Religion And Psychiatry

God and Freud, by Leonard Gross (David McKay Company, Inc., 1959, 215 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Lars I. Granberg, Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary.

This is a book which is bound to call forth strong reactions. The author is a journalist who compiled material for his book by interviewing some 200 persons throughout the United States—ministers, theological professors, religious historians, psychiatrists, and others interested in the relationship between religion and psychiatry. The book is written in an easy style and characterized by the kind of positive pronouncements based upon sweeping generalizations that should make it widely quoted. Reading it is like being caught in a conversation with an opinionated nonstop talker. One keeps trying to insert, “Yes, but …”

The book is essentially a tract. Its thesis appears to be that psychiatry has provided a way to preserve significance for religion, which had become in good measure either irrelevant or inhumanly destructive—irrelevant as a result of its propensities for platitudinous homilies, and destructive because it has been responsible for producing guilt-ridden neurotics by an unmitigated diet of angry harangues on the vengefulness of God. Psychotherapy, he argues, has shown unmistakably the primacy of love in changing anxious, angry, guilt-ridden men into loving, constructive persons.

A chapter titled “Sin or Symptom” points up the neurotic dimension in problems that have been traditionally treated as purely moral problems and with great severity. To provide the church with a psychologically oriented theology, he suggests Paul Tillich’s view of man and Martin Buber’s view of God. There is also a survey of the impact of psychiatry upon the various functions of the church: pastoral counseling, institutional chaplaincies, teacher training and curriculum appraisal in the Sunday School, assistance in the screening of applicants for theological training through clinical tests, and the use of small group techniques to appraise one’s “working creed” and induce a deeper personal commitment. To my mind his chapter, “God, Freud and Susan Peters” should be given a thoughtful reading by every pastor who is concerned about how to help his people into a personal wrestling with the demands of Scripture. It describes the Parish Life Conference of the Protestant Episcopal Church. The chapter should prove both disturbing and of great potential benefit.

A book such as this can be criticized from many perspectives. Theologians are likely to feel that he has pretty well equated religion with morality, and has defined morality in terms of the current concept of mental health. Moreover, his strong sense of kinship with what he calls “the progressive elements in Protestantism” may cause some to dismiss it prematurely as a disguised return to nineteenth century liberal theology.

Nor are many religiously oriented psychologists and psychiatrists likely to give the book wholehearted endorsement. His tendency to derive neuroticism from “condemnatory religion” on a kind of 1:1 basis, for example, leaves a good many questions unanswered. Most people are not neurotic, he states. This presumably includes members of congregations which are rather persistently exposed to a portrait of God as angry, harsh, and vengeful. Even if it should turn out that most members of such congregations were neurotic, could one not as readily conclude that this kind of preaching attracts people who suffer from certain neurotic trends as that the preaching caused it?

His assumption that morbid guilt inheres pretty much from the harsh, exacting demands made by “condemnatory religion” also seems oversimplified. (It is regrettable that he does not distinguish between morbid, emotionally-based guilt and objective guilt. While I do not think he actually subscribes to this, he seems to be saying that guilt is per se bad, whereas what can be bad is guilt that becomes fixed in an unresolved state. Guilt should lead to repentance and forgiveness, and it is the essence of the Christian Gospel to delineate the true nature of sin so as to point men to its proper resolution through Christ.)

In counseling one finds harsh superegos among nonreligious people who have been reared apart from condemnatory religion. While it is possible to attribute this to a harsh puritanism that has permeated our entire culture, I am inclined to think this is not the explanation. Persons reared in the benign tradition that the author endorses do have harsh superegos, but these are oriented toward economic success and enhanced social status rather than religious prohibitions. Man is a standard-setting being. If no standards were created for him, he would create them for himself. This is intrinsic in the capacity to value. Therefore it is dubious that a program of setting “attainable standards,” which he appears to endorse, will have the salubrious effect of lessening neurotic guilt.

Moreover, in an age of “permissiveness,” can one really trace all cases of fear to excessive moral structuring? Some of our penetrating social commentators are suggesting that today much fear and guilt stems from a lack of moral structuring, which has led to moral confusion and the conviction that one is not an object of real moral concern—i.e., that one does not matter enough to people to get them excited about his moral condition.

It is undeniable that the church often has tended to use approaches apparently based on the assumption that most men were conscienceless psychopaths who needed a shock treatment to awaken their moral sense. For this reason the discoveries of psychiatry concerning the dynamics of neuroticism deserve careful consideration by those who propagate the Gospel. But may not an appreciation of these psychiatric insights lead one into the opposite error? May it not cause him to universalize techniques which have proven themselves effective for treating neurotics but which have had little success with psychopaths? Nevertheless, the church cannot afford to dismiss the lessons from psychotherapy which the book underscores: 1) God’s judgment should be preached in a context that gives primary stress to his mercy and forgiving grace; 2) all guilt is not objective and a sign of moral awakening; 3) men, including preachers, do tend to structure God in their own image, and their own unresolved guilt and anger may well cause them unconsciously to distort the character of God in their preaching and teaching (but we can distort in the direction of a vapid benignity as well as toward capricious vengefulness); 4) the positional doctrines, which God provided to enable us to deal with his absolute standards, need greater clarification and emphasis—they are crucial in the healing aspect of the Gospel.

While this may not be the best book available to orient one’s self regarding the present interaction between religion and psychiatry, it does provide a certain type of shock therapy of its own (guilt-inducing?), is highly readable, and will prove profitable to such persons as are not too familiar with the movement but who are able to give thoughtful consideration to well-intended and serious criticisms leveled at one’s cherished convictions.

LARS I. GRANBERG

Evangelical Polemic

Revelation and the Bible, edited by Carl F. H. Henry (Baker Book House, 1958, 413 pp., $6), is reviewed by Andrew K. Rule, Professor of Church History and Apologetics, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

Until quite recently, the evangelical Protestant was in danger of being a frustrated and lonely person. Indeed, most of the religious and theological books asserted or implied that since fundamentalism, liberalism, and Catholicism were the only possible points of view, and since he belonged in none of these, he really did not exist—a somewhat disconcerting conclusion, to say the least. It was perhaps some temporary relief to watch theological liberalism run into frustration, but that relief did not last long. For all the world then seemed to be running after the realists as they poked around in man’s darkest experiences in search of grounds for hope, or running after the ponderous neo-orthodox who have never been able to extricate themselves from a rational presentation of irrationalism. Now, however, the evangelical scholars, who were really present all the time, have begun to speak up and talk back. In the process, they are discovering one another, and the loneliness is disappearing. In this volume, 24 of them are collaborating upon a single theme. They come from the British Isles, France, South Africa, the Netherlands, and our own country. It would not have been difficult, perhaps, to select a similar number from a totally different part of the world.

One wonders whether they will receive much of a hearing except among those already interested in, or committed to, the evangelical position. They deserve to be heard, for they are really scholars, and they have obviously given a courteous if critical hearing to contemporary scholars of a different persuasion. The index shows that nearly three hundred scholars have been cited, a large proportion of whom may be classed as contemporaries. Each of the authors deals with their subject in the light of most recent factual discoveries. They show scholarly restraint in their assertions and a due respect for their opponents. This is polemics at its best.

The topic under discussion is of fundamental importance and one to which general approach has become more reverent and constructive than was the case a generation ago. At that time the main thrust seems to have been an effort to eliminate or at least minimize the supernatural by every possible device. Today the effort is rather, as these writers show, to reverence and defend the written Word while finding some middle ground between supernaturalism and naturalism. Evangelicals are not satisfied with such a middle ground. As the editor says in his preface: “Indebtedness to Kant and Kierkegaard, as well as additional liability to Ebner and Buber in formulating the divine-human encounter; perpetuation of Schleiermacher’s profoundly unbiblical notion that God communicates no truths about himself and his purposes; and above all, injustice to the revelation-status of Scripture were some of the features of neo-orthodoxy that specially troubled us.”

The authors in this book argue for the complete authority of the Holy Spirit, speaking to the whole person, through the Scriptures of which He is the ultimate author. They are contending for no dictation theory. They recognize that, in revelation and inspiration, the human factor was employed and honored; but they maintain that through such means and not in spite of them the Holy Spirit succeeded in imparting the divine message reliably and authoritatively. The present canon of Scripture is the result. The present text, though it contains some errors, most of which are inconsequential, and other parts which may or may not be errors, is a very reliable representation of what was originally written. At least one of the authors seems ready to contend that the original autographs were without error, though many of the writers make no mention of this claim except to maintain that error cannot be attributed to the Holy Spirit.

It seems to this reviewer that they have made out an excellent case for the orthodox view of Scripture which is really, as they show, the Scripture’s own conception of itself. At one point, we started to select which of the chapters seemed to be the most attractive and convincing; but we presently abandoned the attempt through inability to decide which of them could be omitted from the list.

That is not to say, of course, that one will agree without reservation to everything in the volume. For example, we may conclude that the charge made against the claim for inerrant original autographs on the grounds that no one for centuries has ever seen them may be a good debating parry, but it is not good logic to reply, as one of these authors does, that no one has ever seen erroneous original autographs either. For, since the documents now available do seem to contain errors, the burden of proof would seem to lie on those who claim absolute inerrancy for the originals. It would seem better to maintain, as one author does, that in the present state of knowledge and ignorance there are passages over which judgment should be reserved. But that counsel applies to the facile critics as well as to the more cautious orthodox.

This volume should do much to restore to the world of scholarship that respect for the Scriptures which is the characteristic of true Christian piety and which never wholly disappeared even from among the critics.

ANDREW K. RULE

Erecting The Sanctuary

A Guide to Church Building and Fund Raising, by Martin Anderson (Augsburg, 1959, 69 pp., 45 plates, $5), is reviewed by F. R. Webber, Author of The Small Church.

This book is written by a fund raising consultant. His 17 pages devoted to fund raising contain many useful suggestions and may well be used by building committees in their study of the project. The 48 pages of text in which the church building itself is discussed are rather brief. One wishes that Mr. Anderson had said more, for he has some good ideas. For example, he says correctly that choir stalls in the chancel are losing their popularity. A few arguments in favor of the organ and choir loft over the doorway in the architectural “west” end of the building might help convince the building committee. A number of congregations in our eastern States have returned to this arrangement.

The chapter on The Building Committee and Architect is excellent. The organ is worthy of more than five or six lines, and the pulpit, communion rail, and altar cross deserve more than the three words “of appropriate design.” Building committees welcome dimensions.

There are many books on church building. The writer of this review has some 20 shelves of such books, and they all have one shortcoming. They are too vague. It is to be hoped that somebody may write a book on church building that will include full length chapters on such subjects as stone, brick, concrete, timber and other materials of construction. To a building committee stone is stone. They are not aware that there are many grades of stone, ranging from excellent to worthless. It is not enough to specify wood for floor joists and girders. What kind of wood, and what grade? Shall it be structural, select structural, common or ordinary yard-run? How about spans, and spacing? It is just such things that determine whether a church floor will be strong enough to support the live load of 100 pounds per square foot that most laws require, or whether it will sag under its own weight. Three church floors have actually collapsed within living memory. The book that approaches church building from the standpoint of materials of construction has yet to be written.

Augsburg is to be congratulated both for a pleasing example of typography, and for their praiseworthy omission of pages of advertisements of commercial church supply firms and jobbers. Such things are publishers’ devices, and can only bring unhappiness to the man who writes the book.

F. R. WEBBER

Evangelist And Scholar

The Book of Nahum, by Walter A. Maier (Concordia, 1959, 386 pp., $5.75), is reviewed by Edward J. Young, Professor of Old Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary.

Can scholarship and evangelism go hand in hand? Is it possible for a man to be deeply concerned about the eternal welfare of men and at the same time be a genuine scholar? Will not scholarship kill evangelistic fervor? Dr. Walter A. Maier, author of this work, was one of the greatest evangelists of our generation. He was great, not merely because he loved the souls of sinners, but because in great humility he faithfully preached the Word of life. He was a man unwilling to compromise with error, and utterly abhorring expediency. He preached God’s Word as a twentieth century prophet.

At the same time, he was a great scholar. The book under consideration is a scholarly, capable commentary on the biblical book of Nahum. It is quite different from some commentaries produced today. There is none of the verbiage that glosses over biblical passages in the interests of Kierkegaardian existentialism such as some modern writers are fond of employing. There is rather a serious grappling with the text and an honest endeavor to present its meaning. Dr. Maier does not give us the Bible in the light of existentialism and dialectical theology. Rather, he is truly biblical in his presentation and gives us the thought of the Bible as it actually is.

This book comes to serious grips with questions of introduction and exegesis. It is solid treatment of the Hebrew text, a real commentary, the kind of work that will prove of inestimable benefit to any student who truly desires to understand the message of the prophet Nahum.

EDWARD J. YOUNG

The Spiritual Order

A New Heaven and a New Earth, by Archibald Hughes (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958, 222 pp., $3.75), is reviewed by Loraine Boettner, Author of The Millennium.

This book deals with a subject concerning which there is considerable difference of opinion, namely, the return of Christ and the attendant eschatological events. The author traces the unfolding of revelation from the beginning of the Old Testament, through the prophets, until it becomes clearer and more specific and reaches its climax in the New Testament. The viewpoint is that of Amillennialism.

An admirable feature of the book is the writer’s constant reliance on Scripture to support his position. References are quoted, not merely cited, which is a considerable convenience to the reader. Throughout most of the book controversial matters are kept at a minimum, although in the latter part such matters are anticipated and are dealt with quite fully. The writer is a true scholar and the book bears abundant evidence of careful research.

The peculiar genius of Old Testament prophecy is well brought out in the author’s handling of that subject. He shows that the prophets in portraying the Church era could not use the richness and fullness of New Testament language, for such language would have been largely meaningless to their hearers. Instead they found it necessary to picture the unknown under the terms familiar to their people, such as the land, the temple, and the sacrifices. Similarly he shows that the “natural” children of Israel, the Jews, are for the most part blind to their true inheritance, that they read the Old Testament and long for a restoration of the political kingdom because they do not see that Christ is the promised Messiah and the key to the understanding of the Old Testament. And it is pointed out that the preservation of the Arabs who, through Ishmael, also are descendants of Abraham, is scarcely a less remarkable phenomenon than is the preservation of the Jews.

The kingdom of God as it relates to this world is presented as a spiritual order, inward and individual, which lies within the visible world and expresses itself through its subjects. Furthermore, it is shown that as men are changed, they change institutions and thereby change nations.

A little known quotation from Dr. G. Campbell Morgan is given in which, in 1943, two years before his death, he expressed a view quite different from those he had promoted earlier, which reads as follows: “I am quite convinced that all the promises made to Israel have found, are finding, and will find their perfect fulfillment in the Church. It is true that in the past, in my expositions, I gave a definite place to Israel in the purposes of God. I have now come to the conviction, as I have just said, that it is the new and spiritual Israel that is intended.”

The writer was born in Johannesburg, South Africa, educated in England, and has spent most of his adult life in Australia. He has served as lecturer in the Wesleyan Bible College in Melbourne, and has had a fruitful ministry primarily in the Baptist denomination.

The book is heartily recommended for all who seek a clearer understanding of the events connected with the return of Christ and the attendant events of the end time.

LORAINE BOETTNER

For Sermon Tasters

Great Sermons of the World, edited by Clarence E. Macartney (Baker Book House, 1958, 454 pp., $4.95), is reviewed by V. T. Crawford, Minister, La Grange Methodist Church, North Carolina.

Preachers, students of preaching, and the Christian public will welcome this large and beautifully-bound reprint of Dr. Macartney’s compilation of great sermons. There are 25 given in this book, and they range “from Clement of the first century after Christ to G. Campbell Morgan,” and are prefaced by the Sermon on the Mount and two other sermons taken from the Bible.

Dr. Macartney’s rare selective judgment, always evident in his own religious writings, is seen here in his choice of great sermons.

V. T. CRAWFORD

The Epistle of Jude, apart from the mode of its opening, resembles an urgently penned tract rather than an ordinary letter. It does not appear to have been directed to any particular group of Christians; it is addressed without closer qualification “to them that are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ” (v. 2). It thus seems to have been intended for Christians everywhere, since it dealt with a situation which was not confined to any single locality. Therefore it is rightly listed as one of the “general” or “catholic” epistles of the New Testament.

The Author

The author of the little tract identifies himself as “Jude (Judas), a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James” (v. 1). In the early Church—at any rate after the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee in A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2)—there was only one James who could be referred to in this absolute way without the need of further specification; that was James of Jerusalem, “James the Lord’s brother” as Paul calls him in Galatians 1:19; “James the Just” as his contemporaries called him because of his exemplary piety. If the writer of this document was the brother of this James—and there is nothing that forbids the identification—then he was in all probability the Judas who is enumerated among the brothers of Jesus in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. He is to be distinguished from the apostle Judas (the “Judas not Iscariot” of John 14:22), because it is evident from John 7:5 that the brothers of Jesus did not believe in him before his crucifixion, although they do appear among his followers on the morrow of his resurrection and ascension (Acts 1:14). But, like his brother James, Jude does not claim any authority by virtue of his natural relationship with the Saviour; he is but “a servant of Jesus Christ” (cf. Jas. 1:1).

The second century Christian traveler and narrator Hegesippus tells a story about two grandsons of Jude, which has been preserved for us by the fourth century writer Eusebius in the second book of his Ecclesiastical History. Some ill-disposed persons reported to the Roman Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81–96) that these two men belonged to the royal house of David, and were therefore potential rivals for the imperial authority in Judea, being in fact closely related to one who had been executed as a messianic claimant in Jerusalem two generations previously. Domitian was naturally suspicious, and moreover his attitude to the Jews was markedly unfriendly. It might therefore have gone hard with Jude’s two grandsons; but when the emperor summoned them to his presence, and discovered that they were poor peasants with no royal pretensions, and that the Kingdom in which they were interested was not of this world, he dismissed them as being unworthy of his concern. They lived on into the second century.

The Date

The date of this epistle cannot be fixed with certainty. But if we are right in our conclusions about the author, it must belong to the first century A.D.—possibly to the second half of that century, after the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70. It is included in the Roman list of New Testament books called the “Muratorian Canon,” which belongs to the closing years of the second century. About the same time it is quoted by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian of Carthage; but there are probable allusions to it much earlier in the second century, in the Syrian document called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, and in the allegorical work called The Shepherd, written by a Roman Christian named Hermas. Although there was some dispute in the third and fourth centuries whether it should be included among the canonical writings or not, we may well be glad that its place among them was at last securely established, for (as Origen puts it) “while it consists of but a few verses, yet it is full of mighty words of heavenly grace.”

The Occasion

This was not the treatise with which Jude intended his name to be associated. He tells his readers that, when he had it in mind to write to them on the subject of “our common salvation” (v. 3), he found himself constrained to take up a more controversial line in vigorous defence of the true faith. We need not doubt that this constraint which came suddenly upon him was the constraint of the Spirit by whose inspiration he wrote the short treaties bearing his name.

The early Church was seriously troubled by a fashionable way of thinking and teaching which we know as Gnosticism. The Gnostics, who propagated it, took this name because they believed themselves to be in possession of the true gnosis, or knowledge. The faith and practice of ordinary Christians might be good enough for the rank and file, but for the spiritual elite there were deeper mysteries to penetrate. The full flowering of Gnosticism belongs to the second century, but incipient forms of it can be traced in the first century and are rebutted by such New Testament writers as Paul, John, and Jude.

Gnosticism viewed the material order as being either unreal or inherently evil. This view undermined the biblical doctrine of creation, for obviously something unreal or inherently evil could not have been created by God. It also undermined the doctrine of the Incarnation, for the Eternal Word of God could not have taken to himself a real body according to Gnostic principles; Gnostics therefore could not avoid “denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (v. 4)—denying him, that is to say, in the sense in which he is presented in the true Gospel.

The ethical consequences of this false conception revealed themselves in one or the other of two opposite ways. Many Gnostics thought that spirituality was best attained by subjecting the body to a severe ascetic discipline, imposing prohibitions on it like the “Handle not, nor taste, nor touch” of the Colossian errorists (Col. 2:21). Others argued that, since everything material is transient and worthless, the body, which belongs to the material order, is morally neutral; its desires might therefore be indulged at will without doing any harm to the life of the spirit. Some of these may have tried to find support for this position in Paul’s teaching about Christian liberty, misinterpreting that liberty as licence and using it “for an occasion to the flesh” (cf. Gal. 5:13). Jude charges them plainly with “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness” (v. 4).

Analysis And Argument

The epistle may be divided into five parts: (1) Salutation (vv. 1, 2); (2) Jude’s purpose in writing (vv. 3, 4); (3) False teachers denounced and their doom foretold (vv. 5–16); (4) Exhortation to Christians (vv. 17–23); (5) Doxology (vv. 24, 25).

False teaching compels us to expose such for what it is; it is not enough to set the truth alongside the false in the expectation that everyone will recognize which is which. The refutation of error is an essential correlative to the defence of the faith “once for all delivered unto the saints” (v. 3). Incidentally, this “once for all” character of the Christian faith must be reckoned with as a stumblingblock to secular wisdom, although it is a foundation rock to those who take their stand upon it. This is the very feature that marks Christianity off from ethnic religions; it is firmly anchored in history at the point where God became man for man’s salvation and suffered for us under Pontius Pilate. God has, indeed, fresh light to burst forth continually from his Word; but that Word has already been uttered in Christ and recorded in Holy Writ.

The doom of the false teachers, says Jude, has been pronounced of old. And God’s judgment, though slow, is sure, and once carried out, abides for ever. This, he says, is shown by the examples of the disobedient Israelites whose carcases fell in the wilderness, of the inhabitants of the cities of the plain who were overwhelmed by fire and brimstone, and of the rebellious angels who are reserved for final judgment (vv. 5–7).

These people set constituted authority at defiance, whereas the archangel Michael would not use insulting language to the devil himself (vv. 8–10). The reference to Michael’s dispute with the devil has given rise to much speculation; according to Clement and Origen, the incident was related in The Assumption of Moses (but it does not appear in the part of this work which has survived to our day). With the words of Michael’s rebuke we may compare Zechariah 3:2 where Satan is so addressed by Jehovah himself, “And Jehovah said unto Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?”

The examples of Cain, Balaam, and Korah also point the lesson of doom when the sin and judgment of these Old Testament characters is recalled (v. 11).

When the false teachers mingle with Christians (vv. 12, 13), they introduce trouble and disgrace into the very love feasts of the Church; they are shepherds who feed themselves instead of the flock of God, “blind mouths” in Milton’s telling phrase; they are clouds which hide the sun but send no refreshing rain; they are trees which produce only Dead Sea fruit; they are ineffectual as roaring waves whose rage expends itself in froth and foam; they are stars wandering out of their orbits into everlasting night. The judgment which awaits them at the coming of the Lord was foretold even in antediluvian days by Enoch; the words of verses 14 and 15 can still be read in the first chapter of the Book of Enoch. That the Lord at his coming will be attended by holy myriads is taught elsewhere in both Testaments (cf. Zech. 14:5; Matt. 25:31; 2 Thess. 1:7).

True believers, however, need not be alarmed at the activity of such people whose rise and fall was foretold by the apostles. Let them safeguard themselves by being built up in the faith, by praying in the Spirit, by keeping themselves in the divine love, and by looking forward to the final manifestation of mercy and life at Christ’s appearing (vv. 17–21). While they must abhor and avoid the false teachers, they should pity and rescue those who are misled by them (vv. 22, 23).

The treatise ends with an ascription of praise through Christ to God as the One “that is able to guard you from stumbling, and to set you before the presence of his glory without blemish in exceeding joy, to the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and power, before all time, and now, and forevermore”—a fitting description in view of the subject with which Jude has been dealing.

Literature

The best commentary is that by Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of Jude and the Second Epistle of Peter (Macmillan, 1907). Because of its close relationship with II Peter, Jude is often treated along with it in commentaries, and frequently along with the other general epistles. Mayor’s commentary is on the Greek text, so is the volume on St. Peter and St. Jude, by Charles Bigg, in the International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh, 1902). In the Moffatt New Testament Commentary (on the English text), Jude is treated in the volume, The General Epistles, by James Moffatt himself (London, 1928). The massive Exposition of the Epistle of Jude by the seventeenth century Puritan Thomas Manton was reprinted last year by The Banner of Truth Trust, London; the patient reader will find it a mine of spiritual wealth. The volume on the epistles of Peter and Jude in the New International Commentary on the New Testament is being prepared by Professor John H. Skilton of Westminster Theological Seminary.

F. F. BRUCE

Professor of Biblical History

and Literature

University of Sheffield, England

Religious Assemblages

U. S. military chaplains got an intensive briefing on the nation’s declining morals this month and promptly pointed accusing fingers at Playboy magazine and the government’s judicial branch.

Protestant ministers, Catholic priests, and Jewish rabbis looked very much alike in military attire. They also thought very much alike at the 34th annual convention of the Military Chaplains Association in Washington’s Sheraton-Park Hotel. Most of the 287 registered delegates appeared to agree that American morality was deteriorating. After hearing speeches and panel discussions centering on the convention theme, “Moral Leadership for American Youth,” many seemed to be convinced that the hour had come for bold, new approaches.

In a resolution, the chaplains cited Playboy and other publications “which appeal to the prurient interest” and “often openly advocate the overthrow of the basic morality upon which our nation and our Constitution were founded.” The resolution also took a swing at the “judicial branch of our government (which) has been, in many instances, unrealistic in its appraisal of the nature of these publications and fails to realize their incompatibility with the morality of this country.”

A challenge from the floor precipitated the hottest debate of the convention. Dr. Edward L. R. Elson, minister of National Presbyterian Church who as a Reserve colonel has been president of the MCA, wielded the gavel during the 10-minute exchange on the question: Should Playboy be singled out as proposed by a resolutions committee? One delegate asserted it would greatly strengthen the resolution to cite Playboy as a “flagrant example” of the type of periodicals to be condemned. Another argued that naming just one magazine would merely increase the demand for it. A minority cried “no” in the showdown voice vote, but Elson declared the resolution passed unanimously and no objections were raised.

A spokesman for Playboy said “the resolution seems to us to be essentially libelous.” “We have been a victim of the stereotype of Playboy which has sprung up because of our many shabby imitators,” he added. “This is a campaign of intimidation and it has no legal basis. The real issue here is whether any private group—however well-meaning—has a right to dictate what other people may read.” In Playboy’s attitudes toward sex, he said, there is “an essential rapport” with “attitudes of young moderns everywhere.”

The chaplains were pressed for time when they came to grips with Playboy. A few minutes after resolutions were passed, Mrs. Dwight D. Eisenhower arrived and was given a citation commending her for “maintaining an exemplary Christian home.”

Another highlight of the convention was the report of best-selling author Vance Packard (The Hidden Persuaders and The Status Seekers). Packard, who attends a Congregational church in Connecticut, told the chaplains that advertising media and institutional education exert the greatest influences on American thinking and that both outweigh effects of clergy teachings.

Manipulation of the public by advertisers, Packard said, “raises questions of morality.” He stressed that he was not making a general indictment of advertising, but that he was limiting his criticisms to the misuse of motivation research.

He said he was apprehensive over the “deliberate encouragement of irrational behavior” in certain advertising. He cited, for example, (1) planned obsolescence of manufactured products, and (2) emphasis on impulse buying.

According to Packard, changes in the American character are resulting from current commercial techniques. He said younger people especially are responding, becoming more passive and pleasure-minded. Commercial interests, he added, are establishing a mood of “living it up.”

For the coming year, the convening chaplains elected an Episcopal priest as their new president. The office went to Dr. C. Leslie Glenn, now doing research in human relations at the University of Michigan. He is a former rector of Washington’s “Church of the Presidents,” St. John’s on Lafayette Square, and holds the rank of captain in the Navy chaplaincy reserve.

The Military Chaplains Association has a membership of some 1500. Active duty chaplains are given time off to attend the convention. Reservists who register are granted retirement points.

The convention had a grim sequel. A noon luncheon proved to be the occasion of the last public address of Deputy Secretary of Defense Donald A. Quarles. The former Secretary of the Air Force appeared to be in good health and spirits when he spoke to the convention. Three days later he was found dead.

Xenia, Western Merge

Consolidation of Pittsburgh-Xenia and Western Theological seminaries now seems assured, giving Pittsburgh an institution second in size only to Princeton among the seminaries of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

The boards of both seminaries met jointly May 8 to hear Dr. Hermann N. Morse, retiring general secretary of the Board of National Missions, give the Survey Committee recommendation of consolidation after a year-long study. Also on the committee were Dr. Wilson Compton, former president of the State College of Washington, and Dean Liston Pope of Yale Divinity School. Acceptance of the Survey Committee’s recommendation was to be reported May 19 to the Committee on Consolidations at the pre-General Assembly meeting in Indianapolis, and approval was expected.

For months apprehension over consolidation centered in Pittsburgh-Xenia, only seminary of the former United Presbyterian Church of North America. Since denominational union with the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., many observers wondered about the institution’s future in a city in which Western already existed as a Presbyterian seminary. Two schools in one city made a plausible case for merger. Western was also under pressure to move from its North Side site because of urban redevelopment in that area. Pittsburgh-Xenia’s spacious 10-acre property with new buildings at its East Liberty location has room for expansion.

Pittsburgh-Xenia’s merger anxieties were largely theological. Joint faculty meetings in recent months revealed some marked doctrinal differences. The majority of the faculty at Pittsburgh-Xenia is committed to a conservative professional position, and these faculty members did not welcome a consolidation which would equate their position with a more liberal view. It was widely known that Dr. Addison H. Leitch, president of Pittsburgh-Xenia, did not in general favor consolidation, although he was willing to cooperate in an originally proposed theological foundation consisting of several schools and preserving the identity and continuity of Pittsburgh-Xenia for bachelor of divinity training. He was prepared to concede graduate instruction to the Western faculty. So far, no public announcement of separate schools of instruction has been made.

Opposition to merger also developed among Pittsburgh-Xenia students. Of the 180 students working toward the B.D. degree, 139 are of the United Presbyterian Church denomination; 90 of these signed a petition against merger.

Pittsburgh-Xenia’s board voted 22 to 10 for merger at the end of a meeting marked by prayer, fairness and courteous restraint but heavily charged with emotion. Board members were conscious of potential reaction among former United Presbyterians, who for sentimental or theological reasons will be deeply disappointed that the only seminary from the United Presbyterian side in the church merger of a year ago will now lose its particular identity.

On the other hand, merger news brought rejoicing at Western. Dr. Clifford E. Barbour, president, vigorously favored one theological institution in Pittsburgh. He and his faculty and students will soon move to an attractive new campus. Western’s board voted unanimously for the merger, reflecting satisfaction with the prospect of a larger and stronger institution whose theologically inclusivist character will represent the pronounced denominational trend of 25 years. This trend was firmly established by the excommunication from the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. of Dr. J. Gresham Machen and others in 1936.

Of considerable interest remained the question of the choice of a president for the merged seminary—a choice that now will demand a delicate balancing of denominational feelings and tensions.

A New High

A total of $261,686.72 was raised for missions at closing sessions May 3 of the 20th annual Missionary Conference at Boston’s Park Street (Congregational) Church. The funds will support the church’s 120 missionaries in 50 countries and will be distributed among a number of denominational mission boards, large and small, and interdenominational agencies.

The figure was $6,437 greater than the amount reached in last year’s drive. Subscriptions have increased steadily since the present series of missionary conferences began in 1940. That year the church gave $21,000 to missions. The 20-year total exceeds $2,900,000.

The 10-day conference, a highlight of the church’s 150th anniversary observance, broke all previous attendance records. On the program were some 50 missionaries. Morning, afternoon, and evening services were held daily.

Park Street Church’s missionary program is believed to be the largest of any one congregation in the United States. On the North American continent its scope is exceeded only by the Peoples Church of Toronto, whose pastor, Dr. Oswald J. Smith, led the first of the present series of missionary conferences at Park Street in 1940. Smith’s church was to wind up its own missionary conference this month (for a report, see the next issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY).

International Ethics

Liquor advertising which finds its way north of the border was the topic of a conversation between American and Canadian churchmen and brewery officials at Buffalo, New York, last month.

Representatives to the meeting agreed that a code of “international ethics” should be adopted. Their prime concern was U. S. television and radio advertising which is beamed to Canada, where liquor advertising is prohibited. Liquor advertising in American magazines which circulate in Canada is another problem.

The Buffalo meeting recognized that legal control of across-the-border liquor advertising could probably never be achieved. Its 60 participants issued a statement in which they said that “ethical standards must be formulated and observed.” They recommended further discussion between the Canadian Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches in the U.S.A.

The meeting was sponsored jointly by the Canadian Council of Churches and New York State Council of Churches. Among church leaders attending were the Rev. George Dorey, president of the Canadian Council; the Rev. Kenneth A. Roadarmel, general secretary of the New York Council, and the Rev. Cameron P. Hall, secretary of the NCC’s Department of the Church and Economic Life.

Worth Quoting

Anent recent talk of Protestant-Roman Catholic rapprochement, the 1959 Southern Presbyterian General Assembly reissued a 1946 pastoral letter on the close Protestant-Roman Catholic relationship involved in marriage. Excerpts: “Increasingly evident is the unwisdom of the marriage between Presbyterians and Roman Catholics.

… If a priest of the Roman Catholic church performs the ceremony, the Presbyterian party to the marriage is required to promise to do nothing to change the faith of the Roman Catholic party; although the Roman Catholic is expected by his church to win the Presbyterian. Also the Presbyterian is required to sign away the unborn children to an ecclesiastical organization that will forever forbid them to worship with their parent in the Presbyterian Church.

“We call upon our members to stand uncompromisingly in this matter, to resist resolutely this unfair demand and refuse to make such a promise.… In view of these facts, the General Assembly counsels Presbyterians to refrain from marriage with Roman Catholics as long as the demands and rulings of that church remain unchanged.… The Roman Catholic attitude with reference to mixed marriages makes it impossible for a wholesome family religious life to exist.”

Federal Parochial Aid?

A resolution that virtually calls for federal funds for Roman Catholic parochial schools was adopted by leaders of the National Catholic Educational Association meeting last month in Atlantic City. They urged “that any federal aid be distributed equitably within the limitations of the Federal Constitution so that it may serve the needs of all the youth of our country.”

A Call For Quakers

The 279th Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Friends last month called for a national conference of Quakers to discuss criminology—particularly capital punishment and juvenile delinquency.

The “Yearly Meeting,” which represents some 100 “Monthly Meetings” in two states, is historically opposed to capital punishment. The Quakers’ concern revolves on such matters as developing job opportunities for released offenders and promoting legislation for rehabilitation programs.

Mormon Converts

The largest of the Mormon bodies claims to have picked up 33,330 converts last year. Membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints passed the million-and-a-half mark during 1958, according to statistics released at the church’s 129th General Conference.

Among delegates at last month’s three-day meeting in the Mormon Tabernacle, Salt Lake City: Ezra Taft Benson, secretary of agriculture and a member of the church’s Council of the Twelve Apostles.

Protestant Panorama

• JB, a verse play which puts the story of Job into a modern setting, is the 1959 winner of the Pulitzer prize for drama. The play by Archibald MacLeish has been running on Broadway since December 11.

• The U. S. Supreme Court ruled this month that a municipality, by enforcement of a zoning ordinance, can prohibit erection of a church building.

• The first U. S. transatlantic flagship to pass eastward through the St. Lawrence Seaway included a cargo of more than 4 million pounds of supplies from Lutheran World Relief … Seamen aboard the Prins Johan Willem Friso, first ocean ship to dock in Chicago by way of the new seaway, were given copies of the Scriptures on behalf of the Chicago Bible Society.

• St. Paul, Minnesota, now has six accredited church-related colleges. Latest to be officially recognized by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools were Bethel College, a four-year liberal arts college operated by the Baptist General Conference, and Concordia Junior College, operated by the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

• Salvador Dali, Spanish surrealist painter, says he would like to design a church dedicated to the success of the Ecumenical Council to be called by Pope John XXIII.

• The world’s largest statue to Christ was unveiled May 17 on the banks of the Tagus River near Lisbon, Portugal. The 92-foot white stone statue stands on a four-pillared pedestal that rises more than 250 feet. Roman Catholics sponsored construction at a cost of some $500,000.

• The United Church of Canada is planning French translations for portions of its Book on Common Order.

• Members of the Evangelical United Brethren Church and the Evangelical Congregational Church formed a pilgrimage to the grave of Jacob Albright, founder of the U. S. Evangelical movement, on the 200th anniversary of his birth. Albright was buried near Lebanon, Pennsylvania.

• Westminster Abbey begins participation this summer in an annual clergy exchange program between councils of churches in the United States and Britain. The Rev. Charles R. Stires, rector of Trinity Episcopal Church in Syracuse, New York, will be first visiting preacher at Westminster.

• Lutherans in the world now total 71,135,068, about one-third of Protestantism, according to the Lutheran World Federation.

• A service in Amsterdam marked the founding there of the world’s first Baptist church 350 years ago. Baptist leaders from many lands attended.

• Some 8,000,000 U. S. youngsters and nearly 100,000 Canadian children will attend vacation church schools, day camps, and work-and-play assemblies this summer, according to an agency of the National Council of Churches.

• The National Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church, rejecting a bid to establish its headquarters in the Interchurch Center in New York, will look elsewhere to locate its offices. “We do not feel that ecumenicity is necessarily or even wisely based on cohabitation,” said Bishop Frederick J. Warnecke.

• The Convocations of Canterbury and York will consider at fall sessions a proposal to embody in Church of England canons a clause ensuring the secrecy of confessions made to priests.

• March and April evangelism campaigns resulted in 143,327 baptisms within the Southern Baptist Convention, according to the department of evangelism of the denomination’s Home Mission Board. A spokesman said Southern Baptists have never had so many baptisms in such a limited period. The campaigns were part of the five-year Baptist Jubilee Advance.

• Dr. Oswald J. Smith, founder of the Peoples Church in Toronto, will conduct an evangelistic series in Europe next month. He plans an 18-day meeting in Helsinki and five-day campaigns in Stockholm and London.

Continent Of Australia

Evangelistic Epoch

Billy Graham, whose crowds have no parallel in religious history, saw his own record broken May 10 when some 150,000 braved chilly winds and rain to attend the evangelist’s closing rally in Sydney, Australia. Graham spoke before 80,000 in the Sydney Showground while another 70,000 listened in an adjoining cricket ground. His previous attendance record, 143,750, was set at Melbourne.

The Sunday afternoon finale saw 5,683 step forward to bring to 56,840 the number of persons who made decisions for Christ in 26 Sydney meetings.

Graham said at the close of the Sydney crusade that his ailing left eye felt “better than it has for months.” He said that his vision was “almost normal.”

Meetings in Adelaide, Perth, and Brisbane were being held with the aid of Graham’s associate evangelists. Graham himself was to speak at closing rallies at each of the cities. His last scheduled public meeting in Australia was set for May 31, in Brisbane.

Hoping for a summer’s rest, Graham has kept his engagements for the coming weeks to a minimum. His next extended crusade is scheduled for Indianapolis, beginning October 6.

Following is an appraisal of Graham’s Australasia crusade by Dr. Sherwood E. Wirt, California Presbyterian minister who witnessed the meetings:

As their epoch-making Australasia crusade neared its climax this month with meetings in Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane, members of the Billy Graham team devoted Saturday morning sessions to pondering and praying over concerns fraught with spiritual significance for the lands “down under.”

To be specific, evangelicals in 1954, at the close of the Harringay crusade, thought Great Britain was on the verge of the major “break-through” of the Holy Spirit. That hour has passed, and doors which seemed open, appear to have closed. Now God is presenting a fresh opportunity. Australia and New Zealand, after meetings which have seen nearly every Graham crusade record broken, share a spiritual mood unparalleled in the history of the antipodes.

There is scarcely a church in either commonwealth that has not felt the direct or indirect impact of the crusade. There is hardly a village that has not sensed the throb of new life in the midst. If the history of the Christian Church in the Southern Hemisphere is ever written, it will certainly characterize A.D. 1959 as the year of revival.

Melbourne was amazing; Tasmania was heartwarming; New Zealand’s “feast of a week” was a miracle of grace; and yet somehow what happened in and out of the Showground at Sydney surpassed them all! During the final two weeks land relay lines, carrying the direct telephonic message from the rostrum, penetrated far into the “bush country,” bringing the message into 300 communities of New South Wales and beyond. In halls where platforms were empty save for a sound box, Australians gathered by hundreds of thousands to hear the Gospel flanked by pastors and counselors. Showground crowds were tremendous. In two weeks Sydney had more decisions and inquiries than San Francisco had in seven. A crowded chartered train arrived from Melbourne and Billy appealed to the throng for housing. It was estimated that the number of persons attending actual crusade meetings in Australia alone would surpass two million.

In New Zealand, with the addition of land-line listeners (as in Dunedin, where the town hall was packed for all six nights), it was believed that one-fourth of the entire dominion population heard the preaching of the Gospel of Christ through Mr. Graham and his associate evangelists, Grady Wilson, Leighton Ford and Joseph Blinco. (Cultural note: there is no television yet in New Zealand.) In one small city, Matamata, after a relay line meeting, the ministerial association was specially convened and the pastors unanimously agreed to issue a public Gospel invitation from their pulpits on the following Lord’s Day.

Graham To Moscow?

Billy Graham may hold a three-day evangelistic series in the First Baptist Church of Moscow, according to reports from the Russian capital.

Graham’s Moscow visit presumably would come in June, when he is returning from his Australasia crusade via Europe. However, as of the close of his Sydney crusade, the evangelist had not commented on the Moscow report.

Graham also is reported to have an invitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury to visit Lambeth Palace while en route back to the United States.

Yet to the subjects of the Queen in Australasia the most remarkable feature of the crusade was not the strong preaching of the evangelist, or the thrilling stories of conversions and altered lives that filtered up through the counseling and follow-up departments; or the masses that swarmed over the great rugby and cricket parks and choked the aisles at the invitation. Australians were aware that these phenomena had attended other Graham meetings elsewhere in the world. What really amazed the folk “down under” was the way they began treating each other.

Call the fourteen visiting Americans what you will (Mr. Blinco is a Britisher, but is moving this summer to Oklahoma City), they had the church people of Australia and New Zealand working and talking together and recognizing each other as they had never done before. After Billy Graham had addressed the pastors of Sydney, Alan Walker, noted leader of world Methodism, rose deeply moved to say, “I see now that the unity we have sought so long in committees, and seen so little of, comes only when we are actively seeking to fulfil our common task in the carrying out of the Great Commission.” So it was that Anglicans, Presbyterians, Plymouth Brethren, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals and the Salvation Army suddenly “discovered” each other in a new and significant way.

To be sure, there was foot-dragging in all these groups, but they made an impressive Christian front as they labored on bus assignments, handed out memos, counseled inquirers, prayed, took notes, sang, set up chairs and drank endless cups of “tay” together for the glory of God and the triumph of his grace. One noted author and ecclesiastic, a bishop of the Church of England, politely refused to sit on the platform and chose instead the anonymity of the follow-up room, where he helped 50 to 75 volunteer typists crank out decision card referrals to be posted to ministers before dawn.

One Presbyterian minister in Sydney found himself with 300 such cards after only two weeks of meetings, threw up his hands and invited them all to tea in his church. Another pastor, who told the press, “I don’t agree with Billy Graham,” nevertheless found himself reading the Scripture at the Showground and opening his pulpit to a member of the team—who responded by giving an invitation to Jesus Christ. Dr. Stuart Barton Babbage, dean of Melbourne Cathedral of St. Paul, on the first Sunday evening after the crusade invited those who would like to make a commitment to Jesus Christ to remain after the service. Three hundred stayed!

Australia’s moral problems were reflected in odd ways. One lady who used to stable her horses under the stands in Sydney Showground now found herself in the same stable—taking instruction in the Christian life from Mr. Blinco. Another lady who had gone forward to receive Christ announced, “I feel as if I had just won the lottery!”

As usual, back of the great surge of love and light and tears and joy was the careful preparation and organization of dedicated men. The chief architect of the Australasia crusade, humanly speaking, was the Rev. Jerry Beavan, who spent 18 months on the site. Visitation evangelism follow-up was directed by the Rev. Leslie Green, an American Disciples minister who took a leave of absence from his church in Chatswood, a suburb of Sydney. Graham himself went to Australia against the advice of doctors, but has promised to listen to them this summer as he takes a three-month rest without major responsibilities.

Meanwhile Australia and New Zealand churchmen were urging other members of the Graham team to remain behind or to return soon, to help them deal with the tremendous question, “What next in Australasia?”

Dominion Of Canada

A Coordinated Brief

Representatives of more than 40 organizations, including major Protestant denominations in Canada, presented a brief to Prime Minister John Diefenbaker last month urging a constitutional amendment to guarantee freedom of religion. The brief recommends a freedom of religion clause in Diefenbaker’s proposed bill of rights.

The brief suggested that this clause be included in the bill of rights: “Every one has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to maintain or to change his religion or belief and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, all without coercion in any way.”

The prime minister, however, said that certain rights of provinces preclude a constitutional amendment on freedom of religion at this time. He indicated that a statute could be enacted to the same effect.

Continent Of Europe

A Leading Issue

German churchmen are sharply divided on the question of whether their country should utilize atomic armament in the event of war. Dr. Martin Niemoeller, president of the Evangelical Church of Hesse and Nassau, upholds an even more pacifistic question: Shall the state employ force of any kind to defend itself?

The showdown came last month in the synod of Niemoeller’s church. After heated debate in which the president raised unsuccessful objections, the synod upheld the right of a state to employ force in the protection of justice and peace in a “Clarifying Message to Soldiers.”

The church’s primary mission, the message stated, is “to preach the Gospel of the free grace of God.”

Some weeks ago, Defense Minister Franz-Josef Strauss instituted legal action against Niemoeller for allegedly insulting the West German army. The churchman was charged with making derogatory remarks at a pacifist rally.

The message said that while helpful understanding on the part of the church includes protection of those refusing armed service on conscientious grounds, “the church, at the same time, has a responsibility to render pastoral care to politicians and soldiers who are forced by their conscience to take upon themselves, according to human insights and ability, the gravest decisions for the sake of preserving peace.”

People: Words And Events

Deaths: Dr. Yngve T. Brilioth, 67, former Archbishop of Uppsala and Primate of the Lutheran Church of Sweden, in Uppsala, Sweden … Archdeacon Donald Rieginald Weston of the Anglican Church in Northern Rhodesia, in an automobile accident near Lusaka, Northern Rhodesia … Dr. George B. Connell, 54, president of the Southern Baptists’ Mercer University, in Macon, Georgia … Albert Crews, 51, director of program promotion and station relations for the Broadcasting and Film Commission of the National Council of Churches, at Port Washington, New York … Dr. Henry R. Boyes, 69, medical missionary of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., in Detroit … Dr. John Bunyan Smith, 85, for 25 years pastor of the Baptist White Temple of San Diego, California.

Elections: As Bishop of the Evangelical Augsburg (Lutheran) Church in Poland, Dr. A. Wantula … as president of the Hungarian Ecumenical council, Dr. Tibor Bartha … as president of the General Convent, highest governing body of the Hungarian Reformed Church, Bishop Elemer Gyory … as executive secretary-treasurer of the Historical Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Davis Collier Woolley.

Appointments: As cadet chaplain at the U. S. Military Academy, West Point, New York, Dr. Theodore C. Speers, minister of the Central Presbyterian Church, New York City … as president of Seattle Pacific College, Dr. C. Dorr Demaray … as president of Texas Lutheran College, Dr. Marcus C. Rieke … as academic dean and professor of psychology of religion at Scarritt College, Dr. John W. Johannaber … as associate professor of Old Testament at Gordon Divinity School, Dr. Charles F. Pfeiffer … as associate professor of Christian education at Wesley Theological Seminary, Dr. Mary Alice Douty … as associate director of the National Council of Churches’ Office of Finance, Herbert T. Miller … as general secretary of the Congregational Christian Churches’ Board of Home Missions, Dr. William Kincaid Newman … as chief executive assistant to the presiding bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Warren H. Turner, Jr.

Retirement: As editor of the weekly Biblical Recorder, Dr. L. L. Carpenter, effective December 31.

Coronation: As Patriarch of the Coptic Church under his chosen name of Kryollos VI, the former Archpriest Mina Albaramoussi Elmetwahad.

Nero’S Gardens

Archeologists in Rome claim to have found the site of Emperor Nero’s gardens where Christians were massacred in the first century. Ancient walls, stairways, and mosaics found in excavations between the River Tiber and the Vatican are said to constitute the remains of Nero’s infamous pleasure grounds where Christians were burned to death.

NEWS

CHRISTIANITY TODAY

Special Report

In event of full-scale war, American church life faces disruptions in at least two major respects: (1) Foreign missions programs would likely be curtailed, and mass evacuations of missionaries could create a desperate need for funds. (2) Many congregations stand to lose pastors who become military chaplains.

To aid church life in event of enemy attacks on U. S. soil, the government’s Office of Civil Defense and Mobilization is promoting local preparedness programs through its Religious Affairs Service.

A survey this month byCHRISTIANITY TODAY, however, indicated no broad plans exist to help stranded missionaries should hostilities break out. Here is what the survey reveals:

Missionary problems arising from a wartime situation would be met individually, according to present policies of such agencies as the Division of Foreign Missions of the National Council of Churches, the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, and the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association.

Dr. Clyde W. Taylor, EFMA executive secretary, said, “In a local war we would strongly urge that missionaries move out of areas which are likely to be overrun.”

Missionary efforts in a war zone would be curtailed to a point where workers would be of little value even if they did stay, he said.

A nuclear, global war presents a different problem, according to the missions leader. “If the U. S. mainland is attacked,” he said, “there is no point in calling missionaries home. Their own fields probably would be safer places to stay.”

He also suggested that “staying put” would be wise in any kind of war in areas where no fighting is in prospect. He recalled that during World War II many missionaries in Africa remained at their posts for the duration.

Taylor remarked that missionaries are almost invariably courageous, often to the extent of risking their lives if they felt compelled to stay with their work. He said missionaries are “hard to move,” which presents problems for government agencies concerned about their welfare.

Taylor cited public apathy on making ready for possible war. “We are psychologically unprepared for a global conflict,” he said.

Any buildup of military manpower to meet aggression will be accompanied by immediate demands for more chaplains, these to come from Reservist ranks and civilian pulpits. The following sums up opportunities in the military chaplaincy:

Wholesale induction of ministers, certain in an outbreak of full-scale war, would strike severe blows to American church life. Should there be a shortage of clergymen, congregations and denominational officials might tend to lower standards by which pastors are chosen.

But build-up in military manpower also represents a new, enlarged field of service to clergymen who answer a call to the chaplaincy. Ideally, the chaplain can simultaneously be a preacher, missionary, counsellor, and teacher. In addition to conducting worship services, chaplains are expected to give personal advice, deliver “character guidance” lectures (to assemblies where attendance is mandatory), and visit hospitals. Overseas assignments often present opportunities to minister off the base among the civilian population as well.

During World War II some 11,000 men saw service as chaplains. This is the current picture, which compares approximate totals of chaplains on full-time active duty and those in civilian reserves:

The number of chaplains in the U. S. armed forces is regulated according to denominational strength. Denominations can expect, generally, to have chaplain representation in proportion to their memberships. Peacetime chaplain quotas are limited, and applicants for active duty often encounter waiting lists.

New chaplains are commissioned one grade higher than new officers in other branches. The services claim to give chaplains pay and benefits comparable to what clergymen earn in civilian life.

Reserve chaplains lead normal civilian lives except that they attend regular military meetings and annual summer camps. Reserve status and part-time service can mean for a minister as much as $1,000 added income annually.

Chaplain Recruitment

Applicants for active duty chaplaincy assignments in the armed forces of the United States must be in good standing with their denominations. Ordination and endorsement by a church body is essential. Also required of the applicant are three years of training in an approved theological school, plus 120 semester hours of undergraduate credit at a recognized college or university.

Chaplain commissions normally are in the nature of Reserve appointments. Applicants may request active duty or elect to remain on inactive duty. Reserve chaplains are not involuntarily called to active duty unless mobilization needs so demand. Some Reservists subsequently are awarded “Regular” commissions.

Some denominations submit chaplain applications directly to the services. Most, however, deal through agencies such as the General Commission on Chaplains and the National Association of Evangelicals’ Commission on Chaplains.

Upon induction, the new chaplain is sent to an orientation school for some two months “to assist … in making the transition” to service life.

Each service procures its own chaplains. In recent months, all have been emphasizing solicitation of inactive duty Reservists. Details of chaplaincy programs are available from the Chief of Chaplains of the Army, Navy, or Air Force, Washington 25, D. C.

‘Discriminatory’ Act

The 34th annual convention of the Military Chaplains Association petitioned Congress to revise a law which is eliminating certain Army officers before they are eligible for paid retirement.

Army chaplains bear the brunt of an amendment tacked on to the Reserve Officer Personnel Act of 1954 by the 85th Congress. The amendment set up for Army officers a “basic age at 25,” which interpreted by service heads means that those below the grade of colonel who have not completed 28 years of active and reserve duty by age 53 cannot be retained, No exception is made for chaplains, whose training and experience requirements make it virtually impossible for them to enter the service before they reach their late twenties. All officers must have at least 20 years of service before they can retire with pay.

A resolution of the convening chaplains charged that the amendment is “discriminatory” and that it constitutes an “unethical change in contract with all reserve officers.” The resolution said the existing law would force more than 150 Army chaplains from active duty by June, 1960, and many more from Reserve ranks.

The “basic age at 25” amendment was said to be aimed at thinning out the large number of Army majors and lieutenant colonels given commissions during World War II.

TO H.W.L.

Lives of great men all remind us

Maladjustment is sublime;

Non-conforming leaves behind us

Footprints on the sands of time.

Footprints from conditioned masses,

Crowding in canalized grooves,

Mark the pioneer who passes

Beaten paths the group approves.

Let us, then, be up and doing,

Deviate our attitudes,

Rock our social role, pursuing

Our abnormal aptitudes!

Life is real! Life is earnest!

And the mean is not the goal;

Normal curves are not the sternest

Mark and measure of the soul!

If computer correlation

Lacks percentiles for your case,

Just employ your situation

To observe the human race.

Every function, status, mission

Can be socially defined

Just because the statistician

Never had your id in mind.

Since an average distribution

Rates performances by par,

You may rate an institution

With a profile so bizarre!

If your size would shame Colossus

Group dynamics in a week

Offers, through adjustment process,

Your acceptance—as a freak!

Do you differ in your fears?

Whiskers? I.Q.? Art? or ears?

Please remember that your peers

Have one catalogue for queers.

Go your way in isolation,

Carrying “Excelsior,”

Shunning every explanation

As to what it’s useful for.

But remember, footprint maker,

You may soon expect to find

As you cross some upland acre,

Power shovels close behind!

COMMUNIST OR FREE

I want to express my appreciation for the several articles concerning the theory and practice of communism, and their relation to the Christian faith (April 13 issue). My elderly grandparents, who are leaders of their local church in China, stated in their letters that life has become progressively more unbearable than before. Grandmother is now forced to cook for a community dining hall, while grandfather has to attend scheduled indoctrination classes. Your articles should dispel many misconceptions in this country concerning the real nature of Marx-Leninism.

[Identity withheld]

Washington, D. C.

Your issue of April 13 reached a new all-time low in Christian reporting and commentary. I deliberately accuse you of being an utter traitor to Jesus Christ.… You do not bring justice to any man by spitting on him! Yet this is the course you would propose we continue in regard to many millions of Orientals. I find no compassion or sense in your stand.

Western Knoll Congregational Church

Los Angeles, Calif.

Your choice of men “who have earned the right to speak” on the subjects of peace and the capitalist-communist issue is revolting to anyone who calls himself an evangelical Christian.

St. John’s Immanuel Parish

American Lutheran Church

Bancroft, S. Dak.

How you could ever hope to write a significant issue dealing with the question of “peace” by mustering a retired army general, a State Department representative, and others committed as a primary aim, to the destruction of Communism, is beyond me. To think there was not even included one representative of modern pacifism.

San Anseimo, Calif.

Having heard my old friend, Walter Judd, again yesterday speak to the clergy in Pittsburgh and say that he thinks the world is going to be free or Communist within our life time, and having just got a group of young laymen started on the basis of concern for the direction in which this nation is going (we call them Men For Freedom Through Faith), I am very deeply troubled by the kind of blind sentimentalism to which you refer.… Your position is vastly sounder than that of The Christian Century, and I am so thankful to you for taking it.

Calvary Episcopal Church

Pittsburgh, Pa.

Having been born, reared, and educated in Russia, and as public school teacher, having personally observed the rise and development of Bolshevism, I ought to know something about the nature, purpose, and aim of present day communism. I must attest that every word and warning of Fred C. Schwarz in “Can We Meet the Red Challenge?” is certainly true, and should be heeded and responded to by every sincerely believing Christian throughout the world. Perhaps the most appalling truth mentioned in the article is the fact of the amazing widespread ignorance and unforgivable blindness of the majority of American Christians, including some of the highest influential leaders, who almost deliberately close their minds and senses in refusing to recognize the existing threat and peril of this most pernicious of anti-Christian movements since the beginning of times. Why can’t we see what is going on before our very eyes and how can any of us be so blind and indifferent?

Christ Lutheran Church

(U.L.C.A.) Wisner, Neb.

Dr. Schwarz’s article is grand. Yet he talks about “communism” when he and you must know that there isn’t any Communist nation, but there is a mighty socialist empire, with the central committee in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ capital of Moscow.

Westminster Hill Ch. (Congregational)

Canterbury, Conn.

Dr. Schwarz’ article … would be valuable to give to many ignorant and wavering Christians and ministers.

Central Baptist

Dayton, Ohio

THE EMPTY TOMB

I think Dr. Smith misses something important in his argument (Mar. 30 issue).… The empty tomb from which [Christ] rose is only accessory evidence after the fact of the Resurrection. The prime evidence is the resurrected Jesus himself. Surely primitive Christianity did not have as its igniting spark such belabored reasoning as this article presents, but rather the encounter of the disciples with their risen Lord after his death and burial.

Saint James Memorial Church

Pittsburgh, Pa.

PROPHETIC INSIGHT

Just after having read your article “The Resurgence of Evangelical Christianity” (Mar. 30 issue), I had occasion to turn to the preface of J. Gresham Machen’s The Virgin Birth of Christ. With true prophetic insight he tells of the very resurgence of biblical Christianity which we may be on the threshold of today: “The author is not, indeed, inclined to accept the dictum of John Herman Randall and John Herman Randall, Jr., when from the point of view of those opposed to all traditional Christianity, they say (Religion and the Modern World, 1929, p. 136): ‘Evangelical orthodoxy thrives on ignorance and is undermined by education.…’ He makes bold to think that the scholarly tradition of the Protestant Church is not altogether dead even in our day, and he looks for a glorious revival of it when the narrowness of our metallic age gives place to a new Renaissance.” Machen wrote these words in 1932!

Calgary, Alta.

I have been amazed and delighted with CHRISTIANITY TODAY. I am an Anglican Catholic, and I have always looked out on pale, liberal, humanistic, unbelieving Protestantism with real distaste. Frankly, I did not believe, before I began to see your magazine, that there were enough Protestants in the country who really believed the classical doctrines of Christianity sturdily enough to support a national periodical. Your articles and editorials and the letters responsive to them have quite opened my eyes. One sees evidence in CHRISTIANITY TODAY, of course, of the great gulf fixed, as always, between Catholicism and Protestantism on the doctrines of the Church, the Ministry, and the Sacraments. This has always been very serious, and still is. But when you deal with the Incarnation, the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection—oh, it is so fine to know that there are Protestants who really believe the Christian religion!

The Church of Our Saviour

Milton, Mass.

The resurgence of the Christian faith is everywhere evident today. CHRISTIANITY TODAY is one of the best things which has happened in 40 years. I am an old-timer and I watched with sorrow the decline of the faith. So far had the church fallen that one who believed the Bible was called a “bibliolater!” What blasphemy!…

Those who have their spiritual eyes open today will stand by and uphold your Bible-honoring publication. I have enjoyed every issue of it.

Yoder Presbyterian Church

Yoder, Wyo.

I have an observation to make with regard to your preference for the word evangelicalism over fundamentalism. In your issue of September 16, 1957, (and in subsequent issues as well) you clearly point out the unfortunate associations which have accrued to the term fundamentalism. Most reasonable people will agree that your observations were in large part correct. However, I feel that you lay yourself wide open to a charge of special pleading by your failure to note the disadvantages accompanying a general usage of the term evangelical. Certainly, you must be aware of the fact that to millions of nominal Christians here in Europe, the term evangelical is simply a synonym for the word Protestant. In fact, inquiry as to a man’s religious affiliation elicits either Katholisch or Evangelisch as a reply.

Further, you deplore the fact that the word fundamentalism does not possess biblical background. However, I believe that here again something is being overlooked. It seems to this observer that it is purely an accident of language that the Greek euaggelion was transliterated—and is used in this form not only in English, but in German, French, and other modern languages—while themelios was translated. The Vulgate uses fundamentum in 1 Corinthians 3:10–12 and elsewhere in referring to foundations.… Certainly, nothing could be more detrimental to your work as outlined in various editorials than a senseless quibble as to why one should try to place evangelicalism on a more respected level and why fundamentalism is not worth upgrading!

Kinder-Evangelisations-Bewegung Supt. in Deutschland

Frankfurt Am Main, West Germany

MARTYRDOM DISOWNED

Mrs. John Osborne’s “Ten Commandments” for ministers’ wives (News, Apr. 13 issue) is another of those offerings which point out the supposed martyrdom of women who chose to marry clergymen.… For the whole list of ten … I would like to substitute one. “Thou shalt strive to live in a spirit of fellowship with your Lord and Master, seeking a close communion and sense of consecration to Him.” Only as we find … joy in fellowship and love, can the problems that beset us … [be] overshadowed by the satisfaction of serving Christ.

Central City, Neb.

MUTENESS IN THE CRISIS

Can you tell me where a Christian can go to hear the prophetic word interpreted? Most of our ministers today are as mute as the Statue of Liberty when it comes to interpreting Daniel, Ezekiel or Revelation in terms of the world-stirring events of the past half-century. Has God no definite message to us from these great books? Has He left us in the dark concerning the mobilization of the largest anti-Christian forces in all history, that threatens Christendom?

Mendota, Ill.

WHENCE THIS OCULIST?

Will reader Alfred H. Fowlie (March 30 issue) who is “convinced that man is not depraved, fallen, or sinful,” please give us the name of the oculist who prescribed his rose-tinted glasses?

He speaks of being a “truth sharer” and in the next line says “we have not found the truth.” How can one share what he has not found? O consistency, thou art a jewel!

His concept of Christ—“absurd.… a man no more, no less” and his own job based upon a “resolve to become a minister” make me ever the more grateful for Christ Jesus, my Saviour, Lord, and Master, and my own sense of mission and high calling.

Middletown, Pa.

What I can’t understand about Unitarianism is: How do Unitarians determine what parts of the Bible to accept or reject? I find nothing in the Bible that insults intelligence. With God all things are possible. If one believes in God why can’t one just as easily believe in supernatural occurences such as the virgin birth of Jesus? After all, God is supernatural.

Religion Ed.

Birmingham Post-Herald

Birmingham, Ala.

Universalist Myles D. Blanchard’s observation … that “it is no more humane for God to demand the smell and sight of Jesus’ blood in order that he might be appeased than it is for God to use some bears to devour pesky children,” brought to mind a few verses of 1 Corinthians (1:21–25): “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

Edmonton, Alta.

MODERN PREACHING

I have just finished a course in preaching at one of our oldest New England seminaries. It was a great disappointment. Not having been for many years a student in theological schools, I was all ears to take in what was being said and suggested.

I was naive enough, I confess, to expect that today students would be taught how to preach the Bible. As I entered the room for final examinations, about 15 students were discussing and criticizing one of the textbooks used in the course. With the exception of one man, all were heaping wholehearted disgust and disappointment upon this text. I recalled a line in the last chapter: “As in the preceding chapter, there will be no attempt made here to set forth the content of the preacher’s message.” The last chapter deals with social and economic issues. Yet the whole book, written by a great preacher, did nothing to tell a young theological student how to preach the Word of God. The course itself, given by one of the masters in the field of preaching, did not discuss how to set forth the Word of God. Indeed the Bible was always secondary to the preacher’s own insight.

A few days later I was asked to address a meeting of the Worcester Congregational Ministers’ Association on “biblical preaching.” In the discussion that followed nearly all echoed the words of the first speaker, President Dr. Harold Bentley of Worcester Junior College: “Brethren we might as well admit it, we had almost no training in seminary on preaching the Bible; at least, I did not have it.”

Pascal kept a document sewed up in his jacket, not found until after his death, which was an account of his vision or mystical experience. In the vision, which brought about his conversion, he saw that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was Deum meum et Deum vestrum. Whatever religious renaissance there is in our world today, it is an awakening to this truth, that my God and our God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who hath spoken to us in his Holy Word.

Both Karl Barth and Bultmann have turned to the Scriptures, and their followers are primarily concerned for the Word of God. Cullmann and those who might be called part of the present biblical realism movement see biblical history and Christian theology as identical. In my humble opinion as students listen to Richard Niehbur …, Paul Minear, Dr. Piper …, Stauffer, Hoskyns and others thinking along these lines they will be concerned to know how to preach the Word of God.

Preaching the Word of God is certainly a different thing from what countless students are being taught in preaching classes. First of all it is not taking a text that suggests something to you and going off on a skyrocket sermon of your own ideas. It is presenting to your people exactly what the passage means, which you, with the aid of dictionary and commentary and led by the Holy Spirit, believe it to be saying. It is asking not what does this suggest, but what is the Word of God for us in this passage itself. Second, biblical preaching is presenting the subject from the point of view of the Bible. It is not bringing our philosophy to the Bible but listening to the Bible itself. Third, correct Bible preaching is to take a text and see how this text reflects the world of the Bible. To preach the Bible therefore, one must have a biblical theology. Fourth, biblical preaching is the preaching of Christ. The Bible tells us of God’s great historic purpose which centers in Christ and focuses upon Christ. If the Gospel is preached by workmen that needeth not to be ashamed, the hungry sheep will look up and be fed the bread of life.

There is hardly a seminary in New England today that does not have on the faculty strong spokesmen for the Gospel. The Good News of God in some measure is being presented. But hardly any of these seminaries are equipping students to preach the Word of God. The Bible is not being given its place. There will be no revival in Protestantism so long as students stand around in seminaries disappointed because they do not know how to proclaim that message, “Today is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.”

First Church

Sterling, Mass.

STATEMENT OF A DILEMMA

In spite of all I have read and shared and experienced in the healing ministry, I have a basic dilemma which remains unresolved. More important than physical healing is spiritual healing; that is, the bringing of a person into a right relationship with God through repentance for sins and faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

An important principle, of course, is that of entire relinquishment of the sick one to God. Here, however, is the dilemma. Prayers for and by the sick should be positive and expectant. Scripture teaches this. Yet, some expect physical healing and do not receive it. There must be subsequent disappointment. On the other hand, where sickness is of a very critical nature and the doctor can offer no medical remedy, I usually face frankly the implications of the situation with the sick one and his family. We come to the attitude where we so accept the principle of relinquishment that we are prepared either for restoration to life here or final healing in the life hereafter. Here, however, the dilemma is again sharp. How can a person pray positively for physical healing with the mental reservation that the sick one may not be physically healed but alternatively taken home to be ‘with the Lord’?

I am seeking an approach to the sick and to God which will be comprehensive. Thus I come to my main question. [Is there] … an outlook that combines all that is best in approach to God and in prayers for the sick, and at the same time avoids the dangers of disappointment and even disillusionment?

First Baptist

Kenora, Ont.

GLADSOME SERVICE

You have done and are doing an unparalleled service.

Monmouth, Ill.

A well-known psychiatrist was recently asked what he had found to be the basic problem troubling the majority of his patients. His reply was: “Insecurity.”

Unquestionably there are many people suffering today from insecurity based upon deep-seated mental problems which have their roots in past experience, environmental and otherwise.

But we believe the lack of security which is so much a part of the lives of many today is spiritual in origin. Man has been created for companionship with God, and until this fellowship of spirit is established he is restless, ill at ease, and insecure.

In Jesus Christ all of this can be changed. Not that the problems, pressures and overwhelming circumstances of life will cease, but when Christ lives and rules in the heart of a man he no longer faces life alone, for the sovereign God of the universe lives in him in the person of the Holy Spirit and all things become new. For the past there is forgiveness; for the present there is divine companionship; for the future there is absolute assurance.

God increases multiplied blessings to them that trust him, and it is the Christian’s privilege and duty to know what they are and appropriate them to the fullest extent.

Even in the heart of the most benighted pagan—and he may live in an exclusive residential area or in the jungles of the Amazon—there lurks a sense of longing, of separation, and futility. This emptiness expresses itself in excesses, in various religious rites, or an unending search for diversion and pleasure. It produces animosities, fears, discontent, complexes, and various mental and physical reactions which torment one’s life.

Into such a situation comes the calm, assuring voice of the living Christ: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

“Rest unto your souls”—that is security. That is the comforting good news which the Father has not chosen to reveal to the wise of the world, but unto babes.

The Christian should be aware of the security that is his which stems from faith in and commitment to Christ as Saviour and Lord.

First, he is secure in the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. The salvation wrought out for him on the Cross of Calvary was complete. There is nothing we can do to add to its efficacy, there is nothing we can do to take away its sin-cleansing power. It is ours to be received as the free gift of God’s loving grace. Furthermore, once a man receives this, it is a continuing experience.

For the Christian there should always be a sense of security, for he stands on an immovable Rock in the midst of a changing and uncertain world. The apostle Paul tells us that man can lay no other foundation, for there is none, and this foundation is Jesus Christ.

Relief to a drowning swimmer is the sudden discovery of a firm rock on which to stand. How much more wonderful is it for man, surrounded by the problems and difficulties of life, to realize suddenly that underneath there is One who never changes, and that around him are the everlasting arms.

The Christian is also secure because it is his privilege to enjoy the comfort of God’s presence in the Holy Spirit who was sent into the world to counsel and comfort those that trust Christ. Confronted with problems and decisions to be made, buffeted by combinations of circumstances over which he has no control nor solution, the Christian should have the assurance in his heart that he is not alone, that God is not only near, he is available to help and does so in the light of his love and eternal purposes.

We are not told in vain that “all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” We have the comfort of knowing that in the inscrutable and perfect will of God all things, regardless of their immediate import, work for good to them who love him.

Another source of Christian security is the assurance we have of God’s sustaining grace. The cause of Christ has suffered at the hands of those who seem to picture Christianity as a life of unending protection from viscissitudes and reality. Nothing could be further from the truth. We who have committed ourselves to the living God through his Son are not carried to the skies on flowery beds of ease. We know we are not only tested by adversity, but there are times when our greatest witness for the faith finds its expression out of the troubles and sorrows through which we are called to pass. In all these things we can rest secure in the grace which God unfailingly supplies to those who are his own.

Life entails decisions, many of them minor in import, others crucial and affective. To the Christian is given the privilege of divine guidance in the making of decisions. The One who sees the past, the present, and the future will, in his infinite love and mercy, show us the way we should take.

Many are the Christians who have prayed earnestly for guidance and have had fulfilled for them the promise: “And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, “This is the way, walk ye in it; when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left” (Isa. 30:21).

Basic to a Christian’s sense of security is a knowledge of the love of God. The people of this world desperately need to be loved, and God has loved them. The Cross is the central evidence of God’s love, and this love abounds toward us richly. Little children bask in the knowledge of parental love, often an unspoken devotion but real nonetheless.

How much greater is God’s love, and the therapeutic value of that love when we accept it through faith in Jesus Christ! With a realization of this overwhelming fact there comes to one a security against which even the demons of hell cannot prevail.

Our Lord speaks of this when he says, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.”

We hear much these days about a “guilt complex.” Unquestionably there are unfortunate sufferers from a sense of guilt which may be because of imagined wrongs. But the world’s great problem is that so few have a sense of the guilt of sin and sin’s affront to a holy God.

To avoid the fact of sin or the effects of sin is to be utterly unrealistic. Furthermore, to ignore the wonderful news that the penalty and guilt of sin has been removed forever for the believer through the atoning work of the Saviour is to disregard the greatest news of all history.

At the center of man’s security is the Christ of Calvary. In and through him the weary soul finds rest and hope now and for all eternity.

Clergymen should make a systematic study of how mass and personal communications influence religious behavior.

The Word of God will be presented more effectively if the relationship of radio, television, the press and periodicals, movies, drama, audio-visuals, preaching, literature, art, music, counseling, logic, symbols and semantics, and the meaning of words are understood.

Development of such a unifying perspective will be reflected positively in the output of pastors. There will be a marked improvement in the quality of sermons, parish newspapers and Sunday bulletins, and in press releases, advertisements, posters, handbills, letters, scrapbooks, histories, printed materials of all sorts, and arrangements of indoor and outdoor bulletin boards.

The minister who sees the interdependence of knowledge and technique, thought and speech will experience results. He will come to see that language not only expresses ideas, but words shape thought-worlds.

And in the process of speaking articulately, an individual must think clearly. He develops his concepts and then speaks or writes them.

The person who affirms that he has keen ideas, but cannot put them across persuasively is deluding himself. If he has the compelling thoughts, he will present them forcefully. Likewise, if he is skillful in conveying his message to others, he will develop insights that will make him an original thinker.

Acceptance of this view of the twofold role of language—that it both stimulates and conveys thought—will enable clergymen to discover two false premises: one, that a person always will communicate effectively if he possesses an abundance of knowledge, and two, that individuals specializing in techniques will be sophists concentrating on approach rather than message.

Once these untenable beliefs are removed, professional religious workers and laymen can develop an organized approach to church public relations. They will realize that every religious individual and institution inevitably has relations with many publics—and that a charted course is better than a spontaneous, haphazard one. Moreover, they will know that a church as a voluntary organization in a Christian democracy has an obligation to keep the people informed, because the general population has a right to know what is going on that affects the public welfare.

This view of public relations will be both theoretical and practical in nature, and will involve acquiring a perspective and basic skills. The development of this body of fact and opinion about religious communications will be advantageous to the evangelism program. It will keep a pastor from uncritically overvaluing the power of mass communications media, where otherwise, his tendency might be to feel that the interpretative work of mass media is the most valuable method for bringing the unreached millions to Christ.

There is a danger that the average churchman, caught up in the magic spell of the alleged power of mass media, will believe that the communications industry can do his evangelism job. It cannot. The most effective proclamations of the Gospel still come by way of pulpit utterance of the Word of God or in the personal visit of a dedicated Christian to an unbeliever.

What mass media can do—in interpretative articles, feature stories, and news reports—is to call attention dramatically to the vitality of religious forces. Indirectly, these press accounts can create a favorable atmosphere for discussion of theology. They can make the nonchurch member ready to listen to and consider Christian theology as it is proclaimed by the evangelist and pastor. But the initiative for directly confronting the non-Christian with the Gospel still is that of the church member; he should capitalize on the interest engendered by mass media.

Newspapers are increasingly recognizing that religion is significant in American life, and therefore makes news. Clergymen have a responsibility to meet informally with publishers and explore the relation of pulpit and press. These talks can reveal the mutual goals of both groups. But they cannot stop with general thought. Pastors need to inquire about the specific techniques of news gathering and reporting if they are to extend their ministry.

One self-improvement plan is to read some of the new books on different aspects of religious communications. Clergymen may also attend church news clinics. Some are sponsored locally within state areas, such as those promoted by The Nashville Tennessean. Others have been developed for state-wide or regional areas. The state clinics include those of the University of Missouri and Georgia Press Association, in conjunction with councils of churches. Regional meetings have been sponsored by Methodists and Southern Baptists. Where communities do not have religious journalism seminars, pastors should encourage newspapers to hold them. Generally, these are one day programs that highlight information, provide basic news tools, and stimulate interest in publicity.

Writers’ conferences have been arranged over short periods so as to provide actual training under supervised leadership. For instance, there is the Christian Writers Institute operated by the editor of Christian Life; the interdenominational program held by the American Baptists at Green Lake, Wisconsin; and the conferences at the summer assemblies of the Southern Baptists at Glorieta, New Mexico, and Ridgecrest, North Carolina.

When clergymen visit newspaper offices, they may often suggest concrete features to editors. At my own suggestion, my hometown newspaper carries a 300-word devotional message each weekday on the page opposite the editorials. This “Religion in Life” feature, written by ministers of Nashville and middle Tennessee, is designed to give readers a spiritual uplift at the start of the day.

Every Sunday for four and one-half years, I have visited a different church service. In a regular Monday feature, called “A Reporter Goes to Church,” I quote extensively from the sermon and describe the church, its history, and the background of the pastor. We have, of course, 560 churches in our county. Such a feature might not be feasible in small communities where there are only a few congregations. But even weekly papers of little towns would probably print, on a rotating basis, 150 to 200-word synopsis of a sermon.

For eight years, we have published a pre-Easter series on the faith of outstanding laymen, women, and youth. This year the theme was “Scripture I Have Lived By,” and the interviews explained how the Bible had made an impact upon individual lives. These personal testimonies proved so popular that they have been reprinted in booklet form.

In addition to features like the above, there can be regular accounts of religious events in newspapers and over the radio. Those with news value include election of officers and board members, changes in staff personnel, anniversary services, membership and budget growth, construction of new buildings, financial drives, visiting speakers, rallies, plays, seasonal observances, service projects, celebrations, field trips, formation of new groups, and evangelism programs.

Church events do not have to be sensational to get into print. But they should be accurate, complete, and timely, and tell who is involved, what happened, when, where, why, and how. Of course, a writer ought always to place the most important item in the opening sentence and paragraph.

Many denominational headquarters have prepared brief booklets on how to discover and report church news to the press (and parish newspaper). They can be had by writing to the officials.

END

James W. Carty has been ordained minister of journalism by the Disciples of Christ. Once an Air Force chaplain in Korea, he has been with The Nashville Tennessean since 1953.

“Communicate” is a word of ancient and honorable usage in the English language. To most people it means the conveyance of thoughts or opinions by means of writing or speech. The phrase “Communicating the Gospel” has also enjoyed long and popular acceptance. To most Christians it means “to transmit the message of Good News with power.” But Christians have never thought of “communicate” as a special word, glowing with existential significance—a technical term frought with a peculiar theological meaning. Never, that is, until very recently.

Only a short time ago, “communicate” was just one word among many. But, almost overnight, it has become the word in evangelism and in Christian education. Everyone—minister, educator, and theologian—seems now agreed that the Church’s mission is to “communicate the Faith.” My own denomination (Presbyterian, U.S.) is currently preoccupied with two important investigations: one, the evangelistic task of the Church, looking towards our centennial in 1961; the other, the educational task of the Church looking towards a “reconstruction of the philosophy of Christian education.” Most literature appearing on these subjects (from which the quotations in the article are taken) has been devoted to defining the task of “communication.” That the task is one of “communication” has been universally taken for granted.

A Shift Of Theology

What’s wrong with that? Well, it depends on what is being taken for granted. If “communicate” is being used in a new sense, perhaps it should be carefully examined. And, in fact, “communicate” is being used in a new sense. A new theology, designed to supplant the old in palatable form, is offered to the Church. Throughout the Church, perennial proponents of change have enthusiastically adopted “communicate” as the key word in evangelism and education because it seems to offer, at last, the possibility of successfully mingling the new with the old. A study of “communication” in the modern manner will disclose rationalism or revelation, whichever you prefer, to the satisfaction of the proponents of either, depending on the interpretation placed upon what is being said. My desire, therefore, is to show that “communicating the Faith” may not mean “communicating the Gospel” at all.

To begin with, the context in which “communicate” most frequently and insistently appears today really requires no interpretation that means the “transference of thoughts or ideas.” You do not read of “communicating the Truth,” or of “communicating the Gospel.” You read, instead, of “communicating power,” or of “communicating Christian attitudes,” or of “communicating man’s true integrity,” as well as the general phrase, “communicating the Faith.” Only in the most incidental way does such “communication” include speaking or writing. Words may be involved, but they are not indispensable. In “communication,” for instance, one may effectively impart an attitude by the exercise of that attitude, without speaking at all.

To illustrate the “communication” of attitudes without words as basic to the “communication of the Faith,” (“nonverbal communication”) one author recently cited an illustration from the life of the composer Beethoven. Seeking to console his friend, Madame Ertmann, on the death of a child, the composer sat down at the piano in her presence and played music for an hour. Through the music she was “told all that she needed to know” for consolation. Such a service, the author went on to say, is rendered by the devoted minister whose life speaks more to the point of the Gospel than all of his sermons.

The mission of the Church, according to this author, is the “communication” of its vital life force in a manner illustrated by the story. By this he meant that the Church must “pass on” to the world that primary attitude which is Christianity’s identifying attribute: love. The transference of this divine attribute to men is made the basic task of evangelism and the emergence of love in the hearts of men becomes the Christian experience of conversion.

Now the greater part of the “communication” of love, in the new definition is frankly “nonverbal.” You and I learn the meaning of love—another Christian educator explains—not so much from our mother’s words of tender endearment as from her loving acts of tender care. The Christian faith is “learned” the same way. We who have experienced the love of God “communicate” the same by loving: in acts of grace and compassion that reach and melt unloving hearts. Our attitudes, he said, are the “very life force” of the redemptive community which “communicates man’s true integrity” through concern for those outside.

In short, “communication” is first of all demonstration. We “communicate” by actively expressing the thing to be “communicated,” in this case, love. But one wonders whether any attitude, by itself, can mediate the saving power of God. In other words, one wonders if the Samaritan could have brought salvation to the man who fell among the thieves by his works of kindness. Love needs to be identified and authenticated. If I am deep in grief and a Christian comes and puts his arms lovingly about me; and he is followed by a Buddhist monk in his saffron robes who also puts his arms lovingly about me: what “love” is “communicated?” Perhaps the saffron robes will intrigue me the more and I will judge his love to be superior! Or—and this is often the point of the new theology—it matters not whether the comforter be a Buddhist or a Christian: where love appears, it is of God.

But the Bible gives priority (if we may be allowed to speak foolishly for purposes of clarification) to the Truth over Love. The truth of God is not attained by expressing love, however genuine: rather the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the truth of the Gospel. We do not first love God that we may come to know him; we rather learn of God that we may come to love him. We do not disciple the nations by “communicating” integrity: we rather preach the truth in love, which truth the Holy Spirit uses as his means of grace to bring redemption.

“Communication,” then, in the modern manner is not only the demonstration of the thing “communicated;” it is also an identification, both of the messenger with his message and of the messenger with the intended receiver of the message. One cannot “communicate” anything in which he is not personally involved.

It may be well to pause here and say that the principle of “identification,” as it refers to one’s personal involvement in his mission, has received particular attention in connection with recent studies of the Church’s world-wide missionary obligation. For a number of years, most denominational missions boards have been studying ways and means of better relating their missionaries to the peoples among whom they work. Out of the debate has come an obsession for “identification” in all evangelistic and educational endeavor. Like every obsession, this one contains a strong element of validity. But like every radical application of theology, this one goes far beyond the truth. There is a frankly existential ingredient in the theology of “communication.” It is of two kinds:

First, the messenger must “identify” himself with his message. “To communicate the truth,” another recent author quotes the Danish existentialist, Kierkegaard, “one must be the Truth.” The widening radiance of the Incarnation, he said, depends upon our being an extension of the Incarnation. Only as we are Christ to others will we be able to “communicate” Christ to them. The Church is a “redemptive community in which we, ourselves, are its very life force.”

Now we acknowledge that one who would lead another to Christ cannot lead him any farther than he himself has been. But this recent identification of the messenger with his message is something else again. It is at best a mild sort of blasphemy; at worst it is pantheism. One is never himself the Truth. Even Paul considered himself the “chief of sinners” to the end of his life. This view seems even to deny the separate personality of the Holy Spirit. “Spirit” becomes simply a characteristic of man’s nature, namely his true “integrity.” In the new theology, the Christian “spirit” is not the Holy Spirit who, “without mingling and being lost in my being has become one spirit with me; who, though remaining God high above all, has become everything in all things for me.” The modern religionist is thinking of the Christian’s possession as an “attitude,” such as cheerfulness, which is “catching” but which is not going to be caught unless the “messenger” is first himself cheerful. This is the “identification” that is sought.

Secondly, the messenger must “identify” himself with the people to whom he seeks to “communicate” his message. This, you will readily see, is what the discussions in missions policy have been about. The evangelist or the educator must “sit where the people sit.” As one writer put it, “The ‘going’ to those who are separated from the Good News is not simply a geographical movement from one place to another; the ‘go’ in the evangelistic mission is finally a spiritual movement more than a spatial one.” It is an entering into the thoughts and experiences of those to whom we go that we may “see things from their point of view in order to earn the right to be heard.”

You can readily see how a good idea can be taken too far. The author goes on to elaborate: “The word of the Good News becomes more than a statement of speech; (in our identification with the people), it becomes a deed, an event wherein is demonstrated the love which is the mark of the Church.” (There is that attitude again!) Another author leaves no doubt: “True communication is not like shouting at the top of one’s voice in the hope of compelling your hearers to believe. For this is merely an art of manipulation and cannot lead to an inward personal decision. Nor can the communicator hope to convince men by standing on some lofty pedestal or high pulpit even if he is fervently saying: ‘Thus saith the Lord!’ ”

Thus is the “foolishness of preaching” summarily dismissed.

The point I wish to emphasize is that the new theology does not see the Word of God as the primary means of grace and the preaching of the Word as the way the Holy Spirit convicts men of sin unto salvation. There is really no supernatural reference in this theology at all. If any kind of a doctrine of the means of grace remains, it is one which circumscribes love as the heart of Christian “power.” As already mentioned, it is a matter of “attitude.” And one certainly cannot preach an “attitude:” one must demonstrate it. If you want people to be cheerful, you don’t stand on a pulpit and proclaim cheerfulness. You mingle among the people, on their level, demonstrating your own cheerfulness, so that they may “catch” it.

The Neglected Means Of Grace

This is a new theology. It is not new in history, for in many ways it reflects nineteenth century Rationalism. It is the same old substitution of attitudes and techniques for content—the substitution of human influence for divine power, of behavior patterns for regeneration, of reason for revelation, of works for grace, and of man for God—with which the Church has had to contend for the last couple of centuries. In effect, it substitutes a refined modern psychology for supernatural Reality.

But this time the ideas are framed in a pattern which effectively hurdles one major stumbling block in the path of the older liberalism: namely, that of sin. The idea of “communication” allows man to be helpless in his condition. What man needs cannot be “learned” or “developed” in the old liberal sense, for the new theology recognizes man as a sinner. Instead, what man needs must be “caught.” (You will recognize this as a very credible compromise with the biblical doctrine of conversion). Man’s nature must be changed. (He isn’t cheerful, he must become cheerful). We, who have found newness of life, must “communicate” our integrity in the manner described above.

What about a message? Does the “communication of the Faith” include no message? Indeed it does. But the message is not primary. Having loved someone into a changed attitude and identified ourselves with him, we then “proclaim what God has done.” Now this “proclamation” may be almost anything, depending upon the point of view of the “communicator.”

It may indeed be the true, power-filled Gospel of salvation, if the “communicator” is a preacher of that kind of Gospel (who has not yet apprehended the intricate, subtle pitfalls inherent in a theory of evangelism which follows the above sequence of priorities).

On the other hand, if the “communicator” is an informed advocate of the new theology, he means something else again by “proclaiming what God has done.” Insofar as the message is a “gospel,” it is the good news to the world that it (the whole world) and all mankind stand in a new relation to God on account of Christ. This now is a “saved” world, a “redeemed” world, in which too many people still languish in a state of spiritual misery because they don’t know it.

The element missing here is the very heart of salvation, the doctrine of regeneration. The true Gospel proclaims that men are lost without Christ, and that to be found they must be made over. This, the essentially rationalistic philosophy of “communication” denies.

The new theology offers a splendid program for winning friends and influencing people on the human level according to good psychological principles. To win a friend you must be a friend. To dispel enmity, you must show an understanding spirit and listen with sincere interest. To influence people, you must become one with them.

But all of this is preliminary to the work of evangelism. After you have won a friend and gained a sympathetic hearing, then you begin the work of evangelizing. And to win a lost sinner to Christ you must go beyond the “communicating” described above. You use your own personal testimony and the Word of God as the Sword of the Spirit to convict of sin, to lead to repentance and to that acceptance of Jesus Christ as Saviour which regenerates the sinner. Music may charm for the moment but only the Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit.

We must “communicate the Gospel” indeed. But Christianity is not “caught,” like a case of measles, by simple exposure. Christianity is caught when the Holy Spirit enters the heart convicted of sin by the preaching of the Word. Preaching is essential to the evangelistic and the educational process, from whatever place of authority (pulpit or teacher’s desk) with a ringing “thus saith the Lord!” In particular, the educational task of the Church is to create something within people by teaching something to people:

This is the Word of God. The preaching or teaching process is the divinely appointed means of Grace unto salvation for everyone that believes.

END

G. Aiken Taylor is Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Alexandria, Louisiana. A Calvin scholar, he holds the Ph.D. from Duke University and is author of A Sober Faith and St. Luke’s Life of Jesus, and many magazine articles.

The development of The United Church of Christ could be the most significant achievement in practical ecumenism in American Protestantism. It derives special interest from the coming second synod of the merging Congregational Christian Churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church in July at Oberlin, Ohio, at which a constitution will be adopted.

It is our purpose to consider the United Church (1) as a merger of these denominations and (2) as a proposed answer to ecumenical problems at the local level.

I

The merger of the Congregational Christian Churches (1,400,000) and the Evangelical and Reformed Church (800,000) to form the United Church of Christ has had a stormy journey so far.

In Congregationalism the first poll on the merger was taken in 1948. When the deadline date was reached that summer only 65.5 per cent of the voting churches had responded affirmatively. The General Council voted an extension of seven months in the hope of reaching the recommended standard of 75 per cent. In February, 1949, the favorable parishes numbered only 72.2 per cent but the Council voted to proceed. To prevent the merger, dissident churches then initiated a lawsuit resulting in great conflict and dissension throughout the denomination. Despite these evidences of unrest the General Council repeatedly voted to advance the merger without again referring the matter to the churches.

When the General (National) Council was established in 1871 its functions and powers were strictly limited in order to safeguard the historic autonomous powers of the local congregation. Despite these safeguards there has been an increasing centralization of authority in the Council. Its leadership has been drawn largely from the liberal wing of the denomination.

The Council’s Oberlin meeting in 1948, acting on the assumption that it was “competent to approve the basis of Union solely by itself,” proceeded to declare the Basis of Union ratified. This Basis called for a compromise polity which partook of the presbyterial system of the Evangelical and Reformed body and of the congregational system and provided “that the autonomy of both these bodies is respected in its own sphere, each having its own rights and responsibilities” but responsive to necessary denominational controls.

Without having attained the 75 per cent standard the Congregational Council met in Cleveland in February, 1949, and formally declared the merger consummated. The general secretary of the national council, Dr. Douglas Horton, later (1950) declared that there were in reality two Congregational polities, the first involving the autonomy of the local congregation and the second which accorded to the General Council an autonomous character within its own sphere of action. This revolutionary decision transferred the decision on the merger from the local churches to the General Council. Later, Dr. Horton implemented this view by declaring that the General Council is a church and thus possesses the same powers which historic Congregationalism had ascribed to the churches on a local level.

The Cadman Memorial Church of Brooklyn, New York, had brought court action against the Council in 1949 which resulted at first in a victory for the plaintiff church. As the suit progressed all further proceedings of the Council based on the Horton interpretation were forbidden by the court. The Council appealed this verdict, which disapproved the Oberlin-Cleveland actions, to the court of appeals of the State of New York, which threw out the injunction and proceeded with the drafting of a constitution for the merging denominations.

Many who opposed the merger refused to join the dissidents, however, and still sought some means of unity with the Evangelical and Reformed Church which would preserve the Congregational freedoms. At Claremont, California, in June, 1952, the General Council by a vote of 964 to 55 adopted the famous “Claremont Resolution”—the only nearly unanimous action ever taken by a General Council meeting. The resolution looked forward to a united fellowship with the E. and R. denomination and asked the joint executive committees to draft the proposed constitution for the General Synod of the united fellowship. It provided for “representatives of the different points of view among us on all important committees dealing with the union …” and required that “every effort be made to preserve all the spiritual and temporal freedoms and rights now possessed by the Churches” and other bodies. All groups agreed that this was sound churchmanship, representative of the great spirit of the Claremont meeting under the gracious, firm, and fair leadership of Moderator Vere Loper. But the General Council has done little to properly implement this resolution. As a result, no middle ground exists today between the demands of the E. and R. and the concessions of the General Council on the one hand and those who still cling to traditional Congregational principles.

At this point it is important to note the strong stand of E. and R. President James E. Wagner (see his Cleveland paper of October 12, 1954) for “the full connotations of organic union” as against “a top-level administrative merger.” He made it plain that he and his people were interested in merger only if the new constitution would bind all the local Congregational Christian churches as well as the General Council. The Council evidently realized that this was a virtual ultimatum, and that if merger was to be achieved they must bow to Dr. Wagner’s demands. This they did without frankly confessing the nature of their agreement to their constituency. Indeed, they so interpreted the ennabling acts of the Councils of 1942, 1952, and 1954 as to accomplish their purpose. Furthermore, they in effect ignored the findings of their own Committee of Free Church Polity and Unity. This Committee, composed of representatives of all viewpoints in the denomination and headed by Dr. L. Wendell Fifield, as general chairman and Dr. Henry David Gray, as Congregational polity chairman, had produced after four years of study a report based solidly on actual historic Congregational documents, in the hope that their work would preserve and perpetuate Congregational freedoms.

The fears of dyed-in-the-wool Congregationalists were further aroused by Dr. Wagner’s statement in Omaha in June 1956, evidently intended to pacify dissident elements: “The United Church will not be presbyterianism since it specifically disavows and guards against the unwonted and arbitrary exercise of authority. Such a church will not be Congregationalism [italics ours], since it has set itself to the task of describing in black and white the inter-relatedness of local church, association, conference, and general synod, so that each may operate in deference and obligation to others, things may get done ‘decently and in order,’ and that, in Christ its head, ‘the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.’ ” Dr. Howard Conn, pastor of the 2,000-member Plymouth Congregational Christian Church in Minneapolis, discussing this statement in Christian Herald (August, 1957), said bluntly, “when these ecumenicists speak of ‘doing things in order,’ they do not mean doing things politely, graciously and efficiently. They mean rather doing them in recognition of an objective ecclesiastical organization whose welfare they believe has priority over the spontaneous movements of the Holy Spirit in local congregations.”

Dr. Conn reflects the widespread unrest that exists among Congregationalists as the time comes for the adoption of a permanent constitution. They believe, as a British Congregationalist puts it, “in the Holy Local Church, the communion of real dissent, the crown rights of the Redeemer and the regularity of ordination vouchsafed to our communion by God Himself.” They are not ready to bow to bishops, moderators, councils, or settlement committees.

It is only fair to state, however, that the moderator of the 1957 Uniting Synod assured his fellow Congregationalists that “in the United Church there will be no abridgement of Congregational polity and freedom; nor will any existing doctrine or polity be imposed upon us. None of our long-cherished freedoms will be lost. Congregations will be free to call their own ministers, write their own covenants, regulate their own worship, keep their present names, own and control their own property, handle their own finances. They will not be bound by a general Church creed, nor governed by an over-all constitution.…” But the dissenters say this statement is merely “an unctuous platitude” and, taken in the light of official commitments, serves only to heighten the confusion of an already confused situation.

Here is another interesting angle: Some Congregational Christian churches insist that they did not legally unite with the Evangelical and Reformed Church at Cleveland. They contend that no legal action of the Council has authorized any such union, nor has the constitution of the Council been legally altered to claim any such relationship. Furthermore, it was admitted under oath in the Cadman lawsuit (1949–50), and again in the answer to the pleadings in the case now pending, that the General Council has no power to take the local churches into any union. The Committee for the Continuation of Congregational Christian Churches of the United States, which is concerned with opposing lawsuits, initiated by local churches and individuals, holds that E. and R. Church officials mistakenly assume that this so-called merger is similar to the union of 1934, between the Evangelical Synod of North America and the Reformed Church and that they are bound for disillusionment when they discover that Cleveland is no “repeat performance.”

Coincident with grass-roots discontent, the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches in the United States has been formed. It has enlisted some 200 churches, some very prominent, such as First Church, Los Angeles, California (largest Congregational church in America)—Dr. James W. Fifield, Jr., minister—and Park Street Church, Boston, Massachusetts—Dr. Harold John Ockenga, minister. Despite a wide diversity of theological conviction, all are determined to preserve the Congregational principle of freedom of the local church. They believe that the assurances of absolute congregational autonomy by Council leaders are little more than unctuous platitudes.

Doctrinal motives have caused other churches to form the Conservative Congregational Conference and such regional bodies as the Eastern Indiana Association of Congregational Christian Churches. Dissatisfaction of these churches with the Council’s liberal leadership in missions, publication, education, evangelism, and social action predated merger issues and long ago provoked their noncooperation. Recent developments in matters of doctrine and practice have, of course, served only to intensify divergence and swell the ranks of the Conservative Conference.

Another organization known as the League to Uphold Congregational Principles is particularly concerned to preserve Congregational Christian endowments and trust funds for their original purposes. A lawsuit now pending in Federal District Court, New York City, involves $132,500,000.

Most observers believe that the Oberlin meeting will adopt the new constitution of the United Church and that the merger will soon be declared accomplished. It has been voted by both denominations and they are treating it as an accepted fact.

If this eventuates, Congregationalists opposed to the merger foresee the development of a centralized, authoritarian type of church government, with judicatories and with certain authorities over local congregations. They say this has already been evolving in Congregational conferences where superintendents have been assuming and exercising growing authority. In a matter of time a centralized hierarchy would determine ordination and placement of ministers and possibly even the theological convictions of the local church. Next would be the control of local church property and eventual loss of individual freedom and congregational autonomy.

It would appear that after Oberlin there will not only be a United Church of Christ, but also two or three new denominations of Congregational persuasion.

Ii

Probably more important than the event transpiring at Oberlin are its overtones. Beyond the merger of the Congregational Christian Churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church loom the ecumenical vision and the initial step in practical achievement.

Framers of the Constitution to be presented to the General Synod not only are aware of this but make their intentions clear in the Basis of Union. Article I, referring to the name United Church of Christ, says: “This name expresses a fact: It stands for the accomplished union of two church bodies, each of which has arisen from a similar union of two church bodies. It also expresses a hope: That in time soon to come, by further union between this church and other bodies, there shall arise a more inclusive United Church.”

Already the International Convention of Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ) has gone on record as favoring exploratory conferences looking toward joining the United Church of Christ.

First, a little background: About the time of the Cleveland constituting convention of the National Council of Churches in 1950, The Christian Century (issue of Nov. 15, 1950) revealed a meeting in Cincinnati aimed at putting some realism into the ecumenical vision. Said the Century: “Once (the National Council) has been formed, the separate denominations will begin to learn by experience how to carry on most of their large scale responsibilities—missions both at home and overseas, religious education, higher education, the cultivation of stewardship, special work of and for women—under a common leadership and in cooperative fellowship.” Then “at Cincinnati … the plan for a United Church of Christ” will be proposed and “a road will thereby be marked out by which, not in some vague and misty future but in the lifetime of the present Protestant bodies, those bodies may travel straight on to the realization of union in organization and entity, as well as in spirit and intent. Cleveland first, then Cincinnati—and ‘the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees.’ ”

As far back as 1949 an overture originating in the General Council of the Congregational Christian Churches and supported by the International Convention of the Disciples of Christ had been made to all those denominations which “recognize one another’s ministries and sacraments” to send official delegates to a common meeting place to consider the possibility of effecting a union of their churches. This eventuated in the Conference on Church Union in Greenwich, Connecticut, December 4–11, 1949. As a result a definite blueprint for union was presented at a second Cincinnati conference in January, 1951 (the meeting referred to by the Century). After a long debate, the plan for a new “United Church of Christ” was adopted:

The local church: The united Church would recognize and respect the freedom of each local church in the discharge of its local responsibilities. No fundamental changes in the structure of procedure of local churches would be required as a condition of entrance into the united Church.

Each local church would determine its worship and how to administer baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

New members would be received on profession of faith in Jesus Christ as divine Lord and Saviour. Letters of transfer from other churches would be honored in accordance with the practice of the receiving church.

Local churches which hold title to their own property would retain that title.

The ministry: Ministers would be ordained “to the ministry of the Church of Jesus Christ” and not to a single denomination. The act of ordination would be performed by the presbytery on recommendation of the local church and a presbytery examining committee. The bishop would preside at the ordination, “thus signifying that the one ordained is a minister of the whole Church.” The presbytery also would be involved in the engagement or dismissal of a minister and would install him in the local church.

The united Church would accept “a reasonable and just share of responsibility” for the continuous employment of its worthy and qualified ministers during their active years and for the continuous pastoral care of its local churches “without … infringing upon the freedom of the minister or of the local church.”

The Presbytery: To provide for the “fellowship of mutual counsel and cooperation,” a presbytery would be constituted by 10 or more “contiguously located” churches of the united Church, including the minister and a lay representative from each.

Meeting annually, the presbytery would recruit, prepare and ordain ministers, have oversight and aid of ministers and churches, elect delegates to the conference and general council and “set in order” and promote spiritual welfare and cooperative work.

The conference: This unit would embrace at least three presbyteries and would be comparable in function to a state convention, state association, synod, diocese, or annual conference of existing denominations. It would be composed of both ministers and laymen and would meet at least once a year, with an elected presiding officer to be called a moderator. Each conference would elect a bishop who would serve as “a spiritual counselor and guide of its churches and ministers and its administrative superintendent.”

The conference would be responsible for the administration and promotion within its boundaries of the work of the Church as a whole. It would review the records and work of the presbyteries, constitute new presbyteries and divide old ones, and propose measures to the general council. Some 60 conferences, each with a bishop, might be required.

The general council: Responsibility of this unit would be to “foster and express the substantial unity of the united Church in faith, polity, purpose and work.” Specifically, it would “do and promote the work of the whole Church in its national, international and ecumenical relations,” and in general carry on the functions of the national convention, general assembly, general synod, general conference, or general council of the uniting denominations.

It would be composed of approximately 1,200 delegates, with ministers and laymen in equal numbers. Newly elected bishops would be consecrated by the general council. The bishops would be ex officio members with the right to speak but not to vote. Meeting regularly once in two years, the council would have a presiding officer known as a moderator.

Among work which the general council would coordinate and administer would be evangelism, home and foreign missions, ecumenical activity, Christian education, stewardship, publishing, pensions, and social action. It would have power to create such corporations, boards, and committees as are needed.

In the section of the document devoted to “the ecumenical evangelical faith” to which the united Church should bear witness, the drafters cited “a common belief by the participating denominations in God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Scriptures and life everlasting.”

While many difficulties face any comprehensive merger, veterans of the ecumenical movement counseled National Council leaders against being discouraged about the time it may take to achieve it.

Dr. George W. Richards, of the Evangelical and Reformed Church, said, “There is no defeat of great causes, although there may be temporary setbacks.” Methodist Bishop Ivan Lee Holt of St. Louis, chairman of the Conference on Church Union, hailed the Cincinnati convocation “as one of the most important meetings ever to be held in American Protestantism.”

This is essentially the plan upon which the Congregational Christian Churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church are uniting. The plan is also involved in the discussions which are already taking place between Disciple and United Church leaders. Other communions are seriously considering joining this United Church.

It would seem, therefore, that there is an ecumenical church already in existence and that it is eagerly seeking the inclusion of all Protestant bodies.

Local churches may be made up of members of all denominations. Its doctrinal and denominational loyalties—if any—are considered secondary to the larger ecumenical church, although subject to guidance from some central authoritative body. The program of the local church will be the program of “the United Church” and its doctrine the doctrine generally accepted by the ecumenical church.

The pastor of the church must consider himself the local representative of the larger ecumenical church and be prepared to serve in whatever sector of the United Church he may be assigned.

In due time all local churches will be subject to merger or relocation until there is, in the judgment of the proper authorities, adequate coverage of a given community, without overlapping. The territory of a local church may be reduced or enlarged.

The ultimate relationship of the United Church of Christ and its local congregations with councils of churches is not clearly spelled out, although there is constant emphasis on “the coming Great Church,—one Church for one World.”

It is interesting to note that the new United Church of Christ leaders are already using ecumenical language in their pronouncements. Dr. Fred Hoskins of New York City and Dr. Wagner, now co-presidents of the UCC, last year issued a “joint official call” to “Christians throughout the world” to take a new stand regarding Holy Communion. The statement read in part, “It is the Lord’s Table, not ours. We are not his hosts, but He is and it is He who has invited us. Since He, our Lord, has invited us to sup with Him, we cannot presume to bar from His table for any reason those who, like themselves, have accepted His invitation to partake of it. Therefore, so early in our united life, we are moved to bear this witness.” The “call” then proceeded to proffer “access to UCC’s pulpits and altars.… to all in your fellowships who love the Lord Jesus Christ and who seek the establishment of His will and reign.”

Delegates to the Oberlin meeting in July may be so occupied with the subjects at hand that they will not realize a delicate orientation is taking place that may affect the future of all American Protestantism. But many ecclesiastical leaders are fully aware that Oberlin’s action may contribute strategically to the fulfillment of the ecumenical dream.

We devoutly hope that the great principles which have made Congregationalism a driving force for good in Christendom may not be lost amid its new ecclesiastical patterns. The Church of the Pilgrims has stood for full liberty of conscience, an open Bible, freedom to preach the truth, Christian piety, the autonomous and self-governing local church, and a broad ecumenical fellowship. The men of Scrooby, Leyden and Plymouth were sincere in a desire to return to the simplicity of the New Testament Church and Congregationalism cannot afford to lose the loyal, adventurous spirit of that quest.

END

James DeForest Murch is an ordained minister of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), former managing editor, Standard Publishing Company, member of the International Convention’s historic Commission on Restudy (1942–49) and is currently active in the organized life of the church.