Cover Story

Death: Yesterday and Today

An amusing incident in Noel Coward’s play, This Happy Breed (Act III, Scene 1), finds Frank and his sister Sylvia sitting in the lounge room. Sylvia, a soured spinster, has become an ardent Christian Scientist. Frank and Sylvia have finished supper and are listening to the wireless. Frank’s wife Ethel is in the kitchen.

SYLVIA: There’s not so much to do since Mrs. Flint passed on.

FRANK: I do wish you wouldn’t talk like that, Sylvia, it sounds so soft.

SYLVIA: I don’t know what you mean, I’m sure.

FRANK: (firmly) Mother died, see! First of all she got flu and that turned to pneumonia and the strain of that affected her heart, which was none too strong at the best of times, and she died. Nothing to do with passing on at all.

SYLVIA: How do you know?

FRANK: I admit its only your new way of talking, but it gets me down, see?

(Ethel comes in)

ETHEL: What are you shouting about?

FRANK: I’m not shouting about anything at all. I’m merely explaining to Sylvia that mother died. She didn’t pass on or pass over or pass out—she died.

This conversation is peculiarly modern. It reflects our self-consciousness, our embarrassment about the fact of death. Death is no longer regarded as a subject of polite conversation; it has become a convention to speak of death euphemistically, and to use tactful circumlocutions. Frank’s bluntness is not only callous but crude.

In this matter there has been a radical change in social behavior patterns. In the nineteenth century the processes of birth and reproduction were never mentioned in polite society, but the processes of death were an accepted subject of conversation. Today the processes of death are never mentioned in polite society, but the processes of birth and reproduction are almost a matter of daily discussion. Our grandparents, in their embarrassment and self-consciousness over the facts of birth, said that babies were found under gooseberry bushes; and we, in our embarrassment and self-consciousness over the facts of death, speak of “passing on” (Geoffrey Gorer, “The Pornography of Death,” The Encounter, October, 1955).

Death Bed A Traditional Theme

This can be illustrated from the field of literature. It is difficult to recall a play or a novel written during the past 25 years which has a “death-bed scene” in it, describing in detail the death of a major character from natural causes. Yet this topic was a set piece for most eminent Victorian and Edwardian writers, and it evoked their finest prose. To create the maximum pathos or edification, they employed the most elaborate technical devices and supplied a wealth of imaginative detail.

A single example will suffice. The climax to The Old Curiosity Shop is the death of little Nell. The book was published in serial form, and, when successive installments began to foreshadow the death of the child, Dickens was “inundated with imploring letters recommending poor little Nell to mercy.” Dickens was acutely aware of the artistic demands of the situation, and for days he was in a state of emotional tension. Dickens had to nerve himself to describe the death. He confided, “All night I have been pursued by the child, and this morning I am unrefreshed and miserable.” He felt the suffering so intensely that he described it as “anguish unspeakable.” Writing to George Cattermole, he said, “I am breaking my heart over this story.”

Tremendous Impact

When the final installment was published, with the lithograph illustration showing the dead child lying on a bed, with pieces of holly on her breast, the resulting emotional excitement was almost unprecedented. Macready, the noted actor, returning from the theater, saw the print, and a cold chill ran through his blood. “I have never read printed words which gave me so much pain,” he noted in his diary. “I could not weep for some time. Sensations, sufferings, have returned to me, that are terrible to awaken.” Daniel O’Connor, the Irish Member of Parliament, reading the book in a railway carriage, was convulsed with sobs and groaned, “He should not have killed her,” and threw the book out the window. Thomas Carlyle was utterly overcome. Waiting crowds on the pier in New York harbor shouted to the passengers, “Is little Nell dead?” The news flashed across the United States and rough and hardy pioneers dissolved in tears. Lord Jeffrey, one of Her Majesty’s judges, was found by a friend in the library of his house, with his head bowed on the table. When his friend entered the room, she saw that his eyes were filled with tears. “I had no idea that you had bad news or cause of grief,” she said, “or I would not have come. Is anyone dead?” “Yes, indeed,” he replied, “I’m a great goose to give myself away, but I couldn’t help it. You’ll be sorry to hear that little Nelly, Boz’s little Nell, is dead.” (For a detailed reference, see Edgar Johnson, Charles Dickens, His Tragedy and Triumph, London, 1953, Vol. I, p. 304.)

Modern Flight From Death

Today, the situation is very different. Without any certainty in the life to come, man finds that the facts of natural death and physical decomposition have become too horrible to contemplate, let alone to discuss or describe. It is symptomatic of our present condition that one of the most flourishing sects in the world today is Christian Science, which denies the fact of physical death and which refuses to allow the word to be printed in the columns of the Christian Science Monitor.

A modern writer has said: “The fact of death is the great human repression, the universal ‘complex.’ Dying is the reality man dare not face, and to escape which he summons all his resources … Death is muffled up in illusions” (H. F. Lovell Cocks, By Faith Alone, 1943, p. 55). And yet we cannot live indefinitely on illusions; we know that eventually we must stop kidding ourselves. Some of our best thinkers and writers are courageous enough to say that we must face the fact of death. George Every, a gifted and sensitive poet, said: “In the younger poets the urgent problem is the imminence of death, the need of some significance that can be attached to dying in a world where there is no common belief in immortality” (“Designs for Culture,” Humanities, Vol. II, No. 2, 1948). Storm Jameson, in an address on the writer’s situation, echoed the same thought:

At this moment in history, a writer who concerns himself with anything less than the destiny of man on the earth is only amusing himself. If that is the thing he does best, he should do it. And we, when we want to be amused, pleased, enchanted … will listen to him. But in the anxiety that weighs upon us now, what we sometimes want most of all is to be answered … I propose a way to test the value of the writers of our day. Not a test to find out whether he is honest or dishonest, brave or cowardly. No!—what we should ask the writer is only this: Is he able to tell us about the destiny of man, our destiny, in such a way that we have the courage to live it, and gaily? If not, then he may be a very clever writer, he may even be honest, but he is not a great writer—not for us [The Writer’s Situation and other Essays, London, 1950, pp. 18–19].

The Victorians surrounded death with pathos and with sentiment. Twentieth-century man is cynical about sentiment and callous about death. What are the possibilities before us now? They are, quite simply, the alternatives of either brave endurance or triumphant conquest.

Fatalistic Resignation

First, there are those who face the inevitable fact of death calmly and stoically, without flinching and complaining, in a spirit of fatalistic resignation. They contemplate the bleak prospect of “emptiness, absence, the void,” and, in the classic words of Ronald Duncan, they point to the darkness and say, This Way to the Tomb (London, 1933). They proclaim a destiny of “dust and ashes.”

Bertrand Russell is a typical representative: “I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young, and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation” (What I Believe, London, 1925, p. 21). No one can despise the real courage of this confession. But only a few heroic souls are able to face the chilling and cheerless prospect of the waiting grave with such unflinching fortitude.

Triumphant Victory

What is the alternative? The alternative is triumphant conquest. “Thanks be to God,” says the Apostle Paul, “who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” On the one hand, the Christian recognizes the horror of death—death indeed is a hated enemy. On the other hand, the Christian recognizes the reality of Christ’s resurrection and the hope of the life to come. For the Christian the horror is submerged in the hope, so that the sting of death is taken away and the victory of the grave is overcome.

Dr. Samuel Johnson, noted lexicographer and prince of conversationalists, was a devout churchman and an earnest Christian. He was concerned about the licentiousness and levity of his age, both of which he endeavored vigorously to combat and withstand. He was a man of personal integrity and public rectitude, and he was also diligent in the practice of private prayer. Nevertheless, he had a deep horror of death and a lively fear of the coming judgment. He believed that those who were indifferent to such dread realities were guilty of shallow insensibility, and that they were not only foolish but irresponsible. In the Rambler (No. 110) he wrote the following sober thoughts:

If he who considers himself as suspended over the abyss of eternal perdition only by the thread of life, which must soon part by its own weakness, and which the wing of every minute may divide, can cast his eyes round him without shuddering with horror, or panting with insecurity; what can he judge of himself, but that he is not yet awakened to sufficient convictions.

Sense Of Judgment

Samuel Johnson, for his part, was aware not only of the precariousness of life but also of the reality of coming judgment. He was fearful of the sin of presumption, despite his own earnest faith and exemplary conduct.

James Boswell has recorded the following conversation:

JOHNSON: … I am afraid that I may be one of those who shall be damned. (Looking dismally)

DR. ADAMS: What do you mean by damned?

JOHNSON: (Passionately and loudly) Sent to hell, Sir, and punished everlastingly.…

BOSWELL: But may not a man attain to such a degree of hope as not to be uneasy from the fear of death?

JOHNSON: A man may have such a degree of hope as to keep him quiet. You see I am not quiet, from the vehemence with which I talk; but I do not despair.

MRS. ADAMS: You seem, Sir, to forget the merits of our Redeemer.

JOHNSON: Madam, I do not forget the merits of my Redeemer; but my Redeemer has said that he will set some on his right hand and some on his left.

He was in gloomy agitation, and said, “I’ll have no more on’t” (The Life of Samuel Johnson, 1927, Vol. II, p. 526). Nevertheless, when Johnson came to die, he was able to face man’s last enemy with calm and cheerful composure. “He was able to be cheerful in spite of a deep belief in divine judgment, because he also had a deep belief in the gospel of salvation” (Elton Trueblood, Dr. Johnson’s Prayers, London, 1947, p. 13). His deep fear was overshadowed, and therefore silenced, by a deep hope.

The Christian Realities

This is the authentic Christian experience. On the one hand, there is the fact of death, inevitable and inescapable, frightening and forbidding; on the other hand, there is the fact of Christ’s resurrection, irradiating the darkness of the grave, dispelling the gloom of death, “bringing life and immortality to life through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10).

Strengthened by Christ, we face death calm and unafraid; we are preserved from sentimentality on the one hand and synicism on the other. We are able to say with the Apostle Paul and all the faithful: “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 15:55, 57).

S. Barton Babbage is Principal of Ridley College and Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral in Melbourne, Australia. A native of New Zealand, where he pursued studies leading to the B.A. and M.A. degrees, he earned the Ph.D. degree in London and the Th.D. in Australia. He is author of Puritanism and Richard Bancroft and Man in Nature and Grace. The excerpt in Principal Babbage’s essay from This Happy Breed (copyright 1943 by Noel Coward) is reprinted by permission.

Cover Story

Abraham Lincoln’s Faith

The question of Abraham Lincoln’s religion has proved a knotty one for biographers and students of his life and work. This is due in part to the nature of the evidence in the case, and also to the fact that the evidence, in many instances, has not been thoroughly or impartially examined. The result has been unfortunate, for atheists and believers, Christians and non-Christians alike have found grounds for claiming him as their own.

The logical place to begin the study of a person’s religion is his heritage, background and early training. In an examination of this particular phase of the subject Dr. Louis A. Warren has brought to light many interesting facts. Lincoln’s great-great-great-great grandfather, Samuel Lincoln, who came to America in 1637, helped erect Old Ship Church in Hingham, Mass., the oldest church building in America in continual use. His great-great grandfather, Mordecai Lincoln II, married a granddaughter of Obadiah Holmes, noted Baptist minister of Newport, Rhode Island, who was savagely whipped on Boston Common in 1651 for preaching in forbidden services of worship (Benedict, History of Baptists). John and Rebecca Lincoln, who migrated from Freehold, New Jersey, to Virginia, were Baptists. They assisted in building the Linville Creek Baptist Church on their own farm. Lincoln’s grandfather, Abraham Lincoln, was a member of this congregation. When he located in Kentucky in 1782 he also gave land upon which to build a church, which was called Long Run Baptist Church.

Lincoln’s father, Thomas, and his mother, Nancy Hanks, both devout people, built their Kentucky home near Severn’s Valley Baptist Church near Elizabethtown, the oldest Baptist organization west of the Alleghenies. Some five miles from the Lincoln cabin was the Little Mount Separate Baptist Church. There is reason to believe this to be the Lincoln family church.

Dr. Warren also states that when the Thomas Lincoln family moved to Indiana in 1816 they settled near White Pigeon Creek Baptist Church in Warrick County. That Thomas was both an interested and faithful member of it is evidenced by the fact that he was elected one of the trustees and appointed to interview fellow members who were not practicing Christian conduct or church rules. The records of this church show that “Sister Sally Lincoln,” sister of the future President, was received by an “experience of grace,” April 8, 1826 (Lincoln Lore).

Worthy Spiritual Background

These brief facts indicate that Lincoln’s religious heritage was as good as the country afforded. That his forbears, down to his father and mother, were God-fearing men and women who took an active interest in the spiritual affairs of the community in which they lived, is obvious.

The background of Lincoln’s home life was excellent. Religion was respected by the members of the family, there is evidence that grace was said at meals, and the parents gave their children such spiritual instruction as they were able (Lincoln Lore). He said himself that before he could read he memorized passages from the Bible by hearing his mother quote them as she went about her household duties. Tradition holds that he once said, “My mother was a ready reader and read the Bible to me habitually.” These things bore fruit in Sally becoming a member of the church, and it is reasonable to assume that young Abraham was influenced by them.

Tragic Period In Youth

When asked why he did not unite with the church, as did his sister, he said, “If any church will inscribe over its altar as its sole qualification for membership … ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and thy neighbor as thyself,’ that church will I join with all my heart and soul.” An indirect reason for his not joining the church may have been the fact that Baptist church membership in those days was much more confined to adults than it is now. Children and unsettled, unmarried young people were hardly considered as eligible for membership. It could therefore have been that young Abraham did not unite with the church because of a lack of encouragement to do so at the right time.

When he left home and went to Salem, Illinois, a brief disappointing chapter in his life began. In all probability we are right in thinking of it as a tragic period. There he fell under the influence of a group of rough, irreligious young men of about his own age. He wrote silly, sometimes vulgar poetry, and entertained them by imitating the pioneer preachers of the day. About this time a fad for reading French philosophy and free-thinking literature swept the country. He devoured Volney’s Ruins and Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason. That such works left a deep impression upon his mind, there can be no doubt.

Experience Of Change

Then a change came over him. Although we cannot be certain what brought it about, we know that he turned away from ideas which were at variance with his early teaching. The Rev. James F. Jaques, a Methodist minister, said that after hearing him preach in 1839 on the text, “Ye must be born again,” Lincoln visited him to talk and pray with him concerning his soul’s salvation. “I have seen hundreds brought to Christ,” said Mr. Jaques, “and if ever a person was converted Abraham Lincoln was.”

So far as is known Lincoln did not corroborate this story, but he does say later that about that time a deep experience of change came to him. When charged by the Rev. Peter Cartwright, his opponent in the 1846 Congressional campaign, with having expressed anti-Christian sentiments, he went to see his old friend Mrs. Rankin. In their conversation he said that there had come into his life “sad events and a loss” that she knew about. As a consequence he was “tossed amid a sea of questioning.” In spite of it all he grasped a higher thought that reached into eternity with “a clearness and satisfaction” hitherto unknown to him and his attitude toward the Bible changed. He still had doubts, he said, but there was also in his heart a strong desire for a more perfect faith. It is believed by many that the “loss” was the death of Ann Rutledge.

A Seeking Spirit

In the same conversation he said to Mrs. Rankin, “Probably it is to be my lot to go on in a twilight, feeling and reasoning my way through life, as questioning, doubting Thomas did. But in my poor, maimed, withered way, I bear with me as I go on a seeking spirit of desire for faith that was with him of olden time, who, in his need, exclaimed ‘Help thou my unbelief.’ ” Unquestionably, in the pre-Washington days at least, he was torn at times by a struggle between doubt and faith, belief and skepticism. Herndon said, “I admit that Mr. Lincoln, in his moments of melancholy and terrible gloom, was living on the borderland between theism and atheism—sometimes quite wholly dwelling in atheism—in his happier moments swinging back to theism and dwelling lovingly there.”

A study of Lincoln’s life impresses one with the fact that his great heart hungered for a satisfying faith. “I am not a Christian,” he once said, “but God knows I would be one.” Critics have read too much, and friends too little, into this agonized cry of a seeking soul. Being familiar with the rigid creeds and practices of Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and others of his day, and not being able to ally himself with any of them, he classified himself as an unbeliever. All reasonable evidence in the case is to the effect that he was too harsh with himself.

An inquiry into any person’s religious faith must begin with his attitude toward God. On this point Lincoln was as orthodox as Peter Cartwright. He frequently declared his unwavering faith in divine sovereignty and an unchangable purpose for the world. He was fond of quoting Hamlet:

There’s a divinity that shapes our ends,

Rough-hew them as we may.

In the second inaugural address he said, “The Almighty has his own purposes.”

Conscious Of God’S Guidance

Moreover, he believed that God was directing him in the stupendous task he had undertaken to perform. In his farewell address to friends and neighbors at Springfield, after comparing his responsibility with that of Washington, he said, “Without the assistance of that Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance I cannot fail.”

In a conversation with L. E. Chittenden in Washington he said, “I have had so many evidences of his direction … that I cannot doubt that this power (which controlled his will) comes from above.… I am satisfied that when the Almighty wants me to do or not to do a particular thing, he finds a way of letting me know it.”

Lincoln’s attitude toward Christ is of vital importance. When he learned that twenty of the twenty-three ministers in Springfield in 1860 were opposed to him on the question of freedom for slaves, he said to Newton Bateman, “I know I am right, for Christ teaches it, and Christ is God.” Dr. W. E. Barton sums up his appraisal of Lincoln’s religious life by saying, “Abraham Lincoln believed in God, in Christ, in the Bible, in prayer, in duty, and in immortality” (The Soul of Abraham Lincoln). His own statement regarding his experience should be taken at full face value. Neils John Peterson quotes him as saying, “When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest test of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ.”

As to the Bible, Lincoln’s constant appeal to its words and teachings bespeaks honest faith in it. Carl Sandburg said, “Before he had learned to read as a boy he heard his mother saying over certain verses, day by day as she worked. He had learned these verses by heart; the tones of his mother’s voice was in them” (Abraham Lincoln; The Prairie Years). To Joshua Speed he once said, “I am profitably engaged in reading the Bible. Take all of this book you can upon reason, and the balance by faith, and you will live and die a better man. It is the best book God has given to men.” Of him Theodore Roosevelt said, “Lincoln built up his entire reading upon his study of the Bible. He mastered it, he became a man who knew the Book and who instinctively put into practice what he had been taught therein.”

His use of Scripture passages in his public addresses is well-known. Edgar DeWitt Jones read all of them, and marked the passages wherein he quoted the Bible or referred to it. “Some of the pages,” he said, “are literally covered with pencilings; some single paragraphs contain as many as a dozen of these. The fair and inescapable conclusion is that his devotion to the Bible was that of an honest, sincere man.”

Dr. Barton also said, “Too much of the effort to prove that Abraham Lincoln was a Christian began and ended in the effort to show that on certain theological topics he cherished correct opinions. Abraham Lincoln was not a theologian, and several of his theological opinions may have been incorrect; but there is good reason to believe that he was a true Christian. The world has need of few theologians, and of a great many Christians.” That he had come to believe himself eligible for membership in the church is seen in his remark to Dr. Phineas D. Gurley, pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church of Washington in 1865. “I have made up my mind,” he said. “At your next communion I shall apply for admission to your church.” Before that time arrived an assassin’s bullet had quenched his life. This was tragically unfortunate, for had he lived to carry out his announced design, the question of whether he was a Christian probably never would have arisen. As it is, each investigator must arrive at his own conclusions.

Raymond W. Settle is a retired Baptist minister who devotes his time to historical research and writing on American history, particularly as it concerns religion on the American frontier. He is a graduate of William Jewell College, has held pastorates in Kansas, Missouri and Colorado, and now makes his home at Monte Vista, Colo. He is the author of: March of the Mounted Riflemen (Clark, 1940), Empire on Wheels (Stanford, 1949) and Story of Wentworth (1950).

Cover Story

World Government and Christianity

The cry for “World Government” represents, I think, something like cosmic anxiety about the future. People are frightened. They ponder the prodigious problems and long for the magic of simple solutions. Have we, at long last, come to that hour in history which so many prophets of older days envisioned as an invitation for “The Coming Caesars”?

History is connected stuff. Happenings are related reactions. The dictatorships of the Stalins, the Mussolinies, the Hitlers and others arrive not by accident, but because a deep force is at work in the central flow of things. When Goering told the German people the need was desperate for “more guns and less butter,” Western civilization screamed its denunciation of “gutter ethics.” The strange influences have deepened their control. In Christian America last November a top government official told the nation the need is now for “less butter and more guns.” The trend is not trivial.

We now wonder at rather than criticize Spengler’s idea that this is “the age of world wars” and that “Caesarism” is setting armies, not parties, to be the future form of power. In the World Government dream it is significant to note how the emphasis everywhere falls upon “an instrument of overwhelming military force.”

Utilizing the central weaknesses of democracy, dictatorships have gotten miracles out of pelting the mass mind with senseless hopes. Incited individualism, uninhibited and ruthless, generates profound troubles. The result is that sick democracies troop to strange doctors. These medicine men with gifted cliches and fascinating nomenclature offer blueprints for every contingency. But the stabilities of civilization disintegrate until terrified and bewildered people literally beg for “controls” that will be strong and ruthless enough” to shoot mankind’s way to peace. World Government with matchless power thus offers fabulous hopes. In the background one can almost hear the ghost of Tacitus repeating the old lines: “In peace representative government, in war generals, in peril dictators!”

Disintegrating Democracies

Whether we like it or not, the whip of despotism cracks like rifle fire in the modern world. These despotisms are the frightening forces that today are making all of earth’s millions dance to their tunes. The principles of democracy seem like fading fires. Leaders, not people, are glamorized. “Spain is Franco and Franco is Spain.” “Peron is the Republic.” Churchmen and politicians hailed Mussolini as “the man sent by Providence.” Said Hess to the German people: “Hitler is what the soul of the country is.” Echoes in America spin up wonders. Writers in recent years speak not of democratic presidents but of “strong presidents.”

At this moment, military force is accepted as the only hopeful arbiter of humanity’s fate, a situation where the tendency usually gravitates into single-minded control. The spell of things calls for a saving greatness that they cannot themselves produce. The tensions now tightening to an explosive point, all over the world may answer themselves with a Caesar, or a Cromwell, or a Napoleon, or some one worse. In history the dangerous man is always waiting to exploit the social, political and religious tensions of difficult times.

If democracy softens up and loses its wondrous strength, designing despotism will systematically destroy its foundations. That is why wisdom must hold the ascendency of physical force to be suspect, even if it is lighted with the glow of that idealism which characterizes the dream of World Government. Power over other people is loaded dynamite. The more so when it pinnacles into enormities for ruling the globe. We cannot submit to “the great political superstition,” namely, the divine right of parliaments to absolute authority over the people.

In the budding years of this century only a few men saw with far vision the beginning of influences that could bring human storms.

No one in his good senses entirely dismisses the possibilities of those prophecies now.

An article in Harper’s Magazine (1902) extended the possible trajectories of those developing forces and said some amazing things about “the evil days to come” and about “hours of defeat.” “There will,” said the prophecy, “arise The Man. He will be strong in action, epigrammatic in manner, personally handsome and continuously victorious. He will sweep aside parliaments and demagogues, carry civilization to glory, reconstruct it as an empire, and hold it together by circulating his profile and organizing further successes. He will codify everything, rejuvenate the papacy or, at any rate, galvanize Christianity. He will organize learning into meek academies of little men and proscribe a wonderful educational system. And the grateful nations will deify a lucky and aggressive egotism.”

World Government

Contemplate the proposed World Government and the eventualities if an evil fate should give it wrong-way directions! Prevailing psychologies sag with desperate dangers. The “mass man” is here and the masses are on their way up. Society may have to develop a genius it has never shown before if it is to withstand demagogues promising paradise to earth’s millions, especially when hatred and the spirit of revenge are highly developed techniques. Politicians running a global government will use every means for quick results. The atmosphere is ominous. The mightiest of all ages is saturated with expediencies, with adulterated principles and catchwords that capture the mobs. Strange that the spiritual ambassadors are now dreaming of a paradise organized almost exclusively on military, political and economic lines!

World Government, taken realistically, faces enormous odds. Ponder the tensions in the making when the multitudes, as at no other period in history, are themselves becoming the force of law. How long will they come to heel before “One Voice Rule”? The outrages of misinformed mobs, on a global scale, will of course dramatize feeble responses to loyalty. The bait they yearn for is “advantages.” They will leave leader after leader in the lurch whenever somebody else offers better bribery. Even a superstate cannot crack down too far to get obedience. You cannot put millions of people in jail.

It would be easy to discount this picture of human nature, easy until one recalls the behavior of the multitudes when “the likest God this planet ever saw” was crucified at Golgotha. For self-safety the masses left the dying Christ who still is, whatever you say, the solitary grandeur of the world. If he with the genius of the spiritual did not hold the crowds in that terrible hour, what can world politicians do with nothing to fall back upon but the might of physical force? On this basis the emancipated (?) masses setting the gravitation of political history may be ominous. Especially when so many religionists are willing to put their trust in a world government with matchless military power.

Churchmen And The Masses

Without some new and more powerful spiritual influence, our age—which is a revolutionary age of the masses—may produce an all encompassing catastrophe. Against the dark background of affairs, the emotional dedication of churchmen, often the most aggressive exponents of World Government, may not be a hopeful omen. The law of political forces (Burkhardt’s) raises questions about the ability of this century to avoid “the rule of the masses” in its passage through perilous history. Toynbee wonders about the same thing, “the vast proletariat” now developing “one of the most portentous products of the Westernization of the world.”

Religious forces may be failing their assignments in permitting spirituality to be sucked into proletarianizing commonplaces without terrific protests. If Christianity weakens before the secularisms of the day, even the most idealistic of World Governments does not have a chance. The sweep of things the globe over is dark and bleak. The wickednesses of modern life are not withering away and their remedies seem nowhere in sight. A supergovemment is not the answer.

Of all the ills that human hearts endure

How small the part that Kings and Laws

Can cause or cure …

Power is not the way to the Kingdom. There is nothing in human nature to insure that an all-powerful World Government will not widen still more the gap between the tendencies to tyranny and the demands of the moral law. The issue is old and fundamental. In the historic English debate, defiant justice shouted, “The common law protecteth the King.” “That,” said the embittered monarch, “is a traitorous speech, the King protecteth the law and not the law the King.” Are the principles of democracy drifting now again to the side of the King? A socialist weekly emphasizes that in America “… the Presidency, rather than Congress, has become the main spring of the constitutional system.” How strange that people who have lived under democracy and who have experienced something of its wonder can so terribly misunderstand it. If we are to keep freedom we must undergo the fatigues of supporting it. Only lackeys will want somebody else—some organization or some selected group—to assume full responsibility. “In crisis hours peace must be sacrificed for freedom but never freedom for peace!” (Pericles).

Nothing is more anomalous than Christian leadership turning for miracles to peace, and not to liberty, to naked physical might and not to the spirit. “The men of the cloth tend by the nature of their calling to be naive and easily enlisted in glamorous causes.” Of this we have seen much. The World Government idea is, I think, a repeat performance. It is breath-taking to find the ambassadors of the love of Christ crusading for a top-boss rule “so strong that nothing on earth will be able to thwart its compulsions.” Especially when not a single guarantee of safety is offered anywhere, and when no magic exists for curbing human nature. Religionists laboring for a monolithic state caricature Galilee.

It is now easy for pulpits to glorify the man-made United Nations, for at the moment Western influences dominate it. What will happen when the deciding power in every issue will be in the hands of others?

Churchmen and military might! Will the drifts eventually spin, Hegel fashion, into a theology of the superstate, a rule to be trusted without a doubt, a force with divine right, a return to the idea that “the King can do no wrong?” Never before did man have such faith in politicians. The concept, in world form, would be a consummation of the principles of Nazi Germany, of Soviet Russia, of pre-Pearl-Harbor Japan: one top dictator, unimpeachable, infallible, the sole controller of men, of resources and of the military might of the globe. It appeals to certain minds in tough times. Certainly nothing is simpler than a Napoleon in charge. History says the gamble will be an evil force but what is history against the vast wishfulness of naive sentimentalism? When before did Christianity aim to meet hardships by setting up an oligarchy or by crowning some politician a king?

World Government will not escape the normal developments of human logic. At the start it will mean to exercise power usefully, but it will mean to exercise it. It will mean to govern well, but it will mean to govern. It may promise to be a kind master, but it will be master. “Power turns those endowed with it into tyrants.”

Real Risk Involved

There are some realistic and heavy-duty risks for Christianity in World Government. Today the real issue cries Think or Perish! Ponder the terrifying facts! Western civilization is a small segment of mankind. Christianity is smaller still. Enormous possibilities reside in these relations. The ultimate and momentous question is simply this: “Who will govern the world?” More than two billion of the earth’s inhabitants are either pagan, atheistic or non-Christian. A composite World Government—if honestly democratic—is something for Christianity to ponder and to fear. The very processes of democracy would destroy effective Christian influences, for in such a Government Christianity would be an insignificant and helpless minority. (The average religionist crusading for World Government is understandable. But there is a basis for fear when the echelons grow fanatical and equate the dream with something like the Kingdom of God.)

Contemplate the nature and psychology of a political government with 800,000,000 communists, all militant atheists; with 700,000,000 Moslems, all anti-Christians; and with almost a billion Indians and Chinese and other kindred Asiatics. In such an assembly, what would be the voice of Christianity? The law of democratic principles would sink it into silence. Other religious groups might be eliminated in the same fashion. But—and it is a terrifying thought—the atheistic powers, protected by numerical superiority, could never be eliminated. Furthermore, “the communists today have more fervor than Christians.”

World Government is then a bid to make godless communists and their multi-million allies the governors of the world. Russia and Red China with their communist satellites are thus assured in any democratic World Government the sovereignty of the planet. Such a shutdown on Christianity can be lethal business for mankind. You do not argue this when you know what is happening to the minds of the young people in the Soviet Union. Let’s be realistic. A democratic World Government may be Christianity’s road to nothingness. Think on these things! In the present United Nations, dominated for the moment by the Western powers, we see the parliamentary maneuverings to block what the West does not want. When the setup is otherwise, can we expect to find a higher behavior in conduct? Can you imagine a presiding Khrushchev giving Christian interests any effective influence? The process itself would decimate the soul and spirit of democracy. It would obliterate every civilized value.

The glamor-dream is to supplant individual nation-hoods with one big Jumbo Boss, assuming for reasons nowhere explained that this monstrous government, unlike every other political organization in history, will be administered by something like the love of God, and will forever be immune to any type of political corruption. The devotees cannot imagine that the glowing dream could turn into a terrible and hideous delusion. The fantastiques of history parade through the mind. Think of the Bolshevik vision of 1917. “The world today lives amidst the death agonies of that great dream. Now, only three decades later, a few mesmerized fanatics still exist, but for everybody else it has become clearer and clearer that a type of brutality and exploitation and sheer barbarism, such as history has never before known, is the consummation of those highest of 1917 hopes.”

The idea of World Government is a hypnotizing and a fabulously fascinating thing. It is easy to see why millions succumb. But Christianity should comprehend the immense and terrifying implications.

Commander H. H. Lippincott, United States Navy CHC, Retired, served as Chaplain with the United States Fleet from the First World War. He holds the A.B., A.M., and S.T.B. degrees from Dickinson College and Boston University, and once held pastorates in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. He has written for religious, philosophical and literary journals. This article is a resume of a chapter from his forthcoming hook on World Government! Heaven Help Us!

Review of Current Religious Thought: January 20, 1958

That religious thought which may be described as distinctly Reformed is not marking time is shown by the marked revival of interest in Reformed literature, both classical and modern, and also by the formation in recent years of the International Association for Reformed Faith and Action. The story of this latter venture is well worth recounting. In 1952 a small group of young and youngish men from half-a-dozen different countries met at the Free University of Amsterdam in order to discuss the situation of the Reformed faith in our world today and to lay plans for the strengthening of the Reformed cause in this generation. One tangible outcome of their deliberations was the decision to hold an international Reformed congress in the summer of the following year, and this congress was duly organized and convened at Montpellier in the South of France in July, 1953. Lectures and discussions centered around the theme: “The Secularization of the Modern World—the Reformed Answer.” Those attending this congress represented nationalities from every quarter of the world—Europe, Near and Far East, Africa, America—and the proceedings were conducted in three languages: English, French and German. At this same congress the organizing group presented a draft scheme for the formation of an international organization, and this scheme was accepted in principle by the members present and a provisional executive committee appointed for the further elaboration of the project.

Two years later a second international congress was held at Detmold in Central Germany. At this gathering, even more widely representative than the former, it was formally resolved to found an international organization, and a constitution which the committee had prepared was discussed and approved. It was agreed that the organization should be named The International Association for Reformed Faith and Action—the emphasis being placed not merely on belief but also on progressive activity. This is made plain in the statement of the Doctrinal Basis and Purpose of the Association as incorporated in the Constitution, as follows:

Doctrinal Basis:

The Association proclaims the sovereignty of God, revealed in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, over the world and thus over every department of human activity.

In accordance with the historic Reformed confessions of faith the Association submits unconditionally to the authority of Holy Scripture as the Word of God, thereby recognizing it as the sole standard of reformation in this and every age of the Church.

The Association accepts, as being consonant with Holy Scripture, the ecumenical symbols of the ancient Church, namely the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.

Thus the Association asserts that it is in true succession in faith and doctrine from the Apostles, through the ancient Church, and down through the Reformers to the present day.

It is the confident hope of the Association that God will grant to the Church of this age the gifts of the Holy Spirit in order that, in obedience to Holy Scripture, it may respond to the needs of this age, as our fathers in the faith responded to the needs of their age.

Purpose:

The purpose of the Association is to promote God-centered living through faith in Jesus Christ.

To this end the Association regards as its special task

a) the strengthening and advancement of the Reformed cause throughout the world;

b) the encouragement of fellowship between Reformed Christians in every land;

c) the facilitation of the interchange of Reformed thought and experience.

National or regional branches have already come into existence in such varied and widely spread countries as the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, North America, South Africa, Australia, Japan and Korea, and plans are afoot for the formation of more branches of this kind through which the work of the International Association can the more easily be set forward. That the aims of the Association are increasingly being put into practice appears also from the fact that an ambitious literature program is now being carried out, included in which is the provision of financial and other aid for the composition, translation or republication of Reformed writings, especially in languages in which there is as yet a deficiency of such literature, e.g., Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese and Korean. The Association’s sights are also trained on countries behind the Iron Curtain and on South America. Money has been lent to the Societe Calviniste de France so that the grand scheme for a completely new edition of Calvin’s Institutes and commentaries in modern French may be brought to fruition.

As the result of a visit by the undersigned to Portugal in the Spring of 1956 a national branch was formed in that country; and a year later Professor Jean Cadier of Montpellier gave a series of lectures in Lisbon at the invitation of the Portuguese branch. At the present moment Professor Gerson Meyer of the Carcavelos Seminary (Portugal) is in Brazil, his native land, endeavoring to promote the work of the International Association there, and a similar object is being pursued by the Rev. Hisashi Ariga in Japan and Professor Raden Soedarmo in Indonesia. The formation of a Belgian branch has been encouraged by visits and lectures by Professor Cadier, Dr. Andre Schlemmer, and Pastor Pierre Marcel of France and Dr. Jan Dengerink (the International Secretary) of the Netherlands.

And so the work goes on and increases—not, of course, without its very real problems and difficulties, but to the great delight and thankfulness of those few who met together in Amsterdam six years ago, having no resources other than their faith and their vision. The time-honoured motto Soli Deo Gloria expresses both their praise for the past and their ambition for the future.

The next international congress is to be held, God willing, in the historic city of Strasbourg, France, from the 22nd to the 30th of July this year. The theme of the congress will be: “How to Confess our Reformed Faith.” A distinguished international team of speakers will deal with subjects such as “The Reformed Faith and the Modern Concept of Man,” “Witness by Word and Deed,” “Witness in and through the Church,” “Witness in and through the Family,” and “Christian Witness in the World of Industry”; and each day time will be allotted for open discussion of these subjects and for Bible study in groups. By these means it is hoped to make a relevant and genuinely scriptural contribution to the religious thought of our day.

Book Briefs: January 20, 1958

No Common Field

Fundamentalism and the Church, by Gabriel Hebert, Westminster, 1957. $3.00.

This book has been receiving considerable publicity and it is difficult to understand why. It is not a great book in any sense of the word. It is interestingly written, but badly constructed. It contributes nothing new to some old problems and rarely meets directly and concisely the problems which it raises within its own thesis. The book is probably receiving its acclaim for one of three reasons: first, the subject of the book, including the word “Fundamentalism,” is an advertisement in this day when the book itself proves that the issues between Fundamentalism and Modernism are far from dead; second, the liberals are delighted to have someone take up the cudgels against the fundamentalists; third, the fundamentalists having been rubbed raw at various points, receive this book with considerable sensitivity.

Such comment immediately raises the question of what the author means and what any of us mean when we use the term “Fundamentalism.” There are “fundies,” “fighting fundies,” “conservatives,” “evangelicals,” “the orthodox,” and those who wish to remain “true to the main features of the Reformed tradition.” Hebert is very clear in pointing out how the word “Fundamentalism” arose, and he is clear in listing the “fundamentals” which lead to the term “Fundamentalism.” From that point on, however, he never really meets Fundamentalism on the basis of his own definition. Therefore, each man in reading this book, if he feels himself to be in the conservative tradition, is moved to raise the question whether Hebert is talking about him at all. This sort of thing is particularly striking as Hebert discusses the whole question of the inspiration of Scripture. When he talks about bibliolatry I am forced to conclude that I know no one who practices such. When he talks about “mechanical dictation,” I know of no one who holds such a view. Yet this sort of thing goes on and on, a constant criticism of those who hold to verbal inspiration: that they practice bibliolatry or that they believe in some view of mechanical dictation. I think Hebert is quite right in bringing up the whole question of inspiration as central to the discussion of Fundamentalism and the Church, but his book makes no contribution to the discussion.

Throughout the book the author gets off into unnecessary and unfortunate excurses. On pages 26 and 27 he is working on a problem between the I.V.F. and the S.C.M.; the controversy reflects largely the Australian context and is probably not applicable most places in this country. In any case, it is a discussion of the old problem of the individual versus the social gospel, and is really the sort of thing one would expect to find in a tract. Beginning on page 103 he gives almost 14 pages to a digest of a book by Bo Giertz. These 14 pages are one-tenth of the printed matter of Hebert’s book. The material from Bo Giertz is interesting and valuable, but entirely too long for illustration, and what Hebert is illustrating is not clear.

It is hard to discover the public whom Hebert is addressing. So much of the book seems to be naive in terms of the real issues at stake and the arguments on both sides that are available are well known to all the disputants. Is he saying that all our arguments would disappear and we would have real unity if we would cease making issues out of what we believe to be fundamentals? That is impossible. Take a statement like this on page 14: “all controversy between Christians needs to start from the unity which God has made.…” Is it not more exact to say that all controversy between Christians needs to start from a deep concern for God’s truth or God’s glory? We all agree that God’s truth will be one truth, but I think we all need to agree also that until we have that truth there must be controversy. We cannot get rid of the problem of the serious difficulties among men by pretending that the difficulties are not there or by pretending that they do not matter. Hebert makes this plain enough when he begins to talk about the Church, particularly from the Anglican viewpoint in the latter part of his book.

Some of his criticisms of the fundamentalists need to be taken to heart, particularly his well-founded criticism that the fundamentalists are slow to recognize the social and sociological implications of their own salvation. He points up also at least the implication that someone soon needs to make clear what fundamentalists believe about the inspiration of Scripture. That this sort of thing has been done by men like Warfield does not mean that this position is being publicized today. If the fundamentalists are so strenuous in their support of verbal inspiration or verbal inerrancy, then someone modern, scholarly and conservative needs to write the book which can be a kind of “Q.E.D.” on the whole problem. Hebert has brought to our attention also that many of the Fundamentalist movements, particularly among college students—Inter-Varsity, Young Life, etc.—have given no serious thought to ecclesiology. Most of them are movements in independency.

One concludes from this book that in this controversy two different teams are playing on two different fields with slightly different sets of rules. Once in a while one team lobs a ball to the other field and hits someone in the head. This brings immediate reaction, but nothing is settled. Perhaps in the new ground swell of the conservative tradition in our day it will be possible for both teams some day soon now to play on the same field with the same rules, and settle some old scores.

ADDISON H. LEITCH

Life Of Augustine

Son of Tears by Henry W. Coray, Putnam, New York, 1957. $3.95.

This is a novel based on the storm-swept life of St. Augustine, who in himself forms a fascinating chapter in the history of the Christian church.

Mr. Coray states his purpose: “I began to read the works of St. Augustine.… Then I gradually developed the conviction that I had to bring him again to life. I found that the outline of his early years lies half buried in his Confessions. Son of Tears seeks to interpret one of the great minds as well as one of the most complex characters in history.”

This statement contains the seeds of many of the novel’s difficulties: Mr. Coray has attempted too much. Explanations of Manichean, Donatistic, and Pelagian heresies, along with other historical data and interpretation of Augustine’s writings all constitute too much burden for the novel. Furthermore, the fact that the author tries to cover his subject’s entire lifetime almost compels him to tell us rather than show us Augustine’s feelings. Of the death of Augustine’s son we are told, “A raging fever sapped Adeodatus’ strength. He lapsed into a coma. On the thirty-fourth day of the illness, while his father and a few of the monks looked on, brokenhearted, he breathed away his life. Augustine groped his way to his chamber to pray, the hot tears coursing down his cheeks.”

We can accept these perfunctory statements as facts, but we cannot very well empathize with the emotions. This spells failure to the project of bringing Augustine fully to life again.

Along this same line, Mr. Coray falls into a habit, all too prevalent in Christian novels, of explaining too much. One is reminded of Charles Lamb’s letter to William Wordsworth: “An intelligent reader finds a sort of insult in being told: I will teach you how to think upon this subject.… Very different from Robinson Crusoe, The Vicar of Wakefield, Roderick Random, and other beautiful bare narratives. There is implied an unwritten compact between author and reader: I will tell you a story, and I suppose you will understand it.”

Quotations from the Confessions at climactic points throughout the novel tend to destroy any artistic illusion which had been built up, and lowers the suspense by reminding us that all will be well in the end. Quotations would, of course, be very much in order in an interpretative literary biography, but they seem injurious to the novel. (Perhaps, after all, Mr. Coray simply chose the wrong medium.)

But the novel is honest on the subject of Augustine’s youthful sin, and thus avoids the very common and lamentable practice of whitewashing Christian biography to an impossible extent. There is immense intrinsic interest shown in the turbulent life of Augustine, with his passionate love for truth, for the lovely Melanie, and finally for the church. Such a life could hardly fail to command attention. It does not fail to do so in Son of Tears.

VIRGINIA RAMEY MOLLENKOTT

Lesson Commentaries

Douglass Sunday School Lessons, by Earl L. Douglass, Macmillan, 1957. 482 pp., $2.95. Tarbell’s Teachers’ Guide, by Frank S. Mead, Revell, 1957. 383 pp., $2.75.

Rozell’s Complete Lessons, by Ray Rozell, Rozell & Co., Owensboro, Ky., 1957. 342 pp., $2.95.

These commentaries are based on the International Sunday School Lessons, the International Bible Lessons for Christian Teaching, and on the Home Daily Bible Readings, copyrighted by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ and the International Council of Religious Education.

Three well-known teachers’ guides on the International Sunday School Lessons are considered in this review. Recent estimates by Sunday school authorities indicate that 60 per cent of the Sunday Schools throughout the United States are still using the International Lessons for some classes in the local Sunday Schools. No wonder, then, that writers on the International Bible Lessons continue to work assiduously every year on the preparation of teachers’ guides.

All three volumes offer a vast amount of information concerning the three topics for the year. Twenty-six weeks are given to “New Testament Teachings about the Church.” The third quarter is given to “Principles of Social Justice.” The last quarter is devoted to lessons on “The Life of Christ.”

First impressions count. This is where the format and type used in printing make a difference. Rozell has the edge on pleasing format. The layout in his volume is simple and easy to follow. Each lesson has a box entitled, “For the Teacher Only,” Rozell makes it easy, then, for the teacher to think quickly about the needs of the pupil, the aims of the lesson and a suggested approach to the lesson.

Douglass and Mead, however, have both included daily Bible readings and audio-visual resources which Rozell has omitted.

The teacher who is looking for a simple outline of the content will probably enjoy Rozell’s volume. For the teacher who wants to enrich and support the lessons with visual aids and illustrative material, he will find extensive resources in Douglass’ volume. In addition to lessons that throw light on the Biblical text, Douglass offers resources of visual aid materials for the temperance emphasis throughout the year’s work. Mead includes a list of addresses of producers whose material is used in the listing of audio-visual materials.

Douglass and Mead have used the King James Authorized Version, while Rozell has chosen to develop the lesson based on the Revised Standard Version text.

All three authors aim at taking the biblical text and making it relevant to contemporary life. Mead gives special help in adapting the lesson for intermediates and seniors in the local Sunday School. Douglass has the most helpful development of the lesson following a lesson plan. However, he does not go into a strict exposition of the text itself, but draws from the portion of Scripture and brings a great deal of material to bear on the contemporary needs as they are relevant to the universal principles of Scripture. Rozell does not provide any topics or questions for discussion. Douglass orients his questions and topics for discussion around the biblical text; whereas Mead seemingly is more concerned with contemporary problems and social issues in the use of suggested questions and topics of discussion for the teacher.

Douglass is more provocative as he develops his ideas. He attempts to inject the problem situation and then uses the biblical resources to solve the problem. Mead, on the other hand, tends to use many quotations from a variety of sources, and in that way throw some light upon the lesson outline. Rozell has more of a running comment on the ideas that are found in the biblical text; there are numerous helpful statements but not much illustrative material.

All three authors offer more than the average Sunday School teacher will use in the Sunday School hour. The best procedure, of course, would be to have all three volumes on one’s desk and gather the best for the teaching of the lesson.

If the reviewer could choose only one, he would prefer Douglass’ development of the lessons.

MILFORD SHOLUND

Peloubet’s Select Notes, by Wilbur M. Smith, Editor, Wilde, 1957. 455 pp., $2.95.

Since a day in October of 1924 when a synodical executive suggested that he supplement his meager library with some copies of Peloubet’s Notes, the present reviewer has consistently used and appreciated the successive volumes of this series. Under the able editorship of Dr. Smith, this commentary on the International Bible Lessons has become an indispensable tool for evangelical pastors and teachers. Having an acquaintance with and an access to expository literature second to none, the editor has again furnished the church with a veritable storehouse of biblical truth, of which only a fraction may be utilized during any class period. Christian workers who begin to use these Notes will continue using them over the years and thereby build up a valuable library of Christian literature to aid them, not only in their future teaching, but in preparing devotional talks and Gospel messages. This will yield a great dividend of spiritual blessing, both to the teachers and those to whom they minister. The book is printed in clear type and expertly indexed.

ERIC EDWIN PAULSON

Bible Book of the Month: The Epislte to the Colossians

The Epistle to the Colossians is one of three or four letters which were written by Paul around the same time and sent to various Christians in the Roman province of Asia by the hand of his friends Tychicus and Onesimus. The others were the Epistles to the Ephesians and to Philemon, together (it may be) with the enigmatic “epistle from Laodicea” mentioned in Colossians 4:16. At the time when he wrote these letters Paul was a prisoner. While arguments have been advanced for the view that they were written from Caesarea or Ephesus, it is more probable that they were written from Rome during the two years which (according to Acts 28:30) Paul spent in custody there.

Some years previously, from his headquarters in Ephesus, Paul and his colleagues had evangelized the province of Asia (Acts 19:10). The valley of the River Lycus, in which Colossae lay, was one of the districts evangelized at that time—not, it appears, by Paul in person, but by his trusty lieutenant Epaphras. Now Epaphras had paid Paul a visit in Rome and told him of the state of the churches in the Lycus valley. Much of his news was encouraging, but there was one very disquieting feature: at Colossae there was a strong inclination on the part of the Christians to accept an attractive line of teaching which (although they did not suspect it) was calculated to subvert the pure gospel which they had believed and bring them into spiritual bondage.

The Colossian Heresy

It was mainly to refute this teaching that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Colossians. We have no formal exposition of the false teaching—commontly called “the Colossian heresy”—but we can to some extent reconstruct it from Paul’s allusions to it.

Basically the heresy was Jewish; this seems clear from the place which it gave to legal ordinances, circumcision, food regulations, the sabbath, new moon and other prescriptions of the Jewish calendar. But on the Jewish foundation there had been erected a philosophical superstructure which was non-Jewish in origin—an early and simple form of what later came to be known as Gnosticism. In this part of Asia Minor the barriers between the Jewish communities and their pagan neighbors were not very effective. Social intermingling led to religious fusion, and the Colossian heresy may be described as a Jewish-Hellenistic syncretism which had made room for some Christian elements in its system so as to attract the young churches of the area.

In this system the angelic beings through whom the Jewish law had been given (cf. Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2) were identified with the lords of the planetary spheres, “principalities and powers,” who had a share in the fulness of the divine nature and controlled the lines of communication between God and man. Since they were in a position to cut off men from access to God, tribute must be paid to them in the form of law-keeping. To break the law incurred their displeasure, and they had to be placated by severe self-denial and penance. Christ himself, it was probably held, could not have passed from heaven to earth or back to heaven without their permission. Indeed, the fact of his suffering and death was a token of his inferiority to them. And similarly his servants, such as Paul, whose ministry was attended by so much tribulation, had clearly not attained that degree of control over the cosmic powers which would have made it possible to avoid all this tribulation.

Its False Appeal

This kind of teaching undoubtedly appealed to a certain religious temperament, the more so as it was presented as a form of advanced teaching for a spiritual elite. Christians were urged to go in for this higher wisdom, to explore the hidden mysteries by a series of successive initiations until they achieved perfection. Baptism was only a preliminary initiaton; those who would pursue the path of truth farther must put off all material elements by means of a rigorous asceticism until they were transported from this material world of darkness into the spiritual realm of light, and thus had experienced full redemption.

But however attractive many might find this cult, Paul condemns it as specious make-believe. Far from constituting a more advanced grade of knowledge than that presented in the apostolic preaching, it was totally inconsistent with that preaching and threatened to overthrow the foundations of Christianity. A system which exalted the planetary powers must enthrone fate in place of the will of God, and a system which brought men into bondage to these powers must deny the grace of God.

Paul’S Corrective Teaching

To this “tradition of men,” Paul opposes the true tradition of Christ. The planetary powers have no part at all in the divine fulness; that fulness is completely embodied in Christ. It is in Christ, too, that all wisdom and knowledge are concentrated, and in him all wisdom and knowledge are accessible to believers—not only to a spiritual elite, but to all. The planetary powers are in no sense mediators between God and man; that role is filled by him who unites Godhead and manhood in his one person. He is not inferior to them; his sovereignty over them is established by twofold right. First, it was by him and for him that these powers were created, together with everything else that exists; secondly, it was he who vanquished them when they assaulted him on the cross, and liberated from their now impotent grasp those who formerly had been held in bondage by them. Why should those who were united with Christ think it necessary to appease powers which owed their very being to him? And why should those who by faith had died and risen with Christ, thus receiving a share in his victory, render any further service to those powers whom he had so completely conquered? Far from being an advanced stage of wisdom, this angel-cult bore all the marks of immaturity; it called on those who had come of age in Christ to go back to the apron-strings of infancy.

Christ’S Supremacy Over All

In his reply to the Colossian heresy Paul unfolds the cosmic significance of Christ more fully than in his earlier epistles. It is not entirely absent from the earlier epistles, as may be seen from 1 Corinthians 1:24; 2:6–10; 8:6 and Romans 8:19–22. Here, however, it is expounded at length.

Justification by faith, fundamental as it is to Paul’s gospel, does not exhaust his gospel. In the age of the Reformation it was inevitable, and indeed most desirable, that special attention should be concentrated on the means by which the individual soul is accepted as righteous in God’s sight. But in some quarters Paulinism has come to be identified so exclusively with the insights of Galatians and Romans, that the cosmic and corporate aspects of the gospel unfolded in Colossians and Ephesians have been felt to be un-Pauline. There is room in true Paulinism for both, and contemporary evangelicalism must similarly make room for both if it is not to be lopsided and defective.

In particular, the truth of Christ’s supremacy over all the powers in the universe is one which modern man sorely needs to learn. He is oppressed by a sense of impotence in the grasp of merciless forces which he can neither overcome nor escape. These forces may be Frankenstein monsters of man’s own creation, or they may be horrors outside his conscious control; either way he is intimidated by the vastness of those fateful currents which may sweep him to destruction against his will. And to modern man in his frustration and despair the gospel of Christ as it is presented in this epistle is the only message that can bring hope. Christ crucified and risen is Lord of all; all the forces in the universe are subject to him, well-disposed and ill-disposed alike. To be united to Christ by faith is to be liberated from the thralldom of hostile powers, to enjoy perfect freedom, to gain the mastery over the dominion of evil because Christ’s victory is ours.

The arguments which have been used against the authenticity of Colossians cannot stand up to serious examination. Some of them, as has been said, depend on an unwarranted restriction of “Paulinism.” The type of heresy which the epistle attacks is not the developed Gnosticism which we meet in the second century, but an incipient Gnosticism such as was prone to emerge in the first century and even earlier in areas where Judaism of the Dispersion was influenced by dominant trends of Hellenistic and Oriental thought. If Paul uses terms here in a rather different sense from what they mean in his earlier epistles, we need not be surprised; the sense which he gives to a number of technical terms in Colossians may well be due to the sense in which they were employed by the heretical teachers. Some parts of Col. 1:9–23 have been singled out as specially un-Pauline in character; but in part of this section (verses 12–17) we probably have echoes of a primitive Christian confession of faith. The mediating theory that Paul wrote a shorter letter to Colossae which some later hand expanded by the incorporation of sections from Ephesians is condemned by its own complexity.

Analysis

The Epistle falls into five main sections:

1. Salutation (Col. 1:1–2).

2. The Person and Work of Christ (Col. 1:3–2:7).

3. False Teaching and its Antidote (Col. 2:8–3:4).

4. The Christian Life (Col. 3:5–4:6).

5. Personal Notes and Final Greeting (Col. 4:7–18).

As in most of Paul’s epistles, the doctrinal part is followed by a practical part, the two being linked together logically by the conjunction “therefore” (Col. 3:5). Because that is the doctrine, he says in effect, this is how you should live (cf. Rom. 12:1; Eph. 4:1). Or, as our Lord put it: “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them” (John 13:17).

The practical injunctions of Col. 3:5–4:6 are arranged according to what appears to have been a well-established catechetical method in primitive Christianity; they may be subdivided under the headings: “Put off” (3:5–11), “Put on” (3:12–17), “Be subject” (3:18–4:1), “Watch and pray (4:2–6).

Literature

Of all the commentaries on the Greek text of Colossians, the best is J. B. Lightfoot’s (1875), recently reprinted by Zondervan. Less brilliant than Lightfoot’s, but a piece of sound scholarship, is T. K. Abbott’s work in the International Critical Commentary series, where it shares a volume with the same writer’s commentary on Ephesians (1897). The most recent commentary of this kind is an excellent work by Professor C. F. D. Moule in the new Cambridge Greek Testament series (1957). On the English text there is a useful commentary in the Cambridge Bible series by H. C. G. Moule (1893). The same writer’s Colossian Studies (1898) is more devotional in character. A. T. Robertson produced an interesting study of the epistle in Paul and the Intellectuals (Stone Lectures, 1926). E. F. Scott expounded Colossians together with Ephesians and Philemon in a volume of the Moffatt New Testament Commentary (1930). The exposition of Colossians in the New International Commentary on the New Testament by the present writer will soon be published in the same volume as E. K. Simpson’s exposition of Ephesians.

F. F. BRUCE

Anxiety over Catholic Advance

Christianity in the World Today

The most potent organizational foe of Roman Catholic infractions in the United States today is the group known as Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Its leaders and backers include some of the most influential men in American Protestantism.

POAU first won widespread recognition in 1947 with its “Manifesto” which warned that the Roman Catholic hierarchy was trying to divide state-supported public schools into sectarian school systems sustained out of public revenue. Its warning was prompted by devotion to a constitutional principle which provides that religious and governmental functions stay clear of each other.

Two years later Paul Blanshard, the special counsel for the POAU, followed up the warning. His book raised a cry which is still ringing in bookstore cash registers. American Freedom and Catholic Power in its original edition sold 240,000 copies and was the most vigorous revelation of Roman Catholic plans and principles ever to come before the American public. The book still is selling at the rate of about 300 copies a month.

A Ten-Year Review

This month the POAU reviewed the accomplishments and the frustrations of the past ten years. Tacked on to its “balance sheet” were three questions which organization leaders said should be addressed to every Catholic candidate for the United States presidency or vice presidency.

Is the POAU against the Catholics as a whole?

Blanshard himself took another look at the situation in American Freedom and Catholic Power, 1958 edition, scheduled for publication March 12. He carefully restated the POAU policy of not being against Catholicism per se, but only as the church hierarchy would tend to violate the Constitution.

The book states, “It should be noted that I have not included in my suggestions for a resistance movement any anti-Catholic political party or any general boycott of Catholic candidates for public office … However, we cannot avoid the further conclusion that a Catholic candidate’s attitude toward certain policies of his church is clearly relevant to his fitness to hold public office.”

Blanshard also came up with three questions which he felt should be asked of a Catholic presidential candidate. Two were the same as those prescribed by the POAU: (1) Do you approve or disapprove of your church’s directive (Canon 1374) to American Catholic parents to boycott our public schools unless they receive special permission from their bishops? (2) What is your personal conviction concerning your bishops’ denouncement of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the religion clause of the First Amendment, the payment of government funds to parents for major parochial school costs, and the payment of tax money for such fringe benefits as bus transportation?

Blanshard’s third question would ask: Do you personally approve or disapprove of your church’s policy of denying both Catholics and non-Catholics the right to receive birth control information?

Blanshard said he would also be willing to put before Catholic presidential aspirants the POAU’s third query: If you became president what would be your policy concerning the appointment of an American ambassador or a personal representative to the Vatican?

POAU Also Considered It

Dr. C. Stanley Lowell, associate director of the POAU, said the organization leaders had considered Blanshard’s birth information question, but that some objections were raised.

(CHRISTIANITY TODAY suggested editorially, June 24, 1957 [Vol. I, No. 19], that when seeking the nation’s highest office a Catholic candidate be asked whether he shares the official view of the hierarchy that the state is the temporal arm of the Vatican. Lowell agreed that such a question would be “a rather good one.” Blanshard’s comment was, “I would not phrase it that way.”)

But why bring it up now? Political conventions are two and a half years away. Said the POAU, “… We believe that it would be unfortunate to postpone the discussion of these issues until personal factors have become paramount in a presidential campaign.”

What Is A Grant?

A group of taxpayers pointed to a 13-acre slum area in New York’s Lincoln Square section as the latest battleground in the separation of church and state issue. The taxpayers went unsuccessfully to the New York State Supreme Court to try and block what they viewed as a city fund grant to Fordham University, a Roman Catholic school.

City plans include condemnation proceedings against the blighted blocks and an auction sale as part of a $205,000,000 redevelopment project. Fordham wants part of the land for a collegiate center. The rest would be left for housing and commercial building.

State Supreme Court Justice Owen McGivern heard arguments from the taxpayers on the contention that the city is paying more than $16 a foot for the property for resale to Fordham at $7 a foot. A suit filed by the group sought to prevent the resale to the university on the grounds that such action would in reality be “a direct subsidy to a sectarian institution.” The group contended that this would amount to violation of federal and state constitutional guarantees of separation of church and state.

Fordham’s attorneys called the suit an attack on the university’s right to contract legally with the city as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. They also argued that a court decision preventing them from buying the land would have violated the school’s rights to full exercise of religious freedom as provided by the First Amendment.

McGivern dismissed the taxpayers’ suit with a ruling that sale of the land to Fordham would not involve any “gift or subsidy.” He implied that although the university would get the land for less than the city pays for it, additional costs would be involved. Fordham would be left with the task of relocating tenants and tearing down buildings before it could make use of the land. McGivern said any other educational institution was welcome to bid on the property.

Harris L. Present, attorney for the taxpayers’ group, was not through. He took the case to the appellate division and planned to appeal “to the United States Supreme Court if necessary.”

Convention Planned

The 14th World Convention of Christian Education will be held in Tokyo August 6–13. Related events will extend throughout the summer.

The Camel’S Nose

The presidents of 28 Jesuit colleges and universities have asked to have private schools included in any federal aid to education designed to increase United States scientific talent.

They announced after a two-day meeting in Washington the establishment of a national Jesuit Commission on Research and plans for $102,000,000 in new college buildings.

The president of the Jesuit Educational Association, the Rev. Edward B. Rooney of New York, said that if the objectives of increasing the teaching of science and mathematics can be attained only through federal aid, “then that aid should be made available on an across-the-board basis, for all students and for all institutions.”

“Where because of state constitutional provisions such across-the-board distribution is precluded, provision should be made for direct grants by the federal government to individuals and institutions affected,” Father Rooney said.

The Jesuit school heads claimed that the federal school lunch program provided a precedent for giving assistance directly to students without ragard to the private control of the school attended.

Imc-Wcc Merger Voted

The International Missionary Council Assembly voted to merge with the World Council of Churches.

Approval of a plan of integration came at a meeting of 200 delegates from 35 constituent councils of the IMC at Achimoto in the new country of Ghana.

Ratification by the constituent councils still is needed before the merger can be consummated.

The assembly recommended that the next WCC Assembly, scheduled for Ceylon in 1960, be postponed until 1961 to allow IMC constituent councils more time to study the merger plan.

The Assembly nominated James K. Mathews, executive secretary for India and Pakistan of the Methodist Board of Missions, to succeed Dr. Charles W. Ranson as general secretary of the IMC.

Bishop J. E. Leslie Newbigin, head of the Madhurai-Ramned diocese of the Church of South India, was named to succeed Dr. John A. Mackay, president of Princeton Theological Seminary, as chairman of the IMC. Mackay was made honorary chairman.

The Assembly admitted three additional councils to IMC membership.

People: Words And Events

Church Sponsors Jazz Movies—The St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church in Glendale, Mo., is sponsoring free showings of jazz movies in the City Hall. Comment will be given by the Rev. Alvin Kershaw, Episcopal rector of Peterboro, N. H., who won $32,000 on a television program with his knowledge of jazz.

New Journal Published—A new quarterly journal known as Foundations, the Baptist Journal of History and Theology, began publication this month as “an open forum for the expression of the theological conviction of Baptists.” Editor is the Rev. George Younger, Minister of Mariners’ Temple, New York. The journal’s initial issue contains an article entitled “Twenty Years A Baptist,” by Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Skyscraper Church Planned—Trinity Methodist Church of Louisville, Ky., authorized its trustees to plan a $2,000,000 skyscraper building to house both a new church and 200 one-bedroom and efficiency apartments.

Free Organs Offered—Retired Cleveland businessman Claude Foster offered to buy a Hammond organ for any “poor country church” in Ohio that needs one and that does not have the funds to buy it.

Editor DiesLouis Minsky, managing editor of Religious News Service, died at his Kew Gardens, N. Y., home at the age of 48.

Love Aflame—In Arlington, Va., Perry W. Johnson and Florence Edna Gutridge showed up for their New Year’s Eve wedding an hour late and found the church dark. Still determined, they happened upon the Rev. U. N. Troutman in a fire house. The couple walked down an “aisle” formed by two parked fire trucks and were pronounced man and wife in the waning moments of 1957.

Attendance Increases—One million more adults attended church and synagogue services regularly during 1957 than the year before, the American

Institute of Public Opinion reported. Dr. George Gallup, Institute Director, said an audit showed average weekly attendance in the United States at about 48,500,000.

Crime Rate Up—There were more crimes committed in the United States in 1957 than in any previous year, said J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Hoover said preliminary figures from police departments showed an increase of 7½ per cent over 1956, when 2,563,000 major crimes were committed.

Translations PlannedThrough Gates of Splendor, account of the martyrdom of five American missionaries, is being translated into the languages of Finland, Holland, Germany, Japan, Norway and Sweden.

Lutherans Triumph—The Lutheran Laymen’s League float won first prize in the religious category of the Tournament of Roses parade at Pasadena, California.

DigestCanadian Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker will address the fifth Baptist Youth World Conference in Toronto next summer.… President Eisenhower sent greetings to the Church of the Nazarene on the opening of its golden anniversary year.… The Manhattan Baptist Church was organized as the first New York City church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.… Some 120 United States Methodist ministers and laymen will participate in a 10-day evangelistic crusade in Cuba, January 28-February 6.… Youth for Christ International announced plans for a five-year expansion program with a half-million-dollar-a-year budget to “combat juvenile delinquency by reaching teenagers with Christian teaching.…” Protestant churches in the New York City area opened a 13-week church attendance campaign to be climaxed on Easter Sunday as a follow-up to the Billy Graham crusade.… Wake Forest College trustees rejected a motion to permit campus dancing in violation of a North Carolina Baptist Convention ruling.

Students Confer

Not all college students go home for the holidays. At least nine thousand spent their Christmas vacations at religious conventions.

At Urbana, Illinois—Evangelist Billy Graham warned 3,200 delegates at the fifth International Student Missionary Convention that this may be the last generation for world evangelism.

“I have a feeling that as God called the disciples and the early church to evangelize in the first generation of church history, so you and I may be the ones God has called to evangelize the world in its last generation,” Graham said.

He told the gathering sponsored by Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship that the delegates represented a potential missionary force to shake the world. He urged them to make “a full, irrevocable commitment to Christ.” More than 1,500 did.

The theme of the convention on the University of Illinois campus was “One Lord—One Church—One World.” In addition to Graham there were five other major speakers: Dr. Harold J. Ockenga of Boston, Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse of Philadelphia, Dr. Masumi Toyotome of Tokyo, Japan and Dr. Kenneth Strachand and Rev. Israel Garcia of San Jose, Costa Rica.

Ockenga declared that missions were “the world’s first line of defense against atheistic Communism and against irresponsible freedom.”

But he stressed that “Christians must view the world through other glasses than the East-West struggle. We must recognize the value of all men regardless of color, creed and nationality in their condition of human need.

“The overpopulation, undernourishment, disease, lack of sanitation, illiteracy, ignorance, superstition, prejudice, hatred and corruption have bound mankind in darkness and fear. Compassion and concern are the twin motives which stir us.”

At Lawrence, Kansas—Some 3,400 students attending the sixth quadrennial Methodist Student Conference heard themselves called the “uncommitted generation.” They promptly admitted the designation, then dropped the blame back in the laps of accusing clergymen.

Delegates representing some 1,000 colleges and universities adopted a statement at the close of the conference which declared that the youths belong to an “uncommitted generation” because “the church has not called us to her Lord or her mission clearly enough to excite our response.”

The youths denied “the implication we are uncommitted either through choice or indifference.” “To the contrary,” the statement said, “most of us are deeply concerned over our lack of commitment and many of us are actually searching for that cause to which we can offer unreserved allegiance.”

Their statement was read by Dr. Robert Hamill of Madison, Wisconsin, director of the Wesley Foundation at the University of Wisconsin.

The statement said that the church which chides them for their uncommitment “proves to be a major stumbling block toward commitment.” The students said that although the church offers herself as the only institution worthy of their allegiance “it is herself a primary deterrent.”

“We may be silent and withdrawn, but we are not easily misled,” the statement continued. “The church as she stands now is not, we believe, worth our lives. But the mission of the church obedient to her Lord is. The institution does not impel our commitment, but the Lord of the institution does.”

All that the church has called on youths to do, the students said, “is to perpetuate the peripheral role in which she is presently engaged, while the urgent issues of the world remain unchanged. Some wonder if all she offers is just contentment, the antithesis of a commitment.”

The students said they were faced with a “curious dilemma” of wanting to commit themselves while the church offers no “clear reason” for them to do so.

“We ask the church to recommit herself more fully to her true Lord and mission that we may have more reason to heed her call.”

Among conference speakers were Norman Cousins, editor of the Saturday Review; Methodist Bishop Fred P. Corson of Philadelphia and Dr. Harold A. Bosley, Evanston, Illinois, Methodist minister.

A highlight of the meeting was the world premiere of an oratorio, “The Invisible Fire,” commemorating the 250th anniversary of the birth of famed hymn writer Charles Wesley.

At Lexington, Kentucky—Some 2,500 delegates to a Southern Presbyterian youth meeting were told to hold on to spiritual perspectives in spite of the growing “scientific mood.”

The occasion was the sixth quadrennial Youth Convention sponsored by the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. (Southern).

Church-State Issues Summarized

The issue of separation of church and state promised to create continued tensions. Here is a summary of developments around the turn of the year:

WASHINGTON—Catholic presidential candidates should be asked to reveal their position on the clash in principles between the Roman church and democratic government, urged Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State. (Story on page 28.)

NEW YORK—A state Supreme Court judge refused to block the proposed sale of public land at a discount to Fordham University, a move which a group of taxpayers view as a government grant to a sectarian institution. (Story on page 28).

WASHINGTON—Jesuit college heads asked that private schools be included in any future program of federal aid to education designed to increase this nation’s scientific talent. They said precedent has already been set for such action by the federal school lunch program. (Story on page 29.)

WASHINGTON—The Census Bureau decided to drop the idea of asking a question on religious affiliation in the 1960 Census. Bureau Director Robert W. Burgess said it was decided to forego the proposal primarily because “a considerable number of persons would be reluctant to answer such a question …” Burgess said the feeling was that the value of statistics based on the religion question would not be great enough “to justify overriding such an attitude.”

STOCKHOLM—The Swedish Minister of Justice undertook a new study of church-state relations in anticipation of a Parliament bill which would allow women to apply for office in the Lutheran National Church. Involved is the larger question of whether the church synod has the right to veto bills regarding church matters. The synod rejected a similar bill last fall.

The church has been challenged today by the “scientific mood,” said Dr. M. M. Heltzel, pastor of the Ginter Park church in Richmond, Virginia. But he added that science cannot, and was never intended to, meet all of our many needs.

“In a world of atomic energy and man-made satellites we see that science, if unrestricted, could be our destruction,” he warned. “Now we see that some power outside man, from beyond the forces of nature, must be brought upon the scene to prevent disaster.”

Heltzel’s contentions won support from the pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, Dr. Lawrence I. Stell, who said that the church’s primary need is to aid students in resolving “the seeming conflict between Christian faith and scientific method.”

“There are some who rejoice in attempting to develop a wide chasm between these two and demand that the student choose between them,” said Stell. “This can be based only on a misreading of the nature of the two.”

Other speakers included Dr. Julian Price Love, professor of biblical theology at Louisville Presbyterian Seminary, and Dr. Chandran Devanesen, head of the history department, Madras Christian College, Tambaran, India.

President Worships

President Eisenhower was among high government officials who attended an early morning National Presbyterian Church service which marked the opening of a new session of Congress.

He was joined by members of Congress, the cabinet and service officials.

The service of intercession and Holy Communion was conducted under the auspices of the Presbyterian Church of the USA, the United Presbyterian Church, the National Council of Churches and the Council of Churches of the National Capital Area.

The Communion sacraments were served by elders of the National Presbyterian Church, among whom are Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and Secretary of the Army Wilbur Brucker.

Lawmakers Pray

The United States Senate reconvened as Chaplain Frederick Brown Harris, D.D. prayed that the nation’s leaders may “rise to greatness of vision and action to meet the most crucial challenge since the Liberty Bell first rang out its glad tidings.…”

Brown prayed in behalf of the senators that the Lord would “give thy servants, the few out of the many, who for the nation speak and think and act here, to see clearly that our salvation will not be found by wailing about the things we might have done, but by the mighty things we here highly resolve to do today for the tomorrow.” His prayer continued:

“Purge our outlook of all defeatism and despair; and above all, of the perilous fallacy that the final victory of thy truth which makes men free depends on the massing of material might alone. Deliver us from the evil of seeking deals which crucify ideals.”

Seminary Land Acquired

A 100-year-old family estate was purchased to become the site of the new Midwestern Baptist Seminary at Kansas City, Missouri.

The Southern Baptist Convention’s sixth seminary will be located on 99 acres which cost the trustees $252,000. The site is the largest of the six.

Former owner of the property is Mrs. Sheffa Vivion Foster, who said she would will an additional five acres to the seminary.

“Religion” Jails Youth

Because he said his religious scruples forbade him to use electricity or other modern conveniences, a young conscientious objector was sentenced to a year and a day in jail.

Abraham Y. Bontrager, 24-year-old member of the Old Order Amish community at Hazleton, Iowa, was sent to a federal penitentiary after he refused to accept alternative work assigned to him by his draft board in lieu of military service.

Bontrager refused three alternatives offered by Federal Judge William J. Campbell: work in hospitals either in Des Moines or Fort Wayne, Indiana, or work on a farm at a Mennonite home for the aged in Kansas.

Bishop Emanuel Schrock of the Amish community, who appeared in court with the youth, said employment in a public place or use of any modern convenience, such as electricity, was forbidden by the sect’s religious beliefs.

Judge Campbell said he had to decide “whether the defendant is exercising his religious beliefs within reason.”

Gospel Radio For Nome

The Evangelical Mission Covenant Church said it would assume responsibility for securing a broadcast license and installing equipment for a Gospel broadcasting station at Nome, Alaska.

The announcement came after a meeting in Chicago between church officials and representatives of Denali Broadcasters, Inc., which also has wanted to erect such a station for Western Alaska.

Denali and other evangelical organizations will be given opportunities to assist in the missionary radio effort in Alaska.

The Evangelical Mission Covenant Church has been studying the possibility of building a radio station in conjunction with its mission operations in Northwestern Alaska for several years.

Industrialist Ordained

Robert B. Watts, vice president and general counsel of the Convair Division of the General Dynamics Corporation, was ordained to the priesthood of the Episcopal Church in Los Angeles.

A Change Of Mind

The Detroit Common Council voted to ban Sunday real estate operations then, a week later, reversed itself.

Votes on the proposed ordinance, which was to undergo further study, climaxed seven weeks of debate involving church groups, home builders and estate men.

Councilman James H. Lincoln originally introduced the bill “so salesmen won’t have to work seven days a week.” A Michigan law in effect since 1846 forbids “any manner of labor, business or work” on Sunday, but the law in recent years has not been enforced.

A previous ban on Sunday real estate sales was ruled out by the state Supreme Court in the 1930’s.

The Common Council first passed Lincoln’s bill by a vote of 4 to 3.

But Councilman Charles N. Young-blood, who favored the ban, asked for reconsideration because, he said, it was controversial and it was passed on the eve of the swearing in of two new members.

The second time around the Council reversed the ban by a vote of 5 to 3.

Middle East

Oil And The Gospel

The nationalization of the oil industry in Iran brought unprecedented gains in the proclamation of the Gospel.

The old Anglo-Iranian Oil Company had exercised control over the region in which it operated to such an extent that Christian workers were discouraged.

Avoiding religious controversy was the company’s chief interest. Any stirrings might have halted the flow of oil.

Chaplains paid by the company were the only recognized Christian clergy. These chaplains, representing the Catholic and Anglican Churches and the Church of Scotland, were imported to minister solely to the foreign employees. Iranian Christians were for the most part leaderless and allowed to use chapels occasionally. Oil workers found themselves in a materialistic environment, among them Armenian and Assyrian Christians and others who had received Christian training in mission schools.

Efforts in the name of Christ were few. The Christian and Missionary Alliance had a missionary couple in Khorramshahr and Ahwaz for five years and a Lebanese couple lived in the area for a few years as free-lance missionaries. Large missions of Iran were unable to station any missionaries or evangelists in that region.

Then came the establishment of the consortium, the nationalization of the oil industry. Formal chaplaincies were abolished and restraints of long standing also went.

Iranian evangelicals and new technicians from the United States began insisting on some form of Protestant church organization. The Bishop of Iran, the Rev. W. J. Thompson of the Church Missionary Society, took the lead by inviting the Presbyterian Mission in Iran to join in a survey of the possibilities for a joint chaplaincy in the Province of Khuzistan.

That was two years ago. Since then, evangelical missionary couples with a knowledge of the Persian language have come into take up the challenge. They have brought Christians together and have created interest among non-Christians in a manner unparalleled in Khuzistan.

Although the couples serve as members of their own denominational missions on loan to the Chaplaincy Committee, their salaries are met entirely from local sources.

F.T.W.

New Church

Presbyterians decided to establish a church in Hawaii against the advice of the Honolulu Council of Churches and findings of Dr. J. Quinter Miller, Assistant General Secretary of the National Council of Churches.

The Rev. Carroll Schuster, Clerk of the Los Angeles Presbytery, said persons are being sought to organize the Hawaiian church.

Honolulu church leaders said this was in violation of a “gentlemen’s agreement” dating back to the 1840s between the Congregationalists and the Presbyterians. The agreement reportedly provided that Presbyterians would operate elsewhere in the Pacific area, and that Hawaiian Presbyterians join other Protestant denominations.

The Honolulu Council of Churches is on record as having written the Presbyterian National Board of Missions and the Presbytery of Los Angeles to the effect that there were already enough denominations located in the Hawaiian Islands.

Miller made a survey on the islands several months ago at the request of the board. “While I found a wide variety of opinion thereon,” he said, “the conclusion to which current thought and opinion points is that it would be unwise for Presbyterian work to be established there.”

His survey said such a move would “inescapably weaken, by division, the work of the Hawaiian Evangelical Association of Congregational Christian Churches.” The Congregationalists have been in Hawaii since 1820 and list today more than 100 individual churches with nearly 13,000 members.

Thomas C. Major, president of the Honolulu Council of Churches, promised at any rate to “welcome them (the Presbyterians) with open arms and invite them to join the council.”

P.E.T.

Europe

Pastors Attacked

Communist leaders appeared to be changing their tactics in a campaign to undermine the strength of East German churches.

The latest maneuver in the Soviet cold-war offensive saw direct attacks against individual clergymen instead of open assault upon entire religious movements. More pastors were being arrested and others denounced publicly.

Leaders of the Evangelical Church in Germany quickly sensed the change and issued direct orders to its 5,500 pastors in the East Zone to stay with their congregations—even at the risk of their personal safety.

The orders came as ministers by the dozens sought to move out of Communist East Germany. Some 20 pastors under suspicion for alleged anti-State propaganda already had fled to the West and another 150 were reported to have asked for reassignment outside the Red satellite nation.

The Evangelical Church in an effort to stem the tide, took disciplinary action against two of its pastors who fled the East Zone and reportedly refused to return, even at the urging of church leaders.

South America

Growing Tension

Growing tension between the Roman Catholic Church and Venezuelan Dictator Perez Jimnez was highlighted in an article published recently in La Republica, Costa Rican daily, in which it was revealed that Archbishop Rafael Arias Blanco had sent the dictator a note demanding legal elections as scheduled December 15.

“The peace and happiness of the Venezuelan people,” the archbishop said, “demand the return of the exiled, the liberation of all political prisoners, and full amnesty.”

President Perez’ reply was to confiscate the edition of the Catholic daily La Religion, in which the note was subsequently published, and to secure from his congress a bill authorizing the substitution of a simple plebescite for regular elections.

Venezuelans may vote in December for or against continuation of the present regime.

The current attitude of the Venezuelan clergy is reminiscent of the fact that it was the opposition of the Catholic church in Colombia which finally tipped the scales against former dictator Rojas Pinilla.

W.D.R.

Japan

Conference Expands

The Central Committee of the Japan Protestant Centennial Conference decided to expand its scope by including Japanese pastors and Christian workers as well as missionaries.

Six Japanese church leaders agreed to form an executive committee.

To date 21 missions including 643 missionaries have accepted invitations to participate in the centennial celebration.

Founding Marked

Japanese government officials were among participants in a service which commemorated the 80th anniversary of the founding of Meiji Gakuin High School and University.

The Meiji Gakuin school traces its formal history to the founding in 1877 of a theological school under the sponsorship of Reformed and Presbyterian missionaries from Scotland and the United States.

Tokyo officials and representatives of the federal Ministry of Education helped to observe the anniversary.

J.A.M.

Eutychus and His Kin: January 20, 1958

PASTORAL PROBLEM II

This interview is from the files of Pastor P., transcribed at the climax of his unusual career in counseling.

P. How do you see your problem, Herbert?

H. Well, to put all the cards on the table, pastor, I guess you’re the problem.

P. I see. That’s an interesting way to put it. Did your father frown on cards?

H. Yes, he did, but …

P. So to express a feeling of hostility toward me, you choose an expression that would offend your father. This transference of the father-image to the pastor is a common cause of negative affect toward the clergy. Do you have siblings? H. What?… Oh. Sure. My brother Ray runs the Plaza Food Center where I’m a butcher. But what I came about.…

P. You became a butcher after your brother was a successful store manager? How do you feel about your work?

H. Oh, I don’t know. I like it in a way. Sometimes I think I should change to another job. But, pastor …

P. In other words, you enjoy cutting meat, but you also feel vaguely guilty about your job. Perhaps I can help you to recognize the character of these repressed feelings which lead to this ambivalent attitude. Resentment aroused by failure in sibling rivalry can find outlet in symbolic action. For example, you are no doubt unaware of that envelope in your hands which you have been creasing so vigorously.

H. Yes, pastor … I mean, no. Here!

P. Ah … a request for my resignation from the board of deacons, together with a number of rationalizations for this attitude. Did you observe a feeling of satisfaction when this action passed?

H. Some of the men were hugging each other.

P. Yes. Group therapy is decidedly necessary. Thank you, Herbert. When do you wish to call again?

EUTYCHUS

FORCE OF APOCRYPHA

It is regrettable that Lewis Sasse in his explanation (Dec. 23 issue) that the Book of Common Prayer lectionary provides for lessons from the Apocrypha (which is true) did not quote the sixth article of religion, at the close of the Prayer Book, which determines the circumstances and purposes of such reading:

“And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not study them to establish any doctrine …”

Thereafter … follows a list of the Apocryphal Books. They simply do not have the force and authority of the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments in the Protestant Episcopal Church.

Trinity Episcopal Church

Toledo, Ohio

COLOMBIAN TENSIONS

Concerning his criticism of our article, “Persecution in Columbia—The Facts” (View, June 1957), I must begin by setting Mr. Taylor straight on a most important point—one he could easily have verified for himself.

He says the View article, “reprinted in the press and in La Prensa (Spanish daily printed in New York), is apparently the hierarchy’s official denial of Roman Catholic persecution of Colombian Protestants” (Italics ours).

We assure Mr. Taylor, that while his mistake flatters us, it is still a mistake. The View article came off the press without the slightest previous consultation with or knowledge of the Cardinals and bishops of the United States or anyone representing them.

The blunder is not complementary, however, to Mr. Taylor’s practical knowledge of the relationship between the Catholic Hierarchy and the Catholic press.

This vagueness comes as rather a surprise in a man of his position and one who judges with such positive assurance of events going on in faraway Colombia.

Throughout his two articles of rebuttal and counter-charges Mr. Taylor carefully avoids a most basic issue; one that in any concept of logic should be settled first: Has CEDEC supplied adequate proof of its grievous charges? Have the CEDEC bulletins lied?

Only at one point does he make a positive feint at reaching down to take up this gauntlet. The gesture is so awkward and futile as to be funny.

Mr. Taylor cites a minor Washington official, an Assistant Secretary of State, whose reply, as quoted, is perfectly non-committal. It says neither that the “persecuted” Protestants in Colombia are innocent victims, nor that they are troublemakers bringing reprisals on themselves. It says nothing.

And so View repeats: the silence of the United States delegates to the U. N., the practical indifference of our State Department, the failure of CEDEC’s friends to turn the Colombian Protestant “situation” into a national issue here, all show that the CEDEC reports cannot stand up in court.

Indicative also of CEDEC’s beating the air is the decision recently taken by the World Council of Churches not to accuse the Catholic Church of violating religious liberty in Colombia and other South American countries before making a further study of the situation.

Obviously this august Protestant federation does not as yet share Clyde W. Taylor’s unquestioning faith in CEDEC’s frantic bulletins.

The Rev. HUGH MORLEY, O.F.M. Cap.

Editor, View

Yonkers, N. Y.

It is evident that Roman Catholic spokesmen in the U. S. are willing to follow a tortuous path to avoid acknowledging the oppression of the Protestant minority in Colombia. They refuse to grapple with facts and they avoid direct denial of incidents of violence which we have cited. Meanwhile, they arouse doubt by innuendo. This is illustrated by the letter from View.

View claims to be “A Catholic View of the News” and speaks as the “official publication of the Capuchin Fathers.” Yet the editor attempts to divorce the magazine from Roman Catholic responsibility for its statements. This vacillation would be surprising if it were not so frequent.

Passing over Father Morley’s sarcasm directed at me personally, we note that he doubts the veracity of the CEDEC reports and is disturbed that we quote “a minor Washington official” in establishing the fact that our government is concerned about the situation in Colombia. We should like to call his attention to a portion of a letter from the Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, to the Colombia Minister of Foreign Relations, dated Sept. 12, 1956:

“I am disturbed to learn that unprovoked attacks on United States Protestants and Protestant missions have been continuing. I refer particularly to the attacks on the establishments of the Mennonite Brethren in Christ at La Cumbre, Valle, on the night of July 5 and July 8, in which American property and American lives were threatened and endangered.

“I am also particularly disturbed over the situation prevailing in regions of Colombia designated as Mission Territory. The closing of Protestant churches in that area and in other parts of Colombia, including many of United States ownership or affiliations, has been the subject of numerous communications to me from many conscientious and high-minded people of Protestant faith, complaining of the uprooting of establishments that have existed unquestioned and unmolested in Colombia for many years and represent a considerable investment in property and personnel. It is difficult to reconcile these unfortunate developments with the provisions of articles XIII and XIV of the Treaty of 1846 between the United States and Colombia, guaranteeing special protection to American personnel and property and security of conscience and freedom of worship throughout Colombian territory.”

The full text was printed in the Congressional Record, March 1, 1957. I hope it will convince Father Morley of the international proportions of the concern about the oppression of Protestants in Colombia.

Secretary of Public Affairs

National Assn. of Evangelicals

Washington, D. C.

FOOTNOTES ON SEPARATION

I did not say that a Christian must leave a church as soon as he sees that leaders of the church are agents of Satan. There are disciplinary steps which should be followed, in the event of such a discovery. But what I did say was that no Christian should leave a church until he has to. He must leave a church when that church would compel him to sin. Luther left Rome only when he had to. So did Calvin.

The compulsion to sin in the Presbyterian Church in the USA is found in the 1934 Mandate. The members and ministers must support the official boards and agencies of that church to the full limit of their ability. Refusal to do so is tantamount to refusing to partake of the Lord’s table. Thus the agencies, which less than ten years before had been consolidated by action of the Assembly, now placed their own interests on the level of the sacrament. When Machen and his associates tried to quote Chapter XX, Section 2 of the Westminster Confession, this was not regarded as relevant. The 1934 Mandate held sway—and I dare say still does. It was enforced, and would be enforced again. It compels men to sin. For the support of a program which proclaims another gospel is a sinful act.

Regarding our Lord’s support of the temple, he claimed it as his very own. He felt at liberty not to pay the tax, except for Peter’s too quick answer for his Lord. And as long as the scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses’ seat, they were to be honored. But when they caused the Lord to suffer without the gate, the believers were obliged also to go to him without the camp, bearing his reproach. The continuity of the real temple was insured. “In three days I will raise it up.”

I fully agree with the Calvin’s Institutes section.… It is because I am concerned with the visible church that I take the stand I do.…

Garden Grove, Calif.

The controversy over Dr. Cowie’s article on Christian Separation is a clear indication of the spiritually warped thinking of what is supposed to be the people of “the old-fashioned religion.” That sort of Christian approach keeps many from accepting that which Christ himself taught.

I am a born-again Christian. I find no liberty given to me to live a “loose” life; doing as I please. Christians are separated and quite different from their unsaved friends. However, this separation is the leading of the Holy Spirit and not the tenets of C. E. Dye, Raymond G. Johnson or of any denomination. I have heard this sort of “man made” standard all of my life and become more and more disgusted with it.

May I give Dr. Cowie high praise for writing such an article even though he knew he was “sticking his neck out” for the axes of the separationists who can show so little love for each other and yet tell the rest of us how to live.…

Lucerne Valley, Calif.

CHRISTIAN GIVING

Have read widely.… but have never read anything on the grace of Christian giving as sound, good and scriptural as the article (Oct. 14 issue).… by Harry R. Smith.… Mr. Smith goes as far as any man has a right to go in promulgating rules and principles.… Anything beyond that is assumption—and groundless assumption at that—and calculated to breed more cultism and conceit than to promote proportionate giving.…

Dallas, Tex.

LINE FORMS TO THE RIGHT

In his article “A Bag With Holes” (Dec. 23 issue), Richard Allen Bodey states: “There are only two honorable ways to the acquisition of things: by labor, which includes legitimate investment, and by gift, which includes inheritance.” What about finding something, and not being able to restore it to the owner?

Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer

Kokomo, Ind.

ECUMENICAL CLARITY

It is … unfortunate for the WCC and for the cause of Christianity in general that apostolic succession, and … the traditional Catholic conception of church order, is so little understood by … the Protestant denominations … I would stress … first, that apostolic succession does not imply a ‘monolithic super-Church,’ because traditionally each bishop of a diocese has inviolable prerogatives.… Secondly, the Roman doctrine of papal supremacy has destroyed the traditional idea of the episcopate as the organ of unity in the Church, and therefore the Roman system cannot be regarded as typical or even as truly Catholic. I trust … these few remarks will help clarify the position of the churches … described collectively as “Non-Roman Catholicism”.…

St. George’s (Anglican)

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

The most refreshing periodical that I have read in the past several years.… You have started on the main line.

Fifth St. Baptist Church

Hannibal, Mo.

It has given me a wider outlook and appreciation for the work and mission of Christ’s Church.

Milwaukee, Wis.

My appreciation of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Its fortnightly visits are a blessing to my heart and I rejoice that it is standing for “the faith … once delivered.”

New Orleans, La.

Is America’s Spiritual Vigor Waning?

It is difficult to see how the exhortation of the Bible, “Be ye doers of the Word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (Jas. 1:22), could have a more necessary and emphatic meaning than it does today for Christians of the United States.

Too often we Christians appear to live as though we believe the very opposite of the biblical declaration that it is more blessed to give than to receive. Giving of oneself and of one’s possessions is the visible manifestation of love, the essence of the believer’s life in Christ. Yet in their demonstration of character many Christians and the church as a whole have no good reason to be satisfied. We cannot shrug off the criticism that those most vocal in defending the historic apostolic and biblical faith sometimes show little zeal in outworking that new life which the Lord has created in us.

Our Blessings

It is doubtful if ever in the history of the Church those born anew into the kingdom of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ have received so many visible, tangible blessings as have we in the United States. We have freedom to worship and to propagate the faith. In view of the historic hostility of the world toward that faith, this is no small blessing. We take our religious freedom for granted, but in many places believers must suffer for the name of Christ, some even dying a martyr’s death. Even in our own country many would deny us religious freedom if they had the power. Further, no other people have had so much material wealth and strength as have United States citizens, and Christians certainly possess their share. If we Christians in the United States really wanted to do those good works which God has ordained for us, we certainly could not say that he has failed to provide the means and the opportunity. Neither should we forget that “unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.”

An accounting appears necessary. There are four areas of recognized Christian activity which can enlighten us as to the failings of the Church today. These are: the defense of the faith, our local church life, foreign and home missions, help for the needy.

The Great Doctrines

It is probable that no true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ as Son of God and our Redeemer, fails to recognize the necessity of standing firm in the fundamental doctrines so clearly set forth in the one great source of spiritual truth, the Holy Bible. We can be thankful for those faithful and competent scholars, men of God, who have stood steadfast against the violent, skillful, subtle and often scornful assaults by unbelievers against the person and redeeming work of Christ and against the Scriptures. Yet is it not true that often we employ the same carnal argumentative methods as does the opposition? Are we not told to act in love? How can we ever hope to lead an unregenerate man to know the love of God in Christ unless some of that love is seen in us? Too often we act as though we were defending the faith because it is ours rather than because it is the truth of God. Regardless of the reason we accept certain things as true; once they are so accepted, they become a real element of our being. Then when such beliefs are attacked our personal pride is involved and it becomes most difficult to remain objective in our thinking. God’s truth is true because it is his, not ours. But if our ego becomes involved, then we use pride’s weapons and bitterness rather than conviction results. Even real believers in disputing among themselves about their differing interpretations of Scripture become enemies, thus by their words and actions giving the enemies of Christ an excuse for denying the reality of the new life in Christ.

Life In The Churches

Even in our local churches we find similar exhibitions of pride and covetousness, accompanied by bitterness, jealousies and divisions, the very things against which the Scriptures warn us. Further, who would deny that gross immoralities are sometimes found among those who have named the Name of Christ?

One demonstration of the selfish pride of Christians is seen in the amount of money spent on ourselves in the form of magnificent church and accessory buildings in contrast to the amount spent for the needs of others. No one would deny the desirability of having efficient, well built and attractive churches. We do not honor God by indifference to such features. Nevertheless, the churches are for us and our children. They are where we worship and receive the blessings of fellowship in Christian activities. Thus church edifices and appurtenances should not be the object and end of our Christian work, although they often appear to be so. Love being in us is to work outward to others. Too often the walls of the church seem to act as a great barrier shutting us away from those to whom we are Christ’s ambassadors.

We sometimes hear the remark that Christians will give more readily for a building, a church for example, than for missions or other good works. Why is this? Is it not because the treasure thus given returns to them as their own tangible possession, a treasure on earth rather than in heaven? Are we to suppose that a church building however efficient and beautiful can lead a soul to Christ? Can it not rather be a mausoleum for a faith without works.

Missionary Burden

This leads to the third area of discussion, missions. No Christian should ever forget that the Church is to give the Gospel of Christ, the Gospel of salvation from sin, to the entire race. Despite the clear commands of the Lord, the need of mission work and much talk about missions in our churches, are we really doing so well? In the light of the Lord’s command, what can we say of a church which with an annual budget of nearly $200,000 contributes the magnificent sum of $6,000 to missions? Or what shall we say when we hear of a major effort to evangelize a whole continent being curtailed because of a lack of money necessary to provide essential materials? Just how deep is our gratitude toward and love for Christ? The self-sacrifice of those multitudes of persons who are faithful missionaries or their generous supporters is a real example to us, but what can we say for the Church as a whole?

Care Of The Needy

Finally, there is the fourth area of Christian work, that of simple good works for the needy. Probably no one would question that this is the area in which there has been the greatest neglect. Our repugnance to the social gospel as a futile alternative to the only Gospel which can save and reconcile men to God, is no excuse for failing to seek out and help the needy. It would seem that in this field there is opportunity for evangelical Christians to unite. What does it mean when such work often falls short of what could be accomplished? Christians must face these responsibilities.

All of the areas discussed show serious shortcomings among people who rejoice in their faithfulness to Christ. What excuse can there be? Was there ever a time when the preaching of the Word was more widespread than now, and available to all? Was there ever a time when Christians had more freedom? Was there ever a time when Christians had more money to spend on new homes, vacations, television sets, automobiles, or other items for themselves, and to give to the Lord’s work if they would? If much is required of those to whom much is given, then surely the churches in the United States are falling short of their opportunities and gifts.

Need For Repentance

Unless there comes a real repentance we cannot expect other than a merciful chastizing at the hands of God. He is not mocked; as we sow so shall we reap. Can there be any doubt that today as never before there must be emphasized the immediate need of repentance by regenerated persons, individually and as churches? There is a need for soul-searching confession of sin, combined with a real committal of self, all of self, to the Lord Jesus Christ. If we do not obey his command then we must expect to reap the harvest of our own selfish indifference.

A distinguished Christian general now retired from his long military career in the U. S. Armed Forces, William K. Harrison serves as Executive Director of the Evangelical Welfare Agency which places orphaned children in Christian homes.

To One Who Walks Only On Boards And Wheels

Would He have bid you “Walk!”

Who have no legs?

Surely no quarter clacking hollowly

Upon an empty box

Would have proclaimed His passing,

Dusty of Galilee and just as much forsaken

As you seem.

Hardly would sympathy have shamed His face

Such as the momentary passers squirm to offer you.

What might He do

Who surely loves you as He passes by?

He might not stoop

To form new limbs

And smile you off

Running for new employ.

But He would speak comfort,

And peace and love, and inward joy.

Yet silent and unmoved

I pass you by

Who constantly exclaim,

“Lord, here am I.”

CHARLES WAUGAMAN

Ideas

Theology, Evangelism, Ecumenism

Significant ministerial realignments during the past five years are pointing to our present religious situation as a time of transition, the directions and outcome of which are still uncertain. But the index to these realignments is not exclusively theological. It includes attitudes toward evangelism and ecumenism as well. In view of doctrinal conflicts, confusing currents of thought and activity, and a wide range of conformity, the permanence of some of these attitudes is unassured.

The original theological divide separated two distinct groups over the issue of biblical theology. On the modernist side, it was the rejection of any absolute theology that opened the door to creedal tolerance and theological relativism. On the evangelical side, it was the exaltation of the principle of scriptural revelation that issued in firm defense of a revealed theology.

The lines of separation dimmed, however, because of several factors. Some modernists clung to fragments of New Testament teaching (especially fragments of Jesus’ teaching) with absolute devotion. And some injudicious popularizers of fundamentalism, though comprising a minority, encouraged certain extreme views, e.g., inspiration of Scripture misconstrued as dictation, crass literalism, and emphasis on Christ’s deity neglectful of his humanity, which brought conservative positions into measurable disrepute. Nonetheless, the historic dividing line between evangelical and modernist approaches remained quite unobscured, until neo-supernaturalism arose to assail the classic liberal view and to profess a return to the theology of the Reformers. This neo-supernaturalism, or dialectical theology, has proved itself to be a midway haven for mobile modernists and discontented evangelicals. It has offered a convenient stand for Christ’s deity and mediation without necessary commitment to his virgin birth, propitiatory death, bodily resurrection, bodily return, or the plenitude of his divinity. It has afforded also an appeal to Scripture as a unique witness to divine revelation without asserting its inerrancy and objective authority. And it has introduced the Bible as normative, without affirming that special revelation takes the form of concepts and words.

Since the infection of religious thought by this medial theology, ambiguity and confusion has resulted from the indiscriminatory practice of divesting the vocabulary of theology of its sacred biblical and historical meanings, and imparting a modern glow to such concepts as original sin, the fall, atonement, second coming, revelation and inspiration. Spokesmen today do not even hesitate to misappropriate the labels of “evangelical,” “conservative,” and “fundamentalist.” The historic divide, which had once been fixed, is now threatened by fluid doctrinal definitions.

If theological maneuverings have operated both to confuse and explain the clerical alignments of our day, there is the added irony that prevalent attitudes toward evangelism no longer serve as a touchstone for theological fidelity. The professing Church can no longer be divided into two camps: modernism, assigning priority to the social gospel at the expense of personal evangelism, and fundamentalism, casting its weight behind efforts of personal and mass evangelism. For the gigantic evangelistic impact spearheaded by Billy Graham has broken this division down, and has engendered new reactions.

Forces theologically to the left of the evangelical movement have splintered on the question of supporting mass evangelism. Modernists still committed to the old social gospel may now be in the minority, but some of their representatives continue to be indifferent to the Christian priority of evangelism. Others of their number, however, have been impressed with the pragmatic success of Graham’s crusades, and are ready to co-operate in the hope that evangelistic pressure can be combined with current rather than biblical theology. The Christian Century, for instance, supports evangelism, conjoined with critical views of the Bible, and hostile to biblical doctrines which Billy Graham supports in conformity with New Testament revelation. Graham’s spectacular evangelistic efforts have by and large served to shape new alignments in regular denominations throughout contemporary Protestantism. And these rearrangements are becoming increasingly significant (as doctrinal constraints) as more and more of the clergy sense the inevitable dependency of biblical evangelism upon biblical theology.

But the evangelical movement itself has not escaped the tensions of the current evangelistic surge. And here the question does not concern doctrinal fundamentals, for they are not the real issues of dispute. Despite a popular preference for the term “evangelical” to “fundamentalist” because of discredit which factionists and faddists have brought upon the latter (already 15 years ago the National Association of Evangelicals discriminated between the two terms), evangelicals do not hesitate to emphasize the fundamentals. And despite differences over the range of inter-church co-operation, both the American Council of Christian Churches and the National Association of Evangelicals cast their weight—in principle at least—behind mass evangelism. But while ACCC leaders were projecting mass crusades against liberalism in the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches, individual NAE leaders were throwing their emphasis toward a more cooperative evangelistic effort. Before Graham’s evangelistic ministry had gained national prominence, however, NAE in 1943 officially turned aside proposals for coast-to-coast organizational sponsorship, and confined its policy to the encouragement of local evangelism. Significant blocs of NAE influence still continued to urge widespread missions, prodded somewhat by the fortunate presence of Billy Graham in the ranks. But this emphasis also faced NAE with its first significant loss. The Christian Reformed Church withdrew from membership, insisting that evangelistic effort belongs to the local church.

Graham’s early evangelistic successes were achieved under evangelical community sponsorship, from Los Angeles to Boston, and also London. But the invitation from the Church of Scotland for the Glasgow campaign presented him with the problem of whether he should preach the Gospel from a free pulpit in a land where evangelical Christianity had virtually disappeared. (Because the fortunes of theology in the Church of Scotland still lie between modernism and neo-supernaturalism, it has not yet made peace with the doctrinal issues inherent in the Graham crusade.)

After Scotland, Graham was convinced that the Holy Spirit operates where and how he will, although never independently of scriptural proclamation. Whatever organizational alignment problems may arise for contemporary evangelical movements, Graham has considered himself an ambassador of evangelism rather than of ecumenism, and is confident that a theologically mixed sponsorship cannot frustrate the faithful preaching of the Gospel to lost sinners. Graham has sought the widest possible hearing for the Gospel, and is deferring to the broadest sponsorship that will yield him a free pulpit. Up through the present time, evangelical churches have been full of “already saved” sinners (for whom the relevance of evangelism was limited to the efficiency of their outreach to the unchurched), and much of the preaching therein had been largely bypassed by unregenerate intellectuals. Liberal churches, bent upon meliorating society by ethical means, have ignored the principle of personal regeneration among their memberships. Moreover, the Graham crusade has found that in many of the larger cities, evangelical forces comprise such a minority, numerically and financially, that they could not be counted upon for effective sponsorship of herculean community efforts. And top evangelical leaders, though supporting Graham’s ministry locally, were stalemated on the question of official organizational sponsorship at the national level.

This, then, is a picture of the condition which existed when the Graham crusades came gradually to colossal proportions within the orbit of cooperative ministerial sponsorship. In the course of such effort, the New York campaign attested a widening interest in the mutual cause of biblical evangelism and biblical theology within the metropolitan area. And while some modernist spokesmen came to repudiate the Garden campaign, others whose interests had been sub-evangelical began to reflect to their congregations more and more of what Graham was preaching in the Garden.

If the forces to the left of Graham divided on the issue of evangelism, so did the forces on the right. Criticism of Graham proceeded from some of the most vocal fundamentalist evangelists of our generation, and from leaders of extreme separatist movements. Their contention was that Christian believers must not only reject modernistic and neo-supernaturalistic theology as unbiblical, but must regard the regular denominations as apostate and refuse to traffic with their programs. As a consequence of this bias, Billy Graham’s evangelistic thrust was subjected to the bitter criticism of being a compromise with modernism.

It is one of the ironies of our decade, and perhaps a straw in the wind, that while the “evangelism” forces on Graham’s left are now shaping a vigorous counterthrust under the aegis of The Christian Century, Graham’s critics on the right are engaging in criticism and contention.

One may be tempted to say that the currents of Christian encounter are also sharpening ecumenical concerns in various directions. Yet here again the picture is complex as one observes the noticeable changes that have taken place in the National Council of Churches, the NAE, and the ACCC.

To speak first of the NCC, there can be no doubt that some in its leadership today have moved far beyond the classic liberalism that informed the movement a generation ago. It would be wrong to say that an evangelical spirit now dominates its spirit and outlook, for its theology is still inclusive, though in growing conformity with varying shades of neo-orthodoxy. But because of its growing deference to evangelism, its more cordial attitude (in official personal relations) to unaffiliated evangelical leaders, and its multiplication of invitations to consultants and observers of important gatherings, the NCC has attracted participation which less alert competitive movements have been unable to achieve. Furthermore, the subtleties of contemporary theology are such that churchmen, unskilled in doctrinal studies, easily exaggerate the return to orthodoxy.

Alongside all of these facts are some evidences that delegates of undoubted evangelical persuasion are becoming more vocal in certain phases of the world-church effort. These in turn have encouraged leaders from unaffiliated denominations to spur an evangelical impact upon the NCC. “Not separation but penetration” is the theme being emphasized in Christian Reformed, Missouri Lutheran and even some Southern Baptist circles. Yet at the same time, denominations already within the ecumenical orbit are reflecting increasing discontent as merger negotiations continue. Aside from the Southern Presbyterian repudiation of merger with the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., the United Presbyterian dissent has registered a strong minority of 42% of presbyterial votes. And a significant bloc of Congregational churches (both conservative and liberal) have dissociated themselves from merger with the Evangelical and Reformed Church. Meanwhile the NCC continues to provide the major ecumenical framework for American churches with an affiliated membership of 39,000,000 Protestants. Tension, of course, revolves around the question whether the NCC leaders’ positions and pronouncements faithfully reflect the convictions of that constituency, still admitted to be predominantly conservative both in theological and social matters.

Currents of change are also obvious within the NAE. While shaped 15 years ago over against the predominantly liberal theology of the Federal Council of Churches, the NAE movement’s main orientation through the years has been that of positive formulation of evangelical positions and services. While its actual membership (through agencies for education, missions, Sunday School, radio, chaplaincy, etc.) numbers approximately 2,000,000, it functions for a constituency exceeding 10,000,000, and in some respects serves unaffiliated groups like the Missouri Lutherans and Southern Baptists. A long-range view of the NAE, however, will indicate that some of its earliest influential leaders are no longer in the movement’s inner councils. The reasons for this are multiple. Across 15 years, death and retirement have displaced some of its founders. But a number have tended to participate in its activities only when invited to address the yearly conventions, and others have ceased to attend altogether. In a measure, this situation reflects the pressures of constituencies, and in a measure also it mirrors some moderation of convictions. But most significant, perhaps, does it reveal a besetting problem of individualistic church effort, namely, the tendency to give one’s self zealously to the larger effort only when personal sacrifice is not exacted, and personal prestige is maintained.

This has meant to the movement a loss of some of the dynamic leadership which, in the past, has assisted the fixing of compass-bearings for growth and development. Men of the past saw that the genius of the NAE (in contrast with the ACCC) was the penetration of evangelical emphasis in regular churches and denominations. This goal has, of course, become increasingly difficult to achieve from the outside because of denominational mergers augmenting the ecumenical spirit. And because NAE leadership in the last number of years has reflected little greatness at charting creative evangelical positions in the midst of theological turmoil, some observers have sensed an uncertain future in any NAE emphasis on penetration. If successful, they believe, the further usefulness of NAE will evaporate; if unsuccessful, the movement may ultimately become separatist like ACCC.

Alongside this failure at penetration must be ranged certain areas of neglect within the NAE program. Despite its worthy achievement of positive evangelical goals, and its establishment upon a creedal basis, the movement has not provided any great incentive to theological or doctrinal study within its ranks. This is due in part to its delicate balancing of Calvinistic and Arminian interests which preserves peace by a moratorium on doctrinal discussion. It is due also to the fact that, in contrast with the NCC, the NAE (and the ACCC) has not succeeded in enlisting the energetic participation of its own theologians and schoolmen. This is largely because many evangelical schools have been forced, because of divided trustee boards and supporting constituencies, into non-committal positions in relation to the NAE and ACCC. The Evangelical Theological Society, for instance, whose performance has been spotty, has operated outside of NAE and ACCC, though with their favor.

Alongside the neglect of theological study, the NAE, while making encouraging attempts at social action, has spearheaded no over-all program of comprehensive study in evangelical strategy, nor has it wrestled with the doctrine of the Church beyond the problems of separation and apostasy. In considerable measure, the reason for this neglect has been financial, for the movement has received responsive enthusiasm in every way but monetary. Between 1946 and 1948, NAE’s indebtedness reached a critical point, and that ended NAE’s rapid expansion and to this day represses its enlargement plans.

Meanwhile, the ACCC has not escaped its share of woes. Leaders of that group had argued at one time that anyone unidentified with their organization, or who was not a prospect for affiliation, was in effect apostate and a threat to the faith. Carl McIntire, founder and leader of the ACCC, identified the movement with vitriolic denunciations of inclusivist movements and churchmen, but at the same time neglected to foster the positive tasks of evangelical thought and life. The Christian Beacon was not simply an ACCC house organ; it became a religious smear sheet in the worst traditions of yellow journalism. The thunderous criticisms of leaders who took exception to some of McIntire’s positions and those of his cohorts soon bred internal difficulties. The result has been a cleavage within the ACCC. While McIntire remains acknowledged leader of the movement, its ranks are thinning to the extent that his leadership counts less and less. Alongside the Beacon, McIntire now publishes a semiprivate paper, The Free Press, in which private letters are printed, often without permission, in an effort of self-vindication and vilification. Bible Presbyterians, once affiliated with ACCC, have repudiated his leadership and are exploring the possibilities of Reformed creedal fellowship with Orthodox Presbyterian, Reformed Presbyterian and Christian Reformed leaders.

In all these matters, one fact is clear: this may be a generation unparalleled for its emphasis on Christian unity, but it nonetheless abounds in deep-seated tensions. Those tensions extend throughout the whole gamut of contemporary Christian thought and action. It involves theological upheavals, evangelistic dynamisms, and ecumenical tensions.

Perhaps we have a warning signal here that the popular solutions to our Christian problems today are overarched by inadequate assumptions. When men of like theological conviction, of like evangelistic zeal, and of like concern for a regenerate Church, are divided into camps that bypass and even spurn each other, the time has come for serious reconsideration. The one great watershed of evangelical thought is the Holy Bible. In this age when churchmen of virtually all theological persuasions are declaring the recovery of Bible theology to be one of the exciting developments of our era, ministers and laymen of evangelical heritage are neglecting the earnest pursuit of biblical study both at great peril to themselves and to the enterprises which they represent. If there is any one feature that bestows greatness upon evangelical Christianity, it is a vigorous identification with Christ and the Scriptures. An evangelical movement or profession divorced from such an identification is hollow. The time has come for all who cherish the evangelical heritage, regardless of artificial lines that divide them, to show themselves champions of the Lord and the Book. For it is in the recovery of the great realities and verities of biblical revelation that the church in our century will find its true unity, learn its true nature, and accomplish its true mission. Unfortunately, too many evangelicals have spent their energies debating the relative merit of respective versions of the Bible, while neglecting positive refutation of views and biases that warp and nullify the evangelical content of any and all versions.

Some will retort that such an appeal downrates doctrine, softening its margins to mediating positions in which higher and lower stratifications blend, or that it pragmatically accommodates evangelism to the interrelated confusions of contemporary interchurch efforts. But that is not the intention, nor need it be the result.

There have been numerous signs of constructive and courageous evangelical gains, however, during the past decade of American religious life—in evangelism, in religious journalism, in magazines and books, in evangelical scholarship, in academic texts, in seminary instruction, and in denominational influence. An interdenominational, international evangelical leadership and scholarship are taking shape. Not for 50 years has evangelical Christianity been faced with such possibilities and opportunities. Whereas a generation ago it was forced to the defensive by self-confident modernist churchmen, we find the distinctive liberal beliefs now standing on the defensive. Secular publishing houses are soliciting worthy evangelical manuscripts today; denominational leaders are being encouraged to give full scope to evangelism; college and university campuses are opening to evangelical witness (more in the realm of private religion, admittedly, than in the sphere of classroom conviction). And in all of this, it would be tragic if the secondary lines that divide us should obscure the spiritual and theological loyalties that make them one in Christ, or if evangelical leaders default in the fullest and finest exhibition of Christian evangelism in a darkening century.

The most hopeful sign on the theological horizon is the renewal of interest in a theology of the Word of God. If ministers professing such devotion could meet together across America, apart from reference to respective ecumenical orbits, and engage in serious study of the witness of Scripture to the Word of God—the Word incarnate and the Word written—they would not only find themselves fulfilling a divinely enjoined responsibility (cf. John 5:39), but could recapture afresh the note of authority that has evaporated from much of contemporary Protestantism. A tragic side of the Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy was the resultant breakdown of reciprocal communication; here, at least, lies the most fruitful avenue to mutual conversation about realities that matter most.

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