Bible Book of the Month: Leviticus

Leviticus

The Book of Leviticus is at once the most legalistic of Old Testament books and the book which most clearly presents the grace of God in providing for man’s redemption. Minute prescriptions are given for the correct observance of rites and ceremonies, fast days and feast days. The most intimate details of life are regulated. Yet the very system of sacrifices which looms so large in Leviticus was designed to provide an atonement for the sinner. The shedding of blood at the brazen altar spoke of a God who desired to bring his errant people back to fellowship with himself.

Authorship Of Leviticus

Leviticus, along with the other books of the Pentateuch, has been traditionally ascribed to Moses. It shared in the dismemberment of the Pentateuch as proposed by the school of Wellhausen. Legal and priestly portions were assigned to the priestly writer (P). Most of Leviticus fell under this classification.

Archaeological discoveries of the present century tend to discount the neat schemes of source analysis which were popular a generation or two ago. The thought that the Levitical institutions were a projection into antiquity of the practices of the second Temple (from 500 B.C. onward) cannot be seriously entertained today. Clay tablets dating back to the fourteenth century before Christ, discovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) since 1929, contain references to cultic practices which, in some cases, provide an exact parallel to Leviticus. In alphabetic script dating from the time of Moses we read of the burnt offering, the whole burnt offering, the peace offering, and the trespass (or guilt) offering.

That sacrifices were offered before Moses codified Israel’s law is taught throughout the Book of Genesis. Abel, Noah, Abraham and the patriarchs of Israel all offered sacrifices on altars which they built wherever they might be sojourning. In a theophany, God said to Isaac, “Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (Gen. 26:5).

Significant changes took place in the sacrificial system as codified in the Mosaic law. In place of the head of the family or clan officiating at his own altar (cf. Job 1:5), the sons of Aaron were consecrated to the priesthood. A portable structure, the Tabernacle, became the place of divine manifestation in the midst of the camp of Israel. Sacrifices were to be offered on the brazen altar at the gate of the Tabernacle court.

Trained as the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter, Moses was providentially prepared to become Israel’s lawgiver. Our increasing knowledge of the ancient Near East helps us to understand him in the important role he played as the mediator through whom God gave his law to Israel.

Coming Articles

Future studies for Bible Book of the Month are being prepared by outstanding evangelical scholars. In the Old Testament field Dr. R. Laird Harris of Covenant Theological Seminary will write on the Book of Numbers; Dr. Oswald T. Allis, on the Book of Deuteronomy; Dr. Charles F. Pfeiffer of Moody Bible Institute, on I Samuel; Dr. David A. Hubbard of Westmont College, on the Book of I Kings; Professor David Kerr of Gordon Divinity School, on the Book of Ezekiel; Dr. J. G. S. S. Thomson of Columbia Theological Seminary, on the Book of Hosea; Dr. Edward J. Young of Westminster Theological Seminary, on the Book of Amos; Dr. David A. Hubbard of Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California, on the Book of Joel.

In the New Testament field Professor John Murray of Westminster Theological Seminary will write on the Epistle to the Romans; Dr. Philip E. Hughes, Lecturer, Mortlake Parish Church, Church of England, on the Epistle to the Galatians; Dr. John H. Gerstner, of Pittsburgh-Xenia College, on the Epistle to the Ephesians; Dr. Merrill C. Tenney of Wheaton Gradudate School, on the Epistle to the Philippians; and Dr. F. F. Bruce of Sheffield University, England, on the Epistle to the Colossians.

The Purpose Of Leviticus

Leviticus is often thought of as a directory of worship for the Levitical priesthood. It is that, and much more. The instruction is addressed both to the priest and the layman. Although the priest is the one consecrated to approach God in prayer with a prescribed sacrifice, the demand of holiness and the opportunity for a life of fellowship with God know no limitations.

The law has sometimes been described as a hedge. It was designed to separate Israel from the surrounding nations. There were sins of Egypt and of Canaan which proved a source of temptation to Israel. God warned his people of the danger of yielding to these sins. Israel must “make a difference between the unclean and the clean.” Certain heathen practices were associated with diet. In Ugarit an individual would seek to gain favor with his god by slaying a kid in milk. The Mosaic law. legislated: “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk” (Exod. 23:19).

The law which separated Israel from the nations was also to serve as a testimony to them. Abraham’s call involved the promise of ultimate blessing to “all the families of the earth” (Gen. 12:3). Isaiah triumphantly cried, “… out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples” (Isa. 2:3–4). Throughout the Old Testament period there were souls like Rahab and Ruth who found in the law of the God of Israel that revelation of truth which became the guide of their lives. A Jonah might have no compassion on the inhabitants of Nineveh, but he was subjected to the discipline of God.

Leviticus also served as a part of that law which was to serve as a “schoolmaster” or “custodian” “to bring us to Christ” (Gal. 3:24). The fact of sin as an offense to God stands out in bold relief. The necessity for atonement through a prescribed sacrifice is the burden of Leviticus 1–7 and 16. The Lord’s claims on the time of his people are marked out in chapters 23 to 25.

Leviticus And The New Testament

In his earthly ministry, Jesus always spoke with utmost respect concerning Old Testament law. He made it clear that he had not come to destroy, but rather to fulfill the law (cf. Matt. 5:17). Paul considered the law as preparatory to Christ. It brought “the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). In this way human hearts were prepared to receive the divine Saviour.

The Epistle to the Hebrews declares the Mosaic institutions to be “the example and shadow of heavenly things” (8:5). They look forward to the ministry of Christ, for “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (10:4). The words of Jeremiah (31:31) are recalled, wherein the Lord promised to make a New Covenant in which the law would be written on the hearts of his people (Heb. 8:7–13). The first covenant, entered into by Israel with God at Mt. Sinai, was not “perfect” or there would have been no need for Jeremiah’s prophecy of a New Covenant. Israel broke the covenant—“they continued not in my covenant … saith the Lord” (8:9). God, however, mercifully promised a New Covenant, of which the Sinai covenant may be regarded as a type or shadow.

Parallels are drawn between Christ and Aaron. Both are appointed by and acceptable to God. Both offer sacrifices. Christ is not of the Aaronic order, however, but of the royal line going through David to Judah. How then can Christ serve as a priest? Prior to Levi (progenitor of the Levitical priesthood), Abraham had paid tithes to Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem. Psalm 110 had mentioned one who would serve as a priest “after the order of Melchizedek.” The author of Hebrews uses these facts to demonstrate that Christ is a valid priest of a more ancient and high order than that of Aaron. In discussing the work of the priest, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews makes use of the Levitical institutions, but in discussing the person of Christ, “our great High Priest,” he refers to the superior priesthood of Melchizedek.

As soon as Gentiles began to enter the Church in significant numbers it became necessary for the Church to define its attitude toward the Mosaic law. This was done at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). Even before this, however, Peter received a revelation which heralded a new day for the Church. To overcome his reluctance to preach to the Gentile, Cornelius, Peter received a vision. A sheet containing all kinds of animals, reptiles, and birds was let down from heaven. Peter heard a voice saying, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” Peter’s reaction, as an orthodox Jew, was prompt: “No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” The answer was to have far-reaching significance in the history of the Church: “What God has cleansed, you must not call common” (Acts 10:9–15). Although the purpose of this vision was to prepare Peter to preach the Gospel to an “unclean” Gentile, the form of the vision is significant in indicating that “unclean” foods might be considered “cleansed” after the purpose of the law had been accomplished.

Relevance Of Leviticus

If the Levitical regulations are not binding on the Church of Christ, why should we study Leviticus? If the New Covenant in Jesus’ blood is superior to and supplants the old covenant, in the blood of bulls and goats, can we not safely disregard the Mosaic covenant? Theologically the Church replies, “No!” Leviticus is in the Canon of Scripture and no serious effort has been made to remove it. Practically, however, it is often removed by the simple expediency of neglect.

Leviticus has important truth for every age. God is, in his essence, changeless. He revealed himself to Israel as a holy God. The character of God and the demands of holiness are taught in Leviticus with an emphasis which demands the attention of God’s people in every age. The God who warned Israel of the perils of disobedience is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Much of the theological vocabulary of the New Testament is understandable only by one who is well versed in the Old Testament sacrificial system. On the first page of the most popular New Testament book we read, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). The Israelite who heard these words of John the Baptist needed no commentary on them. He knew of the animals that were presented in the Temple to make atonement for individual or national sin. He knew that Jesus was being spoken of in the terms of sacrifice. The same may be said for the concepts of atonement and cleansing, so oft repeated in the New Testament. The blood of atonement and the laver of cleansing are concepts clearly taught in Leviticus.

Outline Of Leviticus

The Law of the Offerings (1:1–7:38). The section 1:1–6:7 gives the laws of the offerings. Supplementary instructions for the priests are given in 6:8 and 7:38. The five offerings are:

The burnt offering, existing in three grades, depending on the ability of the worshipper. In each case the offering was wholly consumed on the altar.

The meal offering, in three varieties. A handful was burned as a “memorial” (i.e. to bring the worshipper before God for mercy), and the remainder was eaten by the priests.

The peace offering served as a thank offering. Considerable latitude was allowed in the selection of a victim. The best part was burned as an offering to God, certain parts were assigned to the priests, and the remainder was returned to the worshipper.

The sin offering was provided for the atonement of sins committed “through ignorance” in contrast to those committed “with a high hand,” or in willful defiance of God. Four grades are prescribed, depending on the position of the offerer (high priest, whole nation, ruler, and private citizen). Blood is applied in the Tabernacle. The carcass is burned in a “clean place” outside the camp.

The trespass offering was provided for the individual who was unfaithful in meeting his obligations to God or man. A ram was prescribed. Part was burned and the remainder eaten by the priest. The offender was obligated to repay the amount due in offerings to God or obligation to man, with an additional fifth as a kind of fine which served to recompense the offended party for the loss of the use of his property.

2. The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons (8:1–10:20). After special offerings, Aaron and his sons were ceremonially cleansed, arrayed in priestly garments, and anointed for their work. A sacrificial meal was eaten at the door of the Tabernacle by the priests. The ceremony was repeated for seven days.

Following the week of consecration, the actual priestly work began. Sacrifices were offered for priests and people. Fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices. Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron took “strange fire” and offered incense. They died on the spot. God insists that offerings be made as he prescribes. The case of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11) is a parallel case in the early Church.

3. Laws of Purity (11:1–15:33). Prescriptions are given in the matters of food, childbirth, leprosy, and sexual life. The one ceremonially unclean may not take part in the life of the community.

4. The Day of Atonement (16:1–34). The most solemn day of the Israelite calendar. On this day the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies to make atonement for the sins of the people.

5. Holiness on the part of the People (17:1–20:27). Laws concerning food, marriage, and conduct are presented. The heinousness of the sins of religious prostitution (common in Canaanite religion) and infant sacrifice (practiced by Molech worshippers) calls forth specific condemnation and severe penalties for disobedience to the God of Israel. On the positive side, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (19:18).

6. Holiness on the part of Priests and Offerings (21:1–22:33). A special responsibility must be felt by those who handle “holy things.” Priests and offerings alike must be without visible blemish.

7. The Sanctification of Feasts (23:1–25:55). Basic to the Mosaic institutions was the concept of sacred seasons or “set feasts” when the great facts of Israel’s history were commemorated. These included the weekly Sabbath, a series of annual feasts and fasts, and special observances on the seventh and fiftieth years.

The Sabbath was designed to be a happy occasion when families gathered together in happy fellowship (23:3). It was called a “sabbath of solemn rest” and no work was to be performed on the seventh day.

The Passover (cf. Ex. 12) with the associated feast of unleavened bread formed an eight day annual feast. The presentation of a “sheaf of firstfruits” (23:10–11) marked the beginning of the barley harvest, and a recognition of the fact that the harvests revealed the mercy of the Lord.

Fifty days after the “sheaf of first-fruits,” the Feast of Weeks, or Pentecost was observed. This marked the end of the wheat harvest.

During the seventh month, the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles were observed. Trumpets became known as the New Year’s Day. The Day of Atonement is described in Leviticus 16. Tabernacles was a joyous feast lasting eight days and commemorating the wilderness wandering of the Israelites (23:33–44). It served as a kind of “thanksgiving” and “harvest home” celebration, for it marked the end of the agricultural year.

The New Testament makes use of the language of the set feasts. Christ is termed “the firstfruits of them that are asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20, 23). James terms believers “a kind of firstfruits of his creatures” (Jas. 1:18). The author of Hebrews concludes, “there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God” (Heb. 4:9). It was on the Day of Pentecost that the Spirit came in power (Acts 2).

Every seventh year was observed as a “sabbath for the land,” which was permitted to lie fallow. After seven sabbaths of years, the fiftieth year was celebrated as a Jubilee. Slaves were set free. Family property which had been alienated was restored. It was a joyous occasion when Israel was commanded to “proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof” (25:10).

8. The Blessing of Obedience and the Evil of Disobedience (26:1–46). God’s covenant to bless and protect his people was a conditional one. He made it clear that disobedience and idolatry would bring severe judgment. Repentance, however, would result in restoration.

9. Laws Concerning Vows (27:1–34). In addition to meeting the demands of the law, such as tithes and firstfruits, a man might pledge his person or property to the Lord as a gift. Vows were voluntary, but when once made they were considered binding.

Tools For Study

For a brief but helpful discussion of Leviticus, the treatment of the book by Oswald T. Allis in his book God Spake by Moses and in The New Bible Commentary should be consulted. Charles R. Erdman’s exposition, The Book of Leviticus is nontechnical but helpful.

The exegete will wish to consult the treatment of Leviticus in the Keil and Delitzsch series and the work of Frederic Gardiner in the Lange Commentary. Kellogg on Leviticus in the Expositor’s Bible is a classic.

The concepts of sacrifice, priesthood, and offering are popularly treated in W. G. Moorehead, Studies in the Mosaic Institutions. More conservative in its treatment of types is the volume by Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture. The pertinent sections in Oehler, Old Testament Theology and Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology are of help in relating Leviticus to the progress of revelation in Scripture.

An old but still helpful work on the subject of sacrifice is that by A. Stewart, The Mosaic Sacrifices. For a discussion of such concepts as redemption, the blood, and propitiation—basic to an understanding of the Israelite sacrificial system—the student should consult the recent (1955) work by Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Here is an excellent discussion of the connection between blood and life and the problems raised in the exegesis of Leviticus 17:11. The writer’s The Book of Leviticus: A Study Manual provides an annotated outline of the book.

CHARLES F. PFEIFFER

Professor of Old Testament

Moody Bible Institute

Chicago, Ill.

Cover Story

The Intermediate State

The intermediate state is the state of the human soul between death and the resurrection. Scripture represents the intermediate state as provisional, constituting neither the ultimate bliss of the saved nor the ultimate doom of the lost. It forms, in effect, a transition between life within history and the ultimate life in eternity. But this basic fact is often ignored and the intermediate state of the Christian dead is spoken of in terms Scripture reserves for the life after resurrection.

State Of Quiet Consciousness

All theories of “soul sleep” are excluded by the plain teachings of Scripture. The term “sleep,” as a description of death, is used in the case of Christians only. It refers either to the rest of the body after death, or is used metaphorically of the soul to imply a state of peaceful rest. Scripture is clear that consciousness continues after death; “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). As we are conscious of the body’s presence in this life, we shall be conscious of the Lord’s presence in the intermediate state. That the intermediate state of the redeemed is a state of quiet rest is shown by Rev. 14:13 (“Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord … that they may rest from their labors.…”) The same context says of the wicked: “they have no rest day nor night …” (14:11).

It is only through the instrumentality of the body that man is in touch with the earthly environment—the realm of nature and the world of human society. In the abnormal state of not having a body, the connection cannot exist. Whatever of objective reality there may be in spiritism, it cannot involve a real communication between the dead and the living. If the debated case of Saul at Endor involved a real appearing of Samuel, this must be regarded as an exception brought about by the will of God, not by the action of the woman with a familiar spirit. Between death and the resurrection, the human soul is completely separated from the physical world and from human society in this world. After death man is no longer a citizen of history.

State Of Moral Perfection

Scripture speaks of “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb. 12:23) and of “holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). In harmony with this, the Westminster Shorter Catechism affirms that “The souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness.…” This scriptural truth rules out both the notion of purgatory and that of a second or continued probation after death. The body is not the seat of sin; yet in the instant of separation between soul and body, the process of sanctification is miraculously completed. This should not be difficult to believe, for the scriptural idea of sanctification is that it is supernatural from its very beginning (the new birth). There is no reason why God should not bring a gradual supernatural process to a sudden completion by an instantaneous supernatural act.

State Of Metaphysical Incompleteness

All tendencies to regard the intermediate state as the ideal condition are unscriptural. It is represented in Scripture as more desirable than the condition of frustration and struggle which characterizes the present life, and yet much less desirable than the completed blessedness of the resurrection. It is a “being unclothed,” a being “found naked” (2 Cor. 5:3, 4). Paul hoped to avoid it, if possible, by living on earth until the Lord’s second coming, so that he would not be “unclothed” (i.e., a disembodied soul). Man is a composite being consisting of body and soul (or mind), and both are necessary to his normal existence. The lack of the body in the intermediate state renders man in that state deficient and abnormal. In the intermediate state, man lacks something which he must have to be truly normal and completely happy; hence Scripture represents the intermediate state as a state of waiting (Rev. 6:11; Heb. 11:39, 40). The complete metaphysical perfection of man comes only by the resurrection of the body and its union with the completely sanctified soul (Rom. 8:23–25; 1 Cor. 15:50–54).

Relation To Time And Eternity

Recent researches in the comparatively new science of parapsychology seem to indicate that the mind of man, unlike his body, is not always necessarily geared to the time-sequence which makes up history. “Precognition, often recorded as happening spontaneously over considerable gaps of time, is now demonstrable statistically for a matter of seconds” (L. W. Grensted, The Psychology of Religion, New York, 1952, p. 165). There seems to be an increasing body of credible, carefully tested evidence that the principles of time-sequence and causation, which are universally valid in the physical world, are not always valid for the functioning of the mind.

Our faith, of course, is based on Scripture, not on researches in parapsychology. It may be said, however, that Scripture nowhere teaches that the time-sequence which we call history applies to other spheres of existence than the physical universe. Rather, Scripture seems to imply the contrary. J. Stafford Wright has suggested that in the intermediate state, the human mind will be geared to a different kind of time-scale from that of the physical universe, though we cannot guess what it might be (Man in the Process of Time, Eerdmans, 1956, p. 179). Scripture indeed suggests this. The duration between their martyrdom and their resurrection is represented to the souls under the altar as “a little season” (Rev. 6:11), yet in terms of historic time it must be at least 19 centuries, possibly much more.

J. Stafford Wright further suggests that to some, at least, the resurrection may seem to come almost immediately after death, adding that this would give point to the expectation of the early Christians that the Lord’s second coming would take place soon (ibid.). While we cannot speak positively where Scripture is silent, it seems probable that time as we know it in the present life does not exist in the intermediate state. When the soul or mind is separated from the body, clocks and calendars cease to have any relevance to the person.

Intermediate State And Progress

Many theologians have assumed that the intermediate state is a state of progress, though as J. Stafford Wright properly points out, Scripture nowhere teaches that it is (op. cit., pp. 182–3). Progress in sanctification must be ruled out absolutely; it would involve a struggle against sin and temptation which would be incompatible with the peaceful rest of the intermediate state; this state of rest implies complete holiness.

But what about progress of other kinds? Does an infant that dies remain an infant through the intermediate state and rise as an infant at the resurrection? Scripture is silent, therefore we must be cautious. On the whole, however, the implications of Scripture seem to be against any kind of progress in the intermediate state; rather, it is represented as an interim static condition. The lack of a body would seem to imply this, in view of the fact that man’s normal constitution requires a body for the development of his personality. If this be correct, it may partly explain the fact that in Scripture all the emphasis is on the resurrection rather than the intermediate state as the object of Christian hope.

In this article we have been considering principally the intermediate state of the redeemed. But what about the lost? Scripture teaches the continued conscious existence of the wicked after death, and their suffering and woe during the intermediate state. Obviously this cannot be bodily suffering, being prior to the resurrection; therefore the plea of the rich man for water to cool his tongue (Luke 16:24) cannot be interpreted literally. It has been suggested that the wicked, being alienated from God and having no spiritual communion with him, will be tortured in the intermediate state by having desires but no body through which any of these desires could be satisfied, while the redeemed in the intermediate state will be “comforted” (Luke 16:25) by their consciousness of the presence of Christ and their spiritual communion with God. No matter how we interpret the scriptural statements about the condition of the wicked in the intermediate state, that condition must be terrible beyond our ability to imagine, and it will end only in a still more terrible doom at the resurrection.

Johannes G. Vos is Chairman of the Department of Biblical Literature, Religious Education and Philosophy in Geneva College, Pennsylvania. He holds the B.A. degree from Princeton University, Th.B. from Princeton Theological Seminary, Th.M. from Westminster Theological Seminary, and honorary D.D. from Geneva College. He is Editor of Blue Banner Faith and Life, Bible-study quarterly of the Reformed Presbyterians.

Cover Story

The Educational Imperative

In its meeting last spring at Omaha, Nebraska, our General Assembly [Presbyterian Church, U. S. A.] completed and adopted a resolution upon which several years’ work had been done relative to understanding our public schools. The statement has created discussion and controversy, by no means limited to Presbyterians.

The Presbyterian General Assembly came out in strong support of our public schools. Of recent years there has been a considerable movement to revive parochial education, not only among Roman Catholics, but also among Protestants. The Lutherans, for instance, have a very extensive parochial school system, and there are even a few Presbyterian parochial schools. But, said the General Assembly, parochial schools are not the answer. The committee which drew up the statement declared, for example, “that the inclusion of an overt observance of religion does not necessarily provide any institution with a dynamic religious character.” The statement goes on to make this claim: “General superiority neither in academic achievement nor in ethical behavior has been demonstrated when elementary and secondary students of parochial schools are compared with students of the public schools. Further, it has not been demonstrated that attendance at the parochial primary and secondary school better equips persons to participate as Christians in the life of the total community. Nor is it at all certain that attendance at parochial schools prepares a person to participate more fully in the life of the religious community. The moral ills common to our society are found in student populations in both parochial and public schools.”

Now, if a religious emphasis is to be left out of public education, are we to conclude that our schools therefore are “godless,” as many people have accused? If we should not have church-related schools, and if public education is “godless,” then we are really in a jam! We become totally dependent upon one hour a week on Sunday morning for the religious training of our children, and this is scarcely enough for anyone. How did the General Assembly answer this dilemma?

It answered by saying that our public schools are not “godless.” It calls attention to the fact that many dedicated Christians are teachers—that in fact most teachers are Christian, and that their influence cannot help rubbing off on the children. On the other hand, if we set up a lot of parochial schools and leave the public schools to teachers who are not Christian, then our public education will lose a great deal of the godly character that it already has.

And yet, even besides the Christian character of many teachers, there are other essentially religious influences at work, even though they do not parade under the name of religion. Dr. Ganse Little, in presenting the statement about the public schools to the General Assembly, spoke of these influences as the “leaven” which is hidden in the “three measures of meal” and with which “the whole loaf is finally leavened.” The most important of these religious influences are those we have already mentioned, viz., the basic commitment of our schools to the inherent worth of the individual child, and an insistence upon unfettered and dedicated search for truth. There is a religious influence again in the development of attitudes which are involved in living, learning, and growing together. “In the public school,” says the report, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, black nor white.” In other words, despite the integration problem in the South, the public school is the most democratic institution in the world. Or once again, by introducing boys and girls to literature, history, art, music, and science, the public school is giving them something that is part and parcel of Christian culture. And finally, says Dr. Little, “there are thousands upon thousands of hours devoted to skilled counseling and the supervision of extracurricular activities designed to effect the acceptance of one’s self and reconciliation with one’s brother whose only ultimate source is the commitment to a gospel of reconciliation.”

There is much more, but this is the gist of the Presbyterian General Assembly’s defense of public schools. That our schools are not perfect is freely admitted, and church people are urged to assume larger responsibility and feel deeper concern for the public school system, while at the same time keeping Church and State fully separated. It is a good statement and a heartening one. Generally, most of us can approve. Not all the criticisms that have arisen against it are fair; and yet, though to many circles there is a kind of heresy and blasphemy in criticizing education, I myself would like to raise some concerning the very points in which the Assembly’s statement makes its strongest defense.

Some Current Dangers

The values and virtues of education as cited by the Presbyterian statement may, indeed, exist (at least to a degree and theoretically). But there are two dangers against which our public schools, and we who support them, must be on guard more than I think we are. One is the indiscriminate throwing together of students in a common curriculum and system of instruction irrespective of individual ability and talent. The other is the presenting of a hodge-podge of facts and a variety of subjects without relating them to an over-all philosophy of life. What we have in consequence of these two tendencies is a standardizing and homogenizing of people into a collective mass who look for their guidance in thought and behavior to the whim of the moment and the pressures of propaganda or crowd. When that happens, we have neither the reverence for individual personality nor the earnest search for truth which the General Assembly points to as the ideal of education. When that happens, it makes little difference whether our children are brought up to believe that God really exists. And individuality that is submerged, and minds that are not disciplined to think or hold to a consistent set of values, are at the farthest extreme from anything we can call godly or Christian.

Emphasis On Conformity

I am not saying that all schools and all students belong in this disturbing picture of things, and I have only the highest regard for many teachers who are doing a valiant job within the framework of a difficult situation, and in spite of gross underpay. Yet, are these defects not true of too many of our schools in America? For example, in regard to the first of the two dangers mentioned above, it is not individual achievement that is stressed so much as it is adjustment to the group. If an individual is different or superior, much effort is made to bring him to heel so that he does not stand out from the group. Many a superior student has been made to feel ashamed of his intellectual ability lest he be called an “egghead,” a “bookworm,” or a “square.” He is taught, if not by his teachers, at least by his schoolmates, to conform, to be part of the crowd and thus reduce himself to the lowest common denominator. There is an overwhelming fear of being different or doing anything alone. Heaven only knows how many men and women of superior ability have been lost to the world of creative work because of the very emphasis which the Assembly itself calls Christian, that of “living, learning, and growing together!” Together! Everything together! No individuality, no independence, no standing on your own feet, no self-reliance, no resistance to the crowd, no encouragement to grow to one’s fullest personal capacity. Everything together. One glorious collective, mass man! Up to a point, of course, togetherness is desirable and necessary; but in the overwhelming emphasis given to it, conformity is becoming the great and growing disease of our day. Surveys recently made in our colleges and universities reveal a glaring and disturbing contentment with things as they are, a strong disposition to let the government take care of things, and almost a pathetic satisfaction with the standards of mediocrity as against the standards of excellence. And I see too little evidence that public education and the public itself are even aware of it, much less trying to fight it.

Lack Of Integration

The hodge-podge of subjects given to students without a central motive or an integrating core of conviction confronts us with the second danger. In Life magazine Charles Van Doren, who won fame on TV with his phenomenal memory for facts on a quiz program, presented a searching challenge. There were some who cheered his triumph by saying that at last America has an “egghead” for a hero, and some parents wrote to tell him that their children have acquired a new respect for learning. But Van Doren has concluded after careful thought about his experience that “in the long run the effect of quiz shows on education is rather bad than good.” His reason is that the so-called “knowledge” which quiz contestants exhibit is nothing but “junk”—and I am using his own word. “I can’t imagine a wise man being a bore,” he said. “Yet a contestant could answer every question ever asked on all quiz programs and still be a nincompoop. He could ‘know everything’ and still know nothing, because he knew none of the connections between the things that he knew.”

That is the chief goal of learning—to be able to tie things together into a meaningful whole that gives one a philosophy of life. Unless we can see life steadily and see it whole, we become the victims of every whim of doctrine and every puff of propaganda. What we are faced with in America is a tying of people together as a substitute for tying ideas together. How much, I wonder, are our schools really trying to engender a passion, not just for “getting by” on examinations, but for the thrill of learning? And how much of this contempt for learning is our own fault as adults for the example we are setting for the young? How guilty are we, I wonder, of being satisfied with the smattering of knowledge we picked up in high school or college? We are scarcely aware of how much there is yet to be known, and kid ourselves on how much we think we “know.”

I recognize that these criticisms are strong. But they are intended to call attention to failures at the very points on which the General Assembly has expressed its faith in public education, namely, the supposed emphasis upon the sacredness of the individual and the unrelenting search for truth.

Edward W. Greenfield has joined Spiritual Mobilization as research director in the sphere of the spiritual foundations of freedom. Until recently he was Minister of First Presbyterian Church of Princeton, Indiana. He holds the B.A. from Linfield College, B.D. from Colgate-Rochester Divinity School, M.A. from Columbia University. He will edit Faith and Freedom.

Christianity and Our Schools

The present temper of American education is such that prominent Christian influences at work a generation ago in the establishment of the National Education Association are now all but forgotten. Buried in scattered historical collections, however, remain irrefutable evidences that American education was founded by men of Christian idealism and character. Their conception of “world citizenship” and of the “American way of life,” to use contemporary phrasing, involved no suppression or obscuring of great Christian beliefs. On the contrary, these founders shared a vital concern for spiritual and moral priorities as integral elements of adequate schoolroom instruction.

A Century Of Activity

In 1957, National Education Association celebrated the centennial of its founding. Nearly 20,000 teachers from 48 states and outlying territories met in Philadelphia to discuss principles and problems of education in the march of freedom.

If we search the records, we can discover from the founding educators the foundations of our American education. The year 1857 was a period of social, financial, and religious depression. Abolition and secession were fanning heated passions toward the inevitable crisis. But the Spirit of God too was moving toward revival, not only in preaching and prayer, but in the rebirth of simple people like Finney, Moody, Sankey, Fanny Crosby, and of leaders in Christian education. Horace Mann, “father of American education,” was educated in the Christian tradition of New England. William H. McGuffey’s Bible-centered Readers were going into extra editions. Charles W. Sanders’ Readers were popularizing new hymns of the Church. An obscure musician, Lowell Mason, discovered by Horace Mann, pioneered in music education. Christian educators from widely separated regions felt the need for a united stand and called for a convention in Philadelphia on August 26, 1857, to form a national teachers association.

It is significant that Daniel B. Hagar, president of the YMCA and a leading Episcopalian layman of Salem, Mass., and James Valentine, a Baptist teacher-preacher of New York, wrote that national invitation. Keynote speaker was William Russell, a seasoned scholar, educated in Glasgow, brought up in the “Auld Kirk.” His address called attention to “the recognition of teaching as a career, with aim, purpose and dedication of life and talent to the moral and intellectual proposition for useful, constructive, Christian citizenship.”

As the man qualified to establish a state normal school at Lexington, Mass., in 1839—first of its kind in America—Horace Mann selected the Rev. Cyrus Peirce, distinguished alumnus of Harvard, and later of its divinity school. His Christian character in the classroom and years of fruitful educational service won him the tribute of teachers and students alike as “spiritual guide and father.” Himself “dean of American educators,” Mann was key speaker at the second convention of the National Teachers Association in 1858. He initiated many modern methods of educational development, but gave the Bible first place among the many indispensable reference and guide books.

Zalmon Richards, first president of the National Teachers Association, was a native of Massachusetts, a graduate of Williams College and a student under Mark Hopkins. In college he led in Bible study and temperance activities, and became an active Baptist. With a strong Christian philosophy of education, he influenced schools and teacher training in both Massachusetts and New York. In 1849 he accepted a call to Columbia College in Washington, D. C., and in 1852 organized a city YMCA, and devoted time to the E Street Baptist Church, reform movements, and to saving the Union. His Christian impress remained in the formative years of the NEA from 1857 to 1899.

In William S. Bogart of Princeton, Principal of Chatham Academy at Savannah, Georgia, we find one who bore the torch of those Christian pioneers, Oglethorpe, Wesley, Whitefield, and Zinzendorf. From Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania came that great Presbyterian elder and Bible teacher, Henry Duval Gregory, who was to leave his impress on the life and Christian policies of the famous Girard College.

Outstanding and outspoken in their declarations of Christian policy in public education were men of Pennsylvania. Governor Pollock, in his inaugural address, declared the Bible to be “the Foundation of true knowledge … the Charter and Bulwark of civil and religious freedom.” James P. Wickersham, who founded the first state normal school at Millersville, and his colleague, Edward Brooks, who became Superintendent at Philadelphia, carried Christian thought into state and city schools. A glance at the School Controllers Report for 1834 reveals this significant comment: “It is to sound, practical CHRISTIAN education that we must look for improved morals, judicious industry and the maintenance of those principles upon which alone our free and happy institutions can be preserved from destruction.”

The Modern Drift

Today our city schools present a problem and a contrast far removed from the intent of the founding fathers. In Philadelphia, for example, startling changes are seen in the school population, in faculty lists, in alumni, and in general policies.… “Minority groups” without the Christian vision, have gained control, and the results are found in the daily headlines.

To such men as John Seely Hart, great prophet-educator and president of the Central High School, distinguished men in many walks of life today look back with grateful appreciation for Christ-centered education. Dr. Hart’s story might well have been written by Horatio Alger. A sickly boy, discovered by a lady Sunday School missionary, he became a first honor graduate of Princeton College and Seminary. His preaching, his Christian character and teaching, so impressed the Philadelphia School Board that they called him to their new “School of the Republic.” From 1842 to 1858 he molded in a city school a curriculum equal to most colleges of his day. He selected a faculty of scholarly Christian men. The courses he taught in person were Bible-centered, and to every boy during those years he presented a copy of Evidences of Christianity. But Dr. Hart saw changes coming. In 1858 he resigned from the school to assume editorship of American Sunday School Union publications. He founded the Sunday School Times, and from the editorial desk for many years he called on educators everywhere to “stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.”

Loss Of Soul

Undoubtedly we dwell in perilous times. We note with concern in Dr. Edgar Wesley’s History of the N.E.A. since 1857 what he calls the “Lost Causes” of temperance and Bible emphasis. And when we hear from the platform and on the air the pleas of leaders for a re-emphasis of the spiritual in education, it is time for Christians to assume their responsibility to God and country and our children. This country under God must have a new birth. We are commanded to witness and to teach. Let us swell the ranks of the teaching profession, of state and national organizations. And let us begin right in the home community of parents and schools, knowing that we are living in the “Last Days” and that we have our marching orders from the Divine Teacher himself—Christ our Lord.

Albert C. Norton holds the A.M. from the University of Pennsylvania and also from Harvard, and is an active life member of the National Education Association. He has made a lengthy study of the Christian foundations of public education from state and historical society records, and from the narratives of long-established local educational associations. A resident of Philadelphia, Dr. Norton has completed more than 1000 gospel song lyrics as one of his avocations.

Cover Story

Can the Christian College Survive?

Can the Christian college survive? This is by no means an academic question. It poses a real danger which every thoughtful Christian should face.

For the Christian college, the storm warnings are out. The academic barometer is unsteady, even lowering, with hints of possible hurricanes on the distant horizon.

There is no assurance of uninterrupted prosperity such as we have seen in the past decade. Prudent college trustees and administrators are considering carefully the possibilities of economic depression beyond recession, with attendant unemployment for both parents and students. Likewise there is always possibility that the present cold war may turn hot, and that “brush fires” on limited frontiers may unleash unlimited nuclear warfare. Christian colleges face the warnings of increasing costs of operation, and likewise the general trend of enrollment toward publicly-supported colleges and universities.

But foreboding as the storm warnings are, it is well to remember that Christian colleges are sturdy crafts which have weathered severe storms in past generations. Colleges have a way of riding out a hurricane; and though battered severely, they still sail on.

What Is Christian Education?

What do we mean by “Christian college”? We mean an organized educational institution of higher learning which presents the Christian theistic view of the world, of mankind, and of human culture in the light of biblical and natural revelation. It is committed to the great essentials of the Christian faith: the inspiration of the Bible, the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the atoning death of the Saviour, and his resurrection. And its purpose and program are distinctly Christian, as well as its administration and faculty.

There are three major threats to the survival of Christian colleges: dilution, deterioration, and deviation. These raise not so much a question of whether today’s Christian colleges will survive but whether they will continue to be Christian.

There is always the danger, for one thing, of dilution in Christian personnel. Christian colleges can be so overwhelmed by a tidal wave of students reaching college age that the percentage of Christian students may become a minority, unless great care is taken in admission procedures. It is conservatively estimated that by 1970, the number of college students will be at least double the present number, if not more. And unless there are adequate standards of admission, of spiritual life and conduct, of Bible study and evangelism, the Christian content in the student body may be greatly diminished, even to the danger point.

Staff Shortages

There is even more imminent danger that Christian college faculties may soon be understaffed, due to the already appreciable shortage of college teachers. The President’s Committee on Education Beyond the High School reported, again conservatively, that an additional quarter of a million college teachers will be needed within the next 10 or 12 years; and that the rate of production at the present time is falling far behind. Faculty shortage may be far more acute in Christian colleges because of their requirement for convinced Christian instructors.

Will Christian young people who have the qualifications for college teaching be willing to undergo the long, thorough, and costly preparation necessary for that high calling? The challenge is thrown out to Christian teachers, devoted to their task. Without adequate and dynamic Christian faculties, our colleges cannot continue to be thoroughly Christian; and much of the responsibility, therefore, rests with today’s Christian student who will prepare himself for college teaching in the future.

The administration of Christian colleges will have to find more teachers; and the latter will have to increase their academic effectiveness so as to meet the need of greatly increased student bodies. Class size can be larger; student-faculty ratio can be increased. Retirement age can be extended so that older professors who are still effective can continue to teach longer than is now the practice. There will be more women in college faculties; and there will possibly be more part-time instructors. Business and professional men, scientists, pastors, and housewives will find gratifying service as Christian teachers.

Christian colleges must face and many are facing the urgency of raising faculty salaries. The President’s Committee referred to above recommends that boards of trustees and all others responsible for academic budgets “give the absolute highest priority to raising the salaries of college and university teachers.…” Christian colleges are a work of faith in God, it is true; but the burden of faith should not be borne by the faculty alone, nor by the administration and the trustees; it should be shared by the Christian constituency of each college.

The danger of dilution by being overwhelmed or understaffed can be avoided by Christian colleges if they are careful to maintain high level of spiritual life in the college family and by high level of academic effectiveness and dedication on the part of the faculty.

Danger Of Deterioration

Deterioration of facilities and finances, as well as of faculty, is the second imminent danger. Deterioration sets in when the college is unprepared for the eventualities of tomorrow. That lack of preparation usually stems from lack of planning; which in turn stems from the inability or unwillingness of the trustees and administration to make policy decisions that may seem to be unpleasant. Progress may involve growing pains.

It is urgent that each college undertake an intensive study of its long-range goals and plans. Before costly new construction is considered much thought must be given to the maintenance and improvement of the facilities now available. Are they utilized to their maximum capacities? Are they antiquated, and can they be adapted to more effective usefulness? Only after present facilities are used to greatest efficiency should physical expansion be undertaken. When the latter course becomes imperative, the Christian college must press forward courageously and confidently; otherwise it will find itself attempting to accomplish a hopeless task of teaching a dynamic student body in a greatly deteriorated campus.

Few areas call for more careful planning and more earnest prayer than that of finance. To survive, the Christian college will have to be realistic in the charges for tuition, board and room. With college costs on the increase, the administration which is too timid to face reality may easily find itself bankrupt. There is not much danger that colleges will raise charges to the point of pricing themselves out of students. There is more likelihood that income from tuition and fees will become proportionately so small as to scuttle the ship.

Tuition charges never meet academic costs; and because of this every student receives a substantial subsidy each semester from the college. It has been well stated that the largest scholarship fund in America arises from the salary scale meant for college administration and faculty. In order to survive, Christian colleges, then, will have to raise tuition charges so that the students will continue to carry a proportionately fair part of the cost of their education.

A balanced budget, however, cannot be based alone on tuition and fees. Christian colleges must effect an increasingly thorough budgetary control of all operations. By efficiency and economy, the standard of Christian stewardship can be greatly heightened. Prayer and proper promotion are imperative, along with the conscientious and careful use of all available funds.

The temptation in days to come will be for Christian colleges to go along with the crowd in demanding federal aid for higher education. That trend may seem to promise a pot of gold at the end of some distant and evanescent government rainbow; but that is the way of bondage.

The danger of deterioration in facilities and finances can be greatly decreased and even eliminated by alumni loyalty and increased giving on the part of the Christian constituency. The most obvious kind of help is that of scholarships which aid the student directly. Since the actual cost of the college in providing higher education far exceeds the charge made for tuition, it is equally important that there be generous helpfulness for the general maintenance of the college. On that point the President’s Committee, concerned with broadening college opportunities for young people, noted “the important distinction between aiding the student to get a good college education and aiding the college to give one. Both efforts must be kept in balance.”

Danger Of Deviation

The third danger to a Christian college is that of deviation. A college may continue to increase in faculty members and students, and in finances or facilities; but if it ignores the compass of Christian convictions, it can drift off its course. The careful captain will not ignore his compass, nor allow it to become inaccurate because of immediate circumstances. He will steer by the stars, and be unafraid of tempests or adverse tides. The college administrator will steer his ship by the compass and not become concerned by the criticisms or compliments made by others. He has learned that some who make the loudest Christian claims are often the least Christian in consistency and charity. He will steer steadily on the determined course without deviation to starboard or larboard. Only that way will the Christian college survive.

Deviation can arise not only through departure from Christian convictions of faith and practice, of Christian purposes and principles, but also from a lack of responsibility on the part of the college to its Christian constituency. History shows us the peril that occurs when a Christian college determines to depart from the faith of its founding fathers. In the past some have veered from the faith without that deviation being known immediately to the godly parents of students or Christians supporting the college.

That danger of irresponsibility to one’s constituency can be avoided only as a Christian college maintains its Christian convictions and continues on its appointed course. With good conscience toward God and man, it must maintain the faith of the fathers and its faithfulness to its friends. It does well to keep its constituency informed of its progress and its problems; but it does well to nail its colors to the mast and then to be true to those colors.

There is more danger, however, that a Christian college will drift off course than make definite decisions so to do. My study of American colleges leads me to the conclusion that deviation from Christian persuasion and principle always begins at the top; that is, spiritual decay starts in the trustees and administration; and not in the student body. It is therefore of greatest importance that Christian colleges exercise care in admitting only committed and conscientious Christians as trustees and officers of the college.

It is imperative that the Christian college know itself, the heritage of its past, the Christian persuasion of its founding fathers, and stand proud thereof, in the right sense. Each generation ought to consist of Christians who are true to themselves and especially to the Saviour. Well did Solomon make the observation: “Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.”

The Christian college must also be itself, not a pale copy of some publicly-supported college or university. While offering education on the highest academic level, it must remain thoroughly Christian in its philosophy of education, its practice, and its objectives. In the determination of its policies, it must persist in its application to current problems. That is, it must determine its size, its basic organization, its curriculum, and its graduation requirements, while, above all, maintaining a high spiritual standard for the entire college family.

With devotion to duty and dedication to appointed task; with diligence in performing responsibility and delight in leading young hearts in the Way Everlasting, the Christian college can and will survive.

V. Raymond Edman since 1941 has been President of Wheaton College, Illinois, which for a century has stood as a symbol of Christian education in the American republic. He holds the B.A. degree from Boston University, A.M. and Ph.D. from Clark University. He is author of Light in Dark Ages, Finney Lives On, Storms and Starlight, and other works.

Cover Story

Tradition in Education Today

If an ardent progressivist or experimentalist, or functionalist, were to describe a traditionalist, he would probably come through with a picture like this:

He is a medievalist. He arrogates authority to himself because of something he calls reason. But you must know that this reason of his is anything but the scientific verification of evidence. It is a sort of hypostatization of his own a priori and factually unsupported personal opinion. He is a blind conservative. He talks such jargon as mental discipline, formal discipline, memory, faculty psychology, transfer of training, ancient languages, and good grammar. He talks also of the training of the mind, as though the mind were an insoluble entity and thinks of that mind, not as an active principle of dynamic energy, but as a warehouse that must be stuffed full of data. He seems never to have discovered along with the late Professor Dewey that “mind is primarily a verb” if, indeed, it be distinguishable at all from experience itself, and that man is a gregarious animal whose natural habitat for growth is society. He ignores the environment and the situation, and ignores our actual needs for life-adjustment and for swift adaptation to the changing needs of a changing society. He likes to quote the oldtimers; Pope, for instance: “The proper study of mankind is man,” or Roger Ascham: “Learning teacheth more in one year than experience in twenty.” He is that sort of fellow who might have a place in a closed universe, the closed society and mind of medieval Europe; but since modernity has opened up, we shall have to abandon Ascham in favor of Pater who said, “Not the fruit of experience but experience itself is the end.”

Such is the cartoon that a nettled progressivist of the New Education might draw of a traditionalist education. Now, what is the portrait like, what is such traditionalism really like?

Its main feature, I think, its leading idea, is its idea of man. That idea is, frankly, a religious and philosophical one. Traditionalism knows, of course, that man is natural, and that in this nature he is a creature subject to the laws and circumstances of the natural order. But traditional education is insistent that man is an horizon in which two worlds meet, the natural and the spiritual. And it holds that it is in his spiritual character that man’s characteristically human nature consists.

I call attention to some of the major traditionalist emphases, some of those, namely, in which there is often a clash with the emphases of the New Education.

Knowledge Or Ability?

Let me put the first one this way: Knowledge is more important than ability. Because it is by truth, by reality, by revelation, that man’s mind is formed, patterned, and fulfilled, traditional education holds that content is important, that subject matter matters. Now this idea that an organized program of studies, representative of reality, representative, too, of a hierarchy of importances, should be followed out in schools and colleges, is an idea which is under formidable threat in American education. In some states we have in recent years made an arrangement, known as a college agreement plan, by which the colleges of the state are asked to agree that they will admit students from high schools irrespective of the content and organization of courses pursued. The idea is: not what a student has had, nor in connection with what he has had it, but what ability he generated in handling it. That’s animal training—you can do it with a horse. History? No, couldn’t see any use in it. Foreign languages? Look, I’m going to be a business executive; I can hire a Mexican if I have to know Spanish. Science? A little physiology. English? Yeah, I had some of that. But the grade is good. The boy must have handled his social attitudes skillfully. What can you do with him in college? Why, whet some more ability, of course.

Traditional education never operated that way. “The crucial error,” says Robert M. Hutchins, “is that of holding that nothing is more important than anything else, that there can be no other order of intellectual goods … nothing central, nothing peripheral, nothing basic, and nothing superficial.” Nothing but method, technique, ability, and training, without any mastery of basic instrument-knowledges, without any discipline in either scientific or philosophical-theoretical thinking, and without any confrontation of the student by that world of history and culture in which the mind can realize and universalize itself and fulfill its humanness. “In such conditions,” says Hutchins, “the course of study goes to pieces, because there is nothing to hold it together.” It does. Lacking the principle of the underlying unity of all knowledge, the curriculum breaks the bounds of rational system and spreads out over phenomena. Scales, hierarchies of importance go by the board. Mr. Tenenbaum, biographer of Kilpatrick, exponent in turn of Mr. Dewey, records this experience: [“I have] seen a class of 600 and more graduate students in education, comprising teachers, principals, superintendents, vote their opinion in overwhelming numbers, that Greek, Latin, and mathematics offered the least likely possibilities for educational growth; and with almost the same unanimity they placed dancing, dramatics, and doll playing high on this list in this regard.” The curriculum goes to pieces. I suggest that traditional education with its imitation of nature, its intrinsic respect for reality, rightly insisted on a rationally determined content and organization of courses. It was right in preferring natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and divinity to courses in practical skills, in social attitudes, in community values, and in “character education.” It is reality that patterns the mind; it is truth that forms and fulfills.

Object Of Education

That takes us to a second emphasis, a corollary of the traditionalist insistence that content matters. It is this, also greatly threatened by the contemporary educational theory and practice: namely, that the object of education is more important than the subject in the training of the teacher. I mean that in the training of the teacher, history is more important than Johnny. Modern education owes a great deal to the psychological study of the pupil and the correspondingly required methods most effective in teaching him. I, too, blush for some of the crimes committed by stupid traditionalists on the dawning intellect, and the spiritual intuition, and the creative reach, and the aspirations to the freedom of understanding, of the young schoolboy. Shakespeare suffered it out, and spoke afterwards of “the whining schoolboy with his satchel and shining morning face creeping like a snail unwillingly to school.” We have learned from some of the moderns that interest is indispensable to learning, though many an ancient, Socrates, for example, including that old Roger Ascham, had guessed as much. But the source of the interest is not the pupil, nor the teacher, but the truth. A man has an affinity for the truth. The teacher must stand before the pupil in the authority of the truth. He begins with insights, not merely with difficulties. He must be educated in truth before he is trained in teaching. Johnny, as an object of known man, is not as important a subject as Homer, and the teacher should know Homer before he knows Johnny, and indeed, in order to know Johnny. The tendency and the fact in our time of some teacher training schools to segregate people who plan to teach from other people, to give them psychology limited to empirically observable data about pupils, and to support this by as many methods courses as there are subjects in the modern curriculum, are well calculated to produce teachers who do not have the authority of mind. For it is the object of knowledge, rather than the pupil, the teacher, or the method, that must do the educating.

Culture Versus Nature

A third traditionalist emphasis is its predilection for what are called the humanities. As I see it, traditional education considers culture a more important medium for education than nature. It also fosters natural science, of course, for natural science richly rewards the student with a human knowledge of phenomena and of the principles which explain them. But nature as an object of knowledge can be regarded as standing lower in the order of reality than culture as an object of knowledge, for the reason that in this subject the human, the moral, the free, the rational element is itself present. The substitution, therefore, of an exclusively scientific education for a humanistic education, or the subordination of the humanities to the sciences, or the teaching of the humanities as natural sciences—and one or another of these possibilities obtains in many schools—can represent an abandonment of the traditionalist idea of man. The last is perhaps the greatest threat, namely, the naturalization of history, society, politics, law, literature, and the like, by transforming them into studies of natural, cultural, or social circumstance.

Value Of Letters

That point, too, as a fourth consideration, has a corollary, perhaps, in the traditional insistence on the educational value of books, letters, humane letters, great books, classics. These seem to traditionalists to have authority, to be their own embodiments of what a colleague calls the “funded wisdom” of the ages, vital, quickening, redolent of truth, the sort of thing to which mind leaps up in recognition of mind, in which mind enlarges and deepens itself, realizes itself. Of course you can ask on whose authority they are so great. Arnold called them the best that has been said and thought. Huxley in philosophical skepticism turned away from them as being matters of opinion. Huxley said, “Science appeals not to authority,” as humane letters do, “but to nature.” He identified nature with phenomenal, empirically observable reality. He was wrong. First, because nature is not science until mind has intervened. Next, because good mind is a good authority to appeal to. Now the classics are precisely large and comprehensive human readings of life. They chart the course of the human spirit, and exhibit alternative answers to man’s religious and philosophical quest. In them, as Wordsworth said, there is the breath and finer spirit of knowledge, the soul of science, the steady and whole view, the harvesting of history in its concrete actuality. It is just the thing to quicken the mind’s yearnings for fulfillment, to satisfy the inner beholding of truth. To supplant them by experience, life, laboratories, or textbooks, though they may well be supplemented by these, is to denominate something other than knowledge the end of education.

Three R’S Make Sense

One is not, naturally, going to have access to such funded wisdom in the classics unless one can read. I make it a fifth point. The traditionalist holds that the three R’s make sense. Consider then whether there be not some departure from an idea of the uniqueness of human nature in such an utterance as this, which was addressed by a principal to the National Association of Secondary School Principals. He was being progressive with a vengeance: “When we come,” he said “to the realization that not every child has to read, figure, write, and spell … we shall be on the way to improving the Junior High School curriculum. We shall some day accept the fact that it is just as illogical to assume that every boy must be able to read as that each one must be able to perform on the violin, that it is no more reasonable to require that each girl shall learn to spell than it is that each one shall learn to bake a cherry pie.” Certainly it would seem that when the doctrine of individual difference, of unique aptitude and interest reaches such a point, it cuts itself off from that common core of studies so long held to be the sine qua non of the education of democratic people.

Language As Spiritual Art

The traditionalist, to make another point now, wants foreign languages in education as part of his learning the first R, that is reading. He wants them not for reasons of trade and holiday. He wants them not solely for their utility in research. He wants them mainly because he thinks that an adequately philosophical mind is not possible unless it is disciplined by the rationality or logic of the literature of our civilized West. It wants foreign languages, and particular foreign languages, for Arnold’s reason when he said: “The civilized world (the only kind in which mind can be educated and community is possible) is to be regarded as now being, for intellectual purposes, one great confederation, whose members have for their proper outfit a knowledge of Greek, Roman, and Eastern antiquity, and of one another.” Presumably this knowledge is not just a knowledge about, but a knowledge of. It is not just information. It is a sharing of mind unified by something like a common idea. This idea forms us. We need it for our self-fulfillment. The best cultures represent that idea best. They would seem to be the Greek, the Roman, the German, and the French. And this too. Language, unless one abstracts it from reality to the point at which it becomes a mechanical signal system, is one of the spiritual arts. It reveals reality, truth: it speaks to mind, mind responds to it. But then there must be no divorce between the sign and the thought signified. Traditional education thought of the two as a unit, so that as Shakespeare said, language can be called the discourse of reason. “I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known,” said Shakespeare. There is rationality in language.

A final emphasis. The new education makes so much of the social situation. That is good. The older education made much of the social in man also. But at this point we must be careful lest the social become again nothing more than a conditioning environment, such as the soil is to a plant. One does not get humanity, in the sense of the freedom of the human spirit, back into education, by simply assuring himself that the environment is not natural but social. For the social is hardly distinguishable from the natural if one does not acknowledge that society, human society, as distinguished from instinctively gregarious animal groups, is achieved by free consent. There must be interiority of the personal self, personal conscience, deep-seated independence if there is to be society. Hence, as Maritain puts it, the essence of education does not lie in adapting a potential citizen to the conditions and interactions of social life, but in first making man, and by this very fact in preparing a citizen. Otherwise society is a force, and man is its victim.

We Quote:

NORMAN COUSINS

Editor, The Saturday Review

The young men who designed the government of the United States—many of them were in their thirties—were a talented and influential group of joiners.… The young American giants knew how to put men and ideas together. They connected their spiritual beliefs to political action. They saw no walls separating science, philosophy, religion, and art.—In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers, Harper, 1958, p. 1.

Henry Zylstra, Professor of English at Calvin College from 1947 to 1956, was serving as Fulbright Professor of Comparative Literature at the Free University at Amsterdam at the time of his death in December 1956. He held his Ph.D. from Harvard University, had also studied at Iowa State, and was the recipient of a Ford Foundation Fellowship in 1955. This article is an excerpt from a chapter of selected writings recently published under the tittle Testament of Vision (Eerdmans).

Review of Current Religious Thought: April 28, 1958

EDWYN BEVAN (Christianity, p. 224) says that some modern Roman Catholics, speaking off the record concerning their official doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked, “teach that the punishment involves real pain, but that it is not forever, others that the punishment is really forever, but that it is not torment as pictured in the old view.” This observation is even truer of the thinking and teaching of many Protestants. In other words, the tendency of modern times has been to take punishment out of eternity or eternity out of punishment.

Quite recently some seem to be trying to take the blessedness out of eternity also. If hell is being changed into heaven, heaven is being brought down to hell. Thus Paul Tillich (“The Meaning of Joy”) finds joy and pain apparently inseparable. Moreover, for multitudes of thinkers heaven must be presently, at least, a very miserable place, or state of mind. For God, say some, suffers because of the sins of his creatures. Being an infinite being he must suffer infinitely and being omniscient he must suffer every moment. And if he, who is the glory of heaven, is infinitely miserable, it is difficult to believe that creatures, whose joy is in him, could be very happy.

The traditional churches have not changed their creeds but there can be little doubt that they have changed their preaching. Walter Lingle, I think it was, once wrote about “The No-hell Church” where that doctrine had never been mentioned for more than 20 years. How many “No-hell” churches exist no one has dared to estimate. Hell is so dreadful that the very thought of it is well-nigh unbearable. At the same time the conviction is growing that religion “without a hell” is not worth much. It seems that the church can neither live with the doctrine nor do without it.

If the orthodox have been strangely silent about what they ostensibly believe, the neo-orthodox have decisively committed themselves to universal salvation. It is an irony of history that a movement which is often called neo-Calvinism should repudiate the doctrine of particularistic election by which historic Calvinism has been distinguished. In his latest volume translated into English, (Christ and Adam.), Karl Barth’s universalism is clear and militant. Romans 5:1–11, he says, “only speaks of Jesus Christ and those who believe in him. If we read that first part of the chapter by itself, we might quite easily come to the conclusion that for Paul Christ’s manhood is significant only for those who are united to him in faith. We would then have no right to draw any conclusion about the relationship between Christ and man as such, from what Paul says about the ‘religious’ relationship between Christ and Christians. We could not then expect to find in the manhood of Christ the key to the essential nature of man.

“But in vv. 12–20 Paul does not limit his context to Christ’s relationship to believers but gives fundamentally the same account of his relationship to all men. The context is widened from church history to world history, from Christ’s relationship to Christians to his relationship to all men” (pp. 87 f.).

It may be useful to contrast the universalism of neo-orthodoxy with that of older liberalism. According to the latter, men do not deserve to be damned and therefore they do not really need to be saved. Or, if men do deserve to be damned, a loving God is morally incapable of damning them. So after their measure of suffering in this world, with or without some further temporary suffering in the next world, men are all “saved.” Neo-orthodoxy has too strong a note of orthodoxy to entertain such a view. It holds that man is sinful and does deserve the wrath of God. Only an atonement can divert that wrath. But such an atonement has been made in Christ and it has saved or justified all men whom Adam’s sin had damned. Faith is not necessary, according to Barth, to secure justification but only to experience the fruits of it. All men will sooner or later come to faith and thereby realize what they have always possessed but not previously enjoyed.

It has been characteristic of the sects to deny future punishment. Unitarianism emerged in this country basically as a protest against vindictive justice. It is true that this was not always in the foreground of the controversy, but it is probable that it was always in the background. In the debate over depravity and sacrifice and salvation, the great anxiety and offence was traceable not so much to these doctrines as to the fact that they led to vindictive and irremediable punishment. Universalism was explicitly and undoubtedly devoted to an attack on the particularism of New England eschatology. Most of the major present day sects are opposed to future punishment. Some, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, teach annihilation. The Mormons do not advocate annihilation, but most of their teaching either minimizes future punishment or says that only a handful of persons will undergo it. Christian Science, Theosophy and other pantheistic groups know of no punishment that is not either ameliorative or illusory.

Although the traditional churches have tended to be silent about endless punishment while neo-orthodoxy has gone universalistic and the sects annihilationist, there appears to be a movement back to a reaffirmation of faith in this article in our time. Carl F. H. Henry’s statement that Jonathan Edwards’ God is “angry still” is being recognized by many as true. Associate Editor Kik finds the subject important enough to write a book on Voices from Heaven and Hell, as has Buis in Doctrine of Eternal Punishment. Meanwhile Billy Graham and many others preach the doctrine around the world.

Perhaps John Sutherland Bonnell’s Heaven and Hell is more symptomatic of our time and more indicative of the general trend. While repudiating what he feels are the excessive statements of Aquinas and Edwards, there is a genuine appreciation by Bonnell of what he considers the neglected truth in this doctrine. While his book does not, in our judgment, do full justice to certain grim but undeniable realities, it is indicative of a far more candid evaluation of biblical eschatology than the naive optimism of a decadent liberalism.

This current review of live spiritual and moral issues debated in the secular and religious press of the day is prepared successively for CHRISTIANITY TODAY by four outstanding evangelical scholars: Dr. S. Barton Babbage of Australia, Professor G. C. Berkouwer of the Netherlands, Professor John H. Gerstner of the United States and Dr. Philip Edgecumbe Hughes of England.

Book Briefs: April 28, 1958

Pauline Hermeneutics

Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, by E. Earle Ellis, Eerdmans, 1957. 204 pp., $3.00.

This volume is further evidence that there is arising in this country a group of young and capable evangelical biblical scholars. Dr. Ellis has only recently (1955) completed a doctorate at the University of Edinburgh and is now Assistant Professor of Bible and Religion at Aurora College in Illinois.

Investigations of Paul’s use of the Old Testament have met with various pitfalls. One of these has been to explain everything in terms of Paul’s background in Judaism. Although one must not minimize the importance of this in any attempt to understand Paul, the fact remains that the Damascus Road experience transformed the Old Testament for him. The disciple of Gamaliel became the disciple of Christ, and this made the Old Testament a new book for Paul. Especially is it true that it is impossible to explain Paul’s principles of interpretation in terms of contemporary Judaism. But where then did Paul derive his hermeneutics?

To answer this question Ellis examines Pauline passages parallel to Christ’s teaching and to other New Testament writers and concludes that the interpretation and application of the Old Testament texts are “too varied, for the most part to support a theory of borrowing or direct dependence. The most likely explanation is that these ideas, and these ideas associated with these particular O.T. texts, were—more or less—the common property of the apostolic church.” The author rejects R. Harris’ “Testimony Book” hypothesis in favor of C. H. Dodd’s “text plots.” This theory maintains that the early Church applied an interpretive method to selected Old Testament passages which were viewed as “wholes,” and “verses were quoted from them not merely for their own significance but as pointers to the total contexts.” Who pointed out these pertinent Old Testament sections and developed the interpretive principles by which they were to be understood? Ellis follows Dodd in maintaining that it was probably Jesus himself.

Only about half of Paul’s citations follow the LXX. Of the rest, a considerable number follow other versions fully or in part. The variations cannot be accounted for on the basis of textual study. The answer is to be found in the hermeneutical principles which govern Paul’s citation of the Old Testament. The last chapter of Ellis’ book is a fascinating investigation into Pauline exegesis. This exegesis the author describes as “grammatical-historical plus.” By this is meant that although Paul does not disregard the significance of grammar and history, how he renders a passage is often determined by how he is going to apply it. Paul, in doing this, was only following the hermeneutical methods of the early Church.

Of special interest is Ellis’ application to Pauline material of the results of K. Stendahl’s investigation of the Old Testament quotations in Matthew.

This is a scholarly and definitive volume. Industry and research are everywhere present. The footnotes contain enough bibliographical data to draw up an amazingly broad and extensive New Testament bibliography.

WALTER W. WESSEL

Sermons On Church Year

The Sermon and the Propers, by Fred H. Lindemann, Concordia, 1958. Vol. I, Advent and Epiphany, 197 pp.; Vol. II, Pre-Lent to Pentecost, 243 pp., $4.00.

This is a scholarly work by a preacher who holds to the old Lutheran custom of preaching on the appointed epistles and gospels of the standard pericopal system of the Western church. Essentially these two volumes are books of sermons and outlines covering the entire historical year of the Church. The propers for each Sunday and festival, with the exception of the epistle and the gospel, are given in full.

What makes these two volumes distinctive is the introductory material, which is the same in both volumes (pages 1–14). Their purpose is frankly stated in the first sentence: “to encourage preaching according to the Church Year and in harmony with the appointed propers.”

The preacher on “free texts” will point out the lack of close correspondence in the themes of epistle and gospel on some Sundays, at least. He may ask, “Does the congregation need what is suggested by the epistle or the gospel at that particular time?” There is trouble in the church, perhaps, and a particular congregation is crying for a sermon on love, or on peace. Should we ever preach on Gospels the mere reading of which will edify the simplest as well as a 20-minute sermon could? Shall we ever preach on such a text as Galatians 4:21–31 (Fourth Sunday in Lent)? Why not substitute Romans 6:14, which is much more readily intelligible today and presents the same truths? And then, what about preaching from other pericopal systems, keeping the introit and collect of the ancient series? All other considerations aside, perhaps the answer to these questions is, as Lindemann says, that “the sermon should be in harmony with the chief thought of the day if the service is to constitute a well-rounded, purposeful whole” (italics ours). It is obvious that he has an irrefutable point there.

E. P. SCHULZE

Optimistic Eschatology

The Millennium, by Loraine Boettner. Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958. 375 pp. $4.50.

So the world is growing better—day by day and altogether! Such is the theme song of Dr. Boettner’s latest book. Here we have postmillennialism, which some of us thought had been decently buried by World Wars I and II, resurrected out of its grave and given new life in an age that nonchalantly supposed that its Armageddon was just around the next historic corner.

Not so, we are confidently informed in this book. The race is merely in its infancy. Don’t become pessimistic concerning present world conditions; they are but the sombre prelude of a majestic symphony of glory that awaits the world beyond the present gloom. It may take, of course, many centuries before that glory, through the Church’s activity, is fully (even if imperfectly) revealed.

Boettner, staunchly orthodox as he is, firmly believes, on the authority of his interpretation of Scripture, in the inevitability of the world’s betterment. This ultimate Christianized world is to be realized by the gospel of redemption—not by the emasculated “social gospel” of modernism.

In the first part of his book Boettner defends his type of postmillennialism, which turns out to be the same kind as held by such scholars as David Brown, J. H. Snowden, B. B. Warfield, and others. No new arguments are advanced in favor of this eschatological system. In his chapter entitled “The World Is Growing Better,” the author carefully cites facts supporting his view but just as carefully ignores facts detrimental to his position. The increase in the sale of the Bible and the increase in church membership prove that the world is growing better (pp. 40 ff), but why shouldn’t the astounding increase in pornographic magazines and books, not to speak of the alarming rise in juvenile delinquency, point in the direction of the degeneration of “this present evil world” (Gal. 1:4)?

In the middle portion of his work Boettner gives about 30 pages to a rather scant treatment of amillennialism. One feels here that the author would rather not “pick a fight” with this system, for he is hurrying along to the main bout—against premillennialism.

The major part of The Millennium (about 225 pages) is thus devoted to an attack on premillennialism, which the author identifies with dispensationalism, maintaining that the two systems cannot “be logically separated and kept in watertight compartments” (p. 375). His refutation of dispensational premillennialism follows the pattern already established in the writings of Mauro, Reese, and Allis.

Boettner is undoubtedly more persuasive in his interring dispensationalism than in his resurrecting postmillennialism. In fact, his postmillennialism still seems rather macabre; it refuses to come to life in the glaring light of Scripture and of history.

Quite arbitrary statements are made in defense of postmillennialism. For example, we are told that “A careful reading of Paul’s words [in 2 Thess. 2:1–12] should convince an open-minded Bible student that the antichrist and the apostasy are long since past” (p. 218). We are likewise informed that Paul’s description of “the last days” in 2 Timothy 3:1ff. refers to the time of the early days of Christianity rather than to the time preceding the Parousia. “It is illegitimate, therefore, to say that the New Testament teaches that the times will grow worse and worse” (p. 344). On the basis of this kind of interpretation, one wonders what Paul should have written in these places if he had believed that, after a temporary recession, Christianity would flourish according to the postmillennial pattern.

At times rationalizing methods of argument are used, reminding one of similar methods in Roman Catholicism. We are told that this world is very, very old; but God could not have spent all that time preparing the world if, according to premillennialism, this old world is corrupt and about to pass away. Rather, we should look for the millennial glory of the Church—so our author argues—on the assumption that God, having spent such a long time in the world’s preparation, will surely spend a millennium, more or less (probably more), in the world’s betterment (pp. 346 ff.).

Boettner’s work is quite readable; it contains long extracts from various authors; and it is as persuasive as any work on postmillennialism can be. But many readers will be inclined to believe that, in this case at least, it will be better to let postmillennialism lie in its grave until and unless we have better arguments from Scripture and from history for its resuscitation.

WICK BROOMALL

View Of The Scrolls

The Scrolls and the New Testament, edited by Krister Stendahl, Harper, 1957. 308 pp. $4.00.

For 10 years speculation and controversy have raged over the Dead Sea Scrolls. Now an attempt is being made to give a “mature summation of the verdict of original scholarship” concerning the influence of the Qumram sect on the New Testament. Fourteen essays by leading critical scholars who have worked with the Qumran texts are brought together to give the conclusions reached. The thesis of all the writers seems to be: “The abiding significance of the Qumran texts for the New Testament is that they show to what extent the primitive church, however conscious of its integrity and newness, drew upon the Essenes in matters of practices and cult, organization and constitution” (p. 87).

According to the conclusions reached by the authors, the New Testament draws most of its concepts from the Essenic Qumran sect. John the Baptist was really John the Essene who left the narrow confines of the Qumran community to proclaim the Messianic hope of the Essenes to the nation as a whole. The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount is an attempt to purify the false interpretation of the Essenes, who are in view in the words “You have heard that it hath been said.…” All the positive precepts in the discourse are adopted from Essenic teaching. The Lord’s Supper is unrelated to the Passover meal, but rather is an adaptation of the communal meal of the sect. In the New Testament Church order Essenic influence is especially prominent. The concept of the foundation of the Church by the outpouring of the Spirit, the ideas of communal sharing, communal meals, the grace of poverty, government by apostles and elders, the repudiation of the Temple, all had their origin in the Qumran community life. The thesis is presented that the connection between the Essenes and Christianity was the Hellenists, who are thought to be former members of the sect who followed John the Baptist and then left him to follow Christ, who contributed their thought to the New Testament concept.

The authors are careful not to equate Christianity with Essenism, even though they emphasize the contribution of Essenism toward the formulation of New Testament thought. They recognize that the Teacher of Righteousness differs from the scriptural concept in both the value of his death and in the contrast between the two-Messiah concept of Essenism as opposed to the biblical doctrine of one Messiah who is prophet, priest and king.

It is frequently observed that the “assured results” of critical scholarship, propounded by a critical school, are swept aside by some new theory, which comes into ascendancy and claims to speak authoritatively. Criticism seems to thrive on change. The main theses of this book illustrate how scholars will turn to a new basis in their attempt to explain the origin of the Scripture on a naturalistic basis. Essenism is presented today as the new key to unlock the sources of the New Testament. Doubtless the day will come when that which is here presented as the result of mature scholarship will give way to some new theory in turn. Such is the prospect of those who reject the scriptural doctrines of revelation and inspiration.

J. DWIGHT PENTECOST

Implementing True Love

Clinical Training for Pastoral Care, by David Belgum, Westminster, 1956. $3.00.

David Belgum is Associate Professor of Pastoral Counseling at Northwestern Lutheran Theological Seminary in Minneapolis. This book aims to be “a guide to students of pastoral care, whether they are in theological schools and clinical training centers or actively engaged in the parish ministry.”

The author indicates that the Church has always had an interest in the care of the sick. Recent trends of increased interest are encouraging because “Christianity is able to generate wholesome, constructive emotions and attitudes, as well as provide means of dealing with destructive ones.”

In the same connection, Prof. Belgum states, “Christianity, viewed psychologically, strives to equip the individual with spiritual resources to meet the stresses of life with faith, hope and love, and to provide security, purpose and wholesome interpersonal relations for his life here and now as well as for eternity” (p. 20).

The contents of chapter two, “The Health Team,” will be of primary interest to chaplains and students who are preparing for the specialized ministry of the hospital or institutional chaplaincy. Chapter three, “Resources of the Pastor,” contains many helpful psychological insights which can be instructive for pastors. For example, the author says, “Frequently, a patient will ask a seemingly academic question about some biblical character such as Job; but underneath lies the implicit question, ‘Why did this happen to me?’ Therefore, the Bible should not be used mechanically, nor administered as an injection of just so many verses at random, but rather with an alert awareness of the patient’s needs and what the biblical reference might mean for him. Then it is recognized as a living and relevant word of God to him in his individual need.”

The most valuable section of David Belgum’s book is the material found in chapter five, “Learning from Clinical Experience.” The samples of the verbatim reports are worth much and the comments on the students’ reporting are pithy and arresting.

The orientation of Dr. Belgum appears to be that of responsive counseling, an excellent aid to the counselor to help him discover “where the patient is” and to help him determine how he can best reach him. But there must also be an alert awareness for the time when the Christian pastor can seek to use “indirect direction” to bind his counselee to Christ (cf. Matt. 19:16–22 and John 4:7–26). Religious counseling orientated to the historic Christian faith must proceed from a love for and a commitment to Jesus Christ, the chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4). The pastoral obligation to bind counselees to Christ is also involved in ministerial ordination (2 Cor. 4:6 and 5:20).

WILLIAM L. HIEMSTRA

Reporter’S Account

The Healing Power of Faith, by Will Oursler, Hawthorne, New York, 1957. $4.95.

“All informed persons … would agree on one fact: since the end of the Second World War there has been a steadily increasing interest in religious healing, not only in Roman Catholic shrines and Christian Science, but also in all major Protestant faiths,” declares Will Oursler. “I have tried … to hold the reporter’s point of view” in investigating the phenomena behind this rising interest, he declares, and have deliberately limited “this work to investigation of healing falling within what is called the Christian-Judaic tradition.”

To this end Oursler reports upon a wide range of viewpoints from the general results of a survey by the National Council of Churches, the Episcopal Order of St. Luke, the Methodist “New Life Movement,” Christian Science, Roman shrines, and Oral Roberts. The report is devoted largely to the contemporary American scene. This is not a textbook in the methodology or practices of faith healing.

Though Oursler sets forth his study as a “reporter’s” work and professes “objectivity,” no one actually escapes his own bias and bent. The author’s bias is of no little import to the reader who is to place an interpretation upon the work. And knowing nothing of Oursler’s personal faith, nor as much his religious affiliation, except for an assertion in the book that he is a “Christian who believes in God and in prayer,” I would venture to say that he is a theological liberal who has been strongly influenced by the supernaturalism of neo-orthodoxy. This predisposition would seem to underlie such statements as, “Among the gifts Christ brought to man is the concept of … a love that can have no part of sickness or pain … Ancient concepts of a God of vengeance and punishment and pain are swept aside.… The illogicality of a God who punishes the individual by making him sick, but allows him to engage a physician to make him well, thereby thwarting the punishment, finds no place in the new religion.”

It is significant, I think, that few if any of the persons interviewed by Oursler can conceive of a divine purpose, much less a blessing, in illness. Most, including the author, would seem to agree with Oral Roberts, “I don’t believe it is the will of God that man be sick. It cannot be the will of God that man suffer. It cannot be the will of God that man endure poverty or despair. And nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus say or indicate that his teaching requires us to believe in a God of punishment.” Just how much of the Bible have such people read? Or accepted? Or understood?

Another common concept among faith healers of many stripes is the recognition that man must be brought into vital contact with God for the achievement of healing. This is good, but it is disturbing that none of these men or movements, at least set forth here, conceives of Jesus Christ as the essential link between God and man. One must have faith, some kind of faith, and Jesus taught about this faith. But nowhere is Christ set forth as the heart and object of this faith. Oursler himself declares, “We are told that the Kingdom of God is within us.… Thus we must seek faith within ourselves.… It is a demanding mission.… It is the exploration of the Kingdom of God of which Jesus spoke. It is where faith is found.”

Healing nonetheless does take place. “Records are available in many cases, with X-rays, statements of witnesses and hospital reports. Dismissing all of it as medical error, hypnotic suggestion or hysteria which will wear off, does not meet a scientific standard of objectivity. Psychosomatic medicine can explain some of the cures but not all.”

What shall we say then? Is this another of those areas to which too little attention has been paid by those who espouse the historic Christian faith? Should we consider seriously the words of Christ when the disciples complained, “Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followed not us: and we forbade him, because he followed not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak of me. For he that is not against us is on our part” (Mark 9:38–40). Perhaps we who think of ourselves as “orthodox, evangelical and conservative” should pay more heed to this aspect of the earthly ministry of Christ.

G. H. GIROD

Not The Christ Of Scripture

The Ontological Theology of Paul Tillich, by R. Allen Killen, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1956. $3.50.

Dr. Killen, of the Covenant Seminary in St. Louis, has done evangelical Christianity the great service of presenting the full sweep of the complex theological thought of one of the world’s leading, contemporary existentialists in systematic form, complete with an extensive evaluation. This able and comprehensive volume is his dissertation for the doctorate at the Free University of Amsterdam. It was written under the guidance of the pre-eminent, Reformed theologian, G. C. Berkouwer.

The study is divided into three parts: biography, doctrine, and critique, with the expository section being the most extensive. The attempt is to do justice to Tillich as both a philosopher and a theologian, although Killen limits himself “to his theology and to the philosophical problems which influence his system” since “his philosophy forms the foundation of his theology and therefore requires special and separate treatment which must be left for someone else to perform” (1). Any reader looking for an appropriate doctoral project, please take note.

In the biographical section, Killen offers a chronological development of Tillich’s fundamental concepts in terms of their roots in his personal experience. He credits Tillich with developing the first completely ontological philosophy; he believes that this is the reason for the great interest his system has attracted (7). While basing all theology upon philosophy, Tillich places the two disciplines in separate circles, so they cannot undermine one another: “Philosophy asks the questions and theology gives the answers” (7). Killen notes that a thorough study of his system reveals that it is actually philosophy that does all the talking (8). “Tillich applies his ontological philosophy to theology but he does not systematically develop the individual doctrines of theology, nor the ontological philosophy itself” (9).

In the second and main section of the volume, Killen outlines Tillich’s views on the main doctrines of Christianity: revelation, truth, God, Christ, evil, and eschatology. He shows how his concepts of Being and Non-Being underlie all these doctrines and he deals with some of the problems that grow out of Tillich’s transcendental philosophy. Since there is not space in a short review to deal even in general with this extended exposition and accompanying criticism, we shall turn to Killen’s over-all evaluation of Tillich’s theology.

Part III is entirely critical. Here he sums up the best and the worst that he can say for Tillich. He returns to each of the separate doctrines discussed in Part II and considers the main points involved. Before he does this, however, he deals with what he judges to be the key problem in Tillich’s system: truth. Only God is absolute, therefore, truth is only relative (206). Yet, Tillich believes that he escapes a thorough-going relativism in two ways: first, he understands dynamic, changing truth to be “a correlation of the existential situation and the Logos principle in God, and which he calls truth in the kairos”; second, he attempts to solve the moral dilemma consequent upon relative truth by asserting that truth is absolute but only in and for the moment it fits into its corresponding kairos, and it is dynamic since it advances to different kairoi (206–7).

Man can existentially transcend the dilemma of relativism-absolutism by making his decisions in reference to truths of revelation and metaphysics, in love; however, the decisions thus reached are not eternally valid since each correlation is only for its contemporary situation (207–8). The trouble with fundamentalism, says Tillich, is that it attempts to live on the basis of past and thus no longer valid correlations (208). What is the valid correlation for today?—the “New Being in Jesus Christ” (208). For tomorrow?—perhaps Tillich’s view of the dynamic God (cf. Being, Non-Being, and the Power of being) will be replaced by a fundamentalism suddenly up-to-date! Certainly, Tillich’s thinly disguised relativism cannot deny the possibility.

Killen’s conclusion is no overstatement: “Christ as the truth, and the revelation of truth in the Bible, cannot be separated, for as soon as they are separated Christ himself is lost. The Christ which Tillich produces is not the Christ of the Bible” (239–240).

LLOYD F. DEAN

Protestantism In U. S.

The Spirit of American Christianity, Ronald E. Osborn, Harper, 1958. $3.75.

One interested in understanding the complexity of American Christianity will find help from this book. Its purpose is not to present a systematic treatment of theology nor church history, but to discover “the reasons for the distinct quality” of American denominations and to appraise their ecumenical significance.

The work is slanted to non-Americans, but will be read with interest in this country as well.

A more accurate title for the book might have been “The Spirit of American Protestantism,” since only a passing notice has been given to the activities of non-Protestant groups. The author draws heavily upon his own experiences as a member of the Disciples of Christ in which he has served as pastor, editor and professor. One feels, though, that he has been fair and objective in the treating of his subject.

Since American Christianity grew up in the atmosphere of religious freedom, all groups have “had to make headway up the same stream.” With no favored religion present, there has resulted a feeling of personal responsibility for the support of the church, a necessity for evangelism and a personal identification between pastor and people.

In appraising recent developments, Professor Osborn points out that liberalism came as a reaction against a traditional faith which had lost its vigor amid the scientific age. To correct the extreme humanism of the liberal movement, fundamentalism appeared on the scene and restored the place and dignity of Jesus in the Christian faith. Neo-orthodoxy seems, in the mind of the author, to be bringing the whole of man’s endeavors under the scrutiny of Christian criticism which liberalism failed to do.

Professor Osborn is disturbed by the so-called revival in America. He is not pessimistic about it, but warns against the power of conformity which would cause persons to join church just because it is the popular thing to do.

RICHARD L. JAMES

Guidance In Music

Church Music Comes of Age, by Ruth Nininger, Carl Fischer, New York, 1957. $4.00.

Ruth Nininger’s first published book, Growing a Musical Church, appeared more than a decade ago (1947) and enjoyed a good sale. The present volume of 157 pages is a guide for pastors, church musicians, and workers in the field of religious education. A native of Little Rock, Arkansas, and educated at Westminister Choir School, Princeton, New Jersey, Miss Nininger brings wide experience in church music to the writing of this book.

Twelve chapters cover topics such as congregational singing, the “minister’s viewpoint,” selection of a choir director, and the training of graded choirs. The author obtained much material directly from church musicians and pastors by correspondence. Such material appears frequently in the book. An example is the 28-page listing of suggested choir anthems and organ music found at the close of the book (pp. 129–157). The style of the book would have been improved had the extensive excerpts from letters in chapters VI, IX and XI been incorporated within the text itself.

Basic thesis of Church Music Comes of Age is that in the last 10 years great progress in choir and congregational singing has taken place in American churches. Suggestions and sample programs are given as a means of promoting further progress. Although experienced musicians will have limited reason to learn from this book, church musicians with less experience and laymen may find it helpful.

DICK L. VAN HALSEMA

The Prophets: Liberal View

The Prophets: Pioneers to Christianity, by Walter G. Williams. Abingdon, New York. 1956. $3.50.

The author of this volume is professor of Old Testament Literature at the Iliff School of Theology, Denver, Colorado. This book purports to show the indebtedness of Christianity to the Old Testament prophets. We are indeed aware of our deep obligation to these faithful servants of the Lord, as God has made them known to us in Scripture. However, the portrayal of the prophets as given us by Dr. Williams seems quite different from that which has been given us by God.

I find myself in continuous disagreement with Dr. Williams. He makes many statements that any self-respecting and consistent conservative would reject. For example, he declares that he does not believe there is any theology in the Old Testament. To speak of the Old Testament as pre-Christian literature is said to be misleading. The laws of God, the covenants and the prophecies are not presented as revelations given by God, but rather the results of the development of an evolution of religion and of personal and national experience. The story of creation as set forth in Scripture is traced to the efforts of a priest who rewrote a polytheistic poem.

Part Two of the book is titled, “Man Discovers God.” The idea of God revealing himself to man is summarily dismissed. Monotheism is said to be a highly developed concept. It seems at times that nothing the Christian holds dear shall escape the destructive pen of the author. The miraculous element comes in for its share of twisting. The miracles of Elijah are called “mimetic magic.” He states that he thinks it strange that Elijah during his contest with the prophets of Baal should resort, as he says, to magical techniques. Hosea would undoubtedly be surprised to learn that, according to the writer, he learned of the love of God through an observance of Baalism.

Consistently adhered to is the liberal theological explanation of Scripture—from error to less error, but never seemingly arriving at the truth. Here are but a few more of the unacceptable presentations: Abraham’s offering of Isaac was but the following of a religious precedent in which the first-born was regularly sacrificed to Deity. There are said to be at least two Isaiahs. The Book of Daniel receives the late dating of two hundred B.C. Dr. Williams belittles future significance to prophetic utterances, declaring that the prophets were not interested in distant events.

The key to the author’s thought seems to be found in experience or pragmatism. The prophets and Jesus were said not to have been orthodox because they could not appeal to history but rather, because they appealed to their own experiences.

When you have finished reading the book you realize that many things the historic Christian Church has held precious have been attacked, e.g. the plenary and verbal inspiration of the Scriptures and the infallibility and authority of Holy Scripture as set forth in the Old and New Testaments. We might continue, for certainly this does not exhaust the list. The author is to be commended in the fact that he does not permit the reader to remain in doubt concerning his liberal theological position. The conclusion of the book reveals the basic point of view of Dr. Williams: “Theologians must build their systems of religion from the experiences that are common to all men.” This is obviously pragmatism.

It should be quite clear that I do not recommend this book but rather reject it as being out of accord with the Word of God and with the Christian faith.

E. WESLEY GREGSON, SR.

Gospel Portraits

They Knew Jesus, by George W. Cornell, Morrow, New York, 1957. 288 pp., $3.75.

Because of their human appeal, studies of biblical characters, if well done, always stimulate interest. The present volume by the religion editor of the Associated Press, however, does much more than stimulate the reader’s interest. It stirs the depths of one’s soul.

In 24 exciting chapters (two are given to Mary of Nazareth), Cornell sketches 23 of the greater and lesser persons who, for good or for ill, came face to face with Jesus Christ in the days of his flesh. An epilogue is devoted to Saul of Tarsus.

The author has based his studies on careful historical research among extra-biblical sources, as well as the New Testament; and thus he probes beneath the surface of the sacred text and behind the actions and attitudes of his subjects. His interpretations reflect a large measure of human understanding and sympathy which enable him to set in a new light individuals like Thomas, who have long been seen through the eyes of prejudice and misunderstanding. He writes in the dramatic style of an on-the-scene-reporter. His treatment is faithful to the biblical record, it is reverent, and is colored by restrained imagination.

But this book is not only an analysis of characters who knew Jesus. It is pre-eminently a portrait of our Lord himself, for his shadow is cast across the lives of those who speak from these pages. Actually, what we have here is a step-by-step account of the life and ministry of Jesus which come to a crashing climax in the darkness of Calvary and the radiance of the empty tomb.

The reading of this book will help the preacher to vivify his sermons and the layman to catch something of the realism of the Gospels. It is especially appropriate to the Lenten season.

RICHARD ALLEN BODEY

Meditations

Journey to Easter, by Laurence N. Field. Augsburg, Minneapolis, 1957. $2.00.

This book of 46 brief meditations for the Lenten season, designed for use in daily devotions and family worship, achieves its purpose admirably. An appreciation of the purpose and design of the volume can be gained by quoting from the author’s own foreword: “The many events, concentrated as they are pretty much into the last night and day of our Lord’s suffering, are not easy to spread out over 46 days and keep the proper order intact. And the six Sundays of Lent, with their texts, are anything but amenable to chronological regimentation. Nor is the exact sequence completely agreed on by scholars. But surely this does not matter a great deal, since the Bible has left it so. We make therefore no apologies for an occasional aberation, and only ask the reader’s indulgence. We have spread plot and chronology over a period of 46 days, in presenting the divine epic that transcends them both! We have striven to make the sermonettes brief, simple, and personal. We hope that this will make them more graphic and helpful.”

Written in crisp, concise style these meditations will catch the readers’ interest and stimulate his thinking on many significant themes of sacred history. As musician and hymnologist the author reveals his broad familiarity with music and poetry. The prayers at the close of each meditation are well adapted for inducing true worship.

The value and charm of this book are enhanced by the manner in which it reveals the personality of the writer. Dr. Field is known as a whole-souled forthright individual, impatient with cant and pretense and dominantly a man of action. As a consequence his writing at times lacks the smoothness one is accustomed to find in devotional literature. Yet this in no wise detracts from the usefulness of the book, but rather helps to stimulate and hold the reader’s interest. The man in the pulpit will find here seed thoughts for many telling sermons.

ERIC EDWIN PAULSON

Evangelicals Look to Their Heritage

While Chicago was shyly emerging into springtime, National Association of Evangelicals met April 14–18, to bask in recent evangelistic and theological gains in American life. By its 16th convention, NAE—“a service organization, a fellowship of believers, and a means of identification”—had gathered 41 cooperating denominations into its orbit and spawned an impressive array of affiliated agencies (Evangelical Foreign Missions Associations, National Association of Christian Schools, National Sunday School Association, National Religious Broadcasters, and many others). The Chicago gathering was unproductive of spectacular achievements, but 1,000 churchmen and lay delegates shared a common faith and fellowship that vigorous leadership could weld to a crusading spirit.

Behind the scenes conferences in Hotel Sherman were almost as plenteous as public sessions. Off-the-record discussion of ecumenism closeted some of NAE’s past presidents (Harold John Ockenga, Bishop Leslie R. Marston, Stephen W. Paine, Paul S. Rees, R. L. Decker, Frederick C. Fowler, and H. H. Savage) in an unofficial way with churchmen whose denominations (like Southern Baptists, Missouri Lutherans, Christian Reformed) make up some 22 million evangelicals outside both the National Council of Churches and NAE. Twenty additional churches and five organizations were accepted into NAE membership.

Mekeel New President

New president is Dr. Herbert S. Mekeel, pastor for two decades of First Presbyterian Church of Schenectady, New York.

Also named: first vice-president, Dr. Thomas F. Zimmerman, of the General Council of the Assemblies of God, Springfield, Missouri; second vice-president, Dr. Charles Seidenspinner, president of Southeastern Bible College, Birmingham, Alabama; secretary, Cordas E. Burnett, Springfield, Missouri; treasurer, Robert C. Van Kampen, of Wheaton, Illinois.

The Rev. Fred G. Ferris was appointed Executive Secretary of World Evangelical Fellowship; Dr. J. Elwin Wright remains as honorary chairman. Moving from Boston, WEF dedicated new Chicago headquarters at 108 North Dearborn during the convention.

Retiring Leader’S Appraisal

Dr. Paul P. Petticord, retiring president, depicted evangelical Christians as “a remnant of spiritual unity upon which to build anew the Christian character of the United States.” The nation presently is “vulnerable,” he said, “and lacking in power to generate the moral and spiritual integrity necessary to inaugurate a crusading spirit against the enemies of unrighteousness.”

Dr. Petticord stressed that NAE was born not “to combat someone or some organization,” nor “to penetrate or infiltrate National Council of Churches or organizations for the purpose of dividing its forces,” but to make possible an evangelical witness in the face of liberal Protestant challenge and opposition. “The NAE is not a splinter group from the NCC … the reverse is true. Liberals withdrew from the original Evangelical Alliance because they found themselves in the minority and without hope of changing the theology … therefore, they formed … the ‘Open Church League’which in 1900 became the National Federation of Churches of Christ in America and in 1950 became the NCC.… The NAE … went back to the original Evangelical Alliance for a basis of cooperation.”

A Bare Sketch

While identifying the evangelical movement as “a positive effort, an advance” Dr. Petticord’s address sketched positive principles only in a bare way. (“The evangelical does not seek unity, he has unity, he possesses it in Christ”; “In the body of Christ not only are God and man reconciled but those afar off socially are brought near. Racial inequality ends.…”)

His appraisal in fact, fixed an eye on NCC strategy and on the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. “To assume that the day of controversy is over is only wishful thinking … and I would say … that ‘We dare to open the controversy again.’ ” The new theological attack, he said, is “against the Word of God, the Bible as the final authority and against the person of Christ.”

Dr. Petticord depicted ecumenical inclusivism as a scheme to frustrate evangelical belief. “Theological liberalism attempted to destroy evangelicalism, now neo-orthodoxy wants to contain evangelicalism.” He cited Walter Marshall Horton’s Toward a Reborn Church (1949) for “the long view” of ecumenism. [Horton writes: “I do not believe the leaders of the ecumenical movement are going to be able to change the feelings or allay the suspicions of these Conservative Evangelicals sufficiently to bring them into the IMC or the World Council in the near future; but they can do two things which may make future reconciliation possible:

One, keep in personal touch with the evangelical leaders, answering their sometimes captious criticisms with patience and not with scorn; and two, conduct evangelistic campaigns and world missions with an earnestness which their rivals cannot fail to respect and a constant willingness to collaborate on particular evangelistic projects.

Eventual Unity?

A generation of such tolerance and respectful relations might actually lead to unity.…”] Dr. Petticord commented: “This method of attack suggested by Dr. Horton has been followed very carefully, even to this present hour.… Possibly the most popular method of limiting and ameliorating the evangelical witness is to place the evangelical in compromising positions while complimenting him on his fundamental theology.… While a few evangelicals are generously treated the rank and file … are denied such privileges. This is all clearly evident when we enter the fields of comity, radio and television.” He warned that “almost all” who join “with the idea of redeeming a segment” of NCC are “swallowed up in the whole, and even though their personal voice is still evangelical, their affiliation seems to nullify their witness because the predominant voice is in another direction.…”

Dr. Stephen W. Paine, president of Houghton College, delivered a study of “Christian cooperation” comparing and contrasting NCC and NAE. He criticized the “Federal Council-National Council” for “lack of interest in Christian theology,” its historical opposition to a “straightforward evangelical basis of faith,” and its tradition of liberal leadership; for preoccupation with economic and social problems, often deferring to a planned economy and other collectivistic concepts; for concern for political influence and persistent public pronouncements on subjects only distantly related to the church’s primary mission; for its “monopolistic and illiberal” attitude toward religious broadcasting; and for its endeavor to capture the world missionary movement for inclusive ecumenism.

Graham’S Plea A Climax

Dr. Petticord hailed evangelist Billy Graham’s ministry as “another evidence of the resurgence of evangelical faith.” He commented that “most converts of recent Graham campaigns have come from churches belonging to the NCC.” (“I would assume that … many people in Protestant churches today … have little knowledge of the new birth”).

Graham personally addressed the convention’s closing luncheon and gave a stirring call for evangelical and evangelistic impact of the present social crisis. The convention featured an all-night prayer meeting for his San Francisco campaign. The previous midnight, NAE’s board of administration was on its knees in prayer both for Graham and his critics.

Convention resolutions expressed the movement’s concern over the spread of obscene literature, the imposition of minimum wage laws on volunteer religious workers, the growing pressures on evangelical broadcasts and liquor advertising on television.

Some of America’s foremost pulpiteers, aswell as Christian leaders in other spheres of vocation, were program participants and shaped the evangelistic and devotional convention mood: Billy Graham, Robert G. Lee, Harold John Ockenga, Wilbur M. Smith, Leon Sullivan, Richard Woike, J. Edwin Orr. Smith said that the hopes that this century would usher in a new age of Holy Spirit have thus far been disappointing.

C.F.H.H.

Canada

Taking Sides

Dr. James S. Thomson, moderator of the United Church of Canada, says he would like to see the Dominion be neutral in any future global war.

He said a start toward the outlawing of war had to be made somewhere, and as a leader of small nations it was fitting for Canada to tell the large nations “where to get off.”

No one could win today’s style of war, Thomson added, and “it was time somebody stood up and said: In the name of God, war is not the way.”

Prayerful Prediction

“If what I have seen in Calgary is indicative of Canadian crusading, and if the many, many calls I have received from the Dominion of Canada are any indication of coming events, I would prayerfully predict the beginning of a miracle-harvest in the land of our northern neighbors.”

So summarized American evangelist Merv Rosell after a two-week campaign drew capacity crowds to Calgary’s Jubilee Auditorium despite a Manitoba cold wave which dropped the mercury below zero.

Europe

Distaff Ordination

The Swedish Parliament approved a bill authorizing the ordination of women in the state Lutheran church. The bill cannot become law, however, until approved by the Lutheran Church Convocation, which holds a veto power over legislation which affects it.

The measure climaxing a 39-year legislative fight would permit women to receive the priestly office in the state church as of July, 1959. Action by the convocation is expected in a special session next fall.

Last year, the convocation voted 62 to 36 against the ordination of women.

Any more vetos may touch off drives to abolish the veto privilege of the convocation. Demands may even rise to divorce church and state.

The fight for the ordination of women first began in 1919.

The Right To Meet

Religious News Service says that Italian Protestants are seen to benefit by Constitutional Court decisions upholding the right to public assembly.

The decisions of the court, highest in constitutional matters, involves the Italian charter of 1948 which grants freedom of peaceful assembly in places open to the public.

The court ruled that an article of the charter must prevail over another in police laws of 1931 which required police authorization for such gatherings.

A spokesman for the Federal Council of Italian Evangelical Churches was quoted as saying that the court’s decisions were handed down in cases not directly involving Protestants. However, he said, they had a positive bearing on the life of the Italian evangelical communities “because there have been many manifestations of police intolerance of evangelical gatherings.”

Africa

Over A Barrel?

To what extent should missionary efforts be devoted to secular aspects of education?

Missions in Congo are wondering how far Christian education should go. The schools on the field present great opportunity for evangelism, but the secular trimmings are getting ever more costly in time, effort and money.

It is not a question of whether to support education, for no church can be expected to grow in an illiterate society. But how much education?

Years ago, the little class sitting in the sand under a palm tree was nothing more than a novelty. Interest was limited, for few cared about laborious study which seemed to hold no reward for the man in the bush.

It took the impetus of developing commerce after World War I to make Congolese youth realize that even a meager education was a paying proposition. There was a demand for clerks and salesmen, not to mention the prestige of being part of the “educated” class.

Missionaries generally were glad to see the influx of youth into the schools. Chiefs came from afar demanding teachers. Christian instruction blossomed.

But as the schools grew, costs rose. Then came the depression and it became increasingly difficult to carry on educational activities.

Roman Catholic schools won subsidies from the government for “national” missions starting in 1925. Non-Catholics missed out until after World War II and the change to a liberal-socialist government in Belgium.

Protestants had been hard-pressed until official government recognition and financial help came. Education costs were soaring far beyond limited missions budgets. Diplomas awarded were worthless to job seekers because the government had not accredited the institutions.

Finally came accreditation, but with it responsibilities. Teachers required more training to meet government standards, basically desirable though expensive. Curricula had to be formulated to suit government specifications. Courses had to be programmed, text books printed, reports submitted. All this for a chance to present the Gospel.

How much do missions contribute to the educational system in Congo? Roman Catholic sources say a government school costs four times as much as individual subsidies to mission institutions which accomplish comparable educational ends.

Finances are not the only concern, for missionaries now find themselves spending more and more time in educational activities removed from direct spiritual instruction. Children’s workers who came to the field to tell dark-skinned youngsters about Jesus are teaching them to count instead. Ministers who gave up comfortable parishes in America to take the Gospel to unreached tribes are occupied with reading and writing instruction. One small secondary school requires the efforts of at least four missionary couples.

Then with increasing interest in education comes the need for specialized schools and colleges. Belgian Congo has only two universities, one run by the government, the other by Catholics.

In most of Africa the opportunity for evangelism is unprecedented. How to meet this chance is a principle which demands comparison with the question of who holds the responsibility of public education. Missionaries are eager to establish a solid indigenous church. They must have schools to take advantage of the present opportunity. Yet they must weigh their investments into purely secular phases of instruction.

Is it worth the time and expense of carrying out unlimited secular education to be able to preach the Gospel to students? Should the missionary be obliged to work for the government in order to have an effective witness? Protestant missions in the Belgian Congo must decide where to draw the line.

Daughter To Sister

The Evangelical Church of Egypt came of age last month.

In Cairo’s historic Ezbekia Church, where the first Evangelical congregation was organized 96 years ago, the bang of a gavel opened the first formal meeting of the Synod of the Nile since its break with the United Presbyterian Church of North America.

Now the Synod, largest and oldest of the Protestant community in Egypt, is a sister church to the United Presbyterian movement which mothered it.

The Evangelical Church today has nearly 30,000 members and many more adherents in some 200 congregations throughout Egypt, led by 175 pastors and lay evangelists. Cairo is labeled “the third largest United Presbyterian city in the world,” giving way only to Philadelphia and Pittsburgh in number of members.

In keeping with nationalistic spirit, Egyptian United Presbyterians last year petitioned the denomination’s General Assembly for permission to change from a Synod into an independent Evangelical Church. The permission was granted, and a number of Presbyterian officials in America were commissioned to witness the initial gathering of the separated sister church. Among those on hand were Dr. Robert N. Montgomery, president of Muskingum College and moderator of the General Assembly, and Dr. Park Johnson, field representative of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church of the U.S.A., with which the United Presbyterian Church is merging.

At the meeting, delegates elected the Rev. Labib Mishriky as its moderator for 1958.

The American United Presbyterian Mission in Cairo will continue liaison activities.

Korea

A Korean First

The first honorary doctorate ever conferred upon a missionary by a Korean government university was given last month to Mrs. Archibald Campbell of the Presbyterian mission in Taegu by Kyong Pook University for outstanding service in education.

Her citation for the degree of doctor of literature reads, “Distinguished educator … in the religious, academic and humanitarian institutions of our land; distiller of the joy of learning; inspirer of the love of scholarship; able interpreter and teacher of the English Bible; generous benefactress of the orphaned and unfortunate; exemplar mother and loyal co-worker with her missionary husband; erudite instructor …; for forty years the devoted friend of the people of Korea.…”

Mrs. Campbell is the wife of Dr. Archibald Campbell, president of Keimyong Christian College and a former president of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary now located in Seoul. The couple is retiring this year.

S. H. M.

Resurgence of the Sunday Laws

NEWS

Christianity in the World Today

Reports from all over the nation confirm renewed interest and increasing activity over the question of Sunday business. Merchants who want to operate seven days a week are meeting stiff opposition from forces who seek new Sunday legislation and enforcement of similar existing laws.

The New Jersey State Assembly was ready for a keen floor struggle on a bill for stricter Sunday legislation. The Sunday opening of 200 supermarkets in the Detroit area was suspended following mounting remonstrances by church groups.

In Toledo, Ohio, Big Bear chain stores tried Sunday business for a month, then closed with the statement that “Sunday should be a day of worship, rest and recreation—a together-time—for our employees as well as our customers. We believe sales gains—in dollars and cents—are less important than the well-being and high morale of our associates and customers. We want our friends and customers to know that we tried it and don’t like it. We urge our competitors who are still open on Sunday to review their position and arrive at the ‘right’ answer.” A Toledo Real Estate Board survey showed 85 per cent of local realty firms opposed to keeping houses open for inspection on Sunday.

In New York, the National Retail Merchant Association came out against the opening of major stores on Sundays, excepting “those primarily engaged in selling articles absolutely necessary to the health and welfare of the community.”

Sunday business is rising rapidly as a leading issue in American political, social, and religious life. The pros and cons were joined this month in unique fashion when the matter was debated on the American Religious Town Hall Meeting, a nationwide telecast which brings together clergymen of different faiths to discuss “important questions affecting human rights and the dignity of man.” Seven programs were filmed in the Academy of Music and Congress Hall, Independence Square, in Philadelphia, for future release. Thirteen panelists, representing Protestants, Roman Catholics and Jews, and including officials of the Lord’s Day Alliance, participated in the discussions.

The general lines of debate found Dr. Frank H. Yost, Seventh-day Adventist editor of Liberty magazine, joining Jewish rabbis against his fellow Christians, a familiar if anomalous procedure. Panelists engaged themselves in such vigorous and heated exchanges that permanent program moderator Bishop A. A. Leiske, Seventh-day Adventist, expressed supreme confidence that no slump in listener ratings would result from the series. Indeed, the audience, heavily Adventist in sympathy, had to be verbally restrained from the platform. Seeking to quiet the panel at one point, Bishop Leiske intoned, “Now, we’re all Christians here” at which pronouncement the rabbi on the panel managed to conceal any surprise or amusement he may have felt. The charge was later made that the bishop had not wholly succeeded in the rather formidable assignment for an Adventist of keeping his comments entirely neutral as the Sabbath debate swirled about him. He likened his experience to that of Daniel in the den of lions.

The program topics, having been worked out within an orderly thought progression, manifested careful planning. Broader aspects of the problem were first considered, such as the separation of church and state, a principle agreed upon by nearly all Americans, who then proceed to evolve countless variations on the doctrine by differing as to the degree of separation which is to exist.

Dr. Clifford A. Nelson, Lutheran minister, declared that complete separation, toward divorcing religion from the state, was impossible. A sacred relation exists between them, he said, for “God is the author of liberty.” The Rev. Melvin M. Forney, general secretary of the Lord’s Day Alliance of the United States, pointed out that this country’s founding fathers, while establishing no single church, did place chaplains in the army and navy, enact Sunday legislation, and the like. The individuals composing the state had to express their convictions in the state.

On the other hand, Dr. Yost and Rabbi Arthur J. S. Rosenbaum, one of three Pennsylvania rabbis participating, called for as complete separation as possible. Dr. Yost would allow chaplains to teach “spiritual ethics” only, which seemed meager fare to the other Christians on the panel. Mr. Forney quoted William Penn, “Unless men are governed by God they will be ruled by tyrants.” Dr. J. Ernest Somerville, transplanted Scots Presbyterian minister, wanted it emphasized that church-state separation was not an eternal verity in the same category with basic Christian doctrine. “I know a land where the two are not separate and neither has been harmed thereby.”

Another question debated was whether the state is supreme over conscience. Methodist District Superintendent Ira B. Allen affirmed this to be so upon certain occasions when man’s conscience is untrustworthy, as when it would allow theft. Dr. Somerville said that while the state was not supreme over conscience, it often must stand in judgment upon it. Dr. Yost and Rabbi Rosenbaum held that the state has no control over conscience, though the former admitted that when conscience worked itself out in activity it was subject to as little government control as possible.

Next on the agenda was the question as to whether the state should foster religion. Baptist minister Mahlon W. Pomeroy averred that the state should provide an atmosphere where religion and worship can flourish. “The state must foster religion,” agreed Dr. Ellsworth Jackson, President of the Lord’s Day Alliance of Pennsylvania and Presbyterian minister of Philadelphia, for the state is “ordained of God.” It has “moral personality” derived from those who compose it. “Forty-two of our State constitutions acknowledge God.”

“The state must either foster religion or atheism,” continued the Rev. James H. Brasher, a Philadelphia Methodist minister. The state will “serve God or the devil,” and our coins say, “In God We Trust.” Dr. Yost expressed himself as being in favor of removing this inscription from our money, saying that religion is a “personal thing” and the government intrudes only at “great peril.” Dr. Jackson retorted that the state “cannot be neutral” and in fact already is fostering religion by such acts as governing the proximity of saloons to churches.

It was then asked whether the United States should be considered a Christian nation. Judge Anthony W. Daly, Roman Catholic from Alton, Illinois, stated that while the majority of those in our country are Christians, the government could not be so considered, being limited to the civil and moral realms. Mr. Forney, on the other hand, pointed out that the nation was named Christian in a Supreme Court decision never reversed. Dr. Somerville saw our government principles growing out of the Christian faith, while Rabbi Harold B. Waintrup declared that “we are Judeo-Christian inspired, though not having a Christian government as such.”

Mr. Allen claimed we were not Christian inasmuch as we worship gods like Mars and Bacchus. Dr. Somerville immediately interposed the distinction between perfectionism and Christian discipleship. America is not perfect, but as Sir Winston Churchill has said, she is noted for having committed some of the “least sordid” acts of human history.

A Call To Voters

On the issue as to whether there should be a religious test for public office, Dr. Yost said that such was disallowed by the Constitution. Sidney Orlofsky, Jewish lawyer of Philadelphia, opposed himself to “saints by law and hypocrites by action,” placing the burden on the churches and synagogues to make the voter religious. Mr. Pomeroy called for the voters to elect men of religious backgrounds and thus possessed of rootage for high ethical principles. “A man’s faith in God,” affirmed Dr. Jackson, “will guard him against corrupting influences.”

The debate which all awaited was of course whether or not America should repeal all her blue laws (named originally for the color of paper on which they were written), or whether it was right to establish a Sabbath by legislation. Adventist minister and announcer Dr. Horace J. Shaw emphasized the importance of the issue by declaring that the future freedom of Philadelphia may hinge on the answer given. Dr. Yost began the discussion by condemning the Sunday ordinances as “discriminatory, unfair, and unenforceable.” Being religious in nature, they are no rightful concern of the state for “there should be no law to direct religion.” Does not the Constitution “forbid the establishment of religion?” Therefore, these laws “should all be repealed.” Rabbi Waintrup named the laws “illegal.”

Far from being such, countered Mr. Forney, the constitutionality of the laws has been upheld as recently as 1957, and before that by the Supreme Court as well as by many state supreme courts. These are civil laws and “have been a part of our way of life from our earliest days,” he continued, “with the first thirteen states adopting such regulations, while today all of the forty-eight states, save only Nevada, have some kind of Sunday laws on their books.”

Preserving The Sabbath

Mr. Allen warned that “no nation can long survive when it tramples the Sabbath as does America” and pointed to French national decay in a period when she did away with the Sabbath. Dr. Nelson explained that man’s need for a rest day in seven is part of his nature as constituted by God. Thus while he is opposed to legalism, he sees the necessity of safeguarding a rest day for the working man by law.

Judge Daly would amend the laws rather than repeal them all. He looks on them as providing not a holy day but a day of rest. Replying to Rabbi Waintrup’s cry of “smokescreen,” Mr. Daly pointed out that the courts have upheld the Sabbath laws on health grounds.

Mr. Pomeroy sees an alleviating factor in the whole situation through the growing universality of the five-day week, which will leave both Saturday and Sunday free for worship. To destroy Sunday, he claims, is to work an unfair advantage in competition against the Christian businessman.

Mr. Brasher pointed out that in opposition to a tyranny of the minority, the majority has a right to its Sabbath and the laws to protect it. “Just any old day becomes no day at all, and the dyke is down before the wave of paganism and godlessness that sweeps in.” With prophetic fervor, Dr. Jackson proclaimed that the Sabbath is ours by divine right, having been included in the Decalogue which was given to Moses, a civil leader. “Our forefathers accepted this, and far from proving a limitation upon freedom, America became known as a haven of liberty around the world. Immigrants knew of the laws here and came anyway in search of freedom. Nowhere in the world are minorities treated better than in this country.” What limitations there may be (and he discovered some as a member of a minority group in Israel during the Sabbath), these are more than compensated for in countless ways.

One of the most frequently heard criticisms of the foregoing debates was the inadequacy of the period of 28½ minutes for six men properly to present their convictions on large subjects. Though it may come as a surprise to some that once one has announced his belief in church-state separation, there is still more to be said.

Indeed, here is one of the most difficult problems of Christian social ethics, plaguing scholars since first enunciation of the “rendering unto Caesar and Christ principle.” The Sunday laws are a part of this problem, all the more so because of their surprising latter-day resurgence. For better or for worse, they are a part of the American heritage, and they place us now in the stance of decision. Do they simply constitute a legalistic anachronism with which we should do away as soon as feasible, or do they provide a vital part of a disciplined check upon materialism which paradoxically has enabled the English-speaking peoples around the world to enjoy the highest living standards attained by men. De Tocqueville saw in the nineteenth-century American Sabbath one of the chief secrets of American greatness.

A Broader Context

In any case, before sacrificing a part of this country’s heritage for a doctrine of church-state separation which our fathers did not envision, it would seem to behoove the populace to do some very serious thinking. No less a nineteenth-century theologian than Charles Hodge devoted considerable space in his Systematic Theology to a vindication of the Sunday laws. And he saw the issue within a broader context. He saw the gross oversimplification of the human situation in holding forth the ideal of a complete separation of religion and state. He saw the goal of moral government apart from religion as unrealistic and unattainable. And he saw the impossibility of a neutral state. Secularism and naturalism are not neutral. Can a state long survive, regardless of the number of Christians it contains, when it officially snubs God?

As this question gains greater prominence, the Christian will be called upon to re-examine his own keeping of the Lord’s Day, remembering Voltaire’s aphorism, “As long as the Sabbath remains, the Christian religion can never be destroyed.” But let it not be a Sabbath simply of abstention. Rather, let every Sunday be an Easter Sunday!

F. F.

A Bridge To Cross

This week the San Francisco Bay area seemed closer than ever to spiritual revival.

Would the “city by the Golden Gate” span the hiatus between an eight-week evangelistic campaign and a true spiritual awakening? Does the April 27 opening of the San Francisco Bay Cities Crusade signal the start of the West Coast’s first big moving of the Spirit of God?

Not even the evangelist could answer those questions.

“Certainly the possibilities are there,” said Billy Graham as he prepared for the nightly meetings at the 18,000-seat Cow Palace, so called because of its association with livestock exhibitions.

For about the past 10 years, according to Graham, revival prayer groups composed of ministers and laymen have been meeting throughout the bay area.

Prayer interest, moreover, virtually snowballed as the crusade drew near. Throughout April, more than 3,000 prayer groups met four times a week in homes and offices. All-night prayer meetings were scheduled in a church in each of 11 bay area cities. A local radio station was carrying daily prayer broadcasts.

“We appeal to Christians everywhere to unite with us in intercession for this crusade,” said the Rev. George E. Bostrom, prayer chairman.

Truly the course was charted, as sensed by Graham: “The preparations are by far the most encouraging we have ever experienced.”

The 5,000 counsellor trainees, among them many ministers, busied themselves with six weekly meetings devoted to methods of personal evangelism. The fact that the number of counsellor volunteers continued to increase as the crusade drew near was another unprecedented development.

The Crusade Executive Committee headed by Dr. Sandford Fleming, president emeritus of Berkeley Baptist Divinity School, met every Tuesday at 8 a.m. Pre-crusade meetings for choir members and ushers also were scheduled along with prayer instruction assemblies.

The 1200 cooperating churches represented a wide area of northern California. (In San Francisco itself there are a total of about 430 churches. Not all of them are cooperating in the crusade.) Graham said church support surpassed that of last summer’s New York Crusade.

This Saturday night, the first of a series of telecasts was planned to bring the crusade into the homes of millions across America via the American Broadcasting Company network. The hour-long programs originating at the Cow Palace will be seen live by East Coast audiences at 10 p.m. The national television coverage will be augmented by 15-minute nightly telecasts over a San Francisco station.

There was much evidence that San Francisco is a needy city. Here a metropolis stands almost astride of the San Andreas fault that bred the disastrous earthquake of 1906. It is not inconceivable that the masses of rock on either side of the fault line will reach the limit of their elasticity. The result could be loss of life and property of catastrophic proportions.

Does this grim possibility deter godlessness? Not according to statistics which show in San Francisco that one of every two marriages ends in divorce, that the city has an alcoholism rate several times the national average, that in a population of 800,000 not more than 10,000 are found in church on any one Sunday morning. (Only five per cent of the population is affiliated with Protestantism.)

Yet “where sin abounded,” as Graham quoted Romans 5:20, “grace did much more abound.” The evangelist said that sometimes “the darker the picture, the greater the victory.”

People: Words And Events

Elections: As member of the General Board of the National Council of Churches representing its Division of Life and Work, the Rev. Charles C. Webber, AFL-CIO representative for religious relations; as president of the Methodist Council of Bishops, G. Bromley Oxnam; as a co-secretary of the Congregational Christian Churches, the Rev. Nathaniel M. Guptill.

Citations: From the Washington Pilgrimage, an association of clergymen who study religious heritage, to Dr. Joseph R. Sizoo, Milbank professor of religion at George Washington University, as “Clergyman of the Year”; to movie producer Cecil B. DeMille as “Lay Churchman of the Year”; to Dr. Georgia Harkness, of the Pacific School of Religion, as “Church Woman of the Year.” The group’s “Faith and Freedom Award” went to Louis Cassels of United Press.

Ceremonies: Commemorating 400th anniversary of the death of Johann Bugenhagen, noted Protestant reformer and close friend of Martin Luther, held throughout East German Province of Pommerania.

Grants: To the World Council of Christian Education and Sunday School Association, $25,000 to aid delegates to the Second World Institute on Christian Education in Japan, from the Lilly Endowment; to Westmont College, $25,000, from the United States Steel Foundation.

Appointments: As secretary of the Bible Lands Agency North, American Bible Society affiliate in Beirut, Lebanon, the Rev. James A. Weeks; as executive secretary of the American Scripture Gift Mission, the Rev. James O. Palmer.

Deaths: Dr. Richard Tyner, 81, Church of Ireland (Anglican) Bishop of Clogher since 1944, in Dublin; Mother Maria Wolff, 104, believed to be the oldest deaconess in the world, at the Lutheran deaconess training center in Nuremberg where she began her career in 1871.

Crusades: With evangelist Torrey Johnson in Liverpool, England, next month, to be followed by rallies in Oslo and Stockholm; with evangelist Eugene Boyer in Paris, April 26–May 11.

Authorization: To release the film Martin Luther for television, announced by Lutheran Church Productions, Inc.

Resignation: As Archbishop of Uppsala and Primate of the Swedish state Lutheran church, Dr. Yngve Brilioth, upon reaching the retiring age of 67.

He calls attention to the writings of a Methodist bishop back in 1904, when Wales was sensing revival. Said author Warren Candler:

“The next great awakening will … bring forth … mighty men of God (who) will do something more than stir a local interest or excite a transient enthusiasm. Aided by all the modern devices of transportation and communication, they will be able to extend their influence as the revivalists in former times could not.… In America we may reasonably expect a great revival, the center of which will be in the West, and the power of which will be felt all along the Pacific Coast.”

“Perhaps,” commented Graham, “we are standing on the threshhold of the fulfillment of this 50-year-old prophecy.”

(Candler’s statement appears in his Great Revivals and the Great Republic and is quoted in Dr. Sherwood E. Wirt’s Spiritual Awakening.)

But what can such a metropolitan phenomenon mean to the individual clergyman? Said Dr. Louis W. Pitt, rector of Manhattan’s Grace Episcopal Church and chairman of the counselling committee for Graham’s New York meetings: “There is no question that the crusade can be the means of tremendous spiritual blessings for ministers.” Referring to the crusade, Pitt said there was “nothing quite comparable” in all of his ministry.

The San Francisco minister who holds the post corresponding to Pitt’s is the Rev. Joe R. Kennedy, pastor of the West Side Christian Church, who said:

“I sense a growing expectancy in the hearts of ministers, who witness for Christ in this metropolitan area, for the opportunity of leading those into full commitment with Christ and the church, who take the first step during the Graham crusade.”

The Great Stakes

Representatives of religious groups took part in a “National Conference of Organizations on International Trade Policy” which was addressed by President Eisenhower, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, and other government leaders.

A total of 120 national organizations took part in the Washington conference at which administration leaders urged a broader policy of trade relations with other nations in the interest of world peace and economic prosperity.

Among those represented were the Catholic Association for International Peace, Jewish War Veterans of the U. S. A., National Catholic Rural Life Conference, National Council of Churches, National Council of Jewish Women, Unitarian Fellowship for Social Justice and the Young Women’s Christian Association.

Mr. Eisenhower expressed “grateful thanks … for this magnificent bi-partisan citizen effort to rouse Americans to the great stakes all of us have in widening and deepening channels of world trade.”

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube