Cover Story

Marks of Great Evangelical Preaching

“The Romance of Preaching”! Under this title C. Silvester Horne delivered one of the most brilliant and inspiring series of all the Lyman Beecher Lectures at Yale. Speaking in 1914, a few months before the outbreak of World War I, with irrepressible optimism the British divine looked back at certain pulpit giants of other days. In every case he dealt with a man who belonged in what we know as the evangelical tradition: Moses and later prophets; John the Baptist and later apostles; Athanasius and Chrysostom; Savonarola, Calvin, and Knox; John Robinson and the Pilgrim Fathers; John Wesley and George Whitefield.

Risks In Contemporary Evaluation

Any lover of church history can make a longer list of pulpit giants, every man of them strongly evangelical. If a student were disposed to deal with a positive subject negatively, he could try to compile a list of non-evangelical pulpit giants. Whatever the procedure, a prudent compiler would follow Horne in not singling out any contemporary preacher. Among living pulpiteers often counted great, or nearly great, how many will be so regarded after the lapse of forty years? Not many, I judge. I am thinking of my own experience as a lifelong lover of sermons. If I were to name the preachers whom many ministers counted great in 1914, my younger readers would not recognize most of the names. For example, think of Charles Wagner in Paris, William Dawson in London, and Newell Dwight Hillis in Brooklyn. Time has a way of deflating many of our biggest balloons.

In the realm of preaching, what then does it mean for a man to be “great”? Personally, I seldom use the word great about anyone but God, but here I am serving as a reporter of what others have found. According to Barrett Wendell at Harvard, greatness in writing consists in power and influence that continue after the conditions that produced the writing have passed away. Accepting this working principle, let us ask about marks of excellence in the preaching of certain masters in other days, whom many students of church history unite in calling both evangelical and great.

At first glance any such list of evangelical “greats” would impress a student with its variety. For instance, look at the following, and ask what they had in common with each other: Amos and Hosea; James and John; Peter and Paul; Augustine and Chrysostom; Bernard of Clairvaux and Francis of Assisi; Luther and Calvin; John Bunyan and John Donne; John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards; Canon H. P. Liddon and Charles H. Spurgeon; Dwight L. Moody and John Henry Jowett. Any two of those pulpit masters differed from each other as much as any two stars in the sky at midnight. And yet, being stars, any two of those men were alike in certain respects, all of them important. These likenesses all belong together. As a whole, and one by one, they should help to make clear the meaning and the spirit of evangelical preaching at its best.

Evangelical Philosophy Of Preaching

Preaching here means God’s way of meeting the needs of sinful men through the proclamation of His revealed truth, by one of His chosen messengers. Not as a scientific definition, but as a working description, this account shows why those evangelical preachers looked on their calling as second to no other on earth, and on their preaching as a privilege that angels might covet. Preaching as the proclamation of God’s revealed truth means that the man in the pulpit makes known to others what he has received from God, mainly through the written Word, and there through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in response to the prayer of faith.

Preaching as the proclamation of God’s revealed truth differs from certain ideas now current about the work of a pulpit master. The herald now in view seeks not to discover, to invent, or to change the message that has come from his King. The messenger wishes rather to understand, to accept, and to present in a winsome fashion what he has received from above for the hearers at church. In 2 Corinthians 1–7 Paul most fully enunciates his practical philosophy of preaching. There he refers to himself as an ambassador of Christ as King. An ambassador does not originate his message, by using his reason, or in any other way. He employs his reason, and all his other God-given powers, in understanding the will of his Ruler, and in making that will known to the hearer, or hearers, with clarity, with interest, and with persuasive effectiveness. So it becomes clear that like John Bunyan every would-be ambassador of King Jesus must plan to dwell and toil in “the house of the interpreter.”

Preaching From The Bible

Every pulpit master at whom we have glanced has thought of himself as the Lord’s messenger in explaining and applying the written Word of God, as it relates to the interests and the needs of men and women in his day. Certain pulpit masters have left us expository sermons; others have not. Some have relied largely on a textual method; others equally devoted to the Scriptures have dealt with them topically. Spurgeon did so in his best-known sermon, “Songs in the Night,” and often elsewhere. Still others have preached allegorically, not having learned a more excellent way of dealing with the Bible. “From” the first two chapters of the Canticles, Bernard of Clairvaux preached eighty-five sermons about Christ. From the first verse of the next chapter he “drew” still another message full of Christian truth, which did not come from the Song of Solomon, a beautiful book of poetry with a far different purpose.

Especially since the Reformation, holy men called of God to preach have striven to deal with each Bible passage in the light of its original purpose and meaning. Thus the Reformers went back to the noblest traditions and ideals of the early Church. For example, Home says about Chrysostom: “He is a man of the Word and a man of the World … Chrysostom himself is saturated with the Scriptures, and is determined that his audience shall be taught to base their lives upon the principles of Holy Writ” (op. cit., p. 134). So with our other exemplars: when in the pulpit, every one of them regarded himself as a man behind the Book, and as standing there to use the Book in meeting the needs of the men to whom he preached.

Preaching Bible Doctrine

The master evangelical preachers have accepted the doctrines of Holy Scripture. They have differed about such matters as Predestination and Sinless Perfection, but they have been strangely alike in adhering to the “faith of our fathers.” This term here means loyalty to the body of revealed truth that appears fully in the Holy Scriptures, especially in the New Testament, and echoes repeatedly from every church hymnal, with its Bible truths set to music. From varying points of view the preaching masters of the Church would have agreed with President Nathan M. Pusey, of Harvard, that “the world is seeking for a creed to follow, and for a song to sing.” They would have agreed, also, in looking to Holy Scripture for that creed, and to Christian hymnody for that song.

Preaching The Doctrine Of God

Of late there has been a widespread “theological renaissance,” especially in our seminaries, and in books about religion, but not as yet in most Protestant pulpits. In some respects the doctrines of this Renaissance differ from those of the Reformation. For instance, the Reformers had a way of putting God first, God in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. Modern teachers and writers tend to stress truth about man, and to put that truth first. For all the return to theology we ought to give thanks, but as for the emphasis, surely we should follow Paul and the other apostles in giving the primacy to the Triune God! It would be a pity if we ignored or minimized the Christian truth about the soul and the body of every man born with the image of God. In all these respects we ought to follow the preaching masters of other days, who agreed with the Apostles and the Reformers in putting the first truth first. In the pulpit, and everywhere else, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God.”

Preaching The Doctrine Of Redemption

In recent times New Testament scholars have rediscovered the core of redemptive truth now known as the kerygma. Popularly this means the preaching of God’s revealed truth as it centers in Christ, the Son of God, and the Redeemer from sin. While some of my “preaching fathers” would not have used the word kerygma, they all held to the redemptive facts enshrined in this term borrowed from Holy Writ. In the pulpit those men ranged widely over the known areas of Christian thought and action. All the while they looked on themselves, primarily, as chosen messengers of God’s grace in setting men free from sin, making them strong to serve, and filling them with hope for the Advent of their Lord, with the triumph of His Kingdom.

In all their preaching, the masters took for granted two other basic truths, which have recently come again to the fore. First, the fact of divine revelation. Apart from God’s written revelation, which portion of the kerygma could mortal men ever have discovered or stated? Second, the fact of our human response. From John 3:16, and from the Bible as a whole, as from their own experiences of redeeming grace, the pulpit masters of other days knew that the preaching of God’s revealed truth called for faith on the part of the hearer. That doctrine of redeeming grace they found supremely in God’s revelation through the Death and Resurrection of His Son. So they could have taken as a preaching motto the key verse of the Fourth Gospel, which I paraphrase, reverently:

These words of God’s kerygma are spoken that as hearers of the Gospel you may believe, and that through believing you may be saved from your sins, and set free to serve in the power of eternal life.

Preaching To The Unsaved

The master preachers of other days delivered two sorts of messages: to the unsaved, or the unchurched; and to active followers of Christ. While the proportion between the two kinds of sermons varied, often the ratio seems to have been about fifty-fifty. Among the published messages of preachers as different as Spurgeon, Moody, and Brooks, this proportion holds as a working standard. Search their volumes of sermons and see, as I have done with amazement, the practical uniformity of the findings.

Take Phillips Brooks, for example, in his preaching ministry at Boston (1869–91). Read the three-volume life by A. V. G. Allen, and the Yale Lectures on Preaching (1877). Then study the ten volumes of Sermons (1910), to figure out the purpose of each discourse. You will find that about half the time Brooks was trying to win the hearer who had not yet accepted Christ, and that the rest of the time Brooks was trying to strengthen the faith of the man who already believed. On the other hand, take Dwight L. Moody, whom Brooks admired and liked as much as Moody liked and admired Brooks. Starting from a point of view different from that of Brooks, as a full-time evangelist Moody spent about half of his preaching hours in addressing believers.

Preaching To Followers Of Christ

Almost without exception, the master preachers have dealt with the didache, as well as the kerygma. Like the Apostles, these later men in the same holy tradition strove from the pulpit to build up strong believers, thus preparing them for larger service, in this world and the next. If anyone today feels that the “cure of souls” from the pulpit has been a recent innovation, let him read the sermonic writings of Richard Baxter, or John Bunyan. Where else in print, for example, can anyone find such a heart-searching discussion of suicide as in an unexpurgated edition of Pilgrim’s Progress? On many another page, where Bunyan wrote about Giant Despair, Doubting Castle, or the Hill Difficulty, he was using Bedford Jail as a pulpit to set forth God’s ways of healing every disorder in a man’s soul. So with other evangelical pulpit masters, such as Thomas Chalmers and Alexander Whyte: no one of them ever dreamed of ignoring the heart needs of men and women after they had once been born from above.

Preaching A Message Of Hope

Contrary to a common impression, evangelical preachers as a rule have delivered messages full of assurance and hope. With William Sanday, New Testament scholar at Oxford, many an evangelical pulpit giant would have agreed that “the center of our Lord’s ministry and mission … lay beyond the grave” (The Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 121). Hence the evangelical pulpit in other times gave a commanding place to messages about “this life and the next.” For worthy examples turn to the university sermons of Canon H. P. Liddon. Note his repeated stress on the Resurrection. Study also the best-known discourse from John Wesley, “The Great Assize,” by which he meant the Day of Judgment. In dealing with any such heart-searching doctrine, the masters as a rule have spoken with what Jowett loved to term “apostolic optimism.” Why not, when the man in the pulpit believed what his mother had taught him to sing: “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness”?

Preaching To Common People

“The common people heard him gladly.” These words, first written about the Ideal Preacher, would apply to almost every one of His messengers at whom we have looked. Instead of referring to them as “great princes of the pulpit,” He would prefer to bless them as “good and faithful servants.” Whatever the designation, the most Christlike preachers in history have known how to make the truths of God seem real and interesting to ordinary people. Not to do so would have meant to misrepresent the Heavenly Father. In the Bible He everywhere appears as the most interesting and appealing Person of all history. At the same time He appears veiled in mystery and splendor, so that we mortals can not look upon His undimmed glory. Still the pulpit masters were able to preach about Him so that any hearer with the mentality of a twelve-year-old boy could understand the truth of God embodied in any sermon. Accepting that truth, the childlike hearer could bow down to worship, feeling “lost in wonder, love, and praise.”

In terms of our day, such a preacher might have looked on himself as a “transformer.” With transforming truth coming from the mountains of God, through the utterances of prophets and apostles, as illuminated by the writings of scholars and saints, many a preacher of the Gospel to common people has been able to “step it down.” Without changing, weakening, or impairing the mighty truths of revelation, the messenger to God’s common people has been able to present in every sermon an important part of what He has revealed. On the human level the messenger has felt chiefly concerned about the spiritual needs of his hearers. For this reason Martin Luther addressed his sermons to common people, not to Philipp Melanchthon, the scholar. So did Jowett deliberately prepare messages so simple that his critics spoke of them as “thin.” According to one of his many learned admirers, Jowett had mastered the fine art of “making a little go a long way.” This kind of pulpit excellence springs from a Christlike sense of humility.

Preaching With Authority

Every evangelical master preacher has spoken with authority, and that not his own. Herein lies the heart of the evangelical tradition: “Thus saith the Lord.” A man called of God to preach receives from Him a message in keeping with the present needs of the hearers. During long hours of preparation, the man in the study “waits on the Lord.” While waiting he also works, until at length he feels sure about what the Lord wishes him to say. In the latter stages of preparation, the messenger keeps on waiting and working until at last he sees how the Lord wishes him to speak. When he goes into the pulpit, without apology he presents every truth, and discusses every duty in light that has come to him from God.

This kind of pulpit work calls for Christlike humility, and for Christlike courage, as well as common sense. Not by bellowing about his authority, not by claiming supernatural powers, but by living close to God and close to people, the minister takes for granted that he speaks to them for God. So do the hearers know and feel that this man has a message from the King, a message that suits the heart needs of the hearers. Alas, who can understand or explain the spirit and the ways of the minister who speaks with authority? On the other hand, who can fail to sense in the pulpit the presence of such authority, or else the absence?

Divine Constraint In Preaching

Authority in preaching does not depend on anything human. In a sense, a metropolitan minister with a vast church “plant,” a large endowment, a massive choir, and a reputation for magnetic powers of speech can speak with more effectiveness than if the, same man displayed his gifts and graces in Cream Ridge or Honeysuckle Valley. But what about a young minister on the threshold of his career, and aware that he has no dazzling brilliancy (Ezek. 33:30–33)? In Alexander Maclaren’s early ministry at Southampton, as with Jowett’s beginnings at Newcastle upon Tyne, the Lord delighted to speak with authority through a young man who still had much to learn about what to preach and how to do it well. At twenty years of age, without any learning of the schools, and with all sorts of crudity, Spurgeon preached with authority as real as thirty years later, when he had become world famous. At every stage of his ministry such a man feels that he has a mission from God and a message from God. O for a rising generation of evangelical ministers, every one of them loving to preach with authority from God!

Looking back we can see ten marks of evangelical preaching before World War I. These marks begin with pulpit work as the proclamation of God’s revealed truth. They end with the seal of God’s approval on the man preaching with His authority. Who follows in this train?

A Special Word To The Young Minister

My son, the Lord has honored you by calling you to the highest, the holiest, the hardest work in all the world today. For the sake of the Redeemer, and of the people whom you serve, or soon will serve, He would have you make the most of all your God-given powers and graces. He wishes you worthily to represent Him as a pastor, as a leader in worship, and in every sermon as an act of worship. Here I refer only to preaching. In the history of the pulpit He has set before you a noble succession of exemplars, every one of whom has shown the power of the Gospel when spoken by God’s messenger. Now that you stand on the threshold of a life work to be full of increasing burdens and joys, He wishes you to set up pulpit ideals that you will never need to change.

From beginning to end let your ministry be strongly evangelical, and also kind. Many years from now you will look back, as I am looking back, on more than forty years of mercy. Then you will give thanks for all the ways in which your preaching has held true to the “faith of our fathers.” You will feel ashamed and sorry if at any time along the way you have turned aside from God’s revealed truth to “preach” about “lesser things.” In the pulpit and in the study remember that preaching still means the Lord’s way of meeting the heart needs of men through the proclamation of His revealed truth and grace. The more you mingle with people, in Christ’s name, the more you will discover that while their lives keep changing on the surface, at heart they still need the Gospel, “the old consoling Gospel,” with its message of redemption, uplift, and hope. Do not ever preach anything else. Every time be sure to present it in a form worthy of one who represents the King.

A.W.B.

Andrew W. Blackwood, D.D., is professor of preaching at Temple University School of Theology and author of Doctrinal Preaching for Today and seventeen other books.

Cover Story

The Reformation and the Common Man

How we began to remember that all humans are basically and fundamentally equal.

‘The Century of the Common Man” is the title that we of the twentieth century, in our complacency, frequently bestow upon our own remarkable age. We have the feeling that in our day, or that of our fathers at the earliest, the “common man” for the first time gained recognition and standing. This we attribute to many factors: the Industrial Revolution, the growth of science, the studies of the sociologist and psychologist, or even the two world wars. We seldom stop to think that our idea of the importance and the value of the “common man” has much deeper roots, roots reaching back to the Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century, and from them directly to the New Testament.

Souls of little worth

In the Middle Ages society had been divided, under the guidance of the Church, into three main classes: those who worked, the peasants; those who fought, the nobility; and those who prayed, the clergy. Those who traded, the merchants, were also recognized but were often regarded as parasites with somewhat uncertain futures beyond the grave. Of all the classes, the clergy were regarded as being on the highest level, for they dealt with the realm of grace, dispensing through the sacraments salvation to the laity, whose chief duty was to receive and to obey. Although the aristocracy was regarded as next in importance, the rest of the laity were counted as of relatively little significance.

The “common man” held a position in the scale of human existence lower than the clergy or aristocracy. Although his soul was of eternal value, on this earth he counted for little as an individual. His importance consisted almost entirely of being part of a group of “common men.” If he were a farmer, he was probably a serf or a freeman on a manor; if he lived in a town, he would be a member of a craft or a merchant guild. When he attended church he listened to a Latin service he did not understand, and he took no part in the political life of his own time. His whole significance was in the fact that as “mass man” he provided for the economic and social needs of the upper classes. If he fulfilled his responsibilities faithfully in this life, then heaven, after a period of purgatory, would be his ultimate end. In medieval thinking, “the common man” counted for little.

Renaissance gave no relief

Even the coming of the Renaissance did not alter the status of the common man. The principal social change was the loss of supremacy by the clergy, whose position now fell to the lot of the feudal nobles, the wealthy middle class, and the aristocracy of learning. Castiglione’s Courtier and Machiavelli’s Prince make it only too clear, however, that the “common man” received little consideration. Rather it was the man of virtu, the “virtuoso,” who dominated the scene. The “common man” was simply the reservoir of labor from which the member of the “elite” drew his sustenance in order to manifest his virtu in art, literature, government, or trade. Wherever the pattern of the Renaissance imposed itself, in Italy, France, or Spain, this social philosophy was manifest.

Change by the Reformation

The social landscape of the Protestant countries in northern Europe presents a somewhat different scene. It is true that for some thousand years the Roman Church, as in the south, had dominated the life of man, feudalism had shaped society, and trade—except in the Netherlands—had not expanded to anything like the same degree it had in Italy. Yet out of these Protestant lands come forth a new concept of the “common man,” the concept that lies at the base of modern democratic ideals. The reason for this would seem to lie in the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation.

That there is very good reason why this should be the case becomes clear when one makes even a cursory study of the Reformers’ teachings. For one thing, by re-emphasizing the Scriptural doctrine of sin, they insisted that ultimately all men were on the same level in the sight of God. Luther’s Bondage of the Will laid down the basic principle that all men are sinners, worthy of God’s wrath and judgment. Calvin worked out even more consistently the logical and biblical consequences of this doctrine, by pointing out that no man can do anything for his own salvation. Sin made all men·equal before God—equal in guilt.

Yet the Reformers were not pessimists, for they also held strongly to the New Testament doctrine of grace in all its fullness. Here again Calvin proved the more thorough and consistent thinker, although the others were· in complete accord with him. Since salvation is beyond man’s earning power, he taught that it must be the free gift of God bestowed upon those to whom He chose to give it. God’s grace is always imparted freely and sovereignly. Moreover, He has graciously made His Grace effective by Himself bearing man’s sins in Jesus Christ. Thus, since salvation is indeed “of the Lord” and of the Lord alone, again all men are equal.

How does man receive grace? The Reformers’ answer was not a sacramental system, by which one was saved through performing certain sacramental acts. Man comes to a knowledge of his sinfulness and God’s graciousness, according to the Reformers, by hearing and believing the Word of Scripture. Thus one attains salvation by faith alone, and this faith is the gift of God worked in the sinner’s heart by the Holy Spirit.

Thus, all men, whether within or without the Church, were basically and fundamentally equal, for even the redeemed and justified sinner had no claims that he could advance on his own behalf. His whole salvation was the gift of God. Therefore, the medieval and Renaissance concepts of the orders in society were as ephemeral as the morning dew. They meant little or nothing in ultimate terms, since all men weighed the same in God’s scales of justice and grace.

Divine orders of society

But what about the differences in society? Did not the Reformers talk much about submission to magistrates and pastors? Did not Luther attack the revolting peasants for their attempts to overthrow their rulers? The answer to all these questions is, of course, yes; for the Reformers did indeed believe that there were orders of society established by God for the benefit of society. There had to be those who ruled and those who obeyed. Yet these differences exist entirely according to the calling of God, Who chooses men for different positions in life. Basically, however, this only proved more conclusively that there was no fundamental difference in the worth of men, since differences in position were all determined according to the plan and purpose of God’s sovereign will.

Such a position was as different from the medieval and Renaissance points of view as is summer from winter. The Reformers ruled out any idea of there being an abstract or mass “humanity” whose sole interest was in the next world, with only a few individuals enjoying themselves upon this earth. Moreover, although scholars and teachers themselves, they also rejected the Renaissance attitude that it is one’s intellectual, rational capacity which determines one’s worth. Instead, insisting that each individual is a unique personality, they held that all men stand as sinners under judgment or under grace before the sovereign God. Moreover, everyone in this life is called to some activity, no matter how humble, whereby he may glorify God.

Individual role in worship

This was no matter of mere theory. One of the first steps that the Protestant leaders took as a result of their theological views was to change the’ form of public worship. The Roman mass had been in Latin with the congregations understanding little of what was taking place, and preaching had largely disappeared. Luther, therefore, very early in the Reformation prepared a German vernacular service, in which he included German hymns along with preaching. Zwingli, Calvin, Cranmer, and others followed the same plan, in order that all men might intelligently praise and serve the Lord their God. The “common man” began to take part in the services of worship.

Even this innovation was not enough to satisfy the Reformers. The church service was of little value unless each individual had enough knowledge to grasp the meaning of the sermon and to understand what he was singing. For this reason the Reformers insisted that the Bible must be open to every man in his own language. They believed that although such freedom contained dangers the Holy Spirit would keep even the “common man” from going too far astray. Moreover, in order to give the common man guidance in the understanding of God’s Word, increased individual instruction of the rank and file of the congregation became an important part of the pastor’s work. Catechisms appeared in rapid succession in Wittenberg, Zurich, Geneva, Edinburgh, and other centers of the Reformation. Even the Roman Catholic forces gathered at Trent soon found it necessary to prepare a catechism also for their own protection. The “common man” was to receive every opportunity to gain an understanding of his faith, so that he might be a strong, active Christian.

A place in church leadership

The Reformers’ interest in the “common man” was not limited to worship and understanding. Reformers such as Calvin and Knox should take part in the government of the church. Luther and the English reformers, owing to their movement being closely bound up with contemporary national politics, were not able to carry out this type of organization. The Reformed churches following Calvin’s teaching and example have always insisted that since all believers enjoy the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they should be able to choose those who are to rule over them in the faith. This they do by electing delegates who will represent them in a hierarchy of church courts. For the first time the “common man” could help in directing the church’s life and work.

Not just for a few

That man might be able to serve God adequately in this life, the Reformers insisted on the need for education, whether academic or technical, for as many as possible—not just for a few. Luther, Calvin, Knox, and others spent much of their time preparing educational programs, founding schools, and teaching. For those in poverty or ill health places of refuge should be provided they believed. They did not believe, as many later writers seem to think, that poverty and misfortune were signs of some signal sin or that they showed the victim to be of the reprobate. Calvin and his colleagues knew that trials and difficulties come upon men in this life through no fault of their own and that they should therefore receive all the help other Christians are able to give.

Even in matters of government and politics some of the Reformers gave the “Common man” a new place of importance. It is true that they did not produce a full-blown idea of democracy, but they were like the first rays of the rising sun after a long dark winter’s night. Although many have deprecated the influence exercised by Calvin in Geneva, it would seem to be true, nevertheless, that Geneva was one of the principal seed beds from which came many Western democratic flowers. The formerly forbidden area of government now opened its gates to the “common man.”

A new concept of society

The Reformation brought a new concept of society to the world. It laid the foundation for a world in which the “common man” was recognized as an individual, for the first time in at least fifteen hundred years as a unique personality in the sight of God. Based upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, it brought man back to the fact that all men are God’s creatures, whatever their position in life.

Modern danger of obscurity

Since the sixteenth century, many changes have come in Western thinking, but this stress upon the importance of the “common man” remained well-nigh intact until the eighteenth century. Then Rationalism, followed by romanticism, which in turn gave way to materialism, gradually pushed the individual “common man” back to his old subordinate place. The French Revolution, Bolshevism, Nazism all participated in this attack on the “common man.” Only in lands where the Reformation has maintained its firm hold has this not happened, although even there the idea has been weakened.

George Orwell in his 1984 has shown us what may happen if the “common man” is destroyed as a personality. We talk of him much today, but if the modern materialistic and existential forms of thought continue to flourish, his end is not far off. When we forsake the ideas of the Reformation, we tend to cut ourselves off from the roots of our democracy, and if we are not grafted back into the main stalk, the “common man” in Western society will once more become the “faceless one,” without personality or identity.

W. Stanford Reid is Professor of History, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

Review of Current Religious Thought: October 29, 1956

America’s and Europe’s religious journals, Catholic and Protestant, are today full of fascinating contents. On the whole, they deal constructively with crucial issues that confront the contemporary religious and secular mind. Naturally, many articles are controversial. We would not expect it otherwise in a broken world like ours. Sharp disagreements among thinkers are often the cutting edge of newly emerging ideas. It is both sobering and healthy when our Christian faith is subjected to intense scrutiny by friend and foe. The latter frequently stab us more awake than the former. Did not Jesus warn that “the children of the world are often wiser than the children of the light”?

Just now desegregation of public schools is uppermost in the American mind. Passion is running high, while Asia and Africa and our European and Latin American friends are probing the depths and range of our moral integrity. While all over our land revivals are in full swing, riots also agitate many of our communities. Where the apostle Paul preached there were, to be sure, often revival and riot side by side. But the riot grew out of the revival, that is, out of the preaching of the whole Gospel for the whole man. Our American community riots, however, seem utterly unrelated to the Gospel and its dynamic. Instead they erupt out of attitudes and traditions rooted in our sinful past.

Life magazine (Oct. 1, 1956) presents an article on the race issue by Billy Graham. The famous evangelist clearly focuses the problem in the context of the Christian’s love of God and neighbor:

The Bible requires neighbor-love alongside the love for God, and neighbor-love strikes far deeper than what usually passes today as ‘an end of segregation’ and ‘community integration’. The Christian layman must speak out against the social ills of our times, but he must be careful to speak with the voice of the biblical prophets and apostles and not in the spirit of secular and socializing views.

We are happy to note that Graham unequivocally states that “the Bible speaks strongly against race discrimination.” Woefully he admits that Christians as a whole have not been exemplary in their racial attitudes. “Indeed, it is the tragedy of 20th century Christianity … that such secular influences as military desegregation, sports and television have done more to combat racial prejudice than many churches.” True neighbor-love, Graham stresses, “flows from the regenerate life alone.” Yes, if Christians live in the power and spirit of the Gospel! No, if Christians, despite their professions, are bound by social mores and traditions which they all too easily identify with a Gospel falsely understood! Graham pleads for a recovery of the dynamic of the Holy Spirit, “the power that turns the social patterns upside down.” But before that power can become manifest, must we not seriously repent of all that has gone into our tragic racial situation in the United States? For none of us, north and south, is without guilt in this matter. Would that genuine repentance would sweep through our land for this evil thing that began in slavery and ends in debauching race riots! Then God, who is no respecter of persons, might heal our hurt.

The Baptist Student (April, 1956), a Southern Baptist journal, through Roy Eckhardt cries “Down With This New Religion!” What is that new religion? Answer: success story religion, juke box religion, Hooray religion! “There is nothing in true Christian faith to promise success.” Following Christ more often means hardness, a rugged road of self-denial, or even martyrdom. God is not the ally of our sinful or even idealistic ventures. He is not a means to human ends but we are to be means to His eternal ends. Well spoken!

The conversation between Jew and Christian is today in full swing. Think of Joseph Klausner, Hans Joachim Schoeps, Sholom Asch or Martin Buber, profound Jewish thinkers of our day who reveal a rapport with the deepest religious thinking in Christendom. This conversation must continue on ever higher levels.

A Christian believer may learn much, for instance, from an article by Robert Gordis in Judaism (Summer, 1955) under the title “The Temptation of Job: Tradition versus Experience.” The writer sets into sharp relief the tremendous conflict that raged in Job’s soul between accepted tradition of the group and personal experience of the individual. Job dared to challenge his accuser friends steeped as they were in a venerated tradition in which suffering inevitably was the consequence of sin. In the end of the struggle, Job is chastened and his friends see the light of new truth, namely that suffering may be part of our human discipline or a divine warning, lest we become too secure in our religious imaginations. And withal the mystery of faith remains. “What cannot be comprehended through reason must be embraced in love.”

Katsumi Matsumura in an article in The Japan Christian Quarterly (April, 1956) searchingly writes about “Christianity and Modern Thought in Japan.” The land of the rising sun is afflicted by “surplus of thought” rather than “poverty of thought.” The author points out that “the principal tendencies of thought in Japan are Marxism, existentialism, and nihilism,” but none of these has taken root to any depth. Chronic poverty encourages both resignation and revolutionary tendencies. The lack of persevering in any one way of thinking in modern Japan Matsumura sees as “the chief reason for the loss of faith of the common people.”

The Christian missionary in Japan must grapple with these thought currents and heed the author’s warning against the effort to evangelize quickly. Jesus might have aimed at the rapid spread of His Gospel in His own day. Instead He dealt patiently both with the many and the few. He was never in a hurry.

An encouraging note is found in an editorial in the Texas Standard of recent date: “The editor does not believe that Southern Baptists should affiliate with the National Council of Churches, but he does believe that most denominational bodies affiliated with it are Christian bodies.” Thank you, Dr. James, for this sensible word.

This review of live spiritual and moral issues debated in the secular and religious press of the day is prepared sucessively for CHRISTIANITY TODAY by four evangelical scholars: the Rev. Phillip Hughes of England, Prof. William Mueller of the United States, Prof. G. C. Berkouwer of the Netherlands, and Prof. John H. Gerstner of the United States.—ED.

Book Briefs: October 29, 1956

Christianity Today October 29, 1956

Honest Criticism

The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, by G. C. Berkouwer. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1956. $4.95.

The Triumph of Grace is a readable book, a veritable triumph of clarity in style and thought. Dutch barbarisms—the misplaced “already,” the excessive use of “over against,” the Germanic adjectival phrases, such as “the in Christ historically realized rejection of the chaos” (p. 249)—are infrequent. The thought proceeds without confusion. One always knows precisely what Berkouwer means. The obscurities are all Barth’s.

The theme of the volume opens with the question as to whether or not Barth has seriously altered his earlier theological views. Has there been a break in his thought, or is it continuous? Has he been won to optimism after a period of war-weary pessimism? Has he become more orthodox?

Through several chapters Berkouwer argues that while there have been variations in emphasis, and even one or two retractions of unfortunate phraseology, the triumph of God’s grace is the single and continuous motif.

With chapter eight Berkouwer’s criticism begins. As his exposition is marked with great care, so too his criticism is scrupulously honest and restrained. Barth’s paradoxical and even unintelligible language tempts an author to see contradictions where none may be. Or, possibly the contradictions are really there. But Berkouwer never presses minor difficulties. There are, however, some major questions.

With full acknowledgment of the fact that Barth espouses many biblical themes and is usually a more sober judge of the same than others of the neo-orthodox school, Berkouwer clearly states the general principle that an emphasis on grace does not ipso facto insure a fully Scriptural theology. Marcionism, Romanism, and antinomianism have also spoken of grace. Therefore, with respect to Barth one must ask: What sort of triumph does he proclaim? What is the enemy over which the triumph occurs? What are the means of the triumph? Four chapters are used to answer these questions.

If Barth says that grace triumphs over sin, one must note that for Barth sin is not defined in terms of divine law. Sin is pride or autonomy; it is absurd and inexplicable; it is the “No” which is the reverse side of God’s “Yes.” Sin is a mystery, not because we cannot explain it, but because it is “ontologically impossible.” Sin in the nature of the case cannot be; man cannot be godless; sin is a violation of the inviolable grace of God. When this view is combined with the theme of triumph, a triumph already complete, Berkouwer naturally asks whether Barth has not made the preaching of the Gospel useless and the struggle against sin empty.

Then too, the completeness of the triumph, in the emphatic terms Barth uses, leads to universalism. Yet Barth rejects universalism. At the same time he asserts that every man is both elect and reprobate. But if every man is both, and if all synergism is radically denied, how can universalism be logically avoided? Barth objects to the Remonstrants, who made redemption universal but limited grace’s effectiveness by a human cooperation. Yet, concludes Berkouwer, Barth has adopted a position that differs from the Remonstrants more in words than in thought. Barth, says Berkouwer, stands at the crossroads: either he should accept universalism and the uselessness of the Gospel, or he should reconsider his position on sin and election.

An appendix of 10 pages is added on the “Problem of Interpretation.” It is in effect a criticism of Professor Cornelius Van Til. In the words of Balthasar, Van Til’s interpretation of Barth is “completely grotesque.” Berkouwer adds that Van Til neglects “an elementary requirement of scholarship” with his “unwarranted interpretation.” And worse, Van Til expounds orthodoxy in such a way that “I cannot recognize the features of the real Reformed orthodoxy.” This reviewer shares Berkouwer’s evaluation of Van Til’s critical abilities, but on the points under discussion he cannot see that Van Til’s departures from the Reformed faith are quite so serious as Berkouwer seems to believe.

GORDON H. CLARK

Graham In Asia

To the Far Corners, by George Burnham. Revell, Westwood, N.J., 1956. $2.00.

This new book by George Burnham, converted Chattanooga newsman, is a stirring close-up of Billy Graham in action on his recent trip through India, Thailand, the Philippines, China, Formosa, Japan and Korea. Burnham’s on the-spot report is vivid, colorful, informing and full of action. As the reader travels swiftly with Billy and his party around the world, he receives the indelible impression that divine providence prepared the way and sustained the evangelist everywhere, that the Holy Spirit moved in a New Testament pattern, and that the simple preaching of the Word of God produced the same notable results in Asia as in other lands.

Every chapter closes with direct quotations from Billy Graham’s diary. These reveal the dedication, spiritual drive, and mental alertness of the man. The reviewer was particularly impressed by the chapter, “Frightening Reaction,” which describes the threatening mob violence in the crowd of 40,000 people in Palamcottah, India, when one of the amplifiers failed. “Billy prayed, ‘Oh God, stop the noise; quiet the people now.’ Immediately a deathlike hush came on the crowd and it became the quietest, most reverent meeting we have had in India. It was like the breath of God had suddenly fallen” (p. 53). At the invitation 4,000 people surged forward when there were only 400 counselors to care for them.

The report of Billy’s interviews with Nehru of India, Madame and General Chiang Kai-shek, and Prime Minister Hatayoma of Japan, gives a better understanding of these leaders. Billy’s own reasons for his success, why he has not yet gone to Russia, why he thinks his ministry may be brief, and what he preaches are all given here.

F. D. WHITESELL

Intolerant

Religious Freedom in Spain, by J. D. Hughey, Jr. Broadman, Nashville, 1955. $3.00.

A discussion of religious freedom in Spain is in point precisely because it has been so frequently and significantly lacking in that country. The reason for opposition to religious freedom in Spain has not been an anti-religious feeling, but a strong concern for Catholic unity. This accounts for a kind of religious oppression in the name of religion.

Catholicism, with its claim to being the only church and the only authoritative teacher of truth, is in principle intolerant of all other religious institutions and teachings. It is successfully intolerant, however, only where it holds a large enough balance of political power to impose its own religious pattern on a people. In Spain the greatest measure of alliance between Catholic Church and State has been achieved, and it is here that Catholicism has obtained political preference to the prejudice of evangelical churches.

Dr. Hughey, Professor of Practical Theology at the Baptist Theological Seminary in Ruschlikon-Zurich, Switzerland, and for four years a missionary in Spain, gives a competent, thoroughly documented, and enlightening account of the changing fortunes of evangelical religion in this Catholic-dominated country. The origins of Catholic unity are traced to the reconquest of Spain from the Mohammedan Moors by Christians, a process which resulted in a fusion of religion and nationalism. Hughey traces developments through the rise of liberalism, the establishment of religious freedom in varying degrees, and periodic reaction, culminating in the current reaction under General Francisco Franco.

This story indicates that free-thinkers have been very active in the struggle for religious freedom, a fact which provides a Catholic argument against the granting of it. The enforcement of an official religion, however, will rather encourage irreligion. In any event, the Gospel of God cannot be bound, and even in Spain there is religious tolerance. This is no doubt the saving factor for Spain and even for Spanish Catholicism. Religious freedom, as Hughey observes, best serves a whole people, and best serves the cause of religion, including the Catholic.

GEORGE STOB

5,524 Greek Words

Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament, by J. B. Smith, Herald, Scot dale, Pennsylvania, 1955. $12.75.

The sub-title of this volume, “A Tabular and Statistical Greek-English Concordance Based on the King James Version with an English-Greek Index,” indicates rather clearly its functions and scope. As this description suggests, the volume, while basically a Greek concordance, has been prepared with the needs of English readers chiefly in view. The Index lists over 9,700 English translations of the 5,524 Greek words given in the Concordance, and by means of numbers which identify the tables where the Greek terms are found in the Concordance, makes it possible even for the reader of the New Testament who does not know any Greek to take advantage of the information supplied by the Concordance. That interest centers largely in the King James Version also appears from the fact that in the Concordance there is a tabulation of its various English renderings of the individual Greek words. The volume is also of value to the Greek scholar, however, because the tabular arrangement not only easily and quickly discloses the comprehensive use of a word, but also its frequency of usage and its distribution in the several books where it appears.

Most Greek scholars will regret the fact, however, that the Concordance has been based upon the Textus Receptus of the 16th century rather than upon a modern Greek Testament such as Nestle’s.

Students of the Bible who will make regular use of this Concordance will without doubt feel amply rewarded and will be grateful for the indefatigable labors of the author. No tool is more indispensable to the responsible and conscientious student of Scripture than a concordance. For concordances in general, and this one in particular, owe their origin to the conviction that sure results in the area of interpretation are possible only if linguistic usage is consulted. In the case of the study of the Bible the biblical usage is obviously of primary interest and pertinence. In this connection, moreover, it is often highly significant to distinguish the usage of one author from that of another and even the usage in one book from that of another of the same author. The question of the frequency of the usage of a particular word may also be meaningful as one considers the breadth of the basis provided for the consideration of the meaning of the term in any particular instance. The distinctive features of the Concordance of J. B. Smith, accordingly, add substantially to its usefulness as an aid to interpretation. Readers of the Greek New Testament as well as of the King James Version may use this volume to great advantage in acquiring a more exact knowledge of and even fresh insights into the meaning of Holy Scripture.

NED B. STONEHOUSE

Propitiation

The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, by Leon Morris. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1955. $3.50.

Central in Christian preaching both yesterday and today is the Cross. What is the message of the Cross? Modern biblical theology has raised questions which profoundly affect the preaching of the Cross. Does the biblical concept of the blood of Christ mean life shared or life sacrificed in death? Does the death of Christ effect only expiation of sin or does it also propitiate God? Can a God of love be also a God of wrath? Does reconciliation have to do only with man, or is there a sense in which God must be reconciled? Does justification involve a subjective element? If it is objective and forensic, can such a doctrine play an essential role in biblical theology?

The contemporary study of theology has suggested answers to these questions which deviate from the answers given by the Reformers and classical Protestant orthodoxy. Wrath is said to be unworthy of a loving God who has no need to be reconciled to men. Propitiation of deity is a pagan and therefore unchristian, or at best subchristian, concept. Christ’s death cannot be construed as sacrificial and propitiatory but as the outpouring of his life that men may share its blessings.

Here is a long-overdue study championing the traditional interpretation by the Vice-principal of Ridley College,

Melbourne, Australia. It is not, however, merely a remouthing of old shibboloths, but a fresh, competent linguistic and exegetical study which follows the method made familiar by Gerhard Kittel’s massive theological dictionary. Dr. Morris has already gained wide scholarly recognition in Great Britain by the publication of some of this material in The Expository Times, The Journal of Theological Studies, and The Evangelical Quarterly.

Of outstanding significance is the bearing of Morris’ study on the propitiatory character of Christ’s death. The exegetical conclusions of C. H. Dodd have so widely prevailed at this point that renditions of the K.J.V. and the A.V. at Romans 3:25 have been changed in the R.S.V. from “propitiation” to “expiation.” Probably the average layman is unaware that this change involved a basic divergence in the concept of God himself. Morris fully recognizes the merit of Dodd’s work in dissociating the biblical teaching from pagan ideas of “celestial bribery”; but he successfully demonstrates that Dodd has gone too far in eliminating any idea of propitiation. Morris employs the same technical, philological methodology as that used by Dodd in his influential The Bible and the Greeks. In fact, he demonstrates that Dodd’s conclusions are inadequate because his very methodology needs correction.

GEORGE E. LADD

Christian Existentialist

Kierkegaard Commentary, by T. H. Croxal. Harper, New York. $5.00.

Those interested in the thought of Soren Kierkegaard will find real help in Dr. Croxall’s book. He gives a lucid survey of the contents of Kierkegaard’s writings. The whole picture of the life and labor of the great “Christian Existentialist” stands out in bold relief in this work.

Croxall writes from the point of view of one who has deep sympathy with the object of his research. It is to be hoped that as thorough a study of Kierkegaard as that found in this book may soon be written by some one committed to the historic Christian faith. Something approaching this will soon be made available by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. In a book to be titled Modern Thinkers, the evaluation of Kierkegaard’s philosophy by Prof. S. U. Zuidema, of the Free University of Amsterdam, will be made available to English readers. Meanwhile, we are grateful for Croxall’s book.

CORNELIUS VAN TIL

News Report: Conflict of the Gospel with Paganism, October 29, 1956

Ministers Favor Eisenhower 8 To 1

A poll by CHRISTIANITY TODAY of representative Protestant clergymen from all sections of the United States revealed a strong preference for Eisenhower over Stevenson in the November election for the Presidency.

Tabulation of 1,474 postcards from ministers, selected at random among all denominations, showed the following results:

► Eisenhower—85 per cent.

► Stevenson—11 per cent.

► Undecided—4 per cent.

The Eisenhower-Nixon ticket was marked on 1,248 cards, with Stevenson-Kefauver favored on 160. Those undecided numbered 61. Only five ministers expressed their preference for a Prohibition candidate.

In marking their cards, the clergymen were asked to show “why” by checking any or all of seven reasons. The count came out as follows:

1. Personal stature of the candidates. Eisenhower, 1,017; Stevenson, 75.

2. Nominee of my political party. Eisenhower, 158; Stevenson, 34.

3. Party platform. Eisenhower, 201; Stevenson, 55.

4. Religious views of candidates. Eisenhower, 555; Stevenson, 13.

5. Attitude toward corruption in government. Eisenhower, 432; Stevenson, 24.

6. Moral and spiritual emphasis. Eisenhower, 854; Stevenson, 22.

7. Stand on racial desegregation. Eisenhower, 230; Stevenson, 19.

The poll total showed that 1,117 of those preferring Eisenhower this year also voted for him in 1952. He was favored by 105 who did not vote in 1952 and 28 announced they would switch their 1952 vote from Stevenson to Eisenhower. Stevenson’s total showed 97 of the 160 voted for him in 1952, with 41 planning to switch from Eisenhower.

In the undecided group of 66, 36 voted for Eisenhower in 1952 and 14 for Stevenson. The remaining 16 did not vote.

A breakdown of some of the major states listed the following counts, with the first figure for Eisenhower and the second for Stevenson:

► Alabama, 14–3; Arizona, 10–0; Arkansas, 16–0; California, 83–12; Colorado, 18–2; Florida, 29–6; Georgia, 18–9; Illinois, 133–22; Indiana, 41–2; Iowa, 35–3; Kansas, 31–3; Kentucky, 14–5; Louisiana, 11–1; Maine, 13–1; Maryland, 21–4; Massachusetts, 24–4; Michigan, 61–1; Minnesota, 31–0; New Jersey, 31–3; New York, 43–9; North Carolina, 49–6; Ohio, 61–8; Oklahoma, 23–4; Pennsylvania, 74–1; Tennessee, 28–2; Texas, 34–1; Virginia, 25–14; Wisconsin, 44–2.

Several ministers said they did not believe in voting, because of non-resistance and other reasons. One said “I pray that God might supply His man.”

A majority of the clergymen answered, in a variety of ways, this question on the poll card: “What specific change for the better in American affairs do you desire from your candidate if elected?”

Here is a sampling of the reasons:

For Eisenhower

► “Clean government. Work even more ardently for peace.” … “Lifting of the moral and spiritual life of the American people as a whole.” … “Less centralized national government.” … “Foreign and domestic policies consistent with Christian principles.” … “More emphasis on spiritual things.” … “Much stronger stand against Communism at home and abroad.” … “Back to sane, sensible, Constitutional government.” … “Stronger stand against labor unions. Less foreign spending.”

For Stevenson

► “Segregated schools. Better farm program.” … “Recognizing and honoring God, especially the Sabbath.” … “Stabilized farm income and protection for small business.” … “Improved foreign relations. Tax burden off those less able to pay. Lifting of draft.” … “Stronger hold on moral issues by the President and those who support him in his work.” … “Restoration to a position of real leadership in world affairs.” … “Less interference in state affairs by the Federal Government.”

President Eisenhower is a Presbyterian. Stevenson is a Unitarian, recently affiliated with the Presbyterians.

Strangely Hushed

The death of an American missionary pilot, shot down while dropping Scripture leaflets over a Mexican village, has been strangely hushed.

Secular news agencies have had little to say about the story because of the blind alleys and blank walls encountered in trying to run down the facts.

As far as can be determined, this is what happened:

On September 21, over one month ago, Ancel Allen, a missionary pilot, was shot down and killed in the crash of a small borrowed plane as he flew over the village of San Sebastian, dropping copies of the Gospel of John to villagers.

Allen was seen as he made three very low runs over the town. At the end of the third run, a volley of rifle shots was heard and the plane crash-landed beyond the town.

Native villagers, the first to arrive at the scene, carried off the pilot’s wrist watch, rings and other valuables. There was much speculation that he survived the landing and was killed by fanatics who objected to the Protestant propaganda. Several bullet holes were in the plane and the body.

Official versions of the crash minimized the possibility that the plane was shot down and emphasized the probability that it was overloaded.

A native of Ogden, Indiana, and a World War II Air Force veteran with 17 years of flying experience back of him, Allen had arrived in Mexico with his wife six weeks before. They were independent missionaries.

Mrs. Allen claimed the body on the day after the crash and burial was held in the nearby city of Toluca.

Other missionary pilots have lost their lives in Mexico before, but none have been shot down. Observers interpret the incident as a possible renewing of efforts by fanatics to stem the tide of missionary activity in Mexico.

—J.H.R.

Life In One Paragraph

W. G. B—Jr., 45, who said he was “born” into the Christian ministry and later served congregations in Washington, D. C. before making a fortune in California insurance, tearfully told police that his beautiful secretary was kissing him when he killed her.

CHRISTIANITY TODAYsubscribes to Religious News and Evangelical Press services.

Jerusalem + Judea + Samaria

Oil For Troubled Waters

Henry Martyn, noted missionary to India and first translator of the New Testament into the Persian language, was traveling from the Persian Gulf to the city of Shiraz in 1811 to perfect his version.

He made the following entry in his diary:

“We arrived at the foot of the mountains, at a place where we seemed to have discovered one of nature’s ulcers. A strong, suffocating smell of naphtha announced something more than ordinarily foul in the neighborhood. We saw a river. What flowed in it, it seemed difficult to say, whether it were water or green oil.”

This “green oil” was to play a tremendous part in the political, economic and religious history of Iran (Persia) in the twentieth century. The presence of this bad-smelling naphtha in South Iran made it so necessary for the Allies to prevent the country from falling into Hitler’s hands during World War II. Nationalization of the oil industry in 1951 brought Iran before the eyes of the world and almost brought her to destruction. With this problem seemingly solved, an international group in South Iran is engaged in the production and distribution of the oil.

This year, another announcement captured the world’s interest. Drillers had struck oil in North Iran near the city of Qum, about 100 miles north of Teheran. Observers said the oil burst forth with a mighty roar, waking all the residents. For several weeks it was impossible to stop the guyser. Several oil lakes formed.

The new well, considered the largest in the world, can supply alone all the needs of Iran. More than ever, the envious eyes of neighbors have been turned toward the priceless treasures in the barren deserts of Iran.

An immediate effect of the discovery will be the change of Qum from just a shrine city to a booming oil town.

A large gilded dome covers the grave of one of the female descendants of Mohammed, and this place of pilgrimage for Shi’ite Moslems is visited every year by tens of thousands seeking healing and forgiveness. Qum also is the main center of theological training in Iran. Some 10,000 men are there preparing to become the preachers and teachers of Islam.

Shi’ite Moslems consider non-Moslems to be unclean. The religious people of Qum have been so devoted to their shrine that it has been very difficult for Christian missionaries to do any work in this “holy city.”

Now, however, the city will be overrun by oil men and a new opportunity may be given the Church to preach the Gospel of a Living Saviour in the city of a dead saint.

—W.M.M.

Garden Of Evangelism

A lovely Persian garden, located 10 miles from Teheran at the foot of the snow-capped Alborz Mountains, has been the ideal home for nine years of a summer school of evangelism.

Those who attend for three years and complete the nine-months course receive a diploma. Seventeen have graduated, but scores of others, unable to remain for the full course, have returned to their homes throughout Iran to serve Christ with greater devotion.

Five young men formed the latest graduating class. Two were Armenians, one was an Assyrian and two were sons of Moslem converts.

Christian workers assert:

“These little springs of spiritual life will be more important for the Kingdom of God than the great oil wells of Iran.”

Discovery Revealed

The discovery of what appears to be the first unopened royal tomb of the Hyksos period ever unearthed has been reported by Hebrew University archaeologists working in the area of the biblical town of Tel Hazor in northern Galilee.

The Hyksos, or “shepherd kings,” were the earliest invaders of Egypt, conquering it without a blow about 1685 B.C., according to Josephus, who also identified them as Israelites.

Hyksos and their people held sway over Egypt throughout the 15th–17th dynasties, approximately 511 years, until driven out by a rebellion. Some 240,000 of these desert people then migrated back to Judea, where they built Jerusalem.

Findings at the tomb have not been announced.

Digest …

► Site of Old Testament city of Gibeon found and water system excavated by seven American archaeologists.

Asia + Africa + Australasia

Buddhism Turns Worldly

After several months in office, the Ceylon government of Prime Minister Solomon W. R. D. Bandaranaike has calmed down from its extreme racialism.

The government, elected on a slogan of “Sinhalese Only,” set free a burst of Sinhalese nationalism which erupted into violence when the bill was debated and passed by Parliament.

“Sinhalese Only” was widely understood to mean that Sinhalese would be the official language, while Tamil and English would be relegated to a position of spoken vernaculars only. Friend and foe suspected the sincerity of Bandaranaike on the language problem, since he is one of the nation’s leading orators in English. The government recently has given discreet hints of fairer treatment for Tamil and English.

Bandaranaike came to power largely because he was supported by Buddhist priests, ayurvedic (native) physicians and village school teachers who knew only Sinhalese. The aim of the more active priests apparently is to turn Ceylon into a Buddhist state, in which government money will be used to promote Buddhist enterprises, with little or no money for Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. Buddhists however, strongly disapprove of any control by the government.

Ceylon’s burning question is this—can the present government keep the team of priests, village doctors and teachers moving forward after the carrot of “Sinhalese Only” has been removed? Trouble is anticipated.

Any revision of the status quo is an opportunity for a fresh proclamation of the Gospel. Never before have Christian pastors in Hindu areas of Ceylon had so little opposition to the preaching of the Gospel.

—W.R.H.

Scoffs From Clergy

Protestant clergymen in Hong Kong, who served for years as missionaries in China, scoffed at a statement reportedly made by Anglican Bishop K. H. Ting of Chekiang that he did “not know of a single Christian leader who was executed by the Chinese Communist government.”

Dr. Eugene L. Smith, vice president for foreign missions of the National Council of Churches, said recently in Washington that Bishop Ting made the statement to him at a meeting of the World Council of Churches’ central committee in Hungary last August.

Missionaries in Hong Kong said a number of Christian leaders were put to death in China as “counter-revolutionaries.” They charged this designation was employed by the Communists to “cover up” the fact that the Christians were executed for their religious activity.

A spokesman said “the Reds are putting on a smile campaign for the western world.”

“Some people are falling for it,” he said. “Meanwhile, Christianity is dying in China and being replaced by a new, political ‘thought-religion.’ ”

Slogan For Olympics

“You can’t win without Christ” will be the slogan for the Open Air Campaigners of Australia in their big evangelistic drive during the Olympic Games November 22 through December 8.

Said Chairman Harry McKeon:

“Melbourne will be flooded with visitors from the four corners of the earth—people from behind the Iron Curtain, people from behind the Bamboo Curtain—needy souls from lands where Gospel preaching is forbidden. These people, for several weeks, will be open to the message of salvation.”

Melbourne will be zoned and each day 12 Gospel vans will be taken by teams to various areas.

Several American organizations, including Gideons International, have provided great quantities of Bibles, Scripture portions and tracts for the campaign.

Digest …

► A shipload of Australian Methodists—360 of them—leave Sydney next June for an inspection tour of the church’s missions in the Pacific. Methodists working in the Fiji, Samoa and Tonga areas more than 100 years. Early missionaries ran risk of ending in the cooking pot.

► More than 1,300 Rhodesian Africans, members of religious group living in slum area at Port Elizabeth, ordered out of South Africa. Presence said “illegal.”

► Evangelical Fellowship of Ceylon, formed by laymen with support of women, takes Gospel to more than 400,000 with sound truck. Thousands of Scriptures distributed. Bible School for training of native evangelists recently started.

Britain And The Continent

New Drive By Old Church

The Synod of Waldensian Church, reported to be the oldest Protestant denomination in the world, has announced its interest in evangelization and cooperation.

A resolution was adopted in favor of periodical meetings with the Methodist Church in Italy to examine the work of evangelization and closer cooperation.

The Waldensian Church originated from the twelfth century revival movement led by Peter Valdo, a merchant in Lyons, France. It spread across southern France, Switzerland and the northwest of Italy.

Today the Waldensian Church is the strongest Protestant denomination in Italy, with about 30,000 members, 95 churches and 60 ministers. The church has a number of hospitals, children’s homes, old people’s homes and a theological school in Rome. Missions have been set up in the Argentine, United States and Switzerland.

Discussions have been taking place for some time concerning a possible union of the Waldensian and Methodist churches in Italy.

‘Let Us Stick To It’

The Church of England’s ban against the remarriage of divorced persons has been upheld by Dr. Geoffrey Francis Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury.

He told the Convocation of Canterbury it had been the practice of the Church for 20 years not to remarry divorced persons in churches.

“If we all agree that for practical purposes that is the only policy the Church can follow, then let us stick to it,” the Anglican Primate said.

A plea that parish priests be given more discretion in the handling of problems arising from remarriage after divorce was made by Dr. John L. Wilson, Bishop of Birmingham.

National Effort

A united evangelistic campaign for England in 1960 has been approved by the Free Church Federal Council.

The Rev. F. P. Copland Simmons, ex-moderator, said the original plan was to confine the campaign to the north of England, but that it had been expanded to embrace the entire country.

He said the effort would be reminiscent of the Simultaneous Mission organized by the Council in 1901.

Also discussed by the Council at a recent meeting was the creation of a United Free Church of England. “If we do not unite now,” said the Rev. Tom Bevan of the Seaham Methodist Circuit, “the day is not too far distant when the Free Churches will lose their sense of mission and drift into the Church of England.”

Reaction of the Free Church press was not enthusiastic. The Methodist Recorder said, “If the Free Churches have no more vitality than to drift into the Anglican Church through mere flabbiness, or to save the miserable remnants of their quaking souls, they would not be worth having as a gift.”

‘Verge Of Treachery’

Dr. Eivind Berggrav, retired Bishop of Oslo and former Primate of the State Lutheran Church in Norway, has called for a halt to the growing contacts between western churches and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Bishop Berggrav charged that the Russian Church “subordinates itself to a godless State.” He contended that western churchmen who participate in official visits to the Russian Church and join in its worship services “place themselves on the verge of treachery to Christian justice and faith.”

Words With Power …

► “The freedom of man is under attack today by three forces—communism, socialism and materialism—and any one can enslave human reason. To many, freedom means largely self-indulgence.”—The Most Rev. Philip M. Hannan, auxiliary Bishop of Washington, D. C.

► “Communists exceed us by their zeal and strong convictions. Today’s Christian has light but no heat. The materialist has heat but no light.”—Dr. Joseph L. Hromadka, Czech Protestant theologian.

► “Science is one agent that in the last three centuries has been showing that virgin birth is possible.”—Dr. Edward McGrady, former chief of the biological division of the Atomic Energy Commission at Oak Ridge, Tenn., and now president of the University of the South at Sewanee, Tenn.

Church Climate Changes

Writing in his diocesan leaflet recently, Dr. William Greer, 54-year-old Bishop of Manchester, said:

“I am sometimes asked whether I see any signs of what is called a spiritual revival in England. I am sorry to say I do not; not after the manner in which the multitudes were turned from unbelief to faith in the days of John Wesley … What I do see is a slow but unmistakable return to the Church, or perhaps it would be better to say an increase in real church membership, since not a few of those I have in mind have never openly professed the Christian faith before.

“During the last few years, adult confirmations have substantially increased, and in most parishes congregations are noticeably larger.”

The change in the climate of British church life has been dated by most observers from the Billy Graham Greater London Crusade of 1954.

A new evangelistic spirit has been seen in all the churches. The Church of England recently set up a Commission on Evangelism, with the official backing of the Church Assembly.

Digest …

► Church of England and Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) representatives “made progress” in series of talks at Edinburgh on church unity. Fellowship discussions between two Churches instituted in 1932, suspended two years later and resumed in 1950.

► Two of four Protestant leaders, sentenced to life imprisonment by Bulgarian Communist Court in 1949, pardoned. Identified as the Rev. Vasil Ziapkov and the Rev. Nikola Mihailov.

► Church building in Soviet Zone of Germany at virtual standstill for lack of funds, reports Dr. Oskar Soehngen, vice president of Evangelical Union Church.

► Five-week advertising campaign to increase church attendance launched in Stockholm with large ads in all daily newspapers.

► Mothers in Polish village near Cracow boycott local school … no religious instruction.

► Bishop Otto Dibelius of Berlin, head of the Evangelical Church in Germany, invited to visit Communist China. Invitation extended by members of Chinese delegation at congress of East German Christian Democratic Union.

► Dr. John A. Mackay of Princeton, N. J., president of World Presbyterian Alliance, warns that “resurgent confessionalism” may develop in such a way as to “wreck” the ecumenical movement.

North And South America

Biggest News Story

The biggest religious news story today is that “prayer is at work in our nation,” United States District Judge Luther W. Youngdahl of Washington, D. C. asserted recently.

He said “hard-headed business men” and “political politicians” are making religion work in their every-day lives.

“Prayer is at work in the home, at the workbench, in the office, in the factory, and in our nation’s capital thousands are starting each day in the office with prayer.”

Many business and governmental leaders have come to see, he said, “that the real world crisis has a lot to do with human relations, and when you get to human relations you are on the thresh-hold of religion.

“Only a dedicated spirit to prayer and religious conviction in the lives of individual people will save this country and the world.”

Freedom Differences

Christianity faces an increasing threat from foreign “isms,” along with “creeping, insidious materialism,” Dr. Theodore F. Adams of Richmond, Va., president of the Baptist World Alliance, said in an address to 2,000 at the Festival of Faith, sponsored by the Greater Miami Council of Churches.

“If we win in the war of ideas, it will be by love, sacrifice and devotion to Christian principles,” he said.

Dr. Adams pointed out the difference between freedom of religion and freedom of worship. In Russia, he said, the public can worship in a limited number of churches, but had no freedom of religion.

“We live in a mixed-up world,” he said, “but Christ is the answer to all problems.”

$25,000,000 Budget

The 2,700,000-member United Lutheran Church in America is considering adoption of a record $25,000,000 budget, with recommendations to double its benevolent giving in 1958.

Delegates to the recent convention in Harrisburg, Pa., were asked to extend the continent-wide evangelism effort of the Church’s 4,400 congregations for the next two years with an additional budgetary cost of $135,000.

Opinion From Dulles

Clergymen should have more time to inform themselves on world problems, according to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles.

In an address to the 13th Biennial Congress of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, he said:

“Moral principles are simple and can be easily stated, but applying these principles is immensely difficult. Those who guide us spiritually do not have the time to study these other (political) problems to determine the applicability of these principles to a given situation. It is easy to reach wrong judgments.”

Rodeo And Religion

The air was super-charged with respect for Roy Rogers and his wife, Dale Evans, at the state fair in Des Moines, Iowa, this year.

Never were so many thousands of people more silent and attentive as the popular parents encouraged families “to worship together, pray together, play together, and then stay together.”

Many children followed their sincere plea to attend Sunday School.

Digest …

► Radio stations in many parts of nation cancelling programs sponsored by evangelical groups. Dr. James DeForest Murch, president of National Religious Broadcasters, said action result of National Council of Churches’ statement opposing sale of air time. National Association of Evangelicals and NRB adopt resolution saying National Council “does not speak for all Christians of America.”

► Opening of mission field in Ethiopia approved by American Lutheran Church … General Commission of Chaplains to expand work among young adults in service.

► Protestant churches in America facing critical shortage of 25,000 ministers … Meditation and prayer room at United Nations headquarters being enlarged and beautified.

► Budget of $8,125,074 for 1957 adopted by Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board … Churches in America and Canada burning at rate of more than 12 a day. Large percentage of fires accidental … Twenty-five ministers from Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., conduct October preaching mission in Alaska …

► Jalopy raids, parties and simple witnessing paying off with thousands of decisions from Colorado to Pennsylvania. Called “Youth Missions to Youth.”

► Dr. Henry F. Schuh, president of American Lutheran Church, calls upon members to stop shunning political office. “There are those Christians who fail to think of themselves as salt. They prefer to be saints and withdraw from the problems of the world and operation of government … Salt only serves its purpose when its characteristics are used.”

► “Wonderful results” reported in Louisville Crusade of Billy Graham. Overflow attendances nightly, with thousands of decisions.

► Organ, used in Republican National Convention, donated to Mrs. Eisenhower. She, in turn, presented to Fitzsimons General Hospital, where President was treated after heart attack … New York Board of Education adopts statement providing for teaching of moral and spiritual ideals in New York City public schools … Judges and lawyers join in special service to pray for God’s blessings on New York’s courts of justice.

► Week-long Bible reading marathon conducted in Euclid Church at Cleveland, Ohio, for dedication of new $220,000 building. “They now see it as a complete book rather than a few favored passages,” said the Rev. Fred K. Bernlohr.

► Navigators sending largest missionary group overseas this fall and early spring, reports director Lorne Sanny … British and Foreign Bible Society distribute 361,355 volumes of Scripture in 74 languages in Canada during year.

Bible Text of the Month: Matthew 16:16

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16).

The majority of ministers face two problems in preparing sermons. The first is lack of time, because of the many demands made upon the average minister. The second is the scarcity of books for research. In this space each month CHRISTIANITY TODAY will provide the results of textual research to assist and to stimulate the busy minister in his preparation.

This is a simple but satisfactory Confession of Faith. We should always be ready to give an answer to those who would know what we believe on a matter so central as the person and nature of our Lord. A mistake on this point would involve all our religion in failure. If He is not to us the Christ, the Lord’s Anointed, and “the Son of the living God,” we know not Jesus aright.—C. H. SPURGEON.

We feel the force of it better in this and many passages of the Gospels, by using the Hebrew word Messiah. “Thou” is expressed in the Greek, and therefore emphatic.… The earliest disciples of Jesus, including Simon Peter, at once concluded that He was the Messiah (John 1:41, 49). But He proceeded to act so differently from what they had been reared to expect of the Messiah, that they would naturally become uncertain even as John felt in his prison. Again and again, however, some work or word would persuade them afresh.… We understand the importance of this confession when we hear a Jew of the present time announce his new-found conviction that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah.—JOHN J. BROADUS.

As was to be expected from his impetuous character, and personal superiority, as well as from the future standing already assigned him in John 1:42, Peter assumes the part of a spokesman, and in a decided and solemn manner declares Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Both elements combined, the work and the person constituted then, as they always do, the sum of the Christian confession. Compare Matthew 26:63; John 11:27, 20:31; Philippians 2:11; 1 John 2:22 ff.—H. A. W. MEYER.

The Meaning Of “Christ”

The name Christ in Greek, Messiah in Hebrew, bearing as it does, the participial or adjective sense of anointed, was capable of being applied, and actually was applied, in the earlier parts of Scripture, to a variety of persons. Because the high priest was emphatically the anointed one at the first institution of the tabernacle worship, he is therefore called “the priest, the Christ” (Heb. hamschiach, Lev. 4:3). After the institution of the kingly office, and the setting apart of him who bore it by an act of consecration with oil, he became, in a peculiar sense, the Lord’s anointed, or the Christ of the Lord, as Saul is once and again designated by David (1 Sam. 12:3, 5). Hannah, however, at the close of her song of praise, has already given the word a loftier direction—not without respect, it may be, to the more immediate bearers of the royal dignity, but still more especially pointing to one who should gather into his person the highest powers and prerogatives associated with the chosen people, and give them a world-wide development; for she speaks of the Lord “exalting the horn of his Messiah” (anointed), so as, at the same time, to “judge the ends of the earth.” In Psalm 2, the Lord’s Christ is He who is God’s Son by way of eminence, and who receives the heritage of earth to its utmost bounds as His sure possession. In Daniel 9:25, 26, we find the term applies to the expected deliverer, without the article or any accompanying epithet, precisely as a proper name.—IMPERIAL BIBLE DICTIONARY.

The importance of this first express acknowledgement of Jesus as the Christ or the Messiah, even by His own chosen followers, arises from the fact that all his public actions hitherto implied a claim to that exalted character, and that in consequence the truth of this claim was essential to the proof, not only of His public mission but of His personal veracity. The claim itself had reference to the clear prediction of a Great Deliverer in the ancient prophecies, expressly called Messiah, or Anointed, both by David (Ps. 2:2) and by Daniel (9:25), and by implication so described in all the Scriptures which exhibit Him as filling the great theocratical offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, in which the previous incumbents only held His place till He should come, and to which they were set apart by unction, the appointed symbol of those spiritual gifts which fitted men for these high functions, and which He was to possess without measure. All this Jesus claimed, and all this Peter acknowledged Him to be, not only as a private individual when the truth was first suggested to him by his brother Andrew, but now as it were ex officio, in the name of all the twelve, and in response to an authoritative question from the Lord Himself.—J. A. ALEXANDER.

“Thou art the Christ,” the very person promised from the foundation of the world. Thou art “the Seed of the woman, in whom all nations are to be blessed”; the Shiloh that was to come, before that the sceptre should finally depart from Judah; “the Son of David, that shall reign over his kingdom for ever and ever.” Thou art He “of whom Moses and the prophets have written” so much, and in whom all that they have written shall be accomplished.—CHARLES SIMEON.

Christ was anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows; i.e., above those who possessed with Him a fellowship or similarity of office, as types of Himself. Aaron was anointed High Priest; Saul was anointed King; Elisha was anointed Prophet; Melchisedec, King and Priest; Moses, Priest and Prophet; David, King and Prophet; yet none was ever anointed to the union and comprehension of all these offices together, but the Christ of God.—HORAE SOLITARIAE.

The Son Of The Living God

Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that means He is a person of the same substance and nature with God. As man begets his like, so God begets His like, and He is His only begotten Son.—THOMAS GOODWIN.

The term “Son of God” was understood by the Jews as of so high an import, that when Jesus claimed that title, he was considered as affecting an equality with Jehovah, and actually “making himself God.” In this sense Peter acknowledged him to be, not a mere man, but infinitely above all created beings, “Emmanuel, God with us,” even “God over all, blessed for evermore.”—CHARLES SIMEON.

Peter calls Christ, who was the Son of man, the “Son of the living God”; not in that or on that account whereon he is the Son of man, but because he is peculiarly, in respect of another nature than that wherein he is the Son of man, the Son of the living God. And if Peter had intended no more in this assertion but only that he was one among the many sons of God, how doth he answer that question, “But whom say ye that I am?” being exceptive to what others said, who yet affirmed that he was a prophet, one come out from God, and favored of Him. It is evident that it is something much more noble and divine that is here affirmed by Him, in this solemn confession of him on whom the church is built.—JOHN OWEN.

In this confession, the conglomeration, or gathering together so many articles in the Greek set afore every word, is as so many stars that call us to behold this eminency of His sonship and generation. This emphasis on every word in that small sentence, “Thou art that Christ; that Son of that God, that living God”; the like indigitation is never used but for some special intent, according to the nature of the matter spoken of. It is observed by some that the article o huios, the Son, is given to none but to this Son; lo, here it is also put to every word besides, when His sonship is solemnly proclaimed.—THOMAS GOODWIN.

God is said to be the living God, in contradistinction from idol deities, and as the author of life and its blessings. See John 6:69; Acts 8:37; 9:20; 1 John 4:15; 5:5 … Peter’s confession was full, clear, and explicit, bringing out the two-fold nature of Christ as born of man, and yet the Son of God, as both human and divine—a view so much in advance of the Jewish conception of the Messiah that our Lord declares it to have been communicated to him by a revelation from heaven.—JOHN J. OWEN.

Practical Application

Beg of Christ that He would anoint Himself king in our hearts, and prophet and priest in our hearts, to do what He did, to know His will as a prophet, to rule in us as a king, and to stir up prayers in us as a priest.—RICHARD SIBBES.

Jesus our hope, is Jehovah’s Messiah. He became Jesus, assuming human flesh, for the sake of His people; and as Jesus, or the Saviour, was anointed or became Christ, to complete their salvation. What wonderful love is implied under this term to poor sinners! He was, and is and ever will be the anointed one for their sakes. With what joy and celerity did Andrew run to meet his brother Peter, and with what a beautiful abruptness did he tell him: We have found the Messiah! The message was too welcome to be locked up; and doubtless Andrew, like most other young converts, would have been glad to communicate what he knew, and impart what he felt, to all the world.—HORAE SOLITARIAE.

Hence learn we to renounce all kings, priests, and prophets, in comparison of Christ; He is a priest to redeem, and a prophet to teach and reveal the mysteries of God, and He is the king to execute all God’s decrees.—THOMAS GOODWIN.

With Peter let us confess that Jesus is our Prophet, Priest, and King. Let us acknowledge Him: “Thou art my Prophet, my infallible teacher; Thou art my Priest, who has made atonement for me; Thou art my King, to whom I will render obedience.” It is such a confession that constitutes a Christian.

When the Apostles went about proclaiming this confession, what happened? Christians were placed in prison; some were burned at the stake; some were thrown to lions; and some were crucified. The forces of Satan in all their hellish power sought to destroy the young Church. But the Church prevailed because she proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Prophet, Priest, and King of God. During the dark ages the Church began to revise Peter’s confession, in effect. Man was cast in the role of mediator between God and man; and man’s loyalty was to man. The Reformation rediscovered the confession of Peter and proclaimed it with triumph in spite of persecution. The Church today needs to rediscover the centrality of this great confession. Such a refocusing may well kindle the revival fire so long awaited.

Those who would make this confession sincerely must receive supernatural assistance. Jesus said to Peter, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” No man has eyes to see this truth, till the veil is removed from his heart, and his understanding is enlightened by the Spirit of God. The Apostle John declared in his first Epistle, “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit.”

Eutychus and His Kin: October 29, 1956

HALLOWEEN REFORMATION

Would you be interested in publishing my forthcoming pamphlet, Survival in a ‘Trick or Treat’ Raid? Halloween, it concludes, is not only here to stay, but will enjoy the same cancerous growth other American holidays have known.

First-aid is offered to stricken parents. Have you thought of sending your children out early to ring doorbells, so that their accumulated loot may be used for your free distribution?

Another suggestion for your readers: Wrapping candy corn in Gospel tracts can’t be the best way to bring a Christian witness at Halloween. Why not show old-fashioned Christian hospitality to charm the hoboes, clowns, and other rubber-faced baboons that appear for this junior shakedown?

Since writing this informative booklet I have been hearing more about “Reformation Day.” Apparently it was no accident that Martin Luther nailed up his ninety-five theses on the eve of All Saints’ Day. The indulgences Luther was attacking went on sale that day. Picture a priest posting anti-bingo placards on the eve of the annual parish carnival! Perhaps if we took Reformation Day more seriously we could awaken our neighbors from a misty reverence for Halloween as a ritual of the American Way of Life to a concern about the Gospel which is The Way of Life.

If Reformation Day only means staging successful rallies, however, the term should be used with apologies. Luther’s sense of timing was not that of an advertising executive but of a soldier. “Here I stand” … He challenged the lie with his life. His strong views are now discounted as products of his rude age. Modern ecclesiastical crusading moves in an atmosphere of sweetness and light. Martin Luther breathed the fire of love, which is quite different—love for deluded souls destroyed by a works religion, love for Jesus Christ in whose righteousness alone he was justified by grace. The Reformation was an onslaught of love on specific errors at the right time and place: The castle church door on All Saints’ eve.

Your humble scribe,

EUTYCHUS

DEUTERO-EUTYCHUS

Why not just sign Eutychus’s real name—Norman Vincent Peale?

A.D.E.

New York City

TRITO-EUTYCHUS

… You can’t keep it secret for long, so why don’t you say so now? Merv Rosell is your reticent scribe.…

D.T.

Los Angeles

HELLENIC INFLUENCE

… It reads to me as if you’ve hired Simeon Stylites on the side.…

A.R.

Wheaton, Ill.

GRAVITY IN THE PREACHER

Perhaps there is an element of peril in your feature “Preacher in the Red.” Through the years I have often called the attention of students and ministers to Brooks’ warning in his Yale Lectures … On page 58 he says: “Refrain from all joking about congregations, flocks, parish visits, the mishaps of the pulpit, or the makeshifts of the study. Such joking … takes the bloom off a young minister’s life.” Jowett wrote much the same.…

READER

Philadelphia, Pa.

• CHRISTIANITY TODAY endorses this counsel against pulpit entertainment. But it also finds virtue in the minister’s ability to laugh at himself when others discover that he shares their fallibility and discomposure.—ED.

UNEMBARRASSED PULPIT

… When a paper goes to laymen, it ought to stress the authority of the pulpit, not its fallibility.…

CONTRIBUTOR

Philadelphia, Pa.

FIFTY CENT WAGER

… The burden of proof rests on you: and the odds seem too long to make a $5 gamble the least bit attractive. 50c yes, but $5 no!

DONALD VISSCHER

Oxbow, N.Y.

THEOLOGIANS WANTED

I enclose my check … What we need today is a living, aggressive, Protestant, evangelical, theological magazine. Eliminate the preacher editors; maintain a staff of about a dozen theological men who know what they are talking about, one for each major field of Christian life.…

LEROY HENSEL

Cleveland, O.

BY WIRE

CONGRATULATIONS ON … A SPLENDID FIRST ISSUE

STANLEY HIGH

NEW YORK CITY

CONGRATULATIONS … TIMELY, NEWSWORTHY AND MEATY

GEORGE WILSON

MINNEAPOLIS

SPLENDID START … BE ASSURED OF CONTINUED PRAYERS IN THIS LARGE AND CRUCIAL MINISTRY

F.F.T.

PASADENA, CALIF.

CONGRATULATIONS, CHRISTIANITY TODAY … FIRST ISSUE HAS WARMTH, VITALITY AND DIGNITY … EXCELLENT START. KEEP IT UP.

WILLIAM BRUSSEAU

PASADENA, CALIF.

WESTMINSTER FILMS

FIRST MAIL BAG

Full of top-rate material for worthy use of one’s time … Some of the advertising seems a bit ‘Pathfinderish’ …

H.B.

Pasadena, Calif.

Faith is such a vital element in … mental survival stamina … You are dealing with the most decisive element in politics and diplomacy, as developments have shown.

EDWARD HUNTER

Port Washington, N.Y.

First issue is terrific. Just what we preachers need. It certainly meets a need in my study.

LAVERNE E. ROHRBAUGH

Biglerville, Pa.

Vol. 1, No. 1, arrived today and is two-thirds devoured now, with no complaints. I especially appreciate your Book of the Month department (so far).

K. MARTIN

Havelock, Ontario.

I quite approve the motive and attitude and plans of the magazine.

CHARLES ERNEST SCOTT

Philadelphia, Pa.

Long has evangelical Christianity needed a publication such as this.

PHIL JONES

Newberry, S.C.

Ideas

Pulpit and Pew: An Appraisal

The Minister Looks At The Pew

Mixed feelings possess the minister in his appraisal of the pew, the source of his joy and distress. The virtues and excellencies of the congregation sustain his spirit; the defects and imperfections weigh down his soul. The pew displays the paradoxes of loyalty and indifference, knowledge and ignorance, humbleness and pride, generosity and covetousness, warmth and coldness, sincerity and hypocrisy, good and evil. The spiritual and the natural are both in evidence.

Surely one of the gratifying virtues in the life of a congregation is loyalty. Whether the church is at peace or beset with troubles, whether the church is prosperous or destitute, a band of devoted members exhibits resolute loyalty. Difficult situations beset the life of almost every congregation but are overcome by the steadfast and the unmovable. The minister, too, benefits from this virtue. Whether his gifts be many or few, whether his sermons be worthy of praise or blame, loyal support rejoices his heart.

Of inestimable value to church and minister is the inner circle of spiritual Christians found in every congregation. They hunger and thirst for the Word; they hold up the ministry in prayer; they serve generously with their tithes and time. Appreciative, not critical, tolerant—they form an oasis in what sometimes seems a barren land.

In spite of the presence of those who hunger for the Word, a shock early in the ministerial life is the awakening realization that the majority in the pew have no desire for a deeper knowledge of the Scriptures. Even some of the soundest evangelical congregations have little appetite for the meat of the Gospel. Nor may the preacher presuppose any diligent study on the part of the pew in preparation for the message. He must make the message light and airy to sustain interest. He knows that nominal Christians prefer vague generalities, enhanced by the eloquence of Athens, and have no taste for the soul-searching truths of Jerusalem.

Piety displays itself in many varieties before the eyes of the pastor. He beholds that ceremonial and ritual piety which does not go beyond the outward rites of the Church. He perceives with sadness that sabbatical piety which limits religion to the first day of the week. He views with alarm that negative piety which consists only of a series he observes the “holier than thou” piety which refuses to mingle with publicans and sinners. He deplores the noisy piety that glories only in the ostentatious and vain-glorious display of statistics and visible results.

In striking contrast to pseudo-piety, the minister discovers a proper piety that constantly grows in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. He perceives that those who grow spiritually are those who cultivate the means of grace. Humbleness and consciousness of imperfection distinguish them from the proud and self-righteous. They bear injuries and provocation with meekness. Fruits of the Spirit become increasingly evident in their lives. Charity toward others is more than sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. They sincerely seek to give pre-eminence to Christ. For this genuine piety the minister praises God.

To his distress, the minister discovers that the loyalty of the pew often consists in a loyalty to the local church only. Local programs find warm-hearted support whereas the world-wide program of evangelization, initiated and commanded by the Head of the Church, finds only cold-hearted indifference. Indeed, if his efforts to inspire a world-wide vision are constantly defeated, the flaming ardor of the undershepherd is in danger of being quenched by the coldness of the flock.

Puzzling is the pew’s attitude that the battle for souls and the fight against evil should be waged by the minister alone. The notion prevails that the preacher alone must draw the sinner into the church and cleanse the community of evils. Military battles are not fought by the officers alone. Yet the battle against evil is a thousand times more important and difficult. Christ gave no statement, “the ministry is the salt of the earth.” Nor did He command, “Go ye, clergy, and make disciples of all nations.” Yet that is the prevailing impression on the part of the pew.

The pulpit must constantly guard against those who would secularize the Church by changing it into a social club. The pew may be motivated by a desire to attract the ungodly into the church. “See,” they say in effect, “we are not so narrow or unworldly as reputed. We have the same pleasures you enjoy.” However, the minister knows that the way for Christians to attract the unchurched is not by aping their pleasures but by proving that the Christians’ pleasures are infinitely superior. The Church should be known as the source of spiritual comforts and pleasures for which many in the world hunger and thirst. Would that the passion of the pew were to make the world spiritual rather than the church worldly!

Embarrassing to the minister are questions pertaining to stipend. He takes heart, however, in observing that even the secular press is sounding the alarm about the inadequate compensation of ministers. “The noblest profession of them all” is the estimation often heard, but the insincerity of that phrase on the lips of some is seen in their modest reimbursement of the “noblest,” in contrast with their compensation of other professional men, for instance, the lawyer or physician. Perhaps such reluctant supporters regard estates and bodies of greater value than souls. A Puritan divine made the telling comment that pastors should have tithes that they may have a fellow feeling of the people’s loss, and a fellow comfort in their increases. The Lord made adequate provision for the priest of the old dispensation; the church should do likewise for the minister of the new.

The empty pew, alas, cannot be overlooked. It confronts the vision of the minister constantly. It is a silent yet expressive witness of a preference for the radio and television above the pulpit. It attests to the increasing number of Sunday leaves of absence. The empty pew becomes vocal only at Easter and Christmas—with groans caused by unaccustomed loads. Like a tombstone the empty pew gives cemeterial atmosphere to the church. It witnesses of the dead.

Bitterness, wrath, envyings, strife, faction, and divisions pervade the church in the twentieth century as well as in the first century. These sins are engendered often by the union of petty spirits with small-mindedness. Until the world can say “How these Christians love one another” instead of “How these Christians dislike one another,” Christianity can make no deep impact on the life of the world. Jerome records the tradition that when the apostle John was old and feeble, he was carried by young men to the meetings. He could no longer say much, but he repeated the words, “Little children, love one another.” When asked why he constantly repeated the same words, he would reply, “Because this is the command of the Lord, and because enough is done if but this one thing be done.”

Would that the evaluation of the twentieth-century church were written by Him whose “eyes were as a flame of fire.” He would write of the labor, of the patience, of the zeal, of the tribulation, of the faithfulness, and of the charity evidenced in the life of the membership. Also He would write of the abatement of first love, of the avarice of modern Balaams, of the toleration of heresy, of the decline of good works, of the submission to seductive Jezebels, of the deadness, of the lukewarmness, and of the miserable poverty of those rich in material goods but poor in spirit.

A Layman Looks At The Pulpit

That the pew should look and listen to the pulpit with an appraising eye and an evaluating ear is only proper. What minister would desire an audience so docile and wooden as to take stolidly all that might be preached without a critical analysis of the message? At Berea, the Apostle Paul was stimulated by hearers who searched the Scriptures daily to see whether he was preaching the truth. An enlarged number of spiritual descendants of those Berean Christians would prove a blessing to both pew and pulpit.

It is Sunday morning and we sit in the sanctuary, quietly and restfully. The setting is of minor importance. Whether severe in simplicity or cathedrallike in beauty, no aesthetic or worshipful atmosphere can, of itself, supply the spiritual needs of mankind.

Who is sitting in the pews? Men and women, a cross section of the complex and cosmopolitan world of which we are a part. Some are in financial straits; others more fortunate. Some have social and educational advantages; others lack both. Here may be people with skin of varying color. None of these differences is of eternal import, for only two kinds of people occupy the pews this morning: those who have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, and those who have not.

But can our complicated lives be so easily catalogued? Do not men and women have multiplied problems? Do not Christians represent varied stages of development in Christian faith and living? Do not these obvious variants in experience demand from the pulpit an erudite and all-encompassing concept of the Christian ministry and its message?

There are some in the pew today who feel that preaching has tended to complicate rather than to simplify the Gospel message. By dealing so much with the fringe results of sin in disordered lives, it has obscured the basic need of every human heart. Some hearers would call this an attempt to treat symptoms rather than the disease that causes the symptoms.

The layman needs biblical teaching, and the average layman wants it. He needs a dynamic for daily living, not simply an ethic a little loftier than his own highest aspirations. He needs as much to be told where he can get the power to do the thing he knows to be right, as to be told what to do.

Looking over the Sunday morning congregation, made up of only two kinds of people, the redeemed and the unredeemed, we are moved to reflection. Are not hundreds of sermons wasted, at least in part, because they are instructing non-Christians how to act like Christians?

Admittedly, to insist that all sermons be directed to those in need of conversion would be foolishness. Much of the minister’s work must, of necessity, center in developing Christians in their knowledge of Christian truth and in living as Christians should. But many a layman, as he thinks back to his own admission into church membership, knows that there was no conversion experience with Christ. In fact, it is only too likely that he responded to an impersonal invitation to “join the church,” nothing more.

Now, sitting quietly in the pew, what is the message he hears? What is the content of that message? What is the basis for the sermon? Whence comes its authoritative note, if any? Some who listen may be impressed by oratory, by impeccable pulpit manners, by obvious scholarship, by a clear familiarity with world affairs. But the average member of any congregation has a soul hunger for spiritual bread, that not even a glittering homiletical stone can satisfy.

It is axiomatic, and should not need emphasis, that human wisdom can never compensate for divine truths. When preaching is saturated with and centered in the simple affirmations of the Scriptures, carrying with them an authority, a power, and a transforming quality, men’s souls are fed. When this sacred source of wisdom is ignored, people go away hungry.

Preaching takes many forms, topical, doctrinal, expository, and so forth; all are needed. But preaching is real only when centered in the divine revelation that is the Word of God. Paul called Scripture the sword of the Spirit. It is still quick and powerful; it still convicts and convinces; it still lays bare the inmost secrets of the human heart; it still shows man both how to live and also how to die and live forever.

The pew serves no good purpose when it contributes to an excessive sense either of ministerial insecurity or of security. Some occupants of the pew criticize their pastor, no matter how well he preaches or how faithfully he serves them. Others would gush over the preacher if he got up and repeated a nursery rhyme in a pleasing tone with soft modulation.

Over against these two extremes is that great majority who sit and take whatever is given them, either rejoicing or suffering in silence. The consecrated layman, however, belongs neither in the scorner’s seat, nor in the gulley of the gushers, nor in the valley of affliction.

The layman has a right to expect certain things from the pulpit. We would suggest five.

Simplicity. The man in the pew is not trained technically in theological terms, nor should this be necessary. Even the most profound doctrines can be presented so that the layman can understand them. The simplicity of the Gospel message should never be forgotten.

Authority. The Christian message has a basis in authority, the authority of the Scriptures in which God has spoken by the Holy Spirit. Without such authority, something is lacking, and the pew is easily affected by the deficiency. The preacher needs the authority derived from God Himself and His revealed truth if he would speak to the hearts and lives of other men. The biblically based “Thus saith the Lord” still impresses the hearer more than the profoundest opinions of men.

Power. Power in preaching depends on the presence of the Holy Spirit, both in the preparation and in the delivery of the sermon. For such power—and in human terms it is something both intangible and inexplicable—there is no substitute. Human wisdom, oratorical flights, literary style, personal opinions, all will soon be forgotten. God’s presence in a sermon is imparted to its hearers and carried away in the heart. On such power from the Holy Spirit rests the hope for a repetition of the experience of the men on the Emmaus road: “Did not our hearts burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures?”

Urgency. This urgency is not one of a possibly imminent world cataclysm. Nor is it an urgency having to do with physical, economic, or social wellbeing, important as these may be. The Christian ethic, as a matter of personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and as a way of life, is the most important decision with which man can be confronted. Until the issue between God and man is settled aright there can be no right solution of man’s problems with man. Jesus expressed the urgency of His own mission to this world in the arresting phrase “should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “Perishing” is a desperately serious matter, and finding the way to prevent it is certainly a matter of the greatest urgency. The second phase of the Christian faith—how to live as a Christian—is also a matter of urgency. In both matters the pew needs to capture this sense of urgency from the message of the pulpit.

Decision. A good salesman works for a decision. A good agent for Jesus Christ does the same. We laymen need to face up to the universal need for such a decision. Only too often we find ourselves confronted with an invitation to “join the church.” Such a step is a vitally important matter, but man’s first decision has to do with the acceptance of Jesus Christ—WhoHe is and what He did. Many of the problems in individual lives, and in the church, stem from the fact that only too often such a decision has never been made. There are many subsequent decisions the Christian must make; in fact, they must be made daily. When Christianity becomes a vital reality to the individual, such decisions inevitably follow.

Finally, the pew should look at the pulpit through eyes and from a heart that has prayed for the one standing there as a messenger of God. In a true sense, he stands as a dying man preaching to dying men. He needs and deserves the sympathetic understanding and prayerful support of those to whom he ministers.

The Church moves forward as pew and pulpit unite in one common faith and purpose: to know Christ and to make Him known.

***

The Christian And Political Responsibility

Differing from any other in the world, the American political scene reaches heights of asininity and of greatness, of fiction and fact, which can easily confound even the most astute.

Despite the defects of political controversy, every American should be thankful that, by and large, the charges and counter charges of political campaigns are projectiles of hot air, not lead, and should glory in the fact that he can vote.

In such an atmosphere Christians, along with all others, can be carried away easily by personalities, emotion, and distortion. In the face of these campaign pressures we need the sobering effect of clear judgment, a judgment possible only by looking at candidates and policies with Christian objectivity.

An increasing number of individuals refuse blindly to follow the dictates of a particular party. This is a wholesome trend. There is always a danger, even in a republic, of unwittingly absorbing the totalitarian philosophy of letting someone else do one’s thinking.

It should be axiomatic that a Christian should be a good citizen. Unfortunately, such is not always the case. One outstanding Christian recently metaphorically threw up his hands in disgust: “Why vote? There are but two alternatives—creeping socialism under different labels.” No doubt there is the danger that a large vote enables each party to claim a mandate from the people for compromise measures. But, in a democracy, where free speech is accorded each citizen, and where all can vote according to the dictates of their own wills, the government one ultimately lives under is the government of his own making or neglect.

Other Christians, with a wistful idealism, see the world through the thick lenses of an earth-bound pessimism. Because no particular candidate meets their idealistic concept, they may be inclined to stay away from the polls and in so doing, their idealism is dissipated into the thin air of wishful thinking.

What should a Christian do?

He should exercise his privilege of voting. The secret ballot is a privilege which millions are denied today, and for which many would make any sacrifice.

The Christian should also look both at candidates as individuals and at the policies they espouse. Let him admit realistically that in this world there are no perfect candidates, nor are there perfect governments.

What should the Christian look for? Is the candidate a man of moral rectitude? Does he look upon his office as deriving its authority from God, and his personal life and administrative acts as under constant divine scrutiny? In other words, a Christian should vote for the man who, in his judgment, will exercise, directly and indirectly, the greatest influence for righteousness at home and abroad.

A Christian should also evaluate the men by whom a candidate surrounds himself, again looking for moral principles and personal rectitude.

Furthermore, a Christian citizen should look at the policies espoused by a candidate and a party. Personal and group and sectional admission to the “federal feed trough” is an incentive for political affiliation which strikes the nadir of selfishness. The national good must take priority over personal and sectional advantage.

Finally, the Christian citizen owes it to himself and to his country to pray for divine guidance. The one vote cast according to God’s holy will, multiplied many times, is the strength of a democracy. Those ultimately elected are entitled also to the concern and consideration enjoined by the apostle Paul: “1 exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings and for all that are in authority … For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour” (1 Tim. 2:1–3).

Church Membership And Spiritual Ambiguity

For the first time the United States shows a church membership exceeding 100 million. The latest compilation of the National Council of Churches’ Yearbook of American Churches discloses that the trend begun during World War II is continuing; church membership gains are outstripping population gains. Last year church membership increased 2.8%, population 1.8%. The total figure, 100,162,529, includes 58,448,000 Protestants and 33,369,000 Roman Catholics.

Does this fact that there are more people in the churches, and more professing Christians, signify the spiritual revival of the nation? Surely the United States today is the lifeline of much of the world’s evangelism and missionary effort. And there have been heartening evidences of new evangelical earnestness.

But it would be too much to say that the soul of the nation has undergone repentance and revival. The minister who said that “the world at its worst needs the Church at its best” did not understate the demands posed by our decade. What prospect is there, one university professor in the South has asked, that Christians will grow up as fast as the inventors of atomic energy work?

We need a demonstration of Christian superiority which is culture-wide, a display of the lordship of Christ which extends to every sphere of life on each day of the week. The early Christians were bent on a maximum experience. Their Christianity not only began at the altar of regeneration and repentance, but it did not end with formal church membership. Their mood was not simply receptive, but appropriative and productive. They were dedicated to an obedience to the risen Lord’s commands, not to a mere conformity to the best standards of society. The cross was for them something to live with and by, as well as something to live under. That is why they gave their contemporaries a demonstration of Christianity superior in awesomeness to any of the moral resources paganism could command.

The Tenuous Prospect Of World Peace

To a generation bristling with hope for world peace, the article by Lieutenant General William K. Harrison may seem like “a counsel of pessimism and despair.”

But it calls for sober reading, even by those who do not share in detail the distinguished general’s eschatological views. CHRISTIANITY TODAY, in the course of time, will present representative views of the way in which the climax of history is anticipated by evangelical Christians sincere in their differences. But the present article confronts us with a significant judgment upon the past and the present no less than upon the future.

General Harrison is one of the senior generals of the United States Army, and served as United Nations truce delegate at Panmunjom. In those tedious transactions with the Communist generals in Korea, he carried in his own heart an anguished world’s hope for the end of armed conflict.

That the general does not share the opinion, widespread even in ecclesiastical circles today, that the United Nations (or any other organization) is the world’s best hope for peace, is significant enough. That he should find that hope in Jesus Christ alone is a refreshing reflection of the biblical emphasis that peace, in national as in individual life, is the gift of God. This conviction may not be popular, especially in a generation whose hopes are sociological and anthropological, rather than theological, but that is all the more reason it needs to be voiced.

Solomon’s trust in horses, and ancient Israel’s trust in alliance with Egypt, may differ from the modern confidence in the atomic bomb and in the United Nations, but the difference is only one of degree, and not of kind. The common factor in both is the neglect of the Living God as the final arbiter of the destiny of nations and of the fortunes of war and peace.

Back To The Bottle The Day After Christmas

The editors of Life published a special “Christianity” issue a year ago. In many respects, the issue was one of the finest of its kind in contemporary journalism. Among its virtues was the absence, at this otherwise lucrative season for such commercials, of liquor advertising.

Like much of the religious interest in America, this sentimentality at Christmas has a sequel. A survey of fifteen leading publications shows that, during the six months January–June, 1956, Life carried more pages of liquor advertising than any of its competitors with the exception of one. During that period the New Yorker carried 221.81 pages, Life 127.80, Time 90.60, Newsweek 89.06, Esquire 79.26, Cue 75.31, Collier’s 68.50, U.S. News and World Report 59.25, Look 51.00, Ebony 50.64; Sports Illustrated 44.98, Holiday 42.91.

There is little virtue in putting Christ back into Christmas if He is ejected the morning after. That is like filling Santa’s pack bag with spirits made in Kentucky, and smuggling them in under the cover of the night.

Reformation Day And Protestant Tradition

The theme adopted by the National Council of Churches for the observance of Reformation Sunday, October 28, is “the continuity of the Christian Church in the Protestant tradition.” What a strategic opportunity to present three great Reformation principles unacceptable to the Roman Catholic Church: (1) Holy Scriptures as the sole normal authority for faith and life, (2) Justification by faith alone without any merits of good works, (3) the priesthood of all believers. The Protestant tradition bases doctrine and religious life entirely on the Scriptures.

Cover Story

Christianity and Peace in Our Day

The problem of war is as old as man. War, with I its accompanying passions, destruction, and suffering, is one of the greatest evils in human society. In fact, wars have been so frequent throughout the history of mankind that, in spite of the general desire for peace, we may say that peace is only a temporary condition.

Never has the destructive potentiality of war been so apparent as today. Men today are not more cruel; death and destruction are not more final. But within the life span of many living today two world wars have been fought, not to mention lesser ones. In the future we are faced with the potentiality of atomic world war whose area, magnitude, and speed of destruction are beyond anything formerly thought possible.

The Church of Christ is part of the human community, and if it is to exercise a position of leadership, it must face this problem of war. Indeed, of all men, the Christian minister should recognize the responsibility of the Church to alleviate the sufferings of men.

The dilemma of Christian leadership is complicated by the fact that the teachings and activities of Church leaders through nineteen centuries have failed to make any appreciable impact in advancing the cause of international peace.

It would be unjust, however, to say that Christianity has been no more effective than pagan philosophers and moralists. For the blessings of peace have come, sometimes for generations, to lands blessed with godly rulers and a God-fearing people. Even on the occasion of sudden repentance, God has spared nations calamity, as with Nineveh of old. If the Christian moral code, including such precepts as the Golden Rule, were actually followed by all men, wars would undoubtedly cease. The conflicts, great and small, that trouble society would then be settled amicably and equitably.

The Need Of Moral Power

Yet the truth of the matter is that men, in practice, ignore these righteous injunctions. Many people outwardly profess them as proper standards of conduct, but lack the moral power and courage to live by them.

Partly because of the Church’s failure to achieve visible results in decreasing war, human society has tended to try other methods. Declarations outlawing war, the reduction of armaments, treaties proclaiming peaceful intentions, and the establishment of international organizations—all these have been tried as the means to peace. Each has proved unsuccessful in eliminating war. A particular means, be it readily admitted, may have prevented a particular conflict from developing into full-scale war. And Christian or humanitarian rulers have on occasion avoided actions leading to war. But on the balance sheet of history, none of these efforts has been profitable, and nothing indicates that they ever can be.

War Is Man’s Fault

In seeking to understand the problem of war and its relation to Christianity, it seems useful to consider first the question, Why do wars occur? Too often consideration of the matter starts with another question, What is the cause of war? But the real question is, Who causes war? War is a human activity. No matter what the incentives or secondary causes, men do not have to fight. They choose to do so.

The decision to initiate aggression is made by the political ruler of the nation. The mass of the population do not seek war unless they have first been sufficiently motivated by the propaganda and the actions of their own and the enemy government. The very nature of the modern state prevents spontaneous mass aggression. Similarly, the military forces under their leaders begin military operations when they are launched by the head of the state. Although the military advisers may influence the decision of the ruler, he actually makes that decision himself. Rarely does a military commander take action on his own initiative. In any case, the launching of aggression is the choice of the head of the state.

By understanding this responsibility of the head of the state we can see why it is impossible to prevent war. It is impossible to prevent some men from becoming criminals. It is also impossible to prevent some criminals from becoming the rulers of states. Then, when such a man is the head of a state, there is no way, from a human standpoint, of preventing him from launching an aggression.

The danger is increased by the truism that in every man, hidden deep, are those evil tendencies that in some men result in visible crimes. No proof should be needed to show any thinking man that he possesses such tendencies, though he may usually keep them well concealed. Even a ruler whose intentions are peaceful may be so stirred by a particular set of circumstances that his good intentions are overruled.

Basic Problem Is Ethical

At bottom, the problem of war is a moral problem—the very condition at which the Golden Rule is aimed. An international organization, with or without an authoritative executive head, cannot solve this moral problem. Any organizational structure is merely a framework of relationships and procedures within which men act. No organization can be more effective than the men in it. No rules, constitution, laws, customs, or the like have real significance unless they are enforced. Any organization, no matter how worthy its purpose or how stringent its rules, will succumb to ineffectiveness, corruption, disruption, and destruction unless prevented by the moral integrity of the men in it.

The problems of an international government are similar to those of any national government except that they are greatly magnified. A major and possibly fatal weakness of a world government might prove to be the absence of an external enemy to serve as a unifying force. The tendency to splinter into racial, national, or economic factions would, therefore, be greatly increased. Civil war would probably be inevitable because the armed forces would be subject to the same disintegration.

How a world government could be set up without a world conquest by military force is not clear. Only the fear of a common enemy can make rulers of states willing to voluntarily surrender their sovereignty to a common superior. In a world divided by antagonisms and conflicting interests so serious that fear of war is the prevailing climate, is it conceivable that opposing sides can agree on a common superior, or that either side would submit to the other? Only under pressure of fear of war would surrender of national freedom to a supranational government be seriously considered.

The reason for the perpetuation of war is that man will not eliminate it. He is enmeshed in the chains of his own evil will and desires. Nothing that peaceful men can do can overcome this evil, whether by the efforts of philosophy, the proclamation of the “Christian ethic,” redistribution of wealth, disarmament, international organization, or published laws. All men, peaceful or otherwise, must reckon with the fact of evil in their own natures. It is folly to assume that peace-loving men are sinless and that only the warmongers are sinful. The desire for peace is not an abiding characteristic of unregenerate man.

Supernatural Aid Necessary

In this predicament it would appear that men who face the question realistically have no hope other than to cry, Who can save us? Those who call themselves Christian would probably reply that if men are helpless only God can save them. That seems reasonable. If we lack a natural solution, we are left only with the hope of a supernatural one. Yet if one accepts the idea that we must seek help from God in ending war, several corollaries follow. First, experience confirms what the Scriptures teach, that God’s help is not automatic, it must be sought. Second, although the proclamation and practice of Christianity may have hindered or mitigated war, war has not been eradicated. Third, if God’s help is to be obtained, it must be done in a way approved by Him. Man cannot command God. Fourth, as long as men are intellectual and moral creatures endowed with responsible choice, they must eagerly embrace that help which God wills to give. Man cannot bargain with God. Obviously, if help is available but men spurn it, they must continue in the old path of self-destruction. The crisis today is that with modern weapons this destruction could come soon and in degree unparalleled in the history of mankind up to now.

Options Now Confronting Us

Christianity’s failure to advance the cause of world peace may arouse deep misgivings in many Christians, particularly in many Christian ministers.

Three courses seem open to such men. One is to abandon adherence to the Christian faith and ethic. But if there is no hope in Christianity, what other hope is there? There is no reasonable alternative. A second course is to continue to believe that the Christian ethic alone will slowly transform the human race and lead men to solve their disputes by means other than war. History shows little progress resulting from the contagion of Christian morality, as twentieth-century developments eloquently attest. Unless human nature has a sudden change of heart, modern means of destruction may not leave time for this program to succeed, even if it could. The third course is to re-examine one’s own concept of Christianity in an effort to explain the apparent failure of the Christian faith to solve the problem of war, and to discover what genuine hope that faith does offer.

Suppose we adopt this third course. Earlier, we have said that God’s help in ending war is not automatic but must be sought and that man’s past efforts have not been effective. Now we must seek to understand why this is so. Subjective reasoning and speculation have not found the answer and clearly cannot do so. No known facts in nature or history point the way. The question really is a matter of learning God’s will and the way man can approach Him for help. Obviously, if these things can be learned at all, they can be learned only from God.

The Bible And Its Promises

The original source of information about the Christian faith, still available today, is the Bible. If men will not believe the Word of God, they cannot find His truth by any other method.

Concerning the presence of evil and immorality in every man, the Bible is everywhere consistent. Its doctrine is well summarized in Romans 3:10–18 and Galatians 5:19–21. This teaching coincides with human experience and observation. The Bible also explains why these evils are so deep-seated in men (Rom. 1:18–32). Because men rebelled against God in self-will, He gave them up to those numerous immoralities, cruelties, dishonesties, meannesses and other evils which afflict the race and make wars and crime inevitable. These evils are the visible evidences of man’s primary sin and rebellion and of God’s wrath against it. Here we have a clear, adequate, and logical explanation of the presence of evil in man. Anyone who compares the plain statements of the Bible with the history and current state of mankind cannot fail to see that men live today exactly as the Bible describes them.

In sharp contrast to this dark picture of man’s natural sin and lawlessness are the glorious promises of peace on earth envisaged by the Old Testament prophets (e.g., Isa. 2:2–4). I am confident that these promises will be fulfilled in time and in history. Hence I am not pessimistic about human history, provided we have in view ideal humanity and ideal history.

Confidence in these promises calls forth equal confidence in the Biblical declarations as to the methods and sequence of their fulfillment. I do not regard it as accidental, but rather as essential, that the prophets, and the angels of Bethlehem after them (Luke 2:10), connect the message of “peace on earth” with the Messianic idea. The full and final answer to the problem of war will come with the return of Jesus Christ. With that event, peace becomes historically inevitable.

Slim Prospect Of World Conversion

Many sincere Christians have cherished the expectation of uninterrupted world peace before the Second Advent of Christ, as a result of the propagation and the effect of the Christian Gospel. I admire the zeal of those who preach the Gospel in this expectation that a Christian culture can be created through the Church’s evangelistic efforts. They are at least more Biblical than those who hope for such a utopia simply on the basis of a “Christian ethic” detached from the Gospel of supernatural redemption and regeneration. Yet I cannot share their optimism.

I am confident that the Gospel has power to transform life and that it will yet make progress in the world. I do not imply that the message of repentance is ineffectual in our generation. Nor do I mean that we can never again have an era of peace, although if we do its roots will be spiritual. But I am certain in my own heart that, this side of Christ’s return, we had best prepare for the possibility of war on earth however fervently we pray and work for peace.

The lives of regenerate men, individually and collectively, have influenced Western society to a marked degree. Yet a regenerate world has not resulted from the proclamation of the Gospel and there is no indication that it ever will. Certainly two thousand years of Western history, as well as the witness of the New Testament, give us little basis for expecting world conversion. The truth is that men do not want Jesus Christ, and it is so declared in the Bible. Modern man, like the multitudes of unregenerate men in past generations, would rather endure his life of peril while experimenting with unpromising utopian schemes than put his life right with God.

The Gospel Remains Man’s Hope

A brief summary of the New Testament teaching as to the nature, purpose, and consequences of the Gospel and its ministry will clearly reveal the true hope of mankind. The Gospel is addressed to individuals and is to be proclaimed to every creature (Matt. 11:28–30; John 3:16). The message of the Gospel is that through the gift of God individuals can be saved from sin and reconciled to God by faith in His Son, Jesus Christ, Who procured their redemption by His substitutionary sacrifice on the Cross (Rom. 3:21–24, 6:23). Such salvation can be received only as a gift through faith, since guilty sinners have nothing to offer in return. The New Testament further declares that saved persons are regenerate possessors of a new life (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 5:14–26). They do not lose the old nature in this world, but Christ gives them victory over it.

The truth and effectiveness of the Gospel is fully demonstrated by the experience of believers in Christ throughout the centuries. That experience is just as genuine and verifiable as is the presence of sin and war in the world. This fact should not be ignored by those who have not personally entered into this experience, or who refuse to enter. Lacking this personal experience, they cannot on that account deny its reality.

The reason they reject Him is because they will not admit that they are guilty sinners (Matt. 7:13, 14; John 3:17–21, 15:18–21). That the vast majority of men do reject Christ is undeniable. And without Christ men must remain under the curse of sin.

The Bible declares that God will take out of this world a people for His Name, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 15:14), but that He will allow lost human society to pursue its rebellious course to its inevitable tragic end. Evil and war will continue to the end of the age. The last part of the age will be a period of such terrible tribulation, including devastating wars and their accompanying ills, famines, and pestilence, that were God not to intervene, no one could survive. It is difficult to see in what way this biblical foreview differs in any significant degree from the human view imposed by history and by present realities as distinct from wishful hopes.

But before man disappears from the earth God will intervene. The Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, will come in all His glory at the Second Advent to establish that glorious and righteous Kingdom so often promised in the Old Testament.

Peace A Gift From Above

The Bible does not say and no one knows when the Messiah will come to reign in glory and righteousness. But only then, and then surely, men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and nations shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (Isa. 2:2–4). Now and until He comes society must face the death and destruction of wars.

Peace is not a natural achievement in human experience and history; it is a divine gift. Personal peace does not depend upon world peace nor on national peace, but its nature is spiritual rather than sociological. Such peace is not a mere negation of hostility and conflict, but a positive experience of divine reconciliation and redemption. Jesus contrasted the peace He brought His disciples with the peace of the world at its best: “My peace I give unto you, not as the world giveth give I unto you” (John 14:27). Peace with God provides the true climate for the hopeful pursuit of peace with men.

Social peace is a virtue and war is an evil. But in an unrighteous world, peace is not always the greatest good nor war the worst evil. Peace which promotes injustice is worse than war in the cause of justice. Christianity must always take the side of a just and durable peace, and oppose an unjust war.

Regeneration Indispensable

Only a regenerate mankind is enabled to tame the lusts and passions which make for war. That is why the preaching of the Gospel of redemption and regeneration is urgently and vitally relevant to each generation of fallen man. What Marx, Lenin, and Stalin needed was not simply an exposure to the “Christian ethic” but to be “born again.” Men who know that “Christ died for our sins” know something of God’s hatred of sin and of His love for the frailest human.

Apart from the Gospel the “Christian ethic” may still encourage an idealistic view of social responsibility and concern in a semi-Christian climate. But its inadequacy is apparent as soon as one deals with the naturalistic mind. This watered-down message, a social ethic without the Gospel, has robbed Christianity of main defenses against Communist assaults.

In fact, the force of sin in this life is so powerful that even a regenerate society would require the constant renewal of the Holy Spirit to prevent deterioration. Whatever deterrents to war men propose—world government, international police force, reduction of armament—may succeed for a season in delaying hostilities, but they will only compound those elements which the scheming minds of unregenerate men will sooner or later pervert for godless purposes.

Any message short of the Christian Gospel is false in varying degree and can only delude men as to their own unsaved state and consequent hopeless end. Peace will not become inevitable, nor war improbable, apart from the transformation of human nature. The apostolic Christian faith as it is declared in the Bible, including both the Gospel of individual redemption and the expectation of Christ’s Second Advent and Kingdom, is the only true hope for men and for society.

Lt. Gen. William K. Harrison, D.D., is commander in chief, Caribbean Command, United States Armed Forces, and senior United Nations truce delegate at Panmunjom.

Cover Story

Admit Red China?

No more critical issue faces American leaders in the days ahead than the one of admission of Communist China into the United Nations. As in all major phases of international relationships, Christianity itself has a deep interest in the moral overtones of this issue. It seems apparent that the self-interest of the United States would not be served by permitting our defense barriers to fall back to the Pacific Coast states of Washington, Oregon, and California. The previous administration as well as the present one, on the basis of the judgment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, determined that our own security would be jeopardized by any weakening of the defense line running from Japan and Korea to Formosa to the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand in the south and to Okinawa in the north.

The economic life of Korea and Japan is dependent on sea lanes into Southeast Asia, and unfriendly control of these waters would determine to a considerable extent the political life of the inhabitants of those countries. The recent war with Japan demonstrated how closely a military offensive can come to the continental limits of the United States through a lapse in our defensive guard in the Pacific. Every American should ask himself whether he wants to take this risk again as a probable consequence of recognition of Communist China.

The Record In Korea

An argument has been submitted at times that the United States should lodge its future security with the United Nations and depend on that organization’s collective security forces for protection against any hostile actions from the Far East. However, the lessons of recent history are a cold reminder of the unswerving objectives of world Communism, which in the ten years since the end of World War II in 1945 has taken over 600 million once-free people behind the Communist Iron Curtain. Americans will not, I believe, soon forget that the present Chinese Communist regime is the same regime that committed aggression in Korea in violation of a United Nations indictment and was responsible for inflicting 140,000 casualties on us, including 35,000 dead. The United Nations record in Korea was not effective collective security in a military action wherein the United States furnished 90 per cent of its manpower and only 17 out of 60 United Nations members supplied any manpower at all.

The Record In China

Turning to the interests of Asia itself, this country is staunchly committed against the principles of colonialism. Chou En-lai, Peiping’s premier and foreign minister, has asserted publicly and frequently that Asia must be for the Asians while at the same time he builds his military forces and war-making potential through the receipts of supplies from Communist Russia. In other words, what is intended is Asia for the Communists. Since actions speak with the force of conviction, the record of Communist China in Asia to date shows the following: (1) brutal persecution of religious and missionary organizations on the mainland; (2) colonialization of North Korea and the deliberate violation of the United Nations armistice negotiated in that country; (3) inciting and supplying Communist aggressive activities in Viet-Nam and Communist guerillas in Malaya, Burma, and Indonesia; (4) institution of blood purges of the Chinese people, which have been estimated by our Assistant Secretary of State, Walter S. Robertson, as resulting in approximately 15 million deaths. What can the people of Asia expect in the future from this record?

Foreign Policy And Freedom

The foreign and defense policies of this country need to be the people’s business. The decisions made in the months ahead may well determine whether we have a free world of free men. There is no easy solution to the unpleasant facts of today, which we must meet as other generations have had to meet the critical issues of their time.

The United States has provided the world with the greatest exposition of liberty and protection of the rights of man the world has known to date. Our foreign policy should manifest no less an ideal. The recognition of Communist China would subvert the principle long adhered to in this country—the dignity of free men. It would amount to a Far Eastern Munich. To bring our relationships with Communist China up to the time of this writing, an American military plane has recently been shot down with a loss of 16 lives.

We must not forget that Communism is a worldwide conspiracy against freedom and independence and that the objective of the men in the Kremlin was pointed out many years ago in Lenin’s statement that “the Road to Paris is through Peking.” The remaining free peoples of Asia are watching the actions taken by our government, and any compromise of moral principles in this area by the United States would move our defense barriers and influence back to the Pacific Coast for generations to come.

The Record In Russia

There appears to be little reason to expect that the recognition of Communist China would be productive of any greater performance than has resulted from the recognition of the Communist government of Russia in 1933. When that government was recognized by this country, certain pledges leading toward peaceable relations were made and soon broken.

Since all Communists are committed to the destruction of persons and institutions that stand in the way of world domination by Communism, there is no legitimate reason to hope that Communist China would pursue a different mode of operation.

Since foreign policy should be based on the concrete, not on the abstract, perhaps it will be illuminating to look at the question of recognition of Communist China from, first, the point of view of our own self-interest and, second, the interests of Asia.

Diplomatic Recognition?

Another closely related problem is that of affording diplomatic recognition to Red China. Although it may seem ironic, it is nevertheless true that the British government has not yet received recognition from Peiping even though she accorded recognition to Communist China on January 6, 1950, over six years ago. It is understood that the main obstacle to full reciprocity is the insistence by the Chinese Communists that Britain give full support to the seating of Chinese Communists in the United Nations, and that she sever all ties with the government of the Republic of China on Formosa.

If we show the same courage and common sense that motivated the men who sat at Philadelphia and gave us first our Declaration of Independence and later our Constitution, there are none of our great domestic problems we cannot solve and there is no foreign foe we need ever fear.

The Hon. William F. Knowland is minority leader of the United States Senate and was United Nations delegate to the United Nations session in November.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube