The Elastic Yardstick
Basic Christian Ethics, by D. Paul Ramsey (Scribners, 1950, 404 pp., $3), is reviewed by Edmund A. Opitz, a founder of The Remnant, a clerical fellowship, 30 South Broadway, Irvington, New York.
Churchmen are not consulted for expert economic or political diagnosis, but when social problems impinge on moral values it is expected that men of God will have something to say. Ethics, most of us would concede, is a vital part of our religious life: ethics is also intimately concerned with human relationships in economic and political spheres and elsewhere. Therefore, it is proper that churchmen bring the sensitive religious conscience into the forum and market place, so long as they are willing to observe the rules of the game. This point poses two requirements. The first is: Before you moralize get the facts straight. Economics and politics are disciplines in their own right, and their integrity must be respected. Competence in these studies does not come easily, least of all is it conferred upon a person merely because he knows metaphysics, biology, literature, or whatever. The second requirement, which will be considered in more detail, is that the moral values against which economic and political practices are to be measured must be sound. An elastic moral yardstick at the center will spread an infection throughout the whole inquiry. On this point, it is instructive to examine a significant “new look” in Christian ethics.
The moral norms and standards by which we generally judge conduct are part and product of our Judaeo-Christian heritage. Sermons from thousands of pulpits Sunday after Sunday are premised on the assumption that congregation and clergyman alike draw inspiration from the same code of values, and all know—or at least have intimations of—what is right and good even if they fail to pursue it. As the late Dean Inge put it, “The Christian revelation is of a standard of values resting on an unveiling of the character of God and our relation to Him; on this alone depends the whole scheme of Christian Ethics, which in their turn postulate the truth of the revelation in Christ.” Our religion gives us principles to live by, thinks the average churchgoer, and we ought to practice them even though they are inconvenient at times. He is willing to put up with this inconvenience in order to stand by his principles, but what really bothers him are the economic and political pronouncements made by or on behalf of the several official church bodies and agencies—such as the recent recommendations that the United States recognize Red China, the generally soft and ambiguous stance on communism, domestic as well as foreign, and so on. This kind of thing does not look like the result of applying traditional morals to contemporary problems; and, as a matter of fact it is not. It denotes the use of a new variety of ethical theory, still bearing the Christian label but imparting a novel twist to the content.
The moral and cultural values of Christendom are under attack from without, but they are also suffering attrition from within the fold. A new theory has gained wide currency in certain ecclesiastical circles, and it is having its greatest vogue where there is also the deepest commitment to “social action.” According to this new dispensation, “It shows a complete misunderstanding of the ethical problem to suppose that certain acts are right and certain other acts are wrong quite irrespective of the agent who does them and of the circumstances in which they are done.” This new Christian ethic has no time for the concept of unvarying standards; it is, instead, a relativistic, pragmatic “ethic of grace.” It is the “contextual ethic” of an existentialist, unwilling to consult a priori principles because of his confidence that, in each particular situation, there is a divine imperative at the disposal of any given person pointing him toward the correct solution.
The new departure in ethics has some brilliant and scholarly exponents and defenders. It may serve a useful purpose to select one of these, expose the skeleton of his case, and then consider briefly some objections which may be raised against it. This can be done in the spirit of Lord Morley addressing some parliamentary opponents: “We seek to explain you, not to condemn you.”
Basic Christian Ethics, by the Harrington Speat Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University, R. Paul Ramsey, is a solid, well-written text. It has many merits even though it may be shown that its main contentions are not sound. The book bears the hearty endorsement of such men as Reinhold Niebuhr and John C. Bennett, and several colleges have adopted it as a text. Thus, if we wish to understand the ethical thinking prominent in influential ecclesiastical circles—an ethic based on “obedient love for the neighbor” whose needs are constantly changing, instead of being based on immutable principles—this book is a scholarly guide. It will also help us understand the penchant for political action generated by this ethic.
Dr. Ramsey discusses several features of a Christian ethic based on the concept of “neighbor love,” a concept derived from the second clause of Jesus’ Great Commandment: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” This, in turn, is a corollary of the first clause which enjoins us to love God with our whole being. Morality based on “neighbor love” is crisis conduct. It is an emergency code of the kind that might be swung into play in a shipwreck, a flood, a tornado, or while waiting for the immanent end of the world. Ramsey says, “Obedient love for neighbor, which is the distinctive ‘primitive idea’ of Christian ethics, had its origin and genesis in apocalypticism.… In the fact of the in-breaking kingdom, moral decision was stripped of all prudential calculations, all calculations of what is right in terms of consequences which in this present age normally follow certain lines of action.… All sober regard for the future performance of his responsibility for family and friends, duties to oneself and fixed duties to others, both alike were jettisoned from view. Preferential loves, even those justifiable in normal times were supplanted.”
But even if we act on good impulse without giving thought to the consequences of our action, this does not alter the fact that our conduct will have consequences—remote as well as immediate—for good or ill, and that we are in some measure responsible for these consequences. We are involved with the rest of mankind, and it is indeed curious that an ethic based on “neighbor love” should bid us disregard the way our actual neighbors are affected by our actions. Ethical theory can hardly dispense with an assist from intelligence and prudence.
In the second place, “neighbor love” ethics is characterized by insularity; that is, they apply only to those isolated situations composed of someone with needs and someone else with a capacity, and thus an obligation, to cope with those needs. “We need to see clearly how we should be obliged to behave toward one neighbor (or how our group should act toward one neighboring group) if there were no other claims on us at all.” It is a question of “ ‘regarding the good of any other individual as more than your own,’ when he and you alone are involved.” If it be asked whether there are such isolated situations in human affairs, and if there are how they give us guidance for the conduct of normal human relationships, Dr. Ramsey seems to answer that they offer no guidance. When there are two or more neighbors, love gives way to justice. “Love is always the primary notion,” he says, “since justice may be defined as what Christian love does when confronted by two or more neighbors.” Then love apparently is what justice does when confronted by one neighbor. The definition is somewhat circular!
In the third place, the old absolutes are discarded in favor of a new one—neighbor needs. “Christian love whose nature is to allow itself to be guided by the needs of others changes its tactics as easily as it stands fast; it does either only on account of the quite unalterable strategy of accomodating itself to neighbor needs.” Thus, “neighbor love” cannot be reduced to rule; the acting agent must rely on inspiration and improvisation. “Jesus,” says Dr. Ramsey, “believed serving the needs of the neighbor to be infinitely superior to observing law.” (But secondary to loving God!) It seems to be easier to deny objective external standards than it is to get along without them. Some urges felt as “needs” may be unlawful or immoral. Therefore, before we can serve our neighbor we have to grade his “needs” according to a standard which is other than those needs; and the means used to meet those needs are selected by yet another standard. Thus the absolutes which have been kicked out the front door crawl in through a side window!
Serious objections can be raised against an ethic based on “obedient love for the neighbor.” Some of them have been touched upon. An even more serious objection must be raised against the efforts of some theologians to use the neighbor love idea as a justification for the political planning of the welfare state.
Those who urge that the measures of the welfare state implement the Gospel injunction to love our neighbor face an insoluble dilemma. They are forced to practice discrimination on two levels. First, they are forced to divide people into neighbors and non-neighbors. The neighbors are those who are to be helped by low cost housing, cheap electricity, loans, or subsidies. The non-neighbors are those selected to be hurt to the extent of being forced to pay for the benefits received by the neighbors. Injury is thus deliberately done to innocent people, and it is all the more vicious by concealing itself under the guise of neighbor love.
The second discrimination is between the various needs of those whom the first discrimination has selected as neighbors. A distinction will be made between the neighbor’s “real” needs, and those needs the neighbor only thinks he has. If the welfare stater does not accept the neighbor’s estimate of his own needs, he must choose which he will service and ignore the others. Obviously, he must have some standard upon which to base this discrimination other than neighbor love itself. Furthermore, welfare state measures can take account of material needs only. But it is by no means proven that to concentrate on material needs alone is even an expedient way to produce the material abundance out of which material needs may be met. Production, as Mises points out, is a spiritual phenomenon, the decision of the mind of man to use raw materials in this way rather than that.
Professor Ramsey makes one or two forays into the civil rights area. On the matter of free speech, for instance, he says, “When we scorn this man on the soap box or take no heed of him, we just as effectively deny him real freedom of speech as if we put him in jail.” Apart from the absurdity of the comparison (an unheeded man might just as well be in jail!), this is a concept of free speech which could be implemented only under a tyranny. Not even in Utopia can everyone speak at once, because no one would then be audience, so Big Brother has to designate speaker and audience, forcing one to speak and the others to listen.
There is an inevitableness about this result. When religion is a lively concern of the philosopher he premises his ethical theory on the God concept. Ethical imperatives, then, are interpreted as divine mandates. Ethical love for the neighbor is joined to the religious love of God; ethical expenditure is balanced by spiritual income. But in an agnostic civilization, ethics will be conceived as a self-contained science of human relationships, with society as the repository of all values and its political agency as the means to declare and enforce them. Concentration on “neighbor needs” and on political means to satisfy them sets forces in motion which produce not brotherly love, but Big Brother!
EDMUND A. OPITZ
The Modern Pulpit
Best Sermons, 1959–60 Protestant Edition, edited by G. Paul Butler (Crowell, 1959, 304 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Andrew W. Blackwood, Editor of Evangelical Sermons for Today.
In the best of his seven series of books, an able editor presents 42 sermons: 3 by laymen, 17 by pastors, and 22 by other divines. Five serve in the ministry abroad, 9 in New York City, and the others serve mainly in cities east of Pittsburgh and north of Richmond. Twelve are Presbyterians, 10 Methodists, 6 Baptists (including Carl F. H. Henry, Editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY), 4 Lutherans, 4 Reformed, 3 Episcopalians, and one is a Quaker.
The sermons represent a cross section of preaching, notably in our Northeast, and often in pulpits calling for specialized preaching. All the messages by men termed “great” appear early in the book. As a lifelong student of preaching I cannot estimate “greatness” until after the lapse of a generation or two. From each of the first nine men, I have heard and enjoyed a better sermon than the one given in the book. Of course my judgments are subjective.
The foreword, written by Dr. Samuel M. Cavert, says that “a good sermon” brings about “a direct encounter between God and the man in the pew.” In present-day preaching human interest often overshadows divine power. For instance, in many a sermon one may compare the opening appeal with the closing effect. “Great preachers” in the past attached prime importance to the Bible passage, and ranked the conclusion second in importance.
On the whole this volume has more about “our” experiences than about God’s revelation. The six-page index refers to vital passages on the subjects of Faith (21), Grace (1), Easter (14), Resurrection (7), Cross (2), Crucifixion (2), Sin (2), Guilt (1), Forgiveness (3), Saviour (2), Salvation (1) and the Atonement (1). Someone ought to make a topical list of subjects on the preaching of Paul, Wesley, or Spurgeon.
The Editor has done his work well. With noteworthy exceptions these 42 representative sermons show why we evangelicals long for a return to apostolic ideals about “what to preach.”
ANDREW W. BLACKWOOD
Lincoln’S Religion
The Almost Chosen People, by William J. Wolf (Doubleday, 1959, 215 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Earle E. Cairns, Chairman of History and Political Science Department, Wheaton College, (Illinois).
Here is another book on Lincoln’s religion. But rather than consider Lincoln’s religion from a denominational or theological viewpoint, Mr. Wolf, an Episcopal theological professor, permits Lincoln to speak on the subject by citation and analysis of quotations from Lincoln’s own writings. He destroys some myths, but he demonstrates with primary evidence the development of Lincoln’s faith.
Lincoln, according to him, saw God’s hand in history. He also looked upon Americans as God’s “almost chosen people” for whom he sought God’s will in earnest Bible study and prayer.
One wishes the author had developed more fully the question of whether Lincoln definitely became a Christian (p. 123) and had not relegated relevant evidence to a footnote (f.n. 20, p. 209). But the evidence leaves one with the impression that Lincoln became a sincere Christian near the end of his life even though he made no public profession of faith nor joined an organized church.
EARLE E. CAIRNS
Eternal Truths
The Lord from Heaven, by Leon Morris (Eerdmans, 1958, 112 pp., $1.50), is reviewed by Horace L. Fenton, Jr., Associate Director, Latin America Mission.
Dr. Morris, who is Vice-Principal of Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia, tells us that his purpose in writing this book has been “to make clear the witness that is borne [in the New Testament] to two great truths—that Jesus Christ was God and that He was man” (p. 5). Avowedly writing for the general reader rather than for the specialist, he here brings us face to face with deepend eternal truths, and does so in a clear, forthright way which evinces a profound knowledge of the subject, coupled with a marked ability to communicate it to the man of today.
The author is well acquainted with the original sources, and he also knows and quotes the findings of other scholars who have grappled with the problems which occupy our attention here. There is no attempt to make light of the difficulties involved in an understanding of the person and work of our Lord. Nor does Dr. Morris run from such difficulties; instead, he brings to bear upon them the pure light of Scripture and the reverent faith of his own heart and mind.
Here, in small compass, is much to challenge thought and to stimulate devotion. Preachers will profit from a careful reading of this book, and will then give it, with confidence, to thinking laymen who want to know the truth concerning Christ.
HORACE L. FENTON, JR.
Word Of Man Or God?
Creation and Fall—A Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1–3, by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Macmillan, 1959, 96 pp., $1.50), is reviewed by Edward J. Young, Professor of Old Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary.
One peruses this work with a feeling of sadness. The author, we understand, lost his life at the hands of Hitler’s henchman, Heinrich Himmler. We have in this book lectures delivered at the University of Berlin during the winter semester 1932–33.
The author’s purpose is to give a theological interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis. This is not to say that he gives a serious exposition of the words of Genesis. Far from it. They present “… the ancient world picture in all its scientific naiveté” (p. 26), for they are simply a myth “… just as irrelevent or meaningful as any other myth” (p. 44). “How else could we speak of the young earth except in the language of fairy tales?” (p. 47).
The author does concede that the language of Genesis has a capacity as the Word of God (p. 44). But, we ask, if the words of Genesis 1–3 are the language of myth and fairy tales, what conceivable warrant is there for saying that they also have a capacity as the Word of God? Do the Grecian myths have a capacity as the Word of God? Do the fables of Aesop? Alice in Wonderland? It is about time for some adherent of irrationalism to explain why the “erroneous,” “human” words of the Bible have anything to do with the Word of God. And we should like the answer couched in straightforward language, not in the “it is, yet it isn’t” type of explanation, so dear to modern irrationalism. We still believe that this is God’s world, and that life is meaningful.
Bonhoeffer gives a theological explanation which we find difficult to understand. The following will serve as a sample: “We know that we must not cease to ask about the beginning though we know that we can never ask about it.” Then he continues: “Why not? Because we can conceive of the beginning only as something finite, therefore precisely as that which has no beginning” (p. 9). It would seem that Bonhoeffer has simply used the wonderful first three chapters of Genesis as a frame on which to place his own particular brand of irrationalism.
How different this is from a true theological interpretation! If one wishes to read such, he might turn to Thomas Boston’s Fourfold State or to Keil’s Commentary. Here, however, the atmosphere is different. Here the very words of Scripture are regarded as the infallible Word of God. And unless the words of Scripture are so regarded, one will never drink deeply at the fountain of divine truth. It is for this reason that Bonhoeffer’s comments are so barren.
EDWARD J. YOUNG
Contemporary Ethics
Essays in Applied Christianity, by Reinhold Niebuhr (Meridian Books, 1959, 343 pp., $1.45) and The Social Ethics of Reinhold Niebuhr, by Theodore Minnema (Eerdmans, 1959, 124 pp., $3), are reviewed by Gordon H. Clark, Professor of Philosophy, Butler University.
The first of these books is a series of reprinted articles dating back at least to 1928. They have the great virtue of being interesting. In addition, they contain more details of social ethics than the second book. For example, Niebuhr believes it “monstrous egotism and foolish blindness … when we imagine that this civilization in which commercialism has corrupted every value is in any sense (!) superior to the Middle Ages, or that the status of the industrial worker differs greatly from that of the feudal slave” (pp. 143, 144).
After having read a little about medieval conditions, and having viewed some of their remains in European museums, I would rather conclude that individualistic capitalism has greatly improved the physical life of the industrial workers. If anyone is blind, is it not the man who maintains that strikes are necessary “in order that wage scales may not sink to new minimum levels” (p. 149)—a new minimum, even below that of feudal slavery?
So much is said of being sensitive to social evils that one wonders if sometimes a man can mistake his own nervous disorders for perceptions of the external world. Surely it is a remarkable social theory and a remarkable theory of theology as well to regard as an a priori element of religious knowledge the idea that democracy is an instrument of middle class interests (pp. 160, 161).
Minnema does not discuss these details of social ethics; he studies their theological bases. He notes that Niebuhr begins with rational absurdity. Man is above and free from all the categories of reason. Every affirmation becomes involved in contradictions when fully analyzed (pp. 3, 4, 5).
Examples of Niebuhr’s exegesis are given. They do indeed seem to be free from the categories of reason. Prophetism, supposedly pessimistic, and Messianism, supposedly optimistic, are arbitrarily interpreted (p. 50); and Galatians 2:20 is so altered in meaning that there remains no conceptual connection with the text.
The most valuable part of Minnema’s study is the concluding chapter in which he easily shows that whatever it may be that Niebuhr applies, it is not Applied Christianity. Minnema’s concluding chapter, and his book as a whole, may not be what one would expect under the title of Social Ethics, but the information and analyses are pertinent and valuable to the contemporary scene.
GORDON H. CLARK
Revelation With Error
The Old Testament as Word of God, by Sigmund Mowinckel, translated by R. B. Bjornard (Abingdon, 1959, 144 pp., $2.75), is reviewed by R. K. Harrison, Hellmuth Professor of Old Testament at Huron College, London, Ontario.
This book consists of a series of nontechnical lectures which attempt to define the concept of Old Testament inspiration and revelation from the standpoint of liberal Protestantism. After a few remarks about “fundamentalism,” which seem to be directed primarily at Roman Catholics and Lutherans, the author questions the way in which the Old Testament can communicate revelation despite historical inaccuracies. He rejects verbal inspiration and sees the Old and New Testaments in historical, organic, and theological relationship. The historical revelations of God are linked with cultic recitals and finally emerge as true monotheism. Such revelation, Mowinckel maintains, is conditioned by time and history. It adopts various literary guises, but its spirituality is ultimately capable of expression in rational Western terms.
The author sees the emergence of the canon in its present form as an independent aspect of revelation. He also maintains the distinctiveness of the Judeo-Christian religion despite close affinities with other faiths. Once the divine word has been separated from Old Testament human words, it appears as concrete, living, and revelant, demonstrating divine existence and soteriology. In the end, unity with Christ and the Holy Spirit overcomes the difficulty whereby the Old Testament only in parts validates itself to the individual as the Word of God.
The author adopts the familiar device of raising somewhat artificial difficulties and then dispelling them. His concept of inspiration appears to the reviewer to lack conviction and vitality. While he urges the desirability of seeing Old Testament matters from the standpoint of an oriental people, he promptly imposes a modern occidental schema upon Old Testament religion and history, and seems duly satisfied with the results.
The translator has been at pains to represent the original faithfully, and the book reads smoothly.
R. K. HARRISON
“Scripture Cannot Be Broken”
An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, by John W. Haley (Baker Book House, 1958, 485 pp., $3), is reviewed by E. P. Schulze, Minister of the Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer, Peekskill, New York.
In a recently published article, this reviewer stated that Haley’s “Alleged Discrepancies” has long been out of print and ought to be reprinted by one of the Grand Rapids firms. Since then he has discovered that in the current decade it has been twice reprinted. First published in 1876, this is still the standard work on purported difficulties in the Bible. The volume devotes about 380 of its pages to a discussion of doctrinal, ethical, and historical “discrepancies,” with prefatory chapters on their origin, design, and results, plus Scripture text and topical indices and an excellent bibliography. The renewed and severe attacks upon the inerrancy of the Word of God contributed to making this reprint especially useful and timely.
E. P. SCHULZE
Humanist Giant
Beyond Theology, the autobiography of Edward Scribner Ames, edited by Van Meter Ames (The University of Chicago Press, 1959, 223 pp., $5), is reviewed by James DeForest Murch.
Edward Scribner Ames was closely associated with John Dewey in his graduate studies and was for some years Dewey’s colleague in the philosophy department of the University of Chicago. Ames’ humanistic interpretation of Christianity found practical expression in his work with the Disciples Divinity House, the University Church of the Disciples and the Christian Century.
The autobiography is written with a chaste, lucid style which carries reader interest through the entire volume. In warmly personal yet highly intellectual terms he details his religious pilgrimage from an orthodox Christian faith into a morass of indeterminate humanistic speculation. “Beyond theology,” Ames’ idea of God, took on all the objectivity of Alma Mater, Uncle Sam, and Santa Claus. Yet when this brilliant scholar wrote or spoke on his religious psychologisms his language could “deceive the very elect.” With engaging persuasiveness he considerably influenced liberal thought in religious education and in left wing Discipledom. The autobiography is an interesting case study in the evolution of a liberal.
His son, Van Meter Ames, chairman of the department of philosophy in the University of Cincinnati, admits in the foreword, “The last twenty years have seen a reaction against the liberal theological thinking represented by my father, a return to something like the theology he had worked away from.”
JAMES DEFOREST MURCH
God And Russia
I Found God in Soviet Russia, by John Noble (St. Martin’s Press, 1959, 192 pp., $2.95), is reviewed by John K. Mickelsen, Minister of Canoga Presbyterian Church, Seneca Falls, New York.
John Noble was arrested, July 1945, by the Russians occupying Dresden, Germany. Though an American citizen, imprisonment, solitary confinement, brutality, and slavery were his lot for more than nine years.
In the month following that of his arrest, after more than nine days on a diet of nothing but water, he prayed, “My will is broken, Thy will be done”; and he was “born again of the Spirit” (p. 43). This is John Noble’s message: not only that he found God for himself, but also that other prisoners and slaves of communism are finding Christ, worshiping together, and winning converts to him.
This spiritual autobiography gives strong testimony that the forces of evil will not prevail against Christ’s Church. Surely God’s people will be preserved to do his will as long as God can give strength to the starving (pp. 44 f., 47, 71), provide food by the hand of the enemy (pp. 49 f.), a Christian cell mate when solitary confinement is ordered (pp. 69 f.), make honesty pay in a slave-labor camp (pp. 81–83), provide a Bible to one who is forbidden any book to read (pp. 89 f.), cause the imprisoned to praise God with hymns (p. 91), keep sub-zero weather from freezing those commanded to be exposed to the elements (pp. 113–116), and give clergymen the fortitude to endure repeated torture because they would not cease holding religious services, expounding Scripture, and performing other religious duties (pp. 118–122). As long as our Lord can make even one church group grow stronger under Communist domination (p. 135), and as long as M.V.D. men desire to read the Bible (p. 167), so long will his Church prosper, even behind barbed wire.
This book also mentions the fidelity and vitality of such varied groups as Jehovah’s Witnesses (p. 142), Jews (pp. 108–110), Mormons (p. 141), and Moslems (pp. 40 f.).
JOHN K. MICKELSEN
Portrait Of Paul
The Adequate Man, by Paul S. Rees (Revell, 1959, 127 pp., $2), is reviewed by John R. Richardson, Minister of Westminster Presbyterian Church, Atlanta, Georgia.
Dr. Alexander Whyte once declared that it was his practice to examine a commentary on Romans to see if the author knew how to deal with the seventh chapter. If he gave the right interpretation there, Dr. Whyte bought the book. If the author failed to be adept in the exposition of this chapter, Dr. Whyte would leave it in the bookstore. In a similar manner, this reviewer has examined commentaries on Philippians. If the author does a good job on the second chapter, he is willing to invest in the book. If not, he will leave it for someone else.
It so happens that in this volume, which is an exposition of Philippians, the author comes through in a fine way. He does not yield the deity of Christ to the so-called “kenotic theory.” Dr. Rees raises this pertinent question: “How far did this self-renunciation go, this ‘self-disglorification,’ to use the extraordinary phrase of P. T. Forsyth? To his deity? Did he empty himself of that? No, how could he if this indeed is his ‘nature’?”
The author has sought in this essay in exposition not only to make this letter more understandable, but more lovable. He indicates this when he writes, “The light we must have; if, in addition, we can have the lure, so much the better.” This epistle, says the author, is a remarkable self-portrait of the apostle who wrote it, and it is for this reason he has presented this work as author-centered rather than text-centered.
With fondness for alliteration, Dr. Rees has divided the book into five chapters as follows: 1. The Art of the Heart; 2. The Affectionate Man; 3. The Alert Man; 4. The Aspiring Man; 5. The Adequate Man.
Dr. Rees has succeeded remarkably well in giving us a commentary that is a genuine delight to read. Anyone who follows his pen will come to the conclusion that in Philippians we see the greatest of humans and the warmest of his letters. From the salutation to the benediction, the reader’s heart is made to glow.
JOHN R. RICHARDSON
Forensic Christianity
The Fulfillment of Life, by Owen M. Weatherly (John Knox Press, 1959, 158 pp., $3), is reviewed by C. Adrian Heaton, President of California Baptist Theological Seminary, Covina, California.
Pulling-oneself-up-by-one’s-boot-straps idealism has distorted the Christian faith for some. Emphasis on the grace of God to the neglect of human responsibility has led others to antinomianism. (“Let’s sin that grace may abound.”) Owen M. Weatherly in The Fulfillment of Life gives the corrective of both these errors. As he treats the forensic aspects of Christian living, he is well aware of the divine initiative and realistic human responsibility.
We live in a lawful universe. There are laws covering spiritual matters that are just as inexorable as those in the physical world. Fulfillment of life for man comes only by receiving the grace and power of God to be obedient to these laws. Here is man’s true freedom.
Dr. Weatherly, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia, devotes separate chapters to each of the following laws: Truth, Kindness, Faith, Liberty, Sin, Righteousness, Spirit, Love, and Harvest. The chapters on the Holy Spirit and Love are among the best. The book is written in an almost deceptively simple style, but behind its clear affirmations are solid theological and philosophic foundations.
Commenting on our misunderstanding of the role of the Holy Spirit, the author says, “By some unhappy means, far too many of us have come to think of the spirit as being all freedom and no order.… Holding such a view of the Spirit, many of those who think of themselves as being spiritual have instead become morally irresponsible, mentally unstable, unreliable in their behaviour, and totally unrealistic in their approach to the vital issues of life” (p. 119). He goes on to state that, “The freedom which the spirit gives to us is a freedom from the law of sin and death. It is not a freedom from the eternal laws of God” (p. 120).
Contrasting the Christian concept of love with the Hollywood concept, Dr. Weatherly says, “Liberty is a necessary condition of love, but liberty is not the essence of love. There can be no love without liberty, but there can be liberty without love. Love demands freedom, but makes no selfish use of it” (p. 131). Then he cites a beautiful line from T. E. Jessop: “When a man falls in love, he commits himself to a ministry; in religious terms, when a man finds God, he looks for his neighbor, to serve him” (p. 131).
We believe the reading of this book should enrich the Christian lives of all readers and stimulate ministers to preach more clearly the biblical laws pertaining to Christ’s life.
C. ADRIAN HEATON
Bible Personalities
A Galaxy of Saints, by Herbert F. Stevenson (Revell, 1958, 158 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by Eric Edwin Paulson, Minister of Lutheran Free Church.
In his foreword to this volume, Paul S. Rees observes that history has a way of reducing or raising personalities to their proper proportions. This fact makes the study of sacred biography a most rewarding one, and much of the spiritual poverty of the Church today may be attributed to the neglect of such studies. Concerned Christians will therefore welcome the appearance of this book.
In the introduction the author writes, “It is one of the many paradoxes of the Bible that its divine inspiration is attested most convincingly by the fact that it is so human.” In his description of some thirty Bible characters the writer seeks to do full justice to their essential humanity. The fresh materials, originality, and incisive interpretations of this volume plainly show painstaking and scholarly research and sound exegesis. Some pages are so replete with significant material that they invite almost continuous underlining. There is much valuable information about Bible personalities.
The author employs the language of the scholar and pedagogue which does not always lend itself to attractive prose. This fact makes the book less adapted for devotional reading but does not detract from its value as a source book in Bible study. At times the interpretations appear a bit artificial due in part to a tendency to attribute to some characters a subtlety of reasoning and spiritual insight hardly warranted by the context. However, this book should prove to be a distinct aid to pastors and teachers who seek to deepen the spiritual insights of their hearers. It merits more than a casual reading, for its rich content will not be readily grasped apart from careful and dedicated study.
ERIC EDWIN PAULSON
Interpreting The Scrolls
Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts, by F. F. Bruce (Eerdmans, 1959, 82 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by Edward J. Young, Professor of Old Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary.
Is there anything more to be said about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Judging by the number of books that have appeared, one might conclude there is little more to be said. Many books have been published dealing with what we may call the story of the scrolls. Here, however, is a book that devotes itself to the study of the contents of the scrolls.
Among the works which treated of the story of the scrolls, it is questionable whether any surpassed Bruce’s Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Eerdmans, 1956). Equally valuable, but of a different nature, is the present work which is no mere introduction but an extremely interesting discussion of the question contained in the title.
The interpretation found in the Qumran commentaries, Professor Bruce tells us, may be subsumed under the designation pesher, that is “an interpretation which passes the power of ordinary wisdom to attain” (p. 8). That which is to be interpreted, however, is no ordinary problem, but a divine mystery. Until the divine mystery and the interpretation are brought together, the divine communication cannot properly be understood. It is this principle which underlies the Qumran commentaries. Not until the two parts of the revelation are brought together is its meaning made plain. The Teacher of Righteousness was given the key to unlock the mysteries, and not until he did so were they made plain.
The biblical books, as treated by the Qumran commentaries, are made to apply to new historical situations, namely, the time in which the commentaries are written—the last generations, as the writers thought, of the present age. Such are some of the ideas presented by the author in his first chapter, and the remainder of the book is just as stimulating. The whole work exhibits sobriety of judgment and usefulness of statement. It is a safe and helpful guide in the interpretation of the scrolls, and is a book to be kept for reference in connection with further study.
EDWARD J. YOUNG
The Aim Of Preaching
Royal Sacrament: The Preacher and his Message, by Ronald A. Ward (Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 12s. 6d), is reviewed by Frank Houghton, Bishop of St. Marks, Warwicks.
Yet another book on preaching? This one is sufficiently unusual to justify its production. The author must first justify his title, for not everyone would agree that preaching is a sacrament. The argument, in brief, is that “the ultimate aim of preaching is to give Christ. He is offered in words; He may be received in Person. Thus preaching is a sacrament” (p. 22). Whether very much is gained by refusing to limit the use of the word “sacrament” to “Baptism and the Supper of the Lord” (Anglican Article XXV) may appear doubtful. Would not the purpose behind this provocative tide be attained by using the adjective “sacramental” in its well attested wider sense without departing from the more usual nomenclature—that we are called to the “ministry of the Word and Sacraments?” But it would be a pity if irritation with the title hindered the careful reading of a book which is full of suggestive hints to the preacher. There are not a few Scriptures which are illuminated by his exegesis—though it must be added that some of us whose minds move more slowly may at times wonder how he has leaped to most helpful ideas which are certainly not on the surface of the text (e.g., pp. 99, 100). But one’s heart cannot but warm to one who regards the preacher as a prophet whose aim (to quote Bishop Anders Nygren) “is not to teach certain abstract truths about God, but to announce a way to God” (p. 29), while at the same time affirming that “there is a certain theological deposit or background, or should be, in the mind of every preacher” (p. 33). “I find it hard to conceive of a converted man (and no unconverted man should ever ascend a pulpit) without a love of the great doctrines” (p. 34). Chapters on “The Preacher and his Greek Testament,” “The Preacher and his General Literature,” “The Preacher and his Daily Life,” show how all these may provide both themes and illustrations for the preacher’s message. In his final chapter he argues with cogency and warmth for the necessity of staffing theological colleges with “authentic men of God, men who even when immersed in knowledge yet live by faith” (p. 182). His epilogue—not too long to quote, but yet unquoted because the reviewer wants the reader to be tempted to turn first to the last page!—is a fair statement in the author’s purpose in writing “Royal Sacrament.”
FRANK HOUGHTON
Defending The Faith
The Case for Orthodox Theology, by E. J. Carnell (Westminster Press, 1959, 162 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Philip E. Hughes, Editor of The Churchman (London).
The author of this volume very rightly begins by defining what he means by “orthodoxy”: it is, he says, “that branch of Christendom which limits the ground of religious authority to the Bible”; and his purpose is a laudable one, namely, “to state and defend the orthodox faith,” convinced as he is that the Reformed faith is “the most consistent expression of orthodoxy” (a conviction which we share). This being so, it is regrettable that he does not make a better showing; for, to be honest, this is a disappointing book, deficient in argumentation and overweighted with quotations from the writings of conservative theologians of the past. To produce quotations, excellent though they may be, is not the same thing as to present a complete case, but only to show that one has a theological ancestry.
We concur entirely with Dr. Carnell’s insistence on the central importance of God’s covenant relation with His people; also with his assertion that all faith, so far from being “a leap of the will or a risk of the intellect,” rests on authority. But it is surprising to find faith defined as “the capacity of belief or trust.” Man has a capacity of faith, and belief and trust are themselves synonyms of faith. What justification is there for describing faith as “a capacity”? It seems to us also particularly unfortunate in a work of this nature to turn to the fairy-tale of Cinderella for an example of the belief in the ultimate and complete triumph of goodness!
The author rightly says that “the written Word is the locus of confrontation with the Living Word”; but to add that, “if we extend this locus, we have no criterion by which to test for error,” is not proof or vindication of the authority of the written Word. Again, does it really follow that, since “the apostles were commissioned to take the gospel to all nations,” the only way in which this could be done was “by the medium of inspired documents?”
Having clearly and commendably stated that, “unless we perceive that Christ satisfied divine justice, we miss the very essence of the gospel,” and that “Christ vicariously bore the punishment due to sinners,” it is a disappointing anticlimax to find Dr. Carnell proposing an argument on the human level which is not only scarcely analogous, but which, indeed, could be urged as inconsistent with his doctrine of penal satisfaction—namely, that for “right moral conditions” to be restored when one person has violated another’s dignity “the offending party must either apologize or repent.”
Dr. Carnell devotes must space to the censure of “fundamentalism,” which he entertainingly describes as “orthodoxy gone cultic.” He also insists, however, that “the mentality of fundamentalism is by no means an exclusive property of orthodoxy,” but that “its attitudes are found in every branch of Christendom.” What are these attitudes? “The quest for negative status, the elevation of minor issues to a place of major importance, the use of social mores as a norm of virtue, the toleration of one’s own prejudice but not the prejudice of others, the confusion of the church with a denomination, and the instrument of self-security but not self-criticism.”
There is, no doubt, much truth in all this; but after having completed the book the reader is still left somewhat uncertain and asking, “What, after all, is the case for orthodox theology?”
PHILIP E. HUGHES
