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

A few weeks ago a well-known radio personality announced another Russian technological achievement. In the next breath he made the side remark: “Anyone know where there is a nice deep cave in which I can hide?”

Little did he know that many centuries ago the Prophet Isaiah wrote: “And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.… And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for the fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth” (Isa. 2:17, 19). Nor did he know this prophecy is confirmed in Revelation 6:15, 17.

Unquestionably, these are days of testing, a time when Christians must constantly check their perspectives. Amazing new achievements are increasingly commonplace. Yet more dazzling discoveries would seem inevitable. Outer space is at present a ripe field for the imagination and an area where frantic investigations are being made. To what extent man will eventually invade space remains to be seen. But it is certain that because of the infinity of the universe he will continue to be an earth-bound creature, subject to the limitations of time, space and circumstance.

While there are many who recognize God and give him his rightful place as Creator and Sovereign Ruler, the overwhelming majority have no such concept of him and tend to magnify man and his achievements.

Surely the Church must rise to her responsibilities at such a time as this. The unity she seeks is important, but the message she preaches is of infinitely greater importance. Standing as a light in a dark place, as the custodian of the Gospel of Jesus Christ before an unbelieving world, the effectiveness of her witness depends far more on that which she preaches than denominational unity or ecclesiastical organization, important as they may be.

It is high time that wherever men gather to worship they shall hear truly biblical messages. Never have such been more relevant than now. It may seem expedient to ignore the clear affirmations of Scripture, but the effect of such negligence can be tragic, both now and for eternity.

In large measure preaching today is earthbound. Not so the biblical revelation. There we find a continuing story of man going his own way, thinking his own thoughts and making his own plans while at the same time a loving God makes plain his sovereign will and yearning love, all in the context of eternity.

Down through the ages God has pleaded with men in the face of sin and rebellion. The Gospel is the good news of redemption. It is also the solemn warning of impending judgment.

So far as the world is concerned there is no ground for optimism, but in the light of and by God’s redeeming love pessimism can be transformed into a glorious assurance.

But how rarely does one hear a message of impending judgment from the pulpits of today! Sin and its inevitable consequences are neglected for the more pleasant homilies on psychosomatic theology. So largely have we lost our perspective that eternity is the lost horizon in modern preaching.

Nevertheless, the message of the Bible is so plain that the wayfaring man, though a fool, should not err therein. But have not we, to whom is committed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, lost our perspective to the extent that our messages are largely centered on temporal values rather than the eternal?

The Apostle Paul states a principle which should never be forgotten by the Christian: “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal (temporary); but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Cor. 4:18). And, writing to the Colossian Christians, he says: “Set your affection (mind) on things above not on things on the earth” (Col. 3:2).

Let us be frank. Is that the message of the Church today? Are men hearing of “eternal life, through Jesus Christ, our Lord,” or are they being urged to make the “far country” a better and more comfortable place in which the sinner may continue to sin? Preaching the love of God, are we not forgetting his holiness and justice? We affirm our own concept of what we think this is but it is a far cry from the holiness and justice of God as revealed in the Scriptures.

Some believe and preach that “God is love,” but reject the statement that: “Our God is a consuming fire,” which is equally true. Some rationalize: “… when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,” while they bask in the assurance that: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” Some glibly quote with approval our Lord’s words: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son,” but find it convenient to overlook the dreadful alternative: “should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Carried over into the medical world the same attitude would result in an emphasis on acne and not on cancer, much talk about flat feet but little about heart trouble, research on dandruff but nothing on leukemia, symposia on ingrown toenails but no programs on polio. Symptoms would hold the spotlight rather than the diagnosis and cure of diseases from which symptoms arise.

Today men’s eyes are looking up, if no higher than outer space in which travel the latest evidences of man’s inventive genius. But with this upward look there is also a searching question, either of wistfulness or of actual fear—what does the future hold? For some there is even now being fulfilled the word of our Lord: “Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth.”

It is high time that when we preach “The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,” we preface our sermons with the solemn warning “For the wages of sin is death.”

Unquestionably, the message of the Church in our generation has been largely world-centered. We have forgotten that a better social order, with all of its accompanying benefits for humanity, will eventuate as men become truly Christians. We continue to urge non-Christians to live and act like Christians, stressing reformation rather than redemption. It is not too late to change. But some day, in the blinding light of certain developments, the experience of Esau will, for some, be tragically re-enacted; “For he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.”

Let us never forget: No man is prepared to live this life aright until he is prepared for the one which is to come.

L. NELSON BELL

Inerrancy is not a formally stated claim made by the Scriptures on their own behalf. It is rather an inference that devout students of the Word have made from the teaching of the Bible about its own inspiration.

If the Spirit of God has really wrought in the production of this Book from start to finish, it is hard to conceive of error save such as may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission.

What Of Original Texts?

The appeal to the original texts of the Old and New Testaments has indeed often been ridiculed as an unworthy refuge. Who has seen the so-called infallible originals? so the query goes. No one in our time, certainly. No one in possession of the facts would argue that the text of Scripture has come down to us unchanged from the beginning. The Scriptures contain no promise of the supernatural overshadowing of the transmitters of the Word such as is claimed for the writers. The variations are numerous, though mostly unimportant in relation to the message of Scripture. But we have no reason to conclude from the data of textual criticism that the writers of Scripture were so left to their own devices that error should be expected in the autographs.

If the Bible were of such a nature that it was composed by men and only subsequently was adopted by God and breathed into by the Holy Spirit, then it might conceivably be allowed that God was so concerned with the spiritual message that he tolerated a measure of error in the factual material. But this is not the Scriptural doctrine of its own origin. Rather, it is insisted that the Spirit was active and controlling in the very production of the Word in its entirety.

Granted that the spiritual message is intrinsically more important than the historical minutiae of the narrative framework, yet the Scripture gives no hint of distinction as far as trustworthiness is concerned. This is understandable since the historical element is itself the unfolding of God’s providential and saving activity. Herein lies the fallacy of the kernel-husk solution to the problem we are considering. The history of biblical interpretation shows that the abandonment of the inerrancy of Scripture in nondoctrinal items has a tendency to make criticism of the doctrinal data much easier.

Consequently, it is not wholly satisfactory to rest in the solution that the Bible is “the only infallible rule of faith and practice” and be indifferent to the question of its infallibility in areas that do not directly relate to faith and practice. Evidence is lacking in the statements of Scripture for the notion that the Word is the product of a division of labor, God working with the writers on doctrinal matters and leaving them to their own wisdom on historical matters.

Approaching inerrancy then as a corollary of the biblical exposition of its own origin, there seems to be every reason to insist upon it. But when the data of Scripture are examined, many problems present themselves, problems that seem to make the retention of inerrancy difficult if not impossible. Parallel accounts appear to contradict one another, and quotations from the Old Testament do not always agree with the Old Testament text we have or even with the text of the Septuagint as we have it. So if the fact of inerrancy is to be derived from Scripture deductively, the form that our view of inerrancy ought to take is to be derived inductively from the data of the text.

Some Excessive Criteria

It may be helpful to start with the negative approach. Certain criteria of inerrancy ought not to be applied. One is the insistence that there should be verbal agreement in multiple accounts of the same event. Such agreement would involve mechanical control over the writers of Scripture such as is not suggested by the liberty given to them to utilize their own vocabulary and style of writing. Or, on the supposition that they consulted one another’s work, it would make them echoes and rubber stamps of one another. Identity of language in such instances could even suggest the distinct possibility of collusion, which would tend to destroy confidence in the record. It is widely recognized, especially in courts of law, that witnesses may diverge from one another in details and even in perspective without being chargeable with untruth.

This should be kept in mind when one is wrestling with the problems of the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels. Again, in the account of Jesus’ baptism, Mark reports the voice from heaven as saying, “Thou art my beloved Son.” Matthew puts it in the third person, “This is my beloved Son.” It is disingenuous to insist that the voice can only have spoken in one way, so that one of the reports must be erroneous. Mark gives the words in the form of direct address as they are found in Psalm 2. Matthew puts the words in the third person, possibly to emphasize that the baptism was properly witnessed, and by no less a witness than God himself. Testimony to the divine sonship is equally clear in both accounts.

Another criterion to be avoided is that there should be the same degree of completeness and finality in the statements of Scripture at all periods. There is such a thing as progress in the Word of God, and that progress is discernible both in the area of revelation and in the area of reception and response. The early chapters of Genesis have a primitive, almost naive, character about them that befits the record of events in the distant past. Only when the Son of God was revealed could the knowledge of God be at all fully communicated or a fully adequate response by men be expected.

The claim of inerrancy should not be made dependent upon verbal exactness in quotation. It is anachronistic to apply the standards of our own time to the Scripture. With our wealth of printed books and other materials, all so easy of access, we can justly demand that quotations be verbally accurate. But such was not the standard of antiquity when written materials could be consulted only under great difficulties. Quotation from memory was common.

We ought not to expect scientifically precise statements of natural phenomena. The very thought that the biblical writers should be required to anticipate the discoveries and the terminology of modern times is altogether incongruous. As we might expect, their descriptions of nature are popular and not technical. What is more, we can still use the language of Scripture touching scientific matters without being counted antiquarian or incorrect. Even the scientists do it in ordinary conversation.

Finally, difficulties ought not to be prejudged as errors. The folly of this has been demonstrated many times over. One of the best known examples is the case of Sargon, mentioned in Isaiah 20:1 but unknown otherwise. Hostile criticism did not hesitate to pronounce the Scripture inaccurate. But now Sargon’s palace has been excavated and his royal records uncovered. Some items in the Word of God remain to be confirmed, such as the enrolment under Cyrenius (Luke 2:2). Some may never be confirmed. But lack of confirmation is no basis for repudiation.

Having cleared the ground somewhat, it is well to ask ourselves, What then are the proper criteria of inerrancy? Three, at least, are worthy of special consideration.

Cultural Milieu Important

First, the Bible must be evaluated in terms of its cultural milieu. If the soul of Scripture is universal and eternal, its body remains Oriental. It was written by men who had patterns of thought that differ from ours at many points. The more one can steep himself in these, the better will be his position as translator or interpreter. With us, for example, the word “son” has one commonly accepted meaning. But in Scripture it sometimes means descendant. It may also connote the possession of certain characteristcs, as in the phrase “sons of darkness” or “sons of disobedience.” Still other nuances of thought are conveyed by this word. The symbolic use of numbers, to take another example, is more congenial to the ancients than to our mental climate. Only occasionally does one get the impression that numbers in Scripture are given with great precision. Those who know most about the East tell us that the Bible is eminently true to the life and setting of the Orient as it persists today.

Second, diversity in Scripture statements is not incompatible with the unity of truth they represent. It was recognized in the early Church that differences existed in the Gospel accounts, but the prevailing attitude was that this did not disturb the unity of presentation, which was guaranteed by the operation of the sovereign Spirit upon the writers. This is the testimony of the canon of Muratori (ca. A.D. 170) and of Irenaeus a few years later. Doubtless these men were therefore not sympathetic to the idea of presenting the Gospel narrative in one continuous account so as to relieve the story of apparent contradictions, the very thing which was done by Tatian in his Diatessaron at about the same period. The Apostle Paul had advanced the thought, in dealing with spiritual gifts, that there are diversities of operation but it is the one Spirit who works through them all. Our western way of thinking, patterned closely after the Greek, inclines to demand uniformity. We tend to associate diversity with deviation and so with error. Apart from the question as to which outlook is correct, we ought not to sit in judgment on Scripture as untrustworthy because of a variety of presentation of the same basic material. It is a well-known fact that our Lord accepted the Old Testament of his day as the Word of God which could not be broken. In that Old Testament are many duplicate narratives, such as the accounts in Kings and Chronicles of the reigns of the kings of Judah. Evidently the compiler of Chronicles made use of Kings as source material, having also the records of certain prophets to draw upon. Even where the same event is being described, it is not always told in the same way, certainly not in the same words. All we are concerned to point out here is the fact that our Lord, familiar as he was with both portions, apparently accepted both as equally the Word of God. The bearing of this on the Synoptic problem is quite obvious.

Faithfulness To Purpose

Third, Scripture must be judged in terms of faithfulness to the purpose in view. A change in readers often necessitates a change of statement in order to achieve communication. In the account of the Triumphal Entry, Matthew and Mark have the words “Hosanna in the highest.” Luke has instead, “Glory in the highest.” “Hosanna,” being a Semitic word, would be unintelligible to Luke’s Gentile readers. One of our greatest authorities on the language of the Gospels, Gustaf Dalman, says, “It cannot be doubted that hosanna was understood to be a cry of homage in the sense of glory or hail to the Son of David.” The change was imperative, but it was made without falsification.

One of the knottiest problems in the New Testament is the evaluation to be put upon the discourses in John’s Gospel. They are quite different from anything to be found in the Synoptics. Did the Lord actually speak them? Are they authentic reproductions of what he said? It is no doubt an oversimplification to quote Jesus’ prediction about the Spirit bringing to the remembrance of his disciples whatever he had said to them. The Saviour also predicted that the Spirit would lead his followers into all truth. We need a combination of these two sayings to explain the discourses in John. That they rest upon Jesus’ utterances we have no doubt. That they constitute in part an interpretation of those utterances under the tutelage of the Spirit we have no doubt also.

Too Little Or Too Much

Our conception of inerrancy ought not to require us to adopt an a priori position about verbatim reporting. Our concern ought to be to learn with all humility as much as we can of the methodology that God the Spirit has chosen to use in giving us the Word of God. Those who are hostile to the claim of the veracity of Scripture commonly expect too little of the Bible. Its friends, on the other hand, may err in expecting too much.

Everett F. Harrison is Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, a post he previously held at Dallas Theological Seminary. He holds the Ph.D. degree from University of Pennsylvania. Author of The Son of God Among the Sons of Men, he is editing a new theological dictionary.

Preacher In The Red

“LIFE’S LIKE THAT”

It all happened several days after the Rt. Rev. David Chellappa, Bishop in Madras, South India, arrived in the fast-moving city of New York. Everyone seemed to be in a hurry to get somewhere. It didn’t take long before he fell into the same fast pace.

One evening, he hurried to a comer where there were several parked taxicabs and cars.

“Quick man, take me to the Episcopalian Theological Seminary.”

“The Episcopalian Theo …” the man began to repeat.

“Don’t you know where it is?”

The man shook his head.

“Well, man, you ride down this street, turn left and then right. See?”

The man nodded. “OK,” he said, lifting up the heavy suitcase and opening the back door.

Upon arriving, the Bishop asked: “How much is the fare?”

“The fare?,” queried the man. “This isn’t a taxi.”—Dr. BLAISE LEVAI, Vorhees College, Vellore, South India.

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

With European and American Protestants engaged in sophisticated dialogue regarding the newer developments in theology, it may be well to ask what has been happening theologically within the Greek Orthodox Church. Have Orthodox theologians kept pace with revival of theology in the Western World? Are they acquainted with the leading ideas and books of Western theologians? How do they see their historical development in relation to the present ecumenical movement? These and other questions are being asked increasingly by laymen and clergymen in America who are aware of the world ecumenical situation.

Of course, one might say quickly that the Orthodox church is highly complex and that there is no single answer to give to any particular question about belief or practice. The Orthodox centers in Moscow, Istanbul, and Athens, for example, obviously have somewhat different historical development and present circumstances. Yet, it is possible to concentrate on one segment of the Orthodox church (as Ruth Korper recently has done so well in The Candlelight Kingdom, which presents her encounter with the Russian church) and to find answers to such questions.

As the Director for Greece of the Congregational Christian Service Committee (1953–1954), I was privileged to know many members of the Greek church, both clergy and laymen in practically all walks of life. A lively concern for theology was evidenced in Greek intellectual circles, which paralleled to some degree the revival of theological concern in America.

Professor Hamiclar S. Alivasatos of the Theological Faculty of the University of Athens wrote a 21-page booklet in 1949, Contemporary Theology Tendencies in the Greek Orthodox Church. An articulate and influential leader in Greek Orthodox circles, Professor Alivasatos is known in ecumenical conferences (such as the Evanston Assembly of 1954) for his irenic yet “official” representation of the Orthodox position. His office on narrow Voulis Street in old Athens is lined with theological books mainly from Europe and America. My impression is that those from America exceeded all others.

What does the booklet by the layman professor say about theological trends in Greek Orthodoxy? The remainder of this article will paraphrase the booklet. Thus, Professor Alivasatos will be speaking largely for himself, although I will be translating and greatly condensing the 21 pages.

Professor Alivasatos, to begin, points out that many Orthodox theologians confuse the primary and holy tradition of the Greek church with the secondary tradition and with the mores. The primary tradition consists of the basic theological tenets, such as the Trinity, the Diety of Jesus Christ, and the sacraments. To the devout Christian this tradition is beyond serious questioning. The secondary tradition, however, admits of considerable personal variation. One accepts the doctrine of the Trinity as a part of the primary tradition, but two earnest theologians may differ on the meaning of the doctrine in, for example, Augustine. Again, the Greek church by reason of its official status in the Greek nation is inextricably interwoven into the “secular” life of the people. The professor suggests that no one should confuse the secondary tradition and the mores with the primary tradition, but theologians are beginning to examine critically the “dogmas” of the secondary tradition and the relation of both traditions to the mores.

The booklet goes on to state that Western theologians often hold a misconception about the Greek church. They think it simply immersed in “traditionalism,” making for a static and mechanical church. But the Greek church, while deeply appreciative of its tradition (American Protestant churches are so young!), has never believed that tradition is a substitute for faith. Tradition also cannot properly be equated with theology. Part of the revival of theology in Greece rests upon a fresh and profound understanding of the appropriate relationship between faith and tradition. This renewal of an old standpoint enables Greek theologians to enter vigorously into theological questions in a direct and serious way.

Impediments To Spiritual Growth

Professor Alivasatos proceeds to indicate that there have been several historical impediments to the development of a vigorous theological concern. For example, the Greek nation (it is, he says, the leading nation in the Orthodox church) because of its enslavement for about four hundred years (until the 1820’s) under the Arabs and the Turks was strongly “depressed,” and its spiritual development was very much limited. With even the most elementary education denied the masses by their conquerors, the Greek Christians took refuge in traditionalism, probably a proper means of maintaining the meaning of their faith. “Its tradition was so rich anyway that it kept it safe until it began to live again.” But proof that the spirit of the church was not completely dead lay in the fact that even during the Turkish occupation there were some theologians—not many, of course—who were really exceptional.

These theologians were educated in the West. Since they lacked a full Orthodox background, it was natural for them to be deeply influenced by the Western theology. When they returned to Greece they became the chief teachers of the church, and it is not surprising that Orthodox theology took on the system and plans of the scholastic Western theology. Only the oral tradition and the Orthodox “subconscious” kept the church from becoming entirely affiliated with Western views and practices. Greek theologians recently have conducted several researches which indicate the time and manner by which these Western influences were established in the Orthodox church.

Also during this period the Greek theologians, weak as they were, maintained intellectual leadership among the other Orthodox national churches and especially among the Slavic. Thus the Orthodox theologians generally hold common views, even though they are members of various national churches.

Character Of Recent Trend

Professor Alivasatos then asks: what is the character of the chief tendency in the recent Greek theological revival? It consists of systematic research upon those elements which have unconsciously entered the historic Orthodox theology and the resultant effort to “clean out” these elements from the theology and to establish in its purity the “old theology.” Thus, like its Western parallels, Greek theology today is seeking to recover ancient meanings. The historical focal point, however, is not the Reformation, as in the case of the neo-orthodoxies of the West, but the theology of the pre-Turkish occupation of Greece.

There is no thought among the Greek theologians that reviving the old theology will be an adequate substitute for the proper development of theology at the present time. Indeed, Greek theologians are not doctrinaire toward the cleaning-out process. “The Orthodox church is the most liberal of all the Christian churches.” Because of this liberality the “strange elements” of the past have been able to creep in. But, by the same token, the liberality permits the possibility of reviving the old theology in a modern guise. The “strange elements” are being carefully examined; if they can be accepted, they are; otherwise they are canceled out. Thus the old theology combined with carefully accepted modern ideas will form the right contemporary theology for the Orthodox church.

The dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox church (the primary tradition) has been developed and defined by the seven Ecumenical Synods. These synods accepted the “seven mysteries” and defined their meaning. The dominant theology in Greece at this time, however, is not a logical outgrowth of this ancient deposit. The old theology and its modern counterpart are totally different. The restoration of the pure picture of the Orthodox church, by the way cited above, is and must continue to be the main tendency of modern Orthodox theology. The work has already begun and hopefully. With the help of the proper Orthodox liberal spirit that moves freely within the limits of the life of the Church and the Orthodox theological thought, it will succeed. The absorbing tendency of Orthodox theology in the past should enable it now to absorb consciously any new element.

Relations With The West

The present theological developments in Greece have not precluded cordial relations between the Orthodox and Western churches. Some Greek theologians may be fearful lest the Orthodox church again fall prey to heretical ideas through contact with the Western churches. But these fears must not be an obstacle to either research or “familiar” relations. “The Orthodox church is strong enough to overcome them.” The current Orthodox church not only does not exclude the idea of a vital co-operation with the Western churches; it insists upon it.

In such manner, Professor Alivasatos speaks for the theologians of the Greek Orthodox Church who are engaged in their own theological revival. True, it is a revival that is distinctively characteristic of the Greek situation. But it does have interesting parallels to what has been happening in Protestant Europe and America.

Herbert Stroup, now Dean of Students at Brooklyn College, was formerly Professor of Sociology and Anthropology there. He is author of Jehovah’s Witnesses and other works, and holds the B.A. from Muskingum College, the B.D. from Union Theological Seminary, and the D. Soc. Sc. from the graduate faculty of the New School for Social Research, New York.

Whatever the future may be for Southern Baptists, assuredly it is not extinction. Within my lifetime Southern Baptists have grown from one and one-half million to eight and three-quarters million in numbers. Presently they propose to establish 30,000 more churches by 1964, when Baptists of North America plan to celebrate their third jubilee since Luther Rice organized the Baptist General Convention of the United States in Philadelphia in 1814. There may be a crack somewhere in the Southern Baptist “cathedral,” but it is obvious that their ecclesiastical edifice is rising rather rapidly and securely.

The intent here, however, is not to boast, but to face up to threats as well as to reassurances in the foreseeable future. Perhaps the voice of a veteran may be heard in the land.

Trespass Or Mission?

Some anxiety has arisen, even in Southern ranks, over the so-called “invasion” of territories previously occupied by other Baptist bodies, presumably with exclusive rights to such domains under comity policies. Does this mean that Southern Baptist ambition may overstep itself? Unquestionably the Southerns are vigorous and aggressive. Retiring President Casper Warren insists, however, that there is no intention of trespass, only response to urgent needs accompanied by strong appeals from those on the field. Thus they justify entrance to Pacific Coast states, the Middle West, Alaska, and more recently New York. Actually it has always been recognized that local Baptist churches may exercise their self-governing prerogative to join any general body they wish. True, it is admitted that the territorial spread looks rather startling, and some fear and others hope for ultimate continental coverage.

Explanation of this remarkable vitality and progress may be due to what a professor in a seminary of another evangelical faith is reported to have told his class: “I have studied the programs of all the national churches, and I give it as my opinion that Southern Baptists have the most comprehensive and effective setup of any of them.” By this he meant that the Southern Baptist program consists in evangelistic power plus provision for developing stewardship and extensive training agencies such as Sunday schools, women’s missionary societies, brotherhoods, children’s and young people’s organizations.

While not equal to some other denominations in per capita giving, the total offerings of Southern Baptists are notable. Concerning stewardship, a former state secretary tells me this: “I think we are in grave danger of overemphasizing tithing. I don’t think it is right to expect a widow with dependents working at $50 a week to give $5 of her earnings to her church every Sunday. I don’t think we can prove there is a New Testament prescription for tithing, although I’ll agree heartily that Christians should give more under grace than the Jew under law. A proper teaching of full trusteeship of life will not diminish our gifts but increase them. A fixed legalized system of tithing is contrary to the Baptist antipathy to forms.”

It is likely that the retired state secretary is somewhat out of line with the prevalent attitude of leaders. But he is quite agreed that for Southern Baptists, having ceased to be a poor rural folk and having become the dominant financial urban group in many communities, tithing has not only greatly enlarged denominational income but assisted no little toward keeping the rich spiritual and discouraging rampant materialism.

Social Applications

A marked change within my lifetime has occurred in the Southern Baptist attitudes toward social applications of the Gospel. I am not implying that these Baptists have in any wise lessened their stress on the primacy of the individual and the absolute necessity of individual regeneration. But gradually my brethren have come to see that the Gospel must relate to all of life. They have come to realize the enormity of corporate sin. They know now that no man lives to himself nor dies to himself. There are no Robinson Crusoes in human society.

An illustration of this is afforded in my own experience. In 1935 I delivered a series of addresses on “Christ and Social Change” to the Baptist pastors of South Carolina at Furman University. The ministers approved and requested publication. But the Southern Baptist publishing house, evidently fearsome of the subject, rejected the manuscript and left the book to be issued by another national press. In 1956, however, the Broadman (Southern Baptist) Press published with good success a book of mine in which I delineated the lasting influence of Walter Rauschenbusch and his interpretation of the social teachings of Jesus on American Christianity.

This altered attitude can be attributed to many factors, such as the changing face of society itself. I am convinced it is mainly due to the almost uniform current teaching in Southern Baptist seminaries, which have achieved a satisfactory reconciliation between the individual and social aspects of Christianity.

Will Resolve Race Issue

This latest unmistakable outlook will in my judgment exert a final determination of the race issue on Christian grounds even as Billy Graham, a Southern Baptist, agrees. No truer interpretation of the real situation has appeared than that by Professor H. H. Barnette in his article, “What Can Southern Baptists Do?” which was printed in CHRISTIANITY TODAY (June 24, 1957). It is immensely significant that all the Southern Baptist theological seminaries, like Barnette’s Southern at Louisville, admit Negroes. It is not to be overlooked that the Southern Convention in St. Louis in 1954 adopted a forthright Christian declaration on the race issue and that its Christian Life Commission is attempting valiantly to follow up. Most noteworthy is the fact that the Southern Convention’s president is now Congressman Brooks Hays of Arkansas, who is commonly called “a moderate,” submitting to the decision of the United States Supreme Court, and holding that integration will inevitably prevail.

Rep. Hays represents an advance over a majority of the Southern politicians with whom most of the race trouble lies. To be elected to office they reckon that the violently prejudiced will make a loud outcry for the old order and the rest of the people will not stand up for the coming order; therefore, they palliate the rabid and gamble on the more restrained Christians who remain silent. In doing so these public servants throw consistency to the winds in favor of expediency. Take my very dear friend, the most excellent Governor of Texas. I was once his fond pastor and frequently when I am in his audiences now he pays me that gratifying compliment of saying that a sermon of mine on the infinite worth of the individual produced a greater impression on him than any sermon he ever heard. But my heart sinks when I observe that in his official acts and in his candidating for high office, this fine Christian man does not consider that the Negro has infinite worth, at least not comparable to that of the white man! In his campaign for governor many of us, his warmest ministerial friends, besought him to abandon what we thought was a wrong position and what in the end was destined to be utterly futile.

The Shoals Of Ecumenism

Prophets of doom are predicting that Southern Baptists will eventually crack up on the rock of ecumenicity. The notion is based on the failure of Southerners to join up with the National Council of Churches, the World Council and kindred organizations. One who has endeavored to live fraternally with all men, especially with those of evangelical tenets as I have done, can well understand how I could wish that my people, with proper understanding, might co-operate with these lofty dreamers. Yet I am emboldened to say, I do not concede that Southern Baptists will perish by staying outside these folds.

It might be, as James Madison contended, that religious liberty for all is dependent upon diversity of religious creed and organization. It could be, too, that separation of church and state, the great bulwark of religious liberty, would be imperiled in a world organization composed of so many members that enjoy the privilege of being state churches. Above all, I am compelled to acknowledge the difficulty of formulating sincere statements of faith with so many who hold to sacramental views of eternal salvation. It is altogether possible that Southern Baptists, in affirming that they will not fight ecumenical organizations but prefer to work in their own, are not so perverse after all. It also might be that in declining to give up three Sundays in the month to exploiting the glittering generalities of ecumenicity while reserving a lone Sunday to present the claims of their own body, these Southern Baptists have chosen a practical way of promoting the Christian cause. It is probable, too, that in proposing to work for spiritual unity, which they genuinely seek and cherish, and agreeably practice it with their neighbors, rather than uniting in a formal way, an act which they distrust because of what has happened for a thousand years, they are traveling on a road that will lead to the answer of Jesus’ prayer that all his may be one.

Internal Conflicts

The direct potential threat to the future of Southern Baptists’ ongoing is internal unity. This danger has continued from the first, and at times has been extremely serious. W. W. Barnes, in his accepted history, The Southern Baptist Convention 1845–1953, has depicted the internal conflicts faithfully and accurately. Looking backward they have been: (1) uncertainty as to authority, (2) theories of succession, (3) Landmarkism, (4) Gospel missionism and (5) statements of faith. I would add to this list: (6) East-West differences, (7) rivalry between boards and (8) disaffected leaders, often utilizing newspapers.

Fortunately, as of the present, not one of these apparently poses an actual menace. The fear of centralization of power, particularly in persons or agencies, has been largely dissipated, as more and more the actions of the Convention, a representative, deliberate body, purely advisory, without any authority over any local church, has come to be recognized generally and voluntarily. The degree to which co-operation has been taught and practiced is phenomenal. While there will always be murmurings that such co-operation is pressured, proof of it is difficult. The unity of so many in such distant sections with such pronounced local interests and accents seems miraculous—seemingly “a rope of sand” holding the democratic multitudes firmly together. I heard the late Senator Tobey tell a Congressional Foreign Relations Committee that there might be 57 varieties of Baptists, but they were all united in upholding religious liberty. From where I sit it looks to me that there may be an unimaginable number of disputants among Southern Baptists, but on essential beliefs and policies they all unite in sticking together in the final showdown.

Among Southern Baptists, Joseph Martin Dawson is an “elder statesman.” Born June 21, 1879 in Texas, he has ministered to three Texas congregations: First Baptist, Hillsboro, 1908–12; First Baptist, Temple, 1912–14; First Baptist, Waco, 1914–46. Author of several books, he has served also as editor of the Baptist Standard. He holds the A.B. degree from Baylor University (1904), which conferred the D.D. in 1916, and also the LL.D conferred by Howard Payne College in 1936.

With the arrival of the first evangelical missionary in modern times in Greece in 1829, a new cycle in the religious life of that nation was begun.

The churches of Paul and Apollos had become the Greek Orthodox Church—with its archaic language and its competitive priesthood (the monastic orders against the parish priests). The end result was an unprogressive establishment, for the Orthodox church seemed devoted to maintaining the “status quo.”

The Greek Kingdom was re-established in 1827 when Greece secured freedom from the Turks. Since the Greek church was the main defense and safeguard of the Greek culture during the centuries of Ottoman enslavement, the church was especially esteemed by the Greeks in their new freedom. The church has retained this same influence and leadership for more than a century, even under the republic established in 1924.

With new freedom the first Protestant missionary, Dr. Jonas King of the American Board, entered Greece in 1829, founding schools and publications. He worked for 35 years, but founded no church. He was persecuted and driven from Greece.

During the twentieth century the Zoe movement—originally monastic, now lay as well—has been active within the Greek Orthodox Church. Working largely with youth, its schools, presses and associations encourage Bible reading and religious faith. However, freedom of religion is not one of its tenets. This movement is, in fact, most persistently opposed to Protestant missions.

Evangelical Beginnings

A convert of Dr. King’s ministry, Dr. Michael Kalotathakes, was trained in the United States and returned to Greece. Assisted by the Southern Presbyterian Church, he published literature and eventually erected the first Greek Evangelical Church in Athens in 1871.

In the meantime, an evangelical church was developing in Turkey, assisted by the American Board (Congregational). While most of the believers were Armenians, a goodly number were Greek. All efforts to relate them to the evangelical church in Greece were unsuccessful until 1920, when they were expelled from Turkey. Then they organized the Greek Evangelical Church, with a Presbyterian form of government and two synods, Athens and Thessalonica. This church is completely independent of the sponsoring denominations, although the American Board has continued the limited operation of schools in Greece.

With the subsequent repatriation of almost two million refugees from Turkey, evangelical forces increased from a few hundred to several thousand. In that year Dr. Constantine Metallinos, whose conversion from the Greek church came through reading the New Testament and other works, joined with four others and built the first Free Evangelical Church of Greece. It is established on the Brethren basis and became organized in 1937, adopting Baptistic polity.

In 1920 the Greek Evangelical Mission of Boston, with the Rev. K. Paul Yphantis as executive secretary, was organized to assist these new churches in Greece, since the founding American missions had withdrawn support and backing during World War I. This agency has assisted particularly the Free Evangelical Church. The Free Evangelical Church now has 39 churches in Greece, and the Greek Evangelical Church has 20 churches and many unorganized groups.

More recently there has been organized, with official approval of the Greek Evangelical Church, the American Mission to Greeks with the Rev. Spiros Zodhiates as general secretary in New York City to raise support for their poverty-stricken orphans, adults and churches.

Present Strength

The present evangelical Protestant population of Greece, estimated at about 15,000, also includes the product of several newer missions like the Oriental Missionary Society and Assemblies of God, which have sent missionaries especially since World War II. Others have entered with emphasis on literature. Without doubt thousands won to Christ are not yet formally members of an evangelical church.

Both of the major evangelical churches have established Bible schools for training workers, both have orphanages, and endeavor to help with primary education, but in every area of work, especially in education, they run into opposition from the Greek church.

Continuous Persecution

The history of modern missions in Greece is a story of continuous persecution of minorities by the Greek church. Curiously, the Greek church is an affiliate of the World Council of Churches, yet persecutes the by-product of fellow affiliates (i.e., Congregational and Presbyterian, U.S.). The evangelical churches in Greece have a Greek Evangelical Association related to the World Evangelical Fellowship.

Several developments underline methods and attitudes of the Greek church toward evangelicals.

First, the Greek Orthodox Church has consistently opposed the use of the Bible in modern Greek. The British and Foreign Bible Society published the Bible in modern Greek in 1857. Since 1902 the government has tried to halt publication of the Bible in modern Greek, and in 1926 inserted an article in the constitution prohibiting it. However, this article has never been enforced and many thousands of Bibles are distributed annually. The Million Testament Campaign, under Dr. George T. B. Davis, has published and distributed 200,000 New Testaments in Greek, and additional thousands have been printed by others. The Rev. Paul Pappas of the Oriental Missionary Society distributed many thousands of New Testaments in prisons and to the armed forces of Greece through contacts with Greek prison and military chaplains. To block this distribution, the Greek church through the government has insisted that all Protestant publications have “Protestant” stamped on them. From time to time colporteurs have been arrested because through oversight this identification was omitted. The moderator of the Greek Evangelical Church was ordered arrested several years ago because New Testaments taken out of his church lacked the word “Protestant.”

Restrictions On Schools

The Greek Orthodox Church has sought to retain religious control through government restrictions on schools, churches and orphanages. Evangelicals are still disallowed from operating primary schools. Application was made several years ago for a school for children from 500 families in Katarine. The constitution of Greece guarantees the right to establish such schools. Refused by the ministry of education, they took the case to the supreme court in 1953. The court reversed the action of the ministry of education and recognized the right of Protestants to organize schools. However, the ministry of education has never granted permission because the Archbishop of Athens will not give his consent. Appeal was made to Professor Hativizots, who was liaison between the Greek Orthodox Church and the World Council of Churches, including Church World Service. Unfortunately, Professor Hativizots supported the archbishop and said he did not care what the law or the supreme court had to say, and that if he were the Minister of Cults he would never give consent for the evangelical church to have its own schools.

Impediment To Churches

Again, no church can be built without a government permit, and the government permit has to be approved by the archbishop.

In a little town in Macedonia, Neos Mylotopos, there is an evangelical community of 70 families, all refugees from Asia Minor. They have lived in that town for 30 years. In 1950 they filed a petition for the right to build a church. The bishop of the district was Mgr. (Bishop) Panteleimon, a member of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches. He promised to give permission and said he had done so. This was untrue, and the minister of government, acting on the refusal of the bishop, refused the petition. This happened at the very time the Greek Orthodox Church was raising money among the Protestant churches of the United States for the erection of 1,000 Greek churches in Greece that had been destroyed by war.

These evangelicals finally proceeded on their own, wisely or unwisely, to erect their building in the name of a resident of their village as if it were going to be his barn. It was then turned over to the evangelicals for worship. Police on several occasions attacked this place of worship, and finally came to close it down by force. The evangelical women resisted and were cruelly beaten; a number had to be hospitalized. The pastor’s wife was beaten so severely she spent three months in the hospital and still suffers after-effects. The incident was so widely publicized, and the Greek government called to such shame, that it finally gave permission to use the church.

More recently the Greek government authorized the rebuilding of the first church of Athens. The old church was torn down and the building permit then revoked at the instigation of the Greek church. Only when this matter was brought to the attention of Americans, and questions raised by our government, did the Greek government restore the building permit.

Hampering Relief Effort

The Greek Evangelical Church operates an orphanage for 65 children in Katarine. Although this orphanage admits only the children of evangelicals, it took over six months to overcome opposition of the Greek church to get permission to operate the orphanage.

The last World War left tragic conditions in Greece. Communists abducted 28,000 children; several million persons were left homeless, and thousands of orphans wandered about aimlessly; tuberculosis had infected 500,000 individuals. The need for relief was tremendous. The Church World Service and the evangelicals, including the National Association of Evangelicals, sent large quantities of relief to be distributed through evangelical representatives in Greece. The Greek Orthodox Church insisted that relief for all religious agencies be distributed through its channels. To avoid this, the American Mission to Greeks registered with the U.S. government and was cleared by International Cooperation Administration to receive and distribute surplus food in Greece. However, the Greek Orthodox Church has withheld recognition of the American Mission to Greeks by the American Council of Voluntary Agencies in Athens. Hence, this mission must clear its food for Greece through other local agencies.

The Greek church apparently would rather see Greek children and adults go hungry than to grant religious freedom. Several years ago the Oriental Missionary Society’s Mr. Pappas was arrested by the Greek government when the hierarchy claimed he was giving out food and clothing to make proselytes among the destitute. After his arrest and order to trial, the case was dropped when the United States government became interested in the matter.

Seizure Of Property

Another abuse is the arbitrary seizure of evangelical property in Katarine. Between the large, beautiful church of the evangelical congregation and the orphanage lies a piece of land that for 30 years has served as a little park owned and cared for by the evangelicals. Recently the town government, incited by fanatical Orthodox leaders, voted a decree seizing this land in order to build a Greek Orthodox school on it. This decree was ratified by the king. Despite the fact that evangelicals received a favorable decision in the courts, the case was decided against them by the government. This was a serious blow to religious freedom. If fanatical elements of the Greek church are permitted to lay hands on evangelical church property without penalty or condemnation, there remains no true religious freedom at all. When the case came to the supreme court, the Bishop of Thessalonica wrote a letter to the court to influence its judgment against the Protestants. This letter incorporates false statements made by the bishop against a small Protestant church which had done nothing to incur his wrath.

As in most areas where religious persecution exists, the end product is a strong, self-propagating evangelical church. Considering its size, the evangelical movement in Greece is growing rapidly. Existing church buildings frequently are open every night in the week and are usually crowded to the doors. With good reason the Greek Orthodox Church is alarmed over many thousands now turning from that church to the joy and freedom to be found in the Gospel.

Dr. Clyde W. Taylor serves the National Association of Evangelicals as Secretary of Public Affairs. He devotes the major part of his time to the advancement of religious liberty in the United States and abroad. For 13 years he has directed the NAE Washington office with an eye on evangelical concerns.

The Lowest Place

Give me the lowest place; not that I dare

Ask for that lowest place, but thou hast died

That I might live and share

Thy glory by thy side.

Give me the lowest place; or if for me

That lowest place too high, make one more low

Where I may sit and see

My God, and love thee so.

CHRISTINA GEORGINA ROSSETTI

“Getting out of the church” has been a cheap remedy for frustrated tempers throughout many periods of history. Apparently the habit began in the first century. But the Middle Ages witnessed something of much greater moment than this. The Christian Church split into the Eastern and Western churches, neither having any regular communion with one another. When, the Pope of Rome, therefore, later excommunicated from the Western church that “drunken German monk,” Martin Luther, why did not Luther simply give his allegiance to the Eastern Orthodox Church? Would that not have been the simplest and most Christian action?

The answer to that question should be stated with some care. Luther was forced out of the Roman church because he refused to stop publicizing convictions at which he had arrived after much agony of mind and heart. They were convictions that concerned the very core of the Gospel. He had found no peace in the official doctrine of the Roman church. After his “tower experience” he had arrived at joyful peace. But that had been preceded by years of study and struggle. The conclusions that he had reached were centered upon two basic convictions. The first was that the final standard of authority was not the Pope or the Church in General Council but only the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures. The second conviction was that man, according to the Scriptures, could never stand at peace before a holy God by virtue of his own efforts, but only through the pardon which God freely grants to him who trusts in the work which Christ accomplished on the cross.

These were convictions that no church organization had set forth for centuries. Individuals for some time had been discovering them for themselves or for their own small circles, but it was Luther who trumpeted them throughout the world of European culture. Other Reformers sprang to his side or in their own languages proceeded to spread to fellow countrymen in other parts of Europe the basic truths that Luther had made available for everyone.

The Eastern Church

But what about the Eastern Orthodox Church which for five hundred years had also shown little respect for the authority of the Roman pope now relegating Luther to outer darkness? Why did not Luther seek its support, its shelter, its co-operation?

What, in fact, had caused the Eastern church to cease recognizing the authority of Rome? Was its action based on an earlier Reformation than the Protestant one of the sixteenth century? What had caused the separation? There has not always been agreement on the answer to that question.

Forsaking The Apostles

One of the first reactions which a man has when he studies the history of the ancient church is surprise that the leaders and mentors of the church should have departed so soon and so thoroughly from the teaching of the Apostle Paul. The most obvious area where this occurred was where salvation was the subject of discussion. Justin in the mid-second century clearly thought that the major element in the pursuit of salvation was the Christian’s obedience to the moral law. Irenaeus saw Christ as the founder of a new race of men, one who led men upward as Adam had led them downward. Men were free to choose Christ as their leader, to unite with him and follow him.

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. To Clement of Alexandria Greek philosophy was a justifying covenant with God, even though that idea was dimly comprehended. Man, with his free spirit, was enlightened by the Logos to choose truth and love for himself.

In Origen we meet a universalism. Even the demons were to be ultimately restored to union with God, and purging fire was to aid all men, good and evil, toward that end. Universalism reappeared again, in the fourth century, in Gregory of Nyssa. His view of salvation was synergistic. Man was carrying on a great moral drive toward salvation, with God stepping in and assisting him in the effort.

From this brief summary it appears that the early fathers of the Eastern church did not follow apostolic teaching in the matter of salvation, and it was of apostolic teaching that Martin Luther was so forcibly reminding the church at the time of the Protestant Reformation. To some extent this reminder had been given to the church of the West by St. Augustine in the fifth century. But the East had paid little attention to Augustine; original sin, for instance, was regarded as a Western disease.

As a result of their variable doctrines, the East tended to lay greater and greater emphasis on man’s co-operation with God in the matter of salvation. The resurrection came to be stressed more strongly than the atoning significance of Christ’s death. And Christ’s death came to be considered the Christian’s victory over corruption and death, the attainment of which was dependent upon the vigor with which it was pursued in life or upon purgatorial process after death.

Between East And West

Difficulties in the relationship between the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople became apparent by the fifth century. It is not possible to lay them at the feet of any one cause. But the rift persisted until in the year 1054 Pope Leo IX excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. Despite several attempts at reunion, some momentarily successful, the division continued from that time forward. Various reasons for the breach were offered. The West was charged with the use of unleavened bread in the supper, with the introduction of “filioque” into the Nicene creed. The East was told that it had priests who were married and that the Patriarch of Constantinople called himself an “ecumenical patriarch.” However, neither the time nor the immediately proffered reasons were actually important. The division was the result of a long historical struggle which had gradually become more and more implacable. What was important were two fundamental differences: the Eastern church did not acknowledge the supreme authority of the Pope of Rome, and it did not see, even as imperfectly as did Rome, the importance of the scriptural teaching that man is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1). Therefore, the separation was not based upon the reluctance of the Eastern church to modify its doctrine of salvation to Rome’s.

Martin Luther, seeking support for his recovery of the scriptural treasure of justification by faith alone could find, then, no encouragement for his stand from the bishops of the Eastern church. Neither the sole authority of Scripture nor the truth of justification by faith were at home there.

The Fate Of Cyril

A demonstration of this fact was provided a century later in the tragedy of an Eastern Orthodox theologian, Cyril Lucar. Cyril was a native of Crete. For a time Patriarch of Alexandria, he became in 1621 Patriarch of Constantinople. As a young man he had studied in Italy, but it was in later years that he came to the conviction that the Reformation provided a true statement of the faith. In 1629 he published a confession of his belief in which he stated clearly that the authority of the Scriptures is superior to the authority of the church. The Scriptures are inerrant, the church is not. The confession also affirmed that “man is justified by faith, not by works” (Ch. 13). What more could be desired for determining the true stand of the Eastern church? But behold! Cyril was charged with being a Lutheran, and his enemies succeeded in securing his deposition from the patriarchate. He obtained reinstatement, and on four more occasions this same cycle was repeated. At last, on a charge of high treason, he was strangled. Cyril, however, had disciples who, with views favorable to the Protestant Reformation, continued to reappear again and again in the Eastern church. To ward off the effects of their influences, four different synods condemned Protestant tendencies during the remainder of the seventeenth century, at Constantinople in 1638, at Jassy in 1642, at Jerusalem in 1672 and at Constantinople again in 1691.

Reformation Unwelcome

It must be concluded, regretfully, that Protestantism failed in bringing scriptural truth to bear effectively on the larger number of Easterners. There appears to have been no notable hostility on the part of the Reformers to the Easterners. Calvin had written a preface to a collection of Chrysostom’s sermons, and in it he spoke highly of the services of John “the Golden-Mouthed” and incidentally commended other early Eastern fathers. But in no way did the Eastern Orthodox church prove hospitable to the doctrines of the Reformation. The Reformation and those like Cyril who sought to forward it were unwelcome to the Eastern church and this has, tragically, continued so to be.

Paul Woolley is Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, and Managing Editor of The Westminster Theological Journal, published semi-annually.

The ecumenical honeymoon is over.” So writes Albert C. Outler in his recent book The Christian Tradition and the Unity We Seek. Appraising the progress of the ecumenical movement, Outler finds that the first phase of finding and charting areas of agreement and disagreement must now yield to the second phase of grappling with the residual problems of disagreement which are “acute, urgent, and desperately difficult.”

Conflicting Outlooks

One of the most noticeable disagreements within the World Council of Churches, apparent at the Amsterdam Assembly in 1948 and rudely shocking to many at Evanston in 1954, is that between what are frequently called, not altogether accurately, the “Anglo-Saxon” and the “Continental” theologies. The one it criticized as activism, the other as quietism. The one finds its antecedents in the social gospel, the other in crisis theology. The one stresses God’s immanence, the other his transcendence.

The “Anglo-Saxon” approach accents God’s role within history; the “Continental,” God’s role beyond history. The first calls the Church to broad cultural responsibilities in realizing the Kingdom of God here and now. The second insists that all the Church can do is to point to the Kingdom of God as an eschatological reality. The first recognizes biblical norms as they emerge through cultural interaction. The second seeks to apply biblical norms quite without regard for cultural context. The first tends to regard institutional church union as the summum bonum of the ecumenical movement. The second is more easily satisfied with fellowship and discussion as the expression of ecumenicity.

It may be recalled that at the time of the Amsterdam Assembly, Reinhold Niebuhr, certainly not entirely representative of the “Anglo-Saxon” mind, sharply challenged statements made by Karl Barth. In speaking on the assembly theme, “The World’s Disorder and God’s Design,” Barth had urged giving up any idea that the care of the Church and the care of the world are our care, or that God’s design means the task of the Church in relation to the world’s disorder and its activity for the amelioration of human life. Rather, said Barth, God’s design is his plan already come, already victorious in Jesus Christ. As far as the Kingdom of God is concerned, we can only point to it and wait “while we observe our office as political watchmen and do our service as social Samaritans.”

Replying in the columns of The Christian Century, Niebuhr questioned whether such a view has “any guidance or inspiration for Christians in the day-to-day decisions which are the very woof and warp of our existence,” and warned that the Christian faith can degenerate into a “too simple determinism and irresponsibility when the divine grace is regarded as an escape from, rather than an engagement with, the anxieties, perplexities, sins and pretensions of human existence.”

Significance Of History

This polarity in the World Council, very conspicuous in Evanston’s discussions of the Christian hope, comes down to the matter of one’s view of human history and cultural process. The typical “Continental” theology depreciates both. In the extreme of Barth’s teaching, history has no real meaning and culture no ultimate significance. All that matters is a vertical penetration of the horizontal by divine revelation and grace in an eschatological moment which is not really a moment of time at all. Interestingly, out of such a theological approach Bishop Dibelius, leader of the Evangelical Church in Germany, recently declared, “It is of no interest to our Lord who has been able to send up a Sputnik first.”

On the other hand, “Anglo-Saxon” theology presupposes that history has a revelational quality, that grace is structural in man, that culture is an imperative concern for the Church, and that the Kingdom of God is present and progressive. At its extreme, in liberalism, evident in the social gospel, only the horizontal has reality. There is no special grace, no supernatural revelation, and eschatology is merely a futuristic point of view on man’s autonomous progress.

Evangelical Penetration

Within this polarity of what we choose to call horizontalism and verticalism, the ecumenical movement is open to penetration by historic Christian theology. For liberalism loses the Gospel when it repudiates the supernatural, vertical intrusion of God into history, and neo-orthodoxy loses the direct relevancy of the Gospel to life when it repudiates the horizontal action of God within history. Over against both, historic Christianity insists that these are not genuine alternatives requiring a choice.

The evangelical, whether inside or outside the World Council, has a timely opportunity to witness to the integrity of both the horizontal and the vertical as planes in which God acts and speaks. The evangelical affirms both natural and supernatural revelation, both common and special grace, the Kingdom of God as both temporal and eschatological.

It may be noted in this connection that evangelicals are in peril of self-betrayal when they neglect the compelling relevancy of Christianity to all of life. Fundamentalism, for instance, has usually been quite insensitive to the Christian cultural task and distressingly unconcerned with the redemption of man’s world. It is revealing that Niebuhr, from his theological standpoint, currently challenges both Billy Graham and Karl Barth, the former to preach repentance from the sins of racial segregation and the latter to declare himself on the issue of Communism. Different though they are in many basic factors, fundamentalism and crisis theology are surprisingly alike in neglecting the social implications of the Gospel and ignoring the Christian cultural task of enthroning Christ as King in every sphere of life.

Points Of Challenge

It remains to suggest a few specific points at which the evangelical challenge, in the name of historic Christianity, may be addressed to the ecumenical movement. We cite three: revelation, the unity of the Church, and missions.

For the “horizontalist,” revelation is only natural. God is immanent and knowable in the normal course of things. Revelation is merely an empirical configuration of persons and events in which the resident divine may be discerned. On this basis the Bible is merely a record of religious experience essentially no different than other sacred writings, and Jesus Christ is a religious teacher and example not uniquely unlike many others. For the consistent “verticalist,” on the other hand, revelation is only supernatural. God and his revelation are inseparable, and since God is wholly transcendent, infinite and eternal, he cannot reveal himself directly in history which is finite and temporal. There is a radical discontinuity between God and the world. Therefore the Bible is nothing more than a human document, a pointer to God’s revelation, not itself the revelation. And Jesus is a mere man, a pointer to Christ as God, but not himself God.

Thus both “horizontalism” and “verticalism” fall short of the classic Christian view of revelation, the former in repudiating the supernatural, and the latter in repudiating the natural as media for God’s self-disclosure. There is only one way for this polarity to be transcended in the ecumenical movement. That is through the reassertion of the historic Christian view of a living God who sovereignly discloses himself in an authentically historical manner, first of all in creation and providence, and then redemptively in Christ the incarnate Word and the Bible the inscripturated Word.

Paradox Of Unity

In respect to the unity of the Church, “horizontalism” is inclined to insist on institutional unity as the irreducible aim of the ecumenical movement. Thus The Christian Century recently editorialized: “The ecumenical movement can have but one object. It is organic union.” “Verticalism,” however, is inclined to wait upon God for the fulfilment of his purpose and to be content with the unity of the Church as an eschatological reality. But why must we choose? The one suffers from historical perfectionism, the other from eschatological quietism. The one may be too optimistic, the other too pessimistic.

Today’s evangelical, with the Reformers, will acknowledge and strive for the ideal, but will also recognize that in this world of sin and error unity may come at too high a price. He will hold that the Church is in this world as the body of Christ under two aspects; as institution and as organism (mater fidelium and coetus fidelium). The one is a horizontal reality, the other a vertical. The Church must always live its life in suitable tension between these two poles, conformable to its God-given duties and opportunities.

The Missionary Debate

In the ecumenical missionary movement, too, “horizontalism” and “verticalism” emerge as alternatives. The best example of this is the famous Hocking-Kraemer debate which came to focus at the Madras Conference of the International Missionary Council in 1938. Hocking’s Rethinking Missions, reacting to the policy of radical displacement applied by many missionaries to native religions and cultures in the communication of the Christian faith, had urged the principle of continuity between all religions, that is, that Christianity is essentially no different from other religions. Differences are only in degree. This view, incidentally, had nearly prevailed at the Jerusalem Conference in 1928. Hendrik Kraemer, strongly influenced by Barth, replied to Hocking with his Christian Message in a Non-Christian World, in which he advocated the principle of radical discontinuity between Christianity and non-Christian religion, to the extent of ignoring general revelation and common grace in pagan culture and denying that there is any valid theological point of contact between the Christian message and the pagan mind.

The Madras debate, after being pushed into the background by World War II and its aftermath, is now being revived by the contemporary surge of the ancient non-Christian religions and by the publication of Kraemer’s latest work, Religion and the Christian Faith. Although the extreme of Hocking’s position has few advocates in missionary circles today, the issue between continuity and discontinuity is very much alive. And if the proposed merger between the IMC and the WCC is consummated, the larger issue of “horizontalism” versus “verticalism” will be faced in the WCC in a new dimension.

The evangelical, however, cannot accept Hocking and Kraemer as alternatives. He will not choose between continuity and discontinuity. He insists that this polarity is resolved in the presuppositions of orthodox Christianity, which posits both a horizontal general revelation in nature and human consciousness, and a vertical special revelation in the incarnation of Christ and in the Bible; and which likewise posits both a horizontal common grace by which God restrains human sin, and a vertical special grace by which he redeems man through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.

What the ecumenical movement needs today is to face squarely and to accept these several paradoxes of the Christian faith which are caught up in the one great paradox, that the living, sovereign, self-disclosing God is both immanent and transcendent, and that in judgment and in grace he is constantly moving within history and penetrating it from above.

Harold Dekker is Instructor in Missions at Calvin Seminary, Grand Rapids, where he received the A.B. and Th.B. degrees before pursuing additional studies at Union Theological Seminary, New York. He served as U. S. Navy chaplain from 1942–45, returning to Calvin College as Associate Professor of Bible, and later as Dean of Students. For six summers he has served as guest speaker for the Back to God Radio Hour.

The official participation of the Greek Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement began in 1925, at the Stockholm Conference on Life and Work, and since then it has never been discontinued. Today one of the five presidents of the World Council of Churches is a Greek Archbishop; there is an official representative of the Patriarch of Constantinople at the World Council of Churches headquarters and Orthodox members serve on practically all WCC commissions. And yet this Orthodox participation in the World Council of Churches remains a highly debated issue and divides the Orthodox themselves. Some of the Orthodox churches (the Church of Russia) have declined to join the Council, in some others (the Church of Greece) the discussion is going on concerning the possibility of participation, as well as its nature and meaning. Thus a kind of “agonizing reappraisal” of the Orthodox position in the Ecumenical Movement takes place and anyone interested in the future and the progress of the movement should make an effort to understand the true “dimensions” of this constant crisis. We shall attempt here to give it a very general and so to say “introductory” description.

Absolute Church Claim

Among the reasons of this crisis, the first to be mentioned is without doubt the very special doctrinal position of the Orthodox church, or to be more exact, the “absolute” character of her ecclesiology. A western ecumenical leader well acquainted with Eastern Orthodoxy describes it in the following terms: “The Orthodox Church differs from the Roman in her conception of how the authority and unity of the Church are expressed, but she is not less insistent that to her has been given by God the fulness, the ‘plenitude’ of Catholic faith and life, so that other Christians can only serve the unity of the Church by recognizing the claims of Orthodoxy.… For the Orthodox, Christian unity is a totality of faith and life in love, sacraments and ministry to which nothing can be added, from which nothing may be taken away and which already, by God’s grace, is the Holy Orthodox Church” (Oliver S. Tomkins: The Church Is the Purpose of God, Faith and Order Commission Papers No. 3, pp. 12–13).

It is not my purpose here to try to give this position any theological or historical “justification.” Let me merely point out that it is organically rooted in the whole Orthodox tradition in which the Church is always viewed as a “theandric” organism, as a given fulness of Christ, excluding by its very nature any possibility of division. It is clear that this ecclesiology at once puts the Orthodox in a very paradoxical position in a movement whose raison d’etre is to recognize first, and then to heal, the divisions of the Church.

This paradox, it is true, has been from the very beginning accepted as one of the basic “notae” of the World Council of Churches and found its expression in the “Toronto Statement” (“membership in the WCC does not imply that a Church treats its own conception of the Church as merely relative”). But one thing is the formal recognition of “dynamic relations” between mutually exclusive ecclesiologies as the essence of the ecumenical conversation, quite another is the practical application of this principle.

Overcoming Isolation

And it is here, probably, that we touch upon the really “existential” center of the whole Orthodox “agony” in the World Council of Churches. To understand this agony one must realize that, from the Orthodox point of view, what makes the Ecumenical Movement ecumenical is precisely the West-East encounter that took place after almost ten centuries of virtual isolation of the two parts of Christendom from each other. The Orthodox are aware that in this encounter they “represent” not only a few doctrines denied or ignored by Protestants, but first of all a living and unbroken tradition of faith and life, which long before the Reformation was either distorted or forgotten in the West. From the Orthodox point of view the schism that separated Rome and the whole West from the Orthodox church made the Reformation both unavoidable and unavoidably “Western” in its presuppositions and developments, for the real disruption of the “catholic understanding” had taken place long before. The Reformation, in other words, expressed itself in terms of Western theological and ecclesiological tradition, but some of these terms, at least, were the result of a long and tragical distortion. Therefore the uniqueness of the Ecumenical Movement lies precisely in the possibility of going beyond this “Western” tradition, to evaluate it within a restored universal framework of Christian thought and experience. Eastern Orthodoxy, whatever its own historical limitations and shortcomings, was to provide the ecumenical dialogue with those “terms of reference” that were forgotten or denied in the Western spiritual development. In the Orthodox conception, the Christian West, divided as it is, still constitutes a “whole,” in which all “denominations” are related to each other in a fundamental unity of thought-forms and theological categories. And this is especially true of non-Roman Christianity, whether “catholic” or “protestant.” It is this “whole” that Eastern Orthodoxy encounters in the Ecumenical Movement, giving it its “other pole,” so that this opposition constitutes the basic ecumenical tension; without it the Ecumenical Movement ceases to be ecumenical, in the full sense of this expression, and must be understood as a movement towards reunion of churches having their common origin in the Reformation.

Ecumenical Difficulties

If all this is true, and it is true at least in the Orthodox understanding of the ecumenical reality, then, in spite of the formal rectitude of the Toronto Statement, the Orthodox church is still facing very real difficulties in her relations with the World Council of Churches. For the constitution of the World Council of Churches puts on exactly the same level the divisions between the non-Roman churches of the West and the more basic division between the West and Orthodoxy. According to this constitution the Orthodox churches are but some of the one hundred sixty bodies which altogether constitute the World Council. Not only are they a numerical minority, but their whole doctrinal tradition has to be expressed in terms of “agreements” and “disagreements” proper to the West itself, but whose adequacy to the Orthodox faith and experience is more than doubtful. The Orthodox church is forced to witness to her faith in categories and terms which too often are not hers, which are not capable of embodying her real message and essence. She can fully recognize herself neither in the Amsterdam definition of the “catholic,” nor in the various classifications proposed since then. And it is precisely this impossibility to express herself fully and adequately that forces her so often into a position that to so many Protestants seems almost entirely negative and even arrogant. I do not mean that the Orthodox church wants all other Christians to accept her own theological language. No one among the Orthodox will deny the wonderful “ecumenical” achievements such as the common return to the Bible, a common search for theological and spiritual revival, and so forth. But inasmuch as the Ecumenical Movement cannot be reduced to a theological conversation but is a living encounter of living experiences, the Orthodox participants feel that the totality of their experience, of their tradition, cannot be fully expressed in the present ecumenical setup. For once more, in their opinion, the ecumenical dialogue consists not so much in the discussion of precise “agreements” and “disagreements,” but, above all in the recovery of a common language, in restoration of the “catholic mind.”

An Open Question

All this explains why the problem of Orthodox participation in the World Council of Churches is a permanently “open” question, which cannot be solved by a mere election of Orthodox dignitaries to high ecumenical positions. There must begin within the World Council of Churches itself a process of re-evaluation of its whole structure, of transforming it into a more adequate “ecumenical” instrument. But is it not the very nature of the World Council of Churches to be always in a “process of formation,” to be a question and a challenge more than an answer and a solution, to be itself in “agony” as long as Christian unity is not achieved in the fulness of the Church?

We Quote:

Henry Stob

Associate Professor of Ethics, Calvin Seminary

It is characteristic of the Reformers that they put human liberty in an ethico-religious context. This is especially true of Calvin. He binds freedom to morals. Freedom for him is a means and not an end. It has only instrumental value. It must serve the purposes of love. This determines its nature, and sets the limits of its exercise.… Liberty, then, is always in order to goodness. It is never merely freedom from something; it is always freedom to something, the freedom to meet one’s obligations. It always implies direction, which means commitment to some value or ideal. This means that freedom binds. It presupposes God. Our duties are the generating source and limit of our liberties. But our duties represent precisely God’s sovereign claim on us. There can, accordingly, be no liberty that does not take God into account. This is Calvin’s conviction and that of every Christian who listens intently to the Word.—In The Christian Concept of Freedom (Grand Rapids Int’l Publications).

Alexander Schmemann is Professor of Church History and Liturgics at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York City. He was graduated from St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute of Paris in 1945, and lectured there in Byzantine Church History until 1951, when he was elected to the faculty of St. Vladimir’s. Since 1952 he has been a member of the WCC Faith and Order Commission, and attended the Amsterdam, Lind, Evanston and Oberlin meetings. He is author of The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy.