Book Briefs: April 27, 1962

The Power And The Guilt

Jesus the World’s Perfecter, by Karl Heim (Muhlenberg, 1961, 234 pp., $3.75), is reviewed by Paul K. Jewett, Associate Professor, Fuller Theological Seminary.

Though this book is a fine piece of theological writing, at times it is more than that; it is a book of devotion. It not only informs, but ennobles the mind of the reader. Heim, speaking as a German who lived in the hour of Germany’s trouble, to Germans who have lost a sense of meaning and purpose in life, reminds his readers that in God’s order, the problem of guilt must be met and solved before there can be an answer to the question of power. I his is the burden of part one of the book. Guilt, argues Heim, is not fate; it is that which is inexcusable and inescapable. “The future hell,” as Luther said, “will be nothing else than an evil conscience; had the devil no evil conscience, he would be in heaven. An evil conscience ignites the fires of hell and arouses in the heart terrifying torment and the infernal activity of the devil” (p. 15). Never, therefore, can we deduce guilt from something else or excuse ourselves by giving a reason. Such rationalizing away of our guilt simply increases it. When we recognize the implication of our guilt as sinners, when we acknowledge that the problem of sin must be solved before the problem of power can be solved, then the mission of Jesus as the Suffering Servant becomes meaningful. Jesus must first atone for sin by his death before he can openly seize the power (as he will at his Second Advent) and bring about the final settlement and perfecting of the world.

In part two of his work Heim, therefore, proceeds to a consideration of a Christian interpretation of Christ’s death. He is critical both of Abelard and Anselm, though much nearer the latter. The act of atonement is vicarious, but both the concepts of ransom and satisfaction are inadequate to explain the great mystery of the atonement.

Part three is concerned with the coming of Christ in power. Once the guilt question has been resolved at Calvary, Christ enters upon the final phase of his Messianic work wherein all power is given unto him in heaven and in earth. The resurrection is the beginning of this last day. Heim believes in a corporeal resurrection, though the resurrection event is not an event in our world of common experience; it is rather the beginning of the new order. So also the Second Coming of Christ is not a matter of world progress toward some far-off divine event (history tends only toward increasing Satanic rebellion); yet it will be such that all men will see it. The mission of Christ cannot be interpreted solely in terms of his first advent as Harnack, Bultmann, Dibelius and Winkel have tried to do. There will be a real, universal manifestation of Christ’s power. Will all men enter at that time into a new life of communion with God? Will there be a complete apokatastasis? We must not, says Heim, infer from our thoughts about the nature of God that it will be so. We can only refer to those intimations found on the lips of our Lord in the Gospels, which definitely point in the opposite direction (cf. pp. 200, 201).

The book closes with a brief discussion of the period between Christ’s Resurrection and the Second Advent, in which Heim develops his doctrine of the Church as the body of Christ, the fellowship of those who are called and chosen to live as God’s children.

In the reviewer’s judgment chapter 17 (p. 158 f.) is the most original in the book. Here Heim discusses the question of how and why the Resurrection of Christ took place in such a manner that the incognito before the world remained unbroken, while yet the Church could retain its absolute certainty that it was a real event.

PAUL K. JEWETT

Conviction For Our Day

Certainties for Uncertain Times, by John Sutherland Bonnell (Harper, 1962, 156 pp., $3), is reviewed by C. Ralston Smith, Minister, First Presbyterian Church, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

This is an interesting collection of sermons and addresses. Its publication coincides with the retirement of Dr. Bonnell after a long and influential career in the pulpit of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in New York City. The breadth of thought and depth of sympathy which have marked this fine ministry are exemplified in these messages. They range from consideration of faith in this expanding space age to the subjective problem of personal relationships. They grapple with Christendom’s reunion and the challenge of courageous prayer life. The whole Lukan account of the Gospel is surveyed on one occasion, while a singular review of his own ministry in New York is the subject of another.

These are fine utterances of conviction for our day. That we are living in the “greatest revolutionary era that has ever dawned upon our world” is the thread woven throughout the book. Yet there is never a whimper of fear, nor a melancholy note of defeat struck. This preacher believes in the greatness and faithfulness of God. He also sees in the Bible the Book in which life is made relevant. Master-counselor that he is, he draws from wide personal experiences and broad travels to bring to our bewildered times the refined lessons of history. Ministers will profit in their studies by the example of this simple, direct Anglo-Saxon prose. Lay people will be encouraged by scriptural messages which gird them for the battle of today.

C. RALSTON SMITH

The Right To Be Wrong

Conscience and Its Rights to Freedom, by Eric D’Arcy (Sheed & Ward, 1961, 277 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Cordon H. Clark, Professor of Philosophy, Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Part I of this book traces the concepts of conscience and synderesis from pagan antiquity into the early Middle Ages. Then preparing the basis for his own conclusions, the author devotes Part II to Thomas Aquinas. The last two parts are also Thomistic, but Father D’Arcy attempts to remove certain inconsistencies and oversights from Thomas to arrive at a theory of religious liberty.

Although Thomas prohibits the baptism of Jewish infants against their parents’ wishes, he approves the execution of a heretic—unless he has a sufficient following to cause a schism. The author deplores this sentiment. He argues that it is morally wrong to disobey conscience, and hence it is always obligatory to follow conscience, even when mistaken. This right is a part of the fundamental justice of natural law, which a state may not violate. In working out his argument for the freedom of conscience, the author makes noteworthy assertions of the freedom to profess and practice a non-Romish religion.

Some questions remain, however. One wonders whether the argument applies only to the social situation in non-Romish nations, for the author seems to hedge on “consecrational regimes.” Then when claiming Pope Pius XII as an advocate of freedom, he notes that it was a question (not of Spain or Colombia), but of an international community of sovereign states. The pope had said only that suppression of false religions is not always necessary.

Apparently the author favors governmental restriction of religion in primitive societies where, “abandoned to irrational forces,” the people “are not in a position to exercise” freedom.

In view of past and present history it will take more than Father D’Arcy’s cautious argument to convince us that Romanism is on the side of the angels.

GORDON H. CLARK

Calvin’S Literalism

Word and Spirit: Calvin’s Doctrine of Biblical Authority, by H. Jackson Forstman (Stanford University Press, 1962, 178 pp., $4.75), is reviewed by Robert D. Preus, Professor of Systematic Theology, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.

Although there seem to be no new discoveries offered in this volume, the author presents a very clear delineation of Calvin’s doctrine of biblical authority. Forstman does a good job of summing up what other scholars have said on the important subject, he is cautious in his conclusions, and he allows Calvin to speak for himself by quoting him at length. These facts make the book useful.

Forstman points out that for Calvin the Scriptures were the authoritative source for all knowledge of God. Calvin believed that knowledge and authority are inseparably bound together. Since man is too depraved to learn anything of God from nature, God accommodates himself to man’s situation, and lisps, so to speak, a revelation of himself in Scripture. Thus, the Scriptures, although communicated through human channels and written with human hands, are true and authoritative because they come from God. But how may depraved man gain this saving knowledge brought him in the Scriptures? This is the work of the Holy Spirit. Forstman conclusively shows how Calvin consistently kept Word and Spirit together against all forms of enthusiasm. Only such a doctrine offers a man certainty, according to Calvin.

Again Forstman shows that Calvin not only placed Scripture’s authority above Fathers and Church councils, but he also left no place for human reason as a secondary norm of doctrine. Calvin pleads only for clear and honest thinking, always limited by the Word itself and never standing in judgment of God and his Word. It is difficult to see any difference in principle between Calvin and Luther on this point. It is significant that to Calvin even the systematic arrangement of biblical material which he attempted in his Institutes has biblical warrant. Forstman claims, contrary to what many Calvin scholars have said, that there is for Calvin no central doctrine (e.g., predestination, God’s sovereignty) from which all others are derived by a process of deduction.

Reading for Perspective

CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S REVIEW EDITORS CALL ATTENTION TO THESE NEW TITLES:

* Communism and Christian Faith, by Lester DeKoster (Eerdmans, $3.50). The fundamentals of Communism precisely described, perceptively analyzed, sharply contrasted with Christianity and accompanied by a clear call to Christian social action.

* Women Who Made Bible History, by Harold J. Ockenga (Zondervan, $3.50). Literary portraits of saintly and not-so-saintly women of the Bible. Rich in biblical wisdom.

* The Council, Reform and Reunion, by Hans Küng (Sheed & Ward, $3.95). A Roman Catholic professor urges that reunion of Catholicism and Protestantism requires a renewal and reform of the church.

On the question of inspiration the author maintains that Calvin taught a verbal dictation theory with a resulting inerrancy. He insists that the “dictation” must not be taken metaphorically, but at the same time claims that the term does not spell out a definite mode of inspiration. The teaching that the Holy Spirit’s testimony confirms in us the divine origin of Scripture, Forstman contends, is not a rationalization; but rather with this doctrine Calvin is fighting against uninhibited reason no less than the authority of the Church.

A few remarks by way of minor criticism: (1) The author uses the term “fundamentalism” in a manner which is unusual and therefore misleading. (2) Reference might have been made to the new and excellent translation of the Institutes edited by John T. McNeill in the Library of Christian Classics. (3) The author is not very clear when he speaks of Calvin’s literalism in reference to Scripture. Does the term refer to Calvin’s insistence that the Scriptures are inerrant also in regard to matters not directly theological? In this case it is a misnomer. Or does the term refer to Calvin’s preference in exegesis for the literal sense of Scripture? In this sense Calvin is no more literalistic in principle than any sound, cautious exegete today.

ROBERT D. PREUS

By What Canon?

The Significance of Barth’s Theology, by Fred Klooster (Baker, 1961, 98 pp., $2.95), is reviewed by William D. Buursma, Pastor, First Christian Reformed Church, Munster, Indiana.

This small volume is essentially the publication in book form of three lectures delivered by Dr. Klooster.

In the first chapter, which bears the same title as the book, Dr. Klooster reiterates the conservative critique that Barth’s theology is a revolt against liberalisin, that it has awakened a new interest in Scripture, and contributed to the renascence of Calvinistic studies, but is essentially a “new theology.”

Klooster disagrees with Barth’s view of God (“some resemblance to the Monarchianism of the ancients”), his view of the Trinity (“more complex than the earlier forms of Modalism”), his view of election (“an implicit universalism”), etc. (cf. p. 12). His analysis is however well tempered, his critique responsible.

In the second chapter he comes to grips with one facet of this “new theology,” namely Barth’s doctrine of election. The author demonstrates that Barth’s view of election is radically different from the position espoused by Calvin and formulated by the Synod of Dordt. He quotes at length from Barth’s writings to show that Barth rejects the classical doctrine of predestination which was mainly concerned with the election of the individual man and replaced this emphasis with the Christological approach that in Jesus Christ one finds both the “elected man” and the “electing God.” Klooster detects a “strange ambiguity” at this point and feels with other interpreters of Barth that this new doctrine of election implies universal atonement.

The final chapter is devoted to Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation. Klooster struggles here with the difficulty inherent in Barth’s theology, namely, a tendency to pour new content into “older traditions and themes.” Moreover Barth’s view of the doctrine of reconciliation does not concern itself at all “with the basic categories of satisfaction of God’s law and of covenantal, federal, forensic relationships. For Barth the fact of God’s becoming man by itself involves man’s exaltation. The humiliation of God is per se the exaltation of man …” (p. 96).

Dr. Klooster has contributed a lucid and comprehensive analysis to the field of Barthian literature. He has clearly demonstrated the contrast between the views of the classic Refonned expositors and the “new theology” of Barth. However very little exegesis of scriptural data is done by the author so that the question persists whether he has attained the objective as stated in the preface: “to evaluate Barth’s thought by the sole criterion by which he acknowledges that he wishes to be judged, namely, the Holy Scriptures.”

WILLIAM D. BUURSMA

Conflict Of Minds

Henry VIII and Luther, by Erwin Doernberg (Barrie & Rockliff, 1961, 139 pp., 21s.); and The Protestant Mind of the English Reformation 1570–1640, by Charles and Katherine George (Princeton University, 1961, 452 pp., $8.50), are reviewed by Gervase E. Duffield, London Manager, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Most of us know more about Henry’s matrimonial problems than about his relations with Luther. Mr. Doernberg has collected evidence from all over Europe to remedy this situation. Henry never liked Lutheranism, though he flirted with it when political expediency overrode such religious convictions as he may have had. Probably in his book against Luther in 1521 he was out to win the coveted title of Defensor Fidel from the Pope. He got it, and a broadside back from Luther as well! Luther later apologized when told Henry might become a Protestant (p. 50), but he had been misinformed and later returned to his earlier assessment of Henry.

With Luther’s view of Henry’s divorce, modern readers will be surprised that he, Erasmus and the Pope agreed that bigamy was preferable to divorce (pp. 73 f.). Mr. Doernberg has investigated the whole matter with care and impartiality, and he has some pungent things to say about those who blacken Luther for these views, while quietly forgetting the Pope held them too!

Finally Luther grew bored with Henry’s unending attempts to gain a political alliance with the Germans. After a few small and fruitless diplomatic missions across the channel, negotiations petered out. This book is balanced and will be an asset to any student of the Reformation.

Professor George of Pittsburgh and Katherine George of Chatham College are out to challenge the common view of the early Puritans. They believe that the turbulence of the 1640–60 period has been read back into the more peaceful earlier times (pp. 397 f.). In fact between the Papist on one side and the Anabaptist on the other stood the Anglican via media in which Puritan and conservative were happily united on essentials until the innovations of the High Church Arminians Laud, Cosin and the extremist Montagu (pp. 71 f.).

Years of research must have gone into this work, and the result is an invaluable handbook to the lengthy tomes of Hooker, Andrewes, Sibbes, Perkins, Downame, Donne and the rest. The first of the three sections is the least happy. It is heavy reading and rather too general a view of the later English Protestant mind without being linked to the Reformers. Also hints appear occasionally that the authors are less at home when they stray from history into theology. For instance, they make too much of logic in their handling of the doctrine of predestination.

The second section of the book is on the social and institutional aspects of the Protestant mind. Economically and politically the church was conservative and nationalistic. The familiar Weber thesis that Calvinism led to capitalism is given the further rude shaking it deserves. Archbishop Whitgift sees society under two aspects of church and state, while Presbyterian Cartwright wants to separate spiritual and secular realms.

The section on family life is excellent. The family has always been a key unit in the spiritual life of the nation, and here the Protestant pastors set a fine standard. They certainly did not answer to the common but erroneous charge of condemning sex as sinful. They advocated restraints in books, plays, or anything that might stimulate people to impure thoughts and actions; this is a relevant chord to strike today in our sex-mad age.

The chapter on church and ministry shows that order was secondary, and there were no undignified squabbles about episcopacy. Puritans required a high standard of ministers. Preaching was exalted though not to the exclusion of the sacraments. The Puritans distrusted the eloquence of men like Andrewes, preferring “plaine sermons” without quotes from the Fathers and the Apocrypha (pp. 338 ff.). Yet when analyzed the difference was not so great.

The final section draws the threads together, and a picture emerges of variety within unity with a clear distinction between primary and secondary matters, and disagreements confined to the latter. The authors are too careful to parcel everything up into neat categories but they have produced a fine book, ecumenically valuable as illustrating a deep national Protestant unity such as has now disappeared to our great loss. It is valuable also to each Christian because it reveals a whole galaxy of devotional jewels from outstanding Protestant ministers.

GERVASE E. DUFFIELD

Neglected Subject

Faith Healing: Fact or Fiction? By John Pitts (Revell, 1961, 159 pp., $3), is reviewed by L. Nelson Bell, Executive Editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

This is the sanest, most satisfying book on healing this reviewer has ever seen. Here there is a recognition of God’s power to intervene at the physical level in answer to prayer and in demonstration of his sovereign grace. Here there is also a full recognition of God’s continuing works of healing through the channels of modern medicine and surgery.

As one reads there is a sense of mounting interest and appreciation of the author’s approach. In exceptionally attractive style and fine prose we are presented a subject only too often neglected or beclouded by a narrow approach.

This book represents a tremendous amount of research, a deep spiritual insight, and the ability to bring the clear light of faith to bear on the realities of our Lord’s healing ministry and of man’s need for simple faith today.

Having seen the manuscript of this book and now seeing the final work of the author, there is a deep sense of appreciation that within the covers of this book there is a most satisfying, scriptural, and sane presentation of a subject long-neglected within the church.

Dr. Pitts (a Ph.D., not an M.D.) has done the entire Christian community a genuine service.

L. NELSON BELL

The Reader Profits

A Faith for this One World? By J. E. Lesslie Newbigin (Harper, 1962, 128 pp., $2.75), is reviewed by James Daane, Editorial Associate, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

The impact of Christianity is creating in our time one world with a single history. The technological science of the West, together with its belief in human rights and political democracy, are so invading the East that every nation is being drawn into a single culture and civilization. A purely national or tribal history is no longer possible. (Hence the tendency of wars to become world wars.)

While the East wants nothing of our wars and nothing of our moral standards (with our unequaled violence, immorality, and crime), it does want our scientific technology to resolve its problems of population explosion and massive poverty.

Thinking that there is no essential relationship between what it wants from the West and the Christian cradle in which these things had their birth, the East assumes that it can retain its own religion, reject Christianity, and yet accept Christianity’s by-products.

Newbigin recognizes that Christianity may not be identified with Western ways and customs. He says pointedly, “It has sometimes appeared that they (the churches of Africa and Asia) have received with the Gospel what is now called a package deal—European hymns and harmoniums to play them on, English prayer books, Gothic architecture, American church elections, and German theology.” Newbigin also recognizes that the dominance of the world by the white race has come to an end.

He also recognizes, however, that scientific technology arose within the Christian West and that it did not, and could not, arise within the East because of its belief that nature and all the changes of history are illusory. The East, therefore, errs in thinking that the technology of the West, together with its ideas of human rights and political democracy, can be lifted out intact and transplanted into the Eastern religious milieu. These ideas thrive only in the soil of a Christian culture. The East cannot have the one without the other.

The Church must come to recognize for herself, and to urge upon the East, that Christianity is as valid for everyman as is the physics it nourished as a by-product.

Newbigin therefore rejects the contention of Professor Radhakrishnan that Hinduism offers a basis for the reconciliation of all religions. The distinctive tenet of Hinduism that nature and all historical change is illusory is actually a declaration of war on Christianity’s claim to be a historic religion, as it is also upon the science of the West.

Newbigin also disagrees with Arnold Toynbee’s contention that Christianity should give up its claim to uniqueness because such a claim inevitably gives rise to pride. Admitting that Christians have not always been free of pride, Newbigin urges that Christianity rightly understood does not mother pride but destroys it.

Newbigin also takes issue with Professor Hocking’s contention that Christianity is historical only in the sense that man in history searches for the Eternal. Christianity’s historical character stems rather from the fact that God himself has entered history at a given point in time and space. This constitutes its uniqueness and its universal validity for all men, and this may be surrendered neither to Hinduism nor to Hocking, for precisely herein lies Christianity’s claim of being the one Faith for this one world.

Evangelicals will rejoice if Newbigin can inject this conception of Christianity into his task as Director of the Division of World Mission and Evangelism of the World Council of Churches.

When Newbigin writes, the reader profits.

JAMES DAANE

Important Discoveries

Papyrus Bodmer, Vols. XIV, XV, XVII, ed. by V. Martin and R. Kasser (Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, Cologny-Geneva, Switzerland, 1961, 150, 83 and 270 pp., 55 Swiss Fr.), is reviewed by Herman C. Waetjen, Assistant Professor of New Testament, School of Religion of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Shrouded in mystery, virtually unnoticed, yet among the most important manuscript discoveries of the century are these biblical papyrus texts in Greek and Coptic, which, since 1956, are being published by the Bodmer Library in Geneva, Switzerland. Papyrus Bodmer XIV and XV, also designated P 75, and Papyrus Bodmer XVII are among the latest of the printed New Testament texts. The former is divided into two volumes: Tome I sets forth Luke 3–24, Tome II presents John 1–15. The latter includes the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of James, Peter, John and Jude. Just how much they can contribute to the interpretation of the New Testament writings themselves remains to be determined. Their significance at the moment is that, dated around A.D. 200, they present the oldest witnesses of the Egyptian New Testament and are therefore invaluable for the history of the New Testament text. In the course of time they may also prove to be important for the study of the history of the canon.

HERMAN C. WAETJEN

From Good To ‘Real’ Bad

52 Three Minute Talks to Children, by Marion G. Gosselink; and 52 Parables, by John Henry Sargent (Wilde, 1961, 160 pp., and 112 pp., $2.95 each), are reviewed by Norma R. Ellis, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Over 40 years of preaching experience in the Dutch Reformed Church has equipped Dr. Gosselink admirably for the writing of this little volume. Going through the calendar year he has found a topic appropriate for each Sunday, a Bible verse to pinpoint it, numerous appropriate illustrations, and has woven them into interesting messages. He succeeded in finding material that is pertinent even for such diverse days as April Fool’s and Arbor Day.

These messages are a boon to leaders who need messages each Sunday for Sunday School or Young People’s meetings. They are also good for occasional purposes such as Mother-Daughter Banquets.

In greater or lesser degree, according to the subject at hand, the Gospel is presented in clear fashion.

52 Parables has bits of Scripture, a prayer, and a brief story-sermon, intended for use by children’s leaders. However, this book cannot be recommended along with the other. Grammatically, one glaring misusage is the employment of “real” as an adverb, especially in the case of “real facinating” (p. 55, note sp.).

It is the theological slant of the book, however, that makes it most objectionable. In vain we look for any suggestion that Jesus Christ is our Saviour from sin and that he is more than an example to us. “He certainly lived his whole life as a saviour of men in trouble, teaching all people how to live right, by his own example” (p. 95).

Here or there an illustration might be found to enliven a message, a talk that might be used in revised form, but as they appear these talks are hardly usable in the evangelical cause.

NORMA R. ELLIS

Better Red Than Dead?

There is no meaningful way in which one can speak of a “just war” fought with atomic arms.

Christian faith and the precepts of the Gospel cannot consistently support the manufacturing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons for purposes of “deterrence.”

The risk of enslavement at the hands of another nation is not so fearful a thing as the risk of effacing the image of God in man through wholesale adoption of satanic means to defend national existence or even truth.

This love must embrace … the attacker as well as his victim.

This [Christian] tradition points rather to the need of surrender of some measure of sovereignty by modern nations and the establishment of international law by consent backed by discriminate use of police force under the direction of the United Nations or some form of world government.

We urge the U.S. (to) adopt political, economic and cultural policies which will make her the symbol to the peoples … even of Communist lands, of their hopes for freedom, equality, and deliverance from the ancient curse of abject poverty.

These quotations from the pamphlet A Christian Approach to Nuclear War, endorsed by some leading American churchmen,In essential agreement with the Statement are: George A. Butt-rick, Preacher to the University, Harvard University; Herbert Gezork, President, Andover Newton Theological School; Walter G. Muelder, Dean of Boston University School of Theology; Arthur C. Cochrane, Theological Seminary of Dubuque University; Paul Deats, Jr., Boston University School of Theology; L. Harold DeWolf, Boston University School of Theology; Norman K. Gott-wald, Andover Newton Theological School; John K. Hick, Princeton Theological Seminary; Otto A. Piper, Princeton Theological Seminary; D. Campbell Wyckoff, Princeton Theological Seminary. are published by “The Church Peace Mission,” composed of pacifists, peace commissions, committees and fellowships from many leading denominations.

No doubt fine, sincere people hold this view. But do these people speak for all of the Church? My answer is “No!,” and quite emphatically. A vast majority do not share this line.

My first question is, Why wasn’t this pamphlet given widespread coverage when Russia engaged in its recent testing program? Why is it now so imperative, since President Kennedy has announced further atomic research testings?

Philosophical conjectures may sound quite profound, yet stand neither the test of analysis nor of consistency. Which is the right route out of our present world dilemma?

The pamphlet’s proposal could easily be summed up as “I would rather be red than dead.” Either this conclusion is born of fear, or it subtly advances some cleverly concealed persuasion. In either case it lacks the strength of forthrightness.

To insist that no “just war” can be waged with atomic weapons would strip our nation of any justifiable use of these weapons—or of any other weapon. It implies that no use of force is justifiable, and would rule out any physical force to inflict reproval on another nation. About the only difference between atomic weapons and so-called conventional weapons is their greater destructive force.

Fundamentally, all conflicts arise from the evil nature of man. The question arises, should the innocent be subjected to the tyrannical and the criminal? In some situations two nations might be basically evil in their intent toward each other, and in such cases a conflict would be totally evil. On the other hand, a situation could exist where one nation would hold evil intent toward the other (as in Russia’s assertion that they intend to bury us). In such a situation, are we justified in an effort to preserve our nation?

I see no justifiable way to fail to defend our nation. I see no justifiable course other than resolutely to oppose tyranny. We as a nation are not responsible for the aggressive intentions of another nation. We can seek to reason and persuade, but our only hope of survival lies in the ability to defend ourselves.

The suffering involved in an atomic war would in no way compare with the suffering meted out at the hands of the Communists. Passive resistance would be a transition to increasing suffering.

The reasoning that love is the answer is next to preposterous. True, love is a strong Christian virtue. This we do not argue. But it is not the whole of Christian morality. The early Church has situations where it resorted not to love but rather used strong punitive and corrective measures. In some situations disciplinary methods were advised. Is it reasonable to expect love to work on an international level when it is disregarded on lesser levels, and officially flouted by some international leaders? Would not consistency also require us to rely on love alone in national, state, and local affairs?

Yet the aforementioned pamphlet advocates an international police force. Isn’t this a bit inconsistent? Criminal elements and all people not suited for freedom in society need discipline, and this includes international criminals. Many of us suspect that the pacifist philosophy definitely involves a mandate to precipitate the end of national history, and this we cannot feel to be scriptural.

What hope would remain for the Christian to live creatively in a Communist society? If he survives tyranny, he will nonetheless have lost all his freedoms.

Nothing in this pamphlet commends any semblance of our national life. Isn’t this saying we have no cause worthy of defense? Aren’t we as a nation seeking to fulfill some worthy objectives?

In reference to Communists, it speaks of “their hopes of freedom, equality, and deliverance from the abject curse of poverty.” These are commendable goals. But, we ask, have the Communist nations produced this kind of society? And are these pamphleteers identifying themselves with this cause here? Are they dividing and sharing their own properties? Isn’t this a good place to begin? Do not those bent on dissipating the wealth of others want desperately to retain their own?

Is the Church to become swept up with the materialistic gods, forgetful of her true spiritual existence? It is time for the Church to throw off this yoke of verbal intoxication and speak out. This is a day to exercise faith and confidence in the future and not to surrender to futility.—The Rev. MORRIS E. SCUTT, The First Baptist Church, Columbia City, Indiana.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.