OLD GRAD

At our homecoming grid classic I was attracted to an Old Grad type who was blocking my view of the field. Several contacts were made during the game, mostly by his elbows, but I established rapport—after the winning touchdown—when he embraced me and then helped find my glasses under the stands.

When that old boy pulled off jersey 66 in ’26 he lost not only his glory but his identity. Homecoming was the annual climax of his quest for community.

The pathetic Old Grad is a rare bird, but the species is plentiful in different plumage. There is the lodge member variant; in business men’s clubs the cultic backslap is the mark of the order. The most ominous mutation has the widest distribution; the Old Grad Patriot. At a political rally he cheers the American Way of Life with the Old Grad’s compulsive zeal. Secretly he yearns for a Big Game (with survivors, of course, to celebrate V-R day).

The Old Grad is an idolater. He seeks the meaning of life in communities which are only means in life. Loyalty to a group or a nation, made supreme, becomes a curse. Modern nationalism from the French Revolution to Hitler and Stalin has been a pseudo-religion feeding like a heavy-bellied vulture on the corpse of the Christian faith.

We dare not offer the American eagle that diet. To insist in the name of democracy that a man’s religious creed makes no difference if he is a “good American” is to make Americanism the sole creed that is religious. Christ’s disciple is a loyal citizen for conscience sake, but he has one Master to Whom alone he renders that which is God’s. Over all his loyalties is the cross he took up when he denied the world to follow Him. The citizen of heaven is not an “Old Grad” but a new creature!

EUTYCHUS

PEACE IN OUR DAY

Most men and women want peace, first because war hurts them and secondly because it hurts other people. Few—if we are honest—hate war because it hurts God! And so we desire and maybe pray for peace.

Now I never pray for peace, not because I want war, for I hate war as much as anybody else, and have had my fill in two world conflagrations. But I don’t pray for peace: I pray for righteousness, for the simple reason that if individuals and nations were righteous, peace would inevitably follow.

The Bible is so clear on the point. “The work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance for ever” (Isaiah 32:17). In Romans 14:17 and 2 Timothy 2:22 the order is righteousness, peace; and note how peace comes second in James 3:17, “The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable.” And so the Christian motto is “Righteousness at any cost” and not “Peace at any price.”

LT. GEN. SIR ARTHUR SMITH

Pres., World Evangelical Fellowship

London, England

AUTHORITY OF BIBLE

Some day—25 years from now—you will write what we liberals have been preaching for years … Jesus Christ is the word of God to man … You conservatives still distrust the Holy Spirit and want “word” authority in place if the Pope. The early church had no “Bible” in the sense you speak … The basic authority of Bible truth is found in experience …

VERNON T. SMITH

First Presbyterian Church

Holt, Mich.

• Evangelical theology asserts, on the authority of the biblical witness, that Jesus Christ is the Word of God to man. And it notes that Jesus provided, in his regard for the Old Testament, a precedent for the view that there exists an authoritative canon of revealed truth.—ED.

STUDY OF MATTHEW

In the outline of Matthew’s Gospel (CT, Book of the Month, Oct. 15) the writer states: “Resurrection and Ascension, chapter 28.” Matthew does not mention the ascension of Christ. It is a studied point … that he leaves the Christ with us.… In the beginning of his Gospel he writes, “Immanuel, … God with us,” 1:23; in the middle, he records Christ’s words, “there am I in the midst of them,” 18:20; at the end, he records “I am with you always,” 28:20.… The error detracts from the meaning of the endings of the Gospels—Matthew with the Resurrection, Mark the Ascension, Luke with the promise of the Spirit’s coming, John with a word of the coming again of Christ.

DR. ARTHUR PETRIE

Seattle Bible Training School

Seattle, Wash.

EBB AND FLOW

First issue good, but anemic—not militant enough.…

LEROY VICTOR CLEVELAND

Henniker, N. H.

It’s nice, it is even crickett and I’ll be doggone if it’s not religion—not this modernistic kind but this plain old Jesus died up for us. Hold up you’ han. Make money for de lawd.

CENTURY LOVER

New Orleans, La.

I had no idea that something so vital would ever be coming onto the American scene … Much encouragement, and my subscription.

HERBERT A. SCHULZE

Immanuel Ev. Luth. Church

Bristol, Conn.

Theological Liberalism has no appeal for me but neither has condemnatory Fundamentalism … Your effort to lead ministers to true Bible preaching ought to bear rich fruit.

F. J. MONSCHKE

Alhambra, Calif.

Right now I don’t see how you can remain true to your announced outlook and aims without a major conversion of your announced staff. The first issue reads much like a “must.” But I am still a “Thomas” for the time being.

H. LOUIS PATRICK

Westminster Presbyterian Church

St. Louis, Mo.

It is what a young pastor needs to keep up with the trend of thought and to receive inspiration.

BOB MARSH

Spring Hill Ave. Baptist Church

Mobile, Ala.

Protestant ministers of all denominations throughout the United States responded with candor and directness to CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S inquiry: “What change for the better in American affairs do you desire for your candidate if elected?” More than 2,000 clergymen, participating in this representative sampling of personal conviction, mirrored their long-range concern for a brighter America.

Their answers hold a significant interest not simply for the victors at the polls, but for the large and influential Christian community in American life.

In its pre-election news section (Oct. 29 issue), CHRISTIANITY TODAY reported that its random sampling of ministers from all states indicated favor for President Eisenhower over Governor Stevenson by eight-to-one. These percentages were more than confirmed by many hundreds of additional replies received after press time. Yet the manses, parsonages and rectories of America left no doubt that, whichever party would be triumphant at the polls, the national scene calls urgently for specific improvements during the next four years.

The wide disparity between the eight-to-one ministerial vote and the public vote generally sounds a warning against regarding ministerial conviction as an automatic index to the public mind. Less disparity exists between the Protestant clergy and Protestant church members, doubtless, than between the clergy and the citizenry as a whole. Yet the clergy are often motivated more intensely (dare we say, always more highly?) and their statistics provide a specialized index of opinion.

Ministers expressed deep conviction that the future of America depends more upon the application of spiritual concepts in national and international life and less upon a specific political party or candidate. The pulpit popularity of President Eisenhower in his re-election campaign sprang from his identification with an attitude of faith in God and in objective moral norms more than sheer party considerations, although policy issues bore conspicuous weight.

Facing The Right Way

Ministerial anxiety for the enhancement of national life is not confined simply to one party or shade of political conviction. It included, however, an underlying confidence in the direction given to political life by the Eisenhower administration. This accounts, no doubt, for the relative absence of any radical indictment of prevailing American outlook. Almost one in eighteen of the ministers who voted for Eisenhower in both 1952 and 1956 in effect wrote: “No change; he is doing O.K.” Endorsement of policy ran considerably higher among pro-Eisenhower clergy who had no vote in 1952. Better than one in three in this category urged simply that he “keep up the good work.”

Although no sense of panic prevails about the temper of national life, the ministerial hope for the future nonetheless incorporated the hope of dramatic change. Appreciative of the fact that America in the last four years had been put somewhat more conspicuously “under God” than in recent decades, they shared no illusion that “God’s in the White House (or hovers very near),” as a writer in The Manchester Guardian recently opined. The significant proposals came from clergy of Republican and Democratic vision alike, as well as from those identified with neither party. They came from ministers who supported the same candidate both in 1952 and 1956 as insistently as from switch-voters.

Foreign Policy A Concern

CHRISTIANITY TODAY returns were tabulated as pro-Eisenhower, pro-Stevenson, and Others (Undecided), with special alertness to switch-voting. In almost every block of clergy votes, an improved foreign policy during the next four years was marked the greatest imperative. Ministers who switched from Stevenson in 1952 to Eisenhower in 1956 provided the lone exception, for they assigned greater urgency to the pursuit of an aggressive and realistic program of racial desegregation.

Dissatisfactions over foreign policy ran deeper than agreement on a satisfactory alternative. Many recommendations were vague and general, favoring a program more vigorous, stable and progressive. The goal of “continuing maturity” and of “less sporadic moves” in foreign policy was vigorously pressed.

Specific suggestions for implementing a program of strong world leadership were not lacking, however, and ministers sought to outline elements of “a more decidedly Christian foreign policy.”

Clergymen voting for Stevenson both in 1952 and 1956 suggested that a realistic grasp of international affairs would involve less reliance on military measures and more active support of international cooperation.

Clergymen twice supporting Eisenhower also worked their creative concern for continued progress and integrity in world affairs into specific suggestions for the easing of international tension. Only occasionally was there a protest against “many blunders” and a demand for “changes in the State Department,” for example, “get rid of Dulles.” Most expressions reflected a more moderate pursuit of “wise and planned foreign policy.”

Specific recommendations divided almost equally along four lines: world peace, the United Nations, foreign aid, and long-term moral perspective.

International Morality

An aggressive spiritual-moral international policy was a recurring plea. Ministers asked for “foreign relations from idealistic principles and not from opportunistic motivation,” for “world security built on a trusting spiritual level, and less on military spending,” for “more consistent emphasis on spiritual values,” for “continued stress on moral and spiritual uplift.” “Russia is ahead of us in propaganda,” wrote one minister, adding a plea for good will. Virtually all who touched the subject asked for a tougher policy with Russia: “less bending before Russian bluff,” “a firmer stand toward Russia … whose pledged word cannot be trusted. Oh, for a Teddy Roosevelt!”; “more drastic stand against Russia and the Communist party,” “no dealings with Russia, no recognition of Red China,” “firmer policy with regard to Red Countries, and passage of the Bricker amendment.” On the positive side were suggestions like: “stand up more firmly for freedom all over the world,” “help the colonial states obtain independence.”

The subject of future relations to the United Nations was as frequently raised. Some clergymen, without any reference to the U.N., urged greater appreciation of world responsibility: “internationally-minded government,” “improved relations with Far East and India as well as Near East,” “more interest in under-dog nations,” “less nationalism, more world vision.” But nationalistic emphasis was not lacking. Comment on U.N. participation was sharply divided, with a seven to five edge for those favoring greater activity. Opposition to U.N. participation was often strongly worded: “take U.S. out of the U.N. and U.N. out of the U.S.”

Pursuit Of Peace

Yet Protestant ministers reflected the need for greater determination in the pursuit of world peace. Only one minister, however, went so far as to urge “peace at any cost.” But others stressed the need for “creative world-peace pursuits.” One in five of the ministers who stipulated world peace as the major concern of the future called for a lessening of preparation for war: “cut spending for war efforts,” “less emphasis on bombs and materials of war,” “more effort on international disarmament.” On the positive side, ministers urged a stronger peace program “by a firmer stand on equity,” “work diligently for international friendships,” “work in the interests of world peace through the U.N.”

Foreign Aid

The controversial subject of foreign aid drew wide suggestion of future overhauling. The conviction that foreign aid should be reduced outweighed that emphasis that it be increased three and one-half to one. For increased spending came such sentiment as: “more Point IV aid to backward foreign peoples,” “more liberal policy of aid to needy peoples or nations,” “use of U.S. power, food, natural resources for world-wide peaceful progress,” “more foreign aid—in the form of raising their standard of living.” On the negative side, ministers urged curtailment, but only one called for “cancellation of foreign aid.” The prevailing tenor was for “foreign aid—but less,” “re-evaluation of our foreign give-away,” “a gradual weaning from federal giveaway.” Suggested principles of limitation were: “stop aid to Yugoslavia,” “support freedom and justice only in foreign policy,” “foreign aid reduced and the money used to improve America,” “quit trying to buy friendship from other nations,” “less military, more economical and technical assistance.”

Changes From Eisenhower

Foreign policy aside, the main areas of hoped for improvement revealed in CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S poll, by those who had supported the Eisenhower candidacy twice, were ranged in the following order of priority: readjustment of the economic outlook (10%); intensification of the spiritual-moral emphasis (10%); decentralization of government, with stress on state rights (7½%); implementing of desegration (3½%); anti-liquor legislation (2%); more vigorous policy of church-state separation (1¼%); more vigorous anti-communist program (1¼%); federal aid to schools (1%). The only conspicuous counter-trend was in the priority assigned by almost 4% to “care for the little man,” mostly in the interest of the farmer. The antisocialist sentiment (3%), included in the figures for decentralization of government, was frequently linked to a plea for curbing labor unions. The top priority was given foreign policy by just under 11% of the clergy twice supporting Eisenhower.

The issues just indicated accounted for half of the returns in this category. They do not reflect, however, vigorous pleas (although in lesser number) for curtailing military spending, special interest legislation, and for increasing old age benefits, strengthening social security laws, improved solution of the Palestine refugee problems, and scores of other problems assigned first importance by individual clergymen.

The Undecided Vote

The “undecided” vote included almost twice as many ministers who had voted for Eisenhower in 1952 as for Stevenson, and as many who had not voted in 1952. Some reflected dissatisfaction with both major parties and candidates. “We need a new party, or a candidate who will dare to commit himself to constitutional government,” wrote a New York City pastor. One Indiana minister wrote that he would vote for “nobody,” and another, “either the third party or none at all.” A Florida minister said he is still looking for a candidate “who will balance well all interests in American life—labor, financial interests, segregation.” The bulk of the disappointment over President Eisenhower’s first term concerned the failure to reverse the trend to socialism, and the failure to curtail the huge foreign aid program and to reduce taxes at home. The plea for a stronger anti-communist foreign policy, for an end of creeping socialism (“get government out of business”), for drastic reduction of expenditures and taxes, represented more than half the replies in this category. The defection from Governor Stevenson reflected greater confidence in the current Republican foreign policy, despite criticisms, than with the Democratic alternative. A number of “undecided” ministers called for a firmer stand on church-state separation, asking, for example, for “a positive stand on freedom of religion wherever American money and troops are sent abroad” and for a cessation of federal aid “to any church-sponsored institutions at home and abroad.” Undecided ministers voting for the first time showed, proportionately, the greatest concern over the liquor traffic in America, coupled with a marked determination to vote the Prohibition ticket. Ministers in at least five states called insistently for outlawing the liquor traffic.

Risks In A Lobby

CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S poll of Protestant ministers dramatizes the risk of attempting to express “the position” of a denomination—either the views of its clergy or of the church members—on political and economic issues.

Among Protestant clergymen, remarkable diversity of conviction prevails on the direction in which spiritual priorities are to be applied, and hence on social issues of the day. Protestant ministers do not receive socio-economic directives from a church hierarchy, which imposes upon them an official ecclesiastical “party line.” The turmoil of conflicting Protestant opinion on far-reaching social issues may provide little comfort for those who feel that the church should vote and act with one mind on the political scene. But the unanimity which the church should have is the proclamation of the Gospel of personal salvation, which in turn shapes a new social order by shaping new men. The fact of conflict in assessing politico-social options is not wholly disastrous, although in some respects it grows out of a departure from the principles of biblical social ethics—as when Christianity is identified, as it has been by liberal thinkers, with pacifism, Communism, or some other “ism.” For biblical principles applied even to secondary options will have a way of inspiriting them and lessening their lameness.

But the stark fact of disagreement on leading social issues is a reminder that official church agencies only at great risk constitute themselves pressure lobbies for specific politico-economic objectives. Seldom do they actually have a mandate from the ministers of their churches, let alone the laity, to absolutize such objectives in the name of their denominational constituencies. In doing so, they run the peril of violating democratic rights within their churches, in the presumed course of contributing stability to democracy in the nation.

Protestantism obviously lacks an authoritative view on social issues in a generation plagued by social ills. The division on social strategy runs as deep today as the theological cleavage in Protestantism, although the two factions do not correspond absolutely. More liberal churchmen, whose theology has not undergone a full conservative revision, today acknowledge the fallacy of socialism, and appear ready to combine the theological left with the economic right. In the welter of confusion, it is understandable that men with a concern for the Protestant witness to a culture near chaos should promote the idea of unity in social reconstruction. But to compensate for a disunity which grows out of a basic departure from biblical norms by a unity which is manmade is to jump out of confusion into caprice.

The Present Imperative

The great need today, as American Protestantism recoils from the invasion of its theology and social ethics by speculative evolutionary principles during the century of Liberalism, is to find its way back to the centrality of the Gospel, and to the recognition that hope for a new society is best mediated to any nation through the spiritual regeneration of its masses. In the long run, it is the decision made at this level which will answer the question of where America goes from here.

In 1936, C. H. Dodd, a leading New Testament scholar of Great Britain, said concerning John, “I am disposed to think that the understanding of this Gospel is not only one of the outstanding tasks of our time, but the crucial test of our success or failure in solving the problem of the New Testament as a whole.”

What is the problem of the Fourth Gospel? It is a multiple problem involving authorship, relation to the Synoptic Gospels, the religious milieu upon which it draws for its ideas, and its historical character.

The amount of literary labor expended on John is immense. A glance at the book shelves in the present writer’s study reveals more volumes on John than on the other three Gospels combined. Our British friends have been particularly active in this field over the years.

Authorship

A practically unbroken line of testimony from the ancient Church assigns the Gospel to John the son of Zebedee. If it be objected that the first clear-cut witness is Irenaeus in the latter part of the second century, which is rather late, one may reply (1) that the period before Irenaeus is one of comparative silence on the literary side, (2) that the lack of positive testimony to John’s authorship in this early period may well be due to the use of the Gospel by the heretical Gnostics, (3) that the testimony of Irenaeus gains in weight when it is recognized that only one person linked him to John, namely, the saintly Polycarp.

The counterclaim that John died at an early age, though supposedly derived from Papias, who lived a half-century before Irenaeus, actually comes from sources several centuries later. If this was really put forward by Papias, one would expect the early Church fathers to have taken some note of it. Since the inspiration for such an opinion, no matter what its source, is the saying of Jesus to the sons of Zebedee about drinking His cup, the report may safely be dismissed as having arisen out of a need to fulfill Jesus’ prediction.

Some moderns have been attracted to the notion that John the Elder, a rather shadowy figure who is supposed to have lived at Ephesus, may be the real author. When this viewpoint takes the form that the afore-mentioned John was scarcely more than an amanuensis, little objection need be raised. But to assume that another John who stood outside the apostolic circle is responsible for the Gospel creates needless difficulty. Would the Church be inclined to receive into its canon of Scripture an account so different from the tradition embodied in the Synoptics, which were already in use and which rested upon apostolic authority? The only circumstance which would suffice to clear this hurdle is the indisputable apostolicity of the book.

The Johannine authorship has had and continues to have scholarly support over the last half-century despite many voices clamoring against it. Such men as Ethelbert Stauffer of Erlangen, A. C. Headlam, Scott Holland, J. Armitage Robinson, and H. P. V. Nunn affirm the traditional position.

Relation To Synoptic Gospels

Ninety per cent of the material in the Fourth Gospel is unique, having no counterpart in the others. Lacking is any account of the birth of Jesus, His baptism and temptation, the transfiguration, the parabolic teaching, and the Eucharistic sayings of our Lord. A few miracles (signs) chosen out of many serve as the foil for a series of discourses in which some of the many aspects of Christ’s person are given prominence. Peculiar to John is the long discourse in the Upper Room.

This Gospel contains a framework of history that is wanting in the Synoptics. From it we obtain the perspective of a ministry considerably longer than the single year accounted for by the other Evangelists. In particular, John opens to us the Judean ministry. To Scott Holland belongs the credit of showing not only that the Synoptics presuppose such a ministry—others have pointed out that the friends at Bethany, the owner of the colt, the good man of the house at Jerusalem, as well as the “how often” in Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem demand His presence there on previous occasions—but of showing that the Synoptics are really unintelligible without the Judean ministry reported by John. The withdrawal to Galilee and the conduct of the mission there, noted in the Synoptics (Matt. 4:12), have their explanation in the opposition stirred up against Jesus by reason of His early activity in Judea.

Though the Synoptics sketch the determined ascent to Jerusalem at the climax of the ministry and treat the issue as predetermined, since the city has had its time of visitation and has not perceived it, only the activity of the Lord in the holy city prior to this time, as told by John, explains the situation. One could wish that every Christian had the opportunity to read the tremendous passages by Scott Holland on this subject.

Relation To Contemporary Thought

On the question of John’s relation to the world of religious and philosophical thought of his time, the safest verdict is that he was not unacquainted with what his contemporaries were thinking and saying, and that he used their conceptions as steppingstones to lead them to a heightened appreciation of Christ. Such may well be the import of his introduction of the Son of God as the Logos in the prologue and the rather frequent recurrence of the word know. The Hermetic literature of Egypt abounds in this emphasis as well as in allusions to light and life. The uniqueness of John lies in the presentation of Jesus Christ as the indispensable means of knowing God the Father and as the One in Whom men must trust if they would know.

C. H. Dodd has been so impressed with the Hellenic background of the Fourth Gospel that he concludes the book must have been written to make converts to Christianity among intelligent Hellenes. But this flies in the face of the declared purpose of the writing—that the readers may continue to believe (the literal force of the verb in 20:31). At various points in the Gospel, John emphasizes the increased demand for faith that Jesus placed upon His followers. Corresponding to this, we are permitted to observe from time to time the heightened response of the Twelve to this demand. The book was written for believers, and for those familiar with the Synoptic tradition, but written in such a way as to present the claims of Christ to the unbeliever.

Historical Character

The tradition, in part old, in large part put forward here for the first time, at least in written form, is presented by John not merely as a recital of events but even more as an interpretation of the person of our Lord. The strong insistence on the Word made flesh (1:14) constitutes a protest against the Docetizing tendency already at work in the first century.

Sometimes it has been asserted that this Gospel has a mystical approach to Jesus, but this is misleading, for mysticism is careless of historical considerations. In its extreme form it calls for identification with the deity. John, like the rest of the writers of the New Testament, preserves the distinction between God and the creature despite the wonder of the new life in Christ.

The Gospel’s Value

The book has immeasurable value both for the preacher and the teacher of the Word. Evangelistic texts dot its chapters by scores and hundreds. No Christian teacher can ignore the Gospel, especially the incomparable Upper Room discourse.

It may be said of this book more truly than of any other in the New Testament that it may be studied on more than one level. Even the most elementary approach yields great blessing. On the other hand, the theologian cannot exhaust the truths suggested here.

John may be approached from various standpoints, such as the discourses, where the writer, much like Paul in Galatians 2, starts with a definite historical situation and glides into theological reflection based upon it. Or one may make a study of the signs, or of the I Am’s, or of the ruling concepts that are mediated through the recurring key words: light, life, truth, glory, know, believe. Again, one may trace the Tabernacle structure through the book, using 1:14 as the starting point. Fine sermonic material may be gleaned from a study of the individuals found here, many of whom are scarcely more than names in the Synoptics. In John they become characters. We see them develop under the tutelage of Christ.

Tools For Exposition

Of the older works, Godet and Bishop Westcott have an abiding usefulness. Among the newer volumes, William Temple’s Readings in St. John’s Gospel (1945) is not detailed but suggestive. In 1940 appeared E. C. Hoskyn’s commentary, treating John mainly from the standpoint of its theological implications. No one should miss consulting this work. One of the latest is by C. K. Barrett (1955). It is more valuable for its long introduction than for its comments.

Among American writers mention should be made of M. C. Tenney’s John, the Gospel of Belief (1948), R. C. H. Lenski’s The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (1931) and William Hendriksen’s two volumes (1953).

Two works that are not really commentaries are nevertheless pertinent because of their attempt to unfold the thought of the Gospel. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (1953), explores John in terms of contemporary religious and philosophical thought in the Hellenic world. Rumor has it that Dr. Dodd is planning to continue his studies in a second volume. W. H. Rigg, The Fourth Gospel and Its Message for Today (1952), is less concerned with the extrabiblical approach. He seeks to expound the great themes of the Gospel in terms of the message itself.

Students of the Upper Room discourse will find T. D. Bernard’s The Central Teaching of Jesus Christ (1892) richly rewarding. For a treatment of our Lord’s prayer in chapter 17, nothing surpasses Marcus Rainsford’s Our Lord Prays for His Own, since 1950 once more available. Another valuable commentary, but not so readily obtainable, is John Brown’s “Exposition of John XVII” (1850) which Spurgeon described as “deep, full, and overflowing.”

Though it is not a commentary, W. F. Albright’s contribution to The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology (1956) is valuable for its support of the historical trustworthiness of the book from the standpoint of archeology.

It is to me an astonishing thing that nearly all the exponents of the Christian Faith seek to commend it mostly in intellectual or in personal terms. We seek to make people understand that they need faith as interpretation for their wonderment about what life is, as refuge and solace for its hurts and lonelinesses, as dynamic to lend aim and purpose to their lives. We seek to help them to know that the faith can stand on its own feet intellectually. These things are abundantly true, and it is in the personal realm that religion must find its rise and take root.

Freedom Has A Christian Basis

But there is another angle of approach which we do not take as often as we might. It is simply the practical one of reminding people who enjoy the blessings of human freedom that they owe this blessing primarily to the Christian Faith, and if they are concerned to help make the world a good place for their descendants, they had better ask what shall be its spiritual climate. From whence shall we find sufficient inward force to stand against the barbarism and inhumanity and tyranny and slavery that have arisen in our time? Military defense, industrial strength, political and diplomatic adroitness are necessary and important; but they do not have in themselves enough of a worldview to stand against the godless and materialistic view of the world which is rampant about us.

There are a great many people today who find in some kind of Naturalism or enlightened Humanism all the explanation they need, in friends and family and culture all the solace they need, in some creative interests and work all the dynamic they need. They may be young, well, happily married and reasonably successful. No appeal of personal need may reach them at the moment. But there will come a day when some deeper awareness of need will arise, when life will carry them through some dark valley of sorrow or of suffering. Must we wait till this time before we can expect them to wake up?

Sometimes this will be true. But there is a way into their hearts and minds that we have too seldom tried. It is the simple, practical approach of (1) reminding them whence came our chief blessings, especially freedom; and (2) asking them which way they want the world to go in the future. Jacques Maritain says that “States will be obliged to make a choice for or against the Gospel. They will be shaped either by the totalitarian spirit or by the Christian spirit.”

I find this appeal almost unknown by many educated people. They still persist in thinking that some people are weak and need religion, while others (like themselves) are strong and do not need it. Such paltry private considerations loom very small when you ask in which direction the world is going. Such people take for granted the freedom and other characteristic blessings which we enjoy in the western world, as if they were natural rights, not privileges, and were to be found quite easily. They have forgotten, or never known, how scarce a thing freedom has been, how rare in all human annals. They have not learned that the real centerpiece of the West is Christianity; nor have they considered that, if we would continue to enjoy the fruits of freedom, we had better look to the roots of faith. Shall there be less freedom, or more of it, in the world in which our children are growing? Are we using up our freedom as prodigally as we are using our water supply? If faith is the root, of which freedom is the fruit, it is high time we warned people that their legitimate human interests may very well be directly involved with the success of the Christian enterprise.

The Syrian Stream Runs Deep

I know very well that there are other factors in western civilization than Christianity. Arnold Toynbee says, “The Greek wave coalesced with a Syrian wave, and it is this union that has generated the Christian civilization of the Western world.” Nearly everyone knows the debt we owe the Greeks in all our search for truth. But let’s face it, the Syrian wave (in its Christian form) has spread vastly farther and more deeply into the world than the Greek. On one occasion in a university I seemed to be making too great a claim for the influence of Christianity on the West, and saying too little for the Greek, and a faculty historian challenged me. I asked him if he did not think that Christianity had been the pervasive and popular force that had primarily carried the double blessing, of Syrian and Greek influence, down the centuries; and he allowed this might be true.

We must, of course, remind ourselves that western civilization is not our first concern: Christianity itself is that. But there are substantiating effects in western civilization with which some of us will not readily part. When Toynbee calls ours ‘Christian’ civilization, one is sure he does not mean we are Christian through and through, but rather that the greatest blessings we have, including those values to which we sometimes give devotion, and sometimes only lip-service, derive from Christianity. Much of western civilization has grown fat, soft, comfortable and irresponsible with its own blessings. Unless we are mindful whence they came, and unless we share their benefits with others, we shall lose them, for we shall misuse as well as misunderstand them. But let us still be thankful for the amount of freedom to travel, to know the news, to live at a level of physical comfort above the need for grinding toil, which so many enjoy in our land. These are in themselves good things, when observed in the light of a religion that is concerned “for the body as well as for the soul.”

Self-Interest A Proper Appeal

In suggesting that the good human effects of Christianity are further reason for believing in Christianity and working for it, one is sometimes accused of appealing to self-interest. I have no hesitation whatever in appealing to anyone’s self-interest to get him to come quickly out of a burning house, or to go and have a physical examination when he appears to have cancer. What seems to me at stake today is human survival. If a man can be persuaded to give his attention to the Christian religion, on the basis that this may give him a whole view of life, improve his human relations, and help him win the war of ideas between the forces led by Christian thinking as against those led by communist thinking, thank God for having such a practical point of contact by which you can get his attention! There is a great deal of pseudo-spirituality floating about which asks for a purely unselfish approach to the search for God. Come, come, which of us was ever disinterestedly unselfish when we sought God? We sought Him because we needed Him. We used Him at the first, as our little children use us. Later on, let us hope, we came by a more mature mind, and began asking God to use us.

Do not forget that Jesus’ own sayings are filled with the thought of reward, understood as meaning that what He held out to us was good for us. “Seek and ye shall find”. “He that loseth his life for My sake, the same shall find it.” “Seek ye first the Kingdom … and all these things shall be added unto you.” We find some persecution also promised in this arrangement; but the New Testament is not so squeamish about rewards as we are. Do not ask a drowning man to be too meticulous about his motives: he is drowning and he would like to be saved.

Our Malady Is Spiritual Poverty

Our civilization is in just such critical danger. We need help. We ask for it with desperation. If God wills to send it, we shall remember one day to say “Thank You” and one day we shall even begin to say, “Now what do You want me to do?” And then we shall be in the way of getting converted. But the beginning is way back in the elementals of human desperation and need. Too many men, and especially clergy, forget how primitive and unspiritual was their own first cry to God, and persist in making their hearers feel that, unless you come to God from some high motive, you dare not come to Him at all. It is contrary to natural life, as we know it in our children, and to spiritual life, as we have known it in ourselves. Away with this pseudo-spirituality! Our world is sick and we are sick, and our sickness is primarily our poverty of faith in God and the Christ to Whom we owe just about everything of worth that we know. Let us be simply honest about our need. God has answered many a selfish prayer, and then led the prayer on to better things.

Democracy Does Not Stand Alone

Do we need proof of the dependence of our western freedom on our inherited Christian faith? Let me give you just a few statements which carry weight. William Aylott Orton of Yale said, “… it is only in the Christian doctrine of man that we can find a firm and reasoned ground for the American affirmation.” G. K. Chesterton said, “There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” T. S. Eliot says, “The term democracy … does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces that you dislike—it can easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.” And there is the widely-quoted remark of William Penn, “Men must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants.”

If we will not accept the dicta of believers in democracy, we should at least accept those of men who hate and vilify it. Karl Marx said, “The democratic concept of man is false, because it is Christian. The democratic concept holds that each man has a value as a sovereign being. This is the illusion, dream and postulate of Christianity.” And Adolph Hitler said, “To the Christian doctrine of the infinite significance of the individual human soul, I oppose with icy clarity the saving doctrine of the nothingness and insignificance of the individual human being.”

The Best A Christian Bequest

We are not saying that western civilization is perfect: we are saying that the best things in it derive from the Christian heritage. We are saying that freedom is one of faith’s best and most important results. And we are saying that the thing that may catch the attention and the imagination of some selfish, and even sodden, beneficiary of our culture and civilization and freedom may be a reminder of what may happen to his hide in the immediate future, when you cannot get him to think about what is going to happen to his soul in eternity. When he finds out how much he owes temporally to the Christian Gospel, he may wake up and realize that he should be doing something about a faith to which he owes so much.

There are, I think, excellent reasons for beginning where people are, rather than where they should be. We must not fear; instead we should with all honesty and integrity try to make some appeal to the common sense and long-range self-interest of the ordinary man. It would do theoretically-minded clergy a great deal of good to have to think out a really logical argument to convince a skeptic or a materialist that it would be good for him to help forward the Christian enterprise.

Liberty Without God Breeds Bondage

We all know that the danger of freedom is always its misuse. Left to himself, left to a philosophy that does without God, man becomes more and more selfish in the use of his liberty. This in turn will require more and more controls from somewhere to keep him within bounds. Edmund Burke said, “Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.” The converse is also true: the more there is within, the less there must be without. If only western, democratic, so-called Christian man would exercise a little more self-restraint and unselfishness in the use of his freedom, he would have much better prospects for preserving it for his grandchildren. But what will make him do this? Nothing but the setting of his “will and appetite” in the framework of his accountability to God. As faith is the thing that gives a man the conception of himself as God’s child in the beginning, and encourages him to fight for his freedom, faith is also the thing that gives him the sense of his accountability to God when freedom threatens to run away with him. The faith which creates freedom alone can control it.

We believe in the “separation of church and state” in this land. It was proven a good and sound principle. But in the day when our people think that this means a democracy can run well without having continually poured into it sound, believing, God-directed men and women, our greatness will have passed.

Samuel M. Shoemaker, D.D., S.T.D., is rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh and author of The Church Alive, They’re on the Way, How to Become a Christian, and other books.

Preacher In The Red ¹For each report by a minister of the Gospel of an embarrassing moment in his life, CHRISTIANITY TODAY will pay $5 (upon publication). To be acceptable, anecdotes must narrate factually a personal experience, and must be previously unpublished. Contributions should not exceed 250 words, should be typed double-spaced, and bear the writer’s name and address. Upon acceptance, such contributions become the property of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Address letters to: Preacher in the Red, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Suite 1014 Washington Building, Washington, D.C.

NEW AVENUE OF SERVICE

While I was a student in Bible college, several classmates took up the fad of saying things “backwards,” or mixing up words to give an expression a different meaning. One favorite expression was “occupew the pie,” for “occupy the pew.”

There were several small churches in the area where student ministers preached. I was invited to bring the Sunday evening sermon at one of these. A rather unusual number of student ministers attended. My sermon had to do with “Christian Service.”

Toward the end of the message I was building toward the “climax.” I was endeavoring to impress my audience with the fact that they should be “busy about the Father’s business.” I stated that many people could not teach, sing, preach or go as missionaries, but that no man lived who could not lend encouragement to the work of the Lord by his presence each church service. I intended to say that the least thing anyone could do was to come and “occupy a pew.” What I really said was, come and “occupew a pie.” Silence prevailed for a moment until one of my best friends could no longer hold his feelings. The service ended immediately.—The REV. SHERRIEL E. STOREY, Minister, Perry Christian Church, Canton, Ohio.