THE ‘PROPHETIC MINISTRY’ OF THE CHURCH

No one will dispute that the Church has a “prophetic” role, or that the Christian ministry has a “prophetic” responsibility.

But there is serious debate at the present time whether either the Church or the individual minister has a “prophetic” ministry other than that already made final by the Early Church and the first century apostles.

In the strict sense of the word, there is no such thing as “prophetic” preaching today. No minister can stand in his pulpit and say, I have a new revelation from the Lord. He can only recognize the authority of Old and New Testament writers who spoke, by inspiration of God, His message. It is the duty of ministers today to apply revealed truth, not to assume the role of prophets themselves.

A study of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles indicates that Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, crucified, dead and raised again, was the message of that era.

The Early Church was surrounded by social evils. Slavery, debauchery, drunkenness, political oppression, and dishonesty were all rampant.

But the “prophetic preaching” of the apostles was Jesus Christ and him crucified. They pointed men to the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of those that believe in him. They affirmed the historical accuracy and divine inspiration of the Old Testament writers and showed that the coming of Christ was worked out in the councils of eternity and foretold by the prophets of old.

There is little evidence that the early apostles were concerned with social engineering. They knew that the Gospel message, faithfully proclaimed, carried with it the blessing, power, and fruitage of the Holy Spirit. Their concern was with the message of personal redemption. Redeemed men, they believed, would meet head-on the social evils of every generation and work out solutions at the personal level in the light of the love of Christ.

Their attitude was a far cry from the “prophetic ministry” of the Church about which we hear so much today. Too often we are presented with an ethic without the dynamic to make that ethic a reality. Constantly we hear unregenerate men being challenged to live like Christians! How repeatedly are we told about the symptoms of the disease without adequate diagnosis of the disease itself. What emphasis there is on social evils without corresponding emphasis on the cleansing blood of Calvary.

Peter and John showed in their preaching and personal lives the evidence of a transforming faith and the power of the Holy Spirit. They affirmed: “We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard,” and the things had to do with redemption, not reformation.

Confronted with the evils by which they were surrounded, they preached the one thing that could bring about change.

My writing is a plea for a “prophetic” message and ministry that will place things in their proper perspective and logical order. The hearts of men must be changed before they can live as Christians; redemption must ride over reform.

Dr. Hugh Thompson Kerr has said: “We are sent not to preach sociology but salvation; not economics but evangelism; not reform but redemption; not culture but conversion; not progress but pardon; not the social order but the new birth; not an organization but a new creation; not democracy but the Gospel; not civilization but Christ. We are ambassadors, not diplomats.”

Somewhere along the line Protestantism has been led astray. The emphasis has been changed; ethic has been preached without the dynamic; the Gospel of Christian principles has been substituted for the Christ who makes such principles possible.

The diversion is found in new concepts of evangelism, missions, Christian education, and churchmanship. At the heart of the matter is an unbelievably clever philosophy of the Bible that takes from it its full integrity and authority; a method of “interpretation” that bewilders and beclouds; a substitution of ideas for facts, and of a God who works through events without there existing, they believe, any accurate record of those events.

But the question will be asked: Did not the prophets of old denounce the social sins of their times? Did not Nathan denounce David’s wickedness? Did not Hosea, Amos, and the other prophets inveigh against the social evils rampant in a people who had left God?

Yes. They spoke, as God inspired them to speak, of evils committed against fellow men because the people had left their God. They preached the judgment of God and also his love and forgiveness.

Between the prophetic preaching of the prophets of old and the “prophetic” preaching of today there are important differences. Men, inspired by God, preached personal righteousness in the light of God’s holiness, the sinfulness of man in the light of God’s judgment, and personal and national forgiveness in the light of divine mercy predicated on repentance. Here redemption was the key to reform; social reformation was no end in itself.

In the early days the Church was spoken of as a place where the Word was proclaimed, the Ordinances observed, and discipline administered. This is not the picture of twentieth century Protestantism. Only too often the Word is questioned, and the Ordinances and Sacraments are ritualized, while discipline is never heard of.

In both the Old and New Testaments there is found prophetic preaching which embodies a burning plea for righteousness at the personal as well as at the national level. Sin is never minimized, nor is it explained away; it is regarded for what it is—an offense against a holy God.

In such teaching and preaching there is no place where the right of God to act is questioned; nor is there ever an intimation that those who spoke for God spoke except at his behest and with his authority.

The question of “interpretation,” particularly of a form of “interpretation” which denies stated facts and construes them to mean something different, is never raised.

The prophetic affirmation, “Thus saith the Lord” carried conviction then, and it does the same today.

Ours is a time for prayer that within the Church there may be a revival of true Christianity. Once let the Church be set on fire and empowered by the Holy Spirit, and we shall begin to see marvelous changes in our social order, because Christians go out to act as “salt” and “light.”

Without a genuine revival within the Church, however, we are in grave danger of having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.

L. NELSON BELL

ORIENTATION

Empty quiet has returned to the base camp now that the expedition is launched. A crumpled check-list blows across the floor where the last foot-locker was packed. The assault up the stern brow of Parnassus has been renewed. The children are off to school, and our first freshman is in college.

Paternal sentimentality becomes irrepressible at this point. A scion of a college romance returning to the alma mater.… Dreamy college moon! The only cure for such reverie is reflection on the relief the young man must feel in escaping this parental solicitude which has been teetering on the brink of bathos. No doubt in modern scientific education a college moon is a satellite to be observed through a telescope, with a view to selecting a landing field.

Still, there is so much advice I should like to give about Getting the Most from College. Orientation courses are probably very effective these days. I hope so. I have a disquieting recollection of how our freshman class put an orientation lecturer to flight by thunderously applauding his every hapless truism about the Facts of Life.

Just in case the orientation people still have some trouble communicating with the younger generation, I should like to recommend a source in the book of Job. In chapter 28, Job describes a mining operation. He must have stood at a pit-head, for he speaks vividly of miners swinging down deep shafts, tunneling into the roots of mountains and stopping underground streams to rifle the vaults of the earth. It was an engineering marvel in the ancient Near East. We take mining for granted now, until a catastrophe reveals its hazards. Modern technology prefers swinging in orbit to swinging in shafts.

Job’s point, however, applies equally well. He reflects that while mountains of rock do not hide earth’s riches from men, there is a treasure which cannot be mined. Neither research nor engineering technology can lay bare the lode of wisdom.

Even Job’s friends understood that better than we. The urgent confusion of debates as to the purpose of education in the space age shows how little we grasp the meaning of wisdom. Wisdom is more than practical knowledge. It drinks from the undivided stream where thought and life flow from the throne of God.

Son, even at a Christian college you cannot find wisdom apart from the Son of God, in whom those treasures are hidden.

EUTYCHUS

DESPISED BRETHREN

Again CHRISTIANITY TODAY has brought to light an issue many would like to ignore … in Russell Jaberg’s “Is there Room for Fundamentalists?” (July 18 issue). I hope there will be some helpful dialogue regarding the status of this almost despised segment of the Christian Church.… By facing the issue squarely in an honest and objective discussion, much light might be shed on the currently popular quest as to the nature and mission of the Church.… [We might discover] a true scriptural concept of ecumenicity which God will own and which the indwelling Holy Spirit can give powerful expression and confirmation in the lives of individuals and the churches.

KENNETH HARRY

Vineyard Estates Baptist Church

Oxnard, Calif.

There are always two sides.… Let’s have the answer to the other and equally relevant question: “In fundamentalist life and program in the concept of their church, in the nature of the unity(?) they seek for Christians, is there room for any cooperative witness to the living Christ who not only prayed that they may be one, but is revealed as the Chief Cornerstone of one Church?”

This question is even more relevant than the one to which you devote an entire article. Particularly in a day when man is determined to split everything, from atoms to churches. To wit, MacIntyre, Kingfish of the great mythical ICCC, in his abortive attempts prior to the Baptist World Alliance in Brazil, or the more successful effort which resulted in a thriving Presbyterian Church in Mexico, located across from a Roman Catholic cathedral, being not only shut down, but whose windows and doors are boarded over—a monument to “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” at Collingswood—to say nothing of what he and his motley band of ecclesiastical vagrants are planning already in the light of Billy Graham’s Philadelphia Crusade in the summer of ’61.…

AUGUST F. BALLBACH, JR.

Brookhaven Baptist Church

Chester, Pa.

Apart from the fact that Dr. Jaberg … is guilty of dodging the main issue at several points, his article contains a proposition which the right wing of American Protestantism should have articulated decades ago—the practice of libeling a group of sincere, dedicated Christians by indiscriminately tagging them with a label with negative connotations.

Dr. Jaberg is annoyed that dubbing certain men “Fundamentalists” may put their “professional careers” in jeopardy. Those anxious to do battle for the Fundamentals have not only placed the status of the so-called “Modernists” in jeopardy, but have often called their eternal destiny in question. For raising honest questions about the Mosaic authorship of Genesis, one might be consigned to hellfire forever. I was once subjected to an inquisition for expressing doubts about the Pauline authorship of Hebrews.

If it is wrong to discredit sincere Christians by the epithet “Fundamentalist” it is just as evil to disparage other sincere Christians by the label “Modernist.”

W. B. UPHOLD

First Congregational Church

Fresno, Calif.

Russell L. Jaberg’s plea that there be room for Fundamentalists in the major denominations, involves a plea that “they are not seeking to start new controversies; they are seeking to stand in the biblical and theological traditions of the churches to which they belong.” But while Jaberg would plead for them to be given room in the inclusive church, the men in power in the denominations know better than Jaberg, from past experience, that Fundamentalists standing in the biblical tradition will not forever sit at the Lord’s Table with those who deny the truth of the Gospel. Sooner or later Galatians 1:8, 9 will come to their lips, and when that happens, the “inclusive” church becomes intolerant, as did the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in the expulsion of Machen in 1936.

EDWARDS E. ELLIOTT

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Garden Grove, Calif.

The article of Russell Jaberg immediately suggested the idea that another should be written on “Is There Room for Liberals?” If we think of the church as a world organization on the order of Romanism there is no room for “Fundamentalists.” If we think of the church as the “Body of Christ,” is there room for “Liberals?”

WILLIAM L. CARR

Calvary Baptist Church

Toppenish, Wash.

“Is There Room for Fundamentalists?” alone is worth the subscription price of CHRISTIANITY TODAY (even to a seminary student). Jaberg’s thesis that a “Fundamentalist” can be a sane, educated, and dedicated Christian must sound strange to many ears.…

BILL ANDERSON

Lorena, Tex.

‘MINISTERS ANONYMOUS’

Response to the article, “Ministers Anonymous” (July 18 issue) has been almost overwhelming. Some ministers are suggesting that we form a national organization to be known simply as “Ministers Anonymous.” The idea intrigues me. I would not want to get involved in any elaborate machinery but if we could set up a fellowship on the order of Elton Trueblood’s “Order of the Yoke” I think this might be practicable. I would like to receive reactions to the general idea.

JOHN ROSSELL

The Federated Church of Harvey

Congregational and Presbyterian

Harvey, Ill.

After reading John Rossell’s “Ministers Anonymous” I wondered how some preachers find time to write articles and serve their people. I do not see how they can do both.

EDWARD B. HOLLENBECK

Benton, Ark.

John Rossell was extremely effective in clearing the air for me as a busy pastor. He made me realize the real objectives of the often thankless pastoral mission. We want no horns blown in our behalf. We just want to be left alone long enough to seek out and save the lost, and heal broken hearts with the Word of Life.

FRANK I. BLANKLEY

First Wesleyan Methodist Church

Syracuse, N. Y.

As a young minister I find I am more and more concerned with ecclesiastical politics and … with church programs.… Do we not need to realize that our Lord’s standards of greatness and success—namely, gentleness and love, a cup of cold water in His name, fruitful study and proclamation of the Word in demonstration of the Spirit’s power—may be a far cry from some of our modern standards? May the number of “Ministers Anonymous” increase.

C. FERRIS JORDAN

New Hope Baptist Church

Franklinton, La.

AS IN DAYS OF THE JUDGES

I approved in general of your editorial “Is The Church Confusing the Body and the Head” (July 18 issue). But I personally have not yet seen, after over 40 years’ ministry, a church that deserves demoting. My work has been done in typical Protestant communities where the Roman Catholic Church was weak or non-existent.

There is the other side, from my viewpoint, of the Church Dominant. It is that of the Church Belittled. And I believe this is due to the fact that the Church has lacked self-discipline. It has permitted its members to be like the people in days of the Judges, who did every man that which was “right in his own eyes.” And the multiplicity of sects, sometimes called erroneously “churches,” has tended to break down the authority and the respectability of the Church.

It is my conclusion after all these years of struggle, that it may be too late for Protestantism—or nearly so. The people don’t really respect their own churches. They love their ministers in the personal capacity. But in the official capacity there is much to be desired. The doctrine of a strong Church—or, to say it better—a strong doctrine of the Church needs to be preached.

C. G. MCKNIGHT

Gibson, Iowa

SUNDAY SPORT

After thirty-two years in the work of impressing upon people the value and need of the Christian Sunday I must admit the letter of Donald Dee Shinnick is the most interesting and amazing I have ever read (Eutychus, July 4 issue).

Jesus preached more about the Sabbath than any other subject in his short ministry upon earth; He used the Day to help the sick, suffering and discouraged, and there is not one shred of evidence that He ever commercialized the Day. When we become Christians we become followers of Christ and follow His example. Where would our nation be if everyone used the Day the way Donald Dee Shinnick does? How could we develop spiritual life? How could the Church properly call the people to God?

I would suggest that Mr. Shinnick read the pages of history, and see what has happened to nations who misused the Day of the Lord when sports and games took the time of the people.

ROBERT S. WOMER Editor

The Sunday Guardian

Newark, N. J.

The only encouraging thing in his statement was the fact that he plans to enter seminary for study. Let us hope that this brother will be taught a better understanding of the Bible and the principles of Christianity.

WILLIAM A. POWELL

Chicago Southern Baptist Association

Chicago, Ill.

DIM VIEW OF BRIGHT

The issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY for May 9 contains a highly commendatory review of John Bright’s A History of Israel. The reviewer states that “this is one of the few great books in the field of Old Testament study.”

In order to set the record straight, it will be well to consider what must be regarded as covered by the reviewer’s statement, “Scholars will naturally not go along with him (Bright) at all points.” Following are some of the “points.” Bright accepts the documentary analysis of the Pentateuch substantially in the form which goes back to Wellhausen. He dates J in the 10th century B.C. and thinks that it cannot be proved that E is younger than J. Back of the documents there is, he tells us, a long period of oral tradition. But he holds that the study of these traditions by the Form Critic must be based on the documentary analysis. He holds that archaeological research has established the correctness of the background of the traditions of the patriarchal period. But how undependable he holds them to be at times is indicated by such a statement as, “Theologically legitimate though it may be to do so, it is not historically accurate to say that the God of patriarchs was Yahweh,” when studied in the light of Genesis 24:3, or for the Exodus period such a statement as “The number that participated in the exodus was hardly more than a very few thousand,” in the light of Exodus 12:37 (cf. the censuses in Num. 1 and 2).

Bright holds that Deuteronomy, or the early form of it, originated in the Northern Kingdom, was brought to Jerusalem after the fall of Samaria, and that it or an expansion of it became the basis of Josiah’s reform. He treats P as exilic or post-exilic. The Historical Books (Joshua to Kings) he calls “the Deuteronomistic history,” which means that they were written or compiled in accordance with the viewpoint of the reformers of Josiah’s day and consequently misrepresent the real course of the history. The question of the unity of Isaiah is ignored. It is assumed that Deutero-Isaiah begins at chapter 40. As to a Trito-Isaiah, the writer is not so positive, but he is disposed to favor it, and he dates chapters 24–27 in the post-exilic period along with Joel and Jonah. Daniel he describes as “the latest of the Old Testament books.”

The treatment of Daniel illustrates one of the major defects of the book. The reviewer assures the reader that “The footnotes are virtually a syllabus for a graduate course in Old Testament history, and they cover the field magnificently.” This statement should be modified to read, “and they cover the field of critical scholarship magnificently.” References to books and articles written from the conservative viewpoint are few and far between. Great stress is placed on the archaeological evidence. But in dealing with Daniel, for example, not a word is said about the confirmations of the historicity of the book by recent discoveries. R. D. Wilson, Boutflower, Dougherty, and E. J. Young are completely ignored. We are told, for example, that “No Jew would have had any difficulty in understanding the figure of Antiochus behind that of Nebuchadnezzar.” We would like to ask Dr. Bright what evidence he has to show that any Jews before the rise of modern higher criticism “understood” Nebuchadnezzar in that way.

These few examples will suffice to indicate that there are many important “points” at which conservative scholars “will naturally not go along with” Dr. Bright. If this book is to “supersede” all other books in the Old Testament field, this can only mean that what is commonly called “higher criticism” is to continue indefinitely to cast its dark shadow over the pages of the Old Testament.

OSWALD T. ALLIS

Wayne, Pa.

BALM OF GILEAD

Many of your readers trying to orally ingest this material (Christian Psychotherapy, June 20 issue) into their intellectual craw, will suffer from acute psychological indigestion.…

No one can sensibly deny the contribution trained psychiatrists and psychologists have made and are making in the healing of sick minds and emotions. The ministry has another field for its labor which can be a valuable help in working side by side with them. There is a sickness of personality caused by sin; it involves guilt which only the Gospel can resolve and clear up. Phychiatrists and psychologists have their place, but they can never replace the Balm of Gilead administered by the Great Physician.

WALTER BRUGGEMAN

Chicago, Ill.

RED PROPAGANDA

Your Protestant Panorama item of June 6 about the Soviet embassy release of 8,000 feet of film showing a worship service in Moscow’s Baptist Church … is a Communist No. 1 exhibit to create a false impression that there is religious freedom in this officially atheistic country.

A friend of mine who recently took a Communist government sponsored tour of Czechoslovakia found that—

Church members are under pressure to sever relations with their churches if they wish to hold jobs.

Church members are under penalty if they invite others to church.

There is no freedom of speech or press. Pastors are not permitted to publicize their services.

Church publications and Sunday School material can be neither printed nor distributed.

Pastors are under a heavy penalty for praying in a home or inviting anyone to church.

If a high school youth does not sever connection with his church he is denied further education.

All non-Communist congregations are very small.

To obtain a permit for the repair of a church is an exceedingly difficult task.

ROBERT W. YOUNG

North Presbyterian Church

Pittsburgh, Pa.

TRAGIC BIFURCATION

If the modern Christians desire to be realistic, they must decide whether they will worship and believe firmly in God—or in Jesus. No one can serve two Masters—sincerely. God needs no assistants. Santa Monica, Calif.

LOUIS BERGER

In the pamphlet “Winning the Jew” issued by the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, there appears the statement: “At present there are more than 5,500,000 Jews in America. Our Baptist theology teaches us that they are lost without hope, without Jesus Christ as their Saviour.”

This sounds like a voice from the Dark Ages. It was precisely such a belief that was responsible, directly or indirectly, for the persecution and massacre of millions of Jews throughout the ages.

SAMUEL NEWMAN

Danville, Va.

• The motivation of the Baptist quotation is the commission that fell from the lips of the greatest of all Jews, Jesus of Nazareth, which propelled another Jew, Paul of Tarsus, through the Mediterranean world with the conviction that he was debtor both to Jew and Greek.

—ED.

THEY HOPE IN HIS MERCY

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the splendid editorial “God’s Judgment on the Summit” (June 6 issue).

Even as God was willing to spare Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of His people, so He will consider any country where His people reside. Christians can make a contribution to their country far above and beyond that of the non-Christian citizen in the Christian life they live. The Psalmist expresses it well when he writes, “The Lord delighteth not in the strength of the horse: He taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man. The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear Him, in those that hope in His mercy” (Psalm 147:10–11).

What tremendous power America has in its Christian people! If Christian people would just awake to this hour and serve God we would have no need to stand in fear of this country’s future.

WM. G. KENNELL

The Lutheran Church of the Epiphany (Missouri Synod)

Montgomery, Ala.

THE RESURRECTED ONE

Thanks for the review by Dr. Wilbur Smith of Weatherhead’s, The Manner of the Resurrection (Apr. 11 issue). I paid only a dollar for the book but found in it at least $10.00 worth of pseudoscientific, psychical nonsense that I could preach against.

I’m sure that if Mr. Weatherhead would truly meet the “Man” of the resurrection, he would more candidly understand the “manner” of the resurrection.

JOHN R. TERRELL

Riverside Brethren Church

Johnstown, Pa.

SURPRISING IMPRESSION

As I have read CHRISTIANITY TODAY I have been much impressed by the surprising similarity of the social goals of Conservative and Liberal Christians.… On the problem of the growing statism of this country … as a liberal I am interested to find that the most concerned men are those of very conservative theology, particularly the Lutherans.

HARRY R. BUTMAN

The Congregational Church of the Messiah

Los Angeles, Calif.

The Evangelical Ministerial Association of Fort Wayne has discovered some startling things regarding the separation of church and state. It is amazing to find even the Lutherans of our city accepting government help in the transportation of their parochial school students and regard this as no violation of the separation of the church and state.

JAMES KOFAHL

Assembly of God Church

Fort Wayne, Ind.

UNBIBLICAL RATIONALISM?

I have been disturbed by what I read.… Lest you think that you are receiving a letter from a disgruntled liberal, may I identify myself as a pastor of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. What disturbs me in your magazine is not its repudiation of liberalism, but the failure to distinguish the different forms of liberalism and its continual attempts to replace it with a very narrow and, for me, unbiblical rationalism. You treat the Christian message as though it were some sort of supernatural truth, rather than the Biblical witness to the enduring Christ.

DALE G. LASKY

Church of the Good Shepherd

Hamden, Conn.

It most certainly is the best Christian publication we know of, and it seems so good to see it direct itself to all denominations.

H. J. AAFTINK

St. Andrew’s United Church

Kaslo, British Columbia

Your publication is much appreciated and very stimulating. In this age of doubt, which latter like a creeping paralysis seems to get into so many books and periodicals, it is refreshing to find articles in CHRISTIANITY TODAY to be written by men of both faith and scholarship.

JOHN P. POSNO

St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church

Rose Bay, Nova Scotia

In the field of evangelical journalism, your magazine has transformed a glaring gap into a proud pinnacle.

W. G. MULLINAX

Rustburg, Va.

OPEN LETTER TO SEN. KENNEDY

I have addressed this letter to Senator John F. Kennedy and feel it is of sufficient importance to justify public consideration.

CHARLES CLAYTON MORRISON

Dear Senator Kennedy:

During your successful campaign for the Presidential nomination you publicly stated that you believe in the principle of separation of church and state. I am addressing this Open Letter to you in the hope that your comments and answers to my questions may clarify certain matters systematically ignored in political discussion on the ground that this discussion involves a so-called “religious issue.” But if the intentions, purposes, and objectives of a particular religion are or are believed to be incompatible with the American Constitution, it must be dealt with on the political level and by forthright political discussion. To ignore it because of its religious context is irresponsible and evasive. I believe that the American electorate will thank you, as I do, for your considered attention to the matters which I wish to bring before you.

First, I would respectfully direct your attention to a statement on church-state separation made by the American Roman Catholic hierarchy, consisting of the bishops, archbishops, and cardinals of the American Church. The statement was published in The New York Times of November 21, 1948. It declared that the conception of separation of church and state was a “shibboleth of doctrinaire secularism”; that it was neither a literal nor a historically correct interpretation of the First Amendment to the Constitution; that it is a “novel” interpretation and of recent origin; that it is a modern invention of the opponents of religion and is itself unconstitutional. The statement went on to say that the Supreme Court was in error when, in an 8 to 1 decision in the McCollum case, it declared that “separation” meant that the state could not constitutionally aid one church or some churches or all churches without violating the Constitution. The hierarchy announced its determination to work “patiently, peaceably and perseveringly” for the reversal of the Court’s decree. Question: Can you, Senator Kennedy, reconcile your belief in the separation of church and state with this authoritative position of your church; or do you repudiate it for yourself?

The Meaning Of “Separation”

Your public statement that you believed in the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state has been received with uncritical satisfaction by some and bewilderment by others. It is my desire in addressing you to clarify your position by directing your attention to some concrete and specific situations in which the principle of church-state separation is involved so closely that it can be detached from its religious context and considered as a simple political question.

Our correspondence, Senator Kennedy, will be more constructive if we try to get a clear conception of the meaning of church-state separation. I will lead off by saying that “separation” does not mean that church and state may not talk to each other! The church is continually and vigorously telling the state what it ought to do! And the state frequently tells the church by court decisions what it may or may not do. Nor does separation mean that church and state may not cooperate in certain ways such as the military chaplaincy and numerous other ways.

Separation of church and state means that at no point shall their respective jurisdictions be interlocked, or fused or otherwise united in support of any church, its doctrines or institutions or projects. The Constitution gives complete freedom to the church in the area of religion, as it defines and limits the powers of the state itself. This, I take it, is the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution which forbids Congress to make any law “respecting”—that is, tending toward or pertaining to—“the establishment of religion.”

Moreover, separation does not mean that the state may not itself perform religious acts, and our government has always performed them: Thanksgiving Day proclamations, chaplaincies in Congress and the armed forces, inauguration of the President accompanied by prayer, “In God we trust” on our coins, “So help me God” in the oath, and perhaps many others. These religious acts the state performs in its own way and without the slightest fusion or interlocking of its juridiction with the jurisdiction of any church. It is in the use of public funds to finance or aid a church or churches or church-related institutions or projects that the jurisdictions of church and state are most likely to overlap and thus violate the First Amendment. In our United States we have a free church along side of a free state, both in a free society.

Question: Do you agree with the above statement as to the meaning of separation? If not, will you state your own conception of the meaning of church-state separation?

Relations With The Vatican

Americans have always assumed that a President’s religion, or the lack of it, was a personal and private matter unrelated to his office or his official duties. Your public statement that if you are elected you would not appoint an ambassador to the Vatican has been received with satisfaction. Important as your pledge seems to be, it is actually superfluous. The Papacy could hardly imagine a better line of communication with the government of the United States than your Presidency would provide.

The Roman Catholic Church claims to be and is in fact a political state as well as a church. Its capital is Vatican City. It exchanges ambassadors with the leading nations of the world, the United States excepted. It should be made clear that you have no need of an ambassador to the Vatican, because you in yourself, as President, are such an ambassador. Indeed, you would be the first President of the United States to combine in yourself a dual political allegiance—one to your country, the other to the Vatican State. You would have more intimate entree to the Vatican than any politically appointed ambassador would enjoy. You would be our first President to kneel before anyone other than God. You would be our first President whose oath of allegiance to the Constitution would be qualified by his prior and equally sacred allegiance to another State. This is not a fiction, but a realistic political fact.

A request: I will be sincerely grateful if you will show me that I am wrong in the above paragraph.

Suppression of Personal Freedom

Another issue that emerges in connection with your candidacy, Senator Kennedy, is the authoritative clamp which your church places upon the personal liberty of the faithful. I refer to just one of numerous instances of invasion of the dignity of the American citizen by prohibiting him from entering a Protestant or other non-Catholic church. Disobedience to this prohibition is a sin that requires absolution in the confessional. It is hard for most Americans to believe that any of their fellow citizens in this land of liberty can be so cowed by ecclesiastical authority. But every Protestant minister knows of such examples. The interdiction of attendance upon the Billy Graham revival in New York issued by a Prelate of the Church is a case in point. Question: Do you, Senator Kennedy, approve of the restraint upon personal liberty exercised authoritatively, as for example, by the aforementioned instance?

Public Versus Parochial Schools

An alien phenomenon in our American democracy is the wide-spread withdrawal of Roman Catholic children from the public schools into Catholic parochial schools. Our public school system is an expression and a guarantee of our democratic government and a prime factor in maintaining our cultural unity. The public school has been rightly called the “melting pot” in which the immigration of heterogeneous cultures of many countries is fused in a national unity. This unity does not mean and has never meant cultural conformity. It has meant and has produced cultural freedom. The parochial school of the Catholic Church is oriented to an exactly opposite goal, namely, the fixation of the mind in every generation in the mold of its childhood dependence upon an authority in the field of religion. This is the field in which the greater problems of life arise. The technique for this procedure includes teachers dressed in conspicuously unfamiliar garb, and a pedagogy—not precisely of “brain-washing” but of brain-conditioning against infection by the democratic principle of personal responsibility and freedom.

The political effect of this denial of free intercourse with the environing community, produces a self-enclosed enclave within the democratic community which can neither assimilate nor be fully assimilated in the free society of American democracy. Canon Law 1374 forbids Catholic parents to send their children to public school (elementary, secondary or college) unless permission is granted by the bishop. The attitude of the Catholic Church toward the public school was recently vividly expressed.

On June 6, 1960 Archbishop Joseph E. Ritter of St. Louis issued a pastoral letter which rigorously applied to the young people of his area prohibition of their enrollment at public universities or other non-Catholic colleges. His directive read: “No student may attend a non-Catholic college or university unless he or she has obtained written permission. Permission will be granted only in individual cases and for just and serious reasons.”

In twenty of our states nuns dressed in their conspicuously distinctive attire are teaching in so-called public schools. They are teaching just enough of the subject matter to meet the requirements of state law, the remainder being subject matter taken over from the curriculum of the Catholic parochial schools. (A side-light on this situation is the fact that the nuns are paid the same salary as other teachers which they turn over to the church, retaining only the pittance which these dedicated women sworn to poverty receive from their order. These public tax funds are used to maintain this obvious violation of separation of church and state.)

Question: Will you, Senator Kennedy, if you become President, disavow your church’s boycott of this fundamental American institution, the public school?

Federal Aid to Education

It is unnecessary to remind you, a Senator, of the long and oft-repeated effort to secure Federal aid to public education, especially needed in those states whose resources are inadequate for the support of a standard educational system. I do not raise the question of the desirability or otherwise of such action by the Federal government. I would however, respectfully direct your attention to the long and often-defeated efforts to secure from Congress the required action for an appropriation of Federal funds for this purpose. These efforts were repeatedly defeated by a minority opposed on principle added to a minority which demanded that the appropriation should apply to parochial as well as publicly-supported schools. In view of the great need to level-up the standard of public education throughout the nation, I respectfully ask you the following question.

Question: If you are elected President will you oppose attempts to appropriate Federal funds for parochial schools?

Land Grants To Churches

You, no doubt, are fully acquainted with the practice of land grants by city, state or federal governments to educational institutions. I would invite your attention to the case of St. Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri. There, under a federal redevelopment project, a very valuable tract in the project was set aside exclusively for St. Louis University, a Roman Catholic institution, at a ridiculously low price, not at all commensurate with present land values in the area for any purpose. No provision was made for competitive bidding as to this particular tract, which was sold to the University at approximately one-tenth of its real value.

Also allow me to direct your attention to the case of a new Presbyterian College in St. Petersburg, Florida. The trustees of this institution, unaware of any legal principle involved, accepted the gift by the city of a tract of land as the site of their new Presbyterian college. Later, on being convinced that this was a violation of the principle of church-state separation, they returned to the city the deed and assumed without court action an obligation to pay a half-million dollars for the property.

Question: Will you, Senator Kennedy, please comment briefly on the implications of the Presbyterian procedure in contrast with that of the Roman Catholic Church in these land grant matters?

The Brandy-Making Monks

The monastic order of Monks, The Christian Brothers, in California, produces what is said by experts to be the finest brandy in this country. The federal government is pressing a claim for unpaid taxes amounting to one and three-quarter million dollars. These taxes have not been paid on the ground that their monastery is a religious institution. The law specifically provides a limit on which a commercial income may be tax-exempt. I believe there are similar evasions of taxes by churches (not all of them Roman Catholic).

Question: Will you, Senator Kennedy, if you become President, give your moral support to the activity now under way to discover and prosecute, if necessary, such violations of church-state separation?

Religion in Politics

In your speech accepting the Democratic nomination, you expressed satisfaction that the “religious question” had not been raised in your candidacy for the nomination, the implication being that it would not or should not be raised in your campaign for election. The “religious issue” has not entered decisively or conspicuously in any presidential campaign except in 1928 when Al Smith, a Roman Catholic, was the Democratic standard bearer. It is relevant for us to inquire why the religious issue arises chiefly in the form of opposition to a Catholic candidate. Our Presidents from the beginning have represented a wide variety of religious affiliations—Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Disciples of Christ, Unitarian, Reformed, Quaker—not to mention others. Their religion does not create a “religious issue.” Why does the “religious issue” emerge only when your church is involved? The answer is that all these other churches are content to live and work in the open domain of religious liberty which the state is forbidden to enter and the churches may not lawfully transgress. (I do not wish to be too complimentary, for there is a constant tendency for some Protestant churches to seek the backing of government aid for their otherwise laudable purposes.)

But your church, Mr. Kennedy, has no such inhibition on this score because it is itself a state, and its ultimate power is political, not religious. The Roman Catholic church does not feel at home in a thoroughgoing democratic society. Its hierarchy confesses quite frankly that it is uncomfortable, but it “adapts itself” to whatever political system beside which it lives, awaiting the time when, by concordat or by actual acceptance, it may attain its never-forgotten goal. It is the First Amendment to our Constitution (God be thanked for it!) that is the American bulwark of our religious liberty. A Request: I would be pleased if you would comment on my statement of the religious issue in politics.

The Deeper Concern

The specific issues which I have brought to your attention are only samples of many others which, if I included them, would unprofitably prolong this letter. But there is a single matter which comprehends them all. I refer to the monarchical structure and character of the Roman Catholic Church itself. The American mind wants to believe that its democratic structure is able to maintain itself in competition with any kind of a controlled society. But now there looms up in our midst this self-enclosed monarchical society, which, aided by our perhaps all too hospitable immigration policy, is steadily withdrawing from the general democratic process and asserting its right at many points to control it and swerve it from its native course.

The preceding matters upon which I have asked your opinion, my dear Senator, are only the visible manifestations of the deeper concern which American democracy feels toward the Roman Catholic Church itself. It has become clear to a large public that the very structure of this authoritarian church-state puts it outside of and inimical to a democratic structure of society.

What you are confronting as a candidate for the Presidency are not merely the disparate issues, samples of which I have enumerated. You are confronting a state of mind that fears you because it sees behind you the facade of a monarchical system which is both a church and a state. Moreover, it sees this structure defended by a Jesuitical ethic and logic with which the vocabulary of democracy cannot converse.

It is becoming clear that democracy faces two powerful monarchical competitions in our time—the Communist Dictatorship and the Infallible Papacy. Both control vast populations. Karl Marx could have had the Roman Catholic Church in mind as a pattern for the structure of his Communist dictatorship of the proletariat. The structures through which authority and power flow down to the people are alike and the end effect of both is to keep the people in bondage—the one through fear, the other through faith.

What I want now to say in conclusion is that if the American people elect you as their President, they unawarely but inescapably invite your church, if not to the council chamber of our democracy, at least to its threshold.

I beg you, Senator Kennedy, to believe that my political opinion in the matters which concern the separation of church and state is not an expression of what is meant by the term “anti-catholicism.” Our religious differences are profound, but we could live with them and meet each other in mutual friendship and fruitful conversation in the domain of religious liberty which your faith and mine enjoy in this American democracy. I hope you will feel that you can reply to my questions in the same spirit of mutual respect in which I have laid them before you.

CHARLES CLAYTON MRRISON

Chicago, Ill.

• Dr. Morrison was founder and for 40 years Editor of The Christian Century. He is honorary president of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State. CHRISTIANITY TODAY has advised Senator Kennedy that its pages are open to him for any reply he wishes to make.

—ED.

Unemployment is a perennial problem in the world economy, but nowhere is it a more poignant tragedy than in the Christian Church. And what deepens the tragedy of evangelical idleness is the fact that it is so unnecessary because it springs from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Church.

To the average man, the “work of the church” involves serving on the official boards, teaching in the Sunday School, singing in the choir, or ushering. The work of the church has come to mean what the church is doing for herself through the maintenance of her own life and program and organization. The impression prevails today that the church is an institution preoccupied mainly with her own survival. A patronizing attitude rises toward the church, and groups of citizens feel that the church “certainly should receive more support than she does from the community.” The church is thus regarded as an entity separate and distinct from those who compose her. She is seen as an institution—one of many community organizations—that ought to be supported by the community along with all the other organizations.

Whether local or national, the church is viewed as an agency to be served, in direct contrast to the New Testament view of the church as a servant.

ONE VIEW OF THE MATTER

Prospective applicants for church membership generally evaluate a church in one of two ways: “What can the church do for me?” or “What can I do for the church?” They think of the church as an institution that does something for them or for which they are expected to do something. The number is legion of those who go to church—or don’t go—with an eye on what the church will do for them; and numberless others are idle because they are unable to find anything “to do for the church.”

Burdened pastors are soon exhausted by the effort of finding something for activistic members to do so they can be “working for the church.” Many a pastor’s effectiveness is diminished or destroyed because of the pressure of finding a way to keep people “busy for the church.” If he is not careful, his pastoral duties suffer and he is pressed into the role of personnel manager who, in a kind of quiet desperation, must invent jobs to satisfy the insatiable appetite of members who crave “work in the church.” Special committees plan special programs to integrate new members (old ones too) into the “work of the church.” Yet, despite all the ingenious activity, the task is a hopeless one, for there simply is not enough “work” in the church to absorb the membership.

The frustration is vividly dramatized by two situations. For nine years the writer was a member of the staff of a church of 7,000 members, said to be the largest in my denomination. If one in four were male members, there were about 1,750 men in the church. The official boards enlisted 90, there were about 30 men in the choir, 15 in the Men’s Council, 20 ushers, and perhaps 150 to 200 teachers and officers in the Sunday School. The church, in other words, required a work force of about 300 to 350 men (the figure is actually exaggerated, since many of the officers also sang in the choir, ushered, and taught Sunday School). This left 14000–1500 men without “jobs in the church”—1400–1500 unemployed Christians, if the work of the church is assessed in terms of the official boards, choirs, ushering, and teaching.

At present the writer is pastoring a church of approximately 700 members, of whom more than 200 are men. The official boards comprise 36 men, the other “jobs” require 40 more. This means that three-fifths of the men are doomed to idleness so far as “the work of the church,” as commonly understood, is concerned. A perceptive church member will quickly see that, by the law of averages, there is little chance for “a challenging opportunity to work for the church.” And a serious-minded pastor who accepts this view of the work of the church will get tied up in knots trying to find things for men to do before interest evaporates.

Generally, the men who are called into leadership in the upper echelons of their denomination are men who have been “proved” (to use a church administrator’s term) at the local level. This means that the “working force” of the denomination is in inverse ratio to its membership in the levels above the local congregation. No matter how much a church grows, the work force remains relatively static. Literally millions of members will never have an opportunity to do “the work of the church.” Many, unwilling to be idle, become busy in civic and community activities which lack any direct relation to the church and which, in some cases, become competitive and woo members from the church. To be sure, some are content to occupy a pew for an hour on Sunday morning and let this crown their religious activity. They patronize a religion that makes no demands, carries no obligations. Their discontent increases whenever the program of the church threatens their status quo.

But others will never be satisfied to vegetate in the pew, for they dignify life with a purpose that demands their utmost dedication and allegiance. And if they cannot find this expression in the church, they will seek it elsewhere! They will not wait indefinitely to be involved, especially when it becomes apparent how few demanding jobs exist in their church in ratio to the available manpower. Life’s greatest challenge then lies outside the church, in business and industry and the professions, which demand man’s highest concentration of energy and ability.

INSTITUTIONALIZING THE CHURCH

Paralleling the misconception of the “work of the church” is a corresponding notion that the real influence of the church in the world is institutional. To exert an influence commensurate with her claims, the church must therefore strengthen herself. The effort to increase her influence then involves preoccupation with herself—with her own strength and size and efficiency. The church becomes an agency to be served instead of the servant her Lord intended. And she is a stranger to the priceless lesson on grace learned by the Apostle Paul: “My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness.”

The real impact of the Church on the world is not institutional! The real impact of the Church is not that of world councils or national councils or denominational councils, necessary though they be. The real impact of the Church on the world is not the influence of a gigantic, monolithic organization overwhelming the opposition like a juggernaut by the sheer might of her size and power. Neither the influence of council or clergy, nor the influence of church boards or administrators, is her power index.

The authentic impact of the Church of Jesus Christ in the world is the collective influence of individual Christians right where they are, day in, day out. Doctors, lawyers, merchants, farmers, teachers, accountants, laborers, students, politicians, athletes, clerks, executives—by the tens of thousands, by the millions—quietly, steadily, continually, consistently infecting the world where they live with a cantagious witness of the contemporary Christ and his relevance to life.

God’s method is men, not machinery. God has his men everywhere! They are there everyday, quietly invading their worlds for Christ—beachheads of the Kingdom in business, education, government, labor, and the professions established by regenerate men doing their job daily to the glory of God as servants of Jesus Christ. This is the work of the Church!

It is not what goes on when the Christian occupies the pew that counts, but what he does when he leaves the pew; not what happens in the sanctuary, but when the sanctuary is deserted. The measure of the effectiveness of the sanctuary on Sunday is its carry-over downtown Monday through Saturday. Indeed, the measure of the pastor’s effectiveness in the pulpit is the measure of what happens when he has stopped preaching. Everything done inside the church and for the church is in order that the real work of the Church might be done in the world. The work of the official boards, teachers and officers, choirs and ushers is the means to the end of the church’s work.

The work of the Church means a perpetual witness next door and around the world, the daily, consistent Christlike influence of every Christian in his home, on his job, in his social circle, around the clock, seven days a week, to the glory of God. This is the work of the Church and it requires every member! Evangelism is everybody’s business in the Church, the task of every Christian without a single exception. The relatively few who are employed in “official business” are there to equip the whole membership to do the work of the Church everywhere.

Unemployment in the Church will be eliminated as the Church abandons secular ambitions of bigness and institutional influence, as she “apprehends that for which Christ has apprehended her,” and then dedicates and equips herself to do the thing her Lord commissioned her to do in the beginning. “Ye shall be witnesses unto me.…”

“When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. His gifts unto men were varied. Some he made special messengers, some prophets, some preachers of the Gospel; to some he gave the power to guide and teach his people. His gifts were made that Christians might be properly equipped for their service, that the whole Body might be built up until the time comes when, in the unity of common faith and common knowledge of the Son of God, we arrive at real maturity …” (Eph. 4:8, 11–13, Phillips).

Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.

At a joint meeting of scientists and theologians, devoted to better understanding of one another’s work and to clarifying tensions between the scientific and theological disciplines, one scientist insistently repeated the question: “How can I, as a Christian, conduct my research to the glory of God? What must I do different than non-Christian scientists?” Because the main discussion was pointed another way, and perhaps because others were taken somewhat by surprise, the question remained largely unanswered—despite its repetition by the inquirer, once with the implication that perhaps one had better desert scientific endeavor if no clear answer could be given.

The question could probably have been differently phrased, but it needed answering. In a sense, the devout scientist has no greater problem than other Christians in any lawful occupation. Thinking Christians will always be concerned with the problem of relating their faith to daily life, of finding the best ways and means by which the Gospel may be reflected in their daily tasks. It is the old problem of letting the light so shine that the Father may be glorified. But strong feelings have developed over the years in some tension areas, and scientists who are Christians are sensitive to the problems which their discipline has created for theology. The more active and sincere their Christian faith, the greater is the urgency in their thinking on this requirement of their vocation.

NON-CHRISTIAN APPROACH

For the non-Christian, science is an empirical activity whereby one tries to enhance his approximation of what he thinks is a reasonable explanation of the world about him. The activity includes careful observation, creative imagination, hunches, trial and error, instrumentation, controlled experimentation, mathematical analysis, and logical deduction. For the most part, the endeavor is intellectually honest and is pursued by individuals for a variety of reasons—for example, to enjoy it, to effect some psychological compensation, to satisfy curiosity and reduce ignorance, or for prestige or remuneration. There are many reasons why most of us keep at the particular job or profession we prefer. But the non-Christian, since he is unregenerate, tries to suppress any thoughts within him that there is a Supreme Being, a Creator who transcends the material world, and who may not be truly known through avenues of knowledge which lead to empirical understanding of our world.

THE BELIEVER’S APPROACH

For the man who knows God and believes in his redemptive power, science is all of the things previously mentioned, plus something more. It is an activity whereby he increases his knowledge of God’s creation. He knows that this is a fallen creation, but he avoids the danger of considering it so corrupt that he cannot get a glimpse of the truth through open inquiry. Thus in his research he tries to increase, albeit indirectly, his knowledge and understanding of God.

For the Christian, such an outlook or starting point makes a great deal of difference. He realizes that his efforts in a particular science will be limited, that his methods are fallible, and that even the most rigorous experimental and statistical technique may be subject to valid criticism if appraised from some reference frame outside its own postulates. Furthermore, he knows that induction and deduction both have inherent limitations, and that models or theories developed from either mode of logic contain the cumulation of all original error plus errors within the theories themselves. Because no model or theory, therefore, ever fits all of the data perfectly, its service can be merely that of a map, a guide, or an approximation.

RELIABLE AUTHORITY

Realization of such limitations will cause the Christian scientists to follow one of the operational concepts of science, namely, that of reserved judgment and tentative conclusions. He will never knowlingly venture conclusions and generalizations that go beyond what the data permit. But he will follow the operational concept for an altogether different reason than does the non-Christian. The skepticism and caution of the latter are based on an inherent scorn for all authority. The former realizes that there is only one reliable authority, namely, divine authority. He will therefore tend in his theoretical projections to be guided by other criteria than the popular one which states that an hypothesis is good if it works. His hypothesis will be tempered by ultimate implications, if these are foreseeable. In so thinking, he is not only being a good Christian but realistic, for many are the hypotheses that have been workable but completely unconformable with the facts later discovered. In many cases such facts have been useful scientifically because they have stimulated further research. But the fine line between workability and representation of reality is often overlooked, and right here great harm has been done to the cause of truth and spiritual values, which are quite obviously the deep concern of the believing scientist.

Thus, scientific methodology and philosophy cannot always be neatly paralleled by the believing scientist. He considers his work justified by the biblical precept that whatsoever he does, he does to the glory of God; and he firmly believes that his vocation is honorable and pleasing to God because it flows from a regenerate heart committed to the service of God and man. His science will therefore be moral, not amoral, the latter being an avowed operating conception of non-Christian science. Yet, because his pursuit is moral does not mean he needs to moralize over every minor observation he records nor every conclusion he reaches. Such a procedure would stand in the way of effective work. Although science has more than once been accused of assuming some of the characteristics of a religious cult, its whole atmosphere discourages moralizing. Real scientific generalizations have a way of sifting themselves out and becoming established on their own merits. But the Christian scientist will seek to find the moral implications of his work and those of other scientists, and the norm which he applies in making such evaluations will be the principles of revealed truth.

In short, what the Christian scientist does is outwardly no different from what any scientist does. Both receive the same training, read the same instruments, apply and examine the same laws, and experiment with the same matter. If the methods of science are at all valid in their own realm, both will arrive at the same generalizations and laws. But there is an essential difference between the two because each will be working for a different reason and with a different purpose. The believing scientist is actually the better equipped because the Christian virtues of integrity and personal humility are his by deep conviction rather than adopted because scientific circles advise them.

A careful and considered answer to the question of the Christian scientist in his vocation is much needed in our day. Even agnostic scientists in the midst of modern research are asking for consideration of the moral implications before certain areas are fully explored. They have seen enough to have become cautious and even apprehensive. The beacon of scientific illumination followed by responsible moral behavior no longer shines as clearly as was once hoped. In the years to come, humanly speaking, the welfare of many will depend upon scientists who are more than scientists because they are conducting their research for a good reason and with an eternal purpose. Such scientists need an answer to the question, “How can I, as a Christian, conduct my research to the glory of God?” The answer can come only from Him whose handiwork they probe, and from his will reflected in the attitudes and research of those who serve him.

We Quote:

THE POWER TO TRANSFORM—“By no stretch of the imagination can I see Christ or the apostles placing the emphasis of the Gospel on social and political agitation. It is but a step from social and political agitation to legal action, and legal action must be backed by force and police action to be legal. Here is the trouble with present ‘integration agitation’—it looks to agitation rather than a change of heart. Are we seeking to run the business of the Church without the inspiration and power of the Holy Spirit? The central truth of the Gospel is its power to transform human hearts by what Jesus did through His Cross, Resurrection, and outpouring of His Spirit at Pentecost.

“The greatness of St. Paul’s theology is that his heart always stayed close to the Cross and therefore his mind stayed on the track of God’s Truth. There is no guarantee that any theologian’s mind will stay on the track of Truth if his heart is not ruled by the Holy Spirit.

“Communism is essentially ‘man’s mind in control’—and relying on force because it has not the secret of changing human nature. Social and political agitation tend to veer in this same direction because it no longer trusts in God’s power to change the heart—and so it plays into the hands of Communism.

“If we really believe the Gospel’s power to radically change the human heart and behavior—because it has done just that for us personally—we will not readily rush off on social and political agitation tangents. And I believe the battle must be fought here: not so much by argument, as by determined passion to raise up and demonstrate a force of Christian people who are committed to changing the world by changing human nature.

“The Gospel is God’s property. We tamper with it at our peril. He will take in hand and correct or discredit those who try to change the Gospel that Jesus Christ bought for us at such great cost.”—The Rev. C. LEWIS IRWIN, formerly missionary to China and now pastor of the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis, in a letter to U. S. News & World Report, May 9, 1960, p. 123.

Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.

In some quarters we hear the cry for more worship in our churches, and less preaching. Many church members are asking pertinent questions in this respect. Why is so much modern preaching (even within conservative circles) apparently ineffective? Why do so many preachers lack verve and conviction, or, if they have these, why do so many ramble aimlessly in a discussion of social trends or content themselves with a neat moral essay?

The writer searched a number of dictionaries and found discussions of the form of worship and its history, but seldom was its meaning considered. The cry for more worship is revealing.

PURPOSE OF WORSHIP

What is worship? An exhaustive definition is probably impossible, but some vital elements should be noted. The word means to honor and recognize the ‘worth-ship’ of another. In Old English it was used in regard to the honor given to our fellowmen as well as to God. Worshiping God involves approaching him with the honor due to him as our Creator and Redeemer; and if it is to be acceptable, it must be performed in the way which accords with the revealed will of God. Inwardly, the worshiper experiences feelings of love, confidence, and submission; outwardly, he takes part in prayer, praise, and offerings.

When, through Jesus Christ, we worship our heavenly Father, we experience fellowship and communion with him. We are drawn closer to him to the end that his will becomes ours; we are transformed. In other words, in worship God speaks to man and man to God. That is why the Reformers laid such emphasis on the reading and exposition of Scripture and the singing of Psalms, through which the people heard the voice of God. Worship is essentially reciprocal, and only when this is realized does the house of God become a Bethel in actual fact. We may sum up the situation in two words—adoration and encounter. As we draw near to God in the way which he has appointed, he speaks to our hearts and lives; that is worship in the deepest and most practical sense. Dr. William Temple was certainly right when he said, “To worship is to quicken the conscience by the holiness of God, to feed the mind with the truth of God, to purge the imagination by the beauty of God, to open the heart to the love of God, to devote the will to the purpose of God.” Over a century ago, Alexander Smith Paterson in his excellent analysis and explanation of “The Shorter Catechism” gave his famous definition of worship: “To worship God, is to make Him the supreme object of our esteem and delight, both in public, private, and secret.” Worship therefore is both relevant and dynamic.

CENTRALITY OF THE WORD

Dr. J. J. Van Oosterzee remarked that “Christianity is par excellence the religion of the Word.” As we ponder upon the elements of worship, it is natural to ask how they are produced and if man can worship independently of the Word. In view of the modern clamor—a clamor reflected in much modern church architecture with its pulpit to one side—we must ask and answer the vital question—just how important is preaching?

Scripture presents the exposition of the Word as an integral part of worship. The only preaching we find in the Bible is expository. And this is tremendously important in that it emphasizes the Godward side of worship—where God speaks and draws near to us in his grace. The New Testament shows and the experience of the Church confirms that wherever the Word is faithfully expounded, Christ the living Word draws near, so that the most important question that a person can ask himself after a service is, “Did I meet Christ today?” The sermon may have been orthodox, the service harmonious and sincere, but if the answer to that question be in the negative, then for that person at least the main thing was missed.

The all too current view of a service consisting of prayers, praise, readings (“preliminaries”—that dreadful word!) with preaching as a sort of intrusion or intellectual interlude is deadly. And the view that draws a sharp line of distinction between “the worship part of the service” and “the sermon” is not much better. We would repeat, therefore, and insist with our whole being that preaching is an integral part of worship. And the Word we preach is absolutely essential to all worship whether it be prayer or praise. The Scriptures provide the atmosphere, the framework, the foundation, the purpose, and vade mecum of all worship. They give the preacher authority. Recent writers have shown that there was a sense in which Calvin taught that the preached Word became God’s Word to the hearers. On John 10:4 Calvin says, “Though he speaks here of ministers, yet, instead of wishing that they should be heard He wishes that God should be heard speaking by them.” And on Heb. 2:11, “This ought to add no small reverence to the gospel, since we ought not so much to consider men as speaking to us, as Christ by His own mouth; for at the time when He promised to publish God’s name to men, He had ceased to be in the world; it was not however to no purpose that He claimed this office as His own; for He really performs it by His disciples” (compare Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, by Ronald S. Wallace, chap. 7, for a helpful discussion of this point). Dr. Van Oosterzee reminds us that the pastor is “impelled and called to lead his flock, so far as possible as one whole, in the pasture of the Word.” He speaks the Word of God for the salvation of men. And he speaks with authority because he is proclaiming God’s Word and not his own. That is why only expository preaching is true preaching in the biblical sense. And such preaching is doctrinal, practical, devotional, and exhortative—it covers all the generally recognized types of preaching.

Basic to the uniqueness and authority of the Word in worship is its inspiration. What right has a man to speak so definitely about salvation and damnation? Why should I pay heed? The answer lies in the fact that all Scripture is “God-breathed” and therefore of supreme authority. It is precisely this point that sets Christians poles apart from pagan religions. Dr. William G. T. Shedd was right when he wrote, “Unless Christendom possesses a superior knowledge, it has no right to instruct heathendom; and unless the Christian clergy are endowed with the authority of a special revelation, and can bring credentials therefore, they have no right to speak to their fellow-men upon the subjects of human duty and destiny.” Shedd continued, “No sacred orator can be bold and commanding in his tone, if he believes or if he fears that there are fatal and irreconcilable inconsistencies in the written revelation.”

CLIMAX OF WORSHIP

Once we grant that the minister is conducting worship not only when praying and singing but also when preaching, we have answered the popular appeal for more worship. But we must do more. We must show that preaching is the climax of worship, for this is God speaking to his people. In the best sense this is the crisis of the service. It is his Word demanding a verdict in my life; this is the vision which calls for obedience. “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” To meet with him and hear his voice is the climax of worship. Commenting on 2 Corinthians 3:6, “Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament,” Calvin declares, “Christ, through our instrumentality, illuminates the minds of men, renews their hearts, and, in short, regenerates them wholly. It is in consequence of there being such a connection and bond of union between Christ’s grace and man’s effort, that in many cases that is ascribed to the minister which belongs exclusively to the Lord. For in that case it is not the mere individual that is looked to, but the entire dispensation of the Gospel, which consists, on the one hand, in the secret influence of Christ, and, on the other, in man’s outward efforts.”

How unspeakably solemn then is the preacher’s position! What a privilege is his, and what a tremendous responsibility! No wonder Richard Baxter wrote: “It is no small matter to stand up in the face of a congregation, and deliver a message of salvation or damnation as from the living God, in the name of our Redeemer.” “How few ministers do preach with all their might; or speak about everlasting joy or torment in such a manner as may make men believe that they are in good sadness!

Preaching which wearies the hearers is more than a fault, it is a sin and defeats the whole purpose of worship. Instead of climax there is anticlimax, and the hearers go away unedified and potential nonchurchgoers. What would Baxter say about the “sermon” of so many modern pulpits, where so often there is not even a text! Or what would he say of the orthodox ministers who depart from exposition to indulge in sensational subjects, such as substituting for the Word a lecture on Romanism, “Christian Science,” or “Apartheid”?

When the Word is given its rightful place in worship and is faithfully preached, it will prove doctrinally satisfying and socially relevant. As the ageless Word, it will never be out of date. True preaching, like the Word proclaimed, is Christocentric and issues in that crucial encounter between Christ and the soul. Such is the climax, the crisis for which we must ever pray and strive, and which can never be experienced apart from the activity of the Holy Spirit breathing the Word into the hearts of preacher and hearers alike.

Let us by all means have more worship, and let us recognize preaching for what it is and give it its proper place.

Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.

The Protestant parsonage (or manse), taken by and large, has come to occupy a rather special niche in the history of the Western world. Not everyone agrees, of course, that this niche is worth filling, nor that it is well filled by Protestant clergymen and their families. Just recently the dean of one of the larger theological schools in the eastern United States made a strong plea for a celibate clergy in the Protestant Church. He based his argument on the assumption that a good pastor cannot be a good family man, and that a good family man cannot be all that he should be as a pastor. An Anglican divine published a similar allegation several years ago, deploring, as I recall, the financial burden imposed on the churches by a married clergy. The Roman Catholics, as is well known, rejoice in the fact that they do not need parsonage families to keep their clergy ranks filled. To others, the “parsonage” or the “manse,” or however it be designated, frequently connotes genteel poverty, smugness, legalism, naiveté, and not a few other unpleasant things. In short, the parsonage is not and never has been everyone’s cup of tea, so to speak.

PRODUCTS OF THE PARSONAGE

In spite of its critics, however, the virtues of the parsonage as one fount of human life have not gone uncelebrated. Particular attention has been called through the years to the human products of the parsonage, the sons and daughters of the clergy. Many of these individuals have demonstrated in their lives that there is something peculiarly beneficent about maturing in the atmosphere of such a home. It is a well-known fact that Protestant clergymen have for many years sired more sons for Who’s Who than have the representatives of any other profession. Two of our presidents were parsonage products. Perhaps one could argue that the children of the parsonage, above all, justify Martin Luther’s drastic step.

Parsonage life at its finest, by providing a domestic milieu charged with profound religious convictions, high moral standards, a compassionate and broad-minded Weltanschauung, together with a genuine interest in things cultural and intellectual, often produces men and women of high calibre, well suited to the business of living a full, useful Christian life. Many, of course, can testify from experience that “preachers’ kids” aren’t always world-beaters. But at the same time, enough “P.K.’s” have grown up to wrestle effectively and creatively with the problems and possibilities of life, to evoke the suspicion that there is something advantageous about growing up in the environment afforded by a parsonage.

A TURN FOR THE BETTER

How about the parsonage today? Is it continuing to uphold the laurels won in past generations? How does the typical parsonage of the mid-twentieth century compare with those of the past? A number of gains can be listed. For one thing (and it is a big thing), there is a lot more “fresh air” in the modern parsonage. The rigid, Victorian atmosphere has been relaxed considerably, and all to the good. Parsonage children are, as a result, much less confined and no longer expected to set the standards for the children of the community. Pastors’ children today lead much more normal lives than was once considered possible, or even desirable, which is as it should be. Much the same can be said for the “mistress of the manse”; no longer is she required to be the meek, submissive servant of every parish whim, an unpaid clerical assistant. Her role in the modern parsonage is less restricted, and as a result her potential as a “helpmeet” is far greater than before.

AIR OF POVERTY VANISHING

Another major stride has been made possible by the gradual increase of clerical salaries. The air of genteel poverty which clung miasma-like to the parsonage up to a decade or two ago (and far back into our history) exerted a debilitating effect upon both parents and children. Those portions of the stipend which used to come in natura usually did not do much to raise the morale of the manse. No doubt there were those who drew odious comparisons between such donations and the dole. But such practices have now been changed for the most part, and in response we breathe a fervent Te Deum. Clergymen are still the poorest paid of all educated classes in our society, but significant improvements have been made, and their positive effect upon the parsonage and its inhabitants has been inestimable. A modicum of professional self-respect and economic security is certainly not misplaced even in the parsonage.

SOME CONCERNS THAT REMAIN

These gains, and perhaps others, can be placed on the record. At the same time it must be recognized that the entire story cannot be written on the positive side of the ledger. I for one admit I am somewhat concerned that the modern parsonage is confronted by rather serious problems which, unless faced and overcome (at least in part), could have a deleterious effect upon it and those residing within.

It is obvious, for example, that parsonage life is not nearly as serene as it commonly was in former years. The typical modern pastor is caught up in a web of busy work virtually unknown to previous generations of clerics. Much of it (extensive calling, for example) is commendable. But as Professor Joseph Sittler pointed out in his Lyman Beecher lectures, a great deal is peripheral and actually beside the point. Our frenetic push for statistical success is bound to leave its mark on parsonage life. The uniqueness of life in the parsonage has been due in measure to the fact that the father was able to be at home (in his study!) and with his family more than men serving other callings. Today the advantage is not as marked as it once was, and the quality of parsonage life in many instances will suffer as a result.

WORLDLINESS IN THE PARSONAGE

Futhermore, there is an increasing air of worldliness in the modern parsonage. Of all homes it ought to be “in the world but not of the world.” Of course our parsonages must not be thought of as coeducational cloisters; the inhabitants are first of all people, and only secondarily pastors, pastors’ wives and children. Even so, the danger is very real that one’s living room may be dominated by an undiscriminating television set, and that the coffee table may be littered with our gaudy, materialistically-oriented picture magazines. What might such intrusions do to the quality of parsonage life? Parsonage families must certainly understand the world, and they must of necessity be deeply involved in the world’s problems; but at the same time there are worldly ideas and standards (of success, for example) which ought to be resolutely rebuked. Our parsonages will not continue to make their superior contribution to life as a whole unless the clammy hand of “the world” is restrained.

The problem does not simply involve a potentially-subversive electronic gadget or the unctuous presence of “good life” magazines. They are but symptomatic of an underlying weakness of greater depth. In former days the parsonage was often different for the wrong reasons; today it should be different for the right reasons. But if the ethos of the parsonage is indistinguishable from that of the average home on the block, then there is something wrong. I do not say that the parsonage is above such a comparison with “the average home”; but if they are similar, then it should be for the reason that “the average home” has been elevated to the level of parsonage living at its best, and not because the quality of the parsonage has deteriorated to identification with domestic life on a lower level. Can we deny that parsonage life has been negatively influenced by the subtle intrusion of secular standards? Instead of setting the standards ourselves, we have too often permitted ourselves to respond to unworthy standards.

CHALLENGE TO INTELLECT DIMINISHED

Is the typical parsonage of the present day not guilty of diminishing the intellectual challenge to which clergymen’s children were once exposed? Many pastors confess today that they have little time and apparently little inclination for the perpetuation of studies begun in college and seminary. Some parsonages, to be sure, continue to provide rooms called “studies,” but it is fairly easy to perceive that the office frequently takes precedence over the study in making claims upon the pastor’s time.

Perhaps the articulation of such concerns will brand me as a clerical Don Quixote; the dangers may be more apparent than real. But as a clergyman, I am involved in them, and therefore concerned. I have glimpsed the great possibilities for good implicit in the particular domestic milieu, and I want to believe that the potential will not be dissipated. Furthermore, I believe that if the parsonage can continue to be what it often has been, a home of noble ideals and genuine human joys, a bulwark of spiritual and intellectual strength, purposeful and devoted to the best for both God and man, then we can anticipate even greater contributions from such a source. Certainly it is true that the continued well-being of the Church and the nation is related to the life of the Protestant parsonage and the products thereof.

Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.