Meeting in Switzerland this summer were two consultation groups which, otherwise unrelated, were linked by a common theme. One was called “World Consultation on Evangelism” with the World Council of Churches as its aegis; the other, “Twentieth Century Evangelism,” whose convener and chairman was Dr. Billy Graham.

Evident in the World Council group was the tendency (often noted) of the “Continental” members to be heavy on the side of the academic and the theoretical, and of the “American” section to be articulate on the side of the pragmatic and the mechanical. Generally recognized was the need of getting to grips with evangelism far more seriously and lucidly than could possibly be claimed hitherto, at least so far as wide sectors of the Christian front are concerned. The “theology of evangelism” evoked lively discussion, as it should. But when this is taken to mean that an evangelism which is contemporarily valid must be poured into the thought form and the vocabulary matrix of Kirkegaard, Barth, Brunner, Bultmann and Tillich, sympathy is generated for one member of the group from the United States, who asked: “Is this to be followed by another brand which we must understand before we can get busy to win people in a nation desperately fighting for its soul?” This query was not offered, it should be made clear, in contempt of the importance of a basically biblical theological underpining for all evangelism that is Christian.

The brethren in the World Council gathering gave some of their longest thoughts to Dr. Graham and the “mass evangelism” which he so influentially represents in today’s world. Two things emerged, one concrete, the other intangible (but perhaps even more significant): (1) for the first time the evangelism section of the WCC drew up a resolution of approval with respect to “mass evangelism” as a method, and (2) what amounted to hostility toward Dr. Graham’s work became at least a partial “thaw” as honestly sceptical men got to know the man and his motives.

The other consultation, “chaired,” as our British friends say, by Dr. Graham, brought together a cross-section of leadership ranging geographically from Glasgow to Sydney in one direction and from London to San Francisco in another; and, ecclesiastically, from the “free church” tradition and the “faith missions,” on the one hand, to the Church of England on the other.

Live issues that impinge on evangelism and which require a fraternal and fruitful “airing,” are felt by Dr. Graham to be: (1) the theology of “universalism” which, either implicitly or explicitly, is held in wide areas of the Church’s life today; (2) the unique authority of the Bible and the form in which it may be maintained; (3) contemporary trends in ecclesiology, with an increasing polarity between centralizing tendencies (as in the growing acceptance of episcopacy) and decentralizing tendencies (as in the church-in-the-house advocacy of Karl Barth’s son in Chicago); (4) the variety and validity of evangelistic methods, including possible modifications in mass evangelism; (5) eschatology, a field in which radical theologians are moving toward a more realistic New Testament position and conservative theologians are moving from ultradispensationalism to what one of them has called “classical premillennialism;” (6) a resurgence (particularly in Great Britain) of hyper-Calvinism, with overtones (in some quarters) of antinomianism and with aggressive disavowal of “modern evangelism” and its whole apparatus; and (7) the whole question of an “experience” of the Holy Spirit distinguishable from conversion, an option represented, along with historic Wesleyanism and Keswick “deeper life,” by contemporary Pentecostalism in its more mature and less bizarre expressions.

It was submitted by one of the members of the group that evangelicals generally are failing to grasp, in depth, the magnitude of the evangelistic problem. They tend to feel that they are getting on with the job if they are tinkering with mechanisms or methods. Overlooked, for one thing, is the immensely urgent task of definition. “Mission,” “missions,” “revival,” “witness,” “evangelism”—what precisely do we mean by these words on which we ring the changes?

Communication bulked large in all the discussions. All agreed “we are not on speaking terms with vast sections of the community.” Why? For one thing, because the community of the believing seems not to realize the extent to which the community of the unbelieving has had drained from it all consciousness of life’s eternal dimension. “Man has become one-dimensional.” True, from Cain to King Farouk there have been secularists and sensualists. What is extraordinarily appalling is the depth and spread of what Sorokin calls a “sensate culture” as the milieu in which Western man is content to live. Some of our Christian writers discern this situation and endeavor to speak to it. C. S. Lewis does. Trueblood does. Carnell does. Some of our evangelists do: Bryan Green, Alan Walker, Billy Graham.

This, however, falls far short of meeting the need. What is missing is the “witnessing community” within the dynamic context of which the public proclaimer of the evangel—be he evangelist or pastor—will be able to speak both more relevantly and convincingly. It was asserted that three strands in this “witness” to be given by the “community of the redeemed” are: (1) kerygma (preaching), (2) koinonia (fellowship), and (3) diaconia (service). The fundamental (as distinguished from the peripheral) marks of such a community of witness are (1) learning, (2) worshipping, (3) sharing. How does it emerge? Along three lines: (1) prayer, (2) obedience, (3) preaching.

If more of the great “unwashed” in our cities could see Christ climbing a tenement stair, it would be easier for them to see Him in a parson’s sermon.

Prospects For World Peace

Peace with Russia, by Averell Harriman (Simon and Schuster, 1960, 174 pp., $3, is reviewed by William K. Harrison, Lieutenant General, U. S. Army, Ret.

Probably few men are as well qualified as Mr. Harriman, former governor of New York, to write on the problem of peace with Russia. Following earlier visits to deal with the Soviet government, he was the American Ambassador in Moscow, from 1943 to 1946. After his return to the United States, he made particular efforts to keep abreast of the situation in Russia. On a recent visit to the country, he sought factual information relating to questions and ideas which had been advanced by other visitors to Russia. He had access to localities and persons where this information might be found. Among these persons were Khrushchev, other government officials, and many ordinary persons. To the reviewer, it appears that Mr. Harriman is a careful and dispassionate observer, and that he has written in a clear, easy to read, objective fashion. Mr. Khrushchev’s recent destruction of the Summit Conference in Paris, with his subsequent attacks against the United States and its leaders, emphasize to Americans the importance of Mr. Harriman’s book.

Based on his recorded observations, too numerous to mention here, Mr. Harriman reaches certain conclusions.

With regard to the Russian people, he says that although some scattered resentment and discontent does exist among the people, there is no evidence that they have any desire to overthrow their government. The present condition has resulted from a number of government actions since the time Stalin died. There has been a considerable relaxation of the policy of rule by terror, with a corresponding increase in personal freedom. There is improvement in food supply, housing, education, consumer supply, and in medical and collective recreational facilities. The people (outside of the Communist Party) seem to have little interest in the aim of Communist world revolution. They are more desirous of improving their personal situation. The desire for peace seems to be uppermost in their minds because the government’s propaganda has convinced them that the United States is an aggressor and poses a strong threat of war. Believing as they do, they would be loyal to their government were it to launch a war, and they would accuse the United States of being the aggressor.

It is probable that in the long run the public in Russia will gradually exercise increasing restraint on the totalitarian nature of their government.

With regard to the Soviet government, he claims that there has been no relaxation of its determination to spread Communist doctrine throughout the world by means of revolution within each country—supported by the Soviets. Social and economic weapons are employed, but the war machine is kept strong through emphasis on heavy rather than consumer industries, and through stress on scientific education rather than the humanities. Education is pointed toward the needs of the state rather than the individual. Because of the devastations of nuclear war and the need for other uses of national resources, the Soviet government will not launch war except by miscalculation or mistake. Therefore, there might be a chance of achieving some agreement on limitation of armaments.

Mr. Harriman believes that the United States must maintain the vigor and vitality of its social and economic system: it must improve its system of scientific education without sacrificing the developing of well-rounded individuals; maintain strong defenses until an arms limitation agreement with fool-proof controls is achieved: strengthen NATO militarily and make it a united and productive community which, with the United States, can contribute to the well-being of its members and of the free world; meet the challenge of Russia in underdeveloped countries: and be prepared to recognize basic changes in Soviet conditions and policies, and to adjust our own policies accordingly.

To the foregoing, the reviewer would like to add two thoughts. The first is that their past actions have demonstrated that Khrushchev and other Communist leaders are utterly ruthless in seeking their international objectives. They resort to the means and actions of the vilest gangsters when such are expedient. The second is that, being what they are, their unwillingness to start a war is not based on moral considerations but solely on fear of consequences and the costs. Were the United States to disarm unilaterally, or by an agreement without fool-proof controls, or even with strong armaments, to fall into a Pearl Harbor attitude, there is no legitimate reason to hope that the Soviet rulers would hesitate to use nuclear weapons to destroy the United States, the only power now able to hinder their ambitions.

WILLIAM K. HARRISON

Catholic Education

American Culture and Catholic Schools, by Emmett McLoughlin (Lyle Stuart, 1960, 288 pp., $4.95), is reviewed by G. Aiken Taylor, Editor, The Presbyterian Journal.

What is the nature and purpose of Roman Catholic education? What are its methods and results? What effects will such education have on democratic institutions, and what impact will such a system exert upon the traditional American way of life?

A former priest, author of the best seller, People’s Padre, has written a richly-documented, first-person description of the vast and incredible system which the Roman state within the American state has created and maintains for the training of its “shock troops,” as McLoughlin calls them—that relatively small number of dedicated Roman Catholics who do not hesitate to intimidate the local, state, and even federal government when it suits their purposes.

Step by step the author vividly describes his 21 years of Catholic schooling in a system which was “in the American world but certainly not of it.” He tells how he was indoctrinated in loyality, then obedience, then blind obedience; how he was taught to accept, but not to think.

With more charity than one suspects would be granted to him by those of whom he writes, he shows how priests and nuns are recruited at the dawn of adolescence. He shows how parochial schools are exempt from state control and how this exemption affects what Catholic children learn.

He details the propaganda in Roman textbooks. He cites the censorship that warps the sources and suppresses or distorts the facts of world history. He points out that parents have no voice in the operation of Catholic schools.

The priest turned citizen describes the fundamental conflicts between the papal teachings and the ideals of American democracy. He cites growing infringements on the principle of separation of Church and State.

If there were any questions about the “religious issue” in the reader’s mind before picking up this book, they will be answered before he puts it down.

G. AIKEN TAYLOR

Communicating The Gospel

The Word of the Cross, by Peter H. Eldersveld (Eerdmans, 1959, 97 pp., $2), is reviewed by Paul S. Rees, Vice-President at Large of World Vision, Inc.

When you preach, year in and year out, over a coast-to-coast radio network, supplemented by 300 television stations, with the official backing of such a respected conservative communion as the Christian Reformed Church, two quite natural and unastonishing things may be expected: (1) a book of representative addresses by the preacher and (2) a title for the book that exalts, in some central way, the gospel of the crucified Savior. Both results have been achieved.

Peter Eldersveld is the beloved “voice” of “The Back-To-God Hour.” “The Word of the Cross”—to clear away a possible misapprehension—is a title applying only to the first chapter. The author has not in any sense attempted a treatise on the Atonement.

Actually, the thread that runs through the collection of 10 addresses is that of the task and art of communicating the Gospel. The best chapters, in the reviewer’s judgment, are the four (in effect on evangelism) that form the middle section based on the narrative of Philip and the Ethiopian in Acts chapter 8.

The most controversial chapter is one called “Why Christianity Does Not Count.” (“Count” is used in the sense of compute.) It may be helpful to some to be told that in the last analysis the poor showing of evangelism and of the Christian Church is to be explained by a rigid doctrine of divine election and its decrees. Others will demur, and remain unhelped.

Throughout the messages, however, there are numerous illuminating insights and helpful biblical interpretations. In “Communication—For What?” Dr. Eldersveld rightly holds that radio and television are deficient if they serve to create social community in the nation but fail to facilitate spiritual communion (vertically as well as horizontally). “Radio can be used, by the grace of God, to serve that high purpose: to bring men not merely together, but to bring them to God, through Jesus Christ, the only place where they can really be together in any lasting sense …” (p. 25).

Here is firm, faithful, forthright preaching, thoroughly textured with theology, but skillfully adapted to “untheological” minds which, beyond all cavil, make up all but one-half of one per cent of the typical radio audience.

PAUL S. REES

Dispensationalism

Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, by Clarence Bass (Eerdmans, 1960, 177 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Bernard Ramm, Professor of Systematic Theology, California Baptist Theological Seminary.

The past decade has witnessed an unrest with dispensational theology. That dispensationalism is the best guardian of orthodoxy, that it alone really understands the Scriptures, and that the hermeneutical “liberties” of the nondispensationalists is already the crack in the dike allowing the inrush of modernism, are theses undergoing serious challenge and Dr. Bass’ book is one of the best products of this challenge.

Dr. Bass opens his book with an outline of the distinctive beliefs of dispensationalism which is followed by several chapters of careful historical survey centering in Darby, the intellectual and spiritual giant behind the movement. The book concludes with an evaluation of Darbyism for the present church situation.

Bass’ theses are plainly stated on page 155: (1) dispensationalism is not part of the historic faith of the church; (2) nondispensational premillennialism has pride of place in the church; and (3) dispensationalism represents an unjustifiable literalism in hermeneutics. However, a fourth thesis keeps recurring in the book which is stated particularly on page 99, namely, that separatism in church polity stems directly from Darby.

The spirit in which the book is written is excellent. Bass was a confirmed dispensationalist himself before he undertook his doctoral studies (p. 9). There is no rancor here nor excessive statement.

Bass essentially attempts to put the shoe on the other foot. Dispensationalists claim that they alone can be trusted with true doctrine, the Lord’s money, and the training of the prophets. Bass argues that to the contrary dispensationalists are newcomers and the burden of proof is upon them to show upon what grounds they attempt to displace the historic faith of the church. Is it not an odd situation when an interdenominational school indoctrinates its students in dispensationalism which is the faith of no great historic denomination?

With reference to the pretribulation rapture, Bass makes a telling point by noting that such a view can be defended only upon Darby’s view of the church. How then in good faith can Presbyterian or Baptist theologians who stand committed to the historic view of the church in virtue of their confession or creed concede to Darbyism at this point? Dr. Bass also challenges the consistency of those denominational men who accept dispensational theology, but have a failure of nerve and fail to accept Darby ecclesiology.

Although Bass finds the beginning of dispensationalism almost exclusively in Darby, some scholars find a direct line from Bengel’s doctrine of the ages to Darby.

BERNARD RAMM

Matthew’S Christology

Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, by Edward P. Blair (Abingdon, 1960, 176 pp., $3), is reviewed by George Eldon Ladd, Professor of Biblical Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary.

The Gospels are not only sources of Christian faith and doctrine, they are also historical documents written to given audiences to meet particular historical siuations. By a comparative study of Matthew’s Christology, Professor Blair attempts to recover the historical setting and purpose of the first Gospel. After surveying comprehensively recent criticism of the first Gospel, Blair studies the portrait of Jesus via the Messianic titles, and concludes that Matthew’s Christology is primarily a Son of man—Son of God concept of a supernatural Saviour. Against the background of this exalted concept, he analyzes the authority of Jesus in the realm of knowledge and conduct. He concludes that in Matthew, knowledge of and belief in Jesus and his eschatological mission were essential to salvation.

The author concludes that Matthew was the product of the Hellenist-Jewish group represented by Stephen in Acts 6–7 which later took the Gospel to Syria (Acts 11:19–21). He tries to find common elements in Matthew, Stephen’s speech, and the Qumran literature which suggest a common background. The three-fold purpose of Matthew was to vindicate the Church as the true Israel against attacks from the Synagogue, to appeal to the Gentiles on behalf of the Christian faith, and to challenge Christians to spiritual growth and to be ready for the expected Parousia of Christ. All who are interested in serious historical study of the Gospels will want to read this book.

GEORGE ELDON LADD

British Apologetic

Miracles and Revelation, by John S. Lawton (Association Press, 1960, 273 pp., $6.50), is reviewed by Bernard Ramm, Professor of Systematic Theology, California Baptist Theological Seminary.

The author who put us all in debt with his historical study of recent British Christology (Conflict in Christology) has again put us in debt with a comprehensive study of miracles in British apologetic and theological literature from English deism to the present. The basic structure of the book is that of a series of digests of the different theologians or apologists’ views of miracles correlating them with the philosophical, scientific, and theological beliefs of their times. It thus forms a valuable source book of the history of Christian apologetics of this period of British theological thought.

The book reveals the inability of most theologians to surrender biblical miracles despite enormous pressures to do so stemming from theology (in interest of a theology of divine imminence), biblical criticism, scientific historiography, positivistic philosophy, and science (with its axiom of uniformitarianism). Lawton records for us the numerous and diverse maneuvers of the apologists in their attempt to justify miracles and to maintain the relevance of the miraculous in a cultural atmosphere which was increasing its hostility towards the supernatural with every passing decade.

Guessing from silence is always dangerous, but at least this reader got the impression that intensive first-hand reading of Luther and Calvin was virtually undone. Much modern theological thought has been a return to the insights of the reformers and it represents quite a strategical loss for apologists not to have profited by such study.

Another distinct impression reading the book gave to me was the degree to which the theologians and apologists were children of their times, and how much that prevented them from recovering certain key biblical perspectives. To put it another way, they learned really little of a thorough, consistent, theological approach to their problems. One of the gains of the theology of the twentieth century is an intense awareness of the problem of methodology in theology.

Lawton makes it clear by the very nature of his exposition that there can be no mature interaction with the problem of miracles unless one has considerable background in theology, biblical criticism, history and the science of writing history, philosophy, science, and the philosophy of science. The study of miracles cuts across all of these areas.

Lawton’s own position is close to that of the new biblical theology (e. g., A. Richardson’s The Miracle Stories of the Gospel) and what he calls “English Conservative theology” which he contrasts with liberalism and Catholic modernism.

In critical evaluation we would suggest: (1) Lawton, to our way of thinking, puts some men in the conservative camp which do not belong; (2) there is a failure of a sharp critical evaluation when he does come to his favorites in British theology—I doubt if the merit he sees in Temple is worth it; (3) and perhaps the gains of the new biblical theology in Great Britain could have been more thoroughly exploited.

In conclusion, despite all the work in history, criticism, philosophy, and science, miracles are with us as much today as in the time of English deism. They are stuck to the biblical record with an amazing adhesiveness.

BERNARD RAMM

Understanding The Bible

The Enduring Message of the Bible, by L. Harold DeWolf (Harper, 1960, 128 pp., $2.75), is reviewed by Harold B. Kuhn, Professor of Philosophy of Religion, Asbury Theological Seminary.

To separate the temporary from the permanent, the peripheral from the fundamental, is important in the treatment of any system or movement. Professor DeWolf undertakes in his short volume to effect such a separation for the Christian understanding of the Bible. It seems inevitable that one will read the given work of a scholar in the light of what he has previously written. The reviewer found himself, from time to time, setting the work alongside the author’s earlier volume, A Theology for the Living Church. The present book seeks to avoid the negativism of the earlier work with respect to the doctrines essential to historic Christian faith, and it tries to present to the reader something which he can believe, rather than a series of denials in the name of alleged scientific scholarship.

The present volume divides the subject conveniently into three parts, upon the basis of which Professor DeWolf seeks to establish the unity of Scripture. They are: “From God,” “To God,” and “With God.” The first seeks to do justice to God’s downward movement toward man; the second treats of human recovery; the third has to do with the common life of man within the Church. The treatment of the materials within each of these divisions is practical and avoids areas of major controversy.

What might be the logical impact of such a book upon the average layman who picks it up and reads it through? Certainly he would have some vague impression that the Bible is not an ordinary book but one embodying lofty insights concerning God, man, and human destiny. Fie would be impressed with the fact that God somehow cares very much for man. He might well conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was an unusual figure. However, he would scarcely be led to believe that the Scriptures are final as God’s revelation to man. He certainly would not regard them as being basically trustworthy in matters of fact. More probably he would be bewildered by the manner in which things so highly important were dealt with in ‘myth’ and in legend.

This volume represents an attempt to breathe some kind of life into the dead form of conventional theological liberalism.

HAROLD B. KUHN

Lutheran Education

What’s Lutheran in Education?, by Allan Hart Jahsmann (Concordia, 1960, 185 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Arthur C. Repp, Professor of Christian Education and Academic Dean, Concordia Theological Seminary.

Dr. Jahsmann has shed new light on an old subject. What’s Lutheran in Education? is certainly an interesting book. The author, who is general secretary of Sunday Schools for the Lutheran church (Missouri Synod), has for years been steeped in his subject, particularly as a member of his synod’s committee on Lutheran Philosophy of Education. The book serves well as a preliminary study for those interested in formulating an integrated statement of educational theory.

Dr. Jahsmann begins with a discussion of the function of Lutheran education and endeavors to delineate what the Christian seeks to achieve through education. He shows that God’s final purpose is more than man’s redemption in Christ and that the goal of Christian education is “full grown completeness of perfection of the total human being.” But such Christian perfection and maturity involves all aspects of spiritual life. The Christian is “spiritual, he is moral, he is religious in the various other aspects of his life. Hence complete sanctification, the total Christianizing of the individual, is the goal of Christian education” (p. 9). In setting forth his goal, the author makes clear the distinctive nature of Lutheran education as reflected in the doctrine of man and the doctrine of the means of grace wherewith the Holy Spirit creates, sustains, and nurtures the Christian in faith and life.

With the purpose of Lutheran education described, the writer discusses who the responsible agents of Christian education are. This aspect of the book marks his major contribution. Dr. Jahsmann goes at the heart of the matter in providing a rationale why the church, besides the home, has the God-given obligation to teach. This is an important point, particularly in view of those who, by their dedication to various forms of statism, believe that the state has the prime duty to foster education. The vexing problems revolving about church and state education are given some forthright biblical answers.

The next chapters deal with the form of the program of education and also the function of the relationships. Dr. Jahsmann calls for intelligent fusion of the traditional approach of the church and the democratic approach of the present day.

The final chapter on church-state relations is another of the more outstanding sections of the book. With our society’s rising economy and growing concentration of social welfare, the church may easily be tempted to barter her principles for unwarranted aid. Yet the church has at times been unnecessarily modest in not asserting her right in education. She needs to reappraise her relationship to the state. Unfortunately in this chapter, as well as the section on higher education, the author has failed to make use of valuable studies outside of his synodical affiliation.

While the book presents a view that is clearly distinguishable from Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, it will nevertheless be valuable for all Christian educators who are attempting to draw up a clear and integrated philosophy of Christian education.

ARTHUR C. REPP

Despite an intensive war of words waged over many months, there seems little likelihood that the “religious issue” will have been thoroughly aired in the 1960 presidential election campaign.

Basic, relevant questions persist regarding claims which the Roman Catholic church exercises over the consciences of its faithful and unfaithful. Lack of authoritative answers has perpetuated Protestant anxieties, despite the apparent candor of the Roman Catholic candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy.

In the words of Dr. Henry P. Van Dusen, president of Union Theological Seminary, New York, “There are only two major questions in the so-called ‘religious issue’:

“What does the Roman Catholic church expect of its laymen in public office with respect to the church’s position on controversial issues?

“What is Kennedy’s attitude toward his church’s expectation?”

“The second question,” Van Dusen said in a letter to The New York Times last month, “has been answered by Senator Kennedy definitely and apparently to the satisfaction of all fair-minded Americans. The first question remains.”

The airing of the religious issue began in the editorial offices of Look magazine and, if judged by current press-TV coverage, “ended” in the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.

Kennedy himself brought the debate into the open in an article in the March 3, 1959, issue of Look.

“I believe as a Senator,” he said, “that the separation of Church and State is fundamental to our American concept and heritage and should remain so.”

Kennedy also asserted that he was opposed to federal aid to parochial schools and appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican.

A year and a half later some 150 Protestant clergy and lay leaders from 37 denominations assembled in the Mayflower to attend the “National Conference of Citizens for Religious Freedom.”

The repercussions of the meeting were such that they seemed to have had suppressing effect upon any further discussion, once the debate had subsided.

Objectivity and impartial interpretation was hard to find in press reports of the conference, which was often pictured as Republican-oriented, fundamentalist bigotry.

Dispatches cited the presence of Drs. Norman Vincent Peale and Daniel A. Poling as evidence of Republican partisanship. Ignored was the fact that Peale’s co-chairman at the meeting, William R. Smith, had been a delegate to the 1960 Democratic National Convention and that Poling had publicly supported Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1944.

Reports which dismissed the conference as fundamentalist prejudice failed to account for the participation of Dr. Charles Clayton Morrison, founder and long-time editor of the liberal Christian Century.

The misunderstandings growing out of the conference were not entirely attributable to press bias. Reporters were barred, but two “contrived” to hear some of the proceedings, but not all. Their piecing together was not wholly accurate. Other reporters were hampered by lack of a background in the issues.

Some observers feel that the religious issue as a whole has been a victim of modern news media methods. The nature of the debate does not lend itself to brief summaries and “headlinese.”

With a few notable exceptions, major newspapers and newsmagazines presented only the mediating and liberal views of American Protestants on the Church-State issue. The traditional Protestant position was often ignored or made to appear irrational.

On the Protestant side, some extremist elements have added to the confusion with irresponsible and exaggerated charges, not to mention false hate literature such as the bogus Knights of Columbus oath.

Another barrier to a responsible airing of the religious issue has been the silence of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. As of the middle of October, there had not been as much as an official admonition to Roman Catholics that they disregard religious motivations in voting. Ostensibly, this silence is on the grounds that the Roman Catholic officialdom does not meddle in politics.

Individual Catholics have had much to say, mostly in terms of dismissing Protestant anxieties as motivated by prejudice. Catholics argue that they are not obligated to any teaching, save that of the popes speaking in the area of faith and morals. Many say that if a Roman Catholic is not entitled to the presidential office, then to be consistent he should not be entrusted with any public office. Some charge that Protestant attacks have been unfair, that they took up the argument against Kennedy the candidate only to drop it in favor of an indictment of the church at large when he satisfied objectors. Many Protestants insist, however, that all statements of the Roman Catholic church must be considered in the light of the record of history.

Kennedy supporters cite the system of checks and balances in the U. S. governmental organization as a guarantee that he could not violate Church-State separation. They also point to the fact that he could be impeached were he to overstep his authority. Moreover, they say, any objectionable programs would have to be executed at the risk of losing the 1964 election not only for himself but for others in the U. S. Democratic party.

Nonetheless, many Protestants still have misgivings about a Roman Catholic in the White House. Others are now willing to trust Kennedy, including Van Dusen, who says:

“There is one simple and direct way by which any Roman Catholic candidate can show that he should not be disqualified because of his Catholic allegiance—a clear and unambiguous affirmation of his stand on the controverted issues contrary to his church’s position. Precisely that Senator Kennedy has given in the most categorical and emphatic fashion.”

The Rev. Gustave Weigel, leading Roman Catholic theologian and professor at Woodstock College, declares:

“The Catholic president’s comportment with the clergy of his church would be exactly like the comportment of a Protestant president with the clergy of his church. Both would give the clergy the same social deference which the community at large grants them—no more and no less.”

Dr. Harold J. Ockenga, pastor of Park Street (Congregational) Church in Boston, raises these points:

“A strong individual candidate might reject or ignore his church’s teaching, but the pressures would always be there for him to succumb, especially when there is the possibility of excommunication for disobedience and such excommunication could mean the loss of his soul.”

“The solution,” says Ockenga, “is simple. Rome needs only to repudiate the view of the Syllabus of Errors and Immortale Dei on the doctrine of church and state. The Roman leaders in America need only democratize or Americanize the Roman Catholic church in this nation.”

He asks: “Are we moving into an era of Roman Catholic domination of America? This is the avowed aim of the hierarchy. If and when this becomes a fact, will the principles of Roman Catholic political theory be applied? Will there be a denial of rights, freedom and privileges for non-Roman Catholics? If so, should we aid and abet this situation by electing a President who has more power to advance such a goal than any other person?”

Ailing Editor

Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, editor-in-chief of Eternity magazine, underwent surgery for a brain tumor at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia October 8.

The condition of the 65-year-old Presbyterian minister, also a noted radio preacher, was described as critical.

Barnhouse had complained of headaches for some time, but the seriousness of his condition was not suspected until two days before the operation.

How Will America Vote?

The first Gallup poll to reflect the effects of the religious issue in the 1960 election campaign showed that it is “both helping and hurting Senator John F. Kennedy.”

“Vice President Richard Nixon’s current strength among Protestant voters approaches the big majority which President Eisenhower polled among this group in the 1956 election,” said George Gallup, director of the American Institute of Public Opinion.

Gallup’s findings, released September 15, showed 56 per cent of Protestant voters favoring Nixon and 38 per cent for Kennedy, with six per cent undecided.

Gallup adds, however, that counteracting this is “a shift of some 22 percentage points away from the GOP since 1956 on the part of Roman Catholic voters.”

Among Catholic voters, 71 per cent endorsed Kennedy as against 26 per cent for Nixon, with three per cent undecided.

A poll taken among minister subscribers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY reflected their anxieties over the possibility of a Roman Catholic in the White House.

Among those who responded to the poll, 3062 said they expected to vote for Nixon and only 55 backed Kennedy. The responders included 1977 Republicans, 482 Democrats, and 658 independents.

Protestant Panorama

• Are Southern Baptists slowing down, or merely catching their breath for more growth? The question troubles Southern Baptist leaders, according to the Baptist Press. A former convention vice-president is said to have expressed his “very great concern” over downward trends this year in offerings, baptisms, and commitments of young people for church service.

• Dr. Robert L. Fleming, veteran Methodist missionary and a noted ornithologist, is participating in an expedition in search of the fabled “abominable snowman” of the Himalayas. The expedition, says the Chicago Natural History Museum, is headed by Sir Edmund Hillary of New Zealand.

• Protestants and Other Americans United is issuing a new publication in newspaper format aimed at widespread free distribution. Titled Church-State Digest, it presents digests of articles appearing in the organization’s regular monthly magazine, Church and State. Dr. C. Stanley Lowell is editor of both.

• American University and Wesley Theological Seminary, Methodist schools in Washington, D. C., are sponsoring a “Marriage Preparation Institute” for citizens of the national capital area. A series of four two-hour lectures and discussions is aimed at stressing spiritual harmony, money management, physical harmony, and inter-personal relations. Institute coordinators are Dr. Haskell M. Miller, professor of sociology and social ethics at Wesley, and Mrs. Patricia Schiller, director of guidance and counseling at the university.

• Dr. Oswald J. Smith, founder of the Peoples Church in Toronto, is holding an evangelistic crusade in Tokyo during October.

• The United Presbyterian Commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations will finance construction of a new ecumenical conference center in Geneva, Switzerland. The center will replace John Knox House, a student and conference center in downtown Geneva which was established in 1954.

• Plans are under way for a comprehensive merger of seven Lutheran church bodies in Tanganyika, according to a report presented to the second All-Africa Lutheran Conference, held last month in Antsirabe, Madagascar.

• A new $500,000 headquarters building for the Presbyterian Church in Canada will be built in the Flemingdon Park area of Toronto. Present offices are on the campus of Knox College in Toronto. The new facilities will be made possible by a legacy from the late Walter Gow.

• The purchase of a $28,000 aircraft for missionary work in the Congo was authorized last month by the Board of World Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. at its annual September meeting.

• The Assemblies of God Foreign Missions Department is opening a new Bible School in Stadskanal, Netherlands, this month.

• The Ontario-Quebec Baptist Convention dedicated an $800,000 divinity college on the campus of McMaster University in Hamilton last month.

• The Southern Baptist Foreign Missions Board is buying a new building to house the Baptist church in Tours, France, center of the famous chateaux country.

• The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (Congregational Christian) marked its 150th anniversary this month with services at the First Congregational Church of Farmington, Connecticut.

• Pacific Lutheran College was elevated to the status of a university in special ceremonies this month. Located at Parkland, Washington, it is the only Lutheran senior college west of the Rocky Mountains.

• The Evangelical Free Church of America plans to erect a new headquarters building on a newly-acquired, block-long site in suburban Minneapolis. Building plans will be presented to the church’s 77th annual conference next June.

Church Membership

Membership in U. S. churches and synagogues failed to keep pace with the population increase during 1959, according to newly-released statistics in the Yearbook of American Churches published by the National Council of Churches.

While the estimated American population increased by 1.8 per cent between 1958 and 1959, church and synagogue membership proportionately gained only four-tenths of one per cent.

The yearbook says that 63.4 per cent of U. S. citizens were members of a church or synagogue last year.

Figures are based on reports made by official statisticians of 254 religious bodies to the NCC’s Bureau of Research and Survey.

Total church membership as of the end of 1959 was placed at 112,226,905.

Religious education figures reported to the bureau by 230 religious bodies list 286,572 Sunday or Sabbath Schools in 1959, with 3,572,963 teachers and officers, and a total enrollment of 44,066,457.

For 1959, there was one change in the “standings” of the top 10 U. S. denominations as compared with the previous year. The Churches of Christ displaced the Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ) as the tenth largest denominational body.

Here are organizational totals:

According to family groupings:

Meritorious Public Relations

A quarterly for seminarians dealing with practical economic problems which ministers face won a public relations citation last month for the Ministers Life and Casualty Union of Minneapolis.

Seminary Quarterly, begun a year ago by Ministers Life, was lauded for “meritorious preparation, use and display of public relations” by the Life Insurance Advertisers Association at its annual meeting in New York.

Racket Warning

Racketeers in Nigeria and Ghana are flooding the United States with appeals for free Bibles, according to a report from the National Lutheran Council’s News Bureau.

American Bible Society representatives in Africa say that racketeers who obtain free Bibles from Americans sell them intact or render them useless and sell the paper.

The society told the bureau that the supply of Scriptures in Nigeria and Ghana is ample to meet the needs of any who ask for them.

Baptists and Taxes

In the predominant view of separation of church and state held by most Baptists and others, tax exemption for churches poses no conflict.

So says an opinion endorsed by most of the 85 Baptist leaders who attended the fourth annual National Religious Liberty Conference, sponsored by the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, in Washington last month.

There was a “strong minority opinion,” however, “that any form of tax exemption for churches injures the future of the freedom of the churches.”

Conferees represented the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Baptist Convention, the North American Baptist General Conference (German), and the Baptist General Conference (Swedish).

Legal Dispute

The 700-member board of directors of the National Baptist Convention, U. S. A., Inc., named Dr. Joseph H. Jackson to his eighth term as president, but another contender for the office challenged the legality of the move this month.

The battle for the presidency of the 5,000,000-member denomination, the nation’s largest Negro church group, started last month when both men claimed they had been elected at the convention’s annual sessions in Philadelphia. Both resorted to local courts, which threw out counter suits, citing lack of jurisdiction.

Jackson’s opponent is Dr. Gardner C. Taylor, president of the Protestant Council of the City of New York, whose lawyers are appealing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Taylor claims to have been elected by vote of the convention. Jackson says that he was re-elected in the convention’s acceptance of a committee slate and that he had adjourned the session before the balloting for Taylor took place.

Strife in Seoul

With 2,000 out of 4,000 Yonsei University students boycotting classes, 60 faculty members on a sit-in strike and 50 others reportedly resigned, officials of the interdenominational Protestant mission-supported school faced a grim task last month as they tried to keep the lid from blowing off what is essentially a power struggle by student and faculty elements against the administration.

Violence erupted when student demonstrators broke into the home of Dr. George L. Paik, chairman of Korea’s House of Councilors (Senate) and former president of Yonsei. The youths wrecked furnishings on the first floor of his quarters, pursued him to the second story, and there obtained his signed resignation as a member of the university board of trustees.

Earlier, besieged by 500 students in a five-hour sit-down before the House of Councilors building, Dr. Paik got the demonstrators to disperse when he promised them a “yes or no” answer by the next morning. His answer was “no.”

Organized under the name of “Yonsei University Committee for Campus Democratization,” the students also have demanded the resignation of two American missionaries in top Yonsei posts and all Presbyterian and Methodist representatives on the 15-member board.

The two officials are Professor Horace Underwood (Presbyterian), acting university president, and Dr. Charles A. Sauer (Methodist), acting chairman of the university board of trustees. They replaced Dr. Paik in twin posts he resigned last summer to run for government office. A Korean, not yet chosen, is scheduled to be elected university president next March.

The 60 striking professors are regarded as extremists in the power play against the administration. The 50 whose resignations have been reported are understood to have desired to disassociate themselves from the explosive situation. Of the university’s 300 faculty members, only about 25 are American.

Editorial Additions

Dr. Philip E. Hughes, noted Anglican scholar and writer from Oxford, England, is joining the CHRISTIANITY TODAY editorial staff this month for a three-month period.

Hughes, a contributing editor, holds the B.A., M.A., and D.Litt., from the University of Cape Town and the B.D. from the University of London. Most recently he has been editor of The Churchman, published in London. From 1947 until 1952 he was vice principal at Tyndale Hall, Bristol, and theological lecturer at the University of Bristol.

He is perhaps best known to CHRISTIANITY TODAY readers through his contributions to “Current Religious Thought.”

In this issue, Dr. Paul Rees makes his debut as a “Current Religious Thought” contributor.

Orthodoxy and Ecumenics

Archbishop Iakovos of New York, head of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, addressing the archdiocese’s 15th biennial conference last month, asserted that his church will continue in “increasing measure” its role in the ecumenical movement.

The Greek Orthodox Church, he emphasized, will cooperate with “all Christian churches as Iong as they are imbued with sincere and idealistic motives.” His church, he said, “does not fear honest and constructive relationships with other churches.”

“It is important to note,” he continued, “that the Roman Catholic, as well as the Protestant Churches, have expressed themselves in an increasingly respectful manner toward our church. This, of course, is due in great measure to the acceptance on the part of the Greek Orthodox Church of its rightful role in the center of the ecumenical movement today.”

Archbishop Iakovos told more than 500 clergy and lay delegates that “our position in the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches demands that we do not simply claim membership in these ecumenical movements, but fully recognize the true definition and mission of the ecumenicity of the Orthodox Church and the resultant role we must assume.”

He estimated that there are some 460,000 “faithful” Greek Orthodox people in the Western Hemisphere.

Sex Education

Sex education for young members of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada was authorized by the denomination at its 22nd biennial General Conference in London, Ontario, last month. A committee was appointed to prepare a curriculum.

The conference also authorized women holding ministerial licenses to officiate at weddings in Canadian provinces where civil law permits. Ordination of women is not permitted by the Pentecostals, but those with ministerial licenses have been allowed to baptize and bury.

700,000 Hear Graham In Germany

Evangelist Billy Graham’s crusades in Germany and Switzerland included a number of pastors conferences addressed by Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, Editor ofCHRISTIANITY TODAY, who accompanied the Graham team and who prepared the following report:

Sweeping across northern Germany in three week-long crusades, evangelist Billy Graham preached to congregations totalling 700,000, and more than 25,000 of these indicated a desire to receive and follow Christ.

Graham’s power in the pulpit was never mightier than in Germany, where he thrust home the message of Christ’s substitutionary death for sinners and the authority of the Bible with great force.

Wherever his mission carried him, the American evangelist was greeted by large throngs—in Essen in the heart of the industrial Ruhr Valley, in the great port city of Hamburg, 50 miles from the East Zone, and in the divided city of Berlin, itself surrounded by the Iron Curtain.

Graham went first to Essen, a city of 700,000. In a giant tent, he preached to capacity throngs of some 20,000 nightly, to 151,000 persons in all. The 4238 who came forward included a large proportion of students and workers.

The tent was later dismantled and shipped ahead for the Berlin meetings, a somewhat similar structure of canvas and steel having been erected in Hamburg.

The crusade in Hamburg, a cosmopolitan center of culture and commerce with 1,800,000 inhabitants, was marked by a rally at the edge of the notorious Reeperbahn, night-club area known the world over for its strip-tease performers and prostitutes. An hour before midnight Graham addressed 10,000 persons, warning of the judgment that fell on Sodom and Gomorrah for sex vice. An aggregate attendance of 289,000 turned out for the week-long Hamburg series, with 6270 recorded decisions for Christ.

In Berlin, provoked for weeks by an East Zone tightening of travel restrictions, Graham preached literally at the edge of the Iron Curtain. Loud speakers outside the tent, located 300 yards from the border, carried the message into the East Zone. East Germans were in attendance at each service, despite a series of propaganda blasts and malicious reports aimed at Graham by Communist leaders. A special students’ meeting drew 25,000. The climactic rally saw at least 60,000 assemble in and around the tent, pushing the Berlin attendance total to some 260,000. An estimated 15,000 decisions included many East Germans who were advised that they need not identify themselves, inasmuch as border guards were known to be detaining those who had attended Graham’s meetings.

Graham traveled to Germany and Switzerland at the behest of the Evangelical Alliance, which sponsors 3000 prayer meetings during an annual prayer week and 18 annual conferences, the largest in East Germany where 4000 attend. The alliance saw the Graham crusade develop into its biggest project in 114 years. German leaders themselves handled the promotion, trained 1200 counselors in each crusade city, and collected innumerable offerings.

This was the evangelist’s third visit to Germany. In 1960 he found far more state church support than he had been able to draw in 1954 and 1955.

Graham stressed that Germany’s reputation for creative leadership in science and learning could help shape a new world atmosphere if spiritual renewal should once again come to the land of the Protestant Reformation. German preaching is intellectually oriented and often reflects the dominant philosophical and theological tides. Church attendance is down (less than two per cent of the population in some big cities) and the emphasis on ritual provides little opportunity for overt public commitment. Alongside theological intellectualism and a critical attitude toward the Bible, many pulpits scorn evangelism as an emotional technique and deplore piety as subjectivism. Although higher criticism had virtually disappeared by the end of World War II, it has blossomed anew in the last 15 years. The revival of criticism came especially through the growing impact of Rudolf Bultmann’s views. Although Karl Barth and Emil Brunner had stressed the Bible’s witness to special revelation, their dogmatics offered little resistance to higher criticism. The inroads of Bultmannism have proved much stronger than generally expected. Today the interest in “demythologizing” the New Testament extends beyond many young intellectuals even to some older pastors. Supporters of Barth and Brunner are struggling for an influential survival of their position. Yet a dialectical-existential dogmatism is also emerging and evangelical criticism of the dialectical view of revelation is deplored on the ground that the church of Germany has learned to live happily with the crisis-theology. The theological mood is thus sharpening against evangelical orthodoxy, and the Evangelical Alliance is considering a strong challenge to champions of a “broken Bible.” Since World War II Barth has more and more stressed the objective factor in revelation but this positive side of his theology lacks the thoroughness of the negative critics. Although Barth more than Brunner has been influential in Germany, he is not widely followed in his latest change of views. But conservative Protestants have taken special note of his friendlier attitude toward the “pietists” at whom 35 years ago, he directed the barb that “on this foul soil of pietism only foul flowers can grow.” Barth has now apologized to his pietistic brethren, indicating his identification with them in such concerns as regeneration and holiness.

The religious situation is complicated also by an overestimation of sacramentalism and a reliance on confessionalism rather than the Bible. In Germany, 90 per cent of the people belong to the churches. Since virtually all are church members, evangelism is more difficult, being resisted especially by pastors who contend that baptism makes a person a Christian (so that he needs only teaching and encouragement, not salvation). They deplore evangelism as the handmaid of poor theology. Meanwhile, although membership statistics hold constant, active participation is generally decreasing. Other pastors, more favorable to evangelism, contend that nobody is automatically reborn through the sacrament; baptism, they stress, is a divine offer of grace which is not really accepted apart from faith.

Political tensions also shadow the national outlook. The division of Germany left the East Zone 90 per cent Protestant, while the broken Protestant strength in the West Zone (where half of the 60 million population is Catholic and half is Protestant) has enabled Roman Catholics to come to new political power in the person of Chancellor Adenauer. The changed political structure has had divergent religious effects. In Luther’s day, the princes went with Luther against Rome, and for centuries thereafter the religion of the emperor was the religion of the German people. Because of German mass psychology (Hitler and Goebbels were expert crowd manipulators, fully aware that the people react collectively rather than individually in a crowd) Graham stepped up his emphasis on personal decision during his crusades, and the results were all the more phenomenal. In view of a broken national religious outlook, however, some evangelicals contend that it is easier to evangelize Roman Catholics than state church Lutherans. The Roman Catholic journal Ruhr-Wort attacked Graham on the eve of his German appearance, charging that he uses evangelism simply as a front for peddling the American way of life.

Whatever may be the state of theology in the churches, there is no doubt that many people are hungry for the simple New Testament message and its call to receive Christ as Saviour and Lord. Many sources of spiritual quickening are evident, not only in the free churches but in new fellowships within the state church. Some free churches, in fact, are now undergoing a crisis through weak attendance, and a segment of the state church is more vital than these. Evangelical Protestants are determined more aggressively to fill the spiritual vacuum in the life of the nation.

People: Words And Events

Deaths:Dr. John Baillie, 74, leading theologian of the Church of Scotland and a president of the World Council of Churches; in Edinburgh … Dr. Samuel G. Craig, 86, president of the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company and long-time Presbyterian magazine editor; in Princeton, New Jersey … Dr. G. Kearnie Keegan, 53, noted Southern youth leader; while en route to Hawaii … the Rev. Cleveland Kleihauer, 75, former president of the International Convention of Christian Churches; in Los Angeles … Dr. Joseph W. Clokey, 70, noted composer of church music; in Covina, California.

Resignation: As educational director of the National Association of Christian Schools, Dr. Mark Fakkema.

Nomination: For the office of secretary of the World Methodist Conference, Dr. Lee F. Tuttle.

Elections: As president of the newly-organized Methodist General Board of Christian Social Concerns, Bishop F. Gerald Ensley … as bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Quebec, the Rev. Russell F. Brown.

Appointments: As editor of The Christian Advocate, Dr. Ewing T. Wayland … as editor of the Lutheran Witness, the Rev. Martin W. Mueller … as secretary of Princeton Theological Seminary, Dr. David L. Crawford … as editor of Pulpit, the Rev. Hardy Steinberg … as dean of the college at Tennessee Temple Schools, F. Dean Banta.

The Canadians headed north. From the Strait of Georgia in the West to Newfoundland’s Conception Bay in the East, from the distant Maritimes, Cartier’s French-accented St. Lawrence country, Ontario’s southward-jutting industrial wedge, the banks of the Assiniboine, from the measureless prairies and towering Rockies they came, some 400 of them. They were commissioners of the United Church of Canada, their nation’s largest Protestant communion—more than 1,000,000 adult communicants—and for the first time their General Council meeting brought them to the fast-growing northern city of Edmonton, Alberta. Site of the nineteenth meeting of their highest court was the red brick McDougall United Church overlooking the wooded banks of the North Saskatchewan River which, like some northern Danube, winds through prairie country where nineteenth-century Methodist missionary George McDougall labored so well among Blackfeet, Crees, and Stonys as to be largely credited with the absence of Indian wars in the area.

After sending an “Address of Loyalty” to the Queen, in which the Council pledged “allegiance to the Throne and Your Person,” the commissioners sought fulfillment of their appointed task “to enact such legislation and adopt such measures as may tend to promote true godliness, repress immorality, preserve the unity and well-being of the Church, and advance the Kingdom of Christ throughout the world.”

Commission reports produced only a moderate amount of debate, carried on in accents somehow reminiscent of a distant skirl of bagpipes. These were among the major issues:

Alcohol. The United Church has a strong tradition favoring total abstinence, unsuccessful efforts having been made in the past to condition church membership upon abstention. But some have complained of loss of members to the Anglican Church over this issue. A lengthy report slightly softening the church’s stand was adopted with few changes and surprisingly little opposition. While recommending voluntary total abstinence as the “wisest and safest course,” it also urged avoidance of excess by those “who exercise their right to use alcoholic beverages” and asserted the obligation of those of both opinions to maintain Christian fellowship with each other in tolerant spirit. Said one churchman, “I’m sorry to see us losing our crusading spirit on this issue.”

Birth Control. The Council approved a frank 66-page report by its Commission on Christian Marriage and Divorce, which declared the sexual act to be “for the perfecting of husband and wife, quite apart from its relation to procreation.” Ministers are to help those contemplating marriage consider factors relating to their decisions as to number and spacing of children, as well as urge them to get medical advice “concerning means of conception control that are both medically approved and aesthetically acceptable to both of them and in accord with their Christian conscience.” Traditionally strong for birth control, the Council withheld approval of abortion except when pregnancy seriously endangers the mother’s health. Artificial insemination by husband was sanctioned, while artificial insemination by donor was rejected as leading to “grave genetic, emotional, social and legal problems.”

International Affairs. The Council adopted substantially a report of its committee on the Church and International Affairs which asked the Canadian government to “reassess” its defense policy. The report advocated surrender of Canadian sovereignty “to the extent necessary to establish world order,” but questioned the wisdom of surrendering “decision making to such organizations as NORAD” and providing sites for U. S. missiles. Declaring Canada to be “faced with the urgent task of revising” her defense policy and her international posture, the report spoke optimistically of the possibility of Canadian alignment with the world’s neutralist nations and unilateral renunciation of nuclear warfare.

There is strong pacifist sentiment within the United Church. One highly placed churchman estimated that 25 per cent of her ministers would like to see Canada disarm unilaterally. Economic and moral reasons are set forth, among others. Trumpeted one commissioner: “I don’t want to die in nuclear war.”

This particular brand of pacifism, it is said, is to be distinguished from the classical type espoused by the historic “peace churches” which claim a thoroughgoing biblically-based pacifism. For exponents of the former favor a United Nations police force. Indeed, the Council voted that Canada should “provide as the chief task of its armed forces” her full share of an “enlarged and more effective U. N. police force.”

A motion favoring withdrawal from present military alliances, including NATO, was defeated.

The council voted for Canadian pressure toward an “international agreement (subject to international inspection and control) halting all nuclear tests etc. for destructive purposes.” It also reaffirmed its opinion of 1952, 1956, and 1958 that Canada “should give de facto recognition” to Red China and support its admission to the U. N. Principal E. J. Thompson of Edmonton’s St. Stephen’s College urged the United Church to hold conversations with the leaders of Red China and U.S.S.R.

Capital Punishment. Abolition of the death sentence was urged, to be replaced by a statutory life term with treatment and “the possibility of remission and parole.” Prisons are to be looked on as hospitals. Parole is to be withheld as long as retention is required by the well-being of society and the prisoner.

The United Church of Canada was formed in 1925 through merger of the nation’s Methodists, Congregationalists, and some 70 per cent of its Presbyterians. The resultant polity has been described as “pretty Presbyterian,” though little hope is seen at present for union with the “continuing Presbyterians.” But the United Church wishes to be known as a “uniting church” and has been carrying on conversations with the All-Canada Conference of the Church of Christ (Disciples) and the Canada Conference of the Evangelical United Brethren Church. However, greatest interest is in conversations with the Anglican Church of Canada, which have had their ups and downs for some 15 years, the issue of Episcopal ordination providing a formidable barrier to the desired “organic union.” A study guide outlining relationships between the two communions is now to be sent United Church congregations, the Council decided. The climate of the current conversations is described as “cordial” but actual cooperation as “spotty.”

On “Ecumenical Night,” along with eminent American Presbyterian Eugene Carson Blake, the Council heard the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Most Rev. Dr. Howard H. Clark, advocate unity but at the same time point to the “great distance” between segments of the two churches—e.g. Anglo-Catholics and liberal United churchmen, “whose Chistology is difficult to distinguish from … Unitarian.”

“Continuing Presbyterians” tend to look upon the United Chuch as lacking a theology—hotly denied by some United churchmen, who point to the statement of faith contained in the original Basis of Union. It is said that modernism in the church is fading. On the other hand, one leader claimed there is “practically no fundamentalism per se in the United Church’ ” identifying this with “literalism,” though he claimed there is considerable “orthodoxy.”

Elected moderator for the two years until next General Council, was Dr. Hugh A. McLeod, 66, minister of Winnipeg’s Knox United Church. Reared in modernist thought, he is becoming more fundamental as the years pass, he said.

Retiring moderator Dr. Angus J. MacQueen pointed to United Church weaknesses which are reflected in need for renewed zeal for missions and church reunion, as well as a revitalized spiritual life. Following church union in 1925 there was a surplus of ministers, but now a severe shortage of ministerial candidates has reached emergency proportions, according to one educator, and not only among French Canadians. Church growth is lagging well behind the nation’s population increase. Every conference showed a drop in new members by profession of faith. Four-fifths of all money raised remains within the congregational treasury—“a shocking proof of self-centeredness,” charges Dr. MacQueen. Remarked one minister who had transferred from another church five years earlier: “This is a fascinating church to work in but it’s a sleeping giant.”

But signs of hope were seen in Council action to enlarge industrial chaplaincy work and enter a new mission field—South America. It also voted merger of the church’s two women’s groups, hoping for greater effectiveness in missions support particularly.

Friends of the United Church would be encouraged by the Board of Overseas Missions’ call for faithful prayer, stressing the imperative of reliance upon the Holy Spirit. Heartening too are Dr. MacQueen’s words: “Christianity is not just one more among the world’s religions. It is unique. God came in all the fullness of His truth and grace in Jesus Christ for the whole world. This is the story we have to tell to the nations.”

THE WELLSPRINGS OF LIFE

Christians have life, eternal life, but this does not immediately transfer us to heaven.

We live in a world where secular pursuits are necessary, contacts with others a part of existence itself.

We are unceasingly confronted by problems, decisions, difficulties, sorrows, frustrations and every conceivable kind of situation which call for action and reaction.

Christians living in an alien world, but citizens of another, are called upon to so live that they may commend the faith which they profess to those who know not the Lord.

The very fact that we are Christians entails a responsibility for which there is no human answer. That we are not our own but “bought with a price” makes it imperative that we faithfully represent and reflect the One who has redeemed us.

Confronted with both the reality and the awesome implications of our position we can well say with the Apostle Paul: “For we are unto God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: to the one we are the savor of death unto death; and to the other the savor of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?”

Some Christians have tried to escape the contacts of the world and in so doing have abrogated their duty to God and their fellow man.

One of the most electrifying things which could happen would be for Christians to live seven days a week as Christians should live—shining lights in pagan darkness; savorful salt in a putrifying society.

But such a life cannot be lived by an act of the will. There are required resources no man has within himself. This is a matter of supernatural help, but it is available to every Christian willing to pay the price.

The wellsprings of life have their source in the Holy Spirit. They flow as living water to bless others, but they continue only as the channel remains clear and as the earthly vessel is renewed day by day by close contact and communion with the Living Christ.

Aware as we are that the body must have nourishment and exercise, we are often oblivious to the fact that the spiritual life of the Christian must also be nourished and exercised.

Accepting the validity of Christ’s death and resurrection as our only hope for eternity, we often forget that such faith is the door to life here and now and not pious insurance for the next.

The average Christian is spiritually starved and ignorant, and as a result is a poor witness to the saving and keeping power of Christ. But those who drink deep at the wellsprings of life carry with them the sweet savor of Christ, for they consciously live in his presence. It is such Christians who show forth in their lives the fruits of the Spirit but it is the privilege of all to do this.

Where is this help, and how do we obtain it? There are many earnest souls who long for such a renewing experience day by day but they have never seriously sought the answer.

Subjectively the wellsprings of life are found in prayer and Bible study. Objectively they produce a day-by-day living for the glory of God.

Prayer and Bible study take time, and our lives are pressed by legitimate demands which inevitably encroach until good and necessary things crowd out the one thing which gives meaning to daily living. For this reason it is imperative that a decision be made and a program set up and then carried out.

The decision requires recognition of the primary place which spiritual nourishment must have in the life of the Christian.

The program requires that a specified time be set aside each day for prayer and Bible study and that nothing shall be permitted to interfere or interrupt.

The best time of the day is the early morning and the place should be one of quiet and solitude.

Prayer is a privilege and blessing of many facets—praise, worship, thanksgiving, supplication, for others and for ourselves. Nothing adds more to the exercise of prayer than a prayer list—people, problems and objectives for which we pray. As time goes on this list grows, while at the same time we see God’s loving concern through answers for specific people or objectives.

Like Job of old we too can pray for our children and bring God’s blessings to them. Following the example of our Lord we can reach out across the world and pray for men everywhere.

It is with prayer we approach the study of God’s Word, asking that the Holy Spirit will make that which we read plain to our minds and apply it to our hearts.

Then it is that Bible study ceases to be a chore and becomes a delight. For the first time we begin to sense the wonder of this revelation of God as it speaks to our needs, shows us our sins, comforts and strengthens, and unfolds before us the panorama of God’s dealings with man.

There are so many ways to study the Bible. Let me suggest that for a long time we read only the Bible. There are so many good books about the Bible, but none of them is a substitute for the Book itself.

Basic to such study is a reading through many times of the Bible as a whole. Only then can one get the composite picture so necessary and so rewarding.

Then one can follow a particular theme or doctrine through the entire Bible and in so doing find joy and strength.

A most fruitful way to study the Scriptures is to take a number of different translations and read a portion in each translation. Old verses will take on a new meaning. Obscure phrases will suddenly come into focus.

How much time should one spend at the wellsprings of life? Here we are dealing with a privilege of vital import, not with clock-watching. For some an hour will suffice; for others the time may be shorter or longer. The thing so urgently needed is that Christians shall set aside a specific time of day when they sit at our Lord’s feet, talk with him and let his Word speak to their hearts.

Several objections to this program may come to mind: “Not sufficient time”; “Would make me lose much-needed sleep”; “This could be very boring.”

Anyone who is too busy to take time to drink deep at the wellsprings of life is too busy and should adjust his or her schedule.

Such a program may make one get up a little earlier each morning, but experience proves that the time spent with the Lord brings with it physical as well as spiritual renewing.

As to being boring: just give it a try and you will find it to be the most thrilling experience of each day.

L. NELSON BELL

With the arrival of Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III upon the scene of history, a new stage in human defiance of God set in. It was a resurgence of the spirit of Babel. Men sought for a universal kingdom whose glory would be man. To explain the situation, the prophet Isaiah was raised up. He was to see his king, Ahaz, turn against the Lord and place his trust in a human ruler, an act which brought on, step by step, the final downfall of Judah. Israel would first be taken, and then Judah (after existing about one hundred and fifty years) was finally to fall to Babylon. With Ahaz’ act, the heart of the theocracy, we might say, had been taken away. In the book of Isaiah we find the explanation of those events which were taking place and how through them God would bring about his own exaltation.

The downfall of Judah finally occurred, and there was need for another prophet (Isaiah had long been dead) to warn the nation as to the proper course for it to follow. Such a man was Jeremiah. In the account of his prophetic call (Jer. 1:10), God states that he has appointed Jeremiah over the nations and over the kingdoms to root up, break down, destroy, exterminate, build, and plant. In a sense it may be regarded as an all-embracing commission. But it does not mean that the prophet was to engage in such activity in a physical sense; rather his proclamation would have these particular effects. Like Isaiah, he too was to interpret the dealings of God with the nations of his time.

ANALYSIS OF THE PROPHECY

The following may serve as a brief outline of Jeremiah’s message.

Chapter 1. The Prophet’s Call.

Chapters 2–20. Oracles concerning Judah, its sinfulness and the coming of judgment.

Chapters 21–23. Jeremiah’s boldness with respect to Zedekiah. His courageous prophecy against false prophets.

Chapter 24. The symbolism of the two baskets of figs. The people of God and those who follow Zedekiah.

Chapter 25:1–14. Conclusion to the above. The coming of Nebuchadnezzar and the exile.

Chapter 25:15–38. Prophecies concerning the nations.

Chapters 26–29. An attempt to take the life of Jeremiah. Explanation of the appearance of the king of Babylon. Hananiah the false prophet.

Chapters 30–35. Announcement of blessings to come. The Messiah. Messages of hope.

Chapters 36–45. Personal experiences of the prophet himself.

Chapters 46–51. Oracles uttered against the nations.

Chapter 52. Appendix—of an historical and interpretive nature.

JEREMIAH’S CALL

In the book of Isaiah the personality of the prophet is for the most part kept in the background, and his message receives the pre-eminence. In Jeremiah, however, the man himself is brought to the fore. This in no way minimizes the significance of the message nor does it obscure it; rather, through the personal experiences of the prophet we get the message more deeply impressed on our minds.

Jeremiah is said to be the son of Hilkiah, one of the priests who lived at Anatoth (the modern Anata, a small village some distance northeast of Jerusalem). He first received a revelation from God during the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah, king of Judah. In this revelation God tells Jeremiah that in a special sense he has been prepared for the prophetic ministry. Even before Jeremiah had been formed in the womb, God had called him and appointed him as a prophet to the nations. Like other prophets Jeremiah protested, but in language reminiscent of Deuteronomy God tells the prophet that he is to speak all that God commands him.

To compare his call with that given to Isaiah is profitable. Like Isaiah Jeremiah is to root up and tear down, but he is also to build and to plant. Unlike Isaiah, Jeremiah receives several visions, and the first of these, in which the prophet sees the shoot of an almond tree, has to do with the certainty of fulfillment of God’s word of prophecy. With this first encouraging vision we find ourselves face to face with language reminiscent of Deuteronomy. A second vision stresses the coming of an enemy and the consequent calamity. Having received these visions the prophet is commanded to gird up his loins and to prophesy. The expression “to gird up one’s loins” probably goes back to an ancient practice of belt wrestling. Its ancient significance is lost, but it does indicate that Jeremiah is to prepare himself for the context of declaring the word of the Lord to a hostile nation.

MESSAGES OF JEREMIAH

In a brief article, it is impossible to discuss the outline of the prophecy in much detail. Probably the best one can do is say a few words about some of the principal themes with which Jeremiah deals. In the first 25 chapters, the themes are introduced. First of all the prophet stresses the fact that a punishment will come because of Israel’s apostasy and wickedness. The nation’s sin is depicted in contrast with God’s loving dealings. Thus, in Jeremiah 2:5 we have the heart of the matter: “What perverseness have your fathers found in me that they departed far from me and followed vanity and became vanity?” Jeremiah relates what God had done for the people and then asks why, in the light of God’s goodness, the nation should act as it has. Hence, Jeremiah brings to light in denunciatory fashion the sinful condition of the people who are ripe for judgment. We may note passages such as 2:9–19 in which God declares that he will condemn the nation; 2:20–37 which reveals the idolatrous worship of the people; 5:1–9 which tells of the faithlessness and godlessness of the people; and 5:20–31 wherein the guilt of Judah is set forth as the cause of her ruin.

Jeremiah announces that God will certainly punish the nation, and he will punish it by bringing on an enemy from the north. At one time this enemy was believed to be the Scythians (mentioned by the historian Herodotus), but now it is generally thought that Jeremiah is referring to the Babylonians. To enter Palestine the Babylonians would have come down into Palestine from the northeast. The enemy is described as a great nation (6:22–26), a nation which is merciless and has no pity. This description well applies to the Babylonians.

Israel must repent of her sin and turn to the Lord. If she is to live she must seek the ancient ways and walk in the ancient paths. In tender fashion God calls the people to come back to him. “Unto me, thou shalt return” (3:2). Judah in her unfaithfulness has acted like an harlot, but refuses to be ashamed of her deeds. Again in 3:11–17 there is a tender call of God to the people to come to him: “I will not be angry with you, for I am merciful” (3:12).

These themes run through the first 25 chapters of the prophecy. In a certain sense they may be said to constitute a reasoning on God’s part with the nation. They also give us the philosophy of God’s dealings with mankind. It has often been objected that in driving the Canaanites from Palestine and giving the land to the Israelites, God did an unjust thing. Today the objection is not so frequently heard. It is apparent that the Canaanites did not deserve to occupy the land. So great was their iniquity, that it was for the good of mankind that they be dispossessed of Palestine. It was God’s purpose to give Palestine to his people, that in time the Redeemer might come from them. At the same time, as Jeremiah says in 2:3, “Israel was holiness to the Lord, the firstfruit of his harvest.”

God, however, is no respecter of persons, and he will not regard iniquity. His own nation had sunk into such a state of sin that it was no longer the theocracy. It too must be removed from the land and that by a nation which knew not God. In the exile, therefore, we see manifested God’s hatred of evil, even when the evil is performed by those who claim his Name. In his first 25 chapters, Jeremiah points this out. He explains to Judah that punishment must surely come for her sin, and he urges her to repentance.

Is Jeremiah’s message relevant for today? Truly it is, for it meets us where we live. We tend to think that our problems are all “social.” As a matter of fact, our problems are basically individual, and have to do with human sin. Our nation is no stronger than the individuals which compose it. There must, if the nation itself is to survive, be a turning from sin on the part of individuals. But in their own strength, individuals cannot turn from sin; indeed, of themselves they do not really know what sin is. We need, therefore, what the men of Jeremiah’s day needed, the gospel of Christ. We need to hear the condemnation of the law, but also the invitation from a gracious God.

Like Isaiah before him, Jeremiah pointed out the true source of deliverance and the only hope of man. Indeed, reflecting upon language which Isaiah had earlier employed, Jeremiah declares that God will raise up unto David a righteous Sprout (23:5). By this figure Jeremiah obviously has in mind a king who will reign on David’s throne, and who in his reign will embody the highest ideals of the Davidic dynasty. He will reign in righteousness; indeed his Name will be “the Lord our Righteousness” (i.e., the Lord, who is the source of our righteousness). The figure goes back to 2 Samuel 23:5 where it is taught that God will cause to sprout his desire. Isaiah takes over this thought and gives to it a personal touch by applying the word Sprout or Branch to the Messiah (Isa. 4:2). In Isaiah the word is set in parallel with an expression “the fruit of the land.” Jeremiah drops the picture element, and uses the word of the Messiah in an entirely personal sense. The Sprout, according to Jeremiah, is one whom the Lord will cause to grow forth from David’s line, who will reign upon the throne of David and will in His reign exhibit a righteousness such as none of the human kings had known. When He reigns, Judah and Israel will again be reunited, and David will never lack a man to sit upon his throne (33:14–26).

In the figure of the Messiah, we see the basic similarity between Isaiah and Jeremiah. Both prophets realize clearly that there can be no hope for the nation in a merely human king. Good as were some of the descendants of David, they did not embody the ideals of the Kingdom as they should. There must come One whom the Lord himself will raise up, and this One is the Messiah. A careful reading of chapters 23 and 33 makes it clear that the salvation of which the prophet speaks is spiritual in nature. For this reason the hope of the nation lay not in might nor in power, nor in superiority in warfare, but in One whom God would raise up, in whom men would find righteousness.

JEREMIAH’S EXPERIENCES

Much in chapters 26 through 45, which deal with Jeremiah’s experiences, is self-explanatory. The chapters inform us how difficult was the work of a faithful prophet. There was, of course, the opposition of the royal court, but there was also the opposition of false prophets.

One of these false prophets, Hananiah, the son of Azur, a prophet from Gibeon, announced in the very temple, before the priests and people, that the exile would be of only two year’s duration. This prophecy was uttered to embarrass Jeremiah, for it was spoken directly to him. It may well be that when Hananiah saw the faithful Jeremiah, his resentment was aroused, and he broke out before all the people. For Jeremiah it would have been a humiliating experience, particularly when Hananiah’s message was one which the people would have rejoiced to hear. Hananiah said that the exile would endure for only two years; Jeremiah had prophesied that it would last for seventy. How this message of Hananiah’s must have thrilled the crowd, and how despised in their eyes Jeremiah must have appeared!

Jeremiah’s answer to this falsehood is truly remarkable. He utters the fervent wish that such words were true. In his inmost desires he wishes that the exile might be short-lived. But he must be faithful to the God who has commissioned him. From ancient times, he says, true prophets have spoken of war and famine and suffering. Their messages have never been well received.

So great was Hananiah’s wickedness, in speaking falsehood and in opposing the truth which Jeremiah proclaimed, that Jeremiah prophesied his death, a prophecy which was soon fulfilled, for we read, “And Hananiah the prophet died that year in the seventh month” (28:17).

False prophets constituted one of the sore burdens which Jeremiah had to bear. And in his opposition to them he reveals himself as a man of sterling courage. He is one whose main concern is to be faithful to the Lord who had called him. In this respect he sets an admirable example for those of us who would preach God’s Word today. Jeremiah did not seek popularity; he did not curry favor; he was willing to stand alone, to be ridiculed for the sake of the One whom he served. Truly he was a great prophet.

LITERATURE ON JEREMIAH

Ministers who desire preaching material from Jeremiah will find help in Fire In My Bones, by Fred M. Wood (Nashville, 1959). This little book contains a useful study of the prophecy with application to the present day. It is a stimulating work and will offer valuable help to one who is approaching the study of Jeremiah. An interesting series of studies in Jeremiah by H. L. Ellison has recently appeared in The Evangelical Quarterly. It should prove of help to those who are interested in studying the structure of the book. Among modern commentaries, that of Theo. Laetsch (St. Louis, 1952) is particularly valuable. Here is a one-volume work, thoroughly conservative, which deals with textual and critical problems. It is a pleasure to commend it. Among the older works, Keil is of course valuable. Until a newer work of the same quality and standard as Keil is produced, we shall have to depend upon his commentary. For further literature the reader may consult lists in the various introductions to the Old Testament.

EDWARD J. YOUNG

Professor of Old Testament

Westminster Theological Seminary

THE BIG DEBATE

These television debates of our presidential candidates leave me exhausted. Not even TV bowling requires so much body English. To avoid the bends when the pressure is released I find there is nothing better than a round or two of fist-fighting debate about the debate in my neighbor’s recreation room. Of course we are all agreed on our aims; we support the same candidate. We differ only on the means—how he should campaign. When our discussions warm up it is just as well that we don’t have to project a dignified image to several million observers.

Dr. Martin Luther Bauer dropped in during a lull in our last session. He is a great admirer of his namesake, and was soon describing the Reformer’s debates with Eck at Leipzig. Television came too late. Those debates were spectacular, crammed with everything a TV cameraman could desire: ruling dukes, gowned doctors, crowds of partisan students. Even the lecture chairs were worth a close-up. The standard shot of a participant listening to his worthy opponent would have come alive when it caught Martin Luther smelling a carnation during Eck’s first attack.

Luther and Eck did not debate in the vacuum of a television stage. The live Leipzig audience reacted all around them. The university professors slept, either from policy or from professional boredom; the students rioted; Duke George shouted on occasion. Even long hours of Eck’s scholastic quibbling could not make the occasion dull. Any U.N. cameraman would have known how to fill in the time with views of scribbling secretaries and snoring professors. The microphones might even have picked up from the back benches of the Romanist side the Latin cry Dā eis Eccum!

Debates are much milder now, which is a blessing. The explosive combination of politics and religion which surrounded Luther detonated in religious war. Refugees from the aftermath in Europe found and formed religious liberty in America. It is difficult to preserve religious liberty both from and for those who don’t believe in it. In America it seems even harder to preserve both liberty and religion. Christ forbade his disciples to fight for him, but called them to die for him.

EUTYCHUS

WINE REPLIES

October 4, 1960

Your letter of Sept. 6, 1960, referring to your intention to publish the “Open Letter” of Dr. Charles Clayton Morrison and informing Senator John F. Kennedy of an opportunity to reply thereto, was inadvertently misplaced in the flood of mail.

Senator Kennedy has asked that I acknowledge receipt of your letter and to indicate that he believes his remarks expressed to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960 are substantially responsive to the questions posed in the “Open Letter.” Accordingly, there is enclosed a copy of the full text of the Senator’s remarks on that occasion. This is to be considered as the reply to the “Open Letter” identified above.

JAMES W. WINE

Special Asst. to Senator Kennedy

Washington, D. C.

• The text enclosed by Mr. Wine, reproduced by the Democratic National Committee from an Associated Press dispatch in the Washington Post for September 13, has been publicized across America in past weeks by television, radio, and printed news media. Copies are available from the Democratic National Committee, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, Washington 6, D. C.

ED.

THE SUPRA-PARTISAN LEVEL

Charles Clayton Morrison’s masterly letter to Senator Kennedy (Sept. 12 issue) lifts the religious issue to the high supra-partisan level where it belongs. Your voter readers will all hope that the distinguished Senator will give Dr. Morrison’s pointed questions the kind of answers they deserve.

DANIEL S. ROBINSON Director Emeritus

School of Philosophy

University of Southern California

Los Angeles, Calif.

I have just finished reading the … “Open Letter to Senator Kennedy.” In my judgment this is the best article I have seen on the very vital issue confronting the American people today. If this article is to be reprinted in pamphlet form I should like to order one thousand copies.

May I say that I thank God for such a magazine as yours. I read each issue from cover to cover.

EARLE R. HARVEY Director

Fresno Area Migrant Ministry

Division of Home Missions

National Council of Churches

Fresno, Calif.

Could this possibly be available in reprint for distribution? Not so much to convince my Roman Catholic friends (although some of them would do some “self-thinking” on the matter), but to awaken, all too many, broad-minded Protestants!

MRS. CHARLES SCHENK, JR.

Beacon, N. Y.

• Reprints are available at five cents each or $2.50 per hundred.

—ED.

The instinct of evangelical Christians that there is an important religious issue in the current political campaign for president of the United States is sound. Unfortunately their efforts to articulate these issues are often clumsy and backfire with the charge that they are made by “bigots.” A high percentage of statements released have cut with a dull knife, but Dr. Morrison uses a scalpel. He defines the issues both clearly and carefully.

Obviously Senator Kennedy will not respond to this “open letter” since its form is that of argument rather than inquiry. I doubt that the device of an “open letter” measures up in integrity and cogency of Dr. Morrison’s argument.

It is because I think the issue now at the forefront of the American mind is not the religious issue itself but religious bigotry that I caution and urge that the entire position of evangelical Christians be stated with precision and that all clever devices and political trickery be avoided. I am convinced that there are religious issues which deserve the attention and may well determine the vote of millions of Americans.

I am afraid that political strategists have developed a flanking movement to counter the genuine religious issues. By screaming about religious bigotry they are able both to solidify the Roman Catholic vote for their candidate while also shaming evangelical Christians into silence if not into voting for him.

This will explain my support of Dr. Morrison’s statement of the issues and my demurrer with reference to the form he has used.

DUKE K. MCCALL

President

The Southern Baptist

Theological Seminary

Louisville, Ky.

There is a notion in the air about us that it is incongruous to “inject” the Roman Catholic issue into the Presidential campaign, the implication being that it is a pseudo issue.

If this be the case, one is left to wonder why a man of William E. Gladstone’s calibre could ever have been so ill at ease about an earlier aspect of the matter. The infallibility of the Pope had then recently been decreed by the Vatican Council (1870). Rightly or wrongly, the inference was drawn by Gladstone that loyalty to an “infallible Pope” by a Roman Catholic was inconsistent with the latter’s loyalty to a civil state like Britain. Gladstone aired his views in a pamphlet entitled, The Vatican Decrees and Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance (1874). The issue proved to be so real, that necessity was laid upon none other than John Henry Newman to answer the great statesman who had raised it. While obviously feeling that Gladstone’s assertions may have been motivated by a spirit of controversy, Newman nevertheless did not simply dismiss them as matters of bigotry. His answer, published in 1875 under the title, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, turned out to be a meaty 200-page book to which he had applied the best of his wit, persuasion and scholarly rhetoric. The plain fact is that even today Senator Kennedy could hardly find a better source book to present his own case, should the need arise. The growing contention, I understand, is that it should not arise. With this contention I disagree.

Surely this country would claim to be as democratic as was England around 1874–75. We believe in freely discussing problems that bear upon the life and destiny of our nation, especially when the selection of our President is at stake. Whatever our religious allegiance may be, it is unworthy of us to shyly push under the rug an issue whose implications were deemed real enough to bring face to face such giants as Gladstone and the man who was soon to be elevated by Pope Leo XIII to the dignity of Cardinal.

EMILE CAILLIET

Professor Emeritus

Princeton Theological Seminary

Princeton, N. J.

Why should it be considered an “alien phenomenon” that Catholics want their children to hear of God and Christ in a non-public, non-secular parochial school?

Is it now American or democratic to dissever and divorce religion and education (religion and five days a week of the student’s life) so that for 25 hours a week he hears nothing about God, Christ, Bible or Christian heritage—even Christian hope or ethics? Such atheism-aiding, socialism-aiding education is further backed by the presence in public schools of the God-opposing theories, the anti-Christ ideologies (evolution, etc.). Why should not Protestants have Christian schools instead of public? Why condition the children against God?

Are Catholics more smart, Christian, and loyal to the children’s deepest needs than we are?

LEROY VICTOR CLEVELAND

Westminster Congregational Church

Canterbury, Conn.

Are we as mere mortal men in such a position today that we can say that the election of Sen. Kennedy is not the will of God?… With the “anti-Catholic” things which are being said and written in regard to Sen. Kennedy’s campaign, are we following Christ’s teachings in “The Sermon on the Mount”? Did our Lord say, “Spread hatred among your friends, turn your back on your enemies”? Minneapolis, Minn.

SAM BARINGTON

There is no suppression of freedom in the Catholic Church. If one does not agree with its teachings, all he has to do is leave the Church. There are plenty of religions wherein there is no head and the reason there are so many religions today is because someone not liking the teaching of his church has started another. So if a Catholic feels that he is suppressed he can do the same. Or does your mind tell you he would be roped and held? When little men begin casting long shadows, the sun is setting on a nation.

… In the twenty states where nuns are teaching in so-called public schools, why are you referring your question to Mr. Kennedy? That situation does not exist under a Catholic president. Why are those nuns teaching? Because the State has no schools in those communities. Would you charge that to the Catholic Church? Your statement reminds me of a thought expressed by a non-Catholic friend some time ago. She wondered why most orphanages were run by Catholics. Any knowing non-Catholic would know that they have no dedicated people to run orphanages.

KATHERINE JANSEN

Chicago, Ill.

Dr. Morrison’s open letter to Senator Kennedy is both enlightening and irrefragable. If his running mate can cry religious intolerance after reading it, he is selling his birthright for a mess of pottage.

FERDINAND A. SAUNDERS

Nedrow, N. Y.

This is a very excellent article, and presents matters relating to a Catholic president in a most helpful, Christian way. I shall be waiting to see if the Senator accepts and uses the opportunity to reply to it; and, if so, what his reply will be like.

MARVIN E. PARRISH

First Pentecostal Holiness Church

Radford, Va.

This is a superb and balanced expression of my uneasy feeling about Kennedy and the Roman issue.

VERN L. KLINGMAN

First Methodist

Billings, Mont.

A most wonderful letter—should go to every American.

JOSEPH S. LONG

Grace Methodist

Billings, Mont.

The fullest and keenest contribution to date on the important matter of Romanist President.

MICHAEL M. MCDIVITT

Pittsburgh, Pa.

It is a masterpiece. It is one of the most comprehensive and thought-provoking discussions on the religious issue that I have read.

GLENN I. FORD

First Church of the Nazarene

St. Paul, Minn.

If we have a Catholic president after the first of the year …, we can lay the blame at the door of the Protestant churches and the religious press.

A. W. OSBORN

Berea, Ky.

There is bifurcation in Protestantism. The Christian Century came out against Norman Vincent Peale for questioning Sen. Kennedy’s ability to preserve the separation of state and church. And who poses far more severe questions in the “open letter” published in CHRISTIANITYTODAY? None other than Charles Clayton Morrison, former editor of the Century. Brother, where are the “party lines” these days?

RUDOLPH F. NORDEN

Broadview, Ill.

May we elect a president of the United States who believes all marriages are legal and offspring from the same legitimate.

BERTRAM JENKINS

Portland, Ore.

Kennedy, going through the ritual of a Roman Catholic, apparently rebels against the encyclicals and pronouncements of the popes whom he acknowledges, by being a Catholic, are authoritative and sometimes infallible. Will he then, while going through the protocol of the presidency, actually deny or rebel against that encyclical of U.S political history—the Constitution?

This “religious question” is a political issue, not so much in gaining or losing votes, but because it is tied to political freedom. Many of us, labeled “bigots” by other bigots, frankly are worried about hell—a political purgatory of deprived personal freedom on this side of the curtain of death. The specter of Galileo still haunts and the ashes of Savonarola still burn the religious dissenter in Italy, Spain, and Colombia. With Catholicism in power the only valid argument against the “it can’t happen here” attitude would be geographical! Then freedom wouldn’t even have time on its side.

ALBERT E. CRAMER

London Bible Institute and Theological Seminary

London, Ont.

AT ST. ANDREWS

As a member of the General Board of the National Council of Churches and the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, I regret to say that it has seemed to me that CHRISTIANITY TODAY has generally reported the meetings of both bodies in such a way as to put the worst possible construction on most of the things done at those meetings, and has generally exhibited a negative attitude toward the ecumenical movement so far as it is embodied in the National and World Councils of Churches. For that reason I am more than happy to be able to write this word of appreciation for the way in which the St. Andrews meeting of the Central Committee of the World Council was reported and interpreted. By and large, I think it was a fair report.…

More and more it has come to be for me a matter of deepest concern that between those whom Dr. Carnell fittingly described as the “classical orthodox” and those who in varying degrees take a more “liberal” position, a great gulf seems to be fixed and lines of communication fail. The gulf is always widened when those in either category question the basic devotion of the others to the Lord and Saviour whom both seek to serve.

JAMES E. WAGNER

President

Evangelical and Reformed Church

Philadelphia, Pa.

J. T. MUELLER

Best story I have read on the Council.… Concordia Seminary

St. Louis, Mo.

IN CENSURE OF CELIBACY

Mr. Lund’s piece on “The Protestant Parsonage Today” (Sept. 12 issue) was thoughtful and helpful. He referred to certain writers—a dean of a large theological school in eastern United States and to an Anglican divine—who have made arguments for a celibate clergy in the Protestant Church. Mr. Lund evidently does not agree with such absurdity but one wished that he might have given necessary “treatment” to the unscriptural nonsense of these writers. Of course Paul’s statement that the bishop shall be the husband of one wife means only one but it does show the custom and make the implication of married ministers. And we know that Peter was married, and the evidence makes it almost certain that Paul had been married. He said that he gave his vote … against the Christians. If that statement is literal, then Paul had been married because only married men could be members of the Sanhedrin.

Then, so-called “celibate” clergy are not celibate after all. Dr. W. B. Bagby, who began our Baptist mission work in Brazil and labored some fifty years or more, told me that he had been in hundreds of priests’ homes and was introduced to their wives whom they called “companions.” It was the common custom. The priests all had these concubines and made no bones of it.…

People in distress, especially women where delicate matters are involved, cannot talk to an unmarried man as they can and will to a married man.

… As long as preachers have sense they will marry good, cultured Christian women, the greatest power next to God that ever comes into their lives, and will pay no attention to the twaddle of theological professors about a celibate clergy.

L. E. BARTON

Montgomery, Ala.

Every now and then, in reading publications that deny the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture, we find Luther’s evaluation of the Bible quoted as the manger or cradle of Christ in the sense that Luther, highly esteeming the Christ of Scripture, regarded less highly the Scriptures setting forth Christ. They may also add that according to Luther the words and stories of the Bible are unpretentious swaddling clothes, while only Christ, who is the treasure that lies within, is precious. This interpretation of Luther’s statement calls for examination.

CLIMAX OF AN ARDENT APPEAL

Luther’s evaluation of the Bible as the cradle and swaddling clothes of Christ occurs as a climax in the third paragraph of his “Preface to the Old Testament,” which appeared in 1523 and then again in 1545 in the last edition of the Bible which he edited. In this Preface he entreats Bible students to study the Old Testament diligently as Christ himself commands us in John 5:39. So also Paul used the Old Testament to prove from it Christ’s atoning death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3), and Peter referred to it frequently. Luther expresses his deep regret that so many persons in his day were spurning the Old Testament as though it were written only for the Jews, and holding that they could rest satisfied with the New. That is the gist of the first paragraph of Luther’s Preface. Properly speaking, Luther had been serving as professor of Old Testament at the divinity school of the University of Wittenberg. While he interpreted also books of the New Testament, his specialty was expounding the Old Testament to his students from the viewpoint of the coming Christ.

In the second paragraph of his Preface, Luther urges his readers to study the Old Testament because the holy Apostles prove from it so convincingly New Testament Gospel truths. As highly as we esteem their motivation and proof in the New Testament, so highly we must regard the Old. Luther closes his paragraph with this impressive appeal: “What else is the New Testament than a public preaching and proclamation concerning Christ, declared in the passages of the Old Testament and fulfilled by Christ?”

THE CRADLE IS PRECIOUS

In the third paragraph of his Preface Luther extols the Old Testament wholly because it is the cradle of Christ, that is, because it foretells and describes the coming of Christ. I quote the paragraph as it is given in the Muhlenberg edition of Luther’s works (Vol. 6, pp. 367–368, Philadelphia, 1932). This version was carefully compared with the German (St. Louis) edition of Luther’s works (Vol. 14, pp. 2–3, Concordia, 1898), which is very reliable and cites the Preface as it is contained in Luther’s Bible of 1545.

But in order that those who know no better may have incentive and instruction for reading the Old Testament, I have prepared this introduction with whatever ability God has given me. I beg and faithfully warn every pious Christian not to stumble at the simplicity of the language and stories that will often meet him there. He should not doubt that, however simple they may seem, these are the very words, works, judgments, and deeds of the high majesty, power, and wisdom of God; for this is Scripture and it makes fools of all the wise and prudent and stands open to the small and foolish, as Christ says in Matthew XI [11:25]. Therefore let your own thoughts and feelings go, and that of the Scriptures as the loftiest and noblest of holy things, as the richest of mines which can never be worked out, so that you may find the wisdom of God that he lays before you in such foolish and simple guise in order that he may quench all pride. Here you will find the swaddling clothes and the mangers in which Christ lies, and to which the angel points the shepherds. Simple and little are the swaddling clothes, but dear is the treasure. Christ, that lies in them.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

One cannot help but conclude from these words that Luther’s view of the Bible was not that of a liberal but that of a believing Christian. He regarded the Bible and particularly Genesis of the Old Testament, to which he no doubt refers most of all in his Preface, as the divinely inspired Word of God. It was Luther’s firm belief that the simple expressions and seemingly foolish stories are the very words, works, judgments, and deeds of the divine Majesty, Power, and Wisdom.

This means that Luther believed in both verbal and plenary inspiration. He regarded Holy Scripture as making fools of all men who refuse to believe it, and he held that it stands open or is revealed only to babes who believingly accept it as God’s true, inerrant, and saving Word. It is for this reason also that he begs and warns his readers to abandon their self-conceit and unbelief and to receive the Bible as the highest and most precious sanctuary, indeed as a rich mine that can never be exhausted no matter how great are the treasures of divine wisdom one draws from it. Only those who approach the Bible with this childlike faith will find the wisdom which God sets forth to quench the arrogance of self-conceited, over-bearing and unbelieving Bible critics.

When, therefore, Luther concludes his urgent appeal with the climactic thought that the simple and seemingly foolish Bible stories are the swaddling clothes and manger of Christ, he does not mean to disparage them but rather to express his most reverent esteem of Holy Scripture which offers to man the supreme blessing of eternal salvation in Christ, the incarnate and crucified Saviour of sinners.

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.