When viewed in retrospect, Pentecost week end of May 21 probably will be associated with a religious spectacle in Jerusalem unparalleled almost certainly since New Testament times. In historic proceedings climaxed on Pentecost Sunday, more than 3,000 delegates to the sixth Pentecostal World Conference participated in what is believed to have been the largest meeting of any kind ever held in the Holy Land. Appropriately enough, the three-day meeting came on the edge of what its followers the world over regard as a twentieth-century revival of Pentecostalism in general and glossolalia in particular.

“We are under no illusion that merely sentimental associations with time or place guarantee a special blessing from God,” cautioned Pentecostal patriarch Donald Gee, “but we do believe that there cannot but be a unique effect upon the hearts and minds of those who gather at such a time and in such a place as they reverently recall the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit given there from the Lord of glory.”

Gee, editor of the quarterly review Pentecost, has had a big hand in each of the five previous world conferences (Zürich, 1947; Paris, 1949; London, 1952; Stockholm, 1955; and Toronto, 1958). He has seen them as a chief means in achieving a strong Pentecostal world fellowship.

The 1961 gathering coincided with the Hebrew observance of the Feast of Weeks (cf. Lev. 23:15–22) and the giving of the Law, but the only significant touchpoint came when both Gentile and Jewish worshipers went to Mount Zion.

Conference leaders contended with three impressive facts touching upon twentieth-century Pentecostalism.

One was the movement’s world scope. It has grown to represent a virile segment of Christianity which ecumenical leaders have described as “the third force.” As such, it operates outside classic Protestantism, is of relatively recent origin, and is characterized by unusual evangelistic zeal with a socio-cultural appeal reaching below the middle class. Some 20 world Pentecostal organizations have a combined membership of more than 1,600,000. In recent years Protestant ecumenical forces have made a bid for Pentecostal affiliation, and set up exploratory talks on the edge of the Jerusalem sessions with the Rev. David J. DuPlessis as liaison. Conference leaders had publicized in advance an official message by the World Council of Churches that “it is possible that they [ the Pentecostalists] have a central truth of the Christian religion at the heart of their success story.” Nonetheless, the U. S. Assemblies of God, whose more than 500,000 members make it easily the largest of the Pentecostal bodies, tends to look upon DuPlessis, whom it ordained, as a roving self-appointed ecumenical explorer, and stresses its identification with the National Association of Evangelicals. General Superintendent Thomas F. Zimmerman is also currently president of NAE. Although Pentecostal theology has not been codified, there is scant sympathy for an inclusive theological commitment.

Glossolalia: Then And Now

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:1–4).

At the first Pentecost Sunday, tongues were divinely given in the great outpouring of the Holy Spirit sometimes called “the founding miracle of Christianity.” For all Christians, Pentecost has marked the Holy Spirit’s inscription of the Law upon the hearts of believers, and most Christians view the divine gift of tongues which enabled the apostles to speak to the multilingual assembly as a once-for-all outward sign of the birth of the body of believers whom Christ indwells by his Spirit. But Pentecostalists insist in a special way upon a continuance of spontaneous eruptions such as punctuated this month’s conference in the Israel sector of Jerusalem, largest assembly of any kind ever held in the Holy Land. Pentecostalists cite such utterances in support of their contention that the gift of tongues is still being divinely bestowed.

Ecumenical explorations, however, were merely a shadowland activity in Jerusalem; in the forefront of conference sessions was the staggering evangelistic and missionary responsibility devolving upon evangelical agencies, and particularly upon Pentecostal forces. And this priority set in clear view the fact that many Pentecostal leaders are restudying the movement’s distinctive doctrine of “the gifts” of the Spirit, and the tendency to view “speaking in tongues” as the criterion of legitimate Christian experience.

By “the Pentecostal experience” most Pentecostalists mean that in an experience of prayer a worshiper has spoken ecstatically in an unknown tongue. Whoever has this initial experience is described as “having received the Holy Spirit.” Doubt is widening among Pentecostal ministers, however, that this description is to be denied others, and that it is to be rigidly attached to the “experience of tongues.” Pentecostalists further hold that if the initial experience is repeated, the believer has “received the gift of tongues.” More and more Pentecostal leaders, however, while stressing the universal possibility of “the gift,” hesitate to consider it the crowning criterion of Christian consecration and to view other criteria as inferior.

These phenomena appear, Pentecostalists say, in private devotions or in open services. Pentecostalists do not insist that an interpreter be present, since they do not believe that new revelation is communicated by the Spirit, but view the Bible as the inspired authority. While tongues remain for most Pentecostalists the decisive experience of a Spirit-centered life, some regard them only as a mystical reassurance of salvation, while here and there a spokesman may be found who insists that the tongues-phenomenon of the first Pentecost has only a historic and sentimental significance and ought not to be regarded as repetitive at all.

In the background of this theological dialogue stands the deeper debate over “the gifts.” All Christian bodies insist on the work of the Spirit in the Church and the life of the believer, all insist on the Pentecost “gift” of the Holy Spirit, and some especially stress the Spirit-filled life.

But Pentecostalists insist on the continuing “gifts” of the Spirit. There is, however, a wide divergence in their uncodified teaching. In the earlier days of the movement, almost everywhere among Pentecostalists, the stress fell on specific gifts divinely bestowed on individuals. Now there is more emphasis, in some circles at least, that the Spirit’s gifts are “for the Church,” but are accessible for every believer’s immediate needs through his relationship to Christ. The claim of charismatic individuals specially to possess one gift or another is no longer recognized throughout Pentecostal circles as decisive for Pentecostal theology.

This divergence is also evident with respect to healing. Pentecostalists universally welcome the emphasis on divine healing. But they view with differing reactions the ministry of Evangelist Oral Roberts, whose mass campaigns and radio-television programs have shaped a national image although his Pentecostal group is rather small alongside the Assemblies. Ministers in the Assemblies of God do not as a rule hold that illness is to be attributed only to a lack of faith, and there is latitude in the particulars.

Within the Pentecostal movement, some leaders think Roberts gives a distorted impression not only through flamboyant methods but by his orientation of the ministry of healing to an individual rather than to the Church. And others doubt that dedication to Christ assures, as Roberts has emphasized, material-mental-physical as well as spiritual well-being.

What the Jerusalem conference made clear, however, was something more than evangelical commitment albeit theological exploration of Pentecostalists. The assembly provided new indications that the first emphasis for many Pentecostalists is salvation, not healing and tongues, which find a subsequent prominence. The first walls separating many Pentecostalists and evangelicals seemed rather low. As movements like the Assemblies of God looked ahead to codifying their theology, to establishing accredited schools, and to a divinity school for the training of ministers, a new era seemed to be dawning for theological conference with Protestant evangelicals.

C.F.H.H.

Prayer for the Dead?

President Kennedy was on the spot this month for using his office to promulgate distinctive Roman Catholic doctrine.

His official Memorial Day proclamation urged U. S. citizens to observe the occasion “by invoking the blessing of God on those who have died in defense of our country.”

Many interpreted the appeal as requesting prayer for the dead, a concept repugnant to most Protestants. It was Kennedy’s first faux pas on a religious point since he took office as the first Roman Catholic president in U. S. history.

“He has invited the people to do what the majority of the people will not do,” said Dr. Oswald C. J. Hoffman, radio’s “Lutheran I Hour” preacher.

Hoffman called the incident “unfortunate,” coming at a time when the country is watching the President to see if he will insinuate his Roman Catholic beliefs into national proclamations.

Southern Baptist Convention President Ramsay Pollard said the White House staff “should be more careful of phraseology.” Lie declared that no one would question the sincerity of Kennedy’s motive, that all Americans are thankful to God for those who have died in the cause of freedom. He indicated his displeasure, however, over confusing gratitude with prayer for the dead.

“We don’t want Roman Catholic superstitions made a national policy,” said Dr. Gordon H. Clark, religious scholar of Butler University.

A White House press officer said the proclamation had been drafted by a Protestant member of the President’s staff. Told that protests of the wording of the proclamation were being received, the press officer quipped: “Some of your Protestants are oversensitive.”

Some observers felt, nevertheless, that the White House might subsequently amend the proclamation or issue a statement of clarification.

Kennedy had acted originally in keeping with a Congressional resolution approved in 1950 which requests the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace.

The proclamation states:

“Now, therefore, I, John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, do hereby urge the people of the United States to observe Tuesday, May 30, 1961, Memorial Day, by invoking the blessing of God on those who have died in defense of our country, and by praying for a new world of law where peace and justice shall prevail and a life of opportunity shall be assured for all; and I designate the hour beginning in each locality at eleven o’clock in the morning of that day as the time to unite in such prayer.”

Protestant Panorama

• On the eve of its dedication, a new Baptist church in Howe, Oklahoma, was destroyed by a tornado this month. The Rev. Ron Lewis, pastor of the church, was inside with his nine-month-old daughter when the twister hit, but they escaped injury. Also badly damaged were a Methodist church and an Assemblies of God church in Howe.

• An Amish farmer from New Wilmington, Pennsylvania, lost three horses to the Internal Revenue Service this month for refusing to make compulsory Social Security payments. The animals and a harness were sold to collect a $308 federal lien filed against Valentine Y. Byler. The Amish take a dim view of insurance, preferring to trust God for needs.

• The 60-family congregation of Bethany Community Church in Fresno, California, is conducting a drive for trading stamps to raise funds for a new sanctuary and education unit. Their goal is 50,000 books—or 60,000,000 stamps. The Rev. Al Silvera, pastor of the church, says more than $1,000 worth of stamps already have been converted to cash for the building fund.

• The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions is marking its 150th anniversary with the publication of a book of 366 true stories relating to missionary enterprise. They Lived Their Faith was compiled by Fred Field Goodsell, who headed the American Board for nearly 30 years after serving as a missionary in the Near East for 25 years. The board was originally an interdenominational Protestant agency, although it now serves the Congregational Christian churches.

• Nation-wide release of “Question 7,” feature-length film depicting the church-state struggle in East Germany, is scheduled in the fall. A second “test engagement” phase in the public release schedule was begun this month with showings in theaters in Wisconsin, Minneapolis-St. Paul, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh. The film was produced by Lutheran Film Associates.

• The new Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta, Georgia, was dedicated this month. Dr. Harry V. Richardson was installed as president of the pioneering Negro ecumenical institution. Four theological schools are part of the new center: Gammon Theological Seminary (Methodist), Morehouse School of Religion (American Baptist), Phillips School of Theology (Christian Methodist Episcopal), and Turner Theological Seminary (African Methodist Episcopal). The ITC plan permits the four co-operating schools to retain their denominational identity and autonomy while sharing a joint educational program.

Elizabeth in Rome

Scenes in which human warmth and sympathy mingled with ceremonies of rich pomp and splendor marked the call upon Pope John XXIII this month of Queen Elizabeth II of England, according to Religious News Service. Elizabeth was the third British sovereign in history and the first in 38 years to meet with a pope in private audience in Vatican City. They talked for 28 minutes.

Elizabeth was accompanied by her husband, Prince Philip. She was veiled and wore a black satin dress with a diamond tiara and necklace.

Catholic Growth

The rate of Roman Catholic growth in the United States is tapering off, according to the church’s own official figures.

Membership statistics for 1960 were released this month with publication of the newest Official Catholic Directory.

The latest increase, about three per cent, still is the highest among the larger U. S. churches, excepting the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, which boosted its membership by 3.2 per cent last year.

The new Catholic directory says that U. S. Catholic membership increased last year by 1,233,598 to bring the total to 42,104,900. The year before, the increase was 1,366,827, and the year before that 1,418,498 (not counting 2,000,000 reported for the first time by the Military Ordinariate).

Landlocked Laos

What is the extent of Christian witness in strife-torn Laos? How have hostilities affected missionary work?

For authoritative answers,CHRISTIANITY TODAYwent to the Rev. G. Edward Roffe, who as a missionary with 35 years of service has been in Laos longer than any other American. Roffe, who serves under the Christian and Missionary Alliance, plans to return to the field July 1. Here is his report:

Beginning in 1940, normal conditions disappeared from Indochina and, consequently, from Laos. Japan came in from both north and south, following the fall of France, while Thailand invaded Cambodia and Laos, occupying territory throughout World War II. Following the return of the French, guerrilla activity continued in the countryside, while terrorism recurred in city, town, and village. Then came the crisis of recent months. Thus for more than 20 years, Christian work in Laos has been complicated.

Missionary work began in Laos before the turn of the century when Presbyterian missionaries from North Thailand itinerated intermittently across North Laos. Resident missionaries of the Swiss Brethren Mission settled in South Laos in 1902 and have carried on active work there ever since with a few forays into the north.

World War I presented serious border-crossing problems to the itinerant missionaries from North Thailand. Eventually, official steps were taken to transfer responsibility for North Laos to the Christian and Missionary Alliance of North America. Thus the Alliance was given all territory included in the colonial complex then known as French Indochina, with the exception of South Laos, which continued to be the field of endeavor of the Swiss Brethren.

Until recently, the work of Christian missions in Laos has been severely handicapped by a shortage of personnel. For years the Swiss in the south operated only three or four stations, though recently they have opened up several others and their work now extends through four provinces. The Alliance has never been able to locate missionaries in more than four out of the seven provinces in the north. Beginning in 1929, it placed missionaries successively in Luang Prabang, Vientiane, Xieng Khouang, and Sayaboury. Deaths and withdrawals for reasons of health have depleted ranks, and replacements have been scarce.

Now two families of loosely associated Brethren missionaries from the United States have joined hands with the Swiss Brethren in the south. The Overseas Missionary Fellowship has accepted the challenge of the tribal areas of South Laos, hoping for 40 missionaries in the field by 1962. A group of Japanese bachelors, now augmented by a group of single women, is beginning work, also in the south, while a Seventh-day Adventist family recently opened up work in Nam Tha, North Laos. The Alliance has additional missionaries under appointment with the intention of increasing its present staff in the north.

Laos is essentially a Buddhist state, and the traditional tolerance of Buddhism has erected no barriers to the message of the Cross, unless it be that of indifference. From the inception of missionary work in Laos until recently, Laos was largely a protectorate under the French colonial regime, with considerable liberty automatically extended to the missionary. This was not the case, however, in the kingdom of Luang Prabang, an enclave existing in the north and a reduced remnant of the once proud “Kingdom of the Million Elephants.” Shortly after the arrival of the first missionary to North Laos, who settled in the royal city of Luang Prabang, royal edict made provision for religious liberty. Following language study, this missionary was readily granted authorization to preach the Gospel throughout the kingdom by the late king, H. M. Sisavang Vong. Cordiality has characterized the relationship between the Alliance and authorities in the northern kingdom and this has been extended to the work throughout the country as it ultimately became the kingdom of Laos, ruled over by the dynasty of the former limited kingdom of Luang Prabang.

Buddhists in Laos have not generally responded to the proclamation of the Gospel. In the south, however, more converts have been won from followers of Buddhism than in the north.

Buddhist Laotians live largely in the lowlands: on the plains, the limited plateaus, and along the river banks. Having reached these lowland peoples, Buddhist missionaries lost their pioneering zeal and, although Buddhism has been in Laos at least as far back as the eleventh century, it never made any attempt to win the upland primitives, who speak 40 to 80 languages and dialects.

Most of these minority groups, which represent about 50 per cent of the overall population of Laos (estimated at something less than 2,000,000 with a density of about 20 to the square mile), have never invented any writing system. They practice varying forms of animism and thousands of them have turned to Christ. In 1950 what amounted to a mass movement began in the vicinity of Xieng Khouang, and the converts of that period and region, from among the Miao and the Khamoo tribes, form the bulk of the church in North Laos today.

In 1957 the Gospel Church of North Laos was organized with its own constitution, electing its own slate of officers and assuming financial responsibility for its own clergy. This independent, autonomous body has received at least tentative recognition by the duly constituted government of the country. A second church, not as organized, exists in the south, the fruit of long years of devoted ministry on the part of the Swiss mission.

Linguistic analysis of two tribal languages has progressed toward providing them with alphabets, but opportunity and challenge still awaits the painstaking, plodding skill of the trained linguist, translator, and literacy worker.

An early emphasis on translation work on the part of the Swiss mission saw the New Testament in Lao published in 1926, followed by the Old Testament in the early thirties. Additional titles were translated and published subsequently. The center of translation and literature work has since shifted to the Alliance in the north and one current project is the retranslation of the New Testament under the auspices of the British and Foreign Bible Society. In addition, much Christian literature has been made available to both north and south. In 1959 Christian missions formed a committee to co-ordinate and avoid duplication of publishing activities.

Radio programs, prepared in Lao on an inter-mission basis and sent to Manila, are beamed at Laos twice daily through the facilities and courtesies of the Far East Broadcasting Company. Laos and contiguous Lao-speaking areas are thus reached morning and evening with a Christian message.

A full-time Bible school has been operated variously in Vientiane, Luang Prabang and, currently, Xieng Khouang to provide the church with a national clergy trained in the Word of God.

Communism has now overrun the homeland of vast segments of the northern church and, significantly, it is in this Christian-oriented area that the most determined opposition is prevalent. Christian villages have been destroyed and their chapels burned. Believers have fled to the elevated highlands with what they had on their backs, leaving behind all their possessions, including their homes and harvested crops. Nevertheless, reports filter through of continuing faith and devotion.

The significance which this remote and otherwise unimportant little land-locked kingdom represents in political alignments and developments is matched by that which it holds for the world of missionary endeavor and for Christians everywhere.

THE PRESBYTERIAN U. S. GENERAL ASSEMBLY

The following report was prepared forCHRISTIANITY TODAYby Dr. John R. Richardson, minister of Westminster Presbyterian Church, Atlanta, Georgia.

“A new commitment for a new century” was the 101st General Assembly motif of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S., and from start to finish it challenged the 530 commissioners to greater loyalty to the central purpose of their church and their mission to the nation.

The centennial assembly met in the Highland Park Presbyterian Church of Dallas, April 27-May 2. In an opening sermon, the retiring moderator, Dr. Marion A. Boggs, pastor of Little Rock’s Second Presbyterian Church, elucidated the basic principles on which the Presbyterian Church, U. S. has prospered: the infallibility of Holy Scripture, God’s sovereign purpose in human history, the unrivaled Lordship of Christ in the Church and world, and the continuing reformation as the Church is subjected to the Word and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Dr. Wallace M. Alston, president of Agnes Scott College, Decatur, Georgia, was elected moderator on the first ballot. At a press conference during the assembly Alston said, “I am completely committed to the ecumenical movement.” He told the press that he favored integration in every department of the church, but acknowledged that Agnes Scott College has no Negro students in its student body. Dr. Alston served the Assembly with competence that contributed much to the fine spirit that prevailed in assembly debates.

The 98th General Assembly had appointed an ad interim committee to prepare a brief statement of belief setting forth the historic Presbyterian doctrines in the language of our time. The committee made its report to this assembly. One of the most spirited debates resulted from the report. Many commissioners felt that the brief statement was inferior to the one adopted in 1913. It was criticized as lacking in clarity and characterized by verbosity. On motion of Dr. Edward G. Lilly of South Carolina the report was returned to the committee for further study in light of the many objections raised.

The report on possible revision of Chapter III of the Confession of Faith that deals with “double predestination” or the negative aspect of predestination evoked extended debate. The committee recommended that the Confession of Faith not be changed because to do so would destroy the unity of the document. This elicited unanimous approval. But when the committee declared that the third chapter is not an adequate statement of Christian faith many demurred. Dr. G. Aiken Taylor, editor of The Presbyterian Journal, moved to delete the second part of the recommendation on the ground that to say so would threaten the foundation of the creed’s usefulness. Taylor’s motion lost by a vote of 309–120 and the report with recommendations was approved as a whole by the assembly. A protest was signed by a number of commissioners against the assembly’s approval of the recommendation that criticized the church’s official creed.

The ad interim committee, appointed last year to study “Non-Denominational Youth Movements,” presented a comprehensive report. The study included Youth for Christ, Young Life, Word of Life, Youth on the March, Inter-Varsity Fellowship, Navigators, and Child Evangelism Fellowship. Dr. Albert J. Kissling, chairman of the committee, said all of these movements have much in common: “All are theologically conservative, emphasizing individual conversional experience. They usually conduct their meetings on the local level in a loosely organized manner with programs in more or less informal manner. They often tend toward a somewhat critical attitude toward the work of denominational churches. They share a literalistic interpretation of the Scriptures. Nearly all center their programs around the personality of the leader. They tend to emphasize the negative aspects of personal morality, often implying that Christian character consists of ‘thou shalt nots’.”

The report further declared that the best way to come to grips with a movement in question is to engage in personal investigation at the local level. Leaders in Christian education were urged to study the effective techniques used by some of these groups that they may develop programs of greater efficiency in the fields of personal evangelism and Bible study. This report was received by the court as information by a vote of 256–207.

The assembly approved a record high budget of $9,617,180 for its benevolence operations in 1962, and authorized a special church-wide conference on benevolences. It reversed the recommendation of the General Council’s Standing Committee by answering in the negative an overture asking that some liturgical days not now in the official calendar be included.

The Church Extension Committee’s report included an answer to a resolution asking that the assembly accept its mission as being to the whole of the United States without regard to geographical limitations. This was answered by citing the fact that no geographical boundaries have even been established except as they may be established by presbyteries and synods, and these were encouraged to extend their work to the limit of their ability wherever there are contiguous unchurched areas.

In response to a resolution calling upon those who make “wholesale and irresponsible charges” of communism among the clergy as reported in the press in recent weeks, the assembly requested those with such information to “name names and produce evidence,” and promised swift action by church courts in any documented case.

Convention Circuit

Plans for a theological study commission authorized during the 19th annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals last month are now in the hands of a three-man planning committee. The committee, appointed to chart the course and help determine who will serve on the commission, is made up of Dr. Merrill Tenney, dean of the Graduate School of Wheaton College, Dr. Robert A. Cook, first vice president of NAE and a vice president of Scripture Press, and Dr. Fred P. Thompson, Jr., pastor of Chicago’s First Christian Church.

Here are reports of other religious meetings across the nation:

At Pittsburgh—Thirteen U. S. church buildings won top awards for architectural design in the annual exhibit sponsored by the Church Architectural Guild of America at the National Conference on Church Architecture. The winners included five churches seating more than 250 persons (listed with architects): Bellevue Presbyterian, Bellevue, Washington, Mithun, Ridenour and Cochran; Church of the Holy Family, Orange, California, Criley and McDowell; First Presbyterian, Elkhart, Indiana, Wagoner, Wiley and Miller; Unity Church of Truth, Seattle, Washington, Young Richardson and Carleton; and St. Vitus Roman Catholic Church and Rectory, New Castle, Pennsylvania, P. Arthur D’Orazio.

At Green Lake, Wisconsin—Dr. Mary Steichen Calderone, medical director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told the North American Conference on Church and Family that churches ought to include comprehensive sex education as part of their Sunday school curriculum for children from the time of puberty.

At Cambridge, Massachusetts—Delegates to the annual assembly of the Armenian Apostolic (Orthodox) Church’s Diocese of North America learned that the denomination plans to establish its first theological seminary in this country. The site is still to be chosen.

At Wilmette, Illinois—A report read at the 53rd annual convention of the Baha’i’s of the United States cited “unprecedented growth” of the movement which now has 24 independent national assemblies in the Western Hemisphere. The report came from Baha’i international headquarters in Haifa.

At Washington, D. C.—Delegates to the Methodist National Conference on Christian Social Concerns rejected a proposed message on political and social issues after an amendment was introduced deploring “United States military intervention, direct or indirect, in the internal affairs of Cuba.”

At Chicago—Top awards made at the annual meeting of the Associated Church Press honored: Together, Methodist family monthly (for superiority in make-up, typography, and use of color), The Christian Century, undenominational weekly, and This Day, Lutheran family monthly (the latter two for excellence of content in keeping with their expressed purposes).

At New York—“Awards of Merit” were presented to four daily newspapers, a weekly newsmagazine, and a radio-television station at the 32nd annual meeting of the National Religious Publicity Council. Cited for their reporting of religious activities were The Washington (D. C.) Post, the New York Herald Tribune, the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times, the Toronto (Ontario) Telegram, Time magazine, and station WFIL and WFIL-TV of Philadelphia. Named as NRPC Fellows were Jo-ann Price of the Herald Tribune, Kenneth Dole of the Post, Marianne Kelsey of the Times, Aubrey Wice of the Telegram, and Douglas Auchincloss of Time.

At Boston—An aggregate of more than 25,000 persons attended sessions and witnessed exhibits at the 22nd annual Missionary Conference of Park Street (Congregational) Church. The conference got a first-hand report on the African situation from its pastor, Dr. Harold John Ockenga, recently returned from a 22,000-mile trip through 14 African countries. The one-day drive for missionary funds which traditionally climaxes the annual conference reached $269,153. The church currently supports some 117 missionaries in 49 countries.

At Cicero, Illinois—Resolutions opposing federal aid to education were adopted at the 32nd annual convention of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America. Another resolution voiced support of capital punishment.

People: Words And Events

Deaths: Dr. E. K. Higdon, 73, missionary educator of the Disciples of Christ in the Philippines; in Manila … Dr. J. A. F. Gregg, 88, retired Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All-Ireland; in Rostrevor, County Down … the Rev. Carl Alfred Bjornbom, 100, oldest minister in the Evangelical Covenant Church of America; in Chicago.

Resignation: From the presidency of Southwest Baptist College, Dr. John W. Dowdy.

Appointments: As general director of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, Charles H. Troutman … as associate professor of historical theology at National Methodist Theological Seminary, Dr. Carl Bangs.

Elections: As president of the United Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, the Rev. John E. Bouquet … as chairman of the Methodist National Lay Committee on Evangelism, H. J. Taylor … as president of the Military Chaplains Association, Msgr. Patrick J. Ryan … as president of the Associated Church Press, the Rev. Edwin H. Maynard … as president of the National Religious Publicity Council, Dr. R. Dean Goodwin.

Retirements:Dr. Marion J. Creeger, executive secretary of the General Commission on Chaplains and Armed Forces Personnel, effective June 30, 1962 … the Very Rev. C. E. Riley, Anglican Dean of Toronto, effective June 30, 1961.

Quotes: “The John Birch Society has stirred up a reaction that offsets the stated purpose of the society—in other words, it has to some extent defeated its own purpose … What disturbs me is the unwillingness of segments of Americans to allow the extreme right wing to exercise the same liberty that the extreme left wing has been granted … I am waiting to see whether the American Civil Liberties Union will now rise to the defense of Robert Welch and the members of the John Birch Society.”—Dr. William Sanford LaSor, writing in the Altadenan-Pasadenan.

Disclosure of the application by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church for membership in the World Council of Churches was keyed to draw attention to an otherwise uneventful annual meeting of the WCC’s U. S. Conference in Buck Hill Falls, Pennsylvania, last month.

Dr. Franklin Clark Fry, chairman of the 90-member, policy-making WCC Central Committee, announced that a letter requesting admission had been received from Patriarch Alexei of Moscow. A similar announcement was made simultaneously at World Council headquarters in Geneva.

Fry said the request would be acted upon early in the council’s Third Assembly scheduled to begin in New Delhi, November 18, along with applications from eight or more other churches. The other churches include two Pentecostal churches in Chile, and a Moravian church in South Africa.

Patriarch Alexei, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, listed 30,000 priests and 73 bishoprics inside the U.S.S.R., plus 20,000 parishes and 40 monasteries. The eight theological schools maintained by the church in Soviet territory were said to include two academies and six seminaries. No figures on church membership were given (estimates range from 30 to 90 million).

Favorable action on the Russian request was forecast. Fry urged admission of the Russian Orthodox on the ground that this step has less risk now than when the church was invited to the First Assembly in Amsterdam in 1948. Places were reserved at that meeting for Russian delegates.

“Nothing has occurred in the Russian church to make it less acceptable as a member in 1961 than it was in 1948,” he said. “A reversal in the World Council’s position would reflect an alteration in our outlook on ecumenicity.”

Fry declared that the Russian church will now be entering a council with established characteristics and procedures. “There are abundant precedents out of the formative years; we are now sure that every study and activity will be based on biblical theology, not political casuistry.”

He considered the decision of the patriarchate to be the outcome of renewed conversations that began after the Russian Orthodox church received the Evanston Assembly declaration on world peace and disarmament. Exchanges of visits and information were agreed on in a meeting in Utrecht, the Netherlands, in 1958. Out of this grew the visit of an international delegation of WCC staff to Russia in 1959, led by Dr. W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, WCC general secretary. Russian Orthodox observers have been present at recent meetings of the Faith and Order Commission, the Executive Committee of the Commission of Churches on International Affairs, and the WCC Central Committee. Representatives of the patriarchate have also studied the functioning of WCC headquarters.

According to Fry, no such thorough examination has ever been made by an applicant church. He asserted that the top cadre of the Russian church now knows more in detail about the WCC than do most of the member churches.

In reply to inquiries as to the possible size of the Russian delegation at New Delhi, Fry indicated that the assembly has been limited to 600 members, and that only a dozen seats were at present unclaimed. Perhaps as many as five or six seats might be assigned to the Russian Orthodox delegates, he estimated. U. S. churches will be represented by 161 delegates, although no one church will have more than four.

Mr. Ivan M. Czap, delegate of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America, questioned the bona fide character of some of the bishops who might be sent to represent the Russian church. He suggested that WCC recognition of some representatives might be a disservice to Russian Christians.

Dr. Roswell P. Barnes, executive secretary of the U. S. Conference of the WCC, stressed evidences of vitality in the Russian church in the face of government pressure against religion. He declared that present Communist policy is to avoid making martyrs of Christians, and that the government has permitted the churches to accumulate funds. Fry endorsed the opinion that the application of the Russian church is tolerated rather than designed by the Soviet government.

Roman Catholic observers have also been invited, and optimism was expressed as to the likelihood of their attendance.

Public relations aspects of the move to admit the Russian church were discussed, in view of anticipated criticism from crusading anti-Communists in the United States. Inclusion of Orthodox Catholic churches in the WCC is not an issue, since the council is not a Protestant body. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and other Orthodox churches belong to the council at present. The opening worship service at the Buck Hill Falls meeting was conducted by Archbishop Iakovos of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Prayers used invoked the intercessions of Mary and the saints.

In the concluding speech of the conference, Dr. O. Frederick Nolde, director of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, viewed admission of the Russian church as a step towards world peace. He declared that the position taken by WCC leaders in insisting upon the admittance to the United States of Evanston Assembly delegates from Communist countries was “a first and major step in breaking the rigidity of United States policy on people-to-people relations.”

Nolde weighed “the competing claims of fellowship and fidelity.” He recognized that “views which the member churches of the WCC hold and advocate about national and international life may be not only different but radically contradictory.” The more inclusive the WCC membership becomes, the more acute is this problem. According to Nolde, however, a unified witness must be continued on specific international and national issues. He cited withdrawal of two South African churches from the council after the Johannesburg race consultation as indicative of the price that might have to be paid in fellowship for maintaining a witness.

In the extension of fellowship to the Russian Orthodox church, problems for the WCC witness must be anticipated, Nolde said. “However, I am concerned with a Christian witness to the world of nations in behalf of peace with justice and freedom, and on that basis I come to an affirmative conclusion.”

Nolde then elaborated principles for maintaining unity in witness in this situation. “The ideology of Marxist communism must be opposed,” he said, “but victory is neither possible nor should it be sought by military means.” He deemed military defense against aggression justifiable, but declared military action against communism as “foolhardy as it is dangerous.”

He further asserted that while justice and freedom must be sought, “no economic or political system can be designated as exclusively Christian or even distinctively Christian.”

The proposed incorporation of the International Missionary Council into the WCC structure was rapidly reviewed. This action, to be taken at New Delhi, will create within the WCC a Division of World Mission and Evangelism. A parallel Commission on World Mission and Evangelism will also be set up. Church and missionary councils, unwilling to affiliate with the WCC, will be encouraged to enter a consultative relation to this commission. Dr. Henry P. Van Dusen, president of Union Theological Seminary, New York, reported that of the IMC member councils, only the Council of Brazil voted against merger. The Congo Protestant Council withdrew from the IMC, however, and the Council of Norway was also said to oppose the consolidation.

Van Dusen declared that two steps would be taken to bring mission to the heart of the WCC as a result of the integration. First, 25 additional persons were being nominated for seats in the assembly by the IMC, and five members were to be added to the Central Committee of the WCC from the Commission on World Mission. Second, mission emphasis would be developed in the WCC.

The Buck Hill Falls conference did not present or discuss questions concerning the biblical basis of missions or the missionary calling of the church. No information was furnished on the progress of reports on questions being prepared by the studies division of the WCC for the section on Witness at the New Delhi assembly.

Brief consideration was given to the revised basis of the WCC which will be proposed by the Central Committee to the Assembly. The present basis: “The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.” The proposed revision: “The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfill together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

It was pointed out that this revision is Trinitarian in a doxological setting. Some churchmen distinguish such contexts from factual prose. The placing of the phrase “according to the Scriptures” may vary in other languages. Each is to hear in his own language. The change from “our Lord” to “the Lord” is significant. The first phrasing was regarded as too restricted.

Objections to the new basis have been reported from the Swiss Protestant Church Federation and from the General Mennonite Society and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Netherlands. Certain individual objections may be sent by American churchmen to the WCC General Secretary, challenging the exegetical basis of confessing Christ to be God and Saviour and criticizing the omission of direct reference to the humanity of Christ.

Dr. Paul S. Minear, newly-named director of the Faith and Order Commission of the WCC, presented the theme of the coming Assembly, “Christ the Light of the World.” Describing the distribution of the study pamphlet, he said, “Never before in history has so gargantuan an effort been made to enlist congregations in every country and language to share in a study of the same biblical passages, the same problems of thought and action, during the same months.” The Buck Hill conference, however, included no discussion of these biblical passages. Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, former general secretary of the National Council of Churches, asserted at one point, however, that American churches have gained from the ecumenical movement “a new dimension of theological depth, corrective of their own pragmatic temper.”

The conference displayed ecumenical statesmanship of a high order and zeal for definite positions on controversial political issues. But exposition of the gospel of Christ, the Light of the World, in theological depth was postponed—possibly for New Delhi.

The omission of a discussion of angels in almost every book on the philosophy of religion reveals the gulf between modern mentality and the biblical revelation. Philosophers of religion discuss God, the soul, and nature, but stop short of any serious discussion of angels. Skeptics will spend much time in refuting the proofs of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul but will not even wet the pen to refute the existence of an angelic host. In contrast to this treatment of angels on behalf of philosophers (religious or skeptical) are the profuse references to angels in sacred Scripture.

It must be admitted, however, that there are certain problems or ambiguities attending the discussion of angels, and Calvin himself expressed a great reserve and caution on the subject (Institutes, I. xiv. 3, for example, “It is also our duty cheerfully to remain in ignorance of what is not for our advantage to know”). It is this discrepancy between modern mentality and the biblical disclosure about angels that causes Barth to begin his discussion of angels with so much hesitation (Kirchliche Dogmatik, III/3, Sec. 51).

No Rational Objection. Mankind has no handbook titled, A Guide to All Possible Creations. It has no information about creation apart from the data afforded by this creation. The how and the why and the what of creation can be gained only from the concrete character and the concrete givenness of creation. Humanity has no a priori principles for judging the character or composition of a creation. And in that angels are creatures of God what applies to creation in general applies to angels in particular.

Whether there shall be angels or not cannot be determined by any concept of necessity or fitness of things. There is nothing in the constitution of the human mind which enables it to judge this issue. If there is any necessity or any fitness to the existence of angels, it is known and determined by the divine Majesty.

In a word, modern man can have no a priori objection to the existence of angels based upon some sort of principle of necessity or fitness. The existence or nonexistence of angels can be based only upon an a posteriori judgment arising out of the concrete character of creation itself.

The root of Christian theology is the knowledge of God conveyed to man through special revelation. This is the nerve of Christian theology and if it is cut, theology atrophies into mere religious chatter (even though it be learned chatter). This knowledge of God takes the concrete form of a canon, a Scripture, or in the technical language of the New Testament, a graphe. The New Testament uses this term graphe to indicate the ink and parchment embodiment of the revelation of God. It is this graphe which informs the Church of the structures of creation insofar as these structures pertain to our proper understanding of God, ourselves, and the character of our creaturely and spiritual lives.

It is from the graphe that the Church comes to know the reality of angels. The real conflict with modern man and Christianity concerning angels is not really whether the concept of angels is rational or not but whether the graphe bears an authentic knowledge of God which expresses itself with regard to angels. Modern man has no criterion within himself to judge this issue apart from Scripture.

No Divinely Given Sentiment. Furthermore, mankind has no divinely given sentiment whereby it can judge whether angels are proper or not. Why this refusal to discuss angels by the philosophers of religion if there is not rooted deeper than reason a sentiment which is antipathetic towards angels? Is there not here an unwritten or unspoken appeal to a sense of propriety, a sense of fittingness which boggles at the doctrine of angels?

In a universe of electrons and positrons, atomic energy and rocket power, Einsteinian astronomy and nuclear physics, angels seem out of place. They seem to intrude upon the scene like the unexpected visit of the country relatives to their rich city kinfolk. Atoms seem at home in our contemporary thinking but not angels! The prospect of some interplanetary Beagle cruising among the planets gathering scientific data surprises no educated man of today. But if such a man were called upon to comment upon angels he would either act very nervously or else he would pompously deny that angels existed. He knows the principles whereby he can reasonably imagine a scientific cruise of the planets by a space-age Darwin, but he has no principles whereby he may discuss angels. So he prefers to dismiss the concept of angels as mythological.

The serious question which confronts the Christian theologian in view of modern man’s squeamish attitude towards angels is whether or not there is a logical or theological justification for this attitude. Christian theology would be faced with a serious logical problem if angels and atoms competed with each other in natural law. It is true that God does make angels as winds and as fires (Heb. 1:7), but the angels are never part of the scriptural explanation of the order or ordering of natural things. Angels and atoms do not compete! There can be then no formal logical objection to the existence of angels.

Christian theology would be confronted with a serious theological problem if it could be shown that the concept of angels is inappropriate to the notion of God. But this could only make its case if mankind had an innate criterion by which to judge what is appropriate with reference to God. But as already indicated, man is not gifted with this sentiment and therefore the only possible mode of judging this question is by the revelation of the knowledge of God in sacred Scripture.

The root of modern man’s objection to the reality of angels is not logical nor theological but psychological. It is a psychological squeamishness which stems from the antisupernaturalism of modern mentality. The medieval theologian-philosopher Occam affirmed that no more principles should be employed in explanations than those which are absolutely necessary. This principle has been called “Occam’s Razor.” Modern man feels (for he cannot make his case from logic) that Occam’s Razor enables him to trim off all supernatural principles and all superhuman beings in accounting for the sum total of phenomena in the universe.

To frame this another way, modern mentality may be likened to a decorator’s motif. Only certain colors and styles harmonize in the house and furniture which does not harmonize is hauled out! Angels do not match the modern décor, so they are discarded.

Karl Barth has noted that there is one basis for modern man’s hesitations about angels. Angels are servants and have no reality or purpose in themselves. We can imagine people without servants, but we cannot conceive of servants without people. The rationale of servants is the rationale of people. There is no rationale for servants in themselves. We can imagine God as existing without angels, but it is meaningless to imagine a universe with angels but no God. The rationale for angels is that they are servants of God and man in the interest of the redemption provided by God.

The Structure of Divine Mediation. Creation is that order, that space-time reality, which is created by God and is thereby different from God. His omnipotent word spoke it into existence (Heb. 11:3). There is, therefore, an ineradicable difference between God and the creature. In the language of categories, it is the eternal contrasted with the temporal, the infinite with the finite, the uncreated with the created, and so on. The communication between this great God and finite, limited man must thus always be a mediated communication.

This is not a judgment about the “impurity” of the world which would force God to communicate indirectly lest he contaminate himself with the world. It is based upon the transcendence of Creator over the creature. Therefore when God comes to humanity in revelation, he comes through mediators. The prophetic word is a mediated word. The theophany is a mediated manifestation of God. The Incarnation is the glory of God mediated through the human nature of Christ (John 1:14). Angels are ‘part of the complex structure of the divine mediation.

With reference to this divine mediation man has no a priori understanding of it. Man does not know if there shall be one or a million mediators. He has no aesthetic power whereby he can evaluate one scheme of mediation over another. If man wishes he may reject the notion of angels. Barth cites Goethe as saying, “Let me name for you an appendage: What you call angels” (ibid., p. 436). But the necessity of mediation remains and if the divine Majesty shall say something to his creatures it must be a mediated word!

In this matter there is only one point of judgment. In the concrete data of revelation either the mediatorial role of angels is set forth or it is not. At this point the witness of scriptural record (cf. Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:7) is accepted or rejected. To speculate about angels apart from the concrete, historical, and specific character of revelation is like attempting to fly in a vacuum. We have no a priori principle to judge this matter; we have no innate aesthetic sense to assess its fittingness. We either rest upon the contents of revelation, or we pass the question by.

The Heavenly Servants of God. If angels function in the schema of divine mediation, their role is essentially that of servant (Heb. 1:14). The service of angels in special revelation and divine redemption is the second scriptural rationale for angels. Man is the earthly servant of God; Jesus Christ is the theanthropic servant of God (Phil. 2:5 f.); and the angels are the heavenly servants of God, for they are always represented as coming from heaven and returning to heaven.

Angels serve God in the administration of his kingdom and his redemption (Dan. 8:16; Luke 1:19, 26, and so forth). The range of their service is phenomenal. From the Old Testament incidents in which they appear like ordinary men (Judges 13), we move through the biblical record of their actions to the great dramatic pictures of the book of Revelation where angels assume cosmic powers. The association of Jesus Christ with angels is remarkable—compare his birth narratives, his temptation, his experience in Gethsemane, his resurrection, his return with great hosts of angels.

In this connection is the remarkable Old Testament revelation of the angel of the Lord. Because the angel of the Lord is both a representation and a type there is some obscurity attached to the subject matter which an honest exegesis will not overlook. But the angel-form of the Mighty One who comes in the service of God is a happy anticipation of Philippians 2:5 ff., where the exalted Son of God empties himself to take the form of a servant.

One other remark is pertinent to the servant-role of angels: everywhere in Scripture their worship or veneration is sternly rebuked (cf. Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:10).

The Glory of God. The third rationale for angels is to be seen in the manner in which they surround the throne of God (Heb. 12:22). One of the names of God is the Lord of Hosts. He is pictured in Scripture as surrounded by an innumerable company of angels (“numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,” Rev. 5:11). One of the primary means by which Scripture represents to us the glorious nature of God is always to surround him with an endless host of powerful and majestic angels, particularly the seraphim who cry “holy, holy, holy” day and night (Isa. 6:3). If the angelic hosts are deleted from our representation of God, then one of the strongest possible modes of representing the glory, the might, the majesty, and the holiness of God is lost. Just as the royal palace, the fabulous furnishings, and the royal court are all part of the means of expressing the dignity and royalty of an earthly king, so the visions of heaven and the majestic court of glorious angels are part of the biblical method of impressing the human mind with the glory of God. The abstract listing of divine attributes may be theologically precise, but such a list can never do for the human imagination what is done by the biblical presentation of God surrounded with an innumerable host of great, glorious, and powerful angels.

If men have entertained angels unawares (Heb. 13:2), theologians should be the first to attempt to make their visit welcome, and their stay desirable.

Bibliography: K. Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik, III/3, Sec. 51 (the historical and theological materials found in remarkable fullness); W. Grundmann, G. von Rad, G. Kittel, “aggelos, archaggelos, isaggelos,” Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, G. Kittel, ed., Vol. I; W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, “Angels,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament; G. W. Bromiley, “Angel,” Dictionary of Theology, E. Harrison, ed; “Angel,” The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F. L. Cross, ed.; Dionysius, The Celestial Hierarchy (historically has played a fantastically large role); T. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Vol. I, 50–64, 106–114; Summa Contra Gentiles, Vol. II, 91–101; J. Calvin, Institutes, I. xiv (where he remarks that Dionysius treatment is “mere babblings”); F. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith (comments upon the abstract possibility of angels but of their religious dispensability); R. Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology,” Kerygma and Myth, H. W. Bartsch, ed., trans. by R. H. Fuller (rejection of spirits, good or evil).

Professor of Systematic Theology

California Baptist Theological Seminary

Covina, California

‘WERE YOU THERE?’

The records of those hours prior to our Lord’s crucifixion carry in them an inexhaustible source of information which is of vital importance to every Christian.

Confronted by the Cross, the great central event of all history, we are compelled to bow and worship.

The nature, magnitude, and implications of the death of the Son of God are such that two things stand out in clearest focus—the sinfulness of man and the love of God.

If my sins required the death of the Son of God for their remission, then how great are those sins!

This side of eternity none of us will ever know all that was involved in Christ’s death on the Cross. We speak of various “theories” of the atonement but all of these explanations, if proven to be valid, are summed up in one simple sentence which any man can understand and accept: “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.”

Take any translation of the New Testament and the meaning is the same: “Christ died for our sins.”

Before this statement which Paul gives as one of the two essential elements in the Gospel, man stands stripped of every pretense while God is revealed in the majesty of his love, mercy, and grace combined with his holiness, power, and justice.

What a tragedy that this great central truth of the Gospel is so often ignored, perverted, denied, bypassed, minimized, or made so complicated that men become lost in a maze of words.

To complete the simplicity of this message, let us remember the rest of Paul’s outline of the Gospel he preached: “and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”

We live in a time when truths such as these, which are vital to man’s eternal welfare, become lost to men’s view in the quagmire of supposed theological profundities having their source in the minds of men and not divine revelation.

Christ’s death on the cross, this “dying for our sins” was not only the central drama of all time, but during those hours in human history when the Son of God was confronted by the physical event, there were other actors on the stage in whom we may discern our own likeness.

There is, of course, the central Person, without which nothing else could have had meaning—Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. In him we find eternal life, but from others around him we may take warning, reproof, or comfort.

Standing in the spotlight we see Judas. Even his name carries with it loathing as we think of betrayal, hypocrisy, avarice, double-dealing, remorse without repentance, and finally suicide.

But Judas was no outsider. He had been one of the twelve. He was a disciple and had lived with our Lord for three years. He had eaten with him and slept many nights not far from his presence. He had seen his miracles, heard him preach and teach, listened to him as he explained the Old Testament Scriptures. He had gone forth with the other disciples to preach in Christ’s name and to cast out devils. His had been an intimate, personal relationship with our Lord.… But he betrayed him.

How clearly this shows that the outward trappings of religious privilege save no one. The same fire which melts the wax hardens the clay.

What a warning to us churchmen, and church women! Religion can never save us and the more frantic we are in going about in Church activities the further we may be from the Lord.

It is the inward renewing, the new birth in which the Holy Spirit enables us through simple faith to accept the finished work of Christ, that makes us Christians. Otherwise we too may be potential Judases.

What about the disciples in that dark hour? They had shared the same privileges with Judas, but they were in a very real sense “babes in Christ.” Fearful, deserting, scattered, questioning, dismayed, and distressed, they had the capability to believe and only a few weeks later would go out, filled with the Holy Spirit, to turn the world upside down and give their lives as martyrs in the name of the risen Christ.

The spotlight shines brightly on one disciple, impulsive, warm-hearted, vacillating but lovable Peter. What a comfort to know that this disciple who followed afar off, who denied his Lord with curses on his lips, was brought to tears of true repentance through the crowing of a cock and the look of loving compassion from Christ!

How different were Judas and Peter! In them we see the great chasm of which Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 7:10: “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.”

Mingling through the crowd and loudly demanding our Lord’s death were the religious leaders of the day. They had a form of godliness but were far removed from its reality. They were moved by envy and hatred. They refused to believe our Lord’s miracles, or his divine origin. They were zealous for the letter of the law but ignorant of the Spirit. They were “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” “whited sepulchers.” They were concerned lest they be defiled for the Passover feast by entering the judgment hall of Pilate but were oblivious to the defilement of their own crime.

Do not we all need to take warning lest our religiosity be something far removed from Christ and Christianity?

What of Pilate? He knew but one kingdom, Rome, and one ambition, to succeed in his office. Cynical, vacillating, and yet capable of decision; vaguely uneasy but more concerned with expediency than truth or right, he is typical of all world leaders who leave God out of account. He too failed to realize that God and his Truth are the eternal Stone on which the ambitions of an indifferent world will one day be broken.

Then there were the Roman soldiers—hardened, callous, indifferent to the point of gambling for the seamless robe of Christ while he died for their sins.

What warning for all of us! Judas obsessed with the love of money, men plotting the death of the Messiah whom they should have welcomed—and in the midst of it all our Lord voluntarily fulfilling his destiny.

When men sought to force him to take a crown and make him a king, he withdrew and hid himself.

Now, when men would force on him a cross he offered himself, submitting to all that man might do to him, even to death itself, and all for us!

On the Cross his work was finished, once for all. There salvation awaits for all who will believe. There the portals of heaven are opened for repentant sinners who, amazingly, become righteous in God’s sight.

“Were you there when they crucified my Lord?” Yes!

L. NELSON BELL

PHILOMENA

At last Ecclesian has its patron saint. A niche will be rushed to completion in the revolving altar at the All-Faiths Chapel in Deepwell Heights. The saint is a former Catholic named St. Philomena.

News dispatches recently described the embarrassment she caused the Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cardinal Cushing, when he was about to name a church in her honor. The new red brick colonial-style church was already Philomena’s in the minds of loyal parishioners. Members of the Philomena guild had received 800 small statues of Philomena from the Cardinal.

Then, just as he was leaving for the dedication service, the Cardinal learned the truth about St. Philomena. She wasn’t a saint any longer. The Sacred Congregation of Rites at the Vatican had dropped her name from the rolls. In fact, Vatican sources went so far as to question whether she had ever existed.

The Cardinal had to face all those assembled people and tell them that St. Philomena’s couldn’t be St. Philomena’s. “It was a difficult job,” he said. “It was like telling the Irish there was no St. Patrick.”

Will someone tell the Cardinal that Philomena need not be forgotten? Ecclesian-speaking Protestants have long venerated any number of events which never happened, as they see it. It is no trick at all for them to preach on Abraham with the sure conviction that he never lived. Come home, Philomena. Ecclesian can demythologize your past and make you a contemporary event.

We shall also need some enterprising dealers in church goods to buy (at a sharp discount) surplus statues of Philomena. The ground swell for the new patron saint can be expected to spread to every contemporary chapel in exurbia. It may become a Philomenical movement.

EUTYCHUS

EDUCATION AND RELIGION

In your editorial of April 10, 1961, you again question the principle of federal aid to education. However, you fail to point out the values of such a program. One of the values seldom heard is federal control over public schools which will accompany or follow financial aid. Perhaps the control is more needed than are the funds. Our nation needs a public educated to national values rather than values modified by provincial interests. Federal control will maintain proper educational standards. Through proper regulation and control our schools can eliminate racial, religious and ethnic favoritism.…

ROLAND J. BROWN

Minister of Education

First Baptist

Oak Park, Ill.

Federal aid to any school is unconstitutional and there is no way to make it otherwise except by amending the constitution. The constitution does not mention the word “education” and therefore by its own provisions this matter remains under the exclusive jurisdiction of the States.…

JOHN B. COOLEY

Mountville, S. C.

When sectarian groups, whether ecclesiastical or lay, establish institutions of which the sole purpose is to render the kinds of services which in any event must be rendered, such as education and the care of the ill, aged, disabled, orphaned, etc., it would seem no violation of the principle of the separation of Church and State to allow these institutions to share with public institutions in certain kinds of public assistance.…

Now the only alternative to sectarian schools is public educational institutions all of which must be strictly secular.… But where, pray, has strict secularism proved to be a more desirable alternative for the life of a nation than Roman Catholic faith and morality, and where has strict secularism proved more congenial than Rome to Protestantism?… A nation containing a multiplicity of sectarian groups, each possessing equal rights and privileges, may yet proclaim itself to be a Christian nation and may yet possess a citizenry guided in its public and private affairs by a basically Christian morality. But a wholly secularized nation is worse than a paganized nation.…

JOHN H. STEK

Raymond Christian Reformed Church

Raymond, Minn.

I hate to think of what might happen if our public schools were abolished and we parents put the education of our children into the Tom, Dick and Harry hands of the 250 religious sects in our country many of which are mainly interested in educating our children in ignorance so they will hold certain traditional opinions about the Bible that have been handed down from the days of medieval ignorance and superstition.

A. M. WATTS

Chester, Vt.

Instead of asking if it is too late to remove the wedge of church participation in federal funds, I believe you should be pleading for Protestant Christians to take advantage of this God-permitted potential opportunity, which would remove the chief material obstacle to starting Christian day schools in individual localities.… We already have religion in the public schools, supported by public funds, and it is the religion of the humanists—deification of man.… And by pervading the education of the young and conditioning their impressionable minds, it not only unfairly advantages itself but insures its self-perpetuation logarithmically in succeeding generations.

MRS. TOM DODSON

Fairfax, Va.

Education is always given in a religious perspective: it is governed by a certain concept of man and his relationship to God and the world about him. No man can educate except in terms of some unifying perspective. This is as true of religious schools as of “a-religious” schools.

If this be true, then religious pluralism calls for educational pluralism. But pluralism in a free society implies equality of privilege. If the religious school, whether Roman Catholic, Jewish, or Protestant, is to have no public support, then neither should the a-religious.…

If Roman Catholicism is a menace, then let us do all we can to make Protestantism flourish. Instead of allowing millions of Protestant children to grow up and be trained in an atmosphere of religious neutrality, let us build virile Protestant schools. And let us demand equal support for these schools.…

If there cannot be an Established Church in a free society, how is it … that there can be an Established School? Certainly, the intrinsic connection between religion and education is more important … than the present “historical” connection between government and education.

JOHN VRIEND

Simcoe, Ont.

Where the Roman Catholic, or parochial schools, have become very strong, the public schools have become proportionately weak.…

The Roman Catholic schools exist to teach Roman Catholic doctrines. Why should three-quarters of the people be taxed to pay for the teaching of doctrines they oppose?

JOHN L. MCCREIGHT

United Presbyterian Church

Walton, N. Y.

The leaders of this church are really saying that the public schools, though the finest in the world, are not good enough for the children of Catholic parenthood.… The public school has been, by far, the greatest factor that has made America free, strong, and progressive. This “better than thou” philosophy is wholly un-American and selfish.

AUGUST H. WESSELS

The First Presbyterian Church

Watsontown, Pa.

You are to be commended for the fine editorials which have appeared recently concerning the grants of Federal funds to parochial and private schools. If only a vast number of people could read these to stiffen their spines against an invasion of our basic constitutional tenets.… One inroad softens the blow for the next one and it is this piecemeal invasion of basic democratic principles which could eventually destroy those very principles and our American democratic way of life.

PHYLLIS K. INGRAM

Massena, N. Y.

It is not correct that the Citizens for Educational Freedom is “campaigning for federal funds” (News, March 17 issue). The CEF has taken no stand for or against the idea of federal subsidy to education. Its position is limited to promoting the idea that, should federal funds be forthcoming, those funds should be distributed equitably for the benefit of all children whether they are in public or non-public schools. As a means to this end it supports the idea of channeling the funds through parents.…

The National Union of Christian Schools has taken no official stand on the question of federal aid to private schools.

G. A. ANDREAS

Pella, Iowa

PAUL AND MORONI

My thanks to Mr. C. S. Logan (Eutychus, March 27 issue) for “quoting” me in such fantastic terms that no rebuttal is necessary. How Paul could have “plagiarized” from a book written in the New World and the fifth century A.D. I am at a loss to explain. Incidentally I am not and never have been head of the Department of Religion at the Brigham Young University. But I do remember trying to explain to Mr. Logan that Paul sometimes uses expressions that were not original to him. In particular, his “Hymn to Charity,” as Harnack, J. Weiss, and Reitzenstein each discovered independently and with considerable reluctance, comes from an older source.… Mr. Logan has yet to show that Paul and Moroni could not have been drawing on a common source.

HUGH NIBLEY

Brigham Young University

Provo, Utah

When Mr. Thomas Stuart Ferguson states that the discovery of ancient cities in Central America is proving the truth of the Book of Mormon, he is contradicting the anthropologists of his own church.

Dr. M. Wells Jakeman, Mormon anthropologist at Brigham Young University, has said, “It must be confessed that some members of the ‘Mormon’ or Latter-day Saint Church are prone, in their enthusiasm for the Book of Mormon, to make claims for it that cannot he supported … not enough is yet known of the actual period of that [Book of Mormon] record in ancient America, or of the origin of the American Indians, for a final judgment at this time, scientifically speaking” (University Archaeological Society Newsletter, No. 57, March 25, 1959, p. 4).

Dr. Ross Christensen, also of B.Y.U., stated as recently as January of 1960, “As for the notion that the Book of Mormon has already been proved by archaeology, I must say with Shakespeare, ‘Lay not that flattering unction to your soul!’ ” (Ibid., No. 64, January 30, 1960, p. 3).

HAROLD H. HOUGEY

Church of Christ

Martinez, Calif.

ROLE FOR FAULKNER

Dr. Hazelton in no way denies that “the Christian view of man is specially anchored in God’s revelation in Christ and the Scripture,” to quote Dr. Henry’s review (Feb. 27 issue). He rather, I believe, comments on the sad fashion in which much of our contemporary preaching, for all its sanctified setting, fails to proclaim the Gospel. Simetimes a Faulkner or a Camus actually comes closer to basic religious truth, with or without Christ, than some of our preachers who piddle around Sunday after Sunday with pious moralisms and hackneyed, soporific platitudes.…

Let us also remember that the Holy Spirit can and often does work independently of the Bible whenever it suits His purposes. Read Romans 2:14–16 for amplification. Even admitting John 14:6, we cannot narrow the Spirit’s workings down to our favorite channels by saying that He gets through to us only via the Scriptures or any other authoritative medium. The works of men such as Faulkner or Camus are a praeparatio evangelica, a “preparation for the Gospel,” serving to call to mind certain religious truths for men who would never come near either Bible or church.

I leave to others to decide which is the greater heresy: what I have said or Dean Hazelton has said, or the fallacy of thinking that the Holy Spirit can only work through the literally interpreted Word, “conversion experiences,” certain creedal statements, or other channels which, after all, are merely human channels designed to lead men to Christ who is the only Way and the Truth and the Life.

EDWARD A. JOHNSON

Director of Alumni Relations

Carthage College

Carthage, Ill.

WHAT MUST I DO?

May I suggest that Dr. Ward [made] … one glaring omission in his sermon (Mar. 13 issue), which to me is so very important. It is an error found in much of today’s preaching, namely, what should the reader do about it? “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” is still the question so many preachers leave unanswered.

STANLEY H. WRIGHT

Kearney, N. J.

GETTING THEM RIGHT

Congressman J. Edward Roush is a member of the College Park Church of the United Brethren in Christ, in Huntington, Indiana, not the Brethren in Christ as reported in your Jan. 2 issue (News).

ROBERT H. MILLER

Smithfield Church of the United Brethren in Christ

Smithville, Ohio

• An earlier report on religious affiliations of Senators (Dec. 5 issue) also erroneously identified Clark of Pennsylvania (he is a Unitarian) and Long of Louisiana (he is a Methodist).

—ED.

What of communism now? Consider its conquest of Tibet; its invasion of Laos; its division of the Congo; its absorption of Cuba, its wrecking of the summit conference; its attack on the United Nations; and its blocking of the nuclear disarmament conference in Geneva.

Surely, these things should show the folly of those who talk co-existence, rapprochement, and understanding with the Communist state. These people have a basic misunderstanding of communism. Those who think that by inviting men like Mikoyan, Molotov, Koslov, and Khrushchev to America they are advancing understanding between the Communist and the free world are tragically misled. These Communists like to come to America; appearing to be genial human beings, they disarm us. The Communists would like to have us think of them in terms of cultural interpretation such as the ballet, the theatre, science, and literature. They do not want to have us think of them in terms of Poland, Hungary, Tibet, and North Korea. They want us to forget the brutal, bestial, and bloody things they have done. The error of too many people in the West is the presupposition that Communists think, act, and work on our philosophy and standard of morals when actually they act upon their own standard.

The recent picture of Communist advance is most disheartening. In Laos the Communists have conquered half of the country and are in a position to dictate their terms to the other half. Our position in seeking a neutralized Laos is very weak. If the Laotian government takes Communists into the government and terminates the importation of arms, the outcome will ultimately be that the Communists will take over Laos because of their present strength which has been due to the Russian, Chinese, and Vietnamese airlift and military mission. The order of procedure is exactly that which took place in China when Mao Tse-tung fought against Chiang Kai-shek and we thought we could neutralize China by compelling the Nationalist government to take the Communists into the fold.

Communists are advancing in the Congo. The Lumumba party, now directed by Antoine Gizenga, is definitely subsidized and armed by an airlift from Egypt. Gizenga claims to be the legitimate premier of the entire Congo and will not hesitate to launch civil war. The United Nations’ effort to disarm the Congolese will work in the favor of the Gizenga forces for they are being surreptitiously and unilaterally armed by the Communists. This is the reason Kasavubu, Tshombe, and Mobutu have turned against the United Nations.

Africa is being kept in a ferment not only through the spirit of nationalism but also through deliberate Communist activity. Thousands of Africans have been taken to Moscow to be trained and then to return to Africa to lead nationalistic movements. Jomo Kenyatta was advised that the elected leaders of Kenya have no part in the government until they have complete independence. He is one of these who has visited Moscow; he was the inspiring head of the Mau Mau movement and now is the uncrowned leader of the Africans in Kenya. The Communists are predominant in Guinea where their technicians, their teachers, their political advisers are present in great numbers. Ghana has evidence of the presence of the Communists in Pioneers for Accra, counseling centers, technical aid, gift of Illyushin planes, and an open affection for Tito’s form of government. As these colonial governments become unseated, the new African leaders who are unprepared for responsibility will be open for the new imperialism of communism.

Cuba is now in the Communist camp. Its economic life, its military preparation, its socialized form of government are all patterned after the Communist nations. Cuban agents are stirring a hate campaign against America throughout the poor and ignorant masses of Latin Americans.

The Communists are playing the game according to Communist rules. They alternate between soft and tough attitudes, between co-operation and competition, between offers of peace and threats of war in order to throw the West off balance and to achieve further advances for communism. They talk Peace and friendship when this will advance the Communist cause, but they will use force when it is valuable and necessary.

The purpose of the Communist is to wreck any disarmament attempt, promote confusion and conflict within the free nations, and discredit and weaken the United States and any other nation or organization which hinders the world revolution. Disarmament is not in the Communist program. Russia stalls on a plan of total inspection for nuclear warfare, delays and postpones the Geneva conference on disarmament, and seeks to maneuver us into a position whereby we shall lose any military advantage we now have and they shall have a preponderant military advantage by the numbers of soldiers, ground forces, they possess. The design of communism is world revolution and world conquest. This never changes. Whoever overlooks this is blind. Communism uses deceit as an instrument of diplomacy. Their pretended indignation over the U-2 incident points up their hypocrisy in the light of Communist spy rings, stealing of secrets, party activities, military movements in Tibet, Hungary, and Korea, and the record which they have made. It is a history of broken agreements, of aggression, of threats to peace, and of seizure of territory. It is strange, but people forget these things so quickly and because of their wishful thinking believe that the Communists have changed. Never believe a Communist statement except within the context of its own theory, goals, and strategy. We must recognize that it is impossible to co-operate with them and thus to dignify their leadership.

WHAT IS COMMUNISM?

The practice of Communist infiltration, allurement, and deception is well described in Proverbs 1:10–19. The admonition given to individuals who adopt these practices may be elevated and applied to any nation or group of nations. Against such we should be alert and active, and with them we should take no part.

Let us recognize the theoretical philosophy of communism. Communism is materialistic monism. It believes that ultimately there is nothing but matter in the world. Out of this physical stuff come all things of the material world and of human relationships. Materialism excludes the belief in the existence of God, of the soul of man, of the supernatural and of immortality. Materialists or naturalists are predisposed in favor of the views of communism. Since communism denies God, it denies absolute moral law and the infinite value of the individual. It denies the possibility of the change of an individual life by regeneration through the Holy Spirit, and therefore it necessitates a reliance on another method of change, namely, external control of force.

Communism believes in economic determinism. It believes that the economic process or the struggle for bread determines the form of society, the class government of society, and all the social relationships of men. It believes that ultimately history has destined that the proletariat will rule and shall liquidate all opposition.

Communism believes in class conflict. This concept was not invented by Marx but was discovered. Marx derived it from the Hegelian evolutionary viewpoint of ideas. He spoke of the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis. Marx declared that the revolutionary philosophy was a thesis, the reactionary capitalism the antithesis, and the world revolution the synthesis. This synthesis assertedly brings the victory of communism and ultimate peace. The concept of class conflict has dominated society throughout history and will dominate it until the process ensues in world revolution, consequent peace, and the establishment of a Communist society. The fourth concept is that of revolution. This revolution can be wrought by the ballot, the use of the franchise, through the rise of the labor movement controlled by the Communist party, or it may be brought about by violent revolution. The Bolshevik method is violent revolution. The masses must be taught by the Communist party that they are exploited, robbed and pillaged, and must be incited to revolution. They must use the methods of violence in order to overthrow class government and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. The fifth item is that of the re-education of the masses. Those who are irrevocably corrupted by capitalism are to be liquidated and the remainder re-educated under the Communist system in “Communist truth.” Then it will be possible—so it is said—to build a prosperous, homogeneous society in which the dictum shall be to each according to his need and from each according to his ability. This is to be a warless, ignorantless, classless, governmentless utopia.

Communism holds before itself certain ultimate goals. The first and primary goal is world revolution. This is to be accomplished through individual revolutions within the separate states until the balance of power is obtained by the Communists, and then an all-out struggle is to be launched with the use of the Red armies of the Soviet states for the purpose of establishing world communism. The immediate goal of communism is to establish a socialistic society. The Communist society is an ultimate goal and cannot be achieved for four or five hundred years. Immediately there is to be a termination of all private property and private ownership of the means of production. All production and all income must go to the state and be used for the advancement of the Communist revolution, for the support of the Red army, and for the benefit of the masses. Simultaneously, the Communist socialistic society uses incentive and rewards for achievement on the part of individuals.

The Communist ideal is the homogeneous society in which government will wither away, all conflict will cease, and society will be marked by plenty, prosperity, and peace. This ideal should be contrasted with the 42 years of Communist history in which conflict, brutality, scarcity, and war have been instruments of Communist policy. Though the Communist excuses these on the ground that the end justifies the means, the realist should recognize that there is little probability of the Communist ever resorting to other methodology.

The strategy of communism is conquest through conflict, chaos, and confusion. The Communist seeks to divide his enemy through promoting race conflict, class conflict, and religious conflict. One wonders just how much of the nationwide conflict being stimulated over race questions is perpetrated by Communist money and influences today. The Communist seeks to corrupt his enemies through the press, through radio, through TV, through movies, through novels, through pornographic literature, through narcotics, and through every possible means. He seeks to weaken his enemies by confusing their convictions, by weakening their patriotism, by defecting them from their religion. The Communist seeks to infiltrate every movement and segment of the society of his enemy. Thus through Communist agents, cells, fronts, and stooges he seeks for control from within. Americans need to have very little fear about the ability of their army, navy, and air force to defend their country; but what they need to fear is that the defense forces of the nation will be rendered impotent by decisions of Communist sympathizers in places of importance and authority. One cannot help but wonder why so-called liberal Christians play the Communist game and adopt the Communist line in their pronouncements when they ought to know that this advances the Communist cause. The strategy also includes the promotion of stooge wars between puppet states and nations of the West which may be controlled by Communist forces without embroiling Russia herself. This is the present threat in Germany. Thus it may be seen that communism has a consistent theory, technique, and program, a part of which is illustrated in the attitudes of Mr. Khrushchev.

WHY IS COMMUNISM INCREASING?

The phenomenal growth of communism from a few thousand adherents in 1917 to the control of at least one-third of the human race in 1961, and its continuing growth may be conditioned on several matters. One is its capitalizing of certain movements.

Nationalism is the desire of indigenous peoples to determine their own destiny and to be independent. This may be illustrated today by the intense desire of Africans for self-determination. This was recently described under the clause, “Ready or not, here we come.” Africa is determined to have its “Uhuru”; hence, Nigeria, the Congo, Ghana, Senegal, Somali, and others, have gained their independence. Recognizing this justifiable nationalistic impulse, Communists have taken thousands of young Africans to Moscow to be trained in Communist education, doctrine, and technique. These students will return to Africa to become leaders of revolutionary activity. This may already be seen in the Congo. The deficiency of the knowledge by the mass of Africans concerning the true nature of communism will facilitate the leadership of these Communist-trained Africans in swinging some of the newly born nations into the Communist orbit.

The second tendency communism capitalizes on may be described as economic hunger. Frank Laubach has described the present situation of the world as a platform dividing one-third of the human race from two-thirds. The one-third is on top of the platform enjoying all the privileges of education, modern industries, sanitation, convenience, and leisure. Two-thirds are under the platform and enjoy none of these privileges. They do the hard, toilsome work with no rewards. The difference in the present situation and the former situation is that the platform is now become glass and the two-thirds may see the condition of the one-third on top and they are determined that they also will share in the privileges of the one-third—through technocracy, nationalism, and, if necessary, communism.

The third situation communism has seized upon is the vacuum left by the end of the colonial era. These many states which have gained their self-determination since World War II have not been adequately prepared to govern themselves and to develop sufficient economic independence. Consequently, communism has moved in and made puppet states out of some of them through the dumping of their economic goods, through political agitation, and through force. Communists have developed the strategy of subjugation. By use of the Communist party, secret police, prisons, slave labor, and propaganda, they have been able to develop a new international imperialism centering the control in Moscow. Their economic competition is favorable to them because they wring the products of the toil of slave laborers, sell them beneath cost in order to capture foreign markets, and then follow their penetration with political power.

The fourth condition seized upon by the Communists is that of the vacillation and weakness of the free world. For some unknown reason leadership in the free world has refused to believe that a Communist is a Communist. This leadership lacks knowledge of the purposes, techniques, and goals of communism. Moreover, it does not have a competing philosophy which is consistent and complete, and it fails in courageous action for the promotion of a competing program. The resort to expediency rather than principle, the demonstration of vacillation in reference to commitments, and the willingness to compromise has encouraged communism in its expansive and aggressive policies.

WHAT CAN COUNTERACT COMMUNISM?

To counteract communism we need a consistent theism. We need to understand the implications of the belief in God for every realm of human life. Kerzhentsev says, “A Communist cannot believe in God. He knows that religion is nothing but a means for duping the people in the interest of the exploiters.” So we know that a believer in God cannot be a Communist in the technical sense of that term. He who believes in God believes in absolute moral law. God is a just and righteous God; therefore, if he talks about love, it must be in the framework of justice, righteousness, and truth. He will not be sentimental, vacillating, or weak in his application of law. He will support righteousness and justice by force if necessary. A man who believes in God also believes in the dignity and value of an individual human being. This is derived from the fact that man is created in the image of God, and from the proclamation of the Christian Gospel that God himself came into the world to redeem individual man and remake him in His own likeness. The believer in God believes that man according to law may express himself in a free society. He has freedom of ballot, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of economic activity, and freedom of speech. It is time that we undertake to propagate these views in competition with the views of the Communists. We should exploit the natural desires of men for freedom. If an African calls “Uhuru” in defiance of all law and order, then we should cry “Freedom” with the framework of a theistic society. Actually, freedom is on our side. If we teach the truth in a consistent system, we may meet Communist theory. It is time to underscore the differences between the Communist and a free society. Instead of obscuring and depreciating the American dream which has built this noble society, we ought to exalt the elements of it over against it. We should be unafraid to reveal the condition of the captive nations and their degrading slavery.

To counteract communism, we need constant vigilance. There must be an alertness to the wiles, the devices, the fronts, and the deceit which are used by Communists and which are Communist inspired. The fact that so many good men have been taken into front organizations which have advanced the Communist cause does not commend our intelligence as patriots or as Christians. True vigilance would anticipate the Communist movements of advance throughout the world, whether in Africa, South Asia, Latin America, or in our own United States. It also would develop an aggressive diplomacy which would wrest the initiative from the Communists. The irritation of Mr. Khrushchev over captive nations’ week in 1959 reveals that such initiative on our part could actually hurt the Communist cause.

To counteract communism, we need courageous action. Firmness is the only thing which Communists understand. Firmness must be backed up by military strength and force. We may be thankful that our nation had courage enough to move into Korea, into Lebanon, into Formosa, and to declare that aggressive acts on the part of the Communists brought us to the brink of war. The same courage should be manifested in reference to Berlin. We should remind the Communists of their treaties and of our rights, and declare that we will maintain access to Berlin whatever comes, even if this means using atomic weapons. Courageous action demands diplomatic firmness in reference to a nation such as China which today threatens her neighbors, has invaded Vietnam, Tibet, and Korea. She should not be rewarded with recognition or admission to the United Nations. Courageous action means an alliance between nations that believe in moral law and in the freedom of men. Our defense dependence should not be placed upon the United Nations but on such an agreement among moral nations.

The faith and dedication of communism must be met by the faith and dedication of Christians. Communist adherents believe the Communist dialectic. They are convinced that it is their historical destiny to win. They have embraced an idealism for a better world. This view must be met by an equally consistent and virile faith. Such a faith, in my opinion, may only be found in evangelical Christianity. Liberalism, through its embrace of naturalism, has softened resistance to the intellectual aspects of communism.

The Communist dedicates self, possessions, family, and life to the cause. This must be matched by an equal dedication on the part of Christians. It is in this realm that our aging culture reveals itself. Too many so-called Christians are searching for security, for indulgence in pleasure, for profit even with the loss of integrity, and for ease displayed in the lack of discipline in study and work.

Communism is idealism. The students of our day are idealistic. The power of the students to change the social order has recently been shown in China, in Korea, and in Turkey. Students want the challenge of the ideal. Jesus Christ, Christian truth, and loving humanitarianism are that ideal. Let us accept the challenge and present this to students in our day. Communism can be counteracted and it can be defeated, but it will take Christian theism, idealism, and dedication.

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

Second in a Series by Evangelical Scholars

Bultmann’s theology sets out in opposition to the rationalistic and idealistic misunderstanding of Christianity by the earlier liberal theology. Two themes characterize Bultmann’s theological program, and he develops them thoroughly and applies them assiduously. They are:

1. The Entmythologisierung (demythologizing), the method whereby Bultmann proposes to open for modern thought a way (apologetic and pastoral) to the Gospel.

2. The existential interpretation of the Gospel, whereby he intends to disclose the true meaning of the biblical kerygma.

Though closely related and interdependent, these themes can be distinguished from one another, and we propose to deal with them successively.

Bultmann’s theology is often labeled with the catchword Entmythologisierung (demythologizing). The Entmythologisierung is, however, not the most characteristic aspect of his theology. Nor does Bultmann himself regard it as such (Bultmann sees the real theme of his theology rather in the motive of existentialism). The method of the Entmythologisierung had been applied before Bultmann, although under other names. Bultmann’s own application of this method does little more, basically, than to observe the great traditions of the Enlightenment. In this respect he follows the radical biblical criticism of the liberal and “history of religions” schools of which in more than one sense he is the executor. It is true that Bultmann criticizes these predecessors of his for their interpretation of the purport of the Gospel, but on the whole his program of the Entmythologisierung follows their line.

It cannot be said that Bultmann’s definition of “mythos” is lucidly clear. Nevertheless there can be no doubt about his intention. The “mythical” mind, says Bultmann, explains certain phenomena and occurrences by the intervention of supernatural, divine powers. Modern scientific thought, however, can only operate on the basis of a closed relation of natural causes and effects. It knows therefore the world around him, and himself also, to be a self-contained unity; it can no longer accept the idea of a divine or demonic intervention in nature or in the functions of the human being. Bultmann concedes that the prevalent concept of man and the universe in modern science is no longer that of the nineteenth century, but he rejects as naïve and unrealistic any pious attempt to justify belief in miracles on the ground of its modified concept of the law of causality. Nor can man accept both the miraculous and the scientific views. Every representation in the Bible that does not answer to the modern concept of a closed world order, Bultmann tells us, must be dismissed by the modern mind.

It is evident that this amounts to nothing less than a far-reaching a priori decision screening the content of the Gospel for what is and what is not acceptable to modern man. Not only is the concept of man and of the universe at stake, but also the concept of God. The God of Scripture and of the Gospel is the Lord of the universe, and that not only because he is its Creator and directs it from moment to moment, but all the more so because in Christ he acts upon man and universe, and enters into the history of the world. The coming of Christ constitutes the center of a whole history of redemption which encloses the life of man and world from beginning to end.

But as soon as a closed order of the universe is accepted, and whatever does not fit into this scheme because of its unworldly and transcendent origin is disqualified as myth, this biblical concept of God is immediately radically changed and destroyed. For God then becomes the absent and distant God, the inactive God of deism, not the God of Abraham, of Moses, of Isaiah, not the Father of Jesus of Nazareth. Something which appears within the closedness of the world order may indeed be understood by faith as an act of God, but such an occurrence is real only to faith. As object of faith it coincides only with the act of faith.

Not less drastic is the limitation which likewise is imposed on the concept of the coming and work of Jesus Christ, in order to conform the latter to the demands of the “Entmythologisierung.” Should an attempt be made to penetrate, by means of the formgeschichtliche method, to that which “lies behind” the Gospels, and to establish the “historical core” of the “mythological form” of the various components of the synoptic material, the investigation indeed strikes up the historic figure of Jesus of Nazareth. And it is conceded that he spoke and represented the Word of God in a decisive manner—and that not only for the faith of his contemporaries, but also of modern man. Modern man, however, must forego (so we are told) the “mythical attire” in which his contemporaries have enshrouded him; and this applies not only to his supernatural descent and to the miracles that were attributed to him during his earthly ministry, but to everything that is related about him after his death on the cross. The resurrection of Christ—to which the New Testament testifies so overwhelmingly—is, however, not altogether void of meaning (so Bultmann assures us) even for modern man. It is a proof of the importance (die Bedeutsamkeit) which the Christian Church from the very beginning attached to the decease of Christ, to his voluntary surrender into death. This witness of the resurrection is, however, proof only of the belief of the disciples in the resurrection, not of the resurrection itself. For since the resurrection cannot be accounted for according to the general law of science, it falls under the category of the mythical, the miraculous. It cannot be established as an “objective” fact by any number of witnesses whatsoever. Bultmann accordingly regards Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 (where the apostle gives a summary of the eyewitnesses of the resurrection) as fatal. For this implies that the truth of the kerygma depends on that which, according to the criterion of modern thought, could not have happened.

Inevitably the question arises whether this theology of Entmythologisierung still admits of any act of God in the history of the world and of man. For when, according to scientific thought, both the universe and the human personality can be conceived only as a self-contained unity, what remains of the essence of the New Testament preaching which (as Bultmann agrees) consists of the redeeming acts of God in Jesus Christ? Answering this question, Bultmann maintains that the acts of God should never be represented as intervention in the closed unity of natural, historical, or psychological life. Nevertheless, an occurrence in the natural sphere may be understood by faith as an act of God. This Bultmann calls the paradox of faith. He denies, however, that the acts of God—although being real only insofar as they are experienced by faith—are thereby wholly drawn into the sphere of subjectivity. He describes the acts of God as an encounter which takes place when the Word of God is preached, and which confronts man with a necessity for decision. Faith understands this occurrence to be such an encounter (of which the New Testament is the source and legitimation). In this way the act of God brings faith to decision and surrender, whereby the human existence attains its true destination. This happens when man abandons in faith those things which are visible and which he can control, and surrenders himself to that which he cannot control. Man, however, cannot bring himself to this surrender (which Bultmann calls Entweltlichung, that is, the act of detaching or disengaging one’s self from the world). For this, man needs the call which comes to him from the Word of God. And in this call God acts upon man by granting him the possibility of faith (which the New Testament calls “the Holy Spirit”).

It is this act of God (which is ever new, and by which man is ever again called away from the world and made to choose for the future) that Bultmann regards as the demythologized core of the eschatological Gospel and the authentic heart of the preaching of the Church. The Entmythologisierung is, therefore, necessary, and that not only as prerequisite to the acceptance of the Gospel by modern man, but also because modern man is confronted with the truth of the Gospel only in this way. Every preacher who takes the Gospel seriously—whether he accepts the Entmythologisierung or not—must, therefore, attain to this existential interpretation of the Gospel and of the acts of God described therein. For only in this way does he remain loyal to the Word of God.

IS THIS THE GOSPEL?

And so we have arrived at the very center of our question: Can we afford to follow Bultmann? It is really the question whether the existential interpretation of the Gospel (in the sense Bultmann describes it) indeed confronts us with the kernel of the Gospel. If this be the case, the Entmythologisierung and its limits can still be discussed, but as problems of lesser importance. Bultmann himself puts it this way: not the problem of the myth but the problem of hermeneutics and the existential interpretation of the Gospel is the basic motive of his theology.

We are of the opinion that a closer investigation of this basic motive is a sine qua non for a fair judgment of Bultmann’s theology. But at the same time it must be stressed that the theme of existential interpretation cannot in Bultmann be separated even for a single moment from that of the Entmythologisierung. It is impossible to review the former without the latter. It is an illusion to suppose that the Gospel speaks freely in Bultmann’s attempt to disclose the true core of the Gospel. It can speak only insofar as the a priori of the Entmythologisierung allows it to do so. The realm within which Bultmann allows us to decide what can (and what cannot) pertain to the true core of the Gospel is not that of the Gospel itself, but is limited and hedged in by the precepts of the Entmythologisierung. It is within this boundary that the existential meaning and purport of the Word of God must be determined.

It may be that an interpretation which depends on modern existential philosophy can thrive with these bounds. The principles of Bultmann’s hermeneutics are derived from this existential philosophy.

It is, however, quite another question whether these hermeneutical principles can provide an instrument that is adequate to bring out the kerygma of the New Testament. The basic question is whether this kerygma—in order to be really heard—does not require more room than the bounds within which existential philosophy operates. We ourselves are convinced that this existential interpretation of the New Testament amounts to a radical restriction and reduction of its content, both in breadth and in depth. God himself, the acts of God, and the kingdom of God are allowed on the scene only insofar as necessary in order that man may truly be man. The whole of theology and Christology can be expressed in categories of anthropology. What is theologically “useful” in the New Testament teaching of God and Jesus Christ pertain only to the right judgment and self-judgment (Seinsverständnis) of man.

Undoubtedly this approximates the important truth that true knowledge of God effects true knowledge of one’s self, and that God’s acts in Jesus Christ are truly understood only when they thrust into the very existence of man, convert him, and change him. If Bultmann’s desideratum of an existential interpretation of the New Testament were directed only at the rejection of a purely objective knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, and the maintenance of a practical “existential” appropriation of the salvation of the Lord, every Reformed Christian would have to bestow his full approval. Hoc est Christum cognoscere: beneficia eius cognoscere (to know Christ means to know his benefits). The big difference, however, between this maxim of the Protestant Reformation and the use Bultmann makes of it is the following. The Reformation—in line with the New Testament—places man in the realm and light of the great deeds of God in Jesus Christ, thereby bringing him to self-knowledge. Bultmann, on the contrary, places the acts of God in Christ in the light and within the limits of what he knows about man. This is his hermeneutic principle, his existential Vorverständnis (advance understanding). Within this human horizon alone does he allow room for the rise of divine light.

However much we wish to respect Bultmann’s lofty theological construction, we are of the opinion that his existential interpretation of the New Testament amounts to a reversal of the relation in which the Gospel speaks of God and man. For the redeeming knowledge of the Gospel consists of this: that the God who encounters us in Jesus Christ is the God of heaven and earth, the God of the kingdom in which he will make all things new, and who reconciled the world once and for all (ephapax!) with himself in the death and resurrection of his Son. In the light of this God, within the dimensions of this kingdom, and in the power of this reconciliation, the Gospel gives a place to man; and it is in this light, too, that man is to be known in his distress, in his guilt, and in the possibility of his redemption. This order cannot be reversed without injustice to the biblical kerygma, yes, without destroying the very foundation of the Gospel.

SCRIPTURAL VIEW OF MAN

The discussion with Bultmann is, therefore, not limited to the problems of true theology and Christology, but encompasses the biblical foundation of anthropology as well. Bultmann operates in the belief that he can express the New Testament teaching of man in the categories of Heidegger. The Pauline antithesis between “flesh” and “spirit,” for example, means, for Bultmann, basically nothing else but that man lives in a situation wherein he must choose between the visible and the invisible, between that which he can control and that which is out of his reach, and so on. But is this Entweltlichung (detachment) really what Paul designates by “life according to the Spirit,” and what is elsewhere described as conversion, surrender, love? Is Bultmann’s antithesis not derived from philosophical rather than from biblical thought? Is sin really described in the biblical sense when it is qualified as not being willing nor being able to decide against the relative, the visible, the available? Is it indeed the relativity of man’s existence on earth which threatens man in his essence? Does not sin become in this way a purely anthropological concept, that is, merely sin against man’s own destination?

The starting point of the New Testament concept of sin lies elsewhere: not in the analysis of human existence, but in the sovereignty of God over man, in the recognition of God’s law, and in the knowledge of God’s will. To surrender to this will undoubtedly also means for man to be truly free and to be brought to true human existence. But here man in his guilt and distress appears sub specie Dei; nor do redemption, reconciliation, and freedom appear sub specie hominis. The Vorverständnis does not consist of the knowledge of man, but of the knowledge of God and of the Cross and Resurrection.

FACING THEOLOGICAL DECISION

Can we afford to follow Bultmann?

When we answer this question in the negative, that is not because Bultmann’s Anliegen (his “translation” of the Gospel for modern man) leaves us cold. Nor is it because we are not concerned with the problem which arises when modern people hear the biblical kerygma. And still less because we cannot learn much from Bultmann’s enormous knowledge of the New Testament and its Umwelt (environment).

What prevents us from following him is the narrowness into which he drives us. And this narrowness is suffocating. When in the vital encounter of God and man the criterion of the reality of God’s acts is merely the question, do they bring man to his true “existence”?, the designation of anthropocentric theology is apparently not unjustified. Is this interpretation of the message of the New Testament legitimate? Is this not a total recension of the Gospel in terms of existentialist philosophy? It is an enigma to me how the Gospel (of which the Pauline confession, “For from him and by him and to him are all things,” forms the mainstay) can be identified with a program which ascribes to God no more power or activity than is necessary to “let man be man.” Does not the redeeming power of the Gospel—and this applies to modern man in his limitation as well—rest rather in this: that man learns to entrust the existence of the world and of himself once again to the hands of him who, in the death and resurrection of Christ, redemptively triumphs over all that is in heaven and on earth?

Psalm Twenty-nine

Give to the Lord, O ye mighty,

Give to the Lord strength and glory,

O mountain-glowing glory to His name!

Adore Him in spine-tingling beauty,

O sweetness of His rose-bloomed holiness,

O tender petals falling from His face!

I grasp and try to smell them all,

Plummeting down to me,

But ah! how myriad many

Fall through my fingers to the sea.…

CHARLES R. BACHMAN

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

Much is being spoken and written about the present bourgeois, “one class” character of the Church, and biblical Christianity’s problem of reaching intellectuals and workers. To understand the relevant issues, I think, we must constantly be aware of four events in the 1930s, and their continuing results.

THE EVANGELICAL DRIFT

In the 1930s liberalism in the United States reached a point where it led to a division among the evangelicals. One group followed a historic emphasis, especially in Reformed churches, and separated when the liberals came into control in most of the major denominations. The other group did not separate. This event of the 1930s is still with us, and it seems to me one can find reason for sadness in what has happened to both groups.

In surveying the first group, one must distinguish between a strong acceptance of the principle of the commanded purity of the visible church and what has happened in the intervening 30 years among those who have separated. There is cause for sadness in the results of the separated movement. While the criticism does not apply to everyone who took this position, yet the organized leadership of “the separated movement” largely developed an expertness in preparing a kind of lawyer’s brief which has the end of “winning one’s case at any cost” by choosing that portion of the facts which is convenient to this end, and in using this lawyer-brief mentality against liberals and true Christians equally.

In surveying the second group, one must distinguish between staying in an ecclesiastical unit at any one specific point of history, and the surrender of church purity as a principle. There is cause for sadness in the historical results of the action of this second group of evangelicals. For their ecclesiastical contacts have tended to “bridge-building” in wider areas of co-operation, and then tended to theological contacts of a “bridge-building” nature.

THE LIBERAL SHIFT

In the 1930s a change in liberalism itself became clearly observable. From that point to this liberalism became Kierkegaardian. Prior to the 1930s Kierkegaard was still generally considered the “mad Dane”; in the past 30 years, however, Kierkegaardian thinking has increasingly dominated liberal thinking. It is to be noted that this change is neither theological nor exegetical in the historic sense of these words. It is a change which simply followed the general intellectual and cultural climate. The old liberalism was born by accepting the deterministic, optimistic philosophy of that moment as it had flowed up into Germany from the Italian Renaissance, and liberalism has constantly followed the cultural humanistic curve through the 200 years and more that have passed. Kierkegaard was considered the mad Dane because he was ahead of his time in regard to humanistic thought. He is now accepted because the cultural climate has caught up with him; it has found its old optimism intellectually and in practice untenable, and has passed into a relativism and general pessimism. Kierkegaard’s concept of faith, the stepping out on 50,000 fathoms, can be considered the avant-garde of this trend (though Hegel took the first steps) and he is owned by his children such as Sartre and Heidegger as their precursor.

Curiously enough, the art critics and literary critics seem to understand these implications better than the conservative theologians. The whole cultural curve shows the movement from a certain, deterministic, optimistic humanism, which broke down in both theory and practice, to a relativistic and generally pessimistic humanism. In twentieth century terms one could say that quantum in philosophy preceded quantum in the arts, preceded quantum in science, preceded quantum in morals and the general cultural pattern. As the old theological liberalism simply followed the old curve, so the new liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, simply follows the new curve. The new liberalism’s only original contribution is the use of theological terms to express the same concepts, thus giving an illusion of purpose, when logically this quantum thinking offers no base for purpose nor for justification of moral-rational, that is, significant life.

WAR AND RELATIVISM

The Second World War is event three of the 1930s. This did not cause the new relativism. The intellectuals had already taken this step, even before the First World War, because the old deterministic humanism had failed to answer intellectual problems. For example, in the field of art Van Gogh had clearly expressed this change by the time of his increasingly de-humanizing self-portraits beginning in Paris in 1886; Gauguin by the time of his painting “Whither What Whence” by 1898; and even Picasso’s “Demoiselles d’Avignon” was painted before 1910. And thus the Second War did not cause the new relativism. All it did was to speak loudly enough so that even the intellectual stragglers heard.

Since liberal religious thought had been following the general cultural curve since its birth in Germany, it too had to listen. And so the old theological liberalism became the new theological liberalism. One would have difficulty being sure who spoke more scathing words against the old optimistic thought—the new artists in terms of Dada, collé or abstraction, or the new liberal theologians in terms of Barth, Brunner, and Niebuhr. But in neither case was there any change of base. In both cases the base remained the same, the line unbroken; it was simply the old, confident optimism having to become the new nonconfident, relativistic expression. Thus World War II was the earthquake which brought down the house that the intellectuals had already condemned as unsafe for habitation.

In neither secular nor religious expression is the new thought anything more than the changed expression of the old. In all its expressions the humanism of the Renaissance could find no infinite reference point in the finite area of man or corporate mankind, and so had to shift to the relative and begin functioning on fragments of the circle. By Picasso and other artists, for example, the acceptance of the damnation of the permanent paradoxes of what man is in the humanistic concept was expressed in the tension of form versus freedom. Many of Picasso’s paintings of his mistresses simply say on canvas that man (to Picasso it is woman, for woman is his point of contact with the human race) is half angel, half devil. This is not a departure from what preceded, it is an innovation of the same theme, brought about, logically, by the nature of what humanism intrinsically is. To interpret the hard words between the old and the new as an expression of a real difference is to misunderstand the twentieth century; and to accept the new relativistic theology as intrinsically different from the old liberalism is naïve in total cultural understanding.

From Kierkegaard on, the thinking of the Western world has moved towards the thinking of the East. The activistic step of faith into the deep has become the justification of life, in much the same way that meditation is the justification of life in the East. And the language of theology in both East and West gives a connotation of significance of personality couched in terms of ideas, ideals, and myth.

The twentieth century relativism of the West discloses a constant tension between the logic of this position and the practical necessities of living in the world as it is. This is equally true both in its secular and theological expressions. Thus in art, when freedom is carried out logically, contact with the world is lost, and quite illogically, but for practical reasons, form must be re-entered. Thus Sartre is more logical than Camus on their common base, but for practical reasons Camus is nearer to the world of reality. We note in passing that Sartre is not living logically on his base either when he signs the Algerian Manifesto. Even Sartre must live in God’s world, the only world there is. But the main point is that Sartre is more logical than Camus on their common base, and equally Bultmann is more logical than Barth on their common base. It is not the other way round; on their common base, logic is with Bultmann as with Sartre.

Thus the problem returns to the old one of Romanticism, the functioning without a base. The new theological liberalism is merely one more form of Romanticism. And it is to be understood, in the total cultural content, not basically as theology but as a Romantic expression of “bottomless truth” in theological terms. Thus, out of inherent necessity, it must and does function outside the hard stuff of space-time history.

THE LOSS OF DIVINE LAW

Changes in the state since the 1930s mark the fourth significant sign. Not the interpretations of Jesuit theologians like John Courtney Murray (who assert the Thomistic view of natural law for an understanding of the American proposition) but the fact that Northern European culture was produced by the Reformation supplies the background of this transition. In the 1930s it became evident that the United States no longer had a consensus upon which to base its actions, internal or external. From Justice Holmes on, law moved from Lex Rex to a sociological and psychological base; this is part of man’s twentieth century relativism. Rutherford’s Lex Rex was a product of the Reformation; and when the Reformation was given up, no base existed for such a concept. In the old Swiss Supreme Court building in Lausanne the Christian Swiss artist Paul Robert has a mural. It is called “Justice Instructing the Judges.” The mural, in the foreground, pictures many types of human litigation; and behind this, Justice is pointing with her sword to a book, and on the book is lettered “The Law of God.” The Judges look on and learn. This is in painting what Rutherford gave in Lex Rex, and it is the base of Northern European law, including United States law. Originally the United States was based upon the framework of the Reformation consensus, even though certain of the founding fathers were not themselves Christians.

Beginning with the 1930s the results of the loss of the Reformation consensus began to be evident both internally in the United States and in its external dealings. And just as Van Gogh’s views of necessity led him increasingly to paint his self-portraits as less than human, so our giving up the Reformation view has led the United States to deal with men as sacks-of-potatoes. Since the 1930s the United States has had to bear a large share of responsibility for millions of human beings being placed under communistic rule. The logic of what we have given up does its work.

And where will we find our consensus to act in the future, when all forms of humanism have failed to find even a theoretical base? What is left to us as a nation is to live in practice before the time of Lex Rex, and find a relativistic consensus either in Roman Catholic humanistic thought, or some Marxian or non-Marxian materialistic thought, or some combination of these, any of which means some form of arbitrary rule.

Will Christians live in this moment of history and not speak of the judgment of God, when Northern Europe and the United States have given up the Reformation light, as the men of the Reformation spoke of the judgment of God with such clarity and at such great personal cost?

And is it not true that in giving the millions to communism, we have had a part in shaping a “razor” fit to shave us, if God does deal with us in justice using this instrument of judgment?

Our culture has forgotten that it is not possible to keep the cultural and social results of Christianity after Christianity is gone; and we evangelicals must not make the same mistake. It is not possible to keep the theological and ecclesiastical results of Christianity either, after biblical Christianity is gone.

Thus, it is worth considering that Christianity is not reaching the intellectuals and the workers simply because it is not saying anything distinct enough from the total twentieth century cultural flow, nor consistent enough to the concept of a totally personal, supernatural, moral universe, to be worth listening to.

In conclusion, it betrays a lack of understanding in regard to ecclesiastical and theological matters to speak of the “extreme right and the extreme left,” with the extreme “right” being the bitter ones and the extreme “left” being the old liberals. For the new form of liberalism is indeed also very much on the “left.” And there are some on the “right” who do love but weep both for their brothers in Christ and for the loss of our moment of history.

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

In the magazine section of The New York Times for Easter Sunday, the editors featured a special article in the light of the fact that they accepted Easter as “a time of new life and hope.” Facing “a question that has a deeper meaning for mankind than ever,” and looking for a hopeful Easter answer, they pose to a cross section of American leadership this question: “What Is the World’s Greatest Need?”

Some of these experts are better known to me than others and I am sure that the readers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY would know some better than I do but those that stand out for me are C. P. Snow, British scientist and novelist; Martin Luther King, Jr., the Atlanta pastor; Arnold J. Toynbee, the famous historian; Margaret Chase Smith, Republican senator from Maine; Charles P. Taft, Cincinnati lawyer; and James A. Pike who needs no introduction. Other authorities consulted are Maxwell D. Taylor, Gall G. Hoffman, Clarence B. Randall, and Mike Mansfield.

This is an imposing list; one should listen to such people with respect and I would think with hopeful expectancy. What is the world’s greatest need? Here are their answers, rather crudely and superficially put I must admit: Peace, Sense or Sensitivity, Proper Goals, Moral Ends for Living, Mutual Confidence, Control of Dangerous Tensions, Peace at the cost of Sacrifice, A Return to the Open Mind, Prompt Action, Accelerated Action, Communication, the Communication of God, the Dynamic Power of a lot of free consciences. So now we know from the experts what our greatest need is. Now what? It is interesting to observe that The New York Times, at the close of this feature article, giving answers to the world’s greatest need advertises itself with an eye-catching advertisement titled “Blind Man’s Bluff.” The ad might have given us another answer to our featured question.

As everyone knows, if a person doesn’t “get” a joke it is absolutely certain that he will not laugh at your joke after you have explained it; it is not analyzing that makes it possible for us to understand poetry; one either does or does not have an ear for music; and by analogy I suppose I must face the fact that if you do not understand what is wrong with all those answers there is no way I can make it clear. But I shall try.

It seems to me that in every one of these answers there is a misconception of the nature of the problem mankind faces because there is a misunderstanding of man and because also there is a failure to recognize in man the radical nature of sin, sin indeed which can be understood only as a fundamental rebellion in man against his Creator. Having lost the clue to man’s nature, people in general, even the experts in general have lost the clue to man’s deepest need and therefore have only superficial answers. Like the false prophets in Jeremiah’s day “they heal the hurt of my people lightly.” We do not have to agitate for the old theological terminology—original sin and total depravity—so long as we see the point: what is wrong with man is profoundly and totally wrong so that until he becomes a new kind of creature (let’s just call it “new birth”) then even his best efforts are always being founded on vanity; “except the Lord build, they labor in vain that build.” What is man’s greatest need? So long as we see the problem superficially we shall have superficial answers.

Take for example the answer of C. P. Snow: “The world, of course, needs peace.” As he rightly points out we could hardly imagine what the human race could do in terms of the good life if we could only quit having war. Well, I guess we would all agree on this and almost anybody could have “thought it up.” How then are we going to train ourselves for this peace, for really this is the nub of the problem. Mr. Snow says “by sense, by sensitivity, by an appetite for the future.” If we only had sense enough to see that all these wars cost too much money which could be spent on nicer things, then we would quit doing this nonsensical thing. The only trouble is we know perfectly well that war does not make sense and we keep on waging wars anyway. Then what about sensitivity? If the rich were only more sensitive to the needs of the poor and if we were all more sensitive to other people just because they are human beings like ourselves, then we would not be so cruel and selfish. Snow admits “as for sensitivity, we are not too good at it.…” At the same time, we must start to learn sensitivity. But you see there’s the rub again. Granting that I am not as sensitive as I ought to be, nor as compassionate as I ought to be, the problem is that even with such sensitivity and compassion as I do have I fail to practice what I know and what I feel because of the kind of person I am. “The things I would do those I do not.” So the question remains what is wrong with me that knowing the good I still do the evil. As for “an appetite for the future” how much future does Mr. Snow have in mind? Does this life really have an eternal point of reference, or is our future all bound up with what still remains of our own personal allotment of three score years and ten? Is the fixed point here or hereafter? Do our problems have immediate relevance only or is there immediate relevance actually relevant in eternal values written in the heavens?

The answer of C. P. Snow is used, I insist again, only for our example. The lack of depth in his approach is typical of all the answers which I have listed above and which appear in The New York Times. If this is all that we can come up with, we are in worse shape than we thought we were and perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that in all these answers, with the exception of the answer of Bishop Pike and somewhat indirectly by Martin Luther King, Jr., there is no suggestion that God is the answer or that Christ is the answer, and this, in a Christian land, by otherwise intelligent, decent and I suppose God-fearing people. The total irrelevance of the religious dimension is frightening.