Bible Book of the Month: II Thessalonians

The Thessalonian Epistles have always occupied a special place in Christian thought as the first inspired letters of the Apostle Paul. They provide a dramatic presentation of the thought and life of the early church and the problems of missionary expansion in the first century.

It appears that Paul first came into contact with the Thessalonians on his second missionary journey (Acts 17:1–10, I and II Thessalonians). Accompanied by Timothy and Silas, Paul had ministered to them for at least three weeks before being forced to leave because of the outbreak of persecution (Acts 17:5–10). While at Athens, Paul had sent Timothy back to the Thessalonian church to encourage and give them further instruction. Upon Timothy’s return to Paul at Corinth, news of the stedfastness of the Thessalonian Christians spurred Paul to write to them. Later, when reports of the reception of this first epistle and details of certain continuing problems in the church reached Paul, he was moved to write II Thessalonians. (For further details on historical background see I Thessalonians by William Hendriksen, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, May 27, 1957, p. 33.)

Genuineness Of II Thessalonians

No doubt seems to have been expressed about the genuine Pauline character of the Thessalonian Epistles until the German writer J. E. C. Schmidt questioned II Thessalonians in 1801. Schrader raised a similar question about I Thessalonians in 1836. Further skepticism was voiced by Ferdinand C. Baur in his work Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ (1845), and the possibility that either or both of these epistles were not genuinely Pauline was thoroughly explored by the Tubingen school of critics. Objections against the authenticity may be summarized as follows: (1) an alleged difference in eschatology; (2) remarkable similarities in the two epistles; (3) certain differences and seeming contradictions between the epistles.

In support of these objections, it is pointed out that though both epistles have an emphasis on eschatology, in I Thessalonians the coming of Christ is presented as an imminent event not preceded by signs, whereas in 2 Thessalonians 2 the coming of the Lord is revealed as impossible until certain other events have taken place, particularly the appearance of the lawless one. This contrast between signs and imminency is, however, very common in the Word of God. Further, it is not without a logical and theological explanation and therefore has little weight in affecting belief in the authenticity of the epistles. Leon Morris writes: “It is difficult to take this argument seriously, for it demands a logical consistency which is foreign to the very nature of apocalyptic” (The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, p. 21). The same objection could be raised against the teaching of Christ in Matthew 24 and 25. Those who distinguish the coming of Christ for his church from his second advent proper would refer 1 Thessalonians 4 to the coming of Christ before the tribulation and place the second advent of 2 Thessalonians 2 as occurring after the tribulation, an explanation which solves the problem if the premises be accepted. In any case the supposed contradiction is too tenuous to establish the doubt of the authenticity of the epistles.

The second objection based on alleged similarities in the two epistles is used by the critics as evidence that II Thessalonians was written by a pseudo author who slavishly copied Paul’s expressions. The confessed similarity of style and vocabulary is, of course, a dubious argument against the authenticity of the two epistles. It would be far more likely for the same author to use similar expressions than for another author to be clever enough to simulate so well the style of Paul. The exhaustive word study by James E. Frame, International Critical Commentary on The Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, provides a solid scholarly basis for his conclusion that the vocabulary of both letters is definitely Pauline (cf. pp. 28–34). He shows conclusively that the vocabulary of these two epistles is similar to that of other Pauline letters. As to the genuineness of II Thessalonians itself Frame writes: “It is generally conceded that the vocabulary of I is Pauline; and the same may be said with justice of II. Even when the literary resemblances between I and II are taken into account, it is to be remembered that of the 146 words common to I and II all but four are to be found in one or more of the Major Epistles of Paul” (ibid., p. 31). As Morris points out, after von Dobschutz, “it is strange procedure to reject an Epistle which contains nothing un-Pauline, and bears all the marks of a Pauline utterance, simply because we have another Pauline utterance which is markedly similar” (Morris, op. cit., p. 20). As 2 Thessalonians 3:17 specifically claims Pauline authorship over his signature, if Paul did not write II Thessalonians, it loses all right to be considered Scripture, as it would be based upon palpable falsehood. The argument against the authenticity of II Thessalonians on the basis of similarity is so subjective and questionable that even critical scholars have for the most part dropped this approach.

More logical, though no more weighty, is the argument from alleged differences of the two epistles. This objection is mostly theological and based on alleged difference in eschatology of the two epistles. Here again it is dubious if there is any such difference which cannot be explained as discussion of two different aspects of the same subject. Taking the arguments from likeness to difference together, it is generally recognized today, even by radical critics, that the evidence is still in favor of genuineness of both epistles. Even the skeptics Holtzmann and Pfleiderer, followers of Baur, have accepted both epistles as genuine.

Though II Thessalonians has been challenged more than I Thessalonians, the facts if anything give better evidence for the authenticity of II Thessalonians than the first epistle. II Thessalonians is included in the Marcionite canon and the Muratorian Fragment. II Thessalonians was known to Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin and is quoted by Irenaeus by name. There are no other books in the entire New Testament more universally accepted than the Thessalonian Epistles. The normal and widely accepted explanation that I Thessalonians was written shortly after Paul’s ministry there and was followed by II Thessalonians to correct certain continuing difficulties, seems to be cogent and unassailable except to subjective critics. The general opinion today is that if one epistle is Pauline, then both are. If Pauline authorship be assumed, however, there are certain other problems which have been raised in the relationship of the two epistles.

Relationship Of The Two Epistles

As Leon Morris points out in his introduction to The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians (pp. 25–30), there are three basic problems in the relationship between the two epistles. First, there is the view of Hamack who held that I Thessalonians was addressed to the Gentile section of the Thessalonian church and that II Thessalonians was intended for the Jewish section. He believed they were meeting in separate groups and therefore needed separate epistles. As Morris points out, there are insuperable difficulties to this theory in that there is very little support of it and much evidence to the contrary. In view of Paul’s opposition to division as indicated in 1 Corinthians 1:11–17, it would be strange for him to accept such a situation without rebuke. The superscriptions of the two epistles give no basis for distinction in address as they are practically identical, and Harnack had to tamper with the text in order to support his contention.

Some have raised another problem relative to the relation of Silas and Timothy to the written epistles suggesting that possibly one or both of them wrote the epistles with Paid’s authority. This view has little to commend itself and raises far more problems than it solves, especially in view of Paul’s signature on II Thessalonians.

Another lively subject for discussion has been the suggestion that II Thessalonians actually was the first of the two epistles. Morris discusses the arguments by T. M. Manson and Johannes Weiss and concludes in respect to these arguments that “none of these is really convincing” (ibid., p. 28). Taken as a whole, the critical examination of I and II Thessalonians has led only to the strengthened conviction on the part of scholars generally that both epistles are genuinely Pauline as held by the early church and the great majority of scholars today.

Content Of The Epistles

The main purpose of II Thessalonians, like the first epistle, is to give comfort, instruction and exhortation to the young Christians in Thessalonica. In both epistles the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is a prominent theme of every chapter, but this eschatological emphasis is treated primarily as a practical rather than a theological truth. In the midst of their trial and affliction, the hope of Christ’s imminent return was an expectation which gave them courage and strength.

Though a variety of subjects are considered in the second epistle, it may be outlined as follows: 1:1–12, The Christian Hope in Tribulation; 2:1–12, Coming Divine Judgment upon the Lawless One; 2:13–17, Assurance of Salvation; 3:1–18, Exhortations to Prayer, Love of God and Christian Discipline.

The opening chapter of II Thessalonians begins with a salutation almost identical to the opening words of the first episde. After greeting the Thessalonians in verses 1 and 2, Paul expresses his heartfelt thanks to God for their growing faith, increasing love and patience in their trials. In verses 5–10 he portrays the judgment of God upon the wicked as standing in contrast to the Christian hope of those who are now in tribulation. The chapter concludes with mention of his prayers for them that they might fulfill the will of God and that the Lord Jesus Christ might be glorified in them.

The classic passage of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 has long been a point of departure among expositors of Scripture. According to the opening verses, it appears that the Thessalonians had heard as from Paul that they were already in the Day of the Lord, a time of divine judgment upon the wicked. This teaching Paul denies, asserting that it came neither by a spirit, nor by an oral word from him nor by a letter supposedly written by Paul. In opposition to this erroneous teaching, Paul states that before this time of divine judgment there must come first a departure from God and a revelation of the lawless one, the anomos. As Morris asserts (ibid., p. 126), the Greek here points to a specific falling away, literally, the departure or apostasia, as if the Thessalonians had already had instruction on this point, possibly a reference to 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11. The reference, therefore, would be to an apostasy immediately preceding the second advent. Scholars holding to posttribulationism find this passage coinciding with Matthew 24 picturing events immediately preceding the glorious appearing of the Lord. Pretribulationists assign the passage to the same time but believe that the rapture of the church occurs before this period. If the Thessalonians had been taught an imminent return of Christ to be followed chronologically by the judgments on the wicked, it understandably would have brought consternation to them to be taught that they were already in that time of divine wrath.

One of the major problems of II Thessalonians is the statement in verses 6–8 that the lawless one cannot be revealed until a certain restraint be lifted. Relative to the expression “ye know what withholdeth” (v. 6), Morris states succinctly, “We do well to bear in mind that the Thessalonians did know and we do not” (p. 129).

Exegetical problems abound in this difficult portion of II Thessalonians. The most popular identification, common to posttribulationism, is to see a reference to the Roman Empire in this restraining force to lawlessness. Others refer it to the force of law and government in general to maintain order, traced to some extent to the continued influence of Roman law and legal systems of other political states. Still another point of view is to refer the restraint to angelic agencies or to Satan. Others have traced it to divine agency itself, either to God in general, in his providential dealings in the world or specifically to the Holy Spirit. Pretribulationists find an argument here in support of their position by identifying the restrainer as the Holy Spirit taken up with the church, i.e., resuming the forum of ministry to the world which obtained before Pentecost.

The prophecy is specific, however, that when the restraint is lifted the anomos will be revealed, working with the power of Satan, deceiving the unrighteous and causing them to believe a lie. By contrast, even though in persecution the Thessalonian Christians were far better off with Christian hope than the wicked were without present trial.

A practical section of exhortation immediately follows this eschatological portion. The Thessalonians are assured of their salvation through sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth (2:13). Paul exhorts them to stand fast in their Christian convictions as given to them both in Paul’s oral ministry and in his written letters (v. 16). Chapter 2 concludes with a prayer for their comfort and for their establishment in the hope that is theirs in Lord Jesus Christ.

The concluding chapter of II Thessalonians combines various exhortations, the first of which is a command for them to pray for Paul that his message of the gospel may be freely preached and that he himself might be delivered from wicked men. He states his own trust in God as one who is faithful not only to Paul but to the Thessalonians and expresses confidence in them that they will obey his exhortations and that the Lord in answer to prayer will direct their hearts into deepening love for God and patient waiting for the coming of the Lord.

After this practical exhortation, he turns to the immediate problem which had not been solved by his first epistle, namely, that some of the Thessalonians had misconstrued the teaching of the Lord’s return as justifying idleness and disorderliness. He commands that they should be disciplined, that they should follow his own example of earning their own living by honest toil, not being weary in well doing. He commands sharply that if any refuse to obey this command that the church should break fellowship with them, thereby impressing upon them the extent of their departure from the will of God. In the concluding salutation he prays that the Lord of peace will give them peace always by all means and be with all of them. As a token of the genuineness of this epistle in contrast to an alleged forged epistle (2:2), Paul signs the letter with his own hand adding, “which is the token in every epistle.”

Literature

Literature on II Thessalonians is in general the same as on I Thessalonians (cf. article on I Thessalonians by William Hendricksen, Christianity Today, May 27, 1957, pp. 33). Of works mentioned by Hendriksen, James E. Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (New York, 1912) is on most points an excellent volume in The International Critical Commentary Series. Also George Milligan, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians, (London, 1908) is a classic. Premillenarians rightly consider The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians by C. F. Hogg and W. E. Vine (second edition, 1929) as the best treatment of both epistles based on the English text but with obvious knowledge of the Greek. Among more recent commentaries may be mentioned Exposition of First and Second Thessalonians, New Testament Commentary by William Hendriksen (Grand Rapids, 1955); the contribution of Leon Morris, The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, 1957). For sermonic exposition, The Church in God by Harold J. Ockenga (Westwood, New Jersey, 1956) may be consulted as well as the writer’s own volume The Thessalonian Epistles (1956) which provides a popular exegesis. A worthy commentary based on the Greek text is afforded by the work of Alfred Plummer A Commentary on St. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (London, 1918).

JOHN F. WALVOORD

- More from John F. Walvoord

Books

Book Briefs: November 25, 1957

Yale’S Historic Role

Yale and the Ministry. A History of Education for the Christian Ministry at Yale from the Founding in 1701, by Roland H. Bainton. Harper and Brothers, New York, 1957, 297 pp., $5.00.

The title, Yale and the Ministry, does not do justice to the scope of this book. It is that—but it is much more. Virtually everything connected with Yale’s theological education, even before the school was formally organized in 1701, is here included. Attention is paid to libraries, curricula, costs, faculty and students. Nor are the theological emphases neglected. But, in addition to all that, which could properly be expected, it is a veritable history of New England theology and its effect on Yale as well as Yale’s on it. For example, Bainton acknowledges that Horace Bushnell, though a minister fifty miles away, influenced Yale students more, probably, than any of the faculty. Nor is the literary influence of Jonathan Edwards ever dropped from sight throughout this work.

Two things have come to be associated with Professor Bainton’s writings which are well illustrated in the present work. First, there is his anecdotal, interesting presentation of the subject matter without his becoming shallow or losing touch with great thought. Fluent and facile in his brief summarizations of the systems of various thinkers, he is sometimes inaccurate, but generally is amazingly deft. And, secondly, there are his delightful line drawings, which exceed thirty in Yale and the Ministry. Many of these have the slightest hint of caricature which gives an interpretive twist to them. An incidental feature of this volume is that the author is himself the Titus Street Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale Divinity School as well as a graduate, and many of his observations are from the inside.

In general, Yale has suffered the vicissitudes of most theological institutions. It has had its ebbs and tides—at present it is at its all-time high, being obliged to limit itself to 400 students—and having one professor for every 13 of them, being well-integrated with the great university and attracting men and women from all branches of the church and nations of the world. Its graduates are shown to hold prominent ecclesiastical and educational posts. Bainton sees as the three constituent elements of the Yale tradition through the centuries: the Reformed emphasis on sin and grace; the Renaissance faith in free criticism; and the Pietistic strain of emotional warmth. He does not point out—perhaps he would not even admit—that since the latter half of the nineteenth century Yale has not been teaching the gospel with which it began; but the evidence for this is in these pages. Perhaps the best single summary of this book and the Yale it presents is this, in which the author contends that the school has been neither reactionary nor radical: “There is perhaps a historic vocation in the role of an institution sufficiently in advance of its constituency to exert a pull and not too far ahead to occasion a snap.”

There are several typographical errors such as “exhalt” for “exalt,” “impell” for “impel,” “arleady” for “already.” The second quotation mark is sometimes missing in citations and we noticed at least one period written for a comma. Sir John Davie is wrongly written “Davies” in the Notes, and the fiancee of David Brainerd was not “Jeshura” but “Jerusha.” William Ames’ latin original of the Marrow was written before 1648, and Jonathan Edwards did not spend two years in a pastorate between his graduate studies at Yale and his tutorship there. There is one important error of interpretation: the common notion among non-Calvinists that Calvinists in maintaining divine decrees teach that “man can in no way contribute.” Because of this, Professor Bainton is naturally perplexed about Calvinistic evangelism, although, fortunately, he does not deny the fact. Calvinists, believing that God decrees the means no less than the ends, are active evangelists not in spite of, but because of, their theology. Again, it makes interesting reading to draw a parallel between the arch-Calvinist, Edwards, and the arch-anti-Calvinist, Servetus, on the doctrine of the fusion of God and man, but a fairer depicting of Edwardean individualism would dispel the tale.

JOHN H. GERSTNER

Authority Of Scripture

Inspiration and Interpretation, by John W. Walvoord, Ed., et al, Eerdmans, 1957. $4.50.

The paramount theological problem of our age is that of the full inspiration and complete authority of the Bible. The Church that relinquishes the historical concept of the truthworthiness of the Bible has nothing of supreme importance to offer hungry souls. It is because of this reason that this book under review is freighted with such tremendous significance. Our finest Protestant theologians have always recognized the central place of the Christian doctrine of inspiration in theological thought. They have been willing to expend their energies in the explication and defense of this doctrine.

This work is a contribution of ten contemporary theologians and produced under the auspices of the Evangelical Theological Society. Originally published for the benefit of the members of the society, it was deemed helpful to offer these papers in book form in the hope of casting new light on the basic problems of revelation and inspiration in relation to contemporary theology.

J. Barton Payne discusses the Biblical interpretation of Irenaeus. Dr. Payne shows that Irenaeus, successor of the apostles, equated the words of the Bible with the words of God and that this identification holds for the New Testament as well as the Old. Documentary evidence is presented to support this affirmation. The author’s deduction from the study of Irenaeus is that when Christ and his apostles committed themselves to a view of inspiration equal to that of the most strict rabbis or, as Irenaeus puts it, when Christ accepted the words of Scripture as his own, the question of any lower form of inspiration ceased to be one which could legitimately be entertained. Irenaeus’ view of the Scripture was that of a true supernaturalism.

The views of Augustine on inspiration are examined by David W. Kerr in Chapter 2. Here we see that with respect to inspiration of the Bible Augustine declared that the canonical Scriptures are “the revered pen of Thy Spirit.” Again Augustine wrote, “the Holy Spirit … with admirable wisdom and care for our welfare arranged the Holy Scriptures.” Augustine’s doctrine is that of verbal inspiration. This conclusion is beyond dispute.

The well-known Lutheran scholar, Dr. J. Theodore Mueller, discusses “Luther and the Bible.” For Luther, the fact of verbal inspiration was a source of triumphant rejoicing. Dr. Mueller gives a number of quotations from Luther showing his high doctrine of inspiration of Scripture. He also quotes Reinhold Seeburg who affirmed that “to Luther the words of Scripture are the real words of God for the Holy Spirit has comprehended his wisdom and mystery in the Word and revealed it in Scripture for which reason he (Luther) distinguishes the ‘manifest external Word.’ ” Summarizing his study of Luther’s writings, Seeburg wrote, “Scripture, therefore, is the very word of the Holy Spirit.” Thus we see in this study that according to Luther the Bible is the inspired divine truth just because in it the Holy Ghost speaks through prophets and apostles. In Luther’s own words he affirmed, “No other doctrine should be proclaimed in the Church than the pure Word of God, that is, the Holy Scriptures.” Again, with insight into the human heart, Luther wrote, “It is our unbelief and corrupt carnal mind which does not allow us to perceive and consider that God speaks to us in Scripture or that Scripture is the Word of God.”

“Calvin and the Holy Scriptures” is the subject of the paper prepared by Dr. Kenneth S. Kantzer. Here Calvin is pictured as supremely the “Doctor of Sacred Scripture.” Dr. Kantzer’s study of Calvin’s 59 volumes also puts the Genevan Reformer in line with other ecumenical theologians in holding to the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. Concerning the extent of inspiration, Calvin goes all the way and insists that it is the part of wisdom to embrace all of the Bible in gentle docility and without any exception because “the Scriptures are the school of the Holy Spirit in which nothing is omitted which it is necessary and useful to know and nothing is taught except what is of advantage to know.”

The chapter on John Wesley by George A. Turner shows that Wesley believed in the full inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. To Wesley, says the writer, the different books of the Bible were all equally inspired and hence, authoritative.

The mediating view of William Sandey is discussed by Dr. R. Laird Harris in Chapter 6. It is pointed out that Sandey did not believe in a verbally inspired text, though Sandey admitted that this view was held among the early fathers.

The views of H. H. Rowley and the “New Trend in Biblical Studies” are evaluated by Dr. Merrill F. Unger in Chapter 7. While expressing gratitude for the recent tendency toward more conservative views, especially toward the Old Testament, the writer feels that this change for the better has not gone far enough to satisfy evangelical Christians.

Dr. Paul King Jewett has a penetrating chapter on Emil Brunner’s doctrine of Scripture. This is followed by a chapter appraising of Reinhold Niebuhr’s view of Scripture, by Dr. Edward John Carnell.

Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, closes the symposium with a chapter on “Divine Revelation and the Bible.” Dr. Henry insists that the biggest obstacle to faith, as the evangelical view measures the modern scene, is the hardness of men’s hearts in relation to the Word of God revealed and written.

This reviewer considers the volume to be one of incomparable value for our day. It is of superlative worth, especially to young theological students who may be confused on this subject. Read carefully and thoughtfully, this volume can serve to clarify and strengthen the thinking of many on the ecumenical doctrine of Holy Scripture.

JOHN R. RICHARDSON

Central Point Lacking

No Cross, No Crown: A Study of the Atonement, by William J. Wolf, Doubleday, New York, 1957. 216 pp. $3.00.

Professor Wolf’s discussion of questions pertinent to the Atonement is well informed on the various currents of thought, both of the past and of the present, as these are concerned with this central tenet of the Christian faith. For that reason, if for no other, Wolf’s contribution offers both stimulus and challenge to more disciplined thinking on this all-important subject. For example, how much we need to insist, in Wolf’s words, that “unless we can know some definite things about the life and teaching of Jesus, the claim of the Church that he was the Incarnate Son of God and that he brought salvation by his Cross is bound to wither on the vine. For a generation or two it may have the beauty of cut flowers, but severed from its roots it must die” (p. 54). Or, again, we must appreciate Wolf’s emphasis upon the organic relation of the life of Christ to his death, and upon the death as the climactic expression of radical obedience (cf., p. 41). Throughout the volume there are therefore insights that are to be deeply appreciated and gratefully endorsed.

Wolf’s weaknesses are, however, no less conspicuous. These cannot be dealt with in detail. One sample, since it is distinctly prominent and pervasive, will have to suffice, and it lies at the center of the theme with which this book deals. It is that concerned with vicarious penalty-bearing. The viewpoint of Wolf is expressed in such terms as the following: “It is monstrous to picture the Father deliberately inflicting punishment on his beloved and obedient Son as a scapegoat” (p. 87); “From the biblical point of view it is monstrous to think of God as inflicting punishment on Christ because God was angry with him as a sort or substitution for being angry with sinners. How could God be angry with his only-begotten Son who alone among men is guiltless of wrongdoing?” (p. 111). And referring to the Old Testament ritual of sacrifice as that by which sin was covered he says: “This means that sacrifice was not propitiatory, but expiatory” (p. 122). Although Wolf has worthy observations to make respecting the reality and necessity of holy wrath and of its relations to love (cf., pp.194f.), yet his rejection of the propitiatory aspect of the Atonement reveals the failure which is so characteristic of much modern theology.

It is indeed true that much scholarship has been devoted in recent years to show that propitiation as applied to the Atonement is not a biblical concept. It must also be related that the meticulous work of men like Leon Morris and Roger Nicole has served to expose the fallacy of this contention. In any case the statements of Wolf evince a rather cavalier dismissal of the implications of what is focal in the biblical witness. It is not that we are ready to accept Wolf’s way of stating the doctrine he assails. But if we are to take seriously the fact of Christ’s vicarious sin-bearing and the witness of Scripture to the effect that “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6), that God made him to be sin (2 Cor. 5:21) and that he became a curse (Gal. 3:13), then the notion of penalty inflicted is inescapable. Implicit in sin-bearing is the whole judgment of God upon sin. This is the only explanation of Gethsemane’s agony and the abandonment of Calvary. And if we change the perspective just a little, the judgment of God against sin is epitomized in his wrath. If Christ bore sin vicariously he must have borne that which sin inevitably evokes, the holy wrath of God. To the idea of such wrath-bearing the New Testament witness points (cf., Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). It is shallow thinking that finds incompatibility between Christ’s vicarious wrath-bearing and the fact that he was himself the sinless, well-beloved, and only-begotten Son of God. It was only because the Father loved the Son supremely and immutably as the only-begotten that the Son could be subject to the wrath of God and bear it vicariously on behalf of his own to the end of effective and complete propitiation. And nothing more truly certifies to us the security and invincibility of the Father’s love and grace (cf., Rom. 8:32; 1 John 4:10).

JOHN MURRAY

Theology

Review of Current Religious Thought: November 25, 1957

Philip Edgcumbe Hughes

There are in the New Testament a number of problems which, because of the inadequacy of the evidence available, are surrounded with uncertainty. One such is the question of Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:7. Over the centuries many solutions have been proposed, at times with excessive confidence; but in the nature of the case it is impossible to escape from the realm of conjecture. The apostle’s silence concerning such symptoms as would enable a diagnosis to be made may be taken as being in accord with the mind of God, for subsequent history would seem to indicate that it has been of more benefit to the Church to remain in ignorance on this matter than would have been the case had the nature of the infirmity been fully known. Had a particular affliction—epilepsy, for example—been designated, the great majority of Christians would have been inclined to dismiss the apostle’s problem as one remote from the reality of their own experience.

As things are, however, there has been a discernible tendency, as Lightfoot has pointed out, for interpreters in different periods of church history to see “in the apostle’s temptation a more or less perfect reflection of the trials which beset their own lives” (Commentary on Galatians, pp. 186 ff). This tendency, unconscious though it has been, is perfectly understandable. It has been an instinctive tendency, and there is no doubt that it has been a right tendency; for it is of the essence of Holy Scripture that it is profitable and applicable in a truly dynamic and existential manner to every circumstance and to every age of the Church. Is there a single servant of Christ who cannot point to some “thorn in the flesh” from which he has prayed to be released, but which has been given him by God to keep him humble, and therefore fruitful, in his service? Every believer must learn that human weakness and divine grace go hand in hand together. Hence Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” is, by its very lack of definition, a type of every Christian’s “thorn in the flesh,” not with regard to externals, but by its spiritual significance.

The earliest patristic reference to this question is found in Tertullian (about 200 A.D.) who mentions that it was said that Paul was afflicted with earache or headache. The tradition that the “thorn in the flesh” was headache is noticed also by Chrysostom, Jerome, and others of the early fathers. Chrysostom, however, finds the suggestion that Paul’s body was given over to Satan for the infliction of physical pain quite unacceptable, and, taking the term “Satan” in its general Hebrew sense of “adversary,” understands the “messenger of Satan” by which Paul was buffeted to signify all the adversaries who opposed Paul in the work of the gospel. This view that the reference is to the endurance of external persecutions has the support of a number of the ancient authors, including Augustine and Theodoret.

The mistranslation of the Latin Vulgate version (fourth century), “goad of the flesh”—stimulus carnis—may have given rise, as Luther supposes, to the opinion that Paul was afflicted with impure temptations of the flesh, an opinion which prevailed in the medieval period and which came to be generally approved in the Roman Catholic church. This view is dismissed as ridiculous by Calvin, in whose judgment the reference is to “every kind of temptation with which Paul was exercised.” Luther also rejects the view that temptation to carnal lust is intended, or for that matter, some physical ailment, and explains the “thorn in the flesh” of the various temptations and trials to which the apostle was subject.

Of more recent hypotheses there are several that deserve mention. One is that Paul suffered from a severe form of ophthalmia. Attention is drawn to Galatians 4:15 where Paul, who has just been speaking of “an infirmity of the flesh” (verse 13), says that the Galatians would, if possible, have plucked out their eyes and given them to him; and it is suggested that hints of defective eyesight may also be discerned elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., Gal. 6:11; Acts 23:5, and Acts 9:9, 18).

Another theory which has found wide favor is that Paul suffered from epilepsy, the recurrent attacks of which thoroughly incapacitated and humiliated him. Other great men, such as Caesar, Mahomet, Cromwell and Napoleon, have been cited as epileptics, but it is extremely questionable whether they were in fact such, and in any case modern medical knowledge leads to the conclusion that the symptoms of epilepsy are unlikely to have been those of Paul’s “thorn in the flesh.”

Perhaps no recent conjecture has been of greater interest than that of Sir William Ramsay who strongly advocated the form of recurrent malarial fever which is known in the Eastern Mediterranean. This fever is accompanied by prostrating paroxysms, severe headache, unsightly eruptions and feelings of self-contempt. The theory is enthusiastically embraced by the contemporary French Roman Catholic scholar E. B. Allo (Seconde Epitre aux Corinthiens, pp. 313 ff).

Most recently the French Protestant scholar Ph.H. Menoud has advanced the novel hypothesis that the apostle’s “thorn in the flesh” was not a physical complaint at all, but was the “great sorrow and unceasing pain” in his heart because of the unbelief of the Jewish nation (Rom. 9:1–3). The context demands, he feels, a trial peculiar to the Apostle Paul as a counterweight to the exceptional revelations granted him (in Studia Paulina, pp. 163 ff).

Many other solutions have been offered, such as hysteria, hypochondria, gallstones, gout, rheumatism, sciatica, gastritis, leprosy, lice in the head, deafness, dental infection, neurasthenia, an impediment of the speech and remorse for the tortures he had himself inflicted on Christians prior to his conversion. No doubt there will be fresh proposals in years to come, for this is a matter which will never be regarded as closed while there are minds to speculate on it.

Was this “stake for the flesh” (which is a more accurate rendering of the Greek than “thorn in the flesh”) the same as the infirmity of the flesh which halted him in Galatia and led to his preaching the gospel there for the first time? (Gal. 4:13). Was it one and the same with the affliction which overtook him in Asia, causing him to despair even of life? (2 Cor. 1:8). And does he refer to the same thing when he tells the Thessalonians that, having wished to visit them once and again, it was Satan that hindered him on each occasion? (1 Thess. 2:18). These are interesting and legitimate questions, but it is impossible to answer them with certainty. What is absolutely certain is that God’s word to his apostle, “My grace is sufficient for thee; for my power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9), holds good for every servant of his in every age and in every circumstance.

- More from Philip Edgcumbe Hughes

Cover Story

Fundamentalism-Modernism: A First Step in the Controversy

Geoffrey W. Bromiley

Readers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, and the wider Christian public, must be grateful to the Editor for his courageous call that the controversy between so-called modernism and fundamentalism should be reassessed. Nothing but harm can result from the ignoring of vital issues. And while unnecessary and virulent controversy is rightly to be deplored, there can be no genuine peace or cooperation so long as there is division on questions of basic importance. On both sides, therefore, it is right and proper that there should be a fresh wrestling with the difference.

Beyond The Breach

At the same time, it will be generally accepted that the debate should be resumed with a view to an outcome which is positive and fruitful. If the only result of a resumption of the controversy were to be hardening in hostility and suspicion, with the consequent strengthening of uncharitable attitudes on both sides, then it would be far better to leave things as they are. The fact has to be recognized that the continuance of this division is not helpful to the witness of the Protestant world, and that if the discussion is reopened it should be very definitely for the purpose of healing the disastrous breach.

But this is the whole difficulty, for compromise is obviously ruled out by the nature of the division. We cannot discuss merely in the hope of bringing opposing views into line, or finding a minimum of common ground on which to take a stand. Nor is it enough merely to attempt a sympathetic understanding. To be sure, a historical understanding is useful, for it enables us to see how it is that others have come to adopt the positions which they now hold. In this way, it helps us to go back to the root of the division, and perhaps to apportion the responsibility. But there can be no way forward merely by sympathetic appreciation of the opposing standpoint. For while sympathy ought naturally to be extended, it should be the kind of sympathy which helps people out of their difficulties rather than confirms them in them.

A Call To Both Sides

In these circumstances, is there really any hope of renewal of discussion issuing not in the strengthening of both sides but rather in the genuine victory of evangelical truth? The answer seems to lie, not in an attempted rapprochement, but in a call to both sides to take seriously the basic principles for which they supposedly and nominally stand. The controversy can be positively resumed, and with some hope of a profitable outcome which will be a victory for truth, if modernists for their part will accept the challenge to be genuinely historical and scientific, and fundamentalists for theirs will accept the challenge to be radically and consistently biblical.

Scientific Procedure

It has always been the cry of those who adopt liberal views that in so doing they are following a historical or scientific procedure. In other words, they are setting aside the presuppositions of the past. They are attaining an objectivity free from traditional assumptions. They are able to make a fresh approach, especially to the biblical documents. They can reassess them in accordance with the facts, i.e., the historical realities of their derivation and nature and setting, and of the development of which they are the record. Tacitly or explicitly, all modernism rests upon this fundamental appeal.

But the question arises whether in the majority of cases it is really historical or scientific in more than a nominal, or at any rate, a negative sense. It does, of course, set aside certain beliefs concerning the Bible, and holds itself free to reject or amend the theological inheritance of the past. But this negative liberation is not by a long way the genuine objectivity required in science, and in two vital respects liberal theologians give evidence that they have a good deal to learn concerning real objectivity, and that if they would find their way to it either independently (as has happened to some extent in the movement of “biblical theology”) or in renewed debate with evangelicals, there can be hope of better things for the Protestant world.

Dominating Assumptions

In the first place, far too many liberals seem to have remained blissfully unaware that in throwing off the biblical or traditional presuppositions they have not attained to a position of neutrality but have merely replaced them by new presuppositions which control their historical and theological study of the Bible. An analysis of the dominating assumptions of modernism is impossible in this brief article. The fact that they are present in all kinds of combinations and with all kinds of emphases and nuances means that it is difficult to sift and sort them in any given case. Rationalism laid a solid foundation in the 17th and 18th centuries. The evolutionary monism of Herder made an important contribution, especially when it was given a quasi-scientific status through the work of Darwin and his school. The subjectivism of Schleiermacher, combining such varied elements as Pietism and Kantian philosophy, provided a vital element which has always been at odds with the professed objectivity. But whatever the combination, the fact remains that the majority of liberals have approached the biblical documents with presuppositions just as powerful as those of any fundamentalist, and the more insidious because often concealed under a mask of objectivity. The challenge to modernists, then, is a challenge to see that much of their work and many of their findings are not historical in the strictest sense, but are controlled or even dominated by these assumptions.

Subjective Factors

Secondly, and in a sense even more seriously, it has not been seen or remembered that true scientific objectivity means a readiness to study and assess the object in and from itself, to allow oneself to be taught by the object. It is no good pretending to be objective if we discard presuppositions only to interpret the object of our study in terms of something else, or indeed make the object something rather different from what it really is. Yet this is what actually happens in so much modernist study. Armed with assumptions which are not in any case biblical, the student does not learn from the object of his enquiry; indeed, it may be questioned whether he even sees it properly. Instead, he comes to the Bible with his own predetermined questions and finds in it the things which he wants, and discards those which he does not. To be genuinely objective, he must be ready to take the Bible as he finds it, to expound it in terms of itself, to let it speak its own message in its own way. Instead of addressing his questions to the Bible, he must be prepared to let the Bible answer its own questions. And for this purpose, he will have to remember that the Bible itself understands itself as a unity as well as a collection, so that even though the investigator may not agree with this view, it must be taken into account if he is to give a genuinely objective account.

In any case, however, it is essential to a truly scientific approach that the object itself should determine the nature of the study and especially of the findings. As already noted, the so-called biblical theology has made an important beginning along these lines. But modernists as a whole must be summoned to take far more genuinely and seriously the scientific objectivity which is nominally intrinsic to their whole position.

Biblical Approach

On the other side, fundamentalists lay vocal claim to the biblical nature of their approach and thinking, their methods and conduct. In other words, they are prepared to take the Bible in terms of itself, and to accept the assumptions on which it speaks. They do not dispute the materials incorporated in the Bible, nor attempt to put them within an alien framework. They maintain their positions only because they are convinced that these are true to the Bible, and they are always ready to put other views (and especially the views of others) to the arbitratment of Scripture. Any attack on the Bible from any source is firmly resisted.

Again, however, the question arises whether many fundamentalists are really quite so biblical as they protest except nominally or negatively. Indeed, a close examination suggests that in far too many fields evangelical thought and activity is in its own way influenced by the very assumptions which underlie the liberal movement, though biblical texts or tags may be found for the detailed outworking. For instance, the subjectivism of Schleiermacher, itself connected with 18th century Pietism, plays an obvious and not specifically biblical role in the emphasis on experience common in so many evangelical circles. Or again, in the principles of Christian organization, action and methods, there is often displayed an elementary failure to be biblical which is no less culpable and dangerous because it is so patently unconscious.

Role Of Investigation

More pertinently, there are two points at which fundamentalists do well to ask themselves whether they are truly biblical, or biblical enough. In respect of the modernist attack on the Bible, it is often not perceived that in the aim to rebut the critical theories there is a danger of accepting the critical assumptions, i.e., of trying to fight modernists on their own ground, instead of genuinely fighting them from the Bible itself. This means that so much of the controversy becomes a detailed discussion in terms of a commonly accepted historicism, the truth and authority of the Bible being linked with the ability to prove the historical reliability of this or that part of the biblical record. Naturally, in face of historical criticism, there is a place for sober investigation and this need not be feared. But it is another matter to make this the crucial battle, when all the time the real need is to see the underlying empiricism on the modernist side and not to accept it but to combat it with a genuinely biblical approach.

Inroads Of Rationalism

But if the historico-critical work of fundamentalists, however conservative, is often conducted on non-biblical assumptions, the same is no less true of a good deal of their equally conservative theology. The fact has to be faced that in the later years of the 17th century there was a considerable infusion of rationalism into the most impeccable of Protestant orthodoxy, and that much evangelical dogmatics, while it is biblical in its materials, is very far from biblical in its basis, structure and method. The challenge to fundamentalists is thus that they should reckon with the possibility that, for all their good intentions, their training and traditions and environment may have conspired to make them a good deal less biblical in basic thinking than they suppose. They have to be ready to see what the points are where they must be taught by the Bible to be genuinely biblical. And for this purpose they must go back again and again to the Bible itself, submitting their own views and those of the evangelical fathers to its searching and purifying scrutiny.

It will be seen, however, that if modernists accept the challenge to be truly scientific, and fundamentalists to be truly biblical, their controversy can be hopeful and fruitful, for they are both summoned to the same task. The modernist is objective as he is taught by the object, i.e., the Bible, and therefore he must be biblical. The fundamentalist is biblical as he allows the Bible to search and correct his teachings instead of molding the Bible into his own pattern, and therefore he must be objective. The fruits of renewed discussion will not be gathered in a day, for nothing is more difficult than to be truly objective and therefore truly biblical in relation to the Bible. It involves an act of intellectual and spiritual humility which comes readily to none of us. We all prefer to be masters rather than scholars in this school. But if we are at least prepared on both sides to live up to our profession, to be radically biblical, then we shall be brought together in a common study of the common object in terms of itself. And as we can see already from the few first-fruits already gathered, the Bible can be relied upon, under the Holy Spirit, to do its own positive and therefore unifying work.

Geoffrey W. Bromiley, rector of St. Thomas’ English Episcopal Church in Edinburgh, Scotland, holds the Ph.D. and D.Litt. degrees from University of Edinburgh. He is a gifted church historian and writer. Among his books is Thomas Cranmer, Theologian, published by Oxford University Press.

- More from Geoffrey W. Bromiley

Cover Story

How to Bring a Nation under God

Samuel M. Shoemaker

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12)

What should be the relation between a nation and God? It might seem that religion is so personal a matter that one cannot think of any real relation between a great aggregate of people, like a nation, and God. But aggregates of people have a character, an influence, a responsibility which they exercise. The individuals within them contribute largely to this, but the aggregate is more than and different from the sum of the individuals. The Old Testament is the record of God’s dealing with a nation. In it individuals are flashed upon the screen continually; but they are always individuals within the nation. When Christianity appeared, religion became both more personal and more universal in its implications. But we must never forget the profound debt of descent which Christianity owes to Judaism.

Some would attempt to divorce the religious from the national consciousness, on the grounds that when you add the religious to the national loyalty you have a fruitful source of egoistic nationalism, dragging in God for support. This danger is there, of course. It arises the moment the importance of the nation outstrips the importance of God. But there are some things to be said about this.

The first is that the nation, like the family, seems to be an intended unit of human society. There have always been these groupings according to race, or location, or language, or religion. How would you ever read history without individuals, families, and nations? Each of these seems to have a place in the permanent scheme of things.

True Patriotism

I remember a time when I thought that all patriotism was inevitably jingoistic nationalism. I felt the thing to go for was a love and loyalty for all mankind. There is a great truth here, but I had to live a while and learn that we are meant to reach our loyalties to the great aggregate of the world, through the more circumscribed loyalties of family, community and nation. A general concern for humanity without responsibility for one’s own group and nation may turn out to be a vague, amorphous internationalism that may be more sentimental than responsible. If we cannot deal effectively with those smaller units how can we expect to deal effectively with the whole human race?

The second thing is that there is only one thing bigger than the powerful state, and that is God. When the state usurps all power (as lately in Germany, and presently in Russia and the satellite countries), there seems to be no individual, no group, no interest, strong enough to rise up against it. Another power from without may have to effect its deliverance from its dictators. Organized religion may seem very impotent for a time. The Church must work by moral, not material force. The state can do terrible things to the Church’s leaders and people. But, even within the immediate framework, a power is exerted out of all proportion to its physical strength.

Outside Of History

Hitler broke the newspaper editors, he broke the college professors; he never could quite break the Church. That stood athwart him when all else capitulated to him. But God is more than the relatively small power resident in God’s people. God is the Lord and Judge of history. Once let the very thought of him enter the mind of the tyrant, and he will quaver. If he begins realizing that he stands under the judgment of a righteous God, it is more likely to make him modify, or even abandon, his ways than any other thing. For God, if he is at all, stands above and outside of history, while he works in and through history. The belief in God, even tenuously and provisionally held, yet remains the one factor that can put fear into the tyrant’s heart, as it puts hope into the heart of the tyrannized.

It appears, then, that God creates nations, as he creates men. And it appears that nations, like men, truly thrive and go forward, not when they seek their own will, and willed destiny, but when they seek to keep aware of God, mindful of his favour, conscious of his judgment upon all their partial successes, dependent upon him for their life.

There is a sense in which what I have just been saying is a fiction. There never has been a nation that fulfilled these things, unless on rare occasions. When we say that they happen at all, we mean that at times the will of a minority that thinks and feels in this way prevails and becomes public policy. A famous instance was our dealings with China after the Boxer uprising half a century ago. There were doubtless Americans who seethed when President Theodore Roosevelt, at the instigation of Dr. Arthur H. Smith, a famous old missionary in North China, returned the indemnity money asking that a college and scholarships be made of it; but good will prevailed. The act and its consequences were for half a century a symbol of our relations with China.

Strength Of Tradition

It is possible that the strength of a tradition coming down from the past, or the strength of a lively present minority of right-minded people, can infuse into a nation’s thinking and planning elements of Christian morality and concern.

When it comes to our own nation, the stamp of God’s hand is heavy upon us. Our early colonists and settlers fled religious persecution and came here for freedom in the spiritual and political realms. Our founding fathers were not all of them plaster saints, nor all entirely orthodox Christians; but they were men who believed in God and feared him and who wrote their convictions into their deeds and their documents.

Freedom as we know it did not begin with the founding of America—it really began on Sinai when Moses came down from the mountain with Ten Commandments, the first of which was, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” When it became clear that Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, was the God of the whole earth, and then it became clear that he had uniquely manifested himself in Jesus of Nazareth, there began the greatest move towards rightness in human life and human relations that had ever taken place in history. Man found his real nature and stature. He is a creature who belongs to the natural creation, capable of rebellion or of obedience towards God, therefore needing redemption; but when he has accepted that redemption, he is meant to behave like a child of God and to help all other men find their significance in becoming his children also.

Dignity And Conscience

Freedom is a natural consequence of this, but will not long be sustained except in an atmosphere where man knows both his affinity and his accountability to God. His affinity gives him dignity; his accountability gives him conscience. He must be both lifted up, and kept down, by his relation to God. Only such men dare to seek freedom, and only such men know how to use it responsibly.

We badly need to understand the nature of our freedom. For some, freedom is nothing but the protected right to behave as they please; such people help to destroy freedom by the way they misuse it. Some, indeed many in our time, are so aware of the way bad people, and the bad part of the so-called good people, misuse freedom, that instead of reforming and changing the bad in the people they want to take part of the freedom out of freedom. Many young people in our colleges, taught the secular philosophy which is their current sacred cow, seeing the plentiful evils in a nation like ours, want to do away with that system of freedom which allows bad men to go on being bad, and selfish men to be selfish in their exploitation of our capitalistic system, and they want to put such curbs on our freedom that it ceases to be freedom.

Our Greatest Need

What needs changing most is the men themselves. It is not the curbing of freedom from without, but the curbing of sin from within that we really need; for when you have destroyed all your freedom, you still will have sinful men who will go on working some other kind of evil, after they have been reduced to slaves. Dr. Donald J. Cowling has reminded us that the founding fathers did not go for a big military establishment, nor for a great many social benefits for our people; the one thing they went for was liberty as the over-all climate in which everything else should be effected. I suspect that liberty is the greatest political, academic, economic, and spiritual blessing that can ever be granted to a people. You can vote it away by ever-encroaching appeals to security; but when it is gone, you cannot vote it back. Large, sweeping legislative reforms have taken the place, in our modern world, of those personal reforms which begin in individuals but do not end in them.

Freedom as a philosophy, as a passion, as a constituent part of religious faith and conviction—how many Americans are there who understand this? How many just think it means having more refrigerators and television sets and screaming newspapers and radio programs than any other nation has? A nation that has lost its soul that way is in danger soon of losing its life. There is a treason which begins in philosophy, where I think Alger Hiss’s treason began, and many more like him who have not been caught. The low-level, secularist, naturalistic thinking such men do is their first step in betraying their nation and the freedom which is both its greatest blessing and its greatest responsibility. Karl Marx said that “Communism begins where atheism begins.”

Four Steps To Take

What, then, should we seek to persuade America to do if we would see “this nation under God”?

First, this nation must repent. It must repent of all its arrogance, its thunderings about being better than other nations, its loss of God and the terrible consequences in crime, from crooked politicians to dopepeddlers. The way families have let children grow up in this God-blessed land without knowing God except as a word to swear with, children who inherit the greatest blessings any children on earth enjoy without knowing enough to say “Thank You” to God, without understanding the deep wells of religious conviction out of which these blessings have come, is as stupid as it is wicked. There are moral standards in this universe as detectable, as obvious when you see them, as any natural or scientific laws. There is at least a grave question whether the dropping of the atomic bomb in Japan was not a military mistake; its morality was still more doubtful.

America is like a good-hearted, emotional, heedless child—and such a child can do great harm. We are incredibly lacking in mature philosophy and belief and therefore of sustained policy in our national plans. We forget that the role which destiny seems to have handed us can break us as well as make us. The only safe place for America is on our knees, saying, “God, be merciful to us sinners.”

Second, let America return to its houses of worship. It is years since some of our pagan citizens have listened either to the claims of the Gospel, or its moral challenge to their lives. Church-going, for the converted, is the opportunity for the greatest exercise of which man is capable, the worship of Almighty God. Church-going, for the unconverted (whether outside or inside the church), is putting oneself where he can hear needed but convicting truth. It is daring to go where you hear from without what your conscience has already been telling you from within. It is risking a spiritual experience and a conversion. I know the human faults of the Church; but I know also the divine power that still courses through her to human souls.

Third, let America think and act responsibly and unselfishly. It is hard in these days to wean any act, national or personal, from elements of calculation and prudence. We need the infusion into this nation of some more simple integrity and common goodness. The good are sometimes gullible and open to being used by the cleverly evil; but the genuinely good have a wisdom of their own, a shrewdness which is directed, not at self-interest, but at the good of everybody.

We need the courage that speaks out about evil. We need the concern that takes the part of the oppressed. We need the kind of faith that believes that goodness is not the contesting intruder in the universe, but the manifestation of the will of God the Creator.

Fourth, let America seek with all its heart the faith of our fathers from which have come our chief blessings. Free nations must admit the right of any to disbelieve, to accept thanklessly the blessings which believing men have bequeathed to us which come ultimately from God. This liberty is the only way to have an uncoerced truth, a faith that is truly free. But no nation can thrive on neutrality. A wise and wary people will realize that its best leaven are the caring, creative folk who believe in God and therefore try to meet human needs as they arise.

A nation which will not recognize the dependence of freedom upon faith is on its way to ruin. As Dr. Jacques Maritain said, “… the world has done with neutrality. Willingly or unwillingly, states will be obliged to make a choice for or against the Gospel. They will be shaped either by the totalitarian spirit or by the Christian spirit.” Let America heed words like that. Let America ponder the truth of the Psalmist’s words, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.”

Samuel M. Shoemaker’s gifts range from pen to pulpit. Currently rector of Pittsburgh’s Calvary Episcopal Church, he is author of many books, among them How to Become a Christian and Revive Thy Church Beginning with Me. His contribution above is a revision of an article originally prepared for the magazine Faith at Work.

- More from Samuel M. Shoemaker

Cover Story

Challenge of the Campus

Rudolph Norden

The contemporary upsurge of religious interest has engulfed also the campuses of North American colleges and universities. The favorable response to Billy Graham’s Christian messages by Yale University students has been narrated in a previous issue of Christianity Today. Evangelical campus missions sponsored by Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship and other witnessing groups are enjoying similar results.

Not to be discounted in less sensational but steadily increasing student participation in denomination-centered worship programs—those of the Canterbury Club for Episcopalians, the Westminster Foundation for Presbyterians, the Lutheran Student Association and Gamma Delta for National Lutheran Council and Missouri Synod students respectively, and others. According to Time (November 21, 1955) the Rev. Frederic Kellogg of Cambridge, Mass., counted only about 35 Harvard students at the Sunday Episcopal services in 1936. Twenty years later 500 attended the Sunday worship. At Memorial Lutheran Chapel in Ames, Iowa, the Rev. Wilbert J. Fields sees more Iowa State College students at average Sunday services than he has names on his list.

The quickening spiritual pulse is sensed by many observers of the campus scene. “I’ve been in the dean’s office for more than 20 years,” says Nicholas McKnight, dean of students at Columbia College, “and never have I seen such a wide interest in religion among the students” (Time, November 21, 1955).

University authorities themselves have taken steps in recent years to give religion a favorable hearing. If not by administrative implementation, they at least give their blessing to such campus-wide observances as Religious Emphasis Week or Church Night during New Student Week. At increasing numbers of state-supported colleges ways and means are found to offer religion credit courses, either by bootlegging them into the curriculum via philosophy departments or by approving the open establishment of chairs of religion. To assist students and campus pastors in their spiritual enterprises, some college administrations have created the office of coordinator of religious activities. Short of being an ordained chaplain, the coordinator lends counsel and aid in giving respectable status to campus religions. The enlightened policy is to recognize all religions on a frank, pluralistic basis. This gives evangelical groups an equal chance to make their unhampered Christian witness.

Greater support to campus ministries comes, and properly so, from the national church bodies themselves. Instead of considering the campus program an adjunct of the nearest parish, denominational headquarters today think more in terms of maintaining fulltime pastorates for college folk. Well they might, for just around the corner lurks the largest student population America has yet seen. The first ripples of the tidal wave of tomorrow’s students are already lapping the coastline. The present college enrollment of three million is but a shadow of things to come.

Optimum use of these unprecedented opportunities is contingent on a realistic appraisal of factors contributing to the crisis of the modern university. The survey will show liabilities along with the assets, opposition as well as opportunity. By honestly facing the facts and reckoning with them, we take the first step in channeling nondescript religious interest into meaningful commitment to the Christian religion.

Encounter With Scientific Humanism

Alongside the search for personal security in religion, there continues the trend to build creeds on secular philosophies. In the early 1950’s the Newman Foundation (Roman Catholic) at a mid-American university issued a manual in which it was stated, “Many people think of the university as a place where atheists and communists swarm like flies, waiting to pounce upon innocent and unsuspecting students. This is a gross exaggeration. One wishes one might say it was absolutely false, but that is not true either.”

The writer goes on to point out that positivism is a militant philosophy rejecting all absolute truths, such as the existence (or relevance) of God and the primary principles of morality rooted in revealed theology. He says that positivists are found in the departments of philosophy, education and social sciences, shaking the accepted beliefs of Catholic students oftener by innuendo and contemptuous comments than by direct assault. That is how a Catholic writer sees the picture.

There are instances of the acclaimed academic mind, pledged to the open pursuit of truth, becoming a mind in captivity to a hard and fast creed, with as many postulates in it as in any creed of the church. It is a creed that demands total commitment, and in many cases a blind faith. There is no open-mindedness about a “liberalism” that arbitrarily and categorically rules our Christian thought. It is a one-way street, and at its terminal a dead-end alley. What we are concerned about is not science itself, but the philosophic constructions put on science and the attitude of secularists and scientific humanists who want to close the doors to the legitimacy of Christian revelation. Roy LeMoine, Director of Religious Life at Iowa State College, has well stated, “The University knows no revealed truth.” It should be pointed out that this, perhaps necessary, principle is in itself a statement of faith.

Biblical, Spiritual Illiteracy

There is a set of retarding circumstances not originating on the campus but dating back to the student’s home and home church in the community from which he comes. Dr. Homer Rainey, formerly president of the University of Texas and of Stephens College, in a recent address pointed to the appalling condition of religious illiteracy. He stated that in former years a speaker could enrich his remarks with quotations and epigrammatic expressions from the Bible. But nowadays, according to Dr. Rainey, such references fall as duds and the speaker flat on his face because the modern generation doesn’t know the Bible. A curious anomaly is here recognized: A widespread interest in religion but a scant knowledge of the Bible.

It is not possible to sidestep all of Wesley Schrader’s critiques in the recent Life article “Our Troubled Sunday Schools.” Writes Mr. Schrader: “A young professor of religion at a girls’ college told me that he was disturbed by the inferior preparation young people are getting in our churches. ‘Students from all over the country enroll in our college,’ he said, ‘and they come to us with virtually no knowledge of the Christian faith. Religiously they are in kindergarten. The sad thing is that, in most cases, these girls have been going to Sunday School since they were in the nursery department.’ ”

This delinquency is not the fault of the university, but of the home and home church with its teaching agencies. The latter having faltered in their sacred task of teaching young people the Word of God, many freshmen come to college entirely innocent of Christian knowledge. Indeed, they are then easy prey to loose morals, indiscriminate acceptance of Christless philosophies, and low-level materialistic views toward their vocation.

There is considerable evidence that suggest that a college education does not alter people’s religious habits fundamentally. The pre-college pattern is pretty well preserved throughout life. In They Went To College, Ernest Havemann and Patricia Salter West point out that 46 per cent of the men reared as Protestants attend church regularly, while for women college graduates of the same category 59 percent attend regularly. The authors conclude, “There seems to be little evidence that college training undercuts religious beliefs” (p. 107). In brief: Religious illiteracy and all its fruits is not the product of the university as much as it is a carry-over from the student’s previous experiences.

An experienced campus pastor, when addressing himself to students, does well to locate the major problems of personal morality and spirituality not in the environment but in the person himself. I have known many Christian students during my ten years at the University of Minnesota who were not at all disturbed by the small but noisy group of budding atheists, agnostics, or what have you. If they wanted to participate in church activities, or could be so induced, they did so without casting lateral looks to see what others were doing. Ultimately, it is up to the individual. What if last Wednesday a professor got in an anti-Christian punch-line; was that a reason why students A, B, and C should sleep in on the following Sunday morning? The professor, who is very witty and probably comments similarly on big business, labor unions, or the Republican Party, should not be blamed for the sleeping propensities of students on Sunday morning.

These Christian students demonstrated that they could be active in church work under their own steam and quite without the parental push. Far from being a place where faith was lost, the campus was for them a community where Christian faith was tested and strengthened, their knowledge increased, the range of their Christian concerns widened, their spiritual insights deepened, while still others found Christ as their personal Saviour.

The Road Ahead

What procedure is indicated, if we would capitalize on present-day campus opportunities? Greater utilization of our most potent means—the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God. Militarily speaking, the best defense is offense, positive procedure, growth in Christian faith, and its daily exercise in Christian service. Faith is not something one can put in his vest pocket and keep it there for the duration of college life. That would at best be a dormant faith and one well on its way toward becoming a dead faith. It is better to exercise one’s faith and keep it stimulated through the means of grace.

So it is with Christian knowledge. To peg it at the point where it was at confirmation or graduation from Sunday School is to invite spiritual stagnation. It is through personal and corporate Bible study that a student’s knowledge of the Word is articulated and made relevant to life’s problems.

Students will profit more than they know from taking religion credit courses offered under the sponsorship of their denomination. During the 1955–56 term 1,866 University of Texas students availed themselves of credit courses given under the auspices of the Texas Bible Chair. If 1,800 out of a total enrollment of 16,000 is thought not to be a favorable ratio, it should be remembered that it is a considerable improvement over the 1908 figure. In that year only one U. of T. student took a religion credit course. Similar appreciation is shown on other campuses. Only 20 Princeton students took the first religion course begun in 1939. During the 1955–56 school year 700 Princetonians were enrolled in various religion classes.

There are study projects the student may undertake on his own, such as the reading of books written in the Christian perspective. If David Hume’s essay on miracles is required reading in a humanities course, the Christian student owes it to himself to balance the fare with a reading of C. S. Lewis’ book, Miracles. The last decade has seen the production of a virile Christian literature interacting with all the phases of thought and culture from an evangelical point of view. A sufficient beginning has been made in this direction so that stimulating reading, relevant to psychology, sociology, anthropology, and other disciplines, awaits the inquirer.

In my own church body, for example, Ph.D. scholars in philosophy, education, and psychology, one of them the Lutheran head of a Big Ten university psychology department, are working on a project to bring these studies into a Christian framework. Other churches are similarly engaged, particularly the Episcopalians with their Faculty Papers.

Things are looking up for Christian students and staff members at state universities. The challenge of the campus has the potential of a great blessing to Christendom.

Gambling For The Seamless Robe

Shuffling dice to win His robe

Has not ceased today;

Men take His teaching and His law,

But cast His Cross away.

They want His garb without His grief,

His light without His blood;

They want His joy without His pain,

But not the Spirit’s flood.

The seamless robe of deity

They rend with knives of guilt,

Deny His claims but take His gifts,

Betray the Church He built.

They gamble still just what to do

With things they won’t believe;

Deny the Word, destroy the faith

And simple hearts deceive.

ELMER H. NICHOLAS

Rudolph Norden is editorial assistant with the Commission on College and University Work of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, in Chicago. He holds degrees from St. Paul’s College and Concordia Seminary, has done graduate work in philosophy and history at the University of Minnesota, has served as a pastor in Colorado and Nebraska, and as Lutheran campus pastor at the University of Minnesota for 10 years, where he was founder of the University Lutheran Church and Student Center. He is Editor of the Lutheran Campus Pastor and a frequent contributor to other magazines.

- More from Rudolph Norden

Cover Story

Profile of a Christian Soldier

J. C. Pollock

This month sees the centenary of the death of an English general, Sir Henry Havelock, for whom, when the news reached New York and Boston, flags were flown half-mast on public buildings and on the shipping in the harbours. “A purely voluntary tribute,” commented the New York Times, “paid to his memory by a people to whom he was a stranger, who were in no way interested in his career and to whom even his name was unknown six months since. It was a tribute of respect which even the Duke of Wellington did not command.”

Havelock’s life still has a message for the English-speaking peoples. He had swept to fame for his exploits in stemming the tide of the Indian Mutiny, which was spreading havoc and massacre. At the moment of triumph, when the world was celebrating the relief of Lucknow, he died there on November 24, 1857, at the age of sixty-two. Were this all, General Havelock would have little relevance for today. But it was not simply as a soldier but as a Christian general, a Christian hero, that Britain and America took him to their hearts. For a whole generation Havelock was revered as the pattern on which young men should mould their lives.

Saint And Soldier

Havelock, converted by a brother officer on their voyage to India in 1823, had an outstanding purpose: “It was the great object of my ambition to be surpassed by none in zeal and determination in the path of my duty, because I was resolved to put down the vile calumny that a Christian could not be a meritorious soldier.” In the steamy heat of Burmese jungles, in the excitements and privations of the Afghan and Sikh wars, and in the devastatingly dull years of routine soldiering in a climate which science and medical progress had not yet made bearable, he proved his point. Since Havelock, no one has seriously maintained that “it is impossible,” as a commander-in-chief had once remarked when blocking Havelock’s promotion in earlier days, “to profess to serve God and the Queen, to be at once a ‘saint’ and a soldier.”

Havelock failed to reach high command as early as he deserved because he lacked funds, and the purchase of rank was the contemporary method of promotion. During his long years of subordinate service, however, he contributed more than any other man of his age to the moral and spiritual welfare of servicemen.

For Temperance, Dignity

The prevalent attitude to enlisted men was that of Wellington: “the scum of the earth recruited for drink.” Havelock, “in the very teeth of ridicule and opposition” began a temperance movement. It was so successful in combating drunkenness that it spread throughout India; the fact that in the later nineteenth century the British soldier in India could get coffee rather than rum in the canteen was due to him.

Officers did not treat soldiers as individuals, and considered that they had no responsibility for troops outside parade hours, except to punish crime. They cared nothing for their welfare, and chaplains were almost non-existent. Havelock began Bible readings and evangelistic services for his men. He built chapels and prayer rooms, and it is small wonder that his own company became known as “Havelock’s Saints,” for despite the dire prophecies of his opponents discipline did not suffer, his Colonel testifying that Havelock’s men were the “best behaved in the regiment.” Thus, because of his Christian faith, Havelock was one of the first officers to treat his men as individuals, not mere cogs in the military machine.

His influence went even wider, for in 1833 he petitioned the Commander-in-Chief for freedom of worship to Dissenters. Roman Catholics could be excused from the Church Parade, which was always Church of England, but not Dissenters. As a result of the petition of this then unknown officer, freedom of worship was accorded to all in the British Army, at home and abroad.

When Havelock became famous in the crisis of 1857, hundreds of humble soldiers who had served with him must have told their neighbours of what sort he was. In no other way can be explained the spontaneous acclamation of Havelock as above all else a Christian. Before he died he knew that his plain unvarnished witness, his long endurance in face of disappointment and calumny, had received the reward he most coveted—a national exaltation of Christ.

Henry Havelock should be set beside his contemporaries, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and beside Gordon of Khartoum, as a Christian soldier. He was not however, an eccentric like Gordon or austere and reserved like Jackson.

After his death a spate of biographies appeared on both sides of the Atlantic, fashioning him in pure white marble, a man of forbidding moral perfection. If that had been so he would have little message for the present age, which has no patience with unreality. But Havelock was not an angel but a Christian, a sinner saved by grace—human, and therefore a sinner to the end. His hopes and fears, his tendency to melancholy, his money-worries, his loneliness when parted by the exigencies of service from his wife, daughter of the great missionary Joshua Marshman, are all shown in his private letters which were recently discovered. Through them shines also his faith: “I have Jesus Christ to trust to and his presence to comfort me. Yet in this mortal state we do feel keenly. Pray for me.”

The inscription on Havelock’s grave, still to be seen at Lucknow, proclaims that his character was “the result of the influence of the Holy Spirit on his heart, and a humble reliance on the merits of a crucified Saviour.” Growth in grace continued to the end, and it was the final flowering of his character in circumstances of extreme provocation which at last brought his eldest son, a few days before Havelock’s death when they were serving together, to give his heart to Christ after long years of stubborn resistance.

Havelock’s life, in its excitement and interest, must appeal to young men on both sides of the Atlantic. His is a character that may be extolled as an example, and one which will attract. The vast majority of Christians serve God in ordinary avocations and Havelock’s example will help them to do it.

His secret was the friendship of Christ. And that remains his message. “It is a happy thing beyond description,” he once wrote, “to have a heavenly Father and a powerful Friend in whom to put our trust.”

J. C. Pollock is Editor of The Churchman, a quarterly journal of Anglican theology. He holds the M.A. degree from Trinity College, Cambridge. During World War II he served in the Coldstream Guards. His most recent book, The Road to Glory, published in England by John Murray, is the story of the distinguished Christian general, Havelock of Lucknow, of whom he writes in this article.

- More from J. C. Pollock

Cover Story

What Is Christian Separation?

L. David Cowie

A Christian is under the constant tension of being a citizen of two worlds. Paul said our citizenship is in heaven; yet had practical things to say about earthly rulers and our relationships to them. He counseled the Christians of Corinth not to marry because the persecutions ahead would make family living difficult, yet told another Greek church at Ephesus that wives should reverence their husbands, and husbands should love their wives. He practiced and preached an “other worldliness” in which one finds his satisfaction in the spiritual life, yet he illustrated that life in his letters by many references to the athletic events of his day, indicating a familiarity with them on his part and on the part of his readers.

The whole Christian movement shows this same tension. When our Lord taught about the kingdom of God, his opponents tried to impale him upon the horns of the dilemma of paying or not paying taxes to Rome, whereupon he asked for a coin. He asked whose image was on it, and they answered, “Caesar’s.” Then he who was the express image of God said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.” Keeping a proper relationship between the two has always been difficult for those who bear the family name of Heaven, yet whose Lord prayed, “I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one … as thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.” (John 17:15, 18). Keep this last statement in mind, as we shall endeavor to see some of its significance later.

The Ideal And The Relative

And so the tension has always been with us, caused by the ideal in a relative situation. For example, ideally a Christian would be an absolute pacifist, yet Cornelius the Centurion was not required to give up his soldier’s career to become a Christian. In any generation, war has been against the Christian conscience and yet the very paying of taxes to Caesar’s budget, or to Eisenhower’s, involves the Christian in a substantial support of the machinery of war.

In all of this, what is Christian separation? How can the Christian be in the world and not of it? The tension has found expression in various ways within the body of Christ. There have been those devoted souls who have gone to prison and death because they believed in “friendly persuasion” and would not fight, yet no objective observer would deny the sincere Christian faith of a General Montgomery or a General Sir Wm. Dobbie, or a General Douglas MacArthur. And General Eisenhower as a Christian President prepares for any eventuality, but becomes one of the greatest influences in our generation toward removing the causes of war.

Surely there is sincerity in the sacrifice of a St. Francis of Assisi who, for Christ’s sake, remains unmarried. But it is equally certain that more of the Christian faith has been passed on through Godly homes than through Godly monasteries.

On Worldly Pleasures

But this tension of Christian separation finds most of us run-of-the-mill Christians at the point of our participation in what some have called “worldly pleasures.” Here again there have been extremes in the church of Christ. On the one hand there have been those who have emphasized their “separateness” from the world by extreme asceticism in dress and manner, and a refusal to participate in anything which by their definition was “worldly.” On the other hand, men like Spurgeon, one of the greatest preachers of all time, and G. Campbell Morgan, one of the greatest Bible expositors of all time, each smoked “to the glory of God.” (Of course, the relation of smoking and lung cancer was unknown to them.)

Furthermore, many times those who are most rigid in their rules regarding separation are quite un-Christ-like in their attitudes toward people. And the monk finds that worldliness pursues him even in the rigors of his severely simple cell and in the disciplines of his holy orders.

What is Christian separation, then, in the realm of actual living—especially in matters of fellowship and fun? Is everything that gives pleasure wicked? Is it true, as one cynic remarked, that everything that is fun is either sinful, expensive, or fattening? Where can the lines be drawn? Let us lay aside our family or church mores for the moment. Let us set aside our personal prejudices, and examine the bases upon which the question can be decided objectively: What is Christian separation? What are the principles involved?

Specific Commands

First, we know that there are some things which are always right for an individual Christian or for the church of Christ. It is always right to tell the truth, to love God, and to love one’s neighbor. These are specific commands of God, and it is always right to fulfill them.

Second, there are some things that are always wrong for a Christian. It is always wrong to take the name of our Lord in vain, to bear false witness, to sow dissension or a party spirit. There are specific commands of God against such things, and therefore it is always sinful to do them.

However, in between what is commanded as always right and what is forbidden as always wrong there is a “no-man’s land” which is not governed by law, but guided by principle. This is a nonmoral realm where there is no clear command of God, and where the conscience of one sincere Christian may differ from that of another sincere Christian. Shall a Christian go to a show, or play cards, or dance? There is no clear command of God saying “Thou shalt” or “Thou shalt not.”

It is in this realm that we must be led by the Holy Spirit, not according to specific rules, but according to general principles.

In Romans 14:1–15:6 Paul sets forth those principles as:

1) Do not judge another in this realm (14:1–12). Until one abides by this first principle, he has not the humility to discover God’s will at all. “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?” (v. 4). It is not for us to say that another is either “worldly” or “narrow.” “It is before his own Master that he stands or falls” (v. 4).

2) Do not endanger another (14:13–21). A Christian has liberty in this non-moral realm. But liberty is not license. Christian love limits Christian liberty. “If your brother is being injured by what you eat (or do) you are no longer walking in love” (v. 15). Good judgment is required here, of course, or the narrowest view of the most immature Christian would become the standard for the whole church.

3) Whatever is against your own conscience is sin to you (14:22–23). “He who doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (v. 23). The Holy Spirit as the direction points, and the conscience as the needle, make the only compass we have in this realm. One must be careful that the needle is not deflected by his own willfulness, or by the conditioning of an unenlightened background.

4) Do everything to the glory of God (15:1–6), “… that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 6). The Christian is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Within that temple should be a perpetual paean of praise to God.

Use Of Proof-Texts

This brings us closer to the answer to the question: What is Christian separation?

At this point, caution is needed in the familiar practice of quoting “proof-texts” one way or another. A limb of Scripture cut off from the tree of its context can become a handy club to use on those who differ with us, but in the process loses its life and its ability to provide fruit and shade for a weary pilgrim. And it does violence to the tree of God’s revelation as a whole. For example, the writer has heard the text, “Come ye out and be ye separate. Touch not the unclean thing” (2 Cor. 6:17) used as an admonition against “things of the world,” or against remaining in a given denomination, or against being a part of the ecumenical church. Actually, the context (2 Cor. 6:14–18) reveals that Paul is referring to the Christian’s relation to the immoral pagan worship of Corinth. It is interesting to note here that in spite of all that was wrong with the Corinthian church, Paul nowhere urges the Christians of Corinth to be “come-outers.”

Another proof-text one hears in connection with Christian separation is “Love not the world, or the things that are in the world” (1 John 2:15). Surely it is an important admonition, but the context (vs. 16–17) reveals John is talking about attitudes within us rather than atmosphere around us. Because the Bible says that the love of money is the root of evil does not indicate that we are to have nothing to do with money.

Life Situations

Thus Biblical truth is best unfolded not in proof-texts, but in life situations. In the New Testament we see two illustrations of separation. First, there was the separation of John the Baptist, which one may designate as physical separation. He lived apart from people, ate different food, and wore different clothes. His only contact with people was to condemn them. Second, there was the separation of Jesus Christ, who, we must admit, was at least as holy as John the Baptist. Yet Christ’s first miracle was turning water into actual wine (better than the host had served) at a wedding feast which lasted several days and which had its share of fun and frolic. Later, He attended a banquet given by Matthew in his honor with some unsavory characters as fellow guests whose language and humor were probably not too sanctified. He did not physically separate himself from them, but his separation was spiritual. He could participate in the activities and the fun, but was not thereby lowered in his spiritual life.

He was what he was, wherever he was. His spiritual life was positive, and contagious, rather than negative and defensive.

Surely Christians are to be followers of Christ, rather than the Baptist. We are to be thermostats, rather than thermometers. We are not to be lowered by the temperature around us, nor kept in a hothouse where the temperature is just right. But we are given the Holy Spirit, so that when we are in contact with the world we draw upon God’s power to raise the temperature of our environment. If we do not have adequate resources for this, then we must resort to physical separation; but this is an evidence of spiritual impotence, rather than spiritual sanctification.

Danger Of Legalism

Remember, we are speaking of the nonmoral realm—the area in which God has given no clear command. Certainly we should not go beyond God in our zeal in these matters, and begin laying down rules for others. Yet it is a strange fact in the Christian church that often evangelicalism in doctrine has been associated with legalism in practice. As soon as an individual Christian or a church moves into the realm of legalism, there is no limit nor consistency possible. The following examples are taken from the experiences of the writer: Shall it be consistent with spirituality to wear a red tie? or lipstick, or jewelry? or to listen to popular music; or see a motion picture? or look at television, or use oblong pieces of pasteboard that have one pattern on them and are called rook cards, but not another pattern and are called bridge cards, although the principle of the two games is the same? Or for a group of young people to play “Birdie on the Perch” because it is called a game, but not the Virginia reel because it is called a “dance,” although both are done with music, and the former has far more physical contact than the latter? Or to go on a hayride, but not a hoe-down, because the first is a ride and the second is a “dance,” although any chaperone will be quick to declare that the ride is far more apt to lead to undesirable consequences than the wholesome activity of folk games.

Questions Of Conscience

Or is it the location of a pastime that makes it sanctified or unsanctified? (Remember, we are still in the realm of questions of conscience—not of morals.) Is the square dance (or folk game) wrong because it is under secular auspices, and held outside of the social hall of a church building? Or does that make it right?

Or is the activity wrong because it is worldly? Then who shall decide what is or is not worldly? Is it worldly to go to a show, but not to go to a basketball or football game? Yet there is often drinking, smoking, and betting going on at such athletic contests. Are those things worldly? Is it worldly to eat Sunday dinner during the summer on one’s own patio? Then does it become worldly when one doesn’t have a patio, so eats in a park—because that becomes a picnic?

It should be obvious by now that to become legalistic in questions of conscience is to become as hopelessly enmeshed in the net of private judgment as the Pharisees of Christ’s day—who interpreted the law of the Sabbath by their own regulations and thus destroyed its spirit. Because of their preconceived prejudices, they missed the meaning of the ministry of the Messiah. (Read carefully John’s Gospel, chapter seven.)

Instead of legalism, God gives his Holy Spirit (John 7:37–39) that we should make all of life an expression of his life. And the fruit of the Spirit is love—against such there is no law (Gal. 5:22, 23).

In other words, the Christian life is the expression of the law of love and humility. It was Pharisaical legalism that put Christ upon the cross and it crucifies him afresh today.

On the other hand, love limits Christian liberty (1 Cor. 8). My liberty as a Christian is not a license to hurt the Body of Christ. Although all things in this nonmoral realm are lawful unto me, not all things are expedient. Christian maturity seeks to build up, rather than destroy the church. But both legalism and license destroy rather than build.

Thus, Christian separation is to be like Christ, who was what he was, wherever he was, and who epitomized attractiveness, understanding, kindness and good fellowship, consistent with a beauty of holiness which made God real in every situation.

L. David Cowie is minister of University Presbyterian Church, Seattle, Washington. He is a member of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.

- More from L. David Cowie

The Fate of Protestants in Colombia (Part II)

Clyde W. Taylor

On August 28, 1957, an ostensibly complete report on Colombia was given out by the Most Reverend Philip M. Hannan, Auxiliary Bishop of Washington, after a visit to Colombia. We understand he spent eight days in Bogota and visited the hierarchy there. He reported that Protestant missionaries in Colombia have been victims of political strife rather than religious persecution. He added that some missionaries were unfortunately linked with political parties and had suffered in consequence. But the fact is that no missionary has suffered because of political activity.

We challenge the American hierarchy that issued this statement to give one lone incident of an American missionary involved in Colombian politics and suffering on that account. Colombian Christians, of course have been in politics and are encouraged to take an interest in affairs of their nation. But our missionaries have as a primary rule to avoid all political activity in any country and that includes Colombia.

Another denial of Roman Catholic persecution came after Methodist Bishop Uberti Barbieri of Argentina, Bolivia and Uruguay spoke before the World Council of Churches meeting in New Haven and requested the Central Committee to take action concerning persecution of Protestants in Latin America. The reply was given August 17 by Father John E. Kelly of the Public Relations Bureau of National Catholic Welfare Conference in Washington. He noted that there have been limitations on Catholic activity in Norway, Denmark and Sweden but ignored the fact that there has been no violence against Catholics there. There have been restrictions but in most cases even these have been removed in recent years. This action by Lutherans of those areas, moreover, has not been condoned by Protestantism at large.

In answering Bishop Barbieri’s charges of persecution, Roman Catholic leaders seem to rely most on an ex-newspaperman who traveled rather widely through Latin America more than ten years ago. This so-called Protestant, Mr. John W. White—who, curiously enough, sells most of his articles to the National Catholic Press—is unrecognized as a Protestant.

The next trip was made by Father Kelly to a Catholic press meeting in Bogota. Father Kelly did travel across Colombia. For example, he visited La Cumbre, talked with the missionaries, saw the burnt walls of the house and heard the reports. He was told that sworn testimony was available to him in the mayor’s office (this data was gathered also by U. S. and Canadian consuls who personally investigated the attack). Yet Father Kelly returned to this country and said there had been no persecution. Against this type of malicious reporting, the facts speak for themselves.

Hope For Improvement

The official release sent out by the Catholic News Service (September, 1957) contains one or two bright spots. We are told that the Roman Catholic Church authorities in Colombia have finally declared that they “recognize the right of non-Catholic Christians” in that South American country “freely to practice their own religion.” We are also pleased that they are going to put into effect some opposition to persecution. We hope they carry out this promise. They also pledge that the “Catholic authorities in Colombia … shall never order, encourage or approve any act of violence against our non-Catholic brethren.” We can heartily say “Amen” to that, if it will be carried out. This statement was issued by the Secretariat for the Defense of the Faith, an agent of the Colombian Catholic bishops. The Secretariat conceded that “in various places, ways and occasions Protestants in Colombia have suffered violence inflicted by Colombian Catholics.” But it denied charges of “Catholic persecution of Protestants in Colombia.”

This illustrates that Roman Catholicism admits no persecution unless the Church orders it. You can destroy 49 churches, confiscate 34 more, murder 89 church leaders for exclusively religious reasons (entirely divorced from politics), frequently on orders of local clergy, and yet this is not persecution! The fact that a hundred thousand Colombians have been killed in the political disturbances since 1947 provides no justification of the fact that evangelical churches have been burned and confiscated and believers murdered because they were preaching the Gospel or possessed a New Testament. Since most persecution of Protestants was on a local basis, does the Roman Catholic Church repudiate such action where its priests were involved, and is the Church willing to discipline those of its hierarchy guilty of this bloody and hateful action? If so, we could suggest as an eligible candidate Father Millan of La Cumbre, who according to sworn testimony was directly involved in arson attempt on the missionaries there a year ago last summer. Moreover, we would ask the hierarchy for specific instances of Protestants who “directly attack and ridicule Catholic beliefs and devotions.” This is one of their frequent accusations, but we do not believe this exists, and have no record of it in the last ten years. They say that Protestant missionaries from small sects entering Colombia since 1948 have caused most of this trouble. This is false, for new Protestant missionaries have been refused entrance into Colombia for ten years. Furthermore, all missions named have been there for many years. The charge of Protestant proselytizing, frequently made, should also be considered in view of the fact that a majority of Colombian Catholics are totally inactive as far as their church is concerned. It may well be that many of these are reached by the Gospel message preached by evangelical missionaries and pastors. The nature of religious freedom allows difference of opinion and change of religious affiliation in accord with personal beliefs.

Right Of Religious Liberty

Evangelical missionaries are not seeking the ill will of the Colombian government or Colombian people. They are only seeking freedom to preach the good news of salvation by simple faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. This right has been fully guaranteed in principle by the Colombian Constitution.

In view of many published denials, we call attention to an editorial in the world-famous daily newspaper of Bogota, El Tiempo, on September 17, 1957:

Freedom of religion is not a gracious concession of the mayor or a donation of the authorities, but a right made sacred by the national Constitution. It is the subject matter of an international commitment, since it forms part of the Charter of Human Rights, which has been signed by Colombia, even though it has not always been observed. The violations of freedom of religion are no more to be excused than the abuse of the other rights of mankind, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to travel, or freedom of political views. But in communities where a specific religion is greatly in the majority there is a tendency to minimize the importance of guaranteeing the rights of minorities, which, the smaller they may be, the more they are exposed to suffering oppression.…

There are those who have pretended to justify the persecution of Protestants by claiming that they have abused the right of religious liberty by making political proselytes. If this refers to foreign heretics, the provisions of common law should be applied to their case which prohibits them from mixing into the party strife of the Colombians. And if it refers to Colombians, this right of theirs should be respected, for they have not lost it by the failure to practice the religion of the rest. Under no circumstances is the spectacle to be condoned—which has been repeated many a time in this country until quite recently—of the stoning of Protestant churches by mobs organized and egged on by fanatics, irresponsible persons or demagogues who stir up primitive passions for their own selfish purposes. Persecution of religious minorities, carried out with the complicity or under the direction of the very authorities, in the past (but not in the remote past) has been our national shame in the eyes of the world, notwithstanding the pretexts with which there have been attempts to justify it.

We applaud the statement by El Tiempo, one of the papers long silenced by fanatics, and now under the new government free to speak again. In itself the editorial supplies quite an answer to those who deny that there has been such trouble.

In conclusion, we rejoice that the advent of the new government implies a sincere effort to restore the freedom and the culture for which Colombia was distinguished ten years ago, before the political violence was initiated by fanatical elements in Colombia in 1947. The present government has released a number of evangelical Christians, some of whom have been in prison for over two years with no charges preferred against them. The government has suggested that steps may be taken to open churches that were illegally closed in violation of the Constitution. Just recently the Minister of Government has sent out personal letters to the governors of the provinces of Bolivar, Santander, Antioquia, Cauca, Huila, Boyaca, Cundinamarca authorizing them to open the churches that have been illegally closed by the past government. These churches total 34. One large church in the so-called mission territories, that of Barrancabermeja, a church seating some 1,600, was ordered open August 16 by government order. This still leaves over 40 churches closed in mission territories under an agreement signed with the Vatican during the last regime. This same agreement not only closed down all the Protestant churches in approximately 60% of Colombian territory but all Protestant schools, numbering approximately 200. It is hoped that the new government will also observe the Constitutional rights of its people if they desire to have their own places of worship and their own schools in these areas as well. During these last ten years the Colombian government has refused absolutely to allow American missionaries as such to enter the country. The new government has just issued permits for nine teachers and pastors to enter Colombia to assist in the schools and pastoral work there. We congratulate the new government of Colombia on these steps to guarantee personal and national freedom and to restore Colombia to the international respect it deserves. We trust it will not be hindered by religious pressures and intrigue that would only curtail its return to international respect among freedom-loving peoples.

Clyde W. Taylor, M.A., Th.B., D.D., directs the Office of Public Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals in Washington, D. C., where he is the official spokesman of evangelicals to the U. S. and foreign governments. A world traveler, he has personally gathered the materials presented here and is largely responsible for the present hope for improvement in the Colombian situation.

- More from Clyde W. Taylor

Theology

The Warping of American Conscience

Paul Harvey

In my multi-engine airplane there are two of everything. Two engines require much duplication of controls and gauges, but why two compasses? It’s because you’ll catch one of them lying to you sometimes. Because of other attractions and distractions, a generally dependable magnetic compass will sometimes look you squarely in the eye and lie about which way is north. When that happens—when your compass gets out of kilter—you have to ground your airplane, reswing the compass, readjust it, until it tells the truth again.

A man’s conscience is subject to similar deflection, Or a nation’s conscience. And as surely as a bad compass, pointing the wrong way, can lead you into trouble, so can a cockeyed conscience.

Beside your bed is an alarm clock. A dependable, trusted instrument capable of awakening you at six o’clock in the morning—unless you forget to wind it. There is another way you can cancel out its effectiveness—ignore it. If morning after morning you are awakened by the alarm but refuse to heed it, eventually it will cease to alert you. It may not even awaken you. Ignore it long enough and you’ll cease to hear it. In this case the clock is still there and still accurate and still ringing, but you don’t let it bother you anymore.

A man can deafen himself to his conscience the same way. A nation can do the same.

The Meter Is Bent

I find the struggle with my own compass, my own alarm clock, my own conscience, is a constant one.

Man comes into the world equipped with a brain and a conscience. Each must be educated to work properly or it is unreliable.

Manhattan’s mad bomber seemed such a delightful fellow. He liked flowers, had a cheerful disposition, made a pleasing appearance. But somewhere back there the built-in gauge that tells a man the difference between right and wrong got damaged. The needle was bent.

Suddenly what was morally wrong seemed morally right and he went around planting time-bombs in public places. He still had a conscience, but it wasn’t working right. So society disposes of Mr. George Metesky with one uncomplimentary adjective and locks him and his unreliable conscience in a place of confinement.

Yet the needle in the conscience meter is bent, if to a lesser degree, in most of us. We have gradually “adjusted our consciences” to where we are now against burlesque shows in a downtown theater. We say they are “wrong.” Yet we, through TV, feel no conscience anymore as we invite a burlesque show into the family parlor.

Or we say it is all right for the dancing girls to wiggle in all manner of suggestive undulation, but all wrong when a guitar-playing boy does the same thing.

See how unreliable your conscience can be? I am not being smug about this. I could not evaluate it so thoroughly if I did not understand it so personally. I know how a conscience meter can get out of repair.

From The Mount

And each man must regulate, adjust, oil, maintain and service his own conscience to keep it properly in tune with the laws Moses brought down from the mountain.

In national and international affairs, our sometimes contradictory policies result from a “bent needle.” A “compass” that is trying to tell us that north is two different places, and it’s not really.

The Apostle Paul once wrote a letter to the Romans telling them how man was supposed to follow God; not try to make God over into his own image. Yet this is the tendency. And so, “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

A man can’t make his own rules as he goes along, for then he goes in circles. We cannot make our own morals. We will either return to the Sermon on the Mount or we will destroy ourselves.

The Republic which was born in Philadelphia will have to be born again. If the Republic is to live, it must be fit to live.

This earthly while is a testing time, determining which of us deserves to populate some more perfect place. Americans have been especially favored. But there is another way to say that: We are being singularly tested. More than most, our seven per cent of the earth’s people have been abundantly endowed with the material blessings which invite sloth. Americans, then, must preserve, protect and defend this garden spot or surely they will have failed to measure up to any higher responsibility.

General Charles Lindbergh said, “We have measured success by our products rather than by ourselves. A medium which over-emphasizes short term survival detracts from the humanism essential to long term survival. We must remember that it was not the outer grandeur of the Roman’s but the inner simplicity of the Christians that lived on through the ages.”

Can the decline of American morality be reversed? Can our warped conscience be set straight?

God would have spared Sodom if he could have found ten righteous men. That was all he asked. Ten good men and he’d have spared the city.

Badness, resulting from an unreliable conscience, from misdirected emotions, wrote every black headline in today’s paper. Every one. On the other hand, properly ordered emotions are the basis for love, friendship, kindness, mercy.

We have been figuring religion is just for small children and old ladies. One hundred and three million churchgoers are more than ever before. Half again what attendance was ten years ago. Church attendance has increased far faster than our population has increased.

Yet, at the same time, prison rolls have climbed at the fastest rate in history. How come? How come some ninety-four million get a Sunday morning shower bath and yet so many don’t come clean?

The Republic, born in Philadelphia, can be born again … only … one man at a time!

Richard Lloyd Jones said: “We must begin again.” And the hour is late. So many stand to lose so much.

Jesus said: “Ye must be born again,” and the time is short.

Sigmund Romberg, for the lyric score of New Moon wrote, “Give me ten men, stout-hearted men, who will fight for the right they adore. Give me ten men, stout-hearted men, and I’ll soon give you ten thousand more.”

That’s the way it works. Ten men raise their voices and Jericho falls. Ten righteous men and Sodom and Gormorrah may be spared.

Ten … to inspire ten thousand to lead us … back to the Genesis of American Liberty … back to a reliance on “Divine Providence” and “Sacred Honor.”

We must return to the God of our fathers, for it is to him that we owe all blessings of the past and hope for the future. Then the law of the Lord will again be the respected law of this land. Then we’ll be worth saving.

After World War II, in which he served as Director of News and Information for the Office of War Information in Michigan and Indiana, Paul Harvey’s rise to radio fame was meteoric. He is heard over the ABC network Monday through Friday at 12 noon, CST.

- More from Paul Harvey

Share

Genuineness Of II Thessalonians

Relationship Of The Two Epistles

Content Of The Epistles

Literature

Share

Share

Yale’S Historic Role

Authority Of Scripture

Central Point Lacking

Share

Share

Share

Share

Beyond The Breach

A Call To Both Sides

Scientific Procedure

Dominating Assumptions

Subjective Factors

Biblical Approach

Role Of Investigation

Inroads Of Rationalism

Share

Share

True Patriotism

Outside Of History

Strength Of Tradition

Dignity And Conscience

Our Greatest Need

Four Steps To Take

Share

Share

Encounter With Scientific Humanism

Biblical, Spiritual Illiteracy

The Road Ahead

Gambling For The Seamless Robe

Share

Share

Saint And Soldier

For Temperance, Dignity

Share

Share

The Ideal And The Relative

On Worldly Pleasures

Specific Commands

Use Of Proof-Texts

Life Situations

Danger Of Legalism

Questions Of Conscience

Share

Share

Hope For Improvement

Right Of Religious Liberty

Share

Share

The Meter Is Bent

From The Mount

Share