Archaeology and the Bible

Until about a century ago virtually all knowledge of the ancient Near East stemmed ultimately from the Bible. Nearly all history of Egyptian, Babylonian, Hittite and Persian empires and monarchs was derived either directly from biblical accounts or indirectly from ancient literature, which itself went back to early biblical records. It is difficult for us today to appreciate this significant fact, since we now enjoy possession of hundreds of thousands of original documents from these lands, some going back almost 3,000 years before Christ. In addition, the major museums of the world contain fabulous collections of utilitarian and artistic objects, fashioned by people living in this region, which cover an even longer period of time.

Lands and people once known to us only from biblical references and, strangely enough, sometimes considered mythical or fictional for that reason only, are now known in greater detail upon the basis of the very artifacts those people made and the documents they inscribed. All this has resulted from the archaeological researches in ancient Bible lands, first carried out in a scientific manner as distinguished from earlier treasure hunts or reports of curious but unskilled travelers—in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Accordingly, it is now possible to reconstruct in remarkable detail the ritual worship of Egyptian priests, the curriculum of Sumerian schoolboys, and the court life of Assyrian kings who lived and died ages ago. In truth, much of the world of Abraham, Moses, David and Daniel has come alive again through the diligent skills of the excavator’s spade and the scholar’s pen.

Perhaps the most important question to which these discoveries have given rise is their bearing upon the historical records of the Bible. In general, there are two opposite opinions. Some hold that although many historical statements in the Bible agree with the facts determined by archaeological studies, in at least as many instances the new findings point up errors in the Bible, especially in the earlier periods and the prophetic books. Others believe that there is perfect and complete agreement between the two sources of data. In fact, however, both positions are incorrect. The fundamental error of the first is its assumption of equal or superior validity and consequent authority for the partial data of science over the records of the Bible. The fallacy of the second is its assumption that human interpretation of observed data in archaeological science is as reliable as divine revelation concerning historic events recorded in the Bible. Such false assumptions have inevitably led both opponents and proponents of the Bible to make improper use of archaeological data in relation to the biblical text.

Bearing On The Bible

This tendency manifests itself characteristically in the use of the word “prove” when describing the function of archaeology with relationship to the Bible. It has led, for example, to such statements as “recent excavations at Jericho have shown that this city did not exist as a significant settlement at the time of Joshua, thereby proving that the biblical tradition of Joshua chapter six is false,” or, on the other hand, “flood deposits at Ur prove that the biblical flood actually occurred.” As a matter of fact, neither the chronological data regarding Jericho nor the interpretation of “flood” evidence at Ur are so certain that they can be cited as superior to and hence either corrective to or confirmatory of the Bible.

To illustrate: let us suppose that the citizens of a small town begin to question whether they are getting full measure when they purchase in the local shops. They feel they are getting less than the yards of goods they pay for. Having been informed that all standards in use in the town must conform with the national standard in Washington, D. C., the skeptical citizens decide to check the national standard for accuracy. In order to do so, one citizen acquires a cloth tape measure, another a steel measuring tape, and yet another a wooden yardstick. And they all entrain for Washington. Upon arrival they proceed to the Bureau of Standards and request the opportunity to apply their several manifestly approximate measures to the platinum meter bar, which is the accepted national standard of accurate measurement, in an attempt to discover whether or not their measures are, in fact, long enough. Such insane behavior would certainly have been detected at an early stage and the travelers would have been hurried off to confinement, reserved for persons of known mental aberration. Yet, this identical procedure is followed by multitudes of respected scientists and misguided Christians who are apparently unaware that it is folly to apply final criticism of the Scriptures by use of the, at the very best, relative criteria of scientific truth.

Value And Function

What then is the value and function of archaeological materials as related to the Bible? There are two areas where this rich body of data, so recently discovered and still accumulating, is very useful. It provides the Christian with abundant material to fill in the background of biblical history, thus giving better perspective. It also helps to correct many mistaken concepts regarding biblical history, which have raised honest questions in the minds of persons seeking to understand the Bible.

In the first place, we must recognize that although the Bible gives a true picture of the history it records, it does not necessarily convey a balanced picture of ancient Near East history, and for very good reasons. The purpose of the Bible is not to record ancient history but rather the history of God’s redemptive plan for fallen man. Therefore, it treats general history selectively, incorporating only those events bearing on God’s special dealing with men for salvation. As a result, the most important periods of Egyptian and early Babylonian history receive no mention whatever while relatively minor rulers in Egypt and Syria are often featured prominently. Had we no other material at hand than that which the Bible affords, our picture of general history in the ancient Near East would be seriously distorted and out of proportion. Archaeological data, on the other hand, allow us to appreciate the development of biblical history against the total background.

For example, we now recognize that the dynasty of David and Solomon witnessed the only significant local empire in recorded Palestinian history, and this fact throws light on the biblical ascription of glory to the reign of Solomon. Furthermore, we now appreciate the political climate in which this empire flourished when archaeology shows that the major powers surrounding Palestine at that time were in marked decline either through internal upheaval or general disintegration. In short, we see how God prepared the times for his people.

In later periods archaeological records help us to visualize the power of the Assyrian empire and the might of its vast armies campaigning far and wide. Official records and reliefs from the royal palaces make it easy to sympathize with Hezekiah as he trembled at the thunderous approach of the invading host. They also highlight the power of God to deliver his embattled people when they placed their firm trust in him.

These same materials can be used to destroy the common misconception that the Bible is at worst simply religious myth and at best chauvinistic, unreliable local history, by demonstrating the numerous remarkable and detailed parallels between biblical history and the contemporaneous secular records of the same events. But it must be pointed out and strongly emphasized that approval or agreement of the secular documents can only lift the biblical records to their own level—that of relatively accurate accounts of current events made by fallible men—and by no means establish the complete reliability of the biblical text. There are sufficient evidences of error and bias in archaeological records to show their limitations in this respect. But even within these limitations much helpful material abounds and is a welcome corrective to the irresponsible extreme criticisms of earlier days, which, strangely enough, still live on in the popular mind long after their refutation by solid facts.

Spiritual Greatness

But the multitude of data collected by a century’s research into the past history of the ancient Near East also emphasizes the sharp contrast between the people of Israel and their neighbors. Always and in almost every form decidedly inferior to the surrounding pagan nations around in technical skills and material culture, Israel nonetheless possessed an ethical religion far above them all. Egyptian papyri, for example, witness to a highly developed science of both medicine and surgery long before Israel’s national history began, and one which continued long after the southern kingdom had ceased to exist. Moreover, temples and sculpture of Egypt demonstrate architectural and artistic skill and feeling far beyond anything ever produced in Palestine. It is noteworthy that almost without exception when skilled craftsmen were needed for public works in Israel and Judah, the biblical text points out that they were imported from outside. Nevertheless, the host of confused and often conflicting gods of Egyptian religious texts and the worship of them bespeak concepts of deity far below the material achievements of the same people, and woefully inferior to the theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, whose concept of “ethical monotheism” is acknowledged by all scholars as unique in the ancient world.

Likewise, we marvel at the advanced stage that Babylonian mathematical science had reached well before the time of Moses, as hundreds of clay tablets indicate familiarity with many principles long thought to have been Greek contributions to science. In addition, we find such technical skills as metallurgy, sculpture in various materials, and gem cutting developed in Mesopotamia even before the days of recorded history, to a degree never approached by the people of Israel. Once again, however, as in Egypt, the picture of squabbling, scheming gods seen in the Babylonian documents evidences a religious morality quite opposite to that of the Bible.

Morality And Technical Skill

The truth established by these sharp contrasts is a highly significant one, cutting across the basic assumption in the interpretation of anthropology. The marked disparity between cultural and psychical achievements in Egypt, Babylonia and Israel should teach us not to assume any necessary link between the two in the course of human history. Yet an axiom of anthropological science is the assumption that psychical development in man will follow closely his improvement of technical skills. Ancient man with simple tools, we are told, have naive ideas concerning religion. As his tools became more complicated, his theology became more sophisticated. The basic premise for such reasoning is the broad concept of organic evolution implicitly held by the majority of present-day scientists. Therefore the line of argument is understandable, but not acceptable. The Bible tells us of a man whose level of culture development was absolutely minimal. He would be described in scientific terms of today as a simple agriculturist with, so far as we can determine, a primitive tool industry, no knowledge of fire, and actually no domestication of selected animals (all were obedient to him). Yet this man had intimate personal converse with God in a way not possible for anyone today. Can any contrast be greater than that?

This account of Adam is often rejected today. But the principle that no necessary correlation exists between technology and theology has been demonstrated over and over again.

We might even cite here examples of the exact opposite to Adam, namely, cases of extremely advanced technical skill and yet incredibly retrogressive religion and morality. During World War II scientists from a nation in the forefront of technology committed barbaric atrocities unknown in the civilized world for centuries, while the nation itself, once a cradle of Protestant Christianity, officially reintroduced the worship of long forgotten pagan deities. The biblical pattern of human development agrees with history, even if both contradict the theories of anthropology.

Both opponents and proponents of the Bible err when they reverse the order of authority, which distinguishes the data discovered by scientific investigation and facts received by divine revelation. Whether their purpose is to attack or to defend the historicity of the Bible makes no difference. Neither archaeology nor any other science affords evidence of a character equal to the task.

Francis Rue Steele was Assistant Professor of Assyriology at University of Pennsylvania from 1947–53, and also Assistant Curator of the Babylonian Section of the University Museum. Since then he has led the North Africa Mission as Home Secretary. Twice he has been annual professor of the Bagdad School of the American Schools of Oriental Research. He holds the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from University of Pennsylvania.

- More from Francis R. Steele

Theology

Christians and Gentlemen

L. Nelson Bell

A little girl is said to have offered this prayer: “Dear God, make more people Christians and more Christians nice.”

Whether this anecdote is apocryphal or not, the underlying thought should concern all Christians. Only too often we Christians seem to overlook the niceties of human relations at the personal level. In so doing we are of little credit to the faith we profess.

The present usage of the word “gentleman” carries the connotation of one who is kind, gentle, considerate and thoughtful of the feelings and sensibilities of others. Unfortunately, the words “Christian” and “gentleman” cannot always be used synonymously.

A Christian should be one who exercises control of temper, speech and action. Yet some lose their tempers and even make an unfortunate exhibition of themselves in public places. Furthermore, Christians are often regrettably guilty of harshness of speech in speaking of others, including fellow Christians. And, Christians often act in such a manner that the worldling would never guess that they are other than pagans with more or less of a cultural veneer.

It is obvious that many, who, by the standards of this world are gentlemen, are in no sense Christians. It is equally true that some Christians can hardly be classed as gentlemen.

One of the things this world needs is people who combine both—people with the spiritual insights and morals of a Christian and the manners of a gentleman.

Why should we who profess the name of Christ, the One “altogether lovely,” disgrace that Name by failing to meet the standard such an allegiance demands?

The answer is we fail to make Christ the Lord of our lives. Furthermore, we fail to appropriate to ourselves the Christian graces and to show the fruit of the indwelling Spirit when with others.

This is a matter of grave concern. The witness for Christ in a needy world is so often lost because of the behavior of the very people to whom men should look. That this is a scandal no one should deny. That it can be changed we all should admit. That some of us do not stop to recognize our own share in this unhappy situation is the occasion for writing this article. Let us consider:

A Christian gentleman will be slow to lose patience, despite the fact that people may be very trying. This ability to be patient is a Christian grace which will carry us over some very difficult experiences and enable us to rise above them to the satisfaction of our own souls and also to the glory of God.

A Christian gentleman will look for a way to be constructive when provoked to be the very opposite. How easy to quench the smouldering flax or destroy the bruised reed, but how very worthwhile to conserve and strengthen that glimmer of good we can find in others if we but look for it.

A Christian gentleman will not envy the good fortune of others, nor will he belittle the achievements and recognitions others may receive, even when he feels that they might have been more fittingly bestowed upon himself.

A Christian gentleman will refrain from trying to impress others with his own importance. The worthy qualities of character and his achievements in life will eventually become known. To boast of them or to try to make them obvious is but to tarnish their original beauty. Nothing so detracts from a man as conceit and, because God hates pride, it can prove our complete undoing.

A Christian gentleman will have good manners. One does not have to be born in a palace to observe the amenities of life. Some of the most courteous people we have ever known were those to whom had been denied many of the social advantages possessed by others. But the courtesy, sense of propriety, and the demeanor they exhibited to others showed beyond a doubt that true culture is a matter of the heart and not of social standing.

A Christian gentleman will refrain from being “touchy,” even when he feels strongly that he has a right to resent the attitude of others. Many a Christian testimony has been lost by those who are easily provoked. Self restraint is needed, also a willingness to take an injustice on the chin if in so doing we can honor Christ.

A Christian gentleman will think the best, not the worst of others, and he will look for good and not for the evil. He will try to be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove in handling others.

A Christian gentleman will not gloat over the wickedness of other people. In the theological realm he will rejoice whenever the Truth is preached, regardless of where or by whom, and he will not rush to expose every error he may discover but will try to cover it with the Truth itself.

A Christian gentleman will exhibit, above all else, the love of Christ in his heart and life, exercising by God’s help the graces necessary to show that this love is practical and unselfish.

If in the foregoing paragraphs there has been a paraphrasing of parts of the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians (with the help of Phillips), we make no apology for having done so.

A Christian and a gentleman must do two things: take the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour and make him the Lord of life and appropriate to daily use the fruit of his indwelling Spirit.

We have seen many exhibitions of temper, of lovelessness, of harshness, of ill advised language, of just plain bad manners on the part of people who are unquestionably Christians. We shudder to think of the loss of Christian witness which is involved. The obvious reason is that too many of us remain babes in Christ, never growing to be mature Christians and by that failure miss great blessings for ourselves while we dishonor the name “Christian.”

This side of eternity none of us can be perfect. We are still in the flesh and we know only part of the picture, seeing even that as a baffling reflection. But this is no excuse for behaving as children, nor is it an excuse for failing to live by the grace and strength of the living Christ who wills that we should honor Him in every avenue and contact of life.

This is a matter of grave importance because it touches on a weakness of so many of us. A little courtesy, tact, good judgment, restraint, loving consideration of the feelings of others; all of these things can go so far to commend the faith we profess. Nor are we speaking of a kind of “satanic sweetness” which is nothing but sugar-coated pride.

The world needs more Christian gentlemen (and gentlewomen) who, for the glory of the Lord who has redeemed them, will let their lights shine before men.

With spiritual understanding and high morals? Yes. And in addition, with what the world will recognize as good manners in all of our personal contacts with others.

L. NELSON BELL

- More from L. Nelson Bell

Ideas

Doctrinal Consensus and Conflict

The Editors

At its United States Faith and Order Conference in Oberlin, the World Council of Churches drew up a series of section reports which it referred to member churches for study. The issues debated in ecumenical circles today are issues that involve the churches at large. While ecumenical conferences need not supply the orbit around which biblical and doctrinal study revolves, it is heartening to see such concerns raised with new earnestness. The neglect of biblical and theological studies by any church or association of churches quickly results in ambiguity and misunderstanding. Evangelicals within the ecumenical movement have a special obligation to scrutinize the faith and order reports, and evangelicals outside the movement will also do well to familiarize themselves with the precise positions adopted and rejected, and to engage in earnest theological study on their own account.

Of the twelve sections into which the Oberlin conference subdivided, that on “Doctrinal Consensus and Conflict” was in some respects the most significant. The reports of all the sections will be published in January by Bethany Press under the title The Nature of the Unity We Seek. By special permission, CHRISTIANITY TODAY in this issue carries the report of the section dealing with doctrinal issues. For evangelical Christians, the center of interest is here. They are eager to discover in what sense the ecumenical movement understands its confession that Jesus Christ is God and Saviour.

The report on “Doctrinal Consensus and Conflict” singles out three special areas “in which further agreement needs to be reached before we can move toward closer oneness.” They are: the nature of the Church, its ministry and its sacrament; the nature of the authority and inspiration of the Bible; the nature of the unity we seek. Evangelicals will appreciate the realistic view that honest, intellectual agreement in these areas must precede any unity in which there can be mutual confidence. An unrealistic view would assume that genuine and essential unity exists apart from such questions, and that their solution may be deferred pending closer fellowship.

As the evangelical Christian scans the Oberlin report on doctrine for special study, he will be inclined to press certain questions for special examination. Among them are these:

a) Is it proper to speak of “a common faith” and of “a common witness” in the absence of common doctrinal beliefs? Does not the extent of doctrinal unity define the extent of common faith and witness? Is genuine faith really devoid of intellectual content?

b) What view of Atonement is implied by “the sacrificial Saviour of the world in whom God bore the sins of mankind.…”? Does “sacrificial Saviour” mean the sacrifice of the Saviour on the cross, i.e., the propitiation, or is this phrase intended to deny such a sacrifice?

c) What view of the person and natures of Christ is implied by “the Incarnate Word of God … the divine-human Lord and Saviour”?

d) Why are some members of the ecumenical movement dissatisfied with the formula that Jesus Christ is “God and Saviour”? What are the several meanings these words can be made to bear? Are all interpretations of this formula equally valid?

e) Is it an illustration of destructive conflict springing from sin when churches remain outside the ecumenical orbit because they require satisfactory answers to such questions (as religious knowledge and the nature of the human and the divine in Jesus Christ)?

f) What bearing on the Protestant principle of authority has the emphasis on “the centrality of the biblical revelation in Christian doctrine … both as the record of the mighty acts of God … and also as the source of intelligible truths expressed in inspired words, whereby the message of our redemption can be spelled out”? How also is the Protestant principle of authority affected by “the witness of Holy Scripture, confirmed and interpreted by the witness of the Holy Spirit in the Church, as the sine qua non of authentic Christian doctrine”? Does this or does it not halt short of the historic evangelical emphasis on divinely revealed truths constitutive of authoritative Christian doctrine? Does it not seem that “revelation as witnessed in Scripture and received in the Church through the Spirit,” and that “the authority of the Faith … is located in the Scriptures, the historic tradition of the Church, and the continuing work of the Spirit” differ from the traditional view of Scripture revelation? Does it mean that the supreme norm for judging all controversies of religion can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures; or does it mean that there is a living voice in the church organization and that some contemporary majority vote is the voice of God?

g) Does “diversity of doctrine” really reflect “the riches of God’s grace and the diversity of his gifts to the Church” or does it reflect the limitations, the finitude, and the sinful nature of the human mind? Is there “Christian liberty and responsibility” to “interpret Christian truth in varied ways.…”? Is the idea of authoritative doctrine to be excluded? Does not Christian unity ideally seek an unchanging system of doctrine?

Such questions could be multiplied at length. But these at least will indicate some significant points of contact for the evangelical effort to appraise present ecumenical thought in the realm of doctrinal considerations. As a service to readers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, the Oberlin report is printed below.

REPORT OF SECTION 2 DOCTRINAL CONSENSUS AND CONFLICT

I. Introduction

In reporting the results of its discussions on “Doctrinal Consensus and Conflict,” the members of this section wish first to record their gratitude for the privilege of having been participants in an earnest doctrinal discussion involving representatives of so many of the Christian communions. The breadth of its official and unofficial representation alone constitutes a significant historical event and an ecumenical accomplishment.

The section was specifically asked to study a) the degree and kind of consensus in faith which binds us together, b) the extent and significance of our common use of the historic confessions, c) the degree of conformity and freedom in faith which should be considered essential to Christian unity, d) the points of conflict in the realm of doctrine, e) the kind of consensus which should precede union as distinguished from that which can only develop after closer fellowship, and f) the diversity which is appropriate in view of our allegiance to Jesus Christ.

The section had at its disposal the findings of three study groups which had engaged in discussions and studies related to the specific assignment of the section over a two-year period (Saskatoon, Vancouver, Minneapolis). The Saskatoon group arrived at a very high degree of consensus, centering in the Person of Christ and the Word of God, and extending into many aspects of the doctrine of the Church. This group holds that “the unity we seek to express under God should be sufficiently elastic to permit varieties of doctrinal expression provided that they all maintain the Christological faith of the historic Church, with its Biblical foundation.” The Minneapolis group discovered by the use of its “check-list” a considerable homogeneity of doctrine running across denominational lines, a large agreement on the importance of doctrine to the unity of the Church, and at the same time a wide range of variant teaching both among pastors and laymen, even even in the most doctrinally-minded churches. It finds that “neither clergy nor laity feels any great urge toward organizational unity,” and concludes that “the movement toward unity cannot rely heavily on the desire for unity in the contemporary churches,” unless the churches become more aware than now of an “imperative” to unity growing out of “the very nature of the Christian faith.” The Vancouver group notes that there is a large measure of agreement in the statements of Faith and Order meetings, but feels that they reflect “a tendency to be too complacent about agreement,” and obscure the presence in our churches of “disagreements … far more fundamental than most of the statements of ecumenical gatherings would suggest.”

In addition to the reports of the study groups, a statement on “Christian Unity As Viewed by the Eastern Orthodox Church,” submitted by representatives of the Greek Orthodox Church in the U.S.A., was available to the section for study and discussion. It defined the general ecumenical position of the Eastern Orthodox Church with specific reference to the theme of this Conference.

Of the four papers presented to the evening Plenary Sessions by chairman of the respective Faith and Order Commissions, this section found Dr. Robert L. Calhoun’s paper on “Christ and the Church” particularly relevant and helpful to this work.

II. Some General Observations

A. The members of the section are impressed with the gift of unity which is already evident in the willingness of all participants to engage in this theological encounter on an ecumenical basis. This is the fruitage of many years of Faith and Order studies and conversations.

B. Discussion in the section was characterized by a readiness to face central and crucial issues in the realm of doctrine instead of ignoring or by-passing them. There seemed to be a common feeling that sincerity in our desire for unity calls us not only to confront one another but to confront together the Truth of the Gospel in all its fulness. We seemed agreed that “The way to the center is the way to unity.”

C. The members of the section found that when they thus faced “the center” and spoke of “Jesus Christ,” the “Word of God,” the “Gospel,” the “Church,” there was a rather large body of common discourse which made for meaningful and fruitful discussion in spite of diversities in other areas and in the theological explication of this common vocabulary.

D. The section found the wide range of tradition represented by the membership both an obstacle and a challenge. The various traditions have developed differing and sometimes distinctive ways of clarifying and formulating the faith in theological systems and doctrinal statements. They have also developed varied institutional structures and practices, many of which have doctrinal implications. This variety adds to both the problems and the promise of fruitful communication.

E. As we have engaged in this discussion of “Consensus and Conflict” we have been made aware of the necessity of having some comprehensive perspective which can include both our consensus and our conflict without doing injustice to either. Such ecumenical discussions as that in which we have engaged may be particularly helpful in achieving such a perspective.

F. A pronounced emphasis which recurred throughout the discussion was the importance of the “servant-image” for the Christian Church, its theology and its mission. The judgment was expressed, and broadly affirmed, that in the Bible the image of the “servant” has a centrality and significance which Christianity in our time needs to rediscover. It was as the “servant of the Lord” that Israel was called upon to fulfill her destiny. Jesus Christ Himself glorified in fulfilling the role of a servant who lived “to serve, not to be served.” Paul interpreted the significance of the Incarnation and work of Jesus Christ by affirming that in Him the Eternal Son of God decisively and exultantly took the form of a servant. In the Church of today as well as in the world of today, it is of first-rate importance that the significance of the “servant-image” be discovered by persons, groups, and institutions. It was held that unity will be promoted among the churches in their apprehension of Christian truth and in their dedication to the Church’s mission under the Lordship of Christ when they take seriously the normative character of the “servant” for Christian thought and action.

III. Doctrinal Consensus, Conflict and Diversity

A. The Degree and Kind of Consensus in Faith that Binds us Together

We have found ourselves bound together in a common faith that impels us to a common witness, despite the variety of doctrinal standards found in our churches. “Faith” here means something more than “doctrine,” though closely related to doctrine; it means the trustful response of the whole man to God’s self-revelation in Christ. Primarily, the faith we share is a common commitment to the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, and a common mission to bring to all mankind the message of the great salvation He offers. When this faith becomes a message (kerygma) it demands an intellectual expression and begins to be articulated into doctrine. The articulation of doctrine must never become an idol (i.e., an end in itself) but is ministerial to the Church’s inner life of worship and nurture and her out-going mission to the world. The Church needs a massive and vertebrate form for her faith, and finds abundant material in God’s self-revelation for such a reasoned-out message, but Christian doctrine must never be divorced from Christian devotion and obedience, and must therefore never wholly abandon the poetry of faith for the prose of doctrinal elaboration. If this partnership between faith and doctrine is maintained, we may expect consensus in faith to be accompanied by a high degree of consensus in doctrine, and this is indeed what we find among ourselves.

The center of our doctrinal consensus is Christ Himself as the Incarnate Word of God and the sacrificial Saviour of the world in whom God bore the sins of mankind and founded a new humanity. At the beginning of the Faith and Order Movement, faith in the divine-human Lord and Saviour tended to stand in a sort of splendid isolation, as the one clear point on which we were united. It is still the center of our consensus, but under the influence of the Biblical renewal there is now a growing sense of its connection with other basic Christian doctrines: God’s Covenant with His People Israel, fulfilled and renewed in Christ; the Church and the new People of God, the Body of Christ, the Community (koinonia) of the Holy Spirit, pressing on toward its consummation in a new community of mankind and a new heaven and earth. The stern events of our time have taught us to see new meaning in the dramatic conflict between the Kingdom of Christ and the God-opposing powers, as portrayed in the New Testament; but our faith in Christ’s ultimate Lordship over the world as well as the Church, stands firm as the final capstone in the arch of faith that now begins to tower over the wreckage and confusion of our time. There has been a great recovery in recent years of the centrality of Biblical revelation in Christian doctrine—though this has not penetrated all the curricula of Christian education—both as the record of the mighty acts of God leading up to our redemption in Christ, and also as the source of intelligible truths expressed in inspired words, whereby the message of our redemption can be spelled out. While we differ in our theories of revelation, reason and Biblical inspiration, we are united in looking to the witness of Holy Scripture in the Church, as the sine qua non of authentic Christian doctrine.

B. Extent and Significance of Our Common Use of the Historic Confessions

When we compare the actual use of historic confessions in different churches we find them sharply divided between creedal churches, where they are largely used for catechetical instruction and in public worship, and non-creedal churches, where there is grave objection to using them at all—except as historical documents. When we examine the significance of the use of creeds and confessions, we find this sharp polarization much diminished. For example, some non-creedal churches of the “covenant” type express their opposition to confessionalism by declaring that they use creeds only as “testimonies not tests” of faith. Yet there are churches of the creedal type which use the very same word, “testimony,” to define their own use of their historic confessions. All our communions agree that their creeds and confessions are subordinate to Scripture, at least in the negative sense that they must not contradict Scripture. They further agree that these confessions must be interpreted and reinterpreted in the light of Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Those churches which make no use of historic confessions actually use “tests” or norms of other sorts (such as the Quaker “queries” or the “covenants” of other churches) to keep up standards of Christian commitment and Christian instruction among their members. We agree with the Lausanne call (1927) to re-examine the content, the historical significance and the meaning for us of the great ecumenical definitions of the early church councils; and we also agree that when the Church’s very existence is challenged again, by anti-Christian trends and dangerously perverted versions of the Christian message, such threats need to be countered by similarly pointed confessions of the mind of Christ. A good recent example of such a contemporary confession, formulated with specific reference to the current renaissance of Hinduism and the deluge of communism, is that of the Batak Protestant Church in Indonesia.

C. Conformity and Freedom in Faith

The section wishes to reassert as sufficient ground of membership in the Ecumenical Movement the confession that Jesus Christ is “God and Saviour.” While some of us are dissatisfied with this form of words, all of us recognize that loyalty to Christ as God’s Incarnate Word and our Saviour is the very heart of our given unity. Every church will wish to supplement and interpret this central faith; none can repudiate it without ceasing to be united to her sister communions. This common confession is rooted in revelation as witnessed in Scripture and received in the Church through the Spirit. The authority of the Faith, then, is located in the Scriptures, the historic tradition of the Church, and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit.¹ Diversity of doctrine not contrary to this authority reflects the riches of God’s grace and the diversity of His gifts to the Church. The unity we seek is not to be found in enforced conformity to a detailed, complete, unchangeable system of doctrine. Our only absolute captivity is to Christ and His mission; this captivity sets us totally free to realize the purpose for which we were created. Freedom to interpret Christian truth in varied ways, as the Spirit guides us to apply it to changing situations and different men, is part of Christian liberty—and responsibility. Against what seem to be real perversions of the Gospel, all are bound to protest in the name of the truth; but none of our churches is so “authoritative” that it forbids all difference on special points of doctrine (theologeumena).

D. Points of Deepest Conflict

We have to distinquish between desirable diversity, creative conflict which helps to get truth stated, and destructive conflict which obscures the truth. Diversity and creative conflict spring from our finiteness; destructive conflict from our sin. Destructive conflict in matters of doctrine exists at various levels between member churches within the fellowship of the World Council of Churches, and also between the member churches and others which find it impossible to seek membership in it. All conflicts which keep churches in opposition are serious because they make it hard to hear the voice of Christ above the clamor of rival churches; but the latter type of conflict, which now keeps Roman Catholics and some Protestants out of official ecumenical confrontation, is most serious. Continued study and conference are recommended, to see if it is really necessary for all such groups to stay out on doctrinal grounds, when other groups, quite as different from the Protestant majority (e.g., certain Eastern Orthodox churches) are already in. Conflicts also exist among the member churches in the World Council, sometimes dividing them from one another, sometimes cutting across denominational lines and sometimes reducible to differences of emphasis. Examples of such conflicts may be found in varying theories of religious knowledge, theories concerning the nature of the union between the divine and the human in Jesus Christ, varying concepts of the nature of the Church, and varying ways in which the Lord and Head of the Church is related to the concrete life of the Church and its members (e.g., in the various “means of grace” specially preferred in different communions). The conflicts center, as has often been noted, in the part of Christian doctrine dealing with the Ministry and the Sacraments, while they are at a minimum in the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Christ.

E. Consensus Which Should Precede Unity and That Which Must Await Closer Fellowship

There is of course a given consensus already existing, concerning which we have already spoken under (A). This given consensus does not yet fully express the oneness of the Church which it is God’s will for His people to realize. We call attention, therefore, to those areas in which further agreement needs to be reached before we can move toward closer oneness. (The necessity of agreement will vary, of course, according to the nature of the unity we seek; “mutual recognition” requires less than “corporate unity.”)

1. The nature of the Church, its ministry and its sacraments. Here greater agreement is needed, based on much further study and conference between the various types of churches, before some of them can consider intercommunion, and others can consider reunion.

2. The nature of the authority and inspiration of the Bible. Here is one of the chief causes of disunity among Protestants. The relations between the Bible and reason, and the nature of revelation (whether expressed in “propositions” or “events,” or both) need particular study in this connection.

3. Finally, the nature of the unity we seek. On this, as noted above, will depend the degree of doctrinal unity necessary beforehand. It is quite plain that participants in the Ecumenical Movement are hoping for different outcomes. It is good to make these differences conscious and try to resolve them.

After the unity we seek (or which God wills for us) reaches each stage of realization, the ministry of the Holy Spirit will lead (in the process of growing together) to a profounder appreciation of the gift of the Church and a profounder understanding of the meaning of its worship, its sacramental koinonia, and its mission in the world. Some united churches have deliberately left the drafting of a longer doctrinal statement of faith until after they have merged upon a very simple “basis of union,” including a short declaration of their common faith.

F. “Diversities to be Welcomed” in the Expression of Our Common “Allegiance”

We have already distinguished “diversity” from “conflict” under (D) above. Our common allegiance to Jesus Christ means a loving obedience to Him, which may be expressed in diverse ways. In his missionary work, the Apostle Paul became “all things to all men” that he might “by all means win some.” We welcome such diversity in the life and thought of the churches, as a manifestation of the “fruits of the Spirit” and a contribution to the “fullness of Christ.” Diversities of this sort are found in liturgical practice, in cultural tradition, in types of Christian service, in styles of Christian art, in ways of proclaiming the faith. Whether diversity in theological doctrine can be encouraged without endangering the Christian faith itself, is questioned by some of us. Diversity of faith has often resulted from diversity of theology. It is important to distinguish the divine revelation which is the center of our common faith from the human systems of theology which relate this revelation to contemporary schools of philosophy and changing world situations. The purity of the common faith is better preserved by encouraging creative conflict between theological systems than by prematurely finalizing any one of them. (Doctors of divinity are stewards of divine revelation, but the history of doctrine proves that they do not possess divine omniscience.) As Dr. Calhoun remarked in his address on “Christ and the Church,” the mystery of God’s infinite Being can never be fully resolved by finite minds, for “God as self-disclosed to us men remains mystery, not only in some secrets of His Being that remain undisclosed, but also in His self-revelation itself.” We cannot therefore hope or desire to eliminate all diversities from Christian doctrine. We walk together in the light of the same divine-human Face; we bow together before the same ineffable Mystery, content to argue with one another’s best judgments, since none can claim to have plumbed the infinite depths of the Godhead.

In the work of this section we have repeatedly verified the Lausanne principle of “comprehension.” That is, when the seemingly conflicting doctrines of different churches are carefully defined in face-to-face conference, they are first found to be less contradictory than they appeared to be, and then found to be diverse aspects of a comprehensive truth which all need to consider in order to deepen and correct their own favorite views. (See point (B) above.) Every American in our day needs to be a world citizen in order to be a good American, so every confessional theologian needs to be an ecumenical theologian in order to be a good representative of his own confession. The sparks of comprehension that flew between Baptists and Lutherans, Quakers and Orthodox, will continue to illuminate the minds and hearts of all of us who took part in these discussions.

Not all doctrinal differences can speedily be turned into fruitful diversities so as to be resolved by mutual comprehension. The doctrinal differences concerning the ministry, the sacraments and others mentioned under (D) above cannot be overcome at this time, and constitute an impasse which must be examined and re-examined by all the methods recommended at the Lund Conference. However, the progress that has already been made by the Faith and Order Movement, and our experience in this section, give us confidence that here too, destructive conflict may someday be transformed through creative conflict into a more comprehensive truth that will include us all. For us all, Jesus Christ is the Truth. Theology or doctrinal labor is the service of our minds humbly and joyfully offered to Him, and therefore to one another. Our hope in seeking unity resides not in endeavors to master the other man with our superior insights, but in love to serve our brother and to be served by him as servants together of the Word of God.

IV. Recommendation

The section records its conviction that there is need for a continuation and extension of the kind of theological exchange which has here taken place, to all sections of our continent. The work of the sixteen study groups which made preparatory studies for this Conference give evidence of both the possibility and fruitfulness of such a project. It is hoped that the encouragement which has been given to Faith and Order studies through this Conference will establish the work of Faith and Order as a proportionally larger part of the total ecumenical enterprise in this area.

- More from The Editors

Eutychus and His Kin: November 25, 1957

Stanley H. Mullen

HUMPTY-DUMPTY

Since Lesson I in Ecclesian has had unspeakable success, I am encouraged to introduce your readers to other fields of learning. The original source material which follows shows the value of a scholarly interpretation of a familiar text:

Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall:

Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall.

We need not stop to discuss the critical questions which surround this classical text. It is generally understood by modern scholars to be a conflation of H and D. The Humptyist (H) may well have written. “Humpty sat on a wall.” The original Deutero-Dumptyist (D2) probably had the reading, “Dumpty had a fall.” A later redactor, acquainted with both traditions, and struck by the rhyming possibilities (Humpty/Dumpty; wall/fall) joined the conflicting accounts in a couplet. The adjective “great” is almost certainly a later gloss, which may be traced to lapsarian circles in Great Falls, Minnesota. The formgeschichtlich school traces the term to a sitz-im-kindergarten which favored exaggeration and legendary embellishment, but this has now been decisively rejected by I. E. Hohlkopfig (Z.A.G. XCMIII: 4, p. 116).

Our primary interest, however, is not in the vicissitudes of history which led to the challenging statement of the text. The fascinating speculations of Glowinkel linking our couplet with the festival of the Easter egg roll cannot be commented on here. We pass over the moralizing and allegorizing that many have found in C. Dodgson, Through the Looking-Glass (Ch. I, “Humpty-Dumpty”).

Instead we turn to the simple declaration of the text. To be sure, the literal picture of an animate egg in a sitting posture on a stone wall is absurd from the scientific standpoint, for it escapes scientific categories. This fall did not occur in calendar time, but in the egg’s act time, primal history. It gives mythological expression to the human predicament. As the Monarchist observes in those existential lines which he has had added in conclusion:

All the king’s horses

and all the king’s men

Couldn’t put Humpty-Dumpty

in his place again.

EUTYCHUS

PROTESTANT AWAKENING

I would give no more heed to what this “former Jesuit trainee” says than I would to the word of an ex-Mason who writes against Free Masonry. If you would state the Catholic position truly, why not call on such men as Msgr. Sheen, Karl Adam, Frank Sheed and many others?

Supt., The Akron District

Methodist Church

Akron, Ohio

I heartily agree … that the time has come for a Protestant Awakening.…

First Methodist Church

Belmont, N. C.

The author’s fairness, fine temper, information and urgency of deepening spiritual life is a fine presentation.… Pierce, Neb.

While we watch sputnik, a revolution is growing in the United States. And thousands of Protestant young people, whose parents manifest utter indifference to their indoctrination, take lightly the requirements demanded in marrying Roman Catholic young people. The word “tolerance” has become a fetish.…

First E.U.B. Church

New Castle, Ind.

Rome scruples not to implement its totalitarian ends by sanctimoniously waving the flag of democracy, liberty and morality. This sort of tactic assumes the dimensions of a frightening reality when laid beside the current enthusiastic publicity campaign being staged for the Roman Catholic senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy.… Could this be the harbinger of the first really serious effort of Rome to try her wings in the American political air?… We may soon witness the exempla gratia of the use of tolerance to enslave the land of the free.

Disciples of Christ Church

Holland, Mich.

Catholicism exists without the Papacy, the maze of Mariology and indulgences. He (“a former Jesuit trainee”) should have found Catholicism without Rome—it exists in the Anglican (Episcopal in U. S.), Old Catholic, Polish National Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Communions. As a priest of the Episcopal Church I should like him to know he must not leave the Church which our Lord Jesus Christ founded, but awaken to the fact that Catholicism … exists in non-Roman but Catholic communions I have mentioned.… We need not a protestant awakening, but a Catholic Revival which is now taking place in the non-Roman but Catholic world.…

St. George’s Church

Riviera Beach, Fla.

Have you made a note … that the National Association of Evangelicals (1405 G Street, Washington 5, D. C.) is offering newspaper mats to combat Knights of Columbus propaganda in our newspapers and magazines?

Disciples of Christ Church

Wellington, O.

I warmly welcome any former Jesuit into the Protestant fold, but I do not share the panic … about Roman Catholicism taking over America. They ought to look around a bit and observe the might and virility of Protestantism.… Within the past two years three former Catholics became members of our church … one of them an attorney, another the president of perhaps the largest trucking company in the state, another a brilliant graduate of Amherst. This Fall eight children started our Sunday School from mixed marriages.…

If what is to emerge as triumphant … is to arrive at that pinnacle through deceit, intrigue, clericalism, heresy, beer and bingo, then I wouldn’t want any part of such a church anyway, for it couldn’t possibly be Christ’s Church though it had all the statistics on its side and none of the real power and true victory.

We certainly do need a continuing Reformation, but let the power and motivation come from God.… It was God himself who wanted the Reformation … and its genius and future are not to be ultimately determined by the manipulations of man, no matter how high his steeple, how scarlet his hat, how vain his heart and greedy his ecclesiastical hands.…

Westminster Church

Grand Rapids, Mich.

I think the “former Jesuit trainee” paints too pessimistic a picture when he says “no other doors are open to these Americans,” “no evangelist is calling them,” “no organization tries to help them.” Has he never heard of Christ’s Mission in New York City which is entirely composed of ex-priests.… Has he never heard of … Jose Fernandez and his Protestant-Catholic Information Center in Philadelphia? Has he not read of the recent victory in the courts by an organization who had written into their charter that their primary purpose was to convert Catholics? And then what about many, like myself, who are converted Catholics and are active in the Protestant ministry? Much is being done.…

First Baptist Church

Jeannette, Pa.

TITLE TO THE LAND

Israel’s title to Palestine from the river Nile to the Euphrates rests not upon her obedience to God, but upon the unconditional covenant God made with Abraham. No acts of disobedience can nullify that covenant. Israel’s disobedience was the cause of her world-wide dispersion among the nations. That dispersion will end, and Israel, according to the covenant and the prophetic promises, will return and possess her land. The Arab … has no divine title to a single inch of the land … no power can exterminate Israel, as Nassar and his supporters will find out. Those who bless Israel, God will bless. Those who curse her, God will curse.

Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada

Whether the Arabs had a right to use their land as they pleased is another matter, but superior agricultural know-how is hardly an argument for removing almost an entire population from their ancestral land.

Holy Trinity Church House,

Cannes, France

It is shameful for people as responsible as clergymen to be enslaved by misguiding Zionist propaganda.… My family, and one million Arabs like me, are refugees from Palestine.

Beirut, Lebanon

The articles of O. T. Allis and W. M. Smith, whilst provoking … still lack completeness. Though I am not a Jew nationally, yet I think the question would be somewhat illuminated by a contribution from a Christian Jew, or for that matter one from the hand of an unconverted Jew.

Dr. G. C. Morgan once raised this issue in his book, Voices of the Minor Prophets; on page 10 he says, “the chosen people have failed, and are excommunicated from the economy of God.” That is surely a damning proposition, especially in relation to his unchangeability, his faithfulness to the promises and finally to the mild doctrine of election to place and office.

Further, this is a very pregnant question in view of the state and status of national Israelis in world affairs today. Quite incidentally we British Christians are proud of the part we have played in the restoration and preservation of Israelis in their present “foothold” to the Land of Promise. True, it may have been done selfishly, or even without any intent or purpose of aiding the plan of God. Yet it is a fact, along with many other historical interpositions, sanctified to the establishment of God’s ancient people.

So I conclude by recommending that some able and willing Christian Jew give us his interpretation of the manifold promises of both Testaments.

By the way, let me take this opportunity of thanking you for CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Bishop of Auckland

Durham, England

ARABS AND ISRAELIS

The article by Oswald T. Allis (Dec. 24, 1956, issue) has only just now come to my hand. May I be permitted to comment on some of the “facts”, as distinct from opinions, mentioned in the article:

1. The author states that the establishment of Israel was “highly dangerous to the peace of the world.”

While of course the establishment of Israel was accompanied by bloodshed and warfare, and while such aggression was dangerous to the peace of the world, it is important to emphasize that it did not come about by Israel’s action but by Arab warfare and aggression against the people and later against the State of Israel.

The Arab warfare which threatened to destroy the Jewish community in Palestine and upset the peace of the world began on the morrow of the U.N. Partition Plan of Nov. 29, 1947. Mr. Trygve Lie, the then-Secretary General of the U.N., wrote in his memoirs: “From the first week of December, 1947, disorder in Palestine had begun to mount. The Arabs repeatedly had asserted that they would resist partition by force. They seemed to be determined to drive that point home by assaults upon the Jewish community in Palestine” (In the Cause of Peace, p. 163). In its First Special Report to the Security Council, the U.N. Palestine Commission reported: “Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly, and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein” (A/AC.21/9 Feb. 16, 1948).

On May 15, 1948, the armies of five Arab states invaded the territory of the newly established State of Israel. Their action was condemned by the international community. The U. S. representative at the U.N. called it an “international aggression,” and the Security Council resolved that the action of the Arab states constitute “a threat to peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter.”

Ever since then, and for the last nine and a half years, it was Arab policies which have endangered the peace of the world. They have waged a campaign of border violence, carried on economic warfare against Israel in the form of blockades and boycott, have concluded arms deals which introduced both Soviet arms and technicians into the area, and have insisted on a state of war with Israel; they have refused to negotiate any settlement with Israel which would ease the tension and lead towards a lasting peace in the area.

2. The author then suggests that the establishment of Israel forced “hundreds of thousands of Arabs out of it.”

The fact is that it was not the establishment of Israel which created the Arab refugee problem; Arab aggression, warfare and invasion of Israel was responsible for the creation of the refugee problem. The Arabs launched a war of destruction against Israel in defiance of the United Nations resolution. Their responsibility for the war was clearly admitted by the Arabs (U.N. document S/743–1948) and established by the U.N. (U.N. document S/902 July 15, 1948). The refugee problem is a direct result of that war. The Arabs cannot first declare a war of destruction and then wash their hands of any responsibility for its outcome. Moreover, there is ample evidence which indicates that the mass exodus of the Arabs from Israel was carried out under the express Arab orders “encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders, that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab states …” (Edward Atiyah, Director of the Arab League Propaganda Office in London, in his book, The Arabs, page 183). This fact has been verified by countless statements of Arab spokesmen, the refugees themselves, British sources and accounts by eyewitnesses.

I have confined myself to a discussion of some of the facts, not the opinions, expressed by the author.…

Press Attache

Embassy of Israel

Washington, D. C.

The above letter from Mr. Orgel, being written on “Embassy of Israel” stationery, may be regarded as at least semi-official. It is to be noted therefore that his argument begins with the Partition Plan of 1947, the assumption being that the Israelis are entitled to the territory of which they have taken gradual and forcible possession, and that the resulting threats to the peace of the world are entirely due to the refusal of the Arabs to accept the Plan forced on them by the United Nations. My contention was that the wholesale immigration of Jews into Palestine which was tolerated and fostered by the British under their mandate, and which placed the Jews in a dominant position which led directly to the forming of the State of Israel, represented the seizing by the Zionists of territory which was not their own and to which they were not entided—a simple act of aggression.

Mr. Orgel, as an Israeli, and the friends of the Israeli State demand that the Arabs accept this act of aggression and its consequences at a fait accompli. They are to recognize that, whether rightly or wrongly, “Israel is there to stay.” This is of course a red rag to the Arabs; and it is all the more provocative because it is perfectly plain that the Israelis are determined to increase their hold on Palestine by every means in their power. The present partitionment of the land is a monstrosity as every intelligent person must admit. The recent explosion over Suez and the extreme reluctance of the Israeli government to evacuate the territory which it had over-run is a clear indication of what Israel proposes to do as soon as a more favorable opportunity arises. It is this which makes the State of Israel a menace to the peace of the world. And back of it all lies the question which Mr. Orgel does not even mention, whether the “State of Israel” has any moral right to exist.

Wayne, Pa.

SEGREGATION

Dr. Henlee Barnette is an eminent theologian, held in high respect by Southern Baptists. But in his article, “What Can Southern Baptists Do?” he seems to let his abstractions out-distance his practical insight.

When he implies that all Southern Baptist preachers believe segregation to be un-Christian, he is arguing from a generalized false assumption. Many of us do not believe it is either un-Christian or un-Democratic.

He is perfectly correct when he states that the Bible has no proof texts to support either integration or segregation. The texts and incidents which he cites in support of the principle of integration lack both clarity and completeness. Just as many, or more texts can be cited in opposition. His attempt to equate the Kingdom of God with the body politic is an amazing maneuver for a Baptist.

Having lived all my life in close proximity with Negroes; having preached often and conducted Vacation Bible Schools in their churches; having met in their Pastors’ Conferences; having served with them in the Army; and having many of them for personal friends, I am amazed to learn that I am in “consecrated ignorance” of them.

Dr. Barnette urges Southern Baptist preachers to preach their convictions. This is always good counsel. He will surely accord the right—and the duty—of the many Baptist Preachers who do not share his convictions to preach and stand for their own. Even at the cost of being called un-Christian by their mentors.

Warren Baptist Church

Martinez, Georgia

With high evaluation, I greatly appreciate CHRISTIANITY TODAY.… Now and then I am provoked to take issue with contentions of certain articles which are clearly unfair and untenable. In the issue of June 24th appears such an article written by Dr. H. H. Barnette, titled “What Can Southern Baptists Do.”

He would have all believe that those who believe in any kind of segregation are haters of all races.… I know many of both races who believe in segregation who have nothing but love in their hearts for each other.

Mt. Tabor and Beulah Baptist Churches

Branchville, South Carolina

THE GOD OF NUMBERS

We Protestants have bowed down to a new God, a God of numbers. We try to usher in the Kingdom of God by adopting catchy slogans such as “A Million More in ’54” and “Come Alive in ’55.”

Will someone please tell me the difference between the native of India who goes down to the Ganges River and dips up holy soil, moulds it into a symbol, takes it home to dry, and bows down and worships it as his God, and the typical Protestant minister, or Sunday School Superintendent who, when he enters the sanctuary, goes to the bulletin board on Sunday morning and prays to his man-made God of numbers this prayer:

O God of numbers on the wall:

Give me 1700, or none at all,

Lest I, like the Apostle Paul,

Be ‘let down’ o’er the city wall.

Instead, it would seem well for us to pray:

O God and Father of us all;

Remove from mind the record on the wall.

Forgive the love of numbers as our goals,

And change our love, from numbers into souls.

Shockoe Baptist Church

Chatham, Va.

ON THE MARCH

Your excellent periodical adequately fills a most needy gap in Christian thought and expression.… The pulse of the Church will quicken because of your admirable efforts.…

Granada Hills, Calif.

Appreciate your conservative position, without fighting about it; and I appreciate the scholarship (… not always present in conservative circles).…

First Baptist Church

Atchison, Kans.

Your type of magazine was much needed in evangelical circles. It is intellectually satisfying as well as spiritually refreshing. I believe that it will increasingly become a powerful force in the religious life of our country.…

EXEC. SECRETARY

Nebraska Baptist State Convention

Omaha, Neb.

Please find enclosed $5 for one year’s subscription of your interesting periodical.… The time is surely at hand when we have a sufficient certainty of the great Christian tenets that we should stop arguing about them and start imparting them.…

St. Andrews’ Church

Sudbury, Ontario

- More from Stanley H. Mullen

Three Men Look at Communism

Christianity in the World Today

Three prominent clergymen, representing the Jewish, Catholic and Protestant faiths, warned that the evil of communism as it exists today derives from its basic philosophy and not from any distortion of the principles upon which it was founded.

The clergymen, Dr. S. Andhil Fineberg, community-relations consultant of the American Jewish Committee; Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, national director of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith of the Catholic Church, and Dr. Daniel A. Poling, editor of The Christian Herald, made their statements in consultations with the staff of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

In releasing the statements on “The Ideological Fallacies Of Communism,” Chairman Francis E. Walter declared that they “demonstrate again the basic incompatability of religion with communism in any form.”

“The communist system,” he continued, “is inherently evil for the fundamental reason that it denies the principles of God and morality upon which human society must be founded. As J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has remarked, ‘Those who hate God always bring misery in their wake. They are brutal, cruel and deceitful. Communism denies and destroys every spiritual value. No church and no church member can temporize with it.’ ”

Dr. Fineberg said:

“Lacking a spiritual basis for existence, communist ideologists conceive of people as having no other worthy objective but material prosperity and military might. All other human ideals, hopes, and aspirations are sacrificed for these. And, in pursuit of these goals for the nation as a whole, Communist rulers assume the right to deal with all human beings as though they were the property and chattel of the state. Democratic leaders would never set up one-party government. You will recall that, when the great emancipator Moses was told that several people were speaking against him in the camp, he welcomed that dissent and said, ‘Would that all the people were prophets and that God would put his spirit in all of them.’ ”

In response to the query as to how the forces of freedom can best combat the ideology of communism, he pointed out that the forces of freedom should emphasize the “proof of the superiority of our way of life over life under communism in terms of religious and spiritual values.”

With reference to the relationship between the philosophy of communism and communism in action, Bishop Sheen observed:

“… as in Christianity the word became flesh, or truth became incarnate; in communism the ideology has become action. There is no great diversity between any principles of communism and communism in action. And that is why many people go wrong in judging communism, because they not knowing its ideology, do not understand the present action.

We of the Western World judge Russia by its foreign policy. Whenever there are smiles at Geneva and Russia apparently begins to be lenient with the Western World, we think communism is good. Whereas if you judge it from its ideology, it is a tactic, but not a change of system.”

In regard to the reason for the tremendous inroads made by communism in the course of the last 50 years, Bishop Sheen stated:

“There are many reasons for that. One reason is the spiritual vacuum that has been created in the world. The modern world has lost its faith, it has lost its goal and its purpose. And the world became sick and tired of milk-and-water systems where there was nothing so sacred that you could dedicate your life to it, and nothing so evil that you should risk your life to destroy it. And communism comes into a world that is sick with relativism, and offers an absolute, and men find a loyalty and a dedication and a consecration which gives them great faith in a political system, without imposing any individual morality.”

Among the courses of action which he suggested in undertaking to cope with the international communist menace was the expulsion of Russia from the United Nations, and the insistence by the West on the liberation of certain suppressed peoples.

Dr. Poling stated:

“Communism is a driving dynamic faith. It has all of the passion that we associate with the early Christian church. But its basic tenet, its first principle, is atheism. It not only disregards, but it refutes and denies the Christian ethic. It has absolutely no concern for the individual.”

Dr. Poling pointed out that so-called peaceful coexistence with the Kremlin is both incredible and impossible, that so far as the Kremlin is concerned peaceful coexistence means peaceful submission.

“Communism,” he continued, “has made, in the opinion of some of us, a moral debacle of the United Nations.”

In regard to the manner in which the forces of freedom can compete in the world market place of ideas with communist ideology he said:

“… We need to emphasize not what material things we have here, but the realities of freedom and the fact that communism is slavery. It is the destruction of the very aspirations of the soul. It is enslavement of the body, and you can prove that by pointing to communist slave camps all over the world, and not only the enslavement of the body, but the enslavement of the mind and the soul. And remember one thing; there are more than one billion human beings who believe in one God—the Moslem, the Buddhist, the Roman Catholic, the Protestant, and the Jew.

“We should lay emphasis upon the fact that communism in its first tenet is atheism. We have obscured that idea too often. We need to point to what we have on our coins, ‘In God We Trust.’ We need to get that across, if you please. We are getting the dollar across, but we need to get across the thing that we really finally live by in this country.”

Campus Crusade

Russia, backed by the glamour and prestige of its sputniks, has intensified an offensive aimed at the students of America, not the down-and-outers, according to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

The seriousness of success in such an endeavor can be appreciated by the assertion that less than three per cent of all students played a major role in turning the tide toward communism in Red China.

A similar loud minority is gaining strength in America.

On the other side of the troubling picture is the effective work of Campus Crusade in winning students for Jesus Christ. This effort began in 1951 when a young Los Angeles man named Bill Bright, who had given up a successful business career to labor for Christ, saw the urgent need of presenting the Gospel on the campuses of America. He began at UCLA and 250 students accepted Christ the first year.

The staff of Campus Crusade grew to six during the year and doubled the next. Sixty-seven are now on the staff, with active work on 50 campuses and growing influences at 100 schools.

An ambitious goal for the next 10 years is 1,000 men and women working on campuses throughout the world.

Concerning the need, Bright cited these facts:

“Over three million American and 50,000 International students are studying on 2,500 college campuses all over the United States. However, less than five per cent have any active relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and his Church.

“Nearly 100 of the first colleges and universities in America, including Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Yale and other well known institutions of higher learning, were established for the express purpose of perpetuating the Christian faith. Yet, today, thousands of students from Christian homes and churches are losing their faith in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God because of the ridicule and antagonism which abounds on the majority of campuses.

“The college campus is the most strategic mission field in the world. There are hundreds of campuses in America and around the world where there is no vital Christian message.”

Members of Campus Crusade, from the beginning, have placed a strong emphasis on the importance of encouraging young Christians to become active in a local church. As a matter of policy, no staff member is allowed to hold a meeting at a time that would compete with regular church services.

End Chapel Services

Weekly chapel services at the University of Vermont will be discontinued, the board of trustees has decided.

Dr. Carl W. Borgmann, president of the state university, said the services would “seem, at least technically, to violate the third article of the Vermont constitution.” He said this article states that “no man ought to, or of a right can be compelled to, attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship.…”

Dr. Borgmann said the worship service might be interpreted as compelling taxpayers to support “a place of worship,” since the university gets a subsidy from the state. He said the weekly chapel service would be discontinued after this semester.

People: Words And Events

Founder’s Week—Moody Bible Institute’s 52nd annual Founder’s Week conference will be held Feb. 3–9, 1958. Featured speakers will be Dr. Wilbur M. Smith, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, Calif.; Dr. J. Vernon McGee, Church of the Open Door, Los Angeles; the Rev. Theodore Epp, director of “Back to the Bible” Broadcast, Lincoln, Neb. and Dr. Frank C. Torrey, Calvary Independent Church, Lancaster, Pa.

Emporia Gazette—Clergymen affiliated with the Ministerial Association plan to discontinue paid church advertisements in the Emporia Gazette as a result of the paper’s new policy of publishing liquor ads. The Gazette, founded in 1895 by the late William Allen White, ran the first liquor ads in its history on Nov. 1.

Free Bus Service—A free Sunday bus service to and from six downtown Protestant churches in St. Petersburg, Fla., was launched this month on a 20-week trial basis. The service will be provided at cost by the city, with the six churches dividing the charge. Involved in the agreement are Trinity Lutheran, First Presbyterian, First Methodist, Christ Methodist, First Congregational and First Baptist.

Dancing Issue—A resolution urging Baptist leaders to settle “as quickly as possible” the issue of whether dancing should be permitted at denominational colleges in North Carolina was adopted by the state Baptist Student Union at its 28th annual meeting.

Church Growth—The Roman Catholic Church was the only major religious body in New Zealand which grew at a faster rate than the population in the period between 1951 and 1956, government figures disclosed. Roman Catholics increased from 264,555 in 1951 to 310,723 in 1956, a gain of 17.8 per cent. The population increase in the same period was 12.1 per cent. The Church of England in New Zealand is still the country’s largest denomination, claiming over a third of the population. Its membership increased from 726,626 to 780,999, a gain of 7.4 per cent.

Bible Bonanza—Gideons International dedicated 100,000 Bibles at a service in Miami before placing them in more than 500 south Florida hotels and motels. It was the largest number of Bibles ever given away by the organization in a single area at one time. Since 1908, the Gideons have placed more than 35 million Bibles or Scrip ture in hotels, hospitals, jails, motels, trains, ships, airplanes and armed service centers.

Digest—In faculty anniversary celebration at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo., Dr. John Theodore Mueller observed the 50th anniversary of his ordination, Professor Otto Sohn his 40th and Professor Herbert Bouman and Dr. Gilbert Thiele their 25th.… Dr. R. A. Forrest, who founded Toccoa Falls Bible Institute in 1911, has retired as president. Dr. Julian A. Bandy succeeds him.… Properties rented by churches or associations of churches or businesses acquired by them through the use of borrowed funds will be taxable under a proposal to be made before Congressional committees by the American Bar Association.… For the first time in history, total giving by churches in the United States has passed the two billion dollar mark.… A record 1958 world budget of $26,064,954 for the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been approved by the autumn Council.… Fifty-nine of the Methodist Church’s 102 Conferences in the United States have pledged to give more than $24 million during the next three years to the denomination’s colleges and Wesley Foundations.… The Ford Foundation has approved a grant of $282,000 to Nommensen University in Sumatra. The school was established three years ago by the Batak Church, largest Protestant body in Indonesia.… A group of Spokane, Wash., businessmen have filed an application with the FCC to operate a 50,000-watt commercial station for the promotion of evangelism … Baylor University is seeking $250,000 to establish a Chair on Church and State. It will be named in honor of Dr. Joseph M. Dawson of Austin, a vice president of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Two Questions

In the wake of Little Rock’s racial trouble, the following two questions are asked and answered for CHRISTIANITY TODAY by the Rev. W. O. Vaught Jr., pastor of the Immanuel Baptist Church in Little Rock:

Question—Does the Christian Gospel have an answer to this intricate and involved problem?

Answer—Yes, the Christian Gospel does have an answer, and in my opinion, the only answer. The Christian Gospel teaches that all men are equal in the sight of God and all men must be redeemed by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The Gospel evaluates man not in the light of the color of his skin or the national or religious background he has had but in the light of his spiritual need. This Gospel lifts man above prejudice and evaluates man on the basis of his innate capacities, his intellectual capabilities and his place in the Kingdom of God.

Our Gospel is based on a premise which Jesus enunciated, that love is stronger than hate. Love put into practice will eventually give a solution to this intricate problem which we now face. Love proclaims equality of opportunity for everybody. Therefore, there is no immediate answer to this staggering problem we now face in this nation. The answer waits on the slow process of the Gospel of Christ gradually changing the minds and hearts of our people. Someone has said, “The ground is level around the cross.” This being true, the closer we get to the cross the more our individual differences vanish.

It has been said, “The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small.” Every Christian in the earth is therefore challenged to re-evaluate his own position as a disciple of love and understanding and good will.

Question—What effect will this crisis have on our world mission program?

Answer—We are now one small world community. What happens in Little Rock, Arkansas, is common knowledge in every nation of the earth through radio and television and newspapers. Can we expect a world to really believe we love them and honestly seek to evangelize them unless we give evidence of love and good will to all our neighbors at home? It may be that there has now dawned our finest hour, or greatest opportunity, our golden era in which to tell all men of all races … “I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.”

The following statement is a report of missionaries from Africa. Read carefully as almost 200 of these missionaries state the case:

“We, the missionaries of the Nigerian Mission of the Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, have become increasingly aware of the degree to which relationships between the white and Negro races in America determine the effectiveness of carrying out our mission task in Nigeria.

“Nigerians are acutely conscious of the problem of race relations in America. They identify themselves with the American Negro, and they consider racism in any form unjust.

“We believe that racism is inconsistent with, and a hindrance to, the world mission task to which Southern Baptists have committed themselves.

“We sincerely commend Southern Baptist individuals and institutions for the rapid progress made in recent years toward elimination of racism, and for the service they have rendered in meeting the spiritual, educational and social needs of all men.

“We urge all Southern Baptists to work toward the solution of racial problems, realizing that only as these problems are solved can the Great Commission be carried out fully.”

William Penn Bible

The Free Library of Philadelphia has acquired a Bible inscribed by William Penn in 1705 for presentation to his son John, then 5 years old.

The Bible was acquired from the family of the late Judge John M. Patterson of Philadelphia, who bought it at auction in England in 1916. It was given by Penn to the only one of his 13 children born in the new world.

Study Center

Establishment of a study center for research into the Protestant Reformation was initiated recently by a group of scholars meeting at Concordia Theological Seminary in St. Louis.

They met to form the Foundation for Reformation Research, a project backed by a $100,000 fund that includes a grant from the Aid Association for Lutherans. The foundation will collect original documents, microfilm and other secondary sources from continental, English and Scandinavian phases of the Reformation and related periods. These will be housed in a library and research center at Concordia, to be under a full time director.

Members of the foundation’s board of directors are Dr. Roland H. Bainton of Yale University; Dr. Jaroslav J. Pelikan of the University of Chicago’s federated theological faculty; Dr. Theodore Tap-pert of Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia; Dr. Harold J. Grimm of Indiana University; Dr. Carl S. Myer of Condordia Seminary; and Dr. Ernest G. Schwiehert, command historian for the Air Research and Development Command, Baltimore, Md.

Religion And Science

“There is evidence that religion and science have had a closer association in recent years,” Dr. G. O. Simms, the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, said recently.

He added:

“There are students of the Bible who pay no attention to the exciting discoveries of archaeology or to the history and background of the Scriptures, but Christian scholars for the most part rejoice to have the aid of the linguist, the archaeologist and the scholarly critic from faculties who can throw light upon the setting and significance of the Bible’s message.

“The basic assumptions of the Christian religion, so far from antagonizing the scientist or frightening him away, are of the kind to inspire him to deeper discoveries and to help him find wholeness and significance in his own specialized field of research.”

—S.W.M.

Latin America

‘A Mortal Sin’

The Puerto Rican Catholic weekly De Reino a Reino (From Kingdom to Kingdom), in discussing the Caribbean Crusade of Dr. Billy Graham, counseled Catholics to abstain from attending meetings “under pain of incurring in a mortal sin.”

Some Catholics were not sympathetic with the statement. A prominent Catholic journalist wrote: “There will be many Catholics, especially among the intellectuals, who will want to find out for themselves if it is true that Billy Graham is indeed a great evangelist, and they will do so, regardless—but that does not mean they will cease to be faithful Catholics of firm conviction.”

In Panama, Monsenor Tomas A. Clavel, Bishop of David, belittled the Crusade. He saw no reason for so much propaganda about that “Protestant pastor who has nothing new to teach us in this country—we Catholics have nothing to learn from them.”

Dr. Graham will tour nine of the Caribbean islands and coastal countries during January and February, climaxing an ambitious program of simultaneous evangelistic campaigns in both the English and Spanish speaking areas. The Graham team will appear at Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Barbados, Trinidad, Venezuela, Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala and Mexico. R. Kenneth Strachan, general director of the Latin American Mission, will coordinate the effort.

—W.D.R.

Middle East

Stopping Point

Since the airport in Teheran has been developed into a first-class stopping point on international air routes, Iranians have witnessed the arrivals and departures of an astonishing array of churchmen. The largest group were the members of a tour interested in meeting leaders of many nations and of many religions as well as the missionary and national church leadership in each locality.

Of much value to the Church in Iran has been the ministry of Dr. Kenneth Cragg, evangelical scholar in the field of Islamics, whose two-week visit to Anglican and Presbyterian mission areas was only the start of contacts he will continue to develop from his headquarters in Jerusalem. Already his advice in improving the evangelistic approach to Muslims has had an enthusiastic welcome from Iranian and foreign evangelists. Unlike many students of Islam, Dr. Cragg is a missionary who views an understanding of Islam as only the best opening to vigorous evangelism.

Dr. Paul Lindholm, specialist in Christian stewardship and a missionary in the Philippines, initiated a drive for self-support among Iranian Christians during his week of conferences with representatives sent to Teheran for training. His system, based on a thorough exposition of biblical sources, has become the message of a team of missionaries and nationals who will visit churches throughout the coming winter.

Three visitors, all members of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, have focused attention toward East Asia: Bishop Lesslie Newbigin of the Church of South India: Dr. Andrew Thakur Das of Lahore, Pakistan, and Bishop Enrique Sobreopena, presiding bishop of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines.

Each had an opportunity to address church leaders, the net effect being that many an Iranian Christian has begun to think of himself as part of a much larger movement and of Asiatic Christians as his brethren in Christ. In the case of Dr. Andrew Thakur Das, who stayed 10 days and led devotional studies from the book of Joshua at the first full meeting of the Presbyterian Mission (previous annual meetings have been delegated), the missionaries and Iranian observers were greatly impressed by the deep spirituality of the man and his testimony to the revival of evangelistic power in West Pakistan. Difficult problems facing the Iranian church and missions seemed smaller as one listened to the story of how the Church of West Pakistan was born out of India’s partition and subsequent persecution of minority groups in both of the new countries.

—F.T.W.

South America

Faith In Liberty

Confident that Colombia’s resurgence of constitutional liberty will be a permanent phenomenon, several missions are undertaking construction programs of varying sizes.

The Cumberland Presbyterian Mission is planning to enlarge its well known “American School” in the city of Cali, moving to an out-of-town site adequate to accommodate 2,000 students.

The Normal School of the Presbyterian Mission (USA) in Ibague is adding three buildings. Other church and mission groups are proceeding with construction plans previously delayed because of the uncertain politico-religious situation.

Optimism is now the order of the day.

Network Expands

The five-member stations of the Pan-American Christian Network, meeting at Station HCJB, Quito, Ecuador, tentatively decided to open membership in the net to other evangelical radio operations, such as recording studios, program chains and local Gospel broadcasts.

Over 30 delegates from a dozen countries attended the conference.

Nearly 4,000 half-hour programs were taped and distributed by the net since its last biennial meeting.

During the next 12 months there is a possibility that as many as five new Gospel stations may be on the air in Latin America.

Network officers for the coming two years will be Robert Remington, manager; W. Dayton Roberts, president, TIFC, Costa Rica; Albert Platt, vice president and treasurer, TGNA, Guatemala; Paul Pretiz, secretary, HOXO, Panama. Other directors are Vern Van Hovel, HCJB, and Ruben Bonney, CP-27, Bolivia.

Far East

Report On Red China

The following special report forCHRISTIANITY TODAYis by Toshio Suekane, General Secretary of the Yokohama, Japan, YMCA, as reported by Kenny Joseph, editor of Japan Harvest, an evangelical quarterly, and director of Evangelism at Japan Christian College, Tokyo.

When I went to China with the 15-man Japanese delegation last spring, I wanted to know what thoughts were uppermost in the Chinese minds. But the answer to this question was difficult to learn, for those who met us were government agents, though representing the so-called church. They were men who approved the current communist setup.

Most of my time was spent in Shanghai, but I also visited Peking, Hankow, Soochow, Canton, Hanchow and Nanking, speaking with people in each place. Some gave us three hours of orientation and all parroted the same thing: “China was victorious so far as the war was concerned, but corruption in government existed from the highest officials down to streetcar conductors. The people’s or general opinion was that only a revolution could overthrow this corruption, but this they naturally dreaded. However, when the communist army first came in, they did not loot or destroy, so they were welcomed.”

With the revolution came the awful innovations of which the people told me. The communist party set groups and instigated “study classes for self-criticism” if there was opposition. It was actually “brain washing.” It is still in progress. Anti-revolutionists were quickly liquidated. Suicides occurred in such large numbers that it was dangerous to walk near high buildings. Mao Tse Tung admitted 800,000 “liquidated,” exclusive of suicides. Reports varied, however, for Hongkong heard it was 4,000,000 and Formosa, 12,000,000.

I went to a penitentiary and asked the head man how many lives were sacrificed in the revolution. He made no reply. The terror of those days was so strong that it still showed on those with whom I talked. Once a friend at the hotel where I stayed told me what certain Christians did. Then he said, “God knows—let’s not talk about it.” After this he bowed his head on my knees and cried, and together we prayed for 30 minutes.

In the country, the landowners’ property was confiscated and portioned out to those doing the farming. During a “Peoples’ Court,” crimes dating three generations back were retold and the present landowners punished. Some would confess and hand over all they had, but even this wasn’t satisfactory and they were still condemned to death. In 1949 and 1950 there were only 3,000,000 communists, and others became fellow travelers. I was told that the intelligensia didn’t approve of communism, but they thought it was the only expedient way out for the nation.

You have heard that there are no flies, no dogs, no cats (which would all be a burden to the people to care for, so they were eaten as food because of economic necessity) and no prostitutes. Externally this may be true. The situation is changed from what it was 11 years ago. But people clearly show their heartache. Only teenagers laugh freely. The older folk are very serious and stern, not lighthearted. This is true even among Christians. They are all politicians, concerned with the government—that’s all you hear.

Needs are very real; sugar and white flour are impossible to get. Students are often in near rags, just like the Japanese immediately after the war. Even underwear cannot be bought without a ration card. Most people must walk, and though there are buses, one must wait in line a long time.

Cooperative farming was to be set up, but the promised machinery hasn’t come. Increase in products was also promised, but no results. Hence there is dissatisfaction. People are told to express their opinion, but they do not dare. Discontent is rampant everywhere. To combat this the Reds instituted a “Rectification” campaign. One man said that merely means another “bloody purge,” and that feeling is evident everywhere. Students opposition is handled by having two governing bodies; one communist and the other of college representatives. Control is in the hands of the communist members. A man in Shanghai said, “I threw my pen away—couldn’t do any writing anyway.”

I have read of the arrests which took place in July after the “rectification” campaign and I am afraid many of my friends may have been arrested.

The Christians in Canton made public this pledge they are bound to:

1. We will guard and defend

A. Chairman Mao Tse Tung

B. Communism

C. The government

D. The liberation army and

E. The constitution

2. We will enthusiastically take part in loving our country and study communist policies of the government.

3. We will support the 3-self movement.

4. We will cut all connections with imperialism.

5. We will help one another.

6. We will obey Christ’s command to love one another.

7. We will love man and society.

8. On Sunday we will go to church to worship.

‘Mighty Promise’

The 1957 Worldwide Bible Reading observance, planned for the period from Thanksgiving to Christmas, has been hailed by President Eisenhower as holding “a mighty promise” for mankind.

“As the Bible’s message is made available in 1,100 tongues, reaching into the most distant corners of the earth,” the President said, “we are given strength to continue our work toward that greatest objective of all: peace on earth, good will to men.”

During the designated period, people all over the world read a preselected Scriptural passage on the same day. Last year persons in more than 50 countries participated. Climax of the program is Universal Bible Sunday, a tradition in this country since 1904, which falls on December 8.

This was signed November 4, 1951, and was put in all the churches in China. There is a clause in the constitution guaranteeing religious freedom, but nothing “anti-revolutionary” is tolerated. Not only is there freedom of religion, but also freedom of non-religion or official atheism, therefore no public proclamations (such as street meetings) can be held. It is very hard to know what is “anti-revolutionary” and what is not. Wang Min Tao, a famous Peking evangelist, was strong in his evangelical position and refused to enter into the forced union of churches. He was arrested, but the propaganda says it was not because of his Christian faith, rather because of “political” reasons.

The “Sanjiai” (3 self—self-governing, supporting, propagating) movement is an official government-approved patriotic association and has 60 per cent of the Christians enrolled. This group invited us to China. Younger men comprise the group, older men are figureheads only. They took possession of the NCC building. Episcopalians and Baptists are mostly in the leadership. The Student YMCA is not in existence. There is no real advance in the churches; the buildings have been confiscated and not returned. The time may soon come when there will be a great deal of suffering. My own fear is that the churches will collapse. Young people in the churches are few.

I have received many letters criticizing me severely. The “China-Japan Cultural Association” is seemingly neutral, yet there the infiltration of communism cannot be denied. Many groups are being infiltrated in Japan; this brings to mind how the students rioted because they couldn’t attend the Moscow convention. Some 150 did go and they returned praising Russia’s “peaceful H-Bomb and denouncing Britain’s and America’s “war” H-bomb, as the Chinese did. In the educational world, Nikkyo (the Japan Teacher’s Union) is still influential in sending the communist belief all over Japan.

In China, society is thoroughly communized, but the church could do little about it. Japan today faces the same issues. Here the student communist federation is working to produce leaders for the communist party. We must fight now to retain our freedom. It is a precious thing. My fountain pen was stolen twice in Hongkong, yet I still prefer this harbor city to oppressed Red China, though I could lay it down anywhere in China without being stolen. Freedom is much more precious than a fountain pen!

The Big Secret

What is the secret of the phenomenal rise of the Korean Church?

Some say Bible study. Some say self-support. Others say it is insistence on personal witness by believers. All probably are true, but many believe that the real secret is the intense prayer life of the Korean Church.

An American elder said to a Korean pastor a few months ago, “How many do you get out to your prayer meetings?”

“About 80,” replied the pastor.

“Why, you are no farther along than we are,” said the visitor. “We get that many out ourselves back in California on Wednesday evenings.”

“Oh,” said the surprised Korean, “if you are talking of the Wednesday night service, we get 800 out for that. I thought you meant our daily dawn prayer meetings. About 80 of our people come at 5 o’clock every morning to pray.”

That is characteristic of the Korean churches everywhere, in the city as well as the country, and where there is such prayer there is power.

—S.H.M.

Theology

Bible Book of the Month: II Thessalonians

John F. Walvoord

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

Share

Bearing On The Bible

Value And Function

Spiritual Greatness

Morality And Technical Skill

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Campus Crusade

End Chapel Services

People: Words And Events

Two Questions

William Penn Bible

Study Center

Religion And Science

Latin America

‘A Mortal Sin’

Middle East

Stopping Point

South America

Faith In Liberty

Network Expands

Far East

Report On Red China

‘Mighty Promise’

The Big Secret

Share

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