The cooperative policy of the Billy Graham Crusades has provoked the question, “How far should evangelicals go in the matter of cooperation in evangelism?” A few have labeled the Graham thrust as “ecumenical evangelism,” thereby implying that any gains made by the evangelical churches will be offset by advantages accruing to sects and pseudo-Christian groups. One writer says fearfully that “fundamentalism will be in shambles following the victory of this ecumenical evangelism.”

The whole matter, however, is a question of degree. Few, if any, “separationists” refuse to cooperate under any conditions with those who differ from them. The problem is whether there is a scriptural basis or historical precedent for cooperation with non-evangelicals in evangelism. Does biblical teaching on the matter of separation support an exclusive or an inclusive policy?

The Place Of Tension

Biblical Christianity will always have to fulfill its commission under tension. At the same time that Jesus called for an “invasion” of the world, he clearly stated that the believer must be separated from the world. The Christian is in the world but not of the world. Separation, therefore, must be of the heart, a positive response rather than mechanical insularity. Paul was thus “separated unto the gospel of God” in a positive sense.

The historical conflict between liberal and conservative thought has produced an atmosphere of criticism and suspicion. The “liberal” has been inclined to view the “fundamentalist” as obscurantist, while the “fundamentalist” has considered the “liberal” as dangerous. Early in the conflict the conservative was caught off guard and in a defensive position. The “higher critic” took an initiative that confounded the unskilled Bible believer. And lacking the immediate information with which to refute the barrage of statements designed to demolish the doctrine of the authority of Scripture, the conservative effected a gradual withdrawal. When ethical and social positions were proclaimed to the exclusion of redemptive Christianity, Bible believers frequently withdrew to form new and independent movements.

The result of this upheaval in the Church is the present complex situation. Fundamentalists have shifted from a negative to a positive approach. Liberals have shown many signs of weakness. Recent developments in historical research and scientific discoveries have added to the strength of the evangelical. And as a consequence, liberal theologians have been somewhat less inclined to disparage biblical preaching. Extremists still survive in both groups, however, and they are the outspoken critics of evangelism’s inclusive policy.

Assailing A Mixed Sponsorship

The present attack on the cooperative policy centers in the person of Billy Graham, inasmuch as he has secured the respect and confidence of many outside the evangelical circle. The Billy Graham Crusades have been sponsored by leaders who sometimes hold differing theological convictions, but who are seeking leadership and direction in a neglected sphere of church activity, namely evangelism. Having consistently adhered to a Bible-centered plan of evangelism, evangelicals have recognized Mr. Graham as the present-day counterpart of evangelists such as Wesley, Whitefield, Finney, Moody and Sunday. The single objection that some conservatives have raised is that of cooperation in sponsorship of the crusades. They have cited a few proof texts, such as 2 Corinthians 6:14, to support their separationist views on sponsorship, and have also asserted that the former evangelists had held a separationist position quite the opposite from that of Graham’s.

Evangelists In The Past

Jonathan Edwards had something to say on the matter of cooperation at the time he was attacked viciously by those withdrawing from the Congregational church of his day. In his well-known Thoughts on Revival, he wrote:

Spiritual pride disposes persons to effect separation, to stand at a distance from others, as better than they, and loves the show and appearance of distinction.… But on the contrary, the humble Christian … delights in the appearance of union with his fellow creatures, and will maintain it as much as he possibly can, without giving open countenance to iniquity, or wounding his own soul, and herein he follows the example of his meek and blessed redeemer, who did not keep such a separation and distance as the Pharisees, but freely ate with Publicans and sinners that he might win them.

We are not in doubt as to Edwards’ deductions from Scripture. When it is remembered that the “Great Awakening” was due to God’s use of Edwards, his words take on added significance as the opinion of an outstanding scholar and revival preacher. If it is suggested that Edwards’ church affiliation differed significantly from the contemporary situation, it must be insisted that his decision to work with those of differing opinions was deliberate and considered. He had made it a point never to judge the spirituality or even the total orthodoxy of another minister. At one time, he wrote:

I am glad that God has not committed such a difficult affair to me; I can joyfully leave it wholly in His hands who is infinitely fit for it without meddling at all with it myself. I know of no necessity we are under to determine whether it be possible for those that are guilty of it (heresy and opposition) to be in a state of grace or no.

Whitefield’S Tolerance

Among the great in evangelism, Whitefield stands without question. Following the revival in New England, he stirred the entire 13 colonies. And when a separationist brother censured Whitefield’s association with certain groups, and called upon him to withdraw and conduct his preaching among the “orthodox,” the latter inquired whether “no others were the Lord’s people but themselves. If not, and if others were the devil’s people, they had more need to be preached to: that for him all places were alike.”

This amazing tolerance never contradicted Whitefield’s complete loyalty to the Scriptures and the accepted doctrines held by major evangelists. His biographer has written, “His attachment to no party but to Christ and true grace alone has long appeared to me a peculiar excellency in him.”

Wesley For Union

A separationist finds equal difficulty in placing Wesley in opposition to Graham. No writer on the Wesleyan revival in England can exclude Wesley from his place among major evangelists. Some scholars have arrived at the opinion that Wesley, under God, was used to deliver England from a revolution which France was allowed to suffer. And yet, he was far more a worker for union than for separation. One critic of Graham has cited Wesley as a leading separationist by saying, “John Wesley faced a dead denominational ecclesiasticism in England and the Methodist church was born through his protest.” But the subtle deception of such inferences is revealed in a consideration of Wesley’s own words, “If the Methodists leave the church, I would have my friends adhere to the church and leave the Methodists.” His biographer observed, “The original Methodists were all of the Church of England; and the more awakened they were, the more zealously they adhered to it, in every point of doctrine and discipline.” To insist that Wesley was in any way a separationist in evangelism is to betray one’s own lack of sufficient information.

Finney And Moody

One by one major evangelists are brought into the company of Billy Graham and cooperative evangelism. It was the dean of revivalists, Charles G. Finney, who said, “My duty is to belong to the church (Presbyterian) even if the devil should belong to it. If the table of Christ is spread, I will sit down to it in obedience to his commandment, whoever may sit down or stay away.”

Shortly after the great Finney revivals, Moody proclaimed the same Gospel to America and England with unprecedented success. But Moody was no separationist. He spoke to the ministers of Dublin during the campaign in that city saying, “God has vouchsafed a blessed unity. Woe to the unhappy person who should break it. Yet it would be broken if there was proselytism. The cry is, ‘Come out from a sect.’ But where? Into another sect? The spirit that is always proselytizing is from Satan. I say stay in.”

The Need For Renewal

Thus, Edwards, Whitefield, Wesley, Finney and Moody, all held the cooperative policy in the conduct of their campaigns. In fact, not one of the major evangelists held any other policy. Where will this policy take Christianity? It will take it where these men were able to lead it and influence it. Each one of them came to the Church in an hour when there was desperate need for revitalization. The very urgency of the times precluded any possibility of securing doctrinal conformity before a campaign could begin. The commonplace assertion is that converts prove little or nothing, and the vast numbers converted in the Billy Graham Crusades are no proof of the correctness of the policy. However, it should be noted that it is on the basis of numbers that we remember each of the major evangelists.

Is it compromise? Someone must answer this pressing question. If it is, then Jesus compromised when he once read the Scriptures in the synagogue. Then Paul compromised when he preached from the pagan Acropolis, and when he had his head shorn in taking a vow, and when he had Timothy circumcised. If it is compromise, then Wesley compromised when he remained loyal to the Church of England and forbade his friends to leave it, and Whitefield compromised when he forsook the conservative groups of Scotland to preach to an unorthodox group. If it is compromise, then Finney compromised when he pressed clergymen like Hawes and Bushnell to support his New York meeting, and Moody compromised when he employed Drummond as a worker among young students.

The Limits Of The Gospel

What are the limits of cooperation? The evangelist is limited in his preaching, of course; for the Gospel must forever be the message of the Cross and the Resurrection. He must proclaim the grace of God so clearly that personal conversion will result. He can by no means imply that vital doctrines are nonessential. He is limited in his commitments, and he cannot allow himself to become obligated by any contract that places him at a disadvantage. The sponsors are his hosts, but never his directors.

These are the negative limits. What are the positive? The most characteristic function of the Church is to evangelize. The evangelist is driven by an inner compulsion to bear the message wherever and to whomever he can. There is a recklessness about his method; he storms the gates of hell when called upon to do so. But by virtue of his very calling, he must not remain within the safety of the fold of believers.

Come

Unspeaking, one by one they rise

And leave the room—

The loved with whom we sat

At friendship’s eager meet

Through golden years.

We who remain behold

The pushed back, empty chairs;

And sense the rising summons that

Shall draw us singly too, ere long,

To leave the waning feast

And gain the selfsame door.

A growing music seems to float

Thereout at every opening.

Familiar voices chime.

And over them there breathes

A nobler, sweetly glorious,

Divine, majestic Voice

Exclaiming, “Come!”

ROLLIN O. EVERHART

Robert O. Ferm is Dean of Students, Houghton College, New York. He assisted the Billy Graham Crusade in Madison Square Garden and prepared the booklet, They Met God, relating the experiences of some of the converts. This article contains the gist of a new booklet Dr. Ferm has prepared, under the same title, Cooperative Evangelism (Zondervan).

Is Seventh-day Adventism evangelical? This question we intend to answer, especially in relation to the issue of salvation by faith as opposed to salvation by faith plus works. Framed in a slightly different way, we must ask whether SDA offers salvation by works plus grace, and whether its view, particularly on the Sabbath question, violates the doctrine of grace and consequently involves the error of Galatianism.

Before we approach this concrete problem, a few observations should be made. First, we must affirm that all of the SDA people who truly accept Christ as the Son of God and Saviour are regenerate believers and brothers in Christ—despite theological accretions and legalistic attitudes. One cannot assume that members of SDA are unsaved simply because they are Adventists any more than one can assume that Baptists are saved simply because they are Baptists. Secondly, we must have regard for the integrity of those with whom we disagree, and argue the issues without reference to personalities. Thirdly, no reason exists why dialogue on the question should not be continued until SDA has had its full opportunity to be heard.

It is the opinion of this writer that SDA does mix grace and works and thus falls into the error of Galatianism against which Paul writes. The error of SDA is the same error embraced by Tertullian. “Tertullian talked of man as saved by grace. But grace, he believed, served to support man’s will so that through his good works he might obtain the reward of eternal life. In other words, man had to add to the work of Christ at the Cross” (“The Reformation and Eastern Orthodoxy,” by Paul Woolley, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Jan. 20, 1958, p. 8). Perhaps the simplest way to deal with the issue is to state the verdict and then to cite the references that make the conclusion inevitable.

The Sabbath Test

Mrs. Ellen G. White is SDA’s leading light, being regarded as its authoritative and final voice. In her book The Great Controversy (p. 449), Mrs. White asserts: … in the last days the Sabbath test will be made plain. When this time comes anyone who does not keep the Sabbath will receive the mark of the beast and will be kept from heaven.

The implications are clear. When the last days have come, men will be faced with the issue of obeying the commandments of God or the commandments of men. The issue will center in the fourth commandment, and whoever does not keep the Sabbath will be lost.

F. D. Nichol, in his Answers to Objections, asserts:

We do not say, nor do we believe, that keeping the Sabbath command, or any other of the Ten Commandments, gives a man entrance to heaven.… But we do say that the man who willfully breaks any of God’s commandments, which includes the fourth, shuts the door of heaven against himself. No willful sinner will enter its portals.

But it is difficult to reconcile such a concession (even if it retains a questionable exposition of the fourth commandment) with other SDA literature that continues to be propagated by SDA agencies.

Milian L. Andreasen’s book, The Sabbath (Review & Herald, Washington, D. C., 1942), listed in the bibliography of Questions on Doctrine, says:

We believe that we are living in the latter days.… The distinguishing characteristic of this church (the last church of God on earth—Revelaton 14—the Seventh-day Adventist church) is that it keeps (not that it will keep) ‘the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.’ … The chief distinction between those who keep the commandments and those who make light of them, is in regard to the Sabbath.… The Sabbath is (not “will be”) still a sign, a mark of distinction, that marks the difference between those who serve and obey the Lord, and those who obey a human enactment sponsored by the man of sin (p. 246).

Farther on Mr. Andreasen says:

God is jealous for His Sabbath. He wants men to honor it.… Instead of helping to repair the breach, they attempt to build another wall.… How true to fact is this prophetic picture of what is going on in the world today! Men have rejected the Sabbath of the Lord and have substituted a spurious Sabbath. This they daub with all kinds of spurious arguments to make it look substantial and good, but to no avail. At last it will go down, and they that daub it will go down with it. On the other side are the people of God (Seventh-day Adventists). They are restoring the old paths, they are repairing the breach, they are standing in the gap. They delight in the Sabbath, they keep the commandments, they endure unto the end. They are the true saints of God. Men are now deciding which group to join.… From the vantage point of God’s Word we know the outcome. The little group shall ‘ride upon the high places of the earth’; the larger group will go down to destruction when the overflowing scourge shall come (p. 274 f.).

Mr. Andreasen states that at the end there will be 144,000 commandment-keeping people. He says:

In these 144,000 God stands justified. He has proved by them that the law can be kept under the most adverse circumstances. He has disproved Satan’s assertion that God is unjust in demanding that men keep the law. God is vindicated. Satan is defeated. The controversy is ended (p. 312).

From all this it is obvious that the Sabbath problem, as it relates to necessity and, in turn, to legalism, is of central importance in evaluating this movement. What does keeping the Sabbath mean? Mrs. White says: “God requires that his holy day be as sacredly observed now as in the time of Israel.”

She further comments:

Those who discuss business matters or lay plans on the Sabbath, are regarded by God as though engaged in the actual transaction of business. To keep a Sabbath day holy, we should not even allow our minds to dwell upon things of a worldly character. And the commandment includes all within our gates (Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 296,307).

SDA has published a church manual used for local situations, Fundamentals of the Everlasting Gospel, by Arthur E. Lickey (Takoma Park, Washington, D. C., 1947). Among the questions to which a “yes” answer is expected is this: “Do you accept Christ’s sacrifice and God’s commandments?” Elsewhere, on page 38:

The Bible protection against receiving the mark of the beast is faith in Jesus Christ and loyalty to God’s commandments. The issue will center in the fourth commandment. The Sabbath will be a specific test.

The issue here at stake is not simply whether the revealed moral law has permanent validity, but whether justification is in any way conditioned upon the keeping of the commandments, and whether the Sabbath-Sunday issue in turn is to carry priority.

The following are extracts from SDA writings:

… the first work of grace is justification. The continuing work of grace in the life is sanctification. Some who start on the way of God and rejoice in the thought of being justified (they are not justified when they receive Christ, but become, as it were, candidates for eternal life), fail to appropriate the indwelling power of Christ by which alone they can be sanctified. The result is that at last they are found unworthy. Man, once saved, can turn back to the world (Questions on Doctrine, Review & Herald, Washington, D. C., 1957, pp. 410,412).

Then, if a righteous man fails to develop or maintain or if he goes back on his first choice of Christ, he will lose his salvation.

If he continues in iniquity, none of his previous manifestations of goodness will ever be mentioned. He forfeits all the blessings of salvation and goes down into death (op. cit., p. 415).

In view of the principles here set forth, it seems to us abundantly clear that the acceptance of Christ at conversion does not seal a person’s destiny. His life record after conversion is also important. A man may go back on his repentance, or by careless inattention let slip the very life he has espoused. Nor can it be said that a man’s record is closed when he comes to the end of his days.… In order to be just, it would seem that God would need to take all these things into account in the judgment (op. cit., p. 420).

These extracts from SDA writings show the attitude of this group toward the Sabbath and demonstrate its importance to their theological scheme of things. Someone will ask whether these extracts show that the failure of men to keep the Sabbath will keep them out of heaven. Another may well ask whether a man loses his salvation if he thinks about business affairs on the Sabbath.

The Way Of Salvation

If we relate these Sabbath teachings to their frame of reference, it will be seen beyond dispute that in the SDA system salvation is not by grace alone but by faith plus works.

According to SDA teaching, men can and do lose their salvation. The only way by which men can lose their salvation is through sin. Is the breaking of the Sabbath sin? SDA says “Yes.” Indeed, Mrs. White says that the Sabbath is violated by thinking about business matters. In answer to the question “… can one worship sincerely on Sunday, but fail to keep the Sabbath, and still be counted a faithful and obedient Christian?”, SDA says two things. First, SDA says that anyone who has had “the light of Sabbath teaching” made clear to him and then breaks the Sabbath is responsible. “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). “Repudiation of recognized light then becomes a matter for which one is responsible” (Questions on Doctrine, p. 177). This responsibility entails the loss of salvation.

Secondly, SDA goes one step further. It teaches that the day is coming when the truth of the Sabbath will be known to all men. And at that time whoever does not keep the Sabbath will be lost.

When Sunday observance shall be enforced by law, and the world shall be enlightened concerning the obligation of the true Sabbath, then whoever shall transgress the command of God, to obey a precept which has no higher authority than that of Rome, will thereby honor popery above God. (op. cit., p. 178).

At that time whoever refuses to keep the true Sabbath will receive the mark of the beast, and whoever receives the mark of the beast is lost.

To this we reply, that if men now or later must keep the Sabbath to demonstrate their salvation or to prevent their being lost, then grace is no more grace. Rather, we are saved by grace and kept by works.

Let us put it still another way. SDA teaches that the Sabbath is Saturday, and Saturday alone. Sabbath-keeping to them is honoring Saturday only. Adventism repudiates the concept of the first day of the week as the Sabbath. Some Protestants talk of the Sabbath school and mean by that term the Sunday school. SDA never talks about keeping the Sabbath on the first day of the week, nor allows that keeping Sunday is or can be Sabbath-keeping, on the ground that the Sabbath was and is and always will be Saturday, and never Sunday. Until we get this clear, we cannot understand Adventism. Thus it teaches that any man who keeps the first day of the week (even when calling it Sabbath-keeping) is knowingly or unknowingly violating one of the Ten Commandments now and forever binding on Christians. Certain conclusions are then drawn. One is that the person who knows “the truth” of the true Saturday Sabbath is lost through not keeping Saturday as the Sabbath. The other is that if a person keeps the first day of the week rather than Saturday, but does so because he lacks “full light” on the subject, that person is not lost. But the time is coming at the end of the age when all people will have the true knowledge of Sabbath-keeping, and whoever then does not keep Saturday as the Sabbath will receive the mark of the beast and be lost. Andreasen says, “He who takes the Sabbath (Saturday) away, takes worship away, closes one of the doors to heaven …” (p. 28). He says also, “We hold … that the seventh day is (his italics) the Sabbath of the new dispensation, and that the first day is (his italics) not” (p. 185).

SDA as surely—in distinction from Christian Science and Jehovah’s Witnesses—does not deny the absolute deity of Christ, nor reject his atoning sacrifice on Calvary. SDA rather is at fault in its doctrine of salvation and falls into an error common to Romanism. In all probability, it should be classified with this very group—which it marks off as responsible for changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday—in the denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s death for man’s salvation. SDA, in my judgment, is not evangelical and never will be until this serious error in its teaching is rectified.

A Perpetual Memory

In Upper Room at solemn hour,

With all His love, the Saviour gave

The holy bread and wine, to be

Of Him Who came our souls to save,

The Blest Memorial.

To signify the body given,

To be for us of life the bread;

And precious blood of sacrifice,

That won for us life from the dead,

In this Memorial.

“Take eat—drink this” in faith and love,

Through all the years that lie between

His full self-giving on the cross,

And when His glory shall be seen,

This Blest Memorial.

With deep thanksgiving we may share,

And sharing unity attain—

The broken bread, the wine outpoured,

‘Till He in triumph comes again.

O Blest Memorial.

We join with those who, gone before,

Now dwell with Him in realms of light;

For He Who is their source of joy,

Is with us in this Holy Rite,

This Blest Memorial.

We dwell in Him and He in us;

We yield our lives in service true,

And pray that we may ever be

Refreshed by grace for ever new,

In this Memorial.

ARTHUR J. PATSTONE

A stirring article, “America’s Need: A New Protestant Awakening,” written by a “former Jesuit trainee,” appeared a few months ago in CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Vol. II, No. 2, Oct. 28, 1957). In a graphic manner it called attention to the widening influence and encroaching power of Romanism. The article was not prompted by personal hatred against Roman Catholic church members; nevertheless, it strikingly depicted Rome’s strategy in combatting Protestantism.

Quite evidently Romanism is convinced that Protestantism has no right to exist. It holds that the latter has caused a lamentable split in the church which by all means must be healed. This does not mean that every Roman Catholic is a personal enemy of every Protestant. It means, however, that every Protestant is considered “outside the church” and that according to the principle, extra ecclesiam nulla est salus, there is no salvation outside the church, and that the saving church is none other than the Roman Catholic. It is true that a few years ago Pope Pius XII decided, contrary to a Jesuit extremist, that the grace of God should not be limited as though it could not exert itself savingly outside the church. But the careful phrasing of the papal statement left little doubt that Pius XII was basically in agreement with the judgment of the Jesuit priest. Extraordinarily, divine grace may assert itself, he implied, outside the church; ordinarily it does not. But that, too, means that Protestantism has no right to exist, and that Romanism is opposed to conservative, as well as liberal, Protestantism, rejecting both as resolutely as it repudiated the evangelical theology of Luther and Calvin.

In evaluating the question whether Protestantism has a right to exist, it might be well for us to examine the positive doctrinal and ecclesiastical values which Rome has to offer to the world today.

Among the positive values of Romanism there is, first of all, its definite ancient Christian creed, which it takes quite seriously. Rome today is in full agreement with the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and every other ecumenical creed which the ancient Christian Church adopted against the heresies that threatened to destroy the Christian faith. Because of its adherence to these creeds the Roman Catholic church still rates as Christian.

Rome, of course, permits its scholars considerable freedom in treating such scientific questions as evolution, higher biblical criticism, specific philosophical trends and the like. But let no unwary Protestant believe that Rome has become latitudinarian. Whatever liberties Rome permits its savants is safely kept within the definite scope that constitutes the accepted ecclesiastical dogma. There is no modernism in Romanism, for in 1907 Pope Pius X condemned modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Gregis, branding it as a “synthesis of all heresies.” The encyclical was re-enforced in 1910 by the decree Sacrorum Antistitum, which demands a formidable oath on the part of all ranks of the clergy in favor of traditional Roman Catholic belief and against every modernistic tenet. There were, of course, protests, but Roma locuta, causa finita: “Rome having spoken, the case was settled.”

Rome’S Administrative Totalitarianism

To Rome’s unique unity in doctrine, which exists despite differing trends in non-essentials, corresponds its unique unity of administration, making Romanism the strongest church body in the world. Rome is absolutely totalitarian. It centers in its papal head who, according to Roman Catholic belief, is Christ’s duly delegated viceregent on earth with complete control of the “office of the keys,” by which he can absolve or condemn, as he decides. This strange administrative cohesiveness gives Romanism a remarkable prestige which Protestantism never had and never can have. To these values there may be added an extended church school system, ranging from the kindergarten to the university; an amazing readiness on the part of hundreds of Roman Catholic men and women to dedicate themselves to the service of the church in convents, cloisters, schools, mission enterprises and the like; and a most impressive system of social and benevolent service in the way of hospitals and institutions of mercy. Wholly united, then, in doctrine and practice, Rome’s impact upon the general public is tremendous, especially in countries—and this by a strange paradox—in which Protestantism prevails.

To all that has been said, however, must be added the footnote that Rome in Protestant countries is not what Rome is in Roman Catholic countries like Spain, Italy, Mexico, Central and South America, Ireland and others. A traveler, of course, must be fair and not lay all social, economic and political evils solely to Rome’s prevalence in these lands. Manifestly, many of these evils are rooted—in part at least—in the peculiar circumstances existing in these countries. Nevertheless, a tourist coming from Protestant England or Sweden to Roman Central or South America cannot help but ask why Rome with its full control of the situation has not improved the wretched conditions in these lands. We spare our readers details, since these are fully known. As someone has said, Rome needs Protestantism to keep it on the straight and narrow path.

Where Romanism Fails As A Church

Despite its positive values, Rome fails tragically in its central function and purpose as a Christian church. It does not proclaim to its followers the fundamental message of the Gospel: that of a free and full salvation by divine grace through faith in Christ. Rome indeed stresses the redemption of Christ, but as Luther put it 400 years ago, it destroys the bridge that leads the penitent sinner to Christ’s salvation. Rome in its decisions and canons of the Council of Trent has placed its irrevocable anathema upon all who teach salvation by grace through faith in Christ without works. It was at this point that Luther centered all his attacks upon Romanism, for Rome denied the sola gratia per fidem of the Scriptures and the ancient Christian Church. Rome, of course, also denied the sola scriptura, namely, the fundamental doctrine of believing Protestants that the canonical Scriptures are the only source and rule of faith and life.

Charles V had hoped that the Council of Trent might bring about a reconciliation between the Romanists and Protestants. But the Council fixed an impassable gulf between the two communions, and pronounced a blanket anathema upon all evangelical teachings of the Reformation. In addition, it circumscribed those evangelical elements, already in the church, in such a way that they were buried under an accumulation of erroneous teachings all of which centered in the unscriptural doctrines of work-righteousness, purgatory, the veneration of saints, compulsory confession to the priest and the like. Thus Romanism is largely pagan in its specific teachings, and urges upon its adherents a way to salvation which is not that of Christ and his holy apostles. Here again Romanism needs Protestantism to point out to it the pure Gospel way of salvation: by grace through faith in Christ without works.

The very fact, therefore, of Romanism’s unrecognized need, leads us to the inevitable corollary that only evangelical Protestantism has a right to exist, since it alone teaches the Gospel of salvation in full truth and purity.

Rome Needs Evangelical Protestantism

In view of its constant and wholehearted emphasis upon the sola fide (by faith alone), evangelical Protestantism has not only the right but a duty to exist. The erroneous tenets of Rome are all based on what it calls “tradition.” These are not the ancient Christian traditions which support the evangelical doctrines of the Scriptures. They are rather the “unwritten traditions” which, as Luther says in the Smalcald Articles, the Pope has “in the shrine of his heart” (in scrinio pectoris). Out of that shrine he draws them as he needs them to bolster Rome’s system of work-righteousness, the dogmas of papal infallibility, Mary’s immaculate conception, her assumption or ascension into heaven, her mediatorship, purgatory, the sacrificial value of the mass, the delivering of souls out of purgatory by means of intercessions, masses and the like. All these dogmas are man-made accretions to the evangelical teachings of the Christian creeds, and are at total variance with Scripture. Yet Rome teaches them as necessary to salvation and in so doing proves itself, at least in the area of these heresies, to be anti-Christian.

This may appear as severe judgment to some, but any loyal Protestant, holding to the principle of sola scriptura, cannot judge otherwise, according to the ancient principle: Quod non est biblicum, non est theologogicum: “What is not in agreement with Scripture must not be taught.” It is, therefore, the plain duty of believing Protestantism to affirm the evangelical truths taught in Scripture against anti-Christian Rome as well as against anti-Christian Protestantism.

While Romanism, side by side with its heresies, still retains such essential Christian teachings as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, his vicarious atonement, the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting for all who believe in Christ, modernistic Protestantism, both in its older extreme and its present modified form, has cast the whole treasure of Christian doctrine overboard, even when it uses the traditional theological language. As Dr. James DeForest Murch in his book, Cooperation Without Compromise (Eerdmans, 1956) points out, even the professed liberal C. C. Morrison, in The Christian Century (June 7, 14, 21, 1950) scathingly indicted the old Modernism for its utter failure “to discover the true nature of reality.” Neo-modernism also repudiates major facets of Christian doctrine. It does not believe in an authoritative Bible, does not accept the full New Testament stature of Christ, often reflects hazy ideas concerning his work, and may even reject the virgin birth of Jesus as untrue or at least irrelevant.

Today evangelical Christianity, true to the Bible, stands between anti-Christian Romanism and anti-Christian Modernism as a gospel voice crying out Christ’s free and full salvation to all who have ears to hear in the arid wilderness of religious apostasy. To both it speaks in love the divine truth of Christ’s saving Gospel. To both it witnesses the central Christian message: “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Anti-Christian Protestantism rejects this divinely revealed salvation truth in toto; anti-Christian Romanism buries it under a bushel of heresies which hide from the eyes of men the redeeming, saving Christ, whose invitation of free and full salvation reads: “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.” It is this divine message of salvation that gives evangelical Protestantism both the right and the power to exist in our erring, perishing world. And both the right and the power are from the divine Lord, whose final command to his Church will stand till the end of time: “Preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). That is its sacred task.

J. Theodore Mueller, of the faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, has studied the doctrinal differences between Romanism and evangelical Protestantism for more than 50 years. Although dedicated to the truth of the Lutheran Reformation, Dr. Mueller has many friends in the Roman church. But, he writes in the present article, “along these lines Luther fought and along these lines only can we meet Rome today.”

We talk about Christian apathy and sinful neglect in the preaching of the Gospel to the Jews. And we give our reasons, such as: “It does not pay,” it is difficult to win a Jew, and we might better use that time, energy and money for the conversion of others where results have been more apparent.

From a purely materialistic viewpoint, these reasons would seem reasonable. So much supply, so much demand, so much profit; let us make a deal with the highest bidder. But God’s Word is no merchandise for sale to highest bidders; it has nothing to do with profit and loss. If it were a question of that, many of our mission enterprises and churches would have to close. We have no right to classify the Lord’s commands according to the dividends or profits they are likely to bring. Ours is only to obey them.

Difficulties Of Witness

We concede however, that there are certain difficulties in connection with preaching the Gospel to the Jews. There was a time when mission work among the natives of Africa, Asia, and the islands of the sea, was more productive than that among the Jews. To those natives, Christianity was the religion of the white man who, to them, was considered superior. It is no wonder that these people would flock around the missionaries who offered to heal their sick, educate their children, teach them crafts, and provide special care for converts.

Furthermore, for these people no special difficulties were involved in the accepting of a new religion. As a rule, converts were not persecuted by their people for apostasy; on the contrary, they were glad to become white people’s proteges. All a convert had to do to prove his new faith was to cover his nakedness with clothing, keep no more than one wife and attend church. In short, the native had little to lose and much to gain by accepting the white man’s religion.

It has been entirely different with the Jew. First of all, he has never considered himself inferior to any other people; he has never thought he had anything to learn from them. On the contrary, he has always been conscious of his superiority. He has considered himself the scion of kings, prophets and sages. His ancestors were people of high culture at a time when the ancestors of other peoples were still savages living in caves and woods. There were few Jews who could not read the Bible nor their prayer books in Hebrew. Even during the Middle Ages when darkness engulfed all of Europe, almost every Jew could read and write. Every Jewish community had a free religious public library and several private libraries. No Jewish community was without a school or the various social institutions for the care of the sick, the aged, the orphans, the poor and the homeless. Few Christian people in the Middle Ages could boast of having such benevolent institutions. And any missionary, therefore, had little to offer the Jew from a material point of view.

Also, while Christianity was to the native, terra incognita—“something neutral,” to the Jew it was something to be shunned. His wise forefathers had already condemned it as a kind of idolatry, and idolatry was very much a cardinal sin in Judaism. Moreover, every Jew considered Christianity as “enemy number one” to them, and much of Christian practice throughout the Middle Ages only affirmed and reaffirmed this in their own minds. A Jew could see no love in Christianity. The Catholic Church treated the Jew in disgraceful and horrible manner. He saw Christian nation fight Christian nation, even aligned with pagan nations. Nothing was there for him to love and admire in the Christianity that he knew then. The great historian Milman, in his History of the Jews, writes: “Every passion was in arms against them (the Jews). The monarchs were instigated by avarice; the nobility by the war-like spirit generated by chivalry; the clergy by bigotry; the people by all these concurrent motives. Each of the great changes which were gradually taking place in the state of the world seemed to darken the condition of this unhappy people, till the outward degradation worked inward upon their own minds” (Vol. II, p. 295). When we consider the humiliation and suffering which the Jews endured at the hands of professed Christians, we wonder that any Jew turned to the Christian religion.

Giving Up A Life

Another point concerning the conversion of the Jew might well be considered most important. In considering a Chinese, an Indonesian, a Zulu or an Arab, for instance, we note that when such a one changed his native religion and accepted Christianity, he remained as before—a Chinese, Indonesian, Zulu, Arab, giving up very little as a result of his profession. This was not so with the Jew. Judaism to the Jew was not only a religion to be professed and practiced occasionally; it was his very life. The observance of his religion began when he woke up in the morning and ended when he went to bed at night. His every action involved certain religious rites, beginning with the ceremony of washing his hands in the morning soon after opening his eyes, and ending with the prayer before retiring. Dietary and culinary laws were manifold. His marital life and periodic purification, and his prayers several times daily made up one long succession of rites and ceremonies, all of which involved a literal carrying out of the injunction in Deuteronomy 11:18–20: “Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes. And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates.” Jewish life and Jewish religion were practically synonymous.

We see, therefore, that for the Jew to become a Christian truly meant his being “born again.” Such a step meant to be separated forever from one’s parents, kinsmen and friends, and bear all that they would do, as a consequence of his profession, to make his life unbearable. He had now to begin a new life among strangers. And what is more, any sincere Jewish convert who felt the urge to go and preach the Gospel he loved to his own brethren, could expect a reception far from cordial; for to them he was now a traitor, one to be held in contempt. Such treatment could only serve as a warning to other Jews who contemplated such a step as conversion.

A Subconscious Dislike

We hesitate to say—and we hope we are wrong—that not the difficulties nor lack of results have kept some from giving the Gospel to the Jew, but possibly a bit of subconscious dislike for him.

The Christian church has expended vast sums of money to evangelize the Arabs, for example. It has built universities, colleges in many Arab centers, erected orphanages, hospitals and other charitable institutions. And what have been the results? All that is known is that some graduates of these schools have become fanatical nationalist agitators, preachers of the Pan Islam movement, and leaders in the expelling of all Christian influence and bringing in the Russian instead. Again, what has happened to the Christian schools, hospitals, and churches in China? Where are the results of the millions of dollars that have been spent? We see in such cases that the “results” have not always been taken into consideration in mission work. On the other hand, what has the Church done to win the Jew? The answer is, very little.

In the Middle Ages when the church was Roman Catholic, conversion was enforced upon everyone. Compulsion by severe cruelty, enticement and trickery was practiced to convert Jews. Children were violently snatched from parents and baptized into a church which was more pagan than Christian. Nevertheless, even in those “dark ages” there were comparatively large numbers of Jews who became converts, many of whom were of high standing and some of whom reached even high positions in the church. We know that some of these Jewish converts became forerunners of the Reformation.

With the Reformation, of course, came a better understanding of the Gospel and how to preach it to the Jew. Even though the people were not altogether weaned away from traditional prejudices, they worked to win the Jew, not by violence, but by patience and love.

A great change in the Gentile attitude toward the Jew came with the nineteenth century, a century of mighty movements, religious, cultural and political. People had begun to consider him as a fellow man, worthy of the rights of man, and entitled, as much as Christians, to the grace of God. There arose Jewish missions, especially in England; and the Gospel of love, presented in love, reached many Jewish hearts. It became a century of reapproachment between Jew and Christian. The “stiff-necked” Jew who might resist threats of violence, persecution and compulsion, could not resist love. And what was the consequence of loving-kindness toward the Jew?

According to conservative estimate, no less than 225,000 Jews were received into the Christian Church in the nineteenth century. And these converts were the highly intellectual and cultured Europeans. It has been rightly said that “Jewish converts must be weighed as well as counted.” Among them was a galaxy of famous men in all departments of life—political, economic, artistic, scientific and religious. If space permitted we could record here long lists of prominent scholars, scientists, distinguished diplomats, lawyers, artists (in music, painting, sculpture and poetry) and above all, eloquent preachers, eminent teachers, exponents of the Bible, Church historians and self-sacrificing missionaries.

Mighty currents of blessing flowed into Christendom from many of these converts. And these wholesome currents were not limited only to the nineteenth century. Before that time, and up until this very day, the contribution that Jewish converts have made to the glory of the Church has been inestimable. Jewish converts were proportionately larger than those of other peoples. And so the argument that Jewish mission work is a “fruitless” effort is a prejudice that has been based upon misconception and misleading reports.

Signs Of A New Day

Things have greatly changed today in regard to mission work among colored peoples. Many nationals are no more natives; they have become independent of the white man because they have lost respect for him. They have learned that the white man is often wicked and weak, and therefore are now caring little for his help or guidance, either in material or spiritual affairs. Many countries have even expelled and prohibited all mission work, and others are likely to do in the near future.

By way of contrast, the situation today is radically different with the Jews. There has been a marked stirring within the last decades of the “dry bones” of Israel; they are craving for rebirth, and for being revived with the breath of God. The “Zionist movement” has roused Jewish people to shake off the dust of exile and return to the land promised to their forefathers and to pristine glory.

Although some see in this only a political movement, it cannot be denied that it is cultural and spiritual as well. The ancient Hebrew language has been revived, many have begun to search the Scriptures, and many have rediscovered the glories of prophecy. This has made them think independently of tradition and rabbinic guidance. The movement has further led them to the New Testament—that book which the rabbis sealed with seven seals and anathematized the Jews who dared to read it. Old prejudices and bigotry have slowly but surely been yielding to unfettered thinking, so that the New Testament has penetrated into many Jewish homes and hearts.

Many have begun to realize that the “unholy” New Testament is the greatest book which the Jewish race has ever produced. And, of course, as they read it, the central figure of this book, Jesus of Nazareth, is radiating into their hearts a light and warmth that they have not known before. Instead of the puerile, scurrilous and vile tales which rabbis have fabricated about Jesus, Jewish scholars and writers are now publishing books (both history and fiction) which portray Jesus in truer light. The New Testament has become to the Jew “our book” and Jesus “our Jesus.” Although multitudes of them have not yet recognized his messiahship and deity, many are regarding him, as never before, the greatest prophet and noblest teacher that the Jewish people have ever produced. Since the establishment of the State of Israel, Jewish interest in Christ and his teachings has been growing rapidly. Today, as never before, it is the sacred duty of the Christian Church to direct and guide this yearning for the truth into proper channels.

Whatever have been the excuses for neglecting the evangelization of the Jews in the past, there can be no excuse for neglect today. Indeed, there is now an unprecedented opportunity for evangelizing them.

Stage Settings

I notice when the Great Producer writes

A rainbow scene for life’s long, thrilling play,

He never topples Grandeur from the heights

By showing it upon a sunny day.

He knows where Beauty makes her fairest mark,

Where Hope means most to those whose hearts are bowed,

And so He hangs that vari-colored arc

Against the leaden backdrop of a cloud.

CLARENCE EDWIN FLYNN

Jacob Gartenhaus is Founder and President of the International Board of Jewish Missions, Inc. Born in Austria, he received education in the rabbinical schools of Europe. After his conversion to Christ, he was graduated from Moody Bible Institute and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. For 28 years he was superintendent of the Department of Jewish Evangelism under the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptists.

Returning to YMCA work in August of 1955, I was again confronted with the movement’s confusing “C.” I say “again,” because I had worked in various YMCAs, part-time and temporarily, while a student from 1948 until 1953. I say “confusing,” because I know of no other Christian movement which tries so desperately to define its Christian content in such general and inclusive terms, yet conclusive enough to say, “We are Christian.”

What Is Christianity?

Just what kind of Christianity is this? Is it possible to have no formal Christian theology and yet be quite sure of what is meant by “Christian”? Can we be Christian by just saying we are, without reference to stated New Testament doctrines? I am not sure I wish to have these questions answered completely in the negative, though I lean in that direction. Neither do I feel comfortable, as a Christian, in a situation where we find ourselves somewhat embarrassed by certain New Testament convictions lest we seem “too much like a church.” Nor do I feel secure among those who wish the YMCA to be free of any kind of religious identification lest some type of theological setting tend to make us exclusive.

Almost every conference voices a Christian emphasis in our YMCA circles. Each edition of The Forum and The Bulletin expresses it. It is often mentioned whenever two or more “Y” secretaries discuss YMCA problems. But on such occasions the subject is directed back to our simple, dynamic origin as a Christian movement, and to names such as George Williams and Dwight L. Moody.

The reaction to these men and to our origin seems to be twofold. In most cases there is some pride that we, the YMCA, were able to produce such respected men and that our movement is known for its religious color, its humanitarian impact, and its leadership in the Christian-social world. But while these beginnings are revered, they are also explained away as representing “immature” Christianity. It is implied that men who took the Scriptures literally and established a movement to win “lost souls to Christ” had yet to learn that other religions and other interpretations of the Christian faith have some validity too.

The second reaction is that the YMCA has strayed from something basic, elemental, and even God-inspired. But this is a minority view in our YMCAs among older secretaries and a few of the younger men.

What We Say On Paper

On paper we look good. One needs only to check our Paris Basis, Portland Test, and the statement of purpose of each local YMCA to find that we are Christian. Yet, what our bases and purposes say, and what seems to be in the minds of our board members, committeemen and staff, may cause bystanders to question the compatibility of the two.

The pertinent question is: What are we doing with Jesus Christ? Are we still “Christian” if we neglect the truths of Jesus Christ, even though we may consider his system—ethics, morals, social relationships—very seriously? YMCA reading materials often contain the expression, “the Christian way of life,” and suggest how the YMCA strives to promote such a way. This emphasis in our program is noble and good, but does this “Christian emphasis” exhaust what is meant by being “Christian”?

I personally believe that the answer to this question is an emphatic No! We cannot divorce “the Christian way of life” from the truths of Jesus Christ.

What Is Basic?

In her article, “The Changing Currents of Religious emphasis in the YMCA,” in the December issue of The Forum, Martha Bryant reveals the danger if the word “gospel” is translated to mean anything but “good news.”

What is the “good news” of Christianity? The answer to this question is basic to Christianity. A Christian way of life, a Christian service, a Christian program, a Christlike personality—all are, at best, supplementary to the “good news” that God dwelt among us in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14). His purpose for dwelling among us was revelation (Heb. 1:2) and redemption (John 1:12; 3:16).

Jesus Christ spoke often of “doing the will of my Father who sent me” and wrapped this “will” around himself as a person. The “good news,” then, is a person, Jesus Christ. Compare the words of Christ, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” and “I am the resurrection and the life,” with the expression “the Christian way of life.” One half of the contrast speaks of a person and the products of the relationship to this person; the other half reflects a manner of thinking and behaving. As I understand the New Testament, one cannot be divorced from the other, either by an individual or a movement. It is as necessary for the YMCA to propagate the “good news” of Jesus Christ as to promote his way of life.

Superior Scoutmaster

In the article, “Catholics and the YMCA,” in the Catholic periodical The Liguorian, Lewis Miller complains that the YMCA does such a “good job” of avoiding sectarianism that it actually breeds Christian indifference. Some Protestants agree that the YMCA seems so concerned with avoiding Christian doctrine and theology that it even neglects the most basic Christian truth, that of Jesus Christ and his claims on the human race. This reduces Christian emphasis to hollow forms of worship, emphasis on good morals, ethics, service to something (Christianity), but not to somebody (Jesus Christ), and to the externals such as Christian art, proper placement of Bibles and some special services such as “dial for inspiration.” Of basic matters, only worship remains; evangelism, propagation and instruction are omitted.

The rejoinder in most cases is that this responsibility is not the job of the YMCA but the role of the Church. Granted, an agency or movement has the authority to determine its positions and policies; but when the YMCA removed from its program the basic truths of Jesus Christ, once our earlier emphasis, we ceased to be Christian except in statement and form. “A common loyalty to Jesus Christ,” as expressed in our North American YMCA purpose, actually pictures Jesus Christ more as a superior Scoutmaster than as Lord and Saviour.

The New Testament gives no ground for dissecting the Christian responsibility, then choosing only that which is convenient to our situation. Nor may we make a decision as to whether or not Christ’s Gospel is to be propagated. If one is Christian, or if an agency has Christian purpose, what is basic about Jesus Christ must be emphasized. The basic truth is that God dwelt among us in the person of Jesus Christ for the purpose of redemption and revelation. Foremost in our motivation should be a desire to tell the story of God’s love for the human race, so great that he gave his Son to die for our sins.

Opportunism And Fluctuation

In my experience with the “Y,” I seem to find it an opportunist movement. It reacts to environmental and community pressures and at least to some degree conforms, depending, of course, on how moral or ethical the pressures are. I believe it has done so in the field of Christian emphasis. Protestant theology has fluctuated drastically in the last hundred years or so, from orthodoxy to liberalism to today’s neo-orthodoxy.

Our YMCA was growing up into a mature organization and fellowship when liberalism was in its heyday. As an opportunist movement, it reflected this environment, the impact of which remains in the type of Christian emphasis we generally have today in our YMCAs. In other words, the YMCA became affected by cultural Christianity instead of being biblically Christian. Here is an example.

Liberal Christianity doubted the trustworthiness of Scripture as a divinely-evolved instrument, and viewed Jesus Christ not as the biblically expressed Son of God, but as a “son of God,” without supernatural birth, atonement, resurrection or ascension. Christianity, then, is not a divine plan injected into history. If it is simply “just one” of the religions of the world, the object is to find the common ground of all religions, namely, the moral and ethical codes, “a way of life.” When the YMCA speaks of the “Christian way of life,” I think it means a man may be a Hindu or a Jew, but if he is a Christian in behavior, he is following the Christian way of life.

Contrast this with the words of the Apostle Paul: “If any man be in Christ [not the Christian way of living] he is a new creation; old things are passed away, behold all things are become new.” As expressed earlier, the crucial involvement is not with a “Christian way of living,” but with Jesus Christ himself, a person.

Solution By Statement

If we are to vindicate our use of the word “Christian” in our name, we must redefine what we mean by “Christian.” This can be done in broad terms so as not to be exclusive. To say we are Protestant in nature tends to discourage our very fine Eastern Orthodox and Episcopalian Christians, both as staff and as constituents. To say we are biblically Christian not only is inclusive but also puts us on common ground. To illustrate what we mean by “Christian,” let us imagine a funnel, the large part representing our various methods of Christian services as well as our varied program, but the bottom and focal point representing the Bible, the Word of God, as our basis and motivation for existence. This is attuned to the Paris Basis but not to our North American purpose. “A common loyalty to Jesus Christ” is a weak expression which gives no intimation that the Scriptures are our authority.

Solution In Personnel

The second solution I propose will tread on dangerous ground, the area of personnel. Almost all of the YMCA secretaries I have met are moral, ethical, extremely religious and devoted to their church as well as to their YMCA vocation. My qualm is not in that area, but in their Christian concepts. It is not uncommon to hear a YMCA secretary state that he does not know what he thinks of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, but he does know that the “way of Jesus” is important, and that it is “the way” with which he is concerned.

But how can one be Christian and know nothing of the Lordship of Jesus Christ? How can one experience this Lordship without a personal commitment? Without it, how can there be genuine Christian service?

The second solution, then, is found in the area of recruiting personnel. Just as a man is screened for his education, his habits, his personality, experience and abilities, so should he be screened in terms of his relationship to Jesus Christ. He should be capable of testifying to this relationship, and his life should reflect it.

A logical question then would be, where can we obtain personnel who know Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour? Too often we try to impress upon our prospects that a YMCA secretary is a professional in the field of social work and that there is prestige in such a position. For good measure, we add that this is religious work.

In colleges, seminaries and Bible schools many men and women are preparing for a life of service to Jesus Christ. As channels of service, the ministry, foreign missions, nurses’ training and Christian education are suggested. When these men or women are confronted with the possibility of the YMCA as an expression of their commitment to Christ, they are often bewildered, for they have thought of the YMCA as a recreational, social and hotel vocation.

This could be attributed, of course, to their ignorance of our YMCA purpose, but we have also allowed them to absorb this impression. We have not impressed them that throughout our history many men have testified to God’s divine providence in their lives as their reason for being YMCA secretaries.

Stumbling Blocks

What are the stumbling blocks to solving the problem of the confusing “Christian” in our title? One may be synonymous with the other, or one may be the result of another, but here they are as I see them:

1. The YMCA has reduced Christianity to one of the religions of this world, rather than accepting it as “truth” and “fact” from God the Creator.

2. Though we are “Christian,” we are not biblically-centered. Thus the term “Christian” has a broad, ineffective, almost nondescript meaning as it is used in our name, the YMCA.

3. Few staff men really know the Scriptures.

4. Few staff men have convictions on the great doctrines of Christianity, such as the condition of men, Christ’s atoning sacrifice, his resurrection, ascension and second coming, and the apocalyptic teachings.

What Kind Of Program?

To express a conviction or philosophy through a medium is, of course, imperative. Our YMCA is expressing its Christian philosophy today by means of program. Our Christian emphasis in program can be increased by stating a biblical position and by recruiting men and women who testify to Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

I am not sure that we need a new program or a different one, but we do need a program with a different motivation. A program that reflects Colossians 3:17—“Whatever you do in word or in deed, do all in the name of Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God, the Father”—would produce different results, though not always tangible, from those of a program the motivation of which is professionalism, service for others, or even “the Christian way of life.”

There might be one added feature, however—Bible study. To many YMCAs this is their normal program already. If the Bible is our basis for Christian expression, then we must know what the Bible says. This means there must be Bible study for staff members as well as for interested constituents.

But what about interpretation? One reason we have avoided Bible study is that we have not been certain of interpretation for some obscure passages. Our decision has been to avoid it altogether. This attitude, however, does not carry through to other areas in the YMCA. We do not refuse to inculcate group work because the field of case work also has its merits. Nor do we disregard the field of physical fitness in our physical education program because the more passive type of recreation also has good points. We do not disregard financing because of the variety of systems, nor do we cancel training conferences because of the varied interpretations as to how they should be conducted or the benefits which are derived from them.

At times we try to overcome the problem of interpretation by producing the non-interpreter, or the individual who refuses to take much of the Scripture literally. We feel that this person has no position and therefore will not be offensive. We forget, however, that “no position” is a position. The position of “no position” can be just as offensive as the dogmatic, positive position. As a result of our passiveness, we often encourage unbelief. Paradoxically, we have great concern about inculcating types of belief, but seem rather unconcerned about imposing unbelief. Bible study is a feasible—and necessary—program for the YMCA.

Everet R. Johnson is Assistant Membership Secretary of the Bridgeport, Connecticut, YMCA. He holds the B.A. degree from Augsburg College, and has completed studies for the M.S. at George Williams College, Chicago, and for the B.D. at Bethel Theological Seminary, St. Paul. His point of view is being expressed concurrently in The Forum, the YMCA’s publication for its secretaries, and in Christianity Today.

Eschatology today is demanding the energetic attention of both the Church and its theology. This is in contrast to an optimistic confidence that prevailed during the last century when the Kingdom of God became an expected evolutionary development within culture and morality, and when the study of eschatology was but a theological curio. The catastrophes of the past generation, however, have forced the doctrine of “last things” to the place of the most crucial of theological questions. After the First World War, eschatology could no longer be thought of as an antiquated name for the final phase of man’s moral achievement. Its significance forced the attention of the Church, but was now in the form of crisis and judgment thundering from God and his holy place. Eschatology came to mean judgment upon our sinful world. And not being content to form the last chapters of dogmatics textbooks, it demanded a place in the center of things and a ruling over the whole theological scene.

The Crisis Of The Present

It was for this reason that Barth wrote some 30 years ago that a Christianity not totally eschatological was not Christianity at all anymore. The last things could no longer be considered as events lying in distant future. Rather, they were the crises of the present, permeating all human culture, morality and religion. The last days represented present judgment upon human unrighteousness and disobedience. And the last things, upon us now, were the signs of a border situation now made visible by the eternity of God. All signs of the times were seen—by Paul Althaus, for example—as being presently fulfilled in the midst of history. And the result was that hardly any perspective remained for an actual end at the close of history.

But a new and noteworthy nuance appeared somewhat later in the theological situation. History had become the stage for a drama of shattering events. Because of this, attention was drawn back to an examination of the significance of history itself. Althaus revised his opinions in later editions of his eschatological studies. Barth in 1940 criticized his own earlier commentary on Romans for allowing too little place for consideration of the actual future and too much emphasis on the permanent crisis of eternity ever impinging on time. With the significance of history coming more to the foreground, eschatology became a very realistic matter. Hence, the question, “What can be expected of the future and what must the Church mean by its expectation of the coming of Jesus Christ?” became vital.

Reaction Follows Reaction

This intense interest in the last things was partly prepared for by the so-called consistent eschatology of men like Albert Schweitzer. At the beginning of the century Schweitzer wrote that the liberal picture of Jesus was a distortion of the New Testament Jesus. The New Testament, he said, was totally eschatological. Jesus expected the coming of the Kingdom of God in his own time. His expectations assertedly were not fulfilled, and Jesus had mistakenly taken over apocalyptic expectations common in his day. But it still remained true that the New Testament was filled with the message of the coming Kingdom. The great drama of church history, according to consistent eschatology, was created by the Church’s attempt to come to rest in New Testament eschatology despite the failure of Jesus to reappear. The Church attempted to give to the New Testament an authority which it had really lost in the failure of its imminent eschatology ever being realized. The drama was entitled, The Church and the Great Disappointment.

Since the time of that movement, it has become clear that the New Testament does not teach that something absolutely special is going to happen in the future. This is the thinking that defines the eschatological view of the present time. The New Testament sees the future in inseparable connection with what has already occurred in the past. Christian expectation is determined by the fact that the decisive turn in the history of salvation took place at the Cross and in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is not to say that the future has no more real significance since everything decisive has already happened. But it does mean that we should not anticipate anything in the future without an eye fixed on the past. We look to the future after looking back at the past. The eschatological expectation of Christianity is part and parcel of its confession of redemption. It is unquestionably clear that a denial of redemption through the Cross will always lead to an emasculated eschatology. In the light of this, it is quite in conflict with the New Testament to suggest that the early Church lived in bitter disappointment at the failure of Jesus to return.

The Church lived out of what had already happened. With its joy in what had taken place, it looked for the coming of Jesus in the future. But the chronology of his coming was no longer decisive for its faith. Rather, the Church placed herself in the hands of her Lord who would blaze his future in the paths of history.

In our day we have seen the notable New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman insist that the really decisive event of history has taken place in the Cross and Resurrection. It was thus that he has emphasized again that the future is a consequence of that one decisive event. In 1933, Martin Buber of Jerusalem declared that we manifestly are living in an unredeemed world and that world history has not yet been laid bare to its foundations. Hence, said Buber, we cannot say that we live for the coming of the end. This is exactly what the Christian faith denies. Christianity denies it because it affirms that the decisive turn of events has indeed taken place. It is this that the New Testament proclaims on every page.

The apostle preaches that the great mystery, hidden for ages, is now revealed (Rom. 16:25–26). Christ has appeared now, “in the end of the world” (Heb. 9:26). This is the mystery that forms the foundation of our expectations of the future. This is why the doctrine of redemption must put its stamp on eschatology. Denial of the apostles’ doctrine of redemption will always rob eschatology of its essential significance.

History In Tension

The message of the New Testament is pre-eminently clear at this point. We hear of the last days that came upon the people at Pentecost. John speaks of the last hour as having already begun. This gives a tension to the time following Pentecost. History became earnest and filled with tension. And as this last hour dawned, of course, we know that the resistance of the power of darkness stiffened. John does not ask himself how it is possible that so much resistance and darkness could exist in view of Christ’s victory. He sees in it evidence of the reality of redemption. There are many antichrists, he says, and thereby we do know that it is the last hour (1 John 2:18). The strengthened resistance of darkness sets in because the decisive event of the past has really occurred (Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:10).

The entire history of the world, even in its darkest aspects, is completely defined by the salvation of God. He who denies redemption must look for everything from the future and in utopian illusions. But in the Church “of the last days,” expectation of the future gets its tone and accent from the great mystery that has been revealed already in history. This is where the break between Buber and the Christian hope becomes evident. And what we must remember in these critical days is that neither darkness, evil opposition, nor demonic powers should be allowed to shock our faith. We must recognize, in all these, evil’s last defense against what will become irresistible reality.

The Church “of the last days” is not faced with a dilemma, either in present or in future time. It is the First Epistle of John that lays emphasis on the last hour, and it is also filled with the “new commandment” for the present time. And in the most eschatological chapter of the Bible we find Paul concluding with the comforting thought that our labor is not in vain, and not empty in the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58). He does not do this in an attempt to make life bearable. He proclaims it as part of his eschatology. The future will bring the meaning of our present labors into light.

Responsibility In The Present

And so the whole life of the Church of Christ is eschatologically defined, which does not mean that it has no interest in the present. On the contrary, it is precisely because of its expectations for the future that it has much to do in the contemporary world. There is a form of pessimistic eschatology that leads to world conformity. I refer to the inevitable future in which we all must die and because of which some are led to say, “Let us eat, drink and be merry” (1 Cor. 15:32). But the Christian view for the future is totally different. In Christian expectation, life here and now is given meaning and worth. It is unjustifiable to have no interest in the world for which God has so much interest and had so much love.

The Church faces the future and enters the last days with responsibility and joy. The Church is called so to live. This calling has been fulfilled by us only hesitantly and with trembling. Life is hard and its meaning seems often to elude us. Our level is not often that of John, who was able to overcome all darkness in his yet stronger faith and love. We are more likely to ask, who shall show us any good? Many asked this question during the old covenant (Psa. 4:6), but the sigh is still heard in our time—even within Christian fellowship. It is the despair of believers who fail to see the significance of the present in the light of the eschaton, the final consummation.

The Church is thus tested while it waits. It is tested where it really lives. It is tested in the use of its talents, in the preaching of the Gospel, in its daily work, and in its prayers and benevolence. Eschatology is not a kind of futurism. It leads to responsibility for the here and now. Any eschatology that misses this is illegitimate, and must find the way of responsible living in the present. It is a way that leads through a somber world. But a voice calls through the darkness. We can recognize the voice: “He who follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall receive the light of life.”

G. C. Berkouwer is Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free University, Amsterdam. He is the author of many books, best known of which is the series of Studies in Dogmatics. His most recent work is The Conflict with Rome, and he is a frequent contributor to Christianity Today. The present article is the first of a new series of 12 essays on Eschatology, by various writers, announced in the March 17 and 31 issues.