Cover Story

Dare We Revive the: Modernist-Fundamentalist Conflict?

The Editor

Whoever evaluates the modernist-fundamentalist controversy from the standpoint of the sixth decade must sense the current distaste for religious contention, must sense the deference to ecumenical cooperation. In the face of present pressures for unity and unanimity, the ministry no doubt reflects an increasing impatience with controversy because of its apparent historical fruitlessness and futility. Ecumenical inclusivism rolls on; each passing year registers new mergers and numerical gains while the outside minority diminishes.

An added pressure is the destructive impact of religious controversy upon the unchurched multitudes. For more than half a century liberal preaching defined the evangelical message as irrelevant and meaningless for modern man. Conservative pulpits, in turn, affirmed that whatever else modernism might be, it was not Christianity. As the decades passed, increasing multitudes detached themselves from the churches. All the while modernist inveighed against fundamentalist and fundamentalist against modernist. Unchurched multitudes have been watching from the sidelines, justifying their detachment from a pugilistic spirituality.

Alongside these pressures against church strife engendered out of consideration for the larger Protestant witness and for the unchurched masses, evangelicals within their own camp experienced disappointments due to religious controversy. Deploring the strategy that delivered one influential post after another to liberal denominational leadership, conservatives saw some of their own leaders fall prey to the lust for ecclesiastical prominence. Theological controversy got out of hand; not only was it appended to personal ambition, but it was made to serve unnecessary discord and division. The positive side of theological controversy (the case for great Christian beliefs) was yielded swiftly to the negative. Pulpit and convention became a platform for the denunciation of personalities and organizations.

Another reason to resist a renewal of modernist-fundamentalist debate centers in the present upsurge in church attendance by the spiritually illiterate. Stabbed by an inner uncertainty, insecurity and fear in the aftermath of two global wars, the American people now throng the churches in record numbers. Most of these churchgoers are unfamiliar with the specifics of the modernist-fundamentalist controversy. Shall they learn unhappy details of past theological and ecclesiastical tension and trouble before they are invited to saving faith in Christ? To keep the fire of faith burning brightly for those who throng the tabernacles of God today, dare we neglect a new perspective on the recent past?

Thus far we have dealt mainly with a mid-century ministerial mood and mind-set, namely, an aversion to perpetuating the modernist-fundamentalist debate. Because of the modern premium on ecclesiastical unity, because of the inelegant impression church controversy makes upon the world, because of the easy degeneration of theological conflict into negation and lovelessness and because of the rising generation of churchgoers who must be linked swiftly with the first generation of Christian faith, today there is a growing impatience with the effort to preserve the edge of past-generation theological debate as the permanent center of Christian polemics, apologetics and evangelism.

The Great Divide?

This impatience is by no means universal, however. In some circles the ecclesiastical encounter still follows the same lines shaped a generation or two ago.

Some vocal fundamentalists consider the modernist-fundamentalist divide the permanent razor edge to which all the destinies of twentieth-century Christianity must be exposed. This view is encouraged by men of influence in a variety of opinion-forming media—church councils, periodicals, schools, exclusivist movements.

The fundamentalist wing is not alone, however, in the tendency to perpetuate the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. Even some liberals draw the lines of ecclesiastical dispute much as they were drawn a generation ago. They refuse to share Karl Barth’s and Emil Brunner’s sharp criticism of classic liberal theology.

No less a modernist than Harry Emerson Fosdick believes that the fate of Christianity still reduces to a necessary conflict between the old liberalism and fundamentalism. In 1927 Dr. Fosdick’s sermon “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” made him the storm center of American preaching. Three decades later his highly readable autobiography The Living of These Years (Harper, 1957) spins a halo of self-justification over Dr. Fosdick’s vagabondage and endeavors to vindicate the liberalism to which he raised an altar. Dr. Fosdick guards his cherished liberalism from any need for repentance and radical revision. Likewise his verdict on fundamentalism is identical to that of thirty years ago.

If another example is needed of a modernist tendency to freeze the modernist-fundamentalist debate as the permanent center of ecclesiastical life, we may refer to that influential journal of liberal opinion The Christian Century, which has so unmistakably established fundamentalism as a color word, while vindicating a role of ecclesiastical dignity and respect for such terms as liberalism and modernism. The Century’s outlook today is little different: nothing good can come out of fundamentalism; the hope of the church and of the world is liberalism. Fundamentalist missionaries may die as martyrs, but they are dismissed as misguided; fundamentalist evangelism may strike into the barren churches of our centuries like lightning from heaven, but it is naive and socially irrelevant; fundamentalist scholarship may produce worthy textbooks and religious journals, but they are suspect and dangerous because they are not liberal; fundamentalists may even criticize fundamentalists but unless they defect from evangelical Christianity to liberalism they are still unacceptable.

Essence Of Christianity

The modernism of the past generation is therefore still regarded as the essence of Christianity. Liberalism thus confronts contemporary Christianity once again with two important and interrelated issues: (1) Is modernism acceptable as expressive of Christianity? and (2) Is the Christian church ideally inclusive of both modernists and evangelicals?

Dr. Fosdick gives us a recent answer to these questions, but it is not new. He describes himself as an “evangelical liberal.” And he so defines the term “tolerance” as virtually to mean the acceptance “of a church inclusive enough to take in both liberals and conservatives without either trying to drive the other out” (The Living of These Years, p. 145).

Today, on the other hand, the contrast between modernism and evangelical Christianity is being sketched anew from a quite different standpoint by theologians of former modernist sympathies to show the radical perversion of biblical Christianity of which classic liberalism was guilty.

Secondary Criticisms

Modern churchmen who permit only secondary criticisms of classic liberal theology make its adequacy a contemporary issue through continued espousal. Dr. Fosdick himself enumerates certain criticisms: liberalism adjusted Christian thought to the standard of secular culture, so that “the center of gravity was not in the gospel but in the prevalent intellectual concepts of our time” (p. 245); it was “too blind to the tragic sinfulness and plight of man” (p. 248); “it took too negative a view of the Bible” (p. 243). Although the first of these criticisms would be sufficient to discredit modernism as the bearer of the essence of Christianity, Dr. Fosdick nevertheless refuses to bring under vigorous criticism the liberalism that he represented. While conceding that he “took the optimistic color of our generation” (p. 237), he declines to be classified with main-stream liberalism, or rather, with those “extreme” liberals whose views are now under fire (p. 231). There were varieties of liberalism, and his variety, says Dr. Fosdick, did not share these objectionable features which later invited a criticism of liberalism as secular and non-Christian. He identifies himself with that “very considerable number” of liberals who rejected “automatic, inevitable social progress” (p. 237); who denied that the “Kingdom of God could fully come in human history on this planet” (p. 239); who refused to reduce Christianity to mere ethicism but widened it rather to include Jesus’ world view and his faith in God as well as his morals (p. 242). While extreme liberalism doubtless propounded an excessive divine immanence, Dr. Fosdick defends his as the New Testament view (p. 253). Moreover, notwithstanding European criticism and rejection for more than two decades of Dr. Fosdick’s diminution of divine revelation to prophetic initiative and insight, he evades any acknowledged support of liberalism’s exaggerated confidence in human reason (p. 256). Although writing appreciatively of neo-supernaturalism’s stress on a divine initiative in our religious experience (p. 236) and on the necessity and primacy of God’s self-revelation (p. 256), and although voicing his debt to Niebuhr for the emphasis that even our best good is corroded by egocentricity and pride, Dr. Fosdick nonetheless repeatedly declares his own brand of liberalism (p. 251) without need of neo-orthodox revision, since he did not join the “optimistic extremes” of other modernists.

Evangelicals will not lament some dangers (such as an excessive divorce of faith and reason, an unhealthy pessimism) that Dr. Fosdick senses in neo-supernaturalism. But protest must be made when he protects Fosdickian liberalism from criticism, when he insists that even neo-supernaturalism is best sanctified by liberalism and when he concedes that neo-supernaturalism attracts him in its disavowal of any final theology. Herein an unrepentant liberalism of the 1920’s is seeking immortality for itself in the 1950’s.

An Unchanging Modernism?

Curiously enough, Dr. Fosdick throughout his lifetime has professed the conditioning of every generation’s theology by its social matrix. Therefore, each theology sooner or later is destined for discard (p. 232). “Static orthodoxies,” he tells us, “are a menace to the Christian cause” (p. 230). “Theologies are psychologically and sociologically conditioned” (p. 231). “Theological trends … are partial, contemporary” (p. 232). “Dogmatism in theology, whether ‘liberal’ or ‘orthodox’ is ridiculous” (p. 231).

In view of Dr. Fosdick’s representations of theology as necessarily relative and changing, is it not incredible that he should wish for his own views a durability and an exemption from criticism which he denies to the views of others? Is it not amazing that Dr. Fosdick is unwilling to refer his own prejudices to this principle of inevitable change, which he has so confidently invoked against the orthodoxy of the past? It was on the ground of the supposed inevitability of theological change that Dr. Fosdick had in fact contended that “creedal subscription to the ancient confessions of faith is a practice dangerous to the welfare of the church and to the integrity of the individual conscience” and, moreover, is “hampering to the free leadership of the Spirit” (p. 172).

Dr. Fosdick even seems to arrogate to his views a veiled prophecy of finality: “neither the extremes to which liberalism often went nor the extremes to which neo-orthodoxy goes today will be the final word” (p. 265). Are we not, in context, to regard the stable view of Dr. Fosdick as that final word? Yet has he not elsewhere firmly disowned the possibility of any final word in theology? Are we not to expect that, as in the mid-20’s he urged the church to go beyond fundamentalism, and as in the mid-30’s he pleaded that “The Church Must Go Beyond Modernism,” so in the mid 50’s he would require that it go beyond Fosdick?

Dr. Fosdick himself complains that other liberals, after rejecting biblical positions, too often fell prey to a static orthodoxy of their own (p. 246). Assertedly, there is no genuine protection from theological relativism. Yet hesitancy and half-heartedness characterize his own application of this concept. Now and then Dr. Fosdick ventures to write not merely of “the basic Christian experiences,” but of “revelations of truth”; indeed, he insists that he himself maintains “the timeless values and truths of the gospel” (p. 147), and that liberals agree with the historic denominations “in the abiding substantial truths” they support (p. 163). The impression is unavoidable that Dr. Fosdick more consistently observed the limits of his approach when in decades past he spoke of theory rather than of truth in words like these: “In theology I hold the opinions which hundreds of … ministers hold” (p. 172). However halting the application to his personal positions, Dr. Fosdick has cut himself off in principle from any privilege to propose lasting truth.

This fact puts us on guard when we overhear Dr. Fosdick, quite indifferent to the limitations of his theory of knowledge, pleading with modernists to stop conforming Christ to contemporary culture but rather to challenge modern culture in the name of Christ (p. 246). Elsewhere he pleads for “well-thought-out, positive statements of liberal convictions in the realm of Christian faith” (p. 243). But where, within Dr. Fosdick’s approach, is the minister to find fixed and final concepts and ideas wherewith to challenge the prevalent intellectual concepts of the times? If the liberal minister is to avoid both a revealed theology and an adjustment to contemporary culture, in the name of what is he to discriminate permanent truths from impermanent opinions? For not only are dogmatic certainty and static creed elsewhere affirmed to be unnecessary and impossible, but dogmatism is dogmatically alleged to be a source of religious ruin (p. 233).

Prevailing Prejudices

Dr. Fosdick’s autobiography reflects the speculative assumptions that determine his readiness to delete the sacred doctrines of evangelical Christianity from his conception of vital religion. Two such controlling prejudices, contradictive of biblical Christianity, stand in the forefront: (1) the notion that man’s experience of God is immediate, without a necessary dependence upon past mediation; and (2) the notion of the human mind’s incompetence to grasp spiritual realities. It is not amiss to comment briefly.

Dr. Fosdick writes of “direct, immediate, personal experience as the solid ground for assurance” (p. 234). Stated this bare way, we seem to have here the reiteration of an important New Testament emphasis, namely, that Christianity involves no mere second-hand relationship to God. Assurance of salvation is not suspended upon the word of some priest or hierarchy, but rather is subjectively ascertainable through the immediate witness of the Spirit. Actually, however, Dr. Fosdick virtually excludes any historically mediated revelation and redemption in his emphasis on man’s present relationship with God. The implications stand out when we inquire into Dr. Fosdick’s conception of the Gospel. He tells us: “The essence of Christianity is incarnate in the personality of the Master, and it means basic faith in God, in the divinity revealed in Christ, in personality’s sacredness and possibilities and in the fundamental principles of life’s conduct which Jesus of Nazareth exhibited” (p. 269). Read these words often as one will, one cannot escape the conviction that Dr. Fosdick’s statement contradicts the New Testament view that the essence of Christianity is the good news of the saving death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for doomed sinners (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1–4). Instead of depicting Jesus Christ as the redeemer of all men, Dr. Fosdick tells us simply that Jesus of Nazareth was the first and finest Christian.

Dr. Fosdick’s restriction of the relevance of reason in the spiritual world accounts for his concessions to metaphysical agnosticism; this weakness the newer neo-supernaturalistic views carry over from the older modernist tradition. It is curious to note Dr. Fosdick’s apprehension over Barth’s divorcing of revelation and reason, while yet he approves Barth’s emphasis that “our concepts are not adequate to grasp this treasure.” Nonetheless, Dr. Fosdick disallows us any final theological knowledge. Curiously, he tells us: “Ideas of God change and ought to, but that fact does not mean that anything has happened to God [How Dr. Fosdick came by this latter bit of fixed information he does not inform us].” Nowhere does Dr. Fosdick harmonize his own incidental references to enduring spiritual truths with his denial of the competency of reason in the spiritual world, and with the consequent assertion of theological relativity. While he appeals deferentially to “the life and words of the historic Jesus” (p. 247), he does not indicate why even those teachings of Christ which pass Dr. Fosdick’s censorship are exceptions to the rule that divine truths cannot be infallibly grasped and communicated in the dimension of humanity.

Dr. Fosdick’s affirmation of the theological relevance of last-generation liberalism comes as a keen disappointment to many evangelical leaders. Prone to assume that liberalism had been chastened, curbed and forced to abandon its defenses by the drift of the times, if not by the authority of biblical revelation, these evangelicals will find in Dr. Fosdick’s The Living of These Days a revelation that he has not really lived through our era with theological awareness; he moves still within the gates of a romanticized experiential Christianity isolated from the realities of history. Casting the fortunes of liberalism in this unrepentant mold will not only evoke wide disappointment, but it will provoke the conviction that the time for theological controversy is once again upon us.

Irrelevance Of Modernism

Evangelicals are not alone in their negative verdict on classical liberalism, Dr. Fosdick’s species included. Influential liberal circles see the necessity of superseding the Fosdickian views if Protestant theology in the 50’s is to maintain its vitality. In fact, the whole initiative in theology is now shaped by leaders who dismiss Fosdick’s The Modern Use of the Bible as a mirror of outdated prejudices. They do not share his reliance on the relevance of classic liberalism but have already conceded the irrelevance even of the Fosdickian version.

A sound theological instinct supports their uneasiness over the classic liberal position. Even at best liberalism reflected the invasion of a secular spirit. It exaggerated God’s immanence, minimized man’s sinfulness, concealed Christ’s supernaturalness and the centrality of his redemptive work, attached utopian expectations to history and ignored the task of evangelism. For half a generation, most centers of the old liberal thought have been compromising, adjusting and refurbishing the views of a generation ago. Their theologians and ministers are eager to get beyond the modernist-fundamentalist controversy. For them classic liberal theology was too strongly leavened with secularism to be cherished as a fixed point of theological debate. The fact that modernism evolved a counter-dogmatics to historic Christianity, a counter-ethics, a counter-ecumenicity, attested the radically different premises with which modernism began. These inevitably spelled out their counter-implications to historic Christianity. That modernism took this course was no reflection on Christianity; it was a commentary, rather, on the fact that modernism quite understood its starting point, rooted in speculation instead of in revelation. What is a reflection on Christianity, however, is that many Protestant leaders did not sense this alien starting point. They chose, rather, to defend it as expressive of the essence of Christianity. Moreover, some influential leaders today still glory in a speculative secular standpoint whose implications are disastrous for Christian faith. Yet neo-supernaturalists like Barth and Brunner have expressed themselves no less pointedly than did J. Gresham Machen, in Christianity and Liberalism.

Barth does not hesitate to speak of modernism as a heresy. “Within the organized unities of the evangelical churches we are faced with the fact of pietistic-rationalistic Modernism” in which, he writes, “we do not recognize faith and the Church,” and in encountering which Christianity is called “to purification, to a rendering of our account, to responsibility.” Over against modernism, “although it has neither been expelled from the evangelical churches nor voluntarily gone over to found a counter-church, we draw the line as definitely as over against Catholicism” (The Doctrine of the Word of God, Vol. I, Part 1, 36 ff.).

In the very year in which Fosdick delivered his great sermon against the fundamentalists, Brunner was delivering a series of lectures in the United States in which he said bluntly: “A first glance at fundamentalism shows its strength to consist in a negative; its criticism of modernism from the standpoint of Christian faith … A fundamentalist, possessed of a reasonably correct knowledge of Christianity, will have little difficulty in proving that the modernist teaches, under the label of Christianity, a religion which has nothing in common with Christianity except a few words, and that those words cover concepts which are irreconcilable with the content of Christian faith” (The Theology of Crisis, p. 9. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929). (TO BE CONTINUED)

This is the first of four abridgments of lectures on Evangelical Responsibility in Contemporary Theology delivered by Editor Carl F. H. Henry at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in May, and at Calvin College during the centennial observance of the Christian Reformed Church in June. The original titles are: “The Modernist Revision,” “The Fundamentalist Reduction,” “The Contemporary Restoration,” and “The Evangelical Responsibility.”

Cover Story

Through Gates of Splendor

Elisabeth Elliot

At four-thirty sharp Marj Saint eagerly switched on the radio receiver in Shell Mera. This was the moment when the big news would come. Had the men been invited to follow the Aucas to their houses? What further developments would Nate be able to report?

She looked at her watch again. Yes, it was at least four-thirty. No sound from Palm Beach. She and Olive hunched close to the radio. The atmosphere was not giving any interference. Perhaps Nate’s watch had run a little slow.

In Arajuno, Marilou and Barbara had their radio on, too. Silence. They waited a few minutes, then called Shell Mera.

“Arajuno calling Shell Mera. Arajuno standing by for Shell Mera. Any word from Palm Beach, Marj? Over.”

“Shell Mera standing by. No, no word as yet. We’ll be standing by.”

Not a crackle broke the silence.

Clinging To Little Hope

Were the men so preoccupied with entertaining their visitors that they had forgotten the planned contact? Five minutes … ten minutes … No, it was inconceivable that all five would forget. It was the first time since Nate had started jungle flying in 1948 that he and Marj had been out of contact even for an hour.

But—perhaps their radio was not functioning. It happened occasionally. The women clung to each little hope, refusing to entertain the thought of anything’s really having gone wrong. Their suspense was the sharper because most of their missionary friends on the network were unaware that Operation Auca was in progress. In Arajuno, Barbara and little Beth Youderian had primped up a bit, since it had been planned that Roj would come to Arajuno that night, while Pete took a turn sleeping in the tree house. Surely the little plane would come winging over the treetops before sundown. They walked up and down the airstrip, waiting …

Just after sundown Art Johnston, one of the doctors with Hospital Vozandes, affiliated with the missionary radio station HCJB in Quito, came into the radio room in Shell Mera. The radio was still on, but Marj sat with her head down on the desk.

“Is something the matter, Marj?”

She told him the situation briefly, but asked that he not divulge it yet. If nothing serious had actually happened, it would be disastrous to publicize what was taking place. There was little sleep that night for any of the wives.

By seven o’clock on the morning of Monday, January 9, 1956, Johnny Keenan, Nate’s colleague in the MAF, was in the air flying toward the sand strip which Nate had eariler pointed out to him. As he flew, Marj called me in Shandia: “We haven’t heard from the fellows since yesterday noon. Would you stand by at ten o’clock for Johnny’s report?”

It was the first I knew that anything was amiss. A verse God had impressed on my mind when I first arrived in Ecuador came back suddenly and sharply; “When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee, and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee.…” I went upstairs to continue teaching the Indian girls’ literacy class, praying silently, “Lord, let not the waters overflow.”

At about nine-thirty Johnny’s report came through. Marj relayed it to me in Shandia:

“Johnny has found the plane on the beach. All the fabric is stripped off. There is no sign of the fellows.”

In Shell Mera, a pilot of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, Larry Montgomery (who is also a reserve officer in the USAF), lost no time in contacting Lieutenant General William K. Harrison, Commander in Chief of the Caribbean Command, which included the United States Air Rescue Service in Panama. Radio station HCJB, was also informed and news flashed around the world: “FIVE MEN MISSING IN AUCA TERRITORY.” By noon, all possible forces which might contribute to their rescue, including the prayers of thousands of people in all parts of the world, were set in motion.

Ground Search Party

On Monday evening it was decided that a ground search party should be organized, on the assumption that one or more of the men still lived, and Frank Drown, Roger Youderian’s colleague, a man with twelve years of jungle experience among the Jivaros, was unanimously elected to lead the party. Dr. Art Johnston offered to go along in his capacity as physician. Thirteen Ecuadorian soldiers promptly volunteered.

On Tuesday morning I was flown out of Shandia with Nate’s sister Rachel, who had been with me while the men went on the Auca trip. Frank was brought out from Macuma, and many of the missionary men arrived in Shell Mera from Quito, some as volunteers to go on the ground party. Word was received via short wave that a helicopter was on its way from Panama, which lifted the spirits in Shell Mera. That night the pilot of an Ecuadorian airline came to the house to tell the wives that he had flown over the scene at about six o’clock in the evening, and saw, a short distance upstream, a large fire, “without any smoke,” which would indicate perhaps a gasoline fire or a signal flare. Nate always carried signal flares in his emergency kit. This was a ray of hope for the five wives to sleep on that night.

Sighting The First Body

On Wednesday Johnny Keenan took off again in MAF’s second Piper Cruiser, a twin to Nate’s plane, on his fourth flight over Palm Beach to see if there were any signs of life. Marj, who had hardly left the radio since Sunday afternoon, stood by for his reports. Barbara, Olive, and I were upstairs. Suddenly, Marj called: “Betty! Barbara! Olive!”

I raced down the stairs. Marj was standing with her head against the radio, her eyes closed. After a while she spoke: “They found one body.”

A quarter mile downriver from the little denuded plane Johnny had sighted a body, floating face-down in the water, dressed in khaki pants and white tee-shirt, the usual uniform of the men. Barbara felt it was not Roger; he had been wearing blue-jeans.

Some of the land party went over to Arajuno to prepare the airstrip for the big planes which would be arriving soon from Panama. Late on Wednesday afternoon the roar of the planes was heard, and far on the western horizon where the volcano Sangay stands, a smoking pyramid, the great planes were silhouetted. As they drew near and circled the strip, the red, white, and blue of the United States Air Force became visible.

Expectation Runs Low

Dee Short, a missionary from western Ecuador, who happened to be in Quito when news of the disaster arrived, had come to Arajuno. As the party left, Marilou turned to him and said with finality: “There is no hope. All the men are dead.” Probably most of the ground party would have agreed with her but, nevertheless, every time they rounded a bend of the river they looked expectantly for one or more of the missing men.

Back in Shell Mera the radio crackled again. Marj answered: “Shell Mera standing by.”

Johnny Keenan reported: “Another body sighted, about 200 feet below Palm Beach.”

At about four o’clock in the afternoon the ground party reached Oglan, an Indian settlement situated at the place where the Oglan River meets the Curaray. Here camp was set up for the night. Frank Drown organized the group, appointing one man to hire canoes, one in charge of cargo, one to plan seating in the canoes, one as mess chief, two for safety precautions. That night they slept on beds of banana leaves. Watches were kept all night.

Before the party set off on Thursday morning, the missionaries offered up prayer, committing themselves into the hands of God; and the Ecuadorian soldiers, of a different faith, prayed with them. The party moved cautiously down the Curaray; the river was at its lowest, making navigation difficult, and special care was exercised in rounding the many bends, for it was feared Aucas might be lying in wait.

At about ten o’clock Johnny Keenan again flew over the ground party in the Piper, and Frank Drown was able to make contact with him by means of a two-way radio which the Air Rescue Service had supplied. Johnny told them of two canoes of Quichuas, proceding upriver in the direction of the ground party; he feared that in their excitement some one of the men in the party might shoot at the first sight of an Indian on the river. Soon the two canoes of Quichuas appeared. They were a small group of Indians from McCully’s station at Arajuno. On their own initiative they had boldly pressed into Auca territory ahead of anyone else, and had gone all the way to Palm Beach. The ground party was saddened when one of the Indians, a believer who had come to know Christ since Ed had gone to Arajuno, told them of having found Ed’s body on the beach at the edge of the water. He had Ed’s watch with him.

Now the missionaries knew who one of their fallen colleagues was, but a chance remained that at least three others had survived. They pressed on.

Wives Pray And Trust

As the wives hoped and prayed and waited the procession of flying machines moved slowly down toward Palm Beach, the airplanes circling to keep pace with the slower helicopter skimming along at treetop level and following the bends of the river. The airplanes chose different altitudes to avoid danger of collision as pilots circled with eyes on the jungle below. Johnny Keenan in the little yellow Piper was lowest. A few hundred feet above were the U.S. Navy R-4D (the Navy version of the familiar DC-3), and, higher, the big amphibian of the Air Rescue Service. Close by, Colonel Izurieta in a plane of the Ecuadorian Air Force flew in wider circles ready to help should decisions be needed. The teamwork of the United States Army, Air Force, and Navy and of the government and military services of Ecuador was heartwarming to the wives.

Air Force Major Numberg, riding in the Army helicopter, landed briefly to talk with the ground party, still some distance up the river from Palm Beach. Ed McCully’s name was mentioned guardedly on the radio. Those hearing guessed that somehow Ed’s body had been identified. Was his one of the two bodies that had been seen from the air? Had three perhaps escaped into the jungle? Or been taken captive?

After a few moments the helicopter moved on. Finally, rounding a bend, it came at last to Palm Beach and landed. Nurnberg, carbine at the ready, jumped out and looked around. Anxious minutes went by. Back in the “chopper” he radioed: “No one here.” Hope flickered brighter in those who heard.

The helicopter was off again and started slowly down the river. Crossing to the other side it stopped, hovering, the force of its downwash disturbing the muddy surface of the water. Minutes later it moved on, only to stop again two hundred yards farther on. A third and a fourth time Nurnberg and McGee hung motionless ten feet above the water, rotor blades beating dangerously close to overhanging jungle trees. Hearts sank in the aircraft above as those watching guessed the meaning of those stops.

The aircraft returned to Arajuno. Once on the ground, Nurnberg, his face showing strain, confirmed suspicions. Speaking in low tones to the tight circle of military men, he explained that McCully’s body, identified by the small party of Quichuas the day before, was now gone from the beach, no doubt washed away by the rain and higher water in the night. He leafed through his notebook for a moment. A few Indians stood silent in the tall grass nearby, listening and watching. “We found four in the river,” Numberg said, finally. “I don’t think identification will be possible from what I have here—” indicating his notebook. “One of them may be McCully.”

He did not have to say what was in every mind. There might be one who got away, possibly wounded, still in the jungle.

How To Tell Bad News

How to inform the wives was the question uppermost in military minds. Should Marilou be told? She was right there at Arajuno in the house.

“We’d better wait,” Nurnberg said. “DeWitt is running this show. Let’s get back to Shell and talk it over.” Captain DeWitt in the big Air Force amphibian was overhead, not wanting to risk a landing on the small strip at Arajuno. All returned to Shell and the military men gathered in the cabin of the amphibian. The wives would have to be told. But how?

Someone else had wisely decided to tell Marilou that four bodies had been found. Later in the afternoon Johnny flew her out to Shell to be with the four other wives.

In the end it was the wives who persuaded DeWitt and Nurnberg that there was no need to soften the blow. We wanted to know everything in detail. We gathered in Marj’s bedroom away from the children. Major Nurnberg opened his notebook and in terse sentences described what he had found. It was immediately evident that identification could not be positive. One body was caught under the branches of a fallen tree; only a large foot with a gray sock appeared at the surface of the muddy water. In reading his notes of another, Nurnberg said: “This one had on a red belt of some woven material.” Four of us turned our eyes toward the fifth, Olive Fleming.

“That was Pete,” Olive said simply.

As the Major concluded, it was still not known whether Ed’s body was one of those in the river. There was still the hope that one might have got away.

The Depth Of Trust

The military men, to whom the breaking of such news to loved ones was no new thing, left the bedroom silently. Their news had been met with serenity. No tears could rise from the depth of trust which supported the wives.

Barbara Youderian wrote in her diary:

“Tonight the Captain told us of his finding four bodies in the river. One had tee-shirt and blue-jeans. Roj was the only one who wore them … God gave me this verse two days ago, Psalm 48:14, ‘For this God is our God for ever and ever; He will be our Guide even unto death.’ As I came face to face with the news of Roj’s death, my heart was filled with praise. He was worthy of his home-going. Help me, Lord, to be both mummy and daddy. ‘To know wisdom and instruction …’ Tonight Beth prayed for daddy in Heaven, and asked me if daddy would come down from Heaven to get a letter she wanted to write him. I said, ‘He can’t come down. He’s with Jesus.’ She said, ‘But Jesus can help him come down, and God will take his hand so he won’t slip.’

“I wrote a letter to the mission family, trying to explain the peace I have. I want to be free of self-pity. It is a tool of Satan to rot away a life. I am sure that this is the perfect will of God. Many will say, ‘Why did Roj get mixed up in this, when his work was with Jivaros?’ Because Roj came to do the will of Him that sent him. The Lord has closed our hearts to grief and hysteria, and filled in with His perfect peace.”

Death In Muddy Waters

Starting out again at six in the morning of Friday, January 13, the party was on the last lap of its mission, with a date to meet the helicopter at Palm Beach at ten. The men had to hurry to get there and everyone was jittery from the strain of the trip and the thought of the job that lay ahead.

At last the beach was reached. There was no sign as yet of the helicopter. The ground party set to work, everyone having been assigned different duties: the Ecuadorian soldiers spread out in a semicircle in the jungle behind the beach to act as cover, two Indians set to digging a common grave under the tree house, others waded into the river looking for the men’s possessions. Dee Short and Frank Drown crawled up into the tree house to try to find a clue to what had happened. Some of the men began to dismantle the plane, others looked for bodies. It was not until the helicopter arrived at twelve-fifteen and hovered over the bodies where they lay in the muddy waters of the Curaray, that the ground crew was able to find them. Frank Drown told of the scene:

“First Nurnberg pointed out one body downstream and Fuller jumped into the water and pulled the body across. Then Nurnberg showed us Nate Saint’s body, and we got in a canoe and went downstream, and saw an arm coming out of the water, so I tried to attach a string to the arm and I just could not bring myself to do it. I’d reach out and try and then pull back, and have to try again until finally the man who was in the canoe with me did it. Now we were three canoes with three bodies attached to them, going upstream. We laid all four face down in a row on the beach. We never did get the fifth, which was Ed McCully’s body. Then I got over my feeling of hating to touch the bodies, because a body is only a house and these fellows had left their house and, after the soul leaves, the body isn’t much after all. The thing that is beautiful to us is the soul, not the body.”

Identification of the four bodies was finally positive from wedding rings and watches, change purse, notebooks. Ed was not one of the four, so it was finally definite: all five were dead. In the providence of God the missing body was the one identified by the Quichuas the day before. Not only had they brought back his watch, but also they had taken off one of his shoes (a tremendous shoe—size thirteen and one-half) and thrown it up on the beach. The day before, Nurnberg had picked it up and brought it back to Shell Mera.

While the bodies were being drawn ashore a violent tropical storm was gathering. At that moment the helicopter came in low and fast. Cornell Capa, a photographer-correspondent on assignment for Life magazine, jumped out, camera in hand, and ran across the beach. Then the full fury of the storm struck and the missionaries felt as if the powers of darkness had been let loose.

Earth’s Most Beautiful Cemetery

On Saturday morning Captain DeWitt of the Rescue Service asked us five widows if we would “care to fly over Palm Beach to see your husbands’ grave?”

We replied that if this were not asking too much, we would be grateful. The Navy R-4D took us out over the jungle, where the Curaray lay like a brown snake in the undulating green. Pressing our faces close to the windows as we knelt on the floor of the plane, we could see the slice of white sand where the Piper stood. Olive Fleming recalled the verses that God had impressed on her mind that morning: “‘For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.’ He who has prepared us for this very thing is God … ‘Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord.’ ”

As the plane veered away, Marj Saint said: “That is the most beautiful little cemetery in the world.”

Peace And Power

How good it is to turn aside

Each night and day

From fearsome clamoring of men

To praise and pray!

What a relief it is to be

With Him our Lord;

When nations o’er the earth have drawn

The steel of sword!

O what a privilege is prayer

In such an hour!

From bended knee alone

Come peace and power.

—EVA GRAY

The swift-moving epic of the five missionaries martyred in the attempt to evangelize the Auca Indians of Ecuador has just been published by Harper & Brothers under the title Through Gates of Splendor. The author, Elisabeth Howard Elliot, is already familiar to readers of Christianity Today through her inspirational article “The Prayer of the Five Widows” (Jan. 7). The above portion of the new book, reprinted by permission of the publishers, is an abridgment of the chapter tided “Silence.” The chapter is more than a graphic account of the tense hours in which the missionary wives—Marjorie Saint, Barbara Youderian, Olive Fleming, Marilou McCully and Elisabeth Elliot—first learned of the loss of their men; it is a story of heroic faith in a time of trouble. This book is a missionary drama moving with godly devotion. More than holy heartbreak, it is gethsemanic glory reflected anew. Reminiscent of the missionary stamina and sacrifice of the apostolic age, this twentieth century saga proclaims the high courage of Christian dedication and the high confidence that the risen Christ walks amid life’s shadows keeping watch over his own. The families of the five men are still at work in the jungle.—Ed.

Cover Story

The Christian Use of Leisure

W. E. Sangster

What is the Christian attitude to leisure? Is the old identification of holidays and holy days still valid, or is the subject of no religious significance at all?

The Opposition To Leisure

Some Christians—especially those in the Puritan tradition—have had little interest in holidays. Holidays to them have seemed largely a waste of time, and in their noble miserliness with their moments leisure has almost been deemed a sin.

John Wesley said as a young man: “Leisure and I have parted company. I am resolved to be busy till I die.” He was busy till he died. That amazing resolution of his youth he kept to old age, and he only ceased to work when he ceased to live.

But I am bold to say that John Wesley’s opposition to leisure was mistaken, and if anybody feels that that is a severe judgment on a great man, I would point them to the greatest example of all. It was Jesus who said to his disciples: “Come ye yourselves apart … and rest a while.”

Leisure Has Its Place

A normal man who never rests (and John Wesley was not a normal man) gets taut, overwrought, strained and ultimately breaks down. Leisure has its place in life. There is a rhythmic law underlying all existence; an ebb and flow; a movement of periodicity. And in that ebb and flow, work and leisure both have a place.

It is with the mind as with the soil. If you want to get the best out of your land, you must change the crops and sometimes even let the land lie fallow. One who never slackens the bow becomes at the last a work-ridden neurotic.

Moreover, modern life is going to provide more leisure than the mass of people have ever known before. The burden of work is to be borne increasingly by the machine. Despite the urgency of the times, many business houses are committing themselves to a shorter work week. Think of it! Only five working days in every week. That means two whole days off—normally, I suppose, Saturday and Sunday.

The Use Of Free Time

How is that leisure to be used? In some ways the battle of free time is over. The harder question—“what to do with the free time”—has now to be met.

A generation ago some people hardly knew what to do with a week’s holiday when they were given it.

A friend of mine, a Christian layman and the proprietor and owner of a chain of provision stores, came to the conclusion some years ago that, as a Christian man, he ought to be giving all his employees a week’s holiday with pay. He told me afterwards, with some amusement, of the reaction of the manager of one of his shops.

The man protested. He told the proprietor to his face that he did not want a week’s holiday, that he wouldn’t know what to do with it when he had it, that he supposed this was a way of pushing him out of his job—and did he think anybody else could run the shop if he wasn’t there? When my friend insisted that he take the week off, he spent the whole week hanging around the door of the shop, nodding to his customers as they went in and out and making rude remarks about the under-manager who was trying to do his job. His happiness when the week was over was unbounded, and when he tied on his apron on Monday morning, he said fervently to his employer, “Thank God, that’s over.”

Personal Preferences

No one with intelligence will deny, I think, that the mass of people seem to make a poor use of leisure now that it is theirs. Not that we must be superior about this. People enjoy themselves in their own way. One man’s fun is another man’s boredom.

Sir Harold Nicolson, in the columns of The Spectator, made a slashing attack some time ago on people who make a hobby of collecting stamps. He stigmatized them as people with an adolescent mind, and I need hardly say that the philatelists took up the challenge with gusto, and the honors were even at the last.

Unworthy Recreation

People differ, of course, in the things that recreate their minds, but surely we can say without offensiveness that the recreations to which the mass of people turn seem somewhat unworthy.

Think of the hours and hours men stand about in saloons engaging—if one judges by one’s recollection of Army canteens—in inane arguments, often on subjects they know little about and in which the honors go to the man who bawls the loudest. When one thinks of the hours spent and the money wasted filling up football-pool coupons (on which it is estimated that in Britain many millions of pounds change hands every year); when one thinks of the attraction and the banality and the dangers of these so-called fun-fairs, one cannot help wondering if nothing can be done to lift the level of leisure time spending and get it into the minds of people that even leisure is not ours to squander but is given us by God for a use in which mind, body and soul may be refreshed and strengthened.

What advice, then, can we give about the use of leisure?

The advice I would like to give would be an adaptation of Augustine’s famous rule: “Do what you like but learn to like the best things.”

If it is something you honestly don’t like, it can’t be leisure. One of the differences between work and leisure is that work must be done whether you like it or not, but leisure ought to allow room for the expression of preferences and the satisfaction of wholesome desires.

Let Leisure Be Healthy

Let your occupation in leisure be healthy.

Some people rush and tear about even on holiday so that they return to their work worse rather than better for the change. Vigorous activities ought to be interspersed with periods of quiet. Even the hearty extrovert, coping with a glut of social engagements and declaring that he “never needs a rest, only a change,” would be all the better for turning his thoughts inward occasionally, correcting the compass of his life, thinking on purposes and aims and taking his bearings in the universe as a whole.

I think it is better for young men to play games rather than to watch them; though the years come soon enough, of course, when it must be bowls rather than football. But if we can keep the parasite of gambling out of sport, I am going to say that it is a grand thing that the normal Christian takes a healthy interest in wholesome games. To see a vast crowd of men sitting in the sun and taking the keenest delight in a match is—to me—a goodly sight.

Some psychologists have said that one of the tragedies of the German people is that they have never learned to play (in the sense that the term is understood in America and in Britain), and that is, perhaps a chief reason why Germany is one of the countries in the world where the suicide of children is a not unfamiliar phenomenon.

Let Leisure Be Cultural

In the second place, don’t be afraid of a bit of culture. I think it was Goring who said, “Whenever I hear the word ‘culture’ I reach for my gun.”

None of us wants to copy Goring. The recreational pursuits that give the deepest joys require the most mental concentration.

Jeremy Bentham, the utilitarian philosopher, said: “Pleasure for pleasure being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry.”

You see what he meant? He was saying, in effect, that people who have had educational advantages must not be superior, and that if a simple game like push-pin—which was as common, I fancy, in the 18th century as darts are now—gave the people who played it the pleasure they sought, then it was as good as the most cultural interest in verse.

But that is just the point where I would challenge Bentham. It is not in the power of these shallow little occupations to give the joy that deeper pursuits can give. The people who have known both will bear me out there. Think of the joys a music lover has, or a student of the appreciation of art, or one really informed in the delights of our literature, or a really expert gardener.

Snakes and ladders, and ludo, and whist, and movies and watching other people play games are all right, but the deeper joys make the deeper demands and yield the deeper return.

The effort it takes to understand the best in music—if you have the latent capacity to appreciate it—or the best in art, is all worth it. Be on your guard against always wanting to be entertained. Learn to entertain yourself. Have a mental life of your own. There is bound to be something grand for which you have a latent aptitude. If it is not music, it might be fine art. If it is not books, it might be nature in her deeper ways. Get the bit of education it requires to appreciate the better thing and work at it yourself.

I ask the people reading this who are now in middle life whether it is not a fact that when we were children we were much more ready and skillful in making up our own games than children appear to be today? At the moment when we would have set about making up a game in our childhood, the child of today seems to whimper for the money to go to the movies.

God has crammed life with wonderful joys, but they are not all on the surface. It calls for some effort to nourish the taste, but the taste for higher joys is latent in us somewhere.

Let Leisure Be Spiritual

Finally, in all use of your leisure have a thought for your soul.

It has been a complaint of some people for many years that they don’t go to church on Sunday because it is their only opportunity of recreation in the week. With many, that was plainly not true. It might have been true of some. With others it was nothing but a shallow excuse.

But even that shallow excuse is likely to go now. With increasing leisure there will be opportunity for recreation on Saturday and the opportunity to consecrate time for God on the Sunday as well.

Don’t let us celebrate the acquisition of more leisure by a greater carelessness about our souls. A soul doesn’t grow on its own. It needs nourishment, periods of quiet, food for its sustenance. A man or woman without a concept of reverence is incomplete and without a window open to heaven.

Work is very absorbing in some lives, especially with the housewife and mother. She knows as well as the businessman what the hymnwriter meant when he said:

Around us rolls the ceaseless tide

Of business, toil, and care,

And scarcely can we turn aside

For one brief hour of prayer.

But we must! Frankly—as I see it—this is the first call on our leisure: to maintain our commerce with our God.

W. E. Sangster was President in 1950 of the Methodist Church in Great Britain. He is author of numerous volumes throbbing with evangelistic concern, and is an exponent of the relevance of Christian conviction to all the spheres of life and culture. Latest of his writings is They Met at Calvary. His earlier works include Methodism Can Be Born Again, These Things Abide, Ten Statesmen and Jesus Christ, The Pure in Heart, Approach to Preaching, Teach Us to Pray and Let Me Commend.

Cover Story

Working for Christ on the Job

Samuel M. Shoemaker

The vast majority of Christians are, of course, laymen. It is often said that they are closer to “the world” and its concrete problems and evils and opportunities than clergy. And it is certainly true that “the world” will take its measure of our Christianity, not so much by what ministers say in church on Sunday, as by what laymen do from Monday till Friday on their jobs.

This may make the work of a minister seem remote and even a little irrelevant. And, unless a minister is talking right to the practical minds of his laymen, dealing with life situations such as they meet day by day, and (as they would put it) “talking sense,” his work may indeed be very far removed from the life his people must live and especially from the work that they must do. Unless the minister is close to people—people in the raw, people in their shirt sleeves—he may very well spend his major time in a little church world of his own, from which he emerges for an hour on Sunday morning and about which he talks, sometimes interestingly, sometimes dully; but often seeming to belong to a completely different world from his hearers.

A Coach To Laymen

Now the minister is supposed to know more about the technicalities of the Christian religion—its beliefs, its history, its relation to modern thought—than a layman will probably have time to know. He ought to be invaluable to laymen as a kind of research expert, helping to avoid mistakes, bringing historic corrective, et cetera. He ought to do more than this, and specifically two things: first, he ought to know human nature, and to be familiar with God’s ways with men, not alone from books on religious experience and psychology, but from continuing firsthand experience of his own; and second, he ought to act as a kind of coach to his laymen, teaching them the rules of the game because he plays it himself and knows what they are, taking a group of them aside from time to time for a real course of study and application. Besides these things, he ought to be constantly talking with individual laymen and bringing them to deeper understanding and experience of Christ. He ought always to have their daily jobs as much in his mind as they have. He may not know its technical problems, but he will know some of the more general ones, especially the whole matter of their getting along with other people.

It sometimes seems a terrific drop from what we hear and say on Sunday mornings, to the things that go on during the week downtown. Some laymen have accepted this gap completely, and become fatalistic about it. Worship is for them a kind of escape from the worries of mundane life into the upper ether of the ideal. Surely we need to bring our lives back again and again, in worship, to the perfection and love and grace of God; but having received from Him there, we should certainly return to Monday morning with more hope and love and prayer and expectation in our hearts than many of us have. We seldom hear sermons directed at the daily job, and sometimes when they are, they don’t hit the mark. So we have separated Sunday from the rest of the week, thereby doing no service to make Sunday more “spiritual”—only more remote—and leaving the daily job as if it were a hopeless “necessary evil” to make a living with which to care for the family.

The first thing we need is some new thoughts about the practicalities of daily life in relation to our religion. We often behave as if God were interested in religion, but not in life—in what goes on in church, but not in what goes on in a mill or a farm or a broker’s office. This point of view overlooks something. It forgets that Christianity began, not when religion got carried farther up into the skies, but precisely when it was brought “down to earth.” It has often been called the most materialistic of all religions, because it is constantly concerned, not with a God above the skies, but with a God who came to earth and lived here. “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory.…” That’s where Christianity begins and where it must always look to set its sights aright. Some of us are seeking after a false spirituality: we might almost better seek after a true materialism, in the sense of a better interpretation of the business and politics and industry on which most of our waking hours have to be spent.

Using Things For God

As Christians, we are not called to leave behind us the body, money, work, amusements, statecraft: we are called upon to redeem these things by using them for God. Unless we hear this kind of teaching in churches, we are not hearing an authentic preaching of the religion of the Incarnation—which means the enfleshment of the Son of God. Jesus’ coming into the world has forever banished the idea of the incompatibility of material with spiritual things. They are not the same, of course, and materialism without God is pure paganism. But letting God into the material is something quite different. I say it without hesitation: there is nothing more “spiritual” or holy about going to church than about going to the office, if you go to both places to serve and obey God.

But how is this spiritualization of the material to come about? Business is so vast, so impersonal, so hard at times—where shall anything spiritual take hold, or seem other than a sentimental intrusion? If anything is to happen, to Christianize business, it must concern, first, the changing of the individuals who are part of the business scene, in some of their basic attitudes and beliefs; and, second, it must manifest to them that there can be a different kind of human relations in business, and that this is the primary situation where God enters the picture of business.

Extension Of Conversion

Our first need, then, is to let our conversion extend to our job. We cannot close this gap between “God” and “the world,” but we can lessen it. There is no use in our saying we are even attempting to be “converted” when we live as if our faith and our job were in two irreconcilable compartments. Much nonsense has been talked during the last seventy-five years about the need for a “social gospel” as well as a “personal gospel.” Christ made no such distinction. But it certainly did not occur to him to stay up on the Mount of Transfiguration with Peter, James and John where they had had a transcendent spiritual experience together, when, down at the foot of the mountain there was a boy in an epileptic fit who needed to be healed. One wonders whether the openness to God which made the Transfiguration possible on the top of the mountain was not also the identical openness to men which made the healing possible at its base. Jesus surely hated slavery, and political injustice as practiced by Rome. However, he seems to have said little about them, but instead to have released forces that would one day effect the reform he wanted to see. We can’t talk pious on Sunday and then treat our employees or our boss like objects and obstacles during the week. We cannot have the kind or relations some of us have on a spiritual level with our colored friends, and then run up a practical barrier that excludes them as if they were inferior to ourselves. We cannot profess Christ on Sunday, unless we are willing to let that profession get down into the bones of weekday practice. The least we can aim for is common justice. Yet many Christians dare not raise their eyes and look at the actual situations—bad housing, poor pay, inadequate recreational facilities—which they tolerate and even profit by. The conversion must extend to the job, or else it will wither. “If a man love not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?”

A New Motivation

The second thing that can happen is: God can give us a new motive for business. To be sure, we must be practical and realistic concerning “profits,” for unless a business is successful enough to be making money, it cannot meet its own payroll, let alone anything due to investors. Making things, selling them, and receiving money for them, is of the essence of business. Do no let us fool ourselves here: schools sell education, hospitals sell health, churches sell faith, and all of them—however noble their motives—are in some sense in business. They must exist in a practical world where we find ourselves all together and all interdependent. But the things we sell may have a very true value to the person who buys it, and it may be a real service to him that we make it available. No man ought to market anything he knows is inferior to what he says it is. We can put honesty above sales.

Pursuit Of General Justice

A third thing which can happen is that an individual, or group of individuals, can go to work to establish more of what may be called general justice. We have already seen how one young man, convinced about his Christian faith, started to change the practice of one smaller company in relation to the employment of members of another race. Manifestly, justice demands that in a free and democratic society a qualified person should be given a chance to do any work of which he is capable, without regard to religion, color, or anything else that differentiates him from the majority or from the ruling group.

A fourth thing that every individual can do is to release a new spirit in an office or business. We all know what a wrong spirit can do.

Teaming Up For Christ

A fifth possibility is starting a group within the company. A man’s influence is not doubled, it is multiplied, when he gets into fellowship with another man, and they pray, and feel their way with God and act. Start praying for a spiritual teammate. Get into solid fellowship with him. Draw in one or two or more as it seems guided. Soon there will be a nucleus with which God can begin doing business in the company.

There seem to be three natural steps in such work: first, the enlisting of the interest of an individual; second, the manifestation of a new attitude on his part toward people; and third, the winning of people to Christ and his program.

Making Business Christian

I believe business is meant to be a channel of God’s power, the main and chief extension of the church in the world. God may never have any other access to certain people except that one who believes in him happens to work alongside them. When they see peace, poise and power they will become curious and be persuaded that religion is not a “racket,” but a source of light. Obviously, life and deeds have to precede words—the life and deeds, not of a great and mature saint, but of a sinner who has quit bluffing and is trying to do what God wants him to do. The spiritual opportunity that confronts a man in any kind of job whatever is unlimited, if he has the imagination to see it, and the courage to grasp it.

It is a very great task to attempt to make business Christian throughout, to serve God effectually on the daily job, and to make our profession or business work for God. Our daily work, like our human nature, cannot be made statistically good. No hope can come from the superimposition upon business of “systems” which sound and look good, but do not reckon with the ever-present problem of human nature. We can only hope to make real progress in the Christianizing of business by the Christianizing of the men who manage and work in it. If this is carried far enough, these men will use their freedom to obey God more fully in their business relations. I am convinced that God enters the business scene in two ways: first, through converted men and women whose hearts he has touched and changed and who carry his Spirit with them at all times; and second, in human relationships that are different because he has become third party to them. Slowly Christian persons and Christian relationships permeate the business situation. Prayer, good will and fellowship are a powerful combination. The Spirit of God uses them to change man’s mere self-interest into the wider interest of the whole. Slowly, but (under these conditions) steadily, “the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.”

A Pastor’s Sermon To Himself

A pastor must be truly great, but in humility;

Of noble bearing as of royal descent,

Yet willing to bow down to the sorrow-bent.

A sinner who with sinners has trod

The road to forgiveness after wrestling with God.

A source of strength for those who are weak,

A scholar who for truth must seek.

Never influenced by money or might,

Always defending the poor man’s right.

A beggar with outstretched pleading hands,

An ambassador who richly Christ’s substance commands.

A man at the battlefield where men are led,

A woman when he stands at a hospital bed.

Old in experience, yet young in ideas,

Reaching for the sky while crushed to his knees.

Clear in his thoughts, true to his word,

A faithful servant to his Lord.

Dedicated to God until he die:

O so different, so different than I.

ADAM SCHREIBER

(Translated from the German)

Samuel M. Shoemaker was rector of Calvary Episcopal Church, New York City, before his move to Pittsburgh in 1953 as rector of Calvary Episcopal Church there. He is author of many books, most recently The Experiment of Faith, the story of the principles and practice behind “the Pittsburgh Experiment.” This abridgement of the chapter “How to Work for Christ Through Your Job” is reprinted by permission of Harper & Brothers.

Theology

A New Johannine Manuscript

R. Schippers

According to Professor Kurt Aland, whose task it is to keep track, there are now 4,678 known manuscripts of the New Testament. With microfilm more than a hundred manuscripts can be placed at our disposal at one time. An expedition to Mount Sinai in 1949–1950 brought back more than 150 New Testament manuscripts, photographed and microfilmed in the St. Catherine Monastery. In the midst of this volume of manuscripts comes a single papyrus manuscript of the Gospel of John, published toward the end of 1956 by Professor Victor Martin, chairman of the Association Internationale des Papyrologues. It is called papyrus 66, and we immediately ask, what is the special significance of this new manuscript?

Age And Text Significant

Its significance and value lie in the following:

This manuscript is a papyrus, and there are only 68 papyri known, with fragments of the Greek text of the New Testament.

It is extraordinarily well preserved, by far the finest and most intact papyrus manuscript I have known. Letter for letter, all 108 pages of the fine Greek handwriting are very readable.

For a papyrus manuscript, it is extensive. With the exception of 20 verses of chapter 6, virtually 14 chapters of the Gospel of John are in the publication. This is two-thirds of the chapters and about 70 per cent of the whole text. This is next to the largest papyrus manuscript of the Greek New Testament in our possession. When we recall that our smallest fragment of biblical papyri totals only 32 words or fragments of words and that most papyri dating from the third century give us a good deal if they offer two chapters in more or less damaged pieces, we may understand the enthusiasm of the experts over papyrus 66.

The manuscript is old. More than 1700 years ago it was placed, by order of a church or an individual, in a scriptorium. Conservative estimates place its origin about A.D. 200, perhaps earlier.

It is a codex, not a roll. The earliest Christians in Egypt were among the first users of this early form of book. This we already knew, but we were not so certain what an old Greek codex looked like. Papyrus is very brittle, and what remained of ancient papyrus codices were only loose, numbered pages, usually torn and broken at the edges. This newly discovered papyrus fills a lacuna in our knowledge. It is the extensive remains of a firmly bound book and thus lets us see how the most ancient of Greek books appeared.

The publication of papyrus 66—or Papyrus Bodmer II, its library designation—is significant, then, first, because of its age and, second, because of its text. A good Greek text is imperative for Bible translation. It is common knowledge that there is nothing preserved of the autographa, of the handwritten copies that the evangelists and the apostles or their secretaries wrote. Until the modern art of printing books, the text was patiently copied by hand. The medieval monks were illustrious for this work. It is also well-known that in the copying mistakes and even willful changes and additions were brought into the texts. It is the task of textual criticism to discover the best manuscripts and from these to bring together a text of the Greek New Testament as close to the original texts as possible.

The Number Of Manuscripts

We are a good deal further along in this task than were the students who published the Greek New Testament in the era of the great Reformation Bible translations. When Erasmus published the first printed Greek New Testament in 1516—the one used by Luther for his translation—he used no more than four manuscripts. He knew of a few more, but felt that his four were enough. Gradually, the number of manuscripts known to the critics grew. In the sixteenth century there were 22. In the eighteenth century there were already 330. There are now more than 4,500. Most of these date from the thirteenth and fifteenth century. The farther we go back to ancient times, the fewer are the manuscripts. As a general rule, the oldest texts are the best. Considered the best of all have been the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, two excellent parchments. They have been available for scientific study for only eighty years. The best text that can be constructed is based primarily on these two manuscripts, which date from the first half of the fourth century.

The oldest and best manuscripts, then, date from about 250 years after the original New Testament was written. If we recall that the Gospel of John was written probably around the year A.D. 90 [some authorities now defend an even earlier date—ED.], we will understand how important the recently discovered papyrus 66 is. It dates from about 125 years before the great parchment manuscripts and about 100 years after the writing of the Fourth Gospel. It is from the time of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, who died in A.D. 212 and 245, respectively.

The question that interests us most is the relationship between the text of papyrus 66 and the text forming the basis of our present translations. Does papyrus 66 support our present most dependable text of John 1 to 14? Or must we revise our opinions of the value of our best texts? What about certain passages, such as the pericope of the adulterous woman in John 8 or the verses containing the descending angel of the Bethesda pool in John 5? These well-known passages in the first fourteen chapters of John are usually placed between brackets in the newer translations because they are missing in the best manuscripts. These passages are missing as well in papyrus 66, and, at least on this point, we seem to have been on the right track in our search for the original text.

We might also compare the famous Chester Beatty papyrus, papyrus 45, which contains chapters 10 and 11, and the same chapters of papyrus 66 with the text of Nestle. Nestle’s text is universally regarded as being a very good one, offering a profile of the best and most important manuscripts. Putting the variations within these three texts in parallel columns, we are able to view the divergences. First, the differences in themselves are minor ones. They are on this order, for example: “gathered” or “gathered together”; “once again” or “anew”; “to give his life” or “to offer his life”; “he said” or “he spoke.” This sort of variation constitutes about 99 per cent of the cases in which variations occur. Now, after putting these minor variations in parallel columns, we may underscore with red pencil the places where papyrus 66 and Nestle agree, with blue pencil where papyrus 45 and Nestle agree and with green pencil where papyrus 66 and papyrus 45 agree. If we now count the pencil underscores, we see that there are 50 red, 13 blue, and 20 green underscores. This means that our present published text is generously supported by the oldest witness that we have. The basis of our present textual criticism, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, is sound. With papyrus 66, we are now 125 years closer to the original than with these two famous codices. Yet the text is practically the same.

Such confirmation is sensational in a way. It is also something for which we can offer believing thanks.

R. Schippers holds the Th.D. degree from Free University of Amsterdam, where he now serves on the faculty in the New Testament field. He has ministered in Dutch Reformed churches in Rotterdam and Amsterdam and has written two books in the area of New Testament studies.

Cover Story

The Spiritual Outlook in Belgium

W. W. Marichal

Belgium is a small kingdom of less than 9 million inhabitants. The history of this tiny land conditions its spiritual standing. For the nation has waged a constant struggle for independence against successive foreign invaders. French, English, Spanish, Dutch and German troops have occupied this territory during the centuries. This fact stands as the explanation of the typical Belgian mentality, expressed in deep attachment to freedom, nationally and individually, and in a spirit of vigor in all situations posing a threat to survival.

Reformation Stifled

On the other hand, Belgium suffered from religious tyranny so terrible that the Reformation was drowned in its own blood. Catholic and Spanish oppression, with the help of the Inquisition, caused many compatriots to give their lives for their faith and for their country. The famous “Gueux,” similar in their spiritual beliefs to the French “Huguenots” but different in their political aims, were obliged to fight on a double front-spiritual to save freedom of faith, material to win the battle for independence. Brussels in the sixteenth century was a free Calvinist republic for nine years, but was taken by Spanish troops and given back to Catholicism.

If the national revolution of 1830 at last gave Belgium its independence, by the same token it sacrificed to a foreign country, the Netherlands, the greatest part of the Protestant population. In 1831, when the Protestant churches of Belgium gathered into a Union of Churches, only eight congregations remained from all that had existed formerly.

Impetus From Abroad

New Protestant churches and movements, as they exist today, issued from this nucleus of 1831. They received impetus from the arrival in Belgium of foreign representatives of various Christian denominations, such as the Belgian Gospel Mission, created immediately after World War I by Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Norton.

To get a true impression of what is going on today, several facts must be kept in view.

On one hand, the country is mainly Roman Catholic, political power being wielded by means of the Christian Social Party. On the other hand, a wide workers’ movement is represented in the Socialist Party, which provided the working classes with most of their liberties and possibilities of life and which is anticlerical, i.e., anti-Catholic. The different Protestant denominations stand in the middle, with no political position and often ignored by those who possess or seek to possess power and authority.

Influence Of Catholicism

This great Catholic majority is based on baptism. All baptized persons are considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be Catholic, whether they go to church or not, whether they lose faith or not, whether they become Protestant or not. A Catholic in a high position has declared, however, that among the Armed Forces, fifty per cent should be considered as Roman Catholic. Even that figure is excessive, in my opinion.

Many people in towns or industrial areas never go to church, even though in other sections everyone seems to attend because all social and economic life centers in the Roman Catholic Church. I know certain places in the north of the country where the church, the homes of the mine workers, the football ground and so on, all belong to the mine. The leaders of the mine are keen Roman Catholics. No vicar may remain in charge if he is a “left-side” man; indeed, he must be the man of the mine. In such a place it is very difficult for one born in Protestantism to live. It is even more difficult to turn to Protestantism if one is born Roman Catholic. In such an eventuality, one loses his job, then his house. The only alternative is to move elsewhere, if possible. In some parts of the country, the Catholic influence is still very deep. But in many others, where the socialist or liberal ideas are strong, this influence does not interfere very much with the social or economic life of the people.

No State Church

There is no state church in Belgium. The state recognizes three religions: Catholic, Protestant and Jewish. It pays the parish ministers, but forbids itself interference with the church’s life, doctrine, organization or action.

The seventeen Protestant denominations are set in the middle of this situation.

Protestant Federation

Six of these are of the normal Reformed tradition, being bound in the Protestant Federation of Belgium. These are:

Union of the Protestant Churches of Belgium. Organized on a Congregational pattern, it reflects a very wide autonomy of the local congregation, even in doctrine. Ministers are appointed by the state, which recognizes this church.

The Belgian Christian Missionary Church. Created about a century ago by Reformed ministers of the Swiss Church of the Vaux Canton, it is a free church (we may call it Presbyterian in pattern) turned to Gospel preaching and missionary work in Belgium.

The Methodist Church. Dependent on the European Conference, the Bishop of which resides in Switzerland.

The Baptist Church. The Reformed Churches (“Gereformeerde Kerken”). Calvinist Flemish Church.

Other denominations at work in Belgium include the Salvation Army; the Belgian Gospel Mission, based on fundamentalism; Seventh Day Adventists; Mennonites; Plymouth Brethren, divided into different branches; Pentacostal Church, or Assembly of God, divided into two main branches; Free Lutheran Church; Church of England; Church of Scotland; and various minor churches or denominations.

The contacts between these various churches differ in various locations. In Antwerp, for instance, nearly all of them organize every year a “Bible Day” which is very well attended. The annual week of prayer also gathers many denominations at special meetings. Ministers meet in their periodical gatherings; if some never come, others (in spite of differences of churches and even of doctrine) happily pray together.

Shift In Romanism

This general background perhaps prepares us for some remarks on the spiritual outlook in Belgium. We will say something about Catholicism first, and then about our own Protestant churches.

Two things must be noticed about the Catholic church.

The biblical movement now offers the Holy Scriptures to the laity. About twenty years ago the Bible was considered a Protestant book. Catholic editions were too expensive, and the clergy did not favor Bible knowledge by the common people. Since World War II the Maredsous Abbey, a well known Benedictine convent, has published a new translation of the Bible and has opened a wide campaign inviting people to read the Scriptures.

This excellent translation has some notes and comments that are compulsory in all Roman Catholic editions. It is published in French. Another edition also well known in Belgium is the Jerusalem edition. In many places the local priest carries on Bible studies, of course according to the official dogmas of Rome. This dogmatic position, which dictates interpretation, limits all liberty of comprehension.

Furthermore, Roman contacts with Protestant ministers are often allowed. A few years ago, for instance, a joint gathering was organized in Liege with a Reformed minister from France, an Orthodox priest and a Roman Catholic priest. Each speaker expressed his convictions about the division of Christianity and his opinions about future unity. The Roman Catholic bishop was present. A Belgian minister was once invited in the Roman Catholic University of Louvain to present the doctrine according to Karl Barth, and a very interesting discussion followed. But these developments do not change at all the basic situation, according to which the Church of Rome, regarding itself as the only Christian church in the world in agreement with Christ’s will, declares all others to be “heretics.” And from the Protestant side no compromise can be admitted with such false dogmas as the assumption of the virgin Mary or the infallibility of the Pope.

Outlook For Protestants

What is the spiritual outlook on the Protestant side in our day?

The division of Belgian Protestantism into different denominations makes it impossible to speak for all of them. Nevertheless, certain facts are clear. Great possibilities are now open for the preaching of the Gospel. Many Protestants have Catholic relatives and when they marry, for instance, these Catholics attend the ceremony. The same occurs for ceremonies of baptism, confirmation or funerals. I do not feel that a great conference in a large hall is the best method for exploiting this opportunity. Personal contact is far more efficient. A large number of Christians in our churches were formerly Roman Catholics and came to the Gospel through a personal witness.

The witness of laymen is greatly emphasized in our day. Gatherings of medical personnel, of lawyers, of businessmen and so on, are organized to think through our faith and its claims inside the professions. These meetings help lay members to bear witness where they live and work.

The preaching of the Gospel by radio and television has been organized by a special committee at the Protestant Churches Federation level. Against Roman Catholic resistance, this committee obtained four broadcast services annually and short weekly lectures.

The Protestant Military Chaplaincy leads an official church service on National Feast Day before the highest authorities of the Kingdom, military and civilian. This service is broadcast by the National Broadcasting Radio Station of Brussels. Many conversions follow these monthly services on the part of people who write and ask to receive the Gospel.

Special mention must be given to the Belgian Bible Society whose Gospel preachers go from door to door and from village to village, on foot, through all the country. Many meetings are held in homes and kitchens, and some discover the Lord in this way.

Theological Deficiency

But Protestantism in Belgium suffers from lack of fully prepared preachers, of men out of theological high school. A certain number of congregations are entirely without a minister. Those who love the Lord and think with sympathy about Belgium pray that God may call young people to his service. We lack men and financial resources to go ahead. Nevertheless, during the period between the two wars two new congregations have come into existence annually, showing the possibilities that lie before our churches.

Preacher In The Red

FROM THE FULLNESS OF THE HEART

A few days before the annual District Synod of the Methodist Church in the Barbados and Trinidad District, British West Indies, was due to meet, a particularly well attended Prayer Meeting was held in the local Methodist Church. It was my privilege to preside over this meeting.

Fervent prayers were offered for the work of the Synod and especially for its important task in the stationing of Ministers.

One good woman who had a reputation for her power in prayer addressed to the Lord a few general observations on the duties and responsibilities of the Synod, and continued; “Lord, thou knowest that thy servant, our Minister who now stands before us, is to attend the Synod. Perhaps the Synod will want to station him in some other circuit. If it be thy will, Lord, to leave him right here amongst us we shall say ‘AMEN’. But if it be thy will to send him somewhere else we shall say, ‘HALLELUJAH’.—The Rev. Ernest Griffin, Superintendent Minister, The Methodist Church, Wesley Manse, Croxton Road, Thetford, Norfolk, England.

Belgium’s population of 8,500,000 will play host to the world in 1958, when 48 countries will participate in the first World’s Fair since 1939. The dates will be April 17 to October 19. Facing each other across an esplanade will be the two largest exhibitions—representing the United States and the Soviet Union. Towering above both will be the theme structure, a 360-foot high Atonium, designed to show that mankind has the ability to mold the atomic age to the benefit of all nations. An estimated 25,000,000 visitors from around the world are expected. With such big plans in the making, Christianity Today submits the significant spiritual history of the small kingdom. The author is W. W. Marichal, Chaplain General of the Belgian Armed Forces and Protestant Chaplain in Chief, Christianity Today’s correspondent in that land.

Cover Story

Christ in Every-Day Life

L. Nelson Bell

Were you in church last Sunday? Perhaps so. But, important as it is, church attendance does not necessarily make one a Christian. Entirely too many church members act like Christians on Sunday and then go out to live for the devil the remainder of the week.

If Christianity is really worthwhile it must be something which transforms our lives seven days a week and twenty-four hours a day.

A grim prospect? Far from it. It can and should be a glorious experience which completely changes our perspective and our daily way of living.

At the moment what America needs is not more church members but more Christians. Church membership has been made entirely too easy and its meaning so superficial that it assumes the aspects of a respectible club with prepaid privileges in the Over-The-River-Burying-Society.

Confusion exists inside and outside the church because so many are mislabeled and further confusion comes because so few Christians really know what it is to yield to the Lordship of Jesus in daily living.

Within the church much time is spent trying to make non-Christians act like Christians, and outside the average worldling wonders what difference it makes anyway—if Christians live, act and talk like those who make no profession of knowing Christ.

However, this is being written to and for Christians, people who truly believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and their Savior from sin.

What a tragedy that so often we find ourselves completely defeated in the pressures of everyday life. In our hearts we know that we believe in Christ, but deep down inside we find little comfort because Christ means little in the place where we find ourselves six days a week. To this dilemma we speak, and toward its solution this is being written.

A long time ago Jesus said to his disciples: “For without me ye can do nothing” (John 15:5).

Within the compass of these seven words is found the cause of our trouble and also its cure.

The immediate and natural reaction is that this just isn’t so. We all know hundreds of men and women—doctors, lawyers, people in business, technicians, engineers, farmers—all of whom are successful and who make no pretense of being Christians or of taking Christ into their daily lives.

But wait a minute; what is success? Is it money, or popularity, or power, or expertness in some chosen field of endeavor? By the standards of the world these things constitute success but are the world’s standards valid? Will they last for eternity?

There is nothing more important than that we all should get a right perspective on life. That perspective is given by God, not by man. Man looks at the outside of man, while God looks at his heart; man thinks in terms of time, God thinks in terms of eternity. Speaking of material success our Lord says: “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

Paul tells us that Christ has been laid as the one and eternal foundation, but that Christians may find themselves building on that foundation a very flimsy structure, one which will not withstand the coming fire-like testing (1 Cor. 3:11–15). This is an additional indication of our Lord’s meaning, that without Him we can do nothing which will last for eternity.

This being the case, how practical is our Christianity? Are we taking it into our every day lives? Into our homes? Our business? Our profession? If not there is something radically wrong. In this let us not try to fool ourselves. Rather let us sit down and take stock. Ask God to probe into our lives. Stock-taking may be embarrassing but it can also be very profitable.

Let us never forget that after becoming Christians we should live like Christians. Strange to say, if one asks the average church member whether he is a Christian he will receive some inane reply: “I hope so,” “I try to be” and so-forth. Ask a man whether he is married and he knows whether he is or not. A Christian should have similar assurance of his relationship with Christ.

J. B. Phillips, paraphrasing Paul’s statement, says that being a Christian is a matter of “believing, not achieving.” To many, Christianity is a matter of trying to do something to merit the title. But it just isn’t. We are Christians or not, depending on whether we trust in Christ as the Son of God and our Savior. This does not make us mature saints but it starts us in the right direction.

Having taken this step, what difference does Christ make in our daily lives? Well, there should be a complete change for we no longer have to walk blindly, we have Someone to go with us every moment of the day and night.

With Christ in our hearts we get an entirely new perspective; we begin to look at this world in the light of eternity; we commence to ask his guidance and help in decisions small and big; we find that we are no longer alone with our problems; we discover our interests and incentives change and we realize that we can talk with him any time and any place—and, he talks with us.

Obviously this has a very practical bearing on every phase of our lives, our home, our business, our social relationships, our recreation.

A Christian home, founded on faith in Christ, strengthened by daily prayer and study of the Bible and cemented by love is a little foretaste of Heaven. A home without Christ and all that he gives can be a sample of hell itself.

When we take Christ into our business something immediately happens—honesty, truthfulness and fairness take precedence over profits and become the basis on which profits are expected. Does this come as a shock? Just give him a try and one finds that he gives not only a clear conscience but also a sense of divine leading and blessing which cannot be measured in dollars and cents.

All of us have social contacts. They are inevitable and are desirable. When Christ controls our lives it makes such a difference that non-Christians will immediately sense it. Christians should be the happiest people in the world for they know where they stand now and where they will be for eternity. Love, consideration for others, courtesy, tact, patience—these and many other things should characterize the Christian as he comes in contact with others.

To make Christ the Lord of our lives means that we take him into our recreations and pleasures. He knows of these needs and wants us to enjoy life. The big difference for the Christian is that he really can have a good time. In all of this he will go only to those places and do those things in which he has a sense of the Lord’s presence and blessing.

If Christ is our Savior then he must be the Lord of our lives. It is high time we clarify our thinking along this line. He will not be our Savior on Sunday while we serve Satan the rest of the week.

Give him the green light in our hearts and lives.

He will do the rest.

Ideas

The Trumpet of the Lord

When the World Council of Churches at its Evanston assembly two years ago revived the theme of the Christian Hope, the religious world was given notice that Modernism’s disinterest in eschatology was undergoing wide revision. On all sides Protestant theological conversation turned with new zest to the theme of the end of the age.

This sixth decade continually confronts the human race with the threat of end-time. One tyrant’s lust for world power can advance the clock of history from the scientists’ “five minutes to twelve” to the moment when the Great Appraiser alone can assess the carnage. Little wonder that the human spirit feels driven to ask whether other options of end-time exist besides this one.

Ever since Christianity’s impact upon the West, successive generations have restudied the biblical doctrine of last things in times of conflict and crisis, while glossing over it in times of serenity and security. Historical circumstances and philosophical biases more than once have lulled the Christian community into the notion that Christ’s First Advent instituted a world so favorable that the Second Advent was dismissed as a distraction. Contemporary Protestantism registers an advance, therefore, in recognizing once more that eschatology is no mere pagan import into the Hebrew-Christian religion; that biblical prophetic revelation cannot be simply dismissed, but is an integral element in Hebrew-Christian revelation; that beyond the new order Hitler and Marx envisaged stands the new age already inaugurated by Jesus Christ.

The recent resort to eschatology differs considerably, however, from earlier approaches. The Church now lives in a world seeking the harmony of scientific and biblical images of reality. This yields a plurality of views, varying according to which philosophy of science is exalted. Equally important, different motives shape eschatological concerns of Christians under totalitarian rule and in the free world. Interest in the Christian doctrine of the future rises for the former from the shadows of religious persecution, if not from exposure to martyrdom for the Christian witness. Elsewhere the revival of eschatology finds much of its basis in quite other factors than missionary zeal. The sheer threat to material possessions, and the possibility of a general destruction of humanity through global warfare, is a major stimulus. Western Christendom runs the danger today of detaching eschatological interests from spiritual priorities, of subordinating them to the longing for material success and earthly security. Spared the experiences of suffering and persecution, American Christianity tends to turn its respite into an abnormal approach to last things.

Unless the Church properly turns her vision toward the future, she cannot properly face her problems in the present. The urgency of centering end-time reflection in the person and work of Jesus Christ is therefore apparent. Christ himself is the heartbeat of Christian hope. Beyond the when, and what, and where, and how, stands the who and the why. Rightly presented, eschatology always magnifies Christ.

Should the hydrogen bomb mushroom this earth to oblivion, the awesome climax of history is nonetheless assured. Mankind will survive the pulverizing heat of any atomic explosion. God will survive; the Ten Commandments will survive; the judgment throne of Christ will survive; and the blood of the Lamb will retain its power for all who have put their trust in him. Those billows of atomic dust will reveal Christ standing in the shadows, keeping watch above his own. This life and this world are not all there is. They are a prologue, a foreword—and the climax is yet to be revealed. Christ’s revelation and work are still to be completed. Neither man nor atoms shall frustrate the climax to which the Logos leads this world, as agent in its creation, preservation, redemption, sanctification and judgment.

If modernist theology neglected the Christian doctrine of the end, fundamentalist theology often cheapened and distorted it, thereby somewhat unwittingly provoking a reaction. Its failure has been twofold: concentrating theological interest on debatable issues rather than on the undebatable emphases of Scripture, and considering eschatology largely in terms of future events quite in isolation from the spiritual privileges of the present life.

Our generation, happily, is free of fanatical date setting reminiscent of the Munster excesses. Even the boldest prophetic teachers today are more cautious than a decade or two ago in the matter of identifying antichrists. Nonetheless, some fundamentalist Bible conferences and churches (perhaps a few Bible institutes also) would have to shut their doors were they to cease from eschatological polemics, their main stock in trade. The Church in the early chapters of Acts was a Hebrew-Christian Church, vibrant with eschatological hope, but Hebrew-Christian conferences today often disclose an imbalance of interests that apostolic Christianity would think strange. Quite apart from the dogmatic detailing of events, and from the tendency to major on disagreements and to minor on agreements, the fundamentalist exposition of eschatology has been prone to swerve from the person and work of Christ to an emphasis on times and seasons and programs as the center of the Christian hope. These extremes have brought the preaching of last things into disrepute, and in some quarters have led to suspicion of all eschatological interest.

The connection of eschatology with present-day problems has also been neglected. Assuredly there is to be a future climax of history, and this end is in the hands of Christ. But this end is also somehow within history itself, especially in sacred history. One fact that stands out clearly in the New Testament is that the weight of eschatological realities cannot be shifted wholly to the future. As the early Church knew from the outset (Acts 2:17, 2 Tim. 3:1, Heb. 1:2, 1 Pet. 1:20, 1 John 2:18), “the last days” are already in some sense dramatically underway. Christ as the end of history will impinge upon the present transcendently, but that consummation also has immanent anticipations. Yet “the last days” await their climax in the future. The outlines of the New Testament hope cannot be mythologized into mere picture presentations of the believer’s confidence in the final triumph of faith. Nor can they be dismissed as mere dramatizations of the believer’s “new being” in Christ in contrast with the old life. The biblical teaching of “the last days” requires a dramatic future course of events centered in the personal, visible return of Jesus Christ.

The conflict between amillennialism, postmillennialism and premillennialism turns largely on the manner of relating to history the immanent and transcendent manifestation of Christ. Dispensational premillennialism tended to lose the connection between the Second Advent and the Kingdom of God as a present reality; postmillennialism, in the secular evolutionary form it acquired in modernist circles, tended to detach the present Kingdom in history from any necessary dependence upon the Second Advent for its climax. While biblical theology depicts history as moving toward a goal, it does not locate its telos exclusively outside, nor inside, history. History is indeed eschatological; in some sense Christ’s Kingdom is already present, the Holy Spirit as its surging dynamic. But while the ‘eschaton’ has been advanced through Christ’s First Advent from the future to the present, we are not to rule out a transcendent future to which even this present must be related.

Modernist and fundamentalist theology, regrettably, reacted to extreme and objectionable statements of the connection of history to Christ its goal. There were varieties of the modernist view, of course, as of the fundamentalist, but two antithetic positions often contended for the mastery.

Modernism spoke in this mood of history itself as the enlarging Kingdom of God. As Wilfred Monod of the Divinity School of the University of Paris put it in 1902, “The supreme manifestation of Christ is subordinated to human liberty which is called to collaborate with his Spirit in order to make the Parousia possible.” The American “social gospel” was a reflection of this expectation that the Kingdom of God would reach its climax as humanity increasingly walks in the way of social, intellectual, moral and religious progress. The visible and personal Second Advent of Christ became tangential to the full manifestation of the Kingdom. The miseries of World War I punctured this optimism, and the agonies of World War II exploded it.

Fundamentalism, at least in its dispensational form, located the Kingdom only in the future; Kingdom-truth was millennium-truth. This one-sided future orientation of the Kingdom-teaching not only neglected vital elements of New Testament teaching about the present age, but it obscured the important emphasis of the Gospels that in the First Advent the Kingdom was already at hand in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. This detachment of Kingdom-teaching from the First Advent of Christ and from the Risen Lord’s ministry in this present age is now being widely challenged from the standpoint of fresh New Testament studies.

The New Testament sketches the revelation of the power of Jesus Christ in terms both of his future and present manifestation. It holds in view more than the personal and visible return of Christ, the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the sanctification of believers in their conformity to the image of Christ; it stresses a fulfillment of life, a present sharing in the life fit for eternity, a shaping of the believer’s daily existence, in view of a distinctive relation in which the disciples of Christ now stand to their Redeemer. Since the Risen Christ is head of the body, believers united to the head in some vital sense have already passed through death and judgment, and are privileged to participate now in the spiritual realities of a resurrection life. Linked to Christ by the Holy Spirit, through whom the Lord reigns in the lives of his followers, the Church in some vital sense shares in advance, as an earnest of its future inheritance, certain distinctive powers and blessings of the age to come.

No exposition of coming events, however orthodox, can compensate for a neglect of these emphases of biblical theology so determinative of the ethical dynamic of Christian existence in this present age of grace. This phase of eschatology, no less than the next, develops what Christ does and expects of men. The climax of history involves a movement from this present work of Christ to its future work. An awareness of this will prevent the interest in eschatology from deteriorateing into a pious parroting of the phrase “the Lord may come today,” or into a mere quest for “inside information” about future events. For the believer’s whole attitude and conduct is to be enlivened by the great realities of the Christian hope. The early Church lived its daily life within this hope. All the troubles of life in this world provided for them an opportunity to detect Christ’s presence in their affairs, and to fix their eyes upon him as the Lord of history.

Eschatological sensitivity accounted for more than a deepening of moral achievement in the early Church; it also enlivened missionary interest and responsibility. And a renewed contemplation of the Christian hope will result in our day in the world proclamation of the Gospel to which Jesus assigned a divine priority. Any type of Second Coming teaching that dulls enlistment in the Great Commission is precluded by the New Testament itself. For, alongside the biblical interest in the events that herald the end of this age stands an unrelieved emphasis on the urgency of a global sounding of the good news of Christ’s death and resurrection for sinners.

This is not, as we have already made plain, the only valid interest in eschatological revelation. The New Testament itself has a fuller future look. The Christian minister bears the awesome responsibility of encouraging and comforting God’s people, caught in this generation’s uneasiness about a foreboding future, through an emphasis on the Lord’s triumph and return. It is a time for the pulpit to sound the promises of the Lord, to inspire Christ’s followers with a lively confidence in the blessed hope. The New Testament faces the rapidly approaching future as a series of great end-time events that enlarge this hope.

Prophetic preaching, unfortunately, often falls into disrepute through the neglect of biblical proportions, the elevation of secondaries to priority, the failure of many ministers to distinguish personal opinion in debatable areas from dogmatic teaching with a basis in revelation, and the fruitless quibbling over details. This tendency regrettably encourages multitudes of believers to seek categorical answers to questions to which even revelation may not provide a solution. One need not, however, fall into the contemporary quest for eschatological unity by dismissal of the literal truth of all prophetic pronouncements, and their comprehension merely as picture-images of the ineffable—a device which devoutly retains the vocabulary and sound of eschatological teaching but evaporates its content.

The Church needs to plant its feet again upon the rock of revealed truths in its exposition of the Christian hope. Thus in a troubled time the twentieth century Church can rise in new victory over all the times of dark despair that threaten its existence and effectiveness in the age between the Lord’s First and Second Advent. The Lord himself had warned that this period would be darkened by religious deception, by political disturbances, by natural disorders, yet he assured his disciples that even in this turn of events they could rely upon the outworking of the redemptive purpose of God that would reveal him at last as the judge of all mankind, the Savior of the Church, and the Lord of nature and history. Today this message belongs high in the list of pulpit priorities.

That Jesus will come “in the fullness of glory,” that on that “crowning day” he will receive “his own,” that “then shall the dead in Christ arise,” that saints and sinners will be parted “right and left,” that ours may be the generation when the saints “go without dying,” that believers must be ready and waiting, and must “haste to prepare the way,” that Christ returns “to reign victorious,” that “Satan’s dominion will then be o’er,” that Christ’s Kingdom “spread from shore to shore” is one wherein “Western empires own their Lord, and savage tribes attend his Word”—all this and more is a reflection of the final hope that survives in the familiar hymnody and song of the Church. If it is proper in the Church at worship, it is indispensable in pulpit proclamation. In many ecclesiastical quarters the sounding of the final hope is noised out by the clatter of the day, although the times are awesome enough to ask whether angelic hosts may be warming up the trumpet of the Lord.

We Quote:

D. M. BAILLIE

Late Professor of Systematic Theology, University of St. Andrews

I am convinced, and have long been convinced, that we ought to be preaching Christian doctrine much more than we are. I have sometimes said, during the last dozen years, that when I look back to the days of my regular pastoral ministry, one of the things I regret is that I did not more faithfully try to make my ministry a teaching ministry; and that if I had to begin again I would set myself to give more definite teaching from the pulpit … I am convinced that the preacher … ought also to be a teacher; and still more he must remember that what he has to preach is not simply whatever fancies or even whatever great thoughts come into his head, but the Christian message—and that really means Christian doctrine … I should like to suggest that our preaching of doctrine should be truly Biblical, not simply in the sense that we should be true to Bible teaching, but that as a matter of method in preaching we should let the doctrine spring out of the Bible.—In The Theology of the Sacraments, pp. 141 ff., published posthumously by Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1957.

Eutychus and His Kin: June 10, 1957

COMMUNICATION

After a recent title bout someone asked Sugar Ray Robinson how far the knockout punch had traveled. “I don’t know,” asnwered the recrowned middleweight, “but he got the message somewhere!” The crack is not so classic as the champion’s left hook, but it has a future. It is made to order for all these talks about talking and should appear in a dozen commencement addresses.

Sugar Ray was only using the language of a communication-conscious age. Since our society is being reshaped by electronic means of communication, we cannot avoid the subject. With curious zeal, many people want to reduce everything to communication. Skeptics assure us that we have outgrown all talk about what is, and that we must be satisfied with the logical analysis of how we used to talk about it. T.V. surely demonstrates how much more we know about how than what to communicate!

The old liberalism believed that education would solve all problems. Today’s liberal has the same naive faith in communication. Communicate in print, at the conference table or on the psychiatrist’s couch, and conflicts will evaporate. The trouble is that the message, on delivery, is often a left hook to the chin!

Some preachers are far more ready to discuss communication than the Gospel to be communicated. The difference between heaven and hell becomes an exercise in semantics. By separating language from truth, men justify using expressions they no longer believe and at the same time deny that God can reveal his truth in human language.

Those who believe that God’s Word is truth need a new grip on “communication”—and revelation. But they must avoid the method of the wise man of Gotham, who decided he needed a better grip while hanging from a tree branch over the sea, and therefore let go to spit on his hands.

EUTYCHUS

SPIRIT OF FOREIGN POLICY

It seems to me that you have unnecessarily confused things in this time when there ought to be support of our President in what he is seeking to do for the peace of the world.… The President’s policy should be judged wholly on the basis of whether it is calculated to head off Communism and the communistic countries from making more trouble.…

EARLE V. PIERCE

Minneapolis, Minn.

I am enjoying … CHRISTIANITY TODAY and want especially to express appreciation for the editorial “The Spirit of Foreign Policy.” … I feel this is one of the most constructive and timely presentations I have come upon in a long time.

PAUL S. JAMES

The Baptist Tabernacle

Atlanta, Ga.

Congratulations on whoever wrote the editorial “The Spirit of Foreign Policy” …

JEROME DAVIS

West Haven, Conn.

Permit me to congratulate you on your splendid editorial “The Spirit of Foreign Policy” (April 29).… You certainly have hit the nail on the head.…

S. H. HALAJIAN

Los Angeles, Calif.

REFLECTIONS ON MARTYRDOM

In reply to “The Prayer of the Five Widows,” I was much disturbed.… To say that “… because God has done a tremendous thing in taking five of His choicest servants in this incipient stage, we are bold to expect tremendous answers to prayer in the future,” is to call God a murderer. God never desires that lives which are dedicated to him be taken in death.… Unnatural death is never in God’s plan but because of some sin of man.… It is not God’s will that the men lost their lives.… I would say to these wives, march on in silence and God will use and reward you.

E. V. HARGREAVES

Shasta Valley Methodist Parish

Mantague, Calif.

The martyrdom of five splendid men by the Auca Indians might … stir our thinking along these lines:

Arriving by plane, setting up tents and dressed as they were, these men appeared to be as much apostles of our culture and civilization as bearers of the Gospel.

Missionary work in Asia and Africa is today suffering greatly from this very thing.… Christ came down to our level and met us under our conditions. Is it not possible he would have both ministers and missionaries examine the instructions given to the twelve and the seventy before their tours (Lk. 9:3 ff. and 10:2 ff.)? These instructions made them live at the level and within the cultural limitations of the people to whom they were sent.

A. A. TUFFIN

St. Mary’s

Hayes, Kent, England

GIVING WAY TO ROME

Please, please … will you not misuse the term Catholic Church so consistently? So many people follow in using the term as pertaining to that branch of the Church which is properly termed The Roman Catholic Church. The practise of using the name Catholic as an exclusive right for those of the Roman fold is erroneously broadcast by that denomination and all the Protestants seem only too willing to give way to Rome in this regard except in some few cases. As a member of the Anglican Church of Canada I must point out that while we are a Protestant Body, and I can assure you probably the first Protestant Body (vide John Wycliffe 1320–1384), we are assuredly a Holy Catholic Church.…

CUTHBERT THOMAS

All Saints’

Cannington, Ontario

CHRISTIANITY IN CHINA

We have read with considerable interest the long editorial treatment on “Conversations with Chinese Christians” (Jan. 21 issue).… All of us can agree heartily in its comment on the inseparable bonds that exist among all Christians and the natural desire for fellowship with them across all barriers.

Reference is made in your editorial to agitation by “leading churchmen” for a delegation to visit Communist China.… We do not know of any general “agitation” or demand for such a visit by American churchmen. In fact, Dr. Mackay is the only leading American churchman we are aware of who has called for such an exchange of visits at this time.… It has been the opinion in the China Committee of the Division of Foreign Missions that for various reasons, the missionary forces do not feel that the American churches should propose such a visit at this time.

We are even more concerned, however, with the … position … that “liberal” churchmen in China have collaborated with the Communist government, and “evangelicals” have resisted government pressures and have subsequently suffered severe persecution.… A substantial portion of the Chinese church leaders who have been imprisoned are those who would be regarded as “liberals,” while a number of church leaders who are freely carrying on their work and who are intimately associated with the Three-Self Movement are well known fundamentalists.

We do not believe it is accurate to say, “the majority of evangelicals were reluctant to join up,” and “many of their churches have since been occupied or closed by the government.” Many Chinese churches were closed. So far as we know, not a single Protestant church in any of the cities has been closed. The churches that were closed were in the rural areas, where the bulk of church membership was conservative, usually during the period of land reform.… There is also incontrovertible evidence that a very large number of these churches have since been permitted to re-open.…

All of us have the deepest sympathy with Chinese Christians who have suffered for their convictions. We believe that their suffering has come about not because of their theological position as conservatives or liberals but because of unwillingness to yield or compromise their basic Christian convictions. It is untrue and unfair to take the categorical position, or to suggest, that “evangelicals” have by and large opposed the Communist government and have been persecuted and “liberals” have for the most part conformed and are in complete control of the church today.

Many of us who tried to work under Communism in China and who have vividly seen the pervasive influence and almost irresistible pressures of a totalitarian state, feel that it is not our place as American Christians to sit in judgment on Chinese Christians but rather to continue earnestly to pray, having in mind our own shortcomings, that God’s Holy Spirit may lead us and them into his perfect truth.

CLAUDE L. PERKINS, JR.

WALLACE C. MERWIN

China Comm.

Far Eastern Off.

Division of Foreign Missions

National Council of Churches

We have noted with interest the continued correspondence and articles regarding the Three-Self Movement church in China, and feel that one or two points should be re-emphasized.

First, some have the idea that we evangelicals have said that only the so-called liberal Protestants in China have cooperated with the Three-Self Movement church. We admit with deep regret that many of our strong evangelical leaders eventually aligned themselves with the Three-Self Movement church. It was said and emphasized in the original comment on this whole picture that at the start, when the Communists took over China, it was exclusively liberal churchmen who formed the Three-Self Movement church and then cooperated with the Communist government in putting pressure on church leaders all over China with the result that a number of strong evangelicals lined up with the Three-Self Movement church.

Whereas this is true, we are reliably informed that a majority of our evangelical leaders and churches, both rural and in the cities, have refused to cooperate with the Three-Self Movement church. Reports given us from inside China indicate that most of the persecution that has overtaken our Protestant pastors in China who have been conformed with the Three-Self Movement Church, has been instigated by that church. Although the reason given for the persecution has not been a religious reason, but rather a political offense of noncooperation with the State, the actual instigation was religious in most cases and not political.

There are two facts that I think we should point out. Without a doubt the Three-Self Movement Church represents formal Christianity today in China. The evangelicals on the other hand together with all those who have remained true to the faith, are members of the informal church which bases its entire faith and organization on their personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

The second thing is, that as far as we can see, the Three-Self Movement Church is but an extension of the Communist government which allows it a certain amount of freedom and probably will as long as it serves the general purposes of the government. We are convinced that it is being used as a political tool in the hands of a Communist regime which will exterminate it when its usefulness ceases.

CLYDE W. TAYLOR

Executive Secretary

Evangelical Foreign Mission Assn.

Washington, D.C.

BOOKS FOR SEMINARIES

If any seminary or Bible training school at home or abroad wishes to secure new copies of books I have written, the librarian should write me a letter, listing the titles of Blackwood hooks now on the library shelves. There are no strings attached. The books go out free, with postage paid. They are for use in the seminary library, not for the study of any individual.

ANDREW W. BLACKWOOD

Garden Court Apartments

Philadelphia 43, Pa.

Ministers Stirred in Graham Crusade

WORLD NEWS

Christianity in the World Today

“This is like all the Christmases I have ever known rolled up into one.”

The expressive statement was made by a New York minister after the first week of Billy Graham’s Crusade at Madison Square Garden. He was stirred night after night as the Word of God reached deeply into the hearts of businessmen, show people, teen-agers, society matrons and derelicts.

Another minister, evidently in soul-searching thought, sat in the Garden one night long after the benediction had been pronounced. There had not been enough regular counselors to meet the need of the hundreds who had surged forward at the invitation, and he had volunteered his services in helping one to find Christ. It was a rich experience. As the lights flickered out all over the Garden, he sat off by himself—still thinking about it. And big tears ran from his eyes.

One clergyman, before the campaign began, determined that he was going to put everything he had into it and trust God for the blessings in his church. He organized a special bus every night and rejoiced each time on the return trip because some of the people who left with him returned with Christ. Another bus had to be added in the second week. He said new life had been abundantly added to his church.

The case histories of two churches in London have been repeated many times in New York. During the Harringay Crusade, a minister and his congregation did everything possible to cooperate. They made a house-to-house canvass of people in the parish and provided free transportation. The pastor said the membership of his church tripled as a result of the effort.

Another pastor in London was against the Harringay meetings from the start. The congregation did nothing. However, about 30 of the people who made decisions listed his church as their preference. He didn’t contact the 30 and made an effort to prove his point that the decisions were not real by stating that only about ten of them ever showed up for services. He said he had admitted about two families, but was pretty sure that one of these was dissatisfied.

“If doctors treated new-born babies like many ministers treat young Christians the mortality rate would be a shocking thing to behold,” remarked Mr. Graham in an appeal for New York clergymen to encourage them in Christian growth. “Babes in Christ grow strong by reading their Bibles daily, by spending time in prayer, by living and witnessing for Christ and by being faithful in their churches.”

Some ministers continue to object to the large and efficient organization, brought together from three continents in an effort to penetrate the heart of the world’s biggest city. One person wrote that he would have more respect for the ministry of Billy Graham if he preached in the streets.

The Charlotte Observer, in a recent issue, carried an editorial in answer to such attacks. It said:

“If Billy Graham needs any defense against those who object to his evangelistic work because they do not approve of his ‘organized methods,’ he can merely turn to St. Paul.

“When Paul decided to evangelize that den of iniquity, Ephesus, he did not go at once. Instead, he sent two advance agents, Aquila and Priscilla, who had had two years of hard experience in Corinth and before that in Rome. Their job was to organize the campaign and to soften up Ephesus for the main event when Paul arrived.

“They were helped by a brilliant young man from Alexandria named Apollos—the kind of orator who could make an audience eat out of his hand—who did much of the softening up work after Aquila and Priscilla corrected his doctrinal errors.

“Then came Paul, not alone, but accompanied by a team of tough professionals, Timothy, Luke and others, all of whom had been through the mill, fought with mobs and spent some days and nights in prison.

“From the names mentioned in the Epistles and in Acts in connection with the Ephesus campaign, it can be estimated that Paul had a team of about 20 persons, all experts, who knew their way around in the business of evangelism.

“So, if Billy Graham has too much organization, he has an excellent precedent.”

A prayer of the Graham team from the beginning has been that the impact of the Gospel on New York will spread over the nation and into all parts of the world. Already, little revival fires have been reported in several cities, mainly as a result of the prayer meetings being held for New York.

The spread received a big boost by nation-wide telecasts direct from Madison Square Garden over the ABC network. Mounting millions tuned in for the first two telecasts, with the Word of God reaching into more homes than ever before in history. The final two telecasts from 8 to 9 p.m. on succeeding Saturdays are expected to zoom the evangelist’s audience rating. A significant commentary, it seems, is that famed comedians who humor viewers away from the realities of life may be losing out in American homes.

But Billy Graham, who drives to the heart of realities with understandable sermons founded on “Thus saith the Lord,” is gaining momentum.

Television executives are a little puzzled about the phenomenon, and some of them don’t quite understand the answer offered by Mr. Graham:

“It isn’t a man. The people are hungry for God!”

Size Of Churches

A Presbyterian churchman has proposed that research be conducted to determine “how large a church can be and still be a community.”

Dr. Paul C. Payne of Philadelphia said a “searching study” should be made into the most effective size of churches “before we continue any further in piling up monster congregations.”

Dr. Payne, retiring general secretary of the Presbyterian (U. S. A.) Board of Christian Education, said the churches must find ways of giving “strange, hurrying, lonely throngs of people around us an experience of community in the impersonal faceless life of our great cities and suburbs.”

Some city churches, he observed, “are dying and deserving to die because they are making no effort to serve the neighborhood where they are situated.”

He deplored a tendency to “make church membership easy for fear of driving prospective members away.

“By making church membership easy, we turn our churches into warrens for spiritual rabbits, who want some magic formula guaranteed to save their tender skins, while braver souls who would take the church seriously find themselves baffled by the lack of challenge or by the little church chores assigned them.”

Evangelical Manual

The Youth Commission of the National Sunday School Association has prepared a manual entitled, “Scouting in Evangelical Churches.” Published in cooperation with the Boy Scouts of America, the manual may be obtained from NSSA, 542 S. Dearborn, Chicago, Ill.

Worth Quoting

“The early Church had power, not merely ideas. It produced results, not programs. God is seeking a Church and people today through whom he can pour a spiritual dynamic capable of transforming life.”—Dr. B. H. Pearson, Los Angeles.

“We see all around us the men and women to whom Christianity is little more than a socially acceptable hobby. They are perfectly nice people, in nice clothes, driving a nice car to a nice church on a nice Sunday. Secretly, they believe that Christ’s teaching is much too impractical for this mundane world—at least for six days a week. Sunday they’ll hear the sermon … Monday they’ll write their Congressman and ask him to cut out of the budget that portion devoted to health, education and welfare.”—Governor George M. Leader of Pennsylvania.

“From the year 1725 to 1729 I preached much, but saw no fruit of my labors.… From the year 1729 to 1734, laying a deeper foundation of repentance, I saw a little fruit … for I did not preach faith in the blood of the Covenant.… From 1734 to 1738 I saw more fruit of my preaching and visiting … than ever I had done before, though I know not if any of those who were outwardly reformed were inwardly and thoroughly converted to God.… From 1738 (year of prayer meeting in Aldersgate Street) to this time … the Word of God ran as fire among the stubble … multitudes are crying out, ‘What must we do to be saved?’ and afterwards witnessing, ‘By grace we are saved through faith.’—John Wesley, quoted by the Rev. Charles C. Ryan, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Church Sacrifice

Bishop Gerald Francis Burrill of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago told the annual diocesean convention that “evangelism in the Episcopal Church is being sacrificed to the needs of the program and the schedule of worship.”

The church that lacks evangelistic zeal, he warned, is in danger of “contracting spiritual hardening of the arteries.”

He added:

“Clergymen are so busy with routine that little time is left for reaching new people.… Our laity do not think of themselves as missionaries in their neighborhoods. Our underlying difficulty is our lack of concern for God’s commission for each one of us to seek out his brother.”

Merger Of Churches

The following special report was written by Dr. Robert J. Lamont, pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Pittsburgh, Penna. and a contributing editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

The 169th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., held recently in Omaha, Nebraska, unanimously ratified the vote of every presbytery in favor of union with the United Presbyterian Church of America.

The 872 commissioners stood with bowed heads and prayed for God’s blessings on the action they had taken. If the U. P. General Assembly, meeting in June, approves, the union will be consummated at Pittsburgh in May, 1958.

Dr. Harold R. Martin, pastor of Second Presbyterian Church, Bloomington, Illinois, was elected moderator. A high spiritual note that characterized the meetings of the Assembly was sounded by Dr. Martin at the induction ceremonies when he said, “I am only a sinner saved by grace and I earnestly covet your prayers for the blessing of the Holy Spirit on the Church of Christ.”

“The Whole Gospel for the Whole World” was the Assembly theme.

As part of the long-range benevolence advance, the commissioners unanimously approved a $43,000,000 budget for 1958. This action committed the church to a benevolence goal of $54,000,000 by 1962. The step of faith brought forth the spontaneous singing of the Doxology by the Assembly in the packed Omaha Civic Auditorium. Stewardship of time and the tithe of substance was urged.

In an effort to keep its constituency and the public informed, the Assembly created the “Office of Information.” Dr. Murray S. Stedman was elected director.

Mrs. J. R. Salisbury of Kansas City, Missouri, president of the National Council of Presbyterian Women’s Organizations, which has a membership of over 625,000, told of the program of prayer, study, service and giving—world wide in its witness for Jesus Christ.

A truly significant paper, “The Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. and the Public Schools,” was presented by the Board of Christian Education after more than two years of research. Among other things, the report:

1. defines certain areas of common loyalties of the public school and church and expresses a strong conviction that Presbyterians must remain loyal to public education;

2. demands continuance of the traditional principle of separation of Church and State;

3. enunciates a policy limiting the promotion of Presbyterian parochial schools;

4. opposes the support of independent and parochial schools through the use of public funds;

5. maintains that the public school teacher is in a strategic role to exercise a keen sense of Christian vocation;

6. urgently requests Presbyterians in this country to work actively for the improved financial support of public schools.

The report was enthusiastically adopted.

A committee on the rewording of the Shorter Catechism recommended that the questions and answers on the Shorter Catechism remain unaltered.

The Assembly paid tribute to more than 2,800 national missionaries by receiving unanimously the report of the National Missions Board, which provides for college scholarship assistance for the children of national missionaries. A corporation was created to sell bonds in the amount of $10,000,000 to be used to finance on a loan basis new church development.

As part of the report of the Committee on Evangelism, prayer was offered for the blessing of God upon the Billy Graham Crusade in New York City. The Assembly telegraphed assurance of prayer and support to Dr. Graham.

The Board of Foreign Missions reported that the task of the Church had reached a crucial moment—brought about not by its failure but by its success in establishing indigenous churches in many lands. To facilitate the world mission and to cooperate with new churches, the Assembly voted to establish a commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations to succeed the present Board of Foreign Missions and the Permanent Commission on Interchurch Relations.

One could not help but be impressed by the dedication and the evangelical concern, not only by the board and agencies but by the commissioners themselves, as in prayerful democracy the Church was committed again to the “Whole Gospel for the Whole World.”

In Christ’s Name

Pressure to keep Christians from praying in Christ’s name at public meetings was denounced in a joint statement issued by the Greater Miami Ministerial Association and the Greater Miami Council of Churches.

The resolution said:

“We record herewith our profound disapproval of any such attempts to bind the conscience of any man or woman of any faith.

“We believe that such acts and attitudes are disruptive of the spirit of fair play, tolerance and understanding among our people and represent a denial of the principles of religious freedom and the right of free speech.”

The churchmen said any prayer offered in public or semi-public or private assembly should be “in accordance with the religious convictions of the person offering the prayer—whether he be Protestant, Catholic or Jew, or a representative of any other religious faith or sect.”

The resolution did not name any specific cases. But it said that “various pressures have been exerted in the public schools, in parent teachers association groups, in certain civic clubs and in a variety of public and semi-public functions where custom, tradition or the solemnity of the occasion indicate that prayer should be offered, to prescribe and proscribe the character of that prayer in a way that is an affront to the integrity of the minister’s or layman’s faith and a violation of his conscience.

“Specifically, Christian people have been requested, or forbidden, as the case may be, not to pray as Christians, sometimes upon pain of punishment, wherever it could be administered.”

In an accompanying explanation, the Rev. J. Wayte Fulton, Jr., president of the ministerial group, said some of the pressure has been the result of misunderstanding of how important it is for a Christian to pray in Christ’s name.

From 5 To 500

In the spring of 1857 groups from five Michigan communities—Grand Rapids, Polkton (Coopersville), Vriesland, Graafschaap and Noordeloos—withdrew from the Reformed Church of America and formed the beginning of the Christian Reformed denomination.

There were five churches, 750 people, and one minister, who traveled around in an ox cart.

Vern Boerman, writing in the Muskegon Chronicle, said Abraham Lincoln was campaigning to be a senator when the denomination was born.

The writer added:

“They were part of those Reformed Christians in the Netherlands who had suffered hardship because they protested against a State Church. They were part of those who came from the Old World land of dikes and windmills to America, the haven for people from many lands.

“In its century of existence the Christian Reformed denomination has had many forms of growth and change—from the Dutch language to English, modifying from a primarily Dutch church to one including Americans of many backgrounds, founding a church-supported college and seminary, establishing a system of domestic and foreign missions, working on neighborhood evangelism, sharing in the construction of Christian grade and high schools, establishing local and national radio broadcasts, publishing magazines, books and literature.

“Today, the Christian Reformed Church reaches from Nova Scotia to California, from Alaska to Florida. It embraces a quarter-million people in over 500 churches.”

Elaborate celebrations will mark the centennial observance.

Hoover’s Challenge

The following statement, concerning crime and church responsibility, was made especially for CHRISTIANITY TODAY by John Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation:

“Thoughtful citizens everywhere are alarmed over the continued upsurge in youthful lawlessness. Last year arrests of young people under 18 years increased 17.3 percent over the previous year in our cities. Population in the 10–17 age group increased less than three percent in the same period.

There are, of course, many causes contributing to juvenile delinquency, but one which I have repeatedly observed is the absence of individual moral character in our youth. Let us never forget that Christ emphasized the inherent worth of the individual. Teaching this fact is the joint responsibility of the home and church.

“Unfortunately, many homes today do not provide a standard of moral character as a guide to young people. We cannot ignore that our churches do not reach all young people and many of them have little familiarity with Christ’s teachings. Obviously, this presents a real challenge to our churches. The material richness and glitter of the life of our times provides many temptations for our youth. If they do not know Christ and the Word of God, and lack the standard for guidance, we can expect a continuing increase in the number of young people who are brought before the courts each year. When the Word of God is absent, chaos may enter young lives. Our churches must reach the youth of America.”

Missionary Alliance

Member churches and other supporting organizations of the Christian and Missionary Alliance contributed a record $3,718,668 for its work during 1956, an increase of $284,266 over 1945.

Of the total, $2,299,586 was spent to support the Alliance’s mission work.

These reports were made at the organization’s 60th annual meeting recently in Charlotte, N. C. More than 1,000 delegates attended.

President H. L. Turner of New York said the interdenominational agency sent 103 new missionaries into 22 foreign fields last year. He reported the total number of active missionaries abroad to be 786.

All The Answers

Before it tries to solve problems of society, psychiatry should first solve its own problems, Dr. Francis J. Braceland, president of the American Psychiatric Association, told the group convention in Chicago.

He stated:

“To attempt to pose all the answers to problems ranging from preventing international wars to bickering over back fences is to invite public discredit.… Psychiatry still can’t agree, for example, on whether mental illness is a chemical derangement of the body or an end result of emotional wounds in children.”

The likelihood, he added, “is that both the mind and the body are involved in the problem. And perhaps even these aren’t the whole story. Apparently the problem is wrapped up with man’s whole being, his higher aspirations, the meaning of his life, the understanding of himself and his place in the order of things.”

Spreading The Word

The number of languages and dialects into which at least one book of the Bible has been translated passed the 1,100-mark during 1956, The American Bible Society reported at its 141st annual meeting.

The entire Bible has been published in 210 languages and dialects; a complete Testament in an additional 270 and at least a book in 629.

Business Transaction

Three acts of Congress were necessary for the Acworth (Ga.) Methodist Church to buy seven acres of land from the Army Engineers Corps.

A bill was first introduced by Rep. Henderson H. Lanham (D.-Ga.) to give the Army Engineers permission to sell the land.

Congress approved the bill but the House and Senate quickly recalled the measure from President Eisenhower’s desk. The White House discovered that the bill erroneously specified 9,990 feet instead of 990 as the depth of the tract. Both Houses passed the measure again and sent it back to the President.

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