Gentle Conflict
Conflict With Rome, by G. C. Berkouwer, transl. by D. H. Freeman, Presbyterian & Reformed, Philadelphia, 1957. 319 pp., $5.95.
As in The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth so in this volume Berkouwer has given us penetrating analyses on an even more important question with a clarity and ease of expression that leaves little to be desired.
The Conflict With Rome never mentions persecution in Colombia and Spain, avoids all reference to tax support for parochial schools and never raises its voice above a dignified discussion of theology. The subjects are, rather, the Roman claim to all inclusive authority, grace and assurance, Mariolatry, the incarnation, and the witness of the patristic writers.
In an exceptionally interesting and generously informative way Berkouwer shows how the Romish view of sin (which minimizes depravity and speaks well of man) and infused grace depends on a theory of the incarnation detached from the specific purpose of redemption and considered as a cosmic principle of union between God and man. This union is now most complete in the prolongation of the incarnation which is the body of Christ, to wit, the Roman church. Berkouwer succeeds most admirably in making even the hasty reader understand the coherence of the Roman system.
If it be the duty of a reviewer to search out something for adverse criticism, perhaps a few points may be found:
First, in rejecting Rome’s claim that the Reformation, as a revolt against all ecclesiastical authority, was too individualistic, Berkouwer judges that the recent excessive individualism is a departure from Reformation principles. The reviewer agrees that there has been a widespread departure from Reformed principles, but he believes that it has been toward an excessive totalitarianism, and so far forth toward something akin to Romish authoritarianism.
Second, at the end of the chapter on grace, he asserts that “the primacy of the intellect was rejected” by the Reformation and that “the Reformed concept of fiducia was not in the least [italics mine] intellectually founded.” This was not the view of Charles Hodge; and J. Gresham Machen in his What is Faith vigorously defended the primacy of the intellect.
Third, although Berkouwer presents some fine exegetical material in defense of the assurance of salvation, it seems that he does not quite answer Rome’s argument for “moral certainty” as opposed to “infallible assurance.”
Fourth and last, the great majority of Berkouwer’s references to contemporary Romish authors, with the exception of Cardinal Newman, are to Dutch writers. This produces the impression, unfounded and unfortunate, that the argument may suffer from a limited viewpoint.
But these criticisms are minor. The long chapter on grace is a masterpiece.
One comes to understand why the Romanists were forced to assert the freedom of the will and why Luther and Calvin were compelled to deny it. With great skill in the handling of detail he makes perfectly evident that this is no effete, academic, trivial quarrel about words; but rather that it is at the center of one’s deepest religious attitudes. On the one hand there is human merit, the insufficiency of God’s power, and the possibility of losing one’s salvation; on the other hand is total depravity, the perseverance of the saints, and the irresistible grace of the Sovereign God.
GORDON H. CLARK
Views On Preaching
The Way to Biblical Preaching, by Donald G. Miller, Abingdon, 1957. 160 pp., $2.50.
This book by the professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Virginia, is a sequel to the author’s earlier volume, Fire In Thy Mouth.
Miller’s fundamental thesis is this: by definition all Christian preaching is worthy of that name only when it is expository. By expository, however, he does not refer to the traditional homiletical form so-called. In fact, he repudiates that form altogether, arguing that exposition sustains no relationship whatsoever to form, but only to substance.
From this perspective expository preaching-identical with biblical preaching—is the exposition of a scriptural theme which restricts itself to the immediate contextual framework on which it is based. The argument is buttressed with numerous illustrations of the abuse of Scripture by methods of approach other than this one, an abuse which the author concludes is inevitable. But the illustrations are all alike extreme and, therefore, unconvincing.
Again, Miller maintains that the sermon which is an intellectual discussion of biblical truth is unjustifiable. Here he fails to perceive that doctrinal errors and misrepresentations often necessitate such sermons and that such clarification of biblical truth is itself a vital means of nurturing, sustaining, and enlarging faith. A New Testament scholar ought to know that the pulpit of the early Church was committed to both kerygma (proclamation) and didache (teaching).
This author also makes much of keeping biblical truths in balance, a good observation. His primary example is the doctrine of election. But at this point he falls into his own trap. Failing to see this doctrine in relation to the doctrines of man, sin, and divine sovereignty, he divorces it altogether from God’s decree of salvation. In consequence, he comes up with an interpretation of election which is nothing short of nonsense and which indicates that his own Arminian background persists despite his present Reformed affiliation.
There are excellent insights in this book but they are enmeshed in a web of immature and erroneous notions. Whenever a man restricts Christian preaching to limitations which are not explicit or implicit in the biblical text, he only reveals his own prejudices. Miller’s restrictions eliminate the possibility of comprehensive doctrinal, ethical, and biographical sermons which derive their substance from the Scriptures as a whole instead of an isolated passage. His narrowness, evidenced by the presumptuous title of the book, involves him in a pharisaical denunciation of some expert biblical preaching by masters like F. B. Meyer, whom he brands “biblicists.” His argument further loses force when one encounters his neo-orthodox doctrine of the Bible. This book will be read with profit only by those who have powers of discernment and who realize that biblical preaching is best defined by the men who succeed at it week after week in their pulpits.
RICHARD ALLEN BODEY
Lectures For Clergy
Preaching the Christian Year, edited by Howard A. Johnson. Scribner’s. $3.75.
Here is a collection of essays on the theological implications of the major seasonal emphases in the annual Christian calendar, contributed by leading Episcopalians at the behest of Dean Pike, and collected by Canon Johnson. Hughell Fosbroke, Albert Mollegen, Theodore Wedel and others offer, in turn, their thoughts on the Advent, Christmastide, Lent, etc. The book opens with a brief “office” for preachers and closes with lists of recommended reading furnished by each of the authors.
These are not sermons, but lectures, first delivered in series before the Episcopal clergy of the greater New York area. They read, for the most part, like formal treatises written in the modern manner; suggestive, generally progressive rather than traditional in theology. Thus we are reminded that the Advent “centers on the coming of the King, rather than the coming of the Kingdom,” but it also means that “He is always here with creative power and yet ever and again he comes.” In other words, God in Christ is always at work in a sort of existential Advent—today even in a Nietzche or a Bernard Shaw.
The book covers a wide field of interests. Frederick C. Grant, writing on Holy Week, discusses the chronology of the Gospels and the synoptic problem from the viewpoint of higher criticism. Then he says, “The idea of an infallible record is both impossible to maintain and entirely unnecessary from the orthodox viewpoint.” Albert T. Mollegen, writing on Christmastide and the Epiphany, goes into liturgies: “The Prologue to the Fourth Gospel, originally chosen as the Gospel for the third and last Christmas Mass, seems the perfect choice for the Christmas Gospel. It was chosen in the West for a Christmas Gospel before the Advent Season arose so that Christmas began the Church Year.”
To me, the most satisfying essay is that of J. V. Langmead Casserley on Eastertide: “The Resurrection is more profoundly interpreted not as the divine exaltation of Jesus to a status which was not previously his, but rather as a divine affirmation of that status which was always and intrinsically his.” And “(The Resurrection) demands a metaphysical interpretation, but in good metaphysics the reality which demands and receives the metaphysical interpretation is always and necessarily a physical reality.”
Amen!
G. AIKEN TAYLOR
Doctrine Of Wrath
The Wrath of the Lamb, by Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, S.P.C.K., London, 1957. $4.00.
This volume provides a clear illustration of the way in which a scholar’s viewpoint toward higher criticism influences his biblical theology. The author’s purpose is to trace the doctrine of the wrath of God throughout the Scriptures. He comes to the task obviously well-equipped with a thorough knowledge of the Greek language as well as a familiarity with all pertinent literature. However, he accepts all of the radical positions of the higher critics regarding the dates and authorship of the various parts of the Bible. His analysis of the biblical position is as follows: The Old Testament contains two contradictory currents—the Deuteronomic school followed by the Chronicler sees the wrath of God as an impersonal process in history, while the earliest writers and the exilic and post-exilic prophets conceive of the wrath as God’s personal reaction against sin. In the Inter-Testamental period these two currents are continued, the Apocalyptists being heirs of the prophetic position, while that of the Chronicler is followed in Maccabees and Philo. In the New Testament, Paul, in keeping with the one stream of thought, also conceives of the wrath of God as an impersonal process in history. To the writers of the Synoptics, God’s wrath is likewise the arrangement which God has made whereby sin brings its own consequences. The Apocalypse carries Paul’s concept of an impersonal wrath to its proper climax, and connects the wrath of God to the cross where God triumphs by accepting suffering rather than by inflicting it.
Dr. Hanson certainly makes a careful study of the biblical material; but, due to his presuppositions, his position is one-sided. According to his viewpoint, the wrath of God is not an emotion or even an attitude of God toward sin. He says that while we must not think of the wrath as a human emotion, surely it is the wrath of God, and the biblical doctrine is one which depicts God as strongly antagonistic toward all that is sinful. The serious implications of the author’s position are revealed in his final chapter where he considers what modern scholars have written on the subject. Here it is that he expresses the basic opposition between his view and the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.
HARRY BUIS
Scholarly Treatment
The Mormons, by Thomas F. O’Dea, University of Chicago Press, 1957. $5.00.
This volume was written by a non-Mormon who is an associate professor of sociology at Fordham University in New York. A graduate of Harvard University and holding a doctorate from there, he is able to pursue the subject in scholarly and irenic fashion.
His presentation is an able one, the facts of which were developed after exhaustive research. His control of the primary and secondary source materials is excellent, and the literary quality of the work is good. There are those who will certainly take exception to his conclusion that Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon. This reviewer still entertains the suspicion that Smith was not equipped to write this volume around which Mormonism centers. But it is interesting to observe that if Smith did write the book then the foundation stones of Mormonism crumble instantly. Smith himself claimed that he found this “revelation.” If he did not, he was a liar and to suppose that a valid system of truth could be built upon such a foundation is hard to believe.
For those who are interested in Mormonism as a cult or as an expression of a religious urge, chapter six is invaluable. In this chapter the author discusses the theological foundations of the cult, and he does so brilliantly. The basic tenets of the cult are clearly delineated. The logic and precision with which this has been done is admirable. One need only run the gamut of Morman beliefs, as they are outlined, and he will be able quickly to ascertain wherein the differences lie between his own convictions and those of the Mormon. For those who are evangelical in viewpoint, the unalterable and inescapable conclusion is that Mormonism is a cult. Mormonism denies creation, holds that spirit is matter and that God “himself once was as we are now, and is an exalted man and sits enthroned in yonder heavens.” God is subject to the law of progression. The doctrine of the trinity has deteriorated to a conception of three separate gods. Man was in the beginning with God and thus is eternal. He is of the same race as God and will some day become God. Imputed guilt through Adam’s sin is denied and salvation is obtained by faith plus good works.
This volume is recommended reading for those who are interested also in aspects of Mormonism other than the religious.
HAROLD LINDSELL
