No Common Field

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADDISON H. LEITCH

Life Of Augustine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIRGINIA RAMEY MOLLENKOTT

Lesson Commentaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MILFORD SHOLUND

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

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

ERIC EDWIN PAULSON

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

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

The Colossian Heresy

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

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

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

Its False Appeal

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

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

Paul’S Corrective Teaching

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

Christ’S Supremacy Over All

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

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

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

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

Analysis

The Epistle falls into five main sections:

1. Salutation (Col. 1:1–2).

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

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

4. The Christian Life (Col. 3:5–4:6).

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

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

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

Literature

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

F. F. BRUCE

Christianity in the World Today

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

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

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

A Ten-Year Review

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

Is the POAU against the Catholics as a whole?

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

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

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

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

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

POAU Also Considered It

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

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

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

What Is A Grant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Convention Planned

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

The Camel’S Nose

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

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

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

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

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

Imc-Wcc Merger Voted

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Assembly admitted three additional councils to IMC membership.

People: Words And Events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Students Confer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Church-State Issues Summarized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Worships

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

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

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

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

Lawmakers Pray

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

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

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

Seminary Land Acquired

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

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

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

“Religion” Jails Youth

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

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

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

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

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

Gospel Radio For Nome

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

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

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

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

Industrialist Ordained

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

A Change Of Mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Middle East

Oil And The Gospel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F.T.W.

New Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.E.T.

Europe

Pastors Attacked

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

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

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

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

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

South America

Growing Tension

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

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

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

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

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

W.D.R.

Japan

Conference Expands

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

Six Japanese church leaders agreed to form an executive committee.

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

Founding Marked

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

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

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

J.A.M.

PASTORAL PROBLEM II

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

P. How do you see your problem, Herbert?

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

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

H. Yes, he did, but …

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

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

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

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

H. Yes, pastor … I mean, no. Here!

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

H. Some of the men were hugging each other.

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

EUTYCHUS

FORCE OF APOCRYPHA

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

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

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

Trinity Episcopal Church

Toledo, Ohio

COLOMBIAN TENSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor, View

Yonkers, N. Y.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secretary of Public Affairs

National Assn. of Evangelicals

Washington, D. C.

FOOTNOTES ON SEPARATION

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

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

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

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

Garden Grove, Calif.

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

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

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

Lucerne Valley, Calif.

CHRISTIAN GIVING

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

Dallas, Tex.

LINE FORMS TO THE RIGHT

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

Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer

Kokomo, Ind.

ECUMENICAL CLARITY

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

St. George’s (Anglican)

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

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

Fifth St. Baptist Church

Hannibal, Mo.

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

Milwaukee, Wis.

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

New Orleans, La.

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

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

Our Blessings

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

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

The Great Doctrines

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

Life In The Churches

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

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

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

Missionary Burden

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

Care Of The Needy

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

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

Need For Repentance

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

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

To One Who Walks Only On Boards And Wheels

Would He have bid you “Walk!”

Who have no legs?

Surely no quarter clacking hollowly

Upon an empty box

Would have proclaimed His passing,

Dusty of Galilee and just as much forsaken

As you seem.

Hardly would sympathy have shamed His face

Such as the momentary passers squirm to offer you.

What might He do

Who surely loves you as He passes by?

He might not stoop

To form new limbs

And smile you off

Running for new employ.

But He would speak comfort,

And peace and love, and inward joy.

Yet silent and unmoved

I pass you by

Who constantly exclaim,

“Lord, here am I.”

CHARLES WAUGAMAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L. NELSON BELL

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

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

What Of Original Texts?

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

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

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

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

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

Some Excessive Criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural Milieu Important

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

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

Faithfulness To Purpose

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

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

Too Little Or Too Much

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

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

Preacher In The Red

“LIFE’S LIKE THAT”

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

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

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

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

“Don’t you know where it is?”

The man shook his head.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impediments To Spiritual Growth

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

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

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

Character Of Recent Trend

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

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

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

Relations With The West

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

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

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

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

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

Trespass Or Mission?

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

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

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

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

Social Applications

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

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

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

Will Resolve Race Issue

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

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

The Shoals Of Ecumenism

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

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

Internal Conflicts

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

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

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