Dare We Renew the Controversy?

Carl F. H. Henry

The Evangelical Responsibility

A higher spirit to quicken and to fulfill the theological fortunes of this century will require more than the displacement of modernism, more than the revision of neo-orthodoxy, more than the revival of fundamentalism. Recovery of apostolic perspective and dedication of the evangelical movement to biblical realities are foundational to this hope.

Exalt Biblical Theology

Evangelical theology has nothing to fear, and much to gain, from aligning itself earnestly with the current plea for a return to biblical theology. To measure this moving front of creative theology sympathetically, to understand its concern and courage and to name its weaknesses without depreciating its strength will best preserve relevant theological interaction with the contemporary debate.

The evangelical movement must make its very own the passionate concern for the reality of special divine revelation, for a theology of the Word of God, for attentive hearing of the witness of the Bible, for a return to biblical theology.

Positive Preaching

Rededication to positive and triumphant preaching is the evangelical pulpit’s great need. The note of Christ’s lordship over this dark century, of the victory of Christianity, has been obscured. If it be evangelical, preaching must enforce the living communication of the changeless realities of divine redemption. The minister whose pulpit does not become the life-giving center of his community fails in his major mission. Perspective on Christianity’s current gains and final triumph will avoid a myopic and melancholy discipleship. The Christian pulpit must present the invisible and exalted Head of the body of Christ; linked to him this earthly colony of heaven moves to inevitable vindication and glory. The perplexing problems of our perverse social orders find their hopeful solution only in this regenerative union. Out of its spiritual power must spring the incentives to creative cultural contributions.

Enlarge Christian Living

The evangelical fellowship needs a fresh and pervading conception of the Christian life. Too long fundamentalists have swiftly referred the question, “What distinguishes Christian living?” to personal abstinence from dubious social externals. The Christian conscience, of course, will always need to justify outward behavior, in home, in vocation and in leisure. But Christian ethics probes deeper. It bares the invisible zone of personality wherein lurk pride, covetousness and hatred.

Unfortunately, fundamentalism minimized the exemplary Jesus in the sphere of personal ethics. The theme of Christ’s oneness with God was developed so exclusively in terms of his deity that the import of his dependence upon God for all human nature was lost. The manhood of Jesus is essentially one with ours; its uniqueness is in the zone of sinlessness, not of humanness. His uncompromised devotion and dependence upon God, his sustained relationship of mutual love, embodied the ideal pattern of human life in perfect fellowship with God. In view of his unbroken union with God, his humanity holds a central significance for all humanity.

In this light, a new importance attaches to the Nazarene’s learning of the Father’s will in the course of obedient dependence. His struggle with temptation to magnificent victory over all the assaults of evil, his exemplary trust, his unwavering reliance on God even in the darkest hours, his interior calm of soul, the well-spring of love that flowed from his being—in all these experiences Christ models for us an ideal spiritual relationship with God. In Jesus of Nazareth, God is fully resident; in God, Jesus is fully at home. He lives out the “rest in God” that actualizes the “abiding” to which we are called.

Another way in which evangelicals need to move beyond the fundamentalist ethic is in comprehending the whole of the moral law in fuller exposition of love for God and neighbor, and in the larger experience of the Holy Spirit in New Testament terms of ethical virtue. Often quite legalistically, and with an absoluteness beyond New Testament authority, fundamentalism’s doctrine of surrender, of rededication, has merely proscripted worldly practices, from which the believer was discouraged. Unemphasized, however, are the fruit of the Spirit and those many virtues which differentiate dedicated living in terms of biblical Christianity.

Social Concern

We need a new concern for the individual in the entirety of his Christian experience. He is a member of all life’s communities, of faith, of the family, of labor, of the state, of culture. Christianity is by no means the social gospel of modernism, but is nonetheless vibrant with social implications as a religion of redemptive transformation. To express and continue the vitality of the gospel message, marriage and the home, labor and economics, politics and the state, culture and the arts, in fact, every sphere of life, must evidence the lordship of Christ.

Obviously, the social application of Christian theology is no easy task. For one thing, fundamentalism fails to elaborate principles and programs of Christian social action because it fails to recognize the relevance of the gospel to the sociocultural sphere. Modernism defines Christian social imperatives in secular terms and uses the Church to reorganize unregenerate humanity. Its social sensitivity gave modernism no license to neglect the imperative of personal regeneration. Evangelistic and missionary priorities, on the other hand, gave fundamentalism no license to conceal the imperative of Christian social ethics. Despite the perils, no evasion of responsibility for meaningfully relating the gospel to the pressing problems of modern life is tolerable.

The divine life is a “being in love,” a social or a family fellowship in which personality expresses the outgoing, creative relationships of redemption. A worker by God’s creation, man sees vocation as a divinely entrusted stewardship by which to demonstrate love to God and service to man. As divinely ordained, the state declares God’s intention and the dignity of man’s responsibility for preserving justice and repressing iniquity in a sinful order. This world challenges man to interpret literature, art, music, and other media in reference to eternal order and values.

Approach To Science

Evangelical confidence in the ontological significance of reason makes possible a positive, courageous approach to science. For more than a century and a half modern philosophy has regrettably minimized the role of reason. Kant disjoined it from the spiritual world. Darwin naturalized and constricted it within the physical world. Dewey allowed it only a pragmatic or an instrumental role. These speculations took a heavy toll in Christian circles. A segment of evangelical Christianity nonetheless maintained its insistence upon the Logos as integral to the Godhead, the universe as a rational-purposive order, and man’s finite reason is related to the image of God.

Yet for more than a generation the evangelical attitude in scientific matters has been largely defensive. Evolutionary thought is met only obliquely. American fundamentalism often neglected scrutinizing its own position in the light of recent historical and scientific research. It even failed to buttress its convictions with rigorous theological supports.

Yet modernism, despite its eager pursuit of such revision, achieved no true correlation of Christianity and science. While modernism adjusted Christianity swiftly to the prevailing climate of technical conviction, its scientific respect was gained by a costly neglect of Christianity’s import to science.

Today a new mood pervades the scientific sphere. That mood may not fully validate the evangelical view of nature, but it does at least deflate the presuppositions on which the older liberalism built its bias against the miraculous. The evangelical movement is now given a strategic opportunity to transcend its hesitant attitude toward scientific endeavor, and to stress the realities of a rational, purposive universe that coheres in the Logos as the agent in creation, preservation, redemption, sanctification and judgment.

The ramifications of revelation and reason are wider, however, than science, for they embrace all the disciplines of learning. The evangelical attitude toward education itself is involved. The day has vanished when all the levels of learning, from primary to university, were in the service of God. Christianity cannot long thrive in an atmosphere in which mass education is allowed to repress and impugn Christian confidence and conviction. Christianity must not withdraw from the sphere of education, but must infuse it with new spirit and life. Christianity need evade neither truth nor fact, for it offers an adequate view of the universe in which we are driven daily to decision and duty. In answer to the present secular perspective in public education, shall evangelicals establish private Christian schools? Or shall they rather work for eternal verities within the present public school order or perhaps even pursue both courses? One fact is certain: evangelical neglect of education will imply the irrelevance of historic Christianity to the pressing problems of the contemporary academic world.

Doctrine Of The Church

The evangelical movement needs also the sustained study of the New Testament doctrine of the Church and a greater concern for the unity of regenerate believers. Its program for reflecting the unity of the body of Christ in contemporary history is inadequate in several regards.

Evangelical discussions of the unity of the Church are shaped to protest the ecumenical framework as a compromise to be avoided. Ecumenical Christianity blesses a cooperation broader than the New Testament fellowship; it needs to be reminded that not all union is sacred—that the more inclusive the union, the greater the danger of compromising and secularizing its Christian integrity. By contrast, the evangelical movement easily restricts cooperation more narrowly than does the Bible. It must learn that not all separation is expressive of Christian unity. The principle of separation itself may acquire an objectionable form and content, related more to divisive temper than to theological fidelity. In the face of the inclusive church movement, the evangelical spirit reacts too much toward independency. Through refusal to cooperate with believers whose theological conservatism and dedication to Christ are beyond question, evangelical Christianity is in danger of divisiveness and disruptiveness.

Sound Doctrine And New Life

Evangelical insistence that the unity of the body of Christ requires a basic doctrinal agreement and a regenerate membership is sound. The ecumenical temperament encourages the breakdown of denominational barriers at too great a price whenever it minimizes doctrinal positions. Interdenominationalism in our century has sprung from a peculiar assortment of motives. Fundamentalists stimulated denominational desertion through discontent with theologically inclusive programs ventured by liberal leadership in the established denominations. Such was not in actuality an antithesis to denominationalism, since denominational tenets were not called into question. Indeed, most evangelicals prefer to support New Testament programs within their own denominational lines, allowing interdenominational cooperation to spring from multidenominational dedication to common evangelical priorities. The compromise of priorities in denominational circles, however, led to interdenominationalism at the expense of denominationalism and quickened the sense of an extradenominational unity based on common doctrine and faith.

The liberal interdenominational urge had a different motivation, namely, a virtual depreciation of denominationalism as unworthy sectarianism insofar as any fixed creedal positions are affirmed. This exaltation of the experiential unity of the Church through the disparagement of doctrinal soundness is the great peril of ecumenical ecclesiology today. Its constant danger is the elevation of the concern for unity above the concern for truth.

Precision In Beliefs

Evangelical emphasis on an indispensable doctrinal basis for Church unity needs, however, to be defined with greater precision. Such concern accounts for evangelical uneasiness over the creedal vagrancy of the World Council of Churches whose nebulous emphasis is only on “Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.” Since the evangelical movement includes churches that are both creedal and noncreedal in heritage, a specific creedal unity has not been elaborated, although common theological tenets are listed. This evangelical listing of a doctrinal minimum raises difficulties for creedal churches, inasmuch as they consider no article of faith dispensable. To Reformed churchmen, evangelical formulas often appear open to objectionable development. They prefer a strict creedal fellowship, a restriction that excludes progress toward the unity of diverse evangelical elements. The evangelical failure to fully elaborate essential doctrines has resulted in fragmentation by granting priority to secondary emphases (in such matters as eschatology). Evangelical Christianity has been slow to establish study conferences in biblical doctrine, to encourage mutual growth and understanding. Ironically, study sessions on theological issues are now often associated with movements whose doctrinal depth and concern are widely questioned. The significance of Christian doctrine, its dispensability or indispensability, its definition as witness or revelation, the elements identified respectively as core and periphery—these are issues on which evangelical Christianity must be vocal.

Fellowship Of Disciples

Evangelical Christianity too frequently limits the term “evangelical” to those identified with a limited number of movements. This needlessly stresses a sense of Christian minority and discourages cooperation and communication with unenlisted evangelicals. But the tensions of American church history in this turbulent century cannot be automatically superimposed upon all world evangelical communities. Ecumenical leadership in the Federal Council of Churches and its successor, the National Council of Churches, failed to reflect the viewpoint of that considerable genuinely evangelical segment of its constituency. In the World Council of Churches, leaders on the Continent also have often found themselves theologically far to the right of American spokesmen, and have found American evangelicals in the World Council disappointingly unvocal. Long before the establishment of organizations like the World Evangelical Fellowship, many European churches have approached the World Council in quest of an enlarging evangelical fellowship. Evangelical world alternatives to inclusive movements arose after most large historic denominations were already enlisted in the World Council. Does evangelical loyalty within these committed denominations necessarily depend upon public repudiation of the World Council, and upon entrance instead into minority movements quite withdrawn from the stream of influential theological discussion? Even the National Association of Evangelicals in the United States must accept the absence of Southern Baptists and Missouri Lutherans, whose antipathy for theological inclusivism keeps these denominations also outside the National Council. The question that obviously remains, of course, is whether an evangelical who prefers identification with the broader movements can justify his participation, if he knows his own spiritual heritage, except in the capacity of a New Testament witness? Must not a silent evangelical in this climate always ask himself whether the silence which once perhaps was golden, now, through a dulling of love for truth and neighbor, has become as sounding brass or tinkling cymbal. Indeed, must not the evangelical always and everywhere address this question to himself in whatever association he is placed?

Lack of evangelical communication across the lines of inclusive and exclusive movements is not wholly due to the exclusivists. Ecumenical enthusiasts have encouraged neither fellowship nor conversation with exclusivist evangelicals. This coldness contributed needlessly to the fundamentalist suspicion of all outside their own constituency, and did little to mitigate the incivility that some fundamentalists reserved for such individuals. The unity of the believing Church re quires communication between evangelicals on a basis of mutual tolerance and respect.

Concern For Unity

Unfortunately for the evangelical cause, the concern for the unity of the Church is now largely associated in the public mind with the inclusive vision. The failure of evangelicals to hear what the Spirit says in the New Testament to the churches has created the void now being filled by inclusivist conceptions of unity. The evangelical church needs with new earnestness to seek unity in its fragmenting environment, needs to reflect to the disunited world and to the disunited nations the sacred unity of the body of Christ.

Although evangelicals have criticized the broad basis of ecumenical merger and unity, they have achieved in their own ranks few mergers on the theological-spiritual level. Without conceding that denominationalism is evil or that health increases in proportion to the reduction of denominations, may there not be evidence that evangelical Christianity is over denominationalized? If doctrinal agreement enhances the deepest unity of believers, may we not expect progress in the elimination of unnecessary divisions by emphasizing the spiritual unity of the Church? Evangelical Christianity, if it takes seriously its own emphasis on the unity of the body, must show visible gains in demonstrating unity in church life.

Contemporary Christianity would gain if the discussion of ecclesiastical tolerance were set in a New Testament context. The scriptural respect for individual liberty in matters of religious belief must not obscure definite requirements for indentification with the body of Christian believers. The New Testament upholds specific doctrinal affirmations as indispensable to genuine Christian confession. In this biblical setting, divisiveness is depicted primarily as a theological question, not (as is usually the case today) as a matter of ecclesiastical attitude and relationship. The modernist tendency to link Christian love, tolerance and liberty with theological inclusivism is therefore discredited. Modernist pleas for religious tolerance and the caustic indictments of fundamentalist bigotry often were basically a strategic device for evading the question of doctrinal fidelity. This flaunting of tolerance, however, was discredited when inclusivist leaders suppressed or excluded evangelicals not sympathetic to the inclusive policy. The “tolerance plea” swiftly dismissed as divisive what was not clearly so in fact. Divisiveness meant disapproval of the inclusive policy, tolerance meant approval. But the New Testament does not support the view that devotion to Christian liberty and progress and to the peace and unity of Christ’s Church is measured by the devaluation of doctrine in deference to an inclusive fellowship. From the biblical point of view, doctrinal belief is a Christian imperative, not a matter of indifference.

Whenever it professes a genuine regard for the scriptural point of view, the inclusive movement is driven to soul-searching in respect to doctrinal latitude and its own propaganda for organic church union. Within the World Council, in contrast with the National Council, exists a forum from which this ambiguity can be challenged. Evangelicals in this movement, if they bear an evangelical witness, must constantly call the Commission on Faith and Order to judge the theological and ecclesiastical question from the standpoint of Scripture.

The fact must not be ignored, however, that different evangelical conceptions of the visible Church are prevalent. Although historically the Christian churches have all insisted upon a minimal theological assent for admission to membership, Reformed churches share Calvin’s view that even in the Church wheat and tares—professing and believing Christians—will dwell together until their final separation in the judgment. Baptist churches have traditionally placed greater emphasis on a regenerate membership and on a pure church. Even the disciplinary procedure of the more broadly conceived Reformed churches, however, considers church members flouting or indifferent to creedal standards as guilty as grave sin. Christian churches in the past stressed both a minimal requirement for membership and a maximal indulgence for avoidance of discipline or exclusion. But modernist leaders asserted the inevitability of doctrinal change. Heresy trials became an oddity in contemporary church history, not because of an absence of heresy, but because of the lack of zeal to prosecute heretics.

We dare not own any other authority over life and deed but the living God. We dare not own any other God than the righteous and merciful God revealed in Jesus Christ. We dare not own another Christ but Jesus of Nazareth, the Word become flesh who now by the Spirit is the exalted head of the body of believers. We dare not own any other Spirit than the Spirit who has breathed out Scripture through chosen men, that doubt may vanish about what God is saying to the Church and to the world. We dare not own any other Scripture than this Book. Let other men proclaim another god, another Christ, another spirit, another book or word—that is their privilege and their peril. But if once again the spiritual life of our world is to rise above the rubble of paganism into which it is now decaying, it will be only through the dynamic of revelation, regeneration, and redemption, through the sacred message which once brought hope. We have a task to do, a task of apostolic awesomeness; let us rise to the doing. The hour for rescue is distressingly late.

END

The Word Of God

Holy book!

Torch of God!

Light from off the Everlasting Throne!

Towering shaft of Infinity,

Around whose foot men rear

Their little spires of thought.

Inconceivable monument of the ages,

Binding man to God.

Without thy piercing, healing light,

Man is but a darker shadow

Flitting to and fro

In the impenetrable blackness

Of an eternal

Void.

JOE CARSON SMITH

This article concludes the abridgment of lectures on “Evangelical Responsibility in Contemporary Theology” delivered by Editor Carl F. H. Henry at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary and Calvin College. The lectures will be published in full by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company in August in their series of Pathway Books.

Billy Graham and the Pope’s Legions

The Editors

There is little doubt but that America is gradually becoming a Roman Catholic country. This is not surprising, however, for the strategies of Rome give her considerable earthly advantage. Her claims are impressive: the bishops in communion with the See of Peter form a divinely constituted, perpetual, inerrant, teaching Church. Rome is a continuation of Christ’s incarnation. The Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church. Rome is the only power which has defeated secularism and modernism. She is at home in all lands. She is the Church of the catacombs, the Church of the Fathers, the Church of the great councils, the Church of the Middle Ages—in short, the Church of all ages. If any Christian effort will endure to the end of time, and thus merit the devotion of men everywhere, it is the Church of Rome.

An expert from the American Institute of Management recently examined the management excellence of the Roman Church. He concluded, in a 26-page report, that the Church was eighty-eight percent efficient [Time, January 30, 1956], Rome is disciplined and determined; her wealth cannot be assessed. She adapts her strategy to every situation. When her interests are at stake, she is cruel. When they are not, she is gentle. The Inquisition is valid against Protestants but not against children of the Vatican. When the Church speaks, debate is out of order, for the good is what the Church approves.

Rome’s confidence was illustrated several years ago when I had coffee with a learned Jesuit at Harvard Square. As I quizzed him about the future of the Roman Church in America, he looked at me with flashing Irish eyes and thundered, “Today, tomorrow, or a century from now, it makes no difference. We are patient. We will subdue the earth to the greater glory of God.”

Life magazine recently reviewed one phase of Roman Catholic power in America. The leading story of the May 27th issue was devoted to the 75th year of the Knights of Columbus. The pictures, many in full color, depicted the kind of pomp and circumstance which goes into Roman strategy. The legions of Rome are awesome. More than one million practicing Catholics make up the ranks of the Knights of Columbus. They are fraternally pledged to the ideal of bringing America under papal rule. They are powerful, wealthy, loyal. Little wonder that the Pope affectionately describes the Knights as “the right lay arm of the Catholic Church in America.”

It is significant, however, that the same issue of Life ran a story about Billy Graham. The contrast between the Knights of Columbus and Billy Graham pretty well sums up the contrast between Roman Catholic and orthodox Protestant intentions. The reader sees a young man in a business suit. He is holding an open Bible. In passion and love he pleads with sinners to repent. The pictures are in black and white, not color. There are no uniforms, no banners, no legions. The Garden is filled with people from all walks of life, people whose hearts are as hungry as their minds are curious. Before Billy Graham has finished, hundreds leave their seats to unite with the person of Jesus Christ. Even priests of Rome find their way to the mourner’s bench. The suasions of Rome are no match for the gospel. The tens of thousands which have responded in the Garden and to the televised broadcasts from the Garden give living evidence to the power of a message devoid of pomp and ceremony.

The Protestant Church is not very healthy. It is divided and weak. Its clergy dispute about matters which are elementary to the Christian faith. Scholarship is neglected in the colleges and seminaries. Rome, of course, interprets this as nothing but the logical conclusion to the Reformation. The ecumenical movement, on the other hand, says that the illness can be cured by devising new forms of visible unity. Rome is wrong in her diagnosis and the ecumenical movement is wrong in its therapy. The Protestant Church is sick for one reason: the gospel of Jesus Christ is not being preached with power and conviction.

We have no intention of making an idol of Billy Graham, but the fact remains that this young evangelist is a symbol of what God can do through a humble life. When Billy Graham stands behind the sacred desk, he makes it clear that he is mediating the Word of God. He is not discussing personality integration or the power of mind over body. This was strikingly reviewed in the June 25, 1954, issue of U.S. News and World Report. Scotland was astonished at the power of Billy Graham. Many were puzzled to explain the phenomenon. U.S. News editors cleared up the matter. “The people want to know the truth. They want it declared with authority and conviction, dogmatically and without apology. They prefer half an hour, or even three-quarters, of this kind of preaching to the ten minutes of platitudes which all too often is given from church pulpits.” This is excellently taken. There would be no sickness in the church if priests and ministers would bind their consciences by the Word of God.

Another symbol of this same power is the distinguished dean of American radio evangelists, Charles E. Fuller. For over a third of a century he has preached a compassionate gospel to those who labor in hard and distant places. His weekly listening audience is estimated at twenty million. He seldom refers to himself. With a tear in his voice and compassion in his heart he beseeches men everywhere to be reconciled with God. God blesses his ministry because his ministry is true to the Word of God.

The Pope must look to his legions because he can no longer look to the gospel. Let me illustrate this. Father Kelly recently warned Roman Catholics not to listen to Billy Graham [Time, May 6th]. The priest’s contention was that Graham evades “Catholic distinctives.” His converts, thus, are only “half saved.” This is an interesting complaint, for it betrays the distance which Rome has come from the simplicity of the gospel. The Apostle Paul could cry, “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” And so can Billy Graham. But Father Kelly cannot. He must cry, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, plus the necessity of baptism, plus the mediatorial work of Mary, plus the centrality of the mass, plus the unity of the Church, and you will be saved—providing, of course, you improve grace throughout your life by performing good works, and then only after a frightful bout with the flames of purgatory.”

The Roman Catholic Church will continue to grow. She will infiltrate government, education, and labor. But let us not fear. Rome has her limits. The Lord says to worldly wisdom, as he says to the tides of the sea, “Thus far shall you go, and no farther.” Rome can coerce the film industry to use priests and Christopher medals in movie plots; she can lobby senators with effective cunning; she can rule over the treasuries of the world. But these are strategies of worldly wisdom. They have nothing to do with the gospel.

This is effectively pointed out by the late Donald M. Baillie [The Theology of the Sacraments, page 96]. He cites Karl Barth’s admission that “The mass in its conception, content and construction is a religious masterpiece. It is the high water mark in the development of the history of religion and admits of no rival.” He then adds the shrewd conclusion of Barth, “Religion with its masterpieces is one thing, Christian faith is another.” This is the sum of the matter. Rome is a genius in worldly wisdom. But worldly wisdom is one thing, the gospel is another.

If we honor the Word of God, we have no reason to fear Roman Catholicism. God is sovereign. His Word will not return void. The ministry of Billy Graham is witness to the biblical truth that it is “Not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts” (Zechariah 4:6 RSV). We sing with Martin Luther,

And tho’ this world with devils filled

Should threaten to undo us;

We will not fear, for God hath willed

His truth to triumph thro’ us.

The Prince of darkness grim, we tremble

Not for him; his rage we can endure,

For lo! his doom is sure,

One little word shall fell him.

The Pope will continue to look to his legions. But let us look to the power of the gospel. Whenever the counsels of worldly wisdom become too efficient, God seeks out a man of faith—an Abraham, a Gideon, a David. And he uses this man of faith to confront an entire culture with the claims of Jesus Christ. God destroys the proud in their own folly. One sermon preached in the power of the Holy Spirit can undo in a day what worldly wisdom has taken a century to build.

The Pentagon’S Responsibility For Servicemen Abroad

The Girard case has focused the attention of America on the predicament of our service men when accused of crimes while stationed abroad.

The Formosa riots likewise illustrated that America has no one policy for dealing with such cases, in some countries retaining jurisdiction and rights of prosecution of servicemen while in others recognizing the rights of the local governments and courts.

Unfortunately little that has been said about the situation in Japan, Taiwan (Formosa), Germany or elsewhere, has dealt with the basic problem of the behavior of our troops overseas.

The average American soldier is a decent boy, thrust into new and often frustrating surroundings and at the same time confronted with temptations in their rawest form.

There are serious attempts to condition servicemen for the situations they will encounter overseas. Many officers add their influence to that of the chaplains to maintain the moral and spiritual standards important for the soldier as an individual and for him as a representative abroad. That such conditioning and safeguards often prove insufficient is known by the Pentagon, by American civilians living or traveling abroad and by many of the people living in the lands where servicemen are stationed.

Frankly, we feel that far more can and should be done to prevent incidents and to keep Americans from becoming increasingly unpopular in areas where they are quartered.

First of all, not all men who volunteer or are inducted into the services are suitable to send abroad for garrison duty. Some of them are obvious liabilities from the very start and some procedure should be devised to eliminate them from foreign service.

In the second place, we believe far more should be done to indoctrinate those sent abroad, not only as to the reason they are being sent but also the objectives in that area. Most important, these men should be made to understand clearly that as long as they are on foreign soil they are representatives of America and will be required so to act.

Finally, the strictest possible discipline should be enforced on those who get into trouble. Nothing does more to harm relations with those America wants to help than to see American men guilty of illegal or immoral acts go unpunished and often unnoticed.

We have before us a long letter telling of multiplied incidents in Formosa which built up a seething resentment which finally boiled over in riots. This letter tells of Chinese injured by drunken Americans; of others injured by speeding American vehicles; of the use of money to entice and at times debauch young women from good homes; and most of all, of wrongs reported to authorities which went unheeded and without redress.

Part of the difficulty comes from failing to look at incidents through the eyes of local custom and opinion. For instance, a “peeping Tom” would be frightened away in China, or he might be caught and beaten, but to kill him is as drastic punishment as would be the shooting of a speeding motorist in America.

Even a verdict of “guilty” with a suspended sentence would have in some measure appeased an aroused populace. A quickly rendered acquittal was regarded as a grave affront to the Chinese and also as a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The same ends could have been accomplished by taking due regard to local customs.

All of which leads to the conviction that, living in a small world as we do, and wielding the world-wide influence and power which we do, America will be wise completely to revise its policies with reference to its representatives abroad. The day has passed when we can do as we please—and the opportunity for drastic reforms may be very short.

END

Books

Eutychus and His Kin: July 22, 1957

The Editors

TOURISTS AND PILGRIMS

All men are strangers and travelers. Our fathers were pilgrims; we are tourists. The difference is more vast than the breadth of the continent spanned by generations of pioneers. The tourist, to be sure, sees a distinction. It adds relish to his feeling of superiority as he squeals around the curves of some historic trail in the foothills of the Rockies. An unusual and imaginative tourist may even speculate, while picking his teeth in an air-conditioned “chuck-wagon,” as to how his day’s drive compares with the best performance of a Connestoga “schooner.”

Yet the fondness of tourists for playing at being pioneers suggests a difference of another order, one that cannot be measured by the horsepower superiority of the high compression engine. Our curious interest in the voyage of the incredible little replica of the Mayflower is, in part, a tribute to the pilgrim spirit.

The pilgrims traveled with purpose. Between decks in that crowded vessel was a seriousness that our generation can only imitate in the convulsive hysteria of war.

Lack of seriousness is the tourist’s mark. Flipping wisecracks and cigarette butts, he squanders money to pass time. The wonders of an electronic age provide him with gambling devices in the majesty of the desert and comic books on the mountain top. His use of leisure projects in three dimensions the emptiness of his heart.

Every pilgrim seeks a city, a country, a home. The tourist is only leaving his home, or rather losing his home in aimless compulsive wandering. It was not the disappearance of the American frontier that made his travels pointless. Nor will new frontiers on Mars help him. He seeks no frontier for he has lost himself. In his vacuum of faith he needs to hear the call to the heavenly city; to become a pilgrim; to go out—and come home!

EUTYCHUS

THE WELFARE STATE

In CHRISTIANITY TODAY for June 24, 1957, Dr. Joseph M. Dawson writes “… that the state … has the responsibility of extending Christian love to those aspects of public life which affect for good or ill the welfare of one’s neighbors.”

We believe in extending Christian love, but we do not believe it can be done by the state. It can and should be done by individuals. Where the extension of Christian love requires the expenditure of money it can only be done by those who use their own funds. It cannot be done by officials who first have to seize the property of others before they can spend money in an effort to help the needy. Love to the latter cannot be based on taking by force the property of the former.

The state has no function forcibly to seize the property of some of its citizens in order to confer benefits upon other citizens. To do so is violating the Commandments against coveting and stealing.

We believe in relieving suffering and ministering to the needy, but it can be done in Christian love only by individuals in voluntary associations such as the churches and privately-operated charitable organizations. These certainly include hospitals, orphanages, schools, homes for elderly people, and assistance for the unfortunate and the handicapped.

Dr. Dawson declares “… governmental extension of love might cover social security, retirement benefits, assistance to the unemployed, aged and disabled, housing, soil conservation, agricultural subsidies, free education and many other benefits.”

Government can confer such benefits only by seizing the property of others. Since that is stealing, the state has no moral right to do it. Such activities should be carried on by individual Christians in private association through their churches and organizations. Certainly it would not exclude the cooperation of non-Christians in friendly help for needy people.

Dr. Dawson continues: “We conclude with the assertion that the rule of the people means the recognition of human rights—the right of the ignorant to education, the right of slaves to freedom, the right of the employed to fair wages, the right of the child to be well born, the right of all men to justice.”

We believe in the right of all, not merely the slaves, to be free.

The ignorant have a right to such education as they themselves can achieve together with such help as their parents, relatives or friends may be able and willing to extend to them. They do not have a right to education at the unwilling expense of members of the community whose property may be forcibly taken for that purpose.

We believe in the right of the employed to fair wages. The only way to determine “fair wages” is the free market wherein, without government intervention or privilege of any kind, one is paid for his time or his goods, what ever his fellows are willing to bid for them in the open market. That is the only possible way of determining “fair wages” short of government intervention in the realm of wage and price fixing which leads on inevitably to a centrally-managed economy, with great rigidity, lack of capacity for adjustments to changing conditions, subordination of the individual to the authority of the state, and eventually to slavery and totalitarianism.

The child, as a human personality created in the image of God, should be well born, but the state cannot contribute to that end by seizing the property of others. To do so will bring about conditions more unfavorable to children than exists under freedom with the powers of the state strictly limited. The highest degrees of culture and well-being for children, mothers, and the population in general have been developed where the powers of government have been limited, and the most freedom for the development of initiative, self-reliance and independent action have existed. Those states which have tried to do the most in planning elaborate programs of welfare for their citizens have achieved the least welfare for them.

People prosper best under a system which gives them the right to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and to achieve all the material, cultural and spiritual well-being of which they are capable. They do not have a right to demand that government give them the property of others. We believe history proves the soundness of this view.

When the state confers benefits upon some at the expense of others, the latter are discouraged and cease to put forth maximum effort, while the former soon learn to believe that real effort on their part is unnecessary. Production inevitably declines, resulting in a lower scale of living for all. This is not only theory and experience; it is history. Why there should be reluctance to accept it and act upon it must indicate, it seems to us, a great lack of fundamental understanding of the issue involved.

HOWARD E. KERSHNER

Editor, Christian Economics

New York City

At the end of an otherwise excellent article, Dr. Joseph Dawson repeats the modern easy equating of “love” with material giving, that source of the subtle materialism that has invaded and caused disintegration of society.

Granted that love in the Christian sense eventuates in sharing and relieving want, Jesus’ great example of a “cup of cold water” as the price for entrance into heaven was based on his statement that the giver recognized him in the needy. That is, love is a spiritual quality that proceeds from personality to personality, as the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son to us. It is not an impersonal quality that can be manufactured, bought, sold or given from material bounty. One cannot rightly speak, as Dr. Dawson does, of “governmental extension of love.”

The subtle shift of Christian love over to material giving (erroneously called “love”) enables one to rationalize a life of material gain, or a materialistic society, by conveniently believing one is acquiring the wherewithal to give ‘love.” It is most noticeable in children fed this kind of material “love” and starved of true love, by parents who neglect them to earn more money to give them “advantages.”

Perhaps I do Dr. Dawson an injustice. Directly before his discussion of the modern Welfare State, he seems to disagree strongly with the medieval attempt at a Welfare State. But it seems to me Dr. Dawson, while disliking a Welfare State under church auspices, nevertheless sees nothing wrong with the same state under modern secularism and separation of the state and church.

Further, Dr. Dawson should distinguish between the ideal and the practical working out in modern society today when he says: “Democracy recognizes that man’s personality is the highest value in the universe and society is to be organized in a manner to minister to his true life.” All Christians will surely agree with this ideal, but shall we lightly gloss over the evident de-humanization which follows in society, as today, when material advantages being confused with love, efficient production is sought at all cost, to the evident distintegration of families and man’s spiritual unity?

MARLAND W. ZIMMERMAN

St. Paul’s Episcopal Church

Delray Beach, Florida

REVIVE THE CONFLICT?

I began reading your article on, “Dare We Revive the Conflict?” and I find it very helpful.

GLENN W. SAMUELSON

Greenbelt Baptist Chapel

Greenbelt, Maryland

There are some good articles in your paper. I was particularly interested and disturbed by your editorial, “Dare We Revive the Conflict?” I never could quite understand why Dr. Fosdick was the whipping boy of the so-called fundamentalists unless it was because of his successful leadership in the liberal movement of the middle decades of the present century.

PRESTON W. PENNELL

Solon, Maine

I am very much interested in your “Dare We Revive the Modernist—Fundamentalist Conflict?” It would be difficult to find two editorials more diametrically opposed than yours and the one in the Christian Century for June 19, entitled “Fundamentalist Revival.”

ROY FIELDS

Central Christian Church

Springfield, Missouri

Editorials in re fundamentalist controversy (Christian Century, June 19; Christianity Today, June 24) have been read with interest. Both seem to me to carry qualities which might justify publication in both periodicals. Christian Century seems to “view with alarm” a resurgent Fundamentalism with a new front. Christianity Today seems to hear a death knell for a movement poisoned by its own venom. Why cannot a “Grahamized” Fundamentalism, a chastened Liberalism and a filtered Neo-Orthodoxy be mutually cognizant of certain needed checks and balances among them for the good of the “Whole Church?” None of these movements is sufficiendy divine to sit in judgment upon all the others or to constitute an ecclesiastical supreme court.

D. HOWARD HOUSEHOLDER

The Methodist Church

Wellston, Ohio

Concerning your editorial on the “Modernist-Fundamentalist Conflict”—rubbish! Your article reveals a startling lack of responsible scholarship, particularly in your understanding of Fosdick’s point of view. You are fighting a battle that ended several years ago. Very few responsible Protestants are defending the dead horse of “liberalism” that you are kicking.

C. H. REID

Columbia Cong. Church

Seattle, Washington

In your editorials concerning the fundamentalist-liberalist controversy … you give the impression that both groups must be placed within the pale of Christianity. Then you show how the liberals have undergone some wonderful introspection and are reforming. You also point out that the fundamentalists have degenerated and are in dire need of a modern reformation.

Wouldn’t it have been better to have ruled the liberals outside the realm of Christianity because of their rejection of the blood-sacrifice of Christ than to make odious and perhaps biased comparisons between the two groups? While admitting that fundamentalists are in need of a good reformation of gigantic proportions, we ought at the same time admit that all evangelicals holding the “fundamentals” are really fundamentalists—whether they like the name or not.

ROLF PARELIUS

Roxbury, Massachusetts

I would take exception to the uncertain sound of your “Modernist-Fundamentalist Conflict.” … In its second paragraph you appear to lay the blame for the existence of unchurched multitudes equally on Liberals and Fundamentalists. The fact is that there would have been no occasion for Fundamentalism as a special issue, nor for Fundamentalist churches as separate entities if the traditional churches had kept the faith. This they did not do.

GORDON HOLDCROFT

Victoria, B. C.

APPRECIATION

The magazine is the finest of its kind that I know. The articles have all been excellent and the book reviews superb. May the Lord make it a blessing to pastors and evangelists, and may he give you wisdom and guidance in the important work of editing it.

J. NARVER GORTNER

Berkeley, Calif.

Your excellent surveys, whether of Christianity throughout the world, religious literature and current religious thought appeal to me.… If I had no time to read anything else, I should feel obliged to continue my subscription not to miss any of them.…

J. M. T. WINTHER

Lutheran Bible Institute

Kobe, Japan

My first reaction was less than enthusiastic, but through fairly regular reading.… I have come to appreciate it as an organ of the evangelistic point of view. In good conscience, then, I must pay for the privilege of continuing to receive it, and enclose my check.…

STANDISH MACINTOSH

All Saints Parish

Oakville, Conn.

I consider CHRISTIANITY TODAY to excel in depth, solidness, vitality and interest;—it seems to me to have that “instinct for the jugular.”

IRVING L. JENSEN

William Jennings Bryan University

Dayton, Tenn.

Cover Story

Calvin and Religious Education

G. Aiken Taylor

Almost everyone knows that Calvinism stands for an informed faith as well as a reformed one: that it has always represented that approach to Christianity which places the highest premium upon spiritual learning, whether ministerial or lay. Calvinism has won a just reputation for being as concerned with the state of the mind as with the state of the heart; with the need to understand the Gospel as well as to accept the Gospel. Indeed, because Calvinism’s interest in knowledge has been so pronounced, its critics often accuse it of being altogether bookish: a theological system without a heart.

But most people do not know that Calvinism’s admitted love of learning is the natural by-product of its understanding of the fundamental way God deals with men. By that I mean that when Calvinism preoccupies itself with theology, shows its distaste for doctrinal error and preaches its high regard for the Bible, it is only demonstrating its basic view of religion and of the way human beings become children of God. John Calvin was not only a systematic theologian; he also was a prime educator. And Calvinism’s love of learning does not reflect the reformer’s systematic theology as such. It rather reflects the reformer’s theory of religious education.

The Modern Debate

I have the feeling that John Calvin would have taken a keen interest in the modern debate in religious education. He was intelligently aware of the basic importance of having a correct answer to the question, “How does one appropriate religious values?” His own answer to this question may be deduced from what he had to say about the means of grace. And it is an answer which has lost none of its significance in the four hundred years since the reformer first required everyone to attend regular classes in catechetical instruction.

Two broad lines of investigation are being followed today in the continuing search for an effective theory of religious education. One of these is the line of method, the other the line of content. According to one viewpoint—the most modern and perhaps the most popular—“religious education” is just another phrase describing classroom procedures and techniques, this time within a church. According to this view the problem is essentially one of guidance and of participation. It deals with select and preferred behavior patterns. And, as one becomes qualified to teach algebra by earning credits in college courses in education, so one is qualified to teach religion by mastering child-guidance techniques. Method is valued above content in the education process. In the teaching of religion, the aim is to induce imitation by example, to habituate by practice.

Religious education in the modern mood further aims to “bring something out of” people rather than to “put something into” people. It believes that human beings become children of God and are nurtured in Christian experience by a program of appropriate activities carried on within environments suitable to those values which the pupils should be induced to appreciate and persuaded to apply. Virtue, in other words, is behavior to be cultivated rather than a quality to be acquired.

Devoid Of Essentials

But Calvin, following the evangelical tradition, believed that man begins devoid of certain essentials. Religious education, for him, described the process whereby human beings were given something they did not previously have. As he saw it, virtue was not something to be drawn out but something to be bestowed. He was not interested in imitation but in animation by the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit. He believed that what man needed must be given him and, further, that it must come from God. Religious education was the process of providing the occasion for—of cooperating with—the work of the Holy Spirit. Thus, for Calvin, the success of the educational process depended altogether upon grace, and the teacher stood, in relation to his pupil, simply as one who could apply the means of grace and seek to induce a response to grace.

Now Calvin’s prime emphasis was upon content. That is to say, he acted on the assumption that the educational process called for imparting knowledge. To the extent that he gave his attention to method it was almost entirely to the ways and means of applying content. His interest in content was for the best of reasons: he believed he had at his disposal the means of grace, a content which, when applied, animated the human heart in response to the work of the Holy Spirit. This content, of course, was the Word of God. He believed that God’s revelation—his Word—had, within itself, a dynamic quality. He noticed that this Word did things to people when they heard it. He concluded that this Word was a channel … an instrumentality … a means … of grace!

Calvin’s chief preoccupation in religious education, therefore, was to teach the Word of God. He would have taken a dim view of any procedure designed to beget children of God, in which the prime ingredient was not the Word of God. People became children of God by learning and understanding the Word of God. A Christian is not one who has adopted an intellectual proposition, but one in whom the Holy Spirit has planted and brought to fruition saving grace by means of the Word which is the prime channel of grace.

Importance Of Appropriation

Such a view of the Word of God is a far cry from the bibliolatry of which Calvin has often been accused. His interest in the Bible was not in the words of Scripture, not in the intellectual concepts within Scripture, not in the ethical principles deducible from Scripture—in themselves—but in the effect of the Word which was Scripture. The Word of God which we have—which is in Scripture, but which, to all practical purposes, must also be identified with Scripture—produces an evident and observable effect when it is preached and taught to people. Calvin pounced on this as the obvious substitute for the Roman sacramental graces. He recognized that we are called on to cooperate with the Holy Spirit’s purpose to reach human hearts for Christ by providing the means of grace, which is the Word.

This view of the aim of religious education is far removed from the other. This is based on a belief that people are converted by means of the Gospel and nurtured by means of the Word of God, and that both work in essentially the same way. Like the channel which is not a part of the river, or the electric wire which is not the power flowing through it, the message of salvation provides the means by which the Holy Spirit animates the heart.

Calvin went on to conclude that “doctrine” would be equal in effect to the Word itself as a means of grace, if it were sound doctrine. Obviously the Holy Spirit cannot work as effectively through imperfect means. Hence the reformer’s impatience with error. He put “sound” doctrine into a catechism and put the catechism into the minds of the youth of Geneva. And he doubted not that, as they gave evidence they understood this doctrine, they also were manifesting their effectual calling.

Sanctification In Life

Now I think it is clear why Calvinism speaks familiarly of “coming to a saving knowledge” of Christ. By this is meant, not that a Christian is saved because of his faith, but that a Christian is saved by his faith. To hear about Christ may bring about conversion because the knowledge of Christ provides the “connection” through which the Holy Spirit performs his saving work. Thus the Word of God effectuates salvation because “It has pleased God through the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe.” And the Word effectuates sanctification in a similar manner.

Calvin knew that children of God need to develop their Christian piety as truly as they need to be converted in the first place. And the process of growth is of growth “in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ.” Again, the prime means is the Word of God, in which Christ is presented and through which the Holy Spirit, who is our teacher, operates.

I think it should now be clear why Calvin held the Bible and sound doctrine in such high esteem. It should also be clear why the reformer stressed the teaching of doctrine by such methods as catechetical instruction in his program of religious education. It was a program centered in an appeal to the mind, yes. But Calvin appealed to the mind in order to reach the heart. He judged the success of his program by whether or not his pupils understood what they were taught. To some, despite his best efforts, the Word remained foolishness. But he noticed that others found it to be the power of God and the wisdom of God. Calvin preached, taught, persuaded, cajoled, explained and illustrated, seeking all the while for a glimmer of understanding. When it came, he believed the Holy Spirit had entered.

Whatever you may think of the reformer’s epistemology—for that is what this is—it would be hard to deduce a more coherent doctrine of the means of grace from Scripture. And however modern education may contribute its part to the original idea, with practical techniques, the heart of any realistic program of religious education still must be the Word of God. This is not only because accurate concepts must be available as guides to practical living; it is primarily because “the Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and the joints and marrow.”

END

G. Aiken Taylor is Minister of the First Presbyterian Church of Alexandria, Louisiana. He holds the Ph.D. degree from Duke University, where Calvin’s view of Christian education was one of his graduate interests. He is author of A Sober Faith and St. Luke’s Life of Jesus.

Cover Story

Sin and the Saviour

Robert G. Lee

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15).

In the first Constitutional Convention four men—Roger Sherman, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, and James Madison—spoke a total of 637 times. Were I, with all wisdom and eloquence, to speak ten times 637 times on “Sin and the Sinner’s Saviour,” I could not describe the ruinous ravages of sin and the greatness of the sinner’s sinless Saviour.

What am I to believe about God? Man? Sin? Salvation? Life? Death? Hell? Heaven? The future life? The Bible answers. The Bible teaches that—

Sin Is A Reality

Listen! “Jews and Gentiles … are all under sin” (Rom. 3:9). “All have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Rom. 5:12). “Let not sin reign in your mortal body” (Rom. 6:12). “God sending his own Son … [a sin offering], condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). “Sin hath reigned unto death” (Rom. 5:21). “Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death” (Jas. 1:15).

These Bible statements show that sin was and is in the life of all men—except Jesus Christ, in whom was no sin. Every man must say, “I have sinned.” And unpardoned sin, ever a terror, disturbs hardened souls. Lady Macbeth dreams that she sees “the damned spot” of sin upon her hand and that she cannot get it washed off. King Macbeth, in his guilty imagination, thinks he sees the airy phantom of a dagger. Both confirm Shakespeare’s belief and your belief that conscience hath one thousand different tongues, that every tongue brings in a separate tale, and that every tale condemns you for your sin. And sin is in you as surely as in Adam, who ruined a whole race; or David, who said, “My sin is ever before me”; or Mary Magdalene, who had seven devils; or Peter, who denied Jesus; or Judas, who betrayed Jesus; or the rich young ruler, who would not give up earthly wealth for heavenly riches; or the swine herdsmen of Gadara, who asked Jesus to “depart out of their coasts”; or Saul of Tarsus, who “destroyed them which called on Jesus’ name” (Acts 9:21).

Ghastly great among life’s factors is the fact of sinplague and tragedy of the world, death’s-head set amidst life’s feast, quintessence of all horrors, cause of all world suffering. And we know that—

Sin Is Ruin

Though many relish sin with impenitent hardness of heart, still sin is the nightmare of the human race.

Though certain scientists tell us that sin is an upward stumble in man’s progress, still sin is the evil that subverted the constitutional order of man’s nature and destroyed the harmony of his powers.

Though some philosophers teach that sin is goodness in the making and that modern “prodigal sons” are only expressing themselves into a higher experience, still “the wages of sin is death.”

Though some tell us that sin is just a disagreeable hindrance to the smooth ongoing of the social machinery, still sin is no light discord but a thunderbolt that crashes life’s organ into splinters.

Though some psychologists say sin is egotistic abnormality, still sin is madness in the brain, poison in the heart, frenzy in the imagination, leprous pollution in the blood, blindness of eyes, deafness of ears, prostitution of tongues, palsy of feet, withering of hands—the black darkness that invests man’s whole being.

Though some theologians lighten man’s sense of the enormity of sin, still sin is the curse of all curses.

The only thing true about the teaching that makes sin “the backward pull of outworn good” is that it is a lie—because sin abuses the authority of God interposed in his law; abuses God’s justice as though he would not punish; abuses God’s power as though the sinner’s breath was not in God’s hand; abuses God’s wisdom as if God’s laws were not right and reasonable; abuses God’s omniscience as if he did not see all our ways; abuses God’s threatenings as if they were not to be feared; abuses God’s promises as if they were lies; abuses Christ as though he were a deceiver and a devil; abuses Christ’s death, blood, righteousness, salvation.

Whether we say sin is transgression, overstepping the divine boundary between good and evil—or iniquity, an act inherently wrong whether expressly forbidden or not—or error, departure from the right—or missing the mark, failure to meet the divine standard—or trespass, the intrusion of self-will into the sphere of divine authority—or lawlessness, which is spiritual anarchy—or unbelief, insult to divine veracity, still we know that sin, which originated with Satan (Isa. 14:12–14) and entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5:12), was, and is, universal, Christ alone excepted (Rom. 3:23 and 1 Pet. 2:22).

When sin reigns, deadly is your soul’s state. Sin, insidious like disease, ruins like rot. Sin darkens your understanding, defiles your conscience, ossifies your will, hardens your heart, disorders all the affection God wishes you to maintain. Sin puts your soul under the sentence of God. But from sin’s ruin you can get—

Relief

Sin incurs the penalties of spiritual and physical death. Where is relief to be found? In God’s forgiveness.

Sin is debt; God’s forgiveness and God’s acceptance of the crimson coin of Christ’s blood the payment for that debt.

Sin is a cloud; God’s forgiveness the sun which does away with the cloud.

Sin is strain; God’s forgiveness the fire which burns out the dross.

Sin is darkness; God’s forgiveness the light which dispels it.

Sin is a burden; God’s forgiveness the removal of it.

Sin is a corpse—the “body of death” (Rom. 7:24); God’s forgiveness the burial of that corpse in the depths of the sea.

Sin is poison; God’s forgiveness the antidote.

Sin is captivity; God’s forgiveness freedom.

Sin is a blotted and blurred record; God’s forgiveness the erasure of that record.

Sin is death; God’s forgiveness Christ’s meritorious life substituted for your forfeited life.

What relief to experience the truth that “where sin abounded grace doth much more abound; that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 5:20–21), “set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins … that he (God) might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom. 3:25–26). Think of the—

Sinner’s Saviour

You have no remedy for your sin except in the sacrificial death of Christ who “appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26) and to whom is given the only name “under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). And this remedy in Christ is available by faith, because through Christ “is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38–39).

“Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). God “hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin: that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21).

From sin’s death, how is the sinner, “dead in trespasses and sins,” made alive? From bondage so galling and servitude so severe, how is the captive made free? Jesus said, “He that heareth my word and believeth … is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). That’s how. John said, “God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (1 John 5:11). That’s how. Paul said, “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2). That’s how.

Jesus Christ, the everlasting source of human salvation, is your Saviour, through faith in him. He only, by a work consistent with the character of God, can break the power which holds you in chains, avert the punishment which threatens you, fortify with fresh sanctions the law which you have broken and, reconciling justice with mercy, open to you the fountains of grace. Through Christ the law is vindicated, the holiness of God is doubly honoured and mercy is offered to you because “Christ receiveth sinful men.”

The sinner’s Saviour received the wages of sin which he never earned that you might have eternal life which you never deserved. Christ went to the pit that you might sit on his throne; went into awful gloom that you might enter into glory; was sold that you might ransomed be; was unjustly judged that you might escape the severity of God’s judgments; was scourged that by his stripes you might be healed; became for you, on the cross, all that God must judge, that you, through faith in Christ, might become all that God cannot judge.

The sinner’s Saviour, the perfectly righteous One, was judged as unrighteous that you, the unrighteous one, through faith in him, might be judged as righteous.

The sinner’s Saviour stood before God with all your sins upon himself that you might stand before God with none of your sins upon yourself.

When the Squalus crew realized that they had taken their last dive and that they were lying helpless at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, two hundred and forty feet below the surface, they sent up smoke flares and a buoy. Would one of the sister ships find them, and if so could they be rescued? Their help must come from above. In agonizing silence they waited.

Soon after that fatal dive the submarine Sculpin set out in search. The red smudge was found, then the buoy. But twenty-four hours passed before actual rescue work could be started. A giant ten-ton diving bell dipped and rose again and again, each time taking several men alive from those awful depths, until all thirty-three men alive in the submarine had been rescued,

When that huge diving bell came down for the Squalus crew, not one sailor refused to be rescued, but all gladly accepted the way to safety.

When the Sculpin sent down the ten-ton diving bell, not one of the thirty-three men said, “I will think it over,” or “There are hypocrites on the Sculpin and I want nothing to do with them” or “I will wait for a more convenient season.” Not one said, “I am in good condition as I am” or “I will wait until I get married” or “There is too much to give up.” Not one said, “I am waiting for a loved one or friend” or “I do not understand the workings of the diving bell” or “Sometime I will” or “I don’t feel like being rescued” or “Tomorrow I will ask rescue.” Not one of them found fault with the Sculpin crew—as some find fault with the preacher. Not one of them said, “I can hold out” or “Next year will be soon enough.” All gladly accepted the way to safety.

Christ is ready to forgive—to save. Highest willingness has he. Will you be wise today to get rid of your sin? Would you continue as an impenitent sinner and “nourish your heart as in the day of slaughter?” Will you treasure up wrath “against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God?”

The day of wrath is not yet come. This day of grace is yours. God acquits—through Christ Jesus. God declares you free from guilt through your trust in Jesus “whom they hanged on a tree” (Acts 10:39), “who bare our sins in his own body … that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24). Who, then, can condemn you? You are eternally safe—against the day of calamity coming, the day of judgment coming, the day of death coming, the day of Christ’s coming.

O young sinner, come to Jesus. God says, “They that seek me early shall find me” (Prov. 8:17). Quicker than a speeding wheel turns on its axle, quicker than swiftest wing ever moved in flight, come to Jesus. He says, “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37). And you who are older, who have long been dead in sin, come quickly out of your grave. The Lord Jesus calls you. Come! Come now! Come more quickly than ever wounded man cried for a doctor. Come more quickly than ever drowning man reached for a lifeboat. Come today, even while I speak. And Jesus will glorify his name in your salvation.

Robert G. Lee stands at the climax of a lifetime of service in the Southern Baptist Convention, which he served as president from 1948–51. Since 1927 he has been pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tenn. and has won a national following as a pulpit orator. He is author of 23 books, many of them being volumes of his sermons.

Where There’s Smoke …

Joseph Martin Hopkins

Repeated scientific warnings against the harmful effects of cigarettes on the human body point to the strong probability that behind all this smoke there may be more than a little fire. That these warnings have been scornfully brushed aside by tobacco companies (for obvious mercenary reasons) is irrelevant. The cumulative testimony of unbiased research is too massive to be shrugged off by wishful thinkers.

As recently as March 22, 1957, the Associated Press reported the verdict of seven scientists, whose research was co-sponsored by the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association, that “on a life-time basis, one of every 10 men who smoke over two packs a day will die of lung cancer,” as against the nonsmoker proportion of one in 275. Concluded the study group, “The sum total of scientific evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that cigarette smoking is a causative factor in the rapidly increasing incidence of epidermoid carcinoma (cancer) of the lung.”

The response of the tobacco industry was substantially what one might expect from a $5 billion-per-year business that pockets more than $170 million annual profit and pays its top executives yearly salaries in excess of $400,000. The report, tobocco officials stated, “apparently offers no original evidence” and relies heavily on statistics that have been “widely questioned by other scientists as to their significance.” Gabriel Courier has commented in Christian Herald, “The tobacco industry says it’s doubtful that cigarettes cause lung cancer. The classic and unnerving answer to that one is the Roy Norr gem—‘Who should have the benefit of the doubt—people, or cigarettes?’ ”

In first-century Ephesus, Demetrius and his fellow silversmiths stirred up a city-wide tumult over the inroads of Christianity upon their idol-making profits. With similar irresponsibility and avarice, the tobacco industry is diverting $33 million annually into an all-out advertising effort to combat the devastating findings of impartial medical research. But this vigorous propaganda campaign notwithstanding, an estimated 1.5 million smokers swore off cigarettes during an 18-month period beginning in the fall of 1953, according to the U. S. Census Bureau. This figure compares with that of 600,000 for the previous year.

Tobacco advertisers, eager to enlist new smoking recruits, would like the public to believe that “everybody does it.” But the U. S. Census Bureau reports a national total of only 38 million regular cigarette smokers—25 million men and 13 million women. The addition of 10 million pipe and cigar users and 8 million occasional smokers brings the grand total to 56 million—which means that there are well over 110 million nonsmokers in the nation.

Dr. Charles S. Cameron, Medical and Scientific Director of the American Cancer Society, has reported that during the period 1930–1948 “the death rate from lung cancer rose from 5.3 per 100,000 to 27.1—an increase of 411 per cent.” The ratio of men to women dying from lung cancer also has soared and is currently 8 to 1. Significantly, this alarming trend has been accompanied by a parallel upsurge in cigarette use. In 1914 the United States produced 3 billion cigarettes; in 1918, 46 billion; 1935, 140 billion; 1945, 332 billion; 1952, 395 billion.

Dr. Cameron, in an Atlantic Monthly article entitled “Lung Cancer and Smoking,” cited the Lombard-Doering investigation of 1928 as the first “properly controlled statistical (study) of a possible relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.” Ten years later Professor Raymond Pearl of Johns Hopkins University, upon analyzing case histories of 6,813 men, concluded that a heavy smoker at age 30 has 46 chances out of 100 to attain the age of 60, while the nonsmoker has 66 chances. In 1950 four independent statistical studies revealed a high correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, and during the next five years this conclusion was corroborated by more than fourteen similar investigations.

The most ambitious of these studies is the $500,000 American Cancer Society research, based on case histories of 187,000 men between the ages of 50 and 70. The initial report, after 18 months during which 4,854 members of the control group had died, indicated that (1) the death rate of men who had been regular smokers during a portion of their lives was 1½ times greater than that of nonsmokers; (2) the cancer (all kinds) death rate was 2½ times greater among heavy smokers (a pack or more a day) than among nonsmokers; (3) twice as many deaths due to heart disease occurred among heavy smokers as among nonsmokers; (4) deaths from lung cancer were five times as frequent for heavy smokers as for nonsmokers; and (5) death rates were significantly higher among light smokers (less than half a pack a day) than among nonsmokers.

After 32 months had elapsed, a second analysis confirmed the earlier findings. “In fact,” observed Dr. Cameron, “the findings indicated that the relationships between cigarette smoking and susceptibility to cancer of the lung are decidedly more striking than they appeared to be in the previous investigation.” Only 2 cases appeared among 32,460 nonsmokers (4.9 per 100,000) as against 152 deaths among the 107,978 men who “had smoked cigarettes regularly at some time” (145 per 100,000).

More recently, in December, 1956, a quartet of Massachusetts doctors revealed to the American Medical Association their discoveries concerning 40 patients, all heavy smokers, who had contracted an illness known as pulmonary emphysema—rupture of tiny air sacs in the lung. They noted that this malady is fairly common, often disabling and sometimes fatal, and expressed their judgment that “smoking may be even more hazardous than has been hitherto recognized.”

The foregoing widely publicized reports showing the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer have caused many to forget other long-recognized adverse effects of smoking on health. If the nicotine contained in five cigarettes (or one cigar) were injected into the blood stream, the dosage would be fatal. But happily the lungs absorb only about 2 of the 18 milligrams of nicotine in each cigarette, and much of this harmful substance is eliminated via the kidneys. Nevertheless, medical authorities certify that smoking increases blood pressure, drugs the nervous system, reduces appetite, interferes with digestion, irritates the throat and larnyx, reduces wind and endurance and impairs mental and bodily efficiency. It is common knowledge that athletic coaches almost universally turn thumbs down on smoking for athletes engaging in sports events requiring top physical conditioning.

Thus the evidence, both old and new, is overwhelming that smoking is injurious to the smoker. Just how seriously should we take these scientific findings? Tobacco manufacturers, with their profit slip showing, are inclined to pooh-pooh them, as are many inveterate tobacco users. When a subjective smoke screen is permitted to obscure reason, objectivity becomes impossible. A Pittsburgh psychiatrist, commenting on the incipient dangers of tranquilizer drugs, declared, “Even if only one in 1,000 cases were affected, we should object to any move which might cause a death.” But the odds are that one of every 10 heavy smokers will contract lung cancer!

Why this emotional involvement with tobacco which blinds otherwise reasonable people to the clear fact that smoking is bad for them—and that therefore they should give it up? (That tobacco, as a narcotic, is habit-forming, is no excuse. It is all the more reason for releasing the will from its chains!) A reformer can get away with crusading against dope; and no one would raise a fuss if it were established that chewing gum, olive oil, or sassafras tea were physically harmful. But let somebody try to take away his tobacco—or his liquor—and immediately he’s fighting mad!

The time is over-ripe for Christian people to outgrow this infantilism. After all, if the body is the “temple of the Holy Spirit,” any practice that is found to be defiling or damaging to this sanctuary should be rejected. The rationalization that “everyone’s entitled to a few vices” is utterly indefensible ethically. Who, may I ask, has entitled us to any? Has not Christ called upon us to set perfection as our goal (Matt. 5:48) and, through the author of Hebrews, to lay aside every weight which inhibits us in running the Christian race (Heb. 12:1)?

I pose as no ascetic. Is it asceticism to repudiate the harmful while cultivating the beneficial? This, it seems to be, is not merely sound Christian morality, it is plain common sense.

I am not naïve enough to believe that every smoker upon reading this article will thereupon empty pocket and purse of cigarettes and resolve to abstain from tobacco henceforth and forevermore! Many, unwilling to accept either the evidence or its attending conclusions, will dismiss the whole thing as the ranting of a prejudiced abstainer. Well, I freely admit a prejudice against tobacco—just as I admit a prejudice against marijuana. If to oppose those elements in our society which militate against personal health and public welfare is prejudice, then by all means let us have more of the same!

Joseph Martin Hopkins is Associate Professor in the Department of Bible and Philosophy at Westminster College, New Wilmington, Pa., where he received the B.Mus. degree in 1940 (he has published 35 musical compositions). He holds the B.Th. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary and the Ph.D. from University of Pittsburgh.

Cover Story

Archaeology’s Role in Bible Study

James L. Kelso

Among the most fortunate Bible students today are those specializing in biblical archaeology, for they have a wealth of information on Bible times that is not available to the average minister. Indeed, biblical archaeology is so young a science that it has not yet produced popular writers to bring its vast store of knowledge to the Bible-reading public.

Life In Bible Times

Archaeology’s aim is to learn everything possible about life in Bible days. It is therefore interested first of all in geography, for history has its roots in the soil. Scientific geography was a very late comer to Bible study. It was not until 1838 that Edward Robinson gave us a good geography of Palestine; and it was 1878 before we had an accurate map of the land, and then it was only of western Palestine. Digging was done as early as the time of the American Civil War, but the father of all professional archaeologists, Flinders Petrie, did not excavate in Palestine until 1890, and then only a brief campaign. Although sporadic digs were conducted in the succeeding years, no accurate over-all detailed pattern of Palestinian archaeology was discovered until after the First World War. Then came a veritable flood of information, which revolutionized our knowledge of the Bible lands. Oddly enough, however, the period of Palestinian life on which the least digging has been done to date is that covering the earthly life of Christ. That is one reason why the Dead Sea scrolls are so invaluable. In striking contrast to the absence of work by New Testament scholars on the Palestine of Christ’s time is the early archaeological work on Paul by Sir William Ramsey. All students of the great apostle are deeply indebted to Ramsey.

Egypt and Mesopotamia also throw a wealth of light on the Old Testament. Egypt’s geographic closeness created a lasting commercial relationship, which shows up in the objects excavated in Palestine; but the Euphrates valley left the greater intellectual imprint. More recently nearby Syria and Anatolia are contributing their quota of information.

In the early days of work in Egypt and Mesopotamia, the literary findings were often incorrectly interpreted. There was such an anxiety to relate this material to the Bible that often both liberals and conservatives missed the true values.

Beyond The Reformation

Enough work has now been done in all phases of archaeological research so that the general pattern of Bible life stands out clearly for the first time, although much work must yet be done before the picture can be filled in completely. One naturally asks what is the over-all picture of Bible life that archaeology has dug up? Does it differ from the traditional view of the Reformation? And how does it evaluate the liberalism of pre-world-war dates? Also what new material does it furnish for Bible study? When we realize that the reformers had none of the tools of archaeological research except the linguistic ones, we are surprised to see how well they worked out the general interpretation of Scripture. Both liberals and conservatives still call Calvin a good commentator. But archaeology has uncovered a vast new world of information that was not available to the reformers, and our present need is for commentators with the faith of the reformers and the information of the archaeologists. Such scholars are a “must” for the future of Bible study.

Above Liberalism

Much of the strength behind liberalism was its early use of archaeology. In those days, however, archaeology was a young science; and in all young sciences “too big conclusions are drawn from too little evidence.” To the liberals, similarity to biblical material meant a copying by biblical writers. For example, the similarities of the Mosaic legislation to the Hammurabi code were stressed, but the differences were largely ignored. Today we know that a common Semitic law lay behind both but that each fitted into its own particular time and locale. Alt, Albright, Mendenhall and others have proved the unique nature of the Mosaic Covenant.

Another feature of liberalism was to deny the historicity of the patriarchs and to treat that section of the Bible as late historic fiction. Although we cannot yet date the patriarchs to exact years, they definitely belong in the Middle Bronze Age. Then and only then do we find the many unique features paralleled in those narratives.

Old Testament liberalism grew strong under the evolutionary theory of history. Israelite religion was considered as the natural culmination of Canaanite religion—a refinement to be true, but nevertheless of common origin. Today we know that the exact opposite is true. Mosaic monotheism is unique! Again and again Israel turned to Canaanite religion and again and again she tried to synthesize it with Jehovah worship, but the revealed religion of the Old Testament was always unique. Her champions were often small in number, but ultimately their faith prevailed until at last the Messianic heart of their message became incarnate in the person of Jesus, the Christ.

Essay And Biography

Today archaeology presents the following picture of the Bible. Genesis consists of two unequal sections: the first, and shorter, of highly condensed theological essays and a second longer one of theological biographies. In the Bible, history is written with a definite theological emphasis. As already stressed, the Abrahamic and succeeding narratives are definitely historic. The other books of the Pentateuch are likewise historical. Year by year archaeological research is demonstrating that a larger portion of the legal sections belong approximately to the Mosaic period; and at the same time a smaller percentage of material has any likelihood of coming from a late date. Note that the prophetic period of the Old Testament was the manufacturing age of Israel’s history, with modern assembly-line techniques in use and with the shifting of farm and factory population just as we have it today. But the Pentateuchal legislation has no laws dealing with Israel’s manufacturing age. The prophets, however, struggled constantly with this problem. Much work yet remains to be done on the Pentateuch but the general pattern seems fixed.

Support For Historicity

Joshua’s conquest is definitely demonstrated and can be dated shortly before 1200 B.C. Of the seven cities referred to in the narrative, which have been excavated, six have given a conclusive demonstration of the historicity of the Israelite conquest. Only Jericho fails to present a demonstration and even here circumstantial evidence favors historicity. The book of Judges is paralleled in the findings of excavations from that period. When David and Solomon came to power, their international contacts lend new check references and demonstrate their influence even outside of Palestine. The Mosaic period was the first great religio-culture climax and the David-Solomon period was the second. Religion was no longer simply a feature of farm and village. City culture must also be religious. The tribe lost its importance to the federal government, but Jehovah was still King of kings, and David was as subservient to him as was any commoner. With the divided kingdom and the prophetic period archaeological data becomes more voluminous both in Palestine and those lands which had contact with her. New light is also cast on the post-exilic period both in Palestine and Babylonia. The century preceding Alexander the Great still needs better delineation, but the Maccabaean period and the Herodian days are much better known than the years of the earthly ministry of Jesus, the Christ. With Paul we come into a superabundance of archaeological data and can reconstruct much of his labors.

The Dead Sea scrolls are most valuable aids for Gospel research, for they open up a new phase of Jewish life in the days of Jesus. Not only did Pharisee and Sadducee reject him but the Essenes did also. These three Old Testament sects all failed to recognize the Messiah. The uniqueness of Christianity stands out clearly as we compare it with the Essene creed and life. Indeed, Christianity is so phenomenally unique that it has always been hard to convince people of this uniqueness. It is a blessing that we have the Holy Spirit to demonstrate to us the uniqueness of Christ, the Trinity, the Church and the Bible. The Dead Sea scrolls, however, do give a wealth of minor cross-reference data for use in New Testament research. W. F. Albright, the world’s best archaeological authority in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, insists that there is now no longer any major reason why we need to date any New Testament book later than A.D. 80.

The Situation In Life

Now comes the big question. How does the Christian archaeologist study his Bible? In so far as is possible, he tries to reconstruct the total setting of the passage he is studying. That means geography and linguistics, customs and manners, people and things, commoners and scholars, sinners and saints, businessmen and politicians, art and literature, gods and God! If we use this method for the period of the Exodus, we find that the providence and grace of Jehovah shines out in vastly increased splendor. And all of this is in striking contrast to the impotence of both the Egyptian and the Canaanite religions which were the reliance of Pharaoh Rameses. The Ten Commandments are best appreciated against those contemporary religions. The church in the wilderness was still the same church where Christ worshipped in Jerusalem, although its full reality was not seen of men until after Pentecost. The old Canaanite saw much significance in Bible history which we may miss. Baal was the great Canaanite god of that land and in his hand alone was the power of water and the storm. But Israel went dry-shod through Jordan! More Canaanites were lost in the storm of Ajalon than died by Joshua’s arms! Samuel had a similar experience and Sisera was defeated by a cloudburst. Elijah, who later appeared with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration, defeated the priests of Baal on Mt. Carmel.

We know now that Israel was a truly democratic people. The civilization of Palestine before and after Joshua presents a striking contrast. Before him there was the patrician and his serfs, fine houses, and slave quarters. After Joshua all people fit into a common pattern—all houses were small and everyone was poor. When wealth grew, however, democracy stayed on. Saul, the king, was restrained by the common people from fulfilling his vow on Jonathan. Even cruel Joab refused for a time to carry out David’s census and create a Federal army in place of the tribal militia. Under Rehoboam Israel invoked the referendum and recall and broke off from the Davidic dynasty. Naboth refused to sell to king Ahab, for it was the right of every Israelite to be a free man and to hold his old ancestral land. Democracy continued to be one of the major preachments of the prophets.

The place of customs and manners in the interpretation of a Bible book is well seen in Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. Here was one of the great manufacturing and shipping cities of New Testament times. Here were gathered rich manufacturers and their slave workers. Here Aphrodite was worshipped in one of the last major sanctuaries of the fertility cults. Now read Paul’s words on the resurrection and realize what consolation they would bring to the slave members of his congregation, to whom this present life offered no hope. Think of Paul’s hymn on love against the background of Aphrodite. Here too Paul won a striking legal decision for Christianity. His Jewish opposition tried to convince the Roman governor that Christianity was not related to Judaism and was therefore an illegal religion, but Gallio refused their plea and thus ruled that Christianity was a legal faith in the Empire.

Finally, what does archaeology do to the historic creed of the church universal? It makes it more unique than ever! Revelation alone can account for our faith. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.” But in all of history, century after century God was weaving ten thousand times ten thousand details into this pattern of revelation and preparing his Messianic pattern for the redemption of mankind through his Son, Jesus the Christ.

END

James L. Kelso is one of America’s best-informed biblical archaeologists. He has served as Professor of Old Testament at Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary since 1923, and is author of The Ceramic Vocabulary of the Old Testament (1948) and of Excavations at New Testament Jericho and Khirbet en-Nitla (1955). In 1949–50 he was Director of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem.

Cover Story

Unity of the Spirit

J. Marcellus Kik

The indwelling Holy Spirit secures the unity of the Church. Establishing and strengthening unity among the people of God falls within the province of the third person of the Holy Trinity. The early church experienced an earnest of unity on the day of Pentecost when representatives from every nation cried out in amazement, “How hear we in our own language the wonderful works of God?” The tower of Babel—the man-made attempt at unity—brought forth division and confusion of tongues. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost brought forth a universal spiritual language that could be understood by all nationalities and would bind together the children of God from every nation.

In every language, people would understand the mighty works of God: calvary, resurrection, regeneration, justification, reconciliation, sanctification, eternal life and joy. The unity introduced at Pentecost was a foreshadowing of the future unity that would characterize the church under the power of the Holy Spirit.

A sad commentary on the ecclesiastical world of today is the necessity of asserting that the Spirit mentioned in Ephesians 4:3 is none other than the third person of the Trinity. The person of the Spirit is obscured and sometimes equated with new life and new love brought into the community. The fruits activated by the Spirit do not form the Spirit. The tendency to confound human consciousness with the Spirit must be resisted. Nor should it be thought that virtue and power emanating from God constitutes the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, the Unitarian concept of the Godhead is gaining ground in some denominations that were historically trinitarian. However, none other than the third person of the Trinity broods over the new creation to bring forth the beauty of unity even as he brought order and beauty out of what was waste and void in the old creation.

Unity Of Pentecost

The glorious unity engendered by the Holy Spirit was dramatically illustrated on the day of Pentecost when from a mixture of nationalities the Christian church became visible. Three thousand souls were welded together and continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers (Acts 2:41, 42). The immediate effect of this outpouring of the Spirit was a unity of doctrine and spiritual fellowship. Similarity of belief and gathering together for prayer gave visibility to the early church and demonstrated unity of the Spirit. The union of Christians in doctrine and their association in the breaking of bread and in prayer followed the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Identity of faith, of love, of hope, of desires characterize those moved by the third person of the Trinity.

The apostle Paul presupposes the existence of unity such as that demonstrated on Pentecost when he warns the church at Ephesus to make real effort to maintain this quality—“Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). The import of his warning must not be misunderstood to mean that unity is the product of peace or simply consists of peace. The existence of peace among the people of God reveals the presence of the Spirit and indicates his activity. Peace gives visibility to the inward unity created by the Spirit. Lack of tranquility indicates the absence of the Holy Spirit.

Vital Bond

Being a citizen of a particular nation brings about a feeling of kinship with fellow citizens. Belonging to one ecclesiastical structure may also create a sense of affinity. However, God designed a deeper and more vital bond for the Christian. Through the Holy Spirit the believer enters into close relation to the Lord Jesus Christ. This common relationship, formed by the Spirit, gives to believers a sense of unity stronger than that brought about by a common citizenship or by church membership. Living relationship to Christ, with the consequent sense of fellowship, is authored by the Holy Spirit. In this the unity of the Spirit consists.

Mere citizenship in a nation or membership in a church does not in itself cause a feeling of kindness and love that must prevail if harmony is to be achieved. Disruptive evil forces exist in both nation and church. Hatred, envy, greed and kindred sins induce friction and separation in family, nation and church. Human beings in their own strength have failed to remove divisive evils from society. Supernatural power alone can change human dispositions from evil to good. The Holy Spirit provides a sanctifying influence that removes evil and implants good and thereby establishes concord.

Removal Of Enmities

Among sinful lusts mentioned by Paul in the fifth chapter of Galatians are enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions and envyings. These vanquish harmony and peace. Belonging to one particular church or denomination does not remove evils that cause dissension and discord. Every pastor knows the grievous trouble that the sins enumerated by Paul stir up within the congregation and the scandal they cause to the outsider. The unregenerate man does not as a rule become disturbed by the many denominations within the nation but does become troubled by factions and fightings within the local congregation. That is his point of contact. Divisive evils that cause scandal to the community can be removed only by the Holy Spirit. Those who walk in the Spirit will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Unity cannot exist without the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit.

Implanting positive virtues as well as removing evils falls in the province of the third person of the Trinity and is essential to concord. The fruits of the Spirit, Paul informs us in the fifth chapter of Galatians, are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness and self-control. Without these virtues one may succeed in building a structure stone upon stone but without mortar to cement it together into a solid whole. Organizational visibility occupies the mind of ecumenists, but what can show forth greater visibility than the manifestation throughout the entire church of love, joy and peace? The early church was made perceptible to the pagan world by the love and serenity of Christians. The twentieth century cannot fail to be more impressed by a tangible evidence of love, joy, and peace than by an efficient and centrally controlled organization. Holiness more than outward solidarity impresses the worldly mind. This type of visible unity depends entirely upon the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Unity Of Faith And Knowledge

The Spirit also promotes unity by gifts with which he endows the church. Both in the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians and the fourth chapter of Ephesians attention is drawn to the diversity of gifts bestowed by the same Spirit. The grand purpose of these gifts was “For the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ: till we all attain unto the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God” (Eph. 4:12, 13). The New Testament stresses the importance of the unity of faith and knowledge while remaining almost silent with regard to unity of structure and organization that looms so large in the minds of some ecumenists.

Contrary to opinion, the world is not so perplexed and puzzled by duplication of organizations as by conflicting voices emanating from various groups within the visible church. Who is teaching the truth? is the question frequently asked. The disastrous impact of contradictory doctrines does more to destroy the appearance of unity than the lack of centrally controlled organization. The Spirit goes to the heart of the matter by endowing the ministry with gifts to bring forth unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God. Unity authored by the Spirit becomes visible in identity of faith and knowledge among believers.

To communicate faith and knowledge the Holy Spirit employs the written Word. The modern (yet old) attempt to detach the Spirit from the written revelation has done untold harm to the unity of the church. P. T. Forsyth wrote, “Detached from the Word, the supernatural action of the Holy Spirit becomes gradually the natural evolution of the human spirit. The Spirit becomes identified with the natural humanity” (Faith, Freedom, and the Future, p. 95). The religious experience of a generation becomes identified with the Spirit. Yet the experience of one generation may differ and even contradict the experience of another generation. Thus the Spirit is saddled with the responsibility of contradiction and confusion. Religious experience that differs from the revelation given through the prophets and apostles cannot be regarded as true and authentic. The Spirit does not teach a faith and knowledge in contradiction to the written Word which he inspired.

The thrust of the Ephesian passage (4:11–13) indicates that the Holy Spirit endowed the Church with the ministry for the purpose of causing all to come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God. Jesus Christ is the object of faith and the content of knowledge. The unity of faith means that all shall possess the same confidence in the divine Son of God as Saviour and Lord. The ministry, called and gifted by the Spirit, declares that faith which lays hold of Christ unto eternal life. The unity of knowledge means that all be informed of the facts relating to Christ. Such knowledge includes the pre-existence, incarnation, earthly life and ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, present reign and coming again of the Messiah. It includes also the interpretation of these events as given by the inspired writers of the Scriptures. Only as the ministry labors to instruct believers in the faith and knowledge of the Son of God does it fulfill the mission to which it has been called and enriched by the Holy Spirit.

Seeking The Spirit

The church must learn how to open her heart to the sweet influences of the third person of the Trinity that spiritual unity may prevail. The Holy Spirit may be grieved, offended, and quenched. More than a passive attitude is required to attract the indwelling of the Spirit. Heart searching and supplication are positive requirements that demand activity on the part of the church. Whatever offends must be eradicated and the Spirit’s presence implored. A church solicitous to please the Spirit is a church active in true ecumenicity.

The evangelical more than any other understands the nature and quality of spiritual unity. He sees the fallacy and shallowness of an ecumenicity that would achieve unity through a central organization. This increases his responsibility and rebukes him for the lack of spiritual unity evidenced by those who hold to evangelical Christianity. He comes far short of that perfect man and the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:13). He must admonish false ecumenicity not only with his lips but by a display of true unity among the brethren. Love and peace are as visible as concrete and stone. The evangelical will not prevail in rebuking the error of some aspects of the modern ecumenical movement until the unity of the Spirit prevails in his midst.

END

The Rev. J. Marcellus Kik, Associate Editor of Christianity Today, is presently engaged in writing Ecumenicalism and the Evangelical to be published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company in October. The above article will form one of the chapters. Mr. Kik is the author of Matthew Twenty-four, Revelation Twenty and Voices from Heaven and Hell.

Cover Story

Signs of Awakening in Britain

F. P. Copland Simmons

After a long period of decline, the churches of every denomination in Britain are enjoying today a period of new life. Careful observers are timid about using the word “revival,” for that would give to the outsider a picture of crowded churches and a genuine spiritual awakening throughout the land. Of this there is no great sign, despite the overwhelming success of Dr. Billy Graham’s Crusades in London and Glasgow. I would rather call it a “turn in the tide.” The slow but steady drift away from the church on the part of the majority of the population of Britain has for the moment ceased, and there is a slow but steady drift back to the church.

Golden Hour For Evangelism

While I was Moderator of the Free Church Council of England and Wales in 1955 and 1956, I could not help observing the large congregations and the deep interest of ministers and members alike in the vital topic of evangelism. The relationship between the Church of England and the Free churches (i.e., the Established and the non-established churches) is of the friendliest order, and I found myself preaching in Canterbury Cathedral and some of the other historic cathedrals and parish churches of England, as well as in free churches, large and small, up and down the land. The general impression I got was that the tide has definitely turned, and that men and women are hungering for some sure Word of God. This, I believe, is a golden hour for evangelism, which the churches of our land will miss at their peril.

The revival of interest in religious matters in the universities and colleges of Britain is but another welcome sign of this awakening. Where a few years ago, political meetings were crowded to the door and religious groups had a thin time, the tables have now been turned. Speakers on religious topics are facing crowded meetings, while even outstanding politicians can gather only a handful of listeners. Dr. Billy Graham was wise in his choice of time for visiting London, Glasgow and especially Cambridge. Skeptics wagged their heads and said he might draw crowds in London and Glasgow, but Cambridge would never stand for his fundamentalism! They were completely contradicted by results. No churches in Cambridge were capable of holding the crowds, and the results in decisions for Christ among the undergraduates of that ancient university were just as striking as in any other part of the country.

Prayer Meeting Revival

But to many of us the most hopeful sign of the times has been the revival of the prayer meeting. Time was when every church had its week night prayer meeting (usually on Wednesday nights). A church would as soon have thought of doing without a heating boiler as not having a prayer meeting. In a sense the prayer meeting was the “power house” of the Church, and miracles of conversion happened on Sundays because minister, officebearers and members prayed fervently on Wednesday that they might happen, and then turned up at church on Sunday expecting them to happen. And they were not disappointed.

The weekly prayer meeting (with a few outstanding exceptions) was not crowded to the door, but a “Godly remnant” met with unfailing faithfulness and each church was blessed because of the devotion of the faithful few. The minister usually presided and led in prayer himself, but it was not by any means left entirely to him. One after another would rise and unburden their minds and hearts in prayer, some of them in their simple and direct form of speech, having a real “gift” of extempore prayer. I have known miners and laboring men whose English was faulty and whose grammar was far from perfect but who could move a prayer meeting to tears by the sincerity and depth of their prayers.

Death Of A Noble Cause

But gradually over fifty years the prayer meeting began to change its character and in many cases to die out altogether. The multiplicity of other meetings and organizations, the advent of the local cinema and the coming of wireless and television played havoc with the attendance. In many cases it was moved to Sunday just prior to the morning or evening service and, owing to the “tongue-tiedness” of so many, the mid-week prayer meeting gradually became a mid-week service which was a pale copy of the Sunday service with a slightly shorter sermon. The whole service was conducted by the minister, and the laity gradually gave up taking any vocal part in it apart from the singing of hymns and joining in the Lord’s Prayer. Most ministers in Britain run their churches singlehandedly and, with so many other duties to perform, found the addition of a rather badly attended week-night service more than they could tackle. So in many congregations the prayer meeting died a natural death.

Time Of Restoration

But of late it has begun to revive, and a demand for prayer and Bible study is arising in churches of all denominations and in every part of the country. There is no doubt that the great Crusades led by Dr. Graham have had an important share in this revival. Just as the great missions of Moody and Sankey were followed by a nation-wide revival of the prayer meeting, so the thousands of converts from Billy Graham’s Crusades who came into our churches felt the need of such meetings through the week. The thousands of counselors who, during the Crusades, attended training classes and studied their Bibles systematically, felt the need of continuing this Bible study. These two streams, added to the awakened interest in evangelism through the local church which was evident about the same time, brought a demand for prayer and Bible study groups in many a church where the prayer meeting had died out.

One interesting factor is that in many cases the demand is arising from young people. Where ministers have been wise enough to let these young people take the leadership (standing in the background merely to help and advise when needed) it has transformed the life of their congregation. Group study of the Bible, followed by discussion, and intercessions led by the laity in church premises and in private houses, are becoming more and more popular. Autre temps, autre moeurs. Our forefathers who believed in extempore prayer would be surprised if they heard the well-prepared and written-out prayers which many of the young people utter. But the care with which they choose their prayers from the treasures of liturgy, or the time taken to prepare their own prayers, is symbolic of the fact that they wish to offer to God the best they have to give.

Intercession For The Sick

Another interesting feature of the modern prayer meeting is the intercessions for the sick, which are now an integral part of many meetings. The Church at large has awakened to the fact that one important section of its missionary and evangelistic task has been neglected far too long: the healing of the sick. When the Lord sent out his first disciples they were commissioned to preach the Gospel and heal the sick. But with the passing of the centuries we have forgotten the latter part or left it entirely to the medical profession. Modern scientific discovery of the effect of mind over matter, and of the inseparability of body, mind and soul, has led men to realize the importance of prayer in the great work of healing the body. The churches have set up commissions composed of outstanding ministers and medical men to study divine healing, and in hundreds of churches up and down the land there are regular meetings and services where prayers for the sick and the suffering are offered to God. In some cases where they have discovered latent powers, ministers lay hands on the suffering and anoint them with oil, while the congregation prays. But where this is not done, cases are described in detail, and specific instances are brought before God’s throne in prayer. From every part of the country reports have come of amazing cures, where the healing skill of trained doctors has been reinforced by the power of concentrated prayer.

A Gleam Of Light

All these new and differing forms of prayer, and the revival of the prayer meeting in churches and homes all over the land, are filling the hearts of Christian people over here with new hope. Britain used to be known throughout the world as “The Land of the Book,” but of late the sad neglect of that great Book of God and the falling away of millions from the practice of church-going have been accompanied by a decline in moral leadership among the nations of the world. This falling away from God’s Word, from God’s throne and from the observance of the Lord’s Day has brought sad consequences to our nation. Everywhere one looks one finds a disillusioned people. The great hopes they had pinned on man’s cleverness and his ability to raise himself by his own bootstraps have been dashed to the ground, and they are seeking everywhere for some sure word of hope and salvation.

This then is a golden hour for evangelism, when amid the disillusion and shifting sands of the hour we can point men to the Rock of Ages and assure them that in Christ alone is the hope of salvation for all mankind. And as all true and lasting evangelism begins in prayer, the revival of the prayer meeting is a sure sign that Britain is turning back to God. We may have a long road to travel yet, but at least there is a gleam of light in the darkness of our journey. Our own insufficiency in the face of the national and international problems which beset us and the assurance that only divine help will save our nation and our world are driving us to our knees in prayer. And there we will find, as our forefathers found, that our sufficiency is of God.

END

The Rev. F. P. Copland Simmons, M.A., served in 1955 and 1956 as Moderator of the Free Church Council of England and Wales, a position of leadership over 23,000 churches, mainly Methodist, Congregational, Baptist and Presbyterian. During that period he addressed some 1,000 gatherings in England and Wales, traveling about 25,000 miles.

Cover Story

The Church and Social Problem

H. Van Riessen

The church is often numbered, with the capitalists and the social system, among the culprits of the last century. It is accused of being blind to social needs and conservatively in partnership with the ruling and property class. The church is, therefore, deemed responsible for her own apostasy and accused by some for the rise of communism. Even churchmen have made such a charge. The accusation that the church has failed is voiced so systematically, with such generality and onesidedness, that one cannot help asking whether there is something ulterior behind the charge.

Much indeed may be blamed on the church and on its membership, too, for that matter. It is not my intention to create the impression that the church did all that she could. Far from it. Sometimes she was helpless because of her subordinate position to the state, as in Russia and Scandinavia. In England this was true of the established (Anglican) Church and in the Netherlands of the Dutch Reformed Church. An independent formulation and critique of the social situation, which in such a case had to be directed against the state as well, was practically impossible. In addition it must not be forgotten that some churches were preoccupied with internal troubles and schisms. Wanting in its protest and falling short in love, the church was saved from going down ingloriously only through the protecting care of her Lord and Saviour.

Has the church failed to make a true effort to solve the social problems brought about by the industrial revolution of the past century?

It is well to take cognizance of several factors that have been given little consideration. First of all, such one-sided criticism loses sight of the fact that the church was also caught by surprise by the tempo and the radical character of the industrial development. Within the church people were disposed to think that no solution of the problems was possible. Moreover, the prevailing distress must be estimated by a comparison with most unfavorable social conditions of former times. One should put himself in the time in question since hindsight is always easy.

Not Without Protest

Before general charges are made that the church was indifferent to her obligations, evidence should be brought forth that the pulpits of the day were completely without protest. Many nineteenth-century Christians did indeed voice their alarm, and the pulpit was not so silent as some critics contend.

Task Of The Church

When the church is reproached in this connection, it must be borne in mind that many assign her a much broader task than that to which she has been divinely called. Critics frequently ignore the fact that the enlarging denial of the Christ of the Scriptures had produced decay and impotence in the church of the nineteenth century. It is a striking feature of pagan criticism that the secular world is always excused. Humanism, socialism and even communism are held up to the church that she may learn how social problems should be handled. The message of Christ is reduced to just a gospel of social justice. To ease the pain of such criticism the observation is offered that if the church would really tackle the question, she would do it “much better.”

The delimitation of the message of Christ to social justice is related to the breakthrough propaganda (the de-Christianization of hitherto Christian organizations) and the high-church movement, which looks upon the church as a national, all-embracing institution.

When irrationalism and dialectical theology obscure the clarity of the Bible concerning believers, and when the radical character of the biblical message against apostasy is forgotten, it is not difficult to cling to the idea of a church for everyone and to eradicate the boundaries between the church and the world, between Christian and so-called neutral activities. Then the sympathetic concern for social problems and the anxiety about the cultural decline, point the way. The church becomes the fulcrum, social justice becomes the goal, and socialism carries the standard of honor. Some would add characteristically dialectical statements in which the exception becomes the rule, e.g., “A man who turns his back upon the church, may by that very attitude be saved religiously”; “The church must learn from socialism”; and “A humanist may very well be a better Christian than the man who goes to church twice every Sunday.”

Of course not every follower of Barth nor every adherent of neutralization and secularization of organized life subscribes to such reasoning. The taste for paradoxes is specially reserved for extremists. Nevertheless such views do prevail, and their adherents believe that the church of the previous century was the chief culprit in the prevailing social misery.

Christian Community

Much of what we have said here applies to the Netherlands. In the United States the idea of a Christian organization (or, more generally, an organization based upon a particular view of life and the world) is unknown. An important reason for this lack of explicitly Christian organizations is the strong sense of solidarity prevailing among the Americans, due to necessity as much as to the desire of the people to be a nation in the face of the diversity of origin among Americans. This sense of solidarity is intensified by the fact that they are a young nation and an enthusiastic and dynamic people.

Social Justice Derivative

Many Christians who turn to socialism seem to discover in the Bible only one subject: the social problem and the demand for social justice. This theme does indeed play a great role in the Old and New Testament; and yet it is but one of many (Exod. 21; Gal. 5; Col. 3). Besides, it is a derivative motif. The Bible does not view social injustice by itself but as the consequence of a greater evil, the source of all evil, namely, that men do not fear God and do not keep His commandments but bow down to idols (2 Kings 17). (The present idols seem to be man and society.) Such is the fountainhead of life’s errors, the source of humanism, irresponsible capitalism, social distress and the impotence of socialism.

Some may argue that the root cause of our difficulty is not forgotten. But the fervor of their argument and their systematic neglect of certain aspects of the problem makes me fear that this knowledge is cerebral and that their heart lives in the social issue only. Such are aroused when trangressions of the eighth commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” and the tenth, “Thou shalt not covet,” are viewed as a commandment meant for others. The level of the socialists is thus indeed reached, but the Gospel is forgotten as something inseparable from the exordium: “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee up out of the house of bondage.”

Allow me to put it most boldly. The whole social problem is absolutely of no importance when compared to the command to fear the Lord. Any Christian that places human relationships on a par with the relation between man and God, or regards the human sphere as separate and independent of the latter relation, thereby discloses that his Christianity has been infected by humanism.

The Chief Commandment

The command, “Love thy neighbor,” is a Christian precept, but when detached and removed from the framework of the great commandment, “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart …,” it ceases to be such, in a very real sense. It is likewise erroneous to think that compliance with the command to love one’s neighbor is at the same time a fulfillment of the chief commandment to love God.

The humanizing phenomenon is so frequently encountered. In it the call of God and the obligation to serve him as an individual and in a group is replaced by the call of the other man and finally by the call of man himself, of his needs, the only source of his motivation. The process of humanizing reality has also influenced Christian circles. When Sargent, considering the challenge to the church, looks for basic concepts of the Christian action, he states: “The first of these basic concepts is the biblical idea of human dignity and individual personality.” This is, however, an unbiblical statement of man and a mere profane view of life.

Consider also a few quotations from Kuylaars (Werk en Leven), 1951, pp. 20, 36): “Labor is a realization of self.” “In industrial enterprise the laborer is central and primary. Capital is simply an aid; it occupies a secondary position, together with those who supply it.” This statement is intended as a reply to liberalism but this answer is wrong; the laboring man is not central. In this case the fruits of labor as the fulfillment of the cultural task are central.

It has been maintained that the aims and purposes of the communal life must be directed toward man. Aberrations of this kind are surely not innocent. They put Christians on the wrong track in their planning and their deeds. For example, Pedersen writes: “If ever peace and righteousness are to exist among men, then their material necessities must be satisfied, so that distress and want shall disappear. But this can be done only with the help of technique” (God en de Technick, p. 153). Peace and righteousness, however, come when man is reconciled to God. Both may be present even when distress and want exist. Both may be lacking, as in today’s secularized world, when distress and want are in fact relieved. Such is the Christian outlook on life an outlook which is the direct opposite of socialism.

END

Dr. H. Van Riessen, a professor at the Delft Institute of Technology in the Netherlands, holds a Doctor’s degree both in Engineering and in Philosophy. He is active in political, social and economic movements in the Netherlands, and during the German occupation participated in the underground movement. He is author of a major scientific and philosophic work, Philosophy and Technique. His article reflects the viewpoint of a forthcoming volume, The Society of the Future (David H. Freeman, translator), in which he opposes the Christian to the Communist philosophy of society.

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