What of Seventh-Day Adventism? (Part II)

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

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

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

The Sabbath Test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farther on Mr. Andreasen says:

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

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

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

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

She further comments:

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

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

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

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

The following are extracts from SDA writings:

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

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

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

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

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

The Way Of Salvation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Perpetual Memory

In Upper Room at solemn hour,

With all His love, the Saviour gave

The holy bread and wine, to be

Of Him Who came our souls to save,

The Blest Memorial.

To signify the body given,

To be for us of life the bread;

And precious blood of sacrifice,

That won for us life from the dead,

In this Memorial.

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

Through all the years that lie between

His full self-giving on the cross,

And when His glory shall be seen,

This Blest Memorial.

With deep thanksgiving we may share,

And sharing unity attain—

The broken bread, the wine outpoured,

‘Till He in triumph comes again.

O Blest Memorial.

We join with those who, gone before,

Now dwell with Him in realms of light;

For He Who is their source of joy,

Is with us in this Holy Rite,

This Blest Memorial.

We dwell in Him and He in us;

We yield our lives in service true,

And pray that we may ever be

Refreshed by grace for ever new,

In this Memorial.

ARTHUR J. PATSTONE

Cover Story

Has Protestantism a Right to Exist?

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

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

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

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

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

Rome’S Administrative Totalitarianism

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

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

Where Romanism Fails As A Church

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

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

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

Rome Needs Evangelical Protestantism

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

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

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

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

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

Cover Story

Evangelizing the Jews

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

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

Difficulties Of Witness

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

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

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

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

Giving Up A Life

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

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

A Subconscious Dislike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signs Of A New Day

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

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

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

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

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

Stage Settings

I notice when the Great Producer writes

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

He never topples Grandeur from the heights

By showing it upon a sunny day.

He knows where Beauty makes her fairest mark,

Where Hope means most to those whose hearts are bowed,

And so He hangs that vari-colored arc

Against the leaden backdrop of a cloud.

CLARENCE EDWIN FLYNN

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

Cover Story

The Confusing ‘C’ in YMCA

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

What Is Christianity?

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

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

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

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

What We Say On Paper

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

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

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

What Is Basic?

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

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

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

Superior Scoutmaster

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

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

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

Opportunism And Fluctuation

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

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

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

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

Solution By Statement

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

Solution In Personnel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stumbling Blocks

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

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

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

3. Few staff men really know the Scriptures.

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

What Kind Of Program?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cover Story

The Church in the Last Days

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

The Crisis Of The Present

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

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

Reaction Follows Reaction

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

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

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

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

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

History In Tension

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

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

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

Responsibility In The Present

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

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

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

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

Review of Current Religious Thought: March 31, 1958

The publication of Gabriel Hebert’s book Fundamentalism and the Church of God has created considerable interest in Australia. Some years ago Hebert was appointed to the staff of the Society of the Sacred Mission in South Australia. He already enjoyed an international reputation as the translator of Gustaf Aulen’s Christus Victor and Nygren’s Agape and Eros, as well as in his own right as the author of Liturgy and Society and The Throne of David. Father Gabriel Hebert is now an old man, but he has brought a rich contribution to the theological life of Australia.

His latest work is important, not so much for what he says, but for the way in which he says it. It is written in anirenical spirit. The author makes a genuine attempt to understand and appreciate those who are so often contemptuously dismissed as obscurantists and fundamentalists. It is a regrettable fact that theological discussion between liberals and conservatives again and again has been bedevilled by wilful misrepresentation. Partisans have been content to damn what they have not attempted to understand. Abuse has been substituted for argument.

Father Gabriel Hebert has been guilty of none of these things. He has made a sincere and painstaking attempt to understand those from whom he differs. He is concerned to do justice to the contributions evangelicals have undoubtedly made to the life of the Church. It is an open secret that Father Hebert was greatly helped in arriving at this understanding by personal links with some younger evangelical scholars in Sydney. As a result, his work is free from certain common errors.

Nevertheless, Father Hebert has still something to learn. He makes no reference to the massive works of B. B. Warfield, a strange omission in a work dealing with the theological presuppositions of conservative evangelicals.

In England Dr. J. I. Packer has made some powerful and incisive criticisms of Father Hebert’s book in The Christian News-Letter (July, 1957). He points out that “the basic issue between evangelicals and others concerns, not biblical interpretation … but biblical authority”; and that evangelicals are pledged to maintain Christ’s view of the authority and nature of Scripture.

In Australia there is much animated debate on the subject of Father Hebert’s book. Can Father Hebert’s charges be substantiated? Dr. Alan Cole in The Reformed Theological Review (February, 1958) stresses that what “evangelicals really hold is Infallibility, not Inerrancy”; and that “the Bible, rightly read, read as a whole, read Christocentrically, and read humbly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the fellowship of the Church, can never deceive us as to what God is like, or as to what man is like, or as to what God’s world is like.” The debate is continuing. If the clarification of terms and the definition of words is the only thing achieved, much good will have been done. At least one fruitful cause of misunderstanding will have been removed.

The Reformed Theological Review is published thrice yearly. It owes its existence to the Rev. Robert Swanton. It is a learned journal, devoted to the defence of the Reformed faith. Its crest is Calvin’s motto: Cor meum tibi offero Domino. In recent numbers Professor Hermann Sasse of Immanuel Seminary, Adelaide, South Australia, has made some trenchant criticisms of the theological implications of the World Council of Churches. As an original member of the Faith and Order Committee, his criticisms carry weight. He is fearful lest the participating churches betray or deny their Confessions of Faith. Sasse writes on all these matters with immense learning.

Within the universities in Australia preparations are advanced for a series of Missions conducted by the Rev. John Stott. As Vicar of All Souls, Langham Place, London, he is exercising a wide and effective ministry. Some years ago he was chosen to write the Bishop of London’s Lent book, Men With a Message (1954). His own gifts are those of an evangelist. He has already conducted, with much acceptance and widespread blessing, missions in Canada and America. He will visit Australia under the joint auspices of the Evangelical Alliance and the Inter-Varsity Fellowship.

Within the universities the religious societies continue to flourish (within one university the largest student organization is the Evangelical Union, with a membership exceeding that of any political society or sporting club). Last year missions were conducted by Father Michael Fisher (an English Anglican Franciscan) on behalf of the Student Christian Movement. He drew unprecedented crowds. His addresses have now been published in booklet form under the title Christ Alive! Sir Samuel Wadham, Emeritus Professor of Agriculture in the University of Melbourne, writes the foreword in which he says that these addresses were the most impressive he had heard in 40 years.

No one can deny Father Michael Fisher’s versatility. He showed an astonishing familiarity with modern literature, ranging from Winnie the Pooh to Peter Abelard. A single example will suffice. In an address on the human predicament he referred to Graham Greene’s latest novel The Quiet American. The novel tells the story of an English reporter called Fowler working in the Far East. He becomes involved with an American who is engaged in certain subversive activity from motives of mistaken idealism. This American is also responsible for enticing his girl away from him. Finally Fowler is responsible for the death of the “quiet American.” On the last page of the novel we know that the American is dead, Fowler has his girl back, his wife has telegraphed that she will give him a divorce, and yet all is not well.… Fowler, the hard-bitten journalist, says: “I wish there was someone to whom I could say that I am sorry.” In these words we have a revelation of the hunger of the human heart for forgiveness, and Father Michael Fisher used them with telling and dramatic effect. It is not surprising that the crowds who listened to these talks found them lively, arresting, and deeply moving.

Book Briefs: March 31, 1958

Area Of Agreement

Ecumenism and the Evangelical, by J. Marcellus Kik, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1957. $3.50.

Explicitly in the case of “ecumenism” and implicitly in the case of “evangelical,” the author acknowledges that a wider area of agreement in definition is a desideratum devoutly to be wished. He nevertheless proceeds on the reasonable assumption that the whole ecumenical development whose principal symbol is the World Council of Churches has reached a stage where it needs to be more thoroughly assessed by those who take seriously the Christianity of the historic creeds.

A brief consideration of ecumenical moods and motives launches the discussion on its way, following which certain “evangelical apprehensions” are put forward: ecumenism’s generally weak or ambiguous Christology, its tendency to attenuate theological concern in general, its drift toward an inclusiveness that minimizes differences, its growing fondness for the ecclesiological concept of the Church as a visible society, and its often aggressive insistence on the “sinfulness” of denominationalism.

It is held that the “authority of Scripture” is accorded too feeble a place within the framework of the ecumenical movement. “Those who reject the authority of Scripture and deny its uniqueness as the infallible revelation of God’s mind and will, are confined to the position of giving authority to religious experience or to the position of agnosticism” (p. 32). Anglicans, with their emphasis upon the authority of the church and of churchly tradition, would almost certainly demur, but the main contention is well argued that ecumenism’s anchorage to Scripture is far more dubious than that of the separate churches and their historic confessions.

Rejected emphatically is the notion that our Lord’s high-priestly prayer, “that they may be one,” must be interpreted to mean “a single comprehensive organization of the churches” (p. 46). Much is made of the Pauline concept of attaining “unto the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God” as set forth in Ephesians. The Holy Spirit is the great unifier, and his ministry in this regard consists principally in bringing the church to a oneness of witness concerning Jesus Christ: “his pre-existence, incarnation, earthly life and ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, present reign and coming again” (p. 52). It is the “conflict of voices” within the visible church respecting these central matters that constitutes more of a scandal than the existence of denominational groups.

If this objective unity is seriously lacking, so too is the subjective; and the question is not improperly raised: “Could it be possible that absence of spiritual union in Christ has caused modern day stress on external union?” (p. 62).

Exploring the meaning of the ancient and honorable phrase, “The Holy Catholic Church,” the author cautions against the trend toward a narrowly ecclesiastical interpretation of “catholic.” The incongruity in the sentence is a reflection of the more serious incongruity in the structure of the argument put forward, for example, by Professor Knox when he says, “I simply cannot conceive of the union of Christendom except on the ground of a polity which … involves the full acceptance of the historic episcopate” (The Early Church, pp. 142, 143). It is held that far more important than such an impossible basis of unity as this is the unifying of the people of God around the holy disciplines, private and corporate, on which the New Testament speaks firmly.

The significance of such biblical figures of organic unity as “temple” and “body” are worked out along familiar lines, following which the reader is given a look at the contemporary scene vis a vis the existing inter-church and/or inter-believer councils and cooperative agencies, notably the National Council of Churches, the World Council, the International Council of Christian Churches, the American Council of Churches, the World Evangelical Fellowship, and the National Association of Evangelicals. With a better than average measure of objectivity, these are assessed as to their doctrinal orientation and commitment, their inclusiveness or exclusiveness, and their prevailing temper. On a few particulars a more meticulous accuracy would have enhanced the presentation, as, for example, the calculated use of “vicarious” rather than “substitutionary” in the NAE statement of faith (p. 126) and the misdating of the time when NAE officially defined its policy on evangelism so as to make it clear that the task of evangelism was that of the churches and not that of NAE as such. As correctly reported by the editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY in the issue of January 20, 1958, this date was 1943, not 1950.

As might be expected, the author finds it formidably difficult to explain the highly disedifying spectacle of evangelical division and fragmentation. “Ecumenism will never in a thousand and one years achieve the goal of Christian unity until it settles the question of authority” (p. 136). Suppose we agree. But then evangelicals have presumably settled this question. The authority of Scripture is their battle cry. And the result? Along with a creditable amount of informed good will, we have discreditable amounts of division plus divisiveness, sects plus sectarianism, independence plus independency. The author’s plea, therefore, for a vastly more serious coming to grips with the whole concept of the “Church” by those who call themselves “evangelical” is urgently timely.

The book concludes with a chapter called “The Coming Great Church.” The eschatology of this “curtain-dropping” chapter will raise many an eyebrow. Perhaps one should make it stronger: it will raise some theological blood pressure. This reviewer is not prepared to accept the non-premillenarian assumptions of the author, but he is prepared to welcome the fine-tempered discussion of the prophetic Scriptures from a point of view too often totally ignored or inadequately handled by those who have committed themselves to contemporary dispensationalism. In any event, the question may fairly be raised as to whether this particular outlook on the future of the Church is organically bound up with the issues of unity and ecumenicity.

Waiving this point, what seems to me to put us in Mr. Kik’s debt is the practical thesis that ecumenists, however unsatisfactory their theology may be, are often more zealous than “evangelicals” to interpret and to implement the meaning of the Church and the mystery of its oneness.

PAUL REES

God’S Work In Prison

Prison Is My Parish, by George Burnham, Revell, 1957. $2.95.

The engaging story of Chaplain Park Tucker is beautifully told in this volume by the well-known journalist, George Burnham. What Mr. Burnham did for Billy Graham and his work, he has now done for the chaplain of Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. This is an amazing story of a man who was rescued from death in the bowels of the earth and who now is giving his life to rescue others from darkness.

Director of U. S. Bureau of Prisons, James V. Bennett, in the introduction to this volume writes, “Every once in a while a book is published which combines in its appeal a document of human interest and a commentary on our social institutions. This story of Chaplain Tucker is such a book. The successful attempt to raise himself above the economic level into which he was born is not in itself uncommon in our American life, but the quality of his simple religious faith that dominates the book makes the story worth telling.” Director Bennett also points out that from the life and work of Chaplain Tucker we can see the importance of spiritual counselling for men in prison. Chaplain Tucker has a deep and sympathetic understanding of the man in prison and his problems, and a sincere willingness to assist him in finding his proper place when he returns as he must, to our communities. Mixed with the story of tragedy is a delightful sense of humor exhibited by the chaplain.

The finest portions of this volume are the sections devoted to examples of the marvelous redemptive power of Christ. Many instances are set forth to demonstrate that Christ is still able to save unto the uttermost. In the narration of these inspiring stories, Chaplain Tucker is careful to see that all the glory must go to Christ. His comment is “Park Tucker just happened to be on hand when God was at work.”

The final chapter is written by Mrs. Tucker, the chaplain’s wife. She tells of their romance that began at Wheaton College when she was a homesick freshman. She delineates God’s providence in their lives and closes by asking, “How can Park and I ever doubt God’s simple question in the Bible, ‘Is anything too hard for the Lord?’ ”

This is indeed a captivating story. It is moving and inspiring and should be a source of real encouragement to young people who have handicaps and need to understand what the grace of God can do to enable them to achieve real success in life. The Christian life is not always easy, but it is thrilling and satisfying.

JOHN R. RICHARDSON

Light Reading

Now Then, by David E. Mason, Broadman, 1957. 96 pp., $1.75.

In this small volume, 86 object lessons have been gathered, each in the form of a modern “parable.” They were originally given to the author’s Louisiana Baptist congregation through the medium of his weekly bulletin.

Pungent with meaning and pointed in application, these one-page moral admonitions range from the solemn to the sardonical, with occasional flashes of delightful humor throughout. He draws upon situations in every area of life and uses these forcefully to drive home his thoughts. He often provokes a chuckle, as when he advocates legalizing thievery to encourage a decrease in crime, then taxing it to provide more schools and jails, the latter to hold the non-tax paying thieves.

For light reading, this volume is most refreshing and, except for one place where the author holds up Albert Schweitzer as the ideal of Christian piety, is wholly commendable, especially to laymen.

JOHN C. NEVILLE

Exciting Disappointment

Out Lord and Saviour, His Life and Teachings, by Philip Carrington, Seabury, 1958. $1.75.

What the reader obtains from this little book will depend upon what he brings to it, which is the case in so many instances of modern religious writing. We owe much to Anglican scholarship. There have been notable expositors and exegets among them, whose major concern has been the simplification of the Word of God. But Philip Carrington is not one of these. He has sought to produce a layman’s volume on the life of Christ “in the words of the evangelists” (p. 17). The great mass of words, however, are those of the bishop and not of any translation of Holy Writ.

The uncritical reader will be charmed by the gracious humor, the vivid dramatic style, and the facile expression of one who writes well. The history is set in 12 brief, topical chapters. No one can read them without wishing that he might know Bishop Carrington. The alarming feature of what he has written is found in his almost complete unawareness that there is anything wrong with his Christology. In his attempt to get away from the mustiness so often found in doctrinal emphases, he has achieved the effect of being doctrinally flat. The Jesus that he proclaims is “the Man … center of the gospel,” make no mistake of it. He is not the God-man of proper Christian doctrine. From start to finish there is no portrayal of the one who bore our sins in his body up to the tree. He is the master psychiatrist of all time, whose divinity—what there may be of it—is veiled in the charmingly told, if quite imaginary, story of the Man who, when faced with human psychoses, blandly banishes them by his superlative techniques. For “the acts of Jesus are what we call miracles” (p. 36).

The author is sure that for history we have not Jesus’ exact words (p. 50), and implies that imagination can make up for exactitude. The historically minded will cringe at the airy fashion in which he dismisses the critical and analytical problems which beset any New Testament historian. More than once he has misquoted a Scripture location, as in the case where he places the “myth, or parable, in which (man) loses his claim to eternal life” in the second of Genesis. This kind of loose handling marks many passages.

However, to the sermonizer the bishop can be most useful, for his gift of fancy suggests many areas in which the imagination may properly be allowed to wander. It is his lack of sound doctrine that makes his work distressful reading.

But, for those who know the Gospel, and the Christ of the Gospel, it may be worthwhile to own and use this volume. Obviously, Bishop Carrington has not departed far from historico-critical emphases that must have dominated his seminary days. Possibly he finds in their loose and unscientific assumptions a foil for those unique personality factors which can normally be found in a man who has been the successful ecclesiastical leader of ecclesiastics.

WALTER VAIL WATSON

Christianity?

Unitarianism on the Pacific Coast, by Arnold Crompton, Beacon Press, 1957. 182 pp., $4.50.

The author of this interesting study has for 12 years been the minister of the First Unitarian Church in Oakland, California. He has been intimately connected with the work of the Unitarian denomination and its theological seminary in Berkeley, the Starr King School of Theology. He has had access to the sources in his research activities and has rendered a labor of love in his survey of the first 60 years of Unitarianism on the west coast.

The book is well written and generally irenic in its outlook and treatment. The price tag is out of line with the length of the volume. The book is filled with the same type of experiences which the history of any denomination reveals—hardships, financial stress, disaffection, schism, and all the rest. It is the story of sinful men whose best impulses are colored by their Adamic inheritance. Yet, the author of this volume would hardly agree.

One must be impressed by the influence which the Unitarians have exercised—an influence far beyond their numerical significance. Presidents of institutions like California and Stanford have been numbered among their people. A galaxy of honored names flow across the pages of the volume—men who were scholars in their own right and whose influences have extended far and wide. Among them are to be found fathers and sons, and the names of some of these men sound like a roster of Who’s Who. Channing, Starr King, James Freeman Clarke, John Fiske, the Eliots of Harvard, Edward Everett Hale and others. One is impressed by the close connection of the western Unitarian movement with the seed bed of the movement, Harvard College and Boston, Massachusetts.

In spite of the honored names one cannot help but observe that Unitarianism cannot be identified with historic Christianity except as a heresy. This sect has genuinely supported ideas of freedom and liberty. But in so doing it has lost any true connection with the Christian faith, and this raises the question whether it is entitled to the use of the name Christian at all. No one in this age of enlightenment would refuse these people the right to worship God according to their own beliefs. Nor would any wish to circumscribe their liberties. But one is equally hard put to say, even wishfully, that they are in the stream of the historic Christian faith.

HAROLD LINDSELL

Messianic Approach

Commentary on Genesis, by R. S. Candlish, 2 vols., Zondervan. $10.95.

The author’s name will be sufficient endorsement of this work for many readers. The one-time principal of New College, Edinburgh, was a leader in the Free Church movement in Scotland and a theological giant among Presbyterians. As such he was an exponent of the covenant theology which is presented here with firmness and yet with winsomeness.

Strictly speaking, these two volumes are not a commentary but rather a series of expositions covering the entire book of Genesis. The method used is not that of word-by-word exegesis but rather the careful examination of passages, sometimes brief and sometimes extended, so as to bring out the meaning and application to the Christian reader. Since there is no quotation of the Hebrew, the work contains no obscurity or difficulty for any Bible student.

The two chief excellences of the Commentary on Genesis, in the reviewer’s opinion, are that it interprets Genesis in the light of the whole of biblical revelation and that it is thoroughly Messianic in its approach. Some readers will not see in Joseph as distinct a type of Christ as does Candlish. Others among evangelicals may be disappointed that the author has found so few types in Genesis.

The scholar will not find in this work a precise exegesis of the Hebrew text but the theologian will find a detailed explanation of the meaning of the text. The preacher will not find in it any ready-made sermons but he will find the material of which good sermons are made. This commentary is highly recommended as one which is likely to prove more fruitful for the pastor’s use than many commentaries on Genesis which have appeared since Candlish first appeared in 1868.

DAVID W. KERR

New Journal

Foundations, A Baptist Journal of History and Theology, ed. by George D. Younger, American Baptist Historical Society, Rochester, N. Y., 1958. $3.00 per year.

A new American Baptist historical and theological quarterly appeared in January as successor to The Chronicle, a history journal. More broadly based than its predecessor, its stated purpose is to widen the search for “those foundations on which we Baptists have built.”

A new channel is here provided for continuing the discussion and self-examination begun recently by American Baptists in theological conference. No one school of thought is to be promoted but rather a variety of opinions encouraged, while at the same time a middle course is to be steered between “skepticism” and “dogmatism.” The end hoped for is more agreement among Baptists as well as more understanding between Baptist and other denominations.

The reader is introduced through attractive format to an interesting group of articles displaying on the whole a good level of scholarship, most of which appears to be quite ecumenically conscious—indicating a major thrust of the journal.

The initial article by Daniel D. Williams, only one by other than a Baptist, finds the mysterious expansive power of the Baptists in a personal experience of the Gospel which is “easily intelligible, vividly symbolized,” and Spirit-produced, rather than in any unity of theology, ordinances or polity, of which he notes there is little. Associate Editor Winthrop S. Hudson attempts to show that extreme Baptist individualism is not true to historic Baptist polity, which gave Associations authority over local congregations. Also critical of modern Baptist polity is V. E. Devadutt, whose article carries implicit approval of Baptist inclusion in the proposed church union of North India.

In similar fashion Lynn Leavenworth is heard wondering aloud about rather low Baptist views not only of polity but also the ministry and ordinances. He feels answers are to be gained through “discussion across the ecumenical front.”

Baptist reaction to such views will be traditionally mixed. Some will applaud the idea of curbing what they regard as Baptist excesses, while others will feel that Baptist distinctives are being whittled away. They will ask whether they wish to be brought more in line doctrinally with other churches and whether this is actually a return to their heritage or perhaps a drifting from ancient moorings.

A somewhat different note is struck in the article by Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. He believes that ecumenical interests and Baptist convictions do not necessarily conflict. The only worthy norm, in either case, is the authoritative Scripture. Hope is offered for greater Baptist unity not so much through ecumenical spirit or erasure of doctrinal distinctives as by a “reburnished regard for authoritative biblical imperatives.” Other writers also call for a return to the Scriptures, though Editor Younger expresses wariness of “authoritarianism.”

A rather more ecumenical spirit might well prevail in the book review section where in this initial issue criticism often limited itself to pointing out deviations from Baptist distinctives.

It is to be hoped that this promising journal will renew and enliven conversation among the many diverse groups of Baptists and stir also a long-awaited revival of Baptist theological literature. These are worthy goals.

FRANK FARRELL

Protests Church Meddling in Public Affairs

The National Council of United Presbyterian Men was cautioned against the perils of ecclesiastical meddling in political and economic affairs, in which church leaders are fallible, to the neglect of inspired precepts and principles, by J. Howard Pew, president of The Foundation of the Presbyterian Church in U.S.A.

The session in Chicago’s Palmer House marked the first united meeting in a century of laymen of the Presbyterian and United Presbyterian Churches, scheduled to merge in May.

Mr. Pew declared that the Foundation, already gifted with more than $700,000, is concerned not only with acquisition and custody of funds, but with “the preservation of a spiritual heritage of precept and principle” embodied in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

Mr. Pew stressed the basic Presbyterian tenets of individual freedom to exercise private judgment in matters of conscience, and the corporate church’s restriction from involvement in matters that are properly the concern of the state.

The founders of Presbyterianism, he granted, “fully believed that the teachings of Christ should be extended to every aspect of human affairs,” and it is “the very essence of Presbyterianism that churchmen shall apply the principles of their religion to every problem that confronts them.” But he emphasized the right of individual determination in public affairs and clerical fallibility in political and economic matters: “If we subject ourselves to the advice or opinions of a governing group in a matter which each of us ought to decide for himself, we are simply ascribing to it an infallibility which, in fact, it does not possess.” The Westminster Divines, he noted, incorporated into the Confession of Faith a statement on the possibility of error in such pronouncements: “All synods and councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice.…” He considered “it is likely that our church fathers had in mind the impossibility of finding any individual or groups of individuals possessing a sufficient store of knowledge to justify them in passing judgment on every conceivable subject.”

“Our forebears learned from experience,” Mr. Pew remarked, “that when the church assumed the right to sit in judgment on secular affairs, it became involved in all kinds of economic, social and political controversies, and it largely-destroyed its power for good.… They knew that the welfare of our corporate church would best be served by restricting it to those activities which deal with the attributes of Christianity as defined in the Holy Bible.”

Noting that most church controversies have grown “out of the issue of freedom,” Mr. Pew posed a series of pointed questions to his lay audience:

“Are we now to regard our church Constitution as a scrap of paper?

“Are we to plunge our church into issues of international trade and all other international relationships?

“Is our church to dictate to government its policies on agriculture, natural resources, and all other relationships between government and people?

“Is our church competent to determine all relationships in social and economic life?

“Should our church set itself up as an authority on public education?

“Should it become involved in all other secular areas of our common life?

“And, are we to repudiate one of the basic tenets of Protestantism by having our church exercise control over the thinking of its members?

“Does our church have a mandate from its members to do these things?

“In fact, should our church have a Division of Social Education and Action?”

Upon the “wise determination” of these “grave issues,” he added, “depends the future of this magnificent Presbyterian institution.”

“Changing human hearts is a slower process,” he said, “but it is far more certain to accomplish the desired results. Let the church not appeal from God to Caesar, but let it devote its energy to that of promoting Christian grace—honesty, truth, fairness, generosity, justice and charity—in the hearts of men.”

Mr. Pew noted the layman’s crucial role in extending Christian influences to the social realm. He spoke of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as “universal, all-embracing, and sufficient to meet the needs of mankind.” But in contrast with ecclesiastical coercion, he commented that “the determination of right and wrong is solely a matter for the individual, subject only to the divine authority which speaks to him through his conscience. Free Christian men will apply the Gospel to all areas of life, to all human activities, to the individual in his life and work, and to society in all of its relationships.”

Dominion Notes

Figures released by the United Church of Canada show more than $5,750,000 given to its Missionary and Maintenance Fund in the past fiscal year, largest amount in history and a 10 per cent increase over the previous year.… The “sector plan” for boosting church budgets was credited for a 33 per cent increase in receipts among 58 congregations of metropolitan Toronto.… A $1,000,000 building under construction in Toronto to house United Church headquarters will be named “The United Church House”.… Dr. Lewi Petrus of Stockholm will speak at the Fifth World Conference of Pentecostal Church in Toronto next September.… Canadian Lutheran World Relief obtained 2,000,000 pounds of dry milk from the government for distribution in East Germany.

After 50 Years

Some 1,000 “Sons of Freedom,” an extremist group of the communal Doukhobor sect, voted at a meeting in Vancouver to move to Russia if British Columbia will provide necessary funds.

A four-man delegation recently returned from Russia reported to the assembly on the possibility of settling in southwestern Siberia.

The 2,500 “Sons” in Canada have been causing trouble for nearly 50 years. They have been repudiated by the 12,000 orthodox Doukhobors because of nude parades and acts of violence.

The Doukhobors came to Canada from Russia at the beginning of the century under an agreement that they would not be required to bear arms for their adopted country. Most of the Doukhobors have observed the laws and cooperated with authorities.

The “Sons,” however, have stirred up agitation time after time in protest of governmental rule. Their acts of violence have involved the burning of schools and community buildings.

South America

Literary Moves

A Christian literature workshop prompted creation of a school of Christian journalism at Cordoba, Argentina.

Alec Clifford and Paul Sheetz, both of Verbo magazine, will direct the new school. Most of the new enrollees are students at the University of Cordoba, for 300 years an active center of Roman Catholicism in South America.

The workshop, held earlier this month, was under the auspices of LEAL (Literature Evangelica para America Latina) and featured classes in writing, advertising, libraries, and salesmanship.

In Rio de Janeiro 66 representatives of several major denominations met last month to form a Portuguese counterpart of the Spanish LEAL.

Plans were drawn up for training courses in journalism for Brazilian evangelicals.

A popular magazine is to be published also.

A. C

Worth Quoting

“No federal scholarships, thank you.”—Dr. V. Raymond Edman, head of Wheaton College, in a letter to President Eisenhower.

“Nowhere is corruption in government more apparent than in what we call ‘foreign aid.’ … This Mutual Security Program strikes at, and if continued much longer, may destroy, our religion, our way of life, the Constitution and, therefore, all decent and moral civilization.… During this century, the individual citizen’s unalienable rights to freedom and property have been whittled away or seized by big centralized government. The foreign aid program constitutes another long and insidious step towards the extinguishment of these rights.”—The Hon. Spruille Braden, to the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, in Washington.

‘We need to define, much more clearly and implicitly than we have yet defined it, the intimate relationship between a man’s religious faith and what he does in his business. We need to demonstrate that religion is just as relevant to the individual in his office as in his home or church. Especially do we need to establish explicitly-understood Christian principles for the conduct of business affairs. The decisions they are required to make often require courage that can come only from conscious adherence to eternal verities, not the shifting sands of expediency.”—James C. Worthy, vice-president, Sears, Roebuck and Company.

“The most ridiculous statements that I know are ‘Liquor doesn’t affect me’ and ‘I understand the Russians.’ ”—Charles E. Bohlen, former ambassador to Russia.

“Just why so many Americans want to see our highest officials fraternizing with the men of the Kremlin who have on their hands the blood of the Hungarian patriots is difficult to understand, particularly in a country dedicated to high ideals and where the slightest impropriety in our own governmental circles is pounced upon as a violation of public morals.”—David Lawrence, columnist and editor of United States News and World Report.

Europe

An Argument Won

“It is fair to say that we have won the argument against humanism in this generation. After two world wars, with Buchenwald and Belsen, people no longer believe in an escalator to perfection. The Bible is vindicated in its low view of human nature unredeemed by Christ.”

Dr. W. E. Sangster, superintendent of the British Methodist Home Mission, told a Belfast audience of evangelical Christianity’s contribution to remedying social evils of past decades in Britain. William Wilberforce, Zachary Macaulay and others identified with the “Clapham Sect” obtained the emancipation of the slaves. Lord Shaftesbury and other evangelicals worked to secure better conditions in Britain’s factories and mines, and Dr. Barnardo made it his life work to care for homeless and destitute children.

Added Superintendent Sangster:

“People today have no sense of sin. That is one of the characteristics of our age and one of the things that the man in the street has against the evangelical preacher is that he is always talking of sin.”

S. W. M.

Africa

Harmony Or Division?

The question confronting this year’s meeting of the Congo Protestant Council at Leopoldville was this:

Should delegates support the proposed merger of the International Missionary Council with the World Council of Churches at the risk of losing unity and harmony among themselves?

The delegates’ decision to withdraw from IMC was made to allow the young Congo church itself to reach future decisions on international cooperation.

The growing importance of the native workers was manifest at the Leopoldville meeting as they sat on equal terms with delegates from the foreign missions.

The meeting ended March 1 on an optimistic note. Said one observer:

“There was no doubt in the minds of the delegates, particularly the Congolese, that denominationalism should be avoided and that every effort should be made to stress the Christian brotherhood over tribal or other affiliations. The Congo Protestant Council has so shown over the years this unity of missionary effort that its example is now bearing fruit and it warmed the hearts of older missionaries to see that their efforts towards unity had made a deeper impression than they had believed possible.”

Middle East

First Impressions

In old Egypt they call it Al-gumhouriya al-Arabiya al-Muttahida, meaning the United Arab Republic, which came into being with the formal union of Syria and Egypt. A constitution for the new state was published this month after nationwide plebiscites had approved the action.

Through radio and via sound trucks, old Egypt heard the merits of the merger expounded. British and American imperialism was repeatedly identified as the foe against whom the new union was built for protection. Press editorials had little else to talk about. Columns of advertising space were given over to congratulations for Gamal Abdel Nasser, president of the U.A.R.

When word was given to go ahead with celebrations, crews went to work around the clock on a crash basis to prepare decorations. Big firms and merchants paid most of the decorating bills, in exchange for the opportunity to exhibit their names alongside tributes to Nasser.

Much of the celebration activity was government-organized. Even large school delegations which witnessed the official ceremonies were there because regional officers of the Ministry of Education instructed them to be there. Selected organizers picked out selected students to do the parading. Public reaction was to make way for the processions, exercise patience until they were past, and then to go on about the day’s duties.

What effect will the merger have upon Christian witness in the United Arab Republic?

Nowhere did there appear to be any radical change in governmental attitudes toward religion.

The Religious News Service reported from Damascus that the U. A. R. provisional constitution contains no stipulation for a state religion. The constitution declares that all religions are equal before the law.

Previous constitutions of Egypt stated that “Islam is the religion of the state.” Syrian constitutions of recent years, while not mentioning a state religion, provided that “the religion of the President of the Republic should be Islam.”

Two trends hostile to the West were evident even before the union: Pressure against missions has been gradually increasing throughout the past several years, while the feelings of the people have been anti-American. This has been true in both Egypt and Syria. The merger move was not expected to alter the situation.

An observer in Jordan saw the integration of the two Hashemite kingdoms as helpful to the large number of leaderless Greek Orthodox Christians in Iraq. A number of new priests are expected to be sent there and more churches are predicted. The majority of Christians in both of the merged countries of Iraq and Jordan belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Some Middle East mission boards see merger plans of their own as beneficial to the work. Presbyterian and Anglican functions have been strengthening ties for a united approach.

Missionaries throughout the Arab world are placing great hopes in a proposed Christian radio station in Lebanon, a country which aspires to be the Switzerland of the Middle East.

Japan

Centennial Formulated

Select national and foreign missionaries representing a wide variation of church polity and theological outlook have agreed to join forces on the basis of “a common belief in the Bible as the Word of God and our only infallible rule of faith and practice” for the promotion of this year’s Japanese Protestant Centennial.

An executive committee was named to plan a series of centennial conferences to October. Week-long meetings will be held in Tokyo and Osaka. Shorter series are planned for several other big cities.

J. A. MCA.

Jewish Japanese

A number of Japanese converts to Judaism are expected to take advantage of a decision by Israel’s Chief Rabbinate that recognizes them as bona-fide Jews. The decision will enable the Jewish Japanese to enter Israel under the “Law of the Return,” which guarantees every Jew in the world automatic Israeli citizenship and emigration to Israel with all expenses paid.

There are now about 8,000 Jews in Japan, organized into a group called the Union of Jewish Japanese. The group is led by two university professors, an atomic scientist and a prominent naval engineer, both of whom took part in the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

Union members speak only Hebrew among themselves, circumcise their children, and attend services in their own synagogues.

Cover Story

What Protestant Ministers Believe

NEWS

Christianity in the World Today

Three out of every four Protestant ministers classify themselves as “conservative” or “fundamentalist,” while the fourth says he is “liberal” or “neo-orthodox.”

So indicates a representative nation-wide survey of American ministers. The poll was conducted for CHRISTIANITY TODAY by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, using scientific random-sampling methods last October and November.

This question highlighted each survey interview:

Just how would you generally classify your theological position—fundamentalist, conservative, neo-orthodox, liberal, or some other category?

This is a breakdown of replies:

The classifications of theological position were left to the clergymen to define for themselves in their own understanding of the terms.

All were asked whether they felt it was essential to preach and teach the doctrines of: (1) God as creator of man, (2) the literal resurrection of Christ, (3) Christ as Saviour and Lord, (4) One sovereign God, (5) the Bible as the authoritative rule, (6) Christ as the Son of God, (7) the Bible as having been verbally inspired by God in original writings, (8) the virgin birth of Christ, (9) the vicarious substitutionary atonement of Christ, (10) the literal return or “second coming” of Christ, (11) the unity of all believers in Christ.

Virtually every minister said it is essential to preach and teach that God is creator of man, and that Christ is Saviour and Lord. An overwhelming majority said it is essential to preach and teach the Bible as the authoritative rule of life and death, the unique deity of Christ as the Son of God, and the unity of all believers in Christ.

However, 33 per cent said it is not essential to preach and teach that the Bible is verbally inspired by God in original writings. Other “is not essential” percentages included the literal return or “second coming” of Christ, 26 per cent; virgin birth of Christ, 18 per cent; vicarious substitutionary atonement of Christ, 17 per cent; historical, literal resurrection of Christ, 11 per cent.

Some 27 per cent feel that working for organic church unity is a “very important” task of the Church. Only 18 per cent of the ministers believe in church union through organic mergers. About 48 per cent believe in church unity only through doctrinal beliefs, while 24 per cent are against any form of merger.

The interviews indicated that most conservative ministers tend toward desire for church mergers on the basis of doctrinal beliefs only, while the liberal and neo-orthodox want mergers based on organic union.

In interpreting the survey, it should be noted that, generally speaking, theological liberalism exaggerates the immanence of God while virtually denying his transcendence. Hence, the doctrine of God’s wrath, man’s fall, miraculous revelation and redemption, a unique divine incarnation in Christ—all these are denied. The Bible is dismissed as nothing more than a record of “the highest religious and moral insights.”

Neo-orthodoxy reacts against liberalism in exaggerating God’s transcendence and emphasizing God’s judgment, man’s sin and Christ as Lord and divine Saviour. But it carries forward the liberal rejection of revealed doctrines and precepts and asserts special divine revelation, formulating it as suprarational, nonintellectualistic confrontation of each individual as against a once-for-all revelation in Christ and the Bible.

Fundamentalism is at the extreme right of the theological scale. Conservative religious beliefs fall in between fundamentalism and neo-orthodoxy.

Of the ministers in the survey who call themselves “conservative,” only 59 per cent said it is essential to preach and teach that the Bible was verbally inspired by God in original writings. Twenty-five per cent in the neo-orthodoxy category and 23 per cent in the liberal classification felt the same way.

The survey indicated that CHRISTIANITY TODAY has the highest paid subscription rate and the most extensive readership of any religious magazine read by American Protestant ministers. According to the poll, more ministers read CHRISTIANITY TODAY regularly than the next two most-widely read religious magazines combined. Of the ministers interviewed, 46 per cent said they read CHRISTIANITY TODAY regularly, another 35 per cent said they read it occasionally, a total of 81 per cent. Some 61 per cent of the ministers interviewed said they agreed with CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S point of view.

“As the ministers discussed the church unity issue,” the official report of the survey said, “they expressed a range of differing viewpoints. There is general agreement on the need to accept Jesus Christ and his teachings as revealed in the Bible, but frequent disagreement on the importance of rituals, as illustrated in the following comment from a Methodist minister on the question, ‘What are the most essential doctrinal beliefs necessary for church unity, as you see it?’ ”

“ ‘I think the first basic thing would be the belief in Jesus Christ; that is, at face value because there are many different theories concerning him. To me, this would be the basic. Other things could come out, such as the method of baptism, communion, and whether we have seven sacraments or two. The Methodist Church does allow more liberal thinking than some.’ ”

The survey interviews were held in the offices and homes of the clergymen.

The Tables Turned

A bank of Easter flowers flanks the flag with the six-pointed Star of David in the little church at 3859 West Lawrence Avenue. The sign says “Our Messiah Is Risen.” A group of young people are rehearsing their parts for a dramatization this Sunday of Christ’s resurrection. The minister’s announced topic for his Easter morning sermon: “His Resurrection Is Best Proven by Our Resurrection to a New Life.”

This is Chicago’s First Hebrew Christian Church, a 110-member congregation pastored by the Rev. David Bronstein and his brother-in-law associate, the Rev. Morris Kaminsky.

The Rev. Mr. Bronstein thinks it ironic that the Chicago Sun-Times should refer to his church as an “ecclesiastical oddity.” It is considered unusual for Hebrews to be Christian now. Two thousand years ago it was considered unusual for Gentiles to be Christian. Acts 15 records a squabble over the admission of Gentiles into the early church.

The First Hebrew Christian Church of Chicago is Presbyterian. It is similar to a number of missions and chapels scattered throughout the country, mostly in larger cities. Many of these Hebrew Christian groups are not affiliated with any church; a number are connected with Jewish evangelistic organizations such as the American Association for Jewish Evangelism, the American Board of Missions to the Jews, the Christian Approach to Missions, the Cleveland Hebrew Mission, the Hebrew Christian Alliance, the Hebrew Christian Fellowship and the International Hebrew Christian Alliance. A key Canadian effort is Scott Mission in Toronto.

Bronstein, 71 and a graduate of McCormick Theological Seminary, preaches the credo that Christianity is the spiritual and historical fulfillment of Judaism. Born in Bessarabia and raised an Orthodox Jew, he was converted to Christianity after coming to the United States at 22. Free English lessons at a Baptist church in Baltimore introduced him to the fact that the Messiah had come.

Bronstein’s pattern of church services is patterned after that of a typically Protestant congregation. Attendance in Sunday school classes and at Wednesday evening prayer meetings is growing. In Bible instruction, there is emphasis on connections between the Old Testament and the New.

The pastor gets much of his message across through individual, personal contacts. Here he describes a conversion:

“Mr. X was brought up in an Orthodox Jewish home in Chicago. Eight years ago he met a non-Jewish girl, fell in love and married her. As is often the case in such mixed marriages, they agreed that neither of them would bother with religion.

“As Mr. X tells us now, his wife was restless and discontent. He gave her everything she asked for, but still she was dissatisfied. She learned about the Hebrew Christian Church and began attending the services. Last October she persuaded her husband to attend a special Yom Kippur. After that, both began coming to church regularly, along with their three children.

“A short time after Mr. X began coming to the church services, we invited him and his wife to our home for dinner. After dinner we brought the Bible to the table. We began a series of six Bible studies. On the last evening I suggested that he come by himself for a final lesson. He came. We reviewed briefly the last three messages, pointing out how these lessons apply to him personally. We showed him how he could have an acquaintance with God if he opened his mouth and asked God to forgive his sins and put a new heart and new spirit into him (See Ezek. 36:24–27). This prayer has to be prayed in the name of Christ, who by his death has made it possible for God to forgive and forget our sins (Jer. 31:34). He prayed thus, and immediately something took place in his heart.

“Last Christmas the wife wrote on a Christmas card: ‘Dear Mr. and Mrs. B. Thank you for leading my husband to Christ. This is the first happy Christmas we have had together since we were married.’ ”

People: Words And Events

Deaths: Dr. Robert H. Pfeiffer, 66, Harvard archaeologist and Old Testament higher critic, in Cambridge, Massachusetts; Dr. Hermann Ullmann, 71, Lutheran journalist, while visiting in Sweden.

Seminary: To be established by Conservative Baptists of the San Francisco Bay area. Classes expected to open in the fall.

Election: As treasurer of American Bible Society, Charles W. Baas; as president of Moody Bible Institute Alumni Association, Dr. Robert A. Cook.

Dedication: A new $2,500,000 United Lutheran Church headquarters in Philadelphia, by Dr. F. Eppling Reinartz, denomination secretary.

Appointment: Dr. Clyde S. Kilby, Wheaton College professor, as executive secretary of Lambda Iota Tau, national collegiate honorary society for students of literature.

The Bible And Defense

The Bible is the spiritual mainstay of the defense of America, says Secretary of the Army Wilber M. Brucker.

The cabinet member states that he is confident that a nation which “practices the principles encompassed in the Bible” will survive, but that a nation which spurns them “will not long endure.”

“The Bible points the way to a genuine brotherhood of man … as well as the only way to lasting peace.”

Secretary Brucker, a Presbyterian, gave his views as to the “tremendous role” the Bible has played in the life of America in a Lenten meditation written for a Washington newspaper.

Evangelism For Hawaii

Hawaii’s Southern Baptist churches will sponsor a two-week evangelistic crusade next month.

Nine visiting ministers will speak.

Southern Baptist missionaries first started work in Hawaii in 1940. A local convention was organized in 1943 and now includes 18 churches representing all major islands of the Hawaiian chain.

The April evangelistic effort will be led by E. V. Appling, Haynesville, Louisiana; Dr. Earl B. Edington, St. Petersburg, Florida; Earl Stallings, Ocala, Florida; L. T. Daniel, Dallas, Texas; Gerald Walker, Pensacola, Florida; Wayne Dehony, Jackson, Tennessee; Charles Bowles, Birmingham, Alabama; Ramsey Pollard, Knoxville, Tennessee; and Ed Boles, Floy Dada, Texas.

P. T.

Rocket Addendum

A St. Christopher medal was attached to the second stage of the Vanguard rocket which successfully launched the Navy’s first satellite. Strangely enough the request to wire the medal to the base of a gyroscope package was made on the same form required for any change in the Vanguard’s design. The request was signed by F. Paul Lipinski of the Martin Company, Catholic engineer who suggested the medal, and by 11 others, among whom were Catholics, Protestants and Jews.

Under the form’s heading “Description of change required,” a St. Christopher medal was drawn. Underneath was a sketch of the gyroscope package with the medal installed.

The “Reason for change” was given as “addition of Divine guidance.”

Four-Month Crusade

Evangelist Hyman J. Appelman opened a four-month tour of New England by proposing a “divine conference” in an address before the twenty-ninth annual meeting of the New England Fellowship of Evangelicals in Boston.

Said Appelman: “Russian Communist leaders are proposing a top level conference. What America needs most is a conference with the Top of the top, with God, in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit.” Born in Russia, Appelman recently returned from a tour of his native land during which he conducted services in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and Kharkov.

Canada

A Third Career

What would prompt a Princeton Theological Seminary graduate who once drew crowds of 40,000 as an evangelist to wash his hands of the Christian ministry?

Toronto-born Dr. Charles Templeton was so busy criss-crossing ocean and continent in his new capacity as television producer that he hardly could find time to explain.

“If you’re going to preach effectively,” said the 42-year-old Templeton as he left for Rome and Cairo to secure personality interviews for TV, “you have to have conviction. My convictions as to some aspects of Christian doctrine became diluted with doubt. I don’t say I’m right and all others are wrong. But feeling as I do, I could not go on in the ministry. So I left.”

Templeton’s new vocation is his third. At 17 he joined the Toronto Globe as a cartoonist, but within five years he was active as an evangelist. He won respect as a minister by building Toronto’s Avenue Road Church from virtual nothingness into one of the largest congregations in the city. He became swamped with invitations to address church services and evangelistic rallies across America and Canada. He was one of the first executives of the Youth for Christ movement.

When Templeton went to Princeton Seminary, his convictions veered to neo-orthodoxy. Now he views his pre-Princeton formal theological training as “superficial.”

Ordained a Presbyterian minister in 1951, Templeton became the first fulltime evangelist for the National Council of Churches. Three years later he resigned to become secretary of the evangelism division of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. He resigned that post in 1956.

Since last June, Templeton has been writing plays for a Canadian television network. His “Love Is a Punch on the Jaw” is the story of a pacifist minister who finds himself in a position where violence is inescapable. Another of Templeton’s plays is titled “Absentee Murderer.” He is also a performer on CBC-TV’s “Close-Up.”

Last year, Templeton and his wife parted via an amicable, uncontested divorce issued in Juarez, Mexico. The former Mrs. Templeton, who once sang at her husband’s meetings, has since remarried.

Templeton’s marital problems were reported to have played no part in his decision to leave the church. But he has been quoted as saying that had he continued in the ministry, there would have been no divorce.

“The decision to change my vocation was a slow and painful one,” said Templeton. “I could continue to preach, with mental reservations, or accept the alternative and leave the ministry. It became clear to me that I had no other choice.”

Eutychus and His Kin: March 31, 1958

ALL OUT FOR EASTER

Pastor Peterson’s Christmas peeve has carried over to Easter. He predicts that the Easter Bunny will soon be riding in Santa’s sleigh. There is scarcely time now for the clearance sales in between. The pastor is depressed by Easter fashions in pew and pulpit—the liberal spending of the first and the liberal theology of the second. We are indebted to him for the following selections from his forthcoming anthology All Out for Easter.

Flowers in the Pulpit

The eloquent Doctor,

To the pulpit born,

Wanders in the garden

On Easter morn

And, wreathing the garlands,

With poetic powers

He distils sweet odors

Of verbal flowers:

“Perfume everlasting

Wafts from springtime bloom …”

Preaching in the garden

He missed the tomb!

Absorbed in the glory

Lilies may afford,

He beheld no angels

Or living Lord!

Easter Observance

To observe Easter season

Will cost her much—

For that mad little hat as

A lighter touch,

For the strange new dress which, as

Fashion decrees,

Must be quite free of shape, like

A French chemise.

Yet she bears like a saint the

Financial strain;

She’ll adorn Easter’s pew if

It doesn’t rain!

These poems have been edited slightly. The first originally included the words, “… lost in the flowers he mythed the angels.” I am glad to say Peterson himself was dubious about the pun.

SAVING THE REPUBLIC

Your editorial, “Can We Salvage the Republic?” (Mar. 3 issue) … is eloquent, prophetic in the best tradition, and makes a number of points which are desperately in need of the kind of statement you have given them.

The Foundation for Economic

Education, Inc.

Irvington-On-Hudson, N. Y.

Is such a decline honestly such a terrible thing? Can I not have enough faith that God will lead the world finally to freedom without America being the power nation in the world? Perhaps there is a leading role for rich Africa to play in world affairs. Maybe the Middle East which once cradled civilization will again lead to world power. Perhaps even the people of Russia who know firsthand the tyranny of oppression and hate can and will one day break those bonds and show us all how precious is the sweet taste of freedom and lead the world.

Chesterfield, Ind.

Your blind criticism of the National Council is out of place in these perilous times when Christians must join forces to fight the common enemy.…

Franklin, Ind.

I am far from being in agreement with all the actions or pronouncements of the National Council; nevertheless I am convinced that the repetition of the unfounded and discredited charges of collectivism and socialism against the National Council, can only proceed from attitudes which are either bigoted or misinformed.

St. Luke’s Lutheran Church

Huntington Park, Calif.

• Perhaps an analytic survey of policy statements on social action by NCC (and its predecessor the Federal Council of Churches) is in order. CHRISTIANITY TODAY made no blanket “charges of collectivism and socialism against the National Council.” But it does not concede that those who have found leftist tendencies in some of its pronouncements have acted merely from bigotry or ignorance.—ED.

Congratulations on your editorial “Can We Salvage the Republic.” Excellent.… And, for the record I wish to call your attention to an error in fact. Frank Chodorov never was a socialist, on the soapbox or off. He was a soapboxer, but the torch he carried was the single tax, or rather the philosophy of Henry George, which is quite a different thing.

Berkeley Heights, N. J.

Undoubtedly, you have brought fire down on your head from the ramparts of the National Council of Churches, Rome, Labor and Government. But you do not stand alone in your convictions and analysis.

North Oxford Baptist Church

Oxford, Miss.

Your analysis of the situation America finds herself in today indicates an understanding that I wish more of our people possessed. I share your apprehension as to the future of America, unless present trends can be reversed.… It is refreshing to know we have a religious magazine that dares to sound a warning, even though it may fall on an unresponsive people as did that of prophetic voices of past generations.

Ozark, Ark.

It is the truest and clearest survey of the present situation and its cause I have ever read. As a Christian duty and American responsibility, it must be reprinted in tract form, so that it may be distributed by the thousands throughout our tortured and confused country.

Central Baptist Church

Dayton, O.

I can see in my mind’s eye the swing of the pendulum all across the broad area of religious thinking in America. And to be able to see in print an article such as this is gratifying.

Bethel Baptist Church

Olanta, S. C.

The statement about the government assuming many of the former functions of the Church … aroused my attention. The Church has been especially negligent in the field of charity. She freely accepts the gifts of her members but will do little in time of trouble even for her own. This is her greatest shame!

Churches could at least give an annuity based on a family’s previous contributions. Many would never ask for it; yet the troubled would take it because it would not be charity but a rightful return on their investment.

Cincinnati, O.

Your very splendid and to the point editorial … turned me very definitely as to sending in my subscription.… I have thought along that line many times, and still have a grave doubt in my mind that this nation can ever repent and return to the sound ideas of the founding fathers.

Paso Robles, Calif.

I believe that we cannot salvage the Republic because we are already too far gone. The Reformation doctrine of liberty of all of life under God, never took deep root in the new world.… Neutrality is one of Satan’s greatest inventions. Not Christianity but rather atheism predominates in the schools. In politics, no room for the God of the Bible. Unless we get together in earnest prayer and repent, we are doomed as a Republic.

Highland, Ind.

TOMORROW’S EVANGELISM

In J. Marcellus Kik’s outburst against Charles Templeton’s Evangelism for Tomorrow (Feb. 17 issue), one detects a vigorous attempt to defend the traditional evangelism of our day.…

But it would seem that Templeton has rightly revolted against our “one-shot” brand of evangelism which moves heaven and earth to evoke a “decision” and pats itself on the back for a job well done.

Even allowing for the book’s faults, I consider Kik’s article a bit too severe.

Bethany Baptist Church

Philadelphia, Pa.

Your … review … is indeed timely. As one who recalls affectionately Dr. Templeton’s early days in the evangelistic field, it hurts me to confess after two readings that (this) is one of the saddest books I have ever read.…

Dr. Templeton has succeeded in unfolding the danger of the pulpit in these crisis days, the weakening danger of skillful preaching that falls short of redemptive revelation.

Evangelist

Presbyterian Church U.S.A.

Geneva, Ill.

PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD

Let me throw a swift salute … for the grand good sense in the piece on World Government and Christianity (Feb. 3 issue). A world government—in spite of the great Einstein’s demand for it, to escape the perils of nationalism-gone-militarist with his baby atom-bombs—is suicide of the prophetic voice of the rare far-seer. I ask myself, when a ‘democratic’ world government is outlined (as by a U. of Chicago commission) whom would I vote for, for world-president? Exactly nobody.

Madison, N. H.

AROUSING PREACHERS

The article by Cannon and Everett (Feb. 17 issue) … interests me very much. Certainly there is deep need for an aroused public opinion on the subject. It seems to me that preachers need arousing more than anyone else. It is extremely doubtful that the vast majority of the brethren are acquainted with the type and volume of obscenity that has been flooding the country for a long time.

Monte Vista, Colo.

Pious churchmen may deplore trashy magazines, but how many churches, much less pastors, are … conducting detailed and realistic classes or programs on what … the … Biblical ideal of family is.…

Bellerose, N. Y.

Thanks for your significant Christian literature issue. The many excellent articles and the editorial, “Upturn in Evangelical Publishing,” have a combined effect of powerfully helping readers realize the importance of the written word of God. And the article, “Sex and Smut on the Newsstands,” is valuable for showing the tragic results that occur when writers do not stand under the prophetic judgement of God and are not guided by Christ.

Religious News Editor

The Nashville Tennessean

Nashville, Tenn.

Sincere appreciation for the two fine and enlightening articles titled “Why our Preaching Fails” and “Sex and Smut on the Newsstands”.…

These were among the best ever appearing in the pages of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

First Church of God

Princeton, West Virginia

We … thank you for printing it and thank the men engaged in this repulsive task, which is so necessary for the welfare of our young people and our country.

Dayton, O.

A world of praise should be given to Ralph A. Cannon and Glenn D. Everett for their two-year study of vile literature on our newsstands.

Baltimore, Md.

(The) article … inspired me to attempt to launch a one-woman campaign here against these magazines.

… Encouraging is the fact that simultaneously with my interest, there seems to be a general awakening here to this evil.…

If there was ever a problem crying for action by ministers and church people, this is it.

Louisville, Ky.

I couldn’t help but think that were there more genuine preaching of the evangelistic type and less of the philosophy of men, a great deal of this stuff would not have the appeal to people in general as it does now.

Missouri Conference of Seventh-day

Adventists, Kansas City, Mo.

MANY-SIDED TRUTH

In … “Why Our Preaching Fails” by F. R. Webber (Feb. 17 issue), his … statement that all preaching should be “Christ-centered” is beyond dispute. But he makes the mistake so frequently repeated by extreme conservatives, in falsely charging that Christ-centered preaching is vanishing.…

… Christ-centered preaching … is preaching not only a theology about Christ and salvation; it is a presentation from the Scriptures of Christ’s full message, exemplified, to be sure, in a plan of salvation, but also by his life, teachings and personality, with direct application to modern problems of life.…

I have visited more than a thousand churches, speaking, counselling.… In nearly all of them—conservative, moderate and those sometimes referred to as liberal—I find, with varying success, a Christ-centered program, more effective in my opinion than a one-sided program of evangelism in the narrow sense. Truth is many-sided.

Lincoln, Neb.

It is interesting that Webber spends one full third of a column quoting a man who 70 years ago was saying what he is saying is true today.…

Fourth Avenue Christian Church

Columbus, Ohio

Would God that every seminary student and any other erstwhile preacher would take its message to heart.

First English Lutheran Church

Missoula, Montana

PLEA FOR SIMPLICITY

L. Nelson Bell’s … “Simplicity in Preaching—a Plea” (Feb. 17 issue) emphasizes a need which I have longed to express, and it does it far better than I probably could.…

There was a time when I preached that I searched for ideas and then tried to find Scripture to bolster up those ideas; now I go to the Word itself and simply invite my people to see what God has to say.…

Mexico Baptist Church

Mexico, Me.

PRESERVING THE DOLLAR

Thanks for your excellent editorial on inflation (Jan. 6 issue). It should do much to make clear that inflation is an increase in the supply of money and credit, and that government is directly responsible for it. Unwise action by both capital and labor certainly develops inflationary pressures. But unless government responded by increasing the supply of money those who seek wages or prices higher than the market will support, would soon bring unemployment and loss of sales upon themselves. That would quickly put an end to the spiral. Unfortunately, government responds to the pressure by increasing the supply of money and credit, as the purchasing power of the dollar falls lower and lower.

Unless our government changes its course, the dollar will eventually be destroyed as have most of the other fiscal units of the world.

Marble Collegiate Church

New York, N. Y.

I wish to congratulate you.… It is a clear presentation of one of the great dangers confronting our nation. So long as we have a currency whose value is subject to the whims of a handful of people who may be motivated at times by political expediency, the economic foundations of our nation are in constant peril.

The National Education Program

Searcy, Ark.

“MATERIALISTIC TRUTH”

Mr. Shen, in his comments on the Rev. Mr. Hebert’s book (Mar. 3 issue) … upbraids your reviewer … for “dodging the main issue,” … “Does the doctrine of verbal inspiration … not involve a ‘materialistic’ view of truth, or an intellectualistic conception of revelation? Can either of them be justified on biblical grounds?”

At least Mr. Shen has not subjected us to the entire gamut of cliches on this point, a good summary of which must include at least “Aristotelianism,” “Greek (vs. Hebrew) view,” “scholasticism,” and “rationalism” in addition to “intellectualism,” “materialistic view” and “Fundamentalism.”

Ever since Brunner and others have popularized the “Truth as Encounter” view, it has been the fashion to assert that truth is not factual correctness (the quality of statements of being in accord with reality), but rather some indefinable ectoplasmic “something,” which is now God himself, now Christ, now some relation between God and man, but never anything as definite as Scripture or doctrinal statements. Moreover these claims are habitually advanced in tones implying that they are so obviously self-evident as to be beyond question or necessity of proof. (Cf. the dutiful approval and unoriginal rehearsal of the neo-modernistic cliches in the Christian Century’s Nov. 27 review, by Dr. Marty, of Hebert’s book.) In fact, such proof is rarely even attempted. To question this modern dogma is to blaspheme the very mother of all of neo-modernism’s … sacred cows.…

These claims about truth have so permeated the theological atmosphere, that even many a conservative is embarrassed by the term “propositional truth” … and when the arrogant, proofless cliches begin to fly, these poor conservatives run in dismay.…

For which position is the stigma of “intellectualism” intended? Obviously for the traditional doctrine of the Church that Scripture does not merely contain, but by virtue of divine inspiration, itself is the infallible Word of God.… It follows since Scripture consists of words and propositions, that there is such a thing as propositional truth and revelation in theology.… The denial of “propositional truth” is a convenient device by which the whole obligation to be orthodox is with one stroke eliminated, and everyone is left free to “witness to” his own “encounters” as he sees fit. This is nihilism.…

Is the traditional doctrine “unbiblical?” Nonsense. Our Blessed Lord Himself asserts: “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Note that (1) the reference is to a specific proposition, even one of relatively minor importance; (2) this proposition “cannot be broken” because it belongs to a specific series of propositions, explicitly recognized as “written,” and collectively known as “Scripture.” Or take the refutation of the Sadducees (Mt. 22:23ff.). Here our Lord (1) identifies error with definite propositions, not encounters, (2) opposes to these other propositions, and (3) establishes the truth in the matter not even with a direct proposition from Scripture, but with a mere, and shockingly Aristotelian, deduction from Scriptural propositions. St. Paul also identifies authoritative revelation with a collection of propositions, (2 Tim. 3:15 ff.)

Shocking! Christ and his holy Apostles represent the materialistic concept of truth! The fact of the matter, of course, is that this “concept” is not particularly or peculiarly materialistic, but is simply the common meaning of the term, as also Webster testifies. We can congratulate the atheistic materialists of our day at least upon a laudable amount of clear thinking, candid definition, and logical rigor, virtues which modern theologians should be advised to emulate.…

Redeemer Lutheran Church

North Tonawanda, N. Y.

NATURALISTIC ARROGANCE

The account of the recent meeting organized by the faculty of Chicago University School of Theology surprised me. The demand for a naturalistic Christianity seems to me not only intellectually arrogant, but also shockingly absurb.

Science has not, and never can exclude the supernatural.…

The natural sciences are indeed a great and important discipline of truth. If, however, their uniformed prejudice against the supernatural should succeed in discrediting a transcendent faith, their unfounding of freedom, and so of morality, may result in the violent end of modern civilization. I do not believe this will happen; but neither do I believe that men whose minds have been shut up to one discipline of truth are going to command the thinking of the second half of the 20th century. The risen Christ is the Lord of history, and He will find a way to undergird the Gospel which He instituted at such infinite cost.…

Brown Mills, N. J.

IN RE JONATHAN EDWARDS

Not long ago we visited with a Seminary classmate who has served for about two decades as Professor of Systematic Theology in one of the leading seminaries of our country, is the author of several widely read books on theology and is recognized as one of the most able theologians of our country and time. We spoke to him concerning the disproportionate emphasis being placed upon the mercy and love of God so prevalent today in pulpit and religious press, expressing the opinion that this is a chief explanation of the tragic let-down in morals marking our time, lawlessness and fact that there are comparatively few people now who fear God. The Professor replied that he shared my opinion and if time permitted he had it in his mind to write a volume on this subject.

Those who take a different view will be surprised if they will consult their concordance to see how many times the Scriptures mention the justice and wrath of God and enjoin the fear of God.…

It is a tremendous responsibility any teacher or minister takes who misrepresents the true character of God—perhaps sometimes through quest for popularity! Surely he would not fail to warn his friends of an approaching train or storm. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend.”

Erie Conference, Methodist Church

Townville, Pa.

THE TURNING POINT

I was particularly pleased with the Dec. 9 issue, containing Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ Christmas sermon and Earl L. Douglass’ … “Our Lord’s Virgin Birth.” I was Moderator of Philadelphia North Presbytery when Earl Douglass asked to be received by letter from a New York State Presbytery and become Pastor of Summit Church. At once there was a protest, and I urged Presbytery not to act hastily; and after he read a statement of his Christian faith, he was received and the call approved and placed in his hand. That, I take it, was the turning point in his ministry, and he and Mrs. Douglass became big factors in the Presbytery, and later on he took over Wm. T. Ellis Sunday School lesson job, etc.

Gettysburg, Pa.

LATE LAUNCHING

To me CHRISTIANITY TODAY is must reading. It is extremely stimulating, very evangelical, evangelistic—and just what I want, and need. It should have been launched years ago—many of them—when I was much younger—with more years ahead to use and profit by it.

Elmora Presbyterian Church

Elizabeth, N. J.

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