For some time nowthere has been no small stir in and around Princeton Seminary over what may eventually develop into the Hick case. Dr. John Hick came to Princeton in 1960 and as a professor in that institution had to be accepted into a presbytery of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. He was accepted by the Presbytery of New Brunswick from the Presbytery of Berwick of the Presbyterian Church of England. It was noised abroad then and came to light finally that there had been questions raised about Dr. Hick’s position on the Virgin Birth, a doctrine which he would neither affirm nor deny. His refusal to affirm or deny was laid before the Synod of New Jersey and the action of the Presbytery of New Brunswick was reversed. It is likely now that the case will be appealed to the General Assembly which meets in Denver in May.

Discussion on the case and the issues involved will have to be studied mostly in publications other than those of the United Presbyterian Church. Presbyterian Life, which has a tremendous outreach in that denomination, usually keeps clear of controversial issues, tending rather to give support to actions already taken by the General Assembly instead of opening up such issues as may come before the next assembly. Monday Morning is read mostly by ministers, and, although it is not free from controversial subjects, it does not reach the laymen in any large numbers and therefore will be of little help in sending informed laymen to the General Assembly for a vote on this matter. We shall probably see some rather heavy mailings from one side or another in the controversy, or we shall read the news and the discussions in Christianity Today, The Christian Century, The Presbyterian Outlook, or the Presbyterian Journal, each reacting its own way. It is unfortunate that the United Presbyterian Church with its belief in lay interest and action, has so little place for discussion of controversial issues in the presence of the laymen.

If one may predict at this time and from this distance it is quite likely that the action of the Assembly will center on the non-theological issue, namely, the right of the Synod to reverse the action of the Presbytery on a matter which has to do with the right of the Presbytery to receive its own members. It hardly seems possible that the debate will center on the Virgin Birth itself, as a doctrine, as a truth, or as a test of a man’s Christianity or Presbyterianism. And this is a pity really because the whole issue needs to be brought out into the open somewhere because of the great confusion which is abroad. The refusal to affirm the Virgin Birth raises other questions.

Christians everywhere, and surely on every Sunday someplace, reaffirm their basic beliefs in these words, “I believe … in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary …” This basic Christian statement is similarly presented in the basic creeds of the Reformed tradition and very plainly in the Westminster Confession. A Presbyterian minister and seminary professor in a Presbyterian seminary says that he cannot affirm this, although he will not deny it. What importance, therefore, does the belief now have? Just where does it stand in the body of Christian truth? What was important in a large way in the ancient creeds, Apostles’ and Nicene, to name two, is apparently not so important now. Who said so, and when was it officially said? Shall we eliminate it by default or by church action, or do we need to reinterpret it? In any case, when and where is this to be done? Apparently the matter was not important enough to make an issue of when the General Assembly first approved Dr. Hick as a professor, it was not a matter that mattered when the Board of Princeton seminary elected Flick to his chair, it was not decisive for the action of New Brunswick Presbytery when they received him from the Presbytery of Berwick. At each of these points then Dr. Hick received heavy support; or was it just doctrinal indifference?

A man’s view on the Virgin Birth goes beyond the importance of that particular doctrine; it says something about his view of Scripture. Much is made of the argument from silence—the Virgin Birth is not mentioned in Mark nor by Paul, for example—but then Matthew does mention it and Luke makes much of it. Shall we dismiss what Luke says, and if so, on what grounds? A mythos which needs to be de-mythologized? or is Luke basically untrustworthy because he was misinformed? Meanwhile any sharp definition of “inspiration” as in the former U.P. confessional statement, “Inspired in language as in thought,” has now become completely irrelevant.

What is the relationship of a minister to the creed of his own church? Is the creed a frame of reference, a point of departure, a test of orthodoxy or membership? What? There must be hundreds of pastors in all denominations who are very uneasy about the biology of the Virgin Birth. If the creeds of Christendom should be changed then, in the light of evidence, or in the wisdom of the churches, are they to be changed by default or by serious theological discussion? And in any case, if a new creed shall be stated, are not all the old questions still there: in what way does the minister have to be loyal to the creed as stated? Not at all? Partly? Which parts? In some way theologically a Lutheran must be different from a Presbyterian, and a Presbyterian from a Methodist, and all of them from Rome. In what way or ways? Shouldn’t we begin saying so? And if we want denominational lines to disappear because we all have the same basic theology, then what is that basic theology which says that we are not Unitarians or Latter Day Saints? But it is no use writing creeds or confessions if we haven’t first decided what a minister’s relationship to the creed, whatever the creed, ought to be.

I am confident the question of Dr. John Hick and the Virgin Birth will be settled as a legal question at the General Assembly. Theological questions will remain to haunt us.

The Power And The Guilt

Jesus the World’s Perfecter, by Karl Heim (Muhlenberg, 1961, 234 pp., $3.75), is reviewed by Paul K. Jewett, Associate Professor, Fuller Theological Seminary.

Though this book is a fine piece of theological writing, at times it is more than that; it is a book of devotion. It not only informs, but ennobles the mind of the reader. Heim, speaking as a German who lived in the hour of Germany’s trouble, to Germans who have lost a sense of meaning and purpose in life, reminds his readers that in God’s order, the problem of guilt must be met and solved before there can be an answer to the question of power. I his is the burden of part one of the book. Guilt, argues Heim, is not fate; it is that which is inexcusable and inescapable. “The future hell,” as Luther said, “will be nothing else than an evil conscience; had the devil no evil conscience, he would be in heaven. An evil conscience ignites the fires of hell and arouses in the heart terrifying torment and the infernal activity of the devil” (p. 15). Never, therefore, can we deduce guilt from something else or excuse ourselves by giving a reason. Such rationalizing away of our guilt simply increases it. When we recognize the implication of our guilt as sinners, when we acknowledge that the problem of sin must be solved before the problem of power can be solved, then the mission of Jesus as the Suffering Servant becomes meaningful. Jesus must first atone for sin by his death before he can openly seize the power (as he will at his Second Advent) and bring about the final settlement and perfecting of the world.

In part two of his work Heim, therefore, proceeds to a consideration of a Christian interpretation of Christ’s death. He is critical both of Abelard and Anselm, though much nearer the latter. The act of atonement is vicarious, but both the concepts of ransom and satisfaction are inadequate to explain the great mystery of the atonement.

Part three is concerned with the coming of Christ in power. Once the guilt question has been resolved at Calvary, Christ enters upon the final phase of his Messianic work wherein all power is given unto him in heaven and in earth. The resurrection is the beginning of this last day. Heim believes in a corporeal resurrection, though the resurrection event is not an event in our world of common experience; it is rather the beginning of the new order. So also the Second Coming of Christ is not a matter of world progress toward some far-off divine event (history tends only toward increasing Satanic rebellion); yet it will be such that all men will see it. The mission of Christ cannot be interpreted solely in terms of his first advent as Harnack, Bultmann, Dibelius and Winkel have tried to do. There will be a real, universal manifestation of Christ’s power. Will all men enter at that time into a new life of communion with God? Will there be a complete apokatastasis? We must not, says Heim, infer from our thoughts about the nature of God that it will be so. We can only refer to those intimations found on the lips of our Lord in the Gospels, which definitely point in the opposite direction (cf. pp. 200, 201).

The book closes with a brief discussion of the period between Christ’s Resurrection and the Second Advent, in which Heim develops his doctrine of the Church as the body of Christ, the fellowship of those who are called and chosen to live as God’s children.

In the reviewer’s judgment chapter 17 (p. 158 f.) is the most original in the book. Here Heim discusses the question of how and why the Resurrection of Christ took place in such a manner that the incognito before the world remained unbroken, while yet the Church could retain its absolute certainty that it was a real event.

PAUL K. JEWETT

Conviction For Our Day

Certainties for Uncertain Times, by John Sutherland Bonnell (Harper, 1962, 156 pp., $3), is reviewed by C. Ralston Smith, Minister, First Presbyterian Church, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

This is an interesting collection of sermons and addresses. Its publication coincides with the retirement of Dr. Bonnell after a long and influential career in the pulpit of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in New York City. The breadth of thought and depth of sympathy which have marked this fine ministry are exemplified in these messages. They range from consideration of faith in this expanding space age to the subjective problem of personal relationships. They grapple with Christendom’s reunion and the challenge of courageous prayer life. The whole Lukan account of the Gospel is surveyed on one occasion, while a singular review of his own ministry in New York is the subject of another.

These are fine utterances of conviction for our day. That we are living in the “greatest revolutionary era that has ever dawned upon our world” is the thread woven throughout the book. Yet there is never a whimper of fear, nor a melancholy note of defeat struck. This preacher believes in the greatness and faithfulness of God. He also sees in the Bible the Book in which life is made relevant. Master-counselor that he is, he draws from wide personal experiences and broad travels to bring to our bewildered times the refined lessons of history. Ministers will profit in their studies by the example of this simple, direct Anglo-Saxon prose. Lay people will be encouraged by scriptural messages which gird them for the battle of today.

C. RALSTON SMITH

The Right To Be Wrong

Conscience and Its Rights to Freedom, by Eric D’Arcy (Sheed & Ward, 1961, 277 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Cordon H. Clark, Professor of Philosophy, Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Part I of this book traces the concepts of conscience and synderesis from pagan antiquity into the early Middle Ages. Then preparing the basis for his own conclusions, the author devotes Part II to Thomas Aquinas. The last two parts are also Thomistic, but Father D’Arcy attempts to remove certain inconsistencies and oversights from Thomas to arrive at a theory of religious liberty.

Although Thomas prohibits the baptism of Jewish infants against their parents’ wishes, he approves the execution of a heretic—unless he has a sufficient following to cause a schism. The author deplores this sentiment. He argues that it is morally wrong to disobey conscience, and hence it is always obligatory to follow conscience, even when mistaken. This right is a part of the fundamental justice of natural law, which a state may not violate. In working out his argument for the freedom of conscience, the author makes noteworthy assertions of the freedom to profess and practice a non-Romish religion.

Some questions remain, however. One wonders whether the argument applies only to the social situation in non-Romish nations, for the author seems to hedge on “consecrational regimes.” Then when claiming Pope Pius XII as an advocate of freedom, he notes that it was a question (not of Spain or Colombia), but of an international community of sovereign states. The pope had said only that suppression of false religions is not always necessary.

Apparently the author favors governmental restriction of religion in primitive societies where, “abandoned to irrational forces,” the people “are not in a position to exercise” freedom.

In view of past and present history it will take more than Father D’Arcy’s cautious argument to convince us that Romanism is on the side of the angels.

GORDON H. CLARK

Calvin’S Literalism

Word and Spirit: Calvin’s Doctrine of Biblical Authority, by H. Jackson Forstman (Stanford University Press, 1962, 178 pp., $4.75), is reviewed by Robert D. Preus, Professor of Systematic Theology, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.

Although there seem to be no new discoveries offered in this volume, the author presents a very clear delineation of Calvin’s doctrine of biblical authority. Forstman does a good job of summing up what other scholars have said on the important subject, he is cautious in his conclusions, and he allows Calvin to speak for himself by quoting him at length. These facts make the book useful.

Forstman points out that for Calvin the Scriptures were the authoritative source for all knowledge of God. Calvin believed that knowledge and authority are inseparably bound together. Since man is too depraved to learn anything of God from nature, God accommodates himself to man’s situation, and lisps, so to speak, a revelation of himself in Scripture. Thus, the Scriptures, although communicated through human channels and written with human hands, are true and authoritative because they come from God. But how may depraved man gain this saving knowledge brought him in the Scriptures? This is the work of the Holy Spirit. Forstman conclusively shows how Calvin consistently kept Word and Spirit together against all forms of enthusiasm. Only such a doctrine offers a man certainty, according to Calvin.

Again Forstman shows that Calvin not only placed Scripture’s authority above Fathers and Church councils, but he also left no place for human reason as a secondary norm of doctrine. Calvin pleads only for clear and honest thinking, always limited by the Word itself and never standing in judgment of God and his Word. It is difficult to see any difference in principle between Calvin and Luther on this point. It is significant that to Calvin even the systematic arrangement of biblical material which he attempted in his Institutes has biblical warrant. Forstman claims, contrary to what many Calvin scholars have said, that there is for Calvin no central doctrine (e.g., predestination, God’s sovereignty) from which all others are derived by a process of deduction.

Reading for Perspective

CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S REVIEW EDITORS CALL ATTENTION TO THESE NEW TITLES:

* Communism and Christian Faith, by Lester DeKoster (Eerdmans, $3.50). The fundamentals of Communism precisely described, perceptively analyzed, sharply contrasted with Christianity and accompanied by a clear call to Christian social action.

* Women Who Made Bible History, by Harold J. Ockenga (Zondervan, $3.50). Literary portraits of saintly and not-so-saintly women of the Bible. Rich in biblical wisdom.

* The Council, Reform and Reunion, by Hans Küng (Sheed & Ward, $3.95). A Roman Catholic professor urges that reunion of Catholicism and Protestantism requires a renewal and reform of the church.

On the question of inspiration the author maintains that Calvin taught a verbal dictation theory with a resulting inerrancy. He insists that the “dictation” must not be taken metaphorically, but at the same time claims that the term does not spell out a definite mode of inspiration. The teaching that the Holy Spirit’s testimony confirms in us the divine origin of Scripture, Forstman contends, is not a rationalization; but rather with this doctrine Calvin is fighting against uninhibited reason no less than the authority of the Church.

A few remarks by way of minor criticism: (1) The author uses the term “fundamentalism” in a manner which is unusual and therefore misleading. (2) Reference might have been made to the new and excellent translation of the Institutes edited by John T. McNeill in the Library of Christian Classics. (3) The author is not very clear when he speaks of Calvin’s literalism in reference to Scripture. Does the term refer to Calvin’s insistence that the Scriptures are inerrant also in regard to matters not directly theological? In this case it is a misnomer. Or does the term refer to Calvin’s preference in exegesis for the literal sense of Scripture? In this sense Calvin is no more literalistic in principle than any sound, cautious exegete today.

ROBERT D. PREUS

By What Canon?

The Significance of Barth’s Theology, by Fred Klooster (Baker, 1961, 98 pp., $2.95), is reviewed by William D. Buursma, Pastor, First Christian Reformed Church, Munster, Indiana.

This small volume is essentially the publication in book form of three lectures delivered by Dr. Klooster.

In the first chapter, which bears the same title as the book, Dr. Klooster reiterates the conservative critique that Barth’s theology is a revolt against liberalisin, that it has awakened a new interest in Scripture, and contributed to the renascence of Calvinistic studies, but is essentially a “new theology.”

Klooster disagrees with Barth’s view of God (“some resemblance to the Monarchianism of the ancients”), his view of the Trinity (“more complex than the earlier forms of Modalism”), his view of election (“an implicit universalism”), etc. (cf. p. 12). His analysis is however well tempered, his critique responsible.

In the second chapter he comes to grips with one facet of this “new theology,” namely Barth’s doctrine of election. The author demonstrates that Barth’s view of election is radically different from the position espoused by Calvin and formulated by the Synod of Dordt. He quotes at length from Barth’s writings to show that Barth rejects the classical doctrine of predestination which was mainly concerned with the election of the individual man and replaced this emphasis with the Christological approach that in Jesus Christ one finds both the “elected man” and the “electing God.” Klooster detects a “strange ambiguity” at this point and feels with other interpreters of Barth that this new doctrine of election implies universal atonement.

The final chapter is devoted to Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation. Klooster struggles here with the difficulty inherent in Barth’s theology, namely, a tendency to pour new content into “older traditions and themes.” Moreover Barth’s view of the doctrine of reconciliation does not concern itself at all “with the basic categories of satisfaction of God’s law and of covenantal, federal, forensic relationships. For Barth the fact of God’s becoming man by itself involves man’s exaltation. The humiliation of God is per se the exaltation of man …” (p. 96).

Dr. Klooster has contributed a lucid and comprehensive analysis to the field of Barthian literature. He has clearly demonstrated the contrast between the views of the classic Refonned expositors and the “new theology” of Barth. However very little exegesis of scriptural data is done by the author so that the question persists whether he has attained the objective as stated in the preface: “to evaluate Barth’s thought by the sole criterion by which he acknowledges that he wishes to be judged, namely, the Holy Scriptures.”

WILLIAM D. BUURSMA

Conflict Of Minds

Henry VIII and Luther, by Erwin Doernberg (Barrie & Rockliff, 1961, 139 pp., 21s.); and The Protestant Mind of the English Reformation 1570–1640, by Charles and Katherine George (Princeton University, 1961, 452 pp., $8.50), are reviewed by Gervase E. Duffield, London Manager, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Most of us know more about Henry’s matrimonial problems than about his relations with Luther. Mr. Doernberg has collected evidence from all over Europe to remedy this situation. Henry never liked Lutheranism, though he flirted with it when political expediency overrode such religious convictions as he may have had. Probably in his book against Luther in 1521 he was out to win the coveted title of Defensor Fidel from the Pope. He got it, and a broadside back from Luther as well! Luther later apologized when told Henry might become a Protestant (p. 50), but he had been misinformed and later returned to his earlier assessment of Henry.

With Luther’s view of Henry’s divorce, modern readers will be surprised that he, Erasmus and the Pope agreed that bigamy was preferable to divorce (pp. 73 f.). Mr. Doernberg has investigated the whole matter with care and impartiality, and he has some pungent things to say about those who blacken Luther for these views, while quietly forgetting the Pope held them too!

Finally Luther grew bored with Henry’s unending attempts to gain a political alliance with the Germans. After a few small and fruitless diplomatic missions across the channel, negotiations petered out. This book is balanced and will be an asset to any student of the Reformation.

Professor George of Pittsburgh and Katherine George of Chatham College are out to challenge the common view of the early Puritans. They believe that the turbulence of the 1640–60 period has been read back into the more peaceful earlier times (pp. 397 f.). In fact between the Papist on one side and the Anabaptist on the other stood the Anglican via media in which Puritan and conservative were happily united on essentials until the innovations of the High Church Arminians Laud, Cosin and the extremist Montagu (pp. 71 f.).

Years of research must have gone into this work, and the result is an invaluable handbook to the lengthy tomes of Hooker, Andrewes, Sibbes, Perkins, Downame, Donne and the rest. The first of the three sections is the least happy. It is heavy reading and rather too general a view of the later English Protestant mind without being linked to the Reformers. Also hints appear occasionally that the authors are less at home when they stray from history into theology. For instance, they make too much of logic in their handling of the doctrine of predestination.

The second section of the book is on the social and institutional aspects of the Protestant mind. Economically and politically the church was conservative and nationalistic. The familiar Weber thesis that Calvinism led to capitalism is given the further rude shaking it deserves. Archbishop Whitgift sees society under two aspects of church and state, while Presbyterian Cartwright wants to separate spiritual and secular realms.

The section on family life is excellent. The family has always been a key unit in the spiritual life of the nation, and here the Protestant pastors set a fine standard. They certainly did not answer to the common but erroneous charge of condemning sex as sinful. They advocated restraints in books, plays, or anything that might stimulate people to impure thoughts and actions; this is a relevant chord to strike today in our sex-mad age.

The chapter on church and ministry shows that order was secondary, and there were no undignified squabbles about episcopacy. Puritans required a high standard of ministers. Preaching was exalted though not to the exclusion of the sacraments. The Puritans distrusted the eloquence of men like Andrewes, preferring “plaine sermons” without quotes from the Fathers and the Apocrypha (pp. 338 ff.). Yet when analyzed the difference was not so great.

The final section draws the threads together, and a picture emerges of variety within unity with a clear distinction between primary and secondary matters, and disagreements confined to the latter. The authors are too careful to parcel everything up into neat categories but they have produced a fine book, ecumenically valuable as illustrating a deep national Protestant unity such as has now disappeared to our great loss. It is valuable also to each Christian because it reveals a whole galaxy of devotional jewels from outstanding Protestant ministers.

GERVASE E. DUFFIELD

Neglected Subject

Faith Healing: Fact or Fiction? By John Pitts (Revell, 1961, 159 pp., $3), is reviewed by L. Nelson Bell, Executive Editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

This is the sanest, most satisfying book on healing this reviewer has ever seen. Here there is a recognition of God’s power to intervene at the physical level in answer to prayer and in demonstration of his sovereign grace. Here there is also a full recognition of God’s continuing works of healing through the channels of modern medicine and surgery.

As one reads there is a sense of mounting interest and appreciation of the author’s approach. In exceptionally attractive style and fine prose we are presented a subject only too often neglected or beclouded by a narrow approach.

This book represents a tremendous amount of research, a deep spiritual insight, and the ability to bring the clear light of faith to bear on the realities of our Lord’s healing ministry and of man’s need for simple faith today.

Having seen the manuscript of this book and now seeing the final work of the author, there is a deep sense of appreciation that within the covers of this book there is a most satisfying, scriptural, and sane presentation of a subject long-neglected within the church.

Dr. Pitts (a Ph.D., not an M.D.) has done the entire Christian community a genuine service.

L. NELSON BELL

The Reader Profits

A Faith for this One World? By J. E. Lesslie Newbigin (Harper, 1962, 128 pp., $2.75), is reviewed by James Daane, Editorial Associate, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

The impact of Christianity is creating in our time one world with a single history. The technological science of the West, together with its belief in human rights and political democracy, are so invading the East that every nation is being drawn into a single culture and civilization. A purely national or tribal history is no longer possible. (Hence the tendency of wars to become world wars.)

While the East wants nothing of our wars and nothing of our moral standards (with our unequaled violence, immorality, and crime), it does want our scientific technology to resolve its problems of population explosion and massive poverty.

Thinking that there is no essential relationship between what it wants from the West and the Christian cradle in which these things had their birth, the East assumes that it can retain its own religion, reject Christianity, and yet accept Christianity’s by-products.

Newbigin recognizes that Christianity may not be identified with Western ways and customs. He says pointedly, “It has sometimes appeared that they (the churches of Africa and Asia) have received with the Gospel what is now called a package deal—European hymns and harmoniums to play them on, English prayer books, Gothic architecture, American church elections, and German theology.” Newbigin also recognizes that the dominance of the world by the white race has come to an end.

He also recognizes, however, that scientific technology arose within the Christian West and that it did not, and could not, arise within the East because of its belief that nature and all the changes of history are illusory. The East, therefore, errs in thinking that the technology of the West, together with its ideas of human rights and political democracy, can be lifted out intact and transplanted into the Eastern religious milieu. These ideas thrive only in the soil of a Christian culture. The East cannot have the one without the other.

The Church must come to recognize for herself, and to urge upon the East, that Christianity is as valid for everyman as is the physics it nourished as a by-product.

Newbigin therefore rejects the contention of Professor Radhakrishnan that Hinduism offers a basis for the reconciliation of all religions. The distinctive tenet of Hinduism that nature and all historical change is illusory is actually a declaration of war on Christianity’s claim to be a historic religion, as it is also upon the science of the West.

Newbigin also disagrees with Arnold Toynbee’s contention that Christianity should give up its claim to uniqueness because such a claim inevitably gives rise to pride. Admitting that Christians have not always been free of pride, Newbigin urges that Christianity rightly understood does not mother pride but destroys it.

Newbigin also takes issue with Professor Hocking’s contention that Christianity is historical only in the sense that man in history searches for the Eternal. Christianity’s historical character stems rather from the fact that God himself has entered history at a given point in time and space. This constitutes its uniqueness and its universal validity for all men, and this may be surrendered neither to Hinduism nor to Hocking, for precisely herein lies Christianity’s claim of being the one Faith for this one world.

Evangelicals will rejoice if Newbigin can inject this conception of Christianity into his task as Director of the Division of World Mission and Evangelism of the World Council of Churches.

When Newbigin writes, the reader profits.

JAMES DAANE

Important Discoveries

Papyrus Bodmer, Vols. XIV, XV, XVII, ed. by V. Martin and R. Kasser (Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, Cologny-Geneva, Switzerland, 1961, 150, 83 and 270 pp., 55 Swiss Fr.), is reviewed by Herman C. Waetjen, Assistant Professor of New Testament, School of Religion of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Shrouded in mystery, virtually unnoticed, yet among the most important manuscript discoveries of the century are these biblical papyrus texts in Greek and Coptic, which, since 1956, are being published by the Bodmer Library in Geneva, Switzerland. Papyrus Bodmer XIV and XV, also designated P 75, and Papyrus Bodmer XVII are among the latest of the printed New Testament texts. The former is divided into two volumes: Tome I sets forth Luke 3–24, Tome II presents John 1–15. The latter includes the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of James, Peter, John and Jude. Just how much they can contribute to the interpretation of the New Testament writings themselves remains to be determined. Their significance at the moment is that, dated around A.D. 200, they present the oldest witnesses of the Egyptian New Testament and are therefore invaluable for the history of the New Testament text. In the course of time they may also prove to be important for the study of the history of the canon.

HERMAN C. WAETJEN

From Good To ‘Real’ Bad

52 Three Minute Talks to Children, by Marion G. Gosselink; and 52 Parables, by John Henry Sargent (Wilde, 1961, 160 pp., and 112 pp., $2.95 each), are reviewed by Norma R. Ellis, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Over 40 years of preaching experience in the Dutch Reformed Church has equipped Dr. Gosselink admirably for the writing of this little volume. Going through the calendar year he has found a topic appropriate for each Sunday, a Bible verse to pinpoint it, numerous appropriate illustrations, and has woven them into interesting messages. He succeeded in finding material that is pertinent even for such diverse days as April Fool’s and Arbor Day.

These messages are a boon to leaders who need messages each Sunday for Sunday School or Young People’s meetings. They are also good for occasional purposes such as Mother-Daughter Banquets.

In greater or lesser degree, according to the subject at hand, the Gospel is presented in clear fashion.

52 Parables has bits of Scripture, a prayer, and a brief story-sermon, intended for use by children’s leaders. However, this book cannot be recommended along with the other. Grammatically, one glaring misusage is the employment of “real” as an adverb, especially in the case of “real facinating” (p. 55, note sp.).

It is the theological slant of the book, however, that makes it most objectionable. In vain we look for any suggestion that Jesus Christ is our Saviour from sin and that he is more than an example to us. “He certainly lived his whole life as a saviour of men in trouble, teaching all people how to live right, by his own example” (p. 95).

Here or there an illustration might be found to enliven a message, a talk that might be used in revised form, but as they appear these talks are hardly usable in the evangelical cause.

NORMA R. ELLIS

Better Red Than Dead?

There is no meaningful way in which one can speak of a “just war” fought with atomic arms.

Christian faith and the precepts of the Gospel cannot consistently support the manufacturing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons for purposes of “deterrence.”

The risk of enslavement at the hands of another nation is not so fearful a thing as the risk of effacing the image of God in man through wholesale adoption of satanic means to defend national existence or even truth.

This love must embrace … the attacker as well as his victim.

This [Christian] tradition points rather to the need of surrender of some measure of sovereignty by modern nations and the establishment of international law by consent backed by discriminate use of police force under the direction of the United Nations or some form of world government.

We urge the U.S. (to) adopt political, economic and cultural policies which will make her the symbol to the peoples … even of Communist lands, of their hopes for freedom, equality, and deliverance from the ancient curse of abject poverty.

These quotations from the pamphlet A Christian Approach to Nuclear War, endorsed by some leading American churchmen,¹In essential agreement with the Statement are: George A. Butt-rick, Preacher to the University, Harvard University; Herbert Gezork, President, Andover Newton Theological School; Walter G. Muelder, Dean of Boston University School of Theology; Arthur C. Cochrane, Theological Seminary of Dubuque University; Paul Deats, Jr., Boston University School of Theology; L. Harold DeWolf, Boston University School of Theology; Norman K. Gott-wald, Andover Newton Theological School; John K. Hick, Princeton Theological Seminary; Otto A. Piper, Princeton Theological Seminary; D. Campbell Wyckoff, Princeton Theological Seminary. are published by “The Church Peace Mission,” composed of pacifists, peace commissions, committees and fellowships from many leading denominations.

No doubt fine, sincere people hold this view. But do these people speak for all of the Church? My answer is “No!,” and quite emphatically. A vast majority do not share this line.

My first question is, Why wasn’t this pamphlet given widespread coverage when Russia engaged in its recent testing program? Why is it now so imperative, since President Kennedy has announced further atomic research testings?

Philosophical conjectures may sound quite profound, yet stand neither the test of analysis nor of consistency. Which is the right route out of our present world dilemma?

The pamphlet’s proposal could easily be summed up as “I would rather be red than dead.” Either this conclusion is born of fear, or it subtly advances some cleverly concealed persuasion. In either case it lacks the strength of forthrightness.

To insist that no “just war” can be waged with atomic weapons would strip our nation of any justifiable use of these weapons—or of any other weapon. It implies that no use of force is justifiable, and would rule out any physical force to inflict reproval on another nation. About the only difference between atomic weapons and so-called conventional weapons is their greater destructive force.

Fundamentally, all conflicts arise from the evil nature of man. The question arises, should the innocent be subjected to the tyrannical and the criminal? In some situations two nations might be basically evil in their intent toward each other, and in such cases a conflict would be totally evil. On the other hand, a situation could exist where one nation would hold evil intent toward the other (as in Russia’s assertion that they intend to bury us). In such a situation, are we justified in an effort to preserve our nation?

I see no justifiable way to fail to defend our nation. I see no justifiable course other than resolutely to oppose tyranny. We as a nation are not responsible for the aggressive intentions of another nation. We can seek to reason and persuade, but our only hope of survival lies in the ability to defend ourselves.

The suffering involved in an atomic war would in no way compare with the suffering meted out at the hands of the Communists. Passive resistance would be a transition to increasing suffering.

The reasoning that love is the answer is next to preposterous. True, love is a strong Christian virtue. This we do not argue. But it is not the whole of Christian morality. The early Church has situations where it resorted not to love but rather used strong punitive and corrective measures. In some situations disciplinary methods were advised. Is it reasonable to expect love to work on an international level when it is disregarded on lesser levels, and officially flouted by some international leaders? Would not consistency also require us to rely on love alone in national, state, and local affairs?

Yet the aforementioned pamphlet advocates an international police force. Isn’t this a bit inconsistent? Criminal elements and all people not suited for freedom in society need discipline, and this includes international criminals. Many of us suspect that the pacifist philosophy definitely involves a mandate to precipitate the end of national history, and this we cannot feel to be scriptural.

What hope would remain for the Christian to live creatively in a Communist society? If he survives tyranny, he will nonetheless have lost all his freedoms.

Nothing in this pamphlet commends any semblance of our national life. Isn’t this saying we have no cause worthy of defense? Aren’t we as a nation seeking to fulfill some worthy objectives?

In reference to Communists, it speaks of “their hopes of freedom, equality, and deliverance from the abject curse of poverty.” These are commendable goals. But, we ask, have the Communist nations produced this kind of society? And are these pamphleteers identifying themselves with this cause here? Are they dividing and sharing their own properties? Isn’t this a good place to begin? Do not those bent on dissipating the wealth of others want desperately to retain their own?

Is the Church to become swept up with the materialistic gods, forgetful of her true spiritual existence? It is time for the Church to throw off this yoke of verbal intoxication and speak out. This is a day to exercise faith and confidence in the future and not to surrender to futility.—The Rev. MORRIS E. SCUTT, The First Baptist Church, Columbia City, Indiana.

Easter Every Sunday

“Next Sunday,” announced Pastor Peterson, “will be a special Easter service. My sermon subject will be, ‘The Power of His Resurrection.’ ”

There was nothing unusual about the announcement except that the pastor made it from the pulpit on Easter Sunday morning. There were some knowing looks. The pastor has been known to use the wrong church bulletin from the collection he keeps in his pockets, tucked in hymnals, and scattered about in the pulpit.

Two ushers brought notes to the pulpit, but after the anthem the pastor repeated the same announcement.

I was able to clarify the matter at the end of the service, while waiting for the crowds to perform the annual Easter ritual of shaking hands with the pastor. George Bridgewell informed me that Mr. Peterson’s idea of repeating Easter was not a gimmick to keep up the attendance. It was his way of underscoring the fact that the Church celebrates the Resurrection every Lord’s Day and not only once a year.

Mrs. Bridgewell was surprised that I hadn’t heard of the pastor’s plan. “He wanted Easter anthems from the choir and Easter lilies from the flower committee for five more Sundays. Did you ever hear of anything so absurd? I suppose he expects new millinery and ensembles every Sunday, too!”

“In that at least you could oblige him, my dear,” said George.

It was the least I could do to call on the pastor in his study. “This is worse than your Christmas-in-July program,” I told him. “You just have to conform on some things.”

“I wasn’t serious about the Easter flowers,” he said, “but I certainly am about Easter preaching. Preachers who celebrate the Resurrection once a year are no better than their annual Easter parishioners. And as for conforming—can you imagine preaching the Resurrection to conform to a custom? The one power that smashes all conformity to the patterns of this age with the transformity of life from heaven?”

Sermons appear elsewhere in this magazine; I won’t report the pastor further. In brief, he is a dogmatic nonconformist; I think we’ll be celebrating Easter for a long time.

EUTYCHUS

Biased Or Balanced

You are involved in at least two non sequiturs in your biased review of A Christian’s Handbook on Communism (March 16 issue). In the first you use Soviet statements to prove that socialism and communism are equivalent. They also “prove,” however, that capitalism and imperialism are the same. Lenin regarded Marxist socialism as a preparation for the final classless utopia of pure communism. Both Marx and Lenin reserved their most bitter abuse for Fabian (non-revolutionary) socialism.

Your second non sequitur makes compulsory unionism a denial of the “opportunity for all men to work.” Compulsory unionism merely denies the benefits of collective bargaining to those unwilling to share the costs.…

JOHN GOODWIN

New York, N.Y.

The evaluation of the Christian answer asks far too much from the Handbook. It could not be, nor does it propose to be, a handbook of systematic theology. Many of the objections here seem to stem from a fundamental equation of Christianity and American McKinley-type capitalism.

I have read the Handbook. I think it is an excellent study within the limits of its size.…

JOHN A. LAPP

Associate Professor of History

Eastern Mennonite College

Harrisonburg, Va.

I consider your review a well-balanced presentation of gaps and weaknesses in the Division of World Missions’ pamphlet.

I had expected, however, that both the pamphlet and your extended review would refer to tragic shortcomings in the Christian faith as exhibited in the pre-Communist Orthodox Church of Russia. Here is a people who lacked preparation either for democracy or for Christian faith as Protestants understand them.

What the state’s control of religion can mean, in terms of distortion of truth, corruption, and exploitation of superstition, was dismally demonstrated in Czarist Russia. Somehow we should keep this evidence alive for American youth.…

There are … parallels to this condition and its dangers in Latin America, faced with unrelenting thrusts from Communism.

BERT H. DAVIS

Utica, N.Y.

Protestants Sans Protest

Dr. Sasse speaks with authority in his article on the authority of Scripture (Mar. 16 issue) because the Bible is that to him. I agree with his strong emphasis on Scripture being God’s Word. I also agree with him on Protestantism’s weak witness [to this emphasis]. Otherwise, Protestantism would have protested more vehemently against Rome’s dogma of the Assumption.…

D. E. CORDES

Immanuel Lutheran Church

Rosebud, Mo.

Testimonies like that of Herman Sasse are a real contribution to true Christian ecumenism and unity on the basis of sound Bible doctrine.…

JULIUS E. DAHMS

Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church

Lewisville, Minn.

Pre-Golgotha Accent

Dr. Morris (“God’s Way Is Grace,” Mar. 16 issue) says, “The central message of Christianity is the message of the Cross, the Cross where man’s salvation was wrought out by the sheer grace of God.” I doubt if this is the central message of Christianity—it may be the central message of Pauline Christianity; … I personally believe that the real message of Christianity is Christ—his life, his love, his way, his eternal truth.…

WILLIAM M. WILDER

First Methodist Church

Heber Springs, Ark.

Where Men Still Sin

With regard to Mr. Paul Douglas’ article, “Which Way is Up?” (Mar. 2 issue) … he should pay heed to the teaching of Ephesians 4:11, 12 that we are called to specific and various jobs in the Church. And, due to the modern-day complexity of administrative tasks, I can readily determine why there should be a “moving-up” process and training period for these positions. Also, I would think that Mr. Douglas would prefer to have men in administration who have tasted of the blessings and trials of the local parish. Mr. Douglas might have done us more service if, instead, he had analyzed whether or not our administrators were good ministers.…

Since Mr. Douglas doesn’t like his church’s polity and the teaching of Ephesians 4:11, 12, he has, then, only one alternative: to find his little utopia where all systems run smoothly and where all men of the Gospel do no wrong. Personally, I like life the way it is: where men still sin and where the Gospel still has relevance.…

DUANE B. MCCARDLE

Chicago, Ill.

Fritz Rienecker’S Work

In your March 16 issue, you mislocate Fritz Rienecker at St. Chrischona (which is in Basel, Switzerland). Fritz Rienecker left St. Chrischona about five years ago to become president of the “Altpietistische Gemeinschaft” (of Württemberg) in Stuttgart.

G. A. MUELLER

Crane School

Tufts University

Medford, Mass.

No Duty, But A Privilege

The pastors in this land, many of whom know English, are in great need of books about the Bible. If you have any Bible commentaries, dictionaries, devotional books, books on sects and heresies, Bible geographies, or any other useful books … we certainly could use them over here. Send [them] book post and there will be no duty.…

RAYMOND BUKER, JR.

Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission

Society

Lahori Mohala

Larkana, West Pakistan

Science And Causality

According to Clark (“Bultmann’s Three-Storied Universe,” Mar. 2 issue), indeterminacy, quantum mechanics, Heisenberg, wave and corpuscular light theory, et al., have conspired to leave science in such a state of confusion that its criticism of theology is, I suppose, no longer germane if it ever was. This conclusion is what I question.

Science has certainly not “dropped the concept of causality,” … it has merely dropped segments of the Aristotelian conception of causality. Thus Bultmann’s application of the “causal nexus” can be considered legitimate if used with proper care.… On the whole such cause-effect terminology is applied most significantly at the qualitative macro-level, hence it is essential to the language of common sense. Its use in the language of gross-behavior is definitely legitimate. It is only when scientific language reaches an extremely “sensitive” level of description, e.g., metrical conception, that such usage proves inadequate. Hence, I should maintain that indeterminacy threatens classical causality only at the extreme limits of measurement.…

Thus the principle of classical causality still has something to say to us when we attempt to understand gross-behavior. And historical analysis is just such an example of gross-behavior. Accordingly, any interpretation of causality as it is used in the New Testament always implies the “casual nexus” of which Bultmann speaks.

Surely Professor Clark does not think that the New Testament account contains certain subtle principles of physics which its writers understood but which they chose to withhold. Is it not rather the case that the biblical account must be understood in terms of the “causal nexus,” because this is the way it was written?

DONALD R. BURRILL

Prof. of Philosophy

Northland College

Ashland, Wisc.

Gordon Clark’s study of Bultmann … was the most understandable treatment of the subject I have ever seen. Let’s have more of this crystal-clear discussion of basic theological issues and less hiding of the truth behind a smoke screen of technical jargon suited only to the classroom and academic conclave.

RALPH EARLE

Department of New Testament

Nazarene Theological Seminary

Kansas City, Mo.

Professor Clark’s article … is clear, concise, and directed squarely at the issues concerned. There is, however, one statement that I believe must be either a slip of the erudite Professor’s pen or a misprint. I refer to the sentence in the paragraph regarding Bultmann’s view of science which reads: “But science dropped the concept of causality more than a hundred years ago; and in the twentieth century Heisenberg’s indeterminacy principle seriously called in question even the idea of mechanism” (italics mine).

The order of the words I have italicized …, I am sure, should be revised. In support of my contention I quote two statements from the first book on modern science that comes readily to hand, Lincoln Barnett’s The Universe and Dr. Einstein (Mentor Books, 1952): “Before the turn of the past century … Newton’s machine-like universe began to topple,” and “Quantum physics thus demolishes … causality” (pp. 18 and 37). In other words, it is the idea of mechanism that was rejected over a hundred years ago, causality that is rendered questionable by the Heisenberg principle. These statements from Barnett could be duplicated from almost any book on modern science.…

VIVIAN DOW

Professor of Philosophy

Boston Conservatory of Music

Boston, Mass.

Vivacious Miss Dow, who so admirably stood up in a philosophic association and very cleverly told off those who were impugning Christianity, proposes to date the death of causality in 1930 and the death of mechanism in 1860. But her quotation from Barnett does not quite imply these dates.

First of all, she and I may not have the same idea of causality. It is a highly ambiguous term. I take causality to be a necessary connection between one particular event and a second. The first is said to make the second occur. Mechanism, on the other hand, is the regularity of mathematical law. Sometimes confusion arises. Even Max Planck (The Concept of Causality, p. 121), when he makes accurate prediction, or mechanism, an infallible criterion of a causal relationship, but refuses to make them synonymous, fails to distinguish the latter from the former.

Now, Berkeley and Hume argued against necessary connection. Kant tried to reinstate it, but he failed to carry the whole nineteenth century with him. Ernst Mach (The Science of Mechanics, pp. 482 ff.) seems to discard causality along with Hume. And in any case, Newton and Planck … made no use of it in their scientific formulations. The law of the freely falling body, the planetary laws, and the law of gravitation do not show what makes a body fall; at best they merely describe how a body falls. The scientific law is a statement of regularity. Therefore I think I am amply justified in saying that science dropped the idea of cause more than a hundred years ago, and not just with the introduction of quantum theory.

But mechanism continued. True, it was questioned by Charles Peirce. Nor do I claim that mechanism is dead. My statement was very modest: the indeterminacy principle and the attempt to reduce physical law to statistics seriously called in question the regularity of mathematical law. I cannot agree with Miss Dow that mechanism was abandoned over a hundred years ago. After all, Jacques Loeb published The Mechanistic Conception of Life in 1912. And C. T. Ruddick defended mechanism against Heisenberg in the thirties.

GORDON H. CLARK

Butler University

Indianapolis, Ind.

A Question Of Relevance

Far from being “Years Too Late” (Book Review, Mar. 2 issue) …, Mr. Bird’s book on Seventh-day Adventism is most relevant, and should be carefully considered by those inclined to the view espoused by the reviewer in his earlier writings; that SDA has so far modified its teaching that it may now be welcomed as just one more among the evangelical churches of Christendom. It is just such unrealistic appraisals that make necessary the book.…

CLARENCE W. DUFF

Willow Grove, Pa.

In all fairness to Mr. Bird, why didn’t Mr. Martin at least allude to note 3, page 65, including the statement that “Adventist workers” with whom the author had discussed the matter of the Wilcox statement “have not heard of its having been disqualified as denominational material.…”

MARY LYONS

Hackensack, N. J.

Demythologize The Pulpit!

“Yes, I went to the _____ church.”

“Did you enjoy the sermon?”

“I don’t know. I didn’t know what he was talking about.”

“What was the subject?”

“I have no idea.”

Such frequently heard remarks convince me that we are overlooking an important area that needs demythologization today. It is the pulpit, which, in my experience, leaves any number of people bewildered. I always make a point of asking people who have been in other churches their reaction to the services. Time and again I have been told that they had “no idea what the minister was talking about,” or that they felt no different whatsoever “when I came out from what I did when I went in.”

When George Fox was seeking spiritual help, he heard of a priest who was supposed to be an able minister. But on talking with him, he “found him like an empty hollow cask.” Omar Khayyam said:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument about it and about; but evermore came out by the same door where in I went.

This is the experience of many people today who find no water for their spiritual thirst in the churches they attend.

Some have conceived the difficulty to lie in the language and thought patterns of the Scriptures, and so plead for their demythologization. Others, however, find the difficulty to lie in the language and thought patterns of the theologians and their disciples in the pulpits.

A real need of our day is for a simplification of the psychological and philosophical thought patterns that obscure the Gospel and make it incomprehensible to the average man.

The scriptural assertions are not nearly so incredible as the “highfalutin verbiage” of the theologians is incomprehensible. Billy Graham says that he preached precisely the same gospel in India as he did everywhere else. The Eastern bent of mind was apparently no barrier to effective communication.

This is not to say that we are to reject all human learning or ignore the vast treasures of human knowledge. But the insights gained from such studies must be translated into biblical thought patterns, and not vice versa. The pulpit must always resist the temptation to rise above the Koine of the multitudes. What does it profit if the services are awesome in their stateliness, the minister is overwhelming in his erudition, and the people are untouched by the Spirit?

“We have no itch to clog religion with new words,” wrote the Baptists of London when they drew up their Second Confession in 1677. We can utilize the insights of the sciences without clogging our Christianity with their vocabularies and thought patterns.

The pulpit must not lose sight of its basic task, which is to inspire and not to impress; to lead those in the pews to be transformed and transformers, not to be “adjusted”; to evangelize and not to socialize. This task obviously cannot be fulfilled when the communication between pulpit and pew is destroyed by ethereal sermonic wanderings.

But the pulpit likewise fails when it falls prey to a second kind if wrongful usage of scientific knowledge; when it becomes a herald of scientific living. This is seen today in the “adjustment” theology which utilizes psychological knowledge to teach people how to solve the practical problems of modern living. The encounter between God and man becomes a servant of human relations. Sermons deal with such practical problems as how to reduce tensions, how to solve problems of living, how to “get the most out of life,” what the church can do for you, etc.

Some moderns are determined to dress up Christ in a grey flannel suit, to make him blend perfectly into the contemporary picture. The attempt is an obvious travesty of the Christ of the Scriptures.

The Gospel today, in some quarters, is so smothered in adjustment opinions that it is scarcely recognizable. It is really a new religion. Some of the familiar words and names are there, but the aims, the methods, and the message have been grounded. They are earthy, man-centered, horizontally oriented. This religion is typified by a sign I saw on a large church in St. Louis: “The church is your first business, because if the church fails, America’s business fails.” It is easy to see that the ultimate in this faith is in reality secular. It is of man, by man, and for man; God is relevant only insofar as he is an aid to man’s progress and well-being. Auguste Comte’s dream of a church in which the priests would be social scientists has finally been realized. The psychology of adjustment and mental health has been enthroned as a modern Protestant Pope.

The psychological “mythology” completely obscures the kernel of biblical truth. Convulsive Christian ethics are wrongly identified with conventional middle-class morality; New Testament aspirations unto godliness are wrongly identified with suburban respectability; the biblical promises of wholeness in Christ are wrongly identified with secular mental hygiene.

The net result is a Gospel badly in need of demythologization, not of its biblical cosmology, but of its psychological incrustations. Once again, this does not mean an outright rejection of the findings of the sciences. Truth is never hazardous or dangerous to the Christian. The sciences have performed a great service to us in giving us insights into the nature of the world that God has created, the means by which God governs the world, and the nature of the crowning glory of God’s creation, man. But it is necessary to exercise discernment, and to use such knowledge with care, since it is always tentative. An appropriate use will mean that the Gospel is neither obscured by technical phraseology nor transformed by a secular orientation, but is clarified and enriched.

ROBERT H. LAUER

Salem Baptist Church

Florissant, Mo.

A fortnightly report of developments in religion

In the shadow of Washington Cathedral in the nation’s capital on April 9–10, a small meeting took place which could possibly eventuate in a radical transformation of the face and character of American Protestantism, with repercussions, for good or ill, felt in theology, polity, preaching, missions, evangelism, education, and down the entire range of Protestant life and thought—ultimately to the nation itself.

Concluding Statement Of Delegation Chairmen

We have met as delegates of the Methodist Church, the Protestant Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ and the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. to discuss the possibility of the formation of a church truly catholic, truly reformed, truly evangelical. Each communion has been represented by both clerical and lay members, all of whom are deeply involved in the life of their churches and many of whom are widely experienced in ecumenical relations. We are grateful to God for having led us into these conversations, and we believe on the basis of our preliminary discussions that the Holy Spirit is leading us to further explorations of the unity that we have in Jesus Christ and to our mutual obligation to give visible witness to this unity.

We have made no attempt to reach agreement in areas of difference. Rather, we have sought to isolate issues that need further study and clarification. Among these are: (1) the historical basis for the Christian ministry that is found in the Scriptures and the early church; (2) the origins, use and standing of creeds and confessional statements, (3) a restatement of the theology of liturgy; (4) the relation of word and sacraments.

All of the delegations had in mind that they represent churches having deep roots in the Reformation. At the meeting they were reminded by theological spokesmen of the “earnest concern” of the Reformation “for theological integrity and cultural relevance;” and that today these principles of “theological integrity and meaningful witness demand the union of the churches.”

The delegates earnestly beseech the members of their churches to be constant in prayer that the people of God may be open to Elis leading, that these communions may receive from Him new obedience and fresh courage, and that God’s will for his people may be made manifest before the world.

It was the unanimous decision to hold further consultations. The next meeting [is March 19–21, 1963].

Some 40 churchmen gathered for conversations concerning the possible merging of their four denominations with memberships totaling almost 19 million: The Methodist Church (10, 046, 293), the Protestant Episcopal Church (3,500,000), the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. (3, 259, 011), the United Church of Christ (2, 015, 037).

Billed as preliminary and exploratory, the sessions were closed to the press though interviews were granted. The atmosphere was reportedly amiable, the delegations including names like Eugene Carson Blake, James I. McCord, Theodore O. Wedel, Charles C. Parlin, Truman B. Douglass and John P. Dillenberger.

Further meetings will be held under the name of The Consultation on Church Union. Elected chairman for a two-year term was McCord, president of Princeton Theological Seminary.

The four-way merger plan was originally proposed by Blake, United Presbyterian Stated Clerk, in December, 1960.

Though combined membership of the four denominations involved in the talks does not total half the U.S. membership of the Roman Catholic Church, there are hopes of future additions. Delegates agreed to invite three more communions to join the consultations: the International Convention of Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ) with nearly two million members, the Evangelical United Brethren with 750,000, and the Polish National Catholic Church with about 300,000. The latter, organized in 1897 as a result of dissatisfaction with Roman Catholic administration and theology, has been in full communion with the Protestant Episcopal Church since 1956. The Evangelical United Brethren have been holding conversations with the Methodists, and the Disciples with the United Church of Christ.

While spokesmen told of enthusiasm in their respective communions for merger, they also noted opposition. The various hurdles ahead were many. Calvinist, Arminian and Catholic theologies are represented in the consulting churches, though many of the historic creedal positions have been watered down through the years. Dillenberger, in an address termed indicative of the atmosphere of the discussions, took note of a growing ecumenical theology in contrast to the diminishing publication of denominational theologies. He later asserted that union should be accomplished by “convergence” rather than by taking all things from all churches or by “trading tradition for tradition.” Convergence was described as a total rethinking of concepts in the light of concepts of other traditions.

Dillenberger, a member of the United Church of Christ, pointed toward what could become the most formidable hurdle of all—the apostolic succession of the episcopate taught by Episcopalians. He did not see church history arguing for an unbroken succession, though he acknowledged that the church of the future would very likely have bishops.

As if to point up anticipation of this vexatious ecumenical problem, the Episcopal delegation was larger than the other three, which were equal, and the other major address was delivered by Episcopalian Wedel, who argued for the historic episcopate.

How Congregationalists, who form the larger part of the United Church of Christ, will feel about having bishops remains to be seen. Also congregational in polity are the Disciples, who own a further doctrinal distinction—they practice believers’ baptism by immersion. But this could possibly form a bridge to the Baptists. Lutherans have been busy with mergers among themselves, but the ultimate hope of many churchmen across denominational lines is for a united Protestant church of America, all the while seeking to prevent schism within the various communions over this very issue. Blake told reporters that continuation and building of the current “mood” depends partly on dissemination of information to “educate the laity to the level of thought that rises above petty disagreements over minor points.”

The Second Call

It was less than two hours after the Washington Consultation on Church Union had been adjourned. Half a continent away, in a crowded Denver Hilton Hotel ballroom, a lone figure stepped to the rostrum. Some 1,200 persons sang lustily a stanza of the “Star-Spangled Banner”, recited pledges of allegiance to the U. S. and Christian flags, then bowed in the opening prayer of the 20th annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Some 48 hours and 25 press releases later, it was clear that the NAE had (l) renounced ecclesiastical isolation and (2) broken clean from right-wing extremism.

But resolutions chairman Arnold T. Olson, president of the Evangelical Free Church, cited what he termed an even more important action. He recalled that two decades ago leading U. S. evangelicals had issued a “call to St. Louis” for a meeting which ultimately gave rise to organization of NAE. It was time, Olson added, for “a second call,” whereupon he introduced a resolution asking NAE leaders “to issue a call to both constituent leaders and to leaders of other Bible believing groups not affiliated with the NAE, to meet together to discuss methods of strengthening evangelical witness and influences, and to find ways to initiate more comprehensive united action.”

Immediately preceding the “second call” was another resolution whereby NAE officially abandoned separatism:

“We believe that [spiritual] unity is manifested in love-inspired fellowship that stimulates cooperative effort toward a more effective Christian witness without the necessity of formal ecclesiastical union or uniformity of practice and polity. The NAE also looks with favor on group discussion and dialogue to assure the fair and accurate presentation of the evangelical position and in order to keep fully aware of developments in other areas of Christian life and work; faith and order. However, it should be noted that in participating in such discussions the NAE does not compromise the evangelical position of accepting the authority of the Scriptures nor does it identify itself with those who deny that authority.”

Still another precedent-shattering resolution declared that “communism is only one of many avenues through which Satan employs his powers of spiritual wickedness. We must therefore seek to maintain a proper balance.… The ‘Freedom Through Faith’ program should be continued and intensified.… The dangers of extreme positions are recognized and should be avoided.”

Two motions to temper the anti-extremism resolution were lost for lack of a second. The resolutions committee report was carried unanimously and without amendment.¹Other resolutions voiced concern over certain aspects of the U. N., called for guarantees of religious freedom in “Alliance for Progress” contracts, and criticized trends toward secularism in education.

Has an ecumenical spirit rubbed off on NAE? Have New Delhi and the Blake-Pike proposal driven evangelicals to reassess their own posture toward fellow believers?

Geiger counters are plentiful in mining-conscious Denver, but one needed merely to tune his ear to key convention speakers to detect a measure of ecumenical fallout. The World and National Councils of Churches were properly assailed, but this time it was a qualified shellacking.

Said World Vision President Bob Pierce: “I’m not going to spend my time fighting communism. The danger without communism would be just as great. The problem is sin.”

“Don’t ask me to spend my life fighting the World Council of Churches,” he added. “If the World Council were to get together and subscribe to our beliefs,” Pierce declared, it would not eliminate the necessity of a revival.

Dr. Paul P. Petticord, past NAE president, told newsmen that “we are not opposed to the organic mergers of denominations. We would not oppose federated fellowships. But … we assume first that the Bible is the basis for our unity, and that through the Bible we find a relationship in Christ that establishes unity.”

Dr. Herbert S. Mekeel, also a former NAE president, cited “merger fever” as an element “we must reckon with.”

Mekeel, who declared that “New Delhi in order to be consistent must lead to Rome,” stressed as well that the NAE constituency should be considerate of the millions of believers whose churches are in the framework of the ecumenical movement.

For most of the delegates, the convention was a time of great fellowship, perhaps at the expense of other factors. The business session during which the resolutions were acted upon was attended by only about 10 per cent of an estimated 600 voting delegates who were in Denver.

Repeated pleas were made from the platform that delegates take time out to visit a special prayer room for intercession and meditation. Yet most of the time the room was empty except for an attendant.

A late Wednesday evening prayer meeting, however, saw some 75 per cent of the audience stay for the 10-minute session, which was followed by another special prayer meeting for ministers and missionaries. It lasted somewhat longer.

Evangelist Billy Graham told a banquet crowd that America may be on the verge of revival.

“All across the country,” he said, “I am finding unrelated prayer and Bible study groups, and I sense the same pattern of the Holy Spirit in this country that characterized the Wesleyan revival in England.”

“God is moving in places where we thought he could not move,” he added.

Other convention developments:

—Dr. Robert A. Cook, president of King’s College, was elected to a two-year term as NAE president. Dr. Jared F. Gerig was elected first vice-president and Dr. Rufus Jones second vice-president, both for one-year terms. Dr. C. C. Burnett was re-elected secretary and Carl A. Gundersen was re-elected treasurer.

—Gundersen was presented with the NAE’s “Layman of the Year” award for distinguished Christian service.

—The Marion (Indiana) Christian Church was named winner in an architectural competition sponsored jointly by NAE and Christian Life magazine.

—The NAE’s Commission on Chaplains disclosed that a thorough study was being prepared of the unified Sunday School curriculum now employed in the military services. Commission members were outspokenly critical of the curriculum system (see CHRISTIANITY TODAY, April 13, 1962).

—A theological study commission was reported to be working on what it termed “positive statements” defining evangelical conviction on the inspiration of the Bible, aspects of the person of Christ, and the nature of the Church.

Reformed Probing Action

Two major denominations of the Reformed tradition are proposing a joint resolution “to seek together a fuller expression of unity in faith and action.”

The Presbyterian Church in the United States with nearly 1,000,000 members, and the 250,000 member Reformed Church in America, made public a two-page statement at a news conference in the historic Church of the Pilgrims (Presbyterian) in Washington, D. C. this month.

A joint effort by the General Synod Executive Committee of the Reformed Church, and the Permanent Committee on Inter-Church Relations of the Presbyterian group, the resolution will be presented to the national general assemblies of each body.

While the stated clerk of each denomination made it clear that the resolution is not designed as a stepping stone to organic merger, neither shut the door to the ultimate possibility of such a merger.

The Rev. Norman E. Thomas, president of the General Synod of the Reformed Church called attention to the resolution’s avoidance of any specific reference to organic merger. “We hope it will lead to the opening of doors,” he said, “but we do not want to go beyond that now. There is real danger in becoming too serious too soon.”

The resolution included reference to a joint statement of cooperation made in 1874, speaking of “a union, not organic, but nevertheless a union real and practical.” Spokesmen stated that ultimate reunion of the Body of Christ should come as a result of cooperation, not to promote cooperation.

Joint exploration is suggested in the following areas of common concern:

Doctrine and Polity, Worship and Liturgy; World Missions and Ecumenical Relations;

Christian Education, including higher education;

Theological Education, including exchange of students and professors; A nationwide strategy for Evangelism and Church Extension and Retention;

Communicant referrals and mutual pastoral care, including chaplains and Armed Forces personnel;

Stewardship Education and Cultivation;

Interchange of Ministers and Church Workers, including consideration of pensions and annuities;

Men’s Work, Women’s Work, and Youth Work;

Christian Social Concern and Action;

Reciprocal studies of denominational administrative and organizational structure;

Exchange of pulpits, conference leaders, consultants and advisors;

Use of official church papers to acquaint our entire constituencies with the life and work of both churches, including church publications and communications media;

Developing personal acquaintance through exchange of sizeable groups of fraternal delegates to the General Synod, the General Assembly, Synods, Presbyteries and Classes, to Men’s, Women’s, and Youth assemblies and conferences.

The stated clerks of both denominations, declared that the committees which drafted the statement are widely representative of the dichotomy of thought within the whole of the churches.

If the national assemblies of both churches accept the resolution, each will appoint a committee of 12 to engage in joint exploration of these areas, and to make annual recommendations for further steps.

B.B.

Princeton Seminary 1812–1962

Is a full-blown theological controversy about to break upon the North American scene?

The doctrinal whirlwind, some observers say, may already have been spawned. Professor John H. Hick of Princeton Theological Seminary, whose membership in the Presbytery of New Brunswick was denied by the Judicial Commission of the Synod of New Jersey because he would not affirm belief in the Virgin Birth, is expected to appeal his case before next month’s General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A.

A showdown is also possible among Southern Baptists at their annual sessions in San Francisco in June. An informal, eight-state delegation of pastors and laymen who met for two days in Oklahoma City last month were reported to have referred to “the current theological crisis within the denomination.” Their discussion centered on “infiltration of liberalism” in Southern Baptist seminaries, with particular attention to a recent book by Professor Ralph H. Elliott of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, The Message of Genesis, published by the Southern Baptist press. Elliott’s view is that of the “documentary hypothesis” relative the authorship of the book of Genesis.

The case of the Princeton professor is particularly timely and noteworthy, for it involves one of America’s best-known seminaries which begins this week a 14-month sesquicentennial celebration.

Ask any fundamentalist-oriented layman to name a liberal seminary and he will likely respond, “Princeton.” Ask a theological liberal to cite the most fundamental of denominational seminaries and he is likewise apt to reply, “Princeton.”

Actually, both are right. Princeton has probably turned out more evangelical ministers than any other U. S. seminary. While the faculty avoids such controversy as would label it “fundamentalist” or “liberal,” the student body is not so prudent, and for the most part classifies itself as “fundy” or not. In recent years, incoming classes have been nearly one-half “fundy.” Among schools most strongly represented in last year’s student body was Wheaton College, which like the University of California and Maryville (Presbyterian) College had 14 of its graduates on the Princeton Seminary campus.

Other strongly evangelical schools represented in Princeton’s student body last year included Bob Jones University, Seattle Pacific College (Free Methodist), Nyack Missionary College (Christian and Missionary Alliance), Houghton College (Wesleyan Methodist), Olivet Nazarene College, and Taylor University.

Strangely enough, the only indexed reference to Princeton Seminary in Encyclopaedia Britannica is found under the subject heading “Fundamentalism.”

On the other hand, there seems little doubt that the theological movement of the Princeton faculty and administration has been consistently to the left in recent decades. One highly-informed source who was close to the Princeton leadership for many years puts it this way:

“I like the men there, and I think of some as still conservative. But I do not know of a recent appointment that has been of the conservative sort. The Princeton literature that comes to me makes me feel that the trend is not in that direction.”

The founding of Princeton Seminary can be traced back to an overture from the Presbytery of Philadelphia which came before the Presbyterian General Assembly in 1809. Two years later a plan was adopted by the assembly providing for establishment of a seminary designed “to form men for the Gospel ministry who shall truly believe, and cordially love, and therefore endeavour to propagate and defend, in its genuineness, simplicity, and fullness, that system of religious belief and practice which is set forth in the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Plan of Government and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church; and thus to perpetuate and extend the influence of true evangelical piety and Gospel order.”

The assembly made an agreement with the College of New Jersey (later renamed Princeton University) for use of campus space, and a cordial relationship has existed between the university and the seminary ever since. The campuses are still adjacent to each other, and there are many cooperative efforts between the two institutions, although they have always been operated independently.

The seminary opened on August 12, 1812, with three students and one professor, Dr. Archibald Alexander. Classes were initially held in his study. Five more students came in November of that year. Dr. Samuel Miller became the second professor in 1813. It was not until five years later that the first seminary building was erected, Alexander Hall, which still stands.

Charles Hodge, who was to become one of the greatest of American Protestant theologians, entered the seminary in 1816 after graduating from the college at Princeton. He stayed on as a faculty member and was said to have trained more men in theology (3, 000) than any other figure of his time. Hodge taught at the seminary for 50 years.

The seminary never had a president until 1903 when the office was assumed by Dr. Francis L. Patton, who served until 1912.

Hodge, two of his sons who also taught, Alexander, Miller, and Patton, plus Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield, who was professor of theology, all are recalled as evangelical giants. One seminary graduate has remarked that Warfield, who now looks impressively down from above the fireplace in the Campus Center, wears a disapproving expression.

If a single year could be referred to as a turning point for Princeton, it was probably 1913, when J. Ross Stevenson assumed the presidency. It was under Stevenson that the seminary experienced its greatest crisis, and the leading figure in the controversy which brought about the crisis was the late Dr. J. Gresham Machen, who was regarded by critics and admirers alike as the greatest leader of evangelical Christianity in his time. He was referred to as the one man the liberals had yet to answer.

Machen, a native of Baltimore, studied successively at Johns Hopkins University, Princeton Seminary, and at the Universities of Marburg and Göttingen in Germany. He joined the Princeton faculty in 1906 as an instructor and in 1914 was elected Assistant Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis. He was well known for his fundamentalist convictions and his stand increasingly became productive of difficulty. Seminary directors in 1926 elected Machen as professor of apologetics, but he never achieved the full-fledged professorship. The election set off a long chain of controversy climaxed in 1929 with a reorganization of the seminary by order of the General Assembly, which withheld Machen’s professorship.

The Gospel At Harvard

Evangelist Billy Graham preached regeneration to an overflow crowd of 2,500 at the Harvard Law Forum last month.

Following his talk, Graham and a long-time friend, Dr. Harold J. Ockenga of Park Street Church in Boston, took part in a panel with two Harvard Divinity School professors, entertaining questions from the audience.

A key point at issue was the relationship of evangelistic endeavor and social reform.

Graham stressed the need for personal commitment to Christ but also emphasized that evangelism and social responsibility were not mutually exclusive.

Ockenga agreed that there was no split between the two. “In fact,” he said, “we are pleading all the time for more social Gospel.”

“We have not abdicated this field,” Ockenga added.

The two Harvard panelists were Dr. James Luther Adams, Unitarian scholar, and Dr. Richard R. Niebuhr, associate professor of theology.

The meeting at Harvard climaxed a two-week campus crusade centered at three North Carolina colleges.

The election of Machen was made following the retirement of Dr. William Brenton Greene, who had served since 1892 in the chair first occupied by Patton. The chair, endowed by R. L. Stuart of New York, was first known as that of “the Relations of Philosophy and Science to the Christian Religion.” Dr. Clarence Edward Macartney was invited to assume the chair in 1925, but declined. Machen finally withdrew his name too, and directors named Cornelius Van Til first as instructor then as full professor. Van Til’s appointment likewise was never confirmed, and he taught only one year. In the summer of 1929, Machen led a faction which withdrew under protest from Princeton and formed Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Van Til was among those who joined the faculty of the new school.

Current occupant of the Stuart chair, now referred to as that of Professor of Christian Philosophy, is Hick.

Stevenson served as president until 1936 and was succeeded by Dr. John H. Mackay, who started a controversy of his own by bringing from the Continent Dr. Emil Brunner to the Charles Hodge chair of systematic theology. Brunner’s neoorthodoxy drew fire from Presbyterians despite Mackay’s plea that the Continent was enjoying a “theological spring-time” in which he wished America to share. Brunner only stayed a year.

Mackay’s term reflected his passion for the missionary aspect of ecumenism. Says one recent Princeton graduate, who studied under Mackay as well as Dr. James I. McCord, who succeeded him:

“Whatever theological criticism must be made of Mackay’s administration, still he brought to the seminary a great and evangelical spirit.”

McCord is reportedly seeking to raise the academic prestige of the seminary to the level of Harvard, Yale, and Union. A major revision of the curriculum is already under way.

McCord’s most spectacular accomplishment thus far has been in lining up the eminent theologian Karl Barth to deliver a week of lectures. Barth, who was scheduled to lecture at the University of Chicago this week, is due in Princeton on Sunday. His appearance was to follow that of two prime movers of the ecumenical movement, Dr. W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, and Dr. D. T. Niles, general secretary of the East Asia Christian Conference. Niles and Visser ’t Hooft were to lecture this week along with Dr. James S. Stewart, professor of New Testament at New College, Edinburgh.

The town of Princeton, which embraces the campuses of the university as well as the seminary, is located in the heart of the Eastern seaboard population concentration, midway between New York and Philadelphia. It has managed nonetheless to retain a degree of quaint, small-town flavor. The shops along Nassau Street, which borders the campus, are old-fashioned but neat-appearing. The community boasts a religious distinction apart from the seminary location: Jonathan Edwards is buried there.

The 30-acre seminary campus consists of an administration building, two classroom buildings, a library, a chapel, a campus center, four dormitories, three apartment houses, a gymnasium and athletic field, two outdoor tennis courts, and an outdoor swimming pool, plus a complex of homes used by faculty members.

The seminary has a current enrollment of 445 students. Degrees offered include bachelor of divinity, master of religious education, master of theology, and doctor of theology.

Academic excellence and tradition continue to draw many evangelical intellectuals to Princeton. But the future of conservative theology depends on faculty appointments, which are being watched. Already influential conservative Presbyterians are weighing the need for a new denominational seminary, which some church leaders may prefer to the risk of a costly denominational split.

‘A Man For All Seasons’

“Gideon” and “A Man for All Seasons” are among the four stage plays²The other two: “The Caretaker” by Harold Pinter and “The Night of the Iguana” by Tennessee Williams. This year’s “Tony Awards” will be presented April 29 at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. nominated for this year’s major theater awards, which may indicate that religious themes are in for a big revival on Broadway.

“Gideon,” by Paddy Chayefsky, dramatizes the biblical character and his defeat of the Midianites (see CHRISTIANITY TODAY, March 2, 1962).

“A Man for All Seasons” is a historical drama which exalts the character of Sir Thomas More, famous sixteenth-century English lawyer and author of the classic Utopia who played a key role in the religiopolitical struggle during which the Church of England was established. The play was written in 1960 by Robert Bolt and played in London before opening in New York last fall.

More, as played by Paul Scofield, is subjected to a series of ethical entanglements and finally executed as the upshot of a frameup to which Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, is a party. The historical authenticity of some of the script is open to question, but the plot is highly relevant to the contemporary political situation in America. Facets of the plot appear to have been forerunners of such modern-day phenomena as five percenters, deep-freezes and vicuna, loyalty oaths, Fifth Amendment silence—and even the religious issue.

More may have been sympathetic with at least some aspects of the Reformation, but he remained loyal to the church of Rome and severely criticized those who withdrew. Upon learning of England’s break with Rome, the “man for all seasons” cries, “This isn’t reformation. This is war against the church.”

More was canonized in 1935. The title of the play is taken from a passage which was composed by Robert Whittington for Tudor schoolboys to put into Latin.

Arguing For Prayer

The U. S. Supreme Court heard arguments this month as to whether the daily recitation of a nonsectarian prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. A ruling, the first such in the nation’s history, was expected soon.

The arguments were heard by eight justices. Justice Charles E. Whittaker, who had retired from the bench just a few days before, was in the audience but will not enter the deliberations. Neither will Justice Byron White, who had not yet been confirmed when the arguments were heard. Should the justices split 4–4, the lower court decision will be upheld.

Petitioners, residents of the state of New York, are five parents: two Jewish, one Unitarian, one Society for Ethical Culture, and one nonbeliever. They initiated legal action to enjoin the saying of this prayer in the public schools of their district: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.” Having been denied by the highest

New York state court, their petition was taken to the U. S. Supreme Court.

Opposing petitioners’ case are respondents (the Board of Education of the school district) and intervenors-respondents (16 families with children in the schools in question). Seven families are Protestant, five Roman Catholic, three Jewish, and one non-believing.

Before the justices took their seats the Crier proclaimed to the standing courtroom: “Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!… God save the United States and this Honorable Court!”

Next, seven attorneys were admitted to the bar. With uplifted hand they swore to “demean myself, as an attorney.… So help me God!”

Then for one hour attorney William J. Butler represented petitioners. After a few moments of presentation Justice Felix Frankfurter asked: “What is your petitioners’ exact grievance?” Butler replied that this prayer was a practice primarily violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and secondarily the Free Exercise Clause of the same amendment.

Some minutes later Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., asked: “The whole premise of your argument is that this amounts to teaching?”

“Yes,” answered Butler, “the reason for this prayer is to inculcate in children a love of God.”

“Is that a bad thing?” immediately queried one justice.

Replied the attorney, “No.… we are also religious people … prayer is good … but we should not compound the civic with the religious.”

Bertram B. Daiker, respondents’ attorney, had 30 minutes. He argued that the Establishment Clause “was intended to prohibit a State religion but not to prevent the growth of a religious State.” Porter R. Chandler, intervenors-respondents’ attorney, took up the remaining half-hour of argument time. He stressed that the “Regents’ Prayer” is an embodiment of traditional civic prayer. When recited voluntarily, it represents “a reasonable and proper method of developing an appreciation and understanding of the basic principles of our national heritage.” Neither the First nor the Fourteenth Amendments were intended to abolish it.

Chandler saw petitioners’ objections analogous to the objection of some to the saying by their children of the Pledge of Allegiance (a practice which they consider idolatrous). Chandler noted that legislatures have responded by exempting the children of objecters, not by abolishing the Pledge itself.

Chandler went on to point out that to prevent children from saying this prayer impairs their constitutional rights to the “free exercise” of their beliefs—to open school with a public prayer.

Supporting the prayer were briefs amicus curiae of attorneys general of 18 states. They said such a prayer does not, in their opinion, violate their state constitutions.

Respondents’ brief quotes from the state constitutions or preambles thereto of 49 states acknowledging that the rights and liberties of the people issue from God and express gratefulness therefor. It also notes that “all Presidents without exception.… have publicly recognized the dependence of this nation on Almighty God.”

It is generally believed the decision will have far-reaching consequences if the Supreme Court declares the prayer unconstitutional. Such a ruling will not merely eliminate opening prayer in public schools from Maine to Hawaii, but also Bible reading, Christmas pageants, and every other semblance of religion.

Should U.S. Aid Schools In Colombia?

Forty million United States tax dollars are earmarked to help upgrade the “public” school system of that most Roman Catholic of Latin republics—Colombia.

Already sites have been chosen and architects named for some of the 22,000 classrooms to be built under the four-year program, to which Colombia will contribute half the cost.

Yet there seems to be no prospect of persuading Colombia to abrogate Vatican treaties under which the Roman church, as the state religion, has virtually complete power over “public” education.

Nor have there been any official U.S. appeals to bring about the reopening of any of the 200-plus Protestant schools closed as a result of clerical orders during the past few years—in a country said to be 50 per cent illiterate.

In some areas Protestant children have been refused enrollment in “public” schools. Everywhere Protestant students have been forced to join their Catholic classmates in taking three hours of Catholic instruction each week and attending Mass on Sundays and feast days. The instruction frequently ridicules Protestantism.

The new American-aided program also envisions building four normal schools, training 9,500 new teachers, giving in-service training to 11,000 instructors and developing several thousand supervisors and administrators.

In the past Protestants have found the doors of Colombian normal schools closed to them. It has been almost impossible for them to obtain teachers’ certificates. Catholic prelates have authority to pass on the hiring and firing of teachers and to prescribe or outlaw textbooks.

The anomalous sight of free America’s bolstering an arbitrary school system may be explained in part by the haste with which the agreement was formulated. Apparently it was rushed through within four months after the Alliance for Progress Treaty was signed so that President Kennedy could announce it with a muffled fanfare of drums during his December visit to Colombia.

The announcement, scarcely heard in the United States, was publicized widely by Colombian newspapers. But Protestant leaders in Colombia heard it and their insistent questions soon caused a flurry of activity in the American Embassy in Bogotá.

Ambassador Fulton Freeman and his United States Operations Mission (Point Four) aides belatedly sought to calm Protestant apprehensions. After conferences with Colombia’s President and with officials of the Ministry of Education, they reported these verbal assurances:

1. None of the American-financed schools will be built in the “mission territories” (the 19 sparsely-populated, rural areas, comprising three-fourths of the land area of Colombia, where Romanists have absolute control over all schools and Protestant schools are allowed only for non-Catholic foreigners).

2. Protestant children will not be denied access to the new schools, nor will they be forced to take the Catholic instruction that still will be required of Catholic students.

3. Protestants will have equal access to the new normal schools and no longer will be denied teachers’ certificates.

However, such assurances from temporary officials in the Ministry of Education have failed to quiet the fears of the Colombian Protestants. Dr. James E. Goff, Presbyterian educator who has documented the running story of the Colombian persecution, puts it this way:

“Promises by Ministry officials, no matter how sincerely given, are worthless when stacked against the Concordat and the Treaty on Missions” (the two Vatican pacts which give the Catholics control over Colombian education).

“The present Administration,” Goff continued, “led by liberal statesman Alberto Lleras Camargo, is not inclined to enforce the restrictive articles of the two treaties. A subsequent conservative administration may well be disposed to do so. In all events, the Roman Catholic hierarchy may appeal to the treaties, which supposedly carry the force of law.” (A conservative administration is slated to take office this year.)

Goff saw “cause for surprise” that the U.S.O.M. people should have neglected to write into the education agreement itself adequate protection for Protestants.

“It is surely no secret,” he said, “that during the past 14 years the Protestants of Colombia have suffered a notorious religious persecution which has resulted in the death of 116 Protestant Christians because of their religious faith, the destruction by fire or dynamite of 66 Protestant churches or chapels, and the closing of over 200 Protestant schools.”

A clear violation of the American principle of church-state separation is involved in this situation, in the opinion of Colombian Protestant leaders and a number of Americans who know the facts.

Some officials in Washington already are retorting that the United States has no right to force our ideas of church-state separation on a friendly foreign country that needs our aid. Others say it is desirable and possible to urge the Colombian government to eliminate such discrimination against Protestants but that this discrimination should not deter us from pressing our campaign against illiteracy under the Alliance for Progress umbrella.

Protestants who see a violation of American principles in the Colombian program can point to a statement made in Washington last March by a Latin American expert, Senator Hipolito Marcano of Puerto Rico. Answering a hypothetical question regarding the use of United States aid for educational purposes in Latin America, Marcano said:

“I think that inasmuch as this is taxpayers’ money and the taxpayers’ money is controlled by the fundamental law of the land, which is the Constitution …, that control should accompany taxpayers’ money in all uses given it by the Federal Government.… I don’t think that because our money goes to a foreign country, they can do with the money what we cannot do with our own money in our own country.”

Even if this Constitutional ground should be shaken, there are Protestants and others in America who feel that this Colombian school program is completely wrong.

“Why should free America subsidize the denial of freedom,” such people ask. And they press their point with such question as:

“If Colombia needs more schools, why does she not start by striking down the tyrannical 1953 treaty with the Vatican under which Protestant schools are outlawed in 75 per cent of her territory?

“Why should America pour $40,000,000 into a school system that is dominated by prelates who have forced the closing of more than 200 Protestant schools while the Roman church and the Colombian government combined are unable to furnish schools for half the children of Colombia?”

The Rev. Lorentz D. Emery, another Protestant educator in Colombia, believes that American insistence on the inclusion of our principles of freedom in the Colombian education program would weaken clerical control of Colombian education, thereby “advancing education more than by the building of 22,000 classrooms.”

The American funds must be approved by Congress on a year-to-year basis.

The Overlappers

The three “trade associations” of the religious periodical press are the Associated Church Press, the Evangelical Press Association, and the Catholic Press Association. For some years, their memberships were for the most part mutually exclusive. The Evangelical and Catholic associations have well-defined membership qualifications resting on a theological base. The ACP has never had a membership credo, but its general orientation was that of Protestant liberalism. By this month it was obvious that much overlapping between ACP and EPA had developed and talks on cooperation were already under way.

The overlapping has developed as increasing numbers of publications originally aligned with EPA have also taken out ACP memberships.

ACP now has 163 member publications with an aggregate circulation of more than 17,000,000. EPA has 175 member publications with an aggregate circulation of more than 7, 600,000.

At its convention in New York this month, ACP presented 13 “Awards of Merit” and 16 honorable mentions.

The winners of merit awards:

Articles—CHRISTIANITY TODAY; The Churchman; Youth.

Editorials—The Churchman; Missions, Christianity and Crisis.

Denominational program or organized activity—Presbyterian Life; World Call; Missions Magazine.

News treatment (magazines)—Presbyterian Life; The Living Church; Baptist World.

News treatment (newspapers)—The Hawkeye Methodist.

Cited for honorable mention:

Articles—Unitarian Register and Universalist Leader; Saints Herald; Presbyterian Life.

Editorials—CHRISTIANITY TODAY, The Lutheran; Gospel Messenger; The Living Church.

Denominational program or organized activity—Baptist Record; Methodist Layman; Free Methodist.

News treatment (magazines)—CHRISTIANITY TODAY; The Christian; The Lutheran Standard; The Churchman.

News treatment (newspapers)—The Baptist Record; The Record.³Among periodicals which are members of ACP as well as EPA: Arkansas Baptist, Baptist Beacon, Baptist Program, The Baptist Record, Canadian War Cry, Christian Endeavor World, Christianity Today, Church Herald, The Commission, The Covenant Companion, Decision, Eternity, The Free Methodist, The Standard, United Evangelical Action, The War Cry, World Vision Magazine, Youth Compass, Youth in Action.

Barth’S Successor

Dr. Heinrich Ott, 33, of Riehen, Switzerland, will succeed Dr. Karl Barth as professor of systematic theology at the University of Basel.

Ott was once a student at Basel and studied under Barth. He became an instructor at the university after serving two Swiss parishes as minister.

Author of several books on contemporary theology, Ott declined an offer to teach at the University of Vienna to accept the Basel professorship.

No Hard Feelings

Cleared of all charges of immorality brought against him—charges that caused him to be deposed as Primate of the Orthodox Church of Greece—Archbishop Iakovos declared in Athens that he held “no hard feelings” for those who had accused him.

The ailing 67-year-old prelate, who abdicated in January “for the good of the Church” after only 12 days in the post of primate, said he had forgiven those who had charged him with “unmentionable acts.”

He declared he thought only in “loving” terms of those who “love me and (those who) hated me.”

People: Words And Events

Deaths:Dr. Evan Allard Reiff, 54, who had resigned January 25 as president of Hardin-Simmons University; in Abilene, Texas … Dr. Paul Rafaj, 66, president of the Synod of Evangelical Lutheran Churches; in Olyphant, Pennsylvania … Dr. Robert F. Cooper, 81, chairman of the department of ancient languages at Belhaven College; in Jackson, Mississippi … the Rt. Rev. Christopher Maude Chevasse, 77, former Anglican Bishop of Rochester; at Oxford, England … Dr. Walter J. Noble, 83, former president of the Methodist Church in Britain … Dr. Jan Szeruda, 71, former Bishop of the Polish Evangelical Augsburg (Lutheran) Church; in Warsaw … Miss Florence Sleidel, 65, Assemblies of God missionary who founded one of the world’s largest leper colonies, the New Hope Leprosarium in Liberia.

Resignation: As professor of preaching at Gordon College and Divinity School, Dr. Lloyd Perry, who will assume the pastorate of the Central Baptist Church of Indianapolis.

Retirement: As president of the World’s Christian Endeavor Union, Dr. Daniel A. Poling … as president of Augustana College, Dr. Conrad Bergendoff … as professor of preaching and applied Christianity at Boston University, Dr. Allan Knight Chalmers … as pastor of Central Baptist Church, Miami, Dr. C. Roy Angell.

Elections: As bishop of the Pacific Area of the Latin America Central Conference (Methodist), the Rev. Pedro Zottele of Chile … as president of the American Tract Society, G. Raymond Christensen.

Appointments: As professor of systematic theology at the Oberlin College Graduate School of Theology, Dr. J. Robert Nelson … as faculty members in systematic theology at Union Theological Seminary, New York, Dr. John Macquarrie and Dr. Paul L. Lehmann … as director of the Department of Education of the United Presbyterian Board of National Missions, Dr. Harry L. Stearns.… as religious editor for Protestant books with Doubleday and Company, Alex Liepa.

The highest canonical court in the church was unanimous in acquitting him of a charge of unbecoming conduct.

Convening as a court, the Holy Synod, the church’s executive body, ruled that the evidence brought against him did not substantiate the charges. Announcement came after five hours of deliberation. It said it “found unanimously that the accusations were not confirmed by the evidence produced … before the court.”

So ended a controversy which raged to a point where it threatened the nation’s unity, according to Religious News Service. Throughout his ordeal, press and churchmen alike called on the prelate to resign for the good of the church. The Greek government, for the first time in recent history, threatened to intervene in the church’s affairs and oust the archbishop. The prelate held out for a time but when government intervention seemed imminent he abdicated.

He was succeeded by Metropolitan Chrysostom Hadjistavrou of Philippi and Kavala, 83 years old and the oldest in point of service among all the Orthodox bishops in the world.

The Christian believer regards it as a most comforting Gospel revelation that in Christ Jesus God from eternity has adopted his chosen saints to be his dear children. It was definitely a manifestation of Christ’s sincere love for his disciples when he called them his “friends” (John 15:14); but the terms “sons and daughters,” which Scripture ascribes to Christian believers, imply far greater privileges than does that of friend. In his well-known monograph The Reformed Doctrine of Adoption, R. A. Webb writes of God’s gracious adoption of believers as his dear children: “When we approach Him in the intensity of worship, we gather up all the sweetness involved in Fatherhood and all the tenderness wrapped up in sonship; when calamities overcome us and troubles come in like a flood, we lift up our cry and stretch out our arms to God as a compassionate Father; when the angel of death climbs in at the window of our homes and bears away the object of our love, we find our dearest solace in reflecting upon the fatherly heart of God; when we look across the swelling flood, it is our Father’s House on the light-covered hills beyond the stars which cheers us amid the crumbling of the earthly tabernacle” (p. 19). It is from the viewpoint of its ineffable solace that the Christian believer gratefully considers the biblical doctrine of adoption.

Definition of Adoption. A. H. Strong briefly defines the doctrine of adoption under the general theme “Restoration to Favor” in connection with justification and reconciliation as follows: “This restoration to favor, viewed in its aspect as the renewal of a broken friendship, is denominated reconciliation; viewed in its aspect as a renewal of the son’s true relation to God as a father, it is denominated adoption” (Systematic Theology, Vol. III, p. 857). Similar is the definition given in the Cyclopaedia of McClintock and Strong: “Adoption in a theological sense is that act of God’s free grace by which, upon our being justified by faith in Christ, we are received into the family of God and entitled to the inheritance of heaven” (s.v.). According to these definitions adoption embraces both the renewal of the soul’s true relation to God as a father and the bestowal of the privileges of sonship in this life and that to come. Thus believers, who by nature were alienated from God and were under his righteous judgment, are received by him as his dear children and heirs of eternal life.

The Doctrine Taught in Scripture. The term huiothesia, literally “placing as a son,” is used only in the New Testament (cf. International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, s.v.). It never occurs in the Septuagint, and in the New Testament only in those epistles which primarily concerned Gentile believers, e. g., Galatians, Romans, Ephesians. Even here the apostle’s emphasis seems to rest not so much on God’s adopting act as rather on the state of sonship and its prerogatives. Among the Greeks and Romans at Paul’s time adoption, that is, “the legal process by which a man might bring into his family and endow with the status and privilege of a son one who was not by nature his son or his kindred” (JSBE, s.v.), was so well known that Paul could presuppose that his readers understood what he meant by God’s spiritual huiothesia. But the question, whether the apostle was guided in his use of the term by the prevalent custom, is quite another matter. The Old Testament mentions three cases of adoption (Exod. 2:10; 1 Kings 11:20; Esther 2:7, 15), though all of them took place outside Palestine. Paul, however, definitely ascribes to chosen Israel the huiothesia (Rom. 9:4), just as the Old Testament attributes to believing Israel the prerogative of sonship (Exod. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Jer. 31:9). In the New Testament the precious Gospel truth that believers in Christ are God’s dear children is, of course, stressed also in books not written by Paul (e.g., Luke 20:36; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10).

Adoption an Eternal Act of Divine Grace. Adoption, according to Scripture, is an eternal act of divine grace, for he “predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will” (Eph. 1:5). This eternal predestination to adoption, just as God’s eternal election to salvation, was, of course, “in him” (Eph. 1:4), that is, in Christ Jesus, and so embraced his Incarnation, Vicarious Atonement, and Resurrection—in short, the whole ordo salutis; for “when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal. 4:4, 5). Therefore the adoption is an act of God’s free grace and excludes all human merit; it is absolutely sola gratia. As believers have been redeemed purely by grace, so also they have been adopted purely by grace. Thus God heaps grace upon grace in electing, redeeming, and adopting his elect saints.

While Scripture ascribes to the Father the adoption and to the Son the redemption, it ascribes to the Holy Spirit the sanctifying act by which we become believers in Christ and so God’s dear children. The apostle teaches this truth very clearly when he writes: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Rom. 8:14–17). In this life, of course, the believer’s assurance of his adoption is apprehended merely by faith; but on the day of the final resurrection he will be delivered “into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21).

The Relation of Adoption to Other Biblical Doctrines. The doctrine of adoption stands in close relation to those of justification, reconciliation, regeneration, conversion, and sanctification. The adoption exists objectively in foro Dei because of God’s eternal election of grace and Christ’s vicarious atonement. But subjectively the believer obtains it through faith in Christ or by becoming a believer in Christ, as the apostle writes: “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26). This means that in the very moment of his conversion to Christ he is a child of God. But in that very moment he is also justified, or declared righteous before God for Christ’s sake, whose perfect righteousness, procured by his vicarious atonement, he receives by his personal faith in the Redeemer. This comforting Gospel truth the apostle stresses in Romans 5:1: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” But this verse declares also that the believer in the moment of his conversion is in possession of reconciliation with God, for by faith he has “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” According to Scripture, reconciliation is that very act of divine grace through which the believer is granted peace with God by his justification or the forgiveness of his sins.

But by faith in Christ the believer receives also regeneration or the new birth, as John writes: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (1 John 5:1). This, moreover, means that then the believer is converted, since conversion in its proper sense is the “turning from darkness to light” by faith in Christ (Acts 26:18). The estranged sinner, who was turned away from God, is now turned toward his divine Lord with genuine trust and sincere love. In this sense the apostle writes: “God … hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). The regenerated believer is given the firm conviction that Christ is his personal Saviour who has redeemed him from sin, death, and hell. So also by faith in Christ the believer obtains the gift of sanctification or the gradual putting off of the old man, which is corrupt according to its deceitful lusts, and the gradual putting on of the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness (Eph. 4:22–24). Thus the believer’s faith in Christ accomplishes his entire renewal: his justification, reconciliation, regeneration, conversion, sanctification, and, last but not least, his adoption to sonship. Paul sums up this whole spiritual process of the believer’s turning from unbelief to faith, from sin to holiness, from death to life, when he writes: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8, 9); or: “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). As Scripture ascribes the believer’s whole salvation to faith in Christ, so also it ascribes to faith in Christ the individual divine acts by which the Holy Spirit works salvation in the believer. It is therefore immaterial whether the adoption is linked with regeneration or justification or whether, under a separate head, it is considered as the final goal of man’s spiritual reclamation by the Holy Spirit. There is, however, always a note of triumphant rejoicing in the sweet Gospel proclamation that Christian believers are God’s dear children (cf. 1 John 3:2 and similar passages). Thus the adoption may be regarded as the crowning act of God’s saving love.

The Blessings of the Adoption. Scripture is very explicit in describing the ineffable blessings of the believer’s adoption. According to Romans 8:14–17, these are (1) the sanctifying leading by the Holy Spirit; (2) the removal of the servile spirit of fear; (3) the filial trust by which the believer calls God “Abba, Father,” the joining of the two words giving emphasis to his endeared relation to God; (4) the witnessing of the Holy Spirit with his spirit that he is a child of God; and (5) the assurance that he is an heir of God and a joint heir with Christ. The blessing of the Spirit’s witnessing in the believer’s heart is stated with the same emphasis in Galatians 4:6; only here the joyous prayer “Abba, Father” is ascribed directly to the Spirit’s witnessing. Accordingly, the believer calls God “Abba, Father” as the immediate effect of the assuring testimony of the Holy Spirit. The spirit of adoption therefore assures the believer of God’s fatherly love toward him and of his sure salvation in everlasting glory. In times of trial the Christian, because of the weakness of his faith, may not always perceive the Spirit’s witness, but it is nevertheless there as long as faith in Christ prevails; for in the final analysis faith itself is nothing else than the Spirit’s persuasive witness in the believer’s heart.

The Application of the Doctrine. While all Christian theologians glory in the comforting Gospel truth that believers in Christ are God’s dear children, they vary greatly in their treatment of the doctrine of adoption. R. A. Webb in his monograph, referred to above, takes note of the fact that Calvin makes no allusion whatever to adoption, while Turretin identifies it as the second element of justification. So also the thorough dogmatical work of Charles Hodge is silent on the subject, while A. A. Hodge devotes to it a short chapter. None of the ecumenical creeds of Christendom contains a formal confession of adoption, but the Westminster Confession and the Westminster Catechisms set forth the doctrine as a separate head in theology. The old Dutch theologian Herman Witsius in his work The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man (trans. and rev. by William Crook-shank; London: Edward Dilly, 1763) gives 19 pages to the subject of adoption and 17 to “The Spirit of Adoption” (Vol. II, pp. 591 ff.).

Luther translated the term huiothesia with “filial spirit” (kindlicher Geist,Rom. 8:15) or “sonship” (Kindschaft,Rom. 8:23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5). According to the classic Lutheran dog-maticians, adoption takes place at the same time as regeneration and justification. The certainty of the believer’s adoption, as also of the inheritance warranted by it, is counted by them as an attribute of the new birth. Pietism in its treatment of adoption came somewhat closer to the Reformed presentation. The Reformed theologians, however, do not always consider adoption from the same point of view. While some represent it as the fruit of justification, others regard it as coordinate, but subject to regeneration. Rationalism wholly discarded the biblical doctrine of adoption. Some of the early church fathers treated adoption as the effect of baptism, since the apostle in Galations 3:26, 27 traces the adoption both to faith in Christ and to baptism as the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Tit. 3:5, 6). This doctrine was retained by Luther who regarded baptism as a means of grace that works not ex opere operato, or by the mere act, but by the Word of God which is in and with the water (cf. McClintock and Strong, s.v.).

The conviction of Christian believers that in Christ Jesus they are God’s dear children is deeply rooted in the hearts of all who “rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Rom. 5:2).

Bibliography: The International Standand Bible Encyclopaedia, J. Orr, ed.; J. McClintock and J. Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature; The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge; R. A. Webb, The Reformed Doctrine of Adoption; H. Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants; W. A. Jarrel, “Adoption Not in the Bible Salvation,” The Review and Expositor, XV (October, 1918), pp. 459–469; T. Whaling, “Adoption,” The Princeton Theological Review, XXI (April, 1923), pp. 223–235.

Professor of Systematic Theology

Concordia Theological Seminary

St. Louis, Missouri