The beginning of another year is a good time to think about one of the most familiar terms in the vocabulary of faith. All Christendom uses the word gospel, which is simply another way of saying “good news.” To stop and look again at what the “good news” really is—this is always profitable, and particularly in times like these.
We call the first four books of the New Testament “the Gospels,” but this is a post-biblical usage. These books contain but are not themselves the Gospel.
What, then, is the Gospel? It is the great good news “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3, 4). This is the Gospel proclaimed by the apostles and the early Church after Christ’s ascension, and by Christians ever since. This is the message that changed the course of human history. This is the truth that is “the power of God for salvation,” a fact demonstrated through nearly 2,000 years, from Peter’s preaching at Pentecost to the Jesus movement today.
The Gospel must be neither abridged nor added to. Its integrity stems from the grace of God, who “so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
Integrity means wholeness, and with the Gospel it is a matter of all or nothing. To truncate the Gospel, whether by denying the deity of Christ, who is its center, or by reducing the efficacy of his death for our sins to an example of martyrdom, or by repudiating the reality of his resurrection, is to destroy the Gospel. Likewise, to substitute for it any other way of redeeming men dishonors the living God, who originated the Gospel as the only means of reconciling the world to himself. Among the most severe words in the New Testament are these from the greatest of the apostles: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel that is different from the one we preached to you, may he be condemned to hell!” (Gal. 1:8, TEV)—a kind of plain speaking that rather grates on the ear in this time of covert universalism.
“But why,” someone asks, “go back now to these old truths in a time of change when society is making one of the great right-angle turns in history?” Simply because an understanding of what the Gospel is and what God requires of us through it remains indispensable for Christian life and service.
Although a child can believe it, the Gospel expresses the unfathomable love of God. As with other basic Christian concepts, to oversimplify it can violate its integrity.
In the Bible there is only one Gospel, but it has various facets. The saving work of Jesus Christ was its consummation; its origin goes back, beyond the Messianic prophecies and the record of God’s mighty acts in Israel’s history, to “the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23), who “destined” his Son to be the Saviour “before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. 1:20). When in the fullness of time Christ came, he began his Galilean ministry with the announcement, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). This was the Messianic aspect of the Gospel, and its overtones are still sounding. The King had come and was preaching the good news of his kingdom, to be established on the central gospel facts of his death and resurrection. To these he pointed when he said to his disciples, “The Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45), and when he told them, “Everything that is written of the Son of man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be delivered to the Gentiles.… They will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise” (Luke 18:31–33).
The center of gravity of the four Gospels, which have been called “narratives of the Passion with detailed introduction,” lies in the records of the final days of our Lord’s life. For the actual accomplishment of the Gospel took place on the cross and in the resurrection. Whereas the evangelists used the term gospel only six times (not counting parallels), Paul, looking back on Christ’s redeeming work, used it sixty times. And ever since, whenever the Gospel has been proclaimed men have been accountable for their response to the Saviour. “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
What should we say, then, when we are told that calling men individually to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour is passé and that we must instead proclaim and work toward the redemption of social structures? What should be our response to this contemporary variant of the “social gospel” of early twentieth-century liberalism? Well, we must insist that God redeems men one by one. We must point out the ultimate futility of trying to bring lasting change in social structures apart from changed lives. We must declare that to substitute for the Gospel according to the Scriptures any plan to regenerate men or society by human effort alone falls into the category of “another gospel.”
But let no reader of this editorial stop here. Something more must be said. Everyone who is committed to the one Gospel of Christ, everyone who insists earnestly upon its priority, must be aware of this “something more,” for it is just as biblical as the proclamation of salvation. The Gospel cannot be divorced from the context of Scripture and from the totality of Christ’s ministry. He taught us to love our neighbors and to minister to the bodies as well as the souls of the poor, the sick, and the outcasts. It was by his deeds of compassion that he validated his mission (Matt. 11:2). He was not aloof from this lost, suffering, sinful world. He cared enough for us to identify himself with us in bearing our sins on his cross. His great commission (Matt. 28:18–20) orders us not only to evangelize but also to teach all things he has commanded us, among which concern for mercy and love and justice bulk very large. And how he would have us serve he summed up in these words: “As the Father has sent me, so have I sent you” (John 20:21).
So it is quite as wrong and unbiblical to say, “Just preach the gospel and everything will be all right,” and then turn one’s back on the great social problems of today, as it is to declare that the redemption of social structures has made personal evangelism obsolete.
The Bible knows no other gospel than that of Christ crucified and risen. To proclaim it is imperative. To substitute any other message for it is to come under divine condemnation. And to sever it from Christian action in behalf of the poor and needy is to face the judgment of him who declared, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me” (Matt. 25:45).
How do we resolve the tension between faith and action? How do we relate our unpurchasable salvation to our inescapable obligation to do good works? Paul shows us how in these memorable words (Eph. 2:8–10): “By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast. For [and here he continues with inexorable logic, showing that for a Christian to be unconcerned about good works would thwart the very purpose for which God saved him] we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
Deflecting Dictatorship
Elsewhere in this issue there is a report from two recent travelers to East Germany (see page 12). The bleak situation for Christians in the cradle of the Protestant Reformation is a stark challenge to Americans. Even though Protestantism received a new birth of vitality through the opening of North America to European settlement, that is no guarantee that we any more than the Germans will always have freedom. It is extremely difficult to dislodge a totalitarian regime once it has come to power. What Christians in America must do is to try to keep totalitarianism from taking over in the first place. It makes little difference whether dictatorship comes from the “left” as with Communism or from the “right” as with Fascism. Both forms oppose biblical Christianity.
If we learn from the past, we will oppose all truly totalitarian tendencies in our nation while they are still weak enough to be quenched. But such opposition must be in accordance with our constitution. Indeed, the flippant setting aside of a nation’s constitutional guarantees is itself a totalitarian trend. To fight Communist or Fascist tendencies with their own weapons is in reality to have been defeated before we begin.
In the meantime we should do what little we can do for our brethren who are living under dictatorships. But whatever we attempt—beaming radio programs, providing literature, visiting, trying to bring diplomatic pressure for more freedom—should be done in consultation with representative believers whom God has called to live in those countries. Unilateral action by outsiders is paternalistic and potentially harmful to those who live permanently, not just temporarily, in totalitarian nations.
Britain’S Big Secret
Monarchies might make a comeback one of these days, and if they do the world can thank the British. They have carved out a new role for royalty, one that provides not only a bridge out of the past but also a bridgehead into the future.
Many democratic countries have leadership problems today simply because they lack a widely respected head of state. Political leaders become so enmeshed in issues (and in getting reelected) that they invariably alienate large segments of the populace. There is no strong figure to supply continuity.
The limits of political process become only too obvious at times, and politicians themselves realize that solving a problem often requires that it be disengaged from politics. A case in point is the recently created United States Postal Service; it came into being only after many years of inefficiency caused by hiring practices governed by political considerations more than by good managerial principles.
Communist countries acknowledge the need for heads of state. Moreover, Communist political leaders themselves play the part of monarchs because the absence of popular debate on domestic issues preserves the “neutrality” of these leaders in the eyes of the citizenry. They maintain respect because they do not have to take sides.
This is too large a price to pay. Free people must retain the right to exchange ideas, even at the risk of national disharmony.
For the British, the crown serves to give the people the best of both worlds. The Queen maintains a taxing schedule, some 1,600 public engagements a year. Contrary to what non-Britons sometimes think, she serves much more than nostalgic and ceremonial purposes. Political debate is allowed to rage about her, but she remains majestically aloof. She retains respect because it is understood that she will outlast the issues that consume the politicians.
The British Parliament recently awarded its royal family an increased expense account. Some estimate the annual cost now at 5.5 million pounds, and it is substantially a worthwhile investment. The British sovereign provides assets not lightly obtained in this turbulent world and, as one observer has put it, “beyond any accountant’s pricing.”
Darwinism Under Fire
Since the Scopes trial in 1925, many have assumed that belief in Darwin’s theory of evolution is necessary if one is to be a member in good standing of the intelligentsia. But in a time when so many other long-dominant views are being questioned, can Darwinism expect to go unchallenged? Not likely. At the annual year-end meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, John Moore, a professor of natural science at Michigan State, read a paper charging that evolution is a “religion” but not a science; it is worth discussing and investigating, but more and more the results of disciplined experimentation fail to conform to what would be expected if Darwinism were true. Moore is co-editor of a high-school text, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity (Zondervan, 1969, 548 pp., $7.95), and a leader in the evangelically motivated Creation Research Society.
Christians have always opposed the agnostic and anti-biblical aspects of Darwinism, and when some have offered reasonable arguments questioning scientific aspects of the theory, these too have been widely dismissed as special pleading. But now a new book by a lawyer who does not argue for Christianity or creationism, Norman MacBeth, may challenge at least some Darwinians to face the objections of their critics. At least, if they ignore the scientific arguments marshalled in Darwin Retried (Gambit, 1971, 178 pp., $6.95), they will simply be confirming Macbeth’s suspicions that biologists believe in Darwinism not scientifically but as one believes in his religion—and, unlike biblical Christianity, this religion is one whose bases are not to be too closely scrutinized lest they collapse.
That some evolution takes place—as in the variations that breeders have long been accustomed to—is indisputable. But can we from this demonstrable kind of variation extrapolate an explanation for the development of all species?
Christian truth does not rest on the outcome of the debate over scientific theories, and certainly Christians may disagree among themselves on such matters. But as those who are committed to the dispassionate study of the universe that God has created and placed us in, they should encourage any attempt to prevent false religious elements from impeding the quest for knowledge.
Accord On The Eucharist?
Roman Catholic and Anglican scholars have formulated a statement on the Eucharist (the sacrament of the supper, or the Holy Communion) that has been hailed not only as a breakthrough in ecumenical theology but also as a key step to Anglican reunion with Rome (see News, page 32). Already, however, dissenters in both communions have expressed reservations. It is by no means clear yet whether these two churches will endorse the statement.
There is no doubt that the Roman Catholics have yielded ground; the statement appears to be more in line with traditional Anglican opinions than with commonly held Catholic views. It is encouraging to note the clear affirmation that “Christ’s redeeming death and resurrection took place once and for all in history. Christ’s death on the cross … was the one, perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the world.” Having said this, however, we must ask a number of questions.
The first is: Does not the statement still constitute a formidable barrier for those who do not hold to the realistic view of the presence of Christ in the sacrament? Both Anglicans and Roman Catholics believe in the real presence. Since Christ cannot be separated from his body, they say, if he is really present then his body must be present too. Calvin said Christ’s body is in heaven and cannot be anywhere else; hence Christ cannot be bodily present. Zwingli said Christ was symbolically present. A further complication develops, for if Christ is present in bodily form, then his body is ubiquitous, for his body must be present everywhere the Eucharist is observed and it is being observed in a thousand places at once. Certainly ubiquity can be deduced if one starts with the realistic view of Christ’s presence. But those in the Baptist and Reformed traditions, among others, do not do this.
A second and an exceedingly thorny question has to do with how and when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church has always insisted that the priest alone can consecrate the elements, and that it is in the act of consecration that the substance of the bread and wine become the body and blood while retaining the appearance of bread and wine. But that church so far does not recognize the validity of the Anglican priesthood. Therefore this agreement is meaningless unless Catholics concede that Anglican priests can consecrate validly. For, according to their belief, if there is no valid consecration the substance of the bread and wine is unchanged, Christ is not really present, and there is no Eucharist.
Thirdly, does not the new statement leave unclear what the precise role of the priest is in the consecration that produces the change? Does this mean that Roman Catholics will modify their traditional views in the months ahead? This question is high on the agenda for joint consideration by the two churches in the future.
Let there be no mistake about it. The questions involved are important, and in an age of rapid and unprecedented change, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and others have a stake in the proceedings. There should be a unity of the faith, and ideally this would include agreement on the nature of the Eucharist. No one need fear discussion of this question if it is agreed that Scripture is the source from which the doctrine should be developed.
Waldheim’S Titan Task
The new secretary general of the United Nations, Dr. Kurt Waldheim of Austria, takes the reins of the world organization at a time when its prestige could hardly be lower. After earnest but ineffective attempts to resolve the Viet Nam war, U Thant apparently precipitated the Six Days’ War between Israel and the Arab nations by immediately yielding to Nasser’s demands to withdraw the U. N. peacekeeping force from Egyptian territory. The United Nations did nothing substantial during the bloody eight months of repression in East Pakistan, and proved itself impotent when India finally took matters into its own hands and invaded. Thus the new secretary general is taking on an authority that has been sadly undermined by the failures of his predecessor.
Dr. Waldheim, who volunteered for the cavalry at the age of nineteen, before Hitler took over Austria, also served with distinction in the German army on the Eastern Front during World War II. Thus, unlike his predecessor, he has first-hand knowledge not only of the horrors of war but also of total military defeat. On the other hand, if there is one country that has proved able to negotiate itself out of almost insuperable difficulties despite its lack of a strong bargaining position, it is Waldheim’s Austria. Divided and subjected to four-power occupation after World War II, Austria is the only country ever to rid itself of occupying Soviet troops.
For the Austrians, charm and tact are by no means inconsistent with a determination that gets results. Dr. Waldheim will need them all as he seeks to rehabilitate the enfeebled world organization and to bring its discordant voices into harmony. Our prayers and best wishes accompany him.
Rhoda’S Joy
God allowed the apostle James to be killed. However, when the Jerusalem authorities imprisoned Peter and intended to lead him to the same fate, God said no—Peter’s time had not yet come (Acts 12:2 ff). Peter’s fellow believers did not know whether or not he would be spared, but they prayed earnestly for him. Since God had let James die, they no doubt did not demand that Peter be rescued; surely they prayed that God would see to his release “if it be thy will.” Yet it doesn’t seem as if they expected God to grant their wish, for when Peter actually showed up at a house where many were praying, everyone was astonished.
Rhoda, the maid who answered the door, recognized Peter’s voice but was so overcome by joy that she didn’t have the presence of mind to unlock the gate. She represents the enthusiastic Christian who is ever ready to believe God for miracles but is not so good at following through. Many a Christian who has long prayed for revival and has seen it come lets his rejoicing keep him from appropriate, down-to-earth follow-up.
On the other hand, the more sober believers at the prayer meeting, those who thought Rhoda mad when she reported that Peter was at the door, represent all too many of the rest of us. We pray and pray but don’t really expect God to answer.
It would have been easy enough to check on Rhoda’s jubilant report by sending someone else to the gate. Instead the gathered believers spent time arguing with Rhoda about her state of mind and engaging in theological speculation about the possibility that some angel representing Peter was at the gate (in which case the angel should surely have been invited in, not left out in the cold!).
Instead of wasting time trying to persuade the doubters by her words, Rhoda should have brought Peter right in. How many arguments in the church would be avoided if living evidence were presented instead of heated affirmation!
Yet those of us not given to over-exuberance and easy credulity also have the responsibility of seeking the evidence for answered prayer instead of arguing that it couldn’t be so. Joy is wonderful, but it must not get in the way of doing what is right. Doubt has its value—for we do not want to believe what is not true—but not when it paralyzes us from checking the claim about which we’re skeptical.
In virtually every major city in our land, there is some expression of a “Jesus” revival among youth. The Rhodas who wish to tell the established churches about it should remember to introduce the living proof. And those who doubt whether it is true should go to the door and see for themselves, instead of merely sitting back and discussing it.
