Book Briefs: August 21, 1970

Affirms Biblical Authority

Interpreting God’s Word Today, edited by Simon Kistemaker (Baker, 1970, 313 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by Norman Shepherd, associate professor of systematic theology, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Seven teachers and pastors have joined efforts to supply studies on the general theme of interpreting God’s Word today. The result is not a study of exegetical principles in the narrow sense, nor a probing of the problem of the new hermeneutic, but a survey and assessment of attitudes past and present toward the Old Testament, the New Testament, the doctrine of Scripture, ecclesiastical confessions, and the defense of the faith.

G. Van Groningen, of Reformed Theological College, Geelong, Australia, explores the formation and interpretation of Genesis, while M. Woudstra of Calvin Seminary concentrates on the relation of event and interpretation in the Old Testament illustrated with special reference to the Book of Joshua. Woudstra shows that orthodox biblical scholarship does not relinquish concern for the interpretation of sacred history in its zeal to maintain the trustworthiness of the biblical reports, but insists that the events are themselves revelatory, not inherently ambiguous, and that the Bible itself authoritatively interprets revelation history. He rightly points out that the cause of truth is not advanced when the “historical worth” of a biblical fact is demonstrated by a modern historical method that is inherently opposed to the Bible.

Contributions from the field of New Testament are by the editor, S. Kistemaker of Dordt College, on the formation and interpretation of the Gospels, and by J. De Young of Reformed Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi, on the event and interpretation of the Resurrection. The indivisibility of the fact and meaning of Christ’s resurrection is well brought out by De Young’s rejection of a “probable” resurrection for the sake of the certainty of First Corinthians 15.

Marinus J. Arntzen, pastor of a Reformed church near The Hague, Holland, surveys the rapid deterioration of confidence in the historical trustworthiness of the Bible and the accompanying reinterpretation of “organic inspiration” occurring within traditionally conservative circles in his country. His treatment is valuable as a concrete example of how within a single generation criticism chipping away at the details of Scripture does not stop short of assault upon such basic doctrines as the Resurrection and the Trinity. He has also signalized the arrogance of the new movement, as though no conservative theologian had ever seriously grappled with the problems raised by scriptural infallibility.

After pointing up the parallel erosion of biblical and confessional authority by the use of hermeneutical principles foreign to both Bible and confession, Canadian pastor L. Praamsma offers helpful suggestions for the proper understanding and use of confessional standards. In the closing chapter M. H. Smith of Reformed Seminary emphasizes, by reference to the history of apologetics, the need for a defense of the faith that grows out of the genius of the Word itself, along the lines suggested by C. Van Til.

A considerable number of minor errors of various sorts mar the production as a whole, but its winning appeal is the unifying conviction of the contributors that God’s Word cannot be rightly interpreted unless it is honored as God’s Word at every point.

An Example Of Limited Freedom

Church in a Marxist Society: A Czechoslovak View, by Jan Milic Lochman (Harper & Row, 1970, 198 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Blahoslav Hruby, associate editor, “Religion in Communist Dominated Areas,” New York City.

The eight months of the “Czechoslovak Spring” with Alexander Dubcek’s program “to give a human face to socialism” represent the most radical departure from the Soviet type of Communism. Though the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia ended this most promising change in the history of Communism, the reform movement is still having a tremendous impact on the people in Communist countries and on the Communist movement throughout the world. The Czechoslovak program of humanization, liberalization, and democratization deserves attentive study if we want to understand the growing religious, intellectual, and political dissent as well as the present trend toward dogmatic rigidity and an oppressive police system in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries.

Unfortunately, Church in a Marxist Society adds very little, if anything, new to our understanding of the religious and political situation in Czechoslovakia. Jan Milic Lochman was formerly a member of the Comenius Faculty of Theology in Prague (and in 1968–69 a visiting professor at the Union Seminary in New York) and is now professor of systematic theology at the University of Basel, Switzerland. He wrote this book with an apparent intention not to displease the Soviet-imposed government of Husák. This is understandable: churchmen from Communist countries are not free to express any criticism of the Soviet Union and of their own countries at home or abroad. If they did not follow this unwritten law, they would not receive permission to travel to foreign countries.

The reader must understand, then, that Lochman was not free to “tell it like it is.” This is evident throughout his book. His interpretation of Czechoslovak history and, in particular, of the Communist era since 1948 lacks depth, sharp judgment, and objective evaluation. Also, it omits important facts about Communist manipulation, infiltration, and persecution of churches from 1948 to 1968; these were revealed to a considerable extent even in Communist publications when the Dubcek government abolished censorship.

Lochman has no good word for that great statesman, champion of freedom, and founder of Czechoslovakia, Thomas G. Masaryk, and his disciple Edward Benes. He does not explain that Czechoslovakia in 1948 did not need any “revolution” and that the Communist putsch in that year was engineered with the help of Soviet leaders, who feared the existence of a free and democratic Czechoslovakia in Central Europe. Twenty years later, the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia because its leaders feared that the new freedom of the Czechoslovak Spring was contagious. Lochman speaks cautiously about an “intervention” instead of an “invasion,” and does not mention the well-known protest made by his teacher, J. L. Hromádka, against the invasion.

Lochman stresses the difference in “totalitarian tendencies” of Fascism and Communism:

Sometimes this term has been used simply as a tool of Cold War propaganda to support the argument that Communism and Fascism are only two branches of the same totalitarian tree. We emphatically reject this argument. There is a basic difference between Communism with its constructive and humanistic possibilities, and destructive and nihilistic Fascism [p. 66].

The people of Czechoslovakia seem to see the problem somewhat differently. In recent months the letters “FOZ” appeared on the walls: Fasismus opet zde (“Fascism here again”).

Lochman writes enthusiastically about the Christian-Marxist dialogue in Prague. But he does not specify that this dialogue was limited to a small and select group of people and virtually inaccessible to the public. Neither does he make it clear that the Marxists, who participated, did not represent the Communist party leadership. The Communist leaders in Czechoslovakia were suspicious of the dialogue and considered it, together with other religious themes, as an “export article,” good for Communist propaganda in Western countries. (“Americans are crazy about the dialogue,” commented a Prague Stalinist.)

Lochman’s optimism about the Christian-Marxist dialogue and ideological convergence is further contradicted by recent developments in Czechoslovakia: Hromádka’s death in December, 1969, precipitated by Soviet intrigues against him in the Christian Peace Conference; dismissal of Milan Machovec, the leading Marxist in the dialogue, from the philosophical faculty of Charles University in Prague; expulsion of all leading “liberals” from governmental positions, Parliament, and the Communist party; ouster from the Politbureau and the French Communist party of Roger Garaudy, one of the leading Communist proponents of the Christian-Marxist dialogue. Thus, the dialogue and the Christian Peace Conference are at a standstill, and there is little hope that the current return to ideological dogmatism in the U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, and other Warsaw Pact countries (with the possible exception of Rumania) will permit Communists to resume these activities.

It would have been better for Dr. Lochman not to write this book, because as a citizen of the Soviet-occupied Czechoslovakia he was not free to present the whole picture. Since he completed his manuscript in July, 1969, the developments in Czechoslovakia have taken a sharp turn toward Stalinism and its inherent components: censorship, secret police, and manipulation, infiltration, and harassment of churches. New examples of the violation of religious freedom and other human rights refute almost every day Lochman’s optimistic evaluations and predictions about churches in a Marxist society in Czechoslovakia.

The book is, therefore, a timely reminder of the extent to which Christians in Communist states are limited in their freedom of expression. It is also an urgent reminder that denominational as well as ecumenical relations with churches in Communist countries must include the “established” churches (recognized by Communist governments) as well as dissenting Christians. At the same time, Lochman’s report is a sad footnote to the recent history of the people of Hus, Comenius, and Masaryk, who for centuries struggled for religious and national freedom and once again wanted to live free. They were brutally invaded and occupied by the Soviet Union while the free world looked on uttering empty words of protest and remaining ready to do business as usual with this aggressor.

More Questions Than Answers

Language and Concepts in Christian Education, by William Bedford Williamson (Westminster, 1970, 173 pp., $6.50), is reviewed by Deane A. Kemper, assistant professor of ministry, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, Massachusetts.

That this is a rewrite of a doctoral dissertation helps to explain both its strengths and its weaknesses. The most obvious strength is the care and thoroughness of Professor Williamson’s research. The most serious shortcoming is that his own ideas—and he advances several—are all but lost in a forest of academic qualification.

He quotes too much. In several sections he does little more than string brief quotations together. On pages 28 and 29, for example, he quotes or cites no fewer than fourteen authors, ranging alphabetically from Dorothy L. Braun to E. F. Ziegler and theologically from Paul Tillich to F. E. Gaebelein. In the discussion on learning, a single page contains ten definitions of learning and twelve answers to the question, “How do we learn?” An obvious danger here is that no scholar’s labor can be properly represented by a squib in a paragraph that also contains the words of a dozen other authors. The reader is left to wonder about the nature of the quoted work, the context of the quotations, and possible semantic considerations. The end result is that Williamson raises more questions than he answers.

The book is divided into three sections: Philosophical Decisions, Substantive Decisions and Commitments, and Methodological Decisions. By far the most valuable section is the last, with chapters entitled “On Teaching,” “On Learning,” and “On Curricula and Methodology.” Here Williamson incisively demythologizes the jargon of Christian education. Far too much of the theory, he maintains, is based on vague, homiletical language. Despite all theological presuppositions, Christian education is, after all, education, and cannot ignore the learning theories of general education. Thus he describes Veith’s “redemptive” methods as “vacuous, awaiting a theological premise as yet unstated.” And, citing the pious bromides of “God as teacher” and “teaching through the language of relationship,” he asks, “If God is acknowledged to be the teacher, what does the human teacher do?”

Although the preface states, “The layman should be able to read this work with profit,” it seems unlikely that many laymen will be sufficiently acquainted with or interested in Boehloke, Sherrill, Miller, and Veith to read the entire volume. The chief value of the work would appear to be as a broad but shallow survey of the literature for those actively engaged in the study of Christian education.

A Commentary To Nourish Faith

The Broadman Bible Commentary, Volume 9: Luke-John, by Malcolm O. Tolbert and William E. Hull, general editor Clifton J. Allen (Broadman, 1970, 376 pp., $7.50), is reviewed by Boyd Hunt, professor of theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.

As denomination presses go, that of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination is hardly one of the better known. It just could be, however, that with the publication of Broadman’s twelve-volume commentary, this situation will begin to change for the better.

This is a work whose purpose is to clarify the meaning of the biblical text. Problems are faced, but theological fads and unnecessary technical information are avoided. There are few footnotes, though frequent references are made to other works. The introductions skillfully cut through minutiae to constructive interpretative concerns. Illustrations, general poetic, literary, or historical citations, sermonic examples of practical application, and the like are omitted. Again and again the commentators take the fact word by word, not in any wooden mechanical manner, but in a style that keeps the discussion moving vigorously.

Malcolm O. Tolbert (professor of New Testament at New Orleans Baptist Seminary) draws attention to Luke’s purpose: to present faithfully the events in which the gospel proclamation is rooted; to speak to the relation between Christianity and Judaism in view of the wide gulf that had developed between them; to prove that Christianity was no threat to the empire; and to correct wrong views of the parousia. On the latter point Luke’s particular contribution is his recognition of the role of the Church in salvation history.

Indications of the manner in which Tolbert finds a middle way between the meaning of the text originally and its meaning today reflect the quality of his comments. On the reference to an angel in 1:11, he observes that modern man is not to preoccupy himself with the nature of angelic visitations but to ask the more ultimate question, Is there a God and is he able to involve himself in historical events? On the indication in 15:20 that the father saw the returning prodigal at a distance, he suggests that the father saw him, where the neighbors would have seen rags, dirt, and bare feet. On the reference in 24:3 to the empty tomb following the resurrection of Jesus, he says that belief in the resurrection was based on the appearance of the Lord but that because of Gnostic speculations it was important for the early Church to to show that it was the actual body of Jesus of Nazareth that was raised.

William E. Hull (dean of the school of theology and professor of New Testament at Southern Baptist Seminary) is convinced that John is at once the easiest and the hardest book in the Bible to understand. He sees the Fourth Gospel in the context of a Christianity in Asia Minor near the end of the first century in which relations with the Jewish synagogue had become intolerably strained and in which the Romans sought to coerce submission through persecution. Something of the disciplined incisiveness of his writing is reflected in the fact that in a brief discussion of the Jewish setting of John he distinguishes between the Old Testament, rabbinic Judaism, apocalyptic Judaism, sectarian Judaism, schismatic Judaism, and Hellenistic Judaism. He divides John primarily between “The Book of the Signs” (2:1–12:50) and “The Book of the Passion” (13:1–20:31).

In his treatment of the carefully organized section 2:1–4:54, Hull dwells on John’s singular concentration on faith. He notes that John always describes faith by the verb form, not by the noun form: this means that believing is viewed primarily as an active response rather than an unchanging attitude. In his comments on the appearance of the risen Lord to Thomas (20:24–29), he distinguishes between the risen Lord’s request to Mary Magdalene that she not touch him (20:17) and his exactly contrary invitation to Thomas. He sees here the necessity that the early Church avoid both the extreme of historicism, that the risen Lord is merely physical, and the Gnostic extreme, that the risen Lord is merely spiritual.

These commentators are honest and fair, and are generally moderate in their interpretations. In fact, the commentary as a whole seeks to be nonauthoritarian, in that it recognizes the varying views among evangelicals on the nature of the Bible and its interpretation.

Here is a commentary that, without glossing over problems, seriously seeks to study the Bible—a commentary to nourish faith.

Book Briefs

Karl Barth, by T. H. L. Parker (Eerdmans, 1970, 125 pp., $4.50). A biography concerned more with his intellectual than with his physical life.

A History of Preaching, Volume II: From the Close of the Reformation to the End of the Nineteenth Century, by Edwin C. Dargan (Baker, 1970, 591 pp., paperback, $4.95). Reprint of the second volume of the standard work in this field.

All One Body We, by John Kromminga (Eerdmans, 1970, 227 pp., paperback, $3.95). The president of Calvin Theological Seminary offers an analysis of the WCC’s struggle for ecumenicity.

Heirs of the Pharisees, by Jakob J. Petuchowski (Basic Books, 1970, 199 pp., $6.95). Contends that the strength of the Pharisaic-Rabbinic tradition is responsible for the survival of the Jewish people.

The Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll: A Literary Analysis, by Joseph R. Rosenbloom (Eerdmans, 1970, 88 pp., $4.50). A comparison of the Isaiah scroll with the Masoretic text of the Book of Isaiah.

New Theology No. 7, edited by Martin E. Marty and Dean G. Peerman (Macmillan, 1970, 219 pp., paperback, $1.95). Essays discussing the theological aspects of transcendence.

The Gospel According to John, XIII–XXI, edited by Ramond E. Brown, S. S. (Doubleday, 1970, 1208 pp., $8). Volume 29A of the Anchor Bible.

The Holy Spirit, by Arthur W. Pink (Baker, 1970, 193 pp., $4.95). A study of the person and work of the Holy Spirit.

An Exposition of the Gospel of Mark, by Herschel H. Hobbs (Baker, 1970, 261 pp., $6.95). A commentary filled with sermon suggestions.

Government Economic Policy and Individual Welfare, by Harold A. Gram (Concordia, 1970, 103 pp., $1.50). This and The Age of Technology are two more volumes in the “Christian Encounters” series.

The Man Who Moved a Mountain, by Richard C. Davids (Fortress, 1970, 253 pp., $5.95). The story of Bob Childress, an itinerant Presbyterian minister of the Blue Ridge Mountains.

Somewhat Less Than God: The Biblical View of Man, by Leonard Verduin (Eerdmans, 1970, 168 pp., paperback, $2.95). A discussion of the doctrine of man.

Jeremy Taylor and the Great Rebellion: A Study of His Mind and Temper in Controversy, by Frank Livingstone Huntley (University of Michigan, 1970, 131 pp., $7.50). A literary look at the Anglican divine, defender of the Royalist cause during Cromwell’s rule.

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