Perspective on American Christianity

Christianity is a world religion. The ecumenical movement as expressed in the World Council of Churches operates on a global basis. The Roman Catholic Church with its emerging ecumenism is likewise global and impinges on the WCC on all fronts. In addition to the religious movements of our day, other significant forces cannot be dismissed lightly—Russian and Chinese Communism, African nationalism, secularism, scientism, racial fomentation, and the specter of overpopulation.

All this tends to discourage any assessment of the fortunes of the faith in national and regional terms. Yet it is time to take the pulse of American Christianity, to evaluate its assets and liabilities. How is the faith faring in America? What discernible forces are at work in our midst and how will they help or hinder the churches?

The liabilities of American Christianity include the following:

1. An absence of authentic theological concern and interest in churches, colleges, and even seminaries that has impoverished the sources of great preaching. In too many American churches and schools, theology has been displaced by psychology and sociology.

2. The dearth of prayer in many churches except on a superficial basis (“the next moment for our missionaries”) and dwindling or dead midweek prayer meetings that are concerned with everything except prayer.

3. The unfortunate trend of extending the dogma of separation of church and state to the point where atheistic and secularistic philosophies replace Christian presuppositions.

4. The rejection of the Christian world-view in public education and the substitution of an evolutionary outlook that exalts naturalism.

5. The absence of great Bible preaching from the American pulpit and the neglect of sustained Bible study in the pews, leading to the substitution of sociological analyses for the message of spiritual regeneration and a compromise of the Christian claim in the churches themselves.

6. A growing disposition by the American populace to accept salacious literature and films without protest and to tolerate standards of conduct far below the biblical norms, and to do so with complacency or in the name of liberty and freedom.

7. The concern for the Madison Avenue “image” more than for fact which fosters the illusion that whatever is of interest to the news media is historically decisive, and that what men do is more important than what they are.

8. The slump and secularization of moral and ethical standards in the churches themselves as membership qualifications are lowered and church discipline is forgotten.

9. The failure of non-evangelical churches to preach the Gospel while they emphasize economics and social action, as well as the failure of the evangelical churches that emphasize the Gospel to apply its principles systematically to society.

Yet American Christianity is not without impressive assets that belie the claims of the Jeremiahs who say we live in the post-Christian era or that Christianity is ready for the mortician. Among these assets are:

1. A free press that gives sympathetic coverage to religion.

2. Separation of church and state—a principle which, regrettably, is being steadily eroded by sectarian pressures upon politicians for public funds.

3. The continuing popularity of church attendance as a desirable social and cultural practice as well as the example of a President whose inauguration was preceded by a service of divine worship.

4. An open religious situation conducive to voluntary personal commitment and public approval in contrast to totalitarian religious or atheistic situations.

5. The revival of mass evangelism associated especially with Billy Graham’s crusades and reflected in noteworthy campaigns of lesser-known revivalists.

6. The increasingly active participation of some laymen in the life and leadership of the churches, and their relatively high sense of missionary responsibility and stewardship.

7. The existence of accredited Christian educational institutions at all levels that perpetuate the biblical world-life view amid the secular climate of public education and of some private education.

8. The emergence of neighborhood Bible study “cells” held in homes and attended by unchurched adults. Often such groups are compensating for the neglect of serious Bible study in the churches; but in noteworthy instances they are sponsored by churches committed to a scriptural ministry.

If American Christianity is to move forward in power, it must have certain things. Among these are:

1. A recovery of the divine authority of the Bible in the churches generally instead of just among those in the evangelical tradition.

2. A new and powerful work of the Holy Spirit in and out of the Christian community that will produce true Christian unity, not motivated by a spirit of “togetherness” after the fashion of a “religious ‘U. N.’ ” but based upon common acceptance of the eternal verities.

3. A new understanding of how churches grow with the knowledge that church mergers in themselves neither guarantee spiritual and theological vigor nor necessarily lead to growth or an increase in baptisms.

4. A return to the primary task of the Church, which is making disciples of men for Jesus Christ, building them up in the faith until they have been conformed to Christ’s image, and then challenging them to deal with social and humanitarian problems in the spirit and in the name of Christ.

5. A renewed understanding of the biblical teaching that spiritual life consists, not in programs, buildings, and budgets, but in the devout service of Jesus Christ.

When these things come to pass, new life and vigor will come to the Church of Jesus Christ.

The Price Of Peace

The international press gave an overwhelmingly favorable report of the Second All-Christian Peace Assembly held in Prague last summer. Excerpts in support of this claim are given in the magazine published by the Christian Peace Conference, in a survey by the Rev. Karoly Toth of Budapest, a member of the editorial board. The evidence adduced appears impressive, testifying to the removal of prejudice and distrust and to the opening up of new vistas as old suspicions are seen to be groundless.

Those with suspicions yet undulled may notice some odd features about this survey, apart altogether from a certain selectivity and the absence of detailed criticism. In its first page, for example, there are quotations from what seems a representative group of press reports: two in English, one each in German, French, and Italian. All of them had grasped the great significance of the assembly and warmly commended it to their various readers; yet not one of the publications concerned is named on the official list of journals accredited at Prague. This curious fact might suggest that the writers of these reports, if they were in attendance at all, came in a less objective category than that of newsmen, and their assessment should be regarded accordingly. Many of the succeeding excerpts are similarly from non-journalistic participants; others say very little, but the source is listed as a thoroughly reputable Continental daily.

The bulletin concludes that from its analysis of press response the CPC has “found its place and service in the ecumenical life at the side of the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church.” It further claims that Dr. Martin Niemöller’s intervention in one assembly debate indicated “the actual temptation of anti-communistic preaching in the churches of the Federal Republic and other Western countries … and proved that the sermons in the socialistic countries were free from the temptation of anti-capitalism or anti-westernism.” The representative of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, present on that occasion, would strongly deny that it proved anything of the sort (see “Engineering Peace in Prague,” July 31, 1964).

One column of the bulletin purports to deal with four criticisms of the movement—none of which turns out to be of much importance. Even there, however, each alleged criticism is so rounded off that the (mild) wrath of men is somehow interpreted as praising the organizers. The one note that gives a passing nod to the real burning issue is slipped in unobtrusively: “Despite the fear of many people still that the movement of the Prague Christian Peace Conference serves too one-sidedly the political interests of the East,” a Swiss paper is quoted as saying, “the idea that forms its basis has created a stir all over the world today.” No one is likely to deny that the world is interested in peace.

The facility of utilizing other people’s words is seen also in another article in the bulletin, entitled “The British Broadcasting Corporation on the Second All-Christian Peace Assembly.” It gives the gist of a program organized by the Rev. Paul Oestreicher, BBC religious producer, who is also chairman of the CPC’s British committee. In this broadcast, President Johnson was quoted as having said in a speech last May: “We will continue to build bridges across the gulf which has divided us from Eastern Europe. They will be bridges of increased trade, of ideas, of visitors, and of humanitarian aid.” To which Oestreicher added: “It would be strange indeed if in this situation the Christian Church was not itself engaged in this work of bridge-building. The Prague Peace Conference can truthfully say that it was beginning to construct shaky footbridges when the politicians were still busy dynamiting existing ones.” Oestreicher has since left the BBC for a post with the British Council of Churches.

Why A New Confession?

In Saul Bellow’s Herzog he picks up a useful word from a psychiatrist: “Neuroses might be graded by the inability to tolerate ambiguous situations.” And the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. may be headed for some neurotic times. The old securities and the new confession, the middle-class virtues and the freedom marches, the big money all around and the new poverty frontier, the old moralities and the “new morality,” the pride in the democracy of presbytery structures and the anguished outcries about the Hierarchy and the Establishment, the subtleties of 475 Riverside and the sturdy simplicities of Nebraska—maybe the new confession at Columbus will depress the panic button, with things flying loose in all directions.

For reasons of state (the masses have to be handled carefully for their own good) the confession has been held back except for some discreet releases in Time and the New York Times, or in the official channels of Presbyterian Life, where it looks good. If the releases reflect the official position (Professor Dowey’s?), Presbyterian ministers have for years now been vowing loyalty to the Westminster Confession with tongue in cheek or crossed fingers. If this kind of loyalty is condoned in the old creed, why do the ministers need a new one? Just keep the old one. If it’s not binding anyway, what do we need a new one for? And if it isn’t representative or binding, why is it needed? Or perhaps we need a new creed every year to meet the new day, or every day to meet the existential situation? Meanwhile, it is known by one and all that in a so-called confessional church, confession is not now nearly so important as adjustment or cooperation or peacefulness. Use the official publications, but don’t be concerned about the theological content. For the peace and purity of the Church, stick to the peace.

Does the great “know how” in these matters mean that the new confession will be passed by 1967? Are the General Assembly and presbyteries as constituted wise enough or patient enough really to debate theological issues? How many informed laymen know what is at stake in Westminster vs. 1967, or how will they find out? The theologians will silence the laymen and the professors will silence the clergy. History will be made and the press releases will look good, and it will be said that the Church has made an epochal decision.

But as a member of Parliament once said of the British, “that a thing is an anomaly they consider no argument against it whatever.”

Christianity And Affluence

A “District News Letter” sent out by an Ohio district superintendent of The Methodist Church contains some statements that should not go unchallenged.

On “Christianity and Affluence,” a subject worthy of deep study in a society such as ours, the paper approves an ideological climate more suggestive of Moscow than of Sinai.

The moral outlook of Christianity, says the superintendent of the Youngstown District, “disapproves of material wealth—not just of vulgarity of ostentation or unequal distribution, but of the moral pursuit of wealth as such.” If this is not a repudiation of the profit motive per se, then Superintendent Norman M. Parr has not made himself clear.

We read: “Probably our greatest single need in the second half of the Twentieth Century is the faith with which to tackle the task of building an affluent society throughout the world. The traditional Christian outlook does not provide such a faith, but equally we find a growing recognition among non-Christians that we shall not find such a faith merely by abandoning Christianity in favor of humanism. Humanism by itself is incapable of popular moral appeal; the moral energy in the past has been negative, based on its opposition to the superstitions and inhumanities which used the name of religion.

“I am not alone in my belief that we need a new kind of Christianity—a Christianity which does not make the mistake of treating the Bible as a textbook for living.…”

This proposed “new kind of Christianity” would reduce the redemptive work of Christ to a change in the material balance of this age.

The author of this remarkable letter ends it with these words: “True Christianity is not imitation of Christ, but the furthering of His revolution.”

We wonder.

One More Day?

A communication from the Grand-dad’s Day Council, Incorporated, reminds us that the first Sunday after Labor Day has been officially designated as “National Grand-dad’s Day.” This new day has been the subject, the council says, of “proclamations by mayors and other important people”; it has been recognized by the World’s Fair “with Georgie Jessel as Master of Ceremonies” and marked by golf and bowling tournaments all over the country.

All this leaves one disenchanted. To add the public sentimentality of a “Grand-dad’s Day” to Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, which are already tarnished by commercialization, is a doubtful contribution to the respect for elders Scripture enjoins. Think also of the added burden on the ministers of preparing an annual Grand-dad’s Day sermon—right after the Labor Day sermon at that. And why not go on to Grandma’s Day and Aunt’s and Uncle’s Days? No; instead of naming a day for Grand-dad, it would be better to reconsider the current American trend of consigning him and Grandma to the loveless care of strangers rather than giving them an honored place in the home.

After all, what is Sunday for? The day men are commanded to keep holy is the day for honoring the living God, of whom the psalmist said, “he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.”

Halting Red Aggression In Viet Nam

Speaking of the Roman patriot Cicero, Sulla, the Roman military dictator, said two thousand years ago: “There are soldiers who never bore a sword, and brave men who died in no battle.” Against a backdrop of international proposals that America pull out of Viet Nam and pressures by press and pulpit to negotiate in the face of Communist aggression, President Johnson has spoken to the American people as a brave soldier.

The President has placed the Viet Nam situation in proper perspective. Simply stated, the problem exists because North Viet Nam coveted control of South Viet Nam and viciously breached that country’s sovereignty by naked aggression. The United States is fighting to fulfill its pledged word of honor to defend South Viet Nam against such aggression. In this fulfillment, Mr. Johnson affirmed, “We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired. We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement.” Behind these words lie three sound ideas: (1) South Viet Nam has the right of self-determination; (2) Communist aggression in Southeast Asia must be resisted; (3) world order must be strengthened. American policy does not yield one inch to those who want peace at any price, and who never seem to condemn Communist aggression or even understand the nature of its threat.

The United States has no ulterior motives, wants no territory, and is willing to help in the development and growth of Southeast Asia. But to Hanoi and Peking the message was loud and clear: There will be no withdrawal. No possibility exists of military successes for aggressors. Only the thinnest edge of American power has been unleashed.

The aggressors would be foolish indeed not to take a close look at the offer of unconditional discussion, although the Chinese, expectedly, rejected it at once. This offer was accompanied by the promise of a billion-dollar American investment in the economic development of the crowded Asian sector of the world. The President challenged Russia to join in this peaceful development by investing its own resources in plowshares rather than in swords. Russian response to this overture will test the sincerity of her professed “peaceful” aims in what may be a choice between the olive branch and the bomb. Moved by idealism, the President called for food to feed the hungry, taken from the overflowing American granaries, and looked to a time of peace when medicine and education would improve the lot of the hard-pressed millions. In support of this idea he quoted from the Scriptures. But his moving challenge to accept either life or death fell short of the biblical truth that God sets eternal life and eternal death before all men—and that the best things in life are assured only to those who choose eternal life.

The present situation is not without irony. Some say Mr. Johnson’s policy is the one represented by Barry Goldwater and repudiated by the electorate in the choice of Johnson over Goldwater. This is a gross oversimplification. It may indeed be true that Mr. Goldwater read the signs better than Mr. Johnson a year ago. What Goldwater feared has happened. But the President now discerns what he may not have seen then.

In a democracy, the right to dissent is ever present. Always there will be those who disagree with any policy formulated by the party in power. It may be hoped that Mr. Johnson will not yield to opponents of a sound policy in Viet Nam—those who neither sense nor see the true nature of our present dilemma, and whose hopes for withdrawal would precipitate another Munich. America is still the greatest bastion for freedom, and it holds the greatest military power in world history. This power must be used responsibly when principle, freedom, and truth are at stake.

Like A Russian Ballot

If it were not high tragedy, it would pass for high comedy. Under auspices of the tax-exempt Fellowship of Reconciliation (Clergymen’s Emergency Committee for Vietnam), Dr. Edwin T. Dahlberg, former president of the National Council of Churches, circulated a prepaid “ministerial opinion poll for the benefit of the White House.” Anybody seeking evidence of ecclesiastical objectivity would find little in its obviously weighted alternatives. Significantly, neither option gave any hint that Communist aggression is wrong, nor that America’s defense of self-determination by small nations should be commended. Rather, the clergy had this choice (“Just check one … then detach and mail”):

( ) I favor intensifying and extending the war in Vietnam.

( ) I would like the United States to initiate efforts now to negotiate peace in Vietnam.

If some anti-Communist organization had sponsored an equally prejudiced poll, loud ecclesiastical voices would have cried “foul.” Such an alternative might read:

( ) I favor conferring sanctity upon Communist staging areas and Communist aggression, and an immediately negotiated “Munich” in Vietnam.

( ) I approve containment of Communist aggression and self-determination for all nations threatened by aggressors.

The Fellowship of Reconciliation lost tax-exemption only to have it restored after some difficulty. Many clergymen who in this poll registered opposition to America’s military involvement in Viet Nam were the same ones who recently urged force, and lots of it, in Alabama.

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