 1964, 174 pp., $3). How the Church must reshape its life to fulfill its mission in the world.

Seven Themes from the Gospel of John: A Devotional Guide, by Robert Roy Wright (Abingdon, 1964, 124 pp., $2.25). A week of daily meditations, one on each of seven of Jesus’ “I am” themes. They are exceptionally good.

The Fourth American Faith, by Duncan Howlett (Harper & Row, 1964, 239 pp., $4.50). The author turns unbelief into a fourth faith (alongside Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Judaism) and contends it could be held within existing churches.

The Virgin Birth, by Thomas Boslooper (Westminster, 1962, 272 pp., $6). A helpful history of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth by an author who believes the Virgin Birth is original with Christianity yet mythic in character and required by those who think mythically.

God’s Discipline: Romans 12:1–14:12, by Donald Grey Barnhouse (Eerdmans, 1964, 230 pp., $4.50). Another volume in a series that is one of the most exhaustive commentaries on Romans in modern times.

Ideas

Christian Responsibility And The Law

Christian Responsibility And The Law

After the longest debate in the history of the Senate, the civil rights bill has become law. It is no longer a political question. Unlike a Supreme Court decision in which the justices interpret the Constitution, the new civil rights law becomes an act of Congress, arrived at by the basic legislative process through which our American democracy functions.

Since the passage of the bill in the Senate, many thousands of words have been written in anticipation of its effect. Certainly the new law does not provide the whole solution of the racial problem. Complacency on the part of those who supported the legislation would be short-sighted. By the same token, bitterness on the part of those who opposed it would be dangerous.

The period ahead may well be domestically the most crucial in our history since the Civil War. Complex problems of compliance and enforcement will not quickly be solved. Long-established traditions will not easily be changed. In their response to the new law, our people face a searching test of civic maturity and responsibility. If some of the provisions of the civil rights act prove incapable of enforcement, superfluous, or unconstitutional, these flaws are bound to be revealed and, it is to be hoped, corrected by democratic processes. In the meantime great restraint in demonstrations and avoidance of inflammatory actions are essential.

But what, it may be asked, can Christians do in the present situation? The answer to that question must be given with humility. Surely now is the time to speak words of healing, repentance, love, and forgiveness according to the Word of God. Pride on the part of advocates of the civil rights legislation must be repented of no less than rancor on the part of its opponents. All are equally sinners in the sight of a Holy God; all need his forgiveness. As a great newspaper said editorially, “The real responsibility lies in the heart of each one of us.” If this is true, as indeed it is, the call for renewed and faithful proclamation of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ was never greater. Perhaps never will this generation have a more critical need of that Gospel which alone can change the heart of man. Yet to expect all the problems facing the nation to be solved only by preaching and personal witnessing would be to fall into naïve over-simplification. Realism compels the acknowledgment that Christians have been ranged on both sides of the civil rights debate.

For Christians, the principle of obedience to law is mandatory. Herein lies an inescapable part of their function as salt in a secular society and light in a darkened world. In the classic New Testament passage about the relation of the believer to government, the Apostle Paul said, “Every Christian ought to obey the civil authorities, for all legitimate authority is derived from God’s authority, and the existing authority is appointed under God. To oppose authority then is to oppose God …” (Rom. 13:1, 2, Phillips). While obedience to the law for the sake of Christian conscience will not in itself settle everything, it is an example that no Christian should fail to set.

It is significant that immediately after the great exposition of the relation of the Christian to government, Paul turns to the law of love. After quoting from the Decalogue, he says, “All other commandments are summed up in this one saying: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ Love hurts nobody: therefore love is the answer to the Law’s commands” (Rom. 13:9b, 10, Phillips). To love in this deep Christian sense is not easy. Years of controversy and strife are not lightly forgotten. Yet the word is sure: “Love never fails.” The constraining love of Christ is greater than misunderstanding and contention.

But at this point a commonsense observation should be made. Love for one’s neighbor does not necessarily mean personal attraction toward one’s neighbor. Love includes seeking for one’s neighbor what is good, and just, and best, even as it includes seeking these things for oneself. Personal preferences belong to another order.

It is not natural for man to love his neighbor as he should. No civil rights act can compel such love. But to Christians there is given by God’s grace a power that transcends the natural. As the great Apostle said of a higher law, “What the law could never do, because our lower nature robbed it of all potency, God has done: by sending his own Son in a form like that of our own sinful nature, and as a sacrifice for sin, he has passed judgment against sin within that very nature, so that the commandment of the law may find fulfilment in us, whose conduct, no longer under the control of our lower nature, is directed by the Spirit” (Rom. 8:3, 4. NEB).

In a new and critical situation when the stability of our democracy is being tested, let Christians be what they really are—new men and women in Christ. Let them obey the God-ordained authority of their government, while manifesting love for their neighbors. And let them also proclaim the Gospel. Short of this there can be no real fulfillment of Christian responsibility.

Religious Liberty And The Armed Forces Sunday Schools

For some years a situation has existed in the Protestant Sunday schools in the Armed Forces that gives cause for concern regarding violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Affected is the religious freedom of hundreds of Protestant chaplains and about 150,000 pupils in military Sunday schools. At issue is the official promotion of the “Unified Protestant Sunday School Curriculum for Armed Forces” (UPSSC) and, in the case of the Air Force, the mandatory use of this curriculum in all Sunday schools on Air Force bases. Also in question is the use of Unified Course materials. While these materials are not technically required in the Armed Forces, they are so firmly backed by senior officers of the respective chaplaincies as to tip the scales heavily in favor of their use by chaplains. In the Air Force, only by special permission may substitute materials be used.

We recognize with gratitude the indispensable contributions of chaplains, their supporting denominations, and lay Christians to the men and women and families in the Armed Forces. Basic to the spiritual welfare and morale of service personnel is their relation to chaplains and to Christian commanders. We are also aware of the peculiarly difficult administrative problems of the service Sunday schools.

Nevertheless the Supreme Court said in deciding in Engel v. Vitale (the Regents’ prayer case) and Abington School District v. Schempp (the Bible reading and Lord’s Prayer case) that for government to prescribe religious and devotional materials is unconstitutional. But in the Armed Forces this very thing is being done extensively and against continued protest.

Since 1962 the National Association of Evangelicals has, in a series of communications, called the situation to the attention of the Armed Forces Chaplains Board and the Department of Defense. Members of Congress have also protested. Nevertheless, a directive to command chaplains in the Air Force, dated December 16, 1963, declared: “This curriculum [UPSSC] is not only suggested; it is the Air Force Program, and Command Chaplains are expected to give it their leadership and support.” Of the materials, the directive said, “The Unified Course materials are selected annually by qualified civilian and military personnel. Because these materials represent the best available and come from many denominational sources, they are recommended for use in the Air Force Unified Religious Education Program.” Then, after instructions about procurement of supplementary materials, there is this statement: “The authority to supplement does not authorize elimination of the recommended materials. [Does not this imply prescription of materials?] If, however, the chaplains of a major faith group, on any given installation, find that the recommended course materials are inadequate to meet the needs of the religious education program … a letter may be submitted through channels to this office stating their reasons for regarding the materials to be inadequate and giving a description and the source of recommended substitute materials. If it is determined that a valid requirement for change exists and if the recommended course materials cover the subjects as outlined in the curriculum, favorable consideration will be given to the recommendation.”

Surely it is clear that this is a case in which a religious curriculum is prescribed and religious materials promoted by high military authority and in which the substitution of alternate materials is hedged about by official military procedure. Particularly disturbing is the refusal of the Armed Forces Chaplains Board and the Department of Defense to alter the situation. In October, 1963, the Honorable Norman S. Paul, assistant secretary of defense, said in a letter to Representative L. Mendel Rivers of South Carolina, “With the pending change in Air Force regulations, there is no regulation which requires a military installation to use the Unified Sunday School Curriculum materials.” But with regard to the curriculum itself, the directive of December 16 of the same year, declaring the UPSSC to be “the Air Force Program” (italics ours), still stands. And as for the UPSSC materials, how can their official promotion by the directive be constitutionally justified?

At the Air Force Chaplains Conference in Washington in September, 1961, endorsing agents and denominational representatives of all the major denominations unanimously requested that mandatory provisions for the use of the Unified Curriculum be removed. At that time the Chief of Air Force Chaplains promised that the mandatory provisions would be removed. Almost three years have passed. The situation has not been rectified, despite protest from the National Association of Evangelicals, members of Congress, members of the Officers’ Christian Union, and others.

The problems of Sunday schools conducted under the military chaplaincies are not simple. Frequent shift of personnel from one post to another makes some uniform plan of study or curriculum highly desirable. Children should not have to study a lesson on Moses again when they move to a different Sunday school. But desirability cannot justify violation of religious freedom. As Mr. Justice Clark said in the majority opinion in Abington v. Schempp, “It is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment. The breach of neutrality that is today a trickling stream may all too soon became a raging torrent.…”

Obviously, some correlation of religious instruction in Armed Forces Sunday schools is needed. An orderly Bible-study program, such as the International Sunday School Lessons, might be offered, but with unhampered liberty of substitution. The initiative should come from the religious groups and not through any official Armed Forces action.

As for course materials, religious groups might be invited to provide such materials with an understanding that they measure up to mutually agreed upon criteria. The use of specific materials should be wholly voluntary, and the supplementing or substituting of materials should not require official permission. The Armed Forces Chaplains Board should do nothing more than make available information about materials.

Granting the best of motives administratively and religiously on the part of the Armed Forces Chaplains Board in their endeavor to solve a real problem, the fact remains that the mandatory prescription of the UPSSC and official backing of its materials by the Air Force together with the official promotion of this curriculum and its materials by the other services violates the First Amendment. Rectification of this situation, which we respectfully call to the attention of the Department of Defense, is overdue.

Let’s Have The Unfiltered Truth

Anyone who has studied the evidence implicating cigarettes as a cause of lung cancer and of other serious diseases will find it difficult to muster sympathy for the cigarette industry in its present expression of outrage at the action of the Federal Trade Commission in deciding to require manufacturers to place warnings on their products and in their advertising. The specific ruling of the FTC is that beginning next year all cigarette packages must plainly call attention to the dangers of smoking and that by July, 1965, similar statements must be part of all cigarette advertising.

That the industry is responding with threats of legal contests estimated to delay enforcement of the new regulation for perhaps six years is not unexpected in the light of its long record of persistent opposition to medical and statistical evidence regarding the deleterious nature of its product.

In spite of the apathy of many members of Congress about a problem so intimately related to the public welfare and also despite the formidable economic problems involved, several things are plain. The Federal Trade Commission is obligated by law to see that the public knows when a product is dangerous. The cigarette industry has played fast and loose with truth in its advertising. The unfiltered truth must now be told, even though most cigarette smokers will probably ignore the warnings.

We acknowledge the legal right of the tobacco industry to appeal to the courts, although we question its moral right to postpone compliance with FTC regulations. We cannot help feeling, however, that it would enhance its public image and render better service to the country by using its resources to find new uses for tobacco and to equip those currently employed in the industry for different jobs.

Getting Ready For November 3

Democratic societies and their free governments are built on the proposition that the individual is significant. This evaluation of the individual is reflected in the respect democratic societies have for the rights of a minority, particularly in their recognition that a minority may be constituted by only one person. Even more, the supreme worth of the individual is a basic biblical concept, plainly stated by Christ himself.

It is strange and paradoxical, therefore, when members of a democratic society fail to vote because they feel that one man’s vote does not really count. This feeling keeps many people from the polls every election day. Yet the value of one man’s vote is that same value of the individual upon which democracy rests. Where the significance of one vote is denied, the significance of the individual on which democracy rests is undercut.

Those who are not moved by this bit of moral philosophizing may perhaps be moved by some facts and numbers. In recent years we have seen some very close elections. In 1960 John F. Kennedy attained the White House by a mere 100,000 votes. But in the same election 30,000,000 Americans failed to vote. If all those in this 30,000,000 who failed to vote because “one vote doesn’t count anyway” had actually voted, they could have put Richard M. Nixon in the Presidency, or given John F. Kennedy a landslide victory.

If one man’s vote does not count because one man does not count, then the foundation on which our democracy rests has been removed.

Merely to vote, however, is not enough. One must vote intelligently. To become informed about the men and the issues is the duty of every voting American, and surely not least the duty of every voting Christian. We should begin now by following the political conventions this summer. As we move toward another national election, Americans should become informed about the issues at stake. Every such election has history-making potential. When Tuesday, November 3, comes, choices will be on things more important than pleasing personalities and platform appearances.

Preparation for intelligent voting ought to begin now. This is the time for the voter to do his homework. If the American people are to make the grade in our revolutionary world, they cannot afford to act like college sophomores, putting off the homework with the intent to cram the night before. That never was a good way to stay in school, and it will never be a good way to stay in the business of democracy.

The national chairman of one of our political parties (no, not the one you are thinking of—the other one) has said that if “we get ten more votes in every precinct, there is no question about who will win in November.” For good or ill, each vote counts.

Troubled Waters

The disappearance of the three young men in Mississippi has served to highlight for the nation forces already in motion that are highly dangerous. Cooler heads on both sides are seeking to calculate the dynamics at work with the hope of mitigating them.

Men of good will everywhere feel deep concern for the three young men and compassion for their loved ones. Moreover, we are uneasy about what may yet happen. And we appreciate the idealistic and courageous motivation of students of the Mississippi Summer Project in the effort to develop crash education programs, welfare projects, and training toward increasing Negro voting registration.

Though Mississippi has made real efforts to improve itself in such fields as industrialization, agricultural reform, and education, it remains the state most closely related in the public mind to diehard segregation. Overt coercion and disrespect for law are evident daily.

This, then, is something of the scene confronting students being organized by the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO—Mississippi branches of various civil rights groups) and trained by the National Council of Churches’ Commission on Religion and Race in what many consider an ill-timed and unwise, though legal, program for whose complexities neither the commission nor its idealistic participants are fully prepared. Observers praise the youthful dedication of the students, which has apparently been stiffened by the disappearance of the three missing men even though death has become a greater possibility. According to Joseph Alsop, “an undeclared guerilla war has in fact begun” in Mississippi, for which there is no easy answer. The possible extension of this situation should be pondered, as Mr. Alsop points out, by some leaders who seem almost desirous of bringing about military occupation reminiscent of Reconstruction days.

But Mississippi is only part of the problem. A United States district judge in Florida has indicated that Ku Klux Klansmen are behind the segregationist counter-demonstrations in St. Augustine. J. Edgar Hoover has said that the infiltration, exploitation, and control of the Negro population in the United States has long been a Communist party goal and is one of its goals today. The NAACP’s Roy Wilkins has denounced New York Negro teen-agers as “punks” and “morons,” in reference to recent subway outrages. That armed vigilantes have sprung up in the nation’s greatest city and that parks and streets not only in New York but in other great cities are no longer safe shows the extent to which violence has invaded our society.

American citizens engaged in legal pursuits have the right of freedom of movement within the nation. But the situation is explosive. The need for caution on all sides must be reiterated. It seems tragic that major crises may be precipitated before the nation’s strongest civil rights measure has a chance of lawful application.

More federal action in Mississippi may regrettably prove necessary. But a Samaritan somehow haunts the scene. What might have been, had the white Christian tried to love his Negro neighbor just as much as he loved himself. And not only the Mississippi Christian but all of us. And what might yet be, if Christians in that troubled state would themselves be doing the things visitors from elsewhere have come to do.

Talking Machines Are Back

Some of us recall our shock on first hearing the human voice on a gramophone. Well, we are in for bigger shocks. According to John Wilkinson, staff member of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, data-processing machines when linked together are able to converse together and come up with decisions. When computers are “joined together in such a way that the decisions—or outputs—of the one become the inputs of the other, a new unitary machine is created with properties … involving feedback and unpredictable secondary effects.” Wilkinson fears these decisions. Misread, says Wilkinson, they could plunge the world into nuclear, political, or economic upheavals. The computer, which threatens to downgrade man to the position of a “baby sitter” for a computing device, is also said to have something like a free will. How else could it converse? The mystery here is real and shocking. Yet we may be sure that the Word who became flesh is Lord, even over the word that comes from the new talking machine. As to the computer’s free will—this will give Calvinists plenty to talk about!

Theology

Reversing the Order

The “cart before the horse” is a time-tested proverb that is used frequently. There is increasing evidence that the Church is more and more engaged in activities that result from a confusion of mission and method.

A cart and horse are hitched together in order that the horse may pull the cart and its contents to a desired destination. Reverse the arrangement—put the cart in front of the horse—and the intended purpose cannot be achieved. Confusion results for all concerned.

To keep the mission and work of the Church in proper sequence it is important to ask some relevant questions.

Is the message and work of the Church that of redemption or of reformation?

It is popular today to speak of Christ as a reformer and a revolutionary, but this does not give a true picture of either his message or his activities. Christ came into the world to redeem individuals, to set them free from the power and consequences of sin. The words “redeem,” “redeemed,” “Redeemer,” and “redemption” are found many times in the Bible, while the truth expressed in these words appears many more times. “Reformation” and “reformed” appear but twice and in both instances are limited in their meaning.

And yet, from many of the activities and pronouncements of the Church one would gather that there are those who regard her primary purpose to be reformation, not redemption.

There is an ancient Chinese proverb, “One cannot carve rotten wood.” We find continued efforts to carve the rotten wood of unredeemed men into pillars of righteousness by the process of reformation, without the transformation that comes only through the Redeemer.

Study of the Scriptures reveals that the only sequence recognized is first a man’s redemption and then his living for his Lord in his daily associations.

A second question must be asked: Does the Church exist primarily to prepare men for this world or for the next?

Oh yes, we hear the chorus of those who inveigh against “other-worldliness,” “pie in the sky,” and so on. But we ought not to be frightened by such ridicule. This question goes to the very heart of our problem.

All through the Bible the glories of heaven are portrayed. The heroes of faith mentioned in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews were men and women who looked beyond the immediate and saw down the corridor of time the Eternal City. They endured in faith because of that hope.

No man is fit to live in this world until he is prepared to live in the next. There is no lasting profit in trying to make men who are not Christians live like Christians. There is no justification for the Church’s laboring to “make the world a better place in which to live” unless she works with even greater zeal to convert men who will be “salt” and “light” in the social order.

It is because the Church has so largely set her eyes on the things that can be seen rather than on the things that cannot be seen that she has impaired her influence in things of the Spirit in a world which so desperately needs the heavenly vision.

Again, Is the Church in the world to influence for righteousness or to coerce men into a right way of life?

A tragedy of our time is the attempts of the Church to use secular governments in order to legislate righteousness. Having failed to change men because of her neglect of preaching the Gospel, the Church now turns to secular governments to cover up this failure. Dr. Ilion T. Jones’s article entitled, “Enforced Christianity?” (CHRISTIANITY TODAY, April 10, 1964), is a clear statement of this problem.

The influence of the Gospel on the hearts of men is of incalculable value. Neglect the Gospel, or pervert its meaning, and there is no true righteousness in man; neither he nor society can rise above its natural capabilities.

Then there is this question: To which does the Church minister primarily, the body or the soul?

The needs of the body are obvious. The responsibility of the Christian to help meet the needs of others is axiomatic. The sick, the hungry, the destitute, the oppressed must be the objects of our compassion, love, and action. But again, if we lose sight of the fact that these unfortunate people also possess souls, our ministry to their bodies is but a passing gesture. Care for the sick, feed the hungry, relieve the destitute, and free the oppressed—their major need has yet to be met.

We are now confronted in many areas by a substitution of humanitarianism for Christianity. Compassion for human need is a beautiful and wonderful thing, but compassion for lost souls is even more compelling and must be the major objective of the corporate Church.

Again, Is it the mission of the Church to proclaim truth or to “search for” it?

Where are those days of deep conviction, when men preached with certainty and with the authority of “Thus saith the Lord”? Ours has rightly been called the “generation of the uncommitted.” Paul wrote to Timothy some prophetic words about people who would be “holding the form of religion but denying the power of it … who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:5, 7, RSV). These words are being fulfilled today.

The world is hungry for a word of authority, a word based on the divine revelation, not on the vain speculations of men.

Yet again, Shall the Church exercise love or force?

An increasing number of churches are becoming involved in lawsuits, or in the promotion of legislation to enforce what is thought to be the “Christian” approach to current issues.

Admittedly, we are surrounded by many problems. But should the Church use secular power and methods to effect change, or should she exercise her influence to change the hearts of men through the unchanging Gospel? We believe the latter is her true mission and that any other defeats the ultimate reason for her existence.

There is certainly a need for changes in the social order. Nevertheless, the Church’s task is spiritual: she is to change the hearts of men through the indwelling Christ and not through secular legislation.

Finally, Is the mission of the Church to preach repentance or to work for worthy resolutions in the hearts of men?

Man’s basic problem stems from sin in the heart. For this God requires repentance and not merely pious resolve. Repentance is an integral part of the proclamation of truth. Because it is so largely neglected today the churches are filled with unrepentant sinners.

The Church’s primary task has to do with redemption, the world to come, the making of new men in Christ, the ultimate destiny of the soul, the proclamation of truth, the exercise of love and compassion, and insistence on man’s need of repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. As long as she continues to put the cart before the horse, to look for fruit apart from the vine, she will continue to fail in her God-given task and add confusion to an already confused world.

Eutychus and His Kin: July 17, 1964

THE BRIGHT-EYED PIG

A very good friend of mine out around Detroit argued practically the whole length of an auto trip one time that billboards really enhance the highways. He would keep saying, “Look how interesting they are.” This went against everything I had ever supported on such subjects as conservation, aesthetics, and the American Frontier.

The trouble is that once my friend had insinuated this idea into my mind, I had a harder and harder time getting over it. With great resentment I had noted how the billboards blocked off the scenery. Meanwhile I was reading the billboards, so when I said to myself, “I just won’t read the billboards,” this was like saying to myself, “Well, forget it—just don’t worry,” and the like.

Most of the towns across the country are beginning to look much alike with gas stations, neon lights, national chain stores, and standard brands. But you discover by reading billboards that you can locate yourself in almost any part of the country by what is being advertised. Just recently I was passing through an area where they were advertising pellets, hybrid corn, and pig starter. I was in Iowa. I don’t think the billboards around Brooklyn are advertising hybrid corn. They have their own kind.

And do you know something? In a lovely picture of a whole row of little pigs chomping away in a trough, this one little pig had his head up out of the trough looking me, the car driver, right in the eye. I couldn’t help laughing at the expression on his face. He looked as if I had startled him—but as a matter of fact he had startled me. We were, in some sense, seeing things eye to eye; and for about 500 miles (just to show you what kind of a mind I have) I kept thinking about that blasted pig.

What makes one pig raise his head up out of the trough? If we knew that, we would know a lot of things about evolution, education, and religion. Says the Psalmist, “In the morning I will look up.” Have you looked up from the trough lately?

He was a bright-eyed little fellow, too.

EUTYCHUS II

THE PROGRESSIVE STATUS QUO

I am writing to commend you on the editorial in the June 19 issue entitled: “What About the Becker Amendment?” It seems to me that this is the most fair, objective write-up that I have read on this subject. You have looked at both sides of the issue without prejudice or emotion, and on this basis you have taken a clear position, which incidentally I believe is the right one. Furthermore you have made positive helpful suggestions as to what should and can be done now in reversing the trend toward secularism. Certainly the teaching of the Bible as history and literature is of greater value to all concerned than would be the devotional exercises.

I have not been a particular enthusiast for your magazine, feeling that too often you reflect the status quo elements of our society and of our faith. However, in this case I must agree that the status quo is the most progressive thing possible.…

JOHN A. ESAU

Faith Mennonite Church

Minneapolis, Minn.

I was pleased to read your excellent editorial.… Many of us have been concerned with the problem of maintaining religious freedom without encouraging hostility to religion.

DAVID E. WITHERIDGE

Executive Secretary

Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches

Minneapolis, Minn.

Please accept my sincere congratulations on your direct and perceptive editorial.… Such a profound statement deserves wide publicity and is generally needed in our nation.…

GILES E. STAGNER

First Methodist

Peabody, Kan.

I think you lose sight of this basic fact: Ours is a constitutionally governed republic—each state has all powers not specifically surrendered to the federal government. The states have never surrendered the right to control either education or “religion.” And Congress has never given any such appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, even if they had the power to do so. Constitutionally, each state community can decide for itself what it is to do. Parents, who make up a community and are responsible for the education of their children, have the right (“the free exercise thereof”) to insist that devotions be a part of their educational program with attendance voluntary.

This is a basic attack upon the foundation of our moral and spiritual heritage. We dare not retreat. The Supreme Court has already weakened the classic expression, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” in our First Amendment, but its shameful decision is based on opinion and not law. The Becker amendment is needed to re-establish the First Amendment in its historical position.…

For a Christian in a Christian nation to say that God’s Word should be prohibited from any place, at any time, is astounding, and no matter what the prayer might be, it is the acknowledgment of a Higher Authority and this is definitely needed in our country. Fail to acknowledge that Authority and his Word in public places, in every part of life, and the nation is doomed to disaster. May God have mercy upon us.…

Personally, I would prefer that Congress simply pass an act on the basis of Article III, Section II, of the Constitution, specifically stating that it has never granted to the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals on educational or religious matters and that, therefore, the Supreme Court does not have and shall not have such authority. This would make present and past decisions null and void and would require only a majority vote by Congress. But when Congress fails to do so and the Supreme Court ignores the fact that it has never been given such jurisdiction, then the people have to act by amendment. And the Becker amendment meets the need.

All evangelicals should support the proposition that the citizens of the United States should be given an opportunity to decide on this amendment through their regularly chosen representatives in state legislatures.…

FREDERICK CURTIS FOWLER

The First Presbyterian Church

Duluth, Minn.

It is a fact … that had the Bill of Rights stood undisturbed as originally adopted, none of the cases which created the present confused state of affairs would have reached the Supreme Court. Each case would have been resolved at the state level, which was the specific intent of the First Amendment. Mr. Justice Stewart noted in his dissent (Abington v. Schempp) that “as a matter of history, the First Amendment was adopted solely as a limitation upon the newly created National Government.”

It was only by a process of stepladder decisions, one upon another, that the Supreme Court gained appellate jurisdiction. Since the court’s first decision (Marbury v. Madison, 1803) that established the doctrine of judicial review its exclusive right to interpret the Constitution has not been successfully challenged even though it has been questioned many times. The next step came in 1940 (Cantwell v. Connecticut), when the court used the Fourteenth Amendment to make the First applicable to the states.

Only on the basis of these two decisions could the court claim appellate jurisdiction and make the First Amendment applicable to the prayer and Bible-reading cases. No objective consideration of the legislative history of either the First or Fourteenth Amendment could possibly bring you to the conclusion that this was their intended use.

So for the first 150 years, the First Amendment served its original purpose and all was well. In 1940 its use was changed not by due process but by judicial fiat. Since 1940 the court has made one decision after another in areas far beyond its clearly defined jurisdiction in the Constitution. There is little doubt about the direction it is headed, but there is grave concern about where it will lead us if the brakes are not applied or the trend reversed. The result has been confusion and unrest throughout the whole educational system which in turn has triggered a sociological upheaval.

All of this seems to point up the wisdom that is reflected in our Constitution. The framers made ample provisions for changes through amendments or legislative process rather than by judicial usurpation. It seems to us that an expression from the people in the form of an amendment is past due. The last thing that should happen is to wait and see what the Supreme Court will do next.

FLOYD ROBERTSON

Office of Public Affairs

National Association of Evangelicals

Washington, D. C.

Here’s my comment—Amen!

It is a thoughtful and courageous presentation and offers a constructive approach towards a solution.

THERON R. COOPER

Sand Lake Baptist Church

Averill Park, N. Y.

SENSITIVE TO RELIGIOUS VALUES

In your June 19 [issue] you incorrectly describe the late Prime Minister Nehru as an “atheist” (News). [In] the same edition (Editorials) you describe him more correctly as an agnostic who was warmly and intelligently sensitive to religious values.

CHARLES R. ATWATER

Sterling College

Sterling. Kan.

HOWARD TILLMAN KUIST

I was deeply saddened over the death of Dr. Howard Tillman Kuist of Princeton Seminary which you reported in your June 5 issue (News), and feel constrained to write a note of tribute.

It was my privilege to study under Dr. Kuist for four years. During that time I was deeply influenced by his unswerving devotion to his Lord, his refreshing enthusiasm in presenting the great biblical truths which came to light under his inductive analysis, and his profound insights into the passages of Scripture under study. Three things stood out in his classes which made him a truly great Bible teacher. First, his reverent treatment of the Scriptures was profoundly Christ-centered. I remember vividly one class period which included lecture, discussion, and investigation on the fourth chapter of the Gospel of John in which the presence of Christ himself was so distinctly felt that the students left the room at the close of the period in hushed reverence. Outside I commented to a classmate, “Christ spoke to us from his Word today. He was present in that classroom.”

Secondly, Dr. Kuist always insisted that the findings based on the inductive study of Scripture must not be merely academic but vitally applied to faith and life. I still marvel at his ability to take some of the driest passages of Scripture and make them meaningful for daily life and doctrine. Thirdly, he insisted that there was no substitute for an actual, first-hand, open-minded study of the Scriptures. He instilled in his students the desire to study the Bible for themselves. When questions concerning interpretation arose he never gave facile answers and after presenting a survey of the history of interpretation would lead the students back to the Scriptures. The guiding thought was always, “What do the Scriptures actually say?”

Princeton Seminary is poorer for having lost a great Bible teacher, but many ministers and missionaries are richer for having learned from him the basic skills in fruitful Bible study and interpretation. May God raise up one to follow in his steps.

JOHN HUEGEL

Pabellon, Ags., Mexico

WORTHY OF DESCRIPTION

I appreciate your complimentary comments in the June 5 issue (Editorials). I am glad you liked my article in the Saturday Evening Post, and it was very kind of you to describe it so fully. Thank you.

KARL MENNINGER

The Menninger Foundation

Topeka, Kan.

THE TIE ABIDES

The brief news item, “The Tie with Missouri,” … in your June 5 issue is not quite accurate. The proposal to form an independent body to be known as The Lutheran Church—Canada failed, althuogh 78 per cent of the voting congregations cast ballots approving the move. The resolution needed a two-thirds majority of congregations in each of the three geographic districts, not just a two-thirds of all congregations operating in Canada. Thus, although 90 per cent of the congregations in the Alberta-British Columbia District and 80 per cent of the congregations in Manitoba-Saskatchewan District voted for the establishment of an independent body, the movement was defeated because only 50 per cent of the congregations in the Ontario District voted for autonomy.

At its recent two-day convention held in Toronto, June 2 and 3, a federation of congregations belonging to the Lutheran Church—Canada asked officials of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod to study the advisability of a separate seminary in Canada, to establish an administrative counselor for the synod in Canada, to create a publication for the three districts in Canada, and to consider a full-time staff for the federation.

NORMAN TEMME

Dept. of Public Relations

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

New York, N. Y.

A QUESTION OF COLONIALISM

I have only recently read the editorial, “Ecumenism’s Neo-Colonial Compromises,” which appeared in the January 17 issue. The main point of the editorial seems to be the charge that the World Council of Churches “takes on the character of an ecclesiastical version of the colonial era through its neo-colonial methods of purchasing ecumenical cooperation.”

Although I know nothing of the validity of such an accusation in other areas, I do know that the Near East School of Theology in Beirut, Lebanon, cannot be used as a case in point to support this thesis. I have been following and in some measure guiding the direction of this seminary for over seventeen years and am therefore in a position to assert that every statement you have made regarding the Near East School of Theology is either false or, at best, a misleading half-truth.…

In summary, your three sentences about the Near East School of Theology in Beirut are wrong on the following points, some trivial but others of serious import: (1) The Theological Education Fund did not offer $99,000 to assist in relocation. (2) The Theological Education Fund did not specify the site of the proposed relocation. (3) The Theological Education Fund did not stipulate the source of the matching grants. (4) The Theological Commission (if such there be) of the United Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., has nothing to do with the management of the Near East School of Theology. (5) Neither the Theological Education Fund nor the supporting bodies have required that the school’s present president he replaced. (6) Neither the Theological Education Fund nor the supporting bodies have made any condition as to the nationality of any member of the staff of the Near East School of Theology. (7) The supporting bodies have not yet pledged the necessary matching grants.

GEORGE F. MILLER

Chairman, Board of Managers

Near East School of Theology

Beirut, Lebanon

• In matters of detail CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S report was in error. But on the substantive issue (Number 5 above), while Chairman Miller’s statement is literally correct, it is inaccurate as a description of the pressures that took place behind the scenes and to which the Board of Managers refused to yield. Those pressures sought the replacement of the present president, a national, by a non-national.—ED.

JOHN CALVIN

Just a brief note to express my appreciation for the fine “Calvin issue” (May 22). I appreciated particularly the fine editorial and would like to have my gratitude extended to whoever wrote it.

ROGER NICOLE

Gordon Divinity School

Wenham, Mass.

The Christian and the Rise of Secularism

Men of insight—prophets, poets, novelists, dramatists, philosophers—and the Word of God have spoken to this subject. Christopher Morley in that delightful book, Where the Blue Begins, has one of his characters say, “Modern skepticism has amputated God from the heart, but there is still a twinge where the arteries were sewn up.” And again, “The churches were so hemmed in by tall buildings they had no chance to kneel.” And Jesus, our Lord, has left us such imperishable sayings as these: “A man’s life consists not in the abundance of things he possesses.” “You are more than many sparrows.” “Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth but in heaven.”

These quotations and many more point to the baffling yet challenging problems that perplex and console the serious mind.

We must make a distinction between the secular and secularism. These terms have their origin in the word saeculum, meaning age or world. In our criticism of secularism, it is our task to appreciate the secular. God is the Creator-God, not Aristotle’s Prime Mover, not Thought thinking upon Thought with no concern for the world and man. The Psalmist says, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein.”

Our Creator called the universe into existence, not in time, but with time, as Augustine says. He made a God’s plenty of matter. Man has known this for a long time, but it is impressed on him more and more in this age of stellar adventure and space exploration. When God created man in His own image, He placed him on this earth with the stars as a canopy. As part of the divine image man also received lordship over creation with no restrictions except the warning against pride, which could cause the tragic fall of angels and of men. In spite of the Fall the world is still “the theater of God’s glory,” as Calvin says. As far as we know, man is the only soul-and-body creature who can believe, think, feel, and will, and who by divine grace can utilize the implications of lordship.

The God of the Christian is a revealing God. His self-disclosure comes to us by means of a general revelation and a special revelation, both requiring the sensitivity of faith. The Word of God itself honors general revelation, though it never suggests building a natural theology on such a basis. In the nineteenth Psalm we read: “The heavens declare the glory of God.” In Acts 14 Paul at Lystra speaks of the God who has not left himself without witness, and in Acts 17 the Apostle, addressing the Stoics and Epicureans, again tells of the one God who made and takes care of the world and men. Only when he goes on to speak of the One who was raised from the dead do the “thinkers” bow him out with a smile. And only a few believe.

In the first and second chapters of Romans Paul once more takes up the matter of revelation. He speaks of the inexcusability of man within the framework of the divine wrath. And he speaks of conscience that accuses or excuses man. But more is needed. It is the Word, the self-disclosure of God in Scripture and especially in Jesus Christ, that gives the right view of man and the world. As Calvin says clearly, the Word serves as spectacles to enable us to come to an understanding of general revelation.

Secularism has been called the refusal to let God be God. It has been characterized as “practical atheism.” It denies the relevance of religion to the major areas of life and concerns itself with dominating interests other than loyalty to God. “But Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked: then he forsook the God who made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.” Swinburne sums it up in the familiar words: “Glory to Man in the highest, for Man is the Master of things.”

Shailer Matthews once used the phrase: “God emeritus.” This shocking statement is no figment of the imagination but a candid description of a tragic severance that leaves man scarcely suffering a twinge. The shift to nature, the present-day emphasis on science, is not to be overlooked. But preoccupation with the scientific has contributed to the atrophying of the sense of mystery, the ineffable, the noumenal, the holy. As Samuel Miller says in The Dilemma of Modern Belief: “Everything has become natural, biological, social, and quite clinical.” When man gets his every gadget, he can easily forget his God.

In Christian Faith and Natural Science Karl Heim speaks of two kinds of secularists. There are those who keep fighting God, and there are those mature secularists who are perfectly adjusted to a godless situation. We have with us and we have had for some time the religious atheists who are not devoid of fervor. Marx, Feuerbach, and Freud have their disciples. We think also of the gloomy existentialists marooned in their cellophane wrappers, filled with anxiety about death, yet drumming up courage to face the absurd.

The Fruits Of Secularism

One of the results of secularism is dehumanization. This is a strong term that reaches the heart of the matter. Very likely Gabriel Marcel had it in mind when he said, “Man has become a function.” It implies that there is no profound maturing of mind and heart. Science, the machine, organization, and massification have pushed man from the center of things. That spells spiritual tragedy, a return to chaos or the jungle. We can understand Kierkegaard’s lone battle against the crushing of the person and his pleading with “that solitary individual” to be the man God wants him to be.

Secularism results in fragmentation, pluralism, a loss of unity. In our time we have with a vengeance separation of church from state, of religion from education, of meaning from art. Philosophy has become the concern for the logic of words. There is no seeing of life steadily and whole. To speak of our age as pagan could be insulting to those Greeks who had a richer conception of, and a corresponding greater reverence for, life.

Secularism also spells a loss of mystery, a decline of the sense of transcendence. Life that is only horizontal crowds out miracle. An over-emphasis on visibility blots out vision. When truth and morals become relative, when the human character is caricatured, when art deals with the trivial, when tolerance means indifference, what is there left but an impoverishment in which glamor is a poor substitute for glory?

Economics and politics have also become infected. When dollar signs become our glasses, we have eyes mostly for the temple of Mammon. There is grave danger in thinking of good times only in terms of rugged individualism or Leviathan.

Secularism has invaded education. It has become “the supporting atmosphere” in colleges and universities far adrift from the moorings of the churches. Religion and Bible are not to interfere with the “full-orbed” training of the young. Psychology and sociology tend to replace theology and Christian philosophy. We are reminded of Paul Ramsey’s 151st Psalm, which begins like this: “Oh! come, let us sing unto Sociology; let us heartily rejoice in the strength of our group consciousness.” The rest of the song is a jolly exposure of the new idiom that seems to give some people status.

Even the churches seem to have lost their zeal for a God-centered education. True, we have the difficult problem of academic freedom with us; but the solution does not lie in the churches’ indifference. When the Christian faith loses a comprehensive Christian view of life and the world, education is impoverished.

Secularism is evident in much of contemporary literature. T. S. Eliot affirms “that the whole of modern literature is corrupted by what I call secularism.” It does not understand the supernatural.

The study of literature is very important because it reveals the pulsebeat of modernity. Man received a tremendous shock during the war years and their after-math. Idealism and optimism have given way to realism, naturalism, and pessimism. Hemingway tells us that there is no remedy for anything. Steinbeck reminds us that what God formerly took care of, man must now take upon himself. A character in Sherwood’s The Petrified Forest says he belongs in the world of petrified stumps where even death has little or no meaning. Stephen Vincent Benét frankly admits we will not be saved by anything, not by General Motors, nor by inventions, nor by Vitamin D.

John Killinger in The Failure of Theology in Modern Literature analyzes the writings of our times and sees in them the lostness of man because he has lost God. The pale Christ figures are quite ineffectual. They do not stand up or out. They represent the ideals of humanism, a secularization of Christ with no resurrection and no triumph.

There was a time, as in Dante’s day, when man was surrounded by the presence of God. There was a time when men searched for the Holy Grail. Today man is in quest of himself on a rather fruitless search. What was once a cosmic struggle has become a skirmish between the Id and the Ego. Redemption is an atmosphere foreign to most of our writers. Alienation and gloom compose the theme of the existentialists such as Sartre, Kafka, and Camus. The self faces the meaningless, the tragic, the absurd, with only enough courage left to face death with a minimum of quiver.

Inroads Upon The Churches

Since God has become a blur to millions, the churches also are affected. Where congregations become “the gateway to the country club,” where lectures and harmless homilies ten miles from any exposition of a text beguile the listeners, where sin and atonement are toned down, where love loses the content of faith and doctrine, where Jesus is sentimentalized and demythologized, where people no longer understand biblical terminology and prefer a new idiom, there secularism has also made its inroads.

We are well aware of the charge made by Bishop Robinson in his Honest to God and by Bonhoeffer. We need not agree with all their reasonings and their conclusions, but we do well to heed the warnings. Institutionalized Christianity is no substitute for a personalized faith and love. Christendom can be such a far cry from Christianity. Clericalism may crush the spirit. The noise of our solemn assemblies easily drowns out the voice of Jesus Christ. Churches concerned only with themselves are quite ineffectual in the world. Samuel Miller reminds us that religion concerned too much with itself is “spiritual incest.”

The fault does not lie with God. For many he may not be there, but that follows from man’s not being there.

For some people theology is unintelligible; for others it is unnecessary. But for the churches it is essential because their concern is to grasp the self-disclosure of God. In the light of the divine revelation life has meaning, purpose, and destiny. By it man comes to understand his tragic plight and the only escape from it. God in Christ as the center of the center alerts us to the triviality of our petty loyalties.

Today the cry for a new terminology is in fashion. But is God as “the ground of our being” more meaningful than God as Father or Jesus Christ as Shepherd? The latter designations have nothing to do with a three-story universe in which God might get lost.

As Christians we must correct our docetic tendencies. Concern for personal salvation must not overlook Christ’s significance for the whole divine plan. In Christ and Culture H. Richard Niebuhr maintains that Christ is the transformer of the best in culture. Herman Bavinck in his Philosophy of Revelation suggests that man needs a twofold conversion, first from the natural to the spiritual and then from the spiritual to the natural.

Scripture itself gives us the image of wholeness. The Hebrew writers speak of the God who may hide himself from our comprehension but who also leaves a great deal for our apprehension. The heavens proclaim his glory; the little hills skip before him; the pastures are fat because of his goodness; his voice rides on the winds.

In the Incarnation Jesus hallowed the natural. His resurrection assures ours. The Book of Revelation speaks of a new heaven and a new earth.

It should be evident enough that as Christians we are not to flee the secular but to be God’s agents in sanctifying that realm. Only a true sense of stewardship and of our high calling will bring that about. Christians are called, not only from, but also for. Privilege always goes with responsibility. The follower of Christ should have his head in God’s sunlight but his feet on the ground. His pilgrimage should be marked not so much by speed as by high seriousness within the atmosphere of divine revelation. It is Paul Scherer who reminds us that the world has been changed not so much by those who have both feet on the ground as by those who have one foot in heaven.

We believe that the rising tide of secularism will never inundate the City of God. This calls, however, not for a ghetto existence but for a strong faith that has both content and the power to revolutionize where man’s revolt has failed.

With deep humility and only in the strength of Christ we Christians may chant:

For we are the movers and shakers

Of the world forever, it seems.

Theology

Imitation—The False and the True

The old proverb, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” is only half true. Imitation of an adult by a child, of an older writer by a younger writer, of one nation by another, grows out of something deeper than the desire to flatter. Imitation takes place when one person or institution accepts the philosophy, style, aims, or attitudes of another. That one imitates another reveals that the two have some deeper common basis that may not be readily apparent even to a critical observer.

Imitation is also the basis of art. Twenty-three centuries ago Aristotle defined poetry (by which he meant also drama and music) as “the imitation of an action.…” No matter how “original” or “creative” the author or composer may be, he must work with the materials given in life—that is, he can do nothing but imitate reality. He may emphasize, he may distort, he may offer a fantastically “new” point of view; he may utilize the contents of the subconscious or even the hallucinations of the alcoholic or drug addict; but like everyone else, he must work with reality. Therefore, no matter how far he may extend the situations of life by his imagination, the author-composer imitates life. And thus, historically, the creative person (the writer, composer, painter) has affirmed reality.

Nations have always recognized that the affirmation and continuance of their national life resides in their thinkers, and that they owe their freedom and dominance to their creative thinkers and leaders in all fields. The enemies of the human spirit have always recognized this, too. The Assyrians and Babylonians took into exile the thinkers and leaders of ancient Israel and other conquered states. Hitler systematically murdered Jewish intellectuals, while the Jewish underground leaders tried to save (and fortunately did save) many of their intellectuals; both sides knew that the fate of the Jews was bound up with the fate of that wonderfully fertile group of writers, artists, and scientists produced by European Jewry.

The Communists also, according to documented evidence, eliminated the intellectuals of those Eastern European countries they subverted or overran. Dr. Arthur Vööbus of the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago has written extensively of the murder of the intellectual class in his native Estonia. Indeed, tyrants have always recognized what the modern Christian Church is only slowly remembering: that the future of any people—and of any institution, such as the Church—lies in the performance of its intellectual class. Moreover, the productions of writers, researchers, artists, and composers may ultimately be of more significance than the acts of military, governmental, and religious leaders. That other proverb, “The pen is mightier than the sword,” has been proved true, pre-eminently by the Bible, but also by the Dialogues of Plato, the Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf. “I care not who writes the nation’s laws, if I may write its songs” is an insight that the Church that produced “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” and the hymns of Wesley should never forget.

A Lost Source Of Sustenance

By now the reader may be saying, “Very well, I agree. But what is the significance of these things?” The answer is plain. That modern literature, drama, music, and art have stopped “imitating” the Christian faith in any positive sense shows that Christianity has become irrelevant for many modern intellectuals. There is no longer a common religious root beneath the surface of society from which the artist, writer, and composer draw sustenance.

The obverse of the failure of modern writers and artists to imitate the Christian faith in any significant way is the more disturbing tendency of the Church increasingly to imitate the world. So key questions arise, such as these: “How is the Church imitating the world?” and “How is this kind of imitation undermining the communication of the Christian faith?”

The Church is imitating the world, first of all, in the standards, means, and goals its ministers adopt for their task. Consider the overriding concern with budgets, size of congregations and denominations, and building projects—a concern that reflects the statistic-sickness of the contemporary Protestant church. That this condition is an aping of the “success-philosophy” of secular culture needs no documentation. The church on the corner too often pursues the same goals by the same means as the company down the street. The literature the two distribute seems to be mass-produced by the same advertising agency. But it is carrying this success-philosophy into the pulpit that becomes a false Gospel. To equate the Kingdom of God with Sunday school attendance is to trample on pearls. Why should secular thinkers imitate the teaching of an institution whose parroted philosophy of “busyness” leaves even the most secular men empty within? Books like The Organization Man and The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, stories like “Cash McCall,” and studies like The Lonely Crowd and The Status Seekers reveal the emptiness of the Horatio Alger myth. The secular writer has discovered what too many ministers have failed to see: “To be first,” to succeed materially, to make $1,000 a week, is not the fulfillment of life.

Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman poignantly portrays the agony of a man who accepted what the recruiting posters of modern industrial society proclaim: WORK HARD, THINK BIG, GET RICH! Poor Willy Loman ventured forth into the jungle of business with a smile and a shoestring; he didn’t make it, but he never stopped believing in the myth. This was his tragedy, that he died still believing in the sanctity of numbers written beside a dollar sign. His son Biff tried to help him, saying, “I’m a dollar an hour”; but Willy refused to believe that Biff couldn’t become “a leader of men” if only he would try. It is “not that they died, but that they die like sheep” that is the awful truth about so many in our society. We may fail as persons, but we never question the ethics of success. And if we succeed financially, we too often look down on those who do not succeeed, considering them worthless, shiftless, sinful people.

To our shame, we preachers of the Gospel have perpetuated this myth; earning for ourselves the curse invoked by Paul in Galatians, we have preached numbers, budgets, buildings, and “hard work for personal success” as another gospel. But the Bible rather discordantly says, “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord …” and, “Not by works of the law will a man be justified but by grace through faith.”

The only positive means of combating the increasing irrelevance of the modern Church to contemporary writing, drama, art, and music, and thus to contemporary life (for they are one), is the old solution to the futility of life expressed in justification by faith. The pulpit must proclaim Jesus Christ, the strong Son of God, who is able to save us from the meaninglessness of a life devoted to material success, unrestrained sexual pleasure, alcohol-induced joviality, and leisure stupified by the nerve-jarring cacophony of television—all of which men grasp desperately to stave off the anxiety that nibbles away in the back of the brain like a maddened mouse. For, as any secular writer will tell us, there is no salvation in any of these things. Rather, as Eugene O’Neill never stopped saying, we have only our illusions to sustain us.

All Are Guilty

It may be that many who were commissioned to proclaim Christ have consciously or unconsciously decided that he, too, is an illusion, and therefore have sought substitutes from the world. This has been the historic weakness of liberalism. The rejection of revelation for reason, the rejection of redemption for ethical improvement, the rejection of the Bible for philosophic and psychological insights—these describe the history of liberal Protestantism from the seventeenth century to our own. The emphasis on theological, homiletical, liturgical, and church-administrational “methodology” since 1900 in all Protestant circles is a clear indicator of the abandonment of eternal truth for means to success determined by secular criteria. And we all—fundamentalists, conservative evangelicals, liberals, and modernists—have shared in this. All are guilty, for we all have stressed method (be it the use of radio, campaigns, committees and reports, membership drives, demythologizing, or the new hermeneutics) more than the Spirit and have generally relied upon the methods of the world instead of placing the Gospel of Jesus Christ first.

One of Camus’s characters in The Fall remarks, “Now that I have lost my character I must devise a method.” Unfortunately that is all too applicable to us, who were called to proclaim “foolishness to Greeks, a stumbling block to Jews.”

Many may take offense at these remarks. Yet I have stated what I believe to be true. And I could also say something of the techniques of preaching adopted from secular pursuits—chiefly from the semi-scientific critical approach used by university professors—that detract from so much modern sermonizing. Let me simply say that every lash I have laid on my brethren’s back I feel on my own. I sat where they sit and stood where they stand. As Plutarch said: “It is a thing of no great difficulty, to raise objections against another man’s oration—nay, it is a very easy matter; but to produce a better in its place is a work extremely troublesome.”

To pretend to have produced a better work is folly. I can only point, as John the Baptizer did and as every preacher should, to him who imitates no one and nothing, but who is the Express Image of God, the Judge of every work of man, the Saviour of everyone who trusts in him.

John C. Cooper is assistant professor of philosophy at Newberry College, Newberry, South Carolina. He has the A.B. (cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa) from the University of South Carolina; B.D. from Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, South Carolina; and S.T.M. from Lutheran School of Theology, Chicago.

The Christian Service Corps

We can wonder why, after 2,000 years of missionary effort by the Christian Church, Christians are still such a small minority in the world. A plain but shocking fact is that the Christian population of the world in relation to the general population drops 10 per cent every forty years.

The many reasons for this could be summarized by the statement that too many Christian people have failed to take seriously the words of Christ, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” If during the last twenty centuries the Church had really obeyed these words as it should have, the world would not be so unbelieving as it is with regard to worshiping God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Although the Church can point to great strides in its Christianizing efforts in the past and even at present, the future appears dim—indeed, dark.

If we look at what two great denominations in America are doing in foreign missions, we shall be able to see more clearly why this is so. The entire Protestant Episcopal Church, which is one of the wealthiest of all per capita and has a membership of over three million, representing in good part the middle and upper classes, has on the field only 270 missionaries. Mr. Clifford P. Morehouse, an Episcopal layman, said, “After more than a century of missionary endeavor, the church has only some 250,000 baptized members outside the United States.” The United Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., whose 3,300,000 members are primarily from the middle class, is a church strong in culture, history, institutions, and doctrine. This church, whose history dates from the formation of the first presbytery in Philadelphia in 1706, had only 1,246 missionaries and fraternal workers on the field at the end of 1962. The number of Presbyterian missionaries abroad has declined 7 per cent over the last four years, and budget restrictions for 1964 will force a decrease from ninety-eight missionaries sent in 1963 to seventy this year, not quite enough to replace losses by retirement, resignation, and death.

How can we be content with our present endeavors when such figures and facts present themselves? Do we really care whether the Gospel gets to all the world? Unless something is done in the next decade or two, the Church will continue to fall behind in its efforts to win men to Christ and his Church. Something must be done to reverse the tide so that the statement in the opening paragraph above will read, “The Christian population of the world in relation to the general population rises 10 per cent every forty years.”

A Suggestion For Action

A Christian Service Corps (CSC) may be the answer. Such an organization would be very similar to our national Peace Corps, but it would be a Christian movement instead of an agency of the United States government and would be evangelistic in nature.

The CSC would be a lay movement that would cooperate closely with the Protestant churches. The term of service would be short, and it is possible that thousands of Christians would join for a two or three-year term. Response to the Peace Corps has been remarkable, and Operation Crossroads Africa has seven times more applicants than it can accept. Many Christian people who have served with such programs as these could use their training and experience with the CSC.

The mission program of the Church might be greatly strengthened by the services and Christian witness of laymen in the CSC. In this way the ministry of the laity could find significant expression. The Church has put emphasis on recruiting lifetime missionaries; it has done very little to prepare and send laymen to represent Christ in all the world. Another benefit of the program would be that it might help laymen to determine whether God was calling them to enter full-time service as missionaries, as ministers, or in some other church vocation.

The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are examples of groups that have spread their faith by dedicated laymen. From its beginning Mormonism has strongly urged its members to give one or two years of their lives to the worldwide propagation of their doctrine. A hundred years ago the Mormon church under the leadership of Brigham Young was sending missionaries to Europe. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are well known for their enthusiasm in ringing doorbells and passing out literature. These heretical cults have grown substantially through the ministry of laymen. Surely the Christian Church must recapture the New Testament concept that everyone is an apostle—one called out of the world to be sent back into the world.

The Christian Service Corps program would represent and be supported by as many Protestant churches as possible. It is hoped that denominational churches (including Assemblies of God, Baptist, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Church of Christ, Church of God, Church of the Brethren, Disciples of Christ, Evangelical Covenant, Evangelical United Brethren, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Pentecostal, Protestant Episcopal, Reformed, Seventh-day Adventist, United Church of Canada, United Church of Christ), independent churches, and mission boards such as the Division of Foreign Missions of the National Council of Churches, the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, and the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association, would participate in the CSC.

Corps Qualifications

Applicants for the CSC would need to have a skill usable in the Church’s missionary program in the world. Areas of skills could include medicine, dentistry, public health, social work, engineering, carpentry, construction, agriculture, commercial arts, business administration, printing, journalism, radio and television, education and literacy work, athletics and physical education, and the lay ministry.

Christian Corpsmen would be between the ages of eighteen and seventy. Married couples who could work in the same area would qualify; those with dependents under eighteen would be eligible but would have to finance their dependents. After filling out a detailed questionnaire, applicants would need to pass an entrance examination and physical and psychological examinations before beginning an intensive four to six-month training program.

The training programs would be given in church-related colleges, state colleges, Bible schools, and universities. Each program would be oriented toward a particular country and responsibility. Courses would be in three general areas: the history and culture of the country; the language of the country; the Bible and its use in preaching and teaching. No matter what a Christian Corpsman’s primary skill, he should be able to minister the Word of God. He would therefore need to have a workable knowledge of the Bible and to be willing to subscribe to a Christian statement of faith. Refresher courses in basic skills would be available also.

Examinations in history, culture, language, and Bible would be thorough and intensive. During the whole training period the candidates would be undergoing personal evaluation. At the conclusion of the training period final selection on the basis of skill, maturity, motivation, and Christian character would be made. The highest physical, psychological, and character standards would have to be maintained.

On Location

A Christian Corpsman’s place of service would be determined by his skill, the need, and his preference. The CSC would channel Corpsmen to the mission fields either through the denominational and independent mission boards or directly to the indigenous churches. Mission stations and churches could request persons with certain skills. Workers would be going out, not as missionaries or fraternal workers, but as Christian Corpsmen. They would be under the direct supervision and authority of the person or group in charge of the mission station or work. In other words, the CSC would supplement the work of the Church and existing missions in the world.

The Christian Corpsman would receive a subsistence allowance commensurate with the cost of living in the area in which he was serving. He would raise one-third of the total cost of his training, travel, subsistence, and insurance for his term of service. After a two or three-year term, he would be free to return home. He could also choose to stay on the field an extra year, or even for another full term. Upon returning to this country he would be given a $50 readjustment allowance for every year of his service.

A candidate, trainee, or Christian Corpsman could resign at any time. College students sent to Africa for two to three months under Operation Crossroads have made a significant contribution in human relations; surely a Christian Corpsman could substantially aid the missionary program of the Church in two or three years.

The Christian Service Corps would be organized as a non-profit corporation. The board of directors, which would be made up of thirty prominent and qualified Christian ministers and lay people, would have the responsibility of determining policy and objectives and of appointing executives. Each participating denomination and group would appoint one board member.

An executive secretary, working at the central Christian Service Corps office, would supervise the entire program. Four associate executives would be responsible for recruitment, financing, training, and supervision of personnel on the field. The five executives would be members of the board of directors in addition to the thirty regular members.

Publicity would be handled by the associate executive in charge of recruitment. He would cooperate closely with the personnel directors of the mission boards of the participating denominations and the independent mission boards, both in this country and abroad, as to need, qualifications, and placement of Corpsmen. Christian men and women would be challenged and approached in churches and colleges and by way of radio, television, and literature. In our country of millions of Christians the potential for prospective candidates is well-nigh unlimited.

A Two-Way Appeal

Financing of the CSC would be through the contributions of Christian people, endowments, wills, foundations, and churches. The Church both numerically and financially is in a position to carry out such a program in addition to its regular benevolent giving. Some Christian Corpsmen would be supported by churches or individual Christians who knew them. People are more ready to support enthusiastically someone they know than to support mission work in general. Funds could probably be raised for the program, since it would have a unique appeal not only to possible candidates but also to the givers. For a special organization such as this money might be available that would never be given to the regular mission program of the Church.

The Church has before it a door open to new and almost unlimited service. Asia, Africa, and South America are ripe for laymen to supplement and aid the existing Christian witness. Half the people who live in these three continents are under the age of twenty-one. In an address to members of the Presbyterian U. S. Board of World Missions, Jean-David Mukaba, press secretary to Congo President Joseph Kasavubu, said, “I was asked to bring a request for more missionaries.” Of the 242 million people in Africa, 116 million are animists and 89 million are Muslims. At present, for every convert won to Christianity in Africa three are won to Islam.

From Mexico to the tip of Argentina there are 205 million people. The Church in these areas needs leaders, qualified laymen who are dedicated to spreading the Good News. Many areas in the Far East, Near East, and Southern Asia with their millions are open to evangelism. Dr. Bonar Sidjabat, professor at Djakarta Theological School and secretary of the Study Commission of the Indonesian Council of Churches, recently told me that the church in Indonesia could use 300 more missionaries immediately. As it matures in its mission, the Church throughout the world sees new opportunity for witness and service and thus needs more workers.

What results would such a program have? First, it would decidedly strengthen the missionary program of the Church in evangelizing the non-Christian world. There are areas that are ripe and waiting to hear the Gospel. If the Protestant church does not win certain people within the near future, some non-Christian faith will. In some parts of Africa, Islam is winning more people because it is reaching them before we are.

It is not inconceivable that the CSC, working in a cooperative and united way with the churches, could have 5,000 trained and dedicated laymen on the field within eight years, and the number would increase as the program’s usefulness was proved. The benevolent giving of Christian people would increase as well. Indeed, the CSC might possibly turn the tide in the battle for men’s souls that we are at present losing.

The second result would be an awakening in the local church to the worldwide ministry of the Church. The Christian Corpsman upon completion of his service would bring to the local church the training and experience he had received. His influence would stimulate benevolences. He would be expected to make at least forty speeches to Christian groups within a year of his return and would encourage others to participate in the CSC. There would certainly be opportunities for him to work in this country with migrant workers, in rural areas, in inner-city churches, in mobile ministries, with minority and underprivileged groups, and in hospitals.

A minister whose church is the third or fourth highest in benevolent giving in its denomination remarked to me that this resulted from his trip around the world. He visited churches and missions and saw the physical and spiritual needs of the world’s people. Sharing his experiences with his congregation upon his return, he was able to stimulate interest in mission work.

Through the Christian Service Corps the Church would challenge laymen to serve Christ in this way. Ask what you can give to your country, but first ask what you can give to Christ and his Church.

Preacher In The Red

Having been quite deaf for many years, I learned to read lips reasonably well. While preaching a Thanksgiving Day sermon to a Portland, Oregon, congregation, I read the words of Revelation 19:1: “And … I heard a great voice of much people … saying, Alleuia; Salvation, and glory … unto the Lord.”

In the front row, directly before the pulpit, sat a young couple. They seemed to study me carefully and may have noted something indicative about my last name. Anyway, I saw the young lady lean close to her escort’s ear and say softly—but clearly, to my special lip-reading ability, “Now I know he is an Englishman: he leaves off his h’s”—THE REV. FRED H. WINSOR, Woodburn, Oregon.

For each accepted report by a minister of the Gospel of an embarrassing moment in his life, CHRISTIANITY TODAY will pay §5 upon publication. Anecdotes must narrate factually a personal experience and must be previously unpublished. Contributions should not exceed 250 words, should be typed double-spaced, and should bear the writer’s name and address. Accepted contributions become the property of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Letters should be addressed to: Preacher in the Red, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, 1014 Washington Building, Washington, D. C. 20005.

Robert N. Meyers, assistant minister of the Vienna United Presbyterian Church, Vienna, Virginia, holds the degrees of B.S. in Ed. (Wisconsin State College) and B.D. (San Francisco Theological Seminary). He did graduate work at St. Andrews University in Scotland.

Questions about Evangelism

For the evangelical, evangelism has priority. Realizing the need for a greater emphasis on Christian ethics in today’s world, evangelicals still rightly insist that before a man can follow the ethics of Christ, he must accept Christ as his gracious Lord. It would seem, then, that proper evangelistic methods would be one of the evangelicals’ greatest concerns. But is this so?

Granting the genuineness of our concern and the correctness of our theology (or most of it), what about the methodology of our evangelism? Can we assume that we have adopted evangelistic methods that are adequate for our age? We believe that our doctrine of evangelism is based on a correct interpretation of the Bible; but can we safely assert that this doctrine never changes? The doctrine of salvation is, of course, as unchanging as the nature of God. But can this be said of the manner in which the Gospel must be presented to man?

We preach the same Gospel as Paul did, but we use modern means, such as radio and television, to spread that Gospel. In place of the simple musical instruments of the first century, we use the electronic organ. Instead of meeting in homes, we spend millions on large church plants. The question is—are all our practices as modern as these? Or are we clinging to some evangelistic methods that were successful in rural areas in the earlier history of our country but are now beginning to lose their effectiveness? Will the methods used to reach men on the frontiers a century ago reach the sophisticated middle class in suburbia today? If so, let us be about our Father’s business in the way we have been doing it. But if not, failure to correct our methods can add to the failure of men to respond to the Gospel.

A good business continually re-evaluates its methods and policies. Evangelism, the most important enterprise in the world, should do no less. Are our methods succeeding? Are we reaching men? (If this be pragmatism, so be it!) I do not claim that this article offers all the answers to questions about evangelism. Nor do I suggest that it is a valid critique of all evangelistic methods in use today. I do propose, however, to ask some important questions whose answers must be known if we are to reach our generation with the Gospel.

First, what is the realistic assessment of the unregenerate man’s concern for the Gospel? One often hears at evangelistic conferences, “The lost are just waiting to hear the Gospel. Millions of the unsaved are voicing the ‘Macedonian Call’ to ‘come over and help us.’ ” Are they really? Or are they profoundly indifferent, if not actually antagonistic, to any concern on our part for their spiritual welfare? Christian witnessing would surely be much easier if these millions of men were concerned about their spiritual welfare and were praying that someone would show them the way to peace and rest.

This leads to a second question: Do we really believe that laymen should witness to others? If we do, then let me ask: How much training do we give our church members for this task? Or do we perhaps consider most of our members already qualified? Does not many a layman attempting to bring a man to Christ end up by asking his pastor to go to him?

The third question follows logically: Is soul-winning so simple that all a man has to do is learn a few biblical proof-texts and then present them to every prospective convert? Though the “way of salvation” is identical for all, can we afford to give laymen the impression that all men can be brought in the same way to this way of salvation? The man with his doctoral degree has fully as much need of regeneration as the man on skid row. But can anyone say that these men would be reached by similar methods, or even by the same kind of people? Can we properly write books on such subjects as “Soul-Winning Made Easy”? Can genuine results be guaranteed? Can soul-winning really be made that easy? Ask men who have tried it! If we are really serious when we say that every Christian ought to be a soul-winner, are we not faced with the need of completely revising our church training program?

A fourth question concerns our methods of publicizing evangelistic services. Are we getting the unregenerate man to attend? Does he respond to the big sign on the front of the church that says in bright red letters, “Revival Services Nightly—We Preach the Old-fashioned Gospel”? How many non-Christians want to attend such a revival? How many modern suburbanites are interested in an “old-fashioned Gospel”? Granted, the Gospel does not change; but can we not find better terminology? Perhaps television advertising methods would not be suitable for advertising evangelistic efforts, but they do reach the people for whom they are intended. And they get results—which is more than can usually be said for the way churches publicize a revival. Perhaps evangelical forces and the advertising industry need each other.

With the mention of terminology, we have reached question five. Would more people, both regenerate and unregenerate, attend our “revivals” if we changed the name of these services? Should we call “Revival Services” by such names as “Spiritual Life Crusade,” or “Preaching Mission,” or “Bible-Study Week”? “Revival” is indeed an honorable word with an impressive history, and it speaks of new life. But perhaps the word also reminds the twentieth-century man of the world of high-powered, strongly emotional methods of getting men to kneel before a mourner’s bench or join a church.

The sixth question may invite charges of heresy. Yet it must be asked, not to suggest a negative answer but to provoke honest consideration of the question. Do we need revival services? We say we believe in perennial evangelism. If so, is the annual parade of two-week revivals, and week-end revivals, and youth revivals really necessary? Or does it make up for our failure in perennial evangelism?

Speaking of two-week revivals, have we the right to insist that our church members attend a service on each of fourteen consecutive nights? We certainly give a lot of recognition to those who do attend every service. And what about some of the “gimmicks” we use to ensure a large crowd at each week-night service? Some churches by this time may be offering trading stamps for attendance. This at best is a sticky business.

The final question invades the field of theology. Do we have the right to guarantee to all who will listen that the converted man will have a new life, a new purpose, a new set of standards, a new philosophy of life? My Bible says yes. My observation seems to say no. Maybe we should make sure our converts are really converted before we take them into our membership, before we hold them up to the unconverted as examples of what Christ does for a man. Maybe it is time we stressed emphatically that the Christian life is more than an intellectual acceptance of Christ as Saviour. Christianity is more than a creed, a set of doctrines. We need to remind men everywhere that it is a way of life. It involves more than publicly professing faith, being baptized, and accepting a box of church envelopes. It is also a life of self-discipline, of complete commitment to the will of God.

Since I am an ardent admirer of Billy Graham and have noted with great pleasure his successful crusades, it may seem odd that I should ask all these questions about evangelism. I do ask them—not of Dr. Graham, but of us who minister in the local churches and of laymen who support church evangelism.

Who will give us honest, correct answers to these questions? Such answers ought to go far toward helping evangelicals to evangelize contemporary America.

A Scot Looks At The American Kirk

The American ecclesiastical scene never fails to intrigue us on our periodic visits. We have just returned from a two-month sojourn there, during which time we worshiped in a Presbyterian church in Maryland. It has a full-time secretarial staff, a superb collection of buildings, and a formidable array of organizations.

So many things have to be crammed in on Sunday that everything is planned with military precision. The first of two morning services, held at 9 A.M., must be finished by ten sharp, or the timetable is disrupted. Lest the worship of God be prolonged, we sing no more than two verses of each hymn—always the two opening verses.

Sunday after Sunday we depressingly never get as far as death’s dark vale, are left shivering on the wrong side of Jordan’s brink, and are consigned to an evident eternity of watching, praying, and fasting, with no assurance that the end of sorrow shall be near the Throne.

There is one exception to this two-verse rule: every Sunday at a given moment we rise and sing the first verse only of Ein’ Feste Burg. Somehow it always struck us as peculiarly unfortunate to close with what may seem a solid boost to the devil: “On earth is not his equal. Amen.” (For some reason we were always scrupulous about the Amens.)

One Sunday we rebelled, and despite looks of blank incomprehension from our kind American hosts who thought our behaviour extraordinary, we walked three miles to another Presbyterian church, recommended to us as “evangelical.” We sang “Heavenly Sunshine,” and were exhorted to shake hands with the person sitting next to us, which we amiably did. Later the same treatment was accorded “the person sitting behind you.” Happily it stopped at that; there’s no saying where all this chumminess in church might lead—J. D. DOUGLAS, in the Church of England Newspaper

Carlton L. Myers is pastor of the Van Buren Street Baptist Church, Annapolis, Maryland. A graduate of Philadelphia College of Bible, he has been chairman of the Music Committee of the Maryland Baptist Convention.

Shakespeare and Christianity

Shakespeare wrote in such a way that all men may find beauty and understanding in his words. For this reason, he is called our most universal poet; we can all respond in some measure to what he says. The reading man will make this response through studying Shakespeare in print, but even the illiterate respond with excitement and pleasure if they see a good stage production of one of his plays. He wrote works and words in which we feel the essence of beauty and yet find that beauty closely united to truth about man and society. We can gain enjoyment from him and learn from him as from no other secular writer.

What are we to say about Shakespeare in relation to Christianity? First of all, we must say that he was writing objective drama in which he gave expression to virtually every opinion that men anywhere have ever held. His characters cover the full range of the human spectrum, representing every shade of vice and virtue, every degree of piety and impiety. But Shakespeare has left us no account of his own innermost convictions. Of mankind he has told us much, but of himself very little. We simply cannot tell precisely what his own most intimate religious beliefs were. We can say, however, that he appears to have been a lifelong conforming member of the Church of England. Let us first look at this evidence from his life and then turn to the relation between his plays and Christian teaching.

Shakespeare was born into a solid middle-class family of Stratford-upon-Avon, the kind of family that history shows to be most productive of genius: neither very poor and debased nor very rich and prominent. Considered from the social point of view, it was a family much like that of Calvin in France. The precise date of William Shakespeare’s birth is unknown, as it is unknown for most of his famous contemporaries, but the records of baptism were considered important enough to preserve; thus we know that on April 26, 1564, William Shakespeare was baptized in Holy Trinity Church of his native town. Fifty-two years later he died and was buried in the same church.

Throughout his life all the records concerning his religious associations connect him with the post-Reformation Church of England, and most connect him with this particular parish church. His marriage was approved by the authority of Bishop John Whitgift of the diocese of Worcester, in which Stratford lay. (Whitgift later became one of the most famous of the Archbishops of Canterbury and was always a stickler for close conformity to church law.) Shakespeare’s three children were baptized in Holy Trinity, and most of his family was buried there. Every particle of positive evidence connects Shakespeare with the reformed Church of England, and certain important negative evidence points in the same direction: in Shakespeare’s age, attendance at the established church was required by law, and careful lists were kept of those who did not attend. The name of William Shakespeare nowhere appears on any such list, either in Stratford or in London or anywhere else, and so we can assume that he was at the least sufficiently regular in his attendance to satisfy the requirements.

His father, John Shakespeare, was once fined for not going to the established church, and this fact has sometimes been used to “prove” that the elder Shakespeare was a Roman Catholic; but the use of this argument demonstrates at best only the ignorance of those who use it. The record of the case clearly states that the father stayed away from church for fear of being served with papers prosecuting him for debt, and the records also show that he was having financial troubles at this time. Other “evidence” has been cited by those who are intent upon claiming Shakespeare for Rome, but all of it is historically unconvincing. Few if any responsible Roman Catholic scholars make such a claim.

There is one positive piece of evidence bearing on William Shakespeare’s relation with Rome, and this is a copy of the second folio edition of his plays that was censored by authority of the Inquisition. The censorship consisted of the blacking out of “offensive” passages in many of the plays and the complete elimination of Measure for Measure, in which a layman poses as a friar and hears confession. Other deletions from Shakespeare’s King John and King Henry VIII eliminated passages that seemed offensively Protestant to the official censor, an English Jesuit named William Sankey. This censorship was carried out within about thirty years of Shakespeare’s death and represents, of course, an official act of the Roman church. (The censored folio is in the collection of the Folger Shakespeare Library, and a detailed report on it is to be found in the appendix to my Shakespeare and Christian Doctrine.)

The Bard And The Bible

The evidence of Shakespeare’s plays demonstrates that he was intimately familiar with the Book of Common Prayer and with the Bible. His study of the Bible appears to have continued throughout his life, and the plays give evidence that he knew it primarily through the Geneva Version, which was the most popular version of his time, and the Bishops’, which was the version approved by the Convocation of Canterbury. His citation in Henry V of specific Roman Catholic usage of the Scriptures is in error at an obvious point, whereas his knowledge of “catholic” doctrine and worship as preserved in the Church of England is accurate and familiar. For readers interested in Shakespeare’s use of Scripture and liturgy, there is Richmond Noble’s authoritative study entitled Shakespeare’s Biblical Knowledge and Use of the Book of Common Prayer.

Shakespeare is important to us today, however, not because of his personal life and ecclesiastical affiliations but because of his writings. If we are to understand Shakespeare’s use of Christian doctrine in his drama, we must keep at least two things in mind: the doctrine of vocation as it was understood in his age, and the attitude of that age toward literature. The doctrine of vocation that the Reformation embraced and taught should be familiar to us all: it held that God called some men to secular vocations just as surely as he called others into the clergy, and it ennobled all life by this emphasis on the nobility of secular efforts. One of Shakespeare’s associates in the Globe Theatre, an actor and dramatist named Nathan Field, wrote a magnificent letter to a preacher who had unfairly attacked the stage (as preachers have sometimes done). Field’s letter is a minor theological masterpiece, defending honest dramatists and actors as carrying out the calling of God in their own secular sphere. In this instance, the man of the theater was far closer to the position of the great Reformers than was the man of the cloth.

But we must also recognize the attitude toward literature that characterized the century of the Reformation in which Shakespeare lived. The literature that Elizabethan Englishmen primarily knew was the literature of Rome and Greece, rather than the specifically Christian writings of Donne and Herbert, Milton and Bunyan, which came later. Literature was regarded as a secular field—not in any pejorative sense, but acknowledging that it concerned natural law and natural theology rather than revealed theology.

This was the attitude taught by great Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and Hooker, as can be conclusively proved by page after page of evidence. The poet’s vocation primarily concerned the secular sphere—this world, the here and now—and his contributions were to be judged in these terms. Luther declared that genuine theology could not endure if it ignored the insights of literature so conceived, and Calvin wrote that to show disrespect for such literature was to show disrespect for the operations of the Holy Spirit in the secular realm.

It was in these terms that Shakespeare wrote, and it is in these terms that he can best be understood. Unlike John Milton, his great successor and chief rival among English poets, Shakespeare was not attempting to transmit Christian revelation and saving grace through the medium of his writings. Yet the literature he produced was just the kind called for by the great leaders of the first century of the Reformation.

Doctrines In Drama

When we approach Shakespeare’s plays within this frame of reference, we can profit from them as men living within the secular order and as Christians who strive to live our lives under the jurisdiction and in the anticipation of the City of God. When Shakespeare’s dramatic needs require it, he can and does write with mature and even brilliant understanding of many central Christian doctrines. What he says of original sin and its offshoots in myriads of particular sins, of repentance and of forgiveness, of justice and of mercy, and of scores of other Christian doctrines is always appropriate to his poetic situation and is dramatically revealing to us as Christians. So, too, is what he says of non-Christian men who struggle to follow the best they can know in pre-Christian times, as is also his treatment of those men in all ages who perversely choose to dedicate themselves to serving the demonic powers of darkness. All this is present in Shakespeare, just as it all is present in life.

The most accurate description of Shakespeare’s literary concerns may be found in the words of Hamlet when he declares that the purpose of drama is and always has been to hold “the mirror up to nature.” Now in Shakespeare’s time the Bible was repeatedly described as a mirror held up to reflect grace and divine revelation. That was not the mirror Shakespeare was striving to create; what he took as his task was the creation of another mirror. But if this was not a mirror of divine grace, it was nonetheless a mirror that reflected the moral law; for as Hamlet went on to say, the purpose of drama was “to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.” So fully did Shakespeare discharge this poetic vocation in the secular order that succeeding centuries have regarded him as not of one age, but for all time.

Roland Mushat Frye is research professor, Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, D.C. A graduate of Princeton University (A.B. and Ph.D.), he has been professor of English at Emory University. He is a Presbyterian elder and has studied at Princeton Theological Seminary. His latest book is “Shakespeare and Christian Doctrine.”

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube