The Church and its theology—like many other things—is often put before the dilemma of being conservative or progressive. In spite of repeated attempts to show how false this dilemma is, it manages to keep its power to falsify the truth. The terms vary. Sometimes it is put as conservative versus modern. But the dilemma is the same. We wish to point out that his way of stating the alternatives that face the Church and theology gives us no help at all in analyzing the theological situation.

It is not hard to illustrate how useless the conservative versus progressive approach to the characterization of men and thought is. Take Jeremiah, for instance. This prophet was the man who called the people back to “the old paths” (Jer. 6:16) and who was also the prophet of the “new covenant” (Jer. 31:31). Consider Paul also. The apostle told Timothy to hold fast to that which he had received (1 Tim. 6:20). Yet, no one was more possessed with the vision of the new than was Paul (cf. 2 Cor. 5: 17). One quickly senses how meaningless the opposition between “conservative” and “progressive” becomes when it is used to typify men and their positions. This is especially true when the term “conservative” is meant to describe someone who cleaves to the past and turns away from the future.

Many modern theological movements today manifest strong conservative tendencies. Consider the powerfully conservative attitude that liberal theology has shown in regard to miracles. Liberal theology has held on to the old attitudes regarding myth and world-view, redemption and Christ, and many other positions typical of the nineteenth century. Liberals still consider old positions untouchable. Whenever someone declines this conservative attitude and seeks with new joy to develop the perspectives of the Holy Scriptures, when someone, that is, tries to shed himself of the stubborn conservatism of liberal theology, he is branded as a “conservative theologian.”

The zeal with which many orthodox theologians have staked claim on the adjective “conservative” is, in my judgment, regrettable. They mean by their self-designation as conservative to take their position on the side of the Gospel and the faith of the Reformation. Sometimes one means by the term “conservative” to indicate that he is not liberal. But we must, I think, get away from this defensive tactic; we must decline the conservative-progressive dilemma. We ought not to be forced to accept either horn of the dilemma; we ought not accept the term conservative as describing our position. The word does nothing to suggest the presence of the dynamic power and the perspective for the future that are inherent in the Gospel.

To call the Reformation a conservative movement is on the face of it a bad half-truth. To be sure, the Reformers reached back across the centuries to the old Gospel. But they also looked to the renewal of all of life through the Gospel. And life was renewed. Preaching was again set in the center of the Church. Scholars went at the serious business of exegeting the Word from which, in turn, all sorts of new perspectives came to light, perspectives for the practical life of the people. The false dilemma, “progressive” or “conservative,” in no way really illuminates what happened at the Reformation.

The broad divisions between the theological schools are real and significant. But these divisions are not clarified in the least by calling one side conservative and the other side progressive. Surely, orthodoxy does not swear by the old while liberal theology searches for new perspectives. The Gospel does not face us with an option between old and new, as such. The choice presented by the Gospel is that between the power and blessing of the new life in Christ and the weakness of the old nature and the old dispensation.

I strongly suspect that we are talking about more than mere words. A confusion has arisen from the habit many have had of seeing a basic polarity between the conservative and progressive attitudes. A bad and wrong impression has been created by the orthodox’s acceptance of the designation of their position as “conservative.” The theology which seeks to live and work by the Word of God, the Word which is always in movement toward new paths of power, is not conservative. But the impression created by letting the liberal position take possession of the word “progressive” is just as wrong. Liberal theology is showing its bondage to traditional ways more clearly than ever these days. Liberalism is bound to the past; it shuts the door to the new and unexpected.

There is always the danger of trying to preserve what is not worth preserving. We always run the temptation of refusing to follow the new ways to which the Gospel calls us. There is the danger that, flying the conservative banner, we lose our power to speak to the modern world, that we give the impression that the Gospel, interpreted by conservatives, has nothing to say to modern man. To avoid the dangers, we must continuously, earnestly, and with intellectual integrity keep close to the Bible. We cannot rest with the delusion that we have rather completely grasped what there is to be known from the Bible. Fresh biblical research is constantly necessary; where it goes on things can happen to break new ground for the Church. Renewal in theology as well as in the Church comes only where men bow with open ears before the Word. For men who really do listen to the Word, there is no such thing as a dilemma between the progressive and the conservative way of looking at things. The Gospel transcends this false dilemma. We must refuse to let ourselves be branded as conservative. Conservatism is not the mark of the man who lives and works in the truth and power of the Gospel.

Matthew’S Testimony And Modern Criticism

The Gospel According to St. Matthew, by Floyd V. Filson (Harper, 1960, 314 pp. $5), is reviewed by Ned B. Stonehouse, Professor of New Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary.

In this contribution to the series of Harper’s New Testament Commentaries, the author, well-known McCormick scholar, has been mainly concerned to make clear how the evangelist, whom he distinguishes from the Apostle Matthew, “understood the gospel story and what he wanted the Church to get from his book.” This concern has in many respects been admirably achieved especially when one considers the severe limitations of space. In the main Dr. Filson sticks closely to his last. And the volume reflects his ability to write succinctly and pointedly without sacrifice of clarity.

Although Dr. Filson occupies a negatively critical position, so far as the authority of Scripture is concerned, and shares to a significant degree the modern view that Matthew is representative of theological and practical viewpoints which developed in the Church after the death of Christ, his critical position is far more conservative than that of many contemporary New Testament scholars. One may single out, for example, his defense of the essential authenticity of the Matthaean record of Christ’s declarations concerning the Church in Matthew 16 (p. 186). Refreshing too is the observation that he stresses the decisive significance of the resurrection of Christ, and maintains in this connection that “the tomb was empty” and that no theory is satisfactory which “limits the resurrection to psychological recovery by the disciples or a purely spiritual survival by Jesus” (pp. 302 ff., cf. pp. 40 f.).

Nevertheless the author makes clear again and again that he does not wish to align himself unmistakably on the side of the testimony of this Gospel. How equivocal his position is may be best illustrated by his comment on the attitude that one should take toward the virgin birth of Christ. He says: “This theological affirmation of the unique, purposeful work of God in sending Jesus Christ into the world is essential to the gospel story. Whoever takes the birth story as poetic and figurative must take care not to drain away the vigor and firmness of that affirmation. On the other hand, those who, to protect the divine initiative and to centre God’s historical working in Christ, accept literally the story that Jesus had no earthly father must preserve the New Testament conviction that Jesus was born as a real human being and lived a truly human life” (p. 56). To be sure, there is no place for Docetism in the New Testament, but the acceptance of the Virgin Birth or its rejection is not basically an issue regarding balance in one’s Christology but of the trustworthiness of Scripture. Of a piece with this attitude toward the Matthaean record are some of the author’s comments on miracle stories. With regard to the record of Matthew 17:24, for example, he says: “A figurative statement of Jesus may have developed into a miracle story in the course of transmission. If so, this could only happen because the Church knew that Jesus had done many remarkable things, and this did not seem an impossible addition to the list” (p. 196; cf. p. 172).

In my judgment the rejection of the tradition of apostolic authorship is a quite different matter from the rejection of the testimony of Scripture itself. Nevertheless, Dr. Filson’s argument here is quite unimpressive (cf. p. 20).

NED B. STONEHOUSE

Thirty Conversions

Evangelical Conversion in Great Britain 1696–1845, by T. W. B. Bullock (Budd & Gillatt, 1959, 287 pp., 35s.), is reviewed by Herbert M. Carson, Vicar of St. Paul’s, Cambridge.

Apart from a short introduction, this book consists of two main sections. The first, which comprises about two-thirds of the total work, describes 30 actual conversion experiences from the period under review (incidentally, it is not quite clear why the particular dates are selected for the survey). The second section is a psychological study of the cases cited earlier.

The 30 experiences recorded embrace a wide variety, including well-known figures like the Wesleys, Whitefield, and Robert Murray McCheyne, and also others who are probably unknown to most readers. The accounts tend to vary in value depending upon the measure of treatment accorded. But on the whole the accounts given are carefully and attractively presented, and the fact that a great deal of the material used is autobiographical makes them even more compelling. This part of the book is really valuable.

One major lack, however, in the underlying assumptions of the book is a failure to take into account the work of the Holy Spirit in awakening men. An allied failure is an apparent inability to recognize the nature of a true revival in the sense of a sovereign act of God, so that again and again revivals are confused with revivalism. In fact here perhaps we get the real weakness of the treatment, in that it is essentially man-centered rather than God-centered. Thus where Scripture would see the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, the author describes the experience as the end product of a purely human reaction.

It may be objected that such a critique of the work ignores the whole aim of the book which is to give a purely psychological description. To go beyond that is to enter the realm of theology. But the very failure to deal adequately with the experiences under review shows the inevitable flaw in such a purely psychological approach to convension. It is a treatment of the subject which fails to take into account the most important factor, namely the work of God. Hence while it may describe—and this book does in many ways admirably describe—the emotional and psychological factors which enter into the experince, it fails to lift the subject to the only level where it can really be understood. The understanding of conversion in these pages rarely seems to get beyond the man and the changes in him. While those whose conversions are described are clearly shown to have become God-centered, the discussion of their experience remains very much man-centered.

HERBERT M. CARSON

Divinity Of Christ

Son and Saviour, a symposium (Chapman, 1960, 151 pp., 12s. 6d.), is reviewed by David F. Wright, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

The flyleaf describes these essays as “standing firm on up-to-date biblical criticism, yet written for the nonexpert reader, sound, critical and catholic in approach, stimulating in matter.” The layman will not often find himself out of his depth, though he may be puzzled by references to “the Pasch” and “the sapiential literature.” A critical approach generally reaches conservative conclusions, whether on the synoptists’ portrait of Jesus, or on the historicity of early Acts and of the Johannine Jesus, “those facts of Christ’s life which John chose to preserve” (p. 121).

The last essay is the best, containing clear expositions of “glory” and of the essential dependence of the mission of Jesus upon his nature. The Jewish background to the doctrinal content is affirmed, and the chapter is marred only by a strange and unexplained preference for the variant and much inferior reading of the singular in John 1:13, which refers the verse to Christ (similarly another contributor regards Acts 8:37 as authentic). The other essays may not reach the high standard of the last, but they provide a good introduction to Christology, almost completely free from “Catholic” bias (Protestant writers are regularly cited with approval), scholarly, and faithfully scriptural.

Perhaps the first essay is least satisfactory, where we read that “none of the types of (the Messiah) bore the dignity of God” in Jewish expectation (p. 13), an opinion open to question in the light of such references as Psalm 2; 7; 45; 6 and Isaiah 9:1–6, “none of which affirms the ‘divine nature’ and ‘divine attributes’ of the Messiah.” In the last passage we are told that “the phrase ‘Mighty God’ could only have been understood in the sense of ‘godly nobleman’ ” (p. 17). A few criticisms must not deter us from this fine example of modern French Roman Catholic biblical study.

D. F. WRIGHT

Bunyan’S Last Work

The Acceptable Sacrifice or The Excellency of a Broken Heart (obtainable from O. G. Pearce, The Retreat, Harpenden, Herts., England, 1959, 108 pp., 5s. 6d.), is reviewed by Joyce M. Wilkinson, Traveling Secretary of Inter-Varsity Fellowship and formerly Research Worker at Somerville College, Oxford.

This little-known work of Bunyan is an exposition of Psalm 51:17, and deals with the subject of repentance and grief for sin. With typical Puritan pastoral concern and thoroughness, Bunyan analyzes such questions as how one recognizes a broken heart and contrite spirit, why a profound conviction of sin is necessary, the salutary results of a broken heart, and how a Christian may keep his heart tender.

The book reflects Bunyan’s own experience described in Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, when he labored under an acute consciousness of sin for two years before being assured of his salvation. Eminently readable, it is written in the simple language of country people, as this extract may show: “Yet, further, God doth not only prefer such an one before heaven and earth, but He loveth, He desireth to have that man for an intimate, for a companion; He must dwell, He must cohabit with him that is of a broken heart.… Verily this consideration is enough to make the brokenhearted man creep into a mouse-hole.” Not only preachers and pastors but every Christian will be instructed by this reminder of the holiness of God; it is indeed a relevant and practical republication when one of the reasons for much of the current spiritual shallowness appears to be a failure to reckon with the seriousness of sin.

J. M. WILKINSON

Has Rome Changed?

We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition, by John Courtney Murray, (Sheed&Ward, 1960, 336 pp., $5), is reviewed by C. Gregg Singer, Professor of History, Catawba College.

Reviewing this book would be a much easier assignment if one were not convinced of the sincerity which lies behind the attempt, on the part of a prominent Catholic scholar, to bring about a modus vivendi between the Roman Catholic church in this country and American democracy. The author reduces the problem to its simplest terms and locates the whole issue in the American proposition which he finds in these truths concerning human equality which the Declaration of Independence declares as self-evident. In his foreword, Dr. Murray raises the fundamental question around which this collection of essays revolves. Declaring that it is impertinent to ask whether Catholicism is compatible with American democracy, he reverses the question and asks whether American democracy is compatible with Catholic theology. To this latter question he then gives an affirmative answer.

Finding the setting for the problems which he discusses in the pluralistic framework of American society, he proceeds to examine the nature and implications of this pluralism for the Roman Catholic church in this country. The frank admission that this pluralism, as it exists in America, is unique in the modern world and is quite different from that which prevails in Europe is, in the opinion of this reviewer, evidence of the sincerity of the author on the whole. He realizes that pluralism is the native condition of American society and that it did not come about as a result of the corruption or decay of a previously existing religious unity such as was the case in Europe. It is this essential difference between the pluralism of contemporary Europe, and that which has prevailed in this country from its beginnings, which provides the opportunity for an agreement between American democracy and the Roman church.

Dr. Murray then attempts to prove that there is no basic incompatibility between the two systems. He achieves this result by a process of reasoning which involves the argument that the basic proposition of the American consensus was quite different from that of the radicalism of the Jacobins of the French Revolution. That this is a valid assumption may well be doubted, and later on Dr. Murray himself proceeds to destroy it in his well-founded attack on the philosophy of John Locke whose system underlay the philosophy of both the American and French Revolutions. In attacking Locke, Murray destroys the very area of possible agreement which he defined in part one of his book.

When the reader arrives at part four, however, he soon learns that the common ground for both parties is actually to be found only in the Thomistic conception of the natural law philosophy. This reviewer agrees with his sharp criticisms of Locke, but he would point out that to destroy Locke is not to enshrine Thomas Aquinas, and that is exactly what Dr. Murray does. The compatibility between American democracy and Roman Catholicism is thus to be rooted and grounded in the Thomistic version of natural law.

Thus, this reviewer must conclude that, in spite of a sincere desire to find a possible modus vivendi, Dr. Murray has not actually made any significant change in the orientation of the Roman Catholic church toward the issues of American democracy. Even going one step further, he would add the fact that he is rather glad that the author failed. For it is apparent that if the Roman church were to accommodate itself in the manner set forth in part one, the Roman church would cease to be a church and become all too similar to liberal Protestantism which, in its desire to conform to the demands of the democratic philosophy, has sold its soul to the enemies of the Cross.

C. GREGG SINGER

Reference Bible

Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, New Testament (with Daniel, Psalms, and Proverbs) by Finis J. Dake (Zondervan, 1961, 488 pp., $7.95), is reviewed by R. Laird Harris, Professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary.

This book is an extensive cross-reference and chain-reference Bible with much encyclopedic and explanatory material and an extensive index included. The viewpoint is approximately that of the Scofield Bible. The method of listing “15 doctrines,” “19 reasons,” etc., will appeal to many, but seems somewhat elementary. A good book, but should be used with standard Bible dictionaries and works of reference.

R. LAIRD HARRIS

Baptists And Baptism

A Baptist Treasury, compiled and edited by Sydnor L. Stealey (Crowell, 1958, 323 pp., $3.95); A History of Baptists in America Prior to 1845, compiled by Jesse L. Boyd, (American Press, 1957, 205 pp., $3); and The Meaning of Baptism, by John Frederick Jansen (Westminster, 1958, 125 pp., $2.50), are reviewed by Harold Lindsell, Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Missions, Fuller Theological Seminary.

President Stealey of Southeastern Baptist Seminary has performed a service in bringing together this collection of Baptist writings under the title, A Baptist Treasury. The volume is in six sections with writings related to the subject of each section: Baptist Beginnings; Confessions, Cathechism, Church Covenants; Some Baptist Controversies; Distinctive Baptist Principles; Sermons and Addresses; and Hymns and Prayers. The expected problem of what to include and what to leave out was evidently perplexing. Yet the author’s choices show balance and perspective.

Baptists would do well to read this volume, for few have much sense of historical perspective and many entertain naive conceptions of their antecedents. Particularly illuminating are the documents which reveal the doctrinal differences of Baptists. The choice of Benjamin Mays’ (a Negro) address on race relations was a happy one, although his conclusions on the unity of the race and the oneness of believers without respect to race are old. It is unfortunate that there could not have been something extant which would suggest creative solutions to the problem, the principles of which are all too obvious.

Boyd’s compendium, A History of Baptists in America Prior to 1845, is exactly that. He compiled the material for background purposes in a college course. The material is fascinating but its use is limited because it is only a compilation. It lacks organization and integration, but this is to be expected in a work of such a nature. The bibliography is far from complete: Newman’s volume on Baptist history does not appear, although Vedder’s and Torbet’s do. There are pictures of many early Baptist leaders, and this is a valuable contribution.

The reviewer cannot imagine why the third volume, The Meaning of Baptism, was included in this triad. The latter volume has nothing to do with Baptists and should hardly be reviewed by one. It comprises 21 meditations on the sacrament of Baptism, and most of it relates to infant baptism at that. The author has a flair for creative writing, is himself widely read, and has drawn on interesting sources for illustrative material. Conservative, liberal, and neo-orthodox names abound. The hymns and poetry are generally in the orthodox tradition. Dr. Jansen says in his preface that he “does not attempt to argue for the validity of infant Baptism”; however, he violates this principle and practically gives away his case when he says, “We do not rest the case for infant Baptism on any number of proof texts; we rest it rather on the meaning of Baptism and on the reality of a people of God.” He finds “a trace of the baptismal formula” in the “story of Jesus and the children.” From this he argues that we ought not to forbid baptism to children. The logic is bad and the biblical evidences are nonexistent.

Each meditation is prefaced by a Scripture quotation. Too often they are not texts but pretexts. Allegorizing is too frequent. Perhaps the gravest weakness of the book is the author’s use of paradox. It takes strange forms. Baptism saves and does not save. It depends on which meditation you happen to read. “Baptism assures me that God has given me his name …” (p. 41). “There is one body.… And Baptism expresses our initiation into this one body …” (p. 122). He argues that one goes back to his baptism with spiritual value. “Jesus found himself going back to the place of his baptism.… To go back to the place of Baptism for renewal is to rediscover the steadying certainty that we love him.…” Unfortunately no infant can go back or remember!

Baptism is a sacrament and conveys grace. Convenantal theology is tied to infant Baptism. If one can accept these premises he will enjoy the volume. If he cannot, he is apt to find the book rough going. And a Baptist can hardly give it a fair review!

HAROLD LINDSELL

Rebirth Of A Nation

The Rebirth of the State of Israel, by Arthur W. Kac (Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1958, 387 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Eric Edwin Paulson, Minister, Lutheran Free Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

No contemporary event has been of greater significance to Bible believers than Israel’s re-establishment as a nation in 1948. Students of the prophetic Word have also been thrilled as they have witnessed Israel’s steady growth economically and culturally.

The question, “Is it of God or of men?”, which appears as a subtitle to Dr. Kac’s book, is answered in a manner that illumines the mind and stimulates the imagination of his readers. Writing in a clear and simple style, Dr. Kac who is currently President of the Hebrew Christian Alliance of America, reveals thorough insight into scriptural truth and a wide understanding of the problems that the new nation of Israel has faced. Quotations included from the writings of statesmen, scientists, and historians should also be of great value to preachers and lecturers on biblical themes. One marvels at how a medical man, who has specialized in radiology, has become so broadly acquainted not only with the problems of the State of Israel but of Jews scattered throughout the world. References and extended notes found at the close of each chapter suggest many other profitable lines of reading and inquiry to persons interested in special aspects of these varied and searching questions.

Although this is a scholarly book, it is written in a manner that will make it equally appealing to laymen and pastors. Students of prophecy, who have yearned for a fresh exposition of Scripture as this applies to present-day events, will find this volume most satisfying. It should also become required reading for all theological students.

ERIC EDWIN PAULSON

Bultmann Demythologized

The Scope of Demythologizing, Bultmann and His Critics, by John Macquarrie (Harper, 1960, 256 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by Robert Paul Roth, Professor of New Testament Theology, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary.

This book is a valiant attempt to defend the work of Rudolf Bultmann against critics on the right (Barth, Cullman, Thielicke, Malevez) who charge that demythologizing will reduce Christian faith to a philosophy of human existence, and against critics on the left (Buri, Jaspers) who feel that Bultmann has not gone far enough but has arbitrarily stopped short in retaining the kerygma as myth because of too narrow views on grace and revelation.

There is a limit to demythologization which the author, John Macquarrie of Glasgow University, assures has been recognized by Bultmann. An adequate theology would require both a minimum factuality of the events reported in the New Testament and the transcendent reality of God in Christ as the being encountered in the kerygma. But Buri’s understanding of the grace of existence fails adequately to describe the Christian experience of the unique grace in Christ, and Jasper’s conception of general revelation leaves no room for the special encounter in the Gospel.

In addition there is a valuable chapter on the analysis of language, especially the meaning of words like myth, symbol, analogy, and legend.

The importance of this book is pointed up by the comment of Paul Tillich: “When you come to Europe today … it is Rudolf Bultmann who is the center of discussion.” It would seem, however, that in his defense Macquarrie protests too much, so much as to have demythologized Bultmann.

ROBERT PAUL ROTH

Book Briefs

This … I Believe, by Ivor Powell (Zondervan, 1961, 222 pp., $2.50). A lucid and trustworthy review of essential Christian doctrine for the layman.

All the Kings and Queens of the Bible, by Herbert Lockyer (Zondervan, 1961, 253 pp., $3.95). A unique survey of Bible history as seen through the eyes of Bible kings and queens.

Let God In, by Lenn Lerner Latham (Prentice-Hall, 1961, 176 pp., $3.50). Guidelines for practical Christian living presented in popular vein.

King David, by Geoffrey de C. Parmiter (Thomas Nelson, 1961, 195 pp., $3.95). An English barrister’s discerning life story of Israel’s greatest king.

Bible Book of the Month for June 22, 1959, was Nehemiah. Much of what was said concerning title and date for that book is relevant for the Book of Ezra, for there is every evidence that the two formerly existed as one. Ordinarily, Masoretic notations occur at the end of a book in the Hebrew Bible as an indication of the book’s conclusion. This was a technique used for the preservation of textual purity. No such notation occurs at the close of our present Book of Ezra. However, we find notations at the conclusion of Nehemiah and these have reference to the material of both Ezra and Nehemiah, an indication that the two were considered together. Similar Masoretic notations were used to indicate the middle of a book, as in the case of Nehemiah 3:32. Here the remarks are further evidence of unity, for Nehemiah 3:32 is the middle of the Ezra-Nehemiah material. However, as early as around A.D. 400, both Latin and Greek Christians were treating Ezra and Nehemiah as separate books. One cannot be certain whether both parts are by one author or whether the Masoretes may have placed the two together because they dealt with similar settings and situations. A tracing of their exact relationship to each other is difficult due to (1) the various titles by which the books are called and (2) the internal textual variation. Sometimes the two are called I Esdras and at times, II Esdras. Generally, however, the title I Esdras is used to refer to a certain Greek rendering of Ezra which has as its introduction a duplication of the material from 2 Chronicles 35:1–36:21, and which internally has a different arrangement of the text. Our present Ezra 4:7–24 follows 1:3–11. In addition, there is other interpolated material which the usual biblical manuscripts exclude. Second Esdras ordinarily is a term used with reference to the material included as our canonical Ezra-Nehemiah.

No date is specified for either the books or their chief characters. The nearest thing to a specific date for Ezra is that he returned to Palestine in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, king of Persia (7:7), while Nehemiah returned in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 1:1 f.). The simple listing of the chronologies would place Nehemiah after Ezra, for certainly the twentieth year follows the seventh. The arrangement of the books in our canon, Ezra preceding Nehemiah, would suggest the same, and thus has much of tradition surmised. It is strange that there is no notation as to which Artaxerxes is intended, for there were three in proximity—Artaxerxes I (464–424 B.C.), Artaxerxes II (404–358 B.C.), and Artaxerxes III (358–338 B.C.). External conditions would place the return in the reign or reigns of Artaxerxes I or II. Since the time of Hoonacker (1890–1924), there has been much effort to champion Nehemiah’s precedence over Ezra. This would place Nehemiah in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I, 444 B.C., and Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes II, 397 B.C. This is not just a wild suggestion but one which is based primarily upon a study of the names of the high priests listed in Ezra-Nehemiah and upon finds from the island of Elephantine, located at the first cataract of the Nile River. However, as mentioned in the former article on Nehemiah, the data is at times conflicting, variously interpreted, and too complicated for discussion in the limited space available here. Fair and excellent summary treatment is to be found in H. H. Rowley’s “The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. A very readable and more recent attempt at reconstruction is to be found in John Bright’s A History of Israel (pp. 363–386). Suffice it to say that the uncertainty and confusion as to textual arrangement, perplexity in dating, questions of precedence, and nonidentity of authorship may account for the fact that there is no New Testament reference to Ezra-Nehemiah. In the wake of such a long history of questions, it is understandable that there has been tension between those who, like Torrey, consider Ezra as nothing more than fictional imagination and others who take it at face value as literal history. But since one cannot be sure that the writer was seeking to give a strictly chronological history, perhaps a more accurate appraisal would be the middle course of acceptance with a consideration as to textual and source errors and transmission confusion.

Regardless of the point of view with which one approaches the book, the writing itself furnishes invaluable insight into the conditions faced by those returning from exile. This is of more than historical value. Exilic release meant the possibility of covenant continuation with the inherent mission of sharing the covenant faith which the covenant implied. This New Exodus involved new opportunity, an opportunity which could be fulfilled only if Israel were characterized by pure faith, stable homes, and an uncompromised and non-syncretistic orthodoxy. Such was not the case, as the book relates. Therefore, Ezra had the tremendous task of issuing the call for separation. In so doing, he was at times cold, harsh, and uncompromising. Yet, faced not only with the covenant task but also a noncovenant-like people, he needed to be stern. As so often happens, Ezra, in trying to reach his goal, overemphasized and exaggerated one portion of it. Consequently, the purpose of separation—in order to be purified in preparation for the mission of sharing faith—was forgotten. Thus it was that in God’s providence, a challenge to a universal mission, as is found in books like Jonah and Ruth, was necessary. We see the entire panorama as a wholesome revelation of God’s plan and purpose for cultic and personal purity in order that the faith which the worship center and worship people represented might be shared with and witnessed to others. The Book of Ezra is quite important as a mirror in which to understand the larger world mission of the Church.

THE CLARION CALL

Certainly the ministry of Ezra is to be remembered for its clarion call back to the Word of God. Were Ezra’s ministry re-emphasized in modern terminology, it would be a call “back to the Bible.” Preservation of the law was not enough (7:6); Ezra’s concern was to transmit it, interpret it, and make it relevant for his people (7:10). It is not necessary to dwell at length on the identity of the law to which the people were called. The people readily accepted it as authoritative, and testimony was given that its basic contents were known to the prophets (9:10, 11). The period of the Exile had furnished time for reflection upon and the organization of written and oral traditions. This was a call to the formalized moral, ethical, and spiritual principles of the Pentateuch. The book makes it plain that the people themselves recognized the necessity of a continuation of Israel, and indeed the returning exiles considered themselves to be that Israel built around the revelation of God. Though his position has not gained much momentum, Kurt Gallings’ argument (“Gola-List According to Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXX, 1951) that an effort was made to continue something of the earlier amphictyonic organization seems logical. Such an emphasis upon early tribal structure would naturally carry with it the emphasis of early Mosaic law and atmosphere.

Let it be stressed that any consideration of Ezra’s pertinent value should not pass too quickly over the historical contribution of the book. The work of Albright and others (cf. W. F. Albright, The Biblical Period, p. 49) has established the historicity of the once questioned Edict of Cyrus (1:1 f.). There is no reason to question the Aramaic portions of the book. Those who hold them to be fabrications have no case; it was normal procedure for official correspondence, as the Aramaic in Ezra purports to be, to appear in the official language used by the Persian court (cf. The Interpreter’s Bible, III, p. 557).

CONTENT

Perhaps the Book of Ezra can best be comprehended through the dual division of (1) The Early Return from Babylon (chaps. 1–6) and (2) The Career and Reforms of Ezra (chaps. 7–10).

1. The Early Return from Babylon (chaps. 1–6). Jeremiah had spoken of a seventy year captivity (29:10). Seventy subtracted from 605 B.C. (the time of the first captivity) gives about 536/535 B.C. Thus one gathers that Cyrus’ edict, which allowed the return under Sheshbazzar (chaps. 1; 2), is testimony to God’s providence. The favorable use of Cyrus is further testimony that God can take even a man of this world, a pagan, and use him as his servant. Isaiah 45:1 presents a similar situation.

The identification of Sheshbazzar, who planned with Cyrus concerning the initial return, is difficult. Albright’s suggestion that the name linguistically is to be equated with Sin-ab-usur, the fourth son of Jehoiachin, is probably accurate (cf. Journal of Biblical Literature, XL, 1921, p. 108 f.). It is logical that he, as head of the remaining Davidic family, should have assumed a place of leadership in the preparations. He may have written the decree which Cyrus signed, thus authenticating the latter’s decision to “let God’s people go.” Regardless of how the decree came about, the writer of the book definitely felt that the Lord moved Cyrus (1:1). How much validity Cyrus saw in Israel’s witness to the exclusive claim of Yahweh, it is impossible to tell. Nor will one ever know how much of the expression contained in the decree was mere lip service, mere accommodation to gain the favor of subject peoples. Elsewhere (the Cyrus Cylinder) Cyrus represents himself as the servant of the god Marduk, so he was not adverse to accommodation when it aided his own schemes. It is interesting to note (see the catalogue of returning Israelites in chap. 2) that this decree covered the entire territory which Cyrus controlled. Thus, Jews returned in 536, not only from the Babylonian but also from the Assyrian captivity. Consequently, to speak of “ten lost tribes” is a mistake. Remnants of northern and southern peoples returned.

Life back in Palestine (chaps. 3–6) was not as promising as it might have been. A good beginning was made as the people started rebuilding the Temple on the very spot where it had stood before (3:8). Five excellent qualities among the people made for a propitious start. Various groups gave freely (2:68); they gave proportionately (2:69); there was unanimity among them (3:1); there was appreciation for the revealed tradition (3:2 b); and their activity was joyful (3:11). But contrary to the old adage, not all that begins well ends well. Almost as it is today, there was internal unrest and external intervention. Some were disappointed in the new opportunities and mourned for the “good old days” (3:12). As if this were not disconcerting enough, Samaritan adversaries desired to participate in the task (4:1, 2). They claimed to worship the same deity the Israelites did, but because they came from an Assyrian background it must have been a syncretistic allegiance at best (4:2). Not bigoted exclusiveness but an appreciation of the dangers of being unequally yoked together caused the Israelites to deny the Samaritan request. Involved here is the principle of letting God’s people do God’s work (4:3). We note a parallel effort to intervene in the work in the reference to the “people of the land” (4:4). Those mentioned in verses 1 following and 4 are probably of the same group, for after the fall of the Northern Kingdom (722/21 B.C.) immigrants from Assyria intermarried with Israelites who were not taken into captivity. This union gave birth to the people called Samaritans whom the Jews considered half-breeds, not only in race but in culture and religion. Until the exiles were permitted to return, the Samaritans had been allowed to govern all of this section of Palestine. Permission to take some of the territory and set up a self-governing province around Jerusalem certainly was not looked upon with favor; so it is doubtful that the Samaritan offer to help with the building task had any sincerity about it. In fact, the conspiracies reported in the succeeding passages prove that it was not. Opposition and discouragement from both internal and external sources were so momentous that the building task and the accompanying religious revival were discontinued. A time of general religious degeneration and deterioration set in and continued for a period of approximately sixteen years (4:24).

At this point, it should be mentioned that in chapters 4 and 5, there seems to be either chronological confusion or textual displacement, for chapter 4 makes reference to Ahasuerus (485–465 B.C.) and Artaxerxes (464–424 B.C.) while chapter 5 skips back to Darius who preceded these two, 522–485 B.C. There is justification here for the frequent suggestion that 5:1–6:18 formerly must have preceded 4:6–23. But at any rate the setting would indicate much frustration in the efforts to rehabilitate both civil and religious life. Fortunately Haggai and Zechariah, an older prophet and a younger prophet, were raised at the time to issue a prophetic challenge and recall to the task (5:1). After a lapse of so many years, there seemed to be hope again, but it was not easy. This was a time (c. 520 B.C.) of general unrest in the Persian Empire. Revolts were rampant in various sections of the Persian domain. Enemies of the Jews in Palestine immediately contacted Darius with the implication and inference that Jewish Temple rebuilding signified the seed of new revolt. However, a search of the official archives brought to light precedent and permission for the Jewish Temple, and official sanction was given to the project (chap. 6). Finally the Temple was finished in the sixth year of Darius, about 516 B.C. (6:15).

2. The Career and Reforms of Ezra (chaps. 7–10). It is not until chapter 7 that the reader is actually introduced to Ezra, the individual for whom the book was named. The return under Ezra (chaps. 7; 8) is prefaced by a remarkable statement of faith (8:22). Bold man that he was, he had expressed confidence in God’s blessing upon the pilgrimage. He proceeded “from faith to faith” as a man traveling under a commission, for he was certain that God had tapped his shoulder (7:6).

As spiritual leader of the returning band, Ezra must have returned homeward with a light step. Yet, upon his arrival, we note that he met with disappointment. The religious revival which formally broke out upon the completion of the Temple (6:16 f.) proved unfortunately to be as fleeting as the dew of the morning. Even the religious leaders were foremost in compromising with sin, the ugly sin of adultery and of idolatry. The spiritual mission was in reverse; the community had converted the church (9:1 f.)! Waiting and pleading as a true intercessor, Ezra’s burdened prayer was one of thanksgiving for past opportunity and petition for forgiveness and additional opportunity for revival. Ezra recognized the immediate need for a genuine revival which might revitalize the covenant community. Consequently, the remainder of the book is dedicated to the reforms of Ezra (chaps. 9; 10). Much of the problem consisted of mixed marriages. If Ezra’s reforms sound stern and overdrawn (and they were), remember his point of view that assimilation of the covenant people meant loss of covenant mission. Force cannot accomplish what is lacked in inward religious spontaneity. His legislation failed because the people soon returned to their compromised status. Nevertheless, the principle involved of the “purity of God’s people” remains a valid one. It was a reluctant acquiescence (10:12, 13). Ensuing history has indicated that the pattern was little bettered. The book ends in an atmosphere of suspension. There was yet needed someone to fulfill the covenant mission of voluntary and willing witness.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

In addition to the sources mentioned above, much value is to be gained from the use of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (International Critical Commentary), by Loring W. Batten. A somewhat more conservative treatment, though brief, is to be found in An Introduction to the Old Testament, by Edward J. Young. Other helpful materials are discussions in Israel After the Exile (The Clarendon Bible), by W. F. Lofthouse; Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (The Expositor’s Bible), by Walter F. Adeney; Understanding the Old Testament, by Bernhard W. Anderson; and A Light to the Nations, by Norman K. Gottwald.

RALPH H. ELLIOTT

Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew

Midwestern Baptist

Theological Seminary

Evangelical leaders speaking at the 19th annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals, held in Grand Rapids April 10–14, conveyed the feeling that the NAE has come of age and that the time is opportune for the organization to present a positive front on church and world issues, rather than to be known in the public mind as merely an anti-Liberal, anti-Catholic, and anti-Communist movement.

Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, struck the keynote when he said the evangelical movement “must face the theological, social, political, and economic trends before us, rather than seeming to be resigned forever merely to react to the world’s initiative” in these areas. And, speaking on “theological trends facing the evangelicals today,” he challenged the NAE to promote a “comprehensive evangelical exposition of three great concerns—the problem of religious authority, the mission of the Church, and the nature of the Church.”

The twentieth-century battle against the enemies of the Christian faith will either be won or lost at the level of the local churches, the convention was warned by Dr. Henry Bast of Western Theological Seminary.

“There must be a basic return to an emphasis of Christian fundamentals in the local churches,” Dr. Bast said. “This means the emphasis must be placed on Gospel preaching, the sincere proclamation of the Word of God.” He said that too many church leaders of the day are “running around with a great deal of concern about the church in general, overlooking the church in particular.”

Liberal leaders in the modern Protestant ecumenical movement have surrendered and sacrificed scholarship and objectivity in their effort to build one great world church, said Dr. George L. Ford, NAE executive director.

“It is going to be up to evangelical scholarship to return objectivity to the study of theological matters,” he said. “There is a demand from the grass roots for clearly stated, easily understood treatments of the matters of authority, the nature of the church, the place of the Word of God and the mission of the church in today’s world. There is a concern on the part of evangelical scholars for the communication of their beliefs and convictions. I am recommending to the Board of Administration of the NAE that we do something about this, beginning with the setting up of a study commission on theological trends.”

Actions Of The Convention

Delegates to the National Association of Evangelicals Convention adopted a resolution urging the organization to make a positive approach to the problem of Communism with a “dynamic presentation of the Gospel rather than engage in the investigation and exposure of individual Communists.” Support was given governmental investigatory functions as necessary for national security.

Other resolutions endorsed (1) tax exemption for church and institutional activities provided such were not of a secular enterprise nature, (2) an appeal to the National Association of Broadcasters to clean up TV films, and (3) church efforts to accelerate educational information on the evils of liquor traffic.

The convention created a new NAE organization post, that of director of information. W. Stanley Mooneyham was appointed to the post. Mooneyham is editor of United Evangelical Action, the NAE magazine, and will henceforth serve in a dual capacity.

Building of a new headquarters building in Wheaton, Illinois, at a cost of $100,000 was approved. It is to be ready for use early in 1962.

The United States and the West cannot snatch the initiative from Communists surging through a large part of the world without developing a positive, aggressive diplomacy, with firmness backed up by military strength and force, Dr. Harold John Ockenga of Boston told a public rally at the convention.

Dr. Ockenga, pastor of Park Street (Congregational) Church in Boston, said that much of the Communist gains must be attributed to the vacillation and weakness of the free world.

The modern crisis demands a return to the Word of God, said the Rev. Thomas F. Zimmerman of Springfield, Missouri, NAE president. “It is not surprising that out of the deep pall of skepticism hanging over the heads of all who do not possess the authority of divine revelation has come a willingness to listen for answers which make sense in a scientific age, in a time of indecision, and an era of cold war,” he said.

“The times in which we live do demand a return to the Word of God,” he said. “Faith has been undermined because the authority of the Word of God has been questioned. What has been a growing concern with the leadership of the NAE has now become a gripping conviction—there must be a special emphasis on the study of the Word of God in the churches of America. The Bible must be returned to the heart of our churches and the nation.”

Among the statements made by the convention was a declaration including the following affirmations of delegates:

“We deplore the present national apathy in spiritual life, confusion in theology, rampant materialism in society, and laxity in morals. Recognizing the only remedy to be a spiritual awakening, we urge the spread of the Gospel with renewed effort and intensified vigor in accordance with our Lord’s command.

“We adhere to the historic American principle of separation of church and state, thereby to preserve liberty and freedom. We are unalterably opposed to a totalitarian state whether materialistic or religious in its tyranny.”

The address by Henry chided the NAE for failing to concern itself sufficiently with contemporary theological issues and for forfeiting the initiative in Christian social ethics. Excerpts:

“The National Association of Evangelicals has labored through many years with many fine practical achievements to its credit. But it seems to me to have fallen short especially in the intellectual arena whose neglect not only leaves any agency powerless against its competitors but breeds internal inconsistency and inconstancy which invite deterioration of any principled fellowship. That is why theological revival sooner or later must enliven NAE or theological decline will stifle it.

“Let me speak now of three important trends in theology. Each is a contemporary issue which stared NAE in the face already at the time of its founding many years ago, and which even provoked its organization in a measure, and yet the movement as such has not yet elaborated a comprehensive evangelical exposition and interpretation of these great concerns. They are: the problem of religious authority; the mission of the Church; and the nature of the Church. There is little point in comforting ourselves here that the inclusive ecumenical movements gather all divergent viewpoints, wheat and chaff alike, into one theological granary, welcoming each as a “witness” to the truth (irrespective of conflicts and contradictions), and then settling for an existential togetherness as the enduring common core of Christian faith. A movement may deplore the skeptical handling of truth, and even the deceitful manipulation of doctrine, as long as it has life and breath, but until it spells out an answer in terms of theological structure—and not simply in terms of evangelistic energy and ecclesiastical goodwill—the issues are not really faced in depth.

“Has there come out of the theological reservoirs of NAE as a movement any authoritative exposition of the form and content of divine revelation? Of the task of the Church? Of the mission of the Church? If these are the central concerns, have the movement’s ministers (not simply the theologians) been caught up by these issues, or have they been left to the theologians, and at that to theologians who are not really at this stage ‘NAE theologians’ after all? Is theology something that belongs off center, and only on the periphery of a movement like this, even if kept within shouting distance so that now and then it can be summoned to help plaster some sagging nontheological foundations?

“Why is it that, although more than half the foreign missions task force stands consciously outside the ecumencial movement, and although the integration of IMC and WCC is scheduled in New Delhi in November, the production of a comprehensive symposium on the theology of the Christian mission has been left to inclusive theological agencies, which will force even your missionary training centers to rely on their textbooks as the price of this neglect? Why is it, with the United States undergoing a social revolution involving greater reliance on centralized government and narrowing opportunities for voluntarism, NAE has been content mainly to condemn the quasi-socialist philosophy often expressed in Federal and National Council actions, but has bequeathed to ecumenical forces the opportunity of elaborating Christian social ethics from an objectionable point of view?” p. de v.

Protestant Panorama

• A plane crash claimed the lives of three clergymen of the Church of God last month. Found dead in the wreckage of their single-engine private plane near Woodland, Mississippi, were the Rev. Robert Mapes of Fort Wayne, Indiana, the Rev. Charles C. Kirby, of Troy, Michigan, and the Rev. M. B. Ellis of Detroit. They reportedly had been flying through a thunderstorm to Paragould, Arkansas, after a conference at Ellinsville, Mississippi.

• A Presbyterian minister, his wife, and their two children were killed this month when their single-engine plane crashed near Summersville, West Virginia. Killed were the Rev. Francis Barr Allan, 33, minister of the State Street Presbyterian Church in Schenectady, New York; his 30-year-old wife, Laurice; a 13-year-old daughter, and a 10-year-old son. The family was returning home following a visit to the minister’s mother in Kentucky.

• Merger proponents claimed an interim victory this month in litigation involving the Congregational Christian General Council and the Evangelical and Reformed Church. Federal Judge Edward J. Dimock refused a request by merger opponents to dismiss a “trial within a trial” being held to determine whether issues raised in a suit filed by the plaintiffs in 1957 have been already decided by a 1953 New York State Court of Appeals decision.

• A new seminary, to be known as the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, will be formed through consolidation of four schools which represent four merging church bodies. Exact location is not yet determined, but classes may begin by January, 1963, according to spokesmen.

• The Lake Drive Baptist Church of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, will soon begin construction of a new $125,000 edifice following a five-year legal battle over zoning restrictions. The state supreme court last month reversed a ruling of a Milwaukee circuit court which upheld a zoning ordinance prohibiting construction of the church.

• China Bulletin, a National Council of Churches publication devoted to religious news from behind the Bamboo Curtain, will henceforth appear less frequently because of a lack of information. The March 27 issue announced, “Due to the smaller amount of concrete news about the churches of China which is now reaching us, it has been decided to make the China Bulletin a monthly instead of a bi-weekly publication, beginning with April.” Edited by Francis P. Jones, the publication is issued by the Far Eastern Office of the NCC’s Division of Foreign Missions.

• Presbyterian missionaries were re-occupying certain stations in the Congo last month. Work was continuing in safety in Kasai Province and in the cities of Leopoldville and Elizabethville, according to reports received by the Board of World Missions of the Presbyterian Church, U. S.

• Lilly Endowment, Inc., is advancing $30,000 to Princeton Theological Seminary for preparation of a new bibliography of New Testament studies. Seminary President James I. McCord said the grant will make possible the early publication of the first such study in a century. Director of the project will be Dr. Otto A. Piper, professor of New Testament literature and exegesis.

• World Vision President Bob Pierce was a surprise guest on Ralph Edwards’ “This Is Your Life” television program this month. The well-known missionary evangelist is making final preparations for his Tokyo crusade, which begins May 6.

• Eleven of the 14 Lutheran bodies in Japan will merge at a constituting convention scheduled for October 31, 1962. Fixing of the date climaxes nine years of merger discussions.

• George Fox College, Quaker liberal arts institution in Newberg, Oregon, plans a major development program aimed at accommodating at least twice as many students. First of the new facilities will be a women’s dormitory and 12 apartments for married students.

Impact of Revival

A religious revival that would demonstrate its impact on society by curbing social evils was urged by the manager of the National Holiness Association’s 93rd annual convention in Chicago this month.

Despite steady increases in church membership rolls, Dr. Paul L. Kindschi asserted: “I don’t feel that a real, deep revival has hit American society.”

“If a religious revival really were upon us,” he said, “it would show up statistically in such places as FBI reports on crime. But crime keeps increasing. This is a disturbing thing.”

The NHA is a coordinating agency for 16 religious bodies aimed at promoting the Wesleyan evangelical tradition “on the infilling of the Holy Spirit as a work of grace experienced subsequent to conversion.” Some 1,500,000 church members are represented in its constituent bodies, which include the Wesleyan Methodist, Free Methodist, Church of the Nazarene, Pilgrim Holiness, United Missionary and Brethren in Christ denominations, as well as the Salvation Army and several Quarker conferences.

Welcome Home

A “welcome home” testimonial dinner for Ezra Taft Benson highlighted the 131st annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) in Salt Lake City this month.

Benson, a member of the Church’s Council of 12 Apostles, had been in Washington for the last eight years serving as Secretary of Agriculture in the cabinet of former President Eisenhower.

Increased youth participation was hailed as “the most encouraging progress” of the church during the last year in a message by Dr. David O. McKay, president. McKay addressed a capacity audience of 6,000 at Mormon Tabernacle. The message was relayed via loudspeaker to thousands of others standing outside in Temple Square and was carried over television and radio.

Leaving the WCC

The Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church of the Transvaal—biggest of the Dutch Reformed bodies in South Africa—voted in Pretoria this month to resign from the World Council of Churches.

The decision came within three weeks of similar action by the small Dutch Reformed Church of Africa. Both churches were represented at a meeting of churchmen held at Johannesburg last December under the World Council of Churches’ auspices to discuss the South African government’s apartheid policies.

The synod’s decision left only the Dutch Reformed Church of the Cape Province representing the World Council in South Africa, and there was strong feeling it also would leave the council.

The Kennedy Advantage

“It would appear that the so-called religious issue was an advantage to President Kennedy” in the 1960 election, Republican National Committee researchers concluded this month.

Among identifiable groups, a GOP report said, “the most obvious and dramatic switch found, when the returns of 1960 are compared with those of 1952 or 1956, is the switch among Catholic voters.”

From Loans to Grants

The Roman Catholic hierarchy apparently will press for direct federal grants for its schools, according to remarks made by Msgr. Frederick G. Hochwalt at the annual convention of the National Catholic Educational Association in Atlantic City this month. Hochwalt, director of the department of education of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, limited his initial testimony to an appeal for low-cost, long-term loans. Since then, an administrative legal brief has been made public which holds such loans unconstitutional in the same way as are direct grants.

Sequel on the Sand

A dramatic sequel to Billy Graham’s Florida evangelistic crusade saw some 10,000 college students crowd a Fort Lauderdale beach this month to hear him preach the Gospel.

A virtual afterthought, the rally was hastily arranged after an urgent plea reached Graham from the mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Edward Johns. It was the only meeting of the entire three-month campaign to be held directly on an ocean beach.

The audience was made up of many of the same students who had to be held at bay for days by local police. Hundreds were arrested for disturbances ranging from drunkenness to inciting to riot. They were part of a large number of college students spending their spring vacations at Florida beaches, a practice which is growing each year and which seems to be developing into a notorious American institution.

The students maintained quiet and order throughout Graham’s 40-minute sermon.

“Give yourselves to Christ,” Graham pleaded, “and it will have been worth coming to Fort Lauderdale to meet him.”

The customary invitation for decisions was not given because of the lack of counselling facilities.

Graham is seeking a few weeks’ rest before undertaking his gigantic North of England Crusade in Manchester late in May.

How Much Do Ministers Read?

Nearly 50 per cent of clergymen responding to a CHRISTIANITY TODAY sample survey indicate they are unable to read more than 10 books a year.

A random sampling of 100 Protestant ministers in large as well as small denominations were asked:

“How many books have you read thoroughly, cover to cover, within the past year?”

Out of the first 43 who responded, 23 said “more than 10” and 20 said “less than 10,” including 2 who declared that they had not read any books during the past 12 months.

In reply to a question as to how often they used their local public library, 16 said “rarely if ever” and 21 said “occasionally.” Only six claimed to use their local libraries regularly.

The ministers were also asked to make suggestions about public libraries. A number urged the addition of more books on religious topics.

“Does your local public library stock the right kind of books for you as a minister?”

Twenty of the responders (nearly 50 per cent), said no. Only 10 said yes, while another 13 were uncertain.

Several of the ministers polled wrote in suggestions to the effect that librarians ought to keep closer liaison with ministers as a means of learning which books to order.

Several others urged public libraries to promote their services to a larger degree and to undertake more effective education to get people to read.

All but two of the responding ministers declared that they thought CHRISTIANITY TODAY belonged in their public libraries.

The poll was taken in observance of National Library Week, April 16–22.

20 Years of USO

Two questions work on the minds of servicemen, according to Selective Service Director Lewis B. Hershey:

“Does anybody know I’m here? Does anybody give a damn?”

“The USO,” says Hershey, “is proof to them that somebody back home does give a damn.”

United Service Organizations, Inc., a federation of six volunteer agencies, claims to aim at meeting “the spiritual, religious, social, recreational, welfare and educational needs of those in the armed forces.” At times the achievements are, like the aforementioned description, crude.

Now embarking on its third decade, having been conceived early in 1941 with the great buildup of U. S. military forces, the USO displayed impressive statistical wares last month at an annual meeting of its 600-member National Council advisory board of prominent citizens in Washington’s Mayflower Hotel.

Played down was the basic religious character of the USO evident from the fact that:

—Five of the six agencies which go to make it up are religious groups, Young Men’s Christian Associations, National Catholic Community Service, National Jewish Welfare Board, Young Women’s Christian Association, and the Salvation Army (the other agency is National Travelers Aid Association);

—By definition it proposes to serve “spiritual and religious” needs;

—It looks to churches for financial help.

Core of USO activity lies with (1) some 200 “clubs” in the United States and abroad—centers where servicemen can eat, dance, read, write, sleep, play, and obtain counsel—and (2) with touring shows featuring singers, dancers, comedians, and athletes.

The club program has wide endorsement except for a few cases where Salvation Army officers have objected to sponsorship of dances. The big discontent with USO activity has always focused upon the touring shows’ persistence in smutty performances. In recent years public indifference has allowed off-color shows to continue.

Most chaplains now seem unconcerned, perhaps on grounds that servicemen’s morals are by and large even lower than the show standards. A few chaplains, however, still speak angrily of some USO entertainment, and charge that it works at cross-purposes with what chaplains are trying to do. They sense that the entertainers consider risque elements necessary to their routine.

Says one Army chaplain:

“The people responsible for producing and programming these shows remind me of my kid-brother who always knew how much deviltry he could raise around the house without getting his knuckles cracked. These people are masterminds at the brinkmanship of drawing that fine line between what will be overlooked and winked at and what will provoke an adverse reaction.”

The “brinkmanship” represents a changed approach in comparison with USO shows of earlier years.

A Navy chaplain recalls that during World War II the actors “were not good, not even ‘has-beens,’ but ‘never-would-be’s’ who were dodging the draft and getting paid to practice on a practically captive audience.… Our commanding officer finally got to the place where he would not book shows, saying that morally they were not worth the time and effort involved.

“Korea was a little different. Talent had profited by the practice of former years. Men would sit and drool at feminine pulchritude, and then stare with envy as some ‘high brass’ escorted the ladies off to officers’ country while they returned to chilly corners of their tents to change into dry clothing.”

The show troupes are known to be more prone to smut when they play in remote areas (an Army chaplain in the Arctic recently complained against the use of profanity, suggestive and provocative music and lyrics, and abbreviated costuming by female entertainers). But some troupes apparently have few qualms about use of ribald lines anywhere, even before servicemen’s wives and children.

Notwithstanding, the level of entertainment is probably no worse morally than that often found on Broadway. What irks concerned religious leaders is that church money is being solicited to pay for such irreligious activity. Last summer Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish experts on military chaplaincy services joined in voicing an appeal for religious groups to increase their support of USO. The appeal, geared to coincide with a USO program to raise an $11,000,000-a-year budget, came from Dr. Marion J. Creeger, executive secretary of the General Commission on Chaplains and Armed Forces Personnel, Msgr. Joseph F. Marbach, chancellor of the Roman Catholic Military Ordinariate, and Rabbi David M. Eichorn, director of field operations for the National Jewish Welfare Board’s Commission on Jewish Chaplaincy.

There has recently been an encouraging trend in the USO show program toward more cultural entertainment. A number of college choral and orchestral groups now make annual overseas jaunts under USO sponsorship. There is every reason to believe that these are as much appreciated, and certainly far more wholesome, than the entertainers who stoop to smut.

So much is commendable in the overall USO effort that evangelicals profoundly lament the black eye of the touring troupes. It is probably for this reason as much as any that evangelicals have had a minimum of interest in USO activities. There is virtually no evangelical influence discernible in the USO planning and programming, despite the great opportunities that exist for extending genuine Christian service to members of the armed forces through this medium.

Moral Re-Armament’s Bid

The Moral Re-Armament movement is making its most sustained bid for support in Britain, according to a comprehensive report of the group’s activities and philosophies by Ivan Yates of The London Observer.

Timing of the bid, made primarily through dozens of full-page newspaper advertisements, coincided with the appearance on the British scene of the latest MRA feature film, “The Crowning Experience.”

Yates’ report, which appeared in The Washington Post and Times Herald this month, said the film enterprise “displays many of the qualities that distinguished MRA: deep devotion ably exploited, a tendency to oversimplify and at the same time to exaggerate, a fondness for well-known names, a conspicious lavishness unusual in either religious or political life—all harnessed to high-pressure publicity.”

“No such publicity attended the birth of MRA, or the Oxford Group, as it is still legally known in Britain. Indeed, it is difficult to say just when or where it was born, partly because its founder, Dr. Frank Buchman, has himself given currency to different versions at different times, partly because the movement began as a body of men doing similar work in different places without an organization to bind them together.

“Even today, though its world-wide activities are organized with remarkable precision, it prefers to be known as an organism, not as an organization. It prides itself on having no paid staff, no hierarchy, no membership, no subscription, no badges. You cannot join or resign; you belong.”

Yates says MRA has “never burdened itself with doctrine and liturgy. It makes do with the four absolutes: absolute honesty, purity, unselfishness and love. The barrier to these is sin. Sin is washed away by ‘sharing,’ by confession followed by restitution. The barrier removed, the person is ‘changed.’ Thereafter he has one devotional practice and one duty. He must get ‘guidance’ in a ‘quiet time’ listening to God with pencil and paper—and he must seek to ‘change’ others.”

In recent weeks, 72 full-page MRA advertisements have appeared in British newspapers. Similar advertisements have appeared in the past in the United States. “This costly campaign represents MRA’s most sustained bid yet for support in Britain,” says Yates. “Yet, in spite of its extensive publicity, in spite of the large claims to influence and power made on its behalf, little is generally known of the real nature of MRA, its origins and development, its aims and achievements. Little has been revealed of the people who work for it and the source of their financial support.”

Yates asserts that anti-communism is today “the most strident feature, the staple,” of MRA propaganda.

Oxford Churchgoers

A survey conducted by the Oxford University undergraduate paper Isis concludes that the more highly educated a man is, the more likely it is that he will be a regular churchgoer.

Twenty-eight per cent of the students covered in the survey said they went to church at least once a week.

The figures indicate, therefore, that church attendance among Oxford students is much better than it is among the people of Britain as a whole.

Several recent surveys show that only about 16 per cent of the British population attends church regularly.

A Pastor’s Rights

A Methodist pastor in Maine found himself at odds with his district superintendent over right-to-work legislation this month.

The dispute occasioned the withdrawal from active support of right-to-work legislation of Philip Alward, local preacher at Belfast Methodist Church.

Alward had testified before a state legislative committee in Augusta in support of a right-to-work bill. His withdrawal came after a conference with the district superintendent, the Rev. Edward F. Allen of Augusta, a leading opponent of the right-to-work bill.

Allen said the bill is not in line with the Social Action Creed of the Methodist Discipline of 1960 which reads, “We stand for the right to organize for collective bargaining. We stand for the right of employees and employers alike to organize for collective bargaining; protection of both in the exercise of their right; the responsibility of both to bargain in good faith; the obligation of both to work for the public good.”

Alward apparently did not agree that the creed is to be interpreted as ruling out right-to-work legislation.

Ministerial Refund

The Rev. Ira Gallaway, pastor of the Kirkwood Methodist Church in Irving, Texas, returned money to the federal government last month in protest of what he calls “a dangerous trend toward the welfare state.”

Gallaway returned four Veterans Administration checks, endorsed to the U. S. Treasury, via Democratic Representative Olin E. Teague of Texas, chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, asking that all further VA disability payments and VA life insurance dividends be stopped. One check was a $39 life insurance dividend, the others, each for $14.85, disability compensation. He received a wrist injury in World War II.

A congressional secretary, county judge, and oil company tax expert before entering the ministry, Gallaway told newsmen that “I’ve been taking those checks for years, but I became convinced that I don’t deserve anything from the government.”

He said he believed that if the government did not assume so many welfare functions more people would assume those responsibilities themselves.

“The government is making the shirking of responsibility easy. And the churches are partly the cause of this by not themselves taking seriously the call to practice charity and to show love toward all people.”

Flogging Probe

A Lutheran minister student says he was flogged by segregationists last month after he had moderated a human relations seminar in a church in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

James David Fackler, a student at Concordia Seminary of St. Louis, was serving his vicarage (internship) in Tuscaloosa. He said he was seized one night outside the University Lutheran Church, blindfolded, and taken to a secluded swamp section where the abductors beat him severely.

They accused him of “bringing niggers into town and into the church,” Fackler reported. Three Negroes had attended the seminar.

Church officials transferred Fackler and his wife to New Orleans. The FBI, meanwhile, launched an investigation.

People: Words And Events

Deaths:Dr. James H. Franklin, 89, former president of Crozer Theological Seminary; in Richmond, Virginia … Dr. W. Aiken Smart, 77, noted Methodist theologian; in Atlanta … Dr. Francis deWitt Batty, 82, retired Anglican Bishop of Newcastle, Australia; in Sydney … Dr. Nicholas Louvaris, 74, professor of theology at the University of Athens and former minister of education and cults; in Athens.

Election: As president of the Council of Bishops of The Methodist Church, Bishop Paul E. Martin.

Appointment: As professor of Assyriology at the University of London, Dr. Donald J. Wiseman.

Quotes: “Christ sent us into a service of witnessing. The United Nations is as fine a forum as can be found for witnessing because all nations of the earth are represented there.”—Brooks Hays, in an interview in which he said he considered Southern Baptist Convention approval of his proposal to have an unofficial observer at the United Nations the most significant achievement of his administration as SBC president.

Jesus’ words about the keys of the Kingdom have had an enormous influence upon the entire history of the Christian Church. In a real sense Christendom today is divided into two major branches—Romanism and Protestantism—by divergent interpretations of Matthew 16:18, 19: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.… And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Views of this Passage

The extravagant claims of the Roman Catholic church are based ultimately upon these two verses, and without them the whole dubious structure of Rome crumbles to dust. According to that view, Peter is said to be the personal possessor of the keys whereby men gain or are refused access to heaven. This has been taught so assiduously and for so long that even we ourselves sometimes refer to heaven as a place guarded by pearly gates, with Peter as the gatekeeper carrying the keys in his hands. This is a distinctly Roman Catholic picture. Moreover, the Roman church insists that this divine prerogative of Heavenly Gatekeeper has been transmitted to all those whom they call the “successors of Peter”—the bishops of Rome, the popes.

All of this we roundly reject, “for there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). However much our Lord may have loved and honored the big fisherman, Simon Peter, Jesus certainly did not abdicate his own prerogatives as only mediator and assign them to another.

What then may a conscientious Protestant make of these verses which have been so troublesome within the family of Christians? For one thing, Protestants are in general agreement that these words were not intended for Peter alone. Rather, Peter was the spokesman for the whole group of disciples, and Jesus answered the whole group through him. When Jesus asked the disciples, “Whom say ye that I am?” (Matt. 16:15), it was Peter who spoke in answer, but he spoke for the whole group: “We believe you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus’ response to this, though addressed to Peter, was directed to the whole company who believed as Peter did. The keys of the Kingdom were delivered into the hands of the whole band of disciples. Whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven.

Not only so, but what Jesus said to Peter and the other disciples, he also says to you and to me: “Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

What did Jesus mean when he committed to you and to me the keys of the Kingdom? There is some difference of opinion among Protestants. One popular and rather modern interpretation makes much of the fact that certain rabbis in Jesus’ day sometimes used the words “binding” and ‘loosing” in the sense of “forbidding” and “permitting.” Thus, it is assumed, what Jesus was saying to his disciples in essence was this: “I now bestow upon you the authority of officially forbidding or permitting what men shall believe and practice in the church.” These interpreters tell us that Jesus is talking here about the ecclesiastical prerogatives of church leaders in deciding matters of faith and life (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 7, loc. cit.; The Abingdon Bible Commentary, loc. cit.; The Moffatt New Testament Commentary; and others).

This popular and recent interpretation, however, seems strangely blind to the fact that what Jesus really said was, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Surely God in his heaven is not bound by the decisions of church courts, or of ministers, or of church leaders.

Far sounder is the classical Reformed view, enunciated four centuries ago by John Calvin, and expressed more recently and in popular form by Elton Trueblood in The Yoke of Christ (Harper, 1958). According to Calvin and the bulk of the Reformed tradition, the “keys of the kingdom” do not refer to special prerogatives at all. They refer instead to special responsibility. Our Lord has not abandoned his own prerogatives and given them over to Peter, or to you and me, or to the highest courts of the church. Jesus is not speaking here of ministerial prerogative, but of Christian responsibility.

The awesome responsibility of loosing the chains that bind all mankind has been committed into our hands—your hands and mine. Whatever, by God’s grace, we are enabled to loose on this earth, will be set free forevermore. And whatever, by our own indolence and selfishness and coldness of heart, we never get around to unloosing, shall never be loosed—either in this life or the next, either in time or eternity.

Classical Reformed View

What is this key, committed into our hands, that unlocks the chains which bind men? It is none other than the Good News about Jesus. In all the history of man, no other key has ever been able to unshackle the chains that bind men in their ignorance, sin, and despair.

Let the Bible speak for itself. In the passage before us, Jesus turned to the disciples and said, “Whom do you say that I am?” They answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Note well that answer, for it is the turning point of the whole passage. Everything else that Jesus says here is based upon it.

In reply to that Great Confession—“thou art the Christ the Son of the living God”—Jesus said three things. First, he said, “On the rock of this kind of a profession I am going to build my church. Not on the rock of any man or organization or material power … but on the rock of the profession ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God’ I will build my Church. And nothing in all creation, not even the defenses of hell itself, will be able to stand up against it.”

The second thing that Jesus said, in response to the disciples’ Great Confession, was this: “Into your hands who make such a profession, I commit the testimony to what you have affirmed—the testimony which has power to bind and to loose, both here and hereafter, both now and forevermore. The keys of the kingdom I place in your hands.”

The third thing that Jesus said in response to their Great Confession was, “Now I can begin to show you that the Son of Man must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” He began to explain to them what it would cost him to provide this deliverance.

The key, then, which opens the Kingdom to men, and which has been placed in our hands, is composed of two parts: a testimony of who Jesus is—“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”—and a telling of what he has done for us in his suffering, death, and resurrection. This is the key placed in our hands, the key which unlocks the chains that bind.

The King has come! He has done battle with the enemy, and has won! The New Age has begun. Jesus now reigns, whether men acknowledge that reign or not. This is the testimony that liberates men from the chains that bind. This is the testimony that reconciles man to God, and man with man. This is the testimony that saves. All over the world today, blighted hearts and darkened minds are being lighted with faith and hope and truth through this simple testimony of who Jesus is and what God has done in him. This is the Good News! It is the key to the kingdom of Heaven.

Moreover, this key is the only key. There is no way of salvation other than telling and hearing what God has done for us in Jesus. There is no other way, no other key.

A heathen’s sincerity in the practice of his pagan religion is no alternative justification before God. A pagan’s faithful performance of the best that he knows is no substitute key to the Kingdom. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6). As the Apostle Peter put it, “Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

The Gospel of what God has done in Jesus is the only key into the kingdom of God’s love and peace and presence. This key has been delivered into your hands and mine. Whatever we leave bound on this earth by not applying this key, will remain bound in heaven. Whatever is loosed by this key that is in our hand, will be loosed both by time and for eternity.

The Missionary Imperative

The application should be plain. You and I are under a missionary imperative, every one of us, to go into all the world and make known the Good News to every creature. This ought to be plain enough from the Great Commission.

Somehow there has grown up a way of thinking among us that cuts the nerve of the missionary imperative. Somehow men do not seem as sure as once they were that the eternal destiny of countless souls rests squarely upon you and me, in our faithful telling of what God has done for us in Jesus. Somehow we do not seem to be shaken any more by the awesome imperative that whatsoever we bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatsoever we loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Somehow we seem no longer moved by familiar lines that we often sing:

Behold how many thousands still are lying

Bound in the darksome prison house of sin,

With none to tell them of the Saviour’s dying,

Or of the life he died for them to win.

Perhaps we have heard so often of the love of God—the great and gracious love of God—that we find it strangely difficult to think of thousands of men and women perishing because someone has never told them what God has done for them in Jesus. But they are perishing! Look about the world and see. The marks of their perishing are plain for all to see—they are written on the front pages of our newspapers. Moreover, they will continue to perish until you and I, and the whole Christian Church rise up and tell in every place what great things God has done for them.

Where did the notion come from that there is some kind of “second chance”? Where did we find the idea that the pagan is judged differently than we, on the basis of his pagan sincerity? Certainly we did not find this in the Bible. On the contrary, it is a product of freelance sentimental thinking, dreamed up, it may well be, in order to salve our restless consciences in the face of our unwillingness to yield to the imperative of the Great Commission which lies upon every one of us.

Yet, what about the love of God? Can God really love these who have never heard, if he allows them to perish in their ignorance? Yes God loves them! He loves them enough to send his only begotten Son into the world to die for them. Indeed, our Lord has called you and me to be Christians, not because he loves us more than he loves them. He has called you and me precisely because he loves them, in order that we might carry to them the Good News of what God has done for them. He has not called us as his pets to special privilege. He has called us to special service, as his messengers.

The missionary imperative is not a select and highly specialized calling that rests only on a few. The missionary imperative rests equally upon every man, woman, and young person whom Christ has redeemed. Robert E. Speer, the great missionary statesman, has written a remarkable pamphlet titled, “What Constitutes a Missionary Call?” While the pamphlet runs to some thirty pages, this is the substance of it: We all stand under the missionary imperative—the Great Commission. “Go ye,” Jesus said. “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). This was spoken to the entire band of disciples, both then and now. We are all called, every Christian among us. We need no strange and special revelation in order to fall under this general Christian responsibility. On the contrary, we need a special revelation to show that we are exempt from the claims of the Great Commission. It is not a special justification to go that we need—we have our Commission. We need a special justification if we do not go—one which we can present to the Saviour when we meet him face to face.

Every one among us is called to missions—specifically and personally. The call of God is upon us! Who will obey? The trumpet call of the Kingdom has sounded! Who will rally to the King’s service?

He comes again: O Zion, ere thou meet him,

Make known to every heart his saving grace;

Let none whom he hath ransomed fail to greet him,

Through thy neglect, unfit to see his face.

Publish glad tidings, tidings of peace,

Tidings of Jesus, redemption and release.

Central Presbyterian Church

Bristol, Virginia

For Christian faith, predestination is a vision of the King in the glory of his grace, and a warning against transposing the revelation of the majesty of his mercy into any concatenated scheme of human logic. It proclaims the freeness of God’s saving grace in Christ, without making of his will an arbitrary fatalism. The ways of him who predestines are past our tracing out, and the mystery thereof bids us worship where we cannot fathom.

Historically, Augustine of Hippo formulated triple predestination, that is: general predestination or providence which magnifies God’s wisdom in governing all things, special predestination or election in which his free grace is seen in the choice of his people, and preterition or reprobation by which he passes by and leaves other sinners to the due desert of their guilt for the manifestation of his power and justice.

In the English Bible, the verb predestinate occurs in the eighth of Romans and in the first chapter of Ephesians. The Apostle introduces us to this high theme from the viewpoint of a pastor and in the context of a congregation, rather than as a logician of a philosophical school. In this setting we confront not abstract decrees set and established in the distant past, but the living God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ predestining and gathering to himself his family, adopting them in the Son of his love, and leading them to the praise of the glory of his unspeakable grace. Thus considered, predestination is personal, Christocentric, and gracious. This revelation of the living God who personally predestines delivers us from an impersonal petrification of predestination. Its center in Christ gives us the assurance of faith and saves the believer from that deadly labyrinth which swallows up the speculative thinker. And its sheer grace protects from Pelagianism and Pharisaism and fills the heart with gratitude. The rhythm of grace and gratitude, of God for us and consequently of us for God, is the Christian life.

Predestination is the personal decision of the God who elects. The most important thing in the Apostle’s statements on predestination in Romans and in Ephesians is that it is God who chooses. The doctrine is not primarily predestination but God who predestines; the decrees are only after God’s decreeing. In Ephesians 1:3, it is God who is showering his blessings upon us. In verse 4, the Greek verb is a middle which indicates God selecting for himself, as an old patriarch might look over his heirs—including his in-laws, adopted children, and grandchildren—and say to them all: You are just the ones mother and I chose for ourselves to make up this our whole family. Since God’s choosing was before the foundation of the world, when he alone existed, this can be nothing but God’s own act. The fifth verse continues the stress on the decision and action of the divine personality by declaring it to be according to the good pleasure of his own will.

In Romans 8, God is working all things for good to those who are called according to his own purposes. The golden chain which ties together the acts of God from their foundation in his eternal purpose to their consummation in his making us sinners like unto the image of his Son is nothing else than just God himself. He loved us, he foreknew us, he predestined us, he called us, he justified us, he glorified us. It is God who is for us. It is God who justifies. In the hands of Paul, as of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards, this teaching brings God into the center of the picture—God the Person who wills, who decides, who acts for us, even for our salvation.

A speculative consideration of the eternal decrees may well issue in a mode of thinking that treats them as abstractions apart from God and thereby depersonalizes them. And when either decree or grace is construed without God himself, then the quest for a personal element lights upon man, and what started as God’s free grace ends as man’s decisive will. Eternal predestination according to decrees established before the foundation of the world may be turned into a form of “orthodox” deism. On the other hand, the sovereignty of God meant for Luther and Calvin God in action here and now, His hand at the helm even in the most violent storm. God has not gone fishing, or golfing, or to an Ethiopian banquet. He is not asleep. He is not otiose. He is activissimus. We are not following the Reformers when we treat God as an absentee deity. Their God was the God of Elijah.

Indeed, the thought of God who personally wills, decides, and acts is close to the heart of the Gospel. It rings in the finite verbs in the Creed. It shines in the great passives by which John Wesley describes the strange warming of his own heart. It is a genuine part of the restudy of the kerygma which is blessing the Church today.

Again, this God who personally predestines, acts in his love. In mercy he chose for adoption into his family of children even us rebellious sinners. The man who wrote Romans and Ephesians describes himself as the chief of sinners. In Ephesians 1:5 the choice to be God’s children is according to the purpose of His own will, with which the phrase in love may well be linked. Or, if that phrase belongs to verse 4, nevertheless in Ephesians 2:4 the riches of God’s saving mercy rest upon “his great love wherewith he loved us.” In Romans, the verb predestinate occurs in the context of God working all things for good, of both the ascended Christ and the Holy Spirit interceding for the saints, and of the purpose of God bringing them into the fellowship and likeness of Jesus Christ. In Ephesians, the God who blesses his people with every spiritual blessing according to his choosing of them before he made the worlds is none other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The God who predestines is the God before whom Jesus lived, in whom he trusted, to whom he prayed ‘Abba,’ and to whose right hand as Lord and Christ he has been exalted that he may actively accomplish the loving program of eternal election in the history of world affairs and carry the host of his redeemed into the gates of the New Jerusalem.

Predestination is in Jesus Christ. According to Romans 8, we are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son that He may be the firstborn among many brethren, and we know that God is for us by his not withholding his own Son. According to Ephesians 1:3, Christ is the ground and reason of the divine blessing, in 1:4 he is the meritorious cause of our election, in verse 5 through his mediation our adoption is realized, and in verse 6 the grace of God is revealed and bestowed. Salvation is the act of the Holy God doing justice to his own righteousness at any cost to himself. In Christ we have redemption through his blood—the forgiveness of sins through his giving of himself for us.

Augustine turned away from that Neo-Platonic scheme, in which the “lower parts” of God and the “higher parts” of man somehow make contact, to Jesus Christ who as man is the way and as God is the goal of man’s pilgrimage. Staupitz told Luther to find himself in the wounds of Christ and then predestination would be to him inexpressibly sweet. To the request of a troubled woman, Luther replied, “Hear the Incarnate Son. He offers thee Himself as Predestination.”

Likewise Calvin exhorts men “to flee straight to Christ in whom the salvation is set forth for us which otherwise would have lain hidden in God.” That we may call boldly on God as our Father “our beginning is not at all to be made from God’s determination concerning us before the creation of the world, but from the revelation of his fatherly love to us in Christ and Christ’s daily preaching to us by the Gospel” (Concensus Genevensis). Calvin prays that we may be “led to Christ only as the fountain of election,” even as truly God he is “the author of election” and as truly man he is “the brightest example of election.” And, “it is beyond all controversy, that no man is loved by God but in Christ; He is the Beloved Son in Whom the love of the Father perpetually rests, and then diffuses itself to us so that we are accepted in the Beloved” (Institutes, III.xxii.7; III.xxii.1; III. ii.32).

One may compare this with the declarations of neo-orthodoxy in the Scottish Journal of Theology (I, pp. 179–181) to the effect that election is in Christo in the sense that Christ is the Chooser; that it is per Christum in that he is the Chosen One who imparts salvation to those committed to him, the Head who communicates to his members; and that it is propter Christum because he takes upon his shoulders our condemnation and bears for us the damnation we deserve.

The neo-orthodox, however, extend this last point further than do the classical Augustinians. Indeed, their view of Christ as taking reprobation for the whole human race would seem to leave no place for any discriminatory choice by God. When all is said and done, there remains the biblical picture of God who chooses, God who elects, God who predestines in Christ and for his sake saves a great host that no man can number including the last, the least, and the lowest of those who take refuge under his wings; but he does not save those who continue to love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil, nor those for whom the preaching of the Gospel is a savor of death unto death, nor those who despise the riches of his goodness, longsuffering, and forbearance, and fail to consider that the goodness of God leads to repentance. When the cities of his day rejected Jesus, he rejoiced in the Father’s sovereign discrimination and continued to sound forth his gracious invitation: “Come unto me, and find rest for your souls.”

Predestination is the election of free grace. The Lord of the hosts whom he predestines to be his children in Jesus Christ is the God of grace. In Ephesians, predestination is rooted in and magnifies the sheer grace of God.

Ephesians begins as it ends with grace. God has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ. All these flow from his gracious choosing. He predestines according to his loving purpose to the praise of the glory of his grace which he has graciously bestowed upon us in the Beloved, in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of our sins according to the riches of his grace which he has lavished upon us.

There is no place here for human conceits. God did not bestow his electing love upon us before the foundation of the world because of any fancied “infinite value of the human soul.” We had no value; indeed, we had no existence. God who alone was before creation is the God of love, of pure grace. The riches of his mercy were bestowed upon us on account of his great love wherewith he loved us. There was no goodness nor worthiness in us to cause him to choose us. Rather were we hateful and hating one another when the kindness and love of God toward men appeared in Christ. God so loved the world, which slew the babies of Bethlehem and crucified Jesus, that he gave for it his only begotten Son. In Ephesians it is quite definite that God foresaw us and must needs have seen us only in Christ in order to choose such rebellious sinners to be holy and without blame before him in love.

Grace means that God is for us, yes, for us even when we were against him. In sheer grace he chose to create men who were capable of denying the love which bears them. The unfathomable depths of that grace are revealed in God’s giving for this rebellious race the Son of his bosom. It is Christ coming into the world to save sinners, to identify himself with us, to pick up the ticket for our responsibilities, to give himself on the Cross as the ransom price for our deliverance—the propitiation which diverted from us the divine wrath.

Those who come to Christ were already God’s sons in his heart while they were yet in themselves enemies. Again and again, that grace is made conspicuous. The risen Christ intervenes to confront his chief opponent and turn him into his trusted friend. Grace is Christ’s love for Saul of Tarsus, even when Saul was persecuting him in the treatment he was meting out to Jesus’ brethren. Thus grace is prevenient, it comes first, before any response by the sinner. We were dead in trespasses and sins, but God made us alive and raised us up together with Christ. Thus were we born “not of the will of man but of God,” born of the Spirit who works faith in us and thereby unites us to Christ in our effectual calling.

Grace is the heart and center of the Gospel. It is the expression of the electing love of God and the parent of faith. It issues in the inward work of the Holy Spirit illuminating our hearts to appropriate the love of God revealed in Christ dying for the ungodly. It is this love reaching out to forgive the guilty. It is not that we loved him but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. It is the forgiveness which justifies the ungodly through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. It is the Father’s welcome to the prodigal which gives him a place in the family of God by adoption and by regeneration.

Because it is sola gratia, therefore it can only be sola fide. Grace leads to faith, to unwavering trust of the heart in Him who has given himself to us as our Father and our Saviour in Jesus Christ. Faith wrought by the grace of the Spirit lays aside trust in self, denies all self-confidence, renounces any thought of merit even in our faith, and entrusts the believer as a helpless, undeserving, ill-deserving, hell-deserving sinner wholly to the goodness, mercy, love, kindness, grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ.

Bibliography: Augustine, Predestination; J. Calvin, Institutes; K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, II/2.

Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Polity

Columbia Theological Seminary

Decatur, Georgia

ARE YOU BREATHING?

Among the vital signs of physical life are the pulse, blood pressure, and respiration.

Prayer is as necessary for spiritual health as breathing is for physical life and just as there are times when the body is almost in a state of suspended animation, when breathing is almost imperceptible, so there are Christians who show little or no evidence of being alive.

Breathing may be absent, shallow, convulsive, or it may be deep, regular, and life sustaining.

The prayer life of a Christian exhibits many of the same characteristics. It may be practically absent, very shallow, or convulsive, that is, resorted to only in case of emergency.

There are other Christians who avail themselves of the privilege of prayer as it is God’s will that they should, and with them this exercise is a deep and life-sustaining one.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism defines prayer as “an offering up of our desires unto God, for the things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sin, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies.”

In a very real sense, next to salvation itself, prayer is the greatest gift God has given to his own. In his infinite wisdom and mercy he sees fit to release divine power as men pray. Prayer may be likened to the light switch on the wall—the current, wiring, and lights may all be in place but only as we throw the switch does the light or other gadgets become operative.

Find a Christian consistent and earnest in his prayer life and you will find an individual who has spiritual power in his life.

The Psalmist wrote: “O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.”

God does hear prayer. There are those who think the main purpose of prayer is to bring our own lives in tune with God’s will, and the benefits of prayer are thus restricted to this. That of course is one of the blessings which come from prayer—but it is only one.

In the Bible we find from Genesis to the Revelation that prayer is a divine institution practiced from earliest time. The Bible ends with the prayer, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”

The prayer life of our Lord is a constant reminder of the importance of prayer and we ought to follow this example at all cost if we are to live close to him.

Prayer is a two-way communication system, for not only do we talk to God but he talks to us as we wait in his presence.

Down through the centuries devout souls have found that prayer effects changes and brings about results which are otherwise impossible.

One of the preparations for prayer is stillness of the soul. “Be still, and know that I am God,” is an admonition too few of us heed. If we were in the presence of an earthly king we would keep silent until spoken to. How much more should be give the King of kings the opportunity to speak to us!

Because we come to God in the name of his Son, we can come with boldness, but never with flippancy. When he tells us to be still and know that he is God there is involved a recognition of his holiness. Subterfuge, pretense, and every vestige of pride are burned away by a sense of the presence of the One who is altogether pure and sovereign.

Prayer not only means stillness in God’s presence, it also means waiting, a difficult thing for those of us who are caught up in the whirl of earthly affairs.

But the reward of waiting in God’s presence is rich: “they that wait for Jehovah shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint.” In prayer we renew our strength, we are enabled to rise above the trials and contingencies of life, we can carry on by his strength, we can walk through the humdrum experiences of the daily grind and not faint by the way.

But prayer is far more than receiving help and strength from a loving heavenly Father. There are many other aspects which must never be forgotten.

Prayer includes confession. “If I regard iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me” carries with it a warning. Unconfessed sin is a deadly deterrent to prayer, whether viewed from the standpoint of our petition or God’s response.

Another aspect of prayer is restitution. How often we have offended others, even defrauded them. “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee: leave therefore thy gift before the altar, and go thy way: first be reconciled to thy brother and then come offer thy gift.” Some revivals have started in local churches when Christians prayed and were reconciled to fellow Christians through confession and apology.

Prayer also involves surrender of our wills to God. In this aspect our Lord set for us the perfect example: “nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” God’s children have the right to be importunate, but never the right to be demanding. He who sees all things, for whom the past, the present, and the future are as one, answers our prayers in love and according to his knowledge of what is best.

Faith is an essential part of effective prayer. It is based on belief that God’s promises are true, that as he has ordained that we should pray to him, and that he will honor his promises to us.

Prayer involves importunity in the very truest sense, for importunity is a test of sincerity. There are times when God tests us to see whether we really mean what we pray. Our Lord says: “Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” How often we ask with a faint heart, seek without expecting to find, knock timidly and then turn back to our own ways.

Prayer should always involve thanksgiving. “In nothing be anxious; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.” Do we preface our prayers with thanksgiving and praise? In our social life we try to be appreciative of every favor. Why do we so often fail to thank God who is for us the giver of every perfect gift—our eternal salvation and all of its accompanying blessings?

Finally, prayer is an attitude. The Apostle Paul meant a spiritual reality when he said we should pray without ceasing for it is the privilege of a Christian to live in such close contact with God that at all times the way is open into His presence. There are many instances in the Bible where men demonstrated this attitude, not only in praising God but also in asking for wisdom and guidance in sudden emergencies.

God has placed in the hands of his children an unbelievable privilege and power. It is to be used, not neglected. Are you breathing?

L. NELSON BELL