Inauguration of a U. S. President traditionally carries religious overtones. The religious elements are mostly ceremonial, such as the use of the Bible in taking the oath of office, and participation of clergymen offering prayers. Occasionally, however, the inaugural proceedings take a spontaneous and dramatic spiritual turn, as when President Eisenhower ventured an impromptu prayer in 1953, or when President Truman quoted Solomon’s prayer of dedication in 1949. (Aside: When Truman initially took office upon the sudden death of President Roosevelt in 1945, he was so moved with the realization of his new responsibilities that he even asked newsmen to “pray for me.”)

This week, new interest focused on the religious phase of the inauguration through the fact that the incoming president is the first Roman Catholic ever elected to the nation’s highest office.

It has always been the custom for the new President to take the oath of office with his hand raised over a Bible, though this is not a requirement of the Constitution. Neither does the Constitution stipulate that the President swear to the oath. He may affirm instead. Franklin Pierce, an Episcopalian, was the only President to avail himself of that alternative.

Accordingly, the President may specify which Bible is to be used, and President-elect Kennedy has chosen the Douay, or Roman Catholic version. He will take the oath over a 15-pound Kennedy family Bible owned by an uncle, Thomas A. Fitzgerald of Dorchester, Massachusetts.

Usually the President requests that the Bible be opened to a favorite passage.

When George Washington was inaugurated in 1789, a Bible was secured hurriedly and apparently opened at random to the 49th and 50th chapters of Genesis. Andrew Johnson took his oath of office with his hand resting on the 21st chapter of Proverbs. Others chose passages as follows: Grant, Isaiah 11; Hayes, Psalm 118; McKinley, Proverbs 16:21, 22; and Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1 Corinthians 8 and 13.

Several Presidents did not take their oaths on the Bible. These included Coolidge and Theodore Roosevelt, both of whom were sworn in hastily following the deaths of their predecessors.

Some presidents used more than one Bible. In addition to a King James Version, Truman used a replica of the Latin Gutenberg Bible and an American Standard Version (1901).

Eisenhower in 1953 used the George Washington Bible and a personal Bible given to him by his mother on his graduation from West Point. The Washington Bible was opened at Psalm 127:1; his own Bible at 2 Chronicles 7:14. In 1957 he used only the Bible given by his mother, opened at Psalm 33:12.

Kennedy last month was asked to give the Bible public recognition beyond the measure of its use at the inauguration. William I. Nichols, editor and publisher of This Week magazine, urged the President-elect to proclaim 1961 as “Bible Anniversary Year.”

“Such a proclamation,” declared an open letter published in the Christmas issue of the weekly newspaper supplement,” would invite the churches of every denomination as well as all agencies of communications to cooperate in making the year 1961 a time when old truths are rekindled in our hearts.”

The Cabinet

President-elect John F. Kennedy’s Cabinet nominees include seven Protestants, two Jews, and a Roman Catholic.

Protestant nominees include two Presbyterians, two Methodists, a Lutheran, an Episcopalian, and a Mormon.

The lone Roman Catholic is the President-elect’s brother Robert, named to be Attorney General.

Dr. Dean Rusk, nominee for Secretary of State, is the son of a minister of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. Rusk himself is a member of the Hitchcock Memorial Presbyterian Church in Scarsdale, New York.

The incoming Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara, 44, is an elder of the First Presbyterian Church of Ann Arbor, Michigan.

C. Douglas Dillon, nominated to be Secretary of the Treasury, belongs to the Protestant Episcopal Church.

The next Postmaster General, J. Edward Day, is a member of the official board of the Wilshire Methodist Church in Los Angeles.

Governor Orville Freeman of Minnesota, appointed Secretary of Agriculture, is active in the Augustana Lutheran Church.

Representative Stewart L. Udall of Arizona, selected as Secretary of the Interior, is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints (Mormon).

Both Arthur J. Goldberg, who will be Secretary of Labor, and Connecticut Governor Abraham A. Ribicoff, chosen Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, are members of Reform Jewish congregations.

Nichols noted that the 1961 observance would be particularly timely because the year marks the anniversaries of a number of Bible editions, including the King James Version (350th), the Revised Edition of the New Testament (80th), and the American Standard Version (60th). Nichols also observed that 1960 marked the 350th anniversary of the Douay translation of the whole Bible, and that 1961 will see publication of the New Testament portion of the New English Bible.

Representatives of four major religious bodies will participate in the Kennedy inauguration on January 20.

Kennedy will follow the precedent established by President Eisenhower in 1957 by inviting a prelate of the Eastern Orthodox church to join Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish churchmen in invoking God’s blessing.

Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston will give the invocation. Prayers will be offered also by Archbishop Iakovos, head of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, and Dr. John Barclay, pastor of the Central Christian Church of Austin, Texas, where Vice President-elect Lyndon B. Johnson is a member. The benediction will be pronounced by Rabbi Nelson Glueck, president of Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati.

‘Deceptive’ Bible Study

The Federal Trade Commission says that sponsors of a Bible correspondence course have agreed to drop the labels of “accredited nonprofit residence schools.”

An FTC complaint issued last summer charged that three affiliated companies in Rockford, Illinois, deceptively used the words “academy,” “seminary,” and “institute” in their corporate or trade names. The complaint was directed against the Colonial Academy, Inc., the Pioneer Theological Seminary, and the National Association of Bible Schools, and against Carl and Verna Hansen, officers of the schools.

“Contrary to respondents’ representations,” the complaint declared, “Colonial Academy and Pioneer Seminary are profit-making organizations, and are not residence schools; they are not old, established reputable schools; their diplomas are not recognized by any institution, agency, or organization; persons awarded such diplomas are neither entitled to nor will receive the same honors, rights, and privileges as persons holding diplomas from properly accredited schools; and their honorary diplomas are given to anyone willing and able to pay for them and are not conferred for educational or ministerial achievements.”

The FTC charged that the “National Association of Bible Schools” is not “a recognized accrediting agency, as claimed, but is merely “a corporation organized by the officers in an attempt to give respectability to their own correspondence schools.”

The respondents’ agreement to discontinue these and “other misrepresentations,” the FTC said, was for purposes of settling the case and “does not constitute an admission that they have violated the law.”

Studying Buddhism

Latest federal grants made under the National Defense Education Act include support for a program at the University of Wisconsin for graduate study of Buddhism. The awards are made to Ph.D. candidates intending to teach at secular colleges. A number are pursuing studies in Christian theology, ethics, and philosophy.

Bibles in Class?

Nearly three out of four public school superintendents polled by an educational magazine say they favor Bible readings in the classroom.

The Nation’s Schools, a professional journal, had asked: “Do you believe that reading from the Bible (any Christian version)—without interpretation or comment—should be permitted in the public school classrooms?”

Seventy-two per cent replied favorably. Twenty-eight per cent said they were opposed.

Evangelism in the Sun

Billy Graham’s state-wide evangelistic effort now beginning in Florida may even reach to sun-loving Northerners.

By scheduling meetings at the height of the tourist season, the evangelist hopes to proclaim the redeeming Christ before winter vacationers as well as resident Floridians.

Following the crusade opener, a week-end series in Jacksonville January 14–15, Graham travels on succeeding week-ends to Orlando, Clearwater, St. Petersburg, Tampa, Bradenton, Sarasota, Tallahassee, and Gainesville. Additional crusade meetings will be conducted by associate evangelists Grady Wilson, Leighton Ford, and Roy Gustafson.

The Florida crusade will be climaxed with a 22-day campaign in the air-conditioned Miami Beach Convention Hall, largest in the South, beginning Sunday, March 5.

Dr. Paul A. Meigs, director of evangelism for the Florida Baptist Conference, is general chairman of the state-wide crusade committee.

Reviewing Relations

The top administrator of the American Baptist Convention indicates he will support an overture by a Southern Baptist editor to “review relations” between Baptist bodies in America.

Such a review is “certainly in order,” says Dr. Edwin H. Tuller, who is general secretary of the American Baptist Convention.

The Rev. J. Marse Grant, editor of the Biblical Recorder, official journal of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, carried an editorial in the publication’s December 17 issue calling for discussions with other Baptist bodies as a possible way to provide “a strong Baptist witness in America.” He cited exploratory talks with the American Baptist Convention as a first step.

Tuller agreed with Grant that Baptists should not ignore the merger of four major denominations proposed last month by Dr. Eugene Carson Blake. While advocating talks, Tuller added he was not sure whether organic union of the two Baptist bodies would be the best way to achieve a stronger Baptist witness in America.

Lutheran Cooperation

Formal negotiations between the two major elements of U. S. Lutheranism are proving so fruitful that both parties are enthusiastic about a continuation. Thus far, two meetings have been held between representatives of the National Lutheran Council and the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. A third is now tentatively scheduled for next August in Chicago.

The talks revolve around theological issues involved in Lutheran cooperative activities. At the latest session there was “substantial agreement on the significance and nature of confessional subscription.” Following nearly six hours of discussion, the 29 conferees issued a prepared statement which said:

“Substantial agreement was reached with reference to (1) designation of the confessions which are involved in subscription; (2) assertion of historical limitations in the confessions; (3) allowance of distinction between the primary norm of the Scriptures and the secondary norm of the confessions; (4) recognition that the heart of the confessions is their witness to the Gospel; (5) acknowledgment that this understanding of the Gospel requires rejection of contradictory understandings; and (6) affirmation of the importance of confessional subscription for the proclamation of the Church.”

Conferees had focused their attention upon traditional adherence of Lutheran churches to doctrinal statements contained in the Book of Concord, the collection of confessional documents which form the basis of the teaching and practice of Lutherans around the world. (Best known of the documents are the three chief creeds of the Christian faith—Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed—Luther’s Large and Small Catechisms, and the Augsburg Confession and Apology authored by Philip Melanchthon.)

Scheduled for discussion at the meeting next year is the general topic, “What kind of cooperation is possible in view of the discussions to date?” Topics to be considered will include the relation of cooperation to confessional agreement, the relation of witness to cooperation, and the extent of cooperation apart from pulpit and altar fellowship.

Publication of four essays read at the first two meetings is planned shortly. They will be made available to every Lutheran pastor in America. Essayists included Professors Theodore G. Tappert (for the NLC) and Herbert J. A. Bouman (for the Missouri synod).

Christian Statesman

Dr. Charles Malik of Lebanon, former president of the U. N. General Assembly and one of the world’s best-known Christian statesmen, becomes a professor at Methodist-related American University in Washington, D. C. this month.

Malik, a Greek Orthodox layman, was appointed to a professorship in the university’s School of International Service. He will also lecture in the departments of religion and philosophy and will conduct faculty seminars in international relations. Plans are under way to invite teachers and students from other Washington colleges to study under Malik on a cooperative basis.

United Presbyterian agencies are sharing costs involved in the appointment. Malik has had most of his Protestant relationships through Presbyterians, who have conducted missionary work in Lebanon for more than 100 years.

Malik received his B. A. degree at the American University of Beirut in 1927 and his M. A. and Ph.D. degrees at Harvard in 1937. He also studied at the University of Freiburg, Germany, in 1935 and 1936.

Malik served as Ambassador of Lebanon to the United States in 1945–46 and again from 1951–56. He was a member of his country’s delegation to the United Nations from 1945 until 1954 and from 1957 until 1959. He was elected president of the thirteenth U. N. General Assembly in 1959.

More recently he has served as visiting professor at Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, and last summer taught at Harvard.

Sidelined Again

Dr. Thomas A. Dooley, noted Roman Catholic jungle physician of Laos, is back in the United States for treatment of a spinal ailment. Dooley, 33-year-old co-founder of the Medical International Cooperation Organization (MEDICO), underwent an operation in New York 16 months ago for the removal of a cancerous tumor of the chest.

People: Words And Events

Deaths:Archbishop Flavian, 82, leader of the Old Believers, a sect that split from the Russian Orthodox Church; in Moscow … Ernest Lloyd Branson, 54, former Seventh-day Adventist missionary; in Los Angeles.

Appointments: As Protestant cadet chaplain at the Air Force Academy, Chaplain (Lieutenant Colonel) George J. Cameron, a Methodist … as executive vice president of King’s College, Dwight Ryther … as editor of the Lutheran Companion, Paul E. Gustafson … as editor of The Mennonite, the Rev. Maynard Shelly … as pastor of the Hamburg (New York) Presbyterian Church, the Rev. Gary Demarest, formerly program director for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Inc.

Elections: As general secretary of the Methodist General Board of Christian Social Concerns, Dr. Caradine R. Hooton … as executive secretary of the Japan International Christian University Foundation, Dr. Henry G. Bovenkerk … as first bishop of the Lutheran Church of Northern Tanganyika, the Rev. Stefano R. Moshi.

Churchmen are expressing new concern over the shortage of ministerial recruits.

Distress deepened with release of figures last month showing a five per cent drop in the total enrollment of member institutions of the American Association of Theological Schools, accrediting agency for U.S. and Canadian seminaries.

The decline, most marked in recent years, will be felt more intensely in view of expanding churches and increased church membership.

Denominational educators will keep eager watch on enrollment prospects for next fall. Unless a recovery materializes, there may be a clamor for emergency measures, especially if church membership continues to climb.

Enrollment in 122 accredited or associate member schools of the AATS during the autumn quarter was 20,032. A year ago it was 21,088. The new figure is the lowest in five years.

Dr. Charles L. Taylor, executive director of the AATS, said there is “no simple answer” to explain the decline. Among factors involved, he suggested, are the appeal of science careers, weak recruitment programs, increasing costs of seminary training, the end of veteran education grants, and growth of Bible schools offering a “short cut” to ordination.

(Dr. S. A. Witmer, executive director of the Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges, reports that 11,299 students are enrolled in its 48 member schools for 1960–61, a seven per cent increase over the 1959–60 total, an all-time high.)

The AATS and its member schools are “very much” concerned about both the quantity and quality of ministerial students, Taylor said.

He declared that to counteract the decline scholars are working “very hard” on scholarship aid, recruitment, and adequate housing for the growing number of married students.

In contrast to the trend, three leading evangelical seminaries reported record enrollments for the current academic year. Here are comparative totals:

Lutheran seminaries also showed an aggregate gain over last year, from 3,833 to 3,945, a three per cent increase.

Enrollment was down generally in United Presbyterian and Southern Baptist seminaries. Aggregate, comparative totals for the previous and current academic years show a 12 per cent decline among the United Presbyterian seminaries (from 1,613 to 1,420) and a 4 per cent drop for those of the Southern Baptists (from 5,056 to 4,850).

Here are comparative enrollments for United Presbyterian seminaries:

The Presbyterian Office of Information issued a news release this month giving the enrollment figures and an explanation from Dr. Hermann N. Morse, a consultant to the United Presbyterian Council on Theological Education.

“Keener competition from industry, partly as a result of the emphasis on rocketry and space exploration, is one factor making it more difficult for our seminaries to get the best students,” said Morse.

“Seminaries and other schools,” he added, “are still getting most of their students from the depression years, when there was a dip in the birth rate. We hope for considerable improvement in a few years, when those born in the population boom after 1940 will be reaching graduate school age in large numbers.”

The Southern Baptist seminary enrollment decline, while not as pronounced, nonetheless embraced six of the seven graduate theological schools. Midwestern in Kansas City was the only seminary to report an enrollment increase. Here are comparisons:

Other factors in the decline, in addition to those enumerated by Taylor and Morse, probably grow out of the slight recession this year as well as the increasing secularization of society, failures of homes and churches, and a tendency among “young moderns” to seek material rewards.

Protestant Panorama

• Historic St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D. C., is now included in the Register of National Historical Landmark Sites. Known as the “Church of the Presidents” because every President has attended at least one service there since its erection in 1816, the church is located on Lafayette Square opposite the White House.

• A new motion picture depicting the struggle between Communism and Christianity in East Germany will be titled, “Question Seven,” after a pivotal questionnaire distributed among Communist zone school children. U. S. Lutherans commissioned production of the film.

• The Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges plans a survey of Christian education programs offered in Bible colleges and institutes. The survey will be financed by a joint grant by the Scripture Press Foundation, the Standard Publishing Company, the David C. Cook Foundation, and Gospel Light Publications.

• The Portugal Baptist Seminary in Lisbon is conducting classes in a newly-acquired 22-room mansion. The seven-year-old building is located in a fashionable residential section.

• The China Sunday School Association is launching its second half-century with publication of a new monthly. Founded on the China mainland in 1919, the interdenominational association now serves churches and Sunday Schools from headquarters in Taipei.

• North Africa Mission is sponsoring religious broadcasts in colloquial Arabic for transmission over station ELWA in Monrovia, Liberia. The programs are believed to be the first in that dialect.

• The Malayan Christian Council is coordinating translation of key church literature in the Malay language. The council has established a national language committee to foster the use of the Malay language in church work. First task will be to decide on a standardized translation of basic Christian statements and prayers.

• A Lutheran pastor was credited with saving the life of a workman who was overcome by smoke aboard the fire-ravaged aircraft carrier Constellation in Brooklyn Navy Yard last month. The Rev. Frederick P. Eckhardt, 35, pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church in Greenwich Village, revived the smoke victim by applying mouth-to-mouth respiration. Eckhardt is a chaplain of the New York City fire department.

• A new Gospel broadcasting station began operation last month at Tegucigalpa, Honduras. The Conservative Baptist Home Mission Society is sponsoring the project.

• Methodists in New Zealand will accept the transfer into their denomination of members of other communions “which acknowledge the Lordship of Christ.” Only condition is that the prospective member be approved by the local Methodist church.

• Five Canadian Lutheran church publications are studying a proposal to adopt a common format and a common printer, with each paper issuing an identical three-page news section as a monthly insert. The news section would consist of a sixth publication, the present New Horizons edited by the Canadian Lutheran Council.

• The United Church of Canada is recruiting doctors for a year or more of service in the Congo.

• The Protestant Episcopal Church is establishing a new religious cominunity in Shawnee, Oklahoma. To be known as the Servants of the Love of Christ, the community will be unusual in that there will be no age limit for those entered.

• A Negro minister says he will turn down his unanimous election as president of the Batesville (Arkansas) Ministerial Association. Said the Rev. W. J. Daniels, pastor of Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church: “There are times when the president of the ministerial alliance is called upon to represent the alliance at public affairs and functions. I don’t want to embarrass my friends or be embarrassed myself.”

Mark’s Secret Gospel?

The world of New Testament scholarship is in the mood for new discoveries, its appetite having been whetted by the momentous discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the less momentous, though still important, discovery of the so-called Gospel according to Thomas in recent years. The latest discovery to reach the headlines is of a far more dubious nature. Speaking in New York last month at the meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Dr. Morton Smith of Columbia University described how he had found a copy of a letter two years ago when he was studying ancient manuscripts at the Monastery of Mar Saba southeast of Jerusalem. The letter was handwritten on the back of the leaves of a Dutch book which was printed in the middle of the 17th century. Dr. Smith maintained that its authorship should be attributed to Clement of Alexandria, who flourished during the latter part of the second century A.D.

The letter includes, and attributes to a secret gospel written by St. Mark, an account of the raising of Lazarus (found only in John’s Gospel in the canonical New Testament). The fact that Salome, who according to the canonical Gospel was present at the crucifixion, is mentioned as being a witness of this miracle is regarded as significant by Dr. Smith, since her name appears in a number of spurious writings of the post-apostolic era and was connected with the libertine sect of the Carpocratians and with later Coptic accounts of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary modeled on the miracle of the raising of Lazarus. Dr. Smith predicted that if this letter is accepted by scholars as the work of Clement, then the origin and character of the Gospels would have to be reconsidered.

The text and extent of the canonical Gospels, however, is established on evidence so strong as to be unassailable. That there were many spurious gospels and acts purporting to come from the hands of the Apostles, but which in fact belong to a later period and are the products of heretical invention, is well known; but a comparison shows how unworthy they are to stand beside the canonical texts of the New Testament. God who gave his Word also preserves it. The suggestion that a reference in a post-apostolic letter (of which we possess only a 17th century copy) to a spurious document could require a reconsideration of the origin and character of the Gospels is remote both from reality and from sound scholarship.

P.E.H.

A Closing Door

U. S. termination of diplomatic relations with Cuba left American mission boards to decide whether to recall their missionaries. The U. S. Embassy in Havana advised all American citizens to leave Cuba unless they have compelling reasons to remain.

Mormon Initiative

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) is launching a program this year to build 250 chapels across Europe.

Church sources say the building program will be under direction of G. R. Biesinger, who was sent to New Zealand in 1950 and has since built 18 chapels there besides the $8,500,000 Mormon college and temple at Tuhikaramea, near Hamilton.

Baptist Ties

Leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention met with representatives of the nation’s two largest Negro Baptist conventions last month to explore the possibility of closer cooperation.

A special joint committee was projected to do research in areas where cooperation might be possible, such as in education and evangelism.

The meeting, held in Chicago, brought together 25 Baptist officials led by Dr. Porter Routh, SBC executive secretary; Dr. Joseph H. Jackson, president of the National Baptist Convention, U. S. A., Inc.; and Dr. C. D. Pettaway, president of the National Baptist Convention of America.

Southern Baptists and the two Negro conventions already are engaged in cooperative work in 17 states in missions, education, evangelism, and stewardship.

Jewish ‘Godlessness’

A year-end address by Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion prompted a storm of protests from U. S. Jewish leaders. Ben-Gurion declared he had been misunderstood.

In a speech to the 25th Zionist Congress in Jerusalem the Prime Minister said that Israel must have more immigrants, especially educated Jews, and cited the Jewish law of the Talmud which says:

“Whosoever dwells outside the land of Israel is considered to have no god.”

The remark was widely interpreted as an accusation that Jews who choose not to live in Israel are godless. U. S. Jewish leaders promptly challenged the propriety of such an assertion.

Ben-Gurion subsequently explained that he cited the Talmud in his speech “when I was addressing myself specifically to the minority of Orthodox Jews.”

“Certainly,” he said, “I do not think that American Jewry is godless and it is senseless to attribute such a thought to me.”

African Rights

Two major Dutch Reformed churches in South Africa warned last month that if complete territorial separation of whites and non-whites is impossible, then full political and other rights cannot be withheld from Africans living permanently in white areas.

Joining in a formal statement released to the press were the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa of the Cape Province and the Dutch Reformed Church of the Transvaal. Both churches were represented at the December conference in Johannesburg which discussed, under World Council of Churches sponsorship, apartheid policies.

The statement of the two Dutch Reformed bodies was issued in the wake of criticism provoked by their qualified approval of certain resolutions adopted by the conference urging more political rights for non-whites and condemning various aspects of the South African government’s race policy.

The Ecumenical Summit

A summit with ranking Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox leaders may be in the offing, according to the new Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Canada, Bishop Athenagoras of Toronto.

The meeting may yet be arranged to take place this year, he said. It would include Pope John XXIII, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras of Istanbul.

The bishop has declared that in view of Communist gains a reorganization of the Christian community is necessary. He suggests a federation which would give equal status to the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican communions.

Russia got into the ecumenical act last month by dispatching Orthodox Patriarch Alexei on a four-week jaunt to Athens, Istanbul, and the Old City of Jerusalem. In Istanbul he conferred with Patriarch Athenagoras, but the substance of the conversations was not revealed.

Canadian Yapping

“Let’s stop yapping at the United States,” says the lead editorial in a current issue of The United Church [of Canada] Observer, the denomination’s official publication.

“Too often,” the Observer adds, “Canadians sound like puppies yapping at the heels of a big dog, knowing perfectly well he will not turn and bite or even bark back.”

The editorial says that while the United States has its faults, “she is the leader of the free world and is doing far more to preserve freedom and raise the living standard of poor nations than any other power in the West.”

Spiritualism, which had its heyday in the latter half of the nineteenth century, is having a surprising revival in North America. Hundreds of so-called spiritualist churches regularly engage in healing sessions, led by mystics who claim to transmit “spirit messages.” Scores of summer camps implement church programs. Publications such as Psychic Observer and Tomorrow work hand-in-hand with the American Society for Psychic Research, promoting “scientific proof” of the reality of psychic phenomena. In March, 1956, a group of American ministers, missionaries, and lay leaders organized the Spiritual Frontiers Fellowship, patterned after the British Churches Fellowship for Psychical Research, “to sponsor, explore and interpret the growing interest in psychic phenomena and mystical experience within the church, wherever these experiences relate to effective prayer, spiritual healing, and personal survival.” It claims Christian origin and interfaith scope.

Focal point of spiritualism is the seance, ostensible counterpart of a religious service, led by a medium, an individual “gifted” with psychic powers. The medium lapses into a trance which supposedly enables him to contact spiritual forces and to act as speaking intermediary between these forces and other participants in the séance.

Nineteenth-century pioneers of spiritualism like Conan Doyle, with his photographs of ectoplasm, Oliver Lodge and Flammarion had almost faded from memory when mediums like Eileen Garrett, Edgar Cayce, Alice A. Bailey and Arthur Ford revived it. Today spiritualism surrounds itself with a scientific aura and takes advantage of the widespread interest in parapsychology, or ESP (extra-sensory perception).

In Parapsychology, Dr. J. B. Rhine, leading American scholar in this field, cautiously wrote: “It should from the very beginning be made clear that the phenomena with which parapsychology deals are all, without exception, events of nature. In other words, the field of problems belongs entirely to natural science.” But in a subsequent paper, “What Next in Parapsychology?,” which Dr. Rhine contributed to Eileen Garrett’s anthology Beyond the Five Senses, he not only contradicts this statement but attempts (a mistake many others have made before him) to explain religion scientifically. “Religion is, of course, the most immediate area of application for parapsychology. Defined as the investigation of non-physical operations in nature and the principles governing them, parapsychology would have to lay claim to many of the more fundamental problems of religion.” If this were true, then the spiritual experiences of the prophets and apostles would have been nothing more than early instances of ESP. However, the contrast between modern parapsychology experiments and the insights of eminent Christians would strongly militate against this claim.

To explain religion simply in terms of ESP is to do a disservice to both. ESP is not synonymous with religious-spiritual phenomena such as the visions experienced by biblical figures. There is a great temptation to explain spiritual phenomena scientifically, but man has no scientific tools to investigate supernatural phenomena.

Dr. Rhine concedes that ESP has floundered in its attempt to solve the paramount question of the survival of the soul. “The investigation of the survival question,” he says, “has already been a prominent part of parapsychology’s history. For a period of fifty years, extending from the eighties into the twenties, it almost eclipsed and excluded every other interest in the field. Nor was the enthusiasm and activity that was generated entirely emotional and uncritical. Some of the ablest scholars of the times were active in the guidance, conduct and interpretation of the studies that were made to focus the issue and establish a conclusion. Eventually, however, with the development of increased emphasis on the necessary precautions, the status of the survival hypothesis became more and more uncertain, and the issue remained inconclusive. Decision on the question had to be left a matter of individual choice and not the necessary result of conclusive scientific proof.” This leaves the question exactly where it has always been. Baron Schrenck-Notzing, the great German pioneer of parapsychology, did not fall into this trap but steered clear of religious problems. “The soul is like a bubble upon the ocean,” he observed. “Bubbles appear and reappear. Who can say that it is the same bubble? I am not a spiritualist. I am a Parapsychologist.” ESP does not deal with spiritual forces in the traditional religious sense, but seeks to deal with human forces shrouded in mystery.

One must be careful, moreover, to distinguish both ESP and spiritualism from authentic religious experiences. So-called psychic phenomena and religious experiences are two different categories, the former is based on human probing, the latter on God’s saving revelation in Jesus Christ.

The term “spiritual experience” is used to cover a wide variety of phenomena. There is a striking contrast between the experiences of men who received the biblical revelation and those of modern seekers after psychic “messages.” The prophets and apostles were chosen—they did not choose. They did not try to crash the uncharted realms of the infinite with the help of mediums or ouija boards, nor did “spirit guides” reveal to them the fate of an Uncle Harry or Aunt Emma, or discuss the origin of their aches and pains. Although necromancy (to use the classic term for intercourse with spirits) accompanies the history of all higher religions, it has always been understood as a crooked path fraught with dangers for its practitioners. Spiritual apparitions such as Paul experienced on the road to Damascus are born of God’s love for man, while necromancy is born of less lofty motives. God spoke to man through Old Testament prophets and through Christ for the sake of humanity. Those who desire to consort with so-called entities are not motivated by such all-encompassing love. But more important, their chief concern is not with God’s will as it is revealed in Christ.

There are a few today who would deny that the cosmos is throbbing with life. And who would limit life to that which is seen? Neither Judaism nor Christianity deny the existence of spirits. King Saul consulted the witch of Endor who evoked the spirit of Samuel for him, although necromancy and witchcraft were forbidden (Lev. 19:31; Deut. 18:11). Christ exorcised evil spirits on many occasions, but in the case of the epileptic son (Mk. 9:14–27) not even his disciples could drive out the spirit but only he himself (Mk. 9:28–29). There may be demons and angels, good and bad spirits, but they exist in a realm extraneous to ours, with which man should not tamper. Paul spoke of vast realms, thrones, dominions, principalities and authorities (Col. 1:16), but he warned of a danger few present-day spiritualists are willing to recognize, that “even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). Christianity traditionally discouraged intercourse with spirits, not because it doubted their existence, but because such was understood to be contrary to the counsel of God, the eternal Spirit.

ESP conducts experiments with cards or dice and employs statistical methods of evaluation. Spiritualists, on the other hand, employ entirely subjective methods to achieve contact with entities, such as table-tipping, automatic writing and the planchette, or ouija board. The most ancient method known is that of a medium, a person gifted with psychic powers, who goes into a trance, or catatonic sleep. In this state his conscious mind and free will are suspended. His body then is used by the entity who speaks through his voice box. The entity assumes a proper name for identification purposes and answers questions directed to it by people other than the medium who is asleep. Neither the medium nor the participants at a seance can possibly be sure of the origin, quality and intent of the entity.

Mr. David H. Cole, a young Universalist minister of wide intellectual interests, recently attended a séance in Chicago conducted by Mr. Ford, the famous trance medium, for a gathering of ten ministers. Through the voice of Mr. Ford an entity calling himself “Fletcher” addressed the gathering on topics uppermost in their minds. The remarks of this entity, however, were so general and platitudinous that nothing could be derived of either a practical or inspirational value. This is symptomatic of most séances, particularly those approached from a devotional angle. Those who wait with bated breath for new revelations in spiritistic séances do not have a “ghost of a chance.”

That mediums have stunned many people with knowledge of intimate details of their lives is well known. There is a faculty at work of which we know nothing as yet. The spiritistic hypothesis, while not entirely ruled out, has, however, one great inherent weakness. In his autobiography Nothing So Strange, written in collaboration with Margueritte Harmon Bro, Mr. Ford wrote that entities appearing at a séance are “loved ones of the sitter,” thus explaining the intensely personal and subjective nature of the material received. But many communications from so-called spirit guides contradict experience (such as their claim of reincarnating) and they pervert the teachings of Christianity with a sentimental relativism indicating a background in eastern occultism and metaphysics on the part of the mediums. But Paul warned: “… even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8).

Prayer is resorted to rarely by professional mediums. In prayer the mind and the emotions, in short, the whole consciousness of the individual, is at a higher pitch, which automatically cancels out the possibility of an entity taking control of the body. On the contrary, during the Middle Ages and before, prayer was used as an effective protection against spirits and demons. Psychic research has shown that an entity cannot manifest without some cooperation by the medium and the means he provides, such as nervous energy (mediums are usually utterly exhausted after a séance), his voice to speak with, or his hands to write with. As every seasoned psychic investigator knows, it is more often that the entity seems to need help rather than the person who appeals to it. The Roman Catholic doctrine of Intercession is based upon the belief in the survival of the soul. But even the saints cannot help directly those who pray to them, but intercede for them with Christ.

Those who desire “proof” of the survival of the soul too readily accept the claims of any entity (or medium) to be their deceased relative. The messages received during séances are so subjective that it is wiser to maintain an attitude of extreme caution toward all claims of having communed with a specific entity. The powers of the subconscious are as yet too little known and it is therefore quite possible that in most alleged communications from a recently deceased person the desire to speak with him again prompted the phenomena. Schrenck-Notzing came to this conclusion after a lifetime of studying parapsychology: “A medium may honestly believe that a spirit is manifesting itself through her or through him when, as a matter of fact, the manifestation is directed solely through a subdivision of her own ego in the subconscious.”

Spiritualism is the no-man’s land between ESP and authentic religious-visionary experiences. Its adherents have marshalled the theories of yoga, Zen, magic, theosophy, and Dr. Carl J. Jung for philosophical support, producing a pseudo-science and religious syncretism similar to Gnosticism. Instead of penetrating the mysteries of Christianity, spiritualists seem to be moving further away. One of the greatest gifts Christianity gave to mankind was freedom from dependence upon and fear of psychic forces. In the words of Paul, “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods; but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?” (Gal. 4:8–9).

The attempt to utilize the powers of entities or to communicate with them for selfish and petty ends is not only a denial of the potential of faith, but turns back the clock to a prehistoric level of religion when shamans and wizards ruled the life of their tribes with “familiars.” Christ chased demons and spirits out the front door—are they going to be let in again through the back? It remains to be seen what spiritualism will accomplish that deep faith cannot. Spiritualists are mystics without faith. Those who need phenomena to support their faith do well to recall Christ’s words to Thomas: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Pace College, New York

It is the psalmist who sings “The Heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, their voice is not heard.” Men have known these things for generations. They have gloried in the glory of a God who manifests himself in his wonderous works. No speech nor language is spoken, it is not in the words of Greek or Hebrew or German or English; yet every day speaks and every night shows knowledge. The apostle adds in a later day “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead; so that they are without excuse.…” Psalmist and apostle declare what no man can deny, that there is a God who can be known through his works and when we refuse to see him there, we are without excuse.

Such knowledge of God forced on us by the world around us has been recognized and accepted by believers in every generation. In some fashion it is the approach of Plato as he moves level upon level to his supreme Idea, an idea, which according to Plato’s thinking, necessarily has moral qualities which can be defined as an Ideal. In some fashion it is the approach of Aristotle as his system carries us from utter matter to perfect form or from the inanimate world to the high reaches of the Unmoved Mover. More specifically, in the Christian tradition, men have discovered in the world around them “proofs” for God, reasons for faith, necessities for believing, and, at least, in the direction of their thinking, they have been forced toward some knowledge of God. Arguments for the existence of God and in support of the nature of God are very old ones. They have been subjected to much criticism and therefore to considerable refinement in the history of thought. In spite of such criticism, however, they keep cropping up in one form or another, one argument, or one way of stating the argument, appealing to one generation more than to another; but none of the arguments ever quite disappears. That these arguments keep reviving is probably a reason for their fundamental strength; men feel under some duress to define what they know must be true about God from the evidence of the external world.

From Effects to their Cause. Keeping in mind that these arguments say something about God’s attributes as well as giving reasons for his existence, we are justified in using them as supports in natural theology for our knowledge of God. In general, the arguments move under at least four titles: The Cosmological, The Teleological, The Anthropological, and The Ontological. These arguments all allow somewhat the same scheme, namely that an effect must have a cause equal to or greater than the effect itself. In the general scheme of things you cannot get something from nothing and, surely, one can observe a great deal of something in the world of nature; the question is, therefore, what is “the source, the support, and the end” of all these things about us? What is the explanation of their existence?

The easiest argument is The Cosmological. It argues from the existence of the Cosmos, the universe, what C. S. Lewis calls “the whole show.” Man does not need to be either clever or subtle merely to wonder about the world around him. How can one account for all these things he sees and experiences—the birds, the rocks, the trees and the stars in their courses. This first argument in “natural” theology finds us unable to escape the belief that back of all this cosmos there is some thing or some one equal to bringing into existence (by what method we need not argue here) the universe within us, around us and above us.

The Teleological argument is more reflective regarding the universe. Here our interest is focused on design and purpose as we discover the amazing intricacy with which all things are interlocked as if united in some grand mutual interdependancy, some basic design. These interlocked designs and purposes point to a designer, some intelligence with creative purpose. There are no isolated data, there is no item so small that it is not somehow interrelated with every possible other thing. Nothing ever “just happens.” You can never really say of anything that “it doesn’t really matter.” Butler in his Analogy, Paley in his Evidences and in these latter days F. R. Tennant in his Philosophical Theology found this argument from design almost conclusive for the existence and the nature of God.

In his master work, Nature, Man and God, William Temple sets himself to examine the world of nature only to discover that nature includes man and that nature and man together point us to God. In some such fashion The Anthropological argument grows out of the Teleological argument, for nothing points more clearly to intelligence and design than the fact of man himself, man who is able to understand the design and to appreciate the designer. But beyond this is man as person. Man as a person has what we call personality. Will anyone seriously argue that personality can arise from some impersonal source? Will anyone seriously support accidents or material or both as sufficient to account for all the wonders in man? Since man is so creative himself, was the ground of his existence uncreative? Thus the argument runs. We cannot get something from nothing; we have something personal in man; we cannot believe that this personal end-product comes from impersonal sources.

The Ontological argument points to perfection or more exactly to the idea of perfection which we find inescapable in our ways of thought. To use our thinking about God as an example, how is it possible for us to talk about the perfections of God without some idea of perfection as a point of reference. Yet we are imperfect ourselves, we think imperfectly, we are surrounded by a world of imperfections. Since, once again, we cannot get something from nothing and since assuredly we have ideas of perfection which cannot be accounted for in the immediacies of our surroundings, the conclusion suggests itself that this idea of perfection must come directly from the perfect source, namely, from God himself.

It would appear from this brief treatment that we have at least four reasons for believing in God. (Some add the moral argument, that is, the inescapable sense of “oughtness” common to all men, Kant’s catagorical imperative. We believe that the moral argument which we have not here expanded can find a natural place in the Anthropological argument.) These tell us some very definite things about God’s nature—he is mighty enough to account for the universe itself, he is intelligent enough to satisfy its design, he is personal enough to account for man as person, and he is the ground of all our understanding and perfection. If we add creativity and morality as necessary to man as person, we may presume to have found as necessary a God who is almighty, intelligent, personal, creative, moral and perfect. We are not far from the kingdom!

From Necessary Presuppositions. What has been said thus far usually comes under the heading of a posteriori reasoning, that is, reaching our conclusions inductively. There are others who prefer the a priori approach; this is, as a matter of fact, the approach of much of the theology of our day. Knowledge of God with this approach is not so much the result of our thinking as it is the starting place of our thinking. The starting place is always there, described sometimes as a first truth, and it is only in personal intellectual maturity or perhaps in the maturity of the race that man gets around to analyzing the nature of his starting place. Living as we do in an age dominated by scientific method, it is difficult for us to accept the fact that we operate even in science, even in our “proofs,” from the foundation of various presuppositions. For many, the fact of God is one of the necessary presuppositions.

All of us must accept some first truths about ourselves from the outset. We are alive and awake and sane; such truths about ourselves which we cannot prove objectively; we merely accept them as starting places. On a deeper level we base our thinking on the assumption that there are certain foundations of Truth and Reason from which we operate and to which we constantly return. We believe that truth has an interrelatedness in a universe (which is a single organizational principle of truth).

All serious thinking, especially the most objective scientific research, upholds the necessity of absolute honesty in methods and in findings, appealing therefore to a moral ground built into the structure of reality. In other directions our words betray us: “it stands to reason” or “that doesn’t make sense.” Thus we are insisting that our thinking, as well as our experimenting, demands a frame of reference that is sensible. Moreover, we appeal to one another on the grounds of a common acceptance of these necessary fundamentals. Notice the presupposition of this paragraph recently published in the Science section of Time magazine where the discussion has to do with the possibility of interplanetary conversations: “But what message would aliens send that could be understood by earthlings? Dr. Drake suggests a familiar series of numbers, such as 1, 2, 3, 4. Professor Purcell believes that a simple on-off signal would be more logical as a starter. After that the messages could progress to Mathematical relationships, which are surely the same in all planetary systems.…” (Footnote: “Science—Project OZMA,” Time, April 18, 1960, p. 53.) (Italics supplied.) Note how normal it is for scientists to assume an underlying rational system.

From Special Revelation. From this a priori approach it is interesting to note that we are talking again about a Reality at the source of things showing attributes of Truth, Reason, and Morality. We are being pressed to the conclusion again, namely, that in what is called Natural Theology there are strong reasons for knowing that there is a God and knowing something of his attributes. But, “can a man by searching find out God?” Only is this possible when God is pleased to reveal himself and to answer finally and authoritatively man’s deepest questions. This is not Natural Revelation but Special Revelation. This is the Bible record of God’s mighty acts and his authoritative Word about the revelatory acts and about himself. This is the climax and fulfillment of God’s Word to us in the Living Word even Jesus Christ. Natural revelation gives us direction and confidence in our search for God; God’s Special Revelation gives us final authority and assurance regarding his own nature and his will for man. As Calvin suggests, in the Bible we have the “divine spectacles” which bring the truths of natural theology into focus.

Bibliography: In addition to classic systematic theologies by C. Hodge, A. H. Strong, L. Berkhof and others, we suggest: Evangelical: R. Flint, Theism (an old standard work); J. Gerstner, Reasons For Faith (popular and sound); S. M. Thompson, A Modern Philosophy of Religion; H. Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics. Others: K. Barth, Church Dogmatics (dialectical); F. R. Tennant, Philosophical Theology (liberal but surprisingly firm in its objective approach).

Professor of Systematic Theology

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Contributors Of Essays On Basic Christian Doctrines

Oswald T. Allis, formerly Princeton Theological Seminary; William M. Arnett, Asbury Theological Seminary; G. C. Berkouwer, Free University of Amsterdam; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Fuller Theological Seminary; F. F. Bruce, University of Manchester; J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., Covenant Seminary; Edward John Carnell, Fuller Theological Seminary; Ralph Earle, Nazarene Theological Seminary; James Forrester, Gordon College; Frank E. Gaebelein, The Stony Brook School; J. Norval Geldenhuys, Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa; John H. Gerstner, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary; J. Kenneth Grider, Nazarene Theological Seminary; Anthony A. Hoekema, Calvin Seminary; Philip E. Hughes, The Churchman; W. Boyd Hunt, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; Fred H. Klooster, Calvin Seminary; Harold B. Kuhn, Asbury Theological Seminary; George E. Ladd, Fuller Theological Seminary; Addison H. Leitch, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary; Calvin D. Linton, George Washington University;

Julius R. Mantey, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary; Pierre Marcel, Calvinist Society of France; H. D. McDonald, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary; Otto Michel, University of Tuebingen; Leon Morris, Tyndale House; J. T. Mueller, Concordia Seminary; William A. Mueller, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary; John Murray, Westminster Theological Seminary; Roger Nicole, Gordon Divinity School; M. Eugene Osterhaven, Western Theological Seminary; James I. Packer, Tyndale Hall; Bernard Ramm, California Baptist Theological Seminary; William Childs Robinson, Columbia Theological Seminary; Robert Paul Roth, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary; Andrew K. Rule, Louisville Presbyterian Seminary; Wilbur M. Smith, Fuller Theological Seminary; Henry Stob, Calvin Seminary; Merrill C. Tenney, Wheaton College; J. G. S. S. Thomson, formerly New College, Edinburgh; Cornelius Van Til, Westminster Theological Seminary; John F. Walvoord, Dallas Theological Seminary; Wayne E. Ward, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Walter Wessel, North American Baptist Seminary.

THE SUPREME QUESTION

Among the strangest of all phenomena is that life’s most important question is so rarely asked. Even among the unregenerate, it would seem that circumstances should make them stop and ask themselves the question. But that there should be comparative silence in the Christian Church on so important a matter is a staggering enigma!

The question is: “Where will I spend eternity?”

In view of the fact that the Church has the answer, why do we so rarely hear this question asked us from the pulpit?

Confronted with the inevitability of death, with its visible effect all around us—in the slowly moving funeral processions, in the newspaper obituary notices, in the experiences of every home, in the stories of violence or the slow toll of disease recounted for us daily—why is the question of questions so infrequently heard? Is it because the query is foolish?—Only to those whose hearts are insensitive to the eternal.

Trivial?—Only to those who live in a realm little removed from the lower animals.

Unimportant?—Only to those who fail to understand man and his need of God’s redeeming love.

Unasked?—Only by those whose hearts and minds have been blinded by the god of this world.

Neglected?—Yes, by pulpits and individual Christians on every hand.

Rejected as lacking relevance?—Yes, but only by those who have believed “another gospel,” who ignore the clear teachings of Holy Scripture, and who have envisioned for themselves and for others a man-made device to bridge the chasm which Abraham spoke of in our Lord’s parable: “And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.”

Let us suppose that from every pulpit in America there should come a message on the same day, “Where Will You Spend Eternity?” What a shock might result, what consternation caused in some minds, what searching for the answer on the part of many!

The calendar of every denomination is filled with different “days.” Almost every Sunday commemorates some anniversary, the stressing of a particular cause, even the glorification and undergirding of some secular movements.

What would happen if every church would set aside one Sunday a year to preach on the most vital of all questions: “Where Will You Spend Eternity?”

What would happen if in many sermons during the year the all-important question was raised, even if only by inference?

There are so many aspects and implications involved in this question that they stagger the imagination. But this is not an imaginary problem. Nor should it be permitted to fall into the realm of human speculation.

Some years ago the writer had his first of two coronary episodes. It was an experience for which he is deeply thankful. Confronted then (and constantly since) with the most important of all questions, he knew where he would spend eternity, and he knew who had made this possible.

When one is face to face with the reality and inevitability of death, things should assume their proper perspective, for it is this world which distorts and the next which brings this life and eternity into focus.

Here we are confronted with the vital versus the trivial: the spirit as compared with the flesh, the things which are unseen in relation to the tawdry things that are seen.

Again it may be asked why, in view of the eternal import of the matter, so little is ever said about it. Even more amazing is the somber fact that within the Christian Church the overwhelming emphasis is on secondary things, on programs which can never be properly implemented until participants have met the issue of the eternal.

One of the most familiar passages in the New Testament is our Lord’s parable of the Prodigal. Suppose that in the case of the Prodigal son emphasis had been on renovating the “far country,” on disinfecting and perfuming the swine, on providing a banquet for the wayward boy, or making him comfortable and happy where he was?

Yet that is what today’s church too often tries to do. Rather than bring the sinner back to his Heavenly Father through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we spend so much time trying to make him comfortable and happy in a dying world order—yes, and in trying to make him act like a Christian.

This unfortunate situation is the result of ignorance, unbelief, neglect, or personal timidity. Why should we hesitate to ask an unsaved friend or acquaintance: “Where will you spend eternity?” Yet we hesitate often because we ourselves have a lingering uncertainty about it.

Once the question is settled, all other things begin to fall into their rightful place. The fear of death is no longer with us. Christ becomes a living reality and we can look forward with joy to being in his presence. Prayer becomes a matter of supreme practicality, a form of spiritual respiration which diffuses into our hearts the oxygen of divine companionship. The Bible becomes a living Book to us which speaks to our hearts and minds and makes us sensitive to God’s love, will, and purpose.

In addition, those persons with whom we come in daily contact realize that we have a hope from which nothing can separate us. Paul’s affirmation becomes a living reality, and we know all things are working together for our good because we love God and are his.

One of the most pitiful sights the writer ever saw was an old man, on the verge of death, studying and gloating over a long list of stocks and bonds which he owned and commenting gleefully on their increase in value since he had first purchased them.

“How much did he leave?” is a question we frequently hear. There is but one answer—“All”—but we are tempted to evaluate men by their wealth and remember them by their achievements.

But the Christian approach is as different as death from life, for it is eternal life which Christ came to give to all who believe in him. Even success in a good cause is secondary. Some of our Lord’s disciples returned from a missionary journey gloating over the fact that even the evil spirits were subject to them through His name.

To the exuberant disciples our Lord replied: “Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.”

It is true that a Christian should not set his mind on eternity and forget or ignore his earthly duties. But the gateway to Christianity is the narrow door of faith in the Son of God, and the vital question is never answered rightly until we know him whom to know is life eternal.

L. NELSON BELL

The Epistle to Titus is one of the Pastoral Epistles, a name first used of the letters to Timothy and Titus by D. N. Berdot in 1703 and later popularized by Paul Anton of Halle in 1726. The appropriateness of the name has been debated by New Testament scholars, but its essential usefulness to denote the contents of these Epistles is evident.

AUTHORSHIP

Titus shares in the major problem common to the Pastorals, namely, authenticity. Until the time of Schleiermacher (1807) the Pauline authorship of these letters was universally recognized by the Church. True, Marcion rejected them, but that was to be expected because of his dogmatic presuppositions. The Chester Beatty papyrus (p. 46, third century) does not contain them, but since both the beginning and ending of this codex are not extant, no certain conclusions can be drawn from their exclusion.

Since Schleiermacher’s day the rejection of the Pauline authorship has been along the following lines: (1) doctrinal: the theology of the Pastorals is post-Pauline; (2) historical: the events of the Pastorals cannot be fitted into the life of Paul; (3) ecclesiastical: the church organization revealed in these letters is too advanced for Paul’s time; (4) linguistic: the vocabulary and style of the Pastorals are not Paul’s. It is not within the scope of this article to discuss all of these objections (the interested reader should consult the commentaries of Simpson and Guthrie). Since, however, the linguistic argument is the weightiest, a word about it is in order. It was Schleiermacher who first openly denied the authenticity of the Pastorals on linguistic bases. He was followed by other scholars, the most influential of whom was P. N. Harrison. His now famous, The Problem of the Pastorals (1921), persuaded many New Testament scholars who had previously refused to go along with Schleiermacher.

Harrison’s basic contention was that the vocabulary and style of these epistles are more like the writings of the late first and early second century Apostolic Fathers and Apologists than Paul’s authentic letters. Harrison could not, however, deny the true Pauline ring of some of the passages in the Pastorals (e.g., 2 Tim. 4 and references to certain personages) and thus concluded that the Pastorals were written by a second century Paulinist who had in his possession certain fragments of letters written by Paul to Timothy and Titus.

Harrison’s theory has come under rigorous examination and, although it has enjoyed wide acceptance, has been rejected by scholars of as widely differing backgrounds as Guthrie, Jeremias, Behm, and de Zwaan. His rather arbitrary statistical methods in particular have drawn fire from his critics. Indeed, there is serious question whether any valid results can be achieved from statistical vocabulary studies involving documents as brief as the Pastorals. Metzger (Expository Times, LXX, p. 94) calls attention to the statistical studies of G. U. Yule who contends that a treatise must be at least ten thousand words long to form a solid basis for statistical analysis. The Pastorals, of course, contain far less words than that. The case against the authenticity of the Pastorals is a long way from being closed.

TITUS

No mention is made of Titus in Acts (was he Luke’s brother?), but a few scattered references to him occur in the Epistles of Paul, especially II Corinthians. Titus was a Gentile (Gal. 2:3) and probably a spiritual son of Paul (Titus 1:4). He was in the company of Barnabas and Paul when they made their “famine visit” to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:3). The next explicit reference to him is during Paul’s three-year stay at Ephesus. He may have been the bearer of I Corinthians, and, even more likely, of Paul’s “severe letter” to that church. It is clear that Paul had sent Titus to Corinth about matters which were of deep concern to him and had arranged to meet him at Troas (2 Cor. 2:13). When Titus did not appear, Paul traveled on into Macedonia. It was there that he met Titus and with great relief heard the good news that the worst of the trouble was over at Corinth (2 Cor. 7:6, 13, 14). Titus, accompanied by two other brethren, was the bearer of II Corinthians (2 Cor. 8:23) and was given the responsibility of making arrangements for the collection in Corinth (2 Cor. 8:6, 16, 17). Nothing more is heard of Titus until the interval between Paul’s Roman imprisonments. From Crete, where he was engaged in the organization of the churches, he was summoned to Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). From Nicopolis he probably went to Dalmatia (2 Tim. 4:10).

HISTORICAL SITUATION

Paul had been on the Island of Crete and had left Titus behind to “amend what was defective” (1:5) and to complete the organization of the churches. At the time of writing he is apparently on his travels. With him are Artemas, Tychicus, Zenas, and Apollos. The former two are being sent by Paul to Crete to relieve Titus of his work there, while the latter two—the probable bearers of the letter—are commencing a journey which would bring them past Crete. The purpose of the letter is to give Titus instructions in his ministerial work and to prepare him to join Paul at Nicopolis.

Manifestly it is impossible to fit Paul’s historical situation as revealed here into the history recorded in Acts. The only adequate solution is to posit two imprisonments with a period of freedom in between.

The probable date is circa A.D. 63. There is no indication of the place from which the letter was written. Macedonia is suggested by some. This would be consistent with Paul’s plan to winter at Nicopolis. Others suggest Corinth. Apollos—if this is the same person as the one mentioned in Titus—had been in Corinth (Acts 19:1) and was originally from Alexandria (Acts 18:24). Crete lies in a direct line between Corinth and Alexandria.

OUTLINE

I. Salutation 1:1–4.

II. The Appointment of Elders and Their Qualifications 1:5–10.

III. False Teachers 1:11–16.

IV. Christian Living 2:1–10.

A. Older People 2:1–3.

B. Younger People 2:4–8.

C. Slaves 2:9, 10.

V. The Theological Grounds for Christian Living 2:11–15.

VI. The Christian and Those Outside 3:1–7.

VII. Closing Injunctions 3:8–11.

VIII. Personal Requests 3:12–15.

CONTENTS

The Epistles to Titus reveals the following emphases:

1. High standards for church leaders. Paul had not stayed long enough on the Island of Crete to complete the organization of the churches. This responsibility thus fell into Titus’ hands. He is instructed to appoint in every town, elders (a term synonymous with “bishops,” compare 1:5 with 1:7) who must meet certain spiritual standards (1:6–8). This was all the more important because Cretans had notorious reputations (1:12). The list of qualifications parallels the one found in 1 Timothy 3:1–7, with a few divergences. The standards are high, as the words “blameless,” “upright,” “holy,” and “self-controlled” indicate.

Paul singles out Titus himself in 2:7 and reminds him that he too must show himself in all respects “a model of good deeds.” With church leadership goes exemplary conduct.

In addition to good moral character, elders are to have a good grasp of Christian doctrine, both for the purpose of instructing believers and of confuting false teachers (1:10). Paul insists that the leadership of the church must be both spiritually and theologicaly sound.

2. Sound doctrine. The importance of sound doctrine arises out of the presence of false teachers in the churches of Crete. That the influence of these was widespread is indicated by Paul’s statement in 1:11: “they are upsetting whole families.”

Whatever precisely its nature, the false teaching against which Paul addresses himself had a strong Jewish element in it. He speaks of the “circumcision party” (1:10), “Jewish myths” (1:14), and “quarrels over the law” (3:9). The false teachers are described as “insubordinate men, empty talkers, and deceivers” (1:10) who are teaching for “base gain what they have no right to teach” (1:11). The seriousness of the situation is underscored by Paul’s quotation of Epimenides’ evaluation of Cretan character: “liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (1:12)—an evaluation confirmed by the Greek verb cretizein which means “to lie.” Paul himself, apparently by personal experience, also confirms Epimenides’ judgment of Cretans (1:13).

Vigorous action is suggested against these false teachers. They must be silenced (1:11): Paul does not specify how, but presumably by the teaching of sound doctrine (1:9). They are to be rebuked (1:13), and if one of their number does not respond after being admonished once or twice, Titus is to have “nothing more to do with him” (3:10).

The Epistle to Titus reveals with what great concern Paul viewed false teaching in the church and how anxious he was for sound doctrine. The modern church would do well to emulate Paul in these matters. A. M. Hunter writes: “It is easy to make jokes about ‘sound doctrine’ and to poke fun at the ultra-orthodox. But in a world like ours where so many non-Christian philosophies compete for men’s allegiance and so many attempts are made to undermine the Faith, who can deny the need for ‘sound doctrine’?” (Introducing the New Testament, p. 155).

3. Practical Christian living. In contrast to the disobedient and detestable lives of the false teachers, Christians are exhorted to practice good deeds. Paul’s exhortations are addressed to various groups in the churches. Older men are to reveal special qualities of Christian living consistent with age and experience (2:2). Older women are to assume the responsibilities that attend their new position in the Gospel. These include the proper instruction of the younger women who might be tempted to take advantage of their new-found freedom and bring discredit to the Faith (2:3–5). To younger men Paul has but one exhortation: “control yourselves” (2:6). Slaves are to accept their lot, work hard, be honest and loyal. By so doing they adorn (kosmein—a word used of the setting of a jewel) the doctrine of God (2:9, 10). Exemplary living, even on the part of a slave, enhances the Gospel.

Paul’s instructions to Christians in their relationship to those outside is given in 3:1, 2. The teaching is similar to that found in Romans 13, namely, the Christian is to submit to and obey the authorities in a spirit of gentleness and courtesy.

Paul’s attitude in the whole area of Christian living is summarized in 3:8: “I desire you to insist on these things, so that they who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds.”

Ethics, however, must have a theological basis. There is a close and inseparable relationship between right living and right believing, between ethics and theology. This Paul stresses in a classic passage on the grace of God (2:11–14). God’s grace which brings salvation is the pre-requisite to godly living. It teaches the Christian discipleship and affords him the “blessed hope” (assurance, not mere wish) of the coming of Jesus Christ. It was the purpose of Christ’s redemptive work to create a people cleansed of sin and zealous for good works.

LITERATURE

The best most recent commentaries on Titus (these treat of the other two Pastorals also) are by E. K. Simpson (1954) and D. Guthrie (1957). The former is based on the Greek text and brings to bear much classical learning to the exegesis of the text. The latter is one of the almost uniformly excellent commentaries in the Tyndale Series and is particularly valuable for its discussion of Harrison’s views. Of the older commentaries Fairbairn (1874), a little known work, Plummer in the Expositor’s Bible (1888), Bernard in the Cambridge Greek Testament (1899), Parry (1920), and Lock in the International Critical Commentary (1924) are all valuable. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastorals (1921), Scott in the Moffatt New Testament Commentary (1936), and Gealy in The Interpreter’s Bible (1955) all deny the Pauline authorship. Recently two significant articles on the bearing of the linguistic phenomena of the Pastorals to the problem of authorship have appeared: Bruce Metzger’s “A Reconsideration of Certain Arguments Against the Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles,” Expository Times, LXX (Dec. 1958), pp. 91–94, and K. Grayston’s and G. Herdan’s “The Authorship of the Pastorals in the Light of Statistical Linguistics,” New Testament Studies, VI (Oct. 1959), pp. 1–15.

WALTER W. WESSEL

Professor of New Testament

North American Baptist Seminary

CHANGE OF MIND

We are pleased to announce a symposium of significance. Three noteworthy correspondents reply to the query, “How has your mind changed in the last ten years?” This sampling is unique, since inquiries of this sort are usually made at the end of a calendar decade. Our correspondents, however, go on changing their minds year in and year out, and they had no objection to surveying an odd decade.

Several women were included in our query, but they did not find the question significant. The exercise of the feminine prerogative in mind-changing makes a decade an inappropriate measure.

PROFESSOR GRUNDGELEHRT:

The past decade marks the fifth Copernican revolution in my thought. The tenth book of volume three of my Summa Contra Theologiam introduces a new moment which is my last word and therefore also my first word. Without describing the potentiation of the dialectic which unfolds this position, I can only say that I have broken decisively with the last traces of Neogrundgelehrtianism. My total work must now be understood as my Nein! to Grundgelehrtian speculation. (cf. footnote 423, pp. 7–206).

DR. EUGENE IVY:

Your intriguing question suggests a glacial intellect, whose movement must be measured in decades. To be frank, I have no idea now what ideas I had ten years ago. Indeed, that may have been my depth-analysis period when I was immersed in a stream of unconsciousness and had no ideas whatever. In any case change is the one constant for an open, liberal mind. During the last ten days, for example, I have come to see the limitations of any rigid or doctrinaire approach to intrapersonal relations. Never again will I attempt small group dynamics with the Ladies’ Aid. Fresh from that experience, I have also reappraised the place of permissiveness in child training. Just last night I spanked Gene for the first time. Of course my basic commitment has not changed. In relation to the shifting ecclesiastical scene I have found it helpful to describe myself as either a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative, but my conviction as to the ultimacy of the absolute has been unwavering.

SENATOR B. B. FUDDLE:

In ten years my platform has grown with America. My campaign promises have kept pace with the inflationary spiral, and they are as good today as the day they were first made. My mind has not changed on a single issue affecting my constituents and their votes. The only change on my record was made this month. My name is now Brian Bannon McFuddle, my tribute to America’s Irish heritage.

EUTYCHUS

BULTMANN IN THE WINTER

I have recommended your “Wintertime” series as the best analysis of neo-orthodoxy … I have read in recent times and as the best demonstration why it cannot preserve conservative theology.

J. T. MUELLER

Concordia Seminary

St. Louis, Mo.

Your stimulating editorial “Has Winter Come Again” reminded me that in an address to the Baptist clergy of Washington three or four years back I suggested that a basic simplification of trends had occurred in American theology in the past decade or so. Two trends, I went on, were now manifest and were in process of attracting to them and assimilating various schools and views. One was neo-fundamentalism and the other a post-Barthian species of existentialism.

To a considerable degree biblical problems are reflected in both of these main currents, though philosophical factors, especially the issue of how we encounter the Divine, are not without influence in the latter case. The two leading theologians of our generation in this country, Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich, were never Barthians and there is considerable question as to how accurately the term neo-orthodox applies to them. In many respects they seem to have been rather exponents of neo-liberalism. Yet they have raised for theology in the liberal orbit the relevance of ancient and classic doctrines from the standpoint of meaning and experience.

This is the drive of theological existentialism as it is popularized increasingly in American pulpits and in the dialogues of discussion and conversation. It becomes a new version of religious experientialism. The defect and peril of this approach to Christian truth, as you recognize, lie in what it does to the central reality of the Bible and the Christian Gospel which is the living God active both in history and in personal address to individual men and women.…

CHARLES WESLEY LOWRY

Treasurer

American Theological Society

Washington, D. C.

Bultmann’s effort to get rid of biblical supernaturalism is due to a corrupting of his mind by European naturalistic philosophy.

HAROLD PAUL SLOAN

Browns Mills, N. J.

With “Bultmann as King” we are nearing the final bankruptcy of the liberal, the neo-orthodox and the neo-liberal scholarship of theology. One thing is sure, only a genuine revived supernatural Protestantism will be able to stem the tide of world-sweeping “hard-fisted naturalism of Communism ideology.”

PETER F. WALL

Faith Community Church

Palmdale, Calif.

Bultmann appeared already in 1953 to be attracting more attention than Brunner and even than Barth in Germany. I personally suspect, with von Balthazar, that this is temporary, and that Bultmann’s radical de-supernaturalizing of Christianity will not, over the long haul, be the theology of this era.

LEWIS B. SMEDES

Calvin College

Grand Rapids, Mich.

Your remarks on Bultmann remind me of the quatrain, originally from some British source, quoted several years ago in Time:

“Hark!” the herald angels sing;

“Bultmann is the coming thing!”

At least they would if he had not

Demythologized the lot.

EDWARD A. JOHNSON

Dongola Lutheran Parish, U.L.C.A.

Dongola, Ill.

“Evangelical” does not mean conservative, orthodox, Bible-centered, fundamental, or any of the other meanings you persist in giving it. It is not synonymous to peculiar strains of Reformed churches or is it descriptive of your magazine’s brand of true faith.

J. GORDON SWANSON

Grace Lutheran

Aurora, Ill.

I know of at least one brilliant neo-orthodox pastor that has been brought around to a conservative approach in his ministry because of the fine apologetical articles found consistently in your magazine.

HAROLD BURDICK

Sawyer Evangelical United Brethren

Bradford, Pa.

CONTEMPORARY ART

CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR CONCISE AND PENETRATING CRITICISM OF CONTEMPORARY ART. YOUR EDITORIAL (DEC. 5 ISSUE) SAYS SYMPATHETICALLY AND SUCCINCTLY WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID IN LENGTHY TREATISES BUT WITH NO GREATER EFFECTIVENESS.

OLIVER C. RUPPRECHT

CONCORDIA COLLEGE

MILWAUKEE, WISC.

IN THE PAST TENSE

I have read with pleasure Mr. Hollington Tong’s article (Nov. 7 issue). However … he mentions … “Elizabeth Hospital in Shanghai—a Baptist institution.” The only Christian institution in Shanghai with a similar name was (I wish I could say “is”) St. Elizabeth’s Hospital on Avenue Road and that was an Episcopal hospital.…

MONTGOMERY H. THROOP

South Orange, N. J.

THE FIRST ADAM

The news report “The Adam Question” (Dec. 5 issue) calls for some comment.… The pamphleteers do not, and cannot, prove that the report of the commission in any way revised our creedal statements.… Indiscriminate circularizing presents only one side of a matter, and makes for difficult circumstances and emotional atmosphere for dispassionate study and rebuttal.…

VICTOR BUCCI

First Reformed Church of Astoria

Astoria, New York

CANTERBURY AND EDINBURGH

I was interested to read Mr. Farrell’s article “Scotland Celebrates its Reformation.” Perhaps your readers might care to know of recent developments in connection with the Scottish celebrations.

The Scots most courteously invited the Church of England to join with them on this great occasion. Unfortunately the atitude of the Scottish Episcopalians (representing only a little over one per cent of all Scotland) prevented the Archbishop of Canterbury accepting this, and he felt able to do no more than send a Dean as his personal representative.…

It needs to be made clear that not all Anglicans are tied to an unreformed and Tractarian view of episcopacy. A small but vociferous group in the Church of England holds this unAnglican view, and some of its members are senior dignitaries, but I venture to think most Anglicans would not favour it. Certainly the Church of England has never been officially committed to it.

GERVASE E. DUFFIELD

Cambridge, England

OBERAMMERGAU MEMORIES

Dr. Kuhn’s article on Oberammergau (Nov. 7 issue) brought back memories of thirty years ago. My wife and I, newly married, were leaving by train after having seen “the play.” To both of us it had been a most moving experience, never to be forgotten.

In the compartment with us were three adults from New York who immediately started talking and were most anxious to know if we thought it would stir up anti-Semitic feeling. It was not for some time that I realized they were Jews. So my replies were accordingly not biased—I told them that honestly we had not thought of the characters as Jews at all—we had only too clearly seen “ourselves” in the portrayal.

It seems strange that now 30 years later the same question should be asked. Where do these questioners put themselves (and their consciences!) when they witness this great drama and tragedy … so continuously repeated in every human life?

WALLACE E. CONKLING

Bishop of Chicago, Ret.

Vero Beach, Fla.

Last in a Series

German theology has not wholly lacked significant criticism of neo-orthodoxy. From a quite biblical perspective, such criticism strikes two blows: first, it deplores the theological deviation of the dialectical theologians, and second, it laments the evangelistic sterility resulting from their arbitrary conceptions of divine love. Largely, although not entirely, the burden of constructive theological criticism has been borne by the confessional churches; the evangelistic concern has been kept alive mainly, although not exclusively, by the German Evangelical Alliance.

THEOLOGICAL CRITICISM

We often forget that classic liberal theology never really enlisted an overwhelming number of the German clergy. Even before Barth, liberal theologians were a small minority, but a minority that wielded great influence, even among and over the “positive” theologians. The latter, in their support of the state church’s Bund von Thron und Altar, unwittingly tended also to adopt liberalism’s leading thesis, that religion is simply the crown of cultural life. In this ambiguous situation dialectical theology could voice a necessary criticism of both liberal and positive theologies.

Certain conservative forces have nonetheless exercised a long and significant influence to the right of Barth and Brunner. In university cities, of course, the prevalent theological fashion, whatever its mood, often comes swiftly to dominate the local ministerial outlook. But elsewhere the theological perspective of the German clergy often is quite diversified, and frequently more biblically oriented than ecumenical discussions indicate, and than contemporary analyses of theological trends acknowledge.

In the main, the Bible-centered emphasis reaches back to Philipp Spener (1635–1705) and August Francke (1663–1727), founders of the Pietistic movement. This emphasis was best carried forward by Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752), who aimed to unite Pietism with scientific theology. Johann Tobias Beck (1804–1878), who sought to base all doctrine on the Bible, became probably the most important representative of this strictly biblical school of theology in the nineteenth century. Adolf Schlatter (1852–1938), who championed a Scripture-controlled point of view (even if sometimes shaded by personal notions), aggressively extended this tradition’s influence.

Even in the heyday of twentieth century liberalism, the evangelical view was here and there vigorously championed. Theodore Zahn (1838–1933), spokesman for the conservatives in New Testament criticism, completed his great study of the New Testament Canon after retirement from Erlangen, regarded as Germany’s conservative Lutheran faculty. Hermann Sasse, from 1933 to 1948 professor of church history, left Erlangen in theological protest and joined the Lutheran Free Church. One might also mention Wilhelm Oesch of Oberursel, whose Theologischer Rundblick (“Theological Review”) has been directed against neo-orthodoxy and liberalism with equal force.

Grounded in such conservative history, pietistic clergymen have circumvented the dialectical and existential positions. Instinctively shying from critical theories, and relying directly upon biblical sources rather than upon contemporary theological conviction, small groups of devout believers maintain an existence in almost all denominations—in the so-called official or territorial churches no less than in the free churches.

Conservative theological leadership today comes less from Pietistic than from Lutheran and Reformed sources. At the present time Adolph Koeberle of Tuebingen, Ernst Kinder and Karl Rengstorf of Muenster, Edmund Schlink of Heidelberg, and Otto Weber of Goettingen, are among those influential in a conservative direction. While Helmut Thielicke of Hamburg is perhaps not as conservative in his views, his opposition to Barthianism nonetheless is well known, and he has taken an increasingly conservative course.

THE PIETISTIC MOOD

In many cases “the faithful remnant” in the Protestant churches has adopted a pietistic outlook alongside its simple devotion to the Bible. It is this remnant that retains a live concern for personal soul-winning and evangelism which contemporary theology seems to dissolve in many of the so-called “dogmatically alert” churches. These pietistic fellowships demand a “theology of decision” centering in biblical evangelism. The life of the Christian community is “immediately related to Christ and the Bible” as its source; a quite secondary role (and sometimes an attitude of disdain) is reserved for schematic theology. It is held that the Church “lives by faith, not by theology,” and that theology is “the product of faith.”

The Pietists therefore think that, by constantly urging personal decision for Christ, they overcome the deviations from biblical doctrine of Barth, Brunner, and Bultmann before such influences register. But this deliverance is accomplished more by the Pietistic movement’s theological isolationism than by its theological strength. The movement still perpetuates a tendency given it already in Spener’s time—the shift of emphasis from orthodox doctrine to the practical life, from the objective validity of Christian revelation to the subjective conditions of regeneration. By their one-sided recognition and emphasis that regenerating faith in Christ and some serious doctrinal errors may co-exist side by side, some Pietists unwittingly tolerate the perversion of theology.

VIEWS OF THE BIBLE

In discussions of the theological presuppositions that now govern their preaching, German ministers soon disclose their dissatisfaction over any reduction of these tenets to the views of Barth, Brunner, or Bultmann. In German preaching as a whole, one finds greater loyalty to biblical teaching than might be expected either from the ecumenical dialogue, the theological standpoint of the divinity schools, or from current religious literature. For many Protestant clergymen, Karl Barth’s word to a World Council of Churches conference in January, 1947, at Bossey, still bristles with relevance: “The ecumenical unity of the churches and of their theologians is either a truth or an illusion, according to whether or not they accept the authority of the Bible.”

This is not to say that the German pulpit is consciously Bible-controlled; far from it. In fact, sometimes the clash with Bultmann no less than with Barth and Brunner is softened by a disposition to regard the modern scientific world-view as authoritative, and scriptural references to the cosmic order as fallible. That is, some Bible-preaching pastors simply assume that Scripture deals only with salvation and has no significance whatever for science. The legitimate emphasis that the authority of the Bible rests only on Jesus Christ himself is so twisted by others as to deprive the Bible as such of authoritative significance; the declaration Thus saith the Scripture! is used merely to introduce its “witness.” In such circumstances, the uneasiness of the clergy over an emphatic Thus saith the Lord! is not surprising. While the emphasis of Martin Kahler (1835–1912) is reiterated that Holy Scripture has its authority as the source of the preaching through which the apostles founded the Church, the fact that Scripture also supplied an authoritative basis of their preaching is neglected. The plight of German theology and preaching alike relates directly to this compromise of an authoritative Bible.

Theological faculties attached to the universities provide scant support for the high theory of the Bible’s divine inspiration still accorded considerable scholarly approval both in England and in America. For a high view of Scripture one must usually turn to seminaries of the German free churches or to Bible institutes sponsored mainly by American missions. Nonetheless, university professors outside the divinity faculties here and there may be ranked with the conservative forces in opposing higher criticism. From all fields of learning the German Inter-Varsity movement has banded together a company of biblically-oriented scholars firmly dedicated to evangelical positions.

THE BURDEN FOR EVANGELISM

The European continent is today in transition not only in theology but, equally urgent, in evangelism. Earlier in this century, evangelistic ministries had left a mark upon both the German state church and upon the free churches. Names like Fritz Binde (the socialist-atheist converted around 1900), Samuel Kellar, Jacok Vedder, Johannes Warns, Wilhelm Busch, and others are unknown to most Americans; it is such men, however, who have made signal evangelistic contributions to the religious life of the Continent.

The practical consequences of neo-orthodox theology are under searching scrutiny. Except for its courageous stand against National Socialism, for which the old liberalism lacked spiritual resources, the consequences of dialectical theology for both evangelism and social ethics in the main have been disappointing. In the social sphere, Barth’s and Brunner’s divergent views of the relationship of love and justice have led more to spirited debate over questions of law and order than to concerted action. Some technical discussions among élite lay leaders have grappled with theoretical aspects of the problem of social justice, but this hardly adds up to a demonstration of Christian social ethics in the practical arena.

DULLING THE URGENCY OF DECISION

In any event, the neo-orthodox approach to the social dilemma has not issued in a renewed sense of responsibility for evangelism by the Church. Barthian theology, with its universalistic tendency of viewing all men as already included in Christ, dissolves the necessity for personal decision as a condition of salvation. Simultaneously, Brunner’s dogmatics, with its thesis of universal grace that creates a “second chance” of forgiveness after death, destroys the absolute necessity of receiving Christ in this life.

The secular press has commented that the spectacular mass interest in Evangelist Billy Graham’s crusades demonstrates the spiritual hunger of the multitudes. Of this vacuum many professional theologians and clergymen are only now becoming aware. Graham’s proclamation of the utter indispensability of the new birth, and of this life as the only arena of decision for man’s destiny in eternity, has rallied hundreds of thousands to a fresh hearing of the Gospel, has attracted many thousands in personal response to the call to repentance and faith, and is promoting a new sense of evangelistic urgency among the German clergy. While contemporary theologians pursue theological discussions at abstruse technical levels, promote a critical stance toward Scripture, and shape arbitrary conceptions of divine agape, countless German laborers, businessmen, housewives, and young people have heard the Gospel in simple New Testament dimensions and have experienced new life in Christ.

What happened in Graham’s 1960 crusades in Switzerland and Germany was far more significant than the secular press could possibly proclaim. In Graham’s Berlin meeting for students that attracted 25,000 young people, governmental leaders had evidence that German youth is searching the moral and religious dimension in new depth. Police in Hamburg, Germany’s second city, night after night estimated an overflow congregation outside that equalled the capacity throng inside the huge crusade tent. No longer could the Protestant clergy shun the comments of laymen who deplored the aridity of the churches, and the unintelligibility of much preaching, as contrasted with the vitality of the crusades and the power of the simple Gospel to win the lost. As more or less of a permanent reservoir in the churches, the Graham crusades left behind thousands of soul-winners and counselors alive with spiritual concern.

CONCERN IN BOTH CAMPS

It was the loose-knit German Evangelical Alliance which carried much of the evangelistic burden for Germany. This movement has solidified evangelical forces while resisting the dissipating effect of theologically inclusive programs. One observer assesses the ecclesiastical situation thus: “The Ecumenical Movement tries to get the churches together; the Evangelical Alliance tries to get the believers together.” Its leaders describe the Alliance as “a unity of the awakened Christians who believe in John 3:3.” It was this Alliance, without benefit of structural organization or salaried staff, that invited Graham to Germany for the 1960 crusades. Three of the movement’s leaders in fact pledged themselves personally to cover the 600,000 marks required to underwrite the huge tents for the meetings. Success of the 1960 crusades, however, disclosed far more than simply surprise of the territorial churches over the vitality of the Alliance. Evident was a growing burden for evangelism by “second generation” clergy who are more and more convinced that baptism and confirmation as outward acts are not determinate for Christian identification. As a result, the debate over the necessity for evangelistic decision does far more than simply demarcate the free from the territorial churches, for evangelistic concern now runs through both groups. The 1960 Graham crusades, in fact, had strategic personal support even at the bishops’ level in the territorial churches, including Bishop Hanns Lilje and Bishop Otto Dibelius.

THE THEOLOGY OF EVANGELISM

The need for a theology of evangelism, or put another way, for a genuinely and thoroughly evangelical theology, stems from the crisis facing evangelism in Germany. The emphasis on personal decision finds resistance for diverse reasons. Even where arbitrary views of agape are not propounded, some ministers regard the call to open or public decision as objectionably weighted with emotional appeal; or as schematizing religious decision too much in accord with mass techniques; or as ignoring the invisibility of faith and thereby inviting to potentially harmful psychological response.

Doubtless such objections can be leveled also against other types of evangelism, and even against evangelism as such, if not against fervent preaching. Most evangelists do not, however, insist that mass evangelism is the only or even the best means of soul-winning. Rather they declare that lack of local church evangelism has made mass evangelism necessary. At long last, even the World Council of Churches has recognized mass evangelism as legitimate. Where evangelism is absent at the local level, the impression can only grow that objections spring not merely from a criticism of mass evangelism, but from a lack of enthusiasm for evangelism as a whole. The liberal theology of the forepart of the century shaped a distrust of regeneration as a social change agent, and the reliance instead on political dynamisms has carried over into some expressions of neo-orthodoxy.

Whatever potential dangers may accompany any form of organized soul-winning, multitudes unquestionably are finding Christ through the avenue of mass evangelism. A hunger to make open commitment to Christ exists among many persons now denied such opportunity in their local church services. Lost in throngs and masses, the modern man looks to the Church both to sharpen his sense of personal responsibility and to confront him with the necessity for personal decision. Is it too much to expect the Church to provide opportunity for such decision? In the aftermath of the 1960 Graham crusades, many German ministers are asking this very question.

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.

Of recent articles concerning the clergy of the Deep South, some have been instructive and informative, others have been neither. Even the most helpful of articles have shown little appreciation of the real situation that is faced by the clergy of the Deep South.

A historian who has devoted his life to the history of the South remarked recently that it was difficult for him to read the southern daily papers and remember that he was reading contemporary newspapers, so closely did they resemble papers of Richmond in 1844. Unless we appreciate the mood of the South in these days, we can hardly evaluate accurately the crisis facing the clergy there.

Both liberals and conservatives in the South are facing dilemmas that call for basic revaluation of ideas which in another generation seemed sound. It should not be assumed that the liberal is the only one meeting new and soul-searching problems amidst the bombings, boycotts, and court rulings. (It seems that most of the clergy of the Deep South are facing winds that put new parts in their hair.) As one who assumes that the clergy of the Deep South are no better and no worse than the other clergy of America, I should like to share some of the conclusions I have drawn from a study of the situation in Alabama, before the Deep South clergy are read out of the Church as “liberals who have no concept of sin” or as “hopeless mossbacks.”

CHURCH AND STATE

The relationship of Church and State poses the most agonizing situation which the southern clergy of any theological stripe have to face. In their present attitudes toward the problem of Church and State, conservatives and liberals have switched camps. Fortresses formerly manned by the liberals are now defended by the conservatives. Ideas long considered hallowed by conservatives are now given new life by liberals, but for a different reason. Confusion is enhanced by the fact that the federal government and the local government are making demands of the citizens of the Deep South which are diametrically opposed. The federal government says to the South “integrate,” and sends troops to show that it means business. State and local governments say “remain segregated,” and send police to show that they mean business. Religion, which is theoretically a cohesive agent in a state, must now decide for whom it will be a cohesive agent.

Southern Baptist and other more conservative groups have long and ceaselessly advocated the absolute separation of Church and State, particularly as it relates to public education. Yet when the public schools were closed in Arkansas, it was the Southern Baptist churches that first allowed their church buildings to be used for schools. Although it seems that the Baptists have accepted no state money for their schools, they have accepted money which was in part raised by the pleas of state officials. Methodists, who have long defended the public schools, now find themselves, in Alabama at least, in the school business open to the public. Most clergy of the Deep South recognize that local church budgets and solicited gifts are not sufficient to operate good schools. Moreover, they recognize that the end of public schools in the South is a very real possibility. The natural reserve which the clergy feel about the church entering an area it has historically considered the domain of the state is intensified because they are aware that Roman Catholics in the South already have in operation schools that would take the Protestants years and millions of dollars to match. It seems, at least in theory, that any attempt to provide state funds for church schools would be opposed by every major Protestant group. Yet, so far as I know, there have been few if any significant protests from the clergy concerning the possibility of the church expanding its function in public education. Both traditionally and presently, the clergy of the Deep South have advocated the separation of Church and State. It seems that in these tense days there has been no significant change in sentiment, and yet the clergy face pressure from lay groups requesting the use of churches for schools—or, in other words, the assumption by the church of a function historically ascribed to the state. This is one dilemma the clergy of the Deep South face in their theoretical conception of the state.

CONCEPT OF LAW

Another perplexing problem for southern clergy is the necessity for change in the concept of law by both liberals and conservatives. Liberals who vigorously fought segregation when it was the “law of the land” are now pressing for integration on the ground that it is the “law of the land.” Liberals who once opposed the use of the Justice Department to prevent unions are now in sympathy with the use of the Justice Department to bring about integration. Some who have disobeyed and encouraged others to disobey the draft laws are now commending to people the “law of the land.” Furthermore, the plea to obey the law of the land is complicated in that the South faces two laws of the land—that of the federal government and that of the local government. Liberals are faced with the dilemma that their plea to obey the law of the land per se makes the claim of state laws as legitimate as the claims of federal government. Liberals also realize that violence is the order of the day if federal laws are to be enforced in the South. They seem increasingly aware that they have developed no concept of law to meet the present crisis, and yet they feel that the federal law has a claim on the South in the segregation-integration controversy.

When the conservatives have faced the problem of two laws that are diametrically opposed, they too have offered their allegiance without reference to a philosophy of law. Thus, without a philosophy of law, both liberal and conservative face a predicament when confronted by the necessity for practical decision in a section where the social core is being threatened.

PROFESSIONAL ASPIRATION

When an able man such as Representative Brooks Hays, congressman, and president of the Southern Baptist Convention, is defeated by a “write-in” vote by a man whose major qualification for office is his claim to be “an ardent segregationist,” the situation indicates the professional insecurity that even moderates face in the political arena. The clergy’s position is equally precarious. Men of every denomination have been forced to leave the South in recent months to find work in less tense areas. Not long ago, ministers of two of the largest congregations of their denomination, one a Methodist and the other a Presbyterian, were forced to leave Alabama because of their comments about segregation. An interracial group which only a short time ago had an attendance of 150, mostly clergy, is reported to have had at a recent meeting an attendance of ten, none of whom were white clergy. Though professional aspiration was only one factor involved in this decline in attendance, it seems to have been an important one.

One must realize that the background and education of many of the clergy of the Deep South make it impossible for them to compete at a significant level for pastorates in other parts of the country. Even those with superior education and ability do not qualify to join the caste of “conference jumpers.” Marx had his Engels to support him and his family. Winstanley could rely upon his “diggers.” Lilburne could count on the support of the small merchants of London. Martin Luther could rely upon the support of the princes. Martin Luther King can rely upon the Negroes of Montgomery and interested parties all over America. But the average minister of the Deep South would be forced to leave the ministry if he became “undesirable.”

Many of the clergy of the South face the dilemma of providing for families acquired long before the present crisis precipitated. Therefore, it is a dilemma for those who both feel they should take part in the revolution but also have professional aspirations as well as the practical necessity of providing for a family.

The quest for professional security also poses acute problems for conservatives who sincerely believe that integration is not only undesirable but wrong. Many of them seem to feel that the freedom of the pulpit is threatened when clergy are punished for their preaching. And few who sympathize with segregation seem willing to use the pulpit to enhance their status. Conservatives face the problem of defending the freedom in the pulpit without being identified with integration.

INSTITUTIONAL MAINTENANCE

The recent failure of the two largest Presbyterian groups in America to unite, and the persistent efforts of southern churchmen to maintain the jurisdictional system in the Methodist Church, offer some indication of the deep-seated sympathy for segregation among southern clergy and laity. That the largest Baptist body in America is still labelled the Southern Baptist Convention further indicates this sympathy.

Clergymen of the Deep South are faced with the task of preaching the Gospel in such a climate and ministering to the people who compose the culture of the South. Furthermore, they face the task important in some circles, of adding members and raising money. Many of the clergy must maintain the church and yet preach a gospel which they feel has something to say about the social order. That they may have to choose between the church they love and the Gospel which called them poses a serious predicament for many.

Where there is tension, there is power. How the Deep South clergy will react in the face of these dilemmas, only God knows.

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.