Faith and Reason

Part 1

According to many Protestant writers, Roman Catholicism is seriously mistaken in making faith a mere intellectual assent to certain dogmas. Faith, true faith in Christ, these writers say, is a personal trust rather than a cold intellectual belief. On the other side, the Catholic Encyclopedia (in loc. cit., p. 752, 1913 ed.) states “Non-Catholic writers have repudiated all idea of faith as intellectual assent.” The truth of the matter, however, seems to be more complicated than these brief characterizations suggest.

These complications include the uncritical assumption that personality should be divided into intellect, will and emotion rather than into id, ego and superego. Granted, the Freudian division may have an evil odor, but its very recognition of an evil nature in man could be closer to the biblical view than the other division allows. For the older division is not self-evidently scriptural. At any rate, those who use it often assume that intellect, will and emotion may be equated with specific biblical terms, when a study of the Bible shows that this is not so.

The Head And The Heart

The key term of biblical psychology, particularly in the Old Testament where the fundamental principles are laid down, is the term heart. When contemporary Christians, often in evangelistic preaching, contrast the head and the heart, they are in effect equating the heart with the emotions. Such an antithesis between head and heart is nowhere found in Scripture. In the Psalms and the Prophets the heart designates the focus of personal life. It is the organ of conscience, of self-knowledge, indeed of all knowledge. One may very well say that the Hebrew heart is the equivalent of the English word self.

To understand Old Testament usage, consider the following few examples.

Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually … (Gen. 6:5).

Then Abraham … said in his heart, Shall a child be born … (Gen. 17:17).

In the integrity of thy heart thou hast done this … (Gen. 20:6).

My heart exulteth in Jehovah … (1 Sam. 2:1).

Commune with your own heart (Psalm 4:4).

God, who saveth the upright in heart (Psalm 7:10).

They speak falsehood … and with a double heart do they speak (Psalm 12:2).

The fool hath said in his heart … (Psa. 14:1).

He … speaketh truth in his heart (Psalm 15:2).

Lest they … understand with their heart (Isa. 6:10).

Neither doth his heart think so (Isa. 10:7).

He hath shut … their hearts that they cannot understand. And none calleth to mind [heart], neither is there knowledge nor understanding (Isa. 44:18, 19).

As there are somewhat over 750 occurrences of the word heart in the Old Testament, these form a meager sample. But they are enough to show that many verses would make complete nonsense if the term were translated emotion. For example, if this identification were made, it would be necessary to say, “He speaketh truth in his emotions”; and, “Lest they understand with their emotions.” Obviously this substitution results in nonsense. It is not to be denied that the biblical term heart can and does occasionally refer to the emotions, as in 1 Samuel 2:1, though even here there must be some intellectual understanding. But although sometimes referring to the emotions, the term heart more often signifies the intellect. It is the heart that speaks, meditates, thinks and understands. At the same time, since the self acts emotionally, volitionally and intellectually, the three activities are each represented in the several occurrences of the term.

But the preponderance of the intellectual references shows the preponderance of the intellect in the personality. It is extremely difficult to appreciate the motives, at least in the case of those who are attached to the Bible, which lead to a disparagement of the intellect. Why is it that thinking, meditating, understanding are to be condemned? Why is knowing and thinking of God a poor way, an impossible way or an impious way of coming to him? What is wrong with intellectual activity?

The common modern contrast between head and heart is thus evidently unscriptural. There is a scriptural contrast. It is the contrast between the heart and the lips, for Matthew is quoting Isaiah when he says, “This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” When the scriptural contrast is refused, the possibility cannot be ruled out that other scriptural theses are discarded at the same time.

Two results of this unscriptural belittling of intellectual activity will be discussed.

The Element Of Trust

In describing the nature of faith, fundamentalists, evangelicals and even modernists in a certain way stress the element of trust. A preacher may draw a parallel between trusting in Christ and trusting in a chair. Belief that the chair is solid and comfortable, mere intellectual assent to such a proposition, will not rest your weary bones. You must, the preacher insists, actually sit in the chair. Similarly, so goes the argument, you can believe all that the Bible says about Christ and it will do you no good. Such illustrations as these are constantly used, in spite of the fact that the Bible says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”

Confusing The Issue

There is here at least a confusion of mind, a confusion between something unscriptural and something else that is entirely scriptural. The weak point of the illustration is that it contrasts an intellectual act of believing with a physical act of sitting in a chair. This distinction is a matter of common experience; but how is it supposed to apply? In the spiritual realm there is no physical action but mental action only; hence the act of sitting down, if it means anything at all, must refer to something completely internal and yet different from belief. Belief in the chair has been made to stand for belief in Christ, and according to the illustration belief in Christ is of no value. Something else is needed. But what is this something else that corresponds to the act of sitting down in the chair? This is the question that is so seldom answered. Now, there is such an internal factor, though it is extremely doubtful that those who use the illustration have this factor in mind. But since there is another facet of mental activity, the truth that has been confused with the error needs to be given its due. However, when the true element is identified, the illustration collapses.

In addition to “mere belief” or “intellectual assent” faith in Christ surely involves an “act of will.” Whether faith requires emotion or not and if so, which emotion it requires are at best secondary considerations. Emotions notoriously depend on bodily conditions; a good meal or a bad meal can alter them; atmospheric pressure and anemia likewise. Emotions by definition are fluctuating; whereas throughout our constantly changing emotional states, our beliefs and the volitions founded on them remain comparatively fixed. And, to return, faith surely involves the will.

Here, however, the original difficulty returns in full force. Is there such a thing as “mere belief,” or “mere intellectual assent?” Indeed, is there such a distinguishable phenomenon as a “mere” act of will? Intellectual assent is itself an act of will; and conversely, no volitional action could possibly take place without belief. If you will to eat ice cream, you must believe at least that there is some ice cream to be eaten. Intellect and will are not two separate “faculties”; rather they so interpenetrate in a single mental state that it is difficult and perhaps impossible not only to separate them in time but even in definition.

Faith And Belief

There is perhaps another flaw in the illustration, a flaw which also combines an element of truth with a confusion of thought. It would seem that those who say belief in Christ is of no value have an incorrect notion of belief and intellectual assent. They probably mean—though it is rash to guess what they might mean—that salvation is not obtained by knowing the propositions in the Bible and understanding their meaning. Obviously this is true. Many intelligent men know very well what the Bible says; they understand it far better than many Christians; but they are not saved and they are not Christians. The reason is that though they understand, they do not believe.

Clear thinking, however, will reveal that faith, Christian faith, is not to be distinguished from belief. Consider Hebrews 11:1. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” The A.R.V. says that “faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.” Assurance and conviction are belief, strong belief, voluntary belief and as intellectual as you please. The heroes of faith, whom the chapter goes on to describe, all believed some definite intellectual content. Hebrews 11:3 says, “Through faith we understand” something about the creation of the world. Surely this is an intellectual content. And in explaining why “without faith it is impossible to please God,” verse 6 says, “for he that cometh to God must believe that he is.” As a reply to those who disparage the intellect within the limits of this first example, let this suffice.

[TO BE CONCLUDED IN NEXT ISSUE]

- More from Gordon H. Clark

Cover Story

Theological Climate in America

G. Brillenburg Wurth

To a European the study of contemporary American theology is highly important. America is one of the two political, cultural and spiritual poles (Russia being the other), around which oscillate the main currents of the life and thought of Western Europe.

For a long time America was of no concern to the spiritual vision of a European. Indeed, Europe looked down upon an America it considered immature and culturally undeveloped. The “Yankee” did not appear to be a cultured inhabitant of Western Europe. Fie seemed solely concerned with the dollar. He appeared to have little understanding of spiritual life. Since the last World War, however, the European’s attitude has changed. Personal contact with Americans has led to a better understanding and appreciation. In any case, the economic and political life of Western Europe must take America into account. The luxury of ignoring the existence of this great power in the West is no longer permissible. Nor, for that matter, can we Europeans ignore Russia and the Far East.

Present-day American theology is still predominantly liberal or modernistic in character. In the past, this was not the case. Once America was the land of the Pilgrim Fathers. The public life bore a Christian stamp in all social expressions. American theological faculties, for example, at Harvard, were fortresses of orthodox Christianity and orthodox theology.

Retreat From Orthodoxy

The spiritual powers now in control of American life cannot be called Christian. In philosophy, the Pragmatism of which William James is the spiritual father has exercised a great influence for many years. Its modernized form is found in the Behaviorism of John Dewey.

Pragmatism is closely connected, in some respects, with the historical origin of the American people. The colonist, who daily encountered the hard facts of reality and therefore did not have much time and interest for abstract philosophical speculation, was inclined to ask, “What is the benefit of it?”

The specific type of Pragmatism encountered in James and Dewey is one of the characteristic off-shoots of the Enlightenment, which at the end of the eight-teenth century propelled life along radically new paths. The Enlightenment exchanged historical Christianity for a humanistic rationalism, strongly optimistic in character and nearly unconditional in its faith in the unlimited possibilities of human nature. The roots of this philosophy have gone deep in America. The eighteenth century American stood on the threshold of its natural development. Under the influence of the Enlightenment it suddenly became conscious of its enormous potentialities. In this respect no figure was more important for his own time and for later periods than Benjamin Franklin, in whom the young America was so-to-speak incarnated. With him was launched the triumph of modern science, especially the application of science to technique. The unbelievable accomplishments of technology have shaped America into a land where the majority, not just a fortunate few, can achieve a standard of living higher than any previously conceived. This trend in development was favorably disposed to the rise of Pragmatism.

Truth Reduced To Utility

Pragmatism implies the radical denial of each concept of truth. Truth is no longer a magnitude of an entity in its own right. Just as modern American life was oriented toward utility, so truth became reduced to usefulness. Truth is what is useful, what in one way or another serves the vital needs of the individual in society. And since different individuals have different needs, Pragmatism for the first time in the history of philosophical thought consciously proposed a pluralistic concept of truth. Truth is not unitary; truth is just as much a plurality as life is pluriform. What is true for one person does not necessarily have to be true for another.

The Behaviorism of John Dewey, a mild form of this early Pragmatism, is known by the term Instrumentalism. For Dewey, the human spirit is in its essence nothing but an instrument, a utensil, a tool, suited for the attainment of a specific aim. It is clearly evident how thoroughly undermining this concept is for the Christian faith. Nothing is more devastating to our spiritual life than such a devaluation of the concept of truth. It results in a spiritual decline of human life in its entirety, especially in the field of religion.

Religion is not denied its right to exist. Dewey believes, however, that religion comes into its own only when it breaks all connection with the supernatural. What is left, however, is a religion that no longer deserves the name of religion. It is a religion without God. Some may continue to speak of something divine, but faith in a personal God as the creator of the world and of man is abandoned. Man was not created by God. God is a creation of man. Man is able to manufacture everything that he desires. Man makes or fabricates all he desires and needs, also his God.

It is deplorable that Dewey’s viewpoint still gives the general tone to present-day scientific America and controls much of the entire philosophy of education.

Gospel Becomes Social Energy

What has been the attitude of the Christian Church during the last century with respect to Pragmatism and Humanism? Has it been asleep? Did it simply allow the life of its time to slip by unnoticed? Certainly not. The large ecclesiastical bodies in the United States (e.g., Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist) have so far been a model of powerful activity in this twentieth century. For example, their enormous accomplishments in the field of philanthropy and missions are well known. Financially and organizationally, America has for a long time played a dominant role in the missionary enterprise.

To a large extent, however, the prevailing American spirit has left its mark upon the official life and theology of the larger denominations. In particular, this is evidence in the social gospel movement, which since the beginning of this century has been the motif of American theology. The attempt to confront with the Gospel of Christ the problems of modern American life, especially the important problem of an industrialized society, is in itself worthy of respect. What is seriously to be regretted, however, and what has resulted in great spiritual damage, is that this movement has been accompanied by a complete lack of resistance to the dominating spirit of the time. The latter has been given a completely free hand to dictate the path to be followed. What is characteristic of the social gospel is not so much the application of the gospel to social questions but rather the overwhelming emphasis placed on social problems by this gospel. The entire gospel is seen as a social and ethical totality; everything that does not fit into this framework is discarded.

This accomodation of the gospel to social and ethical problems was readily accomplished through the inner affinity of the social gospel and the dominant American liberal theology.

Triumph Of Enlightenment

The spirit of the Enlightenment with its rationalism, moralism, optimism, and tolerance had conquered the entire New World. In harmony with the spirit of tolerance, the separation of church and state was not guarded against an exaggerated and libertarian concept of religious freedom. The acceptable view was that everyone can believe and teach whatever he wishes. The day was not distant when faith was strongly reduced in its content. Of the original Christian confession, very little was to remain in force. In the broadest circles, the ideal became a religion as free as possible of any dogmatism and predominantly moral in character. Even unitarian tendencies became respected as essentially Christian. Inevitably, the grace of God was little understood. Much more important than God’s mercy in Christ, it was held, is the dignity of man. One can thus truly speak of the trend as the humanization of religion. “The biggest goal of God’s laws and religion,” said one of the spiritual leaders of the time, “is human happiness.” He did not bother to add “… the happiness of unregenerate man.”

Impact Of Evolutionary Science

The theology of the social gospel clearly contains trends of the piety of the Enlightenment, especially its individualism, rationality, and unconquerable faith in human progress. These tendencies acquired a special emphasis with respect to the Darwinian theory of evolution, so cherished by the modern ideal of science.

One task of science was thought to be that it should, as much as possible, purify religion of all so-called nonessential elements (especially the miraculous!) so that it would be a suitable foundation for modern society.

In the form of modern biblical criticism science was expected to lead to the creation of a more “correct” picture of Jesus, which would replace the ecclesiastical Christological dogma by a completely human Jesus.

The idea of development was now applied to the New Testament message of the Kingdom of God, viewed as a human accomplishment, to be developed by human effort, within the boundries of our human era.

Religion Narrowed To Ethics

A new type of Christian piety arose. The religious, in its entirety, was nearly subordinated to the ethical. Honest moral conduct was considered to be the best form of religiosity.

Great value was ascribed to the idea of the brotherhood of man on the basis of the universal Fatherhood of God. This brotherhood discloses itself in the cooperation envisioned by the social gospel, in the equality of man, and in a recognition of the absolute value of human personality.

In time the ideal of the democratization of the industrial social order arose; that is, the workers must receive the right to organize.

In international relations the Christian ideal of life was also to be applied according to the Golden Rule, “Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you” (Matt. 7:12). War was viewed as a serious violation of the divine world order.

Although these concepts undoubtedly have some real values, Christianity is hereby conceived in a predominantly collective fashion. Very little value is placed on personal salvation. The entire Christian faith is restated in terms of collective solidarity. God’s plan primarily consists in saving and reforming human society.

Inseparably connected with this movement was the removal from Christianity of all “transcendent” elements. Walter Rauschenbusch, a representative figure of the social gospel, sought to humanize all religion, including the conception of God. He frankly said that today God must be dethroned in order to meet the needs of men. What is necessary is “a God with whom men may cooperate, not to whom they must submit.” God is openly proclaimed to be a partner of man. And Harry Emerson Fosdick, one of America’s most popular preachers, ascribed only one function to religion, namely, the service of man and humanity. Religion according to him was a question of psychology. It was not concerned with the knowledge of God but with a knowledge of man and his human end.

It is no wonder that in this spiritual atmosphere no room remained for the biblical evangelical proclamation: the preaching of Christ as God’s Redeemer, reconciliation through his sacrifice, and justification by faith in his Atonement and Resurrection. The historicity of Christ no longer had any integrating significance. The only thing important, declared A. W. Palmer, one-time President of Chicago Theological Seminary, is “that Christ shall be reduplicated in a myriad of Saviours.”

Fidelity To The Bible

American Fundamentalism has also contributed to the theological climate of America. In sharp contrast to the predominantly moralistic social gospel in which the atoning death of Christ has almost no place, in Fundamentalism one often finds a hearty inner piety, especially a joy in the blood of the atonement and in the grace of the Holy Spirit. Characterized by an unconditional respect for the witness of the Scriptures, Fundamentalism views modern biblical criticism as a serious threat to true Christianity. Unconditionally it retains the plenary inspiration of the Bible and requires that, above all else, one must bow in faith to what is revealed in Scripture.

Special emphasis is laid, however, upon what are considered to be fundamental biblical truths: the virgin birth of Christ; his metaphysical Sonship; his crucifixion as the only basis of salvation; his resurrection; original sin, and the consequent depravity of man; and eternal life and eternal death, as the twofold starting points of human life. Fundamentalists deem it impossible to have any bond or fellowship with one who denies any of these fundamental truths.

Lack Of Cultural World-View

Often, however, the impression is given that faith in these truths is only a blind subjection to an external authority without the integration of these truths into the totality of life. And, in many cases, no attempt is made to reach a solution to questions of the relevance of Christianity to modern science and culture. Such questions are in fact often met by a hostile attitude. Usually there is no awareness of the call and obligation of a Christian to culture or the intellectual content of civilization. Christianity is thus in danger of degenerating into a morbid and sickly enthusiasm.

Niebuhr On Liberalism

After this short and incomplete characterization of the twentieth century American spiritual and theological situation, it may be well to discuss briefly a representative of contemporary American theology, Reinhold Niebuhr. Niebuhr’s theology is usually described by the term “Christian Realism.” This designation distinguished it from the older theology of the social gospel, which was characterized by a definite idealistic tendency and a naive trust in the goodness of human nature.

The social gospel limited itself to social programs and high-sounding social slogans, but it scarcely disturbed the actual life of society. Niebuhr gradually discovered the cause of this failure of liberal theology to lie in its anthropology, its theory concerning man, which lacks all understanding of the demonic depth of human existence. In its thoughtless optimism, Liberalism imagined that a proclamation of law of love could of itself conquer the natural egoism of the human heart. Its perfectionism, its new faith in human perfectability, did not take into account the deeply rooted power of sin in human nature.

In addition to his campaign against Liberalism, Niebuhr conducted a second front against orthodoxy. The basic fault of Liberalism was to be sought in its sentimentality; the lack of power of orthodoxy was due to its pessimism. Orthodoxy’s vision was too exclusively directed to the sinfulness of our world. Therefore, orthodoxy maintained the status quo as much as possible. It feared that if changes were made in the existing order, the result could only be complete chaos.

Niebuhr is undoubtedly one of the most important figures in the theological world of today; in more than one respect he is worth listening to. We consider it of great importance that Niebuhr was one of the first to recognize the pernicious totalitarian structure of such ideologies as National Socialism and Communism. Niebuhr was one of the first to understand that sin is more than a wrong subjective attitude of the human heart; it can also become incarnate in certain social relationships, which then constitute the greatest threat to temporal human life.

Flaws In Niebuhr’S Thought

At the same time, we believe that there are serious objections to Niebuhr’s theology and ethics.

His views are dangerous because Niebuhr is one of the most noteworthy and most gifted representatives of a new type of theology, often qualified in America as “neo-orthodoxy.” Many hope that neo-orthodoxy will provide the basis of a future ecumenical theology. As a matter of fact, neo-orthodoxy contains something which makes it appropriate for this purpose. It is preeminently a theology of synthesis. The chasm between orthodoxy and Liberalism appears to be bridged in a genial manner. Basic evangelical sounds are heard and what offends modern man’s world view and religious autonomy is discarded.

In this respect Niebuhr’s theology displays a striking agreement with another fashionable theologian of our time, Rudolph Bultmann, who by his de-mythologizing seeks to escape the offense of biblical revelation. Bultmann does not realize that in the meantime he has exchanged revelation for a modern religious Existentialism. The latter is ready to speak to modern man in his despair, but it shares with the true gospel of Jesus Christ only a verbal similarity.

Our century is apparently repeating the same mistakes made by the theologians in the nineteenth century. Everything points to the fact that a new theology is more adapted to the needs of twentieth century man; it contains dialectical tension, is less strange to reality, and has a better understanding of the tragic depths of human life. But like nineteenth century theology, it accomodates the gospel in its deepest kernel to the dominant spirit of the time, and has received its stamp from the dominating philosophy of the day.

Because of the important influence of America upon the economic and political life of the world, Europeans watch with interest the theological climate of this great nation. It is hoped that the humanization of religion under Liberal influence will be halted, and greater emphasis given the transcendental elements of Christianity.

Dr. G. Brillenburg Wurth has taught for a number of years at Kampen Theological Seminary in the Netherlands. He is author of many books, and writes frequently on such themes as pastoral counselling, the Christian life, Christian morals, and Christian ethics.

- More from G. Brillenburg Wurth

Cover Story

Are We Obscurantists?

Bernard Ramm

A frequent criticism of evangelicalism is that it is obscurantist. An obscurantist is one who binders knowledge, or actively resists its progress. In religion it refers to those who oppose the progress of critical biblical scholarship and the findings of modern science. Because evangelicals do not accept much of the current theories in Old and New Testament criticism they are branded as obscurantists. The charge is that obscurantism is essential to evangelicalism and as long as evangelicals persist in it they are anachronisms in the modern theological world.

To the contrary I shall defend the thesis that obscurantism, far from being essential to the evangelical position, is positively not a part of its essence. Further, it is impossible for an evangelical who truly understands his position to be an obscurantist. That obscurantism does associate itself with conservative religion cannot be denied; but the reasons for this are psychological and sociological. It is not the product of the essence of evangelicalism.

Role Of Scientific Scholarship

The Roman Catholic Church professes to be graced with an infallibility that enables her to determine the canon of scripture; to issue decrees on matters of biblical introduction; and, if necessary, to give an authoritative interpretation of a passage of Scripture. The Reformers substituted a different program. They accepted the divine authority of Scripture and the inner witness of the Divine Spirit. But they cut off their divine certainties at this point. They did not profess to possess a special means of knowing the text, canon or interpretation of Scripture. Such items were not considered matters of revelation. The only hedge put around such matters was that no position could be held that was a virtual denial of the revelatory content of Scripture nor of its divine inspiration. The authenticity and genuineness of Scripture could not be challenged without serious damage to its inspiration and its revealed content.

If the Reformers rejected the Roman Catholic position in these matters, there was only one other avenue open to them: these matters are settled by principles of scientific scholarship working with due reverence for the word of God and trusting that these matters were under the providential guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It was the essence of the Reformers’ position to commit themselves to a program of devout, critical biblical scholarship. Biblical obscurantism is therefore not part of the essence of the evangelical Protestant tradition. Just the opposite happens to be the case.

Text Of Scripture

The evangelical has no means of settling the text of the Scripture outside the usual methods of scholarship. There is no official copy of either the Hebrew or Greek Testaments. There are only copies of them. There is only one conceivable method of settling the text of Scripture and that is by the employment of the general science of textual criticism modified to fit the peculiarities presented by the biblical texts. When Calvin treated the text of Scripture, he employed the methodology he learned as a humanist and attempted scientifically to determine the true readings (cf. B. B. Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, p. 58). Warfield himself affirmed in another place that “processes that are valid for the ascertainment of a secular are equally valid for the ascertainment of a sacred text” (Critical Reviews, p. 81).

Evangelicals may believe that God has remarkably preserved the text of the Old and New Testaments, but to determine the precise text of Scripture is a problem for scientific criticism. This is the essence of the evangelical position, and there is, therefore, no place for obscurantism here.

Calvin accepted the canon of the Church but it was no blind acceptance. His acceptance was (in Warfield’s phrase) “critically mediated” (Calvin and Augustine, p. 54). Again Calvin put his former humanist learning to service. He investigated the history and the internal characteristics of the books of the canon.

Faith that God would lead the Church to establish a canon does not settle the limits of the canon. The internal witness of the Holy Spirit bears witness to the divinity of Scripture, but the internal witness of the Spirit does not determine the canon. The canon is determined by historical research and criticism, and there is no place here for obscurantism. The very opposite was the essence of the Reformers’ position.

The scholarly ability of Luther and Calvin may be readily gathered from the relevant chapters of E. H. Harbison’s The Christian Scholar in the Age of the Reformation. Much of the powerful striking force of Luther and Calvin must be credited to their scholarly backgrounds. Luther’s translation of the Bible earned for him the right to be called a scholar, and no one acquainted with the Commentaries and Institutes of Calvin could dare think otherwise of the Swiss Reformer. Warfield also sketches for us the remarkable education and scholarly traits of Calvin (Calvin and Augustine, Chapter I).

Interpretation Of Scripture

The Reformers’ rejected Rome’s claim to be the infallible and authoritative interpreter of Scripture. Their counterblow was to develop a critical and scientific hermeneutics, whose greatest achievement is in Calvin’s Commentaries. While not depreciating nor underestimating the necessity of prayer and faith in understanding sacred Scripture, the Reformers proceeded to develop a scientific hermeneutics to replace the authoritarian hermeneutics of Roman Catholicism.

A battle raged over the use of the Hebrew and Greek Testaments by the Reformers and the Latin Vulgate by the Catholics. A scientific understanding of exegesis drove Luther and Calvin back to the original languages of Scripture. Thanks to the Reformers, Hebrew and Greek were restored to their proper places in exegesis. The story of the contest over the original languages versus the Latin Vulgate is briefly recited in Preus’s The Inspiration of Scripture (p. 134 ff.). Here again the evangelical position is pledged to a scientific scholarship operating within the circle of Christian faith. No obscurantist methodology is available to the evangelical to enable him to interpret Scripture.

The scientific attitude of Luther and Calvin toward matters of biblical criticism is a matter of record. By no means was their approach characterized by obscurantism. Perhaps the most serious differences between evangelicals and much of contemporary biblical scholarship are at the level of literary criticism. But the essence of the Reformers’ position and of the evangelicals is that matters of literary criticism must also be settled by the canons of the highest scholarship. The evangelical insists that revelation and inspiration are as much objective data as the other materials of literary criticism, and it is this insistence which creates the divergences between them and contemporary schools of thought. However this may be judged, the point is still obvious that the essence of the evangelical position is not obscurantist.

Role Of Scientific Scholarship

First, evangelicals admit that much biblical learning has been contributed by non-evangelical scholars (e.g., Bible dictionaries, Bible encyclopedias, commentaries, lexicons). The outstanding Reformed scholar of France wrote: “We are not foolish enough to condemn modern criticism as a whole. The works of the best representatives have contributed and still contribute to a better understanding and a greater love of the sacred text. It would be absurd as well as unjust to accuse all modern critics of a spirit of systematic hostility to divine realities” (A. Lecerf, An Introduction to Reformed Dogmatics, p. 304). The great Reformed scholar of another century in Holland was of the firm conviction that the scholarly works of men outside the boundary of orthodoxy could be employed with profit by the Christian scholar (A. Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, p. 581).

Second, evangelicals admit that there is no short cut for the hard work of biblical criticism. They may venture an opinion that much of modern critical work is hay, wood and stubble but that does not settle the data for them. Evangelicals must make their peace with the Pentateuchal problem, the Synoptic problem, or the Johannine problem. “The believer cannot at any time afford to be obscurantist; and orthodox scholarship must set right criticism over against wrong criticism” is the outspoken opinion of a Reformed theologian (John Murray, The Infallible Word, p. 10).

Evangelicals may be flayed for not facing up to modern criticism or for not making a significant contribution to it. They may be accused of harboring too large a population of obscurantists. But the thesis here propounded is undamaged: The pattern of the Reformers states that when divine certainties end, the only safe guide is the finest of scientific scholarship excercised in humility before God. Obscurantism has no place in an evangelicalism which properly understands itself; in fact, the essence of evangelicalism demands the wholehearted denial of it.

Bernard Ramm is Professor of Religion and Director of Graduate Studies in Religion in Baylor University, and was formerly Professor of Philosophy at Bethel College and Seminary, St. Paul. He holds the A.B. degree from University of Washington, B.D. from Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Ph.D. from University of Southern California.

- More from John Calvin

Korean Missions: Triumph and Shadow

L. Nelson Bell

No Christian can visit Korea and not be moved with a sense of deep gratitude to God for what he has done in that land. In no other field where Christian missions have had a reasonably adequate opportunity to work has there emerged a church of the strength and influence on the life of the nation as a whole comparable with that to be found in Korea.

Comparisons can be unwelcome for they are not always justified. But on any given Sabbath it has been estimated that more people worship in Seoul’s largest Presbyterian church than in all churches of that denomination in all of Japan. And this church is but one of over four hundred in that city, over half of which are Presbyterian. This may give a relatively true picture of the comparative impact which Christianity has made on these two nations.

Presbyterianism is strong in Korea because of the combined work of American, Australian and other missions of that denomination over the years. The Methodists, Baptists and others also have much to show for their work.

Reasons For Growth

Many factors have entered into the success of the Christian enterprise in Korea. They are a religious people, devout in worship and ready and anxious to hear. National frustration during the years of Japanese occupation may have driven some into the church for solace. In addition, exceedingly wise mission policies were adopted by the early missionaries. What is known as the “Nevius Plan” led to the establishing of a self-reliant national church, looking to the missions primarily for spiritual cooperation rather than for financial assistance.

Furthermore, the Korean Church has been a Bible-instructed church. For many years, during the cold winter months, centers of organized study were held in central locations. Here church officers and lay readers, men and women, would join in two or more months of intensive study. The courses were set up on a long-range basis so that Christians received comprehensive instruction over a period of several years. This led to probably the highest rate of spiritual literacy to be found.

The Korean Church has been a praying church. Even today almost all places of worship are open long before dawn and thousands of Christians resort to them to pray. That these buildings are unheated and the weather sub-freezing does not deter these earnest people.

Suffering too has taken its toll and borne its precious fruit. Because of their faith, thousands of pastors and other Christians have undergone imprisonment, torture and death. The Shrine issue, imposed by the Japanese, found hundreds of Korean pastors ready to endure prison and torture rather than violate their consciences. To them submission to the demands that they attend Shrine ceremonies involved an act of idolatrous worship and they were willing to suffer for conscience and principle’s sake.

Later even greater and more universal atrocities were perpetrated by the Communists who rightly considered the church and Christians their greatest source of opposition. At least five hundred pastors were martyred by the red invaders and tens of thousands of other Christians died because of their allegiance to Christ.

The Korean Church has been a generous church, Christians often giving far more than their tithe. Many bring an offering of rice each week, having taken a part of this major source of their diet and set it aside for the work of the Church.

Such faith and virile Christianity have resulted in churches scattered over the length and breadth of Korea. Prior to the taking over of the North by the Communists, the Church was particularly strong in that area. Reliable information today indicates that rigorous suppression has driven the church underground. Of great significance is the fact that there is a Christian church on an average of every three miles along the southern border of the DMZ (demilitarized zone) which stretches across Korea.

The present Korean government recognizes the significance and importance of the Christian movement through the appointment of Christian chaplains for the armed services. Prisons also have chaplains. Only under the Nationalist government on Taiwan (Formosa) does a similar situation exist in the Far East.

A Time Of Burden

But it would be wrong to imply that World War II, liberation from the Japanese, the arbitrary division of the country, the invasion of the South by the Communists with the attending loss of life and destruction of property and now the uneasy truce and the blight of economic instability, have not all combined to affect the church adversely. These things are taking their toll.

Prior to the communist invasion the population of Korea was more or less equally divided geographically. Today twenty-two million people live in the South, only six in the North. This influx of people from the North has brought its blessings and its serious problems. Many Christians have come South, men and women strong in the faith and willing to bear their witness. Literally hundreds of new churches have been started by and for these displaced persons and most of them are self-supporting.

But such wholesale transplanting of the population has been attended by serious economic problems. The North has been developed industrially and in that area there are rich reserves of iron, good coal and other minerals. The South has been largely the granary of the country. New industries are now being gradually developed but last year the entire exports were said to be only twenty million dollars. The refusal of the present government to accept normal economic relations with Japan is a handicap to both countries, particularly Korea. It is also encouraging wholesale smuggling from Japan.

The disruption of wars and their aftermaths are also to be noted in the life of the Church. Less emphasis is now laid on organized Bible study than formerly. Standards in some theological seminaries have been lowered until a graduate of a “night seminary,” of which there are many, is now accepted in the senior class and subsequently graduated.

Relief money and goods have been poured into Korea in recent years. Desperately needed at the beginning, the continued flow of help from the outside is in danger of having an adverse effect in the important realm of self-support and self-reliance. Also, seeing hundreds of millions of dollars poured into the country by the American government, some of which is obviously squandered and misused, seems to be creating a desire for more money from abroad, even in the work of the church.

It is of more than passing significance that an American administrator recently asked an experienced missionary to explain to him the “Nevius Plan,” with the candid admission, “We have made a mess of much of our relief program in this country.”

Experienced mission personnel in Korea seems united in the opinion that certain mission boards are now complicating the situation for the Korean Church by proposing a policy directly antithetical to the policy that was so largely responsible for the strong Church which exists in Korea today. The observation has been made by one missionary that the recipients of relief funds should never be the ones who administer those funds. Also, that any move to subsidize a church, be it in America or in Korea, is a “step backward, nor forward.”

Preacher In The Red

FOR PAGANS ONLY

The problem of making an early contact with newcomers to the city has always been a problem for me as a minister.

In my pastorate of the First Christian Church, Lynchburg, Va., I thought I was on the way to finding a solution when I obtained the names of all newcomers to the city each week from a merchant association.

I wrote each new resident a brief note of welcome. I urged them to join in the religious life of the city and I invited them to attend a morning or evening service of worship at my church.

Everything was going well until one day I received a letter of reply from one of the newcomers.

The letter read:

“Your letter expressing interest and welcome to us on our arrival here is very kind. I am sure that you did not note that I will be occupying the pulpit here in Fairview Heights Methodist Church each Sunday for both services, but nevertheless it is good to be welcomed. Trusting I may have the privilege of meeting you soon, and with best wishes, I am Sincerely, (signed) F. Lester Hylton.” COLBERT S. CARTWRIGHT Pastor, Pulaski Heights Christian Church, Little Rock, Ark.

Faith And The Future

What of the future? Korea is a land of uncertainties. Divided by the agreement of outside powers; an armed camp by necessity; living perilously on an economy based on outside aid; controlled by a government strong in determination to resist Communism, (and even economic ties with Japan), but weak and often corrupt at local levels; little wonder that optimism is a lagging commodity in that land. There is an overwhelming sense of uncertainty, of living from day to day, of an unwholesome dependence on American money and might. There is also a rightful yearning for a re-united country, a country now divided and for which American leadership is rightly blamed.

The bright spot on the horizon, and it is a bright spot, is the devotion, loyalty and faith of the Church. Those who have invested their lives or their money in Christian work in that land have much to show for their investment. The same God who has strengthened and blessed that Church is still present and active today.

Apparently secure in the peace and plenty of American Church life we should pray earnestly for our brothers in Christ in Korea, a land of triumph and a land of shadow.

END

My Father

He knows! My heavenly Father surely knows

The mortal limitations that oppress

This earth-born frame: the dire distress

Of surging griefs: the diabolic foes

That hold the soul in grim encounter: every need

He knows, and all my wants His mercies still exceed.

He cares! I know my heavenly Father cares,

And bids me cast on Him the pressing load

Of dark, foreboding thought. ’Tis mine the road

Of filial trust to tread, since He who bears

In hands omnipotent the sparrow and the ages

Makes me His care, and for my weel His might engages.

He can! My Father’s boundless grace can meet

The high demands of full salvation: sure

His succour in temptation, to endure

His help sufficient, swift His rescuing feet.

His promises arc matched with equal powers: the score

Of all my prayers this motto bears, “He can do more!”

He will! Performance crowns the triple grace

Of knowledge, care and power divine. What work

Begun will be performed until the murk

Of time dispels. Complete before His face

I then shall stand from pain and tribulation brought,

While powers supernal loud acclaim, “What hath God wrought!”

J. C. MACAULAY

- More from L. Nelson Bell

Theology

Bible Text of the Month: John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh

unto the Father but by me (John 14:6)

Jesus here says: I am the means of coming to the Father (the way) in that I am the truth and the life.—F. L. Godet.

The three terms lay down the proposition that no other than Christ is the Mediator of eternal salvation with God in the Messianic kingdom, under three several characteristic aspects which are coordinated yet in such a way that the advance is made from the general to the particular.—H. A. W. Meyer.

Note as belonging to all three of these that remarkable: I am. We show a way, Christ is it. We speak truth, Christ is it. Parents impart life, which they have received, Christ is life. He separates himself from all men by that representation that he is not merely the communicator or the teacher or the guide, but that he himself is, in his own personal being, way, truth, life.—Alexander Maclaren.

The way without error, the truth without darkness, the life without end. The way in exile, the truth in counsel, the life in reward. All the words call us to Christ. Post me, per me, ad me, after me, by me, to me. After me, because I am truth; by me, because I am the way; to me, because I am life.—Thomas Adams.

The Way

I am the way. This is spiritually spoken of that union of the believer with Christ, which opens a way of approach to God, so that as Christ himself returns to the Father, the believer may follow in his footsteps and attain to the same place of glory and bliss.… Christ opens for all his followers a way to heaven, by the atoning efficacy of his blood. He is therefore figuratively declared to be the way, because he is thus the author of salvation to them that believe in him.—John J. Owen.

God did at the beginning assign us a path to walk in with him, even the path of innocency and exact holiness, in a covenant of works. This path, by sin, is so filled with thorns and briers, so stopped up by curses and wrath, that no flesh living can take one step in that path; a new way for us to walk in must be found out, if ever we think to hold communion with God. It is hid in Christ. All the world cannot, but by and in him, discover a path that a man may walk one step with God.—John Owen.

In the religious language of the Jews, it meant the path which a soul should follow in order to reach the true goal of its destiny; in order to be conformed to the will of God. Thus the Psalmist speaks of the way of the righteous, the right way, the way of God’s statutes, the way of truth, the way wherein I should walk, the perfect way; and the Book of Proverbs of the way of life; and Isaiah of the way of the just, the way of holiness, the way of peace; and Jeremiah of the good way, the one way, the way to Zion, the way which God would show; and Amos of the way of the meek; and Malachi of the way that the forerunner should prepare; and Zacharias of the way of peace into which the Day-star from on high would guide our feet.—H. P. Liddon.

The Truth

He does not say, “I teach the truth.” All teachers would at least wish to say that. He does not say, “I am the greatest teacher of truth that the world has seen.” That would have been true; but it would have fallen short, almost infinitely short, of the reality. He does say, “I am the Truth.” … His message is bound up indissolubly with his person; nay, he is his own message to the world. His language is intolerable or meaningless unless there exists such a person as he proclaims himself to be, and unless he is that person. In short, Christ is Christianity.—H. P. Liddon.

God himself is the first and only essential Truth, in whose being and nature the springs of all truth do lie. The counsels of God are the next spring and cause of all truth that is so declarative. Of them all the person of Christ is the sacred repository and treasury—in him are they to be learned. All their efficacy and use depend on their relation unto him. He is the centre and circumference of all the lines of truth—that is, which is divine, spiritual, and supernatural. And the beauty of it is presented to us only in his face or person.… So we are said to learn the truth as it is in Jesus (Eph. 4:21). And the knowledge of all evangelical sacred truth is, in the Scripture, most frequently expressed by the knowledge of him (John 8:19; 17:3; 2 Cor. 2:14; 4:5, 6; Eph. 1:16; Phil. 3:8, 19; 1 John 1:1, 2; 2:4, 13; 5:20; 2 Pet. 2:20).—John Owen.

But now where is this truth? I will tell you an apologue. Four friends parting inquired where they should find one another again; the water, the fire, the wind and the truth. Fire said, You shall be sure to find me in a flint stone. Water said, you shall be sure to find me in the root of a bulrush. Wind said, you shall be sure to find me amongst the leaves. But poor truth could appoint no certain place of meeting. What say you to Westminster Hall? Indeed, there is room enough, but small room for truth. What say you to the exchange? There be fair walks, but they may exchange away truth. Is she then in the courts? We behold there always the seat of truth, but not always truth in him that supplies that place. You would smile to find her in children and fools; yet they say, children and fools tell truth. But if it be childhood or folly to tell truth, I am sure we have but a few children, a few fools. Where then shall we find truth? I hope in the church, in the pulpits: oh God forbid else! yet often truth keeps only in the pulpit, and does not go down-stairs with the man, but stays there till his coming up again.… There is no certain place to find truth, but in the word of God; there let us seek her, there we shall find her. Now the God of truth give us the truth of God, in the knowledge of Jesus Christ.—Thomas Adams.

The Life

The life which believers derive from God is through Christ. He is that eternal word, by which all things were made on their first creation, and do still subsist. And he is made the basis of the second creation, in a wonderful way, becoming himself a creature; and so, the root of the new progeny is from heaven, the sons of God.… Man is knit to God in the person of Christ so close, that there is no possibility of dividing them anymore.—Bishop Leighton.

Though a man be physically a living man, i.e. his natural soul hath union with his body, yet his soul having no union with Christ, he is theologically a dead man (Luke 15:24; Col. 2:13). Alas, it deserves not the name of life, to have a soul serving only to season and preserve the body a little while from corruption; to carry it up and down the world, and only enable it to eat, and drink, and talk, and laugh and then die. Then do we begin to live, when we begin to have union with Christ, the fountain of life, by his Spirit communicated to us.—John Flavel.

Let us not deceive ourselves. Christ came not to free us from damnation only, but as an head, to infuse spiritual life into us, and to live in us by his Spirit. He came not only to purchase a life of glory for us, but likewise to live in us by his Spirit; and if he overcome for us, he will overcome in us; if he hath a life for us, he will have a life in us. The life Jesus must be manifested in us.—Richard Sibbes.

Only Mediator

Christ spans the distance between God and the sinner. Man would fain manufacture a ladder of his own, and by means of his resolutions and reformations, his prayers and his tears, climb up to God. But that is impossible.—A. W. Pink.

There is no choice. You must accept of him, or remain unreconciled and be cast into hell. Israel found but one path through the Red Sea; the church shall never find more than one way to the heavenly Canaan. Christ is the elect and beloved of the Father, the appointed medium of man’s approach, the designated channel of God’s communication.—Christmas Evans.

He is the medium through which intercourse is carried on between heaven and earth. Through him the love of God descends upon us, and through him our prayers, and thanksgiving, and all our holy services, ascend to God. He obtains for us all spiritual blessings. They are granted in consideration of his merit, and in answer to his request; and they are not dispensed immediately by the Father, but pass to us through the hands of his Son. The fountain of Divine love has found a channel, in which it flows to refresh and gladden the souls of the guilty and unworthy.—John Dick.

Ideas

The Scramble for Radio-TV

Religious movements rightly consider radio and television as strategic channels to the American home. But their transmission of spiritual and moral truths by these media is often a costly and exasperating operation. In recent years, the most vexing aspect of this venture has been the growing struggle for power to dominate religious broadcasting and telecasting.

Religious programs a generation ago took to the air on paid network time, spurred on by two considerations. For one thing, the Gospel must be carried to every last soul; radio provided an access to multitudes drifting outside the churches. For another, American Protestantism was largely shaped by liberal leaders. In many pulpits the Gospel was no longer preached, and it scarcely survived in the Sunday school. To be evangelized at all, such church constituencies had to be reached from outside. This was the “Elmer Gantry” age, when biblical supernaturalism was scorned even in the house of God and when evangelism was equated with racketeering. During that era, the air waves provided the evangelical movement’s only strategic access to “the strangers to the Gospel” both outside and inside the churches.

But the scattered evangelical forces, more and more isolated by the theological pressures of the times, were not alone in their vision for religious radio. The modernist-fundamentalist controversy was at its height, and the religious realm was marked by intense rivalry and continual maneuvering for position. Highly organized religious agencies had a show of solidarity unassociated with the many dispersed churches and uncoordinated religious groups. They were best able to get a hearing from the neworks and to dispose them to their particular interests. The Federal Council of Churches, whose ecumenical vision almost from the first had been projected along the lines of theological inclusivism, moved swiftly, on the strength of its constituency, to gain free (sustaining) time on the networks for the Protestant forces of America under the jurisdiction of the Council.

From that time forward, successive policy statements issued by the Federal Council of Churches and by its successor, the National Council of Churches, have precipitated mounting tension over Protestant religious broadcasting. Controversy has risen along three lines: theological, organizational, financial.

The doctrinal conflict is reflected in the cleavage between those who support the historic Protestant confidence in a revealed biblical theology, and those who have abandoned this confidence, or who have combined it with a broad doctrine of ecclesiastical cooperation. The organizational conflict is reflected in the fact that tens of millions of Protestants (and Anglican and Orthodox communicants as well) claim to be unrepresented by the Council. Such large bodies as the Southern Baptist churches and the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), and interdenominational agencies like the National Association of Evangelicals, which claims a service constituency of 10 million Protestants, remain outside.

The financial conflict is reflected in the fact that while Protestants unaffiliated with the Council have purchased extensive radio time (and have championed the principle of paid religious programming), the Council itself has secured more and more of a monopoly of free (sustaining) religious radio time on the networks for its own agencies, so that noncommunicant groups are increasingly discriminated against in the assignment of sustaining time. The result, in general, is that Council forces enjoy free network religious broadcasting, while unaffiliated groups have to pay their way. To this must be added a further maneuver by Council forces, the effort to influence networks not merely to assign free Protestant time to the Council as the representative and authoritative voice of American Protestantism, but to discontinue all paid religious programming. The effect of this policy would be virtually to drive evangelical (and non-communicant) broadcasting off the air, for it would suspend the privilege of such programming on the tolerance of the Council. The record of the Council across the years, at best, has been concessive rather than favorable to sturdy evangelical broadcasts.

The Council’s scramble for radio-TV has a long history, but its turning points can be swiftly told.

Almost twenty years ago the Federal Council of Churches projected a national radio plan for American Protestantism whereby local councils of churches would promote “a few selected preachers who have the full endorsement of the Federal Council.”

In 1929 the Council was badgering stations throughout the nation to carry these programs free as a community contribution to Protestantism. No less than fifty stations signed “ironclad contracts obliging them to use the Federal Council religious programs and none other” with Frank R. Goodman, who later became head of the F.C.C. Department of National Religious Radio (his son, Wesley Goodman, is now assistant executive director of the N.C.C.’s Broadcasting and Film Commission). With such competition, religious workers faced increasing difficulty in broadcasting without Council sanction.

This policy gained respect not only from the rather wide Protestant support of the Council but from the fact that now and then religious workers of questionable integrity, especially in financial matters, widened their opportunities by radio.

But almost from the first, the policy carried objectionable overtones. It came to imply that the Council ideally (if not officially) represented American Protestantism and therefore was heir-apparent to all Protestant radio-TV time (including that for Anglican and Orthodox groups who do not consider themselves Protestant). It also carried an insinuation that broadcasts outside the Council orbit were more vulnerable to religious racketeering.

More and more the Council plea for centralized clearing of Protestant radio time was heeded. The National Broadcasting Company allocated three blocks of sustaining (free) time—to Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Jews—with the Council virtually monopolizing the Protestant portion. The Mutual Broadcasting Company for a time resisted pressures to halt the sale of radio time to independents, but in 1943 capitulated to the program already adopted by the other networks: no sale of religious time; all Protestant broadcasting assigned to the Council on a sustaining basis.

Since most of the Council’s radio voices muffled basic evangelical doctrines, whereas some openly attacked them, the continuity of conservative broadcasts on the major networks virtually depended on discrediting the notion that the Council officially represents American Protestantism (and for that reason should be allowed to dominate and dictate religious radio time, paid or sustaining, on American stations). While leaders flouted any notion that the Council wanted control of Protestant broadcast and film time, the situation steadily worsened. With the sale of radio religious time excluded, and the allotment of sustaining time controlled by the Council, virtually any non-cooperating evangelical program could be silenced in time or its survival conditioned on the Council’s approval.

In association with the National Association of Evangelicals, National Religious Broadcasters, Inc., was organized to challenge the impression of the four great networks that only Council-approved programs are acceptable to Protestantism. Sponsoring a code of ethics for religious broadcasters, N.R.B. listed many evangelical broadcasts of unquestionable integrity.

Evangelical broadcasts affiliating with N.R.B., purchasing more than $10 million annually of radio time, boast some of the largest religious network audiences, a number with remarkably high ratings. Other independent efforts accounted for impressive blocks of additional time. Operating outside the Council’s programming were such paid broadcasts as the Lutheran Hour (Missouri Synod), the Back to God Hour (Christian Reformed), Showers of Blessing (Church of the Nazarene), Light and Life Hour (Free Methodist Church), America for God Hour and Temple Time (Reformed Church of America), the Hour of Decision (Billy Graham), the Old Fashioned Revival Hour (Charles E. Fuller) and the Back to the Bible Hour (Theodore H. Epp.).

Some N.C.C. leaders have been growing restive under these conditions. Dr. G. Merrill Lenox, executive director of the Michigan Council of Churches and a member of the Council’s General Board, has opposed the sale of religious radio time ostensibly to hold the line against the “irresponsible racketeering religious broadcasts which already dominate the airwaves”—a turn of phrase exasperating to evangelicals who purchase the bulk of religious radio time. In 1956 the Council took two significant steps: It offered to secure sustaining time for certain prominent evangelicals, and it renewed its opposition to the sale of religious radio time. (Some evangelicals are apprehensive over the Council’s readiness to accommodate strategic representatives of non-member groups, since such evangelical programs are simply incorporated within the underlying policy of theological inclusivism, and also because this added evangelical participation within the Council only lends more credence to the exaggerated impression that America has a pan-Protestant voice and might therefore involve a retreat from the freedom of evangelical broadcasting to simply tolerance of it. Moreover, it could lend support to the notion that evangelical programs not endorsed by the Council are inferior.)

On March 7, 1956, the Broadcasting and Film Commission issued a policy statement that (1) it “expects the networks and stations to recognize it as their responsibility to make a substantial provision of facilities and desirable broadcast time free as a public service for such programs”; (2) sustaining programs scheduled “only in marginal or unsalable time are not in the best public interest”; and (3) it “advises against the sale or purchase of time for radio broadcasts.” Thus the Commission continued to append the demand for free time for all religious broadcasting to widening Council expectations, and dealt an indirect blow to evangelical broadcasters who rely on the purchase of network time.

The N.R.B. in a counterstatement on April 12 commended the American and Mutual networks, and many independent radio and TV stations as well, for allocating commercial time for paid Gospel broadcasts. It noted again that many millions of members of Protestant churches in the U.S.A. are unaffiliated with the Council and stressed that the National Association of Evangelicals, composed of forty denominations, supports paid broadcasting and telecasting opportunities. Repercussions in the industry followed swiftly. The National Broadcasting Company, long opposed to the sale of network religious time, reversed policy by signing contracts with “The Hour of Decision” and “The Lutheran Hour.”

Behind the Council’s push for the lion’s share of religious time lurks the notion that the Council is the authoritative corporate body for American Protestantism, and that the Council’s corporate witness is more truly ordained of God, or at least more deserving of priority, than either the individual ecumenical witness or the witness of nonaffiliates. For many years, the crescendo of complaint against the growing domination of Protestant radio-TV by Council forces was dismissed as the reactionary activity of malcontents and independents. In recent years, however, the solidity of the Council’s position has steadily deteriorated. When the N.R.B. held its fourteenth annual convention January 30–31 in Washington, D.C., the top echelon of the radio and television industry saw clearly that the National Association of Evangelicals was not alone in its protest against Council policy. In fact, the Council’s position was assailed from the right and from the left, by denominational and by interdenominational forces, and by elements inside as well as elements outside the Council. Dissociating themselves from the Council’s radio-TV policy, along with the N.R.B. and the National Association of Evangelicals, are representatives of the Southern Baptist churches, the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), the Anglican (or Anglo-Catholic, as distinguished from the Protestant Episcopal) communion and the United Lutheran Church. This wave of protest, carried directly to leaders in industry and government, weakens the Council’s claim to be the authoritative and accepted voice of American Protestantism and, in fact, is likely to force a revision of Council policy at the annual Board of Managers meeting March 4–6.

The most unfortunate side of the Council policy involves its intrusion into the radio-television opportunities of nonmember churches whose number is legion. Authoritative statistics to validate any claim that Council forces already get an excessive share of free Protestant radio time are hard to compile. Richard M. Allerton, research director for N.A.R.T.B. points out that accurate estimates would require a factual survey not only of network time, but of local programming on network stations during non-network time and also of programs on unaffiliated independent stations. Council forces are allied and active in pursuit of free time, nationally and locally. There is every reason to think—although from a business point of view this is strange—that the champions of free time as a public service to religion get more of it than those who champion paid religious time, and who may, in fact, be deprived of proportionate free time to which they would be entitled. Numerically speaking, the Council would seem to be entitled at the very most to about 63 per cent of available free radio time; the last religious survey lists 58,448,000 Protestants in the United States, while the Council—apart from the question of effective representation—claims a constituency of 36,719,000.

When the Broadcasting and Film Commission was criticized for manipulating to restrict radio-TV time-free and paid—available to nonmember evangelical agencies, one Council leader curiously rejoined: “We did not ask this just for ourselves.…” The Commission, however, had no mandate to speak for non-Council forces. What non-Council forces, it might be asked, desired an end of paid broadcasts? Or the expansion of free time for Council programming? The obvious reply to such questions doubtless explains an additional comment, equally unconvincing: “[We did not ask this just for ourselves] though we did not presume to speak for anyone other than ourselves.” Yet radio-TV stations not only caught the impression that Council member churches are repudiating paid religious time, but they felt encouraged to discontinue paid religious time to nonmember evangelicals, the main supporters of paid religious time.

One of the big imperatives is that the basic errors of the past generation be frankly confessed by church leaders involved in the scramble for radio-TV time, and that program assignments be encouraged with an eye to fairness to the respective constituencies. The time, energy and money now spent in religious controversy and maneuvering could be used constructively to improve programming if an agreement were reached for fair radio-TV allotments. Liberal theology has every right to be represented on the air, but the evangelical forces have an equal right. Where necessary, they are prepared to pay for it. That the more liberal churchmen should insist upon free time for themselves while denying others the right to buy time is a sad commentary on both Americanism and the freedoms on which our land was founded.

Opposition To Evangelism A Strange Phenomenon

Billy Graham’s coming campaign in New York City is more than just another evangelistic effort in a city where the Gospel of Jesus Christ is needed so desperately, where only a small minority give lip service to Christianity, where the majority have no church connections whatsoever and where paganism is entrenched as strongly as almost anywhere in the world.

All of these factors are present but the battleground has cast upon it a strange light of conflict precipitated by and participated in by two extremes within the Church.

There are two forces which for opposing motives are working, intentionally or not, to destroy the effectiveness of this campaign. The extreme liberals are throwing up road blocks of criticism, disparagement and contempt. The extreme fundamentalists are doing exactly the same.

An analysis of this situation is now due for it is highlighting unbelief on one hand and devisiveness on the other. It is showing up the philosophy of a religion which will countenance the rejection of many of the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith and belittle those who preach them. It is also making plain for all to see the unjustifiably narrow and pharisaical concept of Christianity held by some extremists who improperly take refuge in the fundamentalist’s camp.

That both of these positions should be so clearly defined by these controversies is fortunate. It will cause Christians to think. It should also lead us to fervent prayer.

By the extreme liberals Mr. Graham is being attacked for what he preaches.

By the extreme fundamentalists he is being attacked because of some of those who share in making this preaching possible.

One of the New York’s leading secular journalists remarked to the writer: “They are scared to death because if this campaign is a success and Billy Graham is right in his message, they are discredited. Either they will have to admit they are wrong or continue to live a lie.”

The extreme fundamentalists bitterly attack Mr. Graham, not because of the content of his message so much as because they do not like some of the company he keeps. Also, they insist that instead of channeling converts “into the church of their choice,” they should be sent “only to fundamentalist churches.” But even here they often disagree among themselves as to what constitutes an acceptable church. They would narrow this in many cases to churches where controversy and bigotry are rampant. That the campaign itself would be made impossible by their own concept of the Gospel is no deterrent.

In writing this we are in no way suggesting that Mr. Graham has not made mistakes. He has made them and will probably make more. Few men have not been guilty of making hasty statements which if later given the opportunity they would gladly retract. Furthermore, any person in the public eye as much as Mr. Graham is subjected to situations where a misquotation or amisinterpretation is inevitable. But an evaluation of the projected New York campaign should be based on the positive aspects involved in motive and message.

What is Mr. Graham’s objective? We are not speaking for him personally. But on the basis of his work in recent years—in Houston, London, Glasgow, on the Continent of Europe, in Oklahoma City, Louisville, at Cambridge, Oxford and at Yale—certain facts are clear.

What is Mr. Graham trying to do? Very obviously he is trying to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all of its fullness to all who will hear it, praying that the Holy Spirit will take the message and use it to win souls to him and then guide and protect and instruct and strengthen them as they go on in the Christian life.

If extreme liberals will cooperate in such meetings, listening to the message and urging others to hear them, Mr. Graham praises God for this opportunity. If extreme fundamentalists do the same he is equally thankful. In a unique way we believe God has laid his hand on Mr. Graham for this particular and specific purpose. In it he is also following the example of the Lord Jesus Christ who preached to all who would hear (and whose strongest denunciations were often against those who would restrain men and close the door of heaven in their faces).

By the admission of many of its former adherents extreme liberalism has no saving Gospel. It has found itself discredited not only by the lack of content of its message but also by the distortions of its program. At the same time, extreme fundamentalism discredits the Gospel it affirms by an extreme and dubious doctrine of so-called “second degree separation” on the one hand, and the virtual absence of the first principle of the fruits of the Gospel—Christian love—on the other.

That these two forces should now have unwittingly, but none the less truly, joined hands to hinder the preaching of the simple Gospel of God’s redeeming love—which in Mr. Graham’s preaching includes Christ’s incarnation, his ministry, his atoning and substitutionary death, his bodily resurrection and his coming again; along with the personal obligation of believers to make him not only Savior from sin but also the Lord of life—that such opposition has now arisen, is a judgment on both camps.

What progress has been made in establishing a committee in New York which is representative of Protestant forces? Great progress has been made. Men of good will from both camps have recognized the need for a great spiritual awakening in New York. They have admitted that Protestant Christianity by any token is a pitifully weak force there. They unite in recognizing that Christ alone can bring about a change and they unite in believing that such a campaign offers the greatest hope of making an impact for Christ where that impact is so greatly needed.

Because of this common conviction a large group of men have united to make the Madison Square Garden Campaign a reality. The Garden has been leased for every night for five months, should there be evidence that the campaign should continue that long. They have prayerfully agreed that their own differing viewpoints should be submerged in a united effort to make Christianity a reality in the hearts and lives of men who now know Him not.

There have been problems but they have been resolved in Christian love. Other problems will certainly arise. But God has marvellously touched the hearts of these men and given them a vision of reaching that city. That they have united in asking as the man to lead this crusade one on whose ministry there rests to such a marked degree the seal of God’s blessing, should be a reason for thankfulness for Christians everywhere and should at the same time cause such an outpouring of prayer for the campaign that the very gates of hell itself will be shaken.

In many ways the New York campaign is a clarifying challenge to Christians. Involved are many things but the two outstanding factors are these: what is the Christian message?, under what conditions should the Gospel be preached?

Mr. Graham will unhestitatingly preach the biblical message, not only in its full doctrinal content but also in its social application. He will also unhesitatingly associate with and preach to all who are willing to hear that message. That he has been and will continue to be the target of attack by extremists in both camps within the Church should make him and his attackers the object of the prayers of all of us.

Mr. Graham needs wisdom, courage, physical and spiritual strength in a degree which can come alone from the outpouring of God’s Holy Spirit in the fullest measure. Those within the Church who are now doing everything within their power to damage and destroy these meetings need a sober re-evaluation of their own position. They need an outpouring of God’s spirit which will make them join in prayer that despite their misapprehensions God’s name shall be glorified and countless souls won to Jesus Christ.

If the New York campaign is of God, and with all our heart we believe it is, then all who name the name of Christ should unite in prayer for it—prayer that mistakes may be overruled, that wisdom and strength may be given to all who are now carrying the burden and that men and women and young people who are now without Christ and without hope in the world may hear the Gospel and believe it to their eternal salvation.

A Call For Renaissance Of Evangelical Literature

Dr. Frank E. Gaebelein calls for a renaissance of worthy evangelical literature. He claims that Christian writers are far from producing great and distinctive works. Lack of rigid Bible study, absence of proper Christian education and aesthetic appreciation, deficiency of hard work contribute to the dearth and poverty of evangelical literature. An additional reason has been the concentration on negative criticism. The surge of liberal scholarship resulted in evangelical preoccupation with an exhibition of liberal weaknesses. Meanwhile the positive presentation of biblical Christianity has been spotty and sporadic.

Evangelical theologians and writers have overlooked the strategic advantage of a positive presentation of biblical doctrines, biblical theology and an output of scholarly commentaries. Such work, displaying the wonderful unity of the Scriptures, would have the effect of placing liberal scholarship on the defensive. Furthermore, it would encourage and inspire the evangelical pulpit to a more positive and powerful presentation of the Gospel. While some progress has been made, the great need of the day is for evangelical writers to present the glorious truths of the Scriptures.

Eutychus and His Kin: February 18, 1957

SOUND THE TRUMPETS

Thank you, sir, for returning my last MSS. with the rejection slip. Do you plan, then, to ignore the current discussion of theological education? Do you want ministers to have breakdowns?

If you reject my definitive work, you can at least reprint a classic on the subject: Cotton Mather’s Manuductio ad Ministerium (Hancock, Boston), 1726. Only one title page and the preface are in Latin. You have a choice of two further titles: Directions for a Candidate of the Ministry, Wherein, etc., or The Angels preparing to Sound the Trumpets.

Mather faces up to this mental health business right off. “In the FIRST Place, My Son, I advise you to consider yourself as a Dying Person.…” Imagine “your Breath failing, your throat rattling, your Eyes with a dim Cloud.…” Modern “candidates” will greet this abrupt introduction less with gasps than with guffaws. Yet as shock therapy in Christian realism it is worth ten hours of orientation courses anywhere. The tough-minded old Puritan was much at death-beds with the comfort of the risen Christ.

This Puritan realism about dying leads to a Puritan plea for living to God. Here Mather has the freshness of deep devotion. It is the quality of life, not its length that makes it living. For the Puritan it was not a tragedy to bum out for God.

However, Mather does not encourage a martyr complex. He wishes his “son” a long life, and counsels him how to make the most of it.

He is never tedious. He admits that a Hebrew scholar is suspected of “being an Odd, Starv’d, Lank sort of a thing, who had lived only on Hebrew Roots all his Days,” but testifies, “I scarce ever take an Hebrew Bible into my Hands, but I am gratefully surprized with something I never thought of.…”

Read Mather on visiting friends, “foolish amours,” Greek accents, stolen sermons, and, above all, conversion. Theological education has much to regain before it can progress!

EUTYCHUS

THE BASIC DOCTRINES

Excerpts from the Rev. Thomas J. Kelso’s letter … are of concern to Presbyterians and I would think to evangelical Christians as a whole.

I have a letter from the Stated Clerk’s office of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. stating that these excerpts have been brought to their attention, and I quote: “You may be sure that these excerpts do not reflect the doctrinal position of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and the Presbytery having jurisdiction over Mr. Kelso, namely, the Presbytery of Pittsburgh, already has the matter under its purview.”

For the good of all those concerned, including your magazine, I shall be looking forward to some clarification.

W. J. B. LIVINGSTON

First Presbyterian Church

Hampton, Va.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY in its issue of December 24 published a portion of a letter reecived from a young assistant minister of one of the churches of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh, Rev. Thomas J. Kelso. In so far as the letter may have reflected on the general doctrinal position of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh, or the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., a Committee of the Presbytery has requested me to inform you that the following recommendation was adopted by the Presbytery of Pittsburgh at its regular meeting on Thursday, January 1:

“The Ministerial Relations Committee has received from the Presbytery Council a communication relating to parts of a letter of one of the members of the Presbytery that were recently published in a magazine. Since the Ministerial Relations Committee has this letter and the whole matter under advisement, the Ministerial Relations Committee therefore RECOMMENDS to the Presbytery that any persons interested in this matter be instructed by the Presbytery to consult with the Ministerial Relations Committee; and that the Presbytery reaffirm its belief in and support of the basic doctrines of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., and the traditional views required of one of its ministers.”

JOHN K. BIBBY

General Presbyter

Presbytery of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, Pa.

I do not know of a single one of the 30,000 Southern Baptist churches that would allow one with so little belief to minister to its people.… If our people did not believe in the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection …, and the substitutionary atonement, we would not receive them as believers.… When one has had an experience of the new birth, he does believe in them.…

Mr. Kelso said that he did not believe in the substitutionary atonement … but states in his second letter that he believes in “the victory of Jesus Christ over sin.” It looks like the only way one could believe in one without the other would be to throw away the Bible.…

LEON W. HEIBECK

First Baptist Church

Basile, La.

Christology is the heart of the Bible and Christianity today and every day stands or falls with the incarnation via the virgin birth. May you and your magazine long wave.…

JOHN BUNYAN SMITH

Alhambra, Calif.

… It seems the policy … will be prejudiced to a certain group of theologians whose ideas I do not care to take time to peruse.

RALPH I. MCCONNELL

Kirkwood Presbyterian Church

Bridgeport, Ohio

My people don’t care whether my sermons are doctrinally correct—they want something by which they can live.

FRANK T. JAMES

Brownsville, Pa.

THE PROUD AND PERTURBED

Please give up ignorant, sneering remarks about our Colonial policy. We are righdy proud of it, as under God, it has done more than anything else to raise the status of backward races.

G. A. EVANS

Dunkerton Rectory

Bath, Somerset, England

I have read Mr. Pollock’s article “Has England’s Glory Faded?” and, although in hearty agreement … I would point out, with all Christian charity, that … what he means presumably is that Britain and not England had so risen.… This, of course, is a common error of Englishmen in speaking of England when they mean Britain and is an illustration of that arrogant spirit of English nationalism which has done more damage to British unity than anything else.… No Scotsman considers it a compliment to be called an Englishman.…

WILLIAM WHYTE

Portobello Baptist Church

Portobello, Midlothian, Scotland

CHURCHES THAT COUNT

I am interested, nay fascinated, by what appear to be the unstated premises beneath a remark attributed (issue of Jan. 7, 1957) to Dr. Colin Williams of the Garrett Biblical Institute. “… There is a big time lag—20 years or more—between seminary graduation and the time a man gets into a church big enough to count.…”

It would appear wise, and even imperative, that we … younger Clergy be given some guidance from our elders … in evaluating the theological significance of the words, “a church big enough to count.”

This Parish into which the Lord … has seen fit to place me as his priest, at the last “count” numbered about 340 baptized persons. Is this number “big enough.…”? If not, would St. Luke’s Parish be “big enough …” if there were 341? Or 1341? Or 2341? How many souls, in short, make a Parish one which is “big enough to count”?

Or, in another vein, is this a “church big enough to count” when, by the Lord’s infinite and saving mercy, the Blessed Sacrament of his body and blood is truly celebrated and truly received.… Must we have here a dozen Priests, four choirs, three DRE’s, and a bevy of secretaries, in addition to our Saviour’s gracious gift of his life, in order to be “big enough to count”?

R. C. MARTIN JR.

St. Luke’s Episcopal Church

Marietta, Ohio

JUDGING CHRISTIANITY

In Charles W. Lowry’s “Judgment on the Christian West” (Jan. 7 issue) he is, I think, moved more by passion than by reason.… He makes a case of the inability of the West to intervene immediately and overwhelmingly in the Hungarian situation. But not even the Hungarian revolutionaries themselves knew that the insurrection would develop how and when it did.

Mr. Lowry does not state what in his opinion we should have done. He quotes one saying, “We gave them nothing but words.” So, more than words was required, i.e. deeds. That could mean only armed intervention. Would the might of Russia have quailed and drawn back? Or would the West have precipitated the dreadful world-wide conflagration …?

Much evidence now points toward Russia having desired the revolution in order to crush it. Some reputable refugees tell of false radio promises of immediate U.S. aid in case they rebelled.…

So the West is … ridiculed and condemned for not doing what it was impossible to do, what it would have been disastrous to attempt.… Surely our Western Christianity is far from Christ, but throwing stones at each other is not going to bring us the faith we lack.

HARRY FRED SMITH

Mineville, N.Y.

CHURCHES AND THE STATE

In a democratic society, what governs one must govern all. If Protestants really want to curb Rome’s demands, why not begin to agitate for laws that will curb concessions made to ALL religious institutions? If we really believe in separation of church and state why shouldn’t we insist that religious organizations pay taxes on the same basis with other property owners …? In America, the laws we impose upon others we must first be willing to impose upon ourselves.

R. A. MCDONALD

The Methodist Church

Crystal, N. D.

MISSION AND OMISSION

I am concerned about certain omissions … I do not see much in your paper of American liberalism which, most certainly, is part of the total picture of Christianity today.…

ROSS E. WINNER

Christ Church Methodist

Dayton, O.

• The current issue contains Professor Andrew K. Rule’s article, “Liberalism as a Mirror of a Secular Invasion.”—ED.

The way in which CHRISTIANITY TODAY “lowers the boom” of criticism on progressive scholarship, the National Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church I find neither truly Christian nor reflective of Christian thought of the twentieth century.… I shall remain within the theological tradition of The Methodist Church and the growing “horizontal fellowship” of our generation of Christian churches.

RAY E. BIGGERS

Union Protestant Church

Niagara, Wis.

You’re doing a good job; one that nobody else seems to be doing.

EMMET RUSSELL

Short Beach, Conn

CHRISTIANITY TODAY is the most challenging reading both spiritual and intellectual that we have received. It is the first to come to our attention that is not biased or marginal in its coverage.

BERNICE B. MORGAN

Aboard M/V North Wind

Juneau, Alaska

Sincere congratulations on the excellence of the issues.…

ROBERT WHITE KIRKPATRICK

Union Theological Seminary Librarian

Richmond, Va.

I read the leading articles of each issue.… Excellently done.…

BENJAMIN CLAYTON

Houston, Tex.

After I have finished reading my copy, it is sent to … brother ministers in the Philippines, so my copy is well read. They are hungry for good reading.…

WAYNE W. WOODWARD

Shoals Circuit, Methodist

Pinnacle, N.C.

This magazine has not only quantity but quality; it has depth and spiritual vitality; it has good organization and a sound editorial policy.…

DAVID J. KLASING

First Baptist Church

Greenville, Ill.

Your journal is doing a great job. Keep it up.

ROBERT E. MERRY

Nativity Episcopal Church

Crafton, Pa.

I prize this periodical as one of the most valuable I receive.…

HARRY LEE GRIFFIN

First Baptist Church

Collinsville, Okla.

If it should discontinue, I feel that something of value would be gone out of my life.

FREDERICK PINCH

Grand Rapids, Mich.

The real concern you show for the labors of Christ’s Church is refreshing.

PAUL KAUFFMAN

First Evangelical U.B. Church

Fayetteville, Pa.

Broadcasters Defend ‘Liberty’

WORD NEWS

Christianity in the World Today

Four basic principles of religious broadcasting, built around an explosive attack against the National Council of Churches for its “pressure policy” in the control of air programs, were officially adopted at the convention of National Religious Broadcasters, Inc., in Washington, D. C., this month. (NRB is affiliated with the National Association of Evangelicals.)

The principles were presented to the spirited convention in an address by Dr. Eugene R. Bertermann of The Lutheran Hour, St. Louis, Missouri.

Highlights of the presentation follow:

PROGRAM EXCELLENCE—“Every religious program ought to feel its responsibility, not only to retain audience, but also to build audience.… The target listener in many cases is the average unchurched American. He does not normally have a consuming interest in religion.… A twist of the dial can bring him another radio or television program.… Nobility of purpose and purity of doctrine do not in themselves guarantee that a specific program will be ‘good radio.’

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY—“… Those engaged in the proclamation of the Gospel should be scrupulously honest and honorable in their dealings.… Dr. Peter Eldersveld of the Back to God Hour made this reference to ‘the evils of religious racketeering in radio and television: Some of the broadcasters who buy time for religious programs have abused the privilege. They have made a profitable business out of pleading for gifts to help pay the cost of broadcasting, and they exploit their unsuspecting listeners with all manner of dubious devices which are designed to bring in lots of money, much more than they actually need.… Nothing could be more disgraceful to the cause of Christianity, and more dangerous to its future in radio and television. Something should be done to stop it.’

LIBERTY IN THE AIR LANES—“It comes as something of a shock to learn that a serious abridgement of the liberty of the air lanes has been aggressively advanced by an organization within the Christian Church—a Council, as a matter of fact, which purports to speak for a substantial sector of American Protestantism. (The National Council of Churches has adopted a policy against the sale or purchase of time for religious broadcasts, in which it is recommended that “consideration to the strength and representative character of the councils of churches” be given in allocation of free time. S. Franklin Mack, executive director of the NCC Broadcast and Film Commission, said the NCC desired to simulate a consideration of the place of religion in broadcasting and was not “seeking to control all of religious broadcasting.”—EDS.)

“Broadcasting-Telecasting Magazine, leading industry publication, carried this editorial comment: ‘… no church has the right to dictate how religion should be broadcast.’

“Representative of the reaction of certain individual broadcasters was this statement (in part) contained in a letter by Jerry S. Hughes, program director of Radio Station KMLW in Marlin, Texas: ‘In all fairness, I simply believe that you, the members of the Broadcasting and Film Commission (of the National Council), made a colossal blunder by adopting a resolution the very nature of which proves you don’t know what you’re talking about.… If you approach radio people with a genuine desire to improve religious broadcasting, I am sure you will find most of them cooperative and anxious to help. I think you’ll even discover that they know what they’re doing. Continue the way you’re going, however, and you will find it hard to get inside the door of any radio station without a check in your hand.’

(Harold E. Fellows, president of the National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters, had this to say: “You would not close the door of your church or tabernacle to a worshipper seeking the blessings of faith, nor would radio or television or any public medium worthy of its name deny its products to a single citizen.”—EDS.)

“Dr. Oswald Hoffman, Lutheran Hour speaker, asserted in a prepared statement: ‘Our experience in radio leads us to believe that the only effective presentation in the medium is to buy time. In order to obtain favorable time and thereby attain the required frequency to make messages meaningful, we feel it is best accomplished through paid time.’

“In maintaining the thesis of the liberty of the air lanes for religious programs, we draw attention to the following considerations:

1. “We believe that religious groups and denominations have the fundamental liberty to purchase broadcasting time on a radio or television station … because this is an eminently American principle.

2. “… this is an eminently fair principle. The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ should not find leveled against it unnecessary and unfair restraints and restrictions which are not imposed upon other categories and classes of radio and television programs.

3. “We believe that through a dual approach, namely the utilization of both sustaining and paid radio and television time, religious programming will be able to serve a greater aggregate amount of radio and television time.

4. “The purchase of time for a religious message gives the Church more direct control of religious content and the ability to speak out more clearly and forthrightly in its religious message.

5. “We believe that the principle of purchasing broadcasting time will help secure more advantageous time slots.…

6. “The principle of purchasing time … is an important one for certain religious broadcasters also in the light of the fact that they conduct an international operation.

7. “It is a matter of historical record that in most cases the National Council of Churches has favored broadcasters and accorded sustaining radio time on the networks of America to men who publicly denied the fundamental truths of the Christian faith, such as, the inspiration and inerrancy of Holy Scriptures, the Virgin Birth and deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, his suffering and death for the sins of mankind, his resurrection from the dead and his second coming on the last day to judge the living and the dead. Evangelical Christians cannot believe that these men in any sense represent them or, for that matter, the fundamental message of historic Protestant Christianity in America. On the contrary, they feel constrained to do all in their power to see to it that such a denial of the historic Protestant faith and of the very foundation doctrines of Holy Scriptures be countered with a positive proclamation of Bible truth.…

FIDELITY TO THE FAITH—“The broadcasters represented here must for reasons of conscience steadfastly oppose every denial, perversion, or dilution of the historic Christian faith as set forth on the pages of God’s inspired Word. They can have no part in the setting forth of ‘another Gospel,’ ‘teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’ They recall Saint Paul’s sweeping denunciation of all who falsify or pervert the true Gospel: ‘Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other Gospel unto you, than that ye have received, let him be accursed.’ ”

Key Quotes

(The following quotations, relating to the controversy over broadcasting between the National Religious Broadcasters and the National Council of Churches, were made at the NRB convention in Washington, D.C.)

Dr. John S. Wimbish, Calvary Baptist Church, New York City:

“The National Council policy, if followed to its conclusion, would result in our program going off the air next Sunday. But I do not believe this will happen. The National Association of Evangelicals and millions of other Americans who believe in freedom will defeat such a policy.” (The Calvary Baptist radio ministry has been on the air for 34 years and is reported to be the oldest religious broadcast in existence today.)

Dr. George L. Ford, executive director, National Association of Evangelicals:

“The situation of evangelicals being thrown off the air, on the local level, is most serious. Pressure has been terrific. The First Baptist Church at Danville, Illinois, because of the NCC policy, had its program cancelled.”

Dr. James DeForest Murch, president of National Religious Broadcasters, Inc.:

“A great majority of evangelical broadcasters in the United States are on paid time. Their programs will be eliminated if the NCC policy is implemented. The Council has stated that no pressure is being applied, but evidence of such pressure is mounting daily as programs go off the air.”

Dr. Peter Eldersveld, “Back to God Hour,” Christian Reformed Church:

“This program will soon be off the air if the National Council has its way.”

Rev. S. Franklin Mack, executive director Broadcast and Film Commission of National Council of Churches:

“It is not our desire to control the station manager, but we do ask that he use his good judgment about the merits of certain broadcasts.”

China Visit Hit

The State Department has indicated its disapproval of a proposal that a group of American clergymen visit Communist China.

Views of the department were made known in a letter to Dr. Clyde W. Taylor, secretary of public affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals. The letter thanked Dr. Taylor for the NAE’s “efforts to discourage travel by American citizens to the communist-controlled mainland of China under existing circumstances.”

Walter P. McConaughy, director of Chinese Affairs of the State Department, signed the letter. He said he was writing “for the Secretary of State.”

Dr. Taylor wrote Secretary John Foster Dulles recently expressing objection of NAE to any attempt by the National Council of Churches to send a delegation of Protestant clergymen to China. The letter referred to a “resolution” by “a National Council commission” and said the resolution “is intended to put pressure on the Department of State in order to bring about a shift in governmental policy so as to allow travel of American citizens in Communist China.”

A National Council spokesman said no official action had been taken on the suggestion.

He said that a report of one of 15 discussion groups at a meeting in December recommended that the Council “undertake to establish direct lines of contact between the churches in America and the churches in China.” The report, he said, was referred to the Council’s Department of International Affairs.

No action will be taken on the report without very careful study, he added.

In his letter to Secretary Dulles, Dr. Taylor charged that the “collaborating leaders” of Christian churches in China with whom any American delegation would meet “have used their important positions to encourage and compel collaboration on the part of all Chinese Christians.”

He listed a long record of communist persecution of Christian missionaries in China.

In the reply, Mr. McConaughey wrote:

“I want to thank you for your very helpful letter of January 8, 1957, in which you express support for the Government’s efforts to discourage travel by American citizens to the communist-controlled mainland of China under present circumstances.

“Your letter evidences a clear understanding on the part of the National Association of Evangelicals of the Chinese communists’ motive in encouraging the travel of certain American citizens to Communist China.

“It is particularly heartening because it comes from an organization which has had extensive experience (in mission work) on the mainland of China.”

Nothing in the letter was intended to reflect on the National Council of Churches, said a department spokesman.

Parochial Education

The National Lutheran Council, at its 39th annual meeting in Atlantic City, N. J., registered “grave concern” over the trend toward development of parochial education as a substitute for public schools.

Delegates, representing eight major Lutheran church bodies with a constituency upwards of 5,000,000, noted that interest in parochial schools “has led to indifference and even opposition to adequate provision for public school needs of a community.”

In earlier discussions, delegates had expressed concern that the trend towards parochial education was hampering the sale of bond issues for the construction of public schools and was tending to undermine the public school system.

Without mentioning specific communities or church bodies, they made it clear that the import of the resolution was directed both to Lutheran churches and to the Roman Catholic Church.

In another action, delegates charged that cancellation last December of the “Martin Luther” film by Chicago station WGN-TV “following pressure reputedly emanating from Roman Catholic sources” was a violation of “the American tradition of freedom of expression.”

Chicago Alarmed

Chicago’s Mayor Daley has submitted 15 names to the City Council to constitute his new Commission on the Rehabilitation of Man.

The Commission, operating on a budget of $121,000, will aid the city’s derelicts.

Startling crimes in Chicago have alarmed the entire city and, according to civic leaders, point up the need for “the rehabilitation of man.”

With thankfulness for the good that may be accomplished, evangelical leaders ask:

“Can it be done apart from the personalized power of the Gospel of Christ?”

‘Least Of These’

Many American generals take over high positions in U. S. industry when they retire.

Criticism cannot be attached to such decisions. A grateful nation wishes them well after long years of service.

But it is notable when a general bypasses lucrative positions and aims his life in a different direction. Such a man is Lt. Gen. William K. Harrison, U. S. Army commander in the Caribbean area and contributing editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Gen. Harrison, who was in charge of peace negotiations with the communists in the Korean War and signed the armistice for the United Nations, will be the new executive director of the Chicago Evangelical Welfare Agency, March 1.

The welfare agency, a subsidiary of the National Association of Evangelicals, places orphaned or deserted children in Christian homes for adoption or foster care. It helps all youngsters.

Gen. Harrison, whose distinguished Army career spans 40 years, has long been noted for his Christian leadership. He has been active in aiding his men spiritually, both by private counsel and by speaking in Army chapels.

During World War I, he was commissioned as a lieutenant in the cavalry and rose in rank until he was made a lieutenant general in 1952. In 1951 he was deputy commander of the Eighth Army in Korea and later chief of staff of the Far East and United Nations commands.

‘Luther’ Tv Protest

Senator Warren Magnuson (D-Wash.), chairman of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, expressed an opinion that the Federal Communications Commission has authority to handle an official complaint involving widespread Protestant opinion about the “Martin Luther” film cancellation by Chicago’s WGN-TV.

The legislator made his viewpoint known to a church delegation which visited his office. Dr. Philip Gordon Scott, pastor of Westmoreland Congregational Church (Washington, D. C.) and a member of the Prudential Committee of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, represented his denomination. Washington Attorney Frank Ketcham represented the Chicago Action Committee for Freedom of Religious Expression.

Senator Magnuson told the delegation he believed the issue was “a serious matter affecting public-interest responsibility and broadcasting licensees.” He said he would advise the FCC concerning the views of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.

The complaint was filed with the FCC by Ketcham on behalf of the action committee. He asked that the application of WGN-TV for a power increase be held over for a hearing.

Ketcham said the station, in its application for a license, stated it would present controversial issues. He stated that the action committee would ask the FCC to question the station on whether it had changed its policies.

“If it has changed its policy,” he said, “it is not fit to operate a television station.”

Ketcham, retained by Dr. John W. Harms, executive vice president of the Church Federation of Greater Chicago, told a reporter that 50,000 members of 3,000 Protestant churches and Jewish synagogues have signed petitions urging legislative action on the banning of the film. The petition will be expanded nationally when at least 100,000 Chicago petitions are received, Ketcham said.

The Action Committee for Freedom of Religious Expression was initiated by the Church Federation of Greater Chicago—including the Lutheran Council of Greater Chicago and 30 other religious organizations.

The group has contended that the station’s decision not to show the film was the result of “pressure” brought by “the Roman Catholic Church.”

(In the wake of the cancellation, several television stations in various parts of the nation have expressed interest in showing “Martin Luther.”)

Foreign Clergy Bid

President Eisenhower has asked Congress to approve legislation that will admit clergymen and members of religious orders to this country without regard to quotas or other restrictive provisions of the immigration and naturalization laws.

Such admissions, however, will be limited to 5,000 a year.

As outlined in proposed legislation submitted by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, members of the clergy and religious orders will be placed in the same special class of immigration as aliens who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States or those who are the wife, parent, brother, sister, son or daughter (included adopted children) of an U. S. citizen.

The special class of immigrants will be granted visas to come to the United States despite filled quotas or other eligibility, at the direction of the Attorney General if he “is of the opinion that such action would not he contrary to the national interest, safety, or security of the United States.”

West Point Maneuver

A bill to repeal authority by which the President appoints a civilian chaplain at West Point Military Academy has been introduced in Congress by Rep. E. Ross Adair (R-Ind.).

Unlike other military posts, West Point traditionally has had a civilian chaplain. Since 1896 the chaplain has been an Episcopalian. The Episcopal order of worship is followed in the academy chapel services, at which attendance for cadets is compulsory.

Roman Catholic and Jewish cadets are excused to attend services of their faiths.

Rep. Adair said his bill will abolish the civilian chaplaincy and leave it up to the Chief of Chaplains to look after the spiritual needs of the cadets. He sponsored the bill at the request of Protestant leaders who oppose a recently-renewed request by the Department of Army that the civilian chaplaincy at West Point be made permanent with power of appointment transferred to the Secretary of the Army.

The Department of Army also asked Congress to raise the salary of the civilian chaplain from $5,482 to $10,330 a year and provide him with a civilian assistant.

‘High Church’ Alarms

Dr. Markus Barth, associate professor at the University of Chicago and son of the famed Swiss theologian, Dr. Karl Barth, expressed alarm recently at “the increasing emphasis” churches are placing on sacraments, liturgy and “high church” forms of worship.

In an address to the 26th annual Ministers’ Week of Chicago Theological Seminary (Congregational), he said:

“I’m afraid that we are trying to enclose ourselves within holy walls rather than to seek unity in our Christian testimony to the world.”

Dr. Albert T. Mollegen, of the Episcopal Theological Seminary of Virginia, told the ministers that modern minds have been alienated from age-old Bible teachings.

Smith Accepts Call

“Why should anyone hear the Gospel twice before everyone has heard it once?”

Dr. Oswald J. Smith, who has asked this challenging question around the world, will hold evangelistic campaigns, deeper life conferences and missionary conventions in South America during September, October and November.

While away from his missionary-minded church (The Peoples Church, Toronto, 350 missionaries), Dr. Smith will speak in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Sao Paulo, Brazil; Curitaba, Brazil; Asuncion, Paraguay; Montevideo, Uruguay; Rosario, Argentina; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Santiago, Chile; Lima, Peru; Quito, Ecuador; Panama, Panama; and Costa Rica, Central America.

Flying Higher

When Colonel Bob Morgan flew his famous Memphis Belle on bombing raids over Tokyo he was not interested in the Bible, church or the spiritual welfare of others.

One day, in later years, something tremendous happened, instantaneously. With a sense of utter frustration and overwhelming need, he made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ, confessing him as Savior and making him the Lord of his life.

Recently, as president of the Morgan Manufacturing Company of Black Mountain, North Carolina, he installed a small chapel in the plant. Services are held daily, on company time.

The story of Robert Morgan is not one of self-reformation. It is a story of God’s redemption in Christ and the desire to be of service.

Military Religion

U. S. military chaplains are in danger of developing an “armed forces” religion which bears little resemblance to the doctrines of the churches from which they come.

In making this charge, the Rev. Engebret O. Midboe of Washington, D. C., a prominent Lutheran official, said increasing emphasis upon “a general Protestant program” to the detriment of denominationally-geared services is threatening church unity and has caused a growing estrangement between the service church and the civilian denomination.

(Other church leaders of different denominations have observed that, in a day when AWOL’s and loose morals are costing the taxpayers unprecedented millions, the armed forces are counting on a character program, instead of Christ, to change men.)

Mr. Midboe, secretary of the Bureau of Service to Military Personnel of the National Lutheran Church, said “the trend is viewed with some alarm on the part of the churches of America.

“It is not suggested that anyone is maliciously encouraging this schism. It is rather a general drift away from the denominational moorings into a type of religious community which seems to operate with the least tension in the military service.”

He pointed to the dropping of the annual re-endorsement policy for chaplains as an indication of the growing separation.

(Until 1952 annual re-endorsement by their denominations was required for all military chaplains. Under the present system a chaplain may serve on the basis of his original endorsement until retirement.)

Worth Quoting

“Wherever the spade has dug, wherever it has turned over an ancient civilization, wherever it has brought to light some ancient monument, wherever it has had anything to do with a name, an event or a place of the Bible, it has vindicated the Bible.”—Dr. Harold John Ockenga, Park Street Church, Boston.

“The secret of John Wesley’s power was his kingly neglect of trifles as he mastered the important thing, the preaching of the Word.”—Bishop Gerald Kennedy, Los Angeles Area of Methodist Church.

“Man, at long last, has come to know that the security and safety of mankind—in fact, his very existence—now depends upon guidance from a wisdom far greater than humans possess. Man in the mass is turning, as each individual does in a time of great personal tragedy, to the church and religion to seek a way out of the labyrinth of disasters that seems to threaten him.”—Rep. Russell V. Mack (R-Wash.) in address to House of Representatives.

“Our aim at Wheaton College is not to prepare leaders. Our aim is to prepare servants. God will pick the leaders.”—Dr. V. Raymond Edman, president of Wheaton College, quoted by Dr. Theodore Epp, “Back to Bible” Hour.

Far East News: February 18, 1957

Kandy For Council

Almost as certain as death, war, taxes and clergy controversy is the fact that the 1960 meeting of the World Council of Churches will be held in Ceylon, a country now in the throes of a Buddhist revival.

The historic city of Kandy is expected to take its place in the distinguished line which began at Amsterdam in 1948. (The Council meets every six years.)

Kandy is a modern city set in surroundings of tea and coconut plantations. Fence posts often are the trellis for long, creeping black pepper plants. A muddy little river meanders through the city. Tourists come to the banks at tea time to watch elephants wash up after a day’s work.

Three miles from Kandy’s heart, in an adjoining suburb, the river borders one of the world’s most beautiful botanical gardens. Across the well-paved road from the garden is the University of Ceylon, an extravagantly-built educational center less than 10 years old.

The university campus will be the site of the World Council meeting.

Prime Minister Bandaranaike, leader of the Buddhist revival, has given strong assurances of welcome to Dr. Vissert’Hooft, secretary of the WCC. Ceylon is a friendly land for tourists and offers many attractions.

Kandy is sacred to the Buddhists because its Temple of the Tooth, situated in the heart of the city, once claimed to house a superhuman-sized tooth of Buddha himself. Every August, for the last 20 centuries, a procession of elephants, numbering as many as 100 in modern times, honors the Temple of the Tooth.

Broadcast Cancelled

Billy Graham’s Hour of Decision broadcast has been cancelled by the Ceylon government and all Christian broadcasts are expected to be eliminated by the end of 1957.

Radio Ceylon, a government broadcasting agency, said a recent sermon by Mr. Graham contained anti-communist remarks, including criticism of Russia and China.

C. R. Dodd, director of the commercial service, said he asked officials of the program for an explanation on “why a religious talk should include political comment.” In cancelling the contract, he said he had not received any explanation.

A number of other missionary programs, including Back to the Bible and Light of Life, have been purchasing time on Radio Ceylon for several years. Broadcasts are made in several languages and beamed to nearby India, where they are forbidden. One program reported hearing from more than 20 different countries scattered from Australia to the Gold Coast.

Objections to Christian missions using the facilities of Radio Ceylon have been raised since the government of Prime Minister Bandaranaike took over last April. The government needs money badly but has decided it can do without the thousands of rupees spent annually by Christian missions.

Report From Japan

“You can’t unscramble eggs,” was the favorite remark of my church history professor. The hymn writer states the same idea in beautiful words:

God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform.

We may not be able to fathom all the mysterious movements in the Church, but we know that the Church, in all its branches and forms, is moving forward in Japan.

There is great hope, signs of vigorous growth and a courageous planning for big things.

There is hope because of the evident blessing of God.… In the mysterious rise of denominations (114 missions work with 65 denominations, more than double pre-war figures), the hand of the Lord is ever guiding, ever making “the wrath of man to praise him.” Through these various denominations, more people in more scattered areas and more diversified strata of society are being reached.

There is vigorous growth. The Japan Bible Society reports the largest sales in its history, with the publication of the Kogotai version New Testament in 1954 and the entire Bible in 1955. Sales for 1956 total 1,854,574 copies of Testaments and portions. The 1955 Bible won the Osaka Daily News prize for typography and style in its class of publications. More people are reading the Bible than ever before; consequently, more persons are seeking out the churches so as to understand the Bible. Another sign of growth is the rapid expansion of the lay visitation evangelism movement. In 1948, Bishop Arthur Moore and the Rev. Hugh S. Bradley came to Japan in an effort to introduce visitation evangelism, but it failed to “catch.” Then suddenly, in 1952, the Rev. Yoshida, pastor of Reinanzaka Church in Tokyo, “discovered” the method. He has been successfully advocating it throughout Japan.

The spiritual birthrate varies with each denomination, but on the whole compares favorably with older churches in the Western World. According to the 1956 yearbook published by the Christian News, the figures for 1955 show a total Protestant membership of 271,394, with 81,466 baptisms.

When we think of the small number of Christian in Japan, about one-fourth of one per cent of the population, it is amazing to see the courage with which they plan for great things. Two big events loom before them: the 14th World Convention of Christian Education, scheduled for Tokyo in August, 1958; and the Centennial Year of Protestant Missions, in 1959. Various plans are now being drawn up for a year of nationwide evangelistic campaigns.

J.A.M.

Korean Appraisal

Nowhere among the younger churches, save perhaps in the islands of the South Seas, has evangelism cut more deeply into the moral and spiritual fabric of a nation than Korea.

In two generations this hermit, pagan kingdom has become the most Protestant country of Asia. Out of the revivals of the first decade of this century, undergirded by earnest and intense Bible study, came a massive growth of the Protestant church, and out of this church have come the leaders of the new Korea, from President to primary school teachers, in such proportions as no other country of Asia has known.

Has the turning point, then, already been reached? Probably not. In the first place, revival has produced its paganreaction. Already there is powerful resentment among the non-Christian majority against the ascendancy of the Christian minority. In the second place, revival is no end in itself, but leads on to consistent, responsible Christian living, or it is discredited. It has taken only a few scandals in high places to begin to weaken the reputation for integrity which the Korean Church won for itself at so great a price in the days of persecution.

The basic question is: Can Korea’s Christians stand up to the corrosive responsibilities of power as gloriously as they have faced the tortures of the oppressors? Until we know the answer to that question, the immediate future of what may be called the Korean Revival remains in doubt.

S.H.M.

Decree On Bowing

The executive branch of the Chinese Nationalist government has published a decree authorizing penalties against state employees who refuse to bow to the flag or the portrait of Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, the founder of the Chinese Republic.

The decree upholds findings last year by the committees of law and education of the legislature that such salutes are “not acts of religious worship,” but merely gestures of respect to the flag and to the memory of Dr. Sun.

Issuance of the government decree climaxed a controversy which arose in 1953 when two American Presbyterian missionaries—Egbert W. Andrew and Richard B. Coffin—objected to the practice as “sacriligious.”

Middle East News: February 18, 1957

Another Invasion

Israel is anticipating an invasion of tourists from America and Europe, with a quick resumption of normal traffic expected.

The Israel Government Tourist Office in New York City reports many inquiries about bookings.

Coptic Leader Held

Archmandrite Joachim El Anthony, leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Israel, has been arrested by Israeli authorities on charges of espionage in behalf of Egypt.

The Coptic Church, founded at Alexandria in 451, is the largest Christian body in Egypt, with an estimated membership of 2,500,000.

The 45-year-old Egyptian-born priest was taken into custody as he crossed into Israeli territory through the Mandlebaum Gate from the Arab-held Old City. He has been head of the Coptic monastery in Jaffa since 1948 and has made several visits to Egypt.

Share

The Head And The Heart

The Element Of Trust

Confusing The Issue

Faith And Belief

Share

Share

Retreat From Orthodoxy

Truth Reduced To Utility

Gospel Becomes Social Energy

Triumph Of Enlightenment

Impact Of Evolutionary Science

Religion Narrowed To Ethics

Fidelity To The Bible

Lack Of Cultural World-View

Niebuhr On Liberalism

Flaws In Niebuhr’S Thought

Share

Share

Role Of Scientific Scholarship

Text Of Scripture

Interpretation Of Scripture

Role Of Scientific Scholarship

Share

Share

Reasons For Growth

A Time Of Burden

Preacher In The Red

Faith And The Future

My Father

Share

Share

The Way

The Truth

The Life

Only Mediator

Share

Share

Opposition To Evangelism A Strange Phenomenon

A Call For Renaissance Of Evangelical Literature

Share

Share

Share

Share

Key Quotes

China Visit Hit

Parochial Education

Chicago Alarmed

‘Least Of These’

‘Luther’ Tv Protest

Foreign Clergy Bid

West Point Maneuver

‘High Church’ Alarms

Smith Accepts Call

Flying Higher

Military Religion

Worth Quoting

Share

Share

Kandy For Council

Broadcast Cancelled

Report From Japan

Korean Appraisal

Decree On Bowing

Share

Share

Another Invasion

Coptic Leader Held

Share