SELF-SERVICE SCHOOL?

Will Johnson came upon the test paper quite by accident. His eighth grader had left her stack of school books, gym equipment, notes, purse, and miscellaneous effects on the back seat of the car, and when he stopped suddenly to avoid crushing her bike in the driveway, the pile cascaded to the floor. The red pencil marks caught his eye as he was collecting the debris in a basket.

The test covered a unit on personal adjustment. Pamela had not done well on it. Was it best to study: (a) on the floor in front of the TV, (b) on the kitchen table while mother prepared dinner, or (c) in a quiet place with good lighting. Incredibly, Pam had chosen (b).

What should a student do about a course he does not like? Pam had lettered briefly, “drop it.”

Only one question received full credit. “What are your social needs?” Pam answered, “Acceptance, affection, achievement.” Each was defined; achievement meant, “doing something better than others.”

In the interview between father and daughter which soon followed, Pam explained that she had goofed deliberately. Writing the test, she said, had given her a wonderful sense of achievement. Even her teacher had overlooked the advantages of study in the kitchen, for example. What could better satisfy Pam’s hunger for acceptance, affection, and a little food before dinner? It didn’t interfere with achievement in anything but math, and a remarkable combination of low interest and low aptitude made it clear that math was not an area of achievement for Pam. Her advisor had admitted as much. Why should it interfere with her delightful kitchen adjustment?

Her father’s response furnished Pam with a vigorous social experience of authoritarian parental control. She now studies in her room. At the PTA, Mr. Johnson’s account of the incident led to spirited debate about the “social needs” approach to education. At the end, the discussion became theological, as Pastor Peterson urged self-sacrifice instead of self-service. He had seen too often what the quest for satisfaction of personal needs could do to marriages!

EVANGELICAL RESURGENCE

Your “Resurgence of Evangelical Christianity” (Mar. 30 issue) is thrilling!… Your magazine is like wheat amid the chaff of liberalism, like a rock amid the sand dunes of neo-orthodoxy, and like the sun amid changing moons of non-biblical scholars.

Northern Baptist Theological Seminary

Chicago, Ill.

“Evangelical Christianity” in your article turns out to be revivalism and biblicism, both of which have a weak theology. The Roman church has pre-empted the word “catholic” and now fundamentalism usurps the word “evangelical.” In both instances Lutherans protest.

Hamma Divinity School of Wittenberg College

Springfield, Ohio

Timely article … I am only one voice—but at least one—and I am happy to lift it in protest against the path down which we are being led by our wretched standards of music, which have been taken from American culture rather than Christian culture … I join you in heart in your fine stand.

New York, N. Y.

EVEN MACHIAVELLI

In regard to your March 30 editorial …, there are many things that Tillich says that are good. Even I, a simple pastor, readily admit that there are good emphases, relevant correctives, and spiritual stimulus in the vast majority of theologians. Although we might differ radically, no man in his personal intellectual humility would say that, for example, Aquinas, or Nietzsche, or even Machiavelli were totally devoid of constructive elements for every man.

Paterson, N. J.

In his Systematic Theology, vol. I, p. 205, Tillich writes, “God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.” My understanding of Tillich is that he means that the verb “exists” cannot properly be used to predicate the God whose “being” is beyond our conceptions of existence. Rather than denying the existence of God, I believe Tillich is pointing to his transcendence.

Pierce Memorial Presbyterian Church

Farmingdale, N. J.

It is good to see some publication that has the courage to tell the truth about Prof. Tillich, who does not present the Truth. He has done and is doing great harm to Christianity …

Wilmington, Del.

Your words about Paul Tillich … were very good.

The First Baptist Church

Marissa, Ill.

SOCIAL ENGINEERING

Your editorial, “The Dangers of Social Engineering” (Mar. 2 issue), calls attention to a grave danger to political and religious freedom. However, it was inadequate on two points. First, the discussion of the theory is far too short. Second, you completely omitted all examination of actual legislative proposals to commit the “ideologically unsound” to mental institutions. It would be a service if you could have this written up.

Butler University

Indianapolis, Ind.

• Some modern “social revisionists” are now so bold as to consider as candidates for mental institutions all who do not hold quasi-collectivistic social theories and who cherish the Christian religion in its biblical form. Mental health is being associated with enthusiasm for compulsory legislation that dissolves voluntarism, while those who have doubts about economic programs that weaken free enterprise traditions are regarded as mentally ill. Dr. H. A. Overstreet, in his The Great Enterprise—Relating Ourselves to Our World, asserts that people who angrily oppose “… public housing, the TVA, financial and technical aid to backward countries, organized labor, and the preaching of social rather than salvational religion … may appear normal … but they are, we now recognize, well along the road to mental illness.” We would tremble indeed to have this “progressive philosophy” dominate expanding government intrusion into “mental health” activities. It is characteristic of dictator states to brand as neurosis whatever is inconvenient to their totalitarian schemes.—ED.

The [editorial] entitled “Have We Passed the Summit?” falls into the familiar pit of identifying the Reformation with the preaching of “The Christian Gospel” as purely theological, and contrasts it in the following article with “The Dangers of Social Engineering.” One wonders if … the fact that the religion of the local prince became the religion of all the people in his province is this “liberating power” we are told about; if the persecution and rejection of the Anabaptists, done in the name of this theology, was any better than the possible results of Dr. A. H. Overstreet’s analysis of the symptoms of mental illness? Have the editors forgotten the theocracy of Calvin at Geneva with its complete theological, social, and political structure? Is it possible they do not know that our founding fathers (to whom we popularly and oratorically attribute our separation of church and state) tried to set up a similar theocracy in Massachusetts and for many years supported the church with tax money and decided many theological points in the legislature, allowing no one to vote who was not a church member—that is, a member of the right church?

First Congregational Christian

Muncie, Ind.

Having seen and used a splendid reprint from your magazine in my campaign against this mental health racket, namely, “Do Humanists Exploit Our Tensions?”, I am wondering if you will have any reprints of “The Dangers of Social Engineering” in your current issue.…

Petersburg, Va.

THE FAITH AND THE ETHIC

As a subscriber and occasional contributor to CHRISTIANITY TODAY, I am constrained to voice protest against an attitude which has found expression repeatedly in the pages of your magazine for the last six months. It is that of elevating total abstinence in reference to fermented beverages to the status of a principle for the Christian. The latest example of this is in the issue which has just come to my hand (Feb. 2) in which tolerance “about the use of alcohol” is placed in the same category as tolerance about “delinquency,” “divorce,” “wickedness in high places,” “immorality,” “crime,” and “godlessness” (p. 3). The implication must be that “the use of alcohol” is to be condemned along with these other moral evils. I cannot stress too much the pernicious wrong of this attitude and I shall give my reasons for this judgment.

No sensitive Christian can but condemn and deplore drunkenness and the evils which follow in its wake, whether it be the drunkenness of the occasional inebriate or that of the alcoholic. Every sensitive Christian surely knows the pang of grief that pierces his soul when he sees a drunken person. And there is no disposition on my part to defend many of the methods of the liquor traffic. CHRISTIANITY TODAY has sufficiently exposed the disastrous consequences of some of these methods. Why then such severe judgment upon the attitude referred to above? It is precisely because it is aimed at the heart of the Christian faith and the biblical ethic.

Roland H. Bainton (July 7 issue) has shown admirably by appeal to Luke 7:33–35 that Jesus came drinking wine and that this must have been the fermented beverage denoted by that name (p. 5). It is impossible to adopt any other interpretation. This is the heart of the issue. We dare not impugn the integrity of our Lord nor the relevance to us of his example. It is futile to appeal to the changed conditions under which we live to get away from the relevance to us of our Lord’s example in this particular. Our Lord is the supreme example of virtue and the only example of perfect virtue. If we deny the abiding relevance here, where are we to land? Subtly, though the proponents are often unaware of what they are doing, the tendency, not to speak of the attempt, to elevate total abstinence to the position of principle and to invest it with the sanction of necessary virtue is a direct assault upon our Lord’s integrity and upon the relevance of his example. That is why it is aimed at the heart of our faith. And it is aimed at the heart of the biblical ethic, too. It lies at the center of all ethical discrimination that we may never condemn the use because of the abuse.

Perhaps, Mr. Editor, you will permit one word more. How distorted has become the appeal to the weak brother! Into this distortion even Bainton falls (cf. p. 6 in the article cited above). The “weak brother” of Paul’s teaching (cf. Rom. 14) is not the person who “either for physical or psychological reasons” is “in danger of the Lost Weekend” but the person who on religious grounds is a total abstainer. How strange is the exegetical casuistry to which Scripture is subjected!

Westminster Theological Seminary

Philadelphia, Pa.

The diatribe of Baptist Editor C. R. Daley in your issue of December 22 just arrived here is typical of intemperate extremists masquerading as temperance advocates. As Fr. Mangrum points out in the same issue of your paper, the historic Church knows of no such compulsory restriction, and this includes the vast majority of Christians. It is high time that those who stand for true temperance spoke out against the fanatical type of teetotalers who are driving people from religion by their intransigent attitude.

All Saints Rectory

Gordonvale, Queensland, Australia

GEOGRAPHICAL YEAR NEEDED

Perhaps it is a good thing that your editor is so unfamiliar with gambling centers. But still, New Mexico should not be blamed for the open and legalized gambling in Nevada (March 16 issue, p. 21). You have the wrong Las Vegas!

Grace Lutheran Church

Bishop, Calif.

I agree that gambling should be opposed.… However, I am a proud ex-son of New Mexico.… Recommend a trip to the nice little city of Las Vegas, New Mexico.

Leonia, N. J.

The theology of CHRISTIANITY TODAY is good, but the geography is bad!

Fuller Seminary

Pasadena, Calif.

FRUIT OF CYNICISM

I am glad you have come out with strong protests against the cynical play, “The Third Commandment,” recently presented over NBC’s Kaleidoscope series (Mar. 2 issue.) Upon seeing it advertised, I made a special effort to watch the play, and sat in stunned amazement at the blasphemy of it. Not only was there blasphemy against God, but the insinuation that evangelists are obtaining wealth through commercialized revivalism revealed the attitude of author Hecht. Knowing of so many fine evangelists who have been forced to leave the field of evangelism because of inadequate support by the churches, I was especially shocked at this false portrayal.

Los Angeles Baptist City Mission Society

Los Angeles, Calif.

One predominant idea, and perhaps the most provocative, resulting from increased discussion of American public education, is that well defined goals are no longer to be achieved. To say that “life adjustment” or “education of the whole man” are satisfactory goals is to cloud the horizon with platitudes.

Caught between a decline of “Deweyism” and an attempt to re-establish “traditionalism” in education, American public education today has a large “gray ghost” area. The future of America in scientific technology and social behavior hinges on what we can do about the goals of public education.

The organization which has long sheltered the “gray ghosts” is the National Congress of Parents and Teachers. Arm in arm with the National Education Association, PTA has limped along on innumerable half-hearted goals for over a quarter of a century.

The end result has been that the organization founded in 1897 as the National Congress of Mothers and dedicated to the welfare of the child in home and school has unwittingly sponsored and underwritten not only a mediocre public educational curriculum but also has created a curious parental neglect of children by making the school responsible for their social and moral development. One recalls the anecdote of a child who, seeing both parents depart for an evening PTA meeting, remarked, “I wish you and Daddy would stop doing so much for us at school and do something with us at home for a change.”

The statement of PTA goals seeks “to develop between educators and the general public such united efforts as will secure for every child the highest advantages in physical, mental, social, and spiritual education.” Another part of the Permanent Platform reads: “Active Spiritual Faith-Religion has a fundamental place in our American tradition as a basic factor in personal and social behavior. Every child has a right to a religious faith.”

In practice this goal is far from specific. In order to offend nobody, this issue is usually not only skirted in discussions but avoided in programs presented to the membership. Eliminating this aim or diluting it beyond recognition, many public school systems in this country have divested American public education of its essentially Christian foundations.

The PTA manual itself illustrates how the ideal of an “active spiritual faith” has been turned into a weapon which is slowly but inexorably stifling any spiritual or moral development that could be part of American public education. On the surface, a Christian climate appears to be favored. For the impact of religious training in character growth is recognized. The manual recommends daily Bible reading, prayers, and grace at mealtime—in the home. The local chairman of this activity (and I would welcome news of a local PTA unit that has such) is to relate some inspirational experience at each PTA meeting. This may take the form of some patriotic expression, or recognition of such organizations as the National Conference of Christians and Jews, and Brotherhood Week sponsored by this group. On the World Day of Prayer, silent prayer may be encouraged. An appreciation of the Bible as literature and history may be fostered. Music and art appreciation are possibilities. Participation in interfaith services may be advocated. Membership in a church or in a “character building” group may be encouraged. United Nations is recommended for support. International education projects may be an outlet requiring “spiritual” activity.

This approach to spiritual problems in terms of general language and broad aims reveals the “cloudy” principles responsible for the vacuous neutralism in spiritual things that characterizes current PTA activities. The local PTA unit is not helped by the recommendations in the manual. There is no “straight and narrow.”

No wonder that neutralism in American public education has advanced to the point where reading the Bible may be held to be unlawful. Secular neutralism is the avowed religion of the public schools today. The PTA, with its back turned upon our Christian heritage, is incapable of leadership. The “gray ghosts” have assumed command.

END

John Wesley Clayton is an experimental taxicologist with the Haskell Laboratory for Industrial Medicine and Taxicology of The duPont Company in Wilmington, Delaware. He holds the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in zoology from the University of Pennsylvania, where he was assistant instructor, and has been active in P.T.A. affairs in his home community.

Field service or, as some would rather call it, “field education” is rapidly coming to be a vital, relevant, and necessary part of theological education. The importance attached to this discipline has increased greatly since a recent survey, headed by Dr. Richard Niebuhr of Yale, which showed that the most rapid advances in theological education in the past two decades have been in this area.

To state it simply, field service is the process of learning the vocation of Christian ministry through experience under guidance. It is education by actual contact with people in situations of Christian service. The student through such training learns the arts of communication and interpretation, and acquires the skills necessary for competence in his vocation.

Such education is prevalent enough today that churches need not think of a graduate from theological seminary as a novice in the ministry but rather as a young minister who comes with experience and skills to carry out the service for which he has been trained.

Uniting Theory And Skill

Field education is now a regular part of the seminary course. The work of the student in churches, on campus, in institutions, and in clinical experience is as much a part of seminary education as regular academic curriculum. In fact, more time is spent in this training than in any other course. Field service is looked upon as an instructional course which seeks for training, experience, adjustment, and the acquisition of skills which the minister must have for professional competence.

Those who are directing field education maintain that the division between learning and doing was a false dichotomy. The educational theory which held that the so-called “content” courses were of more value than the operational or skill courses was not true. The old division between factual and practical courses was not a valid distinction. Certainly those who teach the “content” courses do not wish to admit that they are not practical, and those who teach in the “practical” fields will not for a moment admit that their courses do not have content. Therefore, field service has tended to unite things in theological education which never should have been separated in the first place, namely, knowledge and practice, theory and skill.

A young man in the Presbyterian Seminary at Louisville, when asked to state what had been the chief benefit of his field training, said: “Field work has served to make all of the courses of my theological training relevant.”

Supervision And Integration

With this new dimension in training, the seminary has moved into the church. Hundreds of pastors have become associated with the seminary faculty in the training of men and women for the Christian ministry. At the same time seminary students have taken their places on the staffs of churches or institutions or as student ministers to contribute to the life of the church while they are ministers in training.

Field supervisors in churches and institutions where the students are employed represent a key link in the chain that connects theological education with field experience. They are extension members of the seminary faculty, and are related to the students as pastors in the churches where students work, as moderators of student churches, as chaplains in hospitals and penal institutions, and as district superintendents in charge of centers where ministers in training may labor.

There are two points with which field education is most concerned. These are supervision and integration. There is common agreement that field service becomes genuine education in proportion to the amount of supervision young men receive in it.

Field supervisors are now frequently brought to the seminaries for conferences or for periods of instruction and consultation in the requirements of supervision. This promotes the potential of field work as a proper part of the training process for the Christian ministry.

The first published volume on this whole area of theological education (Ministers in Training, Theological Book Agency, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey) appeared last year. It is used as a textbook or reference work in many seminaries, including several in the Far East, Latin America, and other lands. The volume is a symposium covering the various aspects of field education, and is aimed to instruct both the supervisor and the student.

Seminary supervision is accomplished in many ways. In seminaries such as the Southern Baptist, Louisville, where hundreds of student pastors go out for training each week, the supervision takes the form of written reports and interviews. Both reports from the students and from the field supervisors are important. These are supplemented by interviews on campus, visits to the field by seminary faculty members, and by discussion meetings of students in practice or observational groups.

Variety In Field Service

The ideal arrangement is to give the student as wide a variety of experience as possible. During his first year in seminary he may work with a closely supervised group and the following year have more independence as an assistant pastor or youth director in a church. Then in his senior year he should acquire preaching experience and an opportunity to learn the skills of pastoral visitation, counseling and clinical work.

Obviously, this much experience would be impossible within the limits of the regular seminary course were it not for the well-supervised summer service and the year of full-time internship which quite a number of seminaries are requiring before granting degrees.

This whole matter of integration depends upon supervision, for the student needs direction in order to see the proper relationship between the seminary curriculum and the actual work of the ministry. There is also the important matter of the integration of the student’s character for the vocation of a Christian minister. Properly directed field service will aid in the accomplishment of good integration.

When a student enters upon field service, he has three ends in view. First, he has his service to Christ and the Church. Unless this be the basic motive he will lack the necessary spiritual foundation for his ministry. In the second place, he has the responsibility of gaining the education and training he needs as part of his preparation for the Christian ministry. In the third place, he will receive remuneration from the church, in some instances also a scholarship from the seminary, to make it possible for him to meet the expenses of his education. Certainly in cases where students are married and have children to support, the matter of finances can pose quite a problem.

A good field director will keep, however, the emphasis and direction of the student first of all upon his academic work. The reason for this is to keep students from doing too much in their field service. Students are to be continually reminded that they will be in seminary but once, while, God willing, they will have the opportunity to live and grow through practical experience during their service in the ministry.

It may be said, by way of conclusion, that students have now emerged from the ivory tower of the seminary into the life of the church. Thousands of young men are out working every weekend and during the summers and internship periods. Pastors and others who supervise them have become an extension faculty of the seminaries. Certainly all this makes for a new dimension in theological education.

The time has passed when a man is considered ready for the work of the Christian ministry, no matter how excellent his academic training has been, if he has not had real experience in learning professional competency in church situations with people and under proper guidance. Field service is helping to produce Christian ministers who are well-adjusted; mature and skilled; and for this reason it can be considered as valid, important, and necessary as the other disciplines of theological education.

It is a complicated process to communicate to ministers in training a proper understanding of God, Christ, the Bible, and the Church, and their interrelatedness and application to life and to service. It is therefore the task of seminaries and supervisors on the field to aid those who will combine learning, skill, and experience into a creative ministry that will be blessed by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

END

Committees In Heaven?

Does God work by the committee method?

Does He summon members from the far-spanned spheres

To sit together in celestial counsel?

Are agenda carefully prepared by appropriate bureaus?

Does He invite reports from heads of departments,

Call for this opinion or another?

Do they cull and distill from extensive field researches?

Does He request statistics regarding the involved mechanics

Of the very important cosmos?

Finally, when the meeting adjourns, does He send them forth,

All highly pleased with the workings of the group process,

Bestowing the plaudit, “Well done, good servants,”

Amidst the reassuring murmur, “We surely accomplished a great deal today!”?

KENDIG BRUBAKER CULLY

J. Christy Wilson is Dean of Field Service at Princeton Theological Seminary. For 20 years he was a missionary in Iran and other Middle East lands. He is author of many articles and several books (three of them written in Persian).

The United States Office of Education reports that 1,341 institutions of higher learning conferred 411,058 earned degrees during the year 1956–57. Of this number 61,955 were master’s or professional degrees, representing from five to seven years of post high school study, and 8,756 were doctorates, representing seven years or more of post high school study. The balance consisted of four-year baccalaureate degrees. Honorary degrees, granted by these institutions, amounted to less than one per cent of the total.

How many counterfeit degrees were granted by illegitimate institutions and “diploma mills” is not known. But indications point to a large number, many of them going to ministers of the Gospel. In fact, considerable traffic in worthless degrees is being promoted by schools that claim to be “evangelical and conservative.” Fortunately, most preachers are discerning men and able to spot a fake degree as quickly as they would a phony three-dollar bill. And many lay leaders are equally discerning.

Some years ago the pulpit committee of a strong denominational church in the Midwest was shocked to find that the candidate about to be recommended as pastor had accepted an honorary degree from a “diploma mill.” Although he had been virtually assured of a call, his name was immediately dropped.

Unfortunately, however, not all church boards detect the false from the genuine. In my files I have the following formal invitation: “The P—— Church of P——, invites you to attend the special conferring service on the occasion of the completion of work by the pastor, Rev. John Doe, for the degree Doctor of Theology from the P—— Theological Seminary, on the morning of May 20, 1956 at 10:45 o’clock at the P—— Church. The Doctor of Divinity degree will also be bestowed honorarily.” The seminary referred to is a notorious “diploma mill” operating under several names. Its operator some time ago issued a reprint on the merits of correspondence study and pointed out that 10 million people have taken such courses. The implication was that all such courses must therefore be good. Clergymen who had not completed college and seminary were invited to earn degrees by correspondence. It was noted that this has been possible in England for 50 years. What was unsaid is that credits earned from this particular “institution” are not recognized by any reputable school, and that it is not the practice of accredited institutions in the United States to offer degrees by correspondence.

Several years ago an institution which had operated as a “seminary” in Delaware moved to Florida and continued operation under the same charter as a “liberal arts vocational college” and as a “theological seminary.” It offered 1,000 “Home Study Scholarship Awards,” reducing a year’s “tuition” from $120 to $90 if used within 15 days. As “honorary members” they listed several world-famous men. It is doubtful that these men knew how their names were being used. Many other good men have lent their names to similar projects apparently without investigating the institutions. In some cases an institutional charter changes hands repeatedly and its seat of operations moves from city to city and even from state to state.

Fraudulent Schools

In 1949 the Department of Higher Education of the National Education Association established a Committee on Fraudulent Schools and Colleges for the following purposes: 1. To make the public more aware of the continued existence of fraudulent institutions. 2. To encourage the teaching profession to warn youths and adults against such unscrupulous institutions. 3. To encourage state education officials to assume more responsibility for securing and enforcing legislation designed to eliminate so-called schools that give no real educational service to students.

In the New York Times (February 7, 1951) Benjamin Fine, school editor, estimated that more than 1,000 questionable or outright fraudulent schools and colleges exist in this country. The fraudulent institutions include so-called universities, colleges, seminaries, and schools lacking adequate libraries or laboratories, lacking standing with reputable institutions of learning, and engaged in the “racket” of selling degrees and diplomas. Some institutions make a pretense of having a few requirements, but it appears that any person with the “fee” can meet these without difficulty.

The NEA Committee believes that fraudulent institutions are in operation because “fraud in education has proved to be a profitable business for unscrupulous persons and because there are men and women who want to buy cheap degrees in order to deceive their employers or their associates by claiming degrees and credentials.” The Committee also finds that the laws of most states governing schools and colleges are so lax that racketeers are able to operate with impunity.

Suggestions offered for improving the situation include the following: 1. Stricter state laws. 2. Prosecution of fraudulent schools. 3. Insistence on honesty in advertising. 4. Requirement of evidence that a degree is from a reputable institution. 5. A deepening of conviction that it is dishonest to use any certificate, diploma, or degree issued by a school that lacks adequate recognition by appropriate educational authorities.

These are the standards of the world. The man standing behind the sacred desk can ill afford to bring reflection upon his message by employing lower standards in his personal life!

With shame we must admit that our conservative brethren in the ministry are more susceptible to worthless degrees than are the liberals. Why this should be true is difficult to understand. But many advertisements stress the orthodoxy of schools offering degrees by correspondence and thereby widen their appeal to evangelicals.

Tricks Of The Trade

To give a semblance of respectability, some schools will advertise themselves as members of a nonexistent educational association. One advertises itself as a member of the “National Association of Bible Schools,” another the “World University Association of Schools.”

One Chicago institution has been hailed into Federal court repeatedly by the Federal Trade Commission. When ordered to cease and desist, it merely changed its name sufficiently to get by the law and has gone right on advertising “courses.” A Federal court order instructed this institution to stop

representing, through the use of the symbols indicating academic degrees after the names of members of its faculty, or by any other means, that members of its faculty are educators duly qualified by a higher education, when the degrees so indicated are not the result of study pursued in residence at recognized colleges and universities duly authorized to grant the respective degrees indicated, or when the symbols of academic degrees used do not represent degrees actually granted by such institutions to such members of its faculty for attainment in the field of knowledge, and when the persons to whom the degrees represented by the symbols used are not teachers, educators, or persons of high educational attainment.

To begin with, this institution advertised itself as a “University.” When ordered to drop that name, it substituted the term “Graduate College” for “University.” Its next step was to drop “Graduate College” and add the word “Schools.” It then became a “Foundation.” The last title merely referred to it as a corporation. While not in the headlines recently, the same people seem still to be operating out of their Chicago office.

Fees vary anywhere from $15 or $20 “registration fee” (plus a contribution) up to $300 for a Doctor of Philosophy degree as advertised by a “seminary” in Nevada. To escape prosecution for selling worthless degrees some institutions suggest “monthly contributions” to cover expenses.

Correspondence Opportunities

Correspondence study has its place. Accredited courses given by reputable institutions may be taken by correspondence for college credit. In no case, however, will an accredited institution give a degree merely on the basis of correspondence study, and in most cases not more than one year or 30 semester hours of correspondence credit may be applied toward a four-year liberal arts degree. In practically every instance, the final year of work for any degree in an accredited school must be resident study. Some well-known correspondence schools have been operating on the highest ethical plane for many years, mostly on a high school or professional level. These are members of the National Home Study Council with office at 1420 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington 5, D. C. Much valuable training is available through these schools especially set up to teach by correspondence. The Council never recommends that students take correspondence courses if they are in a position to go to a resident college.

Although most correspondence courses are offered on a high school or professional level, many state and some privately endowed universities have extension departments offering correspondence study for college credit. “A Guide to Correspondence Study” may be secured for 25 ¢ from the National University Extension Association, University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis. A few reputable seminaries and Bible schools also offer correspondence studies. Not one, however, offers a degree by correspondence.

The Minister And His Study

That a pastor should be well trained none will deny. His interest in bettering himself and extending his preparation is to be commended. We would not imply that extension work should be discouraged nor that all training must bear the label “accredited” to be worthwhile. The writer believes in accreditation and feels that any school is strengthened when it achieves accreditation whether local or national. Yet we must distinguish between a school that is carrying on a reputable program, even though it may not yet be accredited, and the institution of doubtful standing which advertises correspondence courses that are leading to a degree, neither courses nor degree being of value to anyone.

No other major country is as lax as the United States in permitting shyster schools and diploma mills to sell certificates and degrees. Although the Federal Trade Commission has successfully prosecuted a number of “diploma mills” on the ground of unscrupulous and dishonest advertising through the mails, it has been able to do relatively little with local situations. To close down unscrupulous institutions is largely the responsibility of the several states.

At least 19 states required no state charter or license for a school to operate on the college level in 1953. However, 35 states issued lists of approved colleges in an effort to combat fraudulent institutions.

As Christians, what is our responsibility? First of all, we should do everything possible to deepen the conviction that it is dishonest to use any certificate, diploma, or degree issued by a “diploma mill.” The religious press has been strangely silent on this issue. Some have even carried “diploma mill” advertising! One denomination, however, went on record 10 years ago as “disapproving the acceptance of any academic degrees except such as have been earned in a recognized institution of higher education, or honorary degrees which are conferred by such accredited schools.” The step is certainly worthy of emulation by every denomination.

It is also a duty of Christian citizens to report bad practices to the Federal Trade Commission, Washington 25, D. C. Copies of letters, advertising, or catalogues should be included with these reports. The Commission will make investigations without involving the informant.

END

Preacher In The Red

PREACHING ON THE IMPOSSIBLE

Fresh out of the Seminary, I entered my first pastorate determined to make the best possible use of the local weekly newspaper in putting my church and its activities on the map. One feature of the weekly paper was a section devoted to church notices.

Approaching Mother’s Day, I thought I had a passable idea for a sermon: one that would deal with the way motherhood reaches outward, reaches forward, and reaches upward. How to gather these ideas together under one good catchy title? I finally settled on “The Farther Reaches of Motherhood” and hurried to the newspaper office with the Mother’s Day church notice.

Alas! The paper came out with the somewhat startling announcement, “Rev. Robb will preach on ‘THE FATHER REACHES FOR MOTHERHOOD.’ ”—The Rev. G. M. ROBB, Kansas City 3, Kansas.

Enock C. Dyrness has been Registrar and Director of the Summer School of Wheaton College since 1928. He holds the A.B. degree from Wheaton, A.M. from University of Chicago, and LL.D. (Hon.) from Houghton College. He is President of the National Association of Christian Schools.

Evangelical Protestants, once the leaders in American higher education, have forfeited that leadership by default. Look at the record. Each of the nine colleges founded during the colonial period was prompted by Christian motivations. According to Cubberly, the “prime purpose of each was to train up a learned and godly body of ministers.” The statement of purpose of the founding of King’s College (later Columbia) in 1754, as reported in New York newspapers, is typical:

The chief thing aimed at in this college is to teach and engage children to know God in Jesus Christ, and to love and serve Him with all sobriety, godliness, and richness of life, with a perfect heart and a willing mind: and train them in all virtuous habits, and all useful knowledge … useful to the public weal.

The nineteenth century saw the great development of Protestant colleges. In 1800 there were only two dozen colleges; it is estimated that at most there were 100 teachers and from one to two thousand students. Then, from 1820 to 1870, came the major period of denominational effort. By 1870 there were 300 colleges. Actually, almost twice that number were organized, but scarcely more than half survived. The vast majority were Protestant and evangelical. Even the few state institutions were often under Christian leadership and oriented toward Christian faith. Many of their first presidents were ministers and many graduates became ministers. Of the first 94 graduates of Illinois, 45 entered the ministry. Thus for the first 230 years of American higher education, Protestant leadership and motivation led the way. In fact, the religious revivals that advanced the growth of Protestant denominations also promoted many new colleges.

Tax-Supported Education

Two significant developments—one socioeconomic, the other religious—have now radically altered this pattern. The first is the development of secular, tax-supported higher education. Today approximately 60 per cent of all students in colleges and universities are enrolled in tax-supported institutions. Very few professional schools in fields such as engineering, law, medicine, and dentistry are controlled by Protestant churches. These studies are now largely yielded to state and independent universities.

Higher education in the twentieth century is simply repeating what happened to the privately-sponsored elementary schools and the church-supported academies in the nineteenth century. Both these major segments of education were superseded by the public schools which thereby relegated private education to a minor role. As education became mandatory, the state became obligated to provide it. Besides, it could meet the increasing demand for educational services by levying taxes. With college registrations expected to double in the next 15 years, some observers estimate that 80 per cent of all students will soon be in tax-supported institutions of higher learning.

Expansion Of Roman Catholicism

The other major development is the recent expansion of Roman Catholic education which reflects population changes and the dynamism of American Catholicism. Only one Catholic college was founded before 1800, 38 had been founded by 1870, while 212 have been founded since then—the majority of these in the twentieth century. While the peak of Protestant effort occurred a century ago, the major expansion of Catholic higher education is now taking place. The 1958 Official Catholic Directory reports 260 Catholic colleges and universities in the United States, with a total of 271,493 students. This compares with 221 institutions in 1948 with 220,226 students, an increase of 17 per cent in the number of schools and 23 per cent in students in only 10 years. Catholic colleges operate throughout the United States, but 112 institutions enrolling over half their students are located in the mid-Atlantic and East Central areas. The fewest are found in the South. Significantly, Roman Catholic higher education rests on a broad and expanding base of lower education. The Directory reports that 7,783,462 students were under Catholic instruction in 1958, compared to 4,162,396 in 1948, an increase of 87 per cent in 10 years.

When T. H. Hungate of Columbia appraised the prospects of higher education in America in Financing the Future of Higher Education, he predicted that the state would assume more and more responsibility for higher education. He also predicted that “contributions to Protestant controlled private colleges are expected to decline” while “Catholics are likely to strengthen their institutions.”

In some states history has already caught up with Hungate’s prophecy. There Protestantism, once in the forefront, has now been far surpassed by both public and Catholic education. Two examples may be found in New England. In Vermont, the first church-established college was Middlebury, founded by Congregationalists in 1800. Once it was devoted to the preparation of Christian leaders; nearly half of its first 800 graduates became ministers. But it has since passed out of church control and is independent. The only extant Protestant institution in Vermont, according to the Education Directory (Part 3) for 1958–59 (United States Office of Education), is Green Mountain Junior College (Methodist). Forty-four per cent of all students are in public institutions, 39 per cent in independent, while 12 per cent are in two Roman Catholic colleges, both established since 1900.

The situation in Rhode Island should provoke Protestants to sober reflection. The first college, Rhode Island College (later Brown University) was founded by Baptists for the “primary task of training clergymen.” The charter stipulated that 22 of its 29 trustees must be Baptists and its president “forever” a member of the Baptist church. But by 1942 all such controls had been removed by legislative acts and complete severance from church control effected. Today 41 per cent of Rhode Island’s students in institutions of higher learning are in independent schools, 38 per cent in public schools, and 18 per cent (2,821) in the three Roman Catholic institutions founded since 1900. The only Protestant institution, evangelical in perspective, is Providence-Barrington Bible College whose 480 students represent but three per cent of the total college population of Rhode Island.

One Midwestern state should also be mentioned. Though not strictly typical, it attests the changing pattern of American higher education. According to the USOE Educational Directory (Part 3) for 1958–59, 58 institutions of higher learning in Michigan have sufficient academic standing to merit listing. An analysis indicates that 78 per cent of the 135,000 students are now in the 23 public, tax-supported institutions. Some 8,850, or 6.6 per cent, are in private schools, mostly professional. Only 7,415, or 5.5 per cent, are in the 14 Protestant schools, while 13,459, or 10 per cent, are in the 11 Catholic institutions, nine of which were founded since 1900.

But this pattern differs noticeably from that which prevailed in 1876. Protestants then had established two seminaries, one junior college, and eight liberal arts colleges. No Roman Catholic college had yet been established. There were four state institutions. Since that time two Protestant liberal arts colleges have drifted from denominational control, a loss offset by the subsequent establishment of two other colleges from 1870 to 1900. In the twentieth century, the only Protestant schools founded with sufficient academic standing to be listed in the current Directory are one liberal arts college and two Bible institutions. Fortunately for evangelicalism, Michigan has several institutions founded in the nineteenth century with a record of steady growth and theological stability. These are principally the colleges and universities of the Reformed churches in the western part of the state.

Facts are especially sobering for Protestant higher education in the 2 million populated area of Detroit. The automobile center of the world has renowned private professional and technical schools, public schools, and Roman Catholic institutions, but the only Protestant school of any classification—seminary, college, university, or Bible college—is Detroit Bible Institute, founded in 1945. Catholic schools have over 11,000 or 27 per cent of the population’s students.

Protestant Losses

An additional factor enters into the total history of many Protestant colleges, and that is their drift from evangelicalism to rationalism, and in some cases to secularism and to independence of religions influences.

This trend started early. Because Harvard was suspect of being Unitarian and rationalistic, Yale was founded “to be a truer school of the prophets.” When the Great Awakening shaped new churches desiring an evangelically trained ministry, both Harvard and Yale became suspect for denouncing the revival, and so Princeton was founded.

The step is not taken universally, but Guy E. Snavely in The Church and the Four-Year College expresses regret that so many church-established colleges have severed their church connections. In Congregationalism the score is 22 out of 25.

The Present Picture

The salient features of the picture today in American higher education may be summarized as follows:

1. Most higher education in America has passed out of the control of Protestant churches. In some states Catholic education has far outstripped Protestant.

2. Loss of Protestant leadership is due partly to socioeconomic factors, but must in some degree be charged to default. Too often Protestants have tolerated the displacement of the lordship of Christ in education. Just as the spiritual revivals of the past generated a demand for evangelical colleges, so the decline of evangelical faith and dynamic lessened concern for the integrity of Christian colleges.

3. While the influence of evangelical colleges cannot be measured simply in terms of number and size, yet evangelicals have virtually abandoned some areas of higher education, particularly the university and professional levels. Evangelicals are handicapped by a lack of universities and graduate schools committed unapologetically to Christ as the source and center of wisdom and knowledge. They may well learn from Catholic educators who top their educational structure by universities. The Jesuit University of Detroit has more students than all the Protestant colleges, institutes, and seminaries combined in the state of Michigan while Protestants lack a university.

4. The complacency of Protestants, including evangelicals, is distressing. They seem unaware of the profound change that is taking place in American higher education. They are forfeiting leadership to others with little awareness of the strategic importance of maintaining top level institutions of learning.

5. Fortunately, elements of strength do remain; the picture is not all somber. Besides some first-class independent colleges and seminaries, quite a number of sound institutions of higher learning are conducted by conservative denominations, large and small. They include liberal arts colleges, junior colleges, seminaries, and several universities operated by Baptist, Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, and Mennonite bodies, as well as several with a Wesleyan heritage, such as Nazarene, Free Methodist, and Wesleyan Methodist churches.

Bible institutes and Bible colleges have multiplied in recent years to add to evangelical education, although numbers of them are weak and substandard. However, quite a number are now being recognized by state departments of education, state universities, and the United States Office of Education as approved institutions of higher learning.

6. While certain trends hold little promise of present reversal, Christians, alert to recapture the glory and centrality of Christ in education, may yet again make a significant impact on contemporary thought and culture. The need for evangelical witness in the educational world has never been more urgent. In our day more than casual interest and dollars are needed to meet the crisis in education. Where is the vision, the imagination, the sense of urgency, the devotion and self-sacrifice that moved circuit riders and their kin a century ago to bring forth colleges out of poverty?

END

Safara A. Witmer was President of Fort Wayne Bible College from 1945–57 and is now Executive Director of the Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges, which has 43 affiliated institutions in various parts of the nation. He holds the A.B. from Taylor University, M.A. from Winona Lake School of Theology, and Ph.D. from the University of Chicago.

Not long ago (March 9, 1958) the British Broadcasting Company carried a symposium on the Origin of Life. All the speakers took the view that life had in some way arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter at a remote epoch in time. But in his summation, Dr. J. D. Bernal, who was in the chair (and who is well known for his materialistic views), made a striking statement. “It would be much easier,” he said, “to discuss how life didn’t originate than how it did.”

A similar comment might seem appropriate to almost every attempt to unravel the problems connected with the distant past. Let us look at some of the basic difficulties, especially in connection with evolution, since this year marks the centenary of the publication of Darwin’s famous book, The Origin of the Species.

The Course Of Nature

Of all the laws of nature, perhaps the most fundamental is concerned with nature’s time sense. When events take place they do so in a way which serves to distinguish between backwards and forwards. This fact was known to the ancients who made lists of events which never took place in reverse. Rivers did not run uphill, plants and men did not grow backwards, fires did not turn ashes into fully grown trees. At the beginning of the scientific era Newton extended the same idea—warm water never turns back into the hot and cold water from which it is obtained by mixing. Heat, therefore, is becoming degraded and becoming less available. In the nineteenth century the principle was enshrined in the law of entropy (second law of thermodynamics) and was applied in the theory of the steam engine. Since that time the entropy law, expressed mathematically (it was Boltzmann who showed how this might be done), has been applied in new directions—to the theory of alloys in metallurgy and to communication theory, to give but two examples.

In all instances the basic principle is the same. Events occur in such a way that order disappears, or at best remains unchanged. Entropy, that is to say disorder as applied to the heat motion of molecules, increases. If we think in wider terms, we may say that the law of morpholysis (luo, I loose, morphe, form) is universal, so universal that it has been called “time’s arrow.”

We are concerned here with a principle fundamental to human thought. Only in the world of magic or dreams can we fancy a different, a backward trend of events; a world in which a banana, already eaten, emerges whole, or the Niagara Falls is in reverse, an atomic bomb explodes and turns gigantic piles of rubble into houses, streets, and teeming crowds. In the world of reality, the world of science, events go in one direction only. It is a direction in which disorder increases, order is destroyed.

All the laws of nature which are concerned with how things happen are restatements, in a limited field, of the law of morpholysis. So fundamental is this fact to science that we only bother to look for explanations when there seems to be a reversal of this principle. And the explanation which scientists seek to give follows the same pattern. Consider two examples.

A crystal forms in a liquid. Why do the molecules arrange themselves in a beautifully ordered pattern? There are two answers. Firstly, the pattern is not ultimately new, but is a reflection, on a larger scale, of the shapes and other properties of the invisible atoms. This explains why one pattern is chosen by the developing crystal rather than another. Nevertheless, order increases in quantity as the crystal forms. This is compensated for by a corresponding loss of order in the fluid from which the crystals separated—it is left hotter than before, its molecules are in greater confusion.

Again, how is biological reproduction possible? The answer is basically the same. The form of the plant or animal is a reflection of the shapes and properties of the genes. And as the plant or animal reaches maturity, the increase in the amount of its organization (but not the type of organization—why this corresponds, say, to a sheep rather than a buttercup) is compensated for by loss in the order of its surroundings: energy stored in food or sunlight is degraded.

The answers we have given in these two examples are typical of the answers which science must give to every problem that is posed. Only when an answer can be given along these lines is it even possible to begin to tackle the thousand and one questions of detail which must arise if a full understanding is to be reached. If we cannot start to answer a question at this level, then we may just as well invoke magic. We are demanding that an explanation should be sought in terms which are inconsistent with scientific thought.

The Question Of Origins

Now the startling point emerges that whenever we look into the question of origins we find that, at some stages at least, events must have taken place to which answers of the kind considered cannot be given.

The energy of the universe was “wound up” at the beginning; in all subsequent events it has become less and less available. The chemical elements came into existence endowed from the start with astonishingly “ordered” potentialities. Was it chance that gave hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and the rest their remarkable properties, many of which are so fundamental to life? Our planet also came to be placed at the right distance from the sun, with oceans to keep its temperature even, with tilted axis to give the seasons, with its weight correct to allow of the escape of hydrogen but the retention of oxygen, and so on.

And somehow or other life came: three dimensional structures of atoms, arranged in shapes of bewildering complexity, blueprinted with instructions for self-reproduction! With the passing of time new and yet more intricate structures came into being: elaborate mechanisms for flight; equipment for detecting position relative to surroundings by picking up reflected electromagnetic rays; fantastic gadgets for effecting orientation in gravitational fields; pumps, complete with valves and elaborate timing mechanisms, for pumping fluids; mechanisms for detecting and relaying information about touch, heat, cold and injury; mechanisms for picking up and interpreting rhythmic atmospheric disturbances at fastastically low energy levels and yet capable of responding without injury to levels a thousand billion times as great; objects like gigantic telephone exchanges connected with subscribers by the billion … and so we might continue, indefinitely, for new mechanisms are continually coming to light.

That all this happened there is no doubt. We ourselves are part of the story. But how did it happen? Can we even begin to answer the question along the lines that we employ when we commence to tackle every other problem that science poses? It seems not. We can understand how a new type of order, once established, can multiply by degrading chemical compounds and quanta of light, but how do thousands of new kinds of order arise?

How Did It All Begin?

A century ago Darwin suggested that chance variations, followed by the survival of the fittest, would, in the end, give rise to the appearance of design. Perhaps he was right—within the limits of the very simple. Yet few suppose that Darwin’s theory goes to the heart of the problem.

Survival of the fittest could not explain the ordered nature of the energy of the universe, nor the properties of the chemical elements, nor the origin of the first forms of life which must have possessed great complexity in order to be alive at all. And although the idea had been a commonplace for a century, it has as yet done nothing to solve major biological difficulties, though it has done a good deal to solve minor ones.

Biological structures, like all functional structures, must be all there at once or they serve no purpose. A car without its wheels or a tape recorder without its tape will, in terms of natural selection, be rejected as useless. Yet highly specialized organs are found in nature and it is hard, indeed, to suppose that they could all have arisen gradually. In some cases suggestions have been made as to the uses which uncompleted structures might have had. But common sense revolts against the suggestion that all cases can be explained along these lines. As well might one expect an enormous sale of wheelless automobiles on the ground that, by an off-chance, they would prove useful as rabbit hutches.

Even more basic is the difficulty afforded by size. It is a principle in engineering that one cannot, simply, imitate a small machine on a much larger scale. There comes a time when mere modification will not do; a basic redesign is called for. This fact arises from the consideration that weight increases as the cube of dimensions, but surface area and forces, which can be transmitted by wires, tendons, or muscles, vary only as the square. For this reason a fly the size of a dog would break its legs and a dog the size of a fly would be unable to maintain its body heat. So if evolution started with very small organisms there would come a time when, as a result of size increase, small naturally-selected modifications would no longer prove useful. Radically new designs would be necessary for survival. But by its very nature, natural selection could not provide for such redesign.

From all this and much more besides, it becomes increasingly clear that it would be easier to show by science that evolution is impossible than to explain how it happened. The difficulties are, in fact, so great that we may well wonder why they are not more often recognized. But perhaps they are. In the nineteenth century scientists hoped to discover truth about nature. Today, many say that not truth but the creation of theories which will stimulate discovery and thought is the aim of science. Darwin’s theory of evolution is certainly of this kind. So the biologist will sometimes say, quite blandly, that for him it is a choice between something he does not really believe in or nothing at all. “No amount of argument or clever epigram, can disguise the inherent improbability of orthodoxy (orthodox evolutionary theory),” writes Professor Gray of Cambridge (England), “but most biologists think that it is better to think in terms of improbable events than not to think at all” (Nature, 1954, pp. 173, 227).

Science And Magic

Facing the evidence fairly, it is clear that no matter where we look we find confirmation of the biblical doctrine that “the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” But if we say that God created the world, or life, or did this or that, are we not resorting to explanations of the magical kind? Are we not turning our backs on science?

There are two answers to this. First, it is easy to postulate magic without realizing the fact. This is, in effect, just what theories of evolution do. While paying lip service to science, they postulate something opposed to the basic principle of all scientific thought—they postulate the creation, spontaneously, magically, in complete absence of observers, of radically new types of organization: the actual reversal of the law of morpholysis! If, then, when we say that God created the world, we are resorting to magic as an explanation, we do no worse than the materialistic evolutionist. Indeed, our attitude is to be preferred to his, for we do not disguise magic behind high-sounding words which are intended to sound scientific.

But, secondly, we must not forget that there is within the experience of each of us a nonmagical principle which is able to reverse the law of morpholysis. By thinking, by putting forth creative effort, we can create the very order that may so easily and so spontaneously be destroyed. Now this principle of creativity in the mind of man is not magic. Magic works without effort. You mutter abacadabra and the thing is done. But the man who spends years writing a book or designing a bridge knows that “power is gone out of him.” He creates by faith and by effort, not by magic.

When we think of the ultimate origins of nature we see many evidences of plan—or what looks like plan. It is as if the major (though not all the minor) instances of organization are the product of a Mind, of a kind not unlike our own, though unimaginably greater and more competent. It seems natural and sensible to take the evidence at its face value; to believe that God created the heaven and the earth. But there is no need to think of God as an almighty magician. The Bible speaks often of the forethought and care which God put into the creation (we even read that he rested from his labors), and in science we see vindication of its teaching. We ourselves, made in the image of God, are not magicians, and there is no need to think of God as a magician either.

END

We Quote:

WILLIAM FITCH

Minister of Knox Presbyterian Church, Toronto

The great halcyon days of the Christian Church have been days of Spirit-energized praying. Pentecost was granted to a church at prayer. New continents opened before the apostolic church as the church prayed. Revival times have always been marked by the ministry of men who “prayed without ceasing.” But tragically we live in a day when the program of the church is exalted and the prayer meeting forgotten. Everywhere mer look for new methods, new techniques, new presentations. Organization is on the throne. But the inspiration is lacking and the spirit of conviction does not fall upon men. Designs, projects, plans, promotions crowd our calendars; but we have forgotten that it is in quietness and in confidence we find strength. Our preaching is powerless because it is prayerless. Our lives are not saintly because they are not saturated with supplication. Our churches are not living fellowships, vibrant with the joy and assurance of eternity; and a great part of the reason is that we have lost the holy art of “being still and knowing that God is God.” And the result? Our generation passes by and they hear not the word of the Saviour. Here is the agony and the dilemma of the church today.—In a sermon during the recent jubilee of Knox Presbyterian Church, Toronto.

WILLIAM S. LASOR

Professor, Fuller Theological Seminary

What really makes me grit my teeth is the use of “Reverend” as a title. If you will take the trouble to look in your dictionary, you will discover that “Reverend” is not a title (like “Doctor”), but an adjective (like “Honorable”). The use of “Reverend” before the last name (“Reverend Ladd”) is as rude as using the last name alone. You might as well say, “Skinny Jones” or “Sloppy Johnson” as “Reverend Rasmussen.” Several correct ways of using “Reverend” are possible: “the Reverend George Smith,” “the Reverend Doctor Booth,” “the Reverend Professor Harrison.” It is just as correct to omit the word, and present the speaker as “Mister Jones,” or “Professor Longbeard.” A good method is to give the full title when first introducing the speaker (“Our guest speaker this morning is the Reverend Professor I. M. Longwinded, Ph.D.”), tell where he is from, and then present him by the simplest form (“Professor [or, Doctor] Longwinded”). Above all, be sincere—whether you mean it or not!—In Theology News and Notes, October, 1958.

Robert E. D. Clark was an honors scholar of St. John’s College, Cambridge University. After earning his Ph.D. in Chemistry at Cambridge, he became Reader in Chemistry at St. John’s College, and later taught that subject in several colleges. He is now teaching Post-Graduate Chemistry at Cambridge Technical College. He is author of several works, among them Darwin: Before and After. His latest volume, Christian Belief and Science: A Reconciliation and a Partnership will soon be published by British Universities Press.