Are You Breathing?

SOVEREIGN IN CHAOS

To take world chaos as a matter of course is a deadly danger. Those of us who are older remember times when there was a fair degree of stability in governments and in international relationships, but the generation now assuming control in world affairs has never known an era of real peace.

At the opening of the 87th Congress, Speaker Sam Rayburn solemnly told its members as he swore them into office that never since the time of Christ had the world faced dangers so great as now.

After only ten days in office, President Kennedy stated publicly that in that short time he had been staggered by the magnitude of the dangers we face abroad.

We live in the smallest world man has ever known, a world shrunken in size by prodigious feats in the area of communications. In 1916 the writer crossed the Pacific by boat, taking 19 days for the storm-hindered trip. A year ago we made the same trip by jet, high above storm involvement, in ten and one half hours. And we have not yet come to the end of speed potentials.

Other peoples besides ourselves are increasingly aware of the world in which they live, and envy, nationalism, and the insidious prodding of an ever-active communism adds both tension and danger to the situation.

With only few exceptions, we in America are living in a fool’s paradise, and are regarding ease, comfort, entertainment, and the general pursuit of happiness as our rightful heritage and the imperishable American way of life. World unrest is often regarded as merely an annoying phenomena which threatens our state of ease.

One wonders whether it will take a national catastrophe to awaken us. We have permitted the world to hypnotize us by her soul-deadening philosophies We have become indifferent to God’s plan of salvation or amended it to suit our own puny and sin-obsessed minds.

The sovereignty of God is a fact which few of us consider. He has not left himself without a witness and he will hold us responsible for how we receive and use his offer of redemption in Christ.

There are two contending forces in the world—the realm of Satan and the realm of Christ. Strange to say even in the theological world there are those who deny the existence of Satan as a personality, and those who go on to humanize Christ and deify man.

Rightly has Professor Emilé Cailliet said: “One of the neatest tricks Satan has ever perpetrated has been to convince so many that he does not exist.”

But he does exist, and Christ exists, and the sovereign God will prevail. The question then of overwhelming importance is whether we are in the circle of God’s will for us? Have we accepted his Son as our own Saviour and made him the Lord of our lives?

This is not a matter on which we may be casual or neutral, for we can in no way escape our own personal responsibility. We are either for or against Christ, and in one of these two positions rests our niche in eternity.

God, speaking through his servant Isaiah, says: “I am the Lord, and there is no other, beside me there is no God.” Again and again he asserts his sovereign right and power, while his redeeming love is offered to all. Is there greater folly than ignoring or denying him?

We hear much talk today about the mission of the Church. Some of it is so obscured by words that none can understand the meaning; or, the mission and message of the Church is changed to a human concept and a human program.

One wonders why the simple affirmations of holy Scripture are not taken at face value. Paul states the outline of the Gospel in the first four verses of 1 Corinthians 15—the preaching of Christ’s death for man’s sins according to the Scripture, and his resurrection from the dead according to the Scripture. Strange that these two essentials are so often lacking in the preaching of sophisticated theological circles today!

Our Lord gave two commands to his disciples—to love one another, and to go out and preach the Gospel to all creatures. How lacking we are on both counts! How often the “christ” that is preached is not the Christ of the Bible!

But let us never forget this: we are all held accountable by the sovereign God, and he will judge us as surely as he will judge all men in the light of what we have done with his Son.

With one sure foundation already laid, are we not utterly foolish to ignore it in favor of something more appealing to the intellect or flattering to the ego?

God has given us the motive for preaching, teaching, and living the Gospel—this is the uniqueness of Christ as man’s only hope and the certain guidance, power, and blessing of the Holy Spirit in making him known.

God has also given us the methods of witnessing for him, which consist of the preaching of the Gospel by word of mouth and by consecrated daily living. Sometimes we forget that “after that in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness [the folly of what we preach] of preaching to save them that believe.” Sometimes we apparently think that men can be won by clever words, but it is the “simplemindedness of the Gospel message” (Phillips) which, by the power of the Holy Spirit, brings men to a saving knowledge of Christ.

Furthermore, God has given us the means of making him known. While the Gospel message never changes, the means of making it known change from generation to generation. For the purposes of preaching Christ, science has rendered valuable and effective avenues of communication through press, radio, film and television. How tragic it is that there are increasing pressures to eliminate vital Christianity from these tools of expression.

Education, one of the foundation channels of imparting Christian truth, has in recent years often become an aggressive anti-Christian influence. This phenomenon too stands under the judgment of God, and some day institutions which were once Christian will be asked, “What have you done with the Christ in whom once you had faith and that faith was the very foundation of your learning?”

We see on every hand effect of two worlds in collision. We feel striving within us the urges of Satan and the yearning pleas of the Saviour. Saved by the grace of God we are nevertheless responsible for those acts of the will whereby we accept or reject him.

The sovereignty of God is too frequently brushed aside today in favor of the dominance of man. But this folly on the part of man neither vacates God from his rightful place nor does it change one iota God’s sovereign plan and will.

We cannot be neutral in our attitude. Either we align ourselves with Christ and accept him in simple faith as Saviour and Lord, or we remain aligned with Satan, the enemy of our souls. How much better it is to choose him who is sovereign now and for eternity!

L. NELSON BELL

Eutychus and His Kin: April 10, 1961

MOBILE

Dear Eutychus:

Thank you for inviting me to correspond with you during my sabbatical pilgrimage. It would be hard to conceive of a more thrilling travel prospectus. As you know, I am combining a Walrusific Grant as Fellow Traveler with my appointment to the Rocking Foundation Eclectic Chair in Ecuministration which has generous provisions for orientation travel during the first year. There are still open ends in my schedule but I shall be looking in on Europe, Africa, the Near East and Asia, with a brief survey of South America likely. I am frankly disappointed that I shall not be taking an active part in the New Delhi assembly, but I still expect my visit there to be the high point of my tour. My experience will be valuable when it is realized some day that we younger men have leadership potential. In the meantime I shall have enormous resources of lecture and sermon material.

Enough about myself. France is a travel poster in spring. No wonder art blooms here. Today I had the breath-taking experience of visiting the studio of Le Moment. The Le Moment! Delightful, indescribable confusion. One could trace in the strata of clutter his past periods: the vibrant, searing canvases of his red epoch; the looming timbers of his framework hypothesis; the intricate hair collages of his toupé period. Naturally my real interest was his present project, the great magnesium mobile to be suspended in the south transept of the Ecclesiastical Research Library. Of course it was hard to appreciate the ethereal power of the mobile from the unassembled bits and pieces of wire and metal scattered about. And I surely could not understand his working sketches and equations.

He explained to me his architectonic idea, however. The mobile is called Theologia Viatorum and represents the great movement in our time from a theology of pilgrims to a theology in pilgrimage. Everything in the mobile will be in constant motion; it will not even hang from a fixed point in the vault, but will be suspended by compressed air. Radiant particles will express the impetus to travel provided by a theology in movement.

If narrow, rigid theology sent missionaries to the ends of the earth, what will such fluid dynamic drive do, Eutychus?

Most fraternally,

ALBERT IVY

AMERICA AT A CROSSROADS

The United States of America has come to a crossroads: shall we continue to develop the American dream of a “free church,” independent of government control, and of a government “under God,” free of church control or domination? Or shall we take a new turn, go down the European road from which our ancestors were trying to escape, and admit that it is impossible to prevent development of the kind of conglomerate situation where church and government struggle, one using the resources of the other, to accomplish their separate objectives?

These alternatives have been forced upon the country for decision at this time by sudden and massive pressure to provide governmental assistance for denominational schools. The main demands for such assistance come from people who claim they will be satisfied with loans, but in the past have openly favored grants, either direct or indirect, under the same principle which now “forces” them to demand loans.

Will Christian citizens remain silent at such a time of crisis? Will they not favor their congressmen and senators with a considered expression of their judgment, considerately formed?

OSWALD C. J. HOFFMANN

Office of Public Relations Director

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod New York, N. Y.

There is a crisis this spring in church-state relations.

I hope your magazine will remind your constituency of the importance of Protestants involving themselves in the forming of public opinion to bear upon the Congress in its important decisions. I believe nearly all Protestants agree that public funds should be for public schools only even though they may be divided on the desirability of Federal aid to education. We ought to stand for freedom for all to educate according to conscience. We are concerned for all children, their welfare and education, but we ought to be against the increasing tendency to seek public money for sectarian religious programs.

EUGENE CARSON BLAKE

Stated Clerk of the General Assembly

United Presbyterian Church, USA

Philadelphia, Pa.

The announcement of the Roman Catholic hierarchy that it will oppose President Kennedy’s proposal for federal financial assistance for public elementary and secondary schools unless private and parochial schools are included presents a declaration of bias against the American policy of public funds for public schools. It raises the question: What other threats may lie ahead? Already pastors and lay people of The American Lutheran Church have asked me to alert all our pastors of the dangers inherent in this issue. Such a letter is going out the first week in April.

FREDERICK A. SCHIOTZ

President

American Lutheran Church

Minneapolis, Minn.

Religious freedom faces a new crisis. Public funds for parochial schools violates American tradition of separation of church and state. Believers in religions should take a stand. Please urge your readers to write their congressman and senator.

HERBERT S. MEKEEL

First Presbyterian Church

Schenectady, N. Y.

The current discussion of church-state relations is likely to set the American course either forward into an adequate future or backward into the agony and conflicts represented by religious conflicts in the political arena.

The crux of this controversy is whether or not we are to have a completely adequate program of public instruction for the people. Just as people have the right to build their private roads so they should also be free to build their private schools at their own expense, but we must insist on using public funds for public purposes.

We encourage the people of the churches to take their full civic responsibility by keeping in contact with their “representatives,” and with the newspapers and other mass media in support of the high human values and the future of freedom.

C. EMANUEL CARLSON

Executive Director

Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs

Washington, D. C.

The present church-state controversy over aid to parochial schools is but a part of the long battle over separation of church and state. Federal money should be used exclusively for public schools. Strong support for President Kennedy’s stand will come from all religious groups. It would be tragic for the battle lines on this issue to be drawn strictly with regard to denominational affiliation. Kind but straightforward letter writing to editors of newspapers and magazines as well as Congress will help prevent this.

W. MELVIN ADAMS

Associate Secretary

Religious Liberty Department

General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists

Washington, D. C.

PIKE’S PEAKED FAITH

Thanks for exposing the vacillating vagaries of Bishop Pike for what they really are—old heresies dressed up in modern synthetic fabrics.

ERIC EDWIN PAULSON

Minneapolis, Minn.

May I humbly submit to you, sir, and to all who uphold the laurels of neo-fundamentalism with such vigor that there is a higher heresy than that which you have charged Dr. Pike of possessing—what is more damning than the “Heresy of Orthodoxy!”

J. PROCTOR RIGGINS

First Christian Church

Owenton, Ky.

I am wondering whether the much lauded intellectual honesty of Bishop Pike which led him to make public his heresy, will result in a display of moral honesty in the renouncing of his ordination vows and his leaving the ministry. In view of all that is involved in such a move, it will be interesting to observe what happens, if anything.

HOWARD WESLEY KIEFER

The Bible Protestant Church of Inwood Inwood, N. Y.

As for the individual that began as a Romanist, “became” an atheist, “became” an Anglican, and now, it seems, “has become” a Jewish existentialist, the Anglican Church in this country must surely repudiate him. Self-preservation alone demands that.

MANNING MASON PATTILLO

Shell Beach, Calif.

The Rev. John A. Russell has “professed a good profession before many witnesses” (Eutychus, Feb. 27 issue) but when he asks for moderation against heretics he comes into conflict with the Spirit of Christ, who warned, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,” and with the inspired admonition of St. Paul: “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject.”

E. P. SCHULZE

Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer

Peekskill, N. Y.

THE OVERSTREETS

I cannot agree with Charles Wesley Lowry in his endorsement of … What We Must Know About Communism, in your Feb. 13 issue (Book Reviews). Doesn’t Mr. Lowry know that the Over-streets are known left-wing writers and this is very cleverly written and very misleading? To the average uninformed reader it tends to leave them “soft on communism.” Certainly we can’t afford to recommend such writings in our church publications.

REBA BOUCHER

Rudyard, Mont.

CORRECT CITATION

I have similar reservations to those of Professor Young regarding the recent book by Brevard S. Childs (Feb. 13 issue). At the same time, he is one of the finest scholars lost to the evangelical church. Don’t you think that his scholarship deserves correct citation of the title, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament?

FRED E. HERSHEY

New Haven, Conn.

SPLINTER GROUPS

Speaking of 34 congregations which applied for membership in the newly-formed Church of the Lutheran Confession, you state: “All but 2 of the 34 formerly belonged to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod” (News, Feb. 13 issue). This is not an accurate statement. There were indeed a few congregations that left the Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod and are now applying for membership in the CLC. But the overwhelmingly greater part of those 34 congregations did not even exist until very recently. They are, in fact, splinter groups which broke away from congregations of the Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod.

R. H. ZIMMERMANN

Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Glendale, Ariz.

Election and Doctrinal Reaction

The preaching of Divine Election has ever and again dug deep into the life and thinking of the Church. No doctrine has evoked more intense debates. How often the mention of Election has seemed to many of its critics a threat to the assurance of their faith. Has it not often suggested the terror of an arbitrary Deity hiding in the shadows of the Christian faith?

Sharp reactions have been aroused, but not the Christian doctrine of Election so much as caricatures of it are to blame.

THEOLOGICAL REACTION

Reaction is a phenomenon in Christian thought that has played a large role in the history of the Church and its theology. Reaction from some unbiblically one-sided proposition has often landed theology in another unbiblically one-sided proposition. Theologians attacking a caricatured theology have often created their own caricature of Christian thought. Observing that a given aspect of faith was neglected, Christians have often proceeded to accentuate that aspect so much that it became the be-all of faith, with a resulting neglect of other aspects.

Many examples of such reactionary theologies could be given. In times when faith became intellectualized and to that extent impoverished, a reaction set in in the form of experiential theologies that had hardly any place for the knowledge of faith. Then, again in reaction, rationalism set in once more. It is a fact that theologians have seldom responded sanely to theological caricatures. In reaction to the merit system of Roman theology, some Christians devalued the necessity of good works in any form. Indeed, one writer of the sixteenth century wrote that good works were actually dangerous to a person’s salvation. A more contemporary example of reactionary theology is to be seen in the doctrine of the Atonement. Gustaf Aulén has reacted against the idea of Atonement set forth in purely judicial or forensic terms and has himself set forth Atonement as a victorious liberation from the powers of sin and corruption. Aulén felt that the satisfaction theory of Atonement prevailed so exclusively in Anselm’s thought that the dramatic portrayal of Atonement as triumph over the powers of evil was lost. Bolstered by the conviction that he was recapturing the thought of Irenaeus and Luther, Aulén then presented the dramatic theory—or, as he called it, the classic theory—of the Atonement in so exclusive a manner as almost to rule out Christ’s redemption of sinners from their guilt.

CARICATURE OF ELECTION

But reactionary theology has never been as evident as it has been in the case of the doctrine of Divine Election. If one is at all informed concerning the tensions that have prevailed concerning this doctrine, he will know that reaction has usually been aroused by the notion of arbitrariness in the Divine Election of sinners. Reaction was not aroused simply by the notion of Election, but especially by what seemed to be a deterministic element in some constructions of Election. Such reactions are very understandable, for the biblical doctrine of Election has at times been presented as though it were a parallel to the Islamic doctrine of election. The only difference was that in one system Allah was the determiner and in the other system God was the determiner. Election was felt by many, thus, to be a view of the world according to which everything was settled, in which nothing could be changed, and before which a person could only bow his head in resignation. All of life—including the Christian life—was caught in a huge net of divine causality; the only decision that really mattered in life was the arbitrary decision of the Deity made before we were born.

Jesus Christ was still recognized in the system, but the image of Christ was shadowed under the dark cloud of a fatalistic doctrine of Election. One’s personal faith seemed threatened by the thought that we could be sure of Christ’s grace only after we were sure of our favored position within Divine Election. It was made to seem as though we must first secure our faith in Election, outside of Christ, and only then are we given confidence to accept the promise of salvation in Christ for ourselves.

Reaction to this kind of caricature of the doctrine of Election often resulted in theology’s handing over the decision as to his salvation to man himself, and leaving everything to the free will of man. Or, some others sought different grounds than election for assurance. Max Weber characterized Calvinism as being insecure in view of Divine Election (and the arbitrary God) and as thus seeking compensation for its insecurity in rigorous works and in its sense of calling to labor for the Kingdom. (Hence, he explains, the strenuous moralism of Calvinism was a compensation for the insecurity caused by its doctrine of Election.) Without judging Weber’s thesis, we may say that it illustrates a search for assurance and peace somewhere other than in the caricature of Divine Election.

TAKING MAN’S DECISION SERIOUSLY

We must recognize that a more serious error can hardly be conceived than the substitution of fatalism for the biblical portrayal of the electing God. The God of Divine Election of Ephesians 1:4 cannot have anything in common with an arbitrary Deity. Fatalism is infinitely removed from the biblical proclamation of divine sovereign Grace. Fatalism leaves no opportunity for serious preaching, no room for a real offer of Grace, no occasion for taking man and his decision seriously. Fatalism under the guise of Christianity needs Jesus Christ only to work out the arbitrary choice of men by God. In fatalism, we do not really deal with Jesus Christ; we have to get behind him to the arbitrary God, if we are to deal with the real source of salvation. Now, given this picture of Election, we can understand that reaction to it would be forthcoming. Indeed, we suspect that many people have difficulty with the doctrine of Election because they have encountered the doctrine only in its caricatured form.

Reaction played a role in the life of Arminius, too. When he began his controversy with the Reformed doctrine of Election, the sixteenth century lay behind him. He was aroused to intense reaction against various sixteenth century constructions of the doctrine of Election in which Jesus Christ was merely incidental, and the arbitrary choice of some men by God hovered as a shadow over the whole of Christian doctrine. Even if we cannot accept the theology of Arminianism, we must recognize that it was an attempt to counteract a theological determinism of somewhat less than Christian character. If we wish to correct Arminius, we must first be certain that we have overcome any taint of determinism in our own thought and in our preaching of the Gospel.

A CRESCENDO OF PRAISE

There is a tragic aspect in the history of the doctrine of Election. Election has been called the heart of the Church. If this is true, we must by all means be careful what we do with the heart! How often has not Divine Election been talked about as though it were a secret kept from the simple which, if known, would cast a threatening shadow over their faith. In Christ everything seemed sure; but if Election were spoken of we would be cast into doubt and anxiety about our salvation. In the Bible, however, Election is set within a wholly different context than that of perplexity, uncertainty, or resignation. It is always set to the tune of a doxology. In the great Romans 9–11 passage, Paul works up to a crescendo of jubilation over the depths of the riches of divine judgment. This is neither anxiety nor resignation in the face of arbitrary sovereignty. It is amazement at the ways of divine Grace. Paul sees these ways in the light of Election. Salvation is not of works, but of Him that calls. And he who comes to see that his salvation is not of his works but of God’s grace stands before Divine Election and therein finds his peace.

Election is not a labyrinth of dark passages for Paul. It is not a threat to, but a foundation for faith and assurance. It also is one of the most obvious tasks of the Church to make clear in her preaching that Christian faith in Election and the Mohammedan doctrine of determinism have nothing, absolutely nothing, in common. And this is not merely a matter for theologians. It is a matter close to the congregation. For many people have been confused by caricatures of Divine Election, some accepting what is tantamount to fatalism and others, frightened by the caricature, have leaped into the anxiety-laden sphere of human autonomy in salvation.

A kind of activism, a restless zeal that would compensate for the anxiety created by the mystery of Divine Election, has often arisen as a practical reaction to the doctrine of Election. On the other hand, the caricature of Election as determinism has also led to passivity. If nothing can be done to change God’s will, the best thing to do seemed to be to do nothing. In the latter case, preaching lost its effect, since preaching could lead to no meaningful human decision. The real decision had already been made in eternity by God. The message of salvation through Christ did not seem able to provide foundation for assurance, since there was always the other, the divine decision that really determined everything prior to Christ.

Over against this activism and passivism that are reactions to caricatures of Divine Election, we must make clear what the right response to the message of Divine Election is. It is humility, thankfulness, and joy at the gift of unmerited salvation. Herein lies the touchstone for the right insight into the preaching of election. Christian faith is not a blind self-abnegation before the unknown arbitrary God. In this connection we should remember the conversation between Jesus and Philip. Philip had learned a great deal from Jesus. But he had one problem that still bothered him. “Show us the Father,” he said, “and it sufficeth us.” Jesus’ answer is surprising: “Have I been with you so long, Philip, and yet you do not know me? He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Philip amazed Jesus with his question; he had seen Jesus, but had been looking beyond Jesus for God. Jesus’ words ought to register a protest against all caricatures of God and his electing grace. When a European visits New York he has not seen America. But in the Gospel things are different. Philip thought there was something he had not yet seen. “Show us the Father,” he demanded. But the response of our Lord meant that Philip had seen all there was to see when he had seen the Saviour.

There is, to be sure, also a divine wrath. But this wrath is directed against the unbelief that rejects the revelation of God in Christ. The Spirit shall convict the world of sin, because they did not believe in Jesus (John 16:9). He who hath not “seen” Jesus in faith shall indeed see the wrath of God.

Responsibility in preaching and theologizing is enormous. We are responsible to witness, both in preaching and theologizing, of Him who is the Mirror of our election (Calvin) and the Book of life (Luther). Doing this we shall not obscure the Gospel behind the background of the hidden things of God. In Christ we do not have a dark labyrinth called fate; we have a clear way in which men are called to walk. It is the way along which we see that the Bible never brings Divine Election into a sphere of anxiety and resignation, but rather into an atmosphere of grace with accents of praise.

Preacher In The Red

SCANT COMFORT

In college days a friend and I taught in a small country Sunday School. One of the young ladies in the high school class became quite sick. We decided to send her a get-well card to cheer her up. As a spiritual help we wrote on the card a verse for her to look up, John 5:24.

A few days later at Sunday School her father approached us with fire in his eyes and indignantly asked, “What’s the big idea?” He showed us the card and inadvertently the “five” had become an “eight.” We looked up the verse and it said, “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins.” Was my face red!—The Rev. TED MAITLAND, Harmony Baptist Church, New Castle, Pennsylvania.

For each report by a minister of the Gospel of an embarrassing moment in his life, CHRISTIANITY TODAY will pay $5 (upon publication). To be acceptable, anecdotes must narrate factually a personal experience, and must be previously unpublished. Contributions should not exceed 250 words, should be typed double-spaced, and bear the writer’s name and address. Upon acceptance, such contributions become the property of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Address letters to: Preacher in the Red, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, 1014 Washington Building, Washington 5, D. C.

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

The Church that Triumphs

Acts 4:1–31

The Preacher:

W. Carter Johnson is Pastor of The First Baptist Church, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts. Born in West Virginia in 1920, he is still a young man in a young Church. He was ordained by the Baptist General Conference in 1948. He is a graduate of Barrington Bible College, holds the A.B. in Theology from Gordon College, and receives his B.D. this year from Gordon Divinity School. He is married and has two children. His experience in four pastorates, and on the college and seminary campuses, has given him a love for people and a desire to be spiritually helpful. Now and then he dreams of more study and then of teaching in the field of practical theology.

The Text:

And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day.… And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high prist, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high pricest … asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them … Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone … set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

The man talking with me was a study in despondency. His face, the tone of his voice—his entire attitude—betrayed a sense of frustration. Was he a lost soul needing Christ? No, he was a believer. In fact, he was a minister of the Gospel. Yet he felt completely defeated.

This is no isolated case. In spite of the upsurge of vigor in evangelical theological thought, a sense of defeatism exists in many a local church. The spiritual indifference and the materialistic idolatry of our age at times seems insuperable. Thus there comes over the church a sense of frustration and defeat. There comes a wearying in welldoing.

This defeatism may be understandable, but it is not excusable! The Bible knows nothing of the word “defeat” as applied to the Church of Jesus Christ! Hardship—yes; opposition—yes, but never defeat! Jesus described the Church as a conquering power, against which the very gates of hell shall not prevail. And these words were not merely theoretical because the early Church revealed precisely this character. She was imperfect: she was not without her faults and weaknesses, but she was still a mighty force for God in spite of all the opposition of her day.

What has happened to enable this creeping paralysis of defeatism to overcome us? One fact is certain: the Church today can triumph! She can be a power for God! She can reach men and women for Jesus Christ! But she must learn some lessons from the early Church and apply these to her own life.

One portion of the book of the Acts, chapter 4:1–31, gives us some of these lessons. The scene is Jerusalem. In Acts, chapter 3, we have Peter and John healing a lame man and then preaching the Gospel to the crowd which gathers. Now, in chapter 4, comes the opposition. The apostles are taken, placed in prison, and the next day they are brought before the Sanhedrin. Notice that the opposition came especially from the Sadducees. Briefly, they were a Jewish sect who were rationalists in religion. They denied the supernatural. They scoffed at the idea of miracles and ridiculed the thought of a bodily resurrection. Many of them were wealthy and exercised tremendous political influence. This then was the group which arrayed itself against the apostles: a group which was the embodiment of theological unbelief, cultural snobbery, materialistic indifference, and political high-handedness. Formidable opposition indeed! Yet it was not the Sanhedrin which triumphed, but the Church! We repeat, the Church today can triumph, by applying the lessons set forth in this passage.

AN IRRESISTIBLE COMPULSION

The first lesson is this. The church that triumphs must be gripped by an irresistible compulsion. One is immediately struck by the tremendous motivation of these men. They were told pointedly in verse 18, “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.” They replied simply in verse 20, “We cannot but speak.…” There was that within them which made it impossible for them to do otherwise!

Notice that this compulsion stemmed first from an intense conviction. “We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” These men had walked with Jesus. They had heard his words and marveled at his works. Then they had seen their world collapse around them in the darkness of Calvary. They remembered how they had struggled with their sorrow-benumbed minds to understand that Jesus was really dead!

But something had changed all that! There was first the bewilderment as they had stood staring into the empty tomb and realized that Jesus was not there! Then suddenly, as a meadow-mist is dispelled by the rising sun, their doubts were lifted! Jesus himself, alive, stood before them! Jesus, triumphant over death! Jesus saying, “handle me and see”! Incredible!—but gloriously and wonderfully true! Jesus lives!

“And you tell us to be quiet? One may as easily command the sun to stop shining or all the waves of all the oceans to be still! These things are part of our very lives! We know whereof we speak and we must speak! We have a message of forgiveness and of life!”

How different this is from the way in which so many Christians today face the world! “Speak for Christ?” they say. “We can’t speak!” These men said “We cannot but speak!” This is far more than a difference of a word. It indicates a basic difference in the life! Could it be that we have lost the intensity of conviction? Could it be that we are no longer gripped by the great facts and implications of the Gospel as these are revealed unto us in the Scriptures? Most of us would hasten to say that there has been no lessening of our theological convictions. But this is not the whole of the matter! Are our convictions of the kind that issue in compulsion? When we truly believe, we not only lay hold upon the great truths of the Faith, but they lay hold upon us! Christ becomes a living reality in our experience! Therefore we must speak! We must speak because of the joy of our own salvation: we must speak because the salvation of others depends upon it!

But this compulsion stemmed also from a divine command. Jesus had said to them, “Ye shall be witnesses unto me.…” Now Peter says in verse 19, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.” Should we obey God? To put the question is to answer it! If God be God, He is our Sovereign Lord! We must obey Him!

In the North Pacific lies the little island of Iwo. Its dry surface of volcanic ash has been likened to a landscape on the moon. For this tiny but vital piece of land we paid the price of some 21,000 casualties in our war with Japan. For the men who took it, it was never a question of a feeling of adequacy or inadequacy, courage or lack of it. They took it in obedience to a command!

How strange that we, as Christians, can so easily cast aside the fact that we are commanded to speak for Jesus Christ! It isn’t merely a question of feeling, but of obedience! The Church that triumphs must be gripped by an irresistible compulsion, so filled with intense conviction and so under the Lordship of Jesus Christ that she must speak for God! And this is not the responsibility of a few, but of every believer!

AN IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE

But there is another lesson. The church that triumphs must present to the world an irrefutable evidence. Come back to our two apostles. They had preached that this Jesus who had been crucified, had also been raised from the dead—that he is the Living Lord through whom there is forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Weighty words indeed!—but what evidence was there for these supernatural claims? The answer was simple—the healed man. Who made this man whole? Jesus of Nazareth! “By him doth this man stand here before you whole”! Then we read in verse 14, “And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.” Let the Sadducees deny the supernatural! Let them scoff at the idea of miracles! Before them stood the irrefutable evidence!

The Church that triumphs must not merely proclaim the Gospel, but she must present to the world the evidence of the reality of that which she preaches! Now what is this evidence? It is none other than the “healed man”—not a man healed in body, but a man made whole in his basic nature—a man whose life has been transformed by the power of Jesus Christ.

Every Christian is to stand before the world as a “healed man”—the living evidence of the power of God in the life! Yet how often the Church presents an entirely different spectacle to the world! How often the lines of distinction are so effaced that it is practically impossible to distinguish the professing Christian from the one who makes no such profession! When this is the case, it is no wonder that the world turns a deaf ear to our preaching! If the Church is to triumph we must first of all examine ourselves! There must be confession of sin! There must be a return to godly living! Our own lives must be the irrefutable evidence of the truth we proclaim!

David Brainerd, seriously ill with consumption, labored so intensely among the Indians of the Dela ware River that he died of the disease when only 29 years of age. But his success was not merely because of the intensity of his work. It was because of his godly life. Those to whom he preached saw the evidence of the truth he proclaimed! So must it be with us!

But the Church that triumphs must also be in the work of healing men. That prince of expositors, Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, once said that the Church that is not healing men has no argument. It is time for us to stop judging the spirituality and effectiveness of a church by the number of activities listed in the Sunday bulletin. Activity alone is never an indication of true spiritual life or accomplishment! The vital question is, what is the purpose of those activities and what are the results? Are we reaching men for Jesus Christ? Is our labor directed toward the salvation of souls and the transformation of lives? This is the evidence which we must present to the world and for this there is no substitute!

AN INEXHAUSTIBLE POWER

But there is yet a third lesson. The Church that Triumphs Must Rely Upon an Inexhaustible Power. Notice the rather ludicrous spectacle of this meeting in Jerusalem. Here, sitting cross-legged in a great semicircle, in an attitude of ecclesiastical solemnity, are the religious dignitaries. Before them, in the center, stand these two apostles and the unnamed man who had been healed. The contrast is striking. These three have no wealth. They have no social prominence. No political power stands behind them. They are, as verse 13 tells us, “unlearned and ignorant men.” These words are not used here in the sense in which we often use them today. The term “unlearned” means simply that they had no formal rabbinical training. The word translated “ignorant” was often used merely in the sense of a lay-person or common person as distinguished from one of special training or position. The thought is that the apostles were just common people.

How could they stand against such opposition? There is one answer. They relied upon an inexhaustible power, the power of the Risen Christ realized in their lives through the indwelling Spirit of God! The result was triumph! In verse 31 we read, “they spake the Word of God with boldness.” They spoke freely, clearly, fully. There was no stifling of the message, no hesitation. The power of God rested upon them!

But this is merely stating the result. Let us trace backward briefly and notice the factors which contributed to this result. We notice first that this powerful ministry of the Word was wholly the result of the activity of the Holy Spirit. Verse 31 says, “and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word.…” It was God at work and not men only! We must never forget this! These things cannot be done in the energy of the flesh. God’s power will be evidenced only when the Church is filled with the Spirit of God and is under his guidance and control!

Comment On The Sermon

The sermon “The Church That Triumphs” was nominated forCHRISTIANITY TODAY’s Select Sermon Series by Dr. Lloyd M. Perry, Professor of Practical Theology in Gordon Divinity School. His overcomment follows:

This sermon was selected because of its principles of sermon construction, persuasive appeal, practical application, progressive development, positive emphasis, pertinence to present-day living, and its plain presentation of biblical truth.

Unity of thought characterizes the content. One controlling assertion, phrased in the form of a proposition of ability serves to crystallize the content of the entire message: “The Church today can triumph.”

The introduction has its setting in the community. It makes a realistic appraisal of the Church as she stands in the midst of our present-day life. The sermon then proceeds to lead the reader from the immediate community to the cross of Christ. The language of the introduction stimulates interest since it employs life-situation terminology. It is phrased in terms of the modern American idiom.

The body of the message—consisting of the three lessons stated in alliterative form together with their development—is well proportioned, progressive, and easy to follow. These lessons are drawn directly from one passage of Scripture. This fact may well enhance the teaching value of the sermon. These main points of emphasis in the sermon are not only scripturally undergirded but are stated as pertinent truths applicable to the Church of our day.

The major illustrations represent different areas of interest. These include personal experience, war, missions, biography, evangelism, and biblical life. They are concise and stated in vivid language.

Application of the sermonic truths appears throughout the message. This tends to keep the interest. Although the primary emphasis within the sermon is the edification of the saints there is also material which may be used by the Holy Spirit for the salvation of sinners. The application in the conclusion crystallizes and re-emphasizes that which has permeated the sermon. The conclusion stimulates the reader, and encourages him to think upon his ways and to change them. He is prompted to cry out as did listeners to an earlier sermon, “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). The recapitulation of the lessons at the close of the message serves to fix the message in mind.

The biblical foundation, spiritual warmth, and directness of style gives the feeling that the sermon does not originate with the preacher, but that he is being used as a channel for a message which has a higher origin.

L.M.P.

But come back one step more. Here we come to the factor of prayer. In this same verse we read, “And when they had prayed … they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.…” Here are three great inseparables—the power of God, the filling of the Holy Spirit, and the exercise of prayer. “Ah”, we say, “but we do pray!” True, yet it isn’t the form of prayer but the attitude of the heart in prayer that is all-important! Is Jesus Christ everything to that praying heart?

We sense this in the prayer of these disciples. They had now returned to the company of believers. They had been commanded not to speak in Jesus’ name. Then they prayed, and the essence of their prayer was that God would enable them to be faithful and to be used for his glory! How easy to say, “Lord, bless the financial needs of our church, but I can’t tithe!” “Lord, how many children need the Gospel, but I can’t teach!” “Lord, there are so many homes without any contact with the church, but I can’t visit!” How often there is simply an unwillingness to be used of God as an instrument in the answering of the prayers we speak with our lips! No wonder there is often so little evidence of the power of God!

There is a tremendous challenge to us in the prayers of these men, but there is also wonderful encouragement. These who prayed and these who were so mightily filled with the Holy Spirit were just common men! D. L. Moody, who put his arms around two continents and drew them to Jesus Christ was just a common man, but he was a common man in the hands of God! This is at once the marvel of the grace of God and the glory of the Church—that common men can talk with God, and common men can be filled with his Spirit! And after all, are we not all just common men? But herein is our glory and our power, that even we, completely surrendered unto the Lordship of Jesus Christ, can know the inexhaustible power of the living God in our lives!

The Church, the Body of Christ, can triumph today, but we as individual members of the Church must learn anew these lessons and apply them to our own hearts! In recent days, nations have been forced to make “agonizing reappraisals” of their status in the world. May God give us grace to make an “agonizing reappraisal” of our own lives—to face our failures, to repent of our sin, and to surrender our lives wholly to the Lordship of Jesus Christ! May we be gripped by this irresistible compulsion; may we present before the world this irrefutable evidence; may we rely wholly upon the inexhaustible power of God in our lives! This, and this alone, is the means of triumph!

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

Facing New Delhi: Crisis of the Ecumenical Movement

To understand the ecumenical situation, one must distinguish between the Ecumenical Movement, which as a mighty current flows through the whole of Christendom, and certain conspicuous organizations it has produced, the most important and ambitious of which is the World Council of Churches. The movement itself, however, is noticeable also in those churches which for doctrinal reasons are and will remain outside the WCC. It is a strong power in the Roman church, and it may well be that the Second “Ecumenical” Council of the Vatican will be more important to the whole of Christendom than many of the “ecumenical” gatherings we have witnessed in our lifetime. At any rate, it would be wise for us Protestants to ask ourselves why it is that the decisions of a Roman Council are of lasting authority and even importance to the non-Roman churches, while the proclamations of our ecumenical assemblies are practically forgotten the day after their publication. Who remembers still the Message of Evanston, 1954, or the Theses of the Lutheran World Federation of Minneapolis, 1955? It could also be that an evangelical church just by staying out of the WCC for doctrinal reasons is showing the greatest concern for the true unity of the Church and is thereby serving true ecumenicity.

BEGINNINGS OF ‘FAITH AND ORDER’

True ecumenicity does not ask for unity as such. Rather it asks for the unity of the Church. The Ecumenical Movement is essentially a longing for the reality of the Church of Christ, the Una Sancta which we all confess. “A process of inestimable consequence has set in. The Church is awakening in the souls.” Thus a great theologian of the Roman Catholic church in Germany, R. Guardini, has described in 1922 the beginning of that movement in his church. What is the Church? We must be able to ask this question in order to understand “the nature of the unity we seek.”

What, then, is the Church? “A seven-year-old child knows what the church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their shepherd. For the children pray thus: ‘I believe in one holy Christian Church,’ ” says Luther. But when we theologians are asked to give a definition of the Una Sancta Catholica, our embarrassment is great. At the First World Conference on Faith and Order in Lausanne, 1927, it came as a great surprise to many delegates when Archbishop Germanos declared that the Eastern Orthodox church had no dogma on the Church beyond the words of the Creed, “I believe one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” The question of the nature of the Church, he added, belongs to those subjects on which the Orthodox theologian is free to formulate an opinion. Even Rome has up to this day no dogma of the Church in a strict sense. There is a definition of the Church in the Catechismus Romanus, but the Catechism is not regarded as dogma. The attempt of the Vatican Council of 1870 to give a definition of the Church failed, and not only for lack of time. The “First Constitution of the Church of Christ” which resulted from the discussions contains only the doctrine of the papacy. It will be supplemented at the forthcoming Council by a “Second Constitution,” for which the material is now being prepared in Rome. Though the encyclical Mystici Corporis of 1943 may hint at what will be the content of the new definition, many questions for the time being are still open, as for example, the relationship of baptized heretics to the Church and the exact meaning of the designation of the Church as Body of Christ.

The first doctrinal statement on the nature of the Church ever made in Christendom was the Seventh Article of the Augsburg Confession, which has influenced the Anglican Article XIX and the corresponding articles of the various Reformed confessions. The Reformers had to show why they regarded themselves as being within the true Church in spite of their excommunication by the papacy. But theirs is not an exhaustive doctrine of the Church. It is certainly not accidental that much of the controversies within the Lutheran churches of the last century center around Article VII of the Augsburg Confession.

Today the great embarrassment with which all churches of Christendom face the problem of the nature of the Church finds expression in Report III of Lausanne, where the most divergent and even contradictory views on the Church, as held by the participating churches, are frankly and carefully listed so that the reader gets the impression that there is more disagreement than agreement. Accordingly, the views on “the unity we seek” were divergent and contradictory, as already the solemn statements show that were made by the Orthodox and the Lutheran delegations. In his biography of Bishop Brent, A. C. Zabriskie gives a vivid picture of how Bishop Brent and Dr. Garvie assured the dissenters, among whom there were also Anglicans, “that no one wanted to override their convictions, and persuaded them of the wisdom of assenting to statements to which they could subscribe even though they seemed not to go far enough” (p. 171). Hence the reports with the exception of one were not “adopted,” but “received.” This was the spirit of Lausanne as it was embodied in Charles Brent who had conceived the plan of a World Conference on Faith and Order at Edinburgh, 1910. Brent’s concluding words, as he neared the end of his “pilgrimage for unity” and stood at the gate of eternity, expressed his personal conviction: “We are looking forward to the day when all these struggles for unity will have been consummated—we cannot say when or how—but we look forward to the day when there will be a great world gathering representing all the churches to consider how they can best in their unified form fulfill their responsibility to God and to man.… I venture to say that we have had glimpses during this conference of such a gathering. His words were received with deep respect.

As I had to translate the speech, I stood beside him. I shall never forget the face of that saintly man who had to overcome the weakness of a failing heart. Eighteen months later he entered, at his beloved Lausanne, the peace and the unity of the Church Triumphant. To all who knew him, he was the embodiment of the Ecumenical Movement at its best just in the way in which he, as a man with strong Anglican convictions, repudiated union by compromise.

THE NEGOTIATORS OF UNIONS

That was “Faith and Order” more than 30 years ago. “This is a Conference about truth, not about reunion.… As we differ greatly about cardinal matters, some of us must be wrong, and all may be to some extent wrong.… We seek God’s truth about the whole of Christendom,” as another Anglican, Bishop Palmer of Bombay, put it at the beginning of his address on the highly controversial subject “The Church’s Ministry” (Faith and Order. Proceedings of the World Conference, Lausanne, Aug. 3–21, 1927, by H. N. Bate, ed., London, Student Christian Movement, 1927).

But the negotiators of unions were, of course, already present at Lausanne. The great problem of the Ecumenical Movement was, who would prevail—the negotiators or the seekers for truth?

THE ‘CONFERENCE’ METHOD

Ten years later, at Oxford and Edinburgh, when “Life and Work” and “Faith and Order” began to grow together into the World Council of Churches, it was clear that the future would belong to the practical work of uniting the churches. The Ecumenical Movement became in the Protestant churches a union movement on an unprecedented scale. The main reason for this was the strong desire to overcome splits and divisions, especially the crying need of some mission fields which were not prepared to wait until the theologians had solved the problems of Faith and Order. Another reason was the inability of the theologians to solve the problems which had not been solved at Lausanne and which, perhaps, are insoluble, at least with the means available. Already Brent had seen that the differences between the churches were much deeper than anybody had anticipated. Shortly before his death he declared that a comprehensive conference like Lausanne could never be repeated and that henceforth the work must concentrate on some very deep questions underlying the obvious dissents.

The problem has proved indeed to be much greater than it was, and still is, assumed to be in ecumenical circles. It will take at least a generation until Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians have reached in their own churches a new understanding of the Church, the Word of God, and the Sacraments. This is also the reason why the method of a “conference” is insufficient. Conferences are necessary to bring people together for a common work. They can do a lot of good. But no conference has ever produced an idea. In this respect we can learn from Rome. For 50 years since the end of the modernist controversy, the theologians in Rome have worked on the problem of the nature and authority of Holy Scripture. Now they are reaping the fruits of their quiet, patient work. The Church can wait—300 years she waited for the doctrine of Nicaea; the sect cannot wait because it has no future. Only the patient work of many scholars against the background of the apocalyptic terrors of our age will give us a new understanding of what Holy Scripture teaches of the Church of Christ and her unity.

THE SITUATION IN 1961

From here we look to the ecumenical situation of the year 1961 when the WCC will try to formulate anew its aims. The meeting of the Central Committee of St. Andrews has worked out the proposals which are now available in the Ecumenical Review (Oct. 1960). We discuss briefly two of them: (1) the tasks assigned to the Commission on Faith and Order and (2) the Basis of the World Council. Both are closely related.

As to the Commission on Faith and Order, the problem is whether this Commission should define for the WCC “the unity we seek.” Thus far the Council has abstained from giving such a definition, but has left it to each member church to understand the “unity which God wills for His Church” according to her own ecclesiological convictions. The main issue is whether “organic,” “churchly unity” should be aimed at by the World Council, or whether it should be satisfied with federation and cooperation. In other words, should the World Council envisage one united church or not?

The idea of a united church in which the existing churches would be integrated is favored by all the champions of church unions on the mission fields and in America. It corresponds to the “Findings of the Ecumenical Youth Assembly in Europe” which was held at Lausanne in 1960. It would be the logical consequence of the endorsement of so many church unions by the World Council of Churches, especially since the Commission on Faith and Order has already, through “unofficial consultations” which henceforth would become “official,” assisted in the establishment of such unions. While men like Bishop Newbigin would ardently support the new course, Archbishop Fisher and Dr. Fry have expressed themselves more cautiously, the latter having warned against neglect of consensus of faith as precondition of unity, and the former having emphasized in a remarkable way “that God’s first will for His Church is the unity of spirit in the bond of peace, a unity compatible with a good deal of disunity of theological formulation or organizational rules.” One has the impression that here the realistic churchman speaks in view of a possible change of the relationship with Rome. Could it be that the proposal of a “fellowship of the churches” as a common front of Christendom against the antireligious and anti-Christian forces of our age, made by the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1920, will be revived in a form agreeable even to Rome? These are the two possibilities before those who in New Delhi have to decide the future of the World Council of Churches.

Whatever the outcome of the debate at New Delhi will be (the outcome will certainly not be a clear decision, but a compromise), it will not mean a change in the ecumenical policy of the Protestant churches within the WCC. They will go on in their process of unification. And to them the Faith and Order Commission will give both the program and, through consultation, the directives. “The Commission on Faith and Order understands that the unity which is both God’s will and His gift to His Church is one which brings all in each place who confess Christ Jesus as Lord into a fully committed fellowship with one another through one baptism into Him, holding the one apostolic faith, preaching the one Gospel and breaking the one bread … and which at the same time unites them with the whole Christian fellowship in all places and all ages in such ways that ministry and members are acknowledged by all and that all can act and speak together.” This statement in the Report for New Delhi sounds very good. This is indeed the unity of Christ’s Church: One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Gospel, one sacrament of Holy Communion. The question is: What do we mean by that? What does it mean to recognize Christ Jesus as “Lord”? Have we one Lord, if some of us understand “Lord” in the sense of the Creeds and the New Testament as “Kyrios,” God as he reveals himself, God of God, very God of very God, and others, while attributing to Jesus Christ authority, are not prepared to ascribe to him the full divinity? Have we one apostolic faith and one Gospel if we allow so much “reasonable liberty” in the interpretation of Scripture that some deny the atoning sacrifice of Christ and “demythologize” the Gospel of Christmas and Easter to such a degree that they deny the New Testament message of the Virgin Birth and the Empty Sepulchre? Or let us take the example of the “one baptism” which the Nicene Creed confesses on the basis of Ephesians 4:5. How can we overcome the tragic situation that some regard baptism of infants as necessary and others regard it as invalid? that to some baptism is the washing of regeneration in the strict sense of an instrument and to others it is a sign of regeneration? Most certainly we cannot overcome this by that compromise suggested for the Church of North India-Pakistan and other union churches and already practiced in similar churches where both infant and “believer’s” baptism are recognized as alternatives. The thesis on “Baptism in Christ” adopted by the Faith and Order Conference at Oberlin, 1957, also amounts to the same thing. It cannot give a solution but simply claims “our deep unity in baptism” in spite of the existing differences. This “unity” includes obviously those also who do not practice any sacrament. The theses of Oberlin on baptism and the Table of the Lord could be adopted only because the Quakers did not protest against them but frankly stated that they interpreted them in accord with their belief in the non-necessity of outward rites and elements (Report, p. 205). We are obliged to honor any such serious conviction. But we must ask whether we honestly can claim fellowship “through one baptism” with people who refuse to be baptized. Has not the time come when the WCC and its National Councils must declare that this is a state of untruthfulness which must come to an end? Will the Commission on Faith and Order understand that no true unity can ever be attained through its present methods of compromise?

The really tragic situation of the WCC becomes obvious if we consider the proposed alteration of its “Basis.” The present Basis reads: “The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.” Nobody was happy about this formula which had been taken over from the old World Conference on Faith and Order and which goes back to the nineteenth century when the term “to accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour” was used against Unitarians and others who denied the full divinity of Christ. It was a carelessly framed formula, meant to imply the historic Trinitarian faith but proving to be Christologically insufficient because it did not do justice to the historic doctrine of the God-Man Jesus Christ. In Evanston it was interpreted as implying the doctrine of the Trinity. A proposal made by the bishops of Norway could not be dealt with at that time for constitutional reasons. They suggested speaking of “churches which, according to the Holy Scriptures, confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.” This has now been incorporated into the text recommended to the Assembly at New Delhi: “The WCC is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfill their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” This formula sounds better. But on closer examination it cannot be regarded as a real improvement because it lacks clarity and can be interpreted in various ways. What does “according to the Scriptures” mean? It means neither the sola scriptura of the Reformation nor the recognition of the doctrine held by our Lord and his apostles, by all Catholic churches East and West and by all churches of the Reformation, that Holy Scripture is the Word of God given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Everybody can understand the phrase according to his pleasure. The same lack of clarity is obvious in its Christology: “God and Saviour,” which can be accepted by all Monophysites and Docetists, does not fully render the orthodox Christology. If the “Basis” were to express the doctrine of the Trinity, “the One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” could not be mentioned only in a doxological formula, which again anybody can interpret as he pleases, even in the sense of a modalistic or economic trinity. Moreover, if the Trinity were to be referred to as an object of faith, it had to be mentioned together with the Person of Christ as that which the churches “confess.” The formula, as it reads now, is obviously a compromise, theologically quite insufficient and in its ambiguity misleading.

The confusion is not the fault only of the present leadership of the WCC. If this elite of Protestant churchmanship and theology is not able to produce anything better, then the fault cannot be in individuals only. The present writer, who has been active in the World Conference on Faith and Order for ten years, who has translated thousands of pages of ecumenical documents and papers and has himself written repeatedly on these questions, has come to the conviction that the reason for our inability to express doctrinal consensus is to be found in the tragic fact that modern Protestantism has lost, along with the understanding of the dogma of the Church, in her nature, her function, and her content, the ability to think dogmatically, that is, to think in terms of a trans-subjective truth which is given to us in the revelation of God. This is also the reason we are no longer able to reject error and heresy. Our fathers at the time of the Reformation had that ability. In spite of all the divisions and controversies that divided sixteenth century Christendom, there was the common Christian possession of “the sublime articles concerning the divine majesty,” that is, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Person of Christ “concerning which,” as Luther put it, “there is no contention or dispute, since we on either side confess them.” And, despite the various views of the interpretation of Scripture, there was on all sides the conviction that Holy Scripture is God’s Word and that nobody must teach against it. As long as we have not regained that amount of consensus in the recognition of an objective truth that is binding on us all, our endeavors to find agreement on matters of Faith and Order will only increase the doubts of our relativistic theologies and the disorder of present-day Christendom. The World Conference of Lausanne recommended as minimum requirement of unity the common acceptance of the Apostles’ and the Nicene Creeds. That the Nicene Creed should become the basis of the WCC was suggested in a recommendation for Amsterdam, 1948 (“The Universal Church in God’s Design. An Ecumenical Study Prepared under the Auspices of the WCC,” 1948, pp. 196 f.). Modern Protestantism is no longer able to confess this Creed which all great Protestant churches theoretically have in common with all Catholic churches East and West. Should ever the day come when this great ecumenical Creed which is thoroughly biblical, as it establishes the authority of the Scriptures, becomes again a living confession, there will be a basis for a sound ecumenical movement in a federation of Christian churches.

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

Review of Current Religious Thought: March 27, 1961

A new mystic has burst upon the contemporary consciousness in the person of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a French savant who died some half-dozen years ago but whose writing are only now being translated into English. Besides being a Jesuit priest, de Chardin was a paleontologist of distinction who spent many years in China. The last four years of his life were lived in New York. The translation of his book The Phenomenon of Man, which appeared in 1959, has already gained for him a remarkable posthumous reputation in the English-speaking world, despite the difficulty and novelty of much of its thought and language. In it he presented an evolutionistic perspective of man as developing into a new species, the category of which has been defined by the Incarnation.

It is evident that in setting before himself the task of reconciling the concepts of evolution and incarnation de Chardin has been faced with the necessity for breaking with the classical mystic concept of matter as an impediment to the soul and of bringing about some kind of reconciliation between the categories of “nature” and “grace” which for so long have been divorced in the theology of Roman Catholicism. This he has attempted to achieve through the development of a kind of “materialistic” mysticism which sees God everywhere—“in all that is most hidden, most solid, and most ultimate in the world.” The meaning and method of this mysticism, which is central to the thought of de Chardin, are expounded in his book Le Milieu Divin. An English translation has appeared under the same (untranslated) title.

In the first place, de Chardin calls for the “divinization” of our activities. Viewing the universe as a single whole, the centre and sun of which is Christ in whom all things consist, he conceives the power of the Incarnate Word not only as animating the higher reaches of existence but even as penetrating matter itself. “Nine out of ten practising Christians feel that man’s work is always at the level of a ‘spiritual encumbrance’ … that time spent at the office or the studio, in the fields or in the factory, is time taken away from prayer and adoration,” with the consequence that they lead a “double or crippled life in practice.” The Christian, however, should experience the “sur-animating” power of God in his daily activity which enables him to collaborate in building the Pleroma and thus to “bring to Christ a little fulfillment.” Moreover, his work should be to him “the very path to sanctity” and “a manifold instrument of detachment,” so that, through the divinization of his actions in Jesus Christ, it is not selfish ends but “God alone whom he pursues through the reality of created things.”

The next stage on this spiritual journey is described as “the divinization of our passivities,” that is, of the things which we endure or undergo. There are “passivities of growth,” such as the life force within man, and there are “passivities of diminishment,” such as misfortunes suffered outwardly and, in the inward sphere, “natural failings, physical defects, intellectual or moral weaknesses, as a result of which the field of our activities, of our enjoyment, of our vision, has been pitilessly limited since birth.” There is, too, the inescapable deterioration of old age. Death, finally, is “the sum and consummation of all our diminishments.” But we must welcome death by finding God in it, by embracing it as our “excentration,” as our “reversion to God” and the step “that makes us lose all foothold within ourselves.”

A consideration of de Chardin’s doctrine of matter in relation to the mystic’s ascent to the contemplation of God in his essence indicates, however, that it is not radically different from ancient Pythagoreanism, even though he avoids the crude dualism of the latter by placing matter within an evolutionary process that leads to an ultimate spiritual state. He is, indeed, able to speak of “holy matter,” redeemed by the act of the Incarnation and informed with a spiritual power. Matter, for him, is not so much a weight as a slope, up which we may “climb towards the light, passing through, so as to attain God, a given series of created things which are not exactly obstacles but rather foot-holds”; and he maintains that “the soul can only rejoin God after having traversed a specific path through matter.” De Chardin would have been quite at home with Socrates!

But it is not only the soul that is to achieve this spiritual fulfillment: the world itself, by means of progressive sublimation, is to attain its consummation in Christ Jesus, so that de Chardin is able to speak of “the general ‘drift’ of matter towards spirit,” until “one day the whole divinizable substance of matter will have passed into the souls of men; all the chosen dynamisms will have been recovered: and then our world will be ready for the Parousia.” His, however, is still the age-old objective of mysticism, namely, to escape from the world. Thus he writes: “The pagan loves the earth in order to enjoy it and confines himself within it; the Christian in order to make it purer and draw from it the strength to escape from it.”

What de Chardin envisages is, in fact, nothing less than the transubstantiation of the universe, brought about by “the omnipresence of christification,” the dynamism of the divine milieu. “The eucharistic transformation,” he says, “goes beyond and completes the transubstantiation of the bread on the altar. Step by step it irresistibly invades the universe.… In a secondary and generalized sense, but in a true sense, the sacramental Species are formed by the totality of the world, and the duration of the creation is the time needed for consecration.”

De Chardin’s writing is beautiful and calmly passionate. But it is gnostic rather than distinctively scriptural. His philosophy is incarnational in the sense of an evolution which gradually incorporates all into the Incarnation. His theology would seem to leave aside the Cross except as significant of a divine participation in the sufferings of his creation. It will be a great day when at last a Roman Catholic thinker breaks free from the tyranny of the analogia entis.

Book Briefs: March 27, 1961

Major Contribution To Bible Study

The Layman’s Bible Commentary, 25 vols. (John Knox Press, 1959 and 1960, about 135 pp. ea., $1.75 or $2 ea., in any combination of four titles), are reviewed by G. Aiken Taylor, Editor, The Presbyterian Journal.

The Layman’s Bible Commentary is the major contribution of the Presbyterian Church, U.S., to the field of Bible study. It is being published at the rate of four volumes each October. Volumes 1 (Introduction), 2 (Genesis), 14 (Hosea thru Jonah), 18 (Luke), and 22 (Galatians thru Colossians) appeared in 1959. Volumes 9 (Psalms), 12 (Jeremiah, Lamentations), 20 (Acts), and 25 (I John thru Revelation) were released in October, 1960.

Faithfully reflecting the spiritual temperament of the Presbyterian Church, U.S., the commentary takes a position which can generally be characterized as evangelical, or conservative. However, it does so with overtones of critical and radical theological interest reflecting the beachheads of liberal thought that have been established within the Presbyterian Church, U.S.

Thus, readers of the latest set of four volumes will notice that Jeremiah actually wrote Jeremiah, John actually wrote the Revelation, and “there is reason to believe that David composed some of the psalms.” The constituency of the sponsoring denomination—mostly conservative—is satisfied.

But the “Word of the Lord” to Jeremiah is to be understood only as a “presentiment”; the Revelation is only one of a large body of apocalyptic literature written to the early Church and in every essential respect alike (although most of it somehow did not get into the Canon); and in Psalms the reader encounters this: “The prophetic thought in vv. 3–6 is too clear to allow a Davidic authorship of Psalm 24.” (David didn’t write Psalm 23 either.) The liberal is not offended.

The actual exposition of the biblical text is generally satisfying to the evangelical seeking enlightenment. Although not a detailed treatment (allowing the author to skip over occasionally difficult verses), the biblical train of thought is rather faithfully reproduced. Some of the volumes (Acts, in the latest set) deal respectfully of the miraculous and reverently of the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, the supernatural implications traditionally recognized in many familiar passages of Scripture are pointedly avoided. The result (Psalms and Revelation, in the latest set) is often incongruous, sometimes incredible.

For instance, Psalm 110 is interpreted without the prophetic elements inferred from it by the Book of Hebrews. The reference to Melchizedek is treated thus: “The psalmist is saying that each Davidic king stands in a long succession of priest-kings who have reigned in Jerusalem and whose most illustrious representative is Melchizedek.” Not only does the reference to a “long succession of priest-kings” suggest a very late date for the psalm; the “priest-king” dual role is a rather novel thought for the period; and the comparison of Melchizedek with David’s line contradicts Hebrews which finds significance precisely in the fact that Melchizedek was without ancestry and without descendants—and a type of Aaron, not David.

The problem, of course, is created by the alleged need to offer an interpretation which does not depend upon any “futuristic” or “prophetic” elements in the biblical text. The resulting effect pops up time and again throughout the commentary, which is not often inclined to allow an interpretation of any passage implying a revelation not ordinarly available to human “presentiment.”

The treatment of the Revelation affords the best example of this weakness, of course. The Revelation is interpreted as “apocalyptic literature,” meaning a style of writing in the sense that poetry is a style, that the fable is a style, or that the parable is a style. Authors of “apocalyptic literature” employed symbols and veiled figures in order to convey hidden meaning to those who knew how to unravel the mystery of the writing. But the “future” perspective in any “apocalyptic literature” is a sort of farsighted attitude of mind with which one faces the present. The result is a philosophy of history such as Augustine’s “City of God.” Says the commentary: “This book contains nothing essentially new to the other portions of our New Testament.”

Bible students seeking a suggestive interpretation of the Psalms, a graphic reproduction of the message of the prophets, a Christian ethic, and a Christian philosophy of history—as well as a discreet and restrained treatment of the Gospel—will find these in the Layman’s Bible Commentary.

On the other hand, Bible students seeking a treatment of history and of prophecy in which the supernatural element is measurably greater than in contemporary human experience will often be disappointed.

G. AIKEN TAYLOR

Interpreting Jude

A Commentary on the Epistle of Jude, by Richard Wolff (Zondervan, 1960, 150 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by E. Earle Ellis, Visiting Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Bethel Theological Seminary.

A native of Germany, Wolff entered the United States in 1951 and is now associated with the Back to the Bible broadcast. He finds the literary relation of Jude and Second Peter difficult but finally decides for the priority of the latter. The Enoch quotation is a genuine strand of extra-canonical tradition. Likewise, the devil’s contending for the body of Moses must not be regarded as an illustrative argument from a well-known story but an affirmation of an historic reality (p. 38). Despite an occasional slip (e.g., p. 59, 80) the style is lucid and sometimes moving. This is a scholarly effort which evidences a wide acquaintance with the literature. One might have wished, however, for a greater interaction with the twentieth century commentators.

E. EARLE ELLIS

History Of The Bible

The Bible in the Making, by Geddes MacGregor (J. B. Lippincott, 1959, 448 pp., $6) is reviewed by A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Associate Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Wheaton College Graduate School.

Here is a readable, fresh, and living history of the Bible from the time of the composition of the books to the present day. In terms of authorship, background, and composition of the books, the author would be in general agreement with the late R. H. Pfeiffer and James Moffatt.

Most of the book is spent not on the Bible “in the making” but on the Bible in the historical process of being copied and disseminated. The Bible before the age of printing and from Gutenberg to the present occupies the author’s attention. No aspect is neglected. Four chapters are devoted to the King James Version. Particularly outstanding is chapter 13, “The King James Version in Production,” and chapter 12, “The Makers of the King James Version.” What people do not know about the King James Version is astonishing. In an admirable way, MacGregor removes such ignorance with fact coupled with human interest.

The book has 14 appendices. These alone are worth the price of the book. Appendix III is superb: “Modern Languages into which the Bible Has Been Translated (pp. 331–383). The history of the Bible is inherently a fascinating theme. MacGregor’s The Bible in the Making has made actual what was inherently potential.

A. BERKELEY MICKELSON

Dark Atomic Age

The Future of Mankind, by Karl Jaspers, translated from the German by E. B. Ashton (University of Chicago Press, 1961, 342 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by C. Gregg Singer, Professor of History, Catawba College.

This is a book that should be read by every liberal who has lost contact with the grim reality of an atomic age, and does not see the crisis which the West faces, and by every evangelical who seeks to keep abreast of the intellectual trends of the day. The liberal will be brought face to face with the utter shallowness of the basic assumptions of that liberalism with which he has been blinded, and the utter futility of his optimistic view of man in belief and progress as it is usually defined. On the other hand, the evangelical will gain a new insight into the stark pessimism which threatens to overwhelm the modern mind.

Writing against a backdrop of the very real possibility of atomic warfare, and his belief that such a conflict would bring only complete ruin to civilization as we know it, and perhaps, the extinction of the race, Karl Jaspers examines the usually accepted proposals for averting such catastrophe and finds them all insufficient in that they offer little or no hope to modern man. His criticisms are marked with great insight and keenness and in these chapters he is at his best. He finds the commonly accepted idea of the soldier and warfare of the past as totally inadequate in the present emergency. In his discussion of neutrality (not to be confused with political neutralism), he recognizes that it can no longer retain its old meaning which it still possessed as late as 1914. “Neutrality means the self-preservation of freedom, and the mere existence of such a political condition irritated totalitarianism” (p. 138). This new neutrality must arm for its own defense, but at the same time such a neutral state “might come to symbolize the possibility of peace for all” (p. 139). But Jaspers does not indicate just how it might become such a symbol. Particularly pertinent in the light of the present situation are his comments on the United Nations. He insists that this organization “resembles a stage on which an incidental interlude is presented” (p. 155), while the great powers make their plans. “It is the sham communications in which they hide their purposes by placing themselves among some eighty major and minor states and recognizing the equality of all” (p. 155). He feels that the United Nations Organization offers little or no hope for permanent peace and should not be relied upon to any great extent. “The UN of today is the ambiguous structure that promotes chaos and wants to bring order out of it at the same time” (p. 159).

Jaspers, almost overwhelmed by the enormity of the crisis confronting humanity, is hard pressed to find a solution. Neither existing institutions, nor science or theology are adequate for the task. The future of mankind does not lie with either Christianity or the Church. They can help, but philosophy is needed, and he defines it as “the thinking that enables man to ascertain what exists and what he wants, to grasp his meaning and to find himself from the source” (p. 196). Thus, the only remedy to be found is an existential approach. There are frequent references to human freedom, which is never adequately defined, and to a rationalism which is existentialist in character. The book displays, with a dismaying clarity, the bankruptcy of “the post modern mind” as it staggers under the load of persistent problems for which it has no answers.

C. GREGG SINGER

Advice For Travelers

Assignment: Overseas, by John Rosengrant and others (Crowell, 1960, 152 pp., $1.95), is reviewed by L. Nelson Bell.

Every pastor should be aware of this book and see that a copy is placed in the hands of any of his parishioners who is to take up residence abroad.

There are Americans who give offense to peoples of lands they visit because they are themselves crude and indifferent to the feelings of others.

There are others who give offense through sheer ignorance of cultures, customs, and the mores in the lands to which they may be assigned. These people want to know how to meet new situations and are anxious to avoid the mistakes which make for resentment and misunderstanding.

Assignment: Overseas is a comprehensive book with a wealth of information and sound advice, written by a number of men with broad experience in the field about which they write.

Business firms with branch offices abroad; our own government with its multiplied representatives scattered around the world; the traveler; even the casual tourist would profit greatly to get this book and read it carefully before leaving our shores.

By so doing they can avoid embarrassment and misunderstanding and at the same time prove worthier representatives of the best America has to offer.

L. NELSON BELL

Spiritual Guidance

My Answer, by Billy Graham (Doubleday, 1960, 259 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by J. D. Grey, Pastor, First Baptist Church, New Orleans, Louisiana.

“Can you tell me this?” is the introductory statement of sincere appeals for help constantly heard by pastors, Christian workers, and others. In My Answer, Billy Graham answers hundreds of questions that have been propounded to him and answered by him over the years in his syndicated column carried by over 150 newspapers five days a week.

These questions show the perplexing problems people face today and the deep distress in which many of them find themselves. Out of his vast experience, study, and observation, Dr. Graham answers these questions in a sympathetic, warm-hearted, Bible-centered manner. The book will prove most helpful to people in all walks of life who have their own problems. It will also prove indispensable in its aid to ministers, teachers, counselors, and other Christians seeking to deal with the disturbed and perplexed soul of many who come to them for spiritual guidance. The great heart and compassionate, sympathetic, understanding spirit of the noted evangelist emerges in glorious fashion as spiritual guidance is given in My Answer.

J. D. GREY

Unique Apologetic

Symbolism in the Bible and in the Church, by Gilbert Cope (Philosophical Library, 1959, 276 pp., $10), is reviewed by Bernard Ramm, Professor of Systematic Theology, California Baptist Theological Seminary.

In the author’s own words, “The general thesis of this book is that the imagery and symbolism of the Bible and the Church are valid and effective still—perhaps even more so now than the rational analysis of human consciousness and natural environment has disclosed such a vast realm of mystery and ineffability” (p. 12). Later he discusses Jung’s theory of psychological archetypes and cites with favor an author who sees in these archetypes “an enormous inexhaustible store of ancient knowledge concerning the most profound relations between God, man, and the cosmos” (p. 87). Then the author says: “It is in this spirit that the remainder of this book is written. It is an attempt to apply some of these ideas to the study of the Scriptures and of Christian worship in the hope that we may be helped to find a way out of the present impasse in religion” (pp. 87–88).

The book is, then, a kind of apologetic, but a very unique one. The Bible is currently rejected by scholars, critics, and scientists, but if the symbols of the Bible are approached through our knowledge of symbolism gained from anthropological research, and if religious experience is interpreted through the Jungian archetypes, then Christianity will become relevant to modern man. This new apologetic must be concretely applied to church architecture.

The author is widely read in certain areas only, but he is very literate. We are taken upon an unusually odd, unusually bizarre, and exceedingly confusing ride. Apparently the only two options Cope reckons with are: (1) orthodoxy of all kinds which takes the teachings of the Bible literally and thus manages to make a supercolossal mess of it; and (2) a strange synthesis of typological hermeneutics of sorts, a theological symbolism derived from a rather extensive cultural survey of symbols, and Jungian psychological archetypes. One example of this bizarre procedure is that he can readily agree that Joseph is Jesus’ father, and that Mary is the holy virgin Mary. Biologically, Joseph is the father of Jesus; but in the rich symbolism of femininity Mary is to the Church the Great Mother and Holy Virgin! This interpretation of the Virgin Birth, Cope tells us, will offend strict orthodox people and atheists (p. 153).

There are three serious weaknesses to the work. First, it is personal to the finger tips. It makes for interesting, fascinating, and unusual reading in spots, but serious theological exposition must be more than a registry of highly personal opinions. Secondly, the root of the problem of the book is theological methodology. Before the author can meaningfully talk about symbolism, it seems to me he must first settle the big problems of theological methodology. He needs to spend many hours with such authors as Paterson, Brunner, Lecerf, Barth, Warfield, Kuyper, and Weber who debate the deep and profound issues in theological methodology. Without fundamental work in theological methodology, the theses of Cope really hang in mid-air.

Thirdly, such a work on symbolism can only come to maturity when it is further based upon studies in linguistics, semantics (the philosophy of language), and logic (the rules of thought). The book suffers immensely in the mind of this reviewer, from a real grounding in any of these three.

BERNARD RAMM

Survey Of Religions

Religions of the East, by Joseph M. Kitagawa (Westminster, 1960, 319 pp. $4.50), is reviewed by Samuel H. Moffett, Professor, Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Seoul, Korea.

This useful and informative survey could be called “The Doctrine of the Church in the Religions of the East.” Kitagawa, who is now at the University of Chicago, has focused short studies of Asia’s major faiths around their varying concepts of the “holy community”: Confucianism and the family, Hinduism and caste, Buddhism and the Samgha, Islam and the Ummah.

The ecclesiastical structures of Hinduism and Confucianism, he points out, are adaptations of already existing social units—family and caste. Buddhism, on the other hand (like Christianity), created its own. Its Samgha originally included laymen as well as priests but was gradually narrowed down to the monastic orders, and only in recent years has Buddhism’s “ecumenical movement,” as Kitagawa puts its, begun to “glimpse … the Samgha Universal in the midst of the brokenness of the empirical Buddhist Community.” The Ummah of Islam is both a holy community and a body politic, a theocratic state which had no priesthood or special holy community apart from society.

Contributing to the value of the studies is a short and useful historical sketch of each religion with special reference to its modern developments.

Comparisons of religion too often fail in their labored claims of likeness or uniqueness. A strength of Kitagawa’s work is that, except in an introductory chapter, he contents himself with description and analysis and avoids misleading comparisons to Christianity.

SAMUEL H. MOFFETT

Lion At Bay

In the Arena, by Isobel Kuhn (C.I.M., 1959, 192 pp., cloth 8s. 6d., paper 6s. 6d.), is reviewed by John Job, Lecturer, Rawdon Methodist College, Leeds, England.

The editor of a Christian magazine recently said he did not altogether blame his readers if they found missionary writing distasteful. That one can sympathize with such a remark is a sad reflection on the missionary works of the last few years. Everybody has noted that Isobel Kuhn’s books are like an oasis in a literary desert. What is it about them? The obvious thing is that they welcome the reader. They do not repel him by giving the impression that a first-class Christian is addressing second-raters in whom missionary interest is a wan and flickering light. They are written with an honesty and genuine humility that gives to the problems she faced in remote lands a spiritual proximity to those faced by the housewife at home. Physical hardship, separation from husband or child, and danger of war heighten the colors, but the underlying picture is the same.

This book is not only an instinctive account of a missionary’s life in China, but also the testimony of one who found that God’s Word was indeed a light unto her feet—even in the darkest corners.

JOHN JOB

Revival In Wales

When He is Come, by Eifion Evans (Evangelical Trust of Wales, 1959, 108 pp., 4s. 6d.), is reviewed by the Reverend J. Gwyn-Thomas, Rector of Illogan, Cornwall.

The centenary of the great religious movements of 1859 has inspired the writing of new books partly to commemorate those movements and partly because there is a turning to God for a fresh outpouring of his Spirit in view of our contemporary religious situation, as desperate a condition as ever was in the past century. Dr. Eifion Evans has placed us in his debt by giving us this valuable study of the situation in Wales during the years 1858–60. This small book is well documented, chiefly from contemporary periodicals and books. The most useful feature of the work it that it is written from a theological standpoint; we are given a glimpse of what was preached by the leaders of this movement of the Spirit. The emphasis is not on technique but on doctrine.

Moreover, interwoven with the factual accounts there runs a constant theme on the place of prayer in the life of the churches affected by the Revival. These two factors alone make this book both valuable and timely. We strongly recommend this work of Dr. Evans to all readers who are seeking a fresh outpouring of the spirit and to that end are concerned with breaking the soil.

JOHN GWYN-THOMAS

Evangelistic Preaching

The Rich Man and Lazarus, by Brownlow North (Banner of Truth, 1960, 125 pp., 2s.6d.), is reviewed by H. M. Carson, Vicar of St. Paul’s, Cambridge.

This exposition of the parable was originally delivered as a series of addresses in the open air during the 1859 revival in Northern Ireland. In view of the great blessing which attended the ministry of Brownlow North, they will repay study in a day far removed from that flood tide.

The parables are notoriously difficult to expound. Shall we insist on one central lesson or shall we indulge in excessive allegorizing? Christ’s own exegesis of the Sower would seem to point the way, for in it he combines the emphasis on the central theme, with an exposition of the details, all of which bear on the theme. Judged by this standard North’s exegesis would stand. It is true that he expounds in detail the story; but his detailed exposition constantly converges on the main word of warning. Of course North himself took it as history, though he does seem to leave the question an open one as to whether it is history or parable.

Throughout there runs a strong vein of warning together with an urgent call to repentance. It is powerful evangelistic preaching; and one is forced to ask if this preaching of hell is not one of the forgotten dimensions in contemporary preaching. In this, as in so many things, even evangelicals tend to feel that we are wiser than our fathers. But a glance at the state of the church today compared with 1859, or the eighteenth century, might lead to second thoughts on the matter.

H. M. CARSON

Triune Truth

Stand Up in Praise to God, by Paul S. Rees (Eerdmans, 1960, 117 pp., $2), is reviewed by Richard Allen Bodey, Pastor, Third Presbyterian Church, North Tonawanda, New York.

Here is proof that doctrinal preaching, even when soaring through the highest orbits of Christian truth, need not be dull, pedantic, or irrelevant. These ten messages by the former pastor of the First Covenant Church of Minneapolis, three on each Person of the Godhead, and one on the Trinity, will clarify difficult points for the laymen, and spur the preacher on to feeding his flock with the strong meat of the Word.

RICHARD ALLEN BODEY

Adventist Literature

The Seventh-day: The Story of the Seventh-day Adventists, by Booton Herndon (McGraw-Hill, 1960, 267 pp., $4.95), is reviewed by Walter R. Martin, Director, Christian Research Institute.

Following in the footsteps of its predecessor (Seventh-day Adventist—“Faith in Action,” by David Mitchell), The Seventh-day is a sympathetic portrait carrying the Nihil Obstat of the Adventist denomination. Advertisements for the book describe it as an “authorized” publication, so its goal at the outset is clear. Mr. Herndon is a non-Adventist, but the book is to all intents and purposes an Adventist book. It catalogs in narrative and travelogue form some of the admirable accomplishments of Adventist missionaries with a sprinkling of humor and an enthusiasm that is catching. The value underscores missions and the zeal of Adventists in propagating their beliefs. It is interesting and informative, but objectivity suffers greatly especially in the area of history and theology.

The general tenor of the book is best summed up in Mr. Herndon’s own words: “If … the primary desire … is security … then the Seventh-day Adventist must surely be content for his security is assured. They are as positive in their own minds as mortal men can be that, if they meet the conditions of personal righteousness, their lives not only extend to the grave, but far beyond it, forever and ever, in the steady and constant unimaginable joy.… In America at least, they contribute four times as much money to their church on a percapita basis than the national average of the other denominations.”

It is unfortunate that Mr. Herndon glosses over Ellen G. White and apparently was unaware of the fact that the very “reform dress” which she advocated and for which he lauds her was in reality a fiasco which exploded in her face and caused her no end of embarrassment. He also fails to mention Dr. Kellogg’s side of his disagreement with the Adventist church and Dr. Kellogg’s denouncement of James and Ellen White. These and other things make The Seventh-day an extremely one-sided volume.

In recent years the publishing field has been flooded with vanity books which capitalize upon a virtually captive audience (“The Cross and The Crown”—Christian Science; “Faith on the March” and “The New World Society”—Jehovah’s Witnesses; “Faith in Action”—Seventh-day Adventism). They provide a ready money market; and their sales are, to say the least, rewarding. Unfortunately they all betray a basic lack of research and acquaintance with primary data, and they are all notoriously prejudiced in favor of the subject.

The Seventh-day is also guilty of this in a lesser degree, although it must be viewed as propaganda for Seventh-day Adventism.

WALTER R. MARTIN

Book Briefs

Building a Christian Home, by Henry R. Brandt, and Homer E. Dowdy (Scripture Press, 1960, 158 pp., $3). A Christian “how” book written out of experience in scientific and practical marriage counselling.

Jesus Says to You, by Daniel A. Poling (McGraw-Hill, 1961, 119 pp., $2.95). 40 spirit-lifting devotional essays based on the sayings of Christ.

Hear Our Prayer, by Roy Pearson (McGraw-Hill, 1961, 174 pp., $3.75). Prayers for public worship on all occasions by the dean of Andover Newton.

Interpreting the New Testament, by H. E. Dana and R. E. Glaze, Jr. (Broadman, 1961, 165 pp., $3.25). A new edition of Dana’s Southern Baptist classic, Searching the Scriptures. Helpful studies in the history and techniques of Bible interpretation.

My Hand in His, by Herman W. Gockel (Concordia, 1961, 229 pp., $2.75). 110 vivid and inspiring modern parables which high-light Bible truth.

Love So Amazing, by D. Reginald Thomas (Revell, 1961, 127 pp., $2.50). Expository preaching that comes to grips with modern life.

Bible Book of the Month: Lamentations

When the Sinaitic Covenant was renewed to the hosts of Israel, poised in the plains of Moab for the conquest of Canaan, the ancient promises of blessing were repeated; but so too were the curses that must follow upon rebellion against the covenant Lord. The warning was also cast in the form of a prophetic song (Deut. 32) which Moses taught Israel that it might be in their own mouths as God’s witness against them in the latter days when many evils should befall them for their sins (cf. Deut. 31:19–21). Lamentations is the covenant congregation’s antiphony to the Mosaic song of witness.

Israelite history had run true to the pattern foretold in that song. When Jeshurun waxed fat, he lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation and provoked God to jealousy with strange gods, until he hid his face in wrath. The ensuing destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of her children occurred not as a single stroke but, like Job’s sufferings, as a succession of calamities. The years 605, 597, and 587 were all years of catastrophe, of siege and deportation. The beginning of the end might be traced to 608, the year king Josiah was slain in the valley of Megiddo, “and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah: and all the singing men and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel: and, behold, they are written in the lamentations” (2 Chron. 35:24c, 25). Soon the passage of the unhappy years would be marked by the mournful fasts of the fourth month, and of the fifth and seventh and tenth months (cf. Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19)—fasts memorializing major disasters in the protracted agony of Jerusalem’s fall. This was the generation of lamentations in Israel. And amid the funeral wailing and doleful dirges of these dark days, the canonical Lamentations came into being.

Form-critical investigations have identified three literary types in Lamentations: the funeral dirge in chapters 1; 2, and 4; the individual lament in chapter 3; and the communal lament in chapter 5. For an example of another communal lament over a city, see the Sumerian lamentation composed in the first half of the second millennium B.C., a bewailing of the fall of Ur III to the Elamites and Subarians (cf. J. B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 1950, pp. 455–463). Among various interesting parallels to the biblical Lamentations is the interpretation of the destruction of Ur due to divine abandonment.

Actually two or more of the designated literary types are interwoven in some chapters of Lamentations and all the types, even the individual lament of chapter 3, are expressive of the common tragedy of the whole covenant community. Such an employment of the individual form of lament and dirge was natural; for the eyewitnesses who was recreating the historic tragedy experienced it as a tragedy compounded of many personal tragedies—his own, his kinsmen’s, his neighbors.’

Spontaneous as is the emotion that pulses through these poems, they are a work of conscious art. That is evidenced in the strophic rhythm but especially in the alphabetic structure of the several laments. Taken together they constitute the most elaborate acrostic composition in the Old Testament. Each of the first four poems is a complete acrostic. The fifth poem contains 22 lines corresponding to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, although they do not begin with the successive letters of the alphabet. In chapter 3, not only the first but all three lines of each strophe begin with the appropriate letter of the alphabet (cf. Ps. 119). An odd detail is that, except in the first poem, the ayin-pe sequence is reversed.

For a summary of suggested explananations of the adoption of so artificial a form as the acrostic for the expression of such obviously spontaneous emotion, see Norman K. Gottwald’s stimulating Studies in the Book of Lamentations (London, 1954, pp. 23 ff.). He concludes that while memorization may have been one factor, the most significant “function of the acrostic was to encourage completeness in the expression of grief, the confession of sin and the instilling of hope” (p. 28) so that the laments might serve as an effective emotional-spiritual catharsis.

Whether or not the eyewitness-author was the prophet Jeremiah, we cannot be certain. In the Hebrew text the book does not explicitly claim Jeremianic authorship. Moreover, even though the sufferings of the individual who speaks in the first person as the representative of the nation in chapter 3 be regarded as reminiscent of the personal experiences of Jeremiah, a writer other than Jeremiah might have assumed that character as a literary device, similar to the speaking of personified Zion in the first person (cf., e.g., 1:12 ff.). However, earliest tradition, Jewish and Christian, is unanimously in support of Jeremianic authorship. The Septuagint translation is prefaced (though not in all extant nor probably in its earliest manuscripts) with the words: “And it came to pass, after Israel was led into captivity and Jerusalem laid waste, that Jeremiah sat weeping and lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem and said.” This tradition possibly existed still earlier in Hebrew manuscript, for the Septuagint statement seems to be a translation from Hebrew. The considerable measure of resemblance between Lamentations and Jeremiah’s prophecy in literary figure and phrase, in temper and tone, as well as in historiographical perspective lends strong support to the early tradition.

Modern literary criticism, however, with few exceptions rejects not only the theory of Jeremianic authorship but even the theory of a single author. The unity of the poems is judged to be rather that of common theme and common cultic function. The provenance of these poems is identified by some scholars as both Palestine and Babylonia, and the completion of the anthology has been dated up to two or three centuries after the exile of Judah. A thorough recent defence of a moderate form of this point of view is offered by Theophilus Meek in the introduction to Lamentations in The Interpreter’s Bible. No single objection of Meek to the Jeremianic authorship is decisive nor is his case as a whole convincing. Meek finds evidence of an early tradition of non-Jeremianic authorship in the presence of Lamentations among the writings. He contends that if the book had been regarded as Jeremianic when the prophets were canonized, it would have been included in the second division of the canon. That contention rests on an erroneous approach to the whole question of the canon of Scripture. On the other hand, those who eventually adopted the three-fold arrangement of Old Testament books which is found in Hebrew editions possibly did base that division on the official theocratic status of the authors. But if so, we still could not be certain that they applied this primary criterion with thoroughgoing consistency (cf., Ps. 90).

Lamentations is one of those biblical songs occasioned by the fall of great cities. Some of these are taunt songs such as Isaiah prophetically uttered over Babylon (Isa. 47) or Ezekiel over Tyre (Ezek. 27; 28) or the New Testament Apocalypse over the harlot “Babylon” (Rev. 18). But because the beginning of judgment is at the house of God, Lamentations must be heard in the covenant community, mourning the judgment of the city of God, before the taunt song, except prophetically, over the fallen city of the world.

The weeping of Lamentations over the captivity of Jerusalem is fraught with the mystery of the ways of him who takes no delight in the death of the wicked (cf. 3:33), yet has not elected to life even all those who frequent his sanctuary; of him who wept over the condemned Jerusalem which he would have gathered unto himself, the light of life, and they would not. Still the captivity of Jerusalem in Jeremiah’s day was not yet the final catastrophe which Jesus lamented. The tears of Israel, carried captive in the sixth century B.C. from her paradise land of milk and honey, were more like the tears Adam and Eve might have shed as they were driven into exile out of the garden of God. The threatened curse had come; but there remained the prospect of restoration.

The redemptive omnipotence of the Lord is magnified when Israel exults over Pharaoh’s drowned hosts in the Song of the Sea (Exod. 15) and again at last when the Church, which has gotten the victory over the beast, stands by the sea of glass and sings the triumphant Song of Moses and of the Lamb (Rev. 15:3). But the vindication of the Gospel as God’s power in putting enmity between the elect and Satan and thereby in transforming them into steadfast friends of God is even more eloquently voiced in the doxology of a Job sung while he is still crushed in the serpent’s coils (Job 1:21; 2:10). Such is the praise which ascends from the covenant remnant to the heavenly Throne in Lamentations. At the nadir of theocratic history, while Satan is beguiling the nations into interpreting Jerusalem’s captivity as proof of Yahweh’s impotence and of the failure of his saving purposes, God raises a witness out of the mouth of the travailing remnant which was obliged to share in the judgment woes of faithless Jerusalem—a convincing witness to the redeeming and sanctifying efficacy of the Word and Spirit in their lives.

The victory of the Spirit of God in the hearts of his elect appears in Lamentations in the very fact that sorrow is expressed here not alone in soliloquy and rhetorical address to the passers-by, but ever anew in importunate prayer. Moreover, for the poet to interpret the judgment of the city of God as the judgment foretold in the covenant curse and to apprehend in the hour of judgment the hope of restoration presented in the word of covenant blessing was a triumph of faith and, therefore, of grace.

As for the fall of Jerusalem, Lamentations does not answer the Satanic attack on Yahweh’s sovereignty by attempting to isolate the tragedy somehow from the will of God. The problem of theodicy may not be solved at the expense of theology. The lamenting remnant rather stands in faith under God’s revelation through the prophets and fundamentally through the Book of the Covenant, and they declare their “Amen” to Moses’ Song of Witness against Israel.

Gottwald’s conclusion that the situational key to the theology of Lamentations is found “in the tension between Deuteronomic faith and historical adversity” (op. cit., p. 53) represents a radical misinterpretation of Deuteronomy. Our lamenting poet saw no such tension but rather affirmed Jerusalem’s recent history to be a faithful execution of the terms, in particular the curses, of the Deuteronomic document of covenant renewal (cf. Deut. 27:14 ff.; 28:15 ff.). “The Lord hath done that which he had devised; he hath fulfilled his word that he had commanded in the days of old” (2:17). In every poem Israel’s covenant-breaking is confessed and Yahweh is recognized as himself the righteous author of Zion’s fierce affliction (see especially chap. 2). And, of course, the hope of renewed divine mercies, most graphically expressed in the anticipation of divine vengeance upon Israel’s gloating enemies (cf. e.g., 1:21, 22; 3:59 ff.; 4:21 ff), is faith’s response to the promise of Israel’s restoration which was presented in the Deuteronomic Covenant as the prospect of true Israel beyond the curse of Exile (cf. Deut. 30:1–10; 32:36, 43).

As incorporated into the canon of Scripture, Lamentations serves a purpose not unlike the Psalms. It is a pattern of piety for the devout; a call to repentance and prayer (cf. 3:40, 41). In particular, it instructs the children of God in the nature of godly sorrowing before their heavenly Father. Here is the manner of mourning when God pours upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and of supplications and they look upon Him whom they have pierced and there is great mourning like that for Josiah in the valley of Megiddo (cf. Zech. 12:10, 11). Here is the tenor of prayer when evil days befall God’s kingdom, when the bitter root of apostasy introduced by false prophets in revolt against the Word of Christ (cf. 2:14; 4:13) has produced a wild harvest of wormwood and gall.

The godly, while they need not suppress their soul’s deepest groanings, are not to grieve with the abandon of those who have no hope. Even the acrostic form of the poems serves to enhance the expression of emotion which is under the discipline of faith—a faith which recognizes history as the orderly outworking of God’s whole counsel from Aleph to Taw. The ebb and flow of emotion through the five poems is also instructive. The flood of lament is allowed to increase continually in the first two poems, but when in the climactic third chapter it threatens to become overwhelming, faith and hope take control drawing strength from the memory of the sovereign goodness of God: “I called upon thy name O Lord, out of the lowest dungeon; thou heardest my voice … thou hast redeemed my life” (3:55, 58). Once and again in the last two laments by reason of the present evil waves of sorrow wash over the soul. But the force of the tempest is now clearly abated. The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen has successfully assuaged the flood of despair. This godly lament, being like all true prayer faith’s response to God’s covenant Word, presently transcends the threatening storm with a confession of the certain realization of God’s revealed purpose: “The punishment of thine iniquity is accomplished, O daughter of Zion; he will no more carry thee away into captivity: he will visit thine iniquity, O daughter of Edom; he will discover thy sins” (4:22).

If Lamentations is like the Psalms in providing a model of prayer, it is like the book of Job in addressing itself to the righteous in their sufferings. Its closing note, while consistent with the composure achieved through confidence in the mercy of Israel’s eternal Lord, reminds us that we do not prematurely escape the groaning and travail of this world (cf. 5:19–22). But like Job, Lamentations summons the people of God, whatever the mystery of providence and however long God seems to forget them, to abide in the way of the covenant which is the way of the obedience, patience, and hope of faith.

Assistant Professor of Old Testament

Westminster Theological Seminary

Convening Churchmen due to Weigh School Aid

The controversy over federal aid to education, particularly whether parochial schools ought to be included, promises to command special attention at approaching church conventions.

Most Protestants are strongly opposed to use of public monies by sectarian schools, and many fear federal educational financing of any kind. Thus convening churchmen can be expected to produce an abundance of resolutions calling upon the government to hold the line. And the resolutions will be issued in rapid succession, for spring is the favorite time of year for Protestant church conventions.

Ecumenical proposals are due for more debate this year, too. Much interest will focus on a four-way denominational merger plan advanced by Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, Stated Clerk of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. The plan is aimed at organizationally uniting his own church with the Protestant Episcopal, Methodist, and United (Congregational Christian—Evangelical and Reformed) churches.

Blake declared this month that some 27 presbyteries have adopted resolutions or overtures favoring his plan.

There has been considerable dissent as well, which probably spells a long debate at the United Presbyterian General Assembly in Buffalo, New York, May 17–24.

The Blake merger plan has drawn comment both from churchmen whom it would encompass and others.

Bishop Gerald Kennedy, President of the Council of Bishops of The Methodist Church, says U. S. pluralism may be “not our weakness but our strength.”

“It may be,” Kennedy said in an article in The Christian Century last month, “that some will claim that organic union is an end in itself without any reference to the problems it raises or to the question as to whether it would produce more results. That position I repudiate, for winning people to Christ will always be more important to me than the method we use.” Kennedy made no direct reference to Blake’s plan.

Observed General Secretary Edwin H. Tuller of the American Baptist Convention: “American Baptists were not included in the list of four denominations which would merge.… The omission was deliberate, since no emphasis was given … to the necessity for believers’ baptism and the establishment of a personal and vital relationship to God through Christ as a prerequisite to church membership.”

Three overtures have been reported for discussing the Blake plan on the floor of the centennial General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. (Southern), to be held in the Highland Park Presbyterian Church of Dallas, the denomination’s largest, April 27-May 2. Another report due for presentation calls for a new approach to predestination, proposing a variation without rewriting the confession of faith.

The controversial film, “Operation Abolition,” probably will prompt considerable debate. Last month the 112-year-old First Baptist Church of San Francisco withdrew support from the National Council of Churches and severed all ties with local councils; Pastor Curtis Nims cited the film and added that “too many statements and actions” have been adopted by the NCC without the knowledge of whether even a majority of its member church bodies were in agreement.

A denomination organizational program will be reviewed at annual sessions of the American Baptist Convention to be held in Portland, Oregon, June 14–18.

A Southern Baptist spokesman said his own convention, scheduled for St. Louis May 23–26, “promises to be peaceful as far as the agenda is concerned,” but emphasized that any delegate could bring up a highly controversial topic with no advance notice.

Theme for the National Association of Evangelicals meeting in Grand Rapids, Michigan, April 10–14, is “Thy Word Is Truth.” It is understood that there may be some discussion as to what posture the NAE should take toward the ecumenical movement.

Other forthcoming church conventions: General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, April 3–6; National Holiness Association, Chicago, April 4–6; Independent Fundamental Churches of America, Chicago, April 20–25; American Council of Christian Churches, Phoenix, April 26–28; Christian and Missionary Alliance, Columbus, Ohio, May 17–22; Conservative Baptist, Portland, Oregon, May 25–30.

The Catholic Lobby

The U. S. Roman Catholic hierarchy demonstrated this month, as perhaps never before, the lobby power of its National Catholic Welfare Conference, which has headquarters along Washington’s fashionable Massachusetts Avenue. Unprecedented determination marked the hierarchy’s bid to have parochial schools included in federal aid-to-education measures. Priests regularly marched up to Capitol Hill to be heard at House and Senate committee hearings.

Caught in the middle was America’s first Roman Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, whose stand against federal grants to parochial schools put him at odds with the hierarchy. Some observers thought it a bad omen that the first big issue in the Kennedy administration was a Church-State conflict.

Kennedy himself indicated that he could not understand why current educational measures have raised “this major public encounter” in 1961 inasmuch as educational measures have been sent to Congress in previous years without such intense debates.

Administration bills in the House and Senate provide federal grants and loans to public schools only. Kennedy, who questions the constitutionality of federal loans to parochial schools, wants separate legislation for such loans. He says grants to parochial schools would be unconstitutional. He does not want to jeopardize a public-school grants bill by tacking on provisions for loans or grants to parochial schools.

Msgr. Frederick G. Hochwalt, director of the education department of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, insists on keeping all provisions in the same bill. He says that some Catholics have fears about federal aid to education. He also declares, however, that if any aid is to be given, Catholic schools should share it.

Hochwalt was asked at a committee hearing how the nearly 100 Roman Catholic Congressmen would be expected to vote. He replied that “no one will try to persuade them against their own conscience.” He made it clear, however, that Romanist leaders will continue pressure for their stand.

A National Council of Churches spokesman testified in support of federal aid to public schools, but against such aid to private schools. He said NCC had formulated no position on loans.

Protestants and Other Americans United gave no position on federal aid to public schools, but registered strong opposition to grants and loans to parochials.

A spokesman for the National Association of Evangelicals indicated compromised constituency opposition to federal aid to public education as a principle. He joined in opposing loans and grants to parochial schools.

The Citizens for Educational Freedom organization is campaigning for federal funds to be given parents of children to be used for tuition in either public or non-public schools, ostensibly avoiding direct grants for sectarian use. Support of this was attributed also to the National Union of Christian Schools.

A compromise plan would allow parents to make their children’s tuition an income tax deduction.

The controversy had many overtones. Some observers say the parochial-school aspect serves as a smokescreen for federal aid to public education, which itself has never been universally recognized as desirable, but is more and more accepted as an inevitable political phenomenon. Others fear that parochial school aid would result in every little congregation in the country sporting its own little schoolhouse. Archbishop William O. Brady of St. Paul, Minnesota, said that since public funds are denied their schools, Roman Catholics should consider whether it is time “for another Tea Party,” apparently a reference to early American history when colonists, crying “no taxation without representation,” dumped British tea into the Boston harbor. The Rev. O. James Remington, pastor of the Lincoln Park Baptist Church in Newton, Massachusetts, said he would refuse to pay his federal income tax if Congress grants aid to parochial schools.

Peace Corps

President Kennedy’s Peace Corps is being likened by many to the Christian foreign missions enterprise.

It is “the governmental equivalent of the Southern Baptist Convention’s foreign mission program,” said Assistant State Secretary Brooks Hays, former SBC president.

“It’s virtually the same thing we have been doing for 12 years,” said Dr. James W. Sells, Methodist official in Atlanta.

Some churchmen are concerned over the image the Peace Corps volunteers will take to their foreign posts.

“These young people must have a moral and spiritual philosophy undergirding their efforts or it will be one of the most miserable flops in history,” said Evangelist Billy Graham.

“Unless these young people are deeply dedicated to Christianity, the Communists will make mincemeat of them. They could possibly do more harm than good.”

President Kennedy has named to the leadership of the Peace Corps a recent graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, the Rev. William D. Moyers. When organization of Peace Corps headquarters is completed, Moyers, 26, will be Associate Director for Public Affairs. He had been serving as a special assistant to Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Moyers was asked whether young ministers might be accepted for Peace Corps service. He said that the opportunities would be open to all, but that selection would depend on the need.

He emphasized that the Peace Corps will not be a channel for religious service, but added that it “will give us a chance to take the work of the church to the world.”

The New English Bible: What The Critics Say

The long awaited New Testament portion of The New English Bible was reported to have become a best seller almost immediately upon release in some areas.

Here are comments from critics and reviewers:

“The New English Bible has done what it set out to do,” says Dr. Frank E. Gaebelein in Christian Herald. “With clarity and simplicity it has put the Greek of the New Testament into plain English. And it has done this with distinguished avoidance of the trivial.”

Cecil Northcott says in The Christian Century, “What the New English Bible asserts without saying is that the Bible is born in every generation, to every age, to every man. It is universal yet personal, timeless yet contemporary, and on these grounds the New English Bible takes its place as a treasure to be discovered and loved.”

In The New York Times Book Review, Martin E. Marty says that the New Testament “is an achievement of first quality.” “This translation,” he declares, “is likely to be greeted with nearly unanimous enthusiasm within religious circles, just as it is likely to meet with the usual resistance from museum keepers.”

Day Thorpe, book critic of the Washington Star, calls the archaisms of the King James Version “only theoretical” (“it no longer sounds archaic in the cultivated ear”). “Furthermore,” says Thorpe, “how fatuous it is to think that one can extract the ‘meaning’ of the Bible from the coat of many colors of its language, and by presenting it in the prose of journalism make it available to anybody with five minutes to spare to it! The meaning and the language are inseparable, and the Bible is a difficult book. But if nobody has ever been able to pluck out the heart of its mystery, few have thought the effort to do so not worthwhile.”

Another Unity Group?

A new form of church association, halfway between organic unity and a church council, was proposed this month by Dr. Henry P. Van Dusen, president of Union Theological Seminary, New York.

Van Dusen made public his proposal in a Washington address at the installation of the Rev. Virgil E. Lowder as executive secretary of the Council of Churches, National Capital Area.

The seminary president advanced the idea of a “confederation,” an organization resulting from the “pooling of resources” of member churches and “conscription of the ablest leadership out of every church.”

“Here,” he said, “is Christ’s imperative for his churches in this generation.”

The proposal bears a resemblance to Dr. E. Stanley Jones’ long-advocated “Federal Plan” for church union.

Autonomy Affirmed

Local churches affiliated with the new United Church of Christ have autonomy in the ownership and control of their properties, according to a ruling handed down last month by the Dade County Circuit Court in Miami, Florida.

Judge Ray Pearson’s interpretation of the denomination’s “Basis of Union” sees the document as granting “rights of immunity and freedom in congregational ownership and control” of a local church’s property.

The judge ruled for the Miami First Hungarian United Church of Christ whose property was sought by the Magyar Synod of the Evangelical and Reformed Church. His decision was believed to be the first of its kind involving the merger of the Evangelical and Reformed Church with the Congregational Christian General Council. The two merged in 1957 to form the United Church of Christ, but legal consolidation is yet to be realized. Separate litigation is pending in New York City.

The Florida judge ruled that the “Basis of Union,” under which the merged denomination has been operating pending formal adoption of a constitution, clearly shows that the United Church is congregational in government and form.

Foes of the merger have pointed to the document to argue that Congregational churches would sacrifice their traditional local church autonomy in blending with the E & R denomination, which has a modified presbyterial form of government.

The First Hungarian church was formed in 1948 and became a member of the E & R Magyar Synod. In 1959 the congregation broke away from the denomination in a dispute over finances and property ownership. Then the E & R Church filed suit claiming the Miami congregation’s property now worth about $125,000.

Bible Anniversary

Democratic Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota is sponsoring a joint congressional resolution to authorize and request President Kennedy to proclaim 1961 as “Bible Anniversary Year.”

The resolution introduced by Humphrey points out that the Rheims-Douay version of the Bible, used by Roman Catholics, was issued in 1610 and the King James Version, used by Protestants, appeared early in 1611.

He said the 350th anniversary of these English Bibles should be an occasion for rededication to Bible reading.

A proclamation which the Minnesota senator proposes would “urge all Americans to join in rereading the great spiritual truths contained in both the Old and New Testaments.” It would also “invite the churches of every denomination, as well as the agencies of communication, to cooperate and assist in carrying out appropriate observances and ceremonies during such year.”

The proposal for a Bible Anniversary Year was initially advanced by William I. Nichols, editor and publisher of This Week magazine, in an open letter to Kennedy last Christmas. A spokesman for the magazine said this month, “So far we have received no official reply”; he added, however, that the proposal has “awakened interest among both laymen and the clergy.”

Television Crusade

An hour-long film of Billy Graham’s crusade in Miami may become the most widely-seen religious telecast in history.

Some 140 stations with a potential viewing audience of 165 million persons scheduled a Palm Sunday showing. The scheduling coincides with the climax of a three-week evangelistic series in Miami Beach Convention Hall.

This week the evangelist was slated for a rally at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. Hundreds of technicians from the nearby missile launching site at Cape Canaveral were expected to be on hand.

Church versus State

Climaxing a four-year battle against organized vice, the Ministerial Association of Newport, Kentucky, asked this month for ouster proceedings against eight public officials.

In a 31-page affidavit delivered to Governor Bert Combs, the association accused the following of failing to do their sworn duty in suppressing gambling, prostitution, and illegal liquor sales:

Mayor Ralph Mussman, Police Chief George Gugel and Chief of Detectives Leroy Fredericks of Newport, Circuit Judge Ray L. Murphy, Campbell County Judge A. J. Holly, County Police Chief Harry Stuart, Sheriff Norbert Roll, and District Detective Gardner Reed.

Freud in Social Work

The increasing disposition of American religious bodies to venture into “partnership” with government in the social welfare field is prompting church bodies to step up their recruitment of social workers for health and welfare activities.

Simultaneously, the prevalent concept of professional social work in both public and private agencies is being challenged. Raymond R. Herje of Minneapolis, a juvenile probation officer for Hennepin County, Minnesota, has scored the link to psychoanalysis that characterizes professional social work in America. He warns of the “threatening implications” of the fact that, in the next decade, more than 20,000 professionally trained workers—the great majority indoctrinated in a naturalistic outlook—will go from the nation’s 60 graduate schools of social work into key positions in welfare agencies.

Herje, a Congregationalist who has completed course work for his M.A. degree in the graduate School of Theology in Oberlin College, insists that the time has obviously come for a close look at the policies and practices of American public and private welfare agencies.

“The philosophico-metaphysical principle of contemporary social work,” he writes, “is … a form of naturalism. For the naturalist the real is only that which can be experienced by the senses, and this reality is totally describable in terms of spacial-temporal entities and their causal interrelations.… This naturalistic metaphysical principle is operative both in terms of thought and temper throughout social work literature.” Since naturalism denies the existence of “mindistic or supernatural entities,” the consequences of social work conducted on this premise for the inherited religious outlook are apparent. Indeed, “it negates in terms of its beliefs and attitude those views which are held by the majority of people in American society.”

Protestant Panorama

• The Judicial Council, U. S. Methodism’s “Supreme Court,” ruled last month that Jurisdictional Conferences alone have the right to choose their representatives on the general boards of The Methodist Church. The ruling upsets 1960 General Conference legislation in connection with the Board of Pensions providing that “the required number of members from each Jurisdiction shall be elected quad-rennially by the General Conference on nomination of the College of Bishops of that Jurisdiction.”

• St. Petersburg will become the first locality in Florida to have an American Baptist Convention church. A congregation is now being organized, according to William B. Hill, church extension pastor for American Baptist mission societies.

• A merger plan for four New Zealand denominations took a step forward this month with appointment of a special commission by the Anglican church’s triennial General Synod. The six clergymen who make up the new commission were instructed to “continue conversations” with the Joint Standing Committee on Church Union, a group representing the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregational churches as well as the Associated Churches of Christ.

• The Methodist Council of Bishops is calling on its 40,000 U.S. churches to take a special offering for Africa on Sunday, April 30.

• Biola College of La Mirada, California, was admitted to membership in the Western College Association last month. The recognition carries full academic accreditation.

• Dr. Ermanno Rostan, moderator of the Waldensian Church of Italy, said to be the world’s oldest Protestant body dating back to the twelfth century, is touring the United States.

• Evangelist Merv Rosell saw nearly 1,000 decisions made for Christ at a youth banquet in Seattle last month.

• Members of the Suomi Synod favor a proposed merger with three other Lutheran churches by a margin of more than three to one, according to the results of a congregational referendum announced last month.

• The Cumberland Presbyterian Church plans to develop a 160-acre site near Lake Maumelle, Arkansas, for national conference grounds.

• World Radio Missionary Fellowship, which operates radio station HCJB in Quito, Ecuador, plans to begin broadcasting from a newly-acquired long-wave station in Montevideo, Uruguay, early in 1962.

• Danish and Malayalam editions are being added by The Upper Room, daily devotional guide published by the Methodist Board of Evangelism. With the additions, it will be appearing in 32 languages (total circulation: 3,250,000).

• The Southern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists will sponsor a program of public low-cost polio and tetanus clinics at many of its churches, denominational schools and other institutions in Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.

• The University of Chicago is initiating two graduate-level courses in theology by mail. “Introduction to Religious Existentialism” and “Tragedy, Comedy, and Human Existence.”

• A $7,500,000 Presbyterian Hospital will be built in North Dallas, Texas, in 1962. A public fund drive is planned to raise $4,000,000.

• The Christian Reformed Church is recruiting 100 youth for its 1961 Summer Workshop in Missions, which will take them to scattered parts of the country for evangelistic work. A pilot project last year saw 10 Iowa young people spend five weeks in Salt Lake City, conducting street meetings and personal work, visiting the aged and infirm, and even holding services in prisons.

• A tornado struck the Friendship Baptist Church of West Plains, Missouri, during a service Sunday, March 12. One woman was killed and 11 other persons were injured. The building was destroyed.

In a critical analysis of theoretical foundations of contemporary professional work, projected for publication, Herje contends not only that the psychoanalytic tradition tremendously influences social work, but also that “the objectives of professional education are designed to indoctrinate this viewpoint concerning human nature and behavior.” In recent years, he asserts, “psychoanalytic thought has penetrated every area of case work thought, from child guidance to the problem of the aged; from adoption and foster home placement to family counseling.”

Herje contends that the entire social work curriculum has been systematically permeated by the educational conception of “a carefully planned behavior-changing process” heavily indebted to the Freudian tradition. The objectives and methods of social work education are designed, he holds, “not only to enable the student to understand the Freudian outlook, but also to enable him to accept it and apply it.” In addition, “unanimity in outlook” is secured, he contends, through a discriminatory selection of pre-professional candidates by social work educators who “counsel out” those inclined toward alternate views. Social work journals are largely closed to critical essays.

Some observers think that the time is ripe for a “first class intellectual attack” on “psychoanalytical inspired social work,” and sense mounting opposition. University of Wisconsin is reportedly one center where a multiple approach to human behavior problems is gradually taking form, largely through the influence of Arthur Miles, recent chairman of the School of Social Work.

The negation of the Hebrew-Christian view of man by the prevalent social work theory is prodding some church leaders to scrutinize the training and presuppositions of church-related welfare activity. The Freudian tradition treats the knowledge claims of evangelical Protestant religion “as irrelevant or as nonsense,” writes Herje. “Theology becomes nothing but a projective system of the immature man.” Since Protestant liberalism tends to be agnostic in metaphysics, this tension does not exist. “The more liberal Protestants feel there is no inherent conflict,” he writes, whereas “the conservatives are clear that there is a conflict, and that basis of conflict is philosophical in nature.”

C.F.H.H.

Church Day

The presidium of the German Evangelical Church Day (Kirchentag or DEKT) organization announced this month that its 1961 congress would be held in Berlin as originally scheduled.

The presidium said its decision was made after failure of prolonged negotiations with the Soviet Zone government on the possibility of holding an all-German congress in Leipzig. The negotiations were undertaken after the East German regime banned all DEKT celebrations in East Berlin on the ground that they had a “political character” and menaced the “internal order” of the Soviet Zone.

The East German government, said the presidium, failed to give sufficient guarantees that all West German church leaders would be granted entry permits for the DEKT events, which will take place July 19–23.

Church officials pointed out that, in view of the East German ban, all public meetings in connection with the DEKT congress will have to be held in West Berlin. They said that the only events in East Berlin will be observances in churches and church-owned buildings.

Norwegian Debate

Should arguments against association with the World Council of Churches also apply to the Lutheran World Federation?

Norwegian mission authorities are debating the question while trying to decide whether to have a consultative tie with the WCC after it is integrated with the International Missionary Council.

Norwegian opponents of ties with the WCC have charged that it:

—fails to limit itself to a biblical basis, but opens its doors to liberal theology on the one side and Orthodox and Coptic churches on the other;

—tends to become a powerful super-church;

—short-circuits the mission lines by which older Western churches and their “daughter” churches have traditionally been related.

Some leading churchmen have charged that to take up such arguments would be to commit them to a similar position regarding the LWF or be inconsistent.

Danish Design

The Danish Ministry of Church Affairs is conducting a world-wide contest for architects, sculptors, and painters. Their assignment: to design a Lutheran church in the industrial quarter of a modern metropolis. The final design should be the result of the combined efforts of architect, sculptor, and artist with particular emphasis on an artistic general impression.

First prize will amount to “at least 50,000” crowns (about $7,250). Other prizes will total an additional 50,000 crowns.

The jury will be appointed by the Ministry of Church affairs in conjunction with international organizations of artists, architects, and sculptors. Entries must be submitted by September 1.

Eutychus Extra

Eutychus, whose irresistible urge to write a letter to the editor is well-known toCHRISTIANITY TODAYreaders, greets Easter with an unusually intricate piece (page 13), its eye on the modern myth-makers for whom the Resurrection is simply the up-beat of devout music. But Eutychus also has a word for the masses, for whom the Easter theme is a concern of rabbits and ribbons more than Resurrection. His stanzas on “Dreaming,” sent primarily for the editor’s enjoyment, are herewith shared with you, the reader, as a “Eutychus Extra”:

Dreaming

I dreamed that I was preaching

With homiletical perfection

To pews of chocolate rabbits,

A congregational confection.

They sat in solid silence,

Their ears erect in my direction,

To show that Easter bunnies,

Of course, endorse the Resurrection.

Their heads were gay with ribbons;

The slender wore metallic sheath,

And those that were not hollow

Were filled with coconut beneath.

A curious reaction

Came over me; I never felt

So thrilled on Easter morning—

To think my audience might melt!

EUTYCHUS

Exclusive Rights

The Dead Sea Scrolls housed at the Palestine Museum in Jerusalem will be turned over to an unnamed Dutch scientific institution for the exclusive right to study and publish, according to a proposal said to have been accepted in principle by Jordan Education Minister Sheikh Shankeeti.

Old City sources say the plan involves a payment of $56,000 and is conditioned on the scrolls remaining in the country as the property of Jordan.

It is believed that the proposal came from the Vitus Testamentum (Old Testament Institute) of Leyden University in Holland, which recently intensified its archaeological activities in Jordan.

After 40 Years

After 40 years of wandering in a “modern” wilderness, 48 refugee families who still speak Christ’s native language of Aramaic will be given new, permanent homes this summer by the World Council of Churches.

The building project, to begin next month, will cost $50,000, to be provided by funds raised mainly in Britain from World Refugee Year efforts.

The community that will be benefited numbers about 195 men, women, and children. They are a group of refugees from Armenia whose wanderings have taken them through Iraq, Syria, and now Lebanon, where the homes are to be built.

Terror in the Congo

A new reign of terror affecting missionaries was reported in the Congo in mid-March.

U. S. missions executives, many of them anxious since last summer for the safety of their personnel, were hoping that the newly-organized federation of Congo states would bring stability to the political situation.

An unidentified American woman missionary was raped and beaten by Congolese soldiers. Roman Catholic priests were clubbed and nuns stripped and abused by Congolese troops in Kivu province. Two Protestant missionary families belonging to the Worldwide Grace Testimony Church were reported unable to leave the Kivu region.

Executive Director J. Raymond Knighton of the Christian Medical Society, just returned from a five-week tour of Africa, reported a dire need for doctors throughout the continent. He said whereas at the time of independence there were 750 medical doctors in the Congo, now there are approximately 200, only about 50 of whom are working in rural areas. Knighton’s tour covered 11 countries; he was accompanied by Dr. C. Everett Koop, professor of surgery at the University of Pennsylvania, and Dr. G. A. Hemwall, a Chicago surgeon.

Egyptian Protest

Strong protests by leaders of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt followed reports last month that the Jordan government had seized the Dayr-as-Saltan Egyptian Coptic monastery in the Old City of Jerusalem and handed it over to Ethiopian Coptic monks.

When news of the seizure reached Cairo, the Holy Synod was immediately convened under the chairmanship of Patriarch Kyrillos VI of Alexandria, head of the Egyptian Coptic Church, with 18 archbishops and bishops present.

The synod unanimously voted to ban Coptic pilgrims in Egypt from visiting Jerusalem this year as a gesture of protest. Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia was asked to return the Jerusalem monastery to its Egyptian owners.

Anglicans and Apartheid

Dr. Richard Ambrose Reeves resigned as Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg this month. He had been deported from South Africa last September for protesting government apartheid policy.

His resignation, according to Religious News Service, moreover reveals differences with the outspoken Anglican Archbishop of Capetown, Dr. Joost de Blank, on what should be the church’s attitude toward retaining segregationist South Africa in the British Commonwealth.

(South African Prime Minister Hendrik F. Verwoerd subsequently withdrew his country’s application for readmission to the commonwealth after she becomes a republic May 31.)

De Blank now feels that the vast majority of the colored and black peoples of South Africa wish to stay within the commonwealth. He spelled out his view in a letter to The Times of London.

The day following the announcement of Reeves’ resignation, The Times published his rebuttal to de Blank’s remarks.

“The crux of the issue,” wrote Reeves, “is found in the archbishop’s belief that a day will come when the evils of apartheid will end, because it is on this ground that he chiefly pleads for the retention of South Africa.

“His Grace does not indicate the way in which this will happen. Unless sufficient pressure can be brought to bear on the South Africa government to change its present racial policies, chances are that this new day will only come after a titanic clash between the government and the non-whites.”

He added that “to retain South Africa within the commonwealth may well help to precipitate such a conflict and be the first step, incidentally, in the dissolution of the commonwealth itself.”

Buddhism For Burma

Prime Minister U Nu reaffirmed last month his determination to see Buddhism become the state religion of Burma, but he added that constitutional protection will be given minority religious groups.

The prime minister told 13 bishops of the Anglican Council of Southeast Asia:

“It is the intention of the government to ensure that the protection now afforded by our constitution to all our religious groups will in no way be affected by the formal adoption of Buddhism as the state religion of Burma.”

“Indeed,” he said, “it is our determination that the harmonious relationship existing between the Buddhists and the followers of other religions will be perpetuated for all time, and that neither persecution nor discrimination on religious grounds will ever be permitted to blacken our history.”

He called upon all to “work together for the common good” of Burma.

People: Words And Events

Deaths: The Right Rev. Richard Bland Mitchell, 73, Protestant Episcopal bishop of Arkansas from 1938 to 1956; in Sewanee, Tennessee.… Dr. Alexander MacMillan, 96, noted minister of the United Church of Canada; in Toronto.… Dr. A. C. Snead, 76, for 35 years the foreign secretary of the Christian and Missionary Alliance; in Orlando, Florida.… Miss S. Ruth Barrett, 62, noted for her work in the American Bible Society in making the Bible available to the blind; in Englewood, New Jersey.

Citation: As Religious Heritage of America’s Clergy Churchman of the Year, Dr. C. Oscar Johnson; as Lay Churchman of the Year, Dr. Robert Gerald Storey.

Elections: As president of the Protestant Church-owned Publishers’ Association, Walter L. Seaman … as Anglican archbishop of Wellington and primate of New Zealand, Dr. Norman Alfred Lesser.

Appointments: As executive director of the Augustana Lutheran Church’s Board of World Missions, the Rev. Rudolph C. Burke … as professor of homiletics at Southern California School of Theology, Dr. K. Morgan Edwards … as dean of students and associate professor of practical theology at Union Theological Seminary, New York, the Rev. James Mase Ault … as minister of New York’s Broadway Presbyterian Church, Dr. Stuart H. Merriam.

Nehru’s Faith

India is buzzing with speculation that Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru now believes in God, according to Religious News Service.

Long known as one of the world’s most articulate agnostics, Nehru has repeatedly attacked religion in general and Hinduism in particular, declaring in his book, The Discovery of India, that “India must … lessen her religiosity and turn to science.”

But in The Mind of Mr. Nehru, a new book on the Indian market, Nehru is quoted in an entirely different vein. The book, published by George Allen and Unwin, London, contains the transcript of tape-recorded conversations between the Prime Minister and R. K. Karanjia, editor of Blitz, a Bombay weekly.

In it Nehru refers to the need for spiritual solutions of some problems and Mr. Karanjia asks him: “Isn’t it unlike the Jawaharlal of yesterday to talk in terms of ethical solutions? What you say raises visions of Mr. Nehru in search of God in the evening of his life.”

Nehru replies: “Yes, I have changed. The emphasis on ethical and spiritual solutions is not unconscious; it is deliberate.… I believe the human mind is hungry for something deeper in terms of moral and spiritual development without which all the material advance may not be worthwhile.… The old Hindu idea that there is a divine essence in the world, and that every individual possesses something of it and can develop it, appeals to me.”

Some Recent Developments: Reflections on the Origin of Man

When Charles Darwin began his historic voyage on the Beagle in 1831, many scientists and others of that day believed that the account of man’s creation recorded in Genesis was literally true. The idea that man might have evolved from animal life was not new, but the biblical statement describing man’s origin was generally judged to be reasonable, historically reliable, and consistent with the design which was apparent in nature.

The scientific quest for the origin of man has since led the modern world to accept the theory of evolution. First clearly formulated by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species (1859), this theory is now believed to account for the origin of all living things. So many scientists in so many disciplines have committed themselves to the evolutionary concept, that the theory today dominates the thinking of our age.

Kinds and Species

Although biblical language speaks of the creation of different kinds of living things, the idea of special creation was soon conjoined with belief in a special creative act for each species. Darwin thought this to be unreasonable. Observing the tremendous number of species in the world, he subscribed to the theory that all species were derived from previous species over a long course of time. To explain this he developed the principles of variation and natural selection which are still the basis for evolutionary theory. Variation is observable, and Darwin recognized that here was a process which might account for evolution. In the reproduction of almost all living things, far more individuals are produced than ever survive. Perhaps some small variation enables certain individuals in a given plant or animal population to adapt successfully to a given environment. These individuals, the product of natural selection, in their reproduction enhance or develop that difference until eventually a new variety, species, or kind of living things, evolves.

However, plants and animals apparently are designed for their particular environment and way of life, and scientists are still perplexed in seeking to account for these specializations by mechanisms of internal change and environmental selection (cf. C. L. Prosser, American Scientist, vol. 47, p. 536 [1959]; J. B. S. Haldane, Nature, vol. 183, p. 713 [1959]; C. H. Waddington, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 2, p. 379 [1959]). Biologists have not really proposed any adequate explanation for the apparent design and purpose in nature.

Geology and Fossils

The common belief (recall Bishop Ussher’s chronology of 1654) in the mid-nineteenth century was that the earth was but 6000 years old. Yet it is clear that the majestic statement in Genesis 1:1 which says that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” is chronologically unrelated to that which follows. Before long, however, scientific study attested a much greater antiquity for the earth. It was affirmed that evolution must be a very slow process, requiring much more time than a 6000-year-old earth would permit. Once it was persuasively argued that the earth was at least several million years old, the theory of evolution became far more reasonable. Geologists have long been aware that the earth’s crust may be described in terms of layers which provide evidence for many long periods of time in the earth’s history. Attention was turned to the study of fossils as well as to living things in order to support Darwinism with experimental evidence. The discovery of fossils in these layers, their identification, and studies of their age have provided the definitive data for the theory of evolution.

The search for fossils had begun long before Darwin’s time, and the general nature of geological strata was well known. The earliest fossiliferous period had been characterized as the Cambrian—an approximately 500 million-year-old stratum representing about 80 million years. In it had been found what was then the earliest fossil evidence for living things, and it was recognized that here all known plant and invertebrate animal phyla appeared suddenly and contemporaneously, and differentiated into classes and orders. Although now there does appear to be evidence of Precambrian life, there is still lacking rational evidence to account for the origin of these admittedly highly developed kinds of living things. It was also known that in the Silurian layer—an approximately 350 million-year-old stratum representing about 30 million years—the vertebrate phyla appeared suddenly and fully developed with no fossil evidence to account for their origin (cf. A. H. Clark, Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 3, p. 523 [1928]; A. S. Romer, ibid., vol. 21, p. 33 [1946]). Darwin recognized in his day that this was serious evidence against his theory. Today, 100 years later, the paleontological evidence which a concept of “total evolution” requires is absent, although we do have convincing evidence that development has indeed taken place but possibly only within restricted limits.

The classical example of evolution, and one of the few which is documented with fossil evidence, is that of the horse. If the modern horse has evolved as the evidence indicates, a question which needs to be answered is, “Do we have evidence that the horse has developed from something other than a kind of horse, or is this only evidence that evolution has occurred within this particular kind of living thing?”

The geological dating techniques which have been used in order to assign ages to fossils, involve stratigraphy and paleontology (cf. A. Knopf, Scientific Monthly, vol. 85, p. 225 [1957]). These procedures attempt to establish relative geological sequences and assign to them their proper ages. The dating of rocks by radioactive techniques, such as the determination of the U238/Pb206 isotope ratio, has provided data which to a very large extent has confirmed the ages which have been assigned to various geologic eras. Such evidence compels us to reckon with the fact that life upon the earth is not “recent” (e.g. 6000 years). Our exegesis of Genesis must take this into account.

However, this radioactive dating procedure has not lent itself to the study of man’s ancestry since this search involves the paleontology of the Pleistocene period which is too recent for the uranium series of transformations to give useful information.

Dating of Early Man

In the study of early man one has had to rely upon standard geological dating methods until the carbon-14 radioactive method was developed by Dr. Libby. It is generally agreed that this new method is extremely reliable and is capable of determining ages of organic matter up to 60,000 years old with a high degree of probability. But for the most part the dates which have been given to the various examples of early man have been assigned without benefit of this method. In recent years the carbon-14 method has been used in an attempt to verify these earlier assignments, and it has become apparent that serious errors have been made in standard geological dating.

In Dr. Libby’s study of late-Pleistocene geology and archeology, it became clear that the dating which had been done was inaccurate, and the resulting chronology was quite insecure (cf. W. F. Libby, Radioactive Dating, [University of Chicago Press, 1952], p. 101). The dating of early man in North America is related to the Mankato glaciation in Wisconsin which was previously dated at 25,000 years ago. This has now been radiocarbon-dated at 11,000 years ago (ibid., p. 105). The cranium of Piltdown man (after the discovery of the hoax in 1953) was estimated to be 50,000 years old but is now reported to be 620 years old (cf. H. deVries and K. P. Oakley, Nature, vol. 184, p. 224 [1959]). The striking paintings of the Lascaux caves, considered to be the art of primitive man, were assigned an age of about 60,000 years but recent carbon-14 analyses indicates an age of about 15,000 years (Lascaux Caves: The Grotto of Lascaux, by Jean Taralon, Caisse Nationale des Monuments Historiques, Grand Palais, Cours La Reine, Paris VIII). The discovery of a complete but apparently ancient skeleton in Australia a few years ago led to an assignment of 125,000 years old but was subsequently dated as 6000 years old by carbon-14.

An Obscure Search

The search for primitive man was perhaps first rewarded with the discovery of Neanderthal man near the Neander River in Germany in 1856. Dated geologically to be 60,000 years old, Neanderthal man is said to represent an early stone age culture in Europe and is often called the first cave dweller. The original 14 bones were reconstructed by Boule into a hunched-back creature with head thrust forward, knees bent, and flat feet. In 1957, Neanderthal man was rereconstructed and found to be posturally identical to modern man and in other respects essentially human (cf. L. Eiseley, Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 32, p. 323 [1957]; F. C. Howell, ibid., p. 330; W. L. Straus, Jr., and A. J. E. Cave, ibid., p. 348). Subsequently the assignment of separate species status for many fossil hominids which, like Neanderthal man were considered to be distinctly outside the known limits of human variation, has been questioned (cf. W. E. LeGros Clark, American Scientist, vol. 47, p. 299 [1959]). The recent studies of Australopithecus, the southern ape-man of Africa, have resulted in controversy over its meaning and importance in the problem of man’s origin (cf. Nature, vol. 183, p. 159 [1959]). The discovery of Zinjanthropus in Kenya by Dr. Leakey similarly provides evidence used to support the concept of the animal origin of man. In each case, however, it is clear that the ages which have been assigned are uncertain. Until reliable dating is done, it cannot really be known whether these fossils represent possible evolutionary intermediates. Without this information a logical sequence of fossils cannot be constructed. It is therefore not surprising that the scientific search for the course of man’s origin remains obscure. (cf. W. L. Straus, Jr., Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 24, p. 200 [1949]; F. C. Howell, Science, vol. 130, p. 831 [1959]).

God and the Enigma

The biblical statement of the creation of different kinds of living things does not rule out the development of new varieties or species. It is not unreasonable biologically or biblically to consider that God gave to living things the capacity to change, to develop variety, and to adapt successfully to differing environments. However, we have no record of any living thing changing suddenly or gradually into an entirely different kind of living thing. It would appear therefore that, within certain limits, development has taken place and does still occur. We may not be able to define these limits biologically, but they could be considered to be the kinds of life to which Genesis refers. Such a view is consistent with all that we know at the present time.

Scripture indicates that God created Adam, and then Eve, and that they were the product of a creation that was distinctly separate from that of the animal kingdom. When this occurred, and how they might have differed from us, we do not know. But it is not irrational or unreasonable in the light of present scientific knowledge to believe that the Genesis account of the origin of man is divinely inspired recorded history.

Sterling Winthrop Research Institute

Rensselaer, New York

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